(October 7, 2014 at 1:42 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Not always. If I say that being imprisoned does not necessarily lead to boredom that doesn't mean that having liberty necessarily does.
"Being imprisoned does not necessarily lead to boredom".
"Having liberty does necessarily lead to boredom".
These two statements are not corollaries.
The corollary to
"Having liberty does necessarily lead to boredom".
would be
"Only imprisonment may not lead to boredom".
The corollary to
"Being imprisoned does not necessarily lead to boredom".
would be
"Being free does not necessarily lead to excitement".
The statement
"Only theism can lead to non-nihilism"
is a corollary for
"Atheism leads to nihilism".
(October 7, 2014 at 1:42 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Replace “god-did-it” with “emergent-property-did-it” and you can see that the proposed technical sounding mechanism only supplies a promissory note for a future solution that may or may not come.
Actually, it is a solution now, not a promissory note for future solution. Emergent properties, unlike your god, can be and are examined right now.
(October 7, 2014 at 1:42 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: I still don’t see from where you think the content of all the loops and swirls of a computational model come. In themselves the loops and swirls don’t have content.
It comes from the combined functionality of those loops and swirls. Your inability to get it is not an argument against emergence.
