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

[William]

[Replying to post 108 by TSGracchus]

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.

It was important that the first point was corrected, and it felt best to work on that one. the rest of your post I didn't read, not because I want to ignore whatever you have replied, but I want you to acknowledge that it was a mistake for you to imply right off the bat that what I cited is not research. The link to the post where the video and summary of the research into NDEs was also provided.

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 109 by William]

William: "It was important that the first point was corrected, and it felt best to work on that one. the rest of your post I didn't read, not because I want to ignore whatever you have replied, but I want you to acknowledge that it was a mistake for you to imply right off the bat that what I cited is not research."

Well, I did read all of your post and followed the link and searched for un-cited articles, which I did not find. So, I didn't "imply right off the bat".
Perhaps you could cite the journals in which the findings were published?

As science is practiced today, research is documented, with clear protocols. It is not hearsay or anecdotal renditions of observation, even those presented by "experts".

William: " The link to the post where the video and summary of the research into NDEs was also provided."

I watched it, read the summary and scanned the comments.

Now I submit for consideration that the reason you diverted into cosmology, is that you realized, perhaps not consciously, that your argument was weak, although it was the best one you had, and so tried to gain credibility by another argument, even weaker than the first.

Still, as I pointed out in my last post, the subject of the thread is not about transmigration, reincarnation, survival after death, heaven or hell. The subject is: Is Science Overrated?

Whether there is life after death and the existence of a deity are not central to the subject. But if there is some form of consciousness that survives death it is science that will demonstrate it.

[William]

[Replying to post 110 by TSGracchus]

As science is practiced today, research is documented, with clear protocols. It is not hearsay or anecdotal renditions of observation, even those presented by "experts".

Given this particular source is from a particular university which has been involved with the study of NDEs for the past 5 decades, if such a source and what is cited as documented research and clear protocols in the video as presented by the expert involved in a great deal of said studies, is not to be trusted, then what is to be trusted?

[TSGracchus]

[quote="William"]

William: "Given this particular source is from a particular university which has been involved with the study of NDEs for the past 5 decades, if such a source and what is cited as documented research and clear protocols in the video as presented by the expert involved in a great deal of said studies, is not to be trusted, then what is to be trusted?'

In science, a source is not a YouTube video. It is not even a text book. It is a document detailing all relevant protocols. In the case of the single reported observation I saw no timeline of events, no notations of when brain activity ceased or began again. I saw no testimony about what activity was observed by the inactive brain and when the activity took place. I have, in rather extensive reading about neurology, seen no citation of these rather startling findings, and certainly no independent verification. I suspect that those involved in the procedure were more interested and focused on the risky operation than in an accurate report of possible parapsychological phenomena.

Of course I'm skeptical. Science is about skepticism. But, if a case can be made for mind-body dualism or life after death, or ESP or any of the other things this group has been investigating, I will be ready to consider it. If science can demonstrate mind-body dualism, life after death, the existence of a deity (which seems to be your concern), or ESP I am prepared to revise my opinions.

Scanning the books put out by UVA DOPS I find that they are co-authored by journalists, philosophers and theologians. This is not science, this is marketing.

[Swami]

[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.

This is a common viewpoint but it is seriously misguided. I repeat again, everything in the Universe contains consciousness. You limited consciousness to neurochemical activity but that can't be right because plants have consciousness while lacking neurons and neurotransmitters. Computers have consciousness while lacking neurons and neurotransmitters. The only thing our nervous system determines is how consciousness is expressed or experienced. We have eyes so we experience consciousness through visual sensation, etc.

There is no scientist that claims to understand consciousness nor do they know where to draw the line in terms of what possesses it.

[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.

Plants are conscious. There are plenty of scientific studies that show plants grow better when people talk to them. Not sure if it was you that brought up the consciousness of coke bottles but to that I am willing to say that I can communicate with any object in the Universe via meditation. When I am focusing on that object I become one with it.

There are 4 states of consciousness according some of the ancients:
- Waking state
- Dream state
- Deep sleep state
- Turiya

The Mandukya Upanishad discusses turiya as pure consciousness, which is indescribable, incomprehensible, and unthinkable by the mind, but ultimately realized as the one true self.
https://www.ananda.org/yogapedia/turiya/

For more elaboration watch from 5:17 minute mark to 9:17.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 113 by Razorsedge]

Plants are conscious. There are plenty of scientific studies that show plants grow better when people talk to them.

Plants are not conscious, however they do like CO2 and grow better with somewhat elevated levels of CO2. If a human being is in the vicinity of a plant and "talking to it", how do you know it isn't the excess CO2 from the human exhaling that is causing the plant to grow better? Plants can't hear, so it obviously can't be the talking that is doing it unless they also respond in some way to the pressure waves travelling through the air in the vicinity of the plant that are created by the person talking. Did any of the scientific studies you mention (but did not reference) isolate talking from CO2 increase or pressure waves?

This idea that "everything" is conscious has no scientific basis or evidence to support it. But restricting the discussion to plants, give us a few references to the "plenty of scientific studies" that show that plants grow better from having humans talk to them, where they took the elementary precautions and analysis to confirm that excess CO2 from the humans breathing, or pressure waves from the sounds, could not have contributed to the results.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 113 by Razorsedge]

Plants are conscious. There are plenty of scientific studies that show plants grow better when people talk to them.

Not quite. Scientific experiments involving the playing of different recordings to plants did elicit a positive response in growth. It did not really matter what type of sound it was, but the common factor is that sound involves vibration. Plants appear to respond to vibrations. There is no evidence that they respond to humans merely talking to them. Another issue is with the term conscious. It is generally agreed that plants are not self-conscious, so what exactly is meant when people claim that plants exhibit consciousness?

[Swami]

[Replying to post 115 by brunumb]

[Replying to post 114 by DrNoGods]

"There have been perplexing reports of organ transplant receivers claiming that they seem to have inherited the memory, experiences and emotions of their deceased donors, and which are causing quirky changes in their personality.
"
http://www.namahjournal.com/doc/Actual/ ... iss-1.html

If consciousness is isolated in the brain, then how are non-brain organs able to exhibit conscious experiences of the donor? This again just goes to show that you don't need a brain to have consciousness!

[William]

[Replying to post 115 by brunumb]

It is generally agreed that plants are not self-conscious...

argumentum ad populum

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 115 by brunumb]

It is generally agreed that plants are not self-conscious...

argumentum ad populum

Maybe so, but hearsay and anecdotes are not compelling evidence to the contrary.

You seem to have missed a question I asked earlier. If I may ask again:

"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?"