There is no emergence

[PTH]

And, in fairness, that's because life goes too far.

Only as far as death allows.

Philosophy. Does the final word always belong to Captain Bringdown and the Buzzkillers?

[Skepdick]

And, in fairness, that's because life goes too far.

Only as far as death allows.

Philosophy. Does the final word always belong to Captain Bringdown and the Buzzkillers?

Science. The answer is either 'Yes' or 'No'. How do we decide?

[bahman]

Could we agree that sweetness is a property of sugar? If yes then sugar affects other things by its sweetness.

About the only thing I am happy to agree on is that there is emergence.

The rest is mental gymnastics on your part.

There are no mental gymnastics on my part. You don't even want to accept that sweetness is an emergent property so I don't know how to continue the discussion.

[bahman]

I have no idea what you are even asking.

I have tasted sugar. It's sweet.
I have also tasted alcohol. It has a very distinct taste.
I have also tasted Carbon, Hydrogen or Oxygen. None of them are sweet. None of them have the taste of alcohol.

Sugar and Alcohol are both made of Carbon, Hydrogen or Oxygen atoms.

Could we agree that sweetness is a property of sugar? If yes then sugar affects other things by its sweetness.

Do you think that sugar has the same structure as, the same weight as, and the same appearance as Carbon oxygen and hydrogen?

I know that sugar has a different structure than... I asked whether sugar has a specific property so-called sweetness? Yes or no?

[Skepdick]

There are no mental gymnastics on my part. You don't even want to accept that sweetness is an emergent property so I don't know how to continue the discussion.

So you do accept that emergent properties exist and sweetness is emergent!

What more is there to discuss then?

[bahman]

No, why do you ask?
Do you think that sugar has the same structure as, the same weight as, and the same appearance as Carbon oxygen and hydrogen?

If sweetness is a property of sugar then it has to affect other things.

So what?

Do you think that sugar has the same structure as, the same weight as, and the same appearance as Carbon oxygen and hydrogen?

If you agree that sugar can affect other things then the question is what is the mechanism for this?

[bahman]

We know the properties of matter which we assume there is no such thing as consciousness among them....

....The properties of matter are simply, mass, charge, spin, etc. The relation between these properties is mathematical, laws of physics, and it is exhaustive meaning that you cannot possibly have a specific configuration of matter that gives rise to a new property that is not listed.

And yet even though consciousness will never be found in any list of brain components, it nevertheless not only makes an appearance once those components are arranged in just the right way, but it also presents itself as being the only reason for the existence of the brain in the first place.

Every brain component is conscious. Having a specific structure cannot give rise to consciousness.

bahman, there is absolutely nothing in your reply that even remotely addresses my question of why a perfectly reasonable (applicable) word such as “emergence” cannot be used to describe what is taking place as our unique individualization of personal consciousness “arises” (awakens, comes into being, emerges) from the non-conscious fabric of matter?

I think I explain well that matter that have specific properties, such as mass, charge, etc. cannot have an emergent property. The core of my argument is that there is an explanation for everything. Do you think that there is an explanation for everything or not?

[Skepdick]

Every brain component is conscious. Having a specific structure cannot give rise to consciousness.

You do know that brains are emergent phenomena also, right?

A brain is greater than the sum of its parts. Those parts are neurons, axons and water.

[Skepdick]

The core of my argument is that there is an explanation for everything. Do you think that there is an explanation for everything or not?

Do you even know what an 'explanation' is?
Do you think there is an explanation for what an 'explanation' is?

[Sculptor]

Could we agree that sweetness is a property of sugar? If yes then sugar affects other things by its sweetness.

Do you think that sugar has the same structure as, the same weight as, and the same appearance as Carbon oxygen and hydrogen?

I know that sugar has a different structure than... I asked whether sugar has a specific property so-called sweetness? Yes or no?

You are off thread.
Emergence is when the whole has qualities not shared by the parts.
Here are the parts.
Oxygen a colourless tasteless gas
Hydrogen the lightest substance in the universe, also a colourless tasteless gas
Carbon nonmetallic chemical element usually presenting as a dark solid such as graphite, or a transparent solid such as diamond.

But when combined in the right way, the resultant combination has qualities NOT present in the PARTS.
For example: sugar, methane, petroleum, and many other hydrocarbons.
QED emergence it true.

[Sculptor]

If sweetness is a property of sugar then it has to affect other things.

So what?

Do you think that sugar has the same structure as, the same weight as, and the same appearance as Carbon oxygen and hydrogen?

If you agree that sugar can affect other things then the question is what is the mechanism for this?

Emergence is when the whole has qualities not shared by the parts.
Here are the parts.
Oxygen a colourless tasteless gas
Hydrogen the lightest substance in the universe, also a colourless tasteless gas
Carbon nonmetallic chemical element usually presenting as a dark solid such as graphite, or a transparent solid such as diamond.

But when combined in the right way, the resultant combination has qualities NOT present in the PARTS.
For example: sugar, methane, petroleum, and many other hydrocarbons.
QED emergence it true.

[Sculptor]

The core of my argument is that there is an explanation for everything. Do you think that there is an explanation for everything or not?

Do you even know what an 'explanation' is?
Do you think there is an explanation for what an 'explanation' is?

Bahman is an idiot.

[bahman]

Every brain component is conscious. Having a specific structure cannot give rise to consciousness.

You do know that brains are emergent phenomena also, right?

The brain is not an emergent phenomenon. I have difficulty with you in agreeing on the fact that any emergent phenomenon requires an emergent property. We cannot discuss this further until you accept this.

A brain is greater than the sum of its parts. Those parts are neurons, axons and water.

That is not correct. If the brain is more than the sum of its parts then there must be a property which parts don't have.

[bahman]

The core of my argument is that there is an explanation for everything. Do you think that there is an explanation for everything or not?

Do you even know what an 'explanation' is?

Yes, I know.

Do you think there is an explanation for what an 'explanation' is?

The explanation has a clear meaning and I know many examples of that. Things to me have an explanation. Your question is off-topic. That is it.

[Skepdick]

A brain is greater than the sum of its parts. Those parts are neurons, axons and water.

That is not correct. If the brain is more than the sum of its parts then there must be a property which parts don't have.

Yes, it is correct! The brain has this property called "consciousness"!

It's a property that quarks, leptons and electrons don't have.