Томас Метцингер - Туннель Эго

3. See V. Gallese & A. Goldman, «Mirror Neurons and the Simulation Theory of Mind-Reading,» Trends Cog. Sci. 2:493–501 (1998); M. Iacoboni et al., «Cortical Mechanisms of Imitation,» Science 268:2526-8 (1999); and V. Gallese, «The 'Shared Manifold' Hypothesis: From Mirror Neurons to Empathy,» Jour. Consciousness Studies 8:33–50 (2001).

4. See T. Metzinger & V. Gallese, «The Emergence of a Shared Action Ontology: Building Blocks for a Theory,» in G. Knoblich et al., eds., Self and Action. Special issue of Consciousness & Cognition 12(4):549–571 (2003).

5. V. Gallese, «Intentional Attunement: A Neurophysiological Perspective on Social Cognition and Its Disruption in Autism,» Brain Res. 1079:15–24 (2006); F. de Vignemont & T. Singer, «The Empathic Brain: How, When, and Why?» Trends Cog. Sci. 10:435–441 (2006).

6. L. Carr et al., «Neural Mechanisms of Empathy in Humans: A Relay from Neural Systems for Imitation to Limbic Areas,» Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 100(9):5497–5502 (2003); see also A. Goldman & C. S. Sripada, «Simulationist Models of Face-Based Emotion Recognition,» Cognition

94:193–213 (2005).

7. A. D. Lawrence et al., «Selective Disruption of the Recognition of Facial Expressions of Anger,» NeuroReport 13(6):881–884 (2002).

8. I. Morrison et al., «Vicarious Responses to Pain in Anterior Cingulate Cortex: Is Empathy a Multisensory Issue?» Cog. Affec. & Behav. Neuroscience 4:270–278 (2004); P. L. Jackson et al., «How Do We Perceive the Pain of Others: A Window into the Neural Processes Involved in Empathy,» NeuroImage 24:771–779 (2005); M. Botvinick et al., «Viewing Facial Expressions of Pain Engages Cortical Areas Involved in the Direct Experience of Pain,» NeuroImage 25:315–319 (2005).

9. This was the step from what I call second-order embodiment to thirdorder embodiment. In order to counteract the semantic inflation of the term «embodiment,» I have introduced the notions of «first-order embodiment» (the bottom-up self-organization of intelligent behavior avoiding explicit computation and relying only on physical properties of the system), «secondorder embodiment» (generating intelligent behavior by using an integrated representation of the body as a whole, by internally representing oneself as embodied), and «third-order embodiment» (the functional elevation of second-order embodiment to the level of global availability, i.e., the conscious experience of embodiment). A short summary can be found in Scholarpedia 2 (10):4174 (2007) at www.scholarpedia.org/article/Self_Models.

10. V. Gallese, «Embodied Simulation: From Neurons to Phenomenal Experience,» Phen. Cog. Sci. 4:23–38 (2005).

11. Gallese calls this specific phenomenal state «intentional attunement» — the peculiar experiential quality of familiarity with other individuals that arises because we implicitly match their intentions with processes that go on in our own brain when we form such intentions.

12. See T. Metzinger, «Self Models,» Scholarpedia 2(10):4174 (2007) at www.scholarpedia.org/article/Self_Models; and Metzinger, «Empirical Perspectives from the Self-Model Theory of Subjectivity,» Progress in Brain Res. 168:215–246 (2008).

13. See W. B. Carpenter, Principles of Mental Physiology (London: Routledge, 1875). For a review, see H. Richter, «Zum Problem der ideomotorischen Phanomene,» Zeit. fur Psychologie 71:161–254 (1957).

14. T. Lipps, «Einfuhlung, innere Nachahmung und Organempfindung,» Arch. der Psychologie 1:185–204 (1903).

15. See G. Rizzolatti & Laila Craighero, «The Mirror-Neuron System,» Ann. Rev. Neurosci. 27:169–192 (2004); the classical paper is Rizzolatti & M. A. Arbib, «Language Within Our Grasp,» Trends Neurosci. 21:188–194 (1998). For a brief first overview, see Rizzolatti & Destro, «Mirror Neurons,» Scholarpedia 3(1):2055 (2008).

16. See Rizzolatti & Destro, «Mirror Neurons»; www.scholarpedia.org/artical/Mirror_neurons.

17. See Gallese, «The 'Shared Manifold' Hypothesis» (2001), for an additional discussion, see pp. 174 of this book.

18. Jerome S. Bruner, Acts of Meaning (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990), 40.

CHAPTER 7

1. http://technology.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mgfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl.Hffl&print=true.

2. A. Cleeremans, «Computational Correlates of Consciousness,» Prog. Brain Res. ИШШШ-ИЗ (ИШН). See also his «Consciousness: The Radical Plasticity Thesis,» Prog. Brain Res. ИШЛШ-ИЗ

3. J. Bongard et al., «Resilient Machines Through Continuous SelfModeling,» Science

4. Ibid. In particular, see also free online support material at www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/…(See www.ccslmae.cornell.edu/research/selfmodels/morepictures.htm for additional online material.)

5. See also Thomas Metzinger, «Empirical Perspectives from the SelfModel Theory of Subjectivity: A Brief Summary with Examples,» in Rahul Banerjee & Bikas K. Chakrabarti, eds., Progress in Brain Research (Amsterdam: Elsevier)

6. Karl Popper & J. C. Eccles, The Self and Its Brain: An Argument for Interactionism (New York: Routledge, ШИШИ), Alan M. Turing's paper is in Mind

7. It is interesting to note how perhaps the foremost theoretical «blind spot» of current philosophy of mind is conscious suffering. Thousands of pages have been written about color qualia and zombies, but almost no theoretical work is devoted to ubiquitous phenomenal states such as physical pain, boredom, or the everyday sadness known as subclinical depression. The same is true of panic, despair, shame, the conscious experience of mortality, and the phenomenology of losing one's dignity. Why are these forms of conscious content generally ignored by the best of today's philosophers of mind? Is it simple careerism («Nobody wants to read too much about suffering, no matter how insightful and important the arguments are»), or are there deeper, evolutionary reasons for this cognitive scotoma? When one examines the ongoing phenomenology of biological systems on our planet, the varieties of conscious suffering are at least as dominant as, say, the phenomenology of color vision or the capacity for conscious thought. The ability to consciously see color appeared only very recently, and the ability to consciously think abstract thoughts of a complex and ordered form arose only with the advent of human beings. Pain, panic, jealousy, despair, and the fear of dying, however, appeared millions of years earlier and in a much greater number of species.

CHAPTER 8

1. Our belief in invisible persons may have different roots, possibly including so-called hyperactive agent-detection devices (see D. Barrett, «Exploring the Natural Foundations of Religion,» Trends Cog. Sci. 4:29–34, 2000) and ancestor cults: See Daniel C. Dennett, Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon (New York: Viking, 2006), esp. 109ff; and Thomas Metzinger, Being No One: The Self-Model Theory of Subjectivity (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2003), 371ff. Also note that out-of-body experiences would almost inevitably have contributed to early humankind's firm belief in the existence of invisible persons and more subtle levels of reality. See T. Metzinger, «Out-of-Body Experiences as the Origin of the Concept of a 'Soul,'» Mind and Matter 3(1):57–84 (2005).

CHAPTER 9

1. Y. Kamitami & S. Shimojo, «Manifestation of Scotomas Created by Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation of Human Visual Cortex,» Nature Neuroscience 2:767–771 (1999).