>jin: subjective feeling doesn't prove. that's mind which is proving bu conceptualizing itslef. you are probably well aware, that neurological, neurophysical, neuro-whatever explanations don't explain the phenomenon of consciousness (or mind) at all. anyway, just curious, what neuron explanation do you mean? i don't get it
as for this episteme which you seem to got ever-present in your epistemic flow(sorry, I can't resist :wink: ):
the subjective as well as objective are both concepts ! as such, they are both 'subjective' ! made by self-aware psychophysical dynamics, falsely considering itself as something essential. this grasping activity of the mind is what makes subjectivity AS WELL as the so-called objectivity possible. objective science is reductive science, it is a cultural construct, already dying out by metamorphing into integral state.
check out for exemple Metod Saniga, and his ENDOPHYSICS of time. (btw, world scientific published book called ENDOPHYSICS not so lately). this guy is academically well trained astrophysicist. however, coming to terms with limits of the 'official' astrophysics picture, he realized that there is no way out. just in. so he jumped right into, and started to look into all the subjective. he run through all the archives of SUBJECTIVE experiences of people in different altered states of consciousness, hunting for all the SUBJECTIVE descriptions of altered perceptions of space & time. after getting HUNDREDS of subjective reports on distorted time/space perception, what reductionist would call ''objective traits' have started to pop up. finally, he was able to formulate theory of endotime, which is able to encompass not only astrophysics time but also various time-experiences of subjective nature across the planetary community. he is no mad scientist, nor subjectively speculating. if your mind needs 'proofs', i think his workshop on nature of ENDOtime (understand as INNER aka subjective time), organized for NATO & attended by astrophysicists worldwide is quite persuasive.
it's not a matter of experientially testable vs. subjective speculation. it's a matter of opening on both sides to benefit from both approaches. you think feynmann was drumming to find out objective truth ? truth just objective is very little of the truth. no testable theory is ever made without speculation in its history.
actually, you have to dwell in quite large context, or abide in vast mind-space, to be able to be aware of subjective & objective as being one-taste. it's like phenomenological reduction, opening up creative possibilities, while retaining your hard-won conceptual brightness. reifying these seemingly opposites (ob & sub) is simply a way for some afraid people to keep the field(domain) of their exploration reduced to what they can handle by intellect, as that's all they've got at least some control of. however, Selfs being out of conceptual reach, it is simply crossed out. hegemony of patriarchal logos.
btw, in some other thread we've been talking about the history of this so-called 'science', which think it's the only right. i didn't finish it there, and it relates a bit here, so...
(this goes for evolution of western world-view):
before this era (which is just flipping) and which used to be called metaphysical, another one shaped the general human pattern of experiencing: mythopoietic. one has to realize, that before what might be called "debate over transcendental principle" no symbolization as we know it was present, i.e. people were not able to make a distinction of the kind we do today. to explain, the 'backgrounds for experiencing' were these fourfolds (you can cosider these as ontological mandalas for given eras):
_mythopietic era [ heaven:earth // mortal:immortal(gods). ]
_metaphysical era [ infinite:finite // physus:logos ]
how come? philosophers started to haggle over 'transcendental principle'. in other words they started to think that some principle, trans.cending all else, is guiding/ordering the things. before, the things were symbols of themselves. suddently, things/events became symbols of something other: the transcendent. trans.cendence - stepping through or beyond, or however you translate it. first they said (Empedocles): all is driven by fire. then water. then...
you right, finally, they (or rather Anaximander) realized that no finite element or principle will do. he summed up the haggle over transcendetal principle into: "all that is finite('peiron') is driven(or given order) by infinite('aperion'). apeiron is a.peiron - no.bounds.
and then, by some history which we skip here due to spacetime restrictions, the peiron (=the bounded, finite...) took over, or was overfocused, and bifurcated into PHYSUS and LOGOS.
capito? no logos, no physus before the turn of the eras. all the 'science' some are so fond of is just refinement of the distinction, of division, made not so long ago. and note, it builds only on the peiron - that which has border.
however, that is already getting over (in its strict form) and another science is already here. one where life is included in the space of spirit. now that might seem odd & out of physics domain, but wait few years. or check out for exemple: _Detela: Self-organization of Quantum States
i am inter(n)ested in speculation at least as much as in theorizing.
>hugh_please also check wendy's last answer in 'vectors, tensors, spinors, twistors' thread in relativity forum, it clarifiescorrects my misunderstandings regarding the biglomohedric prism & pyramid (the phase space connection: each point on these surfaces represent a phase-space state - a mode of rotation, for.ex)