Why Science Hasn’t Solved Consciousness

[Dutch Uncle]

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.

I disagree that scientific research will fail to yield results. At best we can say "unlikely" be it proving there's an afterlife or building a time machine.

Robert Ornstein's book "The Psychology of Consciousness " was relatively new when I was studying psychology in college.

Again, I disagree that we don't have free will but concede we are also products of our genes and experiences. Comparative psychology is useful in comparing the human mind with other animals, especially mammals. Animals are all genes and experiences. They react to both of those. Lesser-thinking human beings or those with brain damage are closer to animals than higher-thinking human beings. Does a retard or severely brain-damaged person have free will? I'm guessing not.

 

[Cypress]

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.

Studying brain wave patterns explains nothing about your individual subjective phenomenological mental experience.

Some people believe scientific experiments is the source of all truth and knowledge. They are mistaken.

There is no equation or scientific experiment that explains why D minor sounds so aesthetically different from G major.

"I've always found D minor to be the saddest of all keys. I don't know why, but it makes people weep instantly." - Nigel Tufnel​

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NgViOqGJEvM

 

[gmark77]

There is no equation or scientific experiment that explains why D minor sounds so aesthetically different from G major.

Bet there is. Bet it relates to dopamine and/or serotonin

In fact I bet if you went onto Scholar.Google and did a search on why some music is pleasing you'd get something like 1.15million hits.

 

[Cypress]

Bet there is. Bet it relates to dopamine and/or serotonin

In fact I bet if you went onto Scholar.Google and did a search on why some music is pleasing you'd get something like 1.15million hits.

I think you're confusing neuroscience with the phenomenology of conciousness.

Mapping the structures and electrical patterns of the brain explains nothing about our phenomenological experiences of friendship, music, art, color, sound, etc.

Some people think trying to use physics and chemistry to answer phenomenological experience is just asking the wrong question.