That's what I keep asking you – how? What's the mechanism? Saying "mind is quanta" says nothing more than informative than e.g. names are words. — 180 Proof
So you haven't a clue what you're talking about – well I do appreciate the confirmation; but I'd already suspected as much. My questions are "correct" only in so far as they 'smoked you out' of that Platonic cave for a moment. After all, "mind is quanta" and quanta are shadows, therefore mind is shadow, right? ... so the Sun (i.e. light of the real) is otherwise, that is, it's not mind. :clap: Don't bother objecting, Mondo, the implications of your previous posts already say enough to exorcise my fleeting interest in your Berkeleyan redux. — 180 Proof
Just to clarify for you or others, in response to some of the discussion you had yesterday, my own understanding of Bohm's actual idea of the implications order is not as an actual entity as such. He is not an idealist like Berkeley, but just sees mind and body as being beyond duality. I don't think that means that mind or body are more real. — Jack Cummins
His idea that quantum was waves without any collapse (de Broglie saw particles as instaneous eruptions in waves), ended the need for dualism and any need to refer to the idea of particles/matter. — MondoR
How would string theory play in to that, or would it, or could it? — James Riley
What's the best lay-explanation (dumbed-down) book I could get to address the holographic model? Preferably with pictures and charts. Thanks. — James Riley
dumb down explanations, say nothing and answer no questions. — MondoR
I've been exploring for decades. Understanding takes time and patience. — MondoR
Like a yogi on a mountain top. — James Riley
One doesn't become a captain of a ship by reading books or chatting. — MondoR
So what are you doing here?
I understand what it's like to not know a subject well enough to explain it to others. Sometimes books are a good way to share knowledge, or so I've heard. — James Riley
Physicalism is the view that only the description of the world provided by physicists is true. — Banno
I created the thread and I don't mind Mondor writing in it. — Jack Cummins
Have you read Tegmark's MU conjecture? I'm interested in your objections or, even better, a plausible refutation. — 180 Proof
I know that you seem to question the idea of a holographic perspective, but do you think that the idea of an implicate order makes sense at all? I do believe that neuroscience is important but it does seem to end up becoming completely reductive. — Jack Cummins
I get the impression that if you accept the idea that there are a lot of worlds other than this one, a lot of quantum mechanics' problems go away (the Many Worlds Interpretation). — RogueAI
All I asked for was a book; one point in a journey. "No book", and "no point in the journey" would have answered my question and sent me off on a journey without books, in search of clues, or not. Like I said, I guess I'll wait until there is a point in the journey. — James Riley
Anyway, when I look at a rock, it may be "looking" back at me. I try to imagine all it has seen and will see and what it has shown to All. — James Riley
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.