Can Science Explain Consciousness?

Ron Rensink does some really cool work on a phenomenon called change blindness (where people do not notice subtle (or not so subtle) changes in a scene). The work has very interesting implications to attention, visual processing, consciousness, and society at large, but certainly check out some of the really cool videos from the work of a fellow change-blindness scientist, Dan Simon:

http://viscog.beckman.uiuc.edu/djs_lab/demos.html

now this is more like it!! i see a good blend of both interiors and exteriors champions on the panel.

but still, the exteriors (hard sciences) always get the upper-hand. i yearn for the day when both interiors and exteriors will have equal footing (e.g. the academia, and mainstream) in the study of consciousness.

coincidentally, Star Trek Enterprise (no, i'm not a trekkie) had an episode last night which is very much related to this topic.
http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/series/ENT/episode/3203.html

For now see:
Stanford University: Becoming Human: Brain, Mind & Emergence

Avi: Thanks for the excellent link to this conference. I highly recommend that anyone interested in this topic follow the Stanford link above.

Avi, thanks! excellent link. i've added it to my neurotech wormholes.

so can science really explain consciousness? this is a good start: http://www.imprint.co.uk/Wilber.htm
i'm just wonderin' why that dude is not in the panel ;)

I'm curious why so many serious scientists seem to be eager to dive back into epistemology and metaphysics. Doesn't this invite the worst type of poorly understood, misapplication of experimental, empirical science by 'pop' social philosophers desperate to support their own unscientific claims by evoking a more reputable authority?

Likewise, should scientists be more careful when crossing into intellectual disciplines they're not trained in? It doesn't help the cause of science when a physicist or molecular biologist uses non-scientific philosophic jargon to describe scientific phenomena (the "Tao" of Physics being one of my favorite examples). Perhaps before asking whoppers like "What is Consciousness?" it'd be best to tackle logical and metaphysical definitions? Or maybe I'm just paranoid?

"serious" scientist "should" tackle epistemology and phenomenology if their science is to be deemed "integral". no metaphysics required:
http://wilber.shambhala.com/html/misc/habermas/index.cfm/

always remember what uncle Albert E. used to say about science and religion. my two cents.

In reference to the latest comments, I would add the following.

1) I agree about the issue of semantics; one of the biggest problems we have in neuro-philosophy is that our cuurent vocabluary is too antiquated to meaningfully express the issues we now face.

2) I do not agree with the discomfort expressed in the above posts about "scientists" exploring "metaphysics" (using these terms in the vernacular). For example, one key issue now is the high probability that "free will" (as the term is typically used) does not exist. The ramifications inherent in the acceptance of this statement are at least as great as was the discovery the world was round. Yet only through neuroscience can this be elucidated.

Very inspiring, thankyou! Good luck to you in the future. :)

thanks for great site

http://alprazolam.mail333.com/

detox

Nice!

You are best.