>>12669552The problem comes down to technical definitions when speaking of emergent properties
Most people think of the consciousness as its own separate thing- that is, absent any input, it is its own self. The brain is (probably) most like a CPU- it takes input and performs calculated outputs based on those inputs. The whole system, certainly, is where our "consciousness" resides, but anyone who knows how the systems interact know that you can't ignore the rest of the shit outside the brain that is responsible for it's output (hormonal signals from outside the brain, etc). It's would be the same mistake as assuming the CPU acts on its own without signals being sent in; sure parts of the system are automatic, but the CPU doesn't DO anything except to compute a function (or set of functions) on the inputs that come in. That is, the inputs control the outputs of the CPU; the CPU does not "decide" what to do with the inputs, its already predetermined.
We make the mistake of thinking that just because the brain is a big complex system, that somehow adding more complicate calculations, that somehow "gets rid of" the input -> output scenario, but really it doesn't. In that sense, if you hooked up a brain in a jar, and you had a fine enough tuning of the inputs, you could literally control what the brain outputs (how it acts) because all it is, is a complicated function.
The only caveat to this is some fun research on noise in biological systems. Noise may be built into circuits evolutionarily so that the same exact input provides different responses based on the inherent noise in the system (it's like a chaotic system, where the signals in the system itself are imperfect information transmitters and chaotic, so that even the same exact input may result in distinct outputs as error propagates through the system). The output is predictable, just with a probability attached instead (like knowing a dice's possible outcomes).
