> The question implies: that there is no real difference between the properties of things which occupy opposite ends of a continuum -- from constituent parts going towards the whole object -- because it assumes there is no definable moment when one becomes the other. This assumption is not sustainable. In the example of the brain, the actions of many neurons, synapses, and neurotransmitters can have an overall powerful emergent effect which we could call 'consciousness'. When working individually, these neuronal brain processes are not that much different than nerve processes in the rest of your body. Working together, however, the whole is mysteriously greater than the sum of its parts.
>
> Wolf "does this answer any part of the question you wanted to ask?" spirit

Not really. You're explaining synergy, which I understand. But each part must still contribute to the synergy: while it is more than the sum of its parts, it still has parts. The effect doesn't come from nothing at all.

The responses to the question were focused on trying to break down consciousness into equal little parts for each type of matter everywhere. The question did not ask for this, just that the effect be broken down *somehow*.

Here's an analogy. If we were discussing purple paint made from red and blue particles, I wouldn't have been asking whether each particle was purple, but whether each particle had color of any kind.

gabby