The Science of Consciousness:
Chapter 8: Cognition and Consciousness
What this chapter is about: What are the cognitive correlates of consciousness?
Why are we so conscious of so little? How is consciousness related to attention?
This is a a very broad chapter covering a lot of material, some of which necessarily I think overlaps with the chapters on perception and on the brain. it is also a repository of a few topics that don't fit in that well anywhere else. Where else can I put quantum mechanical theories of consciousness?
There is a typographic error at the bottom of p.188 in "a finite number of syntactic rules to generate an innate number of concepts" - that should be an infinite number of concepts. The sentence should read:
"A language of thought helps us to explain a number of characteristics of thought, such as its generativity, which means that just like overt language it can express any concept by combining a finite number of words with a finite number of syntactic rules to generate an infinite number of concepts, so can our internal language enable us to express a potentially infinite number of thoughts from finite, limited experience.
Line 11 on p.198: ‘There is an audience, of sort’ appears to be inconsistent with the claim slightly later that ‘there is no audience’?
This discussion of the global workspace is a bit confusing. What I meant is that there is no explicit audience as in an homunculus, but there are processes that monitor the workspace.
Awareness, self-awareness, recursion, and higher order theories of consciousness
See also and .
Awareness is experiencing something - as helpfully puts it, awareness is the state of being conscious of something. I am being harsh with Wikipedia here because awareness is difficult to define because my awareness is private: you can't know what I'm experiencing; you cannot share my pain. I am confident many animals are aware. We are aware of qualia, the atoms of sensation. I am aware of the sensation of the colour of the rose to the left (although I am not sure how to describe it - orange? yellow orange?)
Self-awarenss is being aware of our own awareness. It's taking our own awareness as the object of our awareness. There has been much debate about the extent to which some animals are self-conscious (for example, see discussion of the mirror test of self recognition in ). I am fairly confident some animals have some kind of self-awareness. I think Beau has some self-awareness. I guess, but I just don't know.
Meta-awareness is being able to think about awareness. I think it's distinct from self-awareness. I think Beau sometimes definitely reflects on his mental states; he knows he is feeling sad.
Self-self-awareness is beng aware of my self-awareness. I am pretty confident this statement makes sense and I ssupect only humans are capable of it.
Beyond that nothing makes much sense to me. You might claim that you are aware of being aware of of your own self-awareness, but I'm sceptical. It reminds me of Chomsky's self-embedded sentence structures (see ). I can understand the sentence:
The rat the cat chased laughed.
The rat the cat the dog hunted chased laughed.
But beyond that my comprehension is limited, at best algorithmic by counting words in from the beginning and end of the sentence. We can claim that in principle these structures are infinite, but as a psychologist I'm interested about what is the case in practice.
Self-embedding, and thinking about ourselves thinking, are often talked about as being recursive. Recursion is defining or explaining something in terms of itself, or at least a simpler version of itself. Self-awareness is awareness of awareness. Self-embedding is embedding a structure of the same type within another structure. As the old joke goes:
Recursion (definition) - see recursion.
With recursion it's easy to get into infinite loops, but that need not be the case if you're defining something in terms of a simper version of itself (as is the case of self-awareness). The programming language LISP (now sadly slmost defunct) made much use of recursion.
In Chomsky's more recent thinking about language, recursion is central and gives language its power (and what sets it apart from animal communiction systems). However, Daniel Everett claims that the language of the Piranha of the Amazon does not use recursion (the Piranha use very few numbers too, which might be linked to the structure of their language. Is it just coincidence that humans are the only animals to use recursion in language and unambiguously to be self-aware? I doubt if the Piranha lack self-awareness, so the answer is probably yes, or rather both are mediated by general intelligence.
While we can be aware without any kind of language, it's impossible to imagine being self-aware without some kind of symbol for the self. Having a symbolic representation isn't the same as having a language - there are too many hard and fast claims and dichotimies in cognition and psycholinguistics.
Higher order theories of consciousness - more to come.
OK, cognition and quantum mechanics are hardly things that most people of as going together, but there are several accoiunts that relate consciousness to quantum mechanics. Is it simply a case of putting together two things most people don't understand very well (consciousness and quantum mechanics), and thinking they must therefore be related? Unfortunately these theories are often very technical and difficult for most people (including me) to evaluate properly. The is a term to cover a group of theories beased on quatum mechanics with the starting point that classical mechanics cannot explain consciousness, and phenomena such as entanglement, superposition, and the observer effect are involved.
See Stuart Hameroff's resource on , specifically the Hameroff-Penrose Orch OR theory.
Note added later. I am wondering whether I've been sounding too negative when talking about quantum mechanics and consciousness. Observation plays an essential role in the by Bohr and Heisenberg: measurement collapses the wave function. goes further, saying that consciousness the collpase of the wave function. In the Copenhagen intepretation consciousness plays no role. I find it all rather confusing, and much of the essential mathematics beyond my ability. I think there must be something in it all, but I don't understand what.
Further review questions
1. Is self-awareness all or nothinng?
2. Write a recursive program in a language such as Python. There is plenty of help online.
Beau just after a haircut. What does he think? How does he think? What did he think about duing his haircut? How would he rate it, marks out of four? Without language, is his laguage of thought mainly visual and olfactory?
Qualia. What colour is this rose?