I've just begun Christof Koch's new book Then I Am Myself the Wold: What Consciousness is and How to Expend it. What I know of Koch's theory of consciousness is that material objects exist in reality only as the atoms, quarks, etc. that make them up and it is our consciousness that constructs them into what we experience.
Global Workspace Theory (GWT) is a cognitive architecture and theory of consciousness proposed by psychologist Bernard Baars in 1988. The theory seeks to explain how we experience conscious awareness. According to GWT, our minds operate somewhat like a theater. In this "theater of the mind," many different cognitive processes (the "actors") are taking place backstage, out of direct awareness. These processes can include sensory inputs, memories, internal drives, and motor commands. However, only a small subset of these processes makes it to the "stage" of our conscious awareness, or the "global workspace." This stage is brightly lit by attention, while the rest of the theater (i.e., the unconscious processes) is in the dark. The processes that make it to the stage are distributed globally to many different unconscious, specialized processors for them to deal with. Hence the term "global workspace." This theory posits that consciousness is this global information exchange among the brain's specialized networks. For example, if you're driving a car, many of your actions are automatic and unconscious. You don't need to consciously think about pressing the pedals, turning the wheel, or checking the mirrors. However, if a pedestrian suddenly steps onto the road, this unexpected event would enter your global workspace. Your attention would focus on the pedestrian, you would become consciously aware of them, and this information would be broadcast to various unconscious processes that would enable you to react appropriately (e.g., by braking or swerving). In summary, GWT suggests that consciousness arises from the broadcasting of information from a "global workspace" to a multitude of unconscious, specialized processors in the brain. The information that makes it into this global workspace is what we are consciously aware of at any given time. Here’s a figure from the book “The book of Minds” by Phillip Ball illustrating Global Workspace Theory.
Earlier, somewhere, I wrote about the determinists' theory of consciousness and free will; that genetics plus life experiences when interpreted by the brain, preordained our actions and decisions. Cool not to be at fault for any decision or action. The book Who's in Charge, Free Will and the Science of the Brain by Michael S. Gazzaniga, a prominent neuroscientist, seems to be taking a dualist position that looks at free will from a different perspective, basically that the whole is greater than the parts. Emergence is the key (emergence occurs when a complex entity has properties or behaviors that its parts do not have on their own, and emerge only when they interact in a wider whole [Wikipedia]). The consequence is a separate entity, the mind or consciousness that accumulates all the pieces and parts and combines them thus allowing thought, perception, self-awareness, awareness of internal and external existence and stimuli, the "you" in you, and the "me" in me. How that works exactly I'm not sure as I am only through the first half of the book.
Why did the experience of consciousness evolve from our underlying brain physiology? Despite being a vibrant area of neuroscience, current research on consciousness is characterised by disagreement and controversy – with several rival theories in contention.A recent scoping review of over 1,000 articles identified over 20 different theoretical accounts. Philosophers like David Chalmers argue that no single scientific theory can truly explain consciousness.We define consciousness as embodied subjective awareness, including self awareness. In a recent article published in Interalia (which is not peer reviewed), we argue that one reason for this predicament is the powerful role played by intuition.We are not alone. Social scientist Jacy Reese Anthis writes “much of the debate on the fundamental nature of consciousness takes the form of intuition jousting, in which the different parties each report their own strong intuitions and joust them against each other”.
- Is The Final Frontier Of Human Consciousness An Electrical Field?
- Like Attracts Like: ETs, the Harvesting of Souls and Sanskrit Texts
- Dangers of Intuition
Key intuitive beliefs – for example that our mental processes are distinct from our physical bodies (mind-body dualism) and that our mental processes give rise to and control our decisions and actions (mental causation) – are supported by a lifetime of subjective experiences.These beliefs are found in all human cultures. They are important as they serve as foundational beliefs for most liberal democracies and criminal justice systems. They are resistant to counter evidence. That’s because they are powerfully endorsed by social and cultural concepts such as free will, human rights, democracy, justice and moral responsibility. All these concepts assume that consciousness plays a central controlling influence.Intuition, however, is an automatic, cognitive process that evolved to provide fast trusted explanations and predictions. In fact, it does so without the need for us to know how or why we know it. The outcomes of intuition therefore shape how we perceive and explain our everyday world without the need for extensive reflection or formal analytic explanations.While helpful and indeed crucial for many everyday activities, intuitive beliefs can be wrong. They can also interfere with scientific literacy.Intuitive accounts of consciousness ultimately put us in the driver’s seat as “captain of our own ship”. We think we know what consciousness is and what it does from simply experiencing it. Mental thoughts, intentions and desires are seen as determining and controlling our actions.The widespread acceptance of these tacit intuitive accounts helps explain, in part, why the formal study of consciousness was relegated to the margins of mainstream neuroscience until late 20th century.The problem for scientific models of consciousness remains accommodating these intuitive accounts within a materialist framework consistent with the findings of neuroscience. While there is no current scientific explanation for how brain tissue generates or maintains subjective experience, the consensus among (most) neuroscientists is that it is a product of brain processes.
- The Amazing Study of CEMI Field Theory and Why It’s Important to Our Wellbeing
- Panconsciousness: A Quantum Leap To Ancestor-Simulation-Program
Social Purpose
If that’s the case, why did consciousness, defined as subjective awareness, evolve?Consciousness presumably evolved as part of the evolution of the nervous system. According to several theories the key adaptive function (providing an organism with survival and reproductive benefits) of consciousness is to make volitional movement possible. And volition is something we ultimately associate with will, agency and individuality. It is therefore easy to think that consciousness evolved to benefit us as individuals.But we have argued that consciousness may have evolved to facilitate key social adaptive functions. Rather than helping individuals survive, it evolved to help us broadcast our experienced ideas and feelings into the wider world. And this might benefit the survival and wellbeing of the wider species.The idea fits with new thinking on genetics. While evolutionary science traditionally focuses on individual genes, there is growing recognition that natural selection among humans operates at multiple levels. For example, culture and society influence traits passed on between generations – we value some more than others.Central to our account is the idea that sociality (the tendency of groups and individuals to develop social links and live in communities) is a key survival strategy that influences how the brain and cognition evolve.Adopting this social evolutionary framework, we propose that subjective awareness lacks any independent capacity to causally influence other psychological processes or actions. An example would be initiating a course of action. The idea that subjective awareness has a social purpose has been described previously by other reserachers.The claim that subjective awareness is without causal influence, however, is not to deny the reality of subjective experience or claim that the experience is an illusion.While our model removes subjective awareness from the traditional driving seat of the mind, it does not imply that we don’t value private internal experiences. Indeed, it is precisely because of the value we place on these experiences that intuitive accounts remain compelling and widespread in social and legal organisation systems and psychology.While it is counter-intuitive to attribute agency and personal accountability to a biological assembly of nerve cells, it makes sense that highly valued social constructs such as free will, truth, honesty and fairness can be meaningfully attributed to individuals as accountable people in a social community.Think about it. While we are deeply rooted in our biological nature, our social nature is largely defined by our roles and interactions in society. As such, the mental architecture of the mind should be strongly adapted for the exchange and reception of information, ideas and feelings. Consequently, while brains as biological organs are incapable of responsibility and agency, legal and social traditions have long held individuals accountable for their behaviour.Key to achieving a more scientific explanation of subjective awareness requires accepting that biology and culture work collectively to shape how brains evolve. Subjective awareness comprises only one part of the brain’s much larger mental architecture designed to facilitate species survival and wellbeing.
Top image: Representation of consciousness. Source: lidiia/Adobe Stock
This article was originally published under the title ‘Why consciousness may have evolved to benefit society rather than individuals’ by Peter W Halligan and David A Oakley on The Conversation, and has been republished under a Creative Commons License.
How consciousness arises from brain molecules. “The whole becomes not merely more, but very different from the sum of its parts. Each level of complexity requires its own laws, its own concepts, and its own terms, none of which can be understood solely by knowing the simpler ones. Understanding this is crucial not only for science but also for our broader understanding of how the world works.” https://www.tkm.kit.edu/
No comments:
Post a Comment