Actually, forget my whole "theory." Since I couldn't find an article at the time, then I had to resort to my own personal explanation of things which didn't work out at all. Therefore, here is what I truly wish to talk about here:
I have heard Graziano say that awareness doesn't exist and that it is a simplified model of attention in the brain fooling you into thinking you are aware and are having actual experiences. But my question is, do awareness and actual experience exist by his very definition? In other words, isn't this simplified model of attention the actual awareness and experience itself? If that is so, then I think scientific materialism is still a valid worldview. If not and he is truly saying that experience and awareness are illusions and the brain fooling itself, then I am not so sure.
If he is saying that awareness and experience do not exist at all, then that doesn't make sense to me. When you perceive an optical illusion, that illusory perception is still information in the brain. If we were to take a look inside your brain, then we should find information of a perceived image that wasn't there in the physical world. This should also apply to awareness and experience itself. In other words, awareness and experience should also be information in the brain.
It should be that simplified model in the brain. To say that awareness and experience do not exist at all just doesn't make sense to me. He says that awareness and experience are mere concepts. But even concepts are information inside the brain. Therefore, awareness/experience and information in the brain are actually the same thing according to his theory. The brain just has a different way of looking at that information then. This different way of looking at it is what would yield awareness/experience.
It is no different than a situation where you have a clock. Looking at it from the front side, it goes clockwise. But looking at it from the back side, it goes counter clockwise. But the question is, does it go clockwise or counter clockwise? The answer here would be both. To see it going counter clockwise is just simply a different way of looking at the clock. This analogue would also apply to the physical stuff (neurons) in the brain and awareness/experience.
You can look at the brain as being nothing more than information. That is, nothing more than physical stuff. But a person would report to you how this information was awareness/experience for him/her. So the question is, is the brain nothing more than just information? Is the information nothing more than just physical stuff? Or is all that physical stuff (information) actual awareness and experience? The answer here would be both as well. To have awareness and experience is just simply a different way of looking at that information in the brain.
Also, my whole analogue with the clock makes me think whether this was nothing more than an analogue, or if there is actually some scientific connection here. I wonder if there is some actual science here that connects my analogue with awareness and experience. Maybe perhaps a new theory of consciousness can come from this. Or maybe it is nothing more than just an analogue. I lack the scientific knowledge to determine which is the case. But maybe someone who has a lot of scientific knowledge can make this determination.
Here is the video in which he explains:
I have also watched this video as well:
My question here is, if our experiences are nothing more than just some simplified inaccurate model that our brains construct, then why is it that experience is so powerful and profound to us? Why is it that we would prefer to have experiences of joy, meaning, and value in our lives over being a biological non-sentient machine? This, to me, implies that experience is something more than a mere simplified model. It must of had a greater reason for having come about through evolution.
My next question is, why isn't this simplified model in the brain just simply simplified information in the brain and nothing more? Why is it experience at all? Aren't we still at the hard problem here then? He attempts to explain how our brains construct our sense of experience, but doesn't this still need to be taken further into trying to explain how simplified models in the brain become experiences for us? Even if you take the idea that it is just information of having an experience, then why isn't that still just information?
Thirdly, why wouldn't a full accurate model also have awareness? Why is it that only the simplified model has awareness? If you can't get awareness from a full accurate model, then what makes you think that you can get awareness from a simplified inaccurate model? I would imagine that a full model of paying attention to something would bring full awareness.