The+Study+of+Consciousness

Science is the most productive and progressive method for the study of natural phenomena. At the very least, consciousness arises from natural phenomena (i.e. the brain) or is deeply interconnected with the natural; it is the task of many in the Cognitive Sciences to study consciousness scientifically.

Problems in the Scientific Study of Consciousness
It seems like the key obstacle in studying consciousness scientifically is found in its intrinsically private nature. The individuality of perspective is an essential aspect of conscious experience; the only real evaluation tool supplied to us for tapping into such processing is **introspection**. We are unable to intimately experience thoughts beyond our own and are only supplied with the ability to analyze our own thoughts, feelings, and emotions (this act is introspection.) This level of inner insight is only attainable through a perspective lens. Conversely, the scientific method enforces the requirement of publicity, a.k.a. **publicity theory**, on anything that is to be called objective and reliable. This calls for a verification of truth beyond a singular perspective. Since two minds can never be completely identical, (not even in the case of identical twins because of the influence of experience due to the brain's plasticity,) how could this ever be possible?

Cognitive science usually approaches this problem by using statistics derived from multiple individuals' introspection, attempting to find significant patterns in addition to various forms of supporting evidence, like behavioral or neurological correlates. Thus finding what seem to be consistent features of cognition allows us to see the bigger picture of how cognition occurs in humans as a species. However, many still find this method to conflict with science because of the bias introspection carries with it. "Influential psychological studies (such as Nisbitt and Wilson 1977) have shown that subjects are often mistaken about their own motivations in acting, and about the sources of their own preferences and biases" (58). And it is indeed true that introspection cannot give a complete understanding of what's really going on inside one's mind because of its interaction with the subconscious, which by definition works out of conscious awareness. Still these studies are intended to add to understanding of human thought, and plenty would argue that that requires viewing consciousness from multiple angles, including the narrowed perspective of introspection which gives us particular insight into the self-evaluation component.

A recent strategy around this problem has been advocated by philosopher [|Alvin Goldman] to shed the publicity thesis from scientific study. Golman's overall argument states that the underlying motivation of the publicity thesis is that publicity seems to guarantee that scientific data be reliable. He writes, "Inter-subjective agreement is not a separate and independent constraint on scientific methodology, but at most a derivative and instrumental constraint, rationalized by the central desideratum of reliability or truth" (74). He essentially claims that scientific data could be either reliable but private (example) or unreliable but public (example). Hence, science can dispense with the publicity thesis while yet holding to the reliability of their data.

A large problem that is not addressed in most of these debates is the concept of truth. The truth that scientific inquiry emphasizes is solely objective truth as understood in a modern context, which is usually extremely linear. However, there are other ways of approaching the nature of truth itself. Instead of addressing truth through a singular view, by acknowledging the reality and implications of consciousness one is forced to considering subjectivity, context and meaning as pieces of truth. In fact, such thinking might even suggest that truth might be contradictory or paradoxical. Suddenly truth takes on multiple forms, and there is no obvious resolution in sight. It seems like many people cling to what is objective because of all that it has done to enhance our understanding of our world. But can a real truth be found by using only one method of understanding? Art is a powerful conveyor of truth and meaning in a human context that is largely introspective. We do not hold it up to the same standard of truth we do "objective reality" and yet cannot help but acknowledge its relevance in realizing human experience through metaphor. One of the strongest points Goldman makes is, "what are the grounds for treating observation as a privileged class of belief forming methods?" (66). Indeed, what's really important here is how truth is really found, and whether it can be complete apart from any singular perspective.

Research About Consciousness
" The ASSC is an academic society that promotes rigorous research directed toward understanding the nature, function, and underlying mechanisms of consciousness. The ASSC includes members working in the fields of cognitive science, medicine, neuroscience, philosophy, and other relevant disciplines in the sciences and humanities." (theassc.com)

=The Publicity Thesis:=

The Publicity Thesis is the guideline that determines whether a scientific theory is acceptable. The experiment must be accessible to more than one observer, thus public, and the more observers that can observe, the stronger the theory behind the experiment will stand. Following this publicity, each observer must come to the same answer or realization. The Publicity Thesis places a divide between what is considered good and bad science.

Introspection a Viable Form of Observation?
"Unless (ruling out introspection as a viable form of scientific observation) is included, the following scenario would establish a statement as a piece of scientific evidence: (1) nobody actually observes S, but (2) if people were to observe the relevant state of affairs, they would form beliefs in S. But surely the mere possibility of observation-based agreement does not confer on S the status of scientific datum. There must actually be an observational act and a resulting belief in S...First, what exactly is observation? Does it, for example, include introspection as a species of 'inner observation?'" (Goldman, 65-6)

When we observe science, it seems that because it is a physical observation, introspection isn't viable. As Goldman states, various defects in human consciousness can skew results when this is a credited form of //scientific// observation. However, because it is some kind of revelation that states true (for one person or another) views, it seems that it is relevant in some field. Now, you may call this opinion, but I believe that if an idea, even one based on introspection, has the power to sway someone's belief it is worth noting. How would philosophy, in the grand scheme of things, have any effect on the world if this were not true? As it seems, some philosophy that is considered valuable is based on sheer opinion and introspection.

Thoughts on the Study of Consciousness
The complicated, unknown nature of consciousness leads to many differing opinions on how it should be studied, what kinds of evidence is acceptable, and what kinds are not. Introspection is criticized by some, such as Dennett, because such evidence does not meet the publicity requirement. Others, such a Goldman, suggest that introspection is of ultimate importance, because that is the source, and the only source, of the evidence; hence, reducing the importance or even the necessity of the publicity requirement.

Given the unusual nature of consciousness, and the resulting difficulty in studying it, perhaps traditional scientific methods simply aren’t appropriate for studying it. In his //Meditations on First Philosophy//, Descartes introduced an idea of things that were clear and distinct as opposed to things that were confused and obscure. In other words, each truth has its own nature. Hence, consciousness may have its own nature, which is confusing and obscure, and is really not subject to traditional scientific evidence gathering.

What these new types of scientific methods might be, I do not know; but, perhaps we could begin by re-defining what “reality” is with respect to consciousness. Scientific methods demand absolute reality (according to its definition of reality) for the evidence collected. Only when science deems the evidence to be real can it be considered reliable. Dennett cites how introspection can yield results that the subject __thinks__ is real but, in fact, is not. He demonstrates that the use of masked priming in many experiments influence the subject’s answer and, the subject is not even aware of the priming stimulus (88-89). From an introspective position, the subject says that he was unaware of the external stimulus, but the reality is that the stimulus was present and perhaps influenced the subject’s responses.

According to Dennett’s definition of reality (and probably the majority of scientists), the test subject’s introspective responses were unreliable, unacceptable scientific evidence. However, when looking at consciousness, a confused and obscure thing, perhaps reality is in fact simply the perception of each individual’s thoughts. Yes, I am saying it – with regards to consciousness -- perhaps perception __is__ reality. I realize that this point of view is laughable from a scientific point of view, but try to explain to a person having a psychotic episode that what he is experiencing is not real, it doesn’t exist. I maintain that to that person, the experience is utterly and completely real.

I am simply saying this – perhaps it is time to view consciousness in a different way.

= Argument for Introspection as Reliable =
 * 1) Data can be reliable without being public. (e.g. Cogito - Descartes)
 * 2) Data can be public without being reliable. (e.g. Hallucinogenic Drug thought experiment - Goldman)
 * 3) Thus publicity and reliability are not necessarily dependent.
 * 4) Therefore, private data retrieved via introspection is not necessarily unreliable simply because it is not public.

=Criticism of Arguments for Introspection:=

It is true that reliability and publicity are not dependent on one another, but publicity goes farther than what has been described. An aspect of publicity is that the same realization or answer is reached by a definitive majority within the experiment. Due to the private nature of the consciousness this majority can never be reached. Thus no theory defined by introspection can ever be truly tested. Until science has broken the private barrier introspection will continue to be illegitimate.


 * To add to the above:**

It actually appears that the argument for Introspection as reliable supports the opposite perspective; it seems to reinforce the importance of the publicity requirement. The conclusion to this argument (point 4) states that “private data retrieved via introspection __is not necessarily__ unreliable. That seems to be one of the problems of those who advocate the publicity requirement; without publicity, we cannot __necessarily__ determine whether evidence is valid or not. ** In Defense of Introspection (responding to above) **

There is no premise in your response for the introspection argument reinforcing the importance of the publicity requirement. Even though it is implied, you could add a 5th premise to the Argument for Introspection. It would be as follows:

5. Public data retrieved via shared introspections is not necessarily reliable simply because it is public.

The point of the argument is that there is proof on both sides that public and private data can both be unreliable and therefore there is no reason to choose one as being more reliable than the other.