The God Within

The God Within

2012, Conspiracy  -   316 Comments
Ratings: 5.81/10 from 296 users.

Mike Adams, the author of this documentary, says he always admired physicists. He says physicists seek answers by asking questions of nature and when they follow with rigorous scientific approach to the quest for knowledge, they refuse to be sidelined by dogma, personal belief or trickery. Science, in its most pure form, is about the search for truth.

Mike is not referring to the bastardization of science by modern corporations, which use the language of science to push a kind of intellectual tyranny involving for profit GMO's, vaccines and pharmaceuticals. He's talking about pure non-corporate driven science and the quest for human understanding.

This search for human understanding has lead him through a number of fascinating areas of study, but he found the most fertile ground for exploration in the fields of quantum physics, the many-worlds interpretation and the study of consciousness. Along that path, he decided to read a book by famed physicist Stephen Hawking and co-author Leonard Mlodinow.

As a fan of Hawking's work over the years, Mike relished the idea of reading his explanations of the theory of everything, The Grand Design, the invisible hand behind it all. What he found in his book, however, rather surprised him. On the very first page of the book, Mike found himself quite disappointed in the apparent lack of understanding of the universe from someone as intellectually capable as Hawking.

His words reflect what can only be called "the great failing" of modern day physics, to address the meaning behind the math. Far too many mainstream physicists seem stuck in what can only be called the Newtonian era of consciousness, that is, they don't yet grasp the idea that consciousness exists at all.

Hawking's book, The Grand Design, did serve another useful purpose in Mike's search for understanding. It nicely summarized the outmoded view of conventional physics. This mainstream view of physics is to reality what conventional medicine is to healing. In other words, it has all the technical jargon but none of the soul, and so it misses the whole point.

According to Mike, conventional physics is the clever conglomeration of high level mathematics desperately seeking to avoid any discussion of what it all means. You're not allowed to talk about consciousness or free will or the spooky connectedness that has been experimentally demonstrated to exist between all things in the universe, because that brings up too many questions that make conventional physicists uncomfortable... questions about God or the intersection of intention with the physical universe or free will.

More great documentaries

316 Comments / User Reviews

  1. Lot of Garbage

  2. I spent many years at ORNL and my wife is still in the scientific community and something I’ve learned is that scientists get further away from atheism as they age and move toward agnostic perspectives.

    The more you know the more you see how little anyone actually knows. Making blanket statements about what is and what is not is juvenile and pointless.

  3. A doc with a low rating sure brings out a rather long list of comments?.......really!? I'd call that very misrated. I loved it. I've thought along these same lines decades before ever hearing these things discussed by others. Just makes sense. The same way new scientific theories are discovered. They are first perceived.

  4. This contains wisdom. Minus the idea that there is an intelligent, interested creator of our universe. Why should we not be simply a minuscule part of one of that creators cells that he/she/ (more likely IT) pays no attention to? The point is, science will not cease to be naive until it realizes it will ALWAYS be a child (& of course there is no literal father or mother) and must always continue to grow, much like our selves.
    Perhaps there is a race of super intelligent, massive beings, and our universe is simply a cell in something around them, like a blade of grass or a mushroom.

  5. This is awful. Don't waste your time watching or trying to make sense of this nonsense

  6. JNANI is what this man is trying to explain.

  7. I think it is interesting how emotional the comments are. Most of them are critical of Mr. Adams and try to discredit him by using "rational" logic, but it is evident that their reasoning is cramped within a larger emotional package of contempt and anger. I am not vested in any one side of the argument so I am NOT discounting any one's reasoning, but simply pointing out how emotional the responses have been. Why is that?

  8. This guy is flat out can he say Stephen Hawking determenistic whose work is intricately connected to quantum physics and thermodynamics. Tweaking facts here and there, he is suggesting us to toss out everything what we have known so in Sundays and we will understand the fact that is how we have come so far as humans

  9. Mr. Adams could have saved us all some time had he defined and proven the existence of all those concepts such as soul, divine, God or such. Gee, maybe real scientists don't 'believe' in those ideas because there is no evidence to prove they exist, could that be it? For example, what is the Being of God? Our being is atoms, molecules and such which we can measure and describe using the scientific method, but what is God's being, what is God made of? What is a soul made of? Does it take up space? Where is any evidence for anything except what we call natural?

    Look, let's face it, everyone is guessing. No one knows all the answers, obviously. Mike Adams is guessing and making it sound as if he knows something, then putting down the men who are doing science, all to support his religious suppositions, his guesses. Scientists work with what we call reality, not unreality. They are the cutting edge of modern science. But Mike Adams, from his laboratory at Divinity Now, what ideas does he have, or is he just BSing everyone. It's that edge of arrogance in his voice that has got me going........

    I would suggest interested thinkers read Marvin Minsky's wonderful book "The Society of Mind" in which he describes his ideas of how mind works. For example, see if you can follow this......

    "Everything that happens in our universe is either completely determined by what has already happened in the past, or else depends in part on random chance. Everything, including that which happens in our brains, depends on these and only on these:

    A set of fixed, deterministic laws. A purely random set of accidents

    There is no room on either side for any third alternative. Whatever actions we may 'choose', it cannot make the slightest change in what might other wise have been -- because those rigid, natural laws already caused the states of mind that caused us to decide that way. And if that choice was in part made by chance -- it still leaves nothing for us to decide."

    When I was young they talked about a 'steady state' universe, that is until larger telescopes were invented and the concept of 'Big Bang' came along. So what does anyone know about a Big Bang? Will it still be talked about in 50 or 100 years? Isn't it more logical to think that the 'universe', or 'multiverse', wasn't created but has existed forever? And that it goes on forever?

  10. Fell asleep after 12 minutes of the most arrogant monologue I've ever heard.

  11. Now that's how you shave off the edges of a square peg to make it fit through a round hole....or at least attempt to do so.

  12. Hilariously wrong. If you have no desire to actually learn anything about quantum physics this is the documentary for you. Narrator claims that if God isn't real then genocide is ok.

    (Exact words: "The belief that human beings lack souls or conciousness is dangerous for a far more serious reason. It can provide a scientific basis for heinous crimes against humanity including genocide. From Hawkings' point of view of soul-less determinism there is no reason why, the United Nations for example, can't reduce region overpopulation by simply committing genocide against human beings through population reduction programs. Because humans aren't 'real people with souls and conciousness' the poisoning of them does not violate any real ethical boundaries - according to that line of thinking.")

    Uhm... Sorry, Mike Adams, but that logic doesn't make one lick of sense to the rational human beings of the world who aren't Christian and don't believe in souls. Maybe you personally would suddenly start thinking genocide is ok, but that says something about you personally, it says nothing about humanity as a whole.

    He then goes on to say that the government is already euthenizing millions of animals every year (he doesn't say why - but it's to control animal populations from getting out of control. When animal populations get out of control 90% of their population will starve to death in a single year when food becomes scarce - If he doesn't understand that I have no idea where he gets off talking about quantum physics) but more importantly, Adams states that the government justifies these actions by claiming that animals don't have conciousness. (He wanted to say souls but he knew everyone would call him on his shit if he did so) Nope. Sorry Adams, that's just wrong and I feel bad for you if you actually believe your own words.

    Adams seems to think his incredibly simple philosophical statements put holes through Steven Hawkings' interpretations of conciousness, which is actually kind of sad to listen to.

    Honestly, this doc should be called "The Pseudo-Intellectual Layman's Guide to Misinterpreting Everything"

    1. Adams actually makes a valid point. He states that modern physicists have essentially defined human beings as biological robots, i.e. our behaviour, thoughts and feelings are ultimately the result of biochemistry, that we are complex machines. Hawking has actually suggested that the human mind may one day be uploaded into a computer!

      What Adams is suggesting, is if our thoughts and behaviour is simply the product of a biochemical reaction, then human beings are basically machines with no soul or free will. Surely that divests us of any particular rights? The only difference between a human and a rodent is that the former has a more complex brain, but both are essentially 'machines'.

      If you created a robot with artificial intelligence, and an IQ of 130, how would that robot be any different to a human being? Its power source may be different - electricity instead of food - but if it has genuine intelligence and is sentient, then would it be any more immoral to terminate it, than it would to kill a human being? If so, why?

  13. "Oh boy", another (born again) trained circus monkey taught to do cute tricks. What whacko group of religious lunies, and delusional fanatics funded this silly tripe? You have grossly misinterpreted the intent, and meaning of Physics professionals, the intent, and meaning of science itself, and the meaning of determinism. The only "dangerous" person I see here is you, disingenuous religious clods, and nincompoops who use cheep circus monkey tricks to wow the uneducated with your silly assertions, and gratuitous misuse of scientific jargon. It's just preconceived conclusions of amateurs, and con artists.

    Any damned fool can criticize the top physicists when they aren't there to correct you on your misinterpretations of their scientific, systems of observation, experimentation, and hypothesis. You've done a great job distorting the true conclusions of theoretical physics which by no means imply a state of total awareness, and total knowledge, about the universe or it's mechanisms. I actually heard you talk about the term (spirituality). "Really", GMAB. That term may suit your fearful clueless abdication of adult professional responsibility, and your desire to justify your obvious motivations to push the deity, or baby Jesus theory, but it has no place in the world of science ,which seeks neither to prove, or disprove the existence of a deity. Science seeks only to explain phenomena by testing, experimentation, and repeated retesting, and repeatability of those experiments, and their conclusions until they collapse in falsehood, or stand like a wall of undeniable scientific theory, and law.

    Spirituality, is merely an expression of "mystery" aka "ignorance", concerning phenomena that is not understood by the individual. It is a clear sign that you are willing to abdicate your responsibility as a true scientist, and student of theoretical physics for the world of conjecture, mysticism, and primitive psychotic wanderings in the world of "currently" unprovable, untestable fantasy. There is no doubt many scientists have made the mistake of (false omniscience) whether by innocent false conclusion, or by wanton arrogance, only to be made fools of later on. That doesn't imply however that science, or serious dedicated scientists, of integrity, and honesty believe they have reached the zenith, of all knowledge. That is BS. The thing you repeatedly hear from every Physics professional, every physics professor, is a full open ,and unequivocal admission that the universe is still full of unknowns, and contradictions that we are still in pursuit of: Dark energy, dark matter, multiverses, pre expansion realities, even the existence of the big bang, or the singularity. These things are openly described by the community as the logical conclusion of our (current mathematical models), and not in any way to be taken as an end of research, experimentation, and peer review, an endless ongoing process.

    You imply that the quantum realities of the universe are somehow denied by some scientists, when in reality you and 99.999% of the worlds people wouldn't have any idea of quantum theory unless those scientists you criticize, discovered the properties, and realities of the quantum world for you to explore, and discuss in the first place. One of the top theoretical physicists Leonard Susskind who countered critical aspects of Hawking's assertions, states that in the gravitational nether world of black holes (Information, like energy, and momentum is conserved)

    Your assessment of (biological determinism) is grossly unrealistic, and totally wrong headed. The idea that somehow we have slipped into your approaching Armageddon world of social collapse is pure childish misinformed, untrained absurdity. That's why people go to law school ,to learn about silly theories like yours, that completely distort the world of jurisprudence, human psychology, and the realities of life in the real world. The idea of democracy, and a jury of your peers implies that human organisms, have the power of observation, and reason, based on the needs of the organism, and the greater society as an extension of that organism for a species that is a social being. Laws, as any criminal, or good lawyer will tell you, were made to be broken, and interpreted. It is the purpose of a jury, and a judge to determine the meaning, and application of law, based on the needs of the biological beings on the jury, and the society as a whole. The person committing a heinous crime in one time, and place may hang, yet in another venue, may walk away as an innocent person by virtue of (perceived insanity), or be freed by virtue of the whims, and local beliefs of the jury. The condition implies that the biological needs of the wider society, and the individuals on the jury make all the difference in who is guilty, and who is innocent, a matter of local culture, and a matter of individual understanding, and perception. That is the nature of justice in a democracy, for good, or ill, and will always be so. There is no cause to determine the collapse of reason based on a deterministic approach to justice. The old expression goes, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", or put another way, my lawyer, can beat up your lawyer.
    Your entire effort here, it seems to me. is mere discount store tripe. I think, not really worth the effort of serious students to consider. Those of us who know the ancient history of mystical predictions, and conjecture about the mysteries of the universe, as spirits wandering in the ether, are rightfully wary, suspicious, and disdainful of silly conjectures and adherence to mystical non reason. We remember the inquisitions, and debauchery of religious sooth sayers, clergymen, papal despots, religious fundamentalist defilers of truth, and accusatory self serving lunacy that put Galileo Galilei in the hands of the ecclesiastical court. We despise the judgement of innocent victims of religious zealots, and torturers from the Catholic inquisitions, to the lunacy of ISIS fundamentalist psychopaths.

    I do not, conclude, or deny, that some form of deity, or cognizant being may be found at the heart of all existence, and reality someday, in some way, because for now it is beyond our dimensional understanding. Like millions of people I would love to believe that there is a benevolent, loving deity out there, to welcome me home when I die. Unfortunately, there is absolutely no evidence for that happening, and no reason for me to believe it will ever be so. I will keep an open mind, given the fact that I do not posses all knowledge. Until some tangible, vision, appears in my dimension of reality, and perception, I shall remain skeptical of any such claim, not out of spite, or disrespect, but by adherence to the realities given to me by the gifts of human perception, sight, sound, touch taste,and smell, interpreted, accepted, or rejected by a rational biological brain, in the dimension I currently inhabit. I suggest we all do the same, and not be conned by the self serving delusions, of charlatans, and priests who seek to control , deceive, and yes profit from the fears, and frightened dreams of the innocents.

  14. First a confession: Try as I might, I only made it to 31 mins.

    Modern computer processors and operating systems are modeled on the brain. While there is no 'consciousness' present, someone stepping out of 1970 and into 2014, upon encountering a modern computer, would be at the least astounded. Some might even call them, to borrow a term from Mr. Adams, "spooky". In fact, given the level of intuition and interactivity available from current operating systems, the more superstitious time traveler might even perceive a level of consciousness.

    They would be wrong, but they wouldn't think so.

    I wonder what their narrative would be.

  15. wow this guys agrees with almost all of what i believe, *sigh* too bad he isnt of my religion

  16. kudos.. Sooner or later.. We,.. We'll figure it out and then realize!

  17. Mr. Adams

    You have repeatedly said that humans are 'made in God's image' but you don't explain in what ways we are made in 'God's' image. The National Catholic Almanac says that God is "infinite, immortal, holy, eternal, immutable, omnipotent and omniscient, perfect, supreme", and more, but none of these apply to humans. What is 'God's' Being? Our Being is flesh and blood and cells, but this is not God's Being. What could a God be made of, a God that shows up 2000 years ago with his 'son', who say they are coming back, but don't…….

    I suggest you do this: Since the film has shown us what Mr. Adams has imagined to be true, but which he has not proven in any way, perhaps he should do another video, such as "Where did God come from"? Science is an effort, an ongoing attempt to describe what we see around us, and to verify by experimentation and confirmation of others. Religion and God belief are guesses, myths and stories from the past with no possible verification, only individual reports that change as one goes from Christianity to Judaism to Hinduism, etc.

    The other side of the story is presented by George H. Smith, in his book "Atheism - The Case Against God", 1989, which should be read by all, as it explains why the 'God' concept is impossible.

    Another part of my difficulty with religion is the existence of evil in the world. Does God not have responsibility for the Tsunami's that inflict pain and suffering upon children who have not yet begun to live? Or the famines where humans are reduced to eating their children, such as in 2 Kings 6:29? Or the two headed children born into a world of pain?

    Your statement that 'You're not allowed to talk about consciousness or free will…' is absurd, consciousness and free will are being studied intensely by neuroscientists are they not, but grounded in reality, not in imagination. Scientists study what they can agree upon is the procedure I believe, called peer review. Is that not sufficient?

  18. This is nothing more than a Steven Hawkings bashing party. I do not believe in any supernatural beings. Any more than i believe there is a real daffy duck Nice try. !!!Peace!!

  19. Hawking's book, The Grand Design, did serve another useful purpose in Mike's search for understanding."??? don't make me laugh. You can't even call it science, it's sciencefiction, where he makes us believe a nebulous set of theories and no observable proofs are possible. a theory with no experimental support whatsoever, hence not a theory of physics at all.

  20. To truly understand science one must accept that the answers to how we came to be are irrelevent .Accept this reality and work towards making life more tollerable for the current group of living beings around you . Self absorbed in trying to explain existance does little to accomplish the task at hand . Dark matter , string theory , multiple dimensions , all fantasy --- weave a rug for "Gods sake" .

    To create a being as the explanation for that which is observable and assume it cares about or even knows our level of awareness , is as rediculous as the self absorbed scientists wasting time trying to messure a particle which may or may not be in a particuler place at any given moment.

    Learn to be happy in the moment and plan for the future today to ensure survival of our species. Plant a crop , build a shelter, connect communities , and make love as often and with as many as life permits . Your actions today determine the future shared by those in it including yourself if you survive to be in it .
    A sexually repressive fundamentalist view espousing monogomus relationships is insane .

    Diversity is key to spicies survival .

  21. Animals are people too.. So say the bumper stickers.. I think it should be.. People are animals too..!and when the religions that say we are above other creatures, created by God in His image, should look back three and a half billion years to when we all looked like a single cell bacteria.. And not because of book written 2000 years ago says different.. But because a 3 billion years Plus of rock strata has left evidence showing a timeline from where we came from..and where we are now.I can deal with the concept of God. I just can't deal with the Self righteous dogma many spew as a feeble attempt to challenge valid scientific findings.if God is responsible for all things...? He lit a match 14.7 billion years ago.. Turned.. And has not look back on "us" since.

  22. i find it ridiculous just how closed minded most pro science advocates have become. seriously what matters more ? the universal pursuit of truth or the thunderous applause of your intellectual peers. many seem more concerned with appearing to have all the answers rather than what answers they actually have.

    1. I think what's frighteing is how few answers (precisely ZERO) religion has. It's just pure dogma and ignorance that, thankfully, people are starting to see for what it is - i.e. a fraud

    2. i'm not anti science but i'm also not prepared to blindly choose to believe 100 % of everything from a bunch of people who think their own sparkling logical intellect is the mightiest thing in the known universe, especially when the journey of science has always been a process of unfolding truth and revision, hence incomplete. religion is flawed but the intention is not ( sure, some set out with intent to rob a naive congregation ). it is foolish to think one has to be either in one camp or the other 100% when neither has all the answers. as far as ZERO answers is concerned, well the fact these institutions and beliefs have endured for thousands of years, even into the era of modern logic does prove that our connection with such beliefs on some level may be more fundamentally linked to our being,( hence it exist for a reason we don't yet understand) than your probably willing to will never rid itself of it's unwanted guest that is spiritual ideas. to believe that after death there is nothing is quiet unscientific as the is no realm of nothing as everything is something, what that after death something might well be.. i don't know ... but that is more scientific than saying " i know ! there is nothing !" when nobody has returned to confirm such.

  23. Blind faith in scientism has led many, including myself, to a delusional state that can only be held up by keeping oneself ignorant of any dissenting viewpoints. If anyone questions scientism, they are marginalized as being creationist or conspiracy theorists or r*tarded. Ad hominem attacks come about because those who defend things like the current model of our universe cannot defend something they don't even understand themselves.

    1. You may understand scientism but you don't understand science. Science must be corroborated, and it must be capable of being repeated by others. Scientists aren't ignorant of other possibilities, far from it, but they must assess the evidence that is presented for opposing theories, such as Creationism. When you introduce theories of 'gods' and 'goddesses' and 'devils' that have no referents in reality, yes there is opposition, and rightly so. Religion looks backwards in time, science looks forward, with intention. And beliefs are the social 'glue' that identifies and holds people together in a tight group, they are a socializing tool, and dissenters are punished or ostracized.
      Science has learned that the 'being' of humans is cellular, flesh and blood', but what is the 'Being' of God? We can describe ourselves in scientific language, but to describe us as made in 'God's image' requires not science, but simply belief.

      The purpose of science is to carry us forward, to understand reality and the future, while the purpose of religion is to promote group cohesion by inculcating a belief system that may or may not have any similarity to the world around us.


    2. I understand your perspective but it is a bit naive. Cosmology, for one, is an area that relies on theoretical manifestations with no repeatable scientific experiments to verify (for the most part, that is). For example, black holes are created out of fallacious maths that no one in the field seems to mind. Any beginning math student knows you cannot divide by zero and yet theoretical mathemagicians feel that is it OK to do if it suits their ideas about black holes. It's utter lunacy, and yet most believe in black holes. They are everywhere and in all different sizes, or so we are told. Yet, there is no proof they exist, none. There are other areas of science that do not rely on repeatable experimentation to get the results too.

      The problem is that we believe in the basic objectivity of science and we project this idealistic notion on the whole of science. It's as though it is seen as the holiest of holys. This is where science becomes "scientism" -when authority replaces rational thought and dogma covers up gaping holes in theory.

    3. Yes, naive perhaps, but what is the alternative? One or a hundred of the various gods and goddesses proposed by this or that group throughout history and prehistory? If you can believe in gods and devils without a bit of evidence, why should you not do the same with science. Surely you see that religion looks backwards, to a 'god' or a goddess which was invented by the tribe. Cosmology looks forward too, perhaps getting beyond the scope of our intelligence, but science begins with some evidence to suggest a direction for study. Gravity is both theory and fact, just as is evolution, are they not? So if you cannot divide by zero you can't just throw up your hands and say that's it, I think I'll believe in a god that has zero evidence of Being, except hearsay and tenth hand written accounts.
      Science is the future, why drag religion along? I personally wonder if there never was a 'creation', or if matter and energy have always existed. Why should 'nothing' be the ground of existence, where would 'nothing' have originated, and how much nothing would there have to be to contain 'everything'?

  24. This doc is not worth watching unless you are a christian.

  25. applying Occum's Razor I'd say this reasoning just doesn't "make the cut."

    1. Then try again without applying Occum's Razor. Just because you saw the movie Contact does not make you an authority on life and the goings on in the Cosmos. Try a little intuition.

    2. I didn't see "Contact" and I don't get my analysis tools from the movies. I don't pretend to be an authority on life or the cosmos, which incidentally you implicitly do.
      You can do a little research on the quirks of the human brain that give rise to beliefs in magic of all sorts (religion being one), but I doubt that anything based on fact will move you beyond your "dogmatic slumber" . It appears to me that you have decided on an epistemology that is not subject to factual verification.
      There was a time when that way of thinking dominated Western Civilization. That time is known as The Dark Ages.
      You will forgive me for not wishing to join you there,

    3. I would not be so quick to judge. Scientism is being projected by headlines as truth when some of the core beliefs of established science are nothing more than many layers of assumptions. The Big Bang, dark matter, dark energy, black holes and neutron stars are some examples of the many assumptions in cosmology with no empirical evidence to support them. Instead, they are inventions created as a result of faulty models running into road blocks. Rather than scrap theories that empirical evidence contradicts, ad hoc remedies are interjected using untested theoretical mathematics as pseudo-evidence. Cosmology is but one area of science tainted by delusional people who call themselves scientists. Tha being said, I do not throw the baby out with the bath water. Science in its ideal form is a wonderful thing. In practice, however, this can be a much less benevolent force.

    4. A great response to Michael Jay Burns truthseekah. I am quite amazed at how science has become the 'new religion' for some people, where they don't dare question the validity of what they are being told. Like yourself, I believe science has much to offer in terms of directive thinking, but follow Ernst Mach's advice to Einstein regarding 'intellectual skepticism'. Keep up the good work, and best wishes!

    5. I will die.. that's it..if it gives comfort to some thinking they'll live in eternity they are the " lucky" ones. I can't rationalize what they are selling..if if its in your mind it is" truth":)

    6. You cannot rationalize open mindedness, if you cannot accept the logic that we will never know everything. (not even with science)
      You can't fill a cup that is already full!
      The 'truth' is there is no difference between a faith denying atheist, and a science denying theist. Asking for 'proof' regarding that which is unknowable is to imply disparity where none exists.
      P.S: To dismiss the 'eternal' 1st law of thermodynamics (energy cannot be created, or destroyed, only converted) is contradictory/irrational for someone who can only rationalize science. (just saying)

    7. Hmmmm......... 'delusional people who call themselves scientists'? What's the beef? You would prefer science to exist only in its' 'ideal form'? How curious...... Do you feel the same about religion, that it should only exist in it's 'ideal form'?
      Out of curiosity, do you call yourself a 'scientist'?

  26. i think he misunderstands much

    1. I think what he (understands) is that you don't have to be afraid of consciousness or God Tom. It won't take your dominion of the universe away from you. It will allow you to share and be one with it.

    2. you don't have to be afraid of something that doesn't exist...

    3. I'm glad you cleared that all up for us. We can all stop thinking now, and let you take care of the big stuff.

  27. so boring and preachy in delivery regardless of its veracity

  28. This documentary went a little over board on the hawking bashing. It presented really great/interesting points, but lost focus a few times, could have been presented a little more appropriately

    1. Far be it from me to judge Hawking's motive and or analysis of consciousness, but it's possible he has a bit of a chip on his shoulder toward a god or an external consciousness because of his physical condition. We all might have misgivings if we were in his position. Don't you think.

  29. We have not sent probes to even 1% of our known universe and we are writing a book called "Theory of Everything"? We are like a baby, having explored the 4 corners of his cradle and then deciding that this is what the entire world must look like. Hundreds of years from now, if we ever survive that long, we would look back at this book and smile at how ignorant, arrogant, and narrow-minded we were.

    We would realize that many of the constants that we know of in physics today are not as constant as we think they are throughout the universe. And there are still gapping holes in our sciences and in our understanding of our universe, for example, in the study of emergence from seemingly chaotic systems which would explain some of the questions that we have always been wondering about ourselves and our universe.

    1. Everything you just said made basically no sense, "seemingly chaotic systems" is not the same at "chaotic systems" and you're purposely being vague because you don't want to held accountable for your claims.

    2. Seems to me..(being vague ) is all we can be at this point, unless you know something the rest of us don't.

  30. Biased with an agenda, muddled and weak arguments, dishonest and at times contemptuous of matters that I suspect he may not fully understand. It's that type of documentary where the arguments presented reveal how the information was never learned with any openness first day, that the presenters mind was already looking for some way of abusing the facts from the moment he encountered them.

    I actually got to the stage where I was expecting him to start telling me how bananas were shaped to fit human hands. I had to stop it around the 25 minute mark as it made me want to pierce my eye with a spoon.

    1. Couldn't agree more. Horrifying.

  31. Oooh, “Come let us reason together” before my head explodes (see my AVATAR please) how can I understand all this? Cosmologists (and their other academic peers/buddies) say that the universe is made up of 70% Dark Energy and 26% Dark Matter (or there a bouts) and that the remaining 4% (which is called Baryonic matter) is
    everything that reflects light (interacts with photon energy) to reveal our world (empirical reality). Then chemists and physicists come along say that all elements (that’s the Baryonic stuff, again) are (at the atomic level) 99.9999% empty space (leaving 0.0001% ‘real’ stuff/things). So with ‘that’ (science folks)…are going to be able to tell us that they know what reality is?! The majority of it you/we cannot even see and that which we can see is mostly empty of stuff? Then they pop to the FACT that all periodic table elements (such as: iron, carbon, oxygen, nitrogen especially the major eight that make up us and all life) are cooked from hydrogen by fusion (gravity and heat) then are exploded out into the vastness of space (which by-the-way is expanding…but it-space-is not expanding into anything). How can anyone grab such ‘knowledge’ and get it to stick inside their noodle? How about ya say: “We really don’t have much of a clue what’s going on (empirically)…but whatever reality is, it (and life) does not revolve around ‘stuff’?

    I’m also not overly happy with Darwin: If we are just evolved ‘bugs’ and fit somewhere on a branch of the evolutionary tree then why
    do we have the size brains we have? Evolution should not have wasted its ‘natural selection’ energy (our brains are too big for our environment)…and as poorly as we use it…it’s a wonder it hasn’t shrunk). There is no evolutionary survival value associated with us trying to learn particle physics, or build LHC, or to leave footprints and a couple dune buggies on the moon (etc etc). Frankly, I don’t even know how Natural Selection is able to allow us to have this discussion/talk/thought? For none of it, has the slightest evolutionary (survival) value! Natural selection (Darwinism) should not have cared (to allow us such imagination and abilities), for all we need to ‘do’ to fit in the ‘Tree’ is just survive, and that means: eat while not being eaten, adapt to the environment, and produce offspring. Oddly, I think we are more alien to this orb than all the other creatures here
    on it…we are as if “foreigners in a strange land, on a temporary journey in time, and all the while trying to get home”. And what is it with morals; they do not dice well with Darwinism? Where does curiosity come from…and how do we know how to use conscience to guide our actions…even to the point of seeking an apology should we wrong someone? Seagulls don’t apologize for stealing food
    from their peers, why then do we understand stealing as wrong (after all isn’t it biology/science that makes us animals surviving in Darwin’s Tree)??! We are also concerned for the other creatures (all life) on this planet, as if we were put here to care for them and it (the planet) as if we were/are to “steward a garden”. Heck, scientifically we KNOW that if we do not care for this place that it will no longer support us…so why don’t we DO IT?! ANS: Perhaps, we are
    ‘poisoned’ “we know what we ought to do, but just always do the opposite and then regret it; yet do it wrong again and again”. Why then is the following statement (morally) wrong: Why do we Darwinian types have concern for endangered species or (in fact) any species—survival is about YOU/ME (aaah that’s ME first then
    you) not them!?? Why should we care?

    We value abstract qualities like fairness and perfection and trust and we hate the insidious itch of time (can’t scratch it away from bothering us)… yet we have this sick hope for the future…even to the point of terraforming Mars and colonizing some far-off exo-planet (that’s laughable – what are we going to do if that place is inhabited – save the poor retched heathens like the Spanish did to the Aztecs
    or we did to the American Indians!!?). We can’t even take care of our own planet never mind get along with each other. We are a mess ("we fall short") and this exo-planet (Earth) would fare better if we went extinct or went back to where (ever) we came from. We are probably the colonizing force that left some other world in search of a home (exo-planet) and found Earth and now we have settled in but
    ODDLY we seem to have forgotten where we came from (and none of that works). If we did figure it out, it would be/seem so weird that we would think them gods—it’s like we have been on an extended six thousand-year camping trip and long for home where all the abstract desires which our inner spirit longs for work correctly, such as: fairness, perfection, love, honesty, and there is no time and no stuff: there just is…eternity). CS Lewis put it this way: ‘If we find within
    ourselves a desire that nothing in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that we were made for another world.’

    I’m convinced that the only way we can ever understand the physical world is by the non-physical. Frankly, I’m concerned that the word ‘thing’ is totally incorrect—there is no such thing as a thing. Nothing IS nothing. We are as if in a giant hologram and all is energy to include us (E=MC^2). Matter is energy gone berserk; And life is matter infused with intelligent code seeking Home. One thing seems certain. If one finds information (and we never make it—we discover
    it) it never points to confusion or chaos or chance or mistake. Information always point to some kind of intelligence which is responsible for its cause. And we are VERY good (almost too good at finding information)--at pattern recognition, empirical abilities,
    seeing symmetry, and doing math and science yet we are also conscious observers and moral agents…and we do not like being insulted, mislead, or abused. We do not come here with a blank slate rather we come into ‘life’ as if hard-wired with some basic relational skills! Could life be all about relationship? Isn’t all: science, philosophy and even religion basically about relationship (the inter-actions at the micro and macro levels the plank limit that ultimately reveal to us what we call reality)?

    Perhaps we are intelligent energy (spirit), patterned after some grander Intelligence (sort of like “in its image”) yet we do not operate quite as we should (we’re a bit broken, we function poorly—we relate incorrectly). We reside within these electro- chemical bio-mechanical Earthsuits (called bodies) in order to care for this ‘Spaceship Earth’ yet we are “foreigners here”. Perhaps we graduate life through death and that is how this intelligent energy gets to return home (for energy is never destroyed): the elements of our body go back into the Earth and the essence that is the self, “the spirit returns to whence it came“?

    Life begets life. It comes with a code (DNA/RNA), it has a purpose (least you be just stuff – a meat robot). Life comes from intelligence because life has within it information and nowhere does information come from chaos. Life does not ‘like’ death (ya think?) yet life is caught in time and “in the bondage of decay” or entropy (the second Law of thermodynamics). Death is not normal to energy (that almost seems a contradiction)…rather energy just changes—it moves on. And wouldn’t it be true that is energy moved at the speed of light that all distance would shrink to zero and all time would stop or be non-existent…or be eternal?!

    Our existence and all life smacks of conspiracy and not coincidence!!

    When I consider the small span of my life absorbed in the eternity of all time or the small span of space which I can touch or see engulfed by the infinite immensity of spaces that I know not and that know me not, I am frightened and astonished to see myself here instead of there, now instead of then, me instead of you, even why instead of just because. By whose command and act were this time and
    place allotted to me!? (Blaise Pascal)

    BTW all the full quotes are snippets from the Bible! OUCH!!



    1. In light of the ignorance of chemistry, physics ("Matter is energy gone berserk.") and biology (especially evolution "[Evolution should not have wasted its ‘natural selection’ energy (our brains are too big for our environment"]) expressed in your rambling and at times incoherent post, what is your scientific background?

    2. lol - wow - you could possibly have begun the writing of 'god within 2', you seem to have a lot in common.
      "Our existence and all life smacks of conspiracy and not coincidence!" you say - ah well, perhaps after all, this place is hell - (many writers would agree)
      Good quote from Pascal, and a great philosophic question. In my opinion, asking the questions is honest and honourable, but an open mind and courage are required if one would accept the answers - peace

    3. Hey Jo,

      If you are speaking of the Blaise Pascal the scientist, you may like to know he was a Godly man converted into Christom.

    4. good words are good words, i sincerely have no problem with 'whom' is the motivator or intended. " When I consider the small span of my life absorbed in the eternity of all time or the small span of space which I can touch or see engulfed by the infinite immensity of spaces that I know not and that know me not, I am frightened and astonished to see myself here instead of there, now instead of then, me instead of you, even why instead of just because"...I would have stopped there, but, it's still good, honest, human - I like that.

    5. And you might note that Isaac Newton believed that the basis of Christianity, the concept of the Trinity, was blasphemy and a violation of the :"one god" rule.

    6. Sorry, that's because Newton did not understand the trinity is three persons, but one essence., Not 3 separate gods. This does not make sence from a human perspective, but is perfectly logical from God's extradimensional existence.

    7. If it doesn't make sense from a human perspective, how can a human articulate it? Or are you divine? What exists on the spiritual plane, if existent beyond the unseen microcosmic or uninterpreted macro-cosmic, is simply beyond us. And don't give me that God can will a human to understand or one with faith can understand. Because that experience still can't be verified and only happening in one human's head as no two have the same experience. The Scientific method is likely the best interface God would utilize to introduce the divine to man. As the 'method' is without politic.

    8. We are all thinking too hard....

      I am that I am.

      Heaven is not somewhere you go too, if you are good when you die. "That's a lie!"

      Heaven is here in the now. It has always been. We never left the "Garden of Eden" only tricked to believe we have!

      Our creator is talking to us all the time; most of us just are not listening, . . Meditating is the door.

      If your are seeking the answers through science, religion, or any other way, you will never find


      You will always be seeking!

      Be still do not seek! ... . Listen"

      Creation, consciousness is speaking. right now! this very moment. Are you hearing me?


      become one with the "I am" in the "now"

      That is where you will find me. . . . . Artywayne

    9. G; your words have filled me with so much optimism and love.. Inspired would be an understatement, so rare do I feel proud to be human as I do now! time and time again when I feel exhausted by the lack of positive curiosity and insight, which at times overcomes me, I will read them and be ready to continue my journey... Thankyou for your courage to express... and thanks be to god for sharing your beautiful mind/words with us all! :) p.s any recommendations of favourite books would be greatly appreciated if you have the time... kind regards, romy rose

    10. How can anyone grab such ‘knowledge’ and get it to stick inside their noodle?
      Well, some noodles are stickier than others.
      With my medium-sticky noodle I take the position that the things there are to understand will always be greater than the human capacity to grasp them, but it is our nature to keep working at it anyway.
      That's one of the things that I like about us.

    11. you know that "dark matter" idea always struck me as being cut from the same cloth as the "cosmological constant" i.e. something that you just make up so that you don't have to discard your favorite theory. Accountants call that "plugging" most of us just call it "cheating"

  32. I don't like this Doc.

    1. In order to give your potentially profound statement meaning, what Docs do you like?

    2. one's not full of sh1t

  33. I have found a philosophical reflection from Richard Dawkins, to his ten year old daughter, that reveals how feelings can be implemented legitimately by scientists. It comes from brainpickings org

    "Inside feelings are valuable in science too, but only for giving you ideas that you later test by looking for evidence. A scientist can have a ‘hunch’ about an idea that just ‘feels’ right. In itself, this is not a good reason for believing something. But it can be a good reason for spending some time doing a particular experiment, or looking in a particular way for evidence. Scientists use inside feelings all the time to get ideas. But they are not worth anything until they are supported by evidence." - an excerpt (edit: not paraphrased) from Richard Dawkins. (copy paste in google for the whole article).

    So there we have it...feelings are important on our path to understanding the truth, from the great man himself. Who'd have guessed? Inspiration, free will, abstraction, intuition and deduction... the biological robot hypothesis seems more and more ill conceived. Instead, ALL things considered, it seems to me that there is a hidden motive of provoking certain counter beliefs in claiming such a thing. Which is fine...but let's "call it by it's right name" - Chris McCandless (aka Alexander Supertramp).

    1. "Scientists use inside feelings all the time to get ideas. BUT THEY ARE NOT WORTH ANYTHING UNTIL THEY ARE SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE." (emphasis added)
      In short, the beginning of your second paragraph is simply a paraphrase out of context and a distorted one at that. Second, there is nothing about philosophy in the entire quote. Just another display of your inherent dishonesty.

    2. I'm afraid, but not sorry, you are incorrect on all counts Mr Allen. And it's very essence is touchingly philosophical - he is sharing his thoughts and ideas with his daughter on how best to think critically about the world around her.

    3. Has nothing to do with philosophy, but rather with hunches based upon accumulated knowledge. Once again, another display of your dishonesty.

    4. As I have shown you, with evidence of you being dishonest on a few occasions, I would ask you to point out where I have been dishonest, or cease calling the kettle black. So far your claims of dishonesty are unsubstantiated (obviously).

      My point has been made so...
      *** End of My Discussion With You **

    5. Once again, Dr. Dawkins' statement has nothing to do with philosophy, but rather with scientific hunches and trying to pinhole it into philosophy exhibits a desperation on your part amounting to dishonesty.

    6. Yeah... good luck with that.

    7. So every time a scientist gets a hunch, he becomes a philosopher or he practices philosophy. Won't wash.

    8. Digi just thank "God" that you don't manifest his mindset. I can't imagine living with myself like that. I know your not a "dishonest" person and he does too. He just wants to hurt you.

      I apologize for him. Lets wish him the best and move on.

    9. I don't accuse you of dishonesty, but I agree with robert's view that Dawkins is referring to the subconscious promptings based on accumulated knowledge, which, after all, is what imagination of any sort is based on, no matter how farfetched the result of the creative process.

      Dawkins has made it very clear that he does not believe in the supernatural, even though he's willing to change his mind should some convincing proof offer itself.

    10. Dawkins career would go down the drain if he was to say that awareness "could be" the mother of matter.
      In fact Dawkins's career is fueled on the base that matter is all there is, ANY ONE who says it is not so, is a fool to him.
      Nothing could convince him to probe deeper into awareness. He would vanish if he did, in other words he would become a joke...something he is not about to allow under any circumstance of his own doing.

  34. This guy is not very smart. His arguments don't stack up. Just to pick 1 thing: he seems completely oblivious to the effect of environment:
    he says if you can know the molecular state of a brain you can predict its future actions. WRONG! You would have to know the molecular state of the entire environment as well (physical world and interactions with other beings), environment plays a massive role in the actions of living beings.
    It seems to me that genetics and environment are at least 99% responsible for our actions.
    What we like or don't like for example, these are like commandments given unto us from the mix of genes and environment. Nobody DECIDES freely what they like and don't like.
    Are serial killers like you and me? Do they suddenly of their own free will decide to commit gross acts of murder? Or are they unable to resist the murderous urges that 'normal' people simply do not have?
    If there is such a thing as free will, then it is a very, very small thing indeed.

  35. Even though Adams is not a credible source of valid information, I think his main point is valid: scientists are over-reaching and corrupting science into scientism.

    1. Corrupting? Over-reaching? How about providing a few examples.

  36. If you assume science is the only game in town, you are locked into a false assumption. that's like Michael Jordan telling Tom Brady football is a fraud because it is not based in reality.

    1. Science isn't the only game in town. It is, however, the only honest game.

    2. Says who? A bunch of scientists?

    3. Can you name anything better than science for determining scientific matters?

    4. no, but scientists insist on pontificating on matters beyond their scope. When they confront a mystery they insist on battering it with scientific nonsense.

    5. Such as?

    6. Will said jerrymack. As a scientists i agree with you. By the way there are a few "honest" scientists out there

    7. When it comes to honesty, it certainly has religion beat.

    8. Can you make any examples??

    9. What is more honest about it then religion?

    10. When it comes to something scientific, can you name any other games?

  37. I endured the first 5 minutes with an open mind hoping for a constructive premise besides disparaging remarks about physics and Hawkins from Adams. The proceeding 5 minutes only served to convince me how little Adams knows or how closed minded he is about science, physics, and consciousness. Ironically, I find Adams fitting the profile of the corporate protagonists he describes at the beginning of the video i.e. hiding behind the veil of science to promote an agenda. I apologize if he has something constructive beyond 10mins but that is where I stopped watching because it did not seem to be leading anywhere besides physics and Hawkins bashing. Adams deserves credit for effort albeit seemingly in search of content to confirm own set bias.

  38. Physics does not address "consciousness". Neuropsychology addresses that. In turn, neuropsychology does not address quantum relativity.
    And you don't usually go to a plumber to get your piano tuned.
    Adams seems to be one of those who argue: I don't understand it; they don't understand it; therefore: God did it!
    He doesn't understand quantum mechanics* and he doesn't understand consciousness, so they must be related.
    Physics has no soul? Neither has it leprechauns, elves, or angels. Science can study primitive mythology. It has done so, and dismissed it. Get over it!

    *"If anyone claims to understand quantum mechanics, they don't understand quantum mechanics." -- Richard Feynman

  39. I agree with Adams. Hawkings is a dangerous man because his ideas are not only wrong, they are taken seriously by many people. Determinism is a product of reductionism, which states that man is nothing but a sophisticated bag of biochemicals with no apparent purpose or meaning. How can you believe this without embracing despair? Without wallowing in cynicism? And when you consider the arrogance of Hawkings' statements, it's hard not to feel outrage..

    1. On whose behalf do you feel outraged?

    2. the human race.

    3. aam641 On Your Behalf And Yours Alone.

    4. I have been following Hawking for years and have read some of his books and observed some of his public statements. I really feel sad for that man for making so many illogical statements. By the way, Hawking may be a popular scientist. But did not even make the top 10 list for best physicists in the 20th century.

  40. I am not a scientist, but if what Mike Adam's says is true, then we should all fear the future if it to to remain in the hands Frankensteins. These people have no idea what it means to be human.

    1. Please educate us. What does it mean to be human??

    2. Philosophy is split, arguably, in to 4 main areas...your question takes up one entire area on its own.

      ...could be a long response...

    3. Who cares how a bunch of philosophers define what it means to be human? What do they know?

    4. what the hell does anybody know? We are like dogs trying to grasp calculus.

    5. We send men to the moon, construct atomic colliders and increase life expectancy. We must know something.

  41. this guy is a joke , apparently he has a gay school girl crush on hawkings . i mean seriously the guy seems so mad at him , he has no actual arguments besides making lame jokes in an eloquent manner at hawkings and other physicists works . which is quite sad .

    1. So called science is actually often times a so called "joke" by being stuck in a one sided indoctrinated materialistic world conception.

    2. This approach produces actual results. Praying, groveling, and sacrificing to a magic sky-daddy does not.

    3. Thanks samir, for your eloquence.

  42. Maybe it's just my perspective, but this seems like a documentary of thinly veiled religious apologeticts.
    A virtual fallacy feeding frenzy to nourish the ignorant.

  43. Is Stephen Hawking real or is he just a science robot? Would certainly be easy to make him represent and follow an agenda.
    I know, how dare I say?

    1. Yep...better not say. Stephen has been wrong and noted for his stubbornness of assertions even when he was. Being wrong in his field can be a bit like a pop star having a flop - you're only as good as your last contribution. So there is a clear incentive to be stubborn.

      ...hang on a sec...STUBBORN? What place does such an emotional characteristic response have in the upper echelons of science? That's blatant hypocrisy in employing the scientific method! Or is it just that the 'alpha' scientist rules with the greatest influence?

      Incidentally...Stephen Hawkings' PhD was on the assertion/discovery that the Big Bang originated in a singularity (such as that found at the centre of a black hole). But...a singularity is simply a point of infinite, zero, -1 or undefined depending how you look at it. "The point where all calculations, physics and maths can go no further based on our current understandings" would be more accurate. So the massive Stephen Hawkings proved in his PhD that the Big Bang came out of...something we can not understand or work with in our current science....

      ...And the crowds went mad, applauding with emotional reverence, respect and utter wonder... :-D

      Present day science says that those areas of singularity merely point to where we need new ideas and input, because they are the points where our tools no longer work.

      ...And the crowd...sat down again quietly. :-/

      Biological robots? From a man without a full working set of tools? Sounds to me like we need a trip to a hardware store!

    2. And your point is? And by the way, what are your scientific credentials? Do they in any way match Hawkings'?

    3. He has said: "Brain could exist outside the body".
      His might already be the case.
      His brain expresses words using the computer-generated voice he controls with a facial muscle and a blink from one eye. Let's see science do it that well (in such complexity) with someone who does not have his condition.
      Makes me wonder how much of his talks are filled in by the controllers of that computer. It's not like he could argue the result like all scientists would if anything was said or written that they didn't agree with fully.
      I know, how dare I say?

    4. I'll be happy to compare his scientific qualifications with yours any day.

    5. Woo-hoo *** POST 1000 **** ...made it!

      He said that?! Well I guess that fits really - in that he is saying the brain (and thus mind, consciousness and whatever else is up there) is nothing special.

      ...In a way... I'm not surprised really - it's a case of if he didn't say that, someone would say that for him about his philosophy through a derogatory it helps, perhaps, to claim such a thing for himself first, before it is later used against him in some ridicule argument. Just a thought.

    6. It's after 1000 that you really start noticing your opponents . LOL

    7. Oh Gawd*!

      *A way of writing "Oh my God." while denoting that you're rolling your eyes at the same time.
      - urban dictionary com.

    8. Like Oh shoot! A way of writing.... denoting that you feel you may be in deep trouble.

    9. This is going in to the realms of A.I. and quantum computing, which I love. There was a fantastic book in 2005 from Raymond Kurzweil called "The Singularity is near". In it he optimistically states (overly so most agree) we will equal human brain computation and complexity by around 2035. The following year or will be twice as complex (Moore's Law).

      But... to my mind, as exciting as that may be to see ...the essence of mind has yet to be bottled.

    10. The essence of mind would have to be bottled by the essence of a mind.
      If the complexity of a mind aka consciousness was to be fully understood (I imagine it would be an instant realization, a conscious big bang sort of thing), would that mind find a way to share such finding and have it accepted by others. Perhaps each mind has to find it's own path, if the "terminal" is "existable" (sorry just invented this word).

    11. Yes. There is some anecdotal evidence that suggests - for the mind to be fully aware of itself, would require, at the very least, a slightly bigger mind. To understand this, think about a computer program being aware of its programming. That program would need some extra lines of code to understand it's code. But what would understand that extra code? Some more code of course.

      ...And so on. There is little logical reason to suggest the same would not be the case for any form of full awareness. This is, of course, philosophical though. ;-)

    12. Perhaps not a bigger brain in size but a mind, free as in unobstructed.
      How does one live unobstructed in our world, perhaps by chance or by choice.

    13. That's true oQ, a bigger mind to observe that mind. But since the mind is internal to the brain...that would mean a bigger brain... unless you mean Stephen's external box of tricks?

      All things being connected with eternal influences through the sharing of quantum information, infers that you could not 'get away' from the obstructions. Unless you could somehow step outside the universe(s). However does this apply to consciousness? Consciousness is affected by experience, environment and in the same way, unless you could step outside your mind through some sort of barbaric electro therapy lobotomy (not recommended), the same is probably true.

      So what's the moral of the story? Matter, energy, mind...if you can't beat em join em.

    14. And your point is?

    15. Why are you interested, bored?

    16. No, I hate phony intellectualism.

    17. We know. Take a break from us and participate on some doc in a positive way, it will make you feel better.

    18. Do you not get it ?

    19. Thanks for all your supportive comments, much appreciated :-)

    20. I find it strange that your file's activity is private but on the other hand your home address is in plain sight. I could google earth right above your house or in front of the blue garage door???

    21. Go for your life, I could probably do the same for you, but the thought would not ever occur to me, but then I don't hide behind a shield of obscurity like most bloggers etc. If you want any further details just ask, i'm not afraid of justifiable, or constructive criticism. Unlike some people who seem to want to control these comments as if they own them. It is only opinions based on whatever facts we feel we know of. It would seem that some want to infer that their facts are correct, & the rest can change or be damned. Sorry discussion is just that, not lecturing !

    22. 1i think you misunderstood me. When I click on your photograph (or name) it opens your file on TDF which shows your full address and says that your activity is private although I see that you have made 14 comments. I have never seen someone include their address information here. I have been on TDF for many years and I am often curious about new comers, that's what drove me to look up your file.
      You are free to portray yourself anyway you want, no lecturing.

    23. I have no respect for gibberish (read pseudointellectualism).

    24. May be you don't need to step outside of the universe, you may only need the universe to step outside of your brain.
      Deep Deep and deeper meditation perhaps.

    25. And just how does one step outside the universe, as if you know?

    26. "you may only need the universe to step outside of your brain".
      not the other way around.

    27. And just does the universe step outside of the brain? Complete gibberish. You're not fooling anyone.

    28. I'm not even fooling myself...that's why I use may be.

    29. Ok, let's consider what you're saying...

      1) Energy and matter is 'entangled' (this is what I meant by "All things being connected with eternal influences through the sharing of quantum information"

      2) Consciousness may be entangled with it. The double slit experiment of 'observing' affects the quantum state. (Even if the observer is an indirect camera).

      Because of entanglement, it may not be possible to 'step outside' at all, since all will remain entangled. We could however, in theory, observe our minds fully aware since a universal mind would be bigger than our own, potentially.

      In order to keep this on topic, that is where we can use philosophy and where science begins to fall by the way side. Science gives us a map, but the map is not the reality. Reality is looking out the window. This is where the line from the matrix has its roots: "Welcome to the desert of the real." - it means we have a map so real and precise that we forget to look out the window and the map becomes reality. How's that for DEEP!? lol.

    30. Do you have any hard evidence to back up this drivel? If not, then you can't claim that science which demands hard evidence begins to fall by the wayside (note spelling).

    31. Your entanglement post is as clear as mud, don't know what you are talking about. Will enter a "Quantum Entanglement" post without the math.

    32. That's a very, very good link Achems, that explains entanglement and much more besides very clearly.

      In a BBC Doc, I don't have the source, with Prof. Cox, he explains that the 'instantaneous communication' is felt across the entire universe. He finds it fascinating too that further, any influence on one single electron has an instantaneous affect on every other electron in the entire universe...through entanglement of quantum information (and energy conservation) as explained in your link. Thanks for the info.

    33. 1i think it's a cool link.

    34. You are deep in to Philosophical discussion now !

    35. The mind may not be internal to the brain.

    36. Of course!! Oops. Thanks for the nudge ;-)

    37. And just what is that supposed to mean?

    38. Unobstructed by what? Sheer gibberish.

    39. Ooh, we are getting in DEEP here !

    40. When I first heard about this, I couldn't 'get it', but the 'program code' example formed a clear easy picture in my mind as a good example - since I'm a programmer. Hope it helps.

    41. I think the mind is well aware of itself but the brain is not aware of the mind's potentiality. I would tend to think that mind/consciousness is size less.
      It just is.
      The brain that perceives consciousness is sizeable.

    42. Yep. In Buddhism it is the Universal Mind. A power house. Our brains are 'used' like light bulbs drawing a trickle from a large power station, but it does not mean we can't tap in to more power if we somehow choose to. That's the analogy anyway. This is also where the power of positive thinking draws its ideology, by tapping in to the Universal Mind. However... I've tried it. I have a friend who's been on Ted Talks who teaches it - privately we both agree it's probably b0llocks - having a positive outlook if you are negative will improve your well being, but beyond that? Getting rich and finding you soul mate, etc. ...well maybe, but not for any magical reasons. If you simply persevere with an idea, relentlessly, you will likely succeed at some point to some degree (imho).

    43. Sheer gibberish.

    44. Just how do you know this or is it simply more gibberish?

    45. Just what are you talking about?

    46. What if, being made from universe and being bound to become the dust of it again some day, we are not ever to be capable of understanding our own minds? What if each of us is not a complete mind, just one of seven billion human shaped cells thrown into the mix with a trillion others with differing roles to play? As a species we are endlessly inquisitive, we explore, study, imagine, create, dismantle, even put ourselves in danger, all so that we can learn more. Might be that we are the eye of a navel gazing universe! ;)

    47. One does not have to be fully aware of all of the processes of the mind to be aware, any more than one has to consciously beat one's own heart, or breathe.

      This would be apparent to you if you were reasoning rather than rationalizing.

    48. Sheer gibberish.

    49. I am sure to you it is pure gibberish, nice to see that you read it anyway.

    50. It is pure gibberish in that it says absolutely nothing.

    51. Still you had to read it to come to your conclusion....or perhaps you didn't read it, the avatar is enough for you to conclude.

    52. Which humans brain though?

    53. Ahhh....your lightest touch :-D
      Indeed, indeed!

    54. May be yours. Have you noticed that you can never foresee what your mind will think until it does.
      Perhaps no one can plan the realization of consciousness...only try and try...which may be in the way.

    55. How do you know this? More gibberish.

    56. A gibberish you seem to enjoy or are you just lynching your mind with my words?
      Notice... may be and perhaps and then may be again.

    57. And just how does one lynch ones mind with someone's words? More gibberish!

    58. I'm playing with you like a cat except the mouse is not trying to get away, it keeps coming back.

    59. Ah, I see the lovebirds are at it again, I hear there are some nice mansions up in the hill in Los angeles where you can share your lives in bliss?

    60. It would be nice if you deleted the love birds quarrel and left the conversation between Digi and is on topic and would like to see if anyone wants to add to it.
      thanks gave me a good laugh.

    61. It would be even nicer if you learned to use the objective after a preposition, just as in French.

    62. I'm particular about the people with whom I associate.

    63. A computer built around my mind? That would be pen and paper :) If we knew what we were about to think, all the world's thinking would already have been done and our thoughts would be mundane. Rather like being able to read but being allowed only one book for the whole of your life. Knowing how to read would become pointless, as would the book - nothing new would ever come from it. I'd much prefer to be given an empty page, just keep scribbling away 'til something beautiful happens ;)

    64. I guess what I was trying to say is that it is perplexing how thoughts come from nowhere, the good ones and the bad ones. We can't control the qualities of thoughts that enter our mind although we can instantly decide which ones to put aside. The thought of thoughts coming from knowhere is equally perplexing.

    65. Ohhh, I see! I misunderstood :) I love that about thoughts, some come marauding and unruly, only to be tempered by those that lurk in the back of your head. I guess quality control has its use, Imagine how noisy it could get between your ears if all thoughts had equal standing. Maybe we are just random thought generators, monkeys with typewriters. I think my daft thoughts get recycled as dreams, had some wild ones lately - catpeoplebabies! ;)

    66. Random thought generators? could be right! Who would have thought the pinnacle of intelligent inspiration would be the mastery of becoming a good filing clerk!?

      That said, however, there is a fascinating (and indeed insightful) BBC Horizon on YouTube called "The Creative Brain – How Insight Works" (2013) that has a permanent place on my shelf.

    67. If by filing you mean stuffing everything in a drawer 'til the bottom drops out, I am already a master! Will check that doc, have a feeling I might have seen it... and then filed it with the important stuff ;)

    68. You've hit an important point about what life is 'for'


      Otherwise, if we all simultaneously understood that it all equates to an answer of 42, we might as well just pack up and go home ...where? lol.

    69. Most people, most of the time, make their decisions in the amygdala, and only then rationalize them in the anterior cingulate cortex. Actual reasoning takes care, self-discipline and training that most people cannot or will not exercise. Hence, we have religion and patriotism and other destructive delusions. Science works by subjecting conclusions to actual observation and reasoning.

    70. Interesting, where can I read more on this process?

    71. you remind me of someone a lot of us miss around here ;)

    72. Morning edge, I'll be sure to let her know ;))

    73. Hi girl, I missed you too.

    74. Thank you Blue :)

    75. I read your opinions with interest. So help me out. Can you give me an accurate definition of "infinite"?,that is, something that is NOT finite?

    76. Four (4) is finite. Four divided by zero (4/0) is infinite/indeterminate. (But the arctangent of infinity is Pi/2!)

  44. Okay yea Stephen Hawking is a little extreme but hes stuck with nothing to do but think so i think you would be a little crazy in the same situation.

    Free will has its limits no one can consciously stop breathing that's why people hang themselves, take pills or slash their wrists.

    Most physicists say they don't know what came before the the big bang not that it spontaneously erupted, oh and concerning the big bang it is a theory not fact the most likely theory but just a theory all the same.

    Its not our consciousness per say that affects the quantum experiments that the guy vaguely refers to its direct observation you can still indirectly observe the experiments (through cameras) even though you consciously watching still the experiment is no longer affected.

    dark energy and dark matter mean by definition i dont know what the hell it is but something has to be there otherwise the observed universe wouldn't act the way it does.

    Besides that i agree that alot of science these days is theoretical they do the math and when all the math is solid they come up with a theory that best fits, the mistake is that people hear scientific theory and it somehow means scientific fact even scientists do this is very annoying.

    overall good documentary gets people thinking.

    1. You obviously have no idea what a scientific theory is and I suggest that you find out before causing yourself further embarrassment.

    2. please explain scientific theory to me then, please dont say im wrong without correcting me i like to know when im wrong. ive seen alot of your comments and they tend to be very demeaning and then you offer no advice i dont know why you do this but hey to each thier own.

    3. (A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.) I conclude that the big bang is a hypothesis because you cant test or observe this hypothesis thats all it will ever be.

  45. Religions and theological concepts are man made.However, there is nothing wrong with contemplating the awesomeness of nature and our perceived reality by diving into the pool that certainly exists outside of our very left brained square.xx

    1. Just what is this pool "that certainly exists outside of our very left brained square" and how do you know that it exists?

    2. Well said norlavine! The pool, Robert, is ...the frontier of the unknown ...the expanse of questions that remain unanswered, and those which have not yet been asked... and all of which you know little to nothing about because you care not to enquire...

      You would deny philosophy, just as you would deny religion (without seemingly understanding the difference - you just bundle them and others up in a bucket of trash). But sadly, you go further, you condemn those who practice philosophical contemplation, as estoterical nonsense, including every other thing that has no perceived practical use or evidence from your perspective.

      You have demonstrated over and over, a philosophy of existentialism (or possibly even nihilism) should seriously read the wiki entries on them.

      [From Wiki: "Existentialism is different from Nihilism, but there is a similarity. Nihilists believe that human life does not have a meaning (or a purpose) at all; existentialism says that people must choose their own purpose."

      After you have looked at your own philosophical reflections, ask me again what answers have philosophy provided. If you are not willing to look, don't ask me again.

      Philosophy has much to teach, and contrary to your assertions, many answers to provide. Especially for a person such as yourself. Trouble is, you may not be able or willing to even ask the questions.

      The sad part (another demonstrated part) is your condemnation of those who are willing to investigate (and learn something deep and meaningful...i.e. wisdom). Is there resentment on your part towards philosophy, because of what it says? And what is says about you?

      You should not resent the love of wisdom - "love of wisdom" is what philosophy originally translates from. Indeed, how can you be against a love of wisdom? Rhetorical question Robert...that means no need to answer, just think about the question....philosophically.

    3. So philosophy has much to teach and many answers to provide. Like what? And etymology proves nothing.

    4. Philosophy teaches us, for example, that existentialists often have a sad, lonely outlook as it sees humans, with will and consciousness, as being in a world of objects which do not have those qualities.

      By identifying with a philosophical outlook, we can better see why we think the way we do, and perhaps learn to see things in a more positive, compassionate way through changing our philosophy to something more 'preferable'.

      Questions... answers... suggestions... meaning... wisdom... understanding. It's all there for the learning, through Philosophy.

    5. "Philosophy teaches us, for example, that existentialists often have a sad, lonely outlook as it sees humans, with will and consciousness, as being in a world of objects which do not have those qualities." Source? Even if true, is this philosophy or psychology?

      So all we have to do is choose one "philosophical outlook" from the many and we stand a wonderful chance of seeing things in a more positive compassionate way. Tell that to Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, Idi Amin and Attila the Hun.

    6. lol...I would tell them, but they're all dead.

      Yes it's philosophy. Psychology being a scientific branch of it.

      The source? You didn't look up existentialism on wiki after all did you... oh well, I gave you some philosophical answers any way. Even though you didn't do what you were supposed to... couldn't be free will could it?

    7. "Yes it's philosophy. Psychology being a scientific branch of it." Source?
      You're the claimant; you're the one charged with providing a source which you failed to do. Contending that somehow I should have figured out that you were quoting or drawing from Wikipedia is patently dishonest.

    8. Ok my last post on this thread...

      "After you have looked at your own philosophical reflections [on the wiki entries suggested], ask me again what answers have philosophy provided. If you are not willing to look, don't ask me again." - I said.

      to which you replied...
      "So philosophy has much to teach and many answers to provide. Like what?"

      From this, I cordially assumed you did look it up, as requested, and so replied with an answer. You had not. Patently dishonest? Me? You are not fooling anyone.

    9. You "cordially" assumed (whatever cordially is supposed to mean in this context). That was your downfall. You're the loser.

    10. You sound like one of my 'teachers' at the WSP !

  46. Mike Adams misrepresents what doesn't fit into his believer's mold. He states that those who don't believe in a 'free will' or a 'soul' are mindless and without conscience or morals, etc. Nonsense. The prisons are filled with believers, not atheists.

    And he's given no evidence to support any belief in a 'God', which I notice he's called 'him' at the end of his presentation. Now where would, or could, a 'God' have come from? His Father, another god? Seriously, if you were a god, an omniscient, omnipotent god, would you create a world such as this, where everything eats everything else, usually alive? Did God sit idly by, as Christopher Hitchens loved to say, for a hundred thousand years as evolving humans suffered and died from childbirth and tooth infections, before finally revealing Himself to an illiterate group of goat herders in an obscure corner of the middle east?

    You might try reading Marvin Minskey's book "The Society of Mind" to get a feel for the complexity of mind. And from our earliest days we experience bodily homeostasis which may in fact be a major determinant of our paths.

    Does consciousness control, or does it simply observe and record?

    1. For this reason, long time ago, I stopped calling this world civilized. On a higher spiritual level the very idea of a necessity of nourishing oneself with some others living beings (plants included) seems to me a violence.

    2. Indeed! I see our world of today as being just one step ahead of our thousands of years of 'primitive' past. And the curious phenomenon of every living creature requiring sustenance from outside itself ....... well, what can be said of that? Down to the molecular level even, the oxygen in water or the specific wave lengths of light utilized for the continuance of another species. I mean no offense to any religious belief, but what does it mean to say that 'humans are made in the image of God?' What could that possibly mean? In so many attributes humans are the exact opposite of the image of God, you can go on and on with them, such as not having everlasting life, need other creatures flesh and blood to sustain us, have limited knowledge and wisdom, are made of flesh, bone and blood, and on and on. And the National Catholic Almanac states specifically that God is "almighty, eternal, holy, immortal, invisible, omniscient, ..... perfect, provident, supreme....", none of which could be applied to a human. Tell me, please, anyone, in what way humans are made in the image of a god?

    3. You're right..... And what can one say regarding a 'perfect God' who creates a world where every living creature must eat some other living creature, usually alive, in order to survive.

  47. It's very easy to comprehend a computer program as having no free will. It is very easy to comprehend that there is a difference between our brain function and a computer program. That difference is free will (imo).

    As a programmer, I know that at a crossroads (of equal consideration) I have to invoke a random number to make a decision or choice. But existence of a random number, inside a computer, does not exist: only a psuedo-random number based on a math algorithm 'seed'. It is, perhaps, possible to create a 'true' random number in machine code though. One such method uses a 'seed' taken from atmospheric noise. Truly random though? Or just an extreme degree of complexity? Think about it.

    Which brings me to how science employs randomness. Think about genetic mutations of DNA. A 'mistake' in the copying process which has led to all the diversity of life we see. Science STATES it is random. Philosophy can ASK what if it is not? What if those random mistakes were not truly random? What if they were subtly infuenced by complexity. A mistake would become an influence. Just because science declares a process as random, through possibly not understanding the process, does not make it so. Yet the consequences on philosophical interpretation can be enormous. I'm not saying DNA mutations are influenced, I'm saying consider the consequences of such a small nuance and how Science and Philosophy would each interpret such a discovery.

    1. The difference is that when a scientist asks the question, he will research the hard evidence, whereas the philosopher merely asks the question and then contemplates. This clearly puts science ahead of philosophy.

    2. Why do we have a theory called the big bang, instead of a simple "we don't know"? Why do we even discuss such a thing? Why does science allow for consensus of ideas and beliefs, when all the facts are not in? Why is conjecturing permitted in science? The reason, which has deluded you thus far, is that scientists like to ask philosophical questions too. Any question that leads to a subjective answer is philosophical by nature.

      For example:

      "Do milkmaids get smallpox less often than others?" was philosophical, but ceased to be on discovering a definitive answer. "How much is 2 + 2?" is not, though even it may have been?

      Do you understand the difference between objective and subjective Science? Even scientific consensus is not objective, but poses philosophical questions. Evidence without proof is conjecture and theory. Only objective science is not philosophical. Scientists, therefore, practice philosophy all the time in their research, as a tool to discover understanding. So, to make this clear...

      You wish to separate scientist from philosopher in to two people. When really it's the fields that are separate. Indeed, you should be aware that every major science, including physics, biology, and chemistry are all disciplines that originally were considered philosophy. This literally puts philosophy "ahead" of science. ;-)

      It is the analysis and speculation of philosophical thought that eventually develops the branches of science.

    3. So what if several hundred years ago physics, biology and chemistry were all considered philosophy? We've learned a lot since then.

      "The reason, which has deluded [SIC] you thus far, is that scientists like to ask philosophical questions too." Well, so do milkmen and garbage collectors, so what?

      "You wish to separate scientist from philosopher in to two people. When really it's the fields that are separate." So every scientist is a philosopher? No more than every composer, painter, architect, etc. is one.

      "It is the analysis and speculation of philosophical thought that eventually develops the branches of science." Really? What about the field of genetics which was developed solely through hard hands-on endeavor as was immunology, microbiology, quantum physics, not do-nothing philosophy.

      "Scientists, therefore, practice philosophy all the time in their research, as a tool to discover understanding." So those researching cures for certain forms of cancer are actually practicing philosophy? So Werner von Braun, Neils Bohr and Jonas Salk actually practiced philosophy and not science. What abysmal crap!!!

      Now how about providing some examples of subjective science and while you're at it explain how string theory which is in its conjectural stage is really philosophy.

    4. try some metgodology of science. phylosophy of science. the oppinions you say are valid but only partially.

    5. i like your views man but i just want to inform you the reason the big bang theory is the most probable explanation is because the universe is expanding so at one point its likely it started in one place. As for saying why not say we just dont know? if we always said we just dont know then we probably wouldnt learn alot that way. not trying to put you down i just thought that was important.

    6. Wrong. Stating that you don't know is not only honest, but a fine prelude to scientific inquiry.

    7. Now this is starting ti make some sense !

  48. Some cool comments here, some outright angry ones, and a few mundane dismissals. ...but addressing the importance of Philosophy in our understanding? Missing :-/

    Philosophy and Science are the yin and yang of our search for truth and understanding. They are often incompatible, yet one without the other can only hinder that search. Science STATES: 'This is the evidence'. Philosophy ASKS, 'What does that mean?'

    Because scientists are not responsible for the consequences of their discoveries, there is rightly no place in Science for philosophical reflection (concerning ethics and morality).

    But for Science to dismiss Philosophy would be akin to saying there are no consequences, ethics and morality worth considering (a philosophical perspective in itself). Midway through he states '...the philosophy that we have no free will'. Indeed, believing we have no free will is also a philosophy in itself, as there is no proof for denying free will (and arguably evidence for both persuasions).

    Philosophy only questions Science when it attempts to be philosophical. Science therefore has no place being philosophical about its discoveries.

    One, it seems, can not escape the other, and for good reason - they are necessarily entwined. Yet only one attacks the other with the intention to destroy it: If science wants to kill off philosophy, then it must first show it is responsible for its actions, measure and weigh up consequences and consider ethics. This documentary shows how ill equipped Science would be in doing so, and Science has openly declared itself unwilling to do so.

    Science is the one on the attack. Science is the one that has to be kept in check, ethically. Philosophy provides the means to do so, but only if we don't allow Science to convince us it is dead.

    Ok, hands up, I asked for this doc to be posted up. I found it interesting and sarcastically humorous, with some great moments of truth. I hope at least some of you can take something positive away from its message. P.S. I had no idea who Mike Adams was (certainly no foul intended).

    1. If philosophy is so important to science, how many philosophers are employed by CERN, NASA, Merck and other mainstream, hands-on, scientific organizations? How many philosophy courses not required of the general student population must science majors take?

      And just how does philosophy manage to keep science in check ethically, assuming that this is needed? By some armchair philosopher warning of the dangers of nuclear weapons and chemical warfare?

      Philosophy might ask what something means which any child of two can do, but it has yet to provide anything approaching answers and thus is useless.

    2. As soon as a philosophical question is answered, it becomes science and ceases to be philosophy. I could say to you science has yet to ask anything of interest, and it would be just as inaccurate as your misleading claim.

    3. Once again, if philosophy is so important to science, how many philosophers are employed by CERN, NASA, Merck and other mainstream, hands-on, scientific organizations? How many philosophy courses not required of the general student population must science majors take? The proof is in the pudding.

      How about a few examples of some answered philosophical questions (not scientific ones relying on hard evidence).

    4. May be they(ScO's, should employ & consult Philos, so then they have another perspective of the reasoning & moralistic queries philosophers pose .

    5. A philosopher is not heeded to help build a Hadron Collider or to discover cures for various types of cancer or for that matter anything scientific.
      Philosophy accomplishes absolutely nothing.

    6. I sent your oft-repeated question to NASA. If or when they answer, I will post it. Either way, the answer will be interesting!

    7. Would you mind posting your question?

    8. No problem. First I quoted you, and then made sure the question was qualified as you did in another post - a philosopher doing philosophy, not science. See below.

      A fellow on a documentary site that allows comments is of the same ilk as Richard Feynman, et al, in that he totally dismisses philosophy as useless. I know that Professor Feynman was on the team that investigated one of the shuttle accidents, but that is not on topic, just an aside.

      This fellow says this, in fact copies it over and over - "If philosophy is so important to science, how many philosophers are employed by CERN, NASA, Merck and other mainstream, hands-on, scientific organizations? How many philosophy courses not required of the general student population must science majors take?"

      Do you have an answer to that for NASA or any of the other agencies that do hard science? Can you give a number of philosophers that do philosophy and are employed by NASA for that purpose? It would be interesting either way you answer. I will look elsewhere for the info, but I think I need an insider to answer that question.

    9. Fair enough. I'd be interested in the answer. Did you write to NASA in general or to some specific department such as personnel?

    10. No one specific. I went to the Contact Us link and it went to Public-Inquiries. At hq dot Nasa dot gov.

      Could be a long wait.

    11. Again, fair enough, but perhaps this should be taken further and CERN, Merck, the Venter Institute and other hard scientific entities should be contacted--and perhaps I should assist because it is not fair for you to do all the work.

    12. Okay, I'll take CERN and Fermilab for good measure. My employer's USA home office isn't too far from there in Illinois and I'm told it is a fascinating place to visit.

      I thought NASA had the best chance of having a philosopher on staff. I suppose I was thinking of things like sending people to Mars, and such. Perhaps a Psychologist or Psychiatrist would be more appropriate as there are lots of people issues to solve along with the issues of getting there and doing stuff.

    13. Psychologists or psychiatrists I can see as far as NASA, but these people are not philosophers.

    14. No, I didn't mean to imply that at all. I should have written that so it was clear.

      However, I don't know if I would call psychiatry or psychology a hard science. Not yet, anyway.

    15. And neither do I. Every psychiatrist I have spoken to has described his profession as an art form. However, as I stated, I can envision NASA hiring a few--but this is far different from philosophy.

    16. They do use psychologists to vet their ideas already.

    17. Source? One way or the other, a psychologist/psychiatrist is not a philosopher.

    18. I received a reply from Fermilab today.

      Hello Paul,

      No, we don't employ philosophers here at Fermilab. Our budget covers scientific research only. Thanks for the question.


      Andre Salles

      Fermilab Office of Communication

    19. Hey decaf, not quite the same thing but CERN has Artists in Residence :)

    20. Yes, I spent quite a bit of time on their site and noticed that. Looks like a fascinating place to punch in every morning. That is, unless one has chosen a career in philosophy.

    21. Slap on a wide-eyed and toothy grin, mumble something about aesthetics and skip away, they'll put it down to artistic temperament, all good! ;)

    22. As you've pointed out, artists in residence are not philosophers. At least artists in residence produce something.

    23. True, but if they hope to bring understanding to us with wandering pencils and abstract photography, why not also through philosophy. Some of it is beautiful enough to be poetry. They have given Art a place in their world, all or none, surely? Art is subjective, until the beauty of a piece becomes a consensus, then it's beauty is objective - but that's just philosophy of art. As The Mighty Achem would say, 'bakes no bread' ;)

    24. Art is simply the appreciation of something for its own sake. So if you want to consider philosophy an art form, go right ahead, but it's no more than that. However, philosophy itself has no place in any art form. It can't tell you how to paint a picture, compose a symphony or write a novel and when it's starts dictating on these which all too often it does, it falls flat on its face.

    25. From Wiki Answers: Why philosophy is a science and art?


      "Philosophy is a science because it systematically develops a hypothesis on a premise with analytical tools to resolve the problem through logical reasoning (induced or deduced). It is always open for debates as a human endeavour to seek the truth through learnt knowledge. [edit: exactly what I have been saying all along about scientists employing philosophy as a tool for understanding]

      Philosophy is an art because you require inherent skills & natural ability to apply the philosophical principles."

      From the Guardian: "Studying philosophy will [teach] you to think logically and critically about issues, to analyse and construct arguments and to be open to new ways of thinking."

      Once again, you're dismissing what you do not understand, which unfortunately reveals you to be unscientific in your approach.

    26. First of all, you need to comprehend what you read. I wrote, "So if you want to consider philosophy an art form, go right ahead, but it's no more than that."

      Once again, philosophy does not help to compose a symphony, write a novel,chisel a sculpture or direct a movie. I hope by now you've read the response which Pwndecaf received from Fermilabs--i.e., no philosophers on staff. So much for philosophy's "importance" to science, so much for philosophy's "importance" to art and so much for you.

    27. Fair enough, philosophy can't tell art what it is. It can play with the idea of what makes art, art though :)

    28. And play is all it does. Knowing "what makes art" (assuming that this is possible) is quite different from actually doing art which makes philosophy valueless.

    29. Philosophy is the art of thinking around an idea.

    30. "Around" is the operative word.

    31. 1i thinks, without it's surrounding, a thought would remain asleep.

    32. "Around" is still the operative word.

    33. ..and from Wikipedia itself:

      "Philosophy is the study of humans and the world by thinking and asking questions. It is a science and an art. Philosophy tries to answer important questions by coming up with answers about real things and asking why?"

    34. Science tries to answer important questions by coming up with answers about real things (and nothing but) and asking why; only science often succeeds whereas philosophy generally fails.

    35. Thanks for responding. "Our budget covers scientific research only" says a lot.

    36. I finally got a response from Cern. They are succinct!


      Sorry , we don’t employ philosophers.

      Best regards,

      Recruitment Service

      HR Department, CERN

      CH-1211 Geneva 23

      TAKE PART ! My opportunities at CERN

  49. Another layman who cannot solve Schrödinger equation is interpreting quantum mechanics. Seriously, be an expert first and then start to discuss such issues. Any yet, if the discussed issue cannot be falsified, it does not matter anyway.

  50. To say free will is an illusion is a bit contradictory, isn't it? Whether it is or not, do we not require consciousness to interpret that? What is it that is able to recognize an illusion? What faculty decides the truth or untruth of anything? If not consciousness, what?

    1. How about hard evidence and hard results?

    2. ALL OF US know there is something beyond the love, you have dreams, visions, a bunch of intangibles. Only sociopaths and bafoons who are too cowardly to look at reality say stuff like this. Go ahead, live in your no-consciousness, no intangible world. Don't love anyong, don't dream, don't think or do intangible stuff cuz you NEED HARD EVIDENCE before you believe any of that exists. My sister with down sydrome has more common sense than you and some of the "intellectuals" on here who intellectualize their way into denial of reality.

    3. This is one of the greatest tradegies of this species. A cold, calculative, indifferent mind. Converting everything into numbers, formulas, theories, hard evidence or lack of thereof. And then they wonder why everything around is so dull and grey and frozen.

    4. ..there's plenty of evidence for a God-designed world, just like there's plenty of evidence for the invisible force of gravity (which is only theory) cuz you, me and others cannot explain the origin or essence of it, we can only describe the RESULTS or repercussions of it. This is why bafoons like you are such i*iots. You pretend that everything in the world is math and formulas and that you DON'T believe in anything invisible, like love, dreams or even gravity, the magnetic field or dark matter. then you mock folks who believe in something that's invisible because they are only going off of evidence for it and you sheeple demand hard core empirical evidence when you don't even do that for the aforementioned invisible things. What a pathetic hypocrite.

    5. Since you are making a claim of "there's plenty of evidence for a God-designed world" please show us your evidence, without resorting to any circular logic etc: thank you.

  51. What does it all mean? It doesn't matter. It makes no difference. If you really need there to be a "purpose," then do like Mike did: make it up.

  52. What is this physical brain that so many scientists give all power to? What is it made of? What is its foundation?

    Science itself seems to tell us that physical-matter is not made of physical-matter;

    but rather indefinable vibrations of “pure energy”.

    What is this thing we call energy?

    No one knows.

    Until we know, what do we really know?....if anything?

    I only know that I don't know.

    1. How about the capacity of a system to perform work for starters?
      Among other things, we certainly know enough to send men to the moon and build the Hadron Collider?

    2. See my last post/reply to Bob Trees.

  53. lol. haha hahaha. heh heh heh... I'm gonna watch it again.

    1. Thank goodness! Someone at least found this funny. Good on you Jo. I thought the humour was fantastic.

    2. it was fun. I did almost feel sorry for this guy 'Mike'; he 'almost' gets some things right, and then he goes so far wrong the incredulity becomes satirical. I was thinking, someone (maybe the BBC) could have a bit of fun creating a satire - hell - based on this spot of fluff, the script is practically written, HA...peace

    3. :-( oh dear, seems I missed your point and you mine. Did you see on RT today frozen light? Photons frozen in time for up to 60 seconds...apparently. I think 'Mike' might be on to something.

  54. With all the quality Docs on this site that discuss the topic of consciousness how on earth did this one wiggle in? There may be some interesting points that are fertile ground for comment but anyone familiar with this Mike Adams knows not to bother.

  55. Ahem. Someone sends me Mike Adams's Natural News newsletter several times a month. Everything he writes supports his bizarre worldviews and hucksters for his "snake oil" product that "cures everything." There's a "conspiracy" to prevent the world from knowing about all these cures his snake oil performs.

  56. I liked this doc! I wished I was paying more attention to it while doing other stuff, but focused more about half way thorough. I liked the different ideas presented on the big bang theory but there was one that I kinda lean more to. I'm thinking that the big bang is somewhat of a pulse or cycle. The universe is expanding but at some point it contracts to the point of becoming a big bang again. I've got absolutely nothing to point that this may be the scenario.

    Which brings me to another point on this. Why can't others come to the relization that we don't know somethings? Why can't "we don't know" be an acceptable answer for some things? If physicists offer that as an answer, it seems like they are deemed to be less "knowledgeable".

    1. When I was spending time at the The School of Philosophy, in Wellington NZ, (NOT Victoria Uni., But a private institution) we were learning what is called 'Practical Philosophy', ( to some people that will be an anachronism), About 2 years in we were discussing Knowledge, where does it come from ? One of the end products of this discussion was the thought that "You Don't Know, What You Don't Know !". And this I now use to discuss these very subjects & their like !

  57. Mike Adams is the owner of Natural News, a website dedicated to alternative medicine and various conspiracy theories, such as chemtrails, the alleged dangers of fluoride in drinking water and health problems caused by "toxic" ingredients in vaccines, including the now-discredited link to autism. In addition, Adams is an AIDS denialist, an promoter of conspiracy theories surrounding the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting and has endorsed Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business. I believe that says everything.

    1. Wow. "Him smart".

    2. damn...just needed Anti-Semite as well and that would have been Bingo!

  58. I love when people are all lie "The best part of this film was the part about the universe being a simulation" Lol if your going to refute all of the other BS why not refute the while matrix idea as well.

  59. I had to stop when i realized he does not understand what the "theory of everything" is meant do do or explain. The author is just seeing blindly what HE wants to think of it. not worth watching.

    1. What hypocrite....You are complaining that the author is seeing "what HE thinks of it".
      THAT'S what folks do, you id**t. A person analyzes info and then draws his/her conclusions after doing so. And here you are drawing your conclusions, being the typical arrogant hypocrite who wants to shut out other opinions.

  60. Here's an idea, we need to extract an exotic particle, so we take a cylinder and fill it with plasma, we then compress it so it starts to form into particles, it creates about a hundred particles with a number of isotopes that are particles changing from one thing to another, we then insert an organism to extract the most stable of those particles. standard process for filtering what we want.
    The universe is not big it is just you are very small, welcome to the cylinder, now do as your suppose to do and extract the most stable particle in this soup, gold. We are farmed so therefor created to complete a task, when done we will be flushed like all other processes when done.

  61. We have a money system that creates money and then charges interest that is not created , so the only way to pay that interest is to create things of value, the only thing the bankers will take is gold, so therefore the money system was created to force us to dig holes in the ground to collect gold, anybody in the last 5000 years that attempted to change the system was done away with, so it is clear why man is here, don't see lions, tigers or sparrows digging holes to collect gold.
    The concept of god along with physics were created so to give the illusion of some power over the environment, the fact that there is a harmonic relationship between things shows it is one organism.
    We all have a liver, to the liver we are god but can any of us really understand a liver, can we mod it, do we really know how it works, but if it is our liver then we must have knowledge of it to make it, but we don't, what does that tell you.
    In just a few years man gained virtual worlds and used them to escape, and within those looks for other social structures to escape, so you could say it is within the nature of life to escape.
    The best explanation I ever saw for god and physics came from a very old text, it said "god was lonely so fragmented himself to have some fun", seems being fragmented makes you forget what you knew when whole.
    What ever organism we are part of seems to need gold, as the only intelligent life in existence that we know of, digs holes in the ground and converts rock into gold bars, what does that tell you.
    In fact if you read the oldest text they tell you that and why, but why let an old story get in the way.
    Gold is of no use to us, so why do we dig it up.

  62. free will exists and awareness exists and science cannot fully understand that it is okay science can eventually

  63. I noticed the analysis of physics. And the role they play in determining our different life sciences.

    This doc is great affirmation of general evidences we hold, in understanding our existence.

    The God Within is a title that evokes religious implication. It is not; more so a "transcendental abstract" term.

  64. how could the universe not be a simulation? that is what else could it be? what are the other options?

    1. Brings up the age old 'who created the creator' argument. If our universe is a simulation, its being simulated on a computer in a universe built by someone or something. Not impossible, but highly unlikely. There still needs to be a universe.

    2. We don't have a clue what anything could be. Time may only be a factor in the manifest world? In our world there is a start and an ending. Why is this? This must be an interlude a stop off on the way somewhere else? Why even bother with one time around? does it stand to reason there would be an abstract life without reason to be. There are many beings on Earth we discount them as being sole less? No creator just are? I think we are from another "planet" and came here. We are so different then all the rest of the life forms on this Earth? And in other ways almost the same, like procreation? The basic things caring for our young and so on. The rest of life doesn't have a Bible or Koran etc.? Very complex?

    3. Are humans more like a snake than a bat is like a snake?

    4. That's a question for an evolutionary biologist.

    5. "We [I assume you mean homo sapiens] are so different then [SIC] all the rest of the life forms on this Earth?[SIC]." Just how?

      The remainder of your post is sheer gibberish ("We don't have a clue what anything could be. Time may only be a factor in the manifest world?[SIC] There must be an interlude a stop off on the way somewhere else?[SIC] . . . does it stand to reason there would be an abstract life without reason to be.]
      Try again when you have something to say and express it in clear, conventional English.

  65. You'll be a fool if you take any of this man's definitions and assertions seriously. He has an agenda, and the thing is therefore fallacious from start to finish. Having said that much, it is nevertheless interesting to listen to in parts, in my opinion, especially that regarding whether or not the universe is a simulation.

    1. i agree

    2. So were all robots? LOL. This a perfectly coherent alternative viewpoint to modern physics..

    3. Biological Robots!

    4. Please explain to me the "agenda" this man has?

    5. He demonstrates an agenda within the first two minutes of the doc. He is disappointed with Hawking's first page of the book "The Theory of Everything". Apparently, Hawking did not validate this guy's beliefs, so he is summarily dismissed. He concedes Hawking's brilliance, but then says that Hawking lacks the insight that he, Mike Adams, has. I'm paraphrasing, of course but he is a self-proclaimed genius. "Them scientists, they smart, but not so smart like me."

      I wonder if the simulator of the simulation, has his own creator. Maybe this is the nature of the universe. One simulation built onto another one. We are the leading edge, preparing to create the next simulation. Will this be a human collective effort or maybe millions of single creators, writing the code for their own private simulations...billions of universes, created just so that new simulators can create the next generation of simulations? This could lead to the implication that God has his own God, which has his own God, into infinity. This philosophy thing can be so much fun. Put out an idea, without proof, and then bask in my own brilliance. I love it.

    6. You certainly have his number. Just a suggestion though, in the last line, change "my" to "one's."

    7. Good suggestion but upon reflection, I think I'll let it stand. The use of "my" demonstrates how self indulgent this brand of philosophy can be. After all, it is me speaking and it is "my" beliefs (truth?). It is the branch of "science" (don't laugh) where any speculation can be the truth because its very vagueness is its defence.

    8. O.K., but do change the two "it's" in the last line of your previous post.

    9. The 'Matryoshka Doll' theory of the universe. These types of bullsh-t-session speculations can be fun, but I don't take them too seriously, at this point. It's just entertainment, like smoking dope with Donald Sutherland's character in 'Animal House'. But it's conceivable that there could be something to them, I suppose. As a matter of fact, physicists are set to run an experiment shortly to see whether there is any validity to the thought-experiment in the real world (I loved saying that). Here's a section from an article on Huffington Post:

      And it's not just theory. We previously reported that researchers at the University of Bonn in Germany had found evidence
      the Matrix was less than fiction. That story was by far our most
      popular of the year - indicating it's something about which you lot have
      wondered, too.

      Now another team have devised an actual test to see if this theory holds any hope of being proven.

      Professor Martin Savage at the University of Washington says while
      our own computer simulations can only model a universe on the scale of
      an atom's nucleus, there are already "signatures of resource
      constraints" which could tell us if larger models are possible.

      This is where it gets complex.

      Essentially, Savage said that computers used to build simulations
      perform "lattice quantum chromodynamics calculations" - dividing space
      into a four-dimensional grid. Doing so allows researchers to examine the
      force which binds subatomic particles together into neutrons and
      protons - but it also allows things to happen in the simulation,
      including the development of complex physical "signatures", that
      researchers don't program directly into the computer. In looking for
      these signatures, such as limitations on the energy held by cosmic rays,
      they hope to find similarities within our own universe.

      And if such signatures do appear in both? Boot up, baby. We're inside a computer. (Maybe).

      Whoa. Whoa, dude! (lol)

      My 10 year old son checked out a youtube video about some of Nick Bostrom's ideas with me the night before last, and dismissed any idea of a simulated universe with the heady words, "Daaad, I eat! So I'm not a simulation."

      Sounds just a little bit like Descartes, doesn't it?

    10. I suggest Thomas Campbell's trilogy "My Big TOE"

  66. What is this... an argument against the 'no free will' hypothesis ? a pseudo scientific argument for an external self or duality ? an attempt to lever the words of a respected man of science like Hawking to support religion ?
    Consciousness and free will is not external, Have you ever taken a hard look at artificial intelligence and neural networks ? Its pretty spooky stuff when you discover that some simple math compounded a billion times over can create the infinite possibilities we call choice and the ability to learn.
    Most of the things those physicists have 'calculated' have been observed. The 'God particle' aka the higgs boson was predicted mathematically, we just didn't have the technology to observe it at the time. Our mathematical predictions tell us the universe had a point where it began, we can only theorize at this point how it began. We have no solid evidence of what the 'nothing' origin of the universe looked like or what anything outside what we perceive as an infinite universe could really be.... yet. If physicists say there's dark matter and dark energy out there, believe it. There's something they don't understand out there, it accounts for gaps in the calculations and one day they'll come up with a way to explore the questions it raises and answer just what it is.

    Science is admirable in the fact that it seeks its answers without being sidetracked by dogma and bias. Theres gaps in our knowledge for sure, we find more at every step, but lets not fill them with god. Take a second look at your work author !

    1. In what way is the "God Particle" "God"?

    2. Name only. It was thought it would usher in the unified theory with a testable and observable answer to all the questions about the formation of the universe. We will wait and see if it delivers.

    3. It got the name because it's supposed to be what imparts mass to certain particles, without which, of course, there would be no matter, and hence no universe as we know it.

    4. That's funny its a "particle", itself, the "god particle". So its a particle bring mass to other particles, right?

    5. Actually, it's the Higgs field that the particles move through that enable certain of them to acquire mass. The Higgs boson, or God particle, is what confirms the existence of the field.

    6. Where did the "Higg's field" emanate from? What does that "field" consist of? Where does that consistence derive from and so on and so forth? etc.........

    7. Higgs mechanism...

    8. Sidetracked by dogma and bias? Dogma is bias...

  67. What a pile of c***. Mike Adams is a fraud and an i****.