Letters to the Editor
-
Not Science....Not Even A Little
Salon, I'm surprised at you. There was abosuletely no reason for Wallace to name drop quantum mechanics, string thoery or any other impressive sounding physics. Yeah the universe might be explained by secon quantized field thoeries, but that doesn't mean it is mysterious, or spooky, it is still governed by a set of physical laws that can be said to be every bit as mechanical as anything else; it doesn't mean there is woo-woo going on. To long people have abused "the new physics" to say all manner or insipid things.
Also the science describing neuro-activity is not 19th century. All manner of high tech imaging, AI and sophisticated mathematical modeling whereby complex phenomena follow from simple rules of large systems are used to study the brain. Just becuase science hasn't yet figured out ever little thing about the brain, doesn't mean science can't explain conciousness.
In fact Wallace offers us no explanations at all. Why is it the human brain becomes attached to some floating conciousness and paperclips do not? How does the attachment happen? What is the mechanism of reincarnation?
Finally not once did he really go into the details of how to test hypotheses of reincarnation or unphysical origins of conciousness, just nebulous statements about a few interviews with no quantitative nformation at all in them.
Why did Salon stand there and let Wallace get away with the same crap IDers would et killed for? Arguments from ignorance, positing the existence of grand unphysical objects to explain thing materialism may well explain alone, and no explanations of these objects are to behave. Just as IDers insist evolution can't explain the diversity of life, then go on to posit exactly no mechanism in its place. You could have asked these questions, or found a Buddhist with some real understanding of science...Shame on you Salon, you made sciencelook bad and Buddhism look worse.