There is no emergence

[Age]

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.

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'?

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"?

"seeds" didn't write any of the above, so please stop attributing to me the things that bahman has said.

You repeated this error in a subsequent post.
_______

Okay, and APOLOGIES, again.

[bahman]

Your first sentence does not parse.
Your second sentence does not specify what "it" is exactly.
"There is no emergence" is wrong. You have admitted that much.
I have given you examples of emergence which you seem to have agreed, but seem to think they are not examples of "large" emergence, but you have failed to define what is the difference between large and small.
SO, right now your whole thread seems to be in a mess.

But I clarified that. By there is no emergence I mean there is no strong emergence. There is weak emergence and I admit that given the definition of emergence, there is an explanation for it, the property of the whole is a function of the properties of parts, etc. All you did were giving the example of weak emergence.

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.

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, the property of the whole is not a function of the properties of parts, you cannot design a system that exhibits strong emergence. I don't think that there is an example of strong emergence.

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.

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.

[bahman]

Is this thread about constipation? ..is that just a prime example of weak emergence?

Yes, that is just an example of weak emergence.

[bahman]

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.


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'?


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"?

They believe that that is the brain that is conscious.

WHO are 'they'?

Almost all people who are discussing with me excluding you.

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

Yes.

[bahman]

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

Absolutely NO one is saying otherwise.

So, WHY say what you have here?

Cool, so you at least agree. Dimebag for example disagrees.

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.

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'?
[/quote]
Non. And many people.

[bahman]

Your first sentence does not parse.
Your second sentence does not specify what "it" is exactly.
"There is no emergence" is wrong. You have admitted that much.
I have given you examples of emergence which you seem to have agreed, but seem to think they are not examples of "large" emergence, but you have failed to define what is the difference between large and small.
SO, right now your whole thread seems to be in a mess.

But I clarified that. By there is no emergence I mean there is no strong emergence. There is weak emergence and I admit that given the definition of emergence, there is an explanation for it, the property of the whole is a function of the properties of parts, etc. All you did were giving the example of weak emergence.

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.

[Sculptor]

But I clarified that. By there is no emergence I mean there is no strong emergence. There is weak emergence and I admit that given the definition of emergence, there is an explanation for it, the property of the whole is a function of the properties of parts, etc. All you did were giving the example of weak emergence.

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.

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, the property of the whole is not a function of the properties of parts, you cannot design a system that exhibits strong emergence. I don't think that there is an example of strong emergence.

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.

You are still wrong.

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.

This is just a joke.
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.

[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.

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, the property of the whole is not a function of the properties of parts, you cannot design a system that exhibits strong emergence. I don't think that there is an example of strong emergence.

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.

You are still wrong.

Let me guess, the behavior of people is a function of the culture, nature, etc. too.

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.

This is just a joke.
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.

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

[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,

[bahman]

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? 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.

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.

[Age]

But I clarified that. By there is no emergence I mean there is no strong emergence. There is weak emergence and I admit that given the definition of emergence, there is an explanation for it, the property of the whole is a function of the properties of parts, etc. All you did were giving the example of weak emergence.

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.

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.

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'.

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?

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?

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?

[Age]

They believe that that is the brain that is conscious.

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?

[Age]

Cool, so you at least agree. Dimebag for example disagrees.

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.

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'.

[Age]

But I clarified that. By there is no emergence I mean there is no strong emergence. There is weak emergence and I admit that given the definition of emergence, there is an explanation for it, the property of the whole is a function of the properties of parts, etc. All you did were giving the example of weak emergence.

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'?

[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.


I already did that. Strong emergence is a phenomenon that there is no explanation for it, the property of the whole is not a function of the properties of parts, you cannot design a system that exhibits strong emergence. I don't think that there is an example of strong emergence.


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

You are still wrong.

Let me guess, the behavior of people is a function of the culture, nature, etc. too.

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

This is just a joke.
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.

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

If you do NOT PROVIDE 'examples', then YOU are "arguing" AGAINST, literally, NOTHING, AT ALL.

It would be like you arguing against 'Got ya', and when just asked, "What is 'Got ya'?", and you say, "There are absolutely NO examples AT ALL of what 'Got ya' could EVEN BE.

Like you have just be TOLD, 'What a waste of bloody time'.