A theory of consciousness

[hermesthephilos]

Hello everyone,

 

I would like to present here a model for consciousness that I have been working on...

 

http://sites.google.com/site/hermesthephilosopher/Home

 

Now half of it is quite philosophical, based on Heidegger, which is perhaps a bit tricky to understand. But I have tried to integrate this with evolutionary theory and some basic neuroanatomy, and I would like some feedback and discussion on this area (since this is a biology forum) . In particular I have attributed certain philosophical functions to cortical regions and am not entirely sure if they correlate - are these passable or have I misrepresented cortical functions?

 

Here is an example from the site, on the foundation of language:

(some of the language is difficult/philosophical, but perhaps the sense of what I am trying to say can be more easily understood)

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Origin

 

Both speaking and listening are symbiotically fundamental, and define one another in function. We shall start, however, with the simpler process of listening. In the section on sensory cycles we saw how both sight and sound are processed by their respective primary cortices and projected into other senses whilst being iteratively Interpreted, building a representation of the world in which the sense modalities are linked. Listening to the They and reading what They wrote simply uses this framework. In the cortex, immediately posterior to the primary auditory cortex lies Wernicke's area, a region that Interprets words.

 

Listening

 

Words may be either heard or read or gestured. In each modality of listening, what is presented to Wernicke's area are relatively high order Entities that are representative of the sound, symbol or movement, Derived from what has been sensed with the ears or eyes, that in Wernicke's area are Interpreted as words of meaning. Wernicke's area with the angular gyrus and supramarginal gyrus are positioned at the cusp of confluence between the three main sense modalities, and accordingly are able to define the meaning of words with respect to all three. Whenever a voice is perceived, through hearing or sight, it is done so at this point in the cortex.

 

Speaking

 

Now just as the senses of the world are the basis for action of the body of Dasein, so too is what is heard the basis for what is said. The information from Wernicke's area and associated cortices is sent to Broca's area, a region of the frontal cortex, associated with the pre-motor cortex that performs the corresponding function for the body. To understand what Broca's area shall Interpret we need to first understand the nature of what has been heard; it is a Potentiality-for-Being. Language can be fundamentally divided into statement and question, the former not implying the need for a response, the latter asking for one. Both statements and questions are Potentialities-for-Being that have been conveyed in the same way a physical action is the manifestation of a Potentiality-for-Being that has been selected and executed.

 

A statement should pose a Potentiality that shall be agreed upon by the listener, it is merely a representation of the world and as such should be agreeably intelligible to the listener. A question should pose an unresolved Potentiality-for-Being, and in so doing it prompts the listener to provide the information required to resolve it. We say "should", because communication is the foundation of culture, and thusly custom. To break the culture is to become unintelligible, thus defeating the purpose of language. However, a statement can, and they frequently do, pose unresolved Potentialities-for-Being, and an instance of Dasein of sufficient cultural advancement shall recognise this and respond appropriately. But it is most important here to see that in the origin of language there was an interplay between neural evolution and culture, for a time co-evolving, resulting in brain functions that represent the basics of the culture that were lain down.

 

Broca's area, then, Interprets the nature of what is heard and seeks for an unresolved Potentiality-for-Being. Of course, what is unresolvable to one instance may or may not be resolvable in another; such a decision is made with respect to information of the world, the Entities, and of declarative memories at hand. The result of this Interpretation leads Broca's area to Interpret a response. This response is simply an Interpretation that looks to resolve any perceived unfulfilled Potentiality, and in this respect what is always said seeks to address this.

 

----------------------------------------------

 

Many thanks for your comments!

[bascule]

I think the important part to draw from the relationship between language processing and generation in human consciousness is the ability for humans to parse speech into tree structures.

 

Other animals may have some intuitive sense of how different types of symbol ordering can translate into different messages, however in humans we are extremely good at deducing entirely different meanings from changes in word ordering, symbol inflection, pauses in speech, etc.

 

And, of course, the most important part to keep in mind is the "Joyceian machine" in our heads. We have a feedback loop between our speech generation and speech interpretation processes. We can use natural language to relate ideas back to ourselves in an abstract manner.

 

Furthermore, we relate ideas to ourselves using something called context-free grammars, which provide for the ability to use "pushdown" language constructs which allow for higher and higher levels of abstraction.

[hermesthephilos]

I think the important part to draw from the relationship between language processing and generation in human consciousness is the ability for humans to parse speech into tree structures.

 

Other animals may have some intuitive sense of how different types of symbol ordering can translate into different messages, however in humans we are extremely good at deducing entirely different meanings from changes in word ordering, symbol inflection, pauses in speech, etc.

 

And, of course, the most important part to keep in mind is the "Joyceian machine" in our heads. We have a feedback loop between our speech generation and speech interpretation processes. We can use natural language to relate ideas back to ourselves in an abstract manner.

 

Furthermore, we relate ideas to ourselves using something called context-free grammars, which provide for the ability to use "pushdown" language constructs which allow for higher and higher levels of abstraction.

 

Thank you, Bascule... especially for the notion of tree structures, which I had not even considered yet . I shall take a look at the things you brought up. The only thing I might be wary of is that computational representations of any aspect of nature, and especially related to higher brain functions, tend to be descriptive to a fault. That is, in attempting to describe what happens one can be blinded to the functions that underlie and produce those observations - and there is certainly a strong tradition of this in the neruosciences and psychology. Having had a quick look at context-free grammars and PushDown Automata this is my first impression. Nevertheless, I shall keep looking at it!

[bookworm]

Language and consciousness (latent consciousness) must codevelop within an individual. It makes no sense to theorize an “evolution of language” or of consciousness.

Also, “natural selection” has nothing to do with evolution. Realizing this leads to a rational explanation of consciousness and of the origin of language. Check out:

 

http://www.eloquentbooks.com/ManAndHisPlanet.html

[Phi for All]

Also, “natural selection” has nothing to do with evolution.

Natural selection *is* a part of evolution, just not the only mechanism.

[pioneer]

There are hundreds of different languages one could learn as a child. But there are far fewer ways to visualize singular things called by many names. For example, I can see an animal and know it exists, even if I don't have any words to describe it. But say it is known to many others, there may be dozens of sound associations for this one animal, in all the various languages. But there is only one visual representation common to all. If we were all photographic artists we would all draw the same animal even if we had 200 languages and 200 words to express what we see.

 

The value of language or rather a common language is a way to transfer this visualization. But if I spoke only English and tried to transfer this meaning to someone who spoke only Chinese, there may never be a meeting of the minds using only language. On the other hand, if I drew it or did a wordless charades, then language is not a barrier.

 

Picture a time before language. Anyone can see the elephant and anyone can visualize it in their mind. But there is no common noise to associate this. Although I can point to the elephant to convey what I mean, regardless of no language, there is no good way yet to transfer meaning if I am visualizing the elephant I saw earlier. One way to transfer this meaning without words is with charades. I start to do my elephant charade. Others are trying to guess. The tribe sort of brain storms to iron out the audio attachment. For now on, when anyone begins to play this particular charade association, the audio association becomes easier to convey. If you ever played charades, after you figure it out, it is easier the second time.

 

The neighboring tribe, sees the same charade and know this is elephant, but they may call it something else. They can visualize what I am trying to say, but don't understand why this other tribe is so dumb calling it ugg. What people often do to someone who doesn't understand them, is to talker louder as though the other person is deaf. This is a sign of aggression, so the tribes fight it out (debate) to further iron out the audio portion.

 

In general terms, male are visual animals and female verbal animals. This suggests that language evolved from visualization/charades with the males trying to transfer their visualization and the females assisting the audio associations from which language would emerge. It was a team effort with both making use of their trump card to associate visualization with an audio attachment.

[hermesthephilos]

Language and consciousness (latent consciousness) must codevelop within an individual. It makes no sense to theorize an “evolution of language” or of consciousness.

Also, “natural selection” has nothing to do with evolution. Realizing this leads to a rational explanation of consciousness and of the origin of language. Check out:

 

http://www.eloquentbooks.com/ManAndHisPlanet.html

 

Ah we seem to have an alternative natural historian here! I am aware of certain "interventionist" theories which is what that particular book (with its rather fetching MS Paint cover) seems to be talking about. But the argument basically goes, "here is some old story with nuclear weapons/angels. The fossil record is incomplete. So someone must have tampered with our evolution!!!"

 

It's inventive and we can't disprove it; which is exactly what every faith system does. Let's exhaust all scientific possibilities before we start submitting creative writing as explanation for our universe and being

 

Natural selection *is* a part of evolution, just not the only mechanism.

 

Seconded!

 

There are hundreds of different languages one could learn as a child. But there are far fewer ways to visualize singular things called by many names. For example, I can see an animal and know it exists, even if I don't have any words to describe it. But say it is known to many others, there may be dozens of sound associations for this one animal, in all the various languages. But this is only one visual representation common to all. If we were all photographic artists we would all draw the same animal even if we had 200 languages and 200 words to express what we see. ....

 

Pioneer, you make an important point about language which I totally agree with; the sign language origin. Many moons ago I wrote a short essay on the origin and social history of sign language, and I largely agree with most of what you say (except perhaps making the gender distinction). If one looks at the functional neuroanatomy of the brain, sensory convergence/functional overlapping between the supramarginal gyrus and Wernicke's area is the largest of all three sense modalities associated with language comprehension (the other two being sight and sound). This is covered (though not explicitly for sign language, but all modes of communication) on my site here.

 

Your example of recognising the elephant but being unable to vocalise is what my model would describe as the Interpretation of the Entity of "elephant"; a fundamental (and pre-linguistic) function of the brain, from which, in groups, arises the necessity to communicate - so agreed on this point too

[Tom Vose]

Natural Evolution is better termed as a basis for evolution in general. It is certainly not the specific need to propogate, however, it does give a mechanism of such.

[hermesthephilos]

Natural Evolution is better termed as a basis for evolution in general. It is certainly not the specific need to propogate, however, it does give a mechanism of such.

 

I'd agree with the first part there, Tom, but replication/propagation is the fundamental mechanism of natural selection. It is not a product of natural selection, but the origin... since no lifeform is (so far) immortal, the only way to persist (genetically) in time is to replicate, thus in life and death natural selection begins to act.