--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" <compost...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> 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...
Yupper. > 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*. And an excellent point it is. (Is that really what Tart said??) 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? I'd guess it would depend on who he was talking to (and possibly how many beers he'd had).
