facts of evolution

[feral chile]

that is all taste is

[worm]

no it isn't. A description of the physical process involved in taste is not the experience itself.

Just as an understanding of the physical process involved in colour perception wouldn't allow a blind person to experience red.

A subjective experience can't be reduced to the objective observation/description of it.

It hurts me to say this, because I'm a materialist at heart, but there you are.

[eFestivals]

Taste cannot be scientifically measured AS SCIENCE RECOGNISES!

it can be measured no less than light (sight) and aroma (smell) .... the taste a person experiences comes from the thing you taste, no less than what a person sees comes from the light waves that enter their eyes.

Can science tell you that an untasted thing will taste sweet when you do taste it? Yes.

Size is a physical measurement taken within experience. Taste is not.

what is tasted is no less physical.

You mis-understand what our senses are. They are sensing devices, no different to any mechanical sensing device. What is sensed is something aside from an ability to sense.

[worm]

it can be measured no less than light (sight) and aroma (smell) .... the taste a person experiences comes from the thing you taste, no less than what a person sees comes from the light waves that enter their eyes.

Edited February 2, 2009 by worm

[eFestivals]

But that isn't the experience (taste). It's the process. Science cannot measure the experience (taste) through anything other than quantitative and qualitative differences (i.e. differences in responses to stimuli and differences in experiences of stimuli), as has been explained to you. Taste, sight and aroma are never measured. Ever.

flavour, light and aroma can be and are measured. These are the independent properties of things quite apart from any personal experience.

What we personally experience are different things: taste, sight & smell. These are not a thing's own properties but how we personally experience those properties via our own sensing devices.

However..... we relate what we see to the light that can be measured (just as we relate a scientifically measured force to forces we're able to exert with our bodies - without making such a relationship what science can measure are just meaningless numbers on a personal level). The exact same logic is applicable for flavour/taste and aroma/smell too - it's simply that comparisons of a thing's properties to what we then experience of that things properties via our sensing devices for these two senses are far less common. But they can still be done in the exact same way.

And so, having experienced something sweet and used science to find out what properites make that thing sweet, we are able to tell ourselves (if it does) that another thing also tastes sweet via science without having first tasted it. It's the *exact* same methodology as used for all other things we're able to sense via our personal sensing devices.

[worm]

flavour, light and aroma can be and are measured. These are the independent properties of things quite apart from any personal experience.

[worm]

And so, having experienced something sweet and used science to find out what properites make that thing sweet, we are able to tell ourselves (if it does) that another thing also tastes sweet via science without having first tasted it. It's the *exact* same methodology as used for all other things we're able to sense via our personal sensing devices.

Edited February 2, 2009 by worm

[eFestivals]

No they aren't. Taste, aroma and vision are all experiences, not physical properties. Light is physical, but that isn't sight. Air particles are physical, but that isn't smell. Food is physical, but that isn't taste.

I repeat:

Science can measure ''physical stimuli, physical response (positivist science)''

i.e. the stimuli of light/air particles/food and how something reponds to it.

Science can measure ''the difference between taste experiences (empirical science)''

i.e. differences in the experiences of light/air particles/food

It cannot measure the experience.

who is taking about the experience? Not me.

I'm talking about what is measured by science. And what is measured by science - EVERYTHING that is measured by science - only has meaning when related to experience.

Otherwise, it only ever has meaning to itself ..... and so a measure of how many shit particles are floating in the air after someone has farted only has a meaning as a measure, until that measure is related to an experience: and saying about an object "that's six inches long" also means nothing, until you have experience of what 6 inches is.

And then for colour ..... what I see as green you might see as what I see as red - but it's of no consequence; we both call the same thing green. And back to taste: if I say it's sweet then you do too, because we're both using the same experience (say of sugar) as the benchmark for what is sweet. Someone told both you and me that sugar is sweet, so that's what we work from when deciding if something is sweet.

(there's of course exceptions, for those with abnormalities in their sensing equipment).

It's all the same method, for everything. And so, if you can measure size, or light, you can measure smell.

[worm]

who is taking about the experience? Not me.

[eFestivals]

Yes you were. You were referring to taste, saying that it could be measured by science.

apologies for my poor use of language (which you've also been just as guilty of). I've been refering to a thing's own property of flavour.

But science can't measure taste.

but it can tell you what something will taste of, and how strong that taste will be. It can tell you how the flavour of a thing will relate to your experience of tasting other things.

The 5 human senses are not a thing in themselves, they're just sensing equipment - they tell you the independent properties of independent things; as do scientific instruments.

Experience comes into it only if you want to relate the measure of a scientific instrument to personal experience: science can tell you something measures 6 inches, but it means nothing till you experience for yourself what 6 inches is; science can tell you something will taste sweet, but that has no meaning until you know what sweet is.

There's difficulties with the 'how sweet', but even that can be quantified into something meaningful via the use of benchmarks.

[worm]

apologies for my poor use of language (which you've also been just as guilty of). I've been refering to a thing's own property of flavour.

[worm]

The 5 human senses are not a thing in themselves, they're just sensing equipment - they tell you the independent properties of independent things; as do scientific instruments.

Edited February 2, 2009 by worm

[eFestivals]

I don't know if you have used language poorly. All I can see is what you've said and replied accordingly. I do not believe that I have used language incorrectly regarding taste. I've explained it correctly using both empirical and positivist notions throughout, quite rigidly I may add i.e. that science can measure the stimuli (food) and response (a stimulation of a certain part of the brain) or the differences between the experiences (one things is described as nice, another is described as not nice).

None of these things measures taste or the experience of it. Therefore, a robot cannot measure taste as it does not experience it. It only gathers data based upon stimulas and response and 'mimicks' our experience of differences if it is programmed to do so.

Essentially, the thing cannot be said to have a flavour as flavour is an experience. It can be said to stimulate an experience. It cannot qualify what that is. Only the person having the experience can.

Only through it's difference to other EXPERIENCES. As the experience itself can't be measured then all you're addressing is differences to other experiences. Taste is not measured. So I haven't rejected science at all. I've been explaining it.

the same logic is no less applicable to something being 6 inches long.

If you want to put things down to "only experience" then fine - but don't go changing your methodology depending on what you're considering. The only thing you're able to prove by switching your methodology as suits you is your own inconsistency.

After all, if you're right you'll be able to qualify to me what a distance of 6 inches is. Can you? No you can't. You can only qualify it in relation to something else. Exactly as with taste.

[eFestivals]

No, but the experience of the five human senses is. It's what we are. It's what we have constructed science out of.

in which case taste is no different to smell, touch, hear and see.

(you said it - not me )

[worm]

the same logic is no less applicable to something being 6 inches long.

[worm]

in which case taste is no different to smell, touch, hear and see.

[eFestivals]

It can. Six inches is a measurement made WITHIN experience. It can be measured.

and something tasting sweet is no less a measurement made within experience.

If it's not, say how it's not. But really, don't waste your or my time trying.

[worm]

If you want to put things down to "only experience" then fine - but don't go changing your methodology depending on what you're considering. The only thing you're able to prove by switching your methodology as suits you is your own inconsistency.

Edited February 2, 2009 by worm

[eFestivals]

Anyway ...... back onto topic.

There's some amazing and surprising facts about evolution - and NOT at all obvious (except to those very obviously wrong).

So who has got any other amazing facts of evolution they'd like to share?

PS: trolls and creationists can f**k off and die. Start your own thread, don't spoil this one.

[eFestivals]

I'm not changing any methodology. The scientific methodologies are empiricism and positivism. These are always within experience. You do not experience size. You measure size based upon experience. This is a measurement based upon the methodology of positivism.

really?? And there was me thinking that I experienced size via sight and touch. How foolish of me.

[worm]

and something tasting sweet is no less a measurement made within experience.

Edited February 2, 2009 by worm

[worm]

really?? And there was me thinking that I experienced size via sight and touch. How foolish of me.

Edited February 2, 2009 by worm

[eFestivals]

But it doesn't measure taste. It measures differences in the experience.

and a measure of distance of 6 inches is no different.

[eFestivals]

6'3" is the measurement of a physical property within experience. Taste is not. They aren't comparible as I've already made clear.

You should be comparing it with colour, not size. It is the quality that you're addressing, not the quantity.

It's all the self same thing - we only have experience.

We humans have got past any non-belief in our own existence (if you think you haven't, then prove it by throwing yourself in front of a bus), and accept that things exist in their own right outside of our personal experience - this is the basis for all of science.

And this is no less applicable to the flavour of a thing that can be tasted as it is to the size of the thing that can be measured. We are only able to have these things via our personal experience and a belief that they still exist outside of our experience.

[worm]

and a measure of distance of 6 inches is no different.