There is no emergence

[Age]

Yeah, it is a joke but on your part, not mine. I am arguing against strong emergence and you are asking me about examples!?

What you are saying is that there is no such thing as a thing you cannot prove or demonstrate.
What a waste of bloody time.
I'm staggered that you can be that stupid.
You have defined a things as impossible are now patting yourself on your own back saying oh look an impossible thing does not exist.
After having made a damn fool of yourself by ignoring examples of real emergence complaining they are not string enough to be impossible.
The real problem is that you are too stupid to know that this is stupid,

After all these discussions, do you understand the difference between strong and weak emergence? Could you please give me an example of something that is strong emergence and there is not any explanation for it?

I am STILL WAITING for 'you', "bahman", to PROVIDE a WORKABLE and WORKING 'definition' of what 'strong emergence' MEANS or REFERS TO, so that then I could even BEGIN to SHOW 'you' an example of some 'thing' that IS 'strong emergence', and THEN I COULD provide THE 'explanation' for 'it'.

So, we STILL WAIT for 'you'.

Could you please give me an example of a system with strong emergence that the emergence is not a function of the system constitutes' properties? Just think about it, car, book, etc.

AN EXAMPLE of a system with strong emergence, where the emergence is not a function of the system's constituted properties is a 'car'. See, the function of the system 'car' is NOT a function of ANY of the car's constituted properties. Therefore, 'strong emergence' EXISTS. That is; according to "bahmans" definition of what 'strong emergence' is here.

By the way, all your offenses are ignored on my part. You are just trapped, so what you do seems to me as a defense but not a good one. I am waiting for an argument or example.

I have PROVIDED an EXAMPLE. Therefore, you do NOT have to WAIT any longer.

[Sculptor]

Yeah, it is a joke but on your part, not mine. I am arguing against strong emergence and you are asking me about examples!?

What you are saying is that there is no such thing as a thing you cannot prove or demonstrate.
What a waste of bloody time.
I'm staggered that you can be that stupid.
You have defined a things as impossible are now patting yourself on your own back saying oh look an impossible thing does not exist.
After having made a damn fool of yourself by ignoring examples of real emergence complaining they are not string enough to be impossible.
The real problem is that you are too stupid to know that this is stupid,

After all these discussions, do you understand the difference between strong and weak emergence?

You are 'aving a laff mate.
Since you have failed to demonstrate, define or state what you mean by strong emergence, you are just talking bollock and cannot expect anyone to understand a "difference".

[bahman]

Repeating your error does not wipe it away.

There was no error on my side except for not being precise about claiming that there is no emergence. I should have said that there is no strong emergence.

You have the 'right' to SAY and CLAIM 'things', but if you can NOT back up and support your CLAIMS, then this MEANS that REALLY you do NOT have a 'right' to SAY and make the CLAIM, in the first place. (I am using 'right' VERY LOOSELY here).

Now, I suggest;

1. Define what the words 'strong emergence' ARE, to you.

2. Be OPEN to ACCEPT that your OWN 'definition' of those words may NOT be a very good 'definition' AT ALL.

3. Be OPEN to be CHALLENGED and be Honest when being QUESTIONED.

There is no explanation for strong emergence. It is a phenomenon in which the property of the whole is not a function of the properties of parts.

Please define what strong emergence is. What would be an example of it.

I already did that. Strong emergence is a phenomenon that there is no explanation for it,

You REALLY ARE a COMPLETE IMBECILE "bahman", OR, there is MORE to be UNDERSTOOD of english words, for you.

TELLING "others" that "Strong emergence is a phenomenon that there is NO explanation for" is NOT, and I will repeat, IS NOT a 'DEFINITION'.

Honestly 'it' is just about the MOST ABSURD CLAIM one could make.

That is a definition.

the property of the whole is not a function of the properties of parts, you cannot design a system that exhibits strong emergence.

Now, although the 'first part' here is MORE-LIKE a 'definition' it is STILL just AN ABSURD 'definition'.

Saying, "the property of the whole is not a function of the properties of parts", does NOT even make sense.

Firstly, 'the property' of 'the whole' is just 'the parts' of 'the whole'.

Secondly, this means 'the properties of the parts' are just 'the parts, of the parts, of the whole'.

Thirdly, 'properties', or 'parts', themselves are NOT 'functions'.

Which means, the properties/parts of the whole [car or motor vehicle] can NEVER be a function of the properties/parts [nuts, bolts, linkages, uni-joints, doors/latches/screws] of the properties/parts [steering wheel, gearbox, tail shaft, or glove compartment] of the WHOLE motor vehicle or car.

And, which ALSO FURTHER MEANS, the 'functions' of EVERY one of these multitude of DIFFERING parts AND properties is ALSO VERY DIFFERENT, and which could ALSO NEVER be the SAME as the 'function' of the WHOLE car or motor vehicle, itself.

So, what all of this MEANS is that what you are so desperately 'TRYING TO' argue for here, is just saying;

The definition of what 'strong emergence' is IS ABSOLUTE IMPOSSIBILITY anyway.

It is OBVIOUS then that the phenomenon of 'strong emergence' can ALSO NOT be explained.

Therefore, there is NO 'strong emergence'.

And as can be CLEARLY SEEN is just a CYCLE of ABSURD DECEPTION.


It would be like CLAIMING 'God' is a 'thing', which was able to create ABSOLUTELY EVERY 'thing' when there was ABSOLUTELY NO 'thing', "in the beginning". And, because this 'phenomenon' can NOT be explained, this then means therefore;

There is NO God.

Which would be an ABSOLUTELY OBVIOUS "fact".

And as can be CLEARLY SEEN it was just ANOTHER "fact", based on a CYCLE of ABSURD DECEPTION, ONLY.

ONLY those 'things' that COULD POSSIBLY be True and Real COULD 'exist'. So, if you are going to 'define' the words 'strong emergence' as some 'thing' that could NOT even 'exist', then so be it. But, REALLY, talk about WASTING 'TIME'.

You are not making any sense in here.

I don't think that there is an example of strong emergence.

So, therefore 'it' could NEVER even 'exist' ANYWAY. So, talking about some IMAGINED 'it', as though 'it' could have 'existed' ANYWAY, was, REALLY, ALL just a WASTE of 'TIME', correct?

I didn't say to imagine it.

Why would you think that the impact of a book such as the bible or Origin of Species is not strong emergence?

Because the behavior of people is a function of what is written in the Bible.

The DECEPTION is SPIRALING 'out of control' NOW.

Are 'people' REALLY a 'property' of the 'parts' of the 'whole'/the bible?

People is the system. Parts are everything within that can affect the behavior of people including the Bible.

My examples were very strong indeed. Unless, and until you give an example of string emergence you cannot say these are weak.

How I could give you an example of strong emergence when I think it does not exist.

It would be like 'TRYING TO' argue FOR or AGAINST 'God', when absolutely NO one even provides AN EXAMPLE of what, EXACTLY, a POSSIBLE 'God', Itself, COULD BE, correct?

Not exactly. People can imagine God as the creator. But you are close to what I mean.

[bahman]

WHO are 'they'?

Almost all people who are discussing with me excluding you.

Well SEEING that 'you', "bahman", are NOT BRAVE ENOUGH to name 'them', let 'us' SEE if "they" are BRAVE ENOUGH to name "themselves".

So, is there absolutely ANY one HERE who BELIEVES that 'the brain' is 'conscious'?

So, NOW we WAIT and SEE, hey "bahman"?

Oh, and by the way, from what I have NOTICED, some of the ones who have been DISCUSSING with 'you', here in this thread, have made it QUITE CLEAR that 'they' do NOT believe that 'the brain' is conscious.

Is there ANY one in this forum WHO is SAYING; "It is 'the brain' that is conscious"?

Yes.

It is VERY EASY to SAY, "Yes". BUT, are 'you' ABLE to SAY WHO 'they' or 'it' ARE, EXACTLY?

If 'you' are ABLE to, then WILL 'you'?

If no, then WHY NOT?

Yes, Dimebag, seeds, Sculptor, almost all materialists.

[bahman]

Are you 100% ABSOLUTELY SURE, and without absolutely ANY DOUBT AT ALL, that the one known as "dimebag" here says and/or BELIEVES that there are some 'things' that do NOT 'follow' the 'laws of nature', itself?

If yes, then what are those 'things', EXACTLY?

S/he told me to go and read complex systems and chaos.

So, someone tells 'you' to go read some reading material, and JUST FROM 'that' ONLY, you make AN ASSUMPTION and JUMP to A CONCLUSION that 'this' MEANS, WITHOUT ANY DOUBT AT ALL, ... [such and such].

Here we can SEE a PERFECT EXAMPLE of just how ASSUMING and CONCLUDING these adult human beings REALLY WERE, back in THOSE DAYS.

It did NOT matter how False, Wrong, or Incorrect their ASSUMPTIONS and CONCLUSIONS could HAVE BEEN, once they BELIEVED that their OWN MADE-UP ASSUMPTIONS and/or CONCLUSIONS were true, then that was "IT", absolutely NOTHING ELSE MATTERED.

No, I was arguing against strong emergence and s/he told me to go and read some stuff instead of providing any argument.

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"?

There are people who believe that there are systems that do not act according to the laws of nature.

What are those 'systems', AND who are those 'people'?

Non. And many people.

So, REALLY there are ACTUALLY NO 'systems' AT ALL, which the IMAGINED "many people", supposedly, PREVIOUSLY said, "do NOT act according to the laws of nature".

You KNOW what I REALLY LOVE about EVERY time I have a so-called "discussion" with 'you' "bahman"?

If no, then I will TELL 'you'.

The more 'we' TALK, the more 'you' TAKE 'me' to "places" I would have NEVER envisioned ANY one ever even 'TRYING TO' TAKE 'us'.

We know there is no consciousness in the laws of nature. Therefore, you cannot get consciousness by rewiring the matter. There are people who don't think so.

[bahman]

The 'function' of the 'wheel', or the 'function' of the 'front seat', for example, of a 'car' is NOT the 'function' of the WHOLE 'car', which, by 'your' OWN definition MEANS that; There IS 'strong emergence'. End of story, correct?

The properties of the car are functions of the properties of parts. Not what you said.

If you do NOT PROVIDE EXAMPLES, then what 'you' say here is WORTH absolutely NOTHING AT ALL.

The so-called "properties" of A 'car' are WHEELS and SEATS, for example, CORRECT?

If no, then WHY NOT?

Now, to WORK OUT what the so-called "functions of the properties of parts" of A 'car' ARE EXACTLY, then 'you' HAVE TO 'inform' us of what 'that' EVEN MEANS or is REFERRING to, EXACTLY.

If you do NOT, then EVERY thing you have said, regarding 'strong emergence', here in this thread, is MOOT. Which MEANS: There ACTUALLY DOES EXIST 'strong emergence'. Which you have, ONCE AGAIN, FAILED, absolutely, to PROVE otherwise. Okay?

Can you COMPREHEND, UNDERSTAND, and FOLLOW 'this'?

Can a car move without wheels? No, so the motion of a car which is its property is a function of moving wheels.

[bahman]

What you are saying is that there is no such thing as a thing you cannot prove or demonstrate.
What a waste of bloody time.
I'm staggered that you can be that stupid.
You have defined a things as impossible are now patting yourself on your own back saying oh look an impossible thing does not exist.
After having made a damn fool of yourself by ignoring examples of real emergence complaining they are not string enough to be impossible.
The real problem is that you are too stupid to know that this is stupid,

After all these discussions, do you understand the difference between strong and weak emergence? Could you please give me an example of something that is strong emergence and there is not any explanation for it?

I am STILL WAITING for 'you', "bahman", to PROVIDE a WORKABLE and WORKING 'definition' of what 'strong emergence' MEANS or REFERS TO, so that then I could even BEGIN to SHOW 'you' an example of some 'thing' that IS 'strong emergence', and THEN I COULD provide THE 'explanation' for 'it'.

So, we STILL WAIT for 'you'.

I gave the definition in another post.

Could you please give me an example of a system with strong emergence that the emergence is not a function of the system constitutes' properties? Just think about it, car, book, etc.

AN EXAMPLE of a system with strong emergence, where the emergence is not a function of the system's constituted properties is a 'car'. See, the function of the system 'car' is NOT a function of ANY of the car's constituted properties. Therefore, 'strong emergence' EXISTS. That is; according to "bahmans" definition of what 'strong emergence' is here.

No, you are wrong. The car does not move if the wheels don't.

By the way, all your offenses are ignored on my part. You are just trapped, so what you do seems to me as a defense but not a good one. I am waiting for an argument or example.

I have PROVIDED an EXAMPLE. Therefore, you do NOT have to WAIT any longer.

A car is an example of weak emergence.

[bahman]

What you are saying is that there is no such thing as a thing you cannot prove or demonstrate.
What a waste of bloody time.
I'm staggered that you can be that stupid.
You have defined a things as impossible are now patting yourself on your own back saying oh look an impossible thing does not exist.
After having made a damn fool of yourself by ignoring examples of real emergence complaining they are not string enough to be impossible.
The real problem is that you are too stupid to know that this is stupid,

After all these discussions, do you understand the difference between strong and weak emergence?

You are 'aving a laff mate.
Since you have failed to demonstrate, define or state what you mean by strong emergence, you are just talking bollock and cannot expect anyone to understand a "difference".

I did it several times. Strong emergence is the opposite of weak emergence. You cannot explain strong emergence but you can explain weak emergence. The property of the whole is not a function of the properties of parts in strong emergence. The property of the whole is a function of the properties of parts in weak emergence.

[Sculptor]

After all these discussions, do you understand the difference between strong and weak emergence?

You are 'aving a laff mate.
Since you have failed to demonstrate, define or state what you mean by strong emergence, you are just talking bollock and cannot expect anyone to understand a "difference".

I did it several times. Strong emergence is the opposite of weak emergence.

But that statement is inherently stupid.
String wine is not the opposite of weak wine - they are both wine. I think you are really confused about pretty much everything.

You cannot explain strong emergence but you can explain weak emergence. The property of the whole is not a function of the properties of parts in strong emergence. The property of the whole is a function of the properties of parts in weak emergence.

FFS.
No - you are not having a laugh you are just not very intelligent.

[bahman]

You are 'aving a laff mate.
Since you have failed to demonstrate, define or state what you mean by strong emergence, you are just talking bollock and cannot expect anyone to understand a "difference".

I did it several times. Strong emergence is the opposite of weak emergence.

But that statement is inherently stupid.
String wine is not the opposite of weak wine - they are both wine. I think you are really confused about pretty much everything.

By strong, I don't mean that it is stronger than weak. I mean it is a different category.

You cannot explain strong emergence but you can explain weak emergence. The property of the whole is not a function of the properties of parts in strong emergence. The property of the whole is a function of the properties of parts in weak emergence.

FFS.
No - you are not having a laugh you are just not very intelligent.

Did you understand the definition and difference between strong and weak emergence?

[Sculptor]

I did it several times. Strong emergence is the opposite of weak emergence.

But that statement is inherently stupid.
String wine is not the opposite of weak wine - they are both wine. I think you are really confused about pretty much everything.

By strong, I don't mean that it is stronger than weak. I mean it is a different category.

You cannot explain strong emergence but you can explain weak emergence. The property of the whole is not a function of the properties of parts in strong emergence. The property of the whole is a function of the properties of parts in weak emergence.

FFS.
No - you are not having a laugh you are just not very intelligent.

Did you understand the definition and difference between strong and weak emergence?

FFS give it a rest.
You are just making a fool of yourself.

[bahman]

But that statement is inherently stupid.
String wine is not the opposite of weak wine - they are both wine. I think you are really confused about pretty much everything.

By strong, I don't mean that it is stronger than weak. I mean it is a different category.

FFS.
No - you are not having a laugh you are just not very intelligent.

Did you understand the definition and difference between strong and weak emergence?

FFS give it a rest.
You are just making a fool of yourself.

Ok, I cannot convience you!

[Sculptor]

By strong, I don't mean that it is stronger than weak. I mean it is a different category.


Did you understand the definition and difference between strong and weak emergence?

FFS give it a rest.
You are just making a fool of yourself.

Ok, I cannot convience you!

No. No one can be Convienced

[bahman]

FFS give it a rest.
You are just making a fool of yourself.

Ok, I cannot convience you!

No. No one can be Convienced

That of course is not correct. Like all other things that you said!

[Age]

There was no error on my side except for not being precise about claiming that there is no emergence. I should have said that there is no strong emergence.

You have the 'right' to SAY and CLAIM 'things', but if you can NOT back up and support your CLAIMS, then this MEANS that REALLY you do NOT have a 'right' to SAY and make the CLAIM, in the first place. (I am using 'right' VERY LOOSELY here).

Now, I suggest;

1. Define what the words 'strong emergence' ARE, to you.

2. Be OPEN to ACCEPT that your OWN 'definition' of those words may NOT be a very good 'definition' AT ALL.

3. Be OPEN to be CHALLENGED and be Honest when being QUESTIONED.

There is no explanation for strong emergence.

This is YOUR "argument" here:

There is NO explanation for x y [strong emergence].

Therefore, there is NO x y. [strong emergence]

Now, ANY one could replace the words "strong emergence" with absolutely ANY other made up words they like.

It is a phenomenon in which the property of the whole is not a function of the properties of parts.

SO, the EXPLANATION for "strong emergence", according to "bahman's" view and 'take on' this is;

"Strong emergence", to "bahman" anyway, is where 'the property of the whole', which JUST MEANS, 'the parts of the whole', (like, for example, the seats and wheels of a car), are NOT 'a function of the properties of the wheels and seats, of the car.

Which, as can be CLEARLY SEEN and DEMONSTRATED here is just ABSURDITY, in the EXTREME.

Seriously "bahman" WHY can 'you' NOT SEE the STUPIDITY in what 'you' are SAYING and CLAIMING here?

And, the REASON WHY you will NOT provide an Honest EXAMPLE of;

What the 'whole' word is referring to.

What the 'property' word is referring to.

What the 'function' word is referring to.

What the 'properties' word is referring to. And,

What the 'parts' word is referring to,

IS because if 'you' did, then 'you' would HAVE TO CONTRADICT "yourself".

Which would then SELF-REFUTED what 'you' are SAYING and CLAIMING here.

I already did that. Strong emergence is a phenomenon that there is no explanation for it,

You REALLY ARE a COMPLETE IMBECILE "bahman", OR, there is MORE to be UNDERSTOOD of english words, for you.

TELLING "others" that "Strong emergence is a phenomenon that there is NO explanation for" is NOT, and I will repeat, IS NOT a 'DEFINITION'.

Honestly 'it' is just about the MOST ABSURD CLAIM one could make.

That is a definition.

So, A definition of 'God' COULD BE; "God is a phenomenon that there is no explanation for it", to you, correct?

LOOK "bahman", with the use of "english" words. A 'definition' will NEVER, and I will repeat, "there is no explanation for it".

'Definitions', by definition, do NOT contain those words. Understood?

the property of the whole is not a function of the properties of parts, you cannot design a system that exhibits strong emergence.

Now, although the 'first part' here is MORE-LIKE a 'definition' it is STILL just AN ABSURD 'definition'.

Saying, "the property of the whole is not a function of the properties of parts", does NOT even make sense.

Firstly, 'the property' of 'the whole' is just 'the parts' of 'the whole'.

Secondly, this means 'the properties of the parts' are just 'the parts, of the parts, of the whole'.

Thirdly, 'properties', or 'parts', themselves are NOT 'functions'.

Which means, the properties/parts of the whole [car or motor vehicle] can NEVER be a function of the properties/parts [nuts, bolts, linkages, uni-joints, doors/latches/screws] of the properties/parts [steering wheel, gearbox, tail shaft, or glove compartment] of the WHOLE motor vehicle or car.

And, which ALSO FURTHER MEANS, the 'functions' of EVERY one of these multitude of DIFFERING parts AND properties is ALSO VERY DIFFERENT, and which could ALSO NEVER be the SAME as the 'function' of the WHOLE car or motor vehicle, itself.

So, what all of this MEANS is that what you are so desperately 'TRYING TO' argue for here, is just saying;

The definition of what 'strong emergence' is IS ABSOLUTE IMPOSSIBILITY anyway.

It is OBVIOUS then that the phenomenon of 'strong emergence' can ALSO NOT be explained.

Therefore, there is NO 'strong emergence'.

And as can be CLEARLY SEEN is just a CYCLE of ABSURD DECEPTION.


It would be like CLAIMING 'God' is a 'thing', which was able to create ABSOLUTELY EVERY 'thing' when there was ABSOLUTELY NO 'thing', "in the beginning". And, because this 'phenomenon' can NOT be explained, this then means therefore;

There is NO God.

Which would be an ABSOLUTELY OBVIOUS "fact".

And as can be CLEARLY SEEN it was just ANOTHER "fact", based on a CYCLE of ABSURD DECEPTION, ONLY.

ONLY those 'things' that COULD POSSIBLY be True and Real COULD 'exist'. So, if you are going to 'define' the words 'strong emergence' as some 'thing' that could NOT even 'exist', then so be it. But, REALLY, talk about WASTING 'TIME'.

You are not making any sense in here.

LOL

'I' may NOT be making ANY sense here, to 'you' "bahman", but that would NOT be UNEXPECTED of 'you'.

It was NOT UNEXPECTED that you would NOT be ABLE TO SEE that I just ACTUALLY AGREED WITH 'you' and just PROVED what you have been SAYING and CLAIMING as being IRREFUTABLY True, Right, AND Correct.

So, even when I PROVE, for 'you', what 'you' SAY and CLAIM 'you' STILL SAY what I SAY does NOT make absolutely ANY sense, to 'you'.

See, there is NOTHING in what I wrote just here, which could be REFUTED. I PROVED what 'you' SAID was TRUE.

I just SHOWED what 'you' SAID was just COMPLETE and UTTER WASTE of TIME.

I don't think that there is an example of strong emergence.

So, therefore 'it' could NEVER even 'exist' ANYWAY. So, talking about some IMAGINED 'it', as though 'it' could have 'existed' ANYWAY, was, REALLY, ALL just a WASTE of 'TIME', correct?

I didn't say to imagine it.

MISSED the POINT, AGAIN.

Because the behavior of people is a function of what is written in the Bible.

The DECEPTION is SPIRALING 'out of control' NOW.

Are 'people' REALLY a 'property' of the 'parts' of the 'whole'/the bible?

People is the system.

What IS 'the system', which 'you' speak of here?

Are 'you' saying COLLECTIVELY ALL 'people' IS 'the system'?

Parts are everything within that can affect the behavior of people including the Bible.

If 'you' are saying COLLECTIVELY ALL 'people' IS 'the system', then LIST some of the 'parts' of 'the system' 'people'.

You did after all say, "Parts are "everything within", so "within" 'what', EXACTLY?

Because you did go on to say that "the bible" is one of the "parts within", but this only CONFUSES matters WORSE.

First, SAY and DEFINE what 'the system' is, EXACTLY.

Secondly, list ALL of the "parts" WITHIN 'the system'.

THEN, we can START to BEGIN to IMAGINE what 'it' IS EXACTLY that 'you' are THINKING here.

How I could give you an example of strong emergence when I think it does not exist.

It would be like 'TRYING TO' argue FOR or AGAINST 'God', when absolutely NO one even provides AN EXAMPLE of what, EXACTLY, a POSSIBLE 'God', Itself, COULD BE, correct?

Not exactly. People can imagine God as the creator. But you are close to what I mean.

AND, I can IMAGINE the function of the parts of a car are NOT the function of the car itself, which is what you SAY IS 'strong emergence', correct?

If no, then CORRECT it.