I find that I must take exception to Ed Close's supportive COMMENTARY on my TARGET ARTICLE 7, while at the same take the blame for my part in the sin that I shall complain about. Close states in the middle of [2], that Dr. Goswami introduced consciousness as the choosing agent involved in wave collapse 'solely on the basis of assumption and heuristic argument'. This is no doubt a repetition of the same phraseology, which Close had seen, that I had used earlier in writing about Goswami's work.

My statement was wrong, however, as is his. That Goswami merely made an assumption is a disservice to him for which I apologize for my part. In contrast Goswami, as his book The Self Aware Universe reveals, took consciousness to be the agent which chooses which quantum possibility to manifest, on the basis of physical principles and logic, as would be expected from the author of a current textbook on quantum mechanics. The fact that this approach is wholly consistent with the Perennial Philosophy is an additional bonus, rather than the basis for the action.

Dr. Close also wrote, later in the same paragraph, "There is certainly nothing wrong with the SWC approach, (after all every theory has it's a priori assumptions, but the argument for such a radical new paradigm is made much stronger by the proof of the necessity of non-quantum receptors (i.e., receptors that are not composed of quanta) presented in "Transcendental Physics" (Paradigm Press, 1997)".

The idea of an "a priori assumption" contained in the above has already been dealt with. I certainly appreciate the significant contribution Close has made by inventing a new mathematical tool which is appropriate to deal with the relationship of matter and the consciousness which makes distinctions (should we call it a new math for the ontic realm?).

The implication that it is needed to provide an otherwise absent support for SWC is, however, unwarranted. What Close has done very well in his "Transcendental Physics" is to provide prose that more readily communicates with the layman the rationale behind the new science which both he and Goswami are trying to get recognized as the forthcoming major scientific revolution that I believe it will turn out to be. In addition his new mathematics is a tool that could be useful in furthering and in developing applications for the new science. I invite him to comment on the value and utility of his Calculus of Distinctions, other than his claim of providing a foundation for Goswami's SWC, to which I have commented negatively above.

<hswift@swcp.com>