Philosophical Speculations

Eugene I wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 4:29 pm

AshvinP wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 4:25 pm I really don't get why verifiability/falsifiability is fundamentally absent from studies of consciousness, unless we are starting from some kind of materialist-dualist framework. Under idealism, the world of 'physical' appearances is also conscious activity. By studying nature and deriving its laws, we have already gained some insight into certain forms of conscious activity, even thought most do not realize it yet.

See my answer to Jim. Verifiability/falsifiability are not fundamentally absent from any studies of consciousness, and there is still a lot that can be studied using the traditional scientific method with its verifiability/falsifiability criteria. But they become not applicable whenever we try to include the qualia of subjective experiences into the studies.

AshvinP wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 4:36 pm Well that could change if we take the reality of human higher cognition and psy-capacities seriously, which should not be a huge stretch of imagination for the idealist.

let's say I developed a theory of consciousness that states that dolphins, when they look at a "black" object, actually experience a quale of "whiteness". How would such theory be verified or falsified by any experimental data? It is just not possible.

Eugene I wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 5:13 pm

AshvinP wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 4:36 pm Well that could change if we take the reality of human higher cognition and psy-capacities seriously, which should not be a huge stretch of imagination for the idealist.

Let's take an example that I gave above:

let's say I developed a theory of consciousness that states that dolphins, when they look at a "black" object, actually experience a quale of "whiteness". How would such theory be verified or falsified by any experimental data? It is just not possible.

How would "higher cognition and psy-capacities " help to falsify or verify such theory?

AshvinP wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 5:26 pm I don't know if we want to start with dolphins right out of the gate... maybe just humans to start. The psy-capacities would aid in the experiencing of another human's qualitative experiences to verify whether they match what was predicted. The main point here is that we can't prematurely disclaim all such possibilities of studies as impossible in principle.

Eugene I wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 5:42 pm

AshvinP wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 5:26 pm I don't know if we want to start with dolphins right out of the gate... maybe just humans to start. The psy-capacities would aid in the experiencing of another human's qualitative experiences to verify whether they match what was predicted. The main point here is that we can't prematurely disclaim all such possibilities of studies as impossible in principle.

Of course we can not disclaim any such possibilities, but so far we have no evidences that this would be possible.

Perhaps not for verifying exact experiences of qualia, but we can certainly study consciousness in an empirical way. Again that's what various psychological fields do, including psychophysics. And if we are allowing for spiritual science (I am not sure why we would not be), then those methods also reveal much of our inner life.

Simon Adams wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 10:30 pm I personally think the answer is to be aware of the fact there are different ways of knowing things, and to appreciate the limits and potential pitfalls of the different ways. Science is in some senses very reliable as a point in time best abstraction of how the physical world behaves, but what makes it reliable in that way also limits it’s scope. The process involves various accepted types of objective verification, usually using physical instruments to test the implications of the theory, which restricts it to a subset reality. This is why we already wouldn’t call maths or history a science.

The problem comes when people see what science has achieved and forget this narrow scope, and assume that everything can be reduced to the elements that are under the remit of science.

I agree that there are aspects ABOUT consciousness that science can inform, but at some point you need to say that the only instruments you can really use are by definition subjective. So you can try to be objective via surveys and neural correlates etc, but the core of the subject is always going to be more under the remit of philosophy, spirituality, religion etc than it will ever be of science. There simply isn’t an outside -> inside way of applying the process, unless of course you assume that consciousness IS the same as the neural correlates, which makes no sense.

So I think science could change to be more open to an idealist ontology in the way theories are created and results interpreted, which would make a big difference. But I find it difficult to see how you could have anything still called science that relies entirely on subjective experience. Instead I would imagine a more integrated overall epistemology where there is more respect and humility towards and between different ways of knowing things.

Astra052 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 24, 2021 3:46 am Science studying consciousness and being able to explain it are two different things. I think if consciousness can only be explained from subjective expereince then it just cannot be fully explained. There's no reason it can't study it or its behavior though. Unless it doesn't have behavior at all.