So thoughts are physically determined? (I mean, if you think you have a choice, then that thought is also phsyically determined etc. ad infinitum back to the...well...whatever was the first step in the physical process...linearity all the way...so "Chance" is another word for "We haven't described--perhaps we can't describe--the whole system, but in it's possible in principle.)
No-one said the processing of input had to be simple or immediate.
It's the processing that is the issue, I think. Because each process, when examined becomes a simpler process until you have simple input-output. Or, and careful with the coffee folks--
Our brain is a physical thing. Thoughts are physical processes. So how does quantum behaviour translate in the human brain? And where lieth the necessity there?
(cue a hundred AAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH!s)
But seriously, either we--our thoughts, our identity, etc--are part of the physical manifestation of the universe and are therefore quantum at heart like all other physical systems, or, well, I feel those edges overlapping... Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
My suggestion for a definition of the soul: Those statements that cannot be proven true or false within the (formal?) system of our thought. Why not? As good as any I have heard.
And there's also that tiny problem left over from quantum mechanics about whether or not perception changes the workings and outcome of an experiment.
So at this point assuming that thinking is physical is a supposition that can't be proved or disproved.
In metaprogramming terms you're chunking information more or less in behavioural terms, and - as long as you don't get impatient - that's all you need to do. There is no complete functional disassembly of minds, souls, thoughts or even brains to refer to, so it's impossible to state categorically that X, Y or Z are the cause of any inner experience. You can't even do this with drugs. Just because the effects of LSD or ayahuasca are fairly reliable, doesn't mean anyone really knows what they change, or how.
All you can do is give the black box a prod every now and then, try to learn from what it does, and look at other people's incomplete ideas about how to make changes, and the kinds of changes that can be made.
I take this to be basic linearity: input (before) output(after and as a result of.) B follows A in time and is caused (at least partly) by A, and before A was something else all the way back into the mists.
"Chance" means (on this scenario, I think) side hits from other ABC causal (linear) events.
Put the whole lot together and you have chaos, but only because we can't put ourselves in the position to follow each line.
If I have understood the intro. to the I-Ching (me and understand=big IF), the (ancient?) chinese attitude didn't hold to this model. It didn't follow past to present to future, but rather saw present spreading out in all directions.
I'm assuming that what we have discovered so far of what we call the quantum world does not follow the ABC model of reality.
If our brains are quantum in their centres (inside the inside the inside etc.) then they, too, cease to be simply ABC boxes.
Which is why I would enjoy reading a diary by Migeru on anything quantum-related. Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
Did you read this?
What's difficult about Quantum Mechanics is that it is contextual, non-counterfactual and nonlocal.
Our brain is a physical thing. Thoughts are physical processes. So how does quantum behaviour translate in the human brain?
I saw something faintly suggestive somewhere recently that indicated it might possibly be possible for QM to have some influence, but neurons are pretty big things.
I'll point out, for the general edification of those reading rather than for your benefit, that classical computation considers a very small class of devices that don't seem to be anything like the brain. And we don't really understand the details of those devices anyway.
T'was in fact Penfold. Here he is.
You know, I suppose I have broken the golden rule:
"Whereof we cannot speak, we must remain silent."
Really, I wanted to clear my head of some heaviness, the I Ching did the job (as melo said, the sound of something elegant being hit lightly), and I thought it was humorous that the I Ching brought up 20 - "It does not further one to go anywhere," which my brain translated as DO NOTHING, THERE'S NO POINT AT THE MOMENT, but I had a moving fifth line, did I not mention this?
...which I also found humorous...I know I know, it's just rorschach. Anyway, the moving line created Hexagram 23 which was all about how benevolent rulers should behave.
There's a reference to your key point in the judgement.
And I'm hoping that reading a bunch of non-science types bandy words about wildly hasn't made you despair.
Regarding Jerome, for yes I read him (as head of ET) straight into Hexagram 20, "Contemplation / View"...
I thought this was humorous as I thought it (rorschach rorschach!) summed up the current attitude in re: (yes, you guessed) the structure of ET as it stands. But I was doing this in real time, so then I read.
And because I was questioning this (questioning the judgement--I suppose the answer to my unanswered question "Whither ET?" which may be my own personal question, but I think others ask the same thing...
(And I thought it was humorous that the I Ching symbol up top looks a bit like a starfish...)
So anyway, I added my snarky comments re: "But we don't believe in rulers, do we?" etc. to counter the supposed truths being listed by the I Ching in its role as Oracle.
So here's me fessing up to you senor in the hope of cheering you up or letting you give me up as a lost cause. And hmmm. What can I give you? Something powerful.
But also something funky.
Something tasty.
Something beautiful
Ach, laddie, I must dash! May all your pleasures be very pleasurable!
To all of yez, of course! Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
