The multiple generator hypothesis of consciousness.

IF 4.3 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, BIOLOGICAL
Neuroscience of Consciousness Pub Date : 2025-09-24 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1093/nc/niaf035
Asger Kirkeby-Hinrup, Sascha B Fink, Morten S Overgaard
{"title":"The multiple generator hypothesis of consciousness.","authors":"Asger Kirkeby-Hinrup, Sascha B Fink, Morten S Overgaard","doi":"10.1093/nc/niaf035","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>It is well known that in interdisciplinary consciousness studies there are various competing hypotheses about the neural correlate(s) of consciousness (NCCs). Much contemporary work is dedicated to determining which of these hypotheses is right (or the weaker claim is to be preferred). The prevalent working assumption is that one of the competing hypotheses is correct, and the remaining hypotheses misdescribe the phenomenon in some critical manner and their associated purported empirical evidence will eventually be explained away. In contrast to this, we propose that each hypothesis-simultaneously with its competitors-may be right and its associated evidence be genuine evidence of NCCs. To account for this, we develop the multiple generator hypothesis (MGH) based on a distinction between <i>principles</i> and <i>generators</i>. The former denotes ways consciousness can be brought about and the latter how these are implemented in physical systems. We explicate and delineate the hypothesis and give examples of aspects of consciousness studies where the MGH is applicable and relevant. Finally, to show that it is promising we show the MGH has implications which give rise to novel questions or aspects to consider for the field of consciousness studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":52242,"journal":{"name":"Neuroscience of Consciousness","volume":"2025 1","pages":"niaf035"},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12459239/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neuroscience of Consciousness","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/nc/niaf035","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, BIOLOGICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

It is well known that in interdisciplinary consciousness studies there are various competing hypotheses about the neural correlate(s) of consciousness (NCCs). Much contemporary work is dedicated to determining which of these hypotheses is right (or the weaker claim is to be preferred). The prevalent working assumption is that one of the competing hypotheses is correct, and the remaining hypotheses misdescribe the phenomenon in some critical manner and their associated purported empirical evidence will eventually be explained away. In contrast to this, we propose that each hypothesis-simultaneously with its competitors-may be right and its associated evidence be genuine evidence of NCCs. To account for this, we develop the multiple generator hypothesis (MGH) based on a distinction between principles and generators. The former denotes ways consciousness can be brought about and the latter how these are implemented in physical systems. We explicate and delineate the hypothesis and give examples of aspects of consciousness studies where the MGH is applicable and relevant. Finally, to show that it is promising we show the MGH has implications which give rise to novel questions or aspects to consider for the field of consciousness studies.

意识的多重产生假说。
众所周知,在跨学科的意识研究中,关于意识的神经关联存在着各种相互竞争的假设。许多当代的工作都致力于确定这些假设中哪一个是正确的(或者更弱的说法被首选)。普遍的工作假设是,相互竞争的假设中有一个是正确的,其余的假设以某种批判性的方式错误地描述了这一现象,而它们相关的所谓经验证据最终将被解释掉。与此相反,我们提出每个假设及其竞争对手都可能是正确的,其相关证据是ncc的真实证据。为了解释这一点,我们在区分原理和发电机的基础上提出了多发电机假说(MGH)。前者表示意识可以产生的方式,后者表示意识如何在物理系统中实现。我们解释和描述了这一假设,并给出了MGH适用和相关的意识研究方面的例子。最后,为了证明它是有希望的,我们展示了MGH的含义,这给意识研究领域带来了新的问题或需要考虑的方面。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Neuroscience of Consciousness
Neuroscience of Consciousness Psychology-Clinical Psychology
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
2.40%
发文量
16
审稿时长
19 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信