>and "experiential consciousness" — that which cannot be studied, because it is only capable of being experienced by one person and thus fails the criteria for reproducibility.
How do you even know it exists if it can't be studied? How is anybody supposed to know what you're even talking about if they can't recreate it in their own brains?
When you get down to it, even though the processes occurring in our brains are extremely complex, there is nothing that indicates that the behavior in one cannot be reproduced in another, within any given scale of accuracy.
So you only presume that it cannot be studied, and you assume that it is a different kind of process. With no reason for it to be either, when it could simply be something currently out of our reach.
> How do you even know it exists if it can't be studied?
Because you experience your own and therefore assume that other people (and probably many animals) have experiences do to the similarity in behavior and biology.
> How is anybody supposed to know what you're even talking about if they can't recreate it in their own brains?
We do so by imagining other people feeling things like we do. This can be a problem when we come across people with experiences different enough from our own. I don't know whether I can imagine giving birth, since I'm male. I also can't imagine what it's like to see in more than three primary colors, but some animals can.
>Because you experience your own and therefore assume that other people (and probably many animals) have experiences do to the similarity in behavior and biology.
This is called 'studying it'.
Different experiences do not preclude understanding. You can't imagine "what it's like", but "what it's like" is always a biological process of analogy. And you can convey understanding of subjective experience through analogies. That's the whole point of art.
Just because you can only get arbitrarily close to understanding something doesn't mean you can't understand it. By that measure, you don't even understand your own senses - they are transient, fleeting, and reflexive. But we're not supposed to deny the entire concept of knowing and understanding, are we?
Ok, so you don't see more than three primary colors. Doesn't mean you can't understand it. You know the difference between being in a room with only red light versus being in a room with white light? Then you know what it is to see more colors.
Personal anecdote: I've felt things in dreams that I've never felt awake. I can imagine sensations I've never experienced while awake. So I can't believe that it's impossible to feel things outside of our current experiences or to experience things arbitrarily close to as how others do. Especially since we can hook electrodes up to our brains, do computations outside, and arbitrarily increase the state space of our brains. So like I said: out of reach doesn't mean impossible.
I often think in this specific realm. From looking back at previous points in my life before I learned the inner machinations of complex systems such as computers, I know that there are subjects which are incredibly far out of my reach of current understanding simply because of the mountains of fundamental concepts to learn and understand before getting anywhere near an understanding of the mechanisms by which the application of the complex system is actually achieved.
But now that I am on the other side of that gulf of knowledge, at least with respect to the general operation of computers, I can't help but notice a fundamental difference in people who truly understand a given subject deeply, and those who are generally aware of the subject, but are still somehow immersed in the subject. People that truly understand the subject can often times accidentally offend the other side with what is a completely uncontroversial statement in the company of those that truly understand. That is because oftentimes, the gaps of understanding are often filled in with emotionally charged, self centered rationalizations.
I guess where I usually get off this train of thought is that perhaps one day we will come to realize that every single solitary experience of any kind can be explained away with biochemistry, and pondering that against the thought of what it has previously meant throughout my life to find out that what I had thought of as so profound and meaningful was neither of those at all.
People have the same experience with languages. Before you learn it, a language often seems mysterious and beautiful; after you have learned it, you no longer even notice its existence.
How do you even know it exists if it can't be studied? How is anybody supposed to know what you're even talking about if they can't recreate it in their own brains?
When you get down to it, even though the processes occurring in our brains are extremely complex, there is nothing that indicates that the behavior in one cannot be reproduced in another, within any given scale of accuracy.
So you only presume that it cannot be studied, and you assume that it is a different kind of process. With no reason for it to be either, when it could simply be something currently out of our reach.