Neurophenomenological Theory of Freedom: Sartre’s Existential Philosophy and Hard Problem of Consciousness

Neuronal activity is markedly different across brain states: it varies from desynchronized activity during wakefulness to the synchronous alternation between active and silent states characteristic of deep sleep. Surprisingly, limited attention has been paid to investigating how brain states affect sensory processing. While it was long assumed that the brain was mostly disconnected from external stimuli during sleep, an increasing number of studies indicates that sensory stimuli continue to be processed across all brain states—albeit differently. In this review article, we first discuss what constitutes a brain state. We argue that—next to global, behavioral states such as wakefulness and sleep—there is a concomitant need to distinguish bouts of oscillatory dynamics with specific global/local activity patterns and lasting for a few hundreds of milliseconds, as these can lead to the same sensory stimulus being either perceived or not. We define these short-lasting bouts as micro-states. We proceed to characterize how sensory-evoked neural responses vary between conscious and nonconscious states. We focus on two complementary aspects: neuronal ensembles and inter-areal communication. First, we review which features of ensemble activity are conducive to perception, and how these features vary across brain states. Properties such as heterogeneity, sparsity and synchronicity in neuronal ensembles will especially be considered as essential correlates of conscious processing. Second, we discuss how inter-areal communication varies across brain states and how this may affect brain operations and sensory processing. Finally, we discuss predictive coding (PC) and the concept of multi-level representations as a key framework for understanding conscious sensory processing. In this framework the brain implements conscious representations as inferences about world states across multiple representational levels. In this representational hierarchy, low-level inference may be carried out nonconsciously, whereas high levels integrate across different sensory modalities and larger spatial scales, correlating with conscious processing. This inferential framework is used to interpret several cellular and population-level findings in the context of brain states, and we briefly compare its implications to two other theories of consciousness. In conclusion, this review article, provides foundations to guide future studies aiming to uncover the mechanisms of sensory processing and perception across brain states.

The problem of consciousness is mostly regarded as identical to the mind-body problem. According to Chalmers’ philosophical arguments, the hard problem of consciousness lies in establishing and explaining the link between physical processes and conscious experiences, via psychological processes. A brief history of various theories of consciousness is given and a selection of theories are tested against Zeman’s three fundamental intuitions and Chalmers’ controversial zombie argument. The hard problem of consciousness is further described using Levine’s notion of an explanatory gap between physical matter and conscious experience, through the first and third persons. Various states, contents, levels and processes of consciousness are summarised, including Damasio and Meyer’s dual perspective for defining consciousness. Tart’s three definitions do not entirely describe altered states of consciousness. While the challenge of finding the core function of human and animal sleep remains unknown when tested under the null hypothesis, studies on the neural correlates of consciousness during meditation have revealed neuroplasticity effects. The synchrony of gamma brain oscillations reflecting various styles of meditation or attention, also known as the binding problem, may be related to conscious experiences. This binding problem with gamma brain oscillatory synchronization also arises in relation to sensory awareness or perception, affecting the perception of time and hallucinatory experiences in various disorders of consciousness such as severe schizophrenic and deja vu (in healthy or epileptic) patients. In conjunction with medication treatments, music therapy is often useful in accelerating the healing process in most such disorders of consciousness. It is still unknown how this sensory awareness to music is perceived in medicated patients suffering from disorders of consciousness. More clinically elusive are near death experiences, in which consciousness persists independently of brain function, where there is no scientific basis for such consciousness to exist and no physiological or psychological model that can explain it. Near death experiences can be regarded as a special state of consciousness, which provides further evidence that the consciousness problem may be very close to the mind-body problem that originates in Descartes’ classic theory of dualism and is transformed into Chalmers’ contemporary theory of natural dualism. The final section of this chapter offers an overview of all invited chapters.

The Equations for Consciousness: A Reply to “Tracking the Travels,” a Review of <i>Journey of the Mind</i>

Reviews

According to David Chalmers, the hard problem of consciousness consists of explaining how and why qualitative experience arises from physical states. Moreover, Chalmers argues that materialist and reductive explanations of mentality are incapable of addressing the hard problem. In this chapter, I suggest that Chalmers’ hard problem can be usefully distinguished into a “how question” and “why question,” and I argue that evolutionary biology has the resources to address the question of why qualitative experience arises from brain states. From this perspective, I discuss the different kinds of evolutionary explanations (e.g., adaptationist, exaptationist, spandrel) that can explain the origins of the qualitative aspects of various conscious states. This argument is intended to clarify which parts of Chalmers’ hard problem are amenable to scientific analysis.

Reading the philosophical literature on consciousness, one might get the idea that there is just one problem in consciousness studies, the hard problem. That would be a mistake. There are other problems; some are more tractable, but none are easy, and all interesting. The literature on the hard problem gives the impression that we have made little progress. Consciousness is just an excuse to work and re-work familiar positions on the mind-body problem. But progress is being made elsewhere. Researchers are moving towards increasingly specific accounts of the neural basis of conscious experience. These efforts will leave some questions unanswered, but they are no less significant for that. To move beyond the hard problem, I would like to consider some real problems facing consciousness researchers. First, there is a What Problem. This is the problem of figuring out what we are conscious of. What are the contents of conscious experience? For those looking at the brain, it is closely tied to a Where Problem. Where in the brain does consciousness arise? Locating consciousness may not be enough. We need to address a How Problem. How do certain states come to be conscious? This can be construed as a version of the hard problem, by asking it with right intonation: How could certain physical states possibly be experienced? But there is another reading that is also worth investigating. The How Problem can be interpreted as asking, What are the psychological or neuronal mechanisms or processes that distinguish conscious states from unconscious states? The mechanisms and processes can be pinpointed by pursuing a closely related to a When Problem: Under what conditions do the states that are potentially conscious become conscious? Once we know what we are conscious of and when we are conscious, we can begin to address a Why Problem: Why do we have conscious states? And finally, there is a Who Problem: Who is conscious? Non-human animals? Human infants? Machines? I will discuss these problems in turn. Some already have answers, others have answers on the way, and at least one may never be answered in full. What I offer here is a progress report on a theory of consciousness that I have presented elsewhere (Prinz, 2000; 2001). I hope to show that progress is indeed being made.

As the quantum models of consciousness are becoming more and more prominent for theoretical models of consciousness, more dimensions of consciousness are being discovered. At the same time, the need to pin-point the element of consciousness is becoming more and more important. Parallal to these researches, several cognitive models of consciousness have also been propounded. With more and more results of cognitive studies, we are coming to know that like consciousness, attention is also a basic function of human psychology and both are very intricately related to each other, some- times even overlapping with each other. Perhaps this has been the reason either the cognitive functions of attention have been completely over-looked or have been mistakenly used synonymously with consciousness in the theories of the latter. This is especially true for QM theories of consciousness. Because of not taking attention into account, some of the most basic assumptions of QM models of consciousness have been erroneous. In this article, we review the literature of basic theories of QM and at the same time, we will see that several important roles of attention in these theories are missing. This is because in most of the theories, attention has either been completely ignored or has been confused with consciousness, where as both are two distinct cognitive functions. In this preliminary exploration, we will try to address three basic issues on QM in relation to consciousness: 1)The measurement problem 2) The quantum reduction or wave function collapse and 3) The free choice of consciousness. We propose that future models of consciousness should take into account the vitality of understanding attention.

In the last decades, the scientific study of consciousness in the scope of the cognitive neurosciences can be considered one of the greatest challenges of contemporary science. The Gerald Edelman theory of consciousness is one of the most promising and controversial perspectives. This theory stands out by its approach to topics usually rejected by other neurophysiologic theories of consciousness, as the case of the neurophysiologic explanation of qualia.The goal of this paper is to review the dynamic core theory of consciousness, presenting the main features of the theory, analyzing the explanation strategies, their empirical extensions, and elaborating some critical considerations about the possibility of the neuroscientific study of qualia.The central and additional theoretical components are analyzed, emphasizing its ontological, restrictive and explanatory assumptions. The properties of conscious phenomena and their cerebral correlates as advanced by the theory are described, and finally its experiments and empirical extensions are examined. The explanatory strategies of the theory are analyzed, based on conceptual isomorphism between the phenomenological properties and the neurophysiological and mathematical measures. Some criticisms could be raised about the limitations of the dynamic core theory, especially regarding its account of the so-called 'hard problem' of consciousness or qualia.

In recent years, so-called “quantum theories of consciousness” become popular. Most of them suggest that human phenomenal consciousness (and “self”) may be associated with macroscopic collective quantum phenomenon such as Bose-Einstein condensate. Macroscopic quantum system behaves, in some sense, like a single huge super-particle, and this seem to solve the problem of the unity of consciousness. These ideas are, however, not in a good agreement with contemporary physics. The ability of “quantum theories of consciousness” to explain correctly the unity of consciousness also seems questionable to some authors. In this paper we suggest a radical alternative: we argue that human consciousness may be a property of single electron in the brain. We suppose that each electron in the universe has at least primitive consciousness. Each electron subjectively “observes” its quantum dynamics (energy, momentum, “shape” of wave function) in the form of sensations and other mental phenomena. However, some electrons in neural cells have complex “human” consciousnesses due to complex quantum dynamics in complex organic environment. We discuss neurophysiological and physical aspects of this hypothesis and show that: (1) single chemically active electron has enough informational capacity to “contain” the richness of human subjective experience; (2) quantum states of some electrons might be directly influenced by human sensory data and have direct influence upon human behavior in real brain; (3) main physical and philosophical drawbacks of “conventional” “quantum theories of consciousness” may be solved by our hypothesis without much changes in their conceptual basis. We do not suggest any “new physics”, and our neuroscientific assumptions are similar to those used by other proponents of “quantum consciousness”. However, our hypothesis suggests radical changes in our view on human and physical reality. NeuroQuantology | June 2012 | Volume 10 | Issue 2 | Page 276-285

Attempts to create empirically based theories of consciousness face two kinds of obsta­cles. First, the dominant strategy of searching for the neural correlates of consciousness has been unsuccessful due to the lack of working hypotheses about their causal connec­tion with conscious states. The second obstacle is multiplicity of explananda – the lack of sufficient evidence for the belief that everything that we consider to be phenomena of consciousness or conscious states is ontologically unified. Perhaps, these issues are caused by the fact that the sciences of consciousness are devoid of an analog to the radio engineering level, which, in addition to theoretical electrodynamics, is essential for un­derstanding the principles of radio devices’ functioning. This level of knowledge should include a simplified ontology of the subject area, allowing one to isolate fundamental functional relationships at its algorithmic level. Considering the history of the sciences of consciousness and the specifics of their subject, the optimal candidate for the role of the engineering level of knowledge could be a computational approach, which would involve describing the subject as a combination of computational primitives that allow for the implementation of algorithms generating conscious states. Such an approach looks even more promising as non-computational theories of consciousness based on tradi­tional natural science paradoxically remain de facto metaphysical (speculative). In addi­tion to different approaches to the criteria for a “good” empirical (non-speculative) theory of consciousness, the paper provides an overview of a theory of consciousness based on the active inference hypothesis. The analysis of this theory suggests that a computa­tional model underlying a good theory of consciousness should not be deterministic, but probabilistic.

Jean-Paul Sartre believed that consciousness entails self-consciousness, or, even more strongly, that consciousnessisself-consciousness. As Kathleen Wider puts it in her terrific bookThe Bodily Nature of Consciousness: Sartre and Contemporary Philosophy of Mind,‘all consciousness is, by its very nature, self-consciousness.’ I share this view with Sartre and have elsewhere argued for it at length. My overall aim in this paper is to examine Sartre's theory of consciousness against the background of the so-called ‘higher-order thought theory of consciousness’ (the HOT theory) which, in turn, will shed light on the structure of conscious mental states as well as on Sartre's theory of (self-) consciousness and reflection. Another goal of this paper is, following Wider, to show how Sartre's views can be understood from a contemporary analytic perspective. Sartre's theory of consciousness is often confusing to the so-called ‘analytic Anglo-American’ tradition, but I attempt to show how this obstacle can be overcome against the backdrop of a specific contemporary theory of consciousness.

Consciousness: a User's Guide

A Rediscovery of Consciousness

梅洛龐第《知覺現象學》一書當中的意向性

Purpose This paper aims to contribute to the formulation of a theory of consciousness based only on computational processes. In this manner, sound computational explanations of qualia and the “hard problem” of consciousness are provided in response to a lack of physical, chemical and psychological explanations. Design/methodology/approach The study analyses the little that can be objectively known about qualia, and proposes a process that imitates the same effects. Then it applies the process to a robot (using a thought experiment) to understand whether this would produce the same sensations as humans experience. Findings A computational explanation of qualia and the “hard problem” of consciousness is possible through computational processes. Research limitations/implications This is a proposal, subject to argumentation and proof. It is a falsifiable theory, meaning that it is possible to test or reject it, as its computational basis allows for a future implementation. Practical implications Subjective feeling emerges as an evolutionary by-product when there are no strong evolutionary pressures on the brain. Qualia do not involve magic. These aspects of consciousness in robots and in organisations are capable of being manufactured; one can choose whether to build robots and organisations with qualia and subjective experience. Originality/value To the best of the author’s knowledge, no other computational interpretation of these aspects of consciousness exists. However, it is compatible with the multiple draft model of Dennett (1991) and the attention schema theory of Webb and Graziano (2015).