Reductionism vs. Holism - Debate mkIV (NOSPAM)

frogus · Post by **frogus** » Thu Apr 11, 2002 1:53 pm

following on from a discussion in Marriage vs Partnership (which noone seems to go in anymore), here is a new one to argue about:

IS ANYHTING MORE THAN THE SUM OF ITS COMPONENTS?

The best example here is the human mind - do you think that if science was so awesomely sophisticated as to be able to understand the human brain, they would be able to explain the human mind as well...or would they find that there was something else which they could not explain?

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu Apr 11, 2002 2:55 pm

Great music is definitely more than the sum of its components.

Morlock · Post by **Morlock** » Thu Apr 11, 2002 2:58 pm

@Fable:I think I agree with you, but could you clarify that?

Gruntboy · Post by **Gruntboy** » Fri Apr 12, 2002 2:29 am

Donuts with filling.

Try eating sugar, donut-mix and then jam or cream.

Now try eating a donut with filling.

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Fri Apr 12, 2002 5:17 am

A car is a sum of more than it's components. Think about it how many people love their car's more than people, it is pleasure, it is pain and it is expensive.

I think that everything is a sum of more than it's components, even a stone, to you it is just a stone, to an ant it is protection from harsh conditions.

Dottie · Post by **Dottie** » Fri Apr 12, 2002 5:27 am

Originally posted by frogus
following on from a discussion in Marriage vs Partnership (which noone seems to go in anymore), here is a new one to argue about:

IS ANYHTING MORE THAN THE SUM OF ITS COMPONENTS?

The best example here is the human mind - do you think that if science was so awesomely sophisticated as to be able to understand the human brain, they would be able to explain the human mind as well...or would they find that there was something else which they could not explain?

It seems to me you are asking two completly different questions. I can see no connection between sum of contents and your example, could you please clarify?

Tom · Post by **Tom** » Fri Apr 12, 2002 7:50 am

YESSSS it is I.. Tom the pedantic

Well that was a nice hike.

It has been a few months so i thought i would stop in and say hi.

Hi.

And then i see this ABOMINATION

Now reductionism is the opposite of non-reductionism. One can be a reductionist or non-reductionist about a lot of things.

Sometimes it seems reasonable to be a reductionist - for example it seems that all statements about chemistry can be reduced to statements about physics with out loss of meaning.

At other times it doesn’t seem reasonable. the prime example is perhaps the behaviourists thesis that all statements about the mental can be reduced to statements about behaviour with out loss of meaning.

Holism again can be about a number of things - for example about the mental. Thus a holist of the mental beliefs that one cannot change or remove a mental object, fx a belief, without changing the whole web of beliefs.

Got to run to the pub.

Have a nice weekend all.

frogus · Post by **frogus** » Fri Apr 12, 2002 9:28 am

It seems to me you are asking two completly different questions. I can see no connection between sum of contents and your example, could you please clarify?

sorry Dot, I mean this:

If I asked you what the mind was, would you say 'the brain'?
I believe that 'the mind' is an unfathomably complex system of neurons firing and acting as logic gates which control one's entire personality, thoughts etc. But I believe that neurons is all the brain is. I believe that if science was advanced enough to map the brain and observe all the neurons in action in good detail, we would be able to tell why someone thinks things, why they are how they are, and why they are who they are. Many others believe however that even if we could analyse and break down the entire brain, we would still not be able to tell, say, the nature of genius or how Mozart created such dazzling music. They believe that there is more to the mind than just ionic processes, and more to Mozart's music than just notes played on instruments.

Now reductionism is the opposite of non-reductionism.

well goddamn.

@ Sleep & Grunt...I think you are misunderstanding me...I do not believe that anyone would contest that a car is actually anything other than a bunch of metal. I don't think that even an ant would claim that a rock is more than a collection of minerals, and I don't think anyone would claim that a doughnut with filling is anything more than sugar, doughnut mix and jam or cream. I am not talking about surprising qualities which seemingly ordinary things have.

@Fable, shalle we move the discussion from Marriage vs Partnership in here? I wouldn't like to be spamming up a serious thread...

and I second the motion, what exactly is there in great music which makes it greater than the sum of its components?

Gruntboy · Post by **Gruntboy** » Fri Apr 12, 2002 9:33 am

I understand you frogus.

Light hearted comment is all. There is something "extra" in most things - the time and effort put into making them more than the constituent parts.

(plus I ate 3 donuts yesterday and can't stop thinking about it

)

frogus · Post by **frogus** » Fri Apr 12, 2002 9:38 am

@ fable I've taken the liberty of posting a quote from the other thread, so we can carry on the discussion in here, seeing as we were already getting somewhere...

Sly little amphibian! We both know that a spirit can't be described, since it is unmeasurable and has no physical attributes. Like I said above, either you believe in it, or you don't. I could tell you to sit in a comfortable but non-slouching position and meditate for an hour or two; but even if you *did* end up feeling something, you could always claim it was the result of metabolic changes.

So is what you're saying 'the spirit has no physical attributes, and one has no reason to believe in it if one doesn't already' (correct me if I'm wrong)

If this is the case, what do you use to detect the spirit? I assume you agree that we use the eyes to detect light, the ears to detect sound waves and so on with physical things? What is it that we use to detect spiritual phonomena, and if there is no organ for it, what is the faculty?

Also, where do you suppose the belief in the spirit came from in your case, and not in mine? How is it that some people can spend their life as un-believers and then have a revelation and suddenly believe? What clicks? Any advice on how I might 'click' myself?

Ode to a Grasshopper · Sat Apr 13, 2002 10:13 pm

Must...not...spam...

Originally posted by Frogus
If this is the case, what do you use to detect the spirit? I assume you agree that we use the eyes to detect light, the ears to detect sound waves and so on with physical things? What is it that we use to detect spiritual phonomena, and if there is no organ for it, what is the faculty?

A spirit level

!
Sorry, couldn't resist.

I honestly don't know if there is such a thing as a spirit, though I doubt a car or a rock is anything more than the sum of it's parts.