What do you think forced evolving brains to create the experiences they create?
It’s amazing that brains can “create the experiences”
and the “thing capable of experiencing” and yet cannot be said to “experience” in your unterwelt.
Your crudeness with ideas is not an argument.
Your petulant declarations aren’t either.
So you keep asserting.
The brain creates both the mind and the things it experiences.
Since in your scenario, the “mind” is not directly experiencing anything—i.e., it is “experiencing” only the “presentations” that the brain allegedly creates for it—then its “experience” is second generation, correct (i.e., the
content of the presentations)?
Brain takes information from the body and creates second-hand truncated “presentations” for the “mind” that it also creates. Thus brain actually “experiences”
more content than brain; it experiences the information it then edits (or, in your terms, “transforms”) into these “presentations” AND it experiences the feedback of the “mind”’s experience to the presentations, but BOTH “entities” are experiencing second hand information (since the brain also receives truncated information from the body’s senses).
Which necessarily entails that the brain experiences. The “mind” is not a separate child, born of the brain; it is identical to “art” or “juggling”; i.e., generated by the brain, which necessarily means that brain generates “mind” AND the “things it experiences.” Thus infallible logic alone dictates that brain experiences.
It doesn’t directly experience anything, but then neither does the “mind” so that point/equivocation is moot. It is ALL the creation of the brain, thus the only “thing” that can be said to be experiencing anything at all is the brain.
No matter what, however, the brain experiences the exact same information that you claim the “mind” experiences. It is not possible to create a “presentation” without also being able to experience the content/information contained within that presentation. Without there first being a coherent understanding of what information to put into any of these “presentations” all the brain would be doing is throwing together completely random gibberish. That’s not a “presentation” that’s a completely random clump of gibberish. “Red” is not a completely random clump of gibberish, correct?
You cannot avoid this or fiat it away by petulant declaration.
You have no position. At best, all you have is a series of category errors based on equivocation, where what you really mean by “experience” in regard to “mind” is actually “self-awareness”; i.e., that the “mind” is aware that is is engaged in the act of experiencing, whereas the brain may not be. But that does not preclude it from experiencing.
Note the qualifier “may not be.”
ETA: When someone is having a heart attack, we don’t say, “only his heart is experiencing the attack.”
What you really mean is that the “mind” has a particular
reaction to the information provided/imbued to it by the brain, which is not all that surprising and why the brain created/generated such a construct in the first place. But to argue that it is the only “thing” that “experiences” is to simply play pointless semantics games.
