With the emergence argument, I have the following retort.

How can something emerge if it wasn't embedded or hidden within the system already?

GMoromisato 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I think when people say "emergent" they mean that it happens because of a combination of parts forming something greater.

For example, if you decompose an airplane into its pieces, you will discover than none of the pieces can fly from Boston to San Francisco by itself. Wings can't fly without engines, engines can't work without fuel, etc. etc.

Maybe consciousness is a process that requires many different components or steps. No one component is conscious, but the running process is.

▲

renticulous 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Would it be ok to say quantum fields are conscious in some sense? That a quality of consciousness cannot emerge if it isn't there already in the most fundamental aspects of the reality

	▲	GMoromisato an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I don't know. We get lost in definitions that way. What does "conscious" mean? What does it mean for consciousness to already be there? What do you mean by "fundamental aspect of reality"? [These are rhetorical questions--if you try to answer them, we will get lost in definitions.] For every other problem that science tackles, there are observable results. How long does the apple take to fall? What time will the sun rise on June 21st? We can make theories and see if the theories match reality. But with consciousness there are no observable results. I know that I'm conscious, but there is no way for me to observe your consciousness. And there is no way for me to prove that I'm conscious (as opposed to a philosophical zombie).

▲

colordrops 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I don't know, why not?

	▲	renticulous 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		If not, then it has been hoisted upon material systems from outside. Which is nothing but substance dualism argument.