What views on the function of consciousness are there? - Chapter 14

An important question is: when did consciousness arise? It seems plausible to say that a few billion years ago there was no consciousness on this planet. How can awareness arise from unconscious matter? James presented the central problem and wanted to investigate how consciousness can arise without mental matter or soul. There are two central questions here:

1. When does consciousness arise during the human evolution?

2. Which contemporary beings are conscious?

Panpsychists

An interesting question is when consciousness has developed during the evolution of man. There is disagreement about how and when consciousness has developed. Some scientists believe that consciousness has developed gradually. Greenfield believes that consciousness is not an all-or-nothing principle, but develops in different sizes. Some scientists believe that everything has a consciousness; even stones.

Pan psychologists believe in this latest vision, but argue that stones have a more simple form of consciousness than, for example, snails. Pan psychologists believe that consciousness was already present before evolution took place. The complexity of consciousness could, however, have been developed according to this vision. Others believe that consciousness can only arise when there is a brain. According to this vision, consciousness is the result of the evolution of complex brain structures. Then finally there are people who believe that the consciousness has been developed fairly recently. This view assumes that social skills have gone hand in hand with the development of consciousness.

The role of consciousness in survival

How can your consciousness help you survive so that you can eventually pass on your genes? Baars answers that consciousness can save you from danger: you are fleeing from a ferocious bear. Velmans suggests that life without consciousness does not represent anything and that survival would be useless. Gray states that the proper attunement (' fit') between our perceptions of the world and our activity in that world can not be a coincidence. It must have originated through selection.

Other theories state that consciousness has a surviving value, but is based on social reasons rather than on individual reasons.

The internal eye

Humphrey states that consciousness is an ' emergent property' . This means that the consciousness stands for a combination of factors. Just as dryness or wetness is a combination of the degree of water and oxygen, there would also be a combination of factors in consciousness. He also stated that consciousness is a ' surface feature' (just like the fur of an animal) where natural selection influences. Humphrey states that consciousness has a social function. Because we function in complex social situations, we want to understand, predict or manipulate people. To do this it is necessary to have a consciousness.

Humphrey states that natural selection has ensured that our ancestors who had a consciousness (or a kind of reflectivity) continued to survive. He states that within the brain there is a kind of internal eye (' inner eye' ) that gives an image of the brain activity of a person himself (and therefore not of the outside world). According to Humphrey, this is the function of consciousness. So consciousness is actually a model of the brain itself about the brain.

A consequence of this theory is that only intelligent and social organisms can have a consciousness. If this theory is correct, many other animal species have no consciousness. Humphrey states that he is not a dualist, despite the fact that he believes in the existence of an internal eye. He believes that the brain functions as a machine and that the internal eye is part of this functioning. According to him, consciousness is a kind of route of self-reflection of the brain itself.

Humphrey and Mithen

Barlow states that introspection (looking at one's own observations and feelings) does not give an accurate picture of the causes of behavior. He gives pain as an example. When we look at our own pain experience, it seems as if we can best avoid pain.

However, it is a fact that pain protects us from further physical problems. People who can not experience pain can not respond well to physical wounds. Barlow states that introspection is not sufficient to explain the evolution of consciousness. Mithen thinks that consciousness plays a biological role in social interactions and that chimpanzees probably also have a consciousness. He does, however, state that the consciousness must be interpreted more broadly. If Humphrey was right, it would mean that the consciousness would only be reflected in social contacts.

The consciousness that we have now, according to Mithen, should have developed about 60,000 years ago. At that time people started to interact more and communicate with each other. According to Mithen, speech was mainly used in that period to communicate about social issues (' gossip' ). Language would gradually be used for more and more purposes. For this reason, today we would also be aware of more than just social matters. Humphrey and Mithen see consciousness as something that natural selection has ensured.

No function

Churchland believes that consciousness does not exist at all and that this term will no longer be used when we understand everything about the evolution of human behavior. This is an extreme vision and most scientists do not go that far. Humphrey solves the mind-body problem by equating sensations to activity. The amoeba-like creatures of the beginning of life on earth reacted to the outside world by being away from it or wobbling to it. A kind of nervous system developed to be able to carry out more effective actions. Ultimately, beings started to learn about the outside world and their own feelings, simply by ' monitoring' how they behaved themselves.

Nowadays, several forms of functionalism are popular. For example, some scientists argue that subjectivity is equivalent to functions such as social interaction and language. The consciousness itself would not be a causal factor for behavior. Functionalists believe that consciousness does exist, but that it is not something that is separate from social interaction, language and problem solving.

Deacon and Donald state that consciousness is connected with the use of symbolic representations and symbolic thoughts. This link between symbolic thinking and consciousness is also discussed by Mead. He states that animals have a consciousness, but that only people have a self-awareness. This self-awareness would initially consist of gestures and other non-symbolic interactions. Language skills would then have ensured that it is also possible to form symbolic representations.

Mead states that consciousness has a social and not an individual cause. Claxton has a different idea about consciousness. He believes that consciousness has arisen because of the sudden high level of alertness required to respond to sudden dangers. Jaynes believes that people 3000 years ago did not base their actions on conscious processes, but for example on what the gods had told them. According to him, written articles from that time do not show that people acted on the basis of consciousness. Our understanding of consciousness in terms of subjectivity has only recently arisen.

Universal Darwinism

Many evolution theories speak about the relationship between natural selection and genes. If there is variation and selection, there must be evolution. This principle not only applies to genes, but also to learning processes and physical processes such as the immune system. For example, the development of the brain coincides with the death of some neurons and connections. So a selection is made if there is variation.

Evolutionary processes that act on genes also work on all kinds of other forms of ' replicators' (which genes are an example of). Dawkins also calls this universal Darwinism. Edelman designed the theory of ' neural darwinism' . In it he states that group selection of neurons depends on three processes. First there is ' developmental selection' which is present early in the brain; this ensures the existence of many connections (and therefore a lot of variation) between neurons. Some compounds are often used and others die. Secondly, there is ' experiential selection' . This process continues throughout life. Some synapses within and between groups of neurons are strengthened and others weakened, but they do not die. Finally, there is a process of ' re-entry' . Through this process, different events in different parts of the brain can be linked together. This allows motor and sensory events to run parallel to each other.

Nobleman, however, does not speak about the inheritance aspect that goes hand in hand with variation and selection. This inheritance aspect probably also does not apply to Crick and Koch's idea of ​​competing clusters of neurons. The clusters vary and compete with each other for dominance, but they are not copied. Calvin, in fact, involved heredity in all kinds of brain processes. He stated that there are patterns of neurons in the cerebral cortex. These patterns represent words, concepts or images. These patterns would depend on how cortical cells are arranged in columns. In these columns there is talk of inhibition but also of activation of signals. This creates structures that can be passed on to the next generation. This is where the heredity factor comes into play.

Imitation

'Memes' are ideas, skills, habits and stories that are passed from one person to another person. It can be written and spoken words, but also rules, habits, songs, dance and technical information. Dawkins was the first to use the word ' meme' . He argued that ' memes' can serve as a kind of ' replicator' , just like genes. They also have to deal with variation and selection. Memes are passed on by means of imitation, learning and reading. Sometimes that is perfect, but there is variation when the passing is not perfect because someone for example has misinterpreted part of the joke. Old memes are also used to produce new memes . This means that culture can be seen as an evolutionary process based on memes.

There are differences between genes and memes. Genes are transmitted through DNA and this is done in a very reliable way. The reliability of memes depends on the extent to which people pass on memes well. Both memes and genes can be called selfish; they both want to be passed on. Dennett uses the concept of memes as a fundamental part of his theory about consciousness. He states that it is created by the interaction between our body and the memes that we get. He sees it as a benign, illusionary user of his own virtual apparatus, the consciousness, which itself is also a complex form of all kinds of memes . One criticism is that memes can be passed on: if the consciousness consists of mere memes , we could pass on our own experiences to others in a perfect way. That is not the case, however. No one is the same as you. In addition, memes can be temporarily disabled while the consciousness persists.  

Resources: Blackmore; Susan. (2010). Consciousness, Second Edition An Introduction. Abingdon, Oxon: Taylor & Francis.

What is it like to be ...? - Chapter 2

Being a...

Nagel states that consciousness is a subjectivity. He asked,  'what is it like to be a bat?'.When we say that an organism has consciousness, it means that it feels in a specific way to be that organism.

Block calls the question 'what is it like to be...?' an expression of phenomenality (or P consciousness). He distinguishes this from 'access consciousness' (A-consciousness). According to him access-consciousness is about the ability to reason and also to guide speech and actions. So this is a distinction in two kinds of consciousness. To study phenomenality means to listen to what people report about conscious experiences.

Subjectivity and qualia

Qualia are private qualities, the way someone experiences something. A quale is what something is like.The term is used to emphasize quality so as not to talk about physical characteristics or descriptions, but about the experience itself. Conscious experiences consist of qualia and the problem of consciousness can be reformulated in terms of how the qualia are related to the physical world or how objective brains produce subjective qualia.

While Dennett believes we have conscious experiences and judgments about our experiences, he does think that special, individual, inner, subjective feelings do not exist. He therefore states that we should not think in terms of qualia at all. According to him, conscious experiences do exist, but qualia does not.

How do we know if qualia really exist? This is difficult to determine because it concerns experiences and not measurable matters. We can, however, conduct thought experiments. Are qualia something other than the brain itself? Do qualia have added value? To answer these kinds of questions, we use a thought experiment of Mary.

Mary the color scientist

Mary lives in the distant future and has all the knowledge about color perception and the visual processes that are used for this. She knows exactly that certain wavelengths of light on the retina cause the experience of blue, red or other colors. However, Mary grew up all her life in a closed room where she could watch a black and white television. So she has never seen colors herself, while she knows a lot about colors. What happens if she can leaves the room one day?

Two different reactions are possible for this question:

1. Some scientists state that Mary will be surprised. One of these scientists is Jackson. According to him, Mary will learn something new, namely what red is like. Chalmers also states that no amount of knowledge about the color red could explain how this color really is.

2. Other scientists argue that Mary will not be surprised , because she already has all the knowledge about color. Dennett states that if Mary is released and sees a blue banana, she will know that this is not possible. After all, she knows everything about colors and so therefore also about what colors look like. She also knows that blue looks different than yellow.

In short: if you believe that Mary will be surprised when she is released, then you believe that consciousness, subjective experiences or qualia have added value in addition to factual knowledge about the world. If you think that they will not be surprised, then you believe that having all the knowledge about the world says everything and therefore says how it feels to experience something.

The philosopher's zombie

Another thought experiment is the zombie's experiment. A zombie is someone who looks exactly the same as you, but has no consciousness. The question is: is such a zombie possible?

There are two different reactions to this question:

1. Yes, such a zombie is possible. This reaction is based on conscious inessentialism, the idea that consciousness is a kind of optional bonus. For example, Moody suggests that zombies are people who use things like thinking, imagining, dreaming, believing and understanding, but do not understand these terms as we do. They will therefore never devote themselves to concepts such as consciousness or dreams.

2. No, such a zombie is not possible. An example of someone who could give such a reaction is Dennett, because of the concept of a zimbo. A zimbo is a complex zombie who can guide his own activities and has internal (but unconscious) situations. If you asked a zimbo about his dreams or feelings, he could answer thesequestions in a way that we could understand. That is why  it may seem to us as if he, like us, has a consciousness. The zimbo would think he has a consciousness, while he does not. Dennett stated that this is also the case with people. We would all be zombies. We think onlythat we have a consciousness.

The hard problem

As mentioned earlier, Chalmers stated that ambiguities about consciousness can be divided into easy and hard questions. So Chalmers' question relates to Nagel’s question about subjectivity: what is it like be a...? Scientists have reacted in different ways to Chalmers' idea that there is a hard question when we talk about consciousness. The responses can be divided into four categories:

1. the hard  problem is insoluble

2. the hard problem can be solved,

3. it is essential to first solve the easy questions, and

4. there is no hard problem at all.

The hard problem is insoluble

James stated that we can never know exactly what consciousness is. Nagel also stated that the issue is unsolvable. McGinn spoke about the 'yawning conceptual divide'. He meant that no matter how long you look at the brain (and into neurons and synapses), you will never be able to perceive consciousness. He stated that in this area we are 'cognitively closed'. This means that even if we want to know where consciousness comes from, we would never be able to find out, because ‘our intelligence is wrongly designed to understand consciousness’. Pinker agreed with this.

Try to solve it

Some people find that the difficult problem can be solved, but only if we use a new frame of reference to understand the universe. Chalmers states that we must use dualism for this. We should, according to him, look for both the physical aspect and the experiential aspect for every form of information. So we could only understand consciousness if we develop a new theory about how we look at information.

Clarke states that the mind can not be located. He starts from quantum physics. According to him, the mind is the key to the universe. The mind would take a place; even before space and time. Chalmers and Clarke both assume dualism and their ideas are close to panpsychism. We previously encountered the mental field of consciousness of Libet. According to him, the existence of this is necessary because the structure and functioning of nerve cells can never explain a conscious, subjective experience. The mathematician Penrose points out that consciousness is dependent on non-algorithmic processes.

Tackle the easy problems

Chalmers states that the easy problems are about the connection between attention, memory and consciousness. Crick and Koch designed a theory about how particles are interconnected in the brain to form a perceptual whole of an object. Chalmers, however, wonders to what extent integration of particles equals a conscious visual experience. Crick and Koch argue that the hard problem of qualia - how the redness of red could arise from the actions of the brain - can not be solved directly. Better we can try to find neural correlates of consciousness, hoping to shed more light on the qualia.

There is no problem at all

O'Hara and Scutt mention three reasons to ignore the hard problem

1. We know how to deal with the easy problems and that is why we should focus on those problems.

2. They think that solving the easy problems will change our ideas about the hard problem.

3. Solving the hard problem is only necessary if we are able to recognize it, but for now the problem is not well enough understood.

Churchland goes even further and states that the problem is misunderstood. We would not be able to predict in advance which problems are hard and which problems are easy. How can we already know in advance that explaining subjectivity is more difficult than solving the easy problems? In addition, she wonders whether the hard problems are well defined enough to separate them from the easy problems. Dennett states that distinguishing between easy and hard problems is not smart in advance. There will always be unanswered questions. We now know, for example, how conception, birth and growth work, but we do not know how life itself works. You could also see that as a hard problem, but that only makes things more complicated. It is therefore better not to think in terms of easy and hard problems.

Resources:Blackmore; Susan. (2010). Consciousness, Second Edition An Introduction. Abingdon, Oxon: Taylor & Francis.

What does the paranormal all encompass? - Chapter 21

There are at least two good reasons for studying the paranormal phenomenon:

1. paranormal experiences are common and many people believe in it;             

2. when paranormal experiences occur they have many implications for science as a result.             

The popular view of the paranormal is that physical phenomena are the proof of the 'power of consciousness'. Consciousness is independent of time and space. Within parapsychology, terms such as 'awareness', 'abnormal effects of conscious intention', 'awareness interactions' and 'awareness-related anomalies' are common.

In the event that paranormal claims are wrong, the extended beliefs and frequent reports of physical experiences must be explained in a different way. When paranormal claims are correct, it is important to further investigate the implications for the science of consciousness.

Spiritualism

Often, ideas about the paranormal are used to undermine materialistic visions about consciousness. Accepting that something supernatural exists means that not everything can be explained by means of brain processes. Between 1800 and 1900 there was a lot of attention for spirits and people who could communicate with them. Spiritualism was very popular during that period. People who say they can communicate with spirits are also called mediums. It has often happened that mediums used all sorts of tricks and thus pretended they were clairvoyant. Cheating is not the only alternative to a paranormal interpretation. People can also misinterpret things they see for many other reasons, such as hallucinations and delusions.

Parapsychology

J. B and L. Rhine tried to find evidence against materialism and behaviorism.

Behaviorism used to be very popular and emphasized observable and measurable outcomes. Rhine and Rhine wanted to show that an independent mind exists. J.B. Rhine wrote a book and used the term ' extrasensory perception' (ESP) for the first time . This term covered three types of communication that require no senses. First there is (1) telepathy , where information is passed on from one person to another. In addition there is such a thing as (2) ' clairvoyance' . In this case, infor mation comes from objects or events that are remote. To examine these terms, Rhine did several experiments. He stated that everyone had paranormal skills, even if this was very weak for some people. To accomplish this, subjects in his experiments were normal people and not people who claimed to possess specific physical powers.

Finally, J. B. Rhine spoke about (3) ' precognition' : information coming from the future. These terms are still used in parapsychology. Rhine and Rhine described experiments to test the existence of these three communication methods. They believed that everyone has paranormal skills, no matter how weak these skills are. Rhine and Rhine carried out the experiments and found significant results. Now we know that these results were not correct, as there was a good chance that someone would by chance choose the right alternative in an experiment. They also believed in the existence of psychokinesis (PK) . Psychokinesis would be the case when someone with his mind can influence when a wheel will stop turning, for example. Rhine and Rhine used the term ' psi' when they talked about paranormal activities. 'Psi' therefore consists of both ESP and PK. All forms of psi are described as communication without the use of senses. One consequence is that hypnosis is no longer seen as psi, because psychology has been able to explain hypnosis.

Much criticism was expressed on the methods Rhine and Rhine used to prove that paranormal activity exists. The main problem was that there was no randomization in the Rhine and Rhine experiments. It is then easier to attribute the results to an effect if that is not true in reality. People seemed to be telepathic, for example, because they knew the person they were getting information from.

Since people were allowed to choose which information they wanted to "send" to another, it seemed that there was  telepathy, because people who knew each other well were thinking about the same subject. Nowadays parapsychologists try to use randomization.

'Extrasensory perception', ESP

When people have to choose from cards, it is possible that they happen to choose the right card. You can then easily find a statistically significant effect, while this effect does not exist. Other studies have been carried out to avoid this pitfall.

With ' remote viewing' it is the case that someone (the target ) for example goes to a randomly selected location and looks around for a while. Meanwhile another person ( subject ) is going to sit down and relax. This person tells you which impressions or images come to him or her. Afterwards the subject tries to match the impressions with a set of possible target locations and to choose the right one. This research method was also criticized because people would be sent too far towards the right match.

Suppose that this type of research proves that telepathy exists, for example. What consequences does this have for the discussion around consciousness? If ESP exists, this does not mean that this skill can be practiced voluntarily. In principle, it does not say anything about the mind or consciousness. In addition, it has never been proven that 'good' answers during this kind of experiment are caused by a change in consciousness. There is no direct evidence that consciousness plays a role in ESP.

'Psychokinesis', PK

Psychokinesis (PK) stands for the ability to influence objects or events without touching them or using a different force. Nowadays PK's research is mainly about micro-PK, the so-called effect of the human mind on microscopic or mechanical systems. The observational theories are derived from quantum physics and do not describe psi in terms of a force occurring at a specific moment, but as a change in the chances caused by conscious observation of the results. PK would occur when feedback is given, not when particles are released. The parapsychologists who are convinced of the existence of PK make explicit claims that the consciousness is involved. Some of them are dualists and they believe that the non-physical mind, or consciousness,acts as a force on the physical universe. Other theories, based on quantum physics, claim that consciousness is independent of time and space.

The power of coincidences

People often interpret random phenomena incorrectly and think that there is a real effect. Because people rarely believe in coincidence, they try to find explanations for the results found. If no good explanation for an event is found, paranormal activity is soon discussed. People who are better at probability believe less often in paranormal activity. It is also true that people remember details that come true, but forget the rest.

Implications

Paranormal activity probably does not exist. Many significant results from parapsychological research often prove to be incor- rectable in other studies. Despite the fact that a lot of research has been done, we still can not give certain information about this subject. If psi exists, then there is only a very small effect. The rejection of paranormal activity does not mean that someone by definition no longer believes in spirituality.

Resources:Blackmore; Susan. (2010). Consciousness, Second Edition An Introduction. Abingdon, Oxon: Taylor & Francis.

How can a machine be taught intellect? - Chapter 16

Artificial consciousness

Is there something special that allows people to talk, think, see or hear? Or are we simply machines? More and more is being known about the biology of perception, memory etc. However, suppose we would know everything about these mechanisms: would we then better understand consciousness? Or is there then an artificial form of consciousness that differs from the human form?

When asked if people are a machine, two answers are possible. We can start with biology and try to understand how neural systems work or we can make artificial systems and see to what extent they correspond to a human being. We will talk about artificial consciousness ( "AC" or " machine consciousness ' ,' MC '), which is closely related to artificial intelligence ( 'AI').

'Mind-like' machines

Descartes believed that the human body is a machine, but that this machine can not provide voice and rational thought on its own. Rational thinking could be the result of the workings of consciousness. However, a spirit is needed for this.

In 1642 Pascal built the first calculator, which was improved by Leibniz. Leibniz believed that matter consists of small 'wisps'. He disagreed with Descartes who claimed that the mind can influence the brain. Leibniz thought about the existence of thinking and observing machines. He presented a thought experiment in which he imagined that there would be a conscious machine that a man could fit into. If one would enter this machine, he could find parts that work on each other and he would not find parts that could explain the perception.

Boole believed that the human mind could eventually be explained by means of mathematical formulas. He has never been able to find these formulas. Yet thanks to him, algebra was used during the computer revolution. Turing argued that problems could be solved with algorithms. He spoke about a simple, abstract machine that could move. He believed that this simple machine could specify the steps needed to solve any problem. Such a machine is also called a Universal Turing Machine. An important part of this machine is that it can be used by inserting chips or brain cells. It is important that the machine carries out the same operations, which the machine also works on.

Craik believed that the human mind translates all aspects from the outside world into internal representations in the head. He stated that these internal representations can be manipulated according to fixed rules and that machines could do this too. According to him, consciousness is equal to mental representations.

Computers became more sophisticated and it was soon said that they were intelligent and could think. So it seemed possible that something like artificial intelligence existed. All attempts to design artificial intelligence consisted of programmers who told the machine what to do. These computers used algorit hms and processed information according to fixed rules. This is now called " GOFAI" ("Good Old Fashioned Artificial Intelligence") . A problem with GOFAI is that the information that computers process is seen as representations of things from the world, but that these symbols are not based on the real world.

In short: the computer itself does not know what it is doing; he is only performing. This is also called ' rule-and-symbol AI' . Searle distinguishes between ' strong AI' and ' weak AI' .

According to ' strong AI' , a computer that uses the right program is intelligent and has a mind as we have. Having a mind is therefore no longer a thing of using the right program. According to ' weak AI' computers can only imitate intellectual abilities (such as thinking and making decisions) . According to ' weak AI' they will never be really intelligent or really have a mind.

Connectionism

Connectionism is based on artificial neural networks ( ANNs ) and parallel processing. ANNs are used to mimic human human cells. The big difference with AI is that ANNs are not programmed, but are trained.

Imagine: a machine must recognize on photos whether a man or woman stands up. People can do this automatically, but a machine needs to be taught this. If we use ANN, the machine must look at a photo and output every time. If he makes a mistake, the neural network of the machine is adjusted so that he no longer makes the mistake. How does such a network work exactly?

The network consists of many units. These units are similar in effect to neurons. The units are connected in a network of parallel connections. A simple network can consist of three layers:

1. an input layer,    

2. a hidden layer, and

3. an output layer.

Connectionist networks do not just do what programmers say they have to do. This is something very different from the ' rule-and-symbol AI' . ANNs have many applications, for example reading manuscripts, controlling robots and as a spam filter.

Embodied cognition

The machines that have been described so far do not have a 'body'. They stand on shelves and they interact with the world. Previously it was believed that the essence of thinking is abstract and rules-based. Thinking could also be done without a body according to this vision.

Embodyed cognition stands for the idea that the mind can only be created if something interacts with the environment. The environment provides us with information storage and feedback that enable perception, intelligence and awareness. To construct machines in this way means working from bottom-up to top-down. This approach is sometimes called 'situated robotics' or 'behavior-based'. A consequence of such a work system is that intelligent behaviors can arise from simple systems, which creates the hope that the consciousness may also arise from the construction of simple systems.

Intelligence without representation

If you program robots so that they do not collide with things in their environment, it means that they do not have to create a representation of the environment in order not to damage themselves. The traditional form of AI assumes that intelligence goes hand in hand with mental representations of the outside world, but nowadays robots are being built that make no internal representations of the outside world at all. These robots can move forward without colliding with complex environments. They can also accomplish tasks such as cleaning up waste. These robots have different control layers that are all responsible for simple tasks. These layers are on top of each other and have limited connections. One layer can suppress the other. This is also called ' subsumption architecture' called. It seems that these robots perform intelligent actions. These findings are important for the discussion about consciousness.

We have the idea that conscious experiences go together with internal representations of the world. But how can a mental representation conscious experience be ? Perhaps it is not useful to think in terms of representations of the outside world, but this can lead to other problems. If we do not reason in terms of representations, what is the alternative?

The Turing test

Turing wanted to test a way to investigate whether machines could think. For example, he thought that it was possible to see if machines could play chess. He stated that if a machine can play chess, then he should be able to think. Turing also carried out a second imaginary investigation. He wondered whether a computer can have a conversation with a person. People were very skeptical about this idea and believed that there should be a trick if something like that would happen. Turing described ' the imitation game' . In this (imaginary) research there is a decision maker (C) who has to choose which of two people is a woman. The man (A) and the woman (B) are in another room, so that C can not see and hear them. C can only communicate with them by asking them the right questions and receiving typed responses. A and B both try to respond as women. It is therefore very important that C asks the right questions.

Turing wondered what would happen if A were played by a machine. Can a male machine behave like a woman? So can machines think? Turing predicted in 1950 that by 2000 it would be possible to program computers in such a way that a questioner would only have a 70 per cent chance of discovering whether a person or a computer gives the answers. Turing was not far wrong. In an experiment in 2008, people were given five minutes to communicate with a computer and with a person. Three of the twelve people thought that the computer was a human being.

Resources:Blackmore; Susan. (2010). Consciousness, Second Edition An Introduction. Abingdon, Oxon: Taylor & Francis.

How can the consciousness of animals be investigated? - Chapter 15

Animals and consciousness

There are two extreme visions about whether animals also have a consciousness.

1. The vision that only people have an awareness. Descartes believed that only people have a consciousness, because only we have language skills. According to him, animals act like automatic machines.

2. Because so many species are physically similar, they must all be conscious. Perch states, for example, that consciousness is a fundamental biological one adaptation is and it already occurred in the first mammals. He argues that we can not say that other species have no subjectivity to experience.

In addition, there are also theories where it is assumed that different animals have different forms of consciousness. We can not assume that there is only one kind of consciousness. Every animal species has developed sensory systems that fit their way of life.

Can we say that some animal species have a more developed consciousness than other animals? Is a frog, for example, more aware of itself than a fly? Greenfield states that consciousness becomes more complex as the brain grows larger. If this is true, then elephants should have a better developed consciousness than humans. This seems to be unlikely. We can try to categorize animals on the basis of their intelligence, but we have to know that our idea of ​​intelligence is connected with our own, human ideas about which skills belong to intelligent organisms.

Another question is whether one animal experiences more pain than the other animal. Stamp Dawkins states that we can determine on the basis of three things whether an animal suffers pain:

1. the general state of health of the animal,    

2. the physiology of the animal and        

3. the behavior of the animal.

Dawkins states that we can best know if an animal is suffering if the animal tries to avoid the reason for the pain. We must therefore not rely on empathy to decide whether an animal suffers, but on the behavior of the animal.

'Mirror self-recognition' (MSR): self-recognition

How do we know if animals are self-aware? To test this,we can use a mirror test, to examine whether animals can recognize themselves in the mirror. Many animals, such as dogs and cats, do not recognize themselves when they are put in front of a mirror.

Darwin put two young orangutans in front of a mirror. He noticed that they were surprised when they saw themselves. They tried to kiss their mirror image. However, it does not appear that they recognize themselves. It could also be that they thought they were looking at another monkey they wanted to give a kiss.

Gallup put chimpanzees in front of a mirror. At first they thought they were looking at another monkey, but after a few days they looked in the mirror to see their teeth. Gallup could not conclude from this, however, that the chimpanzees recognized themselves. Gallup therefore went a step further and drew two red dots on the face of the chimpanzees. When the animals were put in front of a mirror, they found out that something was strange on their faces. They tried to sweep the red dots away. From this Gallup concluded that the chimpanzees recognize themselves.

The test with the red dots is not fair for all animal species. For example, dolphins can not touch their face to make it clear that they are noticing that something strange is going on. However, there is still a way to measure MSR. Reiss and Marino drew a dot on the body of two dolphins, in a place they could not see without a mirror. Both animals wriggled and twisted, apparently to see the spot they had discovered in the mirror.

Another problem with the red dot test is that most monkeys perceive it as threatening when staring at them. This may mean that a monkey probably does not want to look long at the monkey he sees in the mirror. However, we still do not know for sure which animal species can recognize themselves. In addition, it is not certain whether self-recognition is an expression of self-awareness. Gallup is convinced that chimpanzees can recognize themselves and have a concept of self-awareness. Povinelli states that chimpanzees have a self-concept, but that they are not aware of their own psychological state.

Theory of Mind ('Theory of Mind', TOM)

Part of our consciousness is that we have beliefs, desires and mental states and that we also attribute mental states to other people. We also call this ' theory of mind' (TOM) . Dennett speaks in this context of 'intentional stance' : to understand other people's behavior by assuming that others also have desires, convictions and fears.

Babies are not born with this skill. When they are two years old, they begin to follow someone else's gaze and see what someone points to. When they are three years old they can talk about their own desires and preferences, but also about those of other people. However, they do not yet understand that other people may not see something as they see itthemselves. They do not understand that other people can have wrong beliefs. The question is whether animals also have a theory of mind.

Imitation

People find it easy to imitate others and they do so spontaneously. This happens already when a child is very young. Imitation is the basis for experiencing empathy for others. Darwin thought that dogs, cats and monkeys learn through imitation. We now know that there are very few animals that can imitate their congeners. It is possible that there is a habit under a species, but this was previously explained by imitation. This appears to be a wrong conclusion. There is often an individual learning process that results from attempts that lead to mistakes and to success. This means that rarely there is imitation of others.

This is an important point, since evolutionary processes are often explained in terms of imitation. We know that groups of chimpanzees have different cultures. In each group there is a search for food in a different way. However, there is disagreement among scientists about how much cultural skills chimpanzees are taught by imitation. The answer to that question is important for the question of whether or not animals other than human beings have 'memes'.

Language

The biggest difference between people and animals is that animals don't have a language. This means that if language is the cause of someone's self-consciousness, the consciousness of other organisms should be different than our own. However, if the human consciousness is an illusion, then this conclusion would not apply.

Children in every culture pick up a language very quickly, without being specifically taught a language by others and without others improving them. This is also called a ' language instinct' . Animals sometimes have complex forms of communication. For example, monkeys make different alarm sounds for different types of hazards. Yet it can be said that the meaning of animal signals is fixed and that animals can not come up with new representations by combining signals.

Many attempts have been made to teach language to animals. Because monkeys can not pronounce letters, they tried to learn sign language (American Sign Language). It seems they do have some understanding of grammar, because they can understand the difference in meaning between two sentences. However, there is still a big difference between the way in which monkeys and children use language. Monkeys are not intrinsically motivated to use the learned sign language. They only use what they have learned when they need something. Children use language skills for many more reasons.

Resources:Blackmore; Susan. (2010). Consciousness, Second Edition An Introduction. Abingdon, Oxon: Taylor & Francis.

How can the mind be seen as theater? - Chapter 4

The theater as a metaphor

Hume states that the mind is a kind of theater where different perceptions appear, pass by, come back again and mix in different situations. Such a comparison sounds attractive and in this chapter the advantages and disadvantages of making such a comparison will be explained.

What does it feel like to be you? Some people will describe this as a situation where the "I" is somewhere in their heads and they look at the world with their eyes. The "I" can hear sounds that reach consciousness. If you close your eyes, it looks like you are looking at mental images. Thoughts and feelings come into the consciousness of the 'me' and then leave again.

If you make a similar description of the 'I', then this is what Dennett calls 'Cartesian theater (CT)'. This means that we feel that our "I" is somewhere in our brain. In this place, eveyrthing we are conscious of is present together.Dennett also states that many materialists (who reject dualism) implicitly still believe there is a place where the consciousness takes place and that there is someone to whom consciousness happens. Such a vision is dualistic in essence. Dennett calls this vision 'Cartesian materialism' (CM).

Both CT and CM have a dualistic approach. You are a supporter of CT if you believe that there is a space, place or stage within which conscious experiences happen. You are a Cartesian materialist if you believe that consciousness does not exist separately from the brain and that there is a sort of theater in the brain where everything comes together. If the Cartesian theater exists, we should be able to locate it in the head.

The place where consciousness happens

When we perform actions, we can find the brain processes that cause them. There is no specific part of the brain where our consciousness comes from. A lot of parallel processing takes place in the brain. In addition, there are complex feedback processes that the brain uses. So there is a lot of integration.

There is also no specific time in which the consciousness must express itself. It is true that information first comes in and that actions then follow, but between both there is multiple parallel processing. There is therefore no magic moment in which input is translated into output or a moment in which the consciousness is experienced.

The mental screen

Shepard showed participants a picture of blocks stuck together in space, but from different points of view. The blocks were rotated and the participants had to say whether it was the same image or not. To do this you have to rotate the position of the blocks mentally.The question is where in our head the mental rotation of the forms takes place. Shepard and Metzler discovered that the moment when people realized that it was the same image correlated with the time needed to actually rotate the blocks in space. So if a picture in the head has to be rotated very much (for example 180 degrees), it will take longer to decide whether it is the same image as the picture has to be rotated a bit (5 degrees).

These results show that something measurable happens in the head when people have to imagine things. However, the results do not show that consciousness is responsible for these representations. In addition, the results do not show that there is a mental screen on which images are projected (as with CT).

Mental rotations

Mental rotations can manifest unconsciously. It has been found that when we scan a visual image mentally, the visual cortex is activated, just as it happens when we look at an object. If you believe that there is a mental screen on which a rotated image is projected and that the 'I' consciously or unconsciously looks at that screen, then the question is where that screen is in the head. The 'I' should, think for itself and be able to look at the mental screen. This is very unlikely. We can only say that there is processing in different parts of the cortex. This allows us to solve rotation problems, look at mental rotation and describe this.

Alternatives to Cartesian theater

The problem that arises in the concept of Cartesian theater is the same problem described in chapter 3. We are aware of some actions, but not of all actions. We also know that all actions, perceptions and wishes are related to neural activity in the brain. The question that arises is therefore: what makes some events conscious and others unconscious?

Some of the alternative theories hold the theater metaphor in their minds, while other theories ignore the possibilities of a Cartesian theater. Examples of these alternative theories are discussed below.

Global workspace theory (GWT)

This theory of Baars is based on the theater hypothesis. He states that conscious events happen in the theater of consciousness. He states that there is a big difference between the limited number of items available in consciousness and the many unconscious processes that are present. He believes that consciousness in the theater serves as a spotlight on the stage. With the spotlight, attention is focused on different actors (ie events from the outside world), so that we become aware of these events. The bright light is surrounded by events of which we are very vaguely aware.

The interactions between the stage, the audience and what happens behind the scenes are based on the idea of ​​a 'global workspace architecture'. This view states that the brain is so structured that it is only possible to deal with a number of items at a time in the 'global workspace' (working memory or short-term memory). We can hold about seven items in our working memory.

Baars states that consciousness is not an incident, but he also states that it is not something mysterious. According to him, consciousness is the working part of the entire cognitive system. What causes us to be aware of an event, according to Baars, is that the event is processed within the working memory and that the event is made available for the rest of the (unconscious) system. Baars sees consciousness as a variable with different values. He thinks that we should therefore think in terms of 'more conscious' or 'less conscious' instead of 'conscious' and 'unconscious'. He calls this 'contrastive analysis'. He does not, like CT, state that there is a fixed place where consciousness is located in the brain. He does state that somewhere in the brain the information comes together from areas that have to do with working memory. His theory assumes that things can be in or out of consciousness. According to Dennett, Baars therefore has a Cartesian materialistic view. Baars states with his theory that availability of information in working memory explains the feeling of consciousness. However, he can not explain how and why that happens.

Neuronal global workspace

A similar theory is Dehaene's 'neuronal global workspace' model. This theory also states that unconscious processes are competing for access to the limited capacity of the global workspace, the working memory. This working memory probably works thanks to an extensive network of different brain areas. Information that has gained access can thus be extensively passed on to other areas of the brain.

The availability of information (global availability) that arises in this way offers the possibility of (non) verbal expression. There are two possibilities:

1. when the information comes into the global workspace, it becomes conscious or

2.  if the information has become available to be expressed, it is the same as 'being aware' .

Theories that do not start from theaters

Many theories completely reject the controversial image of the stage and the theater. For example, Libet does not believe in the equation of consciousness and a theater with his theory of 'neuronal adequacy'. He states that we become aware of an event when neurons fire for a certain period of time. Many events remain unconscious because this threshold value is not reached by neurons.

Another example is the 'astonishing hypothesis' by Crick. This theory states that your joys, worries, ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will are nothing more than the coming together of nerve cells. According to Crick, conscious experience is equivalent to the action of neurons. Conscious experience is therefore not caused by neurons and the consciousness also has no interaction with neurons. Consciousness and the functioning of neurons are the same thing. Crick states that consciousness is most closely related to neural activities in the lower cortical areas of the brain. To become aware of something, these cortical areas need to be supported by a kind of short-term memory.

The "eliminative materialism" of Paul and Pat Churchland equates conscious experiences with brain activity. They state that it is quite simple: neural processes and subjective experiences are the same. "Electromagnetic waves do not cause light, do not correlate with light; they are light. That is what light is. "

The multiple drafts model of Dennett

Dennett states that we can best avoid CM if we ban the entire concept of CT. In his view, we no longer have to think in terms of a theater or an audience. Dennett is in favor of the multiple drafts model. This model states that all mental activities (perceptions, emotions and thoughts) in the brain arise through parallel processes in different brain routes. These processes ensure that sensory input can be interpreted. These processes would constantly be revised. For this reason our perceptions and thoughts are constantly being revised and transformed.

But which versions of our perceptions and thoughts are conscious? If you think in terms of CT then you would say that only some versions can be seen by the public. Dennett calls such an explanation the 'myth of double transduction'. In Dennett's theory, there are only multiple designs of feelings, thoughts and perceptions with which the brain works. Some of these designs (drafts) are used to guide behavior or produce speech, while others are stored in memory.

Dennett states that, as claimed by CT, there is no question of an audience. We talk about our experiences and therefore feel that there is a kind of 'I' that is responsible for this. According to him, it is an illusion that there is an observer (the 'I'). We ask two more questions:

1. is this theory CT, and

2. how does this theory explain subjectivity (ie the fact that we feel we are experiencing something)?

In this theory there is no CT, since Dennett does not believe in the comparison of consciousness with a theater and an accompanying audience. In addition, he states that subjectivity should not be seen in terms of what the "I" experiences. Yet he has a view on the issue of subjectivity. There is always a translation of a parallel stream of events in the brain and these events can be translated and /or interpreted in different ways.

Resources: Blackmore; Susan. (2010). Consciousness, Second Edition An Introduction. Abingdon, Oxon: Taylor & Francis.

Which theories about the self are there? - Chapter 8

So far, we have divided the theories about the self into two categories: ego theories that bring a kind of permanent continuity and bundle theories that do not. Egotheories make it difficult to design testable hypotheses and bundle theories have no explanation for the fact that people feel that they have a self. Egotheories have something like the idea of ​​a Cartesian theater, in which the self perceives all sorts of things. It is difficult to deny that the self exists. We do have the feeling that we have a self.

James

James has written a lot about consciousness and self. His work is mainly about how the self feels. We feel that we have a personal identity. Central to this is continuity and unity of the self. We also feel that our thoughts are ours and are close to us; in this we distinguish and differ from others. He distinguishes between what he calls:

1. the empirical self or objective person ('me') and

2. subjective thoughts or the pure ego ('I').

The empirical self is easy to deal with and contains three aspects:

1. the material self; consistsing of the body, clothes, belongings, family and friends,

2. the social self; which is about someone's reputation and what image others have of that person and how he esponds to them,

3. subjective experiences, which are the source of attention and effort.

James states that the pure ego ('I') is difficult to describe. According to some, the pure ego stands for the mind and according to others is invented. The latter group therefore believes that the self does not exist. James rejects both ideas and goes for a middle way.

James sees continuity of the self only as a potential: the thought is a temporary administrator of other thoughts. James' theory is not able to give an explanation to for how and why the existence of temporary human language is connected with the functioning of our minds. James states that his theory is between the ego theories and bundle theories.

Neuroscientific models

Dennett states that the filling in of visual gaps does not occur because there is no self where that could happen. Ramachandran , however, proved with his experiments that the filling in of visual gaps does occur in some situations. It seems that the filling in of visual gaps is not done for someone (ie for the self), but for something else, namely for another brain system. Ramachandran talks about the executive system that MacKay also talks about. MacKay also specifically looks at control processes in the pre-frontal areas. Ramachandran gives more attention to the limbic system. The processes that best correspond with the idea of ​​the self have to do with the combination of motivation, emotion and actions. This combination is triggered by incoming sensory perceptions (qualia). We use this qualia to operate the limbic system. Our conscious experiences are therefore the input for the limbic system.

Ramachandran states that a self located in the brain does not exist, but he does not explain how input from outside can be experienced. In addition, he does not explain how qualia can be used as input.

Damasio distinguishes between the 'proto-self', the 'core-self' and the 'autobiographical self'. The proto-self consists of a set of neural patterns that store the state of an organism at any moment. The most basic form of consciousness is core-consciousness, which occurs not only in humans but also in animals. This form of consciousness does not depend on memory or on language skills. This form of consciousness gives an organism the feeling that it exists in the here and now. The 'core-self' is connected to this. The 'autobiographical self' depends on personal memories and continues to develop as someone grows older. This form of the self can also occur in animals in a less developed form.

Damasio states that consciousness is a feeling and that feelings are neural patterns. However, he can not explain where subjectivity comes from. In the GWT theory (Global Workspace Theory) of Baars we experience a self because some information in our heads is in the spotlight and therefore gets the attention. According to Baars, there would be a 'self-system' that influences what will be in the spotlight. Baars uses the distinction that James makes between 'me' and 'I' in order to distinguish the self-concept from the more fundamental 'self-system'. This self-system is fundamental, because consciousness should interact with it. The consciousness and the self are always connected to each other in this way. This theory does not see the self as an illusion.

Loops, tunnels and pearl vision

According to Hofstadter, the brain is full of loops, consisting of many levels of loop-like self-descriptions. Together they form a conscious self. At this level, the self is no illusion. At a lower level we arrive at neural activity. The 'I' then falls apart. Viewed on this level, the self is an illusion. The 'theory of strange loops' is a bundle theory.

Metzinger introduces the 'phenomenal self-model' (PSM). Through a pattern of neural activity, parts of the world are integrated into an inner image of yourself as a whole. In Metzinger's theory, the self is the content of the PSM. According to him, conscious experiences are not an image of reality, but a tunnel through reality. The PSM theory is also a bundle theory.

Pearl view

Strawson described what he called the pearl vision ('pearl view'). He believes that there are many mental selves that alternate themselves at different times, just like pearls on a chain. According to this view, selves really exist, but they are not separate entities.

The selves represent different patterns of neural activity or states of activation that come and go. He states that the selves perceive experiences (Subjects of Experience that are Single Mental Things, SESMET). According to Strawson, each self can take a number of seconds, but also much longer, but if one disappears, then another person comes in its place. For a self, a personality or long-term memory would not be necessary. So there is no question of one permanent self. Strawson's theory is clearly not a ego theory. However, it seems that the theory is not a bundle theory either, since Strawson admits that we feel that the pearl itself has a sense of unity. He, like supporters of bundle theories, does not claim that experiencing the self is merely a bundle of sensations and perceptions. However, the theory can not explain why we feel that there is a self that is permanent.

No audience in the Cartesian theater

Dennett states that there is no Cartesian theater and that there is no show or audience in that theater. Why then do we feel that there is such a theater? Dennett states that people think very much in terms of everything-or-nothing when it comes to a self.

So we do or do not have a self. He states that these are outcomes of evolution and that they are built piece by piece during our lives. Patients with a split brain are not necessarily one themselves. Two or more must be able to exist. He is in favor of the idea that there is no self and is therefore a supporter of the bundle theories. Dennett sees the narrative as an illusion. Several selves come and go. The story in it is constructed by minds, but the protagonist is missing. The idea of ​​a single source, of unity and continuity, is a false idea created by real words.

Resources: Blackmore; Susan. (2010). Consciousness, Second Edition An Introduction. Abingdon, Oxon: Taylor & Francis.

In what way can consciousness be seen as a unit? - Chapter 11

The whole

It seems like we only have one consciousness. If you look at the brain, then you see that there is complexity and diversity. Often there are multiple processes that take place simultaneously through different brain routes. Yet we feel that everything forms a unity. We feel that only one exists and that we experience things not as isolated but as a whole. How come?

Dualists believe that everyone has a consciousness that is something other than their brains. Eccles believed as dualist that the mind plays an active role in selecting and integrating neural activity. This would result in a unified whole. But how should this happen? Where does the interaction between the mind and the brain take place? This problem recurs in all dualistic theories. The dualist Libet has the answer that the feeling of unity is achieved through a mental field of consciousness. That is why split brain patients still behave as one person.

The binding problem 

When you pick up a coin and throw it in the air, there are immense things happening in your brain. For example, various brain areas are active for observing color, movement and shape. There are also auditory processes under way. There is no specific place or a specific moment in which all this information comes together so that the falling coin can be seen as a unified whole. Yet we do have the feeling that everything is processed as a whole and that the coin falls, as it were, in one go. How can you see the coin as one moving object?

This problem is described as the visual binding problem and more generally as the 'binding problem'. This problem can be described at different levels, for example at the neural level and at the phenomenological level. Some people think that the binding problem is the same as understanding how attention works. So if you focus your attention on a cast coin long enough, the characteristics of the coin will be merged.

When the attention is overloaded, the wrong characteristics can be connected to each other. However, it is not the case that connecting characteristics and attention are the same. For example, binding can also occur unconsciously. There is a relationship between attention, awareness and bonding, but this relationship is not yet well exposed.

Binding and simultaneity (synchrony)

Malsburg stated that the simultaneous, coordinated firing of neurons in the visual cortex is the basis of visual binding. All neurons that process certain characteristics of an object (for example color or shape) would come together, and fire at the same time. This would ensure that we experience characteristics of objects as unified. Crick and Koch think that this may be the neural translation of visual consciousness. They believe that consciousness depends on a kind of short-term memory and on successive attentional processes. The thalamus would lead the attention by making a choice from the object characteristics that should be connected to each other. This would be done by letting neurons fire.

Crick states that this has been useful in evolutionary terms. He states that it is better to have one representation of an object than to always send information to different parts of the brain. He says that the unity of consciousness really exists. Later Crick and Koch adjusted their opinion. According to them, there is no question of a single brain area where it all comes together.

Micro-consciousness

Zeki doubts whether there is a unity of consciousness. He believes that there are many micro-consciousnesses. According to him, the visual system consists of many separate and specialized systems that function in parallel. Each system is independent and achieves an endpoint at a different time. Some characteristics must be observed before other characteristics can be observed. Zeki states that all these systems go together with a separate form of consciousness. He finds this because there is no 'end station' found in the brain where all the information comes together. This should therefore mean that there is not only one form of consciousness. Zeki can be seen as a Canestian materialist, because he states that there is a finish line where unconscious processes become aware.

Multisensory integration

Integration of information that enters multiple senses depends on neurons that respond to input from more than one sense. These neurons are found in different parts of the brain, but mainly in the superior colliculus in the midbrain. Neurons who find themselves there are already responding to multiple senses from birth, but this continues to improve as someone makes more use of his or her senses. It is not clear how integration of information from different senses produces a sense of subjectivity (ie consciousness).

Reentry and the dynamic core

Edelman and Tononi are trying to explain two characteristics of consciousness. First of all, they want to know how the unity of consciousness is caused. In addition, they want to find out how complex and diverse the consciousness is. They state that consciousness ensures that we experience things as continuous and coherent. This applies even to people with damaged brains.

Based on their vision, the researchers have designed the theory of reentry by neuronal group selection. Here they state that consciousness depends on continuous, self-repeating, parallel processes between parts of the thalamus and cortex. In addition, they argue that this time is needed to bring the long, self-repeating routes to a successful conclusion. Activity in these routes is necessary for consciousness, but not enough. Other factors are also needed.

They distinguish between two forms of consciousness. First there is such a thing as primary consciousness that occurs in many animals. This form of consciousness goes together with a short-term memory and being able to deal with the here and now. Clusters would arise in the brain and connections within a cluster would be stronger than connections outside a cluster. These clusters may depend on interactions between many brain regions. They ensure that different characteristics of an object can be combined. In addition, according to Edelman and Tononi, there is something like higher order awareness. This form of consciousness would have been developed in evolution at a later stage. Higher order awareness depends on connections between language and conceptual systems. This would ensure that a 'dynamic core' can arise and that there is also a feeling of a coherent self. The dynamic core is a large functional cluster that always changes, but still maintains continuity and integration, because there are connections with the rest of the system. The dynamic core can be involved at different moments in different parts of the brain. Other parts of the brain can then remain active, but are not part of the dynamic core.

This theory does not explain how the dynamic core creates subjectivity.

Unity as illusion

One way to escape the idea that consciousness is a unity is to think in terms of actions as unity. Cotterill believes that consciousness is a result of the interaction between the brain, the body and the environment. Hurley states that perception, action and the environment are closely linked. The unity of consciousness would arise through a dynamic flow of causal processes and multiple feedback routes that link input and output to each other.

These scientists see consciousness as a way of doing or acting, rather than a way to perceive information. They therefore believe that consciousness is connected with interaction with the world. Then the question remains why it gives a specific feeling when we perform an action. Some scientists believe that the unity of consciousness is only an illusion.

Resources: Blackmore; Susan. (2010). Consciousness, Second Edition An Introduction. Abingdon, Oxon: Taylor & Francis.

What views are there on the consciousness of machines? - Chapter 17

Thinking and awareness

Could a machine be aware of something? This question is more difficult than the question of whether machines can think. If you ask the latter question, you can go two ways. You can say that it depends on how the word 'think' is defined. You can also say that you want to design an experiment that shows that a machine can think. This is what Turing has done. It is more difficult to know whether a machine has consciousness.

First of all, there is no clear definition for the word 'consciousness'. In addition, there is no experiment (such as the Turing test), with which it can be investigated whether machines have an awareness. If we assume that consciousness has to do with subjective experiences, then only the machine itself can know whether it has a consciousness.

Some people believe that if you ask a robot if he has a consciousness and he says that this is so, it is likely that he pretends to have a consciousness, because he has been programmed in this way. A functionalist will say that robots have a consciousness because they can perform certain tasks as robots. According to functionalists, the consciousness depends on being able to act. Consciousness is not a cause according to this view of task performance. An inessentialist does not believe that machines or robots can have a consciousness because there is no inner experience with machines. If both visions (both those of the functionalist and the inessentialist) were legitimate then there would still be no simple test to examine the consciousness of a machine.

Counter arguments

There are several arguments to indicate that machines could never have a consciousness. First, it feels unnatural to think that a machine can have a consciousness. You can also assume a dualistic perspective. For example, based on your religion, you can say that God has only given a consciousness to humans. It is also possible to adopt a non-religious dualistic perspective. In that case you can say that the mind is something that is separate from the brain . Since this is not the case with machines, they could never have a consciousness.

You could say that the machine is a zombie (and therefore has no consciousness), that God has given a soul or mind to the machine or that a machine simply has a consciousness. It is also possible to say that robots have no consciousness, because only living organisms can have a consciousness. You could say that the function of neurons can never be replicated with robots. Another argument is that organisms grow and learn before they have developed a consciousness. 

Searle believes that brains are the cause of the mind. Surprisingly, however, he does not call himself a dualist. He states that consciousness has a neurological basis, but that consciousness must be experienced. He believes that brains have the ability to create experiences. Searle does not think that brain tissue is necessary for consciousness. He believes that other organisms can also have a consciousness, but only if they, like the brain, can cause a mind with experiences.

A fourth argument against the consciousness of machines is that for some things a consciousness is needed and that machines can not execute these things because they have no consciousness . An example is developing a sense of humor and enjoying an ice cream. There is also the vision that is called 'Lady Lovelace's objection'. A machine could only do what is asked of him. A machine itself could never be creative.

The Chinese room

Turing was an opponent of the idea that we can only know what our own mind is.

We could also really understand other types of intellects (for example, machines). Searle did not agree with this and thought up the well-known Chinese room thought experiment. According to him, ' Strong AI' does not exist, because using the right program by a machine is not enough to develop a capacity for understanding.

The thought experiment of Searle goes as follows. Imagine: you are in a closed room and you get to see Chinese reading pieces there. You do not understand Chinese yourself and you can not speak it either. There is also an English book with rules in the room. People outside the room give you two Chinese reading articles about a story, together with a questionnaire that you have to fill in about what you have read. The English book with rules shows you what reaction you should give to the questions. At a certain moment this goes so well that people outside the room think that you can read and understand perfect Chinese. Afterwards, people outside the room will give you an English story to read. You answer these questions yourself because you are English yourself. Yet your answers to the Chinese story and the English story to the outside world are equally good,but there is a crucial difference: you really understand the English stories, while you do not understand the Chinese story. In the case of the Chinese room you behave like a computer that receives input from the English book to give the correct answers.

In short:The conclusion of Searle is that a computer itself can never really understand anything . He can not connect meanings to the input he receives. So there is no question of a capacity for understanding. Searle thinks that man has intentionality and the machine does not. Intentionality is about focusing attention on something to understand it. According to Searle, intentionality is a subjective issue and therefore related to consciousness.

Criticism

There has been a lot of criticism on Searle. So there has been the ' brain simulator reply' . This means that there can be a program that can simulate the way neurons fire in Chinese brains. Searle says that perhaps that is possible, but that you can not design intellect or consciousness with that. Chalmers believes that people can interact with other objects in a concrete way, while that does not apply to computers. He states that implementation is an important concept in this respect. Having the right computer program is not enough to create a consciousness. It is about applying the right program.

There are also differences of opinion about what Searle's thought experiment really proves. Some people say that Searle proves that computers can not have real understanding, while others think the experiment does not prove anything. Finally, there is the argument that there are things that machines can not do. If we can do these things, it means that we are more than just machines and that we have something special, namely a consciousness. Turing also calls this the ' mathematical objection' . The first part of this argument is correct. There are indeed things that a Turing machine can not do, but the ' incompleteness theorem' states that all systems (including human systems) are ultimately not complete. But does this really apply to people?

Turing states that humans can easily make mistakes and that man is not necessarily superior to a machine. Penrose argues that arithmetical understanding goes beyond just counting and that a consciousness is needed for this. Searle believes that consciousness can be imitated in machines (although it will never take human form), but Penrose does not even believe in it. Penrose thinks that understanding something is something very different than calculating something. Penrose believes that consciousness arises through coherence in microtubes . These are proteins that resemble tubules and can be found in almost all cells of the body. Because of these microtubes we feel that we have a self and a free will. Penrose's theory becomes ' objection reduction' called.

Kurzweil is an opponent of the vision of Penrose. Machines may not be able to solve all problems, but people certainly do not, he thinks. People can only make estimates of problems according to Kurzweil, but computers can do this too. Grush and Churchland are also opponents of Penrose's vision. Microtubes are located throughout the body and not only in the brain.

It is said that no evidence has been found that microtubes have anything to do with consciousness. Moreover, it is suspected that effects from one microtube can not be transferred to the other microtube to explain the unity of consciousness. Yet Penrose's theory remains popular because he does not explain consciousness in terms of neurons. Most people find it a strange idea that consciousness only comes from neurons that work together. Penrose uses principles from quantum physics to defend his theory. For many people that sounds much more appealing than just a statement based on the activity of neurons.

Resources:Blackmore; Susan. (2010). Consciousness, Second Edition An Introduction. Abingdon, Oxon: Taylor & Francis.

How does unconscious processing work? - Chapter 19

Conscious and unconscious processing

Scientists had a very early interest in unconscious processing (also called implicit or subliminal perception ). We know that there can be perception without consciousness. People can think for themselves that they have not perceived anything consciously, while their behavior shows that they have observed something.

We do not assume that we have two selves: one for conscious processing and one for unconscious processing. In earlier experiments, conscious experiences were defined in terms of what people themselves said they had observed. This sounds logical, but this method has a disadvantage. Whether someone says that he or she has perceived something consciously depends on how careful someone is with his or her judgment. There is no clear limit to indicate between when someone has observed something or not. Behaviorists did not want to be dependent on whether people said they had observed something. They wanted to make objective measuring instruments so that there was no need for them. This is a strange idea, since saying whether you have observed something,is as reliable (or unreliable) as pressing a button to make it clear that you have observed something.

Priming

Marcel showed that people react faster to a target if the prime matches this. Marcel made the primes unrecognizable to participants by placing a visual distractor on the image immediately after the prime appeared. People could not consciously perceive the prime. Even so, the target was reacted even faster. This phenomenon is also called ' semantic priming' .

Cheesman and Merikle distinguished between:

1. objective threshold value, and

2. subjective threshold value.

The objective threshold value represents the level of detection in which a distinction is made between perceptual information on the basis of random phenomena. The subjective threshold value is about the value at which participants say that they could not distinguish between perceptual information and that their answers come from random phenomena.

Cheesman and Merikle used the Stroop test where participants have to name the color of a word after being primed with a colored word. Corresponding (congruent) colors and words provide a faster response time. When colors and words do not match, there is incongruity. Cheesman and Merikle drew the conclusion that there is unconscious processing when information is presented below the subjective limit value and above the objective limit value.

Unconsciousness and emotion

It is also possible that unconscious perception affects the emotions of people. Threatening images (which people deny having seen) can evoke emotional reactions and change perceptual thresholds. Sometimes it even happens that people who have been sedated have nevertheless unconsciously observed what the surgeon said during the operation.

Merikle and Daneman state that unconsciously observed information leads to automatic reactions and that consciously observed information leads to more flexible reactions. However, it can not be said with certainty that unconsciously observed information causes automatic reactions . It is also possible that more flexible reactions cause awareness or that flexible responses and conscious processes are the same.

Brain scans also show that unconscious perception can be found in the brain. Unconsciously perceived images of frightened faces lead to more activity in the amygdala compared to happy faces. This confirms that even when information is unconsciously processed, there can still be effects on different parts of the brain that would also be activated when the same stimuli were consciously observed.

The implications of unconscious perception

The idea of ​​a Cartesian theater must be wrong, since it has been found that unconscious processing also influences the actions of the human being. Cartesian theater assumes that information enters consciousness and that "I" can choose what he or she does with this information.

Cartesian materialism is also wrong, because in this vision it is also believed that something 'comes' into consciousness, as is the case with Cartesian theater. In Cartesian materialism, it is not believed in a "self" that looks at a mental screen in its own head (which is an assumption in Cartesian theater). With our findings about the influence of unconscious processing, we can conclude that these visions can not be correct.

Solve problems

Opinions vary widely as to whether unconscious problem solving takes place. Broadbent and Berry have conducted studies showing that it is possible to unconsciously solve problems. It happens that people who are good at performing a task can explain very poorly how they accomplish the task. Sometimes people do not even know what information they used to complete a task during an experiment.

Lewicki proved that without people knowing it, they can become better at performing a task on a computer screen. He believes that unconscious information processing processes are faster than conscious ones and that they are also more refined. Among scientists there are differences of opinion about how 'smart' unconscious cognition is.

Claxton states that many tasks can best be performed without interference from consciousness. Many experiments show that when trying to learn something explicit, implicit learning can suppress.

Intuition

Sometimes insight can come much later than desired. Intuition can be seen as making decisions or drawing conclusions without explicit processing or reasoning.

There are three parts of intuition. First, there are cognitive processes that allow the brain to derive information from complex patterns and guide behavior. Cognitive processes probably contribute to many everyday skills; from playing computer games to guessing which row will probably be the shortest in the supermarket. In addition, there are social skills that make us feel that someone is unreliable, for example. We also use social skills when we want to estimate when the best time is to bring bad news to someone. These skills are quickly picked up by children. Women have better verbal skills and are more interested in social relationships. For these reasons they might well have a better developed intuition.Finally, there are still emotions. Intuitive knowledge is often accompanied by emotions.

People with damaged frontal lobes become very superficial on an emotional level. This ensures that they become indecisive. They find it difficult to make choices about the smallest things. They can rationally weigh alternatives, but they lack in-depth emotions. Because of this they can not sense which choice is right.

Creativity

Creativity can be seen as a way in which explicit and intuitive skills come together. However, it is not clear where creativity comes from. For example, many famous writers and painters say that their best work comes to them. The question is where it comes from. They do not feel that they consciously make a beautiful painting or write a beautiful poem; it all seems to go by itself. It therefore seems as if there is 'selfless' creativity, being a force that comes from the outside.

Creative people score high on fantasizing, hypnotizability, and 'absorption'. This last term stands for being able to easily blend into a book or film. We could also show creativity from an evolutionary framework. Perhaps creativity allows people to bring together cultural knowledge ('memes') in special ways to form new memes. They must be motivated for this and can sense which combinations of memes go well together.

Resources:Blackmore; Susan. (2010). Consciousness, Second Edition An Introduction. Abingdon, Oxon: Taylor & Francis.

Which drugs affect consciousness and how? - Chapter 22

Definitions of ASC and SoC

The 'other form of consciousness' formulated by James is now called 'altered states of consciousness', abbreviated as ASCs. However, this concept is difficult to define. For example, there is the question of whether we should define ASCs objectively or subjectively. If we choose an objective definition, then we are talking about the causes of the changed consciousness. We would then make a definition based on narcotics. A problem, however, is that you do not include the subjective experience in the definition. For example, how can we know if people who are drunk are all reacting in the same way? Is it also possible that the same drugs produce different ASCs?

Perhaps it is better to define ASCs in terms of physical variables and behavioral measurements. In this context one can think of heartbeat and the expression of emotions. A problem with such an approach, however, is that few ASCs are associated with unique physical patterns or behavioral changes. For this reason, scientists are still cautious when it comes to giving a definition based on physical processes to the state of consciousness (SoC) to.

It is also possible to give ASCs a subjective definition. In practice, this approach is used the most. In these types of definitions, ASCs are described as states in which it feels as if there is a change in the normal pattern of mental functioning. These types of definitions give rise to other problems. ASCs are compared with normal patterns of mental functioning, but what exactly is a normal pattern of mental functioning? In addition, the use of subjective definitions ensures that people's experiences can not be compared properly, because they can not be measured in the same way.

What has changed in an ASC?

What exactly changes when someone experiences an ASC? We can say that consciousness has changed, but what exactly does this mean? There are a lot of differences among scientists about what consciousness means at all. Farthing states that we need to look at fourteen points if we want to know what exactly changes when someone experiences an ASC. He named:

1. attention,            

2. perception,           

3. imagination and fantasy,            

4. inner speech,           

5. memory,          

6. high-level thought processes,

7. meaning,

8. time perception,

9. emotions and expression,

10. alertness,

11. self control,

12. suggestibility,

13. body image, and

14. sense of personal identity.

With some ASCs all these factors change, with others only one or two. After this, we will go deeper into three of these factors, namely:

1. attention   

2. memory, and

3. alertness.

These three often change in the case of an ASC.

Attention can be influenced in two ways by an ASC. First of all, attention can be directed inwards or outwards. In dreams, for example, attention is directed towards the inside. ASCs introduce changes in this part of attention. For example, they can reduce sensory input, as in the case of meditation. An ASC can also ensure that attention is experienced very broadly or is very limited. For example, some people who are high have a lot of attention for the pattern on the carpet.

ASCs also affect memory. For example, narcotics affect how much can be stored in the short-term memory. It is also possible that a narcotic means that someone feels that the time is very fast or very slow.

In addition, ASCs influence the level of alertness. For example, meditation is accompanied by very little alertness and deep relaxation. This can lead to little need for food and oxygen. There are also situations where people become extremely alert. An example of this are religious rituals.

Thinking about the above three terms (attention, memory and alertness) means that we can imagine a kind of three-dimensional space in which all possible ASCs are positioned. If SoCs were accurately mapped in such a space, we could understand how each SoC is related to others. However, this task is not easy.

The mapping of jet consciousness

Early psychophysiologists attempted to place visual and auditory sensations in a multidimensional space. The first attempts were done by Tart. He described a simple space with two dimensions: irrationality and the ability to hallucinate. By placing a person in this space he imagined three large clusters corresponding to dreams, clear dreams and normal consciousness. All other positions in space can not be used or are unstable. These zones called Tart 'discrete zones of consciousness'. He stated that you could never be between two different states.

A second two-dimensional space was described by Laureys. His dimensions are completely different from the dimensions as described by Tart, namely: the level of arousal and the awareness of the environment and the self. Arousal refers to the physiological alertness or level of consciousness and depends on the arousal system of the brainstem. The awareness of the environment and the self refers to the content of consciousness and this requires a functional integrated cortex with subcortical loops. For most states, the level and content are positively correlated with each other.

The AIM model is a three-dimensional view developed by Hobson. AIM is the abbreviation for the three dimensions that make up this model:

(1) 'Activation energy': is equal to arousal and can be measured, for example by EEG,

(2) 'Input source': can vary between mere ecterne or purely internal sources of information.

(3) 'Mode': the ratio of amines in comparison to cholines.

Types of drugs

Psychoactive drugs affect mental functioning or consciousness. These drugs can be classified into different categories.

Stimulants

The first category consists of the stimulants. Examples include nicotine, caffeine, cocaine and amphetamine. Cocaine causes a feeling of intense pleasure, a lot of energy and a lot of self-confidence. It goes along with tolerance. Tolerance means that a higher dose is always needed to experience the same effect. People who use a lot of cocaine often suffer from hallucinations. They also have the feeling that there are beasts living under their skin.

Amphetamine (also called speed) is also a drug that inhibits the reuptake of dopamine. This drug also gives a lot of energy. In addition, there is tolerance and withdrawal with depression. The use of speed can also lead to delusions and hallucinations.

MDMA (also called xtc) is taken out of speed. MDMA has three important effects:

1. inhibiting the reuptake of serotonin,

2. activating the excretion of serotonin, and

3. activating the excretion of dopamine.

The use of MDMA goes hand in hand with a lot of energy and feelings of love and empathy. The effects do depend on the setting in which the drug is used. If someone uses MDMA in nature alone, this gives the feeling that the universe is one. At that moment someone feels a lot of love for the world. MDMA, like other drugs, is addictive and goes along with tolerance.

Depressants

Examples are alcohol, tranquillizers and sleeping pills. These agents have a different effect, for example facilitating the neurotransmitter GABA. Other mechanisms of action are effects on endogenous opioids and inhibition of adrenaline and acetylcholine.

Narcotics

Examples of this category are heroin, morphine, codeine and methadone. These drugs have a big influence on mood and are very addictive. However, they do not cause ASCs that help us to better understand the consciousness. An exception is opium.

Antipsychotics

Examples include tranquilizers such as chlorpromazine and lithium carbonate. These drugs are used to treat people with schizophrenia.

Antidepressants

Here are three types of:

1. tricylic antidepressants (TCAs),

2. selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), and             

3. monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs).

SSRIs ensure that serotonin remains available for longer and MAOIs ensure that noradrenaline, dopamine and serotonin are less likely to be broken down.

Anesthetics

Anesthetic agents fall In this category. An example is ketamine. This means that the working memory, the episodic memory and the semantic memory are disturbed. This substance is rarely used as an anesthetic because it can cause symptoms of schizophrenia and nightmares.

Psychedelics

The effects of these drugs are very strange, but also varied. Examples of psychedelics are DMT, psilocybin (mushrooms) and LSD. In terms of structure they resemble one of four neurotransmitters: acetylcholine, dopamine, noradrenaline or serotonin. Often they are not addictive, but they can be dangerous.

Cannabis

In the past, cannabis was mainly used for medical purposes. This drug is often smoked or burned in special pipes. Describing the experiences of people who have used cannabis is not easy. They often indicate that it is indescribable what cannabis has for them. In addition, it is also the case that the effects per person are different. When using small amounts of experienced people intense pleasure (euphoria) and relaxation. Use of large quantities is accompanied by anxiety and paranoia.

Great psychoedelics

An example is mescaline. Using mescaline makes people feel that the world is perfect and colorful.

Resources: Blackmore; Susan. (2010). Consciousness, Second Edition An Introduction. Abingdon, Oxon: Taylor & Francis.

What are examples of 'exceptional human experiences'? - Chapter 24

EHE

Some people say that they have exceptional experiences that others can not imagine. For example, James speaks of someone who is standing on a mountain top and feels that his soul 'opens' and goes to infinity. Such an experience is also called an ' exceptional human experience' (EHE) . This category includes religious experiences, lucid dreams and mystical experiences.

What do these kinds of experiences actually say? There are roughly three different answers to this:

1. There are people who believe that people lie with these experiences or come up with things or that these experiences are side effects of brain processes.                               

2. Then there are people who use EHEs to indicate that materialism is wrong and that the paranormal and the soul exist.                                    

3. Finally, there are people who consider these experiences as normal and try to understand them without using terms like God and spirits.                           

Step outside the body ('out-of-body experiences', OBEs)

Out-of-body experiences, OBE, are events in which someone feels that he is outside of himself and looks at the world. An OBE can occur just like that: if someone walks on the street or sits on the couch. Before such a thing happens, people are often relaxed and have reduced sensory input. An OBE often takes a few minutes. With an ' asomatic' OBE, someone only has the feeling that he has a consciousness, while he is not in his own body. With a 'parasomatic' OBE, there is a second body outside the body that you have.

An OBE is not something like a dream. People who experience an OBE say that their senses become sharper during an OBE. OBErs are less afraid of death when they have experienced an OBE. In addition, they often remember their dreams better and often have lucid dreams.

There is no connection between OBE and psychopathology. It is not easy to generate an OBE. In the past, hypnosis was often used in this context, but nowadays it focuses more on relaxation and imagery exercises. Drugs (and especially psychedelics) can lead to an OBE. Some people use the existence of OBE as evidence for the idea that consciousness exists and functions independently of the body. Other explanations are, however, also possible.

Theories about OBE

OBEs are so compelling that people are convinced that their consciousness has left their bodies and that they can survive death. Researchers from the nineteenth century who pursue theosophy assumed that everyone has multiple bodies. When the consciousness leaves the one (physical) body, it ends up in the astral body. The term ' astral projection' is still used today. So theosophy starts from a form of dualism. There have been many attempts, but the existence of a non-physical body or entity has never been proven. The idea has also been put forward that no one will leave his body during an OBE, but that this will feel the same. However, this does mean that the experience should be explained by means of neuroscience. The first question is whether there are ASCs, ie altered forms of consciousness.

OBEs in psychology and neuroscience

Research shows that OBEs are associated with a relaxed way of waking up. There is no deep sleep during an OBE and certainly not REM sleep. Psychoanalytic theories describe an OBE as an extreme expression of the fear of dying. However, these theories can hardly be tested and do not lead us further to the understanding of OBEs.

Psychological theories, mostly from the 80s and 90s of the last century, build on the fact that an OBE occurs when sensory input and body image are disturbed. The cognitive system would like to solve this disturbance by creating a new (and incorrect) body image and creating a new world that is derived from memory and imagination. This new world really feels.

Research shows that people who have experienced an OBE are better at spatial representations, can better influence their dreams and often dream that they are looking at themselves from above. In addition, research results show that there is a link between body image and OBE. When the temporal lobes of people with epilepsy are stimulated, they shout that they feel as if they are outside their body. The temporal lobes seem to play a role at OBE.

The brain area that is involved in an OBE appears to be the tempo parietal junction (TPJ), on the right. Visual, tactile, proprioceptive and vestibular information come together in this area. With this an image of the body is constructed. This image is continuously updated, as the body moves almost continuously. Research shows that an OBE occurs when this normal process becomes defective. Direct stimulation of this area causes an OBE.

Near-death experiences, NDEs

In many cultures, people who are close to dying say that they have specific experiences at such a moment. The experiences are similar in many cultures. During a near death experience NDE, someone experiences a bright, white or golden light, positive and loving emotions, images of a different world, a reflection on life and the decision to return. It rarely happens that someone has very unpleasant experiences during an NDE. An NDE is not the result of medication. People who have attempted suicide often experience positive NDEs and then do a second suicide attempt much less frequently. In addition, it appears that people who have experienced an NDE, compared to people who do not, after their experience much stronger in life after death to believe.They are also less afraid of death, they become very interested in spirituality and feel a lot of love and acceptance for others.

Interpretation of NDES

Many people grasp the existence of NDEs to prove that there is a soul that can leave the body and survive on its own. This is also called the ' afterlife hypothesis' . Some scientists argue that the understanding of NDEs can only happen when a new form of science emerges that examines consciousness. The consciousness seems to be related to experiencing an NDE. First of all, it is true that people who experience an NDE state that they are very aware of themselves at that moment. This is an interesting fact, since their brains often function poorly because they have had an accident, for example.

How can it be that they feel that they are aware of themselves? This question is difficult to answer because we do not know when a NDE is exactly experienced. However, there are examples of people who can observe what happens around them during a coma. This can not be explained properly, because you would expect that their consciousness does not function properly at that moment.

The ' dying brain hypothesis' states that stress, extreme anxiety and oxygen deprivation in the brain ensure that there are no more inhibitions and that brain activity can no longer be controlled. This could result in an NDE. For example, tunnels and lights are often caused by the fact that the visual cortex can no longer be inhibited. During an NDE, people often see new worlds, but these worlds fit in with their philosophy of life.

There is no doubt that NDEs change through experience and there is some evidence that deeper experiences lead to greater change. It seems plausible that NDEs are involved in profound changes in the sense of self that are caused by a wrong integration in the TJP.

Mystical experiences

James states that an experience can be called 'mystical' if four conditions are met:

1. not being able to retell it in words ('ineffability'),         

2. ' neotic',                      

3. impermanence ('transiency'), and

4.  passivity .              

'Ineffability' means that people can not express in words exactly what they have experienced. 'Noetic' means that a mystical situation is a state of knowledge, insight and enlightenment. A mystical experience often lasts for half an hour to an hour before everything starts to become less sharp. Afterwards they can not be remembered exactly, but they can easily be recognized if they occur again. This phenomenon is summarized by the word 'transiency'. Finally, there is passivity: once the mystical experiences begin, they can not be influenced.

Other criteria have been added by Suzuki. He says that a mystical experience still goes hand in hand with ' exaltation' and ' affirmation'. This means that the experience gives someone respect for everything that exists. In addition, he added the criterion ' sense of the beyond' . This is about the feeling that people experience something that lies outside the world of normal events.

Consideration

Paranormal explanations of mystical experiences are inadequate. They are not supported by scientific research and are often not testable. Yet they are very popular. A less popular view is that the deepest mystical insights are monistic and not paranormal. These insights would go perfectly with science. This is because mystical experiences often experience that the universe is one and that the separate self is an illusion.

Resources: Blackmore; Susan. (2010). Consciousness, Second Edition An Introduction. Abingdon, Oxon: Taylor & Francis.

What is known about the effect of meditation and mindfulness? - Chapter 26

Ways of meditating

Does meditation coincide with a change in consciousness? Meditation is important in many religions. Nowadays, however, many non-religious people also engage in meditation. The best known meditation form is ' transcendental meditation' (TM) . TM would go hand in hand with deep relaxation, the disappearance of stress, an improvement in health, creativity and happiness.

Meditation can be summarized as:

1. do not think, but

2. have attention.

Attitude

Meditation often goes hand in hand with a special body posture. The goal is to make the body alert and relaxed, so that you can sit in the same position for a longer time. The most familiar posture is the lotus posture. With this posture, the back is held straight and people are encouraged to breathe from the abdomen instead of just from the chest. The goal is always to create stability and alertness. Sometimes the hands also adopt a specific posture during meditation. This way the hands can be placed on the knees, but that is not necessary. Research has not shown that certain hand positions have an effect.

 Basic principles

All forms of meditation have two things in common: (1) having attention and (2) not thinking. But what is attention paid to? If you do not want to think, then it does not work to force yourself not to think. If you do that, the suppressed thoughts will come back even more violently. Thoughts should not be suppressed, but be left on their course. There are two ways in which this can be achieved; through:

1. open methods and             

2. concentration methods.

Open meditation

Open meditation means that you are aware of everything that happens around you, but that you do not react to it. This is often done by keeping the eyes (half) open and by facing a white wall. This is often done in Buddhist meditation (zazen) .

Mindfulness meditation is a form of open meditation derived from Buddhism, in particular the method ' skikantaza' , which means 'sit alone'. Mindfulness is defined as 'maximizing the activity of breathing and clarity of consciousness' or 'giving attention in a certain way with the aim of living in the here and now without judgment'. Holding attention and not making a distinction between stimuli means that as much attention is paid to everything that is perceived. This is also known as ' choiceless awareness' . By means of exercise it is possible to achieve this.

The idea is to accept all distractions and not to oppose them. Do not respond to the distractions, do not think about them and they will leave on their own. This ensures that the differences between the self and the other and the mind and the contents of the mind disappears. This is also called 'nonduality' .

Concentration meditation

Concentration meditation is about focusing the attention on one thing without being distracted. In open meditation, openness (and acceptance) of distractions is important, but this does not apply to concentration meditation. Concentration meditation often focuses on breathing. For example, you can count the number of breaths.

Sometimes special techniques are used to adjust the speed of breathing or to exert influence on whether the breathing is more out of the abdomen or more out of the chest. Differences in breathing patterns affect consciousness. Mantras are words, sentences or sounds that are repeated. That can happen in the head, but also out loud.

This can ensure that you only pay attention to what you repeat over and over again. However, it is not about the words themselves; the words only ensure that you have something to focus on. Sometimes people who meditate focus on philosophical questions or stories that are difficult to answer for the mind. How does meditation help us to learn more about consciousness?

The answer to this question is related to the reason why people meditate. There are three reasons to point out:

1. religious or ritual reasons (for example, believe that you go to heaven through meditation),            

2. reduce stress, improve personal abilities and live better, and               

3. search for insight, whether it is done in a religious or mystical context. This chapter is about the last two reasons.

Relaxation and stress reduction

TM is seen as an effective method to relax and reduce stress. For this reason, meditation is sometimes prescribed by doctors to reduce high blood pressure. Holmes has conducted a study from which he draws the conclusion that meditation has no added value. Resting would have the same effect.

His conclusion has been criticized by followers of meditation. It is difficult to prove that meditation reduces stress, because it is difficult to measure such a thing. Which form of stress should be measured, for example? And how should this be done? In addition, there are different forms of meditation and it is therefore not clear what form should be used for research.

Most researchers have focused on the study of TM. This is logical, since TM is said to be the most important thing that reduces this meditation form of stress.

The question is whether we should carry out examinations in which the same people are examined before and after meditation, or that we have to carry out examinations in which different people are divided into different conditions. When the same people are examined before and after meditation, it is often found that stress is reduced. However, it should also be considered whether the results are the same as when people only rest instead of meditating.

Farthing states that meditation has no effect or has an effect that can also be achieved by another technique. The effect of meditation would therefore not be unique.

Siddhis and physical forces

Some people think that meditation can lead to the acquisition of skills, such as siddhis. Siddhis are supernatural powers such as prophethood, hovering and control over others and nature. Float is also called ' vedic flying' . There are photos of people who take off during meditation.

The ' Maharishi effect' means that if enough people meditate together in the same place, their combined consciousness can ensure that people in that environment live peacefully. Evidence for this effect has been found: crime figures have declined and social cohesion has increased in places where meditation takes place (eg in government buildings or universities). Critics state, however, that no comparison material has been used and that these results do not have to be correct.

Insight and ASCs

Meditation is often defined in terms of altered states in consciousness ('ASCs'). For example, terms such as enlightenment and experiencing 'no self' occur. Is it really true that meditation causes ASCs? Tart believes so, because people who meditate feel that their mental functioning has changed. Little consistent evidence has been found showing that meditation causes changes in consciousness. There is a theory that meditation is no more than sleep. Research shows that people sometimes sleep very briefly during meditation.

Why meditate?

Since naps are good for memory and for cognitive abilities, it could well be that meditation has positive effects. Some people feel that the 'self' disappears during meditation. This would mean that people who think that an "I" is needed to have experiences are wrong.

Resources:Blackmore; Susan. (2010). Consciousness, Second Edition An Introduction. Abingdon, Oxon: Taylor & Francis.