• NaibofTabr@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    But… there also has to be room for us to change our understanding of reality. An overly dogmatic approach to science keeps us in the dark. The germ theory of disease was dismissed as pseudoscience for a long time, in favor of the widely accepted miasma theory.

    Obviously, science requires a rigorous approach to examining reality. If an idea cannot be tested, it is not scientific and therefore exists only as speculation. But we can’t just assume that our current models of reality are fundamentally correct and unassailable - we know that they’re not, we know that the standard model is limited and fundamentally incomplete.

    Check out this lecture: Consciousness and the Physics of the Brain. This idea is absolutely not science yet because we don’t really have the tools to test it. But consciousness as we experience it must be the product of physical processes at some level, and therefore it should be possible to study it scientifically.

    • Rottcodd@lemmy.ninja
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Conveniently enough, I just wrote another response to the thread, since there was more I wanted to say on the topic, and it addresses this.

      It’s not a matter of not having the tools to test theories of consciousness - it’s more fundamental than that. We are consciousness. When we theorize on consciousness, we are engaging in consciousness. It’s inescapable - it’s the very thing that makes it possible to theorize. And it’s entirely experiential - you necessarily experience your own consciousness and cannot possibly observe anyone else’s. We are each and all, and necessarily, behind a veil of perception. It’s literally impossible for it to be otherwise - to somehow step outside of consciousness and observe it, since the only thing that can meaningfully observe it is that same consciousness.

      Yes - we can concevably at least make some good guesses regarding the physical processes that correspond with our experiences of consciousness, but that’s necessarily the extent of it. Again, it’s not simply that we don’t have the tools to do more than that, but that it’s inherently impossible for it to be otherwise.

      • NaibofTabr@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think this puts consciousness on too high of a mystic pedestal. It may be impossible for an individual to experience reality outside of their own consciousness, but that does not preclude studying how it works. What makes you think that it is impossible to observe someone else’s consciousness? and more importantly, what evidence do you have to substantiate that claim?

        After all, we research many aspects of reality obliquely. Our understanding of subatomic particles comes mostly from smashing larger particles into each other and seeing what pops out - not by observing subatomic interactions directly. We can do effective research by inference.

        Personally I don’t believe that there is anything in our existence that is beyond our understanding, given enough time and study.

        • Rottcodd@lemmy.ninja
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I think this puts consciousness on too high of a mystic pedestal.

          I think that one of the most common ways by which the devotees of reductive physicalism try to make it appear to be a valid position is by positing a false dichotomy by which they then sneeringly characterize anything that’s not simply physical as “mystic.”

          What makes you think that it is impossible to observe someone else’s consciousness?

          The fact that it’s an emergent phenomenon with no physical manifestation.

          I think we’ll be able to (and in fact we already can to some notable degree) track neuronal activity in a brain and map it and interpret it, so we can make reasonably solid guesses regarding its nature - general type, intensity, efficiency and so on - but we can never actually observe its content, since its content is a gestalt formed within and only accessible to the mind that’s experiencing it.

          There’s nothing at all “mystic” about that - it’s simple logic and reason.

          And, by the bye, it’s also much of why actual philosophers rejected reductive physicalism almost a century ago.