Your comment is strange as to why you compare it to a religion. (Trolling?)
Have you seen his credentials? That guy is a genius and over accomplished in many fields of science. On what grounds or counter evidence do you make your assertion(with emotional bias I might add)?
The obvious reality of the soul/consciousness will eventually be realized/modelled by real science(the older models and theories are broken with holes and are not sufficient). What religion(and most simple logical individuals) have known all along as common sense will be mapped as a standard truth at some point.
Its a shame for objective reasoning when some people pigeon-hold their understanding on dogmatic beliefs.
Your comment is strange as to why you compare it to a religion. (Trolling?)
Have you seen his credentials? That guy is a genius and over accomplished in many fields of science. On what grounds or counter evidence do you make your assertion(with emotional bias I might add)?
The obvious reality of the soul/consciousness will eventually be realized/modelled by real science(the older models and theories are broken with holes and are not sufficient). What religion(and most simple logical individuals) have known all along as common sense will be mapped as a standard truth at some point.
Its a shame for objective reasoning when some people pigeon-hold their understanding on dogmatic beliefs.
Lol...
Biology is a subset of science. His specialty is in medicine and stem cells, a subset of biology. He doesn't have any credentials in any other fields of science such as physics, materials science, astronomy, geology, paleontology, etc., so how did you come to the conclusion that he "over accomplished in many fields of science"?
I guess you didn't realized that his website was made to sell his ideas and his books. It lacks substance, evidence. You should try again and find those experiments that were conducted independently of Lanza. Confirmation bias is the reason why you selectively choose to listen to a biologist's perspective about the universe, while ignoring the the perspectives of the chemists, astronomers, astrophycisists, paleontologists, geologists, etc; just like how you selectively believe religious dogma about creationism, while ignoring the evidence discovered by paleontologists, anthropologists, geologists, and, especially, biologists in support on evolution. You trust the biologist only when it's convenient to your beliefs. That's confirmation bias, not science.
P.S. Remember what Neil degrasse Tyson said about evidence and argument from ignorance?
Unless Lanza has the evidence to support biocentrism, he's the police officer in Tyson's discussion.
I guess you didn't realized that his website was made to sell his ideas and his books. It lacks substance, evidence. You should try again and find those experiments that were conducted independently of Lanza.
How do you do that if a field in science is revolutionary and new, though? Every new idea comes from one source. There may simply be a lack of studies, as was the case for many great scientists when they first came up with their ideas. You can't just disregard any new point because there isn't any independant research about it yet.
How do you do that if a field in science is revolutionary and new, though? Every new idea comes from one source. There may simply be a lack of studies, as was the case for many great scientists when they first came up with their ideas. You can't just disregard any new point because there isn't any independant research about it yet.
Then, you can't claim it as "theory" and most definitely not "standard truth". Until there are experiments and evidence, then it's just speculation and hypothesis. (See Neil degrasse Tyson's discussion on argument from ignorance; ignorance being lack of evidence.)
Probably, but I think my Qualitative Research Methods teacher will have more to say on that than Wikipedia.
That said, 'theory' is a very widely used term with lots of meanings. I'll agree on the 'standard truth' point, but a theory can also be synonymous for a somewhat thought-out idea. Plus, EW is simply stating his belief that the idea of a soul will become a standard truth in the future. Knowing his position in these discussions it wouldn't surprise me if he ends up blowing it out of proportion, but so far his post makes sense. I can actually agree with a lot of that; I have never seen spirituality as an 'enemy' of science or such, but rather as a foggy map on feelings and consciousness that science may one day explain. Sure, we now know that it's not Juppiter throwing bolts of lightning at us, but the basic gist of "thunder and lightning are bad shit when encountered randomly in the wild" is the thought that counts here.
Just because there are going to be major advances in neurology doesn't mean that we will finally get evidence of a soul. Pretty much everything that used to be the domain of god & superstition has been explained away by science, and apart from wishful thinking, there's no reason to think this particular matter will be any different. It's 2013, and the track record is pretty overwhelming. The only place the god of the gaps has to hide now is in the last vestige of human ignorance: ultimate origins.
This guy touting his particular field as the best & ultimate solution to everything is not only arrogant but kind of insulting to the physicists who are actually working on a theory of everything, a far more complicated affair than this simplistic notion of "god did it". Looking at the reception section pretty much lets you know everything you need to know about this hypothesis. It's an unfalsifiable opinion, and that's why there are no studies about it. Somebody could just as well invent a concept called "physicentrism" or "chemicentrism" and it would be just as, if not more, valid than this, which basically boils down to rehashed creationist arguments which have already been refuted multiple times. There's really nothing new to see here, just another creationist trying to cherrypick evidence for his pre-determined conclusion that god exists, instead of coming to conclusions based on evidence. This raises the question of why we don't just revive the religion thread instead of continuing to post not-so-subtle atheistic/religious innuendo links in this thread. But hey, whatever. :P
Just because there are going to be major advances in neurology doesn't mean that we will finally get evidence of a soul. Pretty much everything that used to be the domain of god superstition has been explained away by science, and apart from wishful thinking, there's no reason to think this particular matter will be any different. It's 2013, and the track record is pretty overwhelming. The only place the god of the gaps has to hide now is in the last vestige of human ignorance: ultimate origins.
Wait, what? What about... virtually any subject tackled by philosophy? What can I know? What am I? What is consciousness? 'Do I have a soul' falls under those. Not to say science hasn't done away with several superstitions but it goes very far to say the only thing left for which we need a 'god' explanation if ultimate origin.
Wait, what? What about... virtually any subject tackled by philosophy? What can I know? What am I? What is consciousness? 'Do I have a soul' falls under those. Not to say science hasn't done away with several superstitions but it goes very far to say the only thing left for which we need a 'god' explanation if ultimate origin.
You think that philosophy is the domain of god and superstition? That would explain why it's largely become useless ever since the scientific method became widely accepted. :P
Obviously I'm not saying science has explained everything, hence my usage of the term "almost everything" and why I said "there's no reason to think this particular matter will be any different". The point is that there is a non-supernatural alternative to almost any question about reality, and it's preferable to the supernatural because it's based on evidence and logic instead of superstition, never mind the fact that there is not a single miracle that has been proven. It's easy for you to say science can't answer philosophical questions such as "who am I?" But neither can philosophy. All it can do is offer idle speculation until science comes in to offer us the real answer, provided one exists.
Ultimate origins is different because it's pretty much the pinnacle of unfalsifiable questions, but it's 2013, and it too has many nonsupernatural alternatives.
You just made me wonder if there is in fact any philosophical question that science has ever managed to answer. Regardless - I don't think philosophy is the domain of god and superstition, but my point was that a lot of religious answers correspond to philosophical questions, and seeing how (as you so aptly pointed out) we haven't really answered much of those, it seems overkill to say that 'pretty much everything that used to be the domain of god and superstition has been explained away by science'.
I'm not saying philosophy has any definitive answers, though, the field only has three jobs; trolling scientists, providing them with ideas for theories and reasons to perform their research, and self-improvement.
You just made me wonder if there is in fact any philosophical question that science has ever managed to answer. Regardless - I don't think philosophy is the domain of god and superstition, but my point was that a lot of religious answers correspond to philosophical questions, and seeing how (as you so aptly pointed out) we haven't really answered much of those, it seems overkill to say that 'pretty much everything that used to be the domain of god and superstition has been explained away by science'.
I'm not saying philosophy has any definitive answers, though, the field only has three jobs; trolling scientists, providing them with ideas for theories and reasons to perform their research, and self-improvement.
Questions about natural phenomena used to be "philosophical questions", questions that have been answered by science.
The statement "providing them with ideas for theories and reasons to perform their research" is quite a stretch. Creativity generates new ideas, while curiosity drives scientists to perform research.
Dr. Sylvester James Gates, Jr. Presents Evidence For Intelligent Design:
Atheism is an anachronism from a simpler time.
Well, to the understanding mind its fairly obvious that intelligent design is both real and the result of an higher/intelligent creator or agent. But that link explains it interestingly enough.
Also the other guy is apparently agnostic ;
Atheist is just another word for..I would say, 'the unaware or arrogant'. Not as an insult, but the disability(or inability) to appreciate and comprehend what a fine work of masterpiece the universe is. In all complexities and function. That to deny it was created/designed/programmed by an intelligent creator is profoundly absurd. Reducing human intelligence to something of like a chimp. Now, who or what this creator personifies is another matter all together and debatable, but that there was needed an intelligent creator is an irrefutable given.
Questions about natural phenomena used to be "philosophical questions", questions that have been answered by science.
Now, I am not entirely versed in the differences between what people in the age of Plato called philosophy and what people in different times called philosophy, but I'm pretty sure that "How does lightning work?" was never really considered a philosophical question (even though ancient philosophy was a lot closer to ancient science than the two fields are right now). Give me some examples here?
The statement "providing them with ideas for theories and reasons to perform their research" is quite a stretch. Creativity generates new ideas, while curiosity drives scientists to perform research.
And where do you think curiosity comes from? Philosophy, being quite literally 'critical thinking', is pretty much the father of science. It's not the philosopher's fault that most scientists these days forego learning about the field in their raw 'pursuit of knowledge'. Just because these days philosophy is no longer necessary to perform science it doesn't mean that philosophy doesn't 'drive' science? Every scientific research done tries to give a partial answer to a philosophical question formulated by Kant.
They don't think it through because they don't take it seriously. They don't take it seriously because they didn't think it through. You can lay it out for them and say "in the absence of abiogenesis, the existence of life necessitates a living creator." You can flip their usual arguments upside-down and illustrate their undue faith in abiogenesis. It doesn't matter. What matters is having the right attitude, demonstrating faith through deeds, and leading by example.
The link is not for the likes of us, but for the stubborn faithless who still insist on seeking God on their terms (if at all), clawing tooth-and-nail along the scientific process in hopes of catching God "with his pants down." Is the God not a living God? What force on earth or in the known universe could ever hope to reveal the living God against his will? Such impudence! Such pride!
@Mozared: Go
Any Philosophical question answered by science will be no longer considered as a philosophical question.
Metaphysics still heavily drives science (specially high energy and quantum physics).
Wonder what would Kant thought of space and time, if he would knew general relativity.
Any Philosophical question answered by science will be no longer considered as a philosophical question.
So I keep hearing, but I still haven't heard an example of any one question this has happened to. It's not that I think it's impossible, it's just that I'm curious what you're referring to, as in general philosophy is about being curious and has in that way 'bred' science.
Wonder what would Kant thought of space and time, if he would knew general relativity.
I think he actually had some theories on space and time. I might be confusing him with other French prodigies, but if I'm correct he was one of the people who tried to lay down a ground theory for physics, developping on Newtonian mechanics.
So I keep hearing, but I still haven't heard an example of any one question this has happened to. It's not that I think it's impossible, it's just that I'm curious what you're referring to, as in general philosophy is about being curious and has in that way 'bred' science.
Well that would probably require some serious digging. Since any such question will become uninteresting once its answered. But I guess Evolution answered many such questions or at least made to redefine questions.
Also most of scientist in quantum physics thinks that universe is non deterministic (mostly because quantum entanglement's collapse...). And determinism is one of the most fundamental question in philosophy, for me at least. (Though the scientific method will never be able to prove that the universe is not deterministic, just like it will never be able to prove that god doesnt exists as it can only prove that something exists. (I guess thats the main difference between philosophy and science)
I think he actually had some theories on space and time. I might be confusing him with other French prodigies, but if I'm correct he was one of the people who tried to lay down a ground theory for physics, developping on Newtonian mechanics.
He though that space and time only exists in our imagination.... (after a little googleing: "Einstein read Kant's 'Critique of Pure Reason' at age of 13" (So it really seems that philosophy inspires science :) ))
Kant laid down many theories in many fields. As I know he is the father of the modern metaphysics stuffs. (but I never read any of books, just only paragraphs)
Now, I am not entirely versed in the differences between what people in the age of Plato called philosophy and what people in different times called philosophy, but I'm pretty sure that "How does lightning work?" was never really considered a philosophical question (even though ancient philosophy was a lot closer to ancient science than the two fields are right now). Give me some examples here?
Actually, "What is lightning?", used to be a philosophical question. Before science was a separate field, all inquiries about phenomena were philosophical. If you want recent examples, look at the progress of development of neuroscience and the decrease in "philosophicalness" regarding the brain, personality, emotions, thought, behavior, etc. As science and technology progress, our descendants would likely consider today's "philosophical questions to be a lot closer to science."
Curiosity comes from the mind. Curiosity doesn't necessitate philosophy. However, science and philosophy necessitate curiosity. Examples: curious cats, curious monkeys, curious dogs; science has yet to show that curious animals other than humans practice philosophy. Some animals seem to practice a form of "primitive science" through trial and error as in figuring out that rocks and twigs can be used as tools.
@FDFederation: Go
Philosophy, being quite literally 'critical thinking', is pretty much the father of science. It's not the philosopher's fault that most scientists these days forego learning about the field in their raw 'pursuit of knowledge'. Just because these days philosophy is no longer necessary to perform science it doesn't mean that philosophy doesn't 'drive' science? Every scientific research done tries to give a partial answer to a philosophical question formulated by Kant.
Philosophy literally means "love of wisdom", not "critical thinking." Science did branch off from philosophy, but philosophy doesn't drive science. In philosophy, you can argue with the absence of data and your claim would be considered acceptable (that's why lawyers are required to take philosophy instead of design of experiments). Most scientific research has nothing to do with Kant's views ("nothing to do" meaning that Kant's views were subject of research as in to prove or disprove Kant's views). Most scientific researchers are even unaware of Kant and other philosophers, so philosophy doesn't even influence research.
@Bogdan254: Go
Yesterday, we had William J. Borucki speak at our seminar. :)
Biocentrism is one of the newest religions....
Your comment is strange as to why you compare it to a religion. (Trolling?)
Have you seen his credentials? That guy is a genius and over accomplished in many fields of science. On what grounds or counter evidence do you make your assertion(with emotional bias I might add)?
The obvious reality of the soul/consciousness will eventually be realized/modelled by real science(the older models and theories are broken with holes and are not sufficient). What religion(and most simple logical individuals) have known all along as common sense will be mapped as a standard truth at some point.
Its a shame for objective reasoning when some people pigeon-hold their understanding on dogmatic beliefs.
Lol...
Biology is a subset of science. His specialty is in medicine and stem cells, a subset of biology. He doesn't have any credentials in any other fields of science such as physics, materials science, astronomy, geology, paleontology, etc., so how did you come to the conclusion that he "over accomplished in many fields of science"?
I guess you didn't realized that his website was made to sell his ideas and his books. It lacks substance, evidence. You should try again and find those experiments that were conducted independently of Lanza. Confirmation bias is the reason why you selectively choose to listen to a biologist's perspective about the universe, while ignoring the the perspectives of the chemists, astronomers, astrophycisists, paleontologists, geologists, etc; just like how you selectively believe religious dogma about creationism, while ignoring the evidence discovered by paleontologists, anthropologists, geologists, and, especially, biologists in support on evolution. You trust the biologist only when it's convenient to your beliefs. That's confirmation bias, not science.
P.S. Remember what Neil degrasse Tyson said about evidence and argument from ignorance?
Unless Lanza has the evidence to support biocentrism, he's the police officer in Tyson's discussion.
http://www.asme.org/kb/news---articles/articles/robotics/mini-robot-reconfigures-in-seconds
http://www.space.com/19708-mars-rover-curiosity-rock-drill-sample.html
http://news.discovery.com/tech/biotechnology/first-bionic-eye-sees-light-130206.htm
How do you do that if a field in science is revolutionary and new, though? Every new idea comes from one source. There may simply be a lack of studies, as was the case for many great scientists when they first came up with their ideas. You can't just disregard any new point because there isn't any independant research about it yet.
Then, you can't claim it as "theory" and most definitely not "standard truth". Until there are experiments and evidence, then it's just speculation and hypothesis. (See Neil degrasse Tyson's discussion on argument from ignorance; ignorance being lack of evidence.)
It would be beneficial to learn about design of experiments. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_of_experiments
@FDFederation: Go
Probably, but I think my Qualitative Research Methods teacher will have more to say on that than Wikipedia.
That said, 'theory' is a very widely used term with lots of meanings. I'll agree on the 'standard truth' point, but a theory can also be synonymous for a somewhat thought-out idea. Plus, EW is simply stating his belief that the idea of a soul will become a standard truth in the future. Knowing his position in these discussions it wouldn't surprise me if he ends up blowing it out of proportion, but so far his post makes sense. I can actually agree with a lot of that; I have never seen spirituality as an 'enemy' of science or such, but rather as a foggy map on feelings and consciousness that science may one day explain. Sure, we now know that it's not Juppiter throwing bolts of lightning at us, but the basic gist of "thunder and lightning are bad shit when encountered randomly in the wild" is the thought that counts here.
Just because there are going to be major advances in neurology doesn't mean that we will finally get evidence of a soul. Pretty much everything that used to be the domain of god & superstition has been explained away by science, and apart from wishful thinking, there's no reason to think this particular matter will be any different. It's 2013, and the track record is pretty overwhelming. The only place the god of the gaps has to hide now is in the last vestige of human ignorance: ultimate origins.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biocentrism_%28theory_of_everything%29
This guy touting his particular field as the best & ultimate solution to everything is not only arrogant but kind of insulting to the physicists who are actually working on a theory of everything, a far more complicated affair than this simplistic notion of "god did it". Looking at the reception section pretty much lets you know everything you need to know about this hypothesis. It's an unfalsifiable opinion, and that's why there are no studies about it. Somebody could just as well invent a concept called "physicentrism" or "chemicentrism" and it would be just as, if not more, valid than this, which basically boils down to rehashed creationist arguments which have already been refuted multiple times. There's really nothing new to see here, just another creationist trying to cherrypick evidence for his pre-determined conclusion that god exists, instead of coming to conclusions based on evidence. This raises the question of why we don't just revive the religion thread instead of continuing to post not-so-subtle atheistic/religious innuendo links in this thread. But hey, whatever. :P
Wait, what? What about... virtually any subject tackled by philosophy? What can I know? What am I? What is consciousness? 'Do I have a soul' falls under those. Not to say science hasn't done away with several superstitions but it goes very far to say the only thing left for which we need a 'god' explanation if ultimate origin.
You think that philosophy is the domain of god and superstition? That would explain why it's largely become useless ever since the scientific method became widely accepted. :P
Obviously I'm not saying science has explained everything, hence my usage of the term "almost everything" and why I said "there's no reason to think this particular matter will be any different". The point is that there is a non-supernatural alternative to almost any question about reality, and it's preferable to the supernatural because it's based on evidence and logic instead of superstition, never mind the fact that there is not a single miracle that has been proven. It's easy for you to say science can't answer philosophical questions such as "who am I?" But neither can philosophy. All it can do is offer idle speculation until science comes in to offer us the real answer, provided one exists.
Ultimate origins is different because it's pretty much the pinnacle of unfalsifiable questions, but it's 2013, and it too has many nonsupernatural alternatives.
@Gradius12: Go
You just made me wonder if there is in fact any philosophical question that science has ever managed to answer. Regardless - I don't think philosophy is the domain of god and superstition, but my point was that a lot of religious answers correspond to philosophical questions, and seeing how (as you so aptly pointed out) we haven't really answered much of those, it seems overkill to say that 'pretty much everything that used to be the domain of god and superstition has been explained away by science'.
I'm not saying philosophy has any definitive answers, though, the field only has three jobs; trolling scientists, providing them with ideas for theories and reasons to perform their research, and self-improvement.
Questions about natural phenomena used to be "philosophical questions", questions that have been answered by science.
The statement "providing them with ideas for theories and reasons to perform their research" is quite a stretch. Creativity generates new ideas, while curiosity drives scientists to perform research.
http://www.asme.org/kb/news---articles/articles/bioengineering/true-progress-in-false-hearts
Dr. Sylvester James Gates, Jr. Presents Evidence For Intelligent Design:
Atheism is an anachronism from a simpler time.
Well, to the understanding mind its fairly obvious that intelligent design is both real and the result of an higher/intelligent creator or agent. But that link explains it interestingly enough.
Also the other guy is apparently agnostic ;
Atheist is just another word for..I would say, 'the unaware or arrogant'. Not as an insult, but the disability(or inability) to appreciate and comprehend what a fine work of masterpiece the universe is. In all complexities and function. That to deny it was created/designed/programmed by an intelligent creator is profoundly absurd. Reducing human intelligence to something of like a chimp. Now, who or what this creator personifies is another matter all together and debatable, but that there was needed an intelligent creator is an irrefutable given.
Now, I am not entirely versed in the differences between what people in the age of Plato called philosophy and what people in different times called philosophy, but I'm pretty sure that "How does lightning work?" was never really considered a philosophical question (even though ancient philosophy was a lot closer to ancient science than the two fields are right now). Give me some examples here?
And where do you think curiosity comes from? Philosophy, being quite literally 'critical thinking', is pretty much the father of science. It's not the philosopher's fault that most scientists these days forego learning about the field in their raw 'pursuit of knowledge'. Just because these days philosophy is no longer necessary to perform science it doesn't mean that philosophy doesn't 'drive' science? Every scientific research done tries to give a partial answer to a philosophical question formulated by Kant.
@EternalWraith: Go
They don't think it through because they don't take it seriously. They don't take it seriously because they didn't think it through. You can lay it out for them and say "in the absence of abiogenesis, the existence of life necessitates a living creator." You can flip their usual arguments upside-down and illustrate their undue faith in abiogenesis. It doesn't matter. What matters is having the right attitude, demonstrating faith through deeds, and leading by example.
The link is not for the likes of us, but for the stubborn faithless who still insist on seeking God on their terms (if at all), clawing tooth-and-nail along the scientific process in hopes of catching God "with his pants down." Is the God not a living God? What force on earth or in the known universe could ever hope to reveal the living God against his will? Such impudence! Such pride!
@Mozared: Go Any Philosophical question answered by science will be no longer considered as a philosophical question.
Metaphysics still heavily drives science (specially high energy and quantum physics).
Wonder what would Kant thought of space and time, if he would knew general relativity.
So I keep hearing, but I still haven't heard an example of any one question this has happened to. It's not that I think it's impossible, it's just that I'm curious what you're referring to, as in general philosophy is about being curious and has in that way 'bred' science.
I think he actually had some theories on space and time. I might be confusing him with other French prodigies, but if I'm correct he was one of the people who tried to lay down a ground theory for physics, developping on Newtonian mechanics.
Well that would probably require some serious digging. Since any such question will become uninteresting once its answered. But I guess Evolution answered many such questions or at least made to redefine questions.
Also most of scientist in quantum physics thinks that universe is non deterministic (mostly because quantum entanglement's collapse...). And determinism is one of the most fundamental question in philosophy, for me at least. (Though the scientific method will never be able to prove that the universe is not deterministic, just like it will never be able to prove that god doesnt exists as it can only prove that something exists. (I guess thats the main difference between philosophy and science)
He though that space and time only exists in our imagination.... (after a little googleing: "Einstein read Kant's 'Critique of Pure Reason' at age of 13" (So it really seems that philosophy inspires science :) ))
Kant laid down many theories in many fields. As I know he is the father of the modern metaphysics stuffs. (but I never read any of books, just only paragraphs)
Smallest exoplanet it has the size of our moon
Actually, "What is lightning?", used to be a philosophical question. Before science was a separate field, all inquiries about phenomena were philosophical. If you want recent examples, look at the progress of development of neuroscience and the decrease in "philosophicalness" regarding the brain, personality, emotions, thought, behavior, etc. As science and technology progress, our descendants would likely consider today's "philosophical questions to be a lot closer to science."
Curiosity comes from the mind. Curiosity doesn't necessitate philosophy. However, science and philosophy necessitate curiosity. Examples: curious cats, curious monkeys, curious dogs; science has yet to show that curious animals other than humans practice philosophy. Some animals seem to practice a form of "primitive science" through trial and error as in figuring out that rocks and twigs can be used as tools.
Philosophy literally means "love of wisdom", not "critical thinking." Science did branch off from philosophy, but philosophy doesn't drive science. In philosophy, you can argue with the absence of data and your claim would be considered acceptable (that's why lawyers are required to take philosophy instead of design of experiments). Most scientific research has nothing to do with Kant's views ("nothing to do" meaning that Kant's views were subject of research as in to prove or disprove Kant's views). Most scientific researchers are even unaware of Kant and other philosophers, so philosophy doesn't even influence research.
@Bogdan254: Go Yesterday, we had William J. Borucki speak at our seminar. :)
http://www.space.com/19792-spacex-cargo-mission-space-station.html
http://www.seattlepi.com/business/energy/article/Hot-work-Oregon-State-to-test-mock-reactors-4283322.php