Consciousness science: where are we, where are we going, what if we get there? (frontiersin.org)

right: "Understanding the biophysical basis of consciousness remains a substantial challenge" precisely because there is no such thing. according to the Upaniṣads, consciousness is the Absolute. "How can one know that by which everything is known? How can one know the Knower?" — Bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣad

tl;dr

There is no theory of consciousness, and no one is anywhere close to forming one.

In place of a theory, the paper supplies a circular set of references to attributes of consciousness associated with human activity. These references are coined in a manner as if having editorial control over some jargon, such as "perceptual self awareness", which is sandbagged by secondary subordinate, vague terms, such as "wakefulness", can seem like a cogent alternative to the total lack of any formal approach to understanding of consciousness.

Using bloated prose, which necessitates a disclaimer that it wasn't pooped out of a gen-AI, the paper surfs heavy waves of lamentation about the "complexity" of "phenomenological" and "clinical methods" to reach a shore of intelligibility that Descartes colonized centuries ago with the maxim: There is nothing a man comprehends more self-evidently than his own existence.

Intellectually there's precious little at stake in this paper, so what's its purpose? The answer can be found though an analogy of the resounding words of JFK announcing the Apollo program: "We set sail on this new sea because there is new knowledge to be gained, and new rights to be won..."; whomever can take control of an sciency vernacular for humanistic traits applied to today's AI will gain a seat at any roundtable on industrial policy, and this seat could prove very valuable.

In conclusion, this work needs funding, lots more funding!

That’s because of several problems in the problem definition.

First off, a lot of research talks about consciousness, but doesn’t define it.

Do you mean attention? Do you mean memory? Do you mean awareness? Do you mean self awareness? Do you mean ability to report on a phenomenon? Do you mean a combination of these things?

Then they’re looking into the physical or neurological basis. Why would that need to be there? Are you going to look at the physical basis of a software application, when there are multiple chip architectures which work? When it could be done mechanically, when it could have been done with a pen and paper?

What part of the physical basis are you looking for? It’s neurons. We know how they work. (Well, and all the other cells in our nervous system and brain which for some reason we just ignore)

I think the problem with consciousness isn’t consciousness itself, it’s our preconceived notions of what constitutes and doesn’t constitute consciousness, and our inability thus far to accurate define and constrain both the subject and research question.

[dead]