--- In [email protected], "Hugo" <fintlewoodle...@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "PaliGap" <compost1uk@> wrote: > > > Hagelin is not a one-off. > > As far as I know he is the only one who has tried > to justify his beliefs with a scientific paper, "Is > consciousness the unified field?" which was roundly > rejected.
"Roundly rejected" by whom, in what context? Did he ever submit it to any journal other than MUM's "Modern Science and Vedic Science"? Also, he's hardly the only credentialed scientist to justify his beliefs in a scientific paper. Amit Goswami of the University of Oregon, for example, holds beliefs very similar to those of Hagelin and had several papers published in physics journals about quantum mechanics and consciousness (mostly in the '80s, I think--he's now retired and has become something of a New Age guru; he appears in "What the Bleep" and is featured in a new documentary, "The Dalai Lama Renaissance," along with Fred Alan Wolf). I'm not sure Roger Penrose has published scientific papers on the topic of quantum mechanics and consciousness, but he's written several books thereon. > > Just take Josephson for > > example (Nobel prize for quantum tunnelling). > > Interestingly quantum tunnelling is the current 'most > likely explanation given current knowledge' for explaining > the presence of the universe *without* needing to bring > god, or any sort of mystical consciousness entity into it. > See Hawking and Stenger. In the film "A Brief History of Time," Penrose says: "There is a certain sense in which I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance. Some people take the view that the universe is simply there and it runs along–it's a bit as though it just sort of computes, and we happen by accident to find ourselves in this thing. I don't think that's a very fruitful or helpful way of looking at the universe, I think that there is something much deeper about it, about its existence, which we have very little inkling of at the moment." This isn't too far from the "mystical consciousness entity" sort of thinking. He doesn't believe the known laws of physics can account for consciousness, or that human thought can be modeled computationally.
