Science? Well, I suppose there are those who call astrology, alchemy, and hololistic medicine science. To the sane, it is just so much more mystic nonsense, except that it exhibits a familiarity with some scientific terms and concepts and uses those to put over its irrational ideas.
For example:
The “important forms of consciousness” that Kefatos and Drãgãnescu want to take into consideration are, broadly speaking, the following:
(1) natural human consciousness (related to mind and life);
(2) artificial, supposedly human-like consciousness (to be eventually obtained if some structures of hardware develop quantum phenomena similar to those of the human mind); and
(3) Fundamental Consciousness of existence
Life is a self-sustained goal-oreinted process associated with an entity called an organism. The goal of the process is the success and continuation of the organism as an organism.
Consciousness is an aspect of life. Only living organisms are conscious. Every organism exhibits some kinds of "response" to external influences, for example, that a non-living entity does not. That reaction or "response," even in the simplest of creatures, is rudimentary consciousness, in the simplest creatures, called sentience.
Now Kefatos and Drãgãnescu evidently do not even have this simple understanding of the nature of consciousness, jumping immediately to the highest form of consciousness in human beings, that is, conceptual, or rational/volitional consciousness. This ignores the much simpler perceptual consciousness common to all higher organisms (animals, for example). Armed with this ignorance they make profound assertions about "forms" of consciousness, like, "supposedly human-like consciousness (to be eventually obtained if some structures of hardware develop quantum phenomena similar to those of the human mind ..."
Well, it might be more profitable to attempt producing "animal-like" conscious, before attempting something as profound as "human-like," but even if we let that go, the dazzling stupidity that could with a straight face say, "quantum phenomena similar to those of the human mind," is almost incredible. They seem to make the simplest of mistakes (and actually counter their own [ahem] thesis) that equates the brain and the mind. We can assure Mssrs. Kefatos and Drãgãnescu there are no "quatum phenomena" in the mind. (The are plenty in the brain, of course, but just as many in the nose and big toe, so that approach is not going to be very enlightening, we think.)
If we did not know better, we would probably assume the following came from the pen of Charles Dodgson, but alas, it is apparently meant seriously. Behold, no doubt among the impossible things the queen believes before breakfast is, "Fundamental Consciousness of existence
." It might help some if what is meant by "existence" were specifically stated, but since it is not, we must assume it means one of the following: all of material existence or all that exists in any mode, including consciousness, dreams, fictions, history, works of art, forums, etc. In either case, since consciousness is an aspect of a living organism, "existence" would, to be conscious, have to be a living organism. Since existence is an organism, everything existence does is to sustain itself as an organism. Therefore....
There cannot be a therefore to such absurdities.
It turns out this is not a, “new kind of science,” at all, but a very old one, that has come in many flavors over the years, but today has a common and familiar name. It's called junk science.
Hank
I am sure that they do indeed understand what an organism is and that consciousness only occurs in life. That is why they and Grandpierre postulate that consciousness is beyond the material of classical physics and chemistry. The higher consciousness of humans, in spite of much research has not been explained by science. Their proposition is that the reason for it is that it is being looked at in the wrong way. Now you may disagree with what they say, but clearly the present approach, the materialist approach, has not been fruitful.
No, it's called reestablishing the proper role of science (one would hope, including a repentence to the realization of what the Scientific Method is, for what we call "science") in the overall interpretation (macrointerpretation) of existence. SM having its limitations, that does not somehow magically impose limitations upon our regard for reality, nor our very need to regard the reality we haven't scientifically demonstrated, for our very survival. See "importance."
Junk science is claiming scientific validity where there is no explanation arrived via the scientific method. Examples include any use of scientific fact in order to oxymoronically allude to any naturalistic or materialistic dogma.
Conceptualize what you will, but reality is still reality, just as reality is, whatever humans understand or misunderstand of it. You need reality, however it is not demonstrable that reality will eventually have any need of you.