|
Interesting article, Steve. The first paragraph was a good
paraphrase of the point of view:
David Dobbs, for "Slate," wrote: "Sometime in the
next decade or so, neuroscientists will likely identify the specific neural
networks and activity that generate the vague but vital thing we call
consciousness. Delineating the infrastructure of awareness is biology's most
difficult problem, but a leading researcher like Christof Koch, Gerald
Edelman, or Stanislas Dehaene could soon solve it. Science will then
possess what might be called a "consciometer"?a set of tests (probably an
advanced version of a brain scan or EEG) that can measure consciousness the way
kidney or lung function is now measured."
What interests me is that there is a translation of identification
(which part of the brain, which neural networks, etc. are associated with human
consciousness) with measurement (of consciousness)! I don't see how they
are justified in making that connection. I'm curious to know how they
are going about trying to identify these neural networks...
The second sentence is a real kicker: "Delineating the
infrastructure of awareness is biology's MOST difficult problem."
[emphasis, mine]... Tee-hee...
Actually, I tend to think he's right that science will home in on
the areas of the brain that are associated with consciousness, but I doubt that
specific neural networks can ever be pinpointed. Brains are not all alike, even
within a gender or a culture. For example; It's been said that each human
language represents a particular brain structure and the loss of each language,
therefore, equals the loss of a unique point of view on the world. Brains
can also change the way they process inputs, like rerouting functionality
in response to injury. They also multi-link in ways that would defy any
cut-and-sew approach to examination, which has been proven-- to any
reductionist's satisfaction-- with memory studies.
But I have to laugh at the notion that they can "measure"
consciousness, from any of that, above.
Judith
|