Rethinking Consciousness: A Scientific Theory of Subjective Experience
- Downloads：3352
- Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
- Create Date：2021-06-11 08:51:41
- Update Date：2025-09-06
- Status：finish
- Author：Michael S.A. Graziano
- ISBN：0393541347
- Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
- Download
Summary
Illuminating his groundbreaking theory of consciousness， known as the attention schema theory， Michael S。 A。 Graziano traces the evolution of the mind over millions of years， with examples from the natural world， to show how neurons first allowed animals to develop simple forms of attention and then to construct awareness of the external world and of the self。 His theory has fascinating implications for the future: it may point the way to engineers for building consciousness artificially， and even someday taking the natural consciousness of a person and uploading it into a machine for a digital afterlife。
Reviews
Rucsandra Tudoran
，
3，5 ✨
Alexey Efimik
，
Скучная книга。 Ничего особенного или нового автор не рассказывает。
Jeff
，
Meh lolA decently crafted ride into the mind and theories of consciousness with focus on attention schema。。 Interesting stuff， but I imagine I may not be intended audience。。。found myself bored and wondering if I should instead seek out the scientific journal publications， as well as wanting to go back to Oliver Sacks， as well as a reread of Ezra Clayton Daniels’ Upgrade Soul
Julie
，
i feel smart for having read thisi miss philosophy sometimes！i was very convinced that he got rid of hard problem even tho i don't have any other knowledge with which i can evaluate his claimsi liked the stuff about octopi that study about how we think eye beams exist was crazy （the tipping water glass）the bit about how unconscious machines are more dangerous than conscious machines。。。 makes so much sensethe last chapter about uploading minds i guess followed from him establishing that hard prob i feel smart for having read thisi miss philosophy sometimes！i was very convinced that he got rid of hard problem even tho i don't have any other knowledge with which i can evaluate his claimsi liked the stuff about octopi that study about how we think eye beams exist was crazy （the tipping water glass）the bit about how unconscious machines are more dangerous than conscious machines。。。 makes so much sensethe last chapter about uploading minds i guess followed from him establishing that hard problem doesn't exist --> therefore we can make conscious machines --> therefore we can upload minds but it was kinda randombut it was fun to read him having fun with speculationi wonder what his fiction is like 。。。more
Dave Summers
，
Graziano writes for a non-academic audience （thank God）， and his easy conversational style powers through some pretty dense conceptual/theoretical thinking。 The end result has obviously acted as fodder for many a popular sci-fi novel， comic book， or even streaming service series on related topics。 It got me thinking about how are brains are being rewired in this brave new world of smart phones， work-at-home， zoom conversations/meetings。 Highly recommended！
Connor Hourihane
，
Interesting read， I think if you haven't got a background in science then it can be hard to follow。 Interesting read， I think if you haven't got a background in science then it can be hard to follow。 。。。more
Vladan Stojanović
，
Enjoyable elaboration of the attention schema theory of consciousness in the first half of the book， but goes off the rails into futurism and speculation in the second half。
Katia N
，
Michael Graziano is a neuroscientist at Princeton university。 Before moving to consciousness， he was involved in the development of so-called body schema。 Body schema is a simulation model the brain uses to predict and control body movements。 The idea of body schema is well known and widely used in engineering， for example in development of driverless cars and many other things。 His theory of consciousness is the logical extension of this idea。 I do not know much about neuroscience。 But i am the Michael Graziano is a neuroscientist at Princeton university。 Before moving to consciousness， he was involved in the development of so-called body schema。 Body schema is a simulation model the brain uses to predict and control body movements。 The idea of body schema is well known and widely used in engineering， for example in development of driverless cars and many other things。 His theory of consciousness is the logical extension of this idea。 I do not know much about neuroscience。 But i am the targeted audience for this book as it is written for a general public。 After reading it， I am bit sceptical of this theory。 It might be me， or problem with the theory， or simply the way how this book is written。 In one sentence， I think it seems a bit premature to write a book for general audience based upon the amount of unknowns in the theory。 The theory is based on two fundamental assumptions:1） our brain is an information-processing machine。 Only thing it does is computation。 This word is not specifically defined in the text。 But if we use Alan Turing’s definition， then the power assigned to the brain seems to be somewhat limited。 2） “It take a statement of fundamental logic that an information processing machine cannot make a claim it cannot output information unless it contains the information that it is claiming。” I was not sure totally what it meant as it could be interpreted very reductively and vice versa。 He explained a bit more: “We cannot just hope adding complexity would make machine claim it consciousness。” Well。 Many theories actually count that yes we can hope exactly that。 And the emergent properties of a system is well established concept。 There is for example Integrated Information Theory （ITT）。 But those are two main assumptions he starts with as I understood。 Again， they are not mentioned at the beginning but spread around and repeated in the text。 Anyway， if we assume these things， then his theory would be that consciousness is a simulation or a “cartoon” our brain plays for us to be able to control our attention。 Attention is the electrical process of inhibition and passing through the signals in the brain。 We do not need to know all of this while getting attracted to something， so instead we have a simulation played by our brain。 This simulation is called attention schema internal model。 Again the word “model” is not defined in this context。 But my understanding is that brain plays this model of itself and that what makes us experience anything subjectively。 Confused？ I am not surprised。 I could then speculate that this model would give rise to a similar model within it which would give rise to a similar modern again recursively etc etc。。 Ok， I know。 I am just not clever enough to avoid the irony。And Graziano does not help that much。 I parsed a few passages from his book to show what I mean。 Here what he says:“Now， finally， we reach the central proposal of the theory。 My colleagues and I propose that the cortical attention schema has a particular form。 The information within it provides a cartoonish account of how the highest levels of cortical attention take possession of items。 There is no simple， physical， roving eyeball， as in the case of overt attention。 Instead， that cartoonish account describes an essence that has no specific physical substance but that has a location vaguely inside you， that can take temporary possession of items—of apples and sounds and thoughts and memories—and that restlessly moves about， searching， seizing some items and dropping others。 When that ethereal mental essence takes hold of an item， it has the property of making the item clear to you， real to you， vividly present—in other words， it turns the item into an experience。 It also has powerful consequences。 It enables you to understand the item， to respond to it， to talk about it， or to remember it so that you can choose to act on it later。 It empowers you to react。 That amorphous power inside you is a fictionalized， detail-poor account of cortical attention。” So “etherial mental essence” then？ What is the difference between this and the classical dualism？And one more lengthy passage in which he summarises his theory in 5 points: “The attention schema theory of consciousness has some inevitability to its logic。 First， we know that the cortex uses covert attention。 Second， we know that it needs to control that attention。 Third， we know that the brain must have an internal model of attention in order to control that attention。” - how do we know this and why？ For me it is not obvious that it should be some model。 And if yes， in which form this model is presented in the brain？ It is not even obvious what part of the attention needs to become conscious。 I have not found the answers。Fourth， we know that a detailed， fully accurate internal model is at best wasteful and at worst harmful to the process， and so， this internal model of attention would necessarily leave out the mechanistic details。 Therefore， and fifth， an attention schema would depict the self as containing an amorphous， nonphysical， internal power， an ability to know， to experience， and to respond， a roving mental focus—the essence of covert attention without the underpinning details。 How that “therefore bit follows”？ It does not for me。 If we are machines we do not need nonphysical， amorphous stories of self。 Is it not “wasteful at best and harmful at worst” as well？ All of this seems to be redundant and not efficient。“From first principles， if you had to build a well-functioning brain that had a powerful， cortical style of covert attention， you would build a machine that， drawing on the information constructed within it， would assert that it has a nonphysical consciousness。 That cortical machine， of course， would not know that its subjective conscious experience is a construct or a simplification。 It would take the nonphysical nature of conscious experience as a reality， because—somewhat tautologically—the brain knows only what it knows。 It is captive to its own information。” - well， it might logically follow， but i am sorry for our brains who keep captive themselves。 In his defence， I would tell that he has identified two useful features of the consciousness: 1） better internal control of the attention; 2） social aspect in understanding other conscious beings。 But these two features I would argue are sufficiently independent from his specific “internal schema” theory and would apply to any other theories with the same level of success。It would be jolly good if the place of this schema-model inside of the brain would be identified by science。 Then I would share the celebration。 But solar， this is only hypotheses。 He mentions some specific places， but it has not been confirmed as far as I understood。 Another way of testing is of course is to build a similar artificial machine。 After some pondering about Turing test， Graziano finally suggest this as the most objective testing。 But here， it seems， anything vaguely resembling some level of real life complexity is far away。 He acknowledged for example， that we do not know much about emotions to model them sensibly in silicon。 The most useful bit of the book was actually the Appendix where he has shown how he would design a primitive machine with only visual awareness。 I would recommend to read this bit first and see whether you would be interested to read the whole book after that。 I certainly would not。 His machine includes three parts: visual recognition representing an object。 He likes an apple; the module representing the knowledge about the machine （I understand it is a sort of ‘self-awareness” bit）。 And the third which is his schema which would relate the first two to each other。 But this third one for whatever reason would make the machine think in metaphysical terms。 It would do so because it would be loaded with the related input。 One thing i struggle with why would this be a subjective experience in a way we understand it。 And why i would want to tell a machine something metaphysical if i could use one relational verb to program a connection。 But alas， the machine is just a design even like that。 So too early to ask probably。As a bonus， we are treated to a whole lengthy chapter about the possibility， not very remote for the immortality by coping the brains into something more lasting than a body and creating a virtual reality for those brains。 He says 50 years and some of his pals say within a decade。 Well， it was jolly interesting。 But it was not related to the topic I was reading the book for。In general， I’ve learned a thing or two about neuroscience， but his theory seem to be not too different from pure illusionism or so called Global Workspace Theory。 The last one is much better established。 He recognises it。 And he did not convinced me that he adds something substantial at this stage。 I hope he would come up with the successful testing program and then we will see。 。。。more
James Vitarius
，
One of the best written books about the biologic underpinnings of consciousness in terms of accessibility。 As it made me question my current understanding of what consciousness even is， reading the book was a bit mind-boggling。 This was unsettling at first， but in the end proved to be intellectually stimulating。 A must-read for those interested in the subject。
Cook Memorial Public Library
，
A 2019 staff pick recommended by Rob。 Check our catalog: https://encore。cooklib。org/iii/encore。。。 A 2019 staff pick recommended by Rob。 Check our catalog: https://encore。cooklib。org/iii/encore。。。 。。。more
Kevin
，
I was predisposed to like the author's theory of where consciousness came from and， perhaps showing a little confirmation bias， enjoyed reading with someone who could confirm my educated musings。 I don't know enough about neuroscience to comment on the accuracy of Graziano's descriptions of how the brain processes visual information but I found it easy to follow and convincing。I deducted a full star for the weird musings about trans-humanism and AI at the end。 I was predisposed to like the author's theory of where consciousness came from and， perhaps showing a little confirmation bias， enjoyed reading with someone who could confirm my educated musings。 I don't know enough about neuroscience to comment on the accuracy of Graziano's descriptions of how the brain processes visual information but I found it easy to follow and convincing。I deducted a full star for the weird musings about trans-humanism and AI at the end。 。。。more
Steve
，
Pretty good book， except the last couple chapters。 Most of the book is a brief but good explanation of his theory of consciousness and attention， which I had seen before in a previous book of his， but the explanations here were simplified and easier to understand。 But I wasn’t impressed by the last couple chapters — speculation about the possibilities of artificial consciousness and even worse about the possibilities of mind-uploading。 These chapters should have been left out of the book。 Howeve Pretty good book， except the last couple chapters。 Most of the book is a brief but good explanation of his theory of consciousness and attention， which I had seen before in a previous book of his， but the explanations here were simplified and easier to understand。 But I wasn’t impressed by the last couple chapters — speculation about the possibilities of artificial consciousness and even worse about the possibilities of mind-uploading。 These chapters should have been left out of the book。 However， don’t skip the appendix！ It’s a great brief summary of the way his theory of consciousness and attention （as outlined in the good first 7 chapters） could be used to set up a rudimentary computer prototype of his theory。 。。。more
Kalyan Turaga
，
This book answers my questions on consciousness from engineering stand point。 I want to read this book again as I felt one reading is not enough。 I wish charlatans like Deepak Chopra reads this book and stops fooling with his mumbo-jumbo。I want my kids to read this book to understand what can be achieved and what cannot be achieved wrt consciousness and what would be the holy grail of consciousness。Good and honest attempt by the author to make reader understand what could be consciousness and wh This book answers my questions on consciousness from engineering stand point。 I want to read this book again as I felt one reading is not enough。 I wish charlatans like Deepak Chopra reads this book and stops fooling with his mumbo-jumbo。I want my kids to read this book to understand what can be achieved and what cannot be achieved wrt consciousness and what would be the holy grail of consciousness。Good and honest attempt by the author to make reader understand what could be consciousness and why it’s difficult from many aspects。 Thank you for enriching my concept of consciousness。 。。。more
Teo 2050
，
2020。01。10–2020。01。11ContentsGraziano MSA （2019） （06:29） Rethinking Consciousness - A Scientific Theory of Subjective Experience1。 The Elephant in the Room2。 Crabs and Octopuses3。 The Central Intelligence of a Frog4。 The Cerebral Cortex and Consciousness5。 Social Consciousness6。 Yoda and Darth: How Can We Find Consciousness in the Brain？7。 The Hard Problem and Other Perspectives on Consciousness• The Hard Problem and the Meta-Problem• Illusions and Metaphors• Phantom Limbs• The Global Workspace 2020。01。10–2020。01。11ContentsGraziano MSA （2019） （06:29） Rethinking Consciousness - A Scientific Theory of Subjective Experience1。 The Elephant in the Room2。 Crabs and Octopuses3。 The Central Intelligence of a Frog4。 The Cerebral Cortex and Consciousness5。 Social Consciousness6。 Yoda and Darth: How Can We Find Consciousness in the Brain？7。 The Hard Problem and Other Perspectives on Consciousness• The Hard Problem and the Meta-Problem• Illusions and Metaphors• Phantom Limbs• The Global Workspace and the Consciousness Kraken• Higher-Order Thought• Attention and Awareness• Integrated Information8。 Conscious Machines9。 Uploading MindsAppendix: How to Build Visual ConsciousnessNotesIndex 。。。more
Łukasz Stafiniak
，
I'm conflicted between 2 and 3 stars: it seems to me， this book does not add anything new to his earlier book （except a better narrator on Audible）。 It might even be worse than the earlier book， it's more explicitly targeting the lay-person。 The treatment of brain uploading at the end was rather lame。 I'm conflicted between 2 and 3 stars: it seems to me， this book does not add anything new to his earlier book （except a better narrator on Audible）。 It might even be worse than the earlier book， it's more explicitly targeting the lay-person。 The treatment of brain uploading at the end was rather lame。 。。。more
Darren Bell
，
I found this book to be a wonderful read。 I'm an absolute newcomer when it comes to both theories of consciousness and neuroscience， but I found Rethinking Consciousness eminently readable， with ample analogies to explain what are clearly very complex ideas based on solid and detailed science。 The copious notes in the back of the book essentially functions as a bibliography which feels like it cites enough of a breath of research that it could function as a good guide through the hard science an I found this book to be a wonderful read。 I'm an absolute newcomer when it comes to both theories of consciousness and neuroscience， but I found Rethinking Consciousness eminently readable， with ample analogies to explain what are clearly very complex ideas based on solid and detailed science。 The copious notes in the back of the book essentially functions as a bibliography which feels like it cites enough of a breath of research that it could function as a good guide through the hard science and philosophy which Graziano based his theory on， for anyone wanting to do more serious reading on consciousness。 The appendix contains a brief outline， or schematic， of a practical way to build visual consciousness， which I found nicely sums up the thesis of the book， and could potentially function as a quick refresher for any reader who wants to recall the gist of the attention schema theory later on in life， without having to reread this whole book。All in all， I found this book entertaining， informative， easy to read， clear， and a thrilling intellectual escapade into cutting edge science。 It will be wonderful to see if anything comes from this intriguing theory of consciousness in the years to come。 。。。more
Armen Shirvanian
，
This book describes another way to think about consciousness， through attention schema theory。My podcast episode with the author:http://www。armenshirvanian。com/podcas。。。 This book describes another way to think about consciousness， through attention schema theory。My podcast episode with the author:http://www。armenshirvanian。com/podcas。。。 。。。more
Jessica Zu
，
A conscious being explains that consciousness is only an illusion 。。。 somehow reminds me of a liar claims he is not a liar。
David
，
While this book didn't bowl me over nearly as much as the author's "Consciousness and the Social Brain，" it was a nice and probably much more mass-audience-accessible vision of his attention model of consciousness。 This core idea， that consciousness is rooted in the model we create of the attention of others （and by inference of ourselves）， is inescapably part of how I view my thoughts and sense of self now。 And while so much of the consciousness debate seems to try to pull at what makes humans While this book didn't bowl me over nearly as much as the author's "Consciousness and the Social Brain，" it was a nice and probably much more mass-audience-accessible vision of his attention model of consciousness。 This core idea， that consciousness is rooted in the model we create of the attention of others （and by inference of ourselves）， is inescapably part of how I view my thoughts and sense of self now。 And while so much of the consciousness debate seems to try to pull at what makes humans unique， I love the connection this creates with our deep animal roots。 "I suggest that consciousness is an ancient part of theory of mind，" he writes。 "it is a simple， efficient model that is used to make predictions about the behavior of animals and evolved long before humans。" 。。。more
Juan Pablo
，
While this book presents a pretty cool theory of the inner workings of our brains and attention， I often found myself frustrated at the apparent naivete with which the author repeatedly makes grandiose claims about having solved the hard problem of consciousness。Some of the claims that I found unfounded （not actual literal quotes）:- "Having a rich attention schema that enables a human or machine to conclude 'I am conscious' is the same as being conscious。" Having a belief that you are conscious While this book presents a pretty cool theory of the inner workings of our brains and attention， I often found myself frustrated at the apparent naivete with which the author repeatedly makes grandiose claims about having solved the hard problem of consciousness。Some of the claims that I found unfounded （not actual literal quotes）:- "Having a rich attention schema that enables a human or machine to conclude 'I am conscious' is the same as being conscious。" Having a belief that you are conscious is not equivalent to actually being conscious。 Maybe someday we will find that this is true， but， in the meantime， we cannot take this claim as true。 It seems likely that other animals， e。g。， dogs， are also conscious， while not knowing that they are （a fact that the author points out himself， and then seems to immediately forget）。- "The claim 'I know I am conscious because I have direct experience of it' is circular reasoning"。 No， it is not。 This is a tautology， not circular reasoning， since this perhaps the best definition of consciousness we have。 Throughout the book， the author seems to confuse several possible definitions of the word consciousness: 1） Having an experience， 2） Having self-awareness， 3） Being explicitly （i。e。， consciously） aware of something。 For purposes of the hard problem， definition 1） is the important one， and it is hardly touched upon in this book- "If we can look into a machine and see its attention schema and other inner workings， we can objectively decide whether it is conscious or not"。 Again， seems like the author confuses having the mechanistic belief 'I am conscious' with actually being conscious。There are many more cases like this throughout the book。 I do like this book and the info it presents， I just wish it did not repeatedly make the unfounded jump from "I have a cool theory about how attention and self-representation work in the brain" to "And obviously that explains how we have an inner experience of the world" 。。。more
Sam
，
This is a fairly lay version of an introduction to Graziano's attention schema theory of consciousness， which is easy to follow and good for introductory readers。 The simplification is well drawn， but does not go into depth or provide strong enough arguments for competing theories。 I lost my interest over the last chapters concerned with whether machines can or will have consciousness and whether there is or when there will be the possibility of uploading human consciousness to another vehicle。 This is a fairly lay version of an introduction to Graziano's attention schema theory of consciousness， which is easy to follow and good for introductory readers。 The simplification is well drawn， but does not go into depth or provide strong enough arguments for competing theories。 I lost my interest over the last chapters concerned with whether machines can or will have consciousness and whether there is or when there will be the possibility of uploading human consciousness to another vehicle。 These are interesting questions but best decided in science fiction till an agreed upon definition of consciouness exists。 。。。more
Jerry Baird
，
An interesting read， but in the end， he told us the truth and I still know little about consciousness。 From millions of years ago to today， the brain has been built and rebuilt to address our awareness of the world and the things around us。 His assumptions of the attention schema theory is quite interesting and more should be done with research today （as he suggests） to present further evidence of the experiments and research of the past and today。 I was quite entertained in trying to compare ne An interesting read， but in the end， he told us the truth and I still know little about consciousness。 From millions of years ago to today， the brain has been built and rebuilt to address our awareness of the world and the things around us。 His assumptions of the attention schema theory is quite interesting and more should be done with research today （as he suggests） to present further evidence of the experiments and research of the past and today。 I was quite entertained in trying to compare neural networks of the mind to that of trying to replicate in technology and artificial intelligence。 The problems of uploading the mind into AI will bring about a totally different set of survival characteristics for mankind in the years to come。 Far too distant in the future to allow myself to consider such a process。 Since the human brain contains about 86 billion neurons and 100 trillion synapses （connectivity and memory） ， it will take quite a bit of calculations to address the self in a machine environment which is not available today。 Interesting and quite thrilling in thinking about the future and artificial intelligence。 I recommend this book to anyone who is interested n finding more about the self， consciousness， and what it all means。 。。。more
Noah
，
Very interesting and thought provoking！ A nice follow up to Fall， or Dodge in hell by Neal Stephenson。
Roy Kenagy
，
CENTRAL 153 G EXAMINED 11/04/2019 READ2
Ben Eckart
，
A famous neuroscientist provides a concise "engineering" description of consciousness based on the following assumption: Any information-processing machine cannot make a claim-- it cannot output information-- unless it contains the information that it is claiming。Of course， inherent in this assumption is that the human brain is an information-processing machine （which might be controversial to some people）。 However， I think the author's arguments are so neatly well-grounded and with all prio A famous neuroscientist provides a concise "engineering" description of consciousness based on the following assumption: Any information-processing machine cannot make a claim-- it cannot output information-- unless it contains the information that it is claiming。Of course， inherent in this assumption is that the human brain is an information-processing machine （which might be controversial to some people）。 However， I think the author's arguments are so neatly well-grounded and with all prior assumptions laid bare that if you accept the premise， the author's conclusions necessarily must follow。 Consciousness must be the result of neural circuitry that helps you model and direct your attention， and subjective experience must seem metaphysical， because you have no additional neural circuitry to think of it any other way。 That is， you have no direct access to the knowledge and workings of your actual neurons-- your raw， objective， information processing capabilities。 Instead， you must rely on a meta-cognitive "attention schema" that is necessarily a crude model of your own （extremely complex） mental states。 But， given that this attention schema too must be comprised of neural circuitry that operates through its own objective neural information processing， any attempt to model subjective experience as anything but a metaphysical "feeling" will fail-- we simply don't have the information contained within us to be able to make any claim otherwise。 。。。more
Ryan DL
，
The author presents a materialistic and relatively instructive theory of consciousness: a mechanism to controlling attention。 His makes falsifiable predictions and other interesting conclusions （like that all mammals have some form of a subjective conscious experience）。 Recommended for anyone interested in machine learning。
Chad Gayle
，