Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T19:22:42.210Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the correlation/constitution distinction problem (and other hard problems) in the scientific study of consciousness

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 June 2014

Steven M. Miller
Steven M. Miller*
Affiliation:
Caulfield Pain Management and Research Centre, Caulfield General Medical Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia Brain Stimulation Laboratory, Alfred Psychiatry Research Centre, The Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia Department of Psychological Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
*
Dr Steven M. Miller, Caulfield Pain Management and Research Centre, Caulfield General Medical Centre, 260 Kooyong Rd, Caulfied, Melbourne, VIC 3162, Australia. Tel: +61 3 9076 6834; Fax: +61 3 9076 6675; E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

In the past decade, much has been written about ‘the hard problem’ of consciousness in the philosophy of mind. However, a separate hard problem faces the scientific study of consciousness. The problem arises when distinguishing the neural correlates of consciousness (NCC) and the neural constitution of consciousness. Here, I explain this correlation/constitution distinction and the problem it poses for a science of phenomenal consciousness. I also discuss potential objections to the problem, outline further hard problems in the scientific study of phenomenal consciousness and consider the ontological implications of these epistemological issues.

Methods:

Scientific and philosophic analysis and discussion are presented.

Results:

The correlation/constitution distinction does indeed present a hard problem in the scientific study of phenomenal consciousness. Refinement of the ‘NCC’ acronym is proposed so that this distinction may at least be acknowledged in the literature. Furthermore, in addition to the problem posed by this distinction and to ‘the hard problem’, the scientific study of phenomenal consciousness also faces several other hard problems.

Conclusion:

In light of the multiple hard problems, it is concluded that scientists and philosophers of consciousness ought to (i) address, analyze and discuss the problems in the hope of discovering their solution or dissolution and (ii) consider the implications of some or all of them being intractable. With respect to the latter, it is argued that ultimate epistemic limits in the study of phenomenal consciousness pose no threat to physicalist or materialist ontologies but do inform our understanding of consciousness and its place in nature.

Keywords

binocular rivalryconstitutionhard problemmaterialismneural correlatesphenomenal consciousnessphilosophy of mind
Type
Research Article
Information
Acta Neuropsychiatrica , Volume 19 , Issue 3 , June 2007 , pp. 159 - 176
Copyright
Copyright © 2007 Blackwell Munksgaard

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Kim, CY, Blake, R. Psychophysical magic: rendering the visible ‘invisible’. Trends Cogn Sci 2005;9:381–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamme, VAF. Towards a true neural stance on consciousness. Trends Cogn Sci 2006;10:494–501.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, SM, Ngo, TT. Studies of caloric vestibular stimulation: implications for the cognitive neurosciences, the clinical neurosciences, and neurophilosophy. Acta Neuropsychiatr 2007;19:183–203.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crick, F, Koch, C. Consciousness and neuroscience. Cereb Cortex 1998;8:97–107.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Logothetis, NK. Single units and conscious vision. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 1998;353:1801–1818.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blake, R, Logothetis, NK. Visual competition. Nat Rev Neurosci 2002;3:13–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ngo, TT, Liu, GB, Tilley, AJ, Pettigrew, JD, Miller, SM. Caloric vestibular stimulation reveals discrete neural mechanisms for coherence rivalry and eye rivalry: a meta-rivalry model. Vision Res (in press).Google ScholarPubMed
Leopold, DA, Logothetis, NK. Activity changes in early visual cortex reflect monkeys’ percepts during binocular rivalry. Nature 1996;379:549–553.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sheinberg, DL, Logothetis, NK. The role of temporal cortical areas in perceptual organization. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1997;94:3408–3413.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, SM. Binocular rivalry and the cerebral hemispheres: with a note on the correlates and constitution of visual consciousness. Brain Mind 2001;2:119–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahner, M, Bunge, M. Foundations of biophilosophy. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chelazzi, L, Corbetta, M. Cortical mechanisms of visuospatial attention in the primate brain. In: Gazzaniga, MS, ed. The new cognitive neurosciences. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2000: 667–686.Google Scholar
Damasio, AR. Descartes’ error: emotion, reason and the human brain. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1994.Google Scholar
Crick, F. The astonishing hypothesis: the scientific search for the Soul. New York: Touchstone, 1994.Google Scholar
Logothetis, NK. Object vision and visual awareness. Curr Opin Neurobiol 1998;8:536–544.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Revonsuo, A. Prospects for a scientific research program on consciousness. In: Metzinger, T, ed. Neural correlates of consciousness: empirical and conceptual questions. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2000: 57–75.Google Scholar
Baars, BJ. A stew of confusion. J Consc Studies 2004;11:29–31.Google Scholar
Noë, A, Thompson, E. Are there neural correlates of consciousness? J Consc Studies 2004;11:3–28.Google Scholar
Kirkcaldie, MTK, Kitchener, PD. When brains expand: mind and the evolution of cortex. Acta Neuropsychiatr 2007;19:139–148.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chalmers, DJ. What is a neural correlate of consciousness? In: Metzinger, T, ed. Neural correlates of consciousness: empirical and conceptual questions. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2000: 17–39.Google Scholar
Salzman, CD, Britten, KH, Newsome, WT. Cortical microstimulation influences perceptual judgements of motion direction. Nature 1990;346:174–177.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Salzman, CD, Newsome, WT. Neural mechanisms for forming a perceptual decision. Science 1994;264:231–237.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vickery, RM. Mind the neuron! Acta Neuropsychiatr 2007;19:177–182.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Engel, AK, Roelfsema, PR, Fries, P, Brecht, M, Singer, W. Role of the temporal domain for response selection and perceptual binding. Cereb Cortex 1997;7:571–582.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, SM, Liu, GB, Ngo, TTet al. Interhemispheric switching mediates perceptual rivalry. Curr Biol 2000;10:383–392.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koch, C, Tsuchiya, N. Attention and consciousness: two distinct brain processes. Trends Cogn Sci 2007;11:16–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chalmers, DJ. The conscious mind: in search of a fundamental theory. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.Google Scholar
Farrell, BA. Experience. Mind 1950;59:170–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagel, T. What is it like to be a bat? Philos Rev 1974;83:435–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine, J. Materialism and qualia: the explanatory gap. Pacific Philos Quart 1983;64:354–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Place, UT. Is consciousness a brain process? Brit J Psychol 1956;47:44–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smart, JJC. Sensations and brain processes. Philos Rev 1959;68:141–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armstrong, DM. A materialist theory of the mind. New York: Humanities Press, 1968.Google Scholar
Boring, EG. The physical dimensions of consciousness. London: Century Company, 1933.Google Scholar
Shear, J (ed.). Explaining consciousness: the “hard problem”. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1997.Google Scholar
Lowe, EJ. There are no easy problems of consciousness. J Consc Studies 1995;2:266–271.Google Scholar
Dennett, DC. Sweet dreams: philosophical obstacles to a science of consciousness. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2005.Google Scholar
Andrews, TJ, Schluppeck, D, Homfray, D, Matthews, P, Blakemore, C. Activity in the fusiform gyrus predicts conscious perception of Rubin’s vase–face illusion. Neuroimage 2002;17:890–901.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mellor, DJ, Diesch, TJ. Onset of sentience: the potential for suffering in fetal and newborn farm animals. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2006;100:48–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Humphrey, N. A history of the mind. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edelman, DB, Baars, BJ, Seth, AK. Identifying hallmarks of consciousness in non-mammalian species. Conscious Cogn 2005;14:169–187.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dennett, DC. Kinds of minds: towards an understanding of consciousness. London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1996.Google Scholar
Hannan, AJ. Brain phylogeny, ontogeny and dysfunction: integrating evolutionary, developmental and clinical perspectives in cognitive neuroscience. Acta Neuropsychiatr 2007;19:149–158.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baker, LR. Persons and bodies: a constitution view. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, LR. Nonreductive materialism. In: Mclaughlin, B, Beckermann, A, eds. The Oxford handbook for the philosophy of mind. Oxford University Press (in press).Google Scholar
Place, UT. E.G. Boring and the mind–brain identity theory. Brit Psychol Soc Hist Philos Psychol Newsletter 1990;11:20–31.Google Scholar
Place, UT. The two factor theory of the mind–brain relation. Brain Mind 2000;1:29–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snowdon, PF. On formulating materialism and dualism. In: Heil, J, ed. Cause, mind, and reality: essays honoring C.B. Martin. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1989: 137–158.Google Scholar
Baker, LR. Why constitution is not identity. J Philos 1997;94:599–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, M. Constitution is not identity. Mind 1992;101:89–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noonan, HW. Constitution is identity. Mind 1993;102:133–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rea, MC. The problem of material constitution. Phil Rev 1995;4:525–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noonan, HW. Identity, constitution and microphysical supervenience. Proc Aristotelian Soc 1999;99:273–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Place, UT. Token- versus type-identity physicalism. Anthropol Philos 1999;3:21–31.Google Scholar
Jackson, F. What Mary didn’t know. J Philos 1986;83:291–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mcginn, C. Can we solve the mind–body problem? Mind 1989;98:349–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loar, B. Phenomenal States. In: Block, N, Flanagan, O, Güzeldere, G., eds. The nature of consciousness. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1997: 597–616.Google Scholar
Chalmers, DJ. Phenomenal concepts and the knowledge argument. In: Ludlow, P, Nagasawa, Y, Stoljar, D, eds. There’s Something about Mary: essays on Frank Jackson’s knowledge argument against physicalism. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2004: 269–298.Google Scholar