Letters to the Editor
-
To simplify it
Allan is still amazed that grandma does not actually live inside the telephone.
-
"Spooky" stuff
Oh, for crying out loud. I have a hard time taking seriously the scientific views of someone who thinks Quantum Physics is "spooky." I think that word tells us all we need to know.
We can only measure things that exist. We can ask someone if he remembers a previous life, but in order to evaluate that claim, we have to find a previous life that matches and that the subject really could not have known anything about or guessed anything about or have been influenced into describing.
All the "amazing past life" stories I've read are almost laughably simple or obviously subject to contamination. When memories "get clearer" with exposure to those who know what the right answers are, when stunning similarities boil down to "they both like the color blue," I think Occam's Razor guides us towards rejection, not acceptance.
Coincidence is not only likely, it is inevitable, in comparing any two lives. Choose them from the same country, religious belief, even family, and you have a recipe for "spooky" similarities.
There's always the claim, "they thought Einstein was crazy." Einstein made guesses about the fundamental nature of reality, used mathematical principles to predict effects that could be measured if these assumptions were correct, and then performed experiments to find the evidence to test his assumptions.
If you do not have a fundamental concept to test, pointing out seeming anomalies only tells us that you don't understand what's happening around you. The genius does not lie in seeing there's something unexplained; it lies in seeing how it can be explained, tested and proven. "There's something out there" doesn't qualify. "If I think about it a lot I feel the presence of aliens/past lives/the boogie man/God" doesn't qualify either.
Thought experiments are the tool that a scientist uses to develop experiments. They are not the answer to the question; they are the question. If there is no answer to the question, the thought experiment is valueless.
-
hey joesixpack
actually, it turns out that you can pay a mortgage, keep your kids safe AND stretch your mind a little. if this topic is not your cup of tea then find something else interesting to think about. i have no problem paying my mortgage and i like to talk about all kinds of interesting stuff.
i'm not sure why some people think you can't live a practical life in the US and have an intellectual conversation. anti-intellectualism is a hallmark of fascist states:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-intellectualism#Anti-intellectualism_in_the_Soviet_Union
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-intellectualism#Anti-intellectualism_in_Asia_-_Maoist_China.2C_Cambodia_and_Iran
-
Evidence?
If you want to lecture research scientists as to how wrong they are and how their research is useless, use evidence. If you have data and reproducible experiments you can get much further than if you just get on a soap box and spout anecdotes and generalities.
Two stories from the real world of science, to provide a counterbalance to the silliness:
I was giving a talk on my research, and in the Q and A session a German researcher stood up and aid "Your data is good, but your analysis is Bullshit (his words). You have misunderstood an important part of the equation you used for your analysis." We took him out to lunch, and he was right. He pointed out the math error that I had made in the equation and the physical reason for the effect. I never made that mistake again.
In another episode some engineers were convinced that their system worked like a charm, but some simple experiments done in my lab showed that their equipment didn't work as advertised. There was a great deal of friction, as a lot of money rides on if I or they were right about the equipment which is in common use today. At a conference the results from my latest research were scheduled to be presented right before the industry group gave the results for the experiments they were performing in response to my work. Guess what, all of the experiments done by different people in different labs by people with different preconceptions showed the same results. The industry group is re-writing important aspects of how they use the equipment.
If you want to dispute research issues with a scientist, you need more than your opinion to move the argument forward. If the German researcher had just kept saying "Bullshit" but hadn't been able to show the math, we would have dismissed him as a crank. If I had been basing my work on anecdotes and "feelings" I would not have been able to convince the industry group. If I had been wrong, the industry research would likely have contradicted mine, if they would have felt the need to do it at all.
Use data and evidence to move the state of the art. Navel-gazing ruminations are a dime a dozen. Solid results are priceless.
-
Dear anonymous, please enlighten us when you determine
exactly how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. We're dying to know.
Are you descended from Senator McCarthy, by the way?
-
Do your friends call you B., or do they call you Alan?
I've always wondered how people have an initial as a first name. Isn't that confusing and awkward?
-
Small correction Dr. Wallace
1) The person that said mathematics was "navel gazing" (and that I was therefore criticizing) was not you but a letter writer.
2) I'm still not sure what you mean when you say that
"But are mental phenomena themselves physical in nature? Those phenomena themselves (e.g., thoughts, mental images, dreams, etc.) cannot be detected by any of the instruments of technology, which are designed to measure all known types of physical entities."
Christof Koch's comment notwithstanding, what do you mean by detectable? As I had mentioned in my previous post (to the original interview), Stephen Kosslyn and colleagues have measured responses in PET scans during mental imagery that corresponds well with the same responses during actual sight. These tests measure neural activity in the brain by measuring increases in blood flow which accompany the regions in which the activity occurs. The responses during mental imagery (forming a mental picture of something) are seen in the visual cortex, as early in the vision path as V1. "Indeed, PET scanning has revealed that the primary visual cortex in humans is selectively activated during visual imagery, and this area is known to be spatially organized in humans. A spatial pattern in the visual buffer can be invoked from memory as well as from the eyes." (Kosslyn,Stephen, and Oliver Koenig. Wet Mind The New Cognitive Neuroscience. New York: Free Press, 1995, p.133).
It's not so much that I don't understand what you are trying to say, but what would constitute detection?