DOCSLIB.ORG

Theory of Mind and Darwints Legacy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Theory of Mind and Darwints Legacy Theory of mind and Darwin’s legacy John Searle1 Department of Philosophy, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720 Edited by Francisco J. Ayala, University of California, Irvine, CA, and approved April 30, 2013 (received for review February 15, 2013) We do not have an adequate theory of consciousness. Both dualism The Readiness Potential. Consciousness does exist, but it has very and materialism are mistaken because they deny consciousness is little importance because research on the readiness potential in part of the physical world. False claims include (i) behaviorism, (ii) the supplementary motor cortex shows that our actions are ini- computationalism, (iii) epiphenomenalism, (iv) the readiness poten- tiated before our becoming consciously aware of what we are tial, (v) subjectivity, and (vi) materialism. Ontological subjectivity doing. The brain decides to perform an action before the con- does not preclude epistemic objectivity. Observer relative phenom- scious mind can be aware of it (7). ena are created by consciousness, but consciousness is not itself observer relative. Consciousness consists of feeling, sentience, Objectivity and Subjectivity. Consciousness is not a suitable subject or awareness with (i) qualitativeness, (ii) ontological subjectivity, for serious scientific investigation; it is better left to theolo- (iii) unified conscious field, (iv) intentionality, and (v) intentional gians and philosophers. The reason is that science is by definition causation. All conscious states are caused by lower level neuro- objective, and consciousness is by definition subjective; there- biological processes in the brain, and they are realized in the brain fore, there cannot be a science of consciousness. This view is part as higher level features. Efforts to get a detailed scientific account of the oral tradition. When I was first interested in the neurobiol- of how brain processes cause consciousness are disappointing. The ogy of consciousness, I discussed the issue with several neurobio- Darwinian revolution gave us a new form of explanation; two logists, both in Europe and the United States. Several assured me levels were substituted: a causal level, where we specify the mech- that consciousness is not a suitable subject for serious scientific anism by which the phenotype functions, and a functional level, investigation because of its subjectivity. where we specify the selectional advantage that the phenotype provides. Sociobiology attempted to explain general features of Materialism. If consciousness is real, it must really be something human society, ethics, etc. It failed. For the incest taboo, it confu- else because the final inventory of the basic ontology of the ses inhibition with prohibition. It did not explain the moral force of world—an inventory that includes subatomic particles, gravity, the taboo. To explain the function of consciousness we cannot ask, electromagnetism, the weak and strong nuclear forces, and other “What would be subtracted if we subtracted consciousness but fundamental features of reality—is entirely material and so will left everything else the same?” We cannot leave everything else not include consciousness (8). the same because consciousness is necessary for higher functions I will argue that consciousness is a real biological phenomenon of human and animal life. The unified conscious field gives the in the same sense as photosynthesis or digestion, and that all six organism vastly increased power. of these views are more or less demonstrably false. However, that raises an interesting question: Why is there so much confusion objective/subjective | unconscious about consciousness? Why is it so hard for people to accept a naturalistic concep- have two objectives in this article: I want first to say something tion? We are the victims of two traditions that appear to be in- Iabout our current understanding of the nature of the mind, consistent with each other, but in fact they trade off on each particularly consciousness; and, secondly, I want to relate my other. One is the tradition of God, the soul, and immortality that account of the mind to Darwinian evolution. Many of the ideas says consciousness is not a part of the natural world. Con- in this article have appeared in preliminary form by me in various sciousness is not even a property of the body or the brain. On the fi books and articles; particularly significant are refs. 1–3. Cartesian view, it is a property of the soul and the soul is de - nitely not a part of the natural world. This thesis is why, inciden- The “Scandal” of Consciousness tally, Descartes (9) was forced to say that animals are not conscious Consciousness is something of a scandal because we do not have because all the animal has got is a body. For Descartes, our bodies an adequate neurobiological theory of consciousness, and there are not conscious, our brains are not conscious; only the soul is conscious. Now you might think that tradition is entirely dead, but are a rather large number of false claims made about it. Here, for fi a start, are half a dozen false claims made about consciousness in it is not. Arti cial intelligence (AI) in its strong AI version is an expression of the idea that the mind is not a part of the natural my intellectual lifetime. Several of these have been widespread world. One of the adherents of the strong AI view wrote that the and extremely influential. mind is something formal and abstract (10). The second tradition “ ” Behaviorism. Consciousness as traditionally construed does not is usually mistakenly described as materialism, and often its really exist, but rather there are just human and animal behaviors adherents simply deny that consciousness as qualitative, sub- jective states really exists. An extreme statement was given by and dispositions to behavior (4). John B. Watson, one of the founders of behaviorism: “...the time Computationalism (Strong Artificial Intelligence). Consciousness as such does not really exist but is rather a program or a set of computer programs running in the brain (5). This paper results from the Arthur M. Sackler Colloquium of the National Academy of Sciences, “In the Light of Evolution VII: The Human Mental Machinery,” held January 10–12, 2013, at the Arnold and Mabel Beckman Center of the National Academies of Epiphenomenalism. Consciousness does exist, but it cannot have Sciences and Engineering in Irvine, CA. The complete program and audio files of most any real effect on the world because it is a nonphysical phe- presentations are available on the NAS Web site at www.nasonline.org/evolution_vii. nomenon and as such cannot affect the physical the world. It Author contributions: J.S. wrote the paper. must be an epiphenomenon because the physical world is The author declares no conflict of interest. “causally closed.” From an evolutionary point of view, it has no This article is a PNAS Direct Submission. function (6). 1E-mail: [email protected]. www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1301214110 PNAS Early Edition | 1of6 Downloaded by guest on September 25, 2021 has come for psychology to discard all reference to conscious- the end of an investigation and the common sense definition that ness...it is neither a definable nor a usable concept, it is merely enables us to identify the target of the investigation. Think of another word for the ‘soul’ of more ancient times...” (11). water: the common sense definition is that it is a clear, colorless, Both traditions share a resistance to treating real conscious- and tasteless liquid that flows in rivers and exists in lakes and ness—qualitative, subjective consciousness—as a real biological falls out of the sky in the form of rain. The scientificdefinition feature of the world. comes at the end of the investigation: it is H20. With con- sciousness, we are still in the clear, colorless, tasteless liquid Objectivity, Subjectivity, and Observer Relativity stage, and that is the sort of definition I am going to give you. Before refuting these views and giving an account of conscious- Consciousness consists of all of our states of feeling or sentience ness, I need to make some distinctions. First, the distinction or awareness. It begins when we wake from a dreamless sleep between objectivity and subjectivity looms very large in our in- and continues until we go to sleep again or die or otherwise tellectual culture, but unfortunately it is systematically ambiguous become unconscious. On this definition, dreams are a form between an epistemic sense and an ontological sense (“epistemic” of consciousness. means having to do with knowledge and “ontological” means This then is the definition of consciousness. What are some of having to do with existence). its features? There are many features, but, for the sake of brevity, Epistemically, the distinction is between types of claims, those I will confine myself to the five most important. that can be settled as a matter of “objective fact” and those that cannot be so settled. So, if I say Van Gogh died in France, that is Qualitativeness. For every conscious state, there is a qualitative epistemically objective. You can settle that as a matter of ob- feel to that state, something it feels like to be in that state. Think jective fact. If I say Van Gogh was a better painter than Gauguin, of the difference between drinking wine, listening to music, and that, as people like to say, is a matter of “subjective opinion.” It working on your income tax. Qualitativeness is not just a feature cannot be settled as a matter of objective fact. However, in ad- of bodily sensations and emotions but characterizes thought as dition to that distinction, there is an underlying ontological dis- well. You can see that the thought that 2 + 2 = 4 has a certain tinction between modes of existence. Some entities have a mode characteristic feel if you try thinking the same thought in French of existence that is independent of anybody’s attitudes or con- or German.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Animal Welfare and the Paradox of Animal Consciousness
    ARTICLE IN PRESS Animal Welfare and the Paradox of Animal Consciousness Marian Dawkins1 Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK 1Corresponding author: e-mail address: [email protected] Contents 1. Introduction 1 2. Animal Consciousness: The Heart of the Paradox 2 2.1 Behaviorism Applies to Other People Too 5 3. Human Emotions and Animals Emotions 7 3.1 Physiological Indicators of Emotion 7 3.2 Behavioral Components of Emotion 8 3.2.1 Vacuum Behavior 10 3.2.2 Rebound 10 3.2.3 “Abnormal” Behavior 10 3.2.4 The Animal’s Point of View 11 3.2.5 Cognitive Bias 15 3.2.6 Expressions of the Emotions 15 3.3 The Third Component of Emotion: Consciousness 16 4. Definitions of Animal Welfare 24 5. Conclusions 26 References 27 1. INTRODUCTION Consciousness has always been both central to and a stumbling block for animal welfare. On the one hand, the belief that nonhuman animals suffer and feel pain is what draws many people to want to study animal welfare in the first place. Animal welfare is seen as fundamentally different from plant “welfare” or the welfare of works of art precisely because of the widely held belief that animals have feelings and experience emotions in ways that plants or inanimate objectsdhowever valuableddo not (Midgley, 1983; Regan, 1984; Rollin, 1989; Singer, 1975). On the other hand, consciousness is also the most elusive and difficult to study of any biological phenomenon (Blackmore, 2012; Koch, 2004). Even with our own human consciousness, we are still baffled as to how Advances in the Study of Behavior, Volume 47 ISSN 0065-3454 © 2014 Elsevier Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Theoretical Models of Consciousness: a Scoping Review
    brain sciences Review Theoretical Models of Consciousness: A Scoping Review Davide Sattin 1,2,*, Francesca Giulia Magnani 1, Laura Bartesaghi 1, Milena Caputo 1, Andrea Veronica Fittipaldo 3, Martina Cacciatore 1, Mario Picozzi 4 and Matilde Leonardi 1 1 Neurology, Public Health, Disability Unit—Scientific Department, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Neurologico Carlo Besta, 20133 Milan, Italy; [email protected] (F.G.M.); [email protected] (L.B.); [email protected] (M.C.); [email protected] (M.C.); [email protected] (M.L.) 2 Experimental Medicine and Medical Humanities-PhD Program, Biotechnology and Life Sciences Department and Center for Clinical Ethics, Insubria University, 21100 Varese, Italy 3 Oncology Department, Mario Negri Institute for Pharmacological Research IRCCS, 20156 Milan, Italy; veronicaandrea.fi[email protected] 4 Center for Clinical Ethics, Biotechnology and Life Sciences Department, Insubria University, 21100 Varese, Italy; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +39-02-2394-2709 Abstract: The amount of knowledge on human consciousness has created a multitude of viewpoints and it is difficult to compare and synthesize all the recent scientific perspectives. Indeed, there are many definitions of consciousness and multiple approaches to study the neural correlates of consciousness (NCC). Therefore, the main aim of this article is to collect data on the various theories of consciousness published between 2007–2017 and to synthesize them to provide a general overview of this topic. To describe each theory, we developed a thematic grid called the dimensional model, which qualitatively and quantitatively analyzes how each article, related to one specific theory, debates/analyzes a specific issue.
    [Show full text]
  • Searle's Critique of the Multiple Drafts Model of Consciousness 1
    FACTA UNIVERSITATIS Series: Linguistics and Literature Vol. 7, No 2, 2009, pp. 173 - 182 SEARLE'S CRITIQUE OF THE MULTIPLE DRAFTS MODEL OF CONSCIOUSNESS 1 UDC 81'23(049.32) Đorđe Vidanović Faculty of Philosophy, University of Niš, Serbia E-mail: [email protected] Abstract. In this paper I try to show the limitations of John Searle's critique of Daniel Dennett's conception of consciousness based on the idea that the computational architecture of consciousness is patterned on the simple replicating units of information called memes. Searle claims that memes cannot substitute virtual genes as expounded by Dennett, saying that the spread of ideas and information is not driven by "blind forces" but has to be intentional. In this paper I try to refute his argumentation by a detailed account that tries to prove that intentionality need not be invoked in accounts of memes (and consciousness). Key words: Searle, Dennett, Multiple Drafts Model, consciousness,memes, genes, intentionality "No activity of mind is ever conscious" 2 (Karl Lashley, 1956) 1. INTRODUCTION In his collection of the New York Times book reviews, The Mystery of Conscious- ness (1997), John Searle criticizes Daniel Dennett's explanation of consciousness, stating that Dennett actually renounces it and proposes a version of strong AI instead, without ever accounting for it. Received June 27, 2009 1 A version of this paper was submitted to the Department of Philosophy of the University of Maribor, Slovenia, as part of the Festschrift for Dunja Jutronic in 2008, see http://oddelki.ff.uni-mb.si/filozofija/files/Festschrift/Dunjas_festschrift/vidanovic.pdf 2 Lashley, K.
    [Show full text]
  • The First Step in the Case for Great Ape Equality: the Argument for Other Minds
    WellBeing International WBI Studies Repository 8-1996 The First Step in the Case for Great Ape Equality: The Argument for Other Minds Kristin Andrews York University Follow this and additional works at: https://www.wellbeingintlstudiesrepository.org/psycho Part of the Animal Studies Commons, Behavior and Ethology Commons, and the Comparative Psychology Commons Recommended Citation Andrews, K. (1996). The first step in the case for great ape equality: the argument for other minds. Etica ed Animali, 8, 131ss. This material is brought to you for free and open access by WellBeing International. It has been accepted for inclusion by an authorized administrator of the WBI Studies Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The First Step in the Case for Great Ape Equality: The Argument for Other Minds Kristin Andrews A defense of equality for great apes must begin with an understanding of the opposition and an acknowledgement of the most basic point of disagreement. For great apes to gain status as persons in our community, we must begin by determining what the multitude of different definitions of "person" have in common. Finding that great apes fulfill the requirements of any one specific theory of personhood is insufficient, for these theories are highly controversial, and a critique of the theory will undermine the status of great apes as persons. Instead, the first step in the argument for ape equality must be a defense of their self-consciousness. This notion is one thing all plausible theories of personhood have in common. Contrary to most people's common conceptions, many philosophers have argued that great apes, as well as all nonhuman animals, lack consciousness.1 This notion must be demolished before any argument for the equality of great apes can be fully defended.
    [Show full text]
  • Whole-Brain Models to Explore Altered States of Consciousness from the Bottom Up
    brain sciences Review Whole-Brain Models to Explore Altered States of Consciousness from the Bottom Up Rodrigo Cofré 1,* , Rubén Herzog 2 , Pedro A.M. Mediano 3 , Juan Piccinini 4,5, Fernando E. Rosas 6,7,8 , Yonatan Sanz Perl 4,9 and Enzo Tagliazucchi 4,5 1 CIMFAV-Ingemat, Facultad de Ingeniería, Universidad de Valparaíso, Valparaíso 2340000, Chile 2 Centro Interdisciplinario de Neurociencia de Valparaíso, Universidad de Valparaíso, Valparaíso 2360103, Chile; [email protected] 3 Department of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 3EB, UK; [email protected] 4 National Scientific and Technical Research Council, Buenos Aires C1033AAJ, Argentina; [email protected] (J.P.); [email protected] (Y.S.P.); [email protected] (E.T.) 5 Buenos Aires Physics Institute and Physics Department, University of Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires C1428EGA, Argentina 6 Centre for Psychedelic Research, Department of Brain Science, Imperial College London, London SW7 2DD, UK; [email protected] 7 Data Science Institute, Imperial College London, London SW7 2AZ, UK 8 Centre for Complexity Science, Imperial College London, London SW7 2AZ, UK 9 Departamento de Matemáticas y Ciencias, Universidad de San Andrés, Buenos Aires B1644BID, Argentina * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 26 July 2020; Accepted: 7 September 2020; Published: 10 September 2020 Abstract: The scope of human consciousness includes states departing from what most of us experience as ordinary wakefulness. These altered states of consciousness constitute a prime opportunity to study how global changes in brain activity relate to different varieties of subjective experience. We consider the problem of explaining how global signatures of altered consciousness arise from the interplay between large-scale connectivity and local dynamical rules that can be traced to known properties of neural tissue.
    [Show full text]
  • How Minds Work Global Workspace Theory
    How Minds Work Global Workspace Theory Stan Franklin Computer Science Division & Institute for Intelligent Systems The University of Memphis 1 Global Workspace Theory • A Theory of Consciousness • A Theory of Cognition • A Theory of Mind February 3, 2005 HMW: Global Workspace Theory 2 The Multiplicity of Mind • Baars — The nervous system as a distributed parallel system of many different specialized processors • Hofstadter — Codelets • Jackson — Demons • Minsky — Agents • Ornstein — Small Minds February 3, 2005 HMW: Global Workspace Theory 3 The Theater Metaphor • Stage — working memory • Players — processors in working memory • Spotlight — attention to the contents of consciousness • Backstage — contexts • Audience — all the other processors February 3, 2005 HMW: Global Workspace Theory 4 Vs. the Cartesian Theater • Place in the brain, or mind, where “it all comes together” • Fusion of sensory modalities, for example • See Dennett’s Consciousness Explained • Seems to require a homunculus • Not to be confused with Baars’ theater metaphor February 3, 2005 HMW: Global Workspace Theory 5 The Stage • Working memory • Short term memory • Limited capacity — 7 + 2 • Includes conscious contents February 3, 2005 HMW: Global Workspace Theory 6 The Players • Each player is a processor • Each is active • Each is immediately available to consciousness • Some are conscious, some not February 3, 2005 HMW: Global Workspace Theory 7 The Spotlight • Mechanism for attention • Shines on the content of consciousness • Contents are a coalition of processors
    [Show full text]
  • DENNETT's CONSCIOUSNESS EXPLAINED: ITS CRITICS, and the CONTROVERSY OVER the “TRUE NATURE” of CONSCIOUSNESS BENJAMIN NEWMAN Swarthmore College
    DENNETT'S CONSCIOUSNESS EXPLAINED: ITS CRITICS, AND THE CONTROVERSY OVER THE “TRUE NATURE” OF CONSCIOUSNESS BENJAMIN NEWMAN Swarthmore College Are zombies possible? They’re not just possible, they’re actual. We’re all zombies. (Dennett Consciousness Explained, 406) It would be an act of desperate intellectual dishonesty to quote this assertion out of context! (footnote to the above). IN CONSCIOUSNESS EXPLAINED, Daniel Dennett sets forth an extended sketch of what may, or may not, be an explanation of consciousness. The controversy regarding what, exactly, Dennett does explain, and what, if anything, he omits, arises both from profound and genuine disagreement with his views on the part of many contemporary philosophers and from ambiguities in the definitions of some key terms (e.g. “consciousness” and “explanation”). Between the fundamentally conflicting worldviews and behind the conceptual ambiguities, is there a real philosophical controversy to be found, or just a lot of empty rhetoric? I believe that there is a real and meaningful question lurking in the interplay between Dennett and his critics, and it will be my goal in this paper to bring that question to light and to frame it in such a way that it is clear what is at stake. What is at stake? Dennett’s approach to the problem of consciousness is firmly reductive and materialistic. He believes that the physical facts about the brain (and, to a lesser extent, about the context in which it finds itself) are sufficient to account for all of the facts about the mind, consciousness included. Some of Dennett’s critics would have ended that last sentence with the words “consciousness excluded,” and they do have a point.
    [Show full text]
  • Dimensions of Animal Consciousness
    TICS 2075 No. of Pages 13 Trends in Cognitive Sciences Opinion Dimensions of Animal Consciousness Jonathan Birch ,1,*,@ Alexandra K. Schnell ,2 and Nicola S. Clayton ,2 How does consciousness vary across the animal kingdom? Are some animals Highlights ‘more conscious’ than others? This article presents a multidimensional frame- In recent years, debates about animal work for understanding interspecies variation in states of consciousness. The consciousness have moved on from framework distinguishes five key dimensions of variation: perceptual richness, the question of whether any non- human animals are conscious to the evaluative richness, integration at a time, integration across time, and self- questions of which animals are con- consciousness. For each dimension, existing experiments that bear on it are scious and what form their conscious reviewed and future experiments are suggested. By assessing a given species experiences take. against each dimension, we can construct a consciousness profile for that species. There is an emerging consensus that On this framework, there is no single scale along which species can be ranked as current evidence supports attributing more or less conscious. Rather, each species has its own distinctive conscious- some form of consciousness to other ness profile. mammals, birds, and at least some cephalopod molluscs (octopuses, squid, cuttlefish). The Emerging Science of Animal Consciousness A conscious being has subjective experiences of the world and its own body. Humans are If we try to make sense of variation conscious beings, but are we alone? In 2012, the Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness across the animal kingdom using a single ‘ fi sliding scale, ranking species as more crystallised a scienti c consensus that humans are not the only conscious beings and that conscious’ or ‘less conscious’ than ‘non-human animals, including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including others, we will inevitably neglect impor- octopuses’ possess neurological substrates complex enough to support conscious experiences.
    [Show full text]
  • The Crucible of Consciousness
    The Crucible of Consciousness An Integrated Theory of Mind and Brain Zoltan Torey foreword by Daniel C. Dennett The Crucible of Consciousness The Crucible of Consciousness An Integrated Theory of Mind and Brain Zoltan Torey with a foreword by Daniel C. Dennett The MIT Press Cambridge, Massachusetts London, England © Zoltan Torey 1999 First MIT Press edition, 2009 First published in 1999 by Oxford University Press, 253 Normanby Road, South Mel- bourne, Australia. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form by any elec- tronic or mechanical means (including photocopying, recording, or information storage and retrieval) without permission in writing from the publisher. MIT Press books may be purchased at special quantity discounts for business or sales promotional use. For information, please email [email protected] or write to Special Sales Department, The MIT Press, 55 Hayward Street, Cambridge, MA 02142. This book was set in Stone by Binghamton Valley Composition in Quark, and was printed and bound in the United States of America. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Torey, Zoltan. The crucible of consciousness : an integrated theory of mind and brain / Zoltan Torey.—1st MIT Pess ed. p. cm. “A Bradford book.” Originally published: Melbourne ; New York : Oxford University Press, 1999. With new foreword. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-262-51284-8 (pbk. : alk. paper) 1. Consciousness. I. Title. BF311.T655 2009 153—dc22 2008041421 10987654321 To my wife Margaret
    [Show full text]
  • Précis of Consciousness Explained Reviewed Work(S): Consciousness Explained by Daniel C
    International Phenomenological Society Review: Précis of Consciousness Explained Reviewed Work(s): Consciousness Explained by Daniel C. Dennett Source: Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, Vol. 53, No. 4 (Dec., 1993), pp. 889-892 Published by: International Phenomenological Society Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2108259 Accessed: 31-01-2017 21:28 UTC JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://about.jstor.org/terms International Phenomenological Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Philosophy and Phenomenological Research This content downloaded from 129.170.195.199 on Tue, 31 Jan 2017 21:28:56 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms Philosophy and Phenomenological Research Vol. Lm, No. 4, December 1993 Pr6cis of Consciousness Explained* DANIEL C. DENNEIT Tufts University Consciousness has always been a baffling phenomenon, and some have seen it to be fundamentally mysterious, irretrievably beyond human understanding. I argue, on the contrary, that its mysteries are beginning to dissolve, thanks largely to the onslaught of empirical and conceptual advances in cognitive science. So entrenched, however, are the traditional ways of addressing the philosophical problems, that a frontal assault on them is doomed. One can- not hope to convince philosophers by straightforward arguments to abandon the "obvious" assumptions whose mutual acceptance has defined the debates.
    [Show full text]
  • Global Workspace Theory: a Prominent Scientific Approach to the Nature of Consciousness
    RESEARCH PAPER Philosophy Volume : 3 | Issue : 9 | Sept 2013 | ISSN - 2249-555X Global Workspace Theory: A Prominent Scientific Approach to the Nature of Consciousness KEYWORDS Global work space, modularity, hard problem, multiple draft model Dr. Sheeja O.K Lecturer (on Contract), Dept. of Philosophy, University of Calicut, Calicut University P.O, Malappuram (Dt) Kerala-673 635. ABSTRACT The objective of this paper is to present one prominent scientific approach to consciousness by Bernard J. Baars- the Global workspace Theory (GWT). Global Workspace Theory holds the view that the brain has a fleeting integrative capacity that enables access between functions that are otherwise separate. Consciousness is the pri- mary agent of such a global access function in humans and other mammals. GW holds the view that the role of conscious- ness is to facilitate information exchange among multiple specialized unconscious processes in the brain. Consciousness is a state of global activation in a “workspace”. Somewhat similar idea has been introduced by Jerry Fodor. Fodor has placed greatest emphasis on information encapsulation. But there are some criticisms too. GWT does not answer the hard problem of consciousness. And Dennett doubts whether GWT is a “Cartesian Theatre”. However, Baar’s account of global workspace is a promising scientific approach in explaining consciousness. brain sources; unconscious sensory processing is much The problem of consciousness is not just one problem. Rather more limited. it is an ambiguous term referring to many different Phenome- 2. Consciousness perception, inner speech and visual Im- na. These problems can be divided under two headings hard agery enable working memory functions including ex- and easy problems.
    [Show full text]
  • Time and the Observer
    BEHAVIORAL AND BRAIN SCIENCES (1992) 15, 183-247 Printed in the United States of America and when of consciousness in the brain Daniel C. Dennett3 and Marcel Kinsbourneb aCenter for Cognitive Studies, Tufts University, Medford, MA 02155; bBehavioral Neurology Unit, Sargent College, Boston University, Boston, MA 02215 Electronic mail: [email protected] Abstracts We compare the way two models of consciousness treat subjective timing. According to the standard "Cartesian Theater" model, there is a place in the brain where "it all comes together," and the discriminations in all modalities are somehow put into registration and "presented" for subjective judgment. The timing of the events in this theater determines subjective order. According to the alternative "Multiple Drafts" model, discriminations are distributed in both space and time in the brain. These events do have temporal properties, but those properties do not determine subjective order because there is no single, definitive "stream of consciousness," only a parallel stream of conflicting and continuously revised contents. Four puzzling phenomena that resist explanation by the Cartesian model are analyzed: (1) a gradual apparent motion phenomenon involving abrupt color change (Kolers & von Griinau 1976), (2) an illusion of an evenly spaced series of "hops" produced by two or more widely spaced series of taps delivered to the skin (Geldard & Sherrick's "cutaneous rabbit" [1972]), (3) backwards referral in time, and (4) subjective delay of consciousness of intention (both reported in this journal by LIbet 1985a; 1987; 1989a). The unexamined assumptions that have always made the Cartesian Theater so attractive are exposed and dismantled. The Multiple Drafts model provides a better account of the puzzling phenomena, avoiding the scientific and metaphysical extravagances of the Cartesian Theater: The temporal order of subjective events is a product of the brain's interpretational processes, not a direct reflection of events making up those processes.
    [Show full text]