There is evidence from neuropsychological and psychophysical measurements that conscious sensory information is processed in discrete time segments. The segmentation process may be described as neuronal activity at a frequency of 40 Hz. Stimulus-induced neuronal activities of this frequency are found in the middle latency range of the auditory evoked potential . First, we have studied the effects of different general anesthetics on MLAEP and auditory evoked 40-Hz activity. Second, we investigated MLAEP and explicit and implicit memory for information presented (...) during cardiac anesthesia. In the awake patients peak latencies of the MLAEP were in the normal range. An auditory evoked 40-Hz activity was present 20–100 ms poststimulus. Under nonspecific anesthetics MLAEP and the 40-Hz activity were suppressed, and under receptor-specific agents MLAEP and the 40-Hz activity were partly preserved. None of the cardiac patients had conscious explicit recall of the intraoperative events, whereas some patients showed unconscious implicit memory for an intraoperative tape message. The implicit memory could be related to midlatency auditory evoked potentials. No implicit memory was detectable when MLAEP and the primary cortical processing of the auditory stimuli and 40-Hz activity were blocked. Implicit memory could be detected in more than 50% of the cases when MLAEP, a 30-Hz activity, and the primary cortical stimulus processing were preserved. In conclusion, our observations support the view that a high frequency oscillatory mechanisms, recorded as a grouped neuronal activity in the MLAEP, may be part of a basic neuronal program for conscious sensory information processing. (shrink)

This paper explores the difference between Connectionist proposals for cognitive a r c h i t e c t u r e a n d t h e s o r t s o f m o d e l s t hat have traditionally been assum e d i n c o g n i t i v e s c i e n c e . W e c l a i m t h a t t h (...) e m a j o r d i s t i n c t i o n i s t h a t , w h i l e b o t h Connectionist and Classical architectures postulate representational mental states, the latter but not the former are committed to a symbol-level of representation, or to a ‘language of thought’: i.e., to representational states that have combinatorial syntactic and semantic structure. Several arguments for combinatorial structure in mental representations are then reviewed. These include arguments based on the ‘systematicity’ of mental representation: i.e., on the fact that cognitive capacities always exhibit certain symmetries, so that the ability to entertain a given thought implies the ability to entertain thoughts with semantically related contents. We claim that such arguments make a powerful case that mind/brain architecture is not Connectionist at the cognitive level. We then consider the possibility that Connectionism may provide an account of the neural (or ‘abstract neurological’) structures in which Classical cognitive architecture is implemented. We survey a n u m b e r o f t h e s t a n d a r d a r g u m e n t s t h a t h a v e b e e n o f f e r e d i n f a v o r o f Connectionism, and conclude that they are coherent only on this interpretation. (shrink)

I will focus in this essay on a riddle that in my view is central to the consciousness issue: How does the mind or brain create the unity we perceive out of the diversity that we know is there? I contend this is a technical issue, not a philosophical one, although its resolution will have profound philosophical repercussions, and although we have at present little more than the philosophical method to attack it.

In this speculative paper I would like to show how important the integration of mental content is for a theory of phenomenal consciousness. I will draw the reader's attention to two manifestations of this problem which already play a role in the empirical sciences concerned with consciousness: The binding problem and the superposition problem. In doing so I hope to be able to leave the welltrodden paths of the debate over consciousness. My main concern is to gain a fresh access (...) to the familiar theoretical difficulties associated with the concept of 'consciousness'. (shrink)

A broad consensus has developed in recent years in the cognitive and neurosciences that the cognitive functions of the mind arise out of the activities of an extensive and diverse array of specialized processors operating as a parallel, distributed system. A theoretical perspective is presented which expands upon this "society" model to include globally integrative infuences upon this arrary of processors. This perspective serves as the basis for an explicit neural model of a "global workspace within a system of distributed (...) specialized processors". Anatomical and physiological evidence are reviewed which suggest that this parallel, modular architecture is superceded by a more diffuse, tangential intracortical network capable of integrating underlying modular activites into increasingly global cognitive representations. There follows an explication of the role of this "neural global workspace" in providing the essential basis for the central control of attention and the generation of unified, conscious percepts. Finally the role of thalamic and brainstem activation systems in these integrative processes is discussed. (shrink)

The development of the issue of binding as fundamental to neural dynamics has made possible recent advances in the modeling of difficult problems of perception and brain function. Among them is perceptual segmentation, invariant pattern recognition and one-shot learning. Also, longer-term conceptual developments that have led to this success are reviewed.

[opening paragraph] -- Clark: The `astonishing hypothesis' which you put forward in your book, and which you obviously feel is very controversial, is that `You, your joys and sorrows, your memories and ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will are, in fact, no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells. As Lewis Carroll's Alice might have phrased it: `You're nothing but a pack of neurons'.' But it seems to me that this is not so (...) astonishing a statement for a scientist to make. Isn't this what reductionist science has always believed? (shrink)