- #736
gentzen
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 896
- 726
Ulrich Warnke "Gehirn-Magie - Der Zauber unserer Gefühlswelt". The author studied biology, physics, geography, and pedagogics, but mostly worked on biomedicin, biophysics, ... psychology and psychosomatics. He does try to describe how he interprets quantum physics and QFT. It is not overly wrong in the first two chapters, then gets "more wrong" in the third chapter when he tries to describe the weak force in the context of the biological relevance of chirality, and dives into gravitation, mass and spin. Then I skipped forward to the appendix in chapter 7, which was pure homeopathy, acupuncture, and esoterics and the reference section, which was much less esoterics, but more stuff related to what he actually worked on. (I currently read chapter 4, it doesn't seem to be as badly wrong as chapter 3, but already well on its way deep into esoterics.)
It is not pseudo-science, but it is not science or popular science either. It would say it is scientifically inspired speculation. I learned which physical questions are actually still unresolved from a biological perspective. Things like The Chiral Puzzle of Life, or the stuff that Stuart Hameroff and Roger Penrose worked on. Actually, the reason why I write this now is that I accidentally came across Stuart Hameroff defending himself in the comment section of Scott Aaronson's blog post “Can computers become conscious?”: My reply to Roger Penrose. The speculations themselves are obviously misguided, but the open questions they try to address are real.
It is not pseudo-science, but it is not science or popular science either. It would say it is scientifically inspired speculation. I learned which physical questions are actually still unresolved from a biological perspective. Things like The Chiral Puzzle of Life, or the stuff that Stuart Hameroff and Roger Penrose worked on. Actually, the reason why I write this now is that I accidentally came across Stuart Hameroff defending himself in the comment section of Scott Aaronson's blog post “Can computers become conscious?”: My reply to Roger Penrose. The speculations themselves are obviously misguided, but the open questions they try to address are real.