The Origins of Consciousness

Francis Crick, Nobel prize laureate in physiology and medicine, in his 1994 book, The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul, borrows an idea from Hippocrates¹ and uses it to argue that "you, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules" (Crick, 1994, p. 3).

Philosopher and cognitive neuroscientist Alva Noë, in response to Crick’s statement, argues that the most striking thing about Crick’s hypothesis is that is not astonishing at all:

What needs to be kept clearly in focus is that the neuroscientists, in updating the traditional conception of ourselves [we are our brains], have really only succeeded in replacing one mystery with another. At present, we have no better understanding of how ‘a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules’ might give rise to consciousness than we understand how supernatural soul stuff might do the trick. Which is just to say that the you-are-your-brain idea is not so much a working hypothesis as it is the placeholder for one (p. 6).

Do you think cognitive neuroscience has ended the debate about the origins of consciousness? Why or why not? What evidence exists to support your conclusion?

For this discussion:
1.Refer to and integrate ideas presented in your text and any supplemental readings.
2.Cite outside resources if necessary to make your point.
3.Following APA sixth edition style guidelines for citations and references

 
ORDER THIS ESSAY HERE NOW AND GET A DISCOUNT !!!