Quote:
Originally Posted by Tor  Well, I don't agree with you here. First of all why do there have to be signals? Couldn't this Self that Ian is talking about be omnipresent? As increasing evidence for non-locality shows up, this doesn't seem too crazy anymore.
Having read the work of Henry Stapp, I don't see why this concept should be viewed as unscientific anymore. He doesn't mention the Self in the same way we are discussing here, but his description is not far away from the old notion of an omnipresent Self.
And I'm one of those that think he probably is the only one that has managed to provide a plausible first step in describing what is really going on at the basic level of reality. Most other interpretations of QM sidestep the real problem of observation.
How can you block these "signals"? Well signal or no signal (I don't believe there are signals), this is can be done by using anesthetics. At least it seems to have this effect.
How can you intercept the "signals"?
Well... as I said I don't think they are signals, but we need to have a unique code to log on to our own mini-self.
DNA could do the trick. This is almost pure speculation from my side of course, apart from what I've read about cases of organ transplant patients that start to change personality (and even claim to pick up memories, emotions etc) in the direction towards the donor. I guess these cases are far from bulletproof, but I think they open up an intriguing possibility. |
You're making MY case that the TV reciever analogy doesn't work because TV recievers do recieve signals and they are NOT in contact with a non-natural or supernatural entity which probably isn't even real.
Stapp provides no evidence for a "Self" and his work is not scientific in this regard. It's mostly philosophical speculation and circular arguments.
-------------------------------