Sample
Feeling is experienced by everyone, yet it has never been adequately conceptualized nor integrated into science-based worldviews. This occurs because the scientific method prioritizes the measurable over the experiential for several reasons. Among them, the primary ones are as follows:
a. The scientific method excludes the observer to ensure experimental objectivity, regarding feeling as "noise" or a byproduct irrelevant to the universal laws of physics.
b. Science can accurately map organic functioning (neuronal firing, dopamine flow, heart rate), but it is incapable of explaining how physical processes generate the qualitative sensation of fear, joy, or pain.
c. Science considers feeling a side effect of biology because it cannot quantify it or insert it into predictive equations.
d. Biology tends to reduce feeling to a state signaler (hunger, fear) linked to biochemical processes related to survival (homeostasis), ignoring its essence and other possibilities.
e. Scientific language is structured to describe objects ("Things") logically, which prevents it from describing feeling with precision.
Despite this, the scientific view regarding feeling is changing. Thanks to advancements in neuroscience and systems theory, it is gradually considering feeling less as a mystical detail and more as a sophisticated environmental interaction interface. I intend to demonstrate the "technical viability" of this new perspective, presenting evidence that feeling operates as the central protocol for the execution (rendering) of reality, defending the thesis that:
“Feeling is the Engine of the World”
Defending the thesis that feeling is the universal engine may seem unfeasible and strange at first glance, but I intend to demonstrate the technical viability of this possibility. To do so, it becomes necessary to standardize the concepts of engine, world, and feeling.
Amazon