Skip to main content

Attention


Attention by Wayne Wu
I am Wayne Wu, currently Associate Professor in, and Associate Director of, the Center for the Neural Basis of Cognition.

Consider some mundane situations: (a) you've lost your keys and look around searching for them; (b) you watch picnickers throw a frisbee when suddenly, it flies towards you and you reach to catch it; (c) you memorize the first 30 digits of pi and then later, recall them; (d) you drink some wine and figure out what flavors it exemplifies; (e) you ponder various reasons for making a significant decision or for justifying a specific claim; (f) while onlookers are oblivious, a child's straying too close to a busy road captures your attention.

These mundane situations reflect instances of bodily and mental agency, of conscious awareness, of directed thought, and of epistemic and practical reflection. They are tied together by the subject's selective attunement to various facets of a situation. That is, they exemplify the deployment of attention (or so I would argue). Attention insinuates itself into many matters of philosophical significance.

In Attention, part of Routledge's New Problems in Philosophy series, I argue for the philosophical importance of attention. My aim is to provide an overview of empirical work on attention, investigate what attention is, and use that understanding to examine different philosophical issues infiltrated by attention.

The first four chapters focus on what attention is. Chapters 1 and 2 provide a selective overview of empirical work on attention in psychology and neuroscience since the 1950s, covering major theories and experimental results. The key idea is that there is an empirical sufficient condition for attention, namely that when a subject selects some X to inform performance of a certain task where X is relevant, the subject attends to X. This condition is built into experimental design in both the psychology and neuroscience of attention. Proceeding from this condition, I connect attention to action in Chapter 3, covering two recent theories where this connection is salient: attention as selection for action and attention as cognitive unison. My own view is that attention is a subject's selecting X to perform an action, but in general, attention has an essential connection to agency. Chapter 4 explores whether attention as a psychological state is essentially conscious, as many seem to hold (e.g. William James). I argue for the negative claim: there is unconscious attention.

The last half of the book focuses on the connection between attention and various further matters of philosophical interest. Chapters 5 and 6 explore the idea that attention serves as a gatekeeper to consciousness, that is, that one is phenomenally conscious of only that to which one attends. The notion of attention here can be perceptual attention or some notion of access. By understanding what attention is, I argue that many striking experiments that purport to support gatekeeping are methodologically flawed, including many of the standard inattentional blindness paradigms. Despite gatekeeping having been actively discussed for several decades in philosophy and cognitive science, central aspects of the debate have been hampered by insufficient analysis of attention.

Chapter 7 focuses on the role of attention in demonstrative thought, including a discussion of attention to objects as a distinct mode of attention. Chapter 8 then concludes with a discussion of an area where I think more work needs to be done: the epistemic role of attention. I focus on attention in justification and attention in introspection. Indeed, there is much work yet to be done on attention.

For too long, philosophers have either ignored attention, focused on the restricted topic of gatekeeping, or invoked attention as if it was transparent, so proceeded without an adequate analysis (e.g. see the phenomenal concepts literature). If I am right, attention is central to many important philosophical topics, and progress on these topics requires that we take attention seriously as a topic in its own right.

Popular posts from this blog

Delusions in the DSM 5

This post is by Lisa Bortolotti. How has the definition of delusions changed in the DSM 5? Here are some first impressions. In the DSM-IV (Glossary) delusions were defined as follows: Delusion. A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture (e.g., it is not an article of religious faith). When a false belief involves a value judgment, it is regarded as a delusion only when the judgment is so extreme as to defy credibility.

Rationalization: Why your intelligence, vigilance and expertise probably don't protect you

Today's post is by Jonathan Ellis , Associate Professor of Philosophy and Director of the Center for Public Philosophy at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and Eric Schwitzgebel , Professor of Philosophy at the University of California, Riverside. This is the first in a two-part contribution on their paper "Rationalization in Moral and Philosophical thought" in Moral Inferences , eds. J. F. Bonnefon and B. Trémolière (Psychology Press, 2017). We’ve all been there. You’re arguing with someone – about politics, or a policy at work, or about whose turn it is to do the dishes – and they keep finding all kinds of self-serving justifications for their view. When one of their arguments is defeated, rather than rethinking their position they just leap to another argument, then maybe another. They’re rationalizing –coming up with convenient defenses for what they want to believe, rather than responding even-handedly to the points you're making. Yo...

Models of Madness

In today's post John Read  (in the picture above) presents the recent book he co-authored with Jacqui Dillon , titled Models of Madness: Psychological, Social and Biological Approaches to Psychosis. My name is John Read. After 20 years working as a Clinical Psychologist and manager of mental health services in the UK and the USA, mostly with people experiencing psychosis, I joined the University of Auckland, New Zealand, in 1994. There I published over 100 papers in research journals, primarily on the relationship between adverse life events (e.g., child abuse/neglect, poverty etc.) and psychosis. I also research the negative effects of bio-genetic causal explanations on prejudice, and the role of the pharmaceutical industry in mental health. In February I moved to Melbourne and I now work at Swinburne University of Technology.  I am on the on the Executive Committee of the International Society for Psychological and Social Approaches to Psychosis and am the Editor...