Devane
New
No givesies backsies. Send him to Mexico, they've had it too easy down there.Do we have to keep him?
No givesies backsies. Send him to Mexico, they've had it too easy down there.Do we have to keep him?
Good idea.No givesies backsies. Send him to Mexico, they've had it too easy down there.
I believe this is what Aruoet was referring to (correct me if I'm wrong Arouet)
http://phys.org/news/2011-06-canadian-method-quantum-wavefunction.html
I think so in that I recall the news that I read involving a new technique that allowed them to "gently" measure the wave function without actually collapsing it. My surprise with this link is that the article is from 2011. The news stories I read on this were relatively recent and I had the impression they were being presented as new results. Maybe the recent story was some kind of further improvement on the 2011 techniques?
A new experiment sheds some light on this question through the use of weak measurements — indirect probes of quantum systems that tweak a wavefunction slightly while providing partial information about its state, avoiding a sudden collapse
There's this http://www.nature.com/news/physicists-snatch-a-peep-into-quantum-paradox-1.13899#/b1
Here's the experiment referred to - http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v502/n7470/full/nature12539.html
Consciousness (2/2): a no-brainer?Aren’t these just anecdotes and metaphors, carrying no more weight than any other personal opinion? Is this going to help reconcile the differences between faith and science in this all important area?
Fortunately, since I first explored this question much more research has come into the public domain. And I’m not talking about things like Near Death Experiences (see the links at the end of this post), or David Fontana‘s explorations of the reality of the soul and the afterlife. I’m referring to work such as Schwartz‘s that demonstrates that the mind is not easily reducible to the brain but rather can, by force of deliberate willed attention, change the brain. Not quite enough to carry a hard-line materialist with me, though? Not even enough to cause him or her a fleeting doubt?
Well, beyond that, and most recently, there has been Rupert Sheldrake‘s book The Science Delusion. In the next post I will seek to unpack some of the most telling points he makes that should cause us to question too glib an attachment to a materialist explanation of consciousness.
And before you say it, if my preference for this picture, based on the evidence I have adduced, has in fact really been predetermined, then so has the preference of a materialist for a different reductionist picture. So why would his or her views have more weight than mine?