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

[For_The_Kingdom]

Same answer I already gave. If we KNOW it's a ghost, then we KNOW what it is made of.

Wait a minute, how do you go from we KNOW it's a ghost...to....we KNOW what it is made of? Ok, tell me..how do you know what it is made up of when there is no material "stuff" for you to test.

We also can KNOW what the wall is made of. Once we have all that information we can use observation and analysis to figure out what's going on. Pretty simple in concept.

Um, no it isn't a simple concept; considering you just gave a text book example of a non sequitur above.

I can't give you exact details because you haven't given exact details what this ghost is. Ghosts by definition are not real

Um, what definition are you using? Begging the question fallacy is in the air.

, so if you are positing that we have not found a real one, then that means we are able to examine it and sort out what it is.

Is it made of cheese? Photons? What is it? If we can see it, then please tell us what it is made of so we can further design the experiment.

You are saying we can both see it and it is definitely going through a wall so that means you have a lot of information that you have left out. How do you know it's actually going THROUGH the wall? Maybe it just disappears on one side and reappears on the other. We need details.

LOL, if it disappeared on one side and reappeared on the other...that would also need explaining, wouldn't it?

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 30 by For_The_Kingdom]

For_The_Kingdom: "If there is no 'stuff', there is no 'science'."

Or to put it another way, science cannot explain the non-existent. For that you need theology.

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.

Why does it seem that so many religious people just want answers given to them? Whether we are talking about gods or scientists, they seem to think both are providers.

This is not the case (with science anyways).
Science is a method at arriving at conclusions. It seems that they would prefer to ignore this fact and instead look to make believe authorities to provide answers. I suppose it helps them to feel like the playing fields are even this way.

Stop doing that! This method is available to even the religious, many just want an authority to follow instead, which is understandable because it can be a lot of work if you plan to put in the effort yourself.

"God did it" requires no work at all.
Doing the scientific method or at least reading peer review takes effort.

[William]

[Replying to post 66 by For_The_Kingdom]

Whichever question you'd like to ask of the two...use the scientific method to get your answers.

Almost everyone should be able to get the gist of what would have to be done in order to use scientific method. I see no reason why you yourself couldn't do this, unless you are someone who simply doesn't understand what is means to use scientific method.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Almost everyone should be able to get the gist of what would have to be done in order to use scientific method. I see no reason why you yourself couldn't do this, unless you are someone who simply doesn't understand what is means to use scientific method.

Um, what I don't understand is how the scientific method can be used as a tool/resource for knowledge as it relates to things such as immaterial objects floating through solid walls.

You guys are the ones claiming the contrary, and I am simply asking you to explain your stuff.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 35 by William]

Mainstream popular science hasn't established with any real certainty that consciousness is emergent of the brain, and isn't likely to any time soon.
What it has been able to do is show correlation, and correlation would be what one could reasonable expect to find in relation to brain and consciousness interactions.
But it is not yet right to interpret the correlations as being evidence that consciousness is therefore an emergent property of the brain. The reasonable position has to align with the facts. The facts are we have no way to tell for sure if that is actually the case.

But we have no facts to suggest that this isn't the case, and my argument is more of a "preponderance of the evidence" one, as well as Occum's razor. We know that the brain is the "seat of mind" in humans and other animals. We know a great deal about how the human brain is organized and the various functions of its physical areas and how they interconnect. We know that brains developed over a long evolutionary period and started as simple nerve bundles (eg. ganglia), growing ever more complex and capable with time. We know a lot about how damage to certain brain areas can cause specific problems in relation to intellect, consciousness, motor functions, etc.

So all of the evidence that is available appears to point to brain function has the sole source of consciousness. Why invoke some possible alternative explanation with no physical evidence to support it? I've never had an OBE or NDE, or encountered (in person) anyone who has, but I don't see how those can't be explained by impaired (even it temporarily) brain function, or just less than full awake-state consciousness such as with dreams. It just seems unnecessary to introduce extraneous and nonphysical explanations when a physical, materialistic explanation (ie. consciousness is an emergent property of the brain) is the simplest and (I'd argue) the most plausible given what we do now about how brains work, even if that knowledge isn't complete yet.

[Swami]

But we have no facts to suggest that this isn't the case, and my argument is more of a "preponderance of the evidence" one, as well as Occum's razor. We know that the brain is the "seat of mind" in humans and other animals. We know a great deal about how the human brain is organized and the various functions of its physical areas and how they interconnect. We know that brains developed over a long evolutionary period and started as simple nerve bundles (eg. ganglia), growing ever more complex and capable with time. We know a lot about how damage to certain brain areas can cause specific problems in relation to intellect, consciousness, motor functions, etc.

So all of the evidence that is available appears to point to brain function has the sole source of consciousness. Why invoke some possible alternative explanation with no physical evidence to support it? I've never had an OBE or NDE, or encountered (in person) anyone who has, but I don't see how those can't be explained by impaired (even it temporarily) brain function, or just less than full awake-state consciousness such as with dreams. It just seems unnecessary to introduce extraneous and nonphysical explanations when a physical, materialistic explanation (ie. consciousness is an emergent property of the brain) is the simplest and (I'd argue) the most plausible given what we do now about how brains work, even if that knowledge isn't complete yet.

Consciousness is not limited to the brain. The brain only determines how consciousness is expressed, e.g. through our senses, the human body, etc. Plants are conscious as well. Scientists admit to not knowing where to draw the line for consciousness.

The truth is everything in the Universe is conscious. This is a verifiable fact if you're willing to do the work.

"What consciousness is and where it emanates from has stymied great minds in societies across the globe since the dawn of speculation. In today’s world, it’s a realm tackled more and more by physicists, cognitive scientists, and neuroscientists. There are a few prevailing theories. The first is materialism. This is the notion that consciousness emanates from matter, in our case, by the firing of neurons inside the all brain.

[The first option]Take the brain out of the equation and consciousness doesn’t exist at all. Traditionally, scientists have been stalwart materialists. But doing so has caused them to slam up against the limitations of materialism.

The second theory is mind-body dualism. This is perhaps more often recognized in religion or spirituality. Here, consciousness is separate from matter. It is a part of another aspect of the individual, which in religious terms we might call the soul. Then there’s a third option which is gaining ground in some scientific circles, panpsychism. In this view, the entire universe is inhabited by consciousness.

A handful of scientists are starting to warm to this theory, but it’s still a matter of great debate. Truth be told, panpsychism sounds very much like what the Hindus and Buddhists call the Brahman, the tremendous universal Godhead of which we are a part. In Buddhism for instance, consciousness is the only thing that exists."
https://bigthink.com/philip-perry/the-u ... ists-state

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 75 by Razorsedge]

Plants are conscious as well.

You have a very different definition of consciousness than most. Normal definitions of consciousness usually involve the word awareness, such as these:

con·scious·ness

noun: consciousness

• the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings.

• the awareness or perception of something by a person.

• the fact of awareness by the mind of itself and the world.

These definitions would preclude plants being "conscious." What is your expanded definition of the word that would apply to plants?

The truth is everything in the Universe is conscious. This is a verifiable fact if you're willing to do the work.

This is an assertion. I certainly don't buy such an assertion as "truth", and don't believe that there is any verifiable way to show that the keyboard I am typing this on is conscious. Again, you must grossly redefine the word consciousness to make anything in the quote above "truth" or "fact." It is simply your opinion.

The second theory is mind-body dualism. This is perhaps more often recognized in religion or spirituality. Here, consciousness is separate from matter. It is a part of another aspect of the individual, which in religious terms we might call the soul.

Another reference to something that has never been shown to exist in any form (a "soul"). Many people claim that consciousness is separate from matter, and like a thought it is by definition not a physical thing. But there is nothing to suggest that consciousness is not the manifestation of the operation of a physical thing (the brain). Until this can be shown to be untrue, and so far this has not been done, it is the most plausible explanation we have.

[benchwarmer]

Same answer I already gave. If we KNOW it's a ghost, then we KNOW what it is made of.

Wait a minute, how do you go from we KNOW it's a ghost...to....we KNOW what it is made of? Ok, tell me..how do you know what it is made up of when there is no material "stuff" for you to test.

You are missing my point. You are asking us to use science to figure out why a ghost is going through a wall. Correct?

So, the first point I'm making is that you have already figured out we are looking at a ghost. How did you do this? i.e. how do you know it is a ghost? Since ghosts are imaginary things and now you are saying you see a real one clearly you know something we don't. If you are not sure it's a real ghost, why are you asking us to study how it goes through walls?

Ok, let's start from square one:

1) FtK announces there is a 'ghost' going through a wall and asks us to study what is happening using science. Cool.

2) FtK shows us the room with the wall and we wait to see what happens. Lo and behold there is definitely something appearing on this side of the wall. Ftk jumps up and down and says "See! A ghost! How is it going through the wall?"

3) We caution FtK that it may not be a ghost since those are imaginary and no real one has ever been validated to exist. So either this is the first one to really be a ghost or it's something else.

4) We set up a bunch of monitoring equipment to measure what this phenomenon might be. We don't jump to conclusions until we know for sure what is going on. Before we care how it appears to be going through the wall, we first want to figure out what it is made of. We can see it, so it's made of something.

5) The experiments will proceed based on what is found. If nothing is found, more experiments will have to be performed. Observe, hypothesize, test, repeat. Science.

The rest of your post is covered by the above.

Essentially, you are jumping the gun and assuming it is actually a 'ghost'. We can't explain how ghosts go through walls if we don't know what ghosts are. Your question is akin to asking how do invisible pink unicorns make cotton candy.

[For_The_Kingdom]

"The consciousness" comes from the brain system functioning.

No, consciousness CORRELATES with the brain system. All you can demonstrate from a scientific perspective is a correlation between the mind/brain (body)..but what you can't demonstrate or show is where the consciousness came from.

It is one output of this complicated system of neurons and memory elements operating as an integrated system. There are countless examples of components being assembled into more complicated systems, and those systems can produce functions and outputs that are not possible from the individual components by themselves.

Right, it is complicated..it is so complicated that a mindless/blind process was able to create this complicated system, from SCRATCH. It didn't know what it was doing, but it did it...yet, intelligent human beings with vision can't duplicate the complicated system, and you guys supposedly have all of the answers, and you STILL are unable to do what this mindless/blind process was able to do.

If your hypothetical example of being able to form a fully functional brain from "human brain matter" could actually be done in a lab (and as Bust Nak has pointed out, this does in fact happen in the womb although the "human brain matter" forms from an initial neural tube as its beginning)

So what came first; the womb, or the brain matter that formed in the womb? This is a chicken & egg problem in more ways than one..not to mention the fact that what I am asking and what you are appealing to (a system that is already in place) are two totally different things.

I am asking you to form a functional, conscious brain from scratch..because if you go back far enough in time, you will get to a point at which there was no brain, no consciousness, and no life, PERIOD.

So what I am asking you is to explain to me how consciousness originated from a chunk of physical matter. If you can't do that, simply admit it...and I will continue to hold true to my intelligent design theory, and you continue holding true to your "nature did it" theory.

, then there is no reason to believe that it would not be conscious if placed in a hypothetical body so that is has all of the other connections and sensory inputs needed for its functioning.

Which is even more of a problem for a mindless/blind process. My point exactly. The more complex you get, the more intelligent design is necessary.

When this experiment is done in the real world (ie. a growing human baby), there is an initial point where there is no consciousness. Obviously, when the neural tube is first formed there is no "brain" to speak of, and so no consciousness. It is only when this structure grows into a fully-formed brain that the system is able to carry out its functions such as thought, processing sensory inputs, storing information (memory), and generally being a sentient being. If the brain is damaged or destroyed in any human being, then these functions also disappear. But the basic point that consciousness is an emergent property of a functioning brain is not challenged or refuted by your little experiment.

But it is refuted. So what are you saying? That consciousness originated from the brain of a baby? Babies need to be tended to, right? They can't reproduce...they can't eat without assistance, and they know absolutely NOTHING. The baby wouldn't even have a chance to grow in order to reproduce...yet, so much reproduction was going on. Nonsense.

So how does that work in the grand scheme of things? It makes no sense. Things like consciousness and language had to have originated simultaneously, by a super complex process.

Otherwise, again, you have quite a few chicken & egg problems that just can't be reconciled.

If you could actually form a brain in a lab from material, and place it into a human body (or even provide functionally equivalent connections and sensory inputs), there is no reason to expect that it would not have consciousness if it is functioning as a proper brain.

The sensory inputs are not the consciousness...and the consciousness is not the sensory inputs. Obviously, they aren't the same.

When I think of an object (a football), there is nothing about the chemicals in my brain that says "football". The neurons don't look like a football. The electrons doesn't look like a football. Yet, the image of a football is clearly visible in my brain.

And this isn't true for just mental objects, either. This is also the case for feelings and emotions. When I am sad, the chemicals in my brain isn't sad. When I am glad, the chemicals in my brain isn't sad. Yet, I am sad.

Who does these emotions correspond to? My brain ain't sad...so who is sad? It is almost as if there is an immaterial, invisible-to-the-naked-eye "you" that these emotions correspond to.

Hmm.

Thoughts are also just the result of a normally functioning brain, and clearly exist in other animals besides us humans ... although maybe not at as advanced levels due to their less capable brains.

Thoughts/mental images are the result of a correlation between the mind and a normally functioning brain...but they are distinct from each other. They are not the same. You need to explain the ORIGINS of thoughts. Just because they correlate doesn't mean that one comes from the other. Not only is this false, but it is naturally impossible.

Is that all you've got? So you're position is that if someone can't go into the lab and produce a brain in a petri dish then that somehow proves that consciousness is a divinely created "thing" of some sort? I could say the same thing about dark matter and conclude that it doesn't exist. After all, if you can't go into the lab and make a batch of it then it must not actually exist, despite all of the observational evidence for it.

If it can be observed, it doesn't need to be proven, does it? I am asking folks who hang their hats on science...to prove their claims with...science.

There is, to date, no credible evidence to refute the idea that consciousness is anything more than an emergent property of a functioning brain.

So what came first, the brain, or the consciousness? If the brain came first, then I'd like you to tell me WHERE DID THE THOUGHTS COME FROM TO ALLOW THIS PREEXISTING BRAIN TO BEGIN TO THINK. And if consciousness came first, then naturalism is destroyed.

Either way, it isn't looking good for the naturalist.

If the brain came first, how long was it sitting there waiting for all of the right sensors to get into place to allow it to think? I assume it was a lengthy process, right? As everything is a lengthy process when it comes to unobservational stuff, right? Ok, so it was a lengthy process, right? The brain didn't degrade in all of that time, as it sat there, waiting for everything to fall into place for it to begin to think?

Nonsense. The only logical explanation for this is that the brain/consciousness was created simultaneously, just as the Bible said it did.

You clearly don't believe that, but it is the simplest and (by far) most probable explanation. Brains are highly complex systems, and that they can produce consciousness purely from the integrated system functioning properly is not a stretch of extrapolation.

So in other words, a process that can't see, think, or know what it was doing created a "highly complex system" which allows us to "see, think, and know what we are doing".

This is unscientific, illogical, and naturally impossible.

[William]

[Replying to post 74 by DrNoGods]

I've never had an OBE or NDE, or encountered (in person) anyone who has, but I don't see how those can't be explained by impaired (even it temporarily) brain function, or just less than full awake-state consciousness such as with dreams. It just seems unnecessary to introduce extraneous and nonphysical explanations when a physical, materialistic explanation (ie. consciousness is an emergent property of the brain) is the simplest and (I'd argue) the most plausible given what we do now about how brains work, even if that knowledge isn't complete yet.

It may be that because you haven't had NDE or OBE is the reason you don't see how those can't be explained through scientism. The studies done over decades have shown that NDEs strongly suggest that what happens simply cannot be explained by these things you consider 'most plausible'.

Nonphysical explanations, are not at all extraneous. It might be the case that those who cannot accept such possibilities which are more related to spirituality do so because they have brain damage related to the area of the brain which is identified as active during activity which is linked to spirituality or transcendent moments, which makes it impossible for them to understand, or even be interested in such things.

The thing about brains and consciousness from the 'consciousness is not emergent of brains' position is that it stands to reason that consciousness within the experience of human form is going to behave as one would expect. Indeed, the brain and body appear to inhibit the abilities of consciousness, like a cell inhibits an inmates movements and choices.

To those who have experienced OBEs/NDEs the materialistic explanation simply doesn't hold water because it is like telling someone they are "this" when they KNOW through experience they are "that"...and there are no scientific studies which have faithfully replicated those experiences simply by stimulating certain areas of the brain.

[Replying to post 76 by DrNoGods]

These definitions would preclude plants being "conscious." What is your expanded definition of the word that would apply to plants?

These definitions are largely based on the way the West tends to generally think about things.

• the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings.

This definition alone can of course be applied to plants or bacteria etc...unless of course the definition of 'awake' has to do with only that which has eyes and thus appears to be awake.

• the awareness or perception of something by a person.

Limits consciousness to only human beings.

• the fact of awareness by the mind of itself and the world.

Again, it is not established what 'mind' is in association with the brain and consciousness, as mentioned in post #35

The bottom line suggests that mind and brain are not the same thing. The NDEs show that the mind functions well - and even better - when the brain is not functioning.

There is no reason that the earth itself couldn't be the form of living self conscious creative entity. The planet itself might even act as a sort of brain.

Another reference to something that has never been shown to exist in any form (a "soul").

Actually if indeed consciousness is 'the soul' it has indeed been shown to exist.

...there is nothing to suggest that consciousness is not the manifestation of the operation of a physical thing (the brain).

If you were to study NDEs or for that matter, learn how to do OOBE, you would see that there is indeed something to suggest consciousness is not the manifestation of the operation of a the brain.