Will there be a neuroscientific theory of consciousness?
M Kurthen, T Grunwald, C E Elger
Trends in cognitive sciences June 1, 1998 DOI: 10.1016/s1364-6613(98)01173-5 via PubMed
Summary
AI-generated from the abstractThe explanatory gap between brain processes and phenomenal consciousness may be resolvable if consciousness is understood as a non-intrinsic, description-dependent property. The author argues that neither current neuroscience nor philosophy alone can bridge this gap, but that new neuroscientific descriptions could change the features of consciousness itself, making the gap disappear. Neuroscientists should continue studying neural correlates of consciousness rather than trying to refute the gap argument.
Study at a glance
| Characteristics | Theoretical or philosophical paper Peer reviewed |
|---|---|
| Citations | 20 |
| Key finding | The explanatory gap between brain and consciousness may be resolved by construing consciousness as a description-dependent, non-intrinsic property, allowing neuroscientific descriptions to change the features of consciousness itself. |
Abstract
Neuroscientists and philosophers nowadays claim that the problem of phenomenal consciousness is a scientific problem. Increasing knowledge of the neural correlates of consciousness is expected to yield an explanation of consciousness in neuroscientific terms. On the other hand, it is sometimes argued that even complete knowledge of brain function will leave unanswered the question of why cerebral processes are accompanied by consciousness at all. Proponents of this view assume an unbridgeable `explanatory gap' between the brain and the whole realm of phenomenal consciousness. Here, it is argued that this `explanatory gap' problem can not adequately be met by current neuroscientific approaches to consciousness, while purely philosophical approaches remain controversial because they inevitably reach a level of contradictory intuitions that do not seem to be resolvable by further argument. However, the problem may be resolved once one accepts that the features of consciousness itself might change with our judgments and descriptions of consciousness inspired by neuroscience. Such a `change of consciousness' becomes realistic when consciousness is construed as a description-dependent, `non-intrinsic' property[1]. Hence, it is argued that neuroscientists are right not to try to refute the explanatory gap argument, but that they should continue research on the neural correlates of consciousness, thus preparing new descriptions of phenomenal consciousness.