This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

Comments by ThisCanNotBeTheFuture

Go to: Has Physics Made Philosophy and Religion Obsolete?

ThisCanNotBeTheFuture's Avatar Jump to comment 8 by ThisCanNotBeTheFuture

I was thinking the same thing.

Comment 5 by Andres Heredia :

Wow, did anybody else looked at the comments there? i'm just baffled by the stupidity that those people display...

Tue, 24 Apr 2012 02:30:11 UTC | #936887

Go to: In Defense of Dawkins’s Reason Rally Speech

ThisCanNotBeTheFuture's Avatar Jump to comment 47 by ThisCanNotBeTheFuture

Comment 34 by mirandaceleste :

Your claim that mockery leads to rational discussion and/or actual change is neither valid nor true. Or, at the very least, it's an extreme overgeneralization for which you've provided no actual, concrete, non-hypothetical evidence.

"Well, we've got plenty of hear say and conjecture. Those are kinds of evidence."

 - Lionel Hutz

Tue, 03 Apr 2012 16:49:41 UTC | #932158

Go to: Will your kid be taught that climate change is a hoax?

ThisCanNotBeTheFuture's Avatar Jump to comment 66 by ThisCanNotBeTheFuture

Did anyone else catch that EC asserted that progressives often push for fascism?!!

face palm Wow, just wow.

Take the two sides of the aisle (in the U.S., at least) and imagine both of them moving further apart by an order of magnitude. Now ask yourself which side more closely resembles fascism.

Fri, 24 Feb 2012 20:55:13 UTC | #921627

Go to: Santorum, Satan and the Fate of the Freeworld

ThisCanNotBeTheFuture's Avatar Jump to comment 1 by ThisCanNotBeTheFuture

Santorum makes bat shit look sane.

Oh, and since Santorum thinks academics are evil, I'm sure he eschews any piece of technology that was invented at a university setting, right?

Thu, 23 Feb 2012 23:56:54 UTC | #921334

Go to: Romney Defends Conservative Values, Says Obama Has ‘Secular Agenda’

ThisCanNotBeTheFuture's Avatar Jump to comment 14 by ThisCanNotBeTheFuture

Comment 4 by Steve Zara :

I am wondering if the right-wing (now the far right wing) in the USA has gone insane.

Speaking as an American: Yes, they have.

Thu, 23 Feb 2012 05:01:16 UTC | #920927

Go to: U.S. State Science Standards Are ‘Mediocre to Awful’

ThisCanNotBeTheFuture's Avatar Jump to comment 16 by ThisCanNotBeTheFuture

How did Louisiana get a B+?!

Fri, 03 Feb 2012 03:27:50 UTC | #914132

Go to: While temperatures rise, denialists reach lower

ThisCanNotBeTheFuture's Avatar Jump to comment 59 by ThisCanNotBeTheFuture

@JosGibbons

Excellent posts, man! I love reading them on topics such as these.

Are you a physicist of some sort?

Wed, 01 Feb 2012 17:37:44 UTC | #913485

Go to: It’s the ‘Year of the Bible’ in Pennsylvania

ThisCanNotBeTheFuture's Avatar Jump to comment 7 by ThisCanNotBeTheFuture

Man, that war on religion the GOP is always bitching about is getting out of hand.

Sat, 28 Jan 2012 16:49:00 UTC | #912244

Go to: For Rick Santorum, a Pregnancy That Is the Result of Rape Is a ‘Broken Gift’

ThisCanNotBeTheFuture's Avatar Jump to comment 1 by ThisCanNotBeTheFuture

Fuck Rick Santorum.

Tue, 24 Jan 2012 02:36:24 UTC | #911020

Go to: Book excerpt - "Fool Me Twice: Fighting the Assault on Science in America

ThisCanNotBeTheFuture's Avatar Jump to comment 4 by ThisCanNotBeTheFuture

Do the local weather people EVER mention global warming? Are Muslims ever happy?

Exactly. They're always only too chipper about the fact that it's late Spring in January.

Fri, 20 Jan 2012 04:48:47 UTC | #910067

Go to: Book excerpt - "Fool Me Twice: Fighting the Assault on Science in America

ThisCanNotBeTheFuture's Avatar Jump to comment 3 by ThisCanNotBeTheFuture

I've never had a climate skeptic/denier offer any sort of substantive response to the following amateur argument: There is surely no disagreement over the assertion that we have a pretty solid understanding of thermal physics. In particular, we know that CO2 traps in additional heat. We also know that we are continuing to increase the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. Therefore...

Actually, the closest attempt at a counterargument is "Well, yeah, but CO2 only represents a fraction of the atmospheric gases." This simplistic reasoning is obviously so fallacious that there should be no need to unpack it.

Beyond that, all I here is "Dammit, I just know it's impossible!"

Fri, 20 Jan 2012 04:43:55 UTC | #910065

Go to: Lawrence Krauss Interviews

ThisCanNotBeTheFuture's Avatar Jump to comment 6 by ThisCanNotBeTheFuture

Wright is barely tolerable.

In particular, I can't stand how he always seems to give the impression that he thinks his knowledge of a given domain is equivalent to that of whomever he's interviewing.

Tue, 17 Jan 2012 01:38:50 UTC | #909038

Go to: Afterword from Lawrence Krauss' New Book - A Universe From Nothing

ThisCanNotBeTheFuture's Avatar Jump to comment 14 by ThisCanNotBeTheFuture

I always really enjoy Richard's writing style--clear, easy-to-read, but so erudite, as well.

Sat, 31 Dec 2011 02:50:21 UTC | #903934

Go to: God Sent Christopher Hitchens to Hell Because He Loved Him

ThisCanNotBeTheFuture's Avatar Jump to comment 134 by ThisCanNotBeTheFuture

If Islam were to turn out to be true and this douche goes to Hell, I wonder if he would say, "Well, shucks, I guess this is what I really wanted!"

Mon, 19 Dec 2011 05:08:10 UTC | #900859

Go to: Alvin Plantinga and Intelligent Design

ThisCanNotBeTheFuture's Avatar Jump to comment 75 by ThisCanNotBeTheFuture

Comment 73 by Jos Gibbons :

Neither, it seems, was Alvin Plantinga. You'll be a world-famous philosopher yet (if you'll settle for doing theology).

Let me save face a bit by saying that it is quite intuitive and rather obvious once one thinks about it...though I admit to never having seen it formally.

And whether or not one has encountered it before, one would think (or like to think) that any sophisticated thinker would avoid it.

Sat, 17 Dec 2011 00:26:32 UTC | #900106

Go to: Alvin Plantinga and Intelligent Design

ThisCanNotBeTheFuture's Avatar Jump to comment 72 by ThisCanNotBeTheFuture

Comment 67 by Jos Gibbons :

zarkoff45, thanks for that footage of Plantinga using the masked man fallacy. Now I have even less respect for him (I didn't even know that was possible). To echo Steve Zara, why is he taken seriously?

Nice link. I wasn't aware of that fallacy.

Fri, 16 Dec 2011 20:37:38 UTC | #899987

Go to: Republicans insane; want to establish theocracy

ThisCanNotBeTheFuture's Avatar Jump to comment 49 by ThisCanNotBeTheFuture

Pretty powerful comparison. Amazing how things have changed in 50 years.

Comment 42 by Hendrix is my gOD :

Herman Cain: What we are seeing is a wider gap between people of faith and people of nonfaith. … Those of us that are people of faith and strong faith have allowed the nonfaith element to intimidate us into not fighting back. I believe we’ve been too passive. We have maybe pushed back, but as people of faith, we have not fought back.

Rick Perry: Somebody’s values are going to decide what the Congress votes on or what the president of the United States is going to deal with. And the question is: Whose values? And let me tell you, it needs to be our values—values and virtues that this country was based upon in Judeo-Christian founding fathers . . . in every person’s heart, in every person’s soul, there is a hole that can only be filled by the Lord Jesus Christ.

contrast this to presidential candidate John F. Kennedy (address to the Ministerial Association of Greater Houston, September 12,1960):

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute -- where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote -- where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference -- and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

...

If my church attempted to influence me in a way which was improper or which affected adversely my responsibilities as a public servant sworn to uphold the Constitution, then I would reply to them that this was an improper action on their part. It was one to which I could not subscribe.

...

I would not look with favor upon a President working to subvert the First Amendment's guarantees of religious liberty ... Neither do I look with favor upon those who would work to subvert Article VI of the Constitution by requiring a religious test -- even by indirection.

Tue, 22 Nov 2011 19:51:05 UTC | #892400

Go to: Fox News and Bill O'Reilly Accused of Airing "Distorted" Re-Creation of Florida Man's Email

ThisCanNotBeTheFuture's Avatar Jump to comment 37 by ThisCanNotBeTheFuture

In retaliation for O'Reilly's constant and annoying use of "pinhead" , can we PLEASE start making a concerted effort to call him "pudding-head." :)

Wed, 12 Oct 2011 21:34:21 UTC | #880296

Go to: Dealing with William Lane Craig

ThisCanNotBeTheFuture's Avatar Jump to comment 1687 by ThisCanNotBeTheFuture

Interesting comments on the cosmological aspects of the debate from the very opinionated former Harvard physicist Lobos Motl:

http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/04/how-theist-defeated-atheist.html#more

Mon, 15 Aug 2011 20:12:34 UTC | #861430

Go to: Doonesbury - Sunday 10 July

ThisCanNotBeTheFuture's Avatar Jump to comment 9 by ThisCanNotBeTheFuture

Funny....and I'm from Louisiana.

Sun, 10 Jul 2011 20:51:36 UTC | #848338

Go to: Dealing with William Lane Craig

ThisCanNotBeTheFuture's Avatar Jump to comment 1445 by ThisCanNotBeTheFuture

Comment 1444 by Quine :

If The Resurrection was the most important theological event in the history of the Universe, why did their deity not arrange for a few thousand direct witnesses thereof, instead of none at all? I suspect the religious would answer, "That would make believing too easy." To that, I think The Beatitudes should be extended with, "Blessed are the gullible, for they shall provide the future revenue for our church."

And with potential eternal torment on the line, why should it be difficult anyway? How could one be blamed for believing in the wrong the thing if...well, no need to spell out the obvious.

Fri, 08 Jul 2011 02:25:59 UTC | #847523

Go to: Dealing with William Lane Craig

ThisCanNotBeTheFuture's Avatar Jump to comment 1403 by ThisCanNotBeTheFuture

Whatever you say about I ghosts, or the incoherent nonsense that is non-physicalism, I have one word in response: Bostrom. Bostrom! I say!

Bostrom put forward the idea that we might be living in a simulation. I think in the end he came up with 50/50. But he has a point. As does David Deutch in 'The Fabric of Reality' (which I am now reading).

There is no experience we can have that might not be the result of a simulation, a virtual world.

Thank you, for mentioning this!

I just tried to post a topic about this, but it apparently wasn't approved.

This idea on my view speaks to the more abstract meaning of what it means for some state of affairs to count as evidence for some hypothesis. In general, I'd say we think of evidence as meaning an observation or result that corresponds to a non-trivial prediction. So, for example, a lag in atomic clocks on supersonic jets was seen as (further) evidence of General Relativity since this phenomenon is one of many things the theory predicts.

More to the point, the hypothesis that God exists makes no predictions since just about any state of affairs is consistent with it. Therefore, any "evidence" for God (the Cosmological and Fine-Tuning ones, for example) could just as well be taken to be evidence for life as computer simulation a la' Bostrom.

I predict that a theist would say, "Ah, but that is completely ad hoc!" Yes, but it's no more ad hoc than supposing the answer lies in an eternal, immaterial mind composed of no parts (except the Trinity?). In fact, the former doesn't even require breaking with naturalism.

Wed, 06 Jul 2011 22:52:22 UTC | #847111

Go to: Dealing with William Lane Craig

ThisCanNotBeTheFuture's Avatar Jump to comment 1298 by ThisCanNotBeTheFuture

On the impossibility of an infinite number of events...

Are we really supposed to believe that Roger Penrose and Neil Turok, among others, are so simplistic in their thinking, and/or WLC is such an advanced thinker in mathematics, that the former two are certainly wrong from the very get go for working on models of the universe/multiverse that rely on some sort of infinite cycles?! (Miku Kaku has also entertained the idea that Big Bang has occurred over and over throughout time and.)

I guess these, uh, morons need to attend a WLC lecture, right?

I also wonder if most mathematicians take Craig's mathematical philosophy seriously. Jeffery Shallit, for one, finds it unimpressive and claims that Craig has misunderstood the implications of Hilbert's paper.

Also, how seriously should we take Craig's interpretation of BVG--namely, that it is impossible that anything could have existed before the Big Bang--when physicists like Linde and Singh (apparently) don't even really go for the Big Bang model?? They may be wrong of course, but if BVG is as air tight as Craig makes it out to be it seems like they'd be fools to even mathematically entertain other theories.

I've heard Craig try to sell nonsense before, so something doesn't sound right here.

Mon, 04 Jul 2011 21:54:12 UTC | #846168

Go to: Dealing with William Lane Craig

ThisCanNotBeTheFuture's Avatar Jump to comment 1216 by ThisCanNotBeTheFuture

Slightly off-topic:

Has anyone else noticed that while WLC seems to refuse to take any, "alternate" theory of cosmology (say, of Penrose, Turok, etc.) under consideration--answering Krauss (as I believe he did) that such-and-such conjecture isn't recognized by the majority of cosmologists--he nonetheless trots out Behe's work as a viable theory of cell biology when the discussion turns to evolution???

Sun, 03 Jul 2011 01:00:24 UTC | #845651

Go to: Dealing with William Lane Craig

ThisCanNotBeTheFuture's Avatar Jump to comment 1112 by ThisCanNotBeTheFuture

If both the Gospels were really written in order to tell history AND belief in bodily resurrection was not commonplace amongst the local culture, wouldn't you kind of expect them--given the fundamentally supernatural nature of them--to sound more like:

"To the men of other lands and future generations of men who will read this, I know no one believes in the dead rising, and it's going to sound totally crazy...but Jesus actually rose from the dead! No foolin'! Many witnesses swore up and down that they saw it. It's the most incredible thing, but I swear to you it's true!"

Ok, I'm being half-way serious...but they just don't really sound like someone writing history--more like a collection of stories. I remember one (conservative) history instructor of mine claiming that they in fact could not be treated as other normal historical documents are, but maybe she was completely off base.

Fri, 01 Jul 2011 21:00:26 UTC | #845334

Go to: UPDATE: Fashionable Nonsense?

ThisCanNotBeTheFuture's Avatar Jump to comment 286 by ThisCanNotBeTheFuture

Anyone else think that most postmodern writing sounds like a transcript of someone with Wernicke's aphasia?

Actually, I think a lot of admirers of postmodernism are simply wrapped up in how beautiful and possibly poetic (supposedly) this sort of nonsense sounds--so much so that whether it means anything or not largely escapes them.

I once had to endure a quote from a certain German philosopher (officially pre-postmodernism by perhaps a century, but the style of argumentation seems nearly identical) who said "the infinity enters itself." When I ejected out of frustration, "What, exactly is that supposed to mean??" the rest of the class looked at me in dismay for a moment as if I had just kicked over a child's sandcastle.

Wed, 15 Jun 2011 21:48:53 UTC | #639027

Go to: Dealing with William Lane Craig

ThisCanNotBeTheFuture's Avatar Jump to comment 460 by ThisCanNotBeTheFuture

Czar,

As both I and the poster who goes by "Quine" have mentioned, a central problem with KCA is that hidden in the first premise is an ambiguity due to the understanding of "everything" (although the word isn't explicitly used.) We judge that everything has a cause where by "everything" we mean everything in the universe. Craig, however, assumes that must apply to the universe itself. That jump, however, may not be justified--just as it is not justifiable to assume that a set of elements has the same quality that every element does. It just may be that the universe is the exception that makes the whole thing false.

This formal problem with the argument is compounded by the fact that the beginning of the universe was a quantum event, so now one should really begin to wonder. By the way, Stenger pointed out to Craig that quantum events involve uncaused events. And please don't respond with Craig's retort that those events are caused by some swirling sea of energy. The swirling sea is the event in question, not the cause of it. Another apologist on this very board who claims to hold a PHD in theoretical chemistry with an expertise in quantum chemistry admitted to me that this was basically true.

Thirdly, and this is a point that I claim authorship of, since I've never heard anyone mention it, but even if KCA were an amazing, knock-down argument, why would it provide evidence for the existence of God? In science some situation "x" is typically construed as evidence for hypothesis "a" insofar as "a" predicts "x". But the hypothesis that God exists makes no predictions since almost any state of affairs is consistent with the existence of God. Put another way, why would KCA provide evidence for God and not for the fact that we live in some sort of "Matrix" world or Nick Bostrum's "Simulation Hypothesis?" Both provide another way out. Maybe in the real world premises 1 or 2 are definitely false...And don't say "it's ad hoc." So is claiming it's a cause outside of time by an infinite, omniscient being.

Comment 432 by Czar :

Then you have to deny a premise. You cannot deny a conclusion without denying one of the premises.

  • Whatever begins to exist has a cause. I accept this since I think its more plausible than not.

  • The universe began to exist. I think this is clear.

  • The universe has a cause. Logically follows.

  • You don't find it convincing, I do. That is not what this discussion is about though.

    Comment 430 by Steve Zara :

    It the KCA is true, then the cause of the universe must necessarily be immaterial, transcendent, extremely powerful since all of energy matter, space and time came into beginning after the universe began.

    Then the KCA is necessarily false, because there is no such thing as an immaterial transcendent cause outside of time. It's not a coherent concept. I don't understand why this needs repeating, to be honest.

    Sun, 01 May 2011 02:27:08 UTC | #621352

    Go to: Nonsense as fact in universities?

    ThisCanNotBeTheFuture's Avatar Jump to comment 15 by ThisCanNotBeTheFuture

    That's awesome!

    I had a similar experience when I took a literature course on the Romantic era. We were assigned some philosophy paper by a 19th century German philosopher (and not one like Kant who could talk sense). I was so annoyed by the paper and in particular one line from it "the infinite enters itself" that when the professor asked for our comments I couldn't resist saying that it sounded like the author was just making up stuff as he went.

    I was expecting to hear some decent response as to why I was wrong...but instead everyone just stared at me in disbelief like I had just kicked over their sand castle.

    Oh man, postmodernists sucks. I love Chomsky's take on them.

    On another occasion I asked another lecturer why Marxist interpretations of events was always so heavily privileged in class, given that history had shown Marx to be wrong on key axiomatic questions? After a long minuet's silence the lecturer gave me (and the entire stunned class) his full answer: "Because" he stuttered embarrassingly "some of us don't like capitalism". That was the totality of his answer! He later sought me out privately and apologised for the inadequacy of his reply, saying that my question had "caught him off guard". I had nothing but contempt for most (but not all) of my teachers.

    These sorts of lies were common at University. Almost no one told the truth, certainly among the so-called "social-sciences"! "Science" is precisely what it was not.

    Wed, 27 Apr 2011 00:02:29 UTC | #619774

    Go to: Lawrence Krauss debates William Craig

    ThisCanNotBeTheFuture's Avatar Jump to comment 533 by ThisCanNotBeTheFuture

    I don't know why this point isn't discussed more. There is a voluminous literature on the philosophical implications of QM and at least some physicists are pretty convinced that there is a connection. The founders of QM certainly believed that it had serious implications for our understanding of consciousness. I indeed am puzzled that no one in the "philosophy of mind" field would mention QM. Have you ever tried Googling "quantum mechanics consciousness"? It's everywhere! New Age people like Deepak Chopra love this stuff (I get some pretty funny ads on my gmail account). Now that I think about it, perhaps this is precisely why serious scientists avoid the dualistic implications of QM. It's just too weird. -Neil

    Dude, I hope your mentioning of Chopra was a joke. Out of curiosity, could you list some of the philosophers at respectable universities that base their theories of consciousness on QM?

    I'm not saying there aren't any, I've just only heard of Penrose seriously entertaining it.

    The overwhelming majority are functionalists of some sort. Chalmers is a a sort of functionalist-property dualist. It's hard to say what Searle is. Behaviorism is gone, as is Identity Theory, I think. Anyway, I'm no expert and am sure there are those that use QM; I just haven't read any of their work.

    Fri, 08 Apr 2011 02:06:15 UTC | #613113

    Go to: Lawrence Krauss debates William Craig

    ThisCanNotBeTheFuture's Avatar Jump to comment 524 by ThisCanNotBeTheFuture

    Comment 528 by nashenvi :

    Let me try to give a quick run-down on why many-worlds still requires consciousness to have a "special place" in the universe. This might be a little tricky via email, but I'll give it a shot.

    Let's say we have a quantum coin in the 'heads' and 'tails' superposition state. We can write it as (|H>+|T>)C where the "C" specifies that we are referring to the state of the coin. Now let's say that my brain is in some "initial state" |0>B where the "B" specifies that we are referring to the state of my brain. Now before measurement, QM says that the state of the universe is given by

    |psi> = (|H> + |T>)C * |0>B

    In other words, the universe is in what is called a "product state" because the state of the coin and the state of my brain are completely independent. Now let's say I measure the coin. What is the state of the universe now? According to strong-Copenhagen, the wavefunction of the universe collapses so that it is either:

    |psi> = |H>C * |H>B (i.e. by brain "B" is now in the state "heads" because I have perceived that the coin is in the state heads)

    or

    |psi> = |T>C * |T>B (i.e. by brain "B" is now in the state "tails" because I have perceived that the coin is in the state tails)

    In this interpretation, something quite drastic has happened because my brain "collapsed" the wavefunction of the coin onto one of the two options. It is not clear how this can happen unless I postulate the existence of a "conscious observer" which has the ability to collapse wavefunctions.

    Now the way around this is called the "many worlds" hypothesis. In this case, the state of the universe after measurement is given by:

    |psi> = |H>C * |H>B + |T>C * |T>B

    Note that there is no wavefunction collapse. The coin is still in both heads and tails. However the coin state is now "entangled" with the state of my brain. But here is the problem. If I had to ask you which state the atoms in my brain were in, it would be very hard to say. There is no way to describe them locally. They are intimately entangled with the state of the coin. The atoms in my brain are both in the state |H>B and also in the state |T>B at the same time. That is the way the universe actually is. Now here is the question. Why do I consciously perceive only the state |H>B or the state |T>B? If the universe is actually in both states, then in one branch of the universe (or multiverse) I perceive the state |H>B but in some other branch of the multiverse, the atoms in my brain perceive the state |T>B. If my mind is simply an emergent property of the atoms in my brain, then why don't I perceive both states?

    Wait...so it's not simply because in the universe you happen to be in you actually see the coin as being on way; the light from the coin hits your eyes, which changes the state of your brain, and therefore the atoms that make it up.? In another branch of the multiverse you see it the other way, the light from the coin hits your eyes, etc... ??

    Honestly, the best answer that I think a many-worlds physicists can give is "That's just the way consciousness works. Yes, your brain atoms are in both states at once. Even though you see heads in this branch of the multiverse, you are seeing tails in some other branch." If I respond saying "Wait a minute. If my mind is just a function of the atoms in my brain which are in both branches, then why don't I experience both branches." then the only answer is that a many-worlds physicist can give is "You just don't. Sorry. That's the way consciousness works."

    To put it more starkly, if many-worlds theory is true, then in an infinite number of parallel branches of the universe, the very same atoms in my brain are in an infinite number of states. There is a branch in which I see the coin as heads. There is a branch in which I see the coin as tails. There is a branch in which the Flying Spaghetti Monster just materialized in my room. These branches actually exist and the atoms in my brain are actually pereiving them. But the question I ask yet again is: "If my mind is identical to the atoms in my brain, why can't I perceive these other branches?" It seems as if (even within many-worlds theory) what I call "mind" is not some particular set of atoms and neurons, but some particular branch of the multiverse. If so, then I don't see how you can claim that "mind" is an emergent property of neurons. It simply is not. At the very least, what we call "mind" is some particular branch of the multiverse that is one particular subset of a nearly infinite number of branches which constitute "the atoms in my brain".

    Is that at all helpful? I'm not arguing that many-worlds theory is true or false. I'm only arguing that it still seems to require us to retain some "special place" for consciousness so that "mind" can no longer be reduced to the state of some particular set of brain atoms. Prior to the advent of QM, this paradox simply did not exist.

    I'm perfectly willing to admit that I may be missing something obvious. Maybe it's because I don't exactly understand superposition, but I just don't see how it's supposed to be all that compelling. I've read a fair amount on the philosophy of mind and have never heard this brought up. Chalmers is a property dualist, and with his background in CS and mathematics surely he would know enough to comment on the idea, right? Has he?

    I'm surprised that you haven't run into this before, especially if you've looked into the philosophy of the mind. Surely, someone must have mentioned "quantum mechanics" at some point? As I said, it is QM which underlies this whole paradox. Without QM, there is no paradox. Does Chalmers ever mention "quantum mechanics" or "the measurement paradox" or something like that? I read a pretty good book a few years ago on QM and philosophy, but it might be a bit technical. I can try to find out the title if you want. -Neil

    The only author I've ever heard of who's tried to bring QM into the discussion is Penrose.

    I'm surprised that your surprised: who in the philosphy of mind seriously talks about QM as explanatorily relevant or is even a dualist? Searle?, Kim?, Fodor?, Davidson?, Putnam? Carruthers?, Tye?, Dretske?, the Churchlands?, Dennet?, McGinn, Block?, etc. Of the "big names" I can think of only Chalmers comes close.

    Thu, 07 Apr 2011 21:09:56 UTC | #613044