Science

[Mark Charles Compton]

Much like we are trying to figure out gravity, but theists aren't claiming gravity is supernatural. And no one is science approaches consciousness as a supernatural phenomenon. This is only an issue because there are theists trying to manipulate uncertainty about a natural phenomenon as a way to argue for th plausibility of their religious beliefs. It strikes me as desperate.


Consciousness and intelligence are two different things. The issue with AI is designing a artificial system that can understand it exists and has autonomy of some sort. The 2001/2010 movies touched on this with the HAL 9000 computer character.

Ya, most media portrayals do well at spreading fear to the public of such advancements. Granted, the refusal of the most powerful military states in the world to sign an agreement to not develop AI weapons of war doesn't provide a whole lot of comfort in that regard.

 

[F1fan]

You might see activity in the brain but that does not equate to consciousness.

A ,eternal process.

OBEs in NDEs show consciousness outside the brains and bodies. What is presumed by science in general is that this has a natural cause, non spiritual. But of course there is no known physical mechanism. Some scientists speak out and almost state the obvious, but I guess once they do state it their reputation is tarnished.

None of this is true. You offer no evidence, so this claim is rejected.

There is no rational materialist alternative and science is materialist so consciousness comes from dead matter in science.

You offer no evidence, so this claim is rejected.

Everything has God behind it, even gravity. The mechanisms in the God of the gaps have been filling in and it is presumed to eliminate the need for God in it all. The naturalistic methodology is the naturalistic presumption, it is not proven.

You offer no evidence, so this claim is rejected.

Where is the evidence that life and consciousness is no more than a by product of material?

Observations of how nature works. Note that human consciousness is not exclusive to us, many hundreds of thousands of other animal species have consciousness as well. No consciousness is observed outside of any dead brain, only in animals with living brains.

Where is evidence that everything has existed in some form from eternity?

Evolution. The existence and emergence of organic chemicals.

You have no answers so it must be a conspiracy by the religious.

Conspiracy theory. So we throw it out.

The verifiable claims by many NDEers are evidence.

Yeah, people have traumatic experiences that affect their brains. All natural, all explainable, no magic, doesn't help your bad, religious beliefs.

Science accepts claims by people in psychiatry etc but all of a sudden the claims show nothing. They actually show that these people experienced consciousness outside the body.

People dreaming they are outside their body is NOT the same as consciousness actually being outside their bodies.

Explaining it is another thing. So far nothing in the materialist science can do that. Anything outside the materialist science is rubbish science of course.

Experts have to explain observations with facts and data, they can't accept the dubious claims of subjects as IF the subject has experienced exactly what their traumatized brains believe happened.

 

[F1fan]

Faith is enough for me. Why isn't reason enough for you? You have faith in your world view and the evidence and reason which is probably what you claim for yourself, now shows itself as nothing when it shows your faith is not true.

You are using two different definitions of faith, which is a bad faith argument.

It is non material. That is enough.

Which is synonymous to imaginary.

I am not looking to science to validate anything even though you look to science to validate your beliefs.

Then what is your motive in getting science wrong? Why are you hostile towards science?

Not in your beliefs and it seems even science cannot accept even evidence for the supernatural.

No one has offered any, so it's not the fault of science. Even you haven't offered any evidence.

I accept evidence that science cannot. Theists usually don't say they know their beliefs are true, unless their experience leads them to say that. Many atheists it seems cannot accept that science does not show that God is non existent,,,,,,,,,,, that what they believe is a belief in the same category as theists.

Science is bound by ethics to account for all evidence. You are being disingenuous by accusing science of ignoring evidence. That is false, and more bad faith on your part.

You accept what science says even when it is not plausible however.

Science can only offer answers and results that are based on facts and data, so they are all plausible and highly reliable. The implausible claims come from theists.

All it is, is a recognition that what is called the supernatural is really as natural as what is called the natural.
But of course it is not able to be studied by science.

Inaccurate double talk.

Even in science it is just a methodology. The claim that the undetectable actually means just imagined is just an illusion that science does not accept, just those who want to use science to show that atheism is not true.

Incoherent claims here.

You tell us what thing can be treated as an actual thing that is also undetectable. You could claim the Tooth Fairy exists because you see the effects of teeth being replaced by money. But the TF itself can't ever be seen. Can we conclude the TF exists and there's not some better explanation for teeth being replaced by money? Science looks for a real explanation. Your approach is to believe the myth.

Faith opens our eyes to many things. But of course with regard to the OBEs in NDEs it is a combination of faith and reasoning,,,,,,,,,,, common sense, something that it seems is not really that common.

No discipline, no method, no skepticism, no accuracy, just casual speculative belief. That's why we throw out your claims.

 

[Nakosis]

Does that mean that science only studies the natural world?
How is it known where to draw the line between the natural and supernatural world?

It's a different mind set I suspect.

Anything that affects the material universe, that affect can be measured. Anything which exists and can affect the material is natural.

Anything which has no affect on the material universe can't be measured. The supernatural is presumed to have some affect on the universe but that affect can't be measured.
If "something" has a measurable affect on the universe then it is not supernatural.

The supernatural cannot have a measurable affect on the universe. If it could, it would not be supernatural.

Since the supernatural cannot affect the material universe, which includes us. It's existence is irrelevant to us.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

@Brian2 is the argument you're proposing Cartesian Dualism?

I'm more of the mindset of Relativism, personally.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Maybe not with people who just claim to be able to astral travel.
With NDEs people have claimed things that have been verified. To me that is verification of the OBEs. Not to science of course, because................. evidence like that which goes against the whole paradigm of science is not going to be seen as evidence or true without more study, which of course is just the same thing, unconscious people claiming verified things and science saying it needs more study. Study no doubt to try to work out how these people could know these things in some materialist way.

If these claims haven't been studied in a scientifically controlled environment then they haven't been verified. If these things are really happening then they should happen under any and all conditions. It has nothing to do with it being done in some 'materialistic' way, it all comes down to the fact that antidotal evidence cannot be verified.

 

[Windwalker]

Nothing to do with the New Age Movement. I was meaning the new atheist, the hardliners who say God has been proven to not be real.

Okay. That term I'm familiar with.

The areas where science is stepping into theological areas is in places that God said He did. Creation, the origin of life and consciousness.

That is in fact an area for the natural sciences to investigate, and it is not a theological question about the nature of God. A theological question would be along the lines of the nature of God, or how does one interpret the Genesis story with the facts that sciences reveals. Science doesn't tell you how you should interpret Genesis. If what science reveals contractics how you interpret Genesis, then it's up to you to try to re-examine how you interpret the texts. The facts are the facts. How we read the Bible, is a matter of interpretation, and science doesn't tell us how to do that.

Any phenomenon that is observed is seen as natural and studied as such and any conclusions are natural conclusions.

That is in fact what science assumes. To assume otherwise, would in fact be going beyond doing science and delving into theology. The fact it doesn't do that, means it's doing its job correctly, and should be applauded for that.

Consciousness is an emergent property of matter.
Life is no more than material in nature.

Those are not conclusions of science. Those are philosophical in nature, based upon what science tells us about the natural world. We can also have theological conclusions as well based upon what sciences tells us. Those are matters of interpretation, matters of perspective, and not matters of science. Sciences makes no pronouncements about the Divine. If someone claims it does, they are mistaken.

It is at the extremes of science and using the naturalistic methodology that assumptions are made which bring science into theological areas and trying to make them the result of nature.

The only conflicts I see, are with those who held previous understandings of the nature of reality from a religious/faith perspective, who cannot adapt or modify their views to accommodate new information that challenges those views. Science is not out to disprove God. They are countless people of faith who have simply changed how they understood the way God does things, because of new information.

Changing how we think about God, is not a sin. Do you consider it a sin to change how you understand God? Should we hold onto the same views of God we held when we were still children, and never change those?

In a way it cannot be helped considering science and what it is and what it presumes.

It doesn't technically presume the ultimate nature of reality. It does however take a naturalistic perspective as a foundational premise for doing what it does, which is study natural processes. To take a theological perspective, such as "God did it", is in fact not what makes science the tool of reason that is. That would in fact be just another branch of theology, and not science.

Are you suggesting we should change science to include the theological, and that religion dictate what is acceptable science or not? It's only good science if it agrees with how you read and interpret scripture?

 

[Sheldon]

no one is science approaches consciousness as a supernatural phenomenon.

Too busy securing research grants and trying to cure stuff, pfft, scientists mun...we'll never find a unicorn at this rate...

 

[Sheldon]

The supernatural cannot have a measurable affect on the universe. If it could, it would not be supernatural.

That just punched a large hole through an awful lot of theistic doctrine.

Since the supernatural cannot affect the material universe, which includes us. It's existence is irrelevant to us.

Alleged existence?

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

Okay. That term I'm familiar with.


That is in fact an area for the natural sciences to investigate, and it is not a theological question about the nature of God. A theological question would be along the lines of the nature of God, or how does one interpret the Genesis story with the facts that sciences reveals. Science doesn't tell you how you should interpret Genesis. If what science reveals contractics how you interpret Genesis, then it's up to you to try to re-examine how you interpret the texts. The facts are the facts. How we read the Bible, is a matter of interpretation, and science doesn't tell us how to do that.


That is in fact what science assumes. To assume otherwise, would in fact be going beyond doing science and delving into theology. The fact it doesn't do that, means it's doing its job correctly, and should be applauded for that.


Those are not conclusions of science. Those are philosophical in nature, based upon what science tells us about the natural world. We can also have theological conclusions as well based upon what sciences tells us. Those are matters of interpretation, matters of perspective, and not matters of science. Sciences makes no pronouncements about the Divine. If someone claims it does, they are mistaken.


The only conflicts I see, are with those who held previous understandings of the nature of reality from a religious/faith perspective, who cannot adapt or modify their views to accommodate new information that challenges those views. Science is not out to disprove God. They are countless people of faith who have simply changed how they understood the way God does things, because of new information.

Changing how we think about God, is not a sin. Do you consider it a sin to change how you understand God? Should we hold onto the same views of God we held when we were still children, and never change those?


It doesn't technically presume the ultimate nature of reality. It does however take a naturalistic perspective as a foundational premise for doing what it does, which is study natural processes. To take a theological perspective, such as "God did it", is in fact not what makes science the tool of reason that is. That would in fact be just another branch of theology, and not science.

Are you suggesting we should change science to include the theological, and that religion dictate what is acceptable science or not? It's only good science if it agrees with how you read and interpret scripture?

Well, that's about as good as anyone could have put it if you ask me.

 

[blü 2]

I am saying that spirit can be conscious, not molecules, and that the spirit is connected to the brain and body and know the thoughts of the brain etc.

Would it not be the case that in order to interact with matter/energy ─ the materials of reality ─ the "spirit" must also be material?

If not, how do you say the interaction you speak of occurs between "spirit" and the physical world?

If that means that neurology encounters things that are inexplicable in physical terms, let me know when that happens.

It must mean that, but you don't know of any examples and I don't know of any examples, so I think your hypothesis is at best very weak.

I vaguely remember that sometimes the body reacts, makes a movement before the brain tells it to, or before the brain activity for that movement is detected. Is that what you are talking about?

Both the heart and the gut have their own nervous systems and a corresponding degree of autonomy. Subsystems all around the body are in play all the time, the pancreas producing eg insulin, the liver processing the blood with bile, albumin, &c and monitoring blood clotting and more. The very fast instinctive reaction to take your hand off the hot stove bypasses conscious consideration and is dealt with by, in evolutionary terms, the "oldest" part of the brain, the "shark's brain" at the top of the spine. And so on.

 

[blü 2]

Now there's a thought, I sometimes almost lose consciousness when theists posit those kinds of desperate rationalisations. I know it's a little unkind, but also woolly facile platitudes have the same stultifying effect on my consciousness as anaesthetic, well almost. Now I'm resorting to hyperbole and rhetoric, damn it, I owe myself a £1.

You did that unconsciously?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Merely believing in Santa does not verify the existence of Santa but seeing an old man in a Santa suite come down the chimney and leave presents and go again and fly away in a sleigh, that is more than just believing.
NDE might be just some sort of brain activity but verified observations from OBEs in NDEs takes it from the realm of just belief into the realm of evidence imo. Consciousness outside the body.
Is this supernatural?
It is clearly seen as an explanation to be avoided in science,,,,,,,,,,,,,, of course.
What can I say. To me it is obviously what it is, consciousness outside the body. I think that can be classed as supernatural, but maybe I'm just blinded by bias.

I don't know of any verified observations of OBEs. How would one verify that? How is it shown to be supernatural?

The only reason I can see it is avoided in science is that it is unconfirmed claims of something and not established and validated experience. And NDE's are not avoided by science. Just fanciful claims without evidence.

I have read on these claims. All I have taken from it is that some, but not all, people near death think they had some sort of experience. What that means, if correct, is anyone's guess.

You would have to do more than just declare it to be supernatural. You would have to have some consistent, objective criteria for establishing the supernatural. You would have to show that consciousness outside of the body (consciousness disconnected from a physical brain) exists. Following that, you would have to establish that such a condition fits the criteria for the supernatural. I haven't seen any of this done.

None of this proves that the supernatural doesn't exist. It just means that people that claim it, haven't established their claims and that scientists can't say much about the supernatural without evidence for it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It could have been predicted that the naturalistic methodology of science would end up here. It is not science's fault.
Our faith is based on evidence that science does not accept in it's study of the material universe. That is not something that can be blamed on science.
Still the scientific naturalistic methodology is not seen as any more than a working presumption in science and not as a metaphysical fact.
Still some people want to see it that way and say that science has shown it to be so.
I cannot know that consciousness is not based on the natural. But then again it is not known that consciousness can be based on the natural in any real sense, only in the methodological sense.
That however does not stop science (no doubt scientists who are non believers) from broadcasting that they have found consciousness being natural only, or saying that this is what the evidence points to.
But of course they neglect to say that the evidence only points that way because of the naturalistic methodology.
Science in this way can end up as a tool for those who do not believe in God and can justify their unbelief,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, the unbelief that also says that the methodology is also metaphysically true.

Science cannot use subjective claims that cannot be demonstrated. How do you tell a person that has had an actual supernatural experience from one that is making it up or from one suffering from mental health problems that manifest in the delusions of a supernatural event? I can't do it. How can we expect science to do it?

It is an underlying "assumption".

We know that removing the head, the brain or damaging the brain has an effect on consciousness. We know that a fatal injury or disease has an effect on consciousness. Cutting off blood flow to the brain has an effect on consciousness. Drugs, light patterns, physical trauma, certain sounds, and pathogens have an effect on consciousness. These are natural causes. Even some claimed spiritual effects on the brain are manifested and appear to be natural in origin. What established, reproducible, supernatural phenomenon has been verified to effect consciousness?

Do you see the reasons for this limitation on science and that it is logical. How do you think things would turn out if any random believed view without evidence was arbitrarily chosen to base scientific explanations on. They would be worthless. Gravity is caused by love holding us to the ground offers no explanation of any use in getting satellites into orbit. Women spring from the sea fully formed doesn't help us understand human reproduction or physiology. Lightning is the anger of some god or God doesn't help us understand the weather or electricity.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

No, we observe consciousness in living brains. We see consciousness cease at death.

We don't "observe consciousness in living brains". There is nothing much approaching a consensus as to what consciousness is in neuroscience and related disciplines, let alone methods to determine when or how to "observe" it in "living brains" and observe it cease at death.
It is mostly ignored even by those whose field concerns the neurophysiology and neurodynamics of higher-level cognitive processes that depend upon consciousness, such as the representation of categories in parts of the brain, areas involved in deliberate forms of recall/memory, etc.
Researchers who concentrate in areas like the nature of consciousness are comparatively few and far between. More problematic though, is that there are a plethora of fundamentally different theories concerning what its nature is and our understanding of consciousness can be furthered. In fact, even within an individual theory, adherents can disagree rather widely. For example, a fairly popular, long standing approach is that of integrated information theory (IIT) by Tononi and Koch. Yet there are those who subscribe to this theory and who are non-physicalists, others who are physicalists/materialists, and others whose approach falls under some kind of category such as non-reductive physicalism (and finally still others who do not make any such committments and disagree as to whether or not this is an operational perspective that is inconsistent with the tenets of IIT or whether it is in fact consistent with IIT).
See for example The Causal Efficacy of Consciousness.

You religious anti-science folks might as well claim gravity is a supernatural phenomenon since there are questions about how it works.

Interestingly, the first individual to claim that a gravitational force of the type described by Newtonian mechanics must indeed by supernatural was Newton (whose belief about gravity was in general to make no hypotheses about its nature and treat it rather as useful predictive tool rather than anything real). It was also Newton who used the success of mechanics as applied in particular to celestial bodies to argue for the existence of God (a motivating factor in much of the development of early modern science, particularly the natural sciences).
Einstein regarded this kind of action-at-a-distance to be supernatural enough to devote a years to developing general relativity with the express aim of a theory of gravitation that eliminated such a supernatural phenomenon. Rather ironically, not even a decade after he more-or-less succeeded, the more basic and universal physical theory that replaced electromagnetism, classical mechanics, much of thermodynamics, etc., was to exhibit this same feature.

Also, it isn't that there are questions as to how gravity works. The question is what a theory of gravity that is consistent with a theory of general physical systems and forces might be, and in the meantime it is generally assumed that gravity is an artifact of the interaction of physical systems with the geometry of spacetime, and and the open questions here can't be so easily swept into a singular category like "how [gravity] works".

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

When was the supernatural not disallowed in science, though

I was curious about that. I missed that particular meeting. I was hoping it might have been before my time and perhaps you knew about it

 

[Heyo]

The view that reaches the public is that science says consciousness is material in nature and arose spontaneously from the molecules. Science is accepted by most people in most parts of the world and this is the message they get. Some people have become anti science it seems and it's roots might be able to be traced back to the anti God ideas that have come out of science.
The anti science crowd is dubbed stupid fanatics and conspiracy theorists probably.
But yes science has no option than to study what it can see. I wonder if that means that it HAS to label the material as the source of consciousness. I wonder if the scientists in question are too stupid to see that what they are finding does not mean that consciousness is materialist in nature. But of course when the naturalist methodology is the only way to go in science that is the silly conclusions that come out and science starts turning the naturalist methodology into a naturalist metaphysic and that naturalist metaphysic is what the world hears and no doubt produces the new hard line atheists who say God has been shown by scientists not to exist.

I don't mind science defining consciousness on a materialist basis. We have so many things that are defined slightly different in different contexts. Scientists should stop listening to the philosophers and go ahead and present a definition of "scientific consciousness" so that we have at least one definition. Currently we have none. Maybe then the philosophers will pull themselves together and work on their definition. And when everyone is done the religious will act as if they knew what they are talking about but reverse everything.

 

[rational experiences]

Science is a human who says science.

So a human as a scientist should quote two humans not my life had sex and created me.

If you then ask him okay who created their human life? The same constant act by two human's until he gets to the first two parents. Just in his head a theory.

If he tries to string thesis about them yesterday they are dead and just some bacterias now.

So he then knowingly goes and looks at some bacterias and should say it's where life ends. Not where it begins.

If he was a real Scientist. A living human.

 

[exchemist]

I was curious about that. I missed that particular meeting. I was hoping it might have been before my time and perhaps you knew about it

Haha.

I must admit when I saw you had replied my first thought was: "I wonder how Oldoinyo Lengai has found a way to work quantum mechanics into this thread."

 

[Brian2]

If these claims haven't been studied in a scientifically controlled environment then they haven't been verified. If these things are really happening then they should happen under any and all conditions. It has nothing to do with it being done in some 'materialistic' way, it all comes down to the fact that antidotal evidence cannot be verified.

Many of the anecdotes coming from OBEs in NDEs have been verified. That is what I have been saying all this time. I don't know why people want to say that verified stories have not been verified.