Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site spar.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!pesnta!amd!amdcad!decwrl!spar!ellis
From: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Science & subjective experience
Message-ID: <324@spar.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 12-Jun-85 20:40:26 EDT
Article-I.D.: spar.324
Posted: Wed Jun 12 20:40:26 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 17-Jun-85 04:36:58 EDT
References: <1039@pyuxd.UUCP> <1310011@acf4.UUCP> <87@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Reply-To: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis)
Organization: Schlumberger Palo Alto Research, CA
Lines: 51
Keywords: Not frogs


    >>>>{M Ellis}    >>>{?}    >>{Michael Sykora}    >{Paul Torek}

>>>>    Individual subjective experience is by definition external to
>>>>    the universe of science, since the scientific method involves
>>>>    by definition phenomena that are verifiable by independent
>>>>    observers.
>>>
>>>Does this mean that the social sciences aren't sciences?
>>
>>No, it only limits them.
>
>It seems to limit psychology drastically.  I think your comment (>>>>)
>was an overstatement at best.  For one thing, I think it may in principle
>be possible to explain/correlate subjective experience with neurobiological
>events.

    Not at all! 
    
    A great deal, if not most, of modern psychology is a `science' by
    my definition (>>>>).

    Any attempt to correlate objective brain activity with subjective mental
    experience includes the RESPONSES of those subjects whose brains are
    being monitored.

    Now the subjects' responses are physical events, just as is the
    correlated neurobiological activity -- all pure objective science.

    Likewise, the work already done that crudely maps out various brain
    functions is also `science' by my definition.

    Even if all conscious phenomena are in principle commensurable, it seems
    likely that practical considerations will severely limit the extent to
    which one's internal brain state can be determined.    

    It may be possible that many subjective events of which we are conscious
    correspond to individual quantum events, or perhaps even as higher level
    `meaningful coincidences' of quantum events. Such subjective phenomena
    would then forever be beyond scientific measurement.

    Regardless of how far science may ultimately peek into our minds, 
    its knowledge will inherently be secondhand.

    Disciplines based on reflection of direct firsthand knowledge of our own
    subjective experience will forever be a totally different kind of
    wisdom from anything science has to offer.

    SMASH CAUSALITY!!

-michael