Can science study consciousness?

[Papa1]

First person access is just one way to access the content of the experience. There are third-person ways to access what we call the experience...brain scanning machines are already used to isolate the correlated activation in the brain and nervous system widely construed. Theoretical sciences such as ecology handle the environmental context and psychology handles the positing of mental states while sociology analyzes aspects that have to do with community, organization, etc.

No, these third-person ways can't access the experience. At least I can't see how. As you said, they can correlate activity with the experience, but to get the experience you need a (reliable and honest) report of it. Although it contributes to it, neural activity is not sentience.

Hmm... I'm getting confused. Maybe you're right? Is it adequate to, say, measure the experience of a sunny day by measuring the activity of the neural circuits associated with visual perception, tactile perception, emotion, etc? Can you make the leap from the measurement of these circuits to the measurement of an experience? If you provide environment x, and measure neural activity y and take self-report z, many times, over and over, with similar results - can you justifiably jump from the neural activity to the experience the subject must have been having?

I'm asking way more questions than I'm answering... Apologies.

edit: Okay, I'm more firm on this now. I'm comfortable putting my fist down and saying that no current external measuring device can get to the experience. In studies involving perception in monkeys for example, the experiment always relies on the monkey telling the experimenter what it perceived. These are perception not consciousness studies of course, but I think the principle is the same.

 

[Shakti]

Papa, I'd say that there is no way to 'get the experience' other than to be it. This makes all third-person measures of experience inherently incomplete, though still very useful. This also includes first person reports, for if one is to speak and report of their experience they must first conceptualize it as an object, that their experience is somehow separate from themselves, which is in fact a third person perspective. So personal reports and empirical evidence both lack the ability to directly and completely communicate experience. Never the less, we should still pursue these avenues of inquiry as they both can help to illuminate our understanding of what it is to be human.

 

[ebola?]

As far as I can tell nobody is wanting to deny that consciousness does not also have historical and social dimensions (that deviate from the simply physical)

for example, the analysis of content ascription (ie the 'stuff' of the experience) cannot be done without analyzing the organism as situated synchronically and diachronically in its environment

an analysis of whats literally going on in the head is connected with what goes on outside the head (ie ecologically)

And sociologists are here to brow-beat people on that point.

 

[ebola?]

As far as I can tell nobody is wanting to deny that consciousness does not also have historical and social dimensions (that deviate from the simply physical)

for example, the analysis of content ascription (ie the 'stuff' of the experience) cannot be done without analyzing the organism as situated synchronically and diachronically in its environment

an analysis of whats literally going on in the head is connected with what goes on outside the head (ie ecologically)

And sociologists are here to brow-beat people on that point.

 

[Shakti]

LotL, I think that much of this thread is due to differing definitions and understanding of what consciousness is. I totally agree that all sorts of levels, mechanisms and aspects of consciousness can be studied by science. The Aha! moment you're describing is satori, otherwise known as a profound glimpse of reality just as it is, unencumbered by the sieve of samsara (ordinary unillumined mind). Such blessings those glimpses are, they have the power to radically change a person's life and understanding of the world. One of the understandings I've come to hold through experiences like this, is that ultimate reality is none-other than pure undifferentiated consciousness, which is the pure absolute Self, which is Brahman, which is Atman, which is Anatman, which is God...

So, the major point I'm trying to make here is this. We can study all kinds of aspects of consciousness. Science is very good at studying the parts. But, the whole, the singularity of being, consciousness, is beyond the reach of science, for it is not exclusively a material thing that can be measured. Science cannot measure that I Am. Science can merely make observations of the corollaries of consciousness, mind/body/community.

And sociologists are here to brow-beat people on that point.

Tell me about it. They are also so fuckin reticent to admit that socially influenced phenomena have any biological corollaries, or any corollaries at all. They're painting themselves into a very narrow corner where they can think they are the masters of everything. Social constructivists are a trip.

 

[Shakti]

Yes, they are all correlated. Pure consciousness underlies them all and they influence and interact with each other as well.

 

[ebola?]

Tell me about it. They are also so fuckin reticent to admit that socially influenced phenomena have any biological corollaries, or any corollaries at all. They're painting themselves into a very narrow corner where they can think they are the masters of everything. Social constructivists are a trip.

You're currently speaking with one.
No, I am not too causally or ontologically dogmatic...

ebola

 

[Shakti]

You're currently speaking with one.
No, I am not too causally or ontologically dogmatic...

ebola

Well I'm glad you're not, or don't think you are, but to be fair few people do find themselves to be unreasonable. I'll certainly give you the benefit of the doubt though.

If Consciousness is the conception of experience which includes relation to objects and also conditions of self conscience, where does Transcendance fit into this?

Consciousness is not the concept of experience and its aspects. It is experience and its aspects. Consciousness is transcendence.

 

[Shakti]

No, I can't say that I am.

 

[Shakti]

I gotcha. My experiences, the way i think and the things i like to study have led me to adopt many hindu terms. My screen name i chose because of a direct experience of Shakti, or at least that's how i interpret it.

 

[Shakti]

Well, Shakti is the feminine face of Shiva. What I interpret as a direct experience of Shakti. Is kinda complex to explain, but utterly simple in experience. I wrote this about it before.

Hmm, well I was in deep sleep and not particularly conscious of that fact. Then I popped out into a high subtle state in which rings of light/emotion/experience where rolling over my vision in a multi-sensory type way. They were moving out to a point directly in front of me of indeterminate distance, but visually it was the vanishing point as I interpret it. It was exactly a point for it had no dimension. These rings got smaller and smaller as they approached the point until they themselves were just that point. Then they reemerged from the point in a way that they both projected out beyond the point and reflected back towards me. There was no difference between them going out beyond the point, or reflecting back, that is merely an after the fact perspectival interpretation.

I began manipulating and controlling the ring waves, controlling their velocity, their rhythm. Then I chose to end them all together. I took the final ring wave and collapsed it to the point.

When I did this an uninhibited, unrestricted, undifferentiated pure energy was released from the base of my spine. It traveled straight up my back and escaped out of the crown of my head. It was pure white. I was the light.



Immediately afterwards I woke up.

Woah, I said to myself and went about my day...

The pure unrestricted energy is what I am calling Shakti. How in line that is with hindu philosophy and practice, idk exactly. But I call it that because it seems to me to be the natural pair to a formless, empty state, which I associate with Shiva.

In regards to B. I guess I'd say my study is 2 fold. One aspect is through meditative practices. The other aspect is through reading. And truly there is a third, which is communion with others. But, my readings are varied. I really do find Integral philosopy to be very useful conceptually. Zen koan study is amazing and will wake you up pretty fast. IDK i've read many things. 2 things within a hindu context that are excellent are the Bhagavad Gita (of course) and I also enjoyed Autobiography of a Yogi by Paramhansa Yogananda.

 

[Shakti]

I can't say I'm formally studying anything, but theology is certainly a large part.

I'm afraid I don't know what you mean by 'the release of the sensorium,' so I can't make a distinction there.

the Chakras or otherwise the opening of the plexuses of the nervous system

I would describe it as just that. What I was describing was the energy working through the sixth chakra and releasing out through the seventh.

 

[Shakti]

OK, that makes sense to me. It sounds like it's pretty much the same thing. You seem to be informed more from a psychological perspective correct? Is sensorium a term they would use?

 

[Shakti]

Alright, well I think I'm ready to distinguish my experience from a release of the sensorium, but do correct me if some of my presumptions of the term are incorrect at this point. It seems to me that a sensorial release isn't necessarily an illuminating experience. With all energy that arises within the human subtle system, it can either observed from a deeper truer self, or it can control and push around the ego structure. A sensorial release doesn't seem to be one or the other particularly. While with my experience there was a liberation of all subtle energies, a sensorial release, but I coalesced that energy into an absolute singular object. Absolute Object can only be experienced by Absolute Subject, for they are one and the same and they together are Form. So as soon as I was conscious of absolute object, the singular point I described, I was absolute subject, they combined, all duality was resolved and I... I don't dare finish that sentence.

So, I would say that a full release of the sensorium is necessary but not sufficient for the experience I described.

 

[Shakti]

This is very interesting. You are quite right that in order to experience this you must first resolve the energetic conflicts on the physical body, then the ethereal or subtle body (you used the term correctly), before you can experience the transcendent causal body, or absolute Self.

Rolfing seems very interesting. A western practice of aligning and balancing the physical and subtle bodies is something I didn't know existed.

In regards to why I wont finish that sentence, it would be largely misunderstood by most of the people here. The post-modern pluralists would call me arrogant. The modernists wouldn't believe me. And the traditionalists would call me a heretic (there aren't many of them in the P&S forum though). So I'll pm you.

 

[Shakti]

Actually I've had a handful of experiences like this. No two are exactly the same, and my approach to this level begins on the physical level most of the time instead of starting on the subtle. What is that which I may have not yet conceived of? I'd be interested in whatever that may be.

Also, I'd like to add that I've been fortunate to be able to stay connected with this energy. Of course, I always am and was anyway, but now I'm very aware of it moment to moment. It can be obscured from my awareness, alcohol can do that pretty easily, but I am directly aware most of the time. Rolfing sounds like it might help to reinforce this and strengthen it, to be more able to embody that energy. Sounds very cool.

About that last sentence. The Truth will set you free and it is ecstatic. But people have so many built-in barriers to its apprehension. Pearls before swine...

 

[Shakti]

Yeah, that makes sense. Let me know if you can put it to words later on.

 

[DrGonzo899]

NO.

At least I hope not.

 

[tittysnacks74]

One can study the consciousness of others, or collective consciousness, but it seems impossible to study your own from an objective standpoint. Although, studying your consciousness even from your own, charged standpoint is valuable because it allows you to learn why you think and feel certain way and how it affects you as a person. You experience this firsthand, rather than being told by a psychoanalyst.

 

[Shakti]

The part you had not conceived, im my mind, is that the release of the sensorium at the physical plane is absolutely paramount to the opening/accessibility of that part which you experience, of the state of absolute being, but I had stayed with that agnowledgement, where as you came to understand that in your follow up posts.

I thought I had made that understanding clear with my statement, "a full release of the sensorium is necessary but not sufficient".

The way I understand and experience this is that liberated physical energy will rise into the subtle system. The subtle system must be then liberated (karmicly resolved) and then and only then can one consciously merge with absolute reality. So would hesitate to say a sensorial release is 'paramount' because of some of the implications of the word. I would call it step 1.

Especially this part!>>>>>or it can control and push around the ego structure.
(Yes!!!!!!!!! it needs to push and shove around the ego structure, or it won't occur, but it is done in the step prior, at the physical level, and the areas of thought that I have mentioned, also believe, that the ego at a physical levelof its structure, existst at the neuromuscular level....more accurately at the muscular level!!!!

Hmm, I wouldn't place Ego on the physical level. It appears to me to be centered in the lower subtle regions where concepts of of self start. The physical including the muscular structures are responsible for Id. Of course, Ego's foundation is the Id but a stabilized Ego can recognize many instincts and bodily energies arising and not succumb to them, making it a distinct structure from the physical, that works by its own rules and considerations.

I think that when you first liberate the physical the energy it releases begins working to resolve the energy of the subtle which first begins with conceived self identity. This is the 'pushing around of the ego structure'. When that is resolved you/it moves to higher subtle realms often times out of body. Then it can move to absolute reality. Anyway, I'm getting repetitive.

We have pretty similar experiences and understandings of this, but pretty different ways of conceptualizing it because we came to it from much different directions. It's cool that we can unify our maps.

PS. I just realized that you have misquotted me on another post, when I described consciousness as ....the conception of experience, and you corrected me, by an error of perceiving my word conception-as concept........

Ah, ok. I see that. My mistake.