There is no 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.

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

So you accepted the defeat?

[bahman]

_______

(Continued from prior post)

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...

Not it is not logical. You on one hand claim that the phenomenon of consciousness is irreducible and now you are saying that configuration matters which means that the properties of the brain are functions of the properties of parts.

Moreover, to the best of our knowledge, a current only produces electromagnetic fields and not anything like the conscious fields. No matter how do you rewire the system. If there is a conscious field due to a current, then everything is conscious.

(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."
_______

In OP, I explained that every sort of emergence is weak emergnce. Therefore, there is no strong emergence.

[Sculptor]

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

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

So you accepted the defeat?

clearly not.

[bahman]

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

So you accepted the defeat?

clearly not.

What do you disagree with what I said?

[Age]

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?

No.

[Age]

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).

The Universe, It Self, does NOT belong to ANY 'thing' ELSE, as It 'belongs', literally, to Its (OWN) Self, as "henry quirk" would say. That is; from a male gendered perspective anyway.

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").

Absolutely EVERY 'thing' is 'alive'. It might be OBVIOUS to ALL of 'you', adult human beings, that animals, including the human ones, are 'alive', and some less it might be OBVIOUS that plants are 'alive' as well, and to some even further less it might be obvious that the biosphere is alive, and to even more further less the earth, itself, is alive, via rivers, winds and oceans eroding and changing the shape and form of earth, or maybe more noticeably via earthquakes and volcanoes continually shaping and forming the always changing, and thus evolving, earth.

Now, to even far less, and really to relatively none of 'you', in the days when this is being written, ALL planets and stars are 'alive', as well.

But, the reason 'you' do NOT YET SEE nor RECOGNIZE this Fact is because when 'you' LOOK AT 'things', from the human being perspective ONLY, then 'you' ONLY SEE a very narrowed, short, or small perspective of 'things'. For example, imagine an insect that only lives for a few days or weeks and in that time it lands on "your" body a few times while "you" are sleeping, so on each occasion "your" body would not appear to be moving, nor changing at all, and so, to this insect 'that' body (or 'you', to some) would appear 'dead', or 'NOT alive'.

And this phenomenon is EXACTLY the SAME with 'you', human beings, when LOOKING AT 'things' that exist, or which are 'alive' longer than 'you' are, especially planets. Planets are, ACTUALLY, ALWAYS constantly changing in shape and form, just like the earth is, but to most of 'you'' those planets are DEAD.

The 'life essence' being talked about and referred to here above is just 'evolution', itself, which 'itself' just means or refers to CHANGE, itself. The word 'life' can mean or refer to many different 'things', but the 'life', or 'life essence', within EVERY 'thing' just keeps 'things' moving, and it is that movement, which produces and creates "other" or "more" 'things'. The 'life essence' withing EVERY 'thing' is to keep the 'species' 'alive', for as long as possible or necessary.

...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.

The 'something' that 'sits' AT, and WITH, the 'consciousness', WITHIN the human body, is NOT the so-called "our mind" AT ALL, but instead 'it' is ACTUALLY 'thoughts', themselves, which is ALSO, literally, 'wholly different' from the visible matter, which they arise.

Also, only when 'you', human beings, are able to answer the question, 'Who am 'I'?' properly and correctly, then who and what the 'personal identity' AND the 'I' IS are KNOWN. Until then the, "I am ...", it will be found was ALWAYS False, Wrong, and Incorrect.

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

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

(Continued in next post)
_______

[Age]

_______

(Continued from prior post)

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.

The Universe, Itself, does NOT 'belong' to ANY 'thing' ELSE. The Universe 'belongs', literally, to Its (OWN) Self, as "henry quirk" would say. That is; in and from a male gendered perspective, only.

The 'life essence' is WITHIN EVERY 'thing'.

The 'Consciousness', which is much 'higher' than the 'consciousness' that is only aware of some 'things', like 'you', human beings, is just Awareness of ALL, or Awareness of Self, which is again ALL, or Everything.

So, the 'life essence', which is in ALL 'matter', is WHERE and HOW Consciousness, Itself, arose.

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)

God's so-called 'life essence' is NOT ANY DIFFERENT to the 'life' WITHIN EVERY 'thing'.

...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.

The 'thoughts', which are 'wholly different', and arise, from visible 'matter', which is just a 'part of' the WHOLE, is where the little or lower 'conscious' IS, EXACTLY.

The 'Knowing', however, which is ALSO ''wholly different', but ALSO arises, from visible 'matter', is where the Big or Higher 'Consciousness
' IS, EXACTLY.

Being aware of some 'things' is the 'consciousness', 'you', human beings.

Being Aware of ALL 'things' is the Consciousness, 'I'.

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

The always emerging 'thing', within human bodies, is NOT a so-called "new mind" at all, but rather just the 'thoughts', 'you', within human bodies. The 'agent', which makes the ALWAYS False, Wrong, and Incorrect claims, "I am ...", from within human bodies, is again, just 'you', the 'thoughts, within human bodies.

That was until 'you', human bodies, had evolved enough to be able to learn and understand who 'I' am, EXACTLY. THEN, that 'Agent' could accurately and properly make the claim, 'I am ...'.

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 I am YET to SEE ANY of 'you' even begin to start explaining what 'the mind' is, EXACTLY.

Also, when who and what the 'Mind' IS, EXACTLY is KNOWN, then It can explain, EXACTLY, who and what 'I' AM.

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.

Which are, ACTUALLY, just 'thoughts'.

...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.

And 'I' have ALREADY explained to 'you', human beings, in the days when this was being written, WHY 'you', human beings, from 'your' 'present/past' perspective, had NOT YET FOUND the EXPLANATIONS you were wondering and considering about.

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."
_______

But ALL-OF-THIS is VERY EASILY EXPLAINED and VERY SIMPLY UNDERSTOOD.

[Sculptor]

So you accepted the defeat?

clearly not.

What do you disagree with what I said?

Mostly

[Age]

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.

While you are BELIEVING some 'thing' is true, then you are NOT OPEN to 'it', possibly, being false.

While you are BELIEVING some 'thing' is true, you are NOT OPEN to ANY 'thing' contrary.

Therefore, while you are BELIEVING some 'thing' is true, exactly like you are here now, you are NOT OPEN to what is ACTUALLY True, Right, AND Correct.

'you', "bahman", have been a PRIME EXAMPLE of 'one' who is completely and utterly CLOSED.

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.

1. 'you' do NOT "have a mind". So, 'you' can NOT change "your" so-called "mind"

2. If 'you' can CHANGE from BELIEVING one 'thing' is true, to then BELIEVING ANOTHER 'thing' is true, and so the FIRST 'thing' was ALWAYS False to begin with, then WHY BELIEVE the FIRST 'thing' was true, in the FIRST PLACE?

3. WHY BELIEVE ANY 'thing' to begin with?

4. If 'you' BELIEVE some 'thing is true, then WHY would 'you' BELIEVE that there could exist a sound AND valid argument AGAINST what 'you' currently BELIEVE, WHOLEHEARTEDLY, is true?

5. is it even POSSIBLE that, 'There IS emergence'?

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.

BUT, as you have ALREADY BEEN TOLD, the brain, itself, is NOT 'conscious'.

So, WHY would 'you' say such an ABSURD 'thing' as, "Again, you need to explain how"?

[Age]

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.

Absolutely EVERY 'thing' 'follows' the 'laws of nature'.

Absolutely NO one is saying otherwise.

So, WHY say what you have here?

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.

OF COURSE.

And, one does NOT have to be a so-called "scientist" to KNOW this Fact.

AGAIN, absolutely EVERY 'thing' is, what you would say and call, 'according to what physical laws dictate'. AND ALSO AGAIN, NO one is disagreeing NOR disputing this.

So, WHY do you bring 'things' up, which absolutely NO one is saying NOR claiming, and then use 'them' as though they would help "your" so-called "argument/s"?

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.

So, so 'we' AGREE that 'I' am conscious. Therefore, what you said above here is just MOOT.

If 'I' am conscious, then there does EXIST a 'conscious field', no matter how one rewires "their" so-call "system of interest".

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.

And, it is those "general terms" WHY 'you', adult human beings, STILL had SO MUCH MORE to learn AND understand, back in the days when this was being written.

1. If, as you CLAIM, 'thoughts' can be 'experienced', then WHO and/or WHAT is 'it', which CAN 'experience' 'thoughts', themselves?

2. if the word 'consciousness' is a so-called "general term" for WHATEVER can be 'experienced', then this is WHY 'you', human beings, are STILL so LOST and CONFUSED, back in the days when this was being written.

3. If the word 'consciousness' is just a "general term" for WHATEVER can be 'experienced', and the Fact is absolutely EVERY 'thing' can be 'experienced', then the word 'consciousness' just means or refers to, EVERY 'thing', which is just ABSURD.

4. When the word 'consciousness' is CHANGED to just mean or refer to 'awareness', itself, like as in, ' I am conscious of some 'thing' ', then this just means or refers to ' I am just aware of some 'thing' ', then, in that 'general term', ALL can FIT TOGETHER PERFECTLY, so that ALL-OF-THIS can and WILL make PERFECT SENSE. Until then, a LOT of your ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS WILL just remain False, Wrong, AND Incorrect.

The question is how consciousness, including thought, is possible in the brain when its parts are unconscious.

The answer is; VERY EASILY and VERY SIMPLY.

1. The word 'consciousness' is NOT and could NOT be what 'you' IMAGINE or think 'it' means and refers to.

2. 'Consciousness' is NOT, IN THE BRAIN'.

3. And, how MANY TIMES do you have to be TOLD and INFORMED of this Fact BEFORE you will STOP USING 'it' in "your" OWN 'thinking' and CLAIMS here?

4. 'you' make up False CLAIMS, write then down, and USE 'them' as though they are somehow true.

[Age]

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.

But there IS an 'explanation' for 'this'.

'you' may have just NOT heard of 'it' YET.

Are you YET AWARE the 'properties' of the car are NOT the 'functions of the properties of the parts' of the car?

If no, then you are NOW.

Also, I have ALREADY SHOWN how you use some words in some circumstances but NOT in other circumstances. Which, is a SUBCONSCIOUS or UNCONSCIOUS way of 'TRYING TO' substantiate one's CLAIMS and so-called "arguments".

If you have NOT YET worked out what I am referring to EXACTLY here, then I suggest reading AGAIN my responses to you, OR just asking CLARIFYING QUESTIONS.

But, then you are ONLY 'on a mission' to PROVE your BELIEFS and CLAIMS here are true and right, correct?

If yes, then this MEANS that you are NOT hear to LISTEN to what "others" have to say AT ALL.

[Age]

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.

This is BECAUSE 'you' are BLIND and DEAF here, and the REASON WHY 'you' are BLIND and DEAF here is BECAUSE 'you' ALREADY BELIEVE 'you' KNOW what the IRREFUTABLE Truth IS here, correct?

[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.

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.

'you', " bahman", are 'one' of the MOST that I USE to SHOW and PROVE just how DEAF AND BLIND 'you', human beings, REALLY ARE while you have and maintain a BELIEF.

See, "others" can CLEARLY SEE, and HEAR, that 'the function' of the 'car', for example, is NOT 'the functions' of the 'car's' 'parts'. Which, to you, IS 'strong emergence'.

But you can NOT SEE, NOR HEAR, 'this' because 'you BELIEVE otherwise, and so ARE BLIND and DEAF to ANY 'thing' opposing "your" OWN made up BELIEF.

[Age]

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?

I have ALREADY PROVED 'you' Wrong here "bahman".

Can you understand what I write?

[Age]

_______

(Continued from prior post)

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...

Not it is not logical. You on one hand claim that the phenomenon of consciousness is irreducible and now you are saying that configuration matters which means that the properties of the brain are functions of the properties of parts.

WHY do 'you' CONTINUALLY use the words, "the properties of the (whatever) are not the functions of the properties of (its) parts', is what 'strong emergence' is?

Is this REALLY what 'strong emergence' means and refers to, to you?

Moreover, to the best of our knowledge, a current only produces electromagnetic fields and not anything like the conscious fields. No matter how do you rewire the system. If there is a conscious field due to a current, then everything is conscious.

(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."
_______

In OP, I explained that every sort of emergence is weak emergnce. Therefore, there is no strong emergence.

'you' NEVER explained ANY such 'thing'.

All 'you' did in the opening post is just write down what 'you' ALREADY BELIEVE is true.

'you' also 'TRY TO' say just about ANY 'thing', in the HOPE that 'it' will back up and support "your" currently HELD ONTO BELIEF.

As can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVED True in "your" opening post, and elsewhere here.

If you would LIKE TO TELL 'us' what 'strong emergence' is to 'you', then 'we' WILL SEE if 'strong emergence' exists or NOT, okay?

Are you ABLE to at least to do this?