The "Blind Brain Theory of Consciousness" and the Consequences of Eliminativism

[Montmorency]

In philosophical theory, maybe. Evolutionarily-speaking, though, why should it be surprising that 'the ability of a brain to factor its own operations into its operations' would be behaviorally efficacious, if that's what's at stake?

The problem with philosophical zombies is that inevitably the removal of the factor of consciousness networks would entail significant, possibly gross, discrepancies between neuroanatomies. It's like asking, what if there were a society exactly like ours [i.e. the 'world's'] except everyone thought cannibalism was a great fun time. That's the problem with these philosophical jambalayas: prepare them rigorously and with proper ingredients or else you'll give someone mental diarrhea. Incidentally, [joke about college students with respect to this analogy].

Experimentally, what needs to be done is to more precisely identify the brain function behind consciousness, then the granular anatomy behind consciousness, and finally to selectively excite and inhibit the relevant systems to elucidate the behavioral effect of such interference, and by the same token the behavioral role of typically-functioning consciousness.

That would answer many of your questions, I think, and it is ultimately not something a theorist can personally do unless he's, like, director of his own lab or institute or something.

[Viking]

Well, the point of the near-clone was to illustrate the question that I was actually asking. I was querying for opinions on conscious vs non-conscious systems. In the texts you've quoted, it seems that introspectiveness is treated as synonymous to consciousness.

[Montmorency]

In a way, yes. Introspectiveness is literally what consciousness is, Bakker claims, as it is just the brain becoming an environment to itself, and from that subjective phenomenological introspectiveness follows naturally, and so on.

If what you're asking is, what would an organism with similar computational capacity to humans act like in a anthropic body-structure if it did not have these consciousness systems, AFAIK Bakker is not directly concerned with. However,

Experimentally, what needs to be done is to more precisely identify the brain function behind consciousness, then the granular anatomy behind consciousness, and finally to selectively excite and inhibit the relevant systems to elucidate the behavioral effect of such interference, and by the same token the behavioral role of typically-functioning consciousness

We can find out by doing what it says above. It would require some modifications to bioethics, but this is what it would take to answer your question: a human with consciousness 'turned off'.

[Husar]

Sleepwalking does not qualify?

[Montmorency]

Consciousness isn't really 'off' during sleepwalking I think; I maintain a distinction between consciousness and "wakefulness". For instance, REM sleep quite probably involves conscious operations.

There's typically no memory in sleepwalking because in sleep chemicals implicated in memory encoding, such as norepinephrine, are not available, or are much-reduced in concentration. It also explains why we remember very little of our dreams.

However, it is an interesting idea, and I admit that it's perfectly possible for there to be changes in consciousness networks between sleepwalking and 'wake-walking' such that behavioral differences between the two are explained by them. But I don't know much about how sleepwalkers present, other than that sometimes sleepwalkers act pretty much normally and at other times appear to be responding to a dream-state.

[Viking]

If what you're asking is, what would an organism with similar computational capacity to humans act like in a anthropic body-structure if it did not have these consciousness systems, AFAIK Bakker is not directly concerned with.

Pretty much. I meant introspectiveness in the sense that non-conscious things do it too, like a computer program. Basically treating data describing the system itself rather than surroundings.

As for an experimental angle, this recent case seems relevant:

One electrode was positioned next to the claustrum, an area that had never been stimulated before.

When the team zapped the area with high frequency electrical impulses, the woman lost consciousness. She stopped reading and stared blankly into space, she didn't respond to auditory or visual commands and her breathing slowed. As soon as the stimulation stopped, she immediately regained consciousness with no memory of the event. The same thing happened every time the area was stimulated during two days of experiments (Epilepsy and Behavior, doi.org/tgn).

[Husar]

That she was not conscious does not mean that the rest of her brain was working normally though, or does it? It could have affected more than just the parts of her brain producing the consciousness.

[Montmorency]

From what I gathered of the study, the subject - who was neuro-atypical by the way - had an increase of consciousness-related activity in the frontal lobe but gradually presented with diminishing behavioral response as the claustrum was stimulated.

It's certainly possible that some part of the claustrum participates in consciousness or even integration between distributed consciousness networks, but:

1. They did not establish why they defined her state as remaining wakeful, yet unconscious, as Husar noted.

2. Stimulating gross anatomy ensures collateral effects.

The report is only 3 pages, so...

Next, they should do more granular, preferably optogenetic, stimulation and inhibition of claustrum sub-structures, in both normal and atypical subjects, while establishing rigorous categorical definitions of wakefulness and consciousness beforehand (and monitoring according to them).

[Montmorency]

HOLY

I DIDN'T SEE IT

I CAN'T BELIEVE IT

CONSCIOUSNESS IN A SONG

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

i just wanted you to comfort me
when I called you late last night you see
i was fallin' into love
oh yes, i was crashin' into love
oh of all the words you sang to me
about life, the truth and bein' free yea
you sang to me, oh how you sang to me
girl i live off how you make me feel
so i question all this bein' real
cuz i'm not afraid to love
for the first time i'm not afraid of love
oh, this day seems made for you and me
and you showed me what life needs to be
yea you sang to me, oh you sang to me
all the while you were in front of me i never realized
i jus' can't believe i didn't see it in your eyes
i didn't see it, i can't believe it
oh but i feel it
when you sing to me
how i long to hear you sing beneath the clear blue skies
and i promise you this time i'll see it in your eyes
i didn't see it, i can't believe it
oh but i feel it
when you sing to me
just to think you live inside of me
i had no idea how this could be
now i'm crazy for your love
can't believe i'm crazy for your love
the words you said you sang to me
and you showed me where i wanna be
yea you sang to me, oh you sang to me

[Husar]

I don't quite get the connection, I prefer this other song of his.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Montmorency]

i just wanted you to comfort me
when I called you late last night you see

Allure and aesthetics of introspection

i was fallin' into love
oh yes, i was crashin' into love
oh of all the words you sang to me
about life, the truth and bein' free yea
you sang to me, oh how you sang to me

"Words" - "thoughts" - seemingly pouring into awareness, and their apparent significance in some metaphysical way

girl i live off how you make me feel
so i question all this bein' real
cuz i'm not afraid to love
for the first time i'm not afraid of love

<Interpretation could go several ways>

oh, this day seems made for you and me
and you showed me what life needs to be
yea you sang to me, oh you sang to me

Intentionality, Meaning, Truth, blabla

all the while you were in front of me i never realized
i jus' can't believe i didn't see it in your eyes
i didn't see it, i can't believe it
oh but i feel it
when you sing to me

Consciousness is taken for granted through its own structure, and thereby it also proves deceptively-amenable to "introspection", which is non-empirical, and in terms of information-theory, potentially of arbitrarily-low informatic value as a consequence. Nevertheless, just as stated before, the structure of the brain and the consciousness it produces is such that it can not just ignore it away: you "feel" it nevertheless.

Etc. Etc.

[Montmorency]

Amazing.

[Rhyfelwyr]

What possessed you to google "apes are evil to the death of all mankind".

[Montmorency]

Convergent evolution. Everything is coming together.

The circle is now complete. When I reached you I was but the Master, now I am the Learner.

#JeSuisZarathustra

[Husar]

Convergent evolution. Everything is coming together.

We'll develop into bacteria?

[Montmorency]

I love those that know not how to live except as down-goers, for they are the over-goers.

[Sarmatian]

I don't understand any of this, which means it's super deep.

[Montmorency]

There they stand; there they laugh: they do not understand me; I am not the mouth for these ears.

Must one first batter their ears, that they may learn to hear with their eyes? Must one clatter like kettledrums and penitential preachers? Or do they only believe the stammerer?

They have something of which they are proud. What do they call it, that which makes them proud? Culture, they call it; it distinguishes them from the goatherds.

They dislike, therefore, to hear of “contempt” of themselves. So I will appeal to their pride.

[Husar]

I teach you the overman. Man is something that shall be overcome. What have you done to overcome him?... All beings so far have created something beyond themselves; and do you want to be the ebb of this great flood, and even go back to the beasts rather than overcome man? What is ape to man? A laughing stock or painful embarrassment. And man shall be that to overman: a laughingstock or painful embarrassment. You have made your way from worm to man, and much in you is still worm. Once you were apes, and even now, too, man is more ape than any ape... The overman is the meaning of the earth. Let your will say: the overman shall be the meaning of the earth... Man is a rope, tied between beast and overman—a rope over an abyss ... what is great in man is that he is a bridge and not an end.

[Montmorency]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I think it's cause of Bakker. All of his fiction writing is basically allegory in the style of this treatise - and before now, I had only read one of the later sections in isolation (of Thus Spake Zarathustra). Bakker's philosophy and theory is essentially nihilist theory with clear genealogy in Nietzsche. Still, it's amazing to me that I've internalized so much and developed it so far on my own that now, when I read this, it makes perfect sense to me. I had to read a bit of Nietzsche's early work in high school, and I had a very similar reaction to yours.

We'll develop into bacteria?

I just tried reading some of this to my 12-year-old sister, and her interpretation was:

Humans are the dominant species...Charles Darwin...Homo sapiens...

Then she drifted off into talking about Crocodile Dundee and cocaine.

[Husar]

I'm not sure who or what exactly you are addressing, but your sister seems to have the right priorities.

I don't think it's surprising that most people reject nihilism and you may have stared into the abyss for too long.