Yes. Ginkgo posted a few irrelevant sentences in recent threads I started. In one of them he apparently was contending that disembodied Cartesian mind-substances are MORE REASONABLE because of some squirrely point he was attempting to make about quantum mechanics.
Here is the actual post:
I don't think we can reject quantum mechanics as nothing compared to something. I think quantum mechanics has a lot to say about the nature of consciousness in general.
However, if we want to view the "thing-in-itself" in quantum terms then things that exist within themselves can only be reconciled and recorded if there is a conscious mind to make the observations. From the "thing-in-itself" to "things-for-us," If there is no conscious mind then there is only mathematical probability that exists as a set of equations waiting for an observer to discover in terms of causing an event to happen.
Again. There was a clear, coherent question in that thread. "Which one of these scenarios is more reasonable?" Ginkgo did not commit to an answer. The same way he refuses to commit to answering the question in this thread.
So we basically know now, without a shadow of a doubt, that Ginkgo is the local Quantum-Consciousness-Mystic on this forum. He is indicted himself as a woo-woo peddler and now he has even pronounced himself as one:
I have responded to all of his threads with an explanation as to why physicalism is not the complete picture.
I think quantum mechanics has a lot to say about the nature of consciousness in general.
He won't answer the question because deep down he knows that artillery shells would tear his body into pieces. He would be wetting himself to get behind that concrete wall. He cannot openly admit to this--- because then he would have to admit his body is made out molecules. And that cannot be said by him because it would upset his woo-woo peddling. He needs to play his rhetorical run-around game instead. Meaning his implied answer is (D). He would stand there and give a lecture about dualism in David Chalmers. Then he would deride his lieutenant for "not developing a response to my postings".