Guarding the Wall: tunnels, bridges and tendrils

Sun Apr 21 11:23:06 CDT 2013

As long as you're taking out the trash, don't forget Dr. Oz
<http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/02/04/130204fa_fact_specter> .

From: owner-pynchon-l at waste.org [mailto:owner-pynchon-l at waste.org] On Behalf
Of Prashant Kumar
Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 11:32 AM
To: bandwraith at aol.com; pynchon -l
Subject: Re: Guarding the Wall: tunnels, bridges and tendrils

There is a line: it's when you contravene a body of experimentally
established evidence for some causal theory. Explaining how and or why is
usually very complex and so any communication is using simplified hand wavy
explanations; there is a certain appeal to authority on matters of quantum
physics in popular media. Of course, DC his cabal of "non-local
consciousness" evangelists (that's what I think) claim legitimacy partly by
virtue of their outsider "maverick" status. They've supposedly been ignored
by the mainstream --  the same mainstream whose authority we should trust?
Now we have a dilemma! and a certain percentage of the lay public will go
for the underdog. What can we do?

Scientific truth is democratic established democratically. After a fashion,
anyway: we vote, but with justification attached, and suffrage isn't
universal or evenly distributed. And each vote changes the field. A stretch
perhaps, but you'll agree there is the important element of an open forum,
and some notion of representation. It is part of DC's sell that he tries to
manipulate opinion with ridiculous claims and the associated marketable
crap. He places himself above the milieu and so supposedly able to bridge a
divide by seeing connections unavailable to others. But the thing is that so
what if quantum consciousness is true? what if our brains are entangled with
one another, and this vast sea of consciousness is itself reality? What
then? What does that really say about the human experience? that we're
connected? Well, yes, but we knew that. We are part of systems we don't
understand: economies, ecosytems, weather systems; all of which themselves
interact in complex ways. We are connected. And we don't need Deepak
Chopra's brainfarts to tell us so.

P.

On 22 April 2013 00:03, <bandwraith at aol.com> wrote:

I generally agree, but would mention that scientists of the sort you would
consider legitimate, in general, have not done a particularly good job of
making clear where "the line" is, and by remaining, too often, aloof, have
left the field wide open for DC, et. al. Dawkins and company have
successfully muddied the waters, and turned the debate into something worthy
of Jerry Springer, and profitably so.

"Academic jobs being the way they are..." is a dilemma which bridges the
cultural divide between The Arts and the Sciences, much like sexism and
racism, especially in the area of advancement. You have broadened the
discussion to include the economic dimension. Fair enough. It becomes the
market place of ideas.

Scientific Truth may not be something which is amenable to a democratic
vote, but in the first world economies- where most Big Science is carried
out- allocation of funds comes down to politics and sociology, which
includes, to a large degree, Defense spending. It is worth considering what
that means for a civil and sustainable society, by people who are capable of
understanding and respecting both sides of the debate. That's what DC
pretends to be, and not without some legitimacy. He at least understands the
urgency for a greater mutual recognition and cooperation between The Arts
and Sciences, even as he capitalizes on it. There are other signatories to
column in response to TED's supposed censorship. What is your take on them?

-----Original Message-----
From: Prashant Kumar siva.prashant.kumar at gmail.com
To: bandwraith <bandwraith at aol.com>; pynchon -l <pynchon-l at waste.org>

Sent: Sun, Apr 21, 2013 7:55 am
Subject: Re: Guarding the Wall: tunnels, bridges and tendrils

My take on it is this: what DC and others does is manipulative (in that it
does prey on people who must necessarily "trust the experts") and shits all
over a nascent field; applications of quantum mechanics in the life sciences
is only slowly being studied for all the damage new agers have done
(academic jobs being the way they are, no newly minted PhD wants to risk his
or her reputation on something so fringe. It's unreasonable to expect people
to live as tortured maybe-geniuses). It's a technique of the right: teach
the controversy. DC et al. in this article are attempting to blur the line
(and there is one) between his horseshit and actual speculative science
which exists outside the norm.  

Quantum consciousness is a prime example: there is
<http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9907009> no way to maintain quantum coherence
at the energy scale at which the brain operates. Now, this doesn't mean that
quantum physics has no role in biology. Here
<http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v9/n1/abs/nphys2474.html>  is a
wonderful review article detailing various applications. Turns out,
magnetoception in pigeons may be quantum mechanical in nature! This is the
kind of research which we don't hear about, thanks to these arseholes. I'm
willing to bet reality is more interesting than anything Chopra could come
up with.

P.

On 21 April 2013 21:28, <bandwraith at aol.com> wrote:

You mean... It's just another rope trick?  : )

Thinking about it in general terms, I guess there're lots of "cracked pots"-
scientific, religious, artistic, etc. Some are endearing, some more
consciously manipulative and willing to prey on people's niavete. But I
maintain that - if I can be excused the royal "we" here- we are all a little
cracked in our own way, and its probably okay to embrace our inner
crack-pot, just not too vehemently, lest we seal the cracks and it becomes a
pressure cooker- just enough to foster a little empathy.

I was going to say something about the Liberty Bell, but I'm uncertain now.
It's Sunday here. I'll go meditate on it for awhile. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Prashant Kumar <siva.prashant.kumar at gmail.com>
To: bandwraith <bandwraith at aol.com>; pynchon -l <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Sun, Apr 21, 2013 5:31 am
Subject: Re: Guarding the Wall: tunnels, bridges and tendrils

This guy and his quantum mechanical snake oil...in the language of my
people: "madarchod".  

P. 

On Saturday, April 20, 2013, wrote:

"...On the other side of the wall are lethal enemies and malefic magic. For
centuries, no one has seen the zombie-like White Walkers who live on the
other side of the wall, nor the dragons that once ravaged Westeros

.

Even so, after magic and zombies fell into disbelief, a hereditary band of
guardians swore an oath to keep watch at the wall, generation after
generation. TED has put itself in rather the same position. What the
militant atheists and self-described skeptics hate is a certain brand of
magical thinking that endangers science. In particular, there is the bugaboo
of "non-local consciousness," which causes the hair on the back of their
necks to stand on end. A layman would be forgiven for not grasping why such
an innocent-sounding phrase could spell danger to "good science."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepak-chopra/dear-ted-is-it-bad-scienc_b_3104
049.html

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20130421/c36cb58f/attachment.html>