If the soul exists, is it detectable?

[GEddie]

As I understand it, the soul is the life of body; and mind is the output of body’s life through the brain. So, soul != mind; but given an intact human head, they are inseparable.

The soul continues to exist when the mind is in abeyance; ie, in anesthesia, unconsciousness, or coma. But if the condition supressing the mind is resolved, the
mind resumes. If the soul leaves body, however, death ensues.

ICXC NIKA

 

[greylorn]

Tony
Sometimes my friend GL has trouble with his reading and almost always has trouble extracting my meaning from those of my posts that he does read. Case in point, to quote GL: *“It is an egregious error to claim that the redness arises in the neurons of the brain. These are simple machines which are only responding to their (name removed by moderator)ut signals.” *Where did I say that? Redness and all other qualia are associated with specific neuronal circuits, but the redness we “see” happens elsewhere: I believe, in the spiritual component of the mind.

I may have been unclear, however, I know that GL has the intellect to extract the meaning if he so desired, but for one reason or another prefers not to. Probably because one of his inviolate tenets is: "only the physical can affect the physical." Isn’t that right, GL?

YPPOP

YP,
I confess that I’ve had difficulty understanding your meaning on occasion, but this is never from lack of trying. As you’ll recall from way back when I studied your metaphysical ideas, I continued to try, and gave up only when you declined to answer some geometrical questions which seemed to me to be necessary to remove ambiguity.

In this case, you wrote:

Science has shown us that the redness doesn’t inhere in the molecules of an apple; but rather is associated with the nature of the photons reflected from its skin.

I claim that your first clause is untrue, or at least leaves those who’ve who’ve not studied the physics involved with a false understanding.

The wavelength of photons reflected from the apple’s surface determines the perception of “redness” in the human brain, as it does in an Echelle spectrograph or similar instrument— the difference being that the spectrograph returns more specific data, such as photon-flux values for photons in the (red) range of 620-750 nanometers.

The molecules in the apple’s skin, and their arrangement, totally determine what wavelengths of light (i.e. which perceivable colors) are reflected from that skin.

Perhaps you are saying that the molecules in an apple’s skin are not red., which is true, Likewise the atoms of a gold bar are not gold. The only problem is that you confuse the physicist’s perspective with the standard human perspective, which is to naturally assign color values to observed wavelengths of light. And what is the point of your efforts to confuse non-physicists?

I see your argument in the general context of this thread as being an attempt to mystify physics in an attempt to reach an understanding of the spiritual, following in the steps of Gary Zukav and his fellow shmoos. This is very popular among religionists who refuse to learn the slightest dribble of physics, and leads to really absurd arguments like Candide West’s insistence that the undetectable soul can be detected. Surely you do not mean to participate in the same mindless adherence to dogma as those on this thread who lack your physics knowledge, by believing that a “soul” defined to be spiritual (non-physical) can actually interact with something that is physical?

You and I might have a worthwhile discussion on this. Then again, we might not.

Your claim that the spiritual soul is what senses red strikes me as odd. Does this imply that bulls (highly red-sensitive) have souls but that deer, which are mostly blind to that portion of the spectrum, are soul-less? If that isn’t enough to interest you in taking a “critical thought” moment, are color-blind people also soul-less?

Those are the kinds of dumb questions that are easily created from confused attempts to separate the spiritual from the physical.

My approach to the integration of theology and science is the exact opposite of those who seek to mystify physics. Instead, I bring concepts like the soul, and God, into physical reality. To my style of thinking, God is as physical as dark energy, or soul is as physical as a magnetic field. (Those are examples— not my actual definitions, which as you know are much simpler.)

Ideas such as the physicality of soul are designed to lift religions out of the concrete boots they have been wearing since the dark ages, thanks to their refusal to integrate the principles of science into their various theologies. The Church holds but one of many such antiquated belief systems which await an overcoming of semantic challenges.

 

[greylorn]

Previously Posted by greylorn
I realize that “undetectable” is a big word. So exactly what part of it do you find incapable of understanding?

I am sorry if you felt insulted, but if you are going to make inconsistent statements, you might want to get used to it. I am insulted often on CAF, but have other sources of personal complaint to fall back on just in case CAF members run out of insults. Insults are the price one often pays for engaging in a conversation which conflicts with common beliefs. They are also a good way to keep score. In your case, you got them for insisting upon being illogical. And I apologize for not being more thoughtful. There was no need to take out my bad day on you.

So I don’t expect you to be reading this reply. I’m writing it for anyone who might be tuning into this argument and is confused by the point you insist upon making, to wit:
CW Post 34:

Right, that’s why I’ve assumed the soul is non-physical / undetectable etc.

Er, yes that’s the point. Assuming we CANNOT detect the soul. We must at least in theory be able to detect the boundary point between the physical and the soul. It will be the point at which the physical causality will end and there will be a spontaneous event.

Undetectable means undetectable, including by inferential means. The only components of the physical universe which are directly detectable are photons and electric fields. Matter is only inferentially detectable. We detect photons bounced off of it, and bump into the electric fields surrounding it. People are so confused that until the 19th century, we thought that we could actually detect matter directly.

I think that you are on a potentially good track, seeking the detectability of soul. But you cannot further that excellent goal by declaring the soul to be undetectable, then propose inferential detection at some mysterious interface point between soul and brain.

Finding a “spontaneous” event and then declaring it to be initiated by the non-detectable soul is a very bad idea. If you promise your neighborhood neurological researcher one pre-1970 Mexican peso for every “spontaneous” event he finds in a brain within a 10-minute interval, you’ll be owing him at least a billion dollars.

The “spontaneous event” of which you speak is meaningless, irrelevant gibberish, unless you can define how the event looks in the physical world, to a physicist or neurologist armed with suitable instrumentation.

The soul has already been detected, inferentially, but because of the semantic confusion introduced by religionists, the evidence has never been properly interpreted.

Before the soul can be empirically verified by legitimate physics, a paradigm which describes its properties must be proposed which is consistent with physics and common logic. A mathematical model would be even better. This requires that soul be treated as just as detectable as anything else, which means that it must be regarded as entirely “physical.”

Whatever you do after not reading this, be sure to not read my book, where the physical properties of soul are explained. Maintain the confusion!

 

[GEddie]

We can indeed detect matter directly. Just hold a brick in your hand, at arms-length from your body; the weight your skin and arm/shoulder muscles sense is a property of the mass, not it’s associated electronic field.

(BTW: Why pre1970 MX$??? You’d make the point equally well with present day MX$, as the value is the same.)

 

[greylorn]

Maybe the current understanding of ‘physical’ is to blame. Einsteinian mass-energy might not be the whole of it.
ICXC NIKA

IMO you are exactly correct. The stuff of “soul” needs to be added to the mix which comprises reality.

 

[greylorn]

We can indeed detect matter directly. Just hold a brick in your hand, at arms-length from your body; the weight your skin and arm/shoulder muscles sense is a property of the mass, not it’s associated electronic field.

(BTW: Why pre1970 MX$??? You’d make the point equally well with present day MX$, as the value is the same.)

Excellent point! Yet I wonder, given that we get a different sense of mass on the moon or in free fall, are we measuring mass or the gravitational field in which we find it?

Then there is the mystery of why gravitational and inertial mass are identical. Could a field-level interaction be involved?

Thank you for a thought provoking correction.

(RE:BTW: Somewhere in the 1980s or thereabouts Mexico did a drastic peso devaluation, by 2, perhaps 3 orders of magnitude. I have a baq of “old” pesos and centavos for use as poker chips, because the plastic chips cost more than the coins. I suspect that if my grandkids ever learn to play poker, they’ll be using today’s worthless quarters.)

 

[tonyrey]

Perhaps “interaction” is an inaccurate description:

Perhaps. I used it in this case since I could think of nothing more appropriate. Does anything spring to mind?*
No human words are adequate to describe the mind and its activity completely or precisely.

In any case if the soul exists and is something that goes elsewhere when the body dies then there would seem to be a need for at least some distinction between body and soul as the body stays where it is.

The problem is that going elsewhere implies that the soul is located in a particular place but intangible realities like truth, free will and purpose can’t be pinned down like material objects.

If we are to talk of something affecting something else then interaction seems to be a reasonable word to describe the event.

In this case it is some one, i.e. a person, affecting something else!

1. The expression “to be out of one’s mind” suggests that the mind directs the body - which doesn’t have insight or the power of abstract reasoning.

True, I guess the question then is if the mind is a function of the brain (in which case an afterlife would seem impossible since the brain ceases to function when the body dies) or the mind is a function carried out in a soul or a combination of brain and soul (in which case detection should be at least theoretically possible though potentially extremely difficult).Detection can only occur where the physical element is concerned unless we take detection to include introspection. We know when we make a decision but from then on we are in the dark as to how it is put into action!

**

1. The power of the mind is evident in hypnosis and self-hypnosis.

Ok, and of course it’s evident elsewhere too.
It’s refreshing not to be having a discussion with a physicalist.
**

1. There is no physical

• control-centre in the brain to explain self-control.*

Although taking the materialist line you could just say that it could exist but we haven’t found it yet or of course that all of the brain works together to be the control centre.

I should have read your post from start to finish before answering it!

1. There is nothing to detect if the mind is like the invisible director of an orchestra!

True, as yet. The question is, could such a thing be made?The question is the nature of reality. Why assume matter is more basic than mind?

(To discuss the difference between the mind and soul - if there is one - would take us away from the topic).

But its a wander I wouldn’t mind taking if you’re interested, after all it’s difficult to discuss the topic without clarity on terms. I’m very interested. The soul is usually considered as a religious concept. The famous neuroscientist Sir Charles Sherrington referred to “spirit” in his book
“Man on his Nature” and wrote:

“As followers of natural science we know nothing of any relation between thoughts and the brain, except as a gross correlation in time and space.”!

 

[whitecrayon]

i just thought i would interject here that certainly the “soul” is detectable by those who have one, if not by scientific instruments. lol.

whitecrayon

 

[inocente]

Sir Charles Sherrington referred to “spirit” in his book
“Man on his Nature” and wrote:

“As followers of natural science we know nothing of any relation between thoughts and the brain, except as a gross correlation in time and space.”!

Not really surprising as he died in 1952, well before CAT, PET and MRI.

 

[inocente]

i just thought i would interject here that certainly the “soul” is detectable by those who have one, if not by scientific instruments. lol.

whitecrayon

This is a philosophy forum bro, you’re not supposed to state the obvious.

 

[tonyrey]

This is a philosophy forum bro, you’re not supposed to state the obvious.

Is it obviously detectable?

 

[tonyrey]

Not really surprising as he died in 1952, well before CAT, PET and MRI.

A lifetime spend in the lab gave him plenty of time to grasp the inadequacy of materialism. A Nobel Laureate in neuroscience is not likely to be superstitous…

 

[GEddie]

Excellent point! Yet I wonder, given that we get a different sense of mass on the moon or in free fall, are we measuring mass or the gravitational field in which we find it?

Then there is the mystery of why gravitational and inertial mass are identical. Could a field-level interaction be involved?

Thank you for a thought provoking correction.

Gravitational and inertial mass are not identical. Your body weight will decrease by 82% on the moon, and to zero on the space station; yet strapped into an inertial balance, the mass of your soma remains unchanged in all three instances.

If you throw a baseball in the 3 cases, the momentum transferred to your body is the same; except that on earth or moon, it is absorbed by your legs; in free fall you move backward.

ICXC NIKA

 

[yppop]

GEddie;8430935

Excellent point! Yet I wonder, given that we get a different sense of mass on the moon or in free fall, are we measuring mass or the gravitational field in which we find it?

Then there is the mystery of why gravitational and inertial mass are identical. Could a field-level interaction be involved?

GEddie
Do you mean to imply that inertial mass remains constant while gravitationaal mass varies?
Yppop

 

[GEddie]

Oops, misstatement.

The mass does not change. Gravitational force or weight can change, which is what scales and lab balances measure (and is calibrated as “mass” in kg). The mass, which registers on an inertial balance, remains the same.

We think of weight as mass, and under normal human conditions, they are equivalent. Most of us will never leave the earth with our natural body; so it’s weight can be treated as though it were the mass.

Because weight is reduced by 82% on the moon, men can leap around in heavy space suits , although the suit + body would weigh over 350# earthside. Yet that large mass is the same.

ICXC NIKA

 

[yppop]

---

YP,
I confess that I’ve had difficulty understanding your meaning on occasion, but this is never from lack of trying. As you’ll recall from way back when I studied your metaphysical ideas, I continued to try, and gave up only when you declined to answer some geometrical questions which seemed to me to be necessary to remove ambiguity.

In this case, you wrote:

I claim that your first clause is untrue, or at least leaves those who’ve who’ve not studied the physics involved with a false understanding.

The wavelength of photons reflected from the apple’s surface determines the perception of “redness” in the human brain, as it does in an Echelle spectrograph or similar instrument— the difference being that the spectrograph returns more specific data, such as photon-flux values for photons in the (red) range of 620-750 nanometers.

The molecules in the apple’s skin, and their arrangement, totally determine what wavelengths of light (i.e. which perceivable colors) are reflected from that skin.

Perhaps you are saying that the molecules in an apple’s skin are not red., which is true, Likewise the atoms of a gold bar are not gold. The only problem is that you confuse the physicist’s perspective with the standard human perspective, which is to naturally assign color values to observed wavelengths of light. And what is the point of your efforts to confuse non-physicists?

I see your argument in the general context of this thread as being an attempt to mystify physics in an attempt to reach an understanding of the spiritual, following in the steps of Gary Zukav and his fellow shmoos. This is very popular among religionists who refuse to learn the slightest dribble of physics, and leads to really absurd arguments like Candide West’s insistence that the undetectable soul can be detected. Surely you do not mean to participate in the same mindless adherence to dogma as those on this thread who lack your physics knowledge, by believing that a “soul” defined to be spiritual (non-physical) can actually interact with something that is physical?

You and I might have a worthwhile discussion on this. Then again, we might not.

Your claim that the spiritual soul is what senses red strikes me as odd. Does this imply that bulls (highly red-sensitive) have souls but that deer, which are mostly blind to that portion of the spectrum, are soul-less? If that isn’t enough to interest you in taking a “critical thought” moment, are color-blind people also soul-less?

Those are the kinds of dumb questions that are easily created from confused attempts to separate the spiritual from the physical.

My approach to the integration of theology and science is the exact opposite of those who seek to mystify physics. Instead, I bring concepts like the soul, and God, into physical reality. To my style of thinking, God is as physical as dark energy, or soul is as physical as a magnetic field. (Those are examples— not my actual definitions, which as you know are much simpler.)

Ideas such as the physicality of soul are designed to lift religions out of the concrete boots they have been wearing since the dark ages, thanks to their refusal to integrate the principles of science into their various theologies. The Church holds but one of many such antiquated belief systems which await an overcoming of semantic challenges.

GL,
Google “qualia” and read what Wikipedia has to say. Then perhaps we can have a discussion.

I understand where you are coming from regarding your definition of “physical” and that it effectively eliminates everything “spiritual” even though your OP invokes the notion of a soul. Now how can there be a soul that is not spiritual? I think I know your answer to that question since I have read your web site. So as far as I know you have never mentioned the thing in your thesis that replaces the Christian view of the soul. So how can we have a discussion about the soul unless you reveal your answer to the origin of the soul? Or, am I wrong about your source of a non-spiritual, physical soul?? Should I go back and reread your web site?

By the way if you do manage to grasp the concept of "qualia, I have an idea for turning your thesis into a science fiction story. Wouldn’t you be better off going in that direction? After all you already have established credibility in that genre. On the other hand, if you persist in publishing as a serious metaphysical tract, here is a possible citation you might want to use:

[SIGN]*"Then as regards the actual connection between **spirit **and body I consider that the body by reason of being a living body can “attract” and hold on to the spirit, whilst the body is alive and awake the two are firmly connected. When the body is asleep I cannot guess what happens but when the body dies the “mechanism” of the body holding the spirit is gone and the **spirit *finds a new body sooner or later perhaps immediately." From a letter: Alan Turing to Chistopher Morcom’s mother after C.M."s untimely death.[/SIGN]
I think this might apply merely by replacing the word “spirit” with the appropriate entity from your thesis. Or am I again off mark?

YPPOP

 

[greylorn]

greylorn;8429551:

Gravitational and inertial mass are not identical. Your body weight will decrease by 82% on the moon, and to zero on the space station; yet strapped into an inertial balance, the mass of your soma remains unchanged in all three instances.

If you throw a baseball in the 3 cases, the momentum transferred to your body is the same; except that on earth or moon, it is absorbed by your legs; in free fall you move backward.

I apologize for presuming that you understood basic physics.

Gravitational mass is not equivalent to weight. Weight is a force measurement. Mass does not change on the moon, but because the moon’s gravitational force is less, one weighs less there than on earth.

Gravitational mass is a property of matter which determines the force it will experience in a given gravitational field. Inertial mass is a different property of matter which determines the force with which matter will resist a change to its state of motion.

The properties are functionally distinct from one another, yet, experiments show that the inertial mass of an object is the same as its gravitational mass. This is a curious little mystery which has yet to be explained, that I know of. I feel that something profound about the nature of matter is concealed within this elusive explanation.

The reactive force of a baseball thrown on the earth or the moon is absorbed not by the pitcher’s legs, but by the earth or moon.

 

[greylorn]

---

GL,
Google “qualia” and read what Wikipedia has to say. Then perhaps we can have a discussion.

YP,
I appreciate your standards for discussion, so I looked up qualia once again (had done so a year ago in another context) to see if I’d missed something. I do not believe that I have. Qualia is one of those garbage words used commonly by philosophers who don’t know squat, but try to mask their dreadful ignorance behind the facade of obfuscating language. My motto: “Abjure Obfuscation!”

Qualia is a plural generic word, like trees.

When I was a kid, I could walk into the woods and name the things that were in there: There was a creek, grass, plants, rabbit poo, but mostly trees. Now that I’m older and live in the woods, I rarely use the word trees. They are now, for me, alligator juniper, mountain cypress, scrub oak, white oak, red oak, sycamore, etc. This is not a matter of intellectual tree-snobbishness, but is about knowing one’s trees— because each tree has different properties. For example, since I heat my cabin with a firebox, it is good to know that cypress burns hot and fast and gunks up the chimney, and that a couple of red oak logs will keep the place warm all night and leave coals for the morning.

I would only use the term “trees” to describe a forest if I was addressing someone totally ignorant about the varieties and properties of trees, and who wanted to remain igornant. Trees is a term from which we might begin our learning process, then branch out (yep, pun ) from there to more specific understandings.

Austrailan aborigines have no linguistic equivalent for “trees.” This is not because they are stupid. Their children know the name and characteristics of every tree within running distance. To introduce into their language a generic word for tree would be a step backward— way, way backward.

No surprise then, that pinhead philosophers who are incapable of grasping important details are fond of the virtually meaningless, generic, term— “qualia,”

I’ll bet you that these same pinheads would never be caught dead going into a fine restaurant and directing their waitress to bring them “some wine.” Go figure. It is the way of intellectualized nitwits.

I mention this because of my considerable respect for you, and my certainty that you are not singing in the pinhead philosophers’ choir. I’m the kind of guy who’ll be the first to tell a friend that there’s a booger in his mustache, an open fly, or that the chick he’s fallen in love with normally gets paid upfront for her services. So, few friends. I think you’ve just gotten sucked into a bit of philosophical nonsense that is way beneath your mental level.

I propose that you are too smart to be using a dumb word which is customarily employed by pseudo-intellectuals to fill the vacuum within their little brains. You came to me with this just in time. That I should understand the meaning of qualia before engaging in further discussion with you is addressed by this line from the very Wiki article you invited me to read:

"There are many definitions of qualia, which have changed over time. "

Shall we use all of them, or simply purge that regurgitated hairball of nitwit-philosopher’s jargon from our vocabulary and have an intelligent conversation?

I understand where you are coming from regarding your definition of “physical” and that it effectively eliminates everything “spiritual” even though your OP invokes the notion of a soul. Now how can there be a soul that is not spiritual? I think I know your answer to that question since I have read your web site. So as far as I know you have never mentioned the thing in your thesis that replaces the Christian view of the soul. So how can we have a discussion about the soul unless you reveal your answer to the origin of the soul? Or, am I wrong about your source of a non-spiritual, physical soul?? Should I go back and reread your web site?

Given the context of the forum, I’m stuck with using “soul” on CAF because my favorite word, beon, would make no sense here, as you know. You are correct— there really cannot be a “soul” which is non-physical because the soul is defined to be non-physical. So, in the future, when the conversation permits, I’ll use my own word, beon, which can be roughly interpreted to mean physical soul.

I don’t know how far along my website you’ve read. Would you kindly PM or briefly mention the last page you finished? I can then fill you in on missing information. It is getting close to publication time, and therefore closer to conversations where I can freely expose unique ideas.

 

[greylorn]

By the way if you do manage to grasp the concept of "qualia, I have an idea for turning your thesis into a science fiction story. Wouldn’t you be better off going in that direction? After all you already have established credibility in that genre.

Yes, the set of ideas behind Beon Theory lend themselves well to intelligent speculation, and what better way to express that other than in story form? I have several ideas for novels kicking around in my little mind, beginning with “The Metaphysics of Sherlock Holmes.” Last week I came up with a better idea than any of the others, and will be working on it after the current book is in print.

On the other hand, if you persist in publishing as a serious metaphysical tract, here is a possible citation you might want to use:

I think this might apply merely by replacing the word “spirit” with the appropriate entity from your thesis.
For the fun of it I’m doing that.

[SIGN]"Then as regards the actual connection between beon and body I consider that the body by reason of being a living body can “attract” and hold on to the beon, whilst the body is alive and awake the two are firmly connected. When the body is asleep I cannot guess what happens but when the body dies the “mechanism” of the body holding the beon is gone and the beon finds a new body sooner or later perhaps immediately." From a letter: Alan Turing to Chistopher Morcom’s mother after C.M."s untimely death.[/SIGN]

Or am I again off mark?

You are, as is the case more often than not, right on. Replace “spirit” with “beon” and Turing’s explanation becomes very close to mine. Exceptions? I do guess what happens when the body sleeps. I’ve devoted an entire chapter to reincarnation, none of which contradicts Alan Turing’s statement.

I first heard of Alan Turing in an early computer class when I was barely able to appreciate the profound insight behind the “Turing Theorem.” Because his history has been so long been suppressed by the British gov’t, the extraordinary depth of his mind has only come to light over the past few decades. He’s gradually become one of my intellectual heroes, which makes your quote wonderfully appropriate. I’d no idea that he had turned his awesome mind in metaphysical/religious directions. Do you know of other such writings?

---

And yes, I do insist upon at least one presentation in non-fiction format, although it is not my best literary style. I’ll not be around for long, and must leave a fully-expressed idea set behind.

 

[Alterum]

Hi Candide, sorry it’s taken me so long to respond. I will try to briefly address your questions.

‘Substantial form’ is an Aristotelian term appropriated by theologians. When Aristotle used it of the soul he meant that the soul is the entelechy of the human body. He even notes that to question whether the soul and the body are divided is incoherent: it is like asking whether the wax and the shape into which it has been molded are one.

When I am using the term, I want to indicate specifically that the intellective soul is the only substantial form of the human body: it communicates its existence to matter and is responsible for all of the vital functions of man. Since it is the only substantial form, it maintains man’s substantial unity (lest soul and body would only be accidentally connected). It is moreover the case that the body is required for the full realization of the soul’s nature and thus for human nature, namely a corporeal mode of being. The soul is naturally completed by union with the body, through which it acquires knowledge by sensory experience.

You drew from my last post the implication that the soul ‘dissipates’ after death, as the body decays. There are theological reasons why this is not the case; and there are somewhat involved philosophical arguments that this could not be the case in the specific instance of human souls, following from axioms according to which act expresses being, and the incorporeality of the soul’s intellective act. The human soul is not any substantial form: it is a self-subsistent substantial form which, when separated from the body, has no substantial existence, strictly-speaking. But you must also draw out the other implication of my last post: the body, not as accident of matter alone (remember that when a man dies there is no longer, strictly-speaking, a body) but as corporeity, is the substantial form actualizing the matter to which it is united (again, the soul is the entelechy of the human body). A body is not simply extension: extension is a requirement of the soul, which provides matter with the form to accomplish its own activity: eyes, ears, hands, etc. So hylomorphism involves rejecting Certesian dualism in both directions, so to speak, and revising one’s understanding of the soul as well as of the body. The soul is as physical as the body is spiritual. This is what hylomorphism entails.

Separated from the body, the soul is neither an individual substance nor a person. It is not a substance because it is deprived of that perfection required by its nature, viz. the body. The soul, by itself, is pure form.

Your other questions seem to concern my emphasis on emergent properties. How do we distinguish between merely emergent properties of material things, and emergent properties which are the result of the soul? There is a fine discussion to be had here, and if I have time I will return to it. But to punctuate my own point: there is no possible explanation for emergent properties apart from formal causality. There is no such thing, materialistically-speaking, as an “emergent property”; that term is the materialist’s sleight of hand, which purports to explain something without explaining anything. Perhaps putting it this way will help: you cannot talk about properties, or parts, or emergence, or anything like that, without already presupposing the whole. Without a whole there are no parts. Emergence, from a materialist point-of-view, is incoherent.