Philosophy Now Forum

What do we think about the brain being the creator of the universe?

Jaded Sage wrote:What do we think about the brain being the creator of the universe?

What is "the brain"?

It's that mushy glob of fat taking up space in your cranial cavity. I think that's a fair description. What do we think of it as receiving the coveted title of "Creator"?

Jaded Sage wrote:It's that mushy glob of fat taking up space in your cranial cavity. I think that's a fair description. What do we think of it as receiving the coveted title of "Creator"?

I don't think you understand the question. It was deeper than you think.
Since you have described "the brain" as a thing outside your own self, then you have to wonder what it is you are actually asking here. Are you suggesting that "my" brain (you said "your" to mean 'me"), has created the universe. Are you asking if I created you and everything else? If so what is your brain doing - that is, if you actually have one.

I'm asking what you think about those suggestions, yes.

Jaded Sage wrote:I'm asking what you think about those suggestions, yes.

Then you need to read what I have already written and contribute something yourself.

I'm curious about other people's opinions.

It's just the god conundrum rephrased.
If "The Brain" (whatever that is) created all the galaxies and dark matter and maggots and Mars, what created the brain?

The universe is a perpetually self-generating Moebius strip. Discuss ad infinitum.

"What do we think about the brain being the creator of the universe?"

Which brain? All brains?

I'm inclined to think the universe stands independent of 'braaainzzz!'.

That is: no brain (or zombie) is required for the universe 'to be'.

Sure as shit, though: without the universe, zombies, and the brains they crave, cannot 'be'.

#

"The universe is a perpetually self-generating Moebius strip. Discuss ad infinitum."

HA!

Jaded Sage wrote:I'm curious about other people's opinions.

Then you need to field better questions.

Yeah, what does create the brain's self awareness? The brain creates its own self awareness, correct?

I suppose I mean to suggest a more antirealistic view, here.

You boys sure are quick to throw the old obvious thoughts out there. "Who created the creator?" "Which brain, all brains?"

You're developing a good habit of thought for skepticism, but not so good for creativity, I think.

We all know there is no possible way to interact with the world unless it is through the medium of experience (experience here applying to the use of math as well). Indeed, there is no difference I have noticed, between the dream world and the waking world. We might argue that the waking world is more robust than the dream world, but if you notice, the dream world lacks in robustness about as much as any given memory. So it seems it is possible that the only reason it appears unrobust is because we are always only ever thinking about it in the past, in memory, and are never directly observing it while it is happening. I have taken the time to get more accustomed to noticing the robustness of the world, and now I even do it in my sleep, and let me tell you: dreams are equally robust.

What I mean to say is: clearly the brain creates the dream world, and the dream world is or can be identical in appearence to the waking world in every possible way. Why not then assume that the brain is the creator of this world too, or, why not think of it that way for practical reasons?

We all know Occam's Razor. The example I have always heard is that someone finds a piece of strange metal. There are two possible comclusions, one of which is that aliens crashlanded and the metal is part of their ship. The problem is that now I have to posit and explain the existence of an entire alien civilization. But what a greater position we put ourselves in when we posit the existence of, not only an entire civilization, but indeed, an entire world!

The only issue I see being brought up is that in dreams, things appear to happen chaotically and without reason, and without obeying any kind of law. Usually that only appears to be the case after waking up. During, it often appears the same. And if we work together I am confident we could come up with examples of waking events that appear to us as absurd as dream events.

In short, considering all this, if the brain creates the dream world, why not consider it the creator of the waking world?

"In short, considering all this, if the brain creates the dream world, why not consider it the creator of the waking world?"

Here's my uncreative answer: I know, as fact, I'm too friggin' stupid to be imagining (in an on-going way) the world (in its depth and variety of detail; in its content; in its consistency), so, if I'm not imagining the world, the world must an existence independent of me.

Jaded Sage wrote:
In short, considering all this, if the brain creates the dream world, why not consider it the creator of the waking world?

Because dreams are not "REAL"? That's why they are called dreams.

You are crawling towards a viable Idealist position, but you, as yet, seem incapable of fully expressing it.

henry quirk wrote: Here's my uncreative answer: I know, as fact, I'm too friggin' stupid to be imagining (in an on-going way) the world (in its depth and variety of detail; in its content; in its consistency), so, if I'm not imagining the world, the world must an existence independent of me.

Well, we both know it has nothing to do with intelligence. Otherwise, only the smart would dream. And we do not deliberately choose to have dreams, except in rare cases that seem to miss the point.

I put it to you that any given dream, while dreaming is just as expansive, etc etc as the waking world seems to be.

So why not consider the waking world your brain's doing? Even though we consider the dream world your brain's doing.

Jade,

My dreams and nightmares are spare phantasmagoria. There is a logic (coherency) to them, but one idiosyncratic to me (that is: I get my dreams, but you would not).

The world (universe, reality), on the other hand has, as I say, a depth and variety of detail, and a content and consistency, that surpasses me.

My phantasmagoria never surprises me; the world does (everyday).

So, no, I'm not creator of the world.

By way of my senses, I apprehend some small portion of the information available about the world. By way of my limited brain, I process that information, learn from it, assess it, generate models of it so as to navigate it. My success in navigation is largely dependent on how accurate I model the world.

In short: I live in a world that exists independent of me, I interact with the world, move through it, my success in navigating through (and using) the world depends on how well I understand the world (how accurate my assessments are).

I manipulate (my little corner) of the world, attempt to impress myself on it, but I never create it.