Like what you're reading? Subscribe to our top stories.
| Evernote helps you remember everything and get organized effortlessly. Download Evernote. |
each piece she's torn from the whole she gathers up to organize in a way that makes sense... A discussion point where ideas, articles, and stories that contain much of what you want and need to become aware of the existing corrupt reality we are experiencing and of ways to solve them...
Friday, July 1, 2016
100-Year-Old Box of Negatives Discovered Frozen In Block of Antarctica’s Ice
All the history that’s going to die with the Campbell Apartment
With its dress code, high beamed ceiling, and expansive window of century-old leaded glass, the Campbell Apartment is a strange place indeed for a bar brawl.
But a winner-take-all war has raged for six months within the granite walls of this dark and elegant dowager of a cocktail lounge in Grand Central Terminal — a battle that pits old against new, staid against trendy, an Old Fashioned with a stirring rod against black barrel whiskey with muddled raspberries.
This week, old — in the personage of longtime owner Mark Grossich — waved the white flag.
Originally the offices of a Jazz Age financier named John W. Campbell, the space had been a water-damaged, drop-ceilinged shell when Grossich, at a cost of $2.5 million, lovingly restored it to its original, baronial splendor.
As CEO of Hospitalty Holdings, Inc., which owns Midtown's Carnegie club and Murray Hill's Lexington's, Grossich is a master of the timeless, intimate cocktail lounge, temples to single malt scotch, fine cigars and tufted upholstery.
The Campbell Apartment was a cornerstone of that civilized empire.
But in one month, on July 28, Grossich must turn over the Campbell Apartment space to its new lease-holder, Scott Gerber, who runs such hip, jangly and galvanic lounges as the Irvington in the W Union Square and Mr. Purple on the roof of the Hotel Indigo on the Lower East Side.
The new guy plans to transform the Campbell Apartment and its "business casual" dress code into something far less stuffy. Something less Brooks Brothers, more limited edition sneakers and Gucci T-shirts.
"Right now, the image that people have of it very often is it's a place to go before special occasions," Gerber explains.
"So if you're going to a black-tie event at the Hyatt in Grand Central, you go in [to the Campbell Apartment] for a drink. That's OK, you can be in a tuxedo," Gerber says.
"But it's also OK for a guy or a girl to be in jeans or a T-shirt. That's OK too. That's the way people live," Gerber says, reasonably enough.
"We have a lot of athletes or musicians or celebrities who come into our places — what are you going to do, tell them we don't want you in because you're wearing a denim jacket?"
Well, yes, tell them exactly that, Grossich would counter.
Plenty of celebs come to Campbell Apartment as well — George Clooney, Liam Neeson, President Bill Clinton among them — and none of them wore sneakers.
"Trendiness," he scowls of Gerber's plans. "I hate that word."
Nearly a hundred years before it became a bit of an existential football, the Campbell Apartment was the business and pleasure lair of a millionaire financier named John W. Campbell.
A close pal and associate of William Vanderbilt — then chair of the New York Central Railroad — Campbell acquired the lease for the 25-by-60-foot space in 1923.
It was near Campbell and his wife's Park Avenue home, and so would be a convenient spot for running his credit-reporting business by day and entertaining clients by night.
Campbell really knew how to trick out a corner office.
He installed a grand piano, a pipe organ, a faux stone fireplace featuring his Scottish family's coat of arms, a 30-foot ceiling with faux-wood plaster of Paris beams, and a massive hand-knotted Persian carpet, one of the largest in the world, that would have cost $3.5 million in today's dollars.
Campbell, who died in 1957, was more a man of numbers than letters, and never ascended to the Astor 400, so there is scant record of him in libraries or old society page clippings.
But Grossich has spoken with his niece, Elsie Fater, who remembers that Uncle John oddly eschewed socks, even while wearing shoes.
"He sat there at his desk in his underpants, so as not to lose his crease," as Manhattan author Allyn Freeman, the closest thing to a Campbell biographer, put it recently.
Freeman's brief collaboration with Grossich on a biography was abandoned when extensive research turned up "almost nothing," he said, though a black and white photo of the man and his office does survive.
"You go through the door and the armoire is on the left, and there's a big rug that greets you with a table and a flower arrangement," Freeman said, describing the photo.
"There's a couple of tufted chairs to the right, and at the far end behind this 15th-century Florentine desk is John Campbell."
When the tycoon died, "The furniture went no one knows where," Freeman said.
"CBS Radio did some broadcasting in there, and then it dilapidated," he said.
"At one point, the police put in a pokey, a cell, for all the wastrels and drifters that came through Grand Central."
By the time Grossich acquired the lease, "There was water damage, wires hanging down, all the colors had faded, every piece of furniture was gone.
"But he had the vision and the money to redo it."
Traverse a seemingly private passageway, then climb a tucked-away carpeted staircase to find the Campbell Apartment, a dark and stately bar so hidden away in the bustling crypt of Grand Central Terminal that even time seems to have abandoned it there.
Big Band standards waft softly from hidden speakers. Wait staff in their uniforms — white dinner jackets and black ties for the waiters, black cocktail dresses and double strands of pearls for the waitresses — carry Delmonicos and potent Prohibition punches across slightly threadbare carpeting.
"Cocktails from another era," the Campbell Apartment menu promises.
"There's a certain timelessness to the space that makes it so interesting," Grossich says.
"It was an absolute dump," he remembers. "Half the pane glass in the window was broken, doors were broken. Nothing you see was visible."
Painters had to lie on their backs on scaffolds for months to restore and paint the colorful, heraldic designs on the high ceiling beams.
The result, Freeman says, was lovely.
"It was a terrific place to meet," says Freeman.
"I took people there and they just exclaimed how wonderful and how different it was."
Grossich signed a five-year lease when the 10-year lease ran out, and month-to-month leases since then.
But last year, the MTA began aggressively overhauling Grand Central's restaurants and bars, hoping for higher rents and ever-more high-end lease holders.
By early this year, Junior's and Two Boots Pizza lost their spots, and Cipriani Dolci was waiting to hear if it could stay.
New leases were awarded to an Apple store and a Nordic food hall operated by prominent Copenhagen restaurateur Claus Meyer. Wichcraft, the sandwich chain owned by celebrity chef Tom Colicchio, is taking over the space Junior's had for 16 years.
Meanwhile, without Grossich knowing, The Gerber Group was approached by the MTA's hired advisers at Newmark Grubb Knight Frank, inviting a bid on the Campbell Apartment space.
"I said, 'I'm really not interested,'" Gerber remembered. "And they said, 'Look, we think you'd be great, you're the kind of person we want.' And I said, OK."
In late December, Grossich, who'd been paying $350,000 a year on his year-to-year leases, learned that his offer to pay $800,000 a year on a new 10-year lease had been outbid.
Gerber had offered $1.1 million. As lease holder, Grossich was entitled to make a best and final offer.
"I told them I'd pay whatever the highest bid was, plus 2.5 percent," said Grossich.
"Oh no," he says he was told. "They said, 'They way overbid you. We can't do that.' Now after 17 years and all we've done to help rebuild the terminal, you can't do that? Are you kidding me?"
In April, Grossich sued the MTA, successfully barring them from transferring the lease, but only for a few months.
Gerber wants to run a "sleek and glitzy" club, Grossich argued in his lawsuit, not the kind of dignified restaurant and bar the MTA sought in its own bidding paperwork.
Gerber countered they had the better proposal and the higher rent offer, and that unless they could begin renovations immediately, they'd lose hundreds of thousands of dollars in holiday party bookings.
After many back-and-forths in Manhattan Supreme Court, a judge last week declined to extend Grossich's stay of eviction.
On Wednesday, the MTA gave Grossich his 30-day eviction notice.
"It's a sad turn of events," Grossich said of the eviction.
He wishes his successors luck — they'll need it, he said.
"It's going to be very difficult to achieve the kinds of numbers that will be necessary to sustain the operation for the long haul," given the million-plus rent, he said.
Gerber, meanwhile, is eager to start the refurbishment.
It's a landmarked space, meaning he can't change the walls, ceiling or century-old windows. But he's installing a costly new stone bar top, new bar and kitchen equipment, a new heating and air conditioning system, he says.
The club chairs and faded carpeting are bound for the trash heap, and instead of the fringe-shade wall lamps, Gerber says he's bringing in multiple chandeliers and high-tech lighting to better show off the beautiful ceiling.
Frank Sinatra, too, may have gone the way of John W. Campbell, and softly crooned his last. Instead, there will be "eclectic" music for an "eclectic" crowd, Gerber promises.
"I just think it needs to be — today."
But a winner-take-all war has raged for six months within the granite walls of this dark and elegant dowager of a cocktail lounge in Grand Central Terminal — a battle that pits old against new, staid against trendy, an Old Fashioned with a stirring rod against black barrel whiskey with muddled raspberries.
This week, old — in the personage of longtime owner Mark Grossich — waved the white flag.
The Campbell Apartment's longtime owner, Mark GrossichPhoto:
Matthew McDermott "It sucks, it blows, it's totally unfair," Grossich said of losing his lease, after 17 years running Campbell Apartment and a half a year fighting eviction in court.
Matthew McDermott "It sucks, it blows, it's totally unfair," Grossich said of losing his lease, after 17 years running Campbell Apartment and a half a year fighting eviction in court.
Originally the offices of a Jazz Age financier named John W. Campbell, the space had been a water-damaged, drop-ceilinged shell when Grossich, at a cost of $2.5 million, lovingly restored it to its original, baronial splendor.
Scott GerberPhoto: Chad Rachman
The Campbell Apartment was a cornerstone of that civilized empire.
Mark Grossich looks down on his "empire."Photo: Matthew McDermott
The new guy plans to transform the Campbell Apartment and its "business casual" dress code into something far less stuffy. Something less Brooks Brothers, more limited edition sneakers and Gucci T-shirts.
"Right now, the image that people have of it very often is it's a place to go before special occasions," Gerber explains.
"So if you're going to a black-tie event at the Hyatt in Grand Central, you go in [to the Campbell Apartment] for a drink. That's OK, you can be in a tuxedo," Gerber says.
"But it's also OK for a guy or a girl to be in jeans or a T-shirt. That's OK too. That's the way people live," Gerber says, reasonably enough.
"We have a lot of athletes or musicians or celebrities who come into our places — what are you going to do, tell them we don't want you in because you're wearing a denim jacket?"
Well, yes, tell them exactly that, Grossich would counter.
Plenty of celebs come to Campbell Apartment as well — George Clooney, Liam Neeson, President Bill Clinton among them — and none of them wore sneakers.
"Trendiness," he scowls of Gerber's plans. "I hate that word."
Photo: Eilon Paz
A close pal and associate of William Vanderbilt — then chair of the New York Central Railroad — Campbell acquired the lease for the 25-by-60-foot space in 1923.
It was near Campbell and his wife's Park Avenue home, and so would be a convenient spot for running his credit-reporting business by day and entertaining clients by night.
Campbell really knew how to trick out a corner office.
Photo: Warzer Jaff
Campbell, who died in 1957, was more a man of numbers than letters, and never ascended to the Astor 400, so there is scant record of him in libraries or old society page clippings.
But Grossich has spoken with his niece, Elsie Fater, who remembers that Uncle John oddly eschewed socks, even while wearing shoes.
'He sat there at his desk in his underpants, so as not to lose his crease.'Nor would he suffer wrinkles in his trousers, preferring to sit at his massive desk in his skivvies until an appointment required otherwise.
- Author Allyn Freeman on John W. Campbell
"He sat there at his desk in his underpants, so as not to lose his crease," as Manhattan author Allyn Freeman, the closest thing to a Campbell biographer, put it recently.
Freeman's brief collaboration with Grossich on a biography was abandoned when extensive research turned up "almost nothing," he said, though a black and white photo of the man and his office does survive.
"You go through the door and the armoire is on the left, and there's a big rug that greets you with a table and a flower arrangement," Freeman said, describing the photo.
"There's a couple of tufted chairs to the right, and at the far end behind this 15th-century Florentine desk is John Campbell."
When the tycoon died, "The furniture went no one knows where," Freeman said.
"CBS Radio did some broadcasting in there, and then it dilapidated," he said.
"At one point, the police put in a pokey, a cell, for all the wastrels and drifters that came through Grand Central."
By the time Grossich acquired the lease, "There was water damage, wires hanging down, all the colors had faded, every piece of furniture was gone.
"But he had the vision and the money to redo it."
The Campbell Apartment's signature cocktails.
Photo: Christian Johnston
Photo: Christian Johnston
Big Band standards waft softly from hidden speakers. Wait staff in their uniforms — white dinner jackets and black ties for the waiters, black cocktail dresses and double strands of pearls for the waitresses — carry Delmonicos and potent Prohibition punches across slightly threadbare carpeting.
"Cocktails from another era," the Campbell Apartment menu promises.
"There's a certain timelessness to the space that makes it so interesting," Grossich says.
'Cocktails from another era,' the Campbell Apartment menu promises.Grossich took the lease to the space in 1999, and spent nearly two years and more than $2 million on the renovation.
"It was an absolute dump," he remembers. "Half the pane glass in the window was broken, doors were broken. Nothing you see was visible."
Painters had to lie on their backs on scaffolds for months to restore and paint the colorful, heraldic designs on the high ceiling beams.
The result, Freeman says, was lovely.
"It was a terrific place to meet," says Freeman.
"I took people there and they just exclaimed how wonderful and how different it was."
Grossich signed a five-year lease when the 10-year lease ran out, and month-to-month leases since then.
But last year, the MTA began aggressively overhauling Grand Central's restaurants and bars, hoping for higher rents and ever-more high-end lease holders.
By early this year, Junior's and Two Boots Pizza lost their spots, and Cipriani Dolci was waiting to hear if it could stay.
Paris Durante pours a cocktail at The Campbell Apartment.Photo: Chad Rachman
Meanwhile, without Grossich knowing, The Gerber Group was approached by the MTA's hired advisers at Newmark Grubb Knight Frank, inviting a bid on the Campbell Apartment space.
"I said, 'I'm really not interested,'" Gerber remembered. "And they said, 'Look, we think you'd be great, you're the kind of person we want.' And I said, OK."
Photo: Chad Rachman
Gerber had offered $1.1 million. As lease holder, Grossich was entitled to make a best and final offer.
"I told them I'd pay whatever the highest bid was, plus 2.5 percent," said Grossich.
Photo: Chad Rachman
In April, Grossich sued the MTA, successfully barring them from transferring the lease, but only for a few months.
Gerber wants to run a "sleek and glitzy" club, Grossich argued in his lawsuit, not the kind of dignified restaurant and bar the MTA sought in its own bidding paperwork.
Gerber countered they had the better proposal and the higher rent offer, and that unless they could begin renovations immediately, they'd lose hundreds of thousands of dollars in holiday party bookings.
After many back-and-forths in Manhattan Supreme Court, a judge last week declined to extend Grossich's stay of eviction.
On Wednesday, the MTA gave Grossich his 30-day eviction notice.
"It's a sad turn of events," Grossich said of the eviction.
He wishes his successors luck — they'll need it, he said.
"It's going to be very difficult to achieve the kinds of numbers that will be necessary to sustain the operation for the long haul," given the million-plus rent, he said.
Gerber, meanwhile, is eager to start the refurbishment.
It's a landmarked space, meaning he can't change the walls, ceiling or century-old windows. But he's installing a costly new stone bar top, new bar and kitchen equipment, a new heating and air conditioning system, he says.
The club chairs and faded carpeting are bound for the trash heap, and instead of the fringe-shade wall lamps, Gerber says he's bringing in multiple chandeliers and high-tech lighting to better show off the beautiful ceiling.
Frank Sinatra, too, may have gone the way of John W. Campbell, and softly crooned his last. Instead, there will be "eclectic" music for an "eclectic" crowd, Gerber promises.
"I just think it needs to be — today."
| Evernote helps you remember everything and get organized effortlessly. Download Evernote. |
An ode to the Bronx, the best neighborhood you could grow up in
Alexis Montoya
The Bronx molded me and every other Bronxite into someone ready to take on the world.
You woke up when the neighborhood did
It just isn't a logical investment to purchase an alarm clock when the neighborhood is up and loud just when you need it to be (or not). Sounds of construction, roosters, and fights are just some recurring sounds of the morning. There isn't a resting moment in the Bronx, not even for the gifted neighborhood gospel singer.
Waking up to the most wonderful praises imaginable gave the sense of waking up into a dream. I would always run to the window searching for the person responsible for the voice to no avail. If you live close enough to a church, you can hear the praises of a choir on an early Sunday morning. People with no regard for who's listening made waking up much more bearable.
Arizona and BEC is a coveted breakfast combo
Breakfast was of the most treasured time for students on their way to school. It meant visiting the bodega and getting the best food combination to start your morning right: Arizona juice with a Bacon, Egg, and Cheese (BEC) sandwich. It was cheap, fulfilling, and delicious. Try making it at home and it just isn't the same. There's something magical about bodega deli workers.
You're thankful for the diversity and cultural presence everywhere you go
I'm amazed when meeting people who have never experienced any culture but their own for their entire lives. Going to school meant having friends from a variety of cultures, languages, and personas. Walking through any neighborhood meant seeing a mixture of flags, smelling a blend of delicious foods, and hearing any and all genres of music.
You've probably visited The Christmas House more than once
Every Christmas, houses are moderately decked out with lights and small signs, but The Christmas House on Pelham Parkway does not do basic decorating. In fact, every day is Christmas at that house. It has become a tradition for many to visit the house on holidays to see the animatronic statues of cherubs, celebrities, popular cartoon characters and much more.
Commuting always introduced you to someone you'll never forget
In the journey between home and school, you are guaranteed to run into someone begging for your money, attention, and time. Yet, there are those precious moments where you meet people that have you wondering if they're an angel in disguise.
In my own experience, I've met a woman, physically battered and emotionally disturbed, who clipped one of my neighbor's sunflowers and gave it to me just because. There was another occasion where I was struggling to get a cart of groceries off the curb at night when a giant man carrying a glow-in-the-dark boombox came and helped me. These hidden treasures teach you some of the most valuable lessons about humankind.
You know to never look at a stranger for more than 3 seconds
Making eye contact or smiling at a stranger is a huge mistake. From a very young age, we learn to keep to ourselves when in public. This means no eye contact, no smiling, no polite greetings. It's no wonder that we are often a contender (and winner) for the meanest city in the U.S.
In the streets, you never know who you're provoking. It's an unspoken rule that if someone looks at you for more than 3 seconds, there's a problem. While it may be seen as something rude, for us, it's a means of respect.
There's no need to visit art museums when your neighborhood is adorned in graffiti
Graffiti has come a long way since I was a kid. What once used to be illegible tags is now beautiful murals of abstract or realistic designs. You can't go far without seeing a mural in memory of a fallen Bronx native, Jesus, or still illegible yet skillful tags. It brings life to our neighborhoods, serving as true modern art.
It's hard to fall asleep without background noise
Whenever I would sleepover someone's house in a quiet area, I could never fall asleep due to the overbearing silence. The roaring hum of the buses, piercing yet muted sounds of firetrucks and police cars all give me the peace of mind I needed to fall asleep.
You can take the person out of the Bronx…
…but you can never take the Bronx out of the person. No matter where a Bronxite goes, the pride, charisma, and strength of the borough always stays with them.
Seriously
It's always humorous to tell someone I'm from the Bronx and watch as their faces turn from curious to mortified. "How many times have you been shot?" None. "Are you in a gang?" No. "You must be hood/ratchet/ghetto." There's so much more to the borough than its violent history, something only natives will understand. Growing up in the Bronx is an experience unlike any other. It's exciting, weird, and just scary enough to keep you on your toes.The Bronx molded me and every other Bronxite into someone ready to take on the world.
It just isn't a logical investment to purchase an alarm clock when the neighborhood is up and loud just when you need it to be (or not). Sounds of construction, roosters, and fights are just some recurring sounds of the morning. There isn't a resting moment in the Bronx, not even for the gifted neighborhood gospel singer.
Waking up to the most wonderful praises imaginable gave the sense of waking up into a dream. I would always run to the window searching for the person responsible for the voice to no avail. If you live close enough to a church, you can hear the praises of a choir on an early Sunday morning. People with no regard for who's listening made waking up much more bearable.
Arizona and BEC is a coveted breakfast combo
Breakfast was of the most treasured time for students on their way to school. It meant visiting the bodega and getting the best food combination to start your morning right: Arizona juice with a Bacon, Egg, and Cheese (BEC) sandwich. It was cheap, fulfilling, and delicious. Try making it at home and it just isn't the same. There's something magical about bodega deli workers.
You're thankful for the diversity and cultural presence everywhere you go
You've probably visited The Christmas House more than once
Every Christmas, houses are moderately decked out with lights and small signs, but The Christmas House on Pelham Parkway does not do basic decorating. In fact, every day is Christmas at that house. It has become a tradition for many to visit the house on holidays to see the animatronic statues of cherubs, celebrities, popular cartoon characters and much more.
Commuting always introduced you to someone you'll never forget
In my own experience, I've met a woman, physically battered and emotionally disturbed, who clipped one of my neighbor's sunflowers and gave it to me just because. There was another occasion where I was struggling to get a cart of groceries off the curb at night when a giant man carrying a glow-in-the-dark boombox came and helped me. These hidden treasures teach you some of the most valuable lessons about humankind.
You know to never look at a stranger for more than 3 seconds
Making eye contact or smiling at a stranger is a huge mistake. From a very young age, we learn to keep to ourselves when in public. This means no eye contact, no smiling, no polite greetings. It's no wonder that we are often a contender (and winner) for the meanest city in the U.S.
In the streets, you never know who you're provoking. It's an unspoken rule that if someone looks at you for more than 3 seconds, there's a problem. While it may be seen as something rude, for us, it's a means of respect.
There's no need to visit art museums when your neighborhood is adorned in graffiti
It's hard to fall asleep without background noise
Whenever I would sleepover someone's house in a quiet area, I could never fall asleep due to the overbearing silence. The roaring hum of the buses, piercing yet muted sounds of firetrucks and police cars all give me the peace of mind I needed to fall asleep.
You can take the person out of the Bronx…
| Evernote helps you remember everything and get organized effortlessly. Download Evernote. |
Thursday, June 30, 2016
Your Brain Isn't a Computer. It's a Quantum Field. | Big Think
- September 21, 2015
The irrationality of how we think has long plagued psychology. When someone asks us how we are, we usually respond with "fine" or "good." But if someone followed up about a specific event — "How did you feel about the big meeting with your boss today?" — suddenly, we refine our "good" or "fine" responses on a spectrum from awful to excellent.In less than a few sentences, we can contradict ourselves: We're "good" but feel awful about how the meeting went. How then could we be "good" overall? Bias, experience, knowledge, and context all consciously and unconsciously form a confluence that drives every decision we make and emotion we express. Human behavior is not easy to anticipate, and probability theory often fails in its predictions of it.Enter quantum cognition: A team of researchers has determined that while our choices and beliefs don't often make sense or fit a pattern on a macro level, at a "quantum" level, they can be predicted with surprising accuracy. In quantum physics, examining a particle's state changes the state of the particle — so too, the "observation effect" influences how we think about the idea we are considering.The quantum-cognition theory opens the fields of psychology and neuroscience to understanding the mind not as a linear computer, but rather an elegant universe.In the example of the meeting, if someone asks, "Did it go well?" we immediately think of ways it did. However, if he or she asks, "Were you nervous about the meeting?" we might remember that it was pretty scary to give a presentation in front of a group. The other borrowed concept in quantum cognition is that we cannot hold incompatible ideas in our minds at one time. In other words, decision-making and opinion-forming are a lot like Schrödinger's cat.The quantum-cognition theory opens the fields of psychology and neuroscience to understanding the mind not as a linear computer, but rather an elegant universe. But the notion that human thought and existence is richly paradoxical has been around for centuries. Moreover, the more scientists and scholars explore the irrational rationality of our minds, the closer science circles back to the confounding logic at the heart of every religion. Buddhism, for instance, is premised on riddles such as, "Peace comes from within. Do not seek it without it." And, in Christianity, the paradox that Christ was simultaneously both a flesh-and-blood man and the Son of God is the central metaphor of the faith.[D]ecision-making and opinion-forming are a lot like Schrödinger's cat.For centuries, religious texts have explored the idea that reality breaks down once we get past our surface perceptions of it; and yet, it is through these ambiguities that we understand more about ourselves and our world. In the Old Testament, the embattled Job pleads with God for an explanation as to why he has endured so much suffering. God then quizzically replies, "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?" (Job 38:4). The question seems nonsensical — why would God ask a person in his creation where he was when God himself created the world? But this paradox is little different from the one in Einstein's famous challenge to Heisenberg's "Uncertainty Principle": "God does not play dice with the universe." As Stephen Hawking counters, "Even God is bound by the uncertainty principle" because if all outcomes were deterministic then God would not be God. His being the universe's "inveterate gambler" is the unpredictable certainty that creates him.The mind then, according to quantum cognition, "gambles" with our "uncertain" reason, feelings, and biases to produce competing thoughts, ideas, and opinions. Then we synthesize those competing options to relate to our relatively "certain" realities. By examining our minds at a quantum level, we change them, and by changing them, we change the reality that shapes them.Changing the metaphors we use to understand the world — especially the quantum metaphor — can yield amazing insights. Jonathan Keats, experimental philosopher, explains:--Daphne Muller is a New York City-based writer who has written for Salon, Ms. Magazine, The Huffington Post, and reviewed books for ELLE and Publishers Weekly. Most recently, she completed a novel and screenplay. You can follow her on Instagram @daphonay and on Twitter @DaphneEMuller.Image courtesy of Shutterstock
Why Iron Maiden Still Rules, and Heavy Metal Will Never Die | NOISEY
| Evernote helps you remember everything and get organized effortlessly. Download Evernote. |
Monday, June 27, 2016
How to Use the Feynman Technique to Identify Pseudoscience
Earlier this year, a study made headlines worldwide by bluntly demonstrating the human capacity to be misled by "pseudo-profound bullshit" from the likes of Deepak Chopra, infamous for making profound sounding yet entirely meaningless statements by abusing scientific language.
This is all well and good, but how are we supposed to know that we are being misled when we read a quote about quantum theory from someone like Chopra, if we don't know the first thing about quantum mechanics?
In a lecture given by Richard Feynman in 1966, the influential theoretical physicist told a story about the difference between knowing the name for something and truly understanding it:
"This boy said to me, 'See that bird standing on the stump there? What's the name of it?' I said, 'I haven't got the slightest idea.' He said, 'It's a brown-throated thrush. Your father doesn't teach you much about science.'
I smiled to myself, because my father had already taught me that [the name] doesn't tell me anything about the bird. He taught me 'See that bird? It's a brown-throated thrush, but in Germany it's called a halsenflugel, and in Chinese they call it a chung ling and even if you know all those names for it, you still know nothing about the bird — you only know something about people; what they call that bird. Now that thrush sings, and teaches its young to fly, and flies so many miles away during the summer across the country, and nobody knows how it finds its way,' and so forth. There is a difference between the name of the thing and what goes on.
The result of this is that I cannot remember anybody's name, and when people discuss physics with me they often are exasperated when they say, 'the Fitz-Cronin effect,' and I ask, 'What is the effect?' and I can't remember the name."
Feynman went on: "There is a first grade science book which, in the first lesson of the first grade, begins in an unfortunate manner to teach science, because it starts off on the wrong idea of what science is. There is a picture of a dog — a windable toy dog — and a hand comes to the winder, and then the dog is able to move. Under the last picture, it says, 'What makes it move?' Later on, there is a picture of a real dog and the question, 'What makes it move?' Then there is a picture of a motorbike and the question, 'What makes it move?' and so on.
I thought at first they were getting ready to tell what science was going to be about — physics, biology, chemistry — but that wasn't it. The answer was in the teacher's edition of the book: The answer I was trying to learn is that 'energy makes it move.'
Now, energy is a very subtle concept. It is very, very difficult to get right. What I meant is that it is not easy to understand energy well enough to use it right, so that you can deduce something correctly using the energy idea — it is beyond the first grade. It would be equally well to say that 'God makes it move,' or, 'Spirit makes it move,' or, 'Movability makes it move.' (In fact, one could equally well say, 'Energy makes it stop.')
Look at it this way: That's only the definition of energy; it should be reversed. We might say when something can move that it has energy in it, but not what makes it move is energy. This is a very subtle difference. It's the same with this inertia proposition.
Perhaps I can make the difference a little clearer this way: If you ask a child what makes the toy dog move, you should think about what an ordinary human being would answer. The answer is that you wound up the spring; it tries to unwind and pushes the gear around.
What a good way to begin a science course! Take apart the toy; see how it works. See the cleverness of the gears; see the ratchets. Learn something about the toy, the way the toy is put together, the ingenuity of people devising the ratchets and other things. That's good. The question is fine. The answer is a little unfortunate, because what they were trying to do is teach a definition of what is energy. But nothing whatever is learned.
Suppose a student would say, 'I don't think energy makes it move.' Where does the discussion go from there?
I finally figured out a way to test whether you have taught an idea or you have only taught a definition. Test it this way: You say, 'Without using the new word which you have just learned, try to rephrase what you have just learned in your own language. Without using the word "energy," tell me what you know now about the dog's motion.' You cannot. So you learned nothing about science. That may be all right. You may not want to learn something about science right away. You have to learn definitions. But for the very first lesson, is that not possibly destructive?
I think for lesson number one, to learn a mystic formula for answering questions is very bad. The book has some others: 'gravity makes it fall;' 'the soles of your shoes wear out because of friction.' Shoe leather wears out because it rubs against the sidewalk and the little notches and bumps on the sidewalk grab pieces and pull them off. To simply say it is because of friction, is sad, because it's not science."
Feynman's parable about the meaning of science is a valuable way of testing ourselves on whether we have really learned something, or whether we just think we have learned something, but it is equally useful for testing the claims of others. If someone cannot explain something in plain English, then we should question whether they really do themselves understand what they profess. If the person in question is communicating ostensibly to a non-specialist audience using specialist terms out of context, the first question on our lips should be: "Why?" In the words of Feyman, "It is possible to follow form and call it science, but that is pseudoscience."
Follow Simon Oxenham @Neurobonkers on Twitter, Facebook, RSS or join the mailing list. Image Credit: Adapted from Wikimedia Commons.
This is all well and good, but how are we supposed to know that we are being misled when we read a quote about quantum theory from someone like Chopra, if we don't know the first thing about quantum mechanics?
In a lecture given by Richard Feynman in 1966, the influential theoretical physicist told a story about the difference between knowing the name for something and truly understanding it:
"This boy said to me, 'See that bird standing on the stump there? What's the name of it?' I said, 'I haven't got the slightest idea.' He said, 'It's a brown-throated thrush. Your father doesn't teach you much about science.'
I smiled to myself, because my father had already taught me that [the name] doesn't tell me anything about the bird. He taught me 'See that bird? It's a brown-throated thrush, but in Germany it's called a halsenflugel, and in Chinese they call it a chung ling and even if you know all those names for it, you still know nothing about the bird — you only know something about people; what they call that bird. Now that thrush sings, and teaches its young to fly, and flies so many miles away during the summer across the country, and nobody knows how it finds its way,' and so forth. There is a difference between the name of the thing and what goes on.
The result of this is that I cannot remember anybody's name, and when people discuss physics with me they often are exasperated when they say, 'the Fitz-Cronin effect,' and I ask, 'What is the effect?' and I can't remember the name."
Feynman went on: "There is a first grade science book which, in the first lesson of the first grade, begins in an unfortunate manner to teach science, because it starts off on the wrong idea of what science is. There is a picture of a dog — a windable toy dog — and a hand comes to the winder, and then the dog is able to move. Under the last picture, it says, 'What makes it move?' Later on, there is a picture of a real dog and the question, 'What makes it move?' Then there is a picture of a motorbike and the question, 'What makes it move?' and so on.
I thought at first they were getting ready to tell what science was going to be about — physics, biology, chemistry — but that wasn't it. The answer was in the teacher's edition of the book: The answer I was trying to learn is that 'energy makes it move.'
Now, energy is a very subtle concept. It is very, very difficult to get right. What I meant is that it is not easy to understand energy well enough to use it right, so that you can deduce something correctly using the energy idea — it is beyond the first grade. It would be equally well to say that 'God makes it move,' or, 'Spirit makes it move,' or, 'Movability makes it move.' (In fact, one could equally well say, 'Energy makes it stop.')
Look at it this way: That's only the definition of energy; it should be reversed. We might say when something can move that it has energy in it, but not what makes it move is energy. This is a very subtle difference. It's the same with this inertia proposition.
Perhaps I can make the difference a little clearer this way: If you ask a child what makes the toy dog move, you should think about what an ordinary human being would answer. The answer is that you wound up the spring; it tries to unwind and pushes the gear around.
What a good way to begin a science course! Take apart the toy; see how it works. See the cleverness of the gears; see the ratchets. Learn something about the toy, the way the toy is put together, the ingenuity of people devising the ratchets and other things. That's good. The question is fine. The answer is a little unfortunate, because what they were trying to do is teach a definition of what is energy. But nothing whatever is learned.
Suppose a student would say, 'I don't think energy makes it move.' Where does the discussion go from there?
I finally figured out a way to test whether you have taught an idea or you have only taught a definition. Test it this way: You say, 'Without using the new word which you have just learned, try to rephrase what you have just learned in your own language. Without using the word "energy," tell me what you know now about the dog's motion.' You cannot. So you learned nothing about science. That may be all right. You may not want to learn something about science right away. You have to learn definitions. But for the very first lesson, is that not possibly destructive?
I think for lesson number one, to learn a mystic formula for answering questions is very bad. The book has some others: 'gravity makes it fall;' 'the soles of your shoes wear out because of friction.' Shoe leather wears out because it rubs against the sidewalk and the little notches and bumps on the sidewalk grab pieces and pull them off. To simply say it is because of friction, is sad, because it's not science."
Feynman's parable about the meaning of science is a valuable way of testing ourselves on whether we have really learned something, or whether we just think we have learned something, but it is equally useful for testing the claims of others. If someone cannot explain something in plain English, then we should question whether they really do themselves understand what they profess. If the person in question is communicating ostensibly to a non-specialist audience using specialist terms out of context, the first question on our lips should be: "Why?" In the words of Feyman, "It is possible to follow form and call it science, but that is pseudoscience."
Follow Simon Oxenham @Neurobonkers on Twitter, Facebook, RSS or join the mailing list. Image Credit: Adapted from Wikimedia Commons.
| Evernote helps you remember everything and get organized effortlessly. Download Evernote. |
Saturday, June 25, 2016
2008 All Over Again: Chris Hedges
Will the American public passively permit another massive bailout of the banks? Will it accept more punishing programs of austerity to pay for this bailout? Will a viable socialism rise out of the economic chaos to halt further looting of the U.S. Treasury and the continued reconfiguration of the economy into neofeudalism? Or will a right-wing populism, with heavy undertones of fascism, ascend to power because of a failure on the part of the left to defend a population once again betrayed?
Whatever happens next will be chaotic. Global financial markets, which lost heavily on derivatives, are already in free fall. The value of the British pound has dropped by over 9 percent and British bank stock prices by over 25 percent. This decline has wiped out the net worth of many Wall Street brokerage houses and banks, leaving them with negative equity. The Brexit vote severely cripples and perhaps kills the eurozone and, happily, stymies trade agreements such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership. It throws the viability of NATO and American imperial designs in Eastern Europe and the Middle East into question. The British public's repudiation of neoliberal economics also has the potential to upend the presidential elections. The Democratic Party will orchestrate a rescue of Wall Street if there is a call for a bailout. Donald Trump and the Republicans, by opposing a bailout, can ride popular revulsion to power.
"A lot of banks in America and Europe that held their money in Great Britain just lost 9 percent at current exchange rates," said economist Michael Hudson when I reached him in New York by phone. "They have probably not hedged it. There have probably been large Wall Street institutions that made bets believing that Britain would remain in the European Union. There are firms and banks, I suspect, which have lost hundreds of billions of dollars. There is talk of another Lehman Brothers. We don't yet know who it will be."
The Democratic Party, by rescuing Wall Street, will be unmasked as the handmaidens of the financial elite.
"I expect Obama to do whatever he is told to do by Wall Street," Hudson said. "He has turned over management of the economy to his campaign contributors from Goldman Sachs and Chase Manhattan. He does not have views of his own, other than self-promotion. He wants his presidential library. He wants to have a big foundation like the Clintons. Most of the population will oppose a bailout, of course, and he will cry all the way to the bank."
Economies built on scaffolds of debt eventually collapse. There comes a moment when the service of the debt, as we see in Greece, becomes unsustainable. More and more draconian austerity measures are imposed on a captive public to pay banks and bondholders until these measures reach an intolerable level. The people revolt. The system crashes. This is what happened in Britain.
The war against international finance, and the array of intergovernmental systems and institutions used to enforce the predatory beast of global speculation, has begun. The question is, who will win? Will it be the banks, which intend to continue to pillage economies? Or will it be popular movements that will rise up to cancel debt and reinstate economic and political sovereignty?
Hudson sees the crisis in Europe as, in part, spawned by the U.S. intervention in the Middle East and the Ukraine.
"If there is anyone who is responsible for the Brexit, it is Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama," he said. "They destroyed Libya. They turned over Libyan weapons to [Islamic State], al-Qaida and [Nusra Front]. It was their war in Syria, where many of these weapons ended up, which created the massive exodus of refugees into Europe. This exodus exacerbated nationalism and anti-immigrant sentiment. Clinton and Obama are also responsible for a huge exodus of Ukrainians. This is all a response to American war policy in the Middle East and the Ukraine. In central Europe, with the expansion of NATO, Washington is meanwhile demanding that governments spend billions on weapons rather than on recovering the economy."
The eurozone prohibits central banks from financing government budget deficits. Countries in the eurozone have, in effect, surrendered economic and political sovereignty. They cannot create money to cope with their budget deficits or pump money into the economy. This, Hudson said, has "turned the eurozone into a dead zone since 2008."
"The eurozone now shrinks economies through debt deflation," said Hudson, author of "Killing the Host: How Financial Parasites and Debt Bondage Destroy the Global Economy." "That is one of the factors that led the British and the euroskeptic parties to say, 'We don't want to be a part of a Europe run by banks that impose debt deflation. We want governments that can create their own money to re-inflate the economy and build economic recovery.' As long as a country remains part of the eurozone, bankers will continue to lower wages and wipe out pension funds to pay bondholders. The Brexit vote reverses this rotten program. There are now calls from the Netherlands, France and Austria for a similar referendum."
"The debt imposed on countries like Greece can never be paid off," Hudson went on. "And the intention is that it can never be paid off. The banks use this inability to pay to insist that governments sell off more and more of the public domain and privatize. Debt is the lever used to force privatization. It takes away the power to carry out public investment and build a public infrastructure.
"Some financial firms, banks and perhaps even governments will now default," Hudson predicted. "The French and other European banks will try and pick up the banking business that operated out of London. There is going to be a huge loss by British banks. The taxes paid by these firms and banks will disappear from the British economy. Who is the British central bank going to create money for in this crisis? Is it going to put money into the economy, or is it going to pay for a new wave of quantitative easing so the banks can make up the losses on their bad bets?"
Britain's withdrawal from the eurozone will damage not only the international banking system, but hamper Washington's aggressive policies toward Russia and the Ukraine. Britain has served within the EU as an American proxy. German Social Democratic Party leaders, who have accused NATO of warmongering, have already called for the lifting of the sanctions against Russia. And there is a growing reluctance to continue supporting endless war in the Middle East.
"By breaking with the European bankers, you also ultimately break with the American domination of Europe through NATO," Hudson said.
"At some point, governments are going to have to put their own populations and economies above those of predators," he said. "The only question is, how long it will take the political system to realize the debts imposed on them by the banks cannot be paid? How long will it take to turn this mathematical certainty into a political response?"
If the liberal class, embodied by the Democratic Party and bankrupt socialist parties in countries such as France, continue to serve the bankers, the right wing will have an easy route to power. This will be true in Europe and the United States.
Trump, in Scotland, heralded the vote to leave the EU as "a great thing."
"People want to take their country back, they want to have independence in a sense, and you see it with Europe, all over Europe, and you're going to have more than just, in my opinion, more than just what happened last night," Trump said. "You're going to have many other cases where people want to take their borders back, they want to take their monetary [policy] back, they want to take a lot of things back, they want to be able to have a country again."
Hudson said such a stance could propel Trump and other right-wing populists to power.
"I can see Trump winning the election if he opposes what I expect will be the coming bailout of Wall Street," Hudson said. "By the time Obama leaves office, the economy will probably be wrecked. I see us undergoing a slow crash. The economy will go down and down and down. If the Democrats give more money to Wall Street and creditors, if they say the debts have to be repaid, if they again use government to hand money to the 1 percent, they will be discredited. Economic chaos always leads to political chaos. The only way to stop this move to the right is for genuine socialist movements and parties, such as Podemos in Spain, to organize and challenge the international banking system and its enablers in the political establishment. And they need to do it now."
"The eurozone now shrinks economies through debt deflation," said Hudson, author of "Killing the Host: How Financial Parasites and Debt Bondage Destroy the Global Economy." "That is one of the factors that led the British and the euroskeptic parties to say, 'We don't want to be a part of a Europe run by banks that impose debt deflation. We want governments that can create their own money to re-inflate the economy and build economic recovery.' As long as a country remains part of the eurozone, bankers will continue to lower wages and wipe out pension funds to pay bondholders. The Brexit vote reverses this rotten program. There are now calls from the Netherlands, France and Austria for a similar referendum."
"The debt imposed on countries like Greece can never be paid off," Hudson went on. "And the intention is that it can never be paid off. The banks use this inability to pay to insist that governments sell off more and more of the public domain and privatize. Debt is the lever used to force privatization. It takes away the power to carry out public investment and build a public infrastructure.
"Some financial firms, banks and perhaps even governments will now default," Hudson predicted. "The French and other European banks will try and pick up the banking business that operated out of London. There is going to be a huge loss by British banks. The taxes paid by these firms and banks will disappear from the British economy. Who is the British central bank going to create money for in this crisis? Is it going to put money into the economy, or is it going to pay for a new wave of quantitative easing so the banks can make up the losses on their bad bets?"
Britain's withdrawal from the eurozone will damage not only the international banking system, but hamper Washington's aggressive policies toward Russia and the Ukraine. Britain has served within the EU as an American proxy. German Social Democratic Party leaders, who have accused NATO of warmongering, have already called for the lifting of the sanctions against Russia. And there is a growing reluctance to continue supporting endless war in the Middle East.
"By breaking with the European bankers, you also ultimately break with the American domination of Europe through NATO," Hudson said.
"At some point, governments are going to have to put their own populations and economies above those of predators," he said. "The only question is, how long it will take the political system to realize the debts imposed on them by the banks cannot be paid? How long will it take to turn this mathematical certainty into a political response?"
If the liberal class, embodied by the Democratic Party and bankrupt socialist parties in countries such as France, continue to serve the bankers, the right wing will have an easy route to power. This will be true in Europe and the United States.
Trump, in Scotland, heralded the vote to leave the EU as "a great thing."
"People want to take their country back, they want to have independence in a sense, and you see it with Europe, all over Europe, and you're going to have more than just, in my opinion, more than just what happened last night," Trump said. "You're going to have many other cases where people want to take their borders back, they want to take their monetary [policy] back, they want to take a lot of things back, they want to be able to have a country again."
Hudson said such a stance could propel Trump and other right-wing populists to power.
"I can see Trump winning the election if he opposes what I expect will be the coming bailout of Wall Street," Hudson said. "By the time Obama leaves office, the economy will probably be wrecked. I see us undergoing a slow crash. The economy will go down and down and down. If the Democrats give more money to Wall Street and creditors, if they say the debts have to be repaid, if they again use government to hand money to the 1 percent, they will be discredited. Economic chaos always leads to political chaos. The only way to stop this move to the right is for genuine socialist movements and parties, such as Podemos in Spain, to organize and challenge the international banking system and its enablers in the political establishment. And they need to do it now."
| Evernote helps you remember everything and get organized effortlessly. Download Evernote. |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)