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.