Conferences Not To Go To

This week in Santa Fe there’s the International Conference on Science and Consciousness, where Michio Kaku will be giving a keynote address. He’ll explain how “Many physicists today believe in the multiverse, i.e. Genesis is constantly taking place in a timeless ocean of Nirvana, creating Big Bangs even as you read this sentence” and will tell about experiments to confirm the multiverse theory. He’s also running a workshop at the conference on “Visualizing Higher Dimensions” in which you can learn about how to capture different planes of existence (connected by wormholes) in simple pictures. His fellow speakers include Gary Schwartz, Ph.D. who will explain how new experiments involving deceased parapsychologists and Princess Diana provide evidence for life after death, Steven Greer, M.D. who “has taken teams around the world to make contact with Extraterrestrial Lifeforms”, and a host of others. Kaku is also interviewed in this week’s New Scientist, where he explains that the Standard Model is “supremely ugly” and string theory is “gorgeous”.

This fall the Metanexus Institute, which is somehow part of the Templeton Foundation will be organizing a symposium honoring Charles Townes called Amazing Light: Visions for Discovery at which the Templeton Foundation will be announcing a “multi-million dollar, multi-year effort to catalyze research and dialogue at the boundaries of physics and cosmology” called Foundational Questions in Physics and Cosmology. Not clear exactly what this will be funding, but if you check the Templeton website you’ll find that “we do not support what might be called standard or mainstream science research”, so at least it won’t be any of that. In case you’re having trouble keeping them straight, this is real, this is a joke.

If you’re wondering how Templeton has convinced 18 Nobel Prize winners to attend, Sean Carroll has a very interesting posting explaining how he decided to pass up the \$8000 + expenses he could have made by speaking at this conference. Also if you’re wondering why Templeton gave Townes a \$1.4 million prize this year, you can read his remarks upon accepting it, where he explains that “Increasingly, science is showing how special our universe and we are, which has raised questions about whether it was indeed planned or influenced.”

In other news, Susskind seems to have ruined his chances at the \$1.4 million today. In his talk at Brown, according to Daniel Doro Ferrante he “repudiated any connections with Intelligent Design”.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

59 Responses to Conferences Not To Go To

  1. Juan R. says:

    Two comments,

    I would say canonical gravitodynamics for no confusion with canonical quantum gravity that is other thing.

    The concept of curvature is ambiguous in application of GR. Please remember that newtonian gravity is a consistent theory of gravity working on flat space.

    Remember also standard conformal transformations on cosmology. Perhaps the concept of curvature of GR is just a calculation procedure valid in some situations, somewhat like one can obtain a flat Mk -type metric for the universe from conformal transformations. This last discussion is still speculative. I continue to research.

  2. Juan R. says:

    Thanks drl

    Of course, perhaps I am wrong, but it is highly improbable. Only a “cosmic fluctuation” could do that I obtain the correct values for those relativistic values more the correct Newtonian limit from canonical gravity.

    You would be highly skeptical of my work, i understand that, but please be also of standard well-accepted theories.

    For example, recently it has been demonstrated (Phys Rev E) that usual LW potentials of electrodynamics does not verify Maxwell equations and therefore all computation based in LW are Maxwell violating ones!

    Curiosly canonical electrodynamics predicts that failure. Another coincidence?

    A crucial question for you.

    Who said that there is no tensors on canonical gravity?

    However, “complete” tensor calculus is not necesary for both light deflection and perihelion.

    In fact, the derived standard GR formulas for computing light deflection and perihelion anomaly are non tensorial, are scalars ones based in scalar magnitudes like M, R, e, G, and p.

  3. D R Lunsford says:

    The value of the light deflection and the sign and value of the perihelion precession force one to make a tensor theory, and curvature is inevitable. There is no way out of this.

    -drl

  4. Juan R. says:

    If this is of interest here, I have finisihed my research on GR.

    Effectively, I can derive well-know experimental phenomena from a new theory of gravitation on flat space.

    Next, some of experimental data explained from canonical gravity:

    – Mercury anomalous perihelion.
    – Light deflection.
    – Radar time delay
    – Redshifts

    Moreover, the theory corrects the conceptual and thecnical problems of Einstein GR and can be quantized!!

    More details will be shown on the non-technical paper (on strings) quoted below. Technical details will be shown in papers.

    Thanks

  5. Juan R. says:

    Tom

    Thanks by your reply but I thik that are misunderstanding the point.

    My criticism is not conceptual, string theory formulas do not work. That will be shown in papers.

    I am not talking about toy models (e.g. cosmological 4D branes, idealized models for blackc holes, etc.) I am saiyng that complete string theory framework is wrong.

    I am not talking about fine-tunning of a almost good theory I am talking about a bad TOE. string theory is a waste of time. They will not work. It is not a problem for adjust one or two parameters or add a new correction to usual equations. All the framework is outdated!

    Moreover, when string theorists talked about Calaby-Yau they really thought that was the geometry of universe. When Scwartz talks about unitary he is not talking about a toy model. He is talking about string theory.

    “1) no-one has written down a Lagrangian for M-theory”

    Of course, it does not exist. Even I doubt that exists a hamiltonian for M-theory!

    “2) compactification has to be done by hand
    But they believe that the flaws/holes can be fixed.”

    If compactification is done by hand then the derivation of GR from string theory is just the modification of string theory for adequately it for obtaining the correct reply (known before string theory): GR. This is not a derivation for a theoretical scientist I am.

    “This just shows that only referring to popular scientific books is not good enough.”

    The ideas below my paper is not referring to popular literature are refering to string literature.

    “Yes, I still say that no string theorist says that they have the right theory.”

    I’m sorry to say this but your statement is not honest and contrasts with own Greene statement opening my “paper”: “String theory continues to show ever increasing signs of being the correct approach to understanding nature at its most fundamental level.”

    I show that string theory is not fundamental.

    Yes it’s like a photographer. One taking pictures of a dog and attemp to convince you that it is a car!! 🙂

    It is not true that basic concepts like extended objects and extra dimensions remain in all string literature. It is not fine-tuning of almost good theory, it is a disaster.

    In fact, some people claim that correct theory may based in poitlike particles (graviton, string are derived like aproximated concepts). Others claim that there is no extradimensions, and we are mising 4D versions of string theory!!

    “Again, misinterpretation. GR will still be a very very good model of gravity and very helpful in studying large scale behaviour of the universe. Even if there are some new experiments contradicting GR, they would be very small correction to GR. And actually everyone believes that GR will break down at small scales.”

    No!! you are completely wrong!

    I am not talking about Planck scale modification of GR or similar. I am talking about the complete failure of GR like a theory of gravitation even in solar or cosmological scales. I am not talking about fine tuning of GR (that is an action with GR more corrections terms). I am talking about the failure of the concept of GR. E.g. the idea of that gravitation is not delayed, the idea of there is not gravitational fields, the idea of that curvature is not gravitation, the idea of Lorentz forces do not exist, etc.

    Almost all of this has been proved and now I am working in experimental tests. This is fascinating!!

  6. Juan R. says:

    Chris thanks by your comment on code. I used style code for the post but forgot to use it for the link itself.

    I’m sorry.

    “TOM”, this demonstrates that I am not so intelligent as you believed 🙂

    Suggestion: to use the attribute target=_blank, in the link for opening a new browser window. I do not check it still in this blog but I am checking now.

    Renormalisation, and the log jam in modern quantum field theory

    Canonical science project

    An error (another? This guy…). The lower limit recently estimated for the speed of gravitational interactions is not I wrote. It is of the order 10^10 c. Since Brian Greene, as the rest of CST (crackpot-string-theorists), says us in his “Elegant” that gravitational interactions between Sun and Earth travel at c I wonder how anyone with so incorrect understanding of physical reality can be so arrogant.

  7. Anonymous says:

    What consciousness conference would be complete without… JackTheQuack

  8. Quantoken says:

    Some said: “Gavin Esler talks to Michio Kaku, one of the world’s leading experts in theoretical physics, about the prospect that the world will end in a ‘Big Freeze’ and the possibility of organizing an ‘exit strategy’ from planet earth.”

    Wow, I never thought about that:-) So what are their proposed salvation plan for the earth?

    Maybe they should attach the ends of some strings to galaxies to prevent them from flying away. No, not the 25 pounds cheap fishing strings bought from Wal-Mart. That breaks too easily.

    What we need to tire galaxies together is the SUPER STRING, something that is safe, permanently safe, so it could never fail and never break. How could it ever break if there are 10^500 of them? 🙂

    Super String Saves the World. WOW! They probably should put that in their research funding proposals 🙂

    Quantoken

  9. Tom says:

    Dear Juan,

    >>> “it just shows a complete misunderstanding of what is really going on.” It is easy talk, please (if you desire) demonstrate your words quoting real papers.

    I dont need to quote papers. I only need to put forward arguments.

    As I said you often make factually correct statements, but your interpretation of them in relation to every thing else is not correct. You constantly make subtle to moderate misinterpretations, which then lead to a complete misunderstanding of the area. AGAIN, you need to do physics formula by formula for a few years, just looking at the conceptual arguments is not enough. Remember the pope! 🙂

    For example, in your non-technical paper, you say that there are too many models etc. Yes, but they are just toy models, and not realistic models. As I said “string theory” is more of a research program, where often theorists are creating simpler versions of the realistic model they really like to solve and play around with it. You often misinterpret them as the real models.

    > I do not find “String theory is full of flaws” on my copies of CERN seminars, talks, papers, magazine reports (e.g. above quoted by Peter) or books (e.g. The elegant Universe)

    Every “string theorist” would agree e.g. that
    1) no-one has written down a Lagrangian for M-theory
    2) compactification has to be done by hand
    But they believe that the flaws/holes can be fixed.

    And, for that matter, I had lunch with Brian Greene (Elegant Universe) in Erice five years ago and I proofread the German version of his book for him. He readily admitted that there are several open issues but that they could be fixed… And so did Michael Green and Mike Duff.

    This just shows that only referring to popular scientific books is not good enough.

    > If you state that no string theorist would claim to have the right theory is that you have not read string literature.

    Yes, I still say that no string theorist says that they have the right theory. But they claim that they can make the string idea into a workable theory for unification.

    >>> But even your words sound like “don’t worry if 90% of string garbage is wrong because you can call string theory to everything you do.” Also canonical science? Everything will be called string theory?

    No, it’s like a photographer. You take hundreds of pictures and take the one that fits. Same here, theorists are playing around to find the right models. But a subset (the string theorists) is led by concepts like extended objects and extra dimensions.

    >>>Of course, there is NO unification even if GR in its actual status were correct. Recent experiments (by real people working in real 4D word and publishing in real journals not in ArXiv) suggest that gravitation velocity is bounded by 10^8 c invalidating “archaic” Einstein’s thinking.

    Again, misinterpretation. GR will still be a very very good model of gravity and very helpful in studying large scale behaviour of the universe. Even if there are some new experiments contradicting GR, they would be very small correction to GR. And actually everyone believes that GR will break down at small scales.

    Tom

  10. Anonymous says:

    Michio Kaku today on BBC World:

    19:30 HARDtalk Extra (r)
    Michio Kaku
    Gavin Esler talks to Michio Kaku, one of the world’s leading experts in theoretical physics, about the prospect that the world will end in a ‘Big Freeze’ and the possibility of organizing an ‘exit strategy’ from planet earth.

  11. Juan R. says:

    To all “blogers”

    Do you see some strong failure on my ideas? Of course, I am sure of that will do errors, but it is difficult for a scientist see his/her own errors. Help?

    To “”

    “Hmm in page 12 a strange kink to chemistry is done. Alchemy somewhere around?”

    Please define Alchemy.

    My appeal to chemistry on page 12 means that if S. Weinberg has no idea of the implication of his own field of QWD for chemistry, how can he have idea of other fields of science that he newer studied? The problem with Weinberg is double:

    – 1) He needs demonstrate that exists the TOE and we are close to it. Therefore he needs say that all of chemistry is already known.

    – 2) He talk in popular media. I have no problem if Weinberg says barbage on Phys. Rew or in his own specialized manual on QFT because readers are scientist and can verify he says. THE PROBLEM is that Weimberg says garbage on popular media. So many policy makers retire funding to chemistry because Weinberg says thah all is already known? So many young students are leaving the field for more glamorous fields like string theory thanks to him?

    Of course Weimberg idea of all of chemistry is studied with electrostatic interactions more QM is a complete garbage. Theoretical chemists say that in their papers and reviews but no in popular media.

    Dear “TOM”

    I am perplexed by your “high-quality” reply.

    “I doubt anyone will endorse your “paper”.”

    First, it is not a paper, it is a nontechnical work. In fact I submited it to pop-phys category 🙂 Don’t worry if it is not endorsed. He is just a popular magazine work.

    Tecnical work cannot be contained on a single paper and will be published elsewhere. Around 20-30 papers * 25 pages per one = —-. I leave you this difficult computation. Note: can use renormalization tricks.

    “it just shows a complete misunderstanding of what is really going on.”

    It is easy talk, please (if you desire) demonstrate your words quoting real papers.

    You say: “String theory is not yet a scientific theory as such (and as a consequence full of flaws) but a research program led by ideas like extended objects like strings instead of particles, or extra dimensions, etc.”

    I do not find “String theory is full of flaws” on my copies of CERN seminars, talks, papers, magazine reports (e.g. above quoted by Peter) or books (e.g. The elegant Universe)

    But even your words sound like “don’t worry if 90% of string garbage is wrong because you can call string theory to everything you do.” Also canonical science? Everything will be called string theory?

    The idea of extradimensions is wrong because it arises directly from consistency (taquions, etc.) of basic string equation. Since basic string equation is wrong, (even is wrong the idea of a classical manifold R4, Calabi-Yau, G2, etc.) the extradimensions are not here!!

    The idea of extended object is good but “like string” is also wrong. In fact, it is wrong the idea of branes including a theory of pointlike particles on 11D like Banks suggests.

    I think (sincerely) either you have a distorted idea of real status of string theory or you are doing joke.

    If you state that no string theorist would claim to have the right theory is that you have not read string literature.

    As said, the idea of that “string theory” is the way forward to unifying QFT and gravity may be a joke. A joke during more than 30 years!!

    Of course, there is NO unification even if GR in its actual status were correct. Recent experiments (by real people working in real 4D word and publishing in real journals not in ArXiv) suggest that gravitation velocity is bounded by 10^8 c invalidating “archaic” Einstein’s thinking.

    I continue working durely in this fascinating topic. Yesterday, I discovered that one well-known equation used by experimentalists for extragalactic dynamics (they do NOT use standard GR because don’t work) can be derived like a special case of the canonical gravitation. Whow!!

    I don’t think that I have quantized gravitation satisfactory, but the distance between real equations I derive, which are used in real experiments, and the garbage, conjetures, bad mathematics, etc. used by “string theorists” and without link with nothing (even there is no real link with GR) looks your appeal to Pope and sex.

    I agree with your three last points.

  12. Anonymous says:

    Kaku waxes poetic because he is following his passion and he lives for the glimpses of beauty that his researches allow him to behold.

    You mean he’s gay, too… ?

  13. Alejandro says:

    The paragraph below defies my understanding of English. It seems than on one side it is critiquing people who effortlessly uses others’ work, but on other side it is welcoming the possibility of effortlessly using other’s work, from Aliens or even from G-d Himself. Is it?

    Funny that the same people that put down the efforts of others without themselves producing any significant work, are also the people so afraid of any challenges to their little materialist bubble that all they can do is sneer and scoff when mention is made of things like aliens, homeopathy, prayer, consciousness, etc.

  14. D R Lunsford says:

    How’s the dihydrogen oxide escribio:

    Kaku waxes poetic because he is following his passion and he lives for the glimpses of beauty that his researches allow him to behold.

    It’s not “poetic”, it’s self-indulgent crap designed to pump up his own inflated ego – he’s in denial because he doesn’t get it. Dirac is poetic.

    On this blog, instead, the talk is all about putting others down, denigrating ideas that are daring and challenging, being petty. Little minds that dont seem to be finding much beauty or inspiration splurting sour grape juice at those who are.

    We’re venting, because we’re pissed off to see the thing we love debased by these charlatans.

    You dont like string theory? You think it sucks? Well, lets see your theory that does better.

    http://cdsweb.cern.ch/search.py?recid=688763&ln=en

    You think Steven Greer is a loony? Maybe he is, but have you seen the Disclosure Project material, testimony by dozens of retired military and intelligence officers, FAA officials, and military and civilian aviation experts and pilots, all willing to take an oath before congressional hearings as to their knowledge of the extraterrestrial presence and our government’s cover-up of their involvement in it? Have you heard of or read the COMETA report put out in France in 1999 by a panel of high ranking military and scientists concerning UFOs and the implications of a possible extraterrestrial presence?

    Speaks for itself.

    Funny that the same people that put down the efforts of others without themselves producing any significant work, are also the people so afraid of any challenges to their little materialist bubble that all they can do is sneer and scoff when mention is made of things like aliens, homeopathy, prayer, consciousness, etc.

    Palliatives for the frightened mole.

    Yes, there is more in heaven and earth than is dreamt of in any of our philosophies. I suppose the great divide is between those who recognize this and are actually excited by it, and those who react to this idea with fear.

    The alien-mongers and water-talkers are the ones who are afraid.

    I for one find the possible confluence of this new “Landscape” thingy, many worlds quantum interpretations, and the age old recognition of the existence of other dimensions and other consciousnesses found in many indigenous religions and philosophies, very exciting.

    What’s the moment of inertia of thin disc about its symmetry axis? I thought so.

    I’d like to read more here about what others find exciting, not just what they think sucks and are afraid of because it threatens their world-view.

    I’d like to see my science get back its self-respect, and for the sensationalist carnival barkers to STFU.

    -drl

  15. Como el Agua says:

    Reading the essay by Michio Kaku that is linked to from this latest blog entry, I was struck by the contrast between his writing and the kind of writing found here.

    Kaku waxes poetic because he is following his passion and he lives for the glimpses of beauty that his researches allow him to behold.

    On this blog, instead, the talk is all about putting others down, denigrating ideas that are daring and challenging, being petty. Little minds that dont seem to be finding much beauty or inspiration splurting sour grape juice at those who are.

    You dont like string theory? You think it sucks? Well, lets see your theory that does better.

    You think Steven Greer is a loony? Maybe he is, but have you seen the Disclosure Project material, testimony by dozens of retired military and intelligence officers, FAA officials, and military and civilian aviation experts and pilots, all willing to take an oath before congressional hearings as to their knowledge of the extraterrestrial presence and our government’s cover-up of their involvement in it? Have you heard of or read the COMETA report put out in France in 1999 by a panel of high ranking military and scientists concerning UFOs and the implications of a possible extraterrestrial presence?

    Funny that the same people that put down the efforts of others without themselves producing any significant work, are also the people so afraid of any challenges to their little materialist bubble that all they can do is sneer and scoff when mention is made of things like aliens, homeopathy, prayer, consciousness, etc.

    Yes, there is more in heaven and earth than is dreamt of in any of our philosophies. I suppose the great divide is between those who recognize this and are actually excited by it, and those who react to this idea with fear.

    I for one find the possible confluence of this new “Landscape” thingy, many worlds quantum interpretations, and the age old recognition of the existence of other dimensions and other consciousnesses found in many indigenous religions and philosophies, very exciting.

    I’d like to read more here about what others find exciting, not just what they think sucks and are afraid of because it threatens their world-view.

  16. L.E.J. Brouwer says:

    I must say I was pleasantly surprised with the delightful topics being presented at this conference until I stumbled across the photographs displaying the dreadful physical condition of the contributers.

    I have now surmised that they are all meat eating algebraists of the worst degree, unworthy, of further consideration.

    Tow,

    L.E.J.

  17. Torbjorn Larsson says:

    Tom:
    Your clarification is clear. However, I think responsiveness is redundant in your list.

    “You think that my examples are useless, because you think that consciousness is only awareness and self-identity, which indeed can be at least in theory programmed.”

    No. As you, I don’t have a ready definition. The definition I used was how I understood yours. I think your examples are useless since you ask what functions, including consciousness, will be observed by replacing with a functionally identical part.

    About consciousness in non-humans: Imagine a biological, mechanical or whatever species visiting. It would be rude and conflict creating to suggest to them that we had a monopoly on consciousness.

    If they act and describe themselves as conscious, we must accept that. Regardless of details like that they don’t see colors, dream, hurt or such minor differences. It is a different consciousness, but it is consciousness.

    If any couple of computers that we make start to act like this, they will be conscious by definition.

  18. Chris Oakley says:

    Dear Anonymous,

    As it happens, for me, writing software for investment banks comes a poor second as a career choice to doing quantum field theory research, but I had no choice other than to leave. No-one in authority seemed to like being reminded of the fact that their subject had roots about as substantial as Birnham Wood. I got tired of arguing, and they got tired of listening to me. Nothing much has changed in the subject in twenty years except that the fad that I thought would lead nowhere (String theory) actually has led nowhere. It seems that it is alright to be wrong, provided that you are part of a large team that is wrong. I could ignore it, but I choose not to as, like Peter, I actually care about the subject and find it offensive that custodians of such a valuable and important part of human knowledge should discard the principles of scientific investigation so lightly.

  19. D R Lunsford says:

    Chris O – ROFL!

    “The Message from Water” – So does the hydrogen speak 66% of the time, or the oxygen 89%? And is heavy water more boring?

    That reminded me of a New Yorker cartoon. Two toga-clad academics are standing at the blackboard, on which is written “AIR EARTH FIRE WATER”. One of them gesticulates at the four words and states excitedly – “What do you MEAN it’s a good start? That’s all there is!”

    -drl

  20. Anonymous says:

    Chris Oakley-

    I notice from your site that you basically work helping rich people get richer and further skew the distribution of wealth on the planet. Kudos on your fine humanitarian work.

    The majority of the people on the page you take such pains to point to disparagingly are involved in exploring the frontiers of knowledge and helping people heal and grow.

    Funny that one such as you should so stridently make fun of ones such as them. Perhaps deep down you realize how shallow your work is, and thus seeing those folks pushes a few of your buttons?

  21. Chris Oakley says:

    OK – just so that you know, here’s how you put a link to a web page in the comments section here:
    <a href=”http://bizspirit.com/science/sspeakers.html”>Enter the wonderful world of pseudo-scientific bullshit</a>

    Which appears as

    Enter the wonderful world of pseudo-scientific bullshit

    which you can of course click on to take you there.

  22. Anonymous says:

    http://www.canonical.chemicalforums.com/stringcriticism.pdf

    Hmm in page 12 a strange kink to chemistry is done. Alchemy somewhere around?

  23. Tom says:

    To Pope Juan,

    I doubt anyone will endorse your “paper”.

    Your statements might sometimes in itself be factually correct, but it just shows a complete misunderstanding of what is really going on. You are clearly intelligent, but you remind me of the pope talking about sex. You wont get it until you go through the motions i.e. spending several years doing physics formula by formula.

    String theory is not yet a scientific theory as such (and as a consequence full of flaws) but a research program led by ideas like extended objects like strings instead of particles, or extra dimensions, etc. I am not a “string theorist” myself, but I would claim that no “string theorist” would claim to have the right theory, but they all claim that that’s the way forward to unifying QFT and gravity.

    The only thing I am a bit uncomfortable with is.
    1) Too many permanent posts are being filled by “string theorists”.
    2) Too many PhDs in string theory, provoking a drain brain, leaving them unemployed (too few postdocs), and sometimes depriving bright people from a satisfactory career in other areas.
    3) Too much publicity, which then leads to complete misunderstanding by the public on the subject.

    Tom

  24. Juan R. says:

    For a point of view contrary to Kaku and why string theory is already outdated
    see

    http://www.canonical.chemicalforums.com/stringcriticism.pdf

    This nontechnical article has been submited to ArXiv. I am waiting for endorsement.

  25. Anonymous says:

    Unemployed Parapsychologist,

    Blackmore’s book “Consciousness: Introduction” is a textbook discussing the pro&cons of different views on many different aspects of consciousness, and not a description of her own views.

    But I do like the ideas of memes.

    Tom

  26. Anonymous says:

    “… more adventurous minds.”

    http://bizspirit.com/science/sspeakers.html

    Inspirational note for David Duval. There is falling really hard and then there is…KAKU

  27. Unemployed Parapsychologist says:

    Tom,

    I think I can save everyone the bother of buying Ms. Blackmore’s book…she states her position quite eloquently in her latest book on memes:

    “The next chapter takes up the ancient questions as to what constitutes the self and consciousness. After a brief review of some of the current theories on the matter, Blackmore proposes her own idea: that consciousness or self is a memeplex: an agglomeration of countless memes which survive best as a group. If you call this a soul, you are being religious and that is bad. But call it selfplex, and you are talking science. The selfplex is formed by the coming together of so many memes which “form a self-organizing, self-protecting structure that welcomes and protects other memes that are compatible with the group, and repels memes that are not (p. 231).” We are not just a bunch of neurons, she reminds us, we are “a pack of memes too (p.235).” ”

    And check out the chapter entitled “An orgasm saved my life”. Very scientific indeed.

    http://www.metanexus.net/metanexus_online/show_article.asp?3056

    Susan Blackmore — Stopped lecturing and abandoned parapsychology altogether, because she could no longer endure the near fanatic and rude behavior of both believers and non-believers.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parapsychology

    …headin down to the memeplex to buy a case of beer and a pack of memes

  28. Anonymous says:

    “Aperion” showed his ass by blithering:

    “I don’t think I’ve ever seen a bigger collection of freaks, hucksters, lamiacs, charlatans and deviants than the hit-parade of losers on tap at the Consciousness Conference. Where are are the vitamin and juicer pitchmen and the no-money-down people when you need them? At least they drive expensive cars and are much better looking.”

    Another example of a post by someone who no doubt has contributed little or nothing to humanity heaping invective upon more adventurous minds.

    Please do us all a favor and immediately stop taking vitamins and vegetable juices, so your self loathing will be inflicted upon us for a lesser amount of time.

    thanks.

  29. Apeiron says:

    I don’t think I’ve ever seen a bigger collection of freaks, hucksters, lamiacs, charlatans and deviants than the hit-parade of losers on tap at the Consciousness Conference. Where are are the vitamin and juicer pitchmen and the no-money-down people when you need them? At least they drive expensive cars and are much better looking.

    Is that an intemperate or insensitive comment?

    Tough shit.

  30. Chris Oakley says:

    Most HEP theorists today will happily “bend over and spread their legs” for whoever pays their bills.

    I really doubt that that is true. No-one paying the bills would have agreed to dozens of their hirelings going off on a crazy tangent for decades.

  31. Not a Nobel Laureate says:

    Most HEP theorists today will happiliy “bend over and spread their legs” for whoever pays their bills.

    So whoring at the Templeton Foundation comes as no surprise.

  32. island says:

    People put too much stock in what consciousness is about, since it essentially just enables a level of comparitive uniqueness when it comes to our contribution to the entropy of the universe.

    Local increases in complexity and order necessarily equate to increases in the potential for disorder in an expanding universe, and this effect gets compounded as negative pressure increases to bring about emergent properties that enable the system to pay back the ever incresing entropic debt.

    Our unmatched ability to process information and isolate the release of enough energy to directly affect the symmetry of our universe defines good physical reason why the expanding universe would “need” us into existence via the isolation of its forces, especially if the negative pressure component is increasing.

    I agree with disgusted, string theroy utter bullshit, but I also think that everybody is so stuck on the either/or mentality of chaos vs. god that they can’t see the REAL importance of the most predominant freaking physical need in our universe.

    The whole fanatical world is not even wrong…

  33. Anonymous says:

    To Torbjorn,

    I dont claim to actually have a definition for consciousness, as I dont know what it exactly is or whether it even is (like aether or elan vital).

    I only want to clarify that by consciousness I dont mean responsiveness (i.e. being not unconscious), awareness (i.e. being conscious of something) or self-identity (i.e. knowing to be an entity). But rather what is left, what some call first-person experience, qualia, sentience. Someone can still have a conscious experience without being either responsive (lost all control of body), aware (of outside events), or self-conscious (some states of meditation)?

    You think that my examples are useless, because you think that consciousness is only awareness and self-identity, which indeed can be at least in theory programmed.

    Of course, computer might behave like us but are they mimicking us functionally or really experience like us i.e. “is there anyone home?”

    All my examples are trivial if you believe that a standard computer can be conscious by just running the right software. But here I would quote you by saying “examples are useless since you can’t make them work.” Unless you implement the computer like a brain maybe?? 😉

    Tom

  34. Thomas Larsson says:

    I still think that it is instructive to compare string theory to aether theory, because the parallels are so obvious. All the cool and smart people worked on these theories for decades, arguably with one successful physical prediction (electromagnetic waves/gravity), and they definitely led to some mathematical progress. However, both theories were eventually slain because one necessary thing was not observed (aether wind/low-energy supersymmetry), and one impossible thing was indeed observed (photoelectric effect/positive cosmological constant).

    Does this mean that string theory is wrong? Perhaps it is aether theory that is not even wrong; in a sense, it was resurrected in the form of cosmic microwave background radiation.

  35. big bang says:

    completely disgusting.

  36. Anonymous says:

    Is a theory that cant be proved right automatically (even) wrong?
    I mean, if there is not a single experiment which can totally disproof the theory but nevertheless the theory predicts possible outcomes which might be realized in nature, is that science?
    I have myself an answer for that question, but I wonder, we might have reached a point where perhaps many possible outcomes are allowed and we just happen to live in one of them.
    That’s not totally rubbish, and even though I dont like the uses of the anthropic principle and the landscape I wonder myself whether or not a GUT (something that I dislike too) could even make sense or not and what can we infer about the universe in either case. I do believe that philosophy is important for science, and asking deep questions have led us into new roads of understanding. I used to have discussions with historians, if what they do could be called ‘Science’. If doing forensic studies and retrodiction is equivalent to predicting things. Certainly we can sort of disproof theories by an incorrect account of known results, but can we affirm their theory is ‘correct’ if leads consistently to what has been seen?
    I myself spare my time between deep questions and hardcore science. I do believe that a real scientist should ‘tink a little’ about foundational issues once in while….after tenure preferably 🙂

    best regards,
    N

  37. Torbjorn Larsson says:

    Tom, to clarify: _all_ your examples are useless.

    They amount to ask: “If one changes a part to a functional equivalent, will one see a functional difference?”

    Computer conscioussness can however be given an operational definition, as stated.

  38. Torbjorn Larsson says:

    Tom: Conscioussness is (still) badly defined in general, and by you in particular. Your ‘mental world’ seems like awareness and selfidentity.

    These things are observed in higher animals and humans. How do I know another person is conscious? I know I am, I observe them to behave like that and they describe themselves to be. One day computers will likely do the same to each other; they are then equivalently conscious as we are.

    The other examples are useless since you can’t make them work. They amount to asking “If I replace the Sun with an identical sun without you noticing it, will you notice it?”

  39. Tom Weidig says:

    To Travis,

    I think consciousness is not as conceptually straightforward as you might think. Awareness and Self-identify seems acceptable to be created by the neuronal firing, but first-person experience (our mental world) seems very different.

    Here are a few questions:

    if you could duplicate the brain functionally on a computer, would the computer be conscious (in the sense of having an “inner life” or first-person experience)?

    what if I train all Chinese to simulate the brain functionally like the computer, would there be a consciousness different to the billions of Chinese spread across China?

    Suppose I step-by-step replace your brain with chips simulating each a neuron, will you loose your consciousness?

    If I clone you physically identical, are there two yourselfs??

    Buy the textbook, it’s worth reading. As I said before, I dont know what to think, but it’s certainly more intriguing than you think it is.

    Tom

  40. Disgusted says:

    I guess the string nuts must already be chomping at the bit:

    “it is clear that consciousness is equivalent to the abstract patterns formed by firing neurons and their dendrite connections in the brain”

    to join the ranks of consciousness (whatever that is) “scientists” when their own funding dries up.

    Should be good for another 20 years of worthless speculation and philosophy while avoiding real-world accountability.

  41. Peter Woit says:

    Hi Travis,

    My comment about Susskind in this posting wasn’t a criticism at all. It sounds like he was doing the right thing and disavowing any support for “Intelligent Design”. When I said that by doing this he “ruined his chances at the $1.4 million”, that was meant as a compliment. I think his behavior in pushing the landscape pseudo-science has been outrageous, but I never thought he was an Intelligent Designer and never accused him of this (OK, on April Fool’s day, as a joke, I kind of implied it…..)

    You and lots of others keep talking about predictions of Arkani-Hamed and Dimopoulos derived from the landscape and how they’ll be testable before long. I’ve read their papers and see nothing there that looks like anything I would call a “prediction”. I’ll ask you the same question that I keep asking everyone who says this. Give me a prediction that they derive from the landscape (and a real prediction, one that if it is wrong, the landscape scenario is wrong), and tell me whether it is testable at LHC energies. If it isn’t what energy is required? If it is, how much integrated luminosity will be required to falsify their prediction and show that the landscape is wrong?

  42. Speaking a staunch atheist, I think the comment on Lenny was a cheap shot. There is an enormous difference between the landscape (it is certainly possible that chaotic inflation produces many different stable string vacua – and hopefully testable before too long along the lines of Savas & Nima…), and all of the obviously false religious/supernatural non-explanations. Of course Lenny doesn’t have any connection with ID just because he finds the landscape intriguing – so do I – and it is disingenuous to imply otherwise.

    Hi Tom – I also think that it is clear that consciousness is equivalent to the abstract patterns formed by firing neurons and their dendrite connections in the brain. And it works in the classical limit – each neuron adds up all the excitatory and inhibitory impulses and if the sum crosses a threshold then it fires too and so forth (and the Penrose stuff is crazy – the Chinese room and Godel arguments against classical AI are obviously wrong, and the decoherence time is tiny). Of course, more precise detail would be great (so that, say, you could study the topology of the connected graph that gives rise to the sensation of red and so on). In the end, consciousness will be nothing more than a (very interesting) subset of neuro & computer science.

  43. João Carlos says:

    I remember reading a science fiction story many years ago about a society which had highly advanced technology, but had lost the capacity to understand that technology scientifically and instead had shrouded the technology in religious mysticism. Could have been by Asimov, I’m not sure. Anyways, perhaps that’s where we are headed.
    Isaac Asimov’s Foundation.

  44. João Carlos says:

    Well… I’m religious, I’m mystic, I’m a credulous person, and I happen to know Göddel’s Theorem. Trying to meddle religous beliefs with science is stupid! Faiht and science are opposites! Anyone who disagrees may email me. I’ve got a lot of gold bricks to sell…

  45. JC says:

    Anybody know where some of these pseudo/anti-science attitudes in America came from (whether government decreed or a general societal mentality)?

    Only widespread case of a government and/or societal censure of a science in recent times that I can think of offhand, would perhaps be during Nazi times in Germany where various government decrees attempted to ban all “jewish physics” like relativity, quantum mechanics, etc ….

  46. Anonymous says:

    I remember reading a science fiction story many years ago about a society which had highly advanced technology, but had lost the capacity to understand that technology scientifically and instead had shrouded the technology in religious mysticism. Could have been by Asimov, I’m not sure. Anyways, perhaps that’s where we are headed.

  47. Steve m says:

    This will make you cringe Peter

    http://www.web-books.com/GoodPost/Articles/Prologue.htm

    Especially the line, “Physicists have discovered the laws that prevents us from seeing the Kingdom of God”. The stuff on “String Theory and the Resurrection of the Dead” was especially BS.
    While I am not antistring I am disturbed people abuse it in this rediculous way and a lot of scientists who should know better (eg Kaku and others) are as much to blame. I imagine this is the sort of stuff the so called “Templeton Foundation” will actually promote as real scholarship. Real scientists should not be whoring themselves out to these sorts of agenda-driven foundations. Maybe someone could submit a Sokal-type joke paper to one of these conferences? I get the very worrying sense these days that physics and science and the scientific method are getting trashed and undermined from all sorts of angles; that we are moving into some sort of “anti-enlightenment”. All this metaphysical religious-motivated nonsense going on at these conferences simply does not “lie along the line of what we are able to understand if we devote ourselves to it” (to quote Jacob Bronowski, the great secular humanist). I worry greatly that science might ultimately not survive in the far (or perhaps not so far)future. I think it was Jacques D recently who made the analogy of a few threads coming off a sweater but eventually the whole thing can unravel. I really hope that in a hundred years from now we are not back in the dark ages burning witches once again.

  48. Steve Esser says:

    Folks like you Peter and Sean Carroll are convincing me that despite good intentions, Templeton and similar efforts do more harm than good and serious scientists should stay away. The line-up for the Science and Consciousness conference you linked to was particularly nutty (whereas the Consciousness conferences at Arizona mentioned earlier are mostly high quality with just a few sprinkles of nuttiness).
    On the other hand I also fear that scientific explorations of consciousness probably suffer from this inability to keep the topic crackpot free and this is unfortunate.

  49. D R Lunsford says:

    I’m the one hurling epithets at Kaku, because he’s a goofy charlatan. Don’t blame the nice guy Peter. I’m not a nice guy and don’t aspire to be one. My edge has been sharpened on the idiocy of my generation.

    -drl

Comments are closed.