Archive for the ‘Ateísmo’ Category

Vídeo de Bill Nye debatendo com Ken Ham na Arca

quarta-feira, outubro 31st, 2018

xxxxx

Este vídeo e` bom para quem tem curiosidade sobre os porquês da nossa existência e da existência deste mundo. Um conhecido ateu que ficou famoso nas gerações de 70 a 90 nos Estados Unidos porque apresentava um programa de tv – Bill Nye, the Science guy – e atualmente anda combatendo o ensino de religião que nega a teoria da evolução, percorre a grande construção construída pelos cristãos, chamada The Ark que pretende ser um museu da criacao pela Bíblia dentro de um edifício que imita a arca de Noé. O anfitrião e conhecido também homem de shows e palestras defendendo o criacionismo, Ken Ham, acompanha Bill Nye numa interessante discussão entre ateísmo e deísmo tendo por foco os fenômenos naturais, enquanto mostram a arca e o povo visitante. Por meu lado, assistindo o debate, fico pensando em como e porque estão configurados dois cérebros assim de maneira errada Pois para mim ambos estão vendo o mundo de forma errada. Sou obrigado a concordar uns 70% no que se refere ao conhecimento e interpretação das evidencias para as teorias que nasceram dentro do tipo de ciência aplicada ate agora pela humanidade cientistas. Mas penso que os ateus extrapolam os limites racionais com teorias que beiram a um estado de fé, e são infelizes nisso como podemos ver no vídeo. Bill Nye se vê obrigado, para reafirmar o que disse antes, perante uma linda menina de seis anos, a dizer que ela e’ um animal. Em outra situação, ele cai na apatia do publico quando diz que ao morrermos acaba-se tudo. E não sabe responder porque então ele esta preocupado com o futuro da America, das mudanças climáticas, etc, se tudo isso vai acontecer quando ele não existir mais. Usando os mesmos fatos científicos que o Bill Nye usa, mas conectando-os de uma maneira diferente, também logica e racional, eu jamais diria que o humano e` um simples produto da evolução do animal, porque a teoria esta sugerindo um processo evolutivo pelo qual, sobre o homem, e expressou na forma de consciência uma velha formula natural que vem desde o Bib Bang, e isto diferencia o homem de todos os animais que lhe emprestaram corpo biológico. E a mesma teoria esta sugerindo que esta formula não morre junto com o corpo biológico. Quanto ao criacionismo de Ken Ham discordo das poucas evidencias, e interpretações delas, em quase todas. Tambem não entendo como pode um ocidental americano acreditar num livro escrito a 3.000 anos atras por pessoas que não sabiam 10% do que sabemos hoje sobre a natureza e se ele me vem perguntar se acredito no Deus dele eu responderia algo como: ” Se existir um pai espiritual dos humanos, e ele só veio falar com judeus, não vindo falar comigo, que também sou filho, eu saio de casa e renego esse pai. Então deixe os judeus com o Deus deles, não e’ o meu Deus.” Mas o longo vídeo, alem de ser um belo passeio dentro do museu, a vista das pessoas que lotam suas dependências, e o interessante debate, eu recomendo. Para quem não entende o inglês ainda pode entender algo do debate.
Bill Nye deveria ser repreendido pela academia cientifica quando se dirige a crianças dizendo que elas são animais, pois a Ciência não tem provas disso. Enquanto a neurologia não resolver a questão de como os neurônios estão ligados ao pensamento, `a mente, ou a consciência, a Ciência não pode afirmar que a consciência seja um produto a evolução do cérebro, portanto, biológica. E possível que Bill Nye esteja correto, mas por enquanto e` a sua teoria, ele não pode acenar com os livros da Ciência quando afirma isso.Mas e se ele estiver errado? Como reparar o mal que fez a estas crianças, das quais, quando perdem a biológica habitual fantasia infantil muito precocemente, pode ser dispor ao niilismo que conduz facilmente as drogas? não vejo diferença entre o mal que esta religião esta fazendo com as crianças e o que ele esta também fazendo, ambos baseados em teorias sem provas concretas.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPLRhVdNp5M

Mente e Consciência: Debate entre Cientistas Materialistas e Cristãos (Vídeo e Analise do Transcript)

domingo, outubro 21st, 2018

xx

00:03
welcome to the big conversation here on
00:06
unbelievable with me Justin Bradley the
00:08
big conversation is a series of shows
00:10
exploring faiths science philosophy and
00:12
what it means to be human in association
00:15
with the Templeton religion trust and
00:17
today our conversation topic is are we
00:19
more than matter debating mind
00:21
consciousness and freewill and the big
00:23
conversation partners I’m sitting down
00:25
with today are Daniel Dennett and Keith
00:27
Ward Daniel C Dennett is professor of
00:29
philosophy at Tufts University in the
00:31
USA and well known for his work in the
00:33
philosophy of mind his books include
00:35
breaking the spell religion as a natural
00:38
phenomenon and from bacteria to bark and
00:41
back the evolution of minds dan is an
00:44
atheist and has even been counted among
00:45
the four so-called Horsemen of the New
00:47
Atheism he believes that brains mind and
00:50
consciousness can be explained in purely
00:52
material terms with no need for anything
00:54
other than a naturalist view of reality
00:57
Keith Ward is a British philosopher
00:58
who’s held various positions including
01:01
Regis professor of divinity at Oxford
01:03
University and he’s presently professor
01:05
at roehampton university his books
01:07
include why there almost certainly is a
01:09
God and more than matter and Keith holds
01:12
to an idealist view of the mind
01:14
believing that consciousness is the
01:16
primary reality upon which the material
01:18
world is dependent and that our
01:20
existence as conscious self-aware
01:22
creatures is dependent on an ultimate
01:25
mind God so Keith and Daniel welcome
01:28
along to the program great we’re going
01:31
to be talking about consciousness mind
01:33
freewill huge topics and we’ll won’t be
01:35
able to do them full justice in the
01:37
course of the time we have today but
01:39
perhaps before we get into it a little
01:40
introduction to you both dan are you
01:43
happy to wear the label atheist is that
01:45
something you’ve called yourself for a
01:47
long time I’m happy to wear the label
01:49
for years I didn’t bother but then it
01:52
seemed that especially in the United
01:56
States there was a sort of theocratic
01:58
boom and it seemed important just to
02:01
tell people you don’t have to make a big
02:03
deal of it because they know no I’m an
02:05
atheist and you know a lot of atheists a
02:07
lot of Americans need to hear that and
02:09
in that sense do you find that your
02:12
atheism
02:13
in a specific way or is it a specific
02:15
outlook on life in any way that the
02:17
atheism it’s just the naturalist outlook
02:20
I mean I don’t believe in anything
02:21
supernatural and so take on the burden
02:26
of explaining all the wonderful things
02:28
in the world in terms that are
02:31
scientifically acceptable and and and
02:34
does that for you quite then to a
02:36
naturalist perspective being that all
02:38
that ultimately does exist is is
02:40
material stuff matter energy and so on
02:42
and so on
02:44
yes information exists hmm it’s not in a
02:49
special medium it now always has to be
02:51
in some physical medium but you really
02:54
have to consider information in your in
02:56
your theory and and this has been
03:00
recognized by people say in physics for
03:03
many years Norbert Wiener put it very
03:06
clearly you it’s it’s impossible to be a
03:09
modern materialist without adding
03:11
information to your list it’s it’s
03:14
neither matter nor energy and when it
03:16
comes to the philosophy of mind do you
03:18
find that by and large a naturalist
03:20
perspective is the dominant one these
03:22
days when it comes to explaining
03:23
consciousness certainly in the areas
03:28
that I work in in cognitive science and
03:30
naturalistic philosophy of mind it’s
03:32
entirely dominant there is a sort of
03:37
backwater movement which is got some
03:40
adherents which is pushing non
03:43
naturalist lines pants psychism and
03:47
dualism the various sorts are are
03:50
currently being enthusiastically
03:53
explored by a few people well I’m
03:55
looking forward to the conversation with
03:57
you and I think it’s the first time
03:59
you’ve met Keith I’ve been able to have
04:01
a dialogue so I’m really pleased to be
04:02
able to bring you both together Keith I
04:05
think you’re one of the foremost people
04:07
probably in the world when it comes to
04:09
an idealist perspective on consciousness
04:12
and mind we’ll get you to explain that
04:15
in a bit more detail in a moment but you
04:17
yourself are a Christian is that an
04:19
unusual in the world of philosophy in
04:21
your experience to be a Christian well
04:24
I’m part of the back wall
04:27
in England it’s not really unusual
04:30
although I think most philosophers who
04:33
teach in universities in England aren’t
04:35
very interested in religion be true but
04:37
on the whole there they’re not very
04:40
interested in large-scale metaphysical
04:42
views at all so they do different things
04:43
and there are quite a number of quite
04:47
notable philosophers who are either
04:51
religious or specifically Christian yes
04:54
my colleague Richard Swinburne is one
04:56
example but there are others so it’s
04:58
quite a large backwater but it’s
05:00
probably a minority well it is a
05:02
minority yes I think you’ve both been
05:04
involved in philosophy of mind for a
05:06
similar length of time in fact I think
05:08
you both shared a a teacher in the past
05:10
Gilbert Ryle that’s true as far as my
05:13
where Keith was more in line with with
05:15
Dan’s view on the nature of mind than
05:17
yours well I don’t think he was in line
05:19
with either of our views as I understand
05:21
them because he was very much influenced
05:24
by someone called JL Austin who is
05:27
associated with ordinary language
05:29
philosophy and I think Gerber I’d always
05:31
said to me that he wasn’t he didn’t have
05:34
to know anything about psychology at all
05:37
true and he didn’t in the use of the
05:41
words that people used about he’s
05:43
intelligent or he knows something he has
05:47
dreams he was interesting the uses of a
05:49
language and I think I think well I was
05:53
certainly more metaphysically man did I
05:54
wanted to say what’s stuff made of
05:56
ultimately mmm and he didn’t think that
05:59
was a very interesting question well
06:01
let’s explore your sort of area and your
06:04
worldview if you like in this sense
06:07
Keith’s of what stuff is ultimately made
06:09
of you’re an idealist could you explain
06:11
what an idealist
06:12
yes a lot of people think an idealist is
06:15
somebody who has rather impractical and
06:16
moral ideals but that’s not that at all
06:19
it it is saying that consciousness or
06:22
mind is the best known most immediately
06:26
known and probably ontological II prior
06:28
that is the thing which exists in its
06:31
own sake and that the material world is
06:34
in some sense illogical
06:37
construction out of that consciousness
06:40
interestingly the person I think we both
06:43
came across when we were in Oxford a
06:45
Jair was an idealist in this sense he
06:49
thought that what the stuff of reality
06:52
is what he calls sense data over which
06:54
our perceptions really and perceptions
06:57
are conscious things and so the British
06:59
Empire is a tradition was always just
07:01
say in 18th century that all knowledge
07:06
comes from experience an experience is
07:09
conscious experience so that’s where I
07:11
start from that very old British
07:13
tradition really and and that’s I
07:15
suppose in a sense it’s true that
07:17
everything we do know of is mediated by
07:20
our senses as there’s a sense in which
07:22
we are absolutely bound by sight taste
07:26
touch and everything else is that the
07:29
sense in which you would say that that
07:31
consciousness is primary is is is that
07:33
we are ultimately that our experience of
07:35
everything has to be mediated by
07:37
consciousness yes there are two main
07:39
philosophical approaches one is
07:41
phenomenology which is mostly in
07:43
continental Europe and that is you start
07:47
philosophy by asking the question what
07:49
is it like to experience something or
07:50
what’s the nature of experience so
07:52
you’re starting from experience and you
07:54
you would probably never say that you
07:57
could eliminate that that’s a starting
07:59
point and then you ask what it’s what
08:00
does it like to fear what does it like
08:02
to have anxiety or the whole of
08:05
existentialist philosophy starts there
08:07
and then there’s a rather different and
08:09
persist tradition which concentrates on
08:12
sense perceptions but doesn’t assume
08:15
that sense perceptions come through the
08:17
body let’s see and philosophers carry
08:21
out after this sort carry out thought
08:23
experiments could you have visual
08:26
perceptions and oral perceptions were
08:27
that a body could they exist and I
08:30
people like me fine we think it’s
08:33
logically possible and so there that’s a
08:37
sort of key move when you say if you
08:39
start from experience and you’re not
08:41
going to eliminate it then your problem
08:44
is what is the material universe hmm
08:46
it’s it’s not the other way round it’s
08:49
not so it’s almost exactly the
08:51
opposite way around in a sense to to the
08:53
view that Dan takes that consciousness
08:55
and mental stuff is dependent on if you
08:59
like materials flow yours is the view
09:01
quite the opposite that the
09:03
consciousness and mental activity comes
09:05
first and and that is the Senecas fest
09:09
in the order of knowledge and then
09:11
there’s the question well does that mean
09:13
it comes first in real fact and a person
09:17
who is an idealist would say yes that’s
09:20
the certainly a possibility and it will
09:24
come into talking about what why you
09:25
believe this is the case but how does
09:28
this offer you point back to God
09:30
ultimately then well it’s slightly
09:32
independent I mean a lot of idealists
09:33
wouldn’t use the word God because God
09:36
has a personal sense about it hmm
09:39
and so the philosophy of idealism and
09:42
its major proponents like Immanuel Kant
09:45
and Hegel wouldn’t be God in the sense
09:51
in which Christians talk about God it’d
09:53
be something rather more abstract more
09:57
metaphysical right but I would use the
09:59
word God of course semo’s so my
10:01
Christian faith is more dependent on
10:03
various sorts of personal experience
10:06
than on the philosophy okay but they
10:08
have a natural affinity if you believe
10:11
in God it’s it’s fairly natural to say
10:14
oh that fits into a view of saint
10:16
consciousness as a primary element of
10:18
reality and in that sense is everything
10:20
that exists in your view in some sense
10:22
within exists because it exists within
10:25
the consciousness of God yes yes
10:28
yeah and as a hypothesis I would say it
10:32
has to do that there has to be some
10:34
consciousness here that’s the hypothesis
10:36
thank you very much for helping us to
10:39
understand the idealist perspective and
10:42
in what sense then could you lay out Dan
10:46
your view as a naturalist of how mind
10:48
emerges from material stuff and natural
10:52
in fact the Heath’s account of idealism
10:55
provides a very nice background for
10:57
saying what the difference is mm-hmm he
10:59
says that sense experience conscious
11:02
experience comes first in your
11:04
knowledge and I said first in one sense
11:07
yeah you have to be awakened and have
11:11
the experiences to start learning about
11:13
science but when you do what you
11:16
discover is that you’re sent not only
11:19
into your senses deceive you but
11:21
sometimes you were wrong about your very
11:24
own experience
11:25
you’re not the authoritative infallible
11:28
internal witness that you think you are
11:30
and if you want to understand science
11:34
and I think an idealist has two choices
11:37
they can either just ignore science the
11:40
material science physical science or
11:42
they can somehow couch it within their
11:48
idealistic framework but they and and
11:51
then take it very seriously hmm
11:53
but if you do that it undermines your
11:55
idealist foundations you know sometimes
11:58
spectacular ways and what we’re learning
12:01
is that our own experience the
12:05
experience that we have untutored and
12:08
just by being awake the experience that
12:11
is first in knowledge according to Keith
12:14
turns out to depend on own relievedly
12:19
complex and fascinating and
12:21
sophisticated unconscious computations
12:25
that go on in our brain so the
12:27
naturalist says well let’s study that
12:29
let’s see if we can figure out how
12:31
brains work and either you have to deny
12:34
that brains have anything to do with
12:36
consciousness or you have to take that
12:38
seriously and when you do you begin to
12:41
discover that consciousness the
12:44
consciousness that we all enjoy is not
12:49
what we thought it was it’s not an inner
12:52
show at all it’s a way of being in the
12:57
world and being knowledgeable and adroit
13:00
and adept in the world and the models
13:04
that we’re developing in cognitive
13:07
science can account for vast stretches
13:12
of that capacity and better than we can
13:16
if I ask you
13:18
just tell me what you see right now and
13:21
you say wise to your face how do you do
13:26
that how does your your lips move
13:30
something in your brain gets you talking
13:32
you have no access to yourself to how
13:35
you frame that sentence and how you
13:38
relied on your current experience it
13:41
just seems obvious but in fact there’s a
13:44
lot going on inside there that we have
13:46
to untangle and when we do that from the
13:49
naturalist point of view the idealist
13:51
position looks fundamentally backward it
13:54
looks like just grabbing the wrong end
13:57
of the stick
13:57
I’ll let Keith respond to that in the
13:59
moments time but what I’m hearing from
14:01
you there Dan is is that because we have
14:04
been able to investigate the material
14:06
stuff of the brain and see the
14:08
connections and see that when we do
14:11
things to the brain it changes the
14:12
perceptions people have and they’re
14:14
conscious experience and everything else
14:16
there that gives us evidence that all of
14:19
that consciousness is strictly dependent
14:21
on that the physical state of I’m not
14:24
saying it’s yes and I mean nonetheless
14:27
it it is an extraordinary organ isn’t it
14:31
the brain and when you consider that on
14:33
a naturalist perspective even inanimate
14:35
atoms have come to reflect upon
14:37
themselves it it it is an extraordinary
14:40
thing in that sense do you do you feel
14:43
that there’s still an element of mystery
14:45
there or are you happy to say no I think
14:47
we really can I think we really can it’s
14:50
a puzzle yeah and and it’s what I call
14:52
the hard question our problem with the
14:54
hard question the hard question is and
14:56
then what happens that is all right
14:58
you’ve got this analysis of information
15:01
coming in from the census for instance
15:03
and then what happens there’s a whole
15:07
story to be told about how we use it how
15:11
it modifies our beliefs and our emotions
15:14
and our memories and our personalities
15:16
and what we say next what our projects
15:19
are and mostly even scientists have sort
15:24
of stopped when they’ve stopped in
15:27
consciousnesses if that was the finish
15:29
line no no that’s not the finish line
15:31
that’s only halfway through and we have
15:33
to do and then what happens and only
15:36
when we can explain how consciousness
15:39
not only moves our bodies and gets our
15:43
lips moving but but feeds back on itself
15:45
and permits us to reflect and reflect
15:49
and reflect and reflective reflect and
15:51
it’s only when you’ve got an account of
15:53
the actual brain mechanisms that make
15:56
this incredible reflective capacity
15:59
available then you’re really beginning
16:02
to explain consciousness Keith as an
16:05
idealist then what’s your problem with
16:07
this particular account of the way that
16:08
the material brain can quite
16:11
satisfactorily account for all of our
16:13
conscious states and that sort of thing
16:15
well first of all to begin with I
16:17
absolutely think it’s important to take
16:20
scientific knowledge about the brain and
16:22
about the world seriously and I do want
16:25
to do that I don’t want to include that
16:29
in some preordained idealist picture but
16:34
I want to understand how it is that the
16:38
physical structures of rain interact
16:40
with consciousness
16:41
having said that I’m I don’t either
16:45
think that we have infallible knowledge
16:48
of what’s going on in our minds
16:50
consciousness and I agree that a lot of
16:53
what we’re conscious of is caused by the
16:57
rain and if something is wrong with your
16:59
brain then typically something is wrong
17:02
with what you understand your
17:04
consciousness to be so it’s not an
17:07
infallible thing consciousness but I
17:10
think it is a thing in the broadest
17:12
sense that is to say if you made a list
17:15
of the items that exist in the universe
17:17
and you had electrons and quarks and
17:19
super strings and whatever and brains of
17:22
course you would also have to add and
17:23
consciousness because I don’t really I’m
17:27
not convinced that a study of the brain
17:31
will ever answer the question how
17:34
consciousness originates I don’t see how
17:38
that could be done because
17:40
you could say well when the brain when a
17:44
brain if some sort is in a certain
17:46
configuration then the consciousness
17:48
occurs that seems to me to be a causal
17:51
relationship which is contingent it
17:54
could have been different you know
17:56
because to explain that a bit more
17:57
what’s the problem with the idea of
17:59
consciousness arising by a particular
18:01
you know combination of neuro chemicals
18:05
well because the combination of neurons
18:07
and chemicals is exactly that and you
18:09
could know all about that and not know
18:11
about there being any consciousness I
18:13
mean we take an example which appeals
18:17
for me about an ant right thing of
18:20
announces it is an out conscious well I
18:22
really think we don’t know I don’t think
18:25
answer conscious personally but I really
18:27
don’t know guy if I ask that question
18:28
I’m asking whether there is something
18:32
about an ant that physical inspection
18:35
cannot discharge I don’t think any
18:38
physical inspection of an ant will tell
18:40
you whether it’s conscious right that’s
18:42
so that that’s how I’ve seen it’s
18:44
something you can only experience
18:45
directly well you know that’s the
18:47
problem for an idealist that you can’t
18:49
ever experience directly anybody else’s
18:51
consciousness but I do think that I
18:54
experience directly my own consciousness
18:56
and that I know when I’m aware of
18:59
something not infallibly but at least I
19:01
know when I’m aware and I think that’s
19:03
something additional to any physical
19:06
description in what’s happening right it
19:08
sounds a bit like what Pete’s describing
19:10
there I could be wrong is is something
19:11
along the lines of the hard problem of
19:13
consciousness is earned and you want to
19:15
explain what that is and what a response
19:17
to it is why you don’t think it so the
19:21
philosopher David Chalmers dubbed
19:24
something the higher problem capital
19:26
aids have a capital P and it’s just the
19:29
problem that Keith outlined that is what
19:32
is there in addition to the adroitness
19:33
of the hand which David doesn’t saddle
19:37
anything is it conscious hmm and how do
19:42
we tell the difference between a zombie
19:44
which is just as animated as Keith there
19:48
but for all we know is unconscious
19:53
I think this is a subtle trick a sort of
19:58
like a magician’s trick which gets our
20:01
imaginations off on the wrong foot I
20:03
don’t think there is a hard problem
20:05
it’s just Chalmers baptism of this hard
20:09
problem which has got people convinced
20:11
there’s a hard problem when he first
20:15
introduced it I said this is just
20:17
vitalism reborn after all there’s the
20:21
hard problem of whether something’s
20:23
alive how do we know the ants alive you
20:26
say well look at it well that doesn’t
20:27
prove it it might just be a robot I mean
20:31
maybe it’s a zombie or maybe it’s not
20:33
even alive now physicists biologists
20:38
they don’t argue about this the line
20:41
between living and not living is not an
20:45
interesting theoretical line we’ve
20:47
learned what our proteins alive are
20:49
motor proteins alive or are they just
20:51
little robots cells are alive yeah how
20:56
about viruses don’t ask we understand
21:00
that the complexity gradually creates
21:03
things which are manifestly alive
21:05
amoebas are alive and you we don’t have
21:08
to create a strict cut off and it’s a
21:10
lion there’s no a lone V tau there’s no
21:13
extra substance that you have to put in
21:16
there that distinguishes the living from
21:18
the unliving as many people thought
21:20
those were the vitalists and I think the
21:22
Chalmers and I’m Keith here on it on his
21:26
own expression there they’re remaking
21:29
the vitalist mistake and now they simply
21:32
moved up a notch and they say there’s an
21:35
extra soup song of something which is
21:38
consciousness which has nothing and
21:42
Thomas is very clear about this has
21:44
nothing to do with all the things that I
21:46
study about consciousness I’ve nothing
21:47
to do with the ability to answer
21:49
questions or to have your memory
21:51
adjusted or to change your beliefs or
21:53
become you know get converted
21:55
religiously all of those things those
21:57
are the easy problems of consciousness
21:59
the only problem this left over is
22:01
whether you’re conscious and in that
22:04
sense it looks exactly like vitalism
22:06
hmm and when I put it to david that
22:11
there that’s what it is he said no it
22:14
isn’t it the problems are entirely
22:15
different and well we don’t have David
22:19
here but we do have here so so Keith
22:21
what what do you make of the way that
22:23
Dan has laid out the hard problem of
22:24
consciousness there and for you well I
22:26
don’t think vibrate ISM is a problem of
22:28
any sort I mean because as far as I can
22:31
see described everything is living is to
22:33
talk about its reproductive capacities
22:35
and it’s behavioral capacities and
22:38
that’s okay and I think you can have a
22:40
very shady boundary in deciding whether
22:43
you call a bacterium alive or not but
22:46
consciousness is not like that it’s not
22:48
it’s not a decision about whether to
22:50
call something a lot unconscious or not
22:53
it’s a real fact you want to know do
22:56
ants have feelings and a feeling is
22:58
something that I know I have feelings I
23:01
started life as a musician so to me
23:04
music is very important and music is
23:08
consciously perceived I mean if it
23:10
wasn’t consciously perceived I wouldn’t
23:12
be interested in it right so so whatever
23:14
is going on in my brain to produce me
23:16
enjoying music that doesn’t explain my
23:21
enjoyment of the music that’s an inner
23:23
experience that nobody else can share
23:25
and how I think of vogner’s ring is
23:28
totally different from the way that some
23:30
other people think of it but it’s the
23:31
same experience the same things are
23:34
happening the same electrochemical
23:36
wavelengths are going along and that
23:38
same neurons of firing perhaps and is it
23:40
the case that in your view the the fact
23:44
that you could look at a person’s brain
23:46
when they’re listening to vogner and say
23:48
oh I can see neurons firing and brain
23:51
chemistry going on but that cannot be
23:54
equated with the same thing as the
23:56
experience of hearing me exactly it
23:58
can’t I it’s not an identity
24:01
there’s no identity between finding
24:05
blood flow and brain or electrical
24:07
activity in the brain and whatever it is
24:09
that they’re enjoying when they enjoy it
24:12
in that sense it’s a qualitative
24:13
difference no qualitative difference and
24:16
also one which is it’s not like vitalism
24:18
because it’s not
24:20
vitalism there’s nothing extra which
24:21
makes something alive you describe it by
24:24
describing the biological facts but I do
24:26
think that with consciousness there is
24:28
something extra and that could be a
24:30
zombie I mean there could be a person
24:32
just like me but it wasn’t conscious and
24:35
I’m nothing I probably could be somebody
24:38
could write well and you’ll get the same
24:39
problem with a robot if you made a robot
24:41
which which you couldn’t tell the
24:43
difference in this famous Turing test
24:45
you couldn’t tell the difference we it
24:47
and a human being that would still be a
24:50
question which you couldn’t resolve is
24:52
it actually having experiences and you
24:56
wouldn’t be able to answer that question
24:57
and this is a live discussion obviously
24:59
with the advent of artificial
25:00
intelligence and soldiers yes but but
25:03
ultimately when it comes down to it the
25:06
fact that you think you cannot equate a
25:08
brain state with the actual experience
25:10
of listening to Wagner or seeing the
25:13
color red or whatever it might be means
25:15
that for you this consciousness is
25:17
something qualitatively different from
25:19
the material well it’s not only that you
25:21
see it’s not it’s not just a
25:22
hypothetical thing it’s that what makes
25:24
my life worthwhile is my conscious
25:27
experiences and how I cope with them and
25:30
my brain I go along with whatever people
25:33
tell me about my brain and that might be
25:35
very important but it’s not what I’m
25:37
primarily concerned with I’m fascinated
25:40
know what happens in my brain when I
25:42
listen to vogner but what I’m primarily
25:44
concerned about is how meaningful it is
25:46
to me and the difference it makes to my
25:49
life and that that is something no
25:51
physicist but then you should be
25:55
interested in asking the hard question
25:57
and then what happens so the music is
25:59
very meaningful to you so now there’s
26:01
lots of things going on in your brain
26:03
which are in fact embodying that very
26:07
meaningfulness that very responsiveness
26:11
the fact that it makes a difference and
26:12
here if we look at cases of brain damage
26:17
we see people who are have locked-in
26:19
syndrome or were in a comatose or
26:22
vegetative state and there’s all sorts
26:24
of different varieties of this if you be
26:26
an Adrian Owens wonderful book on this
26:28
and and here’s a question for you
26:32
suppose you were in one of those
26:33
terrible states and you’re listening to
26:36
Weiser
26:36
and if you’re really in a deep coma then
26:42
I think you would say well then I’m not
26:44
conscious of course and it doesn’t
26:46
matter what what’s happening in my brain
26:48
I I’m not enjoying it even all right so
26:53
now we raise the lavabit raise the level
26:55
a bit and this is analogous to moving on
26:58
up through from proteins to the selves
27:01
and to the hands and so forth and at
27:03
some point no not at some point that we
27:07
can point to with a sharp line we’re
27:09
going to see a gradual accrual of the
27:12
very things you’re talking about the the
27:15
responsiveness of the meaningfulness how
27:18
it makes your life worth living
27:20
something can’t make your life worth
27:23
living unless it has an effect on your
27:25
brain it just can’t and if you
27:29
understood those then you would see that
27:33
there was no charmed line where this
27:36
something extra got added there’s just
27:39
more and more of making your life worth
27:41
living and and there are almost
27:45
certainly are states that you could be
27:47
in for instance your loved ones might
27:52
say play vogner through headphones into
27:56
his ears this this will give him solace
27:59
and they may not be able to tell now
28:03
whether this is giving you solace but if
28:09
they could read your brainwaves they
28:11
might be able to say yes yes see look at
28:13
the these are the reactions of a person
28:16
who can enjoy who is thrilled by the
28:20
music even though he can’t talk even
28:22
though he can and so there’s every
28:26
imaginable variant from dead comatose to
28:32
wide awake thrilled and at no point does
28:37
a special extra thing called
28:40
consciousness come into it
28:41
well I’m not at all happy about that I
28:47
agree that there of course there are
28:48
different degrees of consciousness I
28:50
agree also that there is the brain works
28:53
and solves problems and things when
28:55
you’re not conscious I mean I agree with
28:58
that so I agree there is a causal
29:00
connection between the brain RBI in my
29:03
view the brain does exist I’m not an
29:07
idealist you said there’s no brain and
29:11
the brain gives you access and if it’s
29:14
working normally
29:15
it will give you the access that we call
29:17
full consciousness if it’s unusual in
29:20
some way then that affects the quality
29:23
of your consciousness so I see this as
29:24
an access the brain is an access and
29:27
machine to consciousness so to put this
29:30
quite bluntly if somebody suffers from
29:33
Alzheimer’s then their memories are not
29:37
retrievable by the brain the brain has
29:39
no access to those memories but I
29:40
actually think those memories continue
29:42
to exist but not in the physical brain
29:45
that’s my view yes why do you think
29:48
that’s such a you know well why do you
29:50
disagree so strongly with that view then
29:53
well Keith talks about the brain gives
29:56
you access who boots us you you are your
30:02
living brain close enough there’s
30:06
there’s no extra cartesian race kaga
30:10
tans that has access through the pineal
30:12
to some parts of something’s going on in
30:16
the brain what what access has to mean
30:18
in a naturalistic contact is is that in
30:24
effect some parts of the brain have
30:26
information that is retrievable by them
30:29
usable that in that modulates their
30:31
behavior or not and the these access
30:35
relations are being mapped out very
30:37
clearly these days there’s still some
30:39
major puzzles but when you talk about
30:44
Alzheimer’s for instance we can talk
30:47
about the gradual dissolution of paths
30:51
of access that are normally there and
30:53
that play very important role
30:55
but there’s never a place where we say
30:58
and here’s where the access to you as a
31:03
as an ego as a as the inner witness
31:07
comes into the picture that is the image
31:11
which is deeply ingrained in our way of
31:14
thinking and it’s just time to learn how
31:17
to as far as you’re concerned then that
31:19
that idea of personal identity is an
31:21
illusion we are simply the accumulated
31:24
product of our our brain stays in that
31:26
sense if we’re anything it’s not an
31:30
illusion in the sense that there isn’t
31:34
continuing Keith and the continuing
31:37
Justin but it is an illusion if you
31:41
think that there’s a sort of an
31:43
essential nugget which is which is you
31:46
which which just happens to be in this
31:50
body or just happens to be in that body
31:52
that idea which is a very familiar idea
31:56
from religions theologically we might
31:58
call this the soul and you’ve written on
32:02
the concept of the soul so you what’s
32:04
your view on this idea of the soul I
32:05
mean only if ever and this moves on
32:08
through a second level the first level
32:10
of discussion really was whether there
32:12
are things like perceptions and thoughts
32:14
and feelings which you might say could
32:18
exist as in Buddhism or as in David Hume
32:20
perhaps as a series of somehow linked
32:24
perceptions thoughts and feelings and so
32:26
you’ve got a this without a selfless
32:30
series hmm and then it said the second
32:33
stage you say well is there anything
32:35
that holds this series together and I do
32:40
believe in our day lists and do lists –
32:43
though I’m not a duelist but ideas and
32:45
Julis both think there is you have to
32:47
talk about not just a series of
32:49
experiences not infallibly known and not
32:52
necessarily all connected together but
32:54
there is something which enables that to
32:57
be to be known as a series so my
32:59
experiences are the things I remember
33:01
the things I’d look forward to and again
33:04
today an example from music if I
33:07
here the last chord of a Beethoven’s
33:10
Symphony I hear it as the last chord of
33:12
a symphony which is very different from
33:14
just having an experience of a chord so
33:18
memory is linked somehow and this is a
33:20
great problem for people in some
33:23
Buddhist schools who think of the self
33:25
in the chain of experiences and you have
33:27
to say well then there must be something
33:30
which is a subject and here is a subject
33:34
of experience so experiences are
33:37
possessed by something now I think
33:40
Daniel you might say the brain or part
33:42
of the brain and I think no it’s not
33:46
nothing physical you see that’s the
33:47
point so I I wouldn’t call this
33:49
supernatural but it’s not physical mmm
33:52
so it’s supera natural and it doesn’t
33:57
come within the physical realm of public
34:01
verification and and the thing that the
34:04
subject that is experiencing and
34:06
remembering and looking forward to this
34:09
is the immaterial me innocence yes it is
34:12
it is it is not a material thing it
34:15
cannot simply be the brain that it’s not
34:17
her own so I strongly don’t believe that
34:20
I am my brain I think my brain is part
34:24
of me I do think that and I just think
34:27
I’m essentially embodied run
34:29
nevertheless I do think I am essentially
34:32
a subject of experiences and what’s
34:36
going on when when you’re having and we
34:38
can’t avoid this this language of I and
34:40
you and me it’s it’s deeply embedded as
34:43
you say Dan but nonetheless you think
34:45
we’re wrong to sort of assume that there
34:47
is a a ghost in the machine as it were
34:49
there is the ghost in the machine what
34:52
there is is information an information
34:56
that is organized and that uses memory
35:01
and anticipation to organize that
35:05
information and that can be considered
35:09
to be the sort of software that’s
35:11
running on the brain and when you learn
35:13
a new language you greatly enhance your
35:18
carpet
35:19
as your talents and your proclivities
35:21
and everything else this is like
35:24
downloading another app to your to your
35:27
to your hardware yeah right now the the
35:31
brains are hardware but the organization
35:34
of the brain is the software and that
35:38
what we can do as human beings depends
35:42
very much on the software that we’ve
35:44
downloaded through culture on our
35:46
language and on all our reading and and
35:48
the the tricks that we’ve learned and
35:51
the tools that we’ve learned how to use
35:52
all of that has to be embodied in the
35:57
brain but it’s information it can be
35:59
passed from person different doesn’t
36:01
weigh anything it’s like poetry it’s a
36:04
but but sticking with this computer
36:07
analogy I guess when I use a computer I
36:09
can see the hardware and I know what the
36:11
software does and the way it processes
36:13
everything but there still has to be a
36:15
me that it means anything – it won’t
36:17
mean anything – the computer is just a
36:20
computer yes there’s a user who’s the
36:23
user of the brain and the answer is the
36:26
brain the brain consciousness is the
36:28
brains user illusion of itself and it
36:31
needs it it needs it in order to
36:35
simplify the task the brain is too
36:38
complicated in its myriad details and
36:41
the world is too complicated for the
36:44
brain to deal adroitly with it so the
36:46
brain has been designed to have user
36:50
interfaces inside it that simplify it so
36:53
that it so that it makes things easy to
36:57
track easy to deal with easy to recall
36:59
the same way that the screen on your
37:01
laptop makes them you don’t want to know
37:04
the complexities of what are going on
37:05
inside your computer so you have this
37:07
very handy very effective user interface
37:11
so called user illusion and that’s what
37:15
consciousness is it’s a user illusion
37:18
that is designed by evolution and by
37:21
learning and by cultural evolution to
37:23
make our brains useful capable in a
37:27
sense yeah of getting our bodies through
37:30
this car
37:31
the world yes see at that point I have
37:34
to say that what you call an illusion is
37:36
to me the most important thing there is
37:38
and I am even going to give you that
37:45
this is this is a Wilfrid Sellars
37:49
concept of the manifest image there’s
37:52
the scientific world of quarks and and
37:55
protons and atoms and molecules and so
37:58
forth and then there’s the manifest
37:59
image the world of people and tables and
38:02
chairs and and music and songs and faces
38:06
and beliefs and promises and all that
38:08
good stuff
38:08
that’s the most important level and all
38:12
of that the very existence the very fact
38:16
that we have these categories is due to
38:19
this brilliant summarization and and
38:26
extraction of important details from
38:30
this blooming confusion of atoms that is
38:34
described by the scientific image yeah
38:37
well my sense of the importance of my
38:41
experience would be vastly undermined if
38:44
I thought it was really all completely
38:46
caused by a blooming conglomeration of
38:49
atoms well because that has no purpose
38:53
laws of physics self completely
38:55
purposeless they just operate in
38:57
accordance with whatever principles of
39:00
regularity there are so you lose the
39:02
notion of purpose really purpose is part
39:04
of the illusion of you’re in your inner
39:07
experience you have purposes but
39:09
actually the brain doesn’t so if you’re
39:12
going to say this is produced by the
39:14
brain then you’re really saying well the
39:16
reality is not purposive you just think
39:18
you have purposes well no in fact that’s
39:22
in some ways the main theme of my latest
39:25
book from bacteria to Bach and back
39:28
because one of the central philosophical
39:31
themes in that book is showing how a
39:34
purposeless process natural selection in
39:38
the purposeless physical world gradually
39:41
creates purpose
39:43
and how we have purposes our tools have
39:50
purposes our limbs have purposes our
39:52
eyes have purposes nature is awash in
39:56
purposes they’re not generated from the
40:01
top down by the great purpose giver of
40:03
God they emerge from the bottom up from
40:07
a purposeless process that’s the genius
40:10
of Darwin’s idea right well I think
40:12
that’s a heroic project it is it is but
40:17
I don’t think it’s a possible one and
40:21
tell us why tell us why well because and
40:23
purpose if you think there’s something
40:26
flies was called intentionality but
40:28
you’re you’re thinking of there is you
40:30
have an idea in your mind and you’re
40:32
going to say write a book next year and
40:36
so you think you have an idea of your
40:38
mind you’re writing a book next year but
40:39
this idea refers to something that’s
40:42
future it’s not something that’s
40:43
actually present so the eye you don’t
40:48
give it a complete description of the
40:50
idea by just describing what’s actually
40:51
in your mind at the moment right because
40:54
it has to refer to the future okay and
40:56
it’s very difficult I think for a
40:59
materialist or a naturalist to say what
41:01
it is about physical processes which
41:04
don’t refer to the future because how
41:06
could they work what would that mean the
41:10
concept of something in your present
41:13
behavior being determined by the thought
41:15
of something which doesn’t exist in the
41:17
future and the purpose is you trying to
41:20
get that so the our dear looks as to the
41:24
common sense as though your your idea is
41:28
having a causal effect what’s your idea
41:30
of the future mmm having a causal effect
41:32
and I don’t think a physical description
41:34
can cope with that idea which which is
41:38
about the aboutness it’s a hug I know
41:42
you I mean I know that you you will come
41:44
back to in a moment then but but from
41:46
your point of view Keith what I’m
41:47
hearing is that that the idea of purpose
41:51
has to have a a reality to it that it
41:53
simply can’t have yes in a purely
41:55
physical X well
41:56
Daniel says it emerges but the sense of
41:58
purpose emerges from the from an on
42:00
purpose of background and I think it’s
42:03
such a different concept it’s the idea
42:05
of causation by an idea of the future
42:07
hmm she’s very different from causation
42:10
by being pushed from the past and what
42:13
other problems for you emerge when we as
42:15
it would do away with your concept of
42:17
personal identity because I mean this
42:19
might be a good point at which to start
42:21
talking about free will and moral agency
42:24
and that sort of thing
42:24
well along with purpose the other the
42:27
other thing that correlates with it is
42:28
the idea of value now at this point
42:30
again we might have a disagreement here
42:33
because I do think that one of the
42:36
important things about human life is
42:38
that there are values which we don’t
42:41
invent so that that’s a basic
42:43
philosophical option I think that you
42:46
say values are objective in the sense
42:49
that some things really are worthwhile
42:51
are null value even if nobody thinks
42:54
they are mmm and that in thinking of a
42:58
moral value you ought to be charitable
43:00
for example that is true I think that’s
43:03
amore I think that’s a moral truth and
43:05
you can discover that it’s true you
43:07
ought to be charitable it’s not
43:09
something you decide or invent and so
43:12
that that’s another basic philosophical
43:14
it’s an option really but if you’re
43:16
going for the option of there being
43:18
objective values that correlates with
43:20
purposes because your purpose is to
43:23
achieve something of value so they go
43:25
together purpose and value and I can’t
43:26
see that they would enter into any
43:28
physical description of the brain or of
43:31
anything and so in that sense this this
43:33
value that we believe exists
43:35
independently of you know our brain
43:38
States or anything else I’m not the word
43:40
independently I mean it’s obviously not
43:42
there is that causal connection and but
43:46
it’s objective and as you say a
43:47
subjective I think I would believe and I
43:51
think again it’s not decidable and
43:54
neutrally but I believe that there are
43:57
moral obligations on people whether or
44:00
not they think there are and that is a
44:03
truth about the universe and does this
44:05
can this only make sense in the
44:09
personal identity the idea that we are a
44:12
person who has as well yes it is it’s
44:14
nighttime and is not in a sense just to
44:16
a value is not a part of a physical
44:18
catalogue of things and it correlates
44:20
with a purpose purpose is to obtain any
44:23
value so that correlates with agency and
44:25
that correlates has idea of a subject
44:28
self which is other than just a stream
44:30
of experiences which was actually aims
44:32
to produce values all those things
44:34
connect together I think this will take
44:36
us into the whole area as well of
44:38
determinism and freewill and so please
44:41
do respond yes what he’s adopting is I
44:46
think quite clearly a sort of top-down
44:48
theory of purpose he doesn’t think it
44:50
can bubble up from purposeless processes
44:53
the way Darwin and and people who are
44:56
Darwin Ian’s like me would say and and
44:59
he says he doesn’t see how this
45:02
future-looking purpose could ever be
45:04
accounted for in terms of the something
45:07
like the Darwinian purpose as a
45:09
Darwinian process you should learn about
45:14
Bayesian predictive coding it’s the big
45:19
bandwagon in cognitive neuroscience
45:22
right now which is precisely how the
45:26
brain is always always anticipating
45:30
projecting forming hypotheses in effect
45:33
about what’s going to happen next and
45:35
then checking those hypotheses against
45:38
the data coming in this is how our
45:40
brains get the adroit nough sand the
45:43
real-time capacity that they do they’re
45:45
always they’re designed to look ahead
45:48
they’re designed by Darwinian processes
45:51
to anticipate the future based on the
45:56
experience of the past and since the
45:58
future isn’t always just like the past
46:00
they make mistakes but they are also
46:03
designed for those very mistakes to
46:05
feedback into the system and correct
46:07
those mistakes so the brain operates as
46:11
a generator of anticipations which are
46:16
then tested against the world which and
46:19
it’s a constantly
46:22
revising sort of a moving target about
46:25
trying to get trying to get the
46:28
immediate future right and then of
46:29
course that in turn permits us to have
46:32
long-range goals in the future another
46:34
thing you said Keith is you you thought
46:36
there were values that we’re not as it
46:40
were human maybe because human beings
46:41
maybe didn’t even realize that they had
46:43
these values but there’s no reason why
46:48
something that is ultimately a human
46:53
construction a human artifact can’t have
46:58
surprises in it the game of chess is
47:01
certainly a human construct and yet
47:05
people are still learning things that
47:08
you can and can’t do in chess so there’s
47:10
there’s plenty of of discovery and even
47:15
something as simple as chess and the
47:18
idea that the moral code that we have
47:21
evolved over the last let’s say 50,000
47:26
years that it’s been changed it’s been
47:29
improved no help to it from religion
47:33
there by the way religion has dragged
47:34
its feet along the way all the
47:36
improvements from Old Testament morality
47:38
today have been hard won by rational
47:42
arguments and largely fought by the
47:46
churches but we’ve learned better than
47:50
that old we’ve constantly improved our
47:53
sense of morality and that can go on in
47:55
the future and we may learn doesn’t the
47:57
word improve suggests there is some
47:59
objective standard to which oh yeah
48:01
heading oh yes and in the same way that
48:04
there’s a there’s an when when they keep
48:10
it very simple I want to deliberately
48:12
have a simple example when they added
48:15
the castling rule to chests they
48:17
improved the game of chess why well
48:20
because people who are the chess players
48:24
found the game sort of too slow if you
48:29
didn’t have this room it was it just
48:30
made the game more wonderful more
48:33
interesting
48:34
similarly there are practices which were
48:41
not only condoned but even required in
48:45
Old Testament morality which we’d
48:47
completely shunned today we would never
48:49
dream of aving that way well don’t just
48:52
see things – responses oh yeah because
48:54
computers can’t play chess very well of
48:56
course and they could beat me any type
48:57
of people you could beat me any day of
48:59
the week but I don’t think computer
49:02
would say well I play chess because it’s
49:03
more interesting and gives me a sense of
49:06
you know well so I don’t think comedies
49:14
were play chess unless they were made –
49:15
I mean people pay chess for fun and you
49:19
that’s not something that machines do
49:21
they don’t do things for fun and so I
49:25
know yet
49:26
well I think you’re taking I think here
49:29
what you’re doing is taking a bet on the
49:31
future you’re saying I bet that brain
49:34
science will develop in such a way that
49:36
it will show that all these things can
49:38
be dumped everywhere by machine and I
49:41
suppose my bet is that that’s not going
49:43
to happen and you could get some of the
49:48
zombie which acted like a robot and like
49:51
a human being but self felt and
49:53
experienced nothing and didn’t get
49:55
thrilled by things that were happening
49:57
or invent new moves because they were
49:59
excited or just appear to be thrilled
50:01
oh just appear to be and it would do it
50:03
would guide its life by its being
50:07
thrilled by this yes but that still
50:09
wouldn’t be the NAM be was was
50:14
indistinguishable from normal
50:17
consciousness externally and
50:20
distinguished internally it is
50:23
decisional there you never know because
50:25
it was probably trained to tell you that
50:27
it had deep feelings so I think we’re
50:30
getting into the area of artificial
50:32
intelligence and sense but but coming
50:34
back to your your view that this
50:36
objective moral realm exists and I think
50:39
Dan’s view well we can simply explain
50:41
that by an evolutionary history which
50:43
helps us to interact better and so on
50:46
and and and we don’t discover
50:48
these things they’re they’re simply
50:51
emergent like everything else in our
50:53
experience and he has critiques
50:55
obviously if the of religion and the Old
50:57
Testament in terms of saying well we can
50:58
certainly see that we’re better off now
51:00
with the morality we’ve developed over
51:02
the thousands of years of course I mean
51:04
I have to say that I think Jesus had
51:06
something to do with that that
51:07
improvement and that we haven’t yet
51:09
lived managed to live up to any of the
51:11
things that he said about it so I don’t
51:14
I mean religion yes okay there isn’t
51:16
very ambiguous felon but if if the
51:18
religion is about the person who taught
51:21
something like the Sermon on the Mount
51:23
we’ve got pretty implement that very
51:27
clever man yeah very good so for me
51:33
goodness
51:33
is a quality of the universe that is to
51:38
say that not that the universe is all
51:40
perfect I don’t mean that I mean that
51:43
the obligation to seek goodness is is a
51:47
fact about the universe and I can’t put
51:49
that into a physicalist account of the
51:54
universe I can’t see how it would fit
51:56
whereas well if I can introduce the word
51:59
God it laughs I think if you if you had
52:02
the mind of God of the mind of the
52:05
Creator then the obligation to achieve
52:10
true goodness not some arbitrary command
52:13
that God made up that obligation would
52:16
fit into a picture of the universe as
52:18
founded on a morally obliging reality
52:24
which would be a mind and it wouldn’t be
52:26
a brain I mean nobody thinks there’s a
52:28
cosmic brain so I think if you’re
52:31
wanting to rule out the idea of God by
52:34
definition by saying well there couldn’t
52:35
be such a brain I agree I couldn’t so
52:39
that comes down to the question just as
52:41
a thought experiment well could there
52:43
not be a mind which did not like human
52:46
minds depend upon the good function of a
52:49
brain and I don’t see why not
52:52
well alright I’ll go along with you on
52:55
that say alright I don’t think I can
52:57
offer an octree or you know
53:00
proof that there couldn’t be a
53:01
disembodied mind but I don’t see how a
53:04
disembodied mind of God could ground
53:07
morality at all why why should we care
53:10
what a disembodied mind thought we
53:13
should do I mean if I tell you Lucille
53:16
says this you shouldn’t do that well
53:18
who’s Lucille not and in fact what could
53:21
matter more than what we we human beings
53:26
after careful consideration and in
53:29
concert what we decide this is what’s
53:33
worth living for why doesn’t that what
53:36
could trump that oh I think I think God
53:39
could jump that Oh Lucille was actually
53:43
perfectly good herself and created us
53:47
and had a purpose for us which would
53:50
fulfill everything about our lives then
53:53
if this you said do this we’d say that’s
53:55
probably yes indeed but that makes
53:58
Lucille
53:59
you’ve just defined the answer this is
54:01
no you’ve you just helped yourself to a
54:05
problem solver by defining it as a
54:07
problem solver yes but I didn’t make
54:09
this opera it’s been around for somebody
54:11
maybe when race yes the idea of God is
54:15
like the idea of quantum realities
54:19
somebody made it up that doesn’t mean
54:21
that it’s not true
54:22
let’s move on to freewill we need to
54:26
because we really must touch on this
54:28
before we have to close our conversation
54:30
and now would you describe yourself as a
54:34
determinist at Dan yes in all that
54:39
matters I mean I’m happy to go along the
54:43
physicist I know that there’s quantum
54:45
indeterminacy but I don’t think it makes
54:46
any difference for free will and
54:48
determinism is essentially the view that
54:51
every everything can be explained by the
54:54
previous states of things and that in a
54:56
sense careful you have I’d say that very
54:58
carefully because there’s there’s
55:02
explanation then there’s explanation mmm
55:05
flip a coin a fair coin nobody can
55:10
predict whether it’s going to come down
55:11
heads or tail nobody can predict it
55:13
not because it’s quiet I’m unpredictable
55:16
but because the forces acting on that
55:20
coin involve the position of electrons
55:22
at the edge of the visible universe it’s
55:24
just beyond the calculation it that’s an
55:28
epistemic point but you keep reading for
55:31
me but the coin will will will be a
55:33
random flip all this a so is it an
55:35
undetermined coin flip no is it a random
55:38
coin flip yes but in a sense if you
55:42
could in principle describe every single
55:46
force its actual coin then you could
55:49
predict what which side it will come
55:51
down and in a sense when it comes to the
55:55
question of the mind and consciousness
55:57
and freewill the view that everything is
56:00
ultimately determined by the physics of
56:02
the universe means that a lot of people
56:04
have a question mark over what that does
56:06
for us our the fact that we think of
56:10
ourselves as free agents moral agents
56:12
even our very act of reasoning and
56:15
having conversations if it’s all in a
56:16
sense being determined there’s a real
56:20
question that arises of can we make
56:23
sense of anything then if if if in fact
56:26
everything we do say think feel has at
56:29
some level been decided a long time ago
56:32
by the physical attributes of the
56:34
universe simply rolling out in a
56:36
predetermined way so you’re a
56:38
compatibilist though when it comes to
56:40
your view of freewill perhaps you’d like
56:42
to explain how you come to terms with
56:44
this question around free will and
56:45
determinism from a compatibilist point
56:48
of view yeah the notion of freedom that
56:52
is incompatible with determinism is not
56:56
the notion of freedom that matters the
56:58
notion of freedom that matters is the
57:00
engineering notion of freedom the notion
57:01
of degrees of freedom right now you have
57:05
many degrees of freedom there are lots
57:07
of different ways in which you can move
57:09
your parts and move your lips and so it
57:11
has nothing to do with determinism and
57:14
what we want to do is look at which
57:17
systems in the world are autonomous and
57:20
which systems in the world are in fact
57:23
being controlled heteronomously by some
57:25
other controller
57:27
if I haven’t drone and I’ve got the
57:28
little box I am in control of that drone
57:31
it is not autonomous it’s its activities
57:34
are being determined by me they are
57:36
being controlled by me however I may be
57:40
able to throw a switch which makes it
57:42
autonomous it is no longer in my control
57:45
and it is then no longer in the control
57:48
of anything else except itself it’s the
57:53
cause is raining down on it and you know
57:56
the gravity and the wind and all the
57:58
rest of that those let us suppose
58:01
they’ve been determined since time in
58:03
the world it doesn’t matter an
58:05
autonomous system can be designed to
58:09
deal with those in fact it depends on
58:13
the reliability on the predictability of
58:15
all of those forces and to some degree
58:18
it samples those in order to improve its
58:21
control over the situation now what we
58:24
want to be as free agents is we want to
58:26
be autonomous we want we don’t want
58:29
somebody else pulling our strings I have
58:33
a have a little cartoon of a puppet
58:36
that’s making its legs move by by
58:39
pulling strings on its legs that’s what
58:42
we are we are self controllers and it’s
58:46
it’s really a bad trick of the
58:51
imagination to think that if determinism
58:55
is true then nature is pulling our
58:57
strings mmm because nature is not an
59:01
agent Nature doesn’t care
59:02
Nature doesn’t have foresight about what
59:05
it wants us to do so that there’s a
59:07
sense in which then we we have freedom
59:09
in the senses meaningful for us
59:11
absolutely but if if we’d simply were
59:13
able in some way to rewind the clock 30
59:15
seconds would we have exactly the same
59:17
conversation with exactly the same words
59:19
with exactly the same movements because
59:21
that is what would have had to have
59:23
happened in a sense how we determined in
59:25
that sense if we could rewind the clock
59:27
perfectly
59:28
yes but that’s not interesting there’s a
59:33
famous footnote in JL Austin’s
59:36
where he talks about lining up a putter
59:39
on the putting green and he strikes it
59:43
and he misses it and he says well but I
59:46
could have made it and he and and he
59:50
says and this does not depend on
59:53
anything like if I tried harder or
59:57
something like that
59:58
on that very occasion with exactly that
60:01
situation I could admit it and then he
60:04
says a very important thing he says and
60:06
and experiments could prove that out
60:09
well what quantum mechanical experience
60:12
know clearly what he has in mind is we
60:14
could line up the putt ten times in a
60:16
row right there and his friend says well
60:19
let’s see and sure enough eight out of
60:21
ten times he makes it
60:23
but those precisely aren’t the same now
60:26
they’re not occasions but that’s what
60:28
matters what matters is the robustness
60:30
of our abilities if you could make that
60:33
putt under opening up different
60:35
circumstances highly reliably then
60:38
there’s a sense in which you could have
60:39
done it otherwise and if you if not then
60:43
you couldn’t have done it and that’s the
60:45
sense that matters and it is neutral
60:47
with regard to determinism
60:49
you’re not a determinist are you keen oh
60:51
I’m a libertarian in this respect which
60:54
means in exactly the same situation to
60:59
at least two different alternative
61:02
futures are possible so they if you were
61:05
around the clock you know and did the
61:07
putt again under exactly the same
61:09
conditions you might get a different
61:11
note you could get ink they’re getting a
61:12
different difference well it wouldn’t
61:15
have such make a difference but if you
61:17
thought that you have an alternative set
61:20
of futures and that is under your
61:23
control which one of those happens that
61:26
makes a difference yes but I believe
61:29
that no you don’t say that because you
61:31
you say if you perfectly rewound it no
61:35
you can’t do that but I mean if it’s a
61:37
thought experiment obviously but but I
61:38
think I think your view is key to and as
61:41
a libertarian then when it comes to free
61:43
will you believe we we do have genuine
61:45
free will attitude to I think one of the
61:48
rules in English
61:49
and I think in American law too is that
61:52
you can only be guilty of something if
61:54
you could have done otherwise now that’s
61:56
precisely that JL Austin quote you use
61:59
but I think lawyers would interpret this
62:02
to mean I at that time he didn’t have to
62:08
do the things he did nothing made him
62:11
not even himself he didn’t make himself
62:13
do that he he should not have done it he
62:17
did what he should not have done that
62:18
that’s the problem that people like me
62:20
would struggle with is guilt
62:23
attributable to what people do because
62:26
if there’s a sense in which you know
62:29
people are determined at some level by
62:31
it that’s in chemistry or their previous
62:34
brain states or just the physics of the
62:36
universe there’s a sense in which they
62:38
cannot be culpable for doing things
62:39
wrong they were bound to do those things
62:41
if somebody said to me and people have
62:43
believed this that God sends people to
62:45
hell but he’s created them in order to
62:47
senator hell I would feel morally
62:50
affronted but I’m not but my moral
62:53
affront would be based on the fact that
62:55
if people do go to hell must be their
62:58
own choice and not God’s choice so now
63:01
you do have somebody pulling the strings
63:03
it’s not just nature on this sort of
63:06
view there is a personal being who’s
63:08
doing that to you and you fear affronted
63:11
that there being should not have done
63:13
that hmm and I think it’ll libertarian
63:15
would say and of course God’s not like
63:17
that anyway but people should not do the
63:20
things they do and there is also the
63:23
David Hume point that actually
63:26
determinism it is just unprovable you
63:29
can’t you can’t show that everything has
63:32
to happen the way it does unfortunately
63:34
for the libertarian if a free choice
63:38
really involves the conditions you say
63:41
then how could you be responsible
63:44
because you can’t determine which choice
63:46
you make that is all of your previous
63:50
education suppose it does not determine
63:53
it does not determine in other words I
63:55
assume that you’ve been raised to be a
63:59
a very moral and non non violent man not
64:03
volunteers if if we were to hand you a
64:08
gun right now and I wish to suggest to
64:11
you well why don’t you shoot Justin in
64:18
our I’m not gonna get thank you data
64:21
straight this part yeah just to prove
64:23
you have free will shoot him in the arm
64:25
now I might surprise you you might but
64:30
you won’t and you won’t because you know
64:35
better and your prior experience makes
64:39
this I’d bet very very large sums of
64:42
money you’re not going to do it and and
64:44
it’s going to be a free choice and you
64:48
just better hope that it’s not an
64:51
undetermined choice because if it were
64:53
then you might suddenly find yourself
64:55
doing it in spite of all of your
64:57
previous ah my view is not that you
64:59
would find yourself doing it but that
65:02
you could decide to do it which is very
65:04
different well who’s the you that’s
65:07
doing this well I’ve gotta you you see
65:08
you might not have you just got a brain
65:14
so I’ve gotta sell this subject self
65:16
which is the soul in Christian terms is
65:20
also an agent self so it has a certain
65:23
agency which it decides between courses
65:28
of actions so it is not determined by
65:30
its pathway if you know in the kata I
65:32
would not actually shoot Justin but
65:34
there are things I would do to Justin if
65:36
you ask them to and I’m feeling worried
65:39
here better carry well and I might
65:43
decide and some of them were I might
65:45
vote for example if you say could you
65:47
inflate how much it costs you to get
65:49
here by train and and so make a bit of
65:51
money on the side well I might have
65:54
realistic you might not be the most
65:56
moral person you might might be as moral
65:58
as you think I am so I might say well I
66:01
decided to do this and it would be
66:03
nothing I’ll pass would make it the case
66:06
that I was going to decide in a
66:08
particular I would at that moment make a
66:10
decision I mean I mean when and when Dan
66:12
says
66:13
the fact that you were brought up to be
66:15
a moral person and you’ve got a good
66:16
education and so on for you those aren’t
66:19
determining things those even if they
66:21
strongly insula wrongly influencing
66:23
there’s a way that you do need your life
66:24
but they’re not in a sense determining
66:26
the attitude though I agree with a
66:28
generally Aristotelian view that habit
66:31
actually constrains virtue so that you
66:34
if you have learned to always be
66:37
understanding life there’s a better
66:39
chance you’ll continue to do an honest
66:41
thing but nevertheless there are tipping
66:43
points and when people are put in crisis
66:45
situations as they can be then and I
66:48
think that’s fine so I think the type of
66:50
determinism we’re talking about is
66:52
different as far as Keith’s concerned
66:54
it’s it’s not a hard determinism in the
66:56
sense of the that the type of physical
66:59
determinism that perhaps you believe
67:00
ultimately governs everything Dan if
67:02
Keith has been raised in a moral
67:04
environment that’s an influence rather
67:06
than a determining factor of how he will
67:09
behave well of course still do otherwise
67:11
yes and if he did otherwise we’d want to
67:15
know what determined him to do otherwise
67:19
it’s decided well but the decision can’t
67:23
happen without something happening in
67:25
the brain and either that thing that
67:26
happened in the brain was undetermined
67:28
was a quantum event of some sort that
67:31
was really it was the amplification of a
67:34
quantum event or it wasn’t and quite
67:37
frankly I don’t see why it makes any
67:39
difference one way I’ve put this I’ve
67:41
said suppose I’m you’re really going to
67:46
hate this example I give you two robot
67:50
babysitter’s these are going to take
67:52
care of your grandchildren so you really
67:54
care about whether they’re any good
67:56
robot a is deterministic but has a
68:05
random number generator which it uses
68:08
all the time to get itself out of
68:11
puritans ask situations in its
68:13
calculations and it’s wonderfully
68:17
carrying an adroit and then for seeing
68:19
in it it’s it’s a really expert
68:23
at caring for and cheering for
68:25
grandchildren robot B has exactly the
68:30
same software running on exactly the
68:33
same hardware but instead of having a
68:35
pseudo-random number generator it has
68:37
genuine radium randomness in it so that
68:41
it there is a sense in which it is
68:44
undetermined
68:46
while the behavior of a is determined
68:49
now tell me if you had to entrust the
68:53
lives of your grandchildren to one of
68:55
these would you have any reason to
68:57
prefer robot be over robot a you prefer
69:00
a but that’s because one B is governed
69:03
by randomness and I don’t want people to
69:06
be random well if it’s undetermined than
69:08
its random no no it’s not one should use
69:13
expression sufficiently determined and
69:15
if something is sufficiently determined
69:17
then if you have this set of causes you
69:20
are bound to have this effect I think if
69:23
it’s not sufficiently determined and and
69:25
I think a person morality this is where
69:30
morality becomes very important for me
69:31
that people are guided by whether
69:33
they’re going to do something because
69:35
it’s right or not and in if you had a if
69:39
you could make a robot which could
69:41
consider moral questions both both a and
69:44
B do that do you think oh that’s what I
69:48
doubt I doubt if a robot could consider
69:52
the reality of an issue and if it did I
69:54
would treat it as a person I mean if I
69:58
if we could apart from the moral issue
70:01
for me one of the interesting questions
70:02
that the idea of determinism raises is
70:05
is whether we can be speak of reason and
70:08
rationality yeah you’re an atheist dan
70:11
but if all our past events are
70:14
physically determined at some level
70:15
isn’t your decision to be an atheist
70:18
simply an accumulation of those past
70:20
events and you haven’t in a sense
70:21
decided to be away from it you are
70:23
simply the product of but what a
70:25
simulation is it it is one it’s been
70:29
accomplished by machinery that has been
70:32
designed
70:32
and by evolution over billions of years
70:35
to do a very good job of telling truth
70:38
from falsehood and of not drawing
70:41
unlicensed about conclusions we’re do
70:46
you think of think of an eagle for a
70:49
moment the Eagles I very high fidelity
70:53
very high accuracy it is a brilliant
70:56
truth discover about the things that
70:59
matter to Eagles and then it puts them
71:02
to great use we have wonderful senses
71:05
too and we can but not only can do we
71:08
rely on them we have learned how to
71:11
improve on them in hundreds of ways we
71:14
have eyeglasses and telescopes and
71:16
microscopes and all sorts of scientific
71:19
devices and methods truth seeking
71:22
methods now it’s undeniable that we use
71:27
those not perfectly but my decision to
71:31
be an atheist is the product of that
71:35
whole development of truth seeking
71:40
processes and that’s why it is but but
71:43
keep something Keith is obviously is
71:45
also the benefit benefactor of all those
71:49
same processes down through the
71:51
millennia and he’s chosen to be a
71:53
Christian so in some sense isn’t
71:56
ultimately if everything is ultimately
71:58
determined that you you were going to be
72:01
here and have this conversation you know
72:03
if you were around the clock perfectly
72:04
it would all happen in exactly the same
72:06
way isn’t your decision to be an atheist
72:08
Keith’s decision to be a Christian
72:10
ultimately simply a factor of that is
72:12
there’s no ultimate sense in which we’ve
72:14
freely chosen anything in our life and
72:17
therefore can we not speak of the
72:18
reasons and leave the truth working and
72:20
so on value maybe there’s an ultimate
72:24
sense of freedom in which neither
72:26
neither Keith no I know you were free
72:28
but that’s not one that cuts any ice
72:31
when it comes to the question of whether
72:32
we have reasons what do you think about
72:35
this key I think reasoning is difficult
72:39
indeed I think it’s impossible to
72:41
account for in purely physical terms
72:43
because
72:45
to try and think about somebody to
72:47
decide whether it is true have a hard
72:49
problem of some sort that is not like
72:53
handing it over to your brain to solve
72:56
it’s it’s like doing some really hard
72:59
thinking hmm and it’s that’s the problem
73:02
it doesn’t that seems to be a directed
73:04
process that there is a you which is and
73:07
I think it’s just the brain not the
73:10
physical brain you use a brain so that
73:13
this is what it comes down to I think
73:14
the person the self the soul uses the
73:18
brain and if the brains not operating
73:20
properly it will probably come up with
73:21
the wrong answer
73:22
but if the brain is operating properly
73:24
it it still has freedom in fact that’s
73:27
what the brain exists for so I think
73:29
there’s the soul is very dependent on
73:33
the brain and I don’t deny that at all I
73:36
don’t know either right well you deny a
73:39
soul like obvious no in fact I was
73:42
interviewed once by an Italian
73:45
journalist and the headline in the
73:47
Corriere della Sera the next day was CIB
73:51
amin anima my father depandi piccoli
73:54
robot yes we have a soul that’s it
74:03
that’s right I mean we do have a soul
74:06
the a colleague of mine wrote a book
74:11
with the I think very bad title my brain
74:14
made me do it
74:15
well what else would you want to make
74:17
you do it
74:18
has somebody else’s brain why isn’t it
74:23
altum Utley your brain that made you do
74:25
it in your in your view because I think
74:28
I use my brain I mean I think there’s a
74:30
way through using the brain well that’s
74:34
such a dirty word yes I do believe
74:37
there’s something other than the brain
74:39
which ultimately makes human choices and
74:42
finds human meaning
74:44
has human focuses yes I do and of course
74:48
millions of people think that that’s
74:52
reality itself can exist without the
74:55
physical brain because when you die
74:56
you’ve obviously got the physical brain
74:58
left and belief in immortality I don’t
75:01
think it’s an impossible belief let me
75:03
put it at its minimum I think it is
75:05
possible to exist without this brain and
75:10
this body and I don’t know what ahh
75:14
but then you can’t be mature anything no
75:16
no that’s the information the
75:19
information could be information in my
75:21
brain were perfectly encoded and this
75:25
brain died it could be uploaded and I
75:28
would still have to exist in some
75:30
physical medium well of course at that
75:34
point you have to ask what you in by
75:36
physical because now that we have dark
75:38
energy and dark matter and well it has
75:42
something to do with it because you say
75:43
by physical do you mean something in
75:46
this space and time having these
75:48
nominations and maths etc well perhaps
75:51
not perhaps if you can download it into
75:53
a piece of silicon perhaps you could
75:55
download it into dark matter or
75:57
something but but but I think one of the
76:06
things we know about robots that makes
76:10
them profoundly unlike moral agents is
76:14
that they are potentially immortal
76:18
because you can download all this off
76:21
you can just keep uploading a fresh shot
76:23
you can you can that’s a sort of
76:30
immortality and though your sort of
76:32
information without any oh you gotta
76:36
have it on a hard drive you’re gonna
76:38
have a hard drive that’s it look this is
76:42
a really important moral point I think
76:47
you should never make a you should never
76:53
sign a contract with the robot
76:56
because you know where it’s acting on it
76:59
so not as a surrogate for my videos
77:01
because robots aren’t people they aren’t
77:06
fragile they aren’t mortal like us they
77:09
can be they can just be rebooted the
77:13
next day you can’t you can’t threaten to
77:17
punish a robot you can’t extract and or
77:20
else but when a robot makes a promise
77:23
you’d be a fool to accept it but you do
77:27
see I mean didn’t you just say that we
77:29
could be rebooted as well in principle I
77:31
did yes in a purely immaterial way
77:39
there’s that there’s a form of
77:40
immortality digital immortality in a
77:42
sense that I think it’s preposterous
77:46
that they would be yes if you have
77:50
Beethoven’s symphonies on digital things
77:53
with strings of notes and ones and you
77:55
say well there’s the information so it
77:58
so Beethoven’s Symphony is immortal well
78:00
you’d need to have the kids turn it in
78:03
something that somebody could hear
78:05
before it was very heavy which brings us
78:07
back to to where we started why don’t we
78:09
that wrap this up gentlemen because I
78:12
could go and chat into you both all day
78:13
but but time is against us I just wonder
78:16
at the end of the day whether both of
78:18
your world views that you come to this
78:20
area with obviously are going to
78:21
influence the conclusions you make so
78:24
yeah Keith you’re a theist ultimately
78:27
you’re an idealist and you interpret in
78:31
a sense the world through that lens
78:32
through the idea that there is ultimate
78:35
purpose there is ultimate you know value
78:38
and that explanations cannot simply be
78:42
physical but there can be in a sense
78:44
purpose of explanations for the things
78:47
we do and that kind of thing so in a
78:48
sense you’re you you you’re bound to
78:50
impose then on the physical world that
78:53
you do obviously it recognizes there
78:54
that that that element that that
78:57
theistic way of looking at life that
78:59
that is full of purpose and kind of a
79:02
metaphysical view of reality well that’s
79:04
right I mean when you say impose that
79:07
sounds wrong
79:07
brutal but that’s the way I think it’s
79:10
the filter through which you naturally
79:12
she thinks yeah and that is the in a
79:15
sense what a worldview is so so and when
79:18
you see what Dan does do you equally see
79:21
that he has a naturalistic filter by
79:24
which he then presumably in your view
79:26
reduces all of that stuff to and I think
79:30
these are both highly defensible
79:34
philosophical views which is why I don’t
79:38
think philosophy answers our ultimate
79:40
questions you you you don’t think the
79:44
idealist view is obviously as defensible
79:46
as your naturalist view I think certain
79:48
gratuitous mystery about it and the
79:52
things that Keith thinks are and ad
79:56
better remain mysterious can in fact be
79:59
accounted for quite adequately in a
80:02
naturalistic framework we can make sense
80:05
of purpose we make sense for beauty joy
80:09
love promising death the urge for
80:15
immortality all of these things have
80:19
naturalistic accounts and when we’ve
80:23
given them it doesn’t diminish the
80:26
wonderfulness of life or the
80:28
wonderfulness of people at all the I
80:31
just like to ask one question do you
80:33
regard this as work in progress yet to
80:37
be done I’m to complete this oh sure yes
80:40
yes in that sense do you have faith in
80:42
the naturalistic project that it will
80:44
ultimately describe everything faith in
80:47
the same sense I have faith in engineers
80:50
to make bridges in general fall down
80:52
that’s why I don’t tremble with fear
80:54
when I cross a bridge it’s it’s a faith
80:57
based on evidence and and many people do
81:01
accuse the naturalist sort of that it’s
81:03
protective as being reductionistic
81:05
because ultimately Beauty truth love is
81:07
all ultimately reducible to chemicals
81:11
reducible as a is just a bad word here
81:14
there are levels and levels and levels
81:17
of explanation and you can’t look
81:21
can’t explain dollars to take something
81:25
very mundane you can’t explain the
81:28
economic value of the dollar or a pound
81:32
using atoms and electrons that’s just
81:37
the wrong level at which to explain that
81:39
doesn’t mean that there’s anything as it
81:41
were metaphysically irreducible about
81:44
dollars it just means that if you want
81:46
to explain them you go to row Priya
81:48
level to explain it and for you when it
81:52
comes to explanation ultimately you find
81:53
that you’re more satisfied with a view
81:56
that that goes beyond the natural is
81:58
view I think for me the most important
82:02
kind of explanation is explanation of
82:06
behavior in terms of value that that
82:10
behavior is a explicable in terms of
82:12
seeking to realize a value and that’s
82:16
what’s important in my life and I
82:19
wouldn’t I
82:21
I can’t see the what is most important
82:24
in my life is really an illusion or that
82:26
my sense of being a continuing self
82:28
which makes these decisions is an
82:31
illusion and for that reason I’m
82:33
reluctant to say that I am just my brain
82:38
well certainly neither of you have been
82:42
brainless today it’s been a really
82:44
fascinating discussion thank you very
82:46
much both for being with me on the
82:47
program okay really excellent
82:49
conversation my guests today have been
82:51
dan Dennett and Keith ward but updates
82:55
bonus content and exclusive debate clips
82:57
from the series of sign up at the big
82:59
conversation dot show
83:17
you

Qual a fonte do melhor código moral? Deismo ou Ateismo? Nenhum dos dois… tem uma terceira alternativa melhor

sábado, agosto 25th, 2018

xxxx

Os ateus, céticos, publicam este video como publicidade do seu código moral. Abaixo, minha resposta postada no link para o Google+:

Excuse me my two cents here. Nobody knows the Thru (if have one) and human species is like a bridge, dangerous crossing, because we does not know what the Universal Nature will approve or not. We need the most correct worldview possible to our poor and limited human brain, so, we must to listen all brains for getting it. It is unavoidable that each human be free to choose which seems the best worldview, so we need to accept that you are atheist, other is deist, etc. I prefer my own, which is called The Matrix/DNA Theory, which suggests that in this Universe is occurring a merely process of reproduction of the unknown thing that triggered the Big Bang. Then, here and now, Nature is building the last evolved shape of this thing being reproduced, which is consciousness. So, we, are 8 billions half-conscious genes building this embryo, each human is a unique, specific, unavoidable information. From here, I think, arises the best moral code, since we learn that we need each human being doing his/her supreme mission and it means freedom, egalitarian distribution of resources, etc. The problem is that we have inherited a body with a primary brain from non-rational animal ancestors, with instincts like tendency to be predator or prey, and this genetics, this selfish genes, need to be exorcised. So, yes, we need to criticize beliefs that generates moral codes based on primary instincts, like mystical religions that are products of infant, children psique that creates fantasies and talks to imaginary friends ghosts. But we heed also to criticize these instincts that kills all beliefs in something great than us, like non rational animals does. I am agnostic, I don’t understand and don’t know metaphysics, like if there are or doesn’t gods…

https://plus.google.com/u/0/114511796075674138442/posts/9QNkVS7itmJ?cfem=1

Ateismo: Dawkins com dois novos livros – “Atheism for Children” e “Outgrowing God”, atheism for teenagers.

quarta-feira, agosto 15th, 2018

xxxx

Richard Dawkins, atheist evangelist, is working on two new books, Atheism for Children which will be illustrated (!) and Outgrowing God, atheism for teenagers. I know, I can feel your excitement.

https://www.mercatornet.com/features/view/what-is-atheism-for-kids-all-about-god-knows/21546

What is Atheism for Kids all about? God knows

” Atheism is that odd faith that says there is no God, so perhaps the pages will be blank to reflect the emptiness of it all, the sheer nothingness of this belief that maintains life came from non-life, organisation came out of chaos, consciousness came out of non-consciousness and reason came out of irrationality.

Aos radicais e fundamentalistas cientificistas: nao existem bases factuais para um entendimento da existencia.

terça-feira, junho 19th, 2018

xxxx

Tendo sido todas as observações astronômicas, fenomênicas, mensurações, contagens, teoremas, teorias, formulações e colocações inteligíveis da ciência baseados no empirismo dos últimos 10.000 anos, isso não seria pouco para se assegurar as suas veracidades e aplicação geral pelo Universo (durante todo tempo e espaço)?

Quem já leu sobre a história da ciência, sabe que foi crível a colocação de a Terra ter 100.000 anos de existência e o Universo só 1 milhão deles ao fim do séc. XIX! Quem ve uma foto recente do Universo por um aparelho possante como Hubble, nao pode evitar a sensacao que vem da conscientizacao da nossa pequenez e do quanto pouco podemos saber por enquanto. O espaco se perde na imensidao de galaxias em galaxias sem fim, e sendo logico concluir que nenhuma galaxia e’ igual a outra, que cada uma tem um aspecto diferente que revela mais algum detalhe da natureza universal, portanto, para conhecer esta totalidade, teriamos que conhecer antes galaxia por galaxia.

Sem detalhar aqui o fato que nossos sensores que captam os fatos sao limitados e poucos, captando apenas um setimo da realidade do mundo, aquela faixa que se refere `a luz visivel, e sem detalhar o fato de que a desconhecido dark matter parece compor 95% da realidade que nos e’ desconhecido, concluimos que loucos sao aqueles que vociferam com radicalismo arrogante qualquer que seja sua visao ou entendimento do mundo. temos que nos concientizar que quase nada sabemos para nos incentivar a buscar mais conhecimento com animo.

O princípio acadêmico que julga e pondera nao apenas os fatos conhecidos e realmente provados, mas tambem as teorias e hipoteses, tendo por base aprovar apenas as teorias que sejam sequencias calculadas a partir do conhecimento academico, refutando como “pseudociencias” todas as demais, não seria um modelo ultrapassado? Pois lida com apenas a parte conhecida, descartando a maior parte, ou seja, a desconhecida na razão de 1 para o infinito?

Debate entre experts em Ciencias e Religiao. Questao: Ciencia refuta Deus?

sexta-feira, junho 8th, 2018

xxxx

Nos, agnosticos da cosmovisao da Matrix/DNA, somos “indecisos” nesta questao. Para nos o problema todo esta’ na palavra “Deus”, “God”. Suspeitamos que o atual conhecimento cientifico de fato – sem as teorias dos trabalhadores das ciencias, conhecidos como “cientistas” – desaconselha a fe’ num tipo de Deus tal como e’ descrito na Biblia. E provavelmente todos os outros tipos de deuses descritos nos livros sagrados das outras religioes. Mas os nossos modelos e calculos nos levaram a suspeitar que existe uma especie de “superconsciencia” em outra dimensao alem da que podemos captar com nossos sensores e alem do que tem captado o conhecimento cientifico atual. Esta suspeita superconsciencia seria diferente de todas as descricoes de Deus, portanto evitamos denomina-la Deus ou por outro nome alegorico qualquer.

Esta suspeita surge principalmente de um calculo muito simples dentro dos nossos modelos:

Neste Universo existe, internamente, um sistema natural, que surgiu a 14 bilhoes de anos atras e vem evoluindo, no sentido de que ele surgiu no estado de extrema simplicidade e atraves da Historia Natural Universal tem ate’ agora se transformado no sentido de cada vez mais complexo. Varios outros indicios notados nos nossos modelos resultam na sugestao de que neste Universo esta’ ocorrendo um processo evolutivo pelo simples metodo genetico. Entao nos voltamos para observar a Natureza que conhecemos e procuramos alguma situacao onde um sistema surge em extrema simplicidade, evolui do simples para o mais complexo, e pelo metodo do processo genetico. Isto porque nossas conclusoes teoricas so’ se tornam reais teorias da cosmovisao se encontrar-mos na Natureza real um parametron Comprovado e conhecido por todos. A Teoria de Hawkings sobre uma hipotetica existencia de buracos negros nao passaria neste crivo, pois nao encontramos em nenhum outro lugar um parametron Comprovado real que nos avise que a Natureza e’ capaz de fazer tal objeto.

Encontramos uma situacao comprovada e conhecida por todos que se encaixa perfeitamente como parametro real: trata-se da fecundacao, gestacao e desenvolvimento de cada novo ser vivo. Eles surgem num estado de extrema simplicidade ( uma celula dentro de um ovo); eles evoluem dp mais simples para o mais complexo: e eles sao feitos pelo metodo genetico. O achado nao foi surpresa, pois como nao cremos em magicas sobrenaturais, e portanto este Universo nao poderia criar por magica informacoes que ele nao continha na sua origem, entao ele nao poderia ter inventado outro processo para criar coisas como sistemas vivos que nao fosse o mesmo processo pelo qual ele foi criado.

Encontrado o parametro real, comprovado que a Natureza pode fazer e realmente fez o que pressupoe a teoria, passamos ao estudo comparativo entre a historia do corpo vivo criado e a historia do sistema universal criado. Assim vamos projetando o que conhecemos da micro-historia visivel aqui e agora sobre a macro-historia nao visivel do passado, pressentida no presente mas tambem nao visivel no futuro; e fazemos o exercio contrario ou seja, projetando o que se conhece cientificamente do macrocosmo sobre este evento microcosmico. Assim vamos encontrando num as respostas que faltam mas estao no outro, o que ajudou-nos a aprimorar as duas narrativas destas historias.

Mas um detalhe fragrante salta ao0s olhos, o qual parece sr uma crucial diferenca: em certo momento ( dos 6 aos 8 meses de gestacao) o cerebro do ser vivo humano apresenta a propriedade da consciencia. Isto significa que na evolucao do sistema dentro deste Universo, esta propriedade surgiu nos seus 14 bilhoes de anos. Nao ha’ nenhuma dificuldade aqui porque estamos contando os dois tempos sob a perspectiva humana, entao o que e’ feito em 7 meses na micro-escala humana pode corresponder ao que e’ feito em 14 bilhoes de anos na macroescala do universo.

Mas.… sabemos que nao e’ cada novo cerebro recem formado humano que inventa pela primeira vez no mundo a propriedade da consciencia, porque sabemos que ela ja existia antes, na especie humana, que esta fora e alem do pequeno universo oval do feto. A consciencia ja existia desde o momento da fecundacao na heranca genetica recebida, portanto nos 6 meses  – desde as formas de celula inicial, morula, blastula, feto, e ate a de embriao – ela existiu no estado potencial, nao expressada. Em relacao a historia universal nao temos nenhuma evidencia ou pista para concluir se foi este universo que inventou pela primeira vez no mundo a consciencia, ou se ela ja existia antes e alem dele. mas esntao aplicamos o mesmo metodo de projetar o conhecido da micro-historia sobre seu espelho que ‘e a macro-historia e chegamos a nova teoria de que nestes 14 bilhoes de anos – desde a forma de sistema atomico, estelar, galactico, celula vegetal, e animal irracional – a consciencia esteve no estado potencial, sem ser expressada. E por conseguinte temos que transportar a fonte desta consciencia no fato observado aqui e agora como fonte para o fato existente mas ainda nebuloso da macro-historia, e chegamos a teoria de que a consciencia humana nao foi inventada dentro deste Universo, mas sim ja deve ter existido antes das origens e alem do Universo.

Entao o que denominamos como superconsciencia cosmica em nada se compara com as definicoes de deuses de todas as religioes conhecidas. Pelo que conhecemos da Ciencia humana – seus fatos comprovados – ela nao pode refutar esta teoria, muito pelo contrario, por ser uma teoria intrinsicamente naturalista, ela deveria aceitar como a mais provavel teoria que ela pode produzir sobre tal assunto. Ela ‘e mais consistente do que a teoria de que do nada veio tudo, pois nao existe aqui e agora nenhum parametro conhecido onde um Comprovado nada gera alguma coisa. O fato teorico que embasa a teoria do nada ‘e o resultado zero da energia do universo, mas isto feito equivocadamente, porque a existencia do sistema natural universal nao tem como essencia primeira a energia, ela veio encriptada como codigo em algo que sobra quando as energias se auto-anulam: a luz. Em outras palavras, seja como for, o reino alem deste universo nao nos enviou nenhuma energia, mas sim um a onda de luz, a qual, ao avancar, no seu atrito com a substancia especial que pode ser um eter ou a materia escura, produz a energia positiva, e na sua volta `a fonte, produz a energia negativa. As duas devem ser descartadas quando o universo, como qualquer ovo, com sua clara formada de galaxias fazendo o papel da placenta, e’ descartados ao nascer da criatura.

Vamos entao ao debate no video, e a seguir tentaremos assinalar e analizar cada ponto fundamental citado por ambos lados:               

DEBATE: Atheists vs Christians (Krauss + Shermer vs D’Souza + Hutchinson)

8:24 Lawrence Krauss (Atheist)

15:45 Ian Hutchinson (Christian)

23:34 Michael Shermer (Atheist)

31:02 Dinesh D’Souza (Christian)

 

Um Hino contra a teoria do acaso e a explicação para as longas aristocracias predadoras

terça-feira, janeiro 30th, 2018

xxxx

La farsa universal, y: La Teoría del DNA/RNA (página 2)

http://www.monografias.com/trabajos65/farsa-universal-teoria-dna-rna/farsa-universal-teoria-dna-rna2.shtml

Qual a força que fez os marinheiros da Idade Media se lançarem nas águas de um oceano sem ver outra margem, sem nenhum tipo de orientação para navegação, sem a menor garantia de que poderiam retornar vivos a partir de certo ponto?! nao conheco explicação racional e acho perda de tempo procura-la, pois penso que nao existe, nao em relacao `a atual Razao humana.

O que fez um animal como o réptil, quase sem cerebro, de sangue frio, existindo apenas para comer e portanto uma máquina para matar, que na fome comia os próprios ovos e os filhotes, se tornar um mamífero?! Uma fêmea que perdeu sua agilidade e produtividade para seu alimento, ficou pesada e presa fácil a predadores, além das dores e incômodos da gravidez, para não falar da resistência a botar logo os ovos ou filhotes e come-los? Nao tem explicacao racional nem irracional, e isso e’ um dos maiores problemas para a teoria da selecao natural, pois essa femea jamais seria selecionada como adaptada.

A resposta talvez esteja aqui:

” Why should this force preserve what we consider undesirable or disgusting? Because it must operate with a larger perspective in mind, a perspective that transcends our own personal preferences whether, we like it or not.”

Que se completa aqui:

” Mother Nature has taught us that She never leaves anything to chance ”

Que confortável ideia se isto for provado verdade.

O author aplica este pensamento em varios casos e um deles, que tem sido meu grilo incomodo na cuca por muitos anos, e’ o caso de que os grandes predadores se mantem no poder sempre ganhando mais e mais e por muito tempo. De maneira que por exemplo, as familias Rockefeller, Rothschild, etc., estao ai a seculos deitando e rolando, no que nos se apresenta como total falta de justica divina. Entao o autor sugere que a existencia de predadores deve ter em si uma utilidade para se efetivar no futuro cujos motivos ultrapassam nossa conhecimento e capacidade de compreensão. Talvez, senao existirem predadores, as presas nunca seriam motivadas a deixarem a acomodação como presas e nunca evoluiriam, ate serem exterminadas quando exterminassem toda a vegetação. Talvez…

Ou talvez, simplesmente este não passa de mais um mero ciclo cosmológico da dualidade universal, em que duas forças opostas inicialmente se conflitam, depois se fundem, se transcendem numa unica nova forma e assim aquele nível do dualismo desaparece. Para nos humanos, o tempo da permanência de uma das forças na dominação pode parecer demasiado longo, mas como ele e’ um processo cosmológico onde o tempo e’ contado em milhoes ou bilhoes de anos, o processo está corretamente dentro de seu tempo.

Na Teoria da Matrix/DNA aparece clara a explicação da força que se impos ao reptil para aquele sacrificio e transformacao. Quanto ao longo tempo dos predadores, os modelos da Matrix/DNA sugerem que a explicação vem de um cálculo. Pegue-se um corpo humano, defina-se a duração de sua longevidade, por exemplo, 80 anos. Em seguida separe estes 80 anos em sete frações nao iguais, cada uma correspondendo ao tempo de duração de cada forma do corpo humano em sua vida. A faixa de tempo que leva de uma forma para mudar em outra – por exemplo, da forma de criança para adolescente, ou da puberdade `a forma de adulto, será mais ou menos um sétimo ou 11 por cento dos 80 anos. Agora pegue-se o total de anos do ciclo vital dos universos e dividamo-lo pelas mesmas sete partes. O resultado será o tempo em que aqui existirao predadores e presas biologicas. Como não se sabe quantos anos ainda viverá o universo que ja conta com 13,8 bilhões de anos e nao se sabe localizar o predador biológico na formula da Matrix, não podemos fazer este cálculo. Apenas ficamos sabendo que e’ muito tempo para os predadores dominarem.

( quando tiver tempo devo retornar a esta monografia e traduzi-la, tem muitas informacoes e insights )

Cientistas religiosos e ateus, ambos projetam experimentos baseados em suas ideologias. Quem esta’ certo?

terça-feira, janeiro 16th, 2018

xxxx

Visto no artigo:

EVOLUTION IS SLOWER THAN IT LOOKS AND FASTER THAN YOU THINK

https://www.wired.com/2017/03/evolution-slower-looks-faster-think/

Seção dos comentários:

-” Creationist scientist is an oxymoron. Unlike true scientists, a “Creation Scientist” starts with the answer, which is “God did it”, and proceeds to design “experiments” to validate that answer.”

-” A creation scientists is simply one who believes in the literal account of Genesis.
I hope you don’t call your self an evolutionary scientist! Because in your reasoning, that would mean starting with the answer, which is “random chance and time did it”, and proceeding to design “experiments” to validate that answer.”

Raios, a meu ver os dois estão certos. Cientistas misticos que acreditam literalmente na narrativa de Gênesis  – sem base racional – numa resposta definitiva para explicar os mistérios do mundo, ” Deus fez isto”, e partindo desta premissa na mente, projetam experimentos nesta unica linha de logica, esperando provar sua fé. Por outro lado, também ainda não se pode provar que evolução seja o processo básico da natureza universal. Cientistas que acreditam literalmente nesta narrativa – sem prova cientifica – partem desta crença para projetar novos experimentos, esperando encontrar a prova.

Como resolver isto? Sendo imparcial?

Acho que racionalmente, quando temos um fenômeno natural sem explicação ( como a origem das especies e sistemas naturais), devemos procurar alguma outra situação da natureza que seja a imagem e semelhança do fenômeno, e que saibamos a explicação. Então, neste caso, não conheço nenhuma outra situação na Natureza onde múltiplas variações de um fenômeno tenha sido criado por magica por uma entidade sobrenatural. E conheço um fenômeno em outra situação da natureza onde vejo um processo a imagem e semelhança da evolução: embriogênese de um corpo humano. Vejo ali ocorrendo transformações de formas, sendo que cada ultima forma ‘e mais complexa que as anteriores, e isto, para mim, define “evolução”. Por isso, mesmo sabendo que minha evidencia não prova que exista universal evolução, vou seguir a bandeira dos cientistas evolucionistas. Não tenho a menor base racional para seguir a outra bandeira.

Dois embrioes em gestacao conversando – por Laurie Seymour

segunda-feira, dezembro 18th, 2017

xxxx

Consciousness: Two Babies Talking in the Womb By Laurie Seymour

The Parable

In a mother’s womb were two babies.  The first baby asked the other:  “Do you believe in life after delivery?” The second baby replied, “Why, of course. There has to be something after delivery.  Maybe we are here to prepare ourselves for what we will be later.” “Nonsense,” said the first. “There is no life after delivery.  What would that life be?” “I don’t know, but there will be more light than here.  Maybe we will walk with our legs and eat from our mouths.” The doubting baby laughed. “This is absurd!  Walking is impossible.  And eat with our mouths?  Ridiculous.  The umbilical cord supplies nutrition.  Life after delivery is to be excluded.  The umbilical cord is too short.” The second baby held his ground. “I think there is something and maybe it’s different than it is here.”

The first baby replied, “No one has ever come back from there.  Delivery is the end of life, and in the after-delivery it is nothing but darkness and anxiety and it takes us nowhere.” “Well, I don’t know,” said the twin, “but certainly we will see mother and she will take care of us.” “Mother?” The first baby guffawed. “You believe in mother?  Where is she now?”  The second baby calmly and patiently tried to explain. “She is all around us.  It is in her that we live. Without her there would not be this world.” “Ha. I don’t see her, so it’s only logical that she doesn’t exist.”   To which the other replied, “Sometimes when you’re in silence you can hear her, you can perceive her.  I believe there is a reality after delivery and we are here to prepare ourselves for that reality when it comes….”

Teoria da Abiogenese Descrita como Desinformada por Um Químico Famoso em Síntese Quimica

quinta-feira, setembro 28th, 2017

xxxx

Texto original em inglês para ser usado em comentários com defensores da teoria:

Professor and Chemical Synthesis scientist, James Tour:

” We have no idea how the molecules that composes living systems could have been devised such that they would work in concert to fulfill biological’s functions. We have no idea how the basic set of molecules, carbohydrates, nucleic acids, lipids and proteins, were made and how they could have coupled in proper sequences, and then transformed into the ordered assemblies until there was the construction of a complex biological system, and eventually to that first cell. Nobody has any idea on how this was done when using our commonly understood mechanisms of chemical science. Those that say that they understand are generally wholly uninformed regarding chemical synthesis.”

Traducao:

Professor e cientista em Química Sintética, James Tour:

” Nos não temos ideia de como as moléculas que compõem sistemas vivos teriam previsto de tal maneira que elas iriam trabalhar em concerto para executar funções biológicas.  Nos não temos ideia como o conjunto básico de moléculas – carboidratos, ácidos nucleicos, lipídios e proteínas, foram feitos, e como elas poderiam ter se conectado nas apropriadas sequencias, e então se transformadas em montagens ordenadas ate que haveria a construção de um sistema biológico complexo, e eventualmente, chegar `a primeira célula. Ninguém tem nenhuma ideia sobre como isto foi feito quando usamos nossos comuns e entendidos mecanismos da Ciência Química. Aqueles que dizem que eles entendem são geralmente totalmente desinformados a respeito de síntese química.”

Matrix/DNA: ” Isto acontece ainda porque a humanidade não conhece a formula da Matrix/DNA, não desenvolveu capacidades para percebê-la nos fótons que vagam na atmosfera e superfície sólida terrestre, e não podem identificar e coordenar a exata sequencia destes fótons dentro dos elétrons que estão dentro dos átomos que estão dentro destas moléculas.

Como cada separado grupo de operários dentro de uma fabrica fazendo separadas e especificas pecas sabem que suas peças serão unidas a outras peças sendo feitas em outros lugares por outros grupos sabem que estarão fabricando no final um carro? Como vão modelar sua peça para que ela se encaixe perfeitamente no seu lugar entre as outras peças que eles podem nem fazer ideia que estão sendo feitas? Resposta: não precisam saber, eles não fazem as peças criadas por eles e dirigidos por eles mesmos, são meros autômatos obedecendo um comando que vem do alem de suas secções na fabrica. Assim aconteceu na montagem das primeiras moléculas como as proteínas, o RNA, etc. , e depois na montagem da primeira célula viva. Poderiam alegar que não foi necessária nenhuma coordenação ou operação dirigida para um objetivo, que simplesmente as moléculas possuiriam forças que se tornam tendencias e em milhões de repetições destas tendencias no meio dos mais variados ingredientes por acaso se lhes agregaram novos ingredientes que resultou em melhor operacionalidade da molécula e com isso foi selecionada naturalmente. Soma-se milhões ou bilhões destes progressos enquanto o conjunto vai se tornando cada vez mais complexo e no final se tem uma célula viva. Eu não tenho a capacidade para provar ou desaprovar esta hipótese, mas ela se torna eleita como correta quando penso que também no caso dos carros, a principio o homem usou as rodas que havia na Natureza, depois fez a carroça, depois atrelou o cavalo, depois imitou o corpo do cavalo de maneira mecânica e aperfeiçoou a carroça até chegar ao carro moderno, sendo que antes da roda ninguém tinha na mente o plano de fazer carros e nada invisível comandou os humanos nesta bem sucedida operação. E porque não teria ocorrido o mesmo com os elementos da Natureza irracional por eles mesmos? Temos um forte e convincente parâmetro de base para esta hipótese, um parâmetro que é um provado fato natural: a historia da construção dos carros por humanos. Mas… também temos um outro forte e convincente parâmetro para outra hipótese que a mim me parece ainda mais convincente. Nenhum ingrediente isolado dentro de um ovulo recém-fecundado inicia por si só a operar com um objetivo final em vista, porem no final eles terminam produzindo um sistema vivo muito complexo. E neste caso sabemos que existe um comando invisível dirigindo a operação, o qual veio de uma fonte externa ao ovulo, que é a especie humana. Isto existe comprovada num processo que denominamos “genética”. Ora, sendo a genética um resultado puramente natural, produzido pelo mero movimento da Natureza, porque iriamos racionalmente eliminar a hipótese de que aquelas operações das primeiras moléculas teriam sido dirigidas por um processo genético já existente na Natureza, em escala de tempo e espaço maiores, o que poderíamos chamar de “macro-genética”? A meu ver, racionalmente não podemos eliminar esta hipótese e não conheço nenhum fato comprovado que desaconselhe esta hipótese. Estamos com o problema então de ter duas hipóteses com dois parâmetros corretos e comprovados ambos candidatos com 50% de chance cada um de se tornar a verdade do que de fato ocorreu naquelas eras longínquas e com aqueles punhados de átomos iniciais. Dividem-se os humanos em dois grupos em relacao a preferencia intuitiva sobre as duas hipóteses. Desde que a verdade interessa igualmente aos dois grupos, e ambos racionalmente sabem da força do grupo concorrente, não deveria haver confrontos e competições, mas sim, e ate mesmo ajudas mutuas de um grupo para o andamento do outro grupo. No meu caso particular eu tenho preferencia intuitiva por uma das hipóteses, mas estou de mãos oferecidas para ajudar o outro grupo no que for possível, pois sei que eles podem estar no caminho certo e eu no errado.

A minha preferencia pela hipótese da macro-genética se deve ao fato que eu investi alguns anos iniciais na investigação da outra hipótese quando ninguém sequer conhecia ou havia se despertado pela hipótese da macro-genética, e nessa investigação por casualidade na selva amazônica encontrei fortes indícios de que a teoria da abiogêneses por acaso tinha algo de muito errado, pois ela ignorava os padrões naturais repetitivos que eu ia descobrindo dia a dia na selva. Ora se existe repetição de algo isto é o comum, é a lei, e não acaso. O acaso só pode ocorrer uma vez numa historia de um Universo, senão não é acaso. Ter-se -ia que observar outro universo em que por acaso as condições gerais que produziram o aventado acaso aqui também produziu o aventado acaso acola’. Se a teoria havia ignorado os padrões era minha obrigação inseri-los, pois continuar omitindo-os seria desonestidade, já que a Natureza esta mostrando-os e portanto avisando que eles devem terem atuado também nos tempos remotos. Ao inseri-los, um novo surpreendente mecanismo do mundo começou a se insinuar, criou corpo solido e racional, e assim nasceu em mim a hipótese da macro-genética, que depois trouxe a bombordo a novidade da hipótese da macro-evolução universal. Desta forma, o sistema natural maior em que esta’ inserido este planeta que funcionou como uma especie de ovulo incubador da vida biológica se insinuou possuidor de um comando de instruções externo que teria se inserido nos átomos terrestres e dirigidos `as conexões iniciais para formarem as moléculas, e com estas a primeira célula viva, a qual já estava por ele prevista, apesar dos erros das mutações que ocorreram devido a rudeza do ambiente terrestre. Apenas por estas experiencias pessoais eu me inclino a apostar na hipótese macro-genética, a qual continuarei a testar enquanto não aprova-la ou desaprova-la ou até o dia da minha morte, se o grupo que vem pelo outro lado e pelo qual igualmente estou torcendo não chegar primeiro `a solução pelo seu método.”   

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zQXgJ-dXM4

About Professor James Tour: http://www.jmtour.com/
(Video nao permite comentarios)
xxxx
A proposito, vindo de outra fonte, o seguinte dialogo esta na mesma linha de pensamento:

Kennith Young –

How could a Primordial soup baby survive the harsh environment…?

Mike Klass – 

It couldn’t. In fact studies done clearly show molecules are broken up at a far faster rate than they are formed (unless the so called scientists place a condensing trap in their experiment). When they do form it’s tiny bits of protiens that are quickly blasted apart by the water and heat and could never become long enough to actually do anything. Evolutionists tell us the very simplest self replicating life form would need about four hundred genes along with all the coding molecular machines to read, translate and build the thousands of other molecular machines that work a enzyems, filters, motor protiens, scaffolding, etc. etc. etc.. Then there’s DNA that are the codes for all these machines and it’s all prpelled by ATP, an energy molecule that’s produced by a very tiny revolving motor that runs on protons (at 100% effeciency) instead of electrons like human motors, It spins at 10,000 RPM. The DNA holds the coding for the 30-40 protiens that assemble into this machine so one machine marks where the translators need to star splitting the DNA followed by others that assemble the protiens, transfer them to another area where they are folded then taken elsewhere to be assembled into machine. Hmmm, huge chicken and egg problem.
xxxx