是什么解释了意识?或者......意识能解释什么?

Donelson E Dulany
{"title":"是什么解释了意识?或者......意识能解释什么?","authors":"Donelson E Dulany","doi":"10.4103/0973-1229.130283","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In this invited commentary I focus on the topic addressed in three papers: De Sousa's (2013[1617]) Toward an Integrative Theory of Consciousness, a monograph with Parts 1 & 2, as well as commentaries by Pereira (2013a[59]) and Hirstein (2013[42]). All three are impressively scholarly and can stand-and shout-on their own. But theory of consciousness? My aim is to slice that topic into the two fundamentally different kinds of theories of consciousness, say what appears to be an ideology, out of behaviourism into cognitivism, now also influencing the quest for an \"explanation of consciousness\" in cognitive neuroscience. I will then say what can be expected given what we know of the complexity of brain structure, the richness of a conscious \"vocabulary\", and current technological limits of brain imaging. This will then turn to the strategy for examining \"what consciousness explains\"-metatheory, theories, mappings, and a methodology of competitive support, a methodology especially important where there are competing commitments. There are also increasingly common identifications of methodological bias in, along with failures to replicate, studies reporting unconscious controls in decision, social priming-as there have been in perception, learning, problem solving, etc. The literature critique has provided evidence taken as reducing, and in some cases eliminating, a role for conscious controls-a position consistent with that ideology out of behaviourism into cognitivism. It is an ideological position that fails to recognize the fundamental distinction between theoretical and metaphysical assertions. </p>","PeriodicalId":89196,"journal":{"name":"Mens sana monographs","volume":"12 1","pages":"11-34"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/ea/0a/MSM-12-11.PMC4037891.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What explains consciousness? Or…What consciousness explains?\",\"authors\":\"Donelson E Dulany\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/0973-1229.130283\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>In this invited commentary I focus on the topic addressed in three papers: De Sousa's (2013[1617]) Toward an Integrative Theory of Consciousness, a monograph with Parts 1 & 2, as well as commentaries by Pereira (2013a[59]) and Hirstein (2013[42]). All three are impressively scholarly and can stand-and shout-on their own. But theory of consciousness? My aim is to slice that topic into the two fundamentally different kinds of theories of consciousness, say what appears to be an ideology, out of behaviourism into cognitivism, now also influencing the quest for an \\\"explanation of consciousness\\\" in cognitive neuroscience. I will then say what can be expected given what we know of the complexity of brain structure, the richness of a conscious \\\"vocabulary\\\", and current technological limits of brain imaging. This will then turn to the strategy for examining \\\"what consciousness explains\\\"-metatheory, theories, mappings, and a methodology of competitive support, a methodology especially important where there are competing commitments. There are also increasingly common identifications of methodological bias in, along with failures to replicate, studies reporting unconscious controls in decision, social priming-as there have been in perception, learning, problem solving, etc. The literature critique has provided evidence taken as reducing, and in some cases eliminating, a role for conscious controls-a position consistent with that ideology out of behaviourism into cognitivism. It is an ideological position that fails to recognize the fundamental distinction between theoretical and metaphysical assertions. </p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":89196,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Mens sana monographs\",\"volume\":\"12 1\",\"pages\":\"11-34\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/ea/0a/MSM-12-11.PMC4037891.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Mens sana monographs\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/0973-1229.130283\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Mens sana monographs","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/0973-1229.130283","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在这篇特邀评论中,我将重点讨论三篇论文中涉及的主题:德索萨(De Sousa)(2013[1617])的专著《迈向意识的整合理论》(含第一和第二部分),以及佩雷拉(2013a[59])和赫尔斯廷(2013[42])的评论。这三部著作都具有令人印象深刻的学术价值,可以自成一体,独树一帜。但意识理论呢?我的目的是将这一话题切分为两种根本不同的意识理论,即一种似乎是意识形态的理论,从行为主义到认知主义,现在也影响着认知神经科学对 "意识解释 "的探索。然后,我将根据我们所了解的大脑结构的复杂性、意识 "词汇 "的丰富性以及当前大脑成像技术的局限性,谈谈我们可以期待什么。然后,我将谈到研究 "意识能解释什么 "的策略--元理论、理论、映射和竞争性支持的方法论,在存在竞争性承诺的情况下,这种方法论尤为重要。与知觉、学习、问题解决等方面的研究一样,在报告无意识控制决策、社会诱导等方面的研究中,方法论偏差以及复制失败也越来越常见。文献批判提供的证据表明,有意识控制的作用被削弱了,在某些情况下甚至被消除了--这种立场与从行为主义到认知主义的意识形态是一致的。这是一种意识形态立场,没有认识到理论断言与形而上学断言之间的根本区别。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

What explains consciousness? Or…What consciousness explains?

What explains consciousness? Or…What consciousness explains?

What explains consciousness? Or…What consciousness explains?

In this invited commentary I focus on the topic addressed in three papers: De Sousa's (2013[1617]) Toward an Integrative Theory of Consciousness, a monograph with Parts 1 & 2, as well as commentaries by Pereira (2013a[59]) and Hirstein (2013[42]). All three are impressively scholarly and can stand-and shout-on their own. But theory of consciousness? My aim is to slice that topic into the two fundamentally different kinds of theories of consciousness, say what appears to be an ideology, out of behaviourism into cognitivism, now also influencing the quest for an "explanation of consciousness" in cognitive neuroscience. I will then say what can be expected given what we know of the complexity of brain structure, the richness of a conscious "vocabulary", and current technological limits of brain imaging. This will then turn to the strategy for examining "what consciousness explains"-metatheory, theories, mappings, and a methodology of competitive support, a methodology especially important where there are competing commitments. There are also increasingly common identifications of methodological bias in, along with failures to replicate, studies reporting unconscious controls in decision, social priming-as there have been in perception, learning, problem solving, etc. The literature critique has provided evidence taken as reducing, and in some cases eliminating, a role for conscious controls-a position consistent with that ideology out of behaviourism into cognitivism. It is an ideological position that fails to recognize the fundamental distinction between theoretical and metaphysical assertions.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信