the concept of consciousness

It is always what you don’t hear rather than what you do hear that is of interest to me. Here is a perfect example. Nobel prize winner (2000), neurobiologist Eric Kandel is interviewed in the latest Discover magazine (April 2006) about psychoanalysis. He is an expert on memory and doing research on the neurobiological approach to fear and happiness.

What interested me was the end of the interview when he was asked,

“What are the big unanswered questions in neuroscience?”

“I think we need to understand how sensory information is translated into action. We need to understand how unconscious mental processes develop. Where do they occur? What are the processing steps? What is the nature of decision making? Of free will? Can we get a vantage point on consciousness?”

How close are we to understanding consciousness?

“I think we have not made much empirical progress. But I think we have made a fair amount of conceptual progress.”

What do you think researchers will find consciousness to be?

“Oh, my gosh. I have no guesses. I think this is a very deep problem, and I don’t really have any original ideas about that.”

What is missing here. Any clue of the physical or empirical basis for consciousness. Hence, any work in consciousness must be currently conceptual. That means metaphysical, or outside of the physical. All we are doing is considering the evidence of competing stories. That means exactly what extremely Darwinist Discovery Magazine would say is out of bounds for scientists to talk about. Conceptual evidence? You mean potential information? You mean design? Indeed.

Well, I know scientists and philosophers like Dallas Willard have much to say about consciousness. I wonder if Discover will set up that interview, soon? Don’t hold your breath.