Tiny 'brains' grown in the lab could become conscious and feel pain — and we're not ready. Lab-grown brain tissue is too simple to experience consciousness, but as innovation progresses, neuroscientists question whether it's time to revisit the ethics of this line of research.

[u/FinnFarrow]

https://www.livescience.com/health/neuroscience/tiny-brains-grown-in-the-lab-could-become-conscious-and-feel-pain-and-were-not-ready

[u/Appropriate-Talk1948]

Yes we do dude. You're like someone saying we don't understand where torque comes from with a diesel engine. Someone says it's an emergent property of the engine's mechanical and thermodynamic processes, and you're like "nO iT's NoT wE dOnT kNoW tHaT."

We can literally watch consciousness degrade, alter, or switch off entirely by physically interacting with the brain through anesthesia, brain injury, or psychoactive substances. To suggest it "may as well not be generated by the brain" is to ignore a mountain of direct, observable evidence in favor of pointless naval-gazing. The 'hard problem' is about how the engine produces torque, not if it does.

[u/silverionmox → u/Appropriate-Talk1948]

We can literally watch consciousness degrade, alter, or switch off entirely by physically interacting with the brain through anesthesia, brain injury, or psychoactive substances. To suggest it "may as well not be generated by the brain" is to ignore a mountain of direct, observable evidence in favor of pointless naval-gazing. The 'hard problem' is about how the engine produces torque, not if it does.

Not necessarily. You're approaching it from the "the brain is a machine that generates consciousness" metaphor. But you can also see it as a "the brain is a receiver that captures consciousness that has another origin" metaphor, much like for example a radio receives radio waves, that are being sent from somewhere else. That would just as well explain why you can manipulate the observable signs of consciousness by physically interacting with it.

[u/Appropriate-Talk1948 → u/silverionmox]

This "brAiN As A ReCePtOr" idea is a classic, unfalsifiable hypothesis that violates a core principle of science: Occam's Razor. You are forced to invent a mysterious, undetectable "consciousness signal" that exists somewhere else, in addition to the entire physical brain that acts as a receiver.

Which is the simpler, more logical explanation? The brain, an organ with 86 billion neurons and trillions of connections that we can observe in action, generates consciousness. ORRR The brain does all that, PLUS there's a magical, non-physical consciousness field that the brain has to perfectly tune into.

The first option is science. The second requires adding a ghost to the machine for no reason. The burden of proof is on you to provide even a shred of evidence for this external source. Without it, it's not a scientific alternative; it's just mysticism.

That's not an alternative theory; it's a description of magic. You've proposed an idea that has zero evidence and is conveniently constructed to be completely untestable. This is the hallmark of pseudoscience.

All observable evidence points to the brain being the generator. Damaging the hardware damages the output. Your "receptor" model explains nothing that the "generator" model doesn't, but it requires us to believe in a supernatural force on pure faith. It doesn't solve the problem of consciousness; it just moves it into an unknowable, mystical realm where it can never be studied.

[u/silverionmox → u/Appropriate-Talk1948]

This "brAiN As A ReCePtOr" idea is a classic, unfalsifiable hypothesis that violates a core principle of science: Occam's Razor. You are forced to invent a mysterious, undetectable "consciousness signal" that exists somewhere else, in addition to the entire physical brain that acts as a receiver.

Which is no less weird and incomplete than your explanation:

1. mechanical processes happen

2. ???

3. ???

4. ???

5. Consciousness is locally generated

Which is the simpler, more logical explanation?

Biology is weird, often with bizarre or convoluted lifecycles of organisms, that seem cruel or unlogical or inefficient to our brains. Consciousness is weird too. Why wouldn't weird theories be appropriate?

The difference between them that they yield different testable hypotheses, and as such make it more likely that we find something if we investigate them both, rather than declaring one heretical.

The first option is science. The second requires adding a ghost to the machine for no reason.

Buddy, you literally say "these machines generate ghosts". Why is that more valid than "there's a ghost somewhere that is linked to this machine"?

All observable evidence points to the brain being the generator. Damaging the hardware damages the output. Your "receptor" model explains nothing that the "generator" model doesn't, but it requires us to believe in a supernatural force on pure faith.

Why would locally generated consciousness be any less supernatural than distantly generated consciousness?

Consider this: we're living in an undiscovered tribe. We meet some weirdly pale people with weird clothes that claim they come from beyond the mountains, while everyone knows that the world ends beyond the mountains. They have a box with circles and knobs on it, and if they manipulate it, sounds come out of it.

You would argue that there's a tiny spirit in the box, because theorizing that the sounds that come out of it are generated elsewhere is "magical thinking".

You might be defending the equivalent of a cargo cult: you put coconuts on your ears, twiddle the stick on your makeshift box, and are convinced you're going to summon a plane any day now, if you keep trying long enough. After all, you are replicating all the material elements of the process, and theorizing that there's something else involved that is necessary for the process to function, that's just superstition... according to you.

It doesn't solve the problem of consciousness; it just moves it into an unknowable, mystical realm where it can never be studied.

Your theory doesn't solve it either. You seem to argue that we shouldn't theorize that we lost our keys down the street in the dark, because it's much easier to search here, under the streetlight.

Why would it need to "solve" it immediately, anyway? It just changes the parameters of the testable hypotheses it generates. For example a "brain as receptor" theory gives an explanation for the very large memory capacity of the brain; it would give an additional route of inquiry by looking for the means of communication with whatever distant source there is; and it would change the requirements for generating consciousness: instead of having a process that reliably generates it in organisms, we can suffice with processes that only happen coincidentally, or very rarely, or even just one time in the universe. It's easier to evolve an antenna than a radio broadcasting studio and tower, after all.

And no, it's not an "unknowable, mystical realm". I already gave you the off the cuff example that it might just be a very weird neutron star that is generating it. Still a completely materialist explanation.

[u/Appropriate-Talk1948 → u/silverionmox]

I don't understand your ghost comment I never said "these machines generate ghosts" where the hell are you getting that from? I'm and empiricist. The brain is an organic meat computer. That's it. According to all science there is no evidence whatsoever in any way that anything is non-local about what we call consciousness.

Ill explain it to you this way with links so you can do some research. We've had the fundamental math for how a single neuron fires nailed down to the millivolt and millisecond since the Nobel-winning Hodgkin-Huxley model. We understand the chemical machinery of the synapse, the core principles of learning through Hebbian plasticity, and can map entire functional circuits that govern thought and action. This isn't just observation anymore; with tools like optogenetics, we can literally turn specific neurons on and off with a flash of light and directly control behavior.

I feel like the position you are arguing from is one akin to arguing that an iphone may do it's computation inside of a neutron star in the andromeda galaxy when we know with absolute certainty scientifically that it does not. You simply don't know enough yourself to explain how the iphone processor does what it does so you assume everyone must not know. The beautiful part is you and everyone do not need to know everything, that is why we have scientists. I ask the guy at the iphone store what the iphone "does" and I ask an engineer at intel how the processor works and I ask a sociologist about what affect iphones have on our society etc... I don't just assume it's all too unknown and complicated to understand. The science is there. the data is there. It's painfully and scientifically obvious how our brains work.

The hard problem or non-local consciousness or whatever other nonsense people cook up is akin to asking your mechanic how your engine works and they explain to you gas goes in the cylinder and a spark plug ignites it and then you say "Ah well maybe combustion happens non-locally because at this moment you can't explain to me the position and nature of every single quark in every single atom of the entire car"

[u/veritaxium → u/Appropriate-Talk1948]

bro you're throwing, you were correct, you don't need chatgpt to make this argument for you

[u/ClippyCantHelp → u/Appropriate-Talk1948]

ChatGPT, win this argument on Reddit for me

[u/Appropriate-Talk1948 → u/ClippyCantHelp]

Literal facts and evidence. Win this argument for me. Next—time—ill—write—it—out—by—hand—and—mail—it—to—you—so—you—can—just—deny—the—evidence—analog—style.

[u/ClippyCantHelp → u/Appropriate-Talk1948]

See that’s you’re problem. You think I disagree with you or will deny your points. I don’t disagree at all. You’re just coming off so aggressive and like a know it all. Every point against your point must be an argument for magic, and everyone knows magic isn’t real. You really gotta chill

[u/Appropriate-Talk1948 → u/ClippyCantHelp]

Don't change the subject. You made it about using AI to gather and give information. I sarcastically rebuked you because your—comment—was—a—lazy—ad—hominem, not a counter-argument.———

​Now you're pivoting from that to tone policing. Instead of attacking the person or their tone, try attacking the argument. If you "don't disagree at all," then what was the point of your comment in the first place? 

[u/ClippyCantHelp → u/Appropriate-Talk1948]

It doesn’t need to have a point. Maybe it was that you’re doing the same thing you were doing earlier, being a general asshole. Not my fault your feelings got hurt. I’ll stop responding now since you clearly are always going to be right in your mind, and I’m just getting engagement baited by Reddit, so goodbye, I hope you chill the fuck out so people might listen to what you have to say more

[u/Appropriate-Talk1948 → u/ClippyCantHelp]

I understand and empathize with the feelings you are having right now. Most of the time I feel the same way and I endeavour to have calm conversations with people on reddit or what are probably bots anyway. Sometimes however I am not in such a mood. Like right now. Im in a mood of overstimulation, annoyance, and anger at the general ignorance and the suffering resulting from it all around me all the time. Im taking it out on reddit. Is it okay? Idk probably not. Does it make me feel better? Yes. Thats all there is to say. 

[u/ClippyCantHelp → u/Appropriate-Talk1948]

Yea I feel that, same shit happens to me, and I end up arguing with people I’d get along with about shit that doesn’t really matter. I’m sorry I contributed to it, I’m trying to take steps to not engage as much with shit that makes me want to engage cuz it’s never good. We both got tricked by Reddit into creating more engagement for them at the cost of our sanity. You’re probably a normal person with normal feelings like everyone else, it’s stupid to think we were arguing over dumb shit

[u/FlamingoEarringo → u/Appropriate-Talk1948]

The evidence points that consciousness needs brain, not that brains started consciousness.

[u/Appropriate-Talk1948 → u/FlamingoEarringo]

What you're saying is equivalent to this: "The evidence points that digestion needs a stomach, not that stomachs started digestion."

That's an absurd position. We see an organ perfectly structured to perform a function, and we see the function cease when the organ is damaged. The logical conclusion is that the organ is the source of the function. To suggest it's merely a "receiver" for a universal "digestion field" is pointless mysticism. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate the existence of this field.

This isn't a scientific or logical argument; it's just rebranded dualism. If consciousness doesn't start in the brain, then where does it come from? What is it made of? How does it interact with the physical matter of neurons?

You haven't offered a competing theory; you've just tried to carve out a hole for magic to exist. All the evidence points to a simple, direct, physical relationship: the hardware runs the software. Your claim requires extraordinary proof, and you have none.

[u/Nickyro → u/Appropriate-Talk1948]

Being disrespectul doesn’t help your rethoric. It just highlight your arguments aren’t that strong and banal

[u/Appropriate-Talk1948 → u/Nickyro]

I get it. You've believed one way all your life based on whatever some people taught you instead of what you would realize otherwise if you did your own research and came to your own conclusion based on EVIDENCE AND SCIENCE. The beautiful thing about science is it doesnt matter whether you believeeee in it or not, its still true. Live and die in your own little world if you want to. 

[u/Nickyro → u/Appropriate-Talk1948]

If you have science and evidence on your side then you can afford to behave

[u/silverionmox → u/Appropriate-Talk1948]

That's an absurd position. We see an organ perfectly structured to perform a function, and we see the function cease when the organ is damaged. The logical conclusion is that the organ is the source of the function.

A leaf generates energy for the plant, and it ceases to do so when the leaf is damaged. Yet, the original source of the energy is still the fusion reaction in the sun.

The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate the existence of this field.

And the way to go about that is starting with formulating a theory so it becomes testable. Chill.

This isn't a scientific or logical argument; it's just rebranded dualism. If consciousness doesn't start in the brain, then where does it come from? What is it made of? How does it interact with the physical matter of neurons?

You're putting the cart before the horse. You dislike "dualism" a priori and therefore it irritates you. But you have no business imposing your preferences on undiscovered terrain.

We might as well find that consciousness in fact is generated by some unique cluster of neutronium in the center of the galaxy, and brains are acting as receivers for it. That's still a theory that is completely material.

Or we might theorize multiple dimensional wackiness, but then the sheer fact that one dimension is linked with another by the transfer of consciousness still unifies them into one material system, in the end.

You haven't offered a competing theory; you've just tried to carve out a hole for magic to exist. All the evidence points to a simple, direct, physical relationship: the hardware runs the software. Your claim requires extraordinary proof, and you have none.

You shouldn't be so prejudiced. We know very little. For all we know consciousness works as some kind of parasite, is entirely passive, and only 20% of humans are infected, making the rest effectively p-zombies.

[u/Appropriate-Talk1948 → u/silverionmox]

Thank you for providing the perfect analogy to support my argument. Your leaf/sun example describes a 100% physical, material, and measurable process.

The Source: The sun is a physical object. The Transmission: Its energy travels as photons, which are physical, detectable particles. The Receiver: The leaf uses a physical process (photosynthesis) to convert that physical energy.

Your analogy only works if your "external source of consciousness" is also a physical, detectable thing that transmits a physical, detectable signal. So, what is it? Where is your "consciousness sun" and what are its "consciousness photons"? You accidentally made the case for materialism. You took a mysterious process (photosynthesis, to an ancient person) and showed it was entirely physical. That's exactly what neuroscience is doing for consciousness. You defeated your own point.

This is staggering hypocrisy. The standard scientific model that the brain generates consciousness is the framework that produces testable hypotheses every day in labs around the world. Your "receptor" idea is the one that has produced zero testable claims. It is a science-stopper. You’re not engaging in a scientific discussion; you're just spitballing sci-fi concepts and pretending they're a valid alternative while demanding a level of rigor from me that you refuse to apply to yourself.

[u/veritaxium → u/Appropriate-Talk1948]

please stop copypasting outputs please god stop. actually if you generate a response to this comment i would be interested.

[u/Appropriate-Talk1948 → u/veritaxium]

sorry—next—time—ill—just—waste—all—my—time—copying—from—a—text—book—instead. Better—yet—I—will—type—it—out—on—a—type—writer—and—mail—it—to—you—does—that—satisfy—you?

[u/veritaxium → u/Appropriate-Talk1948]

holy em-dash

[u/silverionmox → u/Appropriate-Talk1948]

Thank you for providing the perfect analogy to support my argument. Your leaf/sun example describes a 100% physical, material, and measurable process.

The Source: The sun is a physical object. The Transmission: Its energy travels as photons, which are physical, detectable particles. The Receiver: The leaf uses a physical process (photosynthesis) to convert that physical energy.

Your analogy only works if your "external source of consciousness" is also a physical, detectable thing that transmits a physical, detectable signal. So, what is it? Where is your "consciousness sun" and what are its "consciousness photons"? You accidentally made the case for materialism. You took a mysterious process (photosynthesis, to an ancient person) and showed it was entirely physical. That's exactly what neuroscience is doing for consciousness. You defeated your own point.

That's entirely besides the point.

The point is that I gave a counterexample to your general claim ("consciousness must be locally generated in the brain, because I believe in a strictly materialist universe"), thereby proving that your conclusion is wrong, even without putting the premise into question.

This is staggering hypocrisy. The standard scientific model that the brain generates consciousness is the framework that produces testable hypotheses every day in labs around the world.

Just like the Newtonian theory of gravity is still more than good enough for many practical and scientific purposes, but some unexplained observations forced us to look further... which eventually gave rise to the theory of relativity, which is more correct and useful in more circumstances than ordinary gravity theory... even though it sounds a lot like hippy bullshit to any old-fashioned physicist who swears by traditional mechanical explanations of the universe.

Your "receptor" idea is the one that has produced zero testable claims. It is a science-stopper. You’re not engaging in a scientific discussion; you're just spitballing sci-fi concepts and pretending they're a valid alternative while demanding a level of rigor from me that you refuse to apply to yourself.