Statement of Comment Etiquette for New Thinking Allowed You are asked to be courteous at all times to all participants, and to limit your comments to the topics discussed in the videos. Your thoughtful participation is encouraged. If you post insulting comments here or promote political propaganda, conspiracy theories, or religious dogmas as if they were the absolute truth, you will have disqualified yourself and you will be permanently banned from posting on this channel. Except however, if you still want to post an aggressively rude or off-topic comment (and haven't yet been banned from posting), go visit our monolog about George Carlin at ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-e5MKv667TRI.html. All comments will be accepted there, but not here.
Another fascinating interview. I love that both Mishlove and Lazar let one another speak, expressing their thoughts completely and without interruption.
One of the cases in the book Life Between Lives talks about the person, while in the afterlife, learning how to modify the DNA of a fish. Has anyone else ever suggested such a thing?
Bacteria like E-coli has screw propeller like structure that has very sophisticated molecular motor and gears. How can random "evolution" give E-coli cell mechanical molecular features. That's a great wonder of our world.
Great talk! 1. Models are only as honest as the Humans that make them. 2. Maybe I only know Dummies, but I have never had this simple “evolutionary” question answered: If it takes 2 Mammals to make another mammal/set of mammals then where did the first 2 mammals come from? Did they just morph from Amphibians one day in close enough proximity to breed as morphed mammals… ✌🏼🤔😊
I'm one of those materialists open to new ideas of what this all actually is... and im no expert in evolution... but his arguments against evolution shows that he really doesnt understand what it actually is. NO, its not only "getting more information" and deevolution is not a thing. And no, it doesnt work by adding clockparts until the clock works... that's utterly reduculous and no evolutionist teaches that. But this misunderstanding of what evolution actually teaches - is the reason people think its absurd.
I agree with just about everything OL said. The scientific arguments that ID research has come up with are indeed impressive. Fortunately, although the Discovery Institute is mainly a Christian organisation, they seem to have realised that it is better to present the scientific evidence for ID without referring to religion. As it is I don't think there is a coherent explanation for evolution
Yes, it does, because chiral amino acids are physically different shapes. While a levo- and a dextro- amino acid contain the same atoms in the same number, and convention is to use one name, their structures are different. The confusion is only due to the naming convention, which belies the very different orientations and bonding connections between the atoms of the molecule. Perhaps a good analogy would be two different puzzle pieces of different shapes but which are both blue, and ending up calling them both a “blue piece” for simplicity. That simplification does not describe the fact that the pieces won’t fit in the same places. Since I’m here, I’ll comment on the yeast evolution experiment. Evolution is not just change in DNA over time. Evolution is change in survivability and reproducibility in response to a change in the environment or in response to a new environmental niche. Growing yeast in the same glassware with the same nutrients for however long is not an experiment of “macro” evolution. Indeed, generations of yeast losing genes during replication, continuing to reproduce within their environment, and perhaps expending less energy due to lower demands for replication, is an example of them evolving to suit their environmental niche. Speciation, separating into a new species (“macro” evolution, perhaps?) requires sustain isolation to a separate environment such that the magnitude of changes make a species markedly different and often unable to join DNA again in the process of sexual reproduction. Considering that yeast are an asexual organism, I’m not sure how effective they would ever be as a model of a speciation event. I would suggest that these examples are not particularly well-suited to the argument. The speaker’s scientific studies presented in the previous video were interesting, though.
If evolution is false, how do we account for the fact that we share 50% of genes with bananas, 75% with fish, and 98% with chimps? Doesn't this mean we split from chimps more recently than we did from bananas, i.e. evolution in action?
It’s a long deep answer. Have fun. That’s a good question. Let’s think it out together. Your proposition is correct. But that doesn’t always have to imply that there is splitting occurring, and there was a gene or genes that have been evolving which manifest into creatures which have been evolving from single cell to now, it presumes a value judgement that humans are the top of evolutionary chain, single cell, or bacteria, or cellular complex organisms, or different animals, birds are lower genetically from an evolutionary perspective and we are higher, so, 98% match with chimps, 75% with fish, 50% with bananas. This comes from the extra importance that the Ego Identity attaches itself with due to rationality. Let’s take the above lens of perception off. Each living being, organism, entity, is unique, uniquely designed, manifesting in physical observable realm. All the physical observed are actually forms, fossilised, in the sensory realm of waves and thoughts and ideas. Each idea is unique and distinct and evolving in itself, corresponding to its manifested physical matter form, like a neuron, a cell, a toe, an animal, a living being, plant. It’s the idea, the unique infinite ideas that keep on evolving, manifesting as physical matter, which seemingly all unique are evolving in micro sense as talked about by Professor Lazar. The micro sensory accessible realm of all of us. We are all unique and uniquely evolving. There is no hierarchy set up by Darwin. There is evolution, but unique to all, Refer to Aristotle’s 4 types of causes about why something is or is not. Actually everything is and Isnot.
If there is an intelligent mind behind life then it is not unreasonable to think that the designer would use the same designs with additions to create more diverse life.. A modern mercedes shares much of it design with other brand's cars - does that imply that they are "related"? No. They share certain properties simply because they have to follow certain design constraints. You cannot build a car that does not share its fundamental design with other cars. That being said, the guest is mainly crticising Darwinian conception of blind evolution, and not neccessarily the idea of evolution itsellf.
I always hear this confusion with people talking about materialism. Physics has not believe in materialism when philosophizing about physics. If physicists think all there is, is what is found by physics then the view isn’t materialism but physicalism. An even broader view than physicalism would be naturalism. However, if you want a guest than understands the philosophy of physics then interview someone like Tim Maudlin. Don’t interview physicists since they aren’t trained in the philosophy of physics and are told over and over again not to think of fundamentals but just do the calculations/ math. Clueless when it comes to deeper issues.
So on the analogy that death is just a human construct. Who's to say this realm we reside isn't the "death" realm .hence why we can't figure this phenomenon out .cannot see the wood for the trees so to speak. .just a thought 🤣
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:43 📚 *The guest, Oliver Lazar, is a computer science professor in Düsseldorf, Germany, and conducted the ERIAMS study on messages from the spirit after a personal spiritual experience.* 02:46 🧬 *Lazar challenges the materialistic viewpoint of science, suggesting it is incompatible with the existence of an afterlife.* 04:51 ⚛️ *Lazar explores the limitations and shaky foundations of theories like biogenesis and Darwin's evolution, suggesting they open up possibilities for other realities.* 06:54 🌌 *Some scientists acknowledge the possibility of other dimensions, but skepticism still prevails, especially among those holding a materialistic worldview.* 10:33 ⚡ *Lazar delves into the nature of matter, emphasizing the equivalence of mass and energy, challenging the perception of the solid body.* 13:00 🌐 *Lazar discusses quantum physics, highlighting experiments like the quantum eraser, suggesting evidence for realities without space and time.* 17:05 🕰️ *Lazar proposes that the spiritual world exists beyond space and time, allowing for experiences like glimpses into the future.* 19:35 🐦 *Lazar critiques the materialistic interpretation of Darwin's evolution, presenting counterarguments, such as the lack of evidence for evolution in long-term bacterial studies.* 25:54 🤔 *Lazar advocates for intelligent design and irreducible complexity, arguing that some biological systems cannot be explained by gradual evolution but suggest a planned, creative origin.* 28:43 🦠 *Lazar distinguishes between microevolution (adaptation) and macroevolution, emphasizing that certain boundaries exist between these evolutionary scales.* 29:10 🧬 *The speaker emphasizes the limitations of biological evolution and criticizes weaknesses in the theory of evolution.* 30:10 💻 *The origin of information, especially in DNA, is highlighted, arguing that information is not a result of material processes but requires a creative mind.* 32:39 🤖 *The comparison between information in biology and information in IT is made, suggesting a common essence where both require a creative mind.* 34:35 🧪 *Critique of the Urey-Miller experiment's significance in explaining the origin of life, questioning the role of racemates and homochirality.* 38:54 🌐 *Advocating for exploring different metaphysics rather than proving God, highlighting the importance of acknowledging insurmountable hurdles in scientific theories.* 41:45 🚫 *Taboo topics in the scientific community, such as supernatural or spiritual explanations, are discussed, affecting funding and marginalizing research on survival after death.* 45:37 🤔 *Intelligent design is suggested, but the speaker acknowledges uncertainty about the designer, considering various possibilities beyond a traditional God.* 47:34 🧠 *The existence of consciousness challenges materialistic science, arguing that consciousness is not solely derived from the brain but originates elsewhere.* 49:00 💓 *The challenge of measuring intangible realities like love is presented, questioning the materialist perspective that requires measurement for something to be considered real.* Made with HARPA AI
Wow. I'm extremely impressed by this summary. I drifted off to sleep about 15 minutes in to this interview as it was getting late and I hadn't understood the emphasis on the role of "information". This is certainly a different approach. It's going to take a while to sink in. I hope this succinct description will be preserved along with the interview itself. I suspect I may have missed an earlier discussion of the whole subject. I'm going to have to look for that link & watch it as well. Thank you for your diligent work.
Very Good. I love these people that are so sure there is no soul but they know nothing and we know nothing. Liked your thinking...Bought your book....Thank you.
Avoiding the concept of spirituality and instead focusing on the idea of Consciousness seems a more potentially advantageous route to try and research.
Was ich noch vergessen habe ist dass die Arbeit von Burkhard Heim in den Zusammenhang auch sehr interessant ist da man eine ordnende und lenkende Kraft als eine Art Dimension auch noch sehen könnte aber das wäre wahrscheinlich Wert für ein eigenständiges video
This was giid discussion, but a few things mr.Lazar mentioned were jaring , ricky gervais??? Is a comedian( and that may be an example of develoution, proving his own point to be wrong) and , what are we do with the very odd thing dali llama said to the small boy, awful it was. So while its great to be enthusiastic in proving your point/ beliefs, discernment is key. Rupert Sheldrake who speaks about resonant field, also talks about using experiment rather than debate ,which can go on for centuries. ❤ Also Eban Alexander the neurosurgeon has written obout his experience of n.d.e.
We often hear of the hard problem of consciousness. Why is there qualia or experience of anything in the first place? I would submit there is an even harder and more important question - why do I seem to be a specific individual experiencing a specific subset of qualia? This is the most important question that must be asked and answered but rarely is. As a matter of fact there seems to be a huge blind spot when it comes to this in discussions of consciousness. If material reductionism is to be relevant to the big questions, then it has to explain not how brains generate consciousness but how the specific brain in my head could create the specific consciousness I seem to be looking out of the eyeballs of this specific body. Why do I PERSONNALLY EXIST as an individual in the first place? Out of the infinite matter in the universe how is it that only the three pounds in my head could create me? What is different about that three pounds for this to occur? Consider that billions of bodies showed up before this one. Billions showed up after this one. None of them seem to have created my existence. This body could be running around without it being ME just like these billions of others All bodies are made of the same elements. All brains have the same basic anatomy. If all brains are basically the same and are creating consciousness then there should only be ONE consciousness looking out of every set of eyeballs simultaneously. A hopelessly superimposed existence from every possible viewpoint at once. I’m sure that materialists would claim that no, no, brains are so complex they are all different. Ok, so what would have to be recreated in another brain for me to exist looking out of another set of eyeballs? When the ontologies purporting to explain consciousness are examined critically it becomes obvious that all materialist/reductionist strategies fail completely in attempting to address the individuality question. What is the principled explanation for why: A brain over here would generate my specific consciousness and a brain over there would generate your specific consciousness? Integrated information over here would generate my specific consciousness and integrated information over there would generate your specific consciousness? Global workspace over here would generate my specific consciousness and global workspace there would generate your specific consciousness? Orchestrated quantum collapse in microtubules over here would generate my specific consciousness and orchestrated quantum collapse in microtubules over there would generate your specific consciousness? A clump of conscious atoms over here (panpsychicism) would generate my specific consciousness and a clump of conscious over there would generate your specific consciousness? If an exact copy of my body was suddenly created in antarctica would I find myself to exist freezing there while also sitting in the comfort my living room? According to the physicalists that would have to be true or their argument collapses into incoherence. Materialism already fails since it cannot find a transfer function between microvolt level sparks in the brain and any experience or qualia. In addition it’s not possible for materialistic ontologies to address this question of individuality since no measurement can be made that could verify my consciousness vs your consciousness and therefore no materialist ontology could make any coherent statements about the subject. How could pure awareness even be individualized? Physicalists demand measurements but with consciousness there is nothing to measure. There is electricity in the brain they say. We’ll measure that. Is electricity consciousness? If so then once I again I should exist everywhere at once since electricity cannot be individualized. My blender uses electricity. Is it a genius? Unless materialists can answer these questions their premise collapses like the house of cards it is. As far as other ways of thought are concerned only Dualism and Idealism can account for our sense of individuality. Dualism assumes we are all individual spirits/souls matched up to a body through some undefined process. Idealism, which states that consciousness is primary also answers the question of why I seem to exist as an individual. One consciousness exists looking out of every set of eyeballs and in the process the illusion of individuality is created in each case. In actual reality I am you, you are me, we are one.
All is ok...but can you explain the lack of any experience let alone a spiritual one under general anesthesia...doesn't it prove that we are only physical
i cant be put under, not without killing me. i have a lot of spiritual experiences and my mind never switches off.. not an answer to your question exactly but my long term meditation practise means i'm highly spiritual but literally cant undergo anaesthetic.
This guy doesn't have a degree in neurology and does not comprehend emergent properties. Nor does he actually provide anything related to his wild claims outside of an argument from ignorance.
