top of page
Search
  • Writer's pictureMIKE'S MASTERMIND

Philosophy, Psychology, Neurology, Biology: the Debate Defining Consciousness Wages Onward Furiously

Updated: Jan 26



Last week, an article in Nature by Mariana Lenharo summarized the “wars” that have broken out in the field of consciousness studies. The main event was a bomb that was dropped last September, when “more than 100 researchers signed a letter that critiqued Integrated Information Theory [a major theory in the field], arguing that its predictions are untestable and labelling it as pseudoscience.”


The article continued…

Chaos ensued. The letter provoked blowback from other scientists who felt that such an attack could aggravate divides and hurt the field’s credibility. Signatories reported receiving ominous e-mails containing veiled threats. Researchers on both sides of the aisle lost sleep over accusatory tweets. Some even contemplated leaving science altogether…. Younger researchers are particularly worried about the contentious climate. They fear that a field engulfed in such angry disputes could be perceived externally as being stuck.

Why is there such conflict? Lenharo described the core issue aptly:

One problem is that consciousness means different things to different people. For example, some researchers focus on the subjective experience — what it is like to be you or me. Others study its function — cognitive processes and behaviors enabled by being conscious. These differences muddy attempts to compare ideas.

Gregg Henriques, Ph.D. considers these wars in consciousness research to be in relationship to the history of psychology. Indeed, failure to consider history means that one is likely doomed to repeat it. He thinks that it is happening here, especially when we consider the historical “crisis of psychology.”


The crisis in psychology refers to the fact that, as the field developed, there were tremendous differences in how psychology was defined, and in the specification of its subject matter. The crisis was identified as early as 1899, 20 years after the field's official birth, and it was never resolved. Gregg has renamed it the “problem of psychology” because it points to a core problem with how we are framing science, behavior, and mind. And I believe the same dynamic is affecting the modern field of consciousness studies.


This 10-minute video introduces folks to “Psychology 101,” and it provides a brief history of the major schools of thought. For example, there were some psychologists, like Wilhelm Wundt and Edward Titchener, who claimed the science of psychology was about the structure of human consciousness, and studying it could only be done through introspection. In contrast, there were the functionalists, like William James, who emphasized the mental processes and behaviors enabled by being conscious, and framed psychological science as being concerned with the adaptive activities in animals and people.


There were also Freudian psychoanalysts who emphasized the dynamic unconscious, and how it impacted mental health. And there were Watsonian behaviorists who emphasized the experimental analysis of stimulus-response relations.


Psychology’s crisis emerges because inner human consciousness, the functional activity of animals and humans, stimulus-response relations in the laboratory, and unconscious drives experienced by troubled humans on the therapy couch are all different things. And, of course, as the history of psychology clearly shows, there was no coherent big-picture view that enabled us to put these pieces of the puzzle together.


In Henriques's book, A New Synthesis for Solving the Problem of Psychology: Addressing the Enlightenment Gap, he explains in rich detail why the problem of psychology emerged and why it was so hard. The answer is framed by the subtitle. The Enlightenment Gap refers to the profound hole in our knowledge that emerged in the wake of the modern scientific Enlightenment. That hole refers to the process by which we conceptually place the mind in relationship to matter, and effectively related scientific knowledge to subjective and social knowledge. We have no good philosophical system that coherently resolves these problems.


The point here is that the Enlightenment Gap is still with us.


Everywhere you look you see confusion about how to frame the mind in relationship to scientific knowledge. Last year made clear that the Enlightenment Gap is in the process of swallowing the field of consciousness research. Interestingly, the field of consciousness studies is about 30 years old, which is just about the time when the crisis in psychology was really being felt.


The good news is that there is now a framework that resolves the Enlightenment Gap. As Greg lays out in A New Synthesis, the Unified Theory of Knowledge (UTOK), has advanced our understanding to the point where we can now see why and how other systems have been so confused, and how we can advance the ball and achieve cumulative knowledge.


To give just one example of what it can do for us, consider UTOK’s Map of Mind. As it is delineated in this post on Updating Freud’s Psychology, the Map of Mind gives us a new vocabulary for mapping mental domains and how they relate to consciousness.



To read Gregg's article in full click here

From Psychology Magazine


8 views0 comments
bottom of page