bahman wrote: ↑Mon Aug 12, 2019 8:32 am
Age wrote: ↑Sun Aug 11, 2019 9:42 am
None of this was really helpful for me in clarifying what it is that you are trying to say. Maybe if you provide some examples this might work better.
Ok, let me give it another shot. We all know that the brain is made of matter. People suggest that the mind is due to neural activity in the brain and matter itself does not have any mind.
Does matter 'have' any thing?
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Aug 12, 2019 8:32 amThe mind is simply something extra than neural activity.
How do you know this?
What is the 'mind'?
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Aug 12, 2019 8:32 amWhere mind comes from?
That is easy to answer, when I know what the definition of 'mind' is being used and given.
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Aug 12, 2019 8:32 amThere is no reason for that since if there was a reason for it then the brain was just simply the sum of its parts and couldn't possibly have something emergent, so-called mind.
To me, this does not follow logically at all.
If there was a reason for where the mind comes from, then the brain was (is) just simply the sum of its parts.
I do not understand this.
AND, IF that first part is true, THEN,
There is no reason for where the mind comes from.
That does not make sense, and this also does not make sense;
The brain could not possibly have some thing emergent from it, called a 'mind'.
Truthfully I can not even break your "argument" down logically into sensible parts so that I can understand it. I can not understand the parts of it, let alone the whole of it.
How many premises are there, and what are they?
And, how many conclusions are there, and what are they?
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Aug 12, 2019 8:32 am So the only way to escape the trouble is to say that there is no reason why the mind exists, so-called emergence.
But there is a reason why the Mind exists.
Why do you say there is no reason why the mind exists?
Just because you see "trouble" that does not mean that there is any "trouble" here, to me. And, by just saying there is no reason for some thing is no way of escaping the "trouble" you see. If there is a reason for some thing, then by just saying there is no reason does not suffice.
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Aug 12, 2019 8:32 am This however in conflict with the fact that there is always a reason why something occurs. Therefore emergence is false.
If 'emergence' is false, what is 'emergence', to you?
If there is no such thing as 'emergence', then why does the word exist?
The word 'emergence' has a definition, so what is it exactly in that definition that you are saying is "false"?
How do you define the word 'emergence'?
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Aug 12, 2019 8:32 amAge wrote: ↑Sun Aug 11, 2019 9:42 am
How I see this is, a child emerges into an adult, thoughts emerge into new thoughts, Consciousness emerges in and through species.
Yes, a child turns into an adult because s/he experiences stuff. So there is a reason for that.
And what about the other two that I mentioned?
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Aug 12, 2019 8:32 amAge wrote: ↑Sun Aug 11, 2019 9:42 am
The Universe is a whole of a specific system, which is the sum of Its parts. Just some do not yet know ALL of Its parts, but this does not mean that the whole is more than the sum of Its parts.
True. The whole is just the sum of its parts.
We agree.
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Aug 12, 2019 8:32 amAge wrote: ↑Sun Aug 11, 2019 9:42 am
Emergence can be explained through, and by, evolution. There is always things 'emerging', or
becoming visible after being concealed. This is 'explicable', or
can be accounted for, explained, and understood.
I call what comes out of evolution as change and not emergence.
Okay, but the definition I was using for the word 'emergence' is
becoming visible after being concealed.
In a sense, just about every thing could be said is
becoming visible after being concealed. In another sense, the Truth could be said to
becoming visible after being concealed. In another sense, becoming more Self aware could be said to
becoming visible after being concealed.
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Aug 12, 2019 8:32 amAge wrote: ↑Sun Aug 11, 2019 9:42 am
I observe the physical emerging, or evolving, and I see the invisible also emerging, or changing.
But you agree that the whole is just the sum of its parts?
Yes.
Do you agree parts withing the whole can emerge?
Do you agree the whole
becoming visible after being concealed? For example, thee Truth of the Universe, Itself, could
becoming visible after being concealed, agree?
The Truth of the Universe has been concealed and is becoming visible. Unless of course thee Truth of the Universe has never been concealed, but just human beings have not yet been able to see and understand that whole (Truth) yet.
To see and understand things could be said to
becoming visible. When what is seen can also be said to be understood. Knowledge and understanding emerges with seeing/understanding. Emergence is just this seeing/understanding what is
becoming visible after being concealed.
Even thee True Self is concealed, but It is becoming visible, and is still emerging to some. The True Self is just emerging slower to some human beings than It is to "others".
There is emergence, to me, with that definition. I will just await for your definition for the word 'emergence'.