Is science overrated?

[Swami]

I am often told that science is the greatest tool for knowledge. Then I notice that scientists admit not having a consensus when it comes to the origin of the Universe, origin of life, origin of consciousness, and if there is life after death.

Why can't scientists answer these questions?

Please feel free to provide any book references that provide clarity on these topics. Thank you. Cheers

[Swami]

The questions that I asked are the most important questions. They are the questions that humans have asked ever since our beginning.. Don't you want to know the nature of consciousness or if you'll survive in some form after your body dies?

Sure, I want to know, that's why we put much of our resources into this "greatest tool for knowledge."

All of the examples of scientific advances pale in comparison. Think of it as a test, with my questions accounting for 90% of the grade, and your modern day examples of technological advances amounting to 10% of the grade.

That still put science 10% ahead of the nearest rival.

I disagree with your either-or thinking. The best approach is science working with religion to solve our most important questions. If anything, it seems that understanding consciousness is the bridge between science and religion. We only access consciousness subjectively. Eastern religions have mastered ways to train the mind and even reach higher states of consciousness so their knowledge and meditative practices are invaluable.

Please think big picture!

People tend to get the impression that scientists have it all figured out based on all of the technological advancements and knowledge we've gained. But when you compare it to what we don't know, it is there that you realize that science is not as dominant over religion as people think. The important questions, although being a few, far outweigh the many questions that science has answered.

Think big picture.

[William]

[Replying to post 98 by mgb]

No, I don't believe it is finite. It can grow into infinity.

Okay. So do you think it is eternal?

[mgb]

[Replying to post 98 by mgb]

No, I don't believe it is finite. It can grow into infinity.

Okay. So do you think it is eternal?

Potentially

[William]

[Replying to post 101 by mgb]

Potentially

Something cannot be potentially eternal.

As a Panentheist, I understand all consciousness derives from GOD-Consciousness, the First Source Consciousness.

Thus, all consciousness is eternal. It had no beginning and will have no end.

Thus creating finite realms in which to experience and explore through finite forms allows for the eternal to intimately understand the finite...what it is like to have a beginning...in as genuine manner as possible.

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 102 by William]

William: "As a Panentheist, I understand all consciousness derives from GOD-Consciousness, the First Source Consciousness."

I sympathize, but... Consciousness is a reaction, like the change in color of litmus paper, just a bit more complex, with positive and negative neuro-chemical feedback loops. No neurochemistry: No consciousness. That is observation.

William: "Thus, all consciousness is eternal. It had no beginning and will have no end."

The use of "Thus" is unjustified by argument. Your conclusion begs the premise.

[William]

[Replying to post 103 by TSGracchus]

Consciousness is a reaction, like the change in color of litmus paper, just a bit more complex, with positive and negative neuro-chemical feedback loops. No neurochemistry: No consciousness. That is observation.

I sympathize, but...that is the interpretation of the observation not the observation itself.

Studies in NDEs suggest that:

Evidence of survival from NDEs

Enhanced mental function with impaired brains (Example of this 44:42 in video.)

We cannot explain, using the materialistic model, that 'the mind is what the brain does' when there is no brain function but there is enhanced mind function.

Your argument is too narrow because it fails to take into account the above research.

The use of "Thus" is unjustified by argument. Your conclusion begs the premise.

My argument takes into account, not only the above, but the logic that something which has a beginning (the universe) does not come from nothing or nowhere. As well as this, there is ample evidence within biological evolution which can be interpreted as
intelligent processes. Overall, intelligence is imbued within said process.

Perhaps by themselves, these things might be able to be interpreted as how sceitism chooses to interpret them, but they are not isolated from each other, they are part of each other - part of the bigger picture which altogether logically insists on the premise.

1: There has to be a First Source for all that is.
2: The First Source has to have always existed.
3: Consciousness is the most likely evidence of FSConsciousness within the universe.
4: Individuate Consciousness has to be eternal.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 104 by William]

Evidence of survival from NDEs

One of the common characteristics of these experiences is that people do not end up dead. It is a 'near' death experience. With that in mind, what physiological condition qualifies as near death and what criteria are applied to establish that it is near death if the subject doesn't die?

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to William]

William: "We cannot explain, using the materialistic model, that 'the mind is what the brain does' when there is no brain function but there is enhanced mind function.
Your argument is too narrow because it fails to take into account the above research."

Excuse me, but that which you cited is not research. That is anecdote.
As the brain loses or regains function it does experience common hallucinations. When did the brain function cease during the procedure and when did the "outside activity" occur? What was the time-line? Dr. Grayson being a psychiatrist and not a neurosurgeon was probably not there. If he was not, his account is not just anecdotal but hearsay. We would need far more information to draw any conclusion from this single incident. We do know that other "near death experiences" have been induced by stimulating areas of the brain.

William: "My argument takes into account, not only the above, but the logic that something which has a beginning (the universe) does not come from nothing or nowhere. As well as this, there is ample evidence within biological evolution which can be interpreted as intelligent processes. Overall, intelligence is imbued within said process."

Wait! You have jumped from NDE's to cosmology? Well, ok.... But first, if biological evolution is to be interpreted as the result of intelligence, it is certainly the intelligence of a moron.

On to cosmology: There is no evidence that the universe has not always existed. Think about it. Something is. (Cogito ergo sum.) Nothing, is by definition non-existent. Time is an artifact of relativity, the projection onto the differential manifold of space time from a higher dimensional field of periodic probabilities. For instance, very near the singularity, at the event horizon, the big bang is still taking place, and also the black hole is still accreting matter. The past is a matter of perspective determined by the observer's frame of reference.

William: "Perhaps by themselves, these things might be able to be interpreted as how sceitism (sic) chooses to interpret them, but they are not isolated from each other, they are part of each other - part of the bigger picture which altogether logically insists on the premise."

Which premise is that? Oh, and by the way, when some one uses the term "scientism" I am fairly sure they want to pretend expertise without any real knowledge of science.
I do note that those intellectually impaired seem to think everyone shares their disability. See, for instance, the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

William: "1: There has to be a First Source for all that is."

There does not have to be a "first source". That is a delusion of linear thinking. There is no single "time". There are only temporal relationships between points in space, which depend upon the relationships between frames of reference.

William: "2: The First Source has to have always existed.'

What has always existed is that which has always existed. It needs no source. It is not caused. Causation is a simplified representation of reality, a convenient fiction for convenience of discussion. For instance if you see a dog passing the gap in a fence, you might think that the head "caused" the tail. You always see the head first, so you infer causation.

William: "3: Consciousness is the most likely evidence of FSConsciousness within the universe."

That is trivial. The universe is conscious because I am conscious, and I am not separate from the universe, any more than a ripple is separate from the river, or even separate from the hydrologic cycle. For all I know, you might be conscious too, although apparently deluded about your own nature.

William: "4: Individuate Consciousness has to be eternal."

Why? I suspect you must have it so because you fear death. You think yourself a separate thing. It is just wishful thinking.

[William]

[Replying to post 106 by TSGracchus]

Excuse me, but that which you cited is not research. That is anecdote.

Excuse me, I never claimed ""We cannot explain, using the materialistic model, that 'the mind is what the brain does' when there is no brain function but there is enhanced mind function. " was research. The anecdote came about through the research, which I outlined as well as linked to a post about.

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 107 by William]
I addressed all the points raised in your post (104), William, in my post (106). You merely disclaimed one point I refuted as inadequate to support your position, and you ignored the rest.

There has been no evidence presented that there is any sort of enhanced consciousness when there is no brain function. Any study supporting such phenomena would be front page headlines. What you have presented is anecdotal hearsay, which can be and has been explained by known neuroscience.

I note that you tried to support this weak claim with a not too subtle shift to the unrelated field of cosmology, which I also addressed point by point. You completely ignored this. Perhaps you need a near death experience to enhance your brain function? When your brain has completely shut down you might think more clearly!

But, the subject of this thread is: Is Science Overrated?