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

[Cardinal Carminative]

The hell it isn’t.

Not really. Physicists don’t always get philosophy right.

But either way since it is all just pure 100% conjecture and unfalsifiable it doesn’t much matter

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?

I am as qualified to establish what “reality” is as they are.

Pure conjecture without a basis in falsifiability

 

[ding]

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

It only looks that way to you because you intentionally parse everything. It’s dishonest.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

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

Does the shape of the puddle magically match the shape of the water in the puddle?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

It only looks that way to you because you intentionally parse everything. It’s dishonest.

How is it dishonest?

 

[BreezeWood]

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

various versions of your statement - yours among the most extreme ...

not the cns, physiology itself is a metaphysical substance irregardless its spiritual component and has synthesis yet undetermined ...

not to mention the other half - flora

flora hasn't a cns, central nervous system, much less a single neuron - for its consciousness.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Incorrect. It’s quantum mechanics.

Not really. It’s an extension of QM but not necessarily warranted or accurate

 

[ding]

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.

And George Wald, Arthur Eddington, Von Weizsacker and Wolfgang Pauli would disagree with you.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

various versions of your statement - yours among the most extreme ...

not the cns, physiology itself is a metaphysical substance irregardless its spiritual component and has synthesis yet undetermined ...

not to mention the other half - flora

View attachment 657983

flora hasn't a cns, central nervous system, much less a single neuron - for its consciousness.

Plants are not conscious to my knowledge. Do you have information to the contrary?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

And George Wald, Arthur Eddington, Von Weizsacker and Wolfgang Pauli would disagree with you.

And none of what you quoted was falsifiable so it was pure conjecture on their part. I am as correct as they are

 

[Cougarbear]

It wasn't an answer. It was a question. "Actual religion" and "actual science" make no sense.

Elaborate what you mean "Actual" makes no sense for either.

 

[ding]

The cat in the box actually IS dead or alive.

Because those are the only two states.

 

[ding]

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

Where do you believe the energy came from to create the universe?

 

[ding]

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

George Wald, Arthur Eddington, Von Weizsacker and Wolfgang Pauli would disagree.

 

[ding]

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

But according to QM it could.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Where do you believe the energy came from to create the universe?

George Wald, Arthur Eddington, Von Weizsacker and Wolfgang Pauli would disagree.

Before I move on, I wanted to take a moment to thank you wonderful guys for derailing my thread with your hair-pulling slapfight. May I suggest you exchange phone numbers?

 

[ding]

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.

George Wald, Arthur Eddington, Von Weizsacker and Wolfgang Pauli would disagree.

 

[ding]

Before I move on, I wanted to take a moment to thank you wonderful guys for derailing my thread with your hair-pulling slapfight. May I suggest you exchange phone numbers?

How is this conversation not consistent with the OP?

 

[BreezeWood]

Plants are not conscious to my knowledge. Do you have information to the contrary?

as referred, extremist point of view -

howabout the fly ... all beings are conscious. simple as that.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Before I move on, I wanted to take a moment to thank you wonderful guys for derailing my thread with your hair-pulling slapfight. May I suggest you exchange phone numbers?

Seems like it is on topic. Religion and science at odds.

 

[ding]

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

Again… George Wald, Arthur Eddington, Von Weizsacker and Wolfgang Pauli would disagree.