SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " framework " 432 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
Trump unveils health care affordability plan
President Trump unveiled a health care framework Thursday aimed at lowering drug prices and insurance premiums, as he seeks to address a major Republican political liability ahead of the midterm el…
Trump says he'll soon unveil framework to lower health care costs
President Donald Trump said during a speech in Detroit that his administration will unveil a framework for lowering health care costs later this week.
Prof. Dorit Reiss Wins National Award for Distinguished Service in Health Law - UC Law San Francisco (Formerly UC Hastings)
Professor Dorit Reiss, who brings legal expertise to public health debates, has received a national award for her lasting contributions to the field as a scholar, policy adviser, and mentor. Faculty Who Lead: Dorit Reiss Professor Dorit Reiss receives the 2026 Distinguished Service Award from the AALS Section on Law, Medicine and Health Care. She is a leading expert on vaccine law, advising policymakers and providing expert analysis to journalists. Reiss mentors future health law scholars and combats misinformation online through evidence-based public education. Professor Dorit Reiss, a leading voice on vaccine law and policy, has won a national award recognizing her contributions to health law. She received the 2026 Distinguished Service Award from the Association of American Law Schools (AALS) Section on Law, Medicine and Health Care. Presented at the AALS Annual Meeting in January, the award honors sustained service to public health and the health law academy through advocacy, public education, and mentorship. In presenting the award, Professor Doron Dorfman of Seton Hall Law School, chair-elect of the AALS Section on Law, Medicine and Health Care, described Reiss as “a committed public health advocate who has used her expertise to influence vaccine policy, research, and practice at both the state and federal levels for nearly two decades.” Reiss leads a widely read vaccine law listserv that provides real-time updates on litigation, regulatory developments, advisory committee proceedings, and public comment opportunities. The resource has become an important tool for lawyers, scholars, journalists, and public health professionals tracking fast-moving developments in vaccine policy. Her service extends to policymaking as well. She has supported vaccine-related legislation in California, testified before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee on vaccine mandates and non-medical exemptions, and serves on the Parent Advisory Board of Voices for Vaccines, a parent-led organization focused on reducing vaccine-preventable disease. Dorfman also highlighted Reiss’ active role in robust debates over vaccine safety and related laws and policies. “She directly engages misinformation by responding to anti-vaccination claims on social media with careful, evidence-based rebuttals,” Dorfman said. As federal vaccine policy undergoes significant change, Reiss has become a trusted source for major national news outlets, including The New York Times, The Washington Post, and CNN, which regularly seek her expert analysis on new policies and decisions. Dorfman noted that Reiss is widely respected for her mentorship of health law faculty and scholars. “She is consistently generous with her time—approachable, willing to provide feedback, and a mentor to many in the field, including myself,” he said. At UC Law SF, Reiss brings the spirit of public service into the classroom, helping students understand how legal frameworks translate into real-world public health outcomes. She holds the James Edgar Hervey ’50 Chair of Litigation, a position that recognizes faculty excellence in the field of litigation. The Distinguished Service Award highlights her sustained commitment to evidence-based vaccine policy, public education, and mentorship during a pivotal time for public health law.
Senators punt release of health package to end of January
A bipartisan group of senators had originally hoped to release a framework this week.
Framework increases Desktop prices by up to $460 due to RAM crisis
Computer brand Framework has hiked the prices on RAM for its Desktop systems and Mainframes in response to rising costs with its suppliers.
Leaked Windows 11 Feature Shows Copilot Moving Into File Explorer
Microsoft is testing a hidden 'Chat with Copilot' button in Windows 11 File Explorer, signaling deeper AI search and a coming Agent Launchers framework.
WellSpan Health Announces Comprehensive Migration of Technology Portfolio to AWS
Add to FavoritesWellSpan Health, the leading health care system serving Central Pennsylvania and Northern Maryland, today announced plans for a comprehensive cloud migration of its full technology infrastructure. Together with Amazon Web Services (AWS) as its preferred cloud provider, WellSpan will transition its applications, data and environments from traditional data centers to AWS. This migration will establish the foundation for delivering next-generation, AI-enabled health care solutions that reduce administrative burden and improve outcomes for patients across the region and beyond. Supercharging Innovation, Efficiency and Patient Outcomes WellSpan's migration of systems and clinical applications, which serve 1.2 million patients across nine hospitals and 250+ facilities, is expected to be complete by April 2026, one of the fastest full-scale migrations in the health care industry. This transformation enables WellSpan to unify disparate data systems for care teams and patients alike, achieving operational efficiencies and care improvements that fragmented systems are unable to deliver. “Our comprehensive migration to the cloud accelerates our ability to deploy new clinical capabilities that transform patient care while advancing our overall innovation strategy,” said Roxanna Gapstur, Ph.D., R.N., president and CEO, WellSpan Health. “When a physician can access complete patient imaging in seconds instead of hours, we're not just modernizing technology—we're improving patient outcomes. Our new cloud infrastructure also enables us to quickly implement solutions that will free our clinicians from thousands of hours of administrative work annually so they can focus on what they do best: caring for our communities.” The transition allows WellSpan to move away from a data center-based model and enables the rapid deployment and scale of AI technology. WellSpan’s strategic partner, General Catalyst’s Health Assurance Transformation Company (HATCo), facilitated the collaboration with AWS to support the migration. WellSpan’s transformation journey benefits from HATCo’s specialized technology solutions, as well as General Catalyst and AWS’s significant partnership to improve patient outcomes, which was announced in January 2025. “Our decision to go all-in on AWS will enable insights and innovations impossible in traditional siloed environments,” said Kasey Paulus, executive vice president and chief operating officer, WellSpan Health. “This is the largest health care technology transformation in our region's history, and it positions WellSpan to be a premier partner for technology leaders across the country.” “WellSpan is building a foundation with AWS that will improve care and outcomes for patients across their health system by bringing data together into standardized formats that are optimized for AI applications,” said Dan Sheeran, vice president and general manager, Healthcare and Life Science, AWS. “To do this, it is essential to have the most secure and compliant cloud when handling patient data, along with AWS’s built-in AI governance and responsible AI frameworks that follow the industry’s highest standards to protect patient information. We look forward to continuing to work alongside WellSpan as they unlock the cloud and AI’s full potential to deliver exceptional care to their patients.” Key Benefits of the AWS Collaboration Full Portfolio Migration: WellSpan will transition its applications and data from on-premises data centers to AWS, including full IT environments and specialized applications for functions such as nursing, cardiology, pharmacy and the company’s supply chain systems. This represents approximately 7.5 petabytes of clinical and non-clinical data and more than 300 applications—the most comprehensive health system cloud migration in the Mid-Atlantic region. Approved Architectures: AWS will deliver secure, WellSpan-specific architectures tailored to each build, ensuring compliance and reliability across the health system. Unified, AI-Ready Data: Migrating to AWS enables WellSpan to harmonize data across separate systems, transforming unstructured clinical notes and multi-modal datasets into standardized, AI-ready formats. Accelerated Results and Improved Outcomes: Automated data normalization and processing will enable the deployment of applications that reduce turnaround times for items such as analyzing medical imaging or patient records from days to minutes, helping clinicians get patient results faster and improving overall health outcomes. Reduced Administrative Burden: The transition to AWS will enable swift deployment of AI-powered solutions that reclaim thousands of hours for WellSpan’s clinical and corporate teams, allowing them to focus on patient care rather than paperwork. Elastic Infrastructure: Cloud architecture will enable WellSpan to scale computing resources dynamically, supporting seasonal demand fluctuations without infrastructure investments, as well as the rapid deployment of new services across multiple locations simultaneously. Most Secure, Compliant Cloud: AWS offers the highest network availability of any cloud provider, with more than 166 HIPAA-eligible services and certifications for global compliance standards, including HITRUST CSF. Built-in AI governance and responsible AI frameworks ensure that WellSpan’s data is protected under the industry’s most rigorous standards. Tags:News releaseInnovation and partnerships
How new trade & investment corridors are reshaping business
With traditional multilateral trade frameworks under strain and global rules in flux, a more transactional style of international relations is taking hold.
The Brand Promise That Builds Your Business
In my forthcoming book, Branding as a Cultural Force: Purpose, Responsibility, and Resonance, I provide a framework to help small companies deliver on their word.
A One Health trial design to accelerate Lassa fever vaccines
Nature Medicine - We propose an interdisciplinary framework to address the considerable challenges that are restricting the development of vaccines for zoonotic diseases with epidemic potential.
Framework Announces Another Memory Price Hike; Says It Still Charges Far Less Than Apple
Framework has announced another price hike for DDR5 memories and has stated the reason in a new blog post.
KDE Plasma 6.6 Finally Supporting Ambient Light Sensors, Fixing Windows Games With HDR
There are some nice KDE Plasma 6.6 improvements that were merged ahead of Christmas.
AI learns to build simple equations for complex systems
A research team at Duke University has developed a new AI framework that can uncover simple, understandable rules that govern some of the most complex dynamics found in nature and technology.
Framework Raises DDR5 Memory Prices By 50% For DIY Laptops
Framework Computer had worked to keep their memory prices lower than other laptop vendors amid the ongoing memory shortages throughput the industry worldwide
Thirty Years of Onion Politics: Bosnia and Herzegovina on the 30th anniversary of the Dayton Peace Agreement
The Dayton Peace Agreement ended the Bosnian War, establishing the constitutional framework of Bosnia and Herzegovina. It achieved its immediate aim of ending direct violence, yet ended up creating a state apparatus that obstructs social equality and economic sovereignty. This Spotlight argues that the evaluation of its success must take two problems into account: the cementation of ethnic categories as foundational levels of governance and the resulting failure to address or transform war legacies; and the institutionalized international involvement undermining democratic self-determination.
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
Bipartisan Coalition of 38 House Members Introduce “CommonGround Bill” to Address Skyrocketing ACA Premiums
Above: House Republicans and Democrats announcing a bipartisan framework last week to keep health care costs down. WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, Rep. Jen Kiggans (VA-02) and Rep. Josh Gottheimer (NJ-05), along with a bipartisan coalition of 38 total House Members, introduced the “CommonGround for Affordable Health Care Act,” based on the health care framework they […]
Fossil science owes a debt to indigenous knowledge: Lesotho missionary’s notes tell the story
Long ago, people identified fossils in their environment and explained them within their own cultural framework. This was early citizen science.
GOP senators circulate health care frameworks ahead of vote on Dem plan
The latest proposals come as Republicans are unlikely to put forward a consensus alternative to Democrats’ desired extension.
NYK Donates to Tokyo University of Marine Science and Technology for Faculty of Marine Engineering’s 150th Anniversary Project
"NYK Donates to Tokyo University of Marine Science and Technology for Faculty of Marine Engineering’s 150th Anniversary Project" - The NYK Group goes beyond the framework of a comprehensive logistics company to co-create the necessary value for the future through the deepening of core businesses and the growth of new businesses.
Google outlines MIRAS and Titans, a possible path toward continuously learning AI
A year after publishing its Titans paper, Google has formally detailed the architecture on its research blog, pairing it with a new framework called MIRAS. Both projects target a major frontier in AI: models that keep learning during use and maintain a functional long-term memory instead of remaining static after pretraining.
Mike Johnson races to finalize elusive GOP health care plan
The speaker said he expects to release a framework next week.
RELEASE: Bipartisan Group of 35 House Members Announce New Health Care Framework “CommonGround 2025”
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, December 4, 2025, a bipartisan group of 35 total House Members, co-led by Reps. Josh Gottheimer (NJ-5) and Jen Kiggans (VA-2), announced a new health care framework, CommonGround 2025. The bipartisan framework includes a two-year extension of health insurance premium savings for American families, including a year of the enhanced Premium Tax Credits (ePTCs), with […]
Team of Penn State Smeal seniors win Business with Integrity Case Competition
Students explored the ethical challenges of the wellness industry in the 2025 Business with Integrity Case Competition. Every fall, the Tarriff Center for Business Ethics and Social Responsibility hosts the competition where students examine the role of ethics in business and put their ethical frameworks to the test.
Bipartisan Group of 35 House Members Announce New Health Care Framework “CommonGround 2025” Addressing Skyrocketing Health Insurance Premiums for American Families
Watch Rep. Kiggans’ Speech here. WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, December 4, 2025, a bipartisan group of 35 total House Members, co-led by Reps. Josh Gottheimer (NJ-5) and Jen Kiggans (VA-2), announced a new health care framework, CommonGround 2025. The bipartisan framework includes a two-year extension of health insurance premium savings for American families, including a year of the enhanced Premium Tax […]
A simple oxygen hack creates 7 new ceramic materials
Penn State researchers created seven new high-entropy oxides by removing oxygen during synthesis, enabling metals that normally destabilize to form rock-salt ceramics. Machine learning helped identify promising compositions, and advanced imaging confirmed their stability. The method offers a flexible framework for creating materials once thought impossible to synthesize.
AMPS Achieves HITRUST e1 Certification, Solidifying Commitment to Data Security in Healthcare
PHOENIX, Dec. 02, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- AMPS, a healthcare technology solutions company serving self-insured employer groups, payors, healthcare brokers and consultants, and third-party administrators, announced today that its enterprise systems have earned HITRUST e1 Assessment Certification for cybersecurity and information protection. The HITRUST e1 Certification demonstrates that AMPS has met requirements defined by leading cybersecurity and regulatory frameworks, confirming that foundati
Business Trades Support Bank Capital Rule Reform to Boost Economic Growth
“Now is the time to modernize our capital framework to unleash economic growth for American businesses and consumers across the country.” WASHINGTON, D.C. — A coalition of leading business trade organizations urged prudential regulators to examine and modernize large bank capital requirements to ensure they support consumers, businesses, and the…
Google Patches 107 Android Flaws, Including Two Framework Bugs Exploited in the Wild
Google Patches 107 Android Flaws, Including Two Framework Bugs Exploited in the Wild | Read more hacking news on The Hacker News cybersecurity news website and learn how to protect against cyberattacks and software vulnerabilities.
Mapping the exposome: Science broadens focus to environmental disease triggers
After decades of intense focus on genetics, the biomedical research community is undergoing a major shift, focusing on a new framework called "exposomics."
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.
Using network science to evaluate landslide hazards on Big Sur Coast, California, USA
Abstract. Landslides, ranging from slips to catastrophic failures, pose significant challenges for prediction. This study employs a physically inspired framework to assess landslide hazard at a regional scale (Big Sur Coast, California). Our approach integrates techniques from the study of complex systems with multivariate statistical analysis to identify areas prone to landslide hazards. We successfully apply a technique originally developed on the 2017 Mud Creek landslide and refine our statistical metrics to characterize landslide hazard within a larger geographical area. Our method is compared against factors such as landslide location, slope, displacement, precipitation, and InSAR coherence using multivariate statistical analysis. Our network analyses, which incorporates spatiotemporal dynamics, perform better as a monitoring technique than traditional methods. This approach has potential for real-time monitoring and evaluating landslide hazard across multiple sites.