I realize that science is flawed (one thing that has consistently surprised me about science is the lack of investigation to prove/disprove an afterlife, but nevermind) but I think that that is less a problem with science than a problem with the SCIENTISTS. As a method of discovering truth, I see no problems with science whatsoever. Just some of the people involved with it that allow subjectivity to seep into their calculations. (assuming it is not a subjective investigation)

"I see something green. I have an experience of 'greenness' which I can't describe."

I don't neccesarily see this as a problem; the answer I think MIGHT be right probably won't sound good, but tell me what you think: When I feel pain, I have a feeling of pain that I can't describe. When I stumble, I have a feeling of falling I can't describe. But, I can describe things more objective: distance, time, etcetera.

I think the difference is one of biology: the processes in our minds that deal with our most basic sensations (color, for instance) has been with life forms for eons. The earlier life that had color receptors had no way of quantifying this data with their primitive brains, and that wiring was passed on down to us, who now have the mental capacity to describe color but are physically incapable of it.

• More on consciousness - paulm - June 23, 2001 - 03:23 UTC
  • I'll try and clarify - stormcrow - June 23, 2001 - 03:55 UTC
    • Yes, that makes it clear - paulm - June 23, 2001 - 17:19 UTC
      • Consciousness - stormcrow - June 23, 2001 - 22:25 UTC
        • Yet more on consciousness - paulm - June 24, 2001 - 00:28 UTC
          • How do you know it's a radio and not a CD player? - stormcrow - June 24, 2001 - 01:51 UTC
            • I get current news without inserting a new CD - paulm - June 24, 2001 - 05:09 UTC
              • Be back soon - stormcrow - June 24, 2001 - 10:41 UTC
                • OK But please start a new thread when you get back (NT) - paulm - June 24, 2001 - 21:44 UTC