I think you really have to think in terms of individual neurons as micro-agents, and ask what's in it for them?
And how does that sort of anthropomorphization explain anything?
And how does that sort of anthropomorphization explain anything?
The answer to this is a major theme of Dennett's book "Intuition Pumps..." Which isn't to say that I understood the answer when he wrote the book, but I did get the impression that a large number of dynamic systems, especially living or computationally driven systems, are more effectively predicted by theories using what they "want" than by theories that do not use such abstractions.
Dennett:
I hadn't thought about any of this-- I thought the hard problem of brains was that dendrites grow so that neurons aren't arranged in a static map. Apparently that is just one of the hard problems.
He also discusses the question of how much of culture is parasitic, that philosophy has something valuable to offer about free will (I don't know what he has in mind there), the hard question of how people choose who to trust and why they're so bad at it (he thinks people chose their investment advisers more carefully than they chose their pastors, I suspect he's over-optimistic), and a detailed look at Preachers Who Are Not Believers. That last looks intriguing-- part of the situations is that preachers have been taught it's very bad to shake someone else's faith, so there's an added layer of inhibition which keeps preachers doing their usual job even after they're no longer believers themselves.