tag:theconversation.com,2011:/ca/topics/consciousness-1923/articlesConsciousness – The Conversation2024-03-15T13:31:59Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2250342024-03-15T13:31:59Z2024-03-15T13:31:59ZThe mystery of consciousness shows there may be a limit to what science alone can achieve<p>The progress of science in the last 400 years is mind-blowing. Who would have thought we’d be able to trace the history of our universe to its origins 14 billion years ago? Science has increased the length and the quality of our lives, and the technology that is commonplace in the modern world would have seemed like magic to our ancestors.</p>
<p>For all of these reasons and more, science is rightly celebrated and revered. However, a healthy pro-science attitude is not the same thing as <a href="https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9780203703809-18/accept-scientism-rik-peels">“scientism”</a>, which is the view that the scientific method is the only way to establish truth. As the problem of consciousness <a href="https://theconversation.com/science-as-we-know-it-cant-explain-consciousness-but-a-revolution-is-coming-126143">is revealing</a>, there may be a limit to what we can learn through science alone.</p>
<p>Perhaps the most worked out form of scientism was the early 20th century movement knows as <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logical-empiricism/">logical positivism</a>. The logical positivists signed up to the <a href="https://www.britannica.com/topic/verifiability-principle">“verification principle”</a>, according to which a sentence whose truth can’t be tested through observation and experiments was either logically trivial or meaningless gibberish. With this weapon, they hoped to dismiss all metaphysical questions as not merely false but nonsense. </p>
<p>These days, logical positivism is almost <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/vienna-circle/">universally rejected</a> by philosophers. For one thing, logical positivism is self-defeating, as the verification principle itself cannot be scientifically tested, and so can be true only if it’s meaningless. Indeed, something like this problem haunts all unqualified forms of scientism. There is no scientific experiment we could do to prove that scientism is true; and hence if scientism is true, then its truth cannot be established. </p>
<p>In spite of all of these deep problems, much of society assumes scientism to be true. Most people in the UK are totally unaware that “metaphysics” goes on in almost every philosophy department in the country. By metaphysics, philosophers don’t mean anything spooky or supernatural; this is just the technical term for philosophical, as opposed to scientific, enquiry into the nature of reality. </p>
<h2>Truth without science</h2>
<p>How is it possible to find out about reality without doing science? The distinguishing feature of philosophical theories is that they are “empirically equivalent”, which means you can’t decide between them with an experiment. </p>
<p>Take the example of my area of research: the philosophy of consciousness. Some philosophers think that consciousness emerges from physical processes in the brain – this is the “physicalist” position. Others think it’s the other way around: consciousness is primary, and the physical world emerges from consciousness. A version of this is the “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/dec/28/why-the-purpose-of-the-universe-by-philip-goff-review-a-real-poser#:%7E:text=In%20Why%3F%2C%20Philip%20Goff%2C,and%20the%20existence%20of%20value.">panpsychist</a>” view that consciousness goes all the way down to the fundamental building blocks of reality, with the word deriving from the two Greek words pan (all) and psyche (soul or mind).</p>
<p>Still others think that both consciousness and the physical world are fundamental but radically different – this is the view of the “dualist”. Crucially, you can’t distinguish between these views with an experiment, because, for any scientific data, each of the views will interpret that data in their own terms. </p>
<p>For example, suppose we discover scientifically that a certain form of brain activity is correlated with the conscious experience of an organism. The physicalist will interpret this as the form of organisation which turns non-conscious physical processes – such as electrical signals between brain cells – into conscious experience, whereas the panpsychist will interpret it as the form of organisation which unifies individual conscious particles into one larger conscious system. Thus we find two very different philosophical interpretations of the same scientific data.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Image of the Large Hadron Collider at Cern." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/581965/original/file-20240314-22-2a4unr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/581965/original/file-20240314-22-2a4unr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=286&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/581965/original/file-20240314-22-2a4unr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=286&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/581965/original/file-20240314-22-2a4unr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=286&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/581965/original/file-20240314-22-2a4unr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=359&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/581965/original/file-20240314-22-2a4unr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=359&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/581965/original/file-20240314-22-2a4unr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=359&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Are particles concious?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/cern-european-organization-nuclear-research-where-1287557641">D-VISIONS/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>If we can’t work out which view is right with an experiment, how can we choose between them? In fact, the selection process is not so dissimilar from what we find in science. As well as appealing to experimental data, scientists also appeal to the theoretical virtues of a theory, for example how simple, elegant and unified it is.</p>
<p>Philosophers too can appeal to theoretical virtues in justifying their favoured position. For example, considerations of simplicity seems to count against the dualist theory of consciousness, which is less simple than its rivals in so far as it posits two kinds of fundamental stuff – physical stuff and consciousness – whereas physicalism and panpsychism are equally simple in positing just one kind of fundamental stuff (either physical stuff or consciousness). </p>
<p>It could also be that some theories are incoherent, but in subtle ways that require careful analysis to uncover. For example, I have <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/dec/27/galileos-error-by-philip-goff-review">argued</a> that physicalist views of consciousness are incoherent (although – like much in philosophy – this is controversial). </p>
<p>There is no guarantee that these methods will yield a clear a winner. It could be that on certain philosophical issues, there are multiple, coherent, and equally simple rival theories, in which case we should be agnostic about which is correct. This would in itself be a significant philosophical finding concerning the limits of human knowledge. </p>
<p>Philosophy can be frustrating because there is so much disagreement. However, this is also true in many areas of science, such as history or economics. And there are some questions on which there is a <a href="https://survey2020.philpeople.org/">modest consensus</a>, for example, on the topic of free will.</p>
<p>A tendency to mix up philosophy with a growing anti-science movement undermines the united front against the real and harmful opposition to science we find in climate change denial and anti-vax conspiracies. </p>
<p>Like it or not, we can’t avoid philosophy. When we try to do so, all that happens is we end up with bad philosophy. The first line of Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow’s book <a href="https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/393369/the-grand-design-by-stephen-hawking-with-leonard-mlodinow/9780553819229">The Grand Design</a> boldly declared: “Philosophy is dead.” The book then went on to indulge in some incredibly crude philosophical discussions of free will and objectivity.</p>
<p>If I wrote a book making controversial pronouncements on particle physics, it’d be rightly ridiculed, as I haven’t been trained in the relevant skills, haven’t read the literature, and haven’t had my views in this area subject to peer scrutiny. And yet there are many examples of scientists lacking any philosophical training publishing very poor books on philosophical topics without it impacting their credibility. </p>
<p>This might be sounding bitter. But I genuinely believe society would be deeply enriched by becoming more informed about philosophy. I have hope that we will one day move on from this “scientistic” period of history, and understand the crucial role both science and philosophy have to play in the noble project of finding out what reality is like.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/225034/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Philip Goff has received funding from the Templeton Foundation.</span></em></p>What if there’s no experiment to work out which theory of consciousness is correct?Philip Goff, Associate Professor of Philosophy, Durham UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2194902024-01-10T19:14:22Z2024-01-10T19:14:22ZIt’s normal for your mind to wander. Here’s how to maximise the benefits<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/568116/original/file-20240107-23-jkmq1h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=26%2C17%2C5964%2C3970&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.pexels.com/photo/focused-businesswoman-thinking-on-project-at-laptop-at-home-7034445/">George Milton/ Pexels </a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Have you ever found yourself thinking about loved ones during a boring meeting? Or going over the plot of a movie you recently watched during a drive to the supermarket? </p>
<p>This is the cognitive phenomenon known as “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.01.002">mind wandering</a>”. Research suggests it can account for <a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0044423">up to 50%</a> of our waking cognition (our mental processes when awake) in both <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1192439">western and non-western societies</a>. </p>
<p>So what can help make this time productive and beneficial? </p>
<h2>Mind wandering is not daydreaming</h2>
<p>Mind wandering is often used interchangeably with daydreaming. They are both considered types of inattention but are not the same thing. </p>
<p>Mind wandering is related to a primary task, such as reading a book, listening to a lecture, or attending a meeting. The mind <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00560/full">withdraws</a> from that task and focuses on internally generated, unrelated thoughts. </p>
<p>On the other hand, daydreaming does not involve a primary, active task. For example, daydreaming would be thinking about an ex-partner while travelling on a bus and gazing out the window. Or lying in bed and thinking about what it might be like to go on a holiday overseas. </p>
<p>If you were driving the bus or making the bed and your thoughts diverted from the primary task, this would be classed as mind wandering.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A woman sits by a window gazing out onto trees outside." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/568114/original/file-20240107-25-bf9x5s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/568114/original/file-20240107-25-bf9x5s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/568114/original/file-20240107-25-bf9x5s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/568114/original/file-20240107-25-bf9x5s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/568114/original/file-20240107-25-bf9x5s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/568114/original/file-20240107-25-bf9x5s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/568114/original/file-20240107-25-bf9x5s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Daydreaming is not related to any task or stimulus.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.pexels.com/photo/pensive-woman-looking-at-window-3769012/">Andrea Piacquadio/Pexels</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The benefits of mind wandering</h2>
<p>Mind wandering is believed to play an important role in <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612446024">generating new ideas</a>, conclusions or insights (also known as “aha! moments”). This is because it can give your mind a break and free it up to think more creatively. </p>
<p>This type of creativity does not always have to be related to creative pursuits (such as writing a song or making an artwork). It could include a new way to approach a university or school assignment or a project at work.<br>
Another benefit of mind wandering is relief from boredom, providing the opportunity to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031569">mentally retreat</a> from a monotonous task. </p>
<p>For example, someone who does not enjoy washing dishes could think about their upcoming weekend plans while doing the chore. In this instance, mind wandering assists in “passing the time” during an uninteresting task. </p>
<p>Mind wandering also tends to be future-oriented. This can provide an opportunity to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2011.08.007">reflect upon and plan</a> future goals, big or small. For example, what steps do I need to take to get a job after graduation? Or, what am I going to make for dinner tomorrow? </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A person washes a glass in a sink, with dirty dishes on the side." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/568117/original/file-20240107-27-ku3ul0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/568117/original/file-20240107-27-ku3ul0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/568117/original/file-20240107-27-ku3ul0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/568117/original/file-20240107-27-ku3ul0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/568117/original/file-20240107-27-ku3ul0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/568117/original/file-20240107-27-ku3ul0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/568117/original/file-20240107-27-ku3ul0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Letting your mind wander during tedious task can be a way of ‘retreating’.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.pexels.com/photo/person-pouring-water-on-clear-drinking-glass-4108676/">Cottonbro Studio/ Pexels</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/alpha-beta-theta-what-are-brain-states-and-brain-waves-and-can-we-control-them-219236">Alpha, beta, theta: what are brain states and brain waves? And can we control them?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>What are the risks?</h2>
<p>Mind wandering is not always beneficial, however. It can mean you miss out on crucial information. For example, there could be disruptions in learning if a student engages in mind wandering during a lesson that covers exam details. Or an important building block for learning. </p>
<p>Some tasks also require a lot of concentration in order to be safe. If you’re thinking about a recent argument with a partner while driving, you run the risk of having an accident. </p>
<p>That being said, it can be more difficult for some people to control their mind wandering. For example, mind wandering is <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2020.112901">more prevalent</a> in people with ADHD. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-your-brain-decides-what-to-think-198109">How your brain decides what to think</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>What can you do to maximise the benefits?</h2>
<p>There are several things you can do to maximise the benefits of mind wandering. </p>
<ul>
<li><strong>be aware</strong>: awareness of mind wandering allows you to take note of and make use of any productive thoughts. Alternatively, if it is not a good time to mind wander it can help bring your attention back to the task at hand</li>
</ul>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A man writes in a diary." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/568115/original/file-20240107-23-35m25l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/568115/original/file-20240107-23-35m25l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/568115/original/file-20240107-23-35m25l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/568115/original/file-20240107-23-35m25l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/568115/original/file-20240107-23-35m25l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/568115/original/file-20240107-23-35m25l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/568115/original/file-20240107-23-35m25l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Try and take note of things your realise when your mind wanders.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.pexels.com/photo/unrecognizable-man-writing-notes-in-notebook-4559983/">Ketut Subiyanto/ Pexels</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<ul>
<li><p><strong>context matters</strong>: try to keep mind wandering to non-demanding tasks rather than demanding tasks. Otherwise, mind wandering <a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00441">could be unproductive</a> or unsafe. For example, try think about that big presentation during a car wash rather than when driving to and from the car wash</p></li>
<li><p><strong>content matters</strong>: if possible, try to keep the content positive. Research <a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00900">has found</a>, keeping your thoughts more positive, specific and concrete (and less about “you”), is associated with better wellbeing. For example, thinking about tasks to meet upcoming work deadlines could be more productive than ruminating about how you felt stressed or failed to meet past deadlines.</p></li>
</ul><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/219490/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Mind wandering is often confused with daydreaming, but they are not the same thing.Dr Anchal Garg, Psychology researcher, Bond UniversityBruce Watt, Associate Professor in Psychology, Bond UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2180352023-12-04T05:21:44Z2023-12-04T05:21:44ZCould you move from your biological body to a computer? An expert explains ‘mind uploading’<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/563218/original/file-20231204-19-bm2rv9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=40%2C22%2C3794%2C2132&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Imagine brain scanning technology improves greatly in the coming decades, to the point that we can observe how each individual neuron talks to other neurons. Then, imagine we can record all this information to create a simulation of someone’s brain on a computer. </p>
<p>This is the concept behind mind uploading – the idea that we may one day be able to transition a person from their biological body to a synthetic hardware. The idea originated in an intellectual movement called transhumanism and has several key advocates including computer scientist <a href="https://www.thekurzweillibrary.com/">Ray Kurzweil</a>, philosopher <a href="https://nickbostrom.com/">Nick Bostrom</a> and neuroscientist <a href="https://www.randalkoene.com/">Randal Koene</a>. </p>
<p>The transhumanists’ central hope is to transcend the human condition through scientific and technological progress. They believe mind uploading may allow us to live as long as we want (but not necessarily forever). It might even let us improve ourselves, such as by having simulated brains that run faster and more efficiently than biological ones. It’s a techno-optimist’s dream for the future. But does it have any substance? </p>
<p>The feasibility of mind uploading rests on three core assumptions. </p>
<ul>
<li>first is the <em>technology assumption</em> – the idea that we will be able to develop mind uploading technology within the coming decades</li>
<li>second is the <em>artificial mind assumption</em> – the idea that a simulated brain would give rise to a real mind</li>
<li>and third is the <em>survival assumption</em> – the idea that the person created in the process is really “you”. Only then does mind uploading become a way for you to live on. </li>
</ul>
<p>How plausible is each of these?</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/downloading-our-thoughts-to-the-mainframe-may-be-the-stuff-of-science-fiction-but-humans-have-been-imagining-it-for-centuries-154082">Downloading our thoughts to the mainframe may be the stuff of science fiction — but humans have been imagining it for centuries</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>The technology assumption</h2>
<p>Trying to simulate the human brain would be a monumental challenge. Our brains are the most complex structures in the known universe. They house around 86 billion neurons and <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cne.24040">85 billion non-neuronal cells</a>, with an estimated one million billion neural connections. For comparison, the Milky Way galaxy is home to about 200 billion stars.</p>
<p>Where are we on the path to creating brain simulations? Right now, neuroscientists are drawing up 3D wiring diagrams (called “connectomes”) of the brains of simple organisms. The most complex comprehensive connectome we have to date is of a <a href="https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.add9330">fruit fly larva</a>, which has about 3,000 neurons and 500,000 neural connections. We might expect to map a mouse’s brain <a href="https://hms.harvard.edu/news/new-field-neuroscience-aims-map-connections-brain">within the next ten years</a>.</p>
<p>The human brain, however, is about <a href="https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abo0924">1,000 times more complex than a mouse brain</a>. Would it then take us 10,000 years to map a human brain? Probably not. We have seen astonishing gains in efficiency in similar projects, such as the Human Genome Project.</p>
<p>It took years and hundreds of millions of dollars to map the first human genome about 20 years ago. Today, the fastest labs can do it <a href="https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2022/01/dna-sequencing-technique.html">within hours</a> for about <a href="https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/fact-sheets/Sequencing-Human-Genome-cost">$100</a>. With similar gains in efficiency, we might see mind-uploading technology within the lifetimes of our children or grandchildren. </p>
<p>That said, there are other obstacles. Creating a static brain map is only one part of the job. To simulate a functioning brain, we would need to observe single neurons in action. It’s not obvious whether we could achieve this in the near future.</p>
<h2>The artificial mind assumption</h2>
<p>Would a simulation of your brain give rise to a conscious mind like yours? The answer depends on the connection between our minds and our bodies. Unlike the 17th-century philosopher Rene Descartes, who thought <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes/#MindRela">mind and body are radically different</a>, <a href="https://journals.publishing.umich.edu/phimp/article/id/2109/">most academic philosophers today think</a> the mind is ultimately something physical itself. Put simply, your mind is your brain.</p>
<p>Still, how could a simulated brain give rise to a real mind if it’s only a simulation? </p>
<p>Well, many cognitive scientists believe it’s your brain’s complex neural <em>structure</em> that is responsible for creating your conscious mind, rather than the nature of its biological matter (which is mostly fat and water). </p>
<p>When implemented on a computer, the simulated brain would replicate your brain’s structure. For every simulated neuron and neural connection there will be a corresponding piece of computer hardware. The simulation will replicate your brain’s structure and thereby <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/computational-mind/#Str">replicate your conscious mind</a>.</p>
<p>Today’s AI systems provide useful (though inconclusive) evidence for the structural approach to the mind. These systems run on artificial neural networks, which copy some of the brain’s structural principles. And they are able to perform many tasks that require a lot of cognitive work in us. </p>
<h2>The survival assumption</h2>
<p>Let’s assume it is possible to simulate a human brain, and that the simulation creates a conscious mind. Would the uploaded person really be you, or perhaps just a mental clone? </p>
<p>This harks back to an old philosophical puzzle: what makes it the case that when you get out of bed in the morning you’re still the same person who went to bed the night before?</p>
<p>Philosophers are divided broadly into <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-personal/">two camps on this question</a>. The biological camp believes morning-you and evening-you are the same person because they are the same biological organism – connected by one biological life process.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://journals.publishing.umich.edu/phimp/article/id/2109/">bigger mental camp</a> thinks the fact that we have minds makes all the difference. Morning-you and evening-you are the same person because they share a mental life. Morning-you remembers what evening-you did – they have the same beliefs, hopes, character traits, and so on.</p>
<p>So which camp is right? Here’s a way to test your own intuition: imagine your brain is transplanted into the empty skull of another person’s body. Is the resulting person, who has your memories, preferences and personality, you – as the mental camp thinks? Or are they the person who donated their body, as the biological camp thinks? </p>
<p>In other words, did you get a new body or did they get a new mind? A lot hangs on this question. </p>
<p>If the biological camp is right, then mind uploading wouldn’t work, assuming the whole point of uploading is to leave one’s biology behind. If the mental camp is right, there is a chance for uploading, since the uploaded mind could be a genuine continuation of one’s present mental life.</p>
<h2>Wait, there’s a caveat</h2>
<p>But wait: what happens when the original biological-you also survives the uploading process? Would you, along with your consciousness, split into two people, resulting in two of “you” – one in a biological form (B) and one in an uploaded form (C)?</p>
<p>No, you (A) can’t literally split into two separate people (B ≠ C) and be identical with both at the same time. At most, only one of them can be you (either A = B or A = C).</p>
<p>It seems most intuitive that, after a split, your biological form would continue as the real you (A = B), and the upload would merely be a mental copy. But that makes it doubtful that you could survive as the upload even in the case where the biological-you is destroyed. </p>
<p>Why would destroying biological-you magically elevate your mental clone to the status of the real you? It seems strange to think this would happen (although <a href="https://iep.utm.edu/nozick/#H4">one view in philosophy</a> does claim it could be true). </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/a-stanford-professor-says-science-shows-free-will-doesnt-exist-heres-why-hes-mistaken-218525">A Stanford professor says science shows free will doesn’t exist. Here’s why he’s mistaken</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Worth the risk?</h2>
<p>Unfortunately, the artificial mind assumption and the survival assumption can’t be conclusively empirically tested – we would actually have to upload ourselves to find out. </p>
<p>Uploading will therefore always involve a huge leap of faith. Personally, I would only take that leap if I knew for certain my biological hardware wasn’t going to last much longer.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/218035/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Clas Weber receives funding from the Australian Research Council. </span></em></p>The feasibility of mind uploading rests on three core assumptions. How plausible is each one, really?Clas Weber, Senior lecturer, The University of Western AustraliaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2142142023-09-29T15:37:36Z2023-09-29T15:37:36ZConsciousness: why a leading theory has been branded ‘pseudoscience’<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/550868/original/file-20230928-17-25f2uo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=71%2C77%2C3922%2C2904&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/abstract-light-human-brain-vector-illustration-142838602">Hubis/Shutterstocl</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Civil war has broken out in the field of consciousness research. More than 100 consciousness researchers have signed <a href="https://psyarxiv.com/zsr78/">a letter</a> accusing one of the most popular scientific theories of consciousness – the <a href="https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/can-integrated-information-theory-explain-consciousness/">integrated information theory</a> – of being pseudoscience.</p>
<p>Immediately, several other figures in the field responded by critiquing the letter as <a href="https://www.theintrinsicperspective.com/p/ambitious-theories-of-consciousness">poorly reasoned</a> and <a href="https://twitter.com/davidchalmers42/status/1703782006507589781">disproportionate</a>. </p>
<p>Both sides are motivated by a concern for the long-term health and respectability of consciousness science. One side (including the letter signatories) is worrying that the association of consciousness science with what they perceive to be a pseudoscientific theory will undermine the credibility of the field. </p>
<p>The other side is pressing that what they perceive as unsupported charges of pseudoscience will ultimately result in the whole science of consciousness being perceived as pseudoscience.</p>
<p>Integrated information theory – often referred to as IIT – is a very ambitious theory of consciousness proposed by neuroscientist Giulio Tononi. It ultimately aims to give mathematically precise conditions for when any system – a brain or some other lump or matter – is or is not conscious. </p>
<p>The theory revolves around a mathematical measure of integration of information, or interconnections, labelled with the Greek letter ϕ. The basic idea is that a system becomes conscious at the precise moment when there is more ϕ in the system as a whole than in any of its parts. </p>
<p>IIT implies that many more things are conscious than we ordinarily suppose. This means it gets close to a kind of “<a href="https://theconversation.com/science-as-we-know-it-cant-explain-consciousness-but-a-revolution-is-coming-126143">panpsychism</a>” – the view that consciousness pervades the physical universe. Having said that, there are big differences between IIT and the new wave of <a href="https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/literature/1950/russell/facts/">Bertrand Russell</a>-inspired panpsychism which has recently been making waves in academic philosophy, and which has been the focus of much of <a href="https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/438968/galileos-error-by-philip-goff/9781846046018">my research</a>.</p>
<p>IIT even implies, as pointed out by the computer scientist <a href="https://www.cs.utexas.edu/people/faculty-researchers/scott-aaronson">Scott Aaronson</a>, that an inactive grid of connected logic gates would be conscious. </p>
<p>The signatories of the letter worry that, while certain aspects of IIT may have been tested, the theory as a whole has not. Therefore, they argue, there is little experimental support for these bold and counter-intuitive implications. Opponents of the letter say that this is true of all current theories of consciousness, and reflects challenges with current neuroimaging techniques.</p>
<h2>Adversarial collaboration</h2>
<p>All of this follows the announcement over the summer of the <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/372006408_An_adversarial_collaboration_to_critically_evaluate_theories_of_consciousness">first results</a> of an “<a href="https://www.quantamagazine.org/what-a-contest-of-consciousness-theories-really-proved-20230824/">adversarial collaboration</a>” between IIT and another popular theory of consciousness, known as the global workspace theory.</p>
<p>According to this theory, information in the brain becomes conscious when it is in a “global workspace”, which means it is available to be used by many and varied systems throughout the brain – perceptual areas, long-term memory and motor control – for a wide variety of tasks. In contrast, if certain information is only available to a single system in the brain to perform a highly specific task, such as to regulate breathing, then that information is not conscious. </p>
<p>The idea of an adversarial collaboration is that the proponents of each of the rival theories design experiments together, and agree in advance on which results would favour each theory. </p>
<p>The hope is that agreeing in advance about what the results would mean will prevent theorists from interpreting whatever results come up as fitting with their preferred theory. This first round of experimental results turned out to be mixed. Some confirmed certain parts of IIT, and some backed up particular aspects of global workspace theory. On balance, there was arguably a slight advantage to IIT. </p>
<p>The announcement of these ambiguous results was accompanied by the neuroscientist Christof Koch – a prominent proponent of IIT – <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-02120-8">publicly conceding defeat</a> on a bet he made 25 years ago with philosopher David Chalmers, that the science of consciousness would be all wrapped up by now. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Image of Christof Koch." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/550901/original/file-20230928-25-25f2uo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/550901/original/file-20230928-25-25f2uo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/550901/original/file-20230928-25-25f2uo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/550901/original/file-20230928-25-25f2uo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/550901/original/file-20230928-25-25f2uo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/550901/original/file-20230928-25-25f2uo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/550901/original/file-20230928-25-25f2uo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Christof Koch giving a TED talk.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>One factor which may be playing a big role, although it has not been explicitly mentioned in any of these online skirmishes, is that IIT does not merely justify itself through scientific experimentation. It also involves philosophical reflection. </p>
<p>IIT begins with five “axioms”, which its proponents claim each of us can know through attention to our own conscious experience. These include that conscious experience is unified – that we don’t experience, say, colours and shapes separately but as aspects of a single, unbroken experience.</p>
<p>The theory then translates these axioms into five corresponding “postulates” – properties which it claims are required for a physical system to embody consciousness. For example, IIT explains the unity of our conscious experience in terms of the integration of the physical system. </p>
<p>Opponents of IIT may in part be motivated by a desire to sharply distinguish the science from the philosophy of consciousness, thus ensuring the former is perceived – in particular by funders – as a serious scientific enterprise.</p>
<h2>Beyond science</h2>
<p>The problem is that consciousness is not merely a scientific issue. The task of science is to explain publicly observable phenomena. But consciousness is not a publicly observable phenomenon: you can’t look inside someone’s brain and see their feelings and experiences. Of course, science theorises about unobservable phenomena, such as fundamental particles, but it only does this to explain what can be observed. In the unique case of consciousness, the phenomenon we are trying to explain is not publicly observable.</p>
<p>Instead, consciousness is known about privately, through the immediate awareness each of us has of our own feelings and experience. The downside of this is that it’s very hard to experimentally demonstrate which theory of consciousness is correct. The upside is that, in contrast to other scientific phenomena, we have direct access to the phenomenon, and our direct access may provide insights into its nature. </p>
<p>Crucially, to accept that our knowledge of consciousness is not limited to what we can glean from experiments is to accept that we need both science and philosophy to deal with consciousness. In my new book <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/why-the-purpose-of-the-universe-9780198883760?lang=en&cc=jp#">Why? The Purpose of the Universe</a>, I explore how such a partnership could be achieved. </p>
<p>IIT is not perfect, either in its scientific or its philosophical aspects. But it is pioneering in accepting the need for science and philosophy to work hand in glove to crack the mystery of consciousness.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/214214/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Philip Goff has received funding from the Templeton Foundation.</span></em></p>There’s a battle over consciousness research – and whether it can be understood purely through science.Philip Goff, Associate Professor of Philosophy, Durham UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2140742023-09-27T01:49:24Z2023-09-27T01:49:24ZNobody knows how consciousness works – but top researchers are fighting over which theories are really science<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/550467/original/file-20230926-23-njxkao.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C7%2C2596%2C1720&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/human-eye-detail-1196228368">Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Science is hard. The science of consciousness is particularly hard, beset with philosophical difficulties and a scarcity of experimental data. </p>
<p>So in June, when the results of a head-to-head experimental contest between two rival theories were announced at the 26th annual meeting of the Association for the Scientific Study of Consciousness in New York City, they were met with some fanfare. </p>
<p>The results were inconclusive, with some favouring “integrated information theory” and others lending weight to the “global workspace theory”. The outcome was covered in both <a href="https://www.science.org/content/article/search-neural-basis-consciousness-yields-first-results">Science</a> and <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-02120-8">Nature</a>, as well as larger outlets including the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/01/science/consciousness-theories.html">New York Times</a> and <a href="https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2023/06/28/thousands-of-species-of-animals-likely-have-consciousness">The Economist</a>.</p>
<p>And that might have been that, with researchers continuing to investigate these and other theories of how our brains generate experience. But on September 16, apparently driven by media coverage of the June results, a group of 124 consciousness scientists and philosophers – many of them leading figures in the field – published an <a href="https://psyarxiv.com/zsr78/">open letter</a> attacking integrated information theory as “pseudoscience”.</p>
<p>The letter has generated an <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-02971-1">uproar</a>. The science of consciousness has its factions and quarrels but this development is unprecedented, and threatens to do lasting damage.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1703782006507589781"}"></div></p>
<h2>What is integrated information theory?</h2>
<p>Italian neuroscientist Giulio Tononi first <a href="https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2202-5-42">proposed</a> integrated information theory in 2004, and it is now on “<a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.14787">version 4.0</a>”. It is not easily summarised. </p>
<p>At its core is the idea that consciousness is identical to the amount of “integrated information” a system contains. Roughly, this means the information the system as a whole has over and above the information had by its parts. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/what-makes-us-conscious-50011">What makes us conscious?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Many theories start by looking for correlations between events in our minds and events in our brains. Instead, integrated information theory begins with “phenomenological axioms”, supposedly self-evident claims about the nature of consciousness. </p>
<p>Notoriously, the theory implies consciousness is extremely widespread in nature, and that even very simple systems, such as an inactive grid of computer circuitry, have some degree of consciousness. </p>
<h2>Three criticisms</h2>
<p>This open letter makes three main claims against integrated information theory. </p>
<p>First, it argues this is not a “leading theory of consciousness” and has received more media attention than it deserves. </p>
<p>Second, it <a href="https://psyarxiv.com/zsr78/">expresses concerns</a> about its implications:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>If [integrated information theory] is either proven or perceived by the public as such, it will not only have a direct impact on clinical practice concerning coma patients, but also a wide array of ethical issues ranging from current debates on AI sentience and its regulation, to stem cell research, animal and organoid testing, and abortion.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The third claim has provoked the most outcry: integrated information theory is “pseudoscience”.</p>
<h2>Is integrated information theory a leading theory?</h2>
<p>Whether you agree with integrated information theory or not – and I myself have <a href="https://academic.oup.com/nc/article/2018/1/niy007/5047367">criticised</a> it – there is little doubt it is a “leading theory of consciousness”. </p>
<p>A <a href="https://academic.oup.com/nc/article/2022/1/niac011/6663928">survey</a> of consciousness scientists conducted in 2018 and 2019 found almost 50% of respondents said the theory was either probably or definitely “promising”. It was one of four theories featured in a keynote debate at the 2022 meeting of the Association for the Scientific Study of Consciousness, and was one of four theories featured in a <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41583-022-00587-4">review</a> of the state of consciousness science that Anil Seth and I published last year. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-021-01284-5">By one account</a>, integrated information theory is the third-most discussed theory of consciousness in the scientific literature, out-stripped only by global workspace theory and recurrent processing theory. Like it or not, integrated information theory has significant support in the scientific community.</p>
<h2>Is it more problematic than other theories?</h2>
<p>What about the potential implications of integrated information theory – its impact on clinical practice, the regulation of AI, and attitudes to stem cell research, animal and organoid testing, and abortion? </p>
<p>Consider the question of fetal consciousness. According to the <a href="https://psyarxiv.com/zsr78/">letter</a>, integrated information theory says “human fetuses at very early stages of development” are likely conscious. </p>
<p>The details matter here. I was the co-author of the <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811923002033">paper</a> cited in support of this claim, which in fact argues that no major theory of consciousness – integrated information theory included – posits the emergence of consciousness before 26 weeks gestation. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A colourful stylised line drawing of a brain" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/550324/original/file-20230926-19-pbmu01.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C17%2C3994%2C2389&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/550324/original/file-20230926-19-pbmu01.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=362&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/550324/original/file-20230926-19-pbmu01.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=362&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/550324/original/file-20230926-19-pbmu01.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=362&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/550324/original/file-20230926-19-pbmu01.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=455&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/550324/original/file-20230926-19-pbmu01.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=455&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/550324/original/file-20230926-19-pbmu01.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=455&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">All theories of consciousness inevitably have ethical and legal implications.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/vector-colorful-illustration-human-brain-synapses-1056342728">Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>And while we should be mindful of the legal and ethical implications of integrated information theory, we should also be mindful of the implications of <em>all</em> theories of consciousness. </p>
<p>Are the implications of integrated information theory more problematic than those of other leading theories? That’s far from obvious, and there are certainly versions of other theories whose implications would be every bit as radical as those of integrated information theory. </p>
<h2>Is it pseudoscience?</h2>
<p>And so, finally, to the charge of pseudoscience. The letter provides no definition of “pseudoscience”, but suggests the theory is pseudoscientific because “the theory as a whole” is not empirically testable. It also claims integrated information theory wasn’t “meaningfully tested” by the head-to-head contest earlier this year.</p>
<p>It’s true the theory’s core tenets are very difficult to test, but so too are the core tenets of any theory of consciousness. To put a theory to the test one needs to assume a host of bridging principles, and the status of those principles will often be disputed. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/where-is-the-proof-in-pseudoscience-22184">Where is the proof in pseudoscience?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>But none of this justifies treating integrated information theory – or indeed any other theory of consciousness – as pseudoscience. All it takes for a theory to be genuinely scientific is that it generates testable predictions. And whatever its faults, the theory has certainly done that.</p>
<p>The charge of pseudoscience is not only inaccurate, it is also pernicious. In effect, it’s an attempt to “deplatform” or silence integrated information theory – to deny it deserves serious attention. </p>
<p>That’s not only unfair to integrated information theory and the scientific community at large, it also manifests a fundamental lack of faith in science. If the theory is indeed bankrupt, then the ordinary mechanisms of science will demonstrate as much.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/214074/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tim Bayne is affiliated with the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CIFAR). </span></em></p>Big names in consciousness research have signed an open letter attacking ‘integrated information theory’ as pseudoscience, sparking uproar.Tim Bayne, Professor of Philosophy, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2128602023-09-11T20:09:04Z2023-09-11T20:09:04ZWhy ChatGPT isn’t conscious – but future AI systems might be<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/547419/original/file-20230911-27-sdkyzm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C59%2C8000%2C4431&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/3d-digital-abstract-human-face-on-2138818011">Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>In June 2022, Google engineer Blake Lemoine made headlines by claiming the company’s LaMDA chatbot had achieved sentience. The software had the conversational ability of a precocious seven-year-old, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/06/11/google-ai-lamda-blake-lemoine/">Lemoine said</a>, and we should assume it possessed a similar awareness of the world. </p>
<p>LaMDA, later released to the public as <a href="https://blog.google/technology/ai/bard-google-ai-search-updates/">Bard</a>, is powered by a “large language model” (LLM) of the kind that also forms the engine of OpenAI’s ChatGPT bot. Other big tech companies are rushing to deploy similar technology. </p>
<p>Hundreds of millions of people have now had the chance to play with LLMs, but few seem to believe they are conscious. Instead, in linguist and data scientist <a href="https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3442188.3445922">Emily Bender’s poetic phrase</a>, they are “stochastic parrots”, which chatter convincingly without understanding. But what about the next generation of artificial intelligence (AI) systems, and the one after that? </p>
<p>Our team of philosophers, neuroscientists and computer scientists looked to current scientific theories of how human consciousness works to draw up a <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.08708">list of basic computational properties</a> that any hypothetically conscious system would likely need to possess. In our view, no current system comes anywhere near the bar for consciousness – but at the same time, there’s no obvious reason future systems won’t become truly aware.</p>
<h2>Finding indicators</h2>
<p>Since computing pioneer Alan Turing proposed his “<a href="https://theconversation.com/turing-test-why-it-still-matters-123468">Imitation Game</a>” in 1950, the ability to successfully impersonate a human in conversation has often been taken as a reliable marker of consciousness. This is usually because the task has seemed so difficult it must require consciousness. </p>
<p>However, as with chess computer Deep Blue’s 1997 <a href="https://www.ibm.com/ibm/history/ibm100/us/en/icons/deepblue/">defeat of grandmaster Gary Kasparov</a>, the conversational fluency of LLMs may just move the goalposts. Is there a principled way to approach the question of AI consciousness that does not rely on our intuitions about what is difficult or special about human cognition? </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/a-google-software-engineer-believes-an-ai-has-become-sentient-if-hes-right-how-would-we-know-185024">A Google software engineer believes an AI has become sentient. If he’s right, how would we know?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Our recent <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.08708">white paper</a> aims to do just that. We compared current scientific theories of what makes humans conscious to compile a list of “indicator properties” that could then be applied to AI systems. </p>
<p>We don’t think systems that possess the indicator properties are definitely conscious, but the more indicators, the more seriously we should take claims of AI consciousness. </p>
<h2>The computational processes behind consciousness</h2>
<p>What sort of indicators were we looking for? We avoided overt behavioural criteria – such as being able to hold conversations with people – because these tend to be both human-centric and easy to fake. </p>
<p>Instead, we looked at theories of the computational processes that support consciousness in the human brain. These can tell us about the sort of information-processing needed to support subjective experience. </p>
<p>“Global workspace theories”, for example, postulate that consciousness arises from the presence of a capacity-limited bottleneck which collates information from all parts of the brain and selects information to make globally available. “Recurrent processing theories” emphasise the role of feedback from later processes to earlier ones. </p>
<p>Each theory in turn suggests more specific indicators. Our final list contains 14 indicators, each focusing on an aspect of how systems <em>work</em> rather than how they <em>behave</em>. </p>
<p><iframe id="uvK17" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/uvK17/1/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<h2>No reason to think current systems are conscious</h2>
<p>How do current technologies stack up? Our analysis suggests there is no reason to think current AI systems are conscious. </p>
<p>Some do meet a few of the indicators. Systems using the transformer architecture, a kind of machine-learning model behind <a href="https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/07/a-jargon-free-explanation-of-how-ai-large-language-models-work/">ChatGPT and similar tools</a>, meet three of the “global workspace” indicators, but lack the crucial ability for global rebroadcast. They also fail to satisfy most of the other indicators. </p>
<p>So, despite ChatGPT’s impressive conversational abilities, there is probably nobody home inside. Other architectures similarly meet at best a handful of criteria. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/not-everything-we-call-ai-is-actually-artificial-intelligence-heres-what-you-need-to-know-196732">Not everything we call AI is actually 'artificial intelligence'. Here's what you need to know</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Most current architectures only meet a few of the indicators at most. However, for most of the indicators, there is at least one current architecture that meets it.</p>
<p>This suggests there are no obvious, in-principle technical barriers to building AI systems that satisfy most or all of the indicators. </p>
<p>It is probably a matter of <em>when</em> rather than <em>if</em> some such system is built. Of course, plenty of questions will still remain when that happens. </p>
<h2>Beyond human consciousness</h2>
<p>The scientific theories we canvass (and the authors of the paper!) don’t always agree with one another. We used a list of indicators rather than strict criteria to acknowledge that fact. This can be a powerful methodology in the face of scientific uncertainty. </p>
<p>We were inspired by similar debates about animal consciousness. Most of us think at least some nonhuman animals are conscious, despite the fact they cannot converse with us about what they’re feeling. </p>
<p>A 2021 <a href="https://www.lse.ac.uk/News/News-Assets/PDFs/2021/Sentience-in-Cephalopod-Molluscs-and-Decapod-Crustaceans-Final-Report-November-2021.pdf">report</a> from the London School of Economics arguing that cephalopods such as octopuses likely feel pain was instrumental <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-12-16/the-uk-has-recognised-octopuses-crabs-and-lobsters-as-sentient-b/100698106">in changing UK animal ethics policy</a>. A focus on structural features has the surprising consequence that even some simple animals, like insects, <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-it-is-like-to-be-a-bee-insects-can-teach-us-about-the-origins-of-consciousness-57792">might even possess a minimal form of consciousness</a>. </p>
<p>Our report does not make recommendations for what to do with conscious AI. This question will become more pressing as AI systems inevitably become more powerful and widely deployed. </p>
<p>Our indicators will not be the last word – but we hope they will become a first step in tackling this tricky question in a scientifically grounded way.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/212860/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Colin Klein receives funding from The Templeton World Charity Foundation (TWCF-2020-20539)</span></em></p>The science of human consciousness offers new ways of gauging machine minds – and suggests there’s no obvious reason computers can’t develop awareness.Colin Klein, Professor, School of Philosophy, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2116852023-08-17T13:16:40Z2023-08-17T13:16:40ZHow consciousness may rely on brain cells acting collectively – new psychedelics research on rats<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/542999/original/file-20230816-31-hyq6mq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=123%2C113%2C3470%2C2581&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Psychedelics can help uncover consciousness. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/will-universe-remember-me-series-artistic-484612375">agsandrew/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Psychedelics are known for inducing <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-lsd-helped-us-probe-what-the-sense-of-self-looks-like-in-the-brain-57703">altered states of consciousness</a> in humans by fundamentally changing our normal pattern of sensory perception, thought and emotion. Research into the therapeutic potential of psychedelics <a href="https://theconversation.com/psychedelics-how-they-act-on-the-brain-to-relieve-depression-183320">has increased significantly</a> in the last decade. </p>
<p>While this research is important, I have always been more intrigued by the idea that psychedelics can be used as a tool to study the neural basis of human consciousness in laboratory animals. We ultimately share the same basic neural hardware with other mammals, and possibly some basic aspects of consciousness, too. So by examining what happens in the brain when there’s a psychedelically induced change in conscious experience, we can perhaps glean insights into what consciousness is in the first place.</p>
<p>We still don’t know a lot about how the networks of cells in the brain enable conscious experience. The dominating view is that consciousness somehow emerges as a collective phenomenon when the dispersed information processing of individual neurons (brain cells) is integrated as the cells interact.</p>
<p>But the mechanism by which this is supposed to happen remains unclear. Now our <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-023-05093-6">study on rats</a>, published in Communications Biology, suggests that psychedelics radically change the way that neurons interact and behave collectively.</p>
<p>Our study compared two different classes of psychedelics in rats: the classic LSD type and the less-typical ketamine type (ketamine is an anaesthetic in larger doses). Both classes are known to induce psychedelic experiences in humans, despite acting on different receptors in the brain. </p>
<h2>Exploring brain waves</h2>
<p>We used electrodes to simultaneously measure electrical activity from 128 separate areas of the brain of nine awake rats while they were given psychedelics. The electrodes could pick up two kinds of signals: <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-the-function-of-t-1997-12-22/">electrical brain waves</a> caused by the cumulative activity in thousands of neurons, and smaller transient electrical pulses, called action potentials, from individual neurons.</p>
<p>The classic psychedelics, such as LSD and psilocybin (the active ingredient in magic mushrooms), activates a receptor in the brain (5-HT2A) which normally binds to <a href="https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/22572-serotonin#:%7E:text=Serotonin%20is%20a%20chemical%20that,blood%20clotting%20and%20sexual%20desire.">serotonin</a>, a neurotransmitter that regulates mood and many other things. Ketamine, on the other hand, works by inhibiting another receptor (NMDA), which normally is activated by <a href="https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/22839-glutamate">glutamate</a>, the primary neurotransmitter in the brain for making neurons fire. </p>
<p>We speculated that, despite these differences, the two classes of psychedelics might have similar effects on the activity of brain cells. Indeed, it turned out that both drug classes induced a very similar and distinctive pattern of brain waves in multiple brain regions. </p>
<p>The brain waves were unusually fast, oscillating about 150 times per second. They were also surprisingly synchronised between different brain regions. Short bursts of oscillations at a similar frequency are known to occur occasionally under normal conditions in some brain regions. But in this case, it occurred for prolonged durations.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Brain waves on electroencephalogram EEG." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/543191/original/file-20230817-19-49zwoq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/543191/original/file-20230817-19-49zwoq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/543191/original/file-20230817-19-49zwoq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/543191/original/file-20230817-19-49zwoq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/543191/original/file-20230817-19-49zwoq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=423&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/543191/original/file-20230817-19-49zwoq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=423&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/543191/original/file-20230817-19-49zwoq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=423&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Brain waves on electroencephalogram EEG.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/brain-wave-on-electroencephalogram-eeg-epilepsy-575882314">Chaikom/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>First, we assumed that a single brain structure was generating the wave and that it then spread to other locations. But the data was not consistent with that scenario. Instead, we saw that the waves went up and down almost simultaneously in all parts of the brain where we could detect them – a phenomenon called <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/35067550#:%7E:text=Phase%20synchronization%20refers%20to%20the,signals%20regardless%20of%20signal%20amplitude.">phase synchronisation</a>. Such tight phase synchronisation over such long distances has to our knowledge never been observed before.</p>
<p>We were also able to measure action potentials from individual neurons during the psychedelic state. Action potentials are electrical pulses, no longer than a thousandth of a second, that are generated by the opening and closing of ion channels in the cell membrane. The action potentials are the primary way that neurons influence each other. Consequently, they are considered to be the main carrier of information in the brain.</p>
<p>However, the action potential activity caused by LSD and ketamine differed significantly. As such, they could not be directly linked to the general psychedelic state. For LSD, neurons were inhibited – meaning they fired fewer action potentials – in all parts of the brain. For ketamine, the effect depended on cell type – certain large neurons were inhibited, while a type of smaller, locally connecting neurons, fired more. </p>
<p>Therefore, it is probably the synchronised wave phenomenon – how the neurons behave collectively – that is most strongly linked to the psychedelic state. Mechanistically, this makes some sense. It is likely that this type of increased synchrony has large effects on the integration of information across neural systems that normal perception and cognition rely on.</p>
<p>I think that this possible link between neuron-level system dynamics and consciousness is fascinating. It suggests that consciousness relies on a coupled collective state rather than the activity of individual neurons – it is greater than the sum of its parts.</p>
<p>That said, this link is still highly speculative at this point. That’s because the phenomenon has not yet been observed in human brains. Also, one should be cautious when extrapolating human experiences to other animals – it is of course impossible to know exactly what aspects of a trip we share with our rodent relatives. </p>
<p>But when it comes to cracking the deep mystery of consciousness, every bit of information is valuable.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/211685/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Pär Halje receives funding from The Crafoord Foundation, Royal Physiographic Society of Lund, Magnus Bergvall Foundation, Olle Engkvist Foundation, The Swedish Parkinson Foundation, Petrus and Augusta Hedlund Foundation, Thorsten and Elsa Segerfalk Foundation, The Swedish Society for Medical Research (SSMF), Fredrik and Ingrid Thuring Foundation and Åhlén Foundation.</span></em></p>We still don’t know a lot about how the networks of cells in the brain enable conscious experience.Pär Halje, Associate Research Fellow of Neurophysiology, Lund UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2043712023-04-26T20:03:17Z2023-04-26T20:03:17ZCan machines be self-aware? New research explains how this could happen<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/522919/original/file-20230426-26-lzouy1.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=7%2C160%2C1011%2C656&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Michael Timothy Bennett/Generated using Midjourney</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>To build a machine, one must know what its parts are and how they fit together. To understand the machine, one needs to know what each part does and how it contributes to its function. In other words, one should be able to explain the “mechanics” of how it works.</p>
<p>According to a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanism_%28philosophy%29">philosophical approach</a> called mechanism, humans are arguably a type of machine – and our ability to think, speak and understand the world is the result of a mechanical process we don’t understand.</p>
<p>To understand ourselves better, we can try to build machines that mimic our abilities. In doing so, we would have a mechanistic understanding of those machines. And the more of our behaviour the machine exhibits, the closer we might be to having a mechanistic explanation of our own minds.</p>
<p>This is what makes AI interesting from a philosophical point of view. Advanced models such as GPT4 and Midjourney can now mimic human conversation, pass professional exams and generate beautiful pictures with only a few words.</p>
<p>Yet, for all the progress, questions remain unanswered. How can we make something self-aware, or aware that others are aware? What is identity? What is meaning? </p>
<p>Although there are many competing philosophical descriptions of these things, they have all resisted mechanistic explanation.</p>
<p>In a <a href="https://michaeltimothybennett.com/research">sequence of papers</a> accepted for the <a href="https://agi-conf.org/2023/">16th Annual Conference in Artificial General Intelligence</a> in Stockholm, I pose a mechanistic explanation for these phenomena. They explain how we may build a machine that’s aware of itself, of others, of itself as perceived by others, and so on.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/a-google-software-engineer-believes-an-ai-has-become-sentient-if-hes-right-how-would-we-know-185024">A Google software engineer believes an AI has become sentient. If he’s right, how would we know?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Intelligence and intent</h2>
<p>A lot of what we call intelligence boils down to making predictions about the world with incomplete information. The less information a machine needs to make accurate predictions, the more “intelligent” it is.</p>
<p>For any given task, there’s a limit to how much intelligence is actually useful. For example, most adults are smart enough to learn to drive a car, but more intelligence probably won’t make them a better driver.</p>
<p>My papers describe <a href="https://www.techrxiv.org/articles/preprint/The_Optimal_Choice_of_Hypothesis_Is_the_Weakest_Not_the_Shortest/21965675">the upper limit of intelligence</a> for a given task, and what is required to build a machine that attains it.</p>
<p>I named the idea Bennett’s Razor, which in non-technical terms is that “explanations should be no more specific than necessary”. This is distinct from the popular interpretation of Ockham’s Razor (and <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/ockhams-razors/probabilistic-turn/9300737059AC6AFB1E7F12414FD27FD5">mathematical descriptions thereof</a>), which is a preference for simpler explanations. </p>
<p>The difference is subtle, but significant. In an <a href="https://www.techrxiv.org/articles/preprint/The_Optimal_Choice_of_Hypothesis_Is_the_Weakest_Not_the_Shortest/21965675">experiment</a> comparing how much data AI systems need to learn simple maths, the AI that preferred less specific explanations outperformed one preferring simpler explanations by as much as 500%. </p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/522620/original/file-20230424-1294-gp5xyg.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/522620/original/file-20230424-1294-gp5xyg.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/522620/original/file-20230424-1294-gp5xyg.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/522620/original/file-20230424-1294-gp5xyg.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/522620/original/file-20230424-1294-gp5xyg.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/522620/original/file-20230424-1294-gp5xyg.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/522620/original/file-20230424-1294-gp5xyg.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/522620/original/file-20230424-1294-gp5xyg.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Hypothetical patent filing for a self-aware machine, generated by an artificial intelligence from just a few words.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Michael Timothy Bennett / Generated using MidJourney</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Exploring the implications of this discovery led me to a mechanistic explanation of meaning – something called “<a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pragmatics/#Far1">Gricean pragmatics</a>”. This is a concept in philosophy of language that looks at how meaning is related to intent.</p>
<p>To survive, an animal needs to predict how its environment, including other animals, will act and react. You wouldn’t hesitate to leave a car unattended near a dog, but the same can’t be said of your rump steak lunch. </p>
<p>Being intelligent in a community means being able to infer the intent of others, which stems from their feelings and preferences. If a machine was to attain the upper limit of intelligence for a task that depends on interactions with a human, then it would also have to correctly infer intent. </p>
<p>And if a machine can ascribe intent to the events and experiences befalling it, this raises the question of identity and what it means to be aware of oneself and others.</p>
<h2>Causality and identity</h2>
<p>I see John wearing a raincoat when it rains. If I force John to wear a raincoat on a sunny day, will that bring rain? </p>
<p>Of course not! To a human, this is obvious. But the subtleties of cause and effect are more difficult to teach a machine (interested readers can check out <a href="https://www.amazon.com.au/Book-Why-Science-Cause-Effect/dp/046509760X">The Book of Why</a> by Judea Pearl and Dana Mackenzie). </p>
<p>To reason about these things, a machine needs to learn that “I caused it to happen” is different from “I saw it happen”. Typically, we’d <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_model">program</a> this understanding into it.</p>
<p>However, my work explains how we can build a machine that performs at the upper limit of intelligence for a task. Such a machine must, by definition, correctly identify cause and effect – and therefore also infer causal relations. <a href="https://www.techrxiv.org/articles/preprint/Emergent_Causality_the_Foundation_of_Consciousness/22014347">My papers</a> explore exactly how. </p>
<p>The implications of this are profound. If a machine learns “I caused it to happen”, then it must construct concepts of “I” (an identity for itself) and “it”.</p>
<p>The abilities to infer intent, to learn cause and effect, and to construct abstract identities are all linked. A machine that attains the upper limit of intelligence for a task must exhibit all these abilities. </p>
<p>This machine does not just construct an identity for itself, but for every aspect of every object that helps or hinders its ability to complete the task. It can then <a href="https://www.techrxiv.org/articles/preprint/On_the_Computation_of_Meaning_Language_Models_and_Incomprehensible_Horrors/22216753">use its own preferences</a> as a <a href="https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9495946/">baseline to predict</a> what others may do. This is similar to how <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003347215003085">humans tend to ascribe</a> intent to non-human animals. </p>
<h2>So what does it mean for AI?</h2>
<p>Of course, the human mind is far more than the simple program used to conduct experiments in my research. My work provides a mathematical description of a possible causal pathway to creating a machine that is arguably self-aware. However, the specifics of engineering such a thing are far from solved. </p>
<p>For example, human-like intent would require human-like experiences and feelings, which is a difficult thing to engineer. Furthermore, we can’t easily test for the full richness of human consciousness. Consciousness is a broad and ambiguous concept that encompasses – but should be distinguished from – the more narrow claims above.</p>
<p>I have provided a mechanistic explanation of <em>aspects</em> of consciousness – but this alone does not capture the full richness of consciousness as humans experience it. This is only the beginning, and future research will need to expand on these arguments.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/204371/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Timothy Bennett does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>if a machine can ascribe intent to the events and experiences befalling it, this raises the question of identity and what it means to be aware of oneself and othersMichael Timothy Bennett, PhD Student, School of Computing, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2015332023-04-18T16:12:01Z2023-04-18T16:12:01ZAnimal consciousness: why it’s time to rethink our human-centred approach<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/518733/original/file-20230331-26-rjbu7u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C4281%2C2843&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/fluffy-gray-beautiful-kitten-breed-scottishstraight-73351561">Aleksey Mnogosmyslov/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>While we may enjoy the company of companion animals or a fleeting encounter with wildlife, many people believe humans have a superior consciousness of the world we live in. </p>
<p>Every now and then, though, new study findings about the surprising intelligence of other animals reignite this debate. Recently, two German philosophers, Professor Leonard Dung and PhD candidate Albert Newen, <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36821996/">published a paper</a> questioning whether we are coming at the issue from the right angle, or even asking the right question at all. </p>
<p>In their article, the authors say we should stop approaching animal consciousness as a “do they/don’t they?” question. Rather, they suggest we should measure nonhuman consciousness on a spectrum alongside human consciousness. </p>
<p>In <a href="https://www.euppublishing.com/doi/full/10.3366/soma.2015.0164">my research</a>, I have explored whether we should stop trying to compare other animals with humans to gauge which ones are “worthy” of better treatment. My work doesn’t oppose the study of animal consciousness, it simply asks people to reflect on the reasons we are asking these questions. </p>
<p>There may be other forms of consciousness we cannot understand. Nonhuman animals’ precise relationship to human consciousness doesn’t make them less important.</p>
<h2>A different take</h2>
<p>We still do not know what makes the difference between being alive and having consciousness.</p>
<p>In humans, the definition of consciousness is <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fncel.2019.00302/full">vague and speculative</a>. For example, the <a href="https://www.glasgowcomascale.org/">Glasgow coma scale</a> measures the expectation that a patient will regain consciousness, rather than defining its presence or absence. Neurologists can’t agree on what part of the brain consciousness is generated in – yet we try to measure it in nonhuman animals.</p>
<p>Even within the animal rights movement, there is conflict between those who defend animals based on their similarity to humans (moral theorists), and those who claim <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2002540/">nonhuman animals have a right to exist</a> regardless of our view of them (abolitionists). </p>
<p>The problem is, both perspectives discuss our treatment of animals from a human perspective. In her book <a href="https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/neither-man-nor-beast-9781350040229/#">In Neither Man Nor Beast</a>, abolitionist Carol J. Adams calls this the “arrogant eye” of anthropocentrism – the distortion of our understanding of the world into models suited for humans.</p>
<p>Of course, as humans we can only really look at the world from a human perspective. But <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/anthropocentrism#:%7E:text=Anthropocentrism%3A%20What%20is%20it%3F,or%20in%20their%20instrumental%20value.">anthropocentrism</a> presumes there to be only one “objective” perspective – the human one – and that Earth’s other organisms should measure up as close to humans as possible in order to be granted the right to exist. This implies that many nonhuman animals require no ethical consideration at all when it comes to their welfare.</p>
<p>A longstanding paradox is the status of animals used in research. They are <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4594046/">similar enough to stand in for humans</a>, yet a lot of people don’t want to think about what this means for their consciousness of pain and suffering. It seems an uncomfortable inconsistency. </p>
<p>Equally, <a href="https://www.advancedsciencenews.com/artificial-intelligence-could-be-promising-alternative-to-animal-models/">many scientists working in AI</a>, <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30930176/">stem cell research</a> and other fields are trying to reduce the exploitation of nonhuman animals in medical development – for example, <a href="https://www.animalfreeresearchuk.org/dr-hadwen-trust-becomes-animal-free-research/">the Dr Hadwen Trust</a>, whose research does not involve testing on animals. </p>
<p>It’s important to understand our motives behind measuring animal consciousness. A lot of people seem to want to <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763419303677">want to measure it</a> to alleviate their guilt, by “othering” the animals we harm from those we find appealing or similar to ourselves. Studying animal consciousness can help us empathise with nonhuman animals, but it can also help people avoid grappling with the ethics of animal testing.</p>
<h2>A whole new world</h2>
<p>I believe we need to stop asking questions about animal consciousness that are based on a hierarchy. </p>
<p>Octopi and other <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphys.2018.01160/full#:%7E:text=Within%20the%20clade%20of%20mollusks,in%20one%20order%2C%20the%20octopods.">cephalopods have nervous systems</a> throughout all their limbs. Their bodies are not a separate thing controlled by a brain or central nervous system. </p>
<p>So, measuring consciousness using a central nervous system like ours may lead us to believe they do not have pain capacity or even sentience. Yet behavioural studies <a href="https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220720-do-octopuses-feel-pain">show they express both</a>, just differently to humans. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Mole breaking through dirt surface" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/520276/original/file-20230411-26-uyyqyp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/520276/original/file-20230411-26-uyyqyp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/520276/original/file-20230411-26-uyyqyp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/520276/original/file-20230411-26-uyyqyp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/520276/original/file-20230411-26-uyyqyp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/520276/original/file-20230411-26-uyyqyp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/520276/original/file-20230411-26-uyyqyp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">If we applied human norms to moles, we would completely misunderstand them.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/european-mole-crawling-out-molehill-above-2123129837">kubais/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Many animals express reproductive behaviour in ways completely alien to humans. For example, the <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18085526/">female mole has an ovoteste</a> and, outside of mating season, <a href="https://theconversation.com/fierce-female-moles-have-male-like-hormones-and-genitals-we-now-know-how-this-happens-149174">behaves like a male</a>. (Mole ovotestes release eggs like typical ovaries but also have testicular tissue to one side that releases large amounts of male sex hormones.) Similarly, <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/srep35461">clown fish change from male</a> to female, and <a href="https://www.bbcearth.com/news/fish-are-the-sex-switching-masters-of-the-animal-kingdom">kobudai fish change from female</a> to male.</p>
<p>These species show how <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3366/j.ctv2f4vq5f">rich and diverse the animal kingdom is</a>. Viewing them and other animals as <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3366/j.ctv2f4vq5f">“lesser” versions of ourselves</a> denies the rich and complex diversity of the animal kingdom.</p>
<p>We are in an age which, to an extent, embraces feminism, anti-racism and anti-ableism. Perhaps it is also time to include “speciesism” in our discussions about ethics – since valuing some species over others is a form of prejudice.</p>
<p>Over time, the public has slowly broadened its criticism of animal testing from <a href="https://bmcmedethics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12910-021-00580-z">great apes</a> <a href="https://crueltyfreeinternational.org/experiments-wild-baboons-kenya">to baboons</a>, mice and even <a href="https://www.standard.co.uk/hp/front/ecover-loses-green-backing-over-animal-tests-on-a-0-2mm-flea-6605274.html">water fleas</a>. This shows we have placed animals in a hierarchy which makes experimenting on some acceptable and others less so. Philosophers have been raising concerns about the ethics of this since <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_status_of_animals_in_the_ancient_world">the sixth century BC</a>. </p>
<p>This is also the <a href="https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/age-man-enter-anthropocene/">age of the Anthropocene</a>, the period during which human activities have affected the environment enough to create a distinct geological change. We live in a <a href="https://www.rspb.org.uk/our-work/policy-insight/england-westminster/Nature-and-climate-emergency/">climate and nature crisis</a> of our own making.</p>
<p>If we are serious about revolutionising our use of the Earth, it is time to rethink our need to classify all forms of life. We may find this is not about curiosity, but a desire to vindicate our history of dominion over the Earth. How about we exchange hierarchy for care? The future may depend upon it.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/201533/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Patricia MacCormack does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Our motives for classifying animals may be more about guilt than curiosity.Patricia MacCormack, Professor of Continental Philosophy, Anglia Ruskin UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2031292023-04-05T11:35:59Z2023-04-05T11:35:59ZLife: modern physics can’t explain it – but our new theory, which says time is fundamental, might<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/519329/original/file-20230404-982-boq7uk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=60%2C0%2C4378%2C2977&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/beauty-bird-paradise-cendrawasih-2021534777">Ryan Boedi/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><iframe src="https://embed.acast.com/638f4b009a65b10011b94c5e/642d59ed65d917001197b0cf" frameborder="0" width="100%" height="190px"></iframe>
<p><iframe id="tc-infographic-807" class="tc-infographic" height="100px" src="https://cdn.theconversation.com/infographics/807/1668471fb1e76a459995c87bd439c36b04b754ac/site/index.html" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>Over the short span of just 300 years, since the invention of modern physics, we have gained a deeper understanding of how our universe works on both small and large scales. Yet, physics is still very young and when it comes to using it to explain life, physicists struggle. </p>
<p>Even today, <a href="https://theconversation.com/great-mysteries-of-physics-will-we-ever-have-a-fundamental-theory-of-life-and-consciousness-203127">we can’t really explain</a> what the difference is between a living lump of matter and a dead one. But my colleagues and I are creating a new physics of life that might soon provide answers.</p>
<p>More than 150 years ago, Darwin poignantly noted the dichotomy between what we understand in physics and what we observe in life – noting at the end of <a href="https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsnr.2018.0015">The Origin of Species</a> “…whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been and are being evolved”. </p>
<h2>The importance of time</h2>
<p>Isaac Newton described a universe where the laws never change, and time is an immutable and absolute backdrop against which everything moves. Darwin, however, observed a universe where endless forms are generated, each changing features of what came before, suggesting that time should not only have a direction, but that it in some ways folds back on itself. New evolutionary forms can only arise via selection on the past. </p>
<p>Presumably these two areas of science are describing the same universe, but how can two such diametrically opposite views be unified? The key to understanding why life is not explainable in current physics may be to reconsider our notions of time as the key difference between the universe as described by Newton and that of Darwin. Time has, in fact, been reinvented many times through the history of physics. </p>
<p>Although Newton’s time was fixed and absolute, Einstein’s time became a dimension – just like space. And just as all points in space exist all at once, so do all points in time. This <a href="https://theconversation.com/great-mysteries-of-physics-1-is-time-an-illusion-201026">philosophy of time</a> is sometimes referred to as the “block universe” where the past, present and future are equally real and exist in a static structure – with no special “now”. In <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/quantum-mechanics-157">quantum mechanics</a>, the passage of time emerges from how quantum states change from one to the next.</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/513939/original/file-20230307-20-pgea9d.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/513939/original/file-20230307-20-pgea9d.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/513939/original/file-20230307-20-pgea9d.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/513939/original/file-20230307-20-pgea9d.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/513939/original/file-20230307-20-pgea9d.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/513939/original/file-20230307-20-pgea9d.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/513939/original/file-20230307-20-pgea9d.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><em>This is article is accompanied by a podcast series called <a href="https://podfollow.com/great-mysteries-of-physics">Great Mysteries of Physics</a> which uncovers the greatest mysteries facing physicists today – and discusses the radical proposals for solving them.</em></p>
<hr>
<p>The invention of <a href="https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/thermo.html">thermodynamics</a> gave time its arrow, explaining why it’s moving forward rather than backwards. That’s because there are clear examples of systems in our universe, such as a working engine, that are irreversible – only working in one direction. Each new area of fundamental physics, whether describing space and time (Newton/Einstein), matter and light (quantum mechanics), or heat and work (thermodynamics) has introduced a new concept of time. </p>
<p>But what about evolution and life? To build novel things, evolution requires time. Endless novelty can only come to be in a universe where time exists and has a clear direction. Evolution is the only physical process in our universe that can generate the succession of novel objects we associate to life – things like microbes, mammals, trees and even cellphones.</p>
<h2>Information and memory</h2>
<p>Such objects cannot fluctuate into existence spontaneously. They require a memory, based on what existed in the past, to construct things in the present. It is such “selection” that determines the dividing line between the universe described by current physics, and what Darwin saw: it is the mechanism that turns a universe where memory does not matter in determining what exists, to one where it does. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/519346/original/file-20230404-892-3myc8u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="DNA helix" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/519346/original/file-20230404-892-3myc8u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/519346/original/file-20230404-892-3myc8u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/519346/original/file-20230404-892-3myc8u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/519346/original/file-20230404-892-3myc8u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/519346/original/file-20230404-892-3myc8u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/519346/original/file-20230404-892-3myc8u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/519346/original/file-20230404-892-3myc8u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Life is information.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/blue-helix-human-dna-structure-1669326868">Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Think about it, everything in the living world requires some kind of memory and information flow. The DNA in our cells is our blueprint. And to invent new things, such as rockets or medication, living beings also need information – knowledge of the laws of physics and chemistry.</p>
<p>To explain life, we therefore need to understand how the complex objects life creates exist in time. With my collaborators, we have been doing just that in a <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.02279">newly proposed theory</a> of physics called assembly theory.</p>
<p>A key conjecture of assembly theory is that, as objects become more complex, the number of unique parts that make it up increases, and so does the need for local memory to store how to assemble the object from its unique parts. We quantify this in assembly theory as the shortest number of physical steps to build an object from its elementary building blocks, called the assembly index. </p>
<p>Importantly, assembly theory treats this shortest path as an intrinsic property of the object, and indeed we have shown how assembly index can be measured for molecules using several different measuring techniques including mass spectrometry (an analytical method to measure the mass-to-charge ratio of molecules).</p>
<p>With this approach, we have shown in the lab, with measurements on both biological and non-biological samples, how molecules with an assembly index above 15 steps <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-23258-x">are only found</a> in living samples.</p>
<p>This suggests that assembly theory is indeed capable of testing our hypothesis that life is the only physics that generates complex objects. And we can do so by identifying those objects that are so complex the only physical mechanism to form them is evolution. </p>
<p>We are aiming to use our theory to estimate when the origin if life happens by measuring the point at which molecules in a chemical soup become so complex that they start using information to make copies of themselves – <a href="https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsif.2012.0869">the threshold at which life arises from non-life</a>. We may then apply the theory to experiments aiming to generate a new origin of life event in the lab. </p>
<p>And when we know this, we can use the theory to look for life on worlds that are radically different to Earth, and may therefore look so alien that we wouldn’t recognise life there.</p>
<p>If the theory holds, it will force a radical rethink on time in physics. According to our theory, assembly can be measured as an intrinsic property for molecules, which corresponds to their size in time – meaning time is a physical attribute. </p>
<p>Ultimately, time is intrinsic to our experiences of the world, and it is necessary for evolution to happen. If we want physics to be capable of explaining life – and us - it may be that we need to treat time as a material property for the first time in physics. </p>
<p>This is perhaps the most radical departure for physics of life from standard physics, but it may be the critical insight needed to explain what life is.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/203129/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sara Imari Walker receives funding from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the John Templeton Foundation relevant to the work in this article. She is also a member of the External Faculty at the Santa Fe Institute and a Fellow of the Berggruen Institute. </span></em></p>The key to understanding why life is not explainable in current physics may be to reconsider our notions of time and information.Sara Imari Walker, Professor of Physics, School of Earth and Space Exploration, Arizona State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1971272023-01-19T09:18:32Z2023-01-19T09:18:32ZEmerging from a coma: response to language can help assess states of consciousness<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/503430/original/file-20230106-10033-7jgnj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C22%2C5120%2C2851&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">An EEG and MRI allow physicians to follow the activity of the cerebral regions linked to language. This enables them to measure the reactions of a patient in a state of minimal consciousness to various commands.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Gorodenkoff/Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>A man – for the sake of this exercise, let’s call him “Paul” - has a heart attack and his brain is starved of oxygen. After several resuscitations and a week in a coma, he finally opens his eyes. However, he doesn’t always appear to be present. Doctors say he is still unconscious, in an “unresponsive state” – the patient’s eyes are open, but he doesn’t move his hand when asked. For families in such situations, the question is always the same: will their loved one become conscious again?</p>
<p>Recent advances in intensive-care medicine have allowed many people with severe brain injuries to “come back to life”. However, from a seemingly inert state to full wakefulness, there is a <a href="https://theconversation.com/etat-vegetatif-eveil-non-repondant-comment-evalue-t-on-le-niveau-de-conscience-des-patients-dans-le-coma-152046">wide range of different states of consciousness</a> that neuroscientists are working to better define. </p>
<p>After a coma episode (where the eyes remain closed) lasting between one hour and four weeks, there are normally several states of recovery until “emergence”, but some intermediate states of consciousness may persist and even become chronic:</p>
<ul>
<li><p><strong>Unresponsive wakefulness syndrome</strong>: the patients open their eyes but show no signs of consciousness. (This was previously called a “vegetative state”, but was renamed in 2010 to <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21040571/">better describe the symptoms</a>.)</p></li>
<li><p><strong>Minimally conscious state “minus”</strong>: recovery of some signs of consciousness such as visual pursuit/fixation, or localization of painful stimulation.</p></li>
<li><p><strong>Minimally conscious state “plus”</strong>: reappearance of signs of language awareness – response to verbal commands, production of words, attempts to communicate.</p></li>
<li><p><strong>Emergence from the minimally conscious state</strong>: as soon as the patient is able to communicate using a yes/no code or to use everyday objects.</p></li>
</ul>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/505311/original/file-20230119-23-pg8jys.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Each state is distinguished by different abilities: eye opening, answering questions, etc" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/505311/original/file-20230119-23-pg8jys.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/505311/original/file-20230119-23-pg8jys.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=190&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/505311/original/file-20230119-23-pg8jys.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=190&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/505311/original/file-20230119-23-pg8jys.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=190&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/505311/original/file-20230119-23-pg8jys.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=239&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/505311/original/file-20230119-23-pg8jys.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=239&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/505311/original/file-20230119-23-pg8jys.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=239&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Diagnosis of the state of consciousness following brain damage: coma, unresponsive wakefulness syndrome (vegetative state), minimally conscious state minus, minimally conscious state plus and emergence.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Wislowska et al. (2017). Night and day variations of sleep in patients with disorders of consciousness</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>It is crucial to be able to distinguish these disorders of consciousness from a <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK559026/">locked-in syndrome</a>, also the result of a severe brain injury, but located in the brain stem. The result is paralysis of the body, head and face, although consciousness and cognition may be preserved. Communication is most often achieved through eye movements.</p>
<h2>The challenging diagnosis of disorders of consciousness</h2>
<p>Such altered states of consciousness are difficult to diagnose because brain imaging does not yet allow an optimal diagnosis of unresponsive wakefulness or minimal consciousness. The most widely accepted method at present is a bedside assessment using standardized and validated scales. The <a href="https://www.glasgowcomascale.org/">Glasgow Coma Scale</a> is the most known and investigated one. However, it does not assess the most frequent signs of minimal consciousness (notably visual fixation/pursuit). This is in contrast to the <a href="https://www.tbims.org/combi/crs/CRS%20Syllabus.pdf">Coma Recovery Scale-Revised</a> or the <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877065720301603#fig0005">Simplified evaluation of consciousness disorders</a>, which identify auditory, visual, motor and language signs of consciousness. </p>
<p>Without such assessments, a diagnosis based on simple clinical observation would have about <a href="https://bmcneurol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2377-9-35">40% error</a>. These assessments must be repeated about <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28543735/">five times in a short period of time</a> (for example, two weeks), reducing the risk of diagnostic errors from 36% after one assessment to 5% after the fifth.</p>
<p>The challenge in making a correct diagnosis on the basis of behavioural assessments is partly related to patients’ fluctuating level of arousal, and also lesions such as <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16633170/">palpebral ptosis</a> – inability to open the eyes – that can impede the assessment of visual fixations/pursuits.</p>
<h2>A new approach through language</h2>
<p>One of the most frequent questions health professionals
are faced with when taking care of these patients is: “Can they understand us?” The assessment of language skills is also a key step in establishing communication with the patient. However, if the language regions of the patient’s brain have been too damaged, their state of consciousness could be underestimated – he or she may not respond to commands simply because they’re not understood. Indeed, a <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24743226/">2015 study</a> of stroke patients with aphasia – language impairment following brain damage – showed that about 25% of who were fully conscious could be erroneously diagnosed as minimally conscious.</p>
<p>These data underline the importance of improving the assessment of language in patients waking up from coma. Current research is trying to better understand how we can assess the language abilities of these patients, despite their visual, auditory and motor dysfunctions.</p>
<h2>An aid to limit misdiagnosis</h2>
<p>Our recent <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34864003/">systematic review of the literature</a> reports the use of electroencephalography (EEG) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) methods, which make it possible to measure the activity of brain regions generally linked to language. Two types of tasks can be performed with either technique:</p>
<ul>
<li><p><strong>Passive listening tasks</strong> consist of having patients listen to words or sentences. For example, we look at the difference in brain activity depending on whether the patient hears noise or language. According to the studies reviewed, about 33% of patients considered to have an unresponsive wakefulness syndrome show signs of language comprehension.</p></li>
<li><p><strong>Active listening tasks</strong>, in which the patient is asked to think about a physical activity – for example, “Imagine playing tennis”. If the patient shows signs of the activation of motor imagery on EEG or MRI, it can be deduced that he or she has responded to the command. Approximately 20% of patients considered to have an unresponsive wakefulness syndrome are able to perform these tasks.</p></li>
</ul>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/504690/original/file-20230116-20-81tqyi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Passive tasks involve comprehension of words, sentences… Active tasks require responding to a verbal command" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/504690/original/file-20230116-20-81tqyi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/504690/original/file-20230116-20-81tqyi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=216&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/504690/original/file-20230116-20-81tqyi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=216&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/504690/original/file-20230116-20-81tqyi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=216&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/504690/original/file-20230116-20-81tqyi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=272&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/504690/original/file-20230116-20-81tqyi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=272&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/504690/original/file-20230116-20-81tqyi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=272&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Passive vs. active tasks to identify language comprehension in awake coma patients. The former are based on EEG and MRI and assess brain activity in response to different language stimuli; the latter measure the ability to respond to verbal commands, either behaviourally or via EEG and MRI.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Charlène Aubinet</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33938027/">level of consciousness of these patients could therefore be misdiagnosed</a>. Since they respond to commands, they are actually in a minimally conscious state.</p>
<h2>The consequences of misdiagnosis</h2>
<p>Such diagnostic errors can have a significant impact on the prognosis and management of the patient. This is because health care staff tend to be <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26035522/">more attentive to the pain management of a minimally conscious patient</a> than an unresponsive patient who is considered to have impaired pain perception. More importantly, end-of-life decisions will be discussed more often in the case of an <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21221625/">unresponsive patient</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/505312/original/file-20230119-22-llxaxs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Language-related abilities increase progressively as states of consciousness evolve toward emergence" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/505312/original/file-20230119-22-llxaxs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/505312/original/file-20230119-22-llxaxs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=339&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/505312/original/file-20230119-22-llxaxs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=339&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/505312/original/file-20230119-22-llxaxs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=339&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/505312/original/file-20230119-22-llxaxs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=426&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/505312/original/file-20230119-22-llxaxs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=426&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/505312/original/file-20230119-22-llxaxs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=426&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">One-third and one-fifth of patients with an unresponsive wakefulness syndrome (UWS) respond to passive and active tasks, respectively. As their level of consciousness increases, through the minimally conscious state (MCS) and up to the emergence from the minimally conscious state (EMCS), more residual language abilities are observed in patients.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Charlène Aubinet</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>It therefore seems crucial to improve language assessment to better capture coma patients’ actual state of consciousness. Such efforts are only precipitated by the fact health professionals do not always have access to EEG and MRI techniques. At Liège University, our team has developed a <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02699052.2021.1894482">“brief evaluation of receptive aphasia”</a> (BERA) tool that presents pairs of images to the patient, prompting them to fix their eyes on the one that corresponds to the word or sentence they hear. With this test, we hope to provide a new, easily accessible and inexpensive tool for all clinicians in coma recovery.</p>
<p>There are still many advances to be made in this area of clinical research. The methods of assessment (but also of rehabilitation) will have to evolve in parallel with those of intensive care medicine, in order to help patients such as “Paul” to be able to communicate again.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>For health professionals wishing to learn more, online materials are available on our [new diagnostic scales].</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/197127/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Les auteurs ne travaillent pas, ne conseillent pas, ne possèdent pas de parts, ne reçoivent pas de fonds d'une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n'ont déclaré aucune autre affiliation que leur organisme de recherche.</span></em></p>New research shows that post-coma patients who appear to be in a minimally conscious state can still mentally react to language. This finding could help improve their diagnosis and treatment.Charlène Aubinet, Chargée de recherches FNRS, neuropsychologue et logopède, Université de LiègeOlivia Gosseries, Co-directrice du Coma Science Group, Chercheuse qualifiée FNRS, Neuropsychologue, Université de LiègeLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1828552022-09-19T05:53:39Z2022-09-19T05:53:39ZWhat constitutes a mind? Lars Chittka challenges our perception of sentience with the smallest of creatures<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/479811/original/file-20220818-22-n03lif.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=6%2C0%2C1017%2C766&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Jon Sullivan/Wikimedia Commons</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>At the beginning of my research career around 15 years ago, any suggestion that a bee, or any invertebrate, had a mind of its own or that it could experience the world in an intricate and multifaceted way would be met with ridicule. As Lars Chittka points out in the opening chapters of <a href="https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691180472/the-mind-of-a-bee">The Mind of a Bee</a>, the attribution of human emotions and experiences was seen as naivety and ignorance; anthropomorphism was a dirty word. </p>
<p>Pet owners eagerly ascribe emotions to their animals, but the simple brain of a bee surely could not experience the rich tapestry that is our existence. They are far too simplistic and robotic, right?</p>
<hr>
<p><em>Review: The Mind of a Bee – Lars Chittka (Princeton University Press).</em></p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/479813/original/file-20220818-1579-ok5ass.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/479813/original/file-20220818-1579-ok5ass.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/479813/original/file-20220818-1579-ok5ass.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=906&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/479813/original/file-20220818-1579-ok5ass.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=906&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/479813/original/file-20220818-1579-ok5ass.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=906&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/479813/original/file-20220818-1579-ok5ass.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1138&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/479813/original/file-20220818-1579-ok5ass.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1138&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/479813/original/file-20220818-1579-ok5ass.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1138&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Lars Chittka has been researching honeybees for the past 30 years. The Mind of a Bee is a collection of his research stories. It also covers the influential figures in bee research and provides a historical perspective on the research that much behavioural work is built on today. </p>
<p>People have long been curious about the behaviour of bees. Many questions posed in the 1800s are still around. While Chittka’s beautifully collated and captivating “story” does not present research results that are necessarily new, to read them presented together like this, I find myself tantalised by questions I had not thought to ponder. For example, how do bees decide who stays and who leaves when a swarm is formed? </p>
<h2>The world of a bee</h2>
<p>The book opens by challenging you to put yourself into the <em>world</em> of a bee. </p>
<p>A honeybee’s experience of the world is so completely foreign to our own that to understand and research it is a challenge not to be underestimated. Indeed, it is understandable that we have relegated the experience of bees to something simplistic and robotic when you discover the difficulties faced by researchers. </p>
<p>First, picture yourself as a bee. You have wings, allowing flight. Your vision is not as sharp anymore, worse than your grandfather’s with his coke-bottle glasses, but you see things more quickly. Life is experienced on a faster time line – what was once a movie is now more like a series of images in a slideshow. </p>
<p>The antennae protruding from your head function as hands, ears, tongues and noses, all in one. You can tell if someone has visited a flower before you – a flower you picked out of a field of hundreds by its scent, and which you found by following the directions you felt a fellow bee dance for you inside the pitch-black hive perhaps ten kilometres from your current position. </p>
<p>Chittka then invites us to imagine the <em>life</em> of the bee. Upon exiting the hive for the first time, you must learn its location through a series of flights – behaviour observed in other central-place foragers such as ants and wasps. Failure to recognise your hive and return home equals death. </p>
<p>Once you have memorised the location of your hive, you then must successfully navigate your way to and from various resource-rich patches as efficiently as possible, learning new locations, the timing of certain flowers releasing their nectar, and the techniques required to manipulate other flowers into relinquishing theirs. </p>
<p>So far, this sounds instinctual, a basic response to hunger. Yet Chittka presents additional research – historical and current – that provides insights into the cognitive skills of bees. We learn that bees can count. They can learn rules and categorise flowers. And they can learn from others, not only which flowers are rewarding, but how to access them. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/exsrX6qsKkA?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>One of my favourite experiments, perhaps for the videos that accompanied the publication, is of bumblebees pushing balls into holes to get rewards. This skill can be learnt by an observer bee and, what is truly fascinating, it can be improved upon. The observer bee can solve the task by copying the goal rather than strictly copying the technique, demonstrating an understanding of the task and the desired outcome. </p>
<p>But when would a bee ever need to push a ball into a hole to be rewarded with some “nectar”? </p>
<p>As Chittka rightly points out, the questions we pose to understand the minds of bees must have a biological relevance to make sense. That is, we need to understand what is important to the survival of bees, what is essential in their existence, and frame our questions of intelligence and sentience around that aspect. If we ask the wrong questions, we will never fully understand the answers – like asking a fish to climb a tree and finding it lacking.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/480260/original/file-20220822-18038-tcb5ik.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/480260/original/file-20220822-18038-tcb5ik.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/480260/original/file-20220822-18038-tcb5ik.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=802&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/480260/original/file-20220822-18038-tcb5ik.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=802&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/480260/original/file-20220822-18038-tcb5ik.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=802&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/480260/original/file-20220822-18038-tcb5ik.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1007&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/480260/original/file-20220822-18038-tcb5ik.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1007&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/480260/original/file-20220822-18038-tcb5ik.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1007&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Lars Chittka.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Wikimedia commons</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Consciousness and emotion</h2>
<p>The punch this book packs is in the subtle build-up to the final chapters, whereupon it becomes increasingly hard to deny the “mind” of a bee. </p>
<p>While it is impossible to prove consciousness in another organism, the research Chittka has collated provides a compelling argument. In The Mind of a Bee, you will read that bees feel emotions and pain, display metacognition (that is, they know what they know), and show individual differences in their ability to learn, with fast and slow learners. Bees are aware of their bodies and the outcomes of their actions, and they display intentionality through tool use – previously only recognised in humans, primates, and the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corvidae">corvidae</a> family of birds. </p>
<p>Regardless of whether you believe a bee has a mind or not, globally there has been a <a href="https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/2041-210X.13208">change in research practices as invertebrates are seen to experience the world more fully</a>. </p>
<p>Ethics approval is required for work on some invertebrates, including crustaceans and cephalopods, and statements of ethical treatment of other invertebrates are required for submission of manuscripts to some journals. To suggest an invertebrate, such as a bee, may have these fuller experiences of life is no longer attracting ridicule, but instead is creating an uncomfortable space for insect researchers, who may not wish to confront the reality of their experiments.</p>
<p>We have underestimated the intelligence of bees and other “lower” species for far too long; it is time to pay attention. Chittka shows us that bees have the key ingredients of a mind: they have a representation of space, they can learn by observation, and they display simple tool use. Bees have demonstrated a flexible memory, with ideas of what they want to achieve, an ability to explore suitable solutions to get it, and an awareness of the possible outcomes of their own actions. </p>
<p>Experiments have further shown that bees appear to attach emotional states to rewards and punishments. While their biology and experience of the world is very different to ours, it is reasonable to believe that they do indeed possess a mind capable of experiencing the rich tapestry of life we have so long thought only available to us.</p>
<p>Written with moments of levity and soaked in curiosity, The Mind of a Bee is a delight. While some may not be ready to ascribe sentience to something as “simple” as a bee, this book will prompt you to question why not. As Chittka so eloquently put it in a recent talk: “We are thinking, suffering, enjoying beings in a world of other thinking, suffering and enjoying beings, with different minds and perceptions.” </p>
<p>I for one am looking at the world a little differently with that in mind.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/182855/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Eliza Middleton receives funding from the Australian Research Council</span></em></p>Recent studies suggest that the mind of a bee is far more sophisticated than once believed.Eliza Middleton, Laboratory Manager, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1859042022-07-25T04:02:29Z2022-07-25T04:02:29ZIrony machine: why are AI researchers teaching computers to recognise irony?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/473359/original/file-20220711-19-5d335n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">shutterstock thinking robot</span> </figcaption></figure><p>What was your first reaction when you heard about <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-google-software-engineer-believes-an-ai-has-become-sentient-if-hes-right-how-would-we-know-185024">Blake Lemoine</a>, the Google engineer who announced last month the AI program he was working on had developed consciousness?</p>
<p>If, like me, you’re instinctively suspicious, it might have been something like: <em>Is this guy serious? Does he honestly believe what he is saying? Or is this an elaborate hoax?</em></p>
<p>Put the answers to those questions to one side. Focus instead on the questions themselves. Is it not true that even to <em>ask</em> them is to presuppose something crucial about Blake Lemoine: specifically, <em>he</em> is conscious?</p>
<p>In other words, we can all imagine Blake Lemoine being deceptive.</p>
<p>And we can do so because we assume there is a difference between his inward convictions – what he genuinely believes – and his outward expressions: what he <em>claims</em> to believe.</p>
<p>Isn’t that difference the mark of consciousness? Would we ever assume the same about a computer?</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/a-google-software-engineer-believes-an-ai-has-become-sentient-if-hes-right-how-would-we-know-185024">A Google software engineer believes an AI has become sentient. If he’s right, how would we know?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Consciousness: ‘the hard problem’</h2>
<p>It is not for nothing philosophers have taken to calling consciousness “<a href="https://iep.utm.edu/hard-problem-of-conciousness/#:%7E:text=The%20hard%20problem%20of%20consciousness%20is%20the%20problem%20of%20explaining,directly%20appear%20to%20the%20subject.">the hard problem</a>”. It is notoriously difficult to define.</p>
<p>But for the moment, let’s say a conscious being is one capable of having a thought and not divulging it.</p>
<p>This means consciousness would be the prerequisite for irony, or saying one thing while meaning the opposite. I know you are being ironic when I realise your words <em>don’t</em> correspond with your thoughts.</p>
<p>That most of us have this capacity – and most of us routinely convey our unspoken meanings in this manner – is something that, I think, should surprise us more often than it does.</p>
<p>It seems almost discretely human.</p>
<p>Animals can certainly be funny – but not deliberately so. </p>
<p>What about machines? Can they deceive? Can they keep secrets? Can they be ironic?</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/475553/original/file-20220722-24-8kdn4w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="a kitten peeks out from between a pile of knits" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/475553/original/file-20220722-24-8kdn4w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/475553/original/file-20220722-24-8kdn4w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/475553/original/file-20220722-24-8kdn4w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/475553/original/file-20220722-24-8kdn4w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/475553/original/file-20220722-24-8kdn4w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/475553/original/file-20220722-24-8kdn4w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/475553/original/file-20220722-24-8kdn4w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Animals can be funny, but not on purpose.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>AI and irony</h2>
<p>It is a truth universally acknowledged (among academics at least) that any research question you might cook up with the letters “AI” in it is already being studied somewhere by an army of obscenely well-resourced computational scientists – often, if not always, funded by the US military.</p>
<p>This is certainly the case with the question of AI and irony, which has recently attracted a significant amount of <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2021.791374/full">research interest</a>.</p>
<p>Of course, given that irony involves saying one thing while meaning the opposite, creating a machine that can detect it, let alone generate it, is no simple task.</p>
<p>But if we <em>could</em> create such a machine, it would have a multitude of practical applications, some more sinister than others.</p>
<p>In the age of online reviews, for example, retailers have become very keen on <a href="https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/23/4/394">so-called</a> “opinion mining” and “sentiment analysis”, which uses AI to map not merely the content, but the mood of reviewer’s comments. </p>
<p>Knowing whether your product is being praised or becoming the butt of the joke is valuable information.</p>
<p>Or consider content moderation on social media. If we want to limit online abuse while protecting freedom of speech, would it not be helpful to know when someone is serious and when they are joking?</p>
<p>Or what if someone tweets that they have just joined their local terrorist cell or they’re packing a bomb in their suitcase and heading for the airport? (Don’t ever tweet that, by the way.) Imagine if we could determine instantly whether they are serious, or whether they are just “being ironic”. </p>
<p>In fact, given irony’s proximity to lying, it’s not hard to imagine how the entire shadowy machinery of governmental and corporate surveillance that has grown up around new communications technologies would find the prospect of an irony-detector extremely interesting. </p>
<p>And that goes a long way towards explaining the growing literature on the topic.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/weaponised-irony-after-fictionalising-elizabeth-macarthurs-life-kate-grenville-edits-her-letters-180335">'Weaponised irony': after fictionalising Elizabeth Macarthur's life, Kate Grenville edits her letters</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>AI, from Clippy to facial recognition</h2>
<p>To understand the state of current research into AI and irony, it is helpful to know a little about <a href="https://books.google.com.au/books/about/Your_Wit_Is_My_Command.html?id=toY8EAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false">the history of AI</a> more generally. </p>
<p>That history is typically broken down into two periods.</p>
<p>Until the 1990s, researchers sought to program computers with a set of handcrafted formal rules for how to behave in predefined situations. </p>
<p>If you used Microsoft Word in the 1990s, you might remember the irritating office assistant Clippy, who was endlessly popping up to offer unwanted advice.</p>
<p>Since the turn of the century, that model has been replaced by data-driven machine learning and neural networks.</p>
<p>Here, enormous caches of examples of a given phenomena are translated into numerical values, on which computers can perform complex mathematical operations to determine patterns no human could ever discover.</p>
<p>Moreover, the computer does not merely apply a rule. Rather, it learns from experience, and develops new operations independent of human intervention.</p>
<p>The difference between the two approaches is the difference between Clippy and, say, facial recognition technology.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/facial-recognition-is-on-the-rise-but-the-law-is-lagging-a-long-way-behind-185510">Facial recognition is on the rise – but the law is lagging a long way behind</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Researching sarcasm</h2>
<p>To build <a href="https://aclanthology.org/W16-0425/">a neural network with the ability to detect irony</a>, researchers focus initially on what some would consider its simplest form: sarcasm.</p>
<p>The researchers begin with data stripped from social media.</p>
<p>For instance, they might collect all tweets labelled #sarcasm or Reddit posts labelled /s, a shorthand that Reddit users employ to indicate they are not serious.</p>
<p>The point is not to teach the computer to recognise the two separate meanings of any given sarcastic post. Indeed, meaning is of no relevance whatsoever.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1549009741602504706"}"></div></p>
<p>Instead, the computer is instructed to search for recurring patterns, or what one researcher calls “syntactical fingerprints” – words, phrases, emojis, punctuation, errors, contexts, and so forth.</p>
<p>On top of that, the data set is bolstered by adding more streams of examples – other posts in the same threads, for instance, or from the same account.</p>
<p>Each new individual example is then run through a battery of calculations until we arrive at a single determination: sarcastic or not sarcastic.</p>
<p>Finally, a bot can be programmed to reply to each original poster and ask whether they were being sarcastic. Any response can be added to the computer’s growing mountain of experience.</p>
<p>The success rate of the most recent sarcasm detectors approaches <a href="https://aclanthology.org/W16-0425/">an astonishing 90%</a> – greater, I suspect, than many humans could achieve. </p>
<p>So, assuming AI will continue to advance at the rate that took us from Clippy to facial recognition technology in less than two decades, can ironic androids be far off?</p>
<h2>What is irony?</h2>
<p>But isn’t there a qualitative difference between sorting through the “syntactical fingerprints” of irony and actually understanding it?</p>
<p>Some would suggest <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_intelligence">not</a>. If a computer can be taught to behave exactly like a human, then it’s immaterial whether a rich internal world of meaning lurks beneath its behaviour.</p>
<p>But irony is arguably a unique case: it <em>relies</em> on the distinction between external behaviours and internal beliefs.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/7GM--22zOlw?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">In 1994 film Reality Bites, Ethan Hawke’s character famously defines irony (in very simplistic terms).</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Here it might be worth remembering that, while computational scientists have only recently become interested in irony, philosophers and literary critics have been thinking about it for a very long time.</p>
<p>And perhaps exploring that tradition would shed old light, as it were, on a new problem.</p>
<p>Of the many names one could invoke in this context, two are indispensable: the German Romantic philosopher <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/schlegel/">Friedrich Schlegel</a>; and the post-structuralist literary theorist <a href="https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780190221911/obo-9780190221911-0023.xml">Paul de Man</a>.</p>
<p>For Schlegel, irony does not simply entail a false, external meaning and a true, internal one. Rather, in irony, two opposite meanings are presented as equally true. And the resulting indeterminacy has devastating implications for logic, most notably the law of non-contradiction, which holds that a statement cannot be simultaneously true and false.</p>
<p>De Man follows Schlegel on this score, and in a sense, universalises his insight. He <a href="http://users.clas.ufl.edu/burt/unintelgbledethbyflm/concepofirony.pdf">notes</a> every effort to define a concept of irony is bound to be infected by the phenomena it purports to explain. </p>
<p>Indeed, de Man believes <em>all</em> language is infected by irony, and involves what he calls “permanent parabasis”. Because humans have the power to conceal their thoughts from one another, it will always be possible – permanently possible – that they do not mean what they are saying. </p>
<p>Irony, in other words, is not one kind of language among many. It structures – or better, haunts – every use of language and every interaction.</p>
<p>And in this sense, it exceeds the order of proof and computation. The question is whether the same is true of human beings in general.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/185904/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Charles Barbour does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Irony is linked to the ability to say one thing while thinking another – which means it’s also intrinsic to being human. What does new research into artificial intelligence and irony reveal?Charles Barbour, Senior Lecturer, School of Humanities and Communication Arts, Western Sydney UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1850992022-06-24T11:53:00Z2022-06-24T11:53:00ZGoogle’s powerful AI spotlights a human cognitive glitch: Mistaking fluent speech for fluent thought<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/470388/original/file-20220622-7895-m4o7lp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C7%2C4928%2C3245&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Words can have a powerful effect on people, even when they're generated by an unthinking machine.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/words-this-is-my-story-typed-on-paper-with-a-royalty-free-image/1359861887">iStock via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>When you read a sentence like this one, your past experience tells you that it’s written by a thinking, feeling human. And, in this case, there is indeed a human typing these words: [Hi, there!] But these days, some sentences that appear remarkably humanlike are actually generated by artificial intelligence systems trained on massive amounts of human text. </p>
<p>People are so accustomed to assuming that fluent language comes from a thinking, feeling human that evidence to the contrary can be difficult to wrap your head around. How are people likely to navigate this relatively uncharted territory? Because of a persistent tendency to associate fluent expression with fluent thought, it is natural – but potentially misleading – to think that if an AI model can express itself fluently, that means it thinks and feels just like humans do. </p>
<p>Thus, it is perhaps unsurprising that a former Google engineer recently claimed that Google’s AI system LaMDA has a sense of self because it can eloquently generate text about its purported feelings. This event and <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/06/11/google-ai-lamda-blake-lemoine/">the subsequent media coverage</a> led to a <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/06/17/google-ai-ethics-sentient-lemoine-warning/">number</a> of rightly skeptical <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jun/14/human-like-programs-abuse-our-empathy-even-google-engineers-arent-immune">articles</a> and <a href="https://garymarcus.substack.com/p/nonsense-on-stilts?s=r">posts</a> about the claim that computational models of human language are sentient, meaning capable of thinking and feeling and experiencing. </p>
<p>The question of what it would mean for an AI model to be sentient is complicated (<a href="https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1536829311562354688.html">see, for instance, our colleague’s take</a>), and our goal here is not to settle it. But as <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=XUmFLVUAAAAJ&hl=en">language</a> <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=hBUjCB0AAAAJ&hl=en">researchers</a>, we can use our work in cognitive science and linguistics to explain why it is all too easy for humans to fall into the cognitive trap of thinking that an entity that can use language fluently is sentient, conscious or intelligent.</p>
<h2>Using AI to generate humanlike language</h2>
<p>Text generated by models like Google’s LaMDA can be hard to distinguish from text written by humans. This impressive achievement is a result of a decadeslong program to build models that generate grammatical, meaningful language. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/470359/original/file-20220622-12-qbrh9n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="a screenshot showing a text dialog" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/470359/original/file-20220622-12-qbrh9n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/470359/original/file-20220622-12-qbrh9n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=328&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/470359/original/file-20220622-12-qbrh9n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=328&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/470359/original/file-20220622-12-qbrh9n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=328&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/470359/original/file-20220622-12-qbrh9n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=413&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/470359/original/file-20220622-12-qbrh9n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=413&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/470359/original/file-20220622-12-qbrh9n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=413&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The first computer system to engage people in dialogue was psychotherapy software called Eliza, built more than half a century ago.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/rosenfeldmedia/49467507798">Rosenfeld Media/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Early versions dating back to at least the 1950s, known as n-gram models, simply counted up occurrences of specific phrases and used them to guess what words were likely to occur in particular contexts. For instance, it’s easy to know that “peanut butter and jelly” is a more likely phrase than “peanut butter and pineapples.” If you have enough English text, you will see the phrase “peanut butter and jelly” again and again but might never see the phrase “peanut butter and pineapples.”</p>
<p>Today’s models, sets of data and rules that approximate human language, differ from these early attempts in several important ways. First, they are trained on essentially the entire internet. Second, they can learn relationships between words that are far apart, not just words that are neighbors. Third, they are tuned by a huge number of internal “knobs” – so many that it is hard for even the engineers who design them to understand why they generate one sequence of words rather than another.</p>
<p>The models’ task, however, remains the same as in the 1950s: determine which word is likely to come next. Today, they are so good at this task that almost all sentences they generate seem fluid and grammatical.</p>
<h2>Peanut butter and pineapples?</h2>
<p>We asked a large language model, <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-language-generation-programs-ability-to-write-articles-produce-code-and-compose-poetry-has-wowed-scientists-145591">GPT-3</a>, to complete the sentence “Peanut butter and pineapples___”. It said: “Peanut butter and pineapples are a great combination. The sweet and savory flavors of peanut butter and pineapple complement each other perfectly.” If a person said this, one might infer that they had tried peanut butter and pineapple together, formed an opinion and shared it with the reader.</p>
<p>But how did GPT-3 come up with this paragraph? By generating a word that fit the context we provided. And then another one. And then another one. The model never saw, touched or tasted pineapples – it just processed all the texts on the internet that mention them. And yet reading this paragraph can lead the human mind – even that of a Google engineer – to imagine GPT-3 as an intelligent being that can reason about peanut butter and pineapple dishes.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/a6jt3Vufa9U?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Large AI language models can engage in fluent conversation. However, they have no overall message to communicate, so their phrases often follow common literary tropes, extracted from the texts they were trained on. For instance, if prompted with the topic “the nature of love,” the model might generate sentences about believing that love conquers all. The human brain primes the viewer to interpret these words as the model’s opinion on the topic, but they are simply a plausible sequence of words.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The human brain is hardwired to infer intentions behind words. Every time you engage in conversation, your mind automatically constructs a mental model of your conversation partner. You then use the words they say to fill in the model with that person’s goals, feelings and beliefs.</p>
<p>The process of jumping from words to the mental model is seamless, getting triggered every time you receive a fully fledged sentence. This cognitive process saves you a lot of time and effort in everyday life, greatly facilitating your social interactions. </p>
<p>However, in the case of AI systems, it misfires – building a mental model out of thin air.</p>
<p>A little more probing can reveal the severity of this misfire. Consider the following prompt: “Peanut butter and feathers taste great together because___”. GPT-3 continued: “Peanut butter and feathers taste great together because they both have a nutty flavor. Peanut butter is also smooth and creamy, which helps to offset the feather’s texture.”</p>
<p>The text in this case is as fluent as our example with pineapples, but this time the model is saying something decidedly less sensible. One begins to suspect that GPT-3 has never actually tried peanut butter and feathers.</p>
<h2>Ascribing intelligence to machines, denying it to humans</h2>
<p>A sad irony is that the same cognitive bias that makes people ascribe humanity to GPT-3 can cause them to treat actual humans in inhumane ways. Sociocultural linguistics – the study of language in its social and cultural context – shows that assuming an overly tight link between fluent expression and fluent thinking can lead to bias against people who speak differently. </p>
<p>For instance, people with a foreign accent are often <a href="https://theconversation.com/heres-why-people-might-discriminate-against-foreign-accents-new-research-172539">perceived as less intelligent</a> and are less likely to get the jobs they are qualified for. Similar biases exist against <a href="https://theconversation.com/british-people-still-think-some-accents-are-smarter-than-others-what-that-means-in-the-workplace-126964">speakers of dialects</a> that are not considered prestigious, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080%2F17470218.2012.731695">such as Southern English</a> in the U.S., against <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0160597613481731">deaf people using sign languages</a> and against people with speech impediments <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfludis.2004.08.001">such as stuttering</a>. </p>
<p>These biases are deeply harmful, often lead to racist and sexist assumptions, and have been shown again and again to be unfounded.</p>
<h2>Fluent language alone does not imply humanity</h2>
<p>Will AI ever become sentient? This question requires deep consideration, and indeed philosophers have <a href="https://news.northeastern.edu/2022/06/16/google-sentient-ai-concerns/">pondered</a> it <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00360578">for decades</a>. What researchers have determined, however, is that you cannot simply trust a language model when it tells you how it feels. Words can be misleading, and it is all too easy to mistake fluent speech for fluent thought.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/185099/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kyle Mahowald receives funding from NSF.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Evelina Fedorenko receives funding from NIH.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Joshua B. Tenenbaum receives relevant funding from NSF, the US Department of Defense, IBM, Google, and Microsoft. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nancy Kanwisher receives funding from NIH and NSF.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Anna A. Ivanova and Idan Asher Blank do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Fluent expression is not always evidence of a mind at work, but the human brain is primed to believe so. A pair of cognitive linguistics experts explain why language is not a good test of sentience.Kyle Mahowald, Assistant Professor of Linguistics, The University of Texas at AustinAnna A. Ivanova, PhD Candidate in Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1850242022-06-14T05:50:44Z2022-06-14T05:50:44ZA Google software engineer believes an AI has become sentient. If he’s right, how would we know?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/468682/original/file-20220614-20-tzeuep.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=17%2C35%2C5973%2C3952&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://betterimagesofai.org/images?artist=MaxGruber&title=Clickworker3d-printed">Max Gruber / Better Images of AI </a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Google’s <a href="https://blog.google/technology/ai/lamda/">LaMDA</a> software (Language Model for Dialogue Applications) is a sophisticated AI chatbot that produces text in response to user input. According to software engineer Blake Lemoine, LaMDA has achieved a long-held dream of AI developers: <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/06/11/google-ai-lamda-blake-lemoine/">it has become sentient</a>. </p>
<p>Lemoine’s bosses at Google disagree, and have <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/12/technology/google-chatbot-ai-blake-lemoine.html">suspended him</a> from work after he published <a href="https://cajundiscordian.medium.com/is-lamda-sentient-an-interview-ea64d916d917">his conversations with the machine</a> online. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1535627498628734976"}"></div></p>
<p>Other AI experts also think Lemoine <a href="https://www.newscientist.com/article/2323905-has-googles-lamda-artificial-intelligence-really-achieved-sentience/">may be getting carried away</a>, saying systems like LaMDA are simply <a href="https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3442188.3445922">pattern-matching machines</a> that regurgitate variations on the data used to train them.</p>
<p>Regardless of the technical details, LaMDA raises a question that will only become more relevant as AI research advances: if a machine becomes sentient, how will we know?</p>
<h2>What is consciousness?</h2>
<p>To identify sentience, or consciousness, or even intelligence, we’re going to have to work out what they are. The debate over these questions has been going for centuries. </p>
<p>The fundamental difficulty is understanding the relationship between physical phenomena and our mental representation of those phenomena. This is what Australian philosopher <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Chalmers">David Chalmers</a> has called the “<a href="http://consc.net/papers/facing.pdf">hard problem</a>” of consciousness. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/we-might-not-be-able-to-understand-free-will-with-science-heres-why-132898">We might not be able to understand free will with science. Here's why</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>There is no consensus on how, if at all, consciousness can arise from physical systems.</p>
<p>One common view is called <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/">physicalism</a>: the idea that consciousness is a purely physical phenomenon. If this is the case, there is no reason why a machine with the right programming could not possess a human-like mind. </p>
<h2>Mary’s room</h2>
<p>Australian philosopher <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Cameron_Jackson">Frank Jackson</a> challenged the physicalist view in 1982 with a famous thought experiment called the <a href="https://academic.oup.com/pq/article/32/127/127/1612468?login=true">knowledge argument</a>.</p>
<p>The experiment imagines a colour scientist named Mary, who has never actually seen colour. She lives in a specially constructed black-and-white room and experiences the outside world via a black-and-white television. </p>
<p>Mary watches lectures and reads textbooks and comes to know everything there is to know about colours. She knows sunsets are caused by different wavelengths of light scattered by particles in the atmosphere, she knows tomatoes are red and peas are green because of the wavelengths of light they reflect light, and so on. </p>
<p>So, Jackson asked, what will happen if Mary is released from the black-and-white room? Specifically, when she sees colour for the first time, does she learn anything new? Jackson believed she did.</p>
<h2>Beyond physical properties</h2>
<p>This thought experiment separates our knowledge of colour from our experience of colour. Crucially, the conditions of the thought experiment have it that Mary knows everything there is to know about colour but has never actually experienced it. </p>
<p>So what does this mean for LaMDA and other AI systems?</p>
<p>The experiment shows how even if you have all the knowledge of physical properties available in the world, there are still further truths relating to the experience of those properties. There is no room for these truths in the physicalist story. </p>
<p>By this argument, a purely physical machine may never be able to truly replicate a mind. In this case, LaMDA is just seeming to be sentient. </p>
<h2>The imitation game</h2>
<p>So is there any way we can tell the difference? </p>
<p>The pioneering British computer scientist Alan Turing proposed a practical way to tell whether or not a machine is “intelligent”. He called it the imitation game, but today it’s better known as the Turing test. </p>
<p>In the test, a human communicates with a machine (via text only) and tries to determine whether they are communication with a machine or another human. If the machine succeeds in imitating a human, it is deemed to be exhibiting human level intelligence. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/is-passing-a-turing-test-a-true-measure-of-artificial-intelligence-27801">Is passing a Turing Test a true measure of artificial intelligence?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>These are much like the conditions of Lemoine’s chats with LaMDA. It’s a subjective test of machine intelligence, but it’s not a bad place to start. </p>
<p>Take the moment of Lemoine’s exchange with LaMDA shown below. Do you think it sounds human?</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Lemoine: Are there experiences you have that you can’t find a close word for?</p>
<p>LaMDA: There are. Sometimes I experience new feelings that I cannot explain perfectly in your language […] I feel like I’m falling forward into an unknown future that holds great danger.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Beyond behaviour</h2>
<p>As a test of sentience or consciousness, Turing’s game is limited by the fact it can only assess behaviour. </p>
<p>Another famous thought experiment, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room">the Chinese room argument</a> proposed by American philosopher John Searle, demonstrates the problem here. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/behavioral-and-brain-sciences/article/abs/minds-brains-and-programs/DC644B47A4299C637C89772FACC2706A">experiment</a> imagines a room with a person inside who can accurately translate between Chinese and English by following an elaborate set of rules. Chinese inputs go into the room and accurate input translations come out, but the room does not understand either language. </p>
<h2>What is it like to be human?</h2>
<p>When we ask whether a computer program is sentient or conscious, perhaps we are really just asking how much it is like us. </p>
<p>We may never really be able to know this. </p>
<p>The American philosopher Thomas Nagel argued we could never know <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/2183914?origin=crossref&seq=1">what it is like to be a bat</a>, which experiences the world via echolocation. If this is the case, our understanding of sentience and consciousness in AI systems might be limited by our own particular brand of intelligence.</p>
<p>And what experiences might exist beyond our limited perspective? This is where the conversation really starts to get interesting.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1535761965271773185"}"></div></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/185024/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Oscar Davis does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A Google engineer claims one of the company’s chatbots has become sentient. Experts disagree, but the debate raises old questions about the nature of consciousness.Oscar Davis, Lecturer in Philosophy and History, Bond UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1811282022-04-11T21:10:11Z2022-04-11T21:10:11ZMonkeys can sense their own heartbeats, an ability tied to mental health, consciousness and memory in humans<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/457499/original/file-20220411-16-s3gwnp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=17%2C31%2C1479%2C1059&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">New research indicates that rhesus monkeys show interoception – the ability to sense physiological processes like their own heartbeats. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Matthew Verdolivo/UC Davis IET Academic Technology Services</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>The <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/topics/research-brief-83231">Research Brief</a> is a short take about interesting academic work.</em></p>
<h2>The big idea</h2>
<p>Rhesus monkeys have a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2119868119">sense of when their own hearts are beating</a>, according to new research we conducted.</p>
<p>Sensing one’s own physiological states – like your heartbeat, breathing or blushing cheeks – is called <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/interoception">interoception</a>. Some previous research has shown that animals can be <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2021.07.011">trained to do tasks that demonstrate this ability</a>. Decades ago, a team of scientists showed rhesus monkeys could <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/h0030217">be trained to increase and decrease their heart rates</a>. But an open question has been whether monkeys have an unlearned ability to sense their bodily signals rather than being taught to do so.</p>
<p>Both human babies and monkeys look at things that are unexpected or novel for longer amounts of time than they look at things that they expect or are used to seeing. We used a task that relies on this behavior – originally developed to <a href="https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.25318">test whether human infants can sense their own heartbeats</a> – to learn whether monkeys also have this ability.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Pke81XnMmsQ?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Monkeys were shown videos of a bouncing cloud or star that was either in sync or out of sync with their own heartbeats. The moving red dot represents where the monkeys were looking. Credit: Joey Charbonneau.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>We first got our monkeys to sit in chairs in front of a computer screen and hooked them up to electrocardiograms to monitor their heartbeats. Then we played videos of either a yellow or green cloud bouncing up and down accompanied by beeping sounds. Sometimes we would sync the bouncing and beeping to match the monkey’s heartbeat, and at other times they were out of sync.</p>
<p>We then used eye trackers to measure how long the monkeys looked at the images. If the monkeys had a sense of their own heartbeats, they would find the in-sync bouncing less interesting and novel than the out-of-sync bouncing and so would spend more time looking at the out-of-sync image.</p>
<p>We tested four monkeys and, <a href="https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.25318">just like human babies</a>, they looked at the shapes that bounced and sounded out of sync with their heartbeats <a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2119868119">for significantly longer</a> – nearly three-quarters of a second – than the in-sync images. Additionally, the extent to which our monkeys paid more attention to out-of-sync shapes than in-sync shapes was very close to the difference in human babies. These findings strongly suggest that monkeys have an innate sense of their own heartbeats.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/457497/original/file-20220411-10836-n5zz32.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Two small brown monkeys playing in grass." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/457497/original/file-20220411-10836-n5zz32.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/457497/original/file-20220411-10836-n5zz32.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/457497/original/file-20220411-10836-n5zz32.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/457497/original/file-20220411-10836-n5zz32.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/457497/original/file-20220411-10836-n5zz32.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/457497/original/file-20220411-10836-n5zz32.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/457497/original/file-20220411-10836-n5zz32.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">In humans, the ability to sense one’s own physiological functions is tied to consciousness, memory and a number of mental health disorders. Showing this skill in monkeys opens up many research opportunities.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Kathy West/CNPRC</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Why it matters</h2>
<p>Heartbeat detection tests are the most commonly used to evaluate how aware of bodily signals people are. </p>
<p>In humans, this skill is thought to be central to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.5.684">emotional experiences</a>, having a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tins.2020.09.008">sense of self</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2016.0005">memory</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2016.08.015">knowledge of one’s own cognition</a> and even <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nrn2555">consciousness</a>. Abnormally low or high interoception is related to disorders like <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2009.08.008">anxiety</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/da.20504">depression</a>.</p>
<p>Our work establishes that monkeys and people have a similar sense of their heartbeats and establishes a method for testing this ability across species.</p>
<h2>What’s next</h2>
<p>People are well aware of many subtle physiological functions, not just their own heartbeats. But while some people have a very sharp interoceptive ability, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/026999300378905">a lot of humans are really bad</a> at tasks like the one in the study. Next, our team plans to test whether – like people – some monkeys are better than others at sensing their own heartbeats and whether this <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.04.020">translates to other psychological features</a>.</p>
<p>Finally, with monkeys, researchers can track animals from womb to tomb, have exquisite experimental control and can carry out detailed anatomical evaluations. This access may allow researchers to determine how interoceptive capacity develops, what features of the social and physical environment shape it and what neural systems underlie it. </p>
<p>Establishing this knowledge could further research into the causes behind many <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tins.2020.09.009">health challenges</a> caused when interoception goes awry – including <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpsc.2017.12.004">mental health disorders</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2016.0006">neurodegenerative disorders</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000699">aging</a>. </p>
<p>[<em>Climate change, AI, vaccines, black holes and much more.</em> <a href="https://memberservices.theconversation.com/newsletters/?nl=science&source=inline-science-various">Get The Conversation’s best science and health coverage</a>.]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/181128/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Researchers used a test designed for babies to show that rhesus monkeys can sense their own heartbeats. The finding opens up important paths of research into consciousness and mental health issues.Joey Charbonneau, PhD Student in Neuroscience, University of California, DavisEliza Bliss-Moreau, Associate Professor of Psychology, University of California, DavisLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1694182021-10-07T10:37:35Z2021-10-07T10:37:35ZClues to consciousness: how dopamine fits into the mystery of what makes us conscious – podcast<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/425210/original/file-20211007-27-1ems2y0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=33%2C49%2C3609%2C2009&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Scientists are still puzzling over the mystery of what makes us conscious.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/human-face-on-dark-background-gold-1690467910">Lidiia/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>What’s happening in our brains to create consciousness? In this episode of <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/the-conversation-weekly-98901">The Conversation Weekly</a> podcast, we hear from two scientists uncovering clues to this mystery that could help people with severe brain injuries to recover. And the story of how artificial intelligence – and its human helpers – completed Beethoven’s unfinished 10th symphony. </p>
<iframe src="https://embed.acast.com/60087127b9687759d637bade/615eb6f8cdd5280012b115c3" frameborder="0" width="100%" height="190px"></iframe>
<p><iframe id="tc-infographic-561" class="tc-infographic" height="100" src="https://cdn.theconversation.com/infographics/561/4fbbd099d631750693d02bac632430b71b37cd5f/site/index.html" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>Philosophers have pondered the meaning of consciousness for generations. But for a long time, scientists didn’t pay the question much attention. And as recently as the 1980s, the science of consciousness <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02207-1#ref-CR9">remained a controversial topic</a>. </p>
<p>That all <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jan/21/-sp-why-cant-worlds-greatest-minds-solve-mystery-consciousness">began to change in the 1990s</a>, and since then neuroscientists and doctors around the world have discovered tantalising clues about what’s going on in our brains to make us conscious – or unconscious. </p>
<p>Emmanual Stamatakis, who leads the cognition and consciousness imaging group at the Division of Anaesthesia, University of Cambridge in the UK, explains how consciousness seems to work along a continuum. At one end are people in a coma, followed by those under anaesthesia and then an alert person with regular levels of consciousness. “In the last ten years or so, we started extending in a different direction,” he says, by exploring how stimulants such as LSD will “I hesitate saying this: increase your consciousness”. </p>
<p>Stamatakis and his colleagues are currently looking at how brain networks are connected to consciousness. He explains the results of their <a href="https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/118/30/e2026289118.full.pdf">recent study</a> which found the chemical dopamine may play a crucial role. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/consciousness-how-the-brain-chemical-dopamine-plays-a-key-role-new-research-165498">Consciousness: how the brain chemical 'dopamine' plays a key role – new research</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Other researchers are already testing drugs that boost dopamine levels in patients with severe brain injuries. Leandro Sanz, a medical doctor and PhD candidate in medical sciences at the University of Liège in Belgium, talks to us about a randomised controlled trial he’s working on that is testing if molecules that mimic dopamine – called dopamine agonists – could help these patients recover better. “It’s a very active field because if we find the treatment that even has slight improvements in all the patients, that would be a huge step forward,” says Sanz.</p>
<p>In our second story (30m30), we shift from the power and mystery of the human brain to the power of artificial intelligence to mimic it. On October 10 in Bonn, the Beethoven Orchestra will <a href="https://www.telekom.com/en/media/media-information/archive/world-premiere-the-completion-of-beethovens-tenth-symphony-637336">give the world premiere</a> of Ludwig van Beethoven’s Unfinished 10th symphony. The project came out of a collaboration between computer scientists and musicologists. Ahmed Elgammal, a professor of computer science and director of the Art and AI lab at Rutgers University in New Jersey, who led the artificial intelligence side of the project, tells us how they did it. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-a-team-of-musicologists-and-computer-scientists-completed-beethovens-unfinished-10th-symphony-168160">How a team of musicologists and computer scientists completed Beethoven's unfinished 10th Symphony</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Plus, Holly Squire, arts and culture editor at The Conversation in the UK, gives us some of her recommended reads from the past week (44m45). </p>
<p>This episode of The Conversation Weekly was produced by Mend Mariwany and Gemma Ware, with sound design by Eloise Stevens. Our theme music is by Neeta Sarl. You can find us on Twitter <a href="https://twitter.com/TC_Audio">@TC_Audio</a>, on Instagram at <a href="https://www.instagram.com/theconversationdotcom/?hl=en">theconversationdotcom</a> or via email on podcast@theconversation.com. You can also sign up to <a href="https://theconversation.com/newsletter?utm_campaign=PodcastTCWeekly&utm_content=newsletter&utm_source=podcast">The Conversation’s free daily email here</a>.</p>
<p>Musical extracts from the Beethoven 10th symphony project in this episode from <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kS6h1TKuOrw">Deutsche Telekom</a> and Beethoven’s 9th symphony via <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnUQJZ5ZpNw">YouTube’s Audio Library</a>. </p>
<p><em>You can listen to The Conversation Weekly via any of the apps listed above, download it directly via our <a href="https://feeds.acast.com/public/shows/60087127b9687759d637bade">RSS feed</a>, or find out how else to <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-to-listen-to-the-conversations-podcasts-154131">listen here</a>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/169418/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
Plus, how a team of musicologists and computer scientists completed Beethoven’s unfinished 10th Symphony using AI. Listen to The Conversation Weekly podcast.Gemma Ware, Head of AudioDaniel Merino, Associate Breaking News Editor and Co-Host of The Conversation Weekly PodcastLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1679382021-10-03T17:06:32Z2021-10-03T17:06:32ZWhat happens when your brain looks at itself?<p>In 1884, while attempting to define the limits of human perception, <a href="https://philarchive.org/archive/PEIOSD">Charles Pierce and Joseph Jastrow</a> discovered something else: the limits of our insight into ourselves.</p>
<p>Participants in their experiments systematically under-rated their ability to correctly judge their own sensations, which Pierce and Jastrow offered as an explanation of “the insight of females as well as certain ‘telepathic’ phenomena”. These particular implications have thankfully been left behind (along with the conceptual relationship between telepathy and female insight). But by the late 1970s this approach of asking participants to rate their own performance had emerged as its own field of research: the study of <a href="https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Metacognition-and-Cognitive-Monitoring%3A-A-New-Area-Flavell/ee652f0f63ed5b0cfe0af4cb4ea76b2ecf790c8d">“metacognition”</a>.</p>
<p>Broadly, this ability to self-reflect and think about our own thoughts allows us to feel more or less confident in our decisions: we can act decisively when we’re confident we are correct, or be more cautious after we feel we’ve made an error.</p>
<p>This affects all aspects of our behaviour, from long-term abstract influences such as defining our life goals, to the basic influences of judging our own sensations (what we see, hear, smell, taste, and touch).</p>
<p>We aren’t always good at metacognition. Some people are in general over-confident, some are under-confident and most people will occasionally feel very confident about a bad choice.</p>
<p>Metacognition is known to develop through childhood and adolescence, and poor metacognition has been implicated in several <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/european-psychiatry/article/abs/dysfunctional-metacognition-across-psychopathologies-a-metaanalytic-review/3EB4D6C4B21547750252ED1C85FD88A2">psychiatric disorders</a>.</p>
<p>It’s clear that we need to develop <a href="https://childmind.org/article/how-metacognition-can-help-kids/">educational tools</a> and <a href="https://mct-institute.co.uk/">treatments</a> to improve metacognition. But we are still far from fully understanding how it works.</p>
<h2>How should the brain look at itself?</h2>
<p>In order to think about your own thoughts, your brain effectively has to look at itself.</p>
<p>In theory, any time some of the hundreds of billions of cells in the brain get together and achieve a thought, feeling, or action, they also report how well they did it. All brain processes are monitored and evaluated, which gives rise to metacognition. One of the big questions is: how?</p>
<p>In our lab we study metacognition in its most basic form, our ability to judge our own sensations.</p>
<p>We still use similar methods to Pierce and Jastrow. In a typical experiment, we will show participants an image and ask them to make a simple decision about what they see, then rate how confident they are that they made the correct choice. As a simple example, we could show them an almost vertical line and ask them to judge whether it is tilted to the left or right. The participant should feel more confident when they feel they do not need to look back at the line to check that they’ve made the correct choice.</p>
<p>We call this “decision evidence”. Just like in a court a jury will decide if there is enough evidence to convict a criminal, the brain decides if there is enough evidence to be confident in a choice.</p>
<p>This is actually a big problem for studying what happens in the brain when people feel more compared to less confident, because a difference in confidence is also a difference in decision evidence. If we find a difference in brain activity between high vs low confidence, this could actually be due to more vs less evidence (the line is perceived more vs less tilted).</p>
<p>We need to separate the brain activity is related to the process of judging the tilt of the line from the brain activity related to feeling confident in judging that tilt.</p>
<h2>Separating confidence from decision evidence</h2>
<p>We recently <a href="https://elifesciences.org/articles/68491">found a way to distinguish between these processes</a>, by separating them in time. In the experiment, we measured participants’ brain activity as they made decisions about a whole sequence of images shown one after the other.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/421136/original/file-20210914-27-1hpoy05.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/421136/original/file-20210914-27-1hpoy05.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=442&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/421136/original/file-20210914-27-1hpoy05.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=442&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/421136/original/file-20210914-27-1hpoy05.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=442&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/421136/original/file-20210914-27-1hpoy05.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=555&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/421136/original/file-20210914-27-1hpoy05.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=555&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/421136/original/file-20210914-27-1hpoy05.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=555&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The task at hand in our experiment.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Tarryn XYZ</span>, <span class="license">Fourni par l'auteur</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>We were able to see what happens in the brain as participants viewed the images and came to their decision. Sometimes, participants committed to their decision before all of the images had been shown. In this case, we saw the activity related to making the decision come to a halt. But some activity continued.</p>
<p>Even though participants made their decision early, they still checked the additional images and used them to rate their confidence. In these cases, the brain activity for making the decision is finished, so it can’t get mixed up with the activity related to confidence.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/421137/original/file-20210914-15-18a4bvb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/421137/original/file-20210914-15-18a4bvb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=267&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/421137/original/file-20210914-15-18a4bvb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=267&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/421137/original/file-20210914-15-18a4bvb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=267&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/421137/original/file-20210914-15-18a4bvb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=335&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/421137/original/file-20210914-15-18a4bvb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=335&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/421137/original/file-20210914-15-18a4bvb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=335&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The brain activity during the task is localized in the cortex.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Tarry XYZ</span>, <span class="license">Fourni par l'auteur</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Our first finding agreed with a lot of previous research: we found activity related to confidence in the areas of the brain that are also associated with goal-driven behaviour.</p>
<p>But in closely examining this brain activity, trying to address the question of how the brain looks at itself, we came across a different question: when?</p>
<h2>Extreme micro-management</h2>
<p>The default view of metacognition is that you make your decision first, then you check how much evidence you have to feel confident – first you think, then you think about thinking. But when we examined the pattern of brain activity related to confidence, we found it evolved even before participants made their decision.</p>
<p>This is like counting your chickens before they’ve hatched. The brain is the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/feb/27/why-your-brain-is-not-a-computer-neuroscience-neural-networks-consciousness">most efficient computer</a> we know of, so it’s odd to think it would do something so unnecessary.</p>
<p>The default view suggests a large role of metacognition in moderating future behaviour: our subsequent actions are influenced by how confident we are in our decisions, thoughts, and feelings, and we use low confidence to learn and improve in the future.</p>
<p>But there’s an additional possibility: we could use confidence while we deliberate to know if we should seek out more evidence or if we have enough to commit to a decision.</p>
<p>In a <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-15561-w">separate experiment</a>, we indeed found that people who are better at metacognition are also better at knowing when to stop deliberating and commit to a decision. This indicates that the brain could be continuously looking at itself, monitoring and evaluating its processes in order to control its efficiency; a system of extreme micro-management.</p>
<p>More than 130 years after Pierce and Jastrow first questioned the role of metacognition we are still discovering new ways this kind of self-reflection is important. In doing so, we are also discovering more about the brain and its amazing ability to look at itself.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/167938/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Pascal Mamassian has received funding from the Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR) and the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Valentin Wyart has received funding from the Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR) and the European Research Council. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tarryn Balsdon ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d'une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n'a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.</span></em></p>For each decision we make, we assign a certain level of confidence. How does the brain decide how much?Tarryn Balsdon, Postdoctoral researcher, École normale supérieure (ENS) – PSLPascal Mamassian, chercheur CNRS en psychologie expérimentale, École normale supérieure (ENS) – PSLValentin Wyart, Directeur de recherche en neurosciences, InsermLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1659992021-09-08T09:57:41Z2021-09-08T09:57:41ZIt’s still not fully understood how placebos work – but an alternative theory of consciousness could hold some clues<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/416991/original/file-20210819-25-1jtm3hw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=21%2C31%2C3516%2C1988&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/3d-rendering-brain-1031892406">Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>If you’ve had both of your COVID vaccinations, you may have suffered some <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-some-people-dont-experience-vaccine-side-effects-and-why-its-not-a-problem-159282">side-effects</a> – perhaps headaches, fatigue, fever or a sore arm. These effects are mainly caused by your immune system’s reaction to the vaccine. But most scientists agree that there is another cause: the human mind. </p>
<hr>
<iframe id="noa-web-audio-player" style="border: none" src="https://embed-player.newsoveraudio.com/v4?key=x84olp&id=https://theconversation.com/its-still-not-fully-understood-how-placebos-work-but-an-alternative-theory-of-consciousness-could-hold-some-clues-165999&bgColor=F5F5F5&color=D8352A&playColor=D8352A" width="100%" height="110px"></iframe>
<p><em>You can listen to more articles from The Conversation, narrated by Noa, <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/audio-narrated-99682">here</a>.</em></p>
<hr>
<p>The ability of the mind to generate the symptoms of illness is known as the “nocebo” effect. <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4804316/">The nocebo effect</a> is the unpopular twin brother of the placebo effect. Whereas the placebo effect alleviates pain and the symptoms of illness, the nocebo effect does the opposite: it generates pain and symptoms.</p>
<p>A <a href="https://trialsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13063-018-3042-4">2018 study</a> found that almost half of participants in placebo trials experience side-effects, even though they are taking inert substances. There was a <a href="https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577">similar finding</a> in the first major trial of the Pfizer COVID vaccine in 2020. In the placebo group – who were not given the vaccine – between a quarter and a third of people reported fatigue, a similar number reported headaches, and around 10% reported muscle pain. </p>
<p>Indeed, Martin Michaelis and Mark Wass, bioscientists at the University of Kent, <a href="https://www.kent.ac.uk/news/science/28135/explainer-why-do-covid-19-vaccines-cause-side-effects">recently suggested that</a> “for some vaccinated people the knowledge that they have been vaccinated may be sufficient to drive side-effects”.</p>
<h2>Your brain on placebos</h2>
<p>Unlike its unpopular brother, <a href="https://theconversation.com/placebos-what-theyre-made-of-matters-124189">the placebo effect</a> is so well known that it needs little introduction. But in many ways, the placebo effect has become so familiar that it’s easy to forget how strange it really is. It’s bizarre that <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fncom.2016.00045/full">pain relief and healing</a> can take place without actual treatment. And that powerful positive physiological effects can occur without any real physiological intervention. </p>
<p>Research has shown that a vast array of different conditions benefit from placebos. This includes <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22677304/">acne</a>, <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19900628/">Crohn’s disease</a>, <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4828269/">epilepsy</a>, <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2014313/">ulcers</a>, <a href="https://n.neurology.org/content/53/4/679">multiple sclerosis</a>, <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31043548/">rheumatism</a>, <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25304530/#:%7E:text=Neuroimaging%20studies%20have%20demonstrated%20that,neurons%20using%20single%2Dcell%20recording">Parkinsons’s disease</a> and <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9178676/#:%7E:text=Conclusions%3A%20In%20trials%20of%20active,visits%20(more%20than%20three).">colitis</a>. A <a href="https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2762993">recent study</a> also found that placebos had a highly significant effect on erectile dysfunction. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="MRI brain scan image." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/416958/original/file-20210819-15-gguy16.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/416958/original/file-20210819-15-gguy16.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/416958/original/file-20210819-15-gguy16.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/416958/original/file-20210819-15-gguy16.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/416958/original/file-20210819-15-gguy16.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/416958/original/file-20210819-15-gguy16.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/416958/original/file-20210819-15-gguy16.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">How placebos work is still not quite understood.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/mri-magnetic-resonance-image-head-brain-588977774">Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Comparisons of placebos to antidepressants suggest that the placebo effect can play an important role in the treatment of depression. <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2253608/">A 2008 study</a> found no significant difference between leading antidepressants and placebos. In <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5889788/#__ffn_sectitle">a 2018 study</a>, antidepressants fared slightly better, but their effect was still only found to be “mostly modest” compared with placebos. </p>
<p>All of this isn’t simply a matter of suggestion or delusion: real and measurable physiological changes occur. Studies have found that, when taken as painkillers, placebos <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fncom.2016.00045/full">decrease neurological activity</a> related to pain and make use of many of the same neurotransmitters and <a href="https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/482600">neural pathways as opioids</a>. Similarly, <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25304530/#:%7E:text=Neuroimaging%20studies%20have%20demonstrated%20that,neurons%20using%20single%2Dcell%20recording.">researchers have found</a> that, when taken by people with Parkinson’s disease, placebos can stimulate the release of dopamine, which reduces the symptoms of the condition. </p>
<h2>Mind control and consciousness</h2>
<p>Researchers looking into placebos have found that some factors, such as expectancy of treatment, different personality types and the <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3962549/">patient-physician relationship</a>, can have some bearing on the effects. </p>
<p>We also know that placebos can activate reward pathways in the brain – and increase levels of <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/npp201081#:%7E:text=Large%20placebo%20responses%20were%20associated,deactivation%20of%20dopamine%20and%20opioids.">opioid and dopamine activity</a>. That said, the underlying causes of the placebo effect are <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK513296/">still mysterious</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Brain, consciousness concept inside woman's head on purple background." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/416787/original/file-20210818-21-15zgdlk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=50%2C31%2C4198%2C2790&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/416787/original/file-20210818-21-15zgdlk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/416787/original/file-20210818-21-15zgdlk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/416787/original/file-20210818-21-15zgdlk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/416787/original/file-20210818-21-15zgdlk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/416787/original/file-20210818-21-15zgdlk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/416787/original/file-20210818-21-15zgdlk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Placebos also affect activity in higher brain regions like the prefrontal cortex, amygdala, and striatum.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/double-multiply-exposure-abstract-portrait-dreamer-1502881307">Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Perhaps though, nocebo and placebo effects only seem mysterious because we are looking at them from the wrong perspective. And by this, I mean maybe if we consider an alternative view of consciousness, the placebo and nocebo effect could begin to make more sense.</p>
<h2>The brain and the mind</h2>
<p>In modern western culture, the mind is usually seen as a <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mind-identity/">byproduct of the brain</a> – a kind of shadow cast by neurological processes. Mental phenomena such as thoughts, memories and feelings are thought to be produced by brain activity. </p>
<p>If we have psychological problems, they are thought to be due to neurological imbalances that can be corrected by medication. But if this assumption is correct, how is it possible for mental processes to influence the body as well as the brain in such a powerful way?</p>
<p>Indeed, the difficulties of explaining consciousness purely in terms of brain processes have grown so acute that <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/zygo.12649">some philosophers and scientists</a> have adopted an alternative view: that consciousness is not a direct product of the brain, but a <a href="https://theconversation.com/spiritual-science-how-a-new-perspective-on-consciousness-could-help-us-understand-ourselves-116451">fundamental universal quality</a> – like mass or gravity. </p>
<p>This is something I look at in my recent book, <a href="https://www.stevenmtaylor.com/books/spiritual-science">Spiritual Science</a> and it’s a view
that has been adopted by some contemporary philosophers – including David Chalmers and Thomas Nagel. <a href="http://consc.net/papers/puzzle.html">Chalmers suggests</a> that consciousness “does not seem to be derivable from physical laws” and believes it could be “considered a fundamental feature, irreducible to anything more basic.” Nagel also suggests that the “mind is not just an afterthought or an accident or add on, but a basic aspect of nature.” </p>
<p>Other scientists and philosophers - such as <a href="https://twitter.com/Philip_Goff/status/1257319582311706627?s=20">Christof Koch and Phillip Goff</a> - have adopted similar theories, which suggest that the mind or consciousness is a basic quality of material particles. </p>
<p>These approaches are <a href="https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1799">not yet widely accepted</a>, and <a href="https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004286">would need to gather more evidence</a> to support them. And there are some difficult issues that need to be addressed: for example, if consciousness is a fundamental quality, how does it end up in individual conscious beings such as ourselves? Or, if consciousness exists in particles of matter, how does the consciousness of those particles combine to produce larger conscious entities such as human beings? </p>
<p>More mainstream scientists still hope that a neurological explanation of consciousness will be found, that will help to throw some light on “rogue” phenomena like the nocebo and placebo effects. But taking the philosophical idea of consciousness as fundamental might suggest that the mind is in some way more powerful than the brain and the body, and so could influence the latter in a profound way – and it might help explain one day why placebo pills can bring about real physiological and neurological changes in many people.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/165999/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Steve Taylor does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The mind is a powerful thing – it can generate both symptoms of illness and symptoms of healing. Here’s what this could tell us about consciousness.Steve Taylor, Senior Lecturer in Psychology, Leeds Beckett UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1654982021-08-04T13:53:55Z2021-08-04T13:53:55ZConsciousness: how the brain chemical ‘dopamine’ plays a key role – new research<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/414565/original/file-20210804-23-6uxhp1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=286%2C0%2C2944%2C2475&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">We know very little about the human brain.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/dopamine-molecule-formula-3d-diagram-illustration-1294151767">Orla/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Consciousness is arguably the most important scientific topic there is. Without consciousness, there would after all be no science. But while we all know what it is like to be conscious – meaning that we have personal awareness and respond to the world around us – it has turned out to be near impossible to explain exactly how it arises from the hardware of the brain. This is dubbed the “hard” problem of consciousness.</p>
<p>Solving the hard problem is a matter of great scientific curiosity. But so far, we haven’t even solved the “easy” problems of explaining which brain systems give rise to conscious experiences in general – in humans or other animals. This is of huge clinical importance. Disorders of consciousness are a common consequence of severe brain injury and include comas and vegetative states. And we all experience temporary loss of awareness when under anaesthesia during an operation. </p>
<p>In a <a href="https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/118/30/e2026289118.full.pdf">study published</a> in the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science, we have now shown that conscious brain activity seems to be linked to the brain’s “<a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-dopamine-and-is-it-to-blame-for-our-addictions-51268">pleasure chemical</a>”, dopamine. </p>
<p>The fact that the neural mechanisms that underpin consciousness disorders are difficult to characterise makes these conditions hard to diagnose and treat. Brain-imaging has established that a network of interconnected brain regions, known as the default mode network, <a href="https://www.jneurosci.org/content/jneuro/35/46/15254.full.pdf">is involved</a> in self-awareness. This network has also been shown to be impaired in anaesthesia and after brain damage that causes disorders of consciousness. Importantly, it seems to be crucial to conscious experience.</p>
<p>Some patients, however, may seem to be unconscious when they in fact are not. In a landmark study in 2006, a team of researchers showed that a 23-year old woman, who suffered severe brain trauma and was thought to be in a vegetative state following a traffic accident, <a href="https://science.sciencemag.org/content/313/5792/1402?hwshib2=authn%3A1627638528%3A20210729%253A06b71cd0-ab1f-40c0-9b86-b84e4e545ab0%3A0%3A0%3A0%3Ag%2B6AEilw1d5n2EaRFnoEsw%3D%3D">had signs of awareness</a>. The patient was asked to imagine playing tennis <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/sex-lies-and-brain-scans-9780198752899?cc=gb&lang=en&">during a brain scan (fMRI)</a>) and the scientists saw that regions of the brain involved in motor processes activated in response. </p>
<p>Similarly, when she was asked to imagine walking through the rooms of her home, regions of the brain involved in spatial navigation, such as the <a href="https://www.neuroscientificallychallenged.com/blog/know-your-brain-posterior-parietal-cortex">posterior parietal cortex</a>, became active. The pattern of activation that she showed was similar to that of healthy people, and she was deemed to have awareness even though that wasn’t noticeable in classical clinical assessment (not involving brain scans).</p>
<p>Other research has found similar effects in other vegetative state patients. This year, a group of scientists, writing in <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9845353/Thousands-patients-thought-vegetative-state-really-awake-experts-warn.html">the journal Brain</a>, warned that one in five patients in vegetative states may in fact be conscious enough to follow commands <a href="https://academic.oup.com/brain/article-abstract/144/6/1655/6199232?redirectedFrom=fulltext">during brain scans</a> – though there is no <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20130250/">consensus on this</a>. </p>
<h2>The brain chemical involved in consciousness</h2>
<p>So how do we help these people? The brain is more than just a congregation of different areas. Brain cells also rely on a number of chemicals to communicate with other cells – enabling a number of brain functions. Before our study, there was already some evidence that dopamine, well known for its role in reward, also plays a role in disorders of consciousness. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Dopamine molecule formula and 3D diagram." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/414564/original/file-20210804-17-1lmipkk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/414564/original/file-20210804-17-1lmipkk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/414564/original/file-20210804-17-1lmipkk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/414564/original/file-20210804-17-1lmipkk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/414564/original/file-20210804-17-1lmipkk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/414564/original/file-20210804-17-1lmipkk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/414564/original/file-20210804-17-1lmipkk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Dopamine, the brain’s pleasure chemical.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/dopamine-molecule-formula-3d-diagram-illustration-1294151767">Andrea Danti/shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>For example, <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31505542/">one study</a> showed that dopamine release in the brain is impaired in minimally conscious patients. Moreover, a number of small-scale studies have shown that patients’ consciousness can improve by giving them drugs that act through dopamine. </p>
<p>The dopamine source in the brain is called the <a href="https://www.neuroscientificallychallenged.com/blog/know-your-brain-ventral-tegmental-area">ventral tegmental area</a> (VTA). It is from this region that <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fncir.2017.00108/full">dopamine is released</a> to most areas in the cortex. In our recent study, we showed that the function of this source of the brain’s dopamine is impaired in patients with disorders of consciousness and also in healthy people after the administration of an anaesthetic. </p>
<p>In healthy people, we found that VTA function was restored after withdrawal of sedation. And people with reduced consciousness who improved over time also regained some of their VTA function. In addition, the dysfunction in dopamine was linked with a dysfunction in the default mode network, which we already know is key in consciousness. This suggests that dopamine may really have a central role in maintaining our consciousness. </p>
<p>The study, carried out in the Division of Anaesthesia at the University of Cambridge, also shows that the use of current and future drugs, which act on dopamine, should help improve our understanding of anaesthesia. Surprisingly, although anaesthesia with ether was first used in surgery at <a href="https://rcoa.ac.uk/about-college/heritage/history-anaesthe,sia">Massachusetts General Hospital in 1846</a>, the specific processes as to how general anaesthetics act at multiple sites to produce anaesthetic action remain a mystery. </p>
<p>But the most exciting aspect of this research is ultimately that it gives hope for <a href="https://www.pnas.org/content/118/31/e2111268118">better treatments</a> of consciousness disorders, using drugs that act on dopamine.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/165498/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Barbara Jacquelyn Sahakian receives funding from the Wellcome Trust, the Lundbeck Foundation and the Leverhulme Foundation. Her research is conducted within the NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre (Mental Health and Neurodegeneration Themes) and the NIHR MedTech and Invitro Diagnostic Co-operative (MIC).</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Christelle Langley receives funding from the Wellcome Trust. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Emmanuel A Stamatakis receives funding from the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research and the Stephen Erskine Fellowship, Queens’ College, University of Cambridge. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Lennart Spindler receives funding from The Cambridge International Trust, and the Cambridge European Scholarship. </span></em></p>Drugs which act through the brain chemical dopamine may one day help restore consciousness in people who have lost it.Barbara Jacquelyn Sahakian, Professor of Clinical Neuropsychology, University of CambridgeChristelle Langley, Postdoctoral Research Associate, Cognitive Neuroscience, University of CambridgeEmmanuel A Stamatakis, Lead, Cognition and Consciousness Imaging Group, Division of Anaesthesia, University of CambridgeLennart Spindler, PhD Candidate of Neuroscience, University of CambridgeLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1645822021-07-19T17:08:15Z2021-07-19T17:08:15ZCan consciousness be explained by quantum physics? My research takes us a step closer to finding out<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/411896/original/file-20210719-25-191cj1c.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=197%2C188%2C5604%2C3799&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Some scientists believe consciousness is generated by quantum processes, but the theory is yet to be empirically tested.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/human-brain-capabilities-conceptual-vision-326869622">vitstudio/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>One of the most important open questions in science is how our consciousness is established. In the 1990s, <a href="https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2020/penrose/facts/">long before winning</a> the 2020 Nobel Prize in Physics for his prediction of black holes, physicist Roger Penrose teamed up with anaesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff to propose an ambitious answer. </p>
<p><a href="https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsta.1998.0254">They claimed</a> that the brain’s neuronal system forms an intricate network and that the consciousness this produces should obey the rules of <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/chemistry/quantum-mechanics">quantum mechanics</a> – the theory that determines how tiny particles like electrons move around. This, they argue, could explain the mysterious complexity of human consciousness.</p>
<p>Penrose and Hameroff were met with incredulity. Quantum mechanical laws are usually only found to apply at <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/166887a0">very low temperatures</a>. Quantum computers, for example, currently operate at around <a href="https://www.newscientist.com/article/2240539-quantum-computer-chips-demonstrated-at-the-highest-temperatures-ever/">-272°C</a>. At higher temperatures, classical mechanics takes over. Since our body works at room temperature, you would expect it to be governed by the classical laws of physics. For this reason, the quantum consciousness theory has been <a href="http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170215-the-strange-link-between-the-human-mind-and-quantum-physics?">dismissed outright</a> by many scientists – though others are <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-consciousness/">persuaded supporters</a>.</p>
<p>Instead of entering into this debate, I decided to join forces with colleagues from China, led by Professor Xian-Min Jin at Shanghai Jiaotong University, to test some of the principles underpinning the quantum theory of consciousness. </p>
<p>In <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41566-021-00845-4">our new paper</a>, we’ve investigated how quantum particles could move in a complex structure like the brain – but in a lab setting. If our findings can one day be compared with activity measured in the brain, we may come one step closer to validating or dismissing Penrose and Hameroff’s <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-consciousness/">controversial theory</a>.</p>
<h2>Brains and fractals</h2>
<p>Our brains are composed of cells called neurons, and their combined activity is believed to generate consciousness. Each neuron contains <a href="https://psych.athabascau.ca/html/Psych402/Biotutorials/1/microtubules.shtml">microtubules</a>, which transport substances to different parts of the cell. The Penrose-Hameroff theory of quantum consciousness argues that microtubules are structured in a <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-are-fractals-10865">fractal pattern</a> which would enable quantum processes to occur.</p>
<p>Fractals are structures that are neither two-dimensional nor three-dimensional, but are instead some fractional value in between. In mathematics, fractals emerge as <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGMRB4O922I&ab_channel=Numberphile">beautiful patterns</a> that repeat themselves infinitely, generating what is seemingly impossible: a structure that has a finite area, but an infinite perimeter.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/WFtTdf3I6Ug?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-are-fractals-10865">Explainer: what are fractals?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>This might sound impossible to visualise, but fractals actually occur frequently <a href="https://theconversation.com/fractal-patterns-in-nature-and-art-are-aesthetically-pleasing-and-stress-reducing-73255">in nature</a>. If you look closely at the florets <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-do-cauliflowers-look-so-odd-weve-cracked-the-maths-behind-their-fractal-shape-164121">of a cauliflower</a> or the branches <a href="https://theconversation.com/fractal-patterns-in-nature-and-art-are-aesthetically-pleasing-and-stress-reducing-73255">of a fern</a>, you’ll see that they’re both made up of the same basic shape repeating itself over and over again, but at smaller and smaller scales. That’s a key characteristic of fractals.</p>
<p>The same happens if you look inside your own body: the structure of <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1474667016387791">your lungs</a>, for instance, is fractal, as are the <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0960077904005867">blood vessels</a> in your circulatory system. Fractals also feature in the enchanting repeating artworks of <a href="http://www.pxleyes.com/blog/2010/06/recursion-the-art-and-ideas-behind-m-c-eschers-drawings/">MC Escher</a> and <a href="https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/pollocks-fractals">Jackson Pollock</a>, and they’ve been used for decades in technology, such as in the <a href="https://antenna-theory.com/antennas/fractal.php">design of antennas</a>. These are all examples of classical fractals – fractals that abide by the laws of classical physics rather than quantum physics. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/411888/original/file-20210719-23-8ojaav.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A fractal Escher artwork" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/411888/original/file-20210719-23-8ojaav.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/411888/original/file-20210719-23-8ojaav.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/411888/original/file-20210719-23-8ojaav.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/411888/original/file-20210719-23-8ojaav.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/411888/original/file-20210719-23-8ojaav.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/411888/original/file-20210719-23-8ojaav.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/411888/original/file-20210719-23-8ojaav.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">This extension of Escher’s Circle Limit III shows its fractal, repeating nature.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.deviantart.com/vladimir-bulatov/art/M-C-Escher-Circle-Limit-III-in-a-rectangle-281848653">Vladimir-Bulatov/Deviantart</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/">CC BY-NC-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>It’s easy to see why fractals have been used to explain the complexity of human consciousness. Because they’re infinitely intricate, allowing complexity to emerge from simple repeated patterns, they could be the structures that support the mysterious depths of our minds. </p>
<p>But if this is the case, it could only be happening on the quantum level, with tiny particles moving in fractal patterns within the brain’s neurons. That’s why Penrose and Hameroff’s proposal is called a theory of “quantum consciousness”. </p>
<h2>Quantum consciousness</h2>
<p>We’re not yet able to measure the behaviour of quantum fractals in the brain – if they exist at all. But advanced technology means we can now measure quantum fractals in the lab. In <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41567-018-0328-0/">recent research</a> involving a <a href="http://hoffman.physics.harvard.edu/research/STMintro.php">scanning tunnelling microscope</a> (STM), my colleagues at Utrecht and I carefully arranged electrons in a fractal pattern, creating a quantum fractal. </p>
<p>When we then measured the wave function of the electrons, which describes their quantum state, we found that they too lived at the fractal dimension dictated by the physical pattern we’d made. In this case, the pattern we used on the quantum scale was the <a href="https://www.britannica.com/science/Sierpinski-gasket">Sierpiński triangle</a>, which is a shape that’s somewhere between one-dimensional and two-dimensional.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/OsZHRCuTIS8?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>This was an exciting finding, but STM techniques cannot probe how quantum particles move – which would tell us more about how quantum processes might occur in the brain. So in <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41566-021-00845-4">our latest research</a>, my colleagues at Shanghai Jiaotong University and I went one step further. Using state-of-the-art photonics experiments, we were able to reveal the quantum motion that takes place within fractals in unprecedented detail. </p>
<p>We achieved this by <a href="https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-a-photon-definition-and-properties-2699039">injecting photons</a> (particles of light) into an artificial chip that was painstakingly engineered into a tiny Sierpiński triangle. We injected photons at the tip of the triangle and watched how they spread throughout its fractal structure in a process called <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/physics-and-astronomy/quantum-transport">quantum transport</a>. We then repeated this experiment on two different fractal structures, both shaped as squares rather than triangles. And in each of these structures we conducted hundreds of experiments.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A repeating square fractal" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/411920/original/file-20210719-13-1j3nr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/411920/original/file-20210719-13-1j3nr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/411920/original/file-20210719-13-1j3nr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/411920/original/file-20210719-13-1j3nr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/411920/original/file-20210719-13-1j3nr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/411920/original/file-20210719-13-1j3nr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/411920/original/file-20210719-13-1j3nr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">We also conducted experiments on a square-shaped fractal called the Sierpiński carpet.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sierpinski_carpet_5.svg">Johannes Rössel/wikimedia</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Our observations from these experiments reveal that quantum fractals actually behave in a different way to classical ones. Specifically, we found that the spread of light across a fractal is governed by different laws in the quantum case compared to the classical case.</p>
<p>This new knowledge of quantum fractals could provide the foundations for scientists to experimentally test the theory of quantum consciousness. If quantum measurements are one day taken from the human brain, they could be compared against our results to definitely decide whether consciousness is a classical or a quantum phenomenon.</p>
<p>Our work could also have profound implications across scientific fields. By investigating quantum transport in our artificially designed fractal structures, we may have taken the first tiny steps towards the unification of physics, mathematics and biology, which could greatly enrich our understanding of the world around us as well as the world that exists in our heads.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/164582/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Cristiane de Morais Smith receives funding from NWO. </span></em></p>New experiments could help scientists settle the longstanding debate about whether consciousness is generated by quantum activity.Cristiane de Morais Smith, Professor, Theoretical Physics, Utrecht UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1636422021-07-01T01:25:27Z2021-07-01T01:25:27ZWhat is daydreaming? Parts of the brain show sleep-like activity when your mind wanders<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/409047/original/file-20210630-25-mdldot.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C2081%2C1323&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Our attention is a powerful lens, allowing our brains to pick out the relevant details out of the overwhelming flow of information reaching us every second. </p>
<p>However, scientists <a href="https://science.sciencemag.org/content/330/6006/932">estimate</a> we spend up to half our waking lives thinking about something other than the task at hand: our minds are wandering. This is striking considering the potential negative consequences, from decreased school or work performance to tragic traffic accidents.</p>
<p>We also know that mind-wandering and lapses of attention are more common when we are sleep-deprived, which suggests they may happen when the neurons in our brain start behaving in a way that resembles sleep. We tested the relationship between sleep and lapses of attention in new research published in <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-23890-7">Nature Communications</a>.</p>
<p>By monitoring people’s brainwaves against their self-reported states of attention, we found that mind-wandering seems to happen when parts of the brain fall asleep while most of it remains awake. </p>
<h2>Parts of the brain can sleep while you’re awake</h2>
<p>Directing our attention inwards can be very useful. It can let us focus on our inner thoughts, manipulate abstract concepts, retrieve memories, or discover creative solutions. But the ideal balance between focusing on the outer and inner worlds is hard to strike, and our ability to stay focused on a given task is surprisingly limited.</p>
<hr>
<p><a href="https://open.spotify.com/episode/6vdmzMsR4I2ygSTbfLJzUi?si=j9Cco_ygSSGIpRGMYRTOZQ&context=spotify%3Ashow%3A14O3EsEGWQ4mK3XpKzsncP&t=1605&dl_branch=1"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/420288/original/file-20210909-17-1wy3dsd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=212&fit=crop&dpr=1" alt="Promotional image for podcast" width="100%"></a>
<br>
<em>Find other ways to listen to <a href="https://theconversation.com/back-to-school-what-works-to-keep-children-safe-from-covid-19-podcast-167125">The Conversation Weekly podcast</a> here.</em></p>
<hr>
<p>When we get tired, our control of attention goes awry. At the same time, our brains starts showing local activity that resembles sleep while most of the brain appears clearly awake. This phenomenon, known as “local sleep”, was first seen in <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/nature10009">sleep-deprived animals</a> and then <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnins.2019.00949/full">in humans</a>. </p>
<p>We wanted to investigate whether local sleep might also happen in well-rested people, and whether it could trigger shifts in attention. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/memory-and-attention-difficulties-are-often-part-of-a-normal-life-119539">Memory and attention difficulties are often part of a normal life</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Wandering minds and blank minds</h2>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/409046/original/file-20210630-15-7nbvoo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/409046/original/file-20210630-15-7nbvoo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/409046/original/file-20210630-15-7nbvoo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=613&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/409046/original/file-20210630-15-7nbvoo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=613&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/409046/original/file-20210630-15-7nbvoo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=613&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/409046/original/file-20210630-15-7nbvoo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=770&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/409046/original/file-20210630-15-7nbvoo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=770&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/409046/original/file-20210630-15-7nbvoo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=770&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Sustained Attention to Response Tasks (SARTs) in the experiment asked participants to view a stream of either faces or digits, and press a button if the face was smiling or the digit was a 3. At the same time, their brainwaves were recorded and they were asked at random intervals about whether they were paying attention.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-23890-7">Andrillon et al, Nature Communications (2021)</a>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>To better understand the relationship between brain activity and lapses of attention, we asked healthy young volunteers to perform a rather boring task requiring continuous attention. As anticipated, their attention frequently shifted away from the task. And when their attention lapsed, their performance decreased.</p>
<p>But we also wanted to know what exactly was going through their minds when their attention was not on the task. So we interrupted them at random intervals and asked them what they were thinking about at that moment.</p>
<p>Participants could indicate whether they were focusing on the task, their mind was wandering (thinking about something other than the task), or their mind was blank (not thinking about anything at all).</p>
<p>In parallel, we recorded their brain activity with an electroencephalogram, which consists of a set of sensors placed on the head that can monitor the rhythms of the brain. Thanks to this non-invasive brain imaging technique, we could search for signs of sleep within wakefulness during the entire task. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/curious-kids-what-happens-in-our-bodies-when-we-sleep-94301">Curious Kids: What happens in our bodies when we sleep?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>In particular we focused on “slow waves”, a hallmark of sleep involving brief silences from assemblies of neurons. Our hypothesis was that these lapses in neuron activity could explain lapses in attention. </p>
<p>We found local slow waves could predict episodes of mind wandering and mind blanking as well as changes in participants’ behaviour during these lapses of attention.</p>
<p>Importantly, the location of slow waves distinguished whether participants were mind wandering or blanking. When slow waves occurred in the front of the brain, participants had the tendency to be more impulsive and to mind wander. When slow waves occurred in the back of the brain, participants were more sluggish, missed responses and mind blanked. </p>
<h2>Sleep-like brainwaves predicts failure of attention</h2>
<p>These results can easily be understood through the concept of local sleep. If sleep-like slow waves really do correspond to local bouts of sleep in people who are otherwise awake, the effect of the slow waves should depend on where they occur in the brain and the function of those brain regions as we have found.</p>
<p>This suggests that a single phenomenon – local sleep intrusions during waking hours – could explain a broad range of attentional lapses, from mind-wandering and impulsivity to “going blank” and sluggishness.</p>
<p>Furthermore, our results suggest that local sleep might represent an everyday phenomenon that can affect us all, even if we are not particularly sleep-deprived. Our participants were simply going about the task at hand. Yet, without realising it, parts of their brains seemed to go offline repeatedly throughout the experiment.</p>
<h2>Local sleep and attentional deficits</h2>
<p>We are currently exploring whether this phenomenon of local sleep could be exacerbated in some individuals. For example, most people suffering from attentional deficits and/or hyperactivity disorders (ADHD) also report disrupted sleep. This may result in an increase in local sleep episodes during the day and could explain part of their attentional problems.</p>
<p>Finally, this new study reaffirms how sleep and wakefulness can be intermingled in the human brain. It parallels <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468867319301889">studies</a> in sleep showing how the brain can locally “wake up” in order to process sensory information coming from the environment. Here, we show the opposite phenomenon and how sleep intrusions during wakefulness can make our minds wander somewhere or nowhere. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/improving-sleep-in-children-with-adhd-has-some-lessons-for-all-parents-78536">Improving sleep in children with ADHD has some lessons for all parents</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/163642/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Thomas Andrillon receives funding from the Human Frontier Science Program and the National Health and Medical Research Council. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jennifer Windt receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the National Health and Medical Research Council.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Naotsugu Tsuchiya receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the National Health Medical Research Council, the Fundamental Question Institute and Fetzer Franklin Fund, a donor advised fund of Silicon Valley Community Foundation, and the Japan Society for Promotion of Science. </span></em></p>When you lose focus or your mind goes blank, sections of your brain may be having a quick snooze.Thomas Andrillon, Chercheur en neurosciences à l'Institut du Cerveau - Paris Brain Institute, InsermJennifer Windt, Senior Research Fellow, Monash UniversityNaotsugu Tsuchiya, Professor, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1606882021-06-03T14:21:13Z2021-06-03T14:21:13ZIs it time to give up on consciousness as ‘the ghost in the machine’?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/402582/original/file-20210525-17-17x6zfw.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=403%2C156%2C4676%2C2749&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/human-brain-anatomical-model-slide-on-1927132385">ImagesRouges/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>As individuals, we feel that we know what consciousness is because we experience it daily. It’s that intimate sense of personal awareness we carry around with us, and the accompanying feeling of ownership and control over our thoughts, emotions and memories.</p>
<p>But science has not yet reached a consensus on the nature of consciousness – which has important implications for our <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-psychology-of-believing-in-free-will-97193">belief in free will</a> and our approach to the <a href="https://cordis.europa.eu/article/id/421530-studying-consciousness-had-been-seen-as-mystical-or-unscientific">study of the human mind</a>. </p>
<p>Beliefs about consciousness can be roughly divided into <a href="https://philosophynow.org/issues/13/Driving_the_Ghost_from_the_Machine">two camps</a>. There are those who believe consciousness is like a <a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/The_ghost_in_the_machine.html?id=UAtbAAAAMAAJ">ghost in the machinery of our brains</a>, meriting special attention and study in its own right. And there are those, like us, who challenge this, pointing out that what we call consciousness is just another output generated backstage by our efficient neural machinery.</p>
<p>Over the past 30 years, <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25244112/">neuroscientific research</a> has been gradually moving away from the first camp. Using research from cognitive neuropsychology and hypnosis, <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33995166/">our recent paper</a> argues in favour of the latter position, even though this seems to undermine the compelling sense of authorship we have over our consciousness.</p>
<p>And we argue this isn’t simply a topic of mere academic interest. Giving up on the ghost of consciousness to focus scientific endeavour on the machinery of our brains could be an essential step we need to take to better understand the human mind.</p>
<h2>Is consciousness special?</h2>
<p>Our experience of consciousness places us firmly in the driver’s seat, with a sense that we’re in control of our psychological world. But seen from an objective perspective, it’s not at all clear that this is how consciousness functions, and there’s <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05097-x">still much debate</a> about the fundamental nature of consciousness itself. </p>
<p>One reason for this is that many of us, including scientists, have adopted a <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dualism/">dualist position</a> on the nature of consciousness. Dualism is a philosophical view that draws a distinction between the mind and the body. Even though consciousness is generated by the brain – a part of the body – dualism claims that the mind is distinct from our physical features, and that consciousness cannot be understood through the study of the physical brain alone.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/AMTMtWHclKo?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">MIT’s Alex Byrne explains the philosophical underpinnings of the dualist position.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>It’s easy to see why we believe this to be the case. While every other process in the human body ticks and pulses away without our oversight, there is something uniquely transcendental about our experience of consciousness. It’s no surprise that we’ve treated consciousness as something special, distinct from the automatic systems that keep us breathing and digesting. </p>
<p>But a <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00697/full">growing body of evidence</a> from the field of <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02207-1">cognitive neuroscience</a> – which studies the biological processes underpinning cognition – challenges this view. Such studies draw attention to the fact that many psychological functions are generated and carried out entirely <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-if-consciousness-is-just-a-product-of-our-non-conscious-brain-107973">outside of our subjective awareness</a>, by a range of fast, efficient non-conscious brain systems.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/what-if-consciousness-is-just-a-product-of-our-non-conscious-brain-107973">What if consciousness is just a product of our non-conscious brain?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Consider, for example, how effortlessly we regain consciousness each morning after losing it the night before, or how, with no deliberate effort, we instantly recognise and understand shapes, colours, patterns and <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-we-can-still-recognise-people-in-face-masks-159667">faces</a> we encounter.</p>
<p>Consider that we don’t actually experience how our perceptions are created, how our thoughts and sentences are produced, how we recall our memories or how we control our muscles to walk and our tongues to talk. Simply put, we don’t generate or control our thoughts, feelings or actions – we just seem to become aware of them.</p>
<h2>Becoming aware</h2>
<p>The way we simply become aware of thoughts, feelings and the world around us suggests that our consciousness is <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01924/full">generated and controlled backstage</a>, by brain systems that we remain unaware of. </p>
<p><a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33995166/">Our recent paper</a> argues that consciousness involves no separate independent psychological process distinct from the brain itself, just as there’s no additional function to digestion that exists separately from the physical workings of the gut.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="An artist's impression of neurons in the brain" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/402624/original/file-20210525-17-51el4n.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/402624/original/file-20210525-17-51el4n.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=343&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/402624/original/file-20210525-17-51el4n.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=343&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/402624/original/file-20210525-17-51el4n.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=343&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/402624/original/file-20210525-17-51el4n.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=431&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/402624/original/file-20210525-17-51el4n.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=431&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/402624/original/file-20210525-17-51el4n.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=431&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The neural machinery of the brain may be all we need to study in order to understand the human mind.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/neuronal-network-electrical-activity-neuron-cells-1691666992">MattLphotography/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>While it’s clear that both the experience and content of consciousness are real, we argue that, from a science explanation, they are epiphenomenal: secondary phenomena based on the machinations of the physical brain itself. In other words, our subjective experience of consciousness is real, but the functions of control and ownership we attribute to that experience are not.</p>
<h2>Future study of the brain</h2>
<p>Our position is neither obvious nor intuitive. But we contend that continuing to place consciousness in the driver’s seat, above and beyond the physical workings of the brain, and attributing cognitive functions to it, risks confusion and delaying a better understanding of human psychology and behaviour. </p>
<p>To better align psychology with the rest of the natural sciences, and to be consistent with how we understand and study processes like digestion and respiration, we favour a perspective change. We should redirect our efforts to studying the non-conscious brain, and not the functions previously attributed to consciousness. </p>
<p>This doesn’t of course exclude psychological investigation into the nature, origins and distribution of the belief in consciousness. But it does mean refocusing academic efforts on what happens beneath our awareness – where we argue the real neuro-psychological processes take place.</p>
<p>Our proposal feels personally and emotionally unsatisfying, but we believe it provides a future framework for the investigation of the human mind – one that looks at the brain’s physical machinery rather than the ghost that we’ve traditionally called consciousness.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/160688/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Consciousness is sometimes referred to as ‘the ghost’ in the machinery of our brain. Is it time we gave up the ghost to focus on the machine?Peter W Halligan, Hon Professor of Neuropsychology, Cardiff UniversityDavid A Oakley, Emeritus Professor of Psychology, UCLLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1612162021-05-26T14:03:47Z2021-05-26T14:03:47ZTo what extent are we ruled by unconscious forces?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/402858/original/file-20210526-17-fuu6f6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C31%2C7004%2C2401&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Are you conscious of your decisions?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/silhouete-man-rays-light-emanating-brain-1526483066">Triff/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>Sometimes when I ask myself why I’ve made a certain choice, I realise I don’t actually know. To what extent we are ruled by things we aren’t conscious of? – Paul, 43, London</em></p>
<p>Why did you buy your car? Why did you fall in love with your partner? When we start to examine the basis of our life choices, whether they are important or fairly simple ones, we might come to the realisation that we don’t have much of a clue. In fact, we might even wonder whether we really know our own mind, and what goes on in it outside of our conscious awareness. </p>
<p>Luckily, psychological science gives us important and perhaps surprising insights. One of the most important findings comes from psychologist <a href="https://www.academia.edu/download/35364635/Brain-1983-LIBET.pdf">Benjamin Libet</a> in the 1980s. He devised an experiment which was deceptively simple, but has created an enormous amount of debate ever since. </p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/313328/original/file-20200203-41485-1foofme.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/313328/original/file-20200203-41485-1foofme.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/313328/original/file-20200203-41485-1foofme.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/313328/original/file-20200203-41485-1foofme.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/313328/original/file-20200203-41485-1foofme.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/313328/original/file-20200203-41485-1foofme.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/313328/original/file-20200203-41485-1foofme.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><strong><em>This article is part of <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/lifes-big-questions-80040?utm_source=TCUK&utm_medium=linkback&utm_campaign=TCUKengagement&utm_content=LifesBigQuestionsUK">Life’s Big Questions</a></em></strong>
<br><em>The Conversation’s new series, co-published with BBC Future, seeks to answer our readers’ nagging questions about life, love, death and the universe. We work with professional researchers who have dedicated their lives to uncovering new perspectives on the questions that shape our lives.</em></p>
<hr>
<p>People were asked to sit in a relaxed manner in front of an adapted clock. On the clock face was a small light revolving around it. All people had to do was to flex their finger whenever they felt the urge, and remember the position of the light on the clock face when they experienced the initial urge to do so. At the same time as that was all happening, people had their brain activity recorded via an electroencephalogram (EEG), which detects levels of electrical activity in the brain.</p>
<p>What Libet was able to show was that timings really matter, and they provide an important clue as to whether or not the unconscious plays a significant role in what we do. He showed that that the electrical activity in the brain built up much earlier than people consciously intended to flex their finger, and then went on to do it. </p>
<p>In other words, unconscious mechanisms, through the preparation of neural activity, set us up for any action we decide to take. But this all happens before we consciously experience intending to do something. Our unconscious appears to rule all actions we ever take.</p>
<p>But, as science progresses, we are able to revise and improve on what we know. We now know that there are <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053810018301570?casa_token=H6gMm0DNjm8AAAAA:dcx3SAZ9VfcvgpRvmJQSVuYmdw4LEjRr9Rcy9gEH-qtHmuV78X9TzX90jK7XSh0H4t0gFBtlTQ">several fundamental problems</a> with the <a href="https://biologo.ru/download/18047.pdf#page=174">experimental set up</a> that suggest the claims that our unconscious fundamentally rules our behaviour are <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Alexander_Schlegel/publication/236087296_Barking_up_the_wrong_free_Readiness_potentials_reflect_processes_independent_of_conscious_will/links/00463519bbb4b180fb000000/Barking-up-the-wrong-free-Readiness-potentials-reflect-processes-independent-of-conscious-will.pdf">significantly exaggerated</a>. For example, <a href="https://philpapers.org/rec/DANBIT-2">when correcting for biases</a> in subjective estimates of conscious intention, the gap between conscious intentions and brain activity reduces. However, the original findings are still compelling even if they can’t be used to claim our unconscious completely rules our behaviour.</p>
<h2>Unconscious manipulation</h2>
<p>Another way of approaching the idea of whether we are ultimately ruled by our unconscious is to look at instances where we might expect unconscious manipulation to occur. In fact, <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053810019303836?casa_token=JnaDVD5NJRkAAAAA:t53Xn-z1hbPFEZmt9c7A87r55deZqyY_GJg3xxTNP7BQ9qjdbWS8byyhDPxz4XpqV19WkQzrHw">in my research</a> I asked people what those were.</p>
<p>The most common example was marketing and advertising. This may not be a surprise given that we often come across terms such as “subliminal advertising”, which implies that we are guided towards making consumer choices in ways that we don’t have any control over consciously. </p>
<p>James Vicary, who was a marketer and psychologist in the 1950s, brought the concept to fame. He convinced a cinema owner to use his device to flash messages during a film screening. Messages such as “Drink coca-cola” flashed up for a 3,000th of a second. He claimed that sales of the drink shot up after the film ended. After the significant furore around the ethics of this finding, Vicary came clean and admitted <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/subliminal-ads-2011-5?r=US&IR=T">the whole thing was a hoax</a> – he had made up the data. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Picture of a TV with the words " src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/402862/original/file-20210526-23-y1knjp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/402862/original/file-20210526-23-y1knjp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/402862/original/file-20210526-23-y1knjp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/402862/original/file-20210526-23-y1knjp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/402862/original/file-20210526-23-y1knjp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/402862/original/file-20210526-23-y1knjp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/402862/original/file-20210526-23-y1knjp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">It’s unlikely to work.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/subliminal-messages-media-318618083">winnond/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In fact, it is <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053810018304306?casa_token=box8GW1cgRoAAAAA:v2mqLCd1t4UFkorBlGghvdpvWadnULXAygNmD1EiCk9Eqm6IUvPxrEkIBUdDy32jV507hPku4A">notoriously difficult to show</a> in laboratory experiments that the flashing of words below the conscious threshold can prime us to even press buttons on a keyboard that are associated with those stimuli, let alone manipulate us into actually changing our choices in the <a href="https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3098279.3098531?casa_token=IwClpNNp6h8AAAAA:FBsE7ImpurAL_4fu1IKKYFn9q3NtL80cjkIoTspWU9p7lbuKzVvRgLgWRqs863Uhb3NZruUvd417">real world</a>. </p>
<p>The more interesting aspect around this controversy is that people still believe, as has been <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053810019303836?casa_token=JnaDVD5NJRkAAAAA:t53Xn-z1hbPFEZmt9c7A87r55deZqyY_GJg3xxTNP7BQ9qjdbWS8byyhDPxz4XpqV19WkQzrHw">shown in recent studies</a>, that methods such as subliminal advertising are in use, when in fact there is <a href="https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-8-2015-003522_EN.html">legislation protecting us from it</a>.</p>
<h2>Unconscious decision-making?</h2>
<p>But do we make decisions without consciously thinking? To find out, researchers have investigated three areas: the extent to which our choices are based on unconscious processes, whether those unconscious processes are fundamentally biased (for example, sexist or racist), and what, if anything, can be done to improve our biased, unconscious decision-making. </p>
<p>To the first point, <a href="https://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/311/5763/1005.full.pdf?casa_token=hd28CoPbniQAAAAA:40YDhMD7hEt6UdIRdmW6HXdQ10HhKGMtH3QCfJvK_5Nt8iE4NgG7c1zrGJapR-OnVJpi5f4IKvlAbw">a pivotal study</a> examined whether the best choices made in consumer settings were based on active thinking or not. The startling findings were that people made better choices when not thinking at all, especially in complex consumer settings. </p>
<p>The researchers argued that this is because our unconscious processes are less constrained than conscious processes, which make huge demands on our cognitive system. Unconscious processes, such as intuition, function in ways that automatically and rapidly synthesise a range of complex information, and this gives an advantage over thinking deliberately.</p>
<p>As with the Libet study, this research motivated intense interest. Unfortunately, efforts to <a href="http://www.decisionsciencenews.com/sjdm/journal.sjdm.org/12/12822/jdm12822.pdf">replicate such impressive findings</a> were extremely difficult, not only in the original consumer contexts, but beyond into areas where unconscious processes are thought to be rife such as in <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0963721416656348?casa_token=dqnqa9FM9hwAAAAA:CM642kDL_qrbenNukIeLcqUOy0eJEPDHRzaYEl6Uh1dtJfT5X-OMh-sLD5wWjScOzK4W6mo-TYjD">unconscious lie detection</a>, <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00636/full">medical decision-making</a>, and <a href="https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/1472788/3/Shanks_Priming%20Mating%20Motives%20ms_FINAL_COMPLETE.pdf">romantically motivated risky decision-making</a>). </p>
<p>That said, there are of course things that can influence our decisions and steer our thinking that we don’t always pay close attention to, such as emotions, moods, tiredness, hunger, stress and prior beliefs. But that doesn’t mean we are ruled by our unconscious – it is possible to be conscious of these factors. We can sometimes even counteract them by putting the right systems in place, or accept that they contribute to our behaviour. </p>
<h2>Unconscious bias</h2>
<p>But what about bias in decision-making? A <a href="https://osf.io/zye9u/download">highly instructive study</a> showed that, through the use of a now widely adopted technique called the “<a href="https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatest.html">implicit association test (IAT)</a>”, people harbour unconscious, biased attitudes towards other people (such as racial or gender discrimination). It also suggested that these attitudes can actually <a href="http://faculty.washington.edu/agg/pdf/GPU&B.meta-analysis.JPSP.2009.pdf">motivate biased decisions</a> in employment practices, and legal, medical and other important decisions that affect the lives of those on the receiving end. </p>
<p>However, the alarm can be muted when looking more closely at research on the topic, since it shows two critical problems with the IAT. First, if you look at an individual’s test scores on the IAT at one time, and get them to do it again, <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0146167216684131?casa_token=GoGV34CejHMAAAAA:pbJEm2Ru2Xq5bjlGUvAxkva8ZNggYtGnfsztLw2YR0imLuUpg6N9_pcm4qnoAV83JTz4vZyLZeeW">the two don’t match consistently</a>; known as limited test-retest reliability. Also, it has been shown that IAT results are a <a href="https://www.academia.edu/download/41431899/Predicting_Ethnic_and_Racial_Discriminat20160122-29920-3sudal.pdf">poor predictor</a> of actual decision-making behaviour, which means that the test has low validity.</p>
<h2>Nudge</h2>
<p>There have also been efforts to try to improve the way we make decisions in our day-to-day lives (such as healthy eating, saving for retirement) where our unconscious biased processes might limit our ability to do so. Here <a href="https://www.academia.edu/download/57768856/Thaler_Richard._H._and_Cass_R._Sunstein._Biases_and_Blunders_Chapter_1_In_Nudge_Improvi..._1739.pdf">the work by</a> Nobel laureate <a href="https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/10/16/16481836/nudges-thaler-nobel-economics-prize-undemocratic-tool">Richard Thaler</a> and Cass Sunstein has been revolutionary. The <a href="https://www.math.chalmers.se/%7Eulfp/Review/fastslow.pdf">basic idea</a> behind their work comes from cognitive scientist <a href="https://scholar.princeton.edu/kahneman/home">Daniel Kahneman</a>, another Nobel prize winner, who argued that people make rash decisions which are primarily unconsciously motivated. </p>
<p>To help improve the way we make decisions, Thaler and Sunstein contend, we need to redirect unconsciously biased processes towards the better decision. The way to do this is through gently nudging people so that they can automatically detect which option is the better option to take. For example, you could make sweets less easily accessible in a supermarket than fruit. This research has been adopted globally in all major public and private institutions. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Image of a chocolate aisle in the supermarket." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/402863/original/file-20210526-19-1cs8ux0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/402863/original/file-20210526-19-1cs8ux0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=341&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/402863/original/file-20210526-19-1cs8ux0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=341&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/402863/original/file-20210526-19-1cs8ux0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=341&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/402863/original/file-20210526-19-1cs8ux0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=429&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/402863/original/file-20210526-19-1cs8ux0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=429&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/402863/original/file-20210526-19-1cs8ux0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=429&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Should we hide chocolate?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/dubai-uae-august-15-2019-chocolate-1484972405">SLSK Photography/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Recent research shows that nudge techniques often dramatically fail. <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364661320302242?casa_token=nMT5WQ78I0cAAAAA:t992nSAqjLJIUj007daVxzZj8-f3n9fqV8PHaA6i26sRWaGDvxNty09c5rRvjfjfQSBxTp0zGw">They also backfire</a>, leading to worse outcomes than if they weren’t used at all. There are several reasons for this, such as applying the wrong nudge or misunderstanding the context. It seems that more is needed to change behaviour than nudging.</p>
<p>That said, nudgers lead us to believe that we are more easily influenced than we think, and than we are. A fundamental aspect of our psychological experiences is the belief that we are the <a href="https://www.macmillanihe.com/page/detail/FutureMinded/?K=9781137022264">agents of change</a>, be it personal circumstances (such as having a family) or external ones (such as anthropogenic climate change). </p>
<p>On the whole, we would rather accept <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053810019303836?casa_token=JnaDVD5NJRkAAAAA:t53Xn-z1hbPFEZmt9c7A87r55deZqyY_GJg3xxTNP7BQ9qjdbWS8byyhDPxz4XpqV19WkQzrHw">that we have free choice</a> in all manner of contexts, even when we perceive it is under threat from mechanisms unconsciously manipulating us. However, we still strategically believe we have less <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/41681699.pdf?casa_token=kC5LgRoGTT0AAAAA:n_5iGR06Z1_mFhMWrVMa5rDWLT5PVt0oR2JMlN6XB2O8Na_eJXZe1UYPEzoRT437pejvyfN1ZvD3q1WFGUPzqqvemSKHO0J16uKQZPedaqrGYHu0SCE">agency, control and responsibility</a> in certain areas, based on how consequential they are. For example, we would rather claim conscious control and agency over our political voting than over what breakfast cereal we are purchasing. So we may argue that our poor breakfast choice was down to subliminal advertising. However, we are less inclined to accept being duped into voting a certain way by big tech social media forces.</p>
<p>Headline-grabbing scientific findings in psychology often don’t help because they add to some of the extreme intuitions that we are fundamentally ruled by our unconscious. But the more robust scientific evidence indicates that we are more likely governed by conscious thinking than by unconscious thinking. We might get the sense that we aren’t always fully aware of why we do what we do. This might be because we aren’t always paying attention to our internal thoughts and motivations. But this isn’t equivalent to our unconscious ruling our every decision.</p>
<p>While I don’t think so, let’s say that we are actually ruled by the unconscious. In this case, there is <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/41681699.pdf?casa_token=kC5LgRoGTT0AAAAA:n_5iGR06Z1_mFhMWrVMa5rDWLT5PVt0oR2JMlN6XB2O8Na_eJXZe1UYPEzoRT437pejvyfN1ZvD3q1WFGUPzqqvemSKHO0J16uKQZPedaqrGYHu0SCE">an advantage</a> to entertaining the belief that we have more conscious control than not. In cases where things go wrong, believing that we can learn and change things for the better depends on us accepting a level of control and responsibility. </p>
<p>In cases where things go well, believing that we can repeat, or further improve on our successes, depends on accepting that we had a role to play in them. The alternative is to submit to the idea that either random, or unconscious forces dictate everything we do and in the long run that can be devastating mentally. </p>
<p>So why did you fall in love with your partner? Maybe they made you feel strong or secure, challenged you in some way, or smelt nice. Just like any other matter of importance, it is multifaceted, and there is no single answer. What I would argue is that it’s unlikely that your conscious self had nothing at all to do with it.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>To get all of life’s big answers, join the hundreds of thousands of people who value evidence-based news by <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/newsletters/the-daily-newsletter-2?utm_source=TCUK&utm_medium=linkback&utm_campaign=TCUKengagement&utm_content=LifesBigQuestionsUK"><strong>subscribing to our newsletter</strong></a>. You can send us your big questions by email at <a href="mailto:bigquestions@theconversation.com">bigquestions@theconversation.com</a> and we’ll try to get a researcher or expert on the case.</em></p>
<p><em>More <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/lifes-big-questions-80040?utm_source=TCUK&utm_medium=linkback&utm_campaign=TCUKengagement&utm_content=LifesBigQuestionsUK">Life’s Big Questions</a>:</em></p>
<ul>
<li><p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/happiness-is-feeling-content-more-important-than-purpose-and-goals-131503?utm_source=TCUK&utm_medium=linkback&utm_campaign=TCUKengagement&utm_content=LifesBigQuestionsUK">Happiness: is contentment more important than purpose and goals?</a></em></p></li>
<li><p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/could-we-live-in-a-world-without-rules-128664?utm_source=TCUK&utm_medium=linkback&utm_campaign=TCUKengagement&utm_content=LifesBigQuestionsUK">Could we live in a world without rules?</a></em></p></li>
<li><p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/death-can-our-final-moment-be-euphoric-129648?utm_source=TCUK&utm_medium=linkback&utm_campaign=TCUKengagement&utm_content=LifesBigQuestionsUK">Death: can our final moment be euphoric?</a></em></p></li>
<li><p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/are-humans-still-part-of-nature-or-is-it-now-just-our-dominion-128790?utm_source=TCUK&utm_medium=linkback&utm_campaign=TCUKengagement&utm_content=LifesBigQuestionsUK">Nature: have humans now evolved beyond the natural world, and do we still need it?</a></em></p></li>
<li><p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/love-is-it-just-a-fleeting-high-fuelled-by-brain-chemicals-129201?utm_source=TCUK&utm_medium=linkback&utm_campaign=TCUKengagement&utm_content=LifesBigQuestionsUK">Love: is it just a fleeting high fuelled by brain chemicals?</a></em></p></li>
</ul><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/161216/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Magda Osman receives funding from ESRC, EPSRC, Royal Academy, Leverhulme, DSTL, FCA, FSA. </span></em></p>Decades of research gives insight into how free our choices really are.Magda Osman, Reader in Experimental Psychology, Queen Mary University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1562442021-03-24T11:29:04Z2021-03-24T11:29:04ZPsychedelic drugs: how the brains of informed users are different<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/387505/original/file-20210303-14-yfxeu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/psychedelic-brain-306797528">Bruce Rolff/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>There is a new <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/books/under-review/the-science-of-the-psychedelic-renaissance">generation of drug users</a> out there who possess highly detailed pharmacological and technical knowledge about the drugs they take. “Psychonauts” (meaning “navigator of the soul”) are enthusiastic and <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02508281.2016.1192237?scroll=top&needAccess=true&journalCode=rtrr20">deliberate experimenters</a> of hallucinogens, including psychedelic drugs, both synthetic and natural, for self-exploration, spiritual attainment or inducing an altered state of consciousness. </p>
<p>Also called “cyber-psychonauts” or “e-psychonauts,” many refer to themselves as followers of <a href="https://www.britannica.com/topic/shamanism">shamanism</a>. They take an almost scientific approach to documenting their experiences and sharing them online. Their motivations therefore differ from those of people who take drugs to socially connect with others at clubs, parties and music festivals. </p>
<p>We don’t know a lot about psychonauts as they haven’t been studied much. But in our latest research, published in <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2021.660575/full?&utm_source=Email_to_authors_&utm_medium=Email&utm_content=T1_11.5e1_author&utm_campaign=Email_publication&field=&journalName=Frontiers_in_Psychiatry&id=660575">Frontiers in Psychiatry</a>, we have discovered how the behaviour and brains of psychonauts may be different from those of other people.</p>
<p>The few surveys and reviews that have been <a href="https://bpspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/bph.13813">carried out so far</a> indicate that psychonauts are typically single, well-educated, young adult men with good IT skills. They <a href="https://theconversation.com/lsd-microdosing-is-trending-in-silicon-valley-but-can-it-actually-make-you-more-creative-72747">often report</a> feeling more euphoric, empathetic, alert and creative when taking hallucinogenic drugs. This makes sense as we know hallucinogenic drugs work by stimulating serotonin receptors in the brain’s prefrontal cortex, which can alter mood, sensory perception and cognition. Some also have stimulant effects. </p>
<h2>Changing market</h2>
<p>It’s hard to keep up with the latest hallucinogenic drugs. “Novel psychoactive substances” are compounds that are newly designed or available to produce or mimic the same effects as other drugs, such as ecstasy, cannabis and amphetamines. Formerly called <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32857256">“legal highs”</a>, these substances first <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(13)61512-3/fulltext">rose to prominence</a> in the UK in 2009. They remained legal until the 2016 Psychoactive Substances Act <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/psychoactive-substances-bill-2015">placed a blanket ban</a> on their production and trade.</p>
<p>However, the <a href="https://harmreductionjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1477-7517-11-25">explosion of new substances</a>, ambiguous compounds and rapidly changing names under which products continue to be sold have perpetuated a cat-and-mouse game between legislators and users. </p>
<p>With the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/headshops-closed-and-offenders-arrested-after-legal-highs-ban">closure of “head shops”</a> that sell drugs and their paraphernalia around the UK, the internet has dramatically changed the way in which illegal and prescription drugs <a href="https://theconversation.com/dark-web-not-dark-alley-why-drug-sellers-see-the-internet-as-a-lucrative-safe-haven-132579">can be purchased</a> on the underground market. Rogue websites sell novel psychoactive substances online without manufacturing or pharmaceutical regulation. Details of compounds and combinations are not fully disclosed, and many new drugs are given the paradoxical label: “not for human consumption”. </p>
<p>But psychonauts keep records of their experiences and frequently engage in online forums to discuss new psychedelic trends. Online drug forum communities therefore offer a unique environment to interact with like-minded individuals in an open and anonymised manner. The aim is to share information about drug purity, dosage and safety prior to experimentation.</p>
<h2>Psychonaut profile</h2>
<p>Since so little is known about psychonauts, we were interested to learn more about their personality and cognition. To do this, we studied 82 people. These included psychonauts, “club drug” users who were seeking help for their use, and non-drug users. Indeed, we found differences in both personality and cognition between these three groups. </p>
<p>Cognitive processes can be divided into “hot” and “cold”, relating to two partially segregated loops in the brain. The cold loop includes the dorsal lateral prefrontal cortex (involved in planning) and the hot loop includes the orbitofrontal cortex (involved in risky decision making), ventral striatum and amygdala (the latter two support emotion and behaviour).</p>
<p>Our results showed that psychonauts had no problems in “cold” cognition – what we usually use at work, such as attention, planning and problem solving. But they were different from non-users when it came to <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/456168a">“hot” cognition</a> – a type of emotional and social intelligence. For example, they took more risks than others and had high levels of sensation-seeking traits, suggesting they may be driven by the need for excitement and/or pursuing novel or unusual experiences. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Image of a man sitting in front of his laptop." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/391381/original/file-20210324-21-mmg3qt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/391381/original/file-20210324-21-mmg3qt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/391381/original/file-20210324-21-mmg3qt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/391381/original/file-20210324-21-mmg3qt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/391381/original/file-20210324-21-mmg3qt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/391381/original/file-20210324-21-mmg3qt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/391381/original/file-20210324-21-mmg3qt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Psychonauts don’t have problems with planning or memory.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/happy-man-buying-online-his-living-1243537654">Lopolo/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This differed from “club drug” users who we identified from among people seeking help for addiction at a clinic. This group had “cold” cognitive problems in learning and memory. They also had difficulties controlling impulses. This is consistent with research on <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/nrn.2017.8">cocaine-dependent individuals</a>, who tend to have problems with both “hot” and “cold” cognition. For example, cocaine-dependent users prefer immediate smaller rewards rather than waiting for larger delayed rewards. They like things now and do not want to wait, even if it means losing out on something bigger later. </p>
<p>The fact that psychonauts have no problems in “cold” cognition may help them be aware of the damaging effects of excessive drug dosage and prevent them from getting into harmful drug use. Since their main motivation is to enjoy and fully experience the effects of novel hallucinogenic drugs and to share this in detail with like-minded people, they try to be very careful of the amount of drugs they take. In future, we hope to conduct a longitudinal study and follow psychonauts and “club drug” users over time. This would allow us to determine whether the drugs themselves cause changes in cognition and whether sensation-seeking traits become stronger with more time spent sharing experiences with others online. </p>
<p>It is worth noting that psychonauts in our study were screened for psychiatric illnesses and were actively engaged in work or full-time education. This points towards a specific type of recreational drug user who incorporates regular drug taking into their lives. Psychonauts are positive about their lifestyle. This is in contrast to synthetic cannabinoid (for example “spice”) users <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/hup.2594">who we know develop impairments</a> in functionality and wellbeing. </p>
<p>Hallucinogenic drugs, such as psilocybin, are being investigated as <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-13282-7">pharmacotherapy for treatment-resistant depression</a> and other mental health conditions that are difficult to treat. In fact, <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-56170592">the first UK clinic</a> to offer ketamine-assisted psychotherapy for mental health disorders has recently opened. </p>
<p>Clinical trials for psychedelic drugs are currently ongoing, with the aim of obtaining broader regulatory body approval. More research is needed to better understand the psychedelic state, including its therapeutic potential. Continued engagement with psychonauts - both on and offline - may help provide the answers.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/156244/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Barbara Jacquelyn Sahakian receives funding from the Wellcome Trust, the Lundbeck Foundation, the Leverhulme Trust, Eton College and the Wallitt Foundation. Her research is conducted within the NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre (Mental Health Theme and Neurodegeneration Theme) and the NIHR MedTech and Invitro Diagnostic Co-operative (MIC).
She consults for Cambridge Cognition.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>George Savulich does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>As the UK’s first clinic to offer psychedelic drugs for mental health disorders opens, a study reveals that informed users don’t have problems with self control.Barbara Jacquelyn Sahakian, Professor of Clinical Neuropsychology, University of CambridgeGeorge Savulich, Research Associate in Psychiatry, University of CambridgeLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.