Picture of the author
Topic :
Mistakes in descriptions of RQT
Thread Created at Jun 7th 2021, 10:42:46 pm | Started by Brent_Allsop
Number of Post in this thread: 1
Please Sign In to comment on this Thread
Brent_Allsop replied 3 years ago (Jun 7th 2021, 10:53:02 pm)

Quote from this camp statement: 


RQT proposes that the shape, size and weight of the cue ball are objective. This means that quantitative measures have a very close resemblance (usually thought of as identical) in the ball and the mind alike. But how do you know the ball is round? Because of the difference between the white and the green. Adding a measuring device makes no difference because again it is the subject who places the grey of the steel rule and its black markings into the experiential field.


There are multiple mistakes in this description of RQT. There is reality, out there, which our senses objectively detect in experimentally reproducible ways.  In addition to that, there is our conscious knowledge of what is our there, which is computationally bound elemental intrinsic qualities, like redness and greenness, which represent objective reality, out there.  If a round red ball is on a green table, we have knowledge which is in the same round and flat shape.  Knowledge of a ball has an intrinsic redness quality, and knowledge of the table has an intrinsic greenness quality.  There is something in the brain, which is this representation, that has these intrinsic qualities we can directly apprehend.  Nobody knows the intrinsic colors of the ball, or the table, out there.  All we have is objective descriptions of their behavior (as in the table reflects green light and the ball reflects red light)  But that abstract description of the behavior of a quality tells us nothing of what the quality is intrinsically like.


When you measure these shapes, and their behaviors, you do this with real rulers and such.  As we do this, you have knowledge of the same, which is a simulated world in your head, with the same shapes.  The accuracy of your knowledge of what is out there, can be objective or experimentally verified.  Our knowledge doesn’t always accurately represent what is out there, as can be objectively demonstrated with illusions and such, like when the pencil "looks" bent when in a glass of water.

Robots and intelligent cars can be engineered to have similar kinds of knowledge of the world out there, enabling them to behave intelligently.  There knowledge is just abstract (words like red and green), while ours is represented directly on intrinsic qualities like redness and greenness.  The fact that we can engineer robots with this kind of knowledge representing the world they are operating in  falsifies your claim that "RQT reduces all physical science to absurdity by disqualifying all measure"