Nowhere357

I am an open minded skeptic.

I have mental experiences - I have self-awareness. I accept that as a fact.

self- awareness noun [MASS NOUN] conscious knowledge of one's own character, feelings, motives, and desires.

fact noun a thing that is indisputably the case. (Oxford Dictionary)

Of course, people may dispute the case, and say that I am not self-aware. Some people believe the earth is flat.

Now, these mental experiences are personal.

personal adjective 1 [ATTRIB.] of, affecting, or belonging to a particular person rather than anyone else.

By definition, my personal mental experiences cannot be directly detected by anyone else.

Therefore those personal mental experiences are scientifically undetectable. (Note I understand that the EFFECTS of the personal mental experiences CAN be detected scientifically.)

This puts me in the uncomfortable position of saying that science is inadequate for describing all of reality.

That is, something exists in reality (the Self), science cannot verify it (because the nature of the Self is personal), therefore science is not explaining all of reality.

Now, something like this has happened before. The boundaries of science described by classical physics expanded to include relativitity theory, then quantum physics. This leads me to think that one day, science will understand the Self.

BUT I also see a profound difference - in all of reality, the only thing (that I know about) not accessable to science IS the Self. Science is objective, the Self is subjective. This leads me to think that perhaps science CANNOT understand the Self, and an entirely new field opens up.

Let me put this another way: it seems clear to me that if I want to explore the nature of the Self, then I need to find a new set of tools - both science and religion are inadequate.

I am especially interested in any information or links that explore the nature of the Self, with this viewpoint in mind. Specifically, I guess, information that accepts the Self as MORE THAN just an emergent property.

John Page

Irrespective of your note, you seem to be making a prediction about what scientific methods will not be able to detect. This may not be true in the future. Is there a particular reason you think that mankind will not be able to scientifically demonstrate how personal mental experiences arise?

Cheers, John

Nowhere357

I should have said current science - thank you.

Your question strikes near the crux of the matter (why am I not surprised?).

First, I think that (currently) scientific proof requires verification. Second, I think the Self cannot be verified.

I stub my toe, neurons fire, I (the Self) feel pain. Current science can verify the stub and the neurons, but cannot verify the Self. If there were no personal mental experience of an event, how would current science possibly prove it? I see no way. (Note I know no proof of lack is not proof of no lack .) If there were a personal mental experience of an event, how would current science possibly prove it?

To me this says that current science cannot prove something, which I accept as a bedrock fact (that I am self-aware).

I also raise the possibility that science may never be able to study the Self, a notion much harder to defend. I think the strength of science comes from its objectivity. The Self is entirely subjective. I can think of no way, even in theory, how the scientific method could detect a Self. There is no matter/energy in space/time associated with the Self, by definition. There is nothing for science to detect. Yet it exists.

This is hard to talk about clearly - please excuse my clumbsyness.

MyKell

By what definition exactly?

DoubleDutchy

True of course. But science is in no better position with respect to electrons, quarks, gravity fields etc. etc. Scientific entities are postulated because they allow for a convenient and/or elegant grouping of observed effects.
When observations become available that don't 'fit' they (the entities) are sometimes dismissed altogether (phlogiston, the ether).
From a scientific point of view mental experiences are postulated entities just like all the others. I don't really expect them to be dismissed soon or even ever, but that's a, hopefully educated, guess.

Shadowy Man

That's what art is for.

I believe that art and science are two sides of the same coin. Science is an attempt to understand our relationship to the world that exists outside of us, and art is an attempt to understand our relationship to the world that exists inside of us.

Religion is an attempt to say that the world that exists inside of us actually has some existence in the world outside of us. This is, in my opinion, its major failing.

John Page

The only argument I see in your post to support the above claim is that the self is experienced subjectively, whereas science requires objectively verifiable evidence/proof.

Consider that scientists are already exploring how the brain does what it does. The experience of colors is subjective but we have significant understanding of the brain processing that produces different color perceptions. I still believe there is no issue in coming up with an explanation (and I don't think you do either), verification is the problem.

The verification (of how first hand experience comes about)problem, therefore, requires personal experience. In turn, this would seem to require an experiment that alters your first hand experience yet can be verified. How about a mind probe (that messes with your self-perception) with videotaped results that show you reporting your first hand experience?

Cheers, John

MyKell

Awesome idea John. I think developing a non-invasive signalling distortion technique would be a legitimate goal. Otherwise, I don't know how many people would allow an insertion of an electrode into their brains.

John Page

Yes, if nobody hears you thinking does your mind still work?
You bring up a good point here - we can't exactly experiment on bats and rats and talk to them about it! Scientists have discovered the sleep motor inhibitor for cats, though - I seem to remember that the cats remained asleep but appeared to chase imaginary mice in their dreams. I wonder if they can turn the "conscious I" on and off in humans?

Cheers, John

Amos

That is why "it is an evil age" when old men have dreams because the "conscious I" that makes dreaming possible has no right to exist in the minds of old men. So in the end, that which at one time was "bedrock fact" (Nowhere357) is an illusion after all.