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

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 138 by Razorsedge]

Actually, Razorsedge, I had already seen both of those debates.

Mr. Chopra, the "Crowd Prince of Woo", is just wrong. Consciousness can be shown to be the reaction of the brain to stimuli. It can be observed and measured by real-time monitoring.
Just as litmus responds to a change in pH, so the brain responds to stimuli. We can trace with MRI, the stimulus-feedback loop. The response is the result of very complicated neuro-chemical positive and negative feedback loops. The observation (fact) is that if there is no brain activity, there is no consciousness. The observation is that dead is dead. Any verified finding to the contrary would be headlines.
The fact is, that all that ancient vedanta stuff has, in millennia, produced no results to match those produced by modern neuroscience in the last decade. Mystical phenomena are mystical no longer. We now understand the chemistry. There are, to be sure, details left to be worked out, but Mr. Choprak's woo can be dismissed, since it has no supporting evidence. Ancient "Holy Books" are as authoritative as Mother Goose.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 134 by Razorsedge]

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.

I didn't say I "searched for answers" ... there was no answer I was seeking. I simply wanted to understand the origin and fundamental beliefs of different modern religions (and older ones that are no longer popular) to try and ascertain whether any of them had a valid basis or any reason to believe that they were "true." The conclusion that made the most sense to me was that all of them are man-made tall tales and nothing more. That is the best explanation for why there have been so many religions invented over time by humans, including literally tens of thousands of gods and god concepts, which are mostly inconsistent with each other and therefore cannot all be correct.

What you describe doesn't appear to be actually possible to do for someone who isn't already searching for some religion to believe in. How is it possible for someone to "experience" a god that is pure consciousness? What does "searching inwardly" even mean? You thought about it deeply? What were you searching for? It sounds like you needed something to believe in, and decided that your particular concept of god as a pure consciousness being of some sort fit the bill, so that's what you went with. There are many thousands of other completely different god concepts out there, so it seems to me that it boils down to the usual issue of faith (belief without evidence) in whatever god concept makes you happy.

[Swami]

What you describe doesn't appear to be actually possible to do for someone who isn't already searching for some religion to believe in. How is it possible for someone to "experience" a god that is pure consciousness?

For the record, I am not exclusive to any one Eastern religion. My views and practices consist of a comparative approach that integrates Hinduism, Yoga, and Buddhism. I've also dabbled in some New Age stuff.

In a sense, I view god as a level of consciousness. It is the highest level of consciousness. Though meditation I realized that it was the highest level of reality.

Here's one experience of pure consciousness:
A meditator describes this experience:
"I was meditating one late afternoon when I began to settle down much more deeply than usual. As I became more and more still, all thoughts and feelings settled and I was left in a deep quietness. All familiar boundaries that defined where I was and what time it was, and even who I was, began to fade from awareness and dissolve altogether. I was still awake and yet all that remained was my own wakefulness. . . . There was nothing else. No trace of thought or memory entered into my awareness; even the sense of my body and its position in space had vanished. It's not that I missed these things. It simply did not enter my awareness to miss them or not to miss them.

For an indefinitely long time I remained in that state of perfectly simple wakefulness. How long I could not have guessed, for there was no measure in my awareness by which to judge the passage of time. Then, slowly, the world began to be reconstituted around me. At first some faint sensation of my body and surroundings returned; then some sense of where I was and what time it was; then some sense of my person, my projects, engagements, relations, and all those forms of awareness that make up the sense of our everyday world. The world returned to me and was organized and constructed into all the layers of awareness that make up our sense of reality. I was left with a sense of refreshment, of having drunk deeply the blissful nectar of a timeless far away realm of Being. At that moment, my whole body and mind experienced a rush of blissful joy and well being. �"

Further thoughts from the same article:
Maharishi (1969) describes life in cosmic consciousness in this way.
"Ever established in the state of pure consciousness, or eternal Being, he is simply a silent and innocent witness of what is happening through him; he is a means through which nature fulfills its purpose of evolution. His actions are a response to the needs of the time. Quite naturally he performs actions which result in every kind of good. (p. 291)"

This should adequately explain the experience of pure consciousness.

What does "searching inwardly" even mean? You thought about it deeply?

Searching and experimenting with my mind but then I realized that wasn't enough.

" However, introspection was unreliable and results could not be replicated even by the same trained researcher performing the same task. Moreover, the ultimate source of these elements of thoughts and experiences remained unexplored. Maharishi (1963, p. 103) has explained that it is not possible to experience the silent source of thought while remaining in active thinking processes (such as introspection). Maharishi emphasizes that only by completely transcending mental activity, can the individual psyche experience the cosmic psyche at the source of all mental processes. Maharishi Vedic Psychology includes a technology—the Transcendental Meditation® technique

The Transcendental Meditation technique is an effortless procedure for allowing the excitations of the mind to gradually settle down until the least excited state of mind is reached. This is a state of inner wakefulness with no object of thought or perception, just pure consciousness aware of its own unbounded nature. It is wholeness, aware of itself, devoid of differences, beyond the division of subject and object‚ Transcendental Consciousness. (p. 123)"

What were you searching for?

Answers to those important questions I brought up earlier. I have some insight but I'm still searching of course.

FYI,
All of my quotations come from the same source. My sources are mostly from the Vedantic school of thought. Link below..

Maharishi Vedic Psychology Brings Fulfillment to the Aspirations of Twentieth-Century Psychology
Charles Alexander, Frederick Travis, B. Mawiyah Clayborne, and Dori Rector
pdf: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... ajklalr5kb

[Swami]

Actually, Razorsedge, I had already seen both of those debates.

Mr. Chopra, the "Crowd Prince of Woo", is just wrong. Consciousness can be shown to be the reaction of the brain to stimuli. It can be observed and measured by real-time monitoring.

Max Planck, the father of quantum theory, also viewed consciousness as being fundamental. Would you lump him in with the "woo" camp, as well?

Just as litmus responds to a change in pH, so the brain responds to stimuli. We can trace with MRI, the stimulus-feedback loop. The response is the result of very complicated neuro-chemical positive and negative feedback loops. The observation (fact) is that if there is no brain activity, there is no consciousness. The observation is that dead is dead. Any verified finding to the contrary would be headlines.
The fact is, that all that ancient vedanta stuff has, in millennia, produced no results to match those produced by modern neuroscience in the last decade. Mystical phenomena are mystical no longer. We now understand the chemistry. There are, to be sure, details left to be worked out, but Mr. Choprak's woo can be dismissed, since it has no supporting evidence. Ancient "Holy Books" are as authoritative as Mother Goose.

You've only explained how consciousness works in the brain, but that doesn't explain if only the human brain possesses consciousness or it can exist in other physical mediums or on its own. Sadly, the experts are not as confident as you are since they admit to not knowing the nature of consciousness!

Here's a Vedantic derived view:
"The contemporary view in neuroscience is that consciousness is produced by the functioning of the nervous system (e.g., Gazzaniga, 1997). In contrast, Maharishi Vedic Psychology proposes that consciousness is a fundamental universal field that underlies and gives rise to all individual nervous systems and psyches (Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, 1963, p. 61–63). Maharishi Vedic Psychology gives complete knowledge and experience of this transcendental field of consciousness, which it calls the cosmic psyche, at the basis of individual thoughts and feelings"

Article.https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... ajklalr5kb

Everything I said can be proven to yourself via subjective experience. Or you can wait on science which in its current form is proving to be a dead end.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 141 by Razorsedge]

I've also dabbled in some New Age stuff.

In a sense, I view god as a level of consciousness. It is the highest level of consciousness. Though meditation I realized that it was the highest level of reality.

I have studied art and even dabbled in some painting. Through reflection and introspection I have come to the realisation that my talent is of the highest order.
Or I am just indulging in self-delusion because that is what I would like to believe.

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 142 by Razorsedge]


Razorsedge "Max Planck, the father of quantum theory, also viewed consciousness as being fundamental. Would you lump him in with the 'woo' camp, as well?"

Max Planck, when pontificating on neuroscience, is just as capable of woo as Homer Simpson.

Razorsedge "You've only explained how consciousness works in the brain, but that doesn't explain if only the human brain possesses consciousness or it can exist in other physical mediums or on its own."

Consciousness might manifest in other physical mediums that are sufficiently complex systems of feedback, but such systems have not been demonstrated yet, although they may be in the near future. But non-physical consciousness is by not possible. What is non-physical is non-existent. Patterns and processes require a medium.

Razorsedge "Sadly, the experts are not as confident as you are since they admit to not knowing the nature of consciousness!"

Which experts are those?

Razorsedge "Everything I said can be proven to yourself via subjective experience. Or you can wait on science which in its current form is proving to be a dead end."[/color]

Have you ever worked in a mental ward? I think not, for if you had you would be less confident of the "proof" provided by subjective experience. Moreover, five thousand years of Vedic nonsense has produced no replicable, measurable, verifiable knowledge. No disorders were cured, and nothing produced but metaphysical fabrics of finely divided, subtly patterned frog hair. The "mystical" experience itself can now be explained and induce chemically, or physically. It can be imaged, measured, and recorded.

[mgb]

Consciousness can be shown to be the reaction of the brain to stimuli. It can be observed and measured by real-time monitoring.

What is being observed is a reaction to stimuli. That does not mean that consciousness is in the brain. It only means that the brain is an intermediary between stimuli and the mind. To say consciousness is in the brain just because brain activity is correlated with stimuli is to commit the fallacy of confusing "causality with causation."

[Bust Nak]

What is being observed is a reaction to stimuli. That does not mean that consciousness is in the brain. It only means that the brain is an intermediary between stimuli and the mind.

Are you sure about that? That it cannot mean the former and only mean the latter?

To say consciousness is in the brain just because brain activity is correlated with stimuli is to commit the fallacy of confusing "causality with causation."

There is more to it than mere correlation though.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 141 by Razorsedge]

In a sense, I view god as a level of consciousness. It is the highest level of consciousness. Though meditation I realized that it was the highest level of reality.

So yet another definition of "god." This is my problem with religion in general (besides the fact that no gods, using any definition, have ever been shown to exist in the real world). Anyone can create their own definition of "god", and even form a set of rules around that definition to create a religion. So there is essentially an infinite number of ways to define what "god" is given that any one person could come up with as many as their imagination can muster.

Whether any of these ideas have any merit is the question. I suppose someone could justify their particular version of god/religion simply by stating that they believe it so therefore it is valid (ie., their personal belief is sufficient). But from a scientific inquiry perspective, it is very hard to accept that any of these god concepts are worth considering or taking seriously. They are all just different interpretations that various people have come up with over the millennia, some becoming more popular than others and gaining followers. But they all share the same total lack evidence for their existence.

[DeMotts]

Consciousness can be shown to be the reaction of the brain to stimuli. It can be observed and measured by real-time monitoring.

What is being observed is a reaction to stimuli. That does not mean that consciousness is in the brain. It only means that the brain is an intermediary between stimuli and the mind. To say consciousness is in the brain just because brain activity is correlated with stimuli is to commit the fallacy of confusing "causality with causation."

How do you know that the brain is merely an intermediary? How do we observe minds without brains?

Why is brain size related to complexity of consciousness? If the mind is independent, why is it that there are no minds of great complexity that travel through the conduit of a simpler brain?

Why do we see a correlation between brain size and development of language, tools, dexterity? Did homo habilis have a more simple mind, or did he have a smaller brain? Or did he have a more simple mind because he had a smaller brain?