matt<3ketamine
Bluelighter
no boogeymen for you!
i still have mines from wen i was a wee 'un i have a pack of beer now to protect me!
im a manly grown up see?
im a manly grown up see?

You are absolutely right, there are all kinds of interesting problems related to this (the ineffable experiential phenomena you are referring to are known as qualia), if you're interested, a paper which I found fascinating is "What is it like to be a bat?" by Thomas Nagel, and the thought experiment about "Mary the colour scientist" is also directly related to what you're talking about. I admit, it's a leap of faith, and it's not an unproblematic one.Yet the features of consciousness are things like the experience of colour and sound, the redness of the colour red is not describable in terms of the synaptic networks which supposedly give rise to it.
Allow me to be clear; what I was stating was my philosophy, not uncontroversial scientific fact. I think that the best inference to make in order for me, personally, to make sense of self-supporting web of knowledge and belief that makes up my understanding of the world is naturalism. Science is limited, yes, and the things I believe go above and beyond any kind of scientific evidence. Yes, that's faith, and in a sense, that is the same thing as religious devotees do. I think, though, that we can use our empirical knowledge and reason to examine our faiths, and decide which are the best ones to hold. By the way, there is a sense in which all science is like this, there's a theory called underdetermination, we always interpret data, ultimately, in a way that infers a best explanation for it. Particle/wave duality, or electron orbitals, or electromagnetism don't spontaneously self-organise into theories on a spreadsheet of data and burst out, we create them. The mind actively organises reality, and as a conscious being, there is no way to disentangle one's consciousness from "the world as it really is". Quantum theory suggests that even observing a thing completely changes its behaviour and nature, for fuck's sake!To me, it's poor form to shy from admitting the limits of our science just because we're scared of leaving a void that might get filled with nonsense. We should be able to live with the void. We are able to live with the void!
Mission aborted/Let's not turn this thread into a dry discussion of metaphysics