There's a new video out on Neanderthals that you would like. They go into trying to portray them as more "human" than what the media has ever given us...but in the same process they equally speak on the variations that make us different. By the way, this was done at Yale University. Since no people of color any place on the earth have ever been defined as "RACIST" according to the definition by white people from white people who created the word in the first place and defined it...based upon WHITE PEOPLE'S DEFINITION ALONE, I don't have racist thoughts! If I can't use a white persons organs to replace my own then we are not the same. If my diet can be proven to be the diet of white people and the cause of my present sickness or diseases, then we are not the same. If my cultural history conflicts with their cultural history, then I am not the same as them. If people of color speak of a spirituality and connectedness with nature that they can not see, feel or come to grips with, then I am not the same as them. If we have an active penile gland and 80% or more of them have a calcified penile gland, I am not the same as them. I could go on and on with this...but the point is that, if you really feel and think the way that you do concerning this issue, then it must be YOU WHO HAS THE PROBLEM AND ARE SUFFERING FROM COGNITIVE DISSONANCE IN REGARDS TO THE INFORMATION AND HISTORY THAT IS OUT THERE from a scientific, cultural, genetic, historical and social perspective. I'm the brother who can prove that any black man who sleeps with a white woman HAS TO SHUT DOWN ALL HIS 5 SENSES IN ORDER TO DO SO. So I'm not surprised that any brother would say that to me or about me....because after all, it's hard to fight or go against your own reality when your little head is running your reality instead of your big head....and how many brothers do you know that are going to go against what their little head is telling them....even when it's a lie???
I've accepted this as your opinion, even when you fail to recognize that science, as a process, tries to account for the problems of egos and bias creeping into the work. I'm also going to accept that you will not acknowledge the video did not get Hawking's views right, so I'm not too optimistic that there will even be acknowledgement about what it gets wrong about the different philosophies around determinism. This thread is looking less and less concerned with the truth and more like an attempted hatchet job on science for its disagreement about the value of supernatural ideas.
Which, if you would admit it, reveals that you do recognize that science, as commonly practiced, devalues supernatural ideas such as God and the Soul. To the degree that you share that belief , you defend it. I have found it is wise to never be so attached to an idea that you resist fairly and periodically revisiting and questioning it. I would consider that to be the ideal scientific method, not the Principle of Limited Sloppiness Koch admits to following. You think I am engaged in a hatchet job on science but, in fact, I am employing this most ideal of scientific methods. I was once a Christian, but when I revisited that belief I did not fear finally rejecting. Similarly, there was a time when I shared some of Keita's beliefs regarding melanin making blacks superior. But revisiting that belief, I found it lacking and had no fear of rejecting it. The prevalent belief among neuroscientists that philosophy is dead, and that God and consciousness is a neurologically induced illusion, does not stand up to fearless nonprejudicial criticism. Which is why I reject it..
There isn't a Black scientist anywhere who said it was superior and what the qualities of it was...it was white scientist and doctors who documented and said this. There's some book that you need on this subject but they cost 500.00 a piece. They are by scientist who did nothing but study melanine and the penile gland, There's two books. What you need to do is to make a list concerning the medical and scientific difference in having one and not having one as documented. Outside of that, you're doing nothing but dealing with belief.
You would have to make an argument that suggests why science should value it. You'd have to do better than the creationists and come up with testable/falsifiable claims and start thinking about experiments or observations. Not only are the claims being made here crafted so they can't be tested, explored, or even falsified, the rejection is being made personal when it's an impersonal process discarding these ideas because they provide no real value in understanding the natural world. You could replace all of those ideas with "magic" and get the same amount of insight out of them, which is very little. Actually, you're not applying the ideals of rationality or science. You believe you are, which is probably far more important to you, but it's precisely because you're personally attached to the idea of having an eternal essence of some kind and being the obsession/creation of a divine being. Thus far you haven't provided any evidence that actually bolsters your cause. You've just been highlighting that science doesn't seem to care or ascribe the same amount of value you have for supernatural claims, and you assert it's incomplete and wrong. Yet you still failed to even attempt to address some pretty gaping holes in this argument, even down to the most basic caricature of Hawking provided by the opening video. This does nothing to support your argument. Support some of these claims. The field or neuroscience seems pretty huge and it contains a diverse body of work and thought, yet this narrative is being asserted again. Philosophy is again shackled onto the notions of a god or consciousness, without actually ever drilling down into something with some substance. What neuroscience community members say that philosophy is dead? How many of them? Do they have enough to represent a consensus? How many of them enjoy philosophy or practice applying neuroscience that were originally raised by philosophers? There's always this talk of how science can't be criticized, when it ruthlessly criticizes and scrutinizes itself while taking in outside criticism as well. You can't just demand that science appraises the things you value highly in the same regard without bringing something a bit more substantial to even start the discussion about it. However, I suspect you'll do about as well as theologians have done for the last three centuries.