Introduction
If we want to understand consciousness with integrity we need to devote conscious attention to the processes we use along the way, namely dialogue and interdisciplinary learning approaches. I believe the route to understanding consciousness will itself be more of a process than a result. How well we engage these processes across disciplinary moats will determine what direction, how quickly and whether we''ll effectively move towards understanding. As an inter-disciplinary field, the need for collective approaches would present both an obvious need and a marvelous opportunity for consciousness science.
Where we are at a macro level of understanding consciousness science presents curious overlaps with our micro and individual understanding. The need is great to watch ourselves as we dialogue and ask what does this process; this debate, etc. tell us about ourselves consciousness? It is imperative that we derive methods to engage self-reflexiveness as we go both individually and collectively.
Effective learning and research in consciousness science requires that we develop and use new approaches for learning and collective dialogue. These approaches must lead firmly and progressively beyond the scientific debate structure, which is entrenched in scientific history. This approach, although right for the past, does not meet our current and future needs because it is too slow and cumbersome, and under-reaps the quality of results that are possible from modern inter-disciplinary approaches. This is because our rate of information exchange has increased enormously, industrial and societal learning are moving towards higher rates of innovation, and the technology wave has matured.
Current methods of interdisciplinary dialogue are underdeveloped. This, aside from the obvious distinction of the hard problem vs. the easy problem, may be truly the harder problem of consciousness. Certainly it presents the most significant early difficulty to be overcome in embarking along the road of consciousness science. This paper establishes some starting places and grounding for dialogue processes to emerge and offers guidance for critical areas and milestones where views and tolerances need to shift while cultivating alternative views that create a heightened potential for new processes.
Whether we like it or not new learning approaches from outside sources has become an innovation threat to traditional scientific systems. The threat is this: Innovate or be considered irrelevant and thereby subject to the same forces as down-sized organizations, namely layoffs, reduced salaries and tenures, in short, retirement by benign obsolescence. What used to be the "outside" world is now all part of the big picture. There really is no separation. An attitude of resigned disinterest will only hasten the dissolution.
A current communication and public accountability challenge is the need to address an accelerating information stream in scientific and industrial disciplines and in popular culture. To meet that challenge and the inevitable culture collisions that will occur as science and technology industrial culture norms meet with research culture norms, more active forms of learning and communication will be required.
The term "creagenic learning" or "genesis learning" (Source: A.L. Tesolin, Intuita, 1997) is learning which fosters the genesis of novel creations. Such novel results become necessary when the societal landscape is innovation-driven. This paper addresses fundamental requirements of these learning processes and when they can be introduced.
Communication processes have been traditionally the domain and functional skill area of consensus builders, mediators, and organizational psychology practitioners. There has not been a strong impetus to engage these types of skill sets and processes. However both are highly relevant to maintaining the leading edge in a learning culture.
It is a fact that a group will outperform its most intelligent contributor. Why then is science rooted in individual methods? The structure of science, research positioning, validation, publication and acceptance are all based on this. It is the individual who is recognized, credited, and built upon with the support of others.
Mining Inter-disciplinary Dialogue
Dialogue is distinct from debate because it involves a form of listening that is beyond position or profession. Dialogue is described as a process of exchanging information where participants leave the dialogue with a deeper knowledge level and wider frame of reference than when they approached. It involves the creation of an expandable context. Dialogue is successful to the extent that all parties to it are permanently stretched beyond their opening views.
The concept of learning and dialogue are well explained by Senge 1990 and Issaacs 1994.
More commonly debate is centered on argument, refutation, challenge, from a listening perspective where the focus is on winning the debate or making the next point rather than on understanding the issue and its implications. An individual presents ideas, is expected to effectively refute opponents, field questions, engage in skillful intellectual debate, and simultaneously protect his or her reputation. A lot of energy goes into this. However scientists highly skilled in debate rarely go forward into dialogue. Perhaps David Bohm has been most notable in this respect. A typical outcome of debate is a stronger argumentative holding to the original position. If it is truly understanding that we seek we''d better create a dialogue climate and skills that are conducive to productive dialogue.
Group dialogue presents its own challenge as processes become more complex and interests, subtexts, and agendas emerge, submerge and influence the direction and ability to achieve skilled dialogue. Groups need to learn how to recognize and cross these barriers.
Each discipline holds its own very strong implicit assumptions, shared meaning of common terms and a "culture" of the way things happen based on history and practice. When specialists from different professions collide all of this is up for testing and inquiry. More commonly a respectful distance is maintained when one is outside one''s professional tribe. Although this approach is a considered professional courtesy, with consciousness science it could be a mistake.
Here are some key questions. Is debate the best way to publicly and collectively learn and explore consciousness science? What is the energetic system created by the debate structure? What energy goes in? Where does it stabilize? What are the outputs? Where is the potential? What points of departure exist from which we can enter dialogue? How can we create more productive, meaningful, and collective dialogue?
With debate more energy goes into maintaining the static nature of debate than could be potentially used for learning, catalyzing and synthesizing novel ideas and approaches. The potential value of evolving new approaches is to remove current obstructions and engage pathways that generate greater freedom and more productive outcomes.
The entry into dialogue is mediated by 3 precedents:
1) A viewpoint shift from individual to collective referents
2) A structure shift from debate to dialogue
3) Capability of participants to identify qualities of productive dialogue, to skillfully build dialogue, and to develop sensitivity to emergent forms of dialogue that may evolve.
The paper identifies key structures and approaches to dialogue, which includes cultivating openness and a shift toward deeper implicit principles as an approach to building common ground in various iterative and overlapping stages.
Stage 1: Sharing of terms and views in a cross-disciplinary context
Stage 2: Relentless excavation of implicit assumptions
Stage 3: Stating new assumptions that arise from collective dialogue, recognizing mindful dialogue
Stage 4: Skillful group dialogue methods, deepening common ground, developing new ideas, recognizing and realizing potential gains.
The Challenge of Inter-disciplinary Communication
Currently science is increasingly discussed by people outside science, by media, scientific writers and readers. This brings with it the reciprocal problems of oversimplifying scientific data as it greets popular society. Most scientists disdain and fear this with justification because brings the potential for criticism from a quasi-knowledgeable public.
Let''s take a look at how inter-disciplinary information exchange currently occurs, through conferences. My general observation is that the only people asking questions during a presentation are those in the same professional discipline as the presenter. If it is a paper on physics, questions are posed by other physicists, if a psychology paper, by other psychologists, etc. A good effectiveness measure would be to identify a successful presentation as one where other professionals feel both engaged and comfortable enough to ask questions and point out issues both within and outside their own discipline. This requires a shift from enquiry and response to particular content towards emerging inter-disciplinary implications.
As industry becomes more scientifically and technologically based there will be increasing demand for inclusion by industry researchers and an informed public demanding information. Industry has its own problems with scientific inquiry, it is highly controlled by managerial professionals rather than scientists who are oriented towards profit values, undervalue research cycles and outputs, and demand irreconcilably simple solutions to complex issues.
The days of solely discussing scientific progress with peer experts have passed. Indeed the speed at which the societal interests and a growing demand for scientific accountability poses an accelerating threat to the ownership of scientific ideas, which is uncontrollable, particularly in a discussion of consciousness. Most human beings sharing this planet would "qualify" to enter a discussion on consciousness. How would you feel about being challenged by an information-savvy 9-year old who has more time than you to pursue enquiry? Or a market driven company with a highly articulate team of professional knowledge workers? Science by herself holds no corner on consciousness.
It''s a problem that''s not likely to go away. The scientists of tomorrow are likely to be media savvy and skilled in the art of public presentation. Indeed their future employment could depend on it. There are some current trends worthy of note. Science and technology-based industry is a high growth global industry.
Numbers of private and industrial research institutes are increasing and private and industrial research funding continues to grow. These alone are good reasons to warrant a look at the methods used in the progress of scientific learning. We need to create a sustainable learning and idea generation strategy.
In addition there are many "competent" scientific and technical professionals in industry who can read, debate, and keep up with trends in scientific ideas. Many of these have become familiar with expedited, multi-disciplinary and team learning processes. They have learned how to dialogue and create tangible results within specific time frames. Although most of these results have been in applied science it would not be mere conjecture to expect that their capability to producing results in pure science has also increased.
If traditional information-sharing methods continue the result could be a pure science culture of competitive disadvantage in comparison to industry, process obsolescence, and a loss of excellence in pure science.
New methods and processes of trans-disciplinary dialogue, inquiry, collective information sharing, idea incubation and experimenting with learning processes need to begin evolving now to circumvent this.
In consciousness science in particular there are additional issues to address that reside between the objective vs. subjective view. Perhaps our largest obstruction in understanding consciousness science is ourselves, or maybe more meaningfully our current selves, or our thought habits that have been formed through thousands of years of repetition. Consciousness itself is beyond the individual and maybe to understand it we also have to get beyond the individual view. Maybe it is only understandable through the collective mind. There we have also have a difficulty rooted in scientific tradition which rewards the individual over the collective.
Creagenic Learning Approaches
The potential benefits of creagenic learning approaches cannot be understated. Such approaches are potentially highly generative of relevant results in innovation, discovery and invention. Creagenic learning approaches close a necessary feedback linkage between industrial professionals and researchers and theorists, which has to date, been under-cultivated. Some of this has been described by R.Wasen, 1994.
Creagenic learning bears some resemblance to the kinds of learning interdisciplinary industrial teams undertake but there are also some key differences. What is similar is that the learning approach is active, and draws from a number of professional competencies and diverse talents. What is different is that industrial team results are generally task or project-specific with a measurable outcome in mind. Creagenic processes may lead to new or revised theories and/or potential inventions. The expected result cannot be necessarily be defined at the outset.
In order for an innovation-driven "active learning culture" to be grown we must create a structure and a means for leading edge thought leaders and theorists to synergize and emerge novel learning with applied scientists and engineers, most of whom are employed in industry rather than research institutes and universities. Achieving a learning collaboration and commitment between both groups will result in potential ideas, partnerships, technologies, and products.
First necessary steps on the road to achieving such learning alliances will involve elevating the perceived value for such processes. Secondly it will be necessary to create the cultural "readiness" of both groups to engage such efforts.
The breaking down of the information-competition barrier will be a prerequisite for industrial collaboration. Traditional views are that information sharing is withheld by fear of yielding a potential competitive advantage to a competitor. A new view ought to recognize that a higher value result exists for the potential outcomes of such synergistic learning processes, which intrinsically create results for all contributors that far outweigh the individual information contribution required. Of course I am referring here to meaningful collaboration with sincere and enthusiastic participation. Any contribution rooted in self-interest would of necessity demean the potential gains of collaboration.
Another cultural impediment, which requires shifting, is the tendency for unrealistically high expectations of researchers and theorists on entitlements resulting from commercialization. Meaningful division of labor in the commercialization process should recognize all contributors and the development of fair and appropriate compensation returns based on contribution, effort, time, results, and risk.
The creagenic learning structure itself must be carefully considered before the learning event and encompass key areas of dialogue, key contributors, appropriately diverse participation by professional disciplines, an active learning structure combined with unstructure, strong facilitation by expert facilitators with some competency in the featured technical areas, a means of synthesizing results, and industrial and institutional support for culturing and nurturing new partnerships and inter-disciplinary projects.
Closing QuestionsWe need to ask how potentially do we get in the way of our own understanding? Is there an operative, "We have seen the enemy and it is us"? If we looked into the future of consciousness and saw beyond the present, what would we see that we would have had to do now to get there? One thing we can probably all agree on is we''ve got our work cut out for us.
Practical Approaches
In keeping with the nature of active learning this part of the paper is deliberately left unfinished so that contribution by others is invited. What I present here are some starting places. Please write legibly and include your name and professional discipline.
Suggested Approaches to Inter-disciplinary DialogueBroadly communicate the definition and recognition of dialogue vs. debate and the potential benefits. Encourage alternative forms of dialogue, i.e. small group dialogues with key contributors. Where possible define potential facilitation roles for certain disciplines particularly those more concerned with thought/communication structures such as philosophy, i.e. coach, referee, umpire, agitatant, resolver, consensus identifier and builder.
Suggested Approaches to Inter-disciplinary Communications
Encourage inter-disciplinary papers and studies in consciousness science. Where possible define terms in preliminary discussion, including the views held by the particular profession and why.
Suggested Approaches to Creagenic Learning
Encourage open experimentation with productive dialogue and divergent learning structures coupled with expert facilitation.
Acknowledgments
Special thanks to the Nadal Management Centre for Executive Development at the Schulich School of Business, York University, Toronto, Canada. Dr. Rolf Wasen, Sweden for ideas exchange around conceptual engineering and inter-disciplinary approaches.
References
Senge, Peter, The Fifth Discipline, Currency Doubleday, USA, 1990
Isaacs, William, Dialogue and The theory of dialogue from The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook by P. Senge, C. Roberts, R. Ross, B. Smith, and A. Kleiner, Currency Doubleday, USA, 1994
Wasen, Rolf: Conceptual Engineering: "Where Theory and Practice Meet", pp. 121-148, in "The Role of Mathematics in Modern Engineering", Studentlitteratur, Lund, 1996.
