Denyse O’Leary posted an announcement of what looks like an interesting conference proceedings: http://tbsblog.thebestschools.org/how-does-life-incorporate-information According to Denyse, the folks at the Panda’s Thumb tried to bury these proceedings but failed.
Probably. But, this would have to be a reason: Just the knowledge that Darwin denial exists could be a problem for some in authority these days to advise you never to read a Darwin-doubting book. Doubting the establishment version of evolution is a big problem for Darwin’s tax-funded, tenured dullards. Whom you will support to the end of your days. Look, I was there at Cornell in 2011, when the papers noted above and now published so you can read them were delivered. People, hear me: I have heard every lie and dealt with Darwin’s thugs, and fended off many attempts to obfuscate the issues. I have personally (D O’Leary, b. 1950,Canada, d of JP O’Leary) been a victim of Read More ›
For the sake of argument, let us assume, as Michael Denton did, that there is universal common ancestry. The problem, both in terms of comparative anatomy and biochemistry, is that an unprejudiced view of the data suggests we didn’t evolve from fish. When I brought the topic up earlier in Taxonomic nested hierarchies don’t support Darwinism, in the course of my arguments in that thread, it became ever more apparent even at the molecular level, it was hard to justify the claim that we evolved from fish. Linnaeus and other creationists perceived Platonic forms we know by names today such as: Vetebrates, Mammals, Primates, and Humans. These forms defy the story that we evolved from fish. Again, let us suppose Read More ›
After my recent exchanges with Larry Moran, I read some of the comments on his blog posts. I wont be doing that again. It was generally just depressing; hatred (I really don’t understand why they waste their lives responding to us if they have such a low opinion) – not much edifying or thoughtful. In amongst those there was one in particular who berated for hypothesising something and ‘being too lazy’ to test it. He had a point in a way. But the reason I suggested the hypothesis was to make the point that intelligent design yields scientific leads that Darwinists don’t think of (clearly he thought it was idiotic); it was just ‘brainstorming’ ideas out and I don’t know Read More ›
Since the issue of agent freedom and cause has again come up, it is worth the while to post the following summary on the Smith Model for agent cause and cybernetics, from the IOSE unit on minds etc: __________ >>(c) Of neurons, brains and minds The neuron (in its various types) is the key building brick of brain and nervous tissues: Neurons are interconnected in neural networks {added, Jun 4: cf. visualisation here}, and onward to form the brain and wider nervous system. As Christos Stergiou and Dimitrios Siganos summarise: In the human brain, a typical neuron collects signals from others through a host of fine structures called dendrites. The neuron sends out spikes of electrical activity through Read More ›
I can be kind of slow on the uptake, and no doubt many here at UD have recognized this phenomenon before – Darwinists mistaking their interpretation of the data for the data itself. But it occurred to me with startling clarity today when I was reading the comments to this post in which the UD News Desk reports that that New Scientist is growing skeptical of some of the methods of neuroscientists who claim to have associated particular behaviors/beliefs with certain brain activity. Turell is also skeptical of these methods and writes: “What is crazy is that an fMRI is measuring blood flow increases to areas of the brain, not the brain neurons. The brain is extremely interconnected between all regions. So Read More ›
In 2001, a Space Odyssey, HAL 9000 kills Frank Poole. Was HAL 9000 morally culpable?
At TSZ, Dr. Liddle made the argument that a “ghost in the machine” is not a necessary component when it comes to experiencing qualia and providing us with what I call “conscious free will”. In another thread, she took issue with Barry Arrington’s premise that the brain, under materialism, is taken as, in essence, a biological computer. My response (below) is, even if biological physics can produce experiential qualia, learn, and contain self-referential subject/context loops as she describes, so what? That doesn’t make any significant difference to Mr. Arrington’s premise that, under materialism, the brain is like an organic computer, nor does it provide any metaphysical relief from the materialist conclusion that one’s will (choices, decisions) are being determined (not Read More ›
The so called “strong Artificial Intelligence” (AI) has some relations with evolutionism because both imply a “more” coming from a “less” and both are products of a materialist reductionist worldview. In evolutionism they believe that life arises from non life, and, similarly, in AI they believe that the intelligent comes from the non intelligent, that “machines can think”. To try to experimentally prove this last claim it was even developed a test, called “Turing test”. “The Turing test [TT] is a test of a machine’s ability to exhibit intelligent behavior equivalent to, or indistinguishable from, that of an actual human. In the original illustrative example, a human judge engages in a natural language conversation with a human and a machine Read More ›