Not being able to explain something is unscientific?
What utter nonsense. Not being able to explain things is the very nexus of science.
As I said earlier, the paradox of science is that the more you know, the more you know you don't know. Every answer leads exponentially to more questions.
I'm thinking you really don't understand the meaning of science or in your desperation to defend something that cannot be logically defended you're being led down intellectual cul-de-sacs.
Either way you'd be better off acknowledging your faith is based on a desire for it to be true rather than any actual evidence.
If the best proof you have is the absence of alternative evidence then you have no proof at all.
Huh? what on earth are you on about? i have made no unscientific statements here, you are having a fit cause i dare mentioned the word god. But i didnt use the word god in traditional sense of the way, lets cut the word god out and see what statement have i made "out of faith" here? The traditional argument here in favour of materialism is brain produces consciousness which is local in nature. I said that is bullshit, consciousness is non-local in nature and is a fundamental property of the universe as argued by the likes of Planck, Bohm, Bohrs, Schrodinger, Born etc, which produces reality not vice versa. You find this unscientific? i have posted half a dozen peer reviewed papers about it and several scientists saying this is the case in this very thread, but apparently this is unscientific cause you dont want to hear about it?
I have offered plenty of evidence here, all of them have been pretty much swept under the carpet here saying "you are taking it out of context".
Bohrs, Bohm, Schrodinger et all said consciousness is fundamental which gives rise to matter not the other way around. We have come a long way since then.There are studies out there that suggest that our own consciousness is just a combination of many (infinite?) different consciousnesses.
this article describes how consciousnesses can be connected together and multiple beings can share one consciousness of collective knowledge and reasoning. This is not a hypothesis, it actually happens as you can read in the article.
This all suggests to me that it is much more reasonable to think of consciousness as a fundamental property of our universe, and just like matter looks and behaves differently with different complexities and arrangements, there is all the reason to believe consciousness behaves the same. When we die, the complexities that our consciousness was subject to seize to exist, but the fundamental conscious property is still there.
Another example:
Scientists in the US have successfully linked the brains of six people, allowing one person to control the hands of another using just their thoughts.
This is ******* science, not pseudo science. Consciousness is not local its non-local.
The point above is just an illustration on how brain doesnt produce consciousness, but consciousness is fundamental in nature. There is nothing about a brain that suggest that consciousness should exist. Scientifically, there is absolutely nothing connecting matter to consciousness. It's more like the reverse
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21528841-000-reality-how-does-consciousness-fit-in/
This is the central question in quantum mechanics, and has spawned a plethora of proposals, or interpretations. The most popular is the Copenhagen interpretation, which says nothing is real until it is observed, or measured. Observing a wave function causes the superposition to collapse.
However, Copenhagen says nothing about what exactly constitutes an observation. John von Neumann broke this silence and suggested that observation is the action of a conscious mind. It’s an idea also put forward by Max Planck, the founder of quantum theory, who said in 1931, “I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness.”
If a tree falls in the forest and there's no one around to hear it, does it make a sound? The obvious answer is yes—a tree falling makes a sound whether or not we hear it—but certain experts in quantum mechanics argue that without an observer, all possible realities exist. That means that the tree both falls and doesn't fall, makes a sound and is silent, and all other possibilities therein.
Nothing exists in reality without a conscious observer. This is unscientific? be rational, unlike Snake_Baker above misinterpreting science every second line. QM is impossible without an observer/consciousness which is the central tenant of Copenhagen interpretation.
According to the quantum physicist R.C Henry, the greatest minds in theoretical physics believed that the universe looks more ‘like a giant thought than like a giant machine.’ He went on to say that the mind should not be thought of as “an accidental intruder into the realm of matter” but rather “as the creator and governor of the realm of matter.”
To the critics of the quantum physics model Henry had a very succinct and blunt message; “Get over it, and accept the inarguable conclusion. The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.”
Mind creates matter, not the other way around. This is science, but according to Snake_Baker above i am misquoting scientists. So maybe Snakey with his infinite knowledge of Quantum Physics can explain, where did i misquote R.C Henry or Max Planck above? first when i quoted Planck, they tried to discredit the father of quantum theory saying his theories are no longer valid, when they failed to prove that, now apparently i am misquoting him. People are getting desperate cause i mentioned the word "god". As i said i am willing to replace the word god with consciousness, will that work with materialists? stop being angry at nothing.
What is unscientific about this? nothing is real until measured by what/who? and who creates such reality? The fact that materialists believe matter produced consciousness by accident, when there is no hypothesis saying it is the case, are you saying this isn't the case? so where did consciousness come from if from matter? Whether you say its unscientific or not doesn't matter assuming consciousness is a product of matter have led us nowhere, we cannot define it, not know what is or where it comes from. I have posted several researches here where it said to be non-local, which solves a lot of problem. The universe being in the head is one of them. The world being a simulation as physicists saying it is also falls under this category. But everything is a product of "accident" is the only thing the atheists have to offer, but won't tell us how is it possible.
If i a mystic talks about how this world is an illusion then thats nonsense, if Neil DeGrasse Tyson talks about how this world is a simulation then he is a genius. Have we found the double standards yet? You guys worship science you won't understand the limitations of science as not everything is measurable or defined as human language/perception have limitations, our experiences shape our reality
How could the 1.4kg lump of moist, pinkish-beige tissue inside your skull give rise to something as mysterious as the experience of being that pinkish-beige lump, and the body to which it is attached?" - Why must the physical give rise to the conscious? this is a 'gross' assumption that is the root cause of science's hard problem. Let go of this assumption and you then have a chance to make progress. Unfortunately in the current paradigm, you then become a charlatan and lose your tenure.
How about starting from the opposite point- consciousness gives rise to the physical? As in the universe only manifests physically because there is consciousness...A bit of reading on Buddhist philosophy might help you out here. The writing has been peer reviewed by millions of meditational practitioners all over the world for centuries, but can be dismissed cause you can only experience the anatta, or emptiness, i cannot show you under a microscope. Nevertheless, it's cause of materialists science hasn't made much progress on the human mind problem and psychology still remains quasi-science.
Anticipating Snake Bakers tremendous response of "yes", "no" "bullshit" while multiquoting me again, i won't hold my breath for this fella to produce anything remotely intelligent