bahman, I cannot make sense of your arguments. Likely you can express them clearly and unambiguously in fewer than five short and simple propositions. Please do so, otherwise I shall have to give up because of what appears to be incoherence on your part. — tim wood

Lets see if this works. What I am trying to say is that can not observe consciousness if matter which is constitutes of electron, proton and neutron (quarks) considering the fact that they have properties like, mass, charge, etc. but not consciousness. You could say that consciousness is a property of matter. I have other have other arguments for the fact that materialism is not correct.

LOL

1) What is mind? The Inter Mind Model distinguishes between the Physical Mind and the Conscious Mind and proposes that there must be another processing stage that connects them together. This connecting and processing stage is called the Inter Mind. — SteveKlinko

Interesting, Inter Mind Model.

2) What is conscious mind? The Conscious Mind is the final processing stage where Conscious phenomenon like the experience of the color Red happens. — SteveKlinko

It does more than experience in my opinion. It decides and acts too.

3) What is subconscious mind? It is background processing in the Physical Mind, I'll let the Psychologists explain that one. — SteveKlinko

Ok.

4) What is brain for? The Brain, or the Physical Mind, is the front end processing for sensory perception. — SteveKlinko

Ok.

5) What do we experience? We experience our own inner Conscious phenomenon usually called the Qualia. I like to call the Light Qualia, Conscious Light, because it is more descriptive. The important distinction here is that we have never experienced Physical Light but only our internal Conscious Light. We think the Conscious Light is the Physical Light only because it is all we have ever known about Physical Light. — SteveKlinko

Is Qualia generated by brain?

6) How do we act? The Conscious Mind has to have a Volitional input capability back through the Inter Mind to the Physical Mind in order for action to happen. — SteveKlinko

Good.

Absolutely - I think consciousness is an emergent property of matter. I could have used that as my example of emergence except I thought it might complicate things. Other emergent phenomena - the market, climate, ecological communities, human communities, etc., etc., etc. — T Clark

No, consciousness is not an emergent property but a property of matter. Otherwise your argument wouldn't cut. I however think that you will have difficult time to convince people that consciousness is a property like charge and mass of electron.

Interesting. Do you propose that there can be mind where there is no matter? That is, that mind is based in something not (in any way) matter out of which it emerges? Presumably you agree there is such a thing/phenomenon called mind. And presumably you agree it emerges. Or do you have it Athena-like coming into being (somehow) entirely complete? (Which would lead to either humans possessing a complete mind, or not any mind at all. In the latter case whatever it is still needs to be accounted for.) — tim wood

I believe in mind separated from matter. Consciousness is a property of matter is another approach. But consciousness cannot emerge if it is not a property of matter. That is what I am arguing. I think one will find it difficult to convince scientific community that consciousness is a property of matter.

Boredom is a reminder that life has lots of inherent meanings and that the one we are currently using to frame our experience is not conductive to the development of our happiness. — Perplexed

So feeling is the meaning?

You're right, the behavior of a gas is not emergence, it's statistical mechanics. Emergence is something different. A commonly cited example of emergence is life. It is my understanding that living matter is made up of physical matter - atoms. It is a physical phenomenon, but living matter behaves differently, according to a different set of laws, than non-living matter. If it didn't, there would be no need to make the distinction between living and non-living.

Please explain evolution using only language and principles from physics. — T Clark

Then you have to accept that consciousness is a property of matter. Sometimes it shows up depending on something and sometimes doesn't show up. Otherwise we are dealing with magic.

To restate the above argument - There is no emergence because there is no emergence. — T Clark

No. Everything that we learn about material world indicates that the property of a system is a function of properties of its constitute. Matter is unconscious therefor we cannot have a conscious system.

Then where does consciousness/intelligence come from. — tim wood

I believe that is a property of mind. Mind needs consciousness in order to be creative.

According to you it's not emergent. I accept that. But it means that the claim of the OP is false. — tim wood

That doesn't indicate that OP is false. Mater does not have consciousness as a property and consciousness could not be emergent.

No, he semi-correlates the possibility to render a set of properties meaningful at a level of explanation with the specificities of those levels. An emergent property is emergent more because it simply could not be made sense of in the previous paradigm of explanation, as such, invisible in that paradigm, than because it is magically supervening over other properties. — Akanthinos

That simply mean that science cannot explain consciousness.

Well, there is no emergent phenomena.

Do you see a problem here? And with the water. You say the whole, water, is expressed through its parts. But it isn't. Consciousness isn't "expressed" through it parts - what are the parts of consciousness? — tim wood

That is one problem that you noticed. Consciousness cannot be expressed as a function of properties of atoms.

Yes. And more, time is fundamental. There exist not a theory which can describe the creation of time or emergence of time.

How could consciousness or subconsciousness be a function of anything!? It create things, in case of human, thoughts, ideas, feelings.

Maybe this. There are minimums for pretty much everything, under which the thing doesn't exist. Water can stand as the example. Water is a molecule. If you go to the level of atoms, water does not exist: there is no atom of water. The properties of water - the properties of the whole - do not exist at the level of the parts. Concrete is another example (not to be confused with cement). Sand, water, cement combined yield concrete. As parts, no concrete. Music: notes are necessary, but not sufficient. Think about it. Emergent as a term of art is problematic, but clearly subatomic particles in themselves simply do not possess the properties that aggregates of them may have. — tim wood

Great. Water for example has a set of properties: density, temperature, volume, shear tension and pressure. All these variable are a function of water's molecules properties: "mass, charge, spin, speed, number of water molecules and their arrangement. Consciousness is not like mass, charge, spin,... and it cannot be a function of these properties either. Temperature is related and similar to speed. Density is related and similar to mass. Spin for example can be observed as ferromagnetic state in iron, so ferromagnetic is like spin etc.

The state of a system is simply the set of values its variable assume. If the system has two variables -- height and gender -- then its state would be something like "190cm, male" or "170cm, female". Gender need not be a state. The same applies to consciousness. — Magnus Anderson

Let me correct myself. Gender is like an index which defines state of a system. Of course there is a correlation between an observable variable and state of system, the index. The state of system however is a function of properties of its parts. We know this by fact that that is our genes which dictate how the atoms should arrange in our body in order to give a gender to a person. As I said the gender is an index which defines state of a system. Gender is pretty similar to an index which defines different state of water. Different state of water however is a function of properties of water's molecules. I mean given the property of water's molecules you can find whether it is in state of gas or liquid. That cannot applies to consciousness. Why? Because there exist not an order parameter which can indicate the state of consciousness. Order parameter is simply a variable which is function of properties of parts of a system and changes when a phase transition occurs. The comprehensibility is the order parameter in case of gas to liquid phase transition. Comprehensibility however is related to change of density respect to volume. The density is a function of number of atoms/molecules. Do you think that you can find an order parameter which is a function of mass, charge, spin and configuration atoms and electron in the brain? Consciousness is not a property like charge, mass, or spin.

There is a correlation between height and gender. The taller the person, the more likely the person is a man. And vice versa. That's an example of a very simple system. You have two variables that are related to each other in a specific way. — Magnus Anderson

Yes, that is a good example.

One of the variables is quantitative (height) the other is qualitative (gender.) So how is it possible for a quality such as male/female to arise from a quantity? — Magnus Anderson

Gender to me is similar to state of a system, like gas, liquid, solid in water.

The question is: why is it impossible for the brain to be conscious if atoms and molecules are not conscious? — Magnus Anderson

Because the state of system is a function of the properties of its parts.

So there can be no correlation between variables unless variables are of the same type? — Magnus Anderson

I believe that there could be a correlation between different variables depending on state of system. I however don't recall any physical example. Correlation is the result of interaction. It however cannot leads to consciousness.

Perhaps you're going about this subject in the wrong way. — Semiotic

I don't think so. We have electrons and nucleons each have specific charge, mass, spin, position and speed, lets call them properties, in the brain. What I am arguing is that any state of system is a function of these five variables. You cannot have a conscious state since non of the properties which mentioned has any relationship with consciousness.

It seems that you have problem with the word property.
— bahman
No, I don't. You do. You say that x has property p, then you say that property p is provided by y.
You "use property for a purpose." Fine. If you're going to use a word idiosyncratically, it's best if you let your readers know. But what in the world do you mean by it? — tim wood

Well, think of a particle, electron for example. It has a set of properties: mass, charge and spin. I put the position, speed and acceleration into the same package, properties.

I do note this:
That is the problem that I am arguing against. Brain cannot become conscious if atoms and molecules are not conscious. That is the main argument presented in OP:
— bahman
This is ridiculous, but at least (at best) it has the virtue of being clear. What's ridiculous about it? I'll answer that if you first defend/support the proposition. As it sits it's mere assertion without evidence, which under a well-known rule can be, and in this case should be, dismissed without evidence — tim wood

What I am arguing is that you cannot expect consciousness as a result of motion of electrons in the brain. How? Any state of a system with a set of particles with properties P is only a function of properties of particles. Consciousness is not a property of electron therefore you cannot have a state in which system is conscious. Unless you accept that a magic can happen.

See? Here's an example of the kind of problem we're having. I understand perfectly well that usually gas in a container can exert pressure on the walls of the container, the pressure depending in part on temperature. But what you said is that "the pressure is a property of gas." It isn't. I doubt if it's even correct to say that pressure is a property of gas in a container. I don't think it's a property at all. Rather it is something that happens, depending on circumstances. — tim wood

It seems that you have problem with the word property. Can I use parameter? I used property for a purpose. Moreover, pressure is defined in term of average force exerted to the wall by particles.

Pardon, but "Duck" has no mind whatsoever. And it's clear that when you say, "in general," in general cannot be what you mean, because it simply isn't true, or a fact, in general. If nothing else, "Duck" makes that clear. — tim wood

So duck in your opinion is a set of particles. Something mindless?

And do the particles that make up concrete have the properties of concrete? — tim wood

Concreteness is defined in term of properties of particles.

What I am arguing is simple. Think of gas for example. It exerts a pressure on the wall of container. The pressure is a property of gas however it can be expressed in term of average forces that atoms of gas exert to the wall of container. There is no emergence here. Pressure simply is related to average force. In general any system made of bunch of particles in which each has a set of properties has a set of properties which can be explained in term of properties of the particles. That is all.

For what regards duck, duck is more than a set of particles. It has a mind.

The idea of particle passing from two slits and interfere with itself is nonsense. Please read this article for further information.

The Bohmian mechanics is the way to go.

a living human brain having the property of being conscious despite its atoms and molecules not having it, — SpacedOut

That is the problem that I am arguing against. Brain cannot become conscious if atoms and molecules are not conscious. That is the main argument presented in OP:

The whole can always be expressed in term of its constitute therefore there is no emergence.

To elaborate consider a system made of "n" particles in which particle "i" has a set of properties Pi={Pi1,..., Pim}, where "m" is number of properties of a particle and Pjk is the property "k" of particle "j". Any measurable property of the system is only a function of {P1,...,PM}. Therefore there is no emergence.

but this might not count for you under your ideas of mind you mentioned. — SpacedOut

Well, yes, consciousness is a property of mind.

You asked: For example: do you mean that any text can always be expressed in terms of the letters that constitute it? Music in notes? Sense from mere sounds?
I answered: Yes. Of course an intellectual agent who read a text or listen to a music create something extra when he read a text or listen to a music. That extra thing is meaning of the text which writer wanted to convey it.

I hope things is clear now.

The new idea would fundamentally consist of a different form/vibration of the entangled quantum wave. There are limitless variations. — Rich

How you could prove that what you call new idea was not there? It only could appear on surface.

There is no reason to take a dualist stance. It can be considered all the same stuff, quantum information if you will. — Rich

Quantum information is constant, it cannot be created or annihilated. Therefore new idea cannot be generated.

Yes, it is, they do? Or yes I say they do? If the former, please show how. If the latter, please support your claim. — tim wood

Yes, I think so.

Here's an example to work on: "Duck." Work with that. — tim wood

Which duck?

The only experience that I have had that is fully emergent is a new idea or epiphany. This would represent growth of the mind. — Rich

Yes, I agree with that. Realm of mind is however is different from realm of material to me.

Are you certain of that? — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Yes. We experience, that is one interpretation.

If your answer is yes, then that makes two certainties. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Yes, but that is all.

1) What do you say that an ontological argument is? What do you say ontological means? — tim wood

By ontological argument I mean the argument that prove the existence of God from the premise that God can be conceived.

2) What, exactly, does "certainty" mean in your usage? I ask because experience is of something: if the experience is certain, isn't that which is experienced also certain? Are there differing senses of the word "certain" wherein some certain things are less certain than others? — tim wood

To me what we conceive is a part of our experience. There is however a gap between what we experience and what exists in the world, object of experience. We cannot prove that the object of experience exists. The same applies to ontological argument.

The word "emergent" simply means "arising unexpectedly". It refers to an observation that contradicts our model of reality. It refers to an observation that is unpredictable in the sense that it cannot be predicted with our model of reality. If your model of reality says that every swan is white then a black swan would be considered emergent because your model cannot predict it. Very simple. Unfortunately, some people are confused and so they want to make everything unnecessarily complicated and that under the guise of profound complexity. — Magnus Anderson

Yes.

An example of a whole emerging from particles could be continuous medium, such as a fluid, emerging from molecular interactions. But here we have two different ontologies, two different languages, two different sets of properties - one pertaining to the particulate system and the other - to the continuous one. For example, there is no such thing as "pressure" in the particulate system (but one can link pressure to molecular dynamics via a bridge law). — SophistiCat

The pressure of a gas is expressible in term of average force excreted to the wall. The same applies to liquidity,etc. There is no emergent property.

Do you mean there can be no emergent properties out of a given system? I'm sorry if I've misunderstood, but its rather vague — SpacedOut

Yes, considering OP. Do you have an example of emergent property?

You're going to have to specify - a lot - as to what kind of "whole" you mean, and as well "expressed." — tim wood

By whole I mean sum of parts.

For example: do you mean that any text can always be expressed in terms of the letters that constitute it? Music in notes? Sense from mere sounds? — tim wood

Yes.

You might have said, "I think some wholes may be entirely expressed through their parts, but I cannot think of any. Can anyone?" — tim wood

I am saying all wholes are entirely expressed through their parts.

If you think about the word "expression" you might soon enough come to think that that nothing of any kind whatsoever is "expressable" in terms of its parts. — tim wood

That is not true. The pressure of a gas is expressible in term of average force excreted to the wall.

There is a hierarchy of levels of properties L0, L1, …, Ln, … of which at least one distinct level is associated with the subject matter of each special science, and Lj cannot be reduced to Li, for any i < j.

-Paul Humphreys, cited from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/properties-emergent/ — Akanthinos

I understand what he is trying to say but what I am arguing is that any macro-property is reducible to a set of micro-properties. What he is saying is that macro-properties are independent.

Yes, but can it prove its own consistency? — Posty McPostface

Yes, what we understand from one argument is more than sum of words. What is more is created by our mind.