Representational 'touch' and modulatory 'retouch'-two necessary neurobiological processes in thalamocortical interaction for conscious experience.

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

<i>Human and Animal Minds: The Consciousness Questions Laid to Rest</i>

Learning to Be Conscious.

Towards solving the hard problem of consciousness: The varieties of brain resonances and the conscious experiences that they support

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.

Information processing in neural systems can be described and analyzed at multiple spatiotemporal scales. Generally, information at lower levels is more fine-grained but can be coarse-grained at higher levels. However, only information processed at specific scales of coarse-graining appears to be available for conscious awareness. We do not have direct experience of information available at the scale of individual neurons, which is noisy and highly stochastic. Neither do we have experience of more macro-scale interactions, such as interpersonal communications. Neurophysiological evidence suggests that conscious experiences co-vary with information encoded in coarse-grained neural states such as the firing pattern of a population of neurons. In this article, we introduce a new informational theory of consciousness: Information Closure Theory of Consciousness (ICT). We hypothesize that conscious processes are processes which form non-trivial informational closure (NTIC) with respect to the environment at certain coarse-grained scales. This hypothesis implies that conscious experience is confined due to informational closure from conscious processing to other coarse-grained scales. Information Closure Theory of Consciousness (ICT) proposes new quantitative definitions of both conscious content and conscious level. With the parsimonious definitions and a hypothesize, ICT provides explanations and predictions of various phenomena associated with consciousness. The implications of ICT naturally reconcile issues in many existing theories of consciousness and provides explanations for many of our intuitions about consciousness. Most importantly, ICT demonstrates that information can be the common language between consciousness and physical reality.

The projection of conscious content is a central feature of Max Velmans' theory of consciousness, implying that conscious experiences are built within a conversation of minds and worlds in which they form a 'reflexive' unity – as stated in his reflexive monism theory. What are the neurobiological structures and functions that underpin the experience of conscious contents being located in a spatio-temporal frame outside the nervous system that instantiates them? In this paper I offer informed speculation about these neurobiological structures on the basis of the concept of projection within the psychophysical 'egocentric space', having the central nervous system at the origin of coordinates and the interface with the environment as the horizon. The reasoning is based on the work of several neuroscientists on feedback signals from the motor to sensory neuron systems, building a picture of how they support the projective process. I also call attention to the integrative role of glial cells in the generation of localized sensations and other conscious contents.

In his paper ‘Are we ever aware of concepts? A critical question for the Global Neuronal Workspace, Integrated Information, and Attended Intermediate-Level Representation theories of consciousness’ (2015, this journal), Kemmerer defends a conservative account of consciousness, according to which concepts and thoughts do not characterize the contents of consciousness, and then uses that account to argue against both the Global Neuronal Workspace theory of consciousness and Integrated Information Theory of Consciousness, and as a point in favour of Prinz’s Attended Intermediate-level Representations theory. We argue that there are a number of respects in which the contrast between conservative and liberal conceptions of the admissible contents of consciousness is more complex than Kemmerer’s discussion suggests. We then consider Kemmerer’s case for conservatism, arguing that it lumbers liberals with commitments that they need not – and in our view should not – endorse. We also argue that Kemmerer’s attempt to use his case for conservatism against the Global Neuronal Workspace and Integrated Information theories of consciousness on the one hand, and as a point in favour of Prinz’s Attended Intermediate Representations theory on the other hand, is problematic. Finally, we consider Kemmerer’s overall strategy of using an account of the admissible contents of consciousness to evaluate theories of consciousness, and suggest that here too there are complications that Kemmerer’s discussion overlooks.

From pre-stimulus activity to the contents of consciousness - A spatiotemporal view: Reply to comments on "Beyond task response-Pre-stimulus activity modulates contents of consciousness".

Reviews

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.

Consciousness or conscious experience is a mental phenomenon that is familiar to all of us, but the way in which it is produced escapes us to a large extent. Each person has a vague idea of what it means to be conscious, but consciousness is rather hard to define, albeit easy to identify. It is that function of the brain that makes us conscious of external or internal stimuli and of our thoughts regarding these subjective experiences. Conscious experience is a first-person perspective of mental states and events tracking as they unfold. It includes mental phenomena such as a perception, emotion, memory, idea, continuous temporal sequence of events. A mental process and its adjoining neurophysiological phenomena represent two aspects of the same event. We have direct access to the mental aspect, while we can observe the neurophysiological aspect only when we study the event as a biological process. The psychological study of consciousness describes the special properties of this brain function, its origin and utility in the global economy of an animal organism. The neurobiological study aims to find the neural correlates of consciousness, aims to establish causal relations between the neural phenomena and the different conscious states. Lastly, the formulation of an explanatory theory can provide a satisfactory understanding of the phenomenon. This review aims to bring some clarification in the field of consciousness, selecting the hypotheses which mostly fulfill the requirements, in order to be confirmed as explanatory theories. A valuable test for confirming an explanatory hypothesis is its predictive power. Using this criterion we have evaluated comparatively, some of the proposed explaining hypotheses.

Imagination: The dawn of consciousness: Fighting some misconceptions in the discussion about consciousness

Higher-order theories are theories of phenomenal consciousness. Phenomenal consciousness is the property of there being something that it is like for one to have an experience. Something that it is like from the point of view of the organism. According to the higher-order approach, an organism is phenomenally conscious just in case it has an appropriate kind of inner awareness of itself as being in some mental state or other. So, when one consciously believes that Kentucky is south New York one is aware of oneself as believing that Kentucky is south of New York. Similarly, when one consciously sees red, or experiences fear, one is aware of oneself as seeing red or being afraid. The relevant kind of inner awareness is what distinguishes the various kinds of higher-order theories. One might think that the right kind of inner awareness would be a kind of inner perception. Yet contemporary psychology and neuroscience do not seem to support the idea of a kind of inner sense. We do, in addition, become aware of things by thinking about them as being present. This has inspired the higher-order thought theory of consciousness, which was first explicitly developed in the 1990s. There are many different kinds of higher-order thought theories. One version, the Relational Model, claims that the first-order state is transformed into a phenomenally conscious state when one becomes aware of that very state via having a higher-order thought. In addition, there are Joint-Determination Models which hold that the higher-order content and first-order content are part of the same mental state. These come in at least two varieties: the Same-Order Model and the Split-Level Model. These are distinguished by how they respond to worries about misrepresentation. In addition, there are Non-relational models which hold that the relevant higher-order state determines what it is like for one to have a conscious experience. Finally, there are non-standard higher-order theories that appeal to acquaintance or mental quotation.

Emotional states of consciousness, or what are typically called emotional feelings, are traditionally viewed as being innately programmed in subcortical areas of the brain, and are often treated as different from cognitive states of consciousness, such as those related to the perception of external stimuli. We argue that conscious experiences, regardless of their content, arise from one system in the brain. In this view, what differs in emotional and nonemotional states are the kinds of inputs that are processed by a general cortical network of cognition, a network essential for conscious experiences. Although subcortical circuits are not directly responsible for conscious feelings, they provide nonconscious inputs that coalesce with other kinds of neural signals in the cognitive assembly of conscious emotional experiences. In building the case for this proposal, we defend a modified version of what is known as the higher-order theory of consciousness.