Thank you for your answer!
There has been some term confusion here. I mentioned two types of emergence: weak and strong. Weak emergence does NOT imply other new substance. Weak emergence can apply to water, water being emergent from H and O, but still nothing over and above the sum of properties of H and O.

Perhaps consciousness is something that networked cooperative/competitive brains do. — green flag

So do you think this avoids weak emergence?

What about cloud computing ? — green flag

Cloud computing isn't emergent?

Maybe the opening poster will benefit from a step away from the usual egocentric veil-of-ideas Cartesianism (I don't mean 'egocentric' ethically but just in terms of a focus on [oxymoronic?] individual consciousness.) — green flag

This OP doesn't suffer from anything unless people confuse emergence with strong emergence, i.e. a new phenomenon arising from its constituents, but having fundamentally new properties, irreducible to its components.

What exactly do you think consciousness is ?

There's a tendency to think of it as radically other than something which is purely physical or material. But this is, in my view, a superstition, a confusion.

I recommend reading about Ryle. He's one of many to challenge traditional assumptions that keep people running in loops.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ryle/#OffDocConOff

Weak emergence example: water emerges from H and O; it is emergent, but still matter
Strong emergence: starting with matter, ending with a new substance.
I am sure you reject strong emergence. So forget about this one.

But do you think someone could come up with a theory that avoids weak emergence as well?

Now, substitute "certain of my synapses firing" for "toaster" and "the taste of vanilla" for "headache". Is the taste of vanilla any better explained than my headaches? — Art48

You make a good point, but you take for granted that 'taste of vanilla' will signify, that we can know what you mean. If you assume some ethereal private Experience in each of us, why or how should 'taste of vanilla' refer to the SAME magic stuff 'in' all of us ?

But do you think someone could come up with a theory that avoids weak emergence as well? — Eugen

We can't skip the semantic phase of this conversation. It's pointless to play with words without more of a grip on what we mean. For me to continue on this, I'll need to feel that my criticism (which I got from Ryle and others) of the typical quasimystical conception of consciousness has been assimilated. Otherwise you won't understand where I'm coming from anyway. And the reverse.

The problem is that you assume that my question assumes something. It doesn't. My question is very direct, and simple. The terms I defined are simple. I don't need to do anything, the ball is exclusively in your field.
You gave examples of cloud computing and software, both being weak emergent phenomena. So everything I can deduce is that you believe we cannot avoid weak emergence.

Perhaps I've misunderstood you. Could you correct me and explain what 'consciousness' means for you ? Another question : How do we know it when we see it ?

Consciousness = subjective experience, i.e. the way it is like to be something.

Another question : How do we know it when we see it ? — green flag

I totally don't understand this question.

Consciousness = subjective experience, i.e. the way it is like to be something. — Eugen

What is it like to be a cockroach ? Or a wrench on its first visit to Vienna ?

What is it like to be a cockroach ? — green flag

If AI gains eminence we will all find out. :worry:

Mark Solms,the founder of Neuropsychoanalysis and the author of the most important paper on Dreams, explains his theory on consciousness in the book "The Hidden Spring: A Journey to the Source of Consciousness ".
He explains how the need to control our emotions (need for survival) provides answers to the "why" questions of Chalmer's "Hard problem of consciousness".

If AI gains eminence we will all find out. — jgill

:up:

Or, if we are lucky, we'll be pets. Maybe some of them will slum and take us for lovers.

I totally don't understand this question. — Eugen

How do you determine whether something has consciousness ?

How do you determine whether something has consciousness ? — green flag

Obviously, we don't determine. We just assume. But this is irrelevand.
Ok, let me simplify this again.
1. This question doesn't assume and doesn't want to prove anything. It's just a question.
2. I give you the freedom to define consciousness exactly as you like.
3. It is not important what I believe, so please ignore my personal opinions.
So...

Under your definition of consciousness, can one come up with a theory that avoids both weak and strong emergence?
If yes, how would that theory avoid emergence?

Thanks

I check all these threads on Consciousness and Mind and they all seem to ignore or to be in direct conflict with the latest epistemology from all relative Scientific Disciplines that study the Phenomenon. Why is that?..I wonder.
Instead, obscure language and fringe theories are used as Segways for known Death Denying Ideologies and comforting beliefs about reality.
According to the Philosopher responsible for the systematization of the field(Aristotle),in order for an inquire to be Philosophical, specific steps should be followed.
The first step is Επιστημολογία (epistemology) and the second is Φυσικά (Physika...Empirical evaluation of our Epistemology). Only then we are good to proceed to our Μεταφυσικά (Metaphysics). So by avoiding the evaluation of what we currently know and how we know it and by not including the most credible, systematical and methodical body of knowledge, one is guilty of pseudo philosophizing.

Richard Carrier defines Pseudo Philosophy as:
"Philosophy that relies on fallacious arguments to a conclusion, and/or relies on factually false or undemonstrated premises. And isn't corrected when discovered."
Unfortunately most positions and discussions in this thread tick all the above. Most auxiliary assumptions are fallacious (unverified or unfalsifiable premises) but accepted as true while ignoring data that render them wrong. Even when they are exposed for their non epistemic value, most "philosophers" keep repeating them in the next thread.

Mario Binge's Ten Criticisms of contemporary Academic (or everyday) Philosophy identify the tactics responsible for allowing pseudo philosophy to coexist with actual Philosophy.(Wise Statement about the world).

• Tenure-Chasing Supplants Substantive Contributions

• Confusion between Philosophizing & Chronicling

• Insular Obscurity / Inaccessibility (to outsiders)

• Obsession with Language too much over Solving Real-World Problems

• Idealism vs. Realism and Reductionism

• Too Many Miniproblems & Fashionable Academic Games

• Poor Enforcement of Validity / Methodology

• Unsystematic (vs. System Building & Ensuring Findings are Worldview Coherent)

• Detachment from Intellectual Engines of Modern Civilization (science, technology, and real-world ideologies that affect mass human thought and action)

• Ivory Tower Syndrome (not talking to experts in other departments and getting knowledge and questions to explore from them or helping them)

Especially the last two criticisms and that of Chronicling instead of Philosophize (who said what) are the main reasons why Philosophical Discussions get derailed and become "theological declarations". This is why Philosophy of Nature (Science) has enjoyed a long run away success in epistemology while Academic Philosophy struggles with a weak peer reviewing system where pseudo philosophy and real Philosophy are published side by side.

I admire your intention to make things better, but they aren't related to my inquiry. Thanks for your understanding and for your answer! PS: Mark himself, although he provides an interesting epistemology, believes consciousness is fundamental. But again: IT'S A DIFFERENT TOPIC!

Its a critique on the topic and how people approach it.

Mark himself, although he provides an interesting epistemology, believes consciousness is fundamental. — Eugen

-Fundamental for survival? Sure, but not fundamental in a mystical way(ontology of reality). Maybe you can explain what you mean by the term " conscious is fundamental". That would allow a good conversation.

Mark Solms is a Spinozist. He even said he believes reality is mind. And I don't want to debate further on this. Please save your criticizms for other OPs, not for this one.
This OP is a simple question, no need for criticizm. Just answer.
Thank you and have a nice day!

No he isn't. He is a Methodological Naturalist (Scientist) and I don't know what "reality is mind" means. I mean I know the meaning of the words reality and mind but together in a sentence doesn't really make sense.

I am done with my critic of your OP and the "philosophical practices" from my previous comment.
I moved on and asked you a simple question. What do you mean by the term "Consciousness is fundamental"? Fundamental in what sense? What does that mean for us.

Ok, you're totally right. Everything you say is right. I won't answer you any questions. You gave me your answer. Now you're invited to leave this OP. Thank you for your cooperation!

I haven't made any claims on the topic yet , so how can you say that I am right about "everything"???
I only raised some red flags on the quality of assumptions behind the philosophical models and I swiftly proceeded in asking some basic questions. If forfeiting is your final choice, I can't do anything about it.
So, take care and enjoy the echo chamber of your preference...I guess.

So in essence what you're asking is can you get from non-consciousness (the substrate) to the product (consciousness) without the process/change in qualities/behaviour of the substrate that leads to the product (ie. emergence).

It's like asking can we get the property of water as a liquid from those of oxygen and hydrogen while skipping the effects of hydrogen bonding, the specific influence of bonds in and between the molecules.

Emergence is the simple idea that 1 has 1s behaviour on its own. 2 has 2s behaviour on its own. And when 1 and 2 are combined: 3s is a new behaviour that does not correlate directly with either of its subcomponents individual ones.

Emergence is imo I guess a "superadditive" effect when things are combined.

So I would say no theory that starts without the product can avoid emergence of the product.

Thank you!

no problemo Eugen :) thanks for taking the time to read my response.

2. I give you the freedom to define consciousness exactly as you like. — Eugen

But humans can't do that for one another. Or it wouldn't be interesting. Concepts are essentially/ideally public. If you correct me, you help prove my point.

I asked you to clarify what you meant to bring you in to my approach. That's all I can offer. To me this is not like a chess problem. It's as deep as the problems of meaning and being.

But humans can't do that for one another. Or it wouldn't be interesting. Concepts are essentially/ideally public. If you correct me, you help prove my point.

I asked you to clarify what you meant to bring you in to my approach. That's all I can offer. To me this is not like a chess problem. It's as deep as the problems of meaning and being. — green flag

At this moment, people have already expressed their opinion in unanimity. So even if your opinion were different, it wouldn't matter without a very logical and complex argumentation behind it.
Long story short: due to your repeated avoidance of the topic, you lost time, so your potential short answer would be irrelevant anyway.
So, you either do it on my terms and start expressing your opinion and back it up with strong arguments, or you choose to remain irrelevant to the topic.

All the best!

At this moment, people have already expressed their opinion in unanimity. — Eugen

I'm glad if you found what you are looking for, and I appreciate your politeness.