I just read another “theory of consciousness” article attempting to use scientific logic to convince us that our conscious being is nothing more than an illusion. This one is by a Princeton U neuroscientist named Michael Graziano. He calls it the “attention schema“, as it focuses on how we direct our attention and self-awareness.
Dr. Graziano is a clever writer, but ultimately his article is just another attempt to demonstrate that science has it all down and physicalism is all there is. According to the good professor, consciousness isn’t different from anything else that science understands, such as transistors and catalysts and carbon cycles and superconductivity. Dr. Graziano seems to think that he has a powerful conceptual tool that makes consciousness fall into place. He co-opts and then debunks outer body experiences and rays coming out of the eyes and such — kind of a cheap shot, I’d say. The article mixes a bit of information theory and evolutionary process with the human brains’ ability to imagine and conceptualize things that don’t exist, along with the human need to form social structures. Knowing the usual “question of mind” philosophy quandaries, he also tries to defeat “epi-phenomenalism” (or talk around it, in my opinion).
In sum, Dr. G defines consciousness in a way that fits his pre-stated objectives. That’s groovy. But is what Professor Graziano conceptualizes as “consciousness” really what » continue reading …
