The Heretic: Thomas Nagel

[shijing]

It's kind of technical, but he makes some good points, and it really shows how corrupt the scientific journals are...

That's really infuriating.

 

[mkrnhr]

It's disturbing to see materialistic/Darwinian extremism in a mathematical journal. They are taking over all areas of research. Soon, talking about consciousness, already a blasphemy, will be forbidden, or at least that's what they may be wishing for.

 

[LQB]

It's disturbing to see materialistic/Darwinian extremism in a mathematical journal. They are taking over all areas of research. Soon, talking about consciousness, already a blasphemy, will be forbidden, or at least that's what they may be wishing for.

Yeah, funny how it all started with so much promise with the likes of Charles Tart, Joseph Chilton Pearce, Kenneth Pelletier, ...

 

[whitecoast]

Whitecoast, have you read Alister Hardy's book "The Living Stream" and Shiller's "The 5th Option"?

5th Option is on my to-read list. I'll add The Living Stream to it too, for thoroughness.

_http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/04/how_the_scienti059011.html

Worth reading, imo. Here's the last paragraph:

If you want to show that the spontaneous rearrangement of atoms into machines capable of mathematical computation and interplanetary travel does not violate the fundamental natural principle behind the second law, you cannot simply say, as Styer and Bunn and so many others do, sure, evolution is astronomically improbable, but the Earth is an open system, so there is no problem as long as something (anything, apparently!) is happening outside the Earth which, if reversed, would be even more improbable. You have to argue that what has happened on Earth is not really astronomically improbable, given what has entered (and exited) our open system. Why is such a simple and obvious point so controversial?

Thanks for sharing the video. I wasn't aware of the concept that entropy in the minor system can't in all probability decrease greater than the negative entropy that passes the boundary. Since I'm over my head on this I'll take Sewell's word on it.

Using chance to explain such improbable events (events that would not have a good chance of occurring, even given all the probabilistic resources of the known universe) is basically a way of saying "we don't know what the cause is." In other words, it's no explanation at all. A good explanation, like Nagel points out, has to show why an improbable event was in fact probable - what conditions made it likely to occur when given what we know about chance and the way the universe works, it shouldn't have happened.

I suppose the materialists have just made peace with thinking that life on earth was an absolute fluke, therefore no effort is needed to explain that it was probable. Though that doesn't stop them from entertaining various theories of abiogenesis, some of which may better be able to incorporate Sewell's assertions about X-entropy than others.

Well, I'm not so sure that "all those" can be explained by mutation and selection, but even if they were, the big question is the origin of life in the first place, that is, the origin of specified information that makes up the genetic code and the sequence of functional proteins. With such information, the only known cause is intelligence. Shiller calls it the Universal Dogma of Information Flow: “Design must derive from information; information must derive from intelligence; intelligence must derive from intelligence;…”

Stephen Meyer justifies this by the criterion of causal adequacy. In other words, we know intelligence can cause the given effect. In fact, it is the only known cause of such an effect. That makes it the best hypothesis. Until another one comes around that can also explain the origin of specified information, intelligence will remain the best explanation.

It probably is, but I still think it's an incomplete theory. I'll read the books Laura recommended and see what else I can learn. :)

 

[Voyageur]

It's disturbing to see materialistic/Darwinian extremism in a mathematical journal. They are taking over all areas of research. Soon, talking about consciousness, already a blasphemy, will be forbidden, or at least that's what they may be wishing for.

The video and article really points the compass at how they accomplish their dismissing attitudes out of hand.

So the AML article was not worthy of publication, even after it was accepted, an article slamming the unpublished article is worth publishing, but not any response to that. Well, now you have an illustration of how the scientific "consensus" on certain controversial issues is maintained. And if you watch the video you will understand why, on this issue at least, suppression of all opposing viewpoints is so necessary to maintain the consensus.

I can't imagine being a scientist today, trying to introduce meaningful dialogue against "accepted theories" and coming up against these types of scientific, line in the sand barriers: cross at your peril, type of thing - very controlled, very sad. The other thing noticed, in this case, was that it seems to have been done in such a way as to eliminate even discussion (except for the slammers), and then others who may have points in solidarity or to make on other subjects, who are not of the "accepted" establishment, hear these things and think twice before going before peers or AML gatekeeper types. Makes one wonder just how many good ideas never see the light of day.

 

[Maat]

It's disturbing to see materialistic/Darwinian extremism in a mathematical journal. They are taking over all areas of research. Soon, talking about consciousness, already a blasphemy, will be forbidden, or at least that's what they may be wishing for.

Talking about materialism, consciousness and science, have you all seen that

_http://blog.ted.com/2013/03/14/open-for-discussion-graham-hancock-and-rupert-sheldrake/

You're a psychic mkrnhr, don't you know (yes it's a loll)

 

[Mr. Premise]

I just started reading Nagel's book and it is incredibly lucid and easy to read, especially considering it was written by a philosopher.

 

[Mal7]

I have just been browsing YouTube videos about Richard Dawkins for an hour or so, and found this one to be quite interesting.

Richard Dawkins comes across to me as a fairly dogmatic materialist. The main point of this video seems to be that in castigating all theories about the nature of the universe outside of a nuts-and-bolts kind of physical determinism, Dawkins is really entering into the domain of philosophy, rather than science, and that this is problematic as Dawkins doesn't hold the discipline of philosophy in very high regard, or have much understanding of it.

_http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=m9H2bxHIBfg

 

[l apprenti de forgeron]

Hearing about the left to right microevolution from Windmill knight reminds me of polarizing between STS and STO and the tree of life image Laura produced. It also brings to mind religious imagery of the right/left hand of God and how the right are preserved (positive harvest?) and the left are burned (comet fire?). If we picture a knight's movement on a chess board we can see a choice of avoidance of danger (adaptation) followed by progression (evolution) ie. right then forward. Random mutation can't explain animal adaptation, let alone give a reason for a reasonable being who chooses order. For us to be able to choose goes against entropic forces so if the neo darwinists would look at themselves they would see their theory has no substance. And after reading the C's and G about how Earth is a star to be, it seems they haven't even considered planetary evolution as viable. In short their narrow minded which isn't scientific.

I think it's in SH where Laura said that to come a 4d sts being is not really an ascension or spiritual evolution but a side step from 3d sts.

It's disturbing to see materialistic/Darwinian extremism in a mathematical journal. They are taking over all areas of research. Soon, talking about consciousness, already a blasphemy, will be forbidden, or at least that's what they may be wishing for.

Yes, it is very necessary to have more heretical in those fields. And perhaps this may be one of these:
http://www.sott.net/article/268769-Quantum-physics-proves-that-there-is-an-afterlife-claims-scientist

Robert Lanza claims the theory of biocentrism says death is an illusion

He said life creates the universe, and not the other way round

This means space and time don't exist in the linear fashion we think it does

He uses the famous double-split experiment to illustrate his point

And if space and time aren't linear, then death can't exist in 'any real sense' either

Most scientists would probably say that the concept of an afterlife is either nonsense, or at the very least unprovable.

Yet one expert claims he has evidence to confirm an existence beyond the grave - and it lies in quantum physics.

Professor Robert Lanza claims the theory of biocentrism teaches that death as we know it is an illusion created by our consciousness.

 

[mkrnhr]

FWIW, Granville Sewell published a new video here _https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMHzFoOcdFA where he put into images the argumentation in his paper one Entropy and Evolution here: _http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2013.2/BIO-C.2013.2