Naturalism

From Scientific American via Business Insider: In a study just published in Psychological Science, Paul Bloom and I explore a radical—but non-magical—solution to this puzzle. Perhaps in the very moments that we experience a choice, our minds are rewriting history, fooling us into thinking that this choice—that was actually completed after its consequences were subconsciously perceived—was a choice that we had made all along. Though the precise way in which the mind could do this is still not fully understood, similar phenomena have been documented elsewhere. For example, we see the apparent motion of a dot before seeing that dot reach its destination, and we feel phantom touches moving up our arm before feeling an actual touch further up our Read More ›

Possibly because naturalists will be there ahead of it: At CNBC, futurist Michio Kaku explains that we are still the cavemen of 100,000 years ago (his “caveman principle”), so we just aren’t comfortable with brain implants and machines as persons. He goes on to say, “I think the ‘Terminator’ idea is a reasonable one — that is that one day the internet becomes self-aware and simply says that humans are in the way,” he said. “After all, if you meet an ant hill and you’re making a 10-lane super highway, you just pave over the ants. It’s not that you don’t like the ants, it’s not that you hate ants, they are just in the way.” More. Kaku’s conflicting pronouncements, Read More ›

So says Sam Kriss at Wired: Neil deGrasse Tyson is, supposedly, an educator and a populariser of science; it’s his job to excite people about the mysteries of the universe, communicate information, and correct popular misconceptions. This is a noble, arduous, and thankless job, which might be why he doesn’t do it.More. We think Tyson should have stuck to a winning formula. He seems to be everywhere saying everything. The multiverse, the computer sim, the Inquisition vs. Bruno, global warming… See also: Tyson bombshell: Universe likely just computer sim … See what we mean? Follow UD News at Twitter!

Readers may recall “No I in me and no sense in Sam Harris” wherein Waynesburg University (Pennsylvania) biology prof Wayne Rossiter, comments on the conundrum that Harris thinks dispensing with the idea that one exists is the key to deeper knowing of the nature of reality. But, Rossiter, not to worry, some can go Harris, a Darwin fan, one better: Evolution shows our perceptions are not real Anyway, seriously, Harris is getting slammed for Islamophobia, and Jerry Coyne offers, First, Sam asks hard questions, and people don’t like to think about hard questions. Should we ever lie? Is torture ever justifiable? Is it even possible to even imagine a first strike against Islamic enemies? Is it possible that religion can Read More ›

Yes, even First Things. From software engineer William A. Wilson at First Things: If science was unprepared for the influx of careerists, it was even less prepared for the blossoming of the Cult of Science. The Cult is related to the phenomenon described as “scientism”; both have a tendency to treat the body of scientific knowledge as a holy book or an a-religious revelation that offers simple and decisive resolutions to deep questions. But it adds to this a pinch of glib frivolity and a dash of unembarrassed ignorance. Its rhetorical tics include a forced enthusiasm (a search on Twitter for the hashtag “#sciencedancing” speaks volumes) and a penchant for profanity. Here in Silicon Valley, one can scarcely go a Read More ›

Riffing off Barry Arrington’s comment in Funny Shaped Rocks and the Design Inference, “It is amusing to watch some scientists insist on design inferences with respect to a relatively simple specification, while others refuse to countenance even the bare possibility of the same inference for a far more complex and intricate specification”: One thing that has always intrigued me is the way Why THEY Must Be Out There is supposed to be a question in science. There is no evidence that they are out there. The usual argument we hear is that it simply isn’t possible that we are alone. Well, excuse me, it is at least possible that we are alone. Each century They never call, They never write Read More ›

The claim was recently dismissed by a judge. From Atlas Obscura: Since its introduction in 2005, the mythology of Pastafarianism has grown to encompass pirates, an afterlife with a beer volcano, and more. There is, of course, a snazzy orientation video to welcome you into the Flying Spaghetti Monster’s noodly arms: Spaghetti, Wenches & Metaphysics: Episode 1—The FSM from Matt Tillman on Vimeo. In fact, Pastafarianism is an officially recognized religion in three countries—first in Poland, where it became an officially registered religious community in 2014 thanks to a legal technicality, then in the Netherlands this past January. And just this weekend, New Zealand recognized the first legally-binding Pastafarian wedding, officiated by “minestroni” Karen Martyn. The happy couple were wed Read More ›

Raising Arizona is one of my favorite movies.  It is chock-a-block with hilarious throw away lines like this one: Which brings me to Costa Rica.  Apparently, there are several hundred round stones that archaeologists are certain were designed.  This is from the Wiki entry. The stone spheres (or stone balls) of Costa Rica are an assortment of over three hundred petrospheres in Costa Rica, located on the Diquís Delta and on Isla del Caño. Locally, they are known as Las Bolas(literally The Balls). The spheres are commonly attributed to the extinct Diquís culture and are sometimes referred to as the Diquís Spheres. They are the best-known stone sculptures of the Isthmo-Colombian area. They are thought to have been placed in Read More ›

From Adam Waytz at Nautilus: Once we abandon the idea of universal empathy, it becomes clear that we need to build a quantitative moral calculus to help us choose when to extend our empathy. Empathy, by its very nature, seems unquantifiable, but behavioral scientists have developed techniques to turn people’s vague instincts into hard numbers. Cass Sunstein of Harvard Law School has suggested that moral concepts like fairness and dignity can be assessed using a procedure he calls breakeven analysis. Do people feel that the benefits of a given course of action justify the costs? If so, the action is worth taking. For example, we may judge that invasive phone-hacking is moral if the cost of invasion of privacy is Read More ›

This is an online conference, so anyone can attend from anywhere in the world. Convert time zones.

Read More ›

The Alternatives to Methodological Naturalism Online Conference is holding our second online free preview session this morning, April 4th at 7:30 AM Central Time. Login now to join us! This session is on methodological dualism and multi-explanation frameworks in Psychology by Dr. Sam Rakover, Professor Emeritus at the University of Haifa in Israel.
Read More ›

From the Guardian: Child psychology studies have identified a natural human bias toward the theory of intelligent design, and pose a solution: teach evolution earlier While psychologist Nathalia Gjersoe doesn’t come right out and say it, by “teach evolution,” she means teach what the U.S. Darwin-in-the-schools lobby would want: Developmental psychologists have identified two cognitive biases in very young children that help to explain the popularity of intelligent design. The first is a belief that species are defined by an internal quality that cannot be changed (psychological essentialism). The second is that all things are designed for a purpose (promiscuous teleology). These biases interact with cultural beliefs such as religion but are just as prevalent in children raised in secular Read More ›

For those interested in attending the Alternatives to Methodological Naturalism Online Conference, we are doing a free preview session Tuesday (March 29th – today!) at 7:30 PM Central Time. Check back here tomorrow for more details. All you need is your web browser to join.

From the publisher’s copy for The Mind Club: Who Thinks, What Feels, and Why It Matters by Daniel M.Wegner and Kurt Gray The Mind Club explains why we love some animals and eat others, why people debate the existence of God so intensely, how good people can be so cruel, and why robots make such poor lovers. By investigating the mind perception of extraordinary targets–animals, machines, comatose people, god–Wegner and Gray explain what it means to have a mind, and why it matters so much. Fusing cutting-edge research and personal anecdotes, The Mind Club explores the moral dimensions of mind perception with wit and compassion, revealing the surprisingly simple basis for what compels us to love and hate, to harm Read More ›

For those interested in attending, the AM-Nat Conference Schedule has been posted. If you want to find more detail about any of the talks, you can find them on the summary page.
Read More ›