This is the third in a series of rarely-appearing posts in which I will look back at particular years of my blogging activity (see here and here for parts 1 and 2). In this post I will look at my blogging activity in the year 2015.
In early 2015 I wrote a four-part series of posts entitled "50 Things Science Cannot Explain" which you can read here, here, here and here. The image below mentions some of the things discussed in the post.
The third of these posts was one of the first posts in which I discussed the failure of scientists to develop any credible theory of human memory. I wrote this:
"We know exactly how the memory of our computers and digital devices work. On the lowest level, all information is stored as binary bits, sequences such as 01100111010101; and such bits are stored magnetically on surfaces such as hard drives. But we have no such understanding at all of how our own memory works. Try looking up human memory on the Internet. You will get a lot of discussion that makes quite a few points that don't add up to a substantive answer. We have no idea whether memory is stored chemically, electrically, through neuron connections, through some combination of the three, or through some entirely different means. Nor do we have the slightest idea about what kind of code or alphabet the brain might use to store memory. A modern neuroscientist can say quite a few things about memory, but he can't really explain it."
This paragraph stands up very well after ten years. During that time my studies on the topic of memory greatly deepened, and I became aware of specific reasons why we should reject the doctrine that human memories are stored in brains. Such reasons are discussed in the posts of my blog site here, and in my free online book "Why Mind and Memory Cannot Be Brain Effects," which you can read here.
My March 2015 post "The Top 6 Problems With Using a Multiverse To Explain Cosmic Fitness" was a good explanation of why speculations about other universes do nothing to explain the fine-tuned habitability of our universe. In the same month I wrote my post "If You Had Always Lived in a Random Universe," which involved a big leap of imagination. Because human bodies require a universe with very special conditions, you cannot credibly imagine a body such as yours existing in a truly random universe. But you can imagine yourself as a very different type of entity (such as a formless gas) existing in a very random universe with no special conditions. It was just such a leap of imagination that I took in this post.
My post "Trying to Explain Things, Naturalism Offers a Jumbled Mishmash" did a good job of discussing how materialists rely on the most scrambled hodgepodge of attempted explanations, rather than anything with coherence. My August 2015 post "Does Darwinism Plausibly Explain the Origin of Human Intelligence?" offered an answer of "no, it does not," which was the same answer given by Alfred Russel Wallace (the co-founder of the theory of natural selection) in the 19th century.
I wrote this:
"Comments such as these by leading Darwinists strongly suggest that Darwinism does not offer a plausible account of the origin of human intelligence. Generally speaking, you only offer a plausible explanation of something when you offer some explanation under which such a thing is likely....Similarly, if Darwinists cannot give us a situation under which the evolution of intelligence is likely under Darwinist principles, they have not provided a plausible explanation of the origin of human intelligence. You do not give a plausible explanation of something if you describe it as being a strange rare fluke under your theoretical framework, something we would be unlikely to see again on any of millions of other planets....We need to start pondering explanations of the origin of human intelligence which describe a situation under which the appearance of human intelligence is a likely event rather than some incredibly improbable fluke. No theory that describes the origin of human intelligence as some strange improbable fluke can claim to have offered a plausible account of the origin of human intelligence."
My November 2015 post "Can Natural Selection Explain the Human Mind?" asked a similar question, and reached a similar answer of "no."
My September 2015 post "The Ocean Deniers of Centralia" is one of my favorites of the stories I have wrote. It is a portrait of the stubbornness of authorities who refuse to believe evidence conflicting with their worldview. I've written other stories with a similar theme, including "The Sun Seers of Planet Evercloudy" and "Planet of the Blind."
In my December 2015 post "The Difficulties in Explaining the Big Leaps in Life's History" I criticized the sophistry and misstatements in Bill Nye's book trying to sell us on Darwinism. After making a list of biological wonders (mostly great leaps of physical organization), I stated this:
"Overall, the ability of natural selection and mutations to explain these things is poor. If scientists think otherwise, it's partly because they have long had a habit of underestimating requirements...The very clannish and dogmatic community of evolutionary biologists will probably continue for quite a while to push the Official Party Line that natural selection explains the origin of biological complexity, in a way rather similar to the way that Marxist dogmas (an Official Party Line) would be handed down authoritatively from Moscow in the years of the Soviet Union."
In January 2015 I started my Orb Pro blog, devoted to publishing photos I had taken of mysterious orbs. By January 2015 I already had the most extraordinary backlog of photos of the mysterious that I had taken during 2014. And the year 2015 was one of my most successful years in getting photos of the mysterious. So I was able to start the blog "full blast," and was able to keep it running "full blast" throughout 2015. I look back on years such as 2015 as my peak period as an orb photographer. I still get astonishing orb photos, but not as frequently as I got around the year 2015.
An example of one my year 2015 orb photos was the photo below taken in Grand Central Terminal in New York, one of the most dramatic moving orb photos I have ever taken. We seem to see five position states of a mysterious pink orb moving very fast.
Below is a photo from December 9, 2014 showing a large orb in Grand Central Terminal, one I published in January 2015.
No comments:
Post a Comment