Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community
Year

2019

Artificial intelligence is not dangerous. Only natural intelligence is dangerous

There is a huge media pundit industry anxious to persuade us that machines will come to think like people when the actual concern should be quite the opposite… people will come to think like machines and won't see through their pretensions. See, for example, A Short Argument Against the Materialist Account of the Mind. Read More ›

Video: How Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness Correlate

From Philip Cunningham: Notes: In this present video I would like to further refine and expand on the argument that I made in the “Albert Einstein vs. Quantum Mechanics and His Own Mind” video with more recent experimental evidence from quantum mechanics. and to thus further strengthen the case that the present experimental evidence that we now have from quantum mechanics strongly supports a Mind First and/or a Theistic view of reality, and even, when combined with other scientific evidences that we now have, strongly supports the Christian view of reality in particular. In order to accomplish this task I must first define some properties of immaterial mind which are irreconcilable with the reductive materialistic view of mind that Darwinists Read More ›

Logic & First Principles, 17: Pondering the Hyperreals *R with Prof Carol Wood (including Infinitesimals)

Dr Carol Wood of Wesleyan University (a student of Abraham Robinson who pioneered non-standard analysis 50+ years ago) has discussed the hyperreals in two Numberphile videos: First: Extended: Wenmackers may also be helpful: In effect, using Model Theory (thus a fair amount of protective hedging!) or other approaches, one may propose an “extension” of the Naturals and the Reals, often N* or R* — but we will use *N and *R as that is more conveniently “hyper-“. Such a new logic model world — the hyperreals — gives us a way to handle transfinites in a way that is intimately connected to the Reals (with Naturals as regular “mileposts”). As one effect, we here circumvent the question, are there infinitely Read More ›

Why do some biologists hate theism more than physicists do?

British physicist John Polkinghorne thinks that biologists see a more disorderly universe: I think two effects produce this hostility. One is that biologists see a much more perplexing, disorderly, and painful view of reality than is presented by the austere and beautiful order of fundamental physics. . . . There is, however, a second effect at work of much less intellectual respectability. Biology, through the unravelling of the molecular basis of genetics, has scored an impressive victory, comparable to physics’ earlier elucidation of the motions of the solar system through the operation of universal gravity. The post-Newtonian generation was intoxicated with the apparent success of universal mechanism and wrote books boldly proclaiming that man is a machine. Dan Peterson, “Why Read More ›

New free speech rules won’t change much at US Universities, says campus politics expert

First Amendment defenders will welcome the new rules that tie government money to academic freedom but anyone ringing a cowbell can drown out a speaker and craven administrators would have little incentive to take the risk of stopping them: We can encourage our children and grandchildren to stand up against the stifling political conformity and let them know it’s okay if they’re penalized for their principled stand. As I told my own daughter in a letter when she started college, “Most of your professors will be excellent and you will gain a priceless education from attending college. But a few of your professors will be militant, intolerant disasters, yet they will be ostensibly intelligent and far more articulate than you. Read More ›

Logic & First Principles, 16: The problem of playing God (when we don’t — cannot — know how)

In discussing the attempted brain hacking of monkeys, I made a comment about refraining from playing God. This sparked a sharp reaction, then led to an onward exchange. This puts on the table the captioned issue . . . which it seems to me is properly part of our ongoing logic and first principles reflections. Here, the other big piece of axiology (the study of the valuable) ethics, with side-orders of limitations in epistemology. So, kindly allow me to headline: KF, 10: >>It is interesting what sparked the sharpness of exchange above: KF: Playing God without his knowledge base, wisdom and benevolence is asking for trouble. A78 is right: all I’m saying is proceed with caution we shouldn’t play God Read More ›

Plants use glutamate, like mammals, to speed nervous system transmission

Researchers: Yes, plants have nervous systems too: Plants turn out not only to have nervous systems but nervous systems that are analogous to those of animals. Recently, a research team observed the outcome of wounding a plant called Arabidopsis thaliana, a mustard often used in experiments. The really remarkable part of this apparent convergent evolution of animals and plants is that “these channels are activated by extracellular glutamate, a well-known mammalian neurotransmitter” … Of course, insects find a way around the communications among plant nervous systems. One insect, for example, gets plants to transmit false information to other plants. … Mind Matters at See also: Can plants be as smart as animals? Seeking to thrive and grow, plants communicate extensively, Read More ›

Faint hopes easily revived! “Life may be evolving” on closest exoplanet

The fundamental problem is still the same: It is very difficult to extrapolate from a sample of one instance of life. Suppose we had information on tens of thousands of exoplanets, thousands of which had life. Making the reasonable assumption that a pattern develops within this data, we could then give fairly reliable odds on a given planet having life if its relevant data are known. But we don’t have any of this. It's all a dreamscape. Read More ›