Calling the study of consciousness an emergent field is an overstatement, IMHO. Nothing in the science we know so far has been able to even suggest how or why it exits, let alone its purpose. All we know is that we require a brain to experience reality as it presents itself through our senses. Here's an article explaining an idea similar to one that I occurred to me a while ago.

What if The Brain Doesn't Create Consciousness? Scientist Proposes It Might Be The Fabric of Reality Itself
​

As Koch writes in a new, as-yet unpublished essay shared with ScienceAlert: "Nothing in science explains how three pounds of matter, a piece of furniture of the Universe like any other, subjects to the same natural laws, can love, hate, dream, imagine, fear or hope for its future."

 

If true, then no amount of computational power will ever have true consciousness, although it could likely do a good job of faking it.

And if the universe has consciousness, then perhaps that's where God resides.

 

I feel the same ... most likely, classical computational techniques will never attain consciousness. In fact, being intelligent is not the same as being conscious. Something entirely different is at play.

 

I feel the same ... most likely, classical computational techniques will never attain consciousness. In fact, being intelligent is not the same as being conscious. Something entirely different is at play.

The idea that consciousness is an innate part of reality itself is not new. It's not seen much today though, probably because of the rise of scientism and the emphasis on mechanistic explanations as the only valid explanations for phenomena.

 

The idea that consciousness is an innate part of reality itself is not new. It's not seen much today though, probably because of the rise of scientism and the emphasis on mechanistic explanations as the only valid explanations for phenomena.

You're right, science is not the only source of truth there is. But people have forgotten that as of late.

 

You're right, science is not the only source of truth there is.

Perhaps.
But it's the only source that tries to find objective truth without requiring blind belief.

But people have forgotten that as of late.

You think?
What is another good source of truth?
Note the many wars/killings that have been/are being done because of subjectively different religious beliefs (kill/convert/disenfranchise the heathens/blasphemers that don't believe in my one true religion).

 

But it's the only source that tries to find objective truth without requiring blind belief.

Philosophy can do that too, you know. In fact, I believe that one has to first accept some basic philosophical truths before moving on to science.

• I think, therefore I exist
• There's also what's called the Primacy of Existence: Reality exists outside of human thoughts, feelings, or wishes.
• Then there's Sensory Knowledge: Truth starts with physical observations via the senses.
• Then we assign a Value to Reason: Logic and reason are the primary tools for human survival and understanding.

There you go. Maybe more premises are needed, maybe less, I don't know, But once I've accepted those basic premises, then I can start doing science.

 

once I've accepted those basic premises, then I can start doing science.

Okay, as long as no other subjective "truth" is involved.

Out world is sliding into deep doodoo, because our leaders are using subjective "logic" rather than objective science (climate change is a "hoax", vaccinations cause illness, elections are corrupt, etc.).

 

our leaders are using subjective "logic"

sorry to disagree ... but they're using anything but that ...

The problem is that people tend to confuse objective with subjective reality. They are both true. But only the former is true to absolutely everyone, while the latter is only true to the one declaring it.

I consider myself scientifically oriented, of course. But one has to admit that even science has its limits. There are some things that cannot be experimented with, and they're true nevertheless. Take mathematics, for instance. Why is it sometimes defined as one of the "liberal arts" ? ... is there such a thing as a mathematical reality?

 

sorry to disagree ... but they're using anything but that ...

I believe you misunderstood my post.
I used the term subjective with logic in quotes to indicate that it is definitely not objective logic.
It is what the leaders believe it is convenient or politically expedient to say.

Just now, for example, our autocratic leader is changing the recommendations for childhood vaccinations, to reduce, what he claims, is a cause of autism.
Of course there is absolutely no scientific evidence or autism data to indicate there is any truth to vaccinations causing autism.

ake mathematics, for instance. Why is it sometimes defined as one of the "liberal arts" ? ... is there such a thing as a mathematical reality?

Well, mathematics certainly can describe/predict reality.

For example, the existence of EM (radio) waves (which no one was otherwise aware of at the time). and their speed through a vacuum was predicted by the EM equations derived by Maxwell from the previous electric and magnetic field equations of Gauss, Faraday, and Ampere,
(Maxwell did suggest that light might be an EM wave since its measured speed at that time was close to his prediction about the speed of the wave).
It was over 20 years before the waves were generated and detected by Hertz, his experiments motivated by the prediction of Maxwell's equations.
His experiments also showed that his generated waves moved at the light speed predicted by Maxwell.
But interestingly, he didn't appreciate what he had experimentally discovered or foresee any application for it.
He stated: "It's of no use whatsoever ... this is just an experiment that proves Maestro Maxwell was right—we just have these mysterious electromagnetic waves that we cannot see with the naked eye. But they are there."

And our whole understanding of the Quantum world, was discovered by starting with Schrödinger's equation, and is based on the mathematical descriptions derived from that.
Mathematics predicted the existence of many subatomic particles, before they were discovered in the high-energy collisions of other larger particles in an accelerator.

Is it not curious that the whole universe from the tiniest feature, to its full extent of billions of light-years, all follow mathematical equations.
Certainly it's conceivable that one could construct a universe that doesn't.

 

Perhaps.
But it's the only source that tries to find objective truth without requiring blind belief.
You think?
What is another good source of truth?
Note the many wars/killings that have been/are being done because of subjectively different religious beliefs (kill/convert/disenfranchise the heathens/blasphemers that don't believe in my one true religion).

Science rests on belief. Belief that all observations are governed by rationally intelligible rules, that's just one belief.

Nor does science deal with "objective truth" we all experience subjectively, not objectively. Science does not reveal truth either, it uses induction not deduction.

One cannot do science unless one already believes that the universe is understandable, rationally intelligible.

Everything we regard as true can be traced back to presumptions, beliefs.

 

Nor does science deal with "objective truth"

This is getting a little too philosophical for me.
So are you saying there's no such thing as "objective truth".

 

Science rests on belief

Isn't the point of the scientific method that it allows us to transcend belief?

 

Isn't the point of the scientific method that it allows us to transcend belief?

Is that what you believe?

 

This is getting a little too philosophical for me.

Nonsense Zapper, philosophy is a highly logical reasoning process, any engineer/mathematician/scientist is already well primed for it.

So are you saying there's no such thing as "objective truth".

I wasn't (but I could) I was just emphasizing how we always need some unprovable propositions in order to do any kind of reasoning and those are of course also called "beliefs".

Like the laws of physics are isotropic and homogenous and immutable, these beliefs are essential to even begin to reason basic physics.

There's a naive view around these days that science "doesn't do beliefs" and this is tragic because it is a huge misrepresentation of what science is actually all about and the limits of knowledge.

 

Every function of the brain, including consciousness, can be lost if an area of the brain is damaged. That is enough for me require extraordinary evidence for clams that anything external or mystical is involved.

Consciousness IMHO is a function of the brain operating on known physics in an unknown way. We will have artificial consciousness in he near future but there will always be deniers.

I have l read extensively on this topic. The only thing I can say with confidence is that anyone who claims to understand it is wrong. The same goes for free will, which is closely related.

 

Every function of the brain, including consciousness, can be lost if an area of the bran is damaged. That is enough for me require extraordinary evidence that anything external is involved.

Not saying "external" but innate, like a property of reality that we haven't pinned down yet.

 

Consciousness IMHO is a function of the brain operating on known physics in an unknown way.

And IMHO I don't believe we've reached a point in which we can claim we know everything there is to know about physics.

 

Every function of the brain, including consciousness, can be lost if an area of the brain is damaged.

I've been staying out of this conversation simply because I do not know what conciousness is, but I suspect, like you, that it is mechanical.

But, I could argue this particular point. If consciousness were something mystical and non-physical, it could require real physical brain structures with which to process it. Therefore, losing such structures would result in the loss of such conciousness.

 

I've been staying out of this conversation simply because I do not know what conciousness is, but I suspect, like you, that it is mechanical.

But, I could argue this particular point. If consciousness were something mystical and non-physical, it could require real physical brain structures with which to process it. Therefore, losing such structures would result in the loss of such conciousness.

Aside from that, we really don't know what's going on inside the brain of an unconscious person, especially those permanently unable to communicate, or those who have no memory of being unconscious.

They could have met God, and they or we could never know it.