Being You: A New Science of Consciousness (The Sunday Times Bestseller)

Cognitive neuroscience is a relatively young science which still grapples with the definition of its main research object « consciousness » defining its contents and specificity. Is consciousness a state of wakefulness or a basic sentience common to all animals? Is it awareness of the self ( phenomenological selfhood) or a mere awareness of the body interacting with its surroundings. Does intelligence imply consciousness and does it have to be embodied? To what extent is consciousness amenable to experimental probing? How valid are the findings of brain neuro imaging in elucidating its nature?The author attempts to answer some of these questions. He starts by distinguishing conscious level, conscious content and conscious self. The explanation of the brain mechanisms that underlie our ability to be conscious are still unclear but the experiments of Massimini of Milan, using trans cranial magnetic stimulation are promising. They generate different electrical echoes recorded by the EEG, during various states of consciousness, that could be the first step to measure consciousness. The applications in the clinical sphere potentially fruitful in order to distinguish between brain death, deep coma, and a persistent vegetative state. This is the most enlightening part of the account. But it still begs the question what are we actually measuring?But then the author digresses by discussing ITT (information integration theory )a theory of consciousness proposed by Tononi, who argues that consciousness is simply “integrated information” , therefore it could be anywhere in a computer or any intelligent machine or even the cell. But it simply cannot be measured for any real complex system like the human brain. To my mind it is a heuristic model that has its limitations. It also smacks of panpsychism.The more promising approach is that suggested by Francis Crick, the DNA discoverer, who proposed we should look into the “ neural correlates of consciousness” , leading directly to experiments using EEG, functional MRI etc to elucidate phenomena like binocular rivalry. Though the limitation of such techniques is their reliance on brain regional localisation and not on elucidating deeper mechanisms. Correlations are not explanations but are a start.The main contribution of the author who started as a computer scientist, is his theory of the brain as a machine with predictive processing powers through Bayesian inference. It leads him to conclude that perception is a “controlled hallucination” . Basically the brain uses predictive models in order to figure out the causes of sensory signals and allows it to change the sensory data to conform existing predictions. In other words perception is a prediction of what ought to be out there in the world, models built by the brain continuously being modified. However the use of the word hallucination is unfortunate. It implies there is some equivalence between a normal conscious state and altered consciousness as with an illness ( delirium, schizophrenia) or drug induced, if in the final analysis all perceptions are fundamentally illusions. The difference is in the abnormal state the hallucination is uncontrolled. What is the explanatory power of such a theory? How are some “ hallucinations “ controlled and others not? How does the brain build its own models? Perhaps a better concept would be “ perception as simulacrum of reality”, with a variety of versions formed by the brain and some can be distorted ( proper hallucination). Still it doesn’t explain how does the brain lose control? Why does the predictive model go awry on this occasion?The problem with such theories they are still a long way away from explaining what the Australian Philosopher Chalmers calls the hard problem. How do we explain the subjective experience of being me by the physical processes in my brain? But may be we are asking ourselves the wrong question. The self is not a neuronal object as the Oxford physiologist Denis Noble proclaims. Molecular biologists may have successfully explained the mechanisms of inheritance but may be we shall never succeed in explaining the physical basis of consciousness. However it is still a book worth reading as it heralds some interesting stepping stones.

Followihg Mr Anil Seth on YouTube. His contribution to the study of consciousness is highly recommended.. controlled hallucination perception. To go beyond our normal daily intuitive selfs is remarkable. To shake the foundations of what we "believe" or assume is correct based on introspection can be misleading. The limits of our brains and yet amazement of the wholeness of conscious is to some a gift from God to others a universal law of complexity. For me as a naturalist with a rather skeptical approach to all things supernatural. Seth had given me more of what I find to be truthful. Take it what you will.. each to there own. But remember just because you had some altered state of experence, doesn't give you the right to make that a universal truth. Science is our best method of inquiry.. do not be so bold as to think you have all the answers. Knowledge is a on going process. Old habits die hard, but yea recommend th is book.. fantastic support.

Two things irritated me in my first reading. First was the increasing sense that if I had got hold of it six months ago I would have got further with understanding prediction error minimisation theories, faster. That is partly because the material (often difficult and counter-intuitive) is very carefully selected, and structured; and engagingly presented. Seth's particular version, the "beast machine", with its concentration on what it is like to be conscious, constantly emphasises the relevance of these ideas to understanding ourselves, and other animals. Lots of good sense amongst the weirdness, as well (e.g. in the AI chapter). This is the place to start for anyone who wants to understand these exceptionally interesting, powerful and strange ideas.It will also make a lot of epistemologists feel rather queasy, which is always a good thing.The more irritating thing is that the end notes are often really helpful in understanding the argument. But there is no indication of when there is one in the main text, so you have to keep flicking backward and forward. GRRRRR!!

Anil Seth creates a coherent model of consciousness including mechanism, motivations and contents by articulating Predictive Processing using a constellation of Concepts and Objects and Models from The Beholder's Share thru Controlled Hallucinations to the Beast Machine. Wonderful language. It threads a line using the appropriate technical terms with enough context while not getting stuck in the weeds. It is very engaging with anecdotes and personal bits that are used of further the story of the science. It has a great explanation of Bayesian Inference featuring shifting Gaussian distributions. Plus insights into Free Will.p.220 - "The 'you' in question is the assemblage of self-related prior beliefs, values, goals, memories, and perceptual best guesses that collectively make up the experience of being you."New Big Idea #1 - Self Perception : Self is just like any other perception. It's based on the best guesses of predictive coding network between the Model and the Sensations.New Big Idea #2 - Beast Machine : We can only understand human consciousness in the context of our nature as living creatures since the purpose of our brains and contents is to keep all of our bodily functions running for us to thrive. Allostasis constrains the parameters of consciousness. Builds on Barrett's half lesson - your brain is not for thinking.Every book on consciousness needs to define the term*; Seth uses a fuzzy definition and says why:p.14 - "The definition of consciousness as 'any kind of subjective experience whatsoever' is admittedly simple and may even sound trivial, but this is a good thing. When a complex phenomenon is incompletely understood, prematurely precise definitions can be constraining and even misleading."Our consciousness is all about being ourself. And that is just another perception. Seth articulates 5 elements of the self: 1) Embodied Selfhood - physical, emotional, feeling alive. What Haidt calls The Elephant of the The Elephant and The Rider Metaphor 2) Perspectival Self is the first person feeling of looking out from behind our eyes. 3) Volitional Self is our sense of agency. 4) Narrative Self is the story we tell ourselves. This gives us our personal identity. 5) Social Self is ourselves in the eyes of others, or, how we think we are perceived.This is not doing Seth justice. Read the book.276 pages text, 36 pages of notes, 30 pages of references, 12 pages index. 23 Figures - 4 sections: Level, Contents, Self, and Other.

In my view, the author simply does not explain these difficult concepts well. He repeats himself, goes off on tangents and leaves many of the basic ideas and concepts poorly enunciated. I think there is an element of "emperor's new clothes" here whereby people, who perhaps have not read the book in its entirety, like to say that it is wonderful and that it clarifies current ideas on consciousness. I believe that a large part of the book is unintelligible to anyone who lacks a good prior knowledge of the subject. I have just completed reading a book on string theory and found it easy to understand in comparison.