Fascinating to see how people read something but don't really read it. Putting this website up is giving me huge insight into the problems humans have in assimilating knowledge. My conclusion so far is that they look for the thing they want to see, not what's actually there.
1) The point i'm trying to make is that 'I' am not my brain. 'I' am just my 'conscious' brain (which is why i'm a conscious robot not a robot). This is a crucial distinction. My conscious brain is controlled by feelings that it cannot control consciously. It's all there on the consciousrobots.co.uk. Until you start seeing yourself as your conscious mind and not the whole you, you're going to miss the point completely.
2) genetic determinism.
You think we are 'more than evolution'. What's your justification for this, and what was the method of change? What kind of structures do you think natural selection is capable of creating? Evolution is a 2 stage process - random changes (mutations/ sexual mixing), followed by selection. Selection means picking the characteristics thrown up by chance that enhance the survival chances of the genes. What you're suggesting is that natural selection can create a brain that is capable of doing something that wont enhance the survival chances of its genes. But you're going to have to explain how that's possible. If an organism is created by chance that decides to do whatever it likes, it will reduce the survival chances of its genes, not increase them. And then it will die. I need to add some more about evolution to help you see this. You can blame your professors. They probably started with Plato. But starting with plato when you're trying to understand human behaviour is like turning to Hippocrates when you're trying to cure cancer. Poor plato didn't have Darwin to tell him why humans exist, or what they've been programmed to do. Hence you fall into the assumption of thinking that humans can be 'more than evolution' without realising that it's impossible to be more than evolution - there's simply no mechanism of change to make us 'more than evolution'.
3) people are complex creatures - we act from a variety of motivations. Again, refer to above. How could we? nothing has programmed us to act from any motivation other than the maximisation of our genetic survival chances. In which case, we have to look at our current actions and understand why they increase the survival chances of our genes. Read the Selfish Gene and Mating Minds by Geoffrey Miller to understand this one.
4) 'Well-being', 'happiness', whatever you want to call them: what do you think created these things inside our skulls? Do you think we create them for ourselves? Do you not think that 'well-being' is electrons moving through neurones or chemicals moving through neurotransmitters? What else can any emotion or feeling be other than mechanisms of the brain? In which case, again, you've got to answer the question of 'how did these chemical pathways get to be like they are?' And the only answer you have is 'natural seleciton'. in which case, you're back to the question - ok, if 'well-being' is created by natural selection, then how does it help spread my genes? Well-being, just like your eyes and your ears is a mechansim created by chance and natural selection to increase the survival chances of your genes. We know this because we have no alternative explanation other than God.
I suggest you go see your professors and say 'Tell me about evolution'. Because what you're doing at the moment is like trying to build an atom bomb without understanding what an atom is.
The commments you make are the comments Plato would have made. Things changed 150 years ago.
The first issue is an interesting one. See my comments here for why I think we should include our subconscious as part of our mental identity.
Regarding point 4, I'm a welfare externalist. That is, I think that one's wellbeing depends in part upon the external world, in addition to one's own internal mental states. This is not in conflict with metaphysical naturalism. See my posts on ethics - especially Desire Fulfillment (follow that link to discuss welfare externalism) and An Analysis of Value.
For the record, let me add that I know a lot more about biology than I do Plato. (Though one might suggest this simply shows I know very little Plato!)
The central two points (i.e. #2 and #3) will be the focus of my next post...