An instrument cannot examine itself

I don't quite understand why you keep mentioning science or scientific understandings here. The way you're describing consciousness, and shielding it away, makes it tantamount to talking about the soul or talking about angels. In other words, by your reckoning the consciousness is metaphysical and putative but, but there is no evidence for its actual existence at all. So why should science care about such a thing? The consciousness that science investigates is something quite different.

... ... Ramachandran . . . patients with minor brain damage . . . "phantom limb" syndrome .

Can or cannot the mind analyze itself? The answer is no, if by analysis, we mean rational, empirical analysis.

I don't quite understand why you keep mentioning science or scientific understandings here. The way you're describing consciousness, and shielding it away, makes it tantamount to talking about the soul or talking about angels. In other words, by your reckoning the consciousness is metaphysical and putative but, but there is no evidence for its actual existence at all. So why should science care about such a thing? The consciousness that science investigates is something quite different.

Have you ever seen an angel or a soul; have you ever seen an electron; I would guess you have seen neither. On the other hand, Consciousness refers to everything that one has ever experienced, or is experiencing. There is nothing mystical about what I am saying, nothing speculative, nothing subtle. Not only is there evidence everywhere, for the individual, but the individual could not, even for a moment, ever, escape consciousness if he liked.

You really think that the empical world exists beyond your own idea of it, don't you? Are you such an intellectual spectre that only your ideals are real and your experience is imaginary? You should join the priesthood which, afterall is the antecedent of the scientific community. Your 'cause' is the progeny of the theologian's 'soul'.



As for the rest of you; if you are talking about brain scans you have already missed the point, which has been ongoing for three pages. This is not a thread about the benefit of science in therapy for the brain damaged, insane, etc. That is all practical and has nothing to do with the philosophical issue; namely, whether or not an instrument can examine itself (by which I mean, determine its own nature, define itself, understand itself), which it seems certain to me, it cannot. The point of this, in case someone forgot, is to prove that a scientific interpretation of individual consciousness is not possible. If you counter by saying that correlation between brain function and people's behavior or statements is such, you have fortgotten the main point again; a correspondence deals not at all with the actual experience of living as an individual, but rather with the observation of an individual by another.

Have you ever seen an angel or a soul; have you ever seen an electron; I would guess you have seen neither.

On the other hand, Consciousness refers to everything that one has ever experienced, or is experiencing.

the individual could not, even for a moment, ever, escape consciousness if he liked.

You really think that the empical world exists beyond your own idea of it, don't you?

Are you such an intellectual spectre that only your ideals are real and your experience is imaginary?

... namely, whether or not an instrument can examine itself (by which I mean, determine its own nature, define itself, understand itself), which it seems certain to me, it cannot.

The world beyond our ideas is NOT empirical -- it just is what it is. Our ideas of the world, whether individual or collective, are actually what is empirical.

And I can simultaneously believe that there is a real world and believe that my ideas of it bear SOME resemblance to it, even if not 100% accurately.

This tired old argument that we can't escape from our own perspective does NOT mutually exclude the notion that other things are real, that the world is real. All it means is that we can't prove it in the absolute.

Of course it can.

• Objectively? No
  
• Accurately, absent of Subjective Influences? No
  
• Scientifically, with complete thoroughness? No
  
• In a legitimate, Scientific-methodology? No
  

But what self-observation we *can* do, self-analysis and examination of ourselves through the reactions and feedback from others, combined with humility and a healthy perspective (even with all our grand flaws) - doesn't this hit the mark at least a *wee* bit? And in so doing, isn't it a good thing?

Concur with your assertions overall, friend. I only bring up this "something is better than nothing"- idea in the light of depolarizing the issue. If the light is ONLY on or ONLY off the propensity is to toss up ones' hands on self examination and say "Nope, can't be done - none of this effort is worthwhile". If that same light is on a dimmer-switch, then one is more likely to indulge - and give worth to - the effort of examining oneself (which I believe has high worth!).

... hope this came our right, my words often fail me :nonooo:

Not only is there evidence everywhere, for the individual, but the individual could not, even for a moment, ever, escape consciousness if he liked.

Our observation is our reality, there is no universal reality. If nothing was around to observe, I don't think it would exist. Our perception isn't of the world, it is our world.

I don't really agree with either your or his point here -- I can't prove you wrong in reality, but the converse is true -- the "proof" that there is no objective world is only logical, and not demonstrable.

Our "observations" are collective in a way, too. We learn from parents, family, school, etc, about both specifics and generalities about the world that we have not observed ourselves. In this way we share an immensely complex, intertwined collection that makes reality far more expansive than our direct observations.

Furthermore, our lives depend on a very high degree of assumption about consistency within the world and the truth of things we haven't observed (i.e. a functional assumption that there is a real world). That's why we "know" that jumping off of the roof is probably going to hurt us even if we've never done it before.

... whether or not an instrument can examine itself (by which I mean, determine its own nature, define itself, understand itself), which it seems certain to me, it cannot. The point of this, in case someone forgot, is to prove that a scientific interpretation of individual consciousness is not possible. If you counter by saying that correlation between brain function and people's behavior or statements is such, you have fortgotten the main point again; a correspondence deals not at all with the actual experience of living as an individual, but rather with the observation of an individual by another.

Your argument makes sense logically, but is that the end point of this discussion? I mean that explanation, while logically sound, is so discrepant with every practical aspect of our life that it hardly seems to matter. I mean aren't there other ways of conceptualizing reality in parallel that better explains how we interface with the things outside our consciousness (or, if you like, the things our consciousness thinks are outside our consciousness)?