[MD] Quantum computing

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi Magnus

Most of the  QC stuff is above me, still a few phrases penetrate,  
for instance this to Case:

> My interpretation of this is that they are orthogonal. Think of the
> inorganic level as an X-axis extending to the right.  plane into a 3D cube
> and the intellectual turns it into a 4D hypercube. Such an arrangement
> makes the levels absolutely dependent on each other and makes each type of
> value very easy to spot. There's no fuzzy borders between the levels, they
> just go off in completely different directions.
 
I have questioned if the evolution inside the respective levels is 
an improvement, if for instance the mammal organism is better 
LIFE than the amoeba. IMO the betterment rests on the level 
shift. The said internal evolution is rather a "complication" of the 
early simple patterns to more complex and instable ones. This is 
necessary for the formation of one sufficiently instable to be the 
carrier of the next value stage. That is why this passage:      

    When it's complex (long) enough, the biological level can 
    extend upwards on the Y-axis forming a 2D plane.   

... struck me. Is your "complex" term significant or just a 
coincidence?  

> And to be honest, I frankly don't see why most people tend to treat the
> levels as just one long one-dimensional line (along some sort of
> complexity axis). Because, as you say, it just turns the levels into
> arbitrary abstractions. In a one-dimensional view of the levels, each
> *thing* can only belong to one level. But that's the reason it becomes so
> fuzzy and causes headaches. In a multi-dimensional view, each *thing* have
> a 4-tuple coordinate placing it in 1, 2, 3 or 4 levels at once.

I agree to the dimension view of the Q-levels. Intellect is the 4th. 
dimension, but the dimensions are only seen from the MOQ 
meta-level. The levels themselves have a "flat earth" view of 
their own world. Intellect sees only the surface and regards 
everything as an expansion of intellect. Ancient  world views were 
"ancient intellect" and - most important - it can't fathom that 
anything can "escape" intellect, but for the MOQ to have intellect 
as its own static level it MUST have gone beyond intellect. 

19 Feb. you said to me:
 
> Well, it just took that question to realize it should be possible to
> find it online, and here it is:
 
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/browse_frm/thread/6145a5
> 93c60eca69/fdd6be5899ca1fe3?lnk=st&q=&rnum=1#fdd6be5899ca1fe3
 
> But that was actually a reply to another thread initiated by Andrew:
 
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/browse_frm/thread/fe43c9
> cc7f48b6ef/5e4a84dbdcc95da5?lnk=st&q=&rnum=2#5e4a84dbdcc95da5

Thanks I will try to find these things. (it requires Google 
subscription)
 
> Nah, he was into quantum physics when he joined, so if we affected
> each other, it was more the other way around.

I see.

> No, it's not mind from matter. It's just the same as biological
> brains. You don't need to break the MoQ, just define the biological a
> teeny weeny bit broader than most do. See my essay in the forum.

Hmmm.  "The need for defining the biological level a bit broader" 
struck me as familiar. I mused (some time ago) about how the 
notion of mind or consciousness emerged.

    Intelligence is a tool, but not only for the 4th level, it 
    began at the biological level with the neural concentration 
    we call brain and its capability of storing "experience", not 
    merely as neural imprints (ROM), but as RAM where 
    experience could be retrieved and re-run to anticipate 
    different "if so, then" futures. Without language of course 
    at this stage. 

    (A crow outside my window has found a way to hoist a 
    food ball up and step on the string while it shifts the beak 
    to a new position. It's plain that some mental rehearsal 
    preceded this.) 

    With the human brain and its cortex layer things reached 
    a point that enabled the social level. Language may not 
    have entered yet, but when it did, intelligence changed 
    into "thinking" (the inner dialogue we know so well). But 
    the social level did not look upon thought-words as 
    subjective but as means to evoke the powers through 
    rituals.  

    The intellectual level's value was to divide this "oneness". 
    Words became symbols different from what they 
    symbolize, thoughts departed from their objects: In 
    general existence became the detached subject that looks 
    out on an objective inert reality. And it's this 
    DISTINCTION which is intellect NOT the conscious 
    subject.

Anything remotely resembling this?

Bo