(January 8, 2021 at 12:25 pm)Jehanne Wrote: That our brains create our minds (hence, no brain, no mind) is the simplest explanation of reality.
Perhaps so, but this view nevertheless does not deal with the hard problem very well, and so despite explanatory strengths that may come with the emergentist view, the fact that this view has no conceivable (atm) solution for the hard problem while other views regarding the mind do (apparently) suggests that perhaps we may need to reconsider the soundness of this view.
Of course, if we go with the view of panpsychism (or anything similar to that), we do run into a different problem, which is the combination problem (how can a whole appear to have its own consciousness whereas the parts appear to not?). And if we go with the illusionist problem, well, depending on what brand of illusionism we're talking about, it seems to deny something that we (or I at least) clearly am experiencing, so how can the experience that I'm experiencing be "not a thing"? I still don't know what illusionist mean by illusion here, do they mean the brain tricks us into seeing a world that does not correspond well to the objective "out-there" world? Or do they mean that what we claim to experience isn't really what we're experiencing? The latter doesn't make any sense. If I'm vividly seeing stuff in front of me (for example), what part is the illusion?
And of course, classical dualism has its own problems as well.
