SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " difficult " 847 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
It’s been a difficult year for science. Here’s what researchers say about the future : Short Wave
Science in the United States took some big hits this year. The Trump Administration disrupted federal funding for all kinds of scientific pursuits. Administration officials say those changes were a step towards reinvigorating federal agencies like the National Institutes of Health. But many scientists disagree. NPR health and science correspondents Rob Stein and Katia Riddle chat with host Emily Kwong about what these cuts could mean for the future of science.Interested in more stories on the future of 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.
Burnley 1-3 Newcastle: What Howe and Joelinton said
Newcastle boss Eddie Howe, speaking to BBC's Match of the Day: "We needed to win because we knew we were under pressure. I thought the lads responded really well, it was a really fast start. We scored some really good goals and then, us being us at this present time, we made it difficult for ourselves.
Healthy-sounding buzzwords could be hiding added sugar in plain sight
Added sugars are difficult to quickly spot because many companies use clever marketing to distract consumers, said Nicole Avena, a professor of neuroscience and psychiatry at Mount Sinai Medical School and Princeton University
New Jersey Devils Prospect Update: Winter Prospect Awards
As another year is about to end, we take a look at the prospect pool and dish out some mid-season awards. Best Breakout Season — Gustav Hillstrom The breakout star in the Devils pool this season out of the gate has been Gustav Hillstrom, and while difficulties cracking and earning quality minutes in the SHL […]
Coffee shop, nonprofit that hires adults with disabilities struggling with business
Spencer’s Place, a nonprofit and coffee shop that employs people with disabilities, is having a difficult time with one of its locations in Surprise.
Stop & Shop Closing Store / Chick-fil-A Proposal Rejected: CT Business News
2 Starbucks Stores Close / Mass Layoffs Announced / Stop & Shop Closes 2 Facilities In "Difficult" Decision & More: CT Business News 2025
‘They saved my life’: Ochsner Health patients share stories of hope and healing
Louisianans turn to Ochsner Health when it matters most. Each situation is different, yet Ochsner patients share common threads – hope found during difficult moments, a team approach and care
Surprising Celtics look to add to Blazers' road woes
Not having Jayson Tatum was supposed to make things extremely difficult for the Boston Celtics.
I Used To See To Catch A Predator As Entertainment, But This New Documentary Has Completely Changed That
This was a difficult watch...
Fighting a health insurance denial? Here are some tips to help.
Denials can be appealed, but nearly half of insured adults who received a prior authorization denial in the past two years reported the appeals process was either somewhat or very difficult.
Mental health experts highlight depression treatment challenges during holidays
For some, the holidays, a time most see as a time of joy, can be a difficult season, and mental health experts are pointing to resources available to provide help.
Mental health experts highlight depression treatment challenges during holidays
For some, the holidays, a time most see as a time of joy, can be a difficult season, and mental health experts are pointing to resources available to provide help.
How one politically divided family keeps the peace during the holidays
Talking about politics over the holidays can be difficult for many families, even for politicians themselves. One politically divided family in Colorado makes sure get along, especially during the holidays.
Cronos: The New Dawn Is Getting An Easy Difficulty Setting In Early 2026
"We've heard your voices"
Scott’s Addition parking enforcement changes spark mixed reactions from residents, business owners
New parking enforcement measures will begin Jan. 5 in Scott's Addition, with timed-parking zones in high-demand commercial corridors while residential blocks maintain free parking. Residents and business owners expressed mixed reactions, with many worried the changes will make parking more difficult for people visiting breweries and restaurants.
Streeting says NHS ‘coping’ during resident doctors’ strike but faces difficult recovery over Christmas
Five-day industrial action is due to end tomorrow, and health secretary says talks will resume in new year
Patriots-Ravens Preview
Mike Vrabel knows as well as anyone how difficult it is to stop Derrick Henry.
Get the AirPods Pro 3 for $199 on Amazon With Christmas Delivery
It's getting more and more difficult to find good deals with guaranteed Christmas delivery, but today Amazon has a match of the record low price on the AirPods Pro 3, as well as delivery before December 25. There's also a solid discount on the AirPods 4 on Amazon, but holiday delivery dates are slipping into late December for that one. Note: MacRumors is an affiliate partner with some of these vendors.
Previewing the 2026 Schedules
Here’s a look at the schedule difficulty for the Big Ten teams based on the current SP+ rankings of their opponents.
Sacramento Restaurants Pay Less After Entertainment Permit Changes
Changes made to the city’s entertainment permits will raise prices for some, while lowering the difficulty and cost enough for others to finally become aboveboard
UCF out to continue strong start as it hosts Mercer
Since taking over as head coach in 2016, Johnny Dawkins has always prioritized putting together a difficult nonconference schedule at UCF.
Angie Nixon still mulling political future as 2026 nears
Compounding Nixon’s Senate hopes, and likely fueling her delay in making a decision, is a difficult, if not nonexistent, path to victory statewide.
On Politics: Republicans are giving Kathy Hochul a re-election gift
It was already going to be hard for Elise Stefanik, the Republican congresswoman, to beat Gov. Kathy Hochul next year.Now she’ll have to contend with Bruce Blakeman, who recently announced his plans to run for governor and will, at the minimum, make life more difficult for her in the Republican primary. Stefanik has come out swinging against the Nassau County executive, attacking him as a perennial candidate who is too liberal for Republican primary voters.Stefanik should win. A large chunk of the GOP primary vote is concentrated north of the New York City suburbs, where she is strongest. She has the support of the state party chair, Ed Cox, and a wide array of politicians and local organizations. She is a loyal ally of Donald Trump and a frequent presence on cable TV.
Clair Obscur's new Endless Tower bosses are providing quite the challenge for returning players
Whether it's rust or because the bosses are just artificially hard, Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 players are reeling at the free DLC's difficulty.
National Avenue businesses losing customers to construction
A major reconstruction project hasn't even begun, but work moving underground utilities has made access to parking and some businesses difficult.
Horse Tracks: Broncos are the ‘overdogs’
Immediately following the Broncos’ playoff-clinching win over the Packers, CBS’ lead sideline reporter Tracy Wolfson asked Bo Nix what the “underdog Broncos team showed against a really difficult Packers team?” “That we’re the overdogs,” the quarterback said without skipping a beat. Yeah. Take that, sports pundits. The Denver Broncos are the overdogs. “Every unit played […]
Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 fans can't get over just how difficult the Update's new bosses and challenges are now
Clair Obscur: Expedition 33's new patch shadow-dropped earlier this week, and Sandfall Interactive sure wasn't kidding …
A grad student’s wild idea triggers a major aging breakthrough
Senescent “zombie” cells are linked to aging and multiple diseases, but spotting them in living tissue has been notoriously difficult. Researchers at Mayo Clinic have now taken an inventive leap by using aptamers—tiny, shape-shifting DNA molecules—to selectively tag these elusive cells. The project began as an offbeat conversation between two graduate students and quickly evolved into a collaborative, cross-lab effort that uncovered aptamers capable of binding to unique surface proteins on senescent cells.
The New WHO Pandemic Treaty and Global Health Governance: Incorporating Common but Differentiated Responsibilities into PABS - Georgetown Journal of International Affairs
On May 20, 2025, the World Health Assembly unanimously adopted the World Health Organization (WHO) Pandemic Agreement, an international treaty designed to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response. The product of three years of arduous negotiations, the treaty marks a new era of global cooperation in public health. However, core aspects of the agreement remain unresolved—notably the Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing (PABS) System, which is intended to ensure equitable access to pandemic-related materials and benefits. To support the successful implementation of the WHO Pandemic Agreement, the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities” should be formally incorporated into the negotiating agenda of the PABS annex. Introduction For the first time, an international treaty has enshrined the principle of “One Health,” the compelling idea that the health of animals, humans, and the environment all contribute to pandemic risks. SARS (2003), H1N1 (2009–10), Ebola (2014–16), and COVID-19 all emerged through zoonotic spillover from animal hosts—respectively, civets, hogs, and bats. Together, they underscore the need for a coordinated, cross-sectoral approach. The Pandemic Agreement responds to this call, requiring state parties to acknowledge the ecological interplay and commit to a comprehensive “One Health” strategy. Specifically, Article 5 charges governments to address “the drivers of pandemics and the emergence and re-emergence of infectious disease at the human-animal-environment interface,” including wild animal markets, deforestation, and antibiotic overuse. Yet the effectiveness of this “One Health” vision depends equally on the free flow of scientific information and data among countries and institutions. Just as environmental and animal health factors have been neglected in past global frameworks, so too has data sharing been marginalized, despite its centrality to timely detection and response. The Pandemic Agreement takes an important step by requiring governments to enhance data collection and cooperate with the World Health Organization (WHO). However, these provisions will remain aspirational without a robust Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing (PABS) annex. The PABS system will determine whether countries and researchers can rapidly exchange pathogen samples and genetic data while ensuring equitable access to resulting research and development, including diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines. Without such mechanisms, the treaty’s promise to operationalize “One Health” and strengthen global preparedness will risk becoming largely symbolic, echoing earlier failures to translate shared principles into coordinated action. Equity Concerns When the 2025 Health Assembly adopted the Pandemic Agreement, it left the difficult question of access to pathogens and the sharing of resulting benefits to be addressed in a separate agreement. Negotiations on this separate agreement, PABS, are now underway in Geneva. Yet governments remain divided over fundamental questions of equity between the countries that primarily contribute to the system and those that primarily draw from it—and consequently benefit. For example, wildlife in countries bordering the equator is likely to produce PABS materials, but companies in Europe are likely to use them to develop lucrative products. The most likely contributor countries are likely to be those biodiverse countries around the equator, such as Brazil, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Indonesia, where the number of human-mammalian viral host interactions is large. Conversely, countries most likely to benefit from this material are those with the technology, investors, and infrastructure to capitalize on genomic data, such as the United States, EU member states, and Japan. This imbalance reflects a broader pattern seen in prior international frameworks. Now, as in the past, the wealthiest countries in the world (a useful heuristic is membership of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)) disproportionately benefit from systems in which pathogens and genomic sequencing data are contributed to a common source. Under the International Agreement on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (the “Plant Treaty” or “Seed Treaty”) and the Pandemic Influenza Preparedness (PIP) Framework, companies from Europe and North America disproportionately withdraw biological samples and data for development into lucrative medical products. Their governments and companies have both statutory and contractual claims to the products that those companies correspondingly produce. PABS appears poised to follow the same pattern. The text calls for strong language on access to pathogens and associated data, but the corresponding benefits that should flow to poorer countries are couched in equivocal or non-binding language. Common but Differentiated Responsibilities To address these inequities, the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities” should be formally incorporated into the negotiating agenda of the PABS annex. Common but differentiated responsibilities are often a feature of climate change negotiations. The basic principle is that, even though all countries should reduce carbon emissions, governments that became rich and powerful through massive carbon emissions (e.g., France, the United Kingdom, the United States) should have a greater obligation to address the resulting crises. Applied to PABS, it would require that governments hosting and supporting companies developing lucrative products carry greater obligations toward the cost of running the PABS system; share benefits or final medical products; and transfer technology to help countries worldwide develop their own capacities to innovate and manufacture vaccines during an emergency. For example, an annex could mandate that any company based in an OECD country that withdraws PABS material would be obligated to donate the resulting diagnostics, therapeutics, or vaccines to the WHO during a public health emergency or pandemic. Questions remain about how robust those donations would be, but the principle is that they should deliver highly significant lifesaving benefits to be equitably shared. Theoretically, this approach mirrors the PIP Framework, in which companies withdrawing influenza samples are required to pay half of the operating costs. In practice, however, the framework has fallen short. The PIP Framework Secretariat has struggled to secure payments from companies, with companies often disagreeing over how much is owed. Additionally, without another pandemic influenza to test the strength of the agreement during a public health emergency, corporate compliance with sharing mechanisms remains unknown. Even if these limitations did not characterize the PIP Framework, partially paying for operating expenses does not address the inequity in access to genetic data and pathogen samples that left less developed countries last in line for COVID-19 vaccines (and, before them, H1N1). Common but differentiated responsibilities would go further, addressing governments’ legitimate grievances regarding information sharing. It would make withdrawals of PABS material and resulting products more transparent, building trust across the board. Enforcement and Enduring Success A key implication of this approach is that the governing mechanism of the PABS must have real enforcement authority. The WHO Pandemic Agreement delegates its core governance responsibilities to a Conference of the Parties (COP)—a governing body composed of one representative from each participating government, similar to those established under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. The proposed WHO Pandemic Agreement COP is charged with oversight functions but ultimately possesses no real authority to compel a government to take any action it does not wish to take. The text does not give the COP the ability to, for example, sanction a party that does not comply with either textual obligations or PABS provisions. In other words, there are no effective mechanisms in place to ensure compliance. Perhaps just as significant, establishing a meaningful enforcement mechanism within the PABS system would strengthen the WHO’s credibility and its ability to ensure compliance across global health governance. By setting a precedent for accountability, such a mechanism could enhance the organization’s authority not only within the Pandemic Agreement but also in enforcing the revised International Health Regulations and other frameworks for public health emergencies. Conclusion The PABS annex can—and should—be different. It should establish clear responsibilities for funding as well as for sharing the diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines that result from contributions to the system. The system, in turn, must include a dedicated body empowered to hold governments and the corporations they sponsor accountable for their responsibilities before, during, and after pandemics. Doing so would restore trust in the broader agreement, which was eroded as commitments were repeatedly diluted while parties scrambled to meet their own self-imposed deadlines during the Pandemic Agreement negotiations. A robust PABS Annex would cement a grand social bargain. Wealthier countries and their corporations would gain unimpeded access to scientific information essential for developing and manufacturing lifesaving medical products. As such, they would stand to gain considerable economic benefit. Yet that privilege must be matched with responsibility. The grand bargain must include not only the right to innovate, but also the duty to ensure that innovation serves all. As medical products are developed and produced through collective contributions, every person must have equal access. All human beings deserve an equitable chance to survive—to save their own life, the lives of their families, and the well-being of their communities. … Sam Halabi, JD, MPhil, is the Bette Jacobs Endowed Professor at Georgetown University’s School of Health and the Director of the Center for Transformational Health Law at Georgetown Law. He serves as the co-lead for the WHO’s Working Group on Regulatory Consideration on AI and Health’s training workstream. He earned his JD from Harvard, his MPhil from Oxford, and undergraduate degrees from Kansas State University. Lawrence Gostin, LLD (Hon.), JD, BA, is University Distinguished Professor and Founding Director and Timothy and Linda O’Neill Professor of the O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law. He is the author of Global Health Security: A Blueprint for the Future (Harvard University Press, 2021); Global Health Law (Harvard University Press, 2014); Public Health Law: Power, Duty, Restraint (University of California Press, 3rd ed., 2016); Public Health Law and Ethics: A Reader (University of California Press, 3rd ed., 2018); Law and the Health System (Foundation Press, 2014); Principles of Mental Health Law & Practice (Oxford University Press, 2010). He also directs the WHO Collaborating Center at Georgetown University. Image Credit: United States Mission Geneva, CC BY 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons
DealBook Summit: Business Executives Share Tips for Leadership
Executives on a DealBook Summit task force panel said fear was not the way to build teams capable of navigating difficult times.
Ancient Humans Were Making Fire 350,000 Years Earlier Than Scientists Realized
Making fire on demand was a milestone in the lives of our early ancestors. But the question of when that skill first arose has been difficult for scientists to pin down
Pebble's founder introduces a $75 AI smart ring for recording brief notes with a press of a button
After rebooting the Pebble smartwatch, founder Eric Migicovsky is expanding his company's device lineup with a new smart wearable: an AI-powered smart ring known as Index 01. Named for the finger where the ring is meant to be worn, the new $75 ring is not meant to be a competitor to the always-on, always-listening AI devices, like the AI pendant Friend, but instead offers a way to record quick notes and reminders with a press of a button on the ring's side. AI only comes into play via the open source, speech-to-text, and AI models that run locally on your smartphone, via the open source Pebble mobile app. That is, if the Ring's button is not being pressed, it's not recording. (And this is a press-and-hold gesture, too, which means you can't start the ring's recording and then let go to surreptitiously record a conversation.) You can wear the stainless steel ring while in the shower, washing hands, doing dishes, or in the rain, but you would have to take it off for other water-related activities, like swimming. At launch, it's water-resistant to 1 meter. The ring is also not a fitness tracker or sleep monitor. It doesn't record details about your heart rate or health. And it's not there to be your AI friend. "I'm not trying to build some AI assistant thing," Migicovsky told TechCrunch in an interview. "I build things that solve one main problem, and they solve it really well," he explains. "I think of as external memory for my brain...that's what this is. It's always with you." Plus, the ring has been designed to be highly reliable and privacy-preserving, he says, as all your thoughts are stored on your phone, not in the cloud. There is no subscription. Migicovsky has been wearing the ring for three months now and says he cannot imagine going back to a world where he doesn't always have a memory device with him. "The problem is that, during the day, I get ideas or I remember something, and if I don't write it down that second, I forget it," he says. The ring solves this problem, he adds, without becoming another device you need to charge. "The battery lasts for years," Migicovsky claims. Technically, the ring is said to support roughly 12 to 14 hours of recording. On average, the founder says he uses it 10-20 times per day to record 3-6 second thoughts. At that rate, he'll get about two years of usage. When the ring's battery dies, you can ship it back to the company for recycling. When using Index, you can record up to five minutes of audio, which can be saved to the ring and synced to your phone later. This makes sense for recording briefer, personal thoughts and notes, even when you don't have your phone handy, but it wouldn't work for recording a longer chat, like a presentation, meeting, or in-person interview of some kind. The ring also supports 99+ languages and has a bit of on-device memory, in case you're not in Bluetooth range of your device, where the recording is ultimately saved and transcribed. (The raw audio is retained, too, in case the speech-to-text is garbled due to loud background noise). If you own a Pebble smartwatch or one from another brand, your recorded thought can even appear on the watch's screen so you can verify it's correct. The ring works with Pebble's mobile app, which offers notes and reminders, but can optionally integrate with your phone's calendaring system, too, or other apps, like Notion. And the ring's software is open source, which makes it hackable by the community, the founder points out. Because of its open nature, the ring's button is already programmable. In addition to the press-and-hold gesture, you can program the ring to do other things with a single or double press, like play or pause your music or control the shutter on your phone's camera. You could use it to send a message through the universal chat app Beeper, which Migicovsky also created, or you could add your own voice actions via MCP. A new approach to hardware Migicovsky acknowledges that hardware can be difficult to get right -- as the previous exit of Pebble to Fitbit showed. (Fitbit, too, was later acquired by Google in 2021). "I didn't earn any money during Pebble -- we exited, but it was not a great exit," Migicovsky admits. This year, however, he decided to reboot the Pebble project after Google open sourced the PebbleOS, which opened up the door to new hardware. With his new company, Core Devices, Migicovsky plans to do things differently. Still, the founder doesn't regret his previous choices, he clarifies. "I wouldn't have gone back and changed anything. I loved what we built. I loved what we did. I love the company that we built, but it's not the only way to build a company," he told TechCrunch. " And, speaking as an ex-YC partner, there are -- there's a time and a place for building a venture-backed startup. Some companies are phenomenal when they raise money and build a big team, and I tried that...I think what I'm doing now is trying an alternative path, which is start from profitability," he says. The new company is a small team of five, self-funded, and focused on sustainability. So far, Core Devices has shipped the Pebble 2 Duo smartwatch with a black-and-white display. Its first run sold out, and the company is now preparing to ship the upgraded version, the Pebble Time 2. The newer device, which has seen 25,000 pre-orders, is a stainless steel watch with a larger, color e-ink screen. As for the Index 01, the ring's pre-order offer ends in March 2026. After that, the price increases to $99. It currently comes in silver, polished gold, and matte black and works with iOS and Android devices. Customers can select from eight ring sizes and three colors.
Startups cheer new Medicare payment model
Traditional Medicare payment policies make digital health adoption difficult.
MIT affiliates named 2025 Schmidt Sciences AI2050 Fellows
MIT postdoc Zongyi Li, Associate Professor Tess Smidt, and seven additional MIT alumni were named 2025 Schmidt Sciences AI2050 Fellows. The fellowships will support their work in AI against difficult and intractable problems.
Kelsie Moak: Quick ways to strengthen your digital defenses
Identifying how much time and money you should invest in cybersecurity can be difficult, especially for smaller businesses without in-house IT staff. But Gulf South Technology Solutions COO Kelsie Moak insists improving your company’s cyber defenses doesn’t have to mean spending big. Here are her top five steps for getting started. Shift your mindset Many […]
New Medicare trial may boost digital care
Traditional Medicare payment policies make digital health adoption difficult.
Column | Carolyn Hax: Unemployment and health issues add up to ‘feeling inadequate’
Solutions to both problems are in progress. In the meantime, how does the letter writer push through difficult conversations?
Apron Era Could Impact How Nets Conduct Business
The NBA introduced the first and second aprons during the 2024 offseason, which makes it incredibly difficult for teams that have blown past the luxury tax to m
Tallahassee Winter Festival cancelled with 'high probability of rain'
"While a difficult decision, as this spirited event is a cherished tradition for many, the safety of our community, event participants and staff is paramount."
'Not the time to lose our heads'
Burnley forward Lyle Foster says the team must draw confidence from their performance against Crystal Palace, despite slipping to a fifth consecutive Premier League defeat. Speaking to BBC Radio Lancashire, Foster stressed the importance of staying calm and maintaining belief during a difficult run. "After last night, we can take a lot of confidence and strength from the performance we have given," Foster said.
Zeroday Brewing Co. to shut down flagship Taproom, adding to business closures in Harrisburg
Zeroday Brewing Co. plans to shutter its flagship taproom and restaurant, dealing another blow to Harrisburg’s once-vibrant dining and nightlife scene. On Wednesday evening, co-founder Theo Armstrong said that he and his partners made “the difficult decision” to close the location at 925 N. 3rd St. The last day will be Sunday, Dec. 28. “Closing […]
Black women federal unemployment surges. Could the change be long term?
With the Trump administration's cuts to diversity programs and the federal workforce, it may be even more difficult for Black women to recover when economic conditions improve.
Is AI making us stupid?
Artificial intelligence can execute tasks in seconds that once took humans hours, if not days to complete. While this may be great for productivity, some researchers are concerned that our increasing use of AI could be impacting our ability to tackle difficult problems and think critically. To find out where the science stands, and how worried we should be about the potential of AI to change how we think, Ian Sample hears from Madeleine Finlay and Sam Gilbert, professor of neuroscience at University College London
Candid Politics: WI Governor Candidate David Crowley
In this edition of Candid Politics, The Badger Herald took a walk along Lakeshore Path with WI Governor David Crowley. Crowley’s difficult childhood largely motivated his path toward becoming a community organizer, state representative and current Milwaukee County Executive. Watch the full video to hear about Crowley’s platform, political experience and more. Interview by George...
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.
I'm in my 40s, single, and childless, so I moved in with my 90-year-old grandma. It isn't always easy being her caregiver.
At 41 years old, I moved in with my 88-year-old grandmother when it became more difficult for her to live alone. I slipped into the role of caregiver.