Source: Twitter X

Dr Dawkins (Richard),

I’ve been teaching the neuroscience of consciousness to small numbers at our institute for about three years now. Everyone seems to understand easily with a bit of effort on my part.

I would say we have overcomplicated the issue because we haven’t until the past twenty years understood enough of the structure and organization of the brain to grasp just how simple in constitution, even if voluminous it is.

For those of us working in the intersection of artificial intelligence and cognitive science, my understanding is that while I might have a deeper understanding, there is general movement in the fields in the correct direction.

I’ve found teaching using the two paradigms together is an advantage given 3D computer gaming is so common it’ allows me to create a visual as well as textual narrative of the memory system, and overcome most of the errors that have been common in philosophy such as qualia, and meaning.

If I recall, Andrew E. Budson is very close to publishing a book on the Neuroscience of Consciousness. And has authored a paper with others on “Consciousness as a Memory System”. I’m not sure he’s the best advocate but I can attest that at least in fundamentals, he’s correct.

The more gray matter volume, the more hierarchical and the more recursive the memory cycles, the more emergent the determinism of what we call consciousness, because of course, conscious experience simply requires sufficient memory to experience the process of recursion.

Affections

Budson:
Wiki:
https://t.co/65a1cZycN5
Paper: https://t.co/hZ3KTABXG1

Reply addressees: @RichardDawkins