--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra <no_reply@> wrote: > <snip> > > Neuroscience would have to, in some sense, tacitly include > > within its frame of reference the very subjectivity it > > purports to investigate. But it is necessarily an entirely > > third person point enterprise. How can first person > > perspective be objectified through neuroscience? For this > > to be possible it would mean that the third person > > perspective is in itself richer, more complex, and profound > > than the first person perspective. > > I think this is your strongest point, Robin. It's a version > of Chalmers's "hard problem," or a corollary to it, and > there doesn't seem to be any way to get around it, no matter > how deep neuroscience goes, no matter how detailed it gets. > The bottom line isn't the neuroscience, it's the > neuroscientist, whose mind discovers, incorporates, and > (you should pardon the expression) transcends the science. > > "What it's like to be a neuroscientist" is always inevitably > going to be more comprehensive than what the neuroscientist > figures out about the brain. > > I don't draw the same conclusions you do about the > implications of this for the existence of God (at least not > in the form you conceive of), but it's an obstacle that has > to be confronted in any discussion such as you and Curtis > are having about how far neuroscience can go in explaining > consciousness.
(To clarify, by "obstacle" I'm not referring to the God-concept but rather to the problem of objectification of first-person experience you outlined above.)
