Jack Sarfatti shared a link.

Michio Kaku's new book Future of the Mind
We will be able to test whether brain presponse for example is really retro causal 
Everything nick herbert envisioned in his elemental mind book is now either done in brain labs or will be soon including uploading memories and emotions into the internet immortality wit the connect dome. Hawking is now completely paralyzed cannot use his fingers but operates computer with brain waves via something like google glass.

I do think Kaku is wrong about 11 dimensions and mind of god, however he may be right if I am wrong both pictures popper falsifiable eventually
Indeed even the 11 d geometrodynamical Kaluza Klein super string field though rocklike has a thought like super quantum bit Bohm pilot field in Hilbert space 

Kaku is mistaken about Sri CIA RV he does not know about signal nonlocality and he says the empirical results were nothing

It's time for russell Targ to challenge Kaku on that

Sent from my iPad

On Mar 3, 2014, at 4:39 AM, Deepak Chopra wrote:

This is Part 1 of a series of articles I'm writing with Menas Kafatos and Subhash Kak
I'm horrified that intelligent people buy into the naive realism of Richard Dawkins and his pseudo skeptic gang
http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/Hidden-Truths-Going-Beyond-Common-Sense-Reality-5283560.php 
From: Brian Josephson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 6:04 AM

Subject: Re: CTCFTLSignalsPhysRevA.89 nicks flash works w ctc


On 3 Mar 2014, at 11:00, Deepak Chopra <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.> wrote:

> Some future as yet unborn could access these emails - also in mind space Where is it located ?

NSA? GCHQ? Are they, even now, figuring out how to take advantage of quantum entanglement?

Brian

PS when quite some time ago (pre-Snowden) there was news of internet problems with an underground cable I said to myself, aha! what’s really happening here is that they are breaking into that cable to plant a tap!

------
Brian D. Josephson
Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Cambridge
Director, Mind–Matter Unification Project
Cavendish Laboratory, JJ Thomson Ave, Cambridge CB3 0HE, UK
WWW: 
http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10

Like ·  · 

  •  

    William Kuch and Derek Cooper like this.

  •  

    Jack Sarfatti http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/1498038/posts

    Timeline of Secret Government Projects LSD, Esalen, HAARP and the Cosmic Cointelpro

    www.freerepublic.com

    note: because important web-sites are frequently "here today but gone tomorrow" the following was archived from http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/timeline.htm on November 3, 2002. This is NOT an attempt to divert readers from the aforementioned web-site.  Indeed, the reader should only read this back-u...

    6 hours ago · Like · 1 · Remove Preview

     

  •  

    Jack Sarfatti The basic germ of an explanation that I propose is rather simple:

    My idea is well described here
    http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~mdt26/PWT/lectures/bohm8.pdf...See More

    6 minutes ago · Like

     

  •  

    Jack Sarfatti Subject: Kaku's book & CTCFTLSignalsPhysRevA.89 nicks flash works w ctc
    From: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
    Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 12:37:21 -0800
    ...
    See More

     

     

    Michio Kaku on 'The Future of the Mind' | KQED

    www.kqed.org

    In his new book, 'The Future of the Mind,' theoretical physicist Michio Kaku explores how the next century of scientific innovation will expand the brain's abilities. Kaku joins us to discuss the latest in neurological research, how the brain resembles a corporation, and the fantastic inventions tha...

    5 minutes ago · Like · Remove Preview

     

  •  

    Jack Sarfatti On Mar 3, 2014, at 4:04 AM, "JACK SARFATTI" <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.> wrote:

    A wise decision. 


    Sent from my iPhone

    On Mar 3, 2014, at 12:17 AM, Bernard Carr <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.> wrote:

    There's a lot about string theory and higher-dimensional physics in "Universe or Multiverse?" (eg. Susskind's article) and also some discussion of consciousness and mind (because of the anthropic connection). However, there's nothing explicitly about the connection between mind and higher dimensions. I felt it best not to mix these ideas in the book. Even the multiverse is a step too far for some physicists and the mind is one step further! My personal view is that these topics (multiverse, mind, higher dimensions) are all connected but the number of people interested in all three topics is probably rather small. Best wishes, Bernard. 
    ________________________________________
    From: Ruth Kastner [This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.]
    Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 7:50 AM
    To: Bernard Carr; Brian Josephson
    Cc: JACK SARFATTI; creon levit; nick herbert; S-P Sirag; David Kaiser; Kim Burrafato;This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. Addinall; Fred Wolf; Dean Radin; George Knapp; Russell Targ; York Dobyns; Ronald Pandolfi
    Subject: RE: CTCFTLSignalsPhysRevA.89 nicks flash works w ctc

    Fascinating, many thanks Bernard!
    I'm entertaining the idea that quantum objects have both mindlike and matter-like aspects, in which case we might not need a deeper theory but just the appropriate interpretation of the existing one (including relativistic qm).

    Does your edited collection Universe or Multiverse have any essays on this topic?

    Best
    Ruth

    From: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
    To: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.;This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

    Subject: RE: CTCFTLSignalsPhysRevA.89 nicks flash works w ctc
    Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 07:28:33 +0000

    Dear Ruth

    There are a small number of physicists (eg. Saul-Paul, Russell and maybe others on this email list) who have explored the idea that mind can be identified with a higher dimensional "reality structure", which might be viewed as an extension of general relativity. Ordinary 4-dimensional spacetime is then regarded as a slice of this higher-dimensional space. These theories are not exactly aspatiotemporal but they are a(normal)spatiotemporal. Currently there is interest in linking this idea up with M-theory (e.g. with ordinary matter being associated with the brane and mind with the bulk). I've written quite a lot about this but not in mainstream physics journals. Most string theorists of course would do more than merely roll their eyes at this suggestion! In this approach, one is not trying to deny a link between quantum theory and mind but seeking a deeper theory which underlies both.

    Best wishes, Bernard Carr
    ________________________________________
    From: Ruth Kastner [This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.]
    Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2014 10:02 PM
    To: Brian Josephson
    Cc: JACK SARFATTI; creon levit; nick herbert; S-P Sirag; David Kaiser; Bernard Carr; Kim Burrafato;This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. Addinall; Fred Wolf; Dean Radin; George Knapp; Russell Targ; York Dobyns; Ronald Pandolfi
    Subject: RE: CTCFTLSignalsPhysRevA.89 nicks flash works w ctc

    Interesting. I'll think about this. BTW do you have a specific physicist in mind who is explicitly OK with the idea that real entities need not exist in spacetime? My experience has been that the minute I suggest such a thing, the eyes roll.

    Subject: Re: CTCFTLSignalsPhysRevA.89 nicks flash works w ctc
    From: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
    Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2014 20:53:20 +0000

    To:This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

    On 2 Mar 2014, at 19:57, Ruth Kastner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.> wrote:

    those micro-physical entities are possibilities in a pre-spacetime realm, and based on that aspatiotemporal aspect, they could well be described as mental sorts of entities. It all depends on what we mean by 'physical' -- most physicists equate that to space-time objects

    Ruth,

    That all depends on what species of physicist you consult. The theoreticians are happy to consider reality beyond ordinary space-time.

    and that rules out the mental. However in my new popular book (almost finished the draft now) I explore the idea that quantum objects could be the fundamental basis for both the mental (extra-spacetime) and material (spacetime) realm. This also implies that the entire quantum realm has some degree of consciousness as well as potential materiality, which would also resolve the 'strong problem of consciousness' (Chalmers)

    I don’t think QM should be considered primary, but rather mind, which Peirce equates with ‘thirdness’, something that emerges and connect. There is a nice compilation of his quotes on this at
    http://www.helsinki.fi/science/commens/terms/thirdness.html. Now how do things become precise and mathematical? Following Bateson in ‘mind and nature, a necessary unity’ we can argue that it is in some sense an outcome of what he calls calibration, which is connected with the ability to learn to get things right without feedback (getting them right from the start), though one might also connect this with symmetry, which is like calibrating one part of a system with another. You could argue that space-time is the outcome of subjects shaping the form of an object in order to be able to exploit its potential: imprecise mind creates precise object through technology.

    Brian

    5 minutes ago · Like · Remove Preview

     

  •  

     

     

Jack Sarfatti shared a link.

For the record i consider quantum information as intrinsically mental, i.e. Stapp’s “thoughtlike”, though not “conscious” in orthodox “special” QM because of violation of the action-reaction principle in Einstein’s general sense. There must be direct back-reaction of “rocklike” (Stapp) hidden variables (Bohm) on their quantum potential pilot field Q to excite conscious qualia in the Q field (macro-quantum coherent order parameter piloting perhaps the electrons in the protein dimers in Hameroff’s model.
Michael Towler Lecture 8 describes my idea on this. My idea is consistent with David Chalmers’s disiderata and with what Brian says below.
http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~mdt26/pilot_waves.html

On Mar 2, 2014, at 12:53 PM, Brian Josephson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.> wrote:

On 2 Mar 2014, at 19:57, Ruth Kastner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.> wrote:

those micro-physical entities are possibilities in a pre-spacetime realm, and based on that aspatiotemporal aspect, they could well be described as mental sorts of entities. It all depends on what we mean by 'physical' -- most physicists equate that to space-time objects

Ruth,

That all depends on what species of physicist you consult. The theoreticians are happy to consider reality beyond ordinary space-time.

and that rules out the mental. However in my new popular book (almost finished the draft now) I explore the idea that quantum objects could be the fundamental basis for both the mental (extra-spacetime) and material (spacetime) realm. This also implies that the entire quantum realm has some degree of consciousness as well as potential materiality, which would also resolve the 'strong problem of consciousness' (Chalmers)

I don’t think QM should be considered primary, but rather mind, which Peirce equates with ‘thirdness’, something that emerges and connect. There is a nice compilation of his quotes on this at
http://www.helsinki.fi/science/commens/terms/thirdness.html. Now how do things become precise and mathematical? Following Bateson in ‘mind and nature, a necessary unity’ we can argue that it is in some sense an outcome of what he calls calibration, which is connected with the ability to learn to get things right without feedback (getting them right from the start), though one might also connect this with symmetry, which is like calibrating one part of a system with another. You could argue that space-time is the outcome of subjects shaping the form of an object in order to be able to exploit its potential: imprecise mind creates precise object through technology.

Brian

------
Brian D. Josephson
Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Cambridge
Director, Mind–Matter Unification Project
Cavendish Laboratory, JJ Thomson Ave, Cambridge CB3 0HE, UK
WWW: 
http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10

 

 

 

On Mar 2, 2014, at 2:59 PM, JACK SARFATTI <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.> wrote:

 

There are now papers coming out linking the emergence of geometrodynamics as a classical field to quantum entanglement in Hilbert space and holography all coming from Bekenstein’s horizon area ~ entropy in some way I am not yet clear on the details.

One key idea is the equivalence principle in the form of a local uniformly accelerating frame = gravity field in a frame at rest etc ties in with Rindler horizon thermodynamics and that holds locally at every local “event."

On Mar 2, 2014, at 2:48 PM, Brian Josephson wrote:


On 2 Mar 2014, at 22:02, Ruth Kastner wrote:

Interesting. I'll think about this.  BTW do you have a specific physicist in mind who is explicitly OK with the idea that real entities need not exist in spacetime? My experience has been that the minute I suggest such a thing, the eyes roll.


Can't go into any detail at this hour, but have you ever talked to a string theorist about this?  Supersymmetry which they like as it allegedly allows gravity to be quantised without divergences requires 10 or 11 dimensions.


I am very suspicious of such claims and I find extra geometrodynamic dimensions in order to avoid causality violation as a cure that is much worse than the disease. Indeed, I think nonunitary nonlinear QM signal nonlocality fits the facts of experience. Ordinary strings in 3 + 1 are OK - just my opinion.
 

And my colleague at Trinity in the field who is very well informed tells me that some people are unhappy just assuming there is such a thing as a space and want to explain how it comes about.  Here’s a possible reference:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basil_Hiley#Implicate_orders.2C_pre-space_and_algebraic_structures

Here’s a quote from it, quoting very respectable people:

The notion of another order underlying space was not new. Along similar lines, both Gerard 't Hooft and John Archibald Wheeler, questioning whether space-time was the appropriate starting-point for describing physics, had called for a deeper structure as starting point. In particular, Wheeler had proposed a notion of pre-space which he called pregeometry, from which spacetime geometry should emerge as a limiting case.


Have you any comments on this, Bernard?

Brian

------
Brian D. Josephson
Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Cambridge
Director, Mind–Matter Unification Project
Cavendish Laboratory, JJ Thomson Ave, Cambridge CB3 0HE, UK
WWW: http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10

De Broglie-Bohm pilot-wave theory and the foundations of quantum mechanics - A graduate lecture...

www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk

Category: MyBlog