facts of evolution

[eFestivals]

What the f**k are you on about now?!

you making up your own theories that totally contradict all that science has discovered - as you've been doing thru-out this thread.

(and very many other threads. Constantly).

[eFestivals]

You can't deny experience.

Seeing as that's all we are.

but a measure taken by machine is not 'experience'.

And so taste can be measured outside of experience. Experience only comes into it with comparison of those results to experience.

This applies in the exact same way to measuring heat too. And everything else. The experience part is only applicable for any comparisons.

[worm]

Best quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein

" He maintains that some disputes are fruitless because we fail to see that they are linguistically superficial; that there are many possible ways of talking about, say, numbers, each of which may have its legitimate use in a different context. The young Wittgenstein would probably have replied to Carnap, however, (as did the elder W.V.O. Quine) that the logical analysis of scientific language is better left to the scientists themselves. His idea in the TLP, after all, was not to turn philosophy into meta-logic, but rather to secure as philosophical everything that lies outside the scope of science and therefore beyond the reach of language. "

[worm]

you making up your own theories

[Rufus Gwertigan]

Just as a recap on taste. Neil brought up an article

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/...ature04655.html

and it was said that taste is a poor indicator, yet I argue it is as good as any. In fact it is a very common research gene and indicator

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/9/12

http://www.friendsofpast.org/pdf/DOI/DOI02173.pdf

But obviously I am wrong, as taste is an experience, and in no way could be used. I was wondering how one detects taste in fish as they are pulling their tongues out anyway

Anyway this interlude was brought to you by Planet Dave

[worm]

but a measure taken by machine is not 'experience'.

Edited January 30, 2009 by worm

[worm]

I was wondering how one detects taste in fish as they are pulling their tongues out anyway

Edited January 30, 2009 by worm

[eFestivals]

And what does it measure?

some sort of chemical make-up.

The innate sublime quality of the chocolate cake I've just eaten? The sullen delicacy of the soft churned cocoa butter? Explain to me in scientific terms what that taste is then? You can't It's based entirely upon experience.

no, the experience part is what you're recounting.

There is still the things that cause you to experience that taste that can be measured.

All you can describe in scientific terms is the many stimuli that create the conditions of that experience and the response that I have to that experience. You cannot scientifically analyse that experience. It is entirely subjective.

who is trying to measure experience? Only you. Science measures a different thing (see above).

Only a response to stimuli (the machines response to stimuli) can be measured. Taste can't be as it is the experience.

and what is (human) taste? It's the response to the exact same stimuli that can be measured by machine.

Experience is only necessary to understand what is measured by that machine in a human context.

Taste is the experience.

and what the machine measures is its experience of what we know as taste.

Heat is physical. We can experience it through touch. Taste is not physical. It is the experience of a response to stimuli. They aren't comparible.

Man, you are thick.

;lol: .....and so we're back to your very wrong understanding of what our senses are again.

Taste *IS* physical. It is the physical make-up of what is tasted. The taste exists outside of our experience of it, as the measure taken by machine proves beyond doubt.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

Well, all that's measured is the different responses and behaviours in relation to the food they are given and how the biology subsequently works in relation to such behaviours.

Do they have tongues?

Edited January 30, 2009 by Planet Dave

[worm]

some sort of chemical make-up.

Edited January 30, 2009 by worm

[eFestivals]

Indeed.

Not taste then.

Yes it is. Recounting from experience.

Yes. The stimuli.

I'm not. I'm saying that it can't be measured.

No, that's a response to stimuli. That isn't experience.

Human taste is an experience.

Eh?

It isn't. It's experience. Taste stimuli is physical. The response is physical. The experience isn't.

what you understand and experience as taste is the effect of your tongue measuring the same chemical make-up as a taste machine measures.

You just said that it didn't experience earlier.

limits of language.

To repeat:

Prove this wrong and it will no longer be the case. That's all that's required.

prove it right (all of it, not just the bolded bits) and it will be the case. That's all that's required.

We can all play meaningless word games.

Edited January 30, 2009 by eFestivals

[sadwitch]

I think krisskross is doing a good job of explaining something complicated which is difficult when most people don't seem to have an understanding of fundamental concepts. Everyone seems to be ignoring what he says in favour of rambling on about what they saw on the telly and arguingabout what an eye is.

People also say they don't know much about it but don't seem to want to have it explained to them when they could make it up/read an abstract out of Nature/bicker.

I'd get involved but I have to go and be sick every few minutes while trying desperately not to rupture my stitches.

[worm]

what you understand and experience as taste is the effect of your tongue measuring the same chemical make-up as a taste machine measures.

Edited January 30, 2009 by worm

[worm]

I think krisskross is doing a good job of explaining something complicated which is difficult when most people don't seem to have an understanding of fundamental concepts. Everyone seems to be ignoring what he says in favour of rambling on about what they saw on the telly and arguingabout what an eye is.

People also say they don't know much about it but don't seem to want to have it explained to them when they could make it up/read an abstract out of Nature/bicker.

I'd get involved but I have to go and be sick every few minutes while trying desperately not to rupture my stitches.

[eFestivals]

The machine has no experience. What I am is the experience. I am neither the cause nor the effect that the machine measures. I am experience.

This is what you are failing to understand. Check out Searle's Chinse Box experiment.

All of no relevance. What you are experiencing is what the thing you taste gives you. It gives the exact same thing to a suitable machine too.

You're going wrong here because, at least in regard to science, you have the wrong approach. Science recognises that all things we can experience have their own independent properties that are completely unattached to all human experience.

Personal experience only comes into it only when we want to relate something known via science to ourselves.

(and of course via the fact that all that science tell us is via experience in itself. But that can put aside because we've already considered "I think therefore I am" and made a definitive conclusion on that one).

You mean you don't understand.

You've already shown this to be true. You can't measure taste. Yet, as you have shown in the last three posts, you can measure certain stimuli, responses and differences between an individual's experiences.

It's not a word game Neil. You're just thick.

says the man who is saying every expert in this field and every other field of science is fundamentally wrong from their very first scientific thought.

[worm]

All of no relevance. What you are experiencing is what the thing you taste gives you. It gives the exact same thing to a suitable machine too.

Edited January 30, 2009 by worm

[worm]

Personal experience only comes into it only when we want to relate something known via science to ourselves.

Edited January 30, 2009 by worm

[eFestivals]

Do you actually know what you're saying at all?

yes. I can read and understand what science tells me. As you've proven in this thread, you reject what science tells you and instead rely only on your fantasies.

edit: If you want to take the 'experience' angle and apply it to science then at least take it consistently: I am not actually 6'3", that's merely people's experience of me, and other such madness. Etc, etc, etc.

Edited January 31, 2009 by eFestivals

[worm]

yes. I can read and understand what science tells me. As you've proven in this thread, you reject what science tells you and instead rely only on your fantasies.

Edited January 31, 2009 by worm

[Binky]

whilst i can belivie in the path of evoulution as compared to god made the world i still can,t for the life of me get it into my head how the hell some wolf,s decided it would be a good idea to downsize to a Chihuahua

[pehaw]

Do they have tongues?

Edited January 31, 2009 by pehaw

[worm]

If they didnt't then Cymothoa Exigua would get rather peckish.

[rabid]

Weird.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

If they didn't then Cymothoa Exigua would get rather peckish.

[worm]

I could go on for hours about these things.