Viruses: Created, Evolved, or Both?

[Data]

I'm somewhat more conversant on the subject than evolution and I thought this was an interesting question from an atheist vs theist perspective. Did God create viruses or did they evolve. My position is both. God created them and in the microevolutionary sense they evolved.

[mgb]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #79]

If you think I would define a human being to be a pattern of molecules or a collection of molecules, you would be sorely mistaken. By that definition, they are no different then a rock, therefore I beg you to use accurate words as it will help to foster better debate.

I used the word 'pattern' for a reason. The materialist believes that when molecules are arranged in certain patterns - neurons etc - they can think.
That is what you seem to believe: a collection of molecules can think, albeit a very particular pattern of molecules. I don't think any pattern of molecules, no matter how sophisticated, can think. That is why I keep saying molecules. As for the mind being an 'emergent property' - that seems more like hand waving to me. Your argument must still be that a person is a pattern of molecules. After all, the environment is always changing but the person, in character and abilities, is carried forward through time and this, in your scheme of things, implies that a static arrangement of molecules preserves the person from moment to moment. If not then what gives the person permanence?

Want to understand why I find the question to be dumb... can a rock think?

I am not dumb. From a physical point of view the difference is the pattern of molecules. You are still saying molecules, in certain patterns, can think.

Some matter seems to be [conscious]. See the human brain for one and then notice that a mind seems to be an emergent property of a functioning brain. Damage to the brain directly affects our minds and I see no reason to assume that our minds our separate from our functioning brains. If you have a valid reason, I'm open to hear it.

Finally. You are saying matter (essentially molecules albeit in a certain pattern) can be conscious. I keep saying molecules because you need to show me how the pattern elevates them to consciousness and the ability to think.

Damage to the brain? If you damage a television the sound and vision are interrupted but that does not mean that sound a vision are created by the television. They are broadcast to the tv. The tv only translates the signals into an accessible language. It is a processing unit, not a film producer.

Our mind seems to be an emergent property of a functioning brain though.

Only with large helpings of "correlation = causation".

[Clownboat]

If you think I would define a human being to be a pattern of molecules or a collection of molecules, you would be sorely mistaken. By that definition, they are no different then a rock, therefore I beg you to use accurate words as it will help to foster better debate.

I used the word 'pattern' for a reason. The materialist believes that when molecules are arranged in certain patterns - neurons etc - they can think.

Humans are a collection of molecules and humans can think, therefore collections of molecules can think. This doesn't follow and is a logical fallacy. Please correct your understanding, or use accurate words or educate me as to where I'm mistaken so I can amend my thinking on this matter.

That is what you seem to believe: a collection of molecules can think, albeit a very particular pattern of molecules.

Then you are not paying attention. I specifically believe that the mind (I have provided you with a definition already) is an emergent property of a functioning brain. I am not using the phrase collection of molecules and I beg you to stop using if for the sake of debate.

I don't think any pattern of molecules, no matter how sophisticated, can think.

Matters not as we have billions of examples of this happening each and every day. Assuming you are referring to humans with your odd use of pattern of molecules that is (again, why I beg you to use the words you mean).

That is why I keep saying molecules.

I beg you to stop using 'molecules' when you actually mean 'humans'.

As for the mind being an 'emergent property' - that seems more like hand waving to me.

Actually, your failure to address this is the hand waving.

Your argument must still be that a person is a pattern of molecules.

Are you ready to be shown why you are wrong again?
A person is a pattern of molecules. People can think, therefore patterns of molecules can think. See how this doesn't follow? That is why my actual argument is that the mind seems to be an emergent property of a functioning brain and I also note that affecting the brain, affects the mind.

After all, the environment is always changing but the person, in character and abilities, is carried forward through time and this, in your scheme of things, implies that a static arrangement of molecules preserves the person from moment to moment. If not then what gives the person permanence?

There is no permanence. Like I said, damage the brain, or give the brain specific drugs and the mind changes.

Want to understand why I find the question to be dumb... can a rock think?

I am not dumb.

From a physical point of view the difference is the pattern of molecules. You are still saying molecules, in certain patterns, can think.

I have never said such a thing and I continue to beg you to use real words that convey real meaning, not this absurd reductionism. What's next, patterns of atoms can think! Come on now, we are talking about humans and humans do in fact have minds that think. You know this and I know this and you reducing human beings to be patterns of molecules doesn't change what we already know.

Some matter seems to be [conscious]. See the human brain for one and then notice that a mind seems to be an emergent property of a functioning brain. Damage to the brain directly affects our minds and I see no reason to assume that our minds our separate from our functioning brains. If you have a valid reason, I'm open to hear it.

Finally. You are saying matter (essentially molecules albeit in a certain pattern) can be conscious. I keep saying molecules because you need to show me how the pattern elevates them to consciousness and the ability to think.

I only need to do this if you claim that humans cannot think. I claim humans can think and I believe you agree, but are employing absurd reduction in order to make it sound like you have an argument, when you don't.
Humans are a certain pattern of molecules and humans can think. Therefore, patterns of molecules can think. It just doesn't follow!
Humans, which are a pattern of molecules can think though. Do you understand the difference?

Damage to the brain? If you damage a television the sound and vision are interrupted but that does not mean that sound a vision are created by the television. They are broadcast to the tv. The tv only translates the signals into an accessible language. It is a processing unit, not a film producer.

I admit that this is not 'proof' that damaging the brain affects the mind, therefore the mind is emergent from the brain, but it does suggest such a thing. What do you have for your position?

[mgb]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #82]

Humans are a collection of molecules and humans can think, therefore collections of molecules can think. This doesn't follow and is a logical fallacy. Please correct your understanding, or use accurate words or educate me as to where I'm mistaken so I can amend my thinking on this matter.

It is certainly not a logical fallacy. You yourself said humans are made of matter. Therefore your argument says matter can think.
As for 'emergent property'. That could mean anything. You haven't explained how mind is an emergent property. Granted, the environment can affect brain growth and development but growth is a physical process. So you are still talking in physical terms and 'emergent properties' sound like some kind of magical power that can confer intelligence on the brain. All it can confer on the brain are physical changes. These changes are molecular so your argument is still on the molecular level. You still haven't shown me how 'human' is different from a pattern of molecules and physical systems.
Invoking 'emergent properties' is too much like waving a wand.

I specifically believe that the mind (I have provided you with a definition already) is an emergent property of a functioning brain. I am not using the phrase collection of molecules

Describe this emergent property. What can a property of matter be apart from a pattern of atoms. I keep say molecules because you are not showing me anything else. So, the environment modifies the pattern and this is what you mean by 'emergent property'? When the pattern is rearranged or modified it becomes a mind???

There is no permanence. Like I said, damage the brain, or give the brain specific drugs and the mind changes.

There is permanence. A person today is much the same person tomorrow. How is this continuity preserved?

I claim humans can think and I believe you agree, but are employing absurd reduction in order to make it sound like you have an argument, when you don't.

I'm asking you to tell me what 'human' means over and above a material object. There is no point in saying 'emergent property' as that, in real terms, can only be a rearrangement of material patterns. Show me where this property resides. What is the substance that sustains this property? A coin has the property 'round'. What substance keeps the property in existence? The atoms in the coin, of course. The roundness is the pattern of atoms in the coin. So your emergent property is what?

[Clownboat]

It is certainly not a logical fallacy.

Yes, it is.
A non sequitur fallacy is a sequence of reasoning that misses or skips over a key part, making the conclusion invalid (even if the premises are true). For example: My dog is named Max, and he likes to eat dog food. Therefore, everyone named Max likes to eat dog food.

Another example of this fallacy would be: "Humans are a collection of molecules and humans can think, therefore collections of molecules can think."

You yourself said humans are made of matter. Therefore your argument says matter can think.

My actual argument is that our minds seem to be an emergent property of a functioning mind, NOT that matter can think. Again, see the non sequitur fallacy just above.

As for 'emergent property'. That could mean anything.

Emergent is an adjective that describes something that is emerging, or suddenly coming into existence.
e·mer·gent
/əˈmərjənt/
adjective
1.
in the process of coming into being or becoming prominent.

You haven't explained how mind is an emergent property. Granted, the environment can affect brain growth and development but growth is a physical process. So you are still talking in physical terms and 'emergent properties' sound like some kind of magical power that can confer intelligence on the brain. All it can confer on the brain are physical changes. These changes are molecular so your argument is still on the molecular level. You still haven't shown me how 'human' is different from a pattern of molecules and physical systems.

I showed you many times now how they are not the same by pointing out your continued logical fallacy.
If you have questions, you need to ask them, not wine about not having answers to un-asked questions as you do here. I am open to being challenged about anything I say.

Invoking 'emergent properties' is too much like waving a wand.

Now that you have learned the meaning of the word, I trust you no longer see it as being magical.

I specifically believe that the mind (I have provided you with a definition already) is an emergent property of a functioning brain. I am not using the phrase collection of molecules

Describe this emergent property.

Our minds emerge from our functioning brains. There are even things that we can do to our brains (drugs/damage) that affects what we call our mind.
You seem to take issue with this explanation and observation, would you kindly explain why?

What can a property of matter be apart from a pattern of atoms.

Matter can have physical and chemical properties. Why do you ask?

I keep say molecules because you are not showing me anything else.

No, you keep saying molecules because some of your claims would sounds really dumb if you used the word human, so you use collection of molecules instead.
Example: It would be dumb to say that humans can't think, so you refer to a collection of molecules not being able to think instead, even though we are specifically talking about humans.

So, the environment modifies the pattern and this is what you mean by 'emergent property'? When the pattern is rearranged or modified it becomes a mind???

Nope. Nothing becomes a mind. Our minds are concepts, not physical things and they seem to stem from a functioning brain.
Emergent is an adjective that describes something that is emerging, or suddenly coming into existence.

There is permanence. A person today is much the same person tomorrow. How is this continuity preserved?

It's not. See aging and then death as they are very real things. This is obvious, so you must be talking about something else. If it's important, please elucidate.

I'm asking you to tell me what 'human' means over and above a material object.

We both know what humans are and what human means, what I'm guessing neither of us know is what you mean by over and above a material object when discussing what human is.
Perhaps you can supply your answer to this question and it will clarify for me as to what you are asking?

There is no point in saying 'emergent property' as that, in real terms, can only be a rearrangement of material patterns.

The definition was supplied above and only things with functioning brains have minds that seem to emerge from the said brain. Perhaps brains are not involved though. If you think they are not, then please make a compelling argument like I have (drugs and damage to the brain does affect our minds).

Show me where this property resides.

You mean our minds I assume. Our minds are concepts that seem to emerge from our functioning brains. Drugs and damage that affects our brains affects this concept that we humans call our minds. Have you ever noticed that and wondered why that is the case?

What is the substance that sustains this property?

It seems that our brains are the substance that sustains this property we call our minds. I note that affecting one even affects the other.

A coin has the property 'round'. What substance keeps the property in existence? The atoms in the coin, of course. The roundness is the pattern of atoms in the coin. So your emergent property is what?

The emergent property has been and still is the mind. They seem to come in to being (emerge) when we have a functioning brain. If no brain, then there is no mind to emerge from it.

Readers:
Our minds seem to be an emergent property of a functioning brain. Let's compare that to mgb's explanation they are now going to lay out for us (hopefully).

[mgb]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #84]

Another example of this fallacy would be: "Humans are a collection of molecules and humans can think, therefore collections of molecules can think."

A logical fallacy is one that breaks the rules of logic. No rule of logic is broken in this statement.
It comes down to the word 'are'. That is, if 'are' means 'equivalent to'. Just because you don't mean 'equivalent to' does not make me wrong.

My actual argument is that our minds seem to be an emergent property of a functioning mind, NOT that matter can think.

I'm not sure even you know what you mean by emergent property.

Now that you have learned the meaning of the word, I trust you no longer see it as being magical.

You should not be so condescending. When I ask you the meaning of words I'm asking what YOU understand them to mean.

Our minds emerge from our functioning brains. There are even things that we can do to our brains (drugs/damage) that affects what we call our mind. You seem to take issue with this explanation and observation, would you kindly explain why?

I have already explained with the analogy of the tv set. You can interfere with a tv set and the film will be interrupted. From this, you cannot conclude that the tv produces the film, writes the script, writes the music etc. The film 'flows through' the tv. It originates outside the tv set. So, brain damage does not show that the brain thinks or that thought originates in the brain.

Matter can have physical and chemical properties. Why do you ask?

So mind is a chemical property of matter? How does science show this? You are still correlating and concluding causation.

Nothing becomes a mind. Our minds are concepts, not physical things and they seem to stem from a functioning brain.

This is vague. How can a 'concept' think? Are you suggesting that thought is molecular activity?

We both know what humans are and what human means, what I'm guessing neither of us know is what you mean by over and above a material object when discussing what human is.

Well, you just told me. A 'concept'. If a human/mind is a concept then what is a thought process? You still have to go back to physical processes and if you do, 'emergent property' is no more than a manner of speaking about physical activity.

Readers:
Our minds seem to be an emergent property of a functioning brain. Let's compare that to mgb's explanation they are now going to lay out for us (hopefully).

I have already said. Mind is a non physical reality. The brain is an instrument for joining the mind to the physical realm. I have no problem understanding that the brain, and its functions, is in a process of emergence and development. This is what scientists are observing. But, because they understand the brain to be the substance of the mind, they conclude that the mind is an emergent property of the brain. No. The brain is an emerging physical system. That is all. It is not a mind nor does the mind emerge from it. It is an instrument of the mind. The more sophisticated this instrument is, the more it can reveal the subtleties of mind, much as a computer can convey thought itself if it is sophisticated enough, as is evident from reading anything on a computer that is written by a mind.

[Clownboat]

<Snipped the non sequitur discussion>

My actual argument is that our minds seem to be an emergent property of a functioning mind, NOT that matter can think.

I'm not sure even you know what you mean by emergent property.

I assure you that I know what I mean by emergent. I even supplied you with a definition.
When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. - Socrates

You should not be so condescending. When I ask you the meaning of words I'm asking what YOU understand them to mean.

You said: "As for 'emergent property'. That could mean anything."
It really can't and it's hard to not be condescending when you say things like this. That would be like someone saying: 'Resurrections' that could mean anything. Words have meaning and I'm under the impression that you are playing dumb and that you actually did and do know what 'emergent' means. I acknowledge that it's possible you had no clue and were not just trying to be difficult. If you truly had no idea what emerging/emergent meant, then my condensation was misplaced, but at least you learned something.

Our minds emerge from our functioning brains. There are even things that we can do to our brains (drugs/damage) that affects what we call our mind. You seem to take issue with this explanation and observation, would you kindly explain why?

I have already explained with the analogy of the tv set. You can interfere with a tv set and the film will be interrupted. From this, you cannot conclude that the tv produces the film, writes the script, writes the music etc. The film 'flows through' the tv. It originates outside the tv set. So, brain damage does not show that the brain thinks or that thought originates in the brain.

It seems you want to deny that we use our brains to think, but let's be honest, you really are not making any points of your own. You're just throwing shade on the best explanation being offered so far without offering an alternative. You don't seem to like the idea that our minds emerge from our brains, because TVs. Surely you see why I'm unimpressed? What mechanism do you even suggest is a valid explanation and why is it better than our brains? Why does the same part of our brains light up on scans when people talk about their favorite football team or favorite religion? Why does damage/drugs that effects our brains effect our minds?

I'm open to being shown a better explanation for where our mind comes from, but you must do better. Perhaps start with 'X' explains it better and for 'Y' 'Z' reasons.

So mind is a chemical property of matter? How does science show this? You are still correlating and concluding causation.

No, as that would be silly! That would be another non sequitur that would lead to the conclusion that all matter has a mind.
You asked me this question: "What can a property of matter be apart from a pattern of atoms."
I answered your question. Do you agree with my answer or disagree and why are you asking me about such a thing?

This is vague. How can a 'concept' think? Are you suggesting that thought is molecular activity?

The mind is a kind of map. The brain, and its functional product the mind, evolved as a map of the body’s relation to its external environment. Fundamentally, our thoughts are maps representing and corresponding to things that our brains have either perceived with our senses, felt with our emotions, or formed as an action plan.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... n-physical

But let's pretend that what I offered above is just wrong for the sake of debate. Can I at least compare it to what you would offer as an explanation, or do I need to define what a map is first?

Well, you just told me. A 'concept'. If a human/mind is a concept then what is a thought process? You still have to go back to physical processes and if you do, 'emergent property' is no more than a manner of speaking about physical activity.

I acknowledge that a mind emerging from a functioning brain isn't making sense to you and I'm willing to grant that it is wrong if you will supply a better mechanism. If you can't or wont, then what I offer is currently the best explanation, you just don't want it to be the explanation for some reason. What is driving your thought process that disallows our brains being the source of our minds?

I have already said. Mind is a non physical reality. The brain is an instrument for joining the mind to the physical realm.

What we actually know about our brains:
Your brain is a complex organ that regulates everything you do, like your senses, emotions, thoughts, memories, movement and behavior. It even controls body processes you don’t have to think about, like your breathing, body temperature and your heart rate. Everything that makes you uniquely individual comes from your brain.
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/body/22638-brain

I have no problem understanding that the brain, and its functions, is in a process of emergence and development. This is what scientists are observing. But, because they understand the brain to be the substance of the mind, they conclude that the mind is an emergent property of the brain.

That does follow.

No.

Do tell....

The brain is an emerging physical system.

And here I thought the brain was part of our physical system, but let's test this shall we?
From where is our brain 'coming into being from'.
e·mer·gent
in the process of coming into being or becoming prominent.

It is not a mind nor does the mind emerge from it. It is an instrument of the mind.

For your words to be true, the mind would need to exist first to have a brain emerge from it. That is not what we observe.

The more sophisticated this instrument is, the more it can reveal the subtleties of mind, much as a computer can convey thought itself if it is sophisticated enough, as is evident from reading anything on a computer that is written by a mind.

To Steelman your argument: The more sophisticated the brain is, the more it can reveal the mind.
This assertion of yours does not negate my position that the mind is an emergent property of our brains. It actually reinforces the correlation between the two that we already observe when damage/drugs affect our brains which then ends up affecting our minds.

Currently, our minds emerging from our brains seems to be the likely scenario, but perhaps you have more to offer?

[mgb]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #86]

I assure you that I know what I mean by emergent.

You know what emergent means but I don't think you have a clear idea of how mind is an emergent property.
That's whay I'm saying.
But even the scientists don't have a clear idea. It is largely hypothetical.

You don't seem to like the idea that our minds emerge from our brains, ... What mechanism do you even suggest is a valid explanation and why is it better than our brains?

I don't think the brain can explain mind because the science is vague and theory is highly subjective.
How does the brain explain the child genius? Mozart, Picasso and others were precocious as children.
Ramanujan said he got his knowledge from the god Namagiri.
You may not believe in gods but there is something very profound happening here.
The god would appear to him in dreams with scrolls explaining complex mathematical truths.
Ramanujan was one of the greatest mathematicians that ever lived.
In your scheme of things Namagiri is an emergent property.
I simply don't believe that random mutations etc can assemble a brain.

What mechanism do I suggest? Well is a 'mechanism' responsible for the existence of mind?

You asked me this question: "What can a property of matter be apart from a pattern of atoms."
I answered your question. Do you agree with my answer or disagree and why are you asking me about such a thing?

A property must be supported by substance, otherwise it is merely an abstraction. You gave me a vague answer. I gave
you the example of 'round' concerning a coin. The property 'round' is perfectly identified with the atomic substance of the coin.
You are missing the observation that if a substance (brain) has a property the property is PERFECTLY identified with its substance.
This is why I keep saying the emergent property is essentially the brain itself. A brain pattern. This point keeps escaping you.
You keep talking as if this emergent property is somehow independent of the brain. It IS the brain, in your scheme of things. (Plus brain activity, which is physical).

This is also why I say you don't seem to understand what you mean by 'emergent property' because you don't seem to realize that 'round' IS the coin. 'Emergent property' IS the brain.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... n-physical

Vague. And he does not seem to make the distinction between thought and experience. An experience may be associated with thought but it is not thought per se. Where does the mind's ability to reason come from? Indeed, what IS reason? Can it be assembled by mutations etc? I believe reason is independent of physical matter in the way that mathematical truths are.

And here I thought the brain was part of our physical system, but let's test this shall we?
From where is our brain 'coming into being from'.

Even simple biological systems are coming into being. A fish grows in the sea. It is made from the sea (its body that is).
It comes into being atom by atom as it grows. No?

[Clownboat]

You know what emergent means but I don't think you have a clear idea of how mind is an emergent property.

I accept that you think this, but you are still incorrect about it. If you don't think the concept we call 'minds' emerge from our brains, then you need to explain why. You're not doing that though and instead are claiming that you think I don't understand my own position.
Here is what is happening:
Clownboat: My position is that our minds seem to emerge from our functioning brains.
mgb: Oh ya, well I don't think you understand your own position.
Clownboat: Pats your head and walks away.

But even the scientists don't have a clear idea. It is largely hypothetical.

I'm not claiming knowledge, I'm arguing for what seems to be the best explanation available. Science just so happens to agree with my position.

You don't seem to like the idea that our minds emerge from our brains, ... What mechanism do you even suggest is a valid explanation and why is it better than our brains?

I don't think the brain can explain mind because the science is vague and theory is highly subjective.

So above I asked for the mechanism you suggest. So you see how you copied that quote and formed a reply? Notice how your reply is just ignorance and not a valid mechanism.

You may not believe in gods but there is something very profound happening here.

I don't see what our god concepts would have to do with our brain/mind conversation.

The god would appear to him in dreams with scrolls explaining complex mathematical truths.

You're not helping your credibility, but I do appreciate you alluding to such things.

I simply don't believe that random mutations etc can assemble a brain.

What you believe matters not. A reasoned argument would be super cool though, but alas.

What mechanism do I suggest? Well is a 'mechanism' responsible for the existence of mind?

Yes, I would sure think so. See the principle of causality, also known as the law of causation. Every event or phenomenon has a cause, and the effects of a cause are predictable and consistent.
The brain causes our mind. We can consistently predict what will happen to our minds when psychoactive or psychotropic drugs are introduced to our brains for example.
Once again, no mechanism presented from yourself when asked. By default, my explanation is therefore better currently.

You gave me a vague answer.

False!
You asked me this question: "What can a property of matter be apart from a pattern of atoms."
My response was precise! "Matter can have physical and chemical properties. Why do you ask?"

I gave you the example of 'round' concerning a coin. The property 'round' is perfectly identified with the atomic substance of the coin.

Your example is and was wrong and would lead us to the false belief that coins are round.
https://www.etsy.com/listing/1451040035 ... -10-unique
Back to this again: Pennies are round and pennies are coins. Therefore coins are round.

You are missing the observation that if a substance (brain) has a property the property is PERFECTLY identified with its substance.

Um, ok.
So the brain has a property that we call the mind and it is perfectly identified with the brain.
You argue my position for me!

This is why I keep saying the emergent property is essentially the brain itself.

I know you were wrong about this because when I asked where the brain emerges from, you failed to provide an answer. Brains are no more emergent then your left foot is. If I'm wrong, now is your chance to show it.

A brain pattern. This point keeps escaping you.

I fully believe you are now projecting your ignorance on to me.

You keep talking as if this emergent property is somehow independent of the brain.

Falsehood upon falsehood!
I keep telling you that the emergent property is the mind and it is not independent of the brain, but dependent on it, to be a functional brain specifically. When the brain ceases to function properly, whether via drugs or damage, our minds ARE affected. Therefore not independent of the brain.

This is also why I say you don't seem to understand what you mean by 'emergent property' because you don't seem to realize that 'round' IS the coin.

It is a falsehood that coins are round.
But allow me to allow you to put me in my place. It seems to me that our minds are explained by them emerging from our functioning brains. What part of my position do you claim I don't understand.

<snipped all the sources that I provided that agree that our minds emerge from our brains and that our brains are where our thoughts occur>

Where does the mind's ability to reason come from?

A functioning brain, but you already knew what I would say.
Your brain is a complex organ that regulates everything you do, like your senses, emotions, thoughts, memories, movement and behavior. It even controls body processes you don’t have to think about, like your breathing, body temperature and your heart rate. Everything that makes you uniquely individual comes from your brain.
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/body/22638-brain
Where do you think it comes from?

Indeed, what IS reason?

It is the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic. This seems to take place in our minds that seem to be an emergent property of functioning brains. Even in animals I note.

Can it be assembled by mutations etc?

Can reasoning be assembled by mutations? Did you seriously ask that?
No. Our brains evolved and mutations were involved with that process and our minds, thoughts, emotions, memories and everything that makes us uniquely us comes from our brains though.

I believe reason is independent of physical matter in the way that mathematical truths are.

That's fine to believe, but our ability to reason still stems from out minds, which best we can tell is a concept that emerges from our functioning brains. Drugs and damage that affects our brains affect our ability to reason I also note.

And here I thought the brain was part of our physical system, but let's test this shall we?
From where is our brain 'coming into being from'.

Even simple biological systems are coming into being.

Got it. So if even simple biological system can come into being, then it stands to reason that our minds can come into being from our functioning brains. Again, you do my work for me.

Be well.

[mgb]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #88]

mgb: I gave you the example of 'round' concerning a coin. The property 'round' is perfectly identified with the atomic substance of the coin.

Your example is and was wrong and would lead us to the false belief that coins are round.
https://www.etsy.com/listing/1451040035 ... -10-unique

Where did I say coins are round? For my analogy to be relevant - and logical - it is only necessary for there to be one coin with the property 'round'. If you read what I said it referred to a coin.

I accept that you think this, but you are still incorrect about it. If you don't think the concept we call 'minds' emerge from our brains, then you need to explain why. You're not doing that though and instead are claiming that you think I don't understand my own position.
Here is what is happening:
Clownboat: My position is that our minds seem to emerge from our functioning brains.
mgb: Oh ya, well I don't think you understand your own position.

I never said you don't understand your own position. I said your concept of how the mind can be an 'emergent property' is vague. It cannot be otherwise because the whole concept, even in science, is highly conjectural.

[mgb]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #88]

mgb: Indeed, what IS reason?

(I asked this question for a very good purpose.)

It is the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic. This seems to take place in our minds that seem to be an emergent property of functioning brains. Even in animals I note.

Ok, it is the power...
This power is quite general in terms of the mind's abilities. It is not an ephemeral thing, it is general and applies to many particular situations. As such it has a degree of permanency. That is, it endures from one day to the next. From one year to the next. Logic is always logic so the ability to be logical would have to be a more or less permanent fixture in the mind. So, how can this ability be fixed in the mind? How can it be carried forward through time? The only way I could understand this - in your scheme of things - is that it is 'permanently' built into the physical structure of the brain. I don't see how it could be preserved in the 'chemical reactions' which you mentioned. These reactions would be too volatile and transient to preserve something as complex and general as the power of reason. So, where in the brain/mind is this power situated? You already answered this with-

That's fine to believe, but our ability to reason still stems from our minds, which best we can tell is a concept that emerges from our functioning brains.

So, I can't see how the power of reason could be permanently embedded in mind if this is how you define mind.
Nor do I see how an emerging mind could acquire the power of reason. The ability to reason is an awesome power. By what means is it conferred upon the mind, as you define mind?
You said the mind is a concept so how is a concept imbued with the power of reason?
You said the mind is chemical reactions so how are they given the power of reason?