Наука сознания. Современная теория субъективного опыта. Майкл Грациано

Чтение книги онлайн.

Читать онлайн книгу Наука сознания. Современная теория субъективного опыта - Майкл Грациано страница 11

Наука сознания. Современная теория субъективного опыта - Майкл Грациано

Скачать книгу

style="font-size:15px;">      R. A. Koene, “Scope and Resolution in Neural Prosthetics and Special Concerns for the Emulation of a Whole Brain,” Journal of Geoethical Nanotechnology 1 (2006): 21–29; R. Kurzweil, The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology (New York: Penguin Books, 2006); H. Markram, E. Muller, S. Ramaswamy, M. W. Reimann, M. Abdellah, C. A. Sanchez, A. Ailamaki, et al., “Reconstruction and Simulation of Neocortical Microcircuitry,” Cell 163 (2015): 456–92; A. Sandberg and N. Bostrom, “Whole Brain Emulation: A Roadmap,” Technical Report #2008–3, Future of Humanity Institute, Oxford University, 2008.

      11

      И другие авторы убедительно описывали возможный ход эволюции сознания, включая туда связи сознания с вниманием (хотя делали это иначе, чем я). К примеру: C. Montemayor and H. H. Haladjian, Consciousness, Attention, and Conscious Attention (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2015); R. Ornstein, Evolution of Consciousness: The Origins of the Way We Think (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1991).

      12

      O. Sakarya, K. A. Armstrong, M. Adamska, M. Adamski, I. F. Wang, B. Tidor, B. M. Degnan, T. H. Oakley, and K. S. Kosik, “A Post-Synaptic Scaffold at the Origin of the Animal Kingdom,” PLoS One 2 (2007): e506.

      13

      Z. Yin, M. Zhu, E. H. Davidson, D. J. Bottjer, F. Zhao, and P. Tafforeau, “Sponge Grade Body Fossil with Cellular Resolution Dating 60 Myr before the Cambrian,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 112 (2015): E1453–60.

      14

      D. H. Erwin, M. Laflamme, S. M. Tweedt, E. A. Sperling, D. Pisani, and K. J. Peterson, “The Cambrian Conundrum: Early Divergence and Later Ecological Success in the Early History of Animals,” Science 334 (2011): 1091–7; A. C. Marques and A. G. Collins, “Cladistic Analysis of Medusozoa and Cnidarian Evolution,” Invertebrate Biology 123 (2004): 23–42.

      15

      H. R. Bode, S. Heimfeld, O. Koizumi, C. L. Littlefield, and M. S. Yaross, “Maintenance and Regeneration of the Nerve Net in Hydra,” American Zoology 28 (1988): 1053–63.

      16

      R. B. Barlow Jr. and A. J. Fraioli, “Inhibition in the Limulus Lateral Eye in Situ,” Journal of General Physiology 71 (1978): 699–720.

      17

      K. Hadeler, “On the Theory of Lateral Inhibition,” Kybernetik 14 (1974): 161–5.

      18

      S. Koenemann and R. Jenner, Crustacea and Arthropod Relationships (Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2005).

      19

      B. Schoenemann, H. Pärnaste, and E. N. K. Clarkson, “Structure and Function of a Compound Eye, More Than Half a Billion Years Old,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 114 (2017): 13489–94.

      20

      R. Gillette and J. W. Brown, “The Sea Slug, Pleurobranchaea californica: A Signpost Species in the Evolution of Complex Nervous Systems and Behavior,” Integrative and Comparative Biology 55 (2015): 1058–69.

      21

      C. R. Smarandache-Wellmann, “Arthropod Neurons and Nervous System,” Current Biology 26 (2016): R960–R965.

      22

      S. Koenig, R. Wolf, and M. Heisenberg, “Visual Attention in Flies – Dopamine in the Mushroom Bodies Mediates the After-Effect of Cueing,” PLoS One 11 (2016): e0161412; B. van Swinderen, “Attention in Drosophila,” International Review of Neurobiology 99 (2011): 51–85.

      23

      D. H. Erwin, M. Laflamme, S. M. Tweedt, E. A. Sperling, D. Pisani, and K. J. Peterson, “The Cambrian Conundrum: Early Divergence and Later Ecological Success in the Early History of Animals,” Science 334 (211): 1091–97; B. Runnegar and J. Pojeta Jr., “Molluscan Phylogeny: The Paleontological Viewpoint,” Science 186 (1974): 311–17.

      24

      J. Kluessendorf and P. Doyle, “Pohlsepia mazonensis, an Early ‘Octopus’ from the Carboniferous of Illinois, USA,” Palaeontology 43 (2000): 919–26; A. R. Tanner, D. Fuchs, I. E. Winkelmann, M. T. Gilbert, M. S. Pankey, A. M. Ribeiro, K. M. Kocot, K. M. Halanych, T. H. Oakley, R. R. da Fonseca, D. Pisani, and J. Vinther, “Molecular Clocks Indicate Turnover and Diversification of Modern Coleoid Cephalopods during the Mesozoic Marine Revolution,” Proceedings of Royal Society, B, Biological Sciences 284 (2017): 20162818.

      25

      P. Godfrey-Smith, Other Minds: The Octopus, the Sea, and the Deep Origins of Consciousness (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2016); S. Montgomery, The Soul of an Octopus (New York: Atria Books, 2015).

      26

      A.-S. Darmaillacq, L. Dickel, and J. A. Mather, Cephalopod Cognition (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2014); D. B. Edelman, B. J. Baars, and A. K. Seth, “Identifying Hallmarks of Consciousness in Non-Mammalian Species,” Consciousness and Cognition 14 (2015): 169–87; J. N. Richter, B. Hochner, and M. J. Kuba, “Pull or Push? Octopuses Solve a Puzzle Problem,” PLoS One 11 (2016): e0152048.

      27

      B. Hochner, “An Embodied View of Octopus Neurobiology,” Current Biology 22 (2012): R887–92.

      28

      P. M. Merikle, D. Smilek, and J. D. Eastwood, “Perception without Awareness: Perspectives from Cognitive Psychology,” Cognition 79 (2001): 115–34; R. Szczepanowski and L. Pessoa, “Fear Perception: Can Objective and Subjective Awareness Measures Be Dissociated?” Journal of Vision 10 (2007): 1–17.

      29

      E. Knudsen and J. S. Schwartz, “The Optic Tectum, a Structure Evolved for Stimulus Selection,” in Evolution of Nervous Systems, ed. J. Kaas (San Diego: Academic Press, 2017), 387–408; C. Maximino, “Evolutionary Changes in the Complexity of the Tectum of Nontetrapods: A Cladistic Approach,” PLoS One 3 (2008): e3582.

      30

      D. Ingle, “Visuomotor Functions of the Frog Optic Tectum,” Brain, Behavior, and Evolution 3 (1970): 57–71.

      31

Скачать книгу