When Gopi Krishna says of the scientist "when we ask him how did it take a leap, he is dumb" and then references Darwin, he's revealing a lack of understanding

When Gopi Krishna says of the scientist "when we ask him how did it take a leap, he is dumb" and then references Darwin, he's revealing a lack of understanding of the scientific process. Darwin knew he lacked a lot of crucial knowledge -- including how heredity works. Some of the blanks have been filled in, some have not -- or only partially. Darwin's ignorance doesn't undercut his greatness or imply the limits of science. There has been a lot of good scientific work done on consciousness in the last few decades. Bernard Baars helped to make the topic respectable with _A Cognitive Theory of Consciousness_ which is still a very good analysis of many of the issues. Currently I think the best theoretical grip on consciousness is summarized in Graziano's _Consciousness and the Social Brain_, interestingly discussed at (http://selfawarepatterns.com/2014/10/16/the-attention-schema-theory-of-consciousness-deserves-your-attention/ http://selfawarepatterns.com/2014/10/16/the-attention-schema...). These scientific approaches to understanding consciousness have the advantages of helping us understand our subjective experience, helping us understand how that experience maps into brain anatomy and activity, and helping us explain why and how evolution would have produced consciousness in animals like us. Also, these approaches don't require any new work in physics or metaphysics -- they work just fine at the level of neuroscience and cognitive science.