We've been taught to distrust our inner worlds. Scientific rigor demands external measurement, controlled experiments, objective instruments. Introspection seems subjective, unreliable—the antithesis of empirical observation. We trust microscopes over meditation, data over daydreams. Up front, this isn't about mysticism. It is about hard empiricism, positivistic to the quick. When one introspects—when we observe our own mental processes—we are engaging in the most direct empirical observation available to us. When we communicate with others, verbal and nonverbal language can create a shared, empirically-resonant space—mediated by neural and related processes.

Consider what happens when you observe anything external to yourself. Light reflects off an object, travels through space, enters your eye, and triggers photoreceptor cells. These generate neural signals that journey through multiple processing stages in your visual cortex, integrate with other sensory information and memory, and finally produce the conscious experience of "seeing."

That's extraordinary mediation. Multiple transformation layers where information gets filtered, compressed, interpreted, and reconstructed. By the time you "see" something, you're experiencing a highly processed representation, not the thing itself. Multiple sensory streams are integrated into a conscious experience. Information is lost. Reality is constructed.

Now compare this with introspection—when you notice yourself thinking, observe an emotion arising, or catch your attention shifting. Here, the neural activity that constitutes the thought........

© Psychology Today