futureandcosmos.blogspot.com
Open in
urlscan Pro
2a00:1450:4001:82f::2001
Public Scan
Submitted URL: http://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/
Effective URL: https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/
Submission: On November 04 via api from US — Scanned from DE
Effective URL: https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/
Submission: On November 04 via api from US — Scanned from DE
Form analysis
2 forms found in the DOMhttps://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/search
<form action="https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/search" class="gsc-search-box" target="_top">
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="gsc-search-box">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="gsc-input">
<input autocomplete="off" class="gsc-input" name="q" size="10" title="search" type="text" value="">
</td>
<td class="gsc-search-button">
<input class="gsc-search-button" title="search" type="submit" value="Search">
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</form>
POST //translate.googleapis.com/translate_voting?client=te
<form id="goog-gt-votingForm" action="//translate.googleapis.com/translate_voting?client=te" method="post" target="votingFrame" class="VIpgJd-yAWNEb-hvhgNd-aXYTce"><input type="text" name="sl" id="goog-gt-votingInputSrcLang"><input type="text"
name="tl" id="goog-gt-votingInputTrgLang"><input type="text" name="query" id="goog-gt-votingInputSrcText"><input type="text" name="gtrans" id="goog-gt-votingInputTrgText"><input type="text" name="vote" id="goog-gt-votingInputVote"></form>
Text Content
HEADER 1 OUR FUTURE, OUR UNIVERSE, AND OTHER WEIGHTY TOPICS THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2023 BIOLOGY ORIGIN CLAIMANTS IGNORE FUNCTIONAL THRESHOLDS AND INTERDEPENDENT COMPONENTS Charles Darwin's famous book The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life can be considered a book about biology, but it can also be considered a book about engineering. This is because the book claimed to explain how random natural events involving blind chance produced some of the world's most astonishing works of engineering: the very well-engineered structures of organisms such as lions, whales, eagles and humans. Darwin knew a lot about biology, but he didn't know a thing about engineering, just as he knew very little about probability mathematics. We can use the term "no-nothing" (preceded by a subject name) to refer to people who know basically nothing about a topic. So, for example, we can call a person who knows nothing about quantum mechanics a "quantum mechanics no-nothing." And you can call me a skiing no-nothing, because I know basically nothing about how to ski. Darwin was an engineering know-nothing. His works show no understanding of the most basic ideas or principles of engineering. But that didn't stop him from making many mountain-sized claims about feats of accidental engineering that he believed had occurred. The devotees of Darwin frequently speak like engineering know-nothings, like people who don't understand the most elementary principles of engineering. Since Darwinism can be considered an engineering theory (the theory that millions of great feats of biological engineering occurred by accidental processes), and since Darwinists tell us to make Darwinism the center of our world views, we now have an extremely absurd situation in which a group of people who are engineering know-nothings are asking us to base our worldviews on their opinions about engineering. Let us take a close look at one of the most elementary ideas of engineering, an idea that seems to be very poorly understood by Darwinism devotees. The idea I refer to is the idea of a functional threshold. A functional threshold can be defined as the minimum number of parts that must be arranged in the right way for something to have some particular function. Until such a threshold is met, no such function can occur. I can kind of pave the way for the idea of a functional threshold by considering physical thresholds in nature. In nature we see very often that some particular effect will not at all occur unless some level is reached. For example, consider the case of making a little spear out of ice. You can only get this functionality once the temperature drops to the freezing point of water. When temperature drops to 32F, you can start to get ice spears or icicles, perhaps large ones. But you don't get ice spears when the temperature is above 32 F. It is not at all true that you can get little tiny ice spears forming when the temperature is 33F or 34F. It's the same thing for many types of chemical reactions. Once you have the minimum materials and temperature for the reaction, it can start to occur. If you have less than that temperature or less than the required materials, the reaction will not at all occur. Just as there are such thresholds in nature, there are countless thresholds in the world of engineering. A functional threshold is a certain number of parts that must exist and be arranged in a particular way for some function to occur. If the threshold is not met, no such function occurs. I can give some simple examples of functional thresholds. Consider the case of a bridge built across a wide river. In this case there is a very big functional threshold that must be met in order for you to have the function of motor vehicle river-crossing. Many parts must be arranged in the right way before the function can occur. Building 50% of a bridge that leads halfway across the river does not result in something 50% useful that transports half as many drivers across rivers. Building 50% of a bridge that leads halfway across the river results in a suicide machine suitable only for leading drivers to their deaths at the bottom of the river. It's the same thing for building 70% or 80% or 90% of a river bridge: that merely gives you suicide machines that will dump drivers at the bottom of rivers. But if you have a bridge that goes across an entire wide river, the function of motor vehicle river-crossing is met. Consider another example of a functional threshold: the threshold that must be met for ping-pong balls to be useful as life preservers that will allow non-swimming people to stay in water over their heads without drowning. The table below explains how ping-pong balls are useless for preventing drowning until a particular threshold is met. Parts list Benefit related to drowning prevention 1 ping pong ball Useless for helping non-swimmers stay afloat 2 ping-pong balls Useless for helping non-swimmers stay afloat 5 ping-pong balls Useless for helping non-swimmers stay afloat 10 ping-pong balls Useless for helping non-swimmers stay afloat 20 ping-pong balls Useless for helping non-swimmers stay afloat 80 ping-bong balls inside a tied plastic bag holding them all Useful for helping non-swimmers stay afloat When you have a level of parts and organization about like that of the last row, then suddenly a functional threshold is met, and the parts are for the first time useful for a particular function. With the origin of flight, we have a classic case of a functional threshold, a minimum level of parts and organization of such parts that must be achieved before something is useful. Consider an airplane. There is a certain number of parts that must exist and be arranged in a suitable manner for the airplane to reach the requirements threshold of being able to take off and land without killing people. Meeting only 60% or 70% or 80% of such a requirements threshold results in an aircraft that is useless but harmless (incapable of lifting off), or worse than useless (being something so unsafe it will tend to kill people riding in it). Below is a table with some rough estimates regarding levels of completion in meeting a requirements threshold for a flying animal: Level of completion Effect 10% of flying requirements threshold Useless 30% of flying requirements threshold Useless 50% of flying requirements threshold Useless 70% of flying requirements threshold Worse than useless. An animal trying to fly will tend to fall and kill itself, or have useless wings that will make it easier for predators to bite it. 90% of flying requirements threshold Worse than useless. An animal trying to fly will tend to fall and kill itself, or have useless wings that will make it easier for predators to bite it. 100% of flying requirements threshold Useful. Animal can fly, and escape predators. The idea of a functional threshold is implicit in a principle I call the principle of preliminary implementations, which is illustrated below: The diagram shows a case of a functional threshold. In order to get something functioning as a chair, a certain number of parts must exist and be arranged in the right way. If we define the function of a chair as a function of allowing you to rest at least an arm's length above the ground, then we can say that the functional threshold is not met if you have only 10% or 20% or 40% of the chair. Now, after explaining this simple concept of a functional threshold, you may be thinking to yourself, "Why of course Darwinism advocates understand such a concept -- it's so simple." But in the literature of Darwinism we frequently read people writing just exactly as if they had no understanding of this crucial idea of a functional threshold. I will give some examples. Example 1: In his scientific paper “Evolution and Probability,” a paper which I debunk here, professor Luca Peliti asks us to accept this principle: " Let us suppose instead that each step made in the good direction provides a small advantage in terms of survival or fecundity to the being that makes it." Here we have a statement that sounds just like its author had zero understanding of the concept of functional thresholds. The author naively asks us to assume that every step in the right direction produces a benefit. Life and reality have never worked that way. For example, you don't get a survival benefit from building yourself 5% of a rifle; and if you move that completion percentage from 5% to 10% there is still no survival benefit. If you finally reach the functional threshold of building a working gun, then you may have some survival benefit. "Every step in the right direction gives a benefit" is a nonsense principle spoken by people who failed to understand the crucial concept of functional thresholds. Example 2: On page 196 of Darwin's The Origin of Species he advances the same nonsensical principle advanced above by Peliti. Just after referring to natural selection, Darwin states, " All spontaneous variations in the right direction will thus be preserved." Apparently Darwin failed to understand the idea of a requirements threshold, and thought that you would get a survival benefit from any variation "in the right direction." So apparently according to Darwin, if some animal gets some random variation that gives only 5% of some new function such as flight or vision or sexual reproduction, that will be preserved because it is "in the right direction." This is the glaring ignorance of an engineering know-nothing. No functional benefit occurs until a functional threshold is met, a certain number of parts and arrangement of parts needed to produce the function. No benefit comes from a mere step "in the right direction." The talk here of things being "in the right direction" is very ironic, since according to Darwinists there never is a "right direction," as evolution is a goal-less, purposeless effect. Example 3: In an article filled with bad reasoning, mathematician Jason Rosenhouse attempts to foist on us a triple-bad analogy for the origin of new types of proteins. He compares the origin of a new type of protein molecule to getting a series of 100 "heads" coins when coin flipping. It's a case of vastly underestimating the improbability. The average protein molecule in a mammal has an amino acid length of not merely 100, but about 400, as discussed below. And instead of there being only 2 possible states in each position of a protein, there are 20 possible states (there being twenty amino acids used by living things). Flipping 100 coins and getting all heads has a likelihood of 1 in 10 to the 30th power, but getting a random arrangement of 400 amino acids to make a functional protein molecule has a likelihood of about 1 in 10 to the 520th power. Rosenhouse tries to suggest that natural selection can easily do something like getting 100 coins that are all heads, on the grounds that it saves the successful fragments on each try, like someone who tosses 100 coins and then saves each "heads" coin, then flipping again only the coins that landed "tails." Based on his use of such an analogy, it seems like Rosenhouse has no understanding of the crucial idea of a functional threshold, and is making the same nonsensical "each step made in the good direction provides a small advantage in terms of survival or fecundity" assumption made by Peliti. The assumption could not be more false. For example, if a protein molecule has a random mutation that adds a new amino acid, and that causes it to go from having 23.2% of what it needs to reach a functional threshold, to having 23.5% of what it needs to reach a functional threshold, that will not produce any benefit in survival or fecundity, so there will be no tendency for natural selection to preserve such a mutation. In the majority of cases, protein molecules have extremely high functional thresholds that must be met before any function is produced, thresholds involving the fine-tuned arrangement of hundreds of amino acid parts. It is not at all true that with 5% of a protein molecule you get 5% of its function, and it is not true that with 10% of a protein molecule you get 10% of the function. Instead, it is generally true that until you have most of the parts of the protein molecule arranged in the right way, the protein molecule cannot perform its function. Part of the reason the functional thresholds of protein molecules are so high is that protein molecules require very special and hard-to-achieve three-dimensional folded shapes to function. Another crucial idea senselessly ignored by Darwinism theorists is the idea of interdependent components. When two components are interdependent, then both must exist for either component to function. In biological organisms, we find interdependent components to the most massive degree. Innumerable times we encounter components that cannot function unless other components exist, with the dependence being mutual or reciprocal. The diagram below shows only the tiniest fraction of some of the interdependent components in the human body. An important fact about hearts and lungs is that they do not operate independently. They require signals from the brain that control the autonomic function required for hearts and lungs to keep working even when you are sleeping. Just as your lungs and hearts require your brain, your brain requires your lungs and heart. Without oxygen-rich blood from the heart (which requires both the lungs and the brain), the cells in the brain would soon die. As shown in the diagram, the number of interdependent components is far greater than just the heart, the brain and the lungs. All three also require arteries and veins, so that the blood can circulate. There is also a dependency on red blood cells needed to carry oxygen, and a hemoglobin molecule (consisting of hundreds of well-arranged amino acids parts) to carry oxygen in the red blood cells. Red blood cells are short-lived, lasting an average of only four months. So red blood cells must be constantly manufactured, which occurs in the marrow of the bones. All of the components are mutually interdependent. In each case we can give reasons why none of them would be useful unless all the other components existed. For example, without hemoglobin and blood cells to carry oxygen around in the body, vital organs such as the brain requiring oxygen would die, and the whole body would die, preventing bone marrow from doing any more work. And without the bone marrow, you would soon run out of run blood cells, causing the death of the organism. I won't bother justifying all of the arrows shown in the diagram below. But in each case where I show one of the double arrows (<----->) it is a case where some particular component could not be independently functional for a year without the component on the other side of the arrow existing. The diagram above shows only the tiniest fraction of the total amount of component interdependence in the human body. To diagram the totality of such component interdependence might require something like a ten-volume series of books of 1000 pages each, each such book showing 1000 such diagrams, many much complicated than the diagram above. The series of very thick volumes might list all of the ways in which the protein molecules of protein complexes are interdependent on each other, with thousands of individual proteins being useless unless there exist other proteins to make up the "team members" of a protein complex requiring many different types of proteins. The student of modern biochemistry will find component interdependence everywhere, in the most mountainous amounts. Such a student will find a million problems reminding us of the old problem of "which came first, the chicken or the egg." Alas, Charles Darwin seemed to pay no attention at all to the gigantically important topic of interdependent components. His work "The Origin of Species" made no use of the word "interdependent" and no use of the word "interdependence." just as it makes no use of the word "threshold." Searching the volume for the word "dependent" we find no sentences indicating that Darwin had any understanding of how individual biological parts are massively dependent on countless other parts in the body, with the dependence being mutual. There are eleven uses of the word "dependent" or "dependence" in "The Origin of Species," and not one of them refers to some body part being dependent on some other body part. The references are mainly just references to one species being dependent on another. "The Origin of Species" also had no uses of the word "rely" or "reliance" referring to component interdependence. Darwin conveniently failed to pay any attention to one of the most central topics that any theorist should have paid the greatest attention to before claiming to have a credible theory of biological origins: the topic of the how gigantically interdependent are the components required to make biological systems. Darwin's fervent followers have been guilty of the same neglect. After you give proper consideration to the centrally important topic of component interdependence, the major explanation attempts of Darwinists very quickly will start sounding like old wives' tales of academia. In the vast majority of cases, major improvements in biological organisms can never occur because of some mere variation in a single component. In general, substantial improvements in biological organisms require the introduction of many new parts that are all working together to achieve the same effect, with very many such parts being individually useless unless most of the other new parts of the system exist and are fine-tuned to achieve the same functional end. Under such conditions, the chance of getting major innovations by an accumulation of random mutations is essentially zero. A few days ago there appeared a scientific paper stating this: "An analysis of 8,653 proteins based on single mutations (Xavier et al., 2021) shows the following results: ~68% are destabilizing, ~24% are stabilizing, and ~8,0% are neutral mutations...while a similar analysis from the observed free-energy distribution from 328,691 out of 341,860 mutations (Tsuboyama et al., 2023)...indicates that ~71% are destabilizing, ~16% are stabilizing, and ~13% are neutral mutations, respectively." It has been estimated that there are seven million animal species, and the total number of protein types in the animal kingdom can be roughly estimated as about 10 billion. Using the term "the protein universe" to mean the total set of all protein types that exist on Earth, the paper here states, "The size of the protein universe is reduced from ≈10400 to ≈1010 different sequences if only those proteins currently in the biosphere are considered " The 10 billion number is a "lowball" estimate. The source here estimates the number as being between ten billion and ten trillion, saying this: "For example, assuming there is 107–108 species on Earth and the genome of each species consists of 103–105 genes, there are 1010–1013 unique protein sequences, a speck compared to the vast sequence space, but still several orders of magnitude more than contained in today's databases." Being very conservative, let's go with the lowest estimate of 10 billion types of protein molecules. Each one of those 10 billions types of proteins is a separate complex invention. According to this page, the average number of amino acids in a human protein is 480. The number of amino acids in a human protein varies from about 50 to more than 1000. The scientific paper here refers to "some 50,000 enzymes (of average length of 380 amino acids)." On the page here, we read that the median number of amino acids in a human protein is 375, according to a scientific paper. Here is a comparison between the amount of well-arranged letter parts in the New York Public Library system, and the amount of well-arranged amino acid parts in the animal kingdom (not counting duplicates): Number of volumes in a very large library building: About 100,000. Number of different protein types in the animal kingdom: roughly 10 billion (and possibly as high as 10 trillion). Average number of well-arranged letters (characters) in a book: about 200,000 Average number of well-arranged amino acid parts in a protein molecule of an animal: about 400 Total number of well-arranged letters (characters) in all the books in a very large library building: about 20 billion (i.e. 20,000,000,000). Total number of well-arranged amino acids in the animal kingdom (not counting duplicates): about 4 trillion (i.e. 4,000,000,000,000), and possibly up to 1000 times more (up to 4 quadrillion). Because of the very high functional thresholds of most types of protein molecules (requiring a special arrangement of hundreds of amino acids before any function occurs), and because of the very high sensitivity of proteins to being destabilized by tiny random mutations, scientists lack any credible explanation for the natural origin of new types of protein molecules, which cannot be credibly explained by any "each little step in the right direction is preserved" idea. Believing that most of 10 billion novel types of protein molecules in the animal kingdom arose by unguided processes is roughly as illogical as believing that most of the books in a very large public library building arose by accidental ink splashes. Posted by Mark Mahin at 7:22 AM No comments: Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest Labels: component interdependence, Darwinism, evolution SUNDAY, OCTOBER 29, 2023 THE SENSELESS EXCLUSION OF TELEOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS FROM ASTROBIOLOGY Currently what can be called a science with no discovered subject matter, astrobiology is the study of life that originated beyond planet Earth. Currently mainstream astrobiology is getting nowhere. An example of the lack of progress is a recent paper entitled "A Search for Technosignatures Around 11,680 Stars with the Green Bank Telescope at 1.15-1.73 GHz." 11,680 carefully selected stars were searched for whether scientists could find any evidence of technical civilizations nearby them. No such evidence was found. A glaring problem with astrobiology is its exclusion of what we may call teleological considerations. Philosophically teleology has been defined as the doctrine of design and purpose in the material world. An extremely relevant consideration for astrobiologists is: is there some causal agency that may affect the chance of life appearing on other planets? This has the greatest effect on the odds of extraterrestrial life. If there is no causal agency interested in life appearing on other planets, the chance of such life appearing may be negligible. If there is such a causal agency interested in life appearing on other planets, the chance of such life appearing may be very high. Senselessly, astrobiologists publicly claim to pay no attention to this consideration, although (for reasons I will explain) they may be paying much attention to such a question. Below are some comments on this topic. Comment #1: Although modified by the corollary of Comment #2 below, the chance of extraterrestrial life having arisen, by virtue of only unguided chance processes, close enough to Earth to be discovered within a century, is negligible. Even the simplest one-celled life involves an incredibly high state of organization. There is no reason to think that such a state of organization would appear by chance even given billions of planets in our galaxy and billions of years. In 2018 a paper by 21 scientists stated it this way: "The transformation of an ensemble of appropriately chosen biological monomers (e.g. amino acids, nucleotides) into a primitive living cell capable of further evolution appears to require overcoming an information hurdle of superastronomical proportions (Appendix A), an event that could not have happened within the time frame of the Earth except, we believe, as a miracle (Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, 1981, 1982, 2000). All laboratory experiments attempting to simulate such an event have so far led to dismal failure (Deamer, 2011; Walker and Wickramasinghe, 2015)." Three scientists stated it this way: "The ongoing insistence on defending scientific orthodoxies on these matters, even against a formidable tide of contrary evidence, has turned out to be no less repressive than the discarded superstitions in earlier times. For instance, although all attempts to demonstrate spontaneous generation in the laboratory have led to failure for over half a century, strident assertions of its necessary operation against the most incredible odds continue to dominate the literature." There is no gradual "every little step rewarded" Darwinian way to reach the origin of life, as nothing like Darwinian natural selection can occur until life already exists. If you do not include any consideration of teleology, and regard life as always originating on a planet by chance events, you should conclude that life in the universe is so rare that we have basically no chance of discovering it in the next hundred years. Comment #2: If there is some purposeful cosmic agency interested in producing intelligent life in the universe, intelligent life may be abundant in our galaxy, despite the overwhelming odds against its accidental appearance. Here we may very broadly define "purposeful cosmic agency" as some very powerful intelligence that may or may not be divine or supernatural. An extremely important point senselessly ignored by astrobiologists is that if there is some purposeful cosmic agency interested in producing life in the universe, then intelligent life may be very abundant in our galaxy, no matter how prohibitive are the odds against its accidental appearance. It makes no sense for astrobiologists to ignore such a point, since it helps provide a justification for their efforts, which might be a complete waste of time if no such agency exists. What goes on is that astrobiologists endlessly repeat a very bad argument for extraterrestrial life. They endlessly repeat the claim that because there are very many planets, there must be much extraterrestrial life. This is the utterly fallacious "many tries equals many successes" argument I have been reading throughout my life. No, many tries do not equal many successes. If something is sufficiently improbable, it will never happen, no matter how many tries or chances there are for it to occur. And it is very, very easy for something to be too hard to ever occur by chance. That can happen whenever you need a special arrangement of only fifty or more components. If every person in the world spends every leisure hour of their lives throwing a deck of cards into the air, never once will there occur an event in which all 52 cards form into a house of cards. It simply isn't true that many tries equals many successes, and whenever you need a special arrangement of many parts, it is not even true that many tries (or even trillions of tries) will cause a single success. Our astrobiologists would be more persuasive if they were to reason like this: "Our universe suddenly began for no reason we understand, and the fundamental constants of the universe seem very fine-tuned to allow for life to exist. So we should suspect that there's some great power and mind behind the universe. And if such an agency exists, would it not want intelligent life to exist throughout its creation?" Instead of using this powerful argument, our astrobiologists keep endlessly repeating the utterly fallacious "many tries equals many successes" argument which any good student of biological complexity should realize is fallacious. If something is sufficiently unlikely to occur by chance, and requires a very special arrangement of very many parts, such a thing will never occur by chance even if there are trillions or quadrillions or quintillions of tries, or even if there are 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 tries. And even the simplest one-celled life requires a very special arrangement of many thousands of amino acids, as hard to achieve by chance as an ink splash forming a long well-written essay. Comment #3: If there is some purposeful cosmic agency interested in producing intelligent life in the universe, that would presumably greatly increase the chance of finding intelligent life on other planets, but would probably not increase the chance of finding primitive life on places with conditions for life much worse than on Earth. If there is some purposeful cosmic agency interested in producing intelligent life in the universe, there might be millions or billions of planets in the universe on which civilized life exists; but the existence of such an agency would not seem to very substantially increase the chance of finding microscopic life on very inhospitable places such as Mars. An interest in producing minds seems more plausible than some interest in producing mere microbes on some planet that can only support microbes. Comment #4: If there is some purposeful cosmic agency interested in producing intelligent life in the universe, such an agency might cause all intelligent life in the galaxy to arise at roughly the same time. I have heard countless times astrobiologists make unwarranted claims about the probable ages of extraterrestrial civilizations. Their reasoning goes something like this: (1) the universe is about 13 billion years old; (2) intelligent life could have arisen on other planets at any time in the past few billions of years; (3) therefore if intelligent life arose on some other planet, it would probably have arisen very many thousands or millions of years ago. One astronomer using such reasoning was Carl Sagan, who began episode 12 of the original Cosmos TV series by stating, "In the vastness of the cosmos there must be other civilizations far older and more advanced than ours." More dogmatically, at about the 1:09 minute mark in the interview here, Sagan claimed to understand the nature of humanity's status in the galaxy. He stated, “If you look at time scales, you realize that our civilization is the most backward civilization in the galaxy that can communicate.” This was just one of very many groundless misstatements made by Sagan, who would often speak incorrectly on important topics. The argument that if extraterrestrial civilizations exist, they must be millions of years older than ours is one predicated on the assumption that life appears accidentally. But the odds are so enormous against the accidental appearance of life anywhere that all notions of the accidental appearance of extraterrestrials lack credibility. Given odds so bad against the accidental appearance of life and equally steep odds against life accidentally evolving into intelligent civilized life, the only plausible possibility involving nearby civilized extraterrestrials is one in which they appeared as a consequence of some purposeful cosmic agency interested in their appearance. But there is no strong reason to assume that such an agency would be following some "random intervals" plan, and it seems just as likely that some plan would be followed of intelligent life appearing throughout the galaxy more or less simultaneously. Therefore we have no basis for concluding that if extraterrestrial civilizations exist, they must be vastly older than we are. Comment #5: The non-observation of "technosignatures" in our galaxy and the non-observation of any sign of extraterrestrials in our galaxy (along with Comment #1 and Comment #4) constitute reasons for doubting that civilizations vastly older than ours exist in our galaxy. A civilization vastly older than ours would be expected to have a big "footprint" in the galaxy. If a single planet produced an intelligent species millions of years ago, and such a species or its ancestors persisted ever since, that might mean the colonization of most of the galaxy. Spending out spacecraft at only one-fifth the velocity of light, and founding many colonies on other planets that might themselves then send out colonizing expeditions, a single planet could colonize half of a galaxy within 10 million years. There are all kinds of astronomical engineering feats that could be done, such as the construction of Dyson Spheres to maximize the capture of energy from a star. But despite all of their efforts, astronomers can find no sign of any other civilization in our galaxy. This failure (combined with Comment #4 and Comment #1) constitute a reason for doubting that civilizations vastly older than ours exist in our galaxy. We should not be assuming that there are probably other planets in our galaxy where there live some civilizations that arose millions of years ago or very many thousands of years ago. Such a thing would seem to be a possibility, but not necessarily a likelihood. Comment #6: Sold as purely scientific undertakings, efforts to discover merely microscopic life on planets or moons with very bad conditions (against enormous odds) seem to be motivated by anti-teleological beliefs, and are attempts at belief system confirmation. We can easily understand why someone would want to engage in some activity such as searching for radio signals from extraterrestrial civilizations, or looking for so-called technosignatures which might be evidence of minds elsewhere in the universe. But a puzzling phenomenon is the persistence of very expensive activity to try to search (against enormous odds) for evidence of merely microscopic life (or traces of past microscopic life) on planets, moons or other bodies offering conditions vastly worse for life than planet Earth. For example, NASA wants to retrieve rock samples and soil samples from Mars, in an incredibly expensive mission it estimates will cost more than 10 billion dollars. Conditions on Mars are so bad it is almost universally admitted that the planet has no life. What the proposed NASA Mars sample mission will be doing is mainly looking for evidence of past life. The chance of the mission finding such a thing is very low, because no one has even found amino acids on Mars. Amino acids are the building blocks of the building blocks of one-celled life. Hoping to find evidence of life on a planet on which no amino acids have been found is like hoping to find books in a house in which searches for paper have failed. Why spend so much money on such a long-shot affair unlikely to find anything of biological interest, something that will probably find no more than traces of long-dead microbes? The project is best understood as an anti-teleological research program. Astrobiologists hope that life could have originated even under the harshest conditions, such as very inhospitable conditions on Mars. Finding such a thing might then allow them to say that no great luck is required for life to originate. That's just the kind of thing you want to say if you believe that all life is an accident of nature. So while astrobiologists claim to give zero consideration to teleology, it seems that thoughts about teleology are very much in their thinking. They want the public to give them more than 10 billion dollars for a mission that they think may be a great blow against the idea that life in the universe has occurred because of purposeful agency. Granting such a funding request (motivated by a desire to help prove one's personal belief system) would seem to be like granting a request for 10 billion dollars of public funds to look for Noah's Ark. Posted by Mark Mahin at 7:40 AM No comments: Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest Labels: extraterrestrial life, SETI, teleology WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 25, 2023 SPOOKIEST YEARS, PART 4: THE YEAR 1852 In my previous posts in this intermittently-appearing "Spookiest Years" series I analyzed and quoted accounts of the paranormal from the years 1848, 1850 and 1851. Now let us look at accounts of the paranormal dating from 1852. In 1852 there appeared the book "An exposition of views respecting the principal facts, causes, and peculiarities involved in spirit manifestations : together with interesting phenomenal statements and communications” by Adin Ballou which can be read here. Adin Ballou (1803-1890) was a Christian clergyman who wrote quote a few books on different topics, including the autobiography that can be read here. It is always desirable to have lots of information about someone who claims observation about the paranormal, as well as his diverse samples of his writings, as such things are useful in judging whether the witness is a credible one. On pages 7-9 the author categorizes various types of event he calls "spirit manifestations," including a variety of mysterious noises such as raps, and also the following: * "The moving of material substances, with like indications of intelligence ; such as tables, sofas, light-stands, chairs, and various other articles ; shaking, tipping, sliding, raising them clear of the floor, placing them in new positions, (all this sometimes in spite of athletic and heavy men doing their utmost to hold them down ;) taking up the passive body of a person, and carrying it from one position to another across the room, through mid air ; opening and shutting doors ; thrumming musical instruments ; undoing well clasped pocket-books, taking out their contents, and then, by request, replacing them as before ; writing with pens, pencils, and other substances both liquid and solid, sometimes on paper, sometimes on common slates, and sometimes on the ceilings of a room, &.c.... " * "Presenting apparitions, in some instances, of a spirit hand and arm, in others, of the whole human form, and in others, of several deceased persons conversing together ; causing distinct touches to be felt by the mortal living, grasping and shaking their hands; and giving many other sensible demonstrations of their existence." * "Through these various manifestations communicating to men in the flesh numberless affectionate and intelligent assurances of an immortal existence, messages of consolation, and annunciations of distant events unknown at the time, but subsequently corroborated ; predictions of forth-coming occurrences subsequently verified, forewarnings against impending danger, medicinal prescriptions of great efficacy, wholesome reproofs, admonitions and counsels, expositions of spiritual, theological, religious, moral and philosophical truths appertaining to the present and future states, and important to human welfare in every sphere of existence, sometimes comprised in a single sentence, and sometimes in an ample book." Most of those who have studied this topic are aware of how such claims eventually appeared in the decades following 1848. But it is remarkable to see a claim in 1852 that such things were already occurring at that date. We then have in the book several pages that are quoted from the work described in my previous post. On page 39 we have a long 1850 statement by a Charles Hammond quoted "from a pamphlet by D. M. Dewey." I have not been able to find the original document. On page 46 Ballou gives some eyewitness testimony, claiming he saw some amazing things: "I have seen tables and lightstands of various size moved about in the most astonishing manner, by what purported to be the same invisible agency, with only the gentle and passive resting of the hands or finger-ends of the Medium on one of their edges. Also, many distinct movings of such objects, by request, without the touch of the Medium at all. I have sat and conversed by the hour together with the authors of these sounds and motions, by means of signals first agreed on ; asking questions and obtaining answers — receiving communications spelled out by the alphabet — discussing propositions sometimes made by them to me, and vice versa — all by a slow process, indeed, but with every possible demonstration of intelligence, though not without incidental misapprehensions and mistakes. I have witnessed the asking of mental questions by inquirers, who received as prompt and correct answers as when the questions were asked audibly to the cognition of the Medium. I have known these invisibles, by request, to write their names with a common plumbago pencil on a clean sheet of paper — half a dozen of them, each in a different hand....I have requested what purported to be the spirit of a friend many years deceased, to go to a particular place, several miles distant from that of the sitting, and to bring me back intelligence respecting the then health and doings of a certain relative well-known to the parties. In three minutes of time the intelligence was obtained, numerous particulars given, some of them rather improbable, but every one exactly confirmed the next day, by personal inquiries made for that purpose...." There follows a great deal of metaphysical speculation by Ballou. Notably on pages 54-55 he denounces slavery as sinful, and also denounces other things such as war and intemperance. He tells us on page 56 that these speculations and moral teachings are what is taught by "ninety-nine one hundredths of the communications of reliable spirits throughout the country," but fails to back up such a claim with specifics. There then follows a very long and rather tedious section of the book in which Ballou answers objections that could be made to the reports and teachings he has given. On page 127 Ballou begins a chapter quoting what critics are saying about reports of spiritual manifestations. He documents the enormous hatred and calumny and character assassination that went on by those desperate to suppress the flourishing spiritual movement he was part of. Finally on page 176 Ballou gives us some more testimony regarding paranormal events. There follows about two dozen pages that are not worth summarizing, because they fail to mention specific witnesses. In the last part of the book we have a long series of questions and answers. The answers purport to be from Ballou's deceased son. Ballou says he got the answers from a medium, but does not tell the exact method by which the medium produced them. He tells us that "the ideas were strongly impressed on her mind, and written out with her hand, by a spiritual intelligence superior and distinct from her own." Since we don't have any very strong reason to believe in a paranormal effect here, I won't bother to summarize the answers given, which easily could have come solely from the mind of the medium herself. Ballou's book dates from 1852. In that year we have the start of another stream of information on this topic: a weekly periodical called the Spiritual Telegraph, one published in New York City. The first edition of that publication (dated May 8, 1852) has an account of an April 4, 1852 meeting in the house of Rufus Elmer in Springfield, Massachusetts. Four named witnesses (including David A. Wells, a professor of chemistry at Harvard) state this: "The table was moved in every possible direction, and with great force, when we could not perceive any cause of motion...In two instances, at least, while the hands of all the members of the circle were placed on the top of the table—and while no visible power was employed to raise the table, or otherwise move it from its position—it was seen to rise clear of the floor, and to float in the atmosphere for several seconds, as if sustained by some denser medium than air...Mr. Wells seated himself on the table, which was rocked to and fro with great violence, and at length it poised itself on two legs, and remained in this position for some thirty seconds, when no other person was in contact with the table....In conclusion, we may observe that D. D. Hume, the medium, frequently urged us to hold his hands and feet. During these occurrences the room was well lighted, the lamp was frequently placed on and under the table, and every possible opportunity was afforded us for the closest inspection, and we submit this one emphatic declaration : we know that we were not imposed op on nor deceived." This is the same Daniel Dunglas Home mentioned in the middle of my post on observations of the paranormal in 1851. Again, Home's name is misspelled as Hume. We seem to have some interesting progress reported. While the 1851 account mentioned a table merely rising up on two legs, this account describes the table as fully levitating above the ground. In the August 21, 1852 edition of the Spiritual Telegraph, we have an even more astounding claim: the claim that Home was observed levitating. We read this (again, Home's name is misspelled): "Suddenly, and without any expectation on the part of the company the medium, Mr. Hume, was taken up in the air! I had hold of his band at the time, and I felt of his feet—they were lifted a foot from the flour! He palpitated from head to foot with the contending emotions of joy and fear which choked his utterance. Again and again he was taken from the floor, and the third time he was carried to the lofty ceiling of the apartment, with which his hands and head came in gentle contact. I felt the distance from the soles of bis boot* to the floor and it was nearly three feet ! Others touched his feet to satisfy themselves." The author of this statement is identified merely as F--------. If there was no further confirmation of this claim, we might have to dismiss it as some reckless lie. But, in fact, in the coming years very many named witnesses would claim that they saw the same wonder of Daniel Dunglas Home levitating (as you can see by reading the link here and future installments of this series). An 1853 book reiterates the claim above, telling us that it occurred on the 8th of August, 1852, in the home of Ward Cheney of Manchester, Connecticut, and that the person making the report above was one of the editors of the Hartford Times. The same book tells us that levitations were also seen in connection with the medium Henry C. Gordon. We read this: "Mr. Gordon has several times been taken up in a similar manner. This has twice occurred in this city — in both cases at the residence of our distinguished friend, Dr. John F. Gray, in Lafayette-place. In both instances the phenomenon transpired in presence of a number of intelligent and scientific observers. In one case Gordon was carried not less than sixty feet through different apartments, and was supported at irregular distances of from four to eight feet from the floor, while performing this aerial journey." 1852 also saw the publication of the book "The Spiritual Teacher" by R. P. Ambler (Russell Perkins Ambler). The book's full title claims that it was "written by spirits of the Sixth Circle." At the book's beginning we have a testimony by five witnesses that the book was produced with extraordinary speed, rather as if some supernatural or paranormal power was controlling or inspiring the person (Ambler) who wrote down the text. The testimony states this: "By reference to the facts in the case, it is found that this book has been written with vast and almost incredible rapidity. On this point the undersigned would state that the whole book, which comprises a series of twelve lectures, extending over two hundred and six pages of foolscap paper, was written within four days this process having been commenced on the morning of Wednesday, March 10th, 1852, and completed on the following Saturday evening, March 13th. The average time per day employed in writing was ten hours and fifty-five minutes, and the maximum number of pages produced on a single day was fifty-five, the shortest time occupied in writing a single page being eight minutes. With relation to the manner in which this book was written, the undersigned would state that the hand and arm of the medium were suspended during the whole time of writing in such a manner as not to rest on the desk or manuscript and that, upheld in this way, the pen glided rapidly over, the paper with an even and continuous movement without any apparent thought or care on the part of the writer, and without any perceptible pause at the commencement of sentences or paragraphs ... JAMES WILSON, JOHN D. LORD, MRS. G, W. HARRISON, MISS. DELPHINA P. DUBNAR, MRS. R. P. AMBLER. Springfield, March 20, 1852." The book is a very sophisticated work from a philosophical and literary standpoint. A claim often made by skeptics about the wonders of the nineteenth century and claimed communications from the Great Beyond (or claimed paranormal communications) is something like this: "Nothing ever arises from such supposed communication except low-quality material." Such a generalization simply isn't true. "The Spiritual Teacher" is actually a work of very high literary and philosophical sophistication, the type of work we might expect from a philosophy professor with very good writing skills. Similarly, the literary works of Patience Worth (arising from an ouija board) are works of superb quality, with the best poems of Patience Worth equaling in quality the best poems of Shelley and Keats. In the 1854 book "The Spiritual Telegraph" compiled by S. B. Brittan from writings in the periodical "The Spiritual Telegraph," we have this account of events in the year 1852 (the reference to being magnetized refers to falling into a trance): "Mrs. Harriet Porter was magnetized by Spirits, at Bridgeport, Conn., on the 27th day of July, 1852 — the day before the steamer Henry Clay was destroyed — when the following singular manifestation occurred. The medium being entranced, was suddenly impelled to leave the table and go to a closet, where she took a newspaper from among a number that were lying on a shelf. As she came out of the closet the index finger of her right hand commenced moving over the paper with the greatest rapidity. After a moment the finger was suddenly fastened to the paper, and on examination it was found to be resting on the name Henry Clay. It was thereupon conjectured that the circumstance was either purely accidental or else that some Spirit, for some purpose as yet unexplained, desired to refer to the great statesman. But this finger moved again, rapidly as before, and gain it was as suddenly arrested. On lifting the medium's finger from the paper, it was found that the word steamboat was directly under it. Once more the finger moved spasmodically over the printed sheet, and when at length it stopped abruptly, it was discovered that it pointed to the word burnt. It will be perceived that this is the sum of the communication from the invisible powers : ' Henry Clay, STEAMBOAT, BURNT.' Such an announcement was not, of course, anticipated by any one. The eyes of the medium were closed during this performance, and she certainly could not have known, by any mode of external observation, what the words were, much less what the whole really implied. No one in the circle had any knowledge of the existence of such a steamer. One after another the members of the circle departed, and we know not that any special importance was attached to what had occurred. The next day, at about three o'clock, p.m., Mrs. Porter was again and unexpectedly entranced in presence of several persons, and proceeded to describe the terrible catastrophe which was then, as she affirmed, being enacted before her. She declared that a steamboat was burning on the Hudson River, that the name, Henry Clay, was distinctly visible, and then proceeded to describe the village of Yonkers. The medium appeared to be greatly terrified by the scene, and expressed the deepest anguish on account of the loss of so many lives. It is needless to add that the public journals on the following morning contained the details of the mournful tragedy, so mysteriously foreshadowed and so graphically portrayed at the very hour of the fatal occurrence." The steamboat Henry Clay caught on fire on July 28, 1852, with nearly 50 of its 500 passengers dying. If true, this account would be a very powerful case of evidence of precognition. The only shortcoming of this account is that it was written more than a year after the alleged events occurred. An account closer to July, 1852 would be better evidence. In another post I will discuss a rather similar account that is like this, but meets higher standards of evidence. In an 1853 book we have this account by S. B. Brittan of 1852 events (one in which the name Home is misspelled as Hume): "On the evening of April 15th, 1852, I was at the house of Rufus Elmer, Esq., in Springfield, Mass., when David A. Wells, Professor of Electricity and Chemistry at Cambridge, was present with other intelligent gentlemen for the purpose of witnessing the mysterious phenomena. Remarkable manifestations occurred on that occasion through Daniel D. Hume. Prof. Wells and several other gentlemen, all of whom had been previously skeptical, made a written statement of what transpired in their presence, which was subsequently published in the Eastern papers. I have only space for the following extract : > ' While no visible power was employed to raise the table, or otherwise move it > from its position — it was seen to rise clear of the floor, and to float in > the atmosphere for several seconds as if sustained by some denser medium than > air. Mr. Wells seated himself on the table, which was rocked to and fro with > great violence, and at length it poised itself on two legs, and remained in > this position for some thirty seconds, when no other person was in contact > with the table.' > > ' Occasionally we were made conscious of the occurrence of a powerful shock > which produced a vibratory movement of the floor of the apartment. It seemed > like the motion occasioned by distant thunder or the firing of ordnance far > away — causing the tables, chairs, and other inanimate objects, and all of us > to tremble in such a manner that the effect was both seen and felt. In the > whole exhibition we were constrained to admit that there was an almost > constant manifestation of some intelligence which seemed to be independent of > the circle.' > > ' During these occurrences the room was well lighted, the lamp was frequently > placed on and under the table, and every possible opportunity was afforded us > for the closest inspection, and we submit this one emphatic declaration : We > know that we were not imposed upon nor deceived.' The statement from which the above is extracted, was signed by David A. Wells and others." The statement above matches a statement in the autobiography of Daniel Dunglas Home, in which he lists the signers of the statement as Wm. Bryant, B. K Bliss, Wm. Edwards and David A. Wells. I may note that television or movie depictions of the seances of the nineteenth century almost always fail to depict any of the more dramatic phenomena that were reported. We may see some depiction of people with their hands on a table, and the table moving a little bit, or some bell shaking. Chances are 99% that you will see a depiction failing to depict any of the more dramatic phenomena that were reported, such as tables levitating, people levitating, musical instruments playing by themselves, mysterious spirit hands appearing and objects levitated to the tops of tables. An example of the kind of the depictions we get is in Episode 3 of the Netflix series "Bodies." Similarly, 95% or more of this century's mainstream accounts of the spooky events around this time will fail to list any of the more dramatic phenomena reported. Around Christmas of 1851 in Ohio a young orphan medium by the name of Abby Warner was charged with the crime of disturbing a church service. It seems that a service at a church was disturbed by mysterious raps one day that Abby attended. Putting Abby on trial, the state of Ohio tried to prove that Abby had caused the rapping sound, violating a law against disturbing church services. But a judge ruled that the state had failed to prove that Abby had caused the sounds. The official ruling by a judge states this: "After three days patient investigation the guilty party is undiscovered, and thus far that investigation seems fruitless, for which the court can only express its sincere regret. Being unable, in the light of the proof to find the defendant guilty, she is discharged." An investigation committee was organized in early 1852 to further investigate the matter of Abby Warner and the mysterious raps. Members of the committee claimed that raps occurred corresponding to their silent thoughts, an effect widely reported by others. We read that this occurred on January 5, 1852 at the office of F. M. Keith: "Mental questions were then asked, one by each person at the table, except Dr. Underhill and medium, which questions and answers were as follows: By R. Partridge. Rap five times? Answer. Five raps. By O. Dresel. Rap four times on the back of my chair. Answer. Four raps on the table. By C. K. Skinner. Will the spirit rap six times ? Answer. Six raps. By A. Pease. Shall I remain with the committee during their subsequent sittings; if so give me four distinct raps? Answer. Four raps. By F. M. Keith. Shall we continue our examination three sittings more; if so rap seven times, slow and distinct ? Answer. Seven raps." A statement asserting the above was signed by these persons: F. M. KEITH, R. PARTRIDGE, A. PEASE, C. K. SKINNER. These four people are all mentioned in the quote above. Only O. Dresel failed to sign the attestation. As evidence, this meets a very high standard. We have an attestation published the same year as the reported events, quoting signed testimony apparently made on the same day as the events witnessed, with multiple named witnesses. The effect is one of five consecutive people mentally thinking of a number between about 1 and 10, with each thought-of number being followed by the same number of raps. You could explain the results by coincidence, but by a coincidence that would have a total improbability of about 1 in 10 to fifth power, about 1 in 100,000. Meeting at the same place on the next day, the same four witnesses and an additional witness attested the following: "The committee are constrained to say, from the facts they have witnessed, that the table was caused to move by some power as yet unknown to them. That they are satisfied that neither the medium, nor any other person in the room moved it." I have quite a few additional installments of this "Spookiest Years" series, and they will appear at intermittent intervals at various times over the next months. I may note that I am very interested in studying first-hand accounts of anomalous or hard-to-explain phenomena, particularly when they are written dated accounts by a named witness describing something very astounding he or she saw soon after he or she saw it. I am also also very interested in getting the earliest published accounts of hard-to-explain phenomena that end up being widely discussed. If you know of any cases of such accounts that you think may be of interest to me, please email me with a link to such accounts. Be very wary of articles about the paranormal appearing in mainstream publications, which tend to peak in the days leading up to Halloween (October 31). Remember that the vast majority of such articles are written by people who are not serious scholars of the paranormal. A typical late October article about the paranormal will be written by some dilletante who has merely waded his feet in the topic of reports of the paranormal, a topic of oceanic depth. Posted by Mark Mahin at 7:00 AM No comments: Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest Labels: levitation, mysterious raps, paranormal phenomena, precognition, spiritual manifestations, spiritualism SATURDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2023 SOME PROFESSORS SENSELESSLY SAY MINERALS, SUNS AND PEOPLE ARE "CONCEPTUALLY EQUIVALENT" At the Reuters web site we have a headline of "Scientists propose sweeping new law of nature, expanding on evolution." In the article we read this: "Nine scientists and philosophers on Monday proposed a new law of nature that includes the biological evolution described by Darwin as a vibrant example of a much broader phenomenon, one that appears at the level of atoms, minerals, planetary atmospheres, planets, stars and more. It holds that complex natural systems evolve to states of greater patterning, diversity and complexity. 'We see evolution as a universal process that applies to numerous systems, both living and nonliving, that increase in diversity and patterning through time,' said Carnegie Institution for Science mineralogist and astrobiologist Robert Hazen, a co-author of the scientific paper describing the law in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences." We have a link to a paper entitled "On the roles of function and selection in evolving systems." It's a very pretentious affair that starts out like this: "The universe is replete with complex evolving systems, but the existing macroscopic physical laws do not seem to adequately describe these systems. Recognizing that the identification of conceptual equivalencies among disparate phenomena were foundational to developing previous laws of nature, we approach a potential 'missing law' by looking for equivalencies among evolving systems. We suggest that all evolving systems—including but not limited to life—are composed of diverse components that can combine into configurational states that are then selected for or against based on function. We then identify the fundamental sources of selection—static persistence, dynamic persistence, and novelty generation—and propose a time-asymmetric law that states that the functional information of a system will increase over time when subjected to selection for function(s)." We see no promising signs in this opening. For one thing, the very first phrase is the claim that "the universe is replete with complex evolving systems," and we don't know that at all. Life has only been discovered on our planet, and compared to the vast complexity and vast organization of earthly life, nothing we know of outside of Earth is complex or organized in comparison. Stars like our sun are as simple as can be compared to the physical complexity of organisms such as humans. What goes on in the article is that the authors try to place stars like our sun under the category of "complex evolving systems," which makes no sense at all. Physically the sun has no complexity to speak of compared to the vast complexity and organization of mammals. Our sun is not organized at all. It is a ball of hydrogen and helium particles that bounce around in an incredibly disorganized manner. The authors try some misguided strategy that involves trying to stretch the word "evolution" to the limits, so that it applies to pretty much anything that changes over time. It's kind of a "stars evolve, galaxies evolve, so of course life can evolve" kind of affair. It makes no sense to try to lump living things and nonliving things into the same conceptual bucket, and suggesting they all evolve for a similar reason. Lifeless things are lifeless things, and living things are living things. Let us consider some of the differences between stars (suns) and humans. Humans Stars (suns) Mass Not very massive A trillion times more massive than humans Level of physical complexity and organization Vast levels of hierarchical organization. Physically humans contain subatomic particles, which are organized into atomic nuclei, which (along with electrons) are organized into atoms, which are organized into small molecules such as amino acids, which are organized into very large molecules called proteins, which are organized into protein complexes (sometimes called molecular machines), which are organized into organelles, which are organized into cells, which are organized into tissues, which are organized into organs, which are organized into organ systems, which (along with a skeletal system) make up the main part of a human body. Stars have almost no organization or physical complexity. Stars like the sun consist of disorganized hydrogen nuclei and helium nuclei along with disorganized electrons. Stars like the sun are too hot for any molecules to exist in them. Stars may “evolve” to other states such as white dwarves or neutron stars, but such states have very little physical organization compared to the bodies of mammals. Mental complexity Inadequately studied by biologists, the human mind is something of oceanic depth and complexity. Stars do not have any minds. Composition By mass, mostly oxygen and carbon By mass, mostly hydrogen and helium Number of types There are many thousands or millions of types of humans. There are not very many types of stars. Astronomy courses typically list only about 10 types. Amount of change Humans rapidly change physically and mental, and the most profound constructive changes often occur in a single year or month. Stars like the sun undergo little change over billions of years, other than a very slow and gradual increase in the amount of helium. A star can suddenly change when a supernova occurs, but that's only a destructive change, not a constructive change. What forms them? An unfathomably complex still-not-understood morphogenesis process not involving gravitation or nuclear fusion. Stars form from gas and dust clouds by simple gravitation, and then later start lighting up because of simple nuclear fusion. Capable of reproduction? Yes, humans can reproduce. Stars don't reproduce. A star never splits into two stars. A star can explode in a supernova, sending gases into space; and eons later such gases may collapse to become one or more stars. But that isn't really "star reproduction." Physical lifespan About 75 years Billions of years There's just no comparing humans and stars. So trying to speak like lifeless things like stars are kind of like living things because "they both evolve" makes no sense. And it is not true that everything evolves. A star like the sun undergoes an incredible gradual change that could fancifully be called "evolution" as its percentage of helium slowly increases over billions of years. But things like moon rocks and lifeless asteroids undergo no change at all over billions of years. The science paper goes "off the rails" with the very silly statement below: "A pervasive wonder of the natural world is the evolution of varied systems, including stars, minerals, atmospheres, and life. These evolving systems appear to be conceptually equivalent in that they display three notable attributes: 1) They form from numerous components that have the potential to adopt combinatorially vast numbers of different configurations; 2) processes exist that generate numerous different configurations; and 3) configurations are preferentially selected based on function." So lifeless things are "conceptually equivalent" to living things such as humans? Hogwash. Baloney. Bunk. Humbug. BS. Large living things such as human beings have dramatic characteristics unlike anything in natural lifeless things, including vast levels of hierarchical organization, very high levels of internal information involving symbolic representations, and also minds and memories. It's so goofy to call these "conceptually equivalent" What's going on here sounds like nonsense similar to the nonsense of arguing for panpsychism. What goes on there is this: Step 1: use shrink-speaking language that tries to describe the incredibly rich, deep and varied diversity of the human mind in the most shrunken and minimal way you can, by calling human minds mere "consciousness." Step 2: then say "why of course humans are conscious -- everything is conscious." Something similar is going on in this new paper: Step 1: use shrink-speaking language that tries to describe the vast levels of hierarchical organization and information richness and reproduction ability of living things as being mere "combinations of different configurations" involving "evolution" (very broadly defined as just change over time). Step 2: then say something "why of course life evolves -- everything evolves." One of the reasons the first case fails is that it is nonsense to think that rocks and stones are conscious. One of the reasons the second case fails is that it just isn't true that everything evolves. Billion-year-old moon rocks haven't changed a bit in a billion years, nor have most asteroids. And in both cases we have the absurdity of describing things as if they were vastly simpler than they are. Anyone who thinks that by studying the minimal unimpressive "chump change" level of organization in stars and minerals will help explain how we got the almost infinitely greater level of organization in human bodies is probably someone who did not sufficiently study the level of organization and fine-tuned complexity in human bodies. I could write on a single page an algorithm for duplicating the level of organization in a mineral crystal, such as the organization we see below. An instruction manual of 10,000 pages would never be sufficient to specify how to artificially manufacture the level of organization and fine-tuned dynamic functionality in a human body. Below is the very simple structure of a mineral crystal. Crystals with such a structure are as old as planet Earth, and are not the result of any thing that is reasonably called evolution (unless you want to stretch the term "evolution" so that it means basically any change, so that you can talk about things like the evolution of the meal you cooked last night). The statement quoted above has argued that stars are "conceptually equivalent" to living things because both "form from numerous components that have the potential to adopt combinatorially vast numbers of different configurations." This is not true. Stars like the sun are spheres filled with simple hydrogen and helium, with only three zones, as shown in the diagram below. Stars do not "adopt combinatorially vast numbers of different configurations." Every star of the same class has basically the same configuration, and there are only a few classes of stars: O, B, F, G, K, M, L and T. It is easy to understand why Darwinism fans would be looking for some "law of evolution" they could state. It is an embarrassing fact that Darwinian theory involves no credible claims of any law, unlike physics which does involve a description of real laws such as the law of gravitation and Coulomb's law describing the force between electrical charges. In science a law is something that invariably happens, with the effect occurring in a precise way that is mathematically predictable. For example, the main law of electromagnetism (Coulomb's law) is a very precise description telling us exactly how much force of attraction or repulsion will occur between any two charges separated by a particular distance. There is a precise equation telling us the exact force that arises from this law. But there is no "law of evolution." It is not a law that over large periods of time species evolve into other species. We know of quite a few species that have existed without significant change for eons. We can understand how Darwinists with a kind of "physics envy" might want to suggest that Darwinian evolution is an example of some law of nature. But the moment these nine people started claiming that lifeless things and living things are "conceptually equivalent," they went way, way off the rails, and went way into the realm of silly speaking. The paper has some attempt to proliferate the faulty misleading speech at the core of Darwinism into some faulty misleading speech involving the whole natural world. Darwin used the misleading trick of creating the phrase "natural selection" for something that was not actually selection (a word meaning a choice by a conscious agent). Our nine paper authors try to extend this language abuse to cover a host of things in the lifeless world. So we read in the paper not-really-true "language abuse" statements like this: "Stellar nucleosynthesis depends on the selection of stable configurations of protons and neutrons. Mineral evolution relies on selection of new, locally stable arrangements of chemical elements." So the authors have taken us from the "natural selection that isn't actually selection" of evolutionary biologists to some "stellar selection" that isn't actually selection and some "mineral selection" that isn't actually selection. The paper also makes many uses of the doubly-misleading phrase "selection pressure" so loved by evolutionary biologists, a term describing some alleged thing that involves no actual selection and no actual pressure. What is pressure in the world of physics? In physics pressure is usually a force caused by the motion of particles. Consider a balloon. Why doesn't an inflated balloon collapse, given that there is the pressure of the Earth's atmosphere acting on it cause such a collapse? The reason is that inside the balloon are oxygen molecules speeding around rapidly, many of which are making contact with the inner surface of the balloon, providing an outward force. That outward force keeps the inflated balloon from collapsing. A very similar story explains why stars like the sun do not collapse. Every star like the sun is subjected to an enormous inward gravitational force, which if not balanced by an opposite force would cause the star to collapse inwardly. But the star does not collapse because of the pressure caused by all the very hot particles within it. Moving around very rapidly because of the high temperature, such particles cause an outward force that balances the inward force caused by the star's high gravity. So those are some examples of pressure. Is there any kind of pressure involved when biologists speak of "selection pressure" in relation to evolution? None whatsoever. When such a term is used, we have a "double the duplicity" affair. When biologists claim that miracles of biological innovation occurred because of "selection pressure," it's a case of so-called selection that isn't actually selection (since no conscious agent is choosing) and so-called pressure that isn't actually pressure (since nothing is being pushed, and no actual force is going on). It's a very bad case of misleading language, which occurs partially because biologists are trying to make their lame explanation attempts sound a little like physics. The statement I quoted above making the ludicrous claim that stars, minerals and life are "conceptually equivalent" also makes the untrue claim that in all three of these things "configurations are preferentially selected based on function." No, the configurations of stars and minerals are not not "preferentially selected based on function" except when humans choose to use particular minerals because they are more useful. In their paper the authors start using the term "functional information" in an erroneous way, as if the term meant "function." Information can be defined as facts or knowledge or instructions or similar content declared using some particular system of representation involving symbols or tokens. The tokens may be any of a large number of things: letters, numbers, sounds, symbols, words, or particular combinations of low-level tokens such as binary tokens (0 or 1) or nucleotide tokens (those used in the genetic code). "Functional information" can be defined as some data or information telling how to do something. DNA really does contains functional information, because the individual genes in DNA tell how to combine amino acids to get started making particular protein molecules. The authors of the "On the roles of function and selection in evolving systems" paper start using "functional information" as if there was lots of functional information in stars and minerals. This makes no sense. Stars do not have functional information. All real functional information uses some scheme of representation or symbolism in which particular combinations of symbols or tokens represent something. Stars and minerals do not use any system of representation, and do not contain any information. You can write information about the sun, but the sun contains no information. Nowhere in a sun is there anything telling you how to do something. It isn't even possible to write information on an object like the sun. The lack of any functional information in stars like the sun is one of the reasons why it is nonsensical to try to talk about some "evolution of stars" and compare that with an evolution of organisms. As imagined by Neo-Darwinists, the evolution of a species hinges mainly on a change in its functional information, its DNA. Nothing like that can ever occur in stars, because stars don't have functional information. The fact that each cell in our bodies contains very much functional information in its DNA is a very important clue worth knowing. That fact points us in the right direction, because the only improvement humans ever observe in functional information occurs through purposeful activity. We should beware of anyone trying to distort the important concept of functional information by defining it in some weird way that makes it apply to practically anything. Misusing the term "functional information" as if meant "function," the authors incorrectly claim "the functional information of every enzyme is greater than zero." No, enzymes and other proteins have no functional information (although they do have functions). Functional information always involves symbols or tokens or representations, and enzymes have no such things. There is a gene corresponding to each protein, and each such gene does have functional information, in which there are symbolic tokens (nucleotides that represent or stand for particular amino acids). Just as incorrectly, the authors state, "so stars’ functional information could be said to increase with time." You can write information about stars, but stars do not contain any type of information. Stars have a function, but they do not have functional information. Seemingly trying to maximize their use of the word "information" (perhaps to give their musings a little information science glamour), the authors have misused the phrase "functional information" many different times. There are functions, and there is functional information, instructions that help you perform functions. You should not be using the term "functional information" when you merely mean a function. When the authors claim to have discovered a "law of increasing functional information," they merely mean a law of increasing function. You do not explain the appearance of highly functional and fantastically organized things on our planet by evoking some cosmic law of increasing function. That would be as vacuous as claiming to explain the appearance of strange spaceships in the sky by evoking a "law of atmospheric complexity increase." In the universe there is no general law of increasing function operating throughout time and space. As "function" is a word referring to the purposes of living things, any claim that function grew in the first eight billion years of a lifeless universe would be very weak. Looking around the galaxy and other galaxies, we have found only one planet where there are high levels of biological function (our own) despite 60 years of searching for radio signals from other solar systems. When something seems to occur only nearby and relatively recently, you are not on firm ground claiming there is a cosmic law to produce such a thing. Conversely, studies of objects on opposite sides of the universe show that the law of gravitation and Coulomb's law have been operating constantly through every part of the universe since its early days. In the same week that we had this "off the rails" professor talk, we had another piece of "off the rails" professor talk. A press release quotes some professor giving us this little explanation for the origin of humans: "" 'When the universe began 13.8 billion years ago in a hot big bang, there were no objects like protons, atoms, people, planets, stars or galaxies. Now the universe is full of such objects,' he said. 'The relatively simple answer to where they came from is that, as the universe cooled, all of these objects condensed out of a hot background.' " This little "humans are just some condensation" claim is as false as false can be. According to scientists, the universe had already cooled to its cold current background temperature billions of years before the Earth and the sun originated. Scientists don't believe any type of life formed by condensation. Sinking their fangs of rhetoric into you, some professors try to use words to suck out your humanity, by trying to make you think you're like a monkey, a rock, a robot, or just some condensation or bag of chemicals. This occurs largely because such professors lack credible explanations of humans, so they try to use shrink-speaking diminutive language to paint humans as mere shadows of humans, thinking they can offer something to explain such measly shadows. It's dumb to dehumanize. What the authors of this paper have done is use very carefully chosen words to suggest that things utterly dissimilar are conceptually equivalent. By choosing your words very carefully, it is easy to paint some similarity between things almost totally dissimilar. So, for example, if I wanted to suggest that a human is like a trash can, I might say something like this: "Why humans and trash cans are very similar -- they both have a shape, and both are made of atoms. And just as a trash can may be filled, a human woman can be filled during sex or filled with a growing child during pregnancy. And just as a trash can may be filled with trash, the mind of a human may be filled with bad ideas. And just as a trash can may rest on a street corner, a human may rest on a street corner." Such nonsense is like what the writers of this science paper have done -- using very carefully chosen words to make us think things having almost nothing in common are similar or equivalent. Posted by Mark Mahin at 7:08 AM No comments: Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest Labels: dehumanization Older Posts Home Subscribe to: Posts (Atom) SUBSCRIBE TO Posts Atom Posts All Comments Atom All Comments TRANSLATE ▼ PAGE VIEWS: 800,215 ABOUT ME Mark Mahin View my complete profile BLOG ARCHIVE * ▼ 2023 (79) * ▼ November (1) * Biology Origin Claimants Ignore Functional Thresho... * ► October (8) * ► September (8) * ► August (7) * ► July (8) * ► June (8) * ► May (9) * ► April (7) * ► March (8) * ► February (7) * ► January (8) * ► 2022 (92) * ► December (7) * ► November (8) * ► October (8) * ► September (8) * ► August (8) * ► July (7) * ► June (8) * ► May (8) * ► April (8) * ► March (7) * ► February (8) * ► January (7) * ► 2021 (92) * ► December (8) * ► November (8) * ► October (8) * ► September (7) * ► August (8) * ► July (8) * ► June (7) * ► May (8) * ► April (8) * ► March (7) * ► February (7) * ► January (8) * ► 2020 (99) * ► December (7) * ► November (8) * ► October (12) * ► September (8) * ► August (8) * ► July (8) * ► June (8) * ► May (8) * ► April (8) * ► March (9) * ► February (7) * ► January (8) * ► 2019 (95) * ► December (8) * ► November (7) * ► October (8) * ► September (8) * ► August (8) * ► July (8) * ► June (10) * ► May (8) * ► April (7) * ► March (8) * ► February (7) * ► January (8) * ► 2018 (93) * ► December (8) * ► November (7) * ► October (8) * ► September (8) * ► August (7) * ► July (8) * ► June (8) * ► May (8) * ► April (8) * ► March (8) * ► February (7) * ► January (8) * ► 2017 (92) * ► December (8) * ► November (8) * ► October (8) * ► September (8) * ► August (8) * ► July (7) * ► June (8) * ► May (7) * ► April (8) * ► March (8) * ► February (7) * ► January (7) * ► 2016 (92) * ► December (8) * ► November (8) * ► October (7) * ► September (8) * ► August (8) * ► July (7) * ► June (7) * ► May (9) * ► April (7) * ► March (8) * ► February (7) * ► January (8) * ► 2015 (97) * ► December (8) * ► November (7) * ► October (8) * ► September (8) * ► August (8) * ► July (8) * ► June (7) * ► May (8) * ► April (8) * ► March (8) * ► February (8) * ► January (11) * ► 2014 (163) * ► December (10) * ► November (10) * ► October (11) * ► September (11) * ► August (13) * ► July (15) * ► June (15) * ► May (16) * ► April (14) * ► March (17) * ► February (15) * ► January (16) * ► 2013 (165) * ► December (18) * ► November (19) * ► October (19) * ► September (18) * ► August (24) * ► July (28) * ► June (29) * ► May (10) SEARCH THIS BLOG POSTS WITH HIGHEST RECENT VIEWS * Nature Seems to Love the Number Three * Spookiest Years, Part 3: The Year 1851 * Why We Were Told So Often the Huge Lie That DNA Is a Specification for Building Humans * New Poll Finds That Fewer Than One in Three Americans Believe the Darwinist Narrative * Some Professors Senselessly Say Minerals, Suns and People Are "Conceptually Equivalent" * When World-Class Scientists Saw Ghosts (Part 1) * This Brain-Zapping Bungled Mess Sheds No Light on Out-of-Body Experiences * The Senseless Exclusion of Teleological Considerations From Astrobiology * The Evidence for Out-of-Body Experiences * The Enigma of Veridical Near-Death Experiences NOTABLE POSTS * A Table Listing 50 Things Science Cannot Explain * 30 Reasons for Doubting the “Brains Store Memories” Dogma * Why We Do Not Understand the Origin of Any Adult Human Being * A Very Strong Effect of Repeating Patterns in Mysterious Striped Orbs * They Had Flourishing Minds But Broken Brains * Paradoxes That Puncture Professorial Pretensions * Why We Shouldn't Exist: A Table of 18 Anthropic Requirements * When World-Class Scientists Saw Ghosts (Part 1) * The Enigma of Veridical Near-Death Experiences * When Natural Things Seem to Act in a Shockingly Unnatural Way * Are Public Schools Teaching a Stealth Religion? * The Building Blocks of Bad Science Literature * When an Apparition Is Seen by Multiple Observers: 17 Cases * When an Apparition Is Seen by Multiple Observers: 17 More Cases * Biological Orthodoxy Flunks the Software Test * Better Than a Smoking Gun: The Riess ESP Test * Why DNA Cannot Be a Specification of a Human * A "Water Memory” Effect I Have Often Photographed * 9 Strange Mental Phenomena That May Support an Alternate Theory of Consciousness * 25 Who Were "Ghost-Told" of a Death * Why the Origin of Language Is Inexplicable Under Orthodox Assumptions * Visualizing a Top-Down Theory of Mind and Cosmic Connectivity * Disastrous Blunders of the Experts * Cosmic Coincidence Cover-up * The Gigantic Missing Link of Biological Life * Cosmic Fine-Tuning Visualized * Why Machines Will Not Soon Be as Intelligent as Men * Cloud Computing and the Concept of Non-local Consciousness * There Is No Plausible Explanation For How Brains Can Store Very Long-Term Memory * The Top 6 Problems With Using a Multiverse to Explain Cosmic Fitness * “Vacuum Catastrophe” Should Be Called the Vacuum Miracle * Why the Origin of Humans Is an Unsolved Mystery * The Best Basis for Believing in an Afterlife Is Something Other Than Paranormal Phenomena * Still More Dreams or Visions That Seemed to Foretell a Death * The Evidence for Out-of-Body Experiences * GOAL and Soul: Postulating What We Need to Explain Humans * The Chemistry Professors Who Documented the Paranormal * The Degenerative Spiral of "Grand Explanation" Academia * The Complexity Concealments of Shrink-Speaking Professors * The Hypothesis of Continuous Life-Force Dependency * Our Luxury Results Debunk the Multiverse As an Explanation * Anatomically Uninformative DNA, Nonfunctional Intermediates and the Uselessness of Early Stages Are Why Gradualism Does Not Work * 30 Misleading Terms Used in Science Literature * The Bigelow Prize Essays on the Best Evidence for Life After Death * The Top 26 Numbers to Ponder When Judging the Chance of Accidental Biological Origins * Any Pathway to an Afterlife Realm Implies the Possibility of Reverse Visits * 120+Types of Paranormal or Anomalous Experiences * The Philosophy of Teleospiritism * Why We Were Told So Often the Huge Lie That DNA Is a Specification for Building Humans * 7 Navigation Problems That Discredit Materialism and Ideas of Accidental Life * Candid Confessions of the Scientists * Some Recommended Online Reading * Professors Persist in "Proud Preston" Pretending * Some Accidentally Unachievable Molecular Machines in Your Body EXTERNAL SITES * Top 20 Cosmology Blogs * My Free Books on Archive.org FEATURED POST PSYCHIATRISTS HAVE NO CREDIBLE EXPLANATION FOR APPARITION SIGHTINGS Psychiatrists are famous for pretending to know things that they don't actually know. For many decades psychiatrists peddled at high pri... SHARING CONTENT Content on this blog may be shared on other web sites or in publications under this Creative Commons Attribution No-Derivatives license, requiring attribution (including a link to this web site) and prohibiting derivatives: Link LABELS * '‘Oumuamua (1) * 3D printing (1) * abundance (1) * acupuncture (1) * after death communication (1) * age of mankind (1) * age of universe (3) * aging (1) * alien abductions (2) * alien attack (1) * alien computer simulation (4) * alien spaceships (1) * alien visitation (1) * alternate universe (1) * android (1) * anecdotal evidence (2) * angels (2) * animals (1) * anthropic principle (22) * antimatter (3) * apocalypse (5) * apparition (52) * apports (3) * aquatic mega-patternization (1) * archaeology (1) * argument against brain storage of all memories (20) * argument for soul (17) * argument from evil (3) * Artemis (1) * artificial intelligence (6) * artificial planets (1) * artificial worlds (1) * asteroid mining (1) * asteroids (1) * astroengineering (3) * astronomy (14) * atheism (2) * augmented reality (2) * aura (1) * austerity (1) * Australian mystery lights (1) * automation (2) * bad predictions (1) * behavior genetics (1) * Bible (1) * BICEP2 (10) * biconsciousness (1) * Big Bang (32) * biocentrism (2) * biochemistry (1) * biology (15) * biomedical research (3) * biosafety (1) * Black Holes (5) * body double (1) * body enhancements (2) * body transplants (2) * Boltzmann brain (2) * books by Mark Mahin (4) * boondoggle (4) * bouncing universe (1) * brain (46) * brain experiments (2) * brain imaging (3) * brain paradoxes (4) * brain replacement (2) * brain research (7) * brain scanning (3) * brain stimulation (1) * Brane cosmology (1) * c-value paradox (1) * Cambrian Explosion (5) * candid quotes of scientists (1) * car culture (1) * cell division (1) * cells (5) * certainty (1) * chatbots (1) * ChatGPT (1) * China (2) * Christmas (1) * cinema technology (1) * cloning (1) * coincidences (3) * complexity (3) * component interdependence (1) * computationalism (3) * computer simulations (3) * conformity (2) * consciousness (36) * consumption (5) * continuous transcendent dependency (1) * coronavirus (13) * cosmic acceleration (2) * cosmic background radiation (4) * cosmic destiny (2) * cosmic evolution (2) * cosmic fine tuning (54) * cosmic habitability (5) * cosmic history (1) * cosmic inflation (23) * cosmic layers (1) * cosmic life-force (1) * cosmic message (1) * cosmic mysteries (10) * cosmic religion (1) * cosmic structure (3) * cosmic wonder (1) * cosmological constant (4) * cosmological natural selection (4) * cosmology (89) * COVID-19 (15) * cryonics (2) * crystal gazing (1) * cyborg (1) * cyclical universe (5) * dark energy (8) * dark genome (1) * dark matter (22) * Darwinism (48) * data dredging (1) * dating (1) * deathbed vision (4) * definition of religion (1) * definition of science (1) * dehumanization (2) * depression (1) * developmental biology (4) * diet (1) * disasters (1) * disease prevention (1) * disintegrating asteroid (1) * DNA (16) * dogs (1) * double standards in science (3) * doubt (1) * dowsing (1) * dreams (16) * drones (1) * DUNE (1) * dwarf galaxies (1) * dwarf galaxy rotation anomaly (1) * dystopia (1) * early habitability epoch (1) * early Universe (2) * easy life hypothesis (3) * education (3) * elections (1) * electromagnetic pulse attack (1) * electromagnetism (4) * electrons (3) * EmDrive (1) * emergence (1) * EMP (1) * end of the world (5) * energy crisis (3) * energy forecast (1) * energy production (2) * engrams (12) * entropy (3) * environmental degradation (5) * epigenetics (1) * ESP (60) * esthetics (1) * Ethics (8) * Europa (2) * evolution (80) * evolution poll (1) * experts (11) * extended evolutionary synthesis (1) * extent of Darwinist belief (1) * extent of paranormal beliefs (2) * exteriorization of sensibility (1) * extrasolar planets (8) * extraterrestrial life (52) * extraterrestrials (36) * faint young sun paradox (3) * fast radio bursts (1) * fate of the universe (1) * Fermi's paradox (7) * fine-tuned universe (7) * Flynn effect (1) * forecasting (1) * Fourth Dimension (1) * free will (3) * fundamental constants (6) * fundamental forces (5) * funerals (1) * future contrasts (2) * future entertainment (2) * future eras (1) * future happiness (2) * future movies (1) * future of consciousness (2) * future of man (18) * future problems (4) * future risks (2) * future technology (11) * future weapons (1) * futurology (2) * galactic empire (1) * galaxies (6) * galaxy formation (7) * galaxy spin anomaly (1) * gamma ray bursts (2) * gaslighting (1) * genes (11) * genetic engineering (16) * genetics (10) * geoengineering (2) * ghosts (29) * global consciousness project (2) * global food supply (5) * global organizaing activity of a life-force (GOAL) (2) * global risks (1) * global warming (22) * GMO (3) * God (2) * gradualism (1) * grand unification theories (1) * Great Filter (2) * grey goo (1) * groupthink (6) * habitable zone (1) * hallucinogenic drugs (1) * happiness (1) * heart attack risk (1) * heritability of intelligence (1) * hierarchy problem (1) * Higgs mass (1) * higher dimension (1) * holographs (1) * homeopathy (2) * homochirality (2) * homosexuality (3) * human body plan (1) * human extinction (2) * human history (1) * human intelligence (4) * human knowledge (1) * hurricanes (1) * hypermnesia (1) * hyperthymesia (2) * hypnotic trance (14) * idealism (4) * ideological regimes (1) * immortality (3) * inflation theory (6) * information (1) * integrated information theory (1) * interplanetary travel (1) * interstellar colonization (3) * interstellar communication (1) * interstellar travel (9) * Iraq war (1) * Kepler Space Telescope (2) * Kepler-78b (1) * ketamine (1) * Kirlian photography (1) * lambda cold dark matter theory (5) * language acquisition (2) * Large Hadron Collider (2) * laws of nature (6) * LCDM theory (1) * leisure (1) * levitation (7) * life after death (65) * life extension (8) * Long Baseline Neutrino Experiment (1) * Mad Scientist (1) * Many Worlds theory (6) * Mars (13) * Mars lights (4) * Mars strange objects (8) * materialism (7) * materialism as religion (2) * materialization (7) * mathematical universe hypothesis (1) * mathematics (2) * meat consumption (1) * medical care in old age (1) * medical technology (2) * mediums (19) * mega-tsunami (1) * memory (44) * memory implant (1) * memory retrieval (4) * memory traces (16) * mental differences between animals and humans (1) * meta-analysis (1) * meteor (1) * methodological naturalism (1) * Miller-Urey experiment (1) * mind (7) * mind linking (1) * mind over matter (5) * mind uploading (5) * mind-reading (4) * miracles (1) * missing heritability problem (1) * molecular biology (6) * molecular machinery (2) * MOND (1) * morphic gravitation (1) * morphogenesis (16) * multiverse (23) * mutations (1) * mysterious raps (3) * mystery of existence (1) * nanotechnology (1) * NASA (6) * natural history (3) * natural selection (30) * naturalism (2) * nature (2) * near death experience (25) * near-death experiences (1) * Neptune (1) * neuroscience (51) * neutrino (2) * neutron (1) * neutron stars (1) * non-local consciousness (1) * nonneuralism (1) * nuclear energy (2) * nuclear war (5) * nuclear weapons (1) * nucleosynthesis (3) * observer selection effect (1) * ocean acidifcation (1) * optogenetics (1) * orbs (16) * origin of biological complexity (29) * origin of elements (2) * origin of flying animals (3) * origin of language (8) * origin of life (47) * origin of man (16) * origin of Mind (15) * origin of multicellular life (1) * origin of sex (1) * origin of universe (2) * out-of-body experience (9) * overblown hype (54) * overconfidence (9) * overconsumption (9) * overpopulation (8) * overshoot and collapse (1) * p-hacking (1) * P/2013 R3 (1) * paleontology (7) * pandemic (2) * panpsychism (4) * panspermia (4) * paradoxes (1) * parallel universes (3) * paranormal healing (1) * paranormal phenomena (175) * paraverse (2) * pareidolia (1) * particle collisions (1) * particle physics (14) * peak coal (3) * peak oil (5) * peer review (1) * phantom events (1) * philosophical zombie (1) * philosophy (33) * philosophy of mind (20) * philosophy of science (3) * photography (2) * physicalism (2) * physics (21) * pigs (1) * planetoids (1) * plant intelligence (1) * polls (1) * pollution (4) * poltergeist (2) * polygamy (1) * pork eating (1) * post-scarcity economy (1) * pre-existence of the soul (1) * precognition (19) * predictions (4) * primordial fluctuations (1) * primordial singularity (1) * problem of evil (6) * prognostication (2) * programmed material universe (8) * protein complexity (2) * protein evolution (2) * protein folding (7) * protein localization (1) * protein molecules (4) * protein sensitivity (1) * psychiatry (1) * psychokinesis (7) * psychology experiments (1) * psychometry (5) * pulsars (1) * qigong (2) * quantum biology (3) * quantum computer universe (1) * quantum gravity (1) * quantum mechanics (7) * quasar polarization vector alignments (1) * quasars (1) * questionable research practices (3) * racism (1) * radical abundance (1) * random universes (2) * randomness (2) * receptacle theory of consciousness (3) * recolonization of Earth (1) * recommended books (15) * Reddit (1) * reductionism (6) * reincarnation (5) * rejuvenation (2) * remote viewing (7) * replication crisis (5) * requirements underestimation (6) * resource depletion (5) * retrocognition (1) * RNA world hypothesis (1) * robotics (3) * robots (14) * rogue planet (1) * savants (4) * scarcity (1) * science and ethics (2) * science and religion (2) * science fiction (110) * Science fiction stories (125) * science fiction story (122) * science journalism (19) * science textbooks (1) * scientific authoritarianism (1) * scientific consensus (4) * scientific ethics (2) * scientific explanation (2) * scientific explanations (7) * scientific literature (2) * scientific process (8) * scientific speculation (9) * scientific theories (5) * scientific theory (5) * scientific thinking (1) * scientist misconduct (8) * scientist overconfidence (1) * scientist recklessness (1) * scientist specialization (1) * scientist subculture (2) * self (1) * self-consciousness (2) * sensationalism (1) * sensitivity of proteins (1) * SETI (19) * sex (1) * sexism (1) * shopping (1) * short radio bursts (1) * simulated universe (6) * Singularity (8) * skepticism (9) * slavery (1) * social media (1) * social security (1) * social trends (1) * sociology of science (21) * software development (5) * solar flares (1) * solar system (1) * soul (4) * space colonization (2) * space station (2) * spiritism (1) * spiritual manifestations (12) * spiritualism (5) * sports of the future (1) * STARGATE program (1) * starships (1) * stem cells (1) * string theory (8) * subsidies (1) * sun (1) * supercomputer (3) * superintelligence (7) * supermen (2) * supernovae (2) * superstition (1) * supersymmetry (11) * surveillance state (1) * synapse theory of memory (7) * table turning (1) * taxes (1) * technological innovations (1) * teleology (10) * teleophobia (1) * teleportation (1) * theism (3) * theories of mind (7) * theories of the future (3) * theories of the universe (4) * theories of time (3) * theories of truth (1) * theory of accelerating progress (1) * theory of consciousness (8) * things science cannot explain (5) * third man factor (1) * time dilation (1) * time travel (3) * tininess of human knowledge (18) * top-down theory of mind (1) * Transhumanism (4) * transposition of the senses (7) * Twitter (1) * types of universes (2) * UAP (1) * UFO (13) * UFOs (23) * universe (8) * unsolved problems of biology (1) * vacuum (3) * vacuum catastrophe (3) * vegetarianism (2) * Venus (1) * Venus colonization (1) * videos (1) * virtual reality (2) * vitalism (6) * von Neumann probes (2) * water memory (1) * wealth inequality (4) * weddings (1) * white holes (1) * wormhole (1) * xenoglossy (3) Simple theme. Powered by Blogger. Originaltext Diese Übersetzung bewerten Mit deinem Feedback können wir Google Übersetzer weiter verbessern Diese Website verwendet Cookies von Google, um Dienste anzubieten und Zugriffe zu analysieren. Deine IP-Adresse und dein User-Agent werden zusammen mit Messwerten zur Leistung und Sicherheit für Google freigegeben. So können Nutzungsstatistiken generiert, Missbrauchsfälle erkannt und behoben und die Qualität des Dienstes gewährleistet werden.Weitere InformationenOk