[FairfieldLife] Re: Quantum Physics and Consciousness
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: To All: A physics professor expresses his view about consciousness. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s42mrdhKwRA His ideas are fairly similar to the TM tenets. I don't believe he is part of the TMO. Amit Goswami of the University of Oregon Institute of Theoretical Science. No, he has no connection with the TMO or anything TM-ish, and he's as qualified a physicist as it gets. FORMERLY of the University of Oregon. He has been retired for many years, and now makes his living as a speaker at New Age conferences and by charging for appearances in films like What the bleep do we know? In other words, as Judy suggests, he is as qualified a phsyicist as it gets, in exactly the same way that John Hagelin is. Neither has worked in the field of physics for years, but would like you to think they have. His website still lists him as professor emeritus at the university, but he retired in 2003 and hasn't been part of the institute since then. This is the kind of honesty that Judy admires.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Quantum Physics and Consciousness
More Fun With Barry: Smarting from the embarrassment of having once again shown himself to be a Bigtime Loser a couple of days ago by thoroughly botching the application of a quote from the TM checking notes, yet another of his compulsive Gotta Get Judy attempts, Barry tries to recoup with a *further* attempt and botches it as well. We can expect this to continue for some time. Barry needs to learn to give himself time to recover from these episodes of self-humiliation before he takes another Gotta Get Judy shot, because they scramble his brains and lead him to make even STOOPIDER mistakes. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip Amit Goswami of the University of Oregon Institute of Theoretical Science. No, he has no connection with the TMO or anything TM-ish, and he's as qualified a physicist as it gets. Barry Googled frantically and came up with: FORMERLY of the University of Oregon. Actually, as I said, he's a current member of the university's Institute of Theoretical Science, an interdisciplinary research center. He has been retired for many years, Well, he's been retired from the teaching faculty of U. Oregon for six years, yes. and now makes his living as a speaker at New Age conferences and by charging for appearances in films like What the bleep do we know? He may well earn extra income as a speaker, but I'd imagine he's already *made* his living after 35 years as a professor at the University of Oregon. Professors typically get nice pensions when they retire from teaching. (Don't know whether membership in the Institute of Theoretical Sciences is a paid position; and Barry has no idea whether Goswami charges for appearing in films.) One of Goswami's more recent film appearances, BTW, is in the award-winning documentary Dalai Lama Renaissance, about a gathering of scientists and thinkers hosted by the Dalai Lama: http://www.dalailamafilm.com/ In other words, as Judy suggests, he is as qualified a phsyicist as it gets, in exactly the same way that John Hagelin is. Neither has worked in the field of physics for years, but would like you to think they have. More like, Barry would like you to think Goswami and Hagelin would like you to think something that isn't true. Unfortunately, posturing notwithstanding, Barry hasn't been able to come up with anything on that score that stands up to examination. And you don't somehow become *unqualified* as a physicist because you've retired. Or even because you espouse some ideas relating to physics that Barry doesn't approve of (although he couldn't say what they are). His website still lists him as professor emeritus at the university, but he retired in 2003 and hasn't been part of the institute since then. Wrong, he's still a member of the institute. He's retired from the faculty of the university. This is the kind of honesty that Judy admires. Uh, Barry dear, professor emeritus MEANS retired professor. How could he be any more honest in describing his status?? What on earth did you *think* emeritus meant? CAVEAT: I have no idea whether Goswami's current work is of any interest. My only knowledge of his thinking is from reading his first book for the general reader, The Self-Aware Universe, published back in 1993 (that's a decade before he retired, Barry), as well as a couple of his published theoretical physics papers. It does appear that he may have subsequently fallen prey to the lure of New Age-ism and the ego-boo of guru-adulation, much like Ken Wilber (who, as it happens, doesn't care for Goswami's ideas). So my defense of Goswami here from Barry's incompetent depredation attempts does not represent my seal of approval upon the good professor. I'll have to catch up with his current work before I decide whether he's lived up to the promise of that stunning first book. Barry, in contrast, has more than lived up to his own promise. ;-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Quantum Physics and Consciousness
On Aug 4, 2009, at 4:56 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: FORMERLY of the University of Oregon. He has been retired for many years, and now makes his living as a speaker at New Age conferences and by charging for appearances in films like What the bleep do we know? In other words, as Judy suggests, he is as qualified a phsyicist as it gets, in exactly the same way that John Hagelin is. Neither has worked in the field of physics for years, but would like you to think they have. His website still lists him as professor emeritus at the university, but he retired in 2003 and hasn't been part of the institute since then. This is the kind of honesty that Judy admires. And really the level of rigor in their science. It's a predisposition to pseudoscience, probably due to their willing indoctrination into TM- based pseudoscience and being conditioned to actually defend these untenable beliefs--even if they have no training in the fields themselves. It appears very comforting for them to have these acquired illusions as it helps TM advocates imagine there really is something solid behind their stack-of-card belief-system. Some will defend their McMeditation stack-of-cards as if their lives depended on it, even though they don't have the intellectual wherewithals to actually understand what's being said.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Quantum Physics and Consciousness
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On Aug 4, 2009, at 4:56 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: FORMERLY of the University of Oregon. He has been retired for many years, and now makes his living as a speaker at New Age conferences and by charging for appearances in films like What the bleep do we know? In other words, as Judy suggests, he is as qualified a phsyicist as it gets, in exactly the same way that John Hagelin is. Neither has worked in the field of physics for years, but would like you to think they have. His website still lists him as professor emeritus at the university, but he retired in 2003 and hasn't been part of the institute since then. This is the kind of honesty that Judy admires. And really the level of rigor in their science. For the former scientists who have discovered the lucrative New Age market, it's a no-brainer: I could either stay a scientist, write a text- book that will sell less than 2,000 copies worldwide, and get invited to give a talk to colleagues in my discipline once or twice a year, for a $100 honorarium. Or, I could write a book for the New Age market that panders to their need to pretend that the hokum they believe in is somehow 'scientific,' sell a couple of hun- dred thousand copies of it, and get myself on the New Age lecture circuit, for honorariums of $2000-10,000 a pop. So I *understand* why former scientists do this. It's the money, stupid. And the groupies. You don't really get all that much nookie as a real scientist or as a real professor. :-) But it's the people who want us to believe that these shills for the New Age and for Hindu funda- mentalism are still scientists that get me. Can you even *imagine* trying to foist one of the people who got paid $25,000 to talk for a few minutes on camera in the cult propaganda piece What the bleep? as a scientist? Yet that's what they do. That's how desperate they are to make their superstitious beliefs look less like superstitious beliefs.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Quantum Physics and Consciousness
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: snip For the former scientists who have discovered the lucrative New Age market, it's a no-brainer: I could either stay a scientist, write a text- book that will sell less than 2,000 copies worldwide, and get invited to give a talk to colleagues in my discipline once or twice a year, for a $100 honorarium. Or, I could write a book for the New Age market that panders to their need to pretend that the hokum they believe in is somehow 'scientific,' sell a couple of hun- dred thousand copies of it, and get myself on the New Age lecture circuit, for honorariums of $2000-10,000 a pop. So I *understand* why former scientists do this. It's the money, stupid. And the groupies. You don't really get all that much nookie as a real scientist or as a real professor. :-) Isn't it interesting how Barry projects his own scam-the-rubes mentality on everybody else? (And that's after having gotten virtually everything he asserted about Goswami embarrassingly wrong.) Because *Barry* doesn't believe in anything but his own wonderfulness, he assumes nobody else does either, so they must all be pandering, just as he would if he had the credentials to get folks to listen to him. But it's the people who want us to believe that these shills for the New Age and for Hindu funda- mentalism Oops, we don't know that Goswami is a Hindu fundamentalist, now, do we? are still scientists that get me. They *are* still scientists. As I noted, you don't stop being a scientist because you retire or go on to other things or expand into metaphysics. You may stop being a *practicing* scientist, doing research and publishing in journals, but you don't somehow lose the knowledge that made you a scientist in the first place. What Barry's really saying is, How dare people I don't consider scientists because I disagree with their ideas (though I couldn't say what those ideas were) call themselves scientists?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Quantum Physics and Consciousness
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On Aug 4, 2009, at 4:56 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: FORMERLY of the University of Oregon. He has been retired for many years, and now makes his living as a speaker at New Age conferences and by charging for appearances in films like What the bleep do we know? In other words, as Judy suggests, he is as qualified a phsyicist as it gets, in exactly the same way that John Hagelin is. Neither has worked in the field of physics for years, but would like you to think they have. His website still lists him as professor emeritus at the university, but he retired in 2003 and hasn't been part of the institute since then. This is the kind of honesty that Judy admires. And really the level of rigor in their science. It's a predisposition to pseudoscience, probably due to their willing indoctrination into TM- based pseudoscience and being conditioned to actually defend these untenable beliefs--even if they have no training in the fields themselves. It appears very comforting for them to have these acquired illusions as it helps TM advocates imagine there really is something solid behind their stack-of-card belief-system. Some will defend their McMeditation stack-of-cards as if their lives depended on it, even though they don't have the intellectual wherewithals to actually understand what's being said. You should create your own YouTube film clip about your observation. Let's see how many hits you get--both verbal and physical.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Quantum Physics and Consciousness
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_...@... wrote: To All: A physics professor expresses his view about consciousness. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s42mrdhKwRA His ideas are fairly similar to the TM tenets. I don't believe he is part of the TMO. Amit Goswami of the University of Oregon Institute of Theoretical Science. No, he has no connection with the TMO or anything TM-ish, and he's as qualified a physicist as it gets. I'll have to watch the video later, but I'm thrilled to know he's on YouTube; he has a whole bunch of videos up. Also has a Web site/blog that looks as though it's run by his followers: http://www.amitgoswami.org I first encountered him many years ago via his book (his first, I think) The Self-Aware Universe. His metaphysical perspective is *very* similar to what MMY taught. He has quite a gift for explanation; I understood some of MMY's ideas for the first time after reading the book. I knew he'd become something of an intellectual guru in the Ken Wilber vein (i.e., I don't think he teaches meditation or anything like that, he just holds forth about quantum mechanics and consciousness and writes books like mad). But I'd almost forgotten about him, and I'm really tickled you dug him up. I'll have to find out what he's been up to.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Quantum Physics and Consciousness
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo richardhughes...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo richardhughes103@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo richardhughes103@ wrote: What is it about QP and consciousness that gets people annoyed? For me it's the idea that there isn't a world outside of my perception of it. Or, as another physicist working on fundamental theories of nature put it: If consciousness isn't the only thing to collapse quantum waveforms (which it isn't) why should anyone think it's the *only* thing that collapses them? Hagelin's vedic definition of consciousness boils down to the QM definition when you look at it closely. As I said, there's no controversy in the claim at its most basic level because consciousness noting its own existence is no different than self interactions between the fundamental elementary thingie (superstring?) that is the basis of QM. Only if you insist that there is no fundamental thingie do you run into problems when making the comparison at that level. The question arises: does analysis at this level yield anything useful/insightful/ significant? Hagelin claims it does. Good for him. I actually admire the string theory pioneers. Where would we be if everyone stayed with the herd and never tried new ideas? We'd probably still be sitting in caves and throwing rocks at each other. The trouble with JH is that he claims to have actually *achieved* Einsteins goal of grand unification. Which is nonsense, obviously. Why doesn't he just say I've got an idea about this..? I don't know, maybe he's happier being a big fish in a small pond. Ego + need to fulfill (or to appear to fullfill) his guru's expectations, I suspect. L.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Quantum Physics and Consciousness
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig lengli...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo richardhughes103@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo richardhughes103@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo richardhughes103@ wrote: What is it about QP and consciousness that gets people annoyed? For me it's the idea that there isn't a world outside of my perception of it. Or, as another physicist working on fundamental theories of nature put it: If consciousness isn't the only thing to collapse quantum waveforms (which it isn't) why should anyone think it's the *only* thing that collapses them? Hagelin's vedic definition of consciousness boils down to the QM definition when you look at it closely. As I said, there's no controversy in the claim at its most basic level because consciousness noting its own existence is no different than self interactions between the fundamental elementary thingie (superstring?) that is the basis of QM. Only if you insist that there is no fundamental thingie do you run into problems when making the comparison at that level. The question arises: does analysis at this level yield anything useful/insightful/ significant? Hagelin claims it does. Good for him. I actually admire the string theory pioneers. Where would we be if everyone stayed with the herd and never tried new ideas? We'd probably still be sitting in caves and throwing rocks at each other. The trouble with JH is that he claims to have actually *achieved* Einsteins goal of grand unification. Which is nonsense, obviously. Why doesn't he just say I've got an idea about this..? I don't know, maybe he's happier being a big fish in a small pond. Ego + need to fulfill (or to appear to fullfill) his guru's expectations, I suspect. Ooh, Bad science! L.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Quantum Physics and Consciousness
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig lengli...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo richardhughes103@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo richardhughes103@ wrote: What is it about QP and consciousness that gets people annoyed? For me it's the idea that there isn't a world outside of my perception of it. Or, as another physicist working on fundamental theories of nature put it: If consciousness isn't the only thing to collapse quantum waveforms (which it isn't) why should anyone think it's the *only* thing that collapses them? Hagelin's vedic definition of consciousness boils down to the QM definition when you look at it closely. As I said, there's no controversy in the claim at its most basic level because consciousness noting its own existence is no different than self interactions between the fundamental elementary thingie (superstring?) that is the basis of QM. Only if you insist that there is no fundamental thingie do you run into problems when making the comparison at that level. The question arises: does analysis at this level yield anything useful/insightful/ significant? Hagelin claims it does. Good for him. I actually admire the string theory pioneers. Where would we be if everyone stayed with the herd and never tried new ideas? We'd probably still be sitting in caves and throwing rocks at each other. The trouble with JH is that he claims to have actually *achieved* Einsteins goal of grand unification. Which is nonsense, obviously. Why doesn't he just say I've got an idea about this..? I don't know, maybe he's happier being a big fish in a small pond. Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Quantum Physics and Consciousness
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo richardhughes...@... wrote: What is it about QP and consciousness that gets people annoyed? For me it's the idea that there isn't a world outside of my perception of it. Or, as another physicist working on fundamental theories of nature put it: If consciousness isn't the only thing to collapse quantum waveforms (which it isn't) why should anyone think it's the *only* thing that collapses them?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Quantum Physics and Consciousness
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo richardhughes...@... wrote: What is it about QP and consciousness that gets people annoyed? For me it's the idea that there isn't a world outside of my perception of it. That makes me a realist, the idea that the universe depends on my/our existence is so intuitively ridiculous that I dismiss it without a second thought. Don't feel you can trust intuition? Oh yeah! Here is one of the suutra's where Patañjali expresses one aspect of that idea: kRtaarthaM prati *naSTam* apy_*anaSTaM* tadanyasaadhaaraNatvaat.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Quantum Physics and Consciousness
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo richardhughes...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo richardhughes103@ wrote: What is it about QP and consciousness that gets people annoyed? For me it's the idea that there isn't a world outside of my perception of it. Or, as another physicist working on fundamental theories of nature put it: If consciousness isn't the only thing to collapse quantum waveforms (which it isn't) why should anyone think it's the *only* thing that collapses them? Hagelin's vedic definition of consciousness boils down to the QM definition when you look at it closely. As I said, there's no controversy in the claim at its most basic level because consciousness noting its own existence is no different than self interactions between the fundamental elementary thingie (superstring?) that is the basis of QM. Only if you insist that there is no fundamental thingie do you run into problems when making the comparison at that level. The question arises: does analysis at this level yield anything useful/insightful/ significant? Hagelin claims it does. Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Quantum Physics and Consciousness
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: Physics deals with the physical world, not consciousness. If you study physics and quantum physics at the college level this becomes immediately apparent. If you study and/or practice in an eastern tradition with any depth, you soon learn that it is isn't consciousness that is the bridge to physicality and consciousness, but prana. Hmmm... ata eva praaNaH http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/bs_1/1-1-09.html
[FairfieldLife] Re: Quantum Physics and Consciousness
It's possible that the critical issue is the fact that classical information can be duplicated and quantum information can't. Because classical information can be duplicated then an observer can share it with another observer, who can share it with even more, so that the information exists independently of any one observer and it's therefore out there. Quantum information can't be duplicated (the no-cloning theorem takes care of that), so it can't have the same kind of existence outside of one observer's state of knowledge that classical information can. It's an interesting topic and not one to explore in depth on this forum.
