RE: A question regarding proof
September 9, 2011 at 12:07 pm
(This post was last modified: September 9, 2011 at 12:13 pm by StatCrux.)
(September 9, 2011 at 11:47 am)Rhythm Wrote: Anytime the word "quantum" comes up in defense of the supernatural you can be almost certain that the issuer has a misunderstanding of the discipline.
http://www.unil.ch/webdav/site/philo/sha...HPMP07.pdf
Firstly my intention was not to offer any "defense of the supernatural" rather to point out the fact that our current understanding of "thought" is still in its infancy and not well understood, in contrast to the assertion made that thought is simply electrical impules. Secondly the term "supernatural" was never mentioned and is not defined in this context, if the physical world can be influenced by human consciousness by some as yet, not fully understood medium, would that be regarded as supernatural? I prefer to keep an open mind on this issue. Are you implying that Bernard d'Espagnat has a misunderstanding of his discipline? I have previously read the review you linked to and it should be remembered that this is just one persons opinion of the book. Perhaps you should read it for yourself and form your own informed opinion..
PS I notice you didn't address the problem of where "thought" is located...
