RogerSH wrote: ↑Thu Sep 02, 2021 6:09 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Aug 29, 2021 11:20 pm
RogerSH wrote: ↑Sat Aug 28, 2021 12:01 pm
Which if you look carefully is exactly what I am saying!
No, no...it's not. Because if it were, you'd know that a soap bubble is not even possibly an analogy for it. I tried to bold the important bits for your special attention.
A soap bubble isn't an
analogy, it's an
example of the process described.
That's even
more incorrect, then.
Soap bubbles come from soap...precisely the same compound of which soap bubbles are composed. So they are not, in the correct Emergentist sense, "emergent" at all.
It seems that you're using "emerge" in the common way...nothing wrong with that, except that it fails to refer to the theory of Emergentism at all, so just isn't relevant. Or perhaps you're using it in the way that ordinary science uses it, as when it says birds "emerge" as flocks or a figure "emerges" from a background pattern. But I assure you, that's not what Emergentism is understood to mean in the mind-brain debate.
Emergentism requires that a thing of one nature can leap into existence, explode onto the scene, suddenly "emerge" --
without process and
without sharing any properties or substances with that from which it "emerges" -- that is, it can come spontaneously and in no way that can be explained, from something
totally unlike.
That is precisely how, Emergentists insist, "mind" can be a product of "brain" without having any point of substance-contact with "brain." If you think that "emergence" means that brains gradually evolve into minds, or that brains generate minds out of their same substance, then you don't get the theory at all. You're operating on a much more common, low-level and low-resolution definition that does not capture the theory of Mind-Brain Emergentism.
Again, check the definition. It's not a match for "soap bubbles. Read more carefully, and you'll see.