Clearly, it is desirable for knowledge to be as close to objective reality as possible. However, there are practical limits on our ability to achieve this, many of which were explained in previous articles.
This is not something that I advocate, but it is an undeniable fact that people sometimes promote beliefs that are not necessarily true, beneficial to society or to the environment. Rather such beliefs may merely satisfy the personal needs of those who promote them. So long as we have individual volition, rather than a selfless hive mentality, this will always be the case. Again, I do not advocate the latter. Human success is based on maintaining a delicate balance between individuality and collectivism.
There are numerous examples of harmful beliefs in religion, commerce, and politics. They can cause immediate harm or, whilst having a short-term benefit, may be unsustainable in the longer term. Even scientists can sometimes prevaricate if they believe the paradigm on which their status or livelihood depends is at stake. Treating knowledge in this way is an inevitable aspect of human nature that we must learn to accept and manage.
The best that we are capable of achieving is schemata, memeplexes and paradigms that are consistent and have maximum utility. That is: schemata which optimise the individual’s chances of survival and procreation; memeplexes which do the same for society as well as satisfying its members individual needs; and paradigms which accurately represent any known objective truths, and which accurately predict phenomena. Here, the word “utility” refers to Utilitarianism, a philosophy founded by Jeremy Bentham (1748 – 1832). Utility is the ability of things to act as satisfiers of our needs or to prevent contra-satisfiers. Buddhist belief, for example, includes acting in a way which maximises utility, rather than acting solely out of kindness. This implies that some forms of behaviour must be opposed.
It is important to be critical of the knowledge we are presented with. It is also important to be critical of knowledge and beliefs we already hold, including unconscious ones. This can be achieved by asking the following questions of any item:
Is it consistent with everything else I know?
Is it consistent with other information I can research?
Is there evidence to support or refute it?
How reliable is its source?
What are the motives of the individual or group promoting it?
Would accepting it satisfy its advocate’s needs to my detriment, to the detriment of society, or to the detriment of the environment?
What would be my motives in accepting it?
Would accepting it satisfy my personal needs?
If so, does this over-ride my need for truth?
It is also important to be critical of our personal beliefs and attitudes, including those that we are not necessarily aware of. We can unearth them by questioning our actions as follows:
What need made me want to do that?
What belief or attitude made me choose that satisfier?
The more frequently we identify an unconscious belief or attitude in this way, the more likely it is that we hold it. However, we all carry a self-image and will vigorously defend it using various strategies described by Bartlett. For example, we may alter details, shift emphasis, include rationalisations, and make cultural alterations. Some of the beliefs that we unearth may come as an unpleasant surprise, therefore. To challenge them, it is necessary to develop a degree of objectivity about oneself and to recognise that such beliefs and attitudes are an inevitable aspect of human nature.
Unconsciously held beliefs and attitudes can be positive, of course, but are not necessarily so. Having unearthed one, it is, therefore, sensible to question what type of satisfier it is. For example:
Is it a singular or synergistic satisfier that is benefitting me?
Is it an inhibiting or pseudo-satisfier that is not benefitting me?
Is it a violator that is causing me harm?
We can also assess whether it is harmful to the environment or those around us and for this I would refer the reader to a future article on ethics.
It is well established that heredity influences personality. Although we all share 99% of the human genome, 1% is the variable genome that marks us out as individuals. Some of this variable genome influences our brains and thinking or cognitive functions. Were this not the case then our large brains and our social behaviour would not have evolved. Studies of twins suggest that identical twins, who share the same variable genome, also share 50% of the same personality traits. On the other hand, fraternal twins, whose variable genome differs, share only about 20%. We are a social species, and our personality affects our chances of survival and reproduction. It seems likely, therefore, that those genes which affect personality are subject to natural selection.
But what is personality? There are many models, all of which are simplifications, but currently the one most widely used and accepted is the Big Five Model. This comprises five traits each of which lies on a scale from low to high. They are:
Agreeableness, which comprises pro-social behaviours such as trust, kindness, and affection;
Conscientiousness, or a tendency to be responsible, hard-working, thoughtful, committed to goals, and to adhere to the rules;
Extroversion, which includes stimulus seeking behaviour such as sociability and talkativeness, together with excitability and assertiveness;
Neuroticism. A person with a high level of this trait has a tendency towards sadness, worry, and emotional instability; and
Openness, or abstract thinking, creativity, and a willingness to try new things.
It has been shown that these traits are not each influenced by a single gene but rather by many. Depression, for example, is thought to be influenced by around a thousand. The number of relevant genes that a person has affects the extent to which they may exhibit the trait. In a similar way to tosses of a coin, probability theory implies that most of us will be somewhere in the middle of the scale with just a few close to the low or high extreme.
It can be seen from their descriptions that what are referred to as “personality traits” are, in fact, behavioural traits, i.e., repetitive patterns of behaviour which characterise an individual. The focus of research has been on behaviour for the simple reason that it is observable. However, behaviour is caused by a combination of our needs, contra-needs, and beliefs about satisfiers and contra-satisfiers, some of which are unconscious. So, it is likely that heredity influences these latter causes rather than impacting directly on behaviour.
For example, heredity may influence the strengths and relative priorities of our needs and contra-needs. It may also predispose us to certain beliefs. That is, heredity does not create the belief but rather a predisposition to accept beliefs which are consistent with it. Depending on environmental factors such as upbringing, culture, role models, socialisation, traumatic experiences, etc., we may or may not come to hold a belief consistent with our predisposition and, thus, display a particular personality trait.
The priorities and beliefs which affect personality form schemata. They can be established early in life and be resistant to change, but are not cast in tablets of stone. Environmental factors can influence us at any stage in life, and either alter our personalities or reinforce them.
A hereditary predisposition and an environmental trigger can also cause a personality disorder to develop. Personality disorders are repetitive patterns of behaviour which stray too far from the socially acceptable norm. In practice, this means personality traits which are unusual by virtue of being high or low on their respective scale. In turn, this means extreme beliefs about satisfiers and contra-satisfiers, unusual strengths or weakness of needs/contra-needs, or unusual ways of prioritising them. In some cases, this can lead to behaviours that are socially harmful.
Schemata, paradigms, and memes are essential references when we are motivated to act and, together with unsatisfied needs, govern our behaviour. When all the information we have access to is consistent, we can make quick and easy decisions. Inconsistencies on the other hand result in ambiguities, confusion, and uncertainty.
It is perfectly possible to hold information deemed to be “false” or “uncertain” if its probability is flagged accordingly. However, the less certain the information, the more cognitive processing needed to arrive at a decision, and the more delayed that decision will be. In the natural world, delaying a decision to act can reduce our chances of survival. Therefore, we tend to regard information as being either true or false.
The simple propositions “Peter likes Jane” and “Peter does not like Jane” contradict one another and are therefore inconsistent. To give another example, “Dogs have wings” is inconsistent with the image of dogs that most of us hold. Usually, however, inconsistencies are far more complex than these examples suggest, and complex reasoning is often needed to reveal them. They can also be detected by the unconscious mind, which gives us a sense that “there is something wrong”. However, the process involved in this is unknown.
Unresolved contradictions make us more vulnerable. They can lead to uncertainty, anxiety, stress, and, in the extreme, mental ill-health. Thus, internal consistency of the information we hold can be regarded as a basic need. In turn, this need drives us to understand the world in which we exist. It is, quite simply, a survival mechanism.
Consistency between Personal Schemata and Social Memes
Every society has a core social ethic. In large complex societies, this is often based on its main religion, albeit, in some cases, its historical religion. In the West we have the Christian Ethic, in China the Confucian Ethic, and in the Middle East obedience to the will of God. This core social ethic is not necessarily stated explicitly and can be intangible. However, it is the basis of our social norms and values, and we learn of it through them. This process establishes our External Ethical Schema, i.e., our understanding of why society holds some things to be good and others to be bad. Errors of interpretation do, of course, occur and for this reason our External Ethical Schema can differ from the actual social ethic.
We also develop an Internal Ethical Schema, i.e., our personal understanding of what is good, what is bad, and why. This is equivalent to our super-ego or conscience. However, it is not necessarily the same as our External Ethical Schema for the following reasons:
Differences of opinion between oneself and society as to what is good or bad. We can find ourselves in situations where it is necessary to hold a particular belief to satisfy our basic needs even though this may be inconsistent with objective reality, for example, if we live in a dogmatic and authoritarian society.
Differences in the way that individuals balance personal and social interests.
Behavioural predispositions (see next article).
Effort after Meaning when relearning the social ethic in later life, for example after migration or when changing jobs.
There can, therefore, be contradictions between the beliefs that we hold, and the beliefs acceptable to a group or society to which we belong. This too can cause stress, anxiety, and in extreme cases, mental illness, as we struggle to reconcile the need for internal consistency with those for social acceptance, positive regard, and even our existence needs.
Consistency between Social Memes
Simpler societies with relatively small populations tended to be local monocultures. One had three options: accept the prevailing values, norms and beliefs and be accepted by others; not accept them and be rejected; or hide one’s personal beliefs and struggle with the inconsistency.
In a more complex society, we can belong to several groups each of which establishes a different External Ethical Schema. In belonging to these groups, we adopt different roles, and the different schemata guide our behaviour. Inconsistencies between them can, of course, arise and it is notable that many occur in connection with employment. We have a range of strategies to deal with those inconsistencies but key among them is the development of a clear Internal Ethical Schema and following it. Further guidance can be found here:
In a more complex society, there is also wide variety of groups to which an individual may belong. People are attracted to groups they feel may satisfy their needs and this also applies to the need for inner consistency. Thus, people with a particular view will join others with the same or similar views and be able to hold that view whilst at the same time being socially accepted. In this way inconsistency is avoided. However, belonging to such a group does have the effect of reinforcing the beliefs that individuals share, and ideologies can, therefore, develop.
The words “schemata”, “memeplexes”, and “paradigms” describe clusters of mental information in different contexts. Schemata are held by an individual, memeplexes held by a society and paradigms held by a group of scientists. Unsurprisingly, therefore, the processes associated with them have many features in common. They evolve with time but are resistant to change until a crisis occurs and they must be revised. They generally evolve in a direction which leads to greater success for the individual or community.
Factors which govern the success of a schema, memeplex, or paradigm are as follows:
It must satisfy our biological, social, and psychological needs.
It must satisfactorily reflect the real world, thereby enabling us to take decisions which are in our best interests.
The information it contains must be consistent. For example, “The cheese on the floor is always eaten” is consistent with “There is a mouse in the house”. However, “The cheese on the floor is never eaten” is not. A degree of inconsistency can be acceptable because the benefits of the schema, memeplex or paradigm outweigh the effort of revising it. We have developed social and psychological mechanisms for dealing with such inconsistencies. For example, in the case of paradigms and memeplexes, the silencing or discrediting of dissenters. In the case of schemata, rationalisation, and denial. However, if sufficient inconsistencies accumulate, then the cluster of information will collapse.
Beliefs can also act as satisfiers. They may, for example, enable us to form better relationships with members of our community. To cite another example, a belief in a god can provide a feeling of safety in an unsafe world. However, our beliefs are often a result of socialisation and, as such, we may not be consciously aware of them. They also lie on Manfred MaxNeef’s scale. They can be: synergistic satisfiers which satisfy several needs; singular satisfiers which satisfy just one need; inhibiting satisfiers which prevent the satisfaction of other needs; pseudo-satisfiers which merely claim to satisfy a need; or violators which, in practice, hinder the satisfaction of a need.
An example of a belief which acts as a violator is “false consciousness”. This term was coined by Friedrich Engels (1820 – 1895) to describe the way in which a subordinate social group can willingly adopt, to their detriment, the ideology of a dominant group.
Thus, it is not necessarily the truth of information which is of sole importance to people, but rather a consistent combination of information some of which is true and some of which may not be but which, nevertheless, satisfies our social and psychological needs. The implication is, of course, that we should not be surprised if others disagree with us even if this disagreement seems to be irrational, counter-factual, or unreasonable.
The French philosopher Michel de Montaigne (1533 – 1592) remarked on our inability to find a satisfactory criterion for knowledge. I will, therefore, define it as information held in peoples’ minds, which may be considered true or false, and which includes our beliefs and attitudes. “Knowledge”, “beliefs” and “attitudes” are essentially different words used to describe mental information in different contexts. This information, in combination with our reasoning processes and our needs, determines our behaviour.
Nurture
The knowledge of an individual is acquired in two main ways: from observation of the world around us and by receipt from others. All children are born with inherited predispositions but no knowledge. If a child had to work out for itself how to survive in its environment, then it would frequently make mistakes and might come to an unhappy end. Parents and other members of a child’s community will therefore provide an initial education which gives the child a working understanding of its environment.
Our early schemata are established in this way. However, as explained in the previous blog, information provided by others may have been distorted by their “effort after meaning”, contain errors of reasoning, and may even be lies. We accept as true any information which does not contradict our existing schemata. Failing that, we would acquire no new knowledge. Much of the information that young children receive from others falls into that category. Once established, the early schemata of the child will be resistant to change. As Aristotle famously said, “Give me the child until he is seven and I will show you the man”. Change can occur, however, if sufficient contradictions accumulate. Thus, our schemata alter in fits and starts. There is a period of rapid change followed by a period of quiescence in which the schema is resistant to change. In cases involving a significant change of worldview, this can be accompanied by an emotional crisis similar to grief at the loss of a loved one. Such crises can last for several years while the young adult goes through the stages of denial/isolation, anger, bargaining, depression, and finally, acceptance. The importance of providing children with reliable knowledge cannot be understated, therefore.
Socialisation and Social Learning
Social rules are necessary if society is to co-operate successfully for the benefit of its members. If we follow them then we will function successfully in our society, contribute to its success and, thus, prosper personally. Again, it is difficult for the child to work out these social rules for itself and, thus, parents and other teachers will provide an initial working education based on the culture of the society, i.e., its norms, values, beliefs and symbols.
Socialisation is the process whereby others reward us for compliance with their culture and punish us for non-compliance.
During the 1950s psychologists developed the theory that we now know as Social Learning Theory. In summary, this theory states that some beliefs and strategies are formed in the following way:
Identification with role models. Role models are usually parents, teachers, peers or people like oneself, and people seen as having advantages such as popularity, wealth, or fame.
This identification leads to imitation behaviour and/or learning through observation. In the latter, behaviours may not necessarily be imitated immediately but may simply be remembered as strategies which can be used in later life. Seeing that a strategy adopted by another person successfully satisfies their needs will provide what is known as vicarious reinforcement and will condition a strategy even when it is not being performed by the person learning it. For example, if a colleague at the office always works through their lunch break and ultimately receives a promotion, then you may unconsciously adopt the same strategy in your next job.
Imitation behaviour is either positively or negatively reinforced by other members of society depending on their beliefs about what is acceptable or unacceptable. These beliefs about social behaviour are referred to as norms. It may, for example, be the norm in your office to work through the lunch break. Through conditioning, norms become internalised or accepted as one’s own, and can be held unconsciously. Thus, the strategies underlying behaviour become conditioned or extinguished through social reinforcement. Highly conditioned beliefs about social behaviour form the conscience, a set of beliefs governing behaviour which cause psychological distress when our behaviour is contrary to them. For example, a socialised person will feel guilty if he steals.
In my next post, I will return to schemata, paradigms, and memes and describe the features that they have in common.
All knowledge and belief, whether true or false, can be regarded as information. Treating it in this way removes any preconceived ideas or value judgements and enables us to consider it more objectively. Any place where information is held, for example in the mind of an individual or in a book, can be regarded as a medium of information. Again, this removes any preconceptions or value judgements.
Knowledge can be held by an individual in a schema (pl. schemata), by a group in a paradigm, or by a society in a memeplex. These three theories are discussed below.
Knowledge of the individual – Schemata
According to the British psychologist, F. C. Bartlett (1886 – 1969) the knowledge of an individual is held in schemata. These are mental structures each of which organises items of information about some aspect of the world and the relationships between them.
Knowledge, including ideas, beliefs, and values, must be remembered but Bartlett showed that the way in which we do so is affected by information that we already hold. So that new information is more consistent with our existing schemata we may omit anything thought to be irrelevant, alter details, shift emphasis, include rationalisations, and make cultural alterations. Bartlett referred to this process as “effort after meaning”. Consistency of the information in our schemata is important to us. If we are unable to reconcile two contradictory items then we experience cognitive dissonance, a form of psychological stress. When this occurs, we do all that we can to resolve the contradiction and reduce our discomfort. For example, we may simply forget information which contradicts that already in our schemata.
The reason we modify information in this way is thought to be the mental effort involved in revising our schemata. According to the Canadian psychologist, Donald Hebb, memory is a biological process involving growth or metabolic change in our neurons which, of course, requires both time and energy. Schemata are therefore resistant to change.
The American psychologist Jerome Bruner, (1915 – 2016), postulated that individuals hold information in three ways: enactively, as a recollection of muscle actions; iconically, in the form of visual, aural, tactile, taste or olfactory images; or symbolically, using symbols such as words to represent physical entities and the relationships between them. Information stored enactively can be communicated to others through training, imagery and spoken or written instruction, but this is a lengthly process. Information stored iconically can be communicated by the production of images, sounds, scents, etc., for example by painting, but this too is a lengthly process. Only information stored symbolically can be communicated relatively quickly and accurately. Hence our dependence on natural languages and formal languages, such as mathematics, for communication.
Knowledge of a Society – Memes
In common parlance, the word “meme” describes a visual image circulating on the internet. However, the term was originally coined by Richard Dawkins, in his book “The Selfish Gene”, to describe a cultural idea, belief or symbol that can be transmitted from one individual to another through language, gesture, ritual, imitation, etc. Memes have a similar role to genes in biological evolution and are thought to be the basis of cultural evolution. They can mutate and their propagation is dependent on whether they improve the likelihood of a culture’s survival and reproduction.
Memes form clusters known as memeplexes which are the basis of a culture, political ideology, or religious dogma. Because of this, individual memes can “hitch a ride” on a broader and more successful memeplex. For example, homophobia might form part of a more generally acceptable system of religious beliefs and practices.
Memes are resistant to change in the same way as schemata. For the individuals that hold them, not only are biological changes in the brain required but negotiation and conflict with others may also be involved.
Knowledge of a Group – Paradigms
An example of a memeplex is a scientific paradigm. This is a generally accepted set of scientific beliefs and practices which prevail at a particular time. Major changes to a paradigm are known as a paradigm shift. In his book, “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”, the American physicist and philosopher, Thomas Kuhn, describes a paradigm shift as following four stages:
Normal Science. A dominant paradigm exists and is universally accepted. However, as time progresses, scientists encounter anomalies that cannot be explained by it.
Extraordinary research. When sufficient anomalies emerge and cast doubt on the veracity of the paradigm a state of crisis results. Research of an exploratory nature is then carried out and new theories and experiments are produced to explain the anomalies.
Adoption of a new paradigm. Competing new paradigms form and gain followers. However, they also gain detractors who are committed to the original. Eventually, a single new paradigm may gain acceptance if it predicts phenomena more successfully than the original.
Aftermath of the scientific revolution. The new paradigm becomes institutionalised and dominant but the revolutionary process, which is not usually recorded, becomes forgotten.
In my next post, I will describe how we acquire new knowledge before later discussing the features that schemata, memes and paradigms have in common.
The English philosopher, John Locke, (1632 – 1704) described consciousness as “the perception of what passes in a man’s own mind”. He was, of course, a man of his age and, today, we would understand this definition to include all genders and some animals. More recently, Locke’s definition has been extended to include awareness of the external world but, unfortunately, this is a red herring. Even bacteria respond to stimuli in the external world and, so, are aware of it. However, we would not regard them as being conscious. Furthermore, the unconscious human mind is aware of the external world, which is why, for example, a noise will wake us from sleep. Finally, it is possible for a human being to be conscious in the complete absence of external stimuli. Locke’s original definition seems more apt, therefore.
As mentioned in the previous article, consciousness is probably an emergent property of our complex brains and caused by feedback loops. A highly simplified model of the human mind might be:
These “functions” and the concepts of the “conscious and unconscious mind” do not, of course, refer to specific regions of the brain, but rather to processes that it follows.
We perceive the consequences of our actual behaviour with our senses, and this provides external feedback. For example, when driving a car, we continuously observe our position in the road and correct it when necessary. With sufficient practice, this can be done almost unconsciously. However, we can also “know” proposed behaviour before we act. For example, we can “hear” words that we might speak before saying them, “hear” music that we might play without playing it and “see” actions that we might take before taking them. Sensory processing functions are, therefore, connected to and aware of behaviour processing functions. Awareness of our own minds and awareness of the external world can be similar because both are processed by the same sensory processing functions. This creates the potential for feedback, and it is this feedback which, in the author’s view, leads to the emergence of consciousness.
This is supported by Francis Crick and Christof Koch who, in their paper “A Framework for Consciousness”, note that there is substantial evidence that a top-down flow of neural activity from the frontal cortex, which governs behaviour, to the sensory areas, is more predictive of conscious awareness than the reverse, bottom-up flow (Crick & Koch, 2003). This top-down flow is labelled “internal feedback” in the diagram above.
The existence of this internal feedback is confirmed by optical illusions. In the particularly powerful illusion below, all the thin grey lines are horizontal and parallel, just like those on the extreme left and extreme right. However, they do not appear to be so. What we are seeing is what our cognitive processing function has interpreted, and this, in turn, has been fed back into our optical processing function.
Experiments carried out, in the 1970s by the American neuroscientist, Benjamin Libet (1916 – 2007), provide further support for this model. Libet found that unconscious electrical processes in the brain preceded the conscious decision to perform an act. Significantly, however, he also found that the conscious mind could veto those decisions (Libet et al., 1983).
Such internal feedback loops have several evolutionary advantages:
They allow us to review the likely consequences of potential behaviour before engaging in it. For example, in the case of language, the internal oral/aural feedback loop enables us to review and refine the information we would communicate, and assess its potential impact on any recipients. The cognitive processing and decision-making function passes a form of words to the behaviour processing function. The sensory processing function hears these words internally. It then passes them back to the cognitive processing function, which reviews them from the standpoint of the recipient. In effect, this is a form of empathy, one of the skills that we have as social animals.
The logical rules that we have learnt and that the cognitive processing function employs in arriving at its conclusions are reflected in the structure of spoken language, and vice versa. This enables us to pass these rules on subliminally.
Short term memory can be regarded as residing in the conscious mind, i.e., in the feedback loop. Long-term memory, on the other hand, resides in the unconscious mind and is strongly linked to the cognitive processing function. Internal feedback enables us to internally “rehearse” a wide range of information and behaviour which, in turn, serves to reinforce long-term memory..
In a feedback loop, the emergent property regulates the components. Thus, the loop which causes consciousness may regulate the mind and enable us to concentrate on specific problems. This includes regulation of the unconscious mind but, as we are unaware of this, it cannot be regarded as “conscious regulation of the unconscious”.
When we relax our conscious efforts, the unconscious mind operates more freely and, for example, solutions to problems that we have been working on come more readily.
Finally, it can offer a degree of control over intuitive behaviour, providing we think before we act.
However, there are three circumstances in which we do not consciously verify a decision.
There is no time for conscious reflection and our unconscious decisions must be trusted. This can occur when, for example, a road traffic accident is imminent. In his book, “Thinking fast and Slow”, the American psychologist Daniel Kahneman referred to this process as “System 1” thinking. He also referred to the more deliberate and logical conscious process as “System 2” (Kahneman, 2011).
Circumstances defy conscious analysis and we have to go with the unconscious decision, or “gut feeling”, if we are to make one at all.
The unconscious has been well trained by the conscious mind and its decisions are trusted.
There is a question over where consciousness resides in the brain. I am of the view that it resides in a large part of it. In fact, I would go as far as to say that parts of the brain can operate either consciously or unconsciously depending on how the various parts are interacting with one another. Certainly, the unconscious has access to the same memory as the conscious mind but can roam more freely and creatively over it. The most notable evidence is the fact that our unconscious minds are not as good at producing ideas when, consciously, we are very heavily focussed on a problem. We must let go of conscious thought to allow unconsciously generated thoughts to flow and, very often, it seems that this is necessary to solve a problem.
Where feedback loops come in is the way in which parts of the brain interact with one another. Going back to the analogy of a microphone in front of a loudspeaker, it cannot be said that the howl it produces lies in any one part of the system. Yes, there is a loud sound in the air between the microphone and the speaker. However, there is an equally strong electrical current within the microphone, amplifier, and loudspeaker. In a way, the whole system can be said to be howling. This is an emergent property of the system and the way that its parts interact and is analogous to consciousness. However, if we turn down the volume control on the amplifier, the emergent property disappears and the whole system becomes quiescent – both the sound and the electrical currents. This is analogous to unconsciousness.
The audio analogy cannot be taken too far, however. Firstly, because whatever happens in the brain is probably far more complex. Secondly, unlike the audio system, which is either howling or not, we appear to experience degrees of consciousness and unconsciousness.
It is certainly the case that some parts of the brain only act unconsciously. For example, even when conscious, we are not aware of what takes place in the cognitive processing and decision-making function. It is a part of the unconscious mind. Rather, we are only aware of how the decisions that it passes to the behaviour processing function are interpreted. Knowing the information on which these decisions are based we can, to a limited extent, deduce the processes behind them. However, this is not the same as being consciously aware of them. Such deductions can be coloured by our needs and are, therefore, often a rationalization of our true decision-making process.
When we are awake, the feedback loops are on, and we are conscious. While we are asleep, they are off, and we are unconscious. However, unlike the audio analogy, which is either howling or not, we experience degrees of consciousness and unconsciousness. Consciousness is at its strongest when we are concentrating on a problem and at its weakest when we are in the depths of sleep. Neither state prevents the cognitive processing function, from receiving input from the sensory processing functions. Nor does it prevent it from passing instructions to the behaviour processing functions. We are unconsciously aware of the external world and can wake or give it our conscious attention when necessary. We can also sleepwalk and act on “autopilot”. This implies that our level of consciousness is regulated by communication between the behaviour processing functions and the sensory processing functions, which is consistent with Crick and Koch’s findings. Notably, parts of the prefrontal cortex are deactivated during sleep. However, this does not necessarily mean that they are where consciousness resides. Rather it may only mean that they are analogous to the volume control and regulate the feedback loops. In the absence of regulation by consciousness, the cognitive processing function behaves more freely. We will, for example, dream. When we wake, we catch the tail end of dreams because that is what has been fed by the cognitive processing function to our behaviour processing functions while we slept. However, as soon as consciousness returns it regulates the cognitive processing function, and so, such dreams may become extinguished.
If this hypothesis is correct, then it has the following implications:
Animals that use tools or simple forms of communication may be conscious.
The strength of human consciousness must surely vary from individual to individual.
We may be able to strengthen our conscious skills by practicing activities which require a high level of concentration.
Due to its advantages, greater consciousness may still be evolving in humans and other creatures.
Using similar feedback processes in machines of sufficient complexity, it might theoretically be possible to replicate consciousness.
We can take in information or knowledge subliminally, i.e., without being consciously aware of it. This can occur when our consciousness is at a low level, when it is distracted by more pressing concerns, or when the information does not appear to require a response. Such knowledge can also be reinforced subliminally through repetition. It can then affect our beliefs and, also, our behaviour when faced with a relevant situation.
Cognitive processing relies, of course, on knowledge. In my next post I will, therefore, discuss the nature of our knowledge.
References
Crick, F. & Koch, C., 2003. “A Framework for Consciousness”. March 2003, Nature Neuroscience 6(2):119-26. DOI:10.1038/nn0203-119.
Kahneman, D., 2011. “Thinking fast and Slow”. Macmillan. ISBN 978-1-4299-6935-2.
Libet, B., Gleason, C.A., Wright, E.W., Pearl, D.K., 1983. “Time of Conscious Intention to Act in Relation to Onset of Cerebral Activity (Readiness-Potential) – The Unconscious Initiation of a Freely Voluntary Act”. Brain. 106 (3): 623–642. doi:10.1093/brain/106.3.623. PMID 6640273.
Human needs motivate our actions and satisfiers are the goals that we seek to achieve. The knowledge that we hold affects our perception of these needs and of potential satisfiers. In this series of articles, I will discuss the nature of knowledge and how we acquire it.
Firstly, however, I would like to discuss consciousness. How sometimes we know what we know, and how sometimes we do not. Consciousness is a hotly debated subject and there is no consensus on how it came to exist. Some take the view that it is a divine gift, others that it is the very fabric of the universe, yet others that it is an emergent property of our complex brains. There is no proof for any of these, but the last best fits my personal knowledge and experience. So, this is what I will describe, beginning, in this article, with feedback loops and emergent properties. In the next article, I will describe how, in my view, these processes lead to consciousness.
Feedback Loops
A variable characteristic is a feature of objects or events to which a value can be applied. For example, all mountains have a height above sea level, but the height of Mount Everest is 8848 metres whilst that of Mont Blanc is 4808 metres. Feedback loops are circular chains of causally related objects or events, each with some variable characteristic.
In a feedback loop, a change in a variable characteristic of an object or event, the cause, alters a variable characteristic of another, the effect. In turn, the latter affects a variable characteristic of a third and so on. For example, A may cause an increase in B which in turn causes an increase in C, which in turn causes an increase in A. The classic example is a microphone placed in front of a loudspeaker. The microphone picks up a small sound which is then amplified and emitted more loudly by the loudspeaker. This in turn is picked up by the microphone, amplified again and emitted yet more loudly. This process continues until the system is emitting a deafening howl at its maximum volume.
This is an example of a positive feedback loop, i.e., one in which the variable characteristic of a component increases until the maximum capacity of the system is reached. Negative feedback loops also exist. In the latter case, rather than an increase in one component causing an increase in another, it causes a decrease and, as the circular chain of causation is acted out, the latter steadily diminishes until it is extinguished or becomes zero.
Finally, the combination of a positive feedback loop and a negative feedback loop can result in a system which stabilises the variable characteristic of a component at a particular value. If it increases above that value, the negative feedback loop reduces it and if it falls below that value the positive feedback loop increases it.
In their simplest form, feedback loops are often used in machinery. The image below shows how the governor of a steam engine keeps it operating at a constant speed. Click the link for a more detailed explanation.
In the natural world, feedback loops can be extremely complex and difficult to identify. A combination of several causes may be necessary for an effect to occur. For example, both an increase in A and a decrease in B may be necessary to cause an increase in D. Furthermore, the absence of an inhibitor C may also be required. In this more complex form, feedback loops proliferate in individuals, society, and the natural environment, where they play a major role in determining the behaviour of these systems.
Emergent Properties
An emergent property is a property of a system which is not held by its individual parts. Such emergent properties are probably caused by feedback loops. For example, it is clear that the deafening howl that the microphone, amplifier and loudspeaker produce is an emergent property of the system. None of these components can produce this effect on their own. Life is a collection of systems of increasing complexity, e.g., cells, multi-cellular organisms, societies of organisms and eco-systems. As the level of complexity increases it can be expected that feedback loops will occur and that system properties will emerge.
In my next article I will discuss the way that feedback loops help to explain the conscious and unconscious aspects of our minds.
Rational-Understanding.com 