Register to reply

Our subjective experience is an underestimated tool to discover

Share this thread:
Maartenn100
#1
Sep24-13, 04:42 PM
P: 3
Maybe we are not fully aware of this fact:

The neuroscientist did not discover the existing of a dream by studying the brain. He did not discover the existing of feelings by studying the electric path in the nerv systems. His knowledge of the existence of dreams came from another, underestimated source of knowledge in this world.

His own subjective experience, and only that tool of knowledge, let him discover the existence of 'dreaming'. His most sophisticated scientific tool in his hand could not discover that at all. His scientific tool was limited, where his subjective experience is the first tool to discover 'a non-measurable world' witch can, by definition, not be discoverd by a measuring device.

Awareness, feellings, imaginagen, fantasy, content of dreams are 'existing entities' in this world, only discovered by this fact:

The fact that we are the electrobiochemical materials makes him discover this part of the world.


The neuroscientist is these materials (a wired brain), so he discovers this world of subjective entities, without the need of science at all.

We can conclude that the subjective experience is underestimated being a tool for discoveries in nature. Moreover: the scientific tools of the neuroscientist fale to discover these immaterial things (feelings, dreamcontent, etc) in a wired brain.

So, there is at least one non-scientific tool in this world, "being the bioelectrochemical materials itself" wich is or only crucial tool to discover parts of this world, which were otherwise undiscovered.

Our own subjective experience is the only door to this aspect of our world.

Wich other non-brainlike materials in this world are 'experiencing parts of this world' we cannot discover with our scientific tools? How can we know that?

conclusion: our scientific tools are limited to discover more about what exists and what doesn't exist.
No tool can discover 'subjective experiences' in non-brainlike interacting electrochemical materials in this world.
Phys.Org News Partner Biology news on Phys.org
Healthy humans make nice homes for viruses
Me, my neuroprocessor, and I: Preparing for a hybrid world
Australian mosquito appears in California
atyy
#2
Sep24-13, 05:11 PM
Sci Advisor
P: 8,791
Two famous descriptions of this problem are "What is it like to be a bat" and the "hard problem of consciousness".

http://organizations.utep.edu/portal.../nagel_bat.pdf
http://consc.net/papers/facing.html

Pythagorean will laugh but I think efference copy, and the idea of an internal model are starting points:)

I like http://id3490.securedata.net/rod/pdf/RG.Paper.JA46.pdf
Pythagorean
#3
Sep24-13, 08:16 PM
PF Gold
Pythagorean's Avatar
P: 4,292
I don't know whether a psychological internal model is directly important for subjective experience or not (I can imagine having feelings without knowing of the self... possibly newborns babies have a similar experience). Life obviously has some kind of internal model in the genome: a global identity. I think how subjective experience arises from matter is still a ways off for us, but I don't think it's a ultimately limited to being philosophical question. I think we can make predictions about the mechanism of subjective experience, and eventually predict them. But I think we have a lot to discover still.

To the OP, I don't think it's underestimated. We have to accept that its the "tool" through which we interpret and model all empirical evidence. None of that has any meaning without subjective experience.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Earth's response to CO2 underestimated Earth 9
I underestimated the difficulty of Widder's Advanced Calculus Science & Math Textbooks 1
The subjective state General Discussion 7
I tend to think of the universe in a simple matter General Discussion 8
On medical materialism and the value of subjective experience General Discussion 3