<div><div dir="auto">John:</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">< Brian Josephson was a great scientist and in the early 60's when he was only 22 he wrote an absolutely brilliant paper on superconductivity and won a Nobel Prize for it, but very soon after that he abandoned the scientific method. The parapsychology meme virus infected his mind and thus despite such a spectacular early start to his career he hasn't had a creative thought since then, for the last half century he has accomplished precisely nothing. There seems to be no idea so screwy he can't make himself believe it. The poor man has lost his mind.></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">That Josephson was a genius at 22 doesn’t imply that he was always right. But I think it implies that he deserves the benefit of doubt. Perhaps he was right on parapsychology, and his detractors were wrong. Perhaps.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">< As for Stuart Kauffman, he has said some things that I've disagreed with, such as: </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"> "if mind is partially quantum, nonlocality is possible so psychokinesis is possible and testable, as is telepathy."</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">But psi has been tested over and over again, and it keeps on failing. And it's not surprising it failed given that because Bell's Inequality is violated we know that nonlocality is real but we also know that phenomenon cannot be used to transmit information, so it can't be involved in telepathy or signaling by way of psychokinesis.></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I think you forgot to add something like “as far as we presently know.” Also, yes, correlation doesn’t imply causation, but this cuts both ways. Even if there’s nothing involved that we would call causation, the correlation is still there. A particle doesn’t “tell” its spin to its entangled pair (again, as far as we presently know), but the spin of its entangled pair is (anti)correlated anyway. If you and I consistently happen to think the same thing, isn’t this telepathy?</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">< And Kaufman has said some things that I find puzzling, such as: </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">"I can find NO direct evidence for free will, but the quantum enigma requires it and it is possible."</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I'll know if I agree or disagree with him about that as soon as he tells me what the hell "free will" is supposed to mean. ></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I define the free will of an agent as the ability to do things that are not entirely and uniquely determined by the rest of the universe (that is, the universe minus the agent). Kauffman seems to think more or less the same. Much more in my next book. I plan to have the draft ready by the end of the year, and I’ll invite you to read and criticize the draft.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">< And Kaufman has said some things that I can't make heads or tails out of, such as: </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">"Evolution creates the very possibilities into which it becomes, without "selection" "acting" to achieve the very adjacent possible opportunities into which it becomes."</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Huh?></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I think he means that actual history changes what he calls the “adjacent possible” and creates new possibilities that could (or not) become actual.</div></div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On 2023. Jun 7., Wed at 12:20, John Clark <<a href="mailto:johnkclark@gmail.com">johnkclark@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif">On Wed, Jun 7, 2023 at 1:28 PM Giulio Prisco <<a href="mailto:giulio@gmail.com" target="_blank">giulio@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</span><br></div></div><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr"><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><font size="4"><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">>></span> </font><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"></span><font size="4">ESP research that had led, just like everybody else's ESP research, precisely nowhere<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">"</span></font></blockquote><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><i><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">> </span>This is your opinion. Others, including top scientists like Stuart Kauffman and winners of the Nobel Prize in Physics like Brian Josephson, think that there’s plenty of solid experimental evidence for ESP.</i><br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><font size="4">Brian Josephson was a great scientist and in the early 60's when he was only 22 he wrote an absolutely brilliant paper on superconductivity and won a Nobel Prize for it, but very soon after that he abandoned the scientific method. The parapsychology meme virus infected his mind and thus despite such a spectacular early start to his career he hasn't had a creative thought since then, for the last half century he has accomplished precisely nothing. There seems to be no idea so screwy he can't make himself believe it. The poor man has lost his mind.</font><br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><font size="4">As for <span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif">Stuart Kauffman, he has said some things that I've disagreed with, such as: </span></font></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"><br></span></div> <font face="georgia, serif" size="4"><i><span class="gmail_default">"</span>if mind is partially quantum, nonlocality is possible so psychokinesis is possible and testable, as is telepathy.<span class="gmail_default">"</span></i></font></div><div class="gmail_quote"><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><br></span></div><font size="4">But psi has been tested over and over again, and it keeps on failing. And it's not surprising it failed given that because Bell's Inequality is violated we know that nonlocality is real but we also know that phenomenon cannot be used to transmit information, so it can't be involved in telepathy or signaling by way of psychokinesis.</font><div class="gmail_quote"><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><br></span></div><div class="gmail_quote"><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><font size="4">And Kaufman has said some things that I find puzzling, such as: </font></span></div><div class="gmail_quote"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><font face="georgia, serif" size="4"><i><span style="color:rgb(50,50,50)"><span class="gmail_default">"</span>I can find NO direct evidence for free will, but the quantum enigma requires it and it is possible</span><span style="color:rgb(50,50,50)">.<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">"</span></span></i></font><div><br></div><font size="4">I'll know if I agree or disagree with him about that as soon as he tells me what the hell "free will" is supposed to mean<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">.</span> </font></div><div class="gmail_quote"><font size="4"><br></font></div><div class="gmail_quote"><font size="4">And Kaufman has said some things that I can't make heads or tails out<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"></span> of<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">,</span> such as:<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"> </span></font></div><div class="gmail_quote"><font size="4"><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"></span><br></font><div><i><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"></span><font face="georgia, serif" size="4"><span class="gmail_default">"</span>Evolution creates the very possibilities into which it becomes, without "selection" "acting" to achieve the very adjacent possible opportunities into which it becomes.<span class="gmail_default">"</span></font></i></div><div><i><font face="georgia, serif" size="4"><br></font></i></div><div><font face="georgia, serif" size="4"><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Huh?</span></font></div><div><font size="4"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><br></font></font></div><div><font size="4"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">John K Clark</span><br></font></font><i> </i></div></div></div>
<p></p>
-- <br>
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "extropolis" group.<br>
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to <a href="mailto:extropolis+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com" target="_blank">extropolis+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br>
To view this discussion on the web visit <a href="https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/extropolis/CAJPayv0AaKXGUiD-a5w7kxnK6VRRi6qqnUTJ60t%3DKGiWuuV49g%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer" target="_blank">https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/extropolis/CAJPayv0AaKXGUiD-a5w7kxnK6VRRi6qqnUTJ60t%3DKGiWuuV49g%40mail.gmail.com</a>.<br>
</blockquote></div></div>