RE: Quantum consciousness...
August 16, 2017 at 7:56 am
(This post was last modified: August 16, 2017 at 8:05 am by Neo-Scholastic.)
(August 13, 2017 at 11:00 pm)Khemikal Wrote: Because they've been modifying their model to overcome those falsifications without actually changing the data, making excuses for why the predictions were right even though they don't seem to be...
Isn't that kind of how it's supposed to work? Form hypothesis, test hypothesis, revise hypothesis, test again. It would be one thing to change the data but i see nothing wrong with changing the hypothesis is light of the data. Maybe he just needs better testing. Absent that it remains unsupported, yes? Personally I don't have an opinion about Pennrose/Hammeroff theory. The science is out of my league.
(August 15, 2017 at 10:51 am)Khemikal Wrote:(August 15, 2017 at 9:31 am)bennyboy Wrote: No, we can't. And, in fact, I'd say that consciousness is so essential to existence that our inability to objectively observe it doesn't bode well for objective observation as the best way to learn about the mind. I really think we have to define at least some of what "science" means to include methodical self-observation a la the roots of psychology.b-mine
I'm not sure why you think this is so. Do you also think that we cannot objectively observe electrical current with a voltimeter? That we cannot objectively observe temperature with a thermometer? Time with a stopwatch?
What exactly are you watching when the beads of an abacus move? My point is that people can observe and measure all kinds of physical processes without having any clue as to what they are about. More importantly, the connection between the bead positions and the numbers they represent are accidental and not essential.
