Consciousness and mental reality: from traditional foundations to a new understanding of general psychological knowledge

A new book by N.I. Chuprikova “Mental activity of the brain, language and consciousness.  In Search of Psychic Reality and the Subject of Psychology” is analyzed. The originality of the author’s intention, the relevance of the logic of substantiation of the categorical and structural foundations of general psychological knowledge are stated. The continuity and novelty of the systemic foundations of general psychology are shown. A comparison of the problematic issues of the psychology of consciousness, their solutions in modern research and in the works of N.I. Chuprikova.

Discussion

A new book by Natalia Ivanovna Chuprikova “Psychic activity of the brain, language and consciousness: In Search of Psychic Reality and the Subject of Psychology” (Publisher: Languages of Slavic Culture, 2021) is an organic continuation and development of the ideas which were presented in a number of her previous publications [5; 6; 7; 8 and others]. In their totality, they define a coherent, logically verified doctrine of the mind and consciousness, which, we believe, has no analogues in modern psychology. A system of basic categories and concepts of psychology are structurally built of components and functions, as well as verified from the point of view of evolutionary ideas and provisions of related natural sciences. This system of categories and concepts is the basis of general psychological knowledge from the positions of the methodology, ontology, and epistemology.

It may seem to some that N.I. Chuprikova opposes the idea of paradigm leaps in the development of scientific systems, since she clearly and unswervingly defends the continuity of psychological knowledge, clarifies the conceptual constructs, enriches with the latest facts and generalized theoretical provisions. The term “paradigm” goes back to the T. Kuhn’s theory, according to which the development of science occurs in leaps. There is a significant change in scientific attitudes that determine the basic provisions underlying a particular science. T. Kuhn connects the alternation of stages of scientific knowledge with the resolute and steady upholding by individual scientists and scientific groups of new scientific positions that determine the possibility of resolving existing contradictions [17]. At the same time, continuity in the development of scientific knowledge, i.e., periodic transitions of science to a new state while maintaining certain relationships between the old knowledge and the new content, which allows us to rethink the previous level of science development, does not seem to us as an opposite or a paradigm leap. Both are well explained from the standpoint of dialectics. The dialectical-materialistic foundations of Russian psychology, on the one hand, correspond to modern trends in world psychology, and on the other hand, provide a culturally specific line of its successive development [3; 13; 23; 27].

Consistently implemented by N.I. Churikova’s transition from the monocategorical basis of general psychological knowledge to dual categoricality (reflection and regulation), in our opinion, corresponds to the continuity of the development of psychology, since the concept of regulation was previously present in psychological discourses. The principal feature of the N.I. Chuprikova lies in the fact that the concept of regulation actually acts in the status of a category, i.e., the base category along with the reflection category. It should be noted that in Russian psychology there are systems of psychological knowledge that are not based on the category of reflection. These are, in particular, the systems of psychological knowledge of V.N. Panferov, as well as V.I. Slobodchikova and E.I. Isaev. In the works of these scholars, the subject of psychology is defined from the standpoint of the idea of human psychology as opposed to traditional ideas about mental phenomena. This approach proceeds from the proposition of S.L. Rubinstein, according to which the first essential sign of the psyche is the belonging of the individual, that is, the personality. The second essential feature of mental phenomena is attitude. Thus, the duality of the foundations of psychological knowledge is emphasized.

Another approach to the restructuring of general psychological knowledge outside the category of reflection was presented in the works of V.E. Klochko, which is based on the concept of “psychological systems”. L.S. Vygotsky believed that the category of consciousness is fundamental in the entire system of psychological knowledge. L.S. Vygotsky defined consciousness dually, that is, as communication and generalization, emphasizing the systems and semantic organization of consciousness. In the modern science of consciousness, which is positioned as a wide range of knowledge, including philosophy, cognitive science, neuroscience and other sciences, including psychology, the category of consciousness is the basis of this complex of knowledge [4; 9; 14; 16; 19; 22]. Thus, as it can be assumed, a one-category basis is not quite sufficient for the construction of general psychological knowledge.

N.I. Chuprikova chosen category of reflection as the basic category of the general psychological knowledge. This construct is well-known in Russian psychology. The originality of the author’s intention, as it seems to me, lies in the binary bundle of reflection and regulation, functionally complementing the processes, states and properties of reflection.    The regulation of activity and behavior has also been used by psychologists in the past to form a more complete picture of the entire complex of mental phenomena. However, this addition to the category of reflection in the definitions of the central foundations of the psychology by other authors was, as a rule, of a side-by-side character and did not have the property of reciprocity of the considered binary.

In the N.I. Chuprikova’s monographs logically, theoretically, as well as on convincing examples (both from the history of psychophysiological research and modern neuropsychological studies) is shown the relationship and interdependence of reflection and regulation of human activity in the external and internal plans.

All known mental phenomena are subordinate to the logic of necessary connections, including sensory-perceptual mechanisms of cognition, as well as experience (attitude), communication, needs and motives, thinking and imagination, hierarchy of desires and intentions, organization of actions and behavior.

Another important theme presented in the new book by N.I. Chuprikova, is a psychophysical problem, which received its solution in Russian psychology from the standpoint of dialectical materialism.

This problem, which has become a stumbling block in many studies of consciousness, has received the status of “Hard Problem” in the Science of Conscionsness [4; 22; 25; etc.].The relentless attempts to substantiate consciousness through neurocognitive research and the search for neural correlates of consciousness, with all the positive results, some of which find practical application in brain-computer interfaces, as well as in artificial intelligence programs, nevertheless, do not bring together opposing points of view on the nature of consciousness.

Evolutionary and socio-cultural approaches make it possible to remove the “intensity” of confrontation in solving this problem [26]. A modern thorough analysis of the psychophysical problem was carried out by V.A. Petrovsky [20]. Another way to solve this problem may be related to the improvement and expansion of the functions of artificial intelligence programs, which was argued in a slightly different style in one of his speeches by M.M. Reshetnikov [2].

The psychophysical problem is of particular relevance in connection with the new possibilities of digital technologies and the design of artificial consciousness programs. The proposition on the ideal nature of mental reality and consciousness is based on the works of P.K. Anokhin, who created a model of a holistic functional system of brain activity to ensure the reflection and regulation of human behavior.

The thesis about the ideal in content and material in terms of the spatial-material organization of mental reality in the works of N.I. Chuprikova is also supported by references to the studies of J. Edelman and A.M. Ivanitsky. N. I. Chuprikova concretized and reviewed studies of the physiological mechanisms of consciousness [15] testifying in favor of the defended A.M. Ivanitsky “Information Synthesis Hypothesis “. This hypothesis preceded the well-known in the science of consciousness ” An Integrated Information Theory of Consciousness” [24].

In other categorical meanings (representation, information codes), the idea of integration, in the logic of the complementarity of consciousness from the First person and consciousness from the Third person, is presented in the hypothesis of M. Velmans that “the neural correlates of consciousness are representations of the same content that is represented in consciousness, but in other information codes” [25, p.12].

Another solution of the psychophysical problem, popular today, is presented in the hypothesis of the emergence of consciousness by analogy with the emergence of new properties at the molecular level of the organization of matter in comparison with the atomic one. As an example, a water molecule is usually given, which has new properties in comparison with the properties of hydrogen and oxygen, which are part of it. In this regard, F. Crick’s hypothesis about the emergence of consciousness on the basis of resonant electromagnetic phenomena in the brain at a frequency of 40 hertz is also quite popular.

One of the most consistent and thorough attempts to solve this problem, designated in the science of consciousness as the most difficult, is carried out by M. Velmans. The author, based on the facts of psychosomatic medicine and conscious regulation of human behavior, states the mysteriousness of the effects of the influence of the mind (consciousness) on the body (brain) and defines this situation in science as a “theoretical dead end” [25, p. 10]. Velmans does not accept physicalist, eliminative and reductionist, as well as functionalist explanations of consciousness [22], calling them pseudo-solutions to the problem.  According to R. Van Gulick, one of the opponents invited by Velmans to discuss the project he announced, the mainstream of philosophical thought of the last quarter of the 20th century on the issue of the relationship between consciousness and brain processes is associated with non-reductive physicalism. Moving away from extreme positions (psyche and consciousness are nothing more than brain processes; consciousness is a state of a functioning brain), non-reductive physicalism corrects dualism in the direction of pluralism as the broadest view of the relationship between mental and physical, including many aspects, such as biological, chemical, evolutionary, geological, historical, and perhaps even Marxist, Freudian, and feminist. R. Van Gulick relates the position of Velmans to a certain type of non-reductive pluralism [11, p.54].

Velmans systematizes the phenomenon of causality in the context of a psychophysical problem and distinguishes four types of deterministic connections of an influencing object (subject) on an influencing (changeable) object: physical → physical, mental → mental, physical → mental, mental → physical. Velmans attributes the first two types from the positions of the Third and First person (if possible, observation by an external observer or by the subject himself); he relates the remaining two types to mixed positions, thus allowing the study of these types of determination in the science of consciousness both from the position of the Third Person (objectivism) and the First Person (Subjectivity) [25, p.14-16]. At the same time, Velmans considers the physical world to be “causally closed” which excludes non-physical causes. Referring to the study by B. Libet that the brain prepares the necessary action carried out by the individual about 350 milliseconds before the individual realizes this, Velmans raises two clarifying questions: 1) How can consciousness be causally efficient if it appears much later than the mental processes in the brain on which it depends? 2) How does the content of consciousness affect the states of the brain and body if the subject is not aware of the biological processes that govern these states? According to Velmans, consciousness is inseparable from preconsciousness, in which the processes of “mental/brain” activity are automatically realized [25, p.19]. In this case, according to Velmans, the brain forms several models, only one of which was identified in the Libet experiment as preceding “volitional awareness.” Velmans allows for the preconscious development by the individual of a “set of decisions” that precede the decision made by the individual. Thus, according to Velmans, the individual “simultaneously preconsciously generates processes and is aware of the results” [25, p.20]. Therefore, according to Velmans, the Libet experiment does not refute the conscious regulation by a person of one’s actions. Rejecting the biological (brain) determination of consciousness, Velmans comes to the thesis of the mutual complementarity of the physical/mental, body/mental, and brain/consciousness. In search of a methodological justification for his position, Velmans considers various types of connections in the “brain-consciousness” complex: causality, correlation, ontological connection, and comes to the conclusion about the “ontological identity” of the mental and physical. Thus, the developed theory is designated by the author as a psychophysical or two-aspect theory of consciousness.

One of the critical responses collected by Velmans was prepared by S.S. Rakover; the opponent views Velmans’ theory as “a combination of ontological monism with epistemological dualism”. Dualism, according to Rakover, follows from Velmans’ position that consciousness (an ideal phenomenon) and its neural correlates in the brain represent the same information encoded in different ways [21, p.52].

Considering the psychophysical theory of consciousness proposed by Velmans, in the context of the “hard problem” of consciousness, it should be noted that representative means in various encodings (figurative, verbal, other sign) are not fully considered by Velmans and his opponents, which, in our opinion, does not cover all possible arguments, which in this case go beyond the biological determination of consciousness into the area of communicative activity of the external and internal plans, as well as sociocultural determinants [1].

A detailed analysis of the causal relationship between the phenomenon of consciousness and sociocultural factors is fundamental in the historical development of ideas about consciousness in Russian psychology. In the works of N.I. Chuprikova clearly presents the factors of language (a system of socially generated sign-symbolic means of communication, cognition and other social activity of a person) and speech (an individual form of representation by linguistic means of the content of the reflected world in the process of regulating social relations).

N.I. Chuprikova notes that no less important in the problem of consciousness is the factor of reflecting the content of the mind of other people and one’s own mind as the basis for regulating social behavior.  The discovery of “mirror neurons” expanded the understanding of the brain in the context of the social properties of consciousness and the corresponding neural mechanisms. “Theory of mind” and its applied aspects have become widespread. The metaphor “social brain” received an additional categorical meaning, in particular, in the work of M. Graziano “Consciousness and the social brain” [10]. At the same time, in a very wide range of modern studies of consciousness, one can single out works carried out on the basis of a belief in the social nature of consciousness. The concepts of “manipulative intelligence” (Machiavellianism), “social brain”, “mirror neurons”, according to these beliefs, and from the standpoint of social psychology, social anthropology and cultural evolution of a person confirm the social nature of the emergence and development of consciousness in phylogenesis [26].

Postulation in the monographs of N.I. Chuprikova’s “ideal-material nature of the psyche” is based on the methodological principles of Russian psychology, which makes it possible to “remove” this problem. Such a decision is quite justified in the logic of ideas about the specifics of scientific mentalities and traditional attitudes in different countries [3; thirteen; 23; 26; 27]. Implicit (personal) knowledge and research attitudes of scientists from different schools in this context are consistent with another thesis presented in the monograph by N.I. Chuprikova, this is the position “on the qualitative diversity of mental reality” [5].  It should be noted that the thesis about the multidimensionality of consciousness was presented in a different style in the studies of V.F. Petrenko [19], and earlier in the work of B.F. Lomov, which outlined the multidimensionality and multilevel nature of mental phenomena, as well as the possibility of their holistic study from the standpoint of a systematic approach [18].

We do not identify the mind and consciousness, however, we believe that the global development of technologies observed today, including genomic ones, as well as the rapid spread of digital technologies and artificial intelligence [2], will create opportunities for the artificial reproduction of an increasing range of sensory-perceptual and cognitive psychic phenomena, not affecting so far (as far as we know) the emotions and consciousness of a person. The well-known connection “affect and intellect”, which goes back to the works of L.S. Vygotsky, is to a certain extent similar to the identification of two main types of consciousness: phenomenal and cognitive (according to D. Chalmers’a – psychological) consciousness [4]; in other versions, it is “subjectivity” and “intentionality” [14;16]. In all versions, the first identification of consciousness is associated with a difficult problem of consciousness, and the second with a relatively easy one. In this context, as we believe, the concept of “mental reality”, introduced by N.I. Chuprikova, successfully combines both problems into a single whole, which makes it possible to avoid dead-end lines of the movement of scientific thought of a super-abstract content.

Of particular interest is N.I. Chuprikova’s thesis about the diversity of “languages of description of mental reality”. The author quite reasonably connects the genesis of consciousness with communication, communication, t. a. exchange of information in the speech and other non-verbal registers of activity of the subjects of interaction. In Russian and international studies on the problem of consciousness, the theme of various languages of consciousness is quite rare, excluding the publications of V.P. Zinchenko [1; 28] and the study of representations, their content and means, as well as what is denoted by the phrases “representational consciousness”, “unconscious representations” [9; 12].

When one considers the notion of representation and related theories of higher-order and first-order representationalism [9; 12], it is appropriate to refer to the well-known Russian constructs “higher mental functions” and “second signaling system”. N.I. Chuprikova presents material that formalizes “the highest regulatory and control role of the second signaling system in the human mind and behavior”. The potential of this construct for the development of a system of psychological knowledge exceeds the above-mentioned theories of representationalism.

The N.I. Chuprikova’s book “Mental activity of the brain, language and consciousness.  In Search of Psychic Reality and the Subject of Psychology” contains twelve chapters. The book ends with three chapters devoted to the psychology of attention, perception of space, needs and emotions, which are considered in the author’s amplification of traditional ideas based on a holistic system of categories, structural constructions and worldview positions.

The integrity of the foundations of the system of psychological knowledge proposed by N.I. Chuprikova is ensured by solving a number of important issues, in particular:

1. Mental reality manifests itself as a reflective and regulatory activity of the brain, which is inseparable from a person’s social activity in the forms of information exchange, verbal and non-verbal communication. Reflective and regulative activity is also carried out by a person through the acquired abilities to cognize their internal states, the states of other people and manage them.
2. Substantiation of the qualitative diversity of mental reality, including the multiplicity of languages, i.e., a set of symbolic means of designing the external and internal worlds of a person.
3. The promotion of language and speech as factors in the emergence and development of consciousness, due to which the “objective content of the mind of other people and one’s own mind” is involved in the sphere of reflection and regulation, which allows for large-scale “practices of oneself” (M. Foucault) and the surrounding reality.

The powerful methodological and theoretical content of N. I. Chuprikova’s book is a kind of guiding compass for mastering the psychology of all areas and levels of psychological education; it can also be used in social, humanitarian, pedagogical disciplines, as well as in the development of artificial intelligence systems.

Conclusions

Funding: The work was supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research, project No. 19-013-00816.

Acknowledgments: The author is grateful to E.V. Volkova for information support and L.S. Akopyan for her help in the manuscript formation.

References

1. Akopov, G.V. (2021). Non-verbal languages ​​of consciousness: formulation of the problem and the possibility of its solution. Scientific notes of the Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 1(1), 23-29. [Akopov G.V. Nerechevyye yazyki soznaniya: postanovka problemy i vozmozhnosti yeye resheniya // Uchenyye zapiski Instituta psikhologii RAN. 2021. Tom 1. № 1. S. 23-29.]
2. Akopov, G.V.& Akopian, L.S. (2021). Awareness of the consequences of digitalization in ideas about the possible. Actual problems of psychological knowledge, 4 (57), 8-18. [Akopov G. V. Akopyan L. S. Osoznaniye posledstviy tsifrovizatsii v predstavleniyakh o vozmozhnom // Aktual’nyye problemy psikhologicheskogo znaniya. 2021. №4(57). S. 8-18.]
3. Alexandrov, Yu.I. & Alexandrova, N.L. (2010). Complementarity of culture-specific types of cognition. Bulletin of Moscow University, Series 14. Psychology, 3, 18-35. [Aleksandrov Yu.I., Aleksandrova N.L. Komplementarnost’ kul’turospetsificheskikh tipov poznaniya // Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Seriya 14. Psikhologiya. № 3. 2010. S. 18-35.]
4. Chalmers, D.J. (2010). The Character of Consciousness. Oxford University Press.
5. Chuprikova, N.I. (2021). Mental activity of the brain, language and consciousness. In Search of Psychic Reality and the Subject of Psychology. Publishing house: LSС. [ Chuprikova N.I. Psikhicheskaya aktivnost’ mozga, yazyk i soznaniye. V poiskakh psikhicheskoy real’nosti i predmeta psikhologii. Izd.: IDYASK, 2021].
6. Chuprikova, N.I. (2015). Mind and mental processes (system of concepts of general psychology). Publishing house: LSС. [Chuprikova N.I. Psikhika i psikhicheskiye protsessy (sistema ponyatiy obshchey psikhologii). M.: Yazyki slavyanskoy kul’tury, 2015.]
7. Chuprikova, N.I. (2009). Consciousness in the functional system of mental reflection, regulation of behavior, and activity. Methodology and history of psychology, 4(1), 113-121. [Chuprikova N.I. Soznaniye v funktsional’noy sisteme psikhicheskogo otrazheniya, regulyatsii povedeniya i deyatel’nosti // Metodologiya i istoriya psikhologii. 2009. Tom 4. Vypusk 1. S. 113-121.]
8. Chuprikova, N.I. (1997). Psychology of mental development: The principle of differentiation. Moscow: CENTURY. [Chuprikova N.I. Psikhologiya umstvennogo razvitiya: Printsip differentsiatsii. M.: AO «STOLETIYE», 1997.]
9. Dienes, Z. & Perner, J. (2009). Representationalism, problems. The Oxford Companion to Consciousness. Eds: T. Baynet, A. Cleeremans, P. Wilken. Oxford University Press. P. 567 – 571.
10. Graziano, М. (2015). Consciousness and the Social Brain. Oxford University Press.
11. Gulick, R. (2002). Non-reduction, Consciousness and Physical Causation. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 9(11), Special Issue, 41-49.
12. Hellie, B. (2009). Representationalism. The Oxford Companion to Consciousness.: T. Baynet, A. Cleeremans, P. Wilken. Oxford University Press. P. 563 – 567.
13. Holden, C. (1978). Russians and Americans gather to talk psychobiology. Science, 200, 631-634.
14. Honderich, T. (2014) Actual Consciousness. Oxford University Press.
15. Ivanitsky, A.M., Ivanitsky, G.A., & Sysoeva, O.V. (2009). Brain science: On the way to solving the problem of consciousness. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 73(2), 101-108.
16. Kriegel, U. (2011). Subjective Consciousness. A Self-Representational Theory. Oxford University Press.
17. Kuhn, T.S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press.
18. Lomov, B.F. (2021). Systems Approach and the Problem of Determinizm in Psychology. Natural Systems of Mind, 1(1), 110-119.
19. Petrenko, V.F. (2010). Multidimensional consciousness: psychosemantic paradigm.: New chronograph. [Petrenko V.F. Mnogomernoye soznaniye: psikhosemanticheskaya paradigma. – M.: Novyy khronograf. 2010.]
20. Petrovsky, V.A. (2018). Psychophysical problem: who does see the world? (a sketch of the concept of mutual mediation). Methodology and history of psychology, 13(1), 58-83. [ Petrovskiy V.A. Psikhofizicheskaya problema: «kto» vidit mir? (eskiz kontseptsii vzaimooposredovaniya) // Metodologiya i istoriya psikhologii, 2018.]
21. Racover, S.S. (2002). Scientific Rules of the Game and the Mind/Body: A Critigue Based on the Theory of Measurement. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 9(11),Special Issue, 52-58.
22. Revonsuo, A. (2017). Foundations of Consciousness.
23. Toomela, A. (2007). Culture of science: strange history of the methodological thinking in psychology. Psychol, and Behav. Sci., 41, 6-20.
24. Tononi, G. (2009). An Integraited Information Theory of Consciousness. In W.B. Banks (Ed.), Encyklopedia of Consciousness. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp. 403-416.
25. Velmans M. (2002). How Could Conscious Experiences Affect Brains? Journal of Consciousness Studies, 9(11), Special Issue, 3-29.
26. Whitehead, Ch. (2008). The Origin of Consciousness in the Social World. Charles Whitehead. Imprint Academic, UK, USA.
27. Yurevich, A.V. (2010). Russian psychology in the global mainstream. Psychology Issues, 1, 3-14. [Yurevich A.V. Rossiyskaya psikhologiya v mirovom meynstrime // Voprosy psikhologii. 2010. №1. S. 3-14.]
28. Zinchenko, V.P. (1998). Living knowledge. Samara: Publishing house of the Samara state. ped. University. [Zinchenko V.P. Zhivoye znaniye. Samara: Izd-vo Samarskogo gos. ped. un-ta, 1998. ]