Brian Cox - Consciouness discussion on Joe Rogan interview

#21
I rather enjoy Donald Hoffman's perspective, but I am waiting for something new he has discovered from his theory.
Since he is an academic, he has to be rather careful what he says. I get the feeling that he treads a very fine line - demonstrating that if evolution by natural selection is true (I don't think it is anymore) then nothing we see - absolutely nothing - even lab equipment - is real. Maybe it is really another argument to ditch Darwin's theory?

David
 
#22
Maybe it is really another argument to ditch Darwin's theory?

David
Shortest version of the answer is yes! He indicates either physicalism or natural selection is wrong if he is right. Hmm. Apparently he sides with getting rid of physicalism. Frankly, i think the evidence for physicalism is far stronger than natural selection!

Well, so long as you don't ponder personal identity. But then I worry. Am I still a naturalist if I deny physicalism and become an idealist or a dualist? There are not clear concepts to describe my theological views.

I am not an atheist, but not agnostic either. What do you call someone who believes gnosis is possible but hasn't found it? lol. The greeks didnt study probability -- that's the issue here methinks.
 
Last edited:
#23
Shortest version of the answer is yes! He indicates either physicalism or natural selection is wrong if he is right. Hmm. Apparently he sides with getting rid of physicalism. Frankly, i think the evidence for physicalism is far stronger than natural selection!

Well, so long as you don't ponder personal identity. But then I worry. Am I still a naturalist if I deny physicalism and become an idealist or a dualist? There are not clear concepts to describe my theological views.

I am not an atheist, but not agnostic either. What do you call someone who believes gnosis is possible but hasn't found it? lol. The greeks didnt study probability -- that's the issue here methinks.
I think all the various 'isms' are probably best cast aside - when you combine Behe and Hoffman, the only sane approach is to either attack one or other result in a traditional scientific way (no ad hominens, or other rhetoric) or clear the table and start to think from scratch what it all means!

I'd say there is clearly something seriously wrong with the scientific consensus, but that won't invalidate genuine scientific data - such as the facts of chemistry - but it will probably blow away a lot of speculative scientific extrapolation.

Of course, in a way, this was all rather like the Mueller report - more or less predictable. You really don't have to think very hard to realise that once it became clear that cells are full of complex moleular machines, run from digital code, the idea of evolution by natural selection was crazy.

Unfortunately institutional science will probably just close ranks and ignore all the evidence it doesn't like.

David
 
Last edited:
#24
I think all the various 'isms' are probably best cast aside - when you combine Behe and Hoffman, the only sane approach is to either attack one or other result in a traditional scientific way (no ad hominens, or other rhetoric) or clear the table and start to think from scratch what it all means!

I'd say there is clearly something seriously wrong with the scientific consensus, but that won't invalidate genuine scientific data - such as the facts of chemistry - but it will probably blow away a lot of speculative scientific extrapolation.

Of course, in a way, this was all rather like the Mueller report - more or less predictable. You really don't have to think very hard to realise that once it became clear that cells are full of complex moleular machines, run from digital code, the idea of evolution by natural selection was crazy.

Unfortunately institutional science will probably just close ranks and ignore all the evidence it doesn't like.

David
Hmm, all of that somehow reminds me I should have a thread on new age beliefs. Scientists are missing their critics nowadays, but a reckoning is coming.

The thing is, theists LOVE extrapolation. Scientists within the popular culture sphere get away with it very easily. Dr. Craig isn't a scientist of course but a sophist.

Example: William Lain Craig saying if the Resurrection occured then Jesus must have been the Messiah -- and thus animals feel no pain! Not because of the Messiah. No! Because it needs to be true.

I miss the objective world. It had death, but such clarity! There is a new kind of clarity. What I see here is an anti-clarity. Its refreshing!

He's a lovely Sophist. My kind of guy. You just gotta use the words in the right sequence.

So yes, I agree. Isms are not helpful. But naturalism means truth and understanding and supernturalism means magick and god did it.
 
Top