Posted: Nov 24, 2014 2:52 am
Rilx wrote:Hi Willie71,
I'm familiar with Brian Earl's1 paper and I don't understand how you have come to the conclusion that "it's unclear if consciousness is biologically needed". From the abstract:
"Analysis of the components, structure, properties, and temporal sequences of consciousness has established that,
(1) contrary to one’s intuitive understanding, consciousness does not have an active, executive role in determining behavior; (2) consciousness does have a biological function; and (3) consciousness is solely information in various forms."
It is an excellent paper in pointing out (first) that what is generally known about consciousness focuses on the content of information "in various forms" and (second; implicitely) that the terminology of this area is inadequate and ambiguous.
When we are conscious, we are always conscious of something; i.e. we have subjective information about something. If about nothing else, we are at least conscious of ourself as an "empty container". Cogito ergo sum, so to say.
I don't agree with Earl as he defines consciousness as (the content of) information of our subjective experience. I think it is an artificial definition caused by his analytical approach. His concept flexible response mechanism seems to belong to the same conceptual category. Practically it is about what we usually call "mind". I don't blame Earl; regarding the scope of his work he has necessarily faced unsurmountable terminological and even paradigmatic problems. His work is a long step forward; it's not reasonable to judge it on the basis that he's not achieved The Final Truth.
My opinion is that the definitional parameters of consciousness can be found in the content of subjective experiences, i.e. in the contents of our phenomenal representations of the external world. To begin with something, I'd suggest the phenomenal space and time.
___________________________
1Brian Earl is the only author; your source has erroneously added the reviewers of Frontiers to the list of authors.
Thanx for the comments. As I read the article, Earl noted the biological function of consciousness, but I didn't think he was suggesting that consciousness was needed for the brain to make decisions. That is what I meant by it being unclear if consciousness is needed. I may have been making an assumption of the theme that shows up in so much of this research, that consciousness may be an accidental byproduct of the other more fundamental processes. I'll reread it and see if that's the error I made.
My view of consciousness is that it's a representation of the filtered information that exists in the environment. We can only process a small percentage of the information we are bombarded with in every moment, and I wonder if consciousness is like a compressed form of information, like we see in digital media. I am also trying to sort out the discrepancy between the 2d data that physics notes the universe is made of, yet it's experienced as a 3d hologram. The merging of human consciousness and theoretical physics is generations away, but I think about this a lot. I do think mapping the neurological processes responsible for consciousness will happen in the next decade, and impact mental health as much as mapping the human genome did for medical sciences.