Quote:
Originally Posted by mszlazak  Again Tor, you're repeating what I've said about Stapp's book. The majority is about the measurement problem in QT, other speculation on QT and his speculations. He then uses some fallacious arguments from William James and ones from determinism and "free-will" which he thinks requires a conscious "Self", giving him process 0. There really is "no meat" here to the issues that need addressing.
He then needs to make his approach general and can't do that without Whitehead but this essentially means the "Self" he starts with goes away. You do point out that the mind-dust "micro-self's" isn't what he wants and I can see why, hence my remark about their knowings of QT basis issues.
I guess, this means that these knowings aren't needed because they were not around in the distant past or that QT is incomplete. Stapp should have just written less about some things and more on other things.
As to the parapsychology experiments of people like Dean Radin. I am assuming just for the sake of argument that they show the existence of psi even though I don't believe they do. My point is that the data from these experiments are third-person data and if you believe the qualia theory of subjective experiences then by definition they are not something science can ever test for. Parapsychology isn't all that relevent. There is more but this should be enough to get you started.
--------------------- |
I do agree that Stapp could have done a better job in formulating his views. But I do also recognize that it's a work in progress, a first step. Also, a lot of people think perspectives, that take the QM/consciousness link seriously, might be the right way to go. Both well known physicists and other scientists. Check out the
reviews of Quantum Enigma for a overview of what some of these people are saying (also includes some skeptics). I do not think I know it all, but I don't think those that scoff at the QM/consciousness connection (or believe that mind/consciousness is an illusion) do either. Most of them are very narrow minded in my opinion.
As to the rest of the arguments, I feel this is more a difference of how we view the world. You can't prove anything and I can't prove anything. It's all a matter of interpretation, as always in science (although I do think I've got more evidence on my side, but you don't accept it so..).
To continue this would just be an exchange of opinions
