Class Warfare Blog

July 7, 2019

Tying Oneself in Knots for Jesus, Part 2

In Tying Oneself in Knots for Jesus, Part 1, I addressed William Lane Craig’s argument for the existence of his god, the Kalam Cosmological Argument, particularly how it is dependent upon how time works. The argument, goes something like this:

  1. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
    2. The universe has a beginning of its existence.
    3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.
    4. Therefore, if the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.
    5. Therefore, God exists.

I say “something like this” because there are a great many ways this argument is made.

Most modern philosophers allude to the Big Bang Theory when making this argument as “the beginning of the universe.” Unfortunately they make a whole slew of mistakes in doing so. This is what this post is about.

In capsule form, the “Big Bang Theory” (which was originally a pejorative label designed to cast scorn upon the theory) was formulated by an extrapolation. Up to the last 100 years or so we had no idea that the universe was expanding. Once we discovered it was, an enterprising scientist (who happened to also be a Catholic priest) said that if the expansion rate was consistent, then the universe would have begun its expansion 12-14 billion years ago. Since everything in the universe is moving away from every other thing (roughly), going back that far in time would have the stuff of the universe converging into a very, very small package.

In order to see all of the stuff flying apart as it is now, that beginning bit of stuff must have exploded, hence the Big Bang (actually a Really, Really Big Bang). Note Fourteen billion year extrapolations are rife with error. Consider how effectively we extrapolate weather pattern to predict the weather just a few days into the future.

Now, as you may well know, scientists cannot leave well enough alone and things have gotten a great deal more complicated, but that is the Big Bang Theory in a nutshell. And it did have scorn heaped upon it at its beginning, because just before it was proposed, most physicists thought that the universe was both eternal and static (not expanding). Finding out it was not static was mind boggling enough, but the consequence that the universe could not be eternal because of that was a bit too much for some to take. The nail in the coffin of a static, eternal universe was the discovery of the Cosmic Background Radiation, an actual artifact of the Big Bang, but let’s not get too far afield here.

The more ignorant sort claim that the Big Bang Theory has the universe being created from “nothing” but this is a mistake on their part. They also presume that the primordial universe (sometimes referred to as a “singularity”) was sitting in space when it went bang. According to the actual theory, all of matter and all of space-time are in that bit, so that bit is “the universe” and there is nothing else. This means no “empty space,” people, and no time outside of that bit.

So, these apologists, continuing to argue from ignorance, claim that their god provided the triggering event of the Big Bang, becoming the “cause” of the universe blowing up, in an obvious act of creation.

Again, this is bogus. This triggering is not the First Cause, as they claim their god to be. To trigger an event, there has to be something to trigger. So, what is the cause of the existence of the “singularity universe?” Why does it even exist? The correct answer, apologists, is “We don’t know,” not your god created it. You do not know that.

In “we don’t know” scenarios, one approach to advance is to hypothesize ways that the event could have occurred. One of these “educated guesses” might provide a clue as how to proceed closer to an answer. Here is an example of one such possibility. The “singularity universe” is inherently unstable and will always blow up once they are formed. (Why, we don’t know, but it is a possibility.) They will have to be unstable because there can be no triggering event to cause it to blow (there is no space, no time, outside of the singularity and change takes time, so any change has to come from within the tiny universe). Another singularity universe is created by the contraction of a universe as we see now. This is called the Big Crunch because all of the matter, time and space will necessarily get squeezed back into a much smaller space. I am not saying that this will happen, but that it might. If it did, then there are no “causes” of the universes that are created, they just happen. Of course, people can ask “what set this into being?” And, if this hypothesis were proven, I am sure that question will be asked. To which I answer, the universe is under no obligation to answer our questions.

Afterthought The Big Crunch Theory was originally dismissed for quite a long list of reasons (for one the universe’s expansion is accelerating and we would expect it to slow, stop, and then come back together for this scenario to work), but is currently being revived in a second go around.

An alternative to the BCT is the singularity universe is caused by a leak from another dimension (from the Multiverse, as it were). Another alternative . . .

My request of theists is that if you are going to play the God of the Gaps Card, make sure you actually know what the gaps are.

Advertisements

July 5, 2019

Is This A Breakthrough in Figuring Out How Quantum Mechanics Actually Works?

Filed under: Science — Steve Ruis @ 10:44 am
Tags: ,

This very much may be such a breakthrough. Enjoy, physics geeks! (It is written for a scientifically literate, but lay audience.)

The Quantum Theory That Peels Away the Mystery of Measurement

 

 

July 1, 2019

Will We Never Learn?

Filed under: Politics,Science — Steve Ruis @ 8:54 am
Tags: , ,

There was a notice in The Guardian today (“Ozone layer finally healing after damage caused by aerosols, UN says”) which stated (in part):

“The ozone layer is showing signs of continuing recovery from man-made damage and is likely to heal fully by 2060, new evidence shows.”

“The results, presented on Monday in a four-year assessment of the health of the ozone layer, represent a rare instance of global environmental damage being repaired, and a victory for concerted global action by governments. Scientific evidence of the depletion of the ozone layer over the Antarctic was first presented in 1985, and in 1987 the Montreal protocol was signed, binding world governments to reduce and phase out the harmful chemicals identified as causing the problem.”

If you do not remember, there was quite the panic when it was discovered that the currently-used aerosol propellants (in spray paint, spray deodorant, hairspray, spray . . . everything) migrated into the upper atmosphere, where no one thought they would go, and decomposed under the influence of ultraviolet light producing a catalyst that caused the decomposition of ozone. (The mechanism for is was worked out in the early 1970’s, by the way.) We all then found out that ozone is a primary source of our protection from the sun’s ultraviolet rays (those which cause sunburn on your skin) and that if we kept up our use of said aerosol propellants, we would be subjecting ourselves and all of the other plant and animal life on the planet to destructive radiation.

Even if you believe that some technological genius will save us,
the solution will take 100
years to work and the problem has always been
‘can we act fast enough’ and ‘can we adapt to the changes fast enough.’
The answers so far to these critical questions are ‘no’ and ‘no.’”

My point now is that effective measures took 20 years or so to agree upon and implement and then, even though we are now seeing positive results from those efforts 30 years later, it will take another 40 years for the damage to be fully healed. That’s a total of 70 years to fix the atmospheric problem we created in a much shorter time.

Now, we are standing in front of another atmospheric problem that is of much greater magnitude, that we have been bashing it around politically for 20 years or so and we have not come up with neither technological, nor political solutions to this problem. If the Ozone Hole Problem was any indicator, it may take as long as a century before we arrive at the end the Global Atmospheric Warming Problem . . . at the earliest.

While we have been whinging and cringing over who or what is at fault (Is it man-made? Is it natural? Is it CO2?) the fact that this is almost irrelevant to solving the problem eludes us. Even is natural CO2 is 50% to blame for the rise in atmospheric (and therefore ocean, and land, and . . .) temperatures, we still have to deal with the problem. The same is true for any other natural/man-made split. If it were 100% natural, then working to reduce man-made sources of CO2 would be futile, but it clearly is not this situation. To address the problem, we must shut off the source of the problem, as we did with the Ozone Hole Problem. Or we must remove that gas from the atmosphere in quantity.

We have not yet begun to fashion a solution and we are now seeing some of the dire effects predicted, actually occurring in advance of the dates predicted, so our estimates of the negative effects are too conservative. Even if you believe that some technological genius will save us, the solution will take 100 years to implement and the problem has always been “can we act fast enough” and “can we adapt to the changes fast enough.” The answers so far to these critical questions are “no” and “no.”

And it seems that the 1960’s prescription for what to do in the event of a nuclear attack also applies to how to respond to the effects of climate change (bend over and kiss your ass goodbye). At least we can do this ourselves.

And for us science types who thought that those quite dense aerosol propellants couldn’t possibly end up in the upper atmosphere, the lesson is “It ain’t what you don’t know that will kill you, it is what you think you know that ain’t so.” It is oh, so easy to confuse what we think we know with what we actually know. So often, what we think we know is an extension of what we do know and even mathematicians understand that interpolations (filling in the gaps) tend to be far more accurate than extrapolations (extending the trend out and out and out).

June 26, 2019

The Mass Defect . . . For Physics Geeks Only

Filed under: Science — Steve Ruis @ 9:08 am
Tags: ,

I have wondered a great deal about how atomic nuclei get formed. We are still learning about this and modern theories differ from ones of just a few years ago. Here I am interested in a detail and just so you know the context, here is an example:

A carbon-12 atom is approximately 0.8% lighter than the individual component particles that were fused together make it up (6 protons and 6 neutrons and 6 electrons). The way carbon nuclei are formed is through the nuclear fusion of hydrogen into helium and then helium into carbon; the energy released is what powers most types of stars in both their normal and red giant phases, and the “lost mass” is where that energy comes from (E = mc2). This is how most types of “binding energy” work: the reason it’s harder to pull apart multiple things that are bound together is because they released energy when they were joined, and you have to put that amount of energy back in to free them again. My question involves what you actually get when you fuse them together. Is it like textbook diagrams, a bunch of round particles glued together or do they become something new?

In textbooks nuclei are often represented this way, because it is easy to draw, not because it is accurate. First, there is no color at this depth, not are there any hard edges, so all particles would be very fuzzy and rendered in grey, but that wouldn’t be pretty, now would it?

My simplistic interpretation was that the six fundamental particles in this example were “fused” (means “melted) together to make a new single particle, an atomic nucleus. The protons and neutrons themselves were no longer there, but whatever constituent particles that made them up (quarks and whatnot) were now combined in this new single particle.

There were some issues to be resolved, however. For one, the more particles that get fused together, the more the mass defect was. This made sense, but “how much more” did not. Here is a graph showing the mass defect (also called the nuclear binding energy) as a function of the number of nucleons (protons and neutrons) involved.

You can see from the graph that at first, as the number of nucleons being fused together increases, the mass defect per nucleon increases rapidly with it, but it inexplicably decreases between helium-4 and lithium-6. And then the increases get smaller and smaller as more nucleons become involved until it actually decreases from iron-56 onward, a clear example of “diminishing returns”!

My initial idea that some particle had to be spit out to account for the lost mass is blown out of the water with these facts. If a particle or particles, had to be spit out the loss in mass (aka binding energy) per nucleon involved would increase stepwise in a linear fashion.

In addition, if you repeat the reactions over and over, you get the same amount of energy produced. This regularity is hard to explain if the energy just comes from a pool of energy contained in the protons and neutrons, so we need to look at what these particles actually consist of.

The Insides of Protons
This is a topic that is still under development, but just recently physicists have calculated out where, according to theory, the mass of a proton is distributed. According to quantum chromodynamics theory, or QCD, the proton’s mass can be calculated (at 938 million electron volts) which agrees with measurements. But it turns out that only 9 percent of the proton’s mass comes from the masses of the constituent quarks. So where does the rest of the mass come from? According to the calculations, 32 percent comes from the energy of the quarks zipping around inside the proton! (E=mc2 again). Other occupants of the proton, massless particles called gluons that help hold the quarks together, contribute another 36 percent via their energy. The remaining 23 percent arises due to quantum effects that occur when quarks and gluons interact within the proton. Well this blows away all of our first intuitions regarding protons being little spherical bits of matter, hard bits. It seems that protons are mostly pools of mass-energy.

Presumable neutrons are much like this also, the masses of neutrons and protons being almost identical.

So . . .
So, my question is, during a fusion reaction, how does the process know when it has bled out “enough” energy to hold the constituent particles together? In addition, how does the reaction know when to stop? And, how do the particles know when to leak mass energy at all? (Realize these “reactions” happen at immensely high pressures and temperatures, conditions that usually result in energy being injected into particles, not prised out of them.) If there were some particle or particles spit out, taking mass and energy with them, a coherent process flows easily out of that, but this doesn’t appear to be the case. Quarks do not get spit out of fusing nuclei. It is hard to imagine the massless gluons carrying away much energy. In more mundane processes, chemical and/or ordinary physical ones (mechanical, etc.), the processes are controlled fairly simply. When a process needs energy to proceed, as the energy is added, nothing occurs until the right amount accumulates and then, Bam! it happens. If energy is being produced, attractions are broken and new stronger attractions made, the difference between them accounts for the energy involved. In the case of a dropped object, the attraction is gravity, the object falls from one elevation to another closer to the Earth and is stopped by an obstacle (e.g. the floor). The energy of movement the object displays is exactly accounted for by the change in attraction of the Earth for the object (the attraction got ever so slightly stronger, but the amount the object could fall due to that attraction got substantially less).

So, what the heck is going on in nuclear fusion reactions? Are the protons and neutrons still there, but being less massive versions of each? If so, then there are as many protons and neutron masses as there are nuclei (the masses of those particles would have to be variable according to the data in this scenario). Are there particles involved that we haven’t discovered yet? How does the reaction know when enough energy is released?

Damn, inquiring minds want to know.

Oh, and did you notice that my title with “For Physics Geeks Only” got some of you non-geeks to read this far? Pretty clever, eh?

May 21, 2019

The Direction of Biological History

Filed under: Reason,Religion,Science — Steve Ruis @ 10:59 am
Tags: , ,

Many simplistic people characterize evolution as having a goal, namely us, as we . . . obviously . . . are the pinnacle of evolution. Ah, to which supposition I offer the Fainting Goats. If you are not familiar with said animals, here is a video showing How They Got Their Name (Fainting Goats Video). Basically, if startled, their muscles tend to lock up and if they were moving when this happens, they fall over, hence it appears that they “faint.”

According to Wikipedia “The fainting was first described in scientific literature in 1904, and described as a ‘congenital myotonia’ in 1939. The mutation in the goat gene that causes this muscle stiffness was discovered in 1996, several years after the equivalent gene had been discovered in humans and mice.[15]

According to the dictates of natural selection, this makes these defective goats “easy prey” and they should all be gone by now, no? So, why are they still around? The answer is simple: humans. We “like” them enough to protect them. For the same reason, the most common bird in the world is the chicken. We “like” them enough to make sure their population has expanded to gigantic proportions.

So, a possible evolutionary strategy, that didn’t exist before, is to “survive by being liked by humans.” You may actually possess many attributes that would make you nonviable if you were merely subjected to nature, but if you are liked by humans, you get to survive and carry on your genes. (As Exhibit A I give you the Westminster Dog Show.)

By this answer alone it should be clear that evolution has no purpose, no divine plan, no pre-conceived end product. If one acquires a mutation that allows one to survive better, one survives better (on average). If one acquires an “easy prey” mutation, one doesn’t survive better in nature. It is that simple.

Nature didn’t forsee that some species would take the route that computer companies took when those companies were designed to be bought out by Microsoft. So, in effect, we have hijacked any “original purpose” of evolution, had one actually existed. Our food plants and animals dominate the biosphere. Period.

 

March 22, 2019

So Smart and Yet … And Still Prone to Simple Mistakes

In the most recent Scientific American issue, there was an interview with a Brazilian physicist.

Atheism Is Inconsistent with the Scientific Method, Prizewinning Physicist Says
In conversation, the 2019 Templeton Prize winner does not pull punches on the limits of science, the value of humility and the irrationality of nonbelief
by Lee Billings (March 20, 2019)

According to that article “Marcelo Gleiser, a 60-year-old Brazil-born theoretical physicist at Dartmouth College and prolific science popularizer, has won this year’s Templeton Prize. Valued at just under $1.5 million, the award from the John Templeton Foundation annually recognizes an individual ‘who has made an exceptional contribution to affirming life’s spiritual dimension.’”

“… And by doing that, by understanding how science advances, science really becomes a deeply spiritual conversation with the mysterious, about all the things we don’t know. So that’s one answer to your question. And that has nothing to do with organized religion, obviously, but it does inform my position against atheism. I consider myself an agnostic.

“I honestly think atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method. What I mean by that is, what is atheism? It’s a statement, a categorical statement that expresses belief in nonbelief. ‘I don’t believe even though I have no evidence for or against, simply I don’t believe.’ Period. It’s a declaration. But in science we don’t really do declarations.”

I can’t really tell whether this is willful ignorance or just Lying for Jesus. It is hard to tell, but really “What is atheism? It’s a statement, a categorical statement that expresses belief in nonbelief.”

According to this convoluted definition if you do not accept the “proof” of the existence of the Loch Ness Monster or Bigfoot, then you really just believe in their nonexistence, for no reasons whatsoever.

So, all of the evidence that Santa isn’t real is not to be considered. If you do not think Santa is real, then you have a belief in the nonbelief in Santa.

What a crock of horse pucky.

Atheism is not a belief. Here is what atheism at its core is:
Theist God exists and loves you!
Atheist I don’t “believe” you.
Theist But the proof is obvious; it is all around you.
Atheist Yeah, like what?
Theist Blah, blah, blah, blah.
Atheist Your proofs make no sense. I am not convinced.

Atheists are not believers, nor are they unbelievers. We are the unconvinced. Being unconvinced is not a state built on a foundation of belief, it is built on a foundation of no evidence, bad arguments, special pleading, logical errors, and a great many facts to the contrary.

Compatabilist scientists notwithstanding, trying to turn atheism into a belief system to imbue it with all of the flaws of religious belief systems and put it on an equal footing with them is an old, old strategy … that still does not work. Why? Because we are not convinced that atheism is a belief.

March 15, 2019

Blood Magic . . . I Wonder Where That Came From?

In the recent Christchurch, New Zealand, massacre of Muslims, one self-identified suspect posted a manifesto which stated, in part: “The origins of my language is European, my culture is European, my political beliefs are European, my philosophical beliefs are European, my identity is European and, most importantly, my blood is European.”

“My blood is European.”

Mate, your blood is red, just like the rest of us.

The role of blood in our cultural imaginings is deep and to its core bogus. For example, in this country’s history, we had laws establishing how African-American people were. We used terms like “octoroon” which now is defined as being “a person who is one-eighth black by descent” or basically having one Black grandparent. But the common people talked about one eighth of a person’s blood being Black. Others said that “one drop” of Black blood made one Black. (This was always puzzling to me because these same idiots claimed that white blood was stronger and better than black blood, so someone with a 50%-50% mix should be classified as white because the 50% white blood was stronger, no?)

Blood magic was borne of ignorance of all but a few basic facts (the primary one being if you lost enough blood, you died). It was promoted through superstition and bias and prejudice (your enemies had bad blood). But what keeps it going centuries after it has been debunked as nonsense?

Ah, culturally blood shows up as a mystical power in religions. Christians and Jews can read about blood magic in their Bibles. They can read about how menstrual blood makes women “unclean” for several days of the month. They can read about how we were all saved “by the blood of a lamb.” They can read about blood sacrifices. They can read about how being born carries sin which resides in the blood. They can read about dietary restrictions involving blood, such as the Torah forbids the consumption of the blood of an animal. (Imagine forbidding the glory which is blood sausage. Amazing.)

So, while us secularists are trying to reduce superstition and ignorance, the religionists are reinforcing it.

Oh, and the manifesto writer which claims “my identity is European” is apparently an Australian. His European language is rooted in the Near East. His DNA is roughly two thirds African in origin and one third Asian in origin. European political beliefs? Really? Is there any political belief you cannot find embedded in Europe? This poor sod is seriously confused . . . but he sure does know how to sling buzz words at a right-ring audience.

It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so. (Anonymous—please do not comment that it was Mark Twain, it appears nowhere in his writings or reporting upon him.)

January 8, 2019

Other Ways of Knowing, Part 2

Filed under: Reason,Religion,Science — Steve Ruis @ 12:46 pm
Tags: , , ,

In the ongoing war between faith and science a common claim is that science is not the only way to acquire knowledge, that there are “other ways of knowing.” Along with this I see question after question on the Quora website asking atheists about what “evidence” would convince them to believe in God/Jesus (like we tell them and then they produce it … strange question). The number of these latter questions is smaller than the usual ones asking atheists to prove there is no god or asking for evidence that there is no god, but they are numerous enough.

So, many of these arguments center on “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” arguments which are too nonsensical to take seriously but the “other ways of knowing” response is intriguing. Usually they are referring to “revealed” truth or some such thing through “personal experience” (as if there were any other kind). Interestingly enough, in the vast majority of times in which revealed truths have some up against scientific truths, the revealed truths have come out poorly. This lead me to the following line of thinking.

In legal contests, if one side makes an argument that there is only one interpretation of the evidence and that interpretation circumstantially leads to the guilt of a defendant, the only requirement of the refutation of such an argument is that another equally plausible interpretation be made … not proved, just made. So, if the argument is “god did it,” then in spite of the evidence, all that is needed is an equally plausible interpretation of the “evidence.” Well, that has been provided and, obviously, it didn’t work.

So, consider the following hypothetical scenario. A favorite meme of the ancient alien speculators (they are not theorists) is that an alien race came to this planet and “adjusted” our genetic material to make us who we are now. What if that were true?

So, a flying saucer (or any other equivalent space craft) lands on the White House lawn and after a small diplomatic interlude, their representatives claim that they came back to check on how we were doing, because X numbers of thousands of years ago, they “adjusted the DNA of a hominid ancestor of ours to result in … us. They provide more than credible evidence of this deed (videos, tissue samples, explanations of the DNA “adjustments,” etc.

What happens to the “other ways of knowing” at that point? I suggest that all of them are blown out of the water as the hooey they are. The claim that there are “other ways of knowing” is simple a ruse to protect their “knowledge” from critical inspection.

I suggest that this is not the only scenario that results in all of those “other ways” of folding up like a cheap cardboard suitcase left in the rain. (Cheap cardboard suitcases were the ancestors of cheap plastic suitcases.) Another would be the discovery of significant life on another planet, which could come about through contact or communication remotely. If we found that their set of “beliefs” about nature were different from scientific truths and ascribed to “other ways of knowing,” we would know we were talking to their bullshit artists who were part and parcel with our bullshit artists.

Can you think of other such scenarios? Wouldn’t a benign one of these be lovely? Traumatic for some but lovely collectively. (One can empathize with the traumatized (and I would), but you can’t put your balls on an anvil, pass out hammers, and then complain of the pain you suffer.)

December 21, 2018

Update on Free Will

Filed under: Philosophy,Science — Steve Ruis @ 11:29 am
Tags: , , ,

Currently I am reading two books by authors with similar names neither of which I had heard before. I have already commented on Sam Pizzagati’s The Rich Do Not Always Win, an history of the early twentieth century that resulted in the largest middle class in American history. I strongly recommend this book as the rhetoric on both sides of the “wealth inequality” debate is quite illuminating.

The second book is by Michael S. Gazziniga entitled Who’s in Charge?: Free Will and the Science of the Brain. This book is fabulous as it is written by a neuroscientist, one who is taking his fellow scientists to task in the free will debate.

I have previously argued that it is far too early in the scientific investigation of free will to come to any conclusion, certainly not one with such large ramifications as whether we have free will or all of our decisions being determined by physical causes. This author provides a piece of this discussion that I had not heard before and it is a lollapalooza.

He starts with addressing free will in the context of responsibility, the primary question is “Can we hold people responsible for their decisions?” (If not our criminal justice system is far worse off than it already is.) This is enough of a foothold on free will to proceed. After going over the neurological research that seems to apply to the question he makes the following argument: consciousness is an emergent property of brains possessing enough connections. This is not a revelation, most people buy into this conclusion. He then goes on to claim that emergent properties represent a disconnect from the basic physical conditions that create the property in the first place! If this holds up, then determinism is done for, toast, kaput, won’t apply, because there are quite a few layers of emergent mental properties stacked up that the basic physical entities (atoms, molecules, DNA, genes, etc.) will not be able to get through.

He gives as an example the building of a car. A careful designer can create a car with its engine, transmission, differential, wheels, tires, electronics, etc. that will perform pretty much exactly as designed. (I have just finished reading a book on the design of the most recent iteration of the Ford GT race car. It was designed to win the 24 Hours at Le Mans race … and did. This is an example of determinism, the whole being the sum of its parts.) But … you knew that was coming, didn’t you? … but none of a car’s physical parameters, its specifications, can explain … traffic. When you take automobiles and roads, traffic shows up as an emergent property and traffic cannot be predicted from nor can it be determined by any car’s design! And if this weren’t enough, the author claims that the emergent properties affect the original vehicles through feedback. For example, this souped up race car might overheat badly in beep and creep traffic, so has to have to be modified or just garaged and not driven on normal roads. (I haven’t finished this second part of his argument but basically he argues “that the mind, which is somehow generated by the physical processes of the brain, constrains the brain.” The mind constrains the brain. Think about that. (There are many examples of this happening, but like I said I haven’t finished this part yet.)

This argument about emergent properties blocking deterministic causes seems to blow the argument of free will v. determinism out of the water with determinism the loser. We have to wait and see if it holds up.

So, what do you think? Is consciousness and therefore free will determined such that we actually have only the illusion of free will and making our own choices, or is making conscious choices an emergent ability not determined by physical inputs to our brains? (The author explains why we all have the perception of an “I” making decisions by the way, even though “I” does not exist.”

 

More on GMO’s (Gosh, What Could Go Wrong?)

Filed under: Science,Technology — Steve Ruis @ 8:46 am
Tags: , , , ,

I have written about GMOs (genetically modified organisms) from the position that these genetic modifications, unlike the ones our artificial selection processes have been created, skip over steps that may produce non-viable results and, therefore aren’t “vetted” by nature. In John Hively’s blog is a report on one case of “what could go wrong” by the generic engineer inventor himself. I think this is must reading for anyone concerned about GMOs, bees, our future survival, corporate bad behavior, etc.

GMO Potato Scientific Founder Says GMO Potato’s are a Pandora’s Box of Troubles

PS I am not saying we shouldn’t investigate GMOs; I am saying we should go slow because the safety protocols needed are immediately obvious.

 

Next Page »

Blog at WordPress.com.