[FRIAM] Unmediated perception - sheldrake

Mon Sep 16 10:40:33 EDT 2019

Dave -

It felt a strange coincidence, but in the early days of SFx, we were
holding a "blender" on the topic of morphometrics at the same time that
Sheldrake was visiting SFe to speak at a "Science of Consciousness"
conference.  This was the meeting at which he was stabbed by a 'fan' who
was apparently disturbed going in but more disturbed by Sheldrake's ideas?

https://boingboing.net/2008/04/09/biologist-rupert-she.html

Our "morphometrics" was an acutely more mundane conversation about the
practicalities of starting with laser scans of paleontological  and
archaelogical artifacts and doing statistical analysis to try to reveal
"hidden" correlations.  For example, we were hoping to be able to
recognize the "hand" in objects such as flaked lithic tools or
hand-formed ceramics.   

It is interesting to me that you bring up homeopathic "dilution to
nothing" based on the assumption that the water's quasi-crystalline
structure somehow holds something meaningful from the original inoculant
which had been titered into oblivion.

Are you familiar with Mae-Wan Ho's work in quasi-crystals in water and
water emulsions?   I understand that where she (and others more acutely)
have taken her research to fundamentally vitalistic places in a way that
is hard to not dismiss as pseudo-science, but the underlying science
seems pretty sound?   My daughter who is a molecular biologist has been
unable to provide either confirmation nor refutation of the application
of this work in her own domain (flavivirii).

I naively discarded a personal/professional correspondence (typed letter
on letterhead ca 1984) from Roger Penrose in response to a tiny bit of
work I did in pre-quantum consciousness (:Cellular automata in
cytoskeletal lattices" :
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0167278984902598). 
Penrose was postulating that it was aperiodic tilings (surprise!) that
were at the root of consciousness (in human brains).   This was some
years before his "Emperor's New Mind" and pursuit of "Quantum
Consciousness" (with my co-author Stuart Hameroff).   I am unable to get
sufficient traction on contemporary QC work including Penrose's nor Stu
Kauffman's to know what I believe on the topic.  I am most sympathetic
with the Pibram/Bohm perspective, but that is more intuitive than anything.

I understand that Marcus' has moved from LANL to a day-job in full-up
Quantum Computing.   I don't know that Q computing has any implications
for Q consciousness, but it would seem that it can't help but lead to
more experience with quantum effects translated into human scales of
time and space.  

- Steve

On 9/16/19 12:20 AM, Prof David West wrote:
> Yes, Sheldrake,yearns for a kind of metaphysical reality and
> scientific validity that still eludes him. I think that have have
> reached, and are at risk of blending with, homeopathy and the like
> cure like, the dilution of "stuff" til there is no stuff left, but the
> "water has memory."
>
> All based, of course on shared resonance.
>
> Not sure about the data set. Most of it is from him or true believers
> and suffers from finding what you are looking for. But, because no one
> is really taking him seriously, no one is presenting data sets that
> might prove him wrong. Also, not a statistician so can't comment on
> methodology or significance.
>
> Another of those connection things — a few years back, in a Quantum
> Consciousness type book, there was a discussion of resonance starting
> from the vibrating strings of physics fame to aggregates of strings
> creating blended vibrations to larger aggregates creating "harmonies"
> and feedback from "observers" blending everything — and when I was
> reading that it seemed to "resonate with Sheldrake." Being quite vague
> here, because the book is back home, but when I return I will pick it
> up and look at it again.
>
> davew
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 15, 2019, at 11:56 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:
>>
>>> Geez, Steve,
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>> I didn’t know that morphs COULD resonate.
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>> What on earth are you talking about?
>>>
>> What Dave just said in description of Sheldrake's theory of "morphic
>> resonance"...   a resonant coupling amongst things which have the
>> same morphology  (shape).  In your case, you and Dave apparently have
>> similar "intellectual resonant chambers" which, in this treatment
>> "begin to resonate" as you spend enough time "coupling" (in
>> conversation).  
>>
>> Following the analogy (stronger/more-formal than a metaphor I
>> propose), when you "couple" with others who you end up disagreeing
>> with, I suspect it starts out  a bit like a barbershop quartet... one
>> member hitting a tone and another following by hitting the same tone,
>> but as the progression gets more  complex, the *differences* in your
>> tonality starts to expose itself as dissonances.   I credit you
>> "harmonizing" with Dave in this (and perhaps other) instance to Dave
>> for *trying* to help you find the same note (as I am here).  
>>
>> The Nick and Frank show (e.g. recent analogy to train conductors)
>> seems to be a deliberate study/applicatoin in dissonance... one of
>> you hits a note  and the other intuitively (or with great
>> intellectual effort) factors the composing frequencies of that note
>> and responds with a new note that has *none* or *few* of the same
>> composing frequencies, generating a complex set of beat frequencies
>> anew.   I don't know how much this type of deliberate dissonance is
>> used in echolocating creatures (bats, cetaceans, ???) but finding
>> *dissonance* seems potentially *more useful* than resonance in some
>> cases?
>>
>> - Steve
>>
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>> Nick
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>> Nicholas S. Thompson
>>>
>>> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>>>
>>> Clark University
>>>
>>> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>> *From:*Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] *On Behalf Of
>>> *Steven A Smith
>>> *Sent:* Sunday, September 15, 2019 5:32 PM
>>> *To:* friam at redfish.com <mailto:friam at redfish.com>
>>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Unmediated perception - sheldrake
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>>     Interesting, David.  With most people I find that if we talk
>>>     long enough, we disagree; with you it mostly works the other
>>>     way.  Thank you.
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>     Nick
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>> Looks like a case of morphic resonance to me!
>>>
>>>
>>> ============================================================
>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>>> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>>> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>>>
>> ============================================================
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20190916/d9da2f4d/attachment-0001.html>