Most Scientists Believe In God

[PK1]

---
Jay Lakhani is not a real scientist. Although he supposedly got a Masters degree in theoretical Physics, his claims of "guaranteed" spiritual life and references to Hindu divinity is a joke, from the scientific perspective.
From a psychological-philosophical standpoint, his claims are a perfect example of confirmation bias.
.

 

[PK1]

There is a biological structure underlying the mind that relates not only to basic awareness (consciousness), but also to understanding & emotional feedback.

There is a biological structure underlying the mind ...


they are distinct

there is lacking in your qualification of consciousness the intangible qualities as reason that transverse the beings physiology, as a Spiritual existence which is the primary role in establishing the content and purpose that defines the being and their particular uniqueness. the physiology of humanity is identical.

and whether the Spirit is detachable from its physiology, a floating consciousness that has never been proven irregardless the desired results of religious rhetoric (resurrection) the Spirit does exist in unison and the two are distinct. consciousness does not regulate the heart.

.

---
Let's agree to disagree.
Why do you believe in the "spiritual" world, when there is no evidence to support it?
.

Asking that question is not "agreeing to disagree", it's just refusing to look at the evidence.
Rationally Speaking: Does the soul weigh 21 grams?

---
Huh? Refusing to look at what evidence?
That piece by Massimo Pigliucci on Rationally Speaking was classic, and amusing too.
Pigliucci is a real scientist and a rational philosopher (of science).
.

 

[anotherlife]

There is no biological precondition to having a mind, only switching nodes.

By my statement of qualifying conscientiousness, I meant that it is never objective but always subjective. A mind can probably be measured "objectively", because it directly interacts with its environment, which is observable. But conscientiousness is a purely internal function, so always subjective. In fact, there was a post somewhere that reported that mainstream philosophers reject conscientiousness too except for the purpose of speculatively compare ones own to others.

You can test the subjective nature of conscientiousness though. For example, nobody remembers his time of life before learning to speak. But are toddlers not conscientious? So, logically, various densities of conscientiousness must exist in everything, even the most primitive structure, maybe even a stone. Induction as a theory always works.

---
Do you have your own definition of "conscientiousness"?
The common definition:
"Conscientiousness is the personality trait of being thorough, careful, or vigilant. Conscientiousness implies a desire to do a task well."
Did you mean "consciousness"?

I disagree; a mind is more than "switching nodes".
There is a biological structure underlying the mind that relates not only to basic awareness (consciousness), but also to understanding & emotional feedback.

Switching nodes may reflect AI, but not the human mind, which reflects understanding of its position in the ecological context and related motivation.

A toddler is obviously a conscious human, but his/her understanding of external phenomena & their relations are limited by insufficient experiences, which form long-term memories after rational & or emotionally significant consolidations.
.

There is no necessity for a biological system, when you are implementing a mind. So, on scientific basis, I must disagree with you here.

A toddlers consciousness is a subset of the structural patterns that have been predefined to create the entire universe.
.

---
On a scientific basis? I disagree.
Your basis is religious, and you appear confident about your "faith", with no evidence. How did you derive your beliefs?
.

On a scientific basis. In science, if you postulate a necessity, you need to prove it. You have not proven your biological necessity. On the other hand, everything I wrote has been done in software and sold. Whilst I believe in the Holly Trinity, I was writing here from a scientific point of view, and it is just an "accident" that now, as usual, it coincides with what the Gospels have already published about all of this.

---
It's clear to me that you don't understand modern science. There is plenty of evidence for direct relations between mind & brain.
On the other hand, there is no evidence to substantiate your claim that consciousness can occur without a biological CNS.
Your belief in Abrahamic religious dogma has no scientific merit.
.

Isn't the scientific evidence to the contrary? Even if we do the injustice, and restrict the mind problem to biology, a branch of science that I totally hate, we find that for example most organ transplant recepients pick up many traits of the donors personalities. Even when those traits are far or opposite to the recepients personalities. There has never been a brain transplant yet, and hopefully never will be. The closest to it were live human-animal head transplants that ancient Egyptian drawings depict.

 

[PK1]

---
Do you have your own definition of "conscientiousness"?
The common definition:
"Conscientiousness is the personality trait of being thorough, careful, or vigilant. Conscientiousness implies a desire to do a task well."
Did you mean "consciousness"?

I disagree; a mind is more than "switching nodes".
There is a biological structure underlying the mind that relates not only to basic awareness (consciousness), but also to understanding & emotional feedback.

Switching nodes may reflect AI, but not the human mind, which reflects understanding of its position in the ecological context and related motivation.

A toddler is obviously a conscious human, but his/her understanding of external phenomena & their relations are limited by insufficient experiences, which form long-term memories after rational & or emotionally significant consolidations.
.

There is no necessity for a biological system, when you are implementing a mind. So, on scientific basis, I must disagree with you here.

A toddlers consciousness is a subset of the structural patterns that have been predefined to create the entire universe.
.

---
On a scientific basis? I disagree.
Your basis is religious, and you appear confident about your "faith", with no evidence. How did you derive your beliefs?
.

On a scientific basis. In science, if you postulate a necessity, you need to prove it. You have not proven your biological necessity. On the other hand, everything I wrote has been done in software and sold. Whilst I believe in the Holly Trinity, I was writing here from a scientific point of view, and it is just an "accident" that now, as usual, it coincides with what the Gospels have already published about all of this.

---
It's clear to me that you don't understand modern science. There is plenty of evidence for direct relations between mind & brain.
On the other hand, there is no evidence to substantiate your claim that consciousness can occur without a biological CNS.
Your belief in Abrahamic religious dogma has no scientific merit.
.

Isn't the scientific evidence to the contrary? Even if we do the injustice, and restrict the mind problem to biology, a branch of science that I totally hate, we find that for example most organ transplant recepients pick up many traits of the donors personalities. Even when those traits are far or opposite to the recepients personalities. There has never been a brain transplant yet, and hopefully never will be. The closest to it were live human-animal head transplants that ancient Egyptian drawings depict.

---
If you make a claim, esp one that is unbelievable by educated people, then it's up to you to provide the evidence.
What's your evidence for this ridiculous claim?
"most organ transplant recepients pick up many traits of the donors personalities."
.

 

[BreezeWood]

.

On the other hand, there is no evidence to substantiate your claim that consciousness can occur without a biological CNS.

Huh? Refusing to look at what evidence?

the evidence presented in front of you, atheist and certainly the desert religions are at best part and parcel to Spiritualism but at least not entirely a vacuum.

.

 

[OZman]

Jay Lakhani is not a real scientist. Although he supposedly got a Masters degree in theoretical Physics,

If you have evidence that he is not a real scientist then present it.

his claims of "guaranteed" spiritual life and references to Hindu divinity is a joke, from the scientific perspective.

I was careful to post a video that did not include his Hindu philosophy. The premise he presents in this video is that the primary essence of quanta is not material. If you have evidence to contradict his premise then present it.

From a psychological-philosophical standpoint, his claims are a perfect example of confirmation bias.

And so is your response.

My intention in posting the video was to introduce a non-materialist view on quantum mechanics, not a religious confirmation of Hinduism. I have no religion, but I am open to evaluate any hypothesis that contributes to the discussion on the nature of existence.

 

[anotherlife]

There is no necessity for a biological system, when you are implementing a mind. So, on scientific basis, I must disagree with you here.

A toddlers consciousness is a subset of the structural patterns that have been predefined to create the entire universe.
.

---
On a scientific basis? I disagree.
Your basis is religious, and you appear confident about your "faith", with no evidence. How did you derive your beliefs?
.

On a scientific basis. In science, if you postulate a necessity, you need to prove it. You have not proven your biological necessity. On the other hand, everything I wrote has been done in software and sold. Whilst I believe in the Holly Trinity, I was writing here from a scientific point of view, and it is just an "accident" that now, as usual, it coincides with what the Gospels have already published about all of this.

---
It's clear to me that you don't understand modern science. There is plenty of evidence for direct relations between mind & brain.
On the other hand, there is no evidence to substantiate your claim that consciousness can occur without a biological CNS.
Your belief in Abrahamic religious dogma has no scientific merit.
.

Isn't the scientific evidence to the contrary? Even if we do the injustice, and restrict the mind problem to biology, a branch of science that I totally hate, we find that for example most organ transplant recepients pick up many traits of the donors personalities. Even when those traits are far or opposite to the recepients personalities. There has never been a brain transplant yet, and hopefully never will be. The closest to it were live human-animal head transplants that ancient Egyptian drawings depict.

---
If you make a claim, esp one that is unbelievable by educated people, then it's up to you to provide the evidence.
What's your evidence for this ridiculous claim?
"most organ transplant recepients pick up many traits of the donors personalities."
.

The more belligerent scientists are usually in the habit of not reading the reports of their less belligerent colleagues. Those transformations are recorded in large numbers everywhere. Especially by family members. But for the power hungry subgroup of scientists, reality doesn't exist until one of their chosen colleagues decides to write about it.

 

[PK1]

.

On the other hand, there is no evidence to substantiate your claim that consciousness can occur without a biological CNS.

Huh? Refusing to look at what evidence?

the evidence presented in front of you, atheist and certainly the desert religions are at best part and parcel to Spiritualism but at least not entirely a vacuum.

.

---
You have presented only evidence of your own subjective consciousness that believes flowers are "spiritual" -- a feel-good emotional perception of yours (& others).
When your brain dies, you think your perceptions will not disappear?
.

 

[PK1]

Jay Lakhani is not a real scientist. Although he supposedly got a Masters degree in theoretical Physics,

If you have evidence that he is not a real scientist then present it.

his claims of "guaranteed" spiritual life and references to Hindu divinity is a joke, from the scientific perspective.

I was careful to post a video that did not include his Hindu philosophy. The premise he presents in this video is that the primary essence of quanta is not material. If you have evidence to contradict his premise then present it.

From a psychological-philosophical standpoint, his claims are a perfect example of confirmation bias.

And so is your response.

My intention in posting the video was to introduce a non-materialist view on quantum mechanics, not a religious confirmation of Hinduism. I have no religion, but I am open to evaluate any hypothesis that contributes to the discussion on the nature of existence.

---
Real scientists don't make claims about unobservable data ... "immaterial quanta"! LOL.
I don't need to provide evidence to contradict Lakhani's premise. In science, it's the one making claims that needs to provide evidence.
Without evidence, real scientists remain agnostic.

If you think you understand science, then please propose a hypothesis that can be researched ...
.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Most scientists believe in god......

.....in spite of the fact that science offers absolutely no evidence that god exists.......

 

[PK1]

---
On a scientific basis? I disagree.
Your basis is religious, and you appear confident about your "faith", with no evidence. How did you derive your beliefs?
.

On a scientific basis. In science, if you postulate a necessity, you need to prove it. You have not proven your biological necessity. On the other hand, everything I wrote has been done in software and sold. Whilst I believe in the Holly Trinity, I was writing here from a scientific point of view, and it is just an "accident" that now, as usual, it coincides with what the Gospels have already published about all of this.

---
It's clear to me that you don't understand modern science. There is plenty of evidence for direct relations between mind & brain.
On the other hand, there is no evidence to substantiate your claim that consciousness can occur without a biological CNS.
Your belief in Abrahamic religious dogma has no scientific merit.
.

Isn't the scientific evidence to the contrary? Even if we do the injustice, and restrict the mind problem to biology, a branch of science that I totally hate, we find that for example most organ transplant recepients pick up many traits of the donors personalities. Even when those traits are far or opposite to the recepients personalities. There has never been a brain transplant yet, and hopefully never will be. The closest to it were live human-animal head transplants that ancient Egyptian drawings depict.

---
If you make a claim, esp one that is unbelievable by educated people, then it's up to you to provide the evidence.
What's your evidence for this ridiculous claim?
"most organ transplant recepients pick up many traits of the donors personalities."
.

The more belligerent scientists are usually in the habit of not reading the reports of their less belligerent colleagues. Those transformations are recorded in large numbers everywhere. Especially by family members. But for the power hungry subgroup of scientists, reality doesn't exist until one of their chosen colleagues decides to write about it.

---
Wow, what a conspiracy theory.
Power hungry? Knowledge hungry is more accurate, which leads to power.
.

 

[PK1]

Most scientists believe in god......

.....in spite of the fact that science offers absolutely no evidence that god exists.......

---
You have not read previous posts which summarize surveys that indicate most scientists do NOT believe in God.
.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Most scientists believe in god......

.....in spite of the fact that science offers absolutely no evidence that god exists.......

---
You have not read previous posts which summarize surveys that indicate most scientists do NOT believe in God.
.

True, but, it restores some of my faith in science to know that.

 

[BreezeWood]

.

On the other hand, there is no evidence to substantiate your claim that consciousness can occur without a biological CNS.

Huh? Refusing to look at what evidence?

the evidence presented in front of you, atheist and certainly the desert religions are at best part and parcel to Spiritualism but at least not entirely a vacuum.

.

---
You have presented only evidence of your own subjective consciousness that believes flowers are "spiritual" -- a feel-good emotional perception of yours (& others).
When your brain dies, you think your perceptions will not disappear?
.

.

On the other hand, there is no evidence to substantiate your claim that consciousness can occur without a biological CNS.

You have presented only evidence of your own subjective consciousness that believes flowers are "spiritual"

PK1: there is no evidence - consciousness can occur without a biological CNS ... flowers are "spiritual"


it was your declaration consciousness requires a CNS, central nervous system then when given proof otherwise -

your position shifts to the more metaphysical less provable Spiritual of either Flora or Fauna as necessarily unproveable "by science" your opinion ...


so which is it ? Flora has no conscious and Flora is Spiritualous while Fauna "is" conscious by (your) science and likewise neither are Spiritual ... by science ?


the confusion is entirely your own, atheist.

.

 

[PK1]

Most scientists believe in god......

.....in spite of the fact that science offers absolutely no evidence that god exists.......

---
You have not read previous posts which summarize surveys that indicate most scientists do NOT believe in God.
.

True, but, it restores some of my faith in science to know that.

---
Your appreciation of science may be augmented by a survey of the most accomplished scientists ... members of NAS (National Academy of Sciences).
In my Post# 35, i mentioned that among NAS scientists, only 7% believed in a personal god (1998 report by Larson & Witham).
.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Most scientists believe in god......

.....in spite of the fact that science offers absolutely no evidence that god exists.......

---
You have not read previous posts which summarize surveys that indicate most scientists do NOT believe in God.
.

True, but, it restores some of my faith in science to know that.

---
Your appreciation of science may be augmented by a survey of the most accomplished scientists ... members of NAS (National Academy of Sciences).
In my Post# 35, i mentioned that among NAS scientists, only 7% believed in a personal god (1998 report by Larson & Witham).
.

Thanks!

 

[PK1]

.

On the other hand, there is no evidence to substantiate your claim that consciousness can occur without a biological CNS.

Huh? Refusing to look at what evidence?

the evidence presented in front of you, atheist and certainly the desert religions are at best part and parcel to Spiritualism but at least not entirely a vacuum.

.

---
You have presented only evidence of your own subjective consciousness that believes flowers are "spiritual" -- a feel-good emotional perception of yours (& others).
When your brain dies, you think your perceptions will not disappear?
.

.

On the other hand, there is no evidence to substantiate your claim that consciousness can occur without a biological CNS.

You have presented only evidence of your own subjective consciousness that believes flowers are "spiritual"

PK1: there is no evidence - consciousness can occur without a biological CNS ... flowers are "spiritual"

it was your declaration consciousness requires a CNS, central nervous system then when given proof otherwise -

your position shifts to the more metaphysical less provable Spiritual of either Flora or Fauna as necessarily unproveable "by science" your opinion ...
so which is it ? Flora has no conscious and Flora is Spiritualous while Fauna "is" conscious by (your) science and likewise neither are Spiritual ... by science ?

the confusion is entirely your own, atheist.
.

---
A picture of some Flora is "proof" of "consciousness"?
If so, how did you define "consciousness"? You have your own definition?
If it reflects "awareness & adaptation to its surroundings", then perhaps Flora are "conscious".

However, my def reflects "wakefulness, perception of surroundings, memory processing, and thoughts associated with motivation & problem solving".
In my definition, a biological CNS would be required.

Either way, if you claim existence of "spirituality", and it's not a material cognitive-emotive experience, then the burden of evidence is on you.
.

 

[BreezeWood]

However, my def reflects "wakefulness, perception of surroundings, memory processing, and thoughts associated with motivation & problem solving".
In my definition, a biological CNS would be required.

.
you are a sad case study for what is being referred as a scientific discipline that is non existent than a punitive disregard for living beings, atheist.

and by the way, definitive consciousness exists similarly for all beings Flora and Fauna as visually representative - irregardless your contentious and irresponsible claim for a required CNS.

.

 

[Vandalshandle]

 

[anotherlife]

On a scientific basis. In science, if you postulate a necessity, you need to prove it. You have not proven your biological necessity. On the other hand, everything I wrote has been done in software and sold. Whilst I believe in the Holly Trinity, I was writing here from a scientific point of view, and it is just an "accident" that now, as usual, it coincides with what the Gospels have already published about all of this.

---
It's clear to me that you don't understand modern science. There is plenty of evidence for direct relations between mind & brain.
On the other hand, there is no evidence to substantiate your claim that consciousness can occur without a biological CNS.
Your belief in Abrahamic religious dogma has no scientific merit.
.

Isn't the scientific evidence to the contrary? Even if we do the injustice, and restrict the mind problem to biology, a branch of science that I totally hate, we find that for example most organ transplant recepients pick up many traits of the donors personalities. Even when those traits are far or opposite to the recepients personalities. There has never been a brain transplant yet, and hopefully never will be. The closest to it were live human-animal head transplants that ancient Egyptian drawings depict.

---
If you make a claim, esp one that is unbelievable by educated people, then it's up to you to provide the evidence.
What's your evidence for this ridiculous claim?
"most organ transplant recepients pick up many traits of the donors personalities."
.

The more belligerent scientists are usually in the habit of not reading the reports of their less belligerent colleagues. Those transformations are recorded in large numbers everywhere. Especially by family members. But for the power hungry subgroup of scientists, reality doesn't exist until one of their chosen colleagues decides to write about it.

---
Wow, what a conspiracy theory.
Power hungry? Knowledge hungry is more accurate, which leads to power.
.

No, not knowledge hungry, only power hungry. It should be irrelevant to these scientists whether there is a god or not, because their job is only to measure things and report if repeatable or not. The fact that scientists go belligerent on purely political ideas such as atheism shows, that what they want is not knowledge but simply the power to control other people. This also shows why reputation is more important to scientists than knowledge.