When reading about articles relating to consciousness, I'm always amazed how far the "state of knowledge" of the general public seems to have diverged from the (neuro)scientific one.
On the "public" side, you can read neverending discussions about the "true nature" of consciousness, asking whether it's biological or a fundamental physical force or exists on a different metaphysical plane altogether, with the debate circling back and forth between psychology, quantum physics, cosmology, philosophy, religion, etc etc. and always framing this as a mystical, eternally unanswerable question.
Meanwhile neuroscience is just like "yup, it's biological. That's it. We know for decades which brain regions are responsible for different aspects of consciousness, such as memory, emotion and cognition and are at a point where we can start researching the evolutionary history of consciousness, because the knowledge is solid enough."
Rendered at 06:40:50 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
On the "public" side, you can read neverending discussions about the "true nature" of consciousness, asking whether it's biological or a fundamental physical force or exists on a different metaphysical plane altogether, with the debate circling back and forth between psychology, quantum physics, cosmology, philosophy, religion, etc etc. and always framing this as a mystical, eternally unanswerable question.
Meanwhile neuroscience is just like "yup, it's biological. That's it. We know for decades which brain regions are responsible for different aspects of consciousness, such as memory, emotion and cognition and are at a point where we can start researching the evolutionary history of consciousness, because the knowledge is solid enough."