The book references an article about this paper:
https://arxiv.org/vc/arxiv/papers/1303/1303.6739v1.pdf
The “Wow! signal” of the terrestrial genetic code
Vladimir I. shCherbaka and Maxim A. Makukovb*
Department of Mathematics, al-Farabi Kazakh National University, Almaty, Republic of Kazakhstan
Fesenkov Astrophysical Institute, Almaty, Republic of Kazakhstan
The only option left for the faking skeptic, is to simply issue a nulla infantis argument ("nuh-uh!") or ignore this from now on.
The materialists have a fool proof argument (it will convince any fool), I call it the "We're lucky to be alive argument": Anything that is possible no matter how improbable can happen by chance. There is a corollary, I call it the "make your own luck syndrome": A large dose of cognitive bias can make any argument (no matter how improbable) convincing.
Alex,
Have you seen Mary Rodwell's book? Does it include a list of references? Could you ask her if she would provide a copy to be posted here?
What do you think about doing that as a standard procedure for any podcast about a book? Would authors object?
This I guess we could consider a fact, Jim. Meanwhile the Creator is holding fast onto a piece of the puzzle we are perpetually denied access to. Or could it be that we, in the flesh are incapable of absorbing it anyway so we could put it into it's vacancy and finally have figured it all out, "scientifically"?People, even scientists are not very rational, we prefer to believe what pleases us and invent mysteries to satisfy our psychological needs.
I have a pdf of the book, I'm skimming it. There are no citations in academic format but there are frequent mentions of other peoples books and letters and then there is a complete list of references in the back of the book.
Thanks' for this. Its probably to be expected. The issue isn't whether Mary has done a decent job of research, but how she has represented it. Using references is necessary to demonstrate wide reading in the field, but it is easy to patch together a framework of selective citations to craft an argument that is not consistent with the spirit of the cited sources - and which actually constitutes no more than an illusion of supporting texts.
After listening to Mary and catching some videos, my disquiet is the absence of a disciplined methodological approach, and the 'lapse' into seeming to take experiencers reports at face value, while denying interpretation. There is a superficial nod to being scientific, and an invocation of the right language, but the overall message does not deliver, for me, a sense of confidence.
I have sufficient familiarity with Mary's core themes, and surrounding areas of thought, to allow she is onto something. I am simply frustrated that I can't say that I 'believe' her at face value. Her work isn't sloppy - just disjointed [in my view].
Have you considered reading the book itself? Maybe the arguments are made in a more agreeable way.
I don't think that looks good - I mean someone has to actually do the DNA analysis - so there should be a reference to that at least!I have a pdf of the book, I'm skimming it. There are no citations in academic format but there are frequent mentions of other peoples books and letters and then there is a complete list of references in the back of the book.
I don't think that looks good - I mean someone has to actually do the DNA analysis - so there should be a reference to that at least!
David
If I could say one thing to people who want to report psychic phenomena or claim that they can heal people, etc it would be to stay clear of science unless you genuinely think you know enough to know what you are talking about. If asked whether what they report makes scientific sense, they should say something like "I have no idea because I have no interest in science, but I can tell you what is possible."This my point, David. Mary invokes 'science' because she thinks that adds credence to her arguments, but, because her approach is not really scientific. I heard Mary talk about science in a way I did not think reflected a genuine connection. I knew what she meant, I was not convinced that she did.
Some time ago I watched a dvd on Dynamo - Magician Impossible. In response to one of his performances a woman who ddi display evidence of significant social or cultural attainment commented that what she saw was "not scientific". Now you and I both know what she means, and we both know that she hasn't a clue.
There was a time when the language used to articulate human experience was religious, and now it is scientific. But its a cultural artefact only. I see Mary as being on the border. She says science and may imagine she thinks science, but what she says isn't science.
Again I have to stress that I do think Mary has a valid claim to make, but it is not scientific. While I do think ethnography is a valid science I do get the politics of what is or is not science. It would have been better had Mary done a bit more research and decided her work was scientific in the 'human sciences' sense. She didn't do that, and that's a pity because she can now be accused of not being scientific and of being intellectually sloppy.
Its a style thing, really, But it matters a great deal.
If I could say one thing to people who want to report psychic phenomena or claim that they can heal people, etc it would be to stay clear of science unless you genuinely think you know enough to know what you are talking about. If asked whether what they report makes scientific sense, they should say something like "I have no idea because I have no interest in science, but I can tell you what is possible."
I think that most of us realise that there are phenomena that don't seem to make sense according to conventional science, so it makes sense to listen to people who report phenomena of various kinds - including healing skills - but they don't improve their credibility one jot by trying to connect their experiences to science. I think if there is a connection, it clearly requires some extensive elaboration of conventional science.
I mean, I am not at all sure changes to DNA would be so very relevant. The most important part of us, is probably non-physical. By talking about DNA, you automatically tie the discussion to a set of conventional physical ideas that may not be so relevant.
David
I like to think of science as the limiting case when consciousness effects are ignorable.For me science is an engaging narrative about which I am fascinated, but about which I have no sufficient understanding to employ any scientific claims in support of my argument.
why recoil?What I recoil at is the tenet that the human species was altered by aliens at the outset.
that is what she's saying.Why not say Intelligent Design?
why recoil?
that is what she's saying.
are you a neo-darwin natural-selection-only materialist? what do you think about biological robots in a meaningless universe?
why recoil?
that is what she's saying.
are you a neo-darwin natural-selection-only materialist? what do you think about biological robots in a meaningless universe?
agreed. One of the questions I keep returning to: does ET have a life review during its nde? in other words, are we looking at two different ladders leaning against two different walls. one being "spiritual enlightenment" for lack of a better term. The other wall being materialistic / get things done pursuits.And why not both? The divine must express intent and intelligence in some hierarchical manner, so why not through ET. It is pretty obvious that we humans are not the fruits of the standard Darwinian theory - and that we are the product of physical and spiritual evolution. There is a focus on apparent 'hybridisation' of our bodies - but to what end if not to accommodate a greater expression of soul attributes. Physically we are less robust than our ancestors - so it might be that 'hybridisation' is about accommodation of other than physical attributes - though evolving toward being able to live in an environment badly polluted and saturated with 5G radiation might not be a bad idea.