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]

My point is that the brain is a system that, via the actions of its components (neurons, memory, etc.), can produce functions and outputs that are far more complex than the individual parts themselves. People have published papers on this kind of thing for many decades, for example:

https://academic.oup.com/icb/article/55/1/146/616527

And??

My argument is from the point of view that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain and nothing more

Right, and with all due respect, I argue against the view that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain.

, based on the obvious correlations that you mention, but also because of the lack of another, more plausible, explanation.

Intelligent design is the more plausible explanation.

So consciousness "comes from" the normal functioning of the brain once it has reached a level of development to carry out the necessary physical functions.

How do you get to a normal "functioning of the brain" if you come from the once normal "nonexistence of the brain". Back the billions of years before brains "arrived" on the scene, it was "normal" for brains to not exist.

Please explain the origin of consciousness.

In humans, the neural tube forms at about day 16 from egg fertilization. By the end of the first trimester, cells of the neural tube have differentiated between brain cells (which transform into recognizable brain structures) and nerve cells, and the cerebral cortex starts to form. By the end of the second trimester the brain has mostly developed, although it has not reached full size yet, and the fetus can experience sound, taste and smells, react to sensor inputs, and control its movement. Sometime during this period the fetus could be said to become conscious, depending on how you define that word. It has some awareness of its surroundings, and when actually born the little creature is clearly capable of using all of its sensory inputs and starts the process of learning.

The process is a known series of developments from neural tube to fully-formed brain, and consciousness arrives only when the brain has reached the point of physical development where it can carry out its functions.. There is no evidence that consciousness just suddenly appears in the fetus by a supernatural being or process. It appears only when the fully-functioning brain has physically developed.

Wow, there sure is a lot of low entropy in there for a process that is supposed to be typically high in entropy. With all of that mindlessness and blindlessness that comes with mother nature, who would ever think that things would ever be so organized, so orderly, so structured.

Hmm.

I would sure love to have me a truckload of "scratch" ... it seems that virtually anything can be made from it. But no scratch is needed to make a conscious brain. Just a fertilized human egg, time, nutrients and the environment of the womb. It starts with formation of the neural tube and ends with a fully-formed, conscious brain. We know a great deal about how the process works (a good read is the book Life Unfolding: How the Body Creates Itself, Jamie Davis, Oxford University Press, 2014).

You are describing a particular system that is already in place. I am talking about the origins of the system, particularly consciousness. Because there was once a time where there were no wombs, no baby, no consciousness. No life.

I am asking you to provide a scientific explanation for the origins of, not how things works once conscious life got here...but how did conscious life BEGIN.

This one is easy ... the womb came first. The brain does not come along until a fertilized egg makes its way to the womb, the neural tube is formed, and 4-5 months later you have a brain mostly formed. So the brain & egg problem is not a conundrum.

If the womb came first, I assume the womb is possessed by a conscious agent. So now you have to explain the origins of the conscious agent's...consciousness.

So the question of origins just get pushed back one step further....and so on and so forth until you reach a point where you have absolutely no conscious life whatsoever.

And then what?

See above. Whether a human female egg is considered "life" or not is a big debate for another thread (probably in another section), but in your sequence above it certainly has no brain, and no consciousness. Consciousness arrives only when the brain is fully formed, and that correlation is far too great IMO to write off the idea that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain and nothing else.

You are describing the parts, when the question I am asking involves the whole.

No ... a more complex system typically means more components and/or more integrated components, all acting together to create the complex result. The brain consists of some 100 billion neurons and 5-10x that many glial cells. These are all active and interacting to produce the complex functions of the brain, and that is a tremendous number of components. There are so many of them and so many possible combinations for their interactions that we don't understand all the details yet. It is thought that exascale computing will be needed to start to model these processes in any detail. But this does not imply that intelligent design (as I assume you are using it ... to mean a supernatural being of some sort) is required. It just means a tremendous amount of complexity is possible due to the tremendous number of interacting components.

You are describing the system, when my question is about the origins of the system. If you pop the hood of your car and begin to explain to your son all of the parts and all of its functionality..and your son asks..

"But dad, where did the car come from, and how did all of these parts get configured in such at which the car now operates properly".

That is a whole different conversation, isn't it?

Not sure where that came from. But yes, I am saying that consciousness originates within the brain of a baby at some point during its development (see comments above).

But I am talking about ORIGINS...you can't start mankind's history off with just two newborn babies. Babies can't eat, reproduce, communicate effectively, or anything. You have to start off with adults, who would "know" to do those things.

Hmm. Interesting. Adam & Eve started off as adults...who "knew" to do those things.

I repeat: Hmm.

The fact that a baby knows "nothing" yet (which I'd argue with ... it knows that if it cries it will get attention), has to be tended to, can't reproduce, etc. has nothing at all to do with whether or not is has consciousness or when that developed.

Agree/disagree.

Right ... you get the mental image of a football because you have seen a football before. Think of a woffenbueler and tell me what mental image you get. If you didn't already have the image of a football stored in your memory, you wouldn't produce that mental image when you think of a football. But this whole mental image thing was discussed at length in another thread recently.

So not only was mother nature gracious enough to give us consciousness to go with these brains, but she also gave us a built-in memory.

Memory isn't something that just comes with the territory, it has to be "installed" in the system.

And not to mention, the correlation of the eyes to the brain/consciousness. So, another chicken & egg problem...what came first, the eyes, or the consciousness?

If the eyes came before the brain/consciousness, then what was the eyes doing before the brain/consciousness arrived? Sitting there without a "visionary" recipient? And if the brain/consciousness came before the eyes, then what was it doing before the eyes arriving? Sitting there thinking "Man, I sure wish I had some eyes to see right now. I have the whole "thinking" thing on lock..just wish I had the vision to go with it".

And I guess the eyes heard the thoughts and said "Man, are you in luck".

In fact, naturalism itself is based on the chicken/egg problem..

1. What came first, the stomach, or the appetite?
2. What came first, the veins, or the blood?
3. What came first, the bones, or the skin?

No matter which answer you give, I will then ask, "So, what was the bones doing until skin arrived?"

It just makes no sense, unless you adopt the same view as most theists...which is that these things occurred simultaneously, with no illogical time gap in between.

Thoughts originate in the brain, via the interactions of neurons, memory elements, etc. How is this "naturally impossible"? The fact that thoughts do not originate if the brain is damaged to the point that it doesn't work, certainly shows the correlation, but your argument seems to be that this correlation is not only not sufficient, but can be discarded outright. How? You have no other explanation that doesn't involve hand waving about an intelligent designer.

Ok, let me put it to you this way, Doc. In the history of the universe, there had to have been the very...first...thought. Right? Now, please scientifically explain the origin of that very...first...thought.

If it happened naturally, it should be able to be scientifically explained. So..explain.

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

Nonsense indeed!

Yup. Anything but the "G" word. Can't have that, can we?

Really? A bold assertion you're making there. We know too much about the steps from fertilized egg to fully-formed brain to accept this conclusion.

Its easy to explain how a preexisting system operates. Now, explain how this system came to be in the first place. A much more daunting task, isn't it?

[DeMotts]

[Replying to For_The_Kingdom]

For_The_Kingdom when you see an image like this what is your explanation:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/hominids.html

Everything from B-onwards are pre-homo sapiens hominids that had a smaller brain. Photo A is a modern chimpanzee. Isn't it entirely possible that humans have been evolving both physically and mentally for millions of years both prior to and after diverging from a common ancestor shared with chimpanzees? And that our current conscious state is simply a position on a gradient of consciousness that extends back in time to a period where we were running entirely on instinct? For reference the brain size of Australopithecus afarensis was about 400 cm3 and homo sapiens is about 1200cm3.

Or do you look at that photo and go "this is a photoshop" or "this is a hoax" or "this is total nonsense, none of these skulls could possibly be more than 6000 years old" or "I know more about these skulls than anyone that's spent their entire life studying them because I read the bible". Seriously I want to know what intelligent design Adam-and-Eve-rs think when they see fossil evidence for the evolution of homo sapiens.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 90 by For_The_Kingdom]

How do you get to a normal "functioning of the brain" if you come from the once normal "nonexistence of the brain". Back the billions of years before brains "arrived" on the scene, it was "normal" for brains to not exist.

Please explain the origin of consciousness.

Are you asking for origin of brains or of consciousness? I don't dispute that consciousness arrived with brains, of course, since I believe that consciousness is an emergent property of a brain. So it follows that a brain is necessary for consciousness. But as DeMotts points out, and I've also mentioned in this thread, brains exist in many different animals in many different sizes and capabilities and they evolved in complexity over time.

I think some type of worm developed the first nerve bundles and associated structures that biologists decided was integrated enough to call a "brain." And things have evolved since that point until the most advanced and capable brain so far, which is the human brain. There is no sharp delineation in this long evolutionary process where something called consciousness suddenly appeared. Each successive advance in size and complexity afforded more capability, so the "origin of consciousness" would depend on your definition of the word. That is, at what level of capacity in thought, awareness, subjective analysis, etc. do you decide that the organism is conscious? Is the first worm with a simple brain conscious? It is in some sense as it is aware of its surroundings and can make simple decisions (which way to crawl, what to eat and what not to eat, etc.).

You are describing a particular system that is already in place. I am talking about the origins of the system, particularly consciousness. Because there was once a time where there were no wombs, no baby, no consciousness. No life.

I am asking you to provide a scientific explanation for the origins of, not how things works once conscious life got here...but how did conscious life BEGIN.

We don't' know the exact mechanism for the origin of life on this planet, which has been discussed at length in other threads here, but the origin of conscious life began when brains had developed sufficiently to carry out the tasks that we associate with a conscious being. Since I believe that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, the answer to this question is obvious and unambiguous ... conscious life began when the first brain capable of sufficient function appeared.

You are describing the system, when my question is about the origins of the system. If you pop the hood of your car and begin to explain to your son all of the parts and all of its functionality..and your son asks..

"But dad, where did the car come from, and how did all of these parts get configured in such at which the car now operates properly".

That is a whole different conversation, isn't it?

Yes, but a simple one. In the case of the car, an engineering team designed the configuration of the various components so that together the finished system works like a car. In the case of a conscious being, single-cell organisms evolved into multicellular organisms that eventually developed central control units called brains, and depending on your exact definition of consciousness this brain evolution resulted in a conscious being. Again, if consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, then the answer to your question on the origin of consciousness answers itself. It is not a mystery.

Adam & Eve started off as adults...who "knew" to do those things.

Adam and Eve are mythical creatures that never actually existed, so any reference to them is not relevant. We know with absolute certainty that human beings evolved from earlier ape ancestors. This is not conjecture anymore.

If the eyes came before the brain/consciousness, then what was the eyes doing before the brain/consciousness arrived? Sitting there without a "visionary" recipient? And if the brain/consciousness came before the eyes, then what was it doing before the eyes arriving? Sitting there thinking "Man, I sure wish I had some eyes to see right now. I have the whole "thinking" thing on lock..just wish I had the vision to go with it".

Eyes have evolved independently many different times and in many different formats. There is no connection between having eyes (or not) and having consciousness (again, depending on exactly how you define that word). Eyes evolve, and they can disappear (eg. some animals who migrated into life in dark caves once had eyes and lost them as they were no longer needed).

In fact, naturalism itself is based on the chicken/egg problem..

1. What came first, the stomach, or the appetite?
2. What came first, the veins, or the blood?
3. What came first, the bones, or the skin?

You lost me with that one. Bones developed when a stronger structural frame than cartilage could handle was needed. Some kind of outer protective covering and barrier developed long before bones. When this outer covering became called "skin" I'm not sure, but a bony skeleton developed for structural support, independent of skin, scales, etc. None of the items on your list above are chicken/egg types of situations so I don't see how this is relevant to the origin of consciousness question.

Ok, let me put it to you this way, Doc. In the history of the universe, there had to have been the very...first...thought. Right? Now, please scientifically explain the origin of that very...first...thought.

If it happened naturally, it should be able to be scientifically explained. So..explain.

Again, the first thought happened when the first creature with a brain having the capacity for thought evolved. A thought is a brain function, and clearly there are many members of the animal kingdom far lower on the complexity scale than humans who can think (eg. worms, insects, etc.). They can't engage in the same level of complex thought as a human, but clearly a bee has to "think" at some level to decide what flower to visit, whether to sting or not, and all the other things bees do. But I don't think it is possible to identify which animal in evolutionary history had the first brain capable of a thought. But whatever it was, it wasn't some magical process ... when brains evolved sufficiently they had the capability to "think."

Yup. Anything but the "G" word. Can't have that, can we?

Sure ... that's on the table. But to date there is no evidence that G creatures exist, or ever did exist, so they are superfluous and unnecessary. They were convenient inventions thousands of years ago to explain things that had no alternative explanation. But science has eliminated the need for this convenient and easy explanation, so there is really no need anymore to consider them.

[TSGracchus]

I recommend the book The Trouble with Testosterone and Other Essays on the Biology of the the Human Predicament by Robert Sapolsky.

Start at the beginning and read through to the last chapter, which is called "Circling the Blanket for God". Read and heed the warning with which the chapter opens, but if you don't dare read the chapter, please, don't bother us with religion again. We can argue about his conclusions, but only if you are aware of them and the evidence that supports them.

[Bust Nak]

From the brain? Ok, now follow me on this one. Your brain is an independent, physical/material object, right?

Correct.

Now, think of a football...

Done.

How can your brain (this independent, physical object) be about an entity that is completely independent from it!?

By firing in a certain pattern that matches memory of said football. How is this fundamentally different from say, taking a photograph of a football? I mean, do you ever wonder how a photo can have an image of football that is completely independent from the photo?

Makes no sense.

Well, ask more questions to drill down what part it is exactly that is not making sense to you.

Ok, and if the ghost past through every single one of the walls, then what?

Then we try streams of particles instead of solid walls.

[mgb]

If you claim that only complex living things can exist if they are purposefully designed, then the very idea that a complex God could exist without having been designed becomes equally problematic.

The argument, like most such arguments, is more subtle than this. People say that the physical world needs a designer because they don't see how matter could, for example, evolve into a conscious person, an oak tree, a bird...

These things, they argue, must have a designer. So must the universe because it is so finely tuned. So far so good. But then their opponents ask 'If a complex universe needs a designer, so does a complex God'.

But comparing God to a physical universe and comparing evolution in God to physical evolution is not a valid comparison. In God 'evolution' can happen in a different way. In God complexity can be essentially abstract. If God can know mathematics God can know abstract complexity. Complexity is intrinsic to mathematics, so mathematics is complexity 'for free'. This is not at all the same as physical complexity because mathematics starts off very simply and has within itself its own complexity. So God does not need to be designed. He can be complex by knowing abstract complexity. This is complexity through knowledge which is very different from complexity in matter.

By knowing complexity God can then decide to make that knowledge tangible, by creating a physical universe.

[William]

[Replying to post 95 by mgb]

By knowing complexity God can then decide to make that knowledge tangible, by creating a physical universe.

That is all very well - so perhaps you can answer the question which I put to FTK -before he fled the thread...
in post #88

Q: How did the Consciousness which is eternal create the consciousness on earth which you believe is not eternal? What did GOD use to create this finite consciousness?

Of course if you do not believe that human consciousness is finite, there is no need to answer the question...but another question similar to this is "how did the complex GOD you speak of, create the physical universe...what did GOD use to create the PU?"

To clarify, if GOD is non-physical, by what means did GOD create the physical?

(Are there any clues in the PU which can help answer this Q?)

[Swami]

I recommend the book The Trouble with Testosterone and Other Essays on the Biology of the the Human Predicament by Robert Sapolsky.

Start at the beginning and read through to the last chapter, which is called "Circling the Blanket for God". Read and heed the warning with which the chapter opens, but if you don't dare read the chapter, please, don't bother us with religion again. We can argue about his conclusions, but only if you are aware of them and the evidence that supports them.

I have read too many Western science based books. They all admit to not knowing the answers to the big questions. I've found more discussion on the important questions in religious texts. I've leaned more towards the Eastern religions because of their focus on consciousness and the practices they used to access it and single it out. Through meditation and experience I've discovered that all that exists is consciousness.


I am not looking for books that are biased towards a Western perspective of thinking. I am interested in writers who want to connect Eastern and Western ways of thinking. I emphasize Eastern thinking because only a scientized form of "experience" will bridge the gap between religion and science and Eastern practices tend to focus on consciousness.

[DeMotts]

[Replying to mgb]

mgb would you agree that there is no way for you to deny that it is possible that there indeed could exist a higher order than god that is beyond your comprehension? That god himself has a designer? There's no way for you to be sure, correct? Perhaps god himself has received a bible from his god. That's possible right?

[mgb]

How did the Consciousness which is eternal create the consciousness on earth which you believe is not eternal? What did GOD use to create this finite consciousness?

Of course if you do not believe that human consciousness is finite, there is no need to answer the question

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

...but another question similar to this is "how did the complex GOD you speak of, create the physical universe...what did GOD use to create the PU?"

Physical matter is not a substance in itself. It is far more subtle than that. It is a vibration in a field of energy. Hinduism says God created the universe by the sound of His voice. Sound is a vibration. It is interesting that the Hindus knew this long before the quantum physicists discovered it.

(Are there any clues in the PU which can help answer this Q?)

Yes, scientists are discovering that the classical universe is an emergent property of the quantum universe; it is a vibration in Q spacetime.