posted
I wouldn't call all scientists athiests. Most are agnostic when it comes to scientific pursuit no matter their personal religious beliefs.
Obviously Einstein was not an atheist (believed in Newtonian model).
Neils Bohr who first discovered quantum physics is suggested to have been an atheist but never discussed it openly.
Max Planck was christian and
quote: Planck was a member of the Lutheran Church in Germany.[31] However, Planck was very tolerant towards alternative views and religions.[32] In a lecture in 1937 entitled "Religion und Naturwissenschaft" he suggested the importance of these symbols and rituals related directly with a believer's ability to worship God, but that one must be mindful that the symbols provide an imperfect illustration of divinity. He criticized atheism for being focused on the derision of such symbols, while at the same time warned of the over-estimation of the importance of such symbols by believers.
The book by Planck was called "The relationship between science and religion".
From an article on wikipedia:
quote: The concepts of "science" and "religion" are a recent invention: "religion" emerged in the 17th century in the midst of colonization and globalization and the Protestant Reformation,[1][3][14][2] "science" emerged in the 19th century in the midst of attempts to narrowly define those who studied nature.[1][4][15][2] Furthermore, the phrase "religion and science" or "science and religion" emerged in the 19th century, not before, due to the reification of both concepts.[1][2]
It was in the 19th century that the terms "Buddhism", "Hinduism", "Taoism", "Confucianism" and "World Religions" first emerged.[1][16][17] In the ancient and medieval world, the etymological Latin roots of both science (scientia) and religion (religio) were understood as inner qualities of the individual or virtues, never as doctrines, practices, or actual sources of knowledge.[1]
It was in the 19th century that the concept of "science" received its modern shape with new titles emerging such as "biology" and "biologist", "physics" and "physicist" among other technical fields and titles; institutions and communities were founded, and unprecedented applications to and interactions with other aspects of society and culture occurred.[4] The term scientist was first coined by the naturalist-theologian William Whewell in 1834 and it was applied to those who sought knowledge and understanding of nature.[1][18] From the ancient world, starting with Aristotle, to the 19th century, the term "natural philosophy" was the common term used to describe the practice of studying nature.[4][19] Isaac Newton's book Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (1687), whose title translates to "Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy", reflects the then-current use of the words "natural philosophy", akin to "systematic study of nature". Even in the 19th century, a treatise by Lord Kelvin and Peter Guthrie Tait's, which helped define much of modern physics, was titled Treatise on Natural Philosophy (1867).
I would say that this again reflects what I have been saying all along and that most of these distinctions between "rational" thinking and science as "free from deism of any sort" is a relatively new concept. However, even in ancient times math and science, while viewed by many mystics, philosophers and priests may have been "evidence of gods work in nature" or the "divinity within creation" they also realized their practical applications outside of the symbolic and cosmological realm of spiritual belief.
Posts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Science deals with things that can be tested and experimented on.
If you are dealing with things that can't be tested it is philosophy or religion
So if a scientist believed in a god that would not be a part of the scientific method of testing
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Less than 7% adopted an agnostic position. And the majority is atheistic. This only takes into account the US, not, for instance, Europe and East Asia, where atheism is much more prevalent.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Science deals with things that can be tested and experimented on.
If you are dealing with things that can't be tested it is philosophy or religion
So if a scientist believed in a god that would not be a part of the scientific method of testing
That's a myth invented by hypocrites (it's not how mainstream science works in practice). Have you ever seen someone test Darwinism or abiogenesis? Most aspects of these models can't be tested (even if you create life, you can't prove that is how it actually happened). And even what can be tested (in terms of the controversial aspects), has not been tested with success.
Not only are many aspects of Darwinism not falsifiable (e.g. Darwin's warm little pond/primordial soup theory), it is often taken for granted and not thought of as something that should be tested. When aspects of Darwinism are contradicted, it's often on accident. For instance, that paper I posted shows that in the last 200-100ky, none of the 100.000 species branches off from another species. They are all on their own branches.
quote:Another intriguing insight from the study, says Mr. Ausubel, is that "genetically, the world is not a blurry place. It is hard to find 'intermediates' - the evolutionary stepping stones between species. The intermediates disappear."
Dr. Thaler notes: "Darwin struggled to understand the absence of intermediates and his questions remain fruitful."
"The research is a new way to show that species are 'islands in sequence space.' Each species has its own narrow, very specific consensus sequence, just as our phone system has short, unique numeric codes to tell cities and countries apart."
So where is the evidence that macroevolution is common in nature, requiring only time and random mutation? What was also discovered on accident is that the first evidence of life forms can be pushed all the way back to when the earth became hospitable to life. So, in other words, even assuming life can evolve on earth from chemicals, there is not enough time on earth.
People are not actively going out to see if Darwinism and its predictions can be falsified. They're trying to protect it at all costs.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
1. organisms produce more offspring that can survive
2.variations occur among individuals of a species
3.variations are passed from parent to offspring
4.some variations help individuals survive and reproduce better than others
5.over time the more helpful variations become more common in a population
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: [qb] Science deals with things that can be tested and experimented on.
If you are dealing with things that can't be tested it is philosophy or religion
So if a scientist believed in a god that would not be a part of the scientific method of testing
That's a myth invented by hypocrites
So if Darwinism is not science and theories on Abiogenesis are not science and some things that mainstream science does are not science
Then how should we define science? Suppose we are doing experiments with baking soda. It's mixed with water and nothing happens but if it's mixed with vinegar a chemical reaction occurs and it releases CO2.
how should we define science? Suppose someone observed a volcano eruption and said it happened due to god being angry. Should that be part of science?
Please answer this without mentioning Darwinism and how bad and non-scientific it is. For arguments sake let's say Darwinism is not science, it's philosophy
Suppose somebody wrote a text on chemical reactions that your child was assigned to study and it had accurate information about chemical reactions but it also had philosophical ideas about how the reactions where symbolic of purifying the soul, purging evil and so on. Would you have no problem with that?
Or do you think the text should just deal with observations of what happened when certain chemicals were mixed and no philosophical ideas?
science (n.)
mid-14c., "what is known, knowledge (of something) acquired by study; information;"
Do you think "science" is even a valid concept? Someone could say the things that we know we know because multiple tests were conducted and proved them with a high degree of certainty. Do you think we should have a word for this? Shouldn't science deal with things that could be tested and proven? Shouldn't that method be distinguished from philosophy? -and if scientists had no way of testing something would you agree if they were to say that the question was out of their realm?
Try to answer this question in the context of Darwin and his theories having never even existed
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
We are in agreement in principle. I agree with your initial description that science is supposed to follow this ideal:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: Science deals with things that can be tested and experimented on.
But in practice the scientific establishment is selective in where it applies this principle. It uses this principle when it's convenient to keep something out of science. But when it is time to self-regulate and let go of dated views based on this principle, it often ignores, delays, moves goalposts, etc.
quote:A scientific revolution occurs, according to Kuhn, when scientists encounter anomalies that cannot be explained by the universally accepted paradigm within which scientific progress has thereto been made. The paradigm, in Kuhn's view, is not simply the current theory, but the entire worldview in which it exists, and all of the implications which come with it. This is based on features of landscape of knowledge that scientists can identify around them.
There are anomalies for all paradigms, Kuhn maintained, that are brushed away as acceptable levels of error, or simply ignored and not dealt with (a principal argument Kuhn uses to reject Karl Popper's model of falsifiability as the key force involved in scientific change). Rather, according to Kuhn, anomalies have various levels of significance to the practitioners of science at the time. To put it in the context of early 20th century physics, some scientists found the problems with calculating Mercury's perihelion more troubling than the Michelson-Morley experiment results, and some the other way around. Kuhn's model of scientific change differs here, and in many places, from that of the logical positivists in that it puts an enhanced emphasis on the individual humans involved as scientists, rather than abstracting science into a purely logical or philosophical venture.
Less than 7% adopted an agnostic position. And the majority is atheistic. This only takes into account the US, not, for instance, Europe and East Asia, where atheism is much more prevalent.
OK. But I personally don't see where being an atheist somehow invalidates scientific pursuit without needing to invoke "god", just as being deistic doesn't make science into somehow proving the existence of god.
At the end of the day, the nature of human evolution of symbolic cognitive thought and the ability to think abstractly is the basis for all of this. Whether that means invoking "deities" as symbols of complex processes in nature or invoking complex theoretical physics and mathematical models, it still boils down to cognitive evolution. Whether or not one believes in "god" is not critical to this one bit.
Posts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: OK. But I personally don't see where being an atheist somehow invalidates scientific pursuit without needing to invoke "god", just as being deistic doesn't make science into somehow proving the existence of god.
Also the word Swenet likes to use "direction" is very vague as to what it means. Somebody could argue that things have a direction but no deity or god is involved, that there is innate structure and structured processes in the universe.
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: OK. But I personally don't see where being an atheist somehow invalidates scientific pursuit without needing to invoke "god", just as being deistic doesn't make science into somehow proving the existence of god.
Also the word Swenet likes to use "direction" is very vague as to what it means.
I never said I had all the answers. And I'm not required to have all the answers. I just have to have evidence for my statements. So, again, you're inventing arbitrary rules. But as we'll see below, you don't even follow your own rules.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Somebody could argue that things have a direction but no deity or god
That person would be chasing his own tail. I never evoked a traditional god concept. I did evoke consciousness. Again, we have lioness feverishly fishing for religious views on my part. Lioness' intention was to antagonize since the beginning of this thread. There was never an intention to ask for clarification and to evaluate the information posted. Just the dysfunctional mental drive to antagonize people.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Somebody could argue that things have a direction but no deity or god is involved, that there is innate structure and structured processes in the universe.
You're just doing sleight of hand on the problem, pretending you've solved it. If you say I'm being vague and then introduce "innate structures" as the solution to my vagueness, you never addressed vagueness. You're being vague yourself. So, why don't you apply your own arbitrary rules?
See what I mean when I say you belong in the entertainment section?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Less than 7% adopted an agnostic position. And the majority is atheistic. This only takes into account the US, not, for instance, Europe and East Asia, where atheism is much more prevalent. [/qb]
OK. But I personally don't see where being an atheist somehow invalidates scientific pursuit without needing to invoke "god", just as being deistic doesn't make science into somehow proving the existence of god.
I have a problem with the prejudice inherent in saying "there is no need for [insert disparaged phenomenon] in science". "Need" is not a valid criterion. If you want to rule something out, just show there are no anomalies in your theory. But the worldview mainstream science is based on is a Swiss cheese filled with holes and discrepancies. Saying "we don't need" is just an arbitrary thing to say.
Materialists have said about a lot of things that they can do their calculations without making reference to anything non-material. They were in denial about a lot of things that have now turned out to have a scientific basis. Hence the crisis in physics. Just because you can get away with arbitrarily denying something's existence for now, doesn't mean that thing isn't required for a complete description of nature.
It's possible to ignore all sorts of things in science without running into problems. This is simply an function of scientific process. It has no bearing on whether that thing exists. Neurosurgeons often argue they can perform brain operations without making reference to consciousness. But what does that statement really mean? It's a statement coming from denial, not from trying to understand nature. If you're trying to understand nature, you're supposed to adopt an agnostic position on phenomena that are beyond current science's ability to measure, not say you don't need it. Ultimately, it's a completely arbitrary and non-scientific thing to say.
With that said, I'm not saying the traditional god concept is needed in science either. But I am saying we need consciousness in science. And interestingly enough, they're saying the same thing about consciousness. "Consciousness is not needed in science". So I've heard that tune before, and I know what it means and the denial that underlies it.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: OK. But I personally don't see where being an atheist somehow invalidates scientific pursuit without needing to invoke "god", just as being deistic doesn't make science into somehow proving the existence of god.
Also the word Swenet likes to use "direction" is very vague as to what it means.
I never said I had all the answers. And I'm not required to have all the answers. I just have to have evidence for my statements. So, again, you're inventing arbitrary rules. But as we'll see below, you don't even follow your own rules.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Somebody could argue that things have a direction but no deity or god
That person would be chasing his own tail. I never evoked a traditional god concept. I did evoke consciousness. Again, we have lioness feverishly fishing for religious views on my part. Lioness' intention was to antagonize since the beginning of this thread. There was never an intention to ask for clarification and to evaluate the information posted. Just the dysfunctional mental drive to antagonize people.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Somebody could argue that things have a direction but no deity or god is involved, that there is innate structure and structured processes in the universe.
You're just doing sleight of hand on the problem, pretending you've solved it. If you say I'm being vague and then introduce "innate structures" as the solution to my vagueness, you never addressed vagueness. You're being vague yourself. So, why don't you apply your own arbitrary rules?
See what I mean when I say you belong in the entertainment section?
I asked you earlier for clarification on "direction" but you said to answer that would be to "jump through hoops"
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: But I am saying we need consciousness in science. And interestingly enough, they're saying the same thing about consciousness. "Consciousness is not needed in science". So I've heard that tune before, and I know what it means and the denial that underlies it. [/QB]
Consciousness is not something that can be measured therefore it is not something science has the capacity to deal with.
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: But I am saying we need consciousness in science. And interestingly enough, they're saying the same thing about consciousness. "Consciousness is not needed in science". So I've heard that tune before, and I know what it means and the denial that underlies it. [/qb]
Consciousness is not something that can be measured therefore it is not something science has the capacity to deal with.
People are doing experiments right now.
quote:Now, a theorist proposes a Bell test experiment using something unprecedented: human consciousness. If such an experiment showed deviations from quantum mechanics, it could provide the first hints that our minds are potentially immaterial.
The question is, why do you pretend to have all the answers when the experts say they don't know? How come you keep taking positions on this subject when you've never familiarized yourself with it? Why are you so biased?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
The question is, why do you pretend to have all the answers when the experts say they don't know? How come you keep taking positions on this subject when you've never familiarized yourself with it? Why are you so biased? [/QB]
That's what I'm saying. The experts can't measure consciousness or define what it is precisely therefore it can't be part of science at this time. But you say consciousness answers something, that it is the cause of direction
Are you of the opinion that human beings did not arise out out of less intelligent primate ancestors who did not walk upright?
Are you of the opinion that human beings came into existence from nothing to the fully formed type we are today?
And if that is the case what does consciousness have to do with it?
We could save a lot of time if you were to answer this.
Are you of the opinion that you have no idea how humans came into existence but you think that the idea we evolved from simpler life forms is unlikely?
Or do you have a theory you think is more likely?
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: The experts can't measure consciousness or define what it is precisely therefore it can't be part of science at this time.
I never said consciousness can be measured at the moment. But we can measure the effects of consciousness on things in the outside world.
Which makes consciousness more scientific/testable than Darwinism. Do you agree with this? Let's see how biased you truly are.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Less than 7% adopted an agnostic position. And the majority is atheistic. This only takes into account the US, not, for instance, Europe and East Asia, where atheism is much more prevalent.
OK. But I personally don't see where being an atheist somehow invalidates scientific pursuit without needing to invoke "god", just as being deistic doesn't make science into somehow proving the existence of god.
I have a problem with the prejudice inherent in saying "there is no need for [insert disparaged phenomenon] in science". "Need" is not a valid criterion. If you want to rule something out, just show there are no anomalies in your theory. But the worldview mainstream science is based on is a Swiss cheese filled with holes and discrepancies. Saying "we don't need" is just an arbitrary thing to say.
Materialists have said about a lot of things that they can do their calculations without making reference to anything non-material. They were in denial about a lot of things that have now turned out to have a scientific basis. Hence the crisis in physics. Just because you can get away with arbitrarily denying something's existence for now, doesn't mean that thing isn't required for a complete description of nature.
It's possible to ignore all sorts of things in science without running into problems. This is simply an function of scientific process. It has no bearing on whether that thing exists. Neurosurgeons often argue they can perform brain operations without making reference to consciousness. But what does that statement really mean? It's a statement coming from denial, not from trying to understand nature. If you're trying to understand nature, you're supposed to adopt an agnostic position on phenomena that are beyond current science's ability to measure, not say you don't need it. Ultimately, it's a completely arbitrary and non-scientific thing to say.
With that said, I'm not saying the traditional god concept is needed in science either. But I am saying we need consciousness in science. And interestingly enough, they're saying the same thing about consciousness. "Consciousness is not needed in science". So I've heard that tune before, and I know what it means and the denial that underlies it. [/QB]
I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying. When a person is doing chemistry, they are not "looking for god", they are looking at chemical reactions. Science and math while seen as "evidence for deities" by many going back to ancient times, does not in itself prove or disprove the existence of deity. And practicing math in and of itself has nothing to do with deity. Deity as found in most religions is about belief in a "higher power" that is beyond the physical and therefore does not require "proof" or "evidence" in a scientific sense. Science and math are about real world practical knowledge of observed nature via facts and proof and even theoretical arguments about natural forces without direct evidence based on logical argument and sound math principles. Sure at one time all of these things were considered as part of the same body of study of nature and cosmology but even then, math and science were based on real world tangible facts not "invoking deity". Trust me the AE were not assuming that some deity was going to lift those blocks into place in the pyramids. They knew their math and knowledge of physics were going to do the work, not some "deity". The only difference between the "materialists" and "rationalists" of today and the folks from ancient times is the strict separation between belief in deity and the search for understanding of creation via observation of physical nature. Ancient people did not see the two as contradictory even as I just explained it. So the AE who built the pyramids were as much superstitious and mystical as anybody but they also had a "rational" view of math and its application in the "material" world. Most of the split between "irrational" belief and "rational" science only came about in Europe a few hundred years ago.
Posts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
c. 1600, "knowing, privy to" (poetic), from Latin conscius "knowing, aware," from conscire "be (mutually) aware," from assimilated form of com "with," or "thoroughly" (see con-) + scire "to know" (see science). The Latin word probably is a loan-translation of Greek syneidos.
The sense of "knowing or perceiving within oneself, sensible inwardly, aware" is from 1630s, perhaps a shortening of conscious to oneself (1620s). Also compare the Latin sense evolution in conscience. From 1650s as "aware (of a fact)." Sense of "active and awake, endowed with active mental faculties" is from 1837. Related: Consciously.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: The experts can't measure consciousness or define what it is precisely therefore it can't be part of science at this time.
I never said consciousness can be measured at the moment. But we can measure the effects of consciousness on things in the outside world.
Which makes consciousness more scientific/testable than Darwinism. Do you agree with this? Let's see how biased you truly are. [/QB]
No I don't agree. They shot electrons through slits and the resulting impact pattern they don't understand and they don't understand why they get different result when there is an observation device. I have already known about this for many years. If you look at the wikipedia entry on this
We have 5 theories about it and consciousness is not mentioned and in the entire entry consciousness is not even mentioned even as a false interpretation.
When they shoot electrons through slits the resulting impact pattern they don't understand. Do they say they are shooting consciousness bits through the slits? No the slit experiment is not referred to as an experiment on consciousness. It's considered and experiment on particle motion
Let's say for argument's sake the particles are conscious like a fish or rat is conscious.
The we look at a person born with Cerebral Palsy or blindness. What does consciousness have to do with it? Then a mutation causes a person to be taller and play basketball better. They have offspring that are better at playing basketball but not at playing baseball. What does consciousness have to do with it? It's a different area of study.
But then when we go back to the slit experiment and don't take anything consciousness is not mentioned in your video nor is it mentioned in a long entry on Wikipedia which lists the primary theories about it.
Assuming consciousness is a real thing that exists humans are conscious. Humans could create submarines and helicopters. However a bird also supposedly conscious can only create a nest not a bow and arrow. Go down further to a less complex element an electron, the electron can't create a bicycle or an apple pie.
So if you want to propose it's "conscious" because scientist don't understand how to predict what happens to it when out through a process of motion and barriers they out on it what does that have to do with the creation of a human being?
So again did human beings arrive fully formed onto planet earth or did they evolve from simpler animals?
The "behavior" of electrons doesn't answer the question. We are talking about Darwin and evolution. If you want to call an electron "conscious" it does not deal with the creation of humans. We still have mutations.
A dog has a mutation and it results in the dog missing two of it's legs. What does consciousness have to do with explaining why the dog is born with two legs?
One eagle has better eyesight than the average eagle, it produces offspring which carry this trait. They survive better and reproduce more. What does consciousness have to do with that process?
The subject of the thread is evolution, how species came into existence not sub atomic particles.
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: No I don't agree.
You are evading the question and posting red herrings. The question I asked is whether consciousness is more scientific (falsifiable) than Darwinism. Varying interpretations have nothing to do with whether something is falsifiable or not. The interpretation that something non-physical is interacting with the particles is falsifiable since it's possible to do variations of the experiment until everything except the mind has been ruled out. Darwinism lacks any possibility of falsifying its controversial aspects. It's not possible to falsify that Darwin's mechanisms are enough to explain evolution. Are you denying this?
Lioness the instant google expert says:
quote:We have 5 theories about it and consciousness is not mentioned and in the entire entry consciousness is not even mentioned even as a false interpretation.
What actual experts say:
At the boundary where solid physics peters out, interpreting what’s going on is controversial among physicists who think about it seriously. That physics has encountered consciousness cannot be denied. The continuing discussion by physicists of the connection of consciousness with quantum mechanics displays that encounter. Most interpretations of quantum theory show how the encounter with consciousness need not become a relationship. However, no interpretation evades it. source
Why are you spreading misinformation? Why are you taking positions you don't understand?
quote:No I don't agree. They shot electrons through slits and the resulting impact pattern they don't understand and they don't understand why they get different result when there is an observation device.
More non sense. The observation device is not causing the collapse. If the information gathered by the measuring device is immediately destroyed, the wave function doesn't collapse. So you can take as many automated measurements as you want. The wave function collapses only when the researchers look at the data.
So please explain to me how Darwinism is more falsifiable than consciousness.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying. When a person is doing chemistry, they are not "looking for god", they are looking at chemical reactions. Science and math while seen as "evidence for deities" by many going back to ancient times, does not in itself prove or disprove the existence of deity. And practicing math in and of itself has nothing to do with deity. Deity as found in most religions is about belief in a "higher power" that is beyond the physical and therefore does not require "proof" or "evidence" in a scientific sense. Science and math are about real world practical knowledge of observed nature via facts and proof and even theoretical arguments about natural forces without direct evidence based on logical argument and sound math principles. Sure at one time all of these things were considered as part of the same body of study of nature and cosmology but even then, math and science were based on real world tangible facts not "invoking deity". Trust me the AE were not assuming that some deity was going to lift those blocks into place in the pyramids. They knew their math and knowledge of physics were going to do the work, not some "deity". The only difference between the "materialists" and "rationalists" of today and the folks from ancient times is the strict separation between belief in deity and the search for understanding of creation via observation of physical nature. Ancient people did not see the two as contradictory even as I just explained it. So the AE who built the pyramids were as much superstitious and mystical as anybody but they also had a "rational" view of math and its application in the "material" world. Most of the split between "irrational" belief and "rational" science only came about in Europe a few hundred years ago.
I agree with some of what you say. But when you say "has nothing to do with", you're losing me. How can you possibly know that for a fact? As I've said in my previous post, we've already been down this road of scientists thinking they don't need something in their math and then stumbling on it anyway. People said natural processes work on their own until they had to walk that back because the math showed this position is untenable:
When the province of physical theory was extended to encompass microscopic phenomena through the creation of quantum mechanics, the concept of consciousness came to the fore again. It was not pos- sible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness. http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/wigner/Wigner_Remarks.pdf
So, how do you know this is not going to happen again in the future when more scientific progress is made? You can't rule out that a complete description of nature requires reference to something that has historically been worshiped, conceptualized and anthropomorphized as god. Mainstream science is a long tradition of people being wrong about nature, begrudgingly admitting it and then continuing business as usual, claiming to be a reliable source on what nature is. I completely reject that they are reliable sources when it comes to a complete description of nature. That delusion of thinking a complete materialistic description of nature is within reach and that "we just need to fill in some minor details" comes from a European worldview (which is not universal and which is toxic) and hubris, not from any science.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying. When a person is doing chemistry, they are not "looking for god", they are looking at chemical reactions. Science and math while seen as "evidence for deities" by many going back to ancient times, does not in itself prove or disprove the existence of deity. And practicing math in and of itself has nothing to do with deity. Deity as found in most religions is about belief in a "higher power" that is beyond the physical and therefore does not require "proof" or "evidence" in a scientific sense. Science and math are about real world practical knowledge of observed nature via facts and proof and even theoretical arguments about natural forces without direct evidence based on logical argument and sound math principles. Sure at one time all of these things were considered as part of the same body of study of nature and cosmology but even then, math and science were based on real world tangible facts not "invoking deity". Trust me the AE were not assuming that some deity was going to lift those blocks into place in the pyramids. They knew their math and knowledge of physics were going to do the work, not some "deity". The only difference between the "materialists" and "rationalists" of today and the folks from ancient times is the strict separation between belief in deity and the search for understanding of creation via observation of physical nature. Ancient people did not see the two as contradictory even as I just explained it. So the AE who built the pyramids were as much superstitious and mystical as anybody but they also had a "rational" view of math and its application in the "material" world. Most of the split between "irrational" belief and "rational" science only came about in Europe a few hundred years ago.
I agree with some of what you say. But when you say "has nothing to do with", you're losing me. How can you possibly know that for a fact? As I've said in my previous post, we've already been down this road of scientists thinking they don't need something in their math and then stumbling on it anyway. People said natural processes work on their own until they had to walk that back because the math showed this position is untenable:
When the province of physical theory was extended to encompass microscopic phenomena through the creation of quantum mechanics, the concept of consciousness came to the fore again. It was not pos- sible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness. http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/wigner/Wigner_Remarks.pdf
So, how do you know this is not going to happen again in the future when more scientific progress is made? You can't rule out that a complete description of nature requires reference to something that has historically been worshiped, conceptualized and anthropomorphized as god. Mainstream science is a long tradition of people being wrong about nature, begrudgingly admitting it and then continuing business as usual, claiming to be a reliable source on what nature is. I completely reject that they are reliable sources when it comes to a complete description of nature. That delusion of thinking a complete materialistic description of nature is within reach and that "we just need to fill in some minor details" comes from a European worldview (which is not universal and which is toxic) and hubris, not from any science.
European "rational" thinking claims that everything in the universe can be explained ULTIMATELY by science. God is not part of "rational" thinking. I said this a few pages back. The biggest problem with the European mode of thinking is not about "god" vs "science" it is about being able to come up with a single comprehensive theory of everything. Humans are never going to know everything there is to know about the universe. And therefore it will be impossible to come up with a unified theory of everything. This is where the folly comes into play in my opinion.
I say that because the fact that humans may never know everything about the universe does not require "god" as a stand in for "the unknown". This has always been part of man's psyche when it comes to awe and respect of nature, its complexity and how it came about. Gods as I have been saying since the beginning of this topic, has been part of the evolution of human thinking and are part of evolutionary psychology. Meaning anything that cannot be understood at any particular time, is seen as evidence for "gods" in the universe. The only difference between back then and now is we know more about certain things and no longer see those phenomena as "gods domain". But that tendency still exists within human thought.
I am not arguing for or against anything. I am just saying that humans as a species have an advanced brain with symbolic thinking and as part of that comes the belief in things like "gods". But that is generally considered part of human emotional and psychology in the need to create some "reason" for things being how they are, even if it is "imaginary". Science by its nature does not deal with finding "imaginary beings" because it deals with discrete tangible facts and evidence. Belief in gods does not require science for the believer. So you are talking two fundamentally separate mental processes at work. When I look at chemistry I am looking at physical reactions and events and coming up with explanations based on observed behaviors and reproducible theories. Gods as beings defined by human imagination are therefore not part of scientific pursuit because of their nature as being "imaginary" or beyond the realm of the physical.
Now, if you look into eastern mysticism and things like gnosticism, you get a whole different slant. In those cosmologies, everything is a reflection of gods presence but that doesn't mean that science or math don't exist and have observed rules and laws that can be learned. It means the very existence of these rules and laws provides proof in a "metaphysical/philosophical" way for the existence of "gods". But it does not necessarily mean that you expect to find a "god particle" or "god principle" in the physical universe as a tangible entity that can be measured or observed. This is why to this day, the existence of god has remained a philosophical, metaphysical argument versus one based on "scientific fact", much as it was in ancient times to some degree.
As for quantum mechanics, it doesn't contradict what we know in most cases. It just exposes that there are limits to how far our knowledge goes of the universe. If the universe is infinite, what does that mean? Are there infinite levels of particles? And if so what would it look like?
1. organisms produce more offspring that can survive
2.variations occur among individuals of a species
3.variations are passed from parent to offspring
4.some variations help individuals survive and reproduce better than others
5.over time the more helpful variations become more common in a population
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: The question I asked is whether consciousness is more scientific (falsifiable) than Darwinism.
No consciousness is less falsifiable and is not some sort of opposite of Darwinism. You are creating false dichotomies as if he said consciousness does not exist.
We are talking about Darwinism what does consciousness have to do with it?
Look at the above 5 tenants of Darwinism. They are all falsifiable.
Scientists can't even define consciousness precisely
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
it's possible to do variations of the experiment until everything except the mind has been ruled out.
No, that is nonsense
If doesn't even make sense, what does the slit experiment have to do with "the mind".
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
What actual experts say: That physics has encountered consciousness cannot be denied.
wrong, that is not falsifiable since science doesn't even know what consciousness is.
Again, more Swenetian straw men and false dichotomy. We are talking about the development of animals.
A mouse is conscious. What does that have to do with the development of animal species?
Some electrons are shot through some slits. The don't understand the impact pasterns. What does that have to do with the development of life forms?
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: 5 Tenants of DARWINISM
1. organisms produce more offspring that can survive
2.variations occur among individuals of a species
3.variations are passed from parent to offspring
4.some variations help individuals survive and reproduce better than others
5.over time the more helpful variations become more common in a population
More sleight of hand. Are you saying people didn't know this before Darwin? You must be profoundly naive if you think the world was in darkness about evolution until Darwin said fit organisms tend to survive and have more sex and offspring. People have domesticated and bred animals for thousands of years. People have always known about heritable traits and variation. As I've said several times in this thread, evolution predates Darwin and so you can't credit this to Darwin. Make a list of claims unique to Darwinism and we'll see if they're falsifiable.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: No consciousness is less falsifiable and is not some sort of opposite of Darwinism. You are creating false dichotomies as if he said consciousness does not exist.
We are talking about Darwinism what does consciousness have to do with it? unique is that he used natural selection his the notion that natural selection is the mechanism of graexplain everything,
I'm trying to see if you're consistent in your claim that science only deals with things that can be falsified. This is why I'm asking you which of the two is more scientific. As it turns out, it was good to ask you that question. Your answers confirmed to me that your bias is through the roof. You keep posting five tenets of Darwinism (which are not uniquely his, at all), but never post other things he talked about, like gradualism, common descent, natural selection being the cornerstone, etc. You know Darwinism can't be falsified. This is why you have to resort to sleight of hand when you reduce Darwinism to five tenets he did not come up with.
quote:Scientists can't even define consciousness precisely
Darwin's work is filled with vague references to heritable biological structures and speculative story telling. DNA was not discovered until the 20th century. So why are you giving Darwin a pass? Why the double standard, lioness? Are you biased and intellectually dishonest? I hope not, because that would really be a first.
quote: If doesn't even make sense, what does the slit experiment have to do with "the mind".
Maybe if you read a book before committing to positions you don't understand, you would know. You're all over the forum, trying to debate people on subjects you've never studied. Your confusion on topics is your confusion alone. And I'm not responsible for ensuring things make sense to you. You are responsible for your own education.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
EDIT Never mind. Not going to open up new points of contention. You still welcome to answer the questions I asked in my previous post (see below). But I don't get the sense that you're answering questions. You just seem to be repeating yourself in different ways.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: So, how do you know this is not going to happen again in the future when more scientific progress is made? You can't rule out that a complete description of nature requires reference to something that has historically been worshiped, conceptualized and anthropomorphized as god.
It was discovered in the 20th century that the role of consciousness is fundamental in nature. The math already had to be changed once with regard to consciousness. How do you know that a mathematical description of the nature doesn't require more references to (non-biological) consciousness?
quote:In quantum mechanics, particles don’t have a definite shape or specific location, until they are observed or measured. Is this a form of proto-consciousness at play? According to the late scientist and philosopher, John Archibald Wheeler, it might. He's famous for coining the term, "black hole." In his view, every piece of matter contains a bit of consciousness, which it absorbs from this proto-consciousness field.
He called his theory the “participatory anthropic principle,” which posits that a human observer is key to the process. Of this Wheeler said, “We are participators in bringing into being not only the near and here but the far away and long ago." In his view, much like the Buddhist one, nothing exists unless there is a consciousness to apprehend it.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: 5 Tenants of DARWINISM
1. organisms produce more offspring that can survive
2.variations occur among individuals of a species
3.variations are passed from parent to offspring
4.some variations help individuals survive and reproduce better than others
5.over time the more helpful variations become more common in a population
More sleight of hand. Are you saying people didn't know this before Darwin? You must be profoundly naive if you think the world was in darkness about evolution until Darwin said fit organisms tend to survive and have more sex and offspring. People have domesticated and bred animals for thousands of years. People have always known about heritable traits and variation. As I've said several times in this thread, evolution predates Darwin and so you can't credit this to Darwin. Make a list of claims unique to Darwinism and we'll see if they're falsifiable.
The key is selection by nature not by mankind breeding
"principle by which each slight variation [of a trait], if useful, is preserved" --Charles Darwin
and that species had not been separately created (no you can't quote me on that you'll have to quote Darwin on that)
It is ridiculous for you to critique Darwin and then ask ME make a list of claims unique to Darwinism.
That should be what your are doing !!!!
This shows me you don't know what you are talking about and are just playing games, why you have to keep resorting to posting up book pages
You have NO VALID ARGUMENT until you can quote complete sentences from Origin of Species and then in your own words state why they are wrong.
-not quoting some off the cuff remarks on his philosophical opinions
quote form the Origin of Species his seminal work and then say what's wrong with it
That is the bare minimum for anybody to take you seriously
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: It was discovered in the 20th century that the role of consciousness is fundamental in nature.
a) your statement is useless unless you can say what the role is. A person has consciousness a mouse has consciousness. So what is this vague statement " consciousness is fundamental in nature" supposed to mean ??
THEY DONT EVEN KNOW WHAT CONSCIOUSNESS IS.
And if they did that doesn't mean you can just insert it anywhere to answer any question
b) Discovered by who? name someone who PROVED this.
The slit experiment? No all that shows is that when they shoot electrons through a slit they don't understand the impact pattern at this time.
This is your theory "by anything not understood by science is explained consciousness" No that vague statement is not scientific conclusion.
If you want to say you believe that the Universe, everything is conscious, everything is aware and thinking then say that. That will be your philosophical belief, possibly pantheism
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: The key is selection by nature not by mankind breeding
"principle by which each slight variation [of a trait], if useful, is preserved" --Charles Darwin
and that species had not been separately created (no you can't quote me on that you'll have to quote Darwin on that)
It is ridiculous for you to critique Darwin and then ask ME make a list of claims unique to Darwinism.
That should be what your are doing !!!!
This shows me you don't know what you are talking about and are just playing games, why you have to keep resorting to posting up book pages
You have NO VALID ARGUMENT until you can quote complete sentences from Origin of Species and then in your own words state why they are wrong.
-not quoting some off the cuff remarks on his philosophical opinions
quote form the Origin of Species his seminal work and then say what's wrong with it
That is the bare minimum for anybody to take you seriously [/qb]
I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm talking about your five tenets being known before Darwin. You're talking about quoting Darwin.
You already took the L trying to attribute the concept of evolution to Darwin. Don't try to distract from that by randomly demanding quotes from Darwin. Your argument was that your five tenets prove that Darwin is falsifiable. I dispute that those five tenets are particularly Darwinian. You fail to address that, because you know you messed up making a dumb argument. I don't see why I'm now somehow obligated to substantiate your belief for you. YOU claim that Darwinism is falsifiable and your evidence consist of knowledge that predates Darwin. YOUR claim, your burden of evidence.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: It was discovered in the 20th century that the role of consciousness is fundamental in nature.
a) your statement is useless unless you can say what the role is. A person has consciousness a mouse has consciousness. So what is this vague statement " consciousness is fundamental in nature" supposed to mean ??
THEY DONT EVEN KNOW WHAT CONSCIOUSNESS IS.
And if they did that doesn't mean you can just insert it anywhere to answer any question
b) Discovered by who? name someone who PROVED this.
The slit experiment? No all that shows is that when they shoot electrons through a slit they don't understand the impact pattern at this time.
This is your theory "by anything not understood by science is explained consciousness" No that vague statement is not scientific conclusion.
If you want to say you believe that the Universe, everything is conscious, everything is aware and thinking then say that. That will be your philosophical belief, possibly pantheism
Special pleading fallacy. Physicists don't know what anything is, intrinsically speaking. Physicists don't even know what particles are.
That doesn't mean they can't work with these particles in the lab and test predictons. Your arguments are baseless and just a reflection of your ignorance. I tried to help you by listing some relevant books and lectures. You reject my help, which is ok. But then don't expect me to carry you in a debate where the only thing you can do is make dumb claims, run to google for help and then parrot an argument you don't understand.
Bottom line, it's not necessary to know what something is, to work with it in science. Why even do science in the first place if you're starting out understanding something already? This is the weird gymnastics you've twisted yourself in. If consciousness is not falsifiable because it's not fully understood, then according to your shaky logic nothing is falsifiable because nothing is fully understood. Also, according to your shaky logic, scientific progress is never scientific because progress precedes understanding. Of course, this gets you in trouble because you see Darwinism as scientific, even though Darwin didn't understand evolution (certainly not at the level of DNA and molecular biology). And we still don't understand it. So when you single out consciousness as not fully understood, you're just special pleading.
If something exerts effects that science can detect, reproduce and study, science can work with it. Whether it's understood or not is completely irrelevant. Providing understanding is what science is for, in the first place.
The two questions you ask are already answered in the book I posted, where the role of consciousness in physics is explained. I'm not here to educate you or hand-deliver quotes, jumping through your hoops. Either tighten up on your reading, or stick to the entertainment section.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Swenet: My point is that Darwinists don't accept direction in evolution.
.
.
quote: This is where you get in the realm of spirituality because according to mainstream evolution, nature is dumb and can't 'choose' or have a greater plan. So most scientists can't begin to explain it. Especially Darwinists.
This thread could go on forever because you like endless circles keeping everything as vague and non-committal as possible.
So we go back to your original statements. "Direction" is too vague for these contexts. A ball is dropped and the direct it takes is toward the the ground due to gravity. But in space it just floats there yet you keep using this word direction over and over as if it is some larger answer.
But we see in your second statement you really mean "plan".
You think human beings came into existence due to a plan. You quoted a book called Evolution Impossible
And this is a falsifiable statement? that human beings came into existence due to a plan?
See if you can answer that you don't even have to mention Darwin to answer it.
Then after that if you want to bring Darwin into the conversation, then you will need to quote Origin of Species. You are the one who brought up Darwin so yes the burden is on you to quote his seminal work the Origin of Species
no if you keep referring to a page of another book not by Darwin or say "read this book" it is not an argument. If you were in debate at a university you could not argue "read this page" or "read this book". You don't have a handle on the information, I would not hire you to argue for intelligent design or as you put it "a greater plan...where you get in the realm of spirituality"
If I said this to one of the authors of the books you posted they would instantly come up with a Darwin Origin of Species quote and say why they think it's wrong and not refer me to a book page of opinion.
You think human beings came into existence due to a plan.
And this is a falsifiable statement?
If you even mention Darwin in regard to that that is avoiding the question.
If I ask you what color a tangerine is, the answer is not to keep talking about someone else being wrong who claimed they are blue
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Notice how lioness keeps insisting on falsifiability in science, but then she tries to bait people to speculate by asking questions that are not scientific according to her own definition of the term. When you can't answer lioness' non-scientific questions because they're not scientific, lioness calls that "deliberately vague". But I thought lioness said science only deals with things that can be falsified. So when researchers hold back on speculation, she calls it science. When I hold back on speculation, she calls it "deliberately vague".
This is exactly what I mean when I say lioness is fishing and baiting. I've already explained how I came to the conclusion of direction in evolution (see this post here). Lioness consistently ignores these explanations. She has not even addressed this explanation once. (To the contrary, she keeps saying no explanation was given in the hopes I trip up and say something absurd she can sensationalize and antagonize).
Engage lioness in intellectual conversation at your own risk. I think it's time I start ignoring her outside of the entertainment section.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
For lurkers who wondered how materialism relates to Darwinism being wrong, see the Spark documentary below. Living systems don't conform to the Newtonian worldview Darwinism is based on. They conform to other worldviews mainstream science is currently censoring and suppressing. Individuals brave enough to challenge mainstream dogma have always said this, but were given the silent treatment (or worse). Now that the evidence is pouring in, some are presenting these findings as 'new science'.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: For lurkers who wondered how materialism relates to Darwinism being wrong, see the Spark documentary below. Living systems don't conform to the Newtonian worldview Darwinism is based on. They conform to other worldviews mainstream science is currently censoring and suppressing. Individuals brave enough to challenge mainstream dogma have always said this, but were given the silent treatment (or worse). Now that the evidence is pouring in, some are presenting these findings as 'new science'.
Quantum physics is part of mainstream science. Come on Swenet.
Again quoting wikipedia:
quote: Max Planck said in 1944, "As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter."[36]
Planck regarded the scientist as a man of imagination and Christian faith. He said: "Both religion and science require a belief in God. For believers, God is in the beginning, and for physicists He is at the end of all considerations… To the former He is the foundation, to the latter, the crown of the edifice of every generalized world view".[37]
On the other hand, Planck wrote, "...'to believe' means 'to recognize as a truth,' and the knowledge of nature, continually advancing on incontestably safe tracks, has made it utterly impossible for a person possessing some training in natural science to recognize as founded on truth the many reports of extraordinary occurrences contradicting the laws of nature, of miracles which are still commonly regarded as essential supports and confirmations of religious doctrines, and which formerly used to be accepted as facts pure and simple, without doubt or criticism. The belief in miracles must retreat step by step before relentlessly and reliably progressing science and we cannot doubt that sooner or later it must vanish completely."[38]
Later in life, Planck's views on God were that of a deist.[39] For example, six months before his death a rumour started that Planck had converted to Catholicism, but when questioned what had brought him to make this step, he declared that, although he had always been deeply religious, he did not believe "in a personal God, let alone a Christian God."
The concept of the quantum came out of science. It has been further refined and defined by physics and science. There is nothing about quantum theory not founded on actual science.
The difference is between physics behaviors at the macro scale (Newtonian physics) and physics at the micro scale(Quantum):
quote: Quantum mechanics (QM; also known as quantum physics, quantum theory, the wave mechanical model, or matrix mechanics), including quantum field theory, is a fundamental theory in physics which describes nature at the smallest scales of energy levels of atoms and subatomic particles.[2]
Classical physics, the physics existing before quantum mechanics, describes nature at ordinary (macroscopic) scale. Most theories in classical physics can be derived from quantum mechanics as an approximation valid at large (macroscopic) scale.[3] Quantum mechanics differs from classical physics in that energy, momentum, angular momentum and other quantities of a system are restricted to discrete values (quantization); objects have characteristics of both particles and waves (wave-particle duality); and there are limits to the precision with which quantities can be measured (uncertainty principle).
Hence Quantum physics does not "overthrow" newtonian physics in that gravity and other forms of physics are not going to suddenly not exist because of quantum physics. Just like the existence of atoms does not disprove the existence of matter at the macro scale that atoms populate.
"Modern physics" or modern science incoroporates Quantum physics:
quote: Modern physics is the post-Newtonian conception of physics. It implies that classical descriptions of phenomena are lacking, and that an accurate, "modern", description of nature requires theories to incorporate elements of quantum mechanics or Einsteinian relativity, or both. In general, the term is used to refer to any branch of physics either developed in the early 20th century and onwards, or branches greatly influenced by early 20th century physics.
Small velocities and large distances is usually the realm of classical physics. Modern physics, however, often involves extreme conditions: quantum effects typically involve distances comparable to atoms (roughly 10−9 m), while relativistic effects typically involve velocities comparable to the speed of light (roughly 3 ∙ {\displaystyle \bullet } \bullet 108 m/s). In general, quantum and relativistic effects exist across all scales, although these effects can be very small in everyday life.
posted
Doug, have you been reading closely what I've been saying? It seems like you're completely missing the point.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Niels Bohr, the theory’s principal interpreter, tells us: “Anyone not shocked by quantum mechanics has not understood it.” But a physicist setting out to design a laser or to explain the behavior of quarks, semiconductors, or stars must concentrate on his or her down-to-earth goal and ignore the theory’s “shocking” implications. That is why, in teaching quantum mechanics to physics, chemistry, and engineering students, we avoid dealing with such things as the nature of reality or consciousness. In fact, even mentioning such issues raises eyebrows. The story is told of a graduate student asking Richard Feynman: “Aside from being a tool for calculation, what actually is the quantum wavefunction?” The only response overheard was: “Shh! First close the door.” As J. M. Jauch puts it: “For many thoughtful physicists, [the deeper meaning of quantum mechanics] has remained a kind of skeleton in the closet.”
quote:The Copenhagen interpretation was recently summarized as “Shut up and calculate!” That’s blunt, but not completely unfair. It is, in fact, the right injunction for most physicists most of the time. The Copenhagen interpretation is the best way to deal with quantum mechanics for all practical purposes. It assures us that in our labs or at our desks we can use quantum mechanics without needless worrying about what’s really going on. Copenhagen shows us that quantum mechanics is a fully consistent theory and suffi cient as a guide to the physical phenomena around us. Good!
The full implications of quantum physics are ignored and/or rejected in mainstream science.
And please don't come back with another post giving 100 examples of quantum physics being science and used by scientists. You're completely missing the point. The point is that quantum physics is only accepted by mainstream science to the extent it's practical. it's generally worked with begrudgingly due to the fact that quantum physics destroys many assumptions of western academic thought. Other cultures may not have as much of a rough transition because they weren't indoctrinated by materialism. Also, some cultures have always said that matter is not what it appears to be and that consciousness is fundamental, not something that is outside the laws of nature. So a lot of cultures have already predicted these findings.
Quantum physics is only disseminated to the public and physics students on a need to know basis. They are still clinging onto the old Newtonian worldview when it comes to the prevalent worldview. There was never a complete rethink to bring physics and the rest of science up to par with the full implications of quantum physics. These scientific disciplines are still operating with one foot or both feet in the Newtonian worldview, depending on the field we're talking about.
Now just address the point being argued, please. The point of contention is very simple and was already explained thread pages ago.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Hence Quantum physics does not "overthrow" newtonian physics in that gravity and other forms of physics are not going to suddenly not exist because of quantum physics. Just like the existence of atoms does not disprove the existence of matter at the macro scale that atoms populate.
Yes, because the sub-atomic particles act differently than the atomic particles that does not mean Newtonian physics does not still apply to the atomic.
I noticed Swenet threw out some bathwater
but at the bottom of the water, there was still a baby in it.
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're both missing the point and inventing gibberish arguments against positions I'm not even taking. You seem to not know the difference between Newtonian laws and the Newtonian worldview that is dominant right now in mainstream science. I don't recall saying much about Newtonian laws.
And I'm not interested in dwelling on quantum physics for the sake of quantum physics. I posted about quantum physics throughout this thread because it's uncovering new facts about nature that call for a revision all scientific fields that are operating on the Newtonian worldview.
Also, the video I posted is about quantum biology, not quantum physics. The fact that both of you completely misinterpreted what I posted tells me you don't have a clue about the points of contention along which the debates (this debate as well as the debates in science) are taking place right now. Again, the major point of contention is the Newtonian worldview vs the view that matter takes a backseat to energy and consciousness (a view supported by physics and shared by most metaphysical traditions all over the world). It's not about Newtonian laws per se.
It also tells me neither of you have watched the video. Which is okay. It was posted for the lurkers.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: matter takes a backseat to energy and consciousness (a view supported by physics and shared by most metaphysical traditions all over the world).
^this doesn't mean anything, energy and consciousness aren't world views
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Doug, have you been reading closely what I've been saying? It seems like you're completely missing the point.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Niels Bohr, the theory’s principal interpreter, tells us: “Anyone not shocked by quantum mechanics has not understood it.” But a physicist setting out to design a laser or to explain the behavior of quarks, semiconductors, or stars must concentrate on his or her down-to-earth goal and ignore the theory’s “shocking” implications. That is why, in teaching quantum mechanics to physics, chemistry, and engineering students, we avoid dealing with such things as the nature of reality or consciousness. In fact, even mentioning such issues raises eyebrows. The story is told of a graduate student asking Richard Feynman: “Aside from being a tool for calculation, what actually is the quantum wavefunction?” The only response overheard was: “Shh! First close the door.” As J. M. Jauch puts it: “For many thoughtful physicists, [the deeper meaning of quantum mechanics] has remained a kind of skeleton in the closet.”
quote:The Copenhagen interpretation was recently summarized as “Shut up and calculate!” That’s blunt, but not completely unfair. It is, in fact, the right injunction for most physicists most of the time. The Copenhagen interpretation is the best way to deal with quantum mechanics for all practical purposes. It assures us that in our labs or at our desks we can use quantum mechanics without needless worrying about what’s really going on. Copenhagen shows us that quantum mechanics is a fully consistent theory and suffi cient as a guide to the physical phenomena around us. Good!
The full implications of quantum physics are ignored and/or rejected in mainstream science.
And please don't come back with another post giving 100 examples of quantum physics being science and used by scientists. You're completely missing the point. The point is that quantum physics is only accepted by mainstream science to the extent it's practical. it's generally worked with begrudgingly due to the fact that quantum physics destroys many assumptions of western academic thought. Other cultures may not have as much of a rough transition because they weren't indoctrinated by materialism. Also, some cultures have always said that matter is not what it appears to be and that consciousness is fundamental, not something that is outside the laws of nature. So a lot of cultures have already predicted these findings.
Quantum physics is only disseminated to the public and physics students on a need to know basis. They are still clinging onto the old Newtonian worldview when it comes to the prevalent worldview. There was never a complete rethink to bring physics and the rest of science up to par with the full implications of quantum physics. These scientific disciplines are still operating with one foot or both feet in the Newtonian worldview, depending on the field we're talking about.
Now just address the point being argued, please. The point of contention is very simple and was already explained thread pages ago.
Swenet, there is no "secret" about the quantum model being different to the "standard" model. Einstein was the most notable of the scientists to challenge the theory of quantum mechanics. So this isn't some obscure aspect of science that is shoved in a corner. They are using quantum theory in many aspects of science today. The point is quantum theory does not replace gravity. It does not replace relativity. Both have their place where they are useful and beneficial or "practical".
I don't disagree with there being a schism in science but I don't agree with the way you are trying to characterize it. Scholars in "metaphysics" have been talking about the "conscious universe since the beginnings of philosophy and science going back many thousands of years.
This is again a metaphysical issue not purely a "religion" issue and metaphysics has always dealt with these concepts as part of "scientific" evolution and models, including consciousness. This is not NEW stuff.
The concept of "let there be light", the "big bang" model, memphite theology and "in the beginning was the word" are all based around the principle of emergence, meaning how physical reality emerged from "nothing". This has always been a cosmological principle going back long before anybody had any means to even begin to use telescopes. It is not something that came from "quantum science" even though this is the fundamental reason for the schism within science about quantum mechanics. It is literally like saying all matter is basically formed from nothing at a sub atomic level. Heck even the concept of the atom and monad go back to ancient times.
This concept of hierarchies was fundamental to Aristotle and is also fundamental to the theory of emergence, which is rapidly evolving in modern science as a crucial solution to the false dualism of atomism and holism. Emergence shares Aristotle’s view that laws are hierarchical because the ontology of being is hierarchical. I believe that were Aristotle alive today, he would agree that consciousness is an emergent higher order principle accounting for man’s form of being, man’s substance, as an ensouled body. (For an more detailed discussion of life as an emergent hierarchy, see the bioperipatetic paper entitled Emergence of Life.) Rejection of Emergence and Hierarchy by Modern Science
Modern classical science holds that materialist reductionism is the sole valid approach to understanding the universe at all levels and across all scientific disciplines. It holds as well that hierarchies and emergence are at best pure conceptual abstractions and lack any ontological reality. Thus modern monism is fully equivalent to and a faithful expression of materialist reductionism.
quote: When it comes to science, ours is a paradoxical era. On the one hand, prominent physicists proclaim that they are solving the riddle of reality and hence finally displacing religious myths of creation. That is the chest-thumping message of books such as The Grand Design by physicists Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow and A Universe from Nothing by Lawrence Krauss. A corollary of this triumphal view is that science will inevitably solve all other mysteries as well.
On the other hand, science's limits have never been more glaringly apparent. In their desperation for a "theory of everything"—which unifies quantum mechanics and relativity and explains the origin and structure of our cosmos—physicists have embraced pseudo-scientific speculation such as multi-universe theories and the anthropic principle (which says that the universe must be as we observe it to be because otherwise we wouldn't be here to observe it). Fields such as neuroscience, evolutionary psychology and behavioral genetics and complexity have fallen far short of their hype.
Some scholars, notably philosopher Thomas Nagel, are so unimpressed with science that they are challenging its fundamental assumptions. In his new book Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False, Nagel contends that current scientific theories and methods can't account for the emergence of life in general and one bipedal, big-brained species in particular. To solve these problems, Nagel asserts, science needs "a major conceptual revolution," as radical as those precipitated by heliocentrism, evolution and relativity.
Again, the whole reason this 'schism' exists is because "rationalists" believe they can and will eventually know everything about everything in the universe. Scientific materialism and materialist reductionism are both aspects of rationalist thought. And like I said before, they believe they can come up with one single unified theory of everything and they can't and they never will. This is what I am saying. Atheism vs Deism has nothing to do with why these schisms exist. It makes no sense to invoke quantum mechanics when doing standard chemistry. Many day to day science problems are working just fine and don't need quantum mechanics to explain. And it doesn't make sense to throw out standard calculations in most of science because of quantum mechanics. This doesn't mean quantum mechanics is being shoved in a corner. Quantum mechanics only comes into play in very specific cases and therefore does not overthrow or replace science based on the standard model.
Again, it is this "rational" model of history that separates god from science, not quantum versus newton, because it denies the history of "scientific" thought being crouched within a religious context going back to ancient times. You said yourself that many scientists are atheists, so you can't claim support for or rejection of quantum science is the reason for an atheism in science.
Believing in quantum science does not make someone more religious or anti religious. Many quantum physicists were atheists.
Bottom line the whole reason quantum science is so controversial is because it overthrows the materialist model of science which holds that everything in the "materialist" universe is knowable and observable and can be covered by a single unified theory of everything in some form. Religion and god are only a side issue here because quantum physics does not "prove" god either. It proves that humans have no way of pretending they know everything about everything. Which means many aspects of life are still an open question ultimately best dealt with in metaphysical philosophical form versus "materialist" scientific rational observation.
Posts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: matter takes a backseat to energy and consciousness (a view supported by physics and shared by most metaphysical traditions all over the world).
^this doesn't mean anything, energy and consciousness aren't world views
I never said energy and consciousness are world views. I said believing in the primacy of energy and consciousness is a worldview or at least it lies at the basis of a world view. But nice try.
Again, the major point of contention is the Newtonian worldview vs the view that matter takes a backseat to energy and consciousness (a view supported by physics and shared by most metaphysical traditions all over the world). --Swenet
Are you not embarrassed by now with your many blunders in this thread? Every time you blunder, you change the subject and start reaching again. And every time you start reaching again, it's becoming more and more apparent that you're anti-knowledge and anti-learning. The only reason you're on this forum is just to antagonize people.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Darwin didn't believe nature has a planned direction, similar to the unpredictable nature of the quantum particle
quote: [My] judgment often fluctuates…. Whether a man deserves to be called a theist depends on the definition of the term … In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. — I think that generally (and more and more so as I grow older), but not always, — that an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind. --Charles Darwin letter to to John Fordyce, 1879
.
. The Newtonian World View
The world view underlying traditional science may be called "mechanistic" or "Newtonian". It is based in reductionism, determinism, materialism, and a reflection-correspondence view of knowledge. Although it is simple, coherent and intuitive, it ignores or denies human agency, values, creativity and evolution.
Yet the Newtonian worldview is certainly directional:
quote:
"Numero pondere et mensura Deus omnia condidit.
God created everything by number, weight and measure.
— Sir Isaac Newton On more than one occasion, Newton wrote these Latin words as his autograph, with his signature below
quote:
And from true lordship it follows that the true God is living, intelligent, and powerful; from the other perfections, that he is supreme, or supremely perfect. He is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, he endures from eternity to eternity; and he is present from infinity to infinity; he rules all things, and he knows all things that happen or can happen. — Sir Isaac Newton The Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy (1687),
In essence, the philosophy of Newtonian science is one of simplicity: the complexity of the world is only apparent; to deal with it you need to analyze phenomena into their simplest components.
Quantum evolution is a component of George Gaylord Simpson's multi-tempoed theory of evolution proposed to explain the rapid emergence of higher taxonomic groups in the fossil record. According to Simpson, evolutionary rates differ from group to group and even among closely related lineages. These different rates of evolutionary change were designated by Simpson as horotelic (medium tempo), bradytelic (slow tempo), and tachytelic (rapid tempo).
Quantum evolution differed from these styles of change in that it involved a drastic shift in the adaptive zones of certain classes of animals. The word "quantum" therefore refers to an "all-or-none reaction", where transitional forms are particularly unstable, and thereby perish rapidly and completely.[1] Although quantum evolution may happen at any taxonomic level,[2] it plays a much larger role in "the origin taxonomic units of relatively high rank, such as families, orders, and classes."
According to Simpson (1944), quantum evolution resulted from Sewall Wright's model of random genetic drift. Simpson believed that major evolutionary transitions would arise when small populations, that were isolated and limited from gene flow, would fixate upon unusual gene combinations. This "inadaptive phase" (caused by genetic drift) would then (by natural selection) drive a deme population from one stable adaptive peak to another on the adaptive fitness landscape. However, in his Major Features of Evolution (1953) Simpson wrote that this mechanism was still controversial:
[i]"whether prospective adaptation as prelude to quantum evolution arises adaptively or inadaptively. It was concluded above that it usually arises adaptively . . . . The precise role of, say, genetic drift in this process thus is largely speculative at present. It may have an essential part or none. It surely is not involved in all cases of quantum evolution, but there is a strong possibility that it is often involved. If or when it is involved, it is an initiating mechanism. Drift can only rarely, and only for lower categories, have completed the transition to a new adaptive zone."[i/]
This preference for adaptive over inadaptive forces led Stephen Jay Gould to call attention to the "hardening of the Modern Synthesis", a trend in the 1950s where adaptationism took precedence over the pluralism of mechanisms common in the 1930s and 40s.[10]
Simpson considered quantum evolution his crowning achievement, being "perhaps the most important outcome of [my] investigation, but also the most controversial and hypothetical."
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
This is the point where you do your obfuscation routine where you get stuck in a cycle of missing the point and repeating yourself. Let me know when you're ready to actually address my posts rather than your signature barrage of strawman attacks and red herrings.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: I said the primacy of energy and consciousness is a worldview. But nice try. [/QB]
the study of energy has been a part of physics since at least the early 19th century. In classical mechanics, energy is a conceptually and mathematically useful property, as it is a conserved quantity. Several formulations of mechanics have been developed using energy as a core concept.
___________________________________
quote:
consciousness 1 a : the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself b : the state or fact of being conscious of an external object, state, or fact c : awareness; especially : concern for some social or political cause
The organization aims to raise the political consciousness of teenagers.
2 : the state of being characterized by sensation, emotion, volition, and thought : mind 3 : the totality of conscious states of an individual 4 : the normal state of conscious life
regained consciousness
5 : the upper level of mental life of which the person is aware as contrasted with unconscious processes
quote:conscious (adj.)
c. 1600, "knowing, privy to" (poetic), from Latin conscius "knowing, aware," from conscire "be (mutually) aware," from assimilated form of com "with," or "thoroughly" (see con-) + scire "to know" (see science). The Latin word probably is a loan-translation of Greek syneidos.
The sense of "knowing or perceiving within oneself, sensible inwardly, aware" is from 1630s, perhaps a shortening of conscious to oneself (1620s). Also compare the Latin sense evolution in conscience. From 1650s as "aware (of a fact)." Sense of "active and awake, endowed with active mental faculties" is from 1837. Related: Consciously.
____________________________________
The origin of the modern concept of consciousness is often attributed to John Locke's Essay Concerning Human Understanding, published in 1690.[10] Locke defined consciousness as "the perception of what passes in a man's own mind".[11] His essay influenced the 18th-century view of consciousness, and his definition appeared in Samuel Johnson's celebrated Dictionary (1755).[12] "Consciousness" (French: conscience) is also defined in the 1753 volume of Diderot and d'Alembert's Encyclopédie, as "the opinion or internal feeling that we ourselves have from what we do." [13]
The earliest English language uses of "conscious" and "consciousness" date back, however, to the 1500s. The English word "conscious" originally derived from the Latin conscius (con- "together" and scio "to know"), but the Latin word did not have the same meaning as our word—it meant "knowing with", in other words "having joint or common knowledge with another".[14]
quote: I said the primacy of energy and consciousness is a worldview. But nice try.
Let me translate this. "Primacy" means "of the highest importance" and "consciousness" means "awareness" if not very close in meaning.
So what you are saying here is
Energy and awareness are of the highest importance.
You threw in energy which is studied in Physics in order to try to bolster consciousness. The various things that are studied in science are not ranked in a vague list of what is more important and what is less important. Nevertheless physics which deals with the forces of energy is sometimes considered more fundamental in understanding the "building blocks" of everything with it's focus on the smallest particles as or more "primacy" in that sense then biology or chemistry.
quote: I said the primacy of energy and consciousness is a worldview. But nice try.
You would list this as a world view?:
"energy and consciousness are the most important things"
^ don't get mad, you are telling me this is a world view
"consciousness" of what? You can't include consciousness unless it pertains to something being conscious
So if you just say "consciousness"
1. to the atheist that would mean the awareness of people and animals. Some of them might also say that our human consciousness has primacy
2. To the pantheist everything is aware or conscious
3. And to the theist the thing of primary importance is the consciousness of god or gods who is a consciousness higher than humankind and is the conscious being or diety who created the world.
So if you say "energy and consciousness are the most primary " that is too vague and doesn't clarify which of these three very very different types consciousness is primary
Yet you listed "energy" first so that must have primacy over consciousness. Consciousness is very nice but it's second to the big homie Energy
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Moving on. For those who come on these websites to learn..
quote:Discovery of quantum vibrations in 'microtubules' inside brain neurons supports controversial theory of consciousness
A review and update of a controversial 20-year-old theory of consciousness published in Physics of Life Reviews claims that consciousness derives from deeper level, finer scale activities inside brain neurons. The recent discovery of quantum vibrations in "microtubules" inside brain neurons corroborates this theory, according to review authors Stuart Hameroff and Sir Roger Penrose. They suggest that EEG rhythms (brain waves) also derive from deeper level microtubule vibrations, and that from a practical standpoint, treating brain microtubule vibrations could benefit a host of mental, neurological, and cognitive conditions.
The theory, called "orchestrated objective reduction" ('Orch OR'), was first put forward in the mid-1990s by eminent mathematical physicist Sir Roger Penrose, FRS, Mathematical Institute and Wadham College, University of Oxford, and prominent anesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff, MD, Anesthesiology, Psychology and Center for Consciousness Studies, The University of Arizona, Tucson. They suggested that quantum vibrational computations in microtubules were "orchestrated" ("Orch") by synaptic inputs and memory stored in microtubules, and terminated by Penrose "objective reduction" ('OR'), hence "Orch OR." Microtubules are major components of the cell structural skeleton.
Orch OR was harshly criticized from its inception, as the brain was considered too "warm, wet, and noisy" for seemingly delicate quantum processes.. However, evidence has now shown warm quantum coherence in plant photosynthesis, bird brain navigation, our sense of smell, and brain microtubules. The recent discovery of warm temperature quantum vibrations in microtubules inside brain neurons by the research group led by Anirban Bandyopadhyay, PhD, at the National Institute of Material Sciences in Tsukuba, Japan (and now at MIT), corroborates the pair's theory and suggests that EEG rhythms also derive from deeper level microtubule vibrations. In addition, work from the laboratory of Roderick G. Eckenhoff, MD, at the University of Pennsylvania, suggests that anesthesia, which selectively erases consciousness while sparing non-conscious brain activities, acts via microtubules in brain neurons.
"The origin of consciousness reflects our place in the universe, the nature of our existence. Did consciousness evolve from complex computations among brain neurons, as most scientists assert? Or has consciousness, in some sense, been here all along, as spiritual approaches maintain?" ask Hameroff and Penrose in the current review. "This opens a potential Pandora's Box, but our theory accommodates both these views, suggesting consciousness derives from quantum vibrations in microtubules, protein polymers inside brain neurons, which both govern neuronal and synaptic function, and connect brain processes to self-organizing processes in the fine scale, 'proto-conscious' quantum structure of reality."
After 20 years of skeptical criticism, "the evidence now clearly supports Orch OR," continue Hameroff and Penrose. "Our new paper updates the evidence, clarifies Orch OR quantum bits, or "qubits," as helical pathways in microtubule lattices, rebuts critics, and reviews 20 testable predictions of Orch OR published in 1998 -- of these, six are confirmed and none refuted."
An important new facet of the theory is introduced. Microtubule quantum vibrations (e.g. in megahertz) appear to interfere and produce much slower EEG "beat frequencies." Despite a century of clinical use, the underlying origins of EEG rhythms have remained a mystery. Clinical trials of brief brain stimulation aimed at microtubule resonances with megahertz mechanical vibrations using transcranial ultrasound have shown reported improvements in mood, and may prove useful against Alzheimer's disease and brain injury in the future.
Lead author Stuart Hameroff concludes, "Orch OR is the most rigorous, comprehensive and successfully-tested theory of consciousness ever put forth. From a practical standpoint, treating brain microtubule vibrations could benefit a host of mental, neurological, and cognitive conditions."
The review is accompanied by eight commentaries from outside authorities, including an Australian group of Orch OR arch-skeptics. To all, Hameroff and Penrose respond robustly.
Penrose, Hameroff and Bandyopadhyay will explore their theories during a session on "Microtubules and the Big Consciousness Debate" at the Brainstorm Sessions, a public three-day event at the Brakke Grond in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, January 16-18, 2014. They will engage skeptics in a debate on the nature of consciousness, and Bandyopadhyay and his team will couple microtubule vibrations from active neurons to play Indian musical instruments. "Consciousness depends on anharmonic vibrations of microtubules inside neurons, similar to certain kinds of Indian music, but unlike Western music which is harmonic," Hameroff explains.
Key issues relevant here, for readers to think about:
"The origin of consciousness reflects our place in the universe, the nature of our existence. Did consciousness evolve from complex computations among brain neurons, as most scientists assert? Or has consciousness, in some sense, been here all along, as spiritual approaches maintain?" ask Hameroff and Penrose in the current review. "This opens a potential Pandora's Box, but our theory accommodates both these views, suggesting consciousness derives from quantum vibrations in microtubules, protein polymers inside brain neurons, which both govern neuronal and synaptic function, and connect brain processes to self-organizing processes in the fine scale, 'proto-conscious' quantum structure of reality."
After 20 years of skeptical criticism, "the evidence now clearly supports Orch OR," continue Hameroff and Penrose. "Our new paper updates the evidence, clarifies Orch OR quantum bits, or "qubits," as helical pathways in microtubule lattices, rebuts critics, and reviews 20 testable predictions of Orch OR published in 1998 -- of these, six are confirmed and none refuted."
In addition, work from the laboratory of Roderick G. Eckenhoff, MD, at the University of Pennsylvania, suggests that anesthesia, which selectively erases consciousness while sparing non-conscious brain activities, acts via microtubules in brain neurons.Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Key issues relevant here, for readers to think about:
"The origin of consciousness reflects our place in the universe, the nature of our existence. Did consciousness evolve from complex computations among brain neurons, as most scientists assert? Or has consciousness, in some sense, been here all along, as spiritual approaches maintain?" ask Hameroff and Penrose in the current review. "This opens a potential Pandora's Box, but our theory accommodates both these views, suggesting consciousness derives from quantum vibrations in microtubules, protein polymers inside brain neurons, which both govern neuronal and synaptic function, and connect brain processes to self-organizing processes in the fine scale, 'proto-conscious' quantum structure of reality."
After 20 years of skeptical criticism, "the evidence now clearly supports Orch OR," continue Hameroff and Penrose. "Our new paper updates the evidence, clarifies Orch OR quantum bits, or "qubits," as helical pathways in microtubule lattices, rebuts critics, and reviews 20 testable predictions of Orch OR published in 1998 -- of these, six are confirmed and none refuted."
In addition, work from the laboratory of Roderick G. Eckenhoff, MD, at the University of Pennsylvania, suggests that anesthesia, which selectively erases consciousness while sparing non-conscious brain activities, acts via microtubules in brain neurons.
So far all I keep hearing is that direction in evolution is a dirty word in mainstream evolution. No need to remind me, I know how mainstream science works. But what is very telling to me is that I see no response to the fact that only ancestors of living humans show detectable and ongoing technological progress.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
[i]"Did consciousness evolve from complex computations among brain neurons, as most scientists assert? Or has consciousness, in some sense, been here all along, as spiritual approaches maintain?"
"Has consciousness been here all along?"
Been where? In a rock? In outer space? In everything? In god?
More vague statements leading nowhere
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
It doesn't have to "lead somewhere". It has to be backed up by evidence. I've already told you this about 4 times now in this thread, but it just doesn't seem to be sinking in.
I thought you were all about scientific falsifiability. Now that the evidence is posted you're evasive as usual. All this proves is that you were never interested in evidence to begin with; you were trolling from the beginning.
Keep your invented rules to yourself. Either falsify the evidence or stick to the entertainment section.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Now that the evidence is posted you're evasive as usual. Keep your invented rules to yourself. Either falsify the evidence or stick to the entertainment section.
Evidence of what?
can you make a clear statement please
How can one reply to this tactic of leaving out the subject or object of a statement?
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let's face it. You created a thread to antagonize expecting an easy target to ridicule and failed miserably. All you got is a rude awakening. So now all you can do is continue to dig for more things to antagonize and even that you're not competent enough to do. You can't articulate why something is wrong or false. You're not actually debating people. All you can do is ask questions to dig for weaknesses and make up fake rules why something is not valid. Those are your only routines. And you're not even good at them. Most of your questions miss the point and show little understanding of where the historical disagreements lie. There is nothing in it for anyone to debate you. People can't learn from you since all you do here is speak on subjects you don't understand.
After all your blunders in this thread, there comes a time when you have to ask yourself if you failed with the creation of this thread. Plus, your cover is blown. We know you're not interested in science or falsifying evidence as you've tried to imply throughout this thread. Which is why you keep ignoring evidence and why you can only address things that don't follow your arbitrary, made up rules, like 'it doesn't lead anywhere'. I posted a whole article and all you can say is "it doesn't lead anywhere", as if that is a valid response. Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic