Ian, Wouldn't it be fun to be a fly on the wall at that conference!
The book is interesting. It's an introduction and survey, and at this point perfect for my amateur understanding. I've gone through four lecture series on various aspects of quantum science (for non-scientists), and this is the first presentation of the quantum enigma, and in a clear voice. It's thrilling. I would listen to the professor lecturing and want to throw things at them, because they spoke as if their words were fact beyond question. This book was a pleasant relief from scientific materialism: "Spin is not just mathematical equations, it's real!" Good book! Marsha On Sep 28, 2010, at 12:37 PM, Ian Glendinning wrote: > Hi Marsha, > > An interesting sounding book. I see Dave and others have pointed you > to the many "Mary the Colour Scientist" / Qualia references. > > You should also note that Chalmers was previously a star part of the > Arizona "Science of Consciousness" brigade - with Hofstader and > Hameroff and others - the wedding of quantum science with neuroscience > and philosophy has been pretty much their whole agenda for 15 years > (since almost exactly the same moment Pirsig was involved in the > Einstein meets Magritte conference.) I notice also that Buddhism is on > the agenda for their next conference. What goes around comes around. > > Ian > > On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 5:09 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Dave, >> >> Maybe when quantum philosophy weds Neurophilosophy? What kind of >> circumstances will cause that divine marriage? >> >> >> Marsha >> >> >> p.s. For those fans of Noam Chomsky. He's being interviewed today on the >> PRI program 'On Point." >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sep 28, 2010, at 11:31 AM, David Thomas wrote: >> >>> On 9/28/10 9:48 AM, "MarshaV" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> If you had a point to make other than to show me how much I do not know, >>>> please explain it. >>> >>> I was only pointing to other takes on the "Mary" thought experiment that >>> might clear up (or add) to your puzzlement. >>> >>> I do think though that attempts by science and philosophy to simultaneously >>> solve the "hard problems" of "Quantum Enigma" and "Consciousness Enigma" are >>> doomed to fail philosophically until the science in both fields advances. I >>> also think part of the reason behind the claim that "philosophy is dead" is >>> that the specialized areas of science are so varied and technically >>> difficult in the domains of the "hard problems" that no individual >>> philosopher, short of a savant, can acquire the detailed depth of >>> understanding necessary in each of the scientific fields required to be able >>> to integrate their advances into a coherent whole. It will have to be a >>> combined effort. >>> >>> Dave >>> >>> >>> Moq_Discuss mailing list >>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. >>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org >>> Archives: >>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ >>> http://moq.org/md/archives.html >> >> >> >> ___ >> >> >> Moq_Discuss mailing list >> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. >> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org >> Archives: >> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ >> http://moq.org/md/archives.html >> > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org/md/archives.html ___ Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
