There is no emergence

[Age]

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.

I have ALREADY EXPLAINED WHY what you wrote in YOUR opening post, which 'you' CLAIM is 'your argument', IS UNSOUND and INVALID.

If you STILL have NOT YET RECOGNIZED this Fact, then I will SAY what you TELL me to do, "Go back and LOOK AT 'it' AGAIN, and, if you do NOT UNDERSTAND what I am SAYING, SHOWING, and PROVING, then that is YOUR FAULT".

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.

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.

Come on, you can NOT REALLY BE this STUPID. Or, can 'you'?

ONCE AGAIN, A 'definition' of some 'thing', even if it is YOUR 'definition' can NOT, logically, contain the words, "There is NO explanation for it".

You can read more about emergence in here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

Okay, I read it AGAIN.

And, now that I have read it AGAIN, this FURTHER PROVES what I have been SAYING and CLAIMING, as well as FURTHER REFUTES what you have been SAYING and CLAIMING here.

So, THANK YOU for that link.

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 didn't say to imagine it.

MISSED the POINT, AGAIN.

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.

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?

I CLEARLY SAID if that is NOT 'correct', then CORRECT 'it'.

Are you REALLY as DEAF as you are CLEARLY BLIND?

If that is NOT what you are SAYING, then do you REALLY BELIEVE just REPEATING the 'same' WILL CORRECT 'it'?

What is the REASON you are STALLING and DEFLECTING here? Could it be because I have just SHOWN and PROVED that what 'you' have been SAYING and CLAIMING is NOT True, NOT Right, and NOT Correct?

Just CORRECT what you BELIEVE was INCORRECT in what I SAID.

[Age]

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?

Who is 'they'?

But the 'brain', itself, can NOT be 'conscious'. This is because the 'brain' is just made up of visible 'matter', itself, alone.

They cannot answer.

This is EXTREMELY FUNNY considering how MANY TIMES 'you' can NOT answer QUESTIONS when 'you' are CHALLENGED over the 'things' that 'you' CLAIM are true.

And that is the mind that is conscious and there is a difference between mind and God.

Is there? And, what IS that 'difference' EXACTLY?

Can 'you' answer?

[Age]

.

"dimebag" I am just wondering if you claim there are some 'things' that do not follow the laws of nature?

If yes, then what are some of those 'things', to you?

But if no, then okay.

[Age]

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.

Okay, so 'you', "bahman", are absolutely 100% SURE that the one known as "dimebag" here CLAIMS that there are some 'things', which do NOT 'follow' the 'laws of nature', itself.

Let us NOT FORGET you appear to be completely and utterly Wrong in regards to what the one known as "seeds" here has said and written.

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.

'you' are BEYOND A JOKE 'bahman".

But everything is conscious if you claim otherwise.

'you' are a COMPLETE IMBECILE "bahman".

In fact I do NOT recall you EVER just ONCE being ABLE to 'follow' what is ACTUALLY BEING SAID and WRITTEN. But this is probably because EVERY time I REFUTE and PROVE False, Wrong, or Incorrect in what 'you' SAY and CLAIM all you have LEFT is to 'TRY TO' DECEIVE or DEFLECT.

You are ALSO DECEIVING and DEFLECTING SO MUCH you can NOT even SEE NOR RECOGNIZE when 'you' are CONTRADICTING "your" 'self'.

Are 'you' even aware 'you' are SELF-REFUTING "your" OWN 'self' when 'you' just reply to MY WORDS?

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.

[Age]

Can a car move without wheels?

Is a car SUPPOSED to move?

Sure, otherwise it is not a car.

So, if the object known as a 'car', to MILLIONS of people, is NOT moving, then what is 'it', EXACTLY to 'you' if 'it' is NOT 'a car'?

'you', "bahman", REALLY DO say the MOST STUPID, IDIOTIC, and NONSENSICAL 'things' when 'you' get CAUGHT UP in 'your' OWN 'mess'.

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.

Therefore, 'strong emergence' EXISTS. Which MEANS; There IS 'emergence' AND 'strong emergence' AT THAT.

[Age]

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.

Do you REALLY NOT YET UNDERSTAND the DIFFERENCE between a WORKABLE and WORKING 'definition' from just some words put together, which do NOT work, or in other words are just an ILLOGICAL and NONSENSICAL ATTEMPT at a 'definition'?

If you STILL can NOT YET SEE the DIFFERENCE, what you SAY and WRITE here is NOT a logical and sensible 'definition' AT ALL. 'your definition' is UNWORKABLE and can NOT WORK.

Understood?

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).

But a 'car' can be 'functioning' and NOT necessarily 'moving'.

What the 'function' is of some 'thing' is ALL depended upon who and/or what the 'observer' is EXACTLY.

Do NOT forget absolutely EVERY 'thing' is RELATIVE to the 'observer'.

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.

'Cars' do NOT 'behave'. ONLY 'you' adult human beings 'behave', or 'misbehave'.

Also, you ARE the ONE CLAIMING that the 'definition' of the term 'strong emergence' INCLUDES the 'function' word, BUT as soon as that 'definition' is PROVED USELESS and/or ACTUALLY COUNTERS 'your' CLAIM/S here, you INSTANTLY CHANGE that word to 'behavior'.

Which, by the way, ONLY makes what you SAY and CLAIM here MORE ABSURD, STUPID, RIDICULOUS, NONSENSICAL, AND IDIOTIC.

Which is where your words tend to end up in discussions with Me.

[Age]

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.

Just how IMBECILIC can you REALLY BE "bahman"?

I NEVER said "space and time" are properties of the Universe. AS can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVED IRREFUTABLY True above.

If you would like to have a DISCUSSION with "another", then I suggest 'you' LISTEN TO and HEAR what the "other" is ACTUALLY SAYING.

If you do this FIRST, then you can MOVE ONTO LISTENING TO and HEARING what they are ACTUALLY MEANING as well.

BUT, you FIRST have to be ABLE TO SEE and/or HEAR the ACTUAL WORDS being USED, BEFORE 'you' could MOVE ALONG SUCCESSFULLY.

[Age]

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.

What is 'truth' determined by, EXACTLY, to 'you' "rcsaunders"?

And, WHY, to 'you', just because a so-called "philosopher" says some 'thing', then that AUTOMATICALLY makes what they say almost certainly NOT true?

[Dimebag]

.

"dimebag" I am just wondering if you claim there are some 'things' that do not follow the laws of nature?

If yes, then what are some of those 'things', to you?

But if no, then okay.

Everything is nature, including humans, and consciousness. Humans like to describe the ways that nature behaves, and we call those laws. Nature is primary, those laws are descriptions of the behaviours humans observe.

Humans like to think they can describe nature without including themselves in that picture. By doing so, they have been able to explain or are in the process of explaining everything but their own nature, that is, that of consciousness. But now, when we try to build an explanation of consciousness, from those laws, we are at a loss.

There are some possible reasons why. One reason could be that, what humans are describing is not nature itself, but some pragmatic equivalent, that is, a map. Now, when they get to the heart of the engine of that creation, it cannot be applied to the “territory”, as to build that map, they had to strip out the very thing they are now trying to explain.

So, are those laws of nature truly explaining nature? I don’t know. They are useful descriptions, but they miss the very essence via which those maps were made.

[Age]

.

"dimebag" I am just wondering if you claim there are some 'things' that do not follow the laws of nature?

If yes, then what are some of those 'things', to you?

But if no, then okay.

Everything is nature, including humans, and consciousness.

Okay. So far you seem to be saying and claiming the EXACT OPPOSITE of what "bahman" accused you of saying and claiming.

And, this would have been enough.

Humans like to describe the ways that nature behaves, and we call those laws. Nature is primary, those laws are descriptions of the behaviours humans observe.

Humans like to think they can describe nature without including themselves in that picture. By doing so, they have been able to explain or are in the process of explaining everything but their own nature, that is, that of consciousness. But now, when we try to build an explanation of consciousness, from those laws, we are at a loss.

I found that the actual explanation for 'consciousness', itself, came from looking at the ACTUAL way 'Nature', and 'Life', Itself, works. But this is another matter. I was just curious how correct or incorrect "bahman" was.

There are some possible reasons why. One reason could be that, what humans are describing is not nature itself, but some pragmatic equivalent, that is, a map. Now, when they get to the heart of the engine of that creation, it cannot be applied to the “territory”, as to build that map, they had to strip out the very thing they are now trying to explain.

I just found human beings had NOT YET REALLY explored and studied the ACTUAL 'thing' that they explore and study WITH, and that is; 'thoughts', themselves.

So, are those laws of nature truly explaining nature? I don’t know. They are useful descriptions, but they miss the very essence via which those maps were made.

Which is, AGAIN, just 'thoughts', themselves.

[bahman]

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.

I have ALREADY EXPLAINED WHY what you wrote in YOUR opening post, which 'you' CLAIM is 'your argument', IS UNSOUND and INVALID.

If you STILL have NOT YET RECOGNIZED this Fact, then I will SAY what you TELL me to do, "Go back and LOOK AT 'it' AGAIN, and, if you do NOT UNDERSTAND what I am SAYING, SHOWING, and PROVING, then that is YOUR FAULT".

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.



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.

Come on, you can NOT REALLY BE this STUPID. Or, can 'you'?

ONCE AGAIN, A 'definition' of some 'thing', even if it is YOUR 'definition' can NOT, logically, contain the words, "There is NO explanation for it".

You can read more about emergence in here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

Okay, I read it AGAIN.

And, now that I have read it AGAIN, this FURTHER PROVES what I have been SAYING and CLAIMING, as well as FURTHER REFUTES what you have been SAYING and CLAIMING here.

So, THANK YOU for that link.

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.



MISSED the POINT, AGAIN.


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

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



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.


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?

I CLEARLY SAID if that is NOT 'correct', then CORRECT 'it'.

Are you REALLY as DEAF as you are CLEARLY BLIND?

If that is NOT what you are SAYING, then do you REALLY BELIEVE just REPEATING the 'same' WILL CORRECT 'it'?

What is the REASON you are STALLING and DEFLECTING here? Could it be because I have just SHOWN and PROVED that what 'you' have been SAYING and CLAIMING is NOT True, NOT Right, and NOT Correct?

Just CORRECT what you BELIEVE was INCORRECT in what I SAID.

What is wrong with OP?

[bahman]

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?

Who is 'they'?

But the 'brain', itself, can NOT be 'conscious'. This is because the 'brain' is just made up of visible 'matter', itself, alone.

All materialist.

They cannot answer.

This is EXTREMELY FUNNY considering how MANY TIMES 'you' can NOT answer QUESTIONS when 'you' are CHALLENGED over the 'things' that 'you' CLAIM are true.

And that is the mind that is conscious and there is a difference between mind and God.

Is there? And, what IS that 'difference' EXACTLY?

Can 'you' answer?

The difference is obvious: Mind experience what material produce. Without mind, experience just happens.

[bahman]

Is a car SUPPOSED to move?

Sure, otherwise it is not a car.

So, if the object known as a 'car', to MILLIONS of people, is NOT moving, then what is 'it', EXACTLY to 'you' if 'it' is NOT 'a car'?

'you', "bahman", REALLY DO say the MOST STUPID, IDIOTIC, and NONSENSICAL 'things' when 'you' get CAUGHT UP in 'your' OWN 'mess'.

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.

Therefore, 'strong emergence' EXISTS. Which MEANS; There IS 'emergence' AND 'strong emergence' AT THAT.

Such a waste of time.

[Age]

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

I have ALREADY EXPLAINED WHY what you wrote in YOUR opening post, which 'you' CLAIM is 'your argument', IS UNSOUND and INVALID.

If you STILL have NOT YET RECOGNIZED this Fact, then I will SAY what you TELL me to do, "Go back and LOOK AT 'it' AGAIN, and, if you do NOT UNDERSTAND what I am SAYING, SHOWING, and PROVING, then that is YOUR FAULT".

That is my definition.

Come on, you can NOT REALLY BE this STUPID. Or, can 'you'?

ONCE AGAIN, A 'definition' of some 'thing', even if it is YOUR 'definition' can NOT, logically, contain the words, "There is NO explanation for it".

You can read more about emergence in here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

Okay, I read it AGAIN.

And, now that I have read it AGAIN, this FURTHER PROVES what I have been SAYING and CLAIMING, as well as FURTHER REFUTES what you have been SAYING and CLAIMING here.

So, THANK YOU for that link.

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

I CLEARLY SAID if that is NOT 'correct', then CORRECT 'it'.

Are you REALLY as DEAF as you are CLEARLY BLIND?

If that is NOT what you are SAYING, then do you REALLY BELIEVE just REPEATING the 'same' WILL CORRECT 'it'?

What is the REASON you are STALLING and DEFLECTING here? Could it be because I have just SHOWN and PROVED that what 'you' have been SAYING and CLAIMING is NOT True, NOT Right, and NOT Correct?

Just CORRECT what you BELIEVE was INCORRECT in what I SAID.

What is wrong with OP?

Absolutely EVERY 'thing' that I have POINTED OUT and SHOWN and PROVED so far.

If you have NOT YET been able to work this out or just do NOT want to accept this Fact, then I will NOT help you.

For only you can STOP doing 'that' what is BLOCKING and PREVENTING you from being ABLE to SEE and UNDERSTAND here.

[Age]

They say that the brain is conscious in spite of the fact that its parts are not conscious. How?

Who is 'they'?

But the 'brain', itself, can NOT be 'conscious'. This is because the 'brain' is just made up of visible 'matter', itself, alone.

All materialist.

1.There is NO actual 'thing' as a "materialist".

2. The 'things' that you label and call "materialists" do NOT ALL BELIEVE the EXACT SAME 'things'.

They cannot answer.

This is EXTREMELY FUNNY considering how MANY TIMES 'you' can NOT answer QUESTIONS when 'you' are CHALLENGED over the 'things' that 'you' CLAIM are true.

And that is the mind that is conscious and there is a difference between mind and God.

Is there? And, what IS that 'difference' EXACTLY?

Can 'you' answer?

The difference is obvious: Mind experience what material produce.

You say this as though there is only one Mind, which is a Truly laughable thing for you to say or even suggest.

Without mind, experience just happens.

Okay.. BUT, you SAID and CLAMED; "There is a difference between 'mind' and 'God'.So, what is the 'difference' between 'mind' and 'God', EXACTLY?

by the way, this is an extremely long and slow drawn out process when I HAVE TO, literally, SPELL 'things'out for you here.