Brain network detected that supposedly gives humans superior reasoning skills

bornagain77 Love ya man. you have great stuff on this forum. YET. This German was used and rewarded before he became a true Christian. He murdered people with his rockets and in no way should Yanks of used him and given him his dreams and good life . he was a vile enemy. The common soldier is killed but the lead scientist gets the good things amongst those he tried to murder and did. Anybody could do the rocket thing. jUst give some yank a few months more. didn't need this clown. this enemy. Its not about forgiveness. its about rewarding the enemy of your people with your nations delights and fun. Giving foreigners our nations good things happens too much after they were trying to destroy us. A major historical problem then and now. I gotta represent the victims and our people from back in the day. Robert Byers

Me_Think,, It was a unexpected shock that non-local quantum entanglement could be found in molecular biology. According to Quantum Physicist Jim Al-Khalili, the phenomenon of Quantum Entanglement in Robins is "nothing short of miraculous." Jim Al-Khalili and the Quantum Robin - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jepgOQEvWT0 bornagain77

Your right, Bell's inequality will only get you so far, (but even as far as Bell's goes it falsifies reductive materialism as an explanation!), Leggett's Inequality (which I referenced in my Henry cite) takes it all the way to Theism: “I’m going to talk about the Bell inequality, and more importantly a new inequality that you might not have heard of called the Leggett inequality, that was recently measured. It was actually formulated almost 30 years ago by Professor Leggett, who is a Nobel Prize winner, but it wasn’t tested until about a year and a half ago (in 2007), when an article appeared in Nature, that the measurement was made by this prominent quantum group in Vienna led by Anton Zeilinger, which they measured the Leggett inequality, which actually goes a step deeper than the Bell inequality and rules out any possible interpretation other than consciousness creates reality when the measurement is made.” – Bernard Haisch, Ph.D., Calphysics Institute, is an astrophysicist and author of over 130 scientific publications. Preceding quote taken from this following video; Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness - A New Measurement - Bernard Haisch, Ph.D (Shortened version of entire video with notes in description of video) http://vimeo.com/37517080 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 Lecture 11: Decoherence and Hidden Variables - Scott Aaronson Excerpt: "Look, we all have fun ridiculing the creationists who think the world sprang into existence on October 23, 4004 BC at 9AM (presumably Babylonian time), with the fossils already in the ground, light from distant stars heading toward us, etc. But if we accept the usual picture of quantum mechanics, then in a certain sense the situation is far worse: the world (as you experience it) might as well not have existed 10^-43 seconds ago!" http://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/lec11.html Quantum Physics – (material reality does not exist until we look at it) – Dr. Quantum video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1ezNvpFcJU If you have trouble accepting the implications of the preceding video, don’t feel alone, Nobel prize winner Anthony Leggett, who developed Leggett’s inequality to try to prove that an objective material reality exists when we are not looking at it, still does not believe the results of the experiment that he himself was integral in devising, even though the inequality was violated by a stunning 80 orders of magnitude. He seems to have done this simply because the results contradicted the ‘realism’ he believes in (realism is the notion that an objective material reality exists apart from our conscious observation of it). Do we create the world just by looking at it? - 2008 Excerpt: In mid-2007 Fedrizzi found that the new realism model was violated by 80 orders of magnitude; the group was even more assured that quantum mechanics was correct. Leggett agrees with Zeilinger that realism is wrong in quantum mechanics, but when I asked him whether he now believes in the theory, he answered only “no” before demurring, “I’m in a small minority with that point of view and I wouldn’t stake my life on it.” For Leggett there are still enough loopholes to disbelieve. I asked him what could finally change his mind about quantum mechanics. Without hesitation, he said sending humans into space as detectors to test the theory.,,, (to which Anton Zeilinger responded) When I mentioned this to Prof. Zeilinger he said, “That will happen someday. There is no doubt in my mind. It is just a question of technology.” Alessandro Fedrizzi had already shown me a prototype of a realism experiment he is hoping to send up in a satellite. It’s a heavy, metallic slab the size of a dinner plate. http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/the_reality_tests/P3/ And to further solidify the case that 'consciousness precedes reality' the violation of Leggett's inequalities have been extended. This following experiment verified Leggett's inequality to a stunning 120 standard deviations level of precision: Experimental non-classicality of an indivisible quantum system - Zeilinger 2011 Excerpt: Page 491: "This represents a violation of (Leggett's) inequality (3) by more than 120 standard deviations, demonstrating that no joint probability distribution is capable of describing our results." The violation also excludes any non-contextual hidden-variable model. The result does, however, agree well with quantum mechanical predictions, as we will show now.,,, https://vcq.quantum.at/fileadmin/Publications/Experimental%20non-classicality%20of%20an%20indivisible.pdf The preceding experiment, and the mathematics behind it, are discussed beginning at the 24:15 minute mark of the following video: Quantum Weirdness and God 8-9-2014 by Paul Giem - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=N7HHz14tS1c#t=1449 bornagain77

bornagain77@ 30

of note: Quantum entanglement in hot systems – 2011

Yes of course it is possible. I pointed out that entanglement is affected by temperature. I even mentioned that diamond particles showed entanglement - that experiment was conducted at room temperature. The higher the temperature, the shorter the entanglement, which again proves entanglement is materialistic, and entanglement lasts femtoseconds at high temperatures, which means any useful quibits can't be transferred before wavefunction collapse. Me_Think

bornagain77 @ 29 Einstein posited a hidden local variable which was shown to be false by Bell Inequality. It does not mean entanglement is theistic. It it were so, Bell's inequality would have been violated at all point : Eg: If P(alpha,Beta) is the combined probability that particle #1 passes Stern–Gerlach #1 at the angle alpha, and particle #2 passes Stern–Gerlach #2 at the angle Beta, then if alpha = -7Pi/8 and gamma =-Pi,Bell inequality is not voilated , at alpha = -3Pi/4,Bell's inequality violation region is -Pi to -3Pi/4 , at -Pi/2, the region of violation is -Pi to -Pi/2 , if alpha is positive, at Pi/2, violation is in region Pi/2 to Pi. only. Me_Think

of note: Quantum entanglement in hot systems - 2011 Excerpt: The authors remark that this reverses the previous orthodoxy, which held that quantum effects could not exist in biological systems because of the amount of noise in these systems.,,, Environmental noise here drives a persistent and cyclic generation of new entanglement.,,, In summary, the authors say that they have demonstrated that entanglement can recur even in a hot noisy environment. In biological systems this can be related to changes in the conformation of macromolecules. http://quantum-mind.co.uk/quantum-entanglement-hot-systems/ bornagain77

Me_Think, I, far from being 'disturbed', am quite happy with what quantum mechanics has continually revealed to us about the Theistic basis of reality. Far smarter people than you (Einstein for one example) have tried to render quantum entanglement to mere material mechanism. All have failed!

The Mental Universe - Richard Conn Henry - Professor of Physics John Hopkins University Excerpt: The only reality is mind and observations, but observations are not of things. To see the Universe as it really is, we must abandon our tendency to conceptualize observations as things.,,, Physicists shy away from the truth because the truth is so alien to everyday physics. A common way to evade the mental universe is to invoke "decoherence" - the notion that "the physical environment" is sufficient to create reality, independent of the human mind. Yet the idea that any irreversible act of amplification is necessary to collapse the wave function is known to be wrong: in "Renninger-type" experiments, the wave function is collapsed simply by your human mind seeing nothing. The universe is entirely mental,,,, The Universe is immaterial — mental and spiritual. Live, and enjoy. http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/The.mental.universe.pdf Alain Aspect and Anton Zeilinger by Richard Conn Henry - Physics Professor - John Hopkins University Excerpt: Why do people cling with such ferocity to belief in a mind-independent reality? It is surely because if there is no such reality, then ultimately (as far as we can know) mind alone exists. And if mind is not a product of real matter, but rather is the creator of the "illusion" of material reality (which has, in fact, despite the materialists, been known to be the case, since the discovery of quantum mechanics in 1925), then a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism (solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist). (Dr. Henry's referenced experiment and paper - “An experimental test of non-local realism” by S. Gröblacher et. al., Nature 446, 871, April 2007 - “To be or not to be local” by Alain Aspect, Nature 446, 866, April 2007 (Leggett's Inequality: Verified, as of 2011, to 120 standard deviations) http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/aspect.html etc.. etc..

bornagain77

bornagain77 @ 24

You are far from the first materialist to be disturbed by the obvious Theistic implications of quantum non-locality.

You are disturbed because I pointed out that entanglement depends on properties of particle (mass,spin,momentum etc) so it can't be spiritual (non-materialistic). Even the duration of particle entanglement depends on temperature and isolation from other particles. Magnets and gravity too have 'spooky action at a distance'. Would you say magnets have Theistic implications? Me_Think

"Unguided evolution can fix filters on spaceships… Darwinism again explains everything. Amazing!!!!" That is the crux of the biscuit Andre isn't it. The Scientific question is not if there is ID in Nature, but when and where and how was it created. Most great Scientists knew/know this. ppolish

"Quantum entanglement arises because of particles – do you agree with the statement?" That statement is false "In the absence of ‘materialistic particle’, there will be no quantum entanglement – right ?" 'materialistic particles are secondary to entanglement as is demonstrated by the fact that 'materialistic particles', (photons), by using quantum entanglement as a 'quantum information channel', can be completely reduced to quantum information and teleported to another location in the universe. "Entanglement is affected by temperature – which is not possible if it was a spirit – right ?" Who said quantum entanglement was a 'spirit'? Quantum entanglement is a physical resource like matter and energy are as is demonstrated in its use in quantum computation. "Entanglement also depends on mass and spin of whatever fermions is entangled – right?" Actually, I believe teleportation has now achieved 100% fidelity in which ALL properties of a photon have been teleported and almost 100% fidelity has been achieved for matter in that all characteristics of a atom have been teleported. "So again, why do you say it is non-materialistic ?" Quantum non-locality is 'non-materialistic' in that a beyond space and time cause is required to be appealed to in order to explain the effect of quantum entanglement on material particles. Again, that is the entire point of why quantum non-locality created such a stir in the first place. You are far from the first materialist to be disturbed by the obvious Theistic implications of quantum non-locality. bornagain77

bornagain77 @ 24 Let's break it down - Quantum entanglement arises because of particles - do you agree with the statement? In the absence of 'materialistic particle', there will be no quantum entanglement - right ? Entanglement is affected by temperature - which is not possible if it was a spirit - right ? Entanglement also depends on mass and spin of whatever fermions is entangled - right? So again, why do you say it is non-materialistic ? Me_Think

Me_Think, the whole point about non-local quantum entanglement, i.e. 'spooky action at a distance', the whole point that has created such a stir ever since the Einstein-Bohr debates, is that quantum non-locality cannot be explained by any materialistic, within space-time, cause. Quantum non-locality especially cannot be explained by reference to the material particles themselves!!!

Quantum Entanglement – Bohr and Einstein - The Failure Of Local Realism - Materialism - Alain Aspect - video https://vimeo.com/98206867 Einstein vs quantum mechanics, and why he'd be a convert today - June 13, 2014 Excerpt: In a nutshell, experimentalists John Clauser, Alain Aspect, Anton Zeilinger, Paul Kwiat and colleagues have performed the Bell proposal for a test of Einstein's hidden variable theories. All results so far support quantum mechanics. It seems that when two particles undergo entanglement, whatever happens to one of the particles can instantly affect the other, even if the particles are separated! http://phys.org/news/2014-06-einstein-quantum-mechanics-hed-today.html Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory – 29 October 2012 Excerpt: “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,” http://www.quantumlah.org/highlight/121029_hidden_influences.php "[while a number of philosophical ideas] may be logically consistent with present quantum mechanics, ...materialism is not." Eugene Wigner Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism - video playlist https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TViAqtowpvZy5PZpn-MoSK_&v=4C5pq7W5yRM Quantum physics mimics spooky action into the past - April 23, 2012 Excerpt: According to the famous words of Albert Einstein, the effects of quantum entanglement appear as "spooky action at a distance". The recent experiment has gone one remarkable step further. "Within a naïve classical world view, quantum mechanics can even mimic an influence of future actions on past events", says Anton Zeilinger. http://phys.org/news/2012-04-quantum-physics-mimics-spooky-action.html "If we attempt to attribute an objective meaning to the quantum state of a single system, curious paradoxes appear: quantum effects mimic not only instantaneous action-at-a-distance but also, as seen here, influence of future actions on past events, even after these events have been irrevocably recorded." Asher Peres, Delayed choice for entanglement swapping. J. Mod. Opt. 47, 139-143 (2000).

You can see a more complete explanation of the startling results of the experiment at the 9:11 minute mark of the following video

Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment Explained - 2014 video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6HLjpj4Nt4

Moreover, as if that was not bad enough for the reductive materialistism that undergirds neo-Darwinism, not only is a beyond space and time cause required to be appealed to in order to explain the non-locality of quantum entanglement, it turns out that the experimenter's consciousness and free will are integral to the experiments as well.

What Does Quantum Physics Have to Do with Free Will? - By Antoine Suarez - July 22, 2013 Excerpt: What is more, recent experiments are bringing to light that the experimenter’s free will and consciousness should be considered axioms (founding principles) of standard quantum physics theory. So for instance, in experiments involving “entanglement” (the phenomenon Einstein called “spooky action at a distance”), to conclude that quantum correlations of two particles are nonlocal (i.e. cannot be explained by signals traveling at velocity less than or equal to the speed of light), it is crucial to assume that the experimenter can make free choices, and is not constrained in what orientation he/she sets the measuring devices. To understand these implications it is crucial to be aware that quantum physics is not only a description of the material and visible world around us, but also speaks about non-material influences coming from outside the space-time.,,, https://www.bigquestionsonline.com/content/what-does-quantum-physics-have-do-free-will

of related note:

Why Quantum Theory Does Not Support Materialism - By Bruce L Gordon: Excerpt: Because quantum theory is thought to provide the bedrock for our scientific understanding of physical reality, it is to this theory that the materialist inevitably appeals in support of his worldview. But having fled to science in search of a safe haven for his doctrines, the materialist instead finds that quantum theory in fact dissolves and defeats his materialist understanding of the world.,, The underlying problem is this: there are correlations in nature that require a causal explanation but for which no physical explanation is in principle possible. Furthermore, the nonlocalizability of field quanta entails that these entities, whatever they are, fail the criterion of material individuality. So, paradoxically and ironically, the most fundamental constituents and relations of the material world cannot, in principle, be understood in terms of material substances. Since there must be some explanation for these things, the correct explanation will have to be one which is non-physical - and this is plainly incompatible with any and all varieties of materialism. http://www.4truth.net/fourtruthpbscience.aspx?pageid=8589952939

bornagain77

bornagain77 @ 22

HUH??? Oh okay,,, I guess that whole Bohr-Einstein, Bell-Aspect, Leggett-Zeilinger thing just completely passed you by???

Huh? Wave functions do contain non-local information !! How does the debate affect the fact that Quantum entanglement is about particles? How is it not materialistic ? Me_Think

Me_Think "Quantum entanglement is about,,, fermions all the way." HUH??? Oh okay,,, I guess that whole Bohr-Einstein, Bell-Aspect, Leggett-Zeilinger thing just completely passed you by??? bornagain77

Unguided evolution cannot explain brains... Joe

Byers, since von Braun genuinely repented for his sins before God, and had genuine remorse about them, should you not also forgive him? Or do you think your standard for forgiveness higher than God's standard? The Parable of the Unmerciful Servant Matthew 18 21Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, “Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother or sister who sins against me? Up to seven times?” 22Jesus answered, “I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times. 23“Therefore, the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. 24As he began the settlement, a man who owed him ten thousand bags of gold was brought to him. 25Since he was not able to pay, the master ordered that he and his wife and his children and all that he had be sold to repay the debt. 26“At this the servant fell on his knees before him. ‘Be patient with me,’ he begged, ‘and I will pay back everything.’ 27The servant’s master took pity on him, canceled the debt and let him go. 28“But when that servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred silver coins. He grabbed him and began to choke him. ‘Pay back what you owe me!’ he demanded. 29“His fellow servant fell to his knees and begged him, ‘Be patient with me, and I will pay it back.’ 30“But he refused. Instead, he went off and had the man thrown into prison until he could pay the debt. 31When the other servants saw what had happened, they were outraged and went and told their master everything that had happened. 32“Then the master called the servant in. ‘You wicked servant,’ he said, ‘I canceled all that debt of yours because you begged me to. 33Shouldn’t you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?’ 34In anger his master handed him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed. 35“This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother or sister from your heart.” bornagain77

bornagain77 @ 18

Quantum Entanglement in molecular biology falsifies Darwinism to its theoretical core. It is impossible for the reductive materialism, upon which neo-Darwinism is based, to provide a coherent explanation for non-local quantum entanglement in the first place

Quantum entanglement is about entangled particles and has been detected in diamonds too, so how is it not 'materialism'?- it is about fermions all the way.

entanglement being found in molecular biology is not some ill-conceived notion as to how long it should last, as you think,

Of course it is about how long it lasts. If entanglement doesn't last longer than a few femtoseconds, how do you think information as qubits can be exchanged at all ?! Me_Think

Me_Think, the amazing thing about quantum entanglement being found in molecular biology is not some ill-conceived notion as to how long it should last, as you think, but is the fact that it is even there in the first place. Non-local, beyond space and time, Quantum Entanglement in molecular biology falsifies Darwinism to its theoretical core. It is impossible for the reductive materialism, upon which neo-Darwinism is based, to provide a coherent explanation for non-local quantum entanglement in the first place.,,, Closing the last Bell-test loophole for photons - Jun 11, 2013 Excerpt: confirmed quantum entanglement to nearly 70 standard deviations.,,, http://phys.org/news/2013-06-bell-test-loophole-photons.html bornagain77

bornagain77 @ 14

Quantum Entangled Consciousness – Life After Death – Stuart Hameroff – video

Even if I agree that the wave function will not collapse and that the entanglement will last more than a few femtoseconds at brain's temperature, there is no getting around the fact that entanglement lasts longer at lower temperatures, so according to the Hameroff's theory, dying person or a 'few seconds dead' person with lower core body temperature is more conscious than a live person ! Me_Think

bornagain77 I know this germans story. its great he became late in life a Christian and great he argued for inclusion in schools of creationism. Nevertheless he was the enemy. he helped rain missles on my mother in old england. he wrongly was allowed any good thing in america. anybody could do the rocket thing. Just a wee bit longer. America didn't need him and shouldn't praise him. becoming a christian, in late life, doesn't gain him ignorance of his past as a German war maker. No correction to you as you rightly report a scientist defending a creator. I got to defend however this germans victims and the allies. War ruins things. Hope no one minds. Robert Byers

There is no wires for human intelligence. however they did invoke the memory and so stumbled into something important. There is no early reason for being superior to other primates because we are not primates and our thinking is not earthly. its immaterial. They must explain human smarts but will fail without a creator. Not smart enough i guess? Robert Byers

Quantum Entangled Consciousness - Life After Death - Stuart Hameroff - video https://vimeo.com/39982578 bornagain77

Not surprising. A subtle difference in spatial distribution makes a lot of difference in connectivity.Eg: A 100 vertices spatial graph (like that of infinitesimal network of neurons) would have 0.925 probability of connection if maximum edge distance is 0.2, but a maximum edge distance of additional 0.1 would increase the connection probability to 0.999, so we should be examining cognition as a byproduct of connectivity of neuron network and it's electrical activity. Me_Think

OT: Eric Metaxas, after 'trying' to wrap his head around the incomprehensible degree to which the universe is fine-tuned for life, comments: "Reason and science compels us to see what previous generations could not: that our existence is an outrageous and astonishing miracle, one so startlingly and perhaps so disturbingly miraculous that it makes any miracle like the parting of the Red Sea pale in such insignificance that it almost becomes unworthy of our consideration, as though it were something done easily by a child, half-asleep. It is something to which the most truly human response is some combination of terror and wonder, of ancient awe, and childhood joy." Eric Metaxas - Miracles - pages 55-56 bornagain77

Dionisio:

Does this discovery prove that strong AI is around the corner and should become reality anytime soon?

No. Intelligent Design theory is not waiting for (any) Artificial Intelligence anyway. That would be as silly as a botanist using Artificial Flowers to study plant development. Other disciplines of cognitive science are required (primarily neuroscience, psychology, linguistics and anthropology). Dionisio:

Could un-guided processes produce those sophisticated circuits and mechanisms, with exquisitely orchestrated molecular choreographies of signaling pathways and regulatory networks, through the powerful formula RV + NS + T = E?

Only if you have a good imagination. Dionisio:

Shouldn’t guided processes be able to easily generate strong AI-based robots that could have feelings and emotions like any human being?

Yes. Dionisio:

Are we approaching the day when robots will fall in love with one another and compose beautiful romantic music?

Yes. But even where they appear to be as human as we are and even sense pain there is a good chance that they will not be conscious. Robots are not really human, and humans are not really a robot. Gary S. Gaulin

podcast - On Human Origins: What the Fossils Tell Us, pt. 2 - Casey Luskin - part 2 http://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2014/12/on-human-origins-what-the-fossils-tell-us-pt-2/ here's part 1 http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2014-12-05T17_06_16-08_00 bornagain77

OT: Does this discovery prove that strong AI is around the corner and should become reality anytime soon? Could un-guided processes produce those sophisticated circuits and mechanisms, with exquisitely orchestrated molecular choreographies of signaling pathways and regulatory networks, through the powerful formula RV + NS + T = E? Shouldn't guided processes be able to easily generate strong AI-based robots that could have feelings and emotions like any human being? Are we approaching the day when robots will fall in love with one another and compose beautiful romantic music? ;-) Dionisio

Does this discovery prove that strong AI is around the corner and should become reality anytime soon? If un-guided processes could produce those sophisticated circuits and mechanisms, with highly orchestrated molecular choreographies of signaling pathways and regulatory networks, through the powerful formula RV + NS + T = E, then guided processes should be able to easily generate strong AI-based robots that could have feelings and emotions like any human being. Maybe the day when robots will fall in love with one another is not that far. ;-) Dionisio

A footnote of trivia on the Apollo program, Wernher Von Braun's Christian faith, like many other great pioneers of science and technology, was behind his science.

Wernher von Braun was one of the most influential scientists and engineeers of the 20th Century. His theories, leadership and technical skills allowed America to land men on the moon. Wernher von Braun was a Lutheran who as a youth and young man had little interest in religion. But as an adult he developed a firm belief in the Lord and in an the afterlife. He was pleased to have opportunities to speak to peers (and anybody else who would listen) about his faith and Biblical beliefs. Alternative spelling: Werner von Braun. Wernher von Braun's mother's family was "for several hundred years present in Pomerania and Mecklenburg [in Germany] as ministers of the Lutheran Church, and as university professors, bankers and landowners. Wernher von Braun dated his interest in science and engineering to the day of his confirmation into the Lutheran Church. As a gift to commemorate the occasion, his mother gave him a telescope." [Source: Dennis Piszkiewicz, Wernher von Braun: The Man Who Sold the Moon, Praeger: Westport, Connecticut (1998), pages 22-23.] ,,, "A week later, when the astronauts were safely back on Earth, a reporter wanted to know: "Dr. von Braun, what did you think after you had given your final 'yes' a week ago?"--"I quietly said the Lord's prayer," was his answer. He could have done many other things, for example, anxiously wait for the first confirmation from the astronauts that everything aboard was all right; or, think of all the thousands of parts and instruments--many of them furnished by the lowest bidder!--that had to work properly; or, pin his eyes on the countless meters in the control room that indicated the status of the flight systems; or, implore the Lord that he may let this one succeed . . . however, his prayer was simply: "Thy will be done." http://www.adherents.com/people/pv/Wernher_von_Braun.html

Von Braun on Intelligent Design

"For me, the idea of a creation is not conceivable without invoking the necessity of design. One cannot be exposed to the law and order of the universe without concluding that there must be design and purpose.... While the admission of a design for the universe ultimately raises the question of a Designer (a subject outside of science), the scientific method does not allow us to exclude data which lead to the conclusion that the universe, life and man are based on design.... "Some people say that science has been unable to prove the existence of a Designer.... But they still maintain that since science has provided us with so many answers, the day will soon arrive when we will be able to understand even the creation of the fundamental laws of nature without divine intent. They challenge science to prove the existence of God. But must one really light a candle to see the sun?" Wernher von Braun on Creation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfojRbut4Nc

bornagain77

Box

BTW Nowhere in his book Rosenberg explains what/who is having the illusion …

I guess the bosons and fermions have been fooled by the illusion of consciousness. Fortunately, they have Mr. Rosenberg around to explain all of this to them. Silver Asiatic

DonaldM: But since it is based on what is, by definition, a purely unguided, undirected process, on what basis do we know we’re rational?

What do you mean by "we"? There is no "we" that can be rational. Consciousness is an illusion. Rosenberg again:

FOR SOLID EVOLUTIONARY REASONS, WE’VE BEEN tricked into looking at life from the inside. Without scientism, we look at life from the inside, from the first-person POV (OMG, you don’t know what a POV is?—a “point of view”). The first person is the subject, the audience, the viewer of subjective experience, the self in the mind. Scientism shows that the first-person POV is an illusion. Even after scientism convinces us, we’ll continue to stick with the first person. But at least we’ll know that it’s another illusion of introspection and we’ll stop taking it seriously. We’ll give up all the answers to the persistent questions about free will, the self, the soul, and the meaning of life that the illusion generates. The physical facts fix all the facts. The mind is the brain. It has to be physical and it can’t be anything else, since thinking, feeling, and perceiving are physical process—in particular, input/output processes—going on in the brain. We can be sure of a great deal about how the brain works because the physical facts fix all the facts about the brain. The fact that the mind is the brain guarantees that there is no free will. It rules out any purposes or designs organizing our actions or our lives. It excludes the very possibility of enduring persons, selves, or souls that exist after death or for that matter while we live. Not that there was ever much doubt about mortality anyway. This chapter uses the science of Chapter 8 to provide scientism’s answers to the persistent questions about us and the mind. The fact that these answers are so different from what life’s illusions tell us from the inside of consciousness is just more reason not to take introspection seriously.

BTW Nowhere in his book Rosenberg explains what/who is having the illusion ... Box

So let's grant that these guys are right. Fine. Where does that leave us? It would still mean that the blind, purposeless forces of matter and energy interacting over eons of time through chance and/or necessity is the only explanation for that which we call our human rationality. But since it is based on what is, by definition, a purely unguided, undirected process, on what basis do we know we're rational? This is the question that persists regardless of how many just so stories the Darwinists concoct to explain our rationality. Like every other materialist explanation, they assume logic and reason in order to claim explanation for logic and reasoning. Could someone kindly sit these guys down and explain the concept of circular reasoning to them! Please! And now!!! DonaldM

A. Rosenberg:

There are just fermions and bosons and combinations of them. None of that stuff is just, all by itself, about any other stuff. There is nothing in the whole universe—including, of course, all the neurons in your brain—that just by its nature or composition can do this job of being about some other clump of matter.

Box

Andre at 1 :) OT: Mystery at the Heart of Life - The secret life of cells / Ann Gauger - Nov. 27, 2014 http://www.christianitytoday.com/behemoth/2014/issue-10/mystery-at-heart-of-life.html Subscription required but a free 30 day trial subscription is available. bornagain77

Unguided evolution can fix filters on spaceships... Darwinism again explains everything. Amazing!!!! Andre