Edge 2009: What will change everything?

Whoa, there, Dreher; what's up with this? "it's possible that I'll be off this year to do a fellowship studying this, and even writing a book about it..."

Do tell! and what's with the Benedict option book?

Rod, if you do, may I strongly suggest a trip to Madison, WI? Our neuro department here has been working closely with the Dalai Lama.

(And then I could finally take you out for a damn fine German beer and a good local food dinner. But that's just the selfishness on my part.)

Good luck with the fellowship. "He who breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom." Gandalf to Saruman, from "The Fellowship Of The Ring". Without discounting the staggering gains in knowledge made possible by Western analytic thought, it has long been evident to me that we are desperately short of wisdom, and that we are not going to acquire it by breaking even more things.

I don't mean to be argumentative about this, but I find it disingenuous at best to pejoratively describe your friend's work as there's nothing New Agey or faith-healer-y about this. Why should a person's spiritual beliefs negate the common ground your friend is trying to define scientifically?

His "in a hundred years" comment is critical to my point. A thousand years ago, practices we take for granted today were considered magic.

Clarke's Third Law.

Well, I'll keep the fellowship thing in prayer for you. Any book you write would be worth reading and a contribution to cultural discussion.

"My doctor friend says that science cannot afford to be ignorant of the wisdom of religion... religion and spiritual wisdom traditions can speak of truths that are important to science, and important for science not to ignore or discard."

Wisdom such as what? Are you talking about morality or medicine or both? I am truly curious as to what exactly you mean by this.

Of course, I agree that religion cannot continue to be ignorant of science. Evolution is just the most prominent example of this. Evolution is arguably the most important fundamental breakthrough in modern medicine (among many other areas), completely and forever altering how we view disease and disease management. And yet some of the most outspoken voices of the American religious right have spent considerable financial and political resources to suppress this knowledge in favor of propagating supernatural nonsense.

I don't believe that science destroys religion. While it certainly offers evidence-based explanations for things that faith had once considered supernatural in origin, I doubt any modern believer (I am an atheist) would say that the foundation for his/her faith is rooted wholly, or even fractionally, in the supernatural; there is certainly more signifigance to faith than that.

Michele, you were ahead of your time in your childhood but, as recently as a few years ago I'll bet you wouldn't have imagined a phone that also played music, snapped photos, recorded video, played games, sent notes, mapped out a driving route, gave you the weather forecast, etc. etc. ...

Mihaly C. wrote:
We shall realize that science cannot be value-free after all.

What exactly does this mean? Science only conveys empirical facts, or at least strives to. If you try to import "values" into science, you get geocentrism and creationism. After all, geocentrists and creationist can make the case that their defeat had an impact on society at large.

Look at his scientific example: Chemistry can't "shrug at pollution"? Who is chemistry? Where do I find this thing that seems to be "shrugging"?

What the man wants to say is that Chemists shouldn't shrug at pollution. Well, fine. I don't see how a concern for pollution, no matter how well placed, will effect the balance of a chemical equation. By trying to sound "deep", he winds up sounding like a huckster. If you want better ethics training for scientists, say so.

His point about economics is equally foolish. Economists constantly try to factor in political and social priorities. They call them "externalities." Unfortunately, like much else in our society, to study phenomena, you need to isolate variables, but these are only meant to give a deeper understanding of the whole system. IOW, at best M.C. is pushing on an open door, at worst, he's selling us flim-flam dressed up in moralizing cant.

Rod's friend doesn't want to be pegged a new-agey, woo-woo type, but he's using unquantifiable terms, like "the body's energy." All I can see are bad analogies between Chinese folklore and quantum physics. With wide ranging systems, you can always find points of agreement, but are they systematic points of agreement, or just trivial?

I appreciate the fact that there very well might be benefits to accupuncture, but what we need are serious, tangible metrics. "Chi" just doesn't cut it.

Again, he adamantly maintains this isn't psychic-healer mumbo-jumbo at all -- and as a devout conservative Christian, he's concerned about this sort of thing.

Any flim-flam artist will say just as much, and he'll latch on to some outside interest that will provide for confirmation bias. I don't know who your friend is, and he may be genuine, but, then again, he could be cold reading you and playing on your own desires. You might want to contact some skeptical organizations. They can at least give you some metrics to evaluate what he's saying.

What will change everything?

Obama.

Yes they can.

I see two potential big game changers coming, and possibly in 2009.

First one. Ten months ago I attended a technical conference that talked about the coming end of Moore's Law. Basically, individual microprocessors can't get much faster due to heat. However, we are just at the beginning of huge potential increases in bandwidth. Assuming the economy doesn't collapse to the point that no new infrastructure investments occur (a big if at this point) then we could see bandwidth increase by a factor of ten over the next few years.

Secondly, I think 2009 could see a real reconsideration of the scientific conventional wisdom on human nutrition. Gary Taube's "Good Calories, Bad Calories" has started the argument, but 2009 will also come with data as we start to get results from studies using ketogenic diets for cancer and diabetes. (After reading Taubes I looked into the old Ancel Keys studies and was stunned by the methodology - you can't find a better example of selection bias!) The Enhance study on Vytorin last year has already gotten some physicians to reconsider statins. We may see the Lipid hypothesis come under serious attack soon too.

Easy. The major psychiatric and subtle metabolic disorders will be understood and prove easy to identify from DNA. People will then stop having children with them. And children and adults with mental and motivational problems will become fairly easy to diagnose correctly.

And within a generation or two of that beginning there will be social consequences. Involuntary poverty will decline rapidly as more people find themselves physically and mentally competent enough to get out and stay out. A lot of drug use and sexual vice and various unduly chaotic, rigid, or frenetic behavior is associated with bipolar/OCD disorders; those will decline greatly as well. Various, er, curious teachings and belief systems and their organizations will likewise decline, vanishing with the core audiences they tacitly existed for. There will be fewer fanatics and less sociopathic violence, but group behavior will probably become more responsive and rational.

People of the future will consider our times deeply suffused with insanities, diseases, and funny mythologies to paper over the problems.

Rod writes: I believe that I'll live to see quantum physics change the way we understand healing and the human body.

Rod, psychologists and alt med enthusiasts are disproportionately known to substitute jargon for understanding, particularly with regard to 'mind/body' interactions and consciousness. It would be better to simply invent a completely new word than add confusion by stealing terms from a well-defined field (in physics). Here's a useful hint: If you read a book that uses the words 'quantum', 'holism' and 'health' in the same paragraph, be assured that you're probably reading woo. In fact, anything that brings up 'quantum mechanics' and 'health' is likely woo as well.

Woo-free discussion might mention quantum mechanics as it applies to biological spectroscopy (which is real physics and is the basis for MRIs) or the electronics orbitals of molecules and chemical transition states (which is real chemistry) -- for which both applications have been used in medical work -- but outside of hard science and areas where the 'alt med' hypotheses can be truly tested in labs, the woo-factor is extraordinarily high.

Better to take a couple semesters of advanced chemistry and physics first if you want to get a real feel for 'quantum physics'. Or the woo-meisters will take your money and run.

http://soul-centered-healing.com/NMT-neuromodulation.htm

NeuroModulation Technique as an alternative medicine is a proprietary system of health care treatment based upon a method of accessing and assessing the autonomic control system of the patient through muscle response testing utilizing verbal and/or non-verbal semantic questions and statements. Performance of that autonomic system is modulated with a combination of verbal and/or non-verbal corrective commands and statements. This process is further augmented and reinforced with percussive or other stimulation of vertebral segments, specific breathing patterns, and other sensory stimuli.

We use a unique form of muscle response testing to access, assess the autonomic nervous system, and modulate the performance of autonomic function with specific semantic reprogramming and debugging scripts.

Chiropracty of the autonomic nervous system?! Rod, you sure are a sucker for crankery.

What game-changing development would I like to live long enough to see ? A working, practical interstellar drive.

Do I think I will live long enough to see it ? I'll take the Fifth, Your Honor.

(And now, having considered the problem, I think I will open the Fifth, uncork the Fifth, and drink the Fifth....)

Your servant,

Lord Karth

I want to apologize for the double post and also second "Margaret E." The latest issue of Wired's cover story is about "the truth about cancer." That "truth" is that early detection is a more achievable goal and represents a better use of resources than attempting to cure the various cancers.

That, in and of itself, is hard to disagree with. The problem is that the ne plus ultra of early detection is the kind of genetic screening, i.e., eugenics, that "Margaret E" rightly worries about. Since we are unlikely to eliminate the various genetic markers for various cancers and other illnesses from the human genome (nor should we because some of them might also serve beneficial purposes, e.g., sickle-cell and malaria resistance), what's left is a relentless war against people who carry the markers in utero or even prior to implantation.

In other words: Gattaca.

e - What girl in the bible who could tell the future? The witch of Endor?
Or do you mean Cassandra? The Bible may show some forms of Greek influence but I don't think they've included Homer yet.

Whenever I hear "quantum physics" and "medicine" used together, I think of that cat in the box.

"Physics is laying the groundwork for it now, but medical science is reluctant to follow."

Rod

I'd say that medicine is conservative bby the very nature of the profession and its view of what constitutes science. Modern medicine is rooted in a Newtonian view of the universe.zrxu4 Physics itself has evolved far beyond that model. Of course, most physicians are not also Ph.D's. The training they receive involves learning vast quantities of information which is then applied to promote healing. They often have a conceptualization of science as a body of established knowledge to be utilized. Research scientists with a Ph.D. tend to view science as methodology or process which seeks to discover new things by challenging convention and/or underlying assumptions. These are two very different processes and involve very different cognitive skills. Consequently medicine tends to be cautious and somewhat hide bound :) Given the fact the physicians deal with people's lives, this conservatism is often a good thing.

The one thing for which I have zero tolerance is the rejection of the mentally ill. It is also the one thing for which I will use the tired cliche: what would Jesus do (with them)?

Extort a confession of faith from their desperate father and then employ a bit of native mumbo-jumbo before declaring them "healed".

MH,

Thanks. I did not know that piece of info about quantum cryptography. I know next to nothing about quantum mechanics, really. Still, you can see in your sentence that it's a solid endeavor because you explained the process in solid, confirmable terms. I saw nothing like that in Rod's post.

I do think philosophers need to explore quantum mechanics because it says important things about the nature of indeterminacy and chance in our world.

I agree. They should be careful about abusing terms, like equating relativity with relativism, but I don't see how a better picture of our world could hurt.

Also if someone ever proved the many worlds interpretation that would have a huge impact as well.

It would make the Copernican Revolution seem rather trivial, I would guess.

In reply to the title question, I'd like to say that NOTHING will change everything, because human beings remain the same as the ancient Greeks knew them.

But then I read about the excess of estrogen in the environment, and how males of many different species are becoming feminized, with lower sperm counts, etc., and I have a new fear.

Humans might be biologically-hormonally changing; especially the males, to be more feminine. This will be as slow as rapid climate change, but is a bigger effect than that alleged for DDT.

A majority of men will be born, hormonally adjusted by chemicals in the environment, into becoming 'girly-men'. That will be the impetus for a counter-feminist movement to face feminism (and political correctness).

Humans may well be actually different; that would change everything.

Christian:
Unsympathetic Reader, as a doctoral student in clinical psychology, I feel I should remind you that the technical language of one scientific field appears to be jargon to those not trained in it. Psychologists may have always had a good case of physics envy for the past century and may have appropriated language in an imprecise way.

This is similar to what a homeopath in Oregon likewise suggested in the link below although I strongly disagree with him justifying the sort of use as analogy.
http://vitalpatterns.net/index.php/blog/post/why_is_it_so_woo_woo/

Worse than imprecise, many have usurped the actual meanings and attempted to apply them as though they operated in completely inapplicable contexts.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/06/your_friday_dose_of_woo_the_circle_is_co_1.php

"Quantized 'Vital Force'" where 'Vital Force' is represented in terms of a wave function and can be modeled like angular momentum?? Holy smokes, that's pure, unadulterated word-salad that means *absolutely nothing* in any scientific context, even in alt. med.

Christian:
But persons in the field of psychology such as myself are interested in quantum mechanics because it may help us gain insights into the nature of consciousness; something that has defied the development of any meaningful physical model or explanation. Specifically, quantum mechanics may be operating in the microtubules within the neuron or across the gap junctions (these are not synapses) between neurons to generate many aspects of conscious experience. Perhaps you should become more acquainted with the work of David Bohm, who wrote the classic text on quantum mechanics and who later did a great deal of cross-disciplinary work on consciousness and the nature of the universe itself. His writing on the implicate and explicate order of the universe are particularly intriguing.

A few *big* issues with this work: First, we have no evidence that the decoherence time for quantum states in neuron microtubules is sufficiently long to support an alternate interactive pathway. That's a pretty significant observation that *must* be made before downstream hypotheses can even be considered. Second, lacking any knowledge of any such effect, the range and level of these interactions are completely undetermined. Third, prior issues notwithstanding, it's not clear that such a mechanism provides us with a better explanation consciousness.

Because of such issues, and with a doctorate in biochemisty with a background in biological & chemical spectroscopy, I still consider the quantum-effect microtubule hypothesis for consciousness as largely unsupported. As an interested skeptic of such, I have come across Bohm's work. Interesting hypothesis with regard to potential neurobiological mechanism, but not well supported by observation. Given these shortcomings, I also think that any further extrapolation (psi?, quantum health? & etc.) is pure pie-in-the-sky.

As I've suggested to Rod, people truly interested in quantum mechanics and its applicability in biology probably should take appropriate courses in physics and chemistry and not just rely on popularizations and pre-digested simplifications. Learn the *real* math and core theory.

I recently came accross your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I dont know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.

Kate

http://educationonline-101.com

One thing to add to Owen's comments...

A very useful approach I believe many quantum mind theorists are missing is to study the properties of neural systems from a evolutionary or comparative perspective. Characterize the *simplest* systems or organisms with the fewest components and then work to the more complex. For example, microorganisms like hydras, nematodes, jellyfish and starfishes have much less complex networks. Do these organisms' sensing capabilities require 'special' quantum mechanisms? We know that at various times during evolution that additional components and complexity arose. At what stage in evolution would alternate mechanisms like quantum computing necessarily arise? The experience of taste, vision and self arose at various periods in our evolutionary past and so it would be extremely useful to see exactly which new biological feature lead to the emergence of any particular new capability. From my perspective, starting from human consciousness and declaring that quantum explanations are explicitly required to understand it is a bit bass-ackwards. It's like trying to unravel a tangle of string from the middle. Better to figure out the simple steps / simple systems first and build understanding incrementally.

Owen: Right now, the preponderance of available evidence suggests that quantum mechanics should not be used to explain health, much less the wild and woolly world of energy medicine.

Exactly. Does anyone still keep a chart of their biorhythms? At least they were right about half the time...

My apologies for taking so long to reply, MargaretE.

There are three ways to proceed once the accurate gene testing exists.

The first is what many Orthodox Jews are already doing to limit Tay-Sachs and Canavan Disease births. Everyone marriageable gets tested. Marriages involve a matchmaker who knows definitively who is and isn't carrier; that gets around the aversion to concrete knowledge of status some have. The matchmaker doesn't so much tell people who to marry as avoids setting up people who are both carriers. And warns those couples that do form where both are carriers. It works: it is news when a single infant with Tay-Sachs is born in NYC these days.

A problem with the method is that the next generation will have just as many carriers, perhaps even somewhat more, and will have to repeat the process. The other problem is that it does prevent or break up some good couples.

The second and major means I am thinking of is IVF with selected, genetically tested, zygotes. People who have the serious genetic diseases in their families, especially those diseases with destructive social consequences such as schizophrenia or hereditary breast cancer, are in my experience going to run, not walk, to the clinics when that becomes possible and available. And after them, people whose trouble is with bad chronic things like sickle cell anemia, hereditary epilepsy, hereditary diabetes, cystic fibrosis.

The method definitely decreases the number of carriers of dominant effect mutations rapidly: whole diseases of the kind will disappear in a generation or two. The method is less effective with recessive effect mutations, since many/most carriers will not care to or will not be willing to pay the steep expense of the IVF approach if their mate is not a carrier for rather theoretical benefit. But numbers should nonetheless drop every generation because the children of affected families refuse to repeat the experience.

I am sure it will all be and remain voluntary. If you have been at a children's hospital for long, you know that almost every mother is willing to do almost anything for the wellbeing of her child and retrospectively wishes she could have done something, anything, to prevent the child's suffering and disability. Fathers tend to be a bit slower but arrive at the same place. As for what insurance companies and mainstream society will do toward of people who choose otherwise, I cannot say. I suspect the people who willingly choose to have children with serious disorders will at that point already be people that no longer regard themselves as fully in the mainstream, competing for maximal social status, and highly willing to support the child(ren) themselves with both time and mondy.

Yes, IVF is problematic or proscribed according to conservative ethics. But infertile couples rarely bother themselves with that today: the child that gets born matters more to them than anything else. People who see the choice as between children who are healthy and none (i.e. high odds of ones that die after lifetimes of physiological or psychological hell) are probably not going to think too differently.

As a third: in a decade or two it will become possible to make germline stem cells from/for anyone. Germline stem cells are unique in that they can be gotten to replace a bit of DNA with a very similar other one, i.e. existing DNA sequence can be corrected by supplying fixed DNA bits into the cells and letting them integrate into the most similar DNA in the chromosomes. (A phenomenon called site-specific recombination.) It may well become possible to correct 2 or 3 identified DNA errors/problems, or 5, in a glstc line and then create gametes with the repaired chromosomes. (People carry, on average, 6 to 7 recessive effect mutations with detectable consequences.) After that technology becomes available there will be diminishing need for selective IVF.