Researchers still flummoxed by conciousness

C

Cypress

"Cypress you motherfucking whore!"
Understanding Consciousness Goes Beyond Exploring Brain Chemistry

Over the summer, the neuroscientist Christof Koch conceded defeat on his 25-year bet with the philosopher David Chalmers, a lost wager that the science of consciousness would be all wrapped up by now. Despite decades of research, there’s little sign of consensus on consciousness, with several rival theories still in contention.

I argue that we can account for the evolution of consciousness only if we reject reductionism about consciousness. Most consciousness researchers employ a reductionist view of the universe, where physics is running the show.

The neuroscientist Kevin Mitchell has argued that the free will of conscious organisms plays a role in determining what will happen in the brain, over and above what is settled by the laws of physics. And the assembly theory of chemist Lee Cronin and physicist Sara Walker decisively rejects reduction to microscopic-level equations, arguing for a kind of memory inherent in nature that guides the construction of complex molecules.

Evolution offers one of the strongest challenges to reductionist approaches to consciousness. Natural selection only cares about behavior, as it’s only behavior that matters for survival. Given all this, it is a deep mystery why consciousness evolved at all.
 
Cypress said:
Understanding Consciousness Goes Beyond Exploring Brain Chemistry

Over the summer, the neuroscientist Christof Koch conceded defeat on his 25-year bet with the philosopher David Chalmers, a lost wager that the science of consciousness would be all wrapped up by now. Despite decades of research, there’s little sign of consensus on consciousness, with several rival theories still in contention.

I argue that we can account for the evolution of consciousness only if we reject reductionism about consciousness. Most consciousness researchers employ a reductionist view of the universe, where physics is running the show.

The neuroscientist Kevin Mitchell has argued that the free will of conscious organisms plays a role in determining what will happen in the brain, over and above what is settled by the laws of physics. And the assembly theory of chemist Lee Cronin and physicist Sara Walker decisively rejects reduction to microscopic-level equations, arguing for a kind of memory inherent in nature that guides the construction of complex molecules.

Evolution offers one of the strongest challenges to reductionist approaches to consciousness. Natural selection only cares about behavior, as it’s only behavior that matters for survival. Given all this, it is a deep mystery why consciousness evolved at all.
Click to expand...
It’s a fascinating subject, I wonder what the wager was? I think it will awhile before it is settled.
 
Phantasmal said:
It’s a fascinating subject, I wonder what the wager was? I think it will awhile before it is settled.
Click to expand...

They bet a case of wine! Makes sense, I didn't think reputable scientists would wager cold, hard cash.

It is a fascinating subject, and one that is presicely at the very frontiers of science and philosophy!
 
Cypress said:
They bet a case of wine! Makes sense, I didn't think reputable scientists would wager cold, hard cash.

It is a fascinating subject, and one that is presicely at the very frontiers of science and philosophy!
Click to expand...
Perfect bet!
 
Cypress said:
Understanding Consciousness Goes Beyond Exploring Brain Chemistry

Over the summer, the neuroscientist Christof Koch conceded defeat on his 25-year bet with the philosopher David Chalmers, a lost wager that the science of consciousness would be all wrapped up by now. Despite decades of research, there’s little sign of consensus on consciousness, with several rival theories still in contention.

I argue that we can account for the evolution of consciousness only if we reject reductionism about consciousness. Most consciousness researchers employ a reductionist view of the universe, where physics is running the show.

The neuroscientist Kevin Mitchell has argued that the free will of conscious organisms plays a role in determining what will happen in the brain, over and above what is settled by the laws of physics. And the assembly theory of chemist Lee Cronin and physicist Sara Walker decisively rejects reduction to microscopic-level equations, arguing for a kind of memory inherent in nature that guides the construction of complex molecules.

Evolution offers one of the strongest challenges to reductionist approaches to consciousness. Natural selection only cares about behavior, as it’s only behavior that matters for survival. Given all this, it is a deep mystery why consciousness evolved at all.
Click to expand...

Why is it a mystery? We have been endowed with all the elements,that when functioning, result in consciousness. Its a result of how humans are designed. We are designed to have consciousness.
 
Yakuda said:
Why is it a mystery? We have been endowed with all the elements,that when functioning, result in consciousness. Its a result of how humans are designed. We are designed to have consciousness.
Click to expand...

That is a teleological argument.

Scientists are primarily concerned with mechanistic knowledge. We literally have no accepted physical or chemical theory for why humans have an inner life revolving around conciousness.
 
Perhaps the one thing on which we can all agree is that consciousness is an imposition.
When I conk out on my recliner, I'm probably at my happiest.:)
 
Cypress said:
Understanding Consciousness Goes Beyond Exploring Brain Chemistry
Click to expand...
Not really. There is nothing to study, or even ponder, beyond physiology.

Cypress said:
I didn't think reputable scientists would wager cold, hard cash.
Click to expand...
They aren't scientists; they are researchers. There's a difference, and you would know what that difference is if only you knew what science is. These researchers haven't made any science. They eke out their existences off research grants, whether or not they produce any science, even if they don't produce any results at all.

Cypress said:
It is a fascinating subject, and one that is precisely at the very frontiers of science and philosophy!
Click to expand...
Not really. Currently, AI is the frontier while quantum computing is the scam du jour. The only ones interested in "consciousness" are movie producers and story writers.

Cypress said:
I argue that we can account for the evolution of consciousness only if we reject reductionism about consciousness.
Click to expand...
Am I really going to be the first to call boooolsch't on this? Did no one else recognize the desperation for attention behind the hurling of empty buzzwords under the pretense that something is actually being said?

Cypress said:
Most consciousness researchers employ a reductionist view of the universe, where physics is running the show.
Click to expand...
Shouldn't it have read "The consciousness researcher focuses on neurochemistry."?

Cypress said:
[researcher] Kevin Mitchell has argued that the free will of conscious organisms plays a role in determining what will happen in the brain
Click to expand...
This is a theological view. Obviously it should not be mistaken for science, in which "free will" is not a thing.

Cypress said:
... over and above what is settled by the laws of physics.
Click to expand...
There is major boooolsch't to be called here. What, pray tell, is to be researched, or even can be researched, over and above what is settled by the laws of physics? Voodoo? The afterlife? What?

Cypress said:
And the assembly theory of chemist Lee Cronin and physicist Sara Walker decisively rejects reduction to microscopic-level equations ...
Click to expand...
Neither rejects any possibilities.

Cypress said:
Evolution offers one of the strongest challenges to reductionist approaches to consciousness.
Click to expand...
Darwin's theory of evolution implies a "reduced" answer, not any sort of challenge to one.

Cypress said:
Natural selection only cares about behavior
Click to expand...
Nope. Natural selection only cares about advantageous characteristics.

Cypress said:
as it’s only behavior that matters for survival.
Click to expand...
Nope. It's all about advantageous characteristics that improve the probability of passing genes on to the next generation.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
Perhaps the one thing on which we can all agree is that consciousness is an imposition. When I conk out on my recliner, I'm probably at my happiest.
Click to expand...
Another stupid NiftyNiblick comment. Consciousness is what makes happiness possible. Pete moss isn't very happy.
 
Cypress said:
That is a teleological argument.

Scientists are primarily concerned with mechanistic knowledge. We literally have no accepted physical or chemical theory for why humans have an inner life revolving around conciousness.
Click to expand...

And you literally never will.
 
Yakuda said:
And you literally never will.
Click to expand...

I am not convinced we will ever really understand conciousness, abiogenesis, or the origin and cause of the Big Bang

But just giving up trying to aquire that knowledge is contrary to the project of science.
 
Cypress said:
I am not convinced we will ever really understand conciousness, abiogenesis, or the origin and cause of the Big Bang

But just giving up trying to aquire that knowledge is contrary to the project of science.
Click to expand...

I already know the cause of consciousness and the big bang

I never suggested we give up. God gave us the desire to explore and learn more about him but it's.moved people away from him by their own choosing. People have supplanted wisdom with knowledge.
 
Yakuda said:
I already know the cause of consciousness and the big bang

I never suggested we give up. God gave us the desire to explore and learn more about him but it's.moved people away from him by their own choosing. People have supplanted wisdom with knowledge.
Click to expand...

sggjtuy7
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top