A COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS ON THE ORIGINS OF CONSCIOUSNESS

A Comprehensive Analysis on the Origins of Consciousness

A COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS ON THE ORIGINS OF CONSCIOUSNESS Abstract This paper encompasses the controversial issues stemming from human consciousness in the fields of Cognitive Psychology and neuroscience. As a result, it first illustrates what consciousness is while addressing its closely related topic, the Binding Problem. Using this information as a foundation, this paper then explores four experts theories/viewpoints on how

consciousness arises and mentions critiques of their work, as well. The four experts, though their field backgrounds differ, are: John Searle, Francis Crick, Gerald Edelman, and Daniel Dennett, respectively. Bearing all the research in mind, I ultimately present my own theory on the origins of consciousness as well as offer a solution to the Binding problem. Keywords or Phrases: Consciousness, single unified experience, Binding Problem, stimuli, perception, encoding, Qualia, A.I. (Artificial Intelligence), dualism, materialism, etc.

A COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS ON THE ORIGINS OF CONSCIOUSNESS A Comprehensive Analysis on the Origins of Consciousness

Consciousness At this very moment you are conscious. Right now, your brain is rapidly processing the mass of stimuli in your environment and encoding it as information into each of its respective regions. The simple sensation of this paper on your fingertips, the light intensity around you, the contrast of black and white on this page even the sound of pen on paper are all stimuli that your brain is recognizing in real time. But this alone isnt consciousness. What makes you conscious is your awareness and subsequent interaction with these stimuli. This is exhibited through your thoughts about this very topic, being aware of your time constraints, even the feelings you get according to the stimuli (Smith & Kosslyn, 2007, p. 4). But merely proving that you are conscious is not nearly as important as understanding how the human consciousness arises. This is conceivably difficult, because this topic in Psychology is still an inexact science- thus the reason for this paper. Raymond Cattell put it so simply, psychology is a more tricky field, in which even outstanding authorities have been known to run in circles (2009, p. 2). Still, researchers have some promising leads that point us in the direction of certainty. But first, it helps to consider human consciousness as a single, unified experience. By effect, the touch of this paper, the light and images that youre currently processing, and the conscious thoughts that you have are ultimately perceived as a whole. So with the goal of explaining the origins of consciousness, its impossible to begin without discussing the obvious gap between these variously unique stimuli and their relation to consciousness, being that it is a single unified experience (Williams, 1997). How do we combine them as a whole?

A COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS ON THE ORIGINS OF CONSCIOUSNESS The Binding Problem

This said gap is so widely studied that it has been duly named the Binding Problem. Human consciousness relates directly to this problem in particular, as the two are conducive to each other. In order to deduce how consciousness arises, we need to first recognize the limitations of our knowledge of the brain (Plate, 2007). Researchers are at a loss to definitively answer the Binding Problem, but its solution awaits in the question: How or where in the brain do varying characteristics of stimuli (such as color, shape, sound, etc.) combine so that we recognize them as unified? In other words, youre reading a research paper; but the question posed is how do you come to perceive this as an essay and not a simple object with certain shapes, texture, and colors? Despite this notorious obstacle in Psychology, theres more to recognize by using alternative approaches. Through a top-down perspective, it is given that the brain has separate regions dedicated to different tasks. One region processes the form of an object, whereas others process shape and color (Smith & Kosslyn, 2007, pp. 211-214). As a result, this poses a second, complementary question: how does the unity of our conscious experience emerge from the widely separate processing regions in the brain? Because of the brains affinity for mystery and complexity, there are many different theories out there to explain the Binding Problem- some of which will be analyzed and critiqued. (Williams, 1997) Method Although there are no proven answers to the questions posed in the binding problem, the solution, itself, ties its importance to my task of understanding how consciousness arises. How can one explain consciousness without understanding what we are conscious of? Provided that I am no expert on this topic, a close analysis of the theories and viewpoints of credible researchers on the origins of Consciousness should lead me to develop my own, personal theory of consciousness, as well as a possible solution to these questions that remain unanswered.

A COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS ON THE ORIGINS OF CONSCIOUSNESS John Searle on Consciousness

John Searles book, The Mystery of Consciousness, is a great tool for understanding consciousness, as well as how society and certain experts come to mistake it. The differing expert theories will come soon enough, but one of Searles points is to first dispel the lingering beliefs of dualism and materialism (Searle, 1997). In terms of dualism, the idea that two entities coexist separately, our culture has applied this separatism to the mind and (physical) body since Plato (Smith & Kosslyn, 2007, p. 3). He mentions how this mind-body dualism even has a partially philosophical aspect to it. That means to say that people traditionally view reality in two different realms: the soul and the flesh, the mind and the body. In his eyes, this doesnt offer an answer to our question because it becomes impossible to do a reduction of consciousnesses with the existence of two, separate things. He also defeats the misconception of materialism (in relation to consciousness) with its very own definition. Materialism implies reality is an illusion and that consciousness essentially does not exist, but this too is a backwards tradition to understanding our thought. Although Searle may say this in a more biting tone, we must also reject materialism because we know from our own, separate experiences that our consciousness does exist. Now, he just has to explain his own theory. Searles key to consciousness is that it is a biological phenomenon. It is as much a part of human and animal biology as digestion or the breathing. He implies that the reason consciousness is so controversial is because we havent been able to fully reduce it. And yet we forget that it still is a natural occurrence just like digestion- we simply know more about digestion than we do the brain. Researchers do study after study to help us better understand the brain, which no one could argue hasnt helped tremendously. However, Searle says that they may be barking up the wrong tree here. Instead of believing that consciousness is caused by the brain, Searle argues that

A COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS ON THE ORIGINS OF CONSCIOUSNESS

the human consciousness is a naturally occurring feature of the brain. His chair analogy is a perfect example to illustrate this. A chair is something that is functionally used to be sat on. Essentially, it is solid, but we take for granted (so to speak) that the solidity is merely a feature of the chair. There is no cause or effect: the chair doesnt cause it to be solid; it being solid is a naturally occurring aspect. I agree with Searle on certain aspects, which I will soon explain, however I feel his perspective immediately denies a lot of equally developed theories floating around. Perhaps it is his tone in The Mystery of Consciousness, but on consciousness its either his way or the highway (so to speak). For example, in a world of rapidly advancing technology, theres a dilemma that exists with Artificial Intelligence: Is it possible to create a computer to mimic the human mind so that it is fully conscious (Smith & Kosslyn, 2007, pp. 24-25)? Accordingly, Searle argues not. In terms of replicating the human mind, computers can only do so much. In his book, the terms Strong AI, Weak AI, and No AI are referenced frequently. A computer with Strong AI would ideally be able to accomplish full consciousness, as posed above. Searles tone aside, he does explain why Strong AI cannot exist. I appreciate his use of logical examples throughout his book, they help disprove certain theories, as well as strengthen his point on the topic of AI: The Chinese Reading Room. The Chinese Reading Room This concept consists of putting a person in a room with a script. By feeding them Chinese words, the person uses the script and can replicate them. On the outside it looks like they know Chinese, but they dont need to know anything- all they need to know are the rules to reading Chinese. Just because someone looks like theyre understanding, doesnt mean they understand it. This is Searles main counterargument in the face of biology versus technology: computers may appear to have a consciousness (Strong AI), but it doesnt make them conscious.

A COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS ON THE ORIGINS OF CONSCIOUSNESS

This brings me to Weak AI, which my views initially identify with. Computers can be helpful for understanding aspects of consciousness but through my own experience, I doubt they can replicate the human complexity of consciousness (Artificial Intelligence, 2011). I say no to Strong AI for the same reason we have yet to prove how consciousness arises. John Searle does a good job at putting this issue into perspective. There are a lot of theories out there, but he stresses to look at what we hold to be true. I know I am conscious, I know that my biological existence is natural, and I now know the importance of perspectives when approaching this issue. (Ch. 1: Consciousness as a Biological Problem, 2007) Francis Crick on Consciousness Keeping Searles philosophy in mind, I find the interesting contrast in Francis Cricks explanation of the origins of consciousness. In his book, he offers The Astonishing Hypothesis to explain this single unified experience: "You", your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. (1998) Before going into detail about what this implies, Ive realized the importance of first understanding the authors perspectives. Francis Crick was a microbiologist- and a successful one at that (Smith & Kosslyn, 2007, pp.298-301). A simple educated guess may be that he will be more likely to reduce consciousness (as Searle would put it) to more definitive terms. Correctly so, his hypothesis boldly attributes consciousness to the subsequent firing of neurons throughout the vast networks in the brain. According to Crick, consciousness basically occurs at a very small scale. Neurons that have a certain action potential fire the exchange of information through the connection of synapses, which ultimately make up a neural network (Nerve Signaling, 2011). With millions

A COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS ON THE ORIGINS OF CONSCIOUSNESS

of these connected throughout our brain, they are responsible for carrying messages about movement, vision, sensation, and even thought. Therein lies the key to Cricks understanding of how consciousness arises. It arises in the brain as a result of the firing of neurons. I make sure to reiterate this because it isnt seen as a feature of the brain (aforementioned), but something that affects it. Although the first two theories of consciousness bump heads each other, one thing Crick is ready to point out is how little facts we have about the solution of consciousness (Searle, p. 33). At first the task at hand seems a little more difficult, however this is no surprise. Still, Crick points us towards the Visual system of the brain for answers. According to his reasoning, this system may relate to our consciousness because it is something that weve come to know very well. In a nutshell, the Visual system interprets information from visible light stimuli to build a representation of our environment (Smith & Kosslyn, 2007, p. 54). Stimuli are picked up by the retina and ultimately follow the optic nerve into the visual cortex of the brain. Here is where a number of complex tasks relating to consciousness occur: construction of binocular perception, two-dimensional projections, identification and categorization of visual objects, guiding movement, and so on. In my opinion, I believe that this particular system plays a role in the origins of consciousness, but it isnt a solution to the other, non-visible aspects of our single unified experience. After reading his Astonishing Hypothesis; for example, I wonder what implications does this theory have on the visually impaired- theres no doubt that they are still conscious beings. Lastly, I also happen to agree with Searle in that Cricks theory, on a micro level, fails to explain what are considered qualia. Qualia

A COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS ON THE ORIGINS OF CONSCIOUSNESS

Qualia are the qualities or properties of mental states (such as consciousness) that lead us to define the nature of sensory input (Qualia, 1998). Searle uses the term semantics as an aide in this definition. Based on Cricks theory, focusing on the action of neurons does not explain why I think something tastes sweet or why you feel so intensely about the Celtics. If Searle were to debate with Crick, hed outright say that Crick is thinking completely wrong. Searle says that the problem with qualia is not just an aspect of the problem of consciousness; it is the problem of consciousness, so regardless of using the visual system to discriminate parts of consciousness, we are still talking about qualia (Searle, p.28). Nevertheless, Cricks theory on consciousness relating to neurons firing and the visual system is still plausible. And never has it been more important to address the Binding Problem. Cricks Solution to The Binding Problem As I mentioned before, the Binding Problem is difficult because we have yet to fully understand the brain. Crick recognizes these limitations as well, but I was curious to see his solution to how he thinks all the brain processes integrate information into a whole, being that he is more definitive. I still am aware of his perspective in relation to his theory on consciousness. Accordingly, the Binding Problem is the problem of how these neurons temporarily become active as a unit (Searle, p. 208). His definition, alone, implies a lot of information, but his solution is the first one Ive seen that could make sense. Crick challenges what we are really asking ourselves in this Problem; instead of only asking where the brain integrates information, what if its the frequency of the neurons firing? Crick and his colleagues already knew, for example, that neurons responsive to shape, color, and movement fire in synchrony at the average range of 40 hertz (firings per second). Likewise, these neurons have to fire somewhere, which would presumably be an area where all major networks go through- perhaps the thalamus? Looking towards Cricks theory of how consciousness arises

A COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS ON THE ORIGINS OF CONSCIOUSNESS

10

through the firing of neurons, these neurons then play a role in his solution to the binding problem. Crick poses a comprehensive solution as being the synchronized firing of neurons at the range of 40 hertz in the networks connecting the Thalamus and the cortex. At this point, I know a great deal less than Crick and his colleagues may know in the field of Neuroscience, but their bottom-up approach with proven facts to reach this unique conclusion deserves merit. He may oppose Searle in many aspects, but despite whether or not he or his perspective is correct, Cricks theory offers potential conclusions on consciousness and the Binding Problem through reasoning with the limited facts we do know about the brain. He didnt just leave it open ended. (Ch. 2: Francis Crick, The Binding Problem, and the Hypothesis of Forty Hertz, 1997) Gerald Edelman on Consciousness Just like Searles views oppose those of Cricks, one person who has actually caught his attention is Gerald Edelman. Considering his neurobiological background, this makes a lot of sense. In fact, he may exhibit a similar tone as Searle, because he argues that a neurobiological background forms the perspective you must have in order to successfully theorize consciousness. The key word here is successfully, because as Ive come to realize, any perspective can produce a theory of consciousness. But if we plan to take a perspective seriously, he states that such a background needs to be germane; the answer to consciousness will not be found in quantum physics, philosophical speculation, or computer programming. Edelman has come to reach his theory of consciousness with a stressed importance on the structure of the brain. In a similar fashion to Francis Crick, Edelmans theory is derived from the many neural structures in the brain, which we know fire simultaneously. However, instead of focusing at such a small level, he bridges the relationship between these certain neural structures and higher order processes.

A COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS ON THE ORIGINS OF CONSCIOUSNESS

11

First we must analyze consciousness at the neural level. Among the neural structures in the brain, Edelman draws upon maps, which essentially recreate a pattern of activity. For example, some sheets of neurons reproduce the similar pattern of activity on the retina at the back of the eye. But in terms of maps in Psychology, Edelmans theory applies this idea more broadly, mapping not just sensory input, but the other types of neural activity as well. The basis of his theory of consciousness relies on re-entrant connections that connect all of this into a whole system. These connections allow a flow of activity back and forth, thus providing us with Edelmans theory of consciousness in his book Bright Air, Brilliant Fire: the re-entrant connections between neuronal groups in different parts of the brain coordinate impressions from different senses to provide a coherent, consistent, continuous experience. (1992) I find it very interesting how Charles Darwin and his findings now apply to consciousness (as explained above) with the term Neural Darwinism (Cofer, 2002). Essentially, this is what makes Edelmans theory work. In terms of maps, some patterns are reinforced by experience, whereas others are ultimately eliminated in a selective process that closely resembles (Darwins) evolution. I assume this is attributed to our consciousness by our ability to be conscious given the everchanging stimuli input we experience everyday. And yet, Edelmans theory of consciousness places a heavy reliance on higher order processes. Differing far from Cricks views, Edelman looks towards the functions of concepts, which are maps of maps. Concepts arise from the brain recategorizing its own activity. In this sense, Edelman says that concepts, alone, constitute as Primary Consciousness (aka First-Order). Accordingly, human consciousness also features a Secondary Consciousness (concepts about concepts), language, and a concept of self, all built on the foundation of first-order concepts. Overall, this seems to be a very comprehensive conclusion about how our consciousness arises

A COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS ON THE ORIGINS OF CONSCIOUSNESS

12

as a result of our brain interacting with our environment. It appears hes covered both sides. So far, I agree most with Edelmans theory because it makes a lot of sense, given that the assumptions are all true. One of Searles critiques is that he seems to find this theory to be more of a hypothesis, but regardless, the topic of this paper is to draw on what we dont know. As I continue to reach my own theory, Edelmans theory is a great aide, and so is his solution to the Binding Problem. Edelmans Solution to The Binding Problem As mentioned in class, Edelmans 6 Point Model of Consciousness provides us with an answer to how we integrate stimuli into a unified experience. Each of the 6 must be met, and the first five consist of what I think of as common sense-however not for a computer, though. In order for consciousness to occur, we need to have a memory system, a learning system, a physical self (to distinguish among others), the ability to categorize concepts and things as events in time, and the ability to attribute value to something. The sixth point, which is where I see Edelmans solution to the binding problem, is that there needs to be re-entry. By maintaining a reciprocal relationship between stimuli within the system, everything in the brain affects each other process and comes back. So instead of neurons firing at a rate of 40 hertz (Crick), Edelman sees the solution as the existence of a re-entry system which allows us to integrate everything into a single unified experience. The research used to reach this solution also deals with Artificial Intelligence. Edelman is known to be against Strong AI by saying the brain is not a computer. Moreover, I support his usage of Weak AI with the robot Darwin III, where computers can mimic certain functions of the brain. Ultimately, Edelman was able to distinguish certain modalities that he then referenced in Bright Air, Brilliant Fire (Edelman, pp. 90-93). (Ch. 3: Gerald Edelman and Re-Entry Mapping, 1997)

A COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS ON THE ORIGINS OF CONSCIOUSNESS Daniel Dennett on Consciousness

13

Lastly, the views on consciousness of Daniel Dennett are worth mentioning because again, it brings perspective to this issue. With my almost-solidified understanding of consciousness and the Binding Problem, I find it important to use Daniel Dennett as my devils advocate. To be honest, I take the three aforementioned viewpoints seriously, but the same cannot be said for Dennett. Still, we must take in all perspectives because they also show us what may be completely wrong. In his book Consciousness Explained, Dennett presents the idea that we are mistaken in terms of our views on consciousness. Apparently, it may seem as though we all have subjective feelings/experiences, which I still hold to be true, but instead these are simple misjudgments of what is really happening. Right away, this denies the existence of qualia and inner mental states, which is a fundamental part to Searles views. Merely out of curiosity, what really is happening according to Dennett? Essentially, he relies on the biology of our brains to provide a different concept of consciousness through third-person phenomena. Basically, Dennett argues that humans have stimulus inputs, like the sensation of heat on your skin for example, that trigger our reactive dispositions to act in response to this. Ultimately, our discriminative states cause us to respond differently depending on the stimulus inputs (Brown, 2001). This means that I might pull my hand away (due to discriminative states) because it got too hot. Dennetts alternative view of consciousness is that our current understanding of conscious states is wrong; instead there is nothing there except a brain implementing the programs of behaviors I just listed. There are so many different ways that I would like to critique Dennetts work, but to put it simply, he denies the idea that we have subjective feelings. If this is true, we arent acting as truly conscious beings, instead were considered more like a computer. The fact that we might have discriminative states implies that our consciousness is basically a virtual machine in our

A COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS ON THE ORIGINS OF CONSCIOUSNESS

14

brain. Searle subtly (as well as overtly) critiques Dennett with the usage of words like machine, computer, software, and program to demonstrate our similarity to artificial intelligence. Right away the reader can sense his preference towards a Strong AI, especially when he explains what we think we feel isnt really there. Again, there may be some people who agree with Dennetts subsequent denial of consciousness, but his reasoning tells me Im not one of those. (Ch. 5: Consciousness Denied: Daniel Dennetts Account, 1997) My Views on Consciousness At this point, it becomes almost impossible to analyze four theories of consciousness and not come up with one of your own. Again, I want to reiterate that my knowledge of the brain may not be as extensive as Searles, but we all have an equal shot at how consciousness arises. First, I start with what I know. I know that at this very moment I am conscious. I know that my brain is the sine qua non of my existence, and therein lies my consciousness. But as I attempt to answer how it arises, I find that my views are a hybrid of Edelmans theory of conscious. I believe that consciousness arises as a result of memory and a continuous exchange of data or information between the different regions of the brain- from the cerebral cortex, to the thalamus, and everything in between. Information about ones surroundings enters the brain, travels to all pertinent regions while adding onto this information, and back again carrying a cohesive understanding of the environment in relation to the self (or vice versa). Most importantly, I derive our sense of self, our thoughts, and subjective feelings from Edelmans usage of Neural Darwinist ideas. As this constant exchange occurs, I find that the neural networks in certain regions will be reinforced whereas others may not. By the existence of longterm memory and working memory that remembers reinforcement and re-evaluates information accordingly comes the cognizance of actions and self. I prefer this application of Neural

A COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS ON THE ORIGINS OF CONSCIOUSNESS

15

Darwinism because it helps put a natural perspective to our higher order thought processes in relation to everything else around us. My Solution to The Binding Problem In regards to my fairly ambiguous understanding of how consciousness arises, I also find a possible solution to the Binding Problem. Edelman offered the phenomenon of re-entry as a way to bring about a unified experience, but I feel that re-entry, or my concept of reinforced, continual exchange is only an aspect to it. Accordingly, perhaps the single unified experience is actually an organized, unintegrated yet perceivable experience in real time. And as time passes, I hypothesize that working memory then takes this organization and encodes it into long-term memory as a unified whole. Generally, this may solve the binding problem, as well as explain how our conscious states change over time, under the assumption that the continuous flow of information is re-categorized/re-evaluated when the memory system recalls it. Conclusion To say the least, I understand Searles intention to explain this lingering mystery of consciousness. Im not saying that my views on consciousness are correct- in fact Im sure that some of them are blatantly wrong- but that is the point of recognizing perspectives. As you gain one perspective, you can compare and contrast it with the next, and so on. Although we dont have a proven answer to the origins of consciousness, let alone the binding problem, I am now more advanced in my understanding of the topic than I was before. At first, I only knew the basic functions of the brain and the definition of consciousness from what we had in class. In hindsight, I presumed consciousness was due to some sort of brain activity, but because the brain is so complex, I hadnt thought of any possibilities. John Searles perspective taught me to reevaluate my own as well as others. It isnt necessarily what we dont know that makes us right or wrong, but the approach that one uses to get there. Then, Francis Cricks perspective taught me

A COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS ON THE ORIGINS OF CONSCIOUSNESS

16

the importance of these brain functions on a small scale. Gerald Edelman, however, provided me with a coherent theory that closely aligned with my understanding of topics Ive come to learn this semester. While still maintaining perspective, I eventually reached my view on consciousness and the binding problem through Daniel Dennett who reminded me how wrong or right our views can be without any proven solution. Regardless of being able to reduce consciousness to definitive terms, I still learned a lot more facts that derived from research. Take my stance on Artificial Intelligence as an example. In the beginning of the year, I was aware of the limits of my own knowledge so I tied my views to there being No Artificial intelligence. Now with my understanding of cognitive psychology and my own thoughts, this paper shows how that, too, has changed.

A COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS ON THE ORIGINS OF CONSCIOUSNESS

17

References A r t i f i c i a l i n t e l l i g e n c e . ( 2 0 11 ) . R e t r i e v e d f r o m h t t p : / / w w w. i p r o g r a m m e r. i n f o / b a b b a g e s - b a g / 2 9 7 - a r t i f i c i a l - i n t e l l i g e n c e . h t m l Brown, Curtis. (2001, September 4). Dennet, consciousness expl ai ned: t hree thes es . R et ri ev ed fro m h t t p : / / w w w. t r i n i t y. e d u / c b r o w n / m i n d / d e n n e t t _ t h e s e s . h t m l Cattel, R. (2009, January 15). Cattel. Retrieved from h t t p : / / w w w. t o d a y i n s c i . c o m / Q u o t a t i o n s C a t e g o r i e s / P _ C a t / P s y c h o l ogy-Quotations.htm C o f e r, D a vi d . ( 2 00 2 ) . N e ur al da rw in i s m . R e t ri e v e d f ro m h t t p : / / w w w. m i n d c r e a t o r s . c o m / N e u r a l D a r w i n i s m . h t m E d e l m a n , G e r a l d M . ( 1 9 9 2 ) . B r i g h t A i r, B r i l l i a n t F i r e . N e w Yo r k , N e w Yo r k : B a s i c B o o k s N er ve s i gn al in g . (2 0 11 , M a y 5 ). R etri ev ed fro m http://nobelprize.org/educational/medicine/nerve_signaling Plate, J. (2007). An anal ysis of the binding problem. Philosophical Psychology, 20, 773- 792. Qualia. (1998, August 20). Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/ S e a r l e , J o h n R . ( 1 9 9 7 ) . T h e m y s t e r y o f c o n s c i o u s n e s s . N e w Yo r k : N e w Yo r k R e v i e w.

A COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS ON THE ORIGINS OF CONSCIOUSNESS References (cont.) Searle, John R. (1997). Ch. 1: Consciousness As A Biological Problem. (8th ed.), The Mystery of Consciousness (pp.1-19). N e w Yo r k : N e w Yo r k R e v i e w . Searle, John R. (1997). Ch. 2: Francis Crick, the Binding Problem, and the Hypothesis of Fort y Hertz. (8 th ed.), The Mystery of C o n s c i o u s n e s s ( p p . 1 9 - 3 7 ) . N e w Yo r k : N e w Yo r k R e v i e w .

18

Searle, John R. (1997). Ch. 3: Gerald Edelman and Reentry Mapping. ( 8 t h e d . ) , T h e M y s t e r y o f C o n s c i o u s n e s s ( p p . 3 7 - 5 3 ) . N e w Yo r k : N e w Yo r k R e v i e w. Searle, John R. (1997). Ch. 5: Consciousness Denied: Daniel D e n n e t t s A c c o u n t . ( 8 t h e d . ) , T h e M y s t e r y o f C o n s c i o u s n e s s ( p p . 9 5 - 1 1 4 ) . N e w Yo r k : N e w Yo r k R e v i e w. Smith, E., Kosslyn, S. (2007). Cognitive Psychology Mind and Brain. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education, Inc. W i l l i a m s , G a r y. ( 1 9 9 7 , O c t o b e r 1 9 ) . T h e b i n d i n g p r o b l e m . R e t r i e v e d f r o m h t t p : / / p h i l o s o p h y a n d p s y c h o l o g y. c o m / ? p = 1 8