Guarding the Wall: tunnels, bridges and tendrils

Sun Apr 21 15:04:08 CDT 2013

I will agree that I'd rather be reading and discussing Lakatos, Polanyi, Feyerabend, Kuhn, Popper, etc., but DC and company seem to be more topical. 
What can we do? Admit that Quantum Mechanics is unsettling. It disturbs common sense notions of causality and reality and does not replace them with anything but more uncertainty. And in the same breath- people need more than that. And especially now, they should have it. "Brainfarts" and "throwing out the trash," are not good enough, which doesn't mean that I agree with Chopra.

In the case of Oz- he was a great cardiac surgeon. I'm not sure if he's still operating. I never watch him on t.v.- but I do recall him addressing issues that would certainly qualify as "crack pot." It should be noted that cardiac sugery may involve cutting and blood, but is not necessarily on the cusp of theoretical science. His surgical skill gave him a platform. That said, he didn't need the money and the comments I heard were pre-Oprah. 

Here's something- Quantum Mechanics is hugely important, right now, and for our future. Science and technology, in general, are absolutely essential for our continuued existence. If you disagree with these notions, please explain why and provide alternative scenarios. Given these realities, would you rather have the majority of people, who will never be able to understand QM, etc., on your level, hating QM and the wonders of modern technology, or, embracing them, with the hope that they may help us to ease suffering, solve the energy crisis, maybe allow us to live in a sustainable and generally peaceful world? Chopra, et. al., may be spinning faerie tails, but they are supplying a need which you may have turned your back on, and in a way which will not be immune from correction as the evidence roles in. 

-----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 11:31 am
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 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 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_3104049.html

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20130421/18ec9fb6/attachment.html>