I posted a link to a random sentence creator designed to emulate Deepak Chopra. It was just a bit of fun but maybe it was badly named. Sciborg posted a real Deepak Chopra quote in that thread (
https://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-t...-simulator ) that shows the difference between the real thing and an algorithm. The program was badly named; the real Chopra often makes a lot of sense, so why do so many on the internet mock him and refer to his quotes as pseudo profound BS?
He understands what he means and I think a lot of other people do too. Are the accusers just the mocking school bully types who haven't grown up yet or do they really not understand anything more profound than sex, beer, football and mockery? OK I had a bit of a dig there but the principle is worthy of discussion. When we talk about unusual things that we ourselves understand, how do other people hear us? Do we sound like that bizarre algorithm to them?
For me its about misappropriation of technical terms. For example in the area of photography, there are two different terms,"depth of field" and "depth of focus". These are distinct, different and each has a precise meaning. Now they are frequently misused, but usually such misuse does at least remain within the technical area of photography. What would happen if some spiritual guru started talking in terms of 'depth of focus' in one of their spiritual talks? Personally I'd be baffled, bemused and more than a little irritated. (I do like to use terms correctly).
I find a number of different people, and I'm not picking on Chopra alone here, the phenomenon is widespread, tend to take technical terms and sprinkle them among their communications, in a way which has no specific meaning. This is certainly one of the characteristics which I find less than endearing.
It's tricky because "depth of focus" could realistically be used, for example, with regards meditation, although it's perhaps not the best phrase for the purpose. In science, "Energy" "Proof" "Theory" etc have a specific meaning, but we happily use them in a looser way in day to day speech. Does Chopra deliberately abuse meanings or is he using the real meaning in a different context? R.A.Wilson wrote a book called "Quantum Psychology" In science there is no such thing but Wilson considered it reasonable to take principles discovered in QM and use them to help understand the mind. Wilson of course has a genuine understanding of QM as opposed to New Age ideas about it but the point is, don't we all use context specific phrases out of context when we find them helpful?
(2020-04-22, 10:08 AM)Brian Wrote: [ -> ]It's tricky because "depth of focus" could realistically be used, for example, with regards meditation, although it's perhaps not the best phrase for the purpose. In science, "Energy" "Proof" "Theory" etc have a specific meaning, but we happily use them in a looser way in day to day speech. Does Chopra deliberately abuse meanings or is he using the real meaning in a different context? R.A.Wilson wrote a book called "Quantum Psychology" In science there is no such thing but Wilson considered it reasonable to take principles discovered in QM and use them to help understand the mind. Wilson of course has a genuine understanding of QM as opposed to New Age ideas about it but the point is, don't we all use context specific phrases out of context when we find them helpful?
Where did you get the idea Wilson understands QM?
(2020-04-22, 11:24 AM)Brian Wrote: [ -> ]Physicist John Gribbin.
Can you provide a specific reference? Looking at Wilson's background leads me to him having no understanding other than using quantum in the title as a catch word to sell this book. You noted correctly scientists use precise language.
I'm guessing Sciborg chose that quote because it made sense. I imagine the same process could be applied to the emulation, as well, but wasn't (although I quite liked the result you quoted). I wouldn't try to draw too many conclusions from a comparison between two different selection processes.
Linda
(2020-04-22, 11:58 AM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]Can you provide a specific reference? Looking at Wilson's background leads me to him having no understanding other than using quantum in the title as a catch word to sell this book. You noted correctly scientists use precise language.
http://www.hilaritaspress.com/portfolio-...sychology/
Looking at a
review of the Alexandria Quartet from a physicist doesn't seem to indicate that Durrell had a genuine understanding of relativity, so I'm not sure that endorsement could be taken as an indication that Wilson has a genuine understanding of QM. Perhaps the physicist was merely commenting on whether or not its metaphorical use worked for the purposes of the book.
Linda
(2020-04-22, 11:58 AM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]Can you provide a specific reference? Looking at Wilson's background leads me to him having no understanding other than using quantum in the title as a catch word to sell this book. You noted correctly scientists use precise language.
Wilson has a very wide background and an amazing intellect. If you obtain a copy of any of his books you can read the full quote but this is all I can find online.
http://www.hilaritaspress.com/portfolio-...sychology/
Does for Quantum Mechanics what Durrell’s Alexandria Quartet did for Relativity, but Wilson is funnier. – John Gribbin, physicist
“What great physicist hides behind the mask of Wilson?” – New Scientist
If you really think he knows nothing about QM, may I suggest reading his fictional "Schrödinger's Cat" trilogy or his semi-autobiographical "Cosmic Trigger Pt.1 - The Final Secret Of The Illuminati" (A good idea to forget about his past as editor of Playboy)
It might illuminate you 