John Sonmez of Bulldog Mindset Talks with Perry Marshall about…Biology.
John Sonmez interviews Perry Marshall and they discuss why it’s impossible for computers in their current form to become conscious; how modern mathematics speaks in a new way to age-old questions about free will; the nature of consciousness; the origin of life and the very nature of reality itself. All this is based on Perry’s paper “Biology transcends the limits of computation.”
Dean Radin discusses his new paper co-authored with Stuart Kauffman
Psychic phenomena have been meticulously documented in hundreds of controlled studies since the 1980s. Mainstream science publications resist acknowledging this but the quality and quantity of evidence is overwhelming.
Dean Radin, who has a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering and a PhD in Psychology, began discovering this decades ago and founded the Institute for Noetic Sciences.
He recently joined forces with eminent scientist Stuart Kauffman to harmonize the observations with quantum theory.
Evolutionary theory has barely begun to grapple with the real issues of biology. It amazes me how oblivious so many biologists are with regard to addressing the source of biology’s extraordinary characteristics. Recently, I wrote a paper:
How Was Nature Able to Discover Its Own Laws—Twice?
The article asks a question that few scientists seem to ask. Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier received the 2020 Nobel prize in Chemistry for discovering how DNA can be edited.
Except they didn’t really discover that technique. They just discovered how bacteria have been doing it for billions of years to help combat viral attack. When people do that to other people it’s called plagiarism (tongue in cheek, of course; no question regarding the significance of the Doudna-Charpentier Nobel work).
The point is that there’s a question out there that biologists (and physicists and chemists) don’t seem to ask: How could nature have discovered its own laws (twice), and apply them, like a top technologist, way ahead of all human technologists? What is the law of nature that explains nature’s ability to discover (and exploit) its own laws?
The article asks a question that few scientists seem to ask.
My reply to Addy: I know of no other way to even consider this question than to point out that saying, “discover its own laws” only makes sense if life itself has a degree of self-awareness. That’s why Barbara McClintock asked, ‘What does a cell know about itself?’ This I believe is the pivotal question of all biology. I presented a proof of this in my own 2021 paper and will be speaking about it at the Thermodynamics 2.0 conference next week.
Our search for an answer is a quest for the next Albert Einstein or Nikola Tesla.
Until we squarely face this question, biology will remain in its current state of “training wheels,” describing but never fully defining its subject matter. This is one of the most fascinating questions in science. Which is why I earnestly believe that once we begin making real progress on this question, a host of revolutionary discoveries will quickly ensue.
Perry and Rabbi Adam Jacobs discuss the Origin of Life Challenge, the debate between creationism and Neo-Darwinism, how to decide between the two theories of evolution, if intelligent design contradicts Darwinism and so much more.
This revolution is very much underway. The trickle turned into a flood in 2016 at the Royal Society. An article like this should have appeared in the Guardian afterward in November 2016 but didn’t. In fact, very little was said about it in the mainstream press and the news is coming six years later. New thinking is replacing old in other specialties much faster than it is taking place in evolutionary biology. For example, cancer, embryonic development and consciousness.
I am shocked at the low level of explanatory power that traditional evolutionists are content with. As you see in the article, it doesn’t bother them that they can’t explain the developmental process of eyes or wings or any other complex trait. I’m astounded that they’re happy with that. But the conflict comes from people whose standards are much higher.
In future blogs, I will also report on Denis Noble’s debate with Richard Dawkins at the How the Light Gets In festival which was eye opening to say the least. I predict that during the next 20 years, most of what textbooks define as “evolution” will be completely replaced with new systems and mechanisms. This will, in turn, lead to significant advances in treating cancer, disease, and birth defects.
A very rare clinical oncologist plus theoretical biologist describes the landscape.
Doru Paul of Cornell University is one of those very rare people who has both treated over 10,000 cancer patients as their doctor and simultaneously holds a kaleidoscopic view of a huge range of research, theories and literature.
Today we talk about the many competing models and their pros and cons.
And, finally, he answers the question: “What kind of medical policies would you put in place if you could start your own country from scratch?”.
John Lennox is an Oxford mathematician who is the author of the new book Cosmic Chemistry. He’s written many books about the relationship between science and religion and has debated Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens.
His new book candidly surveys the current state of evolutionary theory. Notable chapters include reviews of work by Denis Noble and James Shapiro.
In this conversation that we had on the Oxford campus, John recounts his history of asking the big questions.
And scrolling down to “Online Tickets.” You can purchase the package that best suits your needs.
If you prefer to watch the recording later…you can view it at iai.tv with a subscription.
The Gene Machine:
Dawkins‘ Selfish Gene has been hugely influential, both within evolutionary biology and in the wider public sphere. It’s a beautifully simple story: genes and not organisms drive evolutionary change. But critics argue the story is simplistic. The effect of a gene is not always the same and as is dependent on its host and the cell environment. DNA does not come neatly divided into individual genes. And in 2010 the renowned biologist EO Wilson and others revived the case for group selection. Some are now arguing that the Selfish Gene paradigm is holding back medical research.
Is it time to move on and acknowledge that Dawkins‘ theory is not the whole story? Might his theory be making a fundamental mistake in reducing humans to machines? Or does the Selfish Gene remain a remarkably powerful and accurate account of who we are?
World-famous scientist Richard Dawkins goes head-to-head with celebrated biologist Denis Noble as they lock horns over the role of genes over the eons