On the Topic of Consciousness

[Divine Insight]

Maybe we should break this out.....

This topic is an offshoot from another thread which was on another topic altogether.

This thread is "On the Topic of Consciousness"

I wouldn't pass judgements. My biggest question is why you have a brain type that is willing to jump into the unknown with some assurance, while I seem to have a brain type that doesn't. If I don't know, I leave it at not knowing.

I don't think it comes down to just the brain alone. I think there are many other factors involved. Clearly even from a secular point of view it is recognize that the brain "evolves" as we grow as individuals based much on how we experience life, etc.

For example the very concept of the "unknown" may mean something entirely different to me than it does to you. I mean, sure we could get out a dictionary and look up the term, but that really wouldn't help much because what you believe you know and what I believe I know are going to clearly be two different things. Especially considering my last sentence of the above paragraph. Our knowledge and beliefs evolve in our own brains based upon our own experiences, which clearly are not going to be the same experiences.

Consciousness: I don't know of any scientist that makes his or her living studying it who declares they know what it is.

This is true, but there may be quite a few scientists who feel like Daniel Dennett. Even though he is just a philosopher.

[youtube][/youtube]

I don't disagree with much of what Dennett says about how the brain functions. I don't disagree at all. But he doesn't touch on the real issues as far as I'm concerned. Near the very end of the above video he state a kind of Deepity of his own, "It's not that the Emperor has no clothes, but rather the clothes have no Emperor". The idea intended to imply that we are attempting to push too much onto consciousness that doesn't need to be there.

But for me none of this is satisfying.

I don't disagree with the fact that the brain is indeed a functional portal for the experiences that we have in this incarnated life. Therefore everything he observes and states about how the brain functions and how it "creates" much of our experience, is not in question for me.

But none of that even begins to address the issue of exactly what it is that is actually having this experience. In other words, if the clothes have no Emperor, then what is it that is having an experience? The brain itself?

This becomes a problem for me, because insofar as we know, the brain itself is made of nothing more than matter and energy. If neither matter, nor energy are capable of having an experience, they why should a brain that is made of nothing more than matter and energy become an "Emperor" in its own right?

This is not an easy question, and I wouldn't hesitate to put this question to Dennett himself. In fact, I would like to hear his thoughts on this. Maybe he does address this sort of issue in one of his many lectures. If you find a lecture where he addressed this heart of the matter please share and I'll be glad to take a gander at it.

I've watched several of his lectures, and thus far I haven't been convinced of his conclusions.

To say it is supernatural vs natural seems a leap.

This is statement here goes back to what I had mentioned above, concerning how you and I may very well think differently due to our different experiences in life.

You speak of the term "supernatural" as though that's a meaningful term.

I have been a scientist my entire life. Isaac Newton, and certain Greek philosophies like Zeno and others were my childhood heroes. Albert Einstein was my next hero as I grew in my scientific knowledge. And today I hold many scientists in high regard and marvel at what they were able to discover and prove.

Just the same, in all of this, I have come to the profound realization that to date we cannot say what the true nature of reality genuinely is. Therefore does it even make any sense to speak of the supernatural, when we can't even say with certain what is natural?

So I'm not prepared to accept the insinuation that I'm "jumping off to assume something supernatural". All I'm doing is recognizing that we can't say where the boundaries of the natural world truly are.

So I don't feel that I'm actually leaping anywhere. I'm just recognizing that we can't know that things need to be restricted to what we believe to be a finite physical existence.

In fact, if you go back to Dennett's very argument perhaps you can see an irony there. He is proclaiming that we can't know nearly what we think we can know, yet he seems to think that he can make very clear conclusions from this evidence that our brains clearly trick us.

That's almost an oxymoron right there. If what Dennett says is true, that our brains can fool us considerably, then perhaps the entirety of physical reality is itself an illusion that we are being tricked into believing. What we believe to be "brains" may not be physical entities at all.

My position is that we know consciousness is affected by natural events, and we know nature exists... seems a very small slide to presume consciousness is a natural phenomenon. But not knowing, sure, I can't say it's not - but I haven't been offered ONE example of the supernatural. So, I simply can't presume it's supernatural. I can't even think of why I'd consider the supernatural when the supernatural has such a horrible track record.

Well, our difference of views here may indeed amount to the extremely different way we view the "supernatural". For you to say that the supernatural has a bad track record implies that you associate the term with just about any guess that anyone might come up with (and especially specific claims that have indeed been shown to be false).

Whilst those do indeed qualify as "supernatural", they may not qualify as the type of "supernatural" that I consider. In fact, the type of "supernatural" that I consider is actually quite natural. It simply amounts to nature that we haven't yet discovered or understood, so it's only in that sense that it seems to be supernatural to us, when in reality it may be perfectly natural.

Given this, there only seems to be the natural. Just because we don't know how consciouness works doesn't means it's because of the gods, or the supernatural or something else, or even "natural vs. I don't know".

Nature exists.
Consciousness exists.

Given these two facts, why presume we can't explain consciousness eventually?

I already gave my answer to this earlier in this post. I'll repeat it here for clarity.

Copy and pasted from earlier in this very same post:

But none of that even begins to address the issue of exactly what it is that is actually having this experience. In other words, if the clothes have no Emperor, then what is it that is having an experience? The brain itself?

This becomes a problem for me, because insofar as we know, the brain itself is made of nothing more than matter and energy. If neither matter, nor energy are capable of having an experience, they why should a brain that is made of nothing more than matter and energy become an "Emperor" in its own right?

This is not an easy question, and I wouldn't hesitate to put this question to Dennett himself. In fact, I would like to hear his thoughts on this. Maybe he does address this sort of issue in one of his many lectures. If you find a lecture where he addressed this heart of the matter please share and I'll be glad to take a gander at it.

End of copy and paste

Yes, consciousness exists. And something is having an experience.

But what is it that is having an experience?

Energy and matter?

Electromagnetic fields?

Something else? Many people have suggested that the thing that is having an experience is some sort of "emergent property of complexity".

I suppose this is a valid philosophical idea, but it seems pretty strange to me that an abstract idea of an emergent property could have an experience.

So I'm still left with a deeper mystery.

To simply say that "consciousness" is a natural result of nature, still leaves me asking, "Who is the Emperor that is having this experience?"

If the clothes have no Emperor, then what is it that is having the experience of conscious awareness? The clothes?

It just seems strange to me that the clothes (i.e. matter and energy) should be able to have an experience.

So this simply leaves the door to the "supernatural" (i.e. nature that we simply don't yet understand) wide open.

I'm not saying that the secular view is necessarily wrong. I'm simply saying that the purely secular view seems every bit as strange to me as the supernatural view.

In other words, that view doesn't "hit the spot" as being an obvious conclusion to accept either.

I'm not going to automatically accept Dennetts "Deepity" that "The clothes have no Emperor" as being the profound answer to this question. That's just as absurd as any other Deepity, IMHO.

So this is where I'm coming from.

I'm not claiming that the supernatural necessarily has to exist. But I am claiming that, insofar as I can see, it's on precisely equal footing with any other conclusions at this point.

Seeing that they are on the same footing, I don't mind using intuition and gut feelings to consider one over the other. So with that in mind, I confess that I lean toward the mystical view. But clearly I could be wrong.

[JohnA]

.

Can you tell me what this "we" is? It can't be the material brain since the "we" is "interpreting signals coming from our material brain using an explanation".

Grammar lessons:

1. We = you and me and everyone else.

2. We explain the signals. We call that experience.

I asked to find fault, nor for me to teach primary school grammar.

Good enough, it seems like we are are in agreement then, that "you and me and everyone else" is not a material brain.

Please do not put words in my mouth similar to the materialists' artificial facts in their head.

Signals are material. We have no evidence for the immaterial.
If you have this evidence then please consider:

1) Supply your evidence for the immaterial.
2) Supply your evidence for the immaterial to material link.
3) Supply our evidence that the abstraction that science makes of molecules, elements, atoms, particles does not consist of material concrete objects.

If you can not do the above, then your argument fails.

[JohnA]

I wonder if JohnA is saying science can't investigate the issue, i.e. accepting that there are areas where science cannot go. That would put him right in your Mystical camp, wouldn't it DI?

Recognizing that the scientific method of investigation has limitations is certainly a start. Preaching that "Schools Out" on the topic because science has already answered all these questions is simply false and a misrepresentation of what can even be scientifically known.

Whether a person wants to consider any other possible hypotheses is certainly up to them. But claiming that science has settled the issue is false. It's far from settled. And it may very well be beyond the reach of science altogether.

In that case what sense does it make to claim that "Schools Out" on the topic?

All we can conclude from this situation is that science is insufficient to address the question.

Science has not answered all the questions. And I never said they did. That is your straw man, not mine.

Science has not explained consciousness, but there is no reason to suggest it is mystical.
Your reference to 'experience' has been explained. You are merely using this as a linguistic placeholder for consciousness and when you obscure it, you are referring to the signals that we explain using experience as defined by mainstream dictionaries.

When you say the scientific method is limited, I want to know why? How do you get to that conclusion?

We are not at the pinnacle of science, they have not answered it all. To suggest that because of that the scientific method is flawed/limited is ridiculous and evidence of your obscurantism.

To date science had a 100% track records of explaining stuff using the natural. Not once did science refer to the supernatural or mystical (your obscure word) as an answer.

Seems like you are merely proposing lazy science, and offer a fallacious assertion that the scientific method is flawed/limited.


My suggestion is that you start reading more science and be open minded. It does not matter how many times you utter your obscure obtuse 'experience' and 'mystical' words, it will not justify your self invented magic deity.

[JohnA]

I think one difference between me and some others is that there are people who are very happy that science can't answer such a simple question. They like the idea of the mysterious. Such people are liable to claim their 'insight' that science can't do something makes them superior in some way to the honest toilers who work hard looking for answers. I think that negatively anti-scientific attitude is what gets up JohnA's nose. It gets up mine as well.

I don't negate any of the accomplishments of science. I highly admire all scientists, even those who have made wrong guesses or hypotheses. Even making a wrong hypothesis can often times contribute to forward movement and a deeper understanding overall.

I consider myself to be a scientist and an avid supporter of continued scientific research for sure, especially in the areas where it can have technological benefits in the physical world. I even support the scientific investigation into things that may currently seem to be beyond the reach of science.

But what I don't support is a stance by hardcore secular atheists that science has already proven their position or has even supported it beyond a reasonable doubt. Neither of those positions are true, IMHO.

There was a very famous (and very, very good) mathematician called Hilbert who believed all mathematical truths could be proved using what are called 'formal methods'. Mathematics was equated with Hillbertian 'formal methods' until well into the 20th century. But Godel showed that there is more to mathematics than formal methods after all. I think the same is happening in science today. The problems of mind are showing us science is bigger than the methods it currently uses. Science isn't wrong, but it has somehow painted itself into a corner where it almost stops itself from addressing at least one class of very important question.

I agree, mathematics has some serious issues itself. In fact I really should write a book on that subject because I am actually aware of some of the major flaws in modern day mathematical formalism. I can point to them specifically and even point out why they have been accepted and why they have led mathematicians "astray"*.

* To clarify what I mean by astray allow me to present my objections in a formal logical conditional statement.

IF mathematical formalism is supposed to correctly describe the quantitative properties of our physical universe, THEN our current modern mathematical formalism is wrong

I hold that this conditional statement is true. In other words, if the proposition is accepted as true, then I can show the conclusion is also true. On the other hand if someone chooses to reject the proposition (i.e. they don't accept that mathematical formalism needs to correctly describe the quantitative properties of our physical universe) then the statement is still true logically anyway.

So I hold that this is an absolutely true conditional statement. And I really should write a book on it. But unfortunately I'm just not interested enough to devote my time and effort to the project. Sadly though, if I had spent all my time posting on here writing this book instead, I would have already been done several years ago.

I reject the labels 'anti-scientific' and 'mystic' for myself. But I think science need to change, and that change might be more than a minor tweak.

Well, I'm certainly not 'anti-science', if anything I may be 'anti-mathematical-formalism' as described above, but only in detailed areas.

For me the term "mystic" really just means "Accepting Mystery" and at this point in time I'm certainly open to that.

IF mathematical formalism is supposed to correctly describe the quantitative properties of our physical universe, THEN our current modern mathematical formalism is wrong

WHY?

You could then also say (since math is part of logic):
If logic is suppose to describe our universe, THEN logic is wrong.

The above is a non sequitur.
The above is self refuting - since you are using logic to reject logic. LOL.
The process in science to derive at knowledge uses not only logic, but arguments and evidence.


DI.
You did not write this book because you are begging the question.

[Divine Insight]

When you say the scientific method is limited, I want to know why? How do you get to that conclusion?

Science itself has brought us to that conclusion. The scientific theory of Quantum Mechanics states it mathematically via the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle which itself is a very rigorous mathematical statement. Niels Bohr refers to it as "complementarity".

This result does not surprise me.

We are not at the pinnacle of science, they have not answered it all. To suggest that because of that the scientific method is flawed/limited is ridiculous and evidence of your obscurantism.

But it's obscurantism at all as you keep suggesting. To begin with I'm not suggesting that science is "flawed". It doesn't need to be flawed to be limited.

Where or not you consider it to be flawed would depend entirely upon you own hopes of you may have had for it to begin with. It would only be flawed if you had expected science to be able to give a complete description of reality to begin with. But that could very well be an unrealistic expectation.

When something is limited it doesn't mean that it's flawed. It simply means that it has a restricted domain of applicability. The theory of Quantum Mechanics shows precisely where that restriction lies. It's lies at the quantum level where the idea of precise quantities obeying the macro properties that we had previously assigned to them breaks down. And this does indeed have much to do with our mathematical formalism which actually is flawed.

In fact, since science depends so highly on mathematics, I suppose it is fair to say that science is indeed flawed. After all if mathematics is flawed and science depends upon mathematics completely then it can't help but also be flawed.

To date science had a 100% track records of explaining stuff using the natural. Not once did science refer to the supernatural or mystical (your obscure word) as an answer.

But it hasn't explained everything. It has come to an impasse with QM. Explaining things in terms of probabilities of potentiality is not an explanation. It's nothing more than a mathematical description of an unknown cause.

Seems like you are merely proposing lazy science, and offer a fallacious assertion that the scientific method is flawed/limited.

Why should you equate that with proposing lazy science? That's absurd. On the contrary I think it's lazy to pretend to not recognize these potential flaws and limitations and address them head on. The problem may not even be with the scientific method, or physics at all. The problem could rest entirely with the abstract mathematical formalism that we are presuming to be correct at the very foundation of science.

My suggestion is that you start reading more science and be open minded. It does not matter how many times you utter your obscure obtuse 'experience' and 'mystical' words, it will not justify your self invented magic deity.

Your extreme phobia of a potential magical deity is not my concern. I am open minded enough to consider all possible solutions to a problem. From my perspective it is you who is asking me to become close-minded.

I'm sure that you would be surprised to learn just how much effort I have placed in trying to approach science with the standard closed-mindedness of the scientific method itself. Like almost all good physicists I was a Newtonian hold-out, taking quite a bit of time to accept Einstein's Relativity. I tried every trick in the book to justify Newtonian physics until I finally realized that it was futile. Only then did I truly embrace Einstein's Relativity. At which time it as like a flood-gate opening. I could instantly see how much sense Relativity makes and how it has to be true.

It's funny how acceptance of a new idea loans itself to a much quicker understanding of it.

Then I did the same basic thing throughout the Einstein Bohr debates on QM. Clinging to Einstein's views of a physics that can be explained in detail. I finally realize that Bohr was the real genius here. And even with John Bell's Theorem I was slow to accept that there couldn't be a loophole somewhere.

I learned my lessons the hard way. I accept Quantum Theory now. I accept Borh complementarity and the truth of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principles, and the far reaching implications of those truths. I also accept Bell's Theorem the the truths it demands as well.

I accept that there is no "going back" now. Science is never going to resolve these issues in a way that's going to take us back to the comfort of Classical determinism.

And ultimately this also leads to the fact that science truly is "dead in the water" with respect to being able to describe certain behaviors of reality. We are never going to explain them with the kinds of certainties that we had previously enjoyed.

So yes, science has indeed reached an impasse and it is science itself that has revealed this fact. So we, as scientists, need to recognize these limitations and address them head on before attempting to move forward.

[Divine Insight]

IF mathematical formalism is supposed to correctly describe the quantitative properties of our physical universe, THEN our current modern mathematical formalism is wrong

WHY?

You could then also say (since math is part of logic):
If logic is suppose to describe our universe, THEN logic is wrong.

I wouldn't necessarily argue with that. But look carefully at that conditional statement. It begins with "If logic is supposed to describe our universe". That's the proposition. I already don't accept that proposition. I believe that we can construct logical systems that don't describe our universe. So there's no problem there.

In fact, many have been constructed already. Who can argue that an infinitely old universe that is eternal would necessarily be illogical? At one point in time this was indeed considered to be the way things are. People thought it was a perfectly logical idea. And it could potentially have been logically. Maybe other laws of physics would be different in that kind of universe, but there's no reason why such a universe couldn't potentially be logical.

So there is no reason to demand that logic must describe our universe.

On the other hand, I can give good argument for why we should indeed hold mathematics to this standard.

The process in science to derive at knowledge uses not only logic, but arguments and evidence.

Well, that's all the more reason why science should be based upon a mathematics that also requires evidence and just just pure logic. We know that pure logic can be wrong with respect to our physical universe.

DI.
You did not write this book because you are begging the question.

I didn't write the book because I'm lazy, and unfortunately that's the truth. I really should force myself to write it.

[JohnA]

IF mathematical formalism is supposed to correctly describe the quantitative properties of our physical universe, THEN our current modern mathematical formalism is wrong

WHY?

You could then also say (since math is part of logic):
If logic is suppose to describe our universe, THEN logic is wrong.

I wouldn't necessarily argue with that. But look carefully at that conditional statement. It begins with "If logic is supposed to describe our universe". That's the proposition. I already don't accept that proposition. I believe that we can construct logical systems that don't describe our universe. So there's no problem there.

In fact, many have been constructed already. Who can argue that an infinitely old universe that is eternal would necessarily be illogical? At one point in time this was indeed considered to be the way things are. People thought it was a perfectly logical idea. And it could potentially have been logically. Maybe other laws of physics would be different in that kind of universe, but there's no reason why such a universe couldn't potentially be logical.

So there is no reason to demand that logic must describe our universe.

On the other hand, I can give good argument for why we should indeed hold mathematics to this standard.

The process in science to derive at knowledge uses not only logic, but arguments and evidence.

Well, that's all the more reason why science should be based upon a mathematics that also requires evidence and just just pure logic. We know that pure logic can be wrong with respect to our physical universe.

DI.
You did not write this book because you are begging the question.

I didn't write the book because I'm lazy, and unfortunately that's the truth. I really should force myself to write it.

So, you reject logic. That just means that you admit being illogical. Based on that we reject all your claims as illogical.

Thank you for being honest.

[Divine Insight]

So, you reject logic. That just means that you admit being illogical. Based on that we reject all your claims as illogical.

Thank you for being honest.

I do not reject logic. That's a totally strawman accusation on your part.

It's been well-known and well-accepted for many years that pure logic can never determine the state of reality. This is the very claim of science itself. Science demands observation and experiment. Because pure logic alone is nothing but pure philosophy. You can imagine in your mind perfectly logical worlds that have absolutely nothing to do with our reality.

I already gave you one very famous example. We used to believe that the universe was eternal and basically static (i.e. neither expanding or contracting). And there's no logical reason why reality couldn't have been that way.

Hubble discovered that the universe is expanding and from that information we moved logically toward the idea that the universe had a beginning and must be expanding.

But there is no "logical reason" why the universe couldn't be contracting right now.

So logic alone tells you nothing.

Logic alone is useless. Logic is only useful once you have premises to work with. And as you change those premises with new information then your logical reasoning changes as well, because different logical reasoning follows from different starting premises.

So, no John I'm not rejecting logic at all. Not in the slightest.

I'm just pointing out the fact that logic alone can't tell you anything about reality.

I would think that someone who claims to be as interested in science as you claim to be should already be well aware of this fact.

[JohnA]

So, you reject logic. That just means that you admit being illogical. Based on that we reject all your claims as illogical.

Thank you for being honest.

I do not reject logic. That's a totally strawman accusation on your part.

It's been well-known and well-accepted for many years that pure logic can never determine the state of reality. This is the very claim of science itself. Science demands observation and experiment. Because pure logic alone is nothing but pure philosophy. You can imagine in your mind perfectly logical worlds that have absolutely nothing to do with our reality.

I already gave you one very famous example. We used to believe that the universe was eternal and basically static (i.e. neither expanding or contracting). And there's no logical reason why reality couldn't have been that way.

Hubble discovered that the universe is expanding and from that information we moved logically toward the idea that the universe had a beginning and must be expanding.

But there is no "logical reason" why the universe couldn't be contracting right now.

So logic alone tells you nothing.

Logic alone is useless. Logic is only useful once you have premises to work with. And as you change those premises with new information then your logical reasoning changes as well, because different logical reasoning follows from different starting premises.

So, no John I'm not rejecting logic at all. Not in the slightest.

I'm just pointing out the fact that logic alone can't tell you anything about reality.

I would think that someone who claims to be as interested in science as you claim to be should already be well aware of this fact.

But I stated that science works on logic, arguments and evidence.
It works on all 3. if you reject anyone then science falls flat. You seem to reject logic, therefore you reject science and everything else.

Btw, the word is not yet out if there is an infinite number of universes. So science may have been correct all this time, albeit they got the definition of universe wrong.

As stated before, I enjoy your religious posts and condemning their illogical dogma. But your rejection of science (& logic) worries me.

And your rejection of logic is what I get when you wrote this:

"If logic is supposed to describe our universe". That's the proposition. I already don't accept that proposition."

[Divine Insight]

As stated before, I enjoy your religious posts and condemning their illogical dogma. But your rejection of science (& logic) worries me.

I do not reject either science or logic. That's your misunderstanding. Apparently you are having extreme problems understanding the simplest concepts.

And your rejection of logic is what I get when you wrote this:

"If logic is supposed to describe our universe". That's the proposition. I already don't accept that proposition."

Logic alone cannot describe our universe. What part of that do you not understand?

You just stated yourself:

But I stated that science works on logic, arguments and evidence.
It works on all 3. if you reject anyone then science falls flat. You seem to reject logic, therefore you reject science and everything else.

And don't forget to toss mathematics in there too, because I seriously doubt that you'll find very many scientific theories that don't rely heavily on mathematical formalism.

Moreover, if logic, argument, and evidence = science, then my mystical philosophies are sound science as well because my mystical philosophies also rely on logic, argument, and evidence. So if that's science then my mystical hypotheses are as scientific as any other scientific hypotheses.

Clearly, you're not even remotely understanding my position. You are JUMPING to a gazillion strawman tactics in an effort to avoid the possibility that I might actually be onto something. All you want to do is argue for the sake of arguing.

And what exactly do you even think you are arguing against?

Can't you clarify that for me?

Can you summarize the position you believe that I hold and that you are arguing against?

After all you are the one who is constantly accusing me of being an 'obscurantist'.

Has it ever dawned on you that if you think my position is obscure it might just be because you don't even understand what my position actually is?

Your lack of understanding does not equate to me being obscure.

So far every claim you have made about my position has been totally false and strawman.

All I have ever claimed from the get-go is that science has not ruled out a potential mystical aspect of reality. And the arguments I gave for why we should keep an open mind to this possibility have all be based on logic, evidence, and observation. The very things you claim to support.

[JohnA]

As stated before, I enjoy your religious posts and condemning their illogical dogma. But your rejection of science (& logic) worries me.

I do not reject either science or logic. That's your misunderstanding. Apparently you are having extreme problems understanding the simplest concepts.

And your rejection of logic is what I get when you wrote this:

"If logic is supposed to describe our universe". That's the proposition. I already don't accept that proposition."

Logic alone cannot describe our universe. What part of that do you not understand?

You just stated yourself:

But I stated that science works on logic, arguments and evidence.
It works on all 3. if you reject anyone then science falls flat. You seem to reject logic, therefore you reject science and everything else.

And don't forget to toss mathematics in there too, because I seriously doubt that you'll find very many scientific theories that don't rely heavily on mathematical formalism.

Moreover, if logic, argument, and evidence = science, then my mystical philosophies are sound science as well because my mystical philosophies also rely on logic, argument, and evidence. So if that's science then my mystical hypotheses are as scientific as any other scientific hypotheses.

Clearly, you're not even remotely understanding my position. You are JUMPING to a gazillion strawman tactics in an effort to avoid the possibility that I might actually be onto something. All you want to do is argue for the sake of arguing.

And what exactly do you even think you are arguing against?

Can't you clarify that for me?

Can you summarize the position you believe that I hold and that you are arguing against?

After all you are the one who is constantly accusing me of being an 'obscurantist'.

Has it ever dawned on you that if you think my position is obscure it might just be because you don't even understand what my position actually is?

Your lack of understanding does not equate to me being obscure.

So far every claim you have made about my position has been totally false and strawman.

All I have ever claimed from the get-go is that science has not ruled out a potential mystical aspect of reality. And the arguments I gave for why we should keep an open mind to this possibility have all be based on logic, evidence, and observation. The very things you claim to support.

Math is part of logic.

Science works on logic, arguments and evidence.
I would even take it a step further and say that without logic you can not have arguments, without arguments you can not have evidence (i.e. the evidence may be for other things unrelated to your argument and logic - the point you trying to make).
It works on all 3. If you reject anyone then science falls flat. You seem to reject logic, therefore you reject science and everything else. And the evidence you present is just information unrelated to your argument. Am not even sure you have an argument for 'mystical magic spiritual experience'.

Your mystical stuff is not science since you reject logic, offer that science has limitations, and offer false unfalsifiable evidence as evidence, with no sound argument to back it.

Am not sure what you position is since you rely on obscurantism. Not only that, you seem to change (make statements you reject logic, and then say you do not). Your use of words 'mystical' and 'experience' is ill defined and at times contradict the definitions in dictionaries.
What I am more sure of is that you do not accept that science has a good track record, and even if they never answer your questions, it does not follow that 'magic mystical Eastern Philosophies' are the ultimate truth. I can live in doubt, not knowing the answer, not having to know the answer. Am not convinced you can.

Sometimes I wish you would write shorter to the point posts and not use obtuse obscure words / concepts.