Scientific Imagination
Some readers might wonder about the physiological systems I have included as components of the proposed pre-empirical substrate. My choices are not arbitrary even though the substrate I have proposed may seem unusual. I am using intuition as a method in developing my ideas, drawing upon the physical core of experience I established as a clinical neuropsychologist. It is not possible to prove the validity of the substrate I have selected; I offer it as a plausible substrate knowing that it may need to be modified in the future. I am not wedded to this substrate as an absolute truth; I am using it as a working premise.
I sometimes characterize my approach in terms of scientific imagination in contrast to the formal, more accepted scientific method. If I had to justify every insight in terms of the existing scientific consensus, my thinking would become mired in the very ideas I seek to challenge. I venture forward instead with new ideas that seem confusing and questionable to me at times. Each insight is a premise that I worry over even as I push it forward and explore its implications. The intuitive method involves risk taking by following the ideas that arise in whatever direction they lead rather than safely remaining within the accepted structures of science.
As I develop my thinking about the proposed pre-empirical substrate, I will explore the neuroscience and behavioral implications that arise, testing repeatedly to ensure that they make sense. I will push this process as far as I can and continue with the substrate I have proposed as long as it remains a productive source of ideas. It will either hold up to the strain of this continuing exploration and investigation, or it will require modification and revision. I have been revising my book about the brain, consciousness and behavior for forty years, and each revision offers a more adequate framework.
I am not rejecting the scientific method. Its process of hypothesis testing by defining variables in replicable, measurable ways and conducting rigorous experiments remains the gold standard for knowledge. I am suggesting that the scientific status quo too often imposes dogmatic constraints on potentially rich and productive intuitive thinking processes. I am advocating for a science that embraces both its intuitive sources of insight and original thought as well as its formal methods for testing and validating new knowledge.
I will, in the weeks and months to come, return again and again to the pre-empirical substrate I have proposed, testing its implications for my project as long as it remains productive. There is much to learn from this substrate about the two tiers of consciousness and how they function in relation to each other. It will either continue to fuel new thoughts about the brain, consciousness and behavior or it will not. Since I will be doing this in public through weekly entries to the Of Two Minds blog, I trust my readers to let me know if I am stretching too far with thoughts that have become too thin.
This is my first blog entry since I began the no fee subscription service. I believe that new entries need a designation when they are received by subscribers, and I will begin each entry with a brief title.
Comments (0)