Extraordinary claims. Ordinary investigations.

The Brainsturbator advances the “Chronon Theory“, quoting Jacques Vallee’s “Associative Universe”:

Time and space may be convenient notions for plotting the progress of a locomotive, but they are completely useless for locating information. What modern computer scientists have now recognized is that ordering by time and space is the worst possible way to store data. In a large computer-based information system, no attempt is made to place related records in sequential physical locations. If there is no time dimension as we usually assume there is, we may be traversing events by association. If we live in the associative universe of the software scientist rather than the sequential universe of the space-time physicist, then miracles are no longer irrational events.

That’s very nice food for thought, as Brainsturbator goes on and also quotes other heterodox ideas about time and events like those of Barbour and Jung, all very much following ufology a la Valleé.

I find those speculations very interesting, but one fundamental weakness about them is their emphasis on our consciousness. Like New Age interpretations of Quantum Mechanics, that somehow turns fundamental limitations in our knowing about subatomical phenomena into theories of how we actually control everything with our minds; I think they turn our ignorance about our own consciousness upside down.

You may advance the idea that time doesn’t exists, that our counsciousness may be the ultimate knot that links everything together and ends up creating everything. Fascinating indeed. But then you may discover just how much our consciousness is limited, and very unlike what we think about it.

For instance, just watch this amazing card trick:

Then read this theory of how our perception really works. And read Dennett, Damasio. Even if you don’t agree with their views on how our mind works, the fact is that it doesn’t work at all like the fundamental and ultimate organizing piece of the Universe.

Rather, the evidence suggests consciousness and free will may be an illusion themselves, which means that the idea that UFOs or time itself may be illusions created by it is just saying that everything is an illusion, which does not help much.

But the link between coincidences and the mind is indeed something very important, because finding coincidences is part of the illusion that generates our consciousness. When we are puzzled by a coincidence, it’s just that we are exercizing the very fundamental function that generates our mind, which is, to find relationships between things.

This materialistic vision of mind and consciousness may look depressing and boring, but if you really understand it, it has implications as far reaching as the New Age ones. For instance, it may just be possible that the illusion of consciousness may arise among other things. And not just extraterrestrial life or artificial robots. More about that on a following post.

If you want to debunk a myth, you quote it clearly, then point out why it’s false, right? Right. But the Washington Post has an article detailing recent research showing that:

denials and clarifications, for all their intuitive appeal, can paradoxically contribute to the resiliency of popular myths. … Repetition seems to be a key culprit. Things that are repeated often become more accessible in memory, and one of the brain’s subconscious rules of thumb is that easily recalled things are true. …

Experiments by Ruth Mayo, a cognitive social psychologist at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, also found that for a substantial chunk of people, the “negation tag” of a denial falls off with time. …

By merely quoting the myth, you are helping to promote it. But is silence then the answer?

Unfortunately, the answer to that question also seems to be no. Another recent study found that when accusations or assertions are met with silence, they are more likely to feel true, said Peter Kim, an organizational psychologist at the University of Southern California. He published his study in the Journal of Applied Psychology.

A possible solution would be…

Mayo found that rather than deny a false claim, it is better to make a completely new assertion that makes no reference to the original myth.

But Mayo acknowledged that a new assertion denying a false claim without even mentioning it can be inaccurate, and may not be an alternative in some cases.

Unfortunately, information directed to the general public must indeed be carefully constructed. Which means that all the details and intricacies of a question may well be impossible to convey (something like Cosmos for rednecks).

[via Museum of Hoaxes, Anomalist]

It seems I missed the media frenzy over the study that supposedly proved girls really prefer pink, boys blue, and advanced that that was because “it may have helped women gather ripe fruit, or pick healthy mates“.

But as Ben Goldacre over at Bad Science pointed out, the study itself didn’t prove any of those. In fact, it found that this preference is not consistent over culture, exactly the opposite of what it speculates and was widely embraced byt the media.

The most interesting thing here, though, is that Goldacre notes how:

Back in the days when ladies had a home journal (in 1918) the Ladies Home Journal wrote: “There has been a great diversity of opinion on the subject, but the generally accepted rule is pink for the boy and blue for the girl. The reason is that pink being a more decided and stronger color is more suitable for the boy, while blue, which is more delicate and dainty, is prettier for the girl.”

The Sunday Sentinel in 1914 told American mothers: “If you like the color note on the little one’s garments, use pink for the boy and blue for the girl, if you are a follower of convention.” Some sources suggest it wasn’t until the 1940s that the modern gender associations of girly pink became universally accepted. Pink is, therefore, perhaps not biologically girly. Boys who were raised in pink frilly dresses went down mines and fought in World War 2. Clothing conventions do change over time.

What do the future reserves for our color preferences? I suspect in the future everyone will be tetrachromat, and the real nice colors will be those us poor trichromats can’t even distinguish.

[via Apothecary's Drawer Weblog]

The first five issues of the “Zetetic Scholar”, published by Marcello Truzzi, are available online for download on George Hansen’s website. As Luis Ruiz Noguez points out:

“The consulting editors are impressive. We see an incredible and unrepeatable mix of believers and skeptics of all camps of the paranormal world: Milbourne Christopher (magician and skeptic), Persi Diaconis (mathematician and skeptic), Martin Ebon (writer and editor of paranormal subjects), Christopher Evans (magician and skeptic), Martin Gardner (science writer and skeptic), Michel Gauquelin (astrologist), Bernard Heuvelmans (criptozoologist), Ray Hyman (psychologist and skeptic), J. Allen Hynek (ufologist), David M. Jacobs (ufologist), Edward J. Moody (parapsychologist), Charles T Tart (parapsychologist) y Ron Westrum (writer in paranormal subjects).”

All edited by Truzzi. You can’t, no, you shouldn’t miss them.
[via Note Zetetiche, Paranormal Trickster]

Astrona is an online collection of space and astronomical art, science fiction art, visions of future worlds, design and visualization of technologies for living in space, space exploration, spaceships, starships, space colonies and everything. Seen above, the work of Alexander Preuss. Of course, flying saucers and alien worlds and beings, as well as psychedelic art also feature proeminently. All fascinating.