Well, we've ventured 'way off the topic of quantum computing, but 'way into the topic of consciousness.
Science is not content to just say that I am experiencing 1g right now, it goes on to define gravity, and to eplain how the interaction of masses creates attraction.
Without defining g (and gravity), there is no meaning in saying, "I am experiencing 1g right now." In defining gravity -- and what can be measured about it -- one can attach the lable "subject to 1g" to any mass at sea level. "Experience" implies perception -- do you percieve different amounts of gravity with the same sort of accuracy that you could say, "That color is fire engine red"?
If science was about measureing reality, then scientists would not delve into the how/why of things.
Actually, science can only answer questions of how. Matters of why are metaphysics. A scientist can address questions of how by measurement and by experiments (the reasults of which are expressed as measurements). That is all. No Why answers here, and none pretended.
Or to put it another way scientists see life as "there is one truth and it's name is physics (biology, math, so on and so forth)."
It is my considered opinion that to see anything as the one truth is, um, stupid and limiting. By "anything" I could include science, fundamentalist religions, anti-religions, and sports fanatics.
Facts are facts and if they don't support your ideas, then it's your ideas that are at fault and not the facts.
Point correct. Or to be facetious, "Well, duh." (FYI, I was quoting lyrics from a favorite Talking Heads song off the disc Remain in Light.)
How ever in another sense you are wrong, the facts will always support an objective model of reality that says that my subjective experience is wrong.
Well, it may be that in your perception and subjective experience, anything I say will be "wrong." So be it. However, there are many truths. If one is tripping on acid and percieves the walls as breathing, other people's perceptions (and a physical measuring device) will likely disagree. So what? Perceptions are very slippery things, even simple things like physical description and recall of traumatic incidents. Two eyewitnesses rarely tell the same story. Unless there is an independant device, say a video camera, a third person cannot know which of them is telling the "truth." For each witness, though, their memory is "truth."
Nothing is True. To quote myself from a recent post to the Art With Brain in Mind list:
"Truth is a slippery thing, and I find shades of meaning of the word.
Religious truth is not the same as scientific truth. ...
Scientific truth is based on repeated observations and consistant
results. As the measuring tools get better, truth can change. In
addition, there are several functional truths which can easily co-exist.
Newtonian physics is perfectly good for ballistics, but completely
useless for quantum mechanics. Quantum computation could do for
ballistics, but it is more efficient to use the Newtonian shorthand."
In this forum I speak primarily as a scientist, but you know nothing about me or my total worldview except what you have projected based on how my written words filter through your perceptual set, your filters based on your prior experiences and unconscious prejudices. Which is fine with me, but please consider that you might make a mistaken assumption that the facet presented represents the whole.
You cannot have a reasonable conversation with someone who regards other people as toys to be played with. localroger
remove apostrophe for email.
[ Parent ]