The evolution of biological species and chance ...

[eclectronvolt]

Pebbles are not alive. I think you are confusing consciousness and life here, which are not quite the same thing.
According to an approach based on IIT (Integrated Information Theory), there would be elements of consciousness in everything. However, it should be understood that the term consciousness should be understood here according to a scientific approach and not a new age one.
In physics consciousness is a feedback loop between a system and an information field.
We could therefore measure levels of consciousness ranging from 1 (a thermometer for example) to several billion for life forms such as mammals.

I feel "new age" as pejorative, am I wrong?
The approach through personal experience (awakening) is not new, so the term new does not seem appropriate to me.
In historical terms, it would rather be science that is new age.
Moreover, can awakening still be described as a personal experience since the notion of individuality disappears? This process is not new, even if it is rare.
All the writings considered sacred were extracted from it.
According to the state of consciousness that appears during awakening, everything is consciousness, everything is alive.
Certainly consciousness escapes from the forms of deceased matter to go temporarily to another plane of consciousness.
Indeed there can be a separation between living and conscious but it does not last long, everything is recycled and quickly reintegrates the living.

Life, for its part, is characterized by 4 properties:
1) Autocatalytic phenomena.
2) Energy dissipative structures.
3) Ability to memorize information.
4) Reproductive capacity.
I have never seen stones perform such a feat!
Note that the stars tick 3 out of 4 boxes. It is also possible that they could accommodate forms of nuclear life...

In fact it is a definition posed by a particular form of life, the human being, by the unawakened mind, by beings who think separated.
A stone can be another form of life, with other rules and other temporalities.
Given our definitions of ourselves and our temporality, a stone does not seem alive to us, in fact.
We should ask his opinion on the rock. and to do this, put yourself at his level.

Omnipotent God would have created complexity to take care of himself...because eternity is long, especially towards the end.
and something is better than nothing.
Sorry in advance for the puritans but creation is perhaps a gigantic divine masturbation.

This is anthropomorphism...

Absolutely, that's why it was in the form of humor, which was very poorly appreciated...
This is the difficulty of the exercise, shoehorning reality (God, the timeless) into temporality and the finitude of thought.
As said from the beginning, it's mission impossible.
Science will have difficulty explaining and circumscribing the "old age" which is far beyond it.
This is not a criticism of science as such.
Obviously science is a necessary evolutionary step for certain forms of life, since it is there.
From my point of view science is a tool, like AI is a tool, like a hammer is a tool.

As I said above, the experience of the Divine still seems colored by the baggage of the awakened one, since the report of the awakened one necessarily passes through the filter of his mind and his knowledge to be communicated to us.
A person's scientific knowledge influences his or her discourse on the Divine.
Hence the sometimes notable differences, which is annoying for science, as it tends to reject what is not reproducible or provable.

[Janic]

eclectronvolt

A person's scientific knowledge influences his or her discourse on the Divine.
Hence the sometimes notable differences, and that is annoying for science, so it tends to reject them.

Absolutely right! because so-called scientific knowledge is constantly called into question by subsequent knowledge and so on within the limits of knowledge, which does not allow this scientific "knowledge" to access what it still does not know.
I will add a clarification! It is not Science[*] itself that rejects anything, it is scientists, limited by their knowledge, who make this rejection...and I am ignoring the scientists who take themselves for real scientists.
[*] Here too considered as an entity in itself like Nature for example and therefore the divine in question

From my point of view science is a tool, like AI is a tool, like a hammer is a tool.

point of view that I share! But too often there is confusion between cause and effect, in a chicken and egg way, which does not simplify the reflection on these points in question.

[Ahmed]

Very conveniently, Janic has a method for sorting out the good scientists from the bad ones. Unfortunately, he didn't give us the key, but only a few thin clues: the bad ones are the most numerous and it doesn't take any expertise in the field to do it...
I must add that this would be a particularly frustrating situation if the results of the application did not appear downright questionable, thus the support for Irene Grosjean or to Casanovas, which calls into question the entire process: as they would say Janic"It is by the fruit that we recognize the tree"

[sicetaitsimple]

Very conveniently, Janic has a method for sorting out the good scientists from the bad ones. Unfortunately, he didn't give us the key, but only a few thin clues: the bad ones are the most numerous and it doesn't take any expertise in the field to do it...

Scientists are like hunters: there are good ones and bad ones...

[Janic]

03/10/24, 10:01
ahmed

Conveniently, Janic has a method for sorting the good scientists from the bad.

Very conveniently you have a fertile imagination to tell anything, preferably.
In science there is no good or bad science, there are only humans with their own choices and beliefs of all kinds and who therefore INTERPRET the results of their work through these.

Unfortunately, he did not give us the key, but only a few thin clues:

These clues are not mine once again. When scientific journals, like the Lancet or Nature, recognize biases of interpretations in the articles they publish, none of them came to ask my opinion. When some authors of these articles (cited by wooden head of a knot who underlines the big money received by those there to lay these articles) I am not the author either. These are clues in question!
Likewise, when I suggested checking whether my quotes on vaccines were relevant or not, by checking with the state archives whether they were well-founded or not: who rushed to check it? Nobody, especially not you. So, the moralizer, start by cleaning your own house before criticizing elsewhere!

the bad ones are the most numerous and there is no need for any skills in the matter to achieve this...

Not at all, another effect of your delusional imagination. There may be more people who are right and fewer people who are wrong, as well as the opposite. The trick is to distinguish the criteria adopted by each person... and there is work to be done when beliefs replace knowledge! However, the skills in question are only measured by professionals with the same knowledge, and once again: NOT ME! Have you done it?

I must add that this would be a particularly frustrating situation. if the results of the application did not appear downright dubious, such as the support for Irène Grosjean or Casanovas, which calls into question the entire approach: as Janic would say: "it is by the fruit that we recognize the tree"

Indeed, each tree bears its own fruit and apple trees do not bear bananas, nor vice versa. So to judge the validity of something, you still have to have practiced it and therefore verified it personally, unlike those who "know" without ever having put into practice a means, whatever it may be, and not just food.
But to whom do these dubious results appear? (give at least some concrete examples) To those who do not put into practice, such as sport (to take a case outside this subject) with their noses in the football match on TV, sprawled on the sofa.
Have you tried to put into practice the advice given by the people mentioned above? No, obviously not! But you know, a priori, that it is doubtful! The guy is tough!!!!

[sen-no-sen]

I feel "new age" as pejorative, am I wrong?

It is the least we can say!
New age is a gloubiboulga ideological, a syncretism of poorly understood oriental theses coupled with a very naive vision from the countries of the far West.
It is also one of the key elements of the cultural revolution carried out at the end of the 1960s to prepare the way for the most nihilistic consumerism.
Nowadays, after a short lull, we are seeing New Age theories resurface via the Internet and in response to the existential void linked to the productivist society.

Janic

These clues are not mine once again. When scientific journals, like the Lancet or Nature, recognize biases of interpretations in the articles they publish, none of them came to ask my opinion. When some authors of these articles (cited by wooden head of a knot who underlines the big money received by those there to lay these articles) I am not the author either. These are clues in question!

You don't get wet much, do you?
On the pretext that there are biases in peer-reviewed articles, does this validate the most outlandish theses? This is an interpretation that is, to say the least, astonishing.

[Janic]

Janic
These clues are not mine once again. When scientific journals, like the Lancet or Nature, recognize biases of interpretations in the articles they publish, none of them came to ask my opinion. When some authors of these articles (cited by wooden head of a knot who underlines the big money received by those there to lay these articles) I am not the author either. These are clues in question!
sen no sen

You don't get wet much, do you?

Obviously, since I do not have the professional qualifications to decide the question. And you are qualified to take a position on non-religious scientific creationism?

Under the pretext that there would be opportunities, bias in opportunities, peer-reviewed articles, would this validate the most outlandish theses?

according to the director of the Lancet, for example and already city on this site it is not DES closest THE theses which, as a result, are far-fetched, according to your expression.

This is a rather astonishing interpretation.

What is surprising and worrying is that all theses are concerned and that theses without bias are therefore rare, even non-existent.

[Ahmed]

I do not think that Sen-no-sen, nor myself (and this is not limiting!) are qualified to take a position on non-religious scientific creationism, since it is an empty concept.

[Janic]

03/10/24, 23:03
ahmed

I don't think that Sen-no-sen, nor myself (and this is not limiting!) are qualified to take a position on non-religious scientific creationism,

This is obvious since it is based on a denier of this reality.

since it is an empty concept.

For atheists like you!
There are still individuals who deny the death camps, negationists of a reality which they consider to be "an empty concept"... of reality precisely.
In this area you react in the same way because for you creationism can ONLY be religious as a system of opposition to atheistic evolutionism. However, the dictionaries themselves define the fact of create [*] applied to other areas than religion and that many people use on a daily basis, including fundamentalist anti-creationists like you two (and this is not limiting)!
You mentioned a double monologue, which is "true" to the extent that opposition positions are definitely taken (as we see in politics, currently too) and that you use abundantly... which shows that evolution is a poorly applied concept!

[*]So not so empty as that…. conclusive doubt!

[eclectronvolt]

I feel "new age" as pejorative, am I wrong?

It is the least we can say!
New age is a gloubiboulga ideological, a syncretism of poorly understood oriental theses coupled with a very naive vision from the countries of the far West.
It is also one of the key elements of the cultural revolution carried out at the end of the 1960s to prepare the way for the most nihilistic consumerism.
Nowadays, after a short lull, we are seeing New Age theories resurface via the Internet and in response to the existential void linked to the productivist society.

There you are talking to us about the filth that can be found in any discipline.
If I were biased, I could do the same with scientific claimants and generalize that science is crap.
I have names!
Have you never found, or even looked for, any current spirituality that is worthwhile?
When I say "current", in fact only the form evolves but the substance remains the same for millennia: silencing the mind. Mind which on the contrary is the basis of science.
We are moving away from pure spirituality a little, but we can also find teachings allowing or reporting access to the invisible, which is also the bête noire of science because the experience inevitably passes through the individual and the result can be subjective.

Isn't there a little internal conflict between the mental and the non-mental here?
Mind that wants to declare that everything is crap except him?