> The threads concerning panpsychism and why it is a live option as a theory
> of consciousness has a problem: the ambiguity of the word, "subjectivity".
> Can there be a science of what is subjective (experiences, consciousness)?
> Yes, there can be if we avoid the ambiguity and we can have "public truth
> conditions" in brain science with respect to consciousness. The two
> important senses of subjectivity are an epistemic sense and an ontological
> sense. Science strives to be objective and not subjective in the epistemic
> sense in that it tries to conduct itself free from cultural or personal
> prejudices and makes statements that can be verified as true by anyone. For
> example, "Beijing is the capital of China" is an objective fact whose truth
> can be verified by anyone, but "Beijing is a prettier city than Paris" is a
> subjective statement whose "truth" depends on personal taste, cultural
> prejudices, etc.
>
> The other sense of subjectivity is ontological: something whose existence
> depends on a subject, like a feeling of pain. The feeling of pain only
> exists only as experienced by a particular subject (person or animal). You
> can't experience the pain I'm having.
> ...

>> First, excellent post. Thanks for taking time with this.. <<

> Mental states can be correlated with behaviors, whether inside the body
> (eg, brain imaging) or outside (eg, facial expressions). Human
> subjects can verbally report the experience and this is done all the
> time in the doctors office. Finding the neural correlates of
> consciousness or particular conscious states is a step on the way to
> figuring out how conscious states occur in human brains.

>>> First, excellent post. Thanks for taking time with this.. <<

> On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 08:38:17 -0500, thinker wrote:

>> Mental states can be correlated with behaviors, whether inside the body
>> (eg, brain imaging) or outside (eg, facial expressions).  Human
>> subjects can verbally report the experience and this is done all the
>> time in the doctors office.  Finding the neural correlates of
>> consciousness or particular conscious states is a step on the way to
>> figuring out how conscious states occur in human brains.

>
> This can be trouble. Correlated events do not ensure understanding
> outside of the correlation. So when science finds a correlation between
> behavior and a scope readout, a chemical change or expression this is
> only as far as the actual understanding goes. The next step is of course
> to induce one thing to see if another will happen. If this proves correct
> a better understanding of control happens but not necessarily what is
> being controlled.
>
> With consciousness, or how people think, all roads, which began in
> ancient times, have lead to control only. Why? ...