This thread will be to discuss some of Magnus Anderson’s theories on the brain. They are psychological theories, but based firmly on the physical brain, so we are treating them as what such theories are, which is neurology. Thus:
There is also the possibility that the brain is not actually sensitive to what we might call “external wills,” though we will stick with the author’s designation of “demons” from here on, necessarily, by design. In fact, it is very possible that the brain at some point underwent significant reformation (redesign) to make it sensitive to demons. That the brain needs them. This might be because it was decided that the brain on its own is not capable of generating enough (either in intensity or variety) new will to keep it competitive. If this were the case, rather than there being overseers, there would be facilitators (for demons), and demons would not, in fact, be able, in any case, to “comandeer” the native brain. Error messages would still, obviously, be required, not to avoid infiltration, but to detect inconsistencies with prioritized aims that preceded the “invited” demon.
Thus, one could postulate an economy in the brain. The brain wants to retain consistencey, but it considers it important also not to stagnate.
In certain cases, which we might call abhorrent or “insanity,” the case would then be that a brain considered that the economy led so far away from stagnation, that the reality and risk of stagnation was so high, that it would continue to invite “demons” even beyond points of inconsistency deemed important.
What is important about this?
That an abhorrent or “insane” brain is not a victim of infiltration, rather it wills it. The infiltration exists only and as long as it is willed. The choice is still the native’s, and it is a choice of economy, rather than of aim (since we are discussing elements that are constitutive rather than formed of aims).
Sectionalizing the brain as Anderson has seems to me sound, and the implication that there is an economy, too, between them, internally, and access to demons is granted on a “per section” basis.
So what is important is that brains are not “washed” or “controlled” by forces sending demons, or being demons, but rather willingly given to them, entered into free contract with every single time, as a decision on the basis of economy.
And so, rather than judge a demon by what it does to hosts, we are to judge people by what demons they invite, and how they process them (if the demons, for example, even cause enough inconcistncy to produce insanity).
It could be anything from poverty of internal resources to a feeling of a need for protection, to boredom. In any case, as has been asserted, all people have and require demons.