SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " ideal " 236 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
California named one of the top US states to start a business. Here’s why
Finding the ideal location for your startup is “crucial,” one expert says.
49ers' 'ideal draft haul' revealed by PFF
The 49ers need help at receiver, edge rusher and offensive line in the 2026 draft.
Elon Musk warns Tesla employees over future of German megafactory
Elon Musk said that Tesla would "ideally" expand its only European gigafactory — with one condition.
Social science research on collective action wins National Science Foundation grant
Social scientist Nils Reimer and his team have secured a three-year National Science Foundation award to study double standards in how people judge protests according to idealogical affiliations.
Old-style politics beats youthful ideals in Thai election
Deep rooted patronage makes it hard for political outsiders, a defeated People's Party MP tells the BBC.
Ideal Power Business Update Webcast Call on February 26, 2026
/PRNewswire/ -- Ideal Power Inc. (Nasdaq: IPWR) ("Ideal Power," the "Company," "we," "us" or "our"), developer and provider of its innovative and widely...
"I Will Never Financially Recover From This": 29 People Who Woke Up One Morning And Watched Their Entire Lives Slowly Spiral Out Of Control
That, my friends, is not an ideal situation.
Xenoblade fans, it's happening! Nintendo a drops a surprise Switch 2 upgrade for Xenoblade Chronicles X with 60fps and more
4K/60fps support in TV mode, and 1080p/60fps when playing in handheld mode, and a $5 upgrade path - ideal, right?
Pixel 10a hands-on: Peak design, peaked specs
Google today fully detailed and opened pre-orders for its 2026 A-Series phone. The Pixel 10a is my platonic ideal of a smartphone.
Scientists want to put a super laser on the moon
An ultrastable laser could enable extremely precise timing and navigation on the moon, and the cold, dark craters near the lunar poles would be the ideal location for it
Bengals free agency: The best linebackers for Cincinnati to target
Leo Chenal seems like an ideal candidate to join the Cincinnati Bengals.
Record-Breaking One-Off Bugatti Brouillard Could Become the Most Expensive Bugatti Ever
A one-off aimed at a historic record Bugatti’s latest one-off, the Brouillard, steps onto the hypercar stage with the quiet confidence of a record-breaker. The brand’s tradition of bespoke excellence meets a bold new aesthetic, positioning this unique commission to potentially become the marque’s most expensive creation. Built on the proven underpinnings of the Chiron/Mistral architecture, yet transformed by distinctive craft, the Brouillard is both homage and innovation. A name born from equestrian legend More than a century ago, a striking white horse captivated Ettore Bugatti in Molsheim. That equine myth now informs the car’s name and its sensory identity. The result is an automotive portrait of athletic grace—surfaces that read like muscle, curves that suggest motion, and details that quietly speak of discipline and heritage. Embroidered horse motifs on door panels and seat backs echo the story, while a miniature glass sculpture of the steed crowns the shifter. Sculptural design with purpose The Brouillard’s silhouette favors sinuous surfaces over hard creases, allowing light to glide over its form like a tendon under skin. Aerodynamics inform elegance: an integrated ducktail replaces a deployable wing, cleansing the airflow and boosting stability at speed. Its stance is athletic, its volumes taut, and its visual language unmistakably Bugatti. “Sculptural, organic forms—like a tendon beneath the skin—hide immense power behind noble simplicity,” said design chief Frank Heyl, capturing the car’s philosophy in a single stroke. Craft elevated to an art The cabin embraces craftsmanship at an uncommon level. Custom-woven textiles from Paris introduce a discreet tartan pattern, while green-tinted carbon fiber nods to the exterior’s hue. A glazed roof creates a cathedral atmosphere, bathing the cockpit in natural light. A central spine appears to flow from exterior to interior, emphasizing continuity and structure. Highlights include: Custom textiles with subtle tartan motifs Green-tinted carbon fiber matched to the exterior finish A “cathedral” glass roof that elevates cabin ambience A sculptural centerline linking outside to inside Bespoke embroidery and glass equine detail W16 power at its absolute apex Under the sculpted skin, the final evolution of Bugatti’s 8.0‑liter, quad‑turbo W16 delivers a thunderous 1,600 hp at 7,050 rpm and 1,600 Nm of torque. This represents the pinnacle of nearly two decades of Bugatti engineering, honed to an ultimate state. The lightweight monocoque blends carbon fiber with aluminum, holding mass to around 1,900 kg for poise and control. Experts suggest the Brouillard could surpass the 282 mph (454 km/h) achieved by the Mistral, aided by more aerodynamic bodywork and the fixed ducktail. Whether or not it sets a new benchmark, its intent is clear: relentless speed paired with refinement. Exclusivity with an exacting timeline The commissioning process is intensive, with roughly 18 months of development leading to a 2027 delivery. Bugatti’s program limits itself to no more than two creations per year, ensuring focus and rarity. Each example leaves the atelier as a singular vision, shaped to the client’s collection and the brand’s ethos. An unveiling is planned for Monterey Car Week 2025, placing the Brouillard amid the world’s most discerning enthusiasts. Its patron is a European collector deeply invested in the Bugatti universe, from historic and modern cars to Carlo Bugatti furniture and Rembrandt Bugatti bronzes. A valuation poised to make history While Bugatti has not disclosed an official price, informed estimates place the Brouillard between €10 million and €30 million. Context matters: a series Mistral begins near €5 million, while the Brouillard adds profound personalization, sculptural changes, and a pace of production that keeps scarcity front and center. In an arena where uniqueness drives value, the path to a brand record is unmistakably open. What it signals for the marque The Brouillard crystallizes Bugatti’s dual identity: traditional savoir‑faire intertwined with boundary-pushing performance. It exhibits a narrative soul—the white horse of Molsheim—woven into modern materials and world-class aerodynamics. As a rolling statement, it reaffirms that the Bugatti idea is larger than speed alone; it is about story, craft, and the courage to pursue an ideal to its logical limit.
Lee Hamilton, towering figure in national politics with deep ties to IU, dies at 94
Lee Hamilton, a 17-term congressman serving southern Indiana, whose foreign policy expertise, reverence for democracy, and bipartisan ideals made him a towering and highly respected figure in national politics, died Wednesday. He was 94.
Capital Allocation Trends At Elevance Health (NYSE:ELV) Aren't Ideal
If we want to find a potential multi-bagger, often there are underlying trends that can provide clues. Typically, we'll...
The Ideal Post-Workout Snack to Recover and Build Muscle, According to a Dietitian
In TODAY.com's Expert Tip of the Day, a dietitian reveals her favorite snack to eat post-workout to aid with recovery and muscle growth.
Manu Ginobili among backers of new planned sports performance project in South Florida
Manu Ginobili is investing in South Florida’s potential with a new venture. The former San Antonio Spurs star is part of a group building the Sports Performance Hub in Homestead, Florida. It’ll be a next-generation sports, education and community development project. It will feature a 10,000-seat stadium for Miami FC, sports training facilities, a basketball facility, a boarding school and more. Groundbreaking is set for March, with plans to open in 2028. Ginobili, along with partners like Riccardo Silva and Juan Sebastian Veron, aims to connect sports training with academics. They believe Miami’s multicultural environment makes it an ideal location.
This High-Protein, High-Fiber Snack Is Ideal for Weight Loss Mid-Life, Dietitian Says
In TODAY.com's Expert Tip of the Day, a dietitian shares her favorite nutritious, filling snack for women dealing with weight gain during menopause.
Patriots take care of business vs. Big Reds, 63-47
PARKERSBURG — With the status of games for the week ahead in limbo due to inclement weather, Parkersburg South’s boys basketball coach Mike Fallon has the ideal solution for keeping his players conditioned. Shoveling snow. The directive might be serving a dual purpose after Fallon was visibly upset with his team’s performance down the stretch […]
Kuvings Announces New Line of Health-Boosting Juicers to Support 2026 Wellness Goals
Illinois, United StatesJanuary is the ideal time to invest in a Kuvings juicer for your health goals. With peak
Opinion | The curse of purity in Iranian politics
Time and again, idealism untethered from reality has brought ruin to Iran.
What Makes Men Attractive? Science Reveals the Ideal Body
Do muscles make the man? New research reveals that body fat and BMI play a bigger role in male attractiveness than most people think.
Lenovo’s new concept rollable could be the ideal gaming laptop
Gamers may have a new grail laptop.
LG’s fastest and brightest OLED gaming monitor is $999.99
The 720Hz mode is ideal for esports titles
The disunity of science is a feature, not a bug
Mathematical models wield miraculous power, but mistaking them for reality has trapped science in a destructive quest for a “Theory of Everything.” Physicist and philosopher Ragner Fjelland argues that this leads to bloated, Frankenstein theories kept alive by clumsy, ad-hoc amendments, which reduce rather than boost science’s power. Fjelland calls for a radical shift in our attitude: we must reorientate towards creating entirely new theories, celebrating rather than lamenting disunity and diversity in science. Science, from the scientific revolution in the seventeenth century to the present day, has more or less developed in a “reductionist” way. The fundamental assumption is that all sciences may be ordered in a hierarchy that can be represented as an upside-down pyramid. At the top we find the human sciences, and at the bottom physics. Strong (or “ontological”) reductionism maintains that all theories at one level can be completely reduced to the lower level, all the way down to theories of atoms and elementary particles, or whatever is “at the bottom.” In the end, all diversity in the world can be unified in one fundamental theory. Hence it is called a final theory, or a Theory of Everything.One of the central figures in developing the idea of a Theory of Everything is the Dutch theoretical physicist Gerard 't Hooft, who received a Nobel Prize in physics in 1999 for his work. He emphasizes the non-empirical status of the theory:There exists no closely resembling alternative theory. This means that any slight change brought about in the rules would make the theory unlikely or inelegant. The theory will be a "package deal": take it, or leave it. This should hold both for the local laws and for the boundary conditions.This endeavor is not new. On the contrary, it goes all the way back to the birth of Western philosophy 2,500 years ago. The Babylonians made regular astronomical observations during a period of 600 years, from 747 BCE until 150 ACE. They developed mathematical techniques to predict astronomical phenomena, but they made no attempts at explaining them. However, the Greeks developed models, both material and theoretical, to explain the observed phenomena.The best example is Plato’s late dialogue Timaeus. Here he introduces a divine craftsman, the Demiurge, who has constructed the universe according to an original plan. Plato seems to have thought that the original plan is what is actually real, while the material world is merely an imperfect realization of it. He therefore does not, in the Timaeus, reconstruct the material universe, but the original plan, which can then be used to explain the material universe.Plato’s aim in producing a theoretical model is to reconstruct the original plan. That is what he carries out in Timaeus—and some modern physicists have embarked on the same project. For example, Einstein’s basic attitude is reflected in the title of Abraham Pais’ biography: “Subtle is the Lord...,” echoing Einstein’s comment, “Subtle is the Lord, but malicious He is not.” In an interview Einstein compared our situation to a child who enters a huge library. The child knows that someone has written the books, but he does not know the languages in which they are written. He suspects that there is a mysterious order, but he does not know what it is.___“We have all been working in what Husserl called the Galilean style; that is, we have all been making abstract mathematical models of the universe to which at least the physicists give a higher degree of reality than they accord the ordinary world of sensation.”Steven Weinberg, Nobel Prize in Physics (1979)___This Platonist view is contrary to a widespread impression of science, symbolized by the picture of the “father” of modern science, Galileo Galilei, with his telescope. According to this impression, Galileo liberated himself from the dominating metaphysics of his day—basically Aristotelian philosophy—and constructed a telescope that he directed towards the sky, showing that Jupiter has four moons. He also performed experiments with bronze balls rolling down inclined planes and found the law of freely falling bodies.However, in other cases Galileo emphasized the unreliability of our senses. It is easy to see why. He defended Copernicus’ heliocentric hypothesis. According to this hypothesis, we are not at rest at the center of the universe, but moving at a tremendous speed through space. Why don’t we observe this motion? Galileo praises Copernicus because “with reason as his guide he resolutely continued to affirm what sensible experience seemed to contradict.” In other places he directly refers to Plato. SUGGESTED VIEWING The quest for a final theory With Michio Kaku Galileo’s Platonism goes back to his early writings. In The Assayer, published as early as 1623, Galileo compared the universe to a grand book that is written in the language of mathematics, and “its characters are triangles, circles, and other geometric figures without which it is humanly impossible to understand a single word of it.” Therefore, things that cannot be described by mathematics—for example, colors, smells and odors—are not real. They are merely subjective.This division into subjective and objective, advocated by Galileo and his younger contemporary René Descartes, is normally associated with a mechanistic world view, which is regarded as the opposite of Platonism. When we reduce something to, for example, molecules and atoms, we move “downwards.” In contrast, the Platonist moves “upwards,” to abstract entities. However, it only shows that when we address fundamental questions, we should be careful in applying everyday spatial metaphors like “up” and “down.”___Nature is complex, and we cannot in general construct mathematical models that adequately describe the world.___The endeavor of finding a Theory of Everything has been heavily criticized. In 2006, the theoretical physicist Lee Smolin published “The Crisis in Fundamental Physics.” He argued that one of the most fundamental principles of science is that we should only regard theories as scientific if we have the possibility to show that they are false by experiments. Although he did not refer to Karl Popper, other critics have referred to Popper and argued that a theory is not scientific if it cannot be falsified (see for example Ellis & Silk 2014).These were not the first physicists to be anti-reductionists. In 1972, the journal Science published an article by the physicist Philip Anderson with the title “More Is Different.” This is the kind of article a scientist would normally write only after he has won a Nobel Prize. However, Anderson won the Nobel Prize for physics five years later, in 1977. The article is amazing, not primarily because it argues in favor of anti-reductionism in general, but because it argues for anti-reductionism within physics itself. Anderson’s conclusion was:At each stage entirely new laws, concepts, and generalizations are necessary, requiring inspiration and creativity to just as great a degree as in the previous one. Psychology is not applied biology, nor is biology applied chemistry.We may say that Plato started the “unity of science movement,” based on Euclidean geometry as the model of all knowledge. A distinguishing mark of geometry is that all possible constructions can be reduced to a few fundamental principles. We have to acknowledge that this approach has limitations. In general, we can easily model technological systems. In addition, we may construct simplified and idealized models that capture important aspects of systems, from various perspectives and for various purposes. But nature is complex, and we cannot in general construct mathematical models that adequately describe the world. In a complex system, each level has its distinct, emergent, properties that are characteristic of this level. Therefore, a complex system should be investigated at different levels and from different perspectives. Instead of exclusively pursuing a scientific ideal based on the unity of science, we should acknowledge the diversity—or even the disunity—of science.
She goes to police calls in a Prius. It's part of new approach to mental health emergencies
San Mateo adopted a new approach to mental health 911 calls by pairing police with mental health clinicians. Researchers found that it reduced the number of future mental health emergency calls and involuntary psychiatric holds by roughly 17%.
Anna’s Archive claims Spotify scrape to ‘preserve culture’
: Anna’s Archive’s idealism doesn’t quite survive its own blog post
Steam Deck's biggest competitor is now just $489 — Enjoy Xbox and PC titles on the go with this gaming handheld for Christmas
Even as a modest, non-X sibling, the Xbox Ally is a great Windows alternative to Steam Deck, ideal for cloud gaming and more.
"MicroProse and Geoff Crammond Reunite to Revive a Racing Legend"
MicroProse is excited to announce its renewed partnership with legendary game developer Geoff Crammond, creator of some of the most influential racing simulation games of the 1990s and early 2000s. Together, we are bringing back his groundbreaking racing game engine in a re-release of the original game technology, enhanced with updates, new tools, and Steam Workshop support, through the upcoming Geoff Crammond Racing series: GCR1, GCR2, GCR3, and GCR4, scheduled to release in 2026. These titles are being reintroduced under new names to reflect our independent direction and to ensure full separation from any official motorsport licensing. While the names are new, the core simulation engine, physics systems, and pioneering gameplay features developed by Geoff Crammond remain at the heart of each release. Geoff Crammond’s original work helped define the foundations of modern racing games, introducing innovations such as advanced real-time physics, highly configurable driving assists (including the ideal racing line, steering help and auto braking), realistic AI driver behaviour, deep telemetry analysis, comprehensive car setup systems, extensive wet weather system, and the list goes on. The GCR series proudly carries this legacy forward. Steam Workshop support will enable the community to create and share custom tracks, cars, liveries, teams, drivers and more. This reunion marks the beginning of a long-term partnership between MicroProse and Geoff Crammond, with further announcements in the series to come. MicroProse is officially back on the track at full speed. GCR1 Steam Page GCR2 Steam Page GCR3 Steam Page GCR4 Steam Page -- MicroProse, founded in 1982, is a world-famous simulation software company known for developing groundbreaking classics and new blockbuster titles such as Falcon, HighFleet, B-17 The Mighty Eighth, Ground Branch, Gunship and many more! Today, MicroProse is not only remaking select classics from its past but also paving the road to next-generation, state of the art games that will create the memories and experiences of new generations of gamers.
Scientists have been studying the exoplanet TRAPPIST-1 e. Could it harbor alien life? : Short Wave
Want to be a top notch candidate for hosting alien life? Then there's a few key requirements you should be aware of: Ideally, you're a large object like a moon or a planet; scientists suspect you also have an atmosphere and water; plus, you should orbit your star from a nice mid-range distance — in the "Goldilocks Zone" of habitability. Until recently, you would be competing against TRAPPIST-1 e. It's a planet outside of our solar system. TRAPPIST-1 e is also only 40 light years away, rocky and the same size as Earth, which prompted researchers to investigate whether it also has an atmosphere — and the potential for alien life. A team of researchers has been investigating TRAPPIST-1 e to learn more about its potential. Their answers, recently published in the Astrophysical Journal Letters, say a lot not just about this exoplanet, but about how scientists should refocus their hunt for alien life.Interested in more space science? Email us your question at shortwave@npr.org.Listen to every episode of Short Wave sponsor-free and support our work at NPR by signing up for Short Wave+ at plus.npr.org/shortwave.
iFixit Launches Free iOS Repair App With AI-Powered FixBot
iFixit today announced the launch of a new iFixit app that's available to download from Apple's App Store (and the Play Store on Android devices). It includes all of the iFixit repair guides in a format that's ideal for mobile devices, along with a workbench that keeps track of repairs, a battery lifespan predictor, and an AI repair buddy called FixBot. The iFixit repair app is able to monitor an iPhone's battery in real time, providing graphs of how a battery deteriorates over time.
Tiempo: Ideal School of Allied Health Care on Long Island mentors next generation of caregivers
The Ideal School of Allied Health Care on Long Island prepares people for jobs like medical assistants and much more.
Are you sleeping too much? New research reveals how many hours adults really need for brain health | - The Times of India
New research reveals the ideal sleep duration for optimal brain health, suggesting that both too little and too much sleep can lead to cognitive decline. Explore the findings from recent studies and understand how sleep quality influences brain function.
How Donald Trump brings MAGA ideals into global politics
In his second term, US President Donald Trump has taken his MAGA movement global, criticizing election outcomes, climate change initiatives and migration policy while backing populist presidential candidates.
What does Finebaum’s move mean for the US Senate race? Here’s what the candidates are saying
One political observer said the field remains open for a late entrant, ideally "another Katie Britt."
What would the ideal CFP model look like? 👀
What would the ideal CFP model look like? 👀
Science must move from materialism to mystery
Theoretical physicist and neuroscientist Àlex Gómez-Marín argues that modern science has become trapped in a framework that mistakes matter for the whole of reality. In this wide-ranging interview, Gómez-Marín challenges the foundations of materialism, defends the scientific study of near-death experiences, and calls for a new type of science grounded in mystery and a renewed sense of the sacred. He suggests that abandoning materialism could open the door to a deeper understanding of consciousness, death, and the purpose of human existence. Simon Custer: You are both a theoretical physicist and a neuroscientist, and you have also been fiercely critical of materialist theories of mind and consciousness. What do you think the ultimate nature of reality is?Àlex Gómez-Marín: I don't know what the ultimate nature of reality is, but what I try to first assess is whether the stories that they [mainstream science] have told us about it are right, or maybe whether there are other alternatives. That's why I've been a fierce critic of materialism. As a scientist, I realized that they had sold us this idea that to be a good scientist you also had to subscribe to many other -isms, like materialism, reductionism, and even secularism. And so first I think one needs to unmount these -isms, and then, as is happening today in consciousness studies, we have a huge landscape where there isn't only one game in town, the idea that matter is the only thing that really exists. But because we are studying the hard problem of consciousness, it may be the case that other views of reality, like idealism, or even dualism, or other theories like dual aspect monism... these are philosophical ideas that now, I think, have room in science to be taken seriously. How does something like materialism relate to dualism or idealism? What is materialism in the first place?Well, materialism is the philosophical position that matter is the only really ‘real’ thing in the universe. And I think that worked kind of well because science started 400 years ago and Galileo made that split, I call it the foundational wound. It was a great business move.He said, let's start doing science on that portion of reality that lends itself more easily to mathematization and measurement. So, for some reason, the solidity of this table or the movement of planets lend themselves very well to this foundational idea of science. But as time went on, 400 years later, we realized that we had forgotten the other side, which is what really matters.What really matters is pain, is love, is feelings, sensation, consciousness, which is very hard to define, but very intimate. We all know what it is. It's that thing that disappears when we go into deep sleep and comes back in the morning. SUGGESTED VIEWING On the edges of knowledge With Michael Shermer, Rupert Sheldrake, Güneş Taylor It's what it is like to be, as Nagel said. It's the feeling of being alive. So, materialism is good to study certain things, but then when it ossifies into this ideology and then is dressed like science, now it's preventing us from understanding these key questions that are really that everybody wants to know.Why are we here? Why do we feel reality? Where do we go when we die? And so we need other ways. We need pluralism. I'm only asking for having more options on the table and taking them seriously. Why does materialism fail to explain consciousness? For example, if you were to lobotomize me, I would not be a functional human being. What do you say to someone who might think that materialism adequately explains the mind?Well, here we could speak about different things. We could talk about physics or about neuroscience. I happen to have training with both.For instance, for neuroscientists, 99% of them, I'm not included in that portion, believe that the brain can only be a productive organ. It's an organ that somehow, somewhere, consciousness emerges. It's like a lamp. And then something happens, magic happens, and then consciousness emerges.That's the position you need to be if you're a materialist because if the only really ‘real’ thing is matter, then you need to say, just give us some more time and money and we'll figure out how mind emerges or is produced from matter. There are many philosophically sophisticated ways of criticizing this.Now there's another option, which is the brain as a permissive organ. This was said by William James more than 100 years ago.Now then the brain wouldn't be like this machine, like for instance, a heat engine whose smoke is consciousness, which is what we would have in the first big model, the productive model. But in the permissive model, the brain would be a kind of a filter. And so the brain would still have a very important role in consciousness, but it wouldn't be a productive role.It would be permissive, much like a filter or much like a prism which would receive light. And - I'm speaking metaphorically - it would receive the light of the mind and then it could reflect it and refract it.Now, with these two big options on the table, I think we can make progress into what I call the edges of consciousness, which are all these experiences, weird experiences that many people have, but we don't talk about enough, like near-death experiences, precognitive dreams, synchronicities. These experiences are very important for humans and they have a place in the permissive hypothesis and they are literally impossible in the productive hypothesis. So that's yet one more reason to explore alternatives to materialism. There may be anecdotal evidence for near-death experiences, but is there robust evidence that would be accepted by the majority of scientists who subscribe to the scientific method?Sure. And the plural of anecdotes, someone said, is data.And there's a lot of data. Actually, this year is the 50th anniversary, half a century, since Dr. Raymond Moody realized that we have two ears and one mouth and started listening to what his patients had to say about their experiences while they were clinically dead.The heart had stopped, breathing had stopped in these patients. These patients would come back and tell him these amazing stories that some people may say are hallucinations, but for the patients were hyper-real, like seeing light at the end of the tunnels, seeing deceased family members waiting for them, feeling bliss.___I would say the evidence suggests that the mind can survive the death of activity of the brain.___And so he and others started taking them seriously and writing their accounts down. And then you can do a science based on that material of experience that people have. Now, on the more objective side, more recently people have started to measure what's going on in the brain when people are clinically dead and brought back. This has opened a proper field of study, which is near-death studies.Evidence is a difficult word, because sometimes people think that when you say evidence, this is just the final proof. Evidence is like in a jury. You bring testimony, you bring pieces of data that point in one direction or another.I would say the evidence suggests that the mind can survive the death of activity of the brain. When brains are broken or shut off, there can still be mind going on. And that's revolutionary.That would entail that when we die, it's not game over, which, by the way, is the thesis of materialism. If consciousness survives, materialism dies. It's game over for materialism if something of us continues after we die. Do you think that there is mental continuity after death?Well, I think so, and I believe so, and I could also say I may have experienced it myself, because four years ago I had a near-death experience. I was in the hospital, I lost a lot of blood, and I saw those beings at the end of the tunnel, three beings, and there was yellow light. I was in a well, I was looking upwards, and I hadn't read about NDEs by then, but when I came back from this experience, I decided I would try to integrate this also in my professional life. Not just my personal life, of course, but my professional life as a physicist and as a neuroscientist. So I may have had the experience of glimpses of what an afterlife would be, and I'm not ashamed to say it in this way, and then one can do science of it, and then one can do philosophy of it.One can think about what -isms we were discussing, what views on reality would allow those experiences to be really ‘real,’ as opposed to, well, poor guy, the brain was kind of broken, it must have been a hallucination. Do you have a view about whether individuality or “the ego” persists after death, or whether we sort of merge into some sort of cosmic consciousness instead?I don't know, but my view would be along those lines you're suggesting. I think we could speak about a kind of universal mind, and then the problem is not how we emerge from matter, but how we fragment from a more holistic consciousness into these individual eddies and then when we die, this kind of dissipates.But I'm not sure. For instance, idealism would promote that view, but then what would survive of us after these eddies just vanish and become again the big Consciousness, I'm not sure what that would be. I don't know for sure, but I would tell you I believe something of us survives.And there are other lines of research, not just near-death experience, that can address this really hard question of survival. For instance, there are children who remember previous lives. This was studied by Ian Stevenson at the University of Virginia for more than 50 years.___Research takes place within a selection mechanism that also sometimes reinforces things that are not very scientific.___It's amazing research. He went all over the world, especially in the East, and collected all these case studies, all these stories. In plural, these were data of kids, very young age, who would describe up to 40 items that then he could go and verify.There was no internet. There was really no way the kid could know. Why would the kid say that when I was living in this other body and I was a woman and that's how my house would look like or that's how I would die, right? Again, there is evidence, not proof, but there's evidence not only that something weird and interesting is happening as we cross the threshold, but also when we come back to this life.Scientists should not be afraid of studying this, but they are because there's stigma. There's usually stigma upon the enigma, and this is so unfortunate. And one of the reasons is because of the ideology of materialism, because those things cannot be possible. What is wrong with the politics of science such that they have generated this stigma?So many things. Science is a human activity to begin with.So it falls prey to all our passions and ego and greed. That's one thing. Science is a job for the good and for the bad.You need to get a salary. You need to get grants. Research takes place within a selection mechanism that also sometimes reinforces things that are not very scientific.And then, we didn't have time to unpack this, but science for many years become entangled, as I was suggesting before, to other -isms, materialism, secularism. So anything that smells like the afterlife, people may think has to do with God, and then they freak out.Anything that suggests that there's something about the mind that may not need a physical material substrate to exist, it smells like non-materialism. So, all these -isms are ideologically blocking that kind of research, and then there are all these sociopolitical constraints as to what should be studied and what shouldn't be studied.I call it the backstage of science. Sometimes we scientists or science communicators seem to speak as if the data is the only thing that matters. We say, well, data and theory.But then there's a third leg of this stool, which is all the politics that goes behind the scenes. And we often don't speak about this, and it's quite vicious and petty, and it's very real. Why is materialism so attractive to most scientists?Well, an easy answer is because we've grown up with it.It's what the educational system promotes, and that's what you hear when you go to university. So it's like growing in a culture. It feels like the air in which you breathe.So it's very hard to begin with to detect, well, maybe there's another alternative. Maybe there are other ways of doing science, other environments in which one could do science. That's one reason.And other reasons maybe are more profound, and I'm not qualified to explain them, but I could say, looking at this 400-year history of science, since it started around 1623 with Galileo's book The Assayer, that science went and coupled with all what's going on in the West.And so the fall of religion, you could say, and science presented us this new alternative that then could be coupled very well with other -isms, and this idea of growth, and then science losing its good twin brother, which was philosophy. There's a whole natural history of science starting as philosophy, kind of emancipating or breaking out from philosophy, and then marrying technology, and then marrying other social systems.From that point of view, materialism is a very convenient idea to propose. There were attempts, like the German idealists tried to do a more romantic science. But no, the idea prevailed, like Francis Bacon said: You should pursue nature through all her corners, he said, and make her spill her secrets.Our attitude towards nature in the science that dominates is very much reflecting how we treat nature in our society, in our culture, like a resource to extract secrets by force and then dominate it. How is materialism related to the notions of growth and progress? What's wrong with having a productive citizenry?This is another very interesting and very difficult question to answer.But there's this recent book coming out by Paul Kingsnorth. In it, he explains this idea of the machine and this idea of progress. And this, again, this conflation of more is better, of we need to go forward always, and convincing us that the way to do that is to continually extract more from nature. But because we don't have the religious context anymore, because God is dead, then what do we have? We have what we can do as humans with our own gadgets.It's kind of the story of the Promethean fire. We will just build anything to make ourselves God.A good example today is transhumanism. Transhumanism is this pseudo-religion dressed in technoscientific language whose goal is very religious. They promise immortality, they promise redemption, they promise transformation of the entire natural world, but it's done by human means through technology. Are you suggesting that we can't have ethics without religion?Well, we should have ethics with or without religion. That's another pruning that has happened in science. We say, forget about aesthetics, although some physicists still think that beautiful means probably true, and forget about politics. We pretend there's no backstage of science, and even let's forget about ethics.___Science needs to be in the service of mankind.___Scientists, when they become more like engineers, they're just thinking how to make things work so that they can go to the moon, go to Mars, make machines that think, but they don't think whether that's a good idea.And also consider metaphysics. Many scientists for a long time pretended, and maybe that comes from the stream of positivisms, that really one doesn't need metaphysics at all, except that materialism is always the metaphysics running the system.You see, it's not just ethics. It's the pruning of all of these, you could say, five main legs of philosophy that just makes a kind of unconscious science, a science that doesn't really know what it's doing. It's doing it very well locally, but it just doesn't know what it's doing globally. Do you think science has to have an ultimate vision and purpose behind it for it to be effective or for it to be meaningful and transformative?Yes, a way I would say that is that science needs to be in the service of mankind. And it hasn't been that. And we can see it through, you know, when we discovered the secrets of the atom, and all of a sudden, the Manhattan Project, and then we create nuclear weapons.And now we're trying to crack how machines may think, and now we're creating this mess, right? So science needs to be in service of mankind, not in service of a few ideas that maybe want to make more money or just dominate upon nature. What about planes, trains, automobiles, and modern medicine? Hasn't science served mankind by helping us develop those technologies?Yes and no. I see where you're going, and it's fair.I came here by plane, and it's a blessing. When I almost died, the surgeons did their job, and they saved my life. But these two forced choices between Luddites and Silicon Valley types, I think, of course, it's a false dichotomy.Progress, in a way, it's good, but we often don't speak about the dark side of the moon. We say the great things that progress has brought, and we don't speak about the disasters, the side effects that it has come with, and the same when we promise new technologies. We tend to think that any technology is great, that email is going to save us so much time because we don't need to write letters and send them anymore.Is that true? I spend so many hours a week writing emails. Let's just say there are great things about it and bad things about it. People like Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker, for example, argue that we've made moral progress over time because of the Enlightenment. Do you think that's totally wrong-headed?I think he's emphasizing a side of the moon, and he does that very well, and you can find tons of plots where there's a slope going up and say it's great. But I think he should also tell the not-so-friendly story.But if your ideology is just to resist and continue to explain that the Enlightenment is the best thing ever and reason is the best thing ever… this feels to me like you're worshipping these abstractions.I'm very critical of it and also of these, again, science communicators and scientists that say, Oh, science says, in the name of science, experts say. It's like, come on, let's be careful because we can shoot ourselves in the foot by putting forth to the people an image of science that we know is not really true. Recently there's been a resurgence of spirituality and of people who say that they're spiritual but not religious, especially in the United States. If materialism is going away, what is going to fill that gap? Are we going to return to traditional religion? Do you see that being connected with the rise of the political right?I'm not a fortune teller, so I don't know what's going to happen. But, yeah, we could say we're in this post-materialist age and even post-secular age. One cannot come back to the past, but maybe just to contact with the roots is a good idea.What do I mean by that? I think we need to do a science 2.0, a science that says thank you to Galileo and thank you to materialism, but we need to reinvent even a new kind of scientific method. We need to do so in a culture where we realize humans cannot thrive in a vacuum where there's this idea that the sacred has to be removed.Now, how do we do that without bringing in back all the vices of religion? I don't know. I'm from a Catholic country.Here we are in England, so there are differences and interreligious dialogue has always been a challenge. But I think maybe a way of putting it is: after all these conflicts and branchings I was quickly alluding to, science from philosophy and then also from religion, now there's a time of reconciliation perhaps and maybe debates in the proper sense, like exchange of ideas in service of learning and getting into something higher than both poles. We need science to talk to religious people and it's interesting when people say they're spiritual and not religious.I think this is just a way of saying, no, I don't want to go back, I want to go forward. But at the end of the day, religions have offered us practices and grounding that we now desperately need. Everybody can and should just meditate or pray or do whatever they want, but we're in a crisis and it's time for reconciliation. What do you say to critics that say you are merely projecting our need for meaning onto a fundamentally indifferent universe?Yeah, I know that the typical science communicator says something like this. But we're not projecting. Human beings feed on meaning.It's the other way around. If you're a materialist, because the only thing that there is is matter, all that comes next, free will, consciousness, meaning, this is a kind of illusion that we need to explain.They're just craving for meaning, but there isn't really for them. I would also like to remind my materialist friends that for decades, if not centuries, they've said in the name of science, we know that this and this and this doesn't really exist. I think now they sense they're forced to say, well, actually, we don't know. We've been saying, for instance, that there's nothing after you die, and now probably they need to admit that they don't know the answer.___We need to do a science 2.0, a science that says thank you to Galileo and thank you to materialism, but we need to reinvent even a new kind of scientific method.___So it's a moment to open up possibilities and also to gently but fiercely critique these claims that I think harm society. If you say in the name of science, get on with it, when your father dies, you'll never see him again. Well, what the F do you know about it? You haven't studied the literature, you haven't had any of those experiences, and basically what you're doing is you're just doing marketing on ideology. This needs to stop. Do you think that it's scarier for some people to entertain the thought that there might be life after death, compared to a materialist worldview where you just die, given that there might be consequences for unsavory behaviour?Well, death and dying is scary. It's maybe the ultimate ending. It's a limit on life, and when we're in this conquest mode, we don't like limits.And it also has, there's a shockwave backwards, so I think if you change your notion of what death is or may be, you live differently. It also has consequences, as you're saying, for the future because this is not our only goal here and we come back in whatever form. And again, different religions would say different things. I the East, they are more happy with the idea of reincarnation, and here in the West, there are other preferences. But in any case, it changes how we live, and that's really what matters.It's not about just projecting or imagining what we'll be after, but how we live now and also how we treat those who are dying. So it goes from the individual to the families, to the hospitals.Now in the near-death research I do, this has ramifications at all these levels, all the way to society.But our society is thanatophobic. It has a phobia of death. We don't want to hear about death, and this is another thing we need to put on the table and be willing to talk about it. Do you think that we might get closer to answering ultimate questions like why is there anything at all if we jettison materialism?That’s an excellent question, Simon. Two things: we should stop treating reality, I believe, as a great sudoku, as an enigma, as something that with intelligence, money, and time that we will crack and instead treat reality more like a mystery. And what you do for in front of a mystery is not to be the clever guy in a class and say “I’ll solve you” but more like “I will bow and you will transform me.”I know this sounds a bit like a scientist speaking like a mystic. But I think this reorientation is needed. In the end, we won’t crack the big questions, but they will transform us. If we free ourselves from this prison of materialism, the way we will explore these questions will be freer, more creative, and in service of mankind. Do you think exploring mystery is the reason why we are here?I think we are here because, and this pseudo-theological argument I’m making off the cuff, But the One, the Absolute, if there is such a thing, had everything except limitation. We are that absolute experiencing that contingency. It’s like an act of divine proprioception. It’s a wonderful adventure, it’s just incredible to be alive. Perhaps we have forgotten why we are here and the whole point is to experience the flesh.Let me end by saying this. I criticize materialism harshly. I bang on this dead horse, because I think it’s dead. But matter is a great mystery. So maybe my invitation is as follows: hey materialist friends, come here, let’s work on materialism 2.0! Consciousness is a mystery, but matter is also a mystery. The fact that we can have an intersubjective experience consensus, the fact that we can apply mathematics, that we can measure things... the physical world we take for granted, but it is a great mystery too.Maybe that’s related to your last question: why are we here? Why did spirit decide to incarnate? Being in the flesh may be a great thing if spirit decided to do so.Àlex Gómez-Marín, thank you very much.My pleasure.