The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
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 Frank Schnittger - May 14 13 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 11 24 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 16
by Oui - May 13 47 comments
by ARGeezer - Apr 29 25 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Apr 29 39 comments
by Oui - Apr 27 1 comment
by Oui - Apr 30 15 comments
by Oui - May 176 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 16
by Frank Schnittger - May 1413 comments
by Oui - May 1347 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 1124 comments
by Oui - May 9100 comments
by Oui - May 8
by ARGeezer - May 68 comments
by Oui - May 375 comments
by Oui - Apr 3015 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Apr 2939 comments
by ARGeezer - Apr 2925 comments
by Oui - Apr 284 comments
by Oui - Apr 2720 comments
by Oui - Apr 271 comment
by Oui - Apr 248 comments
by gmoke - Apr 24
by Oui - Apr 2357 comments