The brain creates the mind, which is us

Today Ron E. left a comment on a recent churchless post that I like a lot and share below.

I readily admit that my fondness for the comment, which extends to almost all of the comments Ron leaves on this blog, largely is based on the fact that he and I look at reality in much the same way.

In a word, naturalistically. Meaning, we as human beings are not separate from the natural world, but are an integral aspect of nature. Nature is us, to put it in three words.

But since we're Homo sapiens, not a rock, a bolt of lightning, or some other non-sentient aspect of nature, we're a part of nature with a mind. But mind isn't something ethereal. Consciousness isn't either. 

Mind and consciousness, which may be the same thing, arise from the physical goings-on of the human brain. No need to posit a soul or any other supernatural entity. The brain creates the mind, which is us. So it makes sense to say, the brain is us.

This is both really obvious, and really controversial -- for those who believe (without any demonstrable evidence) that humans possess some special ingredient that isn't physical, survives the death of the body, and/or has a connection with God or some other form of divinity.

Sure, awareness or consciousness does seem ethereal. But the Earth seems flat; the Sun seems to rise and set; matter seems solid; time seems separate from space. All of those seemings aren't true, so there's no reason to assume that the seeming transcendent nature of mind and consciousness is true either.

Many findings of science have come to be accepted by the vast majority of people. However, it's going to take quite a while for the near-certain fact that you and I and everyone else are made of meat, with the brain being a special form of meat, to become a truth that resonates intimately with most people.

It might be that this won't happen until advanced artificial intelligences are commonplace, being indistinguishable or even superior to human intelligence. Perhaps only then will humans truly understand that what we are is no different from what everything else in nature is: natural, not supernatural.

Here's the comment from Ron E. Courtesy of Amazon, I've ordered the book he's reading. I like that Barrett takes a contrarian approach to emotions and the mind. Maybe she's right. Maybe she's wrong. But her book seems to be well-written, thoughtful, and provocative, reason enough for me to buy it. 

I have recently been reading Lisa Fieldman Barrett’s, "How Emotions Are Made." Her research describes how the brain constructs everything we experience, including emotions. She states: “Its story features unfamiliar characters like simulation and concepts and degeneracy, and it takes place throughout the whole brain at once.”

I mention Barrett’s studies because similar to the studies described in Brian’s latest blog on the Self-Reference Effect which states that “SREs then, are a way to investigate how our sense of self emerges from the workings of the brain—something that multiple research groups have studied intensely”, it is another study that points to the brain as being the source of all that we experience.

For years, studies have revealed how much of what we experience results from the brain, including how the self emerges from the brain and builds our identities. By now, it should be pretty obvious that the brain creates the mind with its entire cognitive repertoire – and basically operates not through actualities but through predictions.

But apparently, the brain is not alone in creating the wonder that is us, simply because the brain's responses are dependent on the body and its senses and its environment – which importantly includes other people. The self then is a construct of all the on-going variables that our organism exists with and encounters every moment.

How revelatory it would be to realise the disconnectedness that we are and how we create our own worlds. How ‘heavenly’ it would be to be able to drop systems of belief that serve to separate and alienate us from each other and the world around us.

Comments

[Dungeness]

@Brian Ji [ Sure, awareness or consciousness does seem ethereal. But the Earth seems flat; the Sun seems to rise and set; matter seems solid; time seems separate from space. All of those seemings aren't true, so there's no reason to assume that the seeming transcendent nature of mind and consciousness is true either.

But, as mentioned fatiguingly often, religion persists with assumption/belief even in the
absence of personal experiential proof.True mystics do not. Rather, they insist on it.
They don't continue to believe without proof and yet invite a deeper understanding than
their own discovery/explanation if it is supported by such proof. That's why mysticism
never conflicts with science. Mis-applied religion usually does however and religion is
often conflated with mysticism.

[Brian Hines]

Dungeness, I strongly disagree that mysticism never conflicts with science.

Mystics often say that humans have an immortal soul that can merge with God through meditation and other practices. Science sees no convincing evidence of a soul.

Mystics often say that life continues after bodily death. Science sees no convincing evidence of life after death.

Mystics often say that there are higher realms of supernatural reality beyond this universe. Science sees no convincing evidence of a supernatural realm.

You speak of "personal experiential proof." That means very little or nothing to science. People claim experiential proof of many things that aren't true: going to heaven in a near death experience, alien abduction, talking to Jesus, and so on and so on.

If you claim that something is true just because some people say it is true, you open the door to all sorts of falsehoods. Truth has to be more than just someone that lies in someone's supposed personal experience.

[Dungeness]

@ Brian [ You speak of "personal experiential proof." That means very little or nothing to science. People claim experiential proof of many things that aren't true: going to heaven in a near death experience, alien abduction, talking to Jesus, and so on and so on. ]

I agree. Narratives such as those may well be delusional but mystic accounts
are more credible and are confirmed by repeatability of the purported sights
and sounds experienced within meditation. There are discernible patterns
reported among the cosmologies of mystics of differing faiths and eras too.
Naturally their language, education, cultural traditions, background results
in disparate types of presentation. But mystic methodology/meditative dis-
ciplines remain remarkably alike in recommending an inward path of intense
mindfulness and devotion.

[ If you claim that something is true just because some people say it is true, you open the door to all sorts of falsehoods. Truth has to be more than just someone that lies in someone's supposed personal experience. ]

Of course, proof of mystic experience would be vastly more compelling
if there were objective physical evidence. That's not possible unfortunately
beyond wowing an audience with mental feats that would at best leave
doubts. All mystics can do is invite onlookers to follow a mystic path
assiduously to confirm for themselves the actuality of its claims.

[Trust but verify]

@ Dungeness "All mystics can do is invite onlookers to follow a mystic path
assiduously to confirm for themselves the actuality of its claims."

That is a very difficult task. Unfortunately, people seem to struggle with just accepting commonsense/pragmatic ideas or propositions.