Why Science Hasn’t Solved Consciousness

[Cypress]

Still haven't explained why consciousness is ipso facto something beyond the scope of scientific experiments? Especially in light of the fact that numerous such experiments are actually ongoing as we speak and have been for years.

Usually when someone makes a positive claim that this or that is beyond the ken of science they are doing so out of a need to avoid what science tells us.

Understanding the motion and energy of quarks, electrons, atoms are not an explanation for subjective mental experience.

We have no accepted explanation for the emergence of consciousness from inanimate matter, scientific or otherwise.

There is a whole academic discipline called "philosophy of science" if you still need to convince yourself that people understand there is a distinction between scientific questions and philosophical questions.

 

[Yakuda]

A New Vision Of Nature​

The difference between the enactive approach to cognition and consciousness and the reductive view of physicalism could not be more stark. The latter focuses on a physical object, in this case the brain, asking how the movements of atoms and molecules within it create a property called consciousness. This view assumes that a third-person objective view of the world is possible and that the brain’s job is to provide the best representation of this world.

Why Science Hasn’t Solved Consciousness (Yet) | NOEMA

To understand life, we must stop treating organisms like machines and minds like code.

www.noemamag.com

Does consciousness need to be solve?

 

[gmark77]

Understanding the motion and energy of quarks, electrons, atoms are not an explanation for subjective mental experience.

We have no accepted explanation for the emergence of consciousness from inanimate matter, scientific or otherwise.

There is a whole academic discipline called "philosophy of science" if you still need to convince yourself that people understand there is a distinction between scientific questions and philosophical questions.

I will thus assume you have no reason to make this distinction in relationship to consciousness other than your personal wish for it to be so.

That's the thing about real science: no one gets to run around saying "This or that is not to be studied by science". That's what religion is for.

 

[gmark77]

Does consciousness need to be solve?

Is it real? If so then yes it does. It can be understood as a function of a network of neuron-based information processing systems such as what we have in our heads.

It is a function of the physical world and can therefore be studied by science and understood by science.

 

[Yakuda]

Is it real? If so then yes it does. It can be understood as a function of a network of neuron-based information processing systems such as what we have in our heads.

It is a function of the physical world and can therefore be studied by science and understood by science.

Studied isnt the same as "solved".

 

[gmark77]

Studied isnt the same as "solved".

Sorry not interested in the stupid word games that animate lesser minds.

 

[Cypress]

I will thus assume you have no reason to make this distinction in relationship to consciousness other than your personal wish for it to be so.

That's the thing about real science: no one gets to run around saying "This or that is not to be studied by science". That's what religion is

There is no scientific experiment, no equation, no model that explain subjective human mental experience and how and why it arises from atoms and molecules.

It's primarily a philosophical question, and will so be for as long as we live.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Really don't know what "singular processor" or "harmonious parallel system" means.

really didn't know consciousness was a problem to be solved.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

There is no scientific experiment, no equation, no model that explain subjective human mental experience and how and why it arises from atoms and molecules.

It's primarily a philosophical question, and will so be for as long as we live.

there is a model that the subjectic experience is just a side effect of an organism's information processing ability.

this is what the atheist nazi mass murder class seems to promote publicly.

though really they worship Satan.

 

[Cypress]

there is a model that the subjectic experience is just a side effect of an organism's information processing ability.

this is what the atheist nazi mass murder class seems to promote publicly.

though really they worship Satan.

There is no science that can adequately explain your phenomenological experience of hearing Mozart versus hearing AC/DC, or your phenomenological experience of a magenta sunset versus and azure blue sky, or your phenomenological experience of the taste of pineapple versus the taste of chocolate.

Your subjective phenomenological experience of life is not explained at the level of physics and chemistry.

Phenomenology is a philosophical question. The word itself comes straight out of philosophy.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

^^why is this asshole troll allowed on the forum

He's housebound and has no other place to go.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

From what I've read about consciousness human brains do seem to have a central module which coordinates the various incoming streams of input data (both raw and processed by the brain) and forms it into a comprehensible sense of consciousness.

I think (and this is mainly a guess) that what this comic is proposing is that if the brain were to process incoming data more like a simple computer with either parallel processing or just processing one channel of data at a time our need for a central module and our experience of consciousness wouldn't be even remotely like what we humans experience.

The stuff that the brain does automatically is positively a mind-fuck. We have one hemisphere that creates the justification for why actions took place which the brain did automatically giving us the impression of "free will". Experiments have even been run to show this effect. It's weird as fuck.

Disagreed there's no such thing as "free will". OTOH, I readily agree that people don't have as much free will as they might believe due to unconscious factors like genetics and experiences/conditioning.

That said, this conversation seems to be a variation on the model that human beings are a trinity; mind, body and spirit.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Does consciousness need to be solve?

Need? Not for those who wish to live in caves and exist picking berries and hunting small game.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

There is no science that can adequately explain your phenomenological experience of hearing Mozart versus hearing AC/DC, or your phenomenological experience of a magenta sunset versus and azure blue sky, or your phenomenological experience of the taste of pineapple versus the taste of chocolate.

Your subjective phenomenological experience of life is not explained at the level of physics and chemistry.

Phenomenology is a philosophical question. The word itself comes straight out of philosophy.

Need? Not for those who wish to live in caves and exist picking berries and hunting small game.

you people are nihilists who seek to destroy consciousness.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Disagreed there's no such thing as "free will". OTOH, I readily agree that people don't have as much free will as they might believe due to unconscious factors like genetics and experiences/conditioning.

That said, this conversation seems to be a variation on the model that human beings are a trinity; mind, body and spirit.

there is free will.

it's evident in the concepts of "divorce", "going on a diet", or "rejecting bad advice".

central bankers working against free will is a different issue.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

you people are nihilists who seek to destroy consciousness.

^^^
No longer able to read and comprehend English. Sad.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

there is free will.

Thanks for agreeing with me, Fredo.

 

[gmark77]

There is no scientific experiment, no equation, no model that explain subjective human mental experience and how and why it arises from atoms and molecules.

It's primarily a philosophical question, and will so be for as long as we live.

I envy your assurety. Given that the history of science is littered with this kind of prediction and it has so far been found to be about 100% wrong when made.

Especially, again, in light of the fact that it is being studied by scientists now.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I envy your assurety. Given that the history of science is littered with this kind of prediction and it has so far been found to be about 100% wrong when made.

Especially, again, in light of the fact that it is being studied by scientists now.

How can science be wrong when it admits it doesn't have the answers?

Which studies interest you the most?

 

[gmark77]

How can science be wrong when it admits it doesn't have the answers?

I was just pointing out that it is irrational to make the claim that science will never understand this and that it is beyond the ability of science to understand it which is what @Cypress seems to be saying.

I've read a little in this area and there is a lot of really interesting science going on. MRI's provide a really neat view into what is happening where and more importantly when.

There was an interesting set of studies run I want to say at one of the UC's in Cali where they routed information into either the right or left hemisphere and were able to in certain patients with a "split brain" (a surgery to deal with seizure disorders involved cutting the corpus collossum and segregating the hemispheres of the brain). It turns out the Left hemisphere has the language and the ability to create "stories" to explain what the right hemisphere is doing but the right hemisphere doesn't, so they found that if they prompted the right hemisphere with something the left was not aware of that the left made up a "post hoc" story to explain why the person took the action predicated on the right hemisphere stimulus (and it was often just purely made up stories.)

It pointed out not only the possibility that we lack a real "free will" (in that the Right hemisphere was doing stuff that the consciousness was unaware of and ultimately the consciousness made up a "just so story" to explain) but it also pointed out a possible "control module" type arrangement. Not in a "control" sense but rather in a monitoring sense and a module that made sense of the inputs to our brains.