I prefer jennyp's analogy. But only because it was my idea originally and it keeps my ego boosted to see it repeated by others.
It is an analogy that might include aspects of mind. When we consider the mind aspect of things, we should ask where the idea of 'wet' comes in. Same for 'flame-quenching'. Hydrogen by itself is flame-quenching; when oxygen is also present hydrogen is not flame-quenching. When the mind aspect comes in we should ask how it feels that water is wet. We should ask whether the feelings of wet are necessary to the existence of the water, much as whether the melody coming off the violin string is necessary to the existence of the vibration of the string.
Well, I claim independent discovery of the analogy. However, I've since seen it attributed to John Searle, so I think we've both been scooped. >:-(
Emergent PropertiesSome properties emerge only after you combine things into wholes. Such properties are called, not surprisingly, emergent properties. Thats often why whats true of the parts isnt necessarily true of the wholes, and vice-versa. Using John Searles famous example, being wet is an emergent property of water. None of the water molecules are wet. But wetness happens when you put enough of those molecules together. Obviously, then, the following argument is silly:
- All the individual molecules comprising this water lack wetness.
- Therefore, this water cant be wet.
- But this water is wet.
- Therefore, this water must be more than these mere molecules. This water must have a mysterious non-physical component to account for its wetness.
The move from (1) to (2) is an obvious fallacy of composition because wetness is an emergent property. Searle says consciousness is an emergent property of brains just like wetness is an emergent property of water. Neither wetness nor consciousness necessarily requires anything non-physical to explain it.