Re:Toward a Mature Science of Consciousness
by danShumway on Wednesday June 27, 2018 @05:09PM
(#17411884)
> Again you are simply saying that you don't understand it so it must not be possible.
I... don't think subjective experience is impossible. I think that our current knowledge about how it works is very limited, there's a lot for us to learn, and I'm encouraged when philosophers and scientists research it more. I'm discouraged when people say "it exists, what else do we need to know?"
Are we saying the same thing in different ways?
When I say "jump", I don't mean that there is no explanation for subjective experience. I mean that we do not currently know what that explanation is. It's a jump because it is currently a gap in our knowledge about a phenomenon that exhibits interesting properties and that we don't know how to reliably measure or reproduce.
When we talk about things like consciousness we have to "jump" over that gap. It would be nice to fill in the gap a little. Is it possible you thought that I meant something else?
For a lot of people, basic questions like "what are atoms," or "why is there matter", or "how does a physical process create a subjective experience" are really interesting. And to a certain extent, why should atoms exist? It's not a bad question - we can start talking about electrons, and then we can start talking about forces, and then at a certain point we'll have to say, "well, we don't know about this thing yet. Ask again in a decade and maybe we'll have some theories to propose."
There are large branches of science devoted to these types of questions, and pursuing them has lead to useful theories and practical applications in the past.
I... don't think subjective experience is impossible. I think that our current knowledge about how it works is very limited, there's a lot for us to learn, and I'm encouraged when philosophers and scientists research it more. I'm discouraged when people say "it exists, what else do we need to know?"
Are we saying the same thing in different ways?
When I say "jump", I don't mean that there is no explanation for subjective experience. I mean that we do not currently know what that explanation is. It's a jump because it is currently a gap in our knowledge about a phenomenon that exhibits interesting properties and that we don't know how to reliably measure or reproduce.
When we talk about things like consciousness we have to "jump" over that gap. It would be nice to fill in the gap a little. Is it possible you thought that I meant something else?
For a lot of people, basic questions like "what are atoms," or "why is there matter", or "how does a physical process create a subjective experience" are really interesting. And to a certain extent, why should atoms exist? It's not a bad question - we can start talking about electrons, and then we can start talking about forces, and then at a certain point we'll have to say, "well, we don't know about this thing yet. Ask again in a decade and maybe we'll have some theories to propose."
There are large branches of science devoted to these types of questions, and pursuing them has lead to useful theories and practical applications in the past.