Mind is uncaused cause

[bahman]

The problem with your argument is, you seem unable to envision a world in which matter doesn’t necessarily marche to the beat of some overseeing mind. My argument there was, mind emerges from matter. But matter can exist without mind. That doesn’t mean it can be known without mind, just that it operates, interacts, coalesces, and can even form the building blocks for life, which is the basis of mind, all without the need for one.

What if that I provide an argument against emergence?

You could, but based on your previous arguments I can’t see it being very powerful an argument, and without circular reasoning. When I say emergence, I don’t mean to say that consciousness, or mind as you seem to prefer to call it, is anything other than what the brain, which is fully material, is doing. When I say emergence, what I mean is that, some new layer of reality seems to exist on top of and fully dependent on the existing layers of reality.

The difference between the new emergent layer of consciousness, and all other previous layers, is, because it is encapsulated via the structure of an organ, being the body and brain, it’s existence can only be known from that structure. But further more, due to the way in which this system captures information about the outside and about itself, and represents it inside itself, the information can only be known from inside this new emergent layer. It can be inferred via interactions because this structure now has an ability to express itself, to communicate the structure of this new emergent reality to others who also possess this layer. It can also be inferred via technology that find ways to associate particular patterns of interaction in the brain and body with particular experiences, or basically via neural correlates.

This is why we have the problem of other minds. What minds do is create internal representations, and as such, that information is inaccessible to anything outside itself other than inference. Now, it so happens that OUR minds are set up in such a way that our powers of inference can be quite well tuned to others. This is theory of mind and empathy. But, it’s not perfect, and because of this, we can misattribute others state of mind. But, we can never have access to other minds directly, due to their inherent nature of internal representation.

Well, first we have to agree on what do we mean by the emergence. By emergence, I simply mean that the whole has a set of properties in a given condition that parts don't. And here is the argument: There must be a reason that the whole show a new set of properties rather than any other properties given that the whole is in a specific condition. This means that the properties of the whole are functions. The only variables that are available are the properties of parts. Therefore, the properties of the whole are functions of the properties of parts. Therefore, there is no emergence.

[Dimebag]

What if that I provide an argument against emergence?

You could, but based on your previous arguments I can’t see it being very powerful an argument, and without circular reasoning. When I say emergence, I don’t mean to say that consciousness, or mind as you seem to prefer to call it, is anything other than what the brain, which is fully material, is doing. When I say emergence, what I mean is that, some new layer of reality seems to exist on top of and fully dependent on the existing layers of reality.

The difference between the new emergent layer of consciousness, and all other previous layers, is, because it is encapsulated via the structure of an organ, being the body and brain, it’s existence can only be known from that structure. But further more, due to the way in which this system captures information about the outside and about itself, and represents it inside itself, the information can only be known from inside this new emergent layer. It can be inferred via interactions because this structure now has an ability to express itself, to communicate the structure of this new emergent reality to others who also possess this layer. It can also be inferred via technology that find ways to associate particular patterns of interaction in the brain and body with particular experiences, or basically via neural correlates.

This is why we have the problem of other minds. What minds do is create internal representations, and as such, that information is inaccessible to anything outside itself other than inference. Now, it so happens that OUR minds are set up in such a way that our powers of inference can be quite well tuned to others. This is theory of mind and empathy. But, it’s not perfect, and because of this, we can misattribute others state of mind. But, we can never have access to other minds directly, due to their inherent nature of internal representation.

Well, first we have to agree on what do we mean by the emergence. By emergence, I simply mean that the whole has a set of properties in a given condition that parts don't. And here is the argument: There must be a reason that the whole show a new set of properties rather than any other properties given that the whole is in a specific condition. This means that the properties of the whole are functions. The only variables that are available are the properties of parts. Therefore, the properties of the whole are functions of the properties of parts. Therefore, there is no emergence.

Here is my view of emergence, not exactly how it works, but helps to clear away the “magic”.

Imagine an internal combustion engine.

It is comprised of parts. A piston, an engine case, a spark plug, air intake, a fuel pump, a fuel tank, fuel, a crank shaft etc. All of these parts must work together to comprise an engine. Each part relies on other parts in order to carry out its own function. Individually, each part cannot carry out its intended purpose, and as such, is reliant on the presence of all other parts for it to fulfil its function and allow the engine to work. To a person not familiar with machines, it would seem like magic, the way you can put all these parts together and they will produce the ability to move a chassis.

So yes, I would agree with you that there is no magic, only new functions based on interactions of parts. Strong emergence claims some form of magical new properties not predictable in theory. So, I don’t claim any magic. I do think we are extremely ignorant and presume to know how the brain functions, which explains why we don’t understand how brain produces consciousness. But, it should be predictable in theory that the function of consciousness would emerge based on the interaction of the brain, body, world interaction.

The problem seems to be that we are viewing consciousness as a “property”, something different or new from what the parts are doing. So here it is. The property of consciousness is the internal representation of sensory information in a brain body organism.

[bahman]

You could, but based on your previous arguments I can’t see it being very powerful an argument, and without circular reasoning. When I say emergence, I don’t mean to say that consciousness, or mind as you seem to prefer to call it, is anything other than what the brain, which is fully material, is doing. When I say emergence, what I mean is that, some new layer of reality seems to exist on top of and fully dependent on the existing layers of reality.

The difference between the new emergent layer of consciousness, and all other previous layers, is, because it is encapsulated via the structure of an organ, being the body and brain, it’s existence can only be known from that structure. But further more, due to the way in which this system captures information about the outside and about itself, and represents it inside itself, the information can only be known from inside this new emergent layer. It can be inferred via interactions because this structure now has an ability to express itself, to communicate the structure of this new emergent reality to others who also possess this layer. It can also be inferred via technology that find ways to associate particular patterns of interaction in the brain and body with particular experiences, or basically via neural correlates.

This is why we have the problem of other minds. What minds do is create internal representations, and as such, that information is inaccessible to anything outside itself other than inference. Now, it so happens that OUR minds are set up in such a way that our powers of inference can be quite well tuned to others. This is theory of mind and empathy. But, it’s not perfect, and because of this, we can misattribute others state of mind. But, we can never have access to other minds directly, due to their inherent nature of internal representation.

Well, first we have to agree on what do we mean by the emergence. By emergence, I simply mean that the whole has a set of properties in a given condition that parts don't. And here is the argument: There must be a reason that the whole show a new set of properties rather than any other properties given that the whole is in a specific condition. This means that the properties of the whole are functions. The only variables that are available are the properties of parts. Therefore, the properties of the whole are functions of the properties of parts. Therefore, there is no emergence.

Here is my view of emergence, not exactly how it works, but helps to clear away the “magic”.

Imagine an internal combustion engine.

It is comprised of parts. A piston, an engine case, a spark plug, air intake, a fuel pump, a fuel tank, fuel, a crank shaft etc. All of these parts must work together to comprise an engine. Each part relies on other parts in order to carry out its own function. Individually, each part cannot carry out its intended purpose, and as such, is reliant on the presence of all other parts for it to fulfil its function and allow the engine to work. To a person not familiar with machines, it would seem like magic, the way you can put all these parts together and they will produce the ability to move a chassis.

So yes, I would agree with you that there is no magic, only new functions based on interactions of parts. Strong emergence claims some form of magical new properties not predictable in theory. So, I don’t claim any magic. I do think we are extremely ignorant and presume to know how the brain functions, which explains why we don’t understand how brain produces consciousness. But, it should be predictable in theory that the function of consciousness would emerge based on the interaction of the brain, body, world interaction.

The problem seems to be that we are viewing consciousness as a “property”, something different or new from what the parts are doing. So here it is. The property of consciousness is the internal representation of sensory information in a brain body organism.

Well, there is no emergence if you don't believe in magic. Consciousness is a property that parts either have or they don't. Which one do you pick?

[bahman]

The problem with your argument is, you seem unable to envision a world in which matter doesn’t necessarily marche to the beat of some overseeing mind. My argument there was, mind emerges from matter. But matter can exist without mind. That doesn’t mean it can be known without mind, just that it operates, interacts, coalesces, and can even form the building blocks for life, which is the basis of mind, all without the need for one.

What if that I provide an argument against emergence?

You are absolutely FREE to PROVIDE absolutely ANY thing that you like. But whether it is of ANY use or not is another matter.

Also, as I have ALREADY said, if what you provide is NOT a sound AND valid argument, then it is REALLY not that worthy of being LOOKED AT anyway. But go ahead and provide YOUR 'argument' against emergence.

However, you ONCE AGAIN appear to have MISSED or MISUNDERSTOOD the ACTUAL quote that you are replying to. Which a part of it states:
', you seem unable to envision a world in which ...'.

So, ONCE AGAIN, you are MISSING, or DEFLECTING away from, the whole point of what is being said and mentioned to you.

You appear to just want to "argue" and FIGHT for what you ALREADY ASSUME and BELIEVE is thee Truth of 'things', and just completely disregard ANY thing else.

You BELIEVE wholeheartedly that your views here are ABSOLUTELY and IRREFUTABLY True, and so are BLINDED to what else is being said to you.

There is no deflection. My argument is plain and simple to understand. How could you be free if you are under influence?

[bahman]

LOOK, you are NOT defining words like 'you', 'I', 'we', 'mind', and then also you are NOT relating those definitions into comprehensible and logical sense. Therefore, this is WHY what you are saying here is NOT being accepted.

When, and IF, you ever learn the True and Right definitions for these words, which aligns PERFECTLY with EVERY thing else, then what you will THEN say will be accepted and thus agreed with. But until then you are left STUCK in the predicament that you are in now.

So, who or what is the 'you', which you CLAIM makes 'free decisions'?

I suggest you just START EXPLAINING and STOP just saying.

By you, I mean another person who is subjected to this discussion. The person, who read and respond.

And, what is OBVIOUSLY True is EVERY person has come from some 'thing' ELSE, and thus EVERY person was caused.
Therefore, EVERY one of 'you', persons, is NOT an uncaused cause.

Which is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you are saying and 'trying to' CLAIM here.

The more you 'try to' EXPLAIN, the more you CONTRADICT, "yourself".

Are you even AWARE that YOUR "logic" here is faulty?

Discover, or either learn, what the True and Right, proper AND correct, answer IS to the question, 'Who am 'I'?', and then you will SEE the error of YOUR ways here.

I is the person who is subjected to this discussion and write things right now.

You, ONCE MORE, appear to have completely MISSED or MISUNDERSTOOD what was being said to you, in the quote, which you are replying to, or you are just ONCE AGAIN 'trying to' DEFLECT.

So, is 'your' FINAL answer to that age-old question, 'Who am 'I'?', the person who is subjected to this discussion and write things right now.

I am a mind with a body. Plain and simple. Who you are?

[Age]

What if that I provide an argument against emergence?

You are absolutely FREE to PROVIDE absolutely ANY thing that you like. But whether it is of ANY use or not is another matter.

Also, as I have ALREADY said, if what you provide is NOT a sound AND valid argument, then it is REALLY not that worthy of being LOOKED AT anyway. But go ahead and provide YOUR 'argument' against emergence.

However, you ONCE AGAIN appear to have MISSED or MISUNDERSTOOD the ACTUAL quote that you are replying to. Which a part of it states:
', you seem unable to envision a world in which ...'.

So, ONCE AGAIN, you are MISSING, or DEFLECTING away from, the whole point of what is being said and mentioned to you.

You appear to just want to "argue" and FIGHT for what you ALREADY ASSUME and BELIEVE is thee Truth of 'things', and just completely disregard ANY thing else.

You BELIEVE wholeheartedly that your views here are ABSOLUTELY and IRREFUTABLY True, and so are BLINDED to what else is being said to you.

There is no deflection. My argument is plain and simple to understand. How could you be free if you are under influence?

But who is saying that ANY one of 'you', adult human beings, is 'free', in the sense of being ABSOLUTELY and UNADULTERATED 'free'?

If 'you' are, then what PROOF do you have for saying this?

If, however, NO adult is 'free' in the ABSOLUTE and UNADULTERATED sense, then they are UNDER INFLUENCE.

[Age]

By you, I mean another person who is subjected to this discussion. The person, who read and respond.

And, what is OBVIOUSLY True is EVERY person has come from some 'thing' ELSE, and thus EVERY person was caused.
Therefore, EVERY one of 'you', persons, is NOT an uncaused cause.

Which is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you are saying and 'trying to' CLAIM here.

The more you 'try to' EXPLAIN, the more you CONTRADICT, "yourself".

I is the person who is subjected to this discussion and write things right now.

You, ONCE MORE, appear to have completely MISSED or MISUNDERSTOOD what was being said to you, in the quote, which you are replying to, or you are just ONCE AGAIN 'trying to' DEFLECT.

So, is 'your' FINAL answer to that age-old question, 'Who am 'I'?', the person who is subjected to this discussion and write things right now.

I am a mind with a body. Plain and simple. Who you are?

Now we are back to YOUR CONTRADICTION.

Here you are saying, "I am 'a' mind", but you have also written "my mind".

So, which one is it. It OBVIOUSLY can NOT be both.

Also, your third sentence here is written as a statement but with a question mark at the end of it. So, which one is it. It OBVIOUSLY can NOT be both.

[bahman]

You are absolutely FREE to PROVIDE absolutely ANY thing that you like. But whether it is of ANY use or not is another matter.

Also, as I have ALREADY said, if what you provide is NOT a sound AND valid argument, then it is REALLY not that worthy of being LOOKED AT anyway. But go ahead and provide YOUR 'argument' against emergence.

However, you ONCE AGAIN appear to have MISSED or MISUNDERSTOOD the ACTUAL quote that you are replying to. Which a part of it states:
', you seem unable to envision a world in which ...'.

So, ONCE AGAIN, you are MISSING, or DEFLECTING away from, the whole point of what is being said and mentioned to you.

You appear to just want to "argue" and FIGHT for what you ALREADY ASSUME and BELIEVE is thee Truth of 'things', and just completely disregard ANY thing else.

You BELIEVE wholeheartedly that your views here are ABSOLUTELY and IRREFUTABLY True, and so are BLINDED to what else is being said to you.

There is no deflection. My argument is plain and simple to understand. How could you be free if you are under influence?

But who is saying that ANY one of 'you', adult human beings, is 'free', in the sense of being ABSOLUTELY and UNADULTERATED 'free'?

If 'you' are, then what PROOF do you have for saying this?

If, however, NO adult is 'free' in the ABSOLUTE and UNADULTERATED sense, then they are UNDER INFLUENCE.

By free I don't mean freedom of will which makes you able to do whatever you want. By that, I mean that you are free to choose among options in a situation. Options are available to you.

[Age]

The problem with your argument is, you seem unable to envision a world in which matter doesn’t necessarily marche to the beat of some overseeing mind. My argument there was, mind emerges from matter. But matter can exist without mind. That doesn’t mean it can be known without mind, just that it operates, interacts, coalesces, and can even form the building blocks for life, which is the basis of mind, all without the need for one.

What if that I provide an argument against emergence?

You could, but based on your previous arguments I can’t see it being very powerful an argument, and without circular reasoning. When I say emergence, I don’t mean to say that consciousness, or mind as you seem to prefer to call it, is anything other than what the brain, which is fully material, is doing. When I say emergence, what I mean is that, some new layer of reality seems to exist on top of and fully dependent on the existing layers of reality.

The difference between the new emergent layer of consciousness, and all other previous layers, is, because it is encapsulated via the structure of an organ, being the body and brain, it’s existence can only be known from that structure. But further more, due to the way in which this system captures information about the outside and about itself, and represents it inside itself, the information can only be known from inside this new emergent layer. It can be inferred via interactions because this structure now has an ability to express itself, to communicate the structure of this new emergent reality to others who also possess this layer. It can also be inferred via technology that find ways to associate particular patterns of interaction in the brain and body with particular experiences, or basically via neural correlates.

This is why we have the problem of other minds. What minds do is create internal representations, and as such, that information is inaccessible to anything outside itself other than inference. Now, it so happens that OUR minds are set up in such a way that our powers of inference can be quite well tuned to others. This is theory of mind and empathy. But, it’s not perfect, and because of this, we can misattribute others state of mind. But, we can never have access to other minds directly, due to their inherent nature of internal representation.

This "bahman" is ANOTHER EXAMPLE of 'logical reasoning', which also, mostly, 'logically follows'.

Whereas, a LOT of what you say "bahman" is 'circular reasoning', which, mostly, does NOT 'logically follow', at all.

[bahman]

And, what is OBVIOUSLY True is EVERY person has come from some 'thing' ELSE, and thus EVERY person was caused.
Therefore, EVERY one of 'you', persons, is NOT an uncaused cause.

Which is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you are saying and 'trying to' CLAIM here.

The more you 'try to' EXPLAIN, the more you CONTRADICT, "yourself".



You, ONCE MORE, appear to have completely MISSED or MISUNDERSTOOD what was being said to you, in the quote, which you are replying to, or you are just ONCE AGAIN 'trying to' DEFLECT.

So, is 'your' FINAL answer to that age-old question, 'Who am 'I'?', the person who is subjected to this discussion and write things right now.

I am a mind with a body. Plain and simple. Who you are?

Now we are back to YOUR CONTRADICTION.

Here you are saying, "I am 'a' mind", but you have also written "my mind".

So, which one is it. It OBVIOUSLY can NOT be both.

Also, your third sentence here is written as a statement but with a question mark at the end of it. So, which one is it. It OBVIOUSLY can NOT be both.

There is no contradiction in what I said. I am a mind attached to a body. I perceive through the body and act through the body too.

[Age]

What if that I provide an argument against emergence?

You could, but based on your previous arguments I can’t see it being very powerful an argument, and without circular reasoning. When I say emergence, I don’t mean to say that consciousness, or mind as you seem to prefer to call it, is anything other than what the brain, which is fully material, is doing. When I say emergence, what I mean is that, some new layer of reality seems to exist on top of and fully dependent on the existing layers of reality.

The difference between the new emergent layer of consciousness, and all other previous layers, is, because it is encapsulated via the structure of an organ, being the body and brain, it’s existence can only be known from that structure. But further more, due to the way in which this system captures information about the outside and about itself, and represents it inside itself, the information can only be known from inside this new emergent layer. It can be inferred via interactions because this structure now has an ability to express itself, to communicate the structure of this new emergent reality to others who also possess this layer. It can also be inferred via technology that find ways to associate particular patterns of interaction in the brain and body with particular experiences, or basically via neural correlates.

This is why we have the problem of other minds. What minds do is create internal representations, and as such, that information is inaccessible to anything outside itself other than inference. Now, it so happens that OUR minds are set up in such a way that our powers of inference can be quite well tuned to others. This is theory of mind and empathy. But, it’s not perfect, and because of this, we can misattribute others state of mind. But, we can never have access to other minds directly, due to their inherent nature of internal representation.

Well, first we have to agree on what do we mean by the emergence.

Now this is a GREAT and PERFECT way to START ALL discussions. If, and WHEN, this is done, properly AND correctly, then Truly PEACEFUL discussions can begin, from which a Truly PEACEFUL 'world' can also begin, and be maintained.

So, GREAT advice here "bahman".

By emergence, I simply mean that the whole has a set of properties in a given condition that parts don't. And here is the argument: There must be a reason that the whole show a new set of properties rather than any other properties given that the whole is in a specific condition. This means that the properties of the whole are functions. The only variables that are available are the properties of parts. Therefore, the properties of the whole are functions of the properties of parts. Therefore, there is no emergence.

Pity that your GREAT advice previously gets completely LOST here now though. For two reasons:

1. You did NOT WAIT for 'agreement'.

2. You have ALREADY arrived at some conclusion, which you ALREADY BELIEVE and ASSUME is thee Truth, and from which you then say 'things' on the ASSUMPTION that they are, already proven, premises for what you are CLAIMING is ALREADY concluded.

Besides parts of your reasoning being faulty and thus WRONG, what you claim/argue is true is just done through 'circular reasoning' anyway.

[bahman]

You could, but based on your previous arguments I can’t see it being very powerful an argument, and without circular reasoning. When I say emergence, I don’t mean to say that consciousness, or mind as you seem to prefer to call it, is anything other than what the brain, which is fully material, is doing. When I say emergence, what I mean is that, some new layer of reality seems to exist on top of and fully dependent on the existing layers of reality.

The difference between the new emergent layer of consciousness, and all other previous layers, is, because it is encapsulated via the structure of an organ, being the body and brain, it’s existence can only be known from that structure. But further more, due to the way in which this system captures information about the outside and about itself, and represents it inside itself, the information can only be known from inside this new emergent layer. It can be inferred via interactions because this structure now has an ability to express itself, to communicate the structure of this new emergent reality to others who also possess this layer. It can also be inferred via technology that find ways to associate particular patterns of interaction in the brain and body with particular experiences, or basically via neural correlates.

This is why we have the problem of other minds. What minds do is create internal representations, and as such, that information is inaccessible to anything outside itself other than inference. Now, it so happens that OUR minds are set up in such a way that our powers of inference can be quite well tuned to others. This is theory of mind and empathy. But, it’s not perfect, and because of this, we can misattribute others state of mind. But, we can never have access to other minds directly, due to their inherent nature of internal representation.

Well, first we have to agree on what do we mean by the emergence.

Now this is a GREAT and PERFECT way to START ALL discussions. If, and WHEN, this is done, properly AND correctly, then Truly PEACEFUL discussions can begin, from which a Truly PEACEFUL 'world' can also begin, and be maintained.

So, GREAT advice here "bahman".

By emergence, I simply mean that the whole has a set of properties in a given condition that parts don't. And here is the argument: There must be a reason that the whole show a new set of properties rather than any other properties given that the whole is in a specific condition. This means that the properties of the whole are functions. The only variables that are available are the properties of parts. Therefore, the properties of the whole are functions of the properties of parts. Therefore, there is no emergence.

Pity that your GREAT advice previously gets completely LOST here now though. For two reasons:

1. You did NOT WAIT for 'agreement'.

2. You have ALREADY arrived at some conclusion, which you ALREADY BELIEVE and ASSUME is thee Truth, and from which you then say 'things' on the ASSUMPTION that they are, already proven, premises for what you are CLAIMING is ALREADY concluded.

Besides parts of your reasoning being faulty and thus WRONG, what you claim/argue is true is just done through 'circular reasoning' anyway.

Do you agree with the definition of emergence?

[Age]

You could, but based on your previous arguments I can’t see it being very powerful an argument, and without circular reasoning. When I say emergence, I don’t mean to say that consciousness, or mind as you seem to prefer to call it, is anything other than what the brain, which is fully material, is doing. When I say emergence, what I mean is that, some new layer of reality seems to exist on top of and fully dependent on the existing layers of reality.

The difference between the new emergent layer of consciousness, and all other previous layers, is, because it is encapsulated via the structure of an organ, being the body and brain, it’s existence can only be known from that structure. But further more, due to the way in which this system captures information about the outside and about itself, and represents it inside itself, the information can only be known from inside this new emergent layer. It can be inferred via interactions because this structure now has an ability to express itself, to communicate the structure of this new emergent reality to others who also possess this layer. It can also be inferred via technology that find ways to associate particular patterns of interaction in the brain and body with particular experiences, or basically via neural correlates.

This is why we have the problem of other minds. What minds do is create internal representations, and as such, that information is inaccessible to anything outside itself other than inference. Now, it so happens that OUR minds are set up in such a way that our powers of inference can be quite well tuned to others. This is theory of mind and empathy. But, it’s not perfect, and because of this, we can misattribute others state of mind. But, we can never have access to other minds directly, due to their inherent nature of internal representation.

Well, first we have to agree on what do we mean by the emergence. By emergence, I simply mean that the whole has a set of properties in a given condition that parts don't. And here is the argument: There must be a reason that the whole show a new set of properties rather than any other properties given that the whole is in a specific condition. This means that the properties of the whole are functions. The only variables that are available are the properties of parts. Therefore, the properties of the whole are functions of the properties of parts. Therefore, there is no emergence.

Here is my view of emergence, not exactly how it works, but helps to clear away the “magic”.

Imagine an internal combustion engine.

It is comprised of parts. A piston, an engine case, a spark plug, air intake, a fuel pump, a fuel tank, fuel, a crank shaft etc. All of these parts must work together to comprise an engine. Each part relies on other parts in order to carry out its own function. Individually, each part cannot carry out its intended purpose, and as such, is reliant on the presence of all other parts for it to fulfil its function and allow the engine to work. To a person not familiar with machines, it would seem like magic, the way you can put all these parts together and they will produce the ability to move a chassis.

So yes, I would agree with you that there is no magic, only new functions based on interactions of parts. Strong emergence claims some form of magical new properties not predictable in theory. So, I don’t claim any magic. I do think we are extremely ignorant and presume to know how the brain functions, which explains why we don’t understand how brain produces consciousness.

Did you mean 'don't' or 'do not' here instead of "do"?

How the brain works and how consciousness exists is ALREADY KNOWN, by the way, which also can be verified, (or falsified as the case may be).

But, it should be predictable in theory that the function of consciousness would emerge based on the interaction of the brain, body, world interaction.

The problem seems to be that we are viewing consciousness as a “property”, something different or new from what the parts are doing. So here it is. The property of consciousness is the internal representation of sensory information in a brain body organism.

[Age]

There is no deflection. My argument is plain and simple to understand. How could you be free if you are under influence?

But who is saying that ANY one of 'you', adult human beings, is 'free', in the sense of being ABSOLUTELY and UNADULTERATED 'free'?

If 'you' are, then what PROOF do you have for saying this?

If, however, NO adult is 'free' in the ABSOLUTE and UNADULTERATED sense, then they are UNDER INFLUENCE.

By free I don't mean freedom of will which makes you able to do whatever you want.

Since when has the term 'freedom of will' MEANT you are able to do whatever you want?

What does the 'will' word refer to or mean in the term 'freedom of will'?

By that, I mean that you are free to choose among options in a situation. Options are available to you.

Okay GREAT. This is EXACTLY how I use the word 'free', as in 'free will' to MEAN also.

This partly EXPLAINS HOW and WHY 'you', human beings, are EQUALLY 'free willed, deterministic' beings.

[Age]

I am a mind with a body. Plain and simple. Who you are?

Now we are back to YOUR CONTRADICTION.

Here you are saying, "I am 'a' mind", but you have also written "my mind".

So, which one is it. It OBVIOUSLY can NOT be both.

Also, your third sentence here is written as a statement but with a question mark at the end of it. So, which one is it. It OBVIOUSLY can NOT be both.

There is no contradiction in what I said. I am a mind attached to a body. I perceive through the body and act through the body too.

This is getting CLOSER, as long as 'you' can LOGICALLY explain how a "mind" is 'attached' to a body, and you NEVER again write, "my mind".

Do 'you' UNDERSTAND that it is logically IMPOSSIBLE to be some 'thing' as well as NOT be 'it'.

And, if you 'have' 'a mind', then you can NOT be 'a mind', correct?