The content of consciousness (cC) constitutes an essential part of our human life and the very heart of the hard problem of consciousness. In science, the cC of a subject (participant) has been examined indirectly through measuring his/her behavioral reports, bodily signs, or neural signals. None of them, however, reflects the full spectrum of the subject’s cC, hampering a researcher to fully know the subject’s cC and find its neural basis precisely and extensively. Here we propose a method, termed CHANCE that enables a researcher to experience and know directly the full spectrum of the subject’s cC in scientific experiments. The degree of epistemic objectivity of a specific entity has been reasonably judged by relevant individuals who have the ability to judge the faithfulness of the entity to the truth (the true facts). More number of relevant individuals who judge the entity as the truth results in more objectivity of the entity epistemically. Thus, even the knowledge of a specific cC itself would be regarded as epistemically objective if it was judged as the truth (being truly had) by multiple relevant individuals. We propose CHANCE consisting of three empirical steps to change the knowledge of the cC itself from epistemically subjective to objective: (1) finding a minimally-sufficient content-knowledge-specific neural correlates of consciousness (msckNCC), and (2) selecting an msckNCC that produces the knowledge of only one specific cC but not others, and finally, (3) among the msckNCCs that verified the 2nd step, selecting an msckNCC that is reproducible in multiple brains.
Comments: 14 Pages.
Unique-IP document downloads: 113 times
Vixra.org is a pre-print repository rather than a journal. Articles hosted may not yet have been verified by peer-review and should be treated as preliminary. In particular, anything that appears to include financial or legal advice or proposed medical treatments should be treated with due caution. Vixra.org will not be responsible for any consequences of actions that result from any form of use of any documents on this website.
Add your own feedback and questions here:
You are equally welcome to be positive or negative about any paper but please be polite. If you are being critical you must mention at least one specific error, otherwise your comment will be deleted as unhelpful.