this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2023
4 points (100.0% liked)

Science

6 readers
10 users here now

This magazine is dedicated to discussions on scientific discoveries, research, and theories across various fields, including physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, and more. Whether you are a scientist, a science enthusiast, or simply curious about the world around us, this is the place for you. Here you can share your knowledge, ask questions, and engage in discussions on a wide range of scientific topics. From the latest breakthroughs to historical discoveries and ongoing research, this category covers a wide range of topics related to science.

founded 2 years ago
 

FAU researchers provide the first quantified observations of the “birth” of purpose in human infants, as they recognize their causal powers and transition from spontaneous to intentional behavior.

top 3 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] brighthurst@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

This article makes me feel really stupid because it is making the case that there is some profound new discovery about consciousness when I see nothing profound whatsoever. To me, the most meaningful excerpt is:

“The babies in our study have revealed something really profound: that there is action in the midst of inaction, and inaction in the midst of action. Both provide meaningful information to the infant exploring the world and its place in it,” said Kelso. “The coordination dynamics of movement and stillness jointly constitute the unity of the baby’s conscious awareness – that they can make things happen in the world. Intentionally.”

Yes, and? So a baby learns from that the mobile directly correlates to its own leg moving and not moving? How is this anything profound and how do it explain anything new about consciousness? I don't mean to downplay novel new experiments (which this is), but I'm not seeing anything "groundbreaking," "profound," or the "birth of purpose." I get that understanding how infants learn is important, but I don't see anything new in these results, we've known about cause-and-effect learning for a long time.

If someone can edify me on any profound implications of this, I would be thankful.

[–] ReallyKinda@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

Agency and consciousness aren’t the same thing, and I’m not convinced this methodology gives information on either.

Now if we can only get bots to do the same...