- sensibilium
- » writings
- » Heads
- » Part 4
Heads
Your guide to a multitude of heads. A source of (un)truth.
Head 2.1: The Scientist
Scientific method forms the basis of this
head. The method can be explained quite easily. First
observe as closely as possible the phenomena you wish to
investigate, recording all details that you feel to be
significant. Then come up with a theory that fits with
what you already know to explain it. Then test the
theory. The experiment can be seen as the basis of
science. Basically you observe two events that are
identical apart from one variable. For instance to show
that all objects fall to the ground at the same rate of
acceleration irrespective of weight you drop two objects
that have different weights (the variable) but otherwise
seem identical in all features. You then measure the
rates of acceleration. Only two restrictions apply to
this method. Firstly experiments must be repeatable by
others, this maintains the integrity of science. Secondly
all explanations must be in terms of causal mechanical
occurrences, in other words explanations must deal with
purely physical events, concepts such as "will"
or "desire" have no place in science as they
are not observable (except to the person who desires) or
capable of being integrated into the mechanistic
description of the universe.
Science has one huge
advantage it: it works. It seems to describe most of the
universe pretty well, as should be expected of anything
based so strongly on observation.
It does however have
one major problem. Consciousness. By this I mean your
subjective experience of what it's like to be you.
Science at the moment cannot explain how consciousness
arises, and for the last century has basically attempted
to avoid the entire issue. The early behaviourist's
claimed that THERE'S NO SUCH THING but this point of view
soon collapsed into it's own absurdity. Modern cognitive
science attempt's to reduce it to intelligence, which has
nothing necessarily to do with consciousness in the sense
I mean. An intelligent being with no personal point of
view can be imagined.
Neuroscience
probably will eventually explain how mechanical
interactions in our brains give birth to consciousness
but what science can never do is explain what it's like
to be conscious. This leads science into a tricky
situation as science depends on consciousness, who takes
all these measurements if not conscious beings? As a
consolation to the scientists I must point out that no
other analytical technique can explain the feeling of
consciousness. Shamanism can illustrate it but not show
how it happens and science can (perhaps) explain how it
happens but not illustrate it.
Further Reading
- Daniel Dennet: Content and Consciousness
- J. R. Searle: The Rediscovery of Mind
- Hume: A Treatise on Human Nature