Critical thinking, Why? Because apparently I am rubbish at it.

[Stranger]

Yes, You’ve said that all factors are included in the formula and then, for reasons not derived from the formula said that these are either determined or random and indeed determiners which themselves are determined Ad infinitude or Ad circulum. On what grounds though?

Why are you finding this so hard? Even Alan seemed to have grasped the logic, which is why he started wittering about an 'ever present state' to try and escape from time-based logic.

• All the possible reasons (logical antecedents) for S_t+dt are contained in S_t and E_t.
• Either S_t+E_t mean there is only one possible S_t+dt or there are multiple possibilities.
• If there is only one possibility, the system is fully deterministic.
• If there is more than one, the choice between them cannot be for any of the possible reasons (antecedents).
• Something that happens for literally no reason at all can only be random.

Which point(s) do you dispute or not understand?

To the question what else is free of being determined? Agent causation as mentioned earlier.

'Agent causation' is meaningless jargon unless you can explain exactly how it works and escapes the above logic. Also worth noting that compatibilists think it can be fully deterministic.

Secondly, If all is determined by that which has been determined then there is no such thing as choice.

Depends how you define 'choice' but this is an argumentum ad consequentiam fallacy.

In terms of everything that determines adding together to create a response to what is a unique complex emerged situation, given nothing leading to the emergent possesses that emergence’s property...

Finally for now, You seem to be suggesting that a universe of infinitely regressed determined causes has no E or environment. That I would have thought that makes the universe itself the agent of causation. In a causal loop that makes everything its own agent of causation.

Whispering clouds painted melodies on the canvas of time.

Do you want to try again in English?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

The sentence I quoted from you directly above my comment. To reiterate, this comment:

'Not surprisingly, you as an atheist, seem to be only interested in discussing if God exists'

Which comprises a thinly veiled derogatory comment (in this case the inability the consider things in a complex and nuanced manner) applied to a group of people (in this case atheists) in the form of a lazy generalisation.

So let's try some alternative which also include a thinly veiled derogatory comment applied to a group in the form of a lazy generalisation and see whether you might, just might, see that they could be consider to be a slur.

'Not surprisingly, you as a woman, seem to be only interested in discussing having babies'

'Not surprisingly, you as a jew, seem to be only interested in discussing how much money you'll earn'

'Not surprisingly, you as an black man, seem to be only interested in discussing when you can finish work and go to the pub'

etc, etc

Get the point?

You haven't made a credible point. If you recall, I was talking about ideas about god  and you thought I was talking about belief in the existence of god so you responded by saying your 'authentic self' was an atheist because you do not believe in the existence of god. I responded to your post to say we were not talking about the same thing since I was referring to ideas about god and how those ideas of god might influence your choices and behaviour, while you were talking about the existence of god. 

You, along with other atheists on this forum, constantly remind us that the only common thing that can be said about atheists as a category is that they don't believe in the existence of god.

So it was not a lazy generalisation to say to you "Not surprisingly, you as an atheist, seem to be only interested in discussing if God exists".

The only "thinly veiled derogatory comment (in this case the inability the consider things in a complex and nuanced manner)" is all in your head. I suggest you try removing that gigantic chip from your shoulder before you interpret and respond to posts because currently it makes some of your responses look very stupid.

Obviously women, Jews and black men are a different category from atheists, because women are not suggesting that the only thing that women have in common is that they have babies;

Jews are not suggesting that they only thing Jews have in common is that they make money;

Black men are not suggesting that the only thing black men have in common is they all want to finish work and go to the pub.

[Free Willy]

Who presented internal vs external states?

Stranger in his formula giving S as the state of the system and E as it’s Environment.

When you refer to learning and experience and determinism, do you mean that if your choices are constrained in any way then you do not consider them to be a real choice?

I would have to ask what sort of choice is that, since the outcome would be predetermined.

I need an example to clarify what you mean. E.g I can't choose to post this response in Swahili right now as I have not learned any Swahili. So are you saying posting in English as opposed to Swahili is not a choice as it's determined by the languages I know?

What I am saying is the ability to respond in Swahili does not necessarily result in a response. Neither do any of the other factors involved in a response in Swahili....and neither do they add to the response since the situation has emerged and an emergent isn’t the sum of it’s components

Before I can choose Swahili I need to first be exposed to some Swahili so my brain can get the necessary understanding of Swahili sufficient for me to post in Swahili? Are you suggesting that this determinist constraint means that I have not really made a choice when I post in English as opposed to Swahili?

I am not ruling out determination in certain circumstances or randomness, just exploring how indeterminancy might be more than just randomness. And while we are on the subject of foreign languages, chucking formulas and notation in logic is i’m Afraid like chucking Swahili at me since I don’t have the training or the eyesight for the subscript. I say Swahili, more like shorthand.
I assume you chose to do that.

If I learn Swahili I might have a shot at typing a post in Swahili. Or an alternative is that I type letters randomly and I end up forming a post in Swahili that conveyed what I wanted to convey and could be understood by someone who can read and comprehend Swahili. Apart from these 2 scenarios, what is the other scenario you are suggesting?
I agree we don't know what totally determines a response. But doesn't that suggest that a response is either determined (and we don't know everything that determines it) or it's a random response or a mix of the 2? What 3rd option is there that is neither a determinant or random?

Agent Causation. Look, the example of randomness is nuclear disintegration. Is that an adequate descriptor for what happens in choice? Or is it emerged agent causation? For example random events are described as mindless. That assertion isn’t drawn from the term “indeterminancy”.

And as I have said Agent causation must exist where there is a system but no environment, where the system is the agent, it’s own cause or in a loop causality where everything is it’s own causal agent.
Also in the case of the necessary entity that is a supreme case of agent causality since there is nothing which determines it and no context for randomness.

[ProfessorDavey]

You, along with other atheists on this forum, constantly remind us that the only common thing that can be said about atheists as a category is that they don't believe in the existence of god.

So what - that doesn't mean that atheists are only interested in discussing whether god exists, so yes it was a very lazy generalisation to claim as such.

So it was not a lazy generalisation to say to you "Not surprisingly, you as an atheist, seem to be only interested in discussing if God exists".

Yup it was - just as much as my alternative examples were also lazy generalisation.

The only "thinly veiled derogatory comment (in this case the inability the consider things in a complex and nuanced manner)" is all in your head. I suggest you try removing that gigantic chip from your shoulder before you interpret and respond to posts because currently it makes some of your responses look very stupid.

No chip VG - just calling you out for making lazy generalisation of a derogatory nature, because I don't like lazy generalisations of a derogatory nature whoever they are aimed at. I tend to focus my comments and criticisms towards individuals on the basis of the individual comments they make/attributes they have not assume they must have certain attributes or think certain things based on some generalised perception/prejudice of a group they might belong to.

So I am calling out your comments on the basis that you, as an individual VG, made them. I am not calling you out 'because you are a woman' or 'because you are a theist' or 'because you are a muslim' - nope this is all on you as an individual.

Obviously women, Jews and black men are a different category from atheists, because women are not suggesting that the only thing that women have in common is that they have babies;

Jews are not suggesting that they only thing Jews have in common is that they make money;

Black men are not suggesting that the only thing black men have in common is they all want to finish work and go to the pub.

Rather sad that you are unable to appreciate that a thinly veiled derogatory comment coupled with a lazy generalisation applied to a group of people could be considered to be a slur.

And you rather make my point for me by pointing out (correctly) that women are not only interested in discussing having babies and jews are not only interested in discussing how much money they will make and black men are not only interested in sloping off to the pub. And to claim they are would be an (untrue) derogatory claim applied as a lazy generalisation. You might call it a slur.

And of course atheists are also not only interested in discussing whether god exists (rather than having a more complex and nuanced discussion) and to claim as you did is similarly an (untrue) derogatory claim applied as a lazy generalisation. You might call it a slur.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

So what - that doesn't mean that atheists are only interested in discussing whether god exists, so yes it was a very lazy generalisation to claim as such.

I didn't make that claim. I said we are talking about different things and you as an atheist in the response you made to my post seem only interested in discussing whether god exists.

Yup it was - just as much as my alternative examples were also lazy generalisation.

Nope it wasn't for the reasons given - women, Jews and black men are not describing themselves as women or jews or black men because of one common unifying factor.

No chip VG - just calling you out for making lazy generalisation of a derogatory nature, because I don't like lazy generalisations of a derogatory nature whoever they are aimed at. I tend to focus my comments and criticisms towards individuals on the basis of the individual comments they make/attributes they have not assume they must have certain attributes or think certain things based on some generalised perception/prejudice of a group they might belong to.

So I am calling out your comments on the basis that you, as an individual VG, made them. I am not calling you out 'because you are a woman' or 'because you are a theist' or 'because you are a muslim' - nope this is all on you as an individual.
Rather sad that you are unable to appreciate that a thinly veiled derogatory comment coupled with a lazy generalisation applied to a group of people could be considered to be a slur.

And you rather make my point for me by pointing out (correctly) that women are not only interested in discussing having babies and jews are not only interested in discussing how much money they will make and black men are not only interested in sloping off to the pub. And to claim they are would be an (untrue) derogatory claim applied as a lazy generalisation. You might call it a slur.

And of course atheists are also not only interested in discussing whether god exists (rather than having a more complex and nuanced discussion) and to claim as you did is similarly an (untrue) derogatory claim applied as a lazy generalisation. You might call it a slur.

Thanks for providing more evidence of your very big chip.

[ProfessorDavey]

I didn't make that claim. I said we are talking about different things and you as an atheist in the response you made to my post seem only interested in discussing whether god exists.

Oh yes you did - it is there for everyone to see so don't try to deny it.

'Not surprisingly, you as an atheist, seem to be only interested in discussing if God exists'

Nope it wasn't for the reasons given - women, Jews and black men are not describing themselves as women or jews or black men because of one common unifying factor.

Irrelevant - your claim was that atheists were only interested in discussing the existence of god - that is simply untrue, just as much as women are not only interested in discussing having babies. Derogatory and lazy generalisations both.

In fact I suspect most atheists spend very little time, if any time at all, discussing the existence of something they don't actually believe exists. Do you spend much time discussing whether leprechauns exist VG?

Thanks for providing more evidence of your very big chip.

Yawn.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Oh yes you did - it is there for everyone to see so don't try to deny it.

Oh no I didn't - you got it wrong - it's just your chip on your shoulder that interprets it that way. Suggest you apologise and move on.

'Not surprisingly, you as an atheist, seem to be only interested in discussing if God exists'
Irrelevant - your claim was that atheists were only interested in discussing the existence of god - that is simply untrue, just as much as women are not only interested in discussing having babies. Derogatory and lazy generalisations both.

In fact I suspect most atheists spend very little time, if any time at all, discussing the existence of something they don't actually believe exists. Do you spend much time discussing whether leprechauns exist VG?
Yawn.

Except I didn't make that claim - that's just your misinterpretation due to your chip.

If you hadn't quote-mined to remove my 1st para in your previous response, it would be clear that I was talking to you about your specific response to my post where you described your authentic self as an atheist. Your 1st line was "I don't think that is the way that most atheists would see it - certainly I don't. As it implies that there is a god and there is a choice whether or not to include that god in your life."

I was not making a generalisation about all posts about god by atheists. I was describing your response to my post where you were focused on whether there is a god or not.

[ProfessorDavey]

I was not making a generalisation about all posts about god by atheists. I was describing your response to my post where you were focused on whether there is a god or not.

Then perhaps you should be more careful with your posts.

So perhaps - 'ProfD - you seem to be only interested in discussing if God exists' - I don't think that's true but that would be a comment aimed specifically at me and what I think/discuss etc etc

But you didn't, did you - what you said was:

'Not surprisingly, you as an atheist, seem to be only interested in discussing if God exists'

Derogatory, lazy generalisation.

VG - here is a tip - when in a hole, stop digging. Particularly when you were the person who dug the hole in the first place.

[Stranger]

...since the situation has emerged and an emergent isn’t the sum of it’s components

Emergence has always been a bit beyond you. Nothing magically appears, uncaused from nothing, in emergence. If you know everything about the components and (importantly) how they interact, you can predict what will emerge.

...just exploring how indeterminancy might be more than just randomness.

Except you're not actually exploring anything. All you've mentioned is agent causation which is meaningless unless you can explain how it works and how it escapes the logic.

And while we are on the subject of foreign languages, chucking formulas and notation in logic is i’m Afraid like chucking Swahili at me since I don’t have the training or the eyesight for the subscript. I say Swahili, more like shorthand.

You only had to ask...
S_t (S subscript t): Every single detail of who a person is and their current state of mind.
E_t (E subscript t): Every single detail of their environment that can affect them in any way at all.
S_t+dt (S subscript t+dt): Every single detail of who the person is and their current state of mind, a short time later. The 'short time' being based on how fast they can possibly react to anything.

Agent Causation.

Just using the phrase is meaningless. You need to do the logic and explain how it can cause an action for no reason and still be purposeful.

And as I have said Agent causation must exist where there is a system but no environment, where the system is the agent, it’s own cause or in a loop causality where everything is it’s own causal agent.
Also in the case of the necessary entity that is a supreme case of agent causality since there is nothing which determines it and no context for randomness.

Bizarre mixture of gibberish and fantasy. 

[Gonnagle]

Oh yes you did - it is there for everyone to see so don't try to deny it.

'Not surprisingly, you as an atheist, seem to be only interested in discussing if God exists'
Irrelevant - your claim was that atheists were only interested in discussing the existence of god - that is simply untrue, just as much as women are not only interested in discussing having babies. Derogatory and lazy generalisations both.

In fact I suspect most atheists spend very little time, if any time at all, discussing the existence of something they don't actually believe exists. Do you spend much time discussing whether leprechauns exist VG?
Yawn.

Dear Prof,

Yes! Exactly! I did once offer up the suggestion that the forum name be changed to just Ethics, after all the Atheists do not like discussing God, but then maybe I am being to general in my generalisations, tell me again just what is the hot topic on here and since you are a academical chap, what is the ratio of atheist to theist on this forum.

Gonnagle.

[ProfessorDavey]

Dear Prof,

Yes! Exactly! I did once offer up the suggestion that the forum name be changed to just Ethics, after all the Atheists do not like discussing God, but then maybe I am being to general in my generalisations, tell me again just what is the hot topic on here and since you are a academical chap, what is the ratio of atheist to theist on this forum.

Gonnagle.

Well I've not counted up, but I imagine there are slightly more atheists than theists on this MB. But I don't imagine for one moment that our little community is representative of the overall population, nor actually that our atheist sub-community on here are in any way representative of the overall atheist population.

I suspect that the general population have little interest in discussing whether god exists or the nature of god etc etc - largely 'don't know, don't care'.

And our atheists are probably a rather unusual sub-set of atheists, being interested in discussing (a)theism and ethics on a MB. Remember that about one in three of the UK population doesn't believe in the existence of god - I doubt they spend much, if any, time discussing god. They've got far better things to spend their time on, unlike it would appear ... us.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Then perhaps you should be more careful with your posts.

So perhaps - 'ProfD - you seem to be only interested in discussing if God exists' - I don't think that's true but that would be a comment aimed specifically at me and what I think/discuss etc etc

But you didn't, did you - what you said was:

'Not surprisingly, you as an atheist, seem to be only interested in discussing if God exists'

Derogatory, lazy generalisation.

VG - here is a tip - when in a hole, stop digging. Particularly when you were the person who dug the hole in the first place.

Glad you have now recognised your error in interpretation. No apology - not a surprise, given your past behaviour on this forum.

PD - a tip for you - when you're in a hole stop digging. Particularly when you were the person who dug the hole in the first place.

[Gonnagle]

Well I've not counted up, but I imagine there are slightly more atheists than theists on this MB. But I don't imagine for one moment that our little community is representative of the overall population, nor actually that our atheist sub-community on here are in any way representative of the overall atheist population.

I suspect that the general population have little interest in discussing whether god exists or the nature of god etc etc - largely 'don't know, don't care'.

And our atheists are probably a rather unusual sub-set of atheists, being interested in discussing (a)theism and ethics on a MB. Remember that about one in three of the UK population doesn't believe in the existence of god - I doubt they spend much, if any, time discussing god. They've got far better things to spend their time on, unlike it would appear ... us.

Dear Prof,

Thank you.

M'lud I offer up the above as exhibit A.

And it may mean absolutely nothing to you Prof but I have come to the concussion, I like Atheists

Gonnagle.

[ProfessorDavey]

Glad you have now recognised your error in interpretation. No apology - not a surprise, given your past behaviour on this forum.

PD - a tip for you - when you're in a hole stop digging. Particularly when you were the person who dug the hole in the first place.

Oh dear you really are unable to let it go are you.

Oh and by the way interpretation is subjective - and it is the interpretee (i.e me) who is the custodian of how I interpreted your comment - it is not for you to demand that I should have interpreted it in a particular manner. If I interpreted it in a manner other than as you seem to be demanding then perhaps you should have phrased your comment differently.

I also note no inkling of an apology for your derogatory lazy generalisation, or even the politicians apology - e.g. 'I'm sorry that you interpreted my comment to be a derogatory, lazy generalisation.'

Anyway - onwards to more interesting matters.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Oh dear you really are unable to let it go are you.

Oh and by the way interpretation is subjective - and it is the interpretee (i.e me) who is the custodian of how I interpreted your comment - it is not for you to demand that I should have interpreted it in a particular manner. If I interpreted it in a manner other than as you seem to be demanding then perhaps you should have phrased your comment differently.

I also note no inkling of an apology for your derogatory lazy generalisation, or even the politicians apology - e.g. 'I'm sorry that you interpreted my comment to be a derogatory, lazy generalisation.'

Anyway - onwards to more interesting matters.

Oh dear - seems you really can't let this go.

Good one about interpreting comments. So every time you interpret something incorrectly because of the massive chip on your shoulder, it's the other person's fault that you accused them of posting a slur. Even when they clarify their comment. And still no apology from you.

Given the context that I was responding (reply #234) to your post (reply #233) describing yourself as an atheist and how most atheists, particularly you, would interpret my post to mean that you think I am implying that god exists (my emphasis), explain to me the difference between my actual response and your suggested script that I should have said instead (again my emphasis below):
Reply #233: PD: "I don't think that is the way that most atheists would see it - certainly I don't. As it implies that there is a god and there is a choice whether or not to include that god in your life."

Reply #234: TA/ VG/ G: "I don't think we're talking about the same thing. I meant God as a concept, an idea, a thought, a tool. Hence I went on to compare belief with differing ideas on how to parent, as opposed to discussing the existence of parents.

There's a choice in trying to looking at things from different perspectives. You have to make a choice to try to ignore your assumptions and biases and see if the subsequent experience generates an alternative perspective.

Not surprisingly, you as an atheist, seem to be only interested in discussing if God exists e.g. like the planet Jupiter."

OR
 your version of what you think I should have written:

'ProfD - you seem to be only interested in discussing if God exists'

By the way, did you mean to write 'PD- you seem to be only interested in discussing if God exists'

You seem very hung up on being called a Prof 

[Free Willy]

Why are you finding this so hard? Even Alan seemed to have grasped the logic, which is why he started wittering about an 'ever present state' to try and escape from time-based logic.

• All the possible reasons (logical antecedents) for S_t+dt are contained in S_t and E_t.
• Either S_t+E_t mean there is only one possible S_t+dt or there are multiple possibilities.
• If there is only one possibility, the system is fully deterministic.
• If there is more than one, the choice between them cannot be for any of the possible reasons (antecedents).
• Something that happens for literally no reason at all can only be random.

Which point(s) do you dispute or not understand?

My beef as you know is in the use of the word Randomness rather than Indeterminancy since you define randomness as a mindless phenomenon. For example the necessary being has no external ''determiner'' and it's action is indeterminate to anything but itself but not random since that implies a context in which randomness can occur.

'Agent causation' is meaningless jargon unless you can explain exactly how it works and escapes the above logic. Also worth noting that compatibilists think it can be fully deterministic.

It is explained as an agent whose action is undetermined by an external and not random in the fashion of nuclear disintigration

Depends how you define 'choice' but this is an argumentum ad consequentiam fallacy.

How so?

Whispering clouds painted melodies on the canvas of time.

Do you want to try again in English?

[Stranger]

My beef as you know is in the use of the word Randomness rather than Indeterminancy since you define randomness as a mindless phenomenon.

Still waiting for you to explain how something can happen for no reason whatsoever without being random. Just repeating 'agent choice', like some sort of mantra, isn't an answer.

For example the necessary being...

...is an idea you have never managed to justify. 

How so?

Why else would you be moaning about 'no choice'?

[Free Willy]

I think the evidence is pretty compelling. And just because an evidence based explanation is not completely exhaustive is not a reason to reject it. Rather you should continue to do more research to fill in the gaps. What you definitely shouldn't do is reject it in favour of a completely unevidenced goddidit assertion.

I don't reject it I just mean it is incomplete and merely ends at describing behaviour without telling us whether that behaviour is right or wrong or what we ought to do.

Why is that a difficulty - I don't see it as a difficulty at all. Mechanistically this is all just molecules and particles in particular arrangements, but that doesn't mean that the arrangement of those particles isn't of huge importance to the human condition, nor that it isn't the product of evolution.

Again such relationships give rise to behaviour but don't actually give us the morality of them. IMO it's moral realism. Evolution gives us the ability to access the world of mathematical realism but doesn't shape it.

[Free Willy]

Nice bit of turning a comment completely on its head.

The sactimonious aspect here is the rather common claim of some religions that you cannot be a moral person without reference to god - i.e. claiming that morality is the exclusive preserve of theists.

Humanists make no such sanctimonious claim - I can never recollect a humanist or an atheist claiming that morality is the exclusive preserve of atheists, merely that you don't need to be theist to be moral or ethical. Effectively that atheists are perfectly capable of being eminently ethical people just as much as theists. And the flip side also applies - both atheists and theists can also be completely morally reprehensible.

The point being that whether you are 'good' or not has nothing to do with whether or not you believe in god, but on whether or not you are ... err ... 'good' (which is, of course a subjective concept and open to a range of opinions).

Moral realism might be an alternative. You have made some positive assertions you know your duty.

[Free Willy]

Emergence has always been a bit beyond you. Nothing magically appears, uncaused from nothing, in emergence. If you know everything about the components and (importantly) how they interact, you can predict what will emerge.

That is known as weak emergence. I propose strong emergence.
Example if I have one object and add another that adds up to two objects but there is a third thing. The interaction between them.

[Stranger]

That is known as weak emergence. I propose strong emergence.

Strong emergence doesn't come with any concrete examples in physics and its existence is highly questionable, but then you go on to describe weak emergence (you really are all over the place):

Example if I have one object and add another that adds up to two objects but there is a third thing. The interaction between them.

Like I said:

Nothing magically appears, uncaused from nothing, in emergence. If you know everything about the components and (importantly) how they interact, you can predict what will emerge.

[Emphasis added.]

[ProfessorDavey]

I don't think I am misconstruing anything. Beliefs about god consist of a lot more than just a belief about whether god exists or not. My comments were not about the existence of god. In your posts, you can focus on the existence of god if you want, but that is not what my post was about.

So let's move beyond your derogatory lazy generalisation shall we.

I don't think you can really discuss belief in whether god(s) exist without ... err ... discussion of whether god(s) exists.

Not least because you and I both agree that religions consider that god really objectively exists, rather than merely exists in the mind of believers (subjectively). And I also don't think that religions consider that the existence of god (that they objectively think exists) is irrelevant provided (some) people believe in the existence of god. And those religions and believers act accordingly on the basis that they think god actually does exists.

Also if we are focusing entirely on belief in god then there really is no discussion - while you believe god exists and I do not believe god exists (and neither of us actually knows whether god exists or not), we both agree that belief in god exists and lack of belief in god exists and also that the belief or lack thereof may lead, directly or indirectly, to individual/societal behaviours or effects.

But if you consider that whether god actually exist or not isn't important and all that matters is belief, then the existence of god in itself becomes irrelevant - so god becomes nothing more than a subjective (true for me) concept and any impact of god is merely a placebo/nocebo effect that doesn't require god's actual existence.

Now from an atheist perspective we may well conclude that the impact of belief in god is exactly that - placebo/nocebo - the impact being based on believing there is an active ingredient in a tablet regardless of whether there actually is any active ingredient. But again I don't think that is how religions consider god, belief in god and the effects of belief in god. They consider that god actually exists and the effects of belief are down to an actual 'active' ingredient, not merely placebo/nocebo effect.

[Free Willy]

Strong emergence doesn't come with any concrete examples in physics and its existence is highly questionable,

But hardly ''stupid''.
You will be of course talking about Newtonian physics here.

The point is emergent things are often not just the sum of their components. Consciusness is not, for example, just so much intelligence added together. However many billion water molecules cause wetness, none are in fact ''wet''.

There is apparently more information in the universe potentially than particles, to give an illustration.

[Stranger]

But hardly ''stupid''.

Pretty stupid, and irrelevant to the point, too.

You will be of course talking about Newtonian physics here.

No.

The point is emergent things are often not just the sum of their components. Consciusness is not, for example, just so much intelligence added together. However many billion water molecules cause wetness, none are in fact ''wet''.

None of which helps your case. All the real and understood examples of emergence can be simulated, so entirely the deterministic outcomes of the components and their interactions.

There is apparently more information in the universe potentially than particles, to give an illustration.

[citation missing]
This could be trivially true, depending on exactly what you mean.

[Free Willy]

Pretty stupid, and irrelevant to the point, too.

No.

None of which helps your case. All the real and understood examples of emergence can be simulated, so entirely the deterministic outcomes of the components and their interactions.

[citation missing]
This could be trivially true, depending on exactly what you mean.

How does consciousness emerge?