Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

At Science Daily: Fiddler crab eye view inspires researchers to develop novel artificial vision

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Artificial vision systems find a wide range of applications, including self-driving cars, object detection, crop monitoring, and smart cameras. Such vision is often inspired by the vision of biological organisms. For instance, human and insect vision have inspired terrestrial artificial vision, while fish eyes have led to aquatic artificial vision. While the progress is remarkable, current artificial visions suffer from some limitations: they are not suitable for imaging both land and underwater environments, and are limited to a hemispherical (180°) field-of-view (FOV).

Fiddler crabs can look all around, without the need to move their eyes. https://biology.anu.edu.au

To overcome these issues, a group of researchers from Korea and USA, including Professor Young Min Song from Gwangju Institute of Science and Technology in Korea, have now designed a novel artificial vision system with an omnidirectional imaging ability, which can work in both aquatic and terrestrial environments. Their study was made available online on 12 July 2022 and published in Nature Electronics on 11 July 2022.

“Research in bio-inspired vision often results in a novel development that did not exist before. This, in turn, enables a deeper understanding of nature and ensure that the developed imaging device is both structurally and functionally effective,” says Prof. Song, explaining his motivation behind the study.

The inspiration for the system came from the fiddler crab (Uca arcuata), a semiterrestrial crab species with amphibious imaging ability and a 360° FOV. These remarkable features result from the ellipsoidal eye stalk of the fiddler crab’s compound eyes, enabling panoramic imaging, and flat corneas with a graded refractive index profile, allowing for amphibious imaging.

Accordingly, the researchers developed a vision system consisting of an array of flat micro-lenses with a graded refractive index profile that was integrated into a flexible comb-shaped silicon photodiode array and then mounted onto a spherical structure. The graded refractive index and the flat surface of the micro-lens were optimized to offset the defocusing effects due to changes in the external environment. Put simply, light rays traveling in different mediums (corresponding to different refractive indices) were made to focus at the same spot.

To test the capabilities of their system, the team performed optical simulations and imaging demonstrations in air and water. Amphibious imaging was performed by immersing the device halfway in water. To their delight, the images produced by the system were clear and free of distortions. The team further showed that the system had a panoramic visual field, 300o horizontally and 160o vertically, in both air and water. Additionally, the spherical mount was only 2 cm in diameter, making the system compact and portable.

Science Daily

It’s worth highlighting this quote: “These remarkable features result from the ellipsoidal eye stalk of the fiddler crab’s compound eyes, enabling panoramic imaging, and flat corneas with a graded refractive index profile, allowing for amphibious imaging.” Does this sound like intelligent design or the result of unguided, random evolutionary processes?

Comments
ET: LoL! How do we “know” that humans did it? It exists! And humans were there. So, they did it. Also we have seen other things they made at the same time, we have their tools, we know they were in the area, with the Egyptians we have some of their writings. I realise you have to push your (in Kairosfocus's phrase) hyper-skepticism about ancient monuments but aside from all the evidence that humans made them there is no other candidate. And it is a fact that humans are a what and not a who. All of humanity isn’t a suspect in every murder or crime. All of humanity isn’t on trial. Whatever. You pretending that asking who built Stonehenge implies "which person" is just a dodge to promote your narrative. Humans built Stonehenge, humans built the pyramids, humans built the Mayan and Aztec pyramids and temples. The evidence says that non-human intelligence was around at the time. What time was that? Your only 'evidence' is some complicated things you think were designed. You make a circular argument: these things were designed and we know there was a non-human intelligence around 'cause these things were designed. If we agree to not use the object under question as evidence you haven't got any. And to refute that all one has to do is step up and demonstrate that blind and mindless processes can account for it. Which I think has been done. Yet nature can’t even produce Stonehenge, even though it produces stones in abundance. Non-sequitur. The historical question of designed or nature did it. Designed won. When exactly are you claiming design was implemented?JVL
August 4, 2022
August
08
Aug
4
04
2022
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PDT
JVL at 71, With due respect, you aren't Newton. And to quote the great philosopher, Mick Jagger: "You can't always get what you want." God will send you a message.relatd
August 4, 2022
August
08
Aug
4
04
2022
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT
Relatd: Your science worship amazes me. God knows who you are. He could send me a message then!! What is wrong with asking questions and looking for answers? Isn't that what Newton did?JVL
August 4, 2022
August
08
Aug
4
04
2022
09:30 AM
9
09
30
AM
PDT
JVL you referred to other experimental work to refute my Schwartz reference. I said you have none, and you reply that, "At the moment I’m more interested in examining how you can explain how your paradigm can work. Which is why I asked you a lot of questions." You made a blatantly false empirical claim. When called on it you punt. Thus, I don't care what you are more interested in. You can't even get to square one as far as science is concerned! You say that many physicists would disagree that reductive materialism is falsified by Big Bang Cosmology and Quantum Mechanics. Again, I don't care what other physicists may believe. I only care what the empirical evidence itself is indicating. It is called empirical science. And on that score, materialism is dead. I did not 'try' to turn your 'communication channel' comment back on you. I DID. The existence of communication channels falsifies your materialistic worldview. Period. The rest of you post is just as scientifically pointless. I trust unbiased readers to clearly see that you got nothing but science-free rhetoric.bornagain77
August 4, 2022
August
08
Aug
4
04
2022
09:29 AM
9
09
29
AM
PDT
Seversky at 67, I pray God opens your eyes. Churches are for prayer and worship or did you miss that? "Show me God. If you can show me God I might believe in Him." Comic book convention in the 1970s.relatd
August 4, 2022
August
08
Aug
4
04
2022
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT
@ 67 https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/is-it-egotistical-for-god-to-demand-your-love The same can be said about science recentlyAaronS1978
August 4, 2022
August
08
Aug
4
04
2022
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT
I don't understand the need to "worship" anything. I find the concept of an egotistical deity that needs to be worshipped inconsistent with qualities attributed to the Christian God by the faithful. If God knows who and where I am, He is welcome to visit in person so that we can talk. Is there any reason why that shouldn't happen?Seversky
August 4, 2022
August
08
Aug
4
04
2022
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PDT
LoL! How do we "know" that humans did it? It exists! And humans were there. So, they did it. And it is a fact that humans are a what and not a who. All of humanity isn't a suspect in every murder or crime. All of humanity isn't on trial. The evidence says that non-human intelligence was around at the time. And to refute that all one has to do is step up and demonstrate that blind and mindless processes can account for it. Yet nature can't even produce Stonehenge, even though it produces stones in abundance. The historical question of designed or nature did it. Designed won.ET
August 4, 2022
August
08
Aug
4
04
2022
08:24 AM
8
08
24
AM
PDT
JVL at 64, Your science worship amazes me. God knows who you are.relatd
August 4, 2022
August
08
Aug
4
04
2022
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT
Relatd: Say a prayer to God right now. Just do it. Ask Him to answer you. Why can't you answer the questions? Also, what if I don't get an answer asking God? You could ask God and tell me what the reply is . . .JVL
August 4, 2022
August
08
Aug
4
04
2022
08:14 AM
8
08
14
AM
PDT
ET: We do not know that humans did it We don't have any evidence of any other beings around at the time. And we can see, in many cases, other works that humans did at about the same time along with their burials and their tools and sometimes even their writing. Humans are a what and not a who Yes, you always like to misinterpret that. If saying humans did it is OK for archaeology than saying a non-human did it is OK for ID First of all we know humans were around at the pertinent time and we know something about the humans that were around at the pertinent time. We know zilch about any intelligent non-humans around at any time. Secondly, we know roughly when most archaeological deposits were deposited; no one can say when the intelligent designers of ID did their thing. Third, it's fair in both cases to ask questions about either the humans or the ID designer. Archaeologists keep working to find out more about humans from the past. What work are ID researchers doing? ID also trying to answer historical questions Great! Good for them! Like what?JVL
August 4, 2022
August
08
Aug
4
04
2022
08:13 AM
8
08
13
AM
PDT
JVL at 57, Say a prayer to God right now. Just do it. Ask Him to answer you.relatd
August 4, 2022
August
08
Aug
4
04
2022
08:12 AM
8
08
12
AM
PDT
Bornagain77: What other experimental work? You did not cite any other experimental research to counter Schwartz’s work. And you, despite what you may falsely imagine, in fact have ZERO experimental research that the material brain can somehow generate the immaterial mind. i.e. Your supposed ‘other experimental results’ simply do not exit in reality At the moment I'm more interested in examining how you can explain how your paradigm can work. Which is why I asked you a lot of questions. both Big Bang Cosmology and Quantum Mechanics have now falsified your base assumption of reductive materialism, i.e. falsified your belief that ‘material reality’ is the ‘prime reality’ from which all other reality flows. I don't think many physicists would agree with that!! Since no communications channel has been detected how do the brain and the mind communicate?” JVL, you do realize that ‘communication channels’ are the product of intelligent design do you not? In fact, there is a 10 million dollar prize being offered for the first person who can show that unguided material processes can create a ‘communication channel”. You seem to have tried to turn my question back on me. I said no communication channels or frequencies have been found so how do the mind and brain communicate? I'm interested in your answer for that. What in the world are you going on about? Immaterial minds ‘broadcast and receive immaterial information all the time. We are doing it right now. As well, “In the brain” there is ample evidence of ‘information flow’. The only way humans broadcast information is by using their bodies to communicate with another person (or animal). I consider typing/writing to fit into that category. You have proposed a system wherein the brain and the mind are conveying information back and forth continuously and I'm asking you questions about how that would work. “vast distances”??? What in the world are you going on about? You really need to work on your clarity of exactly what you are trying to talk about. I guess that depends on where you think the non-physical mind exists. Where do you think it exists? “How is it (the immaterial mind) sustained without a physical device?” For crying out loud, besides you having ZERO empirical evidence that the material brain can somehow generate the immaterial mind, you are now, in your question, presupposing that the immaterial mind is somehow dependent on the material brain for its existence, Look, I'm asking you about your belief. How do you explain how the mind can exist without some kind of physical support? Clearly you think the mind is separate from the brain so is there some other device and power source which generates the energy necessary for the mind to do its processing? Yet for you to do so, (especially when I am currently holding that the immaterial mind is not dependent on the material brain for its existence), is called ‘begging the question’ and/or ‘assuming your conclusion’, and is a well known logical fallacy. I'm asking you how your paradigm works. I know what you are saying I'm asking questions about how that can happen. If you can't answer the questions then just say so. Whereas the ‘simple’ explanation is that hats really do produce rabbits. But that's not really the simplest plausible answer is it? Because that generates a whole lot of other questions and, perhaps, assumptions. So, the magician using slight-of-hand and known mechanical procedures is the simplest answer; one that does not require and unknown or assumed mechanisms. My reference to Occam's razor was because I think your view entails a lot more questions and assumptions and unknown processes than mine does. Which is why I was asking you about them so I could understand exactly what you are saying. If you have plausible and reasonable answers to those questions then I might change my mind and consider your explanation more parsimonious. I'll leave it up to you. If you choose not to answer my questions then just say so. If you can't answer my questions then just say so. Attacking my view is not the same as explaining yours which is what I'd like you to do.JVL
August 4, 2022
August
08
Aug
4
04
2022
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PDT
1- We do not know that humans did it 2- Humans are a what and not a who 3- If saying humans did it is OK for archaeology than saying a non-human did it is OK for ID 4- ID also trying to answer historical questions 5- Your position still has nothingET
August 4, 2022
August
08
Aug
4
04
2022
07:53 AM
7
07
53
AM
PDT
ET: We still don’t know who designed Stonehenge. Is archaeology a science stopper? We don’t know by who or how the Mayan calendar round was designed. We know those things were done by humans, we know when then lived, roughly, we know some of what they ate, what tools they used. Archaeology is not a science stopper because people are working to answer historical questions using the materials left behind by previous cultures. What questions are ID researchers working on?JVL
August 4, 2022
August
08
Aug
4
04
2022
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT
Doubter: How about a plausible materialistic explanation of the Pam Reynolds NDE case, for instance? I will look at the case if you can provide details. I'd rather not guess until I've familiarised myself with the particulars. And I notice that you have not responded to my post (#33) citing the Wilder Penfield epilepsy surgery brain stimulation data. Please plausibly explain that via reductionist materialism. I will try and find time to look at that. Your superskeptical materialist position probably includes the dismissal of PSI and ESP, along with NDEs and any and all evidence for an immaterial spirit along the lines of interactional dualism, or idealist monism, for that matter. Let's just say I haven't found the available evidence completely convincing. I do think it's perfectly reasonable to do more research however. So, not dismissal just a healthy skepticism.JVL
August 4, 2022
August
08
Aug
4
04
2022
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PDT
Relatd: it is clear that God created. But can you test that hypothesis with an experiment?JVL
August 4, 2022
August
08
Aug
4
04
2022
07:37 AM
7
07
37
AM
PDT
equivocates “Uses ambiguous language so as to conceal the truth or avoid committing oneself” Oxford dictionary, about 20 seconds to use. CD “Also, how come I’m only clueless but Sev is clueless AND a loser? What do I have to do to get the full monty?” Sev doesn’t have the full monty, he just repeats himself and tries really hard to segway conversations to why Christianity and God suck according to Sev. You on the other hand had earned the full monty long ago. You’re just to arrogant and ignorant to realize that you did.AaronS1978
August 4, 2022
August
08
Aug
4
04
2022
07:22 AM
7
07
22
AM
PDT
chuckdarwin/54- Get a dictionary and learn how to use it. and sev repeats the same nonsense ad nauseum.ET
August 4, 2022
August
08
Aug
4
04
2022
05:40 AM
5
05
40
AM
PDT
ET/49 Would you tell me what the following is supposed to mean? Are you sure you don't mean "equates" rather than "equivocates?":
chuckdarwin then equivocates “evolution” with “evolution by means of unguided, random evolutionary processes.
Also, how come I'm only clueless but Sev is clueless AND a loser? What do I have to do to get the full monty?chuckdarwin
August 4, 2022
August
08
Aug
4
04
2022
05:37 AM
5
05
37
AM
PDT
Evos are a clueless lot. Theirs is the mechanistic position. And yet they don't have a mechanism capable of producing the diversity of life! They are stuck on changes to DNA and yet such changes could never produce the diversity of life. All changes to DNA can do is produce variations within a population.ET
August 4, 2022
August
08
Aug
4
04
2022
05:31 AM
5
05
31
AM
PDT
seversky:
It would also be interesting if ID proponents could give a detailed explanation of how their putative designer did it – and who he/she/it is.
That doesn't have anything to do with ID. Why are you such a clueless loser?ET
August 4, 2022
August
08
Aug
4
04
2022
05:28 AM
5
05
28
AM
PDT
Alan Fox:
So many words to not tell us anything about “Intelligent Design”. Yet if we can’t cross every t and dot every I for evolutionary theory, “Intelligent Design” gets a pass.
What a load of lies and BS. 1- We have said exactly what ID is and what the evidence for it is. 2- ID exists because you and yours have FAILED to find evidentiary support for your position. 3- You can't even tell us how to test the claim that blind and mindless processes produced the diversity of life 4- You and yours can't dot any i's nor cross any t'sET
August 4, 2022
August
08
Aug
4
04
2022
05:27 AM
5
05
27
AM
PDT
:))) Per-review journals are useless when is about singular , unrepeatable , unobservable past events. All those suppositions about past(Big-Bang, Darwinism,etc.) events can be dismissed by anyone because an assumption made by a scientist remain just an assumption so basically it's about competion among different beliefs based on previously preferred worldview(materialism,theism) :lol:Lieutenant Commander Data
August 4, 2022
August
08
Aug
4
04
2022
05:26 AM
5
05
26
AM
PDT
chuckdarwin then equivocates "evolution" with "evolution by means of unguided, random evolutionary processes. Totally clueless.ET
August 4, 2022
August
08
Aug
4
04
2022
05:21 AM
5
05
21
AM
PDT
chuckdarwin:
“Does this sound like God (more precisely, the Christian God) or the result of unguided, random evolutionary processes?”
There isn't any evidence that unguided, random evolutionary processes produced the diversity of life. There isn't even any way to test the claim.ET
August 4, 2022
August
08
Aug
4
04
2022
05:20 AM
5
05
20
AM
PDT
I am guessing that Querius (41) cannot list the top ten journals in evolutionary biology, yet he parrots the quintessential ID plaint that "I’ve never seen anyone who could show evidence of evolution." Well, if you don't look, you obviously won't find. Here's the list for anyone interested: https://guides.library.cornell.edu/c.php?g=150193&p=2508503chuckdarwin
August 4, 2022
August
08
Aug
4
04
2022
04:46 AM
4
04
46
AM
PDT
JVL at 22
Bornagain77: And yet, as Schwartz’s, and others’s, experimental research highlights, “the fact remains, and is demonstrated by research, that non-material mind acts on material brain.”” JVL: But other experimental results suggest that is not the case. You have to consider all the data and results.
What other experimental work? You did not cite any other experimental research to counter Schwartz's work. And you, despite what you may falsely imagine, in fact have ZERO experimental research that the material brain can somehow generate the immaterial mind. i.e. Your supposed 'other experimental results' simply do not exit in reality
"Those centermost processes of the brain with which consciousness is presumably associated are simply not understood. They are so far beyond our comprehension at present that no one I know of has been able even to imagine their nature." - Roger Wolcott Sperry - Nobel neurophysiologist As quoted in Genius Talk : Conversations with Nobel Scientists "Nobody has the slightest idea how anything material could be conscious. Nobody even knows what it would be like to have the slightest idea about how anything material could be conscious. So much for the philosophy of consciousness." - Jerry Fodor - Rutgers University philosopher [2] Fodor, J. A., Can there be a science of mind? Times Literary Supplement. July 3, 1992, pp5-7. ‘But the hard problem of consciousness is so hard that I can’t even imagine what kind of empirical findings would satisfactorily solve it. In fact, I don’t even know what kind of discovery would get us to first base, not to mention a home run.’ - David Barash - professor of psychology emeritus at the University of Washington. "It’s sobering to note that neuroscience has utterly failed to explain how the brain and mind relate. It is as if cosmology had failed to tell us anything meaningful about the universe; or medical science failed to tell us anything about health and disease; or geology failed to tell us anything about rocks. Neuroscience has told us nothing— nothing—about how the brain gives rise to the mind. The Hard Problem (of consciousness), after two centuries of neuroscience and a vast trove of data, remains utterly unsolved." - Michael R. Egnor, MD, Professor of Neurosurgery and Pediatrics at State University of New York, Stony Brook “Every day we recall the past, perceive the present and imagine the future. How do our brains accomplish these feats? It’s safe to say that nobody really knows.” - Sebastian Seung - Massachusetts Institute of Technology - neuroscientist - “Connectome”: "We have at present not even the vaguest idea how to connect the physio-chemical processes with the state of mind." - Eugene Wigner - Nobel prize-winner in Physics – "Science's biggest mystery is the nature of consciousness. It is not that we possess bad or imperfect theories of human awareness; we simply have no such theories at all. About all we know about consciousness is that it has something to do with the head, rather than the foot." - Nick Herbert - Contemporary physicist “I have a much easier time imagining how we would understand the big bang, even though we can’t do it yet, than I can imagine understanding consciousness.” – Edward Witten – professor of mathematical physics at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey
Moreover JVL, not only do you not have any experimental research showing that the material brain can somehow generate the immaterial mind, but both Big Bang Cosmology and Quantum Mechanics have now falsified your base assumption of reductive materialism, i.e. falsified your belief that 'material reality' is the 'prime reality' from which all other reality flows.
Big Bang Theory – An Overview of the main evidence Excerpt: Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of time and space.1, 2 According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy.”3 Steven W. Hawking, George F.R. Ellis, “The Cosmic Black-Body Radiation and the Existence of Singularities in our Universe,” Astrophysical Journal, 152, (1968) pp. 25-36. Steven W. Hawking, Roger Penrose, “The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology,” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, series A, 314 (1970) pp. 529-548. http://www.big-bang-theory.com/ New Mind-blowing Experiment Confirms That Reality Doesn’t Exist If You Are Not Looking at It – June 3, 2015 Excerpt: Some particles, such as photons or electrons, can behave both as particles and as waves. Here comes a question of what exactly makes a photon or an electron act either as a particle or a wave. This is what Wheeler’s experiment asks: at what point does an object ‘decide’? The results of the Australian scientists’ experiment, which were published in the journal Nature Physics, show that this choice is determined by the way the object is measured, which is in accordance with what quantum theory predicts. “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” said lead researcher Dr. Andrew Truscott in a press release.,,, “The atoms did not travel from A to B. It was only when they were measured at the end of the journey that their wave-like or particle-like behavior was brought into existence,” he said. Thus, this experiment adds to the validity of the quantum theory and provides new evidence to the idea that reality doesn’t exist without an observer. http://themindunleashed.org/2015/06/new-mind-blowing-experiment-confirms-that-reality-doesnt-exist-if-you-are-not-looking-at-it.html Quantum physics says goodbye to reality – Apr 20, 2007 Excerpt: Many realizations of the thought experiment have indeed verified the violation of Bell’s inequality. These have ruled out all hidden-variables theories based on joint assumptions of realism, meaning that reality exists when we are not observing it; and locality, meaning that separated events cannot influence one another instantaneously. But a violation of Bell’s inequality does not tell specifically which assumption – realism, locality or both – is discordant with quantum mechanics. Markus Aspelmeyer, Anton Zeilinger and colleagues from the University of Vienna, however, have now shown that realism is more of a problem than locality in the quantum world. They devised an experiment that violates a different inequality proposed by physicist Anthony Leggett in 2003 that relies only on realism, and relaxes the reliance on locality. To do this, rather than taking measurements along just one plane of polarization, the Austrian team took measurements in additional, perpendicular planes to check for elliptical polarization. They found that, just as in the realizations of Bell’s thought experiment, Leggett’s inequality is violated – thus stressing the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we’re not observing it. “Our study shows that ‘just’ giving up the concept of locality would not be enough to obtain a more complete description of quantum mechanics,” Aspelmeyer told Physics Web. “You would also have to give up certain intuitive features of realism.” http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/27640
i.e. JVL, as far as our best experimental science from physics is concerned, your primary assumption of reductive materialism is now shown to be false.,,,, as far as empirical science itself is concerned this is certainly NOT a minor problem for you. JVL goes on, "Since no communications channel has been detected how do the brain and the mind communicate?" JVL, you do realize that 'communication channels' are the product of intelligent design do you not? In fact, there is a 10 million dollar prize being offered for the first person who can show that unguided material processes can create a 'communication channel".
What You Must Do to Win The (10 Million Dollar) Prize You must arrange for a digital communication system to emerge or self-evolve without "cheating." The diagram below describes the system. Without explicitly designing the system, your experiment must generate an encoder that sends digital code to a decoder. Your system needs to transmit at least five bits of information. (In other words it has to be able to represent 32 states. The genetic code supports 64.) https://www.herox.com/evolution2.0?_ga=2.74388754.1238736579.1659607549-624621427.1659607549
i.e. For JVL to even appeal to 'communication channels' is for him to refute his own worldview! But anyways, JVL goes on: "Without actually detected signals or mechanisms (in the brain) clearly able to broadcast and receive signals it’s all just an assumption. Something you accuse non-dualists of having." What in the world are you going on about? Immaterial minds 'broadcast and receive immaterial information all the time. We are doing it right now. As well, "In the brain" there is ample evidence of 'information flow'. JVL goes on: "Assuming there is some communications channel that can travel over vast distances instantaneously with little or no loss of signal then . . . "vast distances"??? What in the world are you going on about? You really need to work on your clarity of exactly what you are trying to talk about. JVL goes on: "How is it (the immaterial mind) sustained without a physical device?" For crying out loud, besides you having ZERO empirical evidence that the material brain can somehow generate the immaterial mind, you are now, in your question, presupposing that the immaterial mind is somehow dependent on the material brain for its existence, Yet for you to do so, (especially when I am currently holding that the immaterial mind is not dependent on the material brain for its existence), is called 'begging the question' and/or 'assuming your conclusion', and is a well known logical fallacy. JVL goes on with a lot of other inconsequential stuff that is superficial to superfluous to the main question under consideration, (i.e. How can the material brain possibly generate the immaterial mind?), but anyways JVL ends with this: "It seems to me that your view entails a lot of assumptions (and brings up a lot of questions) which seem to violate criteria like Ockham’s Razor. If you want to hold that view as a matter of faith then I’ve got nothing to say. If you think it’s science then I have to be more critical." First, Ockham’s Razor holds that, if two, or more, explanations for a given phenomena exist, then the simplest explanation is to be preferred. In criticism to JVL's appeal to Ockham's razor, two explanations exist for a rabbit coming out of a magician's hat. The 'complex' explanation is that the magician took several 'complex' steps to make it appear as if the hat produced a rabbit. Whereas the 'simple' explanation is that hats really do produce rabbits. JVL prefers to believe the 'simple' explanation that hats produce rabbits.
"No experiment has ever demonstrated the genesis of consciousness from matter. One might as well believe that rabbits emerge from magicians' hats. Yet this vaporous possibility, this neuro-mythology, has enchanted generations of gullible scientists, in spite of the fact that there is not a shred of direct evidence to support it." - Larry Dossey - Physician
As to JVL criticizing faith, that is extremely ironic seeing that Atheistic Materialists, (despite having not one shred of empirical evidence unguided material processes can create anything, not even a single protein), have enough blind faith to make Muslim suicide bombers and Pentecostal snake handlers blush in comparison.
Francis Collins, Eye Evolution, and Blind Faith https://idthefuture.com/1520/
Verse:
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
bornagain77
August 4, 2022
August
08
Aug
4
04
2022
03:55 AM
3
03
55
AM
PDT
...challenge the findings documented in Cardena’s paper.
Give us something to challenge, then. Let's look closer at one of these documented findings. I'll let you pick your best example.Alan Fox
August 3, 2022
August
08
Aug
3
03
2022
10:23 PM
10
10
23
PM
PDT
So many words to not tell us anything about "Intelligent Design". Yet if we can't cross every t and dot every I for evolutionary theory, "Intelligent Design" gets a pass. :)Alan Fox
August 3, 2022
August
08
Aug
3
03
2022
10:18 PM
10
10
18
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply