The word "superior" in that sentence has no meaning.
You are not allowed to talk about words and their meaning. Case in point:
The brain generates a decision making device.
The “device” you’re referring to is the illusion of a bird in a cage. The illusion of the bird in the cage is not a “device.”
Stop equivocating terms.
Heat is not a subcategory of the device.
Yes, it is, unless you are talking about a completely different context of the concept of “heat” removed from the discussion of what happens when you turn a heater on.
Nor is “heat” a “device.” The heater (brain) is the device. “Heat” is not.
Nor is “Heat” a “thing” in the same sense that a physical object (like a “device”) is a “thing” or a BRAIN is a “thing.” Heat
in this context is “that which the heater generates.”
They cannot be separated. The heat is only generated when the heater is active. When the heater is not active, it is no longer a heater, it is merely a collection of metal coils and electrical components.
You are conflating form and function in order to justify starting with a pet conclusion and then working backwards for the proof.
To say a heater is a thing that generates another thing (or worse, something truly assinine like a heater creates “heat presentations” for the “heat” to experience, but the heater does not experience the heat) is just sophomoric drivel.
Experience means one thing has awareness of another thing.
Equivocation of “thing” once again, but set that aside since you always do, it is not possible that the brain create both “presentations” AND the “thing” it’s creating presentations
for and it not be aware of either the presentations or the “thing” it’s generating presentations for, so by your own still not exhaustive definition, brain has awareness of another “thing” (that is not a thing in the same sense you’re equivocating) and thus experiences.
Q.F.E.D.
