Unscientific speculation, intuition, imagination, etc... are critical components of any world view that hopes to progress. These are the engines of new premises with which science can then work. But make no mistake, the "real" work is done in the minds if those who can operate outside the confines of accepted knowledge. When thinkers like Myers and Dennett talk about religion they often sound as ill read and unscientific as the creationists they criticize.
Would you also agree that Hitchens is more of a "style over substance" kind of guy? I felt reading his work that that he was more concerned with making a witty quip than a sound argument. I like Dawkins alright, but I think Sam Harris is the only one of the 4 Horsemen I'd really identify with.
Matthew ... a sexy buzzcut and shirtless! It very difficult to pay attention to the intellectual content of your video. Not complaining here at all (nope, no way!) ..... just have to keep watching the video over and over and shut my eyes a few times .... will have to start calling you beefcake and brains! LOL Hot!
I think there are more reasonable cosmologies than the materialistic that better account for our existence. The emergence of life and intelligence in an entirely mechanical universe isn't incredible, it's absurd.
Of course there is no conflict between scientific endeavour and religiosity. However, I agree with your observation that much of modern day secular materialism is based on an improbable. Simply put, we know nothing of the nature of humanity, reality or event the constructs of physical reality. Lovely video :]. Kind and warm regards to you and yours!
I Wonder if Columbus would have bowed down to the "modern scientific outlook" at the time, and not sailed the ocean, what then? Or if Einstein had waited for science to catch up to his flash of insight that gave him the understanding that all Energy and Mass were being created simultaneously as one process...
We would be shooting ourselves in the foot! Screw rationalism! Screw scientism! Screw them to the sticking post!
From Astrology we get Astronomy, from Alchemy, we get Chemistry, from the Geometry of the Mystery Schools in Greece we get modern rational thought and mathematics,
Isaac Newton himself proclaimed to spend at least twice as much time working with Hermetics and other Esoterics than with his "traditional physics".
Di Vinci.. Plato.. ALL OF THEM were Students of the Mysteries!
I feel you could trace nearly ALL of major progress in thought back to Students of the Mysteries
It's tragic how that "science" and "metaphysics" have separated over the years, purely the result of ignorance and close-mindedness, as well as our inability to "prove" certain Esoteric Truths such as the invisible Spirit that we all are.. but I feel we'll be able to prove them soon..
I always tell people who perscribe to "scientism" that all of their supposed "science" has its roots in Esoteric Arts..
Good analysis. I was just reading Jerry Coyne yesterday arguing that the scientific method is fundamentally incompatible with faith. Ken Miller offered a pretty thorough rebuttal. Google "edge coyne does empirical nature contradict faith"
Matt, I may be just being thick, but I can't find the podcast of the interview between P Z Meyers and Dennis Alexander...Could you furnish one in the sidebar, or just explain what I'm missing? I found the link in your blog to the St Edmund's site, but it didn't seem to lead to the podcast...
It does seem hard to conceptualize, but personally, I do believe that the intelligent mind, consciousness, did arrive out of purely mechanic principles (evolution). That is my belief system, my religion I guess haha.
I'm afraid I just cannot abide Myers. I think he is a dangerous fool who skirts too closely to the line of incitement to hatred IMHO. I see recently that he and his cronies have set upon Ken Miller in a very deliberate attempt to discredit him as a creditable scientist because he is a theist/Catholic.
I think it's great we have these discussions on YouTube. 10-20 years ago it would not have been possible.
We all must agree to disagree because we are all equal in the eyes of our Creator (or our Universe... et al... heh).
It is to have an "open" mind which distinguishes humans from animals. (IMO!) I say "imo" because I am open-minded enough to realize God may not exist. Probable but very UNLIKELY... again, "to me."
Thanks to the people here who try to respect others. Again.. great forum!!
There is no conflict between science and religion.
The conflict is Science/Religion with Spirituality.
When you are coming from the point of
" I am right and you are wrong" you are no longer spiritual.
You cannot explain our little picture properly (Darwin/Creationism) without understanding the bigger picture reality which we (our universe) are only a tiny subset of the whole
It is the same simple analogy of the Fish not knowing he is in water trying to explain the Ocean to his friend
One cannot be certain, but quantum computers could be a link to higher order systems that can maintain sentient awareness. Some have proposed to find out how the human brain works, in about 20 years, by sending higghly adaptive and complicated nanobots to check out what is going on.
Even if computers could support artificial intelligence, this would not be evidence of intelligence in a mechanical universe, but of intelligently designed intelligence.
no? I'm suggesting that computer hardware/software is designed by intelligent beings, and so if we ever did invent some such computer host for our "minds" it would still presuppose that our originally biologically embodied minds designed these machines.
Now you are talking about evolution-of-intelligence vs. intelligent-design of intelligence? You are saying now that it is not possible for intelligence to evolve?
Evolutionary- and genetic- programming don't involve humans:
en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Evolutionary_programming
en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Genetic_programming
"GP evolves computer programs"
"therefore like their real life counterparts should be allowed to change on their own rather than being determined by a human programmer."
What a bright, attractive, intelligent young man. :D
lewisbreland 1 year ago
hey Matthew you are so f... ing HOT!!! ....xD
neoarcadezr 2 years ago
My comment got erased? ... Awesome.
tramwreck 2 years ago
Must have been a glitch, I've never once deleted a comment.
0ThouArtThat0 2 years ago
Thats alright man, passed me by anyhow...
tramwreck 2 years ago
Unscientific speculation, intuition, imagination, etc... are critical components of any world view that hopes to progress. These are the engines of new premises with which science can then work. But make no mistake, the "real" work is done in the minds if those who can operate outside the confines of accepted knowledge. When thinkers like Myers and Dennett talk about religion they often sound as ill read and unscientific as the creationists they criticize.
staylopictures 2 years ago
Would you also agree that Hitchens is more of a "style over substance" kind of guy? I felt reading his work that that he was more concerned with making a witty quip than a sound argument. I like Dawkins alright, but I think Sam Harris is the only one of the 4 Horsemen I'd really identify with.
PianoIsTheRemedy 2 years ago 2
agree! keep up the good work
alteringenting 2 years ago
good luck with the submissions you've made... i'll have my fingers croosed for you...
Peace2U Sir...
IChoseTheRedPill 2 years ago
Matthew ... a sexy buzzcut and shirtless! It very difficult to pay attention to the intellectual content of your video. Not complaining here at all (nope, no way!) ..... just have to keep watching the video over and over and shut my eyes a few times .... will have to start calling you beefcake and brains! LOL Hot!
HotSexyHandsomeGuys 2 years ago
"I don't think based on purely mechanical principles we would arrive at life or conscious life"
Argument from incredulity?
AntiSisyphus 2 years ago
I think there are more reasonable cosmologies than the materialistic that better account for our existence. The emergence of life and intelligence in an entirely mechanical universe isn't incredible, it's absurd.
0ThouArtThat0 2 years ago
@0ThouArtThat0 "it's absurd."
How is it absurd? Is the chemistry singularity absurd?
hitssquad 2 years ago
Chemical singularity = the evolution of chemical resonance from physical resonance.
hitssquad 2 years ago
You are just flat out wrong. Your feeling of absurdity is perhaps a byproduct at you failing to accept the universe as it is.
AntiSisyphus 2 years ago
Oh my, that was a good laugh. This is the funniest Youtube comment ever. I'm glad someone holds encompassing knowledge.
tramwreck 2 years ago
What's your belief system?
MrBook8 2 years ago 2
Of course there is no conflict between scientific endeavour and religiosity. However, I agree with your observation that much of modern day secular materialism is based on an improbable. Simply put, we know nothing of the nature of humanity, reality or event the constructs of physical reality. Lovely video :]. Kind and warm regards to you and yours!
Lanark8 2 years ago
I Wonder if Columbus would have bowed down to the "modern scientific outlook" at the time, and not sailed the ocean, what then? Or if Einstein had waited for science to catch up to his flash of insight that gave him the understanding that all Energy and Mass were being created simultaneously as one process...
We would be shooting ourselves in the foot! Screw rationalism! Screw scientism! Screw them to the sticking post!
ShaktipatSage 2 years ago
From Astrology we get Astronomy, from Alchemy, we get Chemistry, from the Geometry of the Mystery Schools in Greece we get modern rational thought and mathematics,
Isaac Newton himself proclaimed to spend at least twice as much time working with Hermetics and other Esoterics than with his "traditional physics".
Di Vinci.. Plato.. ALL OF THEM were Students of the Mysteries!
I feel you could trace nearly ALL of major progress in thought back to Students of the Mysteries
ShaktipatSage 2 years ago
I love your videos!
It's tragic how that "science" and "metaphysics" have separated over the years, purely the result of ignorance and close-mindedness, as well as our inability to "prove" certain Esoteric Truths such as the invisible Spirit that we all are.. but I feel we'll be able to prove them soon..
I always tell people who perscribe to "scientism" that all of their supposed "science" has its roots in Esoteric Arts..
ShaktipatSage 2 years ago
Good analysis. I was just reading Jerry Coyne yesterday arguing that the scientific method is fundamentally incompatible with faith. Ken Miller offered a pretty thorough rebuttal. Google "edge coyne does empirical nature contradict faith"
GPLeague 2 years ago
Matt, I may be just being thick, but I can't find the podcast of the interview between P Z Meyers and Dennis Alexander...Could you furnish one in the sidebar, or just explain what I'm missing? I found the link in your blog to the St Edmund's site, but it didn't seem to lead to the podcast...
Thanks!
2bsirius 2 years ago
It does seem hard to conceptualize, but personally, I do believe that the intelligent mind, consciousness, did arrive out of purely mechanic principles (evolution). That is my belief system, my religion I guess haha.
mcdoogs87 2 years ago
I'm afraid I just cannot abide Myers. I think he is a dangerous fool who skirts too closely to the line of incitement to hatred IMHO. I see recently that he and his cronies have set upon Ken Miller in a very deliberate attempt to discredit him as a creditable scientist because he is a theist/Catholic.
ballyboneman 2 years ago
I think it's great we have these discussions on YouTube. 10-20 years ago it would not have been possible.
We all must agree to disagree because we are all equal in the eyes of our Creator (or our Universe... et al... heh).
It is to have an "open" mind which distinguishes humans from animals. (IMO!) I say "imo" because I am open-minded enough to realize God may not exist. Probable but very UNLIKELY... again, "to me."
Thanks to the people here who try to respect others. Again.. great forum!!
JasonOnEarth 2 years ago
There is no conflict between science and religion.
The conflict is Science/Religion with Spirituality.
When you are coming from the point of
" I am right and you are wrong" you are no longer spiritual.
You cannot explain our little picture properly (Darwin/Creationism) without understanding the bigger picture reality which we (our universe) are only a tiny subset of the whole
It is the same simple analogy of the Fish not knowing he is in water trying to explain the Ocean to his friend
OpenMind00 2 years ago 6
shaky.
kwakzzang 2 years ago
6:10
Intelligence is not possible in a mechanical world? Computers cannot function as substrates for artificial human minds?
hitssquad 2 years ago
One cannot be certain, but quantum computers could be a link to higher order systems that can maintain sentient awareness. Some have proposed to find out how the human brain works, in about 20 years, by sending higghly adaptive and complicated nanobots to check out what is going on.
MaBu888 2 years ago
Even if computers could support artificial intelligence, this would not be evidence of intelligence in a mechanical universe, but of intelligently designed intelligence.
0ThouArtThat0 2 years ago
what are the risks of Singularity?
Torcika 2 years ago
@0ThouArtThat0 "this would not be evidence of intelligence in a mechanical universe"
You are supposing that computers hosting artificial human minds would necessarily be inhabited by spirits?
en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Ghost_ in_ the_ Machine_ (album)
hitssquad 2 years ago
no? I'm suggesting that computer hardware/software is designed by intelligent beings, and so if we ever did invent some such computer host for our "minds" it would still presuppose that our originally biologically embodied minds designed these machines.
0ThouArtThat0 2 years ago
Now you are talking about evolution-of-intelligence vs. intelligent-design of intelligence? You are saying now that it is not possible for intelligence to evolve?
Evolutionary- and genetic- programming don't involve humans:
en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Evolutionary_programming
en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Genetic_programming
"GP evolves computer programs"
"therefore like their real life counterparts should be allowed to change on their own rather than being determined by a human programmer."
hitssquad 2 years ago