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

[Montmorency]

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?

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.

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.