Invariance Laws and a Science of=20
Consciousness
=
How=20
can the study of consciousness achieve full status as a science? Can the perceptual experience =
of Nagel=92s=20
famous bat ever be explained as a science? The question devolves upon =
our=20
conception of scientific explanation. A strongly argued =
conception of=20
scientific explanation, the implications of which appear yet to register =
upon=20
the consciousness community, is this: scientific explanation rests upon=20
invariance laws. It is =
the=20
discovery and explication of invariance that is central. The law for a stretched =
spring, F =3D -kX,=20
is a simple example. In=20
relativistic physics, it is only invariants that are realities. This conception of science has =
been=20
explicated by Wigner for physics, Woodward for the biological sciences, =
Kugler=20
and Turvey for perception, among others. Gibson, with his gradients and =
velocity=20
flow fields - invariance related constructs which have become so =
critical in=20
current theories of form perception (Robbins, 2004a) - was a prime =
exponent. The=20
examples are ubiquitous and overwhelming. =20
If we accept the proposition that the discovery and explication =
of=20
invariance laws is the central, definitive characteristic of a science, =
then=20
this question is critical: =
can the=20
study of consciousness be brought into this invariance law =
framework? Equivalently, can Nagel=92s =
question,=20
=93What is it like to a bat?=94 be incorporated within this =
framework? If not, consciousness will =
never achieve=20
status as a field of science.
=
What=20
might a theory look like that can achieve this? Perhaps it is not so far =
away as=20
some would believe. I =
offer an=20
example of a possibility. =
Gibson=92s=20
theory of =93direct perception=94 or =93direct specification=94 is founded utterly in the =
brain=92s=20
response to, or pick-up of, invariance laws in the matter-field. The invariants extracted are=20
intrinsically related to the action capabilities of the organism. This basic approach can =
be=20
embedded within the larger framework developed by Bergson, wherein =
perception is=20
=93virtual action.=94 =
Bergson=92s model=20
contains these features (Robbins, 2002, 2004b):
- =20
The =
matter-field=20
is holographic
- =20
The =
time-motion=20
of this field is indivisible or non-differentiable (Nottale,=20
1996).
- =20
The =
field itself=20
carries a basic qualitative aspect at the null scale of time
- =20
The =
dynamics of=20
the brain imposes a scale of time on this =
matter-field
- =20
The =
dynamical=20
pattern is a reflection of invariance laws extracted over the field=92s=20
motion
- =20
The =
dynamics=20
supports a reconstructive wave =93passing through=94 the holographic =
field and=20
specifying an external image
- =20
The =
image=20
specified is a past form of the non-differentiable motion of the=20
matter-field.
=20
Such a model would ground at least conscious perception in the =
scientific=20
framework. The conscious, =
perceptual image would now be specified as a function of =
objective=20
dynamical laws, ultimately a wave-dynamics. Color and form would not be =
=93subjective=20
modifications of experience,=94 rather visual experience is a function =
of physical=20
law. To predict the form =
and=20
qualitative nature of visual experience for a given organism in such a=20
framework, whether human, frog or chipmunk, a science would need to =
specify, (1)=20
the action-capability of the organism, (2) the invariance laws to which =
the=20
system can respond, (3) the scale of time being imposed on the=20
field.
=20
Admittedly, Nagel=92s bat, with its sonar, will be more difficult =
than the=20
frog, but the framework suggested can, I believe, provide at minimum a =
good=20
start on scientific answers on a range of organisms for Nagel=92s famous =
question,=20
and bring at least perceptual consciousness into the realm of =
science. =
=20
References:
Kugler, P. & Turvey, M. (1987). Information, Natural Law, =
and the=20
Self-assembly of Rhythmic Movement. =20
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Nottale, L.=20
(1996). Scale relativity and fractal space-time: applications to quantum =
physics, cosmology and chaotic systems. =20
Chaos, Solitons and =
Fractals,=20
7, 877-938. =
Robbins, S. E. (2004a). =20
On time, memory and dynamic form. =20
Consciousness and Cognition, 13, 762-788. =20
Robbins, S. E.=20
(2004b). Virtual action: O'Regan & =
No=EB meet=20
Bergson. Behavioral and Brain =
Sciences.
Robbins, S. E.=20
(2002). Semantics, experience and time. Cognitive Systems Research,=20
3(3), 301-337. =20
Wigner, E. P. (1970). =20
Symmetries and Reflections. =20
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Woodward, J. (2000). Explanation and invariance in the =
special=20
sciences. British =
Journal for=20
the Philosophy of Science, 51, 197-214.
Woodward, J. (2001). Law=20
and explanation in biology: Invariance is the kind of stability that=20
matters. Philosophy of =
Science, 68, 1-20.
=20