BS: Human Consciousness & Perceived Reality

Subject: RE: BS: Human Consciousness & Perceived Reality
From: Janie
Date: 15 Dec 07 - 07:03 PM

The article below is a brief summary of some of what we are learning about the naturenurture interface, brain development and the human psyche.   

http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/p980547.html

Subject: RE: BS: Human Consciousness & Perceived Reality
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 15 Dec 07 - 06:00 PM

Que Meeester Faulty?????

Subject: RE: BS: Human Consciousness & Perceived Reality
From: Janie
Date: 15 Dec 07 - 05:55 PM

Exactly, Ivor. And most of us have some intellectual understanding of that. But many, and perhaps most, of us often fail to conduct ourselves in a manner that suggests we have internalized that intellectual knowledge.

Subject: RE: BS: Human Consciousness & Perceived Reality
From: Amos
Date: 15 Dec 07 - 05:48 PM

'Course, we could set out to become omniscient deities, abandoning limitations and immersing ourselves entirely in Higher Selfhood. Wouldn't pay the rent, though...



:D



A

Subject: RE: BS: Human Consciousness & Perceived Reality
From: autolycus
Date: 15 Dec 07 - 05:31 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Human Consciousness & Perceived Reality
From: Janie - PM
Date: 15 Dec 07 - 12:41 PM

Because we can never see absolutely clearly, we can never see all that is 'there.'   

It pays to recognize I am not only always looking through some sort of distorting lens, but that there is always the possibility that not everything is within my field of vision




   We can never see all there is because we are humans not omniscient deities.

   It's certain that not everything is even in the field of humanity in totality.


    Ogden and Richards wrote a book in the early 20s exactly called "The Meaning of Meaning."

   Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Human Consciousness & Perceived Reality
From: Amos
Date: 15 Dec 07 - 04:43 PM

Well, there may be no objective grounds for valuing a groundhog more than one of the Joad brothers; but from a human point of view, the angles seem to support the sense that human survival depends on human survival -- we survive as well as all others. When an organism cuts across our bows by chewing up our vegetables, he becomes fair game, valuable or not.

The computations about survival are not just one-unit-organism. We also want out families to be there tomorrow, and our groups, our races and towns, our species overall. That's why contemplating "right" action is complex and so debatable. It hinges on opinions about probable outcomes, and opinions -- well, we know what tey're like.

As for the survival potential of cockroaches, they are well adopted to bring about cockroacvh survival.

Human survival is a lot more complex, I believe, and a lot richer in shades of value. So even thugh it may be a much more difficult game, I am glad to be playing it instead of the cockroach version.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Human Consciousness & Perceived Reality
From: Janie
Date: 15 Dec 07 - 04:23 PM

What is meaning?

Subject: RE: BS: Human Consciousness & Perceived Reality
From: Janie
Date: 15 Dec 07 - 04:21 PM

Even so, cockroaches were around long before humans, and are likely to be around long after humans.

What does this mean?

Subject: RE: BS: Human Consciousness & Perceived Reality
From: Janie
Date: 15 Dec 07 - 04:13 PM

The range of what is considered normal in terms of nearly all human behaviors and reports of subjective experience is very broad. Individual and social values largely determine what is normal, and also what is acceptable in terms of human behavior. Concepts of normalcy and acceptability tend to be socially determined.

There is no way for me to know if worker bees or ants fret about their circumscribed roles. The further the species is from my particular branch on the tree of life, the more limited is my capacity to even speculate in a way that has any 'objective' value. When I begin to speculate about species other than my own that are closer to the human branch, say, mammals, it behooves me to be aware of the possibility of anthropomorphic tendencies.

Although it is not true of all human cultures, being from a Western culture, it does not bother me in the least to stomp on a cockroach. It does bother me to accidentally run over a groundhog. I could quickly re-arrange my "conscience" however, to justify shooting the same groundhog, if he keeps destroying my vegetable garden. Alternatively, I can assuage my 'conscience', by trapping him in a box trap, and then releasing him in some other territory, where he may or may not be able to establish himself and continue to live. Out of sight, out of mind.

From a purely rational point of view, I do not believe that the life of a human being is inherently more valuable than the life of a chicken, cow, groundhog, or sunflower.

For the sake of convenience, realistic manageabilility , and survival, I am willing to assign a tertiary value to the evidence that suggests humans in general, and this human in particular, are no more or less significant than any other life form. I am even willing to ignore, suppress or repress all evidence of such, and adopt primary and secondary beliefs (which I will treat as 'fact' or 'truth', ) in order to insure my own survival and sense of well-being.

Subject: RE: BS: Human Consciousness & Perceived Reality
From: Janie
Date: 15 Dec 07 - 03:18 PM

Humans (and many other, but not all, species) appear to have the innate capacity for attachment and bonding. The development of human attributes such as empathy, intimacy and what we call the "conscience" are dependent on what we call attachment and bonding.   This relates to humans being an interdependent social species.

We know that infants who are not held and cuddled and soothed, who do not experience 'mirroring' of facial expressions, touch, sound, are more likely to exhibit behaviors that fit the diagnostic criteria that we call Reactive Attachment Disorder, than are children who do have the aforementioned experiences. Other conditions, such as autism, also effect attachment and bonding.

"This American Life" did a show that illustrates Attachment issues.

Subject: RE: BS: Human Consciousness & Perceived Reality
From: Janie
Date: 15 Dec 07 - 02:40 PM

Kat,

Your mention of the twins has me thinking about attachment and bonding, and also the possible effects of the experience of sharing the womb, which would include elements of physical competition, physical accommodation, and physical cooperation.    Toss in the possibility that social learning begins pre-birth in the shared womb, even though the actual infant brain does not conceptualize, and shake it up with our emerging realization of the matrix of naturenurture.

Contemplate consciousness vs. self-consciousness. Awareness vs. self-awareness.

The newborn infant definitely has what we call 'awareness', but does not have awareness that discriminates between 'self' and 'other.'

Then go read and contemplate on Eastern philosophies about consciousness and awareness, some Carl Jung, and some Joseph Campbell.   Talk to some one who has had the repeated experience of dreaming about the death of family members who have then died quite unexpectedly in accidents or from things such as stroke or heart attacks where there was no prior knowledge or indication of cardiovascular problems, or from a sudden and severe illness within a few weeks of the individual having the dream.

Look at your plastic keyboard and contemplate that it is what it appears to be in terms of the limits of our senses and what they tell us about 'reality', then think about chemistry, physics, atoms, particles, string-theory, the space-time continuum, energy/matter.

Self. Other. I am me. You are you. We are separate. We are related. We are interrelated and interdependent. I can wrap my mind around those concepts. What if, in addition, we are also NOT separate but related and interdependent. What if we are also not separate at all? What if we are also, and quite literally, one?

I don't have any beliefs about that. I am simply open to the possibility.

What is objective reality? What is consciousness? What is awareness?

Subject: RE: BS: Human Consciousness & Perceived Reality
From: Janie
Date: 15 Dec 07 - 12:41 PM

Because we can never see absolutely clearly, we can never see all that is 'there.'   

It pays to recognize I am not only always looking through some sort of distorting lens, but that there is always the possibility that not everything is within my field of vision.

Subject: RE: BS: Human Consciousness & Perceived Reality
From: Amos
Date: 15 Dec 07 - 12:06 PM

I think it is fundamental that to face plainly what is is a pre-requisite for changing, whether in individual conscious structures or group and organization structures.

The whole process of "changing for the better" has to begin with seeing what is there.

THat said, however, the individual act of will, or generating an organizing postulate about how things are, is what finally has to occur for change.

WHat is amazing to me is that this ability exists in humans.

In the other thread I posted a link to SciVee scientific video which did a mathematical analysis of the degree of randomness in the responses of fruitflies. Even in a tiny organism like that, there is an undeniable presence of something beyond mere S-R chaining. Or so they conclude.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Human Consciousness & Perceived Reality
From: Janie
Date: 15 Dec 07 - 12:04 PM

Paradox
Paradox
paradox

Subject: RE: BS: Human Consciousness & Perceived Reality
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Dec 07 - 11:39 AM

Nope...but if you ARE that shallow, I'd suspect that your goal should not be too hard to meet.

Subject: RE: BS: Human Consciousness & Perceived Reality
From: GUEST,Miss G
Date: 15 Dec 07 - 11:18 AM

I just want to get laid again before the world ends. Is it Taboo to be so shallow?

Subject: RE: BS: Human Consciousness & Perceived Reality
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Dec 07 - 10:57 AM

Well, Bobert, some of what Janie is 'brainstorming' is causing MY head to swirl and strain a bit as it tries to expand enough to take in the nuances, both obvious & implied, of her insights. It ain't exactly 'hurting', but I need to chew (metaphorically) on it a bit before hurling myself into the midst of some quite challenging and important ideas about the 'us-ness' of us.

Durn, Janie...I wish you'd done this at a less busy time.....but I am tracing the thread just in case it slips off the bottom when I am not here. I want to read it again, slowly.

("hey, Bill", says a little voice from somewhere deep inside, "you know you CAN print the durn thing and carry a copy around so you can make note in the margins!"
"Why, thank you", little voice, I reply, "I might just do that!"

Subject: RE: BS: Human Consciousness & Perceived Reality
From: autolycus
Date: 15 Dec 07 - 09:40 AM

We here in gestalt doubt if we can change ourselves that often just by an act of will.

We think instead that change can happen of its own accord once we have truly got to accept where we are/who we are. The difficulty is we think there are parts of ourselves we either don't want to 'own', or will not believe are a part of ourselves.

That happens nationally, too. e.g. while the Cold War was on, we in the West didn't want to know about our surveillance tendencies, for example.

Now the Cold War is long gone, suddenly surveillance has a defence - if you've got nothing to hide. We ARE now willing to own that part our society.


   Ivor

PS Wish you a speedy recovery, Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Human Consciousness & Perceived Reality
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Dec 07 - 07:56 AM

All this stuff has put a hurt on my head...

LOL...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Human Consciousness & Perceived Reality
From: MBSLynne
Date: 15 Dec 07 - 07:48 AM

This is a fascinating thread..though very 'deep'.

I can't begin to join the intellectual discussion here on a level with some of you, but I'd just like to make a couple of comments.

Amos...I've always believed too, that humans can make a decision to change themselves...to some extent. All my life I've worked with greater and lesser success, on changing things about my personality that I didn't like. From this experience it appears to me that we can decide to, and succeed in changing some things, but that there are some basic facets of personality which we cannot change no matter how hard we try. Interesting to look at the differences between what we can consciously change and what we can't.

When my children were small I took great joy in using everything we did together to teach and stimulate the children. Shopping was always great fun, for them and for me. We talked about things we saw, we counted things, read things..it was an almost limitless medium. I always worried when I saw some mothers dragging kids around the shops and totally ignoring them, even when the kids were asking questions. Nowadays you see Mum's towing toddlers round and talking on their mobile phones so that the kids get no input from or connection with their mothers. The thing here is that everything we do to and with children (adults too I guess, though probably to a lesser degree) has some effect. Abuse and trauma are extreme, but even every day attention or lack of it has an effect on the person's brain, brain function etc.

I say this from observation but no actual knowledge of brains and their workings.

Love Lynne

Subject: RE: BS: Human Consciousness & Perceived Reality
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 15 Dec 07 - 07:32 AM

I have come to think that 'Homo sapiens' is a species which continually creates false, or incomplete, models of reality and then attempts to force the data to fit the models (often ignoring, of course, data points which don't fit - what I call 'The Elephant in the Room' syndrome).

Examples of false and/or incomplete models are most religions and virtually all of the 19th/20th Century '-isms'. The current '-ism', which will probably lead to the extinction of 'Homo sapiens' at its own hand, is Capitalism with its monstrously absurd assumptions about resource availability, human population growth rates and the irrelevance of the biosphere and all of its components except humans. This is now an unstoppable juggernaut sliding on a slick of greed, arrogance and wilful ignorance towards a precipice.

Subject: RE: BS: Human Consciousness & Perceived Reality
From: autolycus
Date: 15 Dec 07 - 05:30 AM

You'd have to be omniscient to corner the market in objectivity,imo.(And imo is a central point.)

   A priori, we can't be. In other words, we strive for objectivity; i think we ever need to accept from the outset that the goal is unattainable, because we'll never be omniscient.

   The objectivity/subjectivity conundrum is one heart of these problems. We aim to be objective (when it suits us) and it's people, humans, making the effort.

   Another is the scientific/non-scientific one. i.e. the relationship between mind and the rest of us (tho' to put it that way seems to assume that the mind is separate, itself a difficult debate). An interesting aspect of that is the part non-rational parts of, let's say scientists, plays in the success of their objective enterprise. Like insight and intuition.

   Another, related to the first para.and already mentioned, is that we are speaking about people, a particular species, with its own characteristics. Including its own hardwiring characteristics. And its inbuilt limitations.

   I'm interested in the psychotherapeutic side, too.

   So, there's a difference, for example, between being interested in " insight into the self", and insight into myself (or oneself). The first sounds scientific, the second deeply personal.

   there is a bit of a taboo (breaking down???) in the West into exploring one's self. I like to say that scientists are interested in exploring every thing you can think of in the universe (and beyond), down to "strings", with one exception.

Themselves.

   So it's a taboo. Regarded as a taboo because regarded as self-indulgent, frightening, navel-gazing, unnecessary, pointless and other, what, reasons? defences?. rationalisations? (Periodically when I've brought up this sort of thing in more than one site, it turns out a bit of a thread-killer).

   I mean the mighty Goethe once wrote,"If I knew myself, I'd run away." To which the mighty Ivor replies,"How do you know?" :-)

   Defences/avoidances like projection may or may not be 'primitive', but they are used highly sophisticatedly, and people using them are usually unaware that they are doing any such thing.("I'm not projecting. It's true/obvious" etc.)


   The accounts, upthread, have emphasised science in general, and biology in particular. Just as people have necessary limits - we can't jump off cliffs and fly - so does science. Some scientists don'y like that kind of talk.

   What goes with lack of omniscience is our variabilities in knowledge (and who says,'I'm ill-informed' [alas I am]), variabilities in ability to understand, and social and individual pressures and encouragements to know or not know, be willing/unwilling to experience.

   About that I heard a couple of peole saying recently, "For a long time, I didn't allow myself to know................".

   Then there's the unconscious   


   Regarding integration, all of us experience conflicts within ourselves, which manifest in many ways from inertia to lack of fulfillment of one thing or another to perfectionism to addiction to ..............and so it goes on. One aim of at least my sort of therapy is to nurture integration of these self-conflicting parts of oneself. Many people would rather stick to 'the devil they know' , thank you very much.


   Then there's awareness, a theme of the Gestalt I do. That in itself, like everything said on the thread so far , could lead to (and has already) vast debate and exploration. As far as a lot of philosophers, saints, religions, therapists, etc.etc go, vast numbers of people are in some state or other of lack of awareness.

   Then there are levels of consciousness - the most obvious to all being as among children up to puberty, youngsters between puberty and around 21, and "adults". Three basic differing levels of awareness. In each people, it can be hard to grasp that peole with other levels of consciousness are really in 'a different place'.

   And, CRUCIALLY, imo, how much of all this do business people,journalists, lawyers, and politicians know about, or even think is important.

   A BBC broadcaster John Humphries, said only the other week,"But it's the government who live in the real world.(pause to explain that, then ) They have the power."

   Ah, so that's where the real world is located.


    Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Human Consciousness & Perceived Reality
From: Janie
Date: 15 Dec 07 - 01:54 AM

Taboo.

It has become a dirty word in Western society.

Taboos often seem completely irrational. But a thorough exploration of the origin of any given taboo usually reveals a rational and/or realistic basis for it's origin. In many, if not most instances, the taboo is originally, and for long periods of history, very functional in terms of the survival of the tribe, group, or society. (Rational and reality may be related, but are not synonyms.)   Taboos are nearly always about the over-all well-being of the group instead of the individual. There is reason to believe, that the individual has gained such prominence in Western society in modern times, however, that the survival our species, (and many others) is in jeapardy.

One of the social functions of the institution of religion is to socialize people to accept taboos, then to enforce the taboo.   Taboos are powerful, largely by virtue of irrational acceptance of them on 'moral' grounds, and slow to change once their functionality has become obsolete.

The human race, however, could stand some additional taboos right now, that might make the difference in how long we can survive as a species on this planet. How about taboos around water and resource usage? How about taboos about environmental destruction? Taboos about atomic weapons? Rational thinking that is dependent on self interest, enlightened or otherwise, are clearly not gonna cut the mustard. A bit of irrational, group-think would go a long way in buying us time on this planet.

I'm not advocating. I'm saying think about it. Think long, and hard and deeply about it. Think intelligently about the interdependence of the individual and the group. Think about the realities of globalization. Globalization is/was inevitable as the world population of humans has increased to at or above capacity.

Subject: RE: BS: Human Consciousness & Perceived Reality
From: Janie
Date: 15 Dec 07 - 12:52 AM

Reality.

Perception. Paradox. Absolutism. Primitive defenses such as projection. Intellectualization (my own favorite and overused psychological defense), Experience. Belief. Data. Interpretation. Empathy. Knowledge. Ambiguity. Ambivalence. Intuition. Cathecting. Decathecting. Relativity. Belief. Interpretation. Filters. Mindfulness. Emotion. Values. Truth.

Who has a corner on the market of objective reality?

Subject: RE: BS: Human Consciousness & Perceived Reality
From: Janie
Date: 15 Dec 07 - 12:19 AM

We are not just biology. We are not just psychology. We are not just sociology. We are especially not a combination of the three. We are each an integration of the three, or at least striving toward that integration.   I have some primitive conceptualization that I have yet to articulate to myself, much less anyone else, that our existential perceptions and concerns represent our striving to comprehend that integration.

Subject: RE: BS: Human Consciousness & Perceived Reality
From: katlaughing
Date: 14 Dec 07 - 11:32 PM

I, too, will be interested in watching this thread. Thanks for starting it, Janie and for sharing your incredible intellect.

I believe my sisters who are twins are "hard-wired" in a different way than we single siblings; at least in our family. I think it has something to do with them being identical twins. There are just different ways in which their thinking and perceptions seem odd compared to the rest of us. I know it's just anecdotal, but I've always found it interesting.

Subject: RE: BS: Human Consciousness & Perceived Reality
From: Janie
Date: 14 Dec 07 - 11:28 PM

I often wonder about the variation in the capacity for insight into the self, and also, the variation, among people who do display the capacity for insight, to put that capacity to good use. By good, I mean effective.

It is not a function of intellect.

Subject: RE: BS: Human Consciousness & Perceived Reality
From: Amos
Date: 14 Dec 07 - 11:24 PM

Fixed ideas and bum data will screw up th emost potentially rational chain of thought. Plus, overlays of culture and overlays of trauma all play a part. The fact, on top of all this, that an individual can decide to see things differently and do so is most remarkable, and I think an important clue to the layers at work.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Human Consciousness & Perceived Reality
From: Janie
Date: 14 Dec 07 - 11:15 PM

Bill,

Interventions with children are changing a great deal. With adults, (the population with whom I work,) what we have so far is a better understanding of why and how psychotherapy works, a better understanding and appreciation for therapies such as EMDR and Neurolinguistic Programming, and more realistic expectations.   

Amos,

The impact of decision and choice are huge. However, that tangle of hardwiring and experience strongly effects self-awareness, the capacity for insight, and the capacity to make effective use of insight. Each of us have 'blindspots' where we do not perceive choices that others see, where we mistake belief for 'absolute' or cling to our version of 'reality', or 'truth' come hell or high water, in spite of all evidence to the contrary.

Subject: RE: BS: Human Consciousness & Perceived Reality
From: Janie
Date: 14 Dec 07 - 10:15 PM

Extreme childhood trauma, a young man whose consciousness is locked in a body unable to respond with his consciousness, and a man whose sight is restored after many years of blindness are extreme examples. But our tools - our own senses, and the external tools we have developed that exceed our own sensory capacity, are still too crude to detect anythng but extreme differences.

But we can extrapolate to the vast majority of human beings whose experiences and physical conditions fall within that still very broad range considered 'normal' (regardless of what we are looking at) on the bell curve.

All of this is the nuts and bolts stuff. At this point in time, we can begin to grapple with issues of function, of the mechanics of things. it does not tell us what consciousness is, what consciousness means, or what mindfulness is.

Subject: RE: BS: Human Consciousness & Perceived Reality
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Dec 07 - 10:01 PM

Yep, Janie... research IS learning more every day about the brain and its complexity. More & more we are seeing some 'tendencies' hard-wired. In the future, it may affect not only psychology, but also court cases...etc. YOU are already seeing how you need to re-evaluate some treatment plans based on new data.
I'll be interested to see how this thread goes.

Subject: RE: BS: Human Consciousness & Perceived Reality
From: Amos
Date: 14 Dec 07 - 09:54 PM

I am impressed.

I also wonder about an omission, I think -- the self-organizing individual decision. Or is that included in "experiences"? People (in my observation) do change themselves and do s by an act of decision. It's one of their most endearing chaqracteristics! ;>0


A

Subject: RE: BS: Human Consciousness & Perceived Reality
From: Janie
Date: 14 Dec 07 - 09:48 PM

My colleagues and I work with a lot of people who were physically, sexually and or severely emotionally abused or neglected beginning in infancy or early childhood. For years before the tools were developed and the research began to provide the empirical evidence, we would comment to one another in peer supervision and consultation, our sense that the brains of many of these clients simply did not work the same way. We observed cognitive differences that we intuited went beyond the then esoteric theoretical constructs of psyche. We hypothesized the trauma had led to both physiological and functional differences in the brains of many of these individuals that affected cognitive perception, sensory perception, emotion regulation, and therefore, perception of reality. We perceived in the nightmares, flashbacks, repetition compulsions, attachment difficulties, trauma bonds, that brain function and physiology were involved, as well as the 'mind.'

As tools have been developed to monitor brain function and activity, as well as other body organs and biological systems and how these systems respond/react to stress, our intuitions are increasingly confirmed, though the details are still poorly understood. Research on stored memories, emotional memories, theamagdyla begins to allow integration of psychodynamic models and biology. These are the seeds of a more comprehensive and integrated understanding of the matrix of nature/nurture and the human being.

Subject: RE: BS: Human Consciousness & Perceived Reality
From: Janie
Date: 14 Dec 07 - 09:08 PM

3. Even considering that some hardwiring is 'baseline', there is considerable variation among humans at birth, though we do not have the capacity yet to distinquish except between the most gross differences. Some of those significant differences have to do with sensitivity and functionality, and not with actual structure. Hormones, enzmes, other neurotransmitter chemicals, number, variation and sensitive of receptors, etc., etc. etc. Like the outer universe, infinite possibilities.

4. Experiences - stimuli - (among other factors) beginning before birth, and continuing throughout the life span, but especially during childhood, effect both the development of the brain structure itself, the hardwiring of brain 'circuits,' glandular output of hormones, the kinds of neural pathways or connections, the number of neural pathways and connections, the sensitivity to stimuli, the accessibility (superhighway or grown-over logging road) 'gates,' that influence which neural pathways get 'travelled' under what conditions, and so on.

5. In 4 above, remove 'experience' and insert the individual's initial hardwiring, hormones, et. al, based on genetics and in utero exposure to whatever crosses the placenta or travels through the umbilical cord. These influence the effect of the experiences-stimuli.

We do know that much, and not much else. Already, the possibilities, even within the individual brain, are infinite.

Subject: RE: BS: Human Consciousness & Perceived Reality
From: michaelr
Date: 14 Dec 07 - 08:50 PM

I've heard that the surface of the neonatal brain is smooth. The ridges and convolutions develop following sensory input.

Subject: BS: Human Consciousness & Perceived Reality
From: Janie
Date: 14 Dec 07 - 08:44 PM

Lousy thread title, but as close as I could get.

This started as a post to the "There Is No God" thread. I decided it was too tangential, so I'm bringing it over here instead.


In that thread, somebody, I think Don Firth, shared a quote to the effect that the universe is not only odder than we suppose, it is odder than we can suppose. I suspect the same is true of the workings of the human mind, as well the brain.

We are in the infant stages of learning about the development and functioning of the human brain, limbic system, the effects of hormones, enzmes, and other neurochemicals. I'm gonna kinda go all over the place in this post, just to lay out some information.

Human beings have a limited capacity to observe objective reality. We do have the capacity to develop tools that can detect what our 5 senses can not, and the ability to interpret and extrapolate from that extra-sensory information. Interpret is in italics, because interpretation can never be completely objective.

The empirical, or 'scientific' method is the best tool we have been able to come up with so far to 'test' hypotheses about those aspects of 'reality' that we have the current tools to discern to some degree or another. And it may be that it is the best method there is. It may be that the only only limiting factor is our capacity for discernment, through our own faculties or the tools available at any given point in time.   If that is the case, those limits on discernment are real, and are huge. And the capacity for discernment varies humongously within and between individuals. Toss in the interpretation factor, and things get 'interesting.' (This is a partial explanation for the widely divergent views in the afore mentioned thread.)

Some one in that other thread observed that we can not observe the content of thought. In the forseeable future, however, the first crude means to do so will be available.   This article implies what those first crude measures will consist of. The possibilities are pretty scary. "Thought Police" could be a future tangible reality. Hope the ethicists get busy on this one sooner rather than later.

Visual perception is one very concrete example regarding perception. Follow some of the linked articles on the greater development of hearing among people who are blind. Ponder perception of reality from individual to individual.

As I said above, we are in the infant stages of neuroscientific understanding. We know this much:

1. Sensory perception begins before birth.

2. In the absence of extreme developmental abnormalities, there are some basic brain structures that all humans have. There are likely some basic functions and characteristics beyond brain stem functions that we all have, but there is not an established 'baseline' for many of these functions. It may be more accurate to say there are likely to be some baseline capacities and potentialities. Even so, the baseline has not been established.

Continued next post.