The mind can as it pertains to consciousness can be divided into cognitive and phenomenal experiences. Consciousness is expansive in meaning, but typically consists of the experiences someone feels, thinks, or it can also indicate the wakefulness of a person at any given moment in time (Zeman, 2001). Indeed, this broad definition has formed because of different viewpoints on how people actually come to experience consciousness. Ted (2014) shows a forum in which philosopher David Chalmers argues that consciousness cannot currently be explained fully by science because there is only an implied phenomenal correlation between certain brain functions and bodily experiences, but no concrete explanation as to why they occur and that consciousness
…show more content…
The very thought of being able to use a calculated formula to explain the conscious mind seems plausible. In fact, according to Ahmad and Khan (2012), the concept of using mathematics to outline the basic components of consciousness was used by developmental psychologist Jean Piaget under the idea that hierarchy models of consciousness occur over the course of different stages in time within the mind and contribute to the factors used within the formula that is known as the Homeomorphic Hierarchal Cognitive Mathematical Model of Consciousness. Apparently, the different thought processes that arise in the conscious mind at any given moment seem to fit this formula and they produce an outcome that is explicitly shown and experienced within a person’s mind. This mathematical formula utilizes three components within it, which are broken down into three different models called a-model, b-model, and y-model. These models represent the different phases of conscious thoughts that humans perceive, with the output of this formula being the conscious image or thought expressed in the mind at any given moment (Ahmad & Khan, 2012). Many people believe that this mathematical model truly explains the state of consciousness that humans experience, …show more content…
In order to scientifically and systematically give explanation to consciousness, it must be seen as an objective occurrence and consciousness currently is not considered an objective state according to most neuroscientists (Searle, 2000). In fact, Searle (2000) infers that consciousness has been an avoided topic of research for the most part because it is different from other biological phenomenon in which the subjective first-person process of consciousness cannot be removed during research testing. This should indicate to the majority of the public that neuroscience cannot truly explain consciousness because of the fact that it cannot be accurately measured. It seems impossible to measure something that cannot be visibly seen by the researcher and expect the results to have high validity. As explained previously, the subjective nature of consciousness produces participant answers to researcher questions that are first-person oriented. During consciousness testing researchers may ask participants’ questions on what they are thinking and may receive responses involving their current state of emotion, self-awareness of awareness and certain self-perceived abstract images in the mind (Zeman, 2001). To reiterate, in order to understand consciousness and be able to scientifically measure it, the subjective first-person experience of consciousness must be
The very thought of being able to use a calculated formula to explain the conscious mind seems plausible. In fact, according to Ahmad and Khan (2012), the concept of using mathematics to outline the basic components of consciousness was used by developmental psychologist Jean Piaget under the idea that hierarchy models of consciousness occur over the course of different stages in time within the mind and contribute to the factors used within the formula that is known as the Homeomorphic Hierarchal Cognitive Mathematical Model of Consciousness. Apparently, the different thought processes that arise in the conscious mind at any given moment seem to fit this formula and they produce an outcome that is explicitly shown and experienced within a person’s mind. This mathematical formula utilizes three components within it, which are broken down into three different models called a-model, b-model, and y-model. These models represent the different phases of conscious thoughts that humans perceive, with the output of this formula being the conscious image or thought expressed in the mind at any given moment (Ahmad & Khan, 2012). Many people believe that this mathematical model truly explains the state of consciousness that humans experience, …show more content…
In order to scientifically and systematically give explanation to consciousness, it must be seen as an objective occurrence and consciousness currently is not considered an objective state according to most neuroscientists (Searle, 2000). In fact, Searle (2000) infers that consciousness has been an avoided topic of research for the most part because it is different from other biological phenomenon in which the subjective first-person process of consciousness cannot be removed during research testing. This should indicate to the majority of the public that neuroscience cannot truly explain consciousness because of the fact that it cannot be accurately measured. It seems impossible to measure something that cannot be visibly seen by the researcher and expect the results to have high validity. As explained previously, the subjective nature of consciousness produces participant answers to researcher questions that are first-person oriented. During consciousness testing researchers may ask participants’ questions on what they are thinking and may receive responses involving their current state of emotion, self-awareness of awareness and certain self-perceived abstract images in the mind (Zeman, 2001). To reiterate, in order to understand consciousness and be able to scientifically measure it, the subjective first-person experience of consciousness must be