I suspect that it will happen in the event of overlapping of areas of knowledge.
When you combine different insights from psychology, neuroscience, philosophy and computer science, you are already coming to some interesting hypotheses.
For instance, Max Tegmark’s contribution to this debate is also very interesting: Edge.org
Consciousness seems to be an emergent process, a result of the information processing in your brain.
But how that ‘ gestalt ‘ is formed exactly, what the necessary and sufficient conditions are exactly, we do not know yet.
Consciousness is understood in neurosciences.Consciousness is recognized in interaction. We can only make artificial intelligence, if we understand what we observe.
The wheel is also ‘ artificial physics ‘.We have seen what possibilities a rolling object has. We have understood and eventually applied the physical effects and adapted the design of the coarse natural form and execution to more precise operation.
So it actually goes with everything.Why does the engine work almost flush with the heart of a human being? Not because man has looked at his heart and thought, hey, that I am going to make. But because nature shows what works.
Consciousness is nothing magical, is not something that is separate from our brains.It is the result of millions of years of evolution. You see that every animal has further back in time, a more limited form of consciousness. Animals close to our own physical ability (other large monkeys) lie, exhibit largely similar consciousness, including self-awareness.
We, as humans, are not as special as some wish themselves by a misplaced Oedipus complex.However, we are so special that we can be aware of these misplaced desires. Let that sink in and you understand where we stand with the notion of consciousness. You cannot be religious AND accept that consciousness occurs from the brain. Because much of the world’s population is still religious in one way or another, it will take another time for facts to be accepted for facts and fantasy to be moved to mythology.
The bizarre thing is that none of what we can observe in actions and interactions of and between living beings require a subjective consciousness in order to explain its course.
Every detail can all be fully interpreted in a physical way.
We often feel that our consciousness from a kind of “non-materiale source” has the capacity to change the course of physics with our choices, but these choices themselves have a physical origin as well.For this reason, my choices are different from that of a lion, for example.
The fact that we are clearly (at least, in any case…) subjectively experiencing a consciousness in this fairly cold, mechanical process and that this subjective experience is linked back within the mechanical process (I mean, we are talking about it now: a Mechanical reaction that is measurable from the outside, so it is not separate from it), means that there is no distinction between the mechanical process and the subjective process.
In other words, it is not a very complex mechanical process in our brains that has a very complex consciousness, but it is completely equivalent to it.A so-called Epiphenomenon.
What often stands in the way of being able to see this, is the confusion that much of what we find intuitively inherent in “consciousness” is actually phenomena that only arise within consciousness.
This is also evident from the fact that as soon as we imagine that our consciousness would move to, say, an animal, another human being, or the hereafter O.I.D., we usually imagine that our memories and the “I-feeling” are also being co-positioned, which Of course all phenomena are emerging within consciousness and are a pure result of local, physical processes in our brains.
Reducing consciousness to a single area of knowledge is not possible.