Personally I think it’s silly as hell. Qualia is obviously a biological component of experience… Not some weird thing that science will never be able to put in to words.

I’ve been listening to a lot of psychology podcasts lately and for some reason people seem obsessed with the idea despite you needing to make the same logical leaps to believe it as any sort of mysticism… Maybe I am just tripping idk

  • PowerLurker [he/him, they/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    28 days ago

    i think a more precise version of what Dessa was trying to convey is more like: “the ultimate nature of consciousness isn’t a field of study for science,” which i agree with. you’re right re: psychology and neuroscience - that we can study how conscious experience seems to behave under certain conditions and contexts, and within certain baseline assumptions. and through that we find practical breakthroughs that can really help people.

    • woodenghost [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      28 days ago

      “the ultimate nature of consciousness isn’t a field of study for science,”

      Yes, I absolutely agree with that, some questions are metaphysical. I just think we shouldn’t discount the field of “talking to people about their subjective experiences and using the scientific method to see what effects them” as unscientific.