Strong emergence is impossible

[bahman]

^^^ That is a bucket of six pieces of chicken that, considered together, compose a KFC FSK that pretty much defeats any immaterialism tryna find its way into neuroscience with all this Chalmersian cartesianism talk of panpsychic AI ghost zombies. Or maybe that's another guy. Searle's chicken is good too regarding this emergent property stuff.

Chalmers is right but he has no proof for his belief! Searle is definitely wrong.

[promethean75]

Omg as if

[bahman]

Omg as if

Please read OP and let me know.

[mickthinks]

No, they cannot offer better and they are wrong.

Your terseness is making it hard to follow your thinking, dude!

Materialism is wrong about what exactly? Are you saying it’s wrong about consciousness being a property? That would seem to be to say that consiousness isn’t a property, in which case we agree on that point after all.

[bahman]

No, they cannot offer better and they are wrong.

Your terseness is making it hard to follow your thinking, dude!

Materialism is wrong about what exactly? Are you saying it’s wrong about consciousness being a property? That would seem to be to say that consiousness isn’t a property, in which case we agree on that point after all.

Yes, I am saying that consciousness cannot be an emergent property.

[Flannel Jesus]

No, they cannot offer better and they are wrong.

Your terseness is making it hard to follow your thinking, dude!

Materialism is wrong about what exactly? Are you saying it’s wrong about consciousness being a property? That would seem to be to say that consiousness isn’t a property, in which case we agree on that point after all.

Yes, I am saying that consciousness cannot be an emergent property.

So it must be fundamental?

[bahman]

Your terseness is making it hard to follow your thinking, dude!

Materialism is wrong about what exactly? Are you saying it’s wrong about consciousness being a property? That would seem to be to say that consiousness isn’t a property, in which case we agree on that point after all.

Yes, I am saying that consciousness cannot be an emergent property.

So it must be fundamental?

Consciousness to me is the ability of the mind, ability to experience. Mind is fundamental.

[Flannel Jesus]

Yes, I am saying that consciousness cannot be an emergent property.

So it must be fundamental?

Consciousness to me is the ability of the mind, ability to experience. Mind is fundamental.

Does it seem weird to you that something that's supposedly fundamental can change so much?

[bahman]

So it must be fundamental?

Consciousness to me is the ability of the mind, ability to experience. Mind is fundamental.

Does it seem weird to you that something that's supposedly fundamental can change so much?

Mind is a changeless substance. Mental content however changes.

[Flannel Jesus]

Consciousness to me is the ability of the mind, ability to experience. Mind is fundamental.

Does it seem weird to you that something that's supposedly fundamental can change so much?

Mind is a changeless substance. Mental content however changes.

Good answer, I'm proud of you

[mickthinks]

Yes, I am saying that consciousness cannot be an emergent property.

Gosh, you are making this hard work, bman! That looks like agreement with my contention but it isn’t really because of the word “emergent”.

I think you are taking your conclusion “consciousness isn’t emergent” as a premise and deriving “consciousness cannot be an emergent property” as a logical consequence.

Whereas I want to assert “consciousness isn’t a property” in direct challenge to one of the premises of the argument you put forward for your conclusion.

So we are not in agreement. You want to say consciousness isn’t emergent and I want to say your argument is faulty because it seems to depend on consciousness being a kind of property and I believe that is an invalidating oversimplication.

[bahman]

Yes, I am saying that consciousness cannot be an emergent property.

Gosh, you are making this hard work, bman! That looks like agreement with my contention but it isn’t really because of the word “emergent”.

I think you are taking your conclusion “consciousness isn’t emergent” as a premise and deriving “consciousness cannot be an emergent property” as a logical consequence.

No. You need to read my argument again. My argument is a reductio ad absurdum argument.

[Age]

It is within materialism.

Who and/or what claims that 'materialism' is, literally, all there is?

I didn't say so. A big chunk of philosophers and scientists are materialist though.

So, what is not within 'materialism', to you?

And, what so-called chunk of "philosophers" and "scientists" are not materialist?

Could there be other things, which 'consciousness', itself, is 'within'?

Consciousness is not a thing in itself, mind or self is.

So, what does 'mind', or 'self', taste, smell, feel, sound, or look like, exactly?

Please do not change my words.

How, exactly, is "mickthinks", supposedly, changing your words here?

you, exact, words are; 'There must, however, be ...'.

Read more from his post to see...

And, what I can see is that what "mickthinks" wrote and questioned you about what is in relation to the 'exact words' that you actually said and wrote here.

So, 'your words' were, literally, not changed at all.

If you read from "mickthinks" post, then you would see this.

[Age]

Consciousness to me is the ability of the mind, ability to experience. Mind is fundamental.

Does it seem weird to you that something that's supposedly fundamental can change so much?

Mind is a changeless substance. Mental content however changes.

Again, "bahman" you are on the Right path, you just say some things which end up totally contradicting what you have previously stated is true.

Now, if 'Mind' is, supposedly, a changeless 'substance', then just what is 'the substance', exactly?

[Age]

Yes, I am saying that consciousness cannot be an emergent property.

Gosh, you are making this hard work, bman! That looks like agreement with my contention but it isn’t really because of the word “emergent”.

"bahman" does not even, really, agree with what "itself" says, let alone with what others say.

I think you are taking your conclusion “consciousness isn’t emergent” as a premise and deriving “consciousness cannot be an emergent property” as a logical consequence.

And, this is because "bahman" has a pre-existing belief, which it is trying to find the words to use to back up and support 'this belief'. Which was obviously False and Wrong to begin with.

Whereas I want to assert “consciousness isn’t a property” in direct challenge to one of the premises of the argument you put forward for your conclusion.

So we are not in agreement. You want to say consciousness isn’t emergent and I want to say your argument is faulty because it seems to depend on consciousness being a kind of property and I believe that is an invalidating oversimplication.

If I recall correctly, and I hope "bahman" would Correct me if I am wrong here, "bahman" believes that all physical things, the physical Universe, Itself, came into being, or emerged, because the 'Mind' existed prior. But, "bahman" also, and contradictory, believes the 'Mind' is a 'substance', or physical thing, anyway, as well.