Judy:"I don't have a copy of the Wilber book to hand, but the point he makes is that quantum physics made the limits of science more clear than they ever had been before. Essentially quantum mechanics demonstrates that science cannot tell us anything *directly* about reality; it's all shadows on the wall. We didn't know that prior to quantum mechanics. And the people to whom this is *clearest* are quantum physicists, which is why so many of them have been prodded to explore other ways of knowing, such as mysticism.
The physicists know better than the ordinary person what can and cannot be said regarding the relationship of physics to mysticism and why. So if one of 'em has a speculation along those lines, we might do well to take it more seriously than one that comes from somebody like Chopra." Me: You are probably right here. I still think that applying the conclusions about the mathematical predictions of quantum mechanics to our world of sensory perception is a mistake. But thinking about stuff on that level so long probably does give them a more advanced handle than most people. Life itself is humbling on so many levels. Just the studies on what our senses pick up knock me out. We are cutting thorough such a tiny slice of reality with our perceptions. That is why listening to how you are thinking about these things is useful. I could never sustain the abstract level of thinking of a world-class physicist, so I should not be too quick to compare him to Chopra. Me:> I still think he is mixing up levels here. That is what is causing > > the paradox. > >Judy: Well, it's certainly different levels of knowing. > Are you willing to accept that you're nothing but > a mechanism? If not, you have a problem. I don't > know how you can even think about the problem > without considering both levels. What's your Ø single-level solution to it? Me: I think I understand what it means to be just a mechanism. It is entirely possible. But what is unique for each person is the organization of that mechanism and its experiences. That is the beauty of life for me. Not exactly mystical, but perhaps taking the place of mysticism in my life. I am ready to accept that my consciousness is an emergent quality of the functioning of my brain, and that when it stops functioning I will just cease to exist forever. I am not asking the same questions of life that he is. I don't feel that the two aspects he described need a single-level solution. That was his idea. But I am going to have to think about it more. It wouldn't surprise me that I am missing something important in his words so I will give it another try. --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > Good points. This one interested me the most: > > > > "rather by recognizing that mysticism is completely > > beyond science." > > > > It is beyond the scientific method in its focus and range, but I > > think Sam Harris would claim that when it talks about how the > > world "is" mysticism enters the field where logic does apply. You > > mentioned that Schroedinger is a physicist, a world class one at > > that from what I understand. But Physics is a field driven by math > > skills and I don't think that gives him a leg up on this kind of > > discussion over say...you or Chopra. It is all speculation about > > life. He leaves his credibility in his own field far behind on these > > topics. > > I don't have a copy of the Wilber book to hand, but > the point he makes is that quantum physics made the > limits of science more clear than they ever had been > before. Essentially quantum mechanics demonstrates > that science cannot tell us anything *directly* about > reality; it's all shadows on the wall. We didn't > know that prior to quantum mechanics. And the people > to whom this is *clearest* are quantum physicists, > which is why so many of them have been prodded to > explore other ways of knowing, such as mysticism. > > The physicists know better than the ordinary person > what can and cannot be said regarding the relationship > of physics to mysticism and why. So if one of 'em has > a speculation along those lines, we might do well to > take it more seriously than one that comes from > somebody like Chopra. > > Because you have gained something from it, I will spend > > some more time thinking about it. > > > > Then he asks how can it even be statistico-deterministic > > > when we have such a clear experience of exercising our > > > free will? Why is the scientific fact incompatible > > > with our most basic sense of ourselves? > > > > I still think he is mixing up levels here. That is what is causing > > the paradox. > > Well, it's certainly different levels of knowing. > Are you willing to accept that you're nothing but > a mechanism? If not, you have a problem. I don't > know how you can even think about the problem > without considering both levels. What's your > single-level solution to it? > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Home is just a click away. Make Yahoo! your home page now. http://us.click.yahoo.com/DHchtC/3FxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
