A Non-hierarchical Model of Consciousness

by Dave Paulsen

dave@reststop.net

Copyright© 1991, all rights reserved

The Real Information Science

My theory of consciousness, both Conscious Mental Life (CML) and Conscious Mental Processes (CMP), is really one of Information Science (IS), and I think it's too bad the discipline of business has prior claim on the term IS. My usage of IS is a blend of cognitive psychology, neurophysiology, neuropsychology, neurophilosophy, and machine intelligence. All of these fields interpret events from a slightly different outlook, and all can present models of prediction, with various probabilities of success in differing circumstances. IS is primarily concerned with the linkages between these concepts when an informationally enriched environment is utilized by the dissipative structure that is a human being towards cognitive and social evolution.

Consciousness' function is to give us the ability to examine our environment and ourselves, see what we like, see what we think needs to be changed, seek answers to questions in the light of history, interpret the present, and plan for the future. The linkages are how it functions, i.e. nothing happens in isolation.

I use the term linkage instead of interface, or other synonym, in describing the interactions between the mind and the body, or the "causal history of an emotion and the intentional explanation," (Calhoun & Solomon, p.30) or any of the other dichotomies so often encountered in philosophical and psychological theories. Interface, to me, has too many connotations of purely electrical, or algorithmic program type connections in the transmission of information signals and routing details. (Even though we may be able to come up with algorithms for many of the CMPs.) Although the electrical signalling functions (nervous system) are important, so are the physical-mechanical movers and sensors (muscles, eyes, etc.), and the cognitive processes that interpret events and initiate action. Linkage takes into account the equal importance that all of the above processes have in a peer-to-peer network model (PNM), instead of the strict hierarchical relationship that so many other theories, like all reductionistic ones, put forth.

The Peer-to-Peer Network Model

The PNM often exhibits a "first among equals" relationship in the interactions between CMP, information, genetics, and the environment. Individual processes will make their own informational, analytical, or materialistic contributions in whichever proportion is appropriate in the circumstances. In certain restricted domains a hierarchical explanation can be useful, but it is more often the case that supervenience cannot be shown in the two-way linkages, or that it can be positively stated who or what occupies the top hierarchical spot--the master homunculus--in the makeup or explanation of an event or conscious mode. So it is not, as Flanagan states, ". . . more like a committee than a unified whole" (p.176), but a vast array of usually cooperating subsystems whose individual specialties take precedence according to circumstances.

One example of this would be Archimede's eureka event, or what Maslo calls a peak experience. The complex, chaotic milieu of one's experience and learning, the present mood, the individual degree of cognitive processing possible, an awareness of the physical environment and changes therein which lead to or cause a sudden understanding in the solution of a problem. Which of these could be said to occupy the top spot in a hierarchy?

Or take for example making love. The twin emotions of love and joy, the passion of lust, the sound, sight, and recognition-- the conscious and subconscious awareness--of the environment, the actual physical sensations of the various instances of body contact, climaxing in stimulation of the pleasure center of the brain and an extreme excitation of the entire nervous system. Mixed in with all of this is the increase in the feeling of bonding between two individuals, and the possibility of satisfying the survival instinct with the combination of two unique DNA structures in the formation of what may become a third, new and unique self. Or totally different combinations of some, all, or more of the above. But there is no hierarchy, and no mechanical determinism of sameness is either implied or generally possible.

The Role of Our Creations

Our technology, that which we have created through our conscious manipulation, also effects how we interpret ourselves. We have created tools that are extensions of portions of ourselves, and that help us exercise control of ourselves and our environment, and help us gain a further understanding of both. One of these tools is machine intelligence (MI) which is comprised of more than just the fields of computer science and robotics, even though the bulk of the research work is being done in them. In these two fields though, it is commonly known as Artificial Intelligence (AI). MI implies the total system, including the real world sensors and input devices, e.g. medical systems for surgery, imaging, and monitoring, or telecommunications switching systems and the phones they switch. The common public opinion of AI conjures up images of immensely powerful computers or humanoid robots, and MI encompasses so much more. The commonality is the binary, logical processing, whether von Neumann style or Parallel Distributed Processing (PDP), and the domain within which binary modeling is valid.

There is a certain portion of human thinking, or cognitive processing, that follows a logical, or binary pattern (I sometimes use these two words interchangeably, but follow the strict classical definitions of both in proofs and algorithms) in the minds method of computation and analysis, formal logic and mathematics being two examples. This portion of CMP is responsible for the developmental style of computers and computer programming. While this computational/analytical style is extremely effective, there are areas in human experience that do not lend themselves well to this style, and of those that do, we still have the theorems of Gödel and Heisenberg to contend with. Nevertheless, MI does give us many opportunities to model and test various theories of how the linkages and individual processes work, as well as being useful in practical applications like organizing term papers.

Conclusion

Did consciousness evolve as a way of helping us cope and adapt? Or was it always there waiting to be recognized and taken advantage of? The former seems to imply an empirical evolutionary model in that our experience makes us conscious, the latter a biological one in that it is part of our genetic makeup. I think the mechanisms that allow consciousness are a part of our biological makeup, in that consciousness is made possible with our brain structure. I also believe that the linkage of the organism with its environment causes both evolutionary biological changes, and further utilization and understanding of the conscious-unconscious mind.

Perhaps the DNA algorithm itself--the genetic program--while also specifying the biological parts of the brain and other parts of the body, is in and of itself consciousness, in that the overall DNA chain, with its individual chromosomes, lead to, or cause, consciousness. In other words, it's not that there is a particular chromosomal pair that can be said to be "consciousness," but the entire DNA chain allows the arisal of consciousness in the individual. When all the pieces are put together, consciousness is the name applied. It is our awareness and/or use of the linkages between CMPs and the information from the environment that is the phenomenon known as consciousness.

We take advantage of and enhance our genetic endowment, our social structures, and our experience in a PNM of conscious- unconscious awareness.

Questions or comments about these Web pages? Send e-mail to
dave@reststop.net