How did the Brain Come into Existence?

[Canute]

Unfortunately idealism contradicts reason just as materialism does. But perhaps before getting into that we need to define idealism. There are a number of variations.

One problem with idealism, it we take Berkeley's idealism as typical, is that it makes no sense to say that to be is to be perceived and that to perceive is to be. There's no way for the circle of perceiver/perceived to come into being, since neither can exist before the other. In the end it's a 'bootstrap' theory of origins.

Btw idealism is unfalsifiable, you don't need to add 'in materialism or physicalism'. Even idealists cannot falsify it.

 

[Royce]

One problem with idealism, it we take Berkeley's idealism as typical, is that it makes no sense to say that to be is to be perceived and that to perceive is to be. There's no way for the circle of perceiver/perceived to come into being, since neither can exist before the other. In the end it's a 'bootstrap' theory of origins.

I agree that this is not a viable answer. It is still begging the questions.

Btw idealism is unfalsifiable, you don't need to add 'in materialism or physicalism'. Even idealists cannot falsify it.

Finally, I realize this now. Well after what 3-4 days and many false starts I do think that I am finally beginning to understand. I can be so dense (or hard headed) sometimes; but, it comes from a set of firm beliefs of which I am convinced are true.

Idealism is unfalsifiable. This statement is true meaning that while it cannot be proved to be the case, it also cannot be proved to not be the case.

This normally indicates to me that idealism in all of its forms is also incomplete as is Materialism and so many scientific theories.

I see 3 possibilities; it/they are unknowable.; it/they are not the case;
or all of this is an illusion and truth has no bearing or meaning.

Like you I don't think that logic or reason are at fault. I don't belief that it is unknowable now or forever. I do belief that while not complete they are in principle and essence true and real as far as they go. While this may all be an illusion, I believe in a rational reasonable God that would not pose these problems if there was no answer or Truth. It is up to us to find the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth; but it is findable, knowable.

The contraditions and indeterminate answers are telling us that we are close but no cigar. Keep looking.
OK, I can accept that; but, what are we looking for and where do we start looking.

 

[Canute]

Finally, I realize this now. Well after what 3-4 days and many false starts I do think that I am finally beginning to understand. I can be so dense (or hard headed) sometimes; but, it comes from a set of firm beliefs of which I am convinced are true.

For what it's worth I'm seriously impressed. IMHO if you have this attitude you can't possibly be dense.

Idealism is unfalsifiable. This statement is true meaning that while it cannot be proved to be the case, it also cannot be proved to not be the case.

I think this is the case according to philosophers. (But it would depend on the precise definition of 'idealism' being used.)

I see 3 possibilities; it/they are unknowable.; it/they are not the case;
or all of this is an illusion and truth has no bearing or meaning. Like you I don't think that logic or reason are at fault. I don't belief that it is unknowable now or forever.

No, it's definitely not unknowable, its just logically undemonstrable.

While this may all be an illusion, I believe in a rational reasonable God that would not pose these problems if there was no answer or Truth. It is up to us to find the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth; but it is findable, knowable.

The question is, is discovering this truth an intellectual pursuit, a question of creating and arranging and re-arranging our concepts by the use of formal reasoning, (which lands us right back with all those undecidable metaphysical questions), or does it have to be discovered non-conceptually?

I didn't know you were a theist. Evagrios the Solitary (3rd century) wrote:

"If the intellect has not risen above the contemplation of the created world, it has not yet beheld the realm of God perfectly."

In other other words what is absolute must be approached non-conceptually.

(My eternal thanks to Les Sleeth for putting me onto the 'Philokalia', from whence this comes).

*Emergency moderator note: This is intended as a comment on metaphysics, cosmology and the nature of true knowledge, not theism.

OK, I can accept that; but, what are we looking for and where do we start looking.

Perhaps the reason that Plato's prisoners cannot see beyond their cave is that the exit is inside themselves, not 'Lo here, or Lo there'.

 

[Royce]

To be brief, it has been argued that consciousness, the mind, cannot, even in principle, be wholly explained by physicical theory, or physicalist alone.
This, to me, means that in principle and fact there is that which is not material or of material origin. It is real and we have all experienced it. Our reality is made up of the non-material or physical as well as the physical.
Our usuall view point or mind set that only the material can be concidered fall short of concidering all of our reality. I think thast in order to better understand reality we have to take the non-physical into concideration as well. We know little about it but it is knowable but not through the normal scientific physical means.
Yes, we have to look inward, into ourselves, our minds and souls to learn and know. There are those who have been doing this for thousands of years. Maybe it is time we start taking their findings and wisdom seriously.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

It's too late to read all 6 pages. I just finished Dawkin's The Ancestor's Tale and would like to keep the information by applying it. Might not be a good fit in this approach to consciousness, but I'm mainly responding to just the first post.

So why should it be any different with the brain which, is just a means by which to capture/contain consciousness?

Necessity
Our nervous system is urbanized into a brain to help us interpret sensory information. Seasquirts "eat their own brain" (rather break it down and absorb the nutritious parts) after attaching to a rock for life. I think you mean a specific part of the brain, the equipment that has allowed us to ponder outside of ourselves for the sake of pondering.

A platypus' bill has thousands of electrical sensors (modified mucus pores in this case) that create a 3D model of it's surroundings in order to capture prey (which emit weak electric fields by their movement). In our case, we call the state consciousness, the practice of creating a grid of our world.