Bartlett: What I found most interesting about the conversation, however, is not the technology itself but the (secular) mythology embedded in Musk’s lengthy descriptions of what he thinks his device can do…
This is not an excellent time to be a materialist. Materialism is losing its Cool. It’s not even making sense.
In Scandinavia, ID-related activity is also increasing. The Danish ID organization Origo is just about to release a translation of Dr. Lee Spetner’s The Evolution Revolution and currently a translation of Dr. Michael Behe’s Darwin Devolves is also in progress, with the release expected in 2021.
But wait, say others, the hard problem of consciousness is not so easily dismissed.
According to classical reasoning, self-simulation wouldn’t make sense but maybe one must abandon classical reasoning to be in theoretical physics these days. Handy to know.
“Woke” science is bad science and heavily biassed toward PC answers while abusing the data. What perhaps Coyne doesn’t appreciate, is that the same methods used by woke science are used by Darwinist science, and indeed by any science captured by an ideology.
When New Scientist’s world comes away feeling empowered by stuff like this, what does it mean for the rest of us?
Michael Licona took issue with that.
With Sean McDowell and Lee Strobel.
While in lockdown, read intelligent commentary.
But the real goal is to rule out design in nature, which the controversialists can’t do, hence the “religious” nature of the controversy. A friend writes to remind us that this is basically the stuff of Michael Denton’s book, Wonder of Water.
Roger Sperry’s Nobel Prize-winning split-brain research convinced him that the mind and free will are real.
(Wallace, Darwin-s co-theorist, was a working-class stiff whom Darwin’s set elbowed out. He was not a materialist (naturalist) and he thought evolution could be consistent with meaning and spirituality. Darwin abhorred such ideas. This review was originally published at New Oxford Review.)
A scientific test should identify precisely what humans can do that computers cannot, avoiding subjective opinion: The “broken checkerboard” is not the ultimate scientific test for intelligence that we need. But it is a truly scientific test in the sense that it is capable of falsifying the theory that the mind is reducible to computation. Read More…
We often hear that what’s hard for humans is easy for computers. But it turns out that many kinds of problems are exceedingly hard for computers to solve. This class of problems, known as NP-Complete (NPC), was independently discovered by Stephen Cook and Leonid Levin.