9/11 Hutchison Effect Review

To support her conclusion that Directed Energy Weaponry (DEW) brought down the twin towers, Dr. Judy Wood draws parallels between the debris from the twin towers' aftermath and experimental results of the Hutchison Effect. I do not dispute those similarities, however correlation does not imply causation. Because John Hutchison uses energy beams in his experimental apparatus does not conclusively implicate the deployment of DEW in the twin towers disaster. A positive correlation exists between ice cream consumption and drownings. Both peak in the summer. However, no causal relationship exists between the two.

I present an alternate source as the probable cause for the observed effects in an earlier blog entry: 9/11 Dr. Judy Wood Review. In this blog entry I go deeper into the subject, down to the molecular level, including a graphical representation of the science behind molecular dissociation, and the chemical reactions of positive metal ions and water to produce cold fire and rust through oxidation.

Here is a video of a radio interview including Dr. Judy Wood and Andrew Johnson presenting their findings.

9/11 - WTC Destruction and the Hutchison Effect - Part 1


9/11 - WTC Destruction and the Hutchison Effect - Part 2

Hidden Defects

The trouble with mainstream science and mainstream scientists is that only mainstream theories are considered when trying to determine the cause of anomalous evidence. "When your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail." For sure, Dr. Judy Wood examined a larger toolbox than orthodox scientists will ever admit to, and for that she deserved a great deal of credit for her courage. However, only looking inside a toolbox overlooks other options where thinking outside the box is indicated.

Paradigm shifts in science routinely come from thinking outside the box. Galileo, Newton, Darwin, and Einstein invented some of the tools employed by mainstream scientists today, but they thought outside the box to create them, which means that a thought experiment is in order.

Molecular Dissociation

Here is a pseudo-molecular level representation of a gas. The number of protons and electrons is equal for each molecule. The reason that air molecules with a neutral electric charge do not stick together is because electrons surround the periphery and like electrostatic charge repels like. The electron outer shell of each molecule causes the individual molecules to repel each other.

_‡‡_	_‡‡_	_‡‡_	_‡‡_	_‡‡_	_‡‡_	_‡‡_	_‡‡_
_‡‡_	_‡‡_	_‡‡_	_‡‡_	_‡‡_	_‡‡_	_‡‡_	_‡‡_

Here is the same pseudo-molecular representation of a solid, with the same number of molecules, i.e. sixteen. Electrons are shared to create molecular bonds. Notice the solid is more compact than a gas, which translates into the greater density of solids compared to gases.

_‡‡_‡‡_‡‡_‡‡_‡‡_‡‡_‡‡_‡‡_
_‡‡_‡‡_‡‡_‡‡_‡‡_‡‡_‡‡_‡‡_

Now suppose the molecular bonds of the above solid are suddenly ripped asunder. The result is represented below, a positive ion particulate cloud. All the molecules are positive ions, since the positive charge of four outnumbers the negative charge of electrons by two, three, or four in the representation below. All these molecules repel each other because they are positive ions.

¯‡‡¯	_‡‡¯	_‡‡_	¯‡‡¯	_‡‡¯	‡‡¯	_‡‡¯	_‡‡¯
_‡‡	_‡‡	_‡‡_	‡‡	_‡‡_	¯‡‡_	‡‡_	‡‡_

A positive ion particulate cloud is consistent with the effects Dr. Judy Wood cataloged that resemble results of the Hutchison Effect. Transmutation of the atomic elements by changing the atomic nucleus is not necessary, therefore fusion which increases atomic number and fission which reduces atomic number are outside the range of consideration here. In the video, Andrew Johnson mentions "cold fusion" which taken literally is not relevant.

Probable Cause

It is the concentration in time and space of the positive ions that triggered and sustained this process, which began as pulverized concrete from the floors of the World Trade Center that generated the dust cloud. A Directed Energy Weapon is not the only possible source for this outcome. In fact, a Directed Energy Weapon is not the probable cause either.

On her website Dr. Wood offers this quote, "When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." A much simpler probable cause is a natural runaway chain reaction triggered by the pancaking of the concrete floors within the twin towers that was concentrated in time and space. The destruction of the twin towers was a rare event, requiring a unique perspective and a compelling argument.

Positive Ion Particulate Cloud

The positive ion particulate cloud hypothesis is the counter-argument to the Directed Energy Weapon scenario. As upper floors slammed into floors below, the concrete pulverized. With primary support columns displaced to the exterior of the World Trade Center skyscrapers the floors inside the twin towers cascaded down like a piston inside a cylinder. The air inside compressed and blew out the windows like an accordion or bellows, exhausting air, broken concrete, dust, paper, etcetera. The potential energy of the height of the floors was converted into kinetic energy as the floors dropped slamming into floors below. Upon contact, the kinetic energy converted into fragmenting the concrete floors and severing molecular bonds along these breaks.

The sheer scale and concentration of the destruction in time and space was a rare event. The concrete ejected from the tower appeared to disintegrate in mid air. Immersed in the positive ion cloud, the surface electrons were shanghaied from concrete and other solid matter, breaking molecular bonds in the process, and creating more positive ions. The positive ions repelled each other expanding the dust cloud. The most susceptible atoms to have electrons shanghaied are metals, and hydrogen. Concrete contains calcium, which is a metal. Glass contains trace metallic elements. Positive ion dust particles shanghaied electrons from vulnerable solids it contacted. What began with pulverized concrete grew into a runaway chain reaction. No externally generated electromagnetic energy was necessary to start or sustain it.

As the positive ion cloud shanghaied electrons, solid material underwent molecular dissociation, which fed the positive ion cloud and the total deficit of electrons increased exponentially from the conversion of solid matter to positively charged dust particles. The destruction of the World Trade Center exhibited a previously unidentified exponential process like an explosion in an entirely different dimension. John Hutchison's experiments are child's play in comparison.

Oxidation or Cold Fire

Metal ions oxidized in a process that produced cold fire, when reacting with molecules containing oxygen with weak molecular bonds, i.e. water or water vapor: H₂O. Trying to extinguish an oxidizing metal fire with water is impossible. That's why some metals rust when they get wet. Here are a couple of chemical reaction equations that produce rust from positive ions of iron and water that also release hydrogen atoms stripped of electrons, i.e. protons.

Fe²⁺ + 2 H₂O ⇌ Fe(OH)₂ + 2 H⁺
Fe³⁺ + 3 H₂O ⇌ Fe(OH)₃ + 3 H⁺

Glass

Automobile windshields were missing, not smashed. Windshield glass is laminated. A sheet of plastic is sandwiched between layers of glass. This prevents a passenger from getting decapitated in a collision. Of all the images of cars, windshields are missing, not smashed.

Glass contains silica, SiO₂, which holds it's electrons tight against being shanghaied. People could still breathe, so atmospheric oxygen, O₂, also held it's own, whereas metals did not. Metal atoms contained in glass include sodium, calcium, magnesium, and aluminum. Skyscraper windows also contain reflective coatings which contain metal atoms. Metal atoms easily succumb to having their valence electrons shanghaied. Metals are good conductors of electricity, which is the flow of electron across the surface.

Flipped Cars

Car engine blocks were gone, disintegrated. The process of converting solid iron or aluminum into ionic dust particles also changes the volume of the material. The engine block dust particles needed to go someplace, and the engine compartment is only open on the bottom. Rapid expansion and vaporization of the material in the engine compartment would generate a downward thrust at the front end of the car. An equal and opposite force would apply in the upward direction on the engine compartment hood. The front end of the car would lift off the ground quickly, while the rear tires remained on the ground. This would cause the cars to somersault, pivot on their rear bumper, and land upside down. This is not the result a beamed energy weapon could produce. It was the consequence of the ionic dust as it shanghaied electrons from the all too willing metal making up engine blocks.

Dirt

Those responsible for clean up duty hauled in truckloads of dirt, spread the dirt around, picked it back up, and hauled it out again. Dr. Wood indicated that this is the method used to clean up toxic spills. This is reminiscent of how a doctor will treat the symptoms of a disease when no cure is known nor definitive diagnosis is made.

Hutchison Effect

Although the Hutchison Effect produces similar results, it requires the use of external apparatus. In the case of the World Trade Center this equipment was unnecessary.

Occam's Razor

According to Occam's Razor the simplest explanation should prevail. Directed Energy Weapons is not the simplest explanation for the destruction of the World Trade Center. The positive ion particulate cloud hypothesis makes the fewest possible assumptions to arrive at a consistent and comprehensive explanation for the 9/11 disaster. The necessary and sufficient conditions presented also resolve issues with the mainstream account.

9/11 Dr. Judy Wood Review

George Bush and Dr. Judy Wood both misdiagnosed the pathogens responsible for the destruction of the World Trade Center twin towers, however Dr. Wood does deserve tremendous credit for her courage in collecting and classifying intriguing evidence dismissed or ignored by mainstream investigators. Let's review the case presented by Dr. Wood and consider a natural, albeit rare, phenomenon that is consistent with her findings of molecular dissociation, but does not involve any Directed Energy Weapon (DEW) pathogen.

Traditional explanations fail to address the apparent phenomenon of molecular dissociation identified by Dr. Wood. However, if I am correct, the only non al-Qaeda conspiracy behind the 9/11 attacks is a de facto one resulting from the groupthink practices employed by mainstream science and pseudoscience alike that reject contrary evidence and interpretations outright. Revolutionary science proposes a natural, albeit rare, phenomenon as the pathogen responsible for molecular dissociation, while exposing a systemic failure of the scientific method and of practitioners thereof.

Dr. Wood's continuing investigation adheres to the scientific method, as mainstream efforts focused on treating the symptoms of the twin towers aftermath, while a reputable diagnosis of the disease has escaped identification until now. Was this a conspiracy, something akin to medical malpractice, or simply treating the symptoms of an unidentified disease with no known cure? I accept Dr. Wood's diagnosis of molecular dissociation, but her Directed Energy Weapon pathogen borders on the brink of nonsense. So I present a sensible alternative that is consistent with the symptoms and explains her molecular dissociation conclusion.

In addition, the pathogen I propose also has implications for explaining the present conditions on the planet Mars, where evidence for water exists absent the presence of water, and dust storms obscure large parts of the planet surface for extended periods of time. A Directed Energy Weapon did not create current conditions on Mars. A meteor impact did. The dust created by the twin towers incident also resembles the pumice residue from the eruption of Mount St. Helens. The coincidences between these rare events begs for a universally acceptable, natural explanation. Dr. Wood identified another rare event that also belongs in this group: Hiroshima.

Dr. Wood presented an interesting but misleading analogy, when she likened the twin towers to trees. A tree with a hole in the side does not fall down, as the twin towers did. Although true, the analogy ends there. Where the towers as trees analogy fails is when we consider what conventional wisdom dictates should have happened after the airplanes struck the twin towers. Investigators paid to reverse engineer the disaster concluded that the impact of the airplanes blew insulation off the floor supports. The airplane fuel fires then weakened the floor supports to the point where floors immediately above the fires broke loose and plummeted down slamming into lower floors.

What should have happened according to conventional wisdom after that? The force with which lower floors were hit by collapsing floors from above sheared the bolts holding the floor supports to the primary support columns. In the case of the twin towers the primary support columns were located on the exterior of the skyscrapers, like the bark on a tree. All the floors below, and including the floors weakened by blown off insulation and fire, should have cascaded down the shaft inside the exterior shell and smashed into rubble at bottom, like an elevator in free fall plummeting down an elevator shaft and hitting bottom. Between the floors, compressed air should have blow out the windows to escape, ejecting material like paper and dust in the process.

The final disposition of the twin towers should have been a hollow space between the impact points and rubble at the bottom, where the lower floors were located prior to the incident, and confined between the shell of still standing exterior support columns. Floors above the impact should have remained intact, with a hollow core in between, resembling an empty cardboard box sealed at the top and bottom, or rather a cage since all the windows were blown out leaving holes in the exterior. The distance from the impact points to the bottom is shorter than from top to ground. The discrepancy forwarded between the timing of gravity and the rate of "collapse" incorrectly assumes the top to bottom distance.

However, in the final analysis trees do not act this way, because the wood inside a tree is the primary support column, not the bark. But the inconsistent disposition of the twin towers refutes this scenario. Dr. Wood was on to something, but she never arrived at a universally acceptable solution, which is what I have to offer.

Dr. Wood presented her evidence and conclusions at conferences that were recorded in the following videos.

9/11 - The New Hiroshima - Part 1 - Dr. Judy Wood, Madison, Aug 2007


9/11 - The New Hiroshima - Part 2 - Dr. Judy Wood, Madison, Aug 2007


Judy Wood - 9/11 Search for Truth

Misdiagnoses: Directed Energy Weapon

Based upon the evidence she collected, Dr. Wood concluded that the World Trade Center twin towers were destroyed by some force leading to molecular dissociation. Dr. Wood claims that after all other explanations are evaluated and rejected only a Directed Energy Weapon (DEW) pathogen remains.

This is a bold statement that can never be proved, without a factual admission of guilt and supporting evidence. Using the scientific method a theory can never be proved only falsified. To expose the logical fallacy of a single explanation hypothesis we need only devise a rival explanation for molecular dissociation. Below I present a rival explanation that is consistent with the evidence and comprehensive in its ability to explain the affects and aftereffects, thus calling into question Dr. Wood's Directed Energy Weapon conclusion.

A Natural Molecular Dissociation Pathogen

To arrive at a natural explanation, we need to go back to basic principles. The organization of electrostatic bonds is what distinguishes the four states of matter from each other, i.e. solid, liquid, gas, and plasma. In a solid the molecules share electrons. In a liquid and gas the molecules do not share electrons. In a liquid like water the molecules are electric dipoles and when aligned properly the opposite polarity of nearby molecules attract each other. In a gas the molecules repel each other, because all the orbitals are full of unshared electrons. In a plasma the atomic nucleus and electrons are separate ions.

The differences between the concrete slab floors of the World Trade Center before and after slamming into each other include surface area, electron sharing, and the conversion of potential energy into kinetic energy. The tremendous amount of released energy concentrated on ripping the molecular bonds of concrete asunder. Once the floors cracked the electrostatic force properties along the fissures changed drastically into an electron deficit along the newly exposed surface area. Confined in space and time this electron deficit triggered a runaway chain reaction, where newly formed positive ions shanghaied electrons away from atoms with weak electric bonds, like hydrogen and metals. The result was molecular dissociation of solids composed of these elements, like steel beams, and concrete which contains the metal calcium. Solids disintegrated into smaller and smaller particulates, which added to a growing positive ion particulate cloud. Positive ions repel each other which caused the cloud to expand. This is what we observed in the twin towers' destruction.

Paper does not conduct electricity well. Consequently, paper and trees survived unscathed, whereas structural beams, cement, rebar, wires, and cars did not. When electrons are shanghaied from metal, individual atomic nuclei become positive ions and repel other positive ions. The metal disintegrated through a process of molecular dissociation, and the positive ion cloud intensified in concentration with this additional matter. No external source of energy was ever required. Lacking a supplemental source of electrons the positive ion cloud continued to grow and propagate on its own.

When concentrated ionic dust landed on buildings or pavement it ate a hole in the structures expanding a gaping wound from the inside out, like a molecular acid reminiscent of the corrosive alien blood from the Alien sci-fi film series. Solids disintegrated and increased the ratio of positive ions. Since solids share electrons, the positive charge of protons outnumber the negative charge of electrons in solids. The positive ions repelled each other and produced the fuming effect. Parts of buildings disintegrated into positive ion fumes.

Not all the dust settled to the ground. Instead the cloud went up because the positive ions repelled each other. At the level of protons and electrons, the electrostatic force dominates the gravitational force by orders of magnitude in the range of ten to the thirty-sixth, or a billion times a billion times a billion times a billion. When ionic dust came into contact with bare metal, electrons were shanghaied from the metal atoms, which changed the composition of alloys and promoted rapid oxidation. Metal beams disintegrated and rusted, engine blocks and door handles disintegrated, cars bodies rusted, the metal in steel toed boots disintegrated. Glass is primarily silica, but glass contains trace elements of metals. Thus, car windows also suffered from contact with the dust cloud. Circular holes appeared in nearby streets, buildings, and building windows.

Fire is oxidation. Cold fire is oxidation with low or no heat. Positive metal ions shanghaied electrons from water to combine with oxygen and discard the weakest molecular bonding element, hydrogen. Oxygen combining with metal ions appeared as cold fire, while nearby paper did not burn.

The twin towers construction allowed the floors to pancake like a piston inside a cylinder. The release of tension in the concrete slab floors allowed the concrete to crumble. The extraordinary result was a runaway chain reaction due to the disproportional electrostatic composition of solids, where positive charge of protons in atomic nuclei outnumber the negative charge of molecular bond electrons. Any exposed metal atoms the ion cloud came into contact with suffered shanghaied electrons resulting in molecular dissociation, which added more positive ions to the positive ion cloud as the runaway chain reaction continued.

Martian Evidence

Phil James (Univ. Toledo), Todd Clancy (Space Science Inst., Boulder, CO), Steve Lee (Univ. Colorado), and NASA/ESA
Long ago a large object impacted the planet Mars. The surface of Mars was vaporized at the point of impact. Some Martian rocks were even ejected into space, coming to rest on the glaciers of Antarctica to be recovered by Earth scientists. However, converting solid rock into airborne debris creates a runaway chain reaction in the form of a positive ion cloud of particles. When this dust landed on the waterways of that ancient water world, metal ions shanghaied electrons from water, released hydrogen protons into the atmosphere, and became rust particles, transforming the exposed surface into a red planet, while ridding the surface of water. Dust, dust everywhere, but not a drop of water remains to drink.

Mount St. Helens Evidence

USGS Photograph taken on May 18, 1980, by Donald A. Swanson
The ash that fell on Eastern Washington and other points downwind of the eruption of Mount St. Helens resembled the fine particulate dust created by the destruction of the twin towers and presumably on Mars too. A runaway chain reaction of a positive ion cloud would render chunks of solid matter into a fine particulate dust. The recorded observations about volcano eruption columns and pyroclastic flows is consistent with the electrostatic repulsion of positive ion particulate matter. The tallest known volcano in the solar system is Olympus Mons on the planet Mars.

Hiroshima Evidence

The energy released by nuclear weapons rips solid matter asunder. The runaway chain reaction of shanghaied electrons generates an expanding positive ion cloud until subatomic particle electric charge neutrality is restored. The force of the initial blast from a nuclear weapon is amplified by the expanding positive ion cloud of particulate matter it generates. The ground looks rusty in this color photograph from msn encarta.

Scientific Method Assessment

Repeatability is a major tenet of the scientific method. Knocking down other skyscrapers is not a viable option. The unique construction of the twin towers with primary structural support displaced to the exterior of the buildings made the twin towers susceptible to this catastrophe, whereas buildings with internal structural support may prove immune by diluting any catastrophic failure in time and space.

Where the scientific and engineering communities failed was in relying on known pathogens to diagnose a rare event, thus fueling theories about misdeeds and a government conspiracy. Toxic side effects continue to linger, because the phenomena produced in the destruction of the twin towers has not been well understood. Dr. Wood proposed an external pathogen in Directed Energy Weapons as the probable cause for the symptoms she cataloged, since her research followed standard operating procedure and only pointed in that direction.

Revolutionary Science Assessment

The contributions provided by Revolutionary Science come from working problems backward, where thought experiments lead to hypotheses, which serve as the basis for sifting through recorded data to find supporting evidence. When I considered the principles underlying molecular dissociation from the standpoint of ripping the molecules of a solid asunder, I determined that the result would be a runaway chain reaction converting solid matter into an expanding positive ion cloud of ever smaller particulates and subsequent chemical reactions like the oxidation of metal ions with water. That made me recall not only Dr. Wood's evidence concerning the destruction of the twin towers, but current conditions on Mars. The symptoms of both events proved consistent with my thought experiment concerning molecular dissociation. The luxury afforded by Revolutionary Science results from explanations born from a standpoint of internal consistency.

Health Hazard Implications

Now that we have a scientific hypothesis, architectural symptoms can be tested, and medical symptoms can be treated. Most of the evidence from the destruction of the World Trade Center has been removed and destroyed. However, the positive ion cloud hypothesis raises continuing hazardous implications. The structural integrity of buildings in the vicinity must be evaluated. The ionic cloud may have corroded structural beams. Also, the positive ions present a clear avenue of investigation into health problems suffered as a result of the incident, and possible treatment options may derive from a better understanding of what really happened.

For greater detail read my blog post: 9/11 Hutchison Effect Review.

Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is a fundamental insight that exposes the inherent limitations of human understanding and knowledge at the subatomic level. As a simple analogy, imaging a video of a bouncing ball. When we play the video we see the motion of the ball, but when we pause the video, at any given moment, we see the position of the ball in a stop frame. Motion and position cannot be seen simultaneously, since the accurate measurement of motion and position are mutually exclusive, the same as they are in a video. In fact, at the subatomic level the more precisely we try to measure one the less precisely we can measure the other.

Popular representations of the Uncertainty Principle that incorporate the “observer effect” are disingenuous. No observer can exist at the subatomic level. Only measurements can be made, and any object being measured cannot be isolated from the act of measurement nor its surrounding environment.

Let's devise a popularized account of the Uncertainty Principle that eliminates this misrepresentation. However, instead of imagining ourselves as an observer at the subatomic level, which is problematic, let's imagine the subatomic level enlarged to our size, where we must lose our normal senses that do not exist at the subatomic level. It's easy to imaging a bouncing basketball. The basketball is being dribbled up and down, but in the subatomic context we cannot see it, hear it, or feel any vibrations in the floor or through the air. We cannot observe it, but we can measure either its position or its motion or both with innate limitations as to accuracy.

To do this we need to ricochet something off the basketball. A tennis ball will do, but again in the subatomic context we cannot see the tennis ball either. We can only detect when and where the tennis ball lands. We also know the path of the tennis ball, its initial speed, and when and where it started. To do this, a machine launches a tennis ball and it passes through the path of the basketball. The paths of both balls intersect, and we can measure the amount of time that the tennis ball spends within the path of the basketball. The higher the speed of the tennis ball, the greater the precision we can measure the position of the basketball. However, when the two collide, the tennis ball knocks the basketball so hard that the dribble gets interrupted.

By slowing down the speed of the tennis ball, the less the dribble gets interrupted and we are able to calculate more about the motion of the basketball, but as we do this we sacrifice information about the position of the basketball. To detect where the tennis ball lands, we will employ another analogy in our world. To see the result, we will use a digital camera with a variable exposure time. A fast exposure amounts to the fast tennis ball, whereas a slow exposure amounts to a slow tennis ball.

A fast exposure takes a crisp picture of the basketball, revealing greater accuracy in position, but less information about motion. A slow exposure takes a blurred picture, revealing greater information about motion, but less accuracy about position, as represented in these two images.

Position		Motion

EPR Paradox Review

The following thought experiment is a common sense version of the EPR paradox of quantum mechanics proposed by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen.

Experimenter 1 enters a bank and obtains from a teller two bills in each of six denominations: one, five, ten, twenty, fifty, and one hundred. Experimenter 1 enters the safe deposit box area and segregates each bill into a separate envelope, making sure that for each denomination one of the pair is face up while the other is face down with respect to the flap side of its containing envelope. Furthermore, both envelopes of each denomination are placed together inside a larger envelop. In all there are six large envelopes, each of which contains two smaller envelopes, which both contain the same denomination within the larger envelope. All envelopes are sealed and the bills cannot be seen through the envelopes. Experimenter 1 randomly shuffles the six envelopes and places them inside a safe deposit box, and locks it.

Experimenter 1 leaves the bank and gives the safe deposit key to experimenter 2. This is a double blind experiment. Experimenter 2 enters the bank and goes into the safe deposit box area. Experimenter 2 rolls a die, which yields a number from one to six inclusively. Experimenter 2 opens the safe deposit box and removes from the stack of six envelopes the envelope that corresponds to the number on the die. Either counting down from the top or up from the bottom makes no difference to the experiment, although it does make a difference in the outcome. Experimenter 2 returns the other five envelopes to the safe deposit box, locks it, and exits the bank with the one large envelope that was randomly selected. Outside, experimenter 2 opens the large envelope and affixes correct postage and the mailing addresses of two participants, one to each smaller envelope, which remain sealed. Experimenter 2 mails the two letters.

Participant 1 and participant 2 receive the letters in the mail. Participant 1 and participant 2 are located as far away from each other as technically feasible. After confirmation of delivery, the two participants simultaneously open their letters. According to a controversial interpretation of quantum mechanics, before the letters are opened the contents are in a state of quantum superposition. This means that the denominations inside the two letters are indeterminate and fluctuate between all probable combinations up until the letters are opened and examined. This leads to the conclusion that a split second difference in timing determines the denomination of both letters simultaneously. Furthermore, if the letters are separated by a great distance, then under certain conditions that information travels faster than the speed of light. Einstein stipulated that information cannot travel faster than the speed of light, thus the paradox. It was the intent of Einstein and his colleagues in proposing the EPR paradox to prove the absurdity of the Copenhagen interpretation.

In the bank experiment, the probability of the result being any particular denomination is one in six. For any one participant, the probability of the result being face up is one in two. The probability that both participants obtain the same denomination is one, and the probability that the participants obtain the same parity of heads or tails is zero. The Copenhagen interpretation claims that only an observer’s consciousness will collapse the probability wave function and firmly realized the denomination. The common sense interpretation indicates that the denomination was determined at the time experimenter 2 randomly selected the envelope, and that face up was determined at the time the address labels were affixed, both results are predetermined without looking. Counter intuitive interpretations of quantum mechanics led to the conclusion that Schrödinger’s cat is simultaneously both alive and dead.

Einstein refused to believe the “spooky action at a distance” implications of quantum mechanics and Einstein was right. Beta decay is a subatomic embodiment of the EPR paradox. When an atomic element decays by positron emission, pair production makes an electron positron pair from energy. The electron combines with a proton in the nucleus of the atom and becomes a neutron. The positron is emitted and can travel some distance before being annihilated by another electron, which produces a pair of gamma rays. In which case, the results of pair production are two far different outcomes, which contradict the Copenhagen interpretation of the EPR paradox. Therefore, the Copenhagen interpretation is false and Schrödinger’s cat is either alive or dead but not both.

Uncertainty resides in the subject not in the object. The surrounding environment dictates how long the preservation of synchronized properties last between a particle antiparticle pair produced together. Immutable properties preserved throughout the life of a particle derive from the conservation of electric charge and gravitation. In the case of photons this includes polarization. But properties synchronized at pair production that are subject to environmental interaction include momentum, and spin axis orientation.

Quantum entanglement goes far beyond pair production to fantasize mystical quantum level linkages among disparate groups of particles. Misconstrued interpretations of quantum entanglement lead to absurd conclusions. Quantum entanglement is like extending the observed occurrence of identical twins to conclude that all people have identical DNA. This is absurd. The leap from related properties between particle antiparticle pairs to related properties between groups of objects is indefensible on the grounds of pair production. Quantum entanglement beyond pair production is an intellectually bankrupt fantasy, as is any theory based upon it. Attractive and repulsive forces exist at different scales between subatomic particles, atoms, molecules, photons, and masses of both matter and antimatter.

Quantum mechanics is no place to find evidence for consciousness or spiritualism. Free will is a consequence of choice given inconclusive data. New age spiritualism built upon the uncertainty that quantum mechanics purported to predict. Uncertainty exists for two reasons: the glut or dearth of information. No two baseball games are ever the same, due to information glut. Uncertainty in dating arises from information dearth. The act of measurement affects the object being measured, which ruins any attempt to measure properties with absolute precision or in combination.

Consciousness is reinforced self awareness. Spiritualism is coherent group awareness. “Where two or more are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.”¹ Gandhi phrased it this way, “Truth is God,” then there’s the vernacular parlance, “God is love,” or the idiomatic, “two heads are better than one.” Even widespread belief in false theories is a form of coherence. With coordinated effort, coherence builds correlations between disparate entities, whereas the concept of quantum entanglement is intellectually bankrupt. Enough about fantasies, let’s return to the real world.

---

¹Matthew 18:20

NASA STS-75 UFO Rebuttal

Courtesy National Space Society. Space Shuttle Flight 75 (STS-75), narrated by the astronauts. Launch: February 22, 1996. Crew: Andrew M. Allen, Scott J. Horowitz, Jeffrey A. Hoffman, Maurizio Cheli, Claude Nicollier, Franklin R. Chang-Diaz, Umberto Guidoni.

Here's a NASA video from space shuttle mission STS-75. This video was recorded on a space shuttle mission that launched 22 February 1996, which carried an experiment called the Tethered Satellite System.

NASA STS-75@1:58 Tethered Satellite System in shuttle bayHere is the experiment in the shuttle payload bay. The sun is setting, and the underside of the shuttle faces Earth below.

NASA STS-75@2:48 TSS boom deploymentA boom extends away from the shuttle, and the protrusions on the satellite are pressurized gas thrusters.

NASA STS-75@3:15 TSS boom deployed above Earth An insulated wire, or tether, attaches the satellite to the shuttle. Cold gas jets from the thrusters propelled the satellite away from the shuttle. The purpose of the experiment was to generate power, which it managed to do for a while.

NASA STS-75@6:14 Wayward satellite and tetherThe tether was extended almost twelve miles when a power surge broke the tether and the satellite and tether floated away.

NASA STS-75@6:36 Tether and boom in cargo bayThe tether broke within the shuttle payload bay.

NASA STS-75@6:47 Boom retractedSo the boom was retracted and stowed away.

NASA STS-75@7:08 Loose TSS as seen from EarthThe wayward experiment was caught on video from Earth’s surface. The points of light in the background are stars, and a meteor passed by.

So where are the interstellar tourists? It turns out, their existence is disputed by NASA officials, but I haven’t shown you the controversial video yet, which was recorded by astronaut Claude Nicollier, when the wayward experiment was seventy-seven to one hundred nautical miles away, during another orbit of the shuttle three days later. The case put forward by NASA officials is that the objects you are about to see are debris floating near the space shuttle. Let’s refer to the NASA position as the defense in our mock trial.


The controversial video appears on a DVD entitled ‘Evidence: The Case of NASA UFOs’ in which ufologist David Sereda analyzes space shuttle video that was recorded by Martin Stubbs, the program manager at a cable TV station, as it was transmitted live during space shuttle missions. Let’s refer to his position as the prosecution in our mock trial. You be the jury and judge for yourselves. The case for the prosecution rests on the evidence of a number of observations.


NASA STS-75 TSS “swarmed” by “debris”First: the objects travel at different speeds and directions, even changing direction, which defies gravity.


NASA STS-75 Object passing by TSSSecond: the objects clearly pass behind the tether indicating that they are farther away than the tether.

Third: using the tether length of twelve miles the relative size of these objects can be calculated at between two and three miles.

NASA STS-75 Overlapping objects are transparentAnd fourth: the objects appear transparent or translucent when they overlap or pass in front of stars. Therefore, the reason we don’t observe “Independence Day” size craft is because the video camera employed by NASA sees into the near ultraviolet which is outside the visible spectrum. The implication being that UFOs are hiding outside the range of plain sight as ‘energy with structure,’ or as ‘mass vibrating at a very high frequency.’

The case for the defense rests upon expert testimony. The objects are debris floating near the space shuttle... That’s it. As far as NASA is concerned it’s the word of authority against the word of pseudoscience. The defense rests its case on that basis, but isn’t there a more compelling explanation? In fact there is. So at this point we’re going to declare a mistrial and appeal to a higher court, where peer review science operates. But the question remains, why doesn’t NASA present a more compelling case for their position? This question strikes at the heart of science. Science can only explain things that it knows how to explain. This statement is trivial, but true. So let’s consider what it takes to make a compelling argument for the cause of this phenomenon.

First and foremost human vision differs from images recorded by a video camera. Any technical explanation needs to address how a video camera works. In this case a nineteen seventies vintage, black and white video tube camera with a zoom lens.

Now how many astrophysicists at NASA possess that kind of expertise? I don’t know for sure, but I’m willing to guess. Few to none. So it’s no wonder NASA can’t explain what we’re seeing, since obsolete technology is the missing link. Let’s reexamine the evidence in light of this expertise. From the start, when do the objects actually appear?

NASA STS-75 Camera zoom
As the video camera zooms in, the ‘debris’ looms larger, until many particles resemble fuzzy disks with a hole in the center, but not all the bright spots act alike. For instance, the spot at the top center of the image stays a fixed size, which indicates that it’s a star. Notice that the tether doesn’t grow any more fuzzy either. So does the fact that the objects grow fuzzier as the camera zooms in mean that the objects are closer than the tether or farther away? This is a crucial question, because as it happens, the objects’ appearance exhibits the optical characteristics of out of focus objects in the foreground. Any other explanation needs to explain this affect. A known camera artifact that fits the description of these fuzzy objects is an Airy disk.

Notice also that the glow in the lower right hand corner is overexposure from sunlight reflected off the moon. Objects passing through that corner appear to be going behind something, but nothing is there. Here’s another curious observation. If the objects are spheres, then why is the black hole in the center? But if the objects are disks, then why are all the disks oriented flat toward the camera? Wouldn’t some appear at different angles, even edge on? If the objects are out of focus sources of light in the foreground, then the blurry translucent appearance explains itself.

The prosecution's size estimate of two to three miles is based upon the tether length given by NASA. But the apparent width of the tether doesn’t jive with this estimate. For a CD to pass behind a twelve inch ruler, a ruler width of one inch is a mile! The prosecution's mathematical skills are suspect. If we use the width of the satellite at the top end to estimate the diameter of the fuzzy objects, we come up with a far smaller estimate. The hole in the center of the fuzzy disk that passes by the end of the tether is about the size of the satellite at the tip of the tether. About three hole diameters fit between the hole and the edge of the fuzzy disk. From images of the shuttle payload bay, the size of the satellite is closer to five feet than ten feet in diameter. Therefore, seven hole diameters is closer to thirty-five feet than seventy feet. Fifty feet is roughly a hundredth of a mile, nowhere near two to three miles.

The only way the prosecution can estimate a size of two to three miles is by assuming the tether is straight. Wrong assumption. When the tether broke free it coiled like a slinky. Fifty feet is impressive. Two to three miles is an exaggeration. Here’s another critical question. Would a twelve mile long slinky appear opaque at a hundred mile distance through a telephoto lens? Could it block out a semi truck and trailer on the other side? Hard to imagine. What are we seeing then? Let’s make a closer inspection of a fuzzy object crossing the tether.


NASA STS-75 Focused object crossing tether
Here’s a series of still frames of a fuzzy object crossing the area of the tether as the astronaut adjusts the camera focus. From frame one to frame two the fuzzy objects get smaller and less translucent, which is consistent with out of focus Airy disks. At the same time the tether gets crisper. The combination of the two objects produces an apparent bulge on the leading side of the tether in frame three. On the trailing edge the intensity of both objects are the same in frames five through seven. In frame eight a dark edge appears that was not in the three previous frames. That dark edge is a video tube artifact known as a ‘dark halo’, an artificial dark edge around bright objects that gives the false impression of a crisp edge to objects.

NASA STS-75 Lens flair artifact
NASA STS-75 Gas glow and tether dark halo artifactHere are two close up images exhibiting the same video tube artifact. The tether in both images forms a bright line with dark halo edges. Lens flair is evident in the first image, and the glow in the second image is an important piece of information. Why doesn’t the tether appear like a slinky at a hundred miles? The reason is that gas from the thrusters is glowing in the moonlight. So at a hundred miles we are not seeing an opaque tether, but an area of glowing gas surrounding the tether. When the tether broke the thrusters fired to maintain tension, only to exhaust the fuel supply. The negative electric charge on the tether kept the gas from dissipating. So we’re seeing an intensely bright region on a black and white video tube, not an opaque object.

NASA STS-75 TSS dark center, right handed coronasBright objects overlapping an area of high intensity disappear giving the illusion of passing behind the tether. So what we’re seeing is an optical illusion, which should come as no surprise since the tether is simply too thin to appear opaque to objects behind it. Zoomed out the tether saturates the video tube and appears black surrounded by white. Another artifact is a glow to the right of objects that look like bright coronas around dark centers. This is the direction of the electron beam scanning the video tube after passing through intense areas of saturation and exhibiting the video tube lightening artifact seen in other space shuttle video. So what is the debris?

Debris

NASA STS-75@1:09 Main engine ice crystalsThe space shuttle has two sources that form ice crystals. The first is the main engines that burn liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen as rocket fuel. Hydrogen and oxygen combine to form water, which turns to ice at temperatures in space.

NASA STS-75@13:27 Venting shuttle water tanksThe second source of ice crystals is water formed as a byproduct of fuel cells that combine hydrogen and oxygen to generate power. Water from the fuel cells is collected on board in tanks, which are vented into space when they become too full.

NASA STS-75@13:57 Ice crystals sparkling in moonlightIce crystals form, which sparkle in the moonlight, and micro gravity allows the ice crystals to drift about on the solar wind, like dust motes in a sunbeam, following the space shuttle in orbit. In microgravity the electrostatic force is the dominant interaction between particles. Cosmic rays and sunlight are ionizing radiation, and the shuttle casts a shadow allowing particles passing in and out of moonlight to appear and disappear to the video camera.

Notch Artifact

The notches on the fuzzy objects are inconsistent with the direction the object is traveling, but the notches are consistent with location on the image, which indicates another camera lens artifact. Here an overlay on the image indicates at what position on an analog clock the notches appear.


Here is a CCTV video exhibiting the same artifact, not in space, but on Earth. Click the image a second time to view the video at YouTube. Also click (more info) for a complete description of the artifact and links to other sources.

Based upon the evidence alone, suggestions that these objects are anything other than out of focus particles swarming in micro gravity in the foreground are unwarranted. The appearance of passing behind the tether defies common sense. Do we believe our eyes, which we know can be fooled, or do we trust our better judgment? That is the crucial question. The prosecution has misconstrued and misrepresented intensity for opacity, and old technology for advanced technology.

Verdict

To advance scientific knowledge, an explanation must withstand scrutiny. So it’s time to render our verdict in the case of NASA space shuttle mission STS-75. You are the jury. Vote on the three positions. How many agree that the prosecution provided incontrovertible evidence that interstellar tourists exist beyond a reasonable doubt? How many agree with NASA by expert testimony alone that the objects in the video are debris near the space shuttle? And finally how many agree with the defense that cross examination of the evidence indicates that reasonable doubt exist against the proposition that the objects are interstellar tourists?

So why is NASA reluctant to rigorously defend its position? For one thing, a camera fails to capture something that as human observers we take for granted. Distance. With stereoscopic vision, we are able to make clear distinctions between near objects and far objects. So the astronauts could tell the difference, if there was any. Whether you trust them or not is another matter. The goal of pseudoscience is trust. Does NASA deserve our trust? Science doesn’t have all the answers. Perhaps Lincoln said it best...

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt. — Abraham Lincoln

Chinese Room: McDonald's Rebuttal

We considered a Chinese restaurant, and a Mexican restaurant. How about an American restaurant? How about McDonald’s? This is not my area of expertise, so let me tag team with Searle, and let me cook at McDonald’s. In principle only. If you eat at McDonald’s you probably know more about the customer experience than I ever will, but suppose I go to work in the kitchen. Let’s suppose my first job is making french fries. So I learn everything about keeping the oil at the correct temperature, the amount of potatoes in a batch, the length of time it takes, the amount of salt I apply, and the different sized packages. Maybe I also learn which customer orders come with fries, and of what size.

Next I get promoted to the grill. If I’m Searle, which I’m not, I forget everything I learned about fries. At the end Searle understands nothing. But I’m going to understand something. How much we’ll have to see. So at the grill I have more options. We have hamburgers, cheeseburgers, and the double decker Big Mac. So I learn more specifically what customer orders come with what grill options.

Eventually I get promoted all the way up to taking customer orders, where I really learn what food items go with which customer orders. That includes soft drinks, milkshakes, and all the rest. At this point let’s evaluate how much I understand. Do I understand everything from the inside? Yes. But I don’t understand anything from the outside. I don’t understand the customer experience. I don’t know how the food tastes. I can only guess based upon analogies from food I’ve eaten elsewhere, but an artificial intelligence doesn’t even have that much to fall back on.

So let’s try real hard to understand what John Searle can claim about artificial intelligence? The deaf chef qualification not only applies to any man in the Chinese Room, but it also applies to any artificial intelligence in the room. Bet you didn’t think of that. Any artificial intelligence is not going to duplicate human experience. It's going to experience something else, something alien. It may be able to communicate in English, like the computer aboard the Star Trek Enterprise, but it will never understand what it's like to be human.

But that does not support Searle’s claim that the artificial intelligence understands nothing. Understanding involves making valid associations, as I did in the McDonald's kitchen. In fact, my room analogies help us understand the true meaning of the Chinese Room argument. Computers are designed to store references to data, which is what associations are ultimately made of.

Chinese Room: Library Rebuttal

One of the hallmarks of competent analogies is a one-to-one correspondence that maps aspects of an analogy onto aspects of the analogized target. We’re considering three corresponding analogies: human intelligence, artificial intelligence, and the Chinese Room experiment. While many aspects overlap, we are specifically interested in examining the role that John Searle plays in the Chinese Room and his equivalent role in the other analogies. Searle executes instructions and keeps notes on scraps of paper. This is equivalent to the processor and memory in the artificial intelligence analogy, and the brain in the human intelligence analogy.

Hardware is like an uninitialized brain. Software comes in two varieties: data and instructions. Data is stored in individual memory locations, like neurons. Instructions control the pathways, in a general purpose computer, that connect the memory locations together, like the inputs and outputs of neurons. The processor and instructions then compute activity and store the resultant data at individual memory locations. Data can be values or references. References are pointers to data. Information is what we call organized data. This is equivalent to the neural network of the brain, comprised of individual neurons integrated together into intricate circuits.

An inactive brain is considered brain dead. A slow mind is simply stupid. As a human mind is comprised of thought processes, artificial intelligence is comprised of computer processes. Those processes reside outside the scope of Searle’s awareness, both inside the thought experiment and apparently outside of it as well.

The interrogator on the outside could detect no difference if Searle were replaced inside the Chinese Room with a Chinaman who does understand Chinese. The Chinaman could perform the tasks done by Searle without accessing any of his own understanding of Chinese. Therefore, whether or not the man in the Chinese Room understands Chinese is irrelevant to the operation of the Chinese Room.

As Searle is presumably an intelligent agent, for which we’ll give him the benefit of the doubt, the initial interpretation assumes that any intelligent behavior that arises within the simulation arises within the man in the room. This is not the case. The part of the system that the man in the room serves does not contain any of the relevant requirements for understanding Chinese.

The reason Searle asserts that he never learns Chinese is that he’s either too bogged down in the details or too detached from reality. Searle ‘can’t see the forest for its trees,’ or his ‘head is in the clouds.’ Either way he’s missed the mark. Therefore Searle is guilty of mistaken identity.

Chinese Library

In fact, John Searle’s performance as a computer hardware emulator in the Chinese Room is deficient in two crucial respects: speed and accuracy. Keeping notes on scraps of paper introduces an organizational nightmare. To address this obstacle I propose instantiating the Chinese Room inside of a Library, where all the books have been replaced by abacuses that have a direct one-to-one correspondence with memory locations in the computer memory, only each abacus inside the Chinese Library will need to be addressed via the Dewey Decimal System.

This Chinese Library variation improves Searle’s organizational ability and accuracy; but his speed, as with the original Chinese Room argument, continues to suck beyond belief. Understanding occurs at the speed of thought, not the speed of rot. Notice that the Chinese Kitchen, which operates in real time, does not suffer any speed discrepancy. So the results are realistic. Whereas with abacuses a trained Chinaman should exceed the speed of Searle, while never using his native understanding of Chinese. Searle is guilty of an assumed identity. The person in the Chinese Room is performing the role of the hardware, which is equivalent to the brain not the mind.

The natural, but incorrect, assumption is that since Searle is presumably an intelligent agent, that any artificial intelligence within the Chinese Room occurs within him. This is an incorrect assumption.

Chinese Room: Mexican Kitchen Rebuttal

A farce depends upon absurdity for its arsenal, in the same way rhetoric depends upon exaggeration and the unfamiliar. I asked before if you learned the Chinese characters for any Chinese menu items. Let’s do the same for Mexican menu items. If you’ve ever eaten at a Mexican restaurant, then have you ever learned any Mexican names for the dishes? Let’s list some names of Mexican food. Taco, burrito, enchilada, tortilla, salsa, guacamole, tamale, quesadilla, tostada, taquito, fajita, chile relleno, chimichanga, frijoles, huevos rancheros… Si, si. Gracias, gracias. No mas. No mas.

Suppose Searle had worked in a Mexican restaurant instead. Assume he didn’t know the names of any Mexican dishes before he began working. If you honestly believe he could actually cook Mexican food following recipes in a cookbook without learning any of the Mexican names for the dishes, then please stand up. You must be John Searle, but notice that the Chinese Room argument is falling apart. Why is that?

Intent Clarification

It makes absolutely no difference to a credible argument whether the kitchen is in a Chinese restaurant or in a Mexican restaurant, but it makes half a world of difference for purposes of subterfuge. Anybody who presents us with an unfamiliar situation immediately ascends to the status of an expert. A self proclaimed expert needs to keep things complicated to maintain his status. A teacher needs to make the subject material accessible to maintain her status. An expert puts self interest first. A teacher puts the interests of her students first. The goal of self interest is power. Put your trust in the messenger. The goal of common interest is truth. Put your trust in the message. That’s a whole world of difference. I hope I’m succeeding in making these issues easy enough for you to understand. That is my intent.

Chinese Room: Kitchen Rebuttal

Can a computer simulation of a mind seem so real as to understand language? John Searle, a professor of philosophy at UC Berkley, doesn’t seem to think so. He tried to refute any possibility of Artificial Intelligence with his Chinese Room argument.

Chinese Room Argument

From the outside the Chinese Room passes the Turing Test, in which an outside interrogator cannot distinguish between the hidden occupant of a room being a human or a machine. To perform the test, the outside interrogator, fluent in Chinese, writes messages in Chinese and passes them into the room. Responses, in Chinese, are eventually retrieved from the room which the interrogator evaluates and becomes convinced that the occupant of the room does in fact ‘understand Chinese.’

At this point, Searle asserts the Chinese Room passes the Turing Test. However, unbeknownst to the interrogator, inside the room John Searle himself performs all the work. Searle asserts that he does not understand Chinese. He takes written input from the outside, consults rule books, and uses scratch paper to figure out what actions to perform. The rule books contain a computer listing for an artificial intelligence program. Searle follows the program that culminates with output in Chinese that he sends out of the room.

Now here’s the kicker. Searle asserts that both before and after the exercise he does not ‘understand Chinese,’ and furthermore he asserts that the artificial intelligence program does not understand Chinese either, since he performed all the work inside the room. Therefore, Searle asserts, claims to artificial intelligence are refuted.

Chinese Kitchen Rebuttal

Upon cross examination, let’s get specific and say the Chinese Room in question is a kitchen. The Chinese Room is a Chinese Kitchen in a Chinese Restaurant. To begin with the waiter writes up a customer order, which he passes into the Chinese Kitchen. As stipulated, Searle is in the Chinese Room. He looks at the order and, as stipulated, it’s written in Chinese; but Searle, as stipulated, doesn’t understand Chinese. So, as stipulated, he consults a rule book.

The first rule book he consults is the menu. Every entrée on the menu lists the name of the dish in Chinese, the name in English, and the price. Ignore the price. It’s irrelevant to the cook. Using the menu, he tries to match the Chinese characters on the order with the Chinese dish names on the menu. Even if Searle doesn’t understand Chinese he can distinguish similar character patterns from different character patterns. From the Chinese characters Searle identifies the English dish names.

Just out of curiosity, if who’ve ever eaten at a Chinese restaurant, then have you ever bothered to learn the Chinese characters for the dishes you ordered? Me neither, and we can assume that Searle hasn't either.

At this point, Searle consults another rule book. It’s written in English so he can understand it, as stipulated. The next rule book he consults is a cookbook, from which he prepares the dishes according to recipes he finds by their English names. When Searle is done cooking, he passes the dishes out of the Chinese Kitchen for the waiter to serve to the customer. As stipulated, the output of the Chinese Room is in Chinese, Chinese food in this case.

According to the Turing Test the proof is in the tasting, ‘the customer is always right.’ If Searle performed an accurate impersonation of a competent chef, then most customers will be satisfied that Searle ‘understands Chinese’ in the cooking sense and leave a tip. Otherwise the dishes will be sent back to the kitchen. But according to Searle’s Chinese Room argument we should trust his self-evaluation of his ability to simulate artificial intelligence or in this case a cook. How good a cook John Searle rates himself remains an open question, but should we trust his opinion or the customer’s? That’s debatable. However the following conclusion is irrefutable.

As stipulated, at the end of the experiment, Searle asserts that he does not understand Chinese. Is this true? Let’s find out. So at the end of his shift, Searle exits the kitchen and encounters the waiter who strikes up a conversation in Chinese, but Searle doesn’t understand a word of Chinese. Therefore Searle concludes that he never learns to understand Chinese from his experience in the Chinese Room, which is true with qualifications.

Deaf Chef Clarification

In fact, the way the Chinese Room thought experiment is constructed, Seale never has a chance to understand Chinese any better than a deaf chef. So what does this mean? It means that if you didn’t understand from the beginning that the meaning of the phrase ‘understand Chinese’ in the Chinese Room argument really meant to ‘understand Chinese no better than a deaf chef’, then you either misunderstood or were mislead into misunderstanding the Chinese Room argument. Is that insight clear? The Chinese Room argument depends on an interpretation of the word ‘understand’ that seems familiar. However, once the correct interpretation is exposed through rigorous cross examination, then the Chinese Room argument loses sensibility. That is normally what happens with fallacious rhetorical arguments.

We all have a familiar sense of what it means to ‘understand Chinese,’ which involves auditory communication. However, this is incongruent with the best possible outcome of the Chinese Room argument, which is to ‘understand Chinese no better than a deaf chef.’ Agreement with the premise and conclusion of the Chinese Room argument depends upon our sustaining the initial incorrect belief. Once we become aware of this incongruence then the suspension of disbelief bubble bursts.