The emergence of expeirnce

[bahman]

Let's assume that the emergence of experience is possible. That means that mater in the raw form doesn't have such property, experience. Mater, however, has specific properties in the raw form. Mater is believed to become conscious when it has a specific form, form of alive being. The raw properties, however, are conserved under different forms of mater. So, the new property, experience, is the result of the formation of mater only and not as a mix of the raw properties. This means that mater out of nowhere gets new property because of formation. This is absurd within materialism.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You should start with "experience" as an empirical fact that is real.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experience

Since experience conditioned upon humans is an empirical fact and real, thus it can be verified with evidence to be real, there is no need to question whether experience emerges from 'matter' or not.

Note the point with 'matter' and 'materialism.'

Despite the large number of philosophical schools and subtle nuances between many, all philosophies are said to fall into one of two primary categories, which are defined in contrast to each other: idealism and materialism.[a]

The basic proposition of these two categories pertains to the nature of reality—the primary distinction between them is the way they answer two fundamental questions: "what does reality consist of?" and "how does it originate?"

To idealists, spirit or mind or the objects of mind (ideas) are primary, and matter secondary.

To materialists, matter is primary, and mind or spirit or ideas are secondary—the product of matter acting upon matter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism

If your 'matter' is related to materialism as opposed to idealism [in my case Kantian] then your claim re 'matter' is questionable.
There is no real thing-in-itself called matter-in-itself.
Therefore your claim upon such 'matter-in-itself' is false.

Instead of speculating the unnecessary 'matter', it is most realistic and practical to work on what we can justified as realistic experience which is based on empirical evidence and reason.

It is from experience that humans established knowledge of reality based on empirical justification. Such knowledge is critical to the survival of the individual and humanity. Thus humanity focus should be on what is experiential based knowledge conditioned upon human being.

Why are you so concerned with 'matter' as a matter-in-itself which is illusory and not real?
The only reason for your concern is merely due to psychology [instinctual] and in most cases leading to a claim of an independent soul that will survive physical death to soothe an inherent existential crisis.

[bahman]

You should start with "experience" as an empirical fact that is real.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experience

Since experience conditioned upon humans is an empirical fact and real, thus it can be verified with evidence to be real, there is no need to question whether experience emerges from 'matter' or not.

This, we have been through it. You need to prove that other entities like, plants, objects, etc. are not conscious. Even, if you can prove this that you cannot you then need to show how the emergence of experience is possible. Something out of no-where is absurd.

Note the point with 'matter' and 'materialism.'

Despite the large number of philosophical schools and subtle nuances between many, all philosophies are said to fall into one of two primary categories, which are defined in contrast to each other: idealism and materialism.[a]

The basic proposition of these two categories pertains to the nature of reality—the primary distinction between them is the way they answer two fundamental questions: "what does reality consist of?" and "how does it originate?"

To idealists, spirit or mind or the objects of mind (ideas) are primary, and matter secondary.

To materialists, matter is primary, and mind or spirit or ideas are secondary—the product of matter acting upon matter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism

I am arguing against materialism. The formation of matter cannot lead experience. To the best of our knowledge matter has a specific set of properties, such as mass, spin, charge, etc. but not experience. Experience cannot come out of no-where unless you believe in magic.

If your 'matter' is related to materialism as opposed to idealism [in my case Kantian] then your claim re 'matter' is questionable.
There is no real thing-in-itself called matter-in-itself.
Therefore your claim upon such 'matter-in-itself' is false.

Well, there are a lots of things undefined here. Like real. To me, the mind is real, opposite to illusion, the stuff that mind experiences and causes. A real thing persists to exist in time whereas an illusion is subject to change (annihilation and creation).

Instead of speculating the unnecessary 'matter', it is most realistic and practical to work on what we can justified as realistic experience which is based on empirical evidence and reason.

It is from experience that humans established knowledge of reality based on empirical justification. Such knowledge is critical to the survival of the individual and humanity. Thus humanity focus should be on what is experiential based knowledge conditioned upon human being.

Why are you so concerned with 'matter' as a matter-in-itself which is illusory and not real?
The only reason for your concern is merely due to psychology [instinctual] and in most cases leading to a claim of an independent soul that will survive physical death to soothe an inherent existential crisis.

I have no fear of death. I was in fact a materialist for a period until I realized how absurd it is.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You should start with "experience" as an empirical fact that is real.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experience

Since experience conditioned upon humans is an empirical fact and real, thus it can be verified with evidence to be real, there is no need to question whether experience emerges from 'matter' or not.

This, we have been through it. You need to prove that other entities like, plants, objects, etc. are not conscious. Even, if you can prove this that you cannot you then need to show how the emergence of experience is possible. Something out of no-where is absurd.

The onus is on you [the positive claimant] to prove non-living objects are conscious.
As for plant you need to define what is meant by 'consciousness' in plant which is definitely different from human consciousness.
You are trying to be rhetorical here by trying to conflate plants with humans on the subject of consciousness.

I don't have to show and speculate on how 'emergence' [your definition] of experience is possible.
All I need to study empirical evident 'experience' [which is so evident] and track it to its roots as far as empirical evidence can take us.

I am arguing against materialism. The formation of matter cannot lead experience. To the best of our knowledge matter has a specific set of properties, such as mass, spin, charge, etc. but not experience. Experience cannot come out of no-where unless you believe in magic.

If you are against philosophical materialism, so you agree the existence of matter is related and not independent of human conceptions and participation?

As stated why should we be bothered with where experience comes from?
I repeat;
I don't have to show how 'emergence' [your definition] of experience is possible.
All I need to study empirical evident 'experience' and track it to its roots as far as empirical evidence can take us.

Your desperation on "something cannot be from nothing" is very psychological [evolutionary].
What is critical is we must deal with the reality and fact related to experience and not to speculate experience with something which is impossible to be evident and verified.

If your 'matter' is related to materialism as opposed to idealism [in my case Kantian] then your claim re 'matter' is questionable.
There is no real thing-in-itself called matter-in-itself.
Therefore your claim upon such 'matter-in-itself' is false.

Well, there are a lots of things undefined here. Like real. To me, the mind is real, opposite to illusion, the stuff that mind experiences and causes. A real thing persists to exist in time whereas an illusion is subject to change (annihilation and creation).

You got it wrong.
Real things always changes.
Illusion changes as well.
Note, the only constant is change.

Mind is real, but it is a mental abstract like 'love' is real.
There is no such 'mind' that is real thing like an object.

Instead of speculating the unnecessary 'matter', it is most realistic and practical to work on what we can justified as realistic experience which is based on empirical evidence and reason.

It is from experience that humans established knowledge of reality based on empirical justification. Such knowledge is critical to the survival of the individual and humanity. Thus humanity focus should be on what is experiential based knowledge conditioned upon human being.

Why are you so concerned with 'matter' as a matter-in-itself which is illusory and not real?
The only reason for your concern is merely due to psychology [instinctual] and in most cases leading to a claim of an independent soul that will survive physical death to soothe an inherent existential crisis.

I have no fear of death. I was in fact a materialist for a period until I realized how absurd it is.

There are various views to ''material' and 'materialism'.
If you accept the mind is real and an independent entity by itself, that is philosophical materialism.
What drive you to such thoughts [mind is an independent entity] is subliminal which you are not conscious of.

[bahman]

You should start with "experience" as an empirical fact that is real.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experience

Since experience conditioned upon humans is an empirical fact and real, thus it can be verified with evidence to be real, there is no need to question whether experience emerges from 'matter' or not.

This, we have been through it. You need to prove that other entities like, plants, objects, etc. are not conscious. Even, if you can prove this that you cannot you then need to show how the emergence of experience is possible. Something out of no-where is absurd.

The onus is on you [the positive claimant] to prove non-living objects are conscious.
As for plant you need to define what is meant by 'consciousness' in plant which is definitely different from human consciousness.
You are trying to be rhetorical here by trying to conflate plants with humans on the subject of consciousness.

I don't have to show and speculate on how 'emergence' [your definition] of experience is possible.
All I need to study empirical evident 'experience' [which is so evident] and track it to its roots as far as empirical evidence can take us.

I am afraid that I don't agree. You are the one who is claiming that matter in the raw form is unconscious and becomes conscious in the alive form as a result of emergence. So you need to prove two things: 1) Matter is unconscious (or debunk my argument in the following) and 2) show how emergence is possible.

Regardless I offer my argument to you again with the hope that you put effort to understand it: Consider a change in a system, X to Y where X and Y are two different states of affair. X has to vanishes before Y is caused. There is, however, nothing when X vanishes and nothing cannot possibly cause Y. Therefore, there must exist a mind that has the ability to experience and cause.

I am arguing against materialism. The formation of matter cannot lead experience. To the best of our knowledge matter has a specific set of properties, such as mass, spin, charge, etc. but not experience. Experience cannot come out of no-where unless you believe in magic.

If you are against philosophical materialism, so you agree the existence of matter is related and not independent of human conceptions and participation?

Yes, I don't believe in materialism. I just accept it for sake of argument to show that magic involved whenever you talk about emergence. More than that matter is simply what mind experiences and causes. I am not defending that in this thread but anyway I offered my argument in the last comment.

As stated why should we be bothered with where experience comes from?
I repeat;
I don't have to show how 'emergence' [your definition] of experience is possible.
All I need to study empirical evident 'experience' and track it to its roots as far as empirical evidence can take us.

Your desperation on "something cannot be from nothing" is very psychological [evolutionary].
What is critical is we must deal with the reality and fact related to experience and not to speculate experience with something which is impossible to be evident and verified.

So you believe in magic?

If your 'matter' is related to materialism as opposed to idealism [in my case Kantian] then your claim re 'matter' is questionable.
There is no real thing-in-itself called matter-in-itself.
Therefore your claim upon such 'matter-in-itself' is false.

Well, there are a lots of things undefined here. Like real. To me, the mind is real, opposite to illusion, the stuff that mind experiences and causes. A real thing persists to exist in time whereas an illusion is subject to change (annihilation and creation).

You got it wrong.
Real things always changes.
Illusion changes as well.
Note, the only constant is change.

Mind is real, but it is a mental abstract like 'love' is real.
There is no such 'mind' that is real thing like an object.

You got it wrong. That is you, a person, who does not change by time. Everything else is subject to change, your personality, believes, etc.

Instead of speculating the unnecessary 'matter', it is most realistic and practical to work on what we can justified as realistic experience which is based on empirical evidence and reason.

It is from experience that humans established knowledge of reality based on empirical justification. Such knowledge is critical to the survival of the individual and humanity. Thus humanity focus should be on what is experiential based knowledge conditioned upon human being.

Why are you so concerned with 'matter' as a matter-in-itself which is illusory and not real?
The only reason for your concern is merely due to psychology [instinctual] and in most cases leading to a claim of an independent soul that will survive physical death to soothe an inherent existential crisis.

I have no fear of death. I was in fact a materialist for a period until I realized how absurd it is.

There are various views to ''material' and 'materialism'.
If you accept the mind is real and an independent entity by itself, that is philosophical materialism.
What drive you to such thoughts [mind is an independent entity] is subliminal which you are not conscious of.

I simply don't think so. I have arguments for my claims.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You got it wrong.
Real things always changes.
Illusion changes as well.
Note, the only constant is change.

Mind is real, but it is a mental abstract like 'love' is real.
There is no such 'mind' that is real thing like an object.

You got it wrong. That is you, a person, who does not change by time. Everything else is subject to change, your personality, believes, etc.

I will address the above, the rest are mere repetitions.

If you, a person, does not change by time, then you are claiming you are eternal.
Where does "you" the permanent entity that does not change with time, goes after physical death?

[bahman]

You got it wrong.
Real things always changes.
Illusion changes as well.
Note, the only constant is change.

Mind is real, but it is a mental abstract like 'love' is real.
There is no such 'mind' that is real thing like an object.

You got it wrong. That is you, a person, who does not change by time. Everything else is subject to change, your personality, believes, etc.

I will address the above, the rest are mere repetitions.

If you, a person, does not change by time, then you are claiming you are eternal.
Where does "you" the permanent entity that does not change with time, goes after physical death?

Mind doesn't have any place so it doesn't go anywhere after death. My body stays where it is among all physical things.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You got it wrong. That is you, a person, who does not change by time. Everything else is subject to change, your personality, believes, etc.

I will address the above, the rest are mere repetitions.

If you, a person, does not change by time, then you are claiming you are eternal.
Where does "you" the permanent entity that does not change with time, goes after physical death?

Mind doesn't have any place so it doesn't go anywhere after death. My body stays where it is among all physical things.

Note the body can be moved to a morgue, cemetery, cremated etc. after physical death.

BUT, If the mind doesn't have any place so it doesn't go anywhere after death,
then,
since the mind exist as an independent entity,
the mind must then stay at the exact location permanently when the person dies.

This is very illogical and ridiculous conclusion,
because it followed from your ridiculous first premise, the mind is an independent entity which is false.
Get it.

My point is,
the mind of a living person is a temporal emergence out of the living human state within an environment.
If the living person is dead, the mind as a temporal emergence will vanish.
This is like, analogically, an tornado that emerged out of a state of environmental condition and vanished after some time when the conditions changed.

[bahman]

I will address the above, the rest are mere repetitions.

If you, a person, does not change by time, then you are claiming you are eternal.
Where does "you" the permanent entity that does not change with time, goes after physical death?

Mind doesn't have any place so it doesn't go anywhere after death. My body stays where it is among all physical things.

Note the body can be moved to a morgue, cemetery, cremated etc. after physical death.

True.

BUT, If the mind doesn't have any place so it doesn't go anywhere after death,
then,
since the mind exist as an independent entity,
the mind must then stay at the exact location permanently when the person dies.

No. Mind doesn't have any location at all. The fact that your experience is local doesn't mean that your mind is where your experience resides.

This is very illogical and ridiculous conclusion,
because it followed from your ridiculous first premise, the mind is an independent entity that is false.
Get it.

The conclusion that you have in mind doesn't follow. Mind is the independent entity that does not change, does not have any location, it is required for any change.

My point is,
the mind of a living person is a temporal emergence out of the living human state within an environment.
If the living person is dead, the mind as a temporal emergence will vanish.
This is like, analogically, an tornado that emerged out of a state of environmental condition and vanished after some time when the conditions changed.

Emergence is magic. You know it by now.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Mind doesn't have any place so it doesn't go anywhere after death. My body stays where it is among all physical things.

Note the body can be moved to a morgue, cemetery, cremated etc. after physical death.

True.

BUT, If the mind doesn't have any place so it doesn't go anywhere after death,
then,
since the mind exist as an independent entity,
the mind must then stay at the exact location permanently when the person dies.

No. Mind doesn't have any location at all. The fact that your experience is local doesn't mean that your mind is where your experience resides.

This is very illogical and ridiculous conclusion,
because it followed from your ridiculous first premise, the mind is an independent entity that is false.
Get it.

The conclusion that you have in mind doesn't follow. Mind is the independent entity that does not change, does not have any location, it is required for any change.

You are providing very sloppy argument for the above.

If the mind [your definition] does not have a location, why it is presumably confined within the brain and body of the person.
This is the reason why your mind cannot read the mind of another person, because the minds of both are confined.
Therefore the mind of the person does have a specific location within the brain and body of the person.

If you insist the mind does not have any location, then your mind is omnipresent?

None of your answers make sense at all?

My point is,
the mind of a living person is a temporal emergence out of the living human state within an environment.
If the living person is dead, the mind as a temporal emergence will vanish.
This is like, analogically, an tornado that emerged out of a state of environmental condition and vanished after some time when the conditions changed.

Emergence is magic. You know it by now.

Yours is a strawman, i.e. off tangent from the OP.

Emergence is not magic as defined in the OP above.

[bahman]

Note the body can be moved to a morgue, cemetery, cremated etc. after physical death.

True.

BUT, If the mind doesn't have any place so it doesn't go anywhere after death,
then,
since the mind exist as an independent entity,
the mind must then stay at the exact location permanently when the person dies.

No. Mind doesn't have any location at all. The fact that your experience is local doesn't mean that your mind is where your experience resides.

This is very illogical and ridiculous conclusion,
because it followed from your ridiculous first premise, the mind is an independent entity that is false.
Get it.

The conclusion that you have in mind doesn't follow. Mind is the independent entity that does not change, does not have any location, it is required for any change.

You are providing very sloppy argument for the above.

If the mind [your definition] does not have a location, why it is presumably confined within the brain and body of the person.

That is the position of experience, where you are, not where your mind is.

This is the reason why your mind cannot read the mind of another person, because the minds of both are confined.
Therefore the mind of the person does have a specific location within the brain and body of the person.

There are people with the ability to read people's minds. Have a look: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gurg64h04C4

If you insist the mind does not have any location, then your mind is omnipresent?

No. It is not omnipresent but it does experience everything. The next question is then why the mind's experience seems to be limited. The answer is that mind experience everything but what mind experience is codded due to internal mental state, inter mental state is whatever that mediate between mind and reality as a whole.

None of your answers make sense at all?

I agree it is hard for a person who is new to this worldview.

My point is,
the mind of a living person is a temporal emergence out of the living human state within an environment.
If the living person is dead, the mind as a temporal emergence will vanish.
This is like, analogically, an tornado that emerged out of a state of environmental condition and vanished after some time when the conditions changed.

Emergence is magic. You know it by now.

Yours is a strawman, i.e. off tangent from the OP.

Emergence is not magic as defined in the OP above.

No. Emergence is a new property that comes to existence out of nowhere because of the condition of matter.

[Veritas Aequitas]

your mind is where your experience resides.

The conclusion that you have in mind doesn't follow. Mind is the independent entity that does not change, does not have any location, it is required for any change.

You are providing very sloppy argument for the above.

If the mind [your definition] does not have a location, why it is presumably confined within the brain and body of the person.

That is the position of experience, where you are, not where your mind is.

You are off tangent here.

Note the mind is;

The mind is the set of cognitive faculties including consciousness, imagination, perception, thinking, judgement, language and memory, which is housed in the brain (sometimes including the central nervous system).
-wiki

Where is your evidence and proof the human mind is not housed in the brain -and the physical self of the person?

This is the reason why your mind cannot read the mind of another person, because the minds of both are confined.
Therefore the mind of the person does have a specific location within the brain and body of the person.

There are people with the ability to read people's minds. Have a look: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gurg64h04C4

You are the one who keep condemning magic.
That is a magic show, you cannot be that sloppy in this case to bring that case to justify your point.

Surely you are better than that?
To be true, the test done must be scientific and supported by a scientific paper which is accepted via peer review.
There is none of such paper.

If you insist the mind does not have any location, then your mind is omnipresent?

No. It is not omnipresent but it does experience everything. The next question is then why the mind's experience seems to be limited. The answer is that mind experience everything but what mind experience is codded due to internal mental state, inter mental state is whatever that mediate between mind and reality as a whole.

Again you are sloppy here.

If the mind does not have any location, then your mind must be omnipresent.

"Location" means bounded space, i.e. with boundaries, i.e. within the physical body, the room, the house, the locality, the district, the state, the country, the planet, the solar system, the galaxy or some defined 'location' within the universe.

If it is not within any of the above 'location' then it must be omnipresent, i.e. everywhere without any defined boundary.
Don't just say, it is not omnipresent. Show me proof to counter the above point?

For you to change subject to "it experience everything" is dishonest and deceptive which would open another pandora box of absurd theories of yours.

None of your answers make sense at all?

I agree it is hard for a person who is new to this worldview.

This is not good excuse.
The "currency" of this philosophical forum is sound justified argument an average person can understand.
You provided no sound justified arguments at all.

Emergence is magic. You know it by now.

Yours is a strawman, i.e. off tangent from the OP.

Emergence is not magic as defined in the OP above.

No. Emergence is a new property that comes to existence out of nowhere because of the condition of matter.

Your problem is the point with "matter".
There is no such thing as "matter-in-itself" thus your point is groundless.

Experience is grounded by empirical evidence and can be a provable fact.
From 'experience' fact and knowledge can be abstracted, note Newton's experience of an apple falling on his head' enable him to extract his theory of gravity - Newton's law of Universal gravitation - that explain various related emergence.

• If you experience "falling rain" and realize ' it is really raining' that is an emergence, not a new property that comes from nowhere.
  
  If you are swept off by a tornado, that is an emergent, not a new property that comes from nowhere.

Can you counter the above two examples are not emergent as I defined it.

[bahman]

your mind is where your experience resides.

The conclusion that you have in mind doesn't follow. Mind is the independent entity that does not change, does not have any location, it is required for any change.

You are providing very sloppy argument for the above.

You face a regress if mind itself was subject to change. I think we can agree that that is mind that causes change. You need something else if mind itself is subject to change. Etc. That is a regress. The only way to avoid the regress is to accept that the is an ultimate thing so-called mind which is not subject to change and causes changes.

If the mind [your definition] does not have a location, why it is presumably confined within the brain and body of the person.

That is the position of experience, where you are, not where your mind is.

You are off tangent here.

Note the mind is;

The mind is the set of cognitive faculties including consciousness, imagination, perception, thinking, judgement, language and memory, which is housed in the brain (sometimes including the central nervous system).
-wiki

Where is your evidence and proof the human mind is not housed in the brain -and the physical self of the person?

I once had out of body experience. My eyes were open but I could see things differently. I was as tall as always but I could see things such that I am as tall as several story building.

This is the reason why your mind cannot read the mind of another person, because the minds of both are confined.
Therefore the mind of the person does have a specific location within the brain and body of the person.

There are people with the ability to read people's minds. Have a look: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gurg64h04C4

You are the one who keep condemning magic.

That is not magic.

That is a magic show, you cannot be that sloppy in this case to bring that case to justify your point.

Surely you are better than that?
To be true, the test done must be scientific and supported by a scientific paper which is accepted via peer review.
There is none of such paper.

This is an evidence in front of the scientific community including you. How do you interpret this?

If you insist the mind does not have any location, then your mind is omnipresent?

No. It is not omnipresent but it does experience everything. The next question is then why the mind's experience seems to be limited. The answer is that mind experience everything but what mind experience is codded due to internal mental state, inter mental state is whatever that mediate between mind and reality as a whole.

Again you are sloppy here.

If the mind does not have any location, then your mind must be omnipresent.

Omnipresent means that it is present everywhere which is different from something which does not have any location.

"Location" means bounded space, i.e. with boundaries, i.e. within the physical body, the room, the house, the locality, the district, the state, the country, the planet, the solar system, the galaxy or some defined 'location' within the universe.

If it is not within any of the above 'location' then it must be omnipresent, i.e. everywhere without any defined boundary.
Don't just say, it is not omnipresent. Show me proof to counter the above point?

Again, you are concluding that something that has no location must be everywhere. Something that is omnipresent is different from something which has no location.

For you to change subject to "it experience everything" is dishonest and deceptive which would open another pandora box of absurd theories of yours.

I had once out of body experience. I can tell you that the brain and body just confine your experiences by feeding you codded information that your mind cannot fully digitize.

None of your answers make sense at all?

I agree it is hard for a person who is new to this worldview.

This is not good excuse.
The "currency" of this philosophical forum is sound justified argument an average person can understand.
You provided no sound justified arguments at all.

I did provide my argument for existence of mind that you, unfortunately, didn't pay any attention to it.

Yours is a strawman, i.e. off tangent from the OP.

Emergence is not magic as defined in the OP above.

No. Emergence is a new property that comes to existence out of nowhere because of the condition of matter.

Your problem is the point with "matter".
There is no such thing as "matter-in-itself" thus your point is groundless.

So where the emergence can possibly come from if there is no matter. You need a base to ground emergence. What is that base if it is not matter? Nothing?

Experience is grounded by empirical evidence and can be a provable fact.

Experience of what? Matter or nothing?

From 'experience' fact and knowledge can be abstracted, note Newton's experience of an apple falling on his head' enable him to extract his theory of gravity - Newton's law of Universal gravitation - that explain various related emergence.

Of course, Newton laws do not explain various emergence. It is a set of laws. Laws relate the properties of matter which are assumed to exist, like mass, position, etc. together. That is all. There is no place left for emergence.

• If you experience "falling rain" and realize ' it is really raining' that is an emergence, not a new property that comes from nowhere.

A falling rain has a set of property which can be explained dynamically by laws of Newton. There is no emergence in here.

If you are swept off by a tornado, that is an emergent, not a new property that comes from nowhere.[/list]

Again, a tornado is a condition of air. There is always a tornado under certain circumstances. Air simply has a set of properties when there is a tornado these properties can fully be explained by laws of Newton.

Can you counter the above two examples are not emergent as I defined it.

There is no emergence in falling apple.

[Veritas Aequitas]

your mind is where your experience resides.

The conclusion that you have in mind doesn't follow. Mind is the independent entity that does not change, does not have any location, it is required for any change.

You are providing very sloppy argument for the above.

You face a regress if mind itself was subject to change. I think we can agree that that is mind that causes change. You need something else if mind itself is subject to change. Etc. That is a regress. The only way to avoid the regress is to accept that the is an ultimate thing so-called mind which is not subject to change and causes changes.

I don't agree it is 'mind' [an independent entity] that causes change.

Note I can and test changes empirically based on observations and experience and verify its credibility via philosophical critical thinking.
When water changes to ice, I can explain that easily.
I can explain any changes which are empirically easily using Science and critical thinking.
There is no need to speculate the involvement of an independent mind as an entity is all the empirical evident changes.

If ever the term 'mind' is used, it is with reference to this;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind
not the "mind" [independent entity] you have in mind [nb as per wiki's].

I think to avoid further confusion, you should counter why the "mind" as defined in wiki and accepted by all Scientists, psychologists, psychiatrists, neuroscientists are WRONG.

Note the mind is;

The mind is the set of cognitive faculties including consciousness, imagination, perception, thinking, judgement, language and memory, which is housed in the brain (sometimes including the central nervous system).
-wiki

Where is your evidence and proof the human mind is not housed in the brain -and the physical self of the person?

I once had out of body experience. My eyes were open but I could see things differently. I was as tall as always but I could see things such that I am as tall as several story building.

I have had similar of such experiences.
I thought I was special [with similar experience of some mystics] from the majority.
I did research on this and there is a medical name for it.
Some experience the opposite as small and short, etc.
It is an altered state of consciousness due to certain activities in the brain not because 'you' are an independent mind by itself.

This is an evidence in front of the scientific community including you. How do you interpret this?

Do the research and show me the scientific paper to support that?

Again you are sloppy here.
If the mind does not have any location, then your mind must be omnipresent.

Omnipresent means that it is present everywhere which is different from something which does not have any location.

If not present and not located, then it is 'nothing' thus an illusion.

"Location" means bounded space, i.e. with boundaries, i.e. within the physical body, the room, the house, the locality, the district, the state, the country, the planet, the solar system, the galaxy or some defined 'location' within the universe.

If it is not within any of the above 'location' then it must be omnipresent, i.e. everywhere without any defined boundary.
Don't just say, it is not omnipresent. Show me proof to counter the above point?

Again, you are concluding that something that has no location must be everywhere. Something that is omnipresent is different from something which has no location.

If not present and not located, then it is 'nothing' thus an illusion.

For you to change subject to "it experience everything" is dishonest and deceptive which would open another pandora box of absurd theories of yours.

I had once out of body experience. I can tell you that the brain and body just confine your experiences by feeding you codded information that your mind cannot fully digitize.

It is an altered state of consciousness identified as some weird activities of the brain.
Nothing special ontologically.

This is not good excuse.
The "currency" of this philosophical forum is sound justified argument an average person can understand.
You provided no sound justified arguments at all.

I did provide my argument for existence of mind that you, unfortunately, didn't pay any attention to it.

Where?

So where the emergence can possibly come from if there is no matter. You need a base to ground emergence. What is that base if it is not matter? Nothing?

Whatever emerged as real can be explained by Science via empirical evidence, experience and critical thinking.
The emergence of a tornado can be explained scientifically. There is no link to link to 'matter' as you defined it.

Experience is grounded by empirical evidence and can be a provable fact.

Experience of what? Matter or nothing?

Experience of the realization of objects, feelings, and other real things.
If you see an apple on a tree and touches it, that is an experience grounded on empirical evidence. What more?

From 'experience' fact and knowledge can be abstracted, note Newton's experience of an apple falling on his head' enable him to extract his theory of gravity - Newton's law of Universal gravitation - that explain various related emergence.

Of course, Newton laws do not explain various emergence. It is a set of laws. Laws relate the properties of matter which are assumed to exist, like mass, position, etc. together. That is all. There is no place left for emergence.

The emergence of the planets and its movement can be explained by Newton's law of Universal gravitation.

• If you experience "falling rain" and realize ' it is really raining' that is an emergence, not a new property that comes from nowhere.

A falling rain has a set of property which can be explained dynamically by laws of Newton. There is no emergence in here.

The falling rain is an emergence which emerge from clouds.
You have define 'emergent' is your own shallow ways.

If you are swept off by a tornado, that is an emergent, not a new property that comes from nowhere.[/list]

Again, a tornado is a condition of air. There is always a tornado under certain circumstances. Air simply has a set of properties when there is a tornado these properties can fully be explained by laws of Newton.

Technically, an tornado is represent by a complex set of variables where the precision is to detail to identify. Note Chaos Theory.
But what is obvious the tornado as an emergence, i.e. the tornado emerges which can be observed empirically and can be confirm to exist, especially if you are swept up by a tornado.

Can you counter the above two examples are not emergent as I defined it.

There is no emergence in falling apple.

Just disclaiming, where is your argument and explanation to counter my point.

"Falling apple" is an emergent in reality.
The existence of an apple is also an emergent in reality.
Both [real and verifiable] emerged upon the existing environmental conditions.

[bahman]

You are providing very sloppy argument for the above.

You face a regress if mind itself was subject to change. I think we can agree that that is mind that causes change. You need something else if mind itself is subject to change. Etc. That is a regress. The only way to avoid the regress is to accept that the is an ultimate thing so-called mind which is not subject to change and causes changes.

I don't agree it is 'mind' [an independent entity] that causes change.

So what does cause change?

Note I can and test changes empirically based on observations and experience and verify its credibility via philosophical critical thinking.

When water changes to ice, I can explain that easily.
I can explain any changes which are empirically easily using Science and critical thinking.
There is no need to speculate the involvement of an independent mind as an entity is all the empirical evident changes.

Matter in motion is described by quantum field theory in which the quantum field is destroyed and created. It is through this, destruction and creation, that motion of particles is possible.

If ever the term 'mind' is used, it is with reference to this;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind
not the "mind" [independent entity] you have in mind [nb as per wiki's].

I think to avoid further confusion, you should counter why the "mind" as defined in wiki and accepted by all Scientists, psychologists, psychiatrists, neuroscientists are WRONG.

Note the mind is;

The mind is the set of cognitive faculties including consciousness, imagination, perception, thinking, judgement, language and memory, which is housed in the brain (sometimes including the central nervous system).
-wiki

I am aware of that definition. It is just wrong. Mind is not an idea. It is an entity. I have an argument for that.

Where is your evidence and proof the human mind is not housed in the brain -and the physical self of the person?

I once had out of body experience. My eyes were open but I could see things differently. I was as tall as always but I could see things such that I am as tall as several story building.

I have had similar of such experiences.
I thought I was special [with similar experience of some mystics] from the majority.
I did research on this and there is a medical name for it.
Some experience the opposite as small and short, etc.
It is an altered state of consciousness due to certain activities in the brain not because 'you' are an independent mind by itself.

There is just not a material explanation for that. The electro-chemical process in the brain cannot create a vision of where the eyes cannot possibly perceive.

This is an evidence in front of the scientific community including you. How do you interpret this?

Do the research and show me the scientific paper to support that?

Aren't you a scientist or philosopher?

Again you are sloppy here.
If the mind does not have any location, then your mind must be omnipresent.

Omnipresent means that it is present everywhere which is different from something which does not have any location.

If not present and not located, then it is 'nothing' thus an illusion.

The universe, for example, does not have any location but it exists. Mind also does exist and does not have any location.

"Location" means bounded space, i.e. with boundaries, i.e. within the physical body, the room, the house, the locality, the district, the state, the country, the planet, the solar system, the galaxy or some defined 'location' within the universe.

If it is not within any of the above 'location' then it must be omnipresent, i.e. everywhere without any defined boundary.
Don't just say, it is not omnipresent. Show me proof to counter the above point?

Again, you are concluding that something that has no location must be everywhere. Something that is omnipresent is different from something which has no location.

If not present and not located, then it is 'nothing' thus an illusion.

No, as it is illustrated.

For you to change subject to "it experience everything" is dishonest and deceptive which would open another pandora box of absurd theories of yours.

I had once out of body experience. I can tell you that the brain and body just confine your experiences by feeding you codded information that your mind cannot fully digitize.

It is an altered state of consciousness identified as some weird activities of the brain.
Nothing special ontologically.

That is not possible within materialism as it is illustrated.

This is not good excuse.
The "currency" of this philosophical forum is sound justified argument an average person can understand.
You provided no sound justified arguments at all.

I did provide my argument for existence of mind that you, unfortunately, didn't pay any attention to it.

Where?

Meh. I repeat it again: Consider a change in a system, X to Y where X and Y are two different states of affair. X has to vanishes before Y is caused. There is, however, nothing when X vanishes and nothing cannot possibly cause Y. Therefore, there must exist a mind that has the ability to experience and cause.

So where the emergence can possibly come from if there is no matter. You need a base to ground emergence. What is that base if it is not matter? Nothing?

Whatever emerged as real can be explained by Science via empirical evidence, experience and critical thinking.
The emergence of a tornado can be explained scientifically. There is no link to link to 'matter' as you defined it.

Tornado is a condition in air. This condition can be described in term of some parameters such as density, pressure, speed, etc. of air. There is no emergence in here.

Experience is grounded by empirical evidence and can be a provable fact.

Experience of what? Matter or nothing?

Experience of the realization of objects, feelings, and other real things.
If you see an apple on a tree and touches it, that is an experience grounded on empirical evidence. What more?

Don't you believe that matter exists as a separate entity than mind? You claimed that matter is the result of collapse of the wave function as a result of observation?

From 'experience' fact and knowledge can be abstracted, note Newton's experience of an apple falling on his head' enable him to extract his theory of gravity - Newton's law of Universal gravitation - that explain various related emergence.

Of course, Newton laws do not explain various emergence. It is a set of laws. Laws relate the properties of matter which are assumed to exist, like mass, position, etc. together. That is all. There is no place left for emergence.

The emergence of the planets and its movement can be explained by Newton's law of Universal gravitation.

Matter has a set of properties such as mass, charge, spin, etc. Any condition can be defined in terms of these properties.

• If you experience "falling rain" and realize ' it is really raining' that is an emergence, not a new property that comes from nowhere.

A falling rain has a set of property which can be explained dynamically by laws of Newton. There is no emergence in here.

The falling rain is an emergence which emerge from clouds.
You have define 'emergent' is your own shallow ways.

The change of vapor to water drops is a process, not an emergence.

If you are swept off by a tornado, that is an emergent, not a new property that comes from nowhere.[/list]

Again, a tornado is a condition of air. There is always a tornado under certain circumstances. Air simply has a set of properties when there is a tornado these properties can fully be explained by laws of Newton.

Technically, an tornado is represent by a complex set of variables where the precision is to detail to identify. Note Chaos Theory.
But what is obvious the tornado as an emergence, i.e. the tornado emerges which can be observed empirically and can be confirm to exist, especially if you are swept up by a tornado.

Tornado is a condition not an emrgence.

Can you counter the above two examples are not emergent as I defined it.

There is no emergence in falling apple.

Just disclaiming, where is your argument and explanation to counter my point.

"Falling apple" is an emergent in reality.
The existence of an apple is also an emergent in reality.
Both [real and verifiable] emerged upon the existing environmental conditions.

A falling apple is a condition of an object. It is not an emergence.