Neuroscientist loses a 25-year bet on consciousness — to a philosopher

[Cypress]

Neuroscientist loses a 25-year bet on consciousness — to a philosopher​

Will we ever unravel the mystery of consciousness? Two academics made a 25-year bet on it. The scientist lost.

Christof Koch wagered David Chalmers 25 years ago that researchers would learn how the brain achieves consciousness by now. But the quest continues.

What was the nature of the bet? Neuroscientist Christof Koch and philosopher David Chalmers bet 25 years ago on whether science would have an explanation for consciousness by now. Tests of the two leading theories of consciousness revealed that both are incomplete.

Chalmers’ “easy” problem of identifying neural correlates of consciousness proved more complex than expected, with crucial aspects like self-awareness overlooked in studies.

The “hard” problem of how brain processes create subjective conscious experience remains unsolved — and will remain that way for a very long time.

Neuroscientist loses a 25-year bet on consciousness — to a philosopher

Will we ever unravel the mystery of consciousness? Two academics made a 25-year bet on it. The scientist lost.

bigthink.com

 

[Hume]

Neuroscientist loses a 25-year bet on consciousness — to a philosopher​

Will we ever unravel the mystery of consciousness? Two academics made a 25-year bet on it. The scientist lost.

Christof Koch wagered David Chalmers 25 years ago that researchers would learn how the brain achieves consciousness by now. But the quest continues.

What was the nature of the bet? Neuroscientist Christof Koch and philosopher David Chalmers bet 25 years ago on whether science would have an explanation for consciousness by now. Tests of the two leading theories of consciousness revealed that both are incomplete.

Chalmers’ “easy” problem of identifying neural correlates of consciousness proved more complex than expected, with crucial aspects like self-awareness overlooked in studies.

The “hard” problem of how brain processes create subjective conscious experience remains unsolved — and will remain that way for a very long time.

Neuroscientist loses a 25-year bet on consciousness — to a philosopher

Will we ever unravel the mystery of consciousness? Two academics made a 25-year bet on it. The scientist lost.

bigthink.com

Depends how you define "consciousness." Biological or conceptual.

 

[Cypress]

Depends how you define "consciousness." Biological or conceptual.

I'm sure all of Christof Koch's neuroscientist buddies would have harangued him not to concede the bet if there was a realistic way to claim science had discovered an explanation for consciousness.

 

[Hume]

I'm sure all of Christof Koch's neuroscientist buddies would have harangued him not to concede the bet if there was a realistic way to claim science had discovered an explanation for consciousness.

If it is just a physical explanation then it would be answered by science's usual methods. Otherwise, I have never seen any physicist say anything interesting about consciousness.

 

[Cypress]

If it is just a physical explanation then it would be answered by science's usual methods. Otherwise, I have never seen any physicist say anything interesting about consciousness.

Science can identify the location of certain biochemical processes in the brain. Knowing "locations" and chemical reactions tells you nothing about exactly how atoms and molecules produce a subjective mental experience and self awareness.

If it were easily explained then neuroscientist Koch wouldn't have conceded his bet to philosopher Chalmer.

 

[Hume]

Science can identify the location of certain biochemical processes in the brain. Knowing "locations" and chemical reactions tells you nothing about exactly how atoms and molecules produce a subjective mental experience and self awareness.

If it were easily explained then neuroscientist Koch wouldn't have conceded his bet to philosopher Chalmer.

I do not think physics has any definition of consciousness. Either you can think or you are dead.

 

[Cypress]

I do not think physics has any definition of consciousness. Either you can think or you are dead.

If you mean by 'thinking', the subjective mental experiences we have, our ability of abstract reasoning, our self awareness, no one has been able to really explain why and how these experiences arise from atoms, molecules, quarks and electrons.

That's precisely why this neuroscientist conceded his bet with David Chalmers

 

[Daylight63]

Science can identify the location of certain biochemical processes in the brain. Knowing "locations" and chemical reactions tells you nothing about exactly how atoms and molecules produce a subjective mental experience and self awareness.

Way back in the late Medieval Period when I was in undergrad I was taking a philosophy class. We were discussing Hume and Empiricism (not the Hume of JPP).

The professor was making the point that you can't ever establish a causal relationship that can be experienced for anything. So the example he gave was you walk into a room and flip a lightswitch. The light comes on.

Are they causally related in a truly empirical sense? No. You are not experiencing the causal connection. For all you know it is pure unadulterated chance that correlates the light switch with the light coming on. You can make no inference about the causal connection other than to say that on repeated testing each time the switch was flipped the light came on. But you have no proof that it isn't purely random.

It seems that is what you are doing here.

We discussed the concept of "wetness" which is very real but CANNOT BE FOUND IN ANY SINGLE ITEM IN A SYSTEM. You can't take an atom of hydrogen and say "This will be wet!" Because wetness doesn't exist at the atomic level. In fact it is, essentially, nothing in itself. It is a feature of a ensemble of things: the chemical bonds that make up the larger molecules, how the molecules interact and how the surface energy of the surface it lays on relate to the features of the material you put on it.

In essence there is no such thing as "wetness" in any physical sense. There is an EFFECT of wetness which exists as a function of the ENTIRE SYSTEM.

So why must mental states be somehow DIFFERENT?

 

[Cypress]

Way back in the late Medieval Period when I was in undergrad I was taking a philosophy class. We were discussing Hume and Empiricism (not the Hume of JPP).

The professor was making the point that you can't ever establish a causal relationship that can be experienced for anything. So the example he gave was you walk into a room and flip a lightswitch. The light comes on.

Are they causally related in a truly empirical sense? No. You are not experiencing the causal connection. For all you know it is pure unadulterated chance that correlates the light switch with the light coming on. You can make no inference about the causal connection other than to say that on repeated testing each time the switch was flipped the light came on. But you have no proof that it isn't purely random.

It seems that is what you are doing here.

We discussed the concept of "wetness" which is very real but CANNOT BE FOUND IN ANY SINGLE ITEM IN A SYSTEM. You can't take an atom of hydrogen and say "This will be wet!" Because wetness doesn't exist at the atomic level. In fact it is, essentially, nothing in itself. It is a feature of a ensemble of things: the chemical bonds that make up the larger molecules, how the molecules interact and how the surface energy of the surface it lays on relate to the features of the material you put on it.

In essence there is no such thing as "wetness" in any physical sense. There is an EFFECT of wetness which exists as a function of the ENTIRE SYSTEM.

So why must mental states be somehow DIFFERENT?

The fact that a leading neuroscientist conceded a 25 year bet that we cannot yet explain conciousness, and that fact that none of his neuroscientist buddies called or texted him trying to talk him out of conceding is overwhelming and totally convincing evidence that we cannot explain conciousness at the level of science at this time.

 

[Daylight63]

The fact that a leading neuroscientist conceded a 25 year bet that we cannot yet explain conciousness, and that fact that none of his neuroscientist buddies called or texted him trying to talk him out of conceding is overwhelming and totally convincing evidence that we cannot explain conciousness at the level of science at this time.

I wish my points actually were worthy of consideration.

I keep forgetting that these threads are not for discussion but rather recordation.

 

[Hume]

If you mean by 'thinking', the subjective mental experiences we have,

No. I mean any cognitive activity.