--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Jason" <jedi_spock@...> wrote: > > --- "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > The Core of `Mind and Cosmos'By THOMAS NAGEL > > <http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/author/thomas-nagel/> > > This is a brief statement of positions defended more fully in my book > > "Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of > > Nature Is Almost Certainly False," which was published by Oxford > > University Press last year. Since then the book has attracted a good > > deal of critical attention, which is not surprising, given the > > entrenchment of the world view that it attacks. It seemed useful to > > offer a short summary of the central argument. > > Read > > more:http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/the-core-of-mind-an\ > > d-cosmos/ > > <http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/the-core-of-mind-and-co\ > > smos/> > http://www.ted.com/talks/martin_hanczyc_the_line_between_life_and_not_life.html > > https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=oil-droplets-mimic-early-life
Probably be a good idea to read at least the article in the NYTimes, Jason. Then you'd realize your assertions don't challenge Nagel's thesis the way you thought they did, because he isn't saying what you thought he was. > Darwin's concept is naturalist and not materialist. > Maintain that distinction. > > 'Natural Selection' itself is a form of intelligence. An > abstract, rudimentary, mathematical intelligence. > > Even if Nature has intelligence, (as Maharishi sez), It > dosen't contradict Darwin in any way. If Maharishi's > "infinite self-organising power of nature" is a form of > intelligence, it only means the earliest life self assembled > itself. > > Again, there is nothing here that contradicts Darwin. There > is still no personal god. > > Subjective first person ontology is not always reliable or > accurate. It has to be corroborated with objective > scientific data. >
