In my original post on vectors I mentioned that the concept was in early stages of formation and may not be carried forward at all. Important components of models of anything is that they should be interesting and controversial and relevant. The great interest already generated with regard to the Vector Model is obliging me to carry it forward.
Initially, I was making a point about the laughable nature of current models. In reality, there are no models of consciousness that are not discipline specific though some disciplines are composites eg CogScience.
Consciousness, even in cogscience, is a branch of that discipline. Consciousness is a branch of many disciplines. What is consciousness per se? That is, what is consciousness on its own, without being a branch of some other discipline? And what models of consciousness might come from that? Well, we have none yet. Those that purport to do so are laughable in that they are so totally biased toward the underlying discipline as to have little relevance outside it.
Part of this problem is the need, indeed requirement that some real and tangible evidence for that model must exist. This in itself obliges any researcher trying to construct a model to commit to some discipline or other - precursor to the above mentioned laughable nature of those models.
But why should that be a problem? Lets consider the neural correlates of consciousness. The very name rules out several branches of consciousness study that don’t involve neurons eg artificial life, artificial intelligence, any of the many theories that consider neurons to be a means of emulating consciousness rather than the cause of consciousness etc etc etc.
But lets ignore them (as Glen seems to be hoping we will do) and look to a correlate. The reticular formation can cause conscious or unconscious states and might be thought of as such a fundamental correlate. A damaged reticular formation results in loss of consciousness. Is this proof that the reticular formation is the substrate of consciousness?
The reticular formation causes a loss of coherent brain activity that includes sensing, effecting, and consciousness. Stopping all activity that includes consciousness does not make it an antecedent any more than light is antecedent to art, though paintings can neither be made or appreciated without light.
If consciousness is something that occurs on top of all other brain systems then perhaps it does not have any correlates at all. The systems upon which consciousness relies do have correlates eg the memory system has correlates, consciousness relies on memory, but a person with a dysfunctional memory does not lose consciousness - the human consciousness (higher consciousness) can still proceed though not as well as it could.
Further, consciousness clearly has a heavy reliance on the senses. But meditating monks believe they are attaining an even higher form of consciousness - they certainly don’t lose the consciousness they have.
And so the list goes on. We can trace the evolution of consciousness. This helps to identify the nature and reason for certain predispositions that conscious people seems to have. We can trace consciousness from its progress from birth and through maturation.
We cannot, however, examine a brain and find consciousness. We cannot study the brain systems and find consciousness. Consciousness would never be proposed if it wasn’t for the subjective experience of individuals. The old and now redundant Skinner models may continue, but Skinner denied that any higher consciousness existed - it is all just conditioned responses to him.
One might consider that the best discipline to investigate consciousness is philosophy. I’m inclined to think that a discipline of consciousness is the best way forward (in which the philosophy of consciousness is a branch). For a discipline of consciousness to gather up consciousness from all the other disciplines that have consciousness as a branch I suggest considering the progression from non-conscious antecedents to consciousness for each of those disciplines and to consider how they may fit together to form a complete picture of consciousness.
We've had this discussion before, usually in a debate over the definition of consciousness. It is because consciousness is a branch of other disciplines that those disciplines wish to define consciousness only in the terms of that particular discipline. For instance, a definition that describes consciousness as an activity of the human brain is an insult to those disciplines attempting to form some sort of consciousness with machines or those that are studying consciousness in non-human animals.
Perhaps there is no signification for 'consciousness' - we just have to take the word of 6 billion humans as to the reality of its existence.
Kind Regards, Robert Karl Stonjek.
© Robert Karl Stonjek 2003