Is Consciousness "Outside-In" or is it "Inside-Out"?

[Sunstone]

There are currently two grand theories about the nature and functioning of consciousness. These theories are sometimes called the "outside-in" theory and the "inside-out" theory.

The outside-in theory is the oldest of the two, and the one you are most likely to be familiar with. Essentially, it states that information from outside the brain is transmitted into the brain where it is used to create an awareness (i.e. a consciousness) of what is outside the brain.

For example: Suppose there is a chipmunk on my lawn. My eyes see the chipmunk and send that information to my brain which then processes it into a conscious awareness of the chipmunk.​

The inside-out theory is the newest of the two theories. According to it, the process that results in conscious awareness of the chipmunk does NOT begin outside the brain, but instead begins inside the brain. The brain kicks things off by creating an hallucination. (Try thinking of this hallucination as a guess about what is outside the brain.) Next, information from outside the brain is transmitted into the brain where it is used to modify the hallucination so that the hallucination becomes more in line with what is outside the brain.

For example: Again, suppose the chipmunk. Only this time, the process begins in my brain, rather than with the chipmunk. My brain creates an hallucination. Then my eyes see the chipmunk and send that information to my brain which then uses it to correct my hallucination -- thus creating my conscious awareness of the chipmunk.​

Now it might seem like the older theory is the correct one. But the evidence from the neurosciences tends to strongly favor the newer theory. If the newer theory proves to be the more accurate model, then quite a few apple carts are going to be upset.

For instance, consider the implications that the newer theory might have for the nature of the self. Or -- if you believe in the soul -- the implications that the newer theory might have for the nature of it.

For further information on the newer theory, you might want to start with this TED Talk video:

Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality

Comments?








______________________________

 

[Spirit of Light]

Please Note: I aim to grossly simply the matter discussed in this OP in order to make it accessible to as many people as possible and also to maintain my high and imposing standards whereby I always and invariably make a mess of things.​

Is consciousness "outside-in" or is it "inside-out"?

The classic view of consciousness is that it is outside-in. For instance, Sarah sees an exceptionally handsome man (that would be me). In the classic view, the image of this debonair devil enters her brain via the five or so layers of rods and cones in her retinas, is then transmitted along the optic nerve to the posterior regions of her brain where its significance is fully grasped, following which an urgent signal is sent to her salivary glands causing her to drool at the sight of me. That's the classic view. The outside-in view.

The inside-out view is more or less the opposite. In this view, Sarah's brain first makes a 'guess' about what lies 'out in the world' (i.e. me). It then makes use of information arriving via the senses to correct its guess. That is, to align its guess with the information arriving from out in the world. At which point, of course, it sends an urgent signal to Sarah's salivary glands, she begins to drool... and the rest is history.

Now, on the surface of things it might seem that the first view, the outside-in view, is the correct one. However, that is most likely because its the one you are almost certainly most familiar with. As it happens, the actual evidence increasingly points to the second view as the best -- or closest to the truth -- model for consciousness. At least it does in my opinion (although my goldfish begs to differ, prefers the classic view of consciousness, and is brighter than me).

To put it all in a bit more formal language, it is as if our brains begin at some point during their development in the wombs of our mothers (or in Mr. Trump's case, in the test tubes of Dr. Frankenstein) to hypothesize about the nature of reality. From that moment forward until our death, our brains are constantly modifying and updating their initial hypothesis -- refining it and refining it, ever and ever making it increasingly more useful as a predictive model of reality.

We call that predictive model "consciousness". Or at least, that's what we call the part of it that we are aware of.

Last, please remember this has been a gross simplification of the current thinking on the nature of consciousness. For more information, start with this video:

Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality

Comments?








______________________________

In my understanding of Consciousness, it is both inside-out and outside in
Because we have eyes, we can see outside of us, and what we see makes us conscious of how we feel from within. We are aware of both inside and outside factors that affect us as a living being.

 

[idea]

Nature vs. nurture?

from the outside says conformity experiments:

but then "see what we believe" or "believe what we see?" do we see what is around us?

Internal and external attribution?

 

[rational experiences]

From the eternal, pre living spirit that caused all creation to exist.

Outside of all reality.

Inside, as reality is living as a created existing experience until you no longer own the experience when you die.

If that experience were not true, then we would own no ability to look and research what a scientist claims we are made up of....you would not be able to see anything.

 

[Sunstone]

In my understanding of Consciousness, it is both inside-out and outside in
Because we have eyes, we can see outside of us, and what we see makes us conscious of how we feel from within. We are aware of both inside and outside factors that affect us as a living being.

Did you watch the TED video?

 

[Sunstone]

Nature vs. nurture?

Not at all related.

from the outside says conformity experiments

Again, not at all related.

Try thinking of it this way, Idea. According to the classical model of consciousness, information arrives from the outside and the brain uses that information to create an idea or notion of what is outside of it.

But in the newer model, the brain begins with an idea or notion of what is outside of it, and then proceeds to update that idea or notion using the information about what's outside it that is arriving via the senses.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Did you watch the TED video?

My answer was from my own understanding of Consciousness, I rely very little on Science and their explanation for what it is. So when I do answer this kind of questions it is not from a scientific standpoint.

 

[Sunstone]

My answer was from my own understanding of Consciousness, I rely very little on Science and their explanation for what it is. So when I do answer this kind of questions it is not from a scientific standpoint.

Why are you participating in this thread, then, if you do not want to address its topic? Can't you start your own thread rather than take this one off-topic? I mean that in the friendliest possible way.

 

[idea]

For more information, start with this video:​

Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality

Comments?

Helen Keller was more internal perhaps.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Why are you participating in this thread, then, if you do not want to address its topic? Can't you start your own thread rather than take this one off-topic?

If you did not want an answer from the none spiritual side of things, why did you put it in "General Religious Debates" I can, of course, stop posting, that is not a problem. But maybe if you only want scientific answer the OP would be better in the Science area?

 

[idea]

Not at all related.



Again, not at all related.

Try thinking of it this way, Idea. According to the classical model of consciousness, information arrives from the outside and the brain uses that information to create an idea or notion of what is outside of it.

But in the newer model, the brain begins with an idea or notion of what is outside of it, and then proceeds to update that idea or notion using the information about what's outside it that is arriving via the senses.

Nurture mixed with nature mixed with nurture - Does our nervous system transmit info across generations?

 

[Sunstone]

If you did not want an answer from the none spiritual side of things, why did you put it in "General Religious Debates" I can, of course, stop posting, that is not a problem. But maybe if you only want scientific answer the OP would be better in the Science area?

It's not that I want only scientific answers. It's that I want answers of any sort to address the issues raised in the OP. I am afraid yours did not.

 

[Spirit of Light]

It's not that I want only scientific answers. It's that I want answers of any sort to address the issues raised in the OP. I am afraid yours did not.

Ok that is a fair request

 

[Sunstone]

Ok that is a fair request

Thank you for your understanding, my friend.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Thank you for your understanding, my friend.

Very welcome

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Visual information certainly needs processing to make sense of it.
Some one trained as a visual artist /photographer or the like. gathers and process far more information than an untrained person.

When entering an unfamiliar room it takes some time to gather even the basic information. though I doubt we ever start with a completely blank canvass and have "expectations" about what we may see. if it is a complete surprise it takes time to digest.
However if it is a "Standard model" It is recognised almost at once, and only differences need to be processed.

Things are rarely exclusively "one thing or another", so that may be also true of "outside in and inside out."
A free two way street seems more likely, with "expectation" playing a large part in the process.

 

[Terry Sampson]

For further information on the newer theory, you might want to start with this TED Talk video:

I happened to watch the video some time ago, found it interesting, but failed to engage anyone in or out of RF over the content. Your reminder of it moved me to prepare a copy of the transcript, with numbered paragraphs, to read through slowly. (See attached)
My comments may be forthcoming.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

You perceive what you can. If only one person out of so many people has the ability to smell a unique smell, then this clearly means that they have an enhancement to their sense organ for smelling, indicating that the specific and unique perceptive materials within you are relevant. Therefore, the chipmunk you perceive is only as objective as your ability to perceive its qualities. If there is more to the chipmunk, and I suppose it is possible that there could be, then those parts of it exceed your limitations of perception. And so I think that this view may line up more with the 'outside-in' theory, but acknowledges that what is inside also matters. I'm also not sure how the 'inside-out' theory could ever be totally correct, as an outside event would have to hit one's brain first for it to 'kick anything off' in the first place. What is outside the brain always sends the first signal, no matter how one's brain chooses to process that signal. And then of course, the mind can question the brain, which is what may in part lead to this kind of confusion

 

[Sunstone]

I happened to watch the video some time ago, found it interesting, but failed to engage anyone in or out of RF over the content. Your reminder of it moved me to prepare a copy of the transcript, with numbered paragraphs, to read through slowly. (See attached)
My comments may be forthcoming.

Thank you so much for that!

 

[crossfire]

Carl Jung described 4 cognitive functions: 2 Judging functions (Thinking, Feeling) and 2 Perceptive functions (Sensory, iNtuition.) Each individual has their own order of preference for how much they rely on each function, and whether each function is primarily expressed extrovertedly or introvertedly. The first half of the TED talk focused on the Perceptive functions of Sensory and iNtuition, and very briefly touched on the conceptual Judging function of Thinking, and the value-assigning Judging function of Feeling. Bringing the role of the Judging functions into the equation might be a good place to continue the research.

The part of the Ted talk about Interoception is very much like a Buddhist practice called "Mindfulness Immersed in the Body," the practice of which is said to be associated with the development of the mind beyond "normal parameters."

The way that the speaker described sentience as being tied to life parallels the concept of "jiva."

Perhaps taking a look at these concepts as well might be helpful in further research.