Decades-long Bet on Consciousness Ends (nature.com) 82
Christof Koch wagered David Chalmers 25 years ago that researchers would learn how the brain achieves consciousness by now. But the quest continues. From a report: A 25-year science wager has come to an end. In 1998, neuroscientist Christof Koch bet philosopher David Chalmers that the mechanism by which the brain's neurons produce consciousness would be discovered by 2023. Both scientists agreed publicly on 23 June, at the annual meeting of the Association for the Scientific Study of Consciousness (ASSC) in New York City, that it is an ongoing quest -- and declared Chalmers the winner. What ultimately helped to settle the bet was a study testing two leading hypotheses about the neural basis of consciousness, whose findings were unveiled at the conference.
"It was always a relatively good bet for me and a bold bet for Christof," says Chalmers, who is now co-director of the Center for Mind, Brain and Consciousness at New York University. But he also says this isn't the end of the story, and that an answer will come eventually: "There's been a lot of progress in the field." Consciousness is everything that a person experiences -- what they taste, hear, feel and more. It is what gives meaning and value to our lives, Chalmers says. Despite a vast effort, researchers still don't understand how our brains produce it, however. "It started off as a very big philosophical mystery," Chalmers adds. "But over the years, it's gradually been transmuting into, if not a 'scientific' mystery, at least one that we can get a partial grip on scientifically."
[...] The goal was to set up a series of 'adversarial' experiments to test various hypotheses of consciousness by getting rival researchers to collaborate on the studies' design. "If their predictions didn't come true, this would be a serious challenge for their theories," Chalmers says. The findings from one of the experiments -- which involved several researchers, including Koch and Chalmers -- were revealed on Friday at the ASSC meeting. It tested two of the leading hypotheses: integrated information theory (IIT) and global network workspace theory (GNWT). IIT proposes that consciousness is a 'structure' in the brain formed by a specific type of neuronal connectivity that is active for as long as a certain experience, such as looking at an image, is occurring. This structure is thought to be found in the posterior cortex, at the back of the brain. GNWT, by contrast, suggests that consciousness arises when information is broadcast to areas of the brain through an interconnected network. The transmission, according to the theory, happens at the beginning and end of an experience and involves the prefrontal cortex, at the front of the brain.
"It was always a relatively good bet for me and a bold bet for Christof," says Chalmers, who is now co-director of the Center for Mind, Brain and Consciousness at New York University. But he also says this isn't the end of the story, and that an answer will come eventually: "There's been a lot of progress in the field." Consciousness is everything that a person experiences -- what they taste, hear, feel and more. It is what gives meaning and value to our lives, Chalmers says. Despite a vast effort, researchers still don't understand how our brains produce it, however. "It started off as a very big philosophical mystery," Chalmers adds. "But over the years, it's gradually been transmuting into, if not a 'scientific' mystery, at least one that we can get a partial grip on scientifically."
[...] The goal was to set up a series of 'adversarial' experiments to test various hypotheses of consciousness by getting rival researchers to collaborate on the studies' design. "If their predictions didn't come true, this would be a serious challenge for their theories," Chalmers says. The findings from one of the experiments -- which involved several researchers, including Koch and Chalmers -- were revealed on Friday at the ASSC meeting. It tested two of the leading hypotheses: integrated information theory (IIT) and global network workspace theory (GNWT). IIT proposes that consciousness is a 'structure' in the brain formed by a specific type of neuronal connectivity that is active for as long as a certain experience, such as looking at an image, is occurring. This structure is thought to be found in the posterior cortex, at the back of the brain. GNWT, by contrast, suggests that consciousness arises when information is broadcast to areas of the brain through an interconnected network. The transmission, according to the theory, happens at the beginning and end of an experience and involves the prefrontal cortex, at the front of the brain.
awkward (Score:2)
I read this article over a week ago.
I'm glad Slashdot dropped the "news for news" monicker, it's awkward to get outdone by a week+ by the Google auto-news feed.
Re:awkward (Score:5, Interesting)
i wouldn't mind having week old news if that meant that such is the timeframe to curate a thought out selection.
i find it far more annoying that most of what is posted here doesn't seem curated at all, is more often than not a dupe and is most of the time just depressingly retarded clickbait or straight political propaganda.
i don't come here for slashdot's offering nor the editors' work. not at all. i come here for all you other guys. you are an interesting bunch, and smart people can make smart comments and spark interesting conversations about just anything, however asinine. keep it up. slashdot is just the circumstance.
Re: (Score:2)
Consciousness (Score:4, Interesting)
The biggest two issues for me with "consciousness" are how ill-defined it is and how almost mythical it is.
What if there's no "consciousness" at all, and we are just trying to create something out of nothing? What if it is just some finely tuned but extremely complex process which we are trying to simplify in vain? After all what we are trying to deal with here, is an extremely complex system trying to understand itself. Is it even possible for our brain or we need something more advanced, you know, AGI which is yet to be achieved?
Re: (Score:2)
Philosophical zombies walk among us. Some of them even engage us in conversations about consciousness. Some of them even write books, like this [amazon.com] one.
Re:Consciousness (Score:5, Interesting)
In order to read your statement that there is no such thing as consciousness, I must first experience the light emanating from my monitor. Thus, I experience qualia, and that essential experience is what is normally meant by "consciousness."
So, I experimentally disprove your statement by reading it.
Maybe our current scientific model of the universe doesn't have "room" for qualia. That doesn't mean we have disproven the existence of qualia, it just means our scientific models still have gaps.
I will concede, however, that I have no means of determining whether or not anyone else experiences qualia. You might actually BE a philosophical zombie, which would certainly explain way you seem to think that there is no such thing as consciousness. Be that as it may, my experience of being a conscious being pre-exists and underlies any dialogue about consciousness, so it is simply more fundamentally real to me than any words you might say to the contrary.
Put simply, direct experience holds more weight than speculation based on limited models, when belief is concerned.
Re: (Score:2)
Dennett was right, there is no such thing as consciousness. Once you explain all the things that consciousness is not, there's nothing left to explain.
I agree with this, as laid out in my reply to a different branch of this thread: https://science.slashdot.org/c... [slashdot.org]
When you break free from the circular presumption that of course some coherent Self/Consciousness exists ("cogito ergo sum" right?) and ask yourself "What if there's nothing there at all?", you suddenly recognize that people's attempts to prove and rationalize the existence of the Self are extraordinarily similar to the way theists use the "Invisible Gardener" to prove and rationalize the existe
Re: (Score:2)
So, "I troll, therefore I am"?
Re: (Score:2)
The whole philosophical zombie argument is IMHO just a weird form of solipsism and not really convincing.
P.S. Imagine you are Siri Keeton.
Re: (Score:2)
>What if there's no "consciousness" at all
asking that is big NPC energy. Do you not have self awareness and perception?
The harsh truth is this:
Nobody has Self-awareness and Self-perception.
The reason scientists never have, and I predict are a very very many lifetimes away (if ever) from significantly systematizing an understanding of the Self, is almost everyone is confusing the map with the territory, and so can never escape systematic containment/set problems along the lines of Godelian Incompleteness.
The notion of the personal cognitive Self is a phenomenon that descends FROM a subset of the perceptual actions o
Re: (Score:2)
You might enjoy this essay [fyngyrz.com] of mine on consciousness.
(no ads, no cookies, no pop-ups, no begging)
Re: (Score:1)
I've been thinking about this for about 40 years now, since I saw a lecture by an MIT professor on the subject.
The answer is in the question. If I've been thinking about a problem for 40 years I believe it demonstrates consciousness (despite what my detractors would say about me). IMHO it is the mechanism that we employ to constantly reason which we experience as consciousness. Koch and Chalmers have been working on discovering that mechanism in the human brain by theorizing how it works and then testing
Re: (Score:2)
we experience as consciousness
And who would that "we" be? You need consciousness to experience anything. Anything else does not cut it.
Re: (Score:1)
Wait, you think that you cannot experience anything without consciousness? That would be factually false. I think we can be pretty sure that a tomato plant doesn't have consciousness, but it does experience changes to its external conditions.
Not sure what you're getting at, frankly. The sentence you selectively pulled 4 words out of was "IMHO it is the mechanism that we employ to constantly reason which we experience as consciousness." I stand by that statement.
Re: (Score:2)
You got it the wrong way round. There is no "you" without consciousness and that is factually correct. Hence no experiences for "you" and your argument is invalid. You may also notice that you essentially claim to not exist, which is pretty much nonsense.
That said, a tomato plant does not "experience" anything. It is _subject_ to influences and that is entirely different. Otherwise you could also claim a rock experiences things and that is obvious bullshit. Well, the whole Physicalist faith is bullshit and
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't leave much room for the actual neurons, does it?
Re: (Score:2)
Not plausible and not consistent with my observations. No, do not give me that fake sophistry that claims we are all p-zombies. That is obviously bullshit.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Suicide is self-expression. It would save me considerable effort if you jump off your balcony.
While rsilverguns comments prove to be ... strange ... from time to time, calling for someone to commit suicide proves that you have lost it, big time. You even created a new user for the very reason that you dislike rsilvergun? Should raise a serious amount of questions about your personal mental health.
Re: (Score:3)
The biggest two issues for me with "consciousness" are how ill-defined it is and how almost mythical it is.
I wouldn't say it's ill-defined as much as extremely hard to measure.
What if there's no "consciousness" at all, and we are just trying to create something out of nothing?
Maybe for you, but I'm pretty damn sure I'm conscious.
What if it is just some finely tuned but extremely complex process which we are trying to simplify in vain?
That's not a refutation of consciousness, it's just a different theory for it.
After all what we are trying to deal with here, is an extremely complex system trying to understand itself. Is it even possible for our brain or we need something more advanced, you know, AGI which is yet to be achieved?
That's entirely possible. There's no fundamental reason to think we're smart enough to understand consciousness, nor to think that the laws of the universe even allow for an intelligence great enough (conscious or not) to understand consciousness.
But we might as well keep trying.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's pretty clear what consciousness is. Consciousness is what it feels like to be a human with the nervous system that we have, and with the sensory inputs, such as sight, hearing, smell and taste. That experience of being such a creature with those traits is what our consciousness is.
Am I wrong?
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're not quite right, because someone could have all sensory input cut off and still be conscious.
Re: (Score:2)
Following the standard principles of scientific research, your hypothesis (that there really isn't a such thing as consciousness) ca be proposed and tested like any other hypothesis.
Re: (Score:2)
Dr. Ford posits as much in Westworld.
Re: (Score:1)
Silly (Score:2)
Thusly, without a deep understanding of, and measurement tools for, quantum physics, no progress or understanding can occur in this field of study.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. Based on or connected in via quantum physics are the only remaining plausible explanations at this time. Except for really wired ideas like this world being a simulation. In that case, all bets are off.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. Based on or connected in via quantum physics are the only remaining plausible explanations at this time. Except for really wired ideas like this world being a simulation. In that case, all bets are off.
We're all our own little eddies of simulation of consciousness, running on top of a larger simulation that our simulated consciousnesses share, running inside a still larger simulation. It's simulations all the way down!
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, that is just one simulation. There is no real difference between a simulation and a simulation within a simulation. One of the more interesting things I learned in theoretical CS.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. Based on or connected in via quantum physics are the only remaining plausible explanations at this time. Except for really wired ideas like this world being a simulation. In that case, all bets are off.
We're all our own little eddies of simulation of consciousness, running on top of a larger simulation that our simulated consciousnesses share, running inside a still larger simulation. It's simulations all the way down!
Why do people have to insist on using recursion for everything?!?
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. Based on or connected in via quantum physics are the only remaining plausible explanations at this time. Except for really wired ideas like this world being a simulation. In that case, all bets are off.
We're all our own little eddies of simulation of consciousness, running on top of a larger simulation that our simulated consciousnesses share, running inside a still larger simulation. It's simulations all the way down!
Why do people have to insist on using recursion for everything?!?
I did it as a joke because I see it everywhere too. Shrug.
Re:Silly (Score:5, Insightful)
Consciousness is based in the weirdness of quantum physics and may not even reside in the brain at all (the brain may merely be an antenna and memory storage medium for a broader consciousness).
Thusly, without a deep understanding of, and measurement tools for, quantum physics, no progress or understanding can occur in this field of study.
Just because consciousness is weird and quantum physics is weird doesn't mean they're the same thing.
I'm sure quantum physics is involved in the operation of nerve cells in the brain, just like it's involved in photosynthesis [physicsworld.com]. But that hardly makes quantum mechanics the secret sauce for consciousness.
Claiming the key to consciousness must be in quantum physics is basically saying "the problem is too hard, therefore the solution must be magic".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We have billions of neurons in the brain, with trillions of synaptic connections that adapt over time.
The brain and the sensory nervous system takes a lot of shortcuts and rules of thumb. Hell, even people's reasoning abilities takes a lot of shortcuts and rules of thumb that approaches logical thinking, but fails in the most easy of ways.
The only reason QM is pr
Re: (Score:2)
Having said that, there is active research in this area, and, just following the slow accumulation of data in the same way that has happened with the now current understanding of astrocytes performing a functional role in computation (non-linear intra and inter cell calc
Re: (Score:2)
That only just means, of course biology would use some QM effects in its day to day functioning. Why wouldn't it? We're reaching scales in our silicon processors where QM effects are starting to bleed through. So why wouldn't it also happen in biology, and thus be something that was utilized?
It in no way says anything about it's role in consciousness, other than allowing brain biology to happen, and from there the entire brain is the producer of consciousness.
The br
Re: (Score:1)
And the answer is "nothing there" (that we can find) ad for brainwashing, science doesn't do that, Faux Noise does.
Scientists tried to find answers (Score:2)
https://youtu.be/QmuIX5Vj13o [youtu.be]
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, we've never found an emotion in the brain (or body). We've never found a self either.
If scientists actually bothered to examine their own consciousness long enough, they'd start to suspect that it doesn't all come from the brain.
Re: (Score:1)
Pure chemistry.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That’s because we are primarily spirit/soul beings who temporarily inhabit a physical form. ...
Prove there is a soul. Any.
Re: (Score:2)
TL;DR: If you took that bet and didn't choose "won't find it", you deserve to lose your money.
Fools and their work (Score:4, Interesting)
They overlooked that the experience of consciousness is not actually compatible with known Physics. At the same time it can influence physical reality. The more credible statement I have seen from Neurosciences is "the closer we look, the more mysterious things become".
These guys are not being scientists. They are physicalists, which is a really messed up religious stance. And hence they try to simplistic explanations since they refuse to see the complete picture.
Re: (Score:2)
There is nothing in the standard model that would allow for subjective experience to exist. So at a minimum our knowledge of physics is incomplete.
An atheist wanting to retain their atheist physicalism has a bit of a problem. Their stance is predicated on physics being essentially closed, i.e. that all phenomena can be explained through physical processes, with "no room" for the supernatural to affect causation. But consciousness is something that we know lies outside of physics as we know it, so its existe
Re: (Score:2)
There is nothing in the standard model that would allow for subjective experience to exist.
Since we don't understand how subjective experiences happen, I don't think this is true. It doesn't make sense to state that the standard model predicts there is no such thing as x when we don't even really know what x is.
Re: (Score:1)
They overlooked that the experience of consciousness is not actually compatible with known Physics. ...
Since you don't know what it is, your statement is a lie.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. You just do not know what the current standard model of Physics actually says and what not. There is no place for consciousness in there. Consciousness cannot exist with it. On the plus side, the current standard model of Physics is known to be incorrect and very likely incomplete. But, and that is what confuses people like you, it is exceptionally well tested and verified experimentally. That just means it has some really fundamental defect that is exceptionally hard to find experimentally.
Re: (Score:2)
There's no place in QM for evolution by natural selection either, yet we know it happens. Things don't have to be at the most fundamental level of reality to "exist with it". No magic required.
Re: (Score:1)
The Standard model says nothing at all about connections in organic tissues, nor networking. Consciousness in the rocks and stars are impossible.
Because DUH, no network.
Re: (Score:2)
Consciousness does have important legal ramifications though. The lack of a scientific definition means that it's subjective.
Examples include animal welfare, and if people are aware of some of the things they do (like bias against certain groups, and automatic responses) so should be held responsible for them.
Still (Score:3)
Search for Crick and Koch: A Framework for Consciousness for an intro to what kicked this stuff off decades ago.
The conclusion: the time for philosophy is over, start experimenting!
Finding the NCCs is rather harder to do.
Consciousness is all there is... (Score:2)
how vs if (Score:2)
It seems plausible, even sensible, to believe that the brain produces consciousness. But the brain alone? Or the gestalt combination of the brain and its surroundings, and all those ways that brain function can feed back to itself via its immediate surroundings. It is an assumption that the brain alone produces consciousness, and quite possibly a wrong assumption. Like assuming that your CPU, on its own, produces the experience you have when you sit down with your laptop. (The CPU plays a central part, but
Re: (Score:1)
Also, fusion reactors are 10 years away (Score:2)
"Consciousness" is a moving target. (Score:2)
Science is still in its infancy in dealing emergent, self-modifying phenomenon.
Hell, even computer scientists can't deal with self-modifying software.
idealism of youth (Score:2)
I could have told Koch at the time that this was a losing proposition, just as I told Dreyfus at the time that his was a losing proposition (yup, I took a class from Dreyfus when he still had red hair).
When you're young, all sorts of things seem like they will happen before long, and 25 years seems like forever. Things happen waaaayyyy more slowly than you think. As far as consciousness, as opposed to arbitrary levels of competence of AI, there is no way a purely subjective experience can be ascribed scien
Consciousness isn't magic or even special (Score:1)
This sounds like a conversation from an old episode of Star Trek. I have yet to hear an explanation of why consciousness is something special and unique to living beings. As far as I can tell, consciousness is merely a continuous state of receiving, storing and processing input, then delivering output after cross-referencing it alongside the other stored data. If AI appears to be conscious, then it is conscious. Humans and AI seem to make very similar mistakes based on similar datasets. You might say that
What frequency is Blue Light (Score:1)