What do you think?
Rate this book
The Stream of Consciousness: Scientific Investigations into the Flow of Human Experience
Collection of scientific papers providing both scope and depth in defining the area of research and theory concerned with investigations into the stream of consciousness.
375 pages, Hardcover
First published July 1, 1978
13 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
November 10, 2025
A DIVERSE AND INTERESTING COLLECTION OF ESSAYS ON THIS SUBJECT
Editors Kenneth Pope and Jerome Singer wrote in the Introduction to this 1978 book, “The stream of consciousness---that flow of perceptions, purposeful thoughts, fragmentary images, distant recollections, bodily sensations, emotions, plans, wishes, and impossible fantasies---is our experience of life, our own personal life, from its beginning to its end… simply as people, we are drawn to it precisely because it is that portion of our being at once most familiar and most mysterious.” (Pg. 1)
They continue, “Only in the last decade or so has consciousness emerged as a legitimate subject for psychological research and discussion. Even thus legitimized, consciousness rarely appears in the scientific literature as that flow of experience so familiar to us all. As researchers… we limit ourselves to experiments that are easy to set up and control, generally focusing on … the study of isolated features of thought… The emergent picture of thought process, therefore, often possesses a quality of organization and rationality that is hard to reconcile with the nature of ongoing thought as it is presented by artists or with our own stream of consciousness… The contributions in this volume represent efforts to study the stream of consciousness with a deep appreciation and respect for its rich diversity, its continuous, often quirky movement, its immediacy in the lives of us all, and ultimately its mystery.” (Pg. 3)
In his essay, Jack R. Strange outlines, “according to which assumptions we make, the stream of consciousness is one of the following: 1. A complex of mental activities changing and flowing in time. 2. A succession of states, each real, yet different in quality and kind from each other… 3. A personal participation in universal (cosmic) consciousness. 4. A flow of personal experience. 5. An epiphenomenal by-product of continuous brain functioning. 6. A matter of schedules of reinforcement provided by our social environment. 7. Subjective awareness correlated with brain functioning. 8. A set of emergent properties or characteristics.” (Pg. 28)
John R. Battista suggests, “The use of consciousness as a theoretical construct is confusing because the term is so commonly used in three distinct ways. First, as a theoretical construct referring to the system by which an individual becomes aware; second, to refer to reflective awareness, and awareness of being aware; third, as a general term encompassing all forms of awareness. The use of consciousness as a theoretical construct is confusing because the term is so commonly used to refer to experience rather than the means of explaining it. Restricting the term to reflective awareness also causes difficulties because it excludes early childhood experiences that occur before the development of reflective awareness and adult experiences such as dreaming and ecstasy that occur without reflective awareness from being considered conscious. Thus, consciousness is best utilized as a general term referring to all forms of experience or awareness." (Pg. 57)
He continues, “There are three kinds of data about consciousness---phenomenological, psychological, and empirical---each of which arises from its own distinct method for investigating consciousness---introspection, observation, and measurement… These three kinds of data about consciousness are the main source of difficulty in resolving the perennial mind-body problem. It is difficult to see how any theory could simultaneously account for phenomenological data about the experience of consciousness and empirical data about the physical basis of consciousness, and yet this is exactly what the scientific method would demand of any potential general scientific theory of consciousness.” (Pg. 58)
He says, “An overall relationship between cognition and uncertainty thus begins to become clear. Unconsciousness tends to occur under situations of high or low uncertainty while cognition occurs in situations of moderate uncertainty. This suggests a bell type of curve representing the relationship between consciousness and uncertainty.” (Pg. 63-64)
He explains, “Informational holism is based on three fundamental hypotheses: 1. Consciousness is information. 2. The different forms of consciousness refer to different hierarchical levels of information. 3. The intensity of a particular state of consciousness is a function of the amount of information it represents…. Informational holism could be utilized to account for each of the criteria for a scientific general theory of consciousness. Information is knowledge. It is impossible to have knowledge without information. Information, like consciousness, is the source of all that we know.” (Pg. 80-81)
Eric Klinger states, “When we speak of consciousness we are referring of the sum total of events in awareness… When we speak of the flow of consciousness we are referring to the changes that take place in consciousness over time. The events of consciousness are, of course, extremely complex and varied. They embrace images in every sensory modality and in every degree of vividness, realism, and believability, including internal dialogue, hallucinations, reveries, and dreamlike sequences; and they also embrace qualities that are at the same time less figured and more pervasive than these---the affects.” (Pg. 225)
He continues, “Motivational constructs---even current concerns---are insufficient to predict moment-to-moment thought. A great variety of thoughts typically pass through consciousness between the beginning and end of any particular current concern, and even taking into consideration the variety of an individual’s simultaneous concerns the construct of current concern cannot by itself enable one to predict the timing or sequence of particular thoughts. However, a good deal of previous evidence has suggested that being in a state of current concern about some goal sensitizes one to notice, perceive, and have thoughts about cues related to the goal one is concerned about...This suggests, then, a general principle: At any given moment, the next thematic content of thought is induced by the combination of a current concern and a cue related to that concern. (Pg. 249-250)
He notes, “The five dimensions of thought---operant (directed) versus respondent, stimulus-independent versus stimulus-bound, fancifulness, degenerateness, and relation of ego to imagery---are functionally separable even though they may be statistically related.” (Pg. 255)
Steven Starker asks, “Why must the imagic flow return? This is an important and complex question regarding the basic fabric of consciousness. It seems likely that the stream of imagic thought provides a type of non-sequential information processing that is essential to human functioning. The imagic mode operates in a synthetic manner, integrating inputs from the different sensory modalities and from internal channels simultaneously. It enables us to express and retain meanings in terms of overall patterns of relations rather than separate elements.” (Pg. 316)
Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi notes, “The examples of what happens during dreams and pathological states suggests an answer to the vexing question, If attention controls consciousness, what controls attention itself? At the phenomenological level, the answer seems to be: consciousness… Attention can be seen as the energy necessary to carry out the work of consciousness. One can conceive of consciousness as a cybernetic system that controls its own states through attention. Consciousness and attention appear as two closely linked systems, each controlling and being controlled by the other. The first contains information and provides direction, the second provides energy and new information by introducing unplanned variations into consciousness.” (Pg. 340)
Later, he asks, “What is then the difference between optimal and aversive states of concentration? The only answer that fits appears to be a very simple one. Optimal experiences occur when a person VOLUNTARILY focuses his attention on a limited stimulus field, while aversive experiences involve INVOUNTARY focusing of attention. In other words, the individual’s choice determines the quality of the experience. If, for whatever reason, a person chooses to pay undivided attention to a set of stimuli, he or she will enjoy the experience. We are led back to the relationship between freedom and attention suggested… earlier…” (Pg. 343)
He concludes, “More crippling than the methodological lag… is the theoretical disarray that presently surrounds the holistic study of attention. Until a consistent and coherent theory of attention is developed, research results will continue to be trivial, no matter how brilliant the techniques we devise. Only a new conceptual paradigm will be able to inspire new research, direct it along the most promising paths, and then relate findings to each other and explain them in a meaningful context.” (Pg. 356)
This book will be of great interest to those studying consciousness, and related issues.
Editors Kenneth Pope and Jerome Singer wrote in the Introduction to this 1978 book, “The stream of consciousness---that flow of perceptions, purposeful thoughts, fragmentary images, distant recollections, bodily sensations, emotions, plans, wishes, and impossible fantasies---is our experience of life, our own personal life, from its beginning to its end… simply as people, we are drawn to it precisely because it is that portion of our being at once most familiar and most mysterious.” (Pg. 1)
They continue, “Only in the last decade or so has consciousness emerged as a legitimate subject for psychological research and discussion. Even thus legitimized, consciousness rarely appears in the scientific literature as that flow of experience so familiar to us all. As researchers… we limit ourselves to experiments that are easy to set up and control, generally focusing on … the study of isolated features of thought… The emergent picture of thought process, therefore, often possesses a quality of organization and rationality that is hard to reconcile with the nature of ongoing thought as it is presented by artists or with our own stream of consciousness… The contributions in this volume represent efforts to study the stream of consciousness with a deep appreciation and respect for its rich diversity, its continuous, often quirky movement, its immediacy in the lives of us all, and ultimately its mystery.” (Pg. 3)
In his essay, Jack R. Strange outlines, “according to which assumptions we make, the stream of consciousness is one of the following: 1. A complex of mental activities changing and flowing in time. 2. A succession of states, each real, yet different in quality and kind from each other… 3. A personal participation in universal (cosmic) consciousness. 4. A flow of personal experience. 5. An epiphenomenal by-product of continuous brain functioning. 6. A matter of schedules of reinforcement provided by our social environment. 7. Subjective awareness correlated with brain functioning. 8. A set of emergent properties or characteristics.” (Pg. 28)
John R. Battista suggests, “The use of consciousness as a theoretical construct is confusing because the term is so commonly used in three distinct ways. First, as a theoretical construct referring to the system by which an individual becomes aware; second, to refer to reflective awareness, and awareness of being aware; third, as a general term encompassing all forms of awareness. The use of consciousness as a theoretical construct is confusing because the term is so commonly used to refer to experience rather than the means of explaining it. Restricting the term to reflective awareness also causes difficulties because it excludes early childhood experiences that occur before the development of reflective awareness and adult experiences such as dreaming and ecstasy that occur without reflective awareness from being considered conscious. Thus, consciousness is best utilized as a general term referring to all forms of experience or awareness." (Pg. 57)
He continues, “There are three kinds of data about consciousness---phenomenological, psychological, and empirical---each of which arises from its own distinct method for investigating consciousness---introspection, observation, and measurement… These three kinds of data about consciousness are the main source of difficulty in resolving the perennial mind-body problem. It is difficult to see how any theory could simultaneously account for phenomenological data about the experience of consciousness and empirical data about the physical basis of consciousness, and yet this is exactly what the scientific method would demand of any potential general scientific theory of consciousness.” (Pg. 58)
He says, “An overall relationship between cognition and uncertainty thus begins to become clear. Unconsciousness tends to occur under situations of high or low uncertainty while cognition occurs in situations of moderate uncertainty. This suggests a bell type of curve representing the relationship between consciousness and uncertainty.” (Pg. 63-64)
He explains, “Informational holism is based on three fundamental hypotheses: 1. Consciousness is information. 2. The different forms of consciousness refer to different hierarchical levels of information. 3. The intensity of a particular state of consciousness is a function of the amount of information it represents…. Informational holism could be utilized to account for each of the criteria for a scientific general theory of consciousness. Information is knowledge. It is impossible to have knowledge without information. Information, like consciousness, is the source of all that we know.” (Pg. 80-81)
Eric Klinger states, “When we speak of consciousness we are referring of the sum total of events in awareness… When we speak of the flow of consciousness we are referring to the changes that take place in consciousness over time. The events of consciousness are, of course, extremely complex and varied. They embrace images in every sensory modality and in every degree of vividness, realism, and believability, including internal dialogue, hallucinations, reveries, and dreamlike sequences; and they also embrace qualities that are at the same time less figured and more pervasive than these---the affects.” (Pg. 225)
He continues, “Motivational constructs---even current concerns---are insufficient to predict moment-to-moment thought. A great variety of thoughts typically pass through consciousness between the beginning and end of any particular current concern, and even taking into consideration the variety of an individual’s simultaneous concerns the construct of current concern cannot by itself enable one to predict the timing or sequence of particular thoughts. However, a good deal of previous evidence has suggested that being in a state of current concern about some goal sensitizes one to notice, perceive, and have thoughts about cues related to the goal one is concerned about...This suggests, then, a general principle: At any given moment, the next thematic content of thought is induced by the combination of a current concern and a cue related to that concern. (Pg. 249-250)
He notes, “The five dimensions of thought---operant (directed) versus respondent, stimulus-independent versus stimulus-bound, fancifulness, degenerateness, and relation of ego to imagery---are functionally separable even though they may be statistically related.” (Pg. 255)
Steven Starker asks, “Why must the imagic flow return? This is an important and complex question regarding the basic fabric of consciousness. It seems likely that the stream of imagic thought provides a type of non-sequential information processing that is essential to human functioning. The imagic mode operates in a synthetic manner, integrating inputs from the different sensory modalities and from internal channels simultaneously. It enables us to express and retain meanings in terms of overall patterns of relations rather than separate elements.” (Pg. 316)
Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi notes, “The examples of what happens during dreams and pathological states suggests an answer to the vexing question, If attention controls consciousness, what controls attention itself? At the phenomenological level, the answer seems to be: consciousness… Attention can be seen as the energy necessary to carry out the work of consciousness. One can conceive of consciousness as a cybernetic system that controls its own states through attention. Consciousness and attention appear as two closely linked systems, each controlling and being controlled by the other. The first contains information and provides direction, the second provides energy and new information by introducing unplanned variations into consciousness.” (Pg. 340)
Later, he asks, “What is then the difference between optimal and aversive states of concentration? The only answer that fits appears to be a very simple one. Optimal experiences occur when a person VOLUNTARILY focuses his attention on a limited stimulus field, while aversive experiences involve INVOUNTARY focusing of attention. In other words, the individual’s choice determines the quality of the experience. If, for whatever reason, a person chooses to pay undivided attention to a set of stimuli, he or she will enjoy the experience. We are led back to the relationship between freedom and attention suggested… earlier…” (Pg. 343)
He concludes, “More crippling than the methodological lag… is the theoretical disarray that presently surrounds the holistic study of attention. Until a consistent and coherent theory of attention is developed, research results will continue to be trivial, no matter how brilliant the techniques we devise. Only a new conceptual paradigm will be able to inspire new research, direct it along the most promising paths, and then relate findings to each other and explain them in a meaningful context.” (Pg. 356)
This book will be of great interest to those studying consciousness, and related issues.
Displaying 1 of 1 review