Proofs are extremely rare outside of things like symbolic logic or math.bahman wrote: ↑Fri Apr 22, 2022 10:04 pmThe thread title should be "There is no strong emergence". I already defined weak emergence in this thread several times: A weak emergence describes a situation in a system in which the properties of the system/whole are functions of the properties of parts. The strong emergence is the opposite: A strong emergence describes a situation in a system in which the properties of the system/whole are not functions of the properties of parts.seeds wrote: ↑Fri Apr 22, 2022 8:26 pmNo, bahman, what you showed is that you don't seem to understand what "strong emergence" means.
That, and based on the fact that you just admitted that there are "...all sorts of emergence..." shows that you didn't give much critical thought to your thread title.
But I have shown in OP that all sorts of emergence are weak. Please help yourself and read and understand the argument. I would be happy to see your counter-argument.seeds wrote: ↑Thu Apr 07, 2022 4:54 pmWhen something that we call "mind"...
(which is not only immaterial and un-measurable, but also contains a conscious [self-aware] agent who is in possession of free will)
...emerges from a measurable material substance in which no mind or self-aware (conscious) agent can be located, then, yes, we are indeed dealing with "strong emergence."
If the unique arrangement of matter gives rise to something then we are dealing with weak emergence.
But something that can be caused/created can be destroyed too. Moreover, how something, the soul, that its very existence depends on something else, the brain, could survive death?seeds wrote: ↑Thu Apr 07, 2022 4:54 pm I speculatively propose that the brain accomplishes this miraculous feat through some "mechanistic" means that somehow allows it to summon-forth the essence of life imbued within the very fabric of its own material makeup and then somehow causes that life essence to "focalize and awaken" into a new entity (a "soul") that is capable of surviving the death of the body and brain.
Yes.
To me, the subject of experience, quale, is a substance created by minds. It should exist as a substance otherwise it could not be experienced given the definition of substance, substance is a thing that exists and has a set of properties. My definition is slightly different.seeds wrote: ↑Thu Apr 07, 2022 4:54 pmI think you are misunderstanding the meaning of the word "qualia," for qualia and mind are far too closely related to be thought of as being a proper representation of "substance dualism"...
In other words, you seem to be treating the word "qualia" as if it were a representation of "phenomena," or the actual phenomenal features of the universe (e.g., rocks, apples, French Horns, etc,), which it is not.qualia
noun
PHILOSOPHY
the internal and subjective component of sense perceptions, arising from stimulation of the senses by phenomena.
According to Wiki:
Examples of qualia include the perceived sensation of pain of a headache, the taste of wine, as well as the redness of an evening sky.
Again, "qualia" and "mind" are too closely related to be considered as being a good representation of "substance dualism."
I suggest you find something better than trying to contrast qualia with mind, for you are just adding unnecessary confusion to your argument.
That is not a proof.seeds wrote: ↑Thu Apr 07, 2022 4:54 pm
Clearly, it can be created, as is witnessed thousands of times everyday when a new mind awakens (emerges) into existence through this event...
The new mind (new "I Am-ness") that resides on the inside of that tiny skull is the ultimate example of "strong emergence."
Indeed, it is a representation of something that is "wholly other" than the material substance from which it emerged.
_______
What this person is pointing out is that something happens at one level that so far we not only lack proof but even evidence that it happens to the parts.
You haven't proved anything either.