Philosophy and Science on the Way to Knowing and Making Consciousness

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

The latest progress in empirical studies of consciousness and spectacular advances in AI technologies kick philosophy out of the familiar comfort of uncontrolled proliferation of concepts and scholastic disputes. In the overview of the current state of empirical theories of consciousness, author reveals that those theories still find themselves in the pre-paradigmatic stage, therefore not yet posing an immediate existential threat to the philosophy of consciousness, though making it watch out. Author attempts to deal with the certain ambiguity of the term ‘consciousness’, stripping its meaning from parts already susceptible to science and technology and from parts still highly unlikely to be explained away. Besides, the relationship between philosophy and science is specified in general by analyzing them to their inner dynamics of theories and ontologies, showing that for science, the distinction between the two is substantially more important than for philosophy. From this perspective, philosophical schemas of consciousness claiming to be ‘experiential’ must have met recently formulated criteria for empirical theories of consciousness, otherwise failing to explain anything in the domain. Finally, author adds his pragmatic criterion that addresses the technological perspectives a theory provides. In the end, a winning competitive theory will have to let us produce and control artificial conscious devices.

About the authors

Igor F. Mikhailov

Institute of Philosophy, Russian Academy of Sciences

Author for correspondence.
Email: ifmikhailov@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-8511-8849

Doctor in Philosophy, Senior Research Fellow

12/1, Goncharnaya Str., Moscow, 109240, Russian Federation

References

  1. Block N. Comparing the major theories of consciousness. In: Gazzaniga MS, ed. The Cognitive Neurosciences. IV. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2009. P. 1111-1123.
  2. Deheane S, Changeux JPJPP, Dehaene S, Changeux JPJPP. Experimental and Theoretical Approaches to Conscious Processing. Neuron. 2011;70(2):200-227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2011.03.018
  3. Doerig A, Schurger A, Herzog MH. Hard criteria for empirical theories of consciousness. Cognitive Neuroscience. 2021;12(2):41-62. https://doi.org/10.1080/17588928.2020.1772214
  4. Hohwy J, Seth A. Predictive processing as a systematic basis for identifying the neural correlates of consciousness. Philosophy and the Mind Sciences. 2020;1(II). https://doi.org/10.33735/phimisci.2020.II.64
  5. Schurz G. Structural correspondence, indirect reference, and partial truth: Phlogiston theory and Newtonian mechanics. Synthese. 2011;180(2):103-120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-009-9608-7
  6. Mikhailov I. Has Time of Philosophy Passed? Voprosy filosofii. 2019;(1):15-25. https://doi.org/10.31857/S004287440003613-9
  7. Wittgenstein L. Tractatus logico-philosophicus. In: Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. Anthem Press; 2021. P. 56-250. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv22d4t7n.8
  8. Vintiadis E. Why a Naturalist Should Be an Emergentist about the Mind. SATS. 2013;14(1):38-62. https://doi.org/10.1515/sats-2013-0003
  9. Van Inwagen P. Meta-Ontology: A Brief Introduction. Erkenntnis. 1998;48(2/3):233-250. https://doi.org/10.5840/wcp201999235
  10. Wittgenstein L. Philosophical Investigations. 3rd ed. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd; 1986.
  11. Kant I. Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2004.
  12. Gallagher S, Zahavi D. The Phenomenological Mind. [2nd ed]. Routledge; 2013. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203126752
  13. Tacca MC. Syntactic Compositionality, Systematicity, and Productivity. In: Tacca MC. Seeing Objects: The Structure of Visual Representation. Paderborn: Brill, mentis; 2010. P. 37-52. https://doi.org/10.30965/9783969751190_005
  14. Mashour GA, Roelfsema P, Changeux JP, Dehaene S. Conscious Processing and the Global Neuronal Workspace Hypothesis. Neuron. 2020;105(5):776-798. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2020.01.026
  15. Alkire MT, Hudetz AG, Tononi G. Consciousness and anesthesia. Science. 2008;322(5903):876-880. doi: 10.1126/science.1149213
  16. Hudson AE, Calderon DP, Pfaff DW, Proekt A. Recovery of consciousness is mediated by a network of discrete metastable activity states. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2014;111(25):9283-9288. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1408296111
  17. Arp R. Consciousness and Awareness. Switched-On Rheostats: A Response to de Quincey. Journal of Consciousness Studies. 2007;14(3):101-106.
  18. Baars B. J. Cognitive Theory of Consciousness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. 446 p.
  19. Baars BJ, Franklin S, Ramsoy TZ. Global workspace dynamics: Cortical “binding and propagation” enables conscious contents. Frontiers in Psychology. 2013;4(200). Accessible from: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00200/full. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00200
  20. Boly M, Seth AK, Wilke M, et al. Consciousness in humans and non-human animals: Recent advances and future directions. Frontiers in Psychology. 2013;4(625):1-20. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00625
  21. Tononi G, Boly M, Massimini M, Koch C. Integrated information theory: from consciousness to its physical substrate. Nature Reviews Neuroscience. 2016;17(7):450-461. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn.2016.44
  22. Tononi G. Consciousness as integrated information: A provisional manifesto. Biological Bulletin. 2008;215(3):216-242. https://doi.org/10.2307/25470707
  23. Tononi G. Integrated information theory of consciousness: an updated account. Archives italiennes de biologie. 2012;150(4):293-329. https://doi.org/10.4449/aib.v149i5.1388
  24. Mayner WGP, Marshall W, Albantakis L, Findlay G, Marchman R, Tononi G. PyPhi: A toolbox for integrated information theory. PLoS Computational Biology. 2018;14(7): e1006343. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006343
  25. Edlund JA, Chaumont N, Hintze A, Koch C, Tononi G, Adami C. Integrated information increases with fitness in the evolution of animats. PLoS Computational Biology. 2011;7(10):e1002236. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002236
  26. Rosenthal DM. A theory of consciousness. In: Block N, Flanagan OJ, Guzeldere G, eds. The Nature of Consciousness: Philosophical Debates. Cambridge MA: MIT Press; 1997.
  27. Rosenthal DM. Consciousness and its function. Neuropsychologia. 2008;46(3): 829-840. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.11.012
  28. Vergauwen R. Consciousness, recursion and language. In: Lowenthal F, Lefebvre L, editors. Language and Recursion. New York: Springer; 2014. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-9414-0_13
  29. Corballis MC. The Recursive Mind: The Origins of Human Language, Thought, and Civilization. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. 2011:33(3);319-321. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2012.656976
  30. Baryshnikov PN. Language, brain and computation: from semiotic asymmetry to recursive rules. RUDN Journal of Philosophy. 2018;22(2):168-182. https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-2302-2018-22-2-168-182
  31. Lamme VAF, Roelfsema PR. The distinct modes of vision offered by feedforward and recurrent processing. Trends in Neurosciences. 2000;23(11):571-579. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-2236(00)01657-X
  32. Lamme VAF. Visual Functions Generating Conscious Seeing. Frontiers in Psychology. 2020;11:e83. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00083
  33. Lamme VAF. How neuroscience will change our view on consciousness. Cognitive Neuroscience. 2010;1(3):204-220. https://doi.org/10.1080/17588921003731586

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download

Согласие на обработку персональных данных

 

Используя сайт https://journals.rcsi.science, я (далее – «Пользователь» или «Субъект персональных данных») даю согласие на обработку персональных данных на этом сайте (текст Согласия) и на обработку персональных данных с помощью сервиса «Яндекс.Метрика» (текст Согласия).