-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 <FNORD> On 09/06/2016 01:43 PM, Xer0Dynamite wrote:

On 9/6/16, jim bell wrote:

...

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-09-06/quantum-computers- are-coming-the-world-might-not-be-ready?cmpid=yhoo.headline&yptr=yahoo

[partial quote]

...

Quantum mechanics, Carl Sagan once observed, is so strange that "common sense is almost useless in approaching it." Scientists still don't understand exactly why matter behaves as it does at the quantum level. Yet they're getting better at exploiting its peculiar dynamics -- in ways that may soon upend the technology business.

Don't buy this line. People don't understand Quantum Mechanics because they believe in Chemistry. It's not at all hard to understand. The only thing that is somewhat difficult is understanding the metaphysics of the scale of things. Don't be fooled by all of the math because there isn't any, apart from the nomenclature developed with QC.

I'm inclined to agree. Both relativity and quantum mechanics are "counter intuitive" because they address events at scales and in contexts not encountered in everyday human sensory experience. But if we do not insist on understanding them through direct analogies with familiar Newtonian mechanics - which simply don't fit - they don't seem bizarre at all. Robert Anton Wilson did a good job of cutting overblown beliefs about these concepts down to size, here and there through his various works. He also did a bang-up job of explaining how and why subjective human experience does not and can not very closely, or ever completely, mirror "subjective reality" - if any such thing actually exists. A new Hilaritas Press print edition of RAW's Quantum Psychology just hit the nables. Those who are short of ready cash or just so inclined will find PDF copies of earlier editions floating around here and there. The folks who curate the Wilson cannon don't mind; Bob would have wanted it that way. http://www.hilaritaspress.com/portfolio-item/quantum-psychology/ </FNORD> :o) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJXz2hNAAoJEECU6c5XzmuqhykH/30JN1LqlBscQuncWNhMOUNf VB43ZgCiNLLTHhMD5H9vsewftabjPaddgq0qIJABglhzI9/ESXUvTR2hy/cw0Op8 IC2/H+MUGzyiRDk9ipR4yswUsM6dvnieFisi7MvESgu61oVVf659qgKlGevb3SBj U1gSAWbFvfy+n3FY7HnWGvnq/WHJeLs7hgrk8wiT+xqRm9FP03lb6g41LjwS0Gs9 ez0zrQ2ViqUv1VnfC9x5S93V/vmVLXY6hcq6goZRY38K3n+9Sj3a+BY9oOoVkesj 5tYFBWIgxuO7DqDCHgQHac3jmkc2azs5UZ/NcGGmesiYwl7McDg3P36EaTZaOd0= =u+zg -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On 09/07/2016 12:50 AM, Georgi Guninski wrote:

On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 09:07:25PM -0400, Steve Kinney wrote:

...

I'm inclined to agree. Both relativity and quantum mechanics are "counter intuitive" because they address events at scales and in contexts not encountered in everyday human sensory experience. But

Another example for this are visual and auditory illusions (probably they exploit other parts of the brain) ;)

...

A new Hilaritas Press print edition of RAW's Quantum Psychology just

Wikipedia has an article about "Quantum Mind", basically claiming that the mind heavily depends on quantum stuff. Pretty sure medical students don't study this.

Are the theories about quantum mind taken seriously?

Well, biochemistry pretty much depends on quantum stuff ;) But quantum mind, not so much. Neal Stephenson's _Anathem_ does run with the concept, however.

A news headline like "5 yro savant boy from Uganda breaks root cert in his head for 42 kilograms of western chocolate" will make my day ;)

On September 7, 2016 3:31:45 AM EDT, Mirimir wrote:

...

On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 09:07:25PM -0400, Steve Kinney wrote:

...

I'm inclined to agree. Both relativity and quantum mechanics are "counter intuitive" because they address events at scales and in contexts not encountered in everyday human sensory experience. But

Another example for this are visual and auditory illusions (probably they exploit other parts of the brain) ;)

...

A new Hilaritas Press print edition of RAW's Quantum Psychology just

Wikipedia has an article about "Quantum Mind", basically claiming

On 09/07/2016 12:50 AM, Georgi Guninski wrote: that

...

the mind heavily depends on quantum stuff. Pretty sure medical students don't study this.

Are the theories about quantum mind taken seriously?

Well, biochemistry pretty much depends on quantum stuff ;)

But quantum mind, not so much.

Neal Stephenson's _Anathem_ does run with the concept, however.

Killer book. I love the way it makes you re-examine normal cultural shit just by renaming it and shifting it a little.... And that's before it gets into the heavy many-worlds quantum stuff. ;) His latest isn't nearly as good IMO (Seveneves) John -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 09/07/2016 02:50 AM, Georgi Guninski wrote:

On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 09:07:25PM -0400, Steve Kinney wrote:

...

A new Hilaritas Press print edition of RAW's Quantum Psychology just

Wikipedia has an article about "Quantum Mind", basically claiming that the mind heavily depends on quantum stuff. Pretty sure medical students don't study this.

Are the theories about quantum mind taken seriously?

Not by me. To grossly oversimplify: 1) Quantum physics is spooky and inexplicable. 2) Consciousness is spooky and inexplicable. 3) Therefore, quantum physics explains consciousness. Maybe. But the missing link is evidence. Or even a clearly articulated model that can tell us where to look for evidence. People who just "have to" explain everything in terms of concrete and familiar concepts have been known to assert that consciousness does not exist. Maybe they are right in a limited set of cases: The Gnostics maintained that most humans are born without souls. The Taoists and Sufis posit that the soul is a latent potential that remains dormant unless developed through self observation, and may be extinguished by the weight of neurotic compulsive attachments to "materialistic" motives and activities. By "soul" I think they mean consciousness exhibiting the ability to directly modify thought or behavior, and/or perceive something other than the activity of the nervous system, but that's a shot in the dark on my part. Two questions at the opposite ends of scale sit there like bookends on the library of human knowledge: What is consciousness made of? What contains the Universe and enforces the laws of physics? Again, those who simply "must know everything" assert that these are meaningless questions and/or that there is "nothing there at all." The scientific method addresses "how" but not "why" questions and to them, if it's not science it's not real. Those with a more experiential / subjective frame of reference often arrive at the conclusion that consciousness and existence are manifestation of the same thing. Philosophers who tend toward rigorous argument assert that by definition consciousness and existence are the same thing for all practical purpose, and that this tells us almost nothing except to define the limits on what /can/ be known by human beings. In Quantum Psychology, Wilson provides a guided tour of a lot of this landscape and presents some practical tools, like the E-Prime variant of English, for correcting some of the problems that arise from believing that we know things we can not know, and behaving accordingly.

A news headline like "5 yro savant boy from Uganda breaks root cert in his head for 42 kilograms of western chocolate" will make my day ;)

If he does, he will probably use a crystal ball, or dance until he drops while tripping balls on the best available local psychedelic. We have ways of getting at content that is "off limits" to normal waking consciousness. But he probably won't get the desired result because in these matters, the process very notoriously has its own agenda. By way of analogy, one does not interrupt a paramedics working at a disaster site with a request that she solve a crossword puzzle. You can try but she will ignore you or, if you continue pestering her, kick your ass. :o) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJX0AsZAAoJEECU6c5Xzmuq+HYIAJ1TUlPaQij1lnudBWzNawjS fPar0Pzv1gqttYtdXMIwxAaqHsHJ90LORcWas7SJXTV+GBLEeitEIHREy8+Ez+hC 144VgaJw8ZozLLBaDdXVccS1vZU7QhicFklqM8ULQOTYZSRB56dITCrQ6+o6K7Vn E8Gk0shMCupgGEzBDO0W6YeO0QGZVyDD7ZsR1Mb6ibbk4k1CANdxel42ulDuWdfi xBGDw0oqPzIILB+tRi49xb42i88h2LgMxXUPqX8MvX1DTnp2i+TccprK27luTAxo ggXayJOhshFkLoRi+GCCPet26MxD8cvvd48jv7EAMB7G6RnQil5S5BT7RPg29Ik= =Jcfg -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Sep 6, 2016, at 9:07 PM, Steve Kinney wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

<FNORD>

...

On 09/06/2016 01:43 PM, Xer0Dynamite wrote:

...

On 9/6/16, jim bell wrote: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-09-06/quantum-computers- are-coming-the-world-might-not-be-ready?cmpid=yhoo.headline&yptr=yahoo [partial quote] Quantum mechanics, Carl Sagan once observed, is so strange that "common sense is almost useless in approaching it." Scientists still don't understand exactly why matter behaves as it does at the quantum level. Yet they're getting better at exploiting its peculiar dynamics -- in ways that may soon upend the technology business.

Don't buy this line. People don't understand Quantum Mechanics because they believe in Chemistry. It's not at all hard to understand. The only thing that is somewhat difficult is understanding the metaphysics of the scale of things. Don't be fooled by all of the math because there isn't any, apart from the nomenclature developed with QC.

I'm inclined to agree. Both relativity and quantum mechanics are "counter intuitive" because they address events at scales and in contexts not encountered in everyday human sensory experience. But if we do not insist on understanding them through direct analogies with familiar Newtonian mechanics - which simply don't fit - they don't seem bizarre at all.

Robert Anton Wilson did a good job of cutting overblown beliefs about these concepts down to size, here and there through his various works. He also did a bang-up job of explaining how and why subjective human experience does not and can not very closely, or ever completely, mirror "subjective reality" - if any such thing actually exists.

For years my irc handle was hagbard (as in Hagbard Celine). Fucking illuminatus trilogy such a great read !! I feel like Umberto Eco really ripped RAW off with Focaults Pendelum... or maybe it's the other way around, I can't recall when Focaults first came out!! Pretty sure Illuminatus Trilogy was first. John

On September 7, 2016 4:21:32 PM EDT, Steve Kinney wrote:

On 09/07/2016 01:58 PM, John Newman wrote:

...

For years my irc handle was hagbard (as in Hagbard Celine). Fucking illuminatus trilogy such a great read !!

I feel like Umberto Eco really ripped RAW off with Focaults Pendelum... or maybe it's the other way around, I can't recall when Focaults first came out!! Pretty sure Illuminatus Trilogy was first.

I got flamed by RAW on his Groupmind list. It was one of the prouder moments of my life.

Hah I wouldn't mind seeing that exchange. I wonder whatever happened to Robert Shea... He was listed as co-author of IT but I don't remember anything else from him... RAW, otoh, was prodigious in his output. As a kid first reading and rereading the trilogy I always wished I had a golden submarine packed to the gills with high quality reefer, electronics, and friends. My own little under water commune.... Like Hagbard and ELF ;) John -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.