Sherab wrote:Interesting article entitled "Compatibility of Contemporary Physical Theory with Personality Survival"
Orthodox quantum mechanics is technically built around an element that von Neumann called Process 1. In its basic form it consists of an action that reduces the prior state of a physical system to a sum of two parts, which can be regarded as the parts corresponding to the answers ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ to a specific question that this action poses, or ‘puts to nature’. Nature returns one answer or the other, in accordance with statistical weightings specified by the theory. Thus the standard statistical element in quantum theory enters only after the Process-1 choice is made, while the known deterministic element in quantum theory governs the dynamics that prevails between the reduction events, but not the process that determines which of the continuum of allowed Process-1 probing actions will actually occur. The rules governing that selection process are not fixed by the theory in its present form. This freedom can be used to resolve in a natural way an apparent problem of the orthodox theory, its biocentrism. That resolution produces a rationally coherent realization of the theory that preserves the basic orthodox structure but allows naturally for the possibility that human personality may survive bodily death.
Lazy_eye wrote:Unless by "personality survival" he means something like an atman. In which case physics would be catching up to Hindu thought.
Lazy_eye wrote:Depends on what you mean by a "person". And, more to the point of the OP, what Stapp means by a "personality".
William James drew attention to “the fantastic laws of clinging” that allow a stream of conscious thoughts, with its ever-changing intermingling of related ideas, to hang together like a persisting entity. If there were purely mentalistic laws of clinging, then in our normal streams of consciousness these mentalistic laws could be acting in coordination with the physical laws of clinging, to produce the coordinated streams of consciousness that we experience. But how seriously would the theory be upset if sequences of mental events could hang together in persisting societies without the assistance of their physical mates?
...If we can push back to a time when only [the physical or mental] aspect prevailed, then it is certainly much easier to imagine a basically mental world creating for itself a physical substructure to attend to the minor details, than to imagine a purely physical world creating a mental superstructure. (pg 13-14)
Sherab wrote:Just a reality check - Stapp's ideas are still not accepted in mainstream science.
mahayana buddhism denies that things are the sum of their parts. plus this abstraction is assuming that the physical sum accounts for mindHuseng wrote:Glad to hear physics is catching up with Buddhist thought.
5heaps wrote:mahayana buddhism denies that things are the sum of their parts. plus this abstraction is assuming that the physical sum accounts for mindHuseng wrote:Glad to hear physics is catching up with Buddhist thought.
does that kind of svabhava exist conventionally? it doesnt exist at all. therefore we cant say even conventionally that things are the sum of their parts. right?Huseng wrote:There is no problem with saying that conventionally conditions come together and form a relatively-existent and dependently originated thing or person.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Lotus108 and 8 guests