Везде

RAS PresidiumВопросы истории естествознания и техники Voprosy istorii estestvoznaniia i tekhniki

  • ISSN (Print) 0205-9606
  • ISSN (Online) 2713-041X

The threshold of awareness as an empirical given and as a logical inevitability

You can
PII
S020595920017743-3-
DOI
10.31857/S020595920017743-3
Publication type
Article
Status
Published
Authors
V. M. Allakhverdov
V. Yu. Karpinskaya
  • Affiliation:
    St Petersburg University
    Institute of Human Brain named after N.P. Bekhterev, Russian Academy of Sciences
  • Address: Russian Federation, St. Petersburg
Volume/ Edition
Volume 42 / Issue 6
Pages
14-24
Abstract

The nature of the sensory threshold and approaches to solving the threshold problem in psychophysics are discussed. There were presented experimental results, empirical facts that do not fully correspond to existing psychophysical theories and do not receive an explanation in line with modern approaches. It was concluded that the explanation of the thresholds without description of the participation of consciousness raises doubts. A new look at the nature of thresholds is proposed, in which the threshold is considered as an inevitable consequence of the processes of classification and categorization. Due to the fact that the operations of identification of the non-identical and discernment of the indiscernible are mandatoryin the act of cognition, a zone is formed, within which objectively different elements are identified in consciousness andrelate to the same class. This zone exists across the entire spectrum of cognitive tasks, including detection and discrimination. Thresholds fix the boundaries of this zone. Thus, the problem of the threshold requires a description of the work of not so physiological as cognitive mechanismsfor its solution.

Keywords
consciousness, threshold, methods of psychophysics, unconscious signals, classification
Date of publication
16.12.2021
Year of publication
2021
Number of purchasers
6
Views
410

References

  1. 1. Allahverdov V.M. Opyt teoreticheskoj psihologii (v zhanre nauchnoj revoljucii). SPb.: Pechatnyj dvor, 1993. (In Russian)
  2. 2. Allahverdov V.M. Soznanie kak paradoks (Jeksperimental'naja psihologika, t.1).St. Petersburg: DNK, 2000. (In Russian)
  3. 3. Allahverdov V.M., Gershkovich V.A., Karpinskaja V.Ju., Moroshkina N.V., Naumenko O.V., Tuhtieva N.H., Filippova M.G. Jevristicheskij potencial koncepcii Ja.A. Ponomareva. Psikhologicheskii zhurnal. 2015. V. 36. № 6. P. 24–34. (In Russian)
  4. 4. Asmolov A.G., Mihalevskaja M.B. Ot psihofiziki chistyh oshhushhenij k psihofizike sensornyh zadach. Problemy i metody psihofiziki. Moscow: MGU, 1974. P. 5–12. (In Russian)
  5. 5. Barabanshhikov V.A. Dinamika vosprijatija vyrazhenij lica. Moscow: Kogito-centr, 2016. (In Russian)
  6. 6. Bardin K.V. Gorbacheva T.P. Ispol'zovanie nabljudatelem akusticheskih i modal'no-nespecificheskih priznakov zvuchanija dlja razlichenija sluhovyh signalov. Psikhologicheskii zhurnal. 1983. №4. P. 48–57. (In Russian)
  7. 7. Behterev V.M. Gipnoz, vnushenie, telepatija. Moscow: Mysl', 1994. (In Russian)
  8. 8. Vertgejmer M. O geshtal'tteorii. Hrestomatija po istorii psihologii. Eds.: P.Ja. Gal'perin, A.N. Zhdan. Moscow: Izd-vo moskovskogo universiteta, 1980. P. 84–97. (In Russian)
  9. 9. Vladykina N.P. O zakonomernostjah raboty soznanija v zone nerazlichenija. Vestnik SPbGU. Serija 12. 2008. №2. URL: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/o-zakonomernostyah-raboty-soznaniya-v-zone-nerazlicheniya (data obrashhenija: 17.04.2020). (In Russian)
  10. 10. Gal'perin P.Ja. Vvedenie v psihologiju. Moscow: MGU, 1976. (In Russian)
  11. 11. Gerbart I.F. Psihologija. Moscow: Territorija budushhego, 2007.
  12. 12. Gershkovich V.A., Falikman M.V. Kognitivnaja psihologija v poiskah sebja. Rossijskij zhurnal kognitivnoj nauki. V. 5. № 4. 2018. P. 28–46. (In Russian)
  13. 13. Gibson Dzh. Dzh. Jekologicheskij podhod k zritel'nomu vosprijatiju. Moscow: Progress, 1988. (In Russian)
  14. 14. Gojan I.N., Aljaev G.E. Ideja odushevlenija vselennoj v jempiricheskoj metafizike HІH veka (Gustav Teodor Fehner). PhilosophyandCosmology. 2015. V. 14. 256–271. (In Russian)
  15. 15. Gusev A.N. Psihofizika sensornyh zadach. Sistemno-dejatel'nostnyj analiz povedenija cheloveka v situacii neopredelennosti. Moscow: MGU, 2004. (In Russian)
  16. 16. Karcevskij S. Ob asimmetrichnom dualizme lingvisticheskogo znaka. Zvegincev V. A. Istorija jazykoznanija XIX— XX vv. v ocherkah i izvlechenijah. Ch. 2. Moscow: Prosveshhenie, 1965.S. 85–90. (In Russian)
  17. 17. Kogan A.I. Issledovanie kriteriev ocenki zritel'noj rabotosposobnosti. Jergonomika. Tr. VNIITJe. №2. Moscow, 1971. (In Russian)
  18. 18. Mihalevskaja M.B. Porog i porogovaja zona. Sensornye i sensomotornye processy. Moscw: Pedagogika, 1972. P. 54–60. (In Russian)
  19. 19. Mihalevskaja M.B. Ob#ektivnaja sensometrija po reakcii blokady al'fa-ritma //Psihofizicheskie issledovanija vosprijatija i pamjati. Moscw: Nauka, 1981. P. 92–117. (In Russian)
  20. 20. Rassel B. Deskripcii. Novoe v zarubezhnoj lingvistike. Vyp. XIII. Logika i lingvistika (problemy referencii). Moscw, 1982. P. 41−54. (In Russian)
  21. 21. Skotnikova I.G. Vklad K.V. Bardina v razvitie psihofiziki. Psikhologicheskii zhurnal. 2000. V. 21. № 6. P. 75–80. (In Russian)
  22. 22. Frit K. Mozg i dusha. Kak fiziologija formiruet nash vnutrennij mir. Moscow: CORPUS, 2010. (In Russian)
  23. 23. Chuprikova N.I. Vozmozhnye istochniki reakcij lozhnoj trevogi i psihofiziologicheskie mehanizmy optimizacii processa obnaruzhenija slabyh signalov. Psihofizika sensornyh sistem. Moscw: Nauka, 1979. P. 121–126. (In Russian)
  24. 24. Carpenter J., Sherman M.T., Kievit R.A., Seth A.K., Lau H., Fleming S.M. Domain-general enhance-ments of metacognitive ability through adaptive training. Journal of experimental psychology. General. 2019. 148(1). P. 51–64.
  25. 25. Fechner G.T. Elements of Psychophysics, V. 1. N. Y.: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1966.
  26. 26. Hanci D., Altun H.Hunger state affects both olfactory abilities and gustatory sensitivity.. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2016. Vol. 273. P. 1637–1641.
  27. 27. KarpinskaiaV., Shoshina I., Shilov Y. Threshold for detecting a signal in an ambiguous figure//42nd edition of the European Conference on Visual Perception, Leuven, Belgium from August 25th – 29th. 2019. Abstract book. P. 639.
  28. 28. Leibovich T., Cohen N., Henik A.Itsy bitsy spider?: Valence and self-relevance predict size estimation. Biological psychology. 2016. Vol. 121. P. 138–145.
  29. 29. Pöppel E.Grenzen des Bewuβtsein. WiekommenwirzurZeit und wieentstehtWirklichkeit? Frankfurt a. M., Leipzig, 2000.
  30. 30. Reed G.F. Preparatory set as a factor in the production of sensory deprivation phenomena. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine. 1962. Vol. 55 (12). P. 1010–1014.
  31. 31. Rogers B.J. Perception: a very short introduction. Oxford University Press, 2017.
  32. 32. Rouder J.N., Morey R.D. The nature of psychological thresholds. Psychological Review. 2009.Vol. 116. No. 3. P. 655– 660.
  33. 33. Sato W., Kochiyama T., Minemoto K., Sawada R., Fushiki T.Amygdala activation during unconscious visual processing of food. Scientific reports.2019. Vol. 9(1). 7277.
  34. 34. Seow T., FlemingS.M.Perceptual sensitivity is modulated by what others can see //Atten Percept Psychophys. 2019. Vol. 81.P. 1979–1990.
  35. 35. Tinsley J.N., Molodtsov M.I., Prevedel R., Wartmann D., Espigulé-Pons J., Lauwers M., Vaziri A.Direct detection of a single photon by humans. Nature Communications. 2016. Vol. 7. P. 1−9.
  36. 36. Shiah Y., Tam W. Dohumanfingers “see”?—“Finger-reading” studies in the East and West. European Journal of Parapsychology. 2005. Vol. 20 (2). P. 117–134.
QR
Translate

Индексирование

Scopus

Scopus

Scopus

Crossref

Scopus

Higher Attestation Commission

At the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation

Scopus

Scientific Electronic Library