GORDON wrote : >It's easier talk about Qm or GR than it's is about socalled >Psychology(new witch doctors) or Consciousness mainly because we dont >really know what it means and it still is not a science YET!
If we don't begin to try, at least, to formulate the questions, those will never evolve, and a possible science could not be born. Besides, I am not sure there is something like "science". Only people with scientific attitude relatively to their questioning, trying to be honest and clear, with themselves and others. You are like someone saying to Newton it is useless trying to figure out what happens in the sky because we don't know what matter or sky are. We can make hypotheses, and then make reasoning, and observations, but question precedes science, like faith precedes concepts. >I should say that we have not found the right Questions,so I think that >is .... A question is never right or wrong. Questions grews from inner feelings, hope, fear, intellectual curiosity, fun, astonishment, etc. (all psychological predicates). > ... a merry-go-round just looking for answers to Questions that do not >exist! You begin with "not found the right questions" to end with "questions does not exist". You are quite quick on this. Are you not a little bit dogmatic on physicalism? Perhaps you are not interested in those questions. Different people ask different questions. That is what makes conversation worth... Science is quite good sometimes to just relate questions. My thesis shows that if comp is true, i.e. if there is a sense to survive with an artificial brain (copy from the original at *some* description level) then physics should be derivable from psychology/information science/computer science ... I could be wrong. No doubt, but apart from some gesticulation in front of the novelty, no flaws has been detected. (Sometimes I wish someone find one!) If you want *questions* you can still take a look at the dozen UDA questions I asked in the everything-list, cf for instance: http://www.escribe.com/science/theory/m3044.html This concerns FOR because comp is part of it. And perhaps comps lead to some deeper foundation of both quantum and quale. Bruno