(January 21, 2023 at 2:00 am)Anomalocaris Wrote: i think the use of the word “channel” brings in colloquial meaning that is not necessarily appropriate. i think it is more reasonable to envision several parts of the brain that can all process visual signals and generate decisions and commands. not all of these necessarily communicate with the part of the brain which are responsible for subjective perception. The reason why the brain is wired this way is precisely because it was not designed, but evolved by taking advantage of opportunities afforded by mutation that frequently act by replicating genes and thus make available to the brain excess process mechanisms that is already partially adapted for previously existing functionality but which remain flexible enough to alter these pre-existing adaption to serve other needs.
Excellent post... that makes a lot of sense. And yeah I agree 'channel' was a poor choice of words and a bad analogy... better now I think would be an anology of layers, like layers in a paint program (if you're familiar with that function; you work on different parts of the image in different layers, say the background in one layer and the foreground in another, and can toggle each individual layer's visibility on and off... it's a cool feature) or layers of transparent projector film on top of each other... in that analogy the overall image (with 'image' here as a stand in for the whole of conscious experience) appears the same and complete at a superficial level, but that seeming integration - that leads to richer and richer detail as it were in the image - is more like independent overlays on top of each other; remove any layer and you'd notice it's loss in consciousness - probably taking it for granted beforehand, as much literature on brain damage seems to suggest - but together they appear to be a rich and integrated whole. That analogy would fit in well with what you're saying about the evolutionary side as well, I think.
