Generally we feel that Experiences of a human being are subjective and we can not talk about them Scientifically. We feel that everybody’s desires, thoughts, expectations, imagination, feelings etc. are different so we can not have a common basis to talk about them. It is said that there is no objectivity in them and it seems that there can not be. Ultimately it leads to the conclusions like everybody’s preferences are different, everybody’s desires, thoughts, expectations are different, everybody’s Truth is different and everybody is different.
Experiences differ from Physical realities in certain way which make their study difficult or different. Experiences can only be observed by the Experiencer i.e. the person who is experiencing them. Experiences can not be accessed by any other person by any means, other than the person who is experiencing them. Experiences are said to be personal and subjective. Physical realities on the other hand are observable and verifiable through senses. Experiences can not be observed through senses. Sensory observations are relatively easier to observe and validate than Experiences. This distinction doesn’t make Experiences unobservable, they are just observed differently.
Like, observing a chair in front of our eyes and observing “willingness to live with happiness” (or even “willingness to live”, “willingness to live with Trust”, “willingness to live with Respect”) are two different things. First is sensory, second is not. Second can only be observed within us. It is not unobservable. The way we can make mistakes in observations through senses and in experimentation, the same way there is possibility of making mistakes in correctly identifying and recognizing our own Experiences. For example “willingness to live with happiness” is something which can only be observed within. One may be unaware of it till it is observed within, but when a person who has experienced it within draws other person’s attention towards it and other person pays attention to it and realizes it within then it is validated for that person that it is true for him as well. This is what is called Experiential Validation.
Claim in this post is, internal realities or Experiences are not completely subjective in nature. They are as objective in nature as we feel Physical realities are. It is just the matter of practice that we are not trained to introspect and self reflect so we miss many of the internal realities (Experiences) or are totally unaware of them.
Since these internal realities are not observable through senses so their observation might seem difficult. A person who has “seen” these realities by himself can draw our attention towards them and we can validate by ourselves if that is true. Results in Experiential Validation may not be instantaneous. The observation itself may take years to be correctly made. It also depends on the “need” of the person who is observing. Without “need”, it is hard to make observation within. More strong the “need” is, the more precise observation can be made, and also observation makes “need” for further deeper observations more strong, so in this way it is reinforcing in itself.
A person who has already observed the realities whether internal or external can make the observations for others easy with his guidance, without which the process of observation may become extremely difficult, specially in case of Experiential Validation.
Tribulations of A Fledgling Mind 
When I shared my observations with other people then they also made the wrong conclusions that “everybody’s preferences are different, everybody’s desires, thoughts, expectations are different, everybody’s Truth is different and everybody is different”.
So, I think not only me but also most of the people have similar experience in this matter.
Also, my experience of guided observation (someone drew my attention towards something going on within me) has worked well, i.e., it helped me in reaching on a correct conclusion after observing it within.
So, I agree with the point made in article that proper guidance by other person helps in experiential validation.
…..again an enriching analysis of a topic which we encounter many times but never pay attention
…good work…keep writing…:)
On reading the article, if I understand correctly, I found that it puts forth a hypothesis that our ‘experiences can be experimentally validated (without any data and with only internal observations) and to make these observations faster one needs a guidance from someone who has already observed it’. Further, the article says that such an observation is need based and might not be instantaneous.
Are there any experiments to show that experiences are common across *all* (or a sub-section) people? (may be from neuroscience)
The guidance article talking of reminded me of age-old sadhus and gurus who claim that they are on this planet EARTH to lead the public through a path which they have already experienced.
Minor point: The title draws attention of a reader by putting forth a grand agenda of science behind “Experimental Validation”. It would have been easier for a reader if the article were titled more appropriately.
@Pratibha Didi: Thanks for your comments. You will see more articles on similar topics in future.
@Abhilash I:
Thanks for your comments. I will try to respond.
“experiences can be experimentally validated”
It is NOT “Experimental Validation”, I am talking about. It is “Experiential Validation”.
I think you understood the meaning right. What you summarized, I find that in alignment with what I am saying.
“Are there any experiments to show that experiences are common across *all* (or a sub-section) people? (may be from neuroscience)”
Had it been “Experimental” then I wouldn’t have called it Science of “Experiential Validation”. It can only be experienced and is not experimental. Let me put some examples to show it to you.
1. Suppose you know every physical thing to know about salt (NaCl). Its chemical composition, its chemical properties with other chemical substances and whatever there is to know about NaCl, you know it. Would that knowledge of Physical Phenomenon help you in any way to know the taste of salt (NaCl)?
Suppose I am a neuroscientist, I know every brain process corresponding to every taste existing in the world, I know everything there is to know about brain, I am aware of each and every neuron of it, each and every atom of it, each and every function of it, but I myself have never tasted salt (NaCl)then by the study of your brain processes, or even by study of each and every neuron or each and every atom of your brain, will I ever be able to “feel” the taste of salt? Will I ever be able to know “what it is like to taste the salt”?, “what is the taste of salt”? Neuroscience has its own limitations. Had Experiences and Neurology had one to one mapping then the Mind Body problem been solved long ago.
2. You may like to read Knowledge Argument by Frank Jackson at this link,
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia-knowledge/
3. You may also like to have a look at Thomas Nagel’s argument “What it is like to be a bat?” at following link,
Click to access Nagel.pdf
Some more arguments,
1. Can you prove by any experimental methods that you want to live with Happiness?
2. Can you prove by any experimental methods that you want to live with Trust and Respect in Relationships? etc.
These are the things which can only be experientially validated. Experiments have their own limitations.
With Regards,
Devansh
Never mind, I read it ‘experimental’ instead of ‘experiential’. Hence the misunderstanding.
Thanks Abhilash. Keep reading and commenting 🙂
Taste and for that matter any feeling, don’t all these perceptions occur in brain due to some configuration of neurons?
In other words, arrange neurons in brain in a particular configuration and the subject will experience pain, taste and related feeling.
This is indeed a possibility.
@Abhilash,
Lets keep this possibility open.
We can at least say that no other person other than the person whose neurons configuration is set to a particular kind can experience anything, so the experiences are still personal to the person.
Secondly, brain is plastic (Kindly read about plasticity of brain if you are not aware of it), which makes it almost impossible for us to make a one to one mapping between Neural State and Experience.
Third, there are many feelings, emotions, desires, which not at all reflect in neural states, how one can capture those experiences?
These are some open points.
@Devansh:
Not understood 😦
Very tough article sir.
If we think our body is made of atoms, neurons, senses ,etc and that all can be configured just like we configure software then, we can validate experience too.
But,I don’t know how advance we are in configuring neurons ( and hence it is put as open point by you) , if it is possible than validating experience will also be true, just put some test cases and get answers from number of people and matching answers will validate it.
Nice article sir, between how you choose such tough topic to write on …
Thanks Amit for appreciation.
I think answered this comment in one of my replies to Abhilash. Kindly have a look. Knowing everything about neurons and atoms will not reveal anything about experience.
With Regards,
Devansh
Dear Devansh,
Little do i know of cognition / human experience / appreciation of the infinite possibility-set as much as you do …. but ,
Human expericnce is pareto-optimal.Meaning:
It is statistically accepted that only 4 to 5 major emotions and 4-5 major situations dominate at least 95% of human experience assuming that this is a wonderful confidence interval.
http://wiki.knoesis.org/index.php/Computing_For_Human_Experience
So candidly put, give me a sample set of a 100 who represent a bigger population, a good statistician and a good doctor … i will give you back a 5*5 matrix that will exactly sum up 95% of genera human experiences (unless of course the person in question is an anomaly ..you know someone who has the life of Rambo !)
~ Ghost Runner