Re: Landmark study on the origins of consciousness

On Mon, 12 May 2025 08:36:13 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:

I originally tried to post this 5/4
>
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/04/250430142233.htm
>
They did the experiments in 2019, but took them 6 years to publish.  My
take is that it is likely that they did not collect the data that they
needed, and didn't plan the experiments correctly so that they could
collect relevant data and make inferences from the data that was
collected.  It seems to be nuts that they still can't get a handle on
the how the sensory functions of the brain interact to account for the
development of what they want to call consciousness.
>
The brain obviously evolved to process sensory data and send signals to
control motor functions in order to react to the sensory data.
Consciousness is pretty much a reaction to the sensory data.  They need
to figure out how all the sensory functions of the brain evolved to
process sensory input, and evolve reflex reactions to sensory data.  At
some point the brain evolved the ability to consciously get the brain to
send signals to reproduce what had evolved to be originally be reflex
reactions.  You need to have the sensory feedback, and the ability to
process what reflex reactions are occurring and what they do.  You need
to develop some type of memory storage, and the ability to process and
use the memories to get the brain to do things that are not just reflex
reactions.  Once you can recall what happens due to certain stimuli and
develop the means to produce the same reactions without the stimuli you
are on your way to understanding the existence of yourself.
>
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-08888-1
>
Ron Okimoto

Beats me how this is only being published now when the results were
made public two years ago at the 26th annual conference of the
Association for the Scientific Study of Consciousness at N.Y.U. 

At the same conference, neuroscientist Christof Koch presented
philosopher David Chalmers with a case of wine, the agreed stake for a
bet that Koch made 25 years previously with Chalmers that the brain
mechanisms underlying consciousness would be known by 2023. Chalmers
thought otherwise and won the bet.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-25-year-old-bet-about-consciousness-has-finally-been-settled/

<quote>

Back to the bet between Koch and Chalmers: They agreed that, for Koch
to win, the evidence for a neural signature of consciousness must be
"clear." That word "clear" doomed Koch. "It's clear that things are
not clear," Chalmers said, and Koch, grimacing, concurred. He stalked
off the stage and reappeared with a case of wine as the audience
laughed and applauded.

Koch then doubled down on his bet. Twenty-five years from now, he
predicted, when he will be age 91 and Chalmers will be age 82,
consciousness researchers will achieve the "clarity" that now eludes
them. Chalmers, shaking Koch's hand, took the bet.

"I hope I lose," Chalmers said, "but I suspect I'll win." I suspect
so, too. I bet consciousness will be even more baffling in 2048 than
it is today. I hope to live long enough to see Koch give Chalmers
another case of wine.

</quote>

Also beats me how showing that neither of the two leading theories is
up to the task provides "sheds new light" except in a rather negative
sense.