This whole discussion seems to conflate some things that might be better kept separate. "Investment", itself, is a term of trickery. Loony and loony-croney, in this thread, are both terms of production, whereas investment is a term of profit-making or rent-seeking. When we talk about "investment in infrastructure" like h1b visas or funding the construction of roads or fiber, that's properly an issue of investment because we (as a society) intend to reap (social) profits from it.
But when Sally *grants* her local dork, Jan, $20k to build a prototype, Sally is not making an investment in Jan. Sally is part of Jan's production team. They're *making* something. If Sally is so confused as to mistake her production funds for rent-seeking, then that's her problem, not ours. We hedge all this by inventing jargonal terms like "series A" or whatever. But I think it would help with these large-scale discussions (e.g. how many things we now have were previously fringe), it's not these categories of lunacy vs. sane investment strategies that *explain* it. The categories that explain it are "maker" vs. "profiteer".
This is the "hit" I got in my own archives of messages on FriAM
referencing TM
For some reason I am seeing Nick's comments only
when he is quoted by others.
Dave, your description of Buddhist breathing
reminded me of when my father-in-law tried to teach me
transcendental meditation. He was a retired attorney whose
volunteer work was to teach TM to prisoners at the Indiana
State Prison. I decided to try what he taught me the other day
to see if I could get any benefit from it. The way he taught
it to me was you try to remove all thoughts from your mind
while silently repeating a word which, he said, didn't matter
what it was. Anyway when I tried it recently I discovered that
it was very difficult to keep thoughts out of my mind. The way
I experienced it, I would think I was keeping thoughts out of
my mind but then I would remember that I had had thoughts a
few moments ago. This reminds me of my discussions with Nick
about whether people think. If you try transcendental
meditation you will realize that people can't not think.
Frank
-----------------------------------
Frank Wimberly
On Wed, Sep 18, 2019, 3:51 AM
Prof David West <[hidden email]> wrote:
Nick,
There I was conversing along
without an experiential care in the world, when WHAM, a
speed bump — Signs all the way down" slams my head into
the roof — massive headache.
Two aspirins you might
provide:
1) a concise explanation of
how Peircian semiotics differs from the semiotics I came
to know and love;
and 2) an essence
preservation transformation of the simple narrative to
follow into "experience all the way down" and then into
"signs all the way down."
Hatha Yoga 101
- breathing.
- attempt to precisely
regulate breathing, i.e. five seconds in, five seconds
hold, five seconds exhale.
- repeated practice —>
success as "conscious habit" —> success as
"non-conscious" habit —> success as, apparently,
retrained lizard brain
- increased energy
- REM brain waves, but no
"awareness" of dreaming, nor residual "memory" of same
davew
On Mon, Sep 16, 2019, at 7:13 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
Hi, Steve,
This is one of
those moments when I have to be grateful
you-guys let me participate here because it is
so obvious to me that I am out of my depth in
this conversation. But …
You have my
shroedinger (what is life?) crystal humming AND
my Peirce (it’s signs all the way down) crystal
humming. The proposition, “It’s signs all the
way down” has to be understood as the
proposition that a sign is a certain kind of
relation in which something stands in for
something for something else. Full stop. So
all basic biological processes (think enzymes)
are sign systems. Another way to think of a
sign system is as a relation èto a
relationç. So is the
sorting of the pebbles on a beach a sign
relation? What about the tendency of slush to
maintain a 32 degree temperature? Fill in your
favorite example, here.
From: Friam
[mailto:[hidden email]]
On Behalf Of Steven A Smith Sent: Monday, September 16, 2019
10:41 AM To:[hidden email] Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Unmediated
perception - sheldrake
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?
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?
From:
Friam [[hidden email]]
On Behalf Of Steven A
Smith Sent:
Sunday, September 15, 2019 5:32 PM To:[hidden email] 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.
On Sun, Oct 20, 2019, 7:32 PM Steven A Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:
Frank...
This is the "hit" I got in my own archives of messages on FriAM
referencing TM
For some reason I am seeing Nick's comments only
when he is quoted by others.
Dave, your description of Buddhist breathing
reminded me of when my father-in-law tried to teach me
transcendental meditation. He was a retired attorney whose
volunteer work was to teach TM to prisoners at the Indiana
State Prison. I decided to try what he taught me the other day
to see if I could get any benefit from it. The way he taught
it to me was you try to remove all thoughts from your mind
while silently repeating a word which, he said, didn't matter
what it was. Anyway when I tried it recently I discovered that
it was very difficult to keep thoughts out of my mind. The way
I experienced it, I would think I was keeping thoughts out of
my mind but then I would remember that I had had thoughts a
few moments ago. This reminds me of my discussions with Nick
about whether people think. If you try transcendental
meditation you will realize that people can't not think.
Frank
-----------------------------------
Frank Wimberly
On Wed, Sep 18, 2019, 3:51 AM
Prof David West <[hidden email]> wrote:
Nick,
There I was conversing along
without an experiential care in the world, when WHAM, a
speed bump — Signs all the way down" slams my head into
the roof — massive headache.
Two aspirins you might
provide:
1) a concise explanation of
how Peircian semiotics differs from the semiotics I came
to know and love;
and 2) an essence
preservation transformation of the simple narrative to
follow into "experience all the way down" and then into
"signs all the way down."
Hatha Yoga 101
- breathing.
- attempt to precisely
regulate breathing, i.e. five seconds in, five seconds
hold, five seconds exhale.
- repeated practice —>
success as "conscious habit" —> success as
"non-conscious" habit —> success as, apparently,
retrained lizard brain
- increased energy
- REM brain waves, but no
"awareness" of dreaming, nor residual "memory" of same
davew
On Mon, Sep 16, 2019, at 7:13 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
Hi, Steve,
This is one of
those moments when I have to be grateful
you-guys let me participate here because it is
so obvious to me that I am out of my depth in
this conversation. But …
You have my
shroedinger (what is life?) crystal humming AND
my Peirce (it’s signs all the way down) crystal
humming. The proposition, “It’s signs all the
way down” has to be understood as the
proposition that a sign is a certain kind of
relation in which something stands in for
something for something else. Full stop. So
all basic biological processes (think enzymes)
are sign systems. Another way to think of a
sign system is as a relation èto a
relationç. So is the
sorting of the pebbles on a beach a sign
relation? What about the tendency of slush to
maintain a 32 degree temperature? Fill in your
favorite example, here.
From: Friam
[mailto:[hidden email]]
On Behalf Of Steven A Smith Sent: Monday, September 16, 2019
10:41 AM To:[hidden email] Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Unmediated
perception - sheldrake
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?
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?
From:
Friam [[hidden email]]
On Behalf Of Steven A
Smith Sent:
Sunday, September 15, 2019 5:32 PM To:[hidden email] 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.
Locked
