Davis goes on to identify exploded science theories, for example, spontaneous generation of life. But stop, wait! The very doctrine of the natural origin of life from inanimate materials teaches precisely this. Is Davis saying that the one true doctrine of naturalism on the subject is wrong?
Actually, it would make way more sense to take Adam and Eve seriously than to take the multiverse seriously, as many atheists do. Everyone is familiar with the type of human behavior Adam and Eve are said to have engaged in. No one knows what a universe that literally makes no sense would be like.
The Turing test for design in computers relies on the same principles as the detection of design in nature. The materialist can have, in principle, no intelligence in either computers or nature or possible intelligence in both. But he can’t pick and choose.
We actually don’t know what consciousness is, so it feels odd to speak of “engineering” it.
“Let me repeat. Physics doesn’t change. And even when discussing the changes (like an oscillation), the physics of change doesn’t change. Somebody is making a serious category error when the physics of change becomes the change of physics.”
As process theology empties churches, process philosophy will empty classrooms.
We’re not claiming it’s a cause. Just noticing that aggressive defense of Darwinism and other kinds of naturalism proves no deterrent to nonsense.
Epstein wasn’t even a scientist. It wasn’t like trying to figure out how to deal with a Nazi who has a cure for cancer. Don’t let the people who are implicated invoke high and difficult questions to cloud over plain old wrongdoing.
We love it. “Correction mechanisms in science can sometimes work slowly… ” Why does that remind us of “Nature has retracted a major oceans warning paper, after ten months of mass freakouts? The suspicion raised—and it is not unreasonable—is that the harm that wrong information does is useful to some parties. It’s almost like we sense the retraction coming conveniently after the damage is done.
But don’t tell neuroscientist Michael Graziano, who has set his sights on figuring out consciousness from a materialist perspective. Let it be a surprise
Why it isn’t: Biomedical engineer Yuri Danilov: Again, it is a separate discussion, extremely painful for many but it is something that is happening right now.
Russ White: It is not enough, as Turing proposed, to trick a person into thinking a computer is a person. Somewhere there must be a person who intends this result. If the artificial intelligence cannot provide that intent, then the person who designs the system must.
If you believe that nature is all there is and you can’t otherwise explain the mind, the mind must be part of nature and therefore electrons are conscious. Unless you want to say that the mind is an illusion.
Rogers asks, “How did these geniuses find themselves cozying up to a child rapist?” and provides us with some of the many answers that will filter in.
Gray: “‘Critical thinking’ has become a cluster of progressive dogmas, which are handed down as if they were self-evident truths.” Gray’s thesis is that liberalism tiself led inevitably to the collapse of standards (which now threatens the sciences). Agree, disagree, read the whole thing.