-
P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat
Can science study consciousness?
- Thread starter Papa1
- Start date
delta_9
Bluelighter
Papa1
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2008
- Messages
- 467
Yes, that's exactly what I said.
I got into a small discussion with Shakti in another thread. He said that what these people are really studying is cognition and that science is categorically incapable of studying consciousness. Again, I think that's wrong. I'm convinced that there are material mechanisms that at least contribute to consciousness, so it can be studied.
I'm just curious to see what other bluelighters have to say on it.
I got into a small discussion with Shakti in another thread. He said that what these people are really studying is cognition and that science is categorically incapable of studying consciousness. Again, I think that's wrong. I'm convinced that there are material mechanisms that at least contribute to consciousness, so it can be studied.
I'm just curious to see what other bluelighters have to say on it.
jackie jones
Bluelight Crew
Consciousness is the general state of being aware and responsive to stimuli and events in both internal and external environments.
The answer to your question is yes. Much of Bluelight is people studying and adjusting their consciousness. I like to study and work with medicine as opposed to simply "Doing drugs". The notion is more empowering, and allows me to crush society's stigmas by being able to explain my ways in an intelligent manner while in conversations with people who are ambiguous about their stance on drug use.
The entire notion of Harm Reduction is being conscious of and respecting one's internal environment.
The answer to your question is yes. Much of Bluelight is people studying and adjusting their consciousness. I like to study and work with medicine as opposed to simply "Doing drugs". The notion is more empowering, and allows me to crush society's stigmas by being able to explain my ways in an intelligent manner while in conversations with people who are ambiguous about their stance on drug use.
The entire notion of Harm Reduction is being conscious of and respecting one's internal environment.
Last edited:
jackie jones
Bluelight Crew
em⋅pir⋅i⋅cal /ɛmˈpɪrɪkəl/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [em-pir-i-kuhl] Show IPA
–adjective 1. derived from or guided by experience or experiment.
2. depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory, esp. as in medicine.
3. provable or verifiable by experience or experiment.
em·pir·i·cal (ěm-pîr'ĭ-kəl) Pronunciation Key
adj.
Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis.
Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws.
Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine.
–adjective 1. derived from or guided by experience or experiment.
2. depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory, esp. as in medicine.
3. provable or verifiable by experience or experiment.
em·pir·i·cal (ěm-pîr'ĭ-kəl) Pronunciation Key
adj.
Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis.
Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws.
Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine.
delta_9
Bluelighter
^I agree.
As jack said, some of us explore, manipulate and study our conciousness via chemical means, but I think at the fundamental level, a lot of us dont really understand how our conciousness works. I certainly struggle to understand it.
As jack said, some of us explore, manipulate and study our conciousness via chemical means, but I think at the fundamental level, a lot of us dont really understand how our conciousness works. I certainly struggle to understand it.
yougene
Bluelighter
- Joined
- May 19, 2003
- Messages
- 3,336
The scientific method is designed to study physical objects which anyone can see. Consciousness is empirical but can only be seen by the being it belongs to. There are methods for studying interior objects but they have to take this special boundary into account.
I think all sorts of mechanisms are already known. We know that altering part x of the brain will cause shift in consciousness y. We know that training consciousness part x will promote brain elasticity in brain part y. We can find all sorts of useful correlations and put them to practical use. We might even be able to replicate consciousness with this knowledge. The hard problem is closing the gap. How is there consciousness? How do fields of matter-energy posses the quality of sentients? This problem science isn't equipped to answer.
Papa1
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2008
- Messages
- 467
Do you think is is a fundamental limitation, or one that will change?
stonerfromohio
Bluelighter
Is it possible that there is no isolated specific thing as consciousness? I don't mean to say were not aware but that consciousness is the totality of all happening experience in the universe. Could it be that bodies just create local points of awareness relavent to their coordinates in time and space that filter information based on what is relevent to the current situation based on the totality of their previous and current experience as well as their model of reality they view the world from. People who have come to realization don't impose a model on reality as something that is exclusionary or anything more than a imposed map, meaning they do not draw egoic boundries or take heirachical ranking as a value system or categorize things as isolated parts or believe things have essences or that events or objects are static and realize there is no accurate conceptualization of the universe the map is not the territory. Im stoned so its possible this doesnt make sense as much as it seems to now :D.
Can consciousness be empirically studied? Not accurately. Are there mechanisms to be extracted?
No, is it possible that consciousness is limited by physical mechanisms and with the absence of a brain consciousness is no longer impeded by neuro-transmitters or confined to the neuronal circuit and can experience itself in totality and as nonlocal infinity?
Conditions under which it functions? There are conditions in which it functions as an individuated faucet
Can consciousness be empirically studied? Not accurately. Are there mechanisms to be extracted?
No, is it possible that consciousness is limited by physical mechanisms and with the absence of a brain consciousness is no longer impeded by neuro-transmitters or confined to the neuronal circuit and can experience itself in totality and as nonlocal infinity?
Conditions under which it functions? There are conditions in which it functions as an individuated faucet
Last edited:
yougene
Bluelighter
- Joined
- May 19, 2003
- Messages
- 3,336
I think it is a fundamental limitation but who knows we might go beyond it. How do you bridge the gap of quantitative relationships and interior qualitative relationships?
Language that could help gap this divide would have to talk of events happening in the phenomenological space with the same level of accuracy we talk of exterior physical events. I think this sort of development is very possible and would be a step in the right direction. But that still doesn't answer how, it models what is already observed.
Language that could help gap this divide would have to talk of events happening in the phenomenological space with the same level of accuracy we talk of exterior physical events. I think this sort of development is very possible and would be a step in the right direction. But that still doesn't answer how, it models what is already observed.
stonerfromohio
Bluelighter
“Mind is consciousness which has put on limitations. You are originally unlimited and perfect. Later you take on limitations and become the mind.”
“My feeling is religious insofar as I am imbued with the consciousness of the insufficiency of the human mind to understand more deeply the harmony of the Universe which we try to formulate as "laws of nature” Albert Einstein
“A human being is part of a whole, called by us the Universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separated from the rest a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circles of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.” Albert Einstein
“Most people live, whether physically, intellectually or morally, in a very restricted circle of their potential being. They make very small use of their possible consciousness, and of their soul's resources in general, much like a man who, out of his whole bodily organism, should get into a habit of using and moving only his little finger.”
“It is on the whole probably that we continually dream, but that consciousness makes such a noise that we do not hear it.”
“Life as a whole, is a continuous thing; emanating from power, energy, God-consciousness, ever.”
“The world itself is pregnant with failure, is the perfect manifestation of imperfection, of the consciousness of failure.”
“No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it.” Albert Einstein
“When you are inspired by some great purpose, some extraordinary project, all your thoughts break their bonds: Your mind transcends limitations, your consciousness expands in every direction, and you find yourself in a new, great, and wonderful world. Dormant forces, faculties and talents become alive, and your discover yourself to be a greater person by far than you ever dreamed yourself to be.”
“My feeling is religious insofar as I am imbued with the consciousness of the insufficiency of the human mind to understand more deeply the harmony of the Universe which we try to formulate as "laws of nature” Albert Einstein
“A human being is part of a whole, called by us the Universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separated from the rest a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circles of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.” Albert Einstein
“Most people live, whether physically, intellectually or morally, in a very restricted circle of their potential being. They make very small use of their possible consciousness, and of their soul's resources in general, much like a man who, out of his whole bodily organism, should get into a habit of using and moving only his little finger.”
“It is on the whole probably that we continually dream, but that consciousness makes such a noise that we do not hear it.”
“Life as a whole, is a continuous thing; emanating from power, energy, God-consciousness, ever.”
“The world itself is pregnant with failure, is the perfect manifestation of imperfection, of the consciousness of failure.”
“No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it.” Albert Einstein
“When you are inspired by some great purpose, some extraordinary project, all your thoughts break their bonds: Your mind transcends limitations, your consciousness expands in every direction, and you find yourself in a new, great, and wonderful world. Dormant forces, faculties and talents become alive, and your discover yourself to be a greater person by far than you ever dreamed yourself to be.”
ebola?
Bluelight Crew
I can see two viable angles on this issue. On the one hand, positive science can only "sort of" study consciousness/qualia/etc. All that lie open to empirical investigation are the behavioral and neural correlates of consciousness. If I say that I see red, you can "sort of" know what I mean, based on the types of objects that you have previously encountered that appear 'red', particularly in situations where others engaging the same object also deem it 'red'. However, there's no completely certain way to determine how my experience of "redness" compares to yours (Wittgenstein's beetle in the box conundrum).
On the other hand, all scientific investigation boils down to 'logic' applied to snippets of consciousness/qualia/etc. No matter which technical instruments are involved, at some point, the experimenter must take as data her own perceptions.
mmm...so I don't know.
ebola
On the other hand, all scientific investigation boils down to 'logic' applied to snippets of consciousness/qualia/etc. No matter which technical instruments are involved, at some point, the experimenter must take as data her own perceptions.
mmm...so I don't know.
ebola
Shakti
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2008
- Messages
- 728
Well, I figure I should chime in and give a little bit of my view on this.
I think a fair bit of confusion on this comes from a misunderstanding of what consciousness is. I don't agree with the definition of consciousness that the scientific perspective creates.
1) Consciousness has no inherent discernible qualities to it. It is not an object.
2) Consciousness is the ground upon which all form is created.
3) All objects are at their core are consciousness. So, every individuated thing within your awareness is but an aspect of consciousness.
4) Consciousness does not require anything to exist. Brain/Mind does not create consciousness, they are responsible for giving form to it, giving dimension to it.
5) All things are conscious. It is the forms that such objects can discern that are highly variable.
So, science normally confuses consciousness for being able to construct a certain amount of detail of an external reality. I'm fine with calling that intelligence, sentience, awareness... or a number of other things. However, that is not what consciousness is, those are aspects of consciousness.
I hope this helps clear some shit up a little.
I think a fair bit of confusion on this comes from a misunderstanding of what consciousness is. I don't agree with the definition of consciousness that the scientific perspective creates.
1) Consciousness has no inherent discernible qualities to it. It is not an object.
2) Consciousness is the ground upon which all form is created.
3) All objects are at their core are consciousness. So, every individuated thing within your awareness is but an aspect of consciousness.
4) Consciousness does not require anything to exist. Brain/Mind does not create consciousness, they are responsible for giving form to it, giving dimension to it.
5) All things are conscious. It is the forms that such objects can discern that are highly variable.
So, science normally confuses consciousness for being able to construct a certain amount of detail of an external reality. I'm fine with calling that intelligence, sentience, awareness... or a number of other things. However, that is not what consciousness is, those are aspects of consciousness.
I hope this helps clear some shit up a little.
Shakti
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2008
- Messages
- 728
I agree with you Lady of the Lake. I think the discrepancies between our statements are just semantic. The way I use the word consciousness is interchangeable with ultimate reality. Though I completely understand if you would want to say one could be conscious without being aware of ultimate reality. Or in other words, consciousness that knows not how to rest as consciousness.
MyDoorsAreOpen
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2003
- Messages
- 8,549
That's a toughie. My first instinct was to say definitely 'yes', that there are many things about our sentient experience of the world that can be quantified, measured, and tested. But now that I think about it, psychology is defined as the study of human BEHAVIOR, which is distinct from human CONSCIOUSNESS. Behavior is easy to scientifically study, because behavior is readily observed and empirical. An entity does not need to possess sentient consciousness to have observable and quantifiable behavior.
The easy part tallying up the behaviors of other beings we've concluded are self-aware, as ourselves. The hard part is isolating the core behaviors necessary for the supposed meta-behavior we're calling consciousness. And as far as I can see, that's still the job of philosophers and logicians/mathematicians. Because until we're sure we're measuring what we want to measure, it's hard to have confidence that any scientific data we collect is of any use to our understanding of the phenomenon.
It may be that behavior is all we'll ever be able to measure and quantify, and that consciousness as a discrete phenomenon forever resists this kind of analysis, and forever remains confined to metaphysics. It's certainly something that resists being put into words, judging from the immense about of writing, both old and new, on the subject.
As for me, I'm happy to take naked self-awareness (stripped of behavior, action, and thought) as a just-so story -- quite likely a common and recurrent property of the universe. Buddhists have contributed a good deal to the body of literature I just mentioned. But most will tell you that naked consciousness needs to be directly experienced (usually through meditation) to be fully understood, and that words don't do it justice.
The easy part tallying up the behaviors of other beings we've concluded are self-aware, as ourselves. The hard part is isolating the core behaviors necessary for the supposed meta-behavior we're calling consciousness. And as far as I can see, that's still the job of philosophers and logicians/mathematicians. Because until we're sure we're measuring what we want to measure, it's hard to have confidence that any scientific data we collect is of any use to our understanding of the phenomenon.
It may be that behavior is all we'll ever be able to measure and quantify, and that consciousness as a discrete phenomenon forever resists this kind of analysis, and forever remains confined to metaphysics. It's certainly something that resists being put into words, judging from the immense about of writing, both old and new, on the subject.
As for me, I'm happy to take naked self-awareness (stripped of behavior, action, and thought) as a just-so story -- quite likely a common and recurrent property of the universe. Buddhists have contributed a good deal to the body of literature I just mentioned. But most will tell you that naked consciousness needs to be directly experienced (usually through meditation) to be fully understood, and that words don't do it justice.
Jabberwocky
Frumious Bandersnatch
check out dennett's suggestions regarding heterophenomenology
basically his sketch of how a theory of quantified phenomenology (consciousness) would cash out...
I do believe the current 'research program' (if you will allow me to speak loosely) decomposes the concept of consciousness into multiple different simpler faculties (attention, etc)
basically his sketch of how a theory of quantified phenomenology (consciousness) would cash out...
I do believe the current 'research program' (if you will allow me to speak loosely) decomposes the concept of consciousness into multiple different simpler faculties (attention, etc)