What is the primary function of the brain and nervous system?

[Jokodo]

You got off to a promising start telling it what you understand under "function"; this doesn't however answer the question what rousseau means, and it doesn't even start to touch the question what either of you means with primary.

Is primary to be understood chronologically, i.e. is the primary function the one that is historically prior?

Or is it to be understood as the most vital function, the one whose absence would kill us most quickly? Do we include functions that (in humans/mammals) are served by the central nervous system due to historical evolutionary contingencies or only ones that cannot be adequately served by other systems (endocrine system, local feedback loops) in principle?

Or is the primary function the one that consumes most resources within the brain and central nervous system?

Are we excluding the endocrine system, and why?

The answer to the OP's question will depend on these parameters. E. g. if it's the most vital function we're after and include everything that happens to be regulated by the nervous system, it's going to be controlling circulation and respiration - despite the fact that a fully autonomous heart and lung are definitely imaginable (though they might be poorer at increasing supply in times of heightened consumption), and despite the fact that our ancestors probably had a circulatory system of sorts before they had a nervous system.

Primary
1. First or highest in rank or importance; principal. See Synonyms at chief.

Do we really have to define again and again all the words we use even though they are in the dictionary?

I definitely thought that was self-explanatory...

So, by "function", I will guess that you mean what an organ does that's specific to it and that helps understand why the human species survives.

So, I sort of guess it's indeed what rousseau meant. What else could it be? What function could be more primary than that? I'm open to suggestions...
EB

Not an answer.

I understand the dictionary definition, I don't understand by what "Rank or importance" is to be evaluated in context.

Neither do you, you just prefer to throw around empty words rather than admit it.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Not an answer.

Clearly it is.

I understand the dictionary definition, I don't understand by what "Rank or importance" is to be evaluated in context.

My answer suggested a criterion for importance. It's all in my post. But, sure, you can ignore what I say.

Neither do you, you just prefer to throw around empty words rather than admit it.

So you don't know how to decide the primary function of the brain but you actually know I don't understand either, and that my answers are "empty words", and that I can't "admit it".

You know a lot for someone who doesn't understand.

Oh, well, never mind, those were empty words.

Yeah, I just ran out of full words.

EB

 

[Treedbear]

- If so, what is that primary function?

The coordination of the body in response to conditions for the purpose of maintaining homeostasis and reproduction.

Except brains don't really have any purpose ever anymore than they love your neighbour or are hungry.

Rather, a brain may give you the impression of a purpose and the notional purpose will seem to get you do things. So the impression of a purpose, not any actual purpose, will be the immediate cause. And the impression of a purpose is then part of how the brain coordinate the body.

And there is no actual purpose of maintaining homeostasis and reproduction outside our own mental model of our self.
EB

'Your' brain being a figure of speech.

You two seem to have a technical problem with your brains not being able consider things within context.

Speakpigeon: We all get the idea that there was no creator God that designed the human body. And we all understand how evolution works and that it's not based on some teleological woo. But when talking about humans or beings of any desciption we must bring into consideration what things are necessary for its survival. If not individually then as a category. In other words if we can describe what brought humans and human brains to be what they are now then we can reasonably assign purpose as to what they need to be in order for them to continue to exist.

DBT: For years I've been reading your rebuttals with untermensche concerning consciousness and the existence of a dualistic self (with some admiration for your persistence BTW), but unter seems to be on hiatus (I hope temporarily). I don't think anyone on this thread is talking about the ontological problem of the self. It is my brain because it is part of what I define as myself. Just like a mouse has a brain and a angle has an apex. It's not just a figure of speech. It doesn't have to be qualified with 'your' every time.

 

[DBT]

DBT: For years I've been reading your rebuttals with untermensche concerning consciousness and the existence of a dualistic self (with some admiration for your persistence BTW), but unter seems to be on hiatus (I hope temporarily). I don't think anyone on this thread is talking about the ontological problem of the self. It is my brain because it is part of what I define as myself. Just like a mouse has a brain and a angle has an apex. It's not just a figure of speech. It doesn't have to be qualified with 'your' every time.

The distinction being that a brain forms and generates a sense of self as a means of interacting with the World.

It is not conscious self that operates the brain like a driver of a vehicle, as if the brain is a possession or tool of the 'self,' but that conscious self is an activity of a brain....sometimes active, sometimes not.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Except brains don't really have any purpose ever anymore than they love your neighbour or are hungry.

Rather, a brain may give you the impression of a purpose and the notional purpose will seem to get you do things. So the impression of a purpose, not any actual purpose, will be the immediate cause. And the impression of a purpose is then part of how the brain coordinate the body.

And there is no actual purpose of maintaining homeostasis and reproduction outside our own mental model of our self.
EB

You two seem to have a technical problem with your brains not being able consider things within context.

Speakpigeon: We all get the idea that there was no creator God that designed the human body. And we all understand how evolution works and that it's not based on some teleological woo. But when talking about humans or beings of any desciption we must bring into consideration what things are necessary for its survival. If not individually then as a category. In other words if we can describe what brought humans and human brains to be what they are now then we can reasonably assign purpose as to what they need to be in order for them to continue to exist.

purpose
1. The object toward which one strives or for which something exists; an aim or goal: Her purpose in coming here is to talk to you. The purpose of an airliner is to transport people. See Synonyms at intention.
2. Determination; resolution: He was a man of purpose.

Where do you see in there any room for the purpose of a brain? A purpose a brain might have? Or the purpose the thing that created the brain had?

I really don't see what good using the word "purpose" would do in this context.

There are other words that can express perfectly aptly what you mean. Don't be so lazy you can't bother finding by yourself what they are.
EB

 

[Treedbear]

purpose
1. The object toward which one strives or for which something exists; an aim or goal: Her purpose in coming here is to talk to you. The purpose of an airliner is to transport people. See Synonyms at intention.
2. Determination; resolution: He was a man of purpose.

Where do you see in there any room for the purpose of a brain? A purpose a brain might have? Or the purpose the thing that created the brain had?

I really don't see what good using the word "purpose" would do in this context.

There are other words that can express perfectly aptly what you mean. Don't be so lazy you can't bother finding by yourself what they are.
EB

The definitions you cite are specific to intented purpose. The more nominal definition is found here:

The reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists.

The purpose of the eye is to provide visual information. The purpose of the ear is to provide auditory information. If the eye or ear are damaged there is no access to that information. That is why they exist. When the need for such information is absent those organs never develop or else gradually disappear. Do you object to the use of purpose in those cases? If the answer is no then why draw a line at the brain? And please try to accept that it need not imply intention or intelligent design. I find it a perfectly good word to use when describing integrated systems. Perhaps you'd care to suggest something more to your taste. Something more neutral perhaps?

 

[Treedbear]

DBT: For years I've been reading your rebuttals with untermensche concerning consciousness and the existence of a dualistic self (with some admiration for your persistence BTW), but unter seems to be on hiatus (I hope temporarily). I don't think anyone on this thread is talking about the ontological problem of the self. It is my brain because it is part of what I define as myself. Just like a mouse has a brain and a angle has an apex. It's not just a figure of speech. It doesn't have to be qualified with 'your' every time.

The distinction being that a brain forms and generates a sense of self as a means of interacting with the World.

It is not conscious self that operates the brain like a driver of a vehicle, as if the brain is a possession or tool of the 'self,' but that conscious self is an activity of a brain....sometimes active, sometimes not.

I'm not consciously controlling many of my other organs either, and yet I presume you'd agree that they are mine. They are part of me. When we discuss other types of organisms there's no issue about them having a brain. It's not a figure of speech in any sense I can imagine. It's an objective statement about what a thing is. I can only guess but that you have a problem solely when it concerns the human brain. The one we usually consider when the topic is consciousness, in which case you should have been more specific. But that's not part of the current discussion and I assumed rousseau would agree it's not the intent of the OP.

 

[DBT]

DBT: For years I've been reading your rebuttals with untermensche concerning consciousness and the existence of a dualistic self (with some admiration for your persistence BTW), but unter seems to be on hiatus (I hope temporarily). I don't think anyone on this thread is talking about the ontological problem of the self. It is my brain because it is part of what I define as myself. Just like a mouse has a brain and a angle has an apex. It's not just a figure of speech. It doesn't have to be qualified with 'your' every time.

The distinction being that a brain forms and generates a sense of self as a means of interacting with the World.

It is not conscious self that operates the brain like a driver of a vehicle, as if the brain is a possession or tool of the 'self,' but that conscious self is an activity of a brain....sometimes active, sometimes not.

I'm not consciously controlling many of my other organs either, and yet I presume you'd agree that they are mine. They are part of me. When we discuss other types of organisms there's no issue about them having a brain. It's not a figure of speech in any sense I can imagine. It's an objective statement about what a thing is. I can only guess but that you have a problem solely when it concerns the human brain. The one we usually consider when the topic is consciousness, in which case you should have been more specific. But that's not part of the current discussion and I assumed rousseau would agree it's not the intent of the OP.

Organs, arms, legs, torso, hair, nails, etc, etc, are a part of the body/organism....as is conscious self. The distinction being that some conscious selves feel that they as the conscious self happen to be the Captain, the CEO, the entity that has a brain and a body, so controls the brain, uses the brain.....which is not to say that conscious self is not a part of the body or an active process of the brain. It's the role and function of conscious self that determines the distinction.

 

[Treedbear]

I'm not consciously controlling many of my other organs either, and yet I presume you'd agree that they are mine. They are part of me. When we discuss other types of organisms there's no issue about them having a brain. It's not a figure of speech in any sense I can imagine. It's an objective statement about what a thing is. I can only guess but that you have a problem solely when it concerns the human brain. The one we usually consider when the topic is consciousness, in which case you should have been more specific. But that's not part of the current discussion and I assumed rousseau would agree it's not the intent of the OP.

Organs, arms, legs, torso, hair, nails, etc, etc, are a part of the body/organism....as is conscious self. The distinction being that some conscious selves feel that they as the conscious self happen to be the Captain, the CEO, the entity that has a brain and a body, so controls the brain, uses the brain.....which is not to say that conscious self is not a part of the body or an active process of the brain. It's the role and function of conscious self that determines the distinction.

So it is.

 

[DBT]

I'm not consciously controlling many of my other organs either, and yet I presume you'd agree that they are mine. They are part of me. When we discuss other types of organisms there's no issue about them having a brain. It's not a figure of speech in any sense I can imagine. It's an objective statement about what a thing is. I can only guess but that you have a problem solely when it concerns the human brain. The one we usually consider when the topic is consciousness, in which case you should have been more specific. But that's not part of the current discussion and I assumed rousseau would agree it's not the intent of the OP.

Organs, arms, legs, torso, hair, nails, etc, etc, are a part of the body/organism....as is conscious self. The distinction being that some conscious selves feel that they as the conscious self happen to be the Captain, the CEO, the entity that has a brain and a body, so controls the brain, uses the brain.....which is not to say that conscious self is not a part of the body or an active process of the brain. It's the role and function of conscious self that determines the distinction.

So it is.

I'm not sure about what you mean.

 

[Speakpigeon]

The definitions you cite are specific to intented purpose. The more nominal definition is found here:

The reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists.

The purpose of the eye is to provide visual information. The purpose of the ear is to provide auditory information. If the eye or ear are damaged there is no access to that information. That is why they exist. When the need for such information is absent those organs never develop or else gradually disappear. Do you object to the use of purpose in those cases? If the answer is no then why draw a line at the brain? And please try to accept that it need not imply intention or intelligent design. I find it a perfectly good word to use when describing integrated systems. Perhaps you'd care to suggest something more to your taste. Something more neutral perhaps?

The reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists?

Yea, exactly.

A reason is not a cause. A reason for implies some being having the reason and doing something for this reason. So, "reason for" implies a being. No being, no reason.

The definition I provided says the same thing. If you had paid due attention, you would have seen it: The purpose of an airliner is to transport people:

purpose
1. The object toward which one strives or for which something exists; The purpose of an airliner is to transport people

Airliners are created things. They don't have any purpose beyond the purpose that the creator of the airliner had for creating it. No creator, no purpose.

So, if we say that thing has a purpose, it is the purpose the creator had to create this thing. So, purpose implies creator.

Whence the difficulty when talking as you do of the "purpose of the eye". Talk of the purpose of the eye implies a creator. So, who was the creator of the eye, do you think? Some technologically advanced Alien species?

Anyway, if you prefer sloppiness, I won't convince you because it's probably too late. But sloppiness doesn't help to think properly and it doesn't help debate. Sloppiness transforms any debate into vacuous discussion, as often seen on forums. Just saying.
EB

 

[Treedbear]

I'm not consciously controlling many of my other organs either, and yet I presume you'd agree that they are mine. They are part of me. When we discuss other types of organisms there's no issue about them having a brain. It's not a figure of speech in any sense I can imagine. It's an objective statement about what a thing is. I can only guess but that you have a problem solely when it concerns the human brain. The one we usually consider when the topic is consciousness, in which case you should have been more specific. But that's not part of the current discussion and I assumed rousseau would agree it's not the intent of the OP.

Organs, arms, legs, torso, hair, nails, etc, etc, are a part of the body/organism....as is conscious self. The distinction being that some conscious selves feel that they as the conscious self happen to be the Captain, the CEO, the entity that has a brain and a body, so controls the brain, uses the brain.....which is not to say that conscious self is not a part of the body or an active process of the brain. It's the role and function of conscious self that determines the distinction.

So it is.

I'm not sure about what you mean.

I was agreeing (as I always have) with your concept of the conscious self as a representational model (and one model among many) created by the brain. So I was simply concurring with what I took to be a reply to my above statement (bolded). But I still don't think it's relevant in the context of the OP, unless perhaps one considers consciousness to be the main purpose of the brain. Which I don't.

 

[Treedbear]

The definitions you cite are specific to intented purpose. The more nominal definition is found here:

The reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists.

The purpose of the eye is to provide visual information. The purpose of the ear is to provide auditory information. If the eye or ear are damaged there is no access to that information. That is why they exist. When the need for such information is absent those organs never develop or else gradually disappear. Do you object to the use of purpose in those cases? If the answer is no then why draw a line at the brain? And please try to accept that it need not imply intention or intelligent design. I find it a perfectly good word to use when describing integrated systems. Perhaps you'd care to suggest something more to your taste. Something more neutral perhaps?

The reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists?

Yea, exactly.

A reason is not a cause. A reason for implies some being having the reason and doing something for this reason. So, "reason for" implies a being. No being, no reason.

The definition I provided says the same thing. If you had paid due attention, you would have seen it: The purpose of an airliner is to transport people:

purpose
1. The object toward which one strives or for which something exists; The purpose of an airliner is to transport people

Airliners are created things. They don't have any purpose beyond the purpose that the creator of the airliner had for creating it. No creator, no purpose.

So, if we say that thing has a purpose, it is the purpose the creator had to create this thing. So, purpose implies creator.

Whence the difficulty when talking as you do of the "purpose of the eye". Talk of the purpose of the eye implies a creator. So, who was the creator of the eye, do you think? Some technologically advanced Alien species?

Anyway, if you prefer sloppiness, I won't convince you because it's probably too late. But sloppiness doesn't help to think properly and it doesn't help debate. Sloppiness transforms any debate into vacuous discussion, as often seen on forums. Just saying.
EB

Sorry, we still don't agree. The word "reason" in the definition I gave implies an intelligent understanding of, rather than the creation of, one thing in relation to one or more other thngs. As you say, that thing might be conceived and actualized by an intelligent designer. The purpose of an airliner might be to transport people. That might have been what the designer had in mind when conceiving the design. But what if it turns out that nobody wants to fly on it? That purpose will never have existenced no matter how hard the designer tried to will it. What seems obvious to me is that purpose is not something built into the airplane. It's in the relationship the airplane has with the world.

But for the most part the natural world is not designed, except by the process of evolution. Nevertheless the inter-relationships that exist can be understood scientifically, just as anyone would look at an airplane and understand its potential uses. Even though we don't call it design it can still be understood in terms of purpose. And when it comes down to it the mind is a product of evolution and so are the processes that result in intelligent thought. Creation is the product of the same basic types of processes no matter where you find it.

Essentially purpose is discovered rather than created. While it's true that something can be designed to fill some purpose there are things that nobody designed that can be seen to fill a purpose. It's a very useful way of understanding the world when it's understood that how we define things (what it means to be something and the purpose it has) is found in the relationships with the world around it, rather than in some Platonic essence. And the latter interpretation is the one promoted by western religions.

 

[Jokodo]

To get back to the OP question, and interpreting "the primary function" to mean "expressing, if at all possible, that which makes the brain and CNS unique and the functionality of which cannot be readily substituted by other means, in terms as generic as needed to cover most or all of it and as specific as possible to avoid trivialities like 'to support survival and reproduction', which is just as good a description of any other organ":

To coordinate a near real-time whole-body response to environmental changes that may only be directly experienced by parts of the body.

 

[DBT]

All experience being generated by the brain.

 

[Jokodo]

All experience being generated by the brain.

What ship are you on?

Maybe I should have said sensed, but it should be perfectly clear that I wasn't talking of any kind of (conscious) experience, which is of course generated by the brain - I was talking about limbs.

 

[DBT]

All experience being generated by the brain.

What ship are you on?

Maybe I should have said sensed, but it should be perfectly clear that I wasn't talking of any kind of (conscious) experience, which is of course generated by the brain - I was talking about limbs.

What ship? Experience is necessarily conscious. If it is not conscious - ie, brought to conscious awareness by the brain - it is not experienced and cannot be experienced.

What you feel in your legs or your toes, etc, is brought to awareness within the brain.

 

[Jokodo]

All experience being generated by the brain.

What ship are you on?

Maybe I should have said sensed, but it should be perfectly clear that I wasn't talking of any kind of (conscious) experience, which is of course generated by the brain - I was talking about limbs.

What ship? Experience is necessarily conscious. If it is not conscious - ie, brought to conscious awareness by the brain - it is not experienced and cannot be experienced.

What you feel in your legs or your toes, etc, is brought to awareness within the brain.

I was not talking about awareness, so you can let it go already. Maybe I didn't pick the best word but it should have been clear what I meant. I'm not a native speaker but I believe it's perfectly fine English to say "the bridge experienced tension stress before collapsing". In that sense it is that I talk about eg a hand experiencing heat and needing a CNS to translate that into a whole body evasive maneuver. No awareness required.

 

[DBT]

What ship? Experience is necessarily conscious. If it is not conscious - ie, brought to conscious awareness by the brain - it is not experienced and cannot be experienced.

What you feel in your legs or your toes, etc, is brought to awareness within the brain.

I was not talking about awareness, so you can let it go already. Maybe I didn't pick the best word but it should have been clear what I meant. I'm not a native speaker but I believe it's perfectly fine English to say "the bridge experienced tension stress before collapsing". In that sense it is that I talk about eg a hand experiencing heat and needing a CNS to translate that into a whole body evasive maneuver. No awareness required.

Strictly speaking, a bridge doesn't experience anything at all, which makes it a figure of speech. That was my point, a figure of speech. I was not criticizing you or anyone else, nothing personal, just a casual comment, just pointing to that distinction.

 

[Jokodo]

What ship? Experience is necessarily conscious. If it is not conscious - ie, brought to conscious awareness by the brain - it is not experienced and cannot be experienced.

What you feel in your legs or your toes, etc, is brought to awareness within the brain.

I was not talking about awareness, so you can let it go already. Maybe I didn't pick the best word but it should have been clear what I meant. I'm not a native speaker but I believe it's perfectly fine English to say "the bridge experienced tension stress before collapsing". In that sense it is that I talk about eg a hand experiencing heat and needing a CNS to translate that into a whole body evasive maneuver. No awareness required.

Strictly speaking, a bridge doesn't experience anything at all, which makes it a figure of speech. That was my point, a figure of speech. I was not criticizing you or anyone else, nothing personal, just a casual comment, just pointing to that distinction.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/experience has "to encounter or undergo (an event or occurrence)" as the umbrella definition of the verb experience.