This book takes a bold new look at ways of exploring the nature, origins, and potentials of consciousness within the context of science and religion.

Biobank research is potentially fruitful. It is argued that broad consent is acceptable for future research on biological material because a) the benefit is high, b) it pays respect to people’s autonomy, c) it is consistent with current practices and d) because the risk is low. Furthermore, broad consent should be allowed if information is handled safely, people can withdraw and expanded research should be approved by an ethics review board. However, these arguments are flawed and the criteria for broad (...) consent are either too restrictive to allow any research or fail to address important challenges with biobank research. Broad consent for biobank research can hide substantial ethical challenges and threaten trust in research. This does not mean that biobank research should be abandoned or that people cannot authorise future research on donated biological material. (shrink)

The survival and development of consciousness in biological evolution call for an explanation. An interactionistic mind-brain theory seems to have the greatest explanatory value in this context. An interpretation of an interactionistic hypothesis, recently proposed by Karl Popper, is discussed both theoretically and based on recent experimental data. In the interpretation, the distinction between the conscious mind and the brain is seen as a division into what is subjective and what is objective, and not as an ontological distinction between something (...) immaterial and something material. The interactionistic hypothesis is based on similarities between minds and physical forces. The conscious mind is understood to interact with randomly spontaneous spatio-temporal patterns of action potentials through an electromagnetic field. Consequences and suggestions for future studies are discussed. (shrink)

Let ${\mathbb{B}}$ and ${\mathbb{C}}$ be Boolean algebras and ${e: \mathbb{B}\rightarrow \mathbb{C}}$ an embedding. We examine the hierarchy of ideals on ${\mathbb{C}}$ for which ${ \bar{e}: \mathbb{B}\rightarrow \mathbb{C} / \fancyscript{I}}$ is a regular (i.e. complete) embedding. As an application we deal with the interrelationship between ${\fancyscript{P}(\omega)/{{\rm fin}}}$ in the ground model and in its extension. If M is an extension of V containing a new subset of ω, then in M there is an almost disjoint refinement of the family ([ω]ω) V (...) . Moreover, there is, in M, exactly one ideal ${\fancyscript{I}}$ on ω such that ${(\fancyscript{P}(\omega)/{{\rm fin}})^V}$ is a dense subalgebra of ${(\fancyscript{P}(\omega)/\fancyscript{I})^M}$ if and only if M does not contain an independent (splitting) real. We show that for a generic extension V[G], the canonical embedding $$\fancyscript{P}^V(\omega){/}{\rm fin}\hookrightarrow \fancyscript{P}(\omega){/}(U(Os)(\mathbb{B}))^G$$ is a regular one, where ${U(Os)(\mathbb{B})}$ is the Urysohn closure of the zero-convergence structure on ${\mathbb{B}}$. (shrink)

In our opinion, the flaws in the teaching of philosophy were to a large degree related to the fact that it was regarded as a science . The resolute rejection of this position and the recognition of philosophy's status as a world view is for us the necessary condition for escaping from the existing situation. To put it more concretely, the view of philosophy that became entrenched among us has produced the following fundamental flaws in the teaching process:—An underestimation of (...) or even a dismissive attitude toward pre- Marxist and in particular non-Marxist theories . Although non-Marxist philosophy was looked at in the course of study, this was done mainly to show its shortcomings—to the greater glory of Marxist philosophy. Idealism was regarded only as a barren flower. Students were instilled with the idea that idealism was on the verge of being overcome and supplanted by materialism, and this created in them a completely untrue picture of the real course of development of philosophical knowledge. (shrink)

Some believe that there is a God who is the source of all things; and some believe that there are necessarily existing abstract objects. But can one believe both these things? That is the question of this Element. First, Einar Duenger Bøhn clarifies the concepts involved, and the problem that arises from believing in both God and abstract objects. Second, he presents and discusses the possible kinds of solutions to that problem. Third, Bøhn discusses a new kind of solution to (...) the problem, according to which reality is most fundamentally made of information. (shrink)