Туннель Эго

I. See T. Metzinger, «Beweislast fur Fleischesser,» Gehirn & Geist 5:70–75 (2006), reprinted in C. Konneker, Wer erklart den Menschen? Hirnforscher, Psychologen und Philosophen im Dialog (Frankfurt am Main: Fischer, 2006); A. K. Seth et al., «Criteria for Consciousness in Humans and Other Mammals,» Consciousness and Cognition 14:119–139 (2005); and D. B. Edelman et al., «Identifying Hallmarks of Consciousness in Non-Mammalian Species,» Consciousness and Cognition 14:169–187 (2005). Octopi are particularly interesting, because their brain architecture is very different from that of mammals, but they turn out to be much smarter than was assumed in the past. Although cognitive complexity perse is not an argument for the existence of subjective experience, we now have evidence that makes at least primary consciousness quite plausible in octopi; see J. A. Mather, «Celaphod Consciousness: Behavioural Evidence,» Consciousness and Cognition 17:37–48 (2008).

2. See Patrick Wilken, «ASSC-10 Welcoming address,» in 10th Annual Meeting of the Association for the Scientific Study of Consciousness, 23–36 June 2006, Oxford, U.K., 6. At10_welcome_final.pdf.

3. See Thomas Metzinger, ed., Conscious Experience (Thorverton, UK, and Paderborn, Germany: mentis & Imprint Academic, 1995).

4. See the special issue on the neurobiology of animal consciousness in Consciousness and Cognition 14(1):1-232 (2005), in particular A. K. Seth et al., «Criteria for Consciousness in Humans and Other Mammals,» 119–139.

5. See Thomas Metzinger, ed., Neural Correlates of Consciousness: Empirical and Conceptual Questions (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2000).

6. See Colin McGinn, «Can We Solve the Mind-Body Problem?» Mind 98:349–366 (1989). Reprinted in Ned Block et al., eds., The Nature of Consciousness: Philosophical Debates (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1997); and Metzinger, «Introduction: Consciousness Research at the End of the Twentieth Century,» in Metzinger, ed., Neural Correlates of Consciousness (2000).

7. Antti Revonsuo, Inner Presence: Consciousness as a Biological Phenomenon (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2006), 144ff.

CHAPTER 2

1. In philosophical parlance, a «zombie» is a hypothetical entity that behaves exactly like a person and is objectively indistinguishable from one, but has no inner awareness of anything. If zombies were at least logically possible, this could perhaps show that there is no entailment from physical facts to facts about consciousness.

2. See, for example, Rocco J. Gennaro, ed., Higher-Order Theories of Consciousness: An Anthology (Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2004); and David Rosenthal, Consciousness and Mind (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006).

3. See S. P. Vecera & K. S. Gilds, «What Is It Like to Be a Patient with Apperceptive Agnosia?» Consciousness and Cognition 6:237–266 (1997).

4. A. Marcel, «Conscious and Unconscious Perception: An Approach to the Relations Between Phenomenal Experience and Perceptual Processes,» Cog. Psychology 15:292 (1983).

5. See, for example, G. Tononi & G. M. Edelman, «Consciousness and Complexity,» Science 282:1846-51 (1998); and Tononi et al., «Complexity and the Integration of Information in the Brain,» Trends Cog. Sci. 2:44–52 (1998). For an exciting recent application to the difference between waking and sleeping, see M. Massimini et al., «Breakdown of Cortical Effective Connectivity During Sleep,» Science 309:2228-32 (2005). For a popular description, see Edelman and Tononi, A Universe of Consciousness: How Matter Becomes Imagination (New York: Basic Books, 2000).

6. Thomas Metzinger, Being No One: The Self-Model Theory of Subjectivity (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2003).

7. In Greek mythology, the analogy between sleep and death was even closer: Hypnos, the god of sleep, and Thanatos, the god of death, were twins, the sons of Nyx, the night. Morpheus, the god of dreams, was Hypnos' son. As in Shakespeare, to sleep, and possibly to die, is perchance to dream.

8. See V. A. F. Lamme, «Towards a True Neural Stance on Consciousness,» Trends Cog. Sci. 10(11):494–501 (2006); S. Dehaene et al., «Conscious, Preconscious, and Subliminal Processing: A Testable Taxonomy,» Trends Cog. Sci. 10(5):204–211 (2006).