| Subject: | Re: Afterthoughts inspired by reading "Unconscious Intelligence." |
| Date: | Sun, 03 Oct 1999 17:38:22 -0500 |
| From: | Doug Renselle <NOFLAMEqtx{at}earthlink{dot}netNOSPAM> |
| Organization: | Quantonics |
| To: | FlameProof@aol.com |
| References: | 1 |
Criticisms of Doug's review of Willliam James Sidis' 'Unconscious Intelligence:'
Site author's comments:
|
For those of you who are deeply interested
in how our minds really work, from a quantum perspective, we
recommend you read Jeffrey Satinover's 2001 book titled, The
Quantum Brain. It is simply superb, and explains deep playing
of quantum reality in all aspects of reality's vast consciousness
and consciousness' even vaster quantum c¤mplement. As an adjunct we recommend Kafatos' and Nadeau's
1990 and 2000 The Conscious Universe. We prefer their
1990 edition. See especially chapter 9. Doug - 3Apr2002. |
We have never previously reviewed William James Sidis' (WJS) Appendix IV, 'Unconscious Intelligence,' of his Father's book, Symptomatology, Psychognosis, and Diagnosis of Psychopathic Diseases, 1st edition, 1914, The Gorham Press - Boston, by Boris Sidis.
Saleem Rana wrote us on Sun, 26 Sep 1999 23:15:57 EDT with his comments re: WJS' 'Unconscious Intelligence.' See his email following our response to him below. Having reviewed Sam Rosenberg's work on Bill Sidis, we responded to Saleem wearing a hat of suspicion and more careful perspectives of Bill's work. Given that, you see below a much different, heuristic view of Bill Sidis. This view, in our perspective, enhances his intellect — as Rosenberg exemplified — rather than diminishing it, as his countless antagonists attempted. To accomplish what we infer below would require intellect approaching that which many folk claim Sidis possessed. His 'Unconscious Intelligence,' viewed from a troglodytic SOM (Subject-Object Metaphysics) uni-context appears more naïve.
We revised following email content only to clarify, correct typos, and add links to relevant resources.
Hello Saleem!
Thank you for taking time to visit our site and read one of
few documents we have
which were written by William James Sidis (WJS).
We are glad his work inspired you.
Our main purpose was to show an example of how we imagine WJS
may have actually
thought, i.e., his processes of thought. We also want to show
how he may have
been playing intellectual 'games' with his father and other
academics/intellectuals who adhered very limited Aristotelian
concepts.
That WJS chose isomorphism as a method of analysis shows extreme
Aristotelianism,
pretended or otherwise. Clearly, modern science, especially quantum
science
shows us that in any macrorealm there is no isomorphism. E.g.,
Aristotle's
syllogistic law A=A simply is not true in general (nor are his
other two
'laws'). Clearly, if WJS had an IQ of 300+, he did not show it
well from this
perspective (unless this
paper is a ruse).
In Pirsig's MoQ (Metaphysics of Quality) and our own Quantonics,
we see
consciousness and subconsciousness as c¤mplementary,
not isomorphic. Where
isomorphism requires a subject-object based reality (i.e., Subject-Object
Metaphysics,
SOM), MoQ requires a quantum c¤mplementarity which is wholly
absent in SOM.
We are tending to believe WJS knew this, but mischievously/fraudulently
catered
to his seniors' Aristotelian predilections. Read Sam Rosenberg's
comments in this
link which also appears near top
of our review page:
http://www.quantonics.com/Sam_Rosenberg_on_WJS.html
We think WJS was a sophist who found his own inclinations rebuffed
by his
pro-SOMitic contemporaries and learned to mimic popular concepts
to survive more
mundane human SOM-like interrelationships.
You may observe his diligence wherein he uses reversibility
to reinforce his
method of isomorphism. Clearly, he knows stuff of consciousness
is not
deterministic.
So to speak of reversibility is a most blatant 'tell' he is
playing games with his 'intellectual, academic' readers.
Perhaps even more telling is his objectification of mind, speaking
of identical
'constituents' in both conscious and subconscious.
Then he speaks of 'uniform' nature and induction.
No high intellect could
possibly accept induction as a method of perceiving reality, neither
mental nor
objective. Induction is a mathematical ruse of Aristotle's A=A
ilk. This has to
be a joke, preying on his ex-cathedra seniors' narrow and rote-learned
sensibilities, just as Rosenberg hints.
He goes on to quote Newton,
whom we now know got it all wrong. Evidence of
Newton's naïveté is his inability to quantify gravity.
(Gravity is not a
function of time (gravity affects systems superluminally — gravity is quantum),
therefore Newton could not model it. Einstein even got this wrong
when he said
gravity and acceleration (a function of 'time') are, "isomorphic.")
Further
evidence appears in how Newton modeled objects incoherently as
impossible point
objects dependent on 'time' for classical deterministic description.
Newton's
objects are façades. Please read our review of Irving Stein's,
The Concept of
Object as Foundation of Physics. Reality is not classical!
Reality is more
quantumesque!
If you wish, we can continue this analysis, but for our purposes
here, we think
we have shown adequately Sidis' ruse.
We wish to believe Sidis perceived subconsciousness as 'nonstuff'
of his beloved
American Indians' animate realm, or equivalently, 'nonstuff' as
Pirsig's Dynamic
Quality. Clearly, too, consciousness is more like stuff or static
patterns of
value a la Pirsig's Static Quality, and American Indians' inanimate
realm. This
model also agrees quite well with a quantum c¤mplementarity
model.
Your own comments appear to align with our words above. Where
you describe your
own moments of insight, we perceive those as moments of n¤vel
pattern-of-Value-emersion from your interrelationships with DQ.
We experience
similar 'epiphanies.' They are wondrous!
You provided us our first opportunity to analyze Sidis' Appendix
IV, so you see
our thoughts here as ad lib, stream of consciousness. J
Thanks for writing and please stay in touch.
Many truths to you,
Doug.
==
FlameProof@aol.com wrote:
After reading Sidis essay on the difference (or lack of difference) between
the conscious and the unconscious, I agree that there is little difference in
quality, i.e. intelligence, memory, etc. Thus, I would speculate that the
only difference would be one of recognition. The unconscious is a part of us
that appears in a different environment — during sleep, or daydreaming —
and, therefore, appears to like the lower brain waves, theta, and delta. The
conscious is mainly awake at alpha and beta, but mainly beta. It appears to
me, however, that when I become aware of my subconscious, it is at a point of
brilliance. For example, when an idea emerges for a problem which I could
not solve earlier despite strenuous effort; or by recalling a vivid dreams,
whose depth of creativity, astonishes me. It is as if there is a part of us
that is brilliant and capable of the most brilliant ideas, vibrant with
energy and creativity, and there is another part that is capable of
pragmatic action and superficial intelligence. In conclusion, then, I would
say that the difference between the conscious and the subconscious is that of
quality. I would even go so far as to say that genius is the ability to be
more conscious of the subconsious. Somehow, there are buffers between the
conscious and the subconscious. In some people, the buffers are strong, and
we see them as mentally dull; and in others, there is an overflowing quality
of consciousness, a wondrous tide of cognition. What these buffers are is
something I don't pretend to understand. Perhaps they are physiological,
with certain synapses not firing, or less glial cells, etc. Perhaps they are
belief systems acquired through cultural indoctrination. Perhaps a
combination of psychological and physiological combinations. Again, there is
the phenomena of people becoming increasingly intelligent over time when they
are exposed to a specialized stimulus. Perhaps, a great enthusiasm, which
makes them avid learners, and thus pushing back the buffers, opening up the
brain cells, etc. Perhaps, a yogic practise which gradually brings on-line
aspects of creativity and mental powers that are truly astonishing.
Anyway, I felt a need to express myself after reading Sidis' wonderful
essay.
With warm regards,
Saleem Rana
—
Doug Renselle
In Quantonics
http://www.quantonics.com/
—
—
"Our current modes of rationality are not moving society
forward into a better
world."
By Robert M. Pirsig, p. 102, 'Zen and the Art of Motorcycle
Maintenance,' Bantam
paperback.