There's no scientific evidence for the existence of Consciousness, or consciousness (relative). There are circumstantial inferences.
--- In [email protected], "John" <jr_esq@...> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "shanti2218411" <shanti2218411@> wrote: > > > > > > > First of all, on what basis would Pagels have changed his opinion? It is > > > true Pagels trashed the TM theory of quantum mechanics. This was based on > > > things Larry Domash had written. As I recall, Domash used the vacuum > > > state of quantum mechanics as an analogy to explain TM, much in the way > > > one might use an orange and a golf ball to create an analogy describing > > > how the Moon and Earth, orbit around a common centre of gravity. I am not > > > acutally aware of how the quantum vacuum analogy morphed into TC *is* the > > > quantum vacuum, or how this subsequently morphed into the Unified Field > > > equivalency that we see today under Hagelin. Hagelin is still of course > > > talking about this. I do not know what Domash's view would be today. > > > > > > I recently re-listened to a debate with woo meister Deepak Chopra, > > > neuroscientist Sam Harris, skeptic Michael Shermer, and scholar Jean > > > Houston that took place in 2010. Though Chopra is not in the movement any > > > more, he does hew to the new age quantum nonsense that many, including > > > the TMO, make their stock in trade. In this debate, the skeptics raked > > > Chopra over the hot coals repeatedly for this. What was really > > > interesting about this debate was it was a Cal Tech, and physicist > > > Leonard Mlodinaw was in the audience stood up and offered Chopra a short > > > course of quantum mechanics to straighten out his misuse of quantum > > > notation. Mlodinaw, whose field is mathematical physics, recently wrote a > > > book with Stephen Hawking (The Grand Design). Mlodinaw said he had never > > > come across a definition of consciousness that made any sense. It was > > > clear that for Mlodinaw the correlations between consciouness and quantum > > > mechanics that Chopra was presenting made no sense whatsoever, that is, > > > it was nonsense. > > > > > > The full debate: http://youtu.be/wi2IC6e5DUY > > > The debate covers much more ground than just this aspect of spiritual > > > nomenclature and physics. > > > > > > > > > Science is based on materialism. All scientific theories are likewise based > > on materialism.Obviously that would include quantum mechanics. > > Materialism proposes that consciousness is an epiphenomenon and has no > > existence independent of matter( i.e. consciousness is an emergent property > > of matter e.g the human nervous system). Given the latter it would seem > > illogical to assert that "pure consciousness" is the same as the vacuum > > state.The real question is whether consciousness is of a completely > > different order of reality then matter/energy. IMHO that > > question can't be answered by science which is grounded in > > materialism.Chopra et al are making a fundamental error in attempting to > > describe the nature of consciousness using constructs taken from a > > materialistic/scientific framework. > > > Shanti, > > Based on MMY's teachings, Hagelin is stating that there is a grand > unification between consciousness and matter. He believes that this can be > done through the superstring theory. If he is right, he might have found the > formula for the Grand Unification, which has been the holy grail since > Einstein's theories. >
