Global Versus Local Theories of Consciousness and the Consciousness Assessment Issue in Brain Organoids

IF 2.6 4区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS Neuroethics Pub Date : 2024-01-27 DOI:10.1007/s12152-024-09544-7
Maxence Gaillard
{"title":"Global Versus Local Theories of Consciousness and the Consciousness Assessment Issue in Brain Organoids","authors":"Maxence Gaillard","doi":"10.1007/s12152-024-09544-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Any attempt at consciousness assessment in organoids requires careful consideration of the theory of consciousness that researchers will rely on when performing this task. In cognitive neuroscience and the clinic, there are tools and theories used to detect and measure consciousness, typically in human beings, but none of them is neither fully consensual nor fit for the biological characteristics of organoids. I discuss the existing attempt relying on the Integrated Information Theory and its models and tools. Then, I revive the distinction between global theories of consciousness and local theories of consciousness as a thought-provoking one for those engaged in the difficult task of adapting models of consciousness to the biological reality of brain organoids. The “microconsciousness theory” of Semir Zeki is taken as an exploratory path and illustration of a theory defending that minimal networks can support a form of consciousness. I suggest that the skepticism prevailing in the neuroscience community regarding the possibility of organoid consciousness relies on some assumptions related to a globalist account of consciousness and that other accounts are worth exploring at this stage.</p>","PeriodicalId":49255,"journal":{"name":"Neuroethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neuroethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-024-09544-7","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Any attempt at consciousness assessment in organoids requires careful consideration of the theory of consciousness that researchers will rely on when performing this task. In cognitive neuroscience and the clinic, there are tools and theories used to detect and measure consciousness, typically in human beings, but none of them is neither fully consensual nor fit for the biological characteristics of organoids. I discuss the existing attempt relying on the Integrated Information Theory and its models and tools. Then, I revive the distinction between global theories of consciousness and local theories of consciousness as a thought-provoking one for those engaged in the difficult task of adapting models of consciousness to the biological reality of brain organoids. The “microconsciousness theory” of Semir Zeki is taken as an exploratory path and illustration of a theory defending that minimal networks can support a form of consciousness. I suggest that the skepticism prevailing in the neuroscience community regarding the possibility of organoid consciousness relies on some assumptions related to a globalist account of consciousness and that other accounts are worth exploring at this stage.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
意识的全局理论与局部理论以及脑器官组织中的意识评估问题
要对生物体进行意识评估,研究人员就必须仔细考虑执行这项任务时所依据的意识理论。在认知神经科学和临床中,有一些工具和理论用于检测和测量意识,通常是在人类身上,但没有一种工具和理论是完全一致的,也不适合有机体的生物特性。我将讨论现有的以综合信息论及其模型和工具为基础的尝试。然后,我重新提出了全局意识理论和局部意识理论之间的区别,这对于那些从事使意识模型适应大脑有机体生物学现实这一艰巨任务的人来说,是一个发人深省的问题。塞米尔-泽基(Semir Zeki)的 "微意识理论 "是一种探索性的路径,也是捍卫最小网络能够支持意识形式的理论的例证。我认为,神经科学界对类器官意识的可能性普遍持怀疑态度,这依赖于与意识的整体论相关的一些假设,而其他说法在现阶段值得探讨。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Neuroethics
Neuroethics MEDICAL ETHICS-
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
7.10%
发文量
31
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Neuroethics is an international, peer-reviewed journal dedicated to academic articles on the ethical, legal, political, social and philosophical questions provoked by research in the contemporary sciences of the mind and brain; especially, but not only, neuroscience, psychiatry and psychology. The journal publishes articles on questions raised by the sciences of the brain and mind, and on the ways in which the sciences of the brain and mind illuminate longstanding debates in ethics and philosophy.
期刊最新文献
Responding to existential distress at the end of life: Psychedelics and psychedelic experiences and/ as medicine Deep Brain Stimulation for Consciousness Disorders; Technical and Ethical Considerations Neurorights, Mental Privacy, and Mind Reading A Transformative Trip? Experiences of Psychedelic Use The Reliability Challenge to Moral Intuitions
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1