Department of Psychology, Åbo Akademi University, Fabriksgatan 2, 20500 Turku, Finland; Turku Brain and Mind Center, Finland; Department of Psychology, University of Turku, Finland.
Turku Brain and Mind Center, Finland; Department of Clinical Neurophysiology, University of Turku and Turku University Hospital, PL 52, 20521, Finland; Department of Psychology, University of Turku, Finland.
Conscious Cogn. 2019 Sep;74:102779. doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2019.102779. Epub 2019 Jul 8.
The typical empirical approach to studying consciousness holds that we can only observe the neural correlates of experiences, not the experiences themselves. In this paper we argue, in contrast, that experiences are concrete physical phenomena that can causally interact with other phenomena, including observers. Hence, experiences can be observed and scientifically modelled. We propose that the epistemic gap between an experience and a scientific model of its neural mechanisms stems from the fact that the model is merely a theoretical construct based on observations, and distinct from the concrete phenomenon it models, namely the experience itself. In this sense, there is a gap between any natural phenomenon and its scientific model. On this approach, a neuroscientific theory of the constitutive mechanisms of an experience is literally a model of the subjective experience itself. We argue that this metatheoretical framework provides a solid basis for the empirical study of consciousness.
研究意识的典型经验方法认为,我们只能观察经验的神经相关物,而不能观察经验本身。相比之下,本文认为,经验是具体的物理现象,可以与其他现象(包括观察者)因果相互作用。因此,经验可以被观察和科学建模。我们提出,经验与其神经机制的科学模型之间的认知差距源于这样一个事实,即模型仅仅是基于观察的理论构建,与它所建模的具体现象(即经验本身)不同。从这个意义上说,任何自然现象与其科学模型之间都存在差距。在这种方法中,对经验构成机制的神经科学理论从字面上说是对主观经验本身的一种模型。我们认为,这种元理论框架为意识的实证研究提供了坚实的基础。