Journal of Consciousness Studies 

About: Journal of Consciousness Studies is an academic journal published by Routledge. The journal publishes majorly in the area(s): Consciousness & Physicalism. It has an ISSN identifier of 1355-8250. Over the lifetime, 1008 publications have been published receiving 30039 citations.

Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness

Abstract: To make progress on the problem of consciousness, we have to confront it directly. In this paper, I first isolate the truly hard part of the problem, separating it from more tractable parts and giving an account of why it is so difficult to explain. I critique some recent work that uses reductive methods to address consciousness, and argue that such methods inevitably fail to come to grips with the hardest part of the problem. Once this failure is recognized, the door to further progress is opened. In the second half of the paper, I argue that if we move to a new kind of nonreductive explanation, a naturalistic account of consciousness can be given. I put forward my own candidate for such an account: a nonreductive theory based on principles of structural coherence and organizational invariance, and a double-aspect theory of information.

Synaesthesia? A window into perception, thought and language

Abstract: We investigated grapheme–colour synaesthesia and found that: (1) The induced colours led to perceptual grouping and pop-out, (2) a grapheme rendered invisible through ‘crowding’ or lateral masking induced synaesthetic colours — a form of blindsight — and (3) peripherally presented graphemes did not induce colours even when they were clearly visible. Taken collectively, these and other experiments prove conclusively that synaesthesia is a genuine perceptual phenomenon, not an effect based on memory associations from childhood or on vague metaphorical speech. We identify different subtypes of number–colour synaesthesia and propose that they are caused by hyperconnectivity between colour and number areas at different stages in processing; lower synaesthetes may have cross-wiring (or cross-activation) within the fusiform gyrus, whereas higher synaesthetes may have cross-activation in the angular gyrus. This hyperconnectivity might be caused by a genetic mutation that causes defective pruning of connections between brain maps. The mutation may further be expressed selectively (due to transcription factors) in the fusiform or angular gyri, and this may explain the existence of different forms of synaesthesia. If expressed very diffusely, there may be extensive cross-wiring between brain regions that represent abstract concepts, which would explain the link between creativity, metaphor and synaesthesia (and the higher incidence of synaesthesia among artists and poets). Also, hyperconnectivity between the sensory cortex and amygdala would explain the heightened aversion synaesthetes experience when seeing numbers printed in the ‘wrong’ colour. Lastly, kindling (induced hyperconnectivity in the temporal lobes of temporal lobe epilepsy [TLE] patients) may explain the purported higher incidence of synaesthesia in these patients . We conclude with a synaesthesia-based theory of the evolution of language. Thus, our experiments on synaesthesia and our theoretical framework attempt to link several seemingly unrelated facts about the human mind. Far from being a mere curiosity, synaesthesia may provide a window into perception, thought and language. www.imprint-academic.com/rama copyright © Journal of Consciousness Studies, 8, No. 12, 2001, pp. 3–34 Correspondence: Center for Brain and Cognition, University of California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Dr. 0109, La Jolla, CA 92093-0109, e-mail: vramacha@ucsd.edu

NEUROPHENOMENOLOGY A Methodological Remedy for the Hard Problem

Abstract: This paper starts with one of Chalmers' basic points: first-hand experience is an irreducible field of phenomena. I claim there is no 'theoretical fix' or 'extra ingredient' in nature that can possibly bridge this gap. Instead, the field of conscious phenomena requires a rigorous method and an explicit pragmatics for its exploration and analysis. My proposed approach, inspired by the style of inquiry of phenomenology, I have called neurophenomenol- ogy. It seeks articulations by mutual constraints between phenomena present in experience and the correlative field of phenomena established by the cognitive sciences. It needs to expand into a widening research community in which the method is cultivated further. This paper responds to the issues raised by D.J. Chalmers (1995) by offering a research direction which is quite radical in the way in which some basic methodological principles are linked to the scientific studies of consciousness. Neuro-phenomenology is the name I am using here to designate a quest to marry modern cognitive science and a disciplined approach to human experience, thus placing myself in the lineage of the continental tradition of phenomenology. 1 My claim is that the so-called hard problem that animates these Special Issues of the Journal of Consciousness Studies can only be addressed productively by gathering a research community armed with new pragmatic tools ena- bling them to develop a science of consciousness. I will claim that no piecemeal empirical correlates, nor purely theoretical principles, will really help us at this stage. We need to turn to a systematic exploration of the only link between mind and consciousness that seems both obvious and natural: the structure of human experience itself. In what follows I open my proposal by briefly examining the current debate about consciousness in the light of Chalmers' hard problem. Next, I outline the (neuro)pheno- menological strategy. I conclude by discussing some of the main difficulties and conse- quences of this strategy.

The 'shared manifold' hypothesis: From mirror neurons to empathy

Abstract: We are social animals. We share this feature with many other species. A complexity and sophistication that we do not observe among ants, bees or wolves, however, characteristically define the social life of primates. This complexity and sophistication is epitomized at its highest level by the social rules our conduct in everyday life is supposed to comply with. Living in a complex society requires individuals to develop cognitive skills enabling them to cope with other individuals’ actions, by recognizing them, understanding them, and reacting appropriately to them. No one doubts that the extant primate ancestors of ours, monkeys and apes, who indeed also live in complex, hierarchically organized societies, are perfectly able to cope with their own social rules. Nevertheless, it is commonly argued that to achieve that goal non-human primates simply rely on behaviour observation. Animals do not represent rules in their minds, and they do not engage in any inference-based reasoning. Accordingly, what non-human primates are lacking would sharply define what is considered to be uniquely human: truly cognitive states, such as intentions, desires and beliefs. In our daily life we are constantly exposed to the actions of the individuals inhabiting our social world. We are not only able to describe these actions, to understand their content, and predict their consequences, but we can also attribute intentions to the agents of the same actions. We can immediately tell whether a given observed act or behaviour is the result of a purposeful attitude or rather the unpredicted consequence of some accidental event, totally unrelated to the agent’s will. In other words, we are able to understand the behaviour of others in terms of their mental states. I will designate this ability as mind-reading. How do we ‘read’ intentions in the mind of other individuals? A common view maintains that all normal humans develop the capacity to represent mental states in others by means of a conceptual system, commonly designated as ‘Theory of Mind’ (TOM, see Premack and Woodruff, 1978). My initial scope will be limited: starting from a neurobiological standpoint, I will analyse how actions are possibly represented and understood. The main aim of my

The science of art: A neurological theory of aesthetic experience

Abstract: art may employ ‘supernormal’ stimuli to excite form areas in the brain more strongly than natural stimuli. Second, we suggest that grouping is a very basic principle. The different extrastriate visual areas may have evolved specifically to extract correlations in different domains (e.g. form, depth, colour), and discovering and linking multiple features (‘grouping’) into unitary clusters — objects — is facilitated and reinforced by direct connections from these areas to limbic structures. In general, when object-like entities are partially discerned at any stage in the visual hierarchy, messages are sent back to earlier stages to alert them to certain locations or features in order to look for additional evidence for the object (and these processes may be facilitated by direct limbic activation). Finally, given constraints on allocation of attentional resources, art is most appealing if it produces heightened activity in a single dimension (e.g. through the peak shift principle or through grouping) rather than redundant activation of multiple modules. This idea may help explain the effectiveness of outline drawings and sketches, the savant syndrome in autists, and the sudden emergence of artistic talent in fronto-temporal dementia. In addition to these three basic principles we propose five others, constituting a total of ‘eight laws of aesthetic experience’ (analogous to the Buddha’s eightfold path to