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

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 116 by Razorsedge]

"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."

And here is the very next sentence from that reference:

"We will present a few cases and then discuss a possible explanation in the light of the occult insights of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother, Mirra Alfassa."

Occult insights? This isn't science, and neither is "organ transplant receivers claiming that they seem to have __________ (fill in the blank)."

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!

If the only evidence you have for non-brain organs exhibiting conscious experiences of the donor is a claim that someone "seems" to believe it, and a reference to "occult insights" then I'm pretty sure we can safely ignore it. This is far too weak to even begin to support a claim that it shows that you don't need a brain to have consciousness.

[William]

[Replying to post 118 by brunumb]

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

Not a handful, I would agree. Some stats suggest 1 in 10 people have experienced and reported at least 1 OOBE. Given the worlds population, that is a very large number of people (and those are only the ones who do report their experience so the number would likely be higher) so that is significant, but apparently not significant enough for it to warrant more attention - the difficulty being of course that scientists cannot study the experience, but what they are told about the experience. Studies at the university of Virginia, United Kingdom and Holland have shown that among people who have documented brushes with death, between 10-20% will report having NDEs, remembering the experiences clearly, and are able to put those into words and choose to do so.

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?"

With 100% NDEs nobody has ended up dead. That is specifically why they are called 'near death' as it is related to the individuals having a brush with death, as well as having alternate experiences at the same time. OOBEs, on the other hand, happen in circumstances not related to brushes with death, but the two types of experiences are similar re 'leaving one's body' and encountering otherworldly entities and environments.

The video in this post goes into far more detail re the questions you ask, including explaining what are and why NDEs are referred to as such.

[TSGracchus]

There are, of course, some inconvenient ethical and moral problems with studying "near death experiences", but the "out of body experiences" have been produced by various drugs, borderline sleep, and even electromagnetic stimulation of the brain, or binaural beats.

And it makes perfect sense that a brain shutting down because of lack of oxygen would experience the types of hallucinations to which the subject was culturally pre-disposed. Thus the Christian might interpret the experience as meeting Jesus, but they Muslim and Hindu don't.

[Swami]

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?

The basic expression of consciousness is awareness. Every bit of matter possesses consciousness but the arrangement of matter determines how consciousness is expressed. The way our brains are arranged lead to our consciousness being expressed and experienced through vision, sound, and all of the other senses. Consciousness in another physical medium would simply be expressed in other ways. For instance, think of how computers would be conscious.

You want proof? If scientists can not say how the brain causes consciousness nor even define it, then how can they say it is limited to a human brain? Why are we finding that donor organs contain consciousness?

You can put all of this into perspective by proving it to yourself. Try doing some 'field research' as I brought up in post 59.

[Swami]

[Replying to post 119 by DrNoGods]

You asked for evidence and I presented it. Now you dismiss it!

Everything I told you about consciousness can be confirmed through field research. You want it read to you, argued for you, and presented to you by others, when you're the only one that can know your conscious experiences. It is subjective in nature. You ask a scientists what you're thinking and they are in the dark or resort to guesswork. Why is that?? The way some Eastern thinkers discovered the true nature of consciousness is through 'experience' because that's the best tool for knowing it!

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 123 by Razorsedge]

You asked for evidence and I presented it. Now you dismiss it!

The point was that what you presented is NOT scientific evidence, so it can be dismissed.

You want it read to you, argued for you, and presented to you by others, when you're the only one that can know your conscious experiences.

What has this got to do with plants having consciousness, which was the point in question?

You ask a scientists what you're thinking and they are in the dark or resort to guesswork. Why is that?? The way some Eastern thinkers discovered the true nature of consciousness is through 'experience' because that's the best tool for knowing it!

Again, what has this got to do with plants having consciousness? Are you suggesting that I go and ask a plant to relay to me its subjective experiences? How would I go about that? I maintain that plants are not conscious because there is no legitimate, scientific evidence to support that claim. What you presented is not scientific evidence.

[Swami]

[Replying to post 124 by DrNoGods]
It doesn't seem that you understand my position.

Debating is not my approach. Getting people to use their own experience to learn about consciousness and ultimate reality is my approach. In science, getting involved with religion and experience would all be part of "field research", something which I'm finding that atheists are unwilling to do. Real scientists, the ones not driven against religion, are already collaborating with Buddhists, Hindus, Christians, etc. Notice I said "collaborating" as opposed to thinking they have all the answers and attacking these religions.

Your approach will not get us the answers to the important questions that I brought up at the beginning of the discussion.

[Neatras]

[Replying to post 125 by Razorsedge]

Do you think you should be using a debating website, in a debating sub-forum, under a debate topic as a platform for a non-debate?

[For_The_Kingdom]

Are you asking for origin of brains or of consciousness?

Both, but primarily consciousness.

I don't dispute that consciousness arrived with brains, of course, since I believe that consciousness is an emergent property of a brain.

Then vision would also have to be an emergent property of the brain..because you can't have vision with no brain, according to naturalism. This goes right back to the chicken & egg problem. If they didn't originate simultaneously, then there had to have been a time gap in between..a concept which strikes me as incoherent.

So it follows that a brain is necessary for consciousness.

A brain is necessary for consciousness to correlate with a physical entity. A brain is not necessary for consciousness to exist.

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 don't believe in any "evolution" of the brain.

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.

If the worm still has the same "brain" it had X amount of years ago, how do you go from that fact to, "And things have evolved since that point..."

Don't you see the huge leap there? Did you not see where you left science and went to Alice & Wonderland with the "evolution" stuff.

It is clear as day.

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.

I mean the very first "thought". When did this chunk of matter begin to form independent images in it? And where did all of the personhood involving "I", "Me" come from.

And the more difficult question, is "how". How can a chunk of mere matter, form images of items which are completely independent of it.

Just to give an illustration of what I mean; it would be similar to....lets say you are looking, on a atomic level, at a plastic water bottle...and while you are looking deep into the water bottle at this level, you suddenly see the undeniable image of a rhinoceros eating grass.

Now, the water bottle has absolutely NOTHING to do with a rhinoceros eating grass...so how can one chunk of matter be about another chunk of matter? There is no correlation whatsoever...that this is EXACTLY the kind of thing we have with mind/body.

Well, almost exactly, because we are unable to look inside someones mind and see what they are seeing...but the person who is thinking of the image can see it clearly.

You mentioned that the images come from the sight/vision...well again, now you've got to explain the origin of the eyes and the projection that comes with it.

Pushing the question of origins back one step further...yet again

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.

Right, that is what you "believe", but you are unable to go in a lab and get conscious life from inanimate material. I am not talking about by way of sexual reproduction either, for reasons already mentioned.

Not only that, but you can't even give a 3D animation of what could have possibly occurred, can you? Can you do that much?

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.

Ok, so what is more complex; inanimate (non sentient) car...or a sentient car?

Obviously, a sentient car is more complex than a non sentient car. So, you just explained the origins/configuration of a car...something you can't even begin to do without presupposing intelligent design.

Now, explain the configuration of the human brain, and how conscious arose from a chunk of inanimate matter? Now, explain the configuration of the human brain by an inanimate, mindless, blind process.

Adam and Eve are mythical creatures that never actually existed, so any reference to them is not relevant.

You mean "Adam and Eve as portrayed in the Bible"...that has to be what you mean..because surely, even a naturalist will admit that there had to be the "very first two human beings"..this is obvious.

Well, you call the very first human beings whatever you want to call them...and Christians will continue to call the very first human beings "Adam and Eve" as they are named in the Bible.

We know with absolute certainty that human beings evolved from earlier ape ancestors. This is not conjecture anymore.

Right, on your view; humans are animals. Can't rock with it.

Eyes have evolved independently many different times and in many different formats.

Evolved? I am trying to figure out where did the eyes come from the in the first place.

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).

Enough with the bio-babble for once. Humans have eyes. Where did they come from?

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.

Actually, you lost me with that explanation, first of all..

"...could handle was needed".

What? How does nature "know" what is needed. Nature could care less about what you "need" for survival.

You people (evolutionists/naturalists) treat nature as if nature itself is sentient and it actually knows what it is doing.

All of this organized structure from a process that isn't organized, and structured.

Makes no sense.

As far as your response is concerned; it still didn't answer my question...what came first, the bones, or the muscles? Plain and simple.

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.

You said "but a bony skeleton was developed for structural support". That is like saying; "It rains X times a year for my crops to grow"...as if nature cares about your crops and if they grow or if you eat.

Nothing in nature happens "for" anything. There are no agendas, plans, or goals with nature. It isn't as if you got rain because nature looked down on you and had pity that your crops aren't growing and you need to feed your family.

You got rain because _________ <--rain explanation inserted here. That's why you got rain.

So all of this "it evolved/developed wings because it needed to escape from predators" kind of talk is simply false.

Again, the first thought happened when the first creature with a brain having the capacity for thought evolved.

But that isn't what needs to be explained. First you have to explain the origins of the brain..and THEN explain the origins of conscious. If you have brain matter scattered over your science lab (for whatever reason), how are you going to assemble/configure the brain matter to an actual assembled brain?

Answer the question!!

And even if you are able to assemble the brain with your intelligence, that still doesn't answer the question of how a non-intelligent "force is able to configure the brain matter.

There is no natural process at which the brain matter will "mysteriously" begin to float around the lab over millions of years and assemble itself to a brain.

This is just not how nature works under ANY circumstances. I personally don't believe anyone believes that kind of stuff...but the problem is; the desire to keep God out of the equation is so strong that it overpowers the illogical belief that nature successfully assembled brains with consciousness joining the party shortly thereafter.

A thought is a brain function

But the origin of consciousness is not.

, 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.).

Again, irrelevant.

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."

Irrelevant.

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.

I disagree.

They were convenient inventions thousands of years ago to explain things that had no alternative explanation.

There are only two explanations...either a being with vision and a mind gave you eyes and consciousness...or a non-being, with no vision and mind...gave you eyes and consciousness.

I know where my money is going.

But science has eliminated the need for this convenient and easy explanation, so there is really no need anymore to consider them.

Right, it is convenient and easy for us (believers) to conclude that God did it.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 125 by Razorsedge]

Real scientists, the ones not driven against religion, are already collaborating with Buddhists, Hindus, Christians, etc. Notice I said "collaborating" as opposed to thinking they have all the answers and attacking these religions.

I am a "real" scientist, and was born into a very Christian household, spent countless hours in church, bible camps, vacation bible school, etc, from birth until I was 18 years old and went off to college. I arrived at my atheist position by taking the time in my 20s to study the different religions of the world, their origins and principles, etc. and concluded that none of them are "true."

So I did arrive at my position by "field research" as you put it, and I am not "driven against religion" or "attacking it." I simply don't believe any of it because my "field research" led me to the conclusion that religions and gods are purely inventions of man, and consequently I don't believe that gods of any type exist now, or ever did exist. If some evidence ever appears that supports the existence of one of these beings I'll change my mind.

The point in question was related to plants having consciousness and evidence for that claim, but you seem to be ignoring that for some reason and replying with unrelated comments having nothing to do with that subject.

As pointed out by Neatras, you are in the debate section of this website, in the Science and Religion section. So if your approach is not to debate then you are posting in the wrong section. If you want to have general discussions and bring up the occult, etc. then there are more appropriate sections for that sort of thing.