I couldn’t see anywhere else to comment on the “Jesus” article, so I hope it’s OK here. There is a significant and growing debate around the historicity of Jesus, and the references made to the “evidence” in Josephus and Tacitus in your article are misleading. Briefly, the Josephus reference looks like a late insertion, and Tacitus was reporting a report of a report. For a much more informed debate, and (for balance) one that comes down on the side of the probable mythic Jesus, see Richard Carrier “On the Historicity of Jesus” and Ralph Lataster “Questioning the Historicity of Jesus”. In the first century CE there most certainly were Jewish sectarians, there were preachers, there were itinerants, there were crucifixions. There could, therefore, have been a crucified itinerant Jewish sectarian preacher. But to go from there to claims of “miracle”-working, divinity and resurrection is a step nobody can rationally take.
Yes, read my comment above, to which I would like to add Steven Pinker. Thomson is a philosopher not a scientist and he's a bit out of his depth. The job of philosophy is to ask questions, not to pretend to know the answers.
Overall, some insights or speculations lead nowhere, and some lead to scientific discoveries.
Some speculations might lead to wishful thinking, some may bring about poetry, literature, art, some may start a new not necessarily better religion, some might start wars, disasters, and then of course, some scientific discoveries can bring about unintended problems, along with the human tendency to mess up the best intentions.
What came first, Time or Space? If I say, 'Space came first', & try to make an argument why that might be true, I get stuck with lots of issues like: Are we talking about Space as a 'reality' or as a 'mere human mental concept'? Does our limited human concept of Time depend on Movement in Space?
It's easy to say: Without Space, there cannot be Time, because Time is always measured by the 'relative time it takes' for something to get from spot A to spot B, or a planet to complete a revolution, or a journey around the sun, etc. hat is an hour? Generally speaking, it is one 24th of the time it takes the earth to turn around once. Without seeing the relative movement of Sun, Moon and Stars, we might not even know that the earth turns.
Since time takes movement to be measured, we can say that Space might have come first. But then, you can ask: So how did Space come into being, when there was no Time at first. Without Time, Space must have popped into being all at once: Poof! like that. But we seem to know that Space still expands even now. Why does it do that?
Maybe Space & Time came into being concurrently, but I can't be sure of that either. Even weirder, Could Space create its own Time, or does Time create its own space? I know that I don't know.
I couldn’t see anywhere else to comment on the “Jesus” article, so I hope it’s OK here. There is a significant and growing debate around the historicity of Jesus, and the references made to the “evidence” in Josephus and Tacitus in your article are misleading. Briefly, the Josephus reference looks like a late insertion, and Tacitus was reporting a report of a report. For a much more informed debate, and (for balance) one that comes down on the side of the probable mythic Jesus, see Richard Carrier “On the Historicity of Jesus” and Ralph Lataster “Questioning the Historicity of Jesus”. In the first century CE there most certainly were Jewish sectarians, there were preachers, there were itinerants, there were crucifixions. There could, therefore, have been a crucified itinerant Jewish sectarian preacher. But to go from there to claims of “miracle”-working, divinity and resurrection is a step nobody can rationally take.
A very poor and superficial discussion of the reality of consciousness.
If you would like to explore this conversation deeper, you can hear Jonny's full interview with Rupert in the Mini Philosophy newsletter.
Yes, read my comment above, to which I would like to add Steven Pinker. Thomson is a philosopher not a scientist and he's a bit out of his depth. The job of philosophy is to ask questions, not to pretend to know the answers.
Thought you might resonate - I serve the song beneath the traps—the bass that bombings couldn’t own. https://thehiddenclinic.substack.com/p/what-i-found-in-the-smoke-that-the
Overall, some insights or speculations lead nowhere, and some lead to scientific discoveries.
Some speculations might lead to wishful thinking, some may bring about poetry, literature, art, some may start a new not necessarily better religion, some might start wars, disasters, and then of course, some scientific discoveries can bring about unintended problems, along with the human tendency to mess up the best intentions.
Daniel Dennett, cognitive scientist and author of "Consciousness Explained," might have felt hurt that Thomson doesn't consider his work science.
Ditto Eric Hoel (neuroscientist) and Adam Mastroianni (psychologist).
Consider this: There is no Time without Movement. - true or false? Why?
What came first, Time or Space? If I say, 'Space came first', & try to make an argument why that might be true, I get stuck with lots of issues like: Are we talking about Space as a 'reality' or as a 'mere human mental concept'? Does our limited human concept of Time depend on Movement in Space?
It's easy to say: Without Space, there cannot be Time, because Time is always measured by the 'relative time it takes' for something to get from spot A to spot B, or a planet to complete a revolution, or a journey around the sun, etc. hat is an hour? Generally speaking, it is one 24th of the time it takes the earth to turn around once. Without seeing the relative movement of Sun, Moon and Stars, we might not even know that the earth turns.
Since time takes movement to be measured, we can say that Space might have come first. But then, you can ask: So how did Space come into being, when there was no Time at first. Without Time, Space must have popped into being all at once: Poof! like that. But we seem to know that Space still expands even now. Why does it do that?
Maybe Space & Time came into being concurrently, but I can't be sure of that either. Even weirder, Could Space create its own Time, or does Time create its own space? I know that I don't know.
The Paradigm we live in!
"cells are made up of tissues" is clearly backwards.
Organism /organ system /organ /TISSUE /Cell /macromolecule /molecule /atom /P, N, e / ...