Mind is immortal

[Veritas Aequitas]

Wetness of water like the solidity of ice is a property of water. They get magnified depending on the situation, the situation is defined by external and internal parameters. There is no emergence.

We have to agree on the definition of 'emergent'.
[we have gone tru this before].

By emergence I mean, some property which does not intrinsically exist in one state of matter appears in another state of matter.

Note the definition of 'emergence' below.

Your definition do not seem to make sense at all.
Note the wiki definition below which specify;

• These properties or behaviors emerge only when the parts interact in a wider whole.

Note the bolded phrase above.

In philosophy, systems theory, science, and art, emergence occurs when an entity is observed to have properties its parts do not have on their own.
These properties or behaviors emerge only when the parts interact in a wider whole.
For example, smooth forward motion emerges when a bicycle and its rider interoperate, but neither part can produce the behavior on their own.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence ... _processes

The motion a biker and bicycle can be explained in terms of the properties of part. You can even simulate it.

You missed the point here.
What is implied is the emergence of motion only appears when the biker sits on the bicycle and consciously cycles it.

Read the above carefully.
Hydrogen and Oxygen by themselves do not have 'wetness' thus 'wetness' of water [H2O] is an emergence as defined above.

That is not correct, any liquid is wet. The wetness is due to tension.

You got it wrong.
Not all liquids are wet, note liquid mercury, liquid gold, liquid lava, and the likes.

But the point here is,
there is only an emergence [as defined above] of wetness when H and O [two] are combined.
H and O by themselves do not have the property of 'wetness'.

The property or behavior is the emergent and this can be verified empirically and philosophically.
There is no way you should dispute my definition of emergence as qualified above.

You have to agree to the above, but you can say this definition do not serve your purpose.

Perhaps, you are defining 'emergence' from another perspective.
What is your definition of 'emergence' then?

I already defined the emergence.

Your definition of 'emergence' as above is very weird.

Do you agree with the definition I provided with this critical point;

• These properties or behaviors emerge only when the parts interact in a wider whole.

Note you got it wrong with
1. the definition of emergence
2. wetness of liquids - not all liquids are wet.
3. the bike and the biker are separate parts, motion only appears when the biker pedal the bike.

No wonder your idea of 'mind' is a messed-up.

[bahman]

We have to agree on the definition of 'emergent'.
[we have gone tru this before].

By emergence I mean, some property which does not intrinsically exist in one state of matter appears in another state of matter.

Note the definition of 'emergence' below.

Your definition do not seem to make sense at all.
Note the wiki definition below which specify;

• These properties or behaviors emerge only when the parts interact in a wider whole.

Note the bolded phrase above.

My definition is a good one. You go from one state to another state and property or behavior emerges.

In philosophy, systems theory, science, and art, emergence occurs when an entity is observed to have properties its parts do not have on their own.
These properties or behaviors emerge only when the parts interact in a wider whole.
For example, smooth forward motion emerges when a bicycle and its rider interoperate, but neither part can produce the behavior on their own.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence ... _processes

The motion a biker and bicycle can be explained in terms of the properties of part. You can even simulate it.

You missed the point here.
What is implied is the emergence of motion only appears when the biker sits on the bicycle and consciously cycles it.

There is no emergence here. Everything is functionally describable.

Read the above carefully.
Hydrogen and Oxygen by themselves do not have 'wetness' thus 'wetness' of water [H2O] is an emergence as defined above.

That is not correct, any liquid is wet. The wetness is due to tension.

You got it wrong.
Not all liquids are wet, note liquid mercury, liquid gold, liquid lava, and the likes.

But the point here is,
there is only an emergence [as defined above] of wetness when H and O [two] are combined.
H and O by themselves do not have the property of 'wetness'.

As I said wetness is the surface tension. Some liquid has a high surface tension and they wet a little and otherwise.

The property or behavior is the emergent and this can be verified empirically and philosophically.
There is no way you should dispute my definition of emergence as qualified above.

You have to agree to the above, but you can say this definition do not serve your purpose.

Perhaps, you are defining 'emergence' from another perspective.
What is your definition of 'emergence' then?

I already defined the emergence.

Your definition of 'emergence' as above is very weird.

Do you agree with the definition I provided with this critical point;

• These properties or behaviors emerge only when the parts interact in a wider whole.

Note you got it wrong with
1. the definition of emergence
2. wetness of liquids - not all liquids are wet.
3. the bike and the biker are separate parts, motion only appears when the biker pedal the bike.

No wonder your idea of 'mind' is a messed-up.

No, you get it wrong.

[Veritas Aequitas]

By emergence I mean, some property which does not intrinsically exist in one state of matter appears in another state of matter.

Note the definition of 'emergence' below.

Your definition do not seem to make sense at all.
Note the wiki definition below which specify;

• These properties or behaviors emerge only when the parts interact in a wider whole.

Note the bolded phrase above.

My definition is a good one. You go from one state to another state and property or behavior emerges.

The motion a biker and bicycle can be explained in terms of the properties of part. You can even simulate it.

You missed the point here.
What is implied is the emergence of motion only appears when the biker sits on the bicycle and consciously cycles it.

There is no emergence here. Everything is functionally describable.

That is not correct, any liquid is wet. The wetness is due to tension.

You got it wrong.
Not all liquids are wet, note liquid mercury, liquid gold, liquid lava, and the likes.

But the point here is,
there is only an emergence [as defined above] of wetness when H and O [two] are combined.
H and O by themselves do not have the property of 'wetness'.

As I said wetness is the surface tension. Some liquid has a high surface tension and they wet a little and otherwise.

I already defined the emergence.

Your definition of 'emergence' as above is very weird.

Do you agree with the definition I provided with this critical point;

• These properties or behaviors emerge only when the parts interact in a wider whole.

Note you got it wrong with
1. the definition of emergence
2. wetness of liquids - not all liquids are wet.
3. the bike and the biker are separate parts, motion only appears when the biker pedal the bike.

No wonder your idea of 'mind' is a messed-up.

No, you get it wrong.

I have provided a generally accepted and a definition of emergence [common and philosophical] that is empirically verifiable and reasoned philosophically.
The wiki definition had given examples and I have provided examples of what is 'emergence' as defined.

You rejected the above and insist on your own definition which is derived from baseless argument.

If you insist on your weird definition, it is useless for us to continue to discuss since we are talking pass each [me-oranges, you-apples] other all the time.

Suggest you open a new thread to justify your definition of 'emergence' with sound arguments and examples.

[bahman]

Note the definition of 'emergence' below.

Your definition do not seem to make sense at all.
Note the wiki definition below which specify;

• These properties or behaviors emerge only when the parts interact in a wider whole.

Note the bolded phrase above.

My definition is a good one. You go from one state to another state and property or behavior emerges.

You missed the point here.
What is implied is the emergence of motion only appears when the biker sits on the bicycle and consciously cycles it.

There is no emergence here. Everything is functionally describable.

You got it wrong.
Not all liquids are wet, note liquid mercury, liquid gold, liquid lava, and the likes.

But the point here is,
there is only an emergence [as defined above] of wetness when H and O [two] are combined.
H and O by themselves do not have the property of 'wetness'.

As I said wetness is the surface tension. Some liquid has a high surface tension and they wet a little and otherwise.

Your definition of 'emergence' as above is very weird.

Do you agree with the definition I provided with this critical point;

• These properties or behaviors emerge only when the parts interact in a wider whole.

Note you got it wrong with
1. the definition of emergence
2. wetness of liquids - not all liquids are wet.
3. the bike and the biker are separate parts, motion only appears when the biker pedal the bike.

No wonder your idea of 'mind' is a messed-up.

No, you get it wrong.

I have provided a generally accepted and a definition of emergence [common and philosophical] that is empirically verifiable and reasoned philosophically.
The wiki definition had given examples and I have provided examples of what is 'emergence' as defined.

You rejected the above and insist on your own definition which is derived from baseless argument.

If you insist on your weird definition, it is useless for us to continue to discuss since we are talking pass each [me-oranges, you-apples] other all the time.

Suggest you open a new thread to justify your definition of 'emergence' with sound arguments and examples.

Ok, I open another thread on the meaning of emergence.