4 ms·

> Christof Koch wagered David Chalmers 25 years ago that researchers would learn how the brain achieves consciousness by now. But the quest continues. Ehhhh th

> Christof Koch wagered David Chalmers 25 years ago that researchers would learn how the brain achieves consciousness by now. But the quest continues. Ehhhh the title is a click bait imho.

dlkf 3y ago
Why is the title clickbait? What were you expecting - that the philosopher had proposed a model of consciousness that got experimental confirmation?
- PartiallyTyped 3y ago
  My immediate thought upon reading the title was, “there’s no way they have proven free will to be a thing”. And follow up thoughts were along the lines of “did we uncover some fundamental truth of the brain?”. I got flagged and cant respond, yet again.
  - bowsamic 3y ago
    What does free will have to do with this?
- mtlmtlmtlmtl 3y ago
  Honestly, yes. Or at least some semblance of progress in the field.
hsjqllzlfkf 3y ago
Agreed. The title makes it sounds like we've learned something about consciousness that somehow makes mainstream philosophical approach more correct than mainstream neuroscience approach. Instead, it's just about a neuroscientist making a stupid bet. I call it stupid because he's betting that he can predict than _something that never happened before in the history of mankind_ will happen in the next 10 years. That is very very unlikely.
- mtlmtlmtlmtl 3y ago
  The bet was in the next 25 years. Which is just scientist for "eh, anything can happen in 25 years" Whereas Chalmers' whole career long project is very much dependent on his "hard problem" and other neo-dualist ideas, so of course he would make this bet. Pretty boring stuff as far as bets between academics go.
  - jfengel 3y ago
    Though it is kind of exciting that the bet expired just as ChatGPT seems to provide new hints. I don't know if Chalmers would take the bet again.
shusaku 3y ago
You don’t get to complain about click bait while quoting part of the actual title. It’s not their fault HackerNews artificially limits title lengths; the subtitle would’ve been visible when shared on sites whose clicks actually matter like Twitter or Facebook
- PartiallyTyped 3y ago
  The point should have been the update of the theories, not some bet. That could have very well been conveyed in the title, but it wouldn’t garnish as much attention, would it?

> Christof Koch wagered David Chalmers 25 years ago that researchers would learn how the brain achieves consciousness by now. But the quest continues. Ehhhh the title is a click bait imho.

dlkf 3y ago

Why is the title clickbait? What were you expecting - that the philosopher had proposed a model of consciousness that got experimental confirmation?

PartiallyTyped 3y ago
My immediate thought upon reading the title was, “there’s no way they have proven free will to be a thing”. And follow up thoughts were along the lines of “did we uncover some fundamental truth of the brain?”. I got flagged and cant respond, yet again.
- bowsamic 3y ago
  What does free will have to do with this?
mtlmtlmtlmtl 3y ago
Honestly, yes. Or at least some semblance of progress in the field.

hsjqllzlfkf 3y ago

Agreed. The title makes it sounds like we've learned something about consciousness that somehow makes mainstream philosophical approach more correct than mainstream neuroscience approach. Instead, it's just about a neuroscientist making a stupid bet. I call it stupid because he's betting that he can predict than _something that never happened before in the history of mankind_ will happen in the next 10 years. That is very very unlikely.

mtlmtlmtlmtl 3y ago
The bet was in the next 25 years. Which is just scientist for "eh, anything can happen in 25 years" Whereas Chalmers' whole career long project is very much dependent on his "hard problem" and other neo-dualist ideas, so of course he would make this bet. Pretty boring stuff as far as bets between academics go.
- jfengel 3y ago
  Though it is kind of exciting that the bet expired just as ChatGPT seems to provide new hints. I don't know if Chalmers would take the bet again.

shusaku 3y ago

You don’t get to complain about click bait while quoting part of the actual title. It’s not their fault HackerNews artificially limits title lengths; the subtitle would’ve been visible when shared on sites whose clicks actually matter like Twitter or Facebook

PartiallyTyped 3y ago
The point should have been the update of the theories, not some bet. That could have very well been conveyed in the title, but it wouldn’t garnish as much attention, would it?