意识的经验理论的硬性标准。

IF 2 4区 医学 Q3 NEUROSCIENCES Cognitive Neuroscience Pub Date : 2021-01-01 Epub Date: 2020-07-14 DOI:10.1080/17588928.2020.1772214
Adrien Doerig, Aaron Schurger, Michael H Herzog
{"title":"意识的经验理论的硬性标准。","authors":"Adrien Doerig,&nbsp;Aaron Schurger,&nbsp;Michael H Herzog","doi":"10.1080/17588928.2020.1772214","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Consciousness is now a well-established field of empirical research. A large body of experimental results has been accumulated and is steadily growing. In parallel, many Theories of Consciousness (ToCs) have been proposed. These theories are diverse in nature, ranging from computational to neurophysiological and quantum theoretical approaches. This contrasts with other fields of natural science, which host a smaller number of competing theories. We suggest that one reason for this abundance of extremely different theories may be the lack of stringent criteria specifying how empirical data constrains ToCs. First, we argue that consciousness is a well-defined topic from an empirical point of view and motivate a purely empirical stance on the quest for consciousness. Second, we present a checklist of criteria that, we propose, empirical ToCs need to cope with. Third, we review 13 of the most influential ToCs and subject them to the criteria. Our analysis helps to situate these different ToCs in the theoretical landscapeand sheds light on their strengths and weaknesses from a strictly empirical point of view.</p>","PeriodicalId":10413,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive Neuroscience","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17588928.2020.1772214","citationCount":"81","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Hard criteria for empirical theories of consciousness.\",\"authors\":\"Adrien Doerig,&nbsp;Aaron Schurger,&nbsp;Michael H Herzog\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/17588928.2020.1772214\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Consciousness is now a well-established field of empirical research. A large body of experimental results has been accumulated and is steadily growing. In parallel, many Theories of Consciousness (ToCs) have been proposed. These theories are diverse in nature, ranging from computational to neurophysiological and quantum theoretical approaches. This contrasts with other fields of natural science, which host a smaller number of competing theories. We suggest that one reason for this abundance of extremely different theories may be the lack of stringent criteria specifying how empirical data constrains ToCs. First, we argue that consciousness is a well-defined topic from an empirical point of view and motivate a purely empirical stance on the quest for consciousness. Second, we present a checklist of criteria that, we propose, empirical ToCs need to cope with. Third, we review 13 of the most influential ToCs and subject them to the criteria. Our analysis helps to situate these different ToCs in the theoretical landscapeand sheds light on their strengths and weaknesses from a strictly empirical point of view.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10413,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cognitive Neuroscience\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17588928.2020.1772214\",\"citationCount\":\"81\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cognitive Neuroscience\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/17588928.2020.1772214\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2020/7/14 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"NEUROSCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognitive Neuroscience","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17588928.2020.1772214","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/7/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 81

摘要

意识现在是一个成熟的实证研究领域。已经积累了大量的实验成果,并在不断发展壮大。与此同时,许多意识理论(ToCs)也被提出。这些理论在本质上是多种多样的,从计算到神经生理学和量子理论方法。这与自然科学的其他领域形成鲜明对比,后者拥有较少数量的相互竞争的理论。我们认为,出现如此多截然不同的理论的一个原因可能是缺乏严格的标准来规定经验数据如何约束toc。首先,我们认为,从经验的角度来看,意识是一个定义良好的主题,并激发了对意识追求的纯粹经验立场。其次,我们提出了一份标准清单,我们建议经验性toc需要处理这些标准。第三,我们审查了13个最具影响力的toc,并将其纳入标准。我们的分析有助于将这些不同的toc置于理论景观中,并从严格的实证角度阐明它们的优缺点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Hard criteria for empirical theories of consciousness.

Consciousness is now a well-established field of empirical research. A large body of experimental results has been accumulated and is steadily growing. In parallel, many Theories of Consciousness (ToCs) have been proposed. These theories are diverse in nature, ranging from computational to neurophysiological and quantum theoretical approaches. This contrasts with other fields of natural science, which host a smaller number of competing theories. We suggest that one reason for this abundance of extremely different theories may be the lack of stringent criteria specifying how empirical data constrains ToCs. First, we argue that consciousness is a well-defined topic from an empirical point of view and motivate a purely empirical stance on the quest for consciousness. Second, we present a checklist of criteria that, we propose, empirical ToCs need to cope with. Third, we review 13 of the most influential ToCs and subject them to the criteria. Our analysis helps to situate these different ToCs in the theoretical landscapeand sheds light on their strengths and weaknesses from a strictly empirical point of view.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Cognitive Neuroscience
Cognitive Neuroscience NEUROSCIENCES-
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
27
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Cognitive Neuroscience publishes high quality discussion papers and empirical papers on any topic in the field of cognitive neuroscience including perception, attention, memory, language, action, social cognition, and executive function. The journal covers findings based on a variety of techniques such as fMRI, ERPs, MEG, TMS, and focal lesion studies. Contributions that employ or discuss multiple techniques to shed light on the spatial-temporal brain mechanisms underlying a cognitive process are encouraged.
期刊最新文献
Visuo-spatial working memory abilities modulate mental rotation: Evidence from event-related potentials. Theoretical strategies for an embodied cognitive neuroscience: Mechanistic explanations of brain-body-environment systems. Beyond embodiment: Rethinking the integration of cognitive neuroscience and mechanistic explanations. Embodied (4EA) cognitive computational neuroscience. How to build a better 4E cognition.
×
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