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

[mgb]

five thousand years of Vedic nonsense has produced no replicable, measurable, verifiable knowledge.

These statements are scientism; they assert that because knowledge is not within the scientific domain it doesn't count. You are essentially saying that there are no other paths to knowledge only science and anybody who suggests otherwise is talking 'woo'. That experience does not count nor is there any way to assess it. It is 'merely' subjective. Well, many people disagree with this narrow view. Science is limited to basic material facts and is not likely to answer questions that come from a domain that you deem to be irrelevant. This is a very curious point of view in that science cannot convincingly address the irrelevancies you so readily dismiss.

What is non-physical is non-existent. Patterns and processes require a medium.

That is the opposite of what is true. Matter does not exist as a substance. Matter is merely a pattern in a field of energy. Energy itself may be a field in a deeper substance. Like you say 'Patterns and processes require a medium'. That means matter requires a non material medium.

[mgb]

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

You are observing one now. I am talking to you. You believe a conversation can emerge from a bunch of molecules? Can a bunch of molecules really manifest a person? Even a simple conversation is a highly sophisticated process. Far too sophisticated to be merely a manifestation of matter. That is one reason I believe mind exists.

Why is brain size related to complexity of consciousness?

Brain size allows more of the non material mind to be manifest.

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?

See last answer; the mind's ability to enter the world depends on the sophistication of the brain.

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

See last two answers.

[DeMotts]

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

You are observing one now. I am talking to you. You believe a conversation can emerge from a bunch of molecules? Can a bunch of molecules really manifest a person? Even a simple conversation is a highly sophisticated process. Far too sophisticated to be merely a manifestation of matter. That is one reason I believe mind exists.

Your entire argument boils down to an argument from ignorance fallacy. Your main point is that you can't see how something is possible. This doesn't mean something is impossible.

Let me create a "scale of consciousness" and you tell me if there is a separate "mind" floating somewhere in the ether controlling the organism.

1. Humans
2. Chimpanzees and gorillas that can converse via sign language
3. Dolphins and whales that communicate with complexity
4. Dogs that can obey complex commands and form bonds with people
5. Smaller mammals like raccoons that are still somewhat clever
6. Rodents
7. Birds
8. Reptiles
9. Fish
10. Invertebrates
11. Microorganisms
12. Amoebas and paramecium
13. Bacteria
14. Viruses

Where on that scale do we switch from separate intangible metaphysical "minds" to just an organism reacting to it's environment?

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 149 by mgb]

These statements are scientism; they assert that because knowledge is not within the scientific domain it doesn't count. You are essentially saying that there are no other paths to knowledge only science and anybody who suggests otherwise is talking 'woo'.

Please present another pathway to knowledge along with the criteria which you can apply to reliably distinguish between what is true and what is a product of the imagination.

[mgb]

Your entire argument boils down to an argument from ignorance fallacy. Your main point is that you can't see how something is possible. This doesn't mean something is impossible.

Even if it does, what is wrong with that? Many atheistic arguments boil down to the 'impossibility' of God or aspects of God. My also argument boils down to the fact that spirit or mind is by far a better explanation for the world as it is. Atheism just boils down to 'stuff happened'. That doesn't really explain anything. Granted, there are many distortions of religion and false paths but to cherry pick these things and then dismiss all religion as 'woo' is not really responding to religion. One would have to look at the best aspects of religion to construct a meaningful argument.

Let me create a "scale of consciousness" and you tell me if there is a separate "mind" floating somewhere in the ether controlling the organism.

1. Humans
2. Chimpanzees and gorillas that can converse via sign language
3. Dolphins and whales that communicate with complexity
4. Dogs that can obey complex commands and form bonds with people
5. Smaller mammals like raccoons that are still somewhat clever
6. Rodents
7. Birds
8. Reptiles
9. Fish
10. Invertebrates
11. Microorganisms
12. Amoebas and paramecium
13. Bacteria
14. Viruses

Where on that scale do we switch from separate intangible metaphysical "minds" to just an organism reacting to it's environment?

It may be that on the level of viruses or bacteria, things are automatic. Maybe bacteria are no more than a sophisticated collection of molecules, I don't know. But if we define life as consciousness and intelligence then that emerges at some point in the evolutionary tree.

[mgb]

These statements are scientism; they assert that because knowledge is not within the scientific domain it doesn't count. You are essentially saying that there are no other paths to knowledge only science and anybody who suggests otherwise is talking 'woo'.

Please present another pathway to knowledge along with the criteria which you can apply to reliably distinguish between what is true and what is a product of the imagination.

The essence of all true religion is that there is The Way or The Tao. 'I am the way'. Essential to the way is morality; a moral life leads to freedom and to a truthful apprehension of the world. An immoral life ends, ultimately, in despair. The doctrine of paradise says that The Way leads to life made free of evil. The doctrine of hell says that continued ego centered existence leads further into despair; the essence of hell is despair.
This teaching is tested by living in The Way or 'right living' as Buddhism has it. Reflecting on the pattern of life and the fate of those people living in the world verifies this philosophy. Those who live righteously find freedom from evil. Those who live selfishly become isolated and descend.

[For_The_Kingdom]

[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?

No, I don't acknowledge that.

[Clownboat]

[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?

No, I don't acknowledge that.

What if we promised not to tell anyone that would cause you to be dis-fellowshipped? Would you then be able to acknowledge these previous forms?

If not, how do you explain away all the previous forms we do have?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html

How do you explain the Neanderthal DNA that we have in our bodies?
"Unless you are of purely African descent, you probably have some Neanderthal DNA."
https://www.today.com/health/how-much-n ... it-t126372

[brunumb]

These statements are scientism; they assert that because knowledge is not within the scientific domain it doesn't count. You are essentially saying that there are no other paths to knowledge only science and anybody who suggests otherwise is talking 'woo'.

Please present another pathway to knowledge along with the criteria which you can apply to reliably distinguish between what is true and what is a product of the imagination.

The essence of all true religion is that there is The Way or The Tao. 'I am the way'. Essential to the way is morality; a moral life leads to freedom and to a truthful apprehension of the world. An immoral life ends, ultimately, in despair. The doctrine of paradise says that The Way leads to life made free of evil. The doctrine of hell says that continued ego centered existence leads further into despair; the essence of hell is despair.
This teaching is tested by living in The Way or 'right living' as Buddhism has it. Reflecting on the pattern of life and the fate of those people living in the world verifies this philosophy. Those who live righteously find freedom from evil. Those who live selfishly become isolated and descend.

Rhetoric. Your response in no way presents another pathway to knowledge along with the criteria which you can apply to reliably distinguish between what is true and what is a product of the imagination. Woo is not a valid substitute.

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 157 by brunumb]

To be clear, Buddhism, Taoism, as originally formulated, are not paths to knowledge, not ways of finding what is true or real, they are responses to observation and reasoning. It is possible the even Christianity was just an injunction to be nice, even when it hurts.