Quote:
Originally Posted by Dent
How'd you know what truly scientific people tend to see? maybe philosophically naive scientists, but they're not scientific.
number 3 is dualist?
|
Please clarify the first part/question? I am proposing three different but apparently "true" models of how the human being can regard itself based on actual science since the Newtonian era. Feel free to add to this or dispute.
I'm interested what you mean by "dualist" in terms of this discussion. The definition (and concept) can mean very different things depending on the context.
We still don't know what mind is. Is "dualist" from your end meant to be intellectually derogatory? This is a sincere question, I feel like I have seen you used it that way a few times.
In any case I am partial to
nondualism.
Number 3, labels aside, appears to be one way one can look at the human position, philosophically, in regard to quantum physics and
quantum field theory. Perhaps consciousness arose "naturally", but...why? It still means that the Universe is conscious of itself, at last at a sub level (ourselves being part of the Universe).