Perhaps the most daunting of tasks in all of human history- constructing a science of consciousness proves to challenge even the most brilliant of minds. This begs the question, why is this such a difficult task? For humans have made great strides in analyzing the objective world, why is this not the case subjective experiences? The answer to these questions lie not in a single axiom, but rather a conglomeration of established archetypes of how an empirical science is to be conducted- simply put, a standstill in the paradigm of objective sciences. The central dogma within objective science, that 3rd person objective data gives a much more valuable account that 1st person subjective data has in turn developed to be its own obstacle when in
…show more content…
In which some sort of an external stimuli is integrated through neural mechanisms which coincides with some form of subjective experience. The prerequisites for this method seem to mimic objective scientific methods. Yet this approach does not aim to explain another physical phenomena, but rather a subjective experience. For instance, experimentation of binocular rivalries, that is studying patterns of what one is looking at and using this as a signal of what one is conscious of. This method of experimentation seems to be an appropriate way of addressing if there are any neural correlates to consciousness to begin with. By having one subjected to some sort of external stimuli, measuring the senses which integrate the stimuli and then measuring where neural activity is most prevalent when subjected to such stimuli can certainly correlate to the conscious experience. The individual subjected to the stimuli reports what they were experiencing in that moment. In short, an external stimuli is integrated which in turn causes neural activity and this activity is correlated to some sort of conscious experience. If definitive patterns of measurements and first person recollections are collected, then it can be said that a certain neural activity correlates to a certain conscious experience. There must be three requisites to do so, a third person measure of …show more content…
Correlates of conscious experience by no means explain the causation of the experience and thus cannot be held as identical with mental states. Namely, because neural correlates do not answer how physical processes give rise to conscious experience. The assumption is that consciousness exists, yet the explanation of how it exists is not even pursued. This is to say that, neuroscience can explain the function of brain systems and other behaviors, but with its current method of experimentation cannot explain why this all gives rise to consciousness. Moreover, this method of experimentation makes no effort in addressing the biggest issue of the mind-body dualism problem. How an nonmaterial “substance” exert itself through a physical substance, for they are both in different “realms” one takes up no space whatsoever and the other, alternatively, is what takes up space. Two polar ends somehow
In which some sort of an external stimuli is integrated through neural mechanisms which coincides with some form of subjective experience. The prerequisites for this method seem to mimic objective scientific methods. Yet this approach does not aim to explain another physical phenomena, but rather a subjective experience. For instance, experimentation of binocular rivalries, that is studying patterns of what one is looking at and using this as a signal of what one is conscious of. This method of experimentation seems to be an appropriate way of addressing if there are any neural correlates to consciousness to begin with. By having one subjected to some sort of external stimuli, measuring the senses which integrate the stimuli and then measuring where neural activity is most prevalent when subjected to such stimuli can certainly correlate to the conscious experience. The individual subjected to the stimuli reports what they were experiencing in that moment. In short, an external stimuli is integrated which in turn causes neural activity and this activity is correlated to some sort of conscious experience. If definitive patterns of measurements and first person recollections are collected, then it can be said that a certain neural activity correlates to a certain conscious experience. There must be three requisites to do so, a third person measure of …show more content…
Correlates of conscious experience by no means explain the causation of the experience and thus cannot be held as identical with mental states. Namely, because neural correlates do not answer how physical processes give rise to conscious experience. The assumption is that consciousness exists, yet the explanation of how it exists is not even pursued. This is to say that, neuroscience can explain the function of brain systems and other behaviors, but with its current method of experimentation cannot explain why this all gives rise to consciousness. Moreover, this method of experimentation makes no effort in addressing the biggest issue of the mind-body dualism problem. How an nonmaterial “substance” exert itself through a physical substance, for they are both in different “realms” one takes up no space whatsoever and the other, alternatively, is what takes up space. Two polar ends somehow