There is no emergence

[Age]

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.

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.

So, for example, when "seeds", SAYS and WRITES; And, lastly, it's not the brain that becomes conscious. you take this as "seeds" SAYING, "The brain IS conscious", correct?

And, which is WHY 'you' SAID to "seeds", "Explain how there could be a conscious brain when its parts are unconscious." Which is what got us onto this.

Now, I do NOT recall "dimebag" nor "sculptor" expressly SAYING; "The brain is conscious", either. But I could not be bothered reading through everything that they have said and written here. So, if this is what they are SAYING to you, then so be it.

By the way, "bahman", it is NOT 'the brain', which is conscious. BUT, it is because of 'the brain', and 'matter', that 'consciousness', exists.

Which is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you are 'trying to' "fight" and "argue" for here. That is; "mind" existed BEFORE 'matter' existed. Which is the EXACT SAME as just saying, God existed BEFORE 'matter' existed. Which, as can be CLEARLY SEEN, are BOTH as ABSURD and RIDICULOUS as the other IS.

[Age]

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.

I do NOT care one iota what you are 'TRYING TO' argue for, nor against, here, NOR what ANY one told you to do or not do. I just asked you the following two CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, 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?

So, what this MEANS IS; the Honest answer to these two questions is ONLY what I care about here.

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

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.

WHO KNOWS "there is absolutely NO consciousness AT ALL", in the so-called "laws of nature"?

Oh, and by the way, 'you', "bahman", have REFUTED 'this' "yourself" by your very OWN words.

As I have ALREADY POINTED OUT and PROVED, previously.

Therefore, you cannot get consciousness by rewiring the matter.

But it is FROM 'rewiring matter', as it is sometimes referred to and called, EXACTLY WHERE 'consciousness', itself COMES FROM.

There are people who don't think so.

And, 'you' are one of the ones that do NOT think so, correct?

[Age]

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?

Is a car SUPPOSED to move?

No, so the motion of a car which is its property is a function of moving wheels.

Now, we are FINALLY getting SOMEWHERE. That is; now that you have FINALLY STARTED providing SOME examples.

Is the 'property' of 'a car' REALLY 'motion', itself?

If yes, then considering the Fact that absolutely EVERY 'thing' in the WHOLE Universe is 'in motion', then it could be said and argued, 'The 'property' of EVERY 'thing' is 'motion', correct?

By the way, 'a car' CAN MOVE without wheels, but that is another STORY.

And, what is the 'function' of the 'seats' or 'glove compartment' of 'a car'?

Do they have the same 'function', as 'motion', which 'you' SAY is the 'function' of the WHOLE - 'the car'.

[Age]

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.

This is a TYPICAL response from 'you', (and other posters here), when being QUESTIONED and/or CHALLENGED.

As soon as I mentioned that 'we' are AWAITING a WORKABLE and WORKING 'definition', 'you' VERY QUICKLY 'try to' DEFLECT, instead of just PROVIDING one.

'you', "bahman", have NEVER PROVIDED a WORKABLE and WORKING 'definition' for the words 'strong emergence'. As I have ALREADY SHOWN and PROVED True. And, your INABILITY to PROVIDE one just FURTHER PROVES IRREFUTABLY True that 'you' ACTUALLY do NOT have one AT ALL.

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.

But who CLAIMS that the 'function' of 'the car' is 'to move'?

The 'function' of 'the car' might be to 'house' people, to be used 'as parts', to be 'a monument' or 'statue', to be 'restored', to 'NOT move and be sold later', or for many OTHER 'things'.

Also, the 'function' of 'the car' might be to get from A to B, which is NOT a 'function' of ANY of 'its' parts.

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.

But what is THE 'function' of 'a car'.

[Age]

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.

When 'you' learn to use "english" words in a more correct or more sufficient way, then 'you' might get your point and BELIEF across, but, at the moment, you are NOT.

For example, the 'property' of 'the whole' are just the 'parts' of 'the whole'. For example, the 'property' of the Universe is just 'matter' and 'space', and the 'function' of 'matter' and 'space' is NOT the 'function' of the Universe. So, here is a PRIME EXAMPLE and an EXPLANATION of 'strong emergence'. This WILL also help in EXPLAINING HOW and WHY 'I' HAVE 'emerged' INTO Consciousness.

[Age]

Ok, I cannot convience you!

No. No one can be Convienced

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

If I am NOT mistaken what "sculptor" was saying, to you, was that NO one can be 'convienced', although some CAN BE 'convinced' (of some things).

[Sculptor]

Ok, I cannot convience you!

No. No one can be Convienced

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

Duh.
There is no such word as "convience".

[RCSaunders]

“The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.”

- Aristotle

Aristotle also thought women had fewer teeth then men, because he couldn't be bothered to ask Mrs. Aristotle to open her mouth so he could count her teeth.

Do believe just anything because some philosopher said it?

Do you think it's possible for non-Nazi's to discuss what Nazi's said and did, without being called a Nazi?

If so, then it shouldn’t be too difficult to extend that objectivity to the introduction of topical statements by seminal philosophers without projections of belief in those philosophers, or belief in anything else.

Such projections are unnecessary betwixt rational adults.

You quoted Aristotle as authority. My point is that no philosopher is an authority on anything. No truth is determined by who said it, and if any philosopher said it is almost certainly not true. Most rational adults understand that, but they are very rare.

[bahman]

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

No that is not my argument. My argument is OP. That is just a definition.

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.

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?

That is my definition. You can read more about emergence in here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.

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.

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.

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.

I am not saying that. Do you want me to repeat myself?

[bahman]

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.


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.

So, for example, when "seeds", SAYS and WRITES; And, lastly, it's not the brain that becomes conscious. you take this as "seeds" SAYING, "The brain IS conscious", correct?

And, which is WHY 'you' SAID to "seeds", "Explain how there could be a conscious brain when its parts are unconscious." Which is what got us onto this.

Now, I do NOT recall "dimebag" nor "sculptor" expressly SAYING; "The brain is conscious", either. But I could not be bothered reading through everything that they have said and written here. So, if this is what they are SAYING to you, then so be it.

By the way, "bahman", it is NOT 'the brain', which is conscious. BUT, it is because of 'the brain', and 'matter', that 'consciousness', exists.

Which is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you are 'trying to' "fight" and "argue" for here. That is; "mind" existed BEFORE 'matter' existed. Which is the EXACT SAME as just saying, God existed BEFORE 'matter' existed. Which, as can be CLEARLY SEEN, are BOTH as ABSURD and RIDICULOUS as the other IS.

They say that the brain is conscious in spite of the fact that its parts are not conscious. How? They cannot answer. And that is the mind that is conscious and there is a difference between mind and God.

[bahman]

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.

I do NOT care one iota what you are 'TRYING TO' argue for, nor against, here, NOR what ANY one told you to do or not do. I just asked you the following two CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, 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?

So, what this MEANS IS; the Honest answer to these two questions is ONLY what I care about here.

Yes. It is hard to find his/her post.

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.

WHO KNOWS "there is absolutely NO consciousness AT ALL", in the so-called "laws of nature"?

Oh, and by the way, 'you', "bahman", have REFUTED 'this' "yourself" by your very OWN words.

As I have ALREADY POINTED OUT and PROVED, previously.

That is tested to great precision. But everything is conscious if you claim otherwise.

Therefore, you cannot get consciousness by rewiring the matter.

But it is FROM 'rewiring matter', as it is sometimes referred to and called, EXACTLY WHERE 'consciousness', itself COMES FROM.

There are people who don't think so.

And, 'you' are one of the ones that do NOT think so, correct?

The answer is no within materialism.

[bahman]

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?

Is a car SUPPOSED to move?

Sure, otherwise it is not a car.

No, so the motion of a car which is its property is a function of moving wheels.

Now, we are FINALLY getting SOMEWHERE. That is; now that you have FINALLY STARTED providing SOME examples.

Is the 'property' of 'a car' REALLY 'motion', itself?

If yes, then considering the Fact that absolutely EVERY 'thing' in the WHOLE Universe is 'in motion', then it could be said and argued, 'The 'property' of EVERY 'thing' is 'motion', correct?

By the way, 'a car' CAN MOVE without wheels, but that is another STORY.

And, what is the 'function' of the 'seats' or 'glove compartment' of 'a car'?

Do they have the same 'function', as 'motion', which 'you' SAY is the 'function' of the WHOLE - 'the car'.

No, they have different functioning.

[bahman]

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.

This is a TYPICAL response from 'you', (and other posters here), when being QUESTIONED and/or CHALLENGED.

As soon as I mentioned that 'we' are AWAITING a WORKABLE and WORKING 'definition', 'you' VERY QUICKLY 'try to' DEFLECT, instead of just PROVIDING one.

'you', "bahman", have NEVER PROVIDED a WORKABLE and WORKING 'definition' for the words 'strong emergence'. As I have ALREADY SHOWN and PROVED True. And, your INABILITY to PROVIDE one just FURTHER PROVES IRREFUTABLY True that 'you' ACTUALLY do NOT have one AT ALL.

I have already gave the definition of strong emergence. I am tired of repeating.

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.

But who CLAIMS that the 'function' of 'the car' is 'to move'?

The 'function' of 'the car' might be to 'house' people, to be used 'as parts', to be 'a monument' or 'statue', to be 'restored', to 'NOT move and be sold later', or for many OTHER 'things'.

Also, the 'function' of 'the car' might be to get from A to B, which is NOT a 'function' of ANY of 'its' parts.

First, that is the behavior of a car not functioning. Second, some parts like seat yes, some parts like piston no (it does more).

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

A car is an example of weak emergence.

But what is THE 'function' of 'a car'.

What is the behavior of a car? That is the right question. You know.

[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. 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.

When 'you' learn to use "english" words in a more correct or more sufficient way, then 'you' might get your point and BELIEF across, but, at the moment, you are NOT.

For example, the 'property' of 'the whole' are just the 'parts' of 'the whole'. For example, the 'property' of the Universe is just 'matter' and 'space', and the 'function' of 'matter' and 'space' is NOT the 'function' of the Universe. So, here is a PRIME EXAMPLE and an EXPLANATION of 'strong emergence'. This WILL also help in EXPLAINING HOW and WHY 'I' HAVE 'emerged' INTO Consciousness.

You are wrong. Space and time are not properties of the universe.

[bahman]

No. No one can be Convienced

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

Duh.
There is no such word as "convience".

Yes, I meant convince. Thanks for the correction.