The prevailing materialistic paradigm in neuroscience posits that consciousness is an emergent property of complex neural computation.

[sflorg@mastodon.social]

The prevailing materialistic paradigm in neuroscience posits that consciousness is an emergent property of complex neural computation. This paper proposes an alternative framework: the Consciousness Field Hypothesis.
#Opinion #Consciousness #sflorg
https://www.sflorg.com/2026/04/opin04082601.html

[fishidwardrobe@social.tchncs.de]

@sflorg that does not appear to be science, and i'm personally sad that it's presented as such.

i absolutely love the idea! (i'm afraid i got lost after the abstract.) but, not really science. not everything has to be; it's fine. but when we pretend things are that aren't, we cheapen them. that's my view.

[sflorg@mastodon.social]

@fishidwardrobe
But it is science, if was not—why have scientists searched for years upon years to explain consciousness. Quorum Sensing is science. Read on.

[fishidwardrobe@social.tchncs.de]

@sflorg it isn't, no more than string theory is. can you prove the existance of a "hyperconsciousness field"? you cannot.

it's fine to believe in things you can't prove! not everything has to be science!

[sflorg@mastodon.social]

@fishidwardrobe
Science is based on theories and hypotheses. That is what science does. Science is not just the proven, if it was there be no more need.
With all due respect—you don't understand science.

[sflorg@mastodon.social]

@fishidwardrobe
https://www.sflorg.com/2026/04/wi04152601.html

[fishidwardrobe@social.tchncs.de]

@sflorg with all due respect — no, you don't. science is about what is proven and what *can* be proved. you can't prove string theory and you can't prove a "universal hyperconsciousness"; what's more there is no evidence for it, how could there be?

radical theories require strong evidence. there is none that can't be explained much more simply. and *that* is science.

do *i believe* in universal hyperconciousness? actually yes, different terms, but yes!

is it in any way scientific? no! if it was i wouldn't have to believe in it!

[fishidwardrobe@social.tchncs.de]

@sflorg again: not a trace of science here. it's embarrasing.

you're talking to one of the few people on here who'd be open to the idea of bacteria chatting to each other in some way. but it's not science!

[sflorg@mastodon.social]

For those that thinks this is not science, and very radical:
Here are some other thoughts that are similar, yet different: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9490228/#:~:text=Neuroscience%20today%20says%20consciousness%20is,be%20dependent%20on%20the%20brain.