You can't observe an experience. You experience conciseness, you don't observe it.
How can science work with something that you can't observe, and therefore can't measure?
Your line of reasoning is pretty much the same as a religious person asking an atheist to prove three is no God. Of course that will be impossible to prove.
The religious person is the one claiming something without and reasoning or evidence. Therefore the onus is on them to prove that God exists, rather than the atheist to prove he doesn't.
There is no evidence to suggest that science will be able to observe an experience, so the onus is on you to prove that its a reasonable suggestion.
Well, I was genuinely asking what you were talking about since your very very brief response were really not saying me anything.
This reasoning is nothing at all like being asked to prove there is no god, the history of science shows that we are able to untangle the mechanisms of the natural world, and there are no evidence to the contrary.
Now, in the eyes of science it is not the responsibility of a religious person to prove that god exists or does not exist, it is as much the responsibility of science - it's just very much a non-topic in science since no evidence have been found either way.
(And there are a lot of evidence that science will be able observe an experience - we already can do very basic recognition of patterns in brain waves based on what the subject is experiencing, we are starting to map, understand and simulate a human brain. Eventually that might turn into an engineering problem of hooking up the proper equipment to neurological pathways.)
Isn't it the other way around? You are assuming that we can't observe nor measure an experience while noselasd is leaving the question open (we don't have any proof in favor or against it). The burden of proof is not his/hers.
We may one day be able to measure experience, but we don't know yet. Until then science is the best tool we have.
It's exactly the reverse. So far experience has shown that the scientific method has been able to come up with answers for most things that at some previous time seemed mysterious. Thus, your claim that it cannot for "mysterious thing X" is a positive claim, putting the onus on you.
All human observations are experiences. There is nothing you can observe without passing it through the machinery of your thought along the way.
What we call measurement is a mental model that we invented to help us think about reality. We don't have a measurement model for consciousness yet, but that doesn't necessarily mean we never will.
Perhaps not, but these experiments were apparently able to induce an experience in mice, giving some hint as to how science might be able to "work with something that you can't observe."
Comments
You can't observe an experience. You experience conciseness, you don't observe it. How can science work with something that you can't observe, and therefore can't measure?
Why would science never be able to observe or measure an experience ?
prove there is no God.
Sorry ? What are you talking about, and why would proving there is no God have anything to do with that ?
Your line of reasoning is pretty much the same as a religious person asking an atheist to prove three is no God. Of course that will be impossible to prove.
The religious person is the one claiming something without and reasoning or evidence. Therefore the onus is on them to prove that God exists, rather than the atheist to prove he doesn't.
There is no evidence to suggest that science will be able to observe an experience, so the onus is on you to prove that its a reasonable suggestion.
Well, I was genuinely asking what you were talking about since your very very brief response were really not saying me anything.
This reasoning is nothing at all like being asked to prove there is no god, the history of science shows that we are able to untangle the mechanisms of the natural world, and there are no evidence to the contrary.
Now, in the eyes of science it is not the responsibility of a religious person to prove that god exists or does not exist, it is as much the responsibility of science - it's just very much a non-topic in science since no evidence have been found either way.
(And there are a lot of evidence that science will be able observe an experience - we already can do very basic recognition of patterns in brain waves based on what the subject is experiencing, we are starting to map, understand and simulate a human brain. Eventually that might turn into an engineering problem of hooking up the proper equipment to neurological pathways.)
Isn't it the other way around? You are assuming that we can't observe nor measure an experience while noselasd is leaving the question open (we don't have any proof in favor or against it). The burden of proof is not his/hers.
We may one day be able to measure experience, but we don't know yet. Until then science is the best tool we have.
It's exactly the reverse. So far experience has shown that the scientific method has been able to come up with answers for most things that at some previous time seemed mysterious. Thus, your claim that it cannot for "mysterious thing X" is a positive claim, putting the onus on you.
This is a bold claim. You might as well say that science can't prove electrons exist or that water is wet.
What do you mean by 'proof', and why is that what you choose to mean by it?
fMRI?
All human observations are experiences. There is nothing you can observe without passing it through the machinery of your thought along the way.
What we call measurement is a mental model that we invented to help us think about reality. We don't have a measurement model for consciousness yet, but that doesn't necessarily mean we never will.
This is flawed logic arising from the idiosyncrasies of the Human Experience.
Technically though, when someone takes an MRI of your brain, that means your consciousness is being observed.
Oh really? http://m.sciencemag.org/content/341/6144/387
I see you miss the point completely. These are observations of mice behavior not mice experience. No one has any idea what the mice are experiencing.
Interesting study though.
Perhaps not, but these experiments were apparently able to induce an experience in mice, giving some hint as to how science might be able to "work with something that you can't observe."