An instrument cannot examine itself

Forums: Philosophy, Philosophy Of Mind
Email this Topic • Print this Page

I have noticed some threads, especially the one titled Neurons, which are concerned with the explanation of the inner phenomena of life, such as emotion, sensation, etc., by means of the nature of the empirically observed external world. That is not possible. It is a matter of quantity eventually forming quality. The empirical world exists only as observed, via the human mind; as such, the understanding of the empircal world cannot extend to that mind. Eventually, no doubt, science will be able to predict or maniplaute aspects of inner experience from the conditions of neural arrangment, but there can never be a discovery of the physical properties of hate, orange, the feeling of a pinecone, etc.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 4,894 • Replies: 79

No top replies

@BrightNoon,

I disagree. These inner experiences exist within individuals, and can thus be observed by an external observer. They cannot be experienced externally, but they can certainly be observed. And because these are collective phenomena, it's possible to make observations of many people and generalize about that experience.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes:

An external observer might fully understand the synapse patterns required to produce a mental image of the color yellow in his human subject, but how could he possibly observe that color?

The objective world, whose existance is pure speculation, is the product of our minds; i.e., it is in our minds. The mind cannot be described in the same terms used to describe the objectively evident brain, which is a construct of the mind.

Thus, in order to analyze a mind, said mind would have to take a step back and gain perspective from outside. Our mind would have to be a higher type of mind to analyze itself. This is analagous; a spoon cannot be defined in terms of this same spoon; such a definition in tautological and meaningless: the spoon is the spoon. :Not-Impressed:

2 Replies

@BrightNoon,

I know what I see to be the color orange. But if I could connect to your mind and see what *you* perceive that color, even though we both agree separately that "yes, that is orange", what might I see? Would it be the exact imagination?

We were taught this... and associated the patterns in our minds to be just so. But our are patterns the same?

... where's a good mind-meld when you need one :perplexed:

0 Replies

@BrightNoon,

BrightNoon wrote:

An external observer might fully understand the synapse patterns required to produce a mental image of the color yellow in his human subject, but how could he possibly observe that color?

It doesn't matter. There are uniquely individual experiences that can't be shared. Then there are all the common features that can. Something yellow with a fixed reflective wavelength might appear differently in your brain than in mine. But we'll both recognize that thing as yellow. The individual experience doesn't matter except insofar as it becomes part of our collective understanding.

Quote:

The objective world, whose existance is pure speculation, is the product of our minds; i.e., it is in our minds.

Fine, but that's impractical and has no utility other than a metaphysical conversation. The fact of the matter is that shared experience, i.e. the aggregate of our experiences, is sufficiently believable that we can use it as a stand-in for objectivity. It's good enough.

Quote:

The mind cannot be described in the same terms used to describe the objectively evident brain, which is a construct of the mind.

Might I ask in what context or application in human life this point changes anything? In other words, does it matter?

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Fine, but that's impractical and has no utility other than a metaphysical conversation.

We are having a metaphysical conversation; this debate is in no way meant to be practical. This debate is about your statement below, with which I disagree.

These inner experiences exist within individuals, and can thus be observed by an external observer. They cannot be experienced externally, but they can certainly be observed.

You say it yourself; these inner experiences cannot be experienced; what do you call observation? My point is that, while a scientist could observe the physical cause, so to speak, of the inner phenomena, that is not the same as observing the inner phenomena. Therefore, as I said originally, the mind, in the sense of the word meaning, our experience of the world, cannot be analyzed in scientific terms. The reason, as I said, is that the empirical world exists only in our minds. The mind can examine the contents of its thought, but not the nature of the thing that thinks, namely itself; i.e., the mind can investigate nature, as we imagine it, which might include the physical structure of the brain, but not experience itself.

1 Reply

@BrightNoon,

Ok.

We can survey 100,000,000 people about experience X, measure objective things about experience X, and completely scientifically describe both X and the nature of a person who is experiencing X.

That may not provide access to the individual experience of X. But we'll sure know a lot about it.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

You would sure know a lot about the empirically observable brain activities that apparently correspond to X inner phenomena, but you would still be utterly unable to describe the inner experience in scientific terms. This subtle and so-called useless distinction is important because it means that science, through its empirical methods, cannot ever, by definition, analyze or explain human conciousness itself. The mind (the scientists) cannot understand the mind; hence my title: an instrument cannot examine itself.

1 Reply

@BrightNoon,

BrightNoon wrote:

you would still be utterly unable to describe the inner experience in scientific terms.

Or any other terms except a personal anecdote.

Quote:

This subtle and so-called useless distinction is important because it means that science, through its empirical methods, cannot ever, by definition, analyze or explain human conciousness itself.

Completely disagree. Because human consciousness itself is a whole lot more than JUST an inner experience.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

I agree, there is no way to describe in universally valid terms one's own experience.

With your second statement, I disagree. What do you mean by conciousness? Conciousness according to me: all of my experiences, thoughts, memories, etc. (which are all really the same, except in degree): i.e., life. You might say that some scientifically understandable process is responsible for conciousness, but that is a hypothesis, which itself is a thought you are having, a part of your conciousness!

2 Replies

@BrightNoon,

BrightNoon wrote:

Conciousness according to me: all of my experiences, thoughts, memories, etc. (which are all really the same, except in degree): i.e., life.

But consciousness is also an experience that all of us have. And there are great commonalities that transcend the individual. The nuanced particulars of our individuality inform our individual consciousness -- but then the problem is one of individuality and not one of consciousness.

Quote:

You might say that some scientifically understandable process is responsible for conciousness, but that is a hypothesis, which itself is a thought you are having, a part of your conciousness!

That's not what I'm talking about.

2 Replies

@Aedes,

Conciousness has no meaning except for an individual; groups do not have experiences, memories, thoughts, etc.; individuals within the group do. From the perspective of an individual conciousness, there is only that conciousness. The idea that there are other conciousnesses is just that: an idea, which is in the conciousness of the individual who had the idea.

1 Reply

@BrightNoon,

If consciousness had no meaning then we couldn't discuss it.

You can tell me about your memories, your emotions, or your pain, and I'd understand because I also have memories, emotions, and pain.

From the perspective of my consciousness, you also have consciousness because you are interacting with me. Cognitively and psychologically we are predisposed to believe that the external world is real. And honestly it really doesn't matter if we can prove that or not.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

If consciousness had no meaning then we couldn't discuss it. You can tell me about your memories, your emotions, or your pain, and I'd understand because I also have memories, emotions, and pain.

Of course we can communicate about consciousness or any other topic, which, we assume, we both understand in our own conciousnessess. The point is that people do not have conciousness, a person has conciousness; it is private. It is not a part of the empirical world (which is an idea-system in the conciousness of an individual) and as such there can not be a Unified scientific theory encompassing and defining in the same terms (empirical terms) both the empirical world and the individual consciousness.

From the perspective of my consciousness, you also have consciousness because you are interacting with me. Cognitively and psychologically we are predisposed to believe that the external world is real.

From each of our perspectives, it an assumption that the other has consciousness, albeit a very practical one. The fact that people tend to beleive this, does not make it true. I beleive this as well. Beleif is not truth however and science cannot rest on beleif.

And please don't respond by telling me that such views are impractical or useless; very, very little of philosphy is in any way useful, to anyone, ever, except as an activity to pass the time or as a means to satisfy one's curiosity.

1 Reply

@BrightNoon,

BrightNoon wrote:

The point is that people do not have conciousness, a person has conciousness; it is private.

Same with digestion, circulation, etc. There are empirical aspects of it, and then there are internal, visceral aspects of it that are inaccessible to the outside (and in most respects inaccessible to self-awareness). I'll grant that. So certain facets are empirically accessible and others are availble to the rest of us only to the extent that the person in that consciousness can relate the experience to others. That's ok. We can't know everything about anything, why should this be any different?

Quote:

The fact that people tend to beleive this, does not make it true.

Or false.

Quote:

Beleif is not truth however and science cannot rest on beleif.

Science isn't interested in every question on earth. With respect to consciousness, science is only interested in the things that CAN be measured and observed.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Here is the point, which you have avoided. Remember, I started this damnable thread and began the debate. Can or cannot the mind analyze itself? The answer is no, if by analysis, we mean rational, empirical analysis. That is all I have to say.

1 Reply

@BrightNoon,

One more thing, re this statement of yours.

Quote:
The fact that people tend to beleive this, does not make it true.
Or false.

Not being true is not the same as being false. Nothing can every be proven true; logic can only disprove.

1 Reply

@BrightNoon,

BrightNoon wrote:

Can or cannot the mind analyze itself? The answer is no, if by analysis, we mean rational, empirical analysis. That is all I have to say.

The individual can certainly analyze the consciousness that he or she inhabits. That's experiential and therefore empirical. However it is also biased and can be unrealistic.

BrightNoon wrote:

Not being true is not the same as being false. Nothing can every be proven true; logic can only disprove.

I can prove that I'm typing on a laptop. Come over here and take a look. But if you tell me that there is a god, that cannot be disproved either logically or empirically.

Logic cannot prove anything, because there is no necessary relationship between logic and reality. Logic can be self-evident, airtight, and still be false, because it's a closed self-referential system.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

Logic cannot prove anything, because there is no necessary relationship between logic and reality.

I agree. Logic can have no ontological bearing because it only proves what is possible, not what is.

1 Reply

@de Silentio,

The individual can certainly analyze the consciousness that he or she inhabits. That's experiential and therefore empirical. However it is also biased and can be unrealistic.

One can analyze something in one's consciousness, not the consciousness itself. To do that one would have to take a step back from one's consciousness, look at it from the outside, which is impossible. The world (the so called objective world) is something within consciousness. That is why, as I said, there cannot be a scientific theory encompassing both individual consciousness and 'the world.'

1 Reply

An instrument cannot examine itself

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know