Are you proponent of Madhavacharya dualism?
2008/1/10, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > On Jan 10, 2008, at 2:13 AM, off_world_beings wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com <FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com>, > Angela Mailander > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Don’t forget SchrÅ`dinger > > saying that the world looks to him like a great thought rather than > a great > > machine.> > > Yes, and please make that point to Vaj as he has already tried to > ignore the quote from Max Planck stating that "Consiousness as > fundamental. I regard matter as derivative of consciousness", as well > as other quotes > > > > > Again, not from a physics paper. We're not interested in what a newspaper > or magazine says, after all this is the 21st century: we're just interested > in papers presented in respected, peer-reviewed journals aren't we (that was > your proposition not mine!). > > > What if, as Wigner has proposed, it is the interdependent relationship > between the presence of consciousness and the wave function that makes it > collapse in the first place? Giving consciousness such a major role creates > a host of problems. A certain amount of time has to pass between the moment > any apparatus measures the particle and the moment the observer learns the > result! What are you proposing Off, that the observer's consciousness emits > some sort of signal that travels back through time and then tells the > measuring apparatus what it's supposed to indicate when the particle > interacts with the machine? What about when there is no human observer and > some automatic recording machine does the "observing"? Does the machine > travel back through time? > > > I think you've merely uncritically accepted a good number of > false propositions which were sold to you by a pseudo-master and his > physicists-marketeers. > > > > > > >
