24 replies to this topic

[vodkamaru]

The full title is Quantum Psychology: How Brain Software Programs You & Your World. I'm still in the middle of reading it, but I figured I'd suggest it to the forum anyway. Wilson explains to the reader the flaw of Aristotolean Logic and tries to get the reader to think with a quantum mindset (ie there are probabilities and shades of gray instead of simply true and false) and removing "is" from our language. Each chapter ends with exercizes to help explain the chapter through example, but it's meant to be done in a group setting so I can't really do them. I was wondering if anyone else has read this book or if anyone plans to and would like to go over the exercizes sometime. Here's a link to where you can get the book for free. The package contains some other books too if you're interested. You'll need something that can handle rar packages (WinRAR should be fine and it's free too.)

Edited by vodkamaru, 02 August 2007 - 07:29 PM.

[Fyxe]

I've studied quantum mechanics and I'm not particularly enamoured with it. It feels like a really complex way of saying 'we're not sure'. Quantum physics seems like an incomplete theory, basically.

Edited by Fyxe, 02 August 2007 - 10:32 AM.

[vodkamaru]

I've studied quantum mechanics and I'm not particularly enamoured with it. It feels like a really complex way of saying 'we're not sure'. Quantum physics seems like an incomplete theory, basically.

The whole point being presented says that you can't be certain. Nothing boils down to a simple true or false. What we call reality comes from our perceptions. The observer creates the observation. I don't think it's possible to have "complete" understanding of the universe. That being said, don't let your experience with quantum physics stop you from reading the book.

Edited by vodkamaru, 02 August 2007 - 10:50 AM.

[Fyxe]

Well, gee, isn't that just the same as all the stuff that ancient Greek philosophy said? ^^; It doesn't seem very scientific, that's all. I mean, sure, reality is just perception, but I don't follow how observing something can change the results of an experiment. Schrodinger's Cat is a fun little concept in the 'does a tree falling in the woods create a sound' kind of way, but it's not really science, it's philosophy.

Does the book explain things in a bit more depth than that? I'm sure there's something solid behind quantum mechanics somewhere, but I've yet to find it.

[Selena]

The 'literature' bit of the Media section mainly means entertainment novels and the like. For science stuff, we go to Science/Sci-Fi/Mythology/Toasters/Chickens/SmartPeopleSection. Thread moved accordingly.

[SteveT]

Reading the book will only change what it says anyway.

When I read it, it was a children's story about Unicorns.

[vodkamaru]

Reading the book will only change what it says anyway.

When I read it, it was a children's story about Unicorns.

Duh huh...

...but it's not really science, it's philosophy.

It applies quantum theory to philosophy. If you want to read it, all the means to do so are in the original post. I wanted to discuss it with someone who's read it, not debate over whether or not it's worth your time.

I don't follow how observing something can change the results of an experiment.

In science, the term observer effect refers to changes that the act of observing will make on the phenomenon being observed. For example, for us to "see" an electron, a photon must first interact with it, and this interaction will change the path of that electron. It is also theoretically possible for other, less direct means of measurement to affect the electron; even if the electron is simply put into a position where observing it is possible, without actual observation taking place, it will still (theoretically) alter its position.

In physics, a more mundane observer effect can be the result of instruments that by necessity alter the state of what they measure in some manner. For instance, in electronics, ammeters and voltmeters usually need to be connected to the circuit, and so by their very presence affect the current or the voltage they are measuring. Likewise, a standard mercury-in-glass thermometer must absorb some thermal energy to record a temperature, and therefore changes the temperature of the body which it is measuring.

Hope that helps explain it...

Edited by vodkamaru, 02 August 2007 - 06:30 PM.

[arunma]

Steve, you've dropped the ball on this one buddy. Those of us who actually are physicists really need to take care of the wrongness being propagated here.

The whole point being presented says that you can't be certain. Nothing boils down to a simple true or false. What we call reality comes from our perceptions. The observer creates the observation. I don't think it's possible to have "complete" understanding of the universe. That being said, don't let your experience with quantum physics stop you from reading the book.

Quantum mechanics does not say that reality comes from perceptions. "The observer creates the observation" is a very different statement from saying that the act of observation creates the observed value. The latter statement is true, the former is not (it would be a reasonable obfuscation, except that people are trying to base philosophical statements on it). I want to be clear here: quantum physics is not philosophy. It is testable, verifiable science. It doesn't make philosophical statements of any kind, and it would be great folly to regard quantum physics as profound.

It applies quantum theory to philosophy.

Trust me: really, really bad idea. Quantum physics requires a thorough understanding of vector calculus and partial differential equations. In other words its a very technical subject, and not the kind of thing that should be messed with by an armchair philosopher. And again, it's not philosophy anymore than biology is.

I don't follow how observing something can change the results of an experiment.

In science, the term observer effect refers to changes that the act of observing will make on the phenomenon being observed. For example, for us to "see" an electron, a photon must first interact with it, and this interaction will change the path of that electron. It is also theoretically possible for other, less direct means of measurement to affect the electron; even if the electron is simply put into a position where observing it is possible, without actual observation taking place, it will still (theoretically) alter its position.

In physics, a more mundane observer effect can be the result of instruments that by necessity alter the state of what they measure in some manner. For instance, in electronics, ammeters and voltmeters usually need to be connected to the circuit, and so by their very presence affect the current or the voltage they are measuring. Likewise, a standard mercury-in-glass thermometer must absorb some thermal energy to record a temperature, and therefore changes the temperature of the body which it is measuring.

Hope that helps explain it...

The above statement is true, but it is not related to the idea of a system being forced into a particular state on account of observation. This is precisely why using quantum physics for philosophical purposes is a really, really bad idea.

I've studied quantum mechanics and I'm not particularly enamoured with it. It feels like a really complex way of saying 'we're not sure'. Quantum physics seems like an incomplete theory, basically.

Well the "we're not sure" thing is true of all science, but it has nothing to do particularly with quantum mechanics. Quantum physics is quite a sound theory, and it isn't just a formal method for expressing ignorance. Quantum mechanics has a specific, detectable effect on the way the macroscopic world works. If not for quantum mechanics, nuclear reactors, the Sun, and neon lights all wouldn't work. If quantum physics couldn't be seen in the macroscopic world, it would be pretty useless. It's not very difficult to construct experiments that allow us to "see" quantum mechanics at work.

So yeah, if anyone starts applying quantum physics to philosophy, be advised that I'll be giving you a hard time.

[Fyxe]

Right, it all makes a bit more sense to me now. It's just that a lot of people in the media and such recently have been discussing quantum mechanics using very philosophical terminology. Somebody on the radio recently, hell, it might have been the author to this book, was talking about quantum mechanics and making it sound like some crazy hokum. A lot of people seem to describe quantum mechanics in very unscientific terms.

All I know is that quantum mechanics is linked to electrons, and electrons behave oddly and are hard to observe. What annoys me is that people like to throw around lots of pseudo-science involving teleportation and parallel worlds where one 'choice' creates a split universe (which is the most unscientific thing ever and totally pisses me off, because 'free will' should not exist in science) and applying it to quantum physics. It's bollocks.

Dark Matter is more interesting anyhoo. But that's another issue.

Edit: Sorry, I don't want to sound like I'm bashing this whole topic, I haven't read the book, it might not be falling into the trap I'm describing at all. This is a side issue really.

Edited by Fyxe, 03 August 2007 - 05:47 AM.

[vodkamaru]

Steve, you've dropped the ball on this one buddy. Those of us who actually are physicists really need to take care of the wrongness being propagated here.

Oh my fucking god... I'm just suggesting a book. It's like you guys can't help but attack. Instead of reading it then evaluating for yourself you have to evaluate it based on my poor description and determine its not worth reading. I admit that you might not agree with what's being said but even Wilson will call it science fiction and always remains sceptical. I honestly have no idea what you're expecting. It's not supposed to be published in a scientific journal. Don't you ever just read something for the hell of it? You still gain some knowledge from reading something you don't necessarily believe. How can you be certain what writes "is" "wrong"?

"The observer creates the observation" is a very different statement from saying that the act of observation creates the observed value.

A class is waiting for the professor to arrive. Suddenly two students burst into the room, there's a scuffle, one of them makes a stabbing motion, and the other falls down. Everyone in the room said that the one used a knife to stab the other. It turns out the guy had a banana in his hand. The observers (students in the class) created the observation (stabbing with a knife) when it wasn't true. If you don't like the word choice then find one that suits you, but I think that accurately described what happened.

Edited by vodkamaru, 03 August 2007 - 08:20 AM.

[arunma]

Right, it all makes a bit more sense to me now. It's just that a lot of people in the media and such recently have been discussing quantum mechanics using very philosophical terminology. Somebody on the radio recently, hell, it might have been the author to this book, was talking about quantum mechanics and making it sound like some crazy hokum. A lot of people seem to describe quantum mechanics in very unscientific terms.

All I know is that quantum mechanics is linked to electrons, and electrons behave oddly and are hard to observe. What annoys me is that people like to throw around lots of pseudo-science involving teleportation and parallel worlds where one 'choice' creates a split universe (which is the most unscientific thing ever and totally pisses me off, because 'free will' should not exist in science) and applying it to quantum physics. It's bollocks.

Yes, the things you described above are most certainly "bollocks." Quantum physics is a rather difficult topic, so a lot of people pretend they understand it by inventing all of this philosophical BS. Again: real quantum physics can be seen in real life. If this weren't the case, then it'd be a pretty useless theory.

Oh my fucking god... I'm just suggesting a book. It's like you guys can't help but attack. Instead of reading it then evaluating for yourself you have to evaluate it based on my poor description and determine its not worth reading. I admit that you might not agree with what's being said but even Wilson will call it science fiction and always remains sceptical. I honestly have no idea what you're expecting. It's not supposed to be published in a scientific journal. Don't you ever just read something for the hell of it? You still gain some knowledge from reading something you don't necessarily believe. How can you be certain what writes "is" "wrong"?

Well to be fair, it's the book I'm attacking. But alas, what should I say if a highly inaccurate scientific description is promulgated? In any case, I know it's wrong because based on your description, the author's ideas about quantum physics are actually quite common among non-scientists.

A class is waiting for the professor to arrive. Suddenly two students burst into the room, there's a scuffle, one of them makes a stabbing motion, and the other falls down. Everyone in the room said that the one used a knife to stab the other. It turns out the guy had a banana in his hand. The observers (students in the class) created the observation (stabbing with a knife) when it wasn't true. If you don't like the word choice then find one that suits you, but I think that accurately described what happened.

No, actually that analogy wouldn't work either. The idea in quantum mechanics is that the act of observation forces the system to take a specific state, and that state is real and observable. The important point is that we are not dealing with human perceptions here.

[vodkamaru]

Right, it all makes a bit more sense to me now. It's just that a lot of people in the media and such recently have been discussing quantum mechanics using very philosophical terminology. Somebody on the radio recently, hell, it might have been the author to this book, was talking about quantum mechanics and making it sound like some crazy hokum. A lot of people seem to describe quantum mechanics in very unscientific terms.

All I know is that quantum mechanics is linked to electrons, and electrons behave oddly and are hard to observe. What annoys me is that people like to throw around lots of pseudo-science involving teleportation and parallel worlds where one 'choice' creates a split universe (which is the most unscientific thing ever and totally pisses me off, because 'free will' should not exist in science) and applying it to quantum physics. It's bollocks.

Yes, the things you described above are most certainly "bollocks." Quantum physics is a rather difficult topic, so a lot of people pretend they understand it by inventing all of this philosophical BS. Again: real quantum physics can be seen in real life. If this weren't the case, then it'd be a pretty useless theory.

Oh my fucking god... I'm just suggesting a book. It's like you guys can't help but attack. Instead of reading it then evaluating for yourself you have to evaluate it based on my poor description and determine its not worth reading. I admit that you might not agree with what's being said but even Wilson will call it science fiction and always remains sceptical. I honestly have no idea what you're expecting. It's not supposed to be published in a scientific journal. Don't you ever just read something for the hell of it? You still gain some knowledge from reading something you don't necessarily believe. How can you be certain what writes "is" "wrong"?

Well to be fair, it's the book I'm attacking. But alas, what should I say if a highly inaccurate scientific description is promulgated? In any case, I know it's wrong because based on your description, the author's ideas about quantum physics are actually quite common among non-scientists.

A class is waiting for the professor to arrive. Suddenly two students burst into the room, there's a scuffle, one of them makes a stabbing motion, and the other falls down. Everyone in the room said that the one used a knife to stab the other. It turns out the guy had a banana in his hand. The observers (students in the class) created the observation (stabbing with a knife) when it wasn't true. If you don't like the word choice then find one that suits you, but I think that accurately described what happened.

No, actually that analogy wouldn't work either. The idea in quantum mechanics is that the act of observation forces the system to take a specific state, and that state is real and observable. The important point is that we are not dealing with human perceptions here.

The human nervous system is another "tool" that we use to "measure" our realities.

Check, please... All I can say is read it if you're curious, or don't if you agree with arunma here and literally judge books by their covers. I've minimized any effort required to obtain the book so all you need to do is follow a few links to find out for yourself what the book is actually about.

Edited by vodkamaru, 03 August 2007 - 11:40 AM.

[SteveT]

Steve, you've dropped the ball on this one buddy. Those of us who actually are physicists really need to take care of the wrongness being propagated here.

I wasn't so much dropping the ball as playing a different game.

Funny how no one here remembers my science background until they think I picked a bad time for a joke.

[vodkamaru]

I'd also recommend Prometheus Rising. It's in the same package. This is all philosophy, though. I don't know why it's in the science forum.

Edited by vodkamaru, 04 August 2007 - 06:58 PM.

[SteveT]

Because this philosophy decided to abuse scientific principles.

[vodkamaru]

Because this philosophy decided to abuse scientific principles.

...so you're still going to be like that, huh? Could you explain how its being abused, maybe using examples?

edit: If you want to get a feel for what this guy is about here's a video.

Edited by vodkamaru, 05 August 2007 - 04:03 PM.

[arunma]

Because this philosophy decided to abuse scientific principles.

...so you're still going to be like that, huh? Could you explain how its being abused, maybe using examples?

edit: If you want to get a feel for what this guy is about here's a video.

It's abused in the sense of misportraying science to support philosophical views. It is also often misused to support Buddhism. Quantum mechanics is not profound, and it isn't mysterious. The suppositions of quantum mechanics are pretty clear. To be sure, it's hard, which is why physics professors often say that if you think you understand it, you probably don't. And indeed, this is why people who aren't familiar with vector calculus and partial differential equations (i.e. the Buddhists and the philosophers) really shouldn't be discussing it as though they know something. In using quantum physics to support personal philosophical beliefs, many people go to the extent of making the science say something that it doesn't. And that, as I said before, is really, really bad.

I'd also recommend Prometheus Rising. It's in the same package. This is all philosophy, though. I don't know why it's in the science forum.

On a moderator note, it's OK to keep it here. This topic does pretty clearly pertain to science, so this is the right place for it.

[vodkamaru]

Because this philosophy decided to abuse scientific principles.

...so you're still going to be like that, huh? Could you explain how its being abused, maybe using examples?

edit: If you want to get a feel for what this guy is about here's a video.

It's abused in the sense of misportraying science to support philosophical views. It is also often misused to support Buddhism. Quantum mechanics is not profound, and it isn't mysterious. The suppositions of quantum mechanics are pretty clear. To be sure, it's hard, which is why physics professors often say that if you think you understand it, you probably don't. And indeed, this is why people who aren't familiar with vector calculus and partial differential equations (i.e. the Buddhists and the philosophers) really shouldn't be discussing it as though they know something. In using quantum physics to support personal philosophical beliefs, many people go to the extent of making the science say something that it doesn't. And that, as I said before, is really, really bad.

So if someone tries to correlate science with philosophy they're abusing science? Fuck it, I'm just wasting my time... Just know that your degree isn't a badge.

Edited by vodkamaru, 10 August 2007 - 06:17 PM.

[arunma]

So if someone tries to correlate science with philosophy they're abusing science? Fuck it, I'm just wasting my time... Just know that your degree isn't a badge.

Sorry, but when Steve and I sat through four years of physics classes, we weren't twidling our thumbs and playing Game Boy. Unless you have special expertise in physics that you aren't telling us about, we know more than you. This isn't meant to be an insulting statement, but it is a fact. Specialized education means something. Here it means that you aren't qualified to form an opinion on this, anymore than I could give legal advice. The problem, I think, is that you think we are wrong simply because we disagree with you, and this fallacy is based on the mistaken assumption that your scientific assessment of quantum physics is correct.

To answer your question, yes it is abuse of science to draw philosophical conclusions from scientific theories. Herbert Spencer's social Darwinism is a particularly dangerous example of this. The quantum physics-inspired philosophy isn't nearly as threatening, but it is no less wrong.

Edited by arunma, 10 August 2007 - 07:32 PM.

[vodkamaru]

So if someone tries to correlate science with philosophy they're abusing science? Fuck it, I'm just wasting my time... Just know that your degree isn't a badge.

Sorry, but when Steve and I sat through four years of physics classes, we weren't twidling our thumbs and playing Game Boy. Unless you have special expertise in physics that you aren't telling us about, we know more than you. This isn't meant to be an insulting statement, but it is a fact. Specialized education means something. Here it means that you aren't qualified to form an opinion on this, anymore than I could give legal advice. The problem, I think, is that you think we are wrong simply because we disagree with you, and this fallacy is based on the mistaken assumption that your scientific assessment of quantum physics is correct.

To answer your question, yes it is abuse of science to draw philosophical conclusions from scientific theories. Herbert Spencer's social Darwinism is a particularly dangerous example of this. The quantum physics-inspired philosophy isn't nearly as threatening, but it is no less wrong.

..but your degree isn't in neuroscience, psychology, or philosophy. So in that case Wilson knows more than you. Just because it has the word quantum in the title doesn't make it a scientific paper. You're telling everyone that the book is wrong before even reading it. Congratulations on knowing more than me about physics after studying it for however many years, but I didn't write the book. It doesn't change anything about the book in question. It doesn't mean that it shouldn't be read because some guy with a physics degree doesn't like the idea of using new scientific knowledge to try and explain the mind. Your degree is in a hard science. Who are you to judge psychology or philosophy especially when you don't even know the arguments being made?

Edited by vodkamaru, 10 August 2007 - 08:03 PM.

[SteveT]

We were trusting in your ability to adequately explain the arguments in the book, and analyzing them based on that.

At first glance, it looks about as legitimate as phrenology, astrology, and as arunma mentioned, social Darwinism.

And yes, when it comes to phychology et al, the man certainly does know more than us. But there's a Venn diagram in play here.

Scientists are an ornery and stubborn bunch (see the debate over the wave nature of light), always skeptical of new theories. Try not to take it so personally.


(Full disclosure: the only philosophy course I ever took was Existentialism, so when it comes to philosophy, I'm kind of like the European who bases his opinion of American cuisine on McDonald's).

Fuller Disclosure I looked up this guy's wikipedia bio. The man is a conspiracy theorist anarchist who got his Ph.D. in Psychology from a fake university that no longer exists.

Edited by SteveT, 10 August 2007 - 08:14 PM.

[vodkamaru]

We were trusting in your ability to adequately explain the arguments in the book, and analyzing them based on that.

At first glance, it looks about as legitimate as phrenology, astrology, and as arunma mentioned, social Darwinism.

And yes, when it comes to phychology et al, the man certainly does know more than us. But there's a Venn diagram in play here.

Scientists are an ornery and stubborn bunch (see the debate over the wave nature of light), always skeptical of new theories. Try not to take it so personally.


(Full disclosure: the only philosophy course I ever took was Existentialism, so when it comes to philosophy, I'm kind of like the European who bases his opinion of American cuisine on McDonald's).

I just don't understand the backlash over a book suggestion. He's so goddamn sure he's right it makes me sick. Don't expect me to tell you all about the book otherwise I wouldn't suggest reading it (I was also still in the process of reading it so a full description would be impossible). I would ask that you try to read it without having preconceived notions. If you don't like it then its very easy to delete. There's also the exercises so you really need to read it to do those. I was looking for people to do those with.

Edited by vodkamaru, 10 August 2007 - 08:17 PM.

[SteveT]

Why not post a few then? Maybe it'll lead to a more interesting discussion.

[vodkamaru]

1. Weather permitting, leave the house, go outside to the street and look around. How much of what you see would have existed if humans had not designed and built it? How much that "just grew there" would look different if humans had not cultivated and encouraged (or polluted) it?

2. Look at the sky. if you can distinguish stars from planets, can identify some, etc. , try to forget this knowledge and imagine how the sky looks to very intelligent animals without human science. Then look at it again with your knowledge of astronomy back in focus.

3. If a meteor passes, how does it make you feel when you try seeing it without scientific glosses? How differently do you feel when you allow yourself to remember what you know of meteors?

4. If all TV shows about the police (about 20 a week in most areas) went off the air and instead we had an equal number of TV shows about landlords, would this change the average American reality-tunnel? In how many ways would the reality-tunnel change? What would Americans "see" (or remember) that they now tend to ignore? What would they become less aware of? What would they become much more aware of?

5. Try to figure out why there are so many TV shows about the police and virtually no shows about landlords. Who decides this? Why have they decided it this way? (Attempt to avoid paranoid speculations or grandiose conspiracy theories if at all possible.)

Edited by vodkamaru, 10 August 2007 - 08:57 PM.

[arunma]

The post I was going to write before reading SteveT's post:

..but your degree isn't in neuroscience, psychology, or philosophy. So in that case Wilson knows more than you. Just because it has the word quantum in the title doesn't make it a scientific paper. You're telling everyone that the book is wrong before even reading it. Congratulations on knowing more than me about physics after studying it for however many years, but I didn't write the book. It doesn't change anything about the book in question. It doesn't mean that it shouldn't be read because some guy with a physics degree doesn't like the idea of using new scientific knowledge to try and explain the mind. Your degree is in a hard science. Who are you to judge psychology or philosophy especially when you don't even know the arguments being made?

Actually I haven't commented on the book, since I haven't read it. My comments have pertained to deriving philosophical conclusions from quantum physics. I have no idea what his arguments are, but if they rely on quantum mechanics, then they're just plain wrong. Quantum physics certainly does affect brain chemistry, but not in the way you think it does. The effects are quite predictable, and there is nothing mysterious, chaotic, or profound about them. No one's telling you not to read whatever book you like, but it would be quite wrong to take "quantum philosophy" seriously.

After reading what SteveT had to say:

Fuller Disclosure I looked up this guy's wikipedia bio. The man is a conspiracy theorist anarchist who got his Ph.D. in Psychology from a fake university that no longer exists.

What!? If the guy got his PhD from a diploma mill, then he most certainly can't be taken seriously. I think we can safely dismiss him as a crackpot.