Morsella et al. propose an elegant theory of consciousness. Consciousness, they argue, is a passive frame through which skeletomotor conflict is resolved. The authors ascribe much of the originality in their theorizing to a strategic focus on the most elemental aspects of consciousness. In keeping with their simple approach, Morsella et al. argue that science should not focus on high forms of consciousness. We argue, on the contrary, that an understanding of high forms of consciousness is indispensable to consciousness theory, and that such understanding offers invaluable insights into passive frame theory (PFT). In many respects, the latest theories about higher forms of consciousness, including our own (Baumeister & Masicampo Reference Baumeister and Masicampo2010), reinforce PFT. But in other ways, they pose challenges that PFT must overcome. In either case, we object to being told that science should not study the higher level.
Many theorists distinguish two levels of consciousness. Morsella et al. are concerned with the most basic form of consciousness, which we term phenomenal awareness (Block Reference Block1995a) and consider to be present in most if not all animals (Mendl & Paul Reference Mendl and Paul2004; Panksepp Reference Panksepp2005). Our own work focuses on the higher form of consciousness, which we termed conscious thought. Conscious thought is unique to humans (Damasio Reference Damasio1999; Edelman Reference Edelman2004) and has been linked to such capacities as self-consciousness, mental time travel, theory of mind, and logical reasoning. We argue that conscious thought is essentially a place where the mind simulates sequences of events in the service of participating in society and culture (Baumeister & Masicampo Reference Baumeister and Masicampo2010).
Understanding conscious thought is indispensable to a full understanding of consciousness. Morsella et al. seem in some ways to endorse this view. Though their theory is based on the simplest forms of consciousness, they use it to explain consciousness at the highest levels, as in their Thanksgiving dinner scenario. Hence, their theory should be compatible with the functions of conscious thought, even if conscious thought is not its main focus.
Our theory shares many features with PFT. Both theories argue that consciousness is the place where the mind integrates information, allowing for competing intuitions to be resolved. Moreover, both theories locate control in automatic and unconscious processes. Thus, as far as the suggestions from PFT that consciousness resolves motivational conflict and is passive, we are in agreement.
However, two tenets of PFT are incompatible with our analysis of conscious thought. The first is the notion that conscious contents are responses to environmental stimuli – not other mental stimuli. With this assertion, PFT “counters the everyday notion that one conscious thought can lead to another” (Morsella et al. target article, sect. 4.1, para. 6). This view is incompatible with the most basic understanding of conscious thought. We have argued that conscious thought is useful for mentally simulating sequences of ideas or events (Baumeister & Masicampo Reference Baumeister and Masicampo2010). Much of human thinking fits this pattern, especially including language, logical reasoning, and narrative storytelling. Crucially, the sequences that comprise conscious thought are not a random assortment of percepts triggered by external stimuli. Rather, conscious thoughts comprise meaningfully connected sequences of ideas. Conscious thought's most salient feature is that it is experienced as a never-ending stream, with new thoughts often flowing out of the previous one (e.g., James Reference James1890). Each step in logical reasoning is partly but directly caused by the preceding thought.
The connectedness between thoughts is part of the efficacious power of conscious thought. By combining ideas into meaningful sequences, new and useful properties can emerge. A person who is planning when to go to the airport does so by working backwards from takeoff, subtracting away the time it takes to walk to one's gate, check in, take a taxi, and so forth. The end result is a useful and unforeseen bit of knowledge: the precise time at which one should get going. It was reached simply by processing information one already has. This would be an intractable problem if each conscious thought did not lead directly into the next. Most types of conscious thought, including storytelling, language use, perspective taking, and logical reasoning, hinge on a direct relationship between thoughts.
Our second issue with PFT is its assertion that all conscious processing is for resolving motor conflict. We argue that the integration that occurs in human consciousness serves a broader purpose: privileging certain responses over others, whether those are motor movements or attitudes, preferences, or ideas. In our view, Morsella et al. have captured the process of integration and conflict resolution quite nicely, but they place an unnecessary constraint on the process by linking it exclusively to motor conflict. It is quite likely that the unconscious selection process by which animals regulate motor conflict evolved to allow humans to regulate other sorts of conflicts (e.g., between ideas when thinking through complex problems). During many conscious thought processes, such as logical reasoning or language use, there is no apparent skeletomotor conflict. As a case in point, which muscle conflict was being resolved when Morsella et al. employed conscious reasoning to devise PFT? Creative psychological theories may of course influence behavior downstream, but they are not created to resolve momentary inputs into the skeletomotor system.
In sum, we see much to like about PFT. However, we object to the notion that the scientific study of consciousness should eschew its more advanced forms. As with any scientific inquiry, a full understanding of the problem is best served by approaching it from all sides. A functional theory of consciousness that omits some of its forms and functions will remain incomplete. Moreover, research on conscious thought poses challenges to PFT. Specifically, the notions that conscious thoughts are not connected and that consciousness only serves skeletomotor conflict need to be reconciled with the prevailing view of human consciousness – that conscious thoughts are connected in meaningful ways, and that they concern not just competing motor impulses, but conflicts that are deeper and more meaningful.
You have
Access
Morsella et al. propose an elegant theory of consciousness. Consciousness, they argue, is a passive frame through which skeletomotor conflict is resolved. The authors ascribe much of the originality in their theorizing to a strategic focus on the most elemental aspects of consciousness. In keeping with their simple approach, Morsella et al. argue that science should not focus on high forms of consciousness. We argue, on the contrary, that an understanding of high forms of consciousness is indispensable to consciousness theory, and that such understanding offers invaluable insights into passive frame theory (PFT). In many respects, the latest theories about higher forms of consciousness, including our own (Baumeister & Masicampo Reference Baumeister and Masicampo2010), reinforce PFT. But in other ways, they pose challenges that PFT must overcome. In either case, we object to being told that science should not study the higher level.
Many theorists distinguish two levels of consciousness. Morsella et al. are concerned with the most basic form of consciousness, which we term phenomenal awareness (Block Reference Block1995a) and consider to be present in most if not all animals (Mendl & Paul Reference Mendl and Paul2004; Panksepp Reference Panksepp2005). Our own work focuses on the higher form of consciousness, which we termed conscious thought. Conscious thought is unique to humans (Damasio Reference Damasio1999; Edelman Reference Edelman2004) and has been linked to such capacities as self-consciousness, mental time travel, theory of mind, and logical reasoning. We argue that conscious thought is essentially a place where the mind simulates sequences of events in the service of participating in society and culture (Baumeister & Masicampo Reference Baumeister and Masicampo2010).
Understanding conscious thought is indispensable to a full understanding of consciousness. Morsella et al. seem in some ways to endorse this view. Though their theory is based on the simplest forms of consciousness, they use it to explain consciousness at the highest levels, as in their Thanksgiving dinner scenario. Hence, their theory should be compatible with the functions of conscious thought, even if conscious thought is not its main focus.
Our theory shares many features with PFT. Both theories argue that consciousness is the place where the mind integrates information, allowing for competing intuitions to be resolved. Moreover, both theories locate control in automatic and unconscious processes. Thus, as far as the suggestions from PFT that consciousness resolves motivational conflict and is passive, we are in agreement.
However, two tenets of PFT are incompatible with our analysis of conscious thought. The first is the notion that conscious contents are responses to environmental stimuli – not other mental stimuli. With this assertion, PFT “counters the everyday notion that one conscious thought can lead to another” (Morsella et al. target article, sect. 4.1, para. 6). This view is incompatible with the most basic understanding of conscious thought. We have argued that conscious thought is useful for mentally simulating sequences of ideas or events (Baumeister & Masicampo Reference Baumeister and Masicampo2010). Much of human thinking fits this pattern, especially including language, logical reasoning, and narrative storytelling. Crucially, the sequences that comprise conscious thought are not a random assortment of percepts triggered by external stimuli. Rather, conscious thoughts comprise meaningfully connected sequences of ideas. Conscious thought's most salient feature is that it is experienced as a never-ending stream, with new thoughts often flowing out of the previous one (e.g., James Reference James1890). Each step in logical reasoning is partly but directly caused by the preceding thought.
The connectedness between thoughts is part of the efficacious power of conscious thought. By combining ideas into meaningful sequences, new and useful properties can emerge. A person who is planning when to go to the airport does so by working backwards from takeoff, subtracting away the time it takes to walk to one's gate, check in, take a taxi, and so forth. The end result is a useful and unforeseen bit of knowledge: the precise time at which one should get going. It was reached simply by processing information one already has. This would be an intractable problem if each conscious thought did not lead directly into the next. Most types of conscious thought, including storytelling, language use, perspective taking, and logical reasoning, hinge on a direct relationship between thoughts.
Our second issue with PFT is its assertion that all conscious processing is for resolving motor conflict. We argue that the integration that occurs in human consciousness serves a broader purpose: privileging certain responses over others, whether those are motor movements or attitudes, preferences, or ideas. In our view, Morsella et al. have captured the process of integration and conflict resolution quite nicely, but they place an unnecessary constraint on the process by linking it exclusively to motor conflict. It is quite likely that the unconscious selection process by which animals regulate motor conflict evolved to allow humans to regulate other sorts of conflicts (e.g., between ideas when thinking through complex problems). During many conscious thought processes, such as logical reasoning or language use, there is no apparent skeletomotor conflict. As a case in point, which muscle conflict was being resolved when Morsella et al. employed conscious reasoning to devise PFT? Creative psychological theories may of course influence behavior downstream, but they are not created to resolve momentary inputs into the skeletomotor system.
In sum, we see much to like about PFT. However, we object to the notion that the scientific study of consciousness should eschew its more advanced forms. As with any scientific inquiry, a full understanding of the problem is best served by approaching it from all sides. A functional theory of consciousness that omits some of its forms and functions will remain incomplete. Moreover, research on conscious thought poses challenges to PFT. Specifically, the notions that conscious thoughts are not connected and that consciousness only serves skeletomotor conflict need to be reconciled with the prevailing view of human consciousness – that conscious thoughts are connected in meaningful ways, and that they concern not just competing motor impulses, but conflicts that are deeper and more meaningful.