Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 111

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

  1. #31
    Iron Fist Senior Member Husar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    15,617

    Default Re: The "Blind Brain Theory of Consciousness" and the Consequences of Eliminativism

    Quote Originally Posted by Ironside View Post
    Short version. IMO he's going with "our conciousness isn't in control, but something exactly like our concious, except it's subconcious, is in control". He's mixing up what being in control means. It does not mean knowledge, nor ideas, nor thoughts.
    Yes, something like that, but why would it matter? And where does the "no free will" come from that was mentioned?
    If our subconscious has a free will and the conscious only serves to make us aware of it, how is that different from the decision being made in the conscious? The subconscious and the conscious are always and will always be one brain and one person anyway and that our brain cannot observe 100% of itself was always a given so I don't see how that fundamentally changes anything.

    The advertisement industry and others have long understood that a lot of what we think are conscious decisions are actually subconscious or at least heavily influenced by that. Where's the news then? That this has finally arrived in the circles of lyrically high-flying Philosophers?


    "Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu

    Member thankful for this post:



  2. #32

    Default Re: The "Blind Brain Theory of Consciousness" and the Consequences of Eliminativism

    Quote Originally Posted by Husar
    If the conscious is just a bystander, watching things happen while having the illusion it could influence them, wouldn't that destroy all purpose in life?
    Would there really be any purpose otherwise?

    If I lost my job it would not be my fault and you shouldn't call me a loser for it
    I seem to recall a certain post you thanked recently...

    Full predetermination creates a mind-boggling scenario that my conscious does not like.
    Not predetermination, but stimulus. It works this way no matter how stochastic the universe, and if it's to the point of randomness, well...

    If there is no decision anywhere there then humanity has finally reached its end of lifecycle or will not accept this theory out of self-preservation.
    That's actually the prediction of the theory's creator.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ironside
    Those track the brain systems (ttbs) are where the environmetal information is combined correct?
    Well, sort of. If ttbs ttbs, then it must get some environmental information, or more precisely, metainformation. But it also should, upon processing this information, output information of its own into the larger brain.

    But if unity is the goal (so no self-strangulation for you split-brains) then accepting information without a source makes sense. In particular since massive self analysis of the source do prevent quick actions.
    Exactly. This could certainly be part of the explanation for why such metacognition arose in the first place.

    If I do math, I can suddenly jump to the answer without passing the calculations in between. That's blatant agent work.
    I don't understand. That could very easily be explained as the larger brain performing the calculations and the ttbs catching wind of the result. Not agentive at all, unless you want it to be...

    To prevent different agents to interfer with the action, a sort of centralised structure is needed.
    Yet that's the thing - if ttbs is indeed distributed throughout the brain, and not confined to a single discrete structure, then your thesis for an executive role of consciousness makes little sense. Also, remember that metacognition is continuous with cognition, meaning that one does not wait for the other - it all flows together.

    Evidently those track the brain systems are as stupid as our conciousness.
    But that's the idea - that consciousness is merely a byproduct of the limitations of ttbs, namely the informatic asymmetry you acknowledge.

    IMO he's going with "our conciousness isn't in control, but something exactly like our concious, except it's subconcious, is in control".
    Nooo, he's saying nothing is in control. There is no such thing as control. But if you want to fall back on this intentional vocab to make things easier, then say that it's the brain at large that is in control, which is pretty much an ineluctable truism.

    Quote Originally Posted by Husar
    If our subconscious has a free will
    And how would that possibly work? Does a termite's "subconscious" or even brain in general have free will? Of course not. Humans are not special wonderful glorious exceptions to anything, admit it. As I said, the usefulness of this theory is that it gives an account for why the "free will delusion" arose in the first place. Free will in itself is pretty much impossible in any context, unless you're the one and only GOD...
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



  3. #33
    Iron Fist Senior Member Husar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    15,617

    Default Re: The "Blind Brain Theory of Consciousness" and the Consequences of Eliminativism

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    Would there really be any purpose otherwise?
    There would be a purpose in improvement and in defining what is an improvement.
    Now I can just stop studying and tell people it's what the outside factors made me do, not my fault that my brain read this paper after you posted it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    I seem to recall a certain post you thanked recently...
    I do not.
    Or maybe I do but my brain won't tell you for reasons my conscious is not aware of.

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    Not predetermination, but stimulus. It works this way no matter how stochastic the universe, and if it's to the point of randomness, well...
    But all stimulus was sparked by the Big Bang if you consequently follow it back through time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    That's actually the prediction of the theory's creator.
    Great, and then he published it. What outside stimulus made him so evil? Did he get beaten as a kid?

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    Nooo, he's saying nothing is in control. There is no such thing as control. But if you want to fall back on this intentional vocab to make things easier, then say that it's the brain at large that is in control, which is pretty much an ineluctable truism.
    Yes, but the brain is a neural network and neural networks are really hard to understand, even very, very simple ones in computers can lead to unpredictable results when confronted with stimulus they never got before. The brain at large also contains the conscious as an integral part, why is it necessary to see them as seperate or to assume that everyone always thought the conscious somehow controls everything? As I mentioned previously a lot of people were aware for a long time already that not every decision we make is a completely free decision, it is always based on a mixture of things we know, and things we know are historical stimulus. So in that sense I'm not sure where the revolution is?
    The decision making process could still lead to two different results given the same stimulus and the same brain because of the way a neural network operates.

    That we do not have a soul (conscious) that controls how the neural network operates should be clear by looking at people with neural defects, who also cannot behave normal even if their conscious may want to. I've also long wondered whether mentally ill people have the same or a different conscious than mentally healthy people? Does our friendly doomsday philosopher have anything on that?

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    And how would that possibly work? Does a termite's "subconscious" or even brain in general have free will? Of course not. Humans are not special wonderful glorious exceptions to anything, admit it. As I said, the usefulness of this theory is that it gives an account for why the "free will delusion" arose in the first place. Free will in itself is pretty much impossible in any context, unless you're the one and only GOD...
    It depends a lot on how you define free will, animals also decide between flee or fight for example and will usually choose to live over choosing to die and so on. Now you will probably say those are not choices but the results of chemical reactions in the larger brain but noone of us can prove that it really is so. If the theory is right, then I would say everything would have to be predetermined since the big bang or even before that.

    For me free will is when the brain can choose several pathes to follow and decides on one.
    Is the decision influenced by stimuli? Of course it is.
    Is the result absolutely predetermined? I would say no, even the weighting of factors can change during the decision making process and to say this is predetermined goes a bit far.
    Is the conscious in control? Yes and no, because the conscious is an integral part of the brain, you have no conscious without the brain and possibly no brain without the conscious. The conscious does not need all the information and that is part of the design, the more I think about it (sorry, the more my brain subconsciously computes the stimulus given in this thread) the less I understand what the earth-shaking implications of this theory are?

    Let's move on to sleep, our brain is capable of wandering around and making decisions while we sleep, it is however not able to act in exactly the same way then as it does when we are awake, is that because the parts that make up our conscious are actually vital for full functionality and how could that be so if our conscious is just a useless side-effect?


    "Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu

  4. #34

    Default Re: The "Blind Brain Theory of Consciousness" and the Consequences of Eliminativism

    There would be a purpose in improvement and in defining what is an improvement.
    How?

    Great, and then he published it. What outside stimulus made him so evil? Did he get beaten as a kid?
    You should see his fiction.

    why is it necessary to see them as seperate
    Well, if they subserve different functions, then they should be distinguished.

    assume that everyone always thought the conscious somehow controls everything?
    That's been the predominant mode of thought, you must admit. Though most people would simply couch it in such terms as "I cause X", which amounts to the same thing.

    not every decision we make is a completely free decision
    But if there is no such thing whatsoever...

    The decision making process could still lead to two different results given the same stimulus and the same brain because of the way a neural network operates.
    And yet by definition this can never be tested - so why assume it? In fact, if something happens it happens - period. To suggest otherwise is merely feel-good palaver.

    Does our friendly doomsday philosopher have anything on that?
    I've not seen any postings from him on mental illness with respect to his theory, though he subtly explores the issue in his fiction but from a narrow perspective.

    It depends a lot on how you define free will, animals also decide between flee or fight for example and will usually choose to live over choosing to die and so on.
    You say "decide"; while that's a convenient shorthand for modifying operant contingencies to elicit desired responses, it is likely to be misleading when analyzing the actual behavior of actual organisms.

    Now you will probably say those are not choices but the results of chemical reactions in the larger brain but noone of us can prove that it really is so.
    Well, the latter has empirical grounding and fits well into the larger context of natural science, and the former is a fumbling folk-psychology approximation of a result. We can't prove that massy bodies don't just happen to "choose" to exert gravitational force, but why would we take that stance when it makes no sense in the wider metaphysical grounding of natural science?

    For me free will is when the brain can choose several pathes to follow and decides on one.
    Some problems:

    1. (Assuming choice and paths) If the paths are stimulated, then how could "choice" between them be free?
    2. (Assuming choice and paths) If the paths are constrained by cognitive availability, then how could "choice" between them be free?
    3. How could multiple paths be modeled? It seems to be much simpler, namely an input aggregate of stimuli that linearly and straightforwardly produce ineluctable output based on their physical properties. On what grounds would that conception be challenged?

    even the weighting of factors can change during the decision making process and to say this is predetermined goes a bit far.
    What does that mean? It's a linear process, and could easily be predetermined. Moreover, you still don't realize that even in a stochastic universe the mechanism would remain identical. Freedom is not a roll of the dice; if you can live with such a "freedom", then I leave you to your muddled wishful thinking beside the dude who insists that he is rich despite having no money to his name.

    Is the conscious in control? Yes and no, because the conscious is an integral part of the brain, you have no conscious without the brain and possibly no brain without the conscious.
    You still don't understand the theory. Let's make some things clear:

    Larger brain - processes environments
    TTBS (Track the Brain Systems) - processes the larger brain
    Consciousness - a side effect of the limitations of TTBS

    And it's not at all clear that many or any other organisms have TTBS to any extent. Again - consciousness is not a discrete thing.

    Let's move on to sleep, our brain is capable of wandering around and making decisions while we sleep, it is however not able to act in exactly the same way then as it does when we are awake, is that because the parts that make up our conscious are actually vital for full functionality and how could that be so if our conscious is just a useless side-effect?
    See above. Alright, even if we replace your usage of "consciousness" with "TTBS", we face these problems:

    1. Organisms that seemingly lack TTBS sleep too.
    2. It is unclear what sleep is for, across lifeforms.
    3. TTBS is active during human sleep, but in different ways than during waking moments.

    So, the fact that humans behave a certain way when awake and another way while "asleep" doesn't actually say much of anything about consciousness per se.
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



  5. #35
    One of the Undutchables Member The Stranger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Nowhere...
    Posts
    11,757

    Default Re: The "Blind Brain Theory of Consciousness" and the Consequences of Eliminativism

    Quote Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube View Post
    So do animals have this special brainy-brain thing or just people?

    The whole thing seems overly complex in the way that only theory jumping way ahead of available information can be.

    However, if indeed the information we get is strategically filtered by some kind of background program, it stands to reason that we have altered our environment to the point where that could be a serious flaw in civilization itself. So there's that at least. Most of that was way over my head...
    also, how would this theory explain that such a sophisticated and advanced system, with its own behaverioural monitoring squad, would start to occupy itself with such futile endeavours as writing a theory about itself, and disproving myths about itself which itself has made up? Is that what happens when a brain is no longer needed to survive (as some people are hellbent to prove everyday)? In which case, at what time do you expect cats and dogs to start showing similar signs of development, or did we just get lucky?

    Also, I think its a fairly accepted thing that (some) other animals have conciousness, we generally just don't attribute self-conciousness to them, but I guess that is what is meant when you and others are talking about conciousness.

    And yet by definition this can never be tested - so why assume it? In fact, if something happens it happens - period. To suggest otherwise is merely feel-good palaver.
    by saying this, you yourself seem to assume that people who believe that (free will) are capable of doing otherwise (based on assesment of evidence and after the right assesment, they will change their minds). And i feel an implied, they who dont believe that (free will) are believing it because it is true, and not because it happens to be what happened in their brain when they were presented with a certain stimilus (or a sequence of stimuli).

    As always happens with people who try to disprove free will and rational agency, they start to mix things up, in trying to disprove they often are making assumptions that still imply agency and more often that not, their notion of agency is still heavily cartesian and their notion of free will is either vague or archaic.
    Last edited by The Stranger; 12-11-2013 at 09:52.

    We do not sow.

  6. #36
    Master of useless knowledge Senior Member Kitten Shooting Champion, Eskiv Champion Ironside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,902

    Default Re: The "Blind Brain Theory of Consciousness" and the Consequences of Eliminativism

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    Well, sort of. If ttbs ttbs, then it must get some environmental information, or more precisely, metainformation. But it also should, upon processing this information, output information of its own into the larger brain.
    What do you define as the larger brain? I'm agreeing that processed information gets reprocessed several times in the brain. For example, sight passes through several centers, with only that last ones sending information to the conciousness. That's why you have things as blind-sight.

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    I don't understand. That could very easily be explained as the larger brain performing the calculations and the ttbs catching wind of the result. Not agentive at all, unless you want it to be...
    An agent is a specialised part of the brain that can send information to the conciousness.

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    Yet that's the thing - if ttbs is indeed distributed throughout the brain, and not confined to a single discrete structure, then your thesis for an executive role of consciousness makes little sense. Also, remember that metacognition is continuous with cognition, meaning that one does not wait for the other - it all flows together.
    Then you only moved the executive role to the TTBS. Who in turn only acts on the information in the same moment the conciousness gets it. Something in the mind needs to choose the cause of action, from all the alternatives given by the different TTBS, agents, larger brain or whatever you call those subsystems. In particular if this action matters greatly.
    I say that this central cohesion structure is the conciousness, while he says that this central cohesion structure is part of the TTBS, while the conciousness is kind of an illusion, pretending to be this central cohesion structure.

    I do agree that the conciousness pretends to be more in control than what it is (we have many-semicouncious behaviors that we do, but will only conciously control if we focus on it). But what he calls a bug that exists for unknown reasons, I call a feature.

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    Nooo, he's saying nothing is in control. There is no such thing as control. But if you want to fall back on this intentional vocab to make things easier, then say that it's the brain at large that is in control, which is pretty much an ineluctable truism.
    By control, I mean the sender of the excecutive order (for actions deemed to be needing some thought). I don't talk about a metaphysical soul beaming in actions into the mind. Free will exist or not depending on how you define it. Overwriting a human brain should be possible (and terrifying).

    Quote Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube View Post
    So do animals have this special brainy-brain thing or just people?

    The whole thing seems overly complex in the way that only theory jumping way ahead of available information can be.

    However, if indeed the information we get is strategically filtered by some kind of background program, it stands to reason that we have altered our environment to the point where that could be a serious flaw in civilization itself. So there's that at least. Most of that was way over my head...
    If I've red him right, only people. Which I find ridiculous, since there's no place in the human brain that's essential for conciousness. Or at very least, multiple places can be the key piece.

    He's at least treating modern conciousness as a uniqish thing, rather than an advanced version.
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Given the developmental gradient of evolution, we can presume a gradual increase in capacity, with the selection of more comprehensive sourcing and greater processing power culminating in the consciousness we possess today.

    There’s the issue of evolutionary youth, for one. Even if we were to date the beginning of modern consciousness as far back as, say, the development of hand-axes, that would only mean some 1.4 million years of evolutionary ‘tuning.’ By contrast, the brain’s ability to access and process external environmental information is the product of hundreds of millions of years of natural selection

    And then there’s its relation to its object. Where the brain, thanks to locomotion, possesses a variable relationship to its external environment, allowing it to selectively access information, the RS is quite literally hardwired to the greater, nonconscious brain. Its information access is a function of its structural integration, and is therefore fixed to the degree that its structure is fixed. The RS must transform its structure, in other words, to attenuate its access.

    These three constraints–evolutionary contingency, frame complexity, and access invariance–actually paint a quite troubling picture. They sketch the portrait of an RS that is developmentally gerrymandered, informatically overmatched, and structurally imprisoned–the portrait of a human brain that likely possesses only the merest glimpse of its inner workings. As preposterous as this might sound to some, it becomes more plausible the more cognitive psychology and neuroscience learns.


    I mean sure, I suspect the reason why mental illness among humans are because of rapid evolution, so that robustness hasn't catched up yet. But I say that limitations of the conciousness is there from the start and intended.
    We are all aware that the senses can be deceived, the eyes fooled. But how can we be sure our senses are not being deceived at any particular time, or even all the time? Might I just be a brain in a tank somewhere, tricked all my life into believing in the events of this world by some insane computer? And does my life gain or lose meaning based on my reaction to such solipsism?

    Project PYRRHO, Specimen 46, Vat 7
    Activity Recorded M.Y. 2302.22467
    TERMINATION OF SPECIMEN ADVISED

  7. #37
    Iron Fist Senior Member Husar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    15,617

    Default Re: The "Blind Brain Theory of Consciousness" and the Consequences of Eliminativism

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    How?
    An inside stimulus to make the right decisions (e.g. by giving all information an extra-pass or two through specialized regions of the brain).


    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    Well, if they subserve different functions, then they should be distinguished.
    What function does the TTBS/conscious serve if the brain at large is purely a predctable input/output machine that takes input and produces an entirely predictable output?


    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    That's been the predominant mode of thought, you must admit. Though most people would simply couch it in such terms as "I cause X", which amounts to the same thing.
    Saying that is only wrong if every single atom-collision in the universe could have been predicted from the point of the big bang. Any kind of randomness or unpredictable results would allow things within the system to affect the system.


    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    And yet by definition this can never be tested - so why assume it? In fact, if something happens it happens - period. To suggest otherwise is merely feel-good palaver.
    But this feel-good palaver just happened if what you say is true, and there'd be no reason for you to get worked up over it although you getting worked up would also be something that just happened.


    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    Well, the latter has empirical grounding and fits well into the larger context of natural science, and the former is a fumbling folk-psychology approximation of a result. We can't prove that massy bodies don't just happen to "choose" to exert gravitational force, but why would we take that stance when it makes no sense in the wider metaphysical grounding of natural science?
    Well, you keep arguing from the POV that this theory is true, and somehow serves as a basis for human thought. The basis for my thought is my own experience however, and that tells me I can decide and that this is not an illusion. Your theory can't prove that my experience is wrong beyond some coincidences, so why would I accept it? As for the wider natural science, that still hasn't entirely figured out how exactly the neural network in our body operates. The only thing this theory does is focus entirely on the outside influences and assume an unknown black box is not an unknown black box and works in entirely predictable patterns. Which is not proven and goes against our experiences and observations.


    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    Some problems:

    1. (Assuming choice and paths) If the paths are stimulated, then how could "choice" between them be free?
    2. (Assuming choice and paths) If the paths are constrained by cognitive availability, then how could "choice" between them be free?
    3. How could multiple paths be modeled? It seems to be much simpler, namely an input aggregate of stimuli that linearly and straightforwardly produce ineluctable output based on their physical properties. On what grounds would that conception be challenged?
    1. I said it's not entirely free, it is always an influenced choice but we call it free choice because it's not predetermined either.
    2. Because cognitive availability, whatever that means, does not yield predetermined results.
    3. Neural networks do not process data in a linear way despite their physical properties. It is not something I entirely understand either but people who know these things better kept telling me you cannot predict the result of a neural network when you give it a new set of stimuli.


    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    What does that mean? It's a linear process, and could easily be predetermined. Moreover, you still don't realize that even in a stochastic universe the mechanism would remain identical. Freedom is not a roll of the dice; if you can live with such a "freedom", then I leave you to your muddled wishful thinking beside the dude who insists that he is rich despite having no money to his name.
    A roll of a dice is more linear than the processes in the brain. As for leaving me somewhere, if that is what your defeatist brain decides in the face of my arguments, then so be it, nothing our consciences could do...


    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    You still don't understand the theory. Let's make some things clear:

    Larger brain - processes environments
    TTBS (Track the Brain Systems) - processes the larger brain
    Consciousness - a side effect of the limitations of TTBS

    And it's not at all clear that many or any other organisms have TTBS to any extent. Again - consciousness is not a discrete thing.
    First off, blame my brain, not me, because if "I did not cause X" then I cannot be responsible for not understanding Y and your tone is neither appreciated nor warranted or helpful.
    Secondly, I do get that, but consciousness is an effect caused in a discrete thing, namely the TTBS, and as such it is an integral part of the TTBS or is there a TTBS without a consciousness? What tells us that it is a side effect and not a wanted main effect? What is a TTBS good for without a consciousness? Why track something that produces predictable results?


    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    See above. Alright, even if we replace your usage of "consciousness" with "TTBS", we face these problems:

    1. Organisms that seemingly lack TTBS sleep too.
    2. It is unclear what sleep is for, across lifeforms.
    3. TTBS is active during human sleep, but in different ways than during waking moments.

    So, the fact that humans behave a certain way when awake and another way while "asleep" doesn't actually say much of anything about consciousness per se.
    But about TTBS, and there is not TTBS that is fully operational without consciousness.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ironside View Post
    Then you only moved the executive role to the TTBS. Who in turn only acts on the information in the same moment the conciousness gets it. Something in the mind needs to choose the cause of action, from all the alternatives given by the different TTBS, agents, larger brain or whatever you call those subsystems. In particular if this action matters greatly.
    I say that this central cohesion structure is the conciousness, while he says that this central cohesion structure is part of the TTBS, while the conciousness is kind of an illusion, pretending to be this central cohesion structure.

    I do agree that the conciousness pretends to be more in control than what it is (we have many-semicouncious behaviors that we do, but will only conciously control if we focus on it). But what he calls a bug that exists for unknown reasons, I call a feature.
    I agree, the theory calls the consciousness a side effect while I think it's a feature.


    "Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu

  8. #38

    Default Re: The "Blind Brain Theory of Consciousness" and the Consequences of Eliminativism

    Quote Originally Posted by Stranger
    by saying this, you yourself seem to assume that people who believe that (free will) are capable of doing otherwise (based on assesment of evidence and after the right assesment, they will change their minds). And i feel an implied, they who dont believe that (free will) are believing it because it is true, and not because it happens to be what happened in their brain when they were presented with a certain stimilus (or a sequence of stimuli).
    Um, no. I'm doing this because I'm doing this - as always.

    As always happens with people who try to disprove free will and rational agency, they start to mix things up, in trying to disprove they often are making assumptions that still imply agency and more often that not, their notion of agency is still heavily cartesian and their notion of free will is either vague or archaic.
    I'm not trying to disprove anything. I'm saying that free will is a inherently incoherent concept. Saying I'm making any assumptions that entail free will here (and it's not like you go to point any out in more than the vaguest terms) is like saying ignosticism actually proves the existence of God, and just demonstrates the lack of sensible rebuttals from intentionalists. And even if I were to say, "Hell yeah I'm just messing with y'all I believe in free will" would, as it turns out, contribute absolutely nothing toward supporting the veridicality of free will. I mean, come on. Come up with some more inspiring arguments.

    I'll get to the others, but for now recommend they (such as GC) read this.
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



  9. #39
    One of the Undutchables Member The Stranger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Nowhere...
    Posts
    11,757

    Default Re: The "Blind Brain Theory of Consciousness" and the Consequences of Eliminativism

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    Um, no. I'm doing this because I'm doing this - as always.



    I'm not trying to disprove anything. I'm saying that free will is a inherently incoherent concept. Saying I'm making any assumptions that entail free will here (and it's not like you go to point any out in more than the vaguest terms) is like saying ignosticism actually proves the existence of God, and just demonstrates the lack of sensible rebuttals from intentionalists. And even if I were to say, "Hell yeah I'm just messing with y'all I believe in free will" would, as it turns out, contribute absolutely nothing toward supporting the veridicality of free will. I mean, come on. Come up with some more inspiring arguments.

    I'll get to the others, but for now recommend they (such as GC) read this.
    and im saying your "argument or whatever it is" is also incoherent and above all pointless.

    We do not sow.

  10. #40

    Default Re: The "Blind Brain Theory of Consciousness" and the Consequences of Eliminativism

    Quote Originally Posted by The Stranger
    and im saying your "argument or whatever it is" is also incoherent and above all pointless.
    Which argument? The consciousness theory or the free will critique? How is it incoherent?

    I agree that's it's pointless though - your point being?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ironside
    What do you define as the larger brain?
    Those parts of the brain that are involved in processing sensory information, i.e. external environments (with the rest of the body counting as external in at least some sense).

    Then you only moved the executive role to the TTBS.
    No, I haven't. The point is that there is no central executive, per se.

    Who in turn only acts on the information in the same moment the conciousness gets it. Something in the mind needs to choose the cause of action, from all the alternatives given by the different TTBS, agents, larger brain or whatever you call those subsystems. In particular if this action matters greatly.
    The same moment? Why? And why does there need to be a "choice", whatever that is? There are no alternatives, only straightforward processes culminating in a single ineluctable result.

    but will only conciously control if we focus on it
    That's not 'you choosing to focus on it', that's conscious awareness receiving information that something else is being focused on, and TTBS qua consciousness then outputs information to the rest of the brain along the lines of TTBS being the origin of this process, and the cycle goes on...

    He's at least treating modern conciousness as a uniqish thing, rather than an advanced version.
    Bakker actually mentions that it's perfectly possible for us to evolve more consciousness or less of it over time (assuming we don't directly intervene to speed things up). Therefore, he supposes, it is likely that our hominid ancestors had some sort of very murky "consciousness", and that it's possible that other animals have a murkier one still ATM. I'm not sure if its in the OP essay or some other writing, but he does acknowledge this. Though I don't suppose something like, say, a dog has many or maybe even any systems for TTBS. But that's an empirical matter, so we can leave it at this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Husar
    An inside stimulus to make the right decisions (e.g. by giving all information an extra-pass or two through specialized regions of the brain).
    So what? And what is a "right decision"? Don't go all Sasaki on me...

    What function does the TTBS/conscious serve if the brain at large is purely a predctable input/output machine that takes input and produces an entirely predictable output?
    See Bakker on "problem-ecologies". TTBS allows for more advanced planning and behaviors. Metaphysically speaking, that's neither here nor there with respect to how events proceed from one another. It doesn't have bearing, either direction.

    Any kind of randomness or unpredictable results
    I've already pointed out that freedom is not compatible with either a stochastic or random universe. Or are you saying that a fully random event could be free? It's just not coherent. Freedom seems like something that precedes everything, and nothing precedes everything.

    But this feel-good palaver just happened if what you say is true, and there'd be no reason for you to get worked up over it although you getting worked up would also be something that just happened.
    A better thing to point out would be that I posted this thread in the first place, or even better, that I post things at all, ever.

    The way I see it, I might have entered a coma-like/vegetative state and might right now be embodying nihilism as a barely-living husk hooked up to life support - but I'm not. I'm just a typical human, as it turns out.

    The basis for my thought is my own experience however, and that tells me I can decide and that this is not an illusion.

    Your theory can't prove that my experience is wrong beyond some coincidences, so why would I accept it?
    This theory provides a natural-science way to explain why you think that, and why it's wrong. Our experience and intuition told us that the Sun orbited the Earth - and this was obvious, until new science arose to discredit the notion. We can't prove that the Earth orbits the Sun; we can only predict it, and observe it. We can't prove that there is gravitational force; we can only predict it and observe it in action. Hell, we can't prove that there's such a thing as causality - that's merely convention, just like "free will". We can't prove there's such a thing as us - maybe we should be reverse-solipsists?

    (What you point out here actually has wider relevance to nihilist theory and what I call "supervenient revenge", but I guess I won't ever discuss that unless I actually get to the point of seriously publishing my original theories. )

    1. I said it's not entirely free, it is always an influenced choice but we call it free choice because it's not predetermined either.
    If it's influenced, it cannot be free. Forget about predetermination; if freedom exists it will exists regardless of whether that is or isn't the case.

    Because cognitive availability, whatever that means, does not yield predetermined results.
    You just dodged the question. Again, forget about predetermination. It's irrelevant.

    3. Neural networks do not process data in a linear way despite their physical properties. It is not something I entirely understand either but people who know these things better kept telling me you cannot predict the result of a neural network when you give it a new set of stimuli.
    Well of course you can't - just like you can't predict how the asteroid that's hitting some living world billions of lightyears away will affect the ecosystem of that world: lack of information, and enormous complexity.

    Once we arrive at the ability to map the brain, we will, so to speak, know it inside and out.

    Neural networks are indeed linear in their processing, as we can tell by mapping the nervous systems and determining the actions of simpler organisms such as Aplysia slugs. Even CPUs are linear in their processing, ultimately.

    A roll of a dice is more linear than the processes in the brain.
    Not a worthy response, as "roll of the dice" is clearly metaphorical -since you aren't responding to the technical term "stochastic" - and the processes are indeed linear anyway, as are all processes, unless you would like to present a rigorous new conception of time, or point me to one, that illustrates what you seem to be saying.

    First off, blame my brain, not me, because if "I did not cause X" then I cannot be responsible for not understanding Y and your tone is neither appreciated nor warranted or helpful.
    Well, that's difficult - do you even have a brain? After all, what are "you"?

    Perhaps you are in fact a whole brain? Then you don't have a brain, technically speaking.
    Perhaps you are only the TTBS circuits within a larger brain? Then that's reminiscent of the parable of the feet, stomach, and hands (or whatever) arguing over who of them is most useful to the body.
    Perhaps you are your TTBS qua closed system, i.e. a consciousness? Then that's still complicated, since this theory isn't a comprehensive unified theory of consciousness, right? Too many questions remain.
    Perhaps you are merely what a body says and does, i.e. entirely performative? Then I guess you don't have a brain or a body, and are just caused by a brain and a body. You would be more the words you type than a body or a brain.
    Perhaps you are nothing at all? There are no subjects in this view, so the ongoing usage of personal names and pronouns is just verbal behavior between organisms, conditioned by operant contingencies that promote cooperativity and keep a constant reference framework.

    I'm not sure this theory makes this particular issue clearer, though the author has his opinions. I'd rather not try to address it in this thread or we'll be here forever, constantly bringing in farflung sources to bolster some, as TS would say, futile case. Let's just default to you and I being whole brains, in which case you certainly have a heluva-lot of responsibility, as I pointed out in the Political Beliefs thread.

    and as such it is an integral part of the TTBS or is there a TTBS without a consciousness?
    See, the consciousness is a byproduct of the limited nature of the TTBS. If we had a "perfect" TTBS, then there would be zero consciousness, just a brain tracking causes causing causes within itself. To have our consciousness, we need a TTBS that is just crappy enough, you see?

    What tells us that it is a side effect and not a wanted main effect?
    Because the primary characteristics of consciousness can be predicted and recreated if we see that there is such a thing as TTBS (i.e. metacognition) and that it operates under conditions of informatic asymmetry with respect to the rest of the brain.

    Otherwise, there is no evidence for consciousness as a "main effect" besides our intuitions, and the theory explains those as well. And theories are generally judged by their ability to make correct predictions and explain observables...

    What is a TTBS good for without a consciousness? Why track something that produces predictable results?
    TTBS just tracks the brain...

    Consciousness is good for nothing per se, it's a side effect.

    Why track something that produces predictable results? Oh, well, economics and weather, those are predictable results, nothing to track there, just grasp the answers immediately somehow. Just because a complex system is predictable in theory doesn't mean predictions can be made about it with zero resources. Again, we are not God.
    Last edited by Montmorency; 12-11-2013 at 18:55.
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



  11. #41
    The Black Senior Member Papewaio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    15,677

    Default Re: The "Blind Brain Theory of Consciousness" and the Consequences of Eliminativism

    "Given the developmental gradient of evolution, we can presume a gradual increase in capacity, with the selection of more comprehensive sourcing and greater processing power culminating in the consciousness we possess today."

    Incorrect definitions in this paragraph. I'm sure if actual biologists, neuroscientists and computer scientists picked apart this they would find a few more gems.

    Evolution isn't a gradient nor necessarily gradual nor forwards for that matter. It is survival of the fittest.

    So one cannot presume a gradual increase in capacity and we have our Neanderthals to show another branch with a larger brain capacity that did not survive.

    He then assumes that it is the greater capacity that has resulted in our consciousness we have today. Unfortunately given his incorrect definition of how evolution works and his assumption of our own growing capacity one cannot also assume that his idea is correct. It might be, but not based on the ideas touted in that paragraph.

    It doesn't get any better latter as he assumes that software is 1:1 bound to hardware

    "And then there’s its relation to its object. Where the brain, thanks to locomotion, possesses a variable relationship to its external environment, allowing it to selectively access information, the RS is quite literally hardwired to the greater, nonconscious brain. Its information access is a function of its structural integration, and is therefore fixed to the degree that its structure is fixed. The RS must transform its structure, in other words, to attenuate its access."

    Let's answer this from a computer point of view. There are plenty of computers in the world that can run multiple OS and they can all have different hardware yet we can use the same applications on them to make sense of the world.

    Hardware Abstraction Layer (HAL) and its ilk essentially separate hardware from software. So yes there will be a minimum requirement to run a game for instance but some games also have a maximum hardware restriction is Fallout can't handle too many hardware cores and needs to run in an emulator restricting core access on my PC or it will be over loaded.

    So to say the RS is fixed to its brain structure is false. For instance an app can run on an iPhone or an Android or that you can run a Commodore 64 within a phone.

    Also ones brain can possess a variable relationship with its environment regardless of locomotion or not. Just sit in a corner of a room and look. Now look for red objects, then blue then yellow. Your perception of the room has just changed sans locomotion. Yes you can selective filter information, you can for instance filter the universes mysteries from a wheelchair. Locomotion is a simple method of changing perspective and the most literal, it is neither the only one nor is it a factual statement rigorous enough to state that the RS app is fixed into its brain hardware.
    Our genes maybe in the basement but it does not stop us chosing our point of view from the top.
    Quote Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
    Pape for global overlord!!
    Quote Originally Posted by English assassin
    Squid sources report that scientists taste "sort of like chicken"
    Quote Originally Posted by frogbeastegg View Post
    The rest is either as average as advertised or, in the case of the missionary, disappointing.

  12. #42

    Default Re: The "Blind Brain Theory of Consciousness" and the Consequences of Eliminativism

    Given the developmental gradient of evolution, we can presume a gradual increase in capacity, with the selection of more comprehensive sourcing and greater processing power culminating in the consciousness we possess today.
    It seems clear to me that he's saying that the gradient of our evolution was pretty uniformly from less to more, in that we did not oscillate back and forth in 'degree of consciousness', which is a perfectly reasonable assumption. Why assume, for instance, that homo habilis had less consciousness than homo erectus? Also, this means that we assume the evolution of consciousness-producing systems to have been somewhat gradual over a few million or hundreds of thousands of years, rather than a saltational development specific to homo sapiens plus maybe some other later hominins.

    It doesn't get any better latter as he assumes that software is 1:1 bound to hardware
    You assume that "software" and "hardware" analogize well to brains.

    So to say the RS is fixed to its brain structure is false. For instance an app can run on an iPhone or an Android or that you can run a Commodore 64 within a phone.
    So you're saying that, because computers work one way, brains must work the same way? I can't accept that by any means. And to say that the RS is not fixed to brain structure is nonsense because the RS is just more brain structure - it just subserves a different sort of function.

    Also ones brain can possess a variable relationship with its environment regardless of locomotion or not. Just sit in a corner of a room and look. Now look for red objects, then blue then yellow. Your perception of the room has just changed sans locomotion. Yes you can selective filter information, you can for instance filter the universes mysteries from a wheelchair. Locomotion is a simple method of changing perspective and the most literal, it is neither the only one nor is it a factual statement rigorous enough to state that the RS app is fixed into its brain hardware.
    The idea is simple enough:

    1. In one spatial position, the brain receives one set of sensory information - this is obviously an oversimplification, but an illustrative one.
    2. If the body moves to another spatial position, the brain has access to a new set of sensory information.
    3. The RS, being made up of some neurons, gets only information from other neurons with which it is synaptically integrated.
    4. While it is a matter of future empirical inquiry the extent to which RS connections are stable - recalling that some connections can last for years, or even lifetimes, substantially unchanged - it is already pretty clear that the structure of such an RS would perforce circumscribe the variability and extent of its access to the larger brain, meaning practically, as Bakker says, that the RS only "gets what it gets".

    RS app


    If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail, and so on and so forth.
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



  13. #43
    Master of useless knowledge Senior Member Kitten Shooting Champion, Eskiv Champion Ironside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,902

    Default Re: The "Blind Brain Theory of Consciousness" and the Consequences of Eliminativism

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    Those parts of the brain that are involved in processing sensory information, i.e. external environments (with the rest of the body counting as external in at least some sense).
    But then things get more complicated. For example, eyesight have 5 different centers iirc. Only the first one is directly dealing with sensory information, while the last ones are sending data that reaches the conciousness.

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    The same moment?
    Yes. It's evident in sports or any meassurement of reaction times. Even something very simple, like running when the gun is shot, it won't happen until it reaches conciousness. The conciousness lag is the reason why we see them stand still for a moment before they react.

    Reflex systems are faster. Pre-conciousness systems are faster (that's why people who sees the number 6 as yellow will find the black 6 as fast as a normal person sees a yelllow 6. The coloration occurs pre-conciously).
    Outside reflex responses, things never happens faster than the time it takes for something to reach conciousness.

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    No, I haven't. The point is that there is no central executive, per se. Why? And why does there need to be a "choice", whatever that is? There are no alternatives, only straightforward processes culminating in a single ineluctable result.
    You've never had conflict of intererest in your mind? TTBS A says we should do one thing, TTBS B says we should do another. TTBS omega decides that TTBS A is better for this moment. Now TTBS omega isn't a singular structure, but the combination of the TTBS:s interested in the matter.

    The choise, so to speak, hasn't to do unpredictabillity. It has to with the hundreds of choises each input and previous information gives us. And since we can have multiple sources of input at the same time... A computer doesn't have the option of "1+1= oh that music is great, let's dance". To culminate in a single ineluctable result, the combined might of all TTBS needs to be processed. The conciousness is the combined might of all TTBS.

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    That's not 'you choosing to focus on it', that's conscious awareness receiving information that something else is being focused on, and TTBS qua consciousness then outputs information to the rest of the brain along the lines of TTBS being the origin of this process, and the cycle goes on...
    I was more thinking that those actions are ran by a single agent or TTBS, but can be changed or ran by the whole TTBS structure, if the TTBS culminate in a single ineluctable result.

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    Bakker actually mentions that it's perfectly possible for us to evolve more consciousness or less of it over time (assuming we don't directly intervene to speed things up). Therefore, he supposes, it is likely that our hominid ancestors had some sort of very murky "consciousness", and that it's possible that other animals have a murkier one still ATM. I'm not sure if its in the OP essay or some other writing, but he does acknowledge this. Though I don't suppose something like, say, a dog has many or maybe even any systems for TTBS. But that's an empirical matter, so we can leave it at this.
    An animal certainly has something. They do have the same TTBS on sight as us for example. Or are we up to TTBS on the TTBS yet? It may not reach more than a child when peaking, but a child is certainly concious.
    We are all aware that the senses can be deceived, the eyes fooled. But how can we be sure our senses are not being deceived at any particular time, or even all the time? Might I just be a brain in a tank somewhere, tricked all my life into believing in the events of this world by some insane computer? And does my life gain or lose meaning based on my reaction to such solipsism?

    Project PYRRHO, Specimen 46, Vat 7
    Activity Recorded M.Y. 2302.22467
    TERMINATION OF SPECIMEN ADVISED

    Member thankful for this post:

    Husar 


  14. #44

    Default Re: The "Blind Brain Theory of Consciousness" and the Consequences of Eliminativism

    But then things get more complicated. For example, eyesight have 5 different centers iirc. Only the first one is directly dealing with sensory information, while the last ones are sending data that reaches the conciousness.
    My impression is that all of these centers deal with the sensory data directly, but the last one(s) - the primary visual cortices - then send information to the cognitive-processing centers, at least some of which will be distinct from TTBS (though perhaps there's a higher concentration of TTBS in the frontal lobe relative to other parts of the brain, but that's a research question and I can't address it).

    Yes. It's evident in sports or any meassurement of reaction times. Even something very simple, like running when the gun is shot, it won't happen until it reaches conciousness. The conciousness lag is the reason why we see them stand still for a moment before they react.

    Reflex systems are faster. Pre-conciousness systems are faster (that's why people who sees the number 6 as yellow will find the black 6 as fast as a normal person sees a yelllow 6. The coloration occurs pre-conciously).
    Outside reflex responses, things never happens faster than the time it takes for something to reach conciousness.
    You've made a mistake. There is no difference between consciousness-systems and reflex-systems such as you lay out. In your example, what we see is the difference between cerebral processing and spinal-cord processing. Of course the latter is faster than the former: that's the utility of it. The former is slower because it will by definition be slower, consciousness or no consciousness - there's more distance to travel, more stages to pass through. This is no surprise, and has nothing to do with consciousness or TTBS.

    You've never had conflict of intererest in your mind?
    We simply cannot use our own metacognitive intuitions in investigating metacognition; it's like using a suspect as a witness at his own trial.

    TTBS A says we should do one thing, TTBS B says we should do another.

    [...]

    To culminate in a single ineluctable result, the combined might of all TTBS needs to be processed. The conciousness is the combined might of all TTBS.
    To be clear: it is not self-evident that the TTBS is primarily, or even substantially, involved in so-called executive function. Don't conflate TTBS with some ultimate 'sorter and decision-maker'. And there is no need to say that the TTB systems act as an aggregate - they could well be functionally independent, each processing their own inputs and dumping their own outputs into the rest of the brain.

    I was more thinking that those actions are ran by a single agent or TTBS, but can be changed or ran by the whole TTBS structure, if the TTBS culminate in a single ineluctable result.
    Single ineluctable result formula: Stimulus-set X over time-period Y mediated through brain cells of a given structure and composition A can and will produce only one result (e.g. a particular motor response). Now, if you keep X and Y constant and repeat them, you will get various results, but in each case there will be "one ineluctable result". There, the difference is that the configuration of neurons, synapses, chemicals, and so on has changed from A to A', or A'', or A''', or whatever.

    They do have the same TTBS on sight as us for example.
    Hmm... I would need to hear more detail.
    Last edited by Montmorency; 12-12-2013 at 00:20.
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



  15. #45
    Sovereign Oppressor Member TIE Fighter Shooter Champion, Turkey Shoot Champion, Juggler Champion Kralizec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    5,812

    Default Re: The "Blind Brain Theory of Consciousness" and the Consequences of Eliminativism

    I've skimmed bits of it and some of it reminds me of a book about psychiatry and heuristics (in the context of mental disorders) for a minor in university. I didn't read most of it, didn't understand all that I read and remember even less of it now. I still passed the exam (it was not the only book on the list, and it probably was the least relevant one anyway)

    I'll read the wall of text tomorrow. Consider it a personal favor

  16. #46
    Master of useless knowledge Senior Member Kitten Shooting Champion, Eskiv Champion Ironside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,902

    Default Re: The "Blind Brain Theory of Consciousness" and the Consequences of Eliminativism

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    My impression is that all of these centers deal with the sensory data directly, but the last one(s) - the primary visual cortices - then send information to the cognitive-processing centers, at least some of which will be distinct from TTBS (though perhaps there's a higher concentration of TTBS in the frontal lobe relative to other parts of the brain, but that's a research question and I can't address it).
    Each center deals with data from the primary center. If that's broken, you're blind full stop. If any other center is broken, then you still have some kind of sight, from blind-sight, to inabillity to regnoise objects by sight even if you can accuratly describe it's structure, loosing the perception of (most common) left, percieving movement flashing disco style.
    Or does that still count as direct processing?

    It has to be more TTBS in the frontal lobe. Advanced conciousness is supposed to be very human aren't it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    You've made a mistake. There is no difference between consciousness-systems and reflex-systems such as you lay out. In your example, what we see is the difference between cerebral processing and spinal-cord processing. Of course the latter is faster than the former: that's the utility of it. The former is slower because it will by definition be slower, consciousness or no consciousness - there's more distance to travel, more stages to pass through. This is no surprise, and has nothing to do with consciousness or TTBS.
    I got a bit of track. We got the abillity to train reflexes, creating moves that's faster than concious thought, but I don't know were its stored.
    The point was that outside reflexes, we don't acter faster than our concious thought. The speed of TTBS can't be slower than the concious obviously. And it never shows to act faster.

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    We simply cannot use our own metacognitive intuitions in investigating metacognition; it's like using a suspect as a witness at his own trial.
    We can observe that when we experience a conflicted mind, our bodies tends to freeze since it doesn't know what singular action to do. A split-brain person tends to do 2 things at the same time instead.

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    To be clear: it is not self-evident that the TTBS is primarily, or even substantially, involved in so-called executive function. Don't conflate TTBS with some ultimate 'sorter and decision-maker'. And there is no need to say that the TTB systems act as an aggregate - they could well be functionally independent, each processing their own inputs and dumping their own outputs into the rest of the brain.
    But we act in a congregated manner. One mind so to speak. A split-brain person does not always do that, but can literary have that one side doesn't know what the other sided is doing. Each TTBS contributes their own data. But to have a singular decision, you'll need an aggregate of some form.

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    Single ineluctable result formula: Stimulus-set X over time-period Y mediated through brain cells of a given structure and composition A can and will produce only one result (e.g. a particular motor response). Now, if you keep X and Y constant and repeat them, you will get various results, but in each case there will be "one ineluctable result". There, the difference is that the configuration of neurons, synapses, chemicals, and so on has changed from A to A', or A'', or A''', or whatever.
    That's a monlithic structure. We have a scatterbrain structure that gives monlithic answers. So we need something that enables that transition.

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    Hmm... I would need to hear more detail.
    Not much. We share the same centers for sight as they do.
    We are all aware that the senses can be deceived, the eyes fooled. But how can we be sure our senses are not being deceived at any particular time, or even all the time? Might I just be a brain in a tank somewhere, tricked all my life into believing in the events of this world by some insane computer? And does my life gain or lose meaning based on my reaction to such solipsism?

    Project PYRRHO, Specimen 46, Vat 7
    Activity Recorded M.Y. 2302.22467
    TERMINATION OF SPECIMEN ADVISED

  17. #47
    The Black Senior Member Papewaio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    15,677

    Default Re: The "Blind Brain Theory of Consciousness" and the Consequences of Eliminativism

    "So you're saying that, because computers work one way, brains must work the same way? I can't accept that by any means. And to say that the RS is not fixed to brain structure is nonsense because the RS is just more brain structure - it just subserves a different sort of function."

    Can you point to an RS structure?

    Otherwise its proably not unique to humans.

    Also when I say something isn't fixed to structure consider learning something and then the brain is damaged you relearn it in another part of the brain. It isn't fixed to a particular set of neurons it is how sets of neurons act that learned actions linked to.

    RS is probably linked to survival. If you can't differentiate yourself from the predator you ain't going to avoid them.
    Our genes maybe in the basement but it does not stop us chosing our point of view from the top.
    Quote Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
    Pape for global overlord!!
    Quote Originally Posted by English assassin
    Squid sources report that scientists taste "sort of like chicken"
    Quote Originally Posted by frogbeastegg View Post
    The rest is either as average as advertised or, in the case of the missionary, disappointing.

  18. #48

    Default Re: The "Blind Brain Theory of Consciousness" and the Consequences of Eliminativism

    Quote Originally Posted by Ironside
    Each center deals with data from the primary center. If that's broken, you're blind full stop. If any other center is broken, then you still have some kind of sight, from blind-sight, to inabillity to regnoise objects by sight even if you can accuratly describe it's structure, loosing the perception of (most common) left, percieving movement flashing disco style.
    Or does that still count as direct processing?
    I don't think that's quite right. As I recall it, each 'visual area' processes the visual data in it's own way (e.g. to arrange "brightness"), at which point there is some lateral integration by neighboring structures not strictly related to vision, and then eventually the data gets to the primary visual cortices, where it is organized in something like the somatosensory map, and then passed on in some form to centers of higher cognition, memory, etc. For instance, damage to a primary visual cortex (which need not be all-or-nothing) would cause the perception of blindness in those parts of the visual field that find representation in the damaged part of the cortex - while still allowing for "Blindsight" due to the processing of the visual information at multiple intact regions of the brain. Tell you what - I've got an introductory Neuroscience textbook from high school , and I'll take a look at the vision chapter and recap how it bears on this point later on.

    It has to be more TTBS in the frontal lobe. Advanced conciousness is supposed to be very human aren't it?
    Not necessarily. And even if it is, it wouldn't mean that "executive function" is tied up with the same, as you're maintaining.

    I got a bit of track. We got the abillity to train reflexes, creating moves that's faster than concious thought, but I don't know were its stored.
    The point was that outside reflexes, we don't acter faster than our concious thought. The speed of TTBS can't be slower than the concious obviously. And it never shows to act faster.
    The cerebellum I guess. We do act faster than our conscious thought, as evidenced by people 'doing something before they even realize they have done it' - you hear about that all the time. It's not reflex/ spinal-cord processing so much as the TTBS being bypassed in favor of quicker action. So, there's a range of speeds at which we can go from stimulus to motor response. Think about this: when you panic, various parts of the brain lower the intensity of their activity, so that maybe memory, digestion, somatic perception, TTBS, complex planning, etc. are suppressed while other areas get boosted. So in sum, if for example the guy in the bar pulls out a gun, TTBS for say 1.5 seconds gets no information and submits no information, and perceptually that presents as you suddenly realizing that you must have knocked the gun out of the man's hand. Roughly then, from slowest to fastest: normal function > TTBS (and more) bypassed > "trained" cerebellar response (which, say, a soldier might activate in a tight spot, allowing him to act appropriately despite not using higher cognition) > spinal reflex (the simplest example being the knee-extension reflex)

    But we act in a congregated manner. One mind so to speak.
    I didn't include it in the OP, but here's the Unity of Mind part of the essay:

    Quote Originally Posted by Bakker
    Traditionally, the question has been, ‘What device could turn 100 billion externally-related neurons into a singular, internally related whole?’ which is to say, a question of accomplishment. And yet, given that discontinuity requires discrimination, and discrimination requires information, the fact that consciousness appears unified, something internally related, immediately speaks to the lack of information. Expressed in these terms, the ‘problem of unity,’ from the accomplishment perspective, is the problem of manufacturing the lack of a certain kind of information.

    [...]

    But why should a sense of global, internally-related, conscious unity arise out of an inability to self-discriminate? Encapsulation entails sufficiency: the RS accesses comparatively little second-order information pertaining to the information it accesses: as a result, differentiations are ‘skin deep.’ The various modalities are collapsed into what seems to be an internally related whole.21

    21 This raises the interesting possibility that the ‘binding problem,’ the question of how the brain coordinates its activities in response to a cohesive world given the variable speeds with which different perceptual information is processed, is altogether separate from the question of the unity of consciousness.
    Perhaps our sense of externally-related multiplicities is environmentally derived, a learned and evolved product of our ability to ‘wade into’ the (externally-related) multiplicities that comprise our proximate world. Consider the distal world, the long intellectual labour required to see the stars as externally-related multiplicities. Access invariance, along with apparent relational invariance between stars, convinced a good number of our ancestors that the stars were anything but discrete, disconnected objects hanging in empty space. Much the same could be said of the conscious brain. Restricted to invariant ‘channels,’ unable to wade into and interact with the vast informatic cosmos of the greater brain, it quite simply has no access to the information it needs to discern its myriad discontinuities. External-relations are flattened into internal relations; the boggling modular, let alone neural, multiplicity is blurred into the holistic haze of phenomenal experience, and we are stranded with a profound sense of unity, one that corresponds to nothing more than the contingent integration of information in our conscious brain.
    Twirling batons blur into wheels. Numerous shouts melt into singular roars. Or as Bacon writes of ignorance: “all colours will agree in the dark” (1985, p.69). Experience is filled with instances of what might be called ‘default unity,’ events drained of complexity for the simple want of resolution—information. You could say reflecting on consciousness is like watching a nation-spanning mob from high-earth orbit: the simple inability to discriminate leaves us ‘assuming,’ ‘feeling,’ a unitary consciousness we quite literally don’t have.
    I appreciate how naive or even preposterous this must sound prima facie. The thing to recall is that we are talking about the way consciousness appears. The question really is quite simple: What information is available to the RS? Information regarding the neural sourcing of available information? Of course not. Information regarding the external-related causal complexities that deliver and process available information? Of course not. Given that the RS is responsible for consciousness, it stands to reason that consciousness will be blind to its neural sourcing and biomechanical complexity. That what it intuits will be a kind of compression heuristic, an informatically parochial and impoverished making due. And this brings us to the tantalizing edge of conscious unity: “There is a great difference between mind and body,” Descartes writes, “in that the body, by its nature, is always divisible and that the mind is entirely indivisible” (1968, p. 164). Is it merely a coincidence that this ‘great difference,’ even as Descartes conceives it, happens to be informatic?
    Once again, the real mystery is why the RS should turn the absence of information into the intuition or assumption of ‘default identity.’ It’s important to realize, however, that the only thing new about this particular mystery is the context BBT provides it. Researchers in psychophysics, for instance, presume ‘default identity’ all the time. Consider the way visual, auditory, and tactile processing ‘blurs’ stimuli together when the information presented exceeds certain thresholds. Below certain intervals, what are in fact multiple stimuli are perceived as singular. One might think of this in terms of filters, beginning with our sensory apparatus and ending at the RS, where the capacities of given neural systems ‘compress’ differences into identities and so strip incoming information of ‘functional redundancies,’ which is to say, information not required for effective action.

    [...]

    Fusion or coincidence thresholds demonstrate the way informatic capacity constraints find phenomenal expression as default identity. Conscious unity, BBT suggests, is simply a global example of this selfsame effect, ‘fusion writ large,’ given the limits on recursive availability confronting the RS. Like the now and personal identity, the misapprehension of unity is simply a structural side-effect of being conscious in the first place.

    [...]

    What could make the experience of unity come into existence? BBT answers, nothing. Conscious unity is every bit as illusory as mistaking an incessant flicker for single abiding light.
    Also: the existence of synesthesia suggests that sensory processing is not so discrete anyway.

    That's a monlithic structure. We have a scatterbrain structure that gives monlithic answers. So we need something that enables that transition.
    In other words, why does a complex and modular brain usually give rise to a single coherent motor plan or motor response?

    Well, perhaps the "scatter-brain" (i.e. several and structurally-discrete) centers of planning, motor response, and higher-cognition overall, might process some new data, output preliminary conclusions that are sent throughout the other relevant regions, multiple-order meta-information is processed, and soon enough non-conflicting information is fed into the motor cortices/centers such that a simple or complex motor sequence is initiated and maintained, causing corresponding muscle action - that's my sketch.

    Not much. We share the same centers for sight as they do.
    Hold on now. Just because we share the same general structures doesn't mean the internal composition at a granular level will be identical. Obviously, a dog's kidney or testes is not just like a human's kidney or testes in all respects other than scale.


    @ Pape: That's like saying nothing in the brain is fixed because in theory almost any function can be recovered, reassigned, or what-have-you, if the need arises. The problem with this: certainly, the brain is not some sort of amorphous swirling chaotic tangled mass, and after adolescence barring some trauma the general structure is pretty well fixed. And it's not just "how neurons act", as there are thousands of different neuron-types in the human brain, many still unknown to us or at least not well-known. Finally, it is likely not well understood how the recovery/reassignment of RS-functions proceeds compared to others (i.e. those of 'regular' cognition); maybe there's even a broad continuum, with damage to most parts of the RS being more permanent than to non-RS parts, but also variable even within their category. Don't forget that this theory only attempts to explain the "appearance" of consciousness, i.e. its fundamental character, and not the structural and functional details of the RS that gives rise to it. That's why I said earlier that this theory has only - but strong - circumstantial evidence, and that research is needed to ascertain whether it should be kept/adopted, and if so how it should be modified.

    I have partial left-homonymous hemianopia myself, from damage related to the stroke, and while I've never been tested for the "Blind-sight" Ironside mentioned, and can't say either way with regard to experiencing it, here's an interesting side-note with respect to brain repair and plasticity: for about a month after 'regaining consciousness', I had absolutely no visual perception in my right-nasal and left-temporal hemispheres (of the visual field). Then, all of a sudden, the bottom half of those hemispheres "cleared up", so to speak. In the years since, the blotted/affected area of my visual field has gradually, if infinitesimally, cleared up as well, so that no more than 1/6 of my visual field can be considered lost ATM, of perhaps up to 1/3 post-morbid. (Keep in mind that the right-nasal hemisphere can be compensated for at least in part by the left-nasal hemisphere, since they overlap.)
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



  19. #49

    Default Re: The "Blind Brain Theory of Consciousness" and the Consequences of Eliminativism

    Aphorism of the Thread:

    Philosophy - the result of one making it their life's-work to undermine someone else's life's-work.
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



  20. #50
    Iron Fist Senior Member Husar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    15,617

    Default Re: The "Blind Brain Theory of Consciousness" and the Consequences of Eliminativism

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    Aphorism of the Thread:

    Philosophy - the result of one making it their life's-work to undermine someone else's life's-work.
    Yeah, but Bakker is still wrong and as a philosopher he seems to lack some knowledge about how brains really work so he made up his own theories, assuming that causes can be entirely derived from observations. Take this for example:

    Quote Originally Posted by Bakker
    Perhaps our sense of externally-related multiplicities is environmentally derived, a learned and evolved product of our ability to ‘wade into’ the (externally-related) multiplicities that comprise our proximate world. Consider the distal world, the long intellectual labour required to see the stars as externally-related multiplicities. Access invariance, along with apparent relational invariance between stars, convinced a good number of our ancestors that the stars were anything but discrete, disconnected objects hanging in empty space.
    It's entirely written in Klingon even though I got what he means now, but his way of writing is horribly complicated at times to mask that he really has no idea what he is talking about. A blind brain indeed.


    "Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu

    Member thankful for this post:



  21. #51

    Default Re: The "Blind Brain Theory of Consciousness" and the Consequences of Eliminativism

    Care to point out some specific examples of his lack of knowledge? That's just an instance of you disliking his analogy (which you don't explain either, besides it being difficult for you to grasp), and not an example of his ignorance of brain research.

    Bakker is still wrong
    I'm really just getting the impression that you're saying that because you dislike the form and content of his writing; instead of knee-jerkily dismissing him as incorrect, acknowledge that this is at the minumum an important possibility.
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



  22. #52
    Iron Fist Senior Member Husar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    15,617

    Default Re: The "Blind Brain Theory of Consciousness" and the Consequences of Eliminativism

    Hey, it's my theory and it perfectly fits with everything in his posts so it's valid until you prove it is not.

    In all honesty I can see some points for the theory but I still find it has some weaknesses but

    1. others seem to make better arguments against it.
    2. I simply don't have the time to get into it, I had 2/3rds of a reply a few days ago with links and all but when I noticed it took me 1.5 hours to come up with it I deleted it and decided I should rather focus on university and work instead. Or maybe it was my brain letting my conscious know what it had inevitably come to conclude given it's linear nature and the input variables.


    "Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu

  23. #53

    Default Re: The "Blind Brain Theory of Consciousness" and the Consequences of Eliminativism

    Hey, it's my theory and it perfectly fits with everything in his posts so it's valid until you prove it is not.
    In other words, you don't think I deflected your criticisms? Be specific.

    1. others seem to make better arguments against it.
    What are the problems with my counters to their arguments?

    Clearly, I'm prepared to invest more time into this than you, but I nevertheless demand rigor.
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



  24. #54
    Master of useless knowledge Senior Member Kitten Shooting Champion, Eskiv Champion Ironside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,902

    Default Re: The "Blind Brain Theory of Consciousness" and the Consequences of Eliminativism

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    I don't think that's quite right. As I recall it, each 'visual area' processes the visual data in it's own way (e.g. to arrange "brightness"), at which point there is some lateral integration by neighboring structures not strictly related to vision, and then eventually the data gets to the primary visual cortices, where it is organized in something like the somatosensory map, and then passed on in some form to centers of higher cognition, memory, etc. For instance, damage to a primary visual cortex (which need not be all-or-nothing) would cause the perception of blindness in those parts of the visual field that find representation in the damaged part of the cortex - while still allowing for "Blindsight" due to the processing of the visual information at multiple intact regions of the brain. Tell you what - I've got an introductory Neuroscience textbook from high school , and I'll take a look at the vision chapter and recap how it bears on this point later on.
    Would be nice, it's been years since I red something more focused on it and don't have any books about it at home. What you describe isn't impossible, but then the brain is used to cheat together a coherence like covering up for the blind spot, for example. As long as any information reaches the brain, it can make a guess.

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    The cerebellum I guess. We do act faster than our conscious thought, as evidenced by people 'doing something before they even realize they have done it' - you hear about that all the time. It's not reflex/ spinal-cord processing so much as the TTBS being bypassed in favor of quicker action. So, there's a range of speeds at which we can go from stimulus to motor response. Think about this: when you panic, various parts of the brain lower the intensity of their activity, so that maybe memory, digestion, somatic perception, TTBS, complex planning, etc. are suppressed while other areas get boosted. So in sum, if for example the guy in the bar pulls out a gun, TTBS for say 1.5 seconds gets no information and submits no information, and perceptually that presents as you suddenly realizing that you must have knocked the gun out of the man's hand. Roughly then, from slowest to fastest: normal function > TTBS (and more) bypassed > "trained" cerebellar response (which, say, a soldier might activate in a tight spot, allowing him to act appropriately despite not using higher cognition) > spinal reflex (the simplest example being the knee-extension reflex)
    I'm going to agree here and say that there's several levels of information routes, while textbooks only talk about two. It would be nice if they had data on the differences between those responses.
    It could also possibly make it possible to differ between knocking the gun away or react to the starting shot for a runner. Or a trained reflex (say to start running when hearing a starting shot).
    The relation to conciousness depends. Option A is as you said. Option B is that a very simple concous thought needs to be applied first. I agree that the reflective conciousness is out of the picture at that moment.

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    I didn't include it in the OP, but here's the Unity of Mind part of the essay:
    Ugh, I'm impressed that you endured that writing. He missed the point of writing being communication.
    Let see now. We get a tiny amount of information, like stars in the sky. Fine. We see those far away so the blur effect makes it one whole. Uhuh. We don't get enough information to see the differences from the sources.

    Unity occurs because there's not enough resources to do anything else. I'm not necessarly disagreeing with him, but bodily unity is noted and vital. That you have a unity of the mind is needed to have unity of the body is observable in the cases where that isn't achieved. But of course it's a coincidence that the mind is formed in exactly the only efficient way.

    You expand on it below, but you'll notice that he doesn't answer why the body response is of one mind. Evidently this illusion is strong enough to act as reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    Also: the existence of synesthesia suggests that sensory processing is not so discrete anyway.
    Depends on what you mean by discrete. Memory and concept regonition is a vital part of sensory processing. Synesthesia only proves that it happens twice. One for identification and the second on what to with it. For example snakes probably has a shortcut, that explains the quicker response time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    In other words, why does a complex and modular brain usually give rise to a single coherent motor plan or motor response?

    Well, perhaps the "scatter-brain" (i.e. several and structurally-discrete) centers of planning, motor response, and higher-cognition overall, might process some new data, output preliminary conclusions that are sent throughout the other relevant regions, multiple-order meta-information is processed, and soon enough non-conflicting information is fed into the motor cortices/centers such that a simple or complex motor sequence is initiated and maintained, causing corresponding muscle action - that's my sketch.
    At the same time, an illusion is sent to the conciousness prentending that this was a response to illusionary thoughts (the answer was already done). That's quite a bit of extra maintenance for a side effect.

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    Hold on now. Just because we share the same general structures doesn't mean the internal composition at a granular level will be identical. Obviously, a dog's kidney or testes is not just like a human's kidney or testes in all respects other than scale.
    Nah, but they certainly share the basics. That a human conciousness seems to exist in all and none of the TTBS is a point in your favour though.
    We are all aware that the senses can be deceived, the eyes fooled. But how can we be sure our senses are not being deceived at any particular time, or even all the time? Might I just be a brain in a tank somewhere, tricked all my life into believing in the events of this world by some insane computer? And does my life gain or lose meaning based on my reaction to such solipsism?

    Project PYRRHO, Specimen 46, Vat 7
    Activity Recorded M.Y. 2302.22467
    TERMINATION OF SPECIMEN ADVISED

  25. #55

    Default Re: The "Blind Brain Theory of Consciousness" and the Consequences of Eliminativism

    but you'll notice that he doesn't answer why the body response is of one mind.
    Maybe he thinks it's not significant enough to address, or maybe I missed something. Feel free to contact the guy if you think paying it note would improve his theory, as he's putting together a book on this theory.

    Ugh, I'm impressed that you endured that writing. He missed the point of writing being communication.
    Trust me in that his pure philosophy is much worse in this respect; it's super-academic and rarefied. His fiction writing is surprisingly beautiful, though.

    Depends on what you mean by discrete.
    As in, it shows that one way or another, there is overlap between sensory modalities, whether in the first-order processing or in how info about them reaches TTBS.

    At the same time, an illusion is sent to the conciousness prentending that this was a response to illusionary thoughts (the answer was already done). That's quite a bit of extra maintenance for a side effect.
    Well, remember, no "illusion" is "sent" anywhere; the "illusion" is supposed to be the sort of thing that arises automatically out of getting a little bit of information, but not enough, and definitely not enough on the sources of that information.

    Vision:

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    *Light hits the retina and activates/deactivates retinal ganglion cells according to their distribution, sending signals along the optic nerve

    *Most axons of the optic nerves terminate in the lateral geniculate nucleus and the superior colliculus, in the thalamus; superior colliculus helps coordinate rapid eye movements toward a target

    *Optic radiations from these structures arrive at the striate cortices (i.e. V1, or the primary visual cortices), where "most" visual information eventually reaches

    *The distribution of neurons in the V1 represents a topographic map corresponding to the distribution of retinal cells, which cluster most heavily around the fovea (i.e. retinoptic mapping)

    *The V1 works in parallel with other parts of the brain (i.e. extrastriate cortex) to process form, color, location, movement, etc.

    *The extrastriate regions also project a map of the retina

    *The human V1 is located in a different anatomic position than the monkey V1.

    *Gaps in the visual field (perceptually) are called scotoma and can be predicted based on information pertaining to which part of the visual pathway is damaged; these gaps are not perceived as just dark patches, but rather places where nothing can be perceived at all, though there can be subconscious "blindsight" (c.f. "hemispatial neglect", which is neglect of the side opposite to an injured cerebral hemisphere).

    *Sensory cells have receptive fields that constitute a "stimulus region" and the places/features that excite or inhibit the cell

    *On-center bipolar cells in the retina are excited/deinhibited by light in the center of their receptive fields; for off-center bipolar cells, turning off light hitting the center of their receptive fields activates them
    *Bipolar cells behave oppositely to their adjacent neighbors, which are also arranged concentrically, and are connected to further ganglion cells of the same type that when activated report a binary "light or dark" to vision-centers in the brain through the optic nerves

    *The 6 layers of the LGN also have concentric receptive fields; the large-cell layers are not involved in color discrimination, while the small-cell layers are

    *The V1 does not respond to the same stimuli that activate the LGN cells that project into it; it needs more complex stimuli
    *V1 cells differentiate (in addition to the retinoptic mapping) by responding best to lines in particular orientations and positions
    *Some require movement of stimulus for optimal response; the motion must respond to the same criteria of orientation and position (i.e. direction)
    *The hierarchical model had it that simple cortical cells receive input from a number of LGN cells, and generate information based on the input and their criteria for activation; complex cortical cells receive input from a number of simple cortical cells and construct more-complex events from their input
    *However, the V1 is not hierarchical enough to account for all human object-recognition/construction in terms of the construction of complexity from increasingly-complex inputs, as there are not enough neurons or levels of neurons
    *The spatial-frequency filter model replaces the hierarchical model for patter-analysis/object-construction-recognition; something about Fourier analysis/linear-systems theory and application to both auditory and visual processing in terms of sine waves
    *Channels in the visual system for different spatial frequencies
    *This model would explain the ambiguity of the Mona Lisa expression (happy or sad?) thus:

    The foveal vision reports the high-frequency parts of the image. The Mona Lisa with low-frequency components filtered out looks sad (Google this). The peripheral vision can only detect low-frequency parts. The Mona Lisa with high-frequencies filtered out looks happy. Spatial-perceptual ambiguity creates artistic effect.

    *V1 neurons are also important to the perception of mental images; when you see an imaginary image, there is retinoptic activation of select parts of the V1 (e.g. small imaginary things show up in the imaginary foveal vision).
    *Repeated magnetic stimulation to V1 impairs formation of mental imagery

    *From V1, information travels to extrastriate (i.e. non-primary) parts of the visual cortex, including V2-5, which also receive some input from the LGN (though I'm not clear on whether this is exclusive input that doesn't make it directly to the V1)

    *There may in fact be dozens of distinct cortical areas (in addition to the V1) that deal directly with visual information/function, more areas than the number of basic attributes; only a few are being described in detail here
    *30% of the surface of the human cerebral cortex is largely or entirely devoted to the analysis of visual information

    *V2 is adjacent to V1 and responds to optical illusion more readily than V1

    *V4 receives axons from V2 and responds strongly to sinusoidal, concentric, and radial spatial-frequencies, as well as to differences in light wavelength
    *If V1, V2 deal with spatial frequencies, and the inferior temporal area deals with pattern and form, then the V4 may be intermediate in function between them

    *V5/Medial-temporal area is specialized for motion-perception

    *The inferior temporal area responds to specific complex forms, especially learned forms
    *Is not activated so much by faces; a part of the prefrontal cortex responds to faces and nothing else, and receives connections from the inferior temporal gyrus as well as the superior temporal sulcus

    *skip a few sections I deem superfluous at this point*

    *Most of the cortical visual areas are organized into two streams that originate in V1 (though there are many cross-connections between them)
    *The ventral stream identifies objects (what-stream) and the dorsal stream locates them (where-stream)
    *In the ventral stream, from the occipital to the frontal lobes, information about faces becomes "more specific"; representation of individual faces is more anterior, while general facial structure (and gender identification) is more posterior
    *Ataxia - damage to dorsal stream causes difficulty in moving towards objects and/or reaching to grasp them, but leaves identification intact; the opposite disorder has also been observed
    *The anterior dorsal stream merges with the primary motor cortex and includes neurons with dual visual-motor functions (known as mirror-neurons)
    *Mirror neurons in the premotor cortex may mediate the understanding of actions performed by other creatures, transforming visual information into knowledge that can be applied by the learning organism
    *Differences between monkey and human mirror-neurons include:

    Human mirror-neurons are activated by "meaningless movements" and monkey-neurons aren't. Human mirror-neurons break down movements into components while monkey-neurons only code the total movement.



    That's about as much as I care to write.
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



  26. #56
    Mr Self Important Senior Member Beskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Albion
    Posts
    15,930
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: The "Blind Brain Theory of Consciousness" and the Consequences of Eliminativism

    Quote Originally Posted by The Stranger View Post
    oh this is a freewill bashing thread, why didnt you say so?
    What is 'free will' ?

    Once you defined it, then you can ask it and get the appropriate answer for your definition.
    Last edited by Beskar; 12-17-2013 at 17:52.
    Days since the Apocalypse began
    "We are living in space-age times but there's too many of us thinking with stone-age minds" | How to spot a Humanist
    "Men of Quality do not fear Equality." | "Belief doesn't change facts. Facts, if you are reasonable, should change your beliefs."

  27. #57

    Default Re: The "Blind Brain Theory of Consciousness" and the Consequences of Eliminativism

    As best I can make out, the current research points to "layers" which may influence each other, but there is no reason to believe the subject (us) is consciously aware of the interaction.
    Free-will might simply be the illusion generated by a layer that is blithely unaware of the mechanism which forms its "choice".

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...iga-interview/
    Ja-mata TosaInu

    Member thankful for this post:



  28. #58

    Default Re: The "Blind Brain Theory of Consciousness" and the Consequences of Eliminativism

    You've gone too far this time!
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



  29. #59
    The Black Senior Member Papewaio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    15,677

    Default Re: The "Blind Brain Theory of Consciousness" and the Consequences of Eliminativism

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    You've gone too far this time!
    Are you consciously sure of this or was that a knee jerk reaction?

    I expect a convulted ten thousand word essay sans testable hypothesis in answer to my question.
    Our genes maybe in the basement but it does not stop us chosing our point of view from the top.
    Quote Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
    Pape for global overlord!!
    Quote Originally Posted by English assassin
    Squid sources report that scientists taste "sort of like chicken"
    Quote Originally Posted by frogbeastegg View Post
    The rest is either as average as advertised or, in the case of the missionary, disappointing.

  30. #60

    Default Re: The "Blind Brain Theory of Consciousness" and the Consequences of Eliminativism

    I'm referring to the elusive KurdishSpartacus, and you can easily test that claim, but, uh, I'm afraid you can't have access to the server's logs just now...
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO