@stevecham
I don’t see evidence that the ephemeral things of consciousness are well bound by the laws of physics. I don’t think the science has evolved that far yet. It’s speculative, at best, and would require a very particular interpretation of physics that the field is trying hard to avoid. Clearly we’re able to perceive things that don’t reflect physical phenomenon. There are no physical parallels that give rise to perceptions of God or love or hate, or lust. Those are pure inventions of perception that are not analogous to the phenomenon that give rise to them. Perception, buy nature, doesn’t reflect underlying physical phenomenon. I’m not saying the phenomenon of consciousness and perception cannot be quantified. We haven’t developed the tools, methods, or metrics by which to do it yet. But I’ve got Cleeds up there swearing up and down he CAN do such things, which I think you and I both agree is impossible at this point.
This quantification of consciousness is a real problem when it comes to really understanding what all kinds of measurements mean well beyond the characteristics of an amplifier. It seems to me that if we we’re able to quantify perception and consciousness, then the measurements we do have might have different meaning, and we may find that other kinds of measurements are necessary. For whatever reason, we try very, very hard to analyze and quantify the physical world to the extreme and deliberately avoid trying to analyze and quantify the experience of being. It makes for an incomplete equation. It’s the difference between knowing what a thing is, and what a thing means. For lack of a better analogy, knowing the thing is a very single ended proposition, whereas knowing what the thing means requires a complimentary understanding, and that complimentary factor is better understanding consciousness and perception.
