Ophiolite
Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Oh dear me. One step forward three steps back. The failure is mine. I underestimated your perception. Let me take you on a short journey. Please stay with me and read carefully:Oh I already did that. Its not fair. Here are a couple.
Mindful Universe
The physically described aspects of nature were asserted to be completely determined by prior physically described aspects alone, with our conscious experiences entering only passively. During the twentieth century the classical concepts were found to be inadequate. In the new theory, quantum mechanics, our conscious experiences enter into the dynamics in specified ways not fixed by the physically described aspects alone. Consequences of this radical change in our understanding of the connection between mind and brain are described.
https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783642180750
Physicalism versus quantum mechanics
A specific new model of the mind-brain connection that is fundamentally quantum mechanical but that ties conscious experiences to these macroscopic synchronous oscillations is used to illustrate the essential disparities between the classical and quantum notions of the physical, and in particular to demonstrate the failure in the quantum world of the principle of the causal closure of the physical, a failure that goes beyond what is entailed by the randomness in the outcomes of observations, and that accommodates the efficacy in the brain of conscious intent.
Physicalism versus quantum mechanics
In the context of theories of the connection between mind and brain, physicalism is the demand that all is basically purely physical. But the concept of "physical" embodied in this demand is characterized essentially by the properties of the physical that hold in classical physical theories...arxiv.org
Quantum theory and the role of mind in nature
The present work examines and proposes solutions to two problems that have appeared to block the development of this conception of nature. The first problem is how to reconcile this theory with the principles of relativistic quantum field theory; the second problem is to understand whether, strictly within quantum theory, a person's mind can affect the activities of his brain, and if so how.
Quantum theory and the role of mind in nature
Orthodox Copenhagen quantum theory renounces the quest to understand the reality in which we are imbedded, and settles for practical rules describing connections between our observations. Many physicist have regarded this renunciation of our effort to describe nature herself as premature, and...
On The Nature of Things: Human Presence in the World of Atoms
A new theory was needed, and was duly created. It accounts with fantastic accuracy for the empirical data both old and new. The core difference between the two theories is that in the earlier classical theory all causal effects in the world of matter are reducible to the action of matter upon matter, whereas in the new theory our conscious thoughts and mental efforts play an essential and irreducible role in the determination of the evolving material properties of the physically described world.
Points of Contact Between the Stappian Philosophy and Emergent Aspect Dualism
Henry Stapp is well known for his advanced views of Quantum Physics and particularly for development of the view that the mind of the observer is intimately involved in the collapse of the wave function when an observation is made.
Points of Contact Between the Stappian Philosophy and Emergent Aspect Dualism - Activitas Nervosa Superior
Henry Stapp is well known for his advanced views of Quantum Physics and particularly for development of the view that the mind of the observer is intimately involved in the collapse of the wave function when an observation is made. He expands this view to a cosmic mind conceptualization that, in...link.springer.com
When an argument is published in a quality journal the author(s) make reference to the source of specific bits information, or ideas within the body of the text, perhaps even quoting a relevant portion from that other work. Then, at the end of the paper a full citation, in standardised format, is provided to enable readers to easily find and consider that cited work.
And here is a curious thing, each time they publish a new paper on the same or related topic, they repear the procedure. They do not assume the reader has read their earlier paper, remembers which particular citation they are referring to and knows exactly where to find it. They repeat the whole process to allow the reader to focus on their argument not to go off on an unnecessary search.
Now you are not punlishing in a quality journal, but you are presenting an argument and you do have readers. Convention, good sense and just a decent set of manners, request, demand and require that you follow suit, not with appendices and formal citation style, but with a clear reference and link repeated from your original offering.
I am disgusted and appalled that I should be so mind-numbingly dumb that it did not occur to me that you would not understand that from my earlier post. There are four hundred plus posts in this thread. And you apparently think your readers are so engaged and enthralled and attached to your argument that they know exactly and easily where to find links, or comments you have previously made?
DO NOT ATTEMPT TO DEFEND YOUR OVERSIGHT HERE. IT WILL NOT WASH. Humbly and simply, note that you misiunderstood and will do better in future.
Upvote
0
