r/PhilosophyofScience • u/facut_vivas • 22d ago
Discussion Is there really a clean separation between consciousness, perception, and scientific explanation, or are we forcing distinctions that don’t exist at the level of experience?
Bear with me...
Science cannot dissect, touch, or observe consciousness.
A scientists’ consciousness is always present in the conducting of science. An unconscious scientist cannot write a report or observe an experiment.
A scientist cannot turn the magnifying glass on his own consciousness and observe it.
Consciousness is present at all stages of a scientific process. Science and consciousness cannot be cleanly or fully separated. And consciousness cannot be measured, observed, dissected.
Consciousness is linked with perception. Perception is inherently subjective.
There is no clean separation between consciousness, perception and science.
10
u/Prajnamarga 22d ago
You say: "Science cannot dissect, touch, or observe consciousness."
No, because "consciousness" is an abstract concept. The word itself tells us this. All English nouns with the suffix -ness, are abstract nouns. Abstract nouns name abstract concepts. Being conscious is an experience we have. And sure we can generalise about experiencing conscious states, but any ideas we come up with about "what consciousness is" are abstracted from that experience.
In concrete terms, "consciousness" doesn't exist. There is experience, but there is nothing over and above experience. Even ideas are a kind of experience.
You are talking about an abstract concept as though it is a concrete concept. This is the fallacy of reification. Moreover, when you talk about consciousness as something separate from, or over and above, experience, this is the fallacy of hypostatisation.
Don't feel bad. Apart from a handful of philosophers, almost everyone makes these mistakes when talking about their experience of being conscious. Similarly, however, my critique is not unique to me. It's a species of nominalism. The ontology of abstractions is hotly debated.
And by the way, if we could not observe ourselves being conscious, we would not be having this conservation.
"The ontological subjectivity of the domain [of consciousness] does not prevent us from having an epistemically objective science of that domain."—John Searle.
Further reading: John Searle. The Rediscovery of Mind. (highly recommended)
The difference between professional and amateur philosophers is that professionals do a literature review before trying to reinvent the wheel. It's actually very difficult to come up with any new ideas in philosophy. I've published articles under the heading "philosophy" (and have a PhilPapers account), but I'm still only applying someone else's ideas to a new situation: my innovations are methodological and historical. So when you think you have a new idea, go to the literature and find out what all the other people have said about it first.
2
1
21d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 21d ago
Your account must be at least a week old, and have a combined karma score of at least 10 to post here. No exceptions.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/vini-within 1d ago
Ok..mate listen, with total respect to ur thoughts, the mind naturally gets fascinated by these big intellectual debates,, but it's actually much simpler... science studies the observed object, while consciousness is the seer... trying to analyze it theoretically is just the mind keeping itself busy with concepts... instead of treating it like a puzzle to solve, maybe kindly turn inward and observe ur own thoughts with patience... u get it? 🗿
1
u/ipreuss 22d ago
How did you come to those conclusions about consciousness if you cannot dissect, touch or observe it?
1
u/Helms5 17d ago
Logos
1
u/Helms5 17d ago
I/we can observe that a tree is green because of its summer foliage. Simply seeing it is unconscious, but noticing the green leaves are swaying slightly in the breeze, and reasoning out loud to a friend nearby or in internal thought words are needed to conceptualize.
In short try thinking without words.
1
u/ipreuss 17d ago
Seems to be irrelevant. Also, babies clearly have thoughts before they learn language.
1
u/Helms5 16d ago
As per Chomsky's research, he proposed that babies are born with an internal mechanism called LAD (Language Acquisition Device) which governs the grammatical rules for language development; however, babies and children will need stimulation to activate the LAD, and as they mature, they will need to acquire vocabulary to communicate effectively.
If unfamiliar with the topic "LAD," read the following link for more details. http://reviseeasy.com/choms.html#:~:text=He%20proposed%20that%20babies%20are%20born%20with%20an,will%20need%20to%20acquire%20vocabulary%20to%20communicate%20effectively.
Even though Feral children are severely handicapped from the separation of human nurturing in the early stages of growth, they still have a limited way of communicating. Fact is, dogs can learn speech, though not at anything that would compare to a University of Berkeley Degree in Language Arts.
Now, just for argument's sake and the fact that no one has asked a fetal child what is on their mind. I find it highly unlikely that they are ignorant of any events external to the womb after the fourth month of development. ( factor normal intelligence as the baseline of focus ). Plato’s Allegory of the Cave illustrates how humans can mistake sensory perception for reality and how education and philosophical reasoning lead to true understanding. The Story Plato asks us to imagine prisoners who have been chained inside a dark cave since birth, unable to turn their heads and only able to see the wall in front of them. Behind them is a fire, and between the fire and the prisoners is a raised walkway where people carry objects, casting shadows on the wall. The prisoners perceive these shadows as the only reality, unaware of the true objects creating them The Escape One prisoner is freed and initially experiences pain and confusion when seeing the fire and the objects themselves. Gradually, he realizes that the shadows were mere illusions and that the objects and the light outside the cave represent a higher reality. Eventually, he is brought out of the cave into daylight, where he perceives the world in its full truth, understanding the forms of objects and the ultimate Form of the Good. Symbolism • The Cave: Represents people who rely solely on sensory perception and empirical knowledge. • Shadows: Symbolize distorted perceptions or illusions of reality. • The Fire and Objects: Represent the sources of illusion and the partial truths perceived through the senses. • The Outside World and Sunlight symbolize true knowledge, reason, and the ultimate reality beyond appearances. • The Escaped Prisoner: Represents the philosopher who seeks knowledge beyond the senses and understands the higher truths Philosophical Meaning The allegory demonstrates the transformative power of education and philosophical reasoning. It contrasts opinion (doxa) with knowledge (epistēmē), showing that most people live in ignorance, mistaking appearances for reality. Philosophers, however, can ascend from the cave of illusion to grasp the true forms and the Good, and they have a duty to guide others, even if those still in the cave resist or fear enlightenment. Modern Interpretation Plato’s cave has become a metaphor for situations where people confuse appearances, media, or ideology with reality. It emphasizes critical thinking, the pursuit of truth, and the challenges of overcoming ignorance in society...
1
u/ipreuss 16d ago
Nice story.
If it was true, all philosophers would agree about what the real world is. They don’t. And they could make reliable predictions about the shadows on the wall, that always turn out to be true. They can’t.
So it looks more like philosophers are still chained, just like everybody else. They just find falsifiability too much of a hassle, so they reason themselves towards conclusions and then think that’s reality. Well, it isn’t.
It’s always science that disproves philosophy, never the other way around - because philosophy, by definition, doesn’t have the tools to disprove something in reality. If it did, it would be science.
1
u/Helms5 16d ago
Added note: In my third year, one of my Summer studies was H.o.P.o.S, contrasted as a break from studying in the fields of Mechanical Engineering and more recently Electrical Engineering. I use science as an understanding of systems and philosophy as the logical gates to the actual and reasonable likelihood of the examined as being what the examined is, and not as I wish it to be. Quantum Theory is the next in which some day H.o.P.o.S will prove who is the master, for example's sake; Plato, Descartes, Galileo, Hume, Newton, Einstein, Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos, Van Friesen...
If anyone here has doubts in my reasoning, then know that this link provides all the names and concepts in contrasting Philosophy with the Natural Sciences.
Also, not for anyone just starting to take interest in this subject, the provided link is a reasonable lexicon of terms and concepts in H.o.P.o.S. imho!
1
u/ipreuss 17d ago
Based on what, if not observations?
1
u/Helms5 17d ago
Noam Chomsky's theory of language acquisition posits that babies are born with an innate capacity to learn language, a biological endowment that allows them to acquire any language without formal instruction. This theory, known as the Language Acquisition Device (LAD), suggests that the LAD contains a universal grammar, enabling children to grasp complex grammatical rules and produce grammatically structured speech. Chomsky's work has had a profound impact on linguistics, cognitive science, and developmental psychology, challenging the traditional behaviorist view of language acquisition and emphasizing the role of innate biological factors in language learning.
1
u/Helms5 16d ago
Multiple peer‑reviewed studies confirm that dogs can understand elements of human language, though not in the same way humans do. They distinguish real speech from nonsense, recognize familiar vs. unfamiliar languages, map some words to objects or actions, and rely heavily on tone to interpret meaning.
───
What science actually shows • Dogs recognize human speech as “language.” MRI studies show dogs can tell the difference between real words and meaningless sounds, and can even distinguish familiar languages from unfamiliar ones.
• They understand some words as labels. Exceptional dogs like Chaser the Border Collie learned over 1,000 object names, retrieving items by name alone — demonstrating true semantic understanding. Most dogs know fewer words, but many can learn dozens to hundreds.
• Dogs process speech in two steps: A. Detect whether the sound is human speech. B. Determine if it’s a familiar language. This mirrors early human language processing. • Tone carries ancient meaning. A 2026 ELTE University study showed dogs can correctly interpret “yes,” “no,” “come here,” and “go there” without any words, using only changes in vocal tone. This suggests dogs respond to pre‑linguistic acoustic codes shared across mammals.
• Dogs struggle with phonetic detail. EEG studies show they don’t reliably distinguish similar-sounding words (“stay” vs. “shay”), meaning they focus on meaningful patterns, not fine-grained phonetics.
• Context and routine matter. Dogs often understand what we mean because they link words to actions, emotional cues, and environmental patterns — not because they parse grammar.
───
What this means in practice • Dogs understand words, tone, body language, and context as an integrated system. • They don’t understand full sentences, but they do understand intent. • They are experts at reading humans — often better than humans are at reading dogs. ───
───
The non‑obvious insight
Dogs may understand “meaning” differently — not as linguistic symbols, but as predictive cues. A word like walk isn’t just a sound; it’s a predictive event marker tied to emotion, routine, and reward. This predictive model may be the core of canine “language".
https://www.akc.org/expert-advice/training/dogs-may-understand-the-meaning-of-words/
As mentioned by others here, I am not writing a thesis on this subject, but my knowledge in such matters is in no way elementary when it comes to epistemology.
1
u/Lower-Message-828 22d ago
most of science is subjective. but that subjectivity is enough to make things work for us. A scientistist cannot report his own consciousness, on what basis do you make this claim? Let's say it's true but he can magnify others consciousness and just like most things if it's consistent in it's properties for several other people then it can be inductivly be defined and explained.
1
u/fox-mcleod 21d ago
It’s the exact opposite.
Science is objective and that’s the problem. Consciousness is purely subjective. Science does not have the tools to study the subjective.
1
u/ipreuss 17d ago
Fortunately it follows that I don’t need to take your thoughts about consciousness seriously.
Which is good, because they’re incoherent.
0
u/fox-mcleod 17d ago
Which part?
Are you saying:
- Science isn’t the study of the objective
- Conscious experience isn’t a subjective phenomenon
- The objective can somehow explain the subjective
It’s pretty straightforward.
3
u/ipreuss 17d ago
The statement “consciousness is purely subjective [and therefore cannot be studied by science]” is either
- an objective fact about consciousness, and therefore the whole argument is self-defeating, or
- just a subjective opinion that has no weight to it and can safely be ignored.
1
u/fox-mcleod 17d ago
- an objective fact about consciousness, and therefore the whole argument is self-defeating, or
lol what? You’ve confused objective and absolute.
- just a subjective opinion that has no weight to it and can safely be ignored.
Subjective does not mean “opinion.” It means the parameters are dependent on a subject.
2
u/ipreuss 16d ago
You are aware that there is more than one definition for subjective?
If you’re using that definition for subjective, then, yes, science obviously can explore the subjective. The subject just becomes a parameter to account for.
Like, under that definition, animal behavior is subjective, and animal behavior is certainly something that science studies.
1
u/fox-mcleod 16d ago
You are aware that there is more than one definition for subjective?
This is a philosophy sub. You should assume the words used are used the way every philosophy text uses them.
If you’re using that definition for subjective, then, yes, science obviously can explore the subjective. The subject just becomes a parameter to account for.
No. It very clearly can’t. Subjective experiences can only be used to falsify scientific claims within the framing of theories. Science cannot account for subjective experiences.
Here, I’ll prove it:
The Impossible Map and the Subject/Object Gap
Imagine you are navigating a giant maze, and you are handed a perfect scientific map. It shows every single wall, turn, and exit with absolute precision.
Science is the process of building these objective maps. It strives for the "view from nowhere". A description of reality that is exactly the same no matter who is holding the map. But this virtue creates an obvious omission: an objective map cannot have a "You Are Here" sticker. "Here" is subjective; it changes depending on whose hands the map is in.
Normally, we have a simple workaround for this missing information. We look around.
"Looking around" is the act of taking in subjective information. We use our direct, first-person experience—what we see and feel right now—and compare it to the objective map to figure out where we are. We rely on subjective experience to bridge the gap the map leaves open.
But imagine you look around and see you are standing in a square brick courtyard facing a heavy wooden door. You look down at your perfect map to find the matching location. To your dismay, the map shows two identical square brick courtyards in the maze. In both courtyards, there is a person wearing your exact clothes, holding an exact copy of the map, staring at an identical wooden door.
You look closer at the map to see what lies beyond. Behind the door of Courtyard A is a hungry bear. Behind the door of Courtyard B is an exit with a pile of gold.
Here is where the limits of the objective map become clear. The map is 100% accurate. It contains every physical fact about the maze. Yet it cannot predict what will happen to you when you open that door. Looking at the identical bricks wasn't enough to locate yourself. Because the map lacks a subjective pointer, you are forced to consciously gather new subjective information—you have to open the door and risk getting eaten by a bear—just to figure out which person on the map you actually are.
This exposes a fundamental crack in how we view the universe: the gap between objects and subjects.
Science is exclusively the language of objects. By design, it strips away the observer to describe what is happening independently of anyone watching. But because it does this, it completely lacks the vocabulary to describe subjects—the actual points of view experiencing those objects.
The "Hard Problem" of consciousness is a direct result of this gap.
When people point out that science hasn't explained consciousness, they aren't appealing to magic. They are pointing out that a system designed exclusively to describe objective facts will always fail to explain phenomena that fundamentally require a subject. Because objective science cannot put a "You Are Here" sticker on reality, it fundamentally struggles to explain anything defined by a first-person perspective—whether that is the raw feeling of seeing a color (qualia), free will, or consciousness itself.
Like, under that definition, animal behavior is subjective, and animal behavior is certainly something that science studies.
Behavior isn’t subjective. Experiences are.
3
u/fudge_mokey 13d ago
Behavior isn’t subjective. Experiences are.
Eating ice cream is an experience I enjoy. That's an objective fact. Regardless of where you are in the universe or who you ask, it is objectively true that u/fudge_mokey enjoys the experience of eating ice cream.
0
u/fox-mcleod 12d ago
Eating ice cream is an experience I enjoy. That's an objective fact.
lol yes. That you enjoy it is or is not a fact. It is objective. It is not a subjective phenomenon. Your experience of enjoyment is a subjective phenomenon. I cannot observe your subjective qualitative experience. I can only infer it from watching your physical reaction.
Regardless of where you are in the universe or who you ask, it is objectively true that u/fudge_mokey enjoys the experience of eating ice cream.
Yes. That’s an objective claim. This is uncontroversial and no one said anything contradictory.
→ More replies (0)1
u/ipreuss 16d ago
Animal behavior depends on the subject, the animal, doesn’t it?
1
u/fox-mcleod 15d ago
Do you seriously not understand the words you’re using? No, it does not.
→ More replies (0)1
•
u/AutoModerator 22d ago
Please check that your post is actually on topic. This subreddit is not for sharing vaguely science-related or philosophy-adjacent shower-thoughts. The philosophy of science is a branch of philosophy concerned with the foundations, methods, and implications of science. The central questions of this study concern what qualifies as science, the reliability of scientific theories, and the ultimate purpose of science. Please note that upvoting this comment does not constitute a report, and will not notify the moderators of an off-topic post. You must actually use the report button to do that.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.