Portal-Schmortal
When I say that subjective
science
1
is entirely empirical, and its pursuit is functional and
effective, almost all objective
scientists
2
reject this out of hand. Typically, I am derided as a
woo-monger and accused of bafflegab. They say that since my subjective
understanding can obviously be biased, deluded, hallucinatory, etc., then the
gold standard of intersubjective agreement is always required to establish the
best available (provisional) explanation of reality. This glib critique ignores
the fact that there is actually one aspect of my subjective experience which is
utterly beyond doubt. Yes, I may be dreaming, yes, I may be suffering from some
cognitive illusion or malfunction; but even if the entire content of my
consciousness is false, I cannot deny that consciousness exists.
Let me take a step back: what do I mean by “consciousness”?
To avoid being trapped in conceptual loops or recursions, start with an
experiential definition: “Consciousness is the reality which is hearing these
words right now.” (Following Francis Lucille.) This consciousness certainly
exists, and yet the way in which it is known to exist is quite unlike the way I
know that the computer I’m typing on exists, in fact I cannot readily explain
the source of the certainty
3
, but nor can
I doubt it. Moreover, since my only access to objective reality depends
upon this subjective perception, it makes no sense to insist that the former is
somehow more real or certain than the latter.
I know, you know, what it’s like to be the subject, and
as the subject you experience objects. This essential faculty, of being capable
of experiencing, is utterly irreducible. It has no parts, and is not
constructed. All of the so-called evidence of consciousness somehow “emerging”
in fact pertains to minds, i.e. to the content of consciousness, to that which
is perceived by consciousness, rather than to consciousness as such. Thoughts
are demonstrably correlated with physical and electrical precursors, but thoughts are not conscious!
Thoughts are objects among other objects of which the subject is conscious, and
a mind is just an interacting system of thoughts. Consciousness, however, isn't
an object, and no amount of specious reasoning can make it so. Only the subject
is ever conscious: in fact, subjectivity is a synonym for consciousness.
To reiterate: subjective science is entirely empirical,
and its pursuit is functional and effective. Unlikely as it may seem, to those
who haven’t taken the trouble to investigate, the self-evident proposition that consciousness exists is a portal to
remarkable discoveries: nothing else is needed. It is conventional to assume
that consciousness is localized, limited and personal, but if you conduct a
sustained investigation of the available evidence for these assumptions you
won't ultimately find any. You will, however, experience a surprising
reappraisal of your own identity. When you do it for and by yourself, simply
and directly, though empirical observation, an unsuspected gap between your
mind and consciousness is revealed.
1
The term
"introspection" is too narrow: reflective thinking is not enough.
2
“Real” scientists, as they so ironically imagine.
3
The question "How do I know that I am conscious?" is a very helpful lead to follow up on.