Forum di sciamanesimo, antropologia e spirito critico
Nei momenti più bui, ricorda sempre di fare un passo alla volta.
Voler ottenere tutto e subito è sciocco
Nei momenti più difficili, ricorda sempre che le abitudini stabiliscono un destino.
Stabilisci quelle che ti danno energia e crescita.
È solo nell’ora più profonda del Duat, nella Notte oscura dell’anima che possiamo vedere noi stessi.
E capire come superare la notte.
Non rifuggire l’oscurità, impara a vederci attraverso.
Tutto passa e scorre, il giorno diviene notte e la notte giorno.
Ciò che è bene per te ora domani diverrà un ostacolo e un impedimento, o un danno, e viceversa.
Tutto finisce e muta, come la pelle di un serpente.
Impara ad essere la volontà pura di vivere e non la pelle morta di un intento esaurito.
Tutto ciò che non supera l’alba del tuo nuovo giorno, non deve essere portato con te.
Il mondo è infinito, non giudicare perdite e guadagni come il piccolo pescatore che non ha mai visto l’Oceano.
Sconfinate sono le possibilità della Ruota.
Impara a fluire e solo allora senza occhi, senza orecchie né pensiero, vedrai, sentirai e capirai il Tao.
(Admin - Shamanism & Co. © 2011 - All rights reserved)


Forum di sciamanesimo, antropologia e spirito critico

forum di sciamanesimo, antropologia, spirito critico, terapie alternative, esoterismo. Forum of shamanism, anthropology, criticism, alternative therapies and esoterism
 
IndicePortaleFAQCercaRegistrarsiAccedi

Condividere | 
 

 Mystical Physics: Has Science Found the Path to the Ultimate?

Vedere l'argomento precedente Vedere l'argomento seguente Andare in basso 
AutoreMessaggio
Admin
Admin
Admin


Maschile Capra
Numero di messaggi : 2142
Data d'iscrizione : 04.02.09
Età : 37
Località : Roma

MessaggioOggetto: Mystical Physics: Has Science Found the Path to the Ultimate?   Lun 19 Ott 2009 - 12:35

FONTE: http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Quantum/mystic.pdf

Mystical Physics: Has Science Found the Path to the Ultimate?

Victor J. Stenger

Published in Free Inquiry, 16(3)1996
Quantum Metaphysics
Many people have come to look to science to solve all their problems.
Worried about nuclear missiles? Let science build a shield. Fretting about
running out of oil? Science will find us an endless source of energy,
perhaps cold nuclear fusion. Too little food? Science will grow more. Too
many people on earth? Science will launch them into space. Too much
pollution? Science will find a way to clean it up. Sick? Science will heal
you. Feeling depressed because you are going to die someday? Science
will find a way for you to live forever, if not by medical means, then
perhaps by confirming your deeply-felt belief that your selfhood is
intimately connected to the very fabric of reality.
How wonderful that science makes our lives so comfortable. And
how wonderful that science has finally confirmed our long-held belief that
human consciousness is the driving force behind the universe itself!
Quantum mechanics is arguably the greatest scientific theory every
invented. It has provided us with many of the tools of modern
technology, while describing matter at its most fundamental level. Some
believe that quantum mechanics has done even more, demonstrating that
an act of human consciousness at one point in space can instantaneously
cause a material system to change its behavior, indeed its very nature, at a
distant point in space - even across the universe. And not just
instantaneously. Human consciousness, it is said, can cause changes at
other points in space even before the thoughts occur.1 After all, thoughts
are part of the unbroken wholeness of all existence. The mind exists
throughout all space and time. It always existed, and always will exist.
This is the profound implication that many believe to follow from
1
2
quantum phenomena. Experiments have been performed that are misinterpreted
as requiring instantaneous connections across space, in
apparent violation of Einstein’s assertion that nothing can move faster
than light. Furthermore, quantum mechanics is construed as requiring the
action of human consciousness to bring physical events into existence. The
popular literature abounds with this theme as New Agers of every stripe,
from psychics to astrologers to physicists and cosmologists, proclaim the
oneness of human mind and the fabric of the cosmos.
The notion of a holistic universe, with everything instantaneously
connected to everything else, occurs in a number of interpretations of
quantum mechanics. In one class of interpretations, still-undetected subquantum
forces operate on particles to determine their microscopic
motion.2 Theory and experiment strongly assert that these forces, if they
exist, necessarily must act instantaneously over any distance. But neither
theory nor experiment require that such sub-quantum forces exist. Their
existence is pure speculation.
In another class of interpretations, the quantum wave function does
not “collapse” to its final form until someone makes a measurement. In
that case, human consciousness controls the course of events throughout
all of space and time. In these interpretations, the universe is one and we
are one with it.3
Undoubtedly, quantum mechanics has had difficulty in gaining a
consensus on how it should be interpreted - or even that it need be
interpreted at all, so long as its mathematics gives answers that agree with
experiment. A detailed discussion and comparison of the various
interpretations is beyond the scope of this article.4 Suffice it to say that
many interpretations have been proposed that lead to the same empirical
results, and so are indistinguishable except by their ontological
assumptions. Without experiment to adjudicate between rival claims, it
becomes somewhat a matter of taste which interpretation one prefers. In
this situation, the only rational procedure is to apply Occam’s razor and
3
reject those interpretations that are less economical than the others, and to
pragmatically adopt those remaining that are the most useful.
Not all interpretations of quantum mechanics are equally
economical, or equally useful. For example, those interpretations which
claim that human consciousness determines the nature of reality are not
parsimonious since this bizarre notion is not required by a scrap of reliable
data. Likewise, the interpretations that invoke deterministic sub-quantum
forces are grossly non-economical, proposing as they do invisible holistic
entities having superluminal connections for which no empirical evidence
exists and furthermore violate Einstein’s relativity, which has not been
refuted after almost a century of precision tests.
Non-superluminal, “un-conscious” interpretations of quantum
mechanics have been proposed that are fully consistent with all
observations and established principles of physics, including relativity.5
Unfortunately, these are usually ignored in the popular literature because
they fail to support the mystical delusions that people want confirmed.
Still, these non-mystical interpretations exist, and by their existence they
refute all claims that quantum consciousness or holistic connections are
demanded by quantum phenomena.
The apparent paradoxes of quantum mechanics in fact disappear,
once we recognize that elementary processes do not distinguish between
past and future or cause and effect. Experiments that seem to require
superluminal connections when viewed in our familiar time direction are
perfectly subluminal when the arrow of time is reversed.6
While this violates our common intuitions, those intuitions are
based on our experiences in a world of many particles where phenomena
that are fundamentally statistical nevertheless behave very predictably.
The arrows of time and causality are not elementary. Rather, they are
heuristic principles we have invented to conveniently describe the
macroscopic world of our experiences. In our lives, time flows one way,
for all practical purposes. While it is technically possible for the atoms in
4
your body to assume a more youthful configuration, the chances are far
greater that you will age with the rest of us. By consensus, we define the
arrow of time to be the direction in which we all are observed to age. At
the quantum scale, however, no such consensus can be formed as particles
interact without regard for an arrow of time.7
The quantum world only appears paradoxical when we force
macroscopic principles upon it that do not apply at that level. And once
we rid quantum mechanics of its claimed paradoxes, we eliminate it as a
basis for mystical fantasies.
Penrose Platonism
Nevertheless, mystical physics refuses to die. In a pair of recent books,
Oxford mathematician Roger Penrose has argued forcefully, and
controversially, that the human mind possesses physical capabilities that
enable it to reach into a realm of reality that lies beyond time and space, to
a Platonic world of timeless mathematical truth.8 Penrose bases this claim
on the assertion that a material computer can never duplicate, or simulate,
all the thinking processes of human beings. He summarizes his position as
follows: “Appropriate physical action of the brain evokes awareness, but
this physical action cannot even be properly simulated computationally.”9
Penrose is careful to distance himself from the view that awareness
is not amenable to scientific study and thus must be mystical or
supernatural. He says: “I reject mysticism in its negation of scientific
criteria for the furtherance of knowledge.” I take this to mean that if
awareness is something that can be understood scientifically, then it might
still be possible for it to be simulated. It just cannot be simulated
computationally. Some kind of non-computational machine, made of
matter and still operating in the purely physical domain, would have to be
devised to simulate awareness.
If awareness is a physical phenomenon that is not computable, a
property that a computer (though not necessarily some other physical
5
system) can never simulate, then some change in our physical world-view
is required to encompass a new, non-computable physics. That is, some
different kind of physics is poking its head through the thoughts in our
own heads, a physics unlike other physics in that its mechanisms do not
follow traditional computational lines. But it is still physics.
Penrose believes that the key to the new physics lies in quantum
gravity, which somehow disentangles spatially-separated, coherent
quantum states. However, he does not indicate why this mechanism is
necessarily non-computational, and only speculates on what it can
possibly have to do with human thinking. I personally find it
incomprehensible that quantum gravity, which only comes into play at
distances of the order of 10-33 centimeters, can have a profound role on
the comparatively huge scale of biological processes. I also find it rather
anthropocentric to think that the next great revolution in physics will
occur in the exploration of phenomena within the human body. No
previous scientific revolution happened this way. In fact, science
developed as a direct consequence of the Copernican discovery that
humanity does not reside at the center of the universe.
Penrose insists that the evidence for the new non-computational
physics is to be found in human consciousness, even if consciousness is not
its source. Of course, the thesis that the brain is not simply a computer is
one that the average person will grasp with open arms. Few can imagine,
or want to imagine, how a computer can ever have “feelings” and
“spiritual experiences.” Few believe, or want to believe, that computers
ever can be capable of “understanding.”
The primary focus for Penrose’s discussion of non-computability is
Gödel’s theorem, which says that unprovable truths can exist within any
formal mathematical system at least as complicated as arithmetic.10
Gödel’s theorem, Penrose says, demonstrates that “the mental procedures
whereby mathematicians arrive at their judgements of truth are not
simply rooted in the procedures of some specific formal system.”11 That
6
is, mathematicians are able to develop true propositions by means other
than the strict logic of mathematical procedures.
Penrose argues: “Once it is shown that certain types of
mathematical understanding must elude computational description, then it
is established that we can do something non-computational with our
minds.”12 And, if we are to assume that the phenomenon of mind is still
part of the physical world, then we are forced to relate mathematics to
that world.
Penrose adds: “There is something absolute and ‘God-given’ about
mathematical truth.” He admits he is very much a Platonist: “In my own
mind, the absoluteness of mathematical truth and the Platonic existence of
mathematical concepts are essentially the same thing.”13 In other words,
mathematical truths are the reality beyond the appearances. This neo-
Neo-Platonic view has come to be called Penrose mysticism, though the
author firmly insists that the non-computational remains amenable to
scientific study.
Mystical Matters and Minds
In his book with the catchy title The Mind of God, physicist-author Paul
Davies has used Penrose’s ideas in discussing the possible connection
between mathematics and the traditional notions of mystical truths.14
Mystics have universally claimed direct communication with deeper
reality, variously called The One, The Good, God, the Cosmos, Being, and
many other names. The mystical experience is supposed to open the mind
to instantaneous flashes of insight about a realm beyond the senses.
Distinguished physicists such as Brian Josephson and the late David Bohm
have said they found mysticism useful in developing their scientific ideas,
Tornare in alto Andare in basso
Admin
Admin
Admin


Maschile Capra
Numero di messaggi : 2142
Data d'iscrizione : 04.02.09
Età : 37
Località : Roma

MessaggioOggetto: Re: Mystical Physics: Has Science Found the Path to the Ultimate?   Lun 19 Ott 2009 - 12:35

and many of the founders of modern physics have speculated about the
mystical.
Ken Wilber has edited a collection of such musings. Included are
essays by Heisenberg, Schrödinger, Einstein, de Broglie, Jeans, Planck,
7
Pauli, and Eddington. Wilber interprets the essays as showing that each
author was in fact a mystic. However, he admits that, “These theorists are
virtually unanimous in declaring that modern physics offers no positive
support whatsoever for mysticism or transcendentalism of any variety.”15
So even if these giants of physics were mystics, which is highly debatable,
their mysticism was not derived from their physics.
So where do Penrose’s ideas fit within the framework of mystical
perspectives? Certainly, he attempts to be completely rational in
demonstrating that we cannot determine all that is true by computational
means alone. On the other hand, he asserts that the human mind
nonetheless can formulate these truths, and that they have a Platonic
reality to them. Is mathematics, despite Penrose’s disclaimer, really then a
mystical path to truth? Is it not, consequently, more like revelation than
science as it goes beyond sensory data and their numerical manipulations?
Is the existence of the Ultimate “shining through,” despite the complete
lack of any physical evidence or any compelling need to introduce
metaphysical elements into our most fundamental theories of physics and
cosmology?
Most experts remain unconvinced by Penrose’s assertion that the
human mind cannot be simulated by a machine. Virtually every learned
commentary on his books disagrees with most or all of his conclusions.16
I believe it is fair to say that Penrose has not achieved a consensus for his
claims in any of a number of communities, from artificial intelligence to
quantum computation and neurobiology.
Undoubtedly the issue will continue to be hotly debated and I will
not settle it here. For my purposes, however, the following conclusion can
be drawn: Even if the human brain is not a computer, this does not imply
that the “mind,” which is the name we give to what the brain does, has a
mystical or metaphysical component. The view that is promoted by
Penrose is one in which the brain still does “thinking” by means of some
physical process that remains to be determined. Whether or not he is
8
correct on the need for new physics, he sees no need to transcend physics -
just move it to a new level. Still, no scientific observation demands such
an interpretation at this time.
Is the Brain a Quantum Device?
As I have noted above, consciousness is not needed to explain quantum
mechanics. We might also ask whether quantum mechanics is needed to
explain consciousness.
Many authors have speculated that quantum mechanics plays a part
in the functioning of the brain. Neuroscientist Sir John Eccles has
presented a dualistic model in which mind exists as an entity separate from
matter, initiating wave function collapse that releases neurotransmitters at
neural junctions.17 Penrose and his collaborator Stuart Hameroff have
more recently proposed the “orchestrated objective reduction” of
quantum coherence in the microtubules of the neurons of the brain.18
Must quantum mechanics play a non-trivial role in brain processes?
Physicist Henry P. Stapp thinks so: “Brain processes involve chemical
processes, and hence must, in principle, be treated quantum
mechanically.”19 Following the logic of this argument, we cannot use
Newtonian mechanics to calculate the trajectory of a rock tossed in the air,
because the rock is made of chemical elements.
Several authors have made order-of-magnitude calculations that
they claim demonstrate a plausible role for quantum mechanics in synaptic
signals.20 All such estimates essentially come down to an application of
the quantum uncertainty principle. A simple calculation shows that
quantum uncertainties are unlikely to be important. Basically, neurons
and their associated meatware are still “macroscopic” as far as quantum
physics is concerned. (Not all objects that must be viewed with a
microscope must be described by quantum mechanics.) While
macroscopic quantum devices such as superconductors exist, these are
characterized by temperatures much lower than those of the human brain.
9
The brain sits at body temperature, which results in far more random
particle motion than occurs in cryogenic macroscopic quantum systems, so
quantum coherent effects in the brain are very likely to be washed out.
Penrose and Hameroff have proposed a new idea: The seat of
quantum effects in the brain lies in microtubules, hollow fibers that form
part of the cytoskeletons of most of the cells of animal and human bodies
(not just brain cells). They suggest these may be the cell’s own “nervous
system.”21 However, microtubules are much larger than the synaptic gap
and so are certainly “macroscopic” objects in the sense used above.
Penrose suggests that microtubules act in a coherent way, but has no hard
evidence to back up this notion. And why should the microtubules in
neurons alone show quantum effects, and not those of other cells say in
those of the liver?
The Force of Consciousness
Those who promote mystical physics refuse to believe that the “mind”
does not play a central role in choosing between the alternative paths that
can be taken as the brain moves between quasi-stable states. This belief is
not based on any external objective evidence. Rather, the claim is made
that our inner subjective experiences of consciousness, wholeness, and
self-awareness require something more - a controlling agent capable of
dealing with complex wholes. Stapp argues, very unconvincingly in my
view, that such control is a logical impossibility “within a framework in
which everything is asserted to be nothing but an aggregation of simple
parts.” He believes that quantum mechanics provides him with the
holistic, non-reductionist framework that he needs.22 Of course, Stapp
must ignore those quantum interpretations that are non-holistic and fully
reductionist, and explain the data equally well.
Physicist Nick Herbert proposes “a kind of ‘quantum animism’ in
which mind permeates the world at every level” with consciousness “a
fundamental force that enters into necessary cooperation with matter to
10
bring about the fine details of our everyday world.”23 However, Herbert
does not tell us what makes humans different from rocks, which, after all,
is the goal of the discussion .
The quantum mystics persist in their belief that human
consciousness must act as the agent that brings about the specific choice
among the alternate paths of a physical system. This is not accommodated
in conventional, indeterministic quantum mechanics, which only computes
the probabilities for different paths. The conscious force, in the view of
Stapp, Herbert, and those of like mind, acts to “actualize” the event,
changing a possibility into a happening. To physicist Euan Squires,
consciousness interacts with the world in determining the choices between
paths.24 For Squires, the mind acts as the “selector” among alternate
worlds, the way a TV viewer chooses which channel to watch.25
Penrose also argues for “some kind of active role for consciousness,
and indeed a powerful one, with a strong selective advantage” to avoid
blind randomness.26 However, he disagrees with the mind-matter dualists
in an important way. In the dualistic view, consciousness is some kind of
extraphysical force that acts to cause events to happen, to collapse wave
functions or actualize particular paths. In the dualistic view, mind controls
the universe. For Penrose, the universe still controls the mind and
thinking is still material.
Penrose, as I have noted, proposes that some new physics is
involved in consciousness - but it remains physics. Nevertheless, in
claiming that new physics can be found in the operation of consciousness,
Penrose joins Stapp, Herbert, Squires, and other authors in assigning a
very special role in the universe to what may be in fact a simple accident of
evolution - human consciousness.27
Mystical physics sells books and makes a lot of money for their
authors. People happily pay to hear what they want to hear, that they are
indeed the center of existence. However, the only honest position that can
be taken by a scientist who expects to retain his or her integrity and
11
credibility is to insist on overwhelming empirical evidence before
promoting such an extraordinary claim. Four hundred years ago,
Copernicus provided strong evidence that we are not the center of the
universe. As we have seen, the evidence that quantum mechanics either
requires the action of human consciousness, or even plays a role in mental
processes is non-existent. Certainly quantum mechanics is needed to
understand the atoms in the brain. But it is also needed to explain the
atoms in a rock, and this implies nothing about rock consciousness.
Perhaps quantum fluctuations cause random bit errors that the
brain is able to organize into new operations, but this role is neither
necessary nor compelling. The environment can produce the needed
fluctuations. The self-organizing capabilities of the brain’s nonlinear neural
network, operating at the edge of chaos, may be capable of doing all the
work of selection of the best path among all possibilities, with no help
from quantum mechanics.
In fact, the human brain and body probably evolved with the
dimensions they have in order to avoid quantum effects and their inherent
uncertainties. The classical physics that operates on the macroscopic scale
is now well understood as the many particle limit of the quantum physics
that occurs more fundamentally on all scales. The apparent deterministic
quality of classical physics follows as a consequence of the large numbers
of particles on the macroscopic scale, where the probabilities of the
quantum world become near-certainties. Evolution may have selected
classical physics as the domain of life because of its highly predictable
nature.
It seems little more than primitive, wishful thinking to view
consciousness as some supernatural, or at least super-material, psychic
force that provides basic control over the choices the universe makes
between allowed, alternative paths. Such a theory is verifiable. It should
lead to phenomena such as ESP and psychokinesis that violate the laws
that constrain matter. But, psychic phenomena have failed to be verified
12
after 150 years of attempts involving thousands of independent
experiments. No other scientific hypothesis has continued to be advanced
after failing to be confirmed for such a period of time. After all this time,
we can safely assume that psychic phenomena do not exist.
The Me Decades
Over a decade ago, Fritjof Capra, Marilyn Ferguson, Gary Zukov, and
other New Age authors had predicted that the 1980s would be a
revolutionary time “because the whole structure of our society does not
correspond with the world-view of emerging scientific thought.”28 They
blamed classical physics for all the ills of society and saw the new physics,
especially quantum mechanics, as a savior.
In her 1990 book, The Quantum Self, Danah Zohar asserts that
“Cartesian philosophy wrenched human beings from their familiar social
and religious context and thrust us headlong into . . . our I-centered
culture, a culture dominated by egocentricity.”29 The new holistic physics
was supposed to teach people to be less selfish, to recognize that they are
part of a greater whole and to work cooperatively for the benefit of
everyone.
As the century draws to a close, however, I can perceive no great
holistic revolution actually having taken place in the decade past. The facts
indicate the contrary. The 1980s have been characterized, in America
anyway, as the “Me Decade.” Far from recognizing that we are each an
inseparable part of the whole, and everyone pitching in to make the world
a better place for its inhabitants, life in the 1980s was characterized by an
unprecedented level of individual self absorption. And the 1990s so far
show no sign of a change in this focus on self, as every element of our
society is geared to provide maximal short-term self gratification for its
members, while those who fail to be gratified view themselves as victims.
Now some will argue that the ever-increasing fixation with self only
reinforces the need for a holistic philosophy like that of Capra, Ferguson,
13
and Zohar. They will say that the problem is simply that holistic
philosophy simply has not yet taken hold.
I disagree. In fact, no small portion of the blame for the current
excessive self absorption lies at the feet of the proponents of the new
mysticism. Anyone listening to New Age gurus, and modern Christian
preachers, cannot miss the emphasis on the individual finding easy
gratification, rather than sacrificing and selflessly laboring for a better
world. Holistic philosophy is the perfect self-delusion for the spoiled brat
of any age, all decked out in the latest fashion, who loves to talk about
solving the problems of the world but has no intention of sweating a drop
in achieving this noble goal.
Reductionist classical physics did not make people egoists. People
were egoists long before reductionist classical physics. In fact, classical
physics has nothing to say about humans except that they are material
objects like rocks and trees, made of nothing more than the same atoms -
just more cleverly arranged by the impersonal forces of self-organization
and evolution. This is hardly a philosophical basis for narcissism.
The new quantum holism, on the other hand, feeds our delusions of
personal importance. It tells us that we are part of an immortal cosmic
mind with the power to perform miracles and, as Shirley MacLaine has
said, to make our own reality. Who needs God when we, ourselves, are
God? Thoughts of our participation in cosmic consciousness inflate our
egos to the point where we can ignore our short-comings and even forget
our mortality.
The modern versions of traditional religions feed on this desire.
Where once Christian preachers shouted hell-fire and brimstone from the
pulpit, their successors in the very same sects now present the soothing
message that we are all perfect, worthy, and destined for infinite
happiness. The only sacrifice required is a regular check. Then Jesus will
provide all.
Mystical physics is a grossly misapplied version of ancient Hindu
and Buddhist philosophy, which were based on the notion that only by
the complete rejection of self can one find inner peace in this world of
suffering and hopelessness. Capra and his colleagues say they are putting
a modern face on ancient Eastern philosophy. I say they are covering a
noble edifice with graffiti. Where they see similarities between the new
and the old mysticisms, I see only contrasts. Where they promote the new
mythology as an antidote for self absorption, I assert that they are
manufacturing a drug that induces it. And while they blame rational
science for the ills of the world, I hold rational science as a source of
genuine hope for reducing the severity of this latest addiction, if only we
and our successors have the wisdom to use it properly.
-----------------------------
Victor J. Stenger is professor of physics and astronomy at the University
of Hawaii and the author of Not By Design: The Origin of the Universe
(Prometheus Books, 1988) and Physics and Psychics: The Search for a World
Beyond the Senses (Prometheus Books, 1990). This article is based on his
latest book: The Unconscious Quantum: Metaphysics in Modern Physics and
Cosmology (Prometheus Books, 1995).
Notes
1Stapp. Henry P. 1994. “Theoretical model of a purported empirical
violation of the predictions of quantum theory.” Physical Review A. 50, pp.
18-22.
2See, for example, Bohm D. and B. J. Hiley, 1993. The Undivided Universe:
An Ontological Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. London: Routledge.
3See, for example, Kafatos, Menas and Robert Nadeau 1990. The Conscious
Universe: Part and Whole in Modern Physical Theory. New York, Springer-
Verlag.
4For these details, see my book The Unconscious Quantum: Metaphysics in
Modern Physics and Cosmology. Prometheus Books, 1995.
5See, for example, Omnès, Roland J. 1994. The Interpretation of Quantum
Mechanics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
6For aficionados, the EPR experiment is perfectly local in a time-reversed
frame of reference. See Stenger, 1995.
7There are some rare exceptions that do not bear on this discussion.
8Penrose, Roger 1989. The Emperor’s New Mind: Concerning Computers,
Minds, and the Laws of Physics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Penrose, Roger 1994. Shadows of the Mind: A Search for the Missing
Science of Consciousness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
9Penrose 1994, p. 12.
10Gödel, Kurt 1931. Monatshefte für Mathematik und Physik 38, pp.173-98.
11Penrose 1989, p. 110.
12Penrose 1994, p. 51.
13Penrose 1989, p. 112.
14Davies, Paul 1992. The Mind of God: The Scientific Basis for a Rational World.
New York: Simon and Schuster, p. 226. Paul Davies was the 1995 recipient
of the Templeton prize for Progress in Religion, worth a million dollars.
15Wilber, Ken (ed) 1984. Quantum Questions: Mystical Writings of the
World’s Great Physicists. Boulder, Colorado: Shambhala.
16Behavioral and Brain Sciences 1990, 13, pp. 643-705. At this writing, a
similar critique of Shadows is being assembled on the Internet by the
journal Psyche.
17Popper, K. R. and Eccles, J. C. 1977. The Self and Its Brain. Berlin:
Springer.
Eccles, J. 1986. “Do Mental Events Cause Neural Events
Analogously to the Probability Fields of Quantum Mechanics?.” Proc.
Royal Soc. London B227, pp. 411-428.
Eccles, J. 1990. “A Unitary Hypothesis of Mind-Brain Interaction in
the Cerebral Cortex.” Proc. Royal Soc. London B240, pp. 433-451.
18Hameroff, S. R. 1994. “Quantum coherence in microtubules: A neural
basis for emergent consciousness?” Journal of Consciousness Studies 1(1):
91-118.
Hameroff, S. R. and Penrose, R. 1996. “Orchestrated reduction of
quantum coherence in brain microtubules: A model for consciousness.” In
Toward a Science of Consciousness - Contributions from the 1994 Tucson
Conference, S. R.Hameroff, A. Kaszniak and A.C. Scott, eds. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
19Stapp, Henry P. 1993. Mind, Matter, and Quantum Mechanics. New York:
Springer-Verlag, p. 42.
20Herbert, Nick 1993. Elemental Mind: Human Consciousness and the New
Physics. New York: Dutton, p. 254.
Squires Euan 1990, Conscious Mind in the Physical World. New York:
Adam Hilger, p. 222.
21Hameroff 1994, 1996; Penrose 1994, pp. 357-377.
22Stapp 1993, p. 25.
23Herbert 1993, p. 5.
24Squires 1990, p. 229.
25Squires 1990, p. 201.
26Penrose 1989, p. 446.
27See Free Inquiry 14(4), 1994 for a discussion of the latest scientific ideas on
consciousness.
28As quoted in Ferguson, Marilyn 1980. The Aquarian Conspiracy: Personal
and Social Transformation in the 1980s. Los Angeles: Tarcher, p. 145.
29Zohar, Danah 1990. The Quantum Self. Human Nature and Consciousness
Defined by the New Physics. New York: Morrow, p. 18.
Tornare in alto Andare in basso
 
Mystical Physics: Has Science Found the Path to the Ultimate?
Vedere l'argomento precedente Vedere l'argomento seguente Tornare in alto 
Pagina 1 di 1

Permesso di questo forum:Non puoi rispondere agli argomenti in questo forum
Forum di sciamanesimo, antropologia e spirito critico :: TERAPIE ALTERNATIVE E LOGICA - ALTERNATIVE THERAPIES AND LOGIC :: Lo scientismo New Age e le Terapie Alternative - New Age False Science and Alternative Therapies :: New Age False Science? - lo Scientismo New Age ha un fondamento?-
Andare verso: