Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 13:01:04 +0000 From: lisa rogers <lrogers-AT-burgoyne.com> Subject: Re: quantum consciousness Alright Barkley, do I have to display the thumbscrews to get you to briefly fill us in on what's-his-name's cat? What is with this domesticated but tripping felid anyway? BTW, _too much_ of that thinking about the way that we think about thinking is also known as useless, and/or navel-gazing. Once you've got some sort of point out of it, how is that applied to improving thought in general? Lisa ROSSERJB-AT-jmu.edu wrote: > > To Rahul: > I agree that Penrose does not establish the veracity > of his hypothesis. He merely asserts it ultimately. > However it is a serious hypothesis, just as Hofstadter's > is. I am personally agnostic on both. > As regards Schrodinger's Cat, it is the further out > speculations associated with that, some of which get into > pretty far gone pomo, that seem to me problematic. Indeed > the concept itself within physics is perfectly sound. And > I saw a story in the newspaper (Washington Post) yesterday > reporting on an experiment where an electron was poised between > spin states and then stimulated. It essentially bifurcated. > As the story stated, "Schrodinger's cat is out of the bag." > Barkley Rosser > > --- from list marxism2-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- --- from list marxism2-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005