For a long time the debate was influenced by the hypothesis that atten- tion constitutes a level of consciousness varying widely in extension and clarity and only functioning in relation to its variations: from sleep to wakefulness, from somnolent to crepuscular, from confusion to hyper- lucidity, from oneiric to oneiroid states, and so on.

Dear Mauro!

We can find a lot of different opinions on this interesting question. Please see the opinion of professionals from the article (annex), and the link.

Vladimir

Truly remarkable paper, Vladimir! In my opinion, to understand better this mysterious phenomenon I think is not enough neuropsychology. I think that the the distinction made by James concerning the various aspects of attention in the spectrum of expectation, observation and reflection, is still extremely useful. Expectant attention prepares for action and is always conditioned by the expected events. It contemplates both modes of conduct or reflex activities in the short or long term in animal existence and intentional behaviours sustained by generic instinctive drives. There are animals, for example, which appear to manifest enormous patience in contexts that are highly specialised. One can think of the biological/instinctual expectations of birds and rodents which wisely conserve their food, of the leopard who delays action until the gazelle comes up close, of the spider who lurks in wait for its prey. Then one can think of all the situations of human consciousness in which attention appears to be an instinctual spur susceptible of modulation within certain limits: the hunter crouching in the hide, the fisherman waiting for the fish to bite, the marksman ready to fire at his target, the athlete in the starting blocks. This attentive modality has a duration which cannot be specified even though it cannot be prolonged ad infinitum: from split seconds to quite lengthy intervals. Whatever the scope, a state of intense vigilance, alertness and tension is in action. Observant attention indicates a distance between the subject and the surrounding scenario, which the subject registers in detail but with some oscillations. Here, where interest and motivations play a decisive role, attention deploys its agents to the full, whether modal (perplexity, hesitation, tiredness, somnolence) or maintenance (as when driving a car on an empty road). Lastly reflecting attention is exercised on an interior object on which mental activity is fully focused. In the reflection, attention is expressed through knowledge of the interior universe. Such turning in on oneself implies a keen attention, as in pure abstraction, meditation and contemplation.

very valid observations, Mauro.

The attention from my point of view can be interpreted as an embodied process that supports the consciousness.

The attention, in fact, it is essential to perceive, to act and to reprogram the responses to the environment.

both simple and complex behaviors require attention focused or diffused

We just had a small exchange on facebook,,involving Victor Lamme and David Rosenthal. We talked about top-down attention vs. bottom-up attention regarding traffic topics such as car accidents. So following the automatic driving paradigm, we more or less agreed that changing into a kind of fully alert driving mode from automatic driving both attentional mechanisms can be involved. Possibly in dangerous situations more on the bottom-up side. Victor posted an article regarding one question. I have hardly read on this topic.

What I remember generally, attention does not seem to have one center in the brain, similar to consciousness itself. We don't seem to have an attentional cortex. But I do think that neuroscience has found some decent handles on attention. Very interesting question. Thank you, Mauro

Dr. Mauro, all the best to you and all the participants of the discussion. You have organized the discussion of topical issues.

Vladimir

all human activities need attention. If the attention system has little energy they are structured pathological reactions. for example, the depressive disorder has, in many cases, a deficiency of attentional processes such as: sustained attention, attentional flexibility, etc.

Hi Raffaele,

Again what you say depends on definitions. If you confine attention on conscious attention then not all activities need attention. There are just too many things that we need to address, we cannot all follow them consciously. Still we walk, drive a car without any problem, because enough attention is payed in some "unconscious" ways. We really suffer from terminological problems. 

Unfortunately I cannot recall one talk, at ASSC Berlin. The core of the talk went through various setups of attention with and without consciousness. I even forgot who have that talk.

I like your point about depressive disorders.

Cheers

Hans

Dear Mauro,

Attention is the door of consciousness.  If we would live in perfect equilibrium with our environment, all that we are design to expect is happening as expected then we would not need any consciousness, awareness or attention but would function as designed, as robot or zombies.  But nature is not predictable and the only possible animal design was one open to the unexpected.  This openess to the unexpected is attention.  What need attention is what goes wrong.  When in a task, the automated mode do not manage to make the task converged towards its goal, something goes wrong and attention is needed, new learning is needed, consciousness is needed and the full range of cognitive resources can be concentrated on solving the task , or changing the task. 

Louis,

Excuse me for not replying to your previous post. A horrible flu ...

I share your observations. The our problem is that despite the formidable progress made in numerous fields by cognitive neurosciences, we are still in the dark about very many aspects of attention. One thing that is now beyond doubt is the multiplicity of processes that underlie it, for attention is involved in numerous other fundamental cognitive processes – perception, motor action, memory – and any attempt to isolate it in order to study its constant features is bound to prove sterile. For a long time the debate was influenced by the hypothesis that attention constitutes a level of consciousness varying widely in extension and clarity, and only functioning in relation to its variations: from sleep to wakefulness, from somnolent to crepuscular, from confusion to hyperlucidity, from oneiric to oneiroid states, and so on. Subsequently other approaches of considerable theoretical importance linked attention to emotion, affectivity and psychic energy or social determinants. Yet what do we really know about attention, the sphere of our life which orients mental activity towards objects, actions and objectives, maintaining itself at a certain level of tension for variable periods of time? How and to what extent is attention related to consciousness? Why does only a minimal part of the information from the external world reach the brain even though the physical inputs strike our senses with the same intensity? And why is it that, although they enter our field of consciousness, most of these inputs do not surface in our awareness?

Ha ha, I agree, Mauro the paper is nice. But some of James's statements sound strange these days. 

When he says "my experience is what I agree to attend to", a whole lot of modern notions come to mind. Basically we know a lot about top-down and bottom-up attentional mechanisms. Thus if we are on a bottom-up path, we have no choice at all. It is more like a threshold is passed and then an all-or-nothing response follows.

This is very important for survival, because if we could overrule a change of attention by a conscious choice, we might die or even kill others in a car crash.

Actually we can overrule and do it a lot. What we actually attend to is mostly a mixture of both basic mechanisms. Most important topic. Cannot be covered in a few words.

Neural correlates of consciousness may have a better understanding cogntion than consciousness itself, for it seems to be much more than the brain  https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308494227_Consciousness_is_Quantum_Computed_Beyond_the_Limits_of_the_Brain_A_Perspective_Conceived_from_Cases_Studied_for_Hydranencephaly

Article Consciousness is Quantum Computed Beyond the Limits of the B...

Hi Contzen, 

I will look up a severe case of hydrancephaly and post it here asap. The case is very well documented and I did not see it in your article.

I disgree with your conclusions though because of that case.

The patient was basically healthy and came to see his doctor for a different reason. The missing brain substance is so amazing that the patient should have had severe malfunctions. In such a case plasticity of the brain cannot explain the puzzle.

And many functions should suffer in a similar way. Motor functions, mental functions, almost possibly every function. So from this follows that major loss of brain tissue does neither produce loss of consciousness nor losing all other brain functions.

Maybe Max Tegmark's strange perceptronium is at work, because obviously the only thing that is abundant in that brain is liquid.

Cheers

Hans

Hope this works

http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(07)61127-1.pdf

Test Your Awareness: Do The Test

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ahg6qcgoay4

Dear Hans,

This is a case of hydrocephalus where the cortex tissue is still present and not hydranencephaly where the cortex is completely absent, which is the case presented in this paper. The brain is definitely not the seat of consciousness but for sure is the seat of cognitive abilities, which are driven by consciousness. Consciousness maybe a product of energy exchange at the quantum level, which occurs throughout the body within each and every cell, but together creates the subjective experience of everything around us. Reductionism is good, as it helps us understand the mechanism, so it answers the "How" of consciousness, but the "Why" and"What" remains as a first experience which is clearly observed in these individuals but unfortunately science likes to prove and compare everything and therefore we have tests to determine consciousness in individuals which cannot express their experience. Surprisingly, we assume that humans can understand each others first person experience from a third person perspective when they still cannot answer what is the "self" or the "mind". Thank you for the case study.

Regards

Contzen

I spotted the bear with everything going around at the same time. You cannot be aware or conscious of just one thing because experience does not stop...its just a bling bling bling situation. What you may not consider as important may be important to me....its purely a first person approach.

Contzen,

Those that seriously concentrate on the task on counting the number of exchanges of the white ball do not see the moon walking bear.   Money would need to be offered to really motivate all viewers to be seriously concentrated on counting.  If someone is not really motivated and thus not really concentrated on that counting task, he/she will have much more chance to see other things such as the moon walking bear that are not relevant to this task.  So you saw the bear because you were not a seriously motivated viewer.    All form of perceptions are filters adapted to the task at hand.  The better is the filter, the better the task will be done and the less things not relevant to the task the filter will let in.