Abstract

To locate consciousness in the flow of synaptic activity in the brain, we must first locate it in the flow of information processing in the mind. Two different positions have been debated for centuries. The liberal view maintains that the contents of experience include not only sensory, motor, and affective states, but also concepts and the thoughts they enter into. In contrast, the conservative view maintains that concepts have no intrinsic qualia of their own, and that the contents of experience are therefore restricted to sensory, motor, and affective states. Here I discuss how this long-standing controversy is relevant to several contemporary neuroscientific theories of consciousness. I do so, however, in a manner that is admittedly biased toward the conservative view, since I am among those who believe that it is more consistent than the liberal view with a number of key findings. I focus first on two of the most prominent neuroscientific theories of consciousness—namely, Stanislas Dehaene's Global Neuronal Workspace Theory and Giulio Tononi's Integrated Information Theory. I argue that because both of these approaches assume the liberal view, they are challenged in significant ways by data favoring the competing conservative view. I then turn to a third framework—namely, Jesse Prinz's Attended Intermediate-Level Representation Theory. I contend that because it explicitly endorses the conservative view, it has a unique advantage over the other two approaches. I also point out, however, that it has independent shortcomings that prevent it from achieving adequate explanatory coherence. I conclude by emphasizing that, if the conservative view is in fact correct, a central goal of future research should be to distinguish, at both psychological and neurobiological levels of analysis, between the following two kinds of information processing that often occur simultaneously: first, activation of the modality-specific sensory, motor, and affective representations that constitute the sole ingredients of conscious experiences; and second, activation of the conceptual representations that give those experiences meaning and that may even influence them in a top-down manner, but that never themselves reach awareness.

Highlights

  • Research on consciousness has made numerous advances during the past 25 years (Boly et al, 2013; Block et al, 2014)

  • The conservative view maintains that concepts have no intrinsic qualia of their own, and that the contents of experience are restricted to sensory, motor, and affective states

  • I conclude by emphasizing that, if the conservative view is correct, a central goal of future research should be to distinguish, at both psychological and neurobiological levels of analysis, between the following two kinds of information processing that often occur simultaneously: first, activation of the modality-specific sensory, motor, and affective representations that constitute the sole ingredients of conscious experiences; and second, activation of the conceptual representations that give those experiences meaning and that may even influence them in a top-down manner, but that never themselves reach awareness

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Research on consciousness has made numerous advances during the past 25 years (Boly et al, 2013; Block et al, 2014). The central claim of the liberal view is that concepts do not always reach awareness when activated, they frequently do, and in those situations they bring about a particular kind of experience that cannot be reduced to any form of verbal or nonverbal imagery but is instead distinctively cognitive in nature. In sharp contrast to the liberal view, the conservative view maintains that we are never directly aware of concepts per se; instead, consciousness is always restricted to sensory, motor, and affective states Proponents of this position typically argue that even though it sometimes seems as if our thoughts are conscious, this is just an illusion that stems from the tendency to mistakenly treat the verbal and nonverbal images that often accompany certain thoughts as being equivalent to the conceptual contents of those thoughts. The conservative view is elaborated and defended more fully in the following additional references: Levine (1983), Jackendoff (1987), Lormand (1996), Clark (2000), Langsam (2000), Wilson (2003), Carruthers (2005), Robinson (2005, 2012), Damasio (2010), O’Callaghan (2011), Carruthers and Veillet (2012), and Tye and Wright (2012)

Aims
Summary of the GNWT
Summary of the IIT
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.