RE: why do we enjoy poetry From the perspective of neuroscience?
January 20, 2019 at 7:02 am
(This post was last modified: January 20, 2019 at 7:47 am by Alan V.)
(January 19, 2019 at 11:52 pm)bennyboy Wrote: My assertion is that to study something scientifically, you must be able to subject it to physical measurement or enumeration. My question is this-- how would you, as a confident scientist, demonstrate that any physical system, human or otherwise, actually experiences anything subjectively? What are the observable criteria by which you will establish sentience as a material fact?
Our direct observations of our own subjective experiences (first-person accounts) are data and can be measured, through correlations with other, similar first-person accounts and/or with brain activity recordings, both from a decent sampling of people. That's how scientists have learned important facts about sleep and dreaming for instance.
The invisible gorilla experiment is a good example of comparing first-person accounts:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inattentional_blindness
I'm really surprised that you don't understand all of this, since it's nothing new in the sciences. It's been going on for decades. Many scientific studies of how the mind works are based on such careful collections of observations. It's not just me or anyone else making stuff up. And I wouldn't call it philosophy, because it's not about definitions and speculation so much as about observations and measurements.
If you haven't read any of such science, are you sure you're interested in consciousness studies?
Perhaps you think you can only trust your own first-person observations. If so, that is your prerogative as a philosopher. So don't get me wrong; I am perfectly content that your particular variety of incredulity is confined to philosophers. It makes a great example of why philosophy and science are two separate disciplines.
