What neuroscientific model of consciousness are currently the

>>8025325
samefag, made a typo; meant:
models *

>>8025325
look up time slices, pretty interesting

None. Consciousness is not measurable, observable, quantifiable or provable. It is entirely subjective by nature and not a subject of science.

>>8025332
http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002433
this is whaty I was referring to

>>8025335
Wrong. If you define consciousness in a way that can be empirically tested, then it is a subject of science. And there have been many empirical definitions.

>subjective
No such thing. There's only the physical world, which is entirely objective.

Also, go back to
>>>/x/

File: 1446778681948s.jpg (9KB, 250x202px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 250x202px

Guilio Tononi's Integrated Information Theory is the closest thing to a scientific theory regarding consciousness.

I find it interesting that so many people are so quick to just give up on consciousness as even being approachable by science. It's the most fundamental aspect of reality in a way. The only thing you are sure of without induction is that you are experiencing something, right now in the present moment. Surely this is something worth investigating. To me it is the most profound mystery there is.

peer review is retarded. papers are just accepted without comment these days.

>>8025547
gr8 b8 m8

substance dualism

>>8025639
>>8025622
>>>/x/

>>8025582
>the most profound mystery there is.

There's no mystery, though. How is the ability to continuously make references to your own body, perceptions and thoughts in your thought processes mysterious? Even computers can do this as long as you provide them with the software which does it.
And this class of algorithms can be easily expressed in terms of Lamda calculus.

>>8025325
Neuropsychopharmacology with some Biochem can probably explain consciousness to some degree.

>>8025662
Do some research on the hard vs the easy problem of consciousness. There certainly is mystery here.

It's important not to confused intelligence with subjective experience.

>>8025335
>not measurable, observable, quantifiable
agree so far
>not provable
How the fuck you decided that now? "we don't know, so we can't know" Naw.
> subjective by nature and not a subject of science
Fuck? Why would subjective things not be part of science? They#re still objectively happening.
Like, you feeling hot is subjective, so what? Or pain. Or any psychological effects. All subjective, but medicine still works pretty well.
Don't confuse mysterious with mysticism.