Evolution of consciousness - Attention Schema Theory
Evolution of consciousness - Attention Schema Theory
Hi all
So I decided to Google "evolution of consciousness" the other day, just out of curiosity to see if modern science had gotten anywhere with how consciousness has arisen from the perspective of evolutionary biology... and I found this very interesting article on a relatively new theory called Attention Schema Theory (AST), presented by Michael Graziano, a Princeton neuroscientist:
http://www.theatlantic.com/science/arch ... ed/485558/
I'm fascinated by this attempt to explain consciousness in evolutionary terms, and some of it resonates with me in a similar way to some Buddhist presentations of consciousness.
Does anyone here have any thoughts as to how AST as presented in this article may relate to Buddhist theories of consciousness, if at all?
Any idea if Michael Graziano has been involved at all with any the recent dialogues between Buddhists (led by HHDL) and scientists around the world?
Mark
So I decided to Google "evolution of consciousness" the other day, just out of curiosity to see if modern science had gotten anywhere with how consciousness has arisen from the perspective of evolutionary biology... and I found this very interesting article on a relatively new theory called Attention Schema Theory (AST), presented by Michael Graziano, a Princeton neuroscientist:
http://www.theatlantic.com/science/arch ... ed/485558/
I'm fascinated by this attempt to explain consciousness in evolutionary terms, and some of it resonates with me in a similar way to some Buddhist presentations of consciousness.
Does anyone here have any thoughts as to how AST as presented in this article may relate to Buddhist theories of consciousness, if at all?
Any idea if Michael Graziano has been involved at all with any the recent dialogues between Buddhists (led by HHDL) and scientists around the world?
Mark
- tomschwarz
- Posts: 778
- Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2015 12:31 am
Re: Evolution of consciousness - Attention Schema Theory
is think that AST is in keeping with buddhism. it might be more interesting to find ways that AST and buddhism diverge, others?
his holiness the dalai lama of tibet, the four noble truths,
his holiness the dalai lama of tibet, the four noble truths,
so that, as i understand it, is a heart felt, sensitive, and common sense description of the evolution of consciousness.at what point does karma play a causal role in producing sentient beings and the natural environment in which they live? perhaps we can say that there is a natural process in the world, and at a certain point when its evolution has reached a stage where it can affect the experiences of beings - giving rise to either painful experiences of suffering or joyful experiences of happiness - that is the point where karma enters the picture.
i dedicate this post to your happiness, the causes of your happiness, the absence of your suffering the causes of the absence of your suffering that we may not have too much attachment nor aversion. SAMAYAMANUPALAYA
Re: Evolution of consciousness - Attention Schema Theory
Thank you Tom, good points and thanks for the HHDL quote.
- monktastic
- Posts: 489
- Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 3:48 am
- Location: NYC
Re: Evolution of consciousness - Attention Schema Theory
From my reading of Prof Graziano's work, I wouldn't think he would agree much with Buddhist ideas of consciousness.
"We say we have consciousness because deep in the brain, something quite primitive is computing that semi-magical self-description."
In brief, we don't really have consciousness. There's just matter, and it's generating a particular stream of data that claims it is conscious. Or something.
"We say we have consciousness because deep in the brain, something quite primitive is computing that semi-magical self-description."
In brief, we don't really have consciousness. There's just matter, and it's generating a particular stream of data that claims it is conscious. Or something.
This undistracted state of ordinary mind
Is the meditation.
One will understand it in due course.
--Gampopa
Is the meditation.
One will understand it in due course.
--Gampopa
- tomschwarz
- Posts: 778
- Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2015 12:31 am
Re: Evolution of consciousness - Attention Schema Theory
understood, clear. now let's go to buddhism, consciousness is the 3rd link of dependent origination http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/snapshot05.htm is it not fitting then in buddhism, that consciousness, is tied to the brain?monktastic wrote:From my reading of Prof Graziano's work, I wouldn't think he would agree much with Buddhist ideas of consciousness.
"We say we have consciousness because deep in the brain, something quite primitive is computing that semi-magical self-description."
In brief, we don't really have consciousness. There's just matter, and it's generating a particular stream of data that claims it is conscious. Or something.
in my understanding, when his holiness the dalai lama has spoken about that part of the mind that is not tied to the brain, he is not referring to consciousness. he mentions sleeping, then fainting then entirely loosing consciousness, in some sort of "black" coma, as the point at which the subtle most level of mind still exists, not connected to the brain. but that is clearly not consciousness...
other perspectives?
i dedicate this post to your happiness, the causes of your happiness, the absence of your suffering the causes of the absence of your suffering that we may not have too much attachment nor aversion. SAMAYAMANUPALAYA
Re: Evolution of consciousness - Attention Schema Theory
Good art
Vajra fangs deliver vajra venom to your Mara body.
- monktastic
- Posts: 489
- Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 3:48 am
- Location: NYC
Re: Evolution of consciousness - Attention Schema Theory
In brief, Graziano (and the materialist perspective in general) claims that matter is the end of the story. There's this particular behavior of matter called "consciousness," it's created by the brain, and that's the sum total of what there is to mind or cognizance.tomschwarz wrote:understood, clear. now let's go to buddhism, consciousness is the 3rd link of dependent origination http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/snapshot05.htm is it not fitting then in buddhism, that consciousness, is tied to the brain?monktastic wrote:From my reading of Prof Graziano's work, I wouldn't think he would agree much with Buddhist ideas of consciousness.
"We say we have consciousness because deep in the brain, something quite primitive is computing that semi-magical self-description."
In brief, we don't really have consciousness. There's just matter, and it's generating a particular stream of data that claims it is conscious. Or something.
in my understanding, when his holiness the dalai lama has spoken about that part of the mind that is not tied to the brain, he is not referring to consciousness. he mentions sleeping, then fainting then entirely loosing consciousness, in some sort of "black" coma, as the point at which the subtle most level of mind still exists, not connected to the brain. but that is clearly not consciousness...
other perspectives?
This undistracted state of ordinary mind
Is the meditation.
One will understand it in due course.
--Gampopa
Is the meditation.
One will understand it in due course.
--Gampopa
Re: Evolution of consciousness - Attention Schema Theory
I feel I might be missing something here - does AST theory as presented in that article necessarily demand a materialist perspective for it to work?monktastic wrote:In brief, Graziano (and the materialist perspective in general) claims that matter is the end of the story. There's this particular behavior of matter called "consciousness," it's created by the brain, and that's the sum total of what there is to mind or cognizance.
Could the theory be equally at home within a Buddhist framework, as an explanation of the mechanics of consciousness (or perhaps self-awareness is a better term in this context?) that demonstrates how the illusion of self is created, while pointing out its fundamental emptiness?
Sort of like a modern science version of the 12 links?
- monktastic
- Posts: 489
- Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 3:48 am
- Location: NYC
Re: Evolution of consciousness - Attention Schema Theory
This is the paper where they introduce AST: http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/ ... 00500/full
The entire purpose is to explain how a real material thing (a brain) gives rise to an illusion of there being something other-than-physical (awareness, consciousness, mind, cognizance, the noetic capacity, whatever other constructs you might consider), and therefore to ensure that materialism can explain what is sometimes called the "last remaining mystery."We recently proposed the attention schema theory, a novel way to explain the brain basis of subjective awareness in a mechanistic and scientifically testable manner. The theory begins with attention, the process by which signals compete for the brain’s limited computing resources.
...
The brain therefore constructs a schematic model of the process of attention, the ‘attention schema,’ in much the same way that it constructs a schematic model of the body, the ‘body schema.’ The content of this internal model leads a brain to conclude that it has a subjective experience.
...
According to this theory, there is, of course, no actual mystery. Attention does have a real physical basis
...
Just so, in the present theory, the physical reality is attention, whereas the brain computes the simpler construct of awareness.
...
This undistracted state of ordinary mind
Is the meditation.
One will understand it in due course.
--Gampopa
Is the meditation.
One will understand it in due course.
--Gampopa
Re: Evolution of consciousness - Attention Schema Theory
Ah I see.
Hmmmm well, I guess I'm wondering if the theory itself might actually be compatible with both materialist and Buddhist philosophical standpoints, regardless of the intent or philosophical standpoint of the person who developed it?
For example, I am struggling to see something specifically stated in the theory itself that goes against Buddhist fundamentals like emptiness, impermanence or dependent origination. In fact, could it conceivably be a helpful illustration of the emptiness of self, revealing the mechanics of how the illusion is created in neurological terms?
Hmmmm well, I guess I'm wondering if the theory itself might actually be compatible with both materialist and Buddhist philosophical standpoints, regardless of the intent or philosophical standpoint of the person who developed it?
For example, I am struggling to see something specifically stated in the theory itself that goes against Buddhist fundamentals like emptiness, impermanence or dependent origination. In fact, could it conceivably be a helpful illustration of the emptiness of self, revealing the mechanics of how the illusion is created in neurological terms?