There is no contradiction in Religion and Science

[MD]

This is a myth, a misunderstanding. It takes a physical instrument to "observe" the wave function. They process of physically observing the particle is collapsing the wavefunction because it stops the unpredictable spin/location of the electron.

It's a fringe belief of some of the most prominent quantum physicists, not a myth. That's why I added speculative.

 

[idav]

It's a fringe belief of some of the most prominent quantum physicists, not a myth. That's why I added speculative.

I'm pretty sure it's been debunked.

You may as well have added speculative to the rest of your list as well.

There is no evidence that our mind is somehow separate from the physical aspects of it. To me that is wishful thinking and the dualistic type thinking was a result of us not knowing enough about physics and biology. Now that we know we no longer have to point to metaphysical type explanations, there is always a natural explanation.

 

[MD]

I'm pretty sure it's been debunked.

You may as well have added speculative to the rest of your list as well.

There is no evidence that our mind is somehow separate from the physical aspects of it. To me that is wishful thinking and the dualistic type thinking was a result of us not knowing enough about physics and biology. Now that we know we no longer have to point to metaphysical type explanations, there is always a natural explanation.

I will add speculative to the fourth option as well.

I will not add speculative to the other two because most scientists know that they exist and cannot be explained physically. Just because you miserably have failed to grasp how it pretty much refutes physicalism over and over again resulting in prominent neuroscientists and physicists to agree, doesn't make it wishful thinking.

It just means you don't understand it and are stuck to your own dogmatic position that physics can explain everything. Do you know who Steven Weinberg is? Even he said that even physics can't explain consciousness...so spare me your typical tirade.

 

[idav]

I will add speculative to the fourth option as well.

I will not add speculative to the other two because most scientists know that they exist and cannot be explained physically. Just because you miserably have failed to grasp how it pretty much refutes physicalism over and over again resulting in prominent neuroscientists and physicists to agree, doesn't make it wishful thinking.

It just means you don't understand it and are stuck to your own dogmatic position that physics can explain everything. Do you know who Steven Weinberg is? Even he said that even physics can't explain consciousness...so spare me your typical tirade.

Show any evidence that consciousness is the result of something other than the physical. Scientists can have opinions as well but where is the evidence to support the philosophy of the mind.

edit: BTW I do understand it and you should understand that as long as there is no evidence it is plain speculation. We are debating opinion here.

 

[MD]

Show any evidence that consciousness is the result of something other than the physical. Scientists can have opinions as well but where is the evidence to support the philosophy of the mind.

I have! It's called qualia! You fail to understand it over and over again and I can't explain forever. It's called the hard problem for a reason. You say the brain interprets signals blah blah brain has chemistry blah blah but these are PHYSICAL processes which create completely non physical things that do not exist in a physical universe.

We've gone over this so many times and yet you have to put in your two cents (I wasn't even addressing my initial post in this thread to you) because you think you're right when you are not. Scientists who are nobel prize winners and a growing number of the BEST neuroscientists are saying that pure physicalism cannot explain qualia. Qualia are a new property of the universe or exist in other dimensions. This is a fact, either face it now or go the way of the creationists.

 

[idav]

I have! It's called qualia! You fail to understand it over and over again and I can't explain forever. It's called the hard problem for a reason. You say the brain interprets signals blah blah brain has chemistry blah blah but these are PHYSICAL processes which create completely non physical things that do not exist in a physical universe.

We've gone over this so many times and yet you have to put in your two cents (I wasn't even addressing my initial post in this thread to you) because you think you're right when you are not. Scientists who are nobel prize winners and a growing number of the BEST neuroscientists are saying that pure physicalism cannot explain qualia. Qualia are a new property of the universe or exist in other dimensions. This is a fact, either face it now or go the way of the creationists.

Dont get upset. Qualia is just a term for subjective experience.

The existence of a "hard problem" is controversial and has been disputed by some philosophers.[4] Providing an answer to this question could lie in understanding the roles that physical processes play in creating consciousness and the extent to which these processes create our subjective qualities of experience.[5]
Hard problem of consciousness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[MD]

Dont get upset. Qualia is just a term for subjective experience.

Calling qualia simple is like calling evolution simple. Qualia are probably more complicated than anything in biology. And about your second quote...it's from 1995. There have been many attempts to try and explain qualia physically, the closest we have gotten is that qualia are symbols. They still fail to explain how symbols popped into existence like that. If our brains are purely physical then we should be creating purely physical things in the universe. It would thus make sense for our brains to create different shades of black and white light, but to suggest our brains create color out of no color is like saying magic exists.

Btw I'm not even getting into imagination yet, because if I do that's another fantastic blow to pure physicalism and a support for qunatum mind theories.

 

[idav]

Calling qualia simple is like calling evolution simple. Qualia are probably more complicated than anything in biology. And about your second quote...it's from 1995. There have been many attempts to try and explain qualia physically, the closest we have gotten is that qualia are symbols. They still fail to explain how symbols popped into existence like that. If our brains are purely physical then we should be creating purely physical things in the universe. It would thus make sense for our brains to create different shades of black and white light, but to suggest our brains create color out of no color is like saying magic exists.

Btw I'm not even getting into imagination yet, because if I do that's another fantastic blow to pure physicalism and a support for qunatum mind theories.

I'm not saying subjective experience is easily explainable. What I'm saying is the evidence suggests that experience comes from physical processes. The brain isn't going to just materialize something that doesn't exist and black and white vs color are just a product of a different part of the eye. The added experience we are able to conceive is a result of our neurological system and brain. The physical complexity and power of the brain is so awesome that it is sufficient to explain anything produced in our minds. If it is a quantum brain then everything the brain does would still be explained by physics.

Again where is the evidence of something else needed other than the brain?

 

[MD]

I'm not saying subjective experience is easily explainable. What I'm saying is the evidence suggests that experience comes from physical processes. The brain isn't going to just materialize something that doesn't exist and black and white vs color are just a product of a different part of the eye. The added experience we are able to conceive is a result of our neurological system and brain. The physical complexity and power of the brain is so awesome that it is sufficient to explain anything produced in our minds. If it is a quantum brain then everything the brain does would still be explained by physics.

Again where is the evidence of something else needed other than the brain?

There is no evidence of how qualia are created. The evidence simply shows the correlates of qualia. That's why they call it the neural correlates of consciousness. Black and white and color are all perceptions of light, which itself is energy. Our brains create the concept of light from neural firing, whose output is then internalized. The output is impossible from a pure physicalist perspective, we've gone over this several times.

 

[idav]

Black and white and color are all perceptions of light, which itself is energy. Our brains create the concept of light from neural firing, whose output is then internalized. The output is impossible from a pure physicalist perspective......

It obviously isn't impossible since the brain is doing it.

 

[MD]

It obviously isn't impossible since the brain is doing it.

Which obviously means consciousness is not purely physical.

 

[idav]

Which obviously means consciousness is not purely physical.

How do you get that out of ”the brain is doing it”?

 

[paarsurrey]

Calling qualia simple is like calling evolution simple. Qualia are probably more complicated than anything in biology. And about your second quote...it's from 1995. There have been many attempts to try and explain qualia physically, the closest we have gotten is that qualia are symbols. They still fail to explain how symbols popped into existence like that. If our brains are purely physical then we should be creating purely physical things in the universe. It would thus make sense for our brains to create different shades of black and white light, but to suggest our brains create color out of no color is like saying magic exists.

Btw I'm not even getting into imagination yet, because if I do that's another fantastic blow to pure physicalism and a support for qunatum mind theories.

I would like to add that symbols have played a massive role in human life and accumulation of knowledge and to store it.

What we get to hear is just symbols of the voice; and that we write is also symbols and the integers used in mathematics and other sciences are also symbols; symbols have helped to evolve humans, in my opinion.

 

[MD]

How do you get that out of ”the brain is doing it”?

Saying the brain is doing it is like saying a car engine creates movement, without introducing concepts such as velocity, time and space, combustion, energy etc. If you were a pure materialist you would have

 

[Pleroma]

This is a myth, a misunderstanding. It takes a physical instrument to "observe" the wave function. They process of physically observing the particle is collapsing the wavefunction because it stops the unpredictable spin/location of the electron.

There is no consensus on this topic.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0704.2529v2.pdf

"Most working scientists hold fast to the concept of 'realism' - a viewpoint according to which an external reality exists independent of observation. But quantum physics has shattered some of our cornerstone beliefs."

Bernard D'espagnat is absolutely right in saying that quarks, protons, electrons and even the neurons in the brain don't exist independent of the human mind.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

There is no consensus on this topic.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0704.2529v2.pdf

"Most working scientists hold fast to the concept of 'realism' - a viewpoint according to which an external reality exists independent of observation. But quantum physics has shattered some of our cornerstone beliefs."

Bernard D'espagnat is absolutely right in saying that quarks, protons, electrons and even the neurons in the brain don't exist independent of the human mind.

That's because they are just best-fitting models for phenomena, just like a dog is really just a bunch of energy. Doesn't mean the mind creates matter and energy literally.