Such perfect Darwinism, it had to be true. But look what happened…
Maybe the big question isn’t why are cuttlefish so smart but why are chimpanzees so dumb?
The problem journalists always seem to leave hanging when writing about new theories of human evolution is, for example: If early humans weren’t smart already, they would not have learned how to control fire. If they weren’t aesthetically sensitive, they wouldn’t have noticed aesthetic differences in taste. Darwinist theories about the human mind seem to be one long parade of affirming the consequent.
If the ability to hunt small prey requires a lot more intelligence, cats are definitely smarter than people, let alone smarter than dogs (a more frequently heard claim).
It’s interesting that a science writer sees through the most fundamental materialist rot. Unfortunately, it sounds as though he hopes to replace it with a different one.
At one time, the idea of communicating with people while they were dreaming would have been regarded by most scientists as hokey New Age stuff. But now a research group has done it.
Egnor thinks that while physicist Alan Sokal hoaxed postmodern journals (the famous Sokal hoax. of 1996), materialists like Francis Crick (1916–2004) seem to hoax themselves.
Egnor is responding to a reader’s question about whether neuroscience has disproven free will.
Egnor: Our mental life is a composite of abilities — arousal, sensation, perception, locomotion, reason, etc., and these abilities appear to subsist in modified form despite dramatic changes in the body and brain.
In his view, “ “Consciousness ” is a meaningless term that too often misleads us, and it shouldn’t be used in medicine, neuroscience, or philosophy: “Consciousness” is a very vague term and, ultimately, I don’t think it has any useful meaning at all, apart from other categories such as sensation, perception, imagination, reason etc. Aristotle Read More…
Brain electrochemistry data does not describe actual thoughts; it certainly can’t trace thoughts to origins outside of the brain itself
Stevens: Illusion theory has no rule of reproducibility. Yet, if you set up the infinity mirror experiment at another time, you will see the same effect.
Illusion theory has no rule about how other observers perceive their illusions.
Consciousness: Why do you know you exist? A rock doesn’t know. Yet you both exist. What’s the difference?
The problem with Riach’s view is that the final level of complexity is immaterial and the computer is just not going there.
Mark Solms clearly assumes, in his Psychology Today column, that the mind is just what the brain does. But that’s precisely the claim that the very existence of consciousness clouds.