Dainton and the Unity of Consciousness

1708 Words7 Pages
THE PROBLEM OF UNITY We visually experience apples, not redness, roundness, and sweetness. This binding problem concerns object unity. (40Hz hypothesis, crick and koch). There is also the issue of phenomenal unity: seeing wine, smelling wine, tasting wine, etc. Are these sensory experiences sequential or temporal? Unified or separate? How are they bound together in the brain? How do we attribute a voice to a dog, or a sensation to an object? How so, furthermore, can we explain the continuity of an experience? William James: A succession of feelings, in and of itself, is not a feeling of succession. And since, to our successive feelings, a feeling of their own succession is added, that must be treated as an addition fact requiring its own special elucidation. Dainton poses four important questions regarding phenomenal unity: 1. Binding problem: How does the neural activity of our brains generate unified conscious states? We have cohesive sensory experiences and parallel sensory inputs. Considering the scenario for phenomenal unity mentioned above, there must be some structure that generates the neural activity that binds these experiences together. According to Dainton, we do not yet know enough to definitively solve this problem. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304394007006684 According to Naghavi et al.’s research, the claustrum is implicated in multisensory integration. When subjects were presented with an a/v stimulus such as a dog barking, an fMRI recorded a in the claustrum. This congruent multisensory stimulus (as opposed to something incongruent like an apple barking) elicited activity that was confined to the claustrum. “Our findings indicate that the role of the claustrum/insula in MSI goes beyond these functions and involves integrative processes that require analysis of the content of stimuli. The results of this

More about Dainton and the Unity of Consciousness

Open Document