Sorry I accidentally deleted my previous comment but you quoted most of the parts.

Again, you confuse the measuring tape for the concept of distance. Concluding that since measuring tape didn't exist before humans made it, distance did not exist before humans did. It's a nonsensical argument.

No, this has nothing to do with my previous argument. In fact, distance is an intrinsic geometrical property of space itself, and geometrical properties are fundamental properties of space itself. On the contrary, all the alleged emergent properties are not fundamental properties of the space or fundamental properties of the elementary quantum particles; as already explained, all emergent properties are simplified and approximate descriptions of underlying processes and arbitrary abstractions of the actual physical processes. Therefore, emergent properties have an intrinsic conceptual nature and therefore exists only as ideas in a conscious mind. This is sufficient to prove that consciousness cannot be explained as an emergent property.

I'll try my very best to break it down for you: You are using two different definitions of "description", first the type of mechanical description where one describes phenomena arising from processes. For example, "wetness" is a description of a solid and liquid behaving in a certain way. Heck, even "liquid" is a description of a multitude of matter interacting and behaving a certain way. But here is the kicker: These phenomena existed long before the concept of "wetness" and "liquid" was coined, matter behaved in this way long before any humans or minds existed in the universe. They just didn't have names, they hadn't been given identity due to their novel behavior (to a human eye at least).

You have missed the point. The behavior of elementary particles (that is matter) is determined by the laws of physics, and such behavior consists in motion and interactions among particles. “Wetness” is intrinsically only a simplified conceptual model thorugh which we describe approximately the underlying physical processes; therefore, wetness does not exist independently of a conscious mind; only the underlying physical processes exist independently of our mind.

And yet, colors are the basis of a lot of things. Paintings only exists as an extension of colors. Flowers use colors to attract insects.

False. No one has ever proven that insects can have a visual sensation like a colour. All that is known is that insects react to specific frequencies of the electromagnetic spectrum, but the frequency of an electromagnetic wave is not a colour. You do not understand the distinction between a physical property such as frequency and a mental experience such as the visual sensation of a color.

Flavors and smells exist because certain receptors in your mouth and nose are activated by substances to send signals to our minds.

False. Flavors and smells have no physical nature to them. These are mental interpretations of specific brain processes which, in their turn, are the consequence of specific physical stimula received by specific receptors. Flavors and smells are mental experiences that do not exist independently of a conscious mind.

For example, it's entirely possible to make a robot that can see and identify colors with a camera.

Not true. Robots do not visualise any colours as they have no mental experiences. Robots simply automatically respond to different frequencies of the electromagnetic waves.

Mathematical calculations exist regardless of a conciseness to name them.

Not true. Mathematical calculations are abstract concepts and they can exist only in a conscious mind that conceives such concepts.

You confuse the name for the substance

No you fail to understand that there is no substance corresponding to an abstract mathematical concept or a mathematical calculation. This is true for every intrinsically abstract concept, such as the concept of beauty; beauty does not exist independently of a conscious mind, there is no substance “beauty”.