Quizás uno de los aportes más singulares (y menos conocidos curiosamente) en este sentido es el de Schroedinger, en el epílogo de "What is Life?":
"Now there is a great plurality of similar
bodies. Hence the pluralization of
consciousnesses or mindsseems a very
suggestive hypothesis. Probably allsimple,
ingenuous people, as well asthe great majority
of Western philosophers, have accepted it.It
leads almost immediately to the invention of
souls, as many asthere are bodies, and to the
question whether they are mortal asthe body is
or whether they are immortal and capable of
existing by themselves. The former alternative is
distasteful while the latter frankly forgets,
ignores or disownsthe fact upon which the
plurality hypothesisrests. Much sillier questions
have been asked: Do animals also have souls? It
has even been questioned whether women, or
only men, have souls. Such consequences, even
if only tentative, must make ussuspicious of the
plurality hypothesis, which is common to all
official Western creeds. Are we not inclining to
much greater nonsense, if in discarding their
grosssuperstitions we retain their naive idea of
plurality ofsouls, but 'remedy' it by declaring the
soulsto be perishable, to be annihilated with the
respective bodies? The only possible alternative
issimply to keep to the immediate experience
that consciousnessis a singular of lessis never
which the plural is unknown; that there is only
one thing"
La noticia ya tiene dos negativos, y dudo mucho que a nadie le haya dado tiempo de leerla... No me parece que eso demuestre mucho espíritu crítico precisamente...
Comentarios
¿Dónde está la ciencia en todo esto?
#2
¿Has leido la cita? ¿Has leido el enlace? ¿Has leido siquiera el artículo?
¿Ahora me vas a decir que Schroedinger era magufo?
#3 Lo he leído. Pero sólo veo bla bla bla. Ahí no hay ciencia.
#4 Vale que era algo demasiado genérico, tienes razón. He intentado afinar más en esta noticia: SAND 2013 Ciencia y No-dualidad [ENG]
SAND 2013 Ciencia y No-dualidad [ENG]
huffingtonpost.comQuizás uno de los aportes más singulares (y menos conocidos curiosamente) en este sentido es el de Schroedinger, en el epílogo de "What is Life?":
"Now there is a great plurality of similar
bodies. Hence the pluralization of
consciousnesses or mindsseems a very
suggestive hypothesis. Probably allsimple,
ingenuous people, as well asthe great majority
of Western philosophers, have accepted it.It
leads almost immediately to the invention of
souls, as many asthere are bodies, and to the
question whether they are mortal asthe body is
or whether they are immortal and capable of
existing by themselves. The former alternative is
distasteful while the latter frankly forgets,
ignores or disownsthe fact upon which the
plurality hypothesisrests. Much sillier questions
have been asked: Do animals also have souls? It
has even been questioned whether women, or
only men, have souls. Such consequences, even
if only tentative, must make ussuspicious of the
plurality hypothesis, which is common to all
official Western creeds. Are we not inclining to
much greater nonsense, if in discarding their
grosssuperstitions we retain their naive idea of
plurality ofsouls, but 'remedy' it by declaring the
soulsto be perishable, to be annihilated with the
respective bodies? The only possible alternative
issimply to keep to the immediate experience
that consciousnessis a singular of lessis never
which the plural is unknown; that there is only
one thing"
http://whatislife.stanford.edu/LoCo_files/What-is-Life.pdf
La noticia ya tiene dos negativos, y dudo mucho que a nadie le haya dado tiempo de leerla... No me parece que eso demuestre mucho espíritu crítico precisamente...