Pre-discussion of Dialectics and Emergent Phenomenon (Part 1)

This work lays ground for the discussion in my next paper of fate and free-will.

Dialectical reasoning is a process by which we consider how two often opposing seeming ideas really go together to help explain the full phenomenon of reality, instead of something having to be accounted for by one or another. If the sides of a concept are truly diametrically opposing, we should be able to formalize our terminology as s and ~s (not s), but describing something through a discussion of this and not this has a tendency to lead to the fallacy of tautological thinking, because not s operationalizes as ‘everything other than s’ instead of ‘the antithesis of s’ (even though non-antithesized concepts can be not mutually exclusive, giving s in one instance and not s in another).

Some of our better examples of diametrically opposed ideas that we can talk about in a way that we define them differently, and can still talk about them on a relative scale, are concepts like bigger and smaller, positive and negative, multiplication and division. These terms describe true opposites, be they operations, concepts, etc., but still at one point when we talk about something being smaller than something, we are making a relative comparison, or determining a frame of reference, from which we might see things to be different (bigger) in another frame. Divide the weight, multiply the number of bits.

We can see how our discussion of phenomenon through dialectical reasoning often tends towards using a tetralemma formalization which goes above bivalent truth structures, creating a four-sided truth diagram, where we are not just considering this and that (or not this), but the four corners become this, that, this and that, and neither this nor that, as the things that can contribute to the nature of a phenomenological explanation. The attempt in this formalization is to show that ‘this and that’ and ‘neither this nor that’ can actually represent separate understandings, rather than being reworked formalizations of the same logical statement by distributing the ‘not’ operator.

Let’s take for example, up and down. Up is up, as defined relative to a certain reference frame. In the diametrically opposed reference frame up is down, or that, rather than this. So up is both up and down, just in different reference frames. However, we can find a reference frame in which our direction is neither up nor down, but perpendicular, sideways. It does not change the reality that up is always up, or forward, or directly straight onward, whatever we want to call it, in its own reference frame. This is this, in reference to itself. And ‘this’ has its own relative references for what it would mean to be ‘that’, ‘this and that’, or ‘neither this nor that’.

Let’s move to an example that will help push forward our discussion by considering how these things which we often apply dialectic reasoning to aren’t perfectly diametrically opposed concepts. One of the first examples that comes to most people’s mind of the use of dialectical reasoning is in the debate of nature versus nurture, where we say that most aspects of biological expression are really a result of both nature and nurture, genes and environment, rather than having to be strictly determined by one or the other.

To speak about this too philosophically of course is to move away from the realm of data into hyperbole, saying that simply ‘it happens,’ instead of, ‘what is the extent to which each contribute in specific different instances, and is there instances in which we can show them to be mutually exclusive, to make some sort of deeper operationalization (definition) of the true nature of each concept?’ This is one of the nice things about moving from the realm of armchair philosophy into the explanatory power of the scientific method and objective inquiry. However, as philosophers while at times we can only speak in relation to a certain perspective (that of the physicalist, dualist, spiritualist, solipsist, etc.), something we become good at is knowing the right type of questions to ask to start uncovering truths from distinctions. Questions which can cut to the core of a discussion. Questions which can help us define what we really mean by nature and nurture, up and down, ethics and indifference, or various other concepts.

Asking the right questions in relation to the discussion of nature and nurture helps us start to observe how - resonating with the idea that these not truly diametrically opposed concepts operate to give rise to phenomenon in a way that better resembles a tetralemma - in many of these ‘not perfectly opposed phenomenon’, one exists as the subvening (preceding/foundational/supporting) or more base-level phenomenon of reality, and the other exists as what can be called the emergent phenomenon.

An emergent phenomenon is something which does not fundamentally exist at one operational level of existence, but which through the complex dynamics of that level of existence the phenomenon comes to arise and appears to take on its own operational dynamics which can actually now interact with and influence (has to be accounted for as a realistic factor in relation to) the dynamic of the level of existence it arises from. Nature is the subvening state from which nurture is the supervening emergent state that, once it arises, becomes its own dynamic influence on the expression of reality.

We find that the emergent phenomenon, while it should technically be reducible to a form of complex interaction arising from the subvening state, does become its own operable influence on reality, and this can be understood as its own thing. Nurture interacts back with nature, even if it emerges from the complex dynamics of nature. When we instead say genetics and environment, however, it makes it sound like nature should be environment, and genetics should be nurture. So, we return back to how these concepts are intertwined, in an attempt to further operationalize their definitions in relation to the idea of subvening states and emergent phenomena.

Nature, at its essence, is the objective reality of non-lived existence, and nurture is the reality of the lived existence that emerges within its dynamic. So at its most objective level, nurture might be understood as whatever is conducive to the flourishing of life relative to a certain reference frame of the emergence of life. The good of the horse is not always the good of the fly - or whatever the reference is - but organic compounds, soil, water, bilipid structures, and the dynamic between them that gives rise to the complexities of life, are the start of what we understand as the emergence of nurture from nature.

Nurture is a high-order organization of nature which can create a self-feedback loop of continuation understood as flourish over famish (or growth over decay). However, when we operationalize the discussion of nature and nurture to the more complex emergent dynamic that has developed, that of genetic versus environment, we move away from the idea that nurture is conditions that must lead to flourishing, as both aspects of genetics and environment can turn out to be quite non-conducive to our sustained healthy development, or the flourishing of what we normally think of as nature.

All this points towards the realization that, although it is our commonly accepted turn of phrase, nature versus nurture are not the correct designators on which the discussion of genetics versus environment fall, as they are not mutually exclusive in relation to these ideas. Genetics can nurture. Environment can nurture. The environment is nature (usually thought of as both the life and non-life aspects). Genetics is an emergent phenomenon from the complex dynamic of nature leading to what can be understood as the process of nurture developing and turning into its own operant level of existence which interacts with what it arises from. Nurture arises from nature then interacts back with it in a way that must be accounted for differently in the full explanation of how reality unfolds compared to how one would account for the full explanation of reality before the emergent phenomenon arose.

Nurture is a complex organization of nature, but we still operationalize it in its own way, as though by arising it gains its own special qualia that makes it distinct. Kicking rocks, intended action, becomes a distinct thing above the objective indifferent subvening/preceding reality of rocks smashing into each other, or ‘naturally unfolding’ resultant action, even if it may be able to be understood in the context of the ultimate nature of reality as being no more than a rarefied form of natural dynamic.

The difficulty is giving an actual (full) objective reductionist explanation of how the emergent phenomenon can be reduced to arising from the complex dynamic interactions of the subvening state, even though we can frame how the explanation goes; we can give a sense for how the scheme of genetics develops from nature over the unfolding of geological time, and giving rise to related concepts such as adaption, evolution, natural selection, symbiotic relationships, etc. How life may arise from non-lived existence. Genetics versus environment is an imperfect dialectic, while nature versus nurture, non-life versus life, forms the more ideal tetralemma. We are both alive, not alive, alive and not alive, neither alive nor not alive; because living is a construct, a special way of considering the resultant organization of the activity of the base-level (reality itself).

Life is non-life, and always has been. Yet the emergent experience of life from the universe’s side of existence is special, expressing in a way that seems to rise out of the normal working mechanics of reality in its own ways, with its own developed contributing mechanics which must be considered - with intent, feeling, perception, value, apprehension, subjectivity, muscular force, invention, etc. - as new processes of change and creation in the universe.

It turns out that, generally, the right types of questions to ask which lend a lot of momentum to dialectic discussions, and to understanding the nature of emergent phenomena, are: What are things like for the universe, and what are things like for the agent? What is the ultimate nature of reality, and what is the nature of the experience of reality? How would we understand reality to be if we did indeed know the theory of everything? What is the ultimate state of things, and what is the emergent factor/state that, once/if it does emerge, becomes relevant to the consideration of its dynamic?

I wrote in my journal:

“A categorical difference between dialectical reasoning and tetralemma truth values seems to be that the tetralemma deals in forms of opposites of existence and non-existence, while dialectics can incorporate more general aspects which aren’t necessarily polar opposites going together to create a larger truth, even if we often think of them as opposing... it appears as though tetralemmas may be a subcategory of dialectics, and perhaps dialectics can often be re-formalized as a discussion of emergent phenomenon.”

Nature versus nurture is but one of many interesting applications we can give for the dialectics of emergent phenomena, if we know the right questions to ask. The dialectics of emergent phenomena help us tackle some of what seem to be the deepest questions we are left with about reality. We can also traverse into the realms of ethics and indifference, meaning and meaninglessness (especially in relation to existentialism, to an inherent meaning of life), freedom and determinism, objective and subjective, life and non-life (this is technically where the discussion of nature and nurture and various other topics stem from), quantum and classical, etc.

Every time a main question we must address is, which is the subvening/ultimate state, and which is the emergent state from the complex dynamic of the other, which as emergent can be understood to have its own definable interactional dynamic with the state of whole it arises from/within? Then we can also address the question of what is the precise working mechanism they arise from, not just what are the contents and their nature? Not just what does it operate through or account for, but how exactly does it manifest and operate?

On Self-Coined Terms (Part 2)

Before we move on to discussing the dialectics of fate and free will specifically, I want to end this section by addressing the fact that over the course of my philosophical development, as a creative, I’ve had a tendency to make up my own terms at times to help convey an idea I want to express. The terms I make up are my own way of capturing a concept which could be given another name at times, of course. But sometimes, like in the case of the term ‘emergent phenomenon,’ even though I started using the term without reference to another usage, I’m sure there are other ways or instances in which the term has been used before. I can’t count out the possibility that I heard the term used at some time in the past and it sat in the back of my unconscious mind until it seemed a fitting word to capture the idea I was trying to express. Still, I at times come up with my own usages of terms, to convey the ideas I wish to convey.

Allow me to list some other terms which I have come up with over time, which may not come up for the rest of the paper but are nevertheless worthwhile to point out, as they will inevitably pop up as the central themes of my other works. Two of the first self-coined concepts I used were initial introduction theory and self-information. Then there are latent meanings, selective alteration, and truth-by creation. Emergent phenomenon and subvening states. Surface volume and hyper-volume as relative to a 4-D formalized space. Some words we make up, and they turn out to be already real, just by proxy of how words work.

This is why Rodney Mullen is interested in trying to create a descriptive language of skateboarding, where the name of the trick can actually tell you what is about to happen, or conversely, the trick inherently shows you what it should be named based on the characterization of what it is. Infinitesimum was one of those words (as I also see emergent phenomenon being). A word that, because it does better at telling you directly what it is, I wouldn’t be surprised if it had been used in the same way as I use it before I used it as such.

The infinitesimum was a concept I considered while writing about types of infinity in information and knowledge, which is more related to x divided by infinity. The infinitesimum is a discussion of the infinitely small. Of the possibility of the smallest size, the Planck Length. While discussing the idea of infinite sets and fractals we can discuss infinitely converging and diverging series. The fractal (the fibonacci sequence, etc.) can be formalized outwards or inwards. When formalized outwards it tends towards infinity. When formalized inward it tends towards an infinitesimum. The idea seems like another way to frame towards the discussion of derivatives.

Initial Introduction Theory is the concept name I gave my discussion describing the phenomenon of what happens when you learn or experience something for the very first time. When something becomes successfully integrated into (or recognized by) the working patterns by the self, we are from then on in a position to take more conscious action towards understanding it, if we’d like.

Initial introduction, the developing of awareness, allows us to use metacognition to advance upon the rate of our self-growth or perspective. This is why I came up with the question, “How many thoughts have I not had, and how would having them add to my ability to understand the world or myself?” This discussion of familiarization from novel processing also relates to things like desensitization (a loss in interest or reaction to a stimuli over time) and misperception (when an airplane is interpreted in active experience as a bird, either because the information was gathered from a partial/scant view, or because one does not have the mental schema for the concept of ‘airplane’ developed in their brain yet, through initial introduction).

Self-Information is a term I came up with to discuss the nature of the self as being a complex set of various types of information. We are constituted by objective self-information (bodily size, processes, talents, etc.) and things that appear more in the form of subjective self-information (beliefs, hopes, emotions, perceptions). Most things would be some form of both, while as reductionists we would like to believe everything can technically be reduced to objective information (that they are complex manifestations of real-world things, matter and energy, etc.).

We have self-information of self, self-information of the world (I abbreviated it to S.I. for my academic paper). And part of the question becomes do we have any direct knowledge of the world around us, or is S.I. of world really a subcategory of S.I. of self, because everything we understand/experience is represented through S.I. bits of the form ‘y believes (or perceives, is height, eats, processes chemical, has emotion, judges as good or beautiful, aspires to be/do, etc., sometimes with modal operators) x at time t’?

Everything that happens to or is experienced by the self is a process of the self, for each self, as a self-contained set, even though we have forms of ‘direct’ and non-direct access to understanding other people’s S.I. and develop our own internal representation of things that don’t need to necessarily represent the thing itself as is, and we at times feel as though we experience the world as an active extension of our self, rather than as an internal representation of itself.

On top of that, by thinking about certain types of information of self we put ourselves in the direct position to change them, if we’d like, our hopes, beliefs/knowledge, desires, talents, etc. This goes back to how various forms of objective and subjective self-progress are benefitted by meta-cognition. The whole topic of S.I. is a long and nuanced discussion I adapted into my undergrad thesis project.

Latent meaning, selective alteration, and truth-by-creation stem from a psychological discussion of what happens when, as agents, we make inventive change in the world. How the agent creates special emergent states in the universe that would not have come about otherwise, through the process of making value judgements, understanding, and desiring certain states to exist over others. Through the process of will, thought, and the force of intent (muscle and kinesthetic force, etc.).

Latent meanings are the psychological process (by which we can develop biases like functional fixedness) by which we ascribe new meanings to things in order to further our understanding of what the world is, represents, entails, or can become. Sometimes when we do this, we are creating fantasy worlds in our heads in order to try to come to an explanation of what is happening, and at other times we build scientific inquiry and make a structured attempt towards understanding and applying objective truth.

At its most basic, a latent meaning can be understood as occurring when we look at a stick and say, ‘that could be a spear’. ‘That berry could be food. What really is a berry, a cherry, for example?’ ‘That smoke could indicate that there is fire nearby, that falling apple could indicate gravity, the swirl of this water could indicate fluid dynamics, the signature given off by that star could indicate that it is a red-shifted pulsar…’ ‘That chair could be used as a table, or a stool, a defense, or remade into shreds of wood then turned into rings.’ Functional fixedness is a tendency to view something a certain way because we have been conditioned to do so. The structures of our knowledge of real-world objects and concepts are built on top of other, more fundamental concepts and understandings about what underlies their nature. What really is the cherry, or free will?

I wrote in my journal:

“While Gestalts make the point that the whole isn’t simply a sum of its parts, it’s more like the whole is a synthesis of the activity and interaction of all parts into a whole result/system. It’s the way it all comes together that makes it emergently what it is on both levels.”

Selective alteration occurs when we judge something as having the possibility to become another state, and then we use our will to surmise the state. We see the latent meaning that a stick could be a spear, and then we make the stick a spear by selective alteration of the world into the state we desire (or at times accidentally create). Now the stick is a spear, the building is built, the theory is judged, the belief held, the creation made that would not have existed otherwise. We have truth-by-creation. Something is true because we have willed it to exist or be seen through a certain emergent state. The myth, the painting, the creation, finds a way to become fact, and yet ends up molded over retellings. Neurath’s Boat is still Neurath’s Boat. At what point does it become such? At what point does it cease to be such? See my last piece, Context on: Positano, for a better discussion of truth-by-creation versus truth by proxy and objective/natural truth.

We discussed emergent phenomenon as something which is not true at one level of existence (often the non-lived natural state of existence, the base state) then becomes emergently true at another level of existence (often the agented/lived state of existence) and must now be accounted for in the full dynamic of things. Just because it is emergent from the complex interactions of the subvening state doesn’t make it a non-operable factor of reality, or non-real as considered from its own side of existence. Considered from the ultimate/base nature, from the non-agented side of reality, many things can be seen as ‘not technically real’ other than as complex manifestation of reality. But they exist in their own right, in a sense, on their side of the formalization of existence.

Now we will turn over (in part 3) to discussing how the dialectics of emergent phenomena can be applied to understanding fate and free will. We will also touch on what this discussion indicates when applied to the other topics I mentioned, ethics and indifference, quantum and classical, life and non-life, objective and subjective, etc. Which is the subvening state, and which is the emergent state, and what does this help us understand about the ultimate nature of reality on its own (non-agented) side.

Picture is an art installation in Brussels; an archway sculpture made of bikes.