Experienced reality vs scientism reality: does Rosenberg make sense?
Rosenberg's limitation seems to be that he conflates the physical universe with the experienced universe. They are not the same. Psychology attempts to uncover the experienced universe, physics attempts to figure out the relationship between them. But perhaps the physical universe itself is never knowable given how we experience? If Rosenberg would have attempted to explain how his understanding of the physical universe (as something predetermined, as something that we cannot impact, as something completely out of our control) is related to our experienced universe, I would have found this interesting. As it is, he is positing a view of the physical universe without convincing me that such a view has much use in my experienced universe (the one exception to this was his contention that because we are predetermined beings, we should not be so ready to punish people who just do what they were designed to do).
(Fuchs and Folse both seem to be arguing that the universe is not predetermined. . .)
To understand all of this better (if possible), I'm looking for some other sources. And boy are there many. Who knew!
From website www-physics.lbl.gov/~stapp/stappfiles.html
After reading several articles (and some comments on one below), it seems that Henry Stapp is arguing that because quantum physics introduces the idea of many possible choices into science it supports the idea that the mind is something separate from the brain, a truly subjective being. I am not convinced. (some critiques of Stapp: http://st7peter.angelfire.com/CritiqueofQTofMind.html; http://www.science-bbs.com/173-psychology-consciousness/1358a8994b511c30.htm#.Udr_c_msj9g)
An essay that points out the errors in Stapp's understanding of Quantum Mechanics
From Model of mind-brain interaction, J. M Schwartz
Humans can change their own neurobiology and quantum physics accounts for this better than classical physics. Argues that classical physics is deterministic (but Rosenberg argues that quantum is as well). Argues that this is not the case because humans can affect their brains (this still could be entirely deterministic though).
"But the essential demand of science is that the theoretical constructs be tied to the experiences of the human scientists who devise ways of testing the theory and of the human engineers and technicians who both participate in these tests and eventually put the theory to work" (p. 8). Is this true? Does science demand that its theory match the scientist's experiences? That seems wrong and troubling. In fact, hasn't science shown us over and over again that our experience of the world is not true to the world itself?
Scwartz claims that quantum physics brings the subjective into physics, but doesn't quantum physics say the subjective affects how we measure and understand our universe making our access to reality impossible? It does not say the world is not predetermined. Essay does nothing to convince me that quantum physics proves we can make "real" choices because there are many probable ones available. . .
I found this website on quantum approaches to consciousness: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-consciousness/
After surveying the major theories of quantum theory and mind/brain divide, the Stanford Encyclopedia (SE) concludes that: "The historical motivation for exploring quantum theory in trying to understand consciousness derived from the realization that collapse-type quantum events introduce an element of randomness, which is primary (ontic) rather than merely due to ignorance or missing information (epistemic)." Which seems to go back to Fuch's statement that there is an element of randomness in physics which would suggest that the world is not predetermined (I don't know if or how this helps with the mind brain problem though).
I can't get how you can separate "conscious mental acts" from the brain?
(Fuchs and Folse both seem to be arguing that the universe is not predetermined. . .)
To understand all of this better (if possible), I'm looking for some other sources. And boy are there many. Who knew!
From website www-physics.lbl.gov/~stapp/stappfiles.html
After reading several articles (and some comments on one below), it seems that Henry Stapp is arguing that because quantum physics introduces the idea of many possible choices into science it supports the idea that the mind is something separate from the brain, a truly subjective being. I am not convinced. (some critiques of Stapp: http://st7peter.angelfire.com/CritiqueofQTofMind.html; http://www.science-bbs.com/173-psychology-consciousness/1358a8994b511c30.htm#.Udr_c_msj9g)
An essay that points out the errors in Stapp's understanding of Quantum Mechanics
From Model of mind-brain interaction, J. M Schwartz
Humans can change their own neurobiology and quantum physics accounts for this better than classical physics. Argues that classical physics is deterministic (but Rosenberg argues that quantum is as well). Argues that this is not the case because humans can affect their brains (this still could be entirely deterministic though).
"But the essential demand of science is that the theoretical constructs be tied to the experiences of the human scientists who devise ways of testing the theory and of the human engineers and technicians who both participate in these tests and eventually put the theory to work" (p. 8). Is this true? Does science demand that its theory match the scientist's experiences? That seems wrong and troubling. In fact, hasn't science shown us over and over again that our experience of the world is not true to the world itself?
Scwartz claims that quantum physics brings the subjective into physics, but doesn't quantum physics say the subjective affects how we measure and understand our universe making our access to reality impossible? It does not say the world is not predetermined. Essay does nothing to convince me that quantum physics proves we can make "real" choices because there are many probable ones available. . .
I found this website on quantum approaches to consciousness: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-consciousness/
After surveying the major theories of quantum theory and mind/brain divide, the Stanford Encyclopedia (SE) concludes that: "The historical motivation for exploring quantum theory in trying to understand consciousness derived from the realization that collapse-type quantum events introduce an element of randomness, which is primary (ontic) rather than merely due to ignorance or missing information (epistemic)." Which seems to go back to Fuch's statement that there is an element of randomness in physics which would suggest that the world is not predetermined (I don't know if or how this helps with the mind brain problem though).
I can't get how you can separate "conscious mental acts" from the brain?
Comments
Post a Comment