“The word consciousness, as we use it
in everyday speech, is loaded with fuzzy meanings, covering a broad
range of complex phenomena. Our first task, then, will be to bring order
to this confused state of affairs. We will have to narrow our subject
matter to a definite point that can be subjected to precise experiments.
As we will see, the contemporary science of consciousness distinguishes
a minimum of three concepts: vigilance—the state of wakefulness, which
varies when we fall asleep or wake up; attention—the focusing of our
mental resources onto a specific piece of information; and conscious
access—the fact that some of the attended information eventually enters
our awareness and becomes reportable to others.
“What counts as genuine consciousness, I will
argue, is conscious access—the simple fact that usually, whenever we are
awake, whatever we decide to focus on may become conscious. Neither
vigilance nor attention alone is sufficient. When we are fully awake and
attentive, sometimes we can see an object and describe our perception
to others, but sometimes we cannot—perhaps the object was too faint, or
it was flashed too briefly to be visible. In the first case, we are said
to enjoy conscious access, and in the second we are not (and yet as we shall see, our brain may be processing the information unconsciously).
“In the new science of consciousness, conscious
access is a well-defined phenomenon, distinct from vigilance and
attention. Furthermore, it can be easily studied in the laboratory. We
now know of dozens of ways in which a stimulus can cross the border
between unperceived and perceived, between invisible and visible,
allowing us to probe what this crossing changes in the brain.
“Conscious access is also the gateway to more
complex forms of conscious experience. In everyday language, we often
conflate our consciousness with our sense of self—how the brain creates a
point of view, an “I” that looks at its surroundings from a specific
vantage point. Consciousness can also be recursive: our “I” can look
down at itself, comment on its own performance, and even know when it
does not know something. The good news is that even these higher-order
meanings of consciousness are no longer inaccessible to experimentation.
In our laboratories, we have learned to quantify what the “I” feels and
reports, both about the external environment and about itself. We can
even manipulate the sense of self, so that people may have an
out-of-body experience while they lie inside a magnetic resonance
imager.
“Some philosophers still think that none of the
above ideas will suffice to solve the problem. The heart of the
problem, they believe, lies in another sense of consciousness, which
they call “phenomenal awareness”: the intuitive feeling, present in all
of us, that our internal experiences possess exclusive qualities, unique
qualia such as the exquisite sharpness of tooth pain or the inimitable
greenness of a fresh leaf. These inner qualities, they argue, can never
be reduced to a scientific neuronal description; by nature, they are
personal and subjective, and thus they defy any exhaustive verbal
communication to others. But I disagree, and I will argue that the
notion of a phenomenal consciousness that is distinct from conscious
access is highly misleading and leads down a slippery slope to dualism.
We should start simple and first study conscious access. Once we clarify
how any piece of sensory information can gain access to our mind and
become reportable, then the insurmountable problem of our ineffable
experiences will disappear.”
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.