There is no emergence

[bahman]

That is total non-sense. The whole cannot have the porperty that parts don't.
.

Duh.

So is petrol sweet?
Or can you run a car on sugar?

Yet they have exactly the same parts.

QED emergence is true.

Do you think that sugar, for example, emits sweetness?

[Sculptor]

That is total non-sense. The whole cannot have the porperty that parts don't.
.

Duh.

So is petrol sweet?
Or can you run a car on sugar?

Yet they have exactly the same parts.

QED emergence is true.

Do you think that sugar, for example, emits sweetness?

No, why do you ask?
Do you think that sugar has the same structure as, the same weight as, and the same appearance as Carbon oxygen and hydrogen?

[Skepdick]

Do you think that sugar, for example, emits sweetness?

I have no idea what you are even asking.

I have tasted sugar. It's sweet.
I have also tasted alcohol. It has a very distinct taste.
I have also tasted Carbon, Hydrogen or Oxygen. None of them are sweet. None of them have the taste of alcohol.

Sugar and Alcohol are both made of Carbon, Hydrogen or Oxygen atoms.

[bahman]

Duh.

So is petrol sweet?
Or can you run a car on sugar?

Yet they have exactly the same parts.

QED emergence is true.

Do you think that sugar, for example, emits sweetness?

No, why do you ask?
Do you think that sugar has the same structure as, the same weight as, and the same appearance as Carbon oxygen and hydrogen?

If sweetness is a property of sugar then it has to affect other things.

[bahman]

Do you think that sugar, for example, emits sweetness?

I have no idea what you are even asking.

I have tasted sugar. It's sweet.
I have also tasted alcohol. It has a very distinct taste.
I have also tasted Carbon, Hydrogen or Oxygen. None of them are sweet. None of them have the taste of alcohol.

Sugar and Alcohol are both made of Carbon, Hydrogen or Oxygen atoms.

Could we agree that sweetness is a property of sugar? If yes then sugar affects other things by its sweetness.

[Skepdick]

Could we agree that sweetness is a property of sugar? If yes then sugar affects other things by its sweetness.

About the only thing I am happy to agree on is that there is emergence.

The rest is mental gymnastics on your part.

[Sculptor]

Do you think that sugar, for example, emits sweetness?

I have no idea what you are even asking.

I have tasted sugar. It's sweet.
I have also tasted alcohol. It has a very distinct taste.
I have also tasted Carbon, Hydrogen or Oxygen. None of them are sweet. None of them have the taste of alcohol.

Sugar and Alcohol are both made of Carbon, Hydrogen or Oxygen atoms.

Could we agree that sweetness is a property of sugar? If yes then sugar affects other things by its sweetness.

Do you think that sugar has the same structure as, the same weight as, and the same appearance as Carbon oxygen and hydrogen?

[Sculptor]

Do you think that sugar, for example, emits sweetness?

No, why do you ask?
Do you think that sugar has the same structure as, the same weight as, and the same appearance as Carbon oxygen and hydrogen?

If sweetness is a property of sugar then it has to affect other things.

So what?

Do you think that sugar has the same structure as, the same weight as, and the same appearance as Carbon oxygen and hydrogen?

[seeds]

We know the properties of matter which we assume there is no such thing as consciousness among them....

....The properties of matter are simply, mass, charge, spin, etc. The relation between these properties is mathematical, laws of physics, and it is exhaustive meaning that you cannot possibly have a specific configuration of matter that gives rise to a new property that is not listed.

And yet even though consciousness will never be found in any list of brain components, it nevertheless not only makes an appearance once those components are arranged in just the right way, but it also presents itself as being the only reason for the existence of the brain in the first place.

bahman, there is absolutely nothing in your reply that even remotely addresses my question of why a perfectly reasonable (applicable) word such as “emergence” cannot be used to describe what is taking place as our unique individualization of personal consciousness “arises” (awakens, comes into being, emerges) from the non-conscious fabric of matter?

Now, as I said earlier, if you can think of a better word than “emergence” to describe that specific process, then let’s hear it.
_______

[PTH]

Now, as I said earlier, if you can think of a better word than “emergence” to describe that specific process, then let’s hear it.

To be fair, it would help if there was a specific process.

[Skepdick]

To be fair, it would help if there was a specific process.

It doesn't help at all when there are many different processes that may produce the same outcome.

Because equifinality itself is an emergent phenomenon.

Or as it's colloquially used - there are many ways to skin a cat.

[PTH]

To be fair, it would help if there was a specific process.

It doesn't help at all when there are many different processes that may produce the same outcome.

Because equifinality itself is an emergent phenomenon.

Or as it's colloquially used - there are many ways to skin a cat.

Indeed, there are words to cover many possibilities.

I wonder if the emergence of a unicorn is a possibility? Is there any way the emergence of such an animal could be accelerated by artificial selection, or some other human skill?

Of course, if we glued a horn onto a horse's head, and didn't look too closely, who'd know?

[Skepdick]

Of course, if we glued a horn onto a horse's head, and didn't look too closely, who'd know?

No matter how closely you look you can never see the noumenon behind a phenomenon.

Epistemology is the limit. Philosophy goes too far.

[PTH]

No matter how closely you look you can never see the noumenon behind a phenomenon.

Epistemology is the limit. Philosophy goes too far.

And, in fairness, that's because life goes too far.

[Skepdick]

And, in fairness, that's because life goes too far.

Only as far as death allows.