We can have thoughts of objects we have seen. Are those thoughts emergent properties of the brain? — Don Wade

You might want to better understand the process method of writers like Josiah Royce, Francis Herbert Bradley, Alfred Whitehead, and Gilles Deleuze. Again, I am talking more about method than overt content. A lot of people are used to thinking of your question in terms of analytic philosophy (Russell, Ayer, and even Bergson) and it gets really difficult to think on those terms.
Just a morning thought. Cheers

We also have thoughts of objects we’ve never seen, but are still possible to see.

To ask if thoughts are emergent properties of brains is the same as to ask if ice is an emergent property of water. If ice is just some condition water can exhibit, does that make ice a property? Even if ice is a condition of a certain combination of elements, can ice then be said to be a property of the elements? Can ice be a property of a certain atomic number?

While brains may be necessary for thoughts, and it may be true thoughts emerge from brains, it does not follow that thoughts are properties of brains.

Guess it depends on how one wishes to classify property.

Guess it depends on how one wishes to classify property. — Mww

Yes. Classifying Properties is difficult. The philosopher David Hume defined some of those problems in his writings. Generally, properties is defined as a piece of land - but that's not what we are defining here. I do believe the subject is worthy of study/discussion though.

It’s your thread, so you get to set the parameters. Perhaps you’ll evoke some interest.

Yes. Classifying Properties is difficult. The philosopher David Hume defined some of those problems in his writings. Generally, properties is defined as a piece of land - but that's not what we are defining here. — Don Wade

Maybe it is? The notion that something can "be" property only emerges with the subjective viewpoint. One object cannot "own" another object. So maybe the notion that an object can have a property is an anthropomophism. Is the property an aspect of the object, or is the object an instantiation of the property?

Property just means some thing is possessed by an object or subject as its own

Maybe it is? The notion that something can "be" property only emerges with the subjective viewpoint. One object cannot "own" another object. So maybe the notion that an object can have a property is an anthropomophism. Is the property an aspect of the object, or is the object an instantiation of the property? — Pantagruel

A property in philosophy is defined as a description - not something that is owned: Property (philosophy)
From Wikipedia
In logic and philosophy (especially metaphysics), a property is a characteristic of an object; a red object is said to have the property of redness. The property may be considered a form of object in its own right, able to possess other properties.A property, however, differs from individual objects in that it may be instantiated, and often in more than one thing. It differs from the logical/mathematical concept of class by not having any concept of extensionality, and from the philosophical concept of class in that a property is considered to be distinct from the objects which possess it. Understanding how different individual entities (or particulars) can in some sense have some of the same properties is the basis of the problem of universals.

This is a very interesting question. From a constructivist point of view, we accumulate knowledge piece by piece and construct it to a self consistent database of knowledge. A thought is a relation of this knowledge database to the object being thought about. When the object fits (can be understood) into the knowledge database, then nothing new has occurred, thinking continues as normal, so no emergence.

But when the object of thought dose not fit into the database, then the database has to be revised in order to to accommodate the object. This situation, depending upon severity, is known in constructivist psychology as an adjustment disorder, traditionally know as a personality crisis, or a paradigm shift, enlightenment, or perhaps madness, depending upon how well it is eventually integrated and resolved.

In this case the thought may well result in an emergent property - the emergent property being the newly constructed database of knowledge - and hence a new way of thinking.

We can have thoughts of objects we have seen. Are those thoughts emergent properties of the brain? — Don Wade

Other way 'round. ALL we have is the thoughts of those objects. Who says there need to be objects at all? Maybe it's the objects that are emergent properties of the thoughts. Or perhaps there aren't any objects at all, there are ONLY the thoughts. That's Bishop Berkeley.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_idealism

If thoughts are an emergent property of the brain, how does that work exactly? And we're right back to the mind/body problem.

Can one emphathize with their own brain? First, the brain has to create the "self" that does the introspection. The self that the brain creates is an emergent property. There is nothing else there. It's like the forest, and trees. The forest does not exist - only the trees. The forest exists only in the mind - also as an emergent property. One must understand "Levels" to understand the reasoning. Levels is the hierarchy of property groupings. Properties are the brains creation of electrochemical impulses that fools the brain ito believing it has perceived.

Don, why are you assuming an object external to your mind made of non-conscious stuff (a brain, when you unpack the word) exists? What's that assumption based on?

"Existence" itself is an assumption. All existence, that we bieve we can prove, is based on assumptions. We assume things exist but threre's no way to prove it to the self - which is also created by the brain - which we can't prove. "I think, therefore I am", is bogus.

There are a couple things you can be sure of: you have a conscious mind and it is receiving data from your senses. But that's about it. So, when people naturally assume brains exist, I stop the conversation there and ask, "why are you assuming a brain exists?"