Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
My understanding of the book is that when a circuit III type becomes aware of the whole thing, they either refuse it...

The robotized Rationalist fears and resents Circuit V rapture
and its holistic intuitive faculties (just as the robotized Emotionalist
fears and resents Circuit III reason).

...or they cease to be a robotized rationalist and therefore move into the circuit V consciousness.  So a circuit III, in order to be an effective teacher, needs to develop their circuit V understanding, and the best way I can see to do that is to bash their ideas off circuit V types, but always...hmmm...with respect for the word "holistic".  Maybe it is that a circuit III type cannot gain a holistic view of...reality...because their vision is linear and not curved?

The trouble I see with a circuit III trying to communicate with circuit I and II types is that circuit I and II types are precisely the types that circuit IIIs don't like and can't understand.

The third, semantic circuit is an Evolutionary Unstable Strategy.
It could very accurately be called revolutionary rather than
evolutionary.
The first two-circuits are based on negative feedback, in the
biological sense. They maintain hotneostasis --that is, they
return, over and over, to the same ecological-ethological balances.
The function of negative feedback is to return to such a
steady state.

I see the circuit V type as the one who can bring the I and II type minds to the awareness of the revolution (via maps supplied by circuit VII types ;)...and then lead them back to comfort zone.  Somehow the circuit III type doesn't have a comfort zone, only a "driving forward" (with concommitant brain-frazzle.)

Are there enough circuit V types?  As of 1997, RAW stated (maybe wildly):

Approximately 50% of the human race has not evolved fully
into the third circuit yet.

You can create circuit V types by educating circuit IIIs and circuit IVs; but you have to have a culture of respect for the "holistic" for that to happen.

Synthesis, holistic, centred.

I suppose I think of the first three circuits as being conflicted, the fourth circuit as being a sort-of doomed attempt to hold things together, and the fifth circuit as the first point where rationality can be fed back into the system rather than causing endless revolutionary fissures...heh...not my best explanation.

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Mon Jul 23rd, 2007 at 10:11:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The problem is that The Scene has a lot of people who think they're living the higher circuits when they're not. They might have a sort of IIIrd circuit understanding of them, but there's a huge difference between living with constant synchronicities, intuitions and coincidences that are actually useful, and chasing illusions. I've known a lot of people who do the latter - sometimes with hilarious results - but not so many who do the former.

The other point about education is that it's as much designed to imprint circuit-specific behaviours as it is to teach facts or behaviours. The point of current scientific ideas about education is to teach the rationalist view of science, not to teach looser but more effective models.

E.g. you can teach music by concentrating on rote learning, or on creativity, on improvisation, or on history and musicology, or on patriotism and cultural conformity. All of these trigger different circuits, and aren't tied to the subject, but to the meta-message which says 'This circuit is the important one - be suspicious of the others.'

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Mon Jul 23rd, 2007 at 01:29:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
This is why I think the metaprogramming circuit needs to be lower. You need to change your metaprogramming to be able to start experiencing the synchonisities, intuitions, etc.
by Fran on Mon Jul 23rd, 2007 at 01:37:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm not sure what The Scene is, and as I said above my brain seems to match the circuit III model more than any other.  I would not make a good teacher to anyone under the age of sixteen, and I should say that I was thinking in particular of education at the "pre-hormonal" level, say 6-11, rather than secondary education.

What my sense was--and is--is that there is a general feeling (I'm getting this from your diary and from the idea that people just "don't get it", where "it" is related to understanding some facts derived from scientific thinking, and where "scientific thinking" means a process that a majority of people don't understand, and that this entire process is deleterious to society.

On re-reading das monde's diary, I class myself as a person who doesn't understand the following sentence:

But the main purpose of school education (and I would be wholly happy just with that) is to help students to realize that scientific logic is something different than everyday practical-empirical logic.

I understand that the way the world works is sometimes counter-intuitive, but that would depend on what one's intuitions are.  If we take the birthday paradox

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_paradox

I can't make head nor tail of the maths, though I'm sure it's right.  Now I think a circuit III teacher would try and take me through it slowly, then perhaps more slowly, but there would be that underlying frustration as they realised that I couldn't "get it."

But, taking another tack (which is what a circuit V type would do, I think), the problem might be re-stated in terms of counter-intuity.  What is the simplest counter-intuitive situation we can imagine?  How about: we are moving, the sun isn't, but it looks like the sun is moving.

I've tried this test on a lot of people since I realised that I didn't naturally know the answer:

First, ask a person "Which way is north, east, west, south?"  I'd say perhaps half of the people I asked knew.

Then I'd say.  "Where does the sun get up and where does it go to bed?"

Again, there was not unanimity on this one.

Then I asked: "Okay.  We know the world is spinning.  Which way is it going, north, south, east, or west?"

The fact that most people don't know doesn't, for me, say anything about their circuit III capabilities.  Rather, it says something about the nature of science education proposed by circuit III types.

As I said, I work at circuit III so I find it very hard to get my head around the idea of being on a ball spinning in space and how that affects the position of the sun and the moon (not forgetting light pollution.)

Therefore, I think it would be better for circuit III types to worry out their thoughts about this lack of people's knowledge with circuit V types, as it seems clear (judging by history) that without that circling back to the basics (the kids never look up--they look forward; they can't do the birthday problem because they're not bothered about probabilities and and fact is that in a school of 365 people the likelihood is that only one person shares your birthday--or rather, the birthday paradox seems to resolve as a bit of a magician's trick (if I've understood correctly):

The actual birthday problem is asking if any of the 23 people have a matching birthday with any of the others -- not one in particular.

I mean, you're right that a lot of young dope smokers may like to think of themselves as circuit V types, but I don't share what is my (maybe entirely mistaken) sense that here at ET this makes them risible.  I mean, they are at least trying to think outside the work-for-money-for-success-and-progress paradigm, and also outside of the gun-status-intimidation-power paradigm.  And, of course, what I think a circuit V type knows is that there are clear reasons why their ideas struggle to touch reality, including maybe the fact that it costs money and time and materials and the good will of other people to learn.  It takes good teachers, and good teachers don't take the attitude that those who don't know are laughable.  

That may be a harsh presentation.  But I see key scientific ideas being proposed by DeAnander, and she is basically told "You want to live in an agrarian utopia", when she seems to me to be analysing what is going on and using science in a holistic sense to discuss possible solutions to problems perceived through the paradigm of "holistic science" or science-as-synthesis, where it is...

Ach.  I know a little bit about music.  A student who wants to learn how to play an instrument in order to play, say, Bach, will have to knuckle down and study, if they want to play Bach.  I would say you need both a student who wishes and is happy to play music written by others and a teacher who knows the latest techniques for the most efficient acquisition of said skills.  And, of course, some people don't have the manual dexterity (small fingers!) to acheive certain results.  But this in no way should close off the area of human activity known as "music".

I realise now, though, that I have a completely alternative view of secondary education, which I would link very strongly with the wider society, where children going through the various hormonal stages would interact not just with peers, teachers, and mass culture (tv, etc.)...but that's a whole other essay.  It's what I mean by circuit V types as teachers, though.

Not very coherent, I know, but there is something there I'd like to tease out, maybe something to do with how "science" is seen as somehow "separate" from humans, when it is one of our tools...ach...it's something like DeAnander's point about rich people thinking you can eat paper, as if some scientists think science will just continue without humans, when science is...I'm back to das monde's point that I didn't get.  I thought science was hypothesis, experiement, analysis, then repeat.

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Mon Jul 23rd, 2007 at 04:02:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I think intuition as you're using it here possibly isn't what RAW means.

For me, intuition is defined by knowing things - and I mean accurately knowing things - that can't be worked out using IIIrd circuit tools.

If someone logs onto Second Life for the first time and finds their way to the virtual property of a friend by flying around at random, that would be intuition.

It can be explained as coincidence, but it's so statistically improbable, given how big Second Life is, that it's actually very unlikely. Especially when similarly unlikely things happen to them rather a lot. (Not a hypothetical, BTW - I know someone who operates like this.)

What you're calling intuition seems to be more about default assumptions about the world. Most of the time people don't need to know whether it's the earth or the sun that's moving. It's enough to know that when it's daytime the sun is up, and then it gets dark for a while, and there are seasons which make the cycle vary, and that's pretty much it.

The point of science is that it asks lots of 'Yes, but...' questions and eventually you end up in a place which looks nothing like that view of the world. It happens to be more useful and inclusive for certain things, but the fact that it's not rooted in everyday experience is exactly why - it doesn't take things at face value.

So at face value the birthday paradox, or the fact that the odds of a coin showing heads are always a nominal 50%, even after a freak run of 1,000 heads in the past, makes no sense. That's because our face value views of the world didn't evolve to deal with those kinds of problems.

If there's a point to science education it's that the face value view of the world is tentative and usually limited. Chasing after a more comprehensive view is very much a IIIrd circuit thing to do. And - as RAW says - it's easy spin your wheels endlessly in 'Yes, but...' without getting anywhere useful. Especially if you don't have peer review and other kinds of reality checks to stop the process becoming parasitic on your consciousness.

Intuition can sometimes short-circuit that, not by building a more accurate map - which is what the crank-types always try to do, and fail - but by realising that sometimes you don't need either Science[tm] or face value to connect with reality in a useful and fun way.

Similarly with drugs, you can take the experiences at face value. You can analyse them intellectually to build a map. Or you can 'know' what you do and don't need from them, and what's right for you. There is a kind of messianic narrative about drugs which suggests that using them will help you to know. But in practice face-value use seems to be more common than that. and it's the odder non-mainstream drugs, like ibogaine and ayahuasca, that seem to have more potential for persistent intuition. Weed and LSD - not so much, I think.

As for music, it's true that people have to practice. But for some teachers that's an end in itself. It's about teaching values like persistence and hard work for their own sake, and not about making performance skills fit into a bigger picture of Bach's intentions and musical spirit. For me that's a crippling and not a liberating way to teach music.

The basic narrative here is personal liberation. The progressive idea is that if people can function without being crippled, they won't need the kind of oversight that conservatives believe is essential.

Conservatives know what goes on in their own souls more than they understand anyone else. On that basis it's not surprising they want to control the world, lock it up, and declare war on it.

With higher circuits those knee-jerk conservative reactions become frightening first, then pitiful, then rather funny.

But conservatives won't see it like that, because the idea that a world of switched-on people might survive happily without their much coarses responses is something that's completely beyond their imagination.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Mon Jul 23rd, 2007 at 07:08:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Intuition can sometimes short-circuit that, not by building a more accurate map - which is what the crank-types always try to do, and fail - but by realising that sometimes you don't need either Science[tm] or face value to connect with reality in a useful and fun way.

Yeah, that's the one.  What I'm aiming towards, maybe, is that the circuit V holistic view can sense with confidence where the face-value limits lie, has a channel to the hidden assumptions because, I dunno, once your fifth circuit starts firing regularly your assumptions are running constant tests against the realities around you--all of 'em, without prejudice--and seeing how they join...and as you say, in the context of drugs,

you can take the experiences at face value. You can analyse them intellectually to build a map. Or you can 'know' what you do and don't need from them, and what's right for you.

I realised somewhere in what I was writing that there is a paradox about asking a circuit V to teach what can't be taught, but I think that's what makes them ideal teachers--that endless living in reality as a holistic, intuitive, centred continuum, seeing when a particular scientific tool will have maximum effect in opening the student's eyes to all those realities happening around them...

Ya know, I think there are historic precendents for individual schools turning out amazing communities of students.  Summerhill comes to mind, as does the (maybe apocryphal, but I think it existed) primary school in Brooklyn that produced a number of nobel prize winners...and off to google I go to find a list of nobel prize winners and their schools....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize_laureates_by_secondary_school_affiliation

...though I'm sure there was a primary school where a bunch came from...anyways...

I take that to mean once you get those circuits firing up and through...ach...ya know, RAW always makes me chuckle and think, and that mix of humour and thought is, for me, a sign of someone working from...I dunno...I don't want to say "higher", maybe "wider"?, states of relation to their immediate realities.  

But yeah, intuition and its results.  I suppose I place myself with the stupid people and wonder how we can all get a bit less stupid, and if intuition is worth developing (and for this circuit III chap I think it definitely is because of its lateral nature), I think its worth giving those who are trying it out some slack if the results are sometimes...well...I suppose I'd say if the student is trying to learn then the mistakes are where the learning happens, and the pratfalls...a good laugh with rather than at the poor bloke with his face in a puddle (c'est moi), and then--and I think this is another circuit V element that is a powerful teaching tool--knowing what to do next...a helping hand?  Dive in the puddle too and have a splash around?  Hand the guy in the puddle a towel?  Or a drink?  Or maybe the circuit V tripped them up?  All so fast and subtle and science, yeah, its in there, I think you're saying its key role is when what appears ain't necessarily so, and how to maintain that scepticism while being fully engaged...ach...but yeah, sommat along those lines.

I think the real loss of scientific thought among the general population came when what science was discovering in the sixties was stomped on by the police.  HST placed it to the '68 convention in Chicago--that was when he saw it stomped.  There's that part in Fear & Loathing where he says something like, "Nobody wants mind expanders these days.  Reality is too harsh.  No, now it's all about downers.  Blot it out, man!"  Only he wrote it a lot better.

RAW, for me, was right in there as the science expanded; these guys knew--and shared ideas with--the cutting edge scientists of their day.

In fact, as it's late, I'll suggest that this har internet is one of the fruits of that widening of consciousness--the widening of the field of understanding and its myriad forms--heh...

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Mon Jul 23rd, 2007 at 07:48:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]
interestingly, people who suffer from adrenal fatigue or exhaustion (Addison's Disease) develop a very strong sense of empathy, and can read other people's feelings.

in traditional Chinese medicine, this is associated with the kidney meridian, which controls the person's self-will.  so, when one's self-will is weak, one can read other people's emotions and feel them as if they are one's own.

by zoe on Tue Jul 24th, 2007 at 08:38:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Both evolution and development (of neurological understanding, in this case) do not go fully automatically - they depend on information provided. RAW was right about the III circuit types that existed 10 years ago - and his statement is still correct for most of III circuit persons today. But even RAW's way of presenting is rational enough to change minds of many III circuit types, on purely logical grounds even. That happened to me, you may say. I think that even Dawkins can be made less skeptical on this issue, if he cares. Scientists do have inertia as well, as RAW observed - but the inertia is smaller than the other inertias, and getting smaller with time (or richness of science history).

Now, referring to your post below, regarding the Birthday paradox and the quote:

But the main purpose of school education (and I would be wholly happy just with that) is to help students to realize that scientific logic is something different than everyday practical-empirical logic.

I've seen how pupils think, and I have helped some with wcience or mathematics. I do mean that the III circuit is best suitable for science, while many people probably try to comprehend science using only the first two circuits. For me, that is the source of the common "ununderstanding of science". The thing is, the "knowledge" of the first 2 circuits is imprinted (in structure) plus empirical (in content). The common intuition is to "feel" the facts, to associate with previous experiences.

The third circuit is "designed" for symbolic manipulations. You learn a language (especially the mother tongue) just by learning how things have to be said, and detecting formal generalizations, without worrying much why the words or grammar have to be like that. The III circuit is able to accept facts without confirmation from "intuition", een contrarily to intuition. Say, physisists use quantum mechanics without understanding it - philosophically they are still baffled with well-known paradoxes; but they can use the quantum machinery to design 90% of modern technology, still without objective contradictions. Similarly, pure mathematians don't spend much time "fully comprehending" every birthday paradox, since they won't get much further otherwise. It is nothing wrong with spending time digging into such a paradox - that does not mean that you don't use the 3rd circuit, it merely means that you let other circuits to play with that paradox. As far as the 3rd circuit is concerned, there is only so much to the birthday paradox... That is why I am optimistic about the 3rd circuit types: they can accept an assumption without fully "aggreeing" with it.

(If you want a bit of extra intuition for the birthday paradox, consider this: when you have 23 people, you have 23*22/2=253 pairs of people. You have 253 pairs, compared to 365 possible pairs of your birthday and any other birthday... 253/365 is already much bigger than 1/2, right? But the probability goes to 1/2 because the 253 are apparently not independent.)

by das monde on Tue Jul 24th, 2007 at 10:15:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The common intuition is to "feel" the facts, to associate with previous experiences.

The III circuit is able to accept facts without confirmation from "intuition", even contrarily to intuition.

I'd like to ponder this more, but for now how about: If reality and your intuitions are in disagreement, you need to change your intuitions.  But you still need intuitions.

For a circuit III type accepting an assumption without necessarily agreeing with it because the method produces solid results....I'm not sure about this.  It maybe (probably is) a prejudice of mine that you risk having people who will "act on orders" without pondering first--which is maybe a good thing sometimes, or certainly if you want quick forward movement, but I'm not sure that's the best way for students.  I know you sometimes have to take things "on faith", but that usually means "without understanding them".  I like the idea of students coming across information that doesn't agree with their intuitions, and then the students stopping and examining their intuitions to see why and how they aren't in agreement with this apparently non-intuitive information about/from reality.

I'm nae sure.  The kids might get bored.  You only have so much time and so many kids with different skill levels etc.

Are there any particular scenarios you're thinking of where someone going against their intuition on the basis of science they don't understand (but which "works") is helped in some way that "by using their intuition" they aren't?

If we're to relate this to politics, a circuit II attack might be: "Your enemies are different to you.  The more different, the worse they might be.  Strangers are different."  And then we can point out some enemies.

But a typical (Cheney?) circuit III attack might be: "Your intuition tells you that starting a war is wrong, but here are some facts that run counter to your intuition--I know you don't understand them completely, but don't worry about that for now."  

Ach...those are my first thoughts.  Mainly, I'd say that re-adjusting one's intuitions so that they are again in tune with information from reality is an important part of the process of adjusting to new information.  I'm thinking that rather than ameliorating to move a bit faster (in more or less the same direction), it would be more efficient to slow down and ponder more at key stages in order to then change paradigms...no...I mean in order to grow "out" of a small(er) way of thinking.

I cannae explain it, I know, but I see what you mean: circuit III is where people can start working with systems that seem "strange" and therefore unnatural.  Off the top of my head, I'm not sure what the negative is that's being made positive, as it seems everyone is happy using a mobile phone without really understanding much at all about the tech. behind it...heh...boy can I waffle.  More later, maybe.  Plenty to think about.


Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Tue Jul 24th, 2007 at 12:13:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The common intuition is to "feel" the facts, to associate with previous experiences.

The III circuit is able to accept facts without confirmation from "intuition", even contrarily to intuition.

I'd like to ponder this more, but for now how about: If reality and your intuitions are in disagreement, you need to change your intuitions.  But you still need intuitions.

For a circuit III type accepting an assumption without necessarily agreeing with it because the method produces solid results....I'm not sure about this.

Your post makes me think about what physicists call "physical intuition" - maybe I need to write a diary about it but I feel disinclined to do it. Das monde said before that physicists don't understand quantum mechanics but they can still make it work. I don't think that's true any more, we've had too many generations of physicists educated in a quantum mechanics that was known to work, and who have developed an intuition. Same thing for Einstein's relativity.

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Jul 24th, 2007 at 12:25:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
First, regarding physicists, I might be simplifying their non-intuition towards quantum mechanics greatly - I am not in that soup really. But I think that the non-local phenomena (entaglement, EPR experiments, Bell's theorem) are still baffling to their intuitions. The best course is to go forward constructing new gadgets and consequences, it appears.

My understanding is that empirical intuition is based on "deja vu" (including genetic deja vu). If you have a phenomenon which is unlike anything you ever experienced before, there comes a problem of satisfactory understanding. Quantum mechanics is difficult because it is hard to model it by anything else. (As regarding cellphones - a trivial remark is that most people are just happy to understand how to use them.)

But intuition may come not only from the empirical lower circuits, but from higher circuits as well. Say, in "Quantum Psychology" RAW claims complete equivalence of quantum mechanics and psychology (starting from subjectivity or experiences or measurements, the "maybe" logic, and going up to Big-bang non-locality against highest perceptions). He appears to be teasingly exhaggerating here: by his own philosophy, "complete equivalence" is an Aristotelian notion, not to be measured. Any model map is not the whole territory, whether we model quantum mechanics by deep psychology or vice versa. My rational supposition at the moment is that the higher circuits perceive some general but deep patterns beyond usual empirical experience, and quantum mechanics fits in those patterns (and deep cognitive psychology fits those pattenrs as well). It would follow then that higher circuits may help a lot to understand quantum mechanics "fully".

The 3rd circuit (if well programmed) is able to make assumptions even without practical results, just for a matter of thought experiments. I find myself in no difficulty to keep a few sets of assumptions about ongoing events (if I am really interested in those events), and adjust plausibility of various assumptions with new facts. But my habit to "keep options open" appears to be a drawback for corporate purposes, I was told.

Regardin Cheney's manipulation of the 3rd circuit, yeah, it works. It is admirable to teach people to detect bullshit, but then the problem appears to be that bullshit detection is applied inconsistently. For example, in 2000 Gore's positions were regurlarly perceived (}or presented) as bullshit, while Bush was treated admirably, exactly because bullshit detection was directed straight against Gore and away from Bush - by big efforts of the conservative-libertarian talnking heads in the media.

For the beginning, someone has to call Cheney's bullshit. It is amazing how conservatives were successful in ridiculing liberals' concerns while getting away with their own "fearsome" issues, while liberals were unable to do anything opposite.

by das monde on Wed Jul 25th, 2007 at 11:16:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
But I think that the non-local phenomena (entaglement, EPR experiments, Bell's theorem) are still baffling to their intuitions.

There are no non-local phenomena. Unless, of course, you insist on naive realism (defined as counterfactual definiteness and non-contextuality).

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jul 25th, 2007 at 11:22:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Hmm... ok, non-locality is just another Aristotelian excuse. But those counter-intuitive experiments and facts are still counter-intuitive, or what?

To extend quantization intuition on mathematical level, some try to generalize localization functors to non-commutative algebras...

by das monde on Wed Jul 25th, 2007 at 12:14:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, the Heisenberg uncertainty relations basically tell you physical observables form a noncommutative algebra.

When you look beyond your past experience you're likely to encounter things that are counter-intuitive. "Counter-intuitive" is a statement about your intuition, not about the phenomena.

The real problem is not quantum behaviour, but the "classical limit". I think decoherence and consistent histories go a long way towards solving that.

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jul 26th, 2007 at 02:56:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Is the "classical limit" the same problem as the measurmement problem, where the disctinction between determenistic wave evolution and a "mesurement" is not clear? Bell says that that Bohm's model (a particle riding a wave) solves this issue, but then "non-local" interpretations are weird.

Above that, is objectivity of the "real world" is now clear?

by das monde on Thu Jul 26th, 2007 at 10:53:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
IMHO the measurement problem stems from von Neumann's introduction of a "collapse of the wavefunction" axiom in his (1931?) Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. Personally, I go for Everett's "relative state" formulation. But that has ontological problems.

Bohm's model works for spinless, newtonian particles. I am not aware of a workable generalisation of Bohm's "pilot wave" formulation to quantum fields, variable unmbers of particles, or particles with spin or internal degrees of freedom.

The "classical limit" is related, but not the same, as the measurement problem. It is related because we describe "measurement" in terms of macroscopic objects. Imagining that von Neumann's "collapse" applies to any interaction that one might call a "measurement" leads to the quantum zeno paradox. But the quantum zeno paradox assumes that interactions are instantaneous, which is unphysical.

The fact is, every single counterintuitive or paradoxical prediction of quantum mechanics that has been tested experimentally has been confirmed, so when I say above that a particular interpretation on quantum mechanics has "ontological problems" I have to wonder whether it's not Ontology that has experimental problems.

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jul 26th, 2007 at 11:07:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What issue is Bohm's model "solving", by the way? It gives exactly the same experimental predictions as "ordinary" quantum mechanics. So the issue is not actually empirically motivated.

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jul 26th, 2007 at 11:09:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I agree, the issue must be to feed ontology, or intuition. Thank for discussion!
by das monde on Fri Jul 27th, 2007 at 05:37:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The best course is to go forward constructing new gadgets and consequences, it appears.

This is where I'm not so sure.  I'd rather humanity--and in particular the scientific part of it--pondered a while the implications of what we're discovering rather than just using the "magic" to create ever-more-powerful devices for the status quo.  I think the new intuitions call into question most strongly the assumptions/intuitions of the status quo.  Heh heh...that's sorta where I'm coming from.  Think of DeAnander's regular dismantling of status quo assumptions.  I'd like every last scientist to be dismantling like crazy, building a new zeitgeist (?) for scientists that ties to the new intuitions, coz out of that I--well, I'm very optimistic about what rapid benefits....spreading rapidly in waves, complex shapes, using chaos knowledge...that kinda thing...distributed renewable energy systems, transportation, housing.  Yet I think (I could be wrong, this is not my field) the majority of people involved in science get their money from the circuit III "onwards as before" logic.

And, das monde!  You understand RAW much better than me; and yeah, I think he knows there are contradictions in what he proposes, but that's, I think, because there's something inherently contradictory about using writing as a primary communication tool at certain levels or in certain areas...the paradox of teaching what can't be taught...buddhist koans, that kinda thing...but I'm very glad he worked at it.

It is admirable to teach people to detect bullshit

I didn't pick up that you saw science that way.  I don't think it is how most people experience their science education.  I'm wondering what the circuit III is expected to use to balance their various models against.  If Cheney says, "It's too complicated to understand, but believe me," how do we call "Bullshit"?  On what grounds?  If there were some clear way of calling it, a way that couldn't be disputed by other "rationales"...but them's be politics.

I think the best (the only?) way of creating an unbreakable bullshit detector is for the grounding to be in intuition based on constant lived reality.  I mean, someone who knows plenty of people from Iran will hear bullshit much earlier than someone who has never met anyone from the middle east.  Only higher, wider, deeper, there's something about how society is constructed that is circuit III/IV, and we've reached the end of that, I think.  7 billion people is enough growth.  Now we need different intuitions...hey!

My rational supposition at the moment is that the higher circuits perceive some general but deep patterns beyond usual empirical experience

I don't think they are beyond empirical experience; I think the higher circuit model is to show that empirical experience is in evolution or development...that we are capable of empirically experiences much wider, higher, etc.  This reminds me of what TBG wrote, something along the lines that drugs are a day trip, but if you want to go live in the new country--that's harder.  But there is, indeed a new country, and the people who live there are, I think, quicker, more efficient, less "weighty" (the car=old tech., so weighty, that kinda thing), more connected (there's that quantum idea--everything is connected; everything influences everything else; everything is local--heh, I'm a circuit III reading runes and maybe trying to make a few day trips, and liking the country I visit, hoping my kids will learn from these circuit V people, that kinda thing.)

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Wed Jul 25th, 2007 at 12:19:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
beyond usual empirical experience

Yeah...  Heh, I got carried away there.  Reading comprehension: the art of.  Must re-read.

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Wed Jul 25th, 2007 at 12:23:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I talked about bullshit because you mentioned Cheney, not because I extend the discussion on science. But if we go into there, we have to discuss Feyerabend's bullshit about science's bullshit.

Bullshit detection is an art. Even if you teach students to detect bullshit, they may apply it inconsistently against you. Liberals can appeal to detect bullshit better, but conservatives can manipulate bullshit "detection" very well. Say, they call bullshit on climate change very easily(whether directly or by implication) and successfully. Also, they manipulate people's intuition (and searching for charisma) very well - manipulation is always a problem of any perception power.

To hide limits of my understanding, so much remarks this time :-)

by das monde on Thu Jul 26th, 2007 at 11:03:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
To hide limits of my understanding, so much remarks this time :-)

heh...I think mine have been on full view.  

Enjoy your holidays!

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Thu Jul 26th, 2007 at 12:27:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series