Quote:
Originally Posted by mszlazak  Here is Nauenberg's critique of "Quantum Enigma" (QE) which gives plenty of quotes, even ones of people that Rosenberg and Kuttner quote but actually say the opposite things. I'll let you read Nauenberg to see why. But it's not just quotes it's reasons that are in Nauenberg's critique of consciousness and the book QE. QE is a biased misleading presentation of these issues. http://physics.ucsc.edu/~michael/qefoundations.pdf
Here is Kuttner's response to Nauenberg which admits: "that the encounter of physics with consciousness likely has no practical consequences for physics. It is metaphysics." He then fails to give a detailed response to Nauenberg lengthy critique. http://arxiv.org/pdf/0710.2361
I suggest you read Nauenberg completely before reading Kuttner.
I didn't say physicists should not say anything. They're free to say what they want.
AND
Physics deals with the wrong level or organization. That is why QT is irrelevent to brain/mind/consciousness/psychology issues. So generally, physicists are out of their league.
------------------------------ |
First off, thank you for referring me to Kuttner's response to Nauenberg's article. I read Nauenberg's article a couple of months ago. I wasn't especially impressed then, and I wasn't now either when I reread it.
The main problem with Nauenberg is that he doesn't seem to acknowledge that decoherence
does not solve the measurement problem beyond FAPP. Instead he boosts it as in fact doing just this (when he talks about irreversible amplifications). From what I've read on decoherence, this is not the case. This fact alone is enough to make us encounter consciousness.
I agree that QE is biased. It's just as biased as all the other perspectives out there on what the heck is going on in QT beyond FAPP. But I do not think it's misleading.
I think Kuttner gives a good enough response to Nauenberg. Readers of
Foundation of Physics, that are interested in these issues, should be well aware that decoherence does not solve the measurement problem. And they would have noticed that Nauenberg conveniently jumps over this fact.
As to the quotes and their relevance, I'll just refer to Mermin in his review of QE:
Quote:
|
Does quantum mechanics give consciousness a special role to play in our description of the physical world? Opinions range all over the map.
|
And who says that physics deals the wrong level of organization as it is relevant to consciousness? I would argue exactly the opposite (and have when I wrote about Stapp).
Anyway, I do think that enough empirical evidence (of the type I mentioned before) exists to seriously question the existing paradigm, independent of any theory be it QT or any other. A consideration of the QE just adds to the load.