When you consider all the reasons why machines cannot be creative, one must ask, is the belief that we can build superintelligent machines rooted in naturalism (nature is all there is), often called “materialism,” or in evidence?
A friend writes, “There was one paradigm that Kuhn assumed was not a paradigm, but a fact of nature: Darwinism. His whole approach to scientific revolutions was Darwinian. New paradigms emerge as accidental mutations, not because of new evidence. “
Elite reasoning is interesting. People who see no evidence for design in nature are quite prepared to believe that interstellar object Oumuamua is an alien spacecraft and that an evidence-free multiverse must really exist. And no evidence for fine-tuning of our universe for life is really evidence.
Declining population is only one factor. Ancient cultural beliefs are another. I (O’Leary for News) wrote about this at Mind Matters: Ito sees our problems as originating in the idea that humans are special and urges that we “develop a respect for, and emotional and spiritual dialogue with, all things.” Illustrating this approach to life, […]
Theories multiply because the facts favor fine-tuning of the universe.
In Sulawesi, Indonesia. Wallace, Darwin’s ignored co-discoverer, had explored a good deal in that area: A very impressive 1.5 meter tall bust of Wallace on a 2.6 meter high plinth was inaugurated on the 21st February 2019 at the well known Tangkoko Nature Reserve in north-east Sulawesi, Indonesia. It is certainly the largest and most […]
As Michael Egnor tells us, scientism is not a cure for stupidity. But never mind, quite a few science savants have rushed in fearlessly: Evolutionary biologist David Krakauer, President of the Santa Fe Institute, told Nautilus, “Stupidity is using a rule where adding more data doesn’t improve your chances of getting [a problem] right. In […]
It’s been fashionable for Thomistic philosophers to avoid harassment by claiming to oppose ID but their positions rarely seem to make any sense. And when they do, it so often sounds as if the Thomist would be happier as a naturalist (nature is all there is). It might be workplace issue, who knows?
Here: In “Scooby-Doo on Zombie Island,” the gang encounters real zombies and ghosts for the first time. But Fred explains away the evidence by appealing to increasingly absurd naturalistic explanations. In the end, even Fred recognizes that his explanations simply can’t account for the facts. Atheists often call themselves “skeptics.” But when we consider the […]
Hmmm. “Thinking” is a risky strategy suggestion in a world where consciousness is supposed to be an illusion or else a material thing —unless, of course, your coffee mug has it too.
Actually, it’s not surprising at all. Pure naturalist atheists are not that common once you get off campus and a safe distance from the raging Woke. Most people would rather you think they were creationists (provided you don’t push it too far), which likely accounts for the drop in the second set, when a clear alternative for theists is provided. Some of us think this change in question is long overdue.
A Japanese official has been forced to apologize for stating the obvious. Japan’s population is shrinking because people aren’t having enough children.
A naturalist atheist’s problems are not just with religion but also with philosophy. we can’t believe that our brain is shaped for fitness, not truth, and still expect to have a chance at discovering truth.
The reality is that naturalism is culminating in the war on math. And it’s not going to get better, it’s going to get worse. As long as naturalists are in charge. After all, if there is no soul, self, or inherent purpose, no fixed right or wrong, there is also no math that matters. Progressive educators understand that.
Wigner’s essay was viewed as a sort of “treason” against science, meaning that his thinking did not lead in a naturalist (nature is all there is) direction. Naturalism is often called “materialism.”