Why is neuroscience making no progress on the hard problem of conciseness?
>>8104368
>quantum
>>8104368
Combination of weak operational definition and limited knowledge of how the brain processes information across different regions and where/how these connections work
>>8104368
Fuck your Deepak Chopra/ Valley girls on kikebook bullshit.
>>8104368
It'll never be solved. I guarantee you even if we could describe it with 100% accuracy, you would read the explanation and still not be satisfied
>>8104634
But why do i feel all these feels and value youtube starlets and chinese cartoons?
>>8104658
Neurotransmitters
CompSci will solve it first. Trust me.
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>>8104664
Son
Because the easy problem alone is fucking difficult. Our urgent outline of the brain being split into systems is very likely way too simplistic, as there is much more interconnectivity than previously realized. The systems also do a lot more than the old idea of each system doing a specific task.
There's also the issue that even staying with splitting the brain into systems for simplicities sake, the frontal lobe especially needs to be more refined. It isn't all one lump but has been tested like that for a long time
Mapping a human brain is incredibly difficult and time consuming, and people do have slight variations. We can't just take knock some guy out and prod his brain, since we need to be able to ask the patient what they experience when parts of their brain gets disrupted temporarily. This can only happen for a few minutes prior to a necessary brain surgery, which means the patients usually have a tumor or something that can then skew results
>>8104368
>googled tangled hierarchy out of curiosity
>Reading about strange loops
>synchronicity with some shit I've been thinking about recently
>event seems to resonate with all displayed "quantum self" points
>the "ego self" find this "fun"
>>8104368
Because neural networking is being touted as a surrogate for research money and cutting up actual living brain tissue is just barbaric, it's 2016 afterall.
Your claims are outdated, as is your pic on quantum woo, aka nonsensical quantum woo.
Carbon based -> Proteins -> Cells -> Organs
Organs transmit information and keep it cycling.
It's not hard to understand.
Your eyes take in information and transmit it to your brain, your brain keeps that imprint va electric neurochemicals.
As for self-awareness? Any system that can detect itself and cause and effect with enough accuracy becomes self aware.
There no is quantum magic involved.
Sorry kids, quantum has zero to do with biology.
That's why there is no such thing as "quantum biology"...
Because it's a physics problem
>>8105093
niceme.me
>>8104743
I could process the exterior world, with my two hands
>>8105079
I'm gonna just go out on a limb and say you pulled that claim directly from your ass. Quantum effects are frequently exploited in enzyme catalysts and there has been some evidence produced that implies bees have the ability to utilize zero point energy, somehow, in navigation. The bee thing is kind of shaky though because it was originally based on mathematical observation and as such does not describe direct capabilities of bees.
>>8105079
Roger Penrose made 20 testable claims that follow from Orch-OR
6 have been confirmed, not sure how many tested in total.
Even Penrose himself admits that the brain is mainly classical, and the computational models employed by the brain are classical in nature (feedforward neural networks, etc)
However, Orch-OR makes claims about qualia and some of the more difficult to explain aspects of consciousness (mainly qualia, but to some extent, intentionality, the (not necessarily real) perception of free will, etc).
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140116085105.htm
I understand this source isn't very legit, but if you read the responses to criticisms put forth by Penrose and Hammerhoff, it makes a bit more sense.
Either way, it is interesting and is at least worth pursuing.
Other likely answer: Dennett is right, there is no hard problem, we are too complex to understand how simple we are.
>>8105079
Also
>That's why there is no such thing as "quantum biology"...
http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v9/n1/full/nphys2474.html
