From cleath@u.washington.edu Sun Feb 23 16:57:35 1997
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 16:57:34 -0800 (PST)
From: Colin Leath <cleath@u.washington.edu>
To: "being_group 
Subject: 2/26

Hi! Let's meet again at the south campus center at 5:30 Wednesday. I would
rather meet earlier, but I think a few of you work till five and maybe
you'd like to come.

The weather has been nice lately. At our last meeting I think I got a
better understanding of the project Gordon is working on. In summary, I
think he is working on understanding the nature of reality. I on the other
hand take the surface level of reality and try to optimize it. Gordon
takes experience (of whatever reality) and tries to optimize it. Gordon,
let me know if these little summaries get annoying or are too inaccurate-

I have found an interesting article in the Feb 18 new york times on
Quantum Computing. While I know nothing about quantum anything, it sounds
like quantum computing/ quantum logic may bring us to the next level of
understanding.

What is most interesting about it is that it appears to be true parallel
processing. Humans are parallel processors, current computers are serial.
While our language processing seems to be serial, most of our
non-language-based behaviors appear to be parallel, like vision. However,
it seems that some of the most intelligent humans have had the capability
to parallel process high-level thoughts, and perhaps we may be said to do
the same thing when we formulate our plans by visualizing our plans being
carried out. The humans that I am aware of who might exemplify conscious
parallel processing had powerful mental modeling capabilities, Feynman
(sp?) and Tesla. Tesla could design machines in his mind and visualize
them running, and know that they would work before he began to build them.
I think Feynman could do something similar, and, in fact, i think we all
do something similar.

But what exactly is parallel processing? Is quantum computing possible and
if it is will it allow us to create an artificial organism with
self-awareness? Perhaps we will be a to create a new species- quantum
computers may be the next step in evolution. But must a species have
instinct to survive? If that is the case, q-computers will not replace us,
unless they can be given instinct.

It is fairly stupid of me to talk like this, but Gordon, I'm hoping you
will have a better idea of what is going on and can straighten me out.
Maybe I will be taking more physics.

--
I have also been doing some more work with identity development.
specifically:
have any of you gone through a questioning period in your life and arrived
at your own values and made significant commitments (in
occupation/ideology/interpersonal areas, for example) while still keeping
one's mind open to change,
That is rather difficult, and the advantages in living that way (as
opposed to never having any values or commitments, or being very singular
and closed minded about one's values and commitments) have yet to be
clarified.
--

Back to present reality. I am planning on doing a publicity effort by next
quarter at the latest. I will try to get a room in the hub next quarter,
and then when we get more committed people maybe we can move to University
Heights Center.

By the way, we have an account now, being@u.washington.edu. If you want to
do anything with it, let me know. I will be working on getting it and the
web page set up soon.

This group is vital, if we can make people aware of its presence. I was
reminded of the need for this group when reading "suicide is not the
answer" in the Daily last friday, and also when reading one of my
psychology journal articles.

here is the part I found especially cool (about "experiental
orientation" and "dialectical reasoning"):

Exploration, within this orientation, is the process of meaning making. It
is the avenue by which one integrates her experiences into a coherent and
personally authentic worldview. As new experiences will always contribute
towards a greater understanding, which is what is most valued, exploration
will not end with the forging of commitments.

re dialectical reasoning: ...knowing from this perspective is not seen as
something that may be acquired for all time, but as the outcome of a
process of reasonable enquiry. Knowledge is contextual...There is a focus
on the relationship of poles in a paradox rather than a choice between
poles. Rather than taking propositions as its objects, this form of
reasoning takes systems as its objects.

--
How useful was reading that? It is a bit too vague. It was taken from
"Moratorium-achievement cycles in lifespan identity development: value
orientations and reasoning system correlates" Journal of adolescence 1992,
15, 283-300.

see you soon!
Colin