Use Your Browser's Back Button to Return to Previous Page      OR     Return to Arches

 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
 References: 1

Criticisms of Doug's review of Willliam James Sidis' 'Unconscious Intelligence:'

A Dialogue with Bret

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:

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

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,

== 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

With warm regards,

Saleem Rana

Doug Renselle
In Quantonics

"Our current modes of rationality are not moving society forward into a better

By Robert M. Pirsig, p. 102, 'Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance,' Bantam


Use Your Browser's Back Button to Return to Previous Page      OR     Return to Arches

©Quantonics, Inc., 1999-2006 Rev. 21Jul2002  PDR — Created 13Oct99  PDR
(7Dec2000 rev - Add a section on criticisms of Doug's review. Add link to Bret's criticisms.)
(3Apr2002 rev - Correct minor typo. Add top of page
Recommended Reading. Add some links and text highlights.)
(21Jul2002 rev - Change QELR links to A-Z pages.)