Replies

Atoms are not conscious. The point is that consciousness is not necessary for an observation; it's an "information" thing, not a "knowledge" thing.

:) Yes and no. I will never forget, when I was but a wee little thing studying math at Harvard, when Howard Georgi showed up at the Freshman Union to discuss physics with the physics frosh over dinner. There was this very annoying (read, unlearned) Christian who kept disturbing Prof. Georgi with religious questions. After repeated polite suggestions that this was not a religious discussion were declined by the heckler, Prof. Georgi finally gave in. He said something like this: "Look, I'm a card-carrying Baptist. I believe God created the universe and for all I know [mind you, this is one of the world's best particle physicists] particles may well have karma. But there's nothing I can say about it as a physicist. There's no 'Physics of Religion' course anyone on this campus can teach. And I'm sure there are more learned Baptists than me. So if you want a discussion with a learned physicist, I'm your guy. But if you want to discuss religion, I respectfully suggest you leave."

I remember the little speech quite well. He said it in a very chipper voice. I distinctly recall his sincere reference to the possibility that particles might have karma, followed up with his suggestion that there were probably smarter Baptists about. LOL -- I doubt the "best" of Baptists would use the word "karma," but Prof. Georgi's a pretty good Baptist, I do suspect.

So it's not that particles -- or atoms -- don't have consciousness. It's that, as a scientist, there's nothing to say about it.

La la la -- just causing trouble. I totally approve of your Holy War against unlearned idiots here who mask their stupidity in the Holy Bible.

"I'm a card-carrying Baptist. I believe God created the universe and for all I know . . ."

You have just set forth an example of a Bible believing Christian who can perfectly well engage in scientific learning and discussion. I wonder how well such a declaration on Howard Georgi's part would hold up in most universities today. A good many evolutionists would dismiss him out of hand just because he is a creationist.

So it's not that particles -- or atoms -- don't have consciousness. It's that, as a scientist, there's nothing to say about it.

It appears the tide has turned considerably. Roger Penrose's book Shadows of the Mind gets into the subject of quantum mechanics and consciousness rather aggressively. I included some links at 3121, but lurkers might want to cut directly to his response to critics.

Francis Crick, of double helix fame and proponent of directed panspermia (alien first cause), also takes a stab at consciousness. In The Astonishing Hypothesis he takes metaphysical naturalism "all the way" by suggesting the soul is merely a manifestation of the physical brain. From what I've read, his work is not well received except by evangelical atheists.

My two cents is the spiritual realm exists separate from the physical realm and that the brain is more like a receiver (a TV set) for the consciousness, which resides in the spiritual realm. I believe Roger Penrose is on a path that would lead to that conclusion with many of his readers, those who are not obliged to the solely materialistic worldview.