| YES | if the statement agrees with the views of the writer |
| NO | if the statement contradicts the views of the writer |
| NOT GIVEN | if it is impossible to say what the writer thinks about this |
Expanding Consciousness
A brain-damaged patient suffering from prosopagnosia cannot recognize familiar faces although her vision is otherwise intact. She has awareness without recognition. A patient with blind sight is blind in parts of his visual field, but if asked to guess the location of objects in those 'blind spots, he is more than likely to guess right. He has recognition without awareness. Are both these patients conscious?
How the brain produces consciousness is a question that has puzzled philosophers and scientists for millennia, and many of them have looked to brain-damaged patients for the answer. Consider a patient with Parkinson’s disease who wants to move his legs but cannot. His thoughts have become severed from his actions, and that dissociation seems to be related to the lack of a certain chemical, dopamine, in one area of his brain. But why dopamine should perform that particular function in that particular area nobody knows.
What studies of brain damage reveal is that consciousness has many facets. But it can be a dangerous approach because it rests on the assumption that each part of the brain that contributes to consciousness does so consistently over time. Yet, if consciousness is dynamic rather than static, if the conscious functions performed by a certain body of neurons in the brain are transient, then the functions lost when a brain receives a blow at a specific point in time could differ from those that might have been lost a moment later.
In the past, scientists have searched for discrete switches at the neuronal level — singular, all-or-nothing events which when put together give rise to a global sensibility. But how and where the translation from physical to mental takes place remains a mystery, not least because those on/off neuronal mechanisms seem so incompatible with the diffuse and indefinable property of consciousness.
In Journey to the Centers of the Mind, neuroscientist Susan Greenfield suggests that the underlying physical processes are no less complex and diffuse than consciousness itself. Consciousness is not located in one region of the brain, one neuron or one molecule, and it does not necessarily go hand in hand with stimulation of the senses. But each conscious experience is singular in time. She describes shades of subtlety in the activities of neurons: they can be biased to respond in certain ways and in the sense that their behaviour is shaped by past experience; they even have memory. The action potential, the firing of a cell in response to stimulation, might be an all-or-nothing event, but the threshold at which a neuron produces an electrical signal can be lowered or raised incrementally.
By the same token, consciousness is better viewed as a continuum rather than as an all-or-nothing phenomenon. Greenfield suggests that it is the product of large interacting groups of neurons which form and reform rapidly around a triggering stimulus like concentric ripples on the surface of a pond. And the size of each neuronal assembly or “gestalt” is determined by the brain’s level of arousal at a particular moment in time. Arousal is, in turn, controlled by chemicals called amines (neuromodulators) that are produced in the most primitive part of the brain. According to Greenfield’s theory, fountains of these neuromodulators diffuse upwards and outwards from neurons in the brainstem, and it is these chemicals which bias the firing threshold of neurons in the rest of the brain — even in the sophisticated outer cortex. By so doing, they dictate the number of neurons that will be incorporated in each gestalt, and so determine the depth of the emerging consciousness. In this way, each conscious experience is qualitatively unique.
The idea of neuronal assemblies is not new. But the concept of consciousness as something that shrinks and expands, growing in depth as the brain grows physically, is a new departure. Very young children have no sense of other people’s thought processes — their consciousness is egocentric But by the age of about four they have begun to project mental states onto others. And brain-damaged patients, whose brains have effectively been reduced in size, have something in common with children. Both function at a shallower level of consciousness because stimuli trigger relatively small gestalts in their brains.
Greenfield docs not pretend to have uncovered the secret of consciousness. Her theory cannot answer all the questions, but it may have brought us a small step closer to a physical explanation of what it is to be human.
AI explanationShows the answer. Tap to open.
Question Focus: Writer opinion based on explanation of Parkinson's patient losing control between thoughts and actions.
Correct Answer: YES
Why this is correct: The writer clearly agrees that Parkinson's patients struggle to control their actions. The sentence shows a direct problem between wanting to act and being able to act.
Passage Reference: Consider a patient with Parkinson's disease who wants to move his legs but cannot. His thoughts have become severed from his actions, and that dissociation seems to be related to the lack of a certain chemical, dopamine, in one area of his brain.
Common Mistake: NOT GIVEN - Not Given trap. Some students think this is only a description, but the writer clearly supports this view.
Paraphrasing: Passage: 'thoughts have become severed from his actions' = Statement: 'problems controlling his action'
Tips: When the writer explains a problem as a fact without doubt, it usually means YES.
Key Vocabulary:
- severed = separated
- dissociation = disconnection
Question Focus: Writer opinion about consciousness having many facets.
Correct Answer: YES
Passage Reference: What studies of brain damage reveal is that consciousness has many facets. But it can be a dangerous approach because it rests on the assumption that each part of the brain that contributes to consciousness does so consistently over time.
Why this is correct: The writer clearly states that consciousness has many facets, which means it has multiple dimensions. This directly supports the statement.
Common Mistake: NOT GIVEN - Paraphrase trap. Students miss that 'many facets' means multi-fold dimensions.
Paraphrasing: Passage: 'consciousness has many facets' = Statement: 'multi-fold dimensions'
Tips: Learn common paraphrases like facets = dimensions.
Key Vocabulary:
- facets = aspects
- multi-fold = many
Question Focus: Writer disagrees with all-or-nothing view of consciousness.
Correct Answer: NO
Passage Reference: By the same token, consciousness is better viewed as a continuum rather than as an all-or-nothing phenomenon. Greenfield suggests that it is the product of large interacting groups of neurons.
Why this is correct: The writer directly argues against the idea that consciousness is either on or off. Instead, it exists in degrees.
Common Mistake: YES - Contradiction trap. Students miss the phrase 'rather than all-or-nothing'.
Paraphrasing: Passage: 'continuum rather than all-or-nothing' = Statement: 'either conscious or unconscious'
Tips: Watch for phrases like 'rather than' - they often signal disagreement.
Key Vocabulary:
- continuum = gradual range
- phenomenon = event or state
Question Focus: Writer explains blindsight as lack of awareness, not extra vision.
Correct Answer: NO
Passage Reference: A patient with blind sight is blind in parts of his visual field, but if asked to guess the location of objects in those 'blind spots, he is more than likely to guess right. He has recognition without awareness.
Why this is correct: The writer does not say blindsight patients see more than normal people. They actually lack awareness, not gain extra vision.
Common Mistake: YES - Paraphrase trap. Guessing correctly does not mean seeing extra things.
Paraphrasing: Passage: 'recognition without awareness' = Statement: 'visions normal people are not able to see'
Tips: Do not assume ability equals advantage. Read what is missing as well as what is present.
Key Vocabulary:
- blindsight = partial blindness
- awareness = conscious noticing
Question Focus: Writer says Parkinson's is linked to lack of dopamine, not excess.
Correct Answer: NO
Passage Reference: His thoughts have become severed from his actions, and that dissociation seems to be related to the lack of a certain chemical, dopamine, in one area of his brain.
Why this is correct: The writer clearly states Parkinson's is linked to a lack of dopamine. The statement says excessive amount, which is the opposite.
Common Mistake: YES - Contradiction trap. Students confuse lack with excess.
Paraphrasing: Passage: 'lack of dopamine' = Statement: 'excessive amount of dopamine'
Tips: Always check quantity words carefully.
Key Vocabulary:
- lack = not enough
- excessive = too much
Question Focus: Writer opinion about amines controlling arousal.
Correct Answer: YES
Passage Reference: And the size of each neuronal assembly or 'gestalt' is determined by the brain's level of arousal at a particular moment in time. Arousal is, in turn, controlled by chemicals called amines (neuromodulators) that are produced in the most primitive part of the brain.
Why this is correct: The writer clearly states that arousal is controlled by amines. This directly agrees with the statement.
Common Mistake: NOT GIVEN - Synonym match trap. Students miss 'controlled by chemicals called amines'.
Paraphrasing: Passage: 'controlled by chemicals called amines' = Statement: 'controlled by the quantity of amines'
Tips: Look for clear cause words like 'controlled by'.
Key Vocabulary:
- arousal = alertness
- amines = brain chemicals
Question Focus: No direct link between early examples and Greenfield's theory.
Correct Answer: NOT GIVEN
Passage Reference: A brain-damaged patient suffering from prosopagnosia cannot recognize familiar faces although her vision is otherwise intact. She has awareness without recognition. A patient with blind sight is blind in parts of his visual field, but if asked to guess the location of objects in those 'blind spots, he is more than likely to guess right.
Why this is correct: The writer describes these cases, but never says they support Greenfield's theory. The connection is not stated.
Common Mistake: YES - Context shift trap. Students assume examples automatically support the theory.
Paraphrasing: Passage: 'description of patients' = Statement: 'support Greenfield's theory'
Tips: Do not add connections the writer does not clearly make.
Key Vocabulary:
- support = give evidence for
- theory = explanation
Question Focus: Writer compares children and brain-damaged patients.
Correct Answer: YES
Passage Reference: And brain-damaged patients, whose brains have effectively been reduced in size, have something in common with children. Both function at a shallower level of consciousness because stimuli trigger relatively small gestalts in their brains.
Why this is correct: The writer directly compares the two groups and says they function at a similar, shallower level of consciousness.
Common Mistake: NOT GIVEN - Direct statement missed. Students overlook comparison phrases.
Paraphrasing: Passage: 'both function at a shallower level of consciousness' = Statement: 'depth of consciousness is comparable'
Tips: Words like 'both' are strong signals for YES.
Key Vocabulary:
- shallower = less deep
- comparable = similar
General Tips:
- YNNG tests the WRITER'S VIEW, not passage facts. Always ask: does the writer agree, disagree, or stay silent?
- YES and NO depend on opinion language like 'better viewed as' or 'rather than'.
- NOT GIVEN means the idea is not connected or evaluated by the writer.
- Watch for quantity words like 'lack', 'excessive', 'all-or-nothing'.
- Questions follow passage order - use the previous answer to find the next.
The rest of this explanation is for members. Sign in free to read why the other options are wrong, key words and tips.
Sign in to read the full explanation