It used to be "the soul". Then it was "the mind" during the Enlightenment. Now its "the brain". Its all the same, no matter what word is used to describe it. This is something that I haven't been able to put into words. I think that you both have legitimate arguments, and I can't help but think that we need better language to describe this. I don't consider that I am my conscious part of my brain anymore than I am the part that drives 200 miles and can't remember it. I for one, embrace dualism, in that it means we are not more than how we relate. We needn't be internally consistent, just externally definable. The road defines my consciousness as I drive, and my friend defines my consciousness as I converse with him. You two have defined an aspect of my consciousness here. I wouldn't say that the mind is an emergent part of the body, but exists as the interaction of the body with the environment. Arrington does have unconscious bias, and it is his fault.