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 127 by For_The_Kingdom]

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.

Vision evolved from simple light sensitive molecules, eye patches, and through to eyes of many different types (compound eyes like many insects, multiple eyes more similar to the human eye, etc.). In parallel, the necessary processing infrastructure developed within the brain to ultimately form a complete vision system. Why is this incoherent or hard to understand? There would be no point in evolving a visual cortex if the other parts of the visual system did not also exist, just like there would be no need for the brain to process motor functions from sensor inputs without nerves and muscles to complete the system. These components DO develop simultaneously in the sense that they work as an integrated system, but such systems usually start out simple and become more complex over time. An eye patch is far simpler than a human eye, as is the processing "circuitry" needed in the brain to interpret the signals and create the perception of vision (or in the case of an eye path ... sensitivity to light or no light). As more complex vision systems developed, more processing components were needed in the brain and they "added on" to form a more complex brain.

A brain is not necessary for consciousness to exist.

Has this ever been demonstrated? How can consciousness exist without a brain?

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

What? This is demonstrable fact. So you would discard everything in this article?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_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..."

See link above ... brains evolved from simple to complex.

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

This was debated ad-nauseum in another thread. The brain is a complex system of many billions of interacting neurons that is capable of creating perceptions of all types, including mental images. Thoughts, mental images, etc. are just the manifestation of these complex interactions, just like consciousness.

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

http://www.rctn.org/bruno/animal-eyes/n ... lution.pdf

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.

Brains evolved from simple ganglia to something as complex as a human brain over several hundred million years. This "mindless, blind process" as you call it is well understood and documented, including how it can form complex structures like brains and eyes. Why do you think humans still have a "hind brain", and why are the functions it carries out almost identical to those same functions in animals without all the rest of the complex structure present in a human brain (eg. the neocortex)? If a fully-functioning human brain was just poofed into existence by a god, why keep this primitive functional component at all? It makes far more sense (and is consistent with observation) that brains evolved over long periods of time, gaining complexity in structure and capability along the way.

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.

Yes ... that Adam and Eve. And since we know that humans evolved from bipedal apes, you need to define what you mean by "human." Was Homo erectus human? What about Homo heidelbergensis? Modern humans (Homo sapiens) evolved from earlier species in a very "bushy" tree and did not appear suddenly as described in the bible (and certainly not as described there).

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

See Evolution of the Eye link above.

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

And again ... see earlier link and references therein.

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.

No ... my point was that bones developed in response to the need for stronger structural support (eg. stronger than cartilage). Nature didn't hold a meeting and make a decision about this, it is just evolution in action. For example:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK10056/

Just like eyes didn't start out as fully-functional eyes like humans have today. They evolved over long periods of time from much simpler structures (both the sight mechanism, and the brain area that processes information from the sight mechanism).

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.

They evolved together as part of a more complete structural support and motor system.

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.

Of course ... no one is saying otherwise. But evolution can produce new bodily functions and components in response to natural selection. I mentioned the dark cave dwellers that once had eyes and lost them. That didn't happen because nature had a pow-wow about it ... it happened because it is inefficient to maintain structures for sight if they are not needed, and after many generations (probably many thousands) the sight components slowly vanished. Humans will probably lose their wisdom teeth and appendix eventually for the same reason. Nature is usually pretty efficient, and beneficial modifications hang around while deleterious ones don't.

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!!

OK ... the origins of the brain question can be addressed with the link above about evolution of the brain. No need for me to summarize that here. And why are you stuck on this idea that it should be possible to somehow piece together human brain material in a lab and have it function as a proper brain? And if someone can't do that it proves ... exactly what? It is obvious that simple animals like worms have brains, with very limited functionality. More complex animals like mammals have more complex brains with more capability. There is a well understood basic evolutionary path showing that worms arrived on the scene long before mammals, and that brains developed more complexity over time. Whether or not someone can go into a lab and produce a working brain from test tubes of brain material is neither here nor there.

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.

No ... it's just what we actually observe in the real world. You can even bring your favorite god into the equation and say that this is how he/she/it decided to do things. Brains evolved from simple to complex over hundreds of millions of years. What is illogical is believing that the human brain (and consciousness) was suddenly poofed into existence at some instant in time. That does not fit observation whether a god is involved or not.

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.

I'll definitely take the other side of that bet!

[DeMotts]

[Replying to post 129 by DrNoGods]

For_The_Kingdom's argument against evolution is extremely sensible and valid - the type of evolution he is describing definitely did not occur.

Fortunately the type of evolution he is describing is not advocated by anyone, anywhere, ever.

[For_The_Kingdom]

[Replying to post 129 by DrNoGods]

For_The_Kingdom's argument against evolution is extremely sensible and valid - the type of evolution he is describing definitely did not occur.

Fortunately the type of evolution he is describing is not advocated by anyone, anywhere, ever.

The type of evolution that am describing is the idea that a reptile evolved into a bird. And that is the type of evolution that did not occur.

[DeMotts]

[Replying to post 131 by For_The_Kingdom]

So do you acknowledge that humans evolved into homo sapiens from more primitive hominids like homo erectus? And homo erectus evolved from more primitive hominids like Australopithecus africanus? Or would you like to assert that that "did not occur", for which I'm sure you will give suitable and comprehensive evidence.

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 131 by For_The_Kingdom]

"Because some reptiles are more closely related to birds than they are to other reptiles (e.g., crocodiles are more closely related to birds than they are to lizards), the traditional groups of "reptiles" listed above do not together constitute a monophyletic grouping or clade (consisting of all descendants of a common ancestor). For this reason, many modern scientists prefer to consider the birds part of Reptilia as well, thereby making Reptilia a monophyletic class, including all living Diapsids" -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reptile

So birds are reptiles and humans are apes.

When science gets it wrong, science corrects itself. You must have missed the memo.

[Swami]

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."

Notice here that you said you "studied" and not practiced. This is the common pattern I find when atheists say that they "searched" for answers. For you to say that no god exist is like saying that consciousness doesn't exist. The reason is because my god is pure consciousness. I discovered it from experiences gained through searching inwardly instead of reading a book. At best, the books can serve as a guide but then you must put it into practice.

[Swami]

[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?

It would depend on the topic. I am not here to get bogged down with scientific studies or facts about this or that. When I've supported my points with evidence all I got was 10, 20, or maybe 30 different scientific points and studies thrown at me by skeptics. This is clearly a distraction.

The problem here is not a lack of arguments, evidence, and proof, but rather it is a lack of experience. Experience is what led the Eastern religions to the true nature of consciousness and many atheists are unwilling to engage in these practices. This is precisely why I emphasize experience over debate.

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 135 by Razorsedge]

Razorsedge: "I am not here to get bogged down with scientific studies or facts about this or that. When I've supported my points with evidence all I got was 10, 20, or maybe 30 different scientific points and studies thrown at me by skeptics. This is clearly a distraction."

Evidence is a distraction! I hope you never have to serve on a jury. I hope you don't vote. Reality is a distraction! Sheesh!

Razorsedge: "The problem here is not a lack of arguments, evidence, and proof, but rather it is a lack of experience. Experience is what led the Eastern religions to the true nature of consciousness and many atheists are unwilling to engage in these practices. This is precisely why I emphasize experience over debate."

Experience?! I became Buddhist over fifty years ago. A Buddhist seeks cleanse the mind of delusions. That means accepting evidence. Science indicates what meditation reveals intuitively: I am not separate, I am a process, a ripple in a stream, a vortex of probabilities, a self-aware swirl of stardust in the universe and not separate from the universe. That is reality. But I am not here to convince anyone of that.

As others have pointed out, you are in the wrong forum. You are not here to state and support a position. You are here to preach woo. I suggest you have some pamphlets printed up and go door to door. When you have achieved enlightenment, and have been sufficiently rejected and laughed at, go to the forum on Buddhism and find out what you have been doing wrong. Or when you have some inkling of physics, chemistry, geology, astronomy, biology or mathematics or want to learn, come back here. Until then, you are just wasting pixels.

[Bust Nak]

The best approach is science working with religion to solve our most important questions...

If religion can produce tangible results, then we would simply pinch the tangible part and absorb it into science and ditch the religious part. There is no reason why we need to keep Eastern religions around when the "meditative practices" is the interesting part.

[Swami]

Experience?! I became Buddhist over fifty years ago. A Buddhist seeks cleanse the mind of delusions. That means accepting evidence. Science indicates what meditation reveals intuitively: I am not separate, I am a process, a ripple in a stream, a vortex of probabilities, a self-aware swirl of stardust in the universe and not separate from the universe. That is reality. But I am not here to convince anyone of that.

" I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness."
Max Planck (1858-1947) was a Nobel Prize-winning German physicist and father of quantum theory

If you are really interested in debates that support my worldview then watch the following:

[youtube][/youtube] At 4:40 minute mark.. speaker explains consciousness as ultimate reality and why we can only study consciousness through introspection!

[youtube][/youtube] starts to get interesting at 31:00 minute mark.

There's your debates!