Thinking, both global and local

For many people, consciousness is the biggest mystery of universe; hard problem how subjective experience can arise has been source philosophical speculation for centuries and psychological research decades. Even setting aside esoteric concepts such as soul or panpsychism, there are conflicting views on issue. Within neuroscience, two main schools thought prevail: globalism localism. However, neither perspective adequately explains current experimental evidence, in In Consciousness We Trust: The Cognitive Neuroscience Subjective Experience, Hakwan Lau makes case a synthesis. have their origins search neural correlates consciousness, which attempted to identify “the minimally sufficient conditions occur” by locating areas brain activity corresponds conscious awareness stimulus. Localists emphasise role V1 area visual cortex perception, citing phenomenon blindsight, whereby people with damage respond accurately stimuli without stimuli. other shown evidence perception area, might imply that only supporting consciousness. Globalists propose experiences when information broadcast regions brain, an emphasis prefrontal parietal cortices, argue central cognition. activation cortices during not widespread once thought. struggle account because it requires cognitive processing awareness, apparent sensory richness world, most detail should filtered out before point at they believe occurs. whether particular experiment favours local global view often strongly affected issues design. A instance be due stimulus but also signify post-perceptual cognition attempts report experimenters. Similarly, improvements task performance correlate owing differences internal signal strength rather than itself. Questions regarding confounders addressed, well, could easily sway interpretation result favour paradigm. pragmatic about biases, argues perfectly balanced probably impossible, long broad community given confounder, accounted accumulates. more nuanced go largely unconsidered, this systemic bias potentially skew whole body one school over other. takes position class theory wholly right compromise centrist necessary. His model, perceptual reality monitoring theory, proposes mechanism (which he refers discriminator, possibly based cortex) distinguishes between true perceptions, noise, fantasy, memory. According Lau, object occurs early represents discriminator agrees true; model solves issue richness, higher-order functions access richer, lower-level perceptions referencing first-order representation. He his explain “what-it-is-like-ness” experiencing, example redness colour red (distinct from colours yellow blue, sound smell), simply through structure representations brain. acknowledges readers will find too mechanistic, prefer alternative some deeper underlying principle. fundamental explanation tend rely untested assumptions make substantial errors regard neuroscience. end, almost apologetic, acknowledging “little [his model] original, no doubt remain unconvinced”. Nonetheless, functional like Lau's bypasses problems theories, well addressing flaws models. Trust book several purposes. ways, call arms, demanding higher standards critical thinking study greater attention nuances Its second aim theorists nor likely proven correct: each unlikely fixed, neuroscientists try develop combines best elements both. While leave feeling something still missing, important synthesis available knowledge, challenges those who pursue renewed rigour move beyond existing paradigms.