What is reality?

Ethics originate from conscious experience. All categories of ethics (meta-ethics, normative ethics, applied ethics, descriptive ethics) are knowable only through conscious experience. Hence, conscious experience might be considered a meta-ethic (the origin and basis of all ethics). Conscious experience appears to us as a unified four-dimensional space-time continuum or field. A neural correlate for conscious experience modeled by Einstein's special theory of relativity has been found in the human brain. Conscious experience can be described and understood using relativistic physics. The principles of relativistic physics therefore influence ethics. Three universals emerge from relativity which mediate conscious experience and ethics: the laws of physics, the speed of light, and space-time intervals. The presence of these universals suggests that conscious experience (observed physical reality) is determinate (predictable). We do, however, have free will (choice), and this free will appears to be governed by ethics.

Exploring the limits to our understanding of whether fish feel pain.

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.

EDITORIAL article Front. Psychol., 18 February 2015Sec. Consciousness Research https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00166

From a classical phenomenological point of view, to reason is to have a conscious intentional experience. A conscious experience can be described as a predicative reconstruction of whatever reason might be concerned with while the intentional aspect can be deduced from the effort of disclosing specialized propositional insights into whatever reasoning is concerned with. Husserl argued that the task of phenomenology is to pave the way toward a science of consciousness in which reason as key feature of conscious life will be properly treated. However, contemporary phenomenology adopted an entirely different perspective on this matter. Conscious experiences are now described from a perspective reminiscent to traditional empiricism while the search for universal objectivity is abandoned in favor of contextual truths. The current situation raises several questions (a) how did we get here, (b) does making sense entail emotions, (c) does the emotivist reconsideration of consciousness solve the problem of objectivity, (d) should a future science of consciousness stress the role of emotions as a solution to subjectivism and yet to be considered a phenomenological science of consciousness. In this paper, I only begin to tackle these problems.

We present a theoretical view of the cellular foundations for network-level processes involved in producing our conscious experience. Inputs to apical synapses in layer 1 of a large subset of neocortical cells are summed at an integration zone near the top of their apical trunk. These inputs come from diverse sources and provide a context within which the transmission of information abstracted from sensory input to their basal and perisomatic synapses can be amplified when relevant. We argue that apical amplification enables conscious perceptual experience and makes it more flexible, and thus more adaptive, by being sensitive to context. Apical amplification provides a possible mechanism for recurrent processing theory that avoids strong loops. It makes the broadcasting hypothesized by global neuronal workspace theories feasible while preserving the distinct contributions of the individual cells receiving the broadcast. It also provides mechanisms that contribute to the holistic aspects of integrated information theory. As apical amplification is highly dependent on cholinergic, aminergic, and other neuromodulators, it relates the specific contents of conscious experience to global mental states and to fluctuations in arousal when awake. We conclude that apical dendrites provide a cellular mechanism for the context-sensitive selective amplification that is a cardinal prerequisite of conscious perception.

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.

Evidence Against Functionalism from Neuroimaging of the Alien Colour Effect in Synaesthesia

This paper argues for the claim that the mental ontology required for what has been called the “Phenomenal Intentionality Theory” (PIT) should be understood in terms of mental events or episodes, not mental states that instantiate phenomenal properties because the former but not the latter has a kind of temporal shape. I begin by laying out the basic commitments of PIT. I then introduce the notion of “temporal shape” and defend the following simple but powerful argument: (1) If conscious experiences are phenomenal mental states that instantiate phenomenal properties, then the phenomenal character of these experiences will lack a temporal shape. (2) The phenomenal character of conscious experience typically has a temporal shape. (3) Therefore, conscious experiences are not mental states that instantiate phenomenal properties.

Teesid: Kas meie igapäevane raamistik vaimunähtuste tähistamiseks ehk rahvapsühholoogia rakendub ajaliste piiranguteta? Või ei rakendu rahvapsühholoogia mikroskaalal (millisekunditest kuni sadade millisekunditeni). Käesolev artikkel vaeb seda küsimust ja uurib, et mis järeldub sellest vaimsete nähtuste olemuse kohta, kui rahvapsühholoogia mikroskaalal ei rakendu. Vaatluse alla tuleb eeldus, mille kohaselt vaimseid seisundeid individueeritakse rahvapsühholoogia kaudu. Toon välja mitmesuguseid võimalusi käsitada rahvapsühholoogia, mikroskaala ja mentaalse omavahelist seost. It has been claimed that familiar psychological categories do not apply at a very short time scale. The conceptual framework that collects our everyday psychological notions is called ‘folk psychology’. This paper explores the following question: is there a limited time scale in which folk psychology is applicable, and if that is the case, then what does this tell us about the nature of mental phenomena? In particular, the question concerns the applicability of folk psychology at the microscale (ranging from milliseconds up to hundreds of milliseconds). I outline several options concerning the relationship between folk psychology, the microscale and the mental. Why does this matter? First, this is important since if folk psychology applies only within certain temporal limits, this is an obstacle to developing models of micro-scale time consciousness in folk-psychological terms. Second, ‘folk psychology’ can be understood as just another name for a set of mental terms. This is not an innocent assumption. If this assumption holds, then the folk conception tacitly settles which properties are mental. We can call this assumption the ‘Principle of Folk Individuation’ (FIP): mental states are individuated only through folk psychology. If folk psychology is limited to a macroscale, and the FIP holds, then processes happening outside this scale at the millisecond range are not mental. This presumes that the mental is recognition-dependent: a property is mental only if it has a specification in mental (folk) terms; if it lacks it, there is no reason to classify it as mental. On the other hand, if folk psychology is limited to the macroscale, but there are good reasons to think that the mind is not, then this tells against the Folk Individuation Principle. Some reasons for considering certain events at the microscale as mental, albeit not part of folk psychology, could be found in research in psychology, where scientists have ascertained certain modality-dependent thresholds for distinguishing stimuli. The lowest threshold is for auditory stimuli (only a two-ms interval between stimuli suffices to detect them as separate). The ordering of stimuli requires intervals between stimuli of at least 20 ms. Are these discriminations mental? Prima facie, they must be, for these are conscious events. Therefore, they provide a counterexample to the FIP. This would lead to the position that the microscale processes are mental. At this point, someone who would like to keep the FIP might argue that considerations based on temporal thresholds do not show that the microscale events are mental but not folk-psychological. First, one could hold that these short-lived conscious experiences are neural states and that the brain has better temporal resolution than the mind/folk psychology. However, this reply might cause difficulties in giving a full picture of how neural consciousness relates to mental events. If microscale conscious events are merely neural, one is faced with the task of explaining at what point a conscious event becomes properly mental. The second option is to point out that ‘conscious experience’ is a folk-psychological term, too. Hence, considerations from temporal thresholds do not tell against the FIP. However, one may ask if the term ‘experience’ applies without problems to these discriminatory states. For instance, how can we tell that these states are perceptual experiences, not recent memories? There is another option. There is no need to construe folk psychology narrowly as a theory of beliefs, desires, memories and thoughts. In principle, folk psychology can be extended and developed: it could also include reference to events that take place at the microscale. We would need a new vocabulary to characterise those states, but this new vocabulary could still be part of an extended folk psychology—folk psychology 2.0. In this way, we could keep the FIP by updating it to state that mental states are individuated only through folk psychology 2.0 (which includes folk psychology and more). Then, one could say that although folk psychology, as traditionally conceived, applies only at the macroscale, folk psychology 2.0 also spans the microscale.

Naturalism and transcendentalism in the naturalization of phenomenology

The object of investigation in this paper is the significance of the structure of the narrator in Hegel’s “Phenomenology of Spirit” for understanding the content of the basic concepts of the work – time, history, “recollection”. This structure is determined by the correlation between the consciousness of the author and that of the reader, consciousness itself as an object of consideration and its own object. Each of the narrators goes through the same path from the point of view of logical content (“сircle” of “experience of consciousness”) but at the same time, objectivity itself is constantly becoming more complex. Time, his­tory and “recollection” are the concepts of “experience of consciousness”, which act as universal object equivalents of experience, corresponding to the specified kinds of narra­tors. They reflect the movement of consciousness towards comprehending the spirit, this movement not only determines the main plot of “Phenomenology of Spirit”, but also re­tains its significance for the entire philosophy of Hegel. The need to recognize the dialog­ical nature of the “Phenomenology of Spirit” is determined by the fact that the meaning of the narrative as a whole is made up of roll calls that arise as a result of the reproduc­tion of the same plots of experience from different points of view, and on this basis there is an ascent to the spirit and the “recollection” that embraces it. The analysis of the con­sideration of time, history and “recollection” as forms of objectivity of “experience of consciousness” shows that Hegel also developed a “Phenomenology of History” that is fundamentally different from the well-known course “Philosophy of History”: the move­ment of images of consciousness acts as a deep layer of the historical process in it, which is reproduced in “recollection” as the historical equivalent of “Logic”.

The ”introduction” is the introduction to ”the science of the experience of consciousness.” The part from §9 to §17 introduces the original problem and the theory of the dialectical experience of consciousness, which initiates from that problem. They comprise the basic conception of it's resolution, the meta-conceptual model of analysis of consciousness-phenomenon, the genetic-dynamical structure of dialectical experience of consciousness and the framework of the whole exposition. This essay focuses on §10, i.e. the topic about problematic of object in ”the Science of the Experience of Consciousness,” especially concentrating on the basic structure of consciousness. Paragraph 9 indicates the paradox of ”the exposition of the self-appearing knowledge” or ”the science of the experience of consciousness” as the appearing science, which is the examiner and at the same time the examinee. Paragraph 10 explains the basic conception of solution of this paradox. It is that the object of this science, the structure of consciousness as the differentiation and the relation of the consciousness itself, the knowledge and the truth can resolve the paradox.

What are the critical characteristics of structure, function, and organization that an animal’s brain must possess in order to carry out activities that are undeniably “mental”? Are there particular anatomical, physiological, or chemical features of the brain that are reliable markers of specific mental functions or conscious experiences? Do different species exercise radically different modes of consciousness and mental states corresponding to species-specific forms of brain organization? These are some of the principal questions that guided the discussions of our group, whose members shared the view that it is possible, at least in principle, to translate mental phenomena into the realm of neural mechanisms, however complex these may turn out to be. To the extent that we can identify the essential neural bases of mental and conscious states, we will then be able to make comparative evaluations of the mental lives of animals using neuropsychological approaches.

In “Radical Interpretation” (1974), David Lewis asked: by what constraints, and to what extent, do the non-intentional, physical facts about Karl determine the intentional facts about him? There are two popular approaches: the reductive externalist program and the phenomenal intentionality program. I argue against both approaches. I will agree with friends of phenomenal intentionality that reductive externalists neglect the role of our internally determined conscious experiences in grounding intentionality, but I will fault them for not adequately explaining intentionality. They cannot just say “conscious experience explains it” and leave it at that. However, I will sketch an alternative multistage account incorporating ideas from both camps. In particular, by appealing to Lewisian ideas, we can explain how Karl’s conscious experiences help to ground the contents of his other mental states.