Looking for something?
Use the form below to search the site:
Still not finding what you're looking for? Drop a comment on a post or contact us so we can
take care of it!
The mainstream empirical science of consciousness is now two decades old. What has been learned? What are its prospects for the next two decades? We now have a small, stable terminology and an embryonic education system. Twenty years has also delivered what does not cause consciousness and multiple theories of consciousness, none of which has found general acceptance. This lack, along with unusual attributes of the science, is explored as empirical evidence of a systemic anomaly in science method overall.
The result is that the lack of an observer in physics, and the ‘explanatory gap’/‘hard problem’ in the neuroscience of consciousness share a common origin: the lack of causal mechanism in our current form of ‘laws of nature’. The result suggests the next 20 years will require a fundamental shift in our understanding of what kinds of laws of nature are possible, and when we have evidence.
This work is the outcome of a decade-long empirical scientific study of scientists and our scientific behaviour. It reveals the discovery of the full scope of scientific behaviour, which is currently only 50% implemented (that is, the current form of ‘laws of nature’ is one of a pair of possible forms, and that the second form is unrecognised and masked by our procedures). It demonstrates that the philosophy/science divorce of the 18th century, combined with explosive science sub-discipline proliferation, left science in an unmanaged state, and that it remains in that 300 year old fossilised state, maintained by mechanisms that will be outlined. The needed change is also outlined, along with its implications. This outcome formulates a long overdue modernisation of the process of science.
The work presents a cogent case for the imminence of a paradigm shift impacting the whole of science, but felt most keenly in physics (cosmology) and neuroscience. The key take-home message is that science has discovered, and must adapt to the reality, that the science of consciousness is actually the scientific explanation of ourselves – the scientific observer.
What I do
I am a late-onset engineer/scientist (PhD awarded!)/post-doc with the sole intent of developing a novel brain-tissue replication chip technology for application in artificial general intelligence/robots and human implants. Later, I hope to get the robots and derivative products into commercial production. The chip technology facilitates natural learning of the kind biology uses to adapt to novelty.
Artificial general intelligence, the scientific study of consciousness, intelligence, cognition, molecular dynamics, biophysics, electrodynamics, scientific method, pattern theory, cellular automata, information theory, memristor applications/chip design, cell biology, empirical and theoretical neuroscience, machine consciousness.
My only science mission is to create artificial general intelligence (machine, inorganic intelligence) that learns like biology learns and that have an internal life appropriate to that circumstance. Currently that goal requires a general review of the laws of electromagnetism as applied to brain material.
Colin Hales is at the NeuroEngineering Laboratory at Melbourne University