Excerpt from the above article.
************
But I have become increasingly convinced that science is severely limited in what it can say about consciousness. In a very important sense, consciousness is invisible to science.
Many non-western cultures seem to have had little or no trouble assigning souls to all animals, plants and even inanimate objects.
Surely our rational and materialistic investigations of consciousness have little in common with primitive notions of soul or spirit? Many neuroscientists I've interacted with are not so sure: if consciousness is understood as an abstract state or process that can be realized in wildly different structures, it starts to seem decidedly immaterial.
... science is not the only form of understanding. Who understands a horse more: a biologist who specializes in horses, or a horse whisperer? Or better yet, which sort of understanding would you find more useful? Perhaps, as with horses, the understanding of consciousness that many of us seek might be better thought of as a kind of interactive relationship.
**************
Nice! Science is going the right way finally!
