In the old folks’ home of ideas:
Each year a forum for the world’s most brilliant minds asks one question. This year’s drew responses from such names as Richard Dawkins, Ian McEwan and Alan Alda. Here, edge.org founder John Brockman explains how the question came into being and we pick some of the best responses
Wonder what kind of answers they’ll get. No, not really.
What ideas do readers recommend for the watch-and-chain?
In the above, Irene Pepperberg wants to do away with Humaniqueness. Sure humans can send probes into outer space …”unlike our non-human brethren” but bees can see in the ultraviolet! Apples and apples. When we reject man as created in the image of God, self-loathing is the inevitable result.
On the other hand, I do like Max Tegmark’s suggestion to retire infinity – the atheist’s best friend.
Huh?! Lawrence Krause call your office!!!
Rex,
We should tell Irene that when the other organisms get around to classification schemes we will listen to them.
Good point Joe. May be an improvement.
This may not be a major thing, but how about getting rid of the idea of “Inclusive Fitness” as a just so story to explain altruism?
I just read this on crev.info:
http://crev.info/2014/01/inclusive-fitness/Well isn’t this special? Two of the articles argue for giving up human exceptionalism:
But both of their arguments against Human exceptionalism are directly contradicted by the science of the very first article:
and Despite what people may believe from Haeckel’s Bogus Embryo Drawings,,,
,,,her science is dead on and each species is unique in its developmental processes. Thus the evolutionary presupposition against human exceptionalism, that has and is wasting billion of dollars, is the scientific idea that is ready for retirement!
Moreover, Human exceptionalism is accented in another article in the paper by the abject failure of ‘science’ (i.e. materialism for these guys) to give an account for art:
If that wasn’t bad enough, another article in the paper argues for giving up the concept of absolute truth,,,
Whilst another article in the paper argues for hanging onto what is false since it helps us get closer to what is true:
,, I wonder if he will be willing to hang onto Darwinism as ‘brilliantly wrong’ when he is shown that the modern synthesis is ‘brilliantly wrong'(Nobel, Shapiro)?
One person in the paper wanted to redefine the word ‘addiction’ since romantic love, from brain scans, displays many of the same characteristics as addiction:
But why would a materialist be concerned with the negative association of the word addiction with romantic love if, as they hold, love is merely an illusion foisted off on us by our chemistry and genes? She shouldn’t be getting all moral on us with our definition of words!
One article was concerned with nuclear power plants and climate change, but argued, scientifically, for the idea of more nuclear power plants on the ‘non-Darwinian’ fact that highly sophisticated DNA repair mechanisms, that prevent ‘random’ mutations from happening from radiation, are far more robust than was previously assumed:
The last article argued for giving up ‘infinity’
Other than the fact that he is completely incorrect in his belief that inflation is ‘spectacularly successful’, is the fact that exactly what ‘finite’ parameter is he going to use to get rid of the other infinities that pop up in all the other places that show our mathematical theories in science to be incomplete?
Perhaps he should realize, as ancienti philosophers realized, that infinity must exist as a reality but that that infinity, as a reality, cannot exist within materialism:
Of note:
Infinity, as a reality, contrary to what Tegmark believes, must exist, and it must reside in the personal agent of almighty God since it cannot exist in a material reality;
As you can see, somewhat from the preceding ‘Dangerous Knowledge’ video, mathematics cannot be held to be ‘true’ unless an assumption for a highest transcendent infinity is held to be true. A highest infinity which Cantor, and even Godel, held to be God.