If we apply this to consciousness, and we ask ourselves, how can we ever understand consciousness, from within consciousness, this seems to me to draw upon a parallel to the second incompleteness theorem by Gödel.The first incompleteness theorem states that no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an effective procedure (i.e., an algorithm) is capable of proving all truths about the arithmetic of natural numbers. For any such consistent formal system, there will always be statements about natural numbers that are true, but that are unprovable within the system. The second incompleteness theorem, an extension of the first, shows that the system cannot demonstrate its own consistency.
Now I know that consciousness isn’t exactly an algorithm, it doesn’t consist of (to my knowledge or understanding) an effective procedure for calculating numbers. But, it seems to share a similar problem to the above description.
When we are trying to understand consciousness, we are trying to understand it from within consciousness.
But we attempt to step “outside” of consciousness, to understand it, science proceeds to explore the brain as an avenue of explanation.
But the problem is, despite what science would like us to think, science is still contained within consciousness. It may be stripped of much of the content of consciousness, but it is still undeniably contained within the abstract conceptual layer of consciousness. It does not exist in some external objective realm outside of consciousness. It may attempt to describe that hypothetical realm outside of consciousness, but, it can only ever use what is contained within consciousness to attempt to explain what’s out there in that objective realm.
So getting back to the problem of consciousness. Could our problem in trying to explain consciousness be due to the fact that, we are attempting to essentially do as Gödel has shown is impossible, to prove or explain a system with the very system we are trying to understand?