Response to Vandervert’s “Final Note”


Abstract
Vandervert’s “Final Note” is based on a flawed distinction between theoretical and experimental physicists. Vandervert also incorrectly characterizes Kuttner and Rosenblum as “experimental physicists.” Moreover, the perspective of Einstein, which Vandervert advocates, includes precisely the type of thought experiment Kuttner and Rosenblum originally displayed and that Vandervert criticized
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 46,461
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Kuttner and Rosenblum Failed to "Objectify" Consciousness.Larry R. Vandervert - 2006 - Journal of Mind and Behavior 27 (2):167-176.
A Measurable and Testable Brain-Based Emergent Interactionism.Larry R. Vandervert - 1991 - Journal of Mind and Behavior 201 (2):201-219.
Darwin's Dangerous Idea. [REVIEW]Larry Vandervert - 1995 - Journal of Mind and Behavior 16 (3):333-338.
Evolving Ecological Universe. [REVIEW]Larry Vandervert - 1995 - Journal of Mind and Behavior 16 (2):207-210.
The Only Objective Evidence for Consciousness.Fred Kuttner & Bruce Rosenblum - 2006 - Journal of Mind and Behavior 27 (1):43-56.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2015-01-22

Total views
0

Recent downloads (6 months)
0

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.

My notes

Sign in to use this feature