Consciousness on/off switch?

For all intents and purposes, if something happens that only one person could possibly perceive, and they have absolutely no memory of it, it basically never happened.
 
I don’t see how this article changes the nature of the debate at all. We already knew that physical triggers like anesthesia result in ‘unconsciousness’. This demonstrates a correlation. It does not prove that the brain causes consciousness. What we have here is simply a more specific physical trigger (the claustrum). This does not show that the claustrum causes consciousness any more than anesthesia shows that the brain causes consciousness. No amount of compartmentalization in the brain will prove causality.
 
Last edited:
Peter Hankins covers this discovery at Conscious Entities

...New Scientist reported this as the discovery of the ‘on/off’ switch for consciousness; but that really doesn’t seem to be the claustrum’s function: there’s no reason at the moment to suppose it is involved in falling asleep, or anaesthesia, or other kinds of unconsciousness, The on/off idea seems more like a relatively desperate attempt to explain the discovery in layman’s terms, reminiscent of the all-purpose generic tabloid newspaper technology report in Michael Frayn’s The Tin Men:

"British scientists have developed a “magic box”, it was learned last night. The new wonder device was tested behind locked doors after years of research. Results were said to have exceeded expectations… …The device is switched on and off with a switch which works on the same principle as an ordinary domestic light switch…"

Actually, one of the most interesting things about the finding is that the state the patient entered did not resemble sleep or any of those other states; she did not collapse or close her eyes, but instantly stopped reading and became unresponsive – although if she had been asked to perform a repetitive task before stimulation started, she would continue for a few seconds before tailing off. On some occasions she uttered a few incoherent syllables unprompted. This does sound more novel and potentially more interesting than a mere on/off switch. She was unable to report what the experience was like as she had no memory of it afterwards – that squares with the idea that consciousness was entirely absent during stimulation, though it’s fair to note that part of her hippocampus, which has an important role in memory formation, had already been removed.

Could Crick and Koch now be vindicated? It seems likely in part: the claustrum seems at least to have some important role – but it’s not absolutely clear that it is a co-ordinating one. One of the long-running problems for consciousness has been the binding problem: how the different sensory inputs, processed and delivered at different speeds, somehow come together into a smoothly co-ordinated experience. It could be that the claustrum helps with this, though some further explanation would be needed. As a long shot, it might even be that the claustrum is part of the ‘Global Workspace’ of the mind hypothesised by Bernard Baars, an idea that is still regularly invoked and quoted.

But we must be cautious. All we really know is that stimulating the claustrum disrupted consciousness. That does not mean consciousness happens in the claustrum. If you blow up a major road junction near a car factory, production may cease, but it doesn’t mean that the junction was where the cars were manufactured. Looking at it sceptically we might note that since the claustrum is well connected it might provide an effective way of zapping several important areas at once, and it might be the function of one or more of these other areas that is essential to sustaining consciousness....
 
I don’t see how this article changes the nature of the debate at all. We already knew that physical triggers like anesthesia result in ‘unconsciousness’. This demonstrates a correlation. It does not prove that the brain causes consciousness. What we have here is simply a more specific physical trigger (the claustrum). This does not show that the claustrum causes consciousness any more than anesthesia shows that the brain causes consciousness. No amount of compartmentalization in the brain will prove causality.
And so how is the mind /= brain hypothesis falsifiable?

~~ Paul
 
And so how is the mind /= brain hypothesis falsifiable?

~~ Paul

Idealism might indeed be unfalsifiable. That does not mean that it's not correct. The true nature of reality might be unfalsifiable. I view idealism as the simplest explanation that can account for all known facts.

How is the existence of matter outside of mind falsifiable?
 
I don’t see how this article changes the nature of the debate at all. We already knew that physical triggers like anesthesia result in ‘unconsciousness’. This demonstrates a correlation. It does not prove that the brain causes consciousness. What we have here is simply a more specific physical trigger (the claustrum). This does not show that the claustrum causes consciousness any more than anesthesia shows that the brain causes consciousness. No amount of compartmentalization in the brain will prove causality.
The same applies to all of psi used as vindications the mind is not local.
 
Idealism might indeed be unfalsifiable. That does not mean that it's not correct. The true nature of reality might be unfalsifiable. I view idealism as the simplest explanation that can account for all known facts.

How is the existence of matter outside of mind falsifiable?
I don't think metaphysical models are falsifiable. I didn't ask about idealism, I asked about mind /= brain. That seems to be an empirical question for which proposals should be falsifiable. But no matter what we discover about the brain, some people will say that doesn't falsify mind /= brain. So not many scientists will pay attention. If people want someone to pay attention, they need positive evidence for mind /= brain.

~~ Paul
 
I don't think metaphysical models are falsifiable. I didn't ask about idealism, I asked about mind /= brain. That seems to be an empirical question for which proposals should be falsifiable.
I used idealism as an example because it seems to be the dominant mind =/ brain model in philosophical circles, but I would agree that mind =/ brain is unfalsifiable in dualist models as well. I don't see this as a valid reason to discount these models, because I think that materialist views of consciousness are also founded on unfalsifiable assumptions. If you hold that consciousness emerges from the physical brain then you are making the fundamental assumption that physical matter exists outside of mind. The belief in nonconscious matter is just as unfalsifiable as the view that consciousness is all there is.

So not many scientists will pay attention. If people want someone to pay attention, they need positive evidence for mind /= brain.
I can see why the burden of proof would be required from a proponent of substance dualism, because substance dualism requires the existence of consciousness and matter where as materialist models require only matter. Idealism on the other hand requires only consciousness. I think that idealism makes less fundamental assumptions than materialist models and can explain more of what we know. Why should the burden of proof be on the idealist?
 
I don’t see how this article changes the nature of the debate at all. We already knew that physical triggers like anesthesia result in ‘unconsciousness’. This demonstrates a correlation. It does not prove that the brain causes consciousness. What we have here is simply a more specific physical trigger (the claustrum). This does not show that the claustrum causes consciousness any more than anesthesia shows that the brain causes consciousness. No amount of compartmentalization in the brain will prove causality.

There are also people who have been born without the claustrum, and yet have some sort of conscious experience albeit they're extremely mentally handicapped.
 
There are also people who have been born without the claustrum, and yet have some sort of conscious experience albeit they're extremely mentally handicapped.

I'd be interested in a link to that... Crick & Koch mentioned in an earlier 2005 paper that there were no known people born without a claustrum, and without damage to surrounding structures...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1569501/pdf/rstb20051661.pdf

It's an interesting paper to read anyway. I haven't fully read it myself yet.
 
I'd be interested in a link to that... Crick & Koch mentioned in an earlier 2005 paper that there were no known people born without a claustrum, and without damage to surrounding structures...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1569501/pdf/rstb20051661.pdf

It's an interesting paper to read anyway. I haven't fully read it myself yet.

Sorry, should have clarified. The people who were born without it had only a brainstem, yet were conscious of sorts, but very mentally handicapped, they could not live independently and many died before reaching adulthood. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-Boy-born-brain-dies-3-year-miracle-life.html I know it's the daily mail, but it is still interesting.
 
Sorry, should have clarified. The people who were born without it had only a brainstem, yet were conscious of sorts, but very mentally handicapped, they could not live independently and many died before reaching adulthood. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-Boy-born-brain-dies-3-year-miracle-life.html I know it's the daily mail, but it is still interesting.

Thanks, I'll give it a read tonight before the match, and see if I can track down anything else with it.
 
Thanks, I'll give it a read tonight before the match, and see if I can track down anything else with it.

My pleasure. I was conversing with Johann about this, and he felt that this didn't really have anything to do with the hard problem. I give him full credit for alerting me to the cases of people in the above article.
 
Back
Top