> Well, since each of us has experiences, why can't we just inspect our
> own? "Introspection" is just inward inspection.
> First let's go back and look at how other sciences inspect their subject
> matter: They do experiments and observe and record the results. Fine,
> can we do that with experience?
It is undoubtably true that intospection has little value as a
scientific evaluation of the mind, as this form of experience is
intensely personal due to the fact that public access is impossible.
Only the instigator of the thoughts, himself, knows the true nature
of their being. Nevertheless, even this can be argued against as the
ultimate source of knowledge may not be apparent to the thinker, as
introspection is unable to probe deep enough to locate the exact
birth place of thought or experience.
Nevertheless I believe that introspection has some degree of value,
as is it not from introspection that empathy originates; or does this
too have no concious mental birth place?
> So could it be that even though experiences are what make psychology
> special, there is no way to study experiences directly?
Is conciousness concerned with experience? Without being concious
experience would not exist. Yet when the origin of experience is
questioned the relm of the subconcious seems to play a major role.
Therefore is experience more concerned with the subconcious ? Perhaps
it is a balance of both; but is the action of the subconcious a
plausible explanation to how and why we have experience?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Feb 13 2001 - 16:24:13 GMT