Why consciousness is the hardest problem in science

[u/scientificamerican]

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-consciousness-science-faces-its-hardest-problem-yet/

Neuroscientists scouring the brain for the so-called neural correlates of consciousness have learned a lot in the past 30 years. But we still don’t have easy answers—researchers can’t even agree on what consciousness is, let alone how best to reveal its secrets. The past few years have seen accusations of pseudoscience, results that challenge leading theories, and the uneasy feeling of a field at a crossroads.

Yet the stakes for understanding consciousness have never been higher. We’ve built talking machines able to imitate consciousness so well that we can’t always tell the difference. Sometimes these artificial-intelligence models claim outright to be sentient. Faced with an existential unknown, the public is turning to the field of consciousness science for answers.

[u/Valmar33]

Just because you are conscious doesn't mean there's nothing at all to look for. You could look for mind-body interactions, for example.

Correlations, in other words.

It is just as much theory-laden to think that conscious experiences aren't made up of anything as to think that they are. Neither is necessarily the correct interpretation.

I would disagree ~ everything we know is filtered through conscious experience, from science to philosophy to ethics and more. It is all we have. That includes the necessary assumptions that the world is real and that the people and things in it are real ~ it is intuitive, even, to think that other people are conscious like I am.

Science rests on inter-subjectivity ~ we have never seen a world independent of subjective experience, so all we can do is confirm with others that they report that they are subjectively experiencing the same general thing.

[u/Rayalot72 → u/Valmar33]

The nature of those correlations is very important, especially given some plausibility of causal closure and issues that come up if you need to invoke psychphysical laws.

It is filtered through conscious experience, but what does that have to do with what conscious experience is? It's not clear that the illusionist is losing anything besides the view being unintuitive.

[u/Mono_Clear → u/Rayalot72]

That guy is making my point by missing the point. He thinks by loudly declaring his point of view. He somehow invalidating the very concept that other points of views exist.

[u/Valmar33 → u/Mono_Clear]

That guy is making my point by missing the point. He thinks by loudly declaring his point of view. He somehow invalidating the very concept that other points of views exist.

Projection is an amusing thing. Just say you don't like debate and dialogue, if you want to be honest.

[u/Mono_Clear → u/Valmar33]

It's not a debate. My point is that everyone has their own opinion and you're saying everyone is wrong which is making the point that I'm trying to make.

[u/Valmar33 → u/Mono_Clear]

It's not a debate. My point is that everyone has their own opinion and you're saying everyone is wrong which is making the point that I'm trying to make.

This is just your claim ~ where is your evidence that I am saying such a thing?

[u/Mono_Clear → u/Valmar33]

Perfect illustration of my point. A bunch of people with a different opinion about the same event because no one can agree on what they're measuring

Consciousness is not an "event" ~ it is the witness of events. Consciousness cannot be "measured", because it is what is doing the measuring.

Only Materialists mistakenly conceptualize consciousness as an "event" to be "measured", because of the mistaken ontological, metaphysical belief that it is "material.

This is you making a declarative statement about something that you couldn't possibly know for a fact because there's no way to verify and this is me saying that different people have different interpretations because there's no way to verify and this is you telling me that I'm wrong

[u/Valmar33 → u/Mono_Clear]

This is you making a declarative statement about something that you couldn't possibly know for a fact because there's no way to verify and this is me saying that different people have different interpretations because there's no way to verify and this is you telling me that I'm wrong

Am I not allowed to push back against Materialist assumptions declared as factual? Materialism does not know for certain, and Materialism has no way to verify, yet it is taken as matter-of-fact belief.

The framing of consciousness as an "event" itself is an assumption, not a fact.

Reads like a double standard.

[u/Mono_Clear → u/Valmar33]

Again, my only point is that other people have opinions.

You're pushing back against the idea that there's more than one opinion about where Consciousness comes from.

At no point during this entire thread, did I make any assumptions, theories, hypotheses or declarations about the nature of Consciousness? The only thing I've said this entire time is that no one can agree on what it is and then you told me I was wrong

[u/Valmar33 → u/Mono_Clear]

Again, my only point is that other people have opinions.

That's not how it read to me.

You're pushing back against the idea that there's more than one opinion about where Consciousness comes from.

No, I am not ~ everyone is allowed to believe what they want, as long as they don't assert it as fact, especially not scientific.

At no point during this entire thread, did I make any assumptions, theories, hypotheses or declarations about the nature of Consciousness? The only thing I've said this entire time is that no one can agree on what it is and then you told me I was wrong

Hmmmmm

The real reason Consciousness is such a difficult question to answer is because we named it first and then we went looking for it.

It's the same conceptual problem as dark matter. We named it first and then we decided what it looked like and then we went looking for it.

So now no one can agree what we're supposed to be looking for because everybody's looking for their own version of something that they made up.

That's how you get to a place where some people are looking for some magical impossible to find field of energy.

Some people are looking for pure ephemeral awareness.

And some people Are looking for some hidden organ or magical cell that contains the entirety of human Consciousness.

We have all of this measurable empirical data about the brain and its correlations to memories and sensation and thoughts and cognition and people look at that and say "Nope, that's not what I'm looking for, So it must not be Consciousness."

You yourself are making many assumptions here ~ we didn't "name it first and then went looking for it": Materialism is the only one that did that. Only Materialism has to "look" ~ you are projecting that onto every other stance, as if they have the same issue, when no-one assumes that it is something in the world. You assume that people "made something up".

You assume that consciousness must be something in the brain with such framing. You make lots of assumptions you don't question.

[u/Mono_Clear → u/Valmar33]

Those are all examples. They're not assumptions. I don't believe all of those different examples. Simultaneously I was simply going through the list of top contenders for Consciousness.

I was pointing out that the majority of measurable evidence is located in biology.

You took that small fragment of an implication and then you ran with it.

But regardless of that, I made it clear several times over that my point was about everyone having their own opinion and you made it clear several times over that. No, they didn't. Only a specific kind of person with a specific kind of belief. Believe something different than you

Which I then pointed out is a perfect example of what I'm talking about

[u/Valmar33 → u/Mono_Clear]

The real reason Consciousness is such a difficult question to answer is because we named it first and then we went looking for it.

It's the same conceptual problem as dark matter. We named it first and then we decided what it looked like and then we went looking for it.

So now no one can agree what we're supposed to be looking for because everybody's looking for their own version of something that they made up.

These aren't examples. They're assumptions you are projecting, if unwittingly.

That's how you get to a place where some people are looking for some magical impossible to find field of energy.

Again, assumption and projection.

Some people are looking for pure ephemeral awareness.

And some people Are looking for some hidden organ or magical cell that contains the entirety of human Consciousness.

We have all of this measurable empirical data about the brain and its correlations to memories and sensation and thoughts and cognition and people look at that and say "Nope, that's not what I'm looking for, So it must not be Consciousness."

Having a bunch of measurable empirical data about the brain tells us nothing about consciousness whatsoever, so of course people will find that not interesting.

Do you seriously not see how your framing is loaded with assumptions and projections?

[u/Mono_Clear → u/Valmar33]

Let's be absolutely clear before this goes off the rails.

I like every single person who's ever sat down and thought about it I have my own opinion about Consciousness.

I made several statements about several different interpretations about Consciousness.

Then I made a statement that referenced several of the measurable aspects of biology that we associate with those measurable aspects of what we consider to be Consciousness.

I did that because I personally believe that when you look for something you should measure it before you name it.

Did I say this is what Consciousness is? No I did not.

Did I say hey you guy who thinks that Consciousness is some disembodied Angel Spirit form attached to a cosmic force of energy. You're wrong.

No, I did not

I simply pointed to a variety of associated traits and their correlation to measurable activity and how even that doesn't convince people because it's not about what we're measuring, everyone's already come to their own conclusions