In this topic I claim that human experience is underestimated by some people, being a valid way to discover reality. These days many people are claiming that only scientific instruments and mathematic deduction and induction can lead us to reality. But I claim, that in some cases, your subjective experience is the only way to discover something. Not the scientific method, but the subjective human experience can discover some things in nature. And scientific instruments cannot discover it.
The only way we know the existence of 'dreams', 'feelings', etc, is because we are humans who actually experience them. So, our subjective experience is the first witness of 'dreaming', 'feeling'. Not the scientific method. The scientific method can only observe or measure electricity in the brain. But it can not discover dreamcontent as a property of the process. The scientific method cannot deduce 'dreaming' or 'feeling' or 'fantasy' from an electric process in nature.
If we had not had our own subjective experience and were were only sophesticated and very accurate measuring devices, we would not be able to discover the existence of 'dreaming'. We would not be able to discover the content of a dream. We would not be able to know what 'feelings' were and we would not know that feelings exist. If we would not have 'subjective experiences'.
So, we must admit that there is at least a limit to the scientific method. And only subjective experience can fill in this gap, being a 'portal' to knowledge.
And I don't think, we will ever be able to discover things of the same category as dreams and feelings, but different, in other material.
We must admit that there is at least one other valid instrument to get to know something about reality: our own experience.
So, the scientific method is limited. Those who believe they can now everything with science, are deluding themselves.
So, the materialistic eye is limited. Our experience can see, what the materialistic eye can't: the fact that 'electricity in the brain' is also dreamcontent. The subjective eye can discover that electricity=feelings.
The materialistic eye cannot see measure this existing connection in nature.
My conclusion: the existence of our subjective experience of humans is underestimated in our search for knowledge. It's a valid instrument to discover a 'world of dreams, feelings, fantasies and other experiences' which are part of reality, yet not part of the world to a materialistic eye.
Because of this instrument (our subjective experience) we can assume (not discover) that other brainlike materials (animals) are also experiencing something.
Because of this instrument (our non-scientific subjective experience) we can assume that other organic electrobiochemical systems in nature are 'experiencing' and 'observing' things too.
But we cannot be sure that other, not-brainlike interacting systems are just one side of a coin. Just matter.
The only way we know the existence of 'dreams', 'feelings', etc, is because we are humans who actually experience them. So, our subjective experience is the first witness of 'dreaming', 'feeling'. Not the scientific method. The scientific method can only observe or measure electricity in the brain. But it can not discover dreamcontent as a property of the process. The scientific method cannot deduce 'dreaming' or 'feeling' or 'fantasy' from an electric process in nature.
If we had not had our own subjective experience and were were only sophesticated and very accurate measuring devices, we would not be able to discover the existence of 'dreaming'. We would not be able to discover the content of a dream. We would not be able to know what 'feelings' were and we would not know that feelings exist. If we would not have 'subjective experiences'.
So, we must admit that there is at least a limit to the scientific method. And only subjective experience can fill in this gap, being a 'portal' to knowledge.
And I don't think, we will ever be able to discover things of the same category as dreams and feelings, but different, in other material.
We must admit that there is at least one other valid instrument to get to know something about reality: our own experience.
So, the scientific method is limited. Those who believe they can now everything with science, are deluding themselves.
So, the materialistic eye is limited. Our experience can see, what the materialistic eye can't: the fact that 'electricity in the brain' is also dreamcontent. The subjective eye can discover that electricity=feelings.
The materialistic eye cannot see measure this existing connection in nature.
My conclusion: the existence of our subjective experience of humans is underestimated in our search for knowledge. It's a valid instrument to discover a 'world of dreams, feelings, fantasies and other experiences' which are part of reality, yet not part of the world to a materialistic eye.
Because of this instrument (our subjective experience) we can assume (not discover) that other brainlike materials (animals) are also experiencing something.
Because of this instrument (our non-scientific subjective experience) we can assume that other organic electrobiochemical systems in nature are 'experiencing' and 'observing' things too.
But we cannot be sure that other, not-brainlike interacting systems are just one side of a coin. Just matter.
via JREF Forum http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=265709&goto=newpost
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire