--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > A physicist, albeit a famous one, prescribed to a basic > > tenet of his religious beliefs and speculations -- and > > that proves consciousness is a quantum phenomenon. May I > > suggest someone has been sipping a bit too much Bushmills? > > Especially since it was Schrödinger's recognition of the > limits of science that propelled him into mysticism, as > a potential source of knowledge that was beyond anything > science (including quantum mechanics) could tell us. > > In fact, it was the discovery of quantum mechanics that > made the limitations of science to tell us about How It > All Works unequivocally clear for the first time.
It was certainly a big shock. IMO there is another side to this: the limitations of science that surface when we try to do meta-science (epistemology). Starting with Hume's scepticism thru Kant on the limits of Reason, then the failure of positivism in the early 20th century to show that knowledge was well-founded on the evidence of the senses and simple logical statements. Then we have the failure of Russell and Frege to demonstrate that Maths is built on a solid logical foundation. And then we get Popper... - anti "scientism", true, but ultimately his "falsifiability" criterion is infected with mystery to the core! Woo-woo sneerers are skating on thin ice... I would add that I think Tart's "that proves consciousness is a quantum phenomenon!" comment misses the point I tried to make about the difference between *consistency with science" and *proved by science*. I suspect Josephson, Planck, Schrödinger might (if pushed after a few drinks) spout their fair share of woo-woo. I think that as a rider to that, they would go with the former, not the latter (consistent with, not proved by). I don't know about Hagelin? > If you're a theoretical physicist who suddenly rams into > a blank wall *thrown up by the laws of physics themselves*, > if the scientific understanding of Life, the Universe, and > Everything that it has been your life's work to pursue > tells you *in its own terms* "So far, and no further," > what do you do? Sit back and say, "Well, OK, never mind > then"? Do you just give up your quest? > > Or do you look around for another route to understanding, > one that isn't subject to those limitations? > > The interest of many of the early quantum theorists in > mysticism isn't at all surprising. > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" <compost1uk@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > IMO, one of the best "proofs" of the fact that individual > > > > consciousness is subjective experience of some quantum > > > > mechanical (or possibly "deeper") phenomena is that Erwin thought so? > > > > > > > > Wiki: > > > > > > > > Schrödinger stayed in Dublin until retiring in 1955. During this time > > > > he remained committed to his particular passion; involvements with > > > > students occurred and he fathered two children by two different Irish > > > > women[citation needed]. He had a life-long interest in the Vedanta > > > > philosophy of Hinduism, which influenced his speculations at the close > > > > of What is Life? about the possibility that individual consciousness > > > > is only a manifestation of a unitary consciousness pervading the > > > > universe.[7] > > > > > > > > > > Yes. very interesting (and I don't mean the Irish women!) > > > > > >
