There is no emergence

[seeds]

Couldn't you do better? For example, refute my argument?

bahman, your argument was thoroughly refuted in the other (exact same titled) thread you started back in 2019, here: viewtopic.php?p=418770#p418770

It's the one that had 316 replies, most of which you didn't like. So, apparently, you must have imagined that if you simply abandoned that thread and started a new one with the same title, then all of those pesky refutations would magically vanish.

Well, you were wrong about "strong emergence" back in 2019, and you are still wrong in 2022.
_______

Can you give me the list of refutations so we can discuss them here?

First of all, what's the point of doing that, bahman? You're just going to give the same weak (nonsensical) arguments again.

Secondly, I'm certainly not going to retrieve all of the refutations that me, Sculptor, and even Skepdick provided you in that other thread.

However, seeing how I'm always happy to expose the flaws in someone's dubious concept, here's a copy of one of my initial replies...

I use "the premise" to show that there is no emergence, the premise being "everything has an explanation". Let me know if you have a problem with the premise.

Why would the fact that a particular process has an “explanation,” have any bearing on the terminology we use to describe the workings and outcome of the process?

What I mean is that the word “emergence” seems like a perfectly reasonable term to use when describing the “coming into being” (awakening) of a new human consciousness from a highly specific arrangement of the non-conscious elements of a brain.

So regardless of the fact that there surely exists an explanation for how and why a brain can do what it does, I’m having trouble understanding why you have a problem with using the word “emergence” to describe how each of our consciousnesses seem to have arisen from unconscious matter....
_______

_______

[bahman]

bahman, your argument was thoroughly refuted in the other (exact same titled) thread you started back in 2019, here: viewtopic.php?p=418770#p418770

It's the one that had 316 replies, most of which you didn't like. So, apparently, you must have imagined that if you simply abandoned that thread and started a new one with the same title, then all of those pesky refutations would magically vanish.

Well, you were wrong about "strong emergence" back in 2019, and you are still wrong in 2022.
_______

Can you give me the list of refutations so we can discuss them here?

First of all, what's the point of doing that, bahman? You're just going to give the same weak (nonsensical) arguments again.

Secondly, I'm certainly not going to retrieve all of the refutations that me, Sculptor, and even Skepdick provided you in that other thread.

I explain what is wrong with the concept of emergence when I discuss things with them.

However, seeing how I'm always happy to expose the flaws in someone's dubious concept, here's a copy of one of my initial replies...

I use "the premise" to show that there is no emergence, the premise being "everything has an explanation". Let me know if you have a problem with the premise.

Why would the fact that a particular process has an “explanation,” have any bearing on the terminology we use to describe the workings and outcome of the process?

What I mean is that the word “emergence” seems like a perfectly reasonable term to use when describing the “coming into being” (awakening) of a new human consciousness from a highly specific arrangement of the non-conscious elements of a brain.

So regardless of the fact that there surely exists an explanation for how and why a brain can do what it does, I’m having trouble understanding why you have a problem with using the word “emergence” to describe how each of our consciousnesses seem to have arisen from unconscious matter....
_______

_______

Well, there are two things in here that I would like to discuss. First, if we accept that there is an explanation for how the brain is conscious in spite of the fact that its parts are not then the question of how consciousness can emerge becomes valid. So you owe an explanation of how this could possibly happen when you notice that all that is happening in the brain is the exchange of electrons between neurons. Can a machine with parts that exchange electrons is conscious as well? Is internet conscious? Remember, that you are trying to explain a solution for the hard problem of consciousness. Second, if we agree that the brain can become conscious from non-conscious parts given the circumstances then it means that the brain's function, most importantly conscious functioning, is a function of properties of parts. Then the question is what is this function?

[Dimebag]

How can biology be possible from non biological processes? Biology is not a whole new thing, but rather, a novel behaviour of particular configurations of matter.

It is those configurations which have the novel making power, not the electrons themselves. Imagine the electrons and protons as a substrate for that novel behaviour called biology.

Now, we have a new substrate. Biology is the substrate of consciousness. Particularly a new novel form of biology called a nervous system. A nervous system carries sensory signals to a central area we call the brain, with such complexity that, asking a person to attempt to explain how consciousness emerges from it is like asking someone to decrypt a nearly unbreakable code.

The task is immense to try to lay out just how consciousness is a product of biology and the nervous system/brain configuration meeting an external world.

Your request is nevertheless, a fair request. Materialism has the burden of proof to explain just how consciousness comes from that system. Until then, we should not revert to other explanations with zero credence. We should adopt a more Bayesian approach, or risk going against the preponderance of evidence which the many fields of science have built up, explaining that there is nothing in nature which does not fall under the banner of natural.

Consciousness seems entirely reliant on the bodily system. Can you provide any evidence counter to this?

[Age]

Couldn't you do better? For example, refute my argument?

But, "your argument" was ALREADY 'self-refuted'.

This is because in "your argument" you are ASSUMING 'things', and 'your conclusion" is based upon those ASSUMPTIONS.

Now, OBVIOUSLY, just because 'you' ASSUME some 'things', this does NOT MEAN that those ASSUMED 'things' are true, right, NOR correct.

If 'we' are going to ASSUME 'things' in 'an argument', then the conclusion of 'that argument' is NOT necessarily going to be true, right, NOR correct.

So, what you will HAVE TO DO from now on, that is; if you want to PROVIDE an ACTUAL sound AND valid, thus IRREFUTABLE 'argument', is start by PROVIDING ACTUAL PROOFS for what you say in "your arguments" or PROVIDE EXAMPLES of 'things' that ACTUALLY DO EXIST.

THEN, we can LOOK AT and DISCUSS "your arguments" AGAIN.

Until then you have YET to PROVIDE an ACTUAL sound AND valid 'argument'. As I have INFORMED you ALREADY those types of 'arguments' are the ONLY ones LOOKING AT and REPEATING, as they are the ONLY ones that are IRREFUTABLE. EVERY other type of 'argument' is REFUTABLE and so REALLY NOT even worth MENTIONING, let alone TALKING ABOUT and DISCUSSING, REPEATEDLY.

Read OP, please.

I read 'it' AGAIN.

And this is HOW I was ABLE TO SHOW how you have REFUTED your OWN CLAIMS there.

[seeds]

Well, there are two things in here that I would like to discuss. First, if we accept that there is an explanation for how the brain is conscious in spite of the fact that its parts are not then the question of how consciousness can emerge becomes valid. So you owe an explanation of how this could possibly happen when you notice that all that is happening in the brain is the exchange of electrons between neurons.

Okay, and admitting up front that I could be completely wrong about all of this, here's my highly speculative (perhaps even nut-jobbery ) explanation for how living consciousness emerges from inanimate matter...

Like George Berkeley, I believe that the universe is the MIND of a higher (incorporeal) consciousness.

I'm talking about a Being that is as far above humans in scope and consciousness as humans are above flies, as is metaphorically depicted in a couple of my illustrations...



Now, with the universe being the MIND of this higher consciousness, it means that the universe's phenomenal features (suns, planets, water, rocks, sand, houses, cars, etc., etc.) are literally "alive"...

...(Note: not conscious, just alive due to being imbued (saturated) with this higher Being's living essence. And that would be in the exact same way that the phenomenal features of that vivid dream you may have had last night are literally "alive" because they are imbued with your life essence.)

To which I suggest that because a brain is, in fact, an extremely advanced manifestation of the higher mind's mental holography, it has thus been "designed" in such a way that not only allows it to summon-forth the life essence residing in the mental substance from which it is created,...

...but in the case of the human brain, it has also been "designed" to somehow cause (or trigger, or enable) that life essence to awaken into a new individualization of consciousness with a personal (and self-aware) identity.

Thus it can be understood that this new individualization of self-aware consciousness with a personal identity (along with its accompanying mind), "emerges" from the living fabric of matter in the form of something that is "wholly different" from the constituent properties of the matter from which it arose.

And that, my dear bahman, makes it an example of "strong emergence."

Now I realize (as uwot likes to remind me) that these are all extremely "iffy" propositions.

Nevertheless, if the universe is indeed the MIND of a higher consciousness, then it would also explain the phenomenon of what biologists call "abiogenesis." For if the essence of life (the basis of mind and consciousness) is already present within the fabric of matter,...

...then it is simply a tiny little step in imagining how inanimate (yet living) matter could become animate matter (evolvable micro-organisms) that can then be guided (either through natural evolution - or - through purposeful design) into becoming higher forms of life.

Anyway, that, in a nutshell, is my explanation of what "strong emergence" is all about.

(Continued in next post)
_______

[seeds]

_______

(Continued from prior post)

Can a machine with parts that exchange electrons is conscious as well?

Theoretically, yes. But only if the machine can be designed to do precisely what a brain does, as in summon-forth the life essence imbued within the material fabric of its makeup (as described in the prior post), and then somehow trigger that life essence into awakening into a new individualization of consciousness.

If the Creator of this universe were to even allow such a thing, how long do you think it would be before humans would be capable of achieving such a "God-level" feat?

Furthermore, how would they even know if they were successful?

Is internet conscious?

No!

Remember, that you are trying to explain a solution for the hard problem of consciousness.

No, bahman, I'm trying to explain why your declaration of "there Is no emergence," is nonsense.

Second, if we agree that the brain can become conscious from non-conscious parts given the circumstances then it means that the brain's function, most importantly conscious functioning, is a function of properties of parts.

If you think that a full explanation of all of the workings of a human mind can be traced down to something taking place between the properties and parts of the brain, then you are describing "weak emergence" not "strong emergence."

However even "weak emergence" is still an example of "emergence," which renders your thread title null and void.

And, lastly, it's not the brain that becomes conscious.

No, it is the living, self-aware "agent" of the emergent mind that becomes conscious after efflorescing ("emerging") from the unconscious (but living) material fabric of a brain, which, again, is simply the advanced mental holography of a higher mind (as was described in the prior post).
_______

[popeye1945]

Bahman,

You have no sense of humor!!!!
[/quote]
Ok. What is your opinion then?
[/quote]

Bahman,
I believe it is all emergent. It really comes down to things arising from a base condition, as the environment now is a condition and the condition in which life arose was much different. Life became linked with the change of condition and even contributed to the said change of condition. So in my thinking consciousness is the change of one's condition by that larger condition of the environment through reaction to the said environment and in its reaction, it becomes in degree the cause of the changes in the environment. How and when does a condition become a thing is something wonderous to ponder.

[bahman]

Well, there are two things in here that I would like to discuss. First, if we accept that there is an explanation for how the brain is conscious in spite of the fact that its parts are not then the question of how consciousness can emerge becomes valid. So you owe an explanation of how this could possibly happen when you notice that all that is happening in the brain is the exchange of electrons between neurons.

Okay, and admitting up front that I could be completely wrong about all of this, here's my highly speculative (perhaps even nut-jobbery ) explanation for how living consciousness emerges from inanimate matter...

Like George Berkeley, I believe that the universe is the MIND of a higher (incorporeal) consciousness.

I'm talking about a Being that is as far above humans in scope and consciousness as humans are above flies, as is metaphorically depicted in a couple of my illustrations...



Now, with the universe being the MIND of this higher consciousness, it means that the universe's phenomenal features (suns, planets, water, rocks, sand, houses, cars, etc., etc.) are literally "alive"...

...(Note: not conscious, just alive due to being imbued (saturated) with this higher Being's living essence. And that would be in the exact same way that the phenomenal features of that vivid dream you may have had last night are literally "alive" because they are imbued with your life essence.)

To which I suggest that because a brain is, in fact, an extremely advanced manifestation of the higher mind's mental holography, it has thus been "designed" in such a way that not only allows it to summon-forth the life essence residing in the mental substance from which it is created,...

...but in the case of the human brain, it has also been "designed" to somehow cause (or trigger, or enable) that life essence to awaken into a new individualization of consciousness with a personal (and self-aware) identity.

Thus it can be understood that this new individualization of self-aware consciousness with a personal identity (along with its accompanying mind), "emerges" from the living fabric of matter in the form of something that is "wholly different" from the constituent properties of the matter from which it arose.

And that, my dear bahman, makes it an example of "strong emergence."

Now I realize (as uwot likes to remind me) that these are all extremely "iffy" propositions.

Nevertheless, if the universe is indeed the MIND of a higher consciousness, then it would also explain the phenomenon of what biologists call "abiogenesis." For if the essence of life (the basis of mind and consciousness) is already present within the fabric of matter,...

...then it is simply a tiny little step in imagining how inanimate (yet living) matter could become animate matter (evolvable micro-organisms) that can then be guided (either through natural evolution - or - through purposeful design) into becoming higher forms of life.

Anyway, that, in a nutshell, is my explanation of what "strong emergence" is all about.

(Continued in next post)
_______

You are not offering a valid argument in favor of strong emergence. Again, you need to explain how. All you are saying is that the universe and all therein are conscious and in the case of humans, we have a personal identity that is the result of how the brain is structured. Therefore, we have strong emergence.

[bahman]

_______

(Continued from prior post)

Can a machine with parts that exchange electrons is conscious as well?

Theoretically, yes. But only if the machine can be designed to do precisely what a brain does, as in summon-forth the life essence imbued within the material fabric of its makeup (as described in the prior post), and then somehow trigger that life essence into awakening into a new individualization of consciousness.

If the Creator of this universe were to even allow such a thing, how long do you think it would be before humans would be capable of achieving such a "God-level" feat?

Furthermore, how would they even know if they were successful?

I ask a general question. You claim that the design matter. How possibly design could matter if the parts do not have an intrinsic property to generate consciousness or they are not conscious.

Is internet conscious?

No!

Why not? You have a process there so how do you know.

Remember, that you are trying to explain a solution for the hard problem of consciousness.

No, bahman, I'm trying to explain why your declaration of "there Is no emergence," is nonsense.

So, you misunderstood.

Second, if we agree that the brain can become conscious from non-conscious parts given the circumstances then it means that the brain's function, most importantly conscious functioning, is a function of properties of parts.

If you think that a full explanation of all of the workings of a human mind can be traced down to something taking place between the properties and parts of the brain, then you are describing "weak emergence" not "strong emergence."

However even "weak emergence" is still an example of "emergence," which renders your thread title null and void.

And, lastly, it's not the brain that becomes conscious.

No, it is the living, self-aware "agent" of the emergent mind that becomes conscious after efflorescing ("emerging") from the unconscious (but living) material fabric of a brain, which, again, is simply the advanced mental holography of a higher mind (as was described in the prior post).
_______

But if the design matter, then it means that there is an explanation for how the brain is conscious. The explanation is the function that you claim that you have. So if there is an explanation for the emergence of consciousness in the brain then we are dealing with weak emergence instead of strong emergence. Again, do you have an explanation? Or you think the emergence is not explicable, strong emergence.

And I am arguing against strong emergence in this thread. Anybody knows that 1+1=2 that this is a weak emergence.

[bahman]

How can biology be possible from non biological processes? Biology is not a whole new thing, but rather, a novel behaviour of particular configurations of matter.

It is those configurations which have the novel making power, not the electrons themselves. Imagine the electrons and protons as a substrate for that novel behaviour called biology.

Now, we have a new substrate. Biology is the substrate of consciousness. Particularly a new novel form of biology called a nervous system. A nervous system carries sensory signals to a central area we call the brain, with such complexity that, asking a person to attempt to explain how consciousness emerges from it is like asking someone to decrypt a nearly unbreakable code.

The task is immense to try to lay out just how consciousness is a product of biology and the nervous system/brain configuration meeting an external world.

Your request is nevertheless, a fair request. Materialism has the burden of proof to explain just how consciousness comes from that system. Until then, we should not revert to other explanations with zero credence. We should adopt a more Bayesian approach, or risk going against the preponderance of evidence which the many fields of science have built up, explaining that there is nothing in nature which does not fall under the banner of natural.

Consciousness seems entirely reliant on the bodily system. Can you provide any evidence counter to this?

Any biological system governs the physical laws! In fact, scientists simulate simple biological systems these days. We know if there is a current in a system then you only have an electromagnetic field and nothing else, such as a conscious field. These are the laws of physics. This means that you cannot have a conscious field no matter how do you rewire your system of interest.

[bahman]

But, "your argument" was ALREADY 'self-refuted'.

This is because in "your argument" you are ASSUMING 'things', and 'your conclusion" is based upon those ASSUMPTIONS.

Now, OBVIOUSLY, just because 'you' ASSUME some 'things', this does NOT MEAN that those ASSUMED 'things' are true, right, NOR correct.

If 'we' are going to ASSUME 'things' in 'an argument', then the conclusion of 'that argument' is NOT necessarily going to be true, right, NOR correct.

So, what you will HAVE TO DO from now on, that is; if you want to PROVIDE an ACTUAL sound AND valid, thus IRREFUTABLE 'argument', is start by PROVIDING ACTUAL PROOFS for what you say in "your arguments" or PROVIDE EXAMPLES of 'things' that ACTUALLY DO EXIST.

THEN, we can LOOK AT and DISCUSS "your arguments" AGAIN.

Until then you have YET to PROVIDE an ACTUAL sound AND valid 'argument'. As I have INFORMED you ALREADY those types of 'arguments' are the ONLY ones LOOKING AT and REPEATING, as they are the ONLY ones that are IRREFUTABLE. EVERY other type of 'argument' is REFUTABLE and so REALLY NOT even worth MENTIONING, let alone TALKING ABOUT and DISCUSSING, REPEATEDLY.

Read OP, please.

I read 'it' AGAIN.

And this is HOW I was ABLE TO SHOW how you have REFUTED your OWN CLAIMS there.

Do you understand my argument? If yes what I am saying and what is your refutation?

[Dimebag]

How can biology be possible from non biological processes? Biology is not a whole new thing, but rather, a novel behaviour of particular configurations of matter.

It is those configurations which have the novel making power, not the electrons themselves. Imagine the electrons and protons as a substrate for that novel behaviour called biology.

Now, we have a new substrate. Biology is the substrate of consciousness. Particularly a new novel form of biology called a nervous system. A nervous system carries sensory signals to a central area we call the brain, with such complexity that, asking a person to attempt to explain how consciousness emerges from it is like asking someone to decrypt a nearly unbreakable code.

The task is immense to try to lay out just how consciousness is a product of biology and the nervous system/brain configuration meeting an external world.

Your request is nevertheless, a fair request. Materialism has the burden of proof to explain just how consciousness comes from that system. Until then, we should not revert to other explanations with zero credence. We should adopt a more Bayesian approach, or risk going against the preponderance of evidence which the many fields of science have built up, explaining that there is nothing in nature which does not fall under the banner of natural.

Consciousness seems entirely reliant on the bodily system. Can you provide any evidence counter to this?

Any biological system governs the physical laws! In fact, scientists simulate simple biological systems these days. We know if there is a current in a system then you only have an electromagnetic field and nothing else, such as a conscious field. These are the laws of physics. This means that you cannot have a conscious field no matter how do you rewire your system of interest.

Science has barely scraped the surface of the morphology of the brain, let alone do they grasp just how the brain functions, therefore you can’t say with any certainty that consciousness could not come from the brain. Give science time. I’m not saying it has any clue right now, I would agree with that, but that is not because it has explored all possibilities but rather due to its ignorance.

You are thinking in a reductionistic manner. If the only tool you have is a hammer (fundamental physics) then all you see is nails (lifeless particles). Do some research into chaos theory, complex systems etc. You cannot understand emergence from your current mindset, so you conclude it’s BS. But you only display you complete ignorance on the subject.

[Age]

Well, there are two things in here that I would like to discuss. First, if we accept that there is an explanation for how the brain is conscious in spite of the fact that its parts are not then the question of how consciousness can emerge becomes valid. So you owe an explanation of how this could possibly happen when you notice that all that is happening in the brain is the exchange of electrons between neurons.

Okay, and admitting up front that I could be completely wrong about all of this, here's my highly speculative (perhaps even nut-jobbery ) explanation for how living consciousness emerges from inanimate matter...

Like George Berkeley, I believe that the universe is the MIND of a higher (incorporeal) consciousness.

How often do you BELIEVE 'things' that could be completely and utterly False, Wrong, or Incorrect.

Now, the Universe is made up of visible matter, and the Mind is an invisible 'Thing'. So, IF the Universe is the MIND of another 'higher invisible' consciousness, then how EXACTLY could the Universe be the MIND?

And, if the Universe is ALL-THERE-IS, TOTALITY, or Everything, then how could ANY 'thing' be outside or apart from the Universe, Itself?

I'm talking about a Being that is as far above humans in scope and consciousness as humans are above flies, as is metaphorically depicted in a couple of my illustrations...

But the Being that IS 'way above' 'you', APE animals, is the Mind, Itself, and NOT ANY 'thing' ELSE. Which is the EXACT SAME Mind WITHIN ALL of 'you' and WITHIN absolutely EVERY 'thing' else.

Now, with the universe being the MIND of this higher consciousness,

How can an INVISIBLE 'Thing' be SEEN as physical matter?

it means that the universe's phenomenal features (suns, planets, water, rocks, sand, houses, cars, etc., etc.) are literally "alive"...

OF COURSE they ARE.

Can ANY one name one 'thing' that is NOT 'alive', nor 'changing'?

...(Note: not conscious, just alive due to being imbued (saturated) with this higher Being's living essence.

EVERY visible 'thing' is just 'alive' because 'it' is ALWAYS in a state of constant-change.

The Being, which is being called 'higher' here, is NOT some 'Thing' that is above NOR beyond reach. It is just some 'Thing', which is EVENTUALLY reached or EMERGED 'INTO'.

And that would be in the exact same way that the phenomenal features of that vivid dream you may have had last night are literally "alive" because they are imbued with your life essence.)

Life, Itself, that is the infinite AND eternal is just the Nature, or essence, WITHIN EVERY 'thing'.

EVERY species does what it does to STAY ALIVE, KEEP BREEDING, and to SURVIVE. The essence of Life, Itself, is WITHIN the living.

To which I suggest that because a brain is, in fact, an extremely advanced manifestation of the higher mind's mental holography, it has thus been "designed" in such a way that not only allows it to summon-forth the life essence residing in the mental substance from which it is created,...

The brain is just 'matter', which is able to grasp 'information', hold onto 'it' as 'thoughts', and then share or express 'it', as 'knowledge. Through being able to create language, and words for absolutely EVERY 'thing', the human brain, through 'thought' is able to learn, understand, and reason absolutely ANY and EVERY 'thing'.

The human brain has just evolved to be this way, which, because of past events, it could also be inferred to 'designed' this way. But, OBVIOUSLY, there is NO other 'thing', incorporeal or not, that is OUTSIDE of the Universe, Itself.

There is NO 'thing' DREAMING this Universe, what IS 'happening' IS REAL, and can NOT be REFUTED.

...but in the case of the human brain, it has also been "designed" to somehow cause (or trigger, or enable) that life essence to awaken into a new individualization of consciousness with a personal (and self-aware) identity.

To become or reach being thee Self-aware Being one has to be able to ACCURATELY explain 'What 'I' am', EXACTLY.

Thus it can be understood that this new individualization of self-aware consciousness with a personal identity (along with its accompanying mind), "emerges" from the living fabric of matter in the form of something that is "wholly different" from the constituent properties of the matter from which it arose.

There is just matter, in the shape of a human body, which includes a human brain, and, along with that comes an 'awareness', and 'awareness' is just what the word 'consciousness' means or refers to.

'Awareness' or 'Consciousness' just refers to the One and ONLY Being. While 'awareness' and 'consciousness' just refers to ALL of 'you', human beings.

And that, my dear bahman, makes it an example of "strong emergence."

Now I realize (as uwot likes to remind me) that these are all extremely "iffy" propositions.

But "uwot" can ONLY SEE 'things' that ARE visible to the human eyes. "uwot" is NOT able to SEE beyond 'that' PART of Everything.

Nevertheless, if the universe is indeed the MIND of a higher consciousness,

How, AGAIN, can a visible PHYSICAL 'thing' be an INVISIBLE 'thing', EXACTLY?

then it would also explain the phenomenon of what biologists call "abiogenesis." For if the essence of life (the basis of mind and consciousness) is already present within the fabric of matter,...

The Universe being INFINITE and ETERNAL just explains HOW the essence of Life is ALWAYS, ALREADY, PRESENT, and EVERY moment.

..then it is simply a tiny little step in imagining how inanimate (yet living) matter could become animate matter (evolvable micro-organisms) that can then be guided (either through natural evolution - or - through purposeful design) into becoming higher forms of life.

But 'animate', 'consciousness', or 'awareness' just exists in 'thoughts' or 'thinking' ONLY. And, OBVIOUSLY, 'thought' and 'thinking' is just an INVISIBLE 'thing', of which NO one could LOGICALLY REFUTE NOR DENY.

Anyway, that, in a nutshell, is my explanation of what "strong emergence" is all about.

(Continued in next post)
_______

Oh, are you ALL here STILL just 'trying to' DEFINE what the words 'strong emergence' mean or refer to, EXACTLY.

[Sculptor]

To show this consider a system with many parts each part has a set of properties. Now let’s assume that the system has a specific property. This property should not be reducible in terms of properties of parts if it is an emergent property. There must however be a reason that the system has this property rather than any other property. This means that there is a function that describes the property of the system. The only available variables are however the properties of parts. Therefore the property of the system must be a function of properties of parts. Therefore there is no emergence since the existence of the function implements that the property of the system is reducible to properties of parts.

A book is just a collection of paper.
Great things emerge from it though.
Case closed.

[bahman]

How can biology be possible from non biological processes? Biology is not a whole new thing, but rather, a novel behaviour of particular configurations of matter.

It is those configurations which have the novel making power, not the electrons themselves. Imagine the electrons and protons as a substrate for that novel behaviour called biology.

Now, we have a new substrate. Biology is the substrate of consciousness. Particularly a new novel form of biology called a nervous system. A nervous system carries sensory signals to a central area we call the brain, with such complexity that, asking a person to attempt to explain how consciousness emerges from it is like asking someone to decrypt a nearly unbreakable code.

The task is immense to try to lay out just how consciousness is a product of biology and the nervous system/brain configuration meeting an external world.

Your request is nevertheless, a fair request. Materialism has the burden of proof to explain just how consciousness comes from that system. Until then, we should not revert to other explanations with zero credence. We should adopt a more Bayesian approach, or risk going against the preponderance of evidence which the many fields of science have built up, explaining that there is nothing in nature which does not fall under the banner of natural.

Consciousness seems entirely reliant on the bodily system. Can you provide any evidence counter to this?

Any biological system governs the physical laws! In fact, scientists simulate simple biological systems these days. We know if there is a current in a system then you only have an electromagnetic field and nothing else, such as a conscious field. These are the laws of physics. This means that you cannot have a conscious field no matter how do you rewire your system of interest.

Science has barely scraped the surface of the morphology of the brain, let alone do they grasp just how the brain functions, therefore you can’t say with any certainty that consciousness could not come from the brain. Give science time. I’m not saying it has any clue right now, I would agree with that, but that is not because it has explored all possibilities but rather due to its ignorance.

You are thinking in a reductionistic manner. If the only tool you have is a hammer (fundamental physics) then all you see is nails (lifeless particles). Do some research into chaos theory, complex systems etc. You cannot understand emergence from your current mindset, so you conclude it’s BS. But you only display you complete ignorance on the subject.

I said what I should say.