That's pretty amazing that you came to that conclusion through the empirical observation of isolated phenomena without a theory linking those phenomena to the rest of reality as a whole. So...nice refined guesstimate?
Do you adhere to a positivist view of the world?
What rest of reality are you referring to?
I don't know what a "positivist view" means.
The problem with forming an absolute conclusion through empirical means is because isolated phenomena are not only defined by what they are, but also by what they are not (e.g. A given banana is what it is because it's not a not-banana). When you perceive an isolated element, you separate it from the rest of reality and study it as if nothing else could possibly explain it (unless you form a model incorporating a series of isolated phenomena that explain each other, but even then, the problem appears all over again as you could combine that model with others in another explanatory system ad infinitum).
The problem is that this typically occurs due to a positivist worldview, a requirement for the scientific method. A positivist worldview assumes that there are concrete objects out there in the universe that can be observed and explained solely in terms of themselves. The scientific method, however, conveniently rules out certain truths simply because they are not empirical. For example, the scientific method does not permit studying the very mathematical principles and concepts that the scientific model quite literally depends on, specifically in the process of theory-making (i.e. "Let's construct a scientific theory that is stated in a mathematical way, but let's not permit any conclusions about reality based upon abstract math principles.").
There is some truth to this. However, the scientific method is a way of doing things (and thinking) that tends to get BETTER results than most other structures.
But a scientist doesn't rely SOLELY on methodology. That methodology is used to establish theory, to be sure, but it doesn't mean that an inquiring mind can't go beyond it. It does mean that said inquiry should lead to a method of testing that does fit empirical data, or at least set up a future means to do so. In hard physics, the theory of relativity is a good example. A great deal of it remains speculative, because we currently have no way to test it. But that does not mean it fails in it's framework, only that some of it's predictions cannot yet be tested. As we progress, more of it will be testable, falsifiable, and probably altered due to falsification of some of it's axioms.
The same can be said of consciousness. Without consciousness, there would be no extrapolation of empirical data, therefore no empiricism. Those of us interested in transhumanism are quite aware of this, and are actively researching and/or thinking about HOW consciousness works and WHAT it is. Which, by the way, is probably a rather key difference in scientific vs. religious thought. Or even philosophical thought. Religion, to the extent that it's not merely a control scheme, delves primarily into the question "why?". Science concerns itself more with "How?" and "What?" with the idea that "Why" will be answered by determining the other two. Thus you can use the scientific method where appropriate, but still separately ask "why?" and perhaps find another angle.
I personally think, based on things I have observed and people I have known, loathed, and admired, find some validity to the idea that exploring your consciousness via psychedelic drugs has some validity. Steve Jobs thought so, Aldous Huxley thought so, Timothy Leary... These were not stupid men. The problem with this angle is how to set up an experimental series that can both validate their experiences AND duplicate them. Altered states of consciousness are measurable, in crude ways, but not PRECISELY reproducible at this point. We need to understand the basal mechanics of the brain a bit better. The two schools of study there need to converge at some point. I think they will.
It has long been posited that one could directly simulate a brain in a powerful enough computer by mapping all of it's connections, programming analogs of it's chemical and electrical interactions, and turning it on. One way I can see of achieving this in the possibly very near future would be to disassemble a recently deceased person's brain at the molecular level using nanomachines and recording all of the results. From that point, it's a programming project, and programmers with a goal get things done. The prerequisites for nanomachines are pretty much all in place, just takes one genius to put them together properly, so this is not necessarily a pipe dream.
I tend to be very analytical and scientific in my approach to problem solving. But I have experienced things and observed paranormal phenomena that do not fit my understanding of the natural world. Not only that, some of these things have been in the presence of witnesses, so I am certain that I was not merely hallucinating. There is a misconception in people's minds about the scientific mindset. It is unfortunately fairly well present even among those for whom the sciences are their work. The idea that current theory has explained everything.
That has never been the core of science. The core isn't that everything has been explained, it's that everything CAN BE explained. The religious viewpoint, on the other hand, frequently employs the ideation that there are things that cannot be explained. I reject that outright, as it would mean that even their god couldn't explain things, if it had the desire. Unfortunately, that paradigm is long ingrained in religious thought. The first chapter of the Christian bible (or the Torah, if you like) condemns the seeking of forbidden knowledge. It's the Christian's Original Sin. And by their "reasoning" I am most assuredly and proudly guilty of that "sin".
