Fri 4 Aug, 2023 04:06 pm
I wrote the following response to this 7/30/2023 thread ("The Brain does not generate the mind; scientific proof") before I realized that it was locked. Had I realized that, I wouldn't have wasted my time, but since I did, here it is:
Definition: Emergent Properties
The idea of emergent properties is that when individual components of a system interact with one another, new properties can arise that were not present in the individual parts alone. These new properties are often difficult to anticipate or predict, but they are part of what makes complex systems so fascinating to study. In the context of the brain, emergent properties can help us understand how simple neurons can give rise to complex mental phenomena like consciousness and self-awareness.
1. The author makes unsubstantiated claims without scientific evidence to support them.
For example, the author claims that consciousness cannot be generated by the brain and that the origin of mental experiences is unphysical, but presents no empirical evidence to support these claims. Additionally, the author's claims about the brain being a conceptual model and brain processes consisting only of elementary physical processes without direct connections are oversimplifications that are not backed with scientific evidence.
2. The author oversimplifies brain processes and misunderstands emergent properties.
For instance, the author claims that the brain processes are elementary and lack direct connections, which is an oversimplification of the complex interactions of neurons, synapses, and neurotransmitters. Additionally, the author fails to understand emergent properties, which, as stated above, are properties that arise from the interactions of individual components of a complex system. The author claims, without evidence, that consciousness cannot emerge from brain processes because consciousness is not reducible to physical phenomena; however, the idea of emergent properties indicates that complex systems can produce novel properties that would be hard to predict solely from the properties of individual components.
3. The argument contains inconsistencies, vague statements, and lacks clarity.
4. The theories presented by the author have not been subjected to peer-reviewed scrutiny.