Falsification of Scientific Theories of Consciousness

[AshvinP]

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.

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.

[Eugene I]

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]

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?

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]

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.

[AshvinP]

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.

[Jim Cross]

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.

You and I actually agree. I'm a little dubious about some the psi claims but have no trouble saying it should be studied. If you say (as Simon seemed to be) science in any form can't study consciousness at all then you have to forget about studying psi or doing any research on psychotropics or any other thing that touches an idealistic agenda.

[Simon Adams]

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.

[AshvinP]

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.

I am really confused as to why I am on more of the same page with Jim than you and Eugene

First, doesn't all of this talk about subjects and objects, subjectivity and objectivity, subjective experience and objective experience... remind you of something? Not simply as distinctions, but as markers to set fundamental boundaries of empirical investigation? It should remind you of Cartesian dualism and Kantian divide. That is what you are implicitly accepting when making such claims.

Second, we all agree (except maybe Jim) that the world of 'things' from the smallest particle to the largest galaxy are expressions of conscious activity, right? That is within the realm of what science has been studying for a long time now. Now most scientists may not understand what the results of their studies mean, or mistake the objects of their study for some underlying fundamental reality, but nevertheless they have been studying the behavior and relationships of only ideal content.

[Astra052]

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.

[AshvinP]

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.

OK thanks that cleared up the confusion for me. Perhaps Simon and Eugene are also talking about whether the pursuit of science can explain the essence of consciousness? In my view, as I briefly mentioned before, that is a meaningless metaphysical question. Consciousness does not need to be explained because it is the only activity we experience, and also we should not divide what consciousness is from what consciousness does. We cannot really divide anything along those lines, including human beings. When dualisms such as those pop up in our line of inquiry, we should take them as canaries in the coal mine.