SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " Phil " 3,577 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
Roob's Observations after Eagles take care of business against hapless Raiders
This is exactly what the Eagles needed. Roob has his instant observations after a dominant 31-0 win over the Raiders.
Roob's Observations after Eagles take care of business against hapless Raiders
This is exactly what the Eagles needed. Roob has his instant observations after a dominant 31-0 win over the Raiders.
Live updates: Eagles look to snap 3-game losing skid against Raiders
Follow along for live updates as Jalen Hurts and the Eagles look to snap a three-game losing skid against the Raiders.
Rivian's autonomy chief says lidar is 'very affordable' and a 'no-brainer' decision
Rivian's autonomy chief James Philbin told Business Insider that the cost of lidar, a sensor that can be found in robotaxis, is no longer expensive.
Computer model locks in Eagles vs. Raiders picks, score prediction
How to bet Philadelphia Eagles vs. Las Vegas Raiders in NFL Week 15 action
Oddsmakers' expectations for Philip Rivers' return against the Seahawks: 'I don't really have a clue'
What we're hearing: Philip Rivers' comeback, Burrow and more
Philip Rivers is expected to start an NFL game at 44 years old after a 1,800-day layoff, Joe Burrow's comments raised eyebrows across the league, and sources weigh in on what it all actually means.
Eagles notebook: Eagles gamble with Jordan Davis pays off big
In the latest Eagles notebook: Jordan Davis’s breakout season, the long snapper swap and more.
Kraken's Philipp Grubauer: Can't get back in win column
Kraken's Philipp Grubauer: Can't get back in win column
Tom Brady thinks he could pull a Philip Rivers at 48 years old, but he can't because of Raiders co-ownership
Phillies are 'begging' teams to trade for $100 million slugger
The Phillies are begging teams to take this $100 million slugger off their hands.
NFC playoff standings, Philadelphia Eagles' rooting guide for Week 15
With the Sunday and Monday night Week 15 games set to begin in just hours, here is who fans should root for with the Eagles looking to move back into the No. 1 seed
Eagles opposing player to stop, Week 15 edition
Philadelphia can’t let the best player on Las Vegas take over the game.
Phil Ruffin on his Park City entertainment mecca: ‘It’s gonna blow your mind’
The new Gilley’s entertainment complex in Park City will have pari-mutuel betting, games, a variety of live music and other events.
A top South Korean shipbuilder is arming the Philippines with a new fleet of warships built for tougher Pacific fights
HD Hyundai built two new guided-missile frigates for the Philippine Navy, giving it a firepower upgrade for South China Sea.
What makes the Eagles optimistic about offense after a 3rd straight loss?
The crazy thing about the Eagles’ offensive performance Monday night is that they actually did some good things.
Why did it take Eagles so long to get Britain Covey involved in return game?
Watching Britain Covey return punts and kicks Monday night against the Chargers it was easy to wonder why he hasn’t been doing it all year.
A Philly restaurant came clean about its Health Department shutdown. Was that the right call?
Cafe Michelangelo’s management chose to explain, point by point, the issues that led the city to close it temporarily. The restaurant also has vowed to improve its sanitation practices.
Ed and Linda Whitacre contribute $7M to support health research, engineering and athletics at UT San Antonio - UT San Antonio Today
The Whitacres’ continuous investment in UT San Antonio demonstrates how philanthropy can advance education, discovery and health.
From Our President: Health Advice You Can Trust via @ConsumerReports
Consumer Reports CEO Phil Radford highlights CR's efforts to provide consumers with trusted, science-based health information, such as its guide to supplements.
Washington Nationals active in Rule 5 Draft, select Phillies pitcher
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
Hello Sunshine’s ‘The Rise’ Five-Part Documentary Series On Women’s Sports Heading To Peacock
Hello Sunshine alongside Ally and the Lyda Hill Philanthropies If/Then Initiative back five part documentary series 'The Rise' for Peacock.
NFL news, injury updates: Jayden Daniels out after aggravating elbow; Colts sign Philip Rivers to practice squad
Accrete Health Partners Launches Partnership with Atalan to Co-develop Groundbreaking Patient Experience Intelligence Module
Strategic Co-Development Partnership Expands Relationship between Bon Secours Mercy Health and Atalan to Unify Workforce and Patient Experience AnalyticsPHILADELPHIA, Dec. 10, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Atalan, the world’s first Clinical Retention Intelligence (CRI) platform, today announced a strategic partnership with Accrete Health Partners, the venture arm of Bon Secours Mercy Health (BSMH), one of the top 20 largest health systems in the U.S. The partnership will focus on accelerating the dev
Northampton boss Dowson & coaching duo agree new deals
Director of rugby Phil Dowson, head coach Sam Vesty and senior coach James Craig agree contract extensions with Northampton Saints.
MacKenzie Scott donated $7.1 billion to nonprofits in 2025, a major increase
The author and philanthropist MacKenzie Scott revealed $7.1 billion in donations to nonprofits in 2025 Tuesday, marking a significant increase in her annual giving from recent years.
8 Philadelphia youth football team players charged with stealing from Dick's Sporting Goods in Florida
FTBOA To Pursue Development Of Racing, Entertainment Facility In Ocala Area
Former Miami Beach Mayor Philip Levine and attorney John Morgan named as partners in potential Central Florida project
Vitable Health and DirectShifts Partner to Expand Clinicians’ Access to Care and Coverage
PHILADELPHIA, December 09, 2025--Vitable Health, an all-in-one health benefits platform redefining care for the American workforce, today announced a new partnership with DirectShifts, a leading clinician staffing platform, to make it easier for clinicians nationwide to access everyday healthcare and insurance coverage.
Kyle Schwarber re-signs with Phillies: Slugger returns on five-year, $150M contract
Schwarber hit a National League-leading 56 home runs in 2025
Remembering the top moments in Philly sports this year
2025 marked a year of high highs and low lows in Philly sports. The Eagles won the Super Bowl and the Flyers lost a legend.
NFL power rankings Week 15: How far do Eagles tumble after latest loss?
Philadelphia has lost three in a row. The skid hasn't cost the Eagles first place in the NFC East, but they dropped in our power poll.
Colts reportedly working out 44-year old Philip Rivers at QB after Daniel Jones' season-ending Achilles tear
The Colts are not ready to wave the white flag on their all-in season.
It’s Computer Science Education Week in Philadelphia
The district has been dedicated to increasing digital literacy, upgrading and installing new computer labs and curricula.
Chargers vs. Eagles prediction, odds: 'Monday Night Football' picks today from 10,000 simulations
SportsLine's model simulated Philadelphia vs. Los Angeles 10,000 times and revealed its 'MNF' best bets
NFL DFS picks, daily Fantasy lineups for Eagles vs. Chargers on 'Monday Night Football'
Daily Fantasy multimillionaire Mike McClure reveals his NFL DFS picks for Los Angeles vs. Philadelphia on 'MNF'
Sources: Bruce Blakeman to announce run for N.Y. governor
Blakeman’s expected entry follows weeks of travel across the state as he was mulling a run. (AP Photo/Philip Marcelo)
These kids can't be home for Christmas. An influencer is here to help.
Interior decorator and content creator Meghan Gallagher decorated the Ronald McDonald House of Philadelphia to spread holiday cheer to 150 families.
NFL DFS picks, lineup advice for Eagles vs. Chargers on 'Monday Night Football'
Daily Fantasy multimillionaire Mike McClure reveals his NFL DFS picks for Los Angeles vs. Philadelphia on 'MNF'
Joel Embiid addresses his struggles, health after 76ers fall to Lakers
Joel Embiid addresses his struggles and his health after the Philadelphia 76ers fell to the Los Angeles Lakers on Sunday night.
GOP officials in swing districts brace for fallout if health care subsidies end
House Republicans in battleground districts hope to contain the political fallout as thousands could face higher bills for health insurance coverage.
Why Bill Gates Thinks Donald Trump Cares About Global Health
Philanthropist is talking to US president as report shows childhood deaths will rise.
In Roob's Observations: Why do the Eagles keep collapsing in the 4th quarter?
Why are the Eagles falling apart in the fourth quarter? How about some help for A.J. and DeVonta? We have a big helping of Roob’s Eagles Observations.
Old City 'sip and stroll' boosts holiday business
A part of Philadelphia transformed into a winter wonderland Saturday for the 2nd annual Old City Sip and Stroll.
Anthropic's resident philosopher shares her tips to create the best AI prompts
Amanda Askell, a member of Anthropic's technical team and a trained philosopher, shared some pro-tips for getting the most of AI chatbots.
Observations after Sixers' bench, George star in win over Bucks
The Sixers’ second unit scored over half the team’s points Friday night in a road win over the Bucks.
Health savings accounts, backed by GOP, cover fancy saunas but not insurance premiums or formula
Trump and some Republicans are pitching the accounts as an alternative to expiring enhanced federal subsidies for the Affordable Care Act.
Stacey to miss Watford game, Clement says
Newly appointed Norwich City boss Philippe Clement speaks to the media ahead of the Championship game at Birmingham City.
Chargers vs. Eagles Injury Report
See who's in and who's out for the Week 14 matchup between the Philadelphia Eagles and Los Angeles Chargers on December 8, 2025.
Warriors epic comeback vs. Sixers falls short in heartbreaking fashion
Despite erasing a 24 point deficit, the Warriors' thrilling comeback in Philadelphia came up short in heartbreaking fashion.
16 reasons why Philly is one of America's greatest sports cities
The Washington Post left Philly off its list of best sports cities. And Philly is letting 'em know about it.
Eagles defensive star week-to-week after procedure on shoulders
Eagles defensive tackle Jalen Carter had a procedure on his shoulders this week and is week-to-week.
4 Books On Turning Human Connection Into Business Growth
As automation gathers pace, a people-first philosophy is more important than ever for thriving businesses.
Abby Phillip’s 'A Dream Deferred' chronicles Jesse Jackson’s rise to political esteem : NPR's Book of the Day
Rev. Jesse Jackson is well-known as an icon of the American Civil Rights Movement, a protégé of Martin Luther King Jr., and a steadfast activist — but he has quite a past in electoral politics, too. A Dream Deferred charts Jackson’s rise to political prominence during his 1984 and 1988 presidential campaigns, as the first major Black candidate for U.S. president. In today’s episode, author and CNN anchor Abby Phillip talks with NPR’s Ayesha Rascoe about her debut biography, and how Jackson himself approached politics and activism with separate mindsets.To listen to Book of the Day sponsor-free and support NPR's book coverage, sign up for Book of the Day+ at plus.npr.org/bookoftheday
Ailing Warriors look to get on track vs. 76ers
The Golden State Warriors will be short-handed for Thursday's road game against the Philadelphia 76ers, but it remains to be determined exactly how undermanned they'll be.
2025 NFL Odds: Bears Most-Bet Team to Win Super Bowl after Upsetting Eagles
Time to go all in on Chicago? Bettors think so, throwing bucks behind the Bears after their Black Friday win over Philly.
Marcos vs. Marcos: The New Front in Philippine Politics
President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr. is under fire for an enormous graft scandal that is unfolding under his watch. One prominent voice is his sister Senator Imee Marcos.
Full-length Replay: Big East Men's: Temple at Villanova
The Owls (4-3) battle the Wildcats (5-1) in a Big 5 Classic game from Philadelphia.
Think the viral meme of that legislator is funny?
Political philosopher says rampant schadenfreude among electorate poses risk to democracy.
Genesis Mission: why Trump’s plan to put AIs in charge of science could backfire
AI enthusiasts are right that projects like AlphaFold are a huge leap forward, but the philosophy of science shows why excluding humans undermines it.
Jean-Philippe Mateta's contract talks with Crystal Palace stall
Crystal Palace striker Jean-Philippe Mateta's long-term future is uncertain as talks stall over a new contract.
Prevention Pioneers recognized for excellence in HIV prevention
Official website of the City of Philadelphia, includes information on municipal services, permits, licenses, and records for citizens and businesses.
Jan Eberth named head of the Department of Population Health Sciences
Eberth comes to the university from Drexel University in Philadelphia, where she spent the past three years as professor and chair of health management and policy. Prior to that, her education and career were divided between Texas and her native South Carolina.
After 40 years of adventure games, Ron Gilbert pivots to outrunning Death
Interview: Storied designer talks lost RPG, a 3D Monkey Island, “Eat the Rich” philosophy.
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.
Pens Points: Off to Philly
Here are your Pens Points for this Monday morning… The Pittsburgh Penguins assigned forwards Tristan Broz and Danton Heinen to the Wilkes-Barre/Scranton Penguins on Sunday. [Trib Live] Before his reassignment, rookie forward Tristan Broz made his NHL debut last week against the Buffalo Sabres. Picked in the second round of the 2021 NHL Draft, Broz’s […]
Intensity And Desire Won The Day For Sunderland On Saturday
“This was Sunderland of 2025 — gutsy, unpredictable, and utterly unmissable”, writes Phil West
Schonfeld hires top Citadel exec Andrew Philipp to bolster senior ranks
Philipp spent four years at Citadel and previously held top jobs at Goldman Sachs. He is the latest C-suite addition t by Schonfeld CEO Ryan Tolkin.
For Wallace, giving back is the family business | My Cause My Cleats
Caedan Wallace grew up with philanthropy in his blood, so partnering with Heading Home for My Cause My Cleats was second nature.
Time may be a psychological projection, philosopher argues
Is time real, or an illusion? The best answer may be neither: Both physics and philosophy suggest that time is a projection of the mind onto a timeless reality.
ON THE OBJECTIVITY OF SCIENCE: KARL POPPER and THOMAS KUHN. Lecture 5 of Postmodern Philosophy [Peterson Academy course]
Lecture Five: Science and technology have accomplished wonders since the Enlightenment. But, as Karl Popper asks, how do we “distinguish between science and pseudo–science“? Thomas Kuhn suggests that scientists are less-than-objective and more “like the typical character of Orwell’s 1984.” Themes: Logical Positivism and Analytic philosophy’s aspirations and travails. Scientific method. Science and pseudo-science. Falsifiability. […]