Does the brain really create our mind or is there more to it to the whole story?

Nicholas Humphrey offered the idea that it provides enjoyable self-entrancement, provoking us to want to continue living. "Your Ego… this awesome treasure island… never ceases to amaze and fascinate you." However, this seems to conflate phenomenal occurences excessively with the subject, as is often traditionally the case during recent centuries.

The naive realism or belief in non-mediated perception among common folk [prior to philosophical and scientific takes on it] didn't regard "showings" of the environment as having much to do with subjective ownership. Visual manifestations and odors and acoustic phantoms were "out there" rather than in the head (or just in the head). In a sense, the earliest peoples were pan-phenomenalists who did not yet associate "qualitative" and "presence" with mental or mind (the apple was truly red and truly *appearing* regardless of whether of it was observed or not). Which undermines an evolutionary "purpose" for consciousness in terms of making humans feel special about themselves (it didn't do that till later). Now granted, there were private feelings, imaginations, dreams that might have been considered as solely "in me" during that ancient era as they are today. But when pan-phenomenalism is the default assumption, there's nothing remarkable about the thought-stuff being manifested since everything else was too.

Strawson opined in a review that "The deeper problem with the self-entrancement theory is that natural selection can select implacably for an intense instinct of self-preservation without using consciousness at all." Even brainless entities that manage to replicate one way or another have had no problem finding the gumption to successfully persist on this planet (viruses, bacteria, etc).

Humans as zombies could develop a universal habit of telling stories to each other about themselves and the world being shown in their perceptions. Such an illusion classified as "verbal" might at least elude the contradiction of declaring experience an illusion in the context of itself ("experiencing the slight-of-hand feat called experience"). The latter view which Humphrey at times seems to be a proponent of. If so, what's the point of offering such an evolutionary point to experience if the latter is not the case to begin with. It would instead be: "The evolutionary reason for everybody lying about having exhibited content in their perceptions and bodily sensations is ...ta-da!... to make us believe we're special."

Alison Gopnik: [...] But it seems that we can’t explain the most important thing: Why does the moon look like anything at all? What explains that ineffable je ne sais quoi, that irreducible magic of experience? That big, beautiful moon doesn’t just feel like the outcome of a cool calculation. And it isn’t looming up at just anyone, but at me, the equally ineffable and irreducible self.

...what is the evolutionary function of the experience of the ineffable and irreducible? Humphrey points to a feature of consciousness that has been surprisingly neglected. The bottom line about how consciousness changes the human outlook — as deep an existential truth as anyone could ask for — is this: "We do not want to be zombies," he writes. "We like 'being present,' we like having it 'be like something to be me.'"

Humphrey argues that this is the result of a benign evolutionary illusion. It does feel good to be alive, and it feels especially good to be me being alive. And that in turn makes us go to great lengths to extend our lives and to fend off death. Human beings don’t do this just with the blind struggle of the hunting predator and the fleeing prey, but with elaborate long-term inventive planning. And that does help us extend life and hold off death.

Humphrey’s ideas are appealing, but they aren’t always precise, and it will take a lot of empirical work to discover whether they are true. Evolutionary arguments have to go beyond just-so stories, and it’s not easy to see just how you could test Humphrey’s hypotheses. And even if we understood the evolutionary function of consciousness, we would still need to understand just how the brain accomplishes those functions. LINK [More like how physics at some point would enable it to be possible; the brain and the whole continuing process of life isn't some stratum floating on its own with wholly new conjuring powers, divorced from the non-biological universe that spawned it.] ​

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What question are you answering? What point are you making, can you summarize it in one sentence?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You cannot support your wild ideas with childish attempts at insult & claiming to know things about a stranger that you cannot possibly know.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I've seen it. I bet others in this thread have seen it.

 

Can you participate in a discussion without repeatedly telling people that they are clueless? What is your problem?

 

He sure deserves our pity, but it's probably for the best if we simply ignore him.

 

The critical role of the conscious mind in making decisions and handling new situations has been demonstrated so often there seems to be little need to debate its evolutionary advantages.

As far as the brain creating the mind, of course not - the brain is a substrate, the mind is patterns upon patterns of neural firings. Substrates do not create the patterns that reside on or in them.

 

Are you suggesting these "patterns" can behave independently of the physical state of the brain, and are not just direct consequence of it?

 

Have you recently placed Rav on your ignore list or something, so that even quotes from his posts by other members don't show up? I have no idea whether or not the latter actually results from such, since I've never used that function in Settings. But just tossing it out there as a possible explanation for why you feel I was "talking to myself" (so to speak) or addressing an invisible sub-topic.

 

I'm not sure it's really possible to be an atheist, or at least a strong atheist where there is so much that we don't yet know about how the universe really works.

There are some things which modern science cannot explain so being a strong atheist (in this day and age) is not really possible in my opinion.

I believe that some things about humans and this world are clearly supernatural. The supernatural clearly exists though I'm not completely sure whether the distinction between natural and supernatural is completely justified because for all we know the natural and the supernatural could eventually just turn out to be parts of the same reality.

 

human minds and behavior are easily known, actions show everything along with your thoughts.
all this leads to a persona of an individual that manifest to other individuals who have this kind of knowledge, wisdom and understand about human nature..
learn something about humans and you will understand.
if you did not spew incorrect nonsense then carry yourself as if you are an expert(even tho there's no personal experience or work on your end) then i would not have to correct your misinforming.
it's that simple.
amusing you can claim " wild ideas " all you want(as if you have a clue),
this is the reality,
look it up, research it.
actually use your mind for once, instead of relying on others to use it for you.
take it or leave it , it's that simple.

 

ok ,you seen it, great.
but it's massively obvious from your own comments/statements in this topic that you can not comprehend it.
simple.

 

my problem is,
individuals spew incorrect nonsense then carry them selves as an expert when in fact they are not even a backyard scientist,
let alone understanding what they spew. things like this are massively obvious to those who do understand and have personal experience.
please tell me the personal experience and work you have done on subjects like this.
i'm going to confidently say none.
it's that simple.

 

yes, exactly what i thought.
conveniently side stepped it.

others that read can see exactly the nonsense both of you are spewing.
yes, to some it's that obvious.

 

no, they are saying, you are incorrect,
like you are continued to be told in every subject you touch.
more examples of how you can not comprehend the simplest explanations.
amusing.

 

Grow up & get over yourself already. it's that simple.

 

My crazy human friend, others already have you on "ignore". It is because your incoherent empty provocations and your inability to articulate any reason or explanation for your irrelevant assertions, indicate a mental state that goes beyond what people feel is even appropriate to laugh at, and given your delusional arrogance, it goes beyond far, far away. You have my pity.

 

evolve your mind,become intelligent like you think you are.
it has nothing to do with myself(as your flawed mentality incorrectly interpreted), but individuals misinforming.
now, it's that simple.

 

You are a sad frightened punk lashing out blindly & mentally masturbating to gratify your tiny fragile ego.

 

the ones who have me on ignore are the focused arguers,
why would they not put me on ignore since i'm continuously having to correct their spewing,
or pointing out their pathetic nonsense , which is nothing more than going around looking for arguments,
there's no interest in learning or understanding with these individuals , which is also the majority around here.

so you say no explanation, but the reality is,
no comprehension(with simple explanations) among the low level mentalities(get it?)then they spew.

you say " delusional arrogance " (which is nothing more than a jealous statement by some one who is continuously put in their place),
but again,
it has nothing to do with myself(as your flawed mentality incorrectly interpreted), but individuals misinforming.

amusing,
i'm not the one on mental meds.

also again,
yes, exactly what i thought.
conveniently side stepped it.