Within theoretical and empirical enquiries, many different meanings associated with consciousness have appeared, leaving the term itself quite vague. This makes formulating an abstract and unifying version of the concept of consciousness – the main aim of this article –into an urgent theoretical imperative. It is argued that consciousness, characterized as dually accessible (cognized from the inside and the outside), hierarchically referential (semantically ordered), bodily determined (embedded in the working structures of an organism or conscious system), and useful in action (...) (pragmatically functional), is a graded rather than an all-or-none phenomenon. A gradational approach, however, despite its explanatory advantages, can lead to some counterintuitive consequences and theoretical problems. In most such conceptions consciousness is extended globally (attached to primitive organisms or artificial systems), but also locally (connected to certain lower-level neuronal and bodily processes). For example, according to information integration theory (as introduced recently by Tononi and Koch, 2014), even such simple artificial systems as photodiodes possess miniscule amounts of consciousness. The major challenge for this article, then, is to establish reasonable, empirically justified constraints on how extended the range of a graded consciousness could be. It is argued that conscious systems are limited globally by the ability to individuate information (where individuated information is understood as evolutionarily embedded, socially altered, and private), whereas local limitations should be determined on the basis of a hypothesis about the action-oriented nature of the processes that select states of consciousness. Using these constraints, an abstract concept of consciousness is arrived at, hopefully contributing to a more unified state of play within consciousness studies itself. (shrink)

How all philosophical explanations of human consciousness and the fundamental structure of the cosmos are bizarre—and why that’s a good thing Do we live inside a simulated reality or a pocket universe embedded in a larger structure about which we know virtually nothing? Is consciousness a purely physical matter, or might it require something extra, something nonphysical? According to the philosopher Eric Schwitzgebel, it’s hard to say. In The Weirdness of the World, Schwitzgebel argues that the answers to these fundamental (...) questions lie beyond our powers of comprehension. We can be certain only that the truth—whatever it is—is weird. Philosophy, he proposes, can aim to open—to reveal possibilities we had not previously appreciated—or to close, to narrow down to the one correct theory of the phenomenon in question. Schwitzgebel argues for a philosophy that opens. According to Schwitzgebel’s “Universal Bizarreness” thesis, every possible theory of the relation of mind and cosmos defies common sense. According to his complementary “Universal Dubiety” thesis, no general theory of the relationship between mind and cosmos compels rational belief. Might the United States be a conscious organism—a conscious group mind with approximately the intelligence of a rabbit? Might virtually every action we perform cause virtually every possible type of future event, echoing down through the infinite future of an infinite universe? What, if anything, is it like to be a garden snail? Schwitzgebel makes a persuasive case for the thrill of considering the most bizarre philosophical possibilities. (shrink)

Scientists disagree about which capacities a functional analysis of consciousness should target. To address this disagreement, I propose that a good functional analysis should target the etiological functions of consciousness. The trouble is that most hypotheses about the etiological origins of consciousness presuppose particular functional analyses. In recent years, however, a small number of scientists have begun to offer evolutionary hypotheses that are relatively theory neutral. I argue that their hypotheses can serve an independent standard for evaluating among theories of (...) consciousness. (shrink)

The paper presents some considerations concerning the role of consciousness as a privileged state in nature which has implications for ethics. Especially in the modern talk about consciousness of human beings or animals since Thomas Nagel or Peter Singer we find discussions about the role of consciousness as an important irreducible and ‘higher’ phenomenon connected with a first person authority in epistemology and with special privileges in bioethics. In particular animal consciousness is often considered as a ‘lower’ state in a (...) “natural hierarchy”. In bioethics consciousness has been combined with qualities like the ability for future options, subjectivity, sentience or pain and further more, these elements have been used as criteria to justify an extraordinary ‘moral status’ for instance in these of ‘higher’ beings like Great Apes or for ‘higher’ conscious animals as “subjects of life” or having pain . On the other hand some analytical philosophers deny any ‘higher’ consciousness with respect to animals because of different theoretical reasons . Nevertheless advocates and denyers of animal ‘consciousness’ both assume that the possession of consciousness justifies privileges in ethics. This is the background for modern ethicists and philosophers of human and animal mind to refer implicite or explicite to a concept of “natural hierarchy” expressed by terms of “higher/lower” etc. In short, they talk in hierarchical terms about relations between natural entities like plants, animals, and men . This implies at first a theoretical question: What kind of epistemological or ontological justifications do allow to speak in terms of a “natural hierarchy”? The second more practical question is: If it is possible to talk in this way, is it justified for ethics? These and similar questions are discussed in the following paper from the perspective of modern and a Kantian epistemology. The first part reminds the great influence of two traditional metaphysical thinking patterns – the Aristotelian anima-order and the Cartesian machina-order on natural philosophy in general and its influence on modern neurocentric philosophy of mind . The second part presents some epistemological and ontological problems and considerations in this field. The third part presents an example in modern ethics using an hierarchical order . The important main result is, that it is very difficult to justify consciousness at the top of a “natural hierarchy” of organisms. (shrink)

The article suggests answers to the questions of how we can arrive at an unambiguous characterization of consciousness, whether conscious states are coextensive with subjective ones, and whether consciousness can be graded and multidimensional at the same time. As regards the first, it is argued that a general characterization of consciousness should be based on its four dimensions: i.e., the phenomenological, semantic, physiological and functional ones. With respect to the second, it is argued that all informational states of a given (...) organism are subjective, but not all are necessarily conscious. Finally, where the third question is concerned, in each of the four dimensions of consciousness a graded element is identified: quality of information in the phenomenological one, abstractness in the semantic one, complexity in the physiological one, and usefulness in the functional one. The article also considers certain consequences of the solutions proposed, as well as some practical applications of the 4D-view of consciousness. (shrink)

Nagel’s challenge is to devise an objective phenomenological vocabulary that can describe the objective structural similarities between aural and visual perception. My contention is that Charles Sanders Peirce’s little studied and less understood phenomenological vocabulary makes a significant contribution to meeting this challenge. I employ Peirce’s phenomenology to identify the structural isomorphism between seeing a scarlet red and hearing a trumpet’s blare. I begin by distinguishing between the vividness of an experience and the intensity of a quality. I proceed to (...) identify further points of structural isomorphism (a) between the experience of seeing a scarlet red and of hearing a trumpet blare and (b) between the qualities of those experiences. Lastly, I gesture towards how these distinctions can be an aid in describing what it is like to be a bat. (shrink)

Both the multidimensional phenomenon and the polysemous notion of consciousness continue to prove resistant to consistent measurement and unambiguous definition. This is hardly surprising, given that there is no agreement even as regards the most fundamental issues they involve. One of the basic disagreements present in the continuing debate about consciousness pertains to its gradational nature. The general aim of this article is to show how consciousness might be graded and multidimensional at the same time. We therefore focus on the (...) question of what it is, exactly, that is or could be graded in cases of consciousness, and how we can measure it. Ultimately, four different gradable aspects of consciousness will be described: quality, abstractness, complexity and usefulness, which belong to four different dimensions, these being understood, respectively, as phenomenal, semantic, physiological, and functional. Consequently, consciousness may be said to vary with respect to phenomenal quality, semantic abstraction, physiological complexity, and functional usefulness. It is hoped that such a four-dimensional approach will help to clarify and justify claims about the hierarchical nature of consciousness. The approach also proves explanatorily advantageous, as it enables us not only to draw attention to certain new and important differences in respect of subjective measures of awareness and to justify how a given creature may be ranked higher in one dimension of consciousness and lower in terms of another, but also allows for innovative explanations of a variety of well-known phenomena (amongst these, the interpretations of blindsight and locked-in syndrome will be briefly outlined here). Moreover, a 4D framework makes possible many predictions and hypotheses that may be experimentally tested (We point out a few such possibilities pertaining to interdimensional dependencies). (shrink)

Dieser Beitrag präsentiert einige Betrachtungen über die Rolle des Bewusstseins als eines in der Natur privilegierten Zustands, der mit Implikationen für die Ethik behaftet ist. Besonders im modernen Diskurs über das Bewusstsein beim Menschen oder beim Tier nach Thomas Nagel oder Peter Singer stößt man auf Diskussionen über die Rolle des Bewusstseins als eines wichtigen irreduktiblen und „höheren” Phänomens, das in Bezug steht zur Autorität der ersten Person in der Epistemologie sowie zu speziellen Vorrechten in der Bioethik. Insbesondere tierisches Bewusstsein (...) wird oft als ein „niedrigerer” Zustand in der „Naturhierarchie” bewertet. In der Bioethik wurde Bewusstsein mit Eigenschaften wie zukünftige Entscheidungsfähigkeit, Subjektivität, Empfindungsvermögen oder Schmerzfähigkeit in Verbindung gebracht. Mehr noch: Diese Elemente dienten als Kriterien, um den außerordentlichen „moralischen Status” bestimmter Lebewesen zu bestätigen, so etwa den Status der als „höhere Wesen” geltenden+ Menschenaffen oder anderer „höherer”, mit einem Bewusstsein ausgestatteter Tiere im Sinne von „Lebenssubjekten” , oder auch den Status von Schmerz empfindenden Tieren . Andererseits streiten einige analytische Philosophen die Existenz eines „höheren” Bewusstseins bei Tieren aus verschiedenen theoretischen Gründen ab . Dennoch vertreten sowohl die Befürworter als auch die Gegner der These von der Existenz tierischen „Bewusstseins” die Ansicht, dass Wesen, die über ein Bewusstsein verfügen, in der Ethik mit Vorrechten ausgestattet seien. Vor diesem Hintergrund greifen moderne Ethiker und Philosophen, die sich mit der Frage des Bewusstseins bei Mensch und Tier beschäftigen, zurück auf das Konzept der „Naturhierarchie”, die in Termini „höher/niedriger” usw. zum Ausdruck kommt. Kurz gesagt, ist damit in hierarchischen Termini von den Beziehungen zwischen natürlichen Wesen wie Pflanzen, Tieren und Menschen die Rede . Dies impliziert zunächst folgende theoretische Frage: Was für epistemologische oder ontologische Gründe berechtigen, mit den Termini einer „Naturhierarchie” zu sprechen? Die zweite, praktischere Frage lautet: Wenn es möglich ist, in dieser Weise zu sprechen, ist dann auch die Ethik dazu berechtigt? Diese und ähnliche Fragen werden im Beitrag aus der Perspektive der modernen wie auch der kantischen Epistemologie erörtert. Im ersten Teil wird an den großen Einfluss zweier traditioneller metaphysischer Denkmuster erinnert – der Seelenlehre des Aristoteles und der cartesianischen Sichtweise des Menschen als einer Maschine, die ihren Niederschlag in der Naturphilosophie allgemein fanden und sich auch auf die moderne neurozentrische Philosophie der Vernunft auswirken. Der zweite Teil präsentiert bestimmte epistemologische und ontologische Probleme und die dazu existierenden Reflexionen. Im dritten Teil wird an einem Beispiel gezeigt, wie eine hierarchische Ordnung in die Praxis umgesetzt wird . Das ausschlaggebende Ergebnis ist die Einsicht, dass es äußerst schwierig ist, Bewusstsein als den Gipfel einer „natürliche Hierarchie” der Organismen zu rechtfertigen. (shrink)

The simple version of the HOT theory of consciousness is easily refuted. Carruthers escapes this refutation because he is actually a closet introspectionist. I agree with Carruthers that the subjective properties of experience are constituted from discriminatory and other cognitive responses, but I disagree that conceptual uptake into a language of thought is the form of uptake that is necessary. Carruthers' neocartesian argument for a divide between 'man and brute' should be rejected.