The way that it’s phrased is a trick in itself. We’re looking
for something that’s somehow “emerging” Not merely complex, but
a difference in kind So take a step back, is my humble
suggestion, From dualist analyses filling the shelf The hidden
assumptions could use a good purging That lay in the phrase “the
emergence of mind” The mind in inferred from what people are
doing; (A skull’s not transparent—we don’t look at brain) An
answer depends on the question we’re asking: The way that we
look may distort what we find Reductionist models are just
misconstruing; They merely describe, though they claim to
explain To look at our neurons may merely be masking The real
explanation of “emergence of mind” Over on NPR's 13.7 blog, one
of my pet peeves is on display, if only as a small part of the
post. The big question is one of the influence of technology on
our ability to observe; clearly, technology expands our senses
hugely--allowing us to see spectra far beyond what evolution
allows us, for instance, or to curve t