Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 13:01:04 +0000
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 ---