- #1
Jason Calvert
- 2
- 0
Hello I am new to this forum and was not sure where to post some thoughts I have. First of all let me compose why I even care to consider the question of consciousness. I want to first stress I do not have an education in Mathematics or physics. Also am not a good typer. Thank you ahead time for baring with me and I appreciated your thoughts.
I attend to go back to school to study physics. As I believe it is essential for understanding what Consciousness may be. About two years ago I started meditating and exploring the idea of self through my subjective practice of meditation. From my experience I have a few question i would like to pose. By having a better understanding of these questions it will help me better approach a educational path to understanding what consciousness is and how to go about formulating ideas.
If we do not understand consciousness how reliable is the scientific method? I believe the scientific method is the best approach for understanding the universe that we have. However in any experiment ever done if the instrument used for taking measurements was not well understood would those measurement be valid. If we look up at the sky throw a telescope but did have a complete understanding of how the telescope was able to make objects seems larger would the observation be accepted as is. Or would we want to first understand how the telescope worked in order to make the observation valid? It seems many branches of science have ignored the instrument of making the observations us. That why I feel it is important subject for me.
I ask since science is based on observation and we do not understand completely the mechanism (the observer) for that observation. Can we take all that we know as the Fact?
If the answer is no? Must we understand the mechanism or consciousness to make observation valid? How can we claim to have a truly valid theory without this consideration? In Physics is there any evidence the consciousness has an effect on matter? If so which is real?
How do we do consider consciousness in the scientific process?
Like take a simply observation of looking at a color say red.
Their are many ways we could explain us seeing red, physics, psychology, sociology, chemistry, neuroscience, on and on.
If we explained what it meant to see red in all the fields of knowledge and found that it was the same for ever human would that mean we understand the subjective experience of seeing red? The consciousness of red? When can we say the mechanism of consciousness is consciousness. Another words what is the standard for forming a definition. does anyone even know? Can we map out what is needed to define it without have an answer on what it is. We can agree on what a fact is without having a fact?
Or is reductionism not an approach at all because we have to consider holistic systems and interrelationships to understand how something functions. Another words what is the best approach: looking at a simply phenomena and piecing together to from a whole, finding simple formula to repeated so we can build complexity (Atoms, DNA), or looking at a holistic / system approach. Perhaps non of the above. Any ideas, Thanks so much
I attend to go back to school to study physics. As I believe it is essential for understanding what Consciousness may be. About two years ago I started meditating and exploring the idea of self through my subjective practice of meditation. From my experience I have a few question i would like to pose. By having a better understanding of these questions it will help me better approach a educational path to understanding what consciousness is and how to go about formulating ideas.
If we do not understand consciousness how reliable is the scientific method? I believe the scientific method is the best approach for understanding the universe that we have. However in any experiment ever done if the instrument used for taking measurements was not well understood would those measurement be valid. If we look up at the sky throw a telescope but did have a complete understanding of how the telescope was able to make objects seems larger would the observation be accepted as is. Or would we want to first understand how the telescope worked in order to make the observation valid? It seems many branches of science have ignored the instrument of making the observations us. That why I feel it is important subject for me.
I ask since science is based on observation and we do not understand completely the mechanism (the observer) for that observation. Can we take all that we know as the Fact?
If the answer is no? Must we understand the mechanism or consciousness to make observation valid? How can we claim to have a truly valid theory without this consideration? In Physics is there any evidence the consciousness has an effect on matter? If so which is real?
How do we do consider consciousness in the scientific process?
Like take a simply observation of looking at a color say red.
Their are many ways we could explain us seeing red, physics, psychology, sociology, chemistry, neuroscience, on and on.
If we explained what it meant to see red in all the fields of knowledge and found that it was the same for ever human would that mean we understand the subjective experience of seeing red? The consciousness of red? When can we say the mechanism of consciousness is consciousness. Another words what is the standard for forming a definition. does anyone even know? Can we map out what is needed to define it without have an answer on what it is. We can agree on what a fact is without having a fact?
Or is reductionism not an approach at all because we have to consider holistic systems and interrelationships to understand how something functions. Another words what is the best approach: looking at a simply phenomena and piecing together to from a whole, finding simple formula to repeated so we can build complexity (Atoms, DNA), or looking at a holistic / system approach. Perhaps non of the above. Any ideas, Thanks so much