William wrote: ↑Thu Nov 25, 2021 2:21 pm
William: You may be correct about that, but the inference that in order to survive and prosper as the Human Animal [specie] this could not have been achieved without the invention of Mind as an immaterial illusion, also infers that nature itself made it that way, which infers that nature also has an immaterial illusion we call 'the mind'.
That is why I suggested we find some place of agreement re this, even if we also agree that it is a temporary fixture 'for the time being'.
The idea that the brain did all this unconsciously, only points to the bigger picture as to how brains evolved to the point where they could do this, and does not in itself answer if there is or isn't a mind behind creation. [MBC]
If we should then look for something in the universe itself which might act as a kind of brain in order for the illusion of self to become - something which had the potential to make something of itself in relation to the physical reality it would not even be experiencing if it did not first have that sense of self, then we find that what is referred to as an illusion is responsible for being the only way physical reality can be interacted with in any meaningful manner.
Therefore, it is evident that if an illusion [non-physical thing created by the physical thing] is the only way one can appreciate the existence of physical universe, it is best not to delegate the illusion as something which is not real because without it, what would be real?
First of all, I wouldn't use the word "invented" because that implies purpose where there is no evidence that the material brain's ability to have a concept of itself was deliberately created. Secondly, it doesn't logically follow that nature must also have a concept of itself just because naturally evolved brains have the capacity to have concepts of themselves. Your reasoning there appears to describe a composition/division fallacy.
Again, the "Mind" can be described as emergent physical activity occurring in a material brain. Consider the wetness of a puddle as an analogy. A puddle is a physical thing comprised entirely of water molecules, but no individual water molecule has the property we would describe as wet. However, a sufficiently large collection of individual water molecules (i.e. a puddle) does have the "wet" property. The fact that this property of "wet" can be described as emergent physical activity occurring within a sufficiently large collection of individual water molecules which do not have the "wet" property by themselves does not make the property immaterial. It is the concept of the "wet" property that is immaterial while the property itself is physical because it physically emerges from a material puddle. Without the concept of "wet", the puddle still has the physical property of "wet".
Similarly, the fact that the "Mind" property can be described as emergent physical activity occurring within a sufficiently evolved collection of neurons (i.e. a brain) which do not have the "Mind" property by themselves does not make the property immaterial. It is the concept of the "Mind" property that is immaterial while the the property itself is physical because it physically emerges from a material brain. Without the concept of "Mind", the brain still has the physical property of "Mind". It is this physical "Mind" property which emerges from a material brain to experience reality and is advantageous to the survival of a species. The concept of the physical "Mind" property is immaterial and, therefore, does not exist in reality to experience anything.
Of course, all of this is very confusing and difficult to keep organized. So, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that I've made a mistake somewhere in my reasoning.
