One can not, at a certain point, help but notice several things at work. First is the abuse of science and the abuse of language. I presume, ever since its publication, we’ve all taken the bait and call it “Darwin’s Theory”. A theory it is not. If proper practice of scientific method were in play we all might have statrted by calling it “Darwin’s hypothesis”. And then it would have rigorously tested and debated. And with no scientific method applied, and with Darwin himself ultimately conceding he had nothing by which to prove it, about the kindest thing one can say about it is to call it Darwin’s Conjecture. That’s rather to be expected at this point, because we’ve learned that the English engage in two things regarding science, that of deceit and manipulation. So it’s all faux science, junk science. Also, it might have been more accurate for Russell and Whiehead to have titled it “Insipdia Mathematica” . In any case, that would have been more in the direction of honesty than to have purloined someone else’s title.
Such a beautiful, inspiring lecture, thank you so much!
BTW, Principia Mathematica by Russel and Whitehead were proven wrong not only by Kurt Gödel (from mathematical point of view), but also by Ludwig Wittgenstein (from linguistic point of view) - for argumentation, see: Wittgenstein’s Lectures, Cambridge, 1932–1935: from the notes of Alice Ambrose and Margaret Macdonald, edited by Alice Ambrose.
(Simply put, this, among others, is the reason why Wittgenstein did not use one single logical equation in his last book, Philosophische Untersuchungen.)
Oh my Cynthia. I have followed your work for some time. I've always found it interesting, but this, just wow. In this piece you have brought together in one place the many elements that point quit clearly to what I have long suspected to be the intentional direction we have long been steered; the creation of a meaningless universe in our minds creates the perfect slave. My very best to you and yours. This work is truly beautiful.
One can not, at a certain point, help but notice several things at work. First is the abuse of science and the abuse of language. I presume, ever since its publication, we’ve all taken the bait and call it “Darwin’s Theory”. A theory it is not. If proper practice of scientific method were in play we all might have statrted by calling it “Darwin’s hypothesis”. And then it would have rigorously tested and debated. And with no scientific method applied, and with Darwin himself ultimately conceding he had nothing by which to prove it, about the kindest thing one can say about it is to call it Darwin’s Conjecture. That’s rather to be expected at this point, because we’ve learned that the English engage in two things regarding science, that of deceit and manipulation. So it’s all faux science, junk science. Also, it might have been more accurate for Russell and Whiehead to have titled it “Insipdia Mathematica” . In any case, that would have been more in the direction of honesty than to have purloined someone else’s title.
Such a beautiful, inspiring lecture, thank you so much!
BTW, Principia Mathematica by Russel and Whitehead were proven wrong not only by Kurt Gödel (from mathematical point of view), but also by Ludwig Wittgenstein (from linguistic point of view) - for argumentation, see: Wittgenstein’s Lectures, Cambridge, 1932–1935: from the notes of Alice Ambrose and Margaret Macdonald, edited by Alice Ambrose.
(Simply put, this, among others, is the reason why Wittgenstein did not use one single logical equation in his last book, Philosophische Untersuchungen.)
Oh my Cynthia. I have followed your work for some time. I've always found it interesting, but this, just wow. In this piece you have brought together in one place the many elements that point quit clearly to what I have long suspected to be the intentional direction we have long been steered; the creation of a meaningless universe in our minds creates the perfect slave. My very best to you and yours. This work is truly beautiful.
👏👏
Bottom line, Harari still thinks that meat thinks, and that is an untenable proposition.
https://www.mit.edu/people/dpolicar/writing/prose/text/thinkingMeat.html
Reductionist, deductive reasoning is NOT intelligence, it is merely one of the things our mind is capable of.
Legal versus lawful, learn the difference:
https://soberchristiangentlemanpodcast.substack.com/p/s2-ep-43-legal-versus-lawful-education-5c3
A. MAZE. ING
The System Is Cracking Up, Not Solidifying
"We no longer control the news"
https://tomg2021.substack.com/p/the-system-is-cracking-up-not-solidifying