From the 11th edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica (1911): “[T]he negro would appear to stand on a lower evolutionary plane than the white man, and to be more closely related to the highest anthropoids.” “Mentally the negro is inferior to the white.” “[A]fter puberty sexual matters take the first place in the negro’s life and thought.”
Ari N. Schulman, “Why Minds Are Not Like Computers,” The New Atlantis, Number 23, Winter 2009, pp. 46-68.
Article Review
“The problem, therefore, is not merely that science is being used illegitimately to promote a materialistic worldview, but that this worldview is actively undermining scientific inquiry.”—UncommonDescent
Unless otherwise noted, all quotations from the article, “Why Minds Are Not Like Computers,” are italicized.
Mr. Schulman walks the tightrope of analysis and criticism, describing how a materialistic worldview actively undermines scientific inquiry in the area of Artificial Intelligence (AI). Analysis and (self-criticism) should be part of all scientific endeavor; the strict materialist does no such thing; instead, he plays dodgeball.
Much of the article, especially the discussions of the brain, computers, Turing Machines, the Turing Test, and the Chinese Room Problem were all helpful in understanding the state of affairs in AI for the layman. My comments are those of a such a layman, included that you might see what a layman might take from such an article. Never-the-less, questions remain . . .
Some commenters have raised questions regarding the propriety of recent posts and UD’s moderation policy. UD’s moderation policy is fairly simple: As a general rule, so long as your comment is not defamatory profane, or a vicious personal attack, you can say pretty much what you want. We have no interest in censoring viewpoints, because we believe ID is true and consequently in any full and fair debate we will win — and if we don’t win we either need to learn to debate better or change our position. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not opening this site up to nasty juvenile name-calling fests like one see so often at Panda’s Thumb. But if you keep your comments restricted to Read More ›
Richard Dawkins has been back in the U.S.touring college campuses and giving lectures on the Purpose of Purpose. I use this link because it appears that Darwinian Wes Elsberry has done a pretty fair job of taking notes and reporting on Dawkins’s lecture at Michigan State in East Lansing. I did not attend the lecture, but will assume Elsberry’s accuracy in capturing the gist of Dawkins’s lecture. The main theme of the talk is summarized here:
Then Dawkins got to the essential framework of the rest of his talk, making a distinction within purpose between the purpose that comes about as adaptation via natural selection, which he called “archi-purpose”, and the purpose that comes about through the intent of a planning brain, which he called “neo-purpose”. Archi-purpose, then, resembles an intentional purpose, but is not such: the resemblance is an illusion. Neo-purpose, as Dawkins views it, is itself an evolved adaptation.
Just up at an earlier post at Uncommon Descent (comments box):
“Since ID is not a religious program, but a scientific one, I fail to see why an ID proponent needs comment what a religious organization does or doesn’t do. Evolution is all about science (or so we’re told), as such its founder clearly held racists views drawn directly from the science. If you have a similar connection between racism and ID, we’re all ears.” – Donald McL
Thank you, Donald! that is precisely my point.
I certainly do not hold myself responsible for everything anyone has ever done in the name of religion, simply because I am a Catholic Christian.
I have also never held any individual Darwinist responsible for everything anyone has done in the name of Darwinism.
But I am – at best – surprised by the lack of interest of science societies in backing away from Darwin’s racism.
It would be EASY to do.
I do not want to quarrel uselessly about this. I am simply asking all members of societies that have made statements supporting Darwin vs. intelligent design to FOLLOW UP with a formal statement *divorcing* Darwin’s racism.
Just divorce Descent of Man now! Just DO it!
Don’t tell me that you individually disagree with it. That means nothing in the current climate.
Now, if the Darwinists do not do it, won’t we know something useful?
I think we will know something very useful indeed.
I will be VERY happy to publicise any upcoming divorces from The Descent of Man!
Darwinist, do you or don’t you divorce this book? Read More ›
I put this in the combox below another post, but decided to put it on the front page, for reasons of social responsibility.
I think that “evolutionary biology” is the basket-weaving course of science – but basket weaving keeps some people from crime and drug addiction, after all – so who am I to say it isn’t worthing?.When are “evolutionary biologists” going to get around to admitting Darwin’s racism and its consequences?
Here is what I wrote to one self-righteous commenter: Read More ›
Friday , March 06, 2009 By Andrea Thompson If Friday’s launch goes according to plan and successfully lobs NASA’s new Kepler space telescope into orbit, the mission stands to potentially change the way we look at the universe. Kepler is designed to turn its eye on thousands of stars in our own Milky Way galaxy and look for signs of Earth-sized planets orbiting in a region conducive to supporting life. Read more… I wonder if they have dumped the following idea… The Limits of Organic Life in Planetary Systems Executive Summary Reflecting the near inevitability of human missions to Mars and other locales in the solar system where life might exist, and given the interest of the public in the Read More ›
Darwin has master publicists. He really does.
Coming home on the bus today, I suddenly realized how odd it is that the ol’ Brit toff racist – whose The Descent of Man is an open running sore of racism – is being celebrated everywhere as some kind of liberator.
Well, I guess he is – if you are a racist, and are looking for a “scientific” cover. Read More ›
I am sure glad Mario Lopez posted this “Wired” item under “eyes rolling” Whatever those people are Wiring themselves with, they should stop. Here’s the deal: Let us compare humans to weasels (a pine marten weasel is pictured at right). Humans think about God because we have human mental faculties, period. Weasels do not think about God because they do not have human mental faculties. Humans realize that we will die one day, and wonder what happens after that. (Weasels do not.) Humans think that some of our behaviour is good and some is bad, and we wonder whether the universe is organized in such a way as to promote the good and penalize the bad. (Weasels never think of Read More ›
By Brandon Keim WiredMarch 09, 2009 Whether or not God exists, thinking about Him or Her doesn’t require divinely dedicated neurological wiring. Instead, religious thoughts run on brain systems used to figure out what other people are thinking and feeling. Read more…
The Discovery Institute’s Bruce Chapman is reporting that the Templeton Foundation has funded the pro-Darwin conference in Rome. Templeton’s Darwin Conference in Rome 5th March It is interesting to note that in the UK the Templeton Foundation has also funded some very vocal theistic supporters of evolution, including the Faraday Institute headed by Denis Alexander, with $2,000,000 dollars. And the wide ranging Theos / Faraday research project, that wants to ‘rescue Darwin’ by gathering information about the level of acceptance of evolution in UK society, was funded by Templeton. Theos reported back in June 2008 that it is ‘delighted to announce that it has been awarded a major grant by the John Templeton Foundation to undertake a new project on Read More ›
Back in January I posted this comment to ask what is science’s “rightful place.” Now it seems we’re getting a clearer picture of the answer as far as the President is concerned. Fox News is reporting that President Obama to issue an executive order on Monday that would lift the restrictions on embryonic stem cell research put in place under President Bush.
Regardless of one’s opinion or position on this issue, there are a couple points of concern with respect to this story. First is this comment Read More ›
The “Msx1, a feedback activator of Bmp4 expression” with the Osr2 control gene has been discovered to switch between single vs multiple sets of teeth. E.g. distinguishing between humans and sharks. This efficient compact control mechanism appears to fit well within an ID Design paradigm. The serious cleft pallet defects caused by errors further suggest an irreducibly complex system.
What evidence might there be for random mutation and “selection” to form such a complex yet elegant control system so “early” in evolution?
Finding genes that make teeth grow all in a row By LAURAN NEERGAARD, AP Thursday, February 26, 2009
Ever wonder why sharks get several rows of teeth and people only get one? . . .A single gene appears to be in charge, Read More ›
Scientists have been too dogmatic about scientific truth and sociologists have fostered too much scepticism — social scientists must now elect to put science back at the core of society, says Harry Collins. Read more…
With all the major evolution done so early, microbe evolution has been retired for a very long time. No wonder we can’t evolve new pathways in the lab! From ScienceDaily New research shows that for microbes, large-scale evolution was completed 2.5 billion years ago. “For microbes, it appears that almost all of their major evolution took place before we have any record of them, way back in the dark mists of prehistory,” said Roger Buick, a University of Washington paleontologist and astrobiologist. All living organisms need nitrogen, a basic component of amino acids and proteins. But for atmospheric nitrogen to be usable, it must be “fixed,” or converted to a biologically useful form. Some microbes turn atmospheric nitrogen into ammonia, a Read More ›