Dr W please look at Des News article on Science and Religion

[_Username]

Mathematics follows rules of verification that lead to conclusions perceived to be necessarily true. No empirical verification of mathematical concepts is ever required. Clearly, empirical science is not the only valid system for discerning objective truth about the universe. Like math, classical philosophy also follows rules of verification, relying upon reasoned argument alone to discern truth. Dismissing such arguments by fiat on the grounds that only empirical verification counts, without demonstrating why that assertion is true, is to beg the question. Such an assertion also denies the possibility that we can discern truth solely through reasoned argument. In my view, such a view impoverishes human reason.

For the record, I'm a former Mormon, born in the church, raised in Utah, served a mission, and am temple-married. I am a fan of Darwin and accept what the scienctific consensus says about the nature of the physical universe. I do not think scientists are philosophers, however, though the most rabidly atheistic among them seem to think that they are philosphers. Honestly, I don't know what I believe. I don't have a clue whether matter is all there is or whether there is a God. I like to think about these things only because I like to think about these things. I read science and philosophy for fun. Crazy, I know. I'm not religious, nor a hardcore empiricist. As I said, I don't know what's true - apart from what I can see in front of my face or can perceive to be true, like 2+2=4. That said, hardcore Mormons and evangelicals, and hardcore atheists who only respect the empircal sciences, all equally sound like fundamentalists to me. I say this because they all run around saying things like "the church is true" or "only empirical science leads to objective truth about the universe", as if it's just as obviously true as 2+2=4. Admittedly, empirical science is nearly just as reliable as mathematics, but it's a mistake to assume that it has explained or necessarily can explain absolutely everything (why do you think that a Theory of Everything will be developed simply because science has explained many things? - sounds like faith to me), or that it's necessarily the best because it has explained the most (which is a debatable point). I'm intrigued and persuaded by what Aristotle has to say about essential causation, acutality, potentiality, and what that implies about a prime mover, first cause, etc.; I also don't think science has even remotely come close to explaining the origin and nature of consciousness and self-awareness. Saying that consciousness evolved doesn't explain a thing. It just asserts. All of this makes me suspicious that there might be something to the idea of a transcendent something or other impinging on the material cosmos. Obviously, some of the biggest, most significant questions have yet to be answered adequately, at least in my view. Hearing hardcore materialists say things like "don't worry, science will account for consciousness one day" sounds an awful lot like a Mormon saying "don't worry, the Lord hasn't revealed all things to us. One day we'll know." Maybe one day science will account for the origin and nature of consciousness, free will, reason, etc. Until then, the jury is still out. For now, it's all just faith, in my opinion.

[_DrW]

Mathematics follows rules of verification that lead to conclusions perceived to be necessarily true. No empirical verification of mathematical concepts is ever required. Clearly, empirical science is not the only valid system for discerning objective truth about the universe. Like math, classical philosophy also follows rules of verification, relying upon reasoned argument alone to discern truth. Dismissing such arguments by fiat on the grounds that only empirical verification counts, without demonstrating why that assertion is true, is to beg the question. Such an assertion also denies the possibility that we can discern truth solely through reasoned argument. In my view, such a view impoverishes human reason.

For the record, I'm a former Mormon, born in the church, raised in Utah, served a mission, and am temple-married. I am a fan of Darwin and accept what the scienctific consensus says about the nature of the physical universe. I do not think scientists are philosophers, however, though the most rabidly atheistic among them seem to think that they are philosphers. Honestly, I don't know what I believe. I don't have a clue whether matter is all there is or whether there is a God. I like to think about these things only because I like to think about these things. I read science and philosophy for fun. Crazy, I know. I'm not religious, nor a hardcore empiricist. As I said, I don't know what's true - apart from what I can see in front of my face or can perceive to be true, like 2+2=4. That said, hardcore Mormons and evangelicals, and hardcore atheists who only respect the empircal sciences, all equally sound like fundamentalists to me. I say this because they all run around saying things like "the church is true" or "only empirical science leads to objective truth about the universe", as if it's just as obviously true as 2+2=4. Admittedly, empirical science is nearly just as reliable as mathematics, but it's a mistake to assume that it has explained or necessarily can explain absolutely everything (why do you think that a Theory of Everything will be developed simply because science has explained many things? - sounds like faith to me), or that it's necessarily the best because it has explained the most (which is a debatable point). I'm intrigued and persuaded by what Aristotle has to say about essential causation, acutality, potentiality, and what that implies about a prime mover, first cause, etc.; I also don't think science has even remotely come close to explaining the origin and nature of consciousness and self-awareness. Saying that consciousness evolved doesn't explain a thing. It just asserts. All of this makes me suspicious that there might be something to the idea of a transcendent something or other impinging on the material cosmos. Obviously, some of the biggest, most significant questions have yet to be answered adequately, at least in my view. Hearing hardcore materialists say things like "don't worry, science will account for consciousness one day" sounds an awful lot like a Mormon saying "don't worry, the Lord hasn't revealed all things to us. One day we'll know." Maybe one day science will account for the origin and nature of consciousness, free will, reason, etc. Until then, the jury is still out. For now, it's all just faith, in my opinion.

Username,

You have provided a well written and clearly stated position with regard to your views on science and strict materialism. I agree with a lot of what you say and am sure that a lot of others folks would agree with much of what you say as well.

However, I am not so bereft of hope as you seem to be that we will someday understand consciousness. We have some pretty good working models now, and as we develop and learn to use better instruments such as fMRI, super-sentitive SQUID magnetic field and magnetic pulse sensors and PET scanners, and as we study the structure-function characteristics of neuro-active chemicals, and develop better in-vitro methods for studying isolated neurons, we increase our understanding of consciousness.

A few months ago, I participated in a long-running thread on the theories of consciousness on another board in which several other scientifically trained folks were also involved. Many of the points that you make were made there as well.

I have pasted below an edited copy of one of my posts on that thread. As I explained prior to posting this, I put a lot more credence in the findings and ideas of folks who actually muck around with brains for a living than I do in the popular ideas of woo-woomeisters like Deepok Chopra and his quantum consciousness claims. As a bit of background, my Ph.D. in in neuroendocrinology - a fairly esoteric field to be sure, but at least we understand our systems in terms of physical structures, electromagnetic, chemical and electrochemical processes, and inputs and outcomes (stimuli and responses).
_________

Theories of consciousness are best appreciated from a basic understanding of how neurons themselves work and how they can function as assemblages or neural networks.

Recently some younger members of the board who did not understand certain concepts felt more comfortable with a PM to me asking questions than asking that question in public. So, with apologies to those who already know this stuff, I will quickly describe a few basic principles needed to follow the arguments below.

Both the central nervous system (brain and spinal cord) and the peripheral nervous system are comprised of a wide variety of specialized nerve cells, or neurons. In general, these cells are made up if a central body, where most of the metabolic and reproductive machinery is housed, and have long processes called axons, which extend out from the cell body and terminate on, or very near, the body of another cell, forming an electrochemical connection via small gaps synapses across which electrochemical "messages" in the form of neurotransmitter molecules can pass.

Nerve cells can generate small electrical potentials and conduct small currents in response to various stimuli. Retinal cones and rod cells in the eye, for example, release neurotransmitters in response to stimulation by light. This signal is then passed on along the optic nerve by the sequential release and transfer of specialized chemicals called neurotransmitters from cell to cell across gaps (synaptic clefts) between the cells (usually between an axon and cell body). Each cell generates a small electrical current by controlling the flow of charged ions (such as calcium ions) in and out of the cell.

(Single isolated neurons, or small clusters of neurons, that are properly nourished and in a suitable environment in the laboratory will often fire spontaneously (and often rhythmically as well), and may increase or decrease firing rate in response to chemicals in the surrounding fluid that keeps them alive. There is no magic involved - this is just what neurons do and we understand to a great level of detail how this works.)

Individual neurons may have thousands of synaptic connections to other cells. The electrical potentials that are generated in response to these stimuli can be modulated to convey information. (For an good explanation, see
http://www.willamette.edu/~gorr/classes/cs449/brain.html

The cell-to-cell connections represented by the synapses are analogous in architecture to am massively parallel computing system.

In fact, digital computers can be a great analogy in understanding how the brain and nervous system operate. Computers have processors that perform computational tasks using small electrical signals that set, re-set and read the state of millions of microscopic transistors. (In the end that is all they really do. Yet from this simplicity, we get something like WATSON, a computer that can not only pass the Turing Test, but can beat the best human players at the very difficult game of Jeopardy.)

With 10 billion or so neurons, each with hundreds or thousands of synaptic connections, the brain can be thought of as a wet massively parallel computer. Solid-state computer memory also has an analogy in the nervous system. When we learn a new fact or skill, the brain is physically altered in that protein is synthesized, which strengthens the connections (alters the synapses) between certain cells. Thus memory arises and is maintained by the modification of our brain with synthesized protein. (It is possible to block the formation of memories in laboratory animals, for example by administration of substances that block protein synthesis.)

Chemistry also plays another role here. The various neurotransmitters (such as serotonin, dopamine, GABA, epinephrine and others) can either excite or depress responses in other neurons once released into the synaptic cleft. And the rate at which some of these neurotransmitters (such as serotonin) are taken back up into the neurons and re-packaged for subsequent release can have a profound effect on thought patterns including those that affect mood. (Zoloft and the entire range of SSRI antidepressants work by altering the re-uptake of the neurotransmitter serotonin from the synaptic cleft.)

So, in the brain and nervous system we have functions that are very roughly analogous to those of a sophisticated digital computer with several important differences. Transistors in computer memory can only be in one of two states. In the brain, a given cell can be found in a large number of states in terms of its participation in neurological message transmission and alteration. (It is interesting that the promise of quantum computing also lies in the fact that, unlike transistors in a digital computer, the the smallest individual components that make up the quantum computing system can exist in more than two discrete states.)

Now that we have an analogy for the hardware of consciousness, what about the ways in which the hardware components can function together to actually give rise to consciousness?

The two theories of consciousness that I will mention here are the AIR (Attended Intermediate-level Representation) and the IIT (Integrated Information Theory).

To gain an understanding of consciousness, one must ask and answer (to the extent possible) the What, How, Where, and ultimately the Why, questions. The AIR approach, described here looks at the problem in terms of these questions and provides one possible answer based on the present extent of our knowledge.

Both of these theories essentially say that consciousness arises from the process of selectively detecting and paying attention to the intermediate states in the brain at any given time (sounds like gooblygook at this point, but please keep reading).

To go back to the very rough computer analogy, if a computerized security system operator wanted to know the status of his protected facility at any given time, he might have a look at the input coming in from the video cameras, microphones and other sensors that were connected to his system, as well as consult the information already in memory for any recent changes in the state of any of the component in his system.

While these data are changing constantly, the experienced operator can determine (become conscious of) any threats represented in the inflowing (intermediate) information. Intermediate information is that which is not yet fully processed and stored.

In the AIR model, consciousness depends on the availability of working memory and short-term memory functioning as a component of attended intermediate processes. This simply means that we are conscious of what we are paying attention to, while in the background many specialized parts of the brain are collecting interpreting and storing information all the time.

According to IIT theory, the more numerous the active the neuronal pathways, and the more connections among them, the higher the level of consciousness. In the latter theory (Tononi's IIT) it is proposed that consciousness (more specifically; level of consciousness) be defined as the extent of (operational of functioning) interconnection among the sources and sinks for information in the brain. In this model, pretty much everything with a brain would have some level of consciousness with humans (having billions of neurons and trillions of synaptic connections) enjoying a much higher level of consciousness than does a flat worm with 100 or so neurons.

An advantage of IIT is that it could predict that certain higher animals might exhibit self-awareness as a function of (relative) brain size or complexity. And that is indeed the case. Among the animals that are clearly self-aware are elephants, dolphins and all of the great apes.

For those who believe that humankind represents the pinnacle of evolution (or creation) I would like to hear your thoughts on the significance of self-aware animals, especially if you believe that such animals have a soul.

[_Franktalk]

DrW,

Bottom line is you don't know much about how the brain works. Could it be that the reason why is because you refuse to consider that an unseen force is at play?

[_DrW]

DrW,

Bottom line is you don't know much about how the brain works. Could it be that the reason why is because you refuse to consider that an unseen force is at play?

What??

Bottom line is: we know a great about how the brain works. I could explain what we know to you in some detail. Just because you may not understand it does not mean that others don't.

And by the way, what exactly would distinguish your "unseen forces" from magic?

[_Hughes]

The question is how does a materialist verify that only material is all that exists?

Does a materialist need to in order to be a materialist? Isn't it enough to simply note that we don't have access to anything else? Personally, I wouldn't claim to know that material is all that exists (I don't consider myself a materialist). I can say, however, that it's all I've encountered so far.

It's interesting how you seem to think you're justified in holding a materialist's worldview to a standard to which you're not willing to hold your own belief system. Why not just admit, "I don't know," rather than making stuff up?

The operating assumption (philosophy) of science is materialistic. With this operating assumption, science (in general) makes pronouncements that are then proclaimed as facts. When no fact actually exists.

Take evolution for example. Science proclaims it to be a foregone fact of history, not a disputed fact, but a solid fact of history. Yet, this proclamation rests on the assumption of materialistic foundations. So, what was an operating philosophy becomes the de facto "truth" on which all science is based. So much so, that questioning this "truth" becomes equal to being "anti-science".

The difference then is on one hand we have religious knowledge, which admits it's based on a foundation of faith, and scientific knowledge that doesn't admit it's also equally based on a faith.

[_Some Schmo]

The operating assumption (philosophy) of science is materialistic. With this operating assumption, science (in general) makes pronouncements that are then proclaimed as facts. When no fact actually exists.

Take evolution for example. Science proclaims it to be a foregone fact of history, not a disputed fact, but a solid fact of history. Yet, this proclamation rests on the assumption of materialistic foundations. So, what was an operating philosophy becomes the de facto "truth" on which all science is based. So much so, that questioning this "truth" becomes equal to being "anti-science".

The difference then is on one hand we have religious knowledge, which admits it's based on a foundation of faith, and scientific knowledge that doesn't admit it's also equally based on a faith.

Look, you seem like a nice guy and I have no interest in giving you a hard time, but there are so many things wrong with your post, I just don't have the will or energy atm to pick it apart like it should be. I imagine some else will.

All I will say is that you simply don't understand science if you think faith has anything to do with it. There's nothing more that needs to be said.

...

Actually, just out of curiosity, how do you personally define 'faith'? Maybe that will help explain what seems to me to be a massive error on your part.

[_Hughes]

Look, you seem like a nice guy and I have no interest in giving you a hard time, but there are so many things wrong with your post, I just don't have the will or energy atm to pick it apart like it should be. I imagine some else will.

All I will say is that you simply don't understand science if you think faith has anything to do with it. There's nothing more that needs to be said.

...

Actually, just out of curiousity, how do you personally define 'faith'? Maybe that will help explain what seems to me to be a massive error on your part.

The faith of a scientist is based on the assumption (unprovable, but assumed to be true) of materialism.

[_jon]

The operating assumption (philosophy) of science is materialistic. With this operating assumption, science (in general) makes pronouncements that are then proclaimed as facts. When no fact actually exists.

Take evolution for example. Science proclaims it to be a foregone fact of history, not a disputed fact, but a solid fact of history. Yet, this proclamation rests on the assumption of materialistic foundations. So, what was an operating philosophy becomes the de facto "truth" on which all science is based. So much so, that questioning this "truth" becomes equal to being "anti-science".

The difference then is on one hand we have religious knowledge, which admits it's based on a foundation of faith, and scientific knowledge that doesn't admit it's also equally based on a faith.

Except...

Religious Faith is a belief in things not seen.
Scientific Faith is a disbelief in things not seen.

I think that covers it...

[_Hughes]

Except...

Religious Faith is a belief in things not seen.
Scientific Faith is a disbelief in things not seen.

I think that covers it...

False.

Scientific Faith is a belief that all that exists is materially based (Materialism).

[_jon]

This new study concludes that the first-known hunters in North America can now be dated back at least 14,000 years.

It is the finding and analysis of a tip from a human-made projectile point (spearhead) gathered from the remains of a mastodon that is behind the rewriting of North American prehistory. The spearhead, which itself was carved out from a mastodon-bone, was found at the Manis site in the state of Washington when archaeologists excavated a mastodon in the late 1970s.

However, 30 years would pass before a team of researchers was able to put a date on the spearhead and establish the identity of both the bone and the spearhead that had been embedded into the rib of the defeated mastodon. This was done through, amongst other things, DNA analysis, protein sequencing, advanced computer technology, Carbon-14 dating as well as comparisons with other mastodon findings in North America, for instance in the state of Wisconsin.
(Science Daily October 2011)

I'm confused, does this support a faith based scientific belief or a materialist based scientific belief or a religious faith based belief?