"(1) They consider it to be a philosophical problem, and so best left to philosophers.
(2) They concede that it is a scientific problem, but think it is premature to study it now."

Leonid. The above statements are a bit of a weak excuse for ignorance of the subject. Why don't they admit that it is way out side of their expertise. I suppose you are doing that for them. Well done.

If there are any nuero-scientists out there that want someone to show them how it all works let me know.
If I show him/her at least it might stop them from cutting brains [nerves] to bits.

Physical Healing Verses Psychosomatic Healing
http://www.solopassion.com/node/3489

Kevin writes: "he pretends to know something about it to a gullible pubic."

A gullible pubic?

Ever thought of checking out what you write prior to clicking on the "post comment" button?

Gregster

Thank you for your witty and often funy comments. I'd agree with Koestler cybernetic model of consciousness if he were provided more room for concept formation and volition.My main problem, however is not whether neuroscience acknowledges consciousness,but could it in principle explain consciousness? I don't think that consciousness could be reduced to neurophysiology and neurobiochemistry.I don't think that mind and brain could be separated in any way. They both represent one unique entity with unique properties,which are in case of humans, an ability to form concepts and free will.

"I do worry when someone termed a neuroscientist cannot acknowledge that consciousness exists. Hide that scalpel."

The nuero [nerve] scientist is a physical healer and does not treat or know anything about consciousness [being an atheist] and its mechanics, even though he pretends to know something about it to a gullible pubic.

Nerves don't think, they only carry messages from consciousness and mind, to and from different parts of the body.

My humble opinion

This stuff is at least ten years old and lacks much benefit that brain-scan developments would give. It also reads as essay-like describing in the overview. Not sure if they're eminent or students?

“it is better to avoid a precise definition of consciousness because of the dangers of premature definition” - humorous and not a little gutless

“whether some parts of our nervous system have a special, isolated, consciousness of their own” - No.

“Philosophers, in their carefree way, have invented a creature they call a "zombie," ... Why does not our brain consist simply of a series of such specialized zombie systems?” - I believe it does and they should have a better word than zombie.

“it is sensible to have a single conscious interpretation of the visual scene, in order to eliminate hesitation.” - and therefore we do but I would insert predominant instead of single.

“It is often stated that a trained tennis player reacting to a fast serve has no time to see the ball;” - evidence disproves this unless one wishes to redefine "see".

“general hypothesis:that the brain always tries to use the quickest appropriate pathway” - so it should, now they're talking.

“most living philosophers are not Cartesian dualist ... the majority of neuroscientists do not believe in dualism” - and the rest are probably government-funded.

“It is entirely possible that the very elaborate nature of neurons and their interactions, far more elaborate than most people imagine, is misleading us, in a similar way, about consciousness.” - it's possible little green men are in the back garden.

“What is the function of conscious experience?” - To keep one alive.

”Why are some aspects of subjective experience impossible to convey to other people (in other words, why are they private)?” - tricky not impossible, approximate too.

“The implication is that we can never explain to other people the nature of any conscious experience, only, in some cases, its relation to other ones.” - disproved by the prior.

“how much is a person's percept of the blue of the sky due to early visual experiences” - >99% sensory perception, frequency of the visible electromagnetic spectrum perceived etc.

'how is meaning generated by the brain?' - not a bad question. I'd say we allot it in the more important areas of the hierarchy and throw in a few feedback loops.

“neurons related to a certain face might be connected to ones expressing the name of the person whose face it is, and to others for her voice, memories involving her and so on, in a vast associational network, similar to a dictionary or a relational database” - yes, the data hierarchy

“our own ideas are likely to change with time” - I'd say they admit the truth here.

Leonid I do like the way Koestler describes experiments on people and his ideas about consciousness operation but it's been a long time since I read his books.

From a review by a person of a Koestler book;

“Information travels up and down the pyramid - information from the internal and external environments travels up the pyramid to be processed by a decision making holon; that decision is turned into a response by information flowing down the pyramid - causing muscles to contract, hormones to be released - RNA or gene-binding proteins to be manufactured. But each holon is semi-autonomous; the decision is not referred to the level above if it can be processed at that level. Successive levels of sensory holons filter out more and more information, abstracting only a tiny proportion of all the information from the senses which is considered relevant. A single instruction from a high level holon can result in the triggering of vast numbers of holons at lower levels which are responsible for the coordinated response of the initial instruction

the problem with using holons to model biological control and coordination systems is that his holons are pure abstractions. These control systems must have an actual existence in the body and operate through biochemical structures and processes. These structures and processes must be in the nervous system and our DNA - possibly in local metabolic webs of chemical messengers. So it's a nice theory, but do our nervous systems or control of gene expression actually operate like this?”

Leonid

1."Maybe I'm fussy but that could say "Some neuroscientists acknowledge that consciousness does not exist."

The authors of presented article don't belong to those "some" as you can easy learn from the text. Why,then,you mentioned them?

2."It's also puzzling that others think consciousness may exist separate from life. Your friend Nick alludes to this."

Two mistakes in one sentence.
A.Nick doesn't allude to this.
B.Nick is not my friend.

3. Can you comment about subject matter?

Your post has it in the 2nd sentence, "While most neuroscientists acknowledge that consciousness exists," Maybe I'm fussy but that could say "Some neuroscientists acknowledge that consciousness does not exist."

It's also puzzling that others think consciousness may exist separate from life. Your friend Nick alludes to this.

Gregster,I also would be worried,but that is not authors' intention. They said " philosophical aspects of the problem should, for the moment, be left on one side" I agree that authors employ certain degree of dualism-but,as they indicated,they use it as temporary measure,for the moment in order to concentrate on neuroscience of consciousness.And maybe I missed it but where exactly did they say that consciousness doesn't exist? I think they acknowledge its existence by saying "We can state bluntly the major question that neuroscience must first answer: It is probable that at any moment some active neuronal processes in your head correlate with consciousness, while others do not; what is the difference between them? In particular, are the neurons involved of any particular neuronal type? What is special (if anything) about their connections? And what is special (if anything)about their way of firing? The neuronal correlates of consciousness are often referred to as the NCC. Whenever some information is represented in the NCC it is represented in consciousness. "

I do worry when someone termed a neuroscientist cannot acknowledge that consciousness exists. Hide that scalpel.