--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >
> > Have you about read Hameroff's work, and that of Penrose? Yes. They have theories but still no one knows anything really about the Mind, about consciousness. > > The "hard science" of QM comprises a bunch of > mathematics and experimental data that appears to > contradict everything we think we know about how > reality is structured. As Bohr (I think) said, if > you aren't shocked by QM, you don't understand it. > > The only people really qualified to even guess at > what QM "means" are those who at least grasp the > math and the data. No disagreement here. That is one of the wonders of science. When we begin to understand one thing, it opens the door to many new mysteries. Right now QMs is full of mysteries for science to explore. Whether what is learned will tell us anything about consciousness is subject to considerable debate and considerable doubt. I doubt any of us here of physicists. My background makes me at least a fair issue spotter. At best we are equipped to learn where there may be consensus, to determine what theories are being explored, and to have a very basic understanding of what the issues are regarding one theory or another. For us to try to draw conclusions about anything regarding QM is fun, but that is about it. Because theorists tend to get attached to their theories, we cannot even draw good conclusions about what they say is evidence in support of their theories unless there is pretty good consensus in the applicable scientific community. >
