bahman wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 2:14 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 4:51 am
bahman wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 9:06 pm
The bold is not a weird question. It is very important question. It is related to hard problem of consciousness. I don't think that you have an answer for that since nobody knows the answer yet, if there is any answer. Until then my argument stands.
You are just being shifty.
There is no relation between "no emergence" and not knowing the hard problem of consciousness.
No, I was not shifty. There is no solution to problem of consciousness if there is no emergence. Consciousness in materialism must emerge.
You got it wrong.
Note the generic formula for emergence I had presented earlier;
- Human conditions [physical and mental] + ++ = emergence of reality-as-it-is.
thus example
Human conditions [physical and mental] + Na + Cl + ++
= emergence of NaCL + saltiness
Human conditions [physical and mental] + brain/mind/body + XXX
= emergence of human consciousness
Note the hard problem of consciousness acknowledge the above formula, but its problem is understanding the exact and precise mechanics within the brain and body that result in the emergence of consciousness.
Therefore the hard problem of consciousness is no excuse for the existence of emergence.
Btw, there is a hard problem for everything, it is just that they are not as critical to find out the precise mechanics in the emergence of consciousness.
For example,
do you know precisely exactly how you feel hungry down to the neural and its quarks level.
do you [or theists] know precisely what is going on inside your[their] brain/mind when you [they] pine for God.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 4:51 am
Note we know the existence of consciousness, we experience consciousness. This is the same as we know the existence of emergence thus we experience those emergent things.
As I mentioned, consciousness is ability of mind.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 4:51 am
Btw, show me any links where scientists or researchers are comparing the hard problem of consciousness as the same with the hard problem of emergence?
Physicist are confused. They are looking for theory of everything at the same time try to explain some phenomena like consciousness as emergence. My argument is one argument against emergence. You are welcome to attack it. For hard problem of consciousness please read this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_prob ... sciousness
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 4:51 am
To me, the assertion 'There cannot be any emergence' is not even tenable as a hypothesis.
That is the conclusion.
I understand the hard problem of consciousness and as I had stated it is related to not knowing precisely how consciousness emerged. It is not an excuse to insist emergence do not exists.
Note 'emergence' as I had discussed it is not specifically the Physicists' subject.
Emergence in my case is related to reality-as-it-is based on philosophy-proper, i.e. epistemology.
Note for example, Physicists are interested in how marble-A when it knocked marble-B and caused of its movement forward in terms of Newton's Law and cause & effect.
However Hume deny the reality of the above and attributed the events to "emergence" from the philosophical perspective.Hume argued the event that is seeemingly cause & effect is actually due to customs, habits and constant conjunction, so, switching the fact to the psychological perspective, thus
- Human conditions [physical and mental] + marbles A and B, movements, ++ = emergence of marble-B moving forward.
Therefore emergence exists so contra your OP.