a while back we sent the below letter. some people ask if they could refer to it. so i thought i could paste it here, so they can link to it. it was an open letter anyway
***
May 14, 2019
Dear colleagues,
Re: Neuroethics needs a balance between theory development and rigorous experimental research on consciousness
We write in response to the call for comments on the Neuroethics Roadmap, which is part of the NIH BRAIN Initiative. We are pleased to see that research on consciousness is receiving recognition. As a group of active researchers in the relevant fields, we hope to point out some potential caveats.
The Roadmap emphasizes the need for theoretical and mathematical models of consciousness. However, current theories are tentative and limited. To make progress, we need experiments designed to identify the neural mechanisms distinguishing conscious from unconscious processes in humans, in whom consciousness can be assessed via subjective reports.
We believe that active research into the neural signatures of consciousness in these relatively clear cases is crucial for building and testing models of awareness in non-human primates and simpler animals, or other more controversial cases. For this reason, for example, it is too early to view the Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness, which states that some non-human animals without a neocortex are conscious, as reflecting a scientific consensus.
Relatedly, the Integrated Information Theory (IIT) of consciousness features prominently in the references cited in the Neuroethics Moonshot section of the Roadmap. While there is support for the association between consciousness and the complexity of active brain networks in humans, some have taken this relationship to generalize lawfully to all physical systems. We do not consider this interpretation to be scientifically established or testable at the moment. We note that alternative theoretical approaches are already referenced indirectly in the Moonshot section (Reference 8); other useful reviews are also available.
Unfortunately, despite their clear relevance to various areas of brain and mental health research, empirical projects focusing on the brain mechanisms distinguishing between conscious and unconscious processes in awake individuals currently do not receive adequate funding. To test theories, we need the relevant data. As many as 58 authors in the field have recently expressed related concerns in a peer-reviewed statement.
Finally, we emphasize that many potential stakeholders could contribute to the Subgroup’s discussions. For example, the Association for the Scientific Study of Consciousness (ASSC) is an open academic society specifically dedicated to scientific research on consciousness. It could have an important dialogue with the Subgroup, and with others interested in the topic.
Thank you for your attention. We have elected to make this letter open, as others may benefit from these clarifications on the current state of research in this area.
Best regards,
(in alphabetical order)
Michele A. Basso, UCLA
Diane M. Beck, University of Illinois
James Bisley, UCLA
Ned Block, NYU
Richard Brown, Laguardia College New York
Denise Cai, Mount Sinai Icahn School of Medicine
David Carmel, Victoria University of Wellington
Axel Cleeremans, Université Libre de Bruxelles
Stanislas Dehaene, College de France
Stephen Fleming, University College London
Chris Frith, University College London
Simon van Gaal, University of Amsterdam
Michael E. Goldberg, Columbia University
Mel Goodale, Western University
Patrick Haggard, University College London
Biyu He, NYU
Sid Kouider, Ecole Normale Superieure, Paris
Robert T. Knight, UC Berkeley
Konrad Kording, UPenn
Hakwan Lau, UCLA
Dominique Lamy, Tel Aviv University
Joseph LeDoux, NYU
Stephen Macknik, SUNY Downstate Medical Center
Susana Martinez-Conde, SUNY Downstate Medical Center
Matthias Michel, Sorbonne University
Lisa Miracchi, University of Pennsylvania
Earl K. Miller, MIT
Lionel Naccache, Sorbonne University, ICM
Adrian M. Owen, Western University
Richard E. Passingham, University of Oxford
Elizabeth Phelps, Harvard University
Megan A. K. Peters, UC Riverside
Dario Ringach, UCLA
Tony Ro, Graduate Center, City University of New York
David Rosenthal, City University of New York
Jérôme Sackur, École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales
Yuka Sasaki, Brown University
Claire Sergent, Université de Paris
Anil Seth, University of Sussex
Michael Shadlen, Columbia University
Jacobo Diego Sitt, INSERM-ICM
Catherine Tallon-Baudry, INSERM, PSL Research University
Frank Tong, Vanderbilt University
Peter Ulric Tse, Dartmouth
Takeo Watanabe, Brown University
Thalia Wheatley, Dartmouth
***
May 14, 2019
Dear colleagues,
Re: Neuroethics needs a balance between theory development and rigorous experimental research on consciousness
We write in response to the call for comments on the Neuroethics Roadmap, which is part of the NIH BRAIN Initiative. We are pleased to see that research on consciousness is receiving recognition. As a group of active researchers in the relevant fields, we hope to point out some potential caveats.
The Roadmap emphasizes the need for theoretical and mathematical models of consciousness. However, current theories are tentative and limited. To make progress, we need experiments designed to identify the neural mechanisms distinguishing conscious from unconscious processes in humans, in whom consciousness can be assessed via subjective reports.
We believe that active research into the neural signatures of consciousness in these relatively clear cases is crucial for building and testing models of awareness in non-human primates and simpler animals, or other more controversial cases. For this reason, for example, it is too early to view the Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness, which states that some non-human animals without a neocortex are conscious, as reflecting a scientific consensus.
Relatedly, the Integrated Information Theory (IIT) of consciousness features prominently in the references cited in the Neuroethics Moonshot section of the Roadmap. While there is support for the association between consciousness and the complexity of active brain networks in humans, some have taken this relationship to generalize lawfully to all physical systems. We do not consider this interpretation to be scientifically established or testable at the moment. We note that alternative theoretical approaches are already referenced indirectly in the Moonshot section (Reference 8); other useful reviews are also available.
Unfortunately, despite their clear relevance to various areas of brain and mental health research, empirical projects focusing on the brain mechanisms distinguishing between conscious and unconscious processes in awake individuals currently do not receive adequate funding. To test theories, we need the relevant data. As many as 58 authors in the field have recently expressed related concerns in a peer-reviewed statement.
Finally, we emphasize that many potential stakeholders could contribute to the Subgroup’s discussions. For example, the Association for the Scientific Study of Consciousness (ASSC) is an open academic society specifically dedicated to scientific research on consciousness. It could have an important dialogue with the Subgroup, and with others interested in the topic.
Thank you for your attention. We have elected to make this letter open, as others may benefit from these clarifications on the current state of research in this area.
Best regards,
(in alphabetical order)
Michele A. Basso, UCLA
Diane M. Beck, University of Illinois
James Bisley, UCLA
Ned Block, NYU
Richard Brown, Laguardia College New York
Denise Cai, Mount Sinai Icahn School of Medicine
David Carmel, Victoria University of Wellington
Axel Cleeremans, Université Libre de Bruxelles
Stanislas Dehaene, College de France
Stephen Fleming, University College London
Chris Frith, University College London
Simon van Gaal, University of Amsterdam
Michael E. Goldberg, Columbia University
Mel Goodale, Western University
Patrick Haggard, University College London
Biyu He, NYU
Sid Kouider, Ecole Normale Superieure, Paris
Robert T. Knight, UC Berkeley
Konrad Kording, UPenn
Hakwan Lau, UCLA
Dominique Lamy, Tel Aviv University
Joseph LeDoux, NYU
Stephen Macknik, SUNY Downstate Medical Center
Susana Martinez-Conde, SUNY Downstate Medical Center
Matthias Michel, Sorbonne University
Lisa Miracchi, University of Pennsylvania
Earl K. Miller, MIT
Lionel Naccache, Sorbonne University, ICM
Adrian M. Owen, Western University
Richard E. Passingham, University of Oxford
Elizabeth Phelps, Harvard University
Megan A. K. Peters, UC Riverside
Dario Ringach, UCLA
Tony Ro, Graduate Center, City University of New York
David Rosenthal, City University of New York
Jérôme Sackur, École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales
Yuka Sasaki, Brown University
Claire Sergent, Université de Paris
Anil Seth, University of Sussex
Michael Shadlen, Columbia University
Jacobo Diego Sitt, INSERM-ICM
Catherine Tallon-Baudry, INSERM, PSL Research University
Frank Tong, Vanderbilt University
Peter Ulric Tse, Dartmouth
Takeo Watanabe, Brown University
Thalia Wheatley, Dartmouth
nice post i like it
ReplyDeleteBest Neurologist in Delhi
Sleep Specialist<\a>