Subjective Experience

[westprog]

I've noticed in the interminable succession of threads about consciousness that there doesn't seem to be any consensus about what subjective experience is, and how accessible it is. The interesting thing is that this absence of consensus applies even within the groupings of opinion of the nature of consciousness. So a poll.

[Darat]

Hold on you've got this a bit backward, you need to tell us what the term "subjective experience" is meant to mean before we can tell you what we think it is!

[westprog]

Hold on you've got this a bit backward, you need to tell us what the term "subjective experience" is meant to mean before we can tell you what we think it is!

And when we've all agreed on what it means, we can have the poll?

I don't expect to live that long. I suggest that each person votes according to what they think subjective experience means.

[Hokulele]

Why is there no option for "is scientifically accessible"?

[Darat]

And when we've all agreed on what it means, we can have the poll?

I don't expect to live that long. I suggest that each person votes according to what they think subjective experience means.

OK - I had thought you were interested in a meaningful discussion. What do you intend doing with the poll - using it as a random number generator?

[Gate2501]

New poll:

Will humans ever be able to simultaneously track a buttrillion neurons in a human's brain, and make sense of this information in a way that mirrors said brain?

1. Yes.

2. No.

I fixed yr poll. :cool:

[H'ethetheth]

I'm actually more interested in what "scientifically accessible" means in this context.

I can think of a few different though overlapping alternatives, you see.

1. Does it mean we can one day "plug into", i.e, experience someone else's experience?
(It would have to be a sort of partial plug in, or you wouldn't realize you are someone else because you wouldn't be you, nor would you have any memory of being someone else afterward. It would be a rather pointless way of deleting time from your experience.)

2. Does it mean we can plan to induce any experience we choose and successfully induce it on any given subject?

3. Does it mean that we can tell exactly what someone is thinking at any point?

[Fnord]

Maybe might someday possibly happen ... but don't count on it.

[Beerina]

New poll:

Will humans ever be able to simultaneously track a buttrillion neurons in a human's brain, and make sense of this information in a way that mirrors said brain?

1. Yes.

2. No.

I fixed yr poll. :cool:



Hehe, but mapping these NCCs, Neural Correlates of Consciousness, is actually just the start (http://www.klab.caltech.edu/~koch/crick-koch-cc-97.html).

[AkuManiMani]

Hold on you've got this a bit backward, you need to tell us what the term "subjective experience" is meant to mean before we can tell you what we think it is!

Stuff that happens to you, of which you are directly aware.

[Third Eye Open]

Stuff that happens to you, of which you are directly aware.

Then of course it is scientifically accessible using that definition. So that must not be the definition westprog uses, or he wouldn't have this poll up.

[paximperium]

New poll:

Will humans ever be able to simultaneously track a buttrillion neurons in a human's brain, and make sense of this information in a way that mirrors said brain?

1. Yes.

2. No.

I fixed yr poll. :cool:
If that is the poll definitely 1. YES

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Are you asking whether neurophysiology will eventually have a model of consciousness that convinces most people that consciousness is understood as an emergent property of the brain?

~~ Paul

[Gate2501]

If that is the poll definitely 1. YES

Well, I think that is what subjective experience IS.

Take person A for example.

Map all of the neurons in A's brain, and simulate them in a computer program.

Duplicate the information processing algorithms present in A's brain inside the simulation.

Now put person A's head into a giant helmet that records the state of his entire brain in real time, send the information of his neural state to the simulation and process it there in parallel with person A's brain.

The simulation now has access to the subjective experience of person A.

I see the whole "subjective experience is special" bit, as an absurd philosophical version of the god-of-the-gaps style argument.

[paximperium]

Well, I think that is what subjective experience IS.

Take person A for example.

Map all of the neurons in A's brain, and simulate them in a computer program.

Duplicate the information processing algorithms present in A's brain inside the simulation.

Now put person A's head into a giant helmet that records the state of his entire brain in real time, send the information of his neural state to the simulation and process it there in parallel with person A's brain.

The simulation now has access to the subjective experience of person A. Here is the difficult but not insurmountable problem. Will the minute differences between person A and simulated person A's memory(since they diverge from the time of recording) be the same and will that play a role in "subjective" experience?

Frankly while it is interesting to research this, I see little relevance in why the variation of subjective experience(ie Qualia) is in anyway even interesting. Person A and Person B experience wetness/red/sadness differently...no poop Einstein! Of course different brains experience these things differently.


I see the whole "subjective experience is special" bit, as an absurd philosophical version of the god-of-the-gaps style argument.
I agree

[Gate2501]

Here is the difficult but not insurmountable problem. Will the minute differences between person A and simulated person A's memory(since they diverge from the time of recording) be the same and will that play a role in "subjective" experience?


Well, say Person A is at t1 when the process starts, and Person A is at t5 by the time the Simulation has processed A@t1. You would just need to record the states A@t2-t5 and queue them up to keep the Simulation experiencing the subjective state of Person A. Constantly keeping a record of the past X states for processing in the Sim. Whatever the delay was, you could accommodate it in this manner.

Obviously the Simulation would "lag" behind Person A somewhat.

[Apathia]

I vote not sceintifically acessible in priniciple.

But indirectly observable? Yes.

Capable of being created? In my opinion yes. Eventually we'll be able to build artificial beings that have subjective experiences (Though i can't see why we'd want to do that. We already make a mess of things by creating entities by the popular method.)

And anyway, you poll's flawed because it doesn't have a Planet X option.
For example: On Planet X, SHRDLU has stolen your subjective experience.

[AkuManiMani]

I'd say that subjective experience is not only scientifically accessible, but is the foundation of science itself. Every empirical observation is a subjective experience. We don't just observe subjective experience on a regular basis; it -is- observation. Being as how we individually can vouch for the veridical reality of our own experiences this means that they are objectively real. IMO, any veridical phenomena must be accessible to scientific inquiry of some sort or another. The fact that we do not yet have a scientific means of directly observing consciousness in others is more a practical limitation than one of principle.

[Gate2501]

I'd say that subjective experience is not only scientifically accessible, but is the foundation of science itself. Every empirical observation is a subjective experience. We don't just observe subjective experience on a regular basis; it -is- observation. Being as how we individually can vouch for the veridical reality of our own experiences this means that they are objectively real. IMO, any veridical phenomena must be accessible to scientific inquiry of some sort or another. The fact that we do not yet have a scientific means of directly observing consciousness in others is more a practical limitation than one of principle.

Solipsism.

[yy2bggggs]

You probably mean to ask a different question, because I too would tend to want to vote for the otter that I do not see--that subjective experience is scientifically accessible.

The raw, ordinary study/creation of optical illusions, for example, is addressing subjective experience.

(ETA: Is "subjective experience" redundant? Is there such a thing as objective experience?)

[AkuManiMani]

Solipsism.

The problem with solipsism is that there can be only one solipsist who is right ;)

[westprog]

OK - I had thought you were interested in a meaningful discussion. What do you intend doing with the poll - using it as a random number generator?

I already find the results interesting. I assume that the people who've been voting think they have enough information to make a meaningful choice.

Also, if you look very, very closely you'll find that there is an option for anyone who thinks that the term is ill-defined. If everyone agrees with you, they can select that.

[westprog]

Why is there no option for "is scientifically accessible"?

I confess that I didn't even consider the possibility, but I probably should.

[westprog]

(ETA: Is "subjective experience" redundant? Is there such a thing as objective experience?)

Possibly not, but that tends to be the subject of arguments. There have been claims that, for example, it's possible to "fool" a device. I don't know whether there are people who believe in objective experience, so I've made a possibly redundant clarification.

[westprog]

I confess that I didn't even consider the possibility, but I probably should.

And I suggest that anyone who thinks that subjective experience is scientifically accessible select the will be scientifically accessible option. I doubt whether that will distort things that much.

[maddog]

On Planet X, subjective experience is shown as an in-flight movie.

[paximperium]

The problem with solipsism is that there can be only one solipsist who is right ;)
So says my P-zombie.

[AkuManiMani]

So says my P-zombie.

I'll have you know, I am the only true solipsist. All of you pretenders are just my subconscious telling me I'm right :D

[Gr8wight]

I cannot vote in your poll because I do not understand what you mean by "scientifically accessible."

A huge part of the problems we face in our world stem from the fact that what people believe to be obvious, or self evident to themselves, they believe must also be obvious and self evident to everyone else. That certainly is the case in most of the threads in the MDC forum. You are going to have to define the term scientifically accessible very specifically for me.

[Xulld]

I already find the results interesting. I assume that the people who've been voting think they have enough information to make a meaningful choice.

Also, if you look very, very closely you'll find that there is an option for anyone who thinks that the term is ill-defined. If everyone agrees with you, they can select that.

Well don't you know, everyone is a expert on consciousness.

[westprog]

I cannot vote in your poll because I do not understand what you mean by "scientifically accessible."

A huge part of the problems we face in our world stem from the fact that what people believe to be obvious, or self evident to themselves, they believe must also be obvious and self evident to everyone else. That certainly is the case in most of the threads in the MDC forum. You are going to have to define the term scientifically accessible very specifically for me.

I suggest that you avail of the "undefined" option, which is I suppose another way of saying "your poll is carp". This might be misleading if, unlike Darat, you think that "subjective experience" is well defined, but that "scientifically accessible" is not.

[Gr8wight]

I suggest that you avail of the "undefined" option, which is I suppose another way of saying "your poll is carp". This might be misleading if, unlike Darat, you think that "subjective experience" is well defined, but that "scientifically accessible" is not.

If I thought your poll was "carp" I would vote the "pie" option...wait...

You didn't include a "pie" option? I'm sorry, I cannot vote in your internet poll, as it does not conform to the rules of internet poll creation. I am off to Pharyngula to expose your wackiness to the world and have your poll decimated by hoards of angry evilutionists.

[Hokulele]

And I suggest that anyone who thinks that subjective experience is scientifically accessible select the will be scientifically accessible option. I doubt whether that will distort things that much.


But that isn't the option I agree with. It is more accurate to not vote, and explain why.

[AkuManiMani]

*sigh*

Just explain what ou interpret 'scientifically accessible' to mean and explain why, or why not, subjective experience can be accessed in such a way. Theres nothing to 'trap' you, if thats what you're worried about. An honest answer and an explanation of that answer will do.

[Hokulele]

This thread is a poll, and polls are generally taken to demonstrate some kind of consensus about a topic. A flawed poll can and will provide flawed results, which are often taken as support for a position which is simply incorrect (just go ask any CTist for poll data showing that the majority of US citizens believe 9/11 was an inside job). By pointing out the flaws in the poll, the problem can be avoided.

I assume this poll is the result of a dispute happening elsewhere, and I have no idea who is taking what positions, I simply do not want my opinion to be used in an improper way. It has absolutely nothing to do with any "traps".

With all that said, I interpret "scientifically accessible" to mean that hypotheses can be made and tested about various aspects of the issue. I do believe that hypotheses can be made, tested, and falsified with regards to subjective experiences, hence my desire for an option of "is scientifically accessible".

Happy now?

[AkuManiMani]

I assume this poll is the result of a dispute happening elsewhere, and I have no idea who is taking what positions, I simply do not want my opinion to be used in an improper way. It has absolutely nothing to do with any "traps".

Dunn see how your input can be co-opted if you qualify your statements but I suppose I can understand your concern.

With all that said, I interpret "scientifically accessible" to mean that hypotheses can be made and tested about various aspects of the issue. I do believe that hypotheses can be made, tested, and falsified with regards to subjective experiences, hence my desire for an option of "is scientifically accessible".

Happy now?

See. Wasn't so bad :D

[Brent.Allsop]

There is a growing group of experts working on developing, in a wiki way, concise descriptions of the most well accepted theories of consciousness at canonizer.com. And they are seeking to rigorously measure how much scientific consensus there is for each going forward as ever more scientific data comes in. (see the 'algorithm information' link on the side bar for more info on how scientific consensus is measured.)

Experts like Steven Lehar, John Smythies, Jonathan Edwards and more are already contributing to topics including ones on the best theories of mind and consciousness. So far, as ever more experts contribute to this survey, this representational and real camp is extending it's lead in the amount of consensus it has compared to all other theories.

And this scientific consensus theory predicts subjective experience will be demonstrable and very open to science, and that this scientific discovery, predicted by this theory, will be the greatest scientific discovery of all time.

Brent Allsop

[AkuManiMani]

Interesting page, Brent. I'll definitely have to spend some more time skimming thru it :)

[Soapy Sam]

You mean this page? http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/88

[Brent.Allsop]

Thanks AkuManiMani.

And thanks soapy sam for providing the actual link to the topic on the best theories. I haven't yet earned the right to post links in my posts.

[Robin]

Something is scientifically accessible if it is at least indirectly observable and you can objectively test a prediction about it.

So for example depression is something that occurs in subjective experience and we can design an experiment to test a hypothesis that a particular drug can alleviate feelings of depression.

Obviously our only way of objectively observing subjective experience is by behavioural measures but nearly everything science studies is observed indirectly.

There are reliability problems with using first person reports as a method of observation, but these can be overcome using proper experimental design and statistical methods.

So - yes - subjective experience is clearly accessible to science.

I wonder if the OP is really asking if science will explain subjective experience.

[Brent.Allsop]

Soapy,

Yes, that is the most relevant link containing the open expert survey on the best theories of consciousness.

From the main page there are other related topics on consciousness such as the one on the 'Hard Problem'.

If you select the 'Mind Experts' canonization algorithm on the side bar, most of the related topics on consciousness sort to the top. (i.e. you find what the 'Mind Experts' think are the best topics.)

Brent Allsop

[Brent.Allsop]

Robin,

I'm not sure what you mean by this:


I wonder if the OP is really asking if science will explain subjective experience.

But the leading scientific consensus camp with the name "Consciousness is Representational and Real" describes what they call '******' the ineffable (as in: "Oh THAT is what salt tastes like for you!") And of course, this kind of objective / scientific reproducibility and ability to share such would make everything accessible, and finally literally pierce the 'veil of perception'.

And of course, if this was true as the theory described in this camps predicts it will be, achieving such an ability to eff the ineffable, and finally piercing the veil of perception would surely be the greatest and most life changing scientific discovery of all time right?

Sorry I haven't earned the right to post links yet. You can get to this camp by first going to canonizer.com. Then go to the topic on Theories of Mind and Consciousness, then look for the camp entitled: "Consciousness is Representational and Real".

As ever more experts contribute to this survey, this camp continues to extend the amount of scientific consensus it has compared to all other theories of Mind.

Brent Allsop

[Maia]

Quite honestly, this sounds like an odd question to me, because I'm measuring it against the entire concept of scales designed to measure mental illnesses and disorders such as depression, anxiety, the dissociative disorders, etc. Of course these are subjective, because they're self-adminstered scales. Their accuracy has been proven in a lot of different ways (do they have face validity, construct validity, split test validity, interobserver validity, what is their alpha, etc.) Basically, people who take the tests are rated against an agreed-upon lists of characteristics. This is where we got the Beck Depression Inventory, the Dissociative Experiences Scale, the Cambridge Depersonalization Scale, etc. If people score above a certain cutoff point, the gold standard for a DSM diagnosis is the structured clinical interview administered by a trained professional (depending on how much insurance or cash you have, this could be anyone from a social worker to a psychiatrist.) But this is even more subjective, really. It's the only way to adminster psychological testing.