“Quantum” means a condensing of the sublime.
April 10, 2014 1:14 PM Subscribe
2nd go around I get "The quantum cycle is overflowing with electromagnetic forces." which is ripped off from some TNG episode I'm sure.
posted by hellojed at 1:19 PM on April 10, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by hellojed at 1:19 PM on April 10, 2014 [3 favorites]
I'm doubly-impressed that they managed to nail not just the copy, but the web design of these kinds of sites.
But anyway, this is all nonsense. As everyone is aware, humankind is simply materialized color operating on the 49th vibration. You would make that conclusion walking down the street or going to the store.
posted by griphus at 1:20 PM on April 10, 2014 [4 favorites]
But anyway, this is all nonsense. As everyone is aware, humankind is simply materialized color operating on the 49th vibration. You would make that conclusion walking down the street or going to the store.
posted by griphus at 1:20 PM on April 10, 2014 [4 favorites]
So brave, making fun of New Agers
Did anyone claim it was "brave"? I think they're just going for "funny."
posted by yoink at 1:21 PM on April 10, 2014 [22 favorites]
Did anyone claim it was "brave"? I think they're just going for "funny."
posted by yoink at 1:21 PM on April 10, 2014 [22 favorites]
yoink: EVERYTHING is political now. You new around here or somethin'? Jeez.
posted by lattiboy at 1:23 PM on April 10, 2014 [5 favorites]
posted by lattiboy at 1:23 PM on April 10, 2014 [5 favorites]
Metafilter: is nothing short of a deepening quantum leap of unlimited complexity. We exist as electromagnetic resonance.
posted by blue_beetle at 1:23 PM on April 10, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by blue_beetle at 1:23 PM on April 10, 2014 [3 favorites]
You're halfway to a TEDx talk with some of this.
posted by jquinby at 1:27 PM on April 10, 2014 [23 favorites]
posted by jquinby at 1:27 PM on April 10, 2014 [23 favorites]
Friend of mine likes to tell the story, he went to get a haircut, he mentions he's a physicist, the haircutter says, oh what do you work on? Answer: "Quantum crystals."
Apparently what followed was somewhat embarrassing.
posted by grobstein at 1:28 PM on April 10, 2014 [18 favorites]
Apparently what followed was somewhat embarrassing.
posted by grobstein at 1:28 PM on April 10, 2014 [18 favorites]
By condensing, we vibrate. This life is nothing short of an ennobling uprising of authentic flow. We vibrate, we exist, we are reborn.
This text...
posted by jquinby at 1:28 PM on April 10, 2014 [2 favorites]
This text...
posted by jquinby at 1:28 PM on April 10, 2014 [2 favorites]
Unvaccinated kids are dying from treatable diseases. In Portland low income kids are going to suffer because of the non-existent evils of fluoride. My father has been scammed out of thousands of dollars by new age horse shit. He is even considering a second career out of heeling people with the magic of light bulbs!
So, please make fun of these fuckers.
posted by munchingzombie at 1:34 PM on April 10, 2014 [41 favorites]
So, please make fun of these fuckers.
posted by munchingzombie at 1:34 PM on April 10, 2014 [41 favorites]
I don't need this, I have Facebook friends sharing Paolo Coelho and Deepak Chopra quotes already.
posted by Foosnark at 1:36 PM on April 10, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by Foosnark at 1:36 PM on April 10, 2014 [1 favorite]
So brave, making fun of New Agers
There is something offensive and harmful in new age nonsense, as demonstrated by the ongoing anti-vaccination debacle. A lot of it is sowing the seeds of paranoia and mistrust in science, in order to make a quick buck from the credulous. I for one am quite happy to see this sort of thing ridiculed.
On preview - snap, munchingzombie.
posted by iotic at 1:37 PM on April 10, 2014 [10 favorites]
There is something offensive and harmful in new age nonsense, as demonstrated by the ongoing anti-vaccination debacle. A lot of it is sowing the seeds of paranoia and mistrust in science, in order to make a quick buck from the credulous. I for one am quite happy to see this sort of thing ridiculed.
On preview - snap, munchingzombie.
posted by iotic at 1:37 PM on April 10, 2014 [10 favorites]
My old local NPR station syndicated "New Dimensions"-- a radio show which, if you want a heavy dose of new-age bullshittery, cannot be beat. The host will basically, in all cases, go along with whatever batshitinsanity the interviewee of the week is talking about, half the time they all seem to be pals ("Remember when we hung out in 1974? That was great. So, Bill, tell me about how we're entering the Age of Aquarius..."). It's barely distinguishable from this autogenerator sometimes.
I kind of miss it, but not really.
posted by BungaDunga at 1:42 PM on April 10, 2014 [2 favorites]
I kind of miss it, but not really.
posted by BungaDunga at 1:42 PM on April 10, 2014 [2 favorites]
I wonder if it will ever be as unacceptable to mock people's spirituality as it now is to mock their sexual orientation or gender.
posted by No Robots at 1:44 PM on April 10, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by No Robots at 1:44 PM on April 10, 2014 [3 favorites]
He is even considering a second career out of heeling people with the magic of light bulbs!
I hope they are low-energy utilization LEDs. (I imagine the round fillament lightbulbs wouldn't fit in his birkenstocks.)
posted by lalochezia at 1:44 PM on April 10, 2014 [1 favorite]
I hope they are low-energy utilization LEDs. (I imagine the round fillament lightbulbs wouldn't fit in his birkenstocks.)
posted by lalochezia at 1:44 PM on April 10, 2014 [1 favorite]
I wonder if it will ever be as unacceptable to mock people's spirituality as it now is to mock their sexual orientation or gender.
I certainly hope not.
posted by dhens at 1:46 PM on April 10, 2014 [30 favorites]
I certainly hope not.
posted by dhens at 1:46 PM on April 10, 2014 [30 favorites]
I wonder if it will ever be as unacceptable to mock people's spirituality as it now is to mock their sexual orientation or gender
I get that it can be a fine line with this stuff, but I'm pretty sure that what's being targeted here is pseudo-scientific marketing bullshit, not religion. I don't think the stuff that Deepak Chopra says, for instance, comes from a place of deep spiritual conviction. He and others like him are just cashing in.
posted by my favorite orange at 1:47 PM on April 10, 2014 [6 favorites]
I get that it can be a fine line with this stuff, but I'm pretty sure that what's being targeted here is pseudo-scientific marketing bullshit, not religion. I don't think the stuff that Deepak Chopra says, for instance, comes from a place of deep spiritual conviction. He and others like him are just cashing in.
posted by my favorite orange at 1:47 PM on April 10, 2014 [6 favorites]
I got "Science is the truth of being, and of us," which I'm guessing is a sentiment the site's creator would actually largely agree with.
posted by Navelgazer at 1:52 PM on April 10, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by Navelgazer at 1:52 PM on April 10, 2014 [2 favorites]
We can now less than ever admit a break in nature in either the material or the mental aspect of life: neither can we stop even at the old break between the organised and the unorganised world. It will one day be understood that Mr. Darwin has made materialism impossible. The people who still cry materialism may perhaps not find scientific idealism much more to their taste: but that is another matter.--F. Pollock / "Notes on the philosophy of Spinoza," Mind, Volume 3 (1878), p. 195-296.posted by No Robots at 1:56 PM on April 10, 2014 [1 favorite]
To elaborate a little: I think the reason that this style of New-Agey hype resonates with people is that they think it's somehow backed up by emerging science. That's what the generator is getting at with all the "quantum" and "bio-electricity" stuff.
The producers of this sort of jargon are just marketers; the consumers, who are being taken advantage of, think they're getting science, not religion.
I agree that making fun of someone's spirituality isn't cool but I don't really have a problem with this.
posted by my favorite orange at 1:56 PM on April 10, 2014 [2 favorites]
The producers of this sort of jargon are just marketers; the consumers, who are being taken advantage of, think they're getting science, not religion.
I agree that making fun of someone's spirituality isn't cool but I don't really have a problem with this.
posted by my favorite orange at 1:56 PM on April 10, 2014 [2 favorites]
Chopra and his ilk have about as much in common with my idea of spirituality as Fred Phelps has with liberal Christianity, so personally I'm totally cool with mocking him.
posted by naju at 1:57 PM on April 10, 2014 [8 favorites]
posted by naju at 1:57 PM on April 10, 2014 [8 favorites]
The producers of this sort of jargon are just marketers; the consumers, who are being taken advantage of, think they're getting science, not religion.
"They said he was some kind of scientist..."
posted by Sys Rq at 2:00 PM on April 10, 2014 [3 favorites]
"They said he was some kind of scientist..."
posted by Sys Rq at 2:00 PM on April 10, 2014 [3 favorites]
I wonder if it will ever be as unacceptable to mock people's spirituality as it now is to mock their sexual orientation or gender.
I think when people start proselytizing for their gender or their sexual orientation ("let me take a few minutes of your day to talk about why becoming a man might be the right choice for you!") then it will be just find and dandy to mock the content of their sales pitches if they seem absurd and unreasoned. Religion is quite properly unassailable as a declaration of personal belief; it loses that unassailability, however, as soon as it offers a truth-claim about the world or asserts a moral argument about behavior that is held to apply to non-believers as well as believers.
posted by yoink at 2:02 PM on April 10, 2014 [37 favorites]
I think when people start proselytizing for their gender or their sexual orientation ("let me take a few minutes of your day to talk about why becoming a man might be the right choice for you!") then it will be just find and dandy to mock the content of their sales pitches if they seem absurd and unreasoned. Religion is quite properly unassailable as a declaration of personal belief; it loses that unassailability, however, as soon as it offers a truth-claim about the world or asserts a moral argument about behavior that is held to apply to non-believers as well as believers.
posted by yoink at 2:02 PM on April 10, 2014 [37 favorites]
In fact new agers like Chopra have done a great job of tarnishing centuries-old ideas of private, experiential forms of coming to terms with a "divine" and I feel like he's done great damage in that regard. There's a rich non-woo world of spirituality out there, a world that doesn't focus on crystals or nonsensical misunderstandings of quantum theory, and it sucks that so much is focused on this... well, bullshit.
posted by naju at 2:05 PM on April 10, 2014 [22 favorites]
posted by naju at 2:05 PM on April 10, 2014 [22 favorites]
As a side-gig, I do ads for a friend of mine who publishes a free, new-agey newspaper in Indy. I swear to god, this thing was used to write a lot of those ads. It's too perfect.
posted by Thorzdad at 2:05 PM on April 10, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by Thorzdad at 2:05 PM on April 10, 2014 [1 favorite]
griphus: "I'm doubly-impressed that they managed to nail not just the copy, but the web design of these kinds of sites."
Not enough New Age Purple.
posted by symbioid at 2:06 PM on April 10, 2014 [1 favorite]
Not enough New Age Purple.
posted by symbioid at 2:06 PM on April 10, 2014 [1 favorite]
New Age Purple Prose?
posted by symbioid at 2:07 PM on April 10, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by symbioid at 2:07 PM on April 10, 2014 [3 favorites]
Can we do one for disruptive tech startups?
"Free yourself by doing the things that make you awesome together with the power of the cloud."
"Share your experience at the speed of life. Discover the power locked in our knowledge revolution."
or perhaps social justice/anarchist manifestoes?
"Stop and consider your voice as an ally and as a human being. Have you asked yourself if your privilege has allowed you to love who you choose without fear?"
or, really, can we just setup an iterative bot that trawls a variety of commonly thematic websites, analyzes their tropes, cliches, and normative language and then spits out random recombinant passages that cleverly skewer how tight-knit, echo chamber communities inevitably develop their own jargon that is densely loaded with subtle messages to each other that all sound inane to everyone else?
posted by bl1nk at 2:07 PM on April 10, 2014 [9 favorites]
"Free yourself by doing the things that make you awesome together with the power of the cloud."
"Share your experience at the speed of life. Discover the power locked in our knowledge revolution."
or perhaps social justice/anarchist manifestoes?
"Stop and consider your voice as an ally and as a human being. Have you asked yourself if your privilege has allowed you to love who you choose without fear?"
or, really, can we just setup an iterative bot that trawls a variety of commonly thematic websites, analyzes their tropes, cliches, and normative language and then spits out random recombinant passages that cleverly skewer how tight-knit, echo chamber communities inevitably develop their own jargon that is densely loaded with subtle messages to each other that all sound inane to everyone else?
posted by bl1nk at 2:07 PM on April 10, 2014 [9 favorites]
Can we do one for disruptive tech startups?
Are you familiar with the granddaddy of the BS generators?
posted by Thorzdad at 2:11 PM on April 10, 2014 [1 favorite]
Are you familiar with the granddaddy of the BS generators?
posted by Thorzdad at 2:11 PM on April 10, 2014 [1 favorite]
Without intuition, one cannot vibrate.
I'm pretty sure this is the fourth law of thermodynamics.
posted by blakewest at 2:16 PM on April 10, 2014 [1 favorite]
I'm pretty sure this is the fourth law of thermodynamics.
posted by blakewest at 2:16 PM on April 10, 2014 [1 favorite]
LOL!
posted by El Sabor Asiatico at 2:17 PM on April 10, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by El Sabor Asiatico at 2:17 PM on April 10, 2014 [1 favorite]
("let me take a few minutes of your day to talk about why becoming a man might be the right choice for you!")
You haven't been to a gay pride event lately, I can tell.
posted by Dreidl at 2:17 PM on April 10, 2014 [3 favorites]
You haven't been to a gay pride event lately, I can tell.
posted by Dreidl at 2:17 PM on April 10, 2014 [3 favorites]
There is something offensive and harmful in new age nonsense, as demonstrated by the ongoing anti-vaccination debacle.
Whoa whoa whoa don't lump precious woo in with antivaxxer nonsense. These two are not the same thing.
Yes this link is funny and when you listen to someone woo babble a lot of it is wordy bullshit.... until you're IN the experience... and suddenly its like "holy shit, all you need IS love!" and "we are all one" and that is without drugs my friends...
My father has been scammed out of thousands of dollars by new age horse shit.
Like anything use your intelligence. I have my woo-limit as well.
Between this and the guy today over on ask-me who wasn't sure if it was ok to have a mystical experience (the horror!) I'm ready for a woo-level mic drop on y'all. But I don't want to get banned from my favorite site, so I sit quietly and bite my non-existent tongue...
posted by St. Peepsburg at 2:19 PM on April 10, 2014 [8 favorites]
Whoa whoa whoa don't lump precious woo in with antivaxxer nonsense. These two are not the same thing.
Yes this link is funny and when you listen to someone woo babble a lot of it is wordy bullshit.... until you're IN the experience... and suddenly its like "holy shit, all you need IS love!" and "we are all one" and that is without drugs my friends...
My father has been scammed out of thousands of dollars by new age horse shit.
Like anything use your intelligence. I have my woo-limit as well.
Between this and the guy today over on ask-me who wasn't sure if it was ok to have a mystical experience (the horror!) I'm ready for a woo-level mic drop on y'all. But I don't want to get banned from my favorite site, so I sit quietly and bite my non-existent tongue...
posted by St. Peepsburg at 2:19 PM on April 10, 2014 [8 favorites]
I have a friend who works for a company that makes "quantum biofeedback" machines that cost thousands of dollars. My friend believes all the bullshit hype around it, but somebody in the organization knows that it is a black box full of bullshit and somehow sleeps soundly at night while cancer patients fork over their last bit of cash in a desperate hope that a quantum biofeedback machine will save their life. So, yes, fuck this and all of them.
posted by Camofrog at 2:22 PM on April 10, 2014 [17 favorites]
posted by Camofrog at 2:22 PM on April 10, 2014 [17 favorites]
or, really, can we just setup an iterative bot that trawls a variety of commonly thematic websites, analyzes their tropes, cliches, and normative language and then spits out random recombinant passages that cleverly skewer how tight-knit, echo chamber communities inevitably develop their own jargon that is densely loaded with subtle messages to each other that all sound inane to everyone else?
That's a great idea! With all that information, we'll have to utilize big data technologies like HBase and Hadoop, most likely in the cloud!
posted by evil otto at 2:23 PM on April 10, 2014 [2 favorites]
That's a great idea! With all that information, we'll have to utilize big data technologies like HBase and Hadoop, most likely in the cloud!
posted by evil otto at 2:23 PM on April 10, 2014 [2 favorites]
Whoa whoa whoa don't lump precious woo in with antivaxxer nonsense. These two are not the same thing.
True. However, that particular Venn diagram does have a substantial overlap.
posted by Thorzdad at 2:23 PM on April 10, 2014 [3 favorites]
True. However, that particular Venn diagram does have a substantial overlap.
posted by Thorzdad at 2:23 PM on April 10, 2014 [3 favorites]
So brave, making fun of New Agers
I know, maan. It's totally harshing my chakras.
posted by Decani at 2:28 PM on April 10, 2014 [3 favorites]
I know, maan. It's totally harshing my chakras.
posted by Decani at 2:28 PM on April 10, 2014 [3 favorites]
This kind of attack makes no attempt to distinguish between charlatans, the spiritually earnest, and scientists. One wonders how the admirers of this kind of thing would deal with leading-edge science like this:
posted by No Robots at 2:29 PM on April 10, 2014
Regarding the ‘hard problem’, Koch, Tononi and their physicist colleague Max Tegmark have embraced a form of panpsychism in which consciousness is a property of matter. Simple particles are conscious in a simple way, whereas such particles, when integrated in complex computation, become fully conscious (the ‘combination problem’ in panpsychism philosophy). Tegmark has termed conscious matter ‘perceptronium’, and his alliance with Koch and Tononi is Crick’s legacy and a major force in the present-day science of consciousness. Their view of neurons as fundamental units whose complex synaptic interactions account for consciousness, also supports widely-publicized, and well-funded ‘connectome’ and ‘brain mapping’ projects hoping to capture brain function in neuronal network architecture.--"'Collision Course' in the Science of Consciousness:Grand theories to clash at Tucson conference"Is scientific inquiry like this jeopardized by the mockery of those who feel threatened by a harmonization of science and spirit?
posted by No Robots at 2:29 PM on April 10, 2014
Is scientific inquiry like this jeopardized by the mockery of those who feel threatened by a harmonization of science and spirit?
Um...no? Why would genuine scientific investigation (which, by it's nature, invites skeptical critique) be "jeopardized" by mocking people who spout nonsense and then insist you're not allowed to criticize it because it's their "spiritual belief"?
A science of consciousness, by the way, is unlikely to end up being "a harmonization of science and spirit" in any sense that people who like to call themselves "spiritual" would welcome. The claim that consciousness is just a state of matter is just good old materialism. It's not science discovering the validity of the "spiritual."
posted by yoink at 2:36 PM on April 10, 2014 [20 favorites]
Um...no? Why would genuine scientific investigation (which, by it's nature, invites skeptical critique) be "jeopardized" by mocking people who spout nonsense and then insist you're not allowed to criticize it because it's their "spiritual belief"?
A science of consciousness, by the way, is unlikely to end up being "a harmonization of science and spirit" in any sense that people who like to call themselves "spiritual" would welcome. The claim that consciousness is just a state of matter is just good old materialism. It's not science discovering the validity of the "spiritual."
posted by yoink at 2:36 PM on April 10, 2014 [20 favorites]
It's pretty impressive how it manages the positive and negative tones of things to produce... nonsense, but the right kind of nonsense. It's doesn't have coherent structure above the level of groups of one or two sentences, but at that scale, it include a lot of flawless forms that make sense and are even agreeable.
We can no longer afford to live with dogma.
You may be ruled by yearning without realizing it. Do not let it sabotage the growth of your path.
The complexity of the present time seems to demand a refining of our hopes if we are going to survive.
You must take a stand against suffering. Suffering is the antithesis of conscious living.
The humor is almost always the intended parody, and almost never the weak "machine fails at grammar" kind of thing. But after reloading a few times you do get a sense of the how restrictive the templates are. Anyway, interesting.
posted by Wolfdog at 2:37 PM on April 10, 2014
We can no longer afford to live with dogma.
You may be ruled by yearning without realizing it. Do not let it sabotage the growth of your path.
The complexity of the present time seems to demand a refining of our hopes if we are going to survive.
You must take a stand against suffering. Suffering is the antithesis of conscious living.
The humor is almost always the intended parody, and almost never the weak "machine fails at grammar" kind of thing. But after reloading a few times you do get a sense of the how restrictive the templates are. Anyway, interesting.
posted by Wolfdog at 2:37 PM on April 10, 2014
Someone should, if they have woo-friends, take these and post them on their FB wall or whatever and see how many likes they get from said friends. Even better if they're an image macro, even more better if they're misattributed to Einstein.
posted by symbioid at 2:41 PM on April 10, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by symbioid at 2:41 PM on April 10, 2014 [1 favorite]
Although you may not realize it, you are sentient.
posted by Westringia F. at 2:41 PM on April 10, 2014 [12 favorites]
posted by Westringia F. at 2:41 PM on April 10, 2014 [12 favorites]
But anyway, this is all nonsense. As everyone is aware, humankind is simply materialized color operating on the 49th vibration. You would make that conclusion walking down the street or going to the store.
You were educated stupid and evil. 4 simultaneous 24 hour days.
posted by CaseyB at 2:42 PM on April 10, 2014 [3 favorites]
You were educated stupid and evil. 4 simultaneous 24 hour days.
posted by CaseyB at 2:42 PM on April 10, 2014 [3 favorites]
Friend of mine likes to tell the story, he went to get a haircut, he mentions he's a physicist, the haircutter says, oh what do you work on? Answer: "Quantum crystals."
Apparently what followed was somewhat embarrassing.
Is it because they probably don't exist? (I have zero understanding of this, but I like the notion of a haircutter citing new studies to refute someone's whole field of studies.)
posted by filthy light thief at 2:51 PM on April 10, 2014 [2 favorites]
Apparently what followed was somewhat embarrassing.
Is it because they probably don't exist? (I have zero understanding of this, but I like the notion of a haircutter citing new studies to refute someone's whole field of studies.)
posted by filthy light thief at 2:51 PM on April 10, 2014 [2 favorites]
Is scientific inquiry like this jeopardized by the mockery of those who feel threatened by a harmonization of science and spirit?
It's telling that you label Orch-OR as "leading-edge science," considering that most people in the mathematical, philosophical, and biological communities consider it to be bullshit of the highest order - see here for example, and for many more examples see here:
Hameroff's theory is criticized at every level, and considered to be a poor model of brain physiology. Primarily, Hameroff requires tubulin electrons to form either a Bose–Einstein or Frohlich condensate, both of which have been experimentally disproven.
Further, it's actively offensive that you would conflate dangerously stupid pseudoscience such as this with peoples' sexual orientations.
posted by Frobenius Twist at 2:52 PM on April 10, 2014 [17 favorites]
It's telling that you label Orch-OR as "leading-edge science," considering that most people in the mathematical, philosophical, and biological communities consider it to be bullshit of the highest order - see here for example, and for many more examples see here:
Hameroff's theory is criticized at every level, and considered to be a poor model of brain physiology. Primarily, Hameroff requires tubulin electrons to form either a Bose–Einstein or Frohlich condensate, both of which have been experimentally disproven.
Further, it's actively offensive that you would conflate dangerously stupid pseudoscience such as this with peoples' sexual orientations.
posted by Frobenius Twist at 2:52 PM on April 10, 2014 [17 favorites]
The science of consciousness is moving toward panpsychism, and thus validating the fundamental assertion of all spirituality ie, everything thinks. This is the second great confirmation by science of spirituality. The first was the confirmation of the ultimate immateriality of matter. Philosophy and mysticism have always held that we experience reality in thought as matter, that matter is a relative perception and not itself the essence of reality.
Thought and Being are the same.-Parmenidesposted by No Robots at 2:54 PM on April 10, 2014 [1 favorite]
I have trouble with New Age material for a couple of reasons. First, as argued by several above, many New Age practitioners play at being "scientific," using the uneasiness many people feel with scientific terms and concepts to give their pronouncements an aura of unquestionability. (This is paralleled by the way science is misused by businesses to pedal useless and even dangerous things as products.
I'm also bugged by the way they pillage actual religions for scraps of doctrine and practice to build "choose as you like" buffets of spiritual practice. Systems that have developed to achieve specific ends for specific philosophical reasons are pulled apart and thrown together haphazardly, as if each piece was a Lego brick that can be attached to any other at will. Actual religions don't work like that; they are grown over years with their own goals and contradictions, and they can be so easily transplanted. I think the New Age encouraged a sort of lazy and short-sighed pseudo-religiosity/philosophy even as it was also debasing science.
Any real practice (spiritual or scientific) asks things of you -- your time, attention, and real effort. The New Age seems to ask only for credulousness and money.
posted by GenjiandProust at 3:00 PM on April 10, 2014 [6 favorites]
I'm also bugged by the way they pillage actual religions for scraps of doctrine and practice to build "choose as you like" buffets of spiritual practice. Systems that have developed to achieve specific ends for specific philosophical reasons are pulled apart and thrown together haphazardly, as if each piece was a Lego brick that can be attached to any other at will. Actual religions don't work like that; they are grown over years with their own goals and contradictions, and they can be so easily transplanted. I think the New Age encouraged a sort of lazy and short-sighed pseudo-religiosity/philosophy even as it was also debasing science.
Any real practice (spiritual or scientific) asks things of you -- your time, attention, and real effort. The New Age seems to ask only for credulousness and money.
posted by GenjiandProust at 3:00 PM on April 10, 2014 [6 favorites]
No Robots's link to "leading-edge science" leads to a press release that links to Physics of Life Reviews, which looks like a scientific journal but does in fact publish Deepak Chopra.
The study detailed therein will be presented at the "Center for Consciousness Studies" at the University of Arizona. The University of Arizona is also home of the "Laboratory for Advances in Consciousness and Health," headed by known quack Dr. Gary Schwartz (see James Randi and co. on Schwartz here).
Also, everything that Frobenius Twist said.
posted by dhens at 3:01 PM on April 10, 2014 [7 favorites]
The study detailed therein will be presented at the "Center for Consciousness Studies" at the University of Arizona. The University of Arizona is also home of the "Laboratory for Advances in Consciousness and Health," headed by known quack Dr. Gary Schwartz (see James Randi and co. on Schwartz here).
Also, everything that Frobenius Twist said.
posted by dhens at 3:01 PM on April 10, 2014 [7 favorites]
the fundamental assertion of all spirituality ie, everything thinks
1) that's the "fundamental assertion" of only certain, specific brands of "spirituality." There are plenty of "spiritual" belief systems that hold no such view. 2) No such assertion has been "validated" yet by any branch of science; we still don't understand much of anything about consciousness. 3) the claim that consciousness is a state of matter does not prove that "everything thinks"; it proves merely that that things that think are not of a fundamentally different (i.e. "spiritual") kind from things that don't.
Most of the world's major religions would see this as a challenge to their beliefs, by the way, if it were proven to be true, not as a confirmation. Most believe that the thing in us that thinks is a "soul" that is of an entirely different order of being than mere matter.
posted by yoink at 3:02 PM on April 10, 2014 [4 favorites]
1) that's the "fundamental assertion" of only certain, specific brands of "spirituality." There are plenty of "spiritual" belief systems that hold no such view. 2) No such assertion has been "validated" yet by any branch of science; we still don't understand much of anything about consciousness. 3) the claim that consciousness is a state of matter does not prove that "everything thinks"; it proves merely that that things that think are not of a fundamentally different (i.e. "spiritual") kind from things that don't.
Most of the world's major religions would see this as a challenge to their beliefs, by the way, if it were proven to be true, not as a confirmation. Most believe that the thing in us that thinks is a "soul" that is of an entirely different order of being than mere matter.
posted by yoink at 3:02 PM on April 10, 2014 [4 favorites]
It's telling that you label Orch-OR as "leading-edge science," considering that most people in the mathematical, philosophical, and biological communities consider it to be bullshit of the highest order - see here for example, and for many more examples see here:
This isn't at all anything I'm expert in, but isn't Tegmark one of the leading critics of Hameroff's Orch-Or model?
posted by yoink at 3:08 PM on April 10, 2014
This isn't at all anything I'm expert in, but isn't Tegmark one of the leading critics of Hameroff's Orch-Or model?
posted by yoink at 3:08 PM on April 10, 2014
Max Tegmark, MIT Dept of physics, and, apparently to folks here, woo artist.
posted by No Robots at 3:09 PM on April 10, 2014
posted by No Robots at 3:09 PM on April 10, 2014
Max Tegmark, MIT Dept of physics, and, apparently to folks here, woo artist.
I can't speak to Tegmark's work in particular, but teaching at a great university does not make one's work unimpeachable. Science is about testing hypotheses, not citing authorities.
posted by dhens at 3:11 PM on April 10, 2014 [1 favorite]
I can't speak to Tegmark's work in particular, but teaching at a great university does not make one's work unimpeachable. Science is about testing hypotheses, not citing authorities.
posted by dhens at 3:11 PM on April 10, 2014 [1 favorite]
This isn't at all anything I'm expert in, but isn't Tegmark one of the leading critics of Hameroff's Orch-Or model?
I'm not an expert either, but as far as I know, yes he is. As for the linked article earlier connecting him to Orch-Or, all I can do is point to the text at the bottom of that page: "References all contained within: Hameroff S, Penrose R (2014) Consciousness in the universe: A review of the 'Orch OR' theory. Physics of Life Reviews 11(1):39-78." So I'd say that the summary there is not quite an unbiased account of Tegmark's involvement, to say the least.
posted by Frobenius Twist at 3:14 PM on April 10, 2014
I'm not an expert either, but as far as I know, yes he is. As for the linked article earlier connecting him to Orch-Or, all I can do is point to the text at the bottom of that page: "References all contained within: Hameroff S, Penrose R (2014) Consciousness in the universe: A review of the 'Orch OR' theory. Physics of Life Reviews 11(1):39-78." So I'd say that the summary there is not quite an unbiased account of Tegmark's involvement, to say the least.
posted by Frobenius Twist at 3:14 PM on April 10, 2014
I think people are kinda jumping on the "Tegmark must be a dick" bandwagon because somebody is profoundly misreading the implications of his work. So far as I know he's an entirely non-woo scientist. And, to repeat myself, far from being a proponent of Orch-Or and the "quantum-consciousness" stuff, he was one of its major critics.
Which is still not to say that the Orch-Or stuff is woo; it proposes a testable hypothesis, which has been tested and, thus far, found wanting.
The fact that woo people like to misread these scientific theories as proving that the world is all mind etc. doesn't mean that the theories themselves deserve to be classed as woo (even if they may well deserve to be criticized as wrong).
posted by yoink at 3:16 PM on April 10, 2014
Which is still not to say that the Orch-Or stuff is woo; it proposes a testable hypothesis, which has been tested and, thus far, found wanting.
The fact that woo people like to misread these scientific theories as proving that the world is all mind etc. doesn't mean that the theories themselves deserve to be classed as woo (even if they may well deserve to be criticized as wrong).
posted by yoink at 3:16 PM on April 10, 2014
From Tegmark's wikipedia page:
posted by idiopath at 3:17 PM on April 10, 2014 [2 favorites]
Tegmark has also formulated the "Ultimate ensemble theory of everything", whose only postulate is that "all structures that exist mathematically exist also physically".This is absurd.
posted by idiopath at 3:17 PM on April 10, 2014 [2 favorites]
Is it because they probably don't exist? (I have zero understanding of this, but I like the notion of a haircutter citing new studies to refute someone's whole field of studies.)
Not that kind of crystal, but fun idea.
posted by grobstein at 3:19 PM on April 10, 2014
Not that kind of crystal, but fun idea.
posted by grobstein at 3:19 PM on April 10, 2014
I recently learned that much of this stuff is rooted in the New Thought movement from the 19th century, whcih itself is probably traceable to German Idealism.
posted by thelonius at 3:21 PM on April 10, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by thelonius at 3:21 PM on April 10, 2014 [1 favorite]
Just as there are many types of liquids, there are many types of consciousness.--"Consciousness as a State of Matter" / Max Tegmark.German idealism is the development of Spinoza's work. Spinoza stands in opposition to the materialist monism that dominates human society today. In order to advance, science must abandon materialist monism and embrace Spinoza's fusion of absolute idealism with relative materialism.
The propositions we have advanced hitherto have been entirely general, applying not more to men than to other individual things, all of which, though in different degrees, are animated. For of everything there is necessarily an idea in God, of which God is the cause, in the same way as there is an idea of the human body; thus whatever we have asserted of the idea of the human body must necessarily also be asserted of the idea of everything else. Still, on the other hand, we cannot deny that ideas, like objects, differ one from the other, one being more excellent than another and containing more reality, just as the object of one idea is more excellent than the object of another idea, and contains more reality.--Spinoza
posted by No Robots at 3:39 PM on April 10, 2014 [1 favorite]
I consider myself fairly mystical, but also rational and know when to separate the two. Deliberately ignorant attempts to use science or psuedoscience to supposedly corroborate spiritual ideas doesn't advance science and it doesn't advance anyone's spiritual wholeness or whatever. It just makes a lot of people look like fools, and lines a few pockets in the process.
I'd also throw magic-bullet "natural cure" stuff in with that. Sure there's something to some natural medicine, and a good placebo and willpower can do the trick sometimes. But the explanations and claims so often insult one's intelligence.
For instance, just yesterday: "Drinking two glasses of water immediately after waking up can help activate your internal organs." As if they shut down during the night and needed a wakeup call. As if it wasn't your internal organs waking you up in the first place.
posted by Foosnark at 3:48 PM on April 10, 2014 [6 favorites]
I'd also throw magic-bullet "natural cure" stuff in with that. Sure there's something to some natural medicine, and a good placebo and willpower can do the trick sometimes. But the explanations and claims so often insult one's intelligence.
For instance, just yesterday: "Drinking two glasses of water immediately after waking up can help activate your internal organs." As if they shut down during the night and needed a wakeup call. As if it wasn't your internal organs waking you up in the first place.
posted by Foosnark at 3:48 PM on April 10, 2014 [6 favorites]
Spinoza stands in opposition to the materialist monism that dominates human society today.
A) I think dualism is still far more prevalent than any form of monism (most people, certainly in the US, believe in some kind of "spiritual" world that is distinct in fundamental kind from the "material" world).
B) Spinoza does not "stand in opposition" to materialist monism. He is far closer to any materialist monist than to the dualists he was actually "standing in opposition" to. There are those who read Spinoza as himself a "materialist monist" and there were many of his contemporaries who did so. The argument is a complex one, of course, and we can't get into it here, but as a thumbnail sketch of what is essential to Spinoza's philosophy "opposition to materialist monism" would be wildly wrong.
Similarly, while I'm certainly incapable of following the math in Tegmark's paper, you're clearly badly misreading it (simply finding in it a "spiritualist" claim that it is nowhere advancing). Every "materialist monist" in the world believes, as Tegmark does, that consciousness is a state of matter. If you don't believe that then you have to believe that there is something beyond matter--some "secret sauce" as Tegmark puts it in the paper--which brings consciousness into being. Tegmark is not saying that rocks and trees are "conscious" in any sense analogous to human consciousness. Nor is he saying that we are all part of one Universal Mind that is thinking itself through us.
posted by yoink at 3:56 PM on April 10, 2014 [5 favorites]
A) I think dualism is still far more prevalent than any form of monism (most people, certainly in the US, believe in some kind of "spiritual" world that is distinct in fundamental kind from the "material" world).
B) Spinoza does not "stand in opposition" to materialist monism. He is far closer to any materialist monist than to the dualists he was actually "standing in opposition" to. There are those who read Spinoza as himself a "materialist monist" and there were many of his contemporaries who did so. The argument is a complex one, of course, and we can't get into it here, but as a thumbnail sketch of what is essential to Spinoza's philosophy "opposition to materialist monism" would be wildly wrong.
Similarly, while I'm certainly incapable of following the math in Tegmark's paper, you're clearly badly misreading it (simply finding in it a "spiritualist" claim that it is nowhere advancing). Every "materialist monist" in the world believes, as Tegmark does, that consciousness is a state of matter. If you don't believe that then you have to believe that there is something beyond matter--some "secret sauce" as Tegmark puts it in the paper--which brings consciousness into being. Tegmark is not saying that rocks and trees are "conscious" in any sense analogous to human consciousness. Nor is he saying that we are all part of one Universal Mind that is thinking itself through us.
posted by yoink at 3:56 PM on April 10, 2014 [5 favorites]
By the way, if you want to get a very stringently corrective view of the significance of Spinoza's philosophy, I recommend you read Jonathan Israel's Radical Enlightenment, which traces the entire development of the materialist, scientific Enlightenment back to what he sees as Spinoza's materialist monism.
posted by yoink at 4:22 PM on April 10, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by yoink at 4:22 PM on April 10, 2014 [2 favorites]
William James popularized consciousness at the turn of the 20th century,
Oh man that's great.
Incidentally, C. S. Peirce--a decidedly non-woo type--has a view that can reasonably be characterized as a version of panpsychism... It's thirdness all the way down...
posted by Fists O'Fury at 4:46 PM on April 10, 2014 [1 favorite]
Oh man that's great.
Incidentally, C. S. Peirce--a decidedly non-woo type--has a view that can reasonably be characterized as a version of panpsychism... It's thirdness all the way down...
posted by Fists O'Fury at 4:46 PM on April 10, 2014 [1 favorite]
Israel would not be the first to read Spinoza as a materialist.
posted by thelonius at 4:53 PM on April 10, 2014
posted by thelonius at 4:53 PM on April 10, 2014
Man, where was this site when I was writing the boilerplate for my band? I had to actually construct those sentences myself!
though i admit it was kinda fun
posted by Devils Rancher at 4:54 PM on April 10, 2014 [1 favorite]
though i admit it was kinda fun
posted by Devils Rancher at 4:54 PM on April 10, 2014 [1 favorite]
Metafilter: Come for the parody, stay for the discussion of fringe physics.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 5:49 PM on April 10, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by Potomac Avenue at 5:49 PM on April 10, 2014 [3 favorites]
Metafilter: Come for the parody, stay for the discussion of fringe physics.
Which season?
posted by yoink at 5:54 PM on April 10, 2014 [4 favorites]
Which season?
posted by yoink at 5:54 PM on April 10, 2014 [4 favorites]
You know who else was at least indirectly influenced by the works of Madame Blavatsky and the Theosophists?
posted by Sticherbeast at 6:27 PM on April 10, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by Sticherbeast at 6:27 PM on April 10, 2014 [1 favorite]
The science of consciousness is moving toward panpsychism, and thus validating the fundamental assertion of all spirituality ie, everything thinks. This is the second great confirmation by science of spirituality. The first was the confirmation of the ultimate immateriality of matter. Philosophy and mysticism have always held that we experience reality in thought as matter, that matter is a relative perception and not itself the essence of reality.
No Robots, did you get that from the generator?
posted by sebastienbailard at 9:11 PM on April 10, 2014 [7 favorites]
No Robots, did you get that from the generator?
posted by sebastienbailard at 9:11 PM on April 10, 2014 [7 favorites]
You know who else existed mathematically...
posted by Pudhoho at 10:44 PM on April 10, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by Pudhoho at 10:44 PM on April 10, 2014 [2 favorites]
The first was the confirmation of the ultimate immateriality of matter.
You can tell a governing consciousness does not exist in the universe (or at least does not have a sense of humor) because you can make this statement with a straight face and not be immediately crushed by an inexplicably materialized falling cartoon anvil.
posted by Dr Dracator at 11:12 PM on April 10, 2014 [4 favorites]
You can tell a governing consciousness does not exist in the universe (or at least does not have a sense of humor) because you can make this statement with a straight face and not be immediately crushed by an inexplicably materialized falling cartoon anvil.
posted by Dr Dracator at 11:12 PM on April 10, 2014 [4 favorites]
The science of consciousness is moving toward panpsychism, and thus validating the fundamental assertion of all spirituality ie, everything thinks.
If rocks can think, why am I burning so much energy running 1300 grams of useless brain, when I could use a lower wattage house brick to do my thinking with?
posted by sebastienbailard at 11:36 PM on April 10, 2014 [2 favorites]
If rocks can think, why am I burning so much energy running 1300 grams of useless brain, when I could use a lower wattage house brick to do my thinking with?
posted by sebastienbailard at 11:36 PM on April 10, 2014 [2 favorites]
The science of consciousness is moving toward panpsychism, and thus validating the fundamental assertion of all spirituality ie, yo mama so fat when she sits around the house, she sits around the house
posted by Quilford at 12:02 AM on April 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by Quilford at 12:02 AM on April 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
I wonder if it will ever be as unacceptable to mock people's spirituality as it now is to mock their sexual orientation or gender.
If you want to live in a world where it's unacceptable to mock spirituality, it's the past you want, not the future. Though there are a few places in the world where blasphemy is still illegal, if you're willing to relocate.
posted by EXISTENZ IS PAUSED at 12:34 AM on April 11, 2014 [3 favorites]
If you want to live in a world where it's unacceptable to mock spirituality, it's the past you want, not the future. Though there are a few places in the world where blasphemy is still illegal, if you're willing to relocate.
posted by EXISTENZ IS PAUSED at 12:34 AM on April 11, 2014 [3 favorites]
It's situational. If you subscribe to the right spirituality, you can kill people and take their stuff if they subscribe to conflicting spiritualities. Eg. the Catholics and the Huguenots, Christians and random colonized people, or me and a random 7-11 attendant.
That last one doesn't make much sense. I suspect the universal governing consciousness spends most of its cycles these days avoiding being recorded by russian dashcams or calculating bitcoins or something.
I would elaborate, but my house brick says it's getting late and that I still need to do my yogic flying exercises.
posted by sebastienbailard at 1:14 AM on April 11, 2014
That last one doesn't make much sense. I suspect the universal governing consciousness spends most of its cycles these days avoiding being recorded by russian dashcams or calculating bitcoins or something.
I would elaborate, but my house brick says it's getting late and that I still need to do my yogic flying exercises.
posted by sebastienbailard at 1:14 AM on April 11, 2014
The science of consciousness is moving toward pan-fried dumplings
posted by Sticherbeast at 2:01 AM on April 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by Sticherbeast at 2:01 AM on April 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
I learned about the "New Thought" thing from this guy's blog
posted by thelonius at 2:08 AM on April 11, 2014
posted by thelonius at 2:08 AM on April 11, 2014
I wonder if the developer of this project used this git documentation while writing this.
posted by ignignokt at 4:49 AM on April 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by ignignokt at 4:49 AM on April 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
Science today is mired in a hard-hat mentality that Hegel identified long ago:
Fortunately, there are still a few freethinkers who have managed to keep alive authentic thought. In particular, there are a few Jewish followers of Spinoza who resist the tendency toward materialist monism. One of these, Harry Waton, proposed a monism that places mind and matter on a continuum:
posted by No Robots at 8:26 AM on April 11, 2014
Since Bacon has ever been esteemed as the man who directed knowledge to its true source, to experience, he is, in fact, the special leader and representative of what is in England called Philosophy, and beyond which the English have not yet advanced. For they appear to constitute that people in Europe which, limited to the understanding of actuality, is destined, like the class of shopkeepers and workmen in the State, to live always immersed in matter, and to have actuality but not reason as object.-- Lectures on the History of PhilosophyOf course, this disease has now spread well beyond England.
Fortunately, there are still a few freethinkers who have managed to keep alive authentic thought. In particular, there are a few Jewish followers of Spinoza who resist the tendency toward materialist monism. One of these, Harry Waton, proposed a monism that places mind and matter on a continuum:
When absolute thought slows down, it becomes light; and, when light slows down, it becomes matter. Thus we see that light is only an intermediary state between absolute thought and matter.--A true monistic philosophy I, p. 100.This kind of intelligent speculation is infinitely preferable to the endless niggling of the absolute materialists. And the fact is that the latter are losing the battle to control the destiny of man. The community of the free spirit is coming.
posted by No Robots at 8:26 AM on April 11, 2014
When absolute thought slows down, it becomes light; and, when light slows down, it becomes matter.
This is TimeCube level nonsense.
posted by yoink at 8:55 AM on April 11, 2014 [9 favorites]
This is TimeCube level nonsense.
posted by yoink at 8:55 AM on April 11, 2014 [9 favorites]
But the sensual man perceiveth not these things that are of the Spirit of God; for it is foolishness to him, and he cannot understand, because it is spiritually examined.—1 Co. 2:14posted by No Robots at 10:03 AM on April 11, 2014
When a superior man hears of the Tao,
he immediately begins to embody it.
When an average man hears of the Tao,
he half believes it, half doubts it.
When a foolish man hears of the Tao,
he laughs out loud.
If he didn't laugh,
it wouldn't be the Tao.
—Tao te Ching
How can thought "slow down"?
posted by brundlefly at 10:20 AM on April 11, 2014
posted by brundlefly at 10:20 AM on April 11, 2014
How can thought "slow down"?
I think No Robots is giving us a pretty good demonstration. It's not becoming light, however.
posted by yoink at 10:23 AM on April 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
I think No Robots is giving us a pretty good demonstration. It's not becoming light, however.
posted by yoink at 10:23 AM on April 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
No Robots, I think you and Harry Waton are using different definitions then the rest of us for the words "thought", "light", "matter" and "consciousness". Which is either inconsiderate or facile.
Can you actually explain what this passage means, with links to the papers where some researchers showed these various bits to be true in some lab somewhere? Like, was this at the LHC, or in some biophysics lab?
When absolute thought slows down, it becomes light; and, when light slows down, it becomes matter. Thus we see that light is only an intermediary state between absolute thought and matter.--A true monistic philosophy I, p. 100.
Or you can just blast quotes at us.
posted by sebastienbailard at 10:23 AM on April 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
Can you actually explain what this passage means, with links to the papers where some researchers showed these various bits to be true in some lab somewhere? Like, was this at the LHC, or in some biophysics lab?
When absolute thought slows down, it becomes light; and, when light slows down, it becomes matter. Thus we see that light is only an intermediary state between absolute thought and matter.--A true monistic philosophy I, p. 100.
Or you can just blast quotes at us.
posted by sebastienbailard at 10:23 AM on April 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
When clams speed up, they become semi trucks. When semi trucks speed up, they become ducks.
If you disagree with this statement or demand evidence in support of it, that merely proves you are unenlightened. Follow the way of the clam-truck-duck triad or be forever fallen!
posted by yoink at 10:26 AM on April 11, 2014 [5 favorites]
If you disagree with this statement or demand evidence in support of it, that merely proves you are unenlightened. Follow the way of the clam-truck-duck triad or be forever fallen!
posted by yoink at 10:26 AM on April 11, 2014 [5 favorites]
This kind of intelligent speculation is infinitely preferable to the endless niggling of the absolute materialists.
Translation: "Sitting around bullshitting is easier than doing icky stuff in a lab."
Science (or "materialist niggling"), as a description of the universe, is, to use a clunky comparison, like a curve asymptotically approaching the axis of "reality." It might never get there, but it will get closer to it.
The community of the free spirit is coming.
wat
posted by dhens at 10:43 AM on April 11, 2014 [3 favorites]
Translation: "Sitting around bullshitting is easier than doing icky stuff in a lab."
Science (or "materialist niggling"), as a description of the universe, is, to use a clunky comparison, like a curve asymptotically approaching the axis of "reality." It might never get there, but it will get closer to it.
The community of the free spirit is coming.
wat
posted by dhens at 10:43 AM on April 11, 2014 [3 favorites]
The community of the free spirit is coming.
wat
Heed not the unbeliever! The road we are on leads to Absolute Duckiness! Everything will become just ducky!
(No Robots, I'm not just mocking you here, I'm trying to make you realize the problem with portentous claims about the nature of the universe that are unsupported by argument or evidence. How am I suppose to choose between these two claims: "When thought slows down it becomes light" and "when clams speed up they become semi-trucks"? What evidence are you willing to offer that would even make your claim meaningful, let alone make it plausible? If the only support you can offer for it is "if you disagree that just proves you're unenlightened" then why isn't that same claim an equally adequate rejoinder to anyone who doubts that when clams speed up they become semi-trucks?)
posted by yoink at 10:50 AM on April 11, 2014
wat
Heed not the unbeliever! The road we are on leads to Absolute Duckiness! Everything will become just ducky!
(No Robots, I'm not just mocking you here, I'm trying to make you realize the problem with portentous claims about the nature of the universe that are unsupported by argument or evidence. How am I suppose to choose between these two claims: "When thought slows down it becomes light" and "when clams speed up they become semi-trucks"? What evidence are you willing to offer that would even make your claim meaningful, let alone make it plausible? If the only support you can offer for it is "if you disagree that just proves you're unenlightened" then why isn't that same claim an equally adequate rejoinder to anyone who doubts that when clams speed up they become semi-trucks?)
posted by yoink at 10:50 AM on April 11, 2014
when clams speed up they become semi-trucks
This is, of course, ridiculous. It's absolute clams that speed up to become absolute semi-trucks.
Namaste.
posted by Drastic at 10:51 AM on April 11, 2014
This is, of course, ridiculous. It's absolute clams that speed up to become absolute semi-trucks.
Namaste.
posted by Drastic at 10:51 AM on April 11, 2014
Soon all of us will have special names, names designed to cause the clam-truck-duck to resonate.
posted by brundlefly at 10:54 AM on April 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by brundlefly at 10:54 AM on April 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
when light slows down, it becomes matter
And the reverse of this would hold, too: when you speed up matter, it becomes light.
Except it doesn't. It totally doesn't. Special relativity means that you can accelerate a lump of matter, but it takes more and more energy to get it moving closer and closer to the speed of light, and it would take infinite energy to get it moving at c.
posted by sebastienbailard at 11:13 AM on April 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
And the reverse of this would hold, too: when you speed up matter, it becomes light.
Except it doesn't. It totally doesn't. Special relativity means that you can accelerate a lump of matter, but it takes more and more energy to get it moving closer and closer to the speed of light, and it would take infinite energy to get it moving at c.
posted by sebastienbailard at 11:13 AM on April 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
when light slows down, it becomes matter
There's at least this in 2007, sixty years after the Harry Waton quote: Light and matter united. He may have gotten the details off, but you can slow down light, and you can convert light to matter, and vice versa. He had no way of knowing it, but he made the statement because he believed it to be true.
When absolute thought slows down, it becomes light
This is unverifiable with our current scientific methods. It's a metaphysical statement in nature (and I have no idea what thought slowing down could be, but it's a non-scientific statement in any case.) In fact, these are all metaphysical statements from a philosopher, one who is philosophically postulating that there's a connection between thought and the physical realm. It seems like you guys are willfully misunderstanding the nature of philosophy vs. the nature of science, to poke fun of something that doesn't fit into an observational rubric. You're allowed to idly theorize how you believe the universe functions on this sort of high metaphysical level, because science doesn't really have the tools to look into it right now. There's nothing wrong with it, and it's not TimeCube insanity. There are things in philosophy/spirituality whereof science cannot speak, and vice versa.
posted by naju at 12:16 PM on April 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
There's at least this in 2007, sixty years after the Harry Waton quote: Light and matter united. He may have gotten the details off, but you can slow down light, and you can convert light to matter, and vice versa. He had no way of knowing it, but he made the statement because he believed it to be true.
When absolute thought slows down, it becomes light
This is unverifiable with our current scientific methods. It's a metaphysical statement in nature (and I have no idea what thought slowing down could be, but it's a non-scientific statement in any case.) In fact, these are all metaphysical statements from a philosopher, one who is philosophically postulating that there's a connection between thought and the physical realm. It seems like you guys are willfully misunderstanding the nature of philosophy vs. the nature of science, to poke fun of something that doesn't fit into an observational rubric. You're allowed to idly theorize how you believe the universe functions on this sort of high metaphysical level, because science doesn't really have the tools to look into it right now. There's nothing wrong with it, and it's not TimeCube insanity. There are things in philosophy/spirituality whereof science cannot speak, and vice versa.
posted by naju at 12:16 PM on April 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
No, wait. Waton is making statements about actual chunks and properties of the universe, yes?
"Thought" would be tied up in storing, processing, and transmitting information, and similarly, you can't have consciousness without storing, processing, and transmitting information. If he and No Robots are saying that this can take place faster than the speed of light, I would bloody well expect real world consequences, like a lab rat sending nerve impulses around through this fucking superluminous ether rather than along slow (100 m/s) neurons, and storing memories in the "cloud" rather than wasting precious food energy storing stuff in neurons.
And there would be a host of other real world effects.
This shit is either coupled to the real world (e.g. brain tissue), and observable, or it isn't. Brain tissue either interacts with thought, mind, information, and consciousness or it doesn't.
And I'm pretty sure thought couples to brain.
Similarly, if everything is conscious, again, real world effects occur, and we'd see the fallout in evolutionary biology. e.g. thinking housebricks and telepathic housecats.
It seems like you guys are willfully misunderstanding the nature of philosophy vs. the nature of science, to poke fun of something that doesn't fit into an observational rubric.
Another interpretation is that New Agers uses the language of science as would a caddisfly larvae, but dodge and weave when you call them on it. "doesn't fit into a observational rubric" is functionally equivalent to saying "can neither be proved or disproved". Except then they turn around and make statements about physical stuff in the real world.
posted by sebastienbailard at 12:48 PM on April 11, 2014 [6 favorites]
"Thought" would be tied up in storing, processing, and transmitting information, and similarly, you can't have consciousness without storing, processing, and transmitting information. If he and No Robots are saying that this can take place faster than the speed of light, I would bloody well expect real world consequences, like a lab rat sending nerve impulses around through this fucking superluminous ether rather than along slow (100 m/s) neurons, and storing memories in the "cloud" rather than wasting precious food energy storing stuff in neurons.
And there would be a host of other real world effects.
This shit is either coupled to the real world (e.g. brain tissue), and observable, or it isn't. Brain tissue either interacts with thought, mind, information, and consciousness or it doesn't.
And I'm pretty sure thought couples to brain.
Similarly, if everything is conscious, again, real world effects occur, and we'd see the fallout in evolutionary biology. e.g. thinking housebricks and telepathic housecats.
It seems like you guys are willfully misunderstanding the nature of philosophy vs. the nature of science, to poke fun of something that doesn't fit into an observational rubric.
Another interpretation is that New Agers uses the language of science as would a caddisfly larvae, but dodge and weave when you call them on it. "doesn't fit into a observational rubric" is functionally equivalent to saying "can neither be proved or disproved". Except then they turn around and make statements about physical stuff in the real world.
posted by sebastienbailard at 12:48 PM on April 11, 2014 [6 favorites]
Also, separating philosophy from science is all fine and good but saying that a "community of free spirit" will be supplanting boring old materialism doesn't seem to reflect that ideal.
posted by brundlefly at 12:56 PM on April 11, 2014
posted by brundlefly at 12:56 PM on April 11, 2014
sebastianbailard, your wild expectations of real world sci-fi consequences are far more batshit than any statement from that quote. Positing that there's some connection (however unobservable to our senses) between consciousness and the material world doesn't necessarily mean that there are thinking housebricks, storing memories in a "cloud" or any other nonsense. Further, I don't believe science has actually made much or any headway into the problem of "the nature of consciousness", no matter how much you want to talk about brain tissue and observable phenomena. This is getting into the metaphysical and philosophical realm. This statement of yours is so telling: "Brain tissue either interacts with thought, mind, information, and consciousness or it doesn't." No, we have no idea how or whether brain tissue interacts with consciousness. Or at the least, this is the heart of a debate, for which there are entire fields of discourse. Some of them necessarily philosophical in nature, not scientific in nature. The entire monism / dualism / non-dualism question is something that science is more or less unequipped to handle as of now. I'm stunned that it's being forced into a very rigid framework by everyone here.
posted by naju at 1:10 PM on April 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by naju at 1:10 PM on April 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
Are we to the part where the various meanings of "information" get conflated yet? Because that's my favorite!
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 1:18 PM on April 11, 2014 [6 favorites]
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 1:18 PM on April 11, 2014 [6 favorites]
Am I the one doing the conflating, or is sebastianbailard? It's so hard to tell! But yes, there are definitely significant conceptual differences between brain, mind, thought, information, and consciousness, and it doesn't do anyone any favors to mix them up.
posted by naju at 1:20 PM on April 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by naju at 1:20 PM on April 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
After reading this thread, I know the sound of one brain melting.
posted by Camofrog at 1:26 PM on April 11, 2014
posted by Camofrog at 1:26 PM on April 11, 2014
I count myself as a rational materialist, by and large. As noted upthread, I dislike the impostures of much new age nonsense as predatory, wrongheaded and deceitful - and often aimed at extorting money whilst simultaneously posing as scientific, and also dismissing real science and scientists as conspiracy. This is nefarious and deserving of ridicule.
However, there is such a thing as a philosophical idealist stance, which is indeed within the realm of debate and not so easy to refute - at least until we have progressed further at approaching the so-called "hard problem" of consciousness. Within such a stance, such statements as "light is thought slowed down" are not necessarily ridiculous. If consciousness is primary, it is the source of all phenomena of perceptions of light and substance. So, in that sense, it works extraordinarily quickly to create all that we perceive. At least, that's how I'd interpret the statement.
As I say, I don't agree with this stance. However, I do think it is up for debate, and at least in principle separable from the sort of nonsense (the recent pseudoscientific claptrap that has been doing the rounds regarding the mystical properties of 432 Hz springs to mind), which seek to "blind with science", and fuddle those looking to cling to woo spiritual ideas.
I think it is worth separating one from the other, and recognising the limits to what is worthy of ridicule, and what is worthy of engaging in honest, good faith debate.
posted by iotic at 1:36 PM on April 11, 2014 [3 favorites]
However, there is such a thing as a philosophical idealist stance, which is indeed within the realm of debate and not so easy to refute - at least until we have progressed further at approaching the so-called "hard problem" of consciousness. Within such a stance, such statements as "light is thought slowed down" are not necessarily ridiculous. If consciousness is primary, it is the source of all phenomena of perceptions of light and substance. So, in that sense, it works extraordinarily quickly to create all that we perceive. At least, that's how I'd interpret the statement.
As I say, I don't agree with this stance. However, I do think it is up for debate, and at least in principle separable from the sort of nonsense (the recent pseudoscientific claptrap that has been doing the rounds regarding the mystical properties of 432 Hz springs to mind), which seek to "blind with science", and fuddle those looking to cling to woo spiritual ideas.
I think it is worth separating one from the other, and recognising the limits to what is worthy of ridicule, and what is worthy of engaging in honest, good faith debate.
posted by iotic at 1:36 PM on April 11, 2014 [3 favorites]
Obligatory: Web Economy Bullshit Generator. I've actually used this for corporate e-mails from time-to-time :)
posted by starscream at 3:34 PM on April 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by starscream at 3:34 PM on April 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
Am I the one doing the conflating, or is sebastianbailard? It's so hard to tell! But yes, there are definitely significant conceptual differences between brain, mind, thought, information, and consciousness, and it doesn't do anyone any favors to mix them up.
I agree entirely! I was pointing out there are dependencies between them: you can't have thought without storing, processing, or transmitting information, that we've observed our mind and consciousness are tied up with our brains, and the latter are made up of nerves which transmit information and require expensive food energy to keep running.
And so we have a hundred years of physics and biology which makes firm statements about this stuff and its consequences. And rules out other profound-seeming statements unless they're so vague we can't dig our teeth into them.
So when we look at the first part of
When absolute thought slows down, it becomes light; and, when light slows down, it becomes matter. Thus we see that light is only an intermediary state between absolute thought and matter.
This would seem to describe information being transmitted at faster than the speed of light, to the extent that the author intended it to mean something. Unless you're positing that we have thought without information, or some sort of absolute thought which is very different from day to day, brain-embedded thought.
The pithy quote really needs to be unpacked into a few sentences of plain english by one of its admirers, because it could just as likely regard the phenomena of perceptions of light and substance. More likely, perhaps.
As Sokal put it "When one analyzes these writings, one often finds radical-sounding assertions whose meaning is ambiguous, and which can be given two alternate readings: one as interesting, radical, and grossly false; the other as boring and trivially true."
posted by sebastienbailard at 8:38 PM on April 11, 2014 [4 favorites]
I agree entirely! I was pointing out there are dependencies between them: you can't have thought without storing, processing, or transmitting information, that we've observed our mind and consciousness are tied up with our brains, and the latter are made up of nerves which transmit information and require expensive food energy to keep running.
And so we have a hundred years of physics and biology which makes firm statements about this stuff and its consequences. And rules out other profound-seeming statements unless they're so vague we can't dig our teeth into them.
So when we look at the first part of
When absolute thought slows down, it becomes light; and, when light slows down, it becomes matter. Thus we see that light is only an intermediary state between absolute thought and matter.
This would seem to describe information being transmitted at faster than the speed of light, to the extent that the author intended it to mean something. Unless you're positing that we have thought without information, or some sort of absolute thought which is very different from day to day, brain-embedded thought.
The pithy quote really needs to be unpacked into a few sentences of plain english by one of its admirers, because it could just as likely regard the phenomena of perceptions of light and substance. More likely, perhaps.
As Sokal put it "When one analyzes these writings, one often finds radical-sounding assertions whose meaning is ambiguous, and which can be given two alternate readings: one as interesting, radical, and grossly false; the other as boring and trivially true."
posted by sebastienbailard at 8:38 PM on April 11, 2014 [4 favorites]
Scientists do not themselves like to examine the philosophical/spiritual implications of their findings, nor do they willingly countenance others doing so:
posted by No Robots at 6:09 AM on April 12, 2014
But woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you shut the kingdom of heaven against men, for you yourselves do not enter in; and those that are going in, you suffer not to enter.Despite the mockery and hatred of the science boosters, some brave souls do try to examine the philosophical/spiritual implications of science. Here, again, is Harry Waton:
All human evolution was in the direction of this absolute frame of reference. All sciences tended to become one science, all religions tended to become one religion, all philosophies tended to become one philosophy, all economic systems tended to become one economic system, and the whole human race tended to become one human society. This will continue until mankind will attain to the absolute frame of reference. The absolute frame of reference will not be something external to us, it will be the human mind itself. When mankind will attain to this absolute frame of reference, then they will see the truth, the truth will make them free, and they will realize their destiny. By negating all reality and abolishing all material frames of reference, science and relativity prepared the ground for the absolute frame of reference. We saw that, while science deals with time, space, matter, force, light, electricity, and so on, science does not comprehend them, and this for the reason that science begins in the middle of the story and ends in the middle of the story. It is therefore the task of the monistic philosophy —which starts with the absolute beginning and ends with the absolute beginning—to reveal the true nature of these ultimate realities.—A True monistic philosophy I, p. 94.By the way, the whole text available of Waton’s work is available online. Those who need the quotations that I have provided to be “unpacked” should perhaps start by reading the work itself.
posted by No Robots at 6:09 AM on April 12, 2014
No Robots, when you say scientists do not like to consider philosophy (clearly untrue - Russell, Gödel, Einstein are some counterexamples that come to mind and there plenty more), and speak of "science boosters", then you are not arguing in good faith, or with respect for those that disagree with you. That's a shame. I leave you to you proselytising.
posted by iotic at 6:47 AM on April 12, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by iotic at 6:47 AM on April 12, 2014 [2 favorites]
I notice you refer to scientists now departed. The fact is that there has been a remarkable decay in the spiritual/philosophic character of science:
posted by No Robots at 7:05 AM on April 12, 2014
The younger generation of physicists, the Feynmans, the Schwingers, etc., may be very bright; they may be more intelligent than their predecessors, than Bohr, Einstein, Schroedinger, Boltzmann, Mach and so on. But they are uncivilized savages, they lack in philosophical depth - and this is the fault of the very same idea of professionalism which you are now defending.--Paul FeyerabendThe decay has done nothing but deepen and widen since Feyerabend wrote these words.
posted by No Robots at 7:05 AM on April 12, 2014
Really? Seems like bull. Soon after the atomic bomb, a deep mistrust of science began to build. I bet we don't hear about the philosophical/spiritual dimension of science not because it isn't being discussed but because science and scientists aren't regarded as crazy cool anymore, and individual scientists can never get famous enough to have their work widely discussed, which is a shame.
posted by Quilford at 7:14 AM on April 12, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by Quilford at 7:14 AM on April 12, 2014 [3 favorites]
I know, maan. It's totally harshing my chakras.
My barely adequate psychic defenses are crumbling.
posted by MartinWisse at 7:22 AM on April 12, 2014
My barely adequate psychic defenses are crumbling.
posted by MartinWisse at 7:22 AM on April 12, 2014
Despite the mockery and hatred of the science boosters, some brave souls do try to examine the philosophical/spiritual implications of science.
So...just so we're clear, that's still a "no" on your being able to provide a shred of supporting argument for any of the claims you've advanced in this thread, right?
posted by yoink at 1:47 PM on April 12, 2014 [2 favorites]
So...just so we're clear, that's still a "no" on your being able to provide a shred of supporting argument for any of the claims you've advanced in this thread, right?
posted by yoink at 1:47 PM on April 12, 2014 [2 favorites]
Are we to the part where the various meanings of "information" get conflated yet? Because that's my favorite!
"Information" means condensing matter into thought, mind, and consciousness.
posted by Golden Eternity at 3:09 PM on April 12, 2014
"Information" means condensing matter into thought, mind, and consciousness.
posted by Golden Eternity at 3:09 PM on April 12, 2014
I'm sorry, did I say "information"? I meant "Informer", by Snow.
posted by Sticherbeast at 3:35 PM on April 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by Sticherbeast at 3:35 PM on April 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
« Older No. No, no, no, and no. | HOW THE WOMAN GOT HER PERIOD Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by edheil at 1:17 PM on April 10, 2014 [7 favorites]