Can we map the systems and dynamics of perceptual awareness (Perceptual Structure) to the systems that generate the potential for the phenomenon to occur (Physical Substrate of Consciousness PSC, Neural Correlates of Consciousness NCC)?
Background:
From the experiential ontology artists in the last few centuries have created a new form of illusionary space that has the potential to revolutionise all forms of information display and the way we interact with them. We term this new form of illusionary space Vision-Space (VS).[1] This work suggests that segmented data from all our sensory systems play out within a perceptual structure generated by the sentient being. VS will not progress from its limited ‘illustrative programming architecture’ to one incorporating aspects of how we as biological systems ‘generate’ sensory phenomena without the active involvement of researchers working in the relevant sciences.
Remit:
Perception per-se does not occur at the physical neuronal level. Neurones aren’t ‘aware’ in this sense. The substance or content of mind’s activities are not strictly a brain issue in the same way that politics and government can’t be explained by observing the way paper and electronic communications flow around government departments and what appears on them. There has to be significant relationship however. Unlike the analogy above, mind’s activities could not manifest without the brain’s physical system generating the potential for the phenomenon to occur. The cause and effect issues are actually not that simple! The trick is to work out how one ‘maps to’ or ‘correlates with’ to the other.
By carefully observing the generating phenomenon of sensory perception on an experiential basis we are able to model key aspects of perceptual awareness; for example its data structures and processes of information exchange occurring through time.
I try to substitute the word ‘consciousness’ with awareness as consciousness would appear to be just one of the phenomena that combine to make us aware of our surroundings in the complex way that we are. It may be helpful to consider awareness as developing from a relationship or dance playing out between three protagonists with each possessing a degree of independence: implicit and explicit awareness together mind’s intent.[2] Consciousness more of an ‘attractor’ relating to a specific relationship between mind and the explicit take on the real. However, it’s critical to understand implicit sub conscious functions as well as the explicit upon which we can more easily concentrate. Implicit functions can be in temporal advance of what we are attending and even override conscious awareness but fail to qualify as ‘conscious’. The contribution of implicit processing to the mapping problem between neuronal activity and awareness is likely to be highly influential if not formative.
As and artist I term the experientially derived system lying behind perceptual awareness ‘perceptual structure’. From the other approach the study of neuronal systems is establishing terms like PSC and NCC. It’s here that the mapping exercise between mind and brain activities must be undertaken. Reports and models emerging from the experiential must link to models under development from 3rd party experimentation.
It would seem logical that while the systems governing awareness and sensory segmentation will be ‘distinct’ requiring us to relate one to the other, that core aspects of both systems such as their underlying dynamics will be common to both, ubiquitous in fact. In previous VS presentations I have suggested that the commonality is likely to be related to Self Organised Criticality (SOC) and dynamical systems that extend out into the universe.[3] In reverse, we evolved through and in response to the universe. We should expect to find SOC within the data arriving from the environment, operational in brain function and within the structure of perceptual awareness as it presents. It’s this continuity that ultimately embeds us within the universe. Models arising from third party observation as to the nature of consciousness identify the requirement for Integrated Information Theory (IIT) from phenomenon through to neural processing.
Collaboration
A collaborative venture between science and art to further a VS system would initially be distinct from core development taking place in both ontologies. It should be considered a shared ‘vessel’ where reports from both lines of enquiry are used in its development. The remit for developing the system would be three fold:
- to attain new order stimuli useful to many disciplines
- as a lateral mechanism for relating findings from multiple disciplines
- as a platform through which to seed new technologies across multiple industries
The evolving VS programming architecture should not therefore be thought of as a tool to be directed to ‘prove’ or ‘justify’ any discipline, theory or ontology. It should identify a new trajectory identifying its own unique development path. It would generate its own attractor. As such the emerging system would be a ‘creative’ undertaking between disciplines ultimately removing the inhibitory effects of the necessary distinctions that exist between the disciplines and ontologies.
[1] Vision Space presentation 1: The structure of monocular vision http://youtu.be/AO71a8LzZSg
Vision Space Presentation 2: The incorporation of binocular stereo information http://youtu.be/xLY60lm86Mk
Vision-Space: Process of information exchange within phenomenal field http://youtu.be/8hmgutPGJmQ
[2] Vision-Space: The protagonists http://youtu.be/516mjrU3aC0
Vision-Space: Awareness is a dance mediated and augmented by ‘mind’ within a multidimensional space https://youtu.be/-DCx5kLS2MQ
[3] Vision-Space: Awareness is a dance mediated and augmented by ‘mind’ within a multidimensional space https://youtu.be/-DCx5kLS2MQ
Vision-Space: Our self-organizing mind, 1/f noise and a possible role for ipRGC receptor functions http://youtu.be/4xpk9f8M9vo
Vision-Space: Awareness is developed and governed by Dynamical Systems
http://youtu.be/xCFo7S-y0UE