Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.consciousness,sci.skeptic,sci.cognitive,comp.ai,sci.edu
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!zombie.ncsc.mil!news.duke.edu!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!vergon
From: vergon@netcom.com (Vertner Vergon)
Subject: Re: New Physics Curriculum
Message-ID: <vergonD5yGw2.9pH@netcom.com>
Sender: vergon@netcom12.netcom.com
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <3j3ck3$27r@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> <3k5ono$d2a@nntp.Stanford.EDU> <3k6449$1rh@vent.pipex.net> <3k7vct$uuu@nntp.stanford.edu>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 1995 17:36:02 GMT
X-Original-Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.consciousness,sci.skeptic,sci.cognitive,comp.ai,sci.edu
Lines: 62
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.physics:114917 sci.skeptic:107886 sci.cognitive:6965 comp.ai:28431 sci.edu:8072

In article <3k7vct$uuu@nntp.stanford.edu>,
Adam Heath Clark <rubble@leland.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>JohnatAcadInt (ah63@solo.pipex.com) wrote:
>: rubble@leland.Stanford.EDU (Adam Heath Clark) wrote:
>: >
>: > JohnatAcadInt (ah63@solo.pipex.com) wrote:
>: > : rubble@leland.Stanford.EDU (Adam Heath Clark) wrote:
>: > 
>: > : > Great.  A prize for integrating a pinnacle of scientific thought with
>: > : > superstition.  I'm tingling with anticipation.
>: > 
>: > : A pinnacle is a sharp, pointed affair. History is littered with people
>: > : who defended them and then were obliged to sit upon them!
>: > 
>: > If 10,000 year old cosmologies born of ignorance, with little coherence 
>: > and no evidence but the say-so of people who claim to "know," are ever 
>: > validated by hard-nosed scientific inquiry, I will sit on any pinnacle 
>: > you so desire.
>: > --
>: > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>: > Adam Clark                           One of these days, I'm going
>: > rubble@leland.stanford.edu           to cut you into little pieces...
>: > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ->

Deletions


>The great thing about science is that eventually the better theory
>will win out.  Perhaps these people are right.  But the fact that
>some good theories weren't taken seriously at first doesn't change
>the fact that there have been many many more incorrect theories
>that weren't taken seriously -- opposition by the 'powers that be'
>has no effect on the accuracy of a theory.  

But it can sure slow down its aceptance.

>I personally think
>the whole 'quantum consciousness' idea is mistakenly putting all
>its emphasis on the actual interactions of brain elements rather
>than the way trillions of them act when hooked together,

It would seem to me that one would find out about the *quantum* 
itself before worrying about quantum consciousness.
Read  ON THE QUANTUM AS A PHYSICAL ENTITY -- listed in the thread file.



>but my
>problem was more with the idea of trying to unite science and
>religion than with any particulars of a theory.
>
>As for my dismemberment fantasies, I subscribe strongly to the
>Beavis school of thought on destruction.
>
>hm hm he he ... free dismemberment.. he he hm hm  cool...
>--
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>Adam Clark                           One of these days, I'm going
>rubble@leland.stanford.edu           to cut you into little pieces...
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


