"a reasonable way to feel given what you've been through"
Isn't our brain made of chemicals of all kinds, and how we 'feel' is based on many chemical interactions, and so the "a reasonable way to feel given what you've been through", is the brains natural 'reasonable way to feel' as a reaction given some environment it is in.
So this is just measuring that reaction.
Maybe think of it more as analyzing why things are, and not as fixing an error. Like science does. Measure it.
What you’re describing is emergence, but it doesn’t mean that an emergent system doesn’t have mechanistic underpinnings. Your body gives rise to consciousness, but it doesn’t mean that you can’t treat blood pressure with medication.
It does mean that not all of the body's behavior can be explained by blood pressure. Emergent properties are not necessarily addressable (or describable, in the case of the OP) at the underlying level.
People used to think an Atom was the smallest particle, then they found Protons/Electrons etc.., then they found quarks.
The brain is complicated, that doesn't mean we can't measure it and try and understand it. Right now people are just 'It's impossible, it must be a soul, or something mystical' how else could it be the way it is?
> Right now people are just 'It's impossible, it must be a soul, or something mystical' how else could it be the way it is?
I haven't argued that at all and I'm not saying we can't measure it and understand it. I'm saying reducing it to "just chemicals" is missing the forest for the trees and goes against understanding it better. Might as well reduce it to just atoms, or just protons/electrons, or just quarks... Do you see what I mean? Why are chemicals where you draw the line?
You are right. I was just trying to come up with a generic term for 'the physical world'. Neurons are made up of molecules, Neurotransmitters are molecules, a 'chemical'. Even the spark of the brain, isn't it just calcium ions carrying the charge.
Guess I was just off-hand thinking that 'chemicals' was 'reasonable' cutoff point from going too small, but small enough. It was off the cuff scaling, I have no real evidence where we would stop on the sliding scale from larger emergent properties.
People that go smaller, to quarks, and throw in Quantum Mechanics are usually not super serious. It gets woo-woo.
Alternatively, the opposing view is a "fallacy" in that sense, unless you believe the brain is magical and doesn't obey the laws of physics and chemistry.
"Emergent" properties of the brain aren't magic, they're just multiple chemical and other physical processes working together. Processes which can be measured and altered by chemical and physical means.
The whole water is wet is an 'emergent' property. This is true, linking emergent properties to the underlying smaller scale can be very difficult. Just not impossible. There is recent work on how water molecules interact that can explain 'wetness'. It is difficult, not impossible.
Isn't our brain made of chemicals of all kinds, and how we 'feel' is based on many chemical interactions, and so the "a reasonable way to feel given what you've been through", is the brains natural 'reasonable way to feel' as a reaction given some environment it is in.
So this is just measuring that reaction.
Maybe think of it more as analyzing why things are, and not as fixing an error. Like science does. Measure it.