Oh

Perception requires a contrasting background. Thus what we are able to perceive reveals what we bring to the table. We perceive motion, so we are, essentially, still. We perceive distance, so we are essentially, centered. We hear sounds, so we are essentially silent. To the extent we see any given attributes we must essentially lack those attributes. As subjects we cannot see ourselves "objectively" but we can still deduce a lot about our essential nature in this way. It looks like our essential nature is: knowing, still, silent, centered and lacking all known attributes.

It seems that the most evident thing known to us cannot be studied for lack of sufficient evidence. Is that downright weird or what? The single incontrovertible certainty each of us has is the experience of subjectivity: I am present here knowing something. (Even if I doubt that, I'm aware I'm doubting it.) Yet the single major blind spot in science is an adequate explanation of, even an adequate definition of, this very presence, due to lack of evidence.

Or am I missing something here?

And if so, how?

Continuously evaluate: "Will my action cause harm and, if so, is there any conceivable way to avoid causing harm?"

Note that this stance allows even violence to qualify as a moral act when it is "not conceivably avoidable."

Could you formulate it better? Am I missing something fundamental?

Thanx in advance for your reflections.

it will make more progress in one decade than all the previous centuries of its existence."

Do you agree with Nicola Tesla?

Is this why Ron Paul never sounds kooky but Rand Paul always does?

Various formulations of the "hard problem":

Why should physical processing give rise to a rich inner life at all?

How is it that some organisms are subjects of experience?

Why does awareness of sensory information exist at all?

Why is there a subjective component to experience?

Why aren't we philosophical zombies?

Einstein's continuous field theory of matter in space-time does not explain the discrete properties of light and matter found in quantum theory. Relativity theory can be simplified by working with real wave motions of a continuously connected space, rather than 'continuous fields' in 'space-time' (a mathematical construction). The rules of science (simplicity) and metaphysics (dynamic unity of reality) force us to conclude that matter is formed from spherical standing wave motions of Space (rather than Newton's particles, or Einstein's continuous fields). This is why matter can interact with other matter in the Space around it, because all matter (in the observable universe) is interconnected in Space by its spherical in and out waves.

This is the theory posited by the WSM group (Wave Structure of Matter) which has evidently received almost no traction in academia or journals. Why not? Ref: www.spaceandmotion.com

Biology reduces to chemistry, chemistry reduces to physics, physics reduces to raw objectivity, raw objectivity reduces to subjectivity?

I have noticed that new replaces new replaces new endlessly. What is supplying this newness? The objects we are perceiving? The mechanism of biological consciousness that has a refresh rate (sort of like a TV refresh rate)? Or does this newness come from the Life principle that animates our biological mechanism (some kind of impersonal primal Subjectivity) ? Or...?