There is no conflict between religion and science. Never has been.

[Meriweather]

The Catholic Church still didn't spread the Bible around.

Yawn. In fact, the Catholic Church had approved Bibles in most of the major languages. True, the Church wouldn't give approval for every translation. If an author/publisher wanted their version approved by the Catholic Church, there were exact standards to be met.

The Catholic Church also felt that the Bible should be taught by those who had studied the Bible and also one or two of the original languages of the Bible. There was none of the blase, oh, read it and figure it out for yourself.

 

[ding]

Well, it's clear you are definitely new-agey. Strange for an "engineer". But it's cool nonetheless to see something that might comport more with what you are IRL than on this forum.

Not in the slightest. These are ancient beliefs.

This really is the kind of stuff you should stick to instead of trying to make people think you are some sort of "engineer" or "scientist". You excel at this kind of post

That’s nice. I’m glad you are secure in showing everyone how much I control you.

 

[ding]

Well, I didn't need your new-age woo-woo stuff either but I appreciate it. Least you can do is TRY to be a decent person just once in a while.

You should worry about yourself. The beatings will continue until your morale improves.

 

[ding]

Wow. Aphorisms that carry no meaning but sound really cool. Really interesting personal "philosophy" you've cobbled together there.

From a scientific view everything is made manifest by mind. George Wald said, "The physical world is entirely abstract and without ‘actuality’ apart from its linkage to consciousness. It is primarily physicists who have expressed most clearly and forthrightly this pervasive relationship between mind and matter, and indeed at times the primacy of mind." Arthur Eddington wrote, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff. The mind‑stuff is not spread in space and time." Von Weizsacker stated what he called his “Identity Hypothesis; that consciousness and matter are different aspects of the same reality. In 1952 Wolfgang Pauli said, "the only acceptable point of view appears to be the one that recognizes both sides of reality -- the quantitative and the qualitative, the physical and the psychical -- as compatible with each other, and can embrace them simultaneously . . . It would be most satisfactory of all if physis and psyche (i.e., matter and mind) could be seen as complementary aspects of the same reality.”

 

[ding]

Cardinal Carminative

You have no more basis for considering the existence of matter without its complementary aspect of mind, than for asking that elementary particles not also be waves. If I say, with Eddington, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff,” that has a metaphysical ring. But if I say that ultimate reality is expressed in the solutions of the equations of quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics, and quantum field theory -- that sounds like good, modern physics. Yet what are those equations, indeed what is mathematics, but mind‑stuff? Matter from mind is the ultimate in mind‑stuff and for that reason deeply mysterious.

 

[ding]

Cardinal Carminative

What we perceive as reality is a product of consciousness. The behavior of sub atomic particles - for that matter all particles and objects - is inextricably linked to the presence of a conscious observer. Without a conscious observer they exist in an undetermined state of probability waves. Without consciousness matter dwells in an undetermined state of probability. Any universe preceding consciousness only existed in a probability state. The universe is explainable only through consciousness. The universe is finely tuned to support consciousness because consciousness created the universe, not the other way around.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

From a scientific view everything is made manifest by mind. George Wald said, "The physical world is entirely abstract and without ‘actuality’ apart from its linkage to consciousness.

I fundamentally disagree. I believe their is an objective reality. I agree 100% that our PERCEPTION of objective reality is filtered by on-board computing and sensing systems, so I know that WE experience a SUBJECTIVE form of reality but it asymptotically approaches the objective, especially with communication with others and gathering their perceptions to compile with ours.

Either way it is purely philosophical and you can't really think YOU are the only that is correct on this.

It is primarily physicists who have expressed most clearly and forthrightly this pervasive relationship between mind and matter, and indeed at times the primacy of mind." Arthur Eddington wrote, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff. The mind‑stuff is not spread in space and time." Von Weizsacker stated what he called his “Identity Hypothesis; that consciousness and matter are different aspects of the same reality. In 1952 Wolfgang Pauli said, "the only acceptable point of view appears to be the one that recognizes both sides of reality -- the quantitative and the qualitative, the physical and the psychical -- as compatible with each other, and can embrace them simultaneously . . . It would be most satisfactory of all if physis and psyche (i.e., matter and mind) could be seen as complementary aspects of the same reality.”

Yeah as much as I love the old QM and cosmology guys that isn't really their forte.

I'm sure there's nothing wrong with whatever philosophical flights of fancy they took but since it enters the world of "unfalsifiability" it ceases to be science and becomes a matter of personal preference.

Don't get me wrong, I love me some philosophy. Best friend from college became a philosophy prof so I've spent hours and days and weeks and years discussing a lot of this stuff with him.

When it comes to the difference between MIND and physical BRAIN, well, I'm firmly in the naturalist camp. While I understand intelligence and our sense of self as largely "emergent properties" from a complex neural network, I'm still in favor of a dominance of the physical over the metaphysical. A person's entire personality can (and has been shown) to change with the proper brain damage or chemical.

When I asked how many shrooms you had ingested earlier it wasn't meant to be totally flippant. It is possible to induce in yourself an experience which is wholly unlike anything you ever thought yourself capable of feeling or BELIEVING with the right level of psychoactive chemicals. An experience completely and wholly unmoored from reality as you have known it. Yet it's all chemical.

I don't believe in some "ineffable soul" that survives once the brain is dead. Mainly because I have no evidence for it. I do, however, have a LOT of evidence that when the physical brain is affected it can affect the "feelings" the person has. Not because the situation has changed but because the physical brain has been disrupted.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Cardinal Carminative

What we perceive as reality is a product of consciousness. The behavior of sub atomic particles

No, consciousness is a product of a physical brain. A neural network. I have never seen a disembodied "consciousness".

- for that matter all particles and objects - is inextricably linked to the presence of a conscious observer.

Please don't meander over into the Copenhagen Quantum Intepretation.

Without a conscious observer they exist in an undetermined state of probability waves.

I believe that is actually a gross overextension of Quantum Mechanics. Yes electrons have wave-particle duality but on a MACRO SCALE you really don't cease to exist the minute you are not being perceived by others.

The cat in the box actually IS dead or alive.

Quantum indeterminancy and the observer effect is helpful in explaining the weirdness that happens on the Quantum scale but not great for the real world.

Any universe preceding consciousness only existed in a probability state.

That sounds like a completely unfalsifiable statement and as such doesn't have any real value to me.

The universe is explainable only through consciousness. The universe is finely tuned to support consciousness because consciousness created the universe, not the other way around.

Wow, that's some serious woo-woo there.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Cardinal Carminative

You have no more basis for considering the existence of matter without its complementary aspect of mind, than for asking that elementary particles not also be waves.

You are probably familiar with "tunnelling" in which an electron can get out of an energy well by simply tunnelling through whatever potential exists between it and another energy well. It just sort of follows its wavelength.

The problem with extrapolating this to the macro world is that you never see tennis balls "tunnelling" through walls.

What happens on the quantum level tends to get averaged out at the macro level.

And besides it's super lazy new age junk to leverage quantum for explaining the physical macro world. Most of the time the "examples" people use don't really apply to the macro but DO apply to quantum level behaviors...and more importantly to the math. Sometimes the math demands conclusions that the brain can't really deal with. And so we come up with analogies which don't necessarily work to describe other things.

 

[ding]

I fundamentally disagree.

You are disagreeing with George Wald, Arthur Eddington, Von Weizsacker and Wolfgang Pauli.

 

[ding]

I believe their is an objective reality. I agree 100% that our PERCEPTION of objective reality is filtered by on-board computing and sensing systems, so I know that WE experience a SUBJECTIVE form of reality but it asymptotically approaches the objective, especially with communication with others and gathering their perceptions to compile with ours.

Saying objective reality is redundant. Reality is. Truth is. Then there is perception. Perception can be subjective or objective. If it is objective then it is truth and it is reality.

None of which has anything to do with the implication of quantum mechanics and probability states. Until a conscious observer exists everything resides in a probability state. Only through consciousness can the material world be made manifest.

 

[ding]

Either way it is purely philosophical and you can't really think YOU are the only that is correct on this.

Incorrect. It’s quantum mechanics.

 

[Seymour Flops]

The virgin birth.

The Catholic Church says it happened.

Science says it couldn't have...

That's a disagreement, not a conflict.

 

[ding]

Yeah as much as I love the old QM and cosmology guys that isn't really their forte.

The hell it isn’t. There’s no one more qualified to speak of the pervasive relationship between mind and matter than George Wald, Arthur Eddington, Von Weizsacker and Wolfgang Pauli.

Who are you to say they are wrong?

 

[BreezeWood]

So now, when God answers the prayers of millions and provides a safe and readily available life-saving vaccine, many who bear the Christian brand are skeptical or downright oppositional — asking why they should believe science and scientists at this particular time.

the desert religions are antithetical to comprehensive and applicable end results - they are religions of servitude to an unknown without redress for practical self awareness.

Scientifically, prove this. You can't. So, your ideology is not anymore valid than any religion whether from the desert or otherwise. Faith does not require empirical scientific evidence to be true. Nor, does empirical evidence have to be used to prove faith exists. They are mutually exclusive.

prove what - the example is self explanatory ... for at least a person of average - i q.

- as the reactionary, century repetitive response of the desert religion adherents and their incapacity to formulate a coherent understanding for any logical conclusion ...

cougarbear is the alternate example to the one given if any doubt might still remain.

 

[ding]

I'm sure there's nothing wrong with whatever philosophical flights of fancy they took but since it enters the world of "unfalsifiability" it ceases to be science and becomes a matter of personal preference.

Quantum mechanics isn’t a flight of fancy. It’s science. Again… if I say that ultimate reality is expressed in the solutions of the equations of quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics, and quantum field theory -- that sounds like good, modern physics. Yet what are those equations, indeed what is mathematics, but mind‑stuff? Matter from mind is the ultimate in mind‑stuff and for that reason deeply mysterious.

 

[ding]

I don't believe in some "ineffable soul"

That’s your loss.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Quantum mechanics isn’t a flight of fancy. It’s science.

Yes it is . But that doesn’t mean it extends to the concept of consciousness

Again… if I say that ultimate reality is expressed in the solutions of the equations of quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics, and quantum field theory -- that sounds like good, modern physics. Yet what are those equations, indeed what is mathematics, but mind‑stuff? Matter from mind is the ultimate in mind‑stuff and for that reason deeply mysterious.

There is no comprehensible way for you express that meaningfully without it being effectively word salad that just sounds deep but isn’t.

A lot of new age junk is couched in QM by people who don’t really understand it but it’s weird so they have no problem leveraging it

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

That’s your loss.

Not really.

Quite the opposite.

But if you like the idea you should enjoy it.

 

[ding]

No, consciousness is a product of a physical brain. A neural network. I have never seen a disembodied "consciousness".

So it’s just a coincidence the universe popped into existence hardwired to produce intelligence?