POPULARITY
5 episodes with steve fuller
7 episodes with steve fuller
5 episodes with steve fuller
3 episodes with steve fuller
2 episodes with steve fuller
2 episodes with steve fuller
2 episodes with steve fuller
3 episodes with steve fuller
2 episodes with steve fuller
What can ancient philosophers teach you about exercise, economics, and the myth of celebrity?Join the team at the IAI for three articles about life, ideas, and status in ancient Greece. Written by Etienne Helmer, Steve Fuller, and Sabrina B. Little, these articles cover a range of thought-provoking concepts, including; why Plato wants you to go for a run, how Athenian values can improve our current economic predicament, and what we can learn from the (perhaps embellished) stories of Socrates and Jesus.Sabrina B. Little is an Assistant Professor at Christopher Newport University and the author of "The Examined Run: Why Good People Make Better Runners," published by Oxford University Press. Sabrina's research is in virtue ethics, classical philosophy, and moral psychology. She is also a 5-time US Champion and World Championship silver medallist in trail and ultramarathon running.Steve Fuller is a postmodern philosopher, Professor of Sociology at the University of Warwick, and the author of "Popper vs. Kuhn," and "Dissent Over Descent: Intelligent Design's Challenge to Darwinism."Etienne Helmer is a philosopher at the University of Puerto Rico, specialising in the philosophy of economics, politics, and the sociology of ancient Greece.To witness such debates live buy tickets for our upcoming festival: https://howthelightgetsin.org/festivals/And visit our website for many more articles, videos, and podcasts like this one: https://iai.tv/You can find everything we referenced here: https://linktr.ee/philosophyforourtimesSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
About Our Guest Steve Fuller, a dynamic DEI and STEM consultant, passionate about changing mindsets to enable growth. As the founder of Race in STEM and Global Communities Manager at The IN Group, Steve partners with underrepresented communities to drive development from education to the C-suite.In this episode, we'll explore the critical role leaders play in fostering inclusive workplaces, touching on:-How leaders can better engage with inclusion-Strategies for creating more inclusive work environments-Spotting and addressing biases within leadership teamsThe Toxic Leadership Podcast Dr. Kevin Sansberry II is a behavioral scientist and executive coach with expertise in toxic leadership, human capital strategy, and creating inclusive cultures of belonging to enhance organization performance. Over the years, Kevin has focused on providing research-informed solutions in various settings such as higher education, nonprofit, sales, and corporate environments. Follow KEVRA: The Culture Company on Linkedin to keep up with your favorite behavioral scientist, Dr. Sansberry. At KEVRA: The Culture Company, we partner to effectively evolve your organizational culture by focusing on competency development, best practices, and leading research to deliver systemic and innovative solutions for company success. Have a question for Dr. Sansberry? Visit askdrkev.com to send your leadership and organizational-related questions. Love the show? Subscribe, rate, review & share! https://thetoxicleadershippodcast.com/
Being consciousWe think we have this thing, consciousness, whether we share it with the entire earth or with only our species, but yet its definition has evaded the efforts of leading philosophers and neuroscientists alike for decades.Do you think you know what consciousness is? Does it exist out there in the world or only in our thoughts?Join leading neuroscientist and philosopher Iain Mcgilchrist, Nobel prize winning mathematical physicist Roger Penrose and postmodern sociologist Steve Fuller as they ask themselves these questions. Their conversation touches on the quantum element of consciousness, its hard problems, and more. The host if post-realist philosopher Hilary Lawson.There are thousands of big ideas to discover at IAI.tv – videos, articles, and courses waiting for you to explore. Find out more: https://iai.tv/You can find everything we referenced here: https://linktr.ee/philosophyforourtimesSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
Being consciousWe think we have this thing, consciousness, whether we share it with the entire earth or with only our species, but yet its definition has evaded the efforts of leading philosophers and neuroscientists alike for decades. Do you think you know what consciousness is? Does it exist out there in the world or only in our thoughts?Join leading neuroscientist and philosopher Iain Mcgilchrist, Nobel prize winning mathematical physicist Roger Penrose and postmodern sociologist Steve Fuller as they ask themselves these questions. Their conversation touches on the quantum element of consciousness, its hard problems, and more. The host if post-realist philosopher Hilary Lawson.There are thousands of big ideas to discover at IAI.tv – videos, articles, and courses waiting for you to explore. Find out more: https://iai.tv/You can find everything we referenced here: https://linktr.ee/philosophyforourtimesSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
Lita inte blint på auktoriteter och experter. Skaffa dig egen kunskap, och ifrågasätt också dina egna uppfattningar. Det sa 1700-talsfilosofen Immanuel Kant. Vad innebär det idag? Hur ska det gå till? Lyssna på alla avsnitt i Sveriges Radio Play. I år är det 300 år sedan filosofen Immanuel Kant föddes i tyska Königsberg, det som nu är ryska Kaliningrad. Han var en av upplysningens mest centrala tänkare och har gjort avtryck på en mängd områden: moral, kunskapsteori, metafysik och estetik. Plikt och förnuft är ord som beskriver Kants filosofi. Men vad är mest intressant idag med Kant?Vi djupdyker i tre områden som upptog Kant, idéer som i allra högsta grad är aktuella idag: kritiskt tänkande, universalism och drömmen om den eviga freden.Medverkande: Sven-Eric Liedman, professor emeritus i idé- och lärdomshistoria vid Göteborgs universitet, Sharon Rider, professor i filosofi vid Uppsala universitet, Johan Brännmark docent i praktisk filosofi vid Stockholms universitet.Programledare: Cecilia Strömberg WallinProducent: Michael BorgertResearch: Therése LagerVeckans tips:Låt: There Is a Kingdom – Nick Cave & The Bad SeedsPjäs: En pjäs (än så länge utan titel) om ett fiktivt möte mellan Kant, Swedenborg och Linné av Steve Fuller sätts upp i Berlin i höst.Bok: Kant: Die Revolution des Denkens – Marcus Willaschek
Steve Fuller, PhD, graduated from Columbia University in History & Sociology before gaining a Masters in Philosophy from Cambridge and a PhD from Pittsburgh in History and the Philosophy of Science. He currently holds the Auguste Comte Chair in Social Epistemology in the Department of Sociology at the University of Warwick, Coventry, UK He is the author of 26 books and numerous academic papers. for two full episodes a month and exclusive content please visit patreon.com/thenickbryantpodcast Welcome to the Machine: Onwards to Transhumanism with Dr. Steve Fuller | The Nick Bryant Podcast https://youtu.be/r1SrIIfsp48 nickbryantnyc.com epstienjustice.com
Philosopher Dr. Émile P. Torres & sociologist Prof. Steve Fuller share their thoughts on the history of human extinction, how apocalyptic narratives inform culture, and what it means to live in the end times. Émile P. Torres is a philosopher whose research focuses on existential threats to civilization and humanity. They have published widely in the popular press and scholarly journals, with articles appearing in the Washington Post, Aeon, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Metaphilosophy, Inquiry, Erkenntnis, and Futures. Prof. Steve Fuller is Auguste Comte Professor of Social Epistemology at the University of Warwick, UK. Originally trained in history and philosophy of science, he is the author of more than twenty books. From 2011 to 2014 he published three books with Palgrave on 'Humanity 2.0'. His most recent book is Nietzschean Meditations: Untimely Thoughts at the Dawn of Transhuman Era (Schwabe Verlag, 2020). Find out more: http://futurespodcast.net ABOUT THE HOST Luke Robert Mason is a British-born futures theorist who is passionate about engaging the public with emerging scientific theories and technological developments. He hosts documentaries for Futurism, and has contributed to BBC Radio, BBC One, The Guardian, Discovery Channel, VICE Motherboard and Wired Magazine. CREDITS Producer & Host: Luke Robert Mason Join the conversation on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter at @FUTURESPodcast Follow Luke Robert Mason on Twitter at @LukeRobertMason Subscribe & Support the Podcast at http://futurespodcast.net
“Humans have to raise their game. They have to be valued for something else, for something more, because we have now made machines that basically can replace us. And I think that is the bottom line question when it comes to humanity's relationship to AI: what is the value added of being human?” On this episode of HYPERSCALE, I am joined by Steve Fuller, a social philosopher and an instructor at the University of Warwick. Steve is an advocate for social epistemology and academic freedom, and supports the concepts of intelligent design and transhumanism. This mix of diverse expertise made for a truly intriguing conversation. Join us as we explore a society where augmented transhumans are the standard, how public healthcare would have to adapt in such a world, an early example of cyborg legislation, and more. FOLLOW ► Instagram: https://bit.ly/briarig LinkedIn: https://bit.ly/linkedin TikTok: https://bit.ly/briartiktok Website: https://briarprestidgeofficial.com
Shownotes and Transcript Intelligent Design may not be an idea you are familiar with but it has interested me since I was a child. I find it impossible to accept that the world we live in and the complexity of human beings is all based on luck and chance. There has to be an intelligent designer. Stephen C Meyer is one of the most renowned experts on this very topic and his recent appearance on The Joe Rogan Experience has made many people question the theory of a universe without God. At what point did intellectuals decide that scientific knowledge conflicts with traditional theistic beliefs? Is it even statistically possible for such complexity to just appear? What about the question of who is this intelligent designer? Stephen Meyer will help you view the world around you with a brand new perspective. Dr. Stephen C. Meyer received his Ph.D. from the University of Cambridge in the philosophy of science. A former geophysicist and college professor, he now directs the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute in Seattle. In 2004, Meyer ignited a firestorm of media and scientific controversy when a biology journal at the Smithsonian Institution published his peer-reviewed scientific article advancing intelligent design. Meyer has been featured on national television and radio programs, including The Joe Rogan Experience, The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, CBS's Sunday Morning, NBC's Nightly News, ABC's World News, Good Morning America, Nightline, FOX News Live, and the Tavis Smiley show on PBS. He has also been featured in two New York Times front-page stories and has garnered attention in other top-national media. Dr. Meyer is author of the New York Times bestseller Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design and Signature in the Cell, a Times Literary Supplement Book of the Year. He is also a co-author of Explore Evolution: The Arguments For and Against Neo-Darwinism and Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique. Connect with Stephen... WEBSITE https://stephencmeyer.org/ https://www.discovery.org/ https://returnofthegodhypothesis.com/ X https://x.com/StephenCMeyer?s=20 BOOKS https://www.amazon.co.uk/stores/author/B001K90CQC Interview recorded 13.12.23 Connect with Hearts of Oak... WEBSITE https://heartsofoak.org/ PODCASTS https://heartsofoak.podbean.com/ SOCIAL MEDIA https://heartsofoak.org/connect/ TRANSCRIPTS https://heartsofoak.substack.com/ Support Hearts of Oak by purchasing one of our fancy T-Shirts.... SHOP https://heartsofoak.org/shop/ *Special thanks to Bosch Fawstin for recording our intro/outro on this podcast. Check out his art https://theboschfawstinstore.blogspot.com/ and follow him on GETTR https://gettr.com/user/BoschFawstin and Twitter https://twitter.com/TheBoschFawstin?s=20 Transcript (Hearts of Oak) Dr. Stephen Meyer. It's wonderful to have you with us. Thank you so much for your time today. (Stephen C Meyer) Thanks for inviting me, Peter. No, it's great to have you. And people can find you on Twitter @StephenCMayer. It's on the screen there. And also discovery.org, the Discovery Institute. And you obviously received your PhD in philosophy of sciences from England, from University of Cambridge, your a former geophysicist, college professor, and you now are the director of Discovery Institute, author of many books. The latest is Return of the God Hypothesis, Three Scientific Discoveries That Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe, and the links for those books will be in the description. But, Dr. Meyer, if I can maybe, I think I remember as a child, church loyalty, being at church and getting a stamp for attending. I remember asking for a book on creationism then, and we may touch on different creationism, intelligent design. I mean, it was 10 or 11. And I remember being fascinated by this whole topic of how God can be seen in the world around us. Maybe I can ask you about your journey. What has been your journey to being one of the, I guess, main proponents on intelligent design? Well, I've always been interested in questions at the intersection between science and philosophy or science and larger worldview questions or science and religion the questions that are addressed about, you know, how do we get here and what is, is there a particular significance to human life, what is the meaning of life, in the early part of my scientific career I was working as a geophysicist as you mentioned the introduction and in the city where I was working, a conference came to town that was investigating that intersection of science and philosophy, science and belief, and it was addressing three big questions, and they were the origin of the universe, the origin of life, and the origin and nature of human consciousness. And the conference was unique in that it had invited leading scientists and philosophers representing both theism, broadly speaking, belief in God, and scientists and philosophers who rejected theism and who affirmed the more common view among leading scientists at that time, which was materialism or sometimes called naturalism. We have the New Atheist Movement with their scientific atheists and people of more of that persuasion. So it was, let's look at the origin of the universe from the standpoint. What do the data say, what do you theists say about it, what do you non-theist materialists say about it, and it was a fascinating conference and I was particularly taken by the panels on the origin of the universe and the origin of life because surprisingly to me it seemed that the theists had the intellectual initiative that the the evidence in those about the origin of the universe, and then about the complexity of the cell and therefore the challenges it posed to standard chemical evolutionary theories of the origin of life that in both these two areas, both these two subjects, it seemed that there were powerful, theistic friendly arguments being developed, in one case about the, what you might call, a reviving of the ancient cosmological argument because of the evidence that scientists had discovered about the universe having a beginning. And in the other case, what we now call the theory of intelligent design, that there was evidence of design in the cell, in particular, in the digital code that is stored in the DNA molecule, the information and information processing system of the cell. And was it that time? And still to this day is something that undirected theories of chemical evolution have not been able to explain. And instead, what we know from our experience is that information is a mind product, which is a point that some of these scientists made at this panel, that when we see digital code or alphabetic text or computer code, and many people have likened the information and DNA to a computer code, we always find a mind behind that. So this was the first time I was exposed to that way of thinking. I got fascinated with that. A year later, after the conference, I ended up meeting one of the scientists on the Origin of Life panel, a man named Charles Thackston, who had just written a book with two other co-authors called The Mystery of Life's Origin. He was detailing in that book, he and his colleagues were detailing sort of chapter and verse the problems with trying to explain the origin of the first cell from simpler chemicals in some alleged or presupposed prebiotic soup. And the three authors showed that this was implausible in the extreme, given what we know scientifically about how chemistry works versus how cells work. And over the ensuing year, he kind of mentored me and I got fascinated with the subject and ended up getting a fellowship. A Rotary Fellowship to study at Cambridge for a year and then ended up extending on. I did my master's thesis and then my PhD thesis both on origin of life biology within the History and Philosophy of Science Department at Cambridge. And while I was there, I started to meet other scientists and scholars who were having doubts about standard Darwinian and chemical evolutionary theories of life's origin. And by the early 90s, a number of us had met each other and connected and had some private conferences. And out of that was born a formal program investigating the evidence for intelligent design in biology, in physics, in cosmology, and in 96, we started a program at Discovery Institute. You were very kind to me to call me the director of the whole institute. I direct a program within the institute called the Center for Science and Culture, which is the institutional home. A network of scientists who are investigating whether or not there is, empirical scientific evidence for a designing mind behind life in the cosmos and and the program just continues to grow, the network especially continues to grow, we've got fantastic scientists from all around the world now who are sympathetic to that position and I would mention too that it's a position that's kind of reviving an ancient view going back to certainly the time of the scientific revolution. In particular, we've discovered back to the scientific revolution in Cambridge where I had been fortunate enough to study. There's a, in the college that I was part of, St. Catherine's, there was back in the 17th century, one of the founders of modern botany, who was also one of the first authors of what's called British National Theology. His name was John Ray. Ray was the tutor of Isaac Barrow, a mathematician who in turn tutored Newton and so this whole tradition of seeing the fingerprints of a creator in the natural world is something that was launched in Britain, particularly in Cambridge there were other figures like Robert Boyle who were in other places but the Cambridge tradition of natural theology was very strong from that time period in the 17th century, late 17th century, right up to figures like James Clerk Maxwell, the great physicist in the late 19th century who was critical, sceptical of Darwinism and articulated the idea of design. And I think that's now being revived within contemporary science. There's a growing minority of scientists who see evidence of design in nature. Now, the understanding of intelligent designer, that's a new thinking, but through the millennia, that's been the norm. Individuals have viewed the world through the lens that there is a God, and that has helped them understand and see the world. But there must have been a point, I guess, when intellectuals decided that scientific knowledge conflicts with that that traditional belief, that traditional theistic belief. Yeah, that's a great way of framing the discussion, Peter. There's a historian of science in Britain named Steve Fuller, who's at Warwick. And he's argued that the idea of intelligent design has been the framework out of which science has been done since the period of the scientific revolution at least and that the the post Darwinian deviation from that, denying that there's actual design and only instead as the Darwinian biologists say the appearance or illusion of design, you may remember from Richard Dawkins's famous book the blind watchmaker, page one he says biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose. And of course, for Dawkins and his followers, and for Darwinians from the late 19th century forward, the appearance of design is an illusion. And it was thought to be an illusion because Darwin had formulated an undirected, or had identified an undirected, unguided process, which he called natural selection that could mimic the powers of a designing intelligence, or so he argued, without itself being designed or guided in any way. And that's kind of where we've engaged the argument. Is that appearance of design that nearly all biologists recognize merely an appearance, or is it the product of an actual guiding intelligence? And that's why we call our theory intelligent design. We're not challenging the idea that there has been change over time, one of the other meanings of evolution we're not challenging even the idea of universal common descent though some of us myself included are quite sceptical of that, the main thing we're challenging with the theory of intelligent design is that is that the appearance of design is essentially an illusion because an unguided undirected mechanism has the capability of generating that appearance without itself being guided or directed in any way and that's, to us the key issue. Is the design real or merely apparent? You may remember that Francis Crick also once said that biologists must constantly keep in mind, that what they see was not designed, but instead evolved. So there's this, the recurrence of that strong intuition among people who have studied biological systems. And I would say, going back all the way to Aristotle, you know, this has been, the Western tradition in biology has been suffused with this recognition. That organisms look designed, they look like they're designed for purpose, they exhibit purpose of behaviour. And now in the age following Watson and Crick, following the molecular biological revolution of the late 50s and 1960s and 70s, we have extraordinarily strong appearances of design. We've got digital code. We have a replication system. We have a translation system as part of this whole information processing system. Scientists can't help but use teleological wording to describe what's going on. We see the purpose of nature, of all of the biological systems and subsystems. And so what we've argued is that, at least at the point of the origin of life, there is no unguided, undirected, or there is no theory that invokes, that has identified an unguided, undirected mechanism that can explain away that appearance of design. Many people don't realize that Darwin did not attempt to explain the origin of the first life. He presupposed the existence of one or a few very simple forms. And so he started it effectively with assuming a simple cell and then said, well, what would have come from that? We now know, however, that the simple cell was not simple at all and displays this many very striking appearances of design that have not been explained by undirected chemical evolutionary processes. Dawkins himself has said that the machine code of the genes is strikingly computer-like. And so you have this striking appearance of design at the very foundation of life that has not in any way been explained by undirected processes. Well, I want to pick up on a number of that, the new discoveries, how things have changed, the complexity. But I can go back, you're challenging, I guess, hundreds of years of new thinking that the complexity of the universe simply points to luck and chance. And I guess there's a statistical side of that, whether that's even possible. We look around and we see things just working perfectly. And I wonder whether it's even possible for a chance element to make all those things come together and make the world as it is. Well, in my book, Signature in the Cell, which was the first of the three books that I've written on these big topics, I look at the argument for the chance origin of life and even more fundamentally, the chance origin of, say, DNA and the protein products that the DNA codes for. And one of the first things to take note of in addressing the chance hypothesis is that no serious origin of life researcher, no origin of life biochemist or biologist today reposes much hope in the chance hypothesis, it's it's really been set aside and the reason for that, I explained the reason for that in in signature in the cell and then do some calculations to kind of back up the thinking that most origin of life biologists have adopted and that is that the cell is simply far too complicated to have arisen by chance. And you can, and the large biomacromolecules, DNA and proteins, are molecules that depend on a property known as sequence specificity, or sometimes called specified complexity. That is to say, they contain informational instructions in essentially a digital or typographic form. So you have in the DNA you have the four character chemical subunits that biologists actually represent with the letters A, T, G, and C. And if you want to build a protein, you have to arrange the A's, C's, G's, and T's or the evolutionary process or somehow the A's, C's, G's, and T's must have been sequenced in the proper way so that when that genetic message is sent to the ribosome, which is the the translation apparatus in the cell, then what comes out of that is a properly sequenced protein molecules. Proteins also are made of subunits called amino acids. There are 20 or so, maybe as many as 22 now, protein-forming amino acids. And to get the protein chain that is built from the DNA instructions to fold into a proper functional conformation or three-dimensional shape, those amino acids have to be arranged in very specific ways. If they're not arranged properly, the long peptide chain, as it's called, will not fold into a stable protein. And so in both cases, you have this property of sequence specificity that the function of the whole, the whole gene in the case of DNA or the whole protein in the case of the the amino acids, the function of the whole depends upon the precise sequencing of the constituent parts. And that's the difficulty, getting those things to line up properly. Turns out there's all kinds of difficulties in trying to form those subunits, those chemical parts, out of any kind of prebiotic chemical environment that we've been able to think of. But the most fundamental problem is the sequencing. And so you can actually run, because there's, if you think of the protein chain, you have 1 in 20 roughly chances of getting the right amino acid at each site. Sometimes it's more or less because in some cases you can have any one of, there is some variability allowed at each site, but you can run numbers on all this and get very precise numbers on the probability of generating even a single functional protein in the known history of the universe. And it turns out that what are called the combinatorials or the probabilities associated with combinatorials, the probabilities are so small that they are small even in relation to the total number of possible events that might have occurred from the Big Bang till now. In other words, here's an example I often use to use to illustrate, if you have a thief trying to crack a bike lock. If the thief has enough time, even though the combination is hidden among all the possibilities, and then the probability of getting the combination in one trial is very small, if the thief has enough time and can try and try and try again, he may crack it by sheer chance. But if the lock is, we have a standard four-dial bike lock, but if the thief encounters a 10-dial bike lock, and I've had one rendered by my graphic designer to get the point across, then in a human lifetime, there's not enough opportunities to sample that number of possible combinations. If you've got 10 dials, you've got 10 to the 10 possibilities, or 10, that's 10 billion. And if the thief spins the dial once every 10 seconds for 100 years and does nothing else in his entire life, he'll only sample 3% of those total combinations, which means it's much more likely that the thief will fail than it is that he will succeed by chance alone. And that's the kind of, that's the, so the point is that there are, there are degrees of complexity or improbability that dwarf what we call probabilistic resources, the opportunities. And that's the situation we have when we're talking about the origin of the first biomacromolecules by reference to chance alone. Only it's not just that you would with those events, you know, all the events that have occurred from the beginning of the universe until now could only sample about one, I think I've calculated about one ten trillion trillionth of the total possibilities that correspond to a modest length protein. So it's like the bike thief trying to sample that 10-dial lock, only much, much worse. You know, it turns out that 14 billion years isn't enough time to have a reasonable chance to find informational biomolecules by chance alone. I mean, is the whole scientific argument that removes God, is it just an attempt by science to play God, because whenever we are told that scientific principles break down and no longer exist at the very beginning, for instance, and it doesn't make sense, but we're told that that's just how it happened and you have to accept that. And it seems to be people jumping over themselves with a desperation to try and remove the idea that there is an intelligent designer. Well, I tend to think that the questions of motivation in these debates are kind of a wash. I think as theists, we have to, I'm a theist, okay, I believe in God. In my first two books, I argued for designing intelligence of some kind as being, of some unspecified kind as being the best explanation for the information, for example, in the cell or the information needed to build fundamentally new body plans in the history of life on earth. So, but in my last book, I extend that argument, I bring in evidence from cosmology and physics and suggest that the best explanation for that, the ensemble of evidence that we have about biological and physical and cosmological origins is actually a designing intelligence that has attributes that, for example, Jews and Christians have always described to God, transcendence, as well as intelligence. For example, no being within the cosmos, no space alien, and some scientists have proposed even Crick, Francis Crick in 1981 in a little book called Life Itself floated the idea that yes we do see evidence of design in life. The origin of life is a very hard problem, we can't see how it could possibly have happened on Earth so maybe there was an intelligent life form from space who seeded life here. He was subsequently ridiculed a bit and said, I think he was embarrassed that he'd floated this and said he would not, he foreswore any further speculation on the origin of life problem. It was too difficult, he said. But in any case, back to your question, I think the whole question is. Oh, I was finishing a thought, and that is that the evidence of design that we have from the very beginning of the universe and what's called the fine-tuning of the laws and constants of physics and the initial conditions of the universe, the basic parameters of physics, which were said at the beginning, are exquisitely finely tuned against all odds. And no space alien, no intelligence within the cosmos could be responsible for the evidence of design that we have from the very beginning of the universe because any alleged space alien would itself have had to evolve by some sort of naturalistic processes further down the timeline, once you have stable galaxies and planets and that sort of thing and so no being within the cosmos could be responsible for the conditions that made its future evolution possible nor could a space alien to be responsible for the origin of the universe itself. So when you bring in the cosmological and the physical evidence, I think the only type of designing intelligence that can explain the whole range of evidence we have is one that is transcendent, that is beyond the cosmos, but also active in the creation, because we see evidence of information arising later, and information, as I've mentioned, is a mind product based on our uniform and repeated experience. But as to the motivation issue, I kind of think it's a wash. I think theists have to acknowledge that all people, including those of us who are theists, have a motivation, maybe a hope that there is a purposeful intelligence behind the cosmos. I think there's a kind of growing angst in young people. Harvard study recently showing that over 50% of young people have doubts about there being any purpose to their existence. And this is contributing to the mental health crisis. And so I think all of us would like, to be possible, for there to be life after death, for there to be an enduring purpose to our lives that does not extinguish when we die or when eventually there's a heat death of the universe. I think theism, belief in God, gives people a sense of purpose in relation, the possibility of a relationship to our creator. That's a positive thing. I think there's also a common human motivation to not want to be accountable to that creator and to have moral, complete moral freedom to decide what we want to do at any given time. And so oftentimes theists or God-believers, religious people will say, well, you just like these materialistic theories of origins because you don't want to be accountable to a higher power. That might be true, But it's equally true that the atheist will often say, well, but you guys just need a cosmic crutch. You need comfort from the idea of a divine being, a loving creator, father, whatever, you know, the divine father figure. And Freud famously critiqued or criticized religious belief in those terms. So I think that those two kind of motivation, arguments about motivation are something of a wash and that what I've tried to do in Return of the God Hypothesis is set all of that aside, look at the evidence that we have, and then evaluate it using some standard methods of scientific reasoning and standard methods of evaluating hypotheses, such as a Bayesian analysis, for example, that come out of logic and philosophy. And set the motivation questions aside. And my conclusion is that the evidence for an intelligent designer of some unspecified kind is extremely strong from biology, and that when you bring in the cosmological and physical evidence, the evidence of fine-tuning and the evidence we have that the material cosmos itself had a beginning, I think materialism fails as an explanation, and you need to invoke an intelligence that is both transcendent and active in the creation to explain the whole range of evidence. Well, let me pick you up on that change, because initially there is a change from someone who believes the evolutionary model, big bang, there is no external force. That step from there to there is an external force, there is intelligent design feeding into the universe we have. And then it's another step to take that to there is an intelligent designer, now there is a personal God. And that step certainly, I assume, is frowned upon in the scientific community. Tell us about you making that step, because it would have been much safer to stay, I guess, in the ID side and not to make the step into who that individual is. Tell us about kind of what prompted you to actually make the step into answering that who question. Right. Well, I've been thinking about this question for 35, 36, I don't know, since the mid-80s when I was a very young scientist. And it was at the conference that inspired it, because at the conference, there were people already thinking about the God question, especially the cosmologists. At that conference, Alan Sandage announced his conversion from scientific agnosticism he was a scientific materialist to theism and indeed I think he became Christian, and he talked about how the evidence for the singularity at the beginning of the universe, the evidence that the material cosmos itself had a beginning was one of the things that moved him off of that materialistic perspective, that it was clear to him that as he described it, that the evidence we had for a beginning was evidence for what he called a super, with a space in between, natural events, nothing within the cosmos could explain the origin of the cosmos itself, if matter, space, time and energy have a beginning and as best we can tell they do and there are multiple lines of evidence and theoretical considerations that lead to that conclusion and I developed that in return of the god hypothesis, it is the evidence from observational astronomy and also developments in theoretical physics converge on that conclusion. And if that's the case, if matter and energy themselves have a beginning, and indeed if space and time themselves have a beginning, then we can't invoke any materialistic explanation to explain that. Because before there was matter, before the beginning of matter, there was no matter to do the causing. And that's the problem. There must be something. For there to be a causal explanation for the universe, it requires a transcendent something. And when you also consider that we have evidence for design from the very beginning in the fine-tuning of the initial physical parameters of the universe, the initial conditions of the universe, the initial establishment and fine-tuning of the physical laws, then you have evidence for that transcendent something being a transcendent intelligent something. And if something is intelligent, capable of making choices between one outcome or another, that's really what we mean by personhood. I mean, this is very close to a, the idea of a personal gun, now that entity may not want to have anything to do with us, but we're talking about a conscious agent when we talk about evidence for intelligent design, and then we have further evidence I think in biology with the presence of the information and information processing system inside cells. And so when you bring all that together, I think you can start to address the who question. So after I wrote Signature in the Cell and Darwin's Doubt, a lot of my readers were asking, OK, that's great. We have evidence of a designing intelligence, but who would that intelligence have been? Is it a space alien, something imminent within the cosmos, like Crick and others have proposed? Or is it a transcendent intelligence? And what can science tell us about that question? So I thought it's a natural question that flows from my first two books. I would stipulate that the theory of intelligent design, formally as a theory, is a theory of design detection. And it allows us to detect the action of an agent as opposed to undirected material processes. We have this example that we often use. If you look at the faces on the mountains at Mount Rushmore, you right away know that a designing intelligence of some kind was responsible for sculpting those faces. And those faces exhibit two properties which, when found together, invariably and reliably indicate a designing intelligence. And we've described those properties as high probability and what's called a specification, a pattern match. And we have evidence of small probability specifications in life. If something is an informational sequence, it's another way of revealing design, so that we can get into all of that. The point is, we've got evidence of design in life, but, the cosmology and fine-tuning allow us to adjudicate between two different design hypotheses, the imminent intelligence and the transcendent one. And I thought, well, let's take this on. It's a natural, it goes beyond the theory of intelligent design, formally speaking, and it addresses one of the possible implications of the evidence of design that we have in biology, that maybe we're looking at a theistic designer, not a space alien. I just want to pick one or two things from different books. Signature in the Cells, you have it there behind you. And when you simply begin to look at the complexity of cells. You realize that they are like little mini cities, that actually everything, so much happens within. And I guess we are learning more and more about everything in life. And you talk to doctors and they tell you that they are learning more and more about how the body functions. And there's a lot of the unknown. But when you look at that just complexity of, we call it the simple cell, which isn't really very simple, that new research and that new understanding, surely that should move people to a position that, this is impossible, that this level of complexity simply just happens. So tell us about that, just the cell, which is not simple. Yeah, that's the sort of ground zero for me in my research and interest in the question was this origin of life problem. That's what I did my PhD on. And I think it's really interesting. We could have debates about the adequacy of Darwinian evolutionary theory. I'm sceptical about what's called macroevolutionary theory. But set that all aside. Darwin presupposed one or a few simple forms. And in the immediate wake of the Darwinian Revolution, people like Huxley and Heckel started to develop theories of the origin of those first simple cells. And they regarded the cell in the late 19th century as a very simple, as Huxley put it, a simple homogenous globule or homogeneous globule of undifferentiated protoplasm. And they viewed the essence of the cell as a simple chemical, it's coming from a simple chemical substance they called protoplasm. And so it kind of, and they viewed it as a kind of jello or goo, which could be produced by a few simple chemical reactions. That viewpoint started to fall by the wayside very, very quickly. By the 1890s, early part of the 20th century, we were learning a lot more about the complexity of metabolism. When you get to the molecular biological revolution in the late 1950s and 1960s, nobody any longer thinks the cell is simple because the most important biomacromolecules are large information-bearing molecules that are part of a larger information processing system. And so this is where I think, and in confronting that. And so any origin of life theory has to explain where that came from. My supervisor used to say that the nature of life and the origin of life topics are connected. We need to know what life is in order to formulate a plausible theory of how it came to be. And now that we know that life is much more complex and that we have an integrated informational complexity that characterizes life, those 19th century theories and the first origin of life theories associated with figures like Alexander Oparin, for example, from the 1920s and 30s. These are not adequate to explain what we see. But what's happened, and this is what I documented in Signature in the Cell, is that none of the subsequent chemical evolutionary theories, whether they're based on chance or based on self-organizational laws or somehow based on somehow combining the two, none of those theories have proven adequate either. This problem of sequence specificity or functional information has defied explanation by reference to theories that start from lower level chemistry. It's proven very, very difficult, implausible in the extreme. Here's the problem. Getting from the chemistry to the code is the problem. And undirected chemical processes do not, when observed, move in a life-friendly, information-generative direction. And this has been the problem. So the impasse in origin of life research, which really began in the late 70s, was documented by this book I mentioned, the mystery of life's origin and books, another book, for example, by Robert Shapiro called, Origins, A Sceptic's Guide. That impasse from the 1980s has continued right to the present. Dawkins was interviewed in a film in 2009 by Ben Stein, the American economist and comic. And very quickly, Stein got Dawkins to acknowledge that nobody knows how we got from from the prebiotic chemistry to the first cell. Well, that's kind of a news headline. We get the impression from textbooks that the evolutionary biologists have this all sewed up. They don't by any means. This is a longstanding conundrum. And it is the integrated complexity and informational properties of the cell that have, I think, most fundamentally defied explanation by these chemical evolutionary theories. And I think that's very significant when you think of the whole kind of evolutionary story. Darwin thought that if you could start with something simple then the mutation selection, oh, he didn't have mutations, but the mutation, sorry, the natural selection variation mechanism, could generate all the complexity of life. You'd go from simple to complex very gradually. Well, if the simplest thing is immensely complex and manifest a kind of complexity that defies any undirected process that we can think of, well, then you don't have a seamless evolutionary story from goo to you. Because I guess when you're Darwin's doubt, the next book you wrote, I guess when Charles Darwin wrote Origin of the Species, he assumed it was settled. But science is never settled. There are always developments. And yet it seems, oh, that's sacrosanct, and that cannot be touched and must be accepted. Yeah, and what I did in the second book was show or argue that the information problem is not something that only resides at the lowest level in the biological hierarchy, at the point of the origin of the first cell, but it also emerges later when we have major innovations in the history of life as documented by the fossil record, events such as the Cambrian explosion or the origin of the mammalian radiation or the angiosperm revolution. There are many events in the history of life where you get this sudden or abrupt appearance in the fossil record of completely new form and structure. And we now know in our information age, as it's come to biology, that if you want to build a new cell, you've got to have new proteins. So you have to to have information to build the first cell. But the same thing turns out to be true at the higher level. If you want to build a completely new body plan, you need new organs and tissues. You need to arrange those organs and tissues in very specific ways. And you need new proteins to service the new cell types that make the organs and tissues possible. So anytime we see the abrupt appearance of new biological form, that implies the origin of a vast amount of new biological information. And so in Darwin's doubt, I simply asked, well, is there, can the standard mutation natural selection mechanism explain the origin of the kind of information that arises and the amount of information arises? And I argue there that no, it doesn't. That we have, there are many, many kinds of biological phenomena that Darwin's mechanism explains beautifully, the small scale variation adaptation, that sort of thing. So 2016, a major conference at the Royal Society in London. First talk there was by the evolutionary biologist Gerd Müller. The conference was convened by a group of evolutionary biologists who think we need a new theory of evolution. Whereas Darwinism does a nice job of explaining small-scale variation, it does a poor job or a completely inadequate job of explaining large-scale morphological innovation, large-scale changes in form. And Mueller, in his first talk at this 2016 event, outlined what he called the explanatory deficits of Neo-Darwinism, and he made that point very clearly. And so it's, I think it's a new day in evolutionary biology, the word of this is not percolating so well perhaps but that was part of the reasons I wrote Darwin's doubt is that within the biological peer-reviewed biological literature it's well known that the problem of the origin of large-scale form, the origin of new body plans is not well explained by the mutation selection mechanism. At this 16 conference, the conveners included many scientists who were trying to come up with new mechanisms that might explain the problem of morphological innovation. Afterwards, one of the conveners said the conference was characterized by a lack of momentousness. Effectively, the evolutionary biologists proposing new theories of evolution and new evolutionary mechanisms had done a good job characterizing the problems, but had not really come up with anything that solves the fundamental problems that we encounter in biology when we see these large jumps in form and structure arising. And in Darwin's Doubt, I didn't just critique standard neo-Darwinian theories of evolution, but many of these newer theories as well, showing that invariably the problem of the origin of biological information and the form that arises from it is the key unsolved problem in contemporary evolutionary theory. Mueller and Newman wrote a book with MIT Press called On the Origins of Organismal Form, which was a kind of play on the origin of species. Darwinism does a nice job of explaining speciation, small-scale changes within the limits of the pre-existing genomic endowments of an organism, but it doesn't do a good job of explaining new form that requires new genetic information. And these authors, Newman and Mueller, listed in a table of unsolved problems in evolutionary theory, the problem of the origin of biological form. That's what we thought Darwin explained back in 1859, and instead we realized that the mechanisms that he first envisioned have much more limited creative power and much more limited explanatory scope. So that's what my second book was about, and also I think it's still, this is still very much right at the cutting edge of the discussion in evolutionary biology. We can explain the small scale stuff, but not the big scale stuff. Let's just finish off with actually disseminating the information, because all of this is about taking issues which are complex and actually making it understandable to the wider public. And I guess part of that is, I mean, obviously being on the most popular podcast in the world, Joe Rogan, I was like, oh, there's Steve Meyer and Joe Rogan. And taking that information and that turbocharges that. So maybe just to finish off on the ability to disseminate this, because I think in the US, the ID movement is more understood, where I think maybe in Europe, it's certainly it's more misunderstood and not as accepted where there is an acceptance in the States. But tell us about that and how being on something like podcasts like that turbocharge the message. Yeah, well, I can tell you, you know, now that I'm getting introduced at conferences and things after The Joe Rogan Experience, it's as if I never did anything else in my life. No, that's the only thing people care to mention. I mean, he's got a monster reach. He's extremely, his questions on the interview were very probative. Of course, slightly to moderately sceptical, maybe more, but I thought they were fair. I thought it was a great discussion and it was a lot of fun. And, you know, we've had not only, I think he gets something like 11 million downloads on average for his podcast. We couldn't even believe these numbers when we were told them. But there have been over 25 million derivative videos that social media influencers and podcasters have made about the Rogan interview, analysing different sections of our conversation. So, yeah, that was a huge boost to the dissemination of our message. But one thing I realized in our conversation that there's a simple way to understand the information argument. And that's one of our tools in getting some of these ideas out is distilling some of these things that we've been talking about at a fairly deep level to a more understandable level. So let me just run that argument, that argument sketch or the distillation of the argument by your audience. And then they would talk about some of the things we're doing to get the word out. Our local hero in the Seattle area here is Bill Gates, the founder of Microsoft. And he has said, like Dawkins, that the digital code in the DNA, that the DNA is like a software program, but much more complex than any we've ever created. Dawkins, as I mentioned before, says it's like a machine code. It contains machine code. Well, if you think about that, those are very suggestive quotations because what we know from our uniform and repeated experience, which is the basis of all scientific reasoning, is that information always arises from an intelligence source. If you have a section of software, there was a programmer involved. If you have a hieroglyphic inscription, there was an ancient scribe involved. If you have a paragraph in a book, there was a writer involved. As we're effectively broadcasting, we're transmitting information, that information ultimately issues from our mind. So whenever we look at information, an informational text or sequence, and we trace it back to its ultimate source, we always come to a mind rather than a material process. All attempts to explain the origin of life based on undirected material processes have failed because they couldn't explain the information present in DNA, RNA proteins. So the presence of that information at the foundation of life, based on our uniform and repeated experience about what it takes to generate information is therefore best explained by the activity of a designing intelligence. It takes a programmer to make a program, to make a software program. And what we have in life is, from many different standpoints, identical to computer code. It is a section of functional digital information. So that's a kind of more user-friendly sketch of the argument but the point is some of these some of these key ideas that are that make intelligent design so, I think so persuasive at a high scientific level if you actually look at the evidence, can be also explained fairly simply and so we're generating a lot of not just Joe Rogan podcast interviews but coming on many many podcasts and that sort of thing but also we're generating a lot of YouTube video short documentaries that get some of these ideas across and for your viewers, one that I might recommend which is on of any it was out on the internet it's called science uprising and it's a series of 10 short documentary videos, another one that we've done called the information enigma which I think would would help people get into these ideas fairly quickly, the information enigmas I think it's a 20 minute short documentary it's up online and we've had hundreds of thousands of views so we're doing a lot to sort of translate the most rigorous science into accessible ideas and disseminate that in user-friendly ways. The best website for finding a lot of this compiled is actually the website for my most recent book, Return of the God Hypothesis. So the website there is returntothegodhypothesis.com. Okay, well, we will have the link for that in the description. Dr. Stephen Meyer, I really appreciate you coming along. Thank you so much for coming and sharing your experience and understandings of writing and making that understandable, I think, to the viewers, many of them who may not have come across this before. So thank you for your time today. I really appreciate you having me on, Peter.
Dr. Steve Fuller of Warwick University says the meaningful split in society is not Leftwing vs. Rightwing, but rather Upwing vs. Downwing. Both have radically different attitudes to both risk and human nature, which informs their policy decisions and the direction they want to steer society. SUPPORT THE SHOW! www.patreon.com/andrewheaton Dr. Fuller's book at: www.mightyheaton.com/featured Referenced in the show today: TPO: “Was Abraham Lincoln Leftwing or Rightwing?” https://politicalorphanage.libsyn.com/hyrum-lewis “Transcenant Man” – Documentary by Ray Kurzweill about the Singularity https://www.amazon.co.uk/Transcendent-Man-Ray-Kurzweil/dp/B016V7WCLA ATA: The Bioethics of Gattica – Discussed on Alienating the Audience https://alienating.libsyn.com/gattaca ATA: How Cryonics Works – Interview on Alienating the Audience https://alienating.libsyn.com/we-can-freeze-you-how-cryonics-works
Transhumanists Elise Bohan, Prof. Steve Fuller and Anders Sandberg share their thoughts on the future of humanity, the role artificial intelligence will play in society, and the radical ways advanced technology may redefine what it means to be human. Recorded in front of a live audience at Kings Place, London on 16 February 2023. Elise Bohan is a Senior Research Scholar at the University of Oxford's Future of Humanity Institute (FHI). She holds a PhD in evolutionary macrohistory, wrote the world's first book-length history of transhumanism as a doctoral student, and recently launched her debut book Future Superhuman: Our transhuman lives in a make-or-break century (NewSouth, 2022). Prof. Steve Fuller is Auguste Comte Professor of Social Epistemology at the University of Warwick, UK. Originally trained in history and philosophy of science, he is the author of more than twenty books. From 2011 to 2014 he published three books with Palgrave on ‘Humanity 2.0'. His most recent book is Nietzschean Meditations: Untimely Thoughts at the Dawn of Transhuman Era (Schwabe Verlag, 2020). Anders Sandberg is a Senior Research Fellow at the Future of Humanity Institute (FHI) at Oxford University where his research focuses on the societal and ethical issues surrounding human enhancement and new technologies. He is also research associate at the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics and the Oxford Centre for Neuroethics. Find out more: futurespodcast.net FOLLOW Twitter: twitter.com/futurespodcast Instagram: instagram.com/futurespodcast Facebook: facebook.com/futurespodcast ABOUT THE HOST Luke Robert Mason is a British-born futures theorist who is passionate about engaging the public with emerging scientific theories and technological developments. He hosts documentaries for Futurism, and has contributed to BBC Radio, BBC One, The Guardian, Discovery Channel, VICE Motherboard and Wired Magazine. Follow him on Twitter: twitter.com/lukerobertmason CREDITS Produced by FUTURES Podcast Recorded, Mixed & Edited by Luke Robert Mason
In this week's episode of the Bees with Ben podcast, Ben is fortunate to have as his guest a man with a wealth of experience in all areas of the beekeeping industry, with a glittering array of credentials! Steve Fuller is an Executive Councillor of the NSW Apiarists' Association Inc., President of the Northern Coast branch of NSWAA, an Advisory panel member for Agrifutures' Australia (Honey Bee and Pollination), Secretary of the Crop Pollination Association of Australia, and a participant in the 5 BEES programme run by Wheen Bee. Phew! Along with his brother Wayne, he owns and operates Bee Services in northern NSW, which has been in business for more than 40 years producing organic honey and offering pollination services for a wide variety of crops. The company currently manages about 5,000 hives and has around 20 employees. Steve outlines his fascinating journey in the beekeeping industry, and his absolute love for bees, but it is his unique perspective as an industry leader, and business owner, with respect to the varroa outbreak in NSW last year that dominates the podcast. Steve reveals that prior to the discovery of varroa in Australia on 22 June last year he was already prepping his business for the possibility of a varroa incursion, because he thought it was likely to happen sooner rather than later. Incredibly, although he was told of the outbreak as soon as it was discovered, he was not able to say anything about it for 3 days, until sufficient infrastructure was in place. On day 4, after attending a conference in Queensland, Steve drove to the Local Command Centre (LCC) in Maitland The bee industry had plans in place for many years, but Steve stresses that a plan, no matter how detailed or effective, is not the same as the real thing. Plus, most of the people in bee organizations are volunteers with their own businesses to think about. Early on the DPI engaged the services of rural firefighters, who have considerable experience managing disasters. Steve was working 7 days straight before being forced to have 2 days off. Steve says that inspecting hives in those early days wasn't a problem; the problem was identifying where hives were, so that there was a real chance of encircling and eventually eliminating the outbreak. He tells Ben that feral hives are the hardest to control because they can be anywhere, and that baiting is not effective unless the bees have no other food source. By September 2022, Steve was already conceding that total elimination of the mites may not be possible. The stark reality is that just one mite on the back of a truck can spread the infestation anywhere in the country, as female mites are already pregnant when they leave the cells in brood comb. Steve was still working at the LLC when he was told of the discovery of varroa in his own backyard - in the berry producing area around Coffs Harbour. For those who think life is easy as a beekeeper, Steve lost 1,400 hives in the bushfires, then 200 more in the north coast floods the following year, and another 800 in further flooding. He had 300 hives euthanized in a red zone of the varroa outbreak and lost another 2-300 due to mismanagement associated with the outbreak. Although he was reimbursed for the hives that were euthanized, he was only paid what the hives were worth, and not recompensed for the income that they would have generated. He had another 600 hives in the purple zone, and reckons he lost about $1 million by having bees caught up in that area.
Steve Fuller is an Emmy award-winning Director, whose work shaocases an expertise in the integration of design and live-action to the production process, coupled with an ability to lead projects from conception to completion. Comfortable in a variety of mediums and genres, Steve's creative through-line is visual storytelling. His commrcial directing credits including major campaigns for McDonalds and Anthem Healthcare. Steve has also worked with an impressive group of clients including Infiniti, Peloton, Google, Ford, Amazon, Hyundai, Fender, McDonald's, Xfinity, HBO, MTV, CBS Sports, Fox, Reebok, NFL, Citibank, NBC, Covergirl, ESPN, Ubisoft, USA, BBC, Olympus, Glenmorangie, Sprint, Philips, Verizon, Turkish Airlines, and BMW. Check out his spots here and at Spears & Arrows. EVENTS & COURSES So excited for our Second Annual Filmmaker Retreat in Joshua Tree. Join us Sept. 28th to Oct. 1st in the desert for a transformational experience. "Define Your Voice is our theme and you'll emerge knowing what you want and how better to achieve it. Check out my Masterclass or Commercial Directing Shadow online courses. All my courses come with a free 1:1 mentorship call with yours truly. Taking the Shadow course is the only way to win a chance to shadow me on a real shoot! DM for details. How To Pitch Ad Agencies and Director's Treatments Unmasked are now bundled together with a free filmmaker consultation call, just like my other courses. Serious about making spots? The Commercial Director Mega Bundle for serious one-on-one mentoring and career growth. Amazon Prime!! Jeannette Godoy's hilarious romcom “Diamond In The Rough” streams on the Amazon Prime! Please support my wife filmmaker Jeannette Godoy's romcom debut. It's “Mean Girls” meets “Happy Gilmore” and crowds love it. Here's the trailer. Thanks, Jordan This episode is 71 minutes. My cult classic mockumentary, “Dill Scallion” is online so I'm giving 100% of the money to St. Jude Children's Hospital. I've decided to donate the LIFETIME earnings every December, so the the donation will grow and grow. Thank you. Respect The Process podcast is brought to you by True Gentleman Industries, Inc. in partnership with Brady Oil Entertainment, Inc.
Steve Fuller is an Emmy award-winning Director, whose work showcases his expertise in integration of design and live-action to the production process, coupled with an ability to lead projects from conception to completion. Comfortable in a variety of mediums and genres, Steve's creative through-line is visual storytelling. His commercial directing credits including major campaigns for McDonalds and […]
Steve Fuller is a professor of sociology at the University of Warwick. He is the author of several books, including Post-Truth: Knowledge as a Power Game.
I often write about the need for Up Wing thinking. Despite the political drama that unfolds on cable news and social media, the key divide in America is not Left versus Right but Up versus Down. Up Wingers are all about acceleration for solving big problems, effectively tackling new ones, and creating maximum opportunity for all Americans. Down Wingers, on the other hand, are soaked in nostalgia, scarcity, and risk minimization. In this episode, I'm joined by Steve Fuller to discuss the political implications of Up Wing and Down Wing thinking.Steve holds the Auguste Comte Chair in Social Epistemology at the University of Warwick's Department of Sociology. He's the author of several books, including 2014's The Proactionary Imperative.In This Episode* Up-Wing versus Down-Wing thinking (1:25)* America's emerging Down-Wing coalition (9:45)* Towards an Up-Wing environmentalism (18:54)* Up-Wing politics and risk (25:31)* How Up Wingers should think of Elon Musk (31:30)Below is an edited transcript of our conversation.Up-Wing versus Down-Wing thinkingJames Pethokoukis: In 1973, almost 50 years ago, the futurist F.M. Esfandiary wrote the book Up-Wingers: A Futurist Manifesto, where he posited a new political axis, where future-oriented Up Wingers and more traditionalist Down Wingers would replace the existing Left Wing-Right Wing axis. You've also framed this as Green — meaning traditional environmentalist — versus Black — the sky is the limit, perhaps space is the limit.I wonder if you could just speak for a moment or two about the tenets of being Up Wing or on the Black pole versus Down Wing, Green pole. What does that look like in the modern political environment?Steve Fuller: I think the first thing to say, given that you started with Esfandiary, who's known as FM-2030 to his fans in transhumanism, is that the book Up-Wingers actually only talked about Up Wingers but didn't talk about Down Wingers, because he was an incredibly optimistic guy, you might say. What he was really arguing in that book back in the ‘70s was that the Left-Right political axis would just be replaced by Up Wingers. There wouldn't be Down Wingers. That's an interesting aspect of what was going on back then in the ‘70s. And in fact, what he thought about as so-called “black sky thinking” — which is what you were alluding to in your question about Black being the kind of signal color for Up Wingers — he was actually talking about something rather close to the kind of internet that we have now, basically. Especially in terms of the personalized aspects of it: social media, the world-wide web, all of this kind of stuff. That was kind of what he was getting at. He wasn't really getting at some of the more profound things that I would say is now part of the political landscape in the contemporary world, which in a way makes the Up Winger or Down Winger distinction a much more visible distinction and much more salient than it was back 50 years ago.Now, I think there is an Up Wing or Down Wing distinction in a very clear kind of way. I'm the one who kind of brings in the Down Wing aspect of this. And so as you said in your introductory remarks, at least in the European political spectrum, Red means Left and Blue means Right. Whereas I understand the United States these days, with the way the states get mapped, it's the other way around. But the point is, in any case, that color scheme is gone. And what we instead have is Black versus Green. The idea of Black for the Up Wingers is that the sky is the limit. You're imagining sort of the “black sky” kind of thing. That's the stellar cosmos color. Whereas the Down Wingers are Green in the sense that they basically want human beings to be planted on Earth. It's a very Earth orientation. It is a sky versus Earth thing in a way, Up Wing or Down Wing, in the way I'm talking about it.The interesting thing about this distinction, as I think it plays out now, is that it shows a fundamental instability, you might say, in the concept of the human. Insofar as we've thought about social life and political life as revolving around humanity — how to organize humanity, what humanity is about, and so forth — we generally have had a kind of common understanding of what a human being is. And that's, roughly speaking, homo sapiens. Homo sapiens, in a way, provides a kind of outer limit to what we think about as a human. But now, with a lot of things going on — not just the stuff that has to do with information technology, where we can perhaps upload our consciousness or merge with machines in some way, even in some kind of Elon Musk-Neuralink fashion where we become cyborgs in a sense — it's not just that that's going on: There are all these potential biological transformations, biomedical transformations, which in a way could really destabilize even the biological nature of the human being. For example: human beings living indefinitely. All of that stuff would have incredible knock-on effects with regard to how we organize our social and political life, which to a large extent depends on the idea that human beings are more or less upright apes who live a finite period of time and then they succeed to another generation. Up Wingers are, in a sense, open to everything like this. It kind of explodes the category of the human, and that's why the term “transhumanism” is an appropriate term for those people, because they want to transcend the limits of the human.The Down Wingers take the exact opposite view and think the Up Wingers are completely dangerous. The [Down] Wingers think that, if anything, the problems that we have now on Earth — let's say the climate issues, but also even maybe the pandemic issue and so forth — have to do with the extent to which humans have overextended themselves on the planet. They don't know their limits. And in some sense, what human beings need to do is not to think that we're somehow above animals and nature, but rather to return, as it were, to our natural origins. And that homo sapiens may not be so special after all, and that our survival may depend on our having a more modest understanding of what our nature is. The Down Wingers basically want to get us down there. That's why these people like to talk about the precautionary principle, for example, which is to say that when you introduce any innovations or whatever, you minimize risk. You do no harm. It's like a Hippocratic Oath for the Earth. This is a view that has a lot of prominence these days. This view is even called “post-humanist,” because, in a sense, it wants to minimize the significance of the human in order to return to something that is a more stable, Earthly existence. So this is where the polarities are: some want to go into the skies and some want to really implant themselves on the Earth.In the book 50 years ago, Down Wing was not mentioned, yet it seems as though that view, broadly speaking — concerns about scarcity, about limits, thinking going to space would be a waste of money, also looking at technological stagnation over the past half century — it seems like even though Down Wing was not mentioned, Down Wing has been winning and has been the dominant ethos.I think there's a certain truth to that. I think the Silicon Valley people are very attuned to this point. Peter Thiel, I suppose, would be the main one who talks about the great technological stagnation that's been taking place over the past 50 years. I think he's basically right, and probably for the kinds of reasons you've just cited: that there has been this kind of latent Down Winger tendency. But I think, in a way, it has converged in very interesting ways with other kinds of movements in recent years to make it stronger so that it becomes a kind of social justice movement. It is no longer just purely about ecologists, environmentalists in the narrow sense; but rather, it has this much broader sense, because if one thinks about who would be most vulnerable to any kind of climate catastrophe or something like that, then one starts to bring in the developing world, the poor, the people who are already kind of unprotected. This gets then rolled into a very large social justice agenda, which then makes the Down Wing movement much more powerful, you might say, than it would've appeared 50 years ago.America's emerging Down-Wing coalitionWhat led me to some of your writings was really the 2016 election here in the United States, when you had this weird phenomenon of people who supported Bernie Sanders, but when he did not win the Democratic nomination said, “Then maybe we'll support Donald Trump.” At first, that seems crazy. But if you start to look at things with an Up Wing versus Down Wing perspective, it begins to make a little bit of sense. Do you see this sort of merging of the populists of the left and right coming together and making this scenario maybe actually happen?Yes, actually, I do. This is where I think the Democratic Party is really in a very tight, difficult situation, to be perfectly honest. If we're talking about the establishment of the Democratic Party, it's still very much on the sort of Hillary Clinton, technocratic, broadly Up Winger, you might say, way. And Bernie Sanders was just seen as a throwback to the past. If you're Hillary Clinton, you're basically planning for all of that rust belt stuff, all of that kind of traditional working-class thing, to disappear over time. I think that's the scenario. But of course, the point about Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump is in a way to keep the consciousness of the working class kind of alive. And this sort of populism isn't going to go away. To be honest with you, nowadays there's a lot of inflammatory talk, especially in the United States, about fascism. But fascism, of course, fed on this kind of connection between basically working-class disenfranchised people, who in the past would've been voting on the left of the party, but then seeing the left somehow taking off into space and not really addressing their bread-and-butter concerns. And then some leader that might be called fascist actually galvanizes and organizes this group of people. It could happen. There are a lot of different kinds of ways in which the Down Winger thing can play itself out, because I do think the environmental aspect of this is also there. But then environmentalism also has a kind of connection with fascism, too, in a certain way. It's a very complicated story, and it plays itself differently in different countries. If we're talking about the United States, it's a bit different than if we're talking about Europe.I see these Bernie Sanders-style populists on the left who are very skeptical of corporate power. And now we have conservative populists who also seem to be against big corporations. Both groups seem to hate Silicon Valley. There's also a lot of overlap on housing density. Yet on cultural issues like abortion, for example, these groups remain divided. Is that how you see it?I see that 100 percent. I don't know exactly what to do about it. It's a very strange situation. But I do think it does point to the fact that the conventional political parties are going to end up realigning at some point. In other words, they're both going to kind of break apart, not only in this country, but certainly in Britain, the same sort of thing is happening as well. There's an interesting thing about, what does politics look like under these circumstances? Because I think one of the things that contributes to the destabilization of people's finding a political home is the fact that the state — which typically was the thing that political parties were fighting over: control of the state and control over state power — the power that the state actually wields nowadays is diminishing.There are so many other players, as it were, that in a way have competing powers to the state and often can kind of prevent the state from doing various things, that then when people start thinking about political identity, this is why young people, for example, don't vote. Because they don't see anything in it for them, because they're not sure that getting one set of politicians or another set of politicians is going to actually mobilize enough power to actually get things done. And so I think that's also part of the background of this story; namely, that the state isn't something worth fighting for or fighting about anymore, in a certain way. It doesn't really anchor, as it were, the common political reality that people understand.This is also part of the world we live in, where we have so many different competing understandings of what's actually happening on the ground. And there is nothing terribly authoritative and establishment to sort of say, “No, actually this is happening. This is not happening.” So a lot of this kind of anchoring effect, this common ground stuff, that used to make actually being in one party or another party important is disappearing as well. And so this is why it all seems very blurry and people are just kind of moving around from place to place.A typical median voter in Great Britain or the United States, do you think they're fundamentally more of an Up Wing person or more of a Down Wing person?I think, generally speaking, they're Up Wing, actually. I think they're Up Wing if you ask them their attitudes towards stuff. But the problem is, when you put it all together as part of a political agenda, it often seems very threatening. And I think that's kind of the public relations problem that Up Wingers have. Because there are a lot of the actual things, like: Do you want to be able to live longer? Do you want innovative medicines that will be able to cure diseases that in the past, let's say, killed your parents or something? Everybody is for this. And everybody is for all kinds of technological solutions to solve all sorts of problems. People are actually for all this stuff. The problem is that when you add it all together, and then you look in a sense not simply at the economic cost — I don't think the economic cost is really the big deal here — but rather you think about what the implications would be for the kind of world we would live in if all of this wonderful stuff came together, and you see Up Wingers are very sensitive to the point that we would be in a different world. This wouldn't be a better version of the current world, but this would be a different kind of world. I think this is where it starts to seem scary to a lot of people when it's actually presented as a political package.I'll give you an example: There's this thing called telemedicine, which basically enables people to send in their symptoms, to look up stuff, and then they can have access to this amazing biomedical information base that would then enable them to get customized medicine in just the way they want. It would be a maximum use of the internet for purposes of healthcare. But of course, this would involve an unprecedented level of surveillance and violation of privacy. Especially if we're monitoring the effects of people who voluntarily decide to take certain kinds of experimental drugs and stuff. Everything they do would have to be monitored and checked. When you flesh out the picture of what the Up Wing view involves, then the opposition gets traction because they say, “So you're going to sell your privacy? Is that what you're going to do? And what are you selling it for? What, to take some experimental drugs that might not work and you might not even know what the side effects are?” And so it's quite easy, once you flesh out and you present the Up Winger program — as a program, not just as a set of isolated things you might want, but as an entire political program — it then becomes easy to enumerate the various implicit costs that this is going to have. And that's when you start to raise the fear factor in the electorate. “My privacy is going to be gone. This might be risky. Blah, blah, blah.” That's where we are. It's very hard to win elections when you're operating in that space.As you're suggesting, it's not an easy thing to poll with a public opinion survey. But I suppose if I was going to try to find a single question that might tell me where the public is, it might be nuclear energy. If you're for it, you're probably inherently more Up Wing. If you're against it, probably more Down Wing.This is true.Which means the public is pretty split.That's a good litmus test. Yes. It's the same thing in Europe, too. It's the same thing in Europe.Towards an Up-Wing environmentalismI sense that over the past year or two — I think it's because of Russia's invasion of Ukraine and energy shortages, and I think a growing realization that all these climate goals are going to be very difficult to meet without nuclear energy — that people are specifically rethinking nuclear, but then maybe people are going to start rethinking, “Why are we even in this situation? Why do we not already have abundant clean power? What is this bill of goods that the environmental movement has been selling us for 50 years, that we're sitting here having to think about radically changing our lifestyles to meet some climate goal, that we have energy shortages in Europe when it was all entirely avoidable?”This is where it gets kind of interesting, because of course, nuclear is not risk free. I think this has always been the problem, especially in Europe. One thing you need to realize, especially if we're talking about the European Union, is that the European Union actually has the precautionary principle baked into a lot of its legislation. In other words, this minimization of risk is one of the things that, for example, makes it very difficult for biomedical innovations to actually get on stream in Europe. Environmental protection in Europe is incredibly high. For example: This enormous opposition to genetically modified organisms to put in the food system. All of this is very much to do with the precautionary principle being in there. The precautionary principle says above all “do no harm,” even if it means you do less good. That's going to be a killer for nuclear. The point is, yes, we could have had clean energy via nuclear many decades ago, but it would've also been risky. It was probably a risk worth taking, I would think. And I still think that now.But nevertheless, part of what's going on between the Up Wingers and the Down Wingers is basically the attitude toward risk. Because we can do a lot of amazing things right now if we're willing to absorb just a little bit more risk. This is a tough one for politicians, because politicians, at the end of the day… One way to think about what a politician is, in terms of serving their constituency, is protecting them. So if you are in a constituency where you've got a lot of eco-activists raising the alarm bells — if we put a nuclear reactor here, then your water will be poisoned, you'll have three-legged cats, whatever — how's a politician going to deal with that? Because there is a small chance that might happen. So it's a very tough sell. I think we could have had a much cleaner world by now if we were willing to take a little bit more risk with regard to things like nuclear and more experimental kinds of technologies. Even genetic modification, actually, in terms of our ability to adapt to climate change and stuff like that. And risk is one of the things that often makes the difference in terms of political debate. It ends up defining the limits of plausibility for what you can put forward as a policy.For some of the reasons I mentioned earlier, to me the environmental movement has been a very Down-Wing, limits-based movement. Do you sense that's changing because of the reality of trying to hit climate goals without technology? If there's anything we've learned during the pandemic and maybe with some of these energy shortages in Europe, it's that people do not like scarcity. They like abundance. They don't like shortages. And I'm wondering if that revelation is going to create a more Up-Wing aspect to the environmental movement.First of all, there are some Up-Wing environmental movements. One of them, I'm a fellow, is the Breakthrough Institute in California. And those guys have been on this ticket for a long time. But to be honest, their degree of success in getting the message across has been limited. And this has been true of other such movements — eco-modernist, as they're called, movements around the world. There is the issue of fear mongering. There's the fear element that is very difficult to deal with in political discourse. Once it gets unleashed, it's very hard to combat it. In the case of nuclear (and this is true, I would say, of a lot of this more progressive technology), if you look at the agencies that would be promoting it, obviously we would be talking about state, corporate, we would be talking pretty heavy players that would enable this kind of new technology to go on stream in a big way. And to a large extent, some of this technology is already available, but it's been prevented from actually coming on stream. The look of that to people who are already distrustful of all kinds of establishments and all kinds of authorities is not good. It's not a good look. If nuclear energy was something that could be promoted from a mom-and-pop store, it would probably be much more palatable. This is a basic kind of problem, the kind of general distrust. As you know, one of the things that has come about as a result of the pandemic is this efflorescence of conspiracy theories. And who's involved in the conspiracy theories? Well, big business, the state: all the kinds of big players who would, in fact, probably be among the supporters of nuclear among many other of these innovative technologies. The look of the sponsors does not create an aura of trust in a populace that is increasingly distrustful of authority. I think that's a real basic kind of public relations problem that this whole issue has to overcome. I'm not sure how you do it, but I think that's a much bigger issue than, let's say, making people aware of what the benefits of nuclear energy are.Up-Wing politics and riskDuring the pandemic we've learned something about the issue of trust in society. What do you think we've learned about the issue of risk tolerance in society? More people than I would've guessed are very risk averse.Yes, I think that's exactly right. It's an interesting picture. I think at some point, once the air has cleared on this matter, there needs to be a thorough cross-national comparison of the response to the pandemic. Nations of the world were all over the map on this in terms of the amount of social control they put on their citizenry and so forth. In that respect, it was a very interesting living experiment, the pandemic, because of the ways in which the different political systems responded to it. The state does have a lot of power in certain kinds of arenas like health. In a sense, the state shot itself in the foot by making people too risk averse. We have been living in a world where we've been promised that the risks are going to go away and that people are going to live longer, healthier lives forever. We've been expecting this kind of uninterrupted, upward trajectory, certainly since the end of the Second World War. Anything that might threaten that then becomes a source of fear. And if we lived in a world where we realized it's going to be a kind of bumpy ride up — death rates will vary; it's not that we're going to continue to minimize death rates, but they will vary, but in the appropriate direction over time — then people would be more tolerant of situations like pandemics, where eventually people do die more than normally die. Because the pandemic was so publicized, on a 24/7 basis you could compare the death rates of all the countries of the world simultaneously as if this was some kind of sporting league where you say, “Hey, these guys are on the top of the league. They got the fewest per capita dying today.” This is a nonsense way of managing a pandemic. It does make it look like, if you avoid death, if you avoid contamination, then you're winning. That then undermines the kind of mindset that is required for any kind of technological progress, which is much more risk seeking than that.I think that if we end up being able to cure or significantly reduce the incidence of some big key diseases, that would send a powerful message to people that technology is good. We can radically change our lives. And I wonder if something like that might really tip the scale.I think so, actually. The public relations side of all this should never be underestimated. I think you need a big win. The polio vaccine, right? You need something like that. It's not just that it works well, but that the coverage of it, the relevance of it, to large numbers of people is immediate. It's obvious. People could see it. They don't need to know how the polio vaccine works. If they know someone with polio, they understand immediately. This is the point: You need something that has that kind of level of public salience. I think people who think about this, think that is what's got to happen. How it's going to happen, where it's going to happen — it's not obvious. But clearly, from a public relations standpoint, if you want something that's going to make this kind of a gestalt switch so that people go from being risk averse to being risk seeking, you need a big win on something that a couple of years ago you wouldn't think was possible.If over the next 25 years, 50 years, we saw the precautionary principle replaced with a more risk-taking principle, what does that world look like?We could have a whole half hour on this topic. One of the things I think would be necessary is that people would be allowed, at the very least, to be able to volunteer for quite risky kinds of experiments through private contracts with scientists and others, where there is some mutual understanding that one understands the terms of agreement and so forth. And so there would probably have to be a kind of insurance agency around this for compensation when things go wrong. But what that would replace is the current system, the research ethics codes that apply universally and in a blanket fashion across research establishments, especially in academia, which ends up preventing effectively a priori any kind of risky research from happening because of the possibility of harm to the subjects, even if the subject would voluntarily enter into the research.And so that, I think, is a minimum requirement: that you would have to change the legal structure that at the moment prevents the risky stuff from being done. Because the problem is, the risky stuff does get done anyway. It gets done in China, these ethics-free zones. It gets done underground. Black market, all kinds of crazy stuff I'm sure is going on around the world at the moment, and we might even be able to learn from it. But as long as there is this kind of very prohibitionist mentality in the legal system, it is the great inhibitor. We really need to turn this into a much more contract system, not a kind of blanket ban on certain kinds of research. That would be the first step.How Up Wingers should think of Elon MuskHow should up wingers think about Elon Musk?If you're an Up Winger, and you're someone who in a way is all about taking risks and encouraging others to take risks, what better person to take a risk than a billionaire? In a sense, he's a very appropriate person to be an Up Winger. He can afford to lose. He's doing a lot of stuff. Some of it people might regard as crazy, but nevertheless, if public agencies were doing it, it would be a nightmare. But in some sense, a lot of the stuff that he's doing, you sort of believe someone ought to be doing it. And it's his money.When we talk about all these rich people, “What do they do with their money?” I think the idea of risking the money, or at least amounts of it, in these kinds of projects is not so bad, actually. There are a lot of worse things Elon Musk could be doing. This man could be causing an enormous amount of damage in the world. He might not be saving the world's poor. He might not be vaccinating them to death. But what he's doing is he's trying various kinds of experimental, innovative things that would be beyond the financial range of most states and individuals around the world. So I'm willing to tolerate him. This is the kind of guy who is in a position to really take risks. That's what I see him doing. Is it guaranteed he's going to succeed in any of this stuff? Most of his income comes from PayPal still! And he's using that to bankroll all the other stuff. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit fasterplease.substack.com/subscribe
Can empirical observation lead us to the truth?Looking for a link we mentioned? It's here: https://linktr.ee/philosophyforourtimesFrom Newton to Darwin, Curie to Einstein, science has been built on empirical observation. Now the very idea of neutral observation is under threat. In a postmodern world it is claimed all observation is perspectival, everything we see influenced by what we already think. The founder of quantum mechanics, Heisenberg went further arguing that observing reality was not even possible. Are we at sea in a world of competing models? Or is it time to reassert the value of empirical observation, supported perhaps by machine learning and big data, as a means of choosing between incompatible theories?Steve Fuller is an academic studying science and technology. Fuller has published prolifically on such topics as intelligent design, the sociology of academia, and transhumanism. Angela Saini is an award-winning science journalist, author and broadcaster. She regularly presents science programmes for the BBC, and her writing has appeared in publications ranging from New Scientist, Wired and the Guardian.Rupert Sheldrake is a biologist and bestselling author. Best known for his 2012 book 'The Science Delusion' and the controversial, viral TED talk he gave which was banned by the organisation. Peter Atkins is a chemist and Fellow of Lincoln College. He's a Distinguished Supporter of Humanists UK, Atkins is outspoken in his opposition to religion. Danielle Sands hosts.There are thousands of big ideas to discover at IAI.tv – videos, articles, and courses waiting for you to explore. Find out more: https://iai.tv/podcast-offers?utm_source=podcast&utm_medium=shownotes&utm_campaign=[iai-tv-episode-title] See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
Steve is a Co-Founder of The House Ltd and we spoke to him about all things purpose driven and tackling the worlds biggest challenges.We also shared details about an exciting new event in the Outrageous pipeline, so keep your eyes peeled for that one.
Let's talk transhumanism. Steve Fuller Professor of Sociology at the University of Warwick, England talks to Holly Chant of the band Xylaroo, to give her inspiration for a new song. Social Epistemology, what it is and how it is relevant to the question of Intelligent Design? Steve was originally trained in history and philosophy of science, but he is best known for the research programme of 'social epistemology', which is the title of a journal he founded in 1987 and the first of his dozen books. Links: Xylaroo - http://www.sundaybest.net/artists/xylaroo/ Prof. Steve Fuller - http://profstevefuller.net/ Podsongs - https://podsongs.com/ Recorded at @Goldmine.Records --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/podsongs/message
What can you do to stay informed about digital immortality, digital legacy, digital life curation, and all things #Deathtech?Being ahead in this changing marketplace and cultural transformation could help you spot trends and find opportunities to promote and grow your end-of-life or funeral business.Welcome to The Art of Memorialising - an audio newsletter by Peter Billingham from Death Goes Digital and Memorable Words Eulogy Writing services.The Art of Memorialising curates news on digital immortality, digital legacy, digital life curation and all things #Deathtech.Thanks for being here.Memorable Words Eulogy Writing Services is sponsoring this month's edition.Memorable Words eulogy writing services take thoughts and precious memories of your loved one, and then craft them into unique and individual eulogy story celebrating and honouring their life.What Will You Find In This Issue?Two examples of the funeral industry seeing and taking opportunities to add digital legacy planning packages to funerals as an additional up sale point. Why digital legacy planning is critical and the heartbreaking challenges families face dealing with a loved one's digital estate without it. This is why the industry is going to grow exponentially in the future?Deep questions about the ‘who' we might become online long after we have died.How Will They Remember You? A Plaque Under A Tree or As A Digital Clone?The blossom on the large cherry tree overlooking the pond in my local park is magnificent this year. An explosive mass of pink petals, bursting with a promise - Spring is finally here. The blossom display is brief, lasts a couple of weeks at most, less if the wind and the rain rip the precious blooms from the branches. At the foot of this tree, there is a simple square brass plaque. I see it every day when I walk in the park with my dog. It is always there. I don't believe it will ever it disappear. Sometimes I stand under the cherry tree and remember my friend, pausing a while when the branches are heavy with pink flowers. ‘For Shelagh - who loved this park to walk her dog remembered by her dog walking friends.' Says the words on the plaque. Shelagh had a cheeky, raucous laugh. Someone once wrote, ‘Laughter is the sound of the soul dancing.' If that's so, Shelagh's soul must have been a bit like Ginger Rogers. She was slight in stature and wise in nature. A quip here, a joke there, and a poignant reflection occasionally. I enjoyed walking with her and the regular 8:30 a.m. dog walking crew. You could have set your clocks by us. Shelagh began to limp. It didn't go away. The diagnosis was brutal. The cancer in her spine was terminal. Brave as could be, with six months' life expectancy, she had a living funeral. ‘I want to hear all the lovely things you are going to say about me!' She declared. And we did. Shelagh passed away only a couple of days after the most memorable of nights of celebrating her life. I'll never forget her dancing in a wheelchair with her husband that night.A few weeks after she had passed away, with the other dog walking friends, we all stood around a large hole, ready to plant a small cherry tree in the park. It was in a beautiful spot overlooking the pond. At the side was a large mound of earth. At the call of some unseen, unheard, but direct command, starting with Shelagh's black Labrador, the dogs ceremoniously cocked a leg or squatted on the earth, leaving the sort of tribute only a dog can leave in that moment! I said a few words to remember our friend Shelagh. Each spring, looking up in the beautiful blossom on her tree, I remember one brave woman. As part of researching a new book, I'm asking what makes a life memorable? Really, what can we do to live a memorable life? Then, how should we remember a life? Would you prefer a digital clone, a ‘avatar' of you immortal online, or how about a brass plaque in the park? I've spent probably more hours online than in the park walking my dog for sure. But I'm thinking a brass plaque would be my choice. When the day comes, and they remember your life, what's your choice?Please write and let me know what you think make a life memorable? And - how would you want your life to be remembered? You can email me at info@deathgoesdigital.com——Startup SpotlightsHeard of a startup in digital life curation or #Deathtech?Please let me know. Email info@deathgoesdigital.com——Sponsored Product Memorable WordsMemorable Words Eulogy Writing Services The heartbreaking sadness many families faced losing a loved one through COVID, in lockdown, and being unable to attend their funeral through national restrictions or the location of the funeral. It was not the way many people needed or wanted to say farewell to a loved one. As a eulogy writer, I'm finding several families now are asking me to write eulogies for memorial services. The funeral may have taken place in 2020 or 2021. But now, by the side of a lake, in a favourite wood, even in a back garden, families are gathering to remember loved ones. Having a bespoke eulogy written to celebrate that life helps to read out on that day.Can I help someone you know plan a eulogy for a memorial service? I offer three eulogy writing packages, starting at £147. Full Disclosure - Memorable Words is my business. Apart from editing this newsletter and website, I write and deliver eulogies for families across the world. Interested in sharing your new product or service with readers of The Art of Memorialising? We highlight your product, service, or idea sponsoring an edition. We give you the space; you get to tell the world about what you are doing or have created.You and your business can become part of the adventure now. Secure your month in 2022/23 now. Memorialisation Morsels5 meaty bites of news for YOU to stay ahead of the conversation on Digital Legacy, Digital Life Curation & all things #Deathtech.1 - Will Funeral Directors and Funeral Businesses Make Extra Income From Selling Digital Legacy Packages Now? EverArk believes they can. Launched at the recent The International Cemetery, Cremation and Funeral Association (ICCFA) Convention & Expo, EverArk is a supplier of cemetery management software. Reading the press release (via PR Newswire), the software has many distinct features, but it was the addition of Digital Legacy Packages (via an app) to promote sales, which was interesting. EverArk has a single and family package that cemeteries can upsell to customers and earn money on each sale. The minimum price is $299 and $499, respectively. “No other cemetery management software offers a digital product that allows a cemetery to sell and earn money,” EverArk CEO Greg Marmulak said in the press release. Could this be a trend and business opportunity for other aspects of the funeral industry in the future? It appears so - read on!2 - How Does Partnering With A Digital Legacy Provider Offer Practical Help For Families and Profits For Funeral Businesses?Taking the step to partner with GoodTrust, Darling and Fischer, a funeral home in California is now offering the services of a Digital Executor via GoodTrust. (via Yahoo Finance) “We are excited to be partnering with GoodTrust and offer all of our at-need families the opportunity to secure their loved one's digital legacy forever and give them peace of mind,” said Nicholas J. Welzenbach, Managing Partner at Darling & Fischer. It seems as if GoodTrust is leading the way in these partnering relationships. Another funeral technology software company, eFuneral, announced a similar launch and partnership. (via PR Newswire) I wonder who might take a similar lead in the UK?3 - So, Just How Complex Is The Reality of Dealing With A Digital Estate?Catherine Mayer understands how hard it can be to deal with a loved one's digital assets. When her husband, Andy Gill, guitarist from the band Gang Of Four, died in 2020, his death trended on Twitter. Getting hold of his digital assets and accounts has been an uphill battle. She speaks about her experiences and what she's learned from them on a fascinating panel discussion podcast. The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales - (ICAEW) - podcast discussed ‘Death and digital assets.' Truly insightful panel discussion highlighting the genuine issues families face dealing with the online accounts of a deceased relative or loved one. You can read the transcript here.4 - Will Digital Clones Become The Epitome of Our Life as a Work of Art? From an academic viewpoint, Professor of Social Epistemology, Steve Fuller from Warwick University, asks if the self-archiving of our lives online is driven by some desire to leave a legacy of followers while alive and possibly dead? Will we design and create a masterpiece of our digital self online, different from the reality of who we are? That happens now. How much of the filtered, touched up images online are the truth self? The growth of AI powered software to create a digital twin or digital avatar brings opportunities and moral questions we have not had to ask before. Fuller suggests it is useful to think of the digital avatar as a being who starts as a clone of the biological human, but then over time develops its own digitally based experiences so that it effectively becomes a different being. Really? Now that presents all kinds of deep questions about ‘who really is the digital avatar?' Will the real digital clone online stand up? Fuller, Steve. 2022. “Digital Clones as the Epitome of Life as a Work of Art.” Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective5 - Would You Like To Contribute Your Input Into The Digital Death Survey 2022?The purpose of the Digital Death Survey is to better understand how the internet and technology are changing societies' attitudes and needs around death, care planning and bereavement. This leading survey was started in 2014 by the Digital Legacy Association (UK). In recent years, the research has received further support from Dr. Carla Sofka of Siena College (USA). A secondary purpose of the digital death survey is to educate participants about this emerging area. Data will be aggregated and made available for free on the Digital Legacy Association's website, explained at professional conferences and/or workshops, and potentially published in journal articles or books. (Link open until May 1st)SnippetsAfter watching Jensen Haung, the CEO of NVIDIA, keynote address, Rob Enderle poses some interesting questions about the development of digital immortality with AI avatars. It's not that far off our digital avatar could still keep working long after we have died! Who gets the salary then? Digital Devices (Access for Next of Kin) Bill - UK - 2nd Reading Took Place - A second reading will happen 6th May 2022.——Who do you know who would find this information interesting?Please, can you forward the email to them? I'd be very grateful. Let's start a conversation - info@deathgoesdigital.comUntil next month, keep safe, and keep going. PetePhoto by AJ on Unsplash This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit theartofmemorialising.substack.com
Steve Fuller is a philosopher at the University of Warwick and the author of a number of book's including, "Humanity 2.0: What it Means to be Human Past, Present and Future."
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
This week our guest is sociologist Steve Fuller, who has a long history exploring Transhumanism, including his 2011 book Humanity 2.0: What it Means to be Human. Past, Present and Future. To start this conversation, we first ask: what is Humanity 1.0? What is the version of humanity we've had since the dawn of civilization until today? And from there, we take a journey into the details of our transformation into Humanity 2.0, into the different flavors of post-humanism and the different challenges and opportunities afforded by each. This means a deep exploration of the sociopolitical, cultural, moral, and religious changes the future has in store for us. Steve's latest book on the subject is Nietzschean Meditations: Untimely Thoughts at the Dawn of the Transhuman Era Find him on Twitter at: https://twitter.com/profstevefuller *Steve also asked to make a correction, as he meant 'George Church' and not 'George Graham' in regards to his thoughts on Mammoths, Neanderthals, etc ** Apply to join our Nov 7th - 11th Executive Program @ go.su.org/ep2021 ** Host: Steven Parton - LinkedIn / Twitter Music by: Amine el Filali
Blumira is a leading cybersecurity provider of automated threat detection and response technology. Founded in Ann Arbor, Michigan, Blumira's cloud SIEM (security information and event management) helps mid-market organizations--often with limited security resources or expertise--to prevent, detect and respond to cybersecurity threats in near real-time. Blumira was recognized by G2 as a top cloud SIEM provider and placed in 20 categories including "Best Return on Investment (ROI)," "Fastest Implementation," and "Easiest to Use" in the G2 Spring 2021 Grid® Reports. Steve Fuller is Co-founder & CEO.
Blumira is a leading cybersecurity provider of automated threat detection and response technology. Founded in Ann Arbor, Michigan, Blumira's cloud SIEM (security information and event management) helps mid-market organizations--often with limited security resources or expertise--to prevent, detect and respond to cybersecurity threats in near real-time. Blumira was recognized by G2 as a top cloud SIEM provider and placed in 20 categories including "Best Return on Investment (ROI)," "Fastest Implementation," and "Easiest to Use" in the G2 Spring 2021 Grid® Reports. Steve Fuller is Co-founder & CEO.
With 30+ full time employees, Bristol Mountain needs to grow and shrink it's employee base by the hundreds every year. Steve Fuller, Vice President, shares how the business effectively brings in enough of the right people to serve it's customers.Steve also dives into the strategic decisions that have turned the business from simply ski resort into a thriving outdoor service based business with four distinct units.Rate the podcast on iTunesConnect with me on LinkedInConnect with me on Facebook
RFS report from red hill valley "Camp the Ramp" pro-valley protest camp, July 4-6, 2003. interviews mish-mash of sounds including a guided hike in the valley (Don McLean and others), music at the Amp the Camp music festival on Saturday, featuring Rex Barger (singing), Steve Fuller (fiddle) and Tim McCarroll-Butler (singing and guitar) - [Thanks to Teal for filling in with guitar and vocals!] speech by Hamilton Mayoral candidate David Christopherson. Interviews with campers and camp visitors about the proposed Red Hill Creek Expressway and efforts to block construction. tech - sound recordings by Beatrice Ekwa Ekoko, Madeleine and Randy Kay, the MMR crew, edits by Randy. RADIO FREE SCHOOL an all volunteer show by, for and about Home Learners "How can you expect the birds to sing when their groves are cut down?" Henry David Thoreau, Walden Pond.
This episode of the Popperian Podcast features an interview that Jed Lea-Henry conducted with Steve Fuller. They speak about Steve's book Kuhn Vs. Popper: The Struggle for the Soul of Science, how Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn each regarded the scientific method, the differences between these two conceptions, the significance of the arguments involved and how they defined both science and public opinion (and continue to do so), the history of science and how it should be understood, the moral implications and responsibilities associated with each man's theory, how the disagreement played out over time, and what happened at the infamous 1965 Popper-Kuhn debate at Bedford College, University of London. Steve Fuller holds the Auguste Comte Chair in Social Epistemology in the Department of Sociology at the University of Warwick. He is the founder of the research program of social epistemology, is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, the UK Academy of Social Sciences, and the European Academy of Sciences and Arts. He is also a Senior Research Fellow at the Breakthrough Institute, the leading ‘ecomodernist' think-tank, and an Affiliate Scholar at the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, the leading ‘transhumanist' think-tank. Steve is the author of twenty-five books, which have been translated into more than twenty languages. *** Kuhn Vs. Popper: The Struggle for the Soul of Science (Results for Kuhn Vs.Popper: The Struggle for the Soul of Science | Book Depository). *** You can follow Steve Fuller's ongoing work at: Steve Fuller (warwick.ac.uk) and Steve Fuller | University of Warwick - Academia.edu. Support via Patreon – https://www.patreon.com/jedleahenry Support via PayPal – https://www.paypal.me/jrleahenry Shop – https://shop.spreadshirt.com.au/JLH-shop/ Support via Bitcoin - 31wQMYixAJ7Tisp773cSvpUuzr2rmRhjaW Website – The Popperian Podcast — Jed Lea-Henry Libsyn – The Popperian Podcast (libsyn.com) Youtube – The Popperian Podcast - YouTube Twitter – https://twitter.com/jedleahenry RSS - https://popperian-podcast.libsyn.com/rss *** Underlying artwork by Arturo Espinosa
Professor Frank Pasquale (Brooklyn School of Law) and Professor Steve Fuller (University of Warwick) debate whether humans should regulate artificial intelligence, and discuss the appropriate ways to safeguard the development of automation technologies. Pasquale argued for a precautionary approach to the development of AI - one that favours a careful deployment of new laws for their usage. Whereas Fuller argued for a more proactionary approach to technological innovation - one that allows AI to developed unencumbered by the sorts of governance that might limit its scope. This debate was recorded for SingularityNET as part of their Decentralised OS Web Series. This Bonus Episode is not sponsored content. Frank Pasquale is Professor of Law at Brooklyn Law School and author of The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information. His work has appeared in the Atlantic, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Guardian, and other outlets. Prof. Steve Fuller is Auguste Comte Professor of Social Epistemology at the University of Warwick, UK. Originally trained in history and philosophy of science, he is the author of more than twenty books. From 2011 to 2014 he published three books with Palgrave on 'Humanity 2.0'. His most recent book is Nietzschean Meditations: Untimely Thoughts at the Dawn of Transhuman Era (Schwabe Verlag, 2020). Find out more: futurespodcast.net CREDITS Produced by FUTURES Podcast Recorded, Mixed & Edited by Luke Robert Mason FOLLOW FUTURES PODCAST Twitter: @FUTURESPodcast Instagram: @futurespodcast Facebook: @FUTURESPodcast
In this episode, Steve Fuller, Professor of Sociology at the University of Warwick, discusses his new book, "A Player's Guide to the Post-Truth Condition: The Name of the Game" which is published by Anthem Press. Fuller begins by explaining what he means by the "post-truth condition," and how it affects the way we think about the production of knowledge. He observes that democracy implies a decentralization of the production of knowledge, and reflect on how that is in tension with "academic rentiership." He also discusses how the pandemic has made the post-truth condition especially salient. And he offers some suggestions on how scholars can embrace the post-truth condition, rather than fighting it. Fuller is on Twitter at @ProfSteveFuller.This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
Steve Fuller is a social philosopher at the University of Warwick. Some of his most recent books are, "Post Truth: Knowledge as a Power Game," and, "A Player's Guide to the Post-Truth Condition."
Pigskin Pete and Brian Genard cover the latest high school sports news and are joined by Satsuma bowling coach Steve Fuller, Ben Thomas from al.com and Davidson girls basketball coach Charlie Shipp! --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/david-schultz/support
Sociologist Prof. Steve Fuller shares his thoughts on transhumanism as a science-based religion, the value of taking a death-based approach to life, and why Friedrich Nietzsche is the futurist we need today. Prof. Steve Fuller is Auguste Comte Professor of Social Epistemology at the University of Warwick, UK. Originally trained in history and philosophy of science, he is the author of more than twenty books. From 2011 to 2014 he published three books with Palgrave on 'Humanity 2.0'. His most recent book is Nietzschean Meditations: Untimely Thoughts at the Dawn of Transhuman Era (Schwabe Verlag, 2020). Find out more: futurespodcast.net CREDITS Produced by FUTURES Podcast Recorded, Mixed & Edited by Luke Robert Mason FOLLOW FUTURES PODCAST Twitter: @FUTURESPodcast Instagram: @futurespodcast Facebook: @FUTURESPodcast
If you're a marketer, reaching your target audiences while protecting consumer data and staying on the right side of evolving privacy laws is likely keeping you up at night. With consumers becoming increasingly nervous about how their data is being used, especially in the age of COVID-19, how do marketers identify their best customers while navigating privacy rules and regulations? This episode answers that question with the help of Claritas' Chief Technology Officer and expert on consumer privacy, Al Gadbut. Host Monique Ruiz also talks with Steve Fuller of the Seattle Times about how segmentation has kept the media company on the happy side of consumer privacy laws while helping its advertising clients realize incredible results. Learn about the retirement of third party cookies: https://www.claritas.com/cs-Nutrisystem.html More on how Claritas is helping the federal government combat coronavirus: https://www.wsj.com/articles/private-equity-backed-tech-companies-help-governments-combat-coronavirus-11587378600 Connect with Steve Fuller and the Seattle Times: https://mediasolutions.seattletimes.com/ Download more podcast episodes: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-why-behind-the-buy/id1441029170 Learn about Claritas and find your best customers: https://claritas.com Find us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Claritas2.0/ Connect with us on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/claritas_mbs/ Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Claritas2_0
Call or Text The HOP Nerd - (480) 877-0155 Ask Sam a question or send him a message at thehopnerd@gmail.com - check out www.thehopnerd.com, find Sam on linkedin, instagram, Facebook @thehopnerd, and check out his twitter at thehopnerd1 - thanks for listening in!
Today Sam is joined by the great and amazing Steve Fuller. Get ahold of Steve at stevefuller71@gmail.com and check him out on LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/stephen-fuller-a2346056/ Thanks for listening in!Leave Sam Voice Mail or Text: 480-877-0155Check out the website: https://bit.ly/2RwHyQfSend Sam an email: thehopnerd@gmail.com
Steve Fuller and Veronika Lipinska's The Proactionary Imperative: A Foundation for Transhumanism (Palgrave Macmillan, 2014) debates the concept of transforming human nature, including such thorny topics as humanity's privilege as a species, our capacity to 'play God', the idea that we might treat our genes as a capital investment, eugenics and what it might mean to be 'human' in the context of risky scientific and technological interventions. John Danaher is a lecturer the National University of Ireland, Galway. He is also the host of the wonderful podcast Philosophical Disquisitions. You can find it here on Apple Podcasts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Steve Fuller and Veronika Lipinska's The Proactionary Imperative: A Foundation for Transhumanism (Palgrave Macmillan, 2014) debates the concept of transforming human nature, including such thorny topics as humanity's privilege as a species, our capacity to 'play God', the idea that we might treat our genes as a capital investment, eugenics and what it might mean to be 'human' in the context of risky scientific and technological interventions. John Danaher is a lecturer the National University of Ireland, Galway. He is also the host of the wonderful podcast Philosophical Disquisitions. You can find it here on Apple Podcasts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Steve Fuller and Veronika Lipinska's The Proactionary Imperative: A Foundation for Transhumanism (Palgrave Macmillan, 2014) debates the concept of transforming human nature, including such thorny topics as humanity's privilege as a species, our capacity to 'play God', the idea that we might treat our genes as a capital investment, eugenics and what it might mean to be 'human' in the context of risky scientific and technological interventions. John Danaher is a lecturer the National University of Ireland, Galway. He is also the host of the wonderful podcast Philosophical Disquisitions. You can find it here on Apple Podcasts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Steve Fuller and Veronika Lipinska's The Proactionary Imperative: A Foundation for Transhumanism (Palgrave Macmillan, 2014) debates the concept of transforming human nature, including such thorny topics as humanity's privilege as a species, our capacity to 'play God', the idea that we might treat our genes as a capital investment, eugenics and what it might mean to be 'human' in the context of risky scientific and technological interventions. John Danaher is a lecturer the National University of Ireland, Galway. He is also the host of the wonderful podcast Philosophical Disquisitions. You can find it here on Apple Podcasts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Professor Steve Fuller discusses transhumanism, how scientists should approach risk, and what it means to be human in the 21st Century. Steve is a Professor of Sociology at the University of Warwick, his most recent work has been concerned with the future of humanity, or 'Humanity 2.0'. During the interview he discussed the ideas of transhumanism and posthumanism and explained the potential directions in which humanity may move. He also argued that we should embrace technological and medical advances, as well as the risks that we may face in their development. -- ON THIS EPISODE -- Humanity 2.0: What it Means to be Human Past, Present and Future Universal Declaration of Human Rights Transhumanism Posthumanism Book of Genesis Jesus The President's Council on Bioethics (PCBE) Leon Kass Wisdom of repugnance Max Planck Friedrich Nietzsche Aubrey de Grey Max More Morphological Freedom Mind Uploading Christology William James The Moral Equivalent of War Francis Fukuyama Nuremberg trials Nick Bostrom Seasteading Peter Thiel Precautionary principle Proactionary principle Henry Ford The Rockefeller Foundation James Watson Existential risk -- CREDITS -- Produced by Futures Podcast Recorded, Mixed & Edited by Luke Robert Mason -- SOCIAL MEDIA -- Twitter: @FuturesPodcast | #FuturesPodcast Instagram: @FuturesPodcast Facebook: @FuturesPodcast -- RECORDING EQUIPMENT -- Zoom H6 Handy Recorder Zoom LiveTrak L-8 Shure SM58 Dynamic Vocal Microphone RØDE Procaster Broadcast Dynamic Microphone RØDE PSM1 Microphone Shock Mount RØDE PSA1 Studio Microphone Boom Arm RØDE DS1 Desktop Microphone Stand
On Episode 18 of the Inside Blitz w/ Levon Kirkland we interview Former QB for Clemson University & Super Bowl XX Champion, Steve Fuller! Also David Wyatt & Mike Foster breakdown the final rounds of voting for the Blanchard-Rogers Trophy.Get an Exclusive Behind the Scenes Interview with Danny Ford: https://www.insideblitz.org/coachfordFollow the Podcast: https://insideblitz.podbean.com/Become a Member of the SC Football Hall of Fame: https://scfootballhof.org/join#SteveFuller #LevonKirkland #Clemson #ChicagoBears #SCFHOF
In Part I of our two-part episode on workers in the Maine logging industry, we chat with Mark Hardison, a longtime woodcutter from Eastern Maine, near the town of Ellsworth. We talk about Mark's life, getting involved in the woods industry, and about the ways that the industry has changed over the years. We also talk about efforts to organize workers in the woods industry and the long and complicated history between American workers, Canadian workers, and the companies that pit them against each other. We also talk about the serious dangers that workers in this industry face on a daily basis, including Mark himself, who was nearly crushed to death by a hanging tree. We also check in with our friend Lauren Schandevel for the first installment on her recurring segment, The Bellwether Bitch, where she breaks down media representations of Macomb County, MI, where Lauren grew up. Working People call-in line #: 734-272-4402 Additional links/info below... Dan Morgan, The Washington Post, "Company 'Slavery' Ignites Maine Woodsmen's Union (1977)" Steve Fuller, The Ellsworth American, "Bucksport First Responders Help Save Injured Logger’s Life" Beth Brogan, News Center Maine, "Maine Loggers Poised to Unionize" The Bellwether Bitch... Lauren's Twitter page The Lead, CNN, "Voters in Critical Swing State on Impeachment" Featured Music (all songs sourced from the Free Music Archive: freemusicarchive.org) Lobo Loco, "Malte Junior - Hall" November Polaroid, "Silent Ships"
Stephen S. Fuller, Ph.D. on Amazon and future job and economic growth in Our Town~ They worked together to make this happen, and it will benefit the region broadly, but it isn't the final, it isn't all that is coming. This is just the beginning. We expect there to be almost 400,000 new jobs in the next 15 years and this is just 25,000 of them. Stephen S. Fuller, Ph.D. and Our Town host Andy Ockershausen in-studio interview Andy Ockershausen: This is Andy Ockershausen and this is Our Town. I have been so excited to know that we could talk to this man and we could talk to him away from his usual role as the head of some meeting or group because I have been following him through the Washington Board of Trade since he first worked for GW. It was way back in the '60s I guess. Steve Fuller, welcome to Our Town. Stephen S. Fuller, Ph.D.: Pleasure to be with you. Andy Ockershausen: You know, we think Our Town and we created the show - my Janice recreated it. We had a television program on channel 50 called Our Town. So Janice dug it up three years ago and said, "Why don't we do it again?" about the people that have impact in Our Town and we think Our Town is Upper Marlboro, it's Vienna, Virginia, it's as far north as Baltimore, it's as far south as Richmond. That's Our Town. We go all over and Steve Fuller, you've had such an enormous impact on that geographical selection, Our Town. Rutgers and Cornell Stephen S. Fuller, Ph.D.: Well, I've been studying it for 50 years and I try to share some of my knowledge. So this is a great opportunity. Andy Ockershausen: I love your resume. I love your background. You grew up in New Jersey, I would take it. You went to Rutgers. Stephen S. Fuller, Ph.D.: I did go to Rutgers. Andy Ockershausen: That's a state school, isn't it? Stephen S. Fuller, Ph.D.: A state school. It's the sixth oldest university in the country. Andy Ockershausen: It's older than Princeton. Stephen S. Fuller, Ph.D.: 1766, Queens College, it was then. Andy Ockershausen: Queens College. Well, wasn't William and Mary King's College at one time in Southern Virginia? I think it's something like that. There were only one of each, I know that. And you graduated from Rutgers in '62, but then it took you seven years to graduate from Cornell. Stephen S. Fuller, Ph.D.: Well, I worked, I went out and worked. Andy Ockershausen: Oh, it didn't say that. Stephen S. Fuller, Ph.D.: I took a few jobs. Andy Ockershausen: The way I read your resume, you graduated in '62 and then went to Cornell, high above Cayuga's waters, right? Stephen S. Fuller, Ph.D.: That's right. Andy Ockershausen: And that launched you into a career by going to Cornell. Was that a special school for you? Stephen S. Fuller, Ph.D.: I went there to get a PhD in Urban and Regional Planning and Economic Development, and I was there just for two years. Then I came to Washington in 1967, because I lucked out to get some financing from a small agency to fund my dissertation research on rural redevelopment. Andy Ockershausen: Wow! On Coming to Our Town Stephen S. Fuller, Ph.D.: So I came down here with the promise of one year paycheck to do my research and write my dissertation, and then they hired me to stay on for a year and after that I went to GW in '69. Andy Ockershausen: And you became whether you planned or not, you became part of Our Town, a big part of Our Town. Stephen S. Fuller, Ph.D.: I did. Andy Ockershausen: And you had had all the training to better urban development and training about how to judge markets and growth and so forth. So you were prepared to help at GW. Were you're the first one in that category at George Washington? George Washington University Opportunity - New Urban Regional Planning Department Stephen S. Fuller, Ph.D.: There was a new department at George Washington that offered a master's degree in Urban Regional Planning, and it just started up in 1968 and they needed a third faculty member,
Prof. Steve Fuller is the author of 25 books including a trilogy relating to the idea of a ‘post-’ or ‘trans-‘ human future, and most recently, Nietzschean Meditations: Untimely Thoughts at the Dawn of the Transhuman Age. He has an incredibly broad amount of knowledge from a diversity of disciplines and I have to admit […]
In this episode, host Martin Rodriguez sits down with Amos Yong, director of the Center for Missiological Research (CMR) and professor of theology and mission at Fuller Theological Seminary, to discuss his experiences in missiology and his hopes for its future. Our GuestAmos Yong is the director of the Center for Missiological Research (CMR) and professor of theology and mission at Fuller Theological Seminary. Previously, he taught at Regent University School of Divinity for nine years, serving most recently as J. Rodman Williams Professor of Theology and as dean. Prior to that he was on the faculty at Bethel University in St. Paul, Bethany College of the Assemblies of God, and served as a pastor and worked in Social and Health Services in Vancouver, Washington. Yong's scholarship has been foundational in Pentecostal theology, interacting with both traditional theological traditions and contemporary contextual theologies—dealing with such themes as the theologies of Christian-Buddhist dialogue, of disability, of hospitality, and of the mission of God. He has authored or edited almost four dozen volumes. Among the most recent are The Future of Evangelical Theology: Soundings from the Asian American Diaspora (IVP Academic, 2014); Renewing Christian Theology: Systematics for a Global Christianity, with Jonathan A. Anderson (Baylor University Press, 2014); Interdisciplinary and Religio-Cultural Discourses on a Spirit-Filled World: Loosing the Spirits, coedited with Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen and Kirsteen Kim (Palgrave Macmillan, 2013); Pneumatology and the Christian-Buddhist Dialogue: Does the Spirit Blow through the Middle Way? Studies, Systematic Theology 11 (Brill, 2012); The Cosmic Breath: Spirit and Nature in the Christianity-Buddhism-Science Trialogue, Philosophical Studies in Science & Religion 4 (Brill, 2012); and Spirit of Love: A Trinitarian Theology of Grace (Baylor University Press, 2012). He has also authored 200 (and counting) scholarly articles in a wide range of peer-reviewed journals, edited book collections, and other venues. Dr. Yong is past president of the Society for Pentecostal Studies. Publications MentionedAmos Yong and Barbara Brown Zikmund, eds. Remembering Jamestown: Hard Questions About Christian Mission. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2010. Clifton Clarke and Amos Yong, eds. Global Renewal, Religious Pluralism, and the Great Commission: Towards a Renewal Theology of Mission and Interreligious Encounter, Asbury Theological Seminary Series in Christian Revitalization 4. Lexington, KY: Emeth Press, 2011. David J. Bosch. Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission, American Society of Missiology Series 16. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1991. Clark H. Pinnock. Flame of Love: A Theology of the Holy Spirit. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1996. Chandler H. Im and Amos Yong, eds. Global Diasporas and Mission. Regnum Edinburgh Centenary Series 23. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2014. Amos Yong. The Missiological Spirit: Christian Mission Theology in the Third Millennium Global Context. Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2014. Love L. Sechrest, Johnny Ramírez Johnson, and Amos Yong, eds. Can "White" People Be Saved?: Triangulating Race, Theology, and Mission. Missiological Engagements. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2018. Steve Fuller. Humanity 2.0: What it Means to be Human Past, Present and Future. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011. Amos Yong. Hospitality and the Other: Pentecost, Christian Practices, and the Neighbor. Faith Meets Faith. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2008. Credits Hosted by Martin Rodriguez Produced by Greg McKinzie
Steve Fuller has spent the winters of his life snowbound in the center of Yellowstone National Park. Why?
For many of us, 'post-truth' means a culture where appeals to prejudice and emotion trump rational policy discussion. But for Steve Fuller, post-truth is just a by-product of the institutionalisation of knowledge—including scientific knowledge.
Welcome to Homo Sapien 2.0, a podcast series about transcending our biological limitations and interviewing the visionaries helping make it happen. In this podcast, we talk to Professor Steve Fuller, Auguste Comte Chair in Social Epistemology in the Department of […] Author information Kenneth Damien Vice-Chair at LSEAAL Ken graduated with a law degree (LLB 2010) from the LSE and is presently the Vice-Chair of the LSE Alumni Association London (LSEAAL). Ken is a practising solicitor with a core focus on the technology sector currently working with Axiom, a global leading alternative legal services provider. He previously worked as In-House Counsel at Aveva, a world-leading industrial software provider. Ken has a particular interest in issues of data protection, anti-piracy and cybersecurity as well as policy discussions surrounding the regulation of emerging technologies including AI and blockchain. | The post The Role of the State in Funding Innovation [PODCAST]- Professor Steve Fuller appeared first on LSE London Alumni & Friends.
Post-Truth – Laurie Taylor explores a very modern phenomenon, or is it? He’s joined by Steve Fuller, Professor of Sociology at the University of Warwick, Helen Pluckrose, Editor of Areo, a digital magazine focused on Enlightenment liberalism and Andrew Chadwick, Professor of Political Communication at Loughborough University. Producer: Jayne Egerton
Steve Fuller, August Comte Chair in Social Epistemology at the University of Warwick, brings us right up to date with an original take on the meaning of 'post-truth'.
Céline Keller In my talk I will argue, based on the thoughts of the brilliant Jamaican theorist Sylvia Wynter, that it is not humanism we need to get over but the racism and duality of the self and the other on which western humanism has been build and various times been reinvented. Traveling back in time, we will learn, how the value divide of heaven and earth of Christian medieval Europe and its structuring principle of body and spirit, has enabled first, the mighty power of the church, and was then remodeled, after Copernicus, into the superiority of the rational man over his irrational others, and finally with Darwin into the concept of the biologically (“naturally”) selected (white, male, straight, and rich) vs. the dysselected (nonwhite, female, queer, and poor). We then take a look at transhumanism with its proponents, like Steve Fuller and Elon Musk, who seem to just reinvent this never changing pattern of exclusion and oppression, casting many of us as subhumans to be left behind. How can we overcome this imaginary divide and opposition? Can we instead invent a humanism that includes us all? I will suggest that the pop culture zombies that keep haunting us might help. In a world of the 1% against the 99%, when, without showing any shame, cynical billionaires build fortifications to fight off future climate refugees, people that, very well, could be called the Undead. Dehumanized humans, stripped of their value and whom we are made to believe, we will need to fight. Why do we still identify with the privileged survivors, when watching tv shows like The Walking Dead? Today, those imagined surviving groups of arms carrying people, might be portrayed as diverse, but does that really make sense? And why, is it so incredibly hard to create and sustain solidarity, that is more than an empty lip-service? How come, we are so fascinated, instead of appalled, with those narratives of competition of us against them? Aren't we all, like the zombies, the superfluous 99%? In my talk, I will explore the dark side of humanism's history and its cruel connection to de-humanization, racism and eugenics, and then link this history to the future proposed by transhumanism, and suggest, that identifying with the zombies instead of the cyborgs might help with imagining a new inclusive humanism, we urgently need. ------- Some of the papers the talk will be based on: Sylvia Wynter: Unsettling the Coloniality of Being/ Power/Truth/Freedom Towards the Human, After Man, Its Overrepresentation—An Argument http://law.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/2432989/Wynter-2003-Unsettling-the-Coloniality-of-Being.pdf Steve Fuller - We May Look Crazy to Them, But They Look Like Zombies to Us: Transhumanism as a Political Challange https://ieet.org/index.php/IEET2/more/fuller20150909 Dale Knickerbocker - Why Zombies Matter: The Undead as Critical Posthumanist https://digilib.phil.muni.cz/bitstream/handle/11222.digilib/135003/1_BohemicaLitteraria_18-2015-2_7.pdf?sequence=1
Céline Keller In my talk I will argue, based on the thoughts of the brilliant Jamaican theorist Sylvia Wynter, that it is not humanism we need to get over but the racism and duality of the self and the other on which western humanism has been build and various times been reinvented. Traveling back in time, we will learn, how the value divide of heaven and earth of Christian medieval Europe and its structuring principle of body and spirit, has enabled first, the mighty power of the church, and was then remodeled, after Copernicus, into the superiority of the rational man over his irrational others, and finally with Darwin into the concept of the biologically (“naturally”) selected (white, male, straight, and rich) vs. the dysselected (nonwhite, female, queer, and poor). We then take a look at transhumanism with its proponents, like Steve Fuller and Elon Musk, who seem to just reinvent this never changing pattern of exclusion and oppression, casting many of us as subhumans to be left behind. How can we overcome this imaginary divide and opposition? Can we instead invent a humanism that includes us all? I will suggest that the pop culture zombies that keep haunting us might help. In a world of the 1% against the 99%, when, without showing any shame, cynical billionaires build fortifications to fight off future climate refugees, people that, very well, could be called the Undead. Dehumanized humans, stripped of their value and whom we are made to believe, we will need to fight. Why do we still identify with the privileged survivors, when watching tv shows like The Walking Dead? Today, those imagined surviving groups of arms carrying people, might be portrayed as diverse, but does that really make sense? And why, is it so incredibly hard to create and sustain solidarity, that is more than an empty lip-service? How come, we are so fascinated, instead of appalled, with those narratives of competition of us against them? Aren't we all, like the zombies, the superfluous 99%? In my talk, I will explore the dark side of humanism's history and its cruel connection to de-humanization, racism and eugenics, and then link this history to the future proposed by transhumanism, and suggest, that identifying with the zombies instead of the cyborgs might help with imagining a new inclusive humanism, we urgently need. ------- Some of the papers the talk will be based on: Sylvia Wynter: Unsettling the Coloniality of Being/ Power/Truth/Freedom Towards the Human, After Man, Its Overrepresentation—An Argument http://law.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/2432989/Wynter-2003-Unsettling-the-Coloniality-of-Being.pdf Steve Fuller - We May Look Crazy to Them, But They Look Like Zombies to Us: Transhumanism as a Political Challange https://ieet.org/index.php/IEET2/more/fuller20150909 Dale Knickerbocker - Why Zombies Matter: The Undead as Critical Posthumanist https://digilib.phil.muni.cz/bitstream/handle/11222.digilib/135003/1_BohemicaLitteraria_18-2015-2_7.pdf?sequence=1
In this episode I talk about how the myth of objectivity in science makes attacks on researchers worse. I interviewed social epistemologist Steve Fuller, Professor Simone Dennis, Professor Mark Largent and Dr Lindy Orthia.Find the brilliant Alice Dreger's work here, as well as the article I quoted here
In this episode I talk about how universities define, defend and sometimes undermine academic freedom. I interviewed Professor Paul Frijters, social epistemologist Steve Fuller and Professor Brian Martin.Read Paul Frijters and Redzo Mujcic's racism discussion paper hereCheck out Professor Brian Martin's work here and his response to attacks on Judy Wilyman here
In this episode I talk about today's envelope pushers. I interviewed Auguste Comte in Social Epistemology Steve Fuller, Katherine Flegal, Professor Emeritus Anthony Miller, Dr Lindy Orthia and Stanton Peele. Find more of social epistemologist Steve Fuller's work hereRead Katherine Flegal's envelope-pushing papers here and hereCheck out Professor Emeritus Anthony Miller's mammography study hereBuy Dr Lindy Orthia's book on Dr Who and race here Find more from Stanton Peele here, and watch the videos I used in the episode here and also here from HuffPost Live
For many of us, 'post-truth' means a culture where appeals to prejudice and emotion trump rational policy discussion. But for Steve Fuller, post-truth is just a by-product of the institutionalisation of knowledge—including scientific knowledge.
Ok, explainer challenge: how do you explain social epistemology to a bunch of real estate agents at your neighbourhood barbecue? You know who knows how? Professor Steve Fuller, Auguste Comte Chair in Social Epistemology at the University of Warwick, that's who! We talk with Steve about advice for Zuckerberg, the crucial role of the 'we' and when is the best time to throw down the Popper! The Wholesome Show is @rodl and @willozap, proudly supported by @ANU_CPAS!
On today's episode of Team Human, Douglas is joined by Professor Steve Fuller. Fuller teaches Sociology at the University of Warwick. In his recent book, Humanity 2.0, Fuller embraces a future vision in which technological and medical advancement will enable humans to evolve beyond our current physical and mental limitations. Steve will use this concept to teach us what distinguishes transhumanist from posthumanist projects, and why such thinking should be taken seriously. While Rushkoff and Fuller may come from very different perspectives, they share common ground in questioning whether living as gods – longer, faster, stronger, smarter – will serve humanity or merely further existing inequality, injustice, and environmental catastrophe.To open this show, Rushkoff looks at the ways being human is a team sport. It's a future vision that recognizes collaboration, not competition, as the cornerstone of evolution. We'll explore how this squares with the transhumanist project and more.If you enjoy this conversation, Rushkoff shared the stage with Steve Fuller in 2015 at a conference held at IBM Watson, featured in Team Human Episode 53. An extended video version is available exclusively to Patreon subscribersSpecial thanks to Luke Robert Mason of Virtual Futures Podcast for coordinating this interview and recording Professor Fuller's side of the conversation from the UK.A huge thank you to our Patreon supporters. Minutes ago we reached our first funding goal! Your subscriptions keep this weekly podcast alive, so thank you! Please take a minute to review Team Human on iTunes. Your reviews help others discover this show.Today's show features music thanks to Mike Watt, Stephen Bartolomei, and Fugazi. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
This week is a special episode of Team Human. We are sharing an excerpt of a panel discussion recorded on location at IBM Watson in New York from August 2015, hosted by Douglas Rushkoff and produced by our friends at Virtual Futures in London. Douglas was joined by philosopher-sociologist Steve Fuller, tech entrepreneur and ethicist Martine Rothblatt, IBM Watson researcher Michael Karasick, and philosopher of technology, Dan O'Hara.Patreon subscribers have exclusive access to the full, unedited video with an engaging question and answer session at https://www.patreon.com/teamhuman. Start your monthly subscription today to support the show and get access to the Team Human Slack Channel as well as other subscriber rewards. July and August rewards are shipping this week!Enjoy this discussion and please review Team Human on iTunes or your preferred podcast platform and help spread the word about the show!Thanks Luke Robert Mason for sharing the audio! Music on today's show is Mike Watt, Stephen Bartolomei, and Fugazi. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
Where are they now? Members of the SMBA Class of 2014 Walter Franco, Dom Lucq, Steve Fuller, Carlos Maldonado, and Adam John reunite and catch up on where their careers are at, three years after graduation. The crew also offers up some tips for the current SMBA class to get through the remainder of their program, and general advice for aspiring sports business professionals.
Steve Fuller, one of 10 crew members supporting Sarah Cooper of Urbandale, Ia., in her attempt to finish the Race Across America by June 26, phones in Friday, June 23 from a Ford Expedition as it rolls on toward the finish line in Annapolis, Md. He updates Just Go Bike on how "Super Cooper" has fought sleep deprivation, consumed boxes of Popsicles, been met by an increasing number of fans and found herself singing along to "Singin' in the Rain" in Ohio.
Sermon preached by Steve Fuller on James 4:1-10 at the United Christian Church of Dubai
Sermon preached by Steve Fuller on James 4:1-10 at the United Christian Church of Dubai
Alex West interviews Steve Fuller (SMBA '14) about his current position as the Trademarks and Licensing Manager at the University of Southern California.
Public Lecture: Prof. Steve Fuller, "Will Transhumanism be Christianity's 'Tea Party' Moment?"
The Development of Modern Science and Technology, and its Implications for Christian Anthropology - A Roundtable Discussion with Professor Steve Fuller
Public Lecture: Prof. Steve Fuller, "Will Transhumanism be Christianity's 'Tea Party' Moment?"
Micah Redding and Dr. Steve Fuller discuss SPACE ARKS, the meaning of faith, the risk-taking nature of science, and why the future of politics isn't about left and right.
Dr. Steve Fuller is philosopher and professor at the University of Warwick in the UK. After writing “Humanity 2.0” in 2011, Steve has received increasing attention for his ethical perspective on human enhancement and the transhuman transition. In this interview, Dr. Fuller covers covers what he considers to be the most important present considerations of transhumanism - namely - the potential economic impacts (and gross inequality) of enhancing humanity. Dr. Fuller shares why he considers these issues as the best path forward for bringing human enhancement concerns to modern politics.
Living by Faith Hebrews 11 In my last three sermons I want to pass on to you three crucial truths which have shaped me over the years. Today I am going to talk about living by faith, next Sunday Christ-centered community, and the following...
Michael Palmer talks about bow ties, fashion trends, climbing Mt. Rainier, and life as a successful restaurateur. Steve Fuller discusses the most adventurous thing he’s ever done (hint: it was sorta illegal). Brad shares his metropolitan love story from the KISS ... The post Creativity At 14,409 Feet | Episode 15 appeared first on Rebel Storytellers.
Brad Wise and Steve Fuller discuss the creative process involved in brainstorming, planning, and executing KISS, Rebel Storytellers’ first live 4LTR Word Show. Brad shares some of his favorite moments of the night, playing short clips from a handful of entertaining and ... The post It Started With A Kiss | Episode 14 appeared first on Rebel Storytellers.
Michael Behe is professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, Pennsylvania and the founder of the modern Intelligent Design movement. His book "Darwin's Black Box" ignited the controversy 14 years ago when it claimed that certain molecular machines and biological processes are "irreducibly complex" and cannot be explained by Darwinian evolution. His new book "The Edge of Evolution" takes his conclusions further, arguing that the Darwinian processes of random mutation and natural selection are incapable of producing the variation and complexity we see in most of life. So can we conclude that life was intelligently designed by a creator? Keith Fox is Professor of biochemistry at the University of Southampton and chairman of Christians in Science. As a theistic evolutionist he believes that Evolution is the best explanation going for the complexity we see and that ID is a blind scientific alley and theologically unappealing to boot. They debate whether micromachines in the cell such as the "bacterial flagellum" could have evolved by a Darwinian process of evolution. When inference to design is and isn't acceptable in science. Whether random mutation can mathematically stack up to complex life, and whether God is reduced to a divine "tinkerer" by ID. For Michael Behe see http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/faculty/behe.html or http://www.darwinordesign.org.uk/ For Keith Fox see http://www.cis.org.uk/resources/interviews/keith-fox and for the CIS conference 2010 http://www.cis.org.uk/ For more debate visit http://www.premier.org.uk/unbelievable or get the podcast http://ondemand.premier.org.uk/unbelievable/AudioFeed.aspx or via Itunes If you enjoyed this programme you may also enjoy Unbelievable? 20 Mar 2010 - Expelled" live audience debate at Imperial College London - Susan Blackmore, Steve Fuller, Keith Fox & Alastair Noble Unbelievable? 16 Jan 2010 - "Expelled" the Movie - Intelligent Design theorist Stephen Meyer vs. Atheist scientist Peter Atkins debate Intelligent Design Unbelievable? 2 Jan 2010 - Is there design in biology? Intelligent Design proponent William Dembski vs. Biology Professor Lewis Wolpert Join in the discussion at the Premier Community http://www.premiercommunity.org.uk/group/unbelievable
The first of two shows featuring atheist US physicist Victor Stenger, author of NY Times bestseller "God: The failed Hypothesis". Stenger claims that Christian belief has been a block to science historically and that science has shown the Universe to look "Exactly as it would if there were no God". Steve Fuller is Professor of Sociology at Warwick University. He takes issue with the current wave of scientific atheism and in his new book "Science" (The Art of Living Series, Acumen) says that science can't be done without the concept of God at its heart. For Victor Stenger see http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/VWeb/Home.html To buy the book "God: the failed hypothesis" http://www.amazon.co.uk/God-Failed-Hypothesis-Science-Shows/dp/1591024811 For Steve Fuller see http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/sociology/staff/academicstaff/sfuller/fullers_index For "Science (Art of Living)" http://www.amazon.co.uk/Science-Art-Living-Steve-Fuller/dp/1844652041 For more Christian/non-Christian discussion shows visit http://www.premier.org.uk/unbelievableor get the MP3 podcast http://ondemand.premier.org.uk/unbelievable/AudioFeed.aspx or Via Itunes Unbelievable? 6 Feb 2010 - Do we need God to Do Science? Steve Fuller and Thomas Dixon debate Intelligent Design and the Dover Trial Unbelievable? 8 Nov 2008 - Richard Dawkins & John Lennox's Oxford debate - a review with interviews and comment Join in the discussion at the Premier Community http://www.premiercommunity.org.uk/group/unbelievable
This last week saw US Intelligent Deisgn proponent Michael Behe on the "Darwin or Design?" speaking tour of the UK. As well as hosting an evening event, "Unbelievable?" invited him to discuss ID with theistic evolutionist Prof Michael Reiss in front of an invited audience. Michael Behe is professor of Biochemistry at LeHigh University, Pennsylvania. His book "Darwin's Black Box" launched the modern Intelligent Design movement which claims that aspects of biology are too compelx to have arisen by blind Darwinian processes but entail the guidance of an intelligent mind. Michael Reiss is Professor of Science Education at the Institute of Education. Ordained in the Church of England, he was formerly director of education at the Royal Society before stepping down amid controversy over statements he made about engaging with ID and creationism in the classroom. They engage the topic of ID and evolution in front of an audience of scientists, church and secular leaders at Charles Darwin house in London. They discuss the limits of science, whether ID is a religious movement, the place of ID in the classroom and take questions from the audience. For Michael Behe's visual presentation http://www.premier.org.uk/~/media/87809B06C34444DDB31D8B016F711D4A.ashx For Michael Behe see http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/faculty/behe.html For Michael Reiss see http://www.ioe.ac.uk/staff/GEMS/GEMS_71.html For more Christian/non-Christian discussions visit http://www.premier.org.uk/unbelievable or get the podcast or Via Itunes If you enjoyed this programme you may also enjoy: Unbelievable? 23 Oct 2010 "Darwin's Black Box - Has modern Biochemistry shown that life was intelligently designed?" Michael Behe vs. Keith Fox Unbelievable? 20 Mar 2010 - "Expelled" live audience debate at Imperial College London - Susan Blackmore, Steve Fuller, Keith Fox & Alastair Noble Join the discussion at the "Unbelievable?" page of the Premier Community http://www.premiercommunity.org.uk/group/unbelievable
Stephen Meyer is a leading proponent of Intelligent Design who directs the Centre for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute in Seattle. His most recent book "Signature in the Cell" claims to show that the DNA code is the product of intelligent mind, not naturalistic processes. Keith Fox is Professor of Biochemistry at Southampton University. He chairs the UK Christians in Science network but disagrees strongly with ID. They debate how life could have originated and whether design is allowed as an explanation in science. For Unbelievable? the Conference on DVD http://www.premier.org.uk/dvd For more Christian/non-Christian debate visit http://www.premier.org.uk/unbelievable or get the MP3 podcast http://ondemand.premier.org.uk/unbelievable/AudioFeed.aspx or Via Itunes If you enjoyed this progamme you may also enjoy: Unbelievable? 16 Jan 2010 - "Expelled" The Movie - Stephen C Meyer vs. Peter Atkins Unbelievable? 20 Mar 2010 - "Expelled" live audience debate "Expelled" live audience debate at Imperial College London - Susan Blackmore, Steve Fuller, Keith Fox & Alastair Noble Unbelievable? 23 Oct 2010 - Darwin's Black Box - Michael Behe & Keith Fox debate Intelligent Design Join the discussion at the Premier Community http://www.premiercommunity.org.uk/group/unbelievable and via Facebook and Twitter
As we look forward to the screening and debate around the film Expelled at Imperial College London on Sat 27th Feb (See www.premier.org.uk/expelled for info on extra screening & debate) two of the panellists join Justin to debate Intelligent Design. Steve Fuller is Professor of Sociology at Warwick University. He features as a pro ID advocate in the film "Expelled" and was an expert witness in the USA "Dover Trial" of 2005 when ID was judged non-scientific. Thomas Dixon is Senior Lecturer in History at Queen Mary University of London. He is critical of the film and the ID movement. For Steve Fuller see http://www.warwick.ac.uk/~sysdt/Index.html For his book "Dissent over Descent" click here For his forthcoming book "Science: the art of living" Click here For Thomas Dixon see http://www.history.qmul.ac.uk/staff/dixont.html For his book "Science and Religion: a very short introduction" Click Here Hear more faith debate at www.premier.org.uk/unbelievable or get the podcast or via Itunes If you enjoyed this show you may also enjoy: Unbelievable? 16 Jan 2010 - "Expelled" the Movie - Intelligent Design theorist Stephen Meyer vs. Atheist scientist Peter Atkins debate Intelligent Design Unbelievable? 27 Jun 2009 - "Is Christian faith at odds with science?" Atheist biologist PZ Myers & Christian biologist Denis Alexander For tickets to the newly added screening and debate on Sat 27th Feb at 6.30pm visit www.premier.org.uk/expelled
8:06am - April 27, 2014 Steve Fuller and the group he is with about 30-40 miles out. He's sounding tired but hopeful to finish it out. J.Paks Adventure Cycling Frame Bags
1:19am - April 27, 2014 Steve Fuller is with a group of eight riders hiding out in a grainery - wind, rain, lightning...Sarah Cooper is with the group and letting her husband know she is safe. J.Paks Adventure Cycling Frame Bags
Host Adam John welcomes classmates Steve Fuller and Dominic Lucq to discuss the first couple of days of the San Diego State Sports MBA annual trip to the Dominican Republic. We discuss our visit in Santo Domingo, our trip to the Caribbean Baseball Academy, seeing the Major League Baseball office, and conversing with players at the San Diego Padres academy. To wrap up this podcast we get a very special interview with our new friend Emilio who gives us perspective on what baseball means to the people in the Dominican Republic.
Steve Fuller checks in from Trans Iowa!
As homo sapiens develops more and more technologies for changing itself, what will, and should, the humans of the future look like? In Humanity 2.0, Steve Fuller addresses these questions. This podcast was recorded at Foyles bookshop in Bristol in association with the Bristol Festival of Ideas. Fuller was in conversation with Julian Baggini and Darian Meachem. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
In this chapter of Darwin or Design, I talk with Dr Steve Fuller. We discuss the idea of Social Epistemology, what it is and how it is relevant to the question of Intelligent Design. Steve Fuller is Professor of Sociology at the University of Warwick, England. Originally trained in history and philosophy of science, he is best known for the research programme of 'social epistemology', which is the title of a journal he founded in 1987 and the first of his dozen books. His most recent books relevant to the interview are Science vs. Religion? Intelligent Design and the Problem of Evolution (Polity, 2007) and The Knowledge Book: Key Concepts in Philosophy, Science and Culture (Acumen and McGill-Queens University Press, 2007).
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
