# [Linkpost] A conceptual framework for consciousness

PNAS Paper from April 29th that makes strides to solve the [Hard Problem of Consciousness](https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/the-hard-problem-of-consciousness) by [dissolving](https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/dissolving-the-question) it:

[**A conceptual framework for consciousness**](https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2116933119)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**by** [Michael S. A. Graziano](https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2116933119#con)

**Abstract:**

> This article argues that consciousness has a logically sound, explanatory framework, different from typical accounts that suffer from hidden mysticism. The article has three main parts. The first describes background principles concerning information processing in the brain, from which one can deduce a general, rational framework for explaining consciousness. The second part describes a specific theory that embodies those background principles, the Attention Schema Theory. In the past several years, a growing body of experimental evidence—behavioral evidence, brain imaging evidence, and computational modeling—has addressed aspects of the theory. The final part discusses the evolution of consciousness. By emphasizing the specific role of consciousness in cognition and behavior, the present approach leads to a proposed account of how consciousness may have evolved over millions of years, from fish to humans. The goal of this article is to present a comprehensive, overarching framework in which we can understand scientifically what consciousness is and what key adaptive roles it plays in brain function.

Key quotes:

> ### **Principle 1.**
> 
> Information that comes out of a brain must have been in that brain. \[...\]
> 
> For example, if I believe, think, and claim that an apple is in front of me, then it is necessarily true that my brain contains information about that apple. Note, however, that an actual, physical apple is not necessary for me to think one is present. If no apple is present, I can still believe and insist that one is, although in that case I am evidently delusional or hallucinatory. In contrast, the information in my brain is necessary. Without that information, the belief, thought, and claim are impossible, no matter how many apples are actually present.
> 
> \[...\]
> 
> You believe you have consciousness because of information in your brain that depicts you as having it. \[...\] The existence of an actual feeling of consciousness inside you, associated with the color, is not necessary to explain your belief, certainty, and insistence that you have it. Instead, your belief and claim derive from information about conscious experience. If your brain did not have the information, then the belief and claim would be impossible, and you would not know what experience is, no matter how much conscious experience might or might not “really” be inside you.
> 
> \[...\]
> 
> Note that principle 1 does not deny the existence of conscious experience. It says that you believe, think, claim, insist, jump up and down, and swear that you have a conscious feeling inside you, because of specific information in your brain that builds up a picture of what the conscious feeling is. \[...\]
> 
> ### **Principle 2.**
> 
> The brain’s models are never accurate.

...and I think you can anticipate what follows in this section. 

> The central proposal of AST \[Attention Schema Theory\] is that the brain constructs an attention schema. The proposal was not originally intended as an explanation of consciousness, but rather to account for the skillful endogenous control of attention that people and other primates routinely demonstrate. A fundamental principle of control engineering is that a controller benefits from a model of the item it controls. In parallel to a body schema, an attention schema could also be used to model the attention states of others, thus contributing to social cognition. Finally, an attention schema, if at least partly accessible by higher cognition and language, could contribute to common human intuitions, beliefs, and claims about the self. 

I recommend reading the full article.