There is no emergence

[Age]

Any biological system governs the physical laws! In fact, scientists simulate simple biological systems these days. We know if there is a current in a system then you only have an electromagnetic field and nothing else, such as a conscious field. These are the laws of physics. This means that you cannot have a conscious field no matter how do you rewire your system of interest.

Science has barely scraped the surface of the morphology of the brain, let alone do they grasp just how the brain functions, therefore you can’t say with any certainty that consciousness could not come from the brain. Give science time. I’m not saying it has any clue right now, I would agree with that, but that is not because it has explored all possibilities but rather due to its ignorance.

You are thinking in a reductionistic manner. If the only tool you have is a hammer (fundamental physics) then all you see is nails (lifeless particles). Do some research into chaos theory, complex systems etc. You cannot understand emergence from your current mindset, so you conclude it’s BS. But you only display you complete ignorance on the subject.

I said what I should say.

'should' in relation to 'what', EXACTLY?

[Age]

To show this consider a system with many parts each part has a set of properties. Now let’s assume that the system has a specific property. This property should not be reducible in terms of properties of parts if it is an emergent property. There must however be a reason that the system has this property rather than any other property. This means that there is a function that describes the property of the system. The only available variables are however the properties of parts. Therefore the property of the system must be a function of properties of parts. Therefore there is no emergence since the existence of the function implements that the property of the system is reducible to properties of parts.

A book is just a collection of paper.
Great things emerge from it though.
Case closed.

That is weak emergence.

But 'you' are the ONE who wrote, and thus meant: There is absolutely NO emergence.

Or, did you REALLY 'mean' some 'thing' ELSE?

The properties of the whole, the book, is a function of the properties of parts, the letters.

[Age]

That is weak emergence.

So you admit there there is such a thing as emergence.
That means the whole thread is undermined.

The properties of the whole, the book, is a function of the properties of parts, the letters.

Now look at a specific book - Let's say The Origin of Species.
From a small collection of paper written originally by the hand of Charles Darwin the entire human world has been massively transformed.
It has spawned thousands of other books for and against. Is responsible as the foetus of modern biology and has informed all biological, geological, anthropological, archaeological and palaeontological sciences as well as psychology, psychiatry, sociology ad infinitem..

And you call that "WEAK"

I am arguing against strong emergence to be more clear.

So, WHY NOT just 'SAY what you mean', and also, just 'MEAN what you SAY'?

[Age]

I am arguing against strong emergence to be more clear.

You say "THERE IS NO EMERENCE".
I gave you an example of massively strong emergence.
Look what the Bible did. The Koran.
Even Harry Potter.

THen - how would you dismiss a musical score of Beethoven's fifth?

Let me clarify what is difference between strong and weak emergence: There is no explanation for strong emergence. The properties of the whole, therefore, are not functions of the properties of parts in strong emergence.

Are the function of the properties of the parts of the whole the SAME as the function of the properties of the smaller parts of 'those' parts, AND are the function of the properties of those smaller parts the SAME as the function of the properties of the smaller parts, of those bigger parts, and of the bigger again parts of the whole?

If no, then HOW did ALL of the functions of ALL of the parts COME-TO-BE?

The ACTUAL answer is IRREFUTABLE and REALLY EASY and SIMPLE to come by. But one HAS TO STOP BELIEVING or ASSUMING some 'things' are true, FIRST.

You cannot design a system that exhibits strong emergence.

So, to you, absolutely NO one can design a 'motor vehicle' that exhibits a DIFFERENT function of those functions of the properties of all of the parts of the WHOLE car or 'motor vehicle', correct?

The opposite is weak emergence. All your examples are weak emergence.

Therefore, there IS 'emergence'.

And, there is A 'system' or 'Thing' where the properties 'It' are the functions of the properties of Its parts.

Also, and by the way, if this is what 'you' refer to as 'strong emergence', then CONTRARY to what you CURRENTLY BELIEVE is true, there is ACTUALLY AN explanation for 'strong emergence', as well as 'weak emergence'. That is; If ANY one is Truly INTERESTED.

[Age]

Let me clarify what is difference between strong and weak emergence: There is no explanation for strong emergence. The properties of the whole, therefore, are not functions of the properties of parts in strong emergence. You cannot design a system that exhibits strong emergence. The opposite is weak emergence. All your examples are weak emergence.

No. My examples are strong by your definition, since the properties of the whole are not the same as paper and ink.
THe whole being the sound of music or massive social change in a multitude of ways.

I didn't say the same. I said it is a function.

What does it even MEAN to SAY; The 'properties' of the WHOLE are NOT the 'functions of the properties' of the parts, of the WHOLE?

Do you MEAN; The 'function of the properties' of the WHOLE are NOT the 'functions of the properties' of the parts of the WHOLE?

If no, then what do you ACTUALLY MEAN?

See, OBVIOUSLY 'the properties' of some 'thing', which it could be SAID and ARGUED ARE just 'the parts', themselves, will OBVIOUSLY NEVER be the SAME as the 'function of' a 'thing's' 'properties' or 'parts'

Are you ABLE to CLEAR 'this' up?

If yes, then WILL YOU?

[Dimebag]

Any biological system governs the physical laws! In fact, scientists simulate simple biological systems these days. We know if there is a current in a system then you only have an electromagnetic field and nothing else, such as a conscious field. These are the laws of physics. This means that you cannot have a conscious field no matter how do you rewire your system of interest.

Science has barely scraped the surface of the morphology of the brain, let alone do they grasp just how the brain functions,

But HOW the brain 'functions' is VERY SIMPLE and REALLY VERY EASY indeed.

The brain works just like a computer does, in that 'it' can only 'put out' what has been 'fed into' 'it'. And, that is just about it REALLY.

The Mind, however, functions VERY DIFFERENTLY, but just as EASILY and just as SIMPLY, I will add.

therefore you can’t say with any certainty that consciousness could not come from the brain. Give science time. I’m not saying it has any clue right now, I would agree with that, but that is not because it has explored all possibilities but rather due to its ignorance.

Consciousness is NOT the brain, and does NOT just come FROM just the brain ALONE. Consciousness ARISES, EXISTS, or comes FROM or THROUGH a brain. The brain is just one part of the process WHERE 'consciousness' 'comes FROM'.

You are thinking in a reductionistic manner. If the only tool you have is a hammer (fundamental physics) then all you see is nails (lifeless particles). Do some research into chaos theory, complex systems etc. You cannot understand emergence from your current mindset, so you conclude it’s BS. But you only display you complete ignorance on the subject.

Yeah I don’t disagree with you Age. As I have said before, the brain exists not separate from the body, and the world surrounding it, which it is not just a part of, but cannot be considered separate from. The body is as much an outgrowth of the world as an apple is from a tree. Humans require specific combinations of gases to breathe and sustain us. He breathe is as much a part of us as is our blood, and indeed, the breath enters our blood, for use in our body. We require food, which becomes the building blocks for our body, and which supplies much of the energy our bodies use to remain vital and alive. Humans require socialisation, they require other humans and as such we are part of a greater organism, being the human organism, which is just a part of life as a whole. Systems within systems, dependent on that which they emerge from.

We like to think we could send the human race to another planet. But there is little chance they could ever thrive in an environment far different from our own, which was not also littered with the same biological splendour as does the earth.

A human is essentially a reorganised form of organic material, sunlight, h20, and various different gases. Somehow, when arranged in the specific organisations the human body takes, something called consciousness happens. But, it cannot be anything more than what was put in, that is, that organic material, sunlight, h20 and various gases.

What matters is the specific arrangements of that matter.

But, I’m not sure that’s what you are getting at.... is it?

[Sculptor]

Let me clarify what is difference between strong and weak emergence: There is no explanation for strong emergence. The properties of the whole, therefore, are not functions of the properties of parts in strong emergence. You cannot design a system that exhibits strong emergence. The opposite is weak emergence. All your examples are weak emergence.

No. My examples are strong by your definition, since the properties of the whole are not the same as paper and ink.
THe whole being the sound of music or massive social change in a multitude of ways.

I didn't say the same. I said it is a function.

Knowing when the game is up is an admirable skill.
Try again.

[seeds]

Well, there are two things in here that I would like to discuss. First, if we accept that there is an explanation for how the brain is conscious in spite of the fact that its parts are not then the question of how consciousness can emerge becomes valid. So you owe an explanation of how this could possibly happen when you notice that all that is happening in the brain is the exchange of electrons between neurons.

Okay, and admitting up front that I could be completely wrong about all of this, here's my highly speculative (perhaps even nut-jobbery ) explanation for how living consciousness emerges from inanimate matter...

Like George Berkeley, I believe that the universe is the MIND of a higher (incorporeal) consciousness.

I'm talking about a Being that is as far above humans in scope and consciousness as humans are above flies, as is metaphorically depicted in a couple of my illustrations...



Now, with the universe being the MIND of this higher consciousness, it means that the universe's phenomenal features (suns, planets, water, rocks, sand, houses, cars, etc., etc.) are literally "alive"...

...(Note: not conscious, just alive due to being imbued (saturated) with this higher Being's living essence. And that would be in the exact same way that the phenomenal features of that vivid dream you may have had last night are literally "alive" because they are imbued with your life essence.)

To which I suggest that because a brain is, in fact, an extremely advanced manifestation of the higher mind's mental holography, it has thus been "designed" in such a way that not only allows it to summon-forth the life essence residing in the mental substance from which it is created,...

...but in the case of the human brain, it has also been "designed" to somehow cause (or trigger, or enable) that life essence to awaken into a new individualization of consciousness with a personal (and self-aware) identity.

Thus it can be understood that this new individualization of self-aware consciousness with a personal identity (along with its accompanying mind), "emerges" from the living fabric of matter in the form of something that is "wholly different" from the constituent properties of the matter from which it arose.

And that, my dear bahman, makes it an example of "strong emergence."

Now I realize (as uwot likes to remind me) that these are all extremely "iffy" propositions.

Nevertheless, if the universe is indeed the MIND of a higher consciousness, then it would also explain the phenomenon of what biologists call "abiogenesis." For if the essence of life (the basis of mind and consciousness) is already present within the fabric of matter,...

...then it is simply a tiny little step in imagining how inanimate (yet living) matter could become animate matter (evolvable micro-organisms) that can then be guided (either through natural evolution - or - through purposeful design) into becoming higher forms of life.

Anyway, that, in a nutshell, is my explanation of what "strong emergence" is all about.
_______

You are not offering a valid argument in favor of strong emergence. Again, you need to explain how. All you are saying is that the universe and all therein are conscious...

Please pay attention to what was written, bahman.

I never stated that everything in the universe is "conscious." No, I said that everything in the universe is "alive" by reason of being imbued (saturated) with the life essence of the higher consciousness (agent) to whom the universe belongs (again, in the exact same way that your own dreams are imbued with your own life essence).

For example, a growing blade of grass or a healthy green tree can both be considered as being "alive," however, they are not conscious. I merely take it a bit further by suggesting that suns, sand, and rocks, etc., are imbued with the same life essence as the grass and trees (again, none of which are "conscious").

...and in the case of humans, we have a personal identity that is the result of how the brain is structured. Therefore, we have strong emergence.

Yes, the "personal identity" (i.e., the "I Am-ness") that sits at the throne of our mind and consciousness is an example of "strong emergence" in that it is something that is "wholly different" from the matter from which it arose.

In other words, it is something that, according to Wiki, is...

"...irreducible to the system's constituent parts..."

(Continued in next post)
_______

[seeds]

_______

(Continued from prior post)

Can a machine with parts that exchange electrons is conscious as well?

Theoretically, yes. But only if the machine can be designed to do precisely what a brain does, as in summon-forth the life essence imbued within the material fabric of its makeup (as described in the prior post), and then somehow trigger that life essence into awakening into a new individualization of consciousness.

If the Creator of this universe were to even allow such a thing, how long do you think it would be before humans would be capable of achieving such a "God-level" feat?

Furthermore, how would they even know if they were successful?

I ask a general question. You claim that the design matter. How possibly design could matter if the parts do not have an intrinsic property to generate consciousness or they are not conscious.

Again, bahman, it's not that I cannot be wrong, but please pay attention to what I have written.

The "life essence" of the higher consciousness to whom the universe belongs is the "intrinsic property" of the "parts" you are referring to.

And by "parts," we're of course talking about the constituent features of a brain ...



Therefore, it seems logical (or, at least, plausible) to assume that something in the way those brain parts are arranged is what allows for the life essence inherent in brain matter...

(which, in truth, is God's life essence)

...to be drawn-forth and "focalized," if you will, in such a way that is somehow then triggered into "awakening" into an emergent "something" that is wholly different from the unconscious brain parts from which the "something" arose.

And, of course, that emergent "something" is a new mind with its accompanying "agent/I Am-ness."

And thus the stark contrast that exists between the brain's constituent (and measurable) parts and that of the mysterious (unmeasurable/indecipherable) ontology of the mind and its "I Am-ness," is why it (the mind) is deemed an example of "strong emergence."

But if the design matter, then it means that there is an explanation for how the brain is conscious. The explanation is the function that you claim that you have....

Again, bahman, it is not the brain that is conscious, it is the "agent" that emerges from the brain's constituent parts that is conscious.

...So if there is an explanation for the emergence of consciousness in the brain then we are dealing with weak emergence instead of strong emergence. Again, do you have an explanation? Or you think the emergence is not explicable, strong emergence.

From our present perspective, we have no explanation for how the constituent properties of a brain transforms the nebulous essence of life into a singular and conscious (self-aware) agent (I Am-ness) that sits at the core of its own autonomous dimension of reality called a mind.

So, in that sense, it is indeed an inexplicable case of "strong emergence" which, in turn, lies at the very heart of the so-called "Hard Problem of Consciousness" and the "Mind/Body Problem."
_______

[bahman]

Okay, and admitting up front that I could be completely wrong about all of this, here's my highly speculative (perhaps even nut-jobbery ) explanation for how living consciousness emerges from inanimate matter...

Like George Berkeley, I believe that the universe is the MIND of a higher (incorporeal) consciousness.

I'm talking about a Being that is as far above humans in scope and consciousness as humans are above flies, as is metaphorically depicted in a couple of my illustrations...



Now, with the universe being the MIND of this higher consciousness, it means that the universe's phenomenal features (suns, planets, water, rocks, sand, houses, cars, etc., etc.) are literally "alive"...

...(Note: not conscious, just alive due to being imbued (saturated) with this higher Being's living essence. And that would be in the exact same way that the phenomenal features of that vivid dream you may have had last night are literally "alive" because they are imbued with your life essence.)

To which I suggest that because a brain is, in fact, an extremely advanced manifestation of the higher mind's mental holography, it has thus been "designed" in such a way that not only allows it to summon-forth the life essence residing in the mental substance from which it is created,...

...but in the case of the human brain, it has also been "designed" to somehow cause (or trigger, or enable) that life essence to awaken into a new individualization of consciousness with a personal (and self-aware) identity.

Thus it can be understood that this new individualization of self-aware consciousness with a personal identity (along with its accompanying mind), "emerges" from the living fabric of matter in the form of something that is "wholly different" from the constituent properties of the matter from which it arose.

And that, my dear bahman, makes it an example of "strong emergence."

Now I realize (as uwot likes to remind me) that these are all extremely "iffy" propositions.

Nevertheless, if the universe is indeed the MIND of a higher consciousness, then it would also explain the phenomenon of what biologists call "abiogenesis." For if the essence of life (the basis of mind and consciousness) is already present within the fabric of matter,...

...then it is simply a tiny little step in imagining how inanimate (yet living) matter could become animate matter (evolvable micro-organisms) that can then be guided (either through natural evolution - or - through purposeful design) into becoming higher forms of life.

Anyway, that, in a nutshell, is my explanation of what "strong emergence" is all about.

(Continued in next post)
_______

You are not offering a valid argument in favor of strong emergence.

This is because of what 'you' ALREADY ASSUME and/or BELIEVE is true.

Just like a valid argument for God EXISTING could NEVER be provided to one who ASSUMES and/or BELIEVES God does NOT EXIST, and vice-versa, a valid argument for God NOT EXISTING could NEVER be provided to one who ASSUMES and/or BELIEVES God does EXIST, a 'strong argument' in favor of strong emergence could NEVER be provided, well to 'you' anyway.

You have come here and started this thread WITH: "There is NO emergence", which you BELIEVE wholeheartedly is true, CORRECT?

Yes.

And, if yes, then, to you, there is NO sound NOR valid argument OTHERWISE, again correct?

No. If one provides a sound counter-argument then I change my mind.

Again, you need to explain how.

Explain HOW in relation to WHAT, EXACTLY?

Explain how there could be a conscious brain when its parts are unconscious.

[bahman]

How can biology be possible from non biological processes? Biology is not a whole new thing, but rather, a novel behaviour of particular configurations of matter.

It is those configurations which have the novel making power, not the electrons themselves. Imagine the electrons and protons as a substrate for that novel behaviour called biology.

Now, we have a new substrate. Biology is the substrate of consciousness. Particularly a new novel form of biology called a nervous system. A nervous system carries sensory signals to a central area we call the brain, with such complexity that, asking a person to attempt to explain how consciousness emerges from it is like asking someone to decrypt a nearly unbreakable code.

The task is immense to try to lay out just how consciousness is a product of biology and the nervous system/brain configuration meeting an external world.

Your request is nevertheless, a fair request. Materialism has the burden of proof to explain just how consciousness comes from that system. Until then, we should not revert to other explanations with zero credence. We should adopt a more Bayesian approach, or risk going against the preponderance of evidence which the many fields of science have built up, explaining that there is nothing in nature which does not fall under the banner of natural.

Consciousness seems entirely reliant on the bodily system. Can you provide any evidence counter to this?

Any biological system governs the physical laws!

The word 'govern' sometimes refers to; having authority over some 'thing'; some 'thing' is caused or created because of some 'thing' else earlier or prior.

Now, to most people, it appears ALL 'biological systems' came about a 'considerable time' AFTER what was EXISTING PRIOR. So, to make a statement like: ANY 'biological system' 'governs' 'the physical laws' , on, first glance, appears TOTALLY ABSURD and EXTREMELY CONTRADICTORY. But, maybe you COULD CLEAR UP the apparent CONFUSION here. So, what is 'it', EXACTLY, that you are SAYING or SUGGESTING here?

See, to a LOT of people, 'biological systems' came about on earth, (or at other places?), WELL AFTER 'physical laws' were, literally, ALREADY in PLACE.

I mean that any physical system including the biological one follows the laws of nature.

In fact, scientists simulate simple biological systems these days.

AND, the POINT IS?

The point is the behavior of the biological system is according to what physical laws dictate.

We know if there is a current in a system then you only have an electromagnetic field and nothing else, such as a conscious field. These are the laws of physics. This means that you cannot have a conscious field no matter how do you rewire your system of interest.

Are 'you', the one known as "bahman" here, 'conscious', 'unconscious', or maybe just 'subconscious', or are 'you' some 'thing' else?

I am conscious. There are conscious minds too, but not unconscious mind.

Also, if I have a working human brain, 'my system of interest', and so-call "rewire" 'it', by just making 'it' create new/er or different 'thoughts', then are you saying here that there can NEVER be a so-called "conscious field", in my system of interest?

We are talking about consciousness which is a general term for whatever can be experienced including thought. The question is how consciousness, including thought, is possible in the brain when its parts are unconscious.

[bahman]

If you think that a full explanation of all of the workings of a human mind can be traced down to something taking place between the properties and parts of the brain, then you are describing "weak emergence" not "strong emergence."

However even "weak emergence" is still an example of "emergence," which renders your thread title null and void.

And, lastly, it's not the brain that becomes conscious.

No, it is the living, self-aware "agent" of the emergent mind that becomes conscious after efflorescing ("emerging") from the unconscious (but living) material fabric of a brain, which, again, is simply the advanced mental holography of a higher mind (as was described in the prior post).
_______

But if the design matter, then it means that there is an explanation for how the brain is conscious.

You were JUST TOLD, and thus INFORMED; 'It is NOT the brain that becomes conscious", YET in your very NEXT SENTENCE you STATE: "... then it means that there is an explanation for how THE BRAIN IS CONSCIOUS.

LOOK, there is AN EXPLANATION for HOW EVERY 'thing' WORKS, and thus IS 'created' AND 'evolves'. One just HAS TO RID "themselves" of ANY PRE-CONCEIVED IDEAS if they just want to LEARN and UNDERSTAND ALL of these EXPLANATIONS. Which, by the way, ALL come down to just ONE EXPLANATION.

The explanation is the function that you claim that you have. So if there is an explanation for the emergence of consciousness in the brain then we are dealing with weak emergence instead of strong emergence. Again, do you have an explanation? Or you think the emergence is not explicable, strong emergence.

And I am arguing against strong emergence in this thread. Anybody knows that 1+1=2 that this is a weak emergence.

How about you DEFINE what the words 'strong emergence' MEAN or REFER TO, to 'you', personally. THEN, and ONLY THEN, provide what 'you' call is "your argument" that; "THERE IS NO EMERGENCE", which, as can be CLEARLY SEEN here, CONTRADICTS what you just wrote here in your last sentence. However, if you DID THAT, then we can LOOK AT and SEE if "your argument" is valid AND sound. And, as I continually TELL you; If an argument is NOT a valid AND sound argument, then REALLY it is NOT worth sharing in the first place, let alone ever repeating.

(I replied to the top half of this post, but it was lost and I could not be bothered repeating it.)

The strong emergence is the opposite of weak emergence. The properties of the whole are not functions of the properties of parts. There is no explanation for it. etc.

[bahman]

I read 'it' AGAIN.

And this is HOW I was ABLE TO SHOW how you have REFUTED your OWN CLAIMS there.

Do you understand my argument?

I understand 'your argument', from 'my perspective, which, OBVIOUSLY, could be COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from 'your perspective'.

Do you understand my arguments or claims?

If yes what I am saying and what is your refutation?

What you are, literally, saying is:

To show this [that there is, ALLEGEDLY, NO emergence] consider a system with many parts each part has a set of properties. Now let’s assume that the system has a specific property. This property should not be reducible in terms of properties of parts if it is an emergent property. There must however be a reason that the system has this property rather than any other property. This means that there is a function that describes the property of the system. The only available variables are however the properties of parts. Therefore the property of the system must be a function of properties of parts. Therefore there is no emergence since the existence of the function implements that the property of the system is reducible to properties of parts.

Now, 'my refutation' is IN EXACTLY the quoted part that you are replying to here. Which is:

But, "your argument" was ALREADY 'self-refuted'.

This is because in "your argument" you are ASSUMING 'things', and 'your conclusion" is based upon those ASSUMPTIONS.

Now, OBVIOUSLY, just because 'you' ASSUME some 'things', this does NOT MEAN that those ASSUMED 'things' are true, right, NOR correct.

If 'we' are going to ASSUME 'things' in 'an argument', then the conclusion of 'that argument' is NOT necessarily going to be true, right, NOR correct.

So, what you will HAVE TO DO from now on, that is; if you want to PROVIDE an ACTUAL sound AND valid, thus IRREFUTABLE 'argument', is start by PROVIDING ACTUAL PROOFS for what you say in "your arguments" or PROVIDE EXAMPLES of 'things' that ACTUALLY DO EXIST.

THEN, we can LOOK AT and DISCUSS "your arguments" AGAIN.

Until then you have YET to PROVIDE an ACTUAL sound AND valid 'argument'. As I have INFORMED you ALREADY those types of 'arguments' are the ONLY ones LOOKING AT and REPEATING, as they are the ONLY ones that are IRREFUTABLE. EVERY other type of 'argument' is REFUTABLE and so REALLY NOT even worth MENTIONING, let alone TALKING ABOUT and DISCUSSING, REPEATEDLY.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are not offering any counterargument up to here.

However to elaborate FURTHER for you.

1. You CLAIM to SHOW how there is, supposedly, NO 'emergence', then we have to consider 'a system' with many parts each part has a set of properties.

I did this when I considered 'the system' known as 'the Universe', Itself, within where there are 'many parts', which have their own set of properties.

2. You say, "Now let’s assume that the system has a specific property."

I made it VERY CLEAR that TO ASSUME some 'thing', and then make YOUR CONCLUSION on that ASSUMED 'thing', which could be TOTALLY False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect, could then lead you to TOTALLY False, Wrong, or Incorrect CONCLUSIONS.

3. I INFORMED you that IF you REALLY WANT TO provide IRREFUTABLE CLAIMS or ARGUMENTS, then just PROVIDE IRREFUTABLE Facts, and NOT ASSUME absolutely ANY 'thing' AT ALL.

4. Surely even you can consider and understand this, right?

You are not offering anything in here.

[bahman]

You say "THERE IS NO EMERENCE".
I gave you an example of massively strong emergence.
Look what the Bible did. The Koran.
Even Harry Potter.

THen - how would you dismiss a musical score of Beethoven's fifth?

Let me clarify what is difference between strong and weak emergence: There is no explanation for strong emergence. The properties of the whole, therefore, are not functions of the properties of parts in strong emergence.

Are the function of the properties of the parts of the whole the SAME as the function of the properties of the smaller parts of 'those' parts, AND are the function of the properties of those smaller parts the SAME as the function of the properties of the smaller parts, of those bigger parts, and of the bigger again parts of the whole?

If no, then HOW did ALL of the functions of ALL of the parts COME-TO-BE?

The ACTUAL answer is IRREFUTABLE and REALLY EASY and SIMPLE to come by. But one HAS TO STOP BELIEVING or ASSUMING some 'things' are true, FIRST.

Just read what I wrote.

You cannot design a system that exhibits strong emergence.

So, to you, absolutely NO one can design a 'motor vehicle' that exhibits a DIFFERENT function of those functions of the properties of all of the parts of the WHOLE car or 'motor vehicle', correct?

The opposite is weak emergence. All your examples are weak emergence.

Therefore, there IS 'emergence'.

And, there is A 'system' or 'Thing' where the properties 'It' are the functions of the properties of Its parts.

Also, and by the way, if this is what 'you' refer to as 'strong emergence', then CONTRARY to what you CURRENTLY BELIEVE is true, there is ACTUALLY AN explanation for 'strong emergence', as well as 'weak emergence'. That is; If ANY one is Truly INTERESTED.

Yes. But I am arguing against strong emergence.

[bahman]

No. My examples are strong by your definition, since the properties of the whole are not the same as paper and ink.
THe whole being the sound of music or massive social change in a multitude of ways.

I didn't say the same. I said it is a function.

What does it even MEAN to SAY; The 'properties' of the WHOLE are NOT the 'functions of the properties' of the parts, of the WHOLE?

Do you MEAN; The 'function of the properties' of the WHOLE are NOT the 'functions of the properties' of the parts of the WHOLE?

If no, then what do you ACTUALLY MEAN?

See, OBVIOUSLY 'the properties' of some 'thing', which it could be SAID and ARGUED ARE just 'the parts', themselves, will OBVIOUSLY NEVER be the SAME as the 'function of' a 'thing's' 'properties' or 'parts'

Are you ABLE to CLEAR 'this' up?

If yes, then WILL YOU?

Can't you understand what I wrote?