Pay big money for naturalist consciousness studies, and watch it wasted

_{Denyse O'Leary

April 8, 2015

Intelligent Design, Mind, Neuroscience, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Big money is being spent on initiatives like the European Union’s Human Brain Project. Will people hoping to learn about consciousness be disappointed?

Absolutely. From what I hear, some of that project’s neuroscientists are disappointed because it isn’t nearly strong enough in asking cognitive questions. It is asking the basic, materialistic questions – such as which cells connect with what, or which chemicals are diffusing – but these basic questions aren’t the only important ones. More.

See also: Why studies of the human mind go nowhere.

Comments

Should we pay money to understand how people wasted money? They are taking loans from payday-loans-in-langley-bc only to pay back with percentage. I don't think this puzzle will be solved in a nearest future.mrpayday_{June 8, 2016
June
06
Jun
8
08
2016
05:11 PM
5
05
11
PM
PDT}

I think that the problem is in the fact the money spent on all developing areas is really dramatic, and we can’t see quick results as many spheres just can’t provide so quick results. I believe that scientists who are working out new ides will not just spend their time for nothing with no sense. They appreciate their time and also money invested in their branch, so they will work hard o find the answers to questions that are important today.unfortunately we all don’t have too much money and sometimes even rely on Saskatchewan pay day loans here o cover some extra needs, but a I hope that great amounts of money are used for good goals.debralay_{April 10, 2015
April
04
Apr
10
10
2015
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PDT}

Robert #17 I think you'll find that, based on nobel prizes, European countries more than hold their own. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_countryJerad_{April 9, 2015
April
04
Apr
9
09
2015
10:44 PM
10
10
44
PM
PDT}

Jerad Nope. I mean it deeply. Europe to me is not the English civilization. Europe only means the continent. Relative to their great numbers, great wealth, and political stability they contribute very little. In the old days they did more with less but still coming up behind. They do better in entertainment pound for pound. They do terrible in that too. Its all relative. I think Asian nations do better these days relatively. I don't welcome it but I observe it. Right or wrong thats what I think and probably lots of thoughtful people. Why does it rub you wrong?Robert Byers_{April 9, 2015
April
04
Apr
9
09
2015
08:11 PM
8
08
11
PM
PDT}

daveS- The point is measurability because science requires it. Mathematics is the foundation of measurements. And the building and the doors and the windows. Quantification...Joe_{April 9, 2015
April
04
Apr
9
09
2015
10:57 AM
10
10
57
AM
PDT}

BA77,
Moreover, I’m not your butler to do your leg work for you on the internet to look up specific equations, etc.. I gave you the site and the bottom line results GCP. You refuse to accept them. That is not my problem that is your problem. I accept the results you don’t! I don’t care if your refuse to accept them!
It is your responsibility to show that GCP satisfies your criterion and has a RMB, no? Otherwise, it goes into the bin with neo-Darwinism!daveS_{April 9, 2015
April
04
Apr
9
09
2015
10:37 AM
10
10
37
AM
PDT}

BA77,
So you claim you didn’t say that? That makes you a liar!
Calm down. I'm not denying what I wrote in my previous post. I didn't claim that neo-Darwinism has a RMB. (if that's what you mean by 'mathematical'). In fact, I really doubt such a thing could exist in a field as complicated as biology. Not that there isn't a lot of math used in biology. Get back to me when properly conducted experiments show evidence of NDEs.daveS_{April 9, 2015
April
04
Apr
9
09
2015
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT}

as to this statement: daveS, if you conceded, for the sake of discussion, that Darwinism was a pseudo-science mathematically, you state: 'I didn’t.' yet you stated: "Good idea—let’s assume for the purpose of this discussion that neo-Darwinism is pseudo-science because it lacks a rigid mathematical basis." So you claim you didn't say that? That makes you a liar! Moreover, I'm not your butler to do your leg work for you on the internet to look up specific equations, etc.. I gave you the site and the bottom line results GCP. You refuse to accept them. That is not my problem that is your problem. I accept the results you don't! I don't care if your refuse to accept them! So I rest my case, and let the unbiased readers decide for themselves who is being disingenuous and who has been forthright. To clear up one thing before I go elsewhere, you state that AWARE dis-confirmed NDEs as being true. Funny that Parnia himself, who set up the number test in the first place, had a very different conclusion as to what the AWARE study revealed:
Life after death? Largest-ever study provides evidence that 'out of body' and 'near-death' experiences may be real - October 7, 2014 Excerpt: Dr Sam Parnia, an assistant professor at the State University of New York and a former research fellow at the University of Southampton who led the research, said that he previously (held) that patients who described near-death experiences were only relating hallucinatory events. One man, however, gave a “very credible” account of what was going on while doctors and nurses tried to bring him back to life – and says that he felt he was observing his resuscitation from the corner of the room. Speaking to The Telegraph about the evidence provided by a 57-year-old social worker Southampton, Dr Parnia said: “We know the brain can’t function when the heart has stopped beating. “But in this case, conscious awareness appears to have continued for up to three minutes. “The man described everything that had happened in the room, but importantly, he heard two bleeps from a machine that makes a noise at three minute intervals. So we could time how long the experienced lasted for. “He seemed very credible and everything that he said had happened to him had actually happened.” http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/life-after-death-largestever-study-provides-evidence-that-out-of-body-and-neardeath-experiences-may-actually-be-real-9780195.html
As I said before, I rest my case. The last word is all yours daveS. I have much better things to do today than watch you chase your disingenuous atheistic tail in a circle all day long.bornagain77_{April 9, 2015
April
04
Apr
9
09
2015
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT}

BA77,
daveS, if you conceded, for the sake of discussion, that Darwinism was a pseudo-science mathematically, then why did you then go on to defend neo-Darwinism as ‘mathematical’? Pathetically disingenuous!
I didn't. I simply pointed out that your use of the Highfield quote didn't support your case. It does not show that neo-Darwinism has no rigid mathematical basis (RMB in the sequel).
As to the specific math for the GCP, I’m sure it can be found on PEAR’s website.
Eh? I'm sure you find can calculations somewhere (although I've only managed to find the graphs so far). That's not the question, however. RMB is the issue.
For me, not being a math guy, empirical evidence trumps everything else. The Data section of GCP provides access to the empirical results including, for me, the highly significant bottom line.
You can't just look at the raw numbers and determine that the results are "highly significant". That takes mathematical and statistical analysis.
Moreover, for you to compare neo-Darwinian math to Quantum Mechanical math, (Leggett’s Inequality in this case), is a complete joke. The mathematical predictions of Quantum Mechanics has survived every test that can be thrown out it without even a hint of falsification, whereas neo-Darwinism math makes no rigid predictions to test against to see if it is true.
I have no problem with QM. But you can't just appropriate all of QM and call that a RMB for global consciousness theory, which is what I asked for.daveS_{April 9, 2015
April
04
Apr
9
09
2015
09:22 AM
9
09
22
AM
PDT}

daveS, if you conceded, for the sake of discussion, that Darwinism was a pseudo-science mathematically, then why did you then go on to defend neo-Darwinism as 'mathematical'? Pathetically disingenuous!
Lynn Margulis Criticizes Neo-Darwinism in Discover Magazine (Updated) - Casey Luskin April 12, 2011 Excerpt: Population geneticist Richard Lewontin gave a talk here at UMass Amherst about six years ago, and he mathemetized all of it--changes in the population, random mutation, sexual selection, cost and benefit. At the end of his talk he said, "You know, we've tried to test these ideas in the field and the lab, and there are really no measurements that match the quantities I've told you about." This just appalled me. So I said, "Richard Lewontin, you are a great lecturer to have the courage to say it's gotten you nowhere. But then why do you continue to do this work?" And he looked around and said, "It's the only thing I know how to do, and if I don't do it I won't get grant money." - Lynn Margulis - biologist http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/04/lynn_margulis_criticizes_neo-d045691.html
Moreover, whenever the mathematics of population genetics are applied in any rigorous manner to Darwinian claims, the mathematics of population genetics falsifies neo-Darwinian claims:
Using Numerical Simulation to Test the Validity of Neo-Darwinian Theory - 2008 Abstract: Evolutionary genetic theory has a series of apparent “fatal flaws” which are well known to population geneticists, but which have not been effectively communicated to other scientists or the public. These fatal flaws have been recognized by leaders in the field for many decades—based upon logic and mathematical formulations. However population geneticists have generally been very reluctant to openly acknowledge these theoretical problems, and a cloud of confusion has come to surround each issue. Numerical simulation provides a definitive tool for empirically testing the reality of these fatal flaws and can resolve the confusion. The program Mendel’s Accountant (Mendel) was developed for this purpose, and it is the first biologically-realistic forward-time population genetics numerical simulation program. This new program is a powerful research and teaching tool. When any reasonable set of biological parameters are used, Mendel provides overwhelming empirical evidence that all of the “fatal flaws” inherent in evolutionary genetic theory are real. This leaves evolutionary genetic theory effectively falsified—with a degree of certainty which should satisfy any reasonable and open-minded person. http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/Using-Numerical-Simulation-to-Test-the-Validity-of-Neo-Darwinian-Theory.pdf Kimura's Quandary Excerpt: Kimura realized that Haldane was correct,,, He developed his neutral theory in responce to this overwhelming evolutionary problem. Paradoxically, his theory led him to believe that most mutations are unselectable, and therefore,,, most 'evolution' must be independent of selection! Because he was totally committed to the primary axiom (neo-Darwinism), Kimura apparently never considered his cost arguments could most rationally be used to argue against the Axiom's (neo-Darwinism's) very validity. John Sanford PhD. - "Genetic Entropy and The Mystery of the Genome" - pg. 161 - 162 A graph featuring 'Kimura's Distribution' is shown in the following video: Evolution Vs Genetic Entropy - Andy McIntosh - video https://vimeo.com/91162565
As to the specific math for the GCP, I'm sure it can be found on PEAR's website.
Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research - Scientific Study of Consciousness-Related Physical Phenomena - publications http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/publications.html
For me, not being a math guy, empirical evidence trumps everything else. The Data section of GCP provides access to the empirical results including, for me, the highly significant bottom line.
Formal Results: Testing the GCP Hypothesis http://teilhard.global-mind.org/
Why do you not accept this confirming evidence? There is nothing even close to it, in terms of consistent empirical results, in neo-Darwinism! Moreover, for you to compare neo-Darwinian math to Quantum Mechanical math, (Leggett's Inequality in this case), is a complete joke. The mathematical predictions of Quantum Mechanics has survived every test that can be thrown out it without even a hint of falsification, whereas neo-Darwinism math makes no rigid predictions to test against to see if it is true.
“On the other hand, I disagree that Darwin’s theory is as `solid as any explanation in science.; Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?” - Berlinski, D., “A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics,” Commentary, July 8, 2003
Disconfirming evidence is simply ignored by Darwinists:
"Being an evolutionist means there is no bad news. If new species appear abruptly in the fossil record, that just means evolution operates in spurts. If species then persist for eons with little modification, that just means evolution takes long breaks. If clever mechanisms are discovered in biology, that just means evolution is smarter than we imagined. If strikingly similar designs are found in distant species, that just means evolution repeats itself. If significant differences are found in allied species, that just means evolution sometimes introduces new designs rapidly. If no likely mechanism can be found for the large-scale change evolution requires, that just means evolution is mysterious. If adaptation responds to environmental signals, that just means evolution has more foresight than was thought. If major predictions of evolution are found to be false, that just means evolution is more complex than we thought." ~ Cornelius Hunter "When their expectations turn out to be false, evolutionists respond by adding more epicycles to their theory that the species arose spontaneously from chance events. But that doesn’t mean the science has confirmed evolution as Velasco suggests. True, evolutionists have remained steadfast in their certainty, but that says more about evolutionists than about the empirical science." ~ Cornelius Hunter
bornagain77_{April 9, 2015
April
04
Apr
9
09
2015
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT}

BA77,
daveS, I noticed that, once again, you refused to honestly answer the questions I asked you as to the sheer poverty of empirical evidence substantiating the grandeur claims of neo-Darwinism and your blind willingness to accept those unsubstantiated materialistic claims. Why this superficial and transparent dodge by you? i.e. Why are you so disingenuous as to your own profound weaknesses in evidence? It does not reflect well on you when you refuse to address the evidence honestly. Admit that neo-Darwinism is a materialistic pseudo-science and then work from there if you want to make any headway scientifically! Otherwise you are in danger of being labeled a hypocrite.
Good idea---let's assume for the purpose of this discussion that neo-Darwinism is pseudo-science because it lacks a rigid mathematical basis.
Moreover daveS, instead of admitting that materialists have no clue how consciousness ‘emerges’ from a material basis. You try instead to say that the Global consciousness project had no rigid mathematical basis. Well, Dean Radin defends the ‘mathematical’ integrity of his work here:
The scare quotes are scaring me. Plus that's a 48-minute interview. I'm simply asking for the rigid mathematical basis for global consciousness theory. Clearly there is math involved with their project, but there is math in neo-Darwinism as well. What specifically is this rigid mathematical basis?
Moreover, you can easily falsify the Theistic claims of the primacy of consciousness for reality, and render all discussion on NDEs and Global Consciousness moot, by simply solving the ‘hard problem’ of consciousness and proving that matter can generate consciousness. What could be more ‘scientific’ than that?
Is that all? :-) Unfortunately I'm not a scientist, but I would gladly contribute to funding a well-designed NDE experiment if I had such an opportunity. Let's also remember that no one correctly identified the pictures in the Parnia experiment, so there's a negative result.
Moreover, as to the credibility of testimonial accounts of NDE’s, William J Murray had a recent article on the fact that all evidence is ultimately testimonial.
Well, I'll just say that if multiple groups testify to the fact that they got positive results from a well-designed NDE picture experiment, I would find that convincing. Researchers testifying about anecdotes that they obtained from patients much less so. (Blue scrubs?! What are the odds?). Now you've cited Leggett's inequality, but you haven't shown how this explains the supposedly anomalous results produced by the random number generators on September 11. I'm aware that there is a lot of mathematics in QM, but there's also a lot of mathematics in Maynard Smith's book. What is the rigid mathematical basis for global consciousness theory?daveS_{April 9, 2015
April
04
Apr
9
09
2015
07:40 AM
7
07
40
AM
PDT}

daveS, I noticed that, once again, you refused to honestly answer the questions I asked you as to the sheer poverty of empirical evidence substantiating the grandeur claims of neo-Darwinism and your blind willingness to accept those unsubstantiated materialistic claims. Why this superficial and transparent dodge by you? i.e. Why are you so disingenuous as to your own profound weaknesses in evidence? It does not reflect well on you when you refuse to address the evidence honestly. Admit that neo-Darwinism is a materialistic pseudo-science and then work from there if you want to make any headway scientifically! Otherwise you are in danger of being labeled a hypocrite.
Matthew 7:5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.
Moreover daveS, instead of admitting that materialists have no clue how consciousness 'emerges' from a material basis. You try instead to say that the Global consciousness project had no rigid mathematical basis. Well, Dean Radin defends the 'mathematical' integrity of his work here:
Dr. Dean Radin And Dr. Roger Nelson Respond to Global Consciousness Project Criticisms http://www.skeptiko.com/74-radin-nelson-global-consciousness/
Moreover, you can easily falsify the Theistic claims of the primacy of consciousness for reality, and render all discussion on NDEs and Global Consciousness moot, by simply solving the 'hard problem' of consciousness and proving that matter can generate consciousness. What could be more 'scientific' than that?
‘But the hard problem of consciousness is so hard that I can’t even imagine what kind of empirical findings would satisfactorily solve it. In fact, I don’t even know what kind of discovery would get us to first base, not to mention a home run.’ David Barash – Materialist/Atheist Darwinian Psychologist “We have so much confidence in our materialist assumptions (which are assumptions, not facts) that something like free will is denied in principle. Maybe it doesn’t exist, but I don’t really know that. Either way, it doesn’t matter because if free will and consciousness are just an illusion, they are the most seamless illusions ever created. Film maker James Cameron wishes he had special effects that good.” Matthew D. Lieberman – neuroscientist – materialist – UCLA professor There is simply no direct evidence that anything material is capable of generating consciousness. As Rutgers University philosopher Jerry Fodor says, "Nobody has the slightest idea how anything material could be conscious. Nobody even knows what it would be like to have the slightest idea about how anything material could be conscious. So much for the philosophy of consciousness. Regardless of our knowledge of the structure of the brain, no one has any idea how the brain could possibly generate conscious experience." As Nobel neurophysiologist Roger Sperry wrote, "Those centermost processes of the brain with which consciousness is presumably associated are simply not understood. They are so far beyond our comprehension at present that no one I know of has been able even to imagine their nature." From modern physics, Nobel prize-winner Eugene Wigner agreed: "We have at present not even the vaguest idea how to connect the physio-chemical processes with the state of mind." Contemporary physicist Nick Herbert states, "Science's biggest mystery is the nature of consciousness. It is not that we possess bad or imperfect theories of human awareness; we simply have no such theories at all. About all we know about consciousness is that it has something to do with the head, rather than the foot." Physician and author Larry Dossey wrote: "No experiment has ever demonstrated the genesis of consciousness from matter. One might as well believe that rabbits emerge from magicians' hats. Yet this vaporous possibility, this neuro-mythology, has enchanted generations of gullible scientists, in spite of the fact that there is not a shred of direct evidence to support it."
Moreover, as to the credibility of testimonial accounts of NDE's, William J Murray had a recent article on the fact that all evidence is ultimately testimonial.
Everything You Believe Is Based on Personal Experience and Testimony https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/everything-you-believe-is-based-on-personal-experience-and-testimony/ and https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/everything-you-believe-is-based-on-personal-experience-and-testimony/#comment-557857
In other words, the fact that mind/consciousness is primary to reality is directly reflected in the way we organize evidence as to being credible or not!,,
“In any philosophy of reality that is not ultimately self-defeating or internally contradictory, mind – unlabeled as anything else, matter or spiritual – must be primary. What is “matter” and what is “conceptual” and what is “spiritual” can only be organized from mind. Mind controls what is perceived, how it is perceived, and how those percepts are labeled and organized. Mind must be postulated as the unobserved observer, the uncaused cause simply to avoid a self-negating, self-conflicting worldview. It is the necessary postulate of all necessary postulates, because nothing else can come first. To say anything else comes first requires mind to consider and argue that case and then believe it to be true, demonstrating that without mind, you could not believe that mind is not primary in the first place.” - William J. Murray
Moreover, is not as if the Theist lacks rigid empirical/mathematical confirmation for his claim that consciousness is primary (as the materialists lacks any evidence for his claim that matter can generate consciousness). The Theist is literally drowning in an ocean of confirming evidence from Quantum Mechanics:
A Short Survey Of Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness Excerpt: Putting all the lines of evidence together the argument for God from consciousness can now be framed like this: 1. Consciousness either preceded all of material reality or is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality. 2. If consciousness is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality. 3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality. 4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality. Four intersecting lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that shows that consciousness precedes material reality (Wigner’s Quantum Symmetries, Wheeler’s Delayed Choice, Leggett’s Inequalities, Quantum Zeno effect) https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uLcJUgLm1vwFyjwcbwuYP0bK6k8mXy-of990HudzduI/edit
Leggett's Inequality is particularly devastating to those who prefer, for whatever severely misguided reason, the philosophy of atheistic materialism to be true. Leggett's Inequality was violated to an incomprehensible level of 120 standard deviations (A truly staggering level of confirmation!):
Alain Aspect and Anton Zeilinger by Richard Conn Henry – Physics Professor – John Hopkins University Excerpt: Why do people cling with such ferocity to belief in a mind-independent reality? It is surely because if there is no such reality, then ultimately (as far as we can know) mind alone exists. And if mind is not a product of real matter, but rather is the creator of the “illusion” of material reality (which has, in fact, despite the materialists, been known to be the case, since the discovery of quantum mechanics in 1925), then a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism (solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one’s own mind is sure to exist). (Dr. Henry’s referenced experiment and paper – “An experimental test of non-local realism” by S. Gröblacher et. al., Nature 446, 871, April 2007 – “To be or not to be local” by Alain Aspect, Nature 446, 866, April 2007 (Leggett’s Inequality: Violated to 80 orders of magnitude) http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/aspect.html
As well, NDE's 'fit', extremely well, what we should expect to happen from what we know about the physics of the universe and about the physics of the human body.
Higher Dimensional Special Relativity, Near Death Experiences, Biophotons, and the Quantum Soul https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XGuV7FWwaDag4T5glstQWjsQNtWHKw3T9qLF14fUHHo/edit
Thus daveS, all in all I am extremely satisfied to how all the evidence lines up very neatly to confirm the validity of the Theistic worldview and refute the materialistic worldview. On the other hand, I am severely saddened by the refusal of atheists, such as yourself, to accept the validity of the evidence because of their dogmatic personal philosophical biases that prevent them from ever accepting anything to do with God. It is truly sad for them to do this because God, 'if' He is truly true, then HE is the most wonderful thing that we humans could ever possibly hope for to be true. And yet atheists act as if God would be the worse thing to be found to be true. Don't believe me? Then read Dawkins diatribe against God in 'The God Delusion'. Or better yet, listen to him recite it here in his interview with Ben Stein.
Ben Stein vs. Richard Dawkins Interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlZtEjtlirc
Quote, Verse, and Music:
"The only human emotion I could feel was pure, unrelenting, unconditional love. Take the unconditional love a mother has for a child and amplify it a thousand fold, then multiply exponentially. The result of your equation would be as a grain of sand is to all the beaches in the world. So, too, is the comparison between the love we experience on earth to what I felt during my experience. This love is so strong, that words like "love" make the description seem obscene. It was the most powerful and compelling feeling. But, it was so much more. I felt the presence of angels. I felt the presence of joyous souls, and they described to me a hundred lifetimes worth of knowledge about our divinity. Simultaneous to the deliverance of this knowledge, I knew I was in the presence of God. I never wanted to leave, never." Judeo-Christian Near Death Experience Testimony 1 John 4:8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. I Want to know what love is – Foreigner – music https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raNGeq3_DtM
bornagain77_{April 9, 2015
April
04
Apr
9
09
2015
06:44 AM
6
06
44
AM
PDT}

BA77,
daveS, so something you claim to be a fringe science, NDEs, easily makes what you consider to be a rigid science, neo-Darwinism, look very bad! Why is that daveS? Will you ever be honest to the evidence daveS?
It seems that the state of the art in NDE research is collecting anecdotes after the fact rather than performing well-designed experiments. Why is that? And what is the "rigid mathematical basis" for global consciousness theory?daveS_{April 9, 2015
April
04
Apr
9
09
2015
05:37 AM
5
05
37
AM
PDT}

daveS, you state:
It’s amazing that just yesterday you were stressing the need for “rigid mathematical bases” and falsifiability, but today you’re touting this fringe global consciousness and nde stuff. It seems like there’s a double standard here.
I was indeed stressing the fact that neo-Darwinism has no rigid mathematical basis and is thus unfalsifiable as other overarching theories of science (including ID) are. I provided many references/quotes for the lack of a rigid mathematical foundation for Darwinism to test against so as to potentially falsify it. You nitpicked at one of the references but never honestly conceded that neo-Darwinism is, by all rights, a pseudo-science when compared to other theories of science.
Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science Excerpt: The primary reasons why Darwinism is a pseudo-science instead of a proper science are as such: 1. No Rigid Mathematical Basis (Demarcation/Falsification Criteria) 2. No Demonstrated Empirical Basis 3. Random Mutation and Natural Selection are both grossly inadequate as ‘creative engines’ 4. Information is not reducible to a material basis, (in fact, in quantum teleportation it is found that material ultimately reduces to a information basis) 5. Darwinism hinders scientific progress (i.e. falsely predicted Junk DNA, vestigial organs, etc..), https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oaPcK-KCppBztIJmXUBXTvZTZ5lHV4Qg_pnzmvVL2Qw/edit
Now daveS, having failed to refute the claim that neo-Darwinism is, in reality, a non-falsifiable pseudo-science, you now complain that global consciousness and NDEs are 'fringe' science. daveS, in your disingenuous attempt to defend neo-Darwinism as science by referring to NDEs, (and global consciousness), as 'fringe' science, it might be interest you to know that when compared to neo-Darwinism, NDEs look, because of the sheer poverty of any substantiating empirical evidence for neo-Darwinian claims, as if they were the gold standard of empirical science.
Near-Death Experiences: Putting a Darwinist's Evidentiary Standards to the Test - Dr. Michael Egnor - October 15, 2012 Excerpt: Indeed, about 20 percent of NDE's are corroborated, which means that there are independent ways of checking about the veracity of the experience. The patients knew of things that they could not have known except by extraordinary perception -- such as describing details of surgery that they watched while their heart was stopped, etc. Additionally, many NDE's have a vividness and a sense of intense reality that one does not generally encounter in dreams or hallucinations.,,, The most "parsimonious" explanation -- the simplest scientific explanation -- is that the (Near Death) experience was real. Tens of millions of people have had such experiences. That is tens of millions of more times than we have observed the origin of species , (or the origin of life, or the origin of a protein/gene, or a molecular machine), which is never.,,, The materialist reaction, in short, is unscientific and close-minded. NDE's show fellows like Coyne at their sneering unscientific irrational worst. Somebody finds a crushed fragment of a fossil and it's earth-shaking evidence. Tens of million of people have life-changing spiritual experiences and it's all a big yawn. Note: Dr. Egnor is professor and vice-chairman of neurosurgery at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/10/near_death_expe_1065301.html
daveS, so something you claim to be a fringe science, NDEs, easily makes what you consider to be a rigid science, neo-Darwinism, look very bad! Why is that daveS? Will you ever be honest to the evidence daveS?bornagain77_{April 9, 2015
April
04
Apr
9
09
2015
03:22 AM
3
03
22
AM
PDT}

Robert #5
They will go nowhere in science. Like Europe eh.
You mean the people who built and use the Large Hadron Collider? You mean the people who discovered the structure of DNA? You mean people like Stephen Hawking? You mean people like Albert Einstein? Niels Bohr? Charles Darwin? Joseph Hooker? Tesla? Maxwell? Faraday? People like that? Perhaps you were just joking.Jerad_{April 8, 2015
April
04
Apr
8
08
2015
11:31 PM
11
11
31
PM
PDT}

The european union is a waste of money too. They don't start from a soul concept and so presume there is only a material brain. So its not science but merely investigation upon fixed boundaries. They will go nowhere in science. Like Europe eh.Robert Byers_{April 8, 2015
April
04
Apr
8
08
2015
10:34 PM
10
10
34
PM
PDT}

BA77, It's amazing that just yesterday you were stressing the need for "rigid mathematical bases" and falsifiability, but today you're touting this fringe global consciousness and nde stuff. It seems like there's a double standard here.daveS_{April 8, 2015
April
04
Apr
8
08
2015
08:05 PM
8
08
05
PM
PDT}

Here is an recent interview of Dr. Eben Alexander, neurosurgeon and the author of the book Proof of Heaven, in which he touches on the fact that as long as people think matter can create consciousness they will forever be stuck in a dead end. (Quantum mechanics is also touched upon) http://www.contacttalkradio.net/CTR/jeannecatherine022315.mp3bornagain77_{April 8, 2015
April
04
Apr
8
08
2015
06:01 PM
6
06
01
PM
PDT}

Pay big money for naturalist consciousness studies, and watch it wasted
Are you suggesting that the Human Brain Project is such a "naturalist consciousness" study? Because, as the statement you quoted says, a reason why people hoping to learn about consciousness will be disappointed is because it's not such a study.goodusername_{April 8, 2015
April
04
Apr
8
08
2015
02:49 PM
2
02
49
PM
PDT}

Who wants to know how the human brain works? Surely not News. The Human Brain Project scientists are asking intelligent design questions and are doing intelligent design research: Human Brain ProjectJWTruthInLove_{April 8, 2015
April
04
Apr
8
08
2015
10:49 AM
10
10
49
AM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply