Observation and subjective experience could be synonymous because the way we each absorb the world through our senses, or in other words, observe the world, is unique to the individual. Because of this, currently in this space and time, I don't think we have the capabilities to truly understand how those different from us perceive the world around them and what their reality consists of exactly, or how it manifests. The closest we can get to that point is through scientific measurements like neuroimaging techniques and authentic connection, when experiences, knowledge, wisdom, and personal truths are shared. Once it is shared, it becomes more real, more palatable, and processable. Shared experience is the closest we will ever get to what reality even is when scientific tools have their limits. I think the way we define reality at the moment, "the world or the state of things as they exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them, the state or quality of having an existence," is a bit limiting.

All in all, subjective experience begins much deeper than in emotion, perception, or even language; it starts with the senses. I think the closest thing we can compare to a "same psychological reality" is in moments where two or more stories are entangled for one reason or another (i.e. trauma, love, suffering, joy, peace, etc), which to us looks like shared interpretations of events or overlapping emotional states, or in cases like with twins, who have been found to have identical brain activity patterns. The big questions are why and how? My answer is limbic activation, and it's integral to our survival.

Limbic activation is why groups form, why mothers bond with their children, and why fathers protect families. I think it makes a lot of sense to compare reality to more of a scaffold or framework; everyone else's truths fit into that reality, and none of them are necessarily "wrong" or "the right way" for that reason; they all just are. But reality becomes more real the more we observe it, right? Basic quantum mechanics. I think if someone wanted to limit their belief in something to just the results from scientific studies, that would be very remiss of them because answers are often found by collectively analyzing data from many academic communities, lived experiences, intuitions, cultural and religious traditions, and research studies together (meta-analyses primarily). For many questions, concepts, and ideas, using scientific means alone works fantastically. Still, when it comes to measuring conscious experience, it's just not a valid method because the way emotions, thoughts, feelings, and problem-solving manifest in the same part of the brain does not necessarily apply across the board.

Not all brains are made the same; they have different physical structures, different neural pathways altogether, and different neurochemicals and hormone balances. Again, back to this idea of a scaffold or a framework, we all know that applies to our bodies, but again, even our bodies grow and build out in very unique ways for each of us. Just like no one has identical fingerprints, no one has the same brain either. I do trust neuroimaging tools and self-reports to a degree, depending on the context in which they are being used for interpretation. Measuring data, currently in time and space, like conscious energy, a spirit, a consciousness, isn't feasible. Because of that, we sometimes need to rely on other methods of interpreting the world, such as philosophy.

Approaching the way we understand the world from several different perspectives, academic areas, theories, etc., helps us gain more context and other avenues of understanding both our personal and our collective human experience. Neuroimaging tools are most useful and most technically objective methods of measurement, which work well in medical situations, like when someone is hurt and you need to see what is going on physically to help enact an effective solution. In other words, neuroimaging is highly practical for quantitative research and is both reliable and valid. However, for more complex, qualitative, and potentially abstract questions, we need to look through a more multidisciplinary and multifaceted lens.

My approach leans more towards a mix of dualism, pragmatism, quantum theory, psychology, sociology, neuroscience, global cultural and religious studies, anthropology, astronomy, philosophy, and so many others, if that gives you a better idea of what I mean by drawing on multiple disciplines. At times, this does lead to ambiguity. Still, also the underlying nature of all things could be considered or defined as paradoxical, which goes hand in hand with ambiguity and dualism. Sometimes, without a robust understanding or framework of these concepts, topics, universal laws, etc., it can cause an experience that is both confusing and disorienting because it goes against the grain of how our minds work on a day-to-day basis and our social/cultural programming. Someday, we can better understand the honest answer/answers to your question, but the best we have is a place to start, which is what a solid foundation and understanding of fundamental ideas provides us.

I think it's possible that if done responsibly, ethically, and with a tremendous, almost superfluous amount of discernment, AI, VR, intersubjective neuroscience, or even brain-computer interfaces (as terrifying as I think that is), could be used to bridge that gap somehow. I think the risk, however, far outweighs the benefit; in my opinion, it'd be much more prudent for humans to find the answers to these questions more organically and responsibly with frameworks we already have like storytelling, connection, working in groups, movement, etc. Using AI as a fast track seems desperate and unwise to me. AI should be used as a tool for contained growth in all aspects of life, not just when it comes to consciousness.

I think that if humans began to rely more on human connection, storytelling, and phenomenological approaches, we would have a better chance at solving more mysterious questions in a somewhat timely manner (perhaps not comparatively to AI, but maybe learning what consciousness is isn't as urgent as we think; possibly it's something we can take our time with in a way). Regarding "shared psychological reality" ideally an experience like this looked at through a more metaphorical/mythical/archetypal lens, looks like two different beings with different stories but similar archetypal stories and life experiences that consist of separate feminine and masculine energies (or polarized energies) choosing to witness each other and organically have a give and take dynamic that persists over time in a way where both energies become one through shared conclusions that are reached in separate ways on completely separate paths altogether. They meet at a crossroads or a threshold, so to speak, and choose to remain at that crossroads and grow somehow in any sense of the word.

Now looking through a more dark and distorted lens, instead of a perfect harmony/yinyang type experience that has an ebb and flow that perfectly complement one another, a shared reality can also look like generational trauma, marginalization, trauma bonding, toxic family systems that have scapegoats and golden children, things of this nature. Shared realities can be like heaven or hell on earth, depending on what we choose to do with our energies and how we approach every second that we are here. Our thoughts, our choices, and whether we choose to control our energy or let it loose affect how our limbic systems interact with those around us. In this way, the limbic system plays a massive role in our emotional memory and bonding, which actively shapes our reality.

In many tangible ways that can be supported in research, what we believe can and will manifest into reality, whether we mean to do that or not. Our energy multiplies, and if enough people believe in something, the more real the idea becomes. This is proven with quantum physics; what was once just energy floating around is observed and becomes tangible, observable, and measurable. A great place to start when it comes to research studies that include neuroimaging tools, for example, should focus on clients doing something that involves creativity, if they want to figure out how to measure consciousness. Creativity and consciousness have notoriously walked hand in hand and are considered dualities of the same coin. If you want to have a deeper conversation about this, I'd love to chat! Reach out if you feel called to :)