There is no emergence

[bahman]

clearly not.

What do you disagree with what I said?

Mostly

With what?

[bahman]

This is because of what 'you' ALREADY ASSUME and/or BELIEVE is true.

Just like a valid argument for God EXISTING could NEVER be provided to one who ASSUMES and/or BELIEVES God does NOT EXIST, and vice-versa, a valid argument for God NOT EXISTING could NEVER be provided to one who ASSUMES and/or BELIEVES God does EXIST, a 'strong argument' in favor of strong emergence could NEVER be provided, well to 'you' anyway.

You have come here and started this thread WITH: "There is NO emergence", which you BELIEVE wholeheartedly is true, CORRECT?

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.

And, if yes, then, to you, there is NO sound NOR valid argument OTHERWISE, again correct?

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 in relation to WHAT, EXACTLY?

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"?

They believe that that is the brain that is conscious. Like or not.

[bahman]

The word 'govern' sometimes refers to; having authority over some 'thing'; some 'thing' is caused or created because of some 'thing' else earlier or prior.

Now, to most people, it appears ALL 'biological systems' came about a 'considerable time' AFTER what was EXISTING PRIOR. So, to make a statement like: ANY 'biological system' 'governs' 'the physical laws' , on, first glance, appears TOTALLY ABSURD and EXTREMELY CONTRADICTORY. But, maybe you COULD CLEAR UP the apparent CONFUSION here. So, what is 'it', EXACTLY, that you are SAYING or SUGGESTING here?

See, to a LOT of people, 'biological systems' came about on earth, (or at other places?), WELL AFTER 'physical laws' were, literally, ALREADY in PLACE.

I mean that any physical system including the biological one follows the laws of nature.

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.

AND, the POINT IS?

The point is the behavior of the biological system is according to what physical laws dictate.

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.

Are 'you', the one known as "bahman" here, 'conscious', 'unconscious', or maybe just 'subconscious', or are 'you' some 'thing' else?

I am conscious. There are conscious minds too, but not unconscious mind.

So, so 'we' AGREE that 'I' am conscious. Therefore, what you said above here is just MOOT.

If 'I' am conscious, then there does EXIST a 'conscious field', no matter how one rewires "their" so-call "system of interest".

What you are talking about?

Also, if I have a working human brain, 'my system of interest', and so-call "rewire" 'it', by just making 'it' create new/er or different 'thoughts', then are you saying here that there can NEVER be a so-called "conscious field", in my system of interest?

We are talking about consciousness which is a general term for whatever can be experienced including thought.

And, it is those "general terms" WHY 'you', adult human beings, STILL had SO MUCH MORE to learn AND understand, back in the days when this was being written.

1. If, as you CLAIM, 'thoughts' can be 'experienced', then WHO and/or WHAT is 'it', which CAN 'experience' 'thoughts', themselves?

2. if the word 'consciousness' is a so-called "general term" for WHATEVER can be 'experienced', then this is WHY 'you', human beings, are STILL so LOST and CONFUSED, back in the days when this was being written.

3. If the word 'consciousness' is just a "general term" for WHATEVER can be 'experienced', and the Fact is absolutely EVERY 'thing' can be 'experienced', then the word 'consciousness' just means or refers to, EVERY 'thing', which is just ABSURD.

4. When the word 'consciousness' is CHANGED to just mean or refer to 'awareness', itself, like as in, ' I am conscious of some 'thing' ', then this just means or refers to ' I am just aware of some 'thing' ', then, in that 'general term', ALL can FIT TOGETHER PERFECTLY, so that ALL-OF-THIS can and WILL make PERFECT SENSE. Until then, a LOT of your ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS WILL just remain False, Wrong, AND Incorrect.

The question is how consciousness, including thought, is possible in the brain when its parts are unconscious.

The answer is; VERY EASILY and VERY SIMPLY.

1. The word 'consciousness' is NOT and could NOT be what 'you' IMAGINE or think 'it' means and refers to.

2. 'Consciousness' is NOT, IN THE BRAIN'.

3. And, how MANY TIMES do you have to be TOLD and INFORMED of this Fact BEFORE you will STOP USING 'it' in "your" OWN 'thinking' and CLAIMS here?

4. 'you' make up False CLAIMS, write then down, and USE 'them' as though they are somehow true.

Again, that is not what I believe. I am challenging those who believe that the brain is conscious.

[bahman]

You were JUST TOLD, and thus INFORMED; 'It is NOT the brain that becomes conscious", YET in your very NEXT SENTENCE you STATE: "... then it means that there is an explanation for how THE BRAIN IS CONSCIOUS.

LOOK, there is AN EXPLANATION for HOW EVERY 'thing' WORKS, and thus IS 'created' AND 'evolves'. One just HAS TO RID "themselves" of ANY PRE-CONCEIVED IDEAS if they just want to LEARN and UNDERSTAND ALL of these EXPLANATIONS. Which, by the way, ALL come down to just ONE EXPLANATION.



How about you DEFINE what the words 'strong emergence' MEAN or REFER TO, to 'you', personally. THEN, and ONLY THEN, provide what 'you' call is "your argument" that; "THERE IS NO EMERGENCE", which, as can be CLEARLY SEEN here, CONTRADICTS what you just wrote here in your last sentence. However, if you DID THAT, then we can LOOK AT and SEE if "your argument" is valid AND sound. And, as I continually TELL you; If an argument is NOT a valid AND sound argument, then REALLY it is NOT worth sharing in the first place, let alone ever repeating.

(I replied to the top half of this post, but it was lost and I could not be bothered repeating it.)

The strong emergence is the opposite of weak emergence. The properties of the whole are not functions of the properties of parts. There is no explanation for it. etc.

But there IS an 'explanation' for 'this'.

'you' may have just NOT heard of 'it' YET.

Are you YET AWARE the 'properties' of the car are NOT the 'functions of the properties of the parts' of the car?

If no, then you are NOW.

Also, I have ALREADY SHOWN how you use some words in some circumstances but NOT in other circumstances. Which, is a SUBCONSCIOUS or UNCONSCIOUS way of 'TRYING TO' substantiate one's CLAIMS and so-called "arguments".

If you have NOT YET worked out what I am referring to EXACTLY here, then I suggest reading AGAIN my responses to you, OR just asking CLARIFYING QUESTIONS.

But, then you are ONLY 'on a mission' to PROVE your BELIEFS and CLAIMS here are true and right, correct?

If yes, then this MEANS that you are NOT hear to LISTEN to what "others" have to say AT ALL.

The properties of a car are functions of the properties of its parts. That is why people can design and repair a car.

[Sculptor]

What do you disagree with what I said?

Mostly

With what?

Most of what you say, I disagree with.

[bahman]

Mostly

With what?

Most of what you say, I disagree with.

If you don't me then I cannot know. Do you want to discuss or do you want to let it go?

[Sculptor]

With what?

Most of what you say, I disagree with.

If you don't me then I cannot know. Do you want to discuss or do you want to let it go?

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.

[bahman]

Most of what you say, I disagree with.

If you don't me then I cannot know. Do you want to discuss or do you want to let it go?

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.

[Sculptor]

If you don't me then I cannot know. Do you want to discuss or do you want to let it go?

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.
Please define what strong emergence is. What would be an example of it.
Why would you think that the impact of a book such as the bible or Origin of Species is not strong emergence?

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

[attofishpi]

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

They believe that that is the brain that is conscious.

WHO are 'they'?

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

If yes, then WHO are 'you'?

And, would it be BETTER to DIRECT 'you' comment of: "you need to explain how", to 'them', instead?

Like or not.

I do NOT KNOW what this is in relation to, EXACTLY?

And, if this is IMPORTANT to this discussion, then you WILL inform 'me' of what this is in relation to, EXACTLY, correct?

[Age]

I mean that any physical system including the biological one follows the laws of nature.

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?

The point is the behavior of the biological system is according to what physical laws dictate.

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'?

I am conscious. There are conscious minds too, but not unconscious mind.

So, so 'we' AGREE that 'I' am conscious. Therefore, what you said above here is just MOOT.

If 'I' am conscious, then there does EXIST a 'conscious field', no matter how one rewires "their" so-call "system of interest".

What you are talking about?

If you would like to HAVE a discussion with someone in a particular language, then it helps to use 'that' language CORRECTLY.

What you MEAN to say here IS; What are you talking about?

Now, what I am TALKING ABOUT is what you WERE TALKING ABOUT.

You made the CLAIM that; "If there is a current in a system, then there is NOTHING such as a conscious field". And that; "These are the laws of physics", and that. "This means that there can NOT be a conscious field, no matter how ANY system is rewired".

I was just POINTING OUT and SHOWING that in the 'system' known as 'the human body', how 'the brain' is so-called 'wired', there is an 'I', which IS 'conscious'.

'you' were asked to CLARIFY 'this', which, as can be CLEARLY SEEN here, WAS CLARIFIED as being PROVED True, by the one known here as "bahman".

So, what 'I' am TALKING ABOUT is that by 'your' OWN ADMISSION there is a so-called 'conscious field' WITHIN the 'system' known as the 'human body' or the 'human brain'. And, this occurs because of the way 'this system' is so-called 'wired'. Which, by the way, SHOWS EXACTLY how 'you' have just CONTRADICTED "your" OWN 'self' here.

Now, can 'you' SEE what 'I' am ACTUALLY TALKING ABOUT?

We are talking about consciousness which is a general term for whatever can be experienced including thought.

And, it is those "general terms" WHY 'you', adult human beings, STILL had SO MUCH MORE to learn AND understand, back in the days when this was being written.

1. If, as you CLAIM, 'thoughts' can be 'experienced', then WHO and/or WHAT is 'it', which CAN 'experience' 'thoughts', themselves?

2. if the word 'consciousness' is a so-called "general term" for WHATEVER can be 'experienced', then this is WHY 'you', human beings, are STILL so LOST and CONFUSED, back in the days when this was being written.

3. If the word 'consciousness' is just a "general term" for WHATEVER can be 'experienced', and the Fact is absolutely EVERY 'thing' can be 'experienced', then the word 'consciousness' just means or refers to, EVERY 'thing', which is just ABSURD.

4. When the word 'consciousness' is CHANGED to just mean or refer to 'awareness', itself, like as in, ' I am conscious of some 'thing' ', then this just means or refers to ' I am just aware of some 'thing' ', then, in that 'general term', ALL can FIT TOGETHER PERFECTLY, so that ALL-OF-THIS can and WILL make PERFECT SENSE. Until then, a LOT of your ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS WILL just remain False, Wrong, AND Incorrect.

The question is how consciousness, including thought, is possible in the brain when its parts are unconscious.

The answer is; VERY EASILY and VERY SIMPLY.

1. The word 'consciousness' is NOT and could NOT be what 'you' IMAGINE or think 'it' means and refers to.

2. 'Consciousness' is NOT, IN THE BRAIN'.

3. And, how MANY TIMES do you have to be TOLD and INFORMED of this Fact BEFORE you will STOP USING 'it' in "your" OWN 'thinking' and CLAIMS here?

4. 'you' make up False CLAIMS, write then down, and USE 'them' as though they are somehow true.

Again, that is not what I believe.

I am challenging those who believe that the brain is conscious.

Well I suggest INSTEAD of just writing down what 'you' BELIEVE WHOLEHEARTEDLY is true, and using 'it' as a LURE in the hope of HOOKING 'someone' to 'argue' or 'fight' AGAINST, in an PRECONCEIVED BELIEF that 'you' WILL BEAT 'them' or WIN, how about 'you' just ask, for example; "Is there ANY one here who BELIEVES that that the brain, itself, is conscious? If yes, then would you like to have a discussion?"

That way so many completely UNNECESSARY words will be USED.

Also, if you were Truly OPEN and Honest from the outset and INFORMED EVERY one that you BELIEVE WHOLEHEARTEDLY that, "There is NO emergence AT ALL and FOREVER", no matter what ANY SAYS or SHOWS, then far less words could also be USED.

[seeds]

This is because of what 'you' ALREADY ASSUME and/or BELIEVE is true.

Just like a valid argument for God EXISTING could NEVER be provided to one who ASSUMES and/or BELIEVES God does NOT EXIST, and vice-versa, a valid argument for God NOT EXISTING could NEVER be provided to one who ASSUMES and/or BELIEVES God does EXIST, a 'strong argument' in favor of strong emergence could NEVER be provided, well to 'you' anyway.

You have come here and started this thread WITH: "There is NO emergence", which you BELIEVE wholeheartedly is true, CORRECT?

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.

And, if yes, then, to you, there is NO sound NOR valid argument OTHERWISE, again correct?

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 in relation to WHAT, EXACTLY?

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.
_______

[Age]

The strong emergence is the opposite of weak emergence. The properties of the whole are not functions of the properties of parts. There is no explanation for it. etc.

But there IS an 'explanation' for 'this'.

'you' may have just NOT heard of 'it' YET.

Are you YET AWARE the 'properties' of the car are NOT the 'functions of the properties of the parts' of the car?

If no, then you are NOW.

Also, I have ALREADY SHOWN how you use some words in some circumstances but NOT in other circumstances. Which, is a SUBCONSCIOUS or UNCONSCIOUS way of 'TRYING TO' substantiate one's CLAIMS and so-called "arguments".

If you have NOT YET worked out what I am referring to EXACTLY here, then I suggest reading AGAIN my responses to you, OR just asking CLARIFYING QUESTIONS.

But, then you are ONLY 'on a mission' to PROVE your BELIEFS and CLAIMS here are true and right, correct?

If yes, then this MEANS that you are NOT hear to LISTEN to what "others" have to say AT ALL.

The properties of a car are functions of the properties of its parts. That is why people can design and repair a car.

In A 'sense', OF COURSE, 'the PROPERTIES of a car, are functions of the properties of the car.

But, if you did NOT use words in such a CLUMSY way, and used them in a much more ACCURATE or CORRECT way, then 'things' would LOOK VERY DIFFERENT here.

The 'properties' of the WHOLE will ALWAYS be the 'properties' of 'its' [the WHOLE's] parts. So, EVERY 'thing' IS 'this way'.

BUT, the 'functions' of EVERY 'property' or 'part' of the WHOLE are DIFFERENT. So, this means the 'function' of the WHOLE is DIFFERENT from the 'function' of the 'parts' of the WHOLE, which ULTIMATELY MEANS 'strong emergence'. That is; 'strong emergence', from the perspective, which you are CLAIMING here.

[Age]

If you don't me then I cannot know. Do you want to discuss or do you want to let it go?

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?