I read it up to the point (start of) about autism (related theory to account for it).
Hm...
@Ferocitus
Personally i have a few issues with their claim that the brain is essentially working in what they call "a controlled hallucination", and moving by reacting to differences between what it expects and what ends up being the solution/closest model to "reality".
If i am brief about this, it is the following:
1)
(Dislike for lack of historic perspective re some claims; minor) the examination of things in the physical environment (external world, phenomena picked up partly as sensory material) can even philosophically be determined to be a process involving both dealing with external phenomena (through senses etc) and internal reflection on them (instant and ongoing, and both conscious and - arguably - for the most part non conscious). Examples of such views in philosophy are many; from Plato (and presocratics) to Kant and even Descartes, so that isn't new in philosophy. But this, point 1, is a very minor gripe. Point 2, though, is a major chasm in my view.
2)
(Sense that the focal point is inherently problematic; major) The article presents the neuroscientists actually identifying the processes of forming and updating a model for data (either external-tied, eg physical objects, or even notions etc) as somehow being a main drive of the brain. This imo is a very bad position to have when dealing with the brain, cause in all likelihood such processes are the absolute tip of a planet-sized iceberg. Furthermore, the brain can't realistically have as its own focus something which is on the surface; unless it was used as a kind of battery (which would be a problematic position to support as well). Imo the brain can only be presenting very few signs that are to be picked up by the actual examination of it done by beings who HAVE to function as human beings, ie maintain a crucial level of staying within the thought patterns which do not refer openly to deeper strata of the brain. Evolutionary it seems very possible (albeit not entirely certain) that prehistoric humans, without even a language, were still quite far away from the level of conscious focus on external (or internal but not shifting focus back to more purely celebral/autist phases) phenomena that humans later on are pretty much known for.
To use a parallelism, imo the position presented in the article is like claiming that it is very crucial just why the hand presses against the doorknob, in order to establish how the door is managed to remain closed, or attempted to open - while the movement itself is a minor part of the story that in the immediate (and not final, of course) deeper level features the horror which was once felt in the room past that door.
