I have, which is how I know this is ignorant garbage:
Over the years there have been huge improvements in treatment, diagnosis, and survival for many types of cancers, and we’ve come to better understand how cancer develops and progresses. And unlike research into Unsolved Mysteries, this is worth doing because it saves lives.
Lobohan:
“Attacking others because you can’t support your views isn’t particularly persuasive.”
I am not attacking anyone; I am expressing bemusement that I can ask the same question repeatedly and get everything but an answer to the question I asked. In fact some of the respondents seem to have developed psychic powers with which they can tell me what I believe, but they can’t answer the question I asked.
“All evidence ever collected in the history of man supports a mechanical seat for consciousness in the brain.”
Yes, it shows a mechanical seat; but we see correlation, not causation. The evidence is being interpreted through the filter of current doctrine; but the current doctrine has no foundation in science.
“They don’t know it. They believe it.”
So in that you and they are the same. You believe a discredited hypothesis, have no evidence to support it, can’t answer a direct question to explain it, yet continue to believe it.
That is not science, it is religion.
Quicksilver:
“Science has done so in the lab - sperm meet egg. Life!”
Yet again you have demonstrated that you have no clue as to what this discussion is all about.
However, let me help you out:
Live sperm plus live egg often leads to a new living organism.
But, so far, no permutation or combination of dead egg and dead sperm has produced either fertilization or a living organism.
I suggest that you sit this out until you understand the issues.
Voyager:
“Not fully understand something as complex a consciousness does not mean that a particular hypothesis is falsified.”
Well yes, it does; particularly if the experimental evidence directly contradicts it.
We have full and detailed knowledge of chemistry. We have a remarkably detailed knowledge of the biochemistry of biological systems.
What we do know is that dead chemistry plus dead biochemistry yields dead reaction product.
This is in direct contradiction to the current doctrine. As Richard Feynman more or less said: “If the theory doesn’t agree with the experiments, then the theory is wrong”
So your continuing to support the current doctrine is a matter of faith, not science.
“I used to work with a nun who was a damn good scientist, and someone I knew in college is an astronomer at the Vatican.”
So what? I don’t get your point.
Historically, the church has been the mainstay of science. Remember Gregor Mendel? He was a monk. It was/is(?) church doctrine that science be encouraged because it showed “the glory of God”.
The Catholics don’t need to prove what they already know; and they know the afterlife exists, just as you know that it doesn’t.
I deal on a daily basis with people with post graduate credentials coming out the wazzoo, but are as dumb as a bag of wallnuts. Their mothers probably have to tie their shoelaces in the morning. But provided they are kept on a short leash and tightly managed, they can regurgitate all they were taught in graduate school, and produce useful work.
I just don’t burden them with any task that might cause them to think about anything outside of what they were taught in graduate school.
Jackmanni:
My “rant” about cancer has a lot to do with the issues, but particularly relates to the fact that in this thread several posters have objected to the spending of money on research, which they consider has no chance of success.
Current research has shown that there is no such thing as “cancer”. In fact, there are dozens if not hundreds, of conditions which share a couple of common characteristics and which are collectively called “cancers”. In addition, each of these individual cancers seem to have particular characteristics that suggest that they are particular to the individual patient.
So, except for those specific cancers that have been identified to having been caused by a specific agent, the likelihood of finding “a cure for cancer” is slim to zero.
There is a growing consensus in the cancer industry that the current treatment protocols are not only ineffective, but severely reduce the patient’s quality of life, and may be directly responsible for shortening the life span of those undergoing cancer treatment.
In fact there is a growing consensus that treatment of cancer sufferers should be limited to palliative care.
In trying to find “a cure for cancer” the current doctrine is that the root cause of many of them is based on a defect in the cellular command and control mechanism. Underpinning this doctrine is the belief that command and control is a direct consequence of the specific biochemical reactions of the cell.
Since all the evidence shows that the chemistry of biological systems is unremarkable, and there is no mechanism relating this chemistry to command and control of cell function, then this thrust of research is a dead end.
However, if this research were redirected to look for control mechanisms outside conventional doctrine, then we may find an entire area of heretofore unknown science. If found to be true, the implications for both medicine in particular, and science in general would be immense.
Further to that, if the research also proved the separation of mind and body, and the existence of an afterlife, the implications would be profound. Not only for medical treatment, but for society in general.
On a cost benefit basis, the current approach to cancer research is not likely to produce significant benefit; however, the study of woo could provide huge payoffs. Until we try, we won’t know.
And yet treatments have improved a great deal. They offer fewer side effects and people live longer. So it sounds to me like you’re excluding the middle.
No, there isn’t - and even if you didn’t say silly things like “cancer industry” you would still be wrong. More attention has been paid to the idea of overtreatment or unnecessary treatment as a result of improved scanning, but the consensus you are describing doesn’t exist.
This consensus doesn’t exist either. There is not a shred of truth in this.
Are you suggesting we need to start looking for magic soul cancer?
It has already produced many. Look at the improvement in breast cancer survival over the years.
Leaving aside the fact that studying garbage is unlikely to produce anything of value and the fact that people have studied this nonsense at great length, you’re not taking your premise far enough. Why stop by eliminating cancer research? If we can discover that we’re all immortal fairy dust or something, can’t we stop spending money on researching diseases entirely? Do we need science at all?
No, your blind ideology keeps you from accepting the answers provided.
Once again, you don’t understand what you’re asking. If all the evidence we have shows a mechanical brain, and none of the evidence backs a mystical energy field, then that’s not a weakness for the former.
I answered directly. You ignored it and pretended that I didn’t. You can’t face simple facts because your position is so utterly feeble that it doesn’t stand up to the slightest scrutiny.
Again, all the evidence points to a mechanical brain, none of the evidence points to a mystical energy field. Your demanding that they are equal is ignorant religious thinking.
No, what are YOU talking about??..
Let me try to summarize it for you then. According to you:
It’s all very complicated. Much more complicated than anyone thought. Science doesn’t have all the answers. Many of the answers lead to more questions. This is all hopeless. Let’s just stop now and fill the gaps of knowledge with supernatural causes. We’ll all be much happier in the end.
Is that about right?
Look, we’ve all strayed from the OP so far it’s hard to keep track anymore of what the debate is about. I believe the OP asks the question whether some sort of consciousness persists after life ends. So far, the argument for it is based on some sort of personal belief system without emperical evidence. You attempts to disguise and distract your lack of evidence is nothing more than the god in the gaps explanation. I’ll grant you, you are a little more clever than some. You attempt to break this down to sub cellular structure level and argue that since we don’t understand all the mechanics of life as well as we’d like there is sufficient cause to chase the “woo” explanation. There is not. Furthermore, you blame science for your lack of woo evidence. Which is ironic.
Please give a pointer to an experiment which falsifies this. Nobody is claiming that mixing up a bunch of chemicals is going to give us life. Not even for an amoeba. (which has evolved for hundred of millions of years also.)
Good. Show me this supposed experiment.
If the Catholic church thought that they could scientifically prove their faith, they would. They’ve got top notch scientists and quite a bit of money. Why don’t they? Because they know better.
In the early 19th century a good bit, perhaps most, of science was done by clerics. They were convinced that science would prove the Bible. Whoops. Mendel did not devote full time to his experiments, and in any case almost certainly cheated because his results were too good. But it is clear that being in a religious group does not disqualify one from doing science. You must have an open mind, however.
Like I said, it would not be for them, but for those they would wish to convert.
I’ve worked for Bell Labs, where half the staff had PhDs (in our center) and you sound jealous. Not everyone with a PhD is smart, but on the whole - yes.
You clearly don’t understand that at high levels of grad school you don’t get taught, you do research. And you have to be a critical thinker, so no wonder you are not too fond of grad school. I assure you, saying yes sir yes sir will not get you too far at the dissertation level.
Just unsubscribed from this thread.
Now might be a good time to take a pause and talk about what this thread is really all about. But first, a history lesson.
In the early years of science, the class wars raged in Europe, and particularly Britain. The aristocracy loathed the commoners, and the feelings were reciprocated.
The manifestations of these were constant social conflict between the alliance of the aristocracy and the church one side, and the commoners on the other. The commoners were burning to be freed from both the aristocracy and the church.
At the same time, the study of science was considered the purview of the aristocracy and the church. Participation in science was valued as a sign of social status and carried high prestige value. The thought of a commoner participating in science was anathema, and was seen as an attack on the privileges of the upper classes.
Despite this, some commoners did manage to gain employment as assistants to gentlemen scientists; however, they were vilified by “high society”, and treated abominably for their temerity in encroaching on upper class privileges. Ironically, some of the best brains in science during this period were commoner assistants.
During these class wars, Isaac Newton’s works became known and set the groundwork for the popularization of the philosophy of determinism, particularly amongst commoners. While the philosophy could trace its roots back to the ancient Greeks, its popularity surged with Isaac Newton’s work in deterministic physics. His work represented an objective and indisputable shot at the authority of the church.
In parallel with this, the industrial revolution created a demand for scientists. The practicalities of industry required the input of large volumes of scientific knowledge; but while science was limited to the traditional classes, demand could not be met. This opened the door to the influx of more commoners to science. But the class hatred continued, and commoner scientists were still vilified by “society”. As a result, commoner scientists were ripe for a way to distance themselves, and hit back at, the hated upper classes.
In 1859 Charles Darwin’s theory was published, and this opened the floodgates for science.
Adoption of Darwin’s theories, together with those of determinism, took the axe to the authority of the church and provided the commoners with the scientific and social basis to separate themselves from both the aristocracy and the church.
Socially, a professed belief of these theories marked a commoner as a man of learning and distinction, and definitely disassociated him from the hated ruling classes. Belief in these philosophies was worn as a badge of honor.
In other words, adoption of these theories was as much an act of social rebellion, as it was recognition of their scientific merits.
With the passage of time, it became a virtual prerequisite for anyone entering the sciences to profess a firm belief in materialist determinism, Darwinism and atheism. It was not long before these three items became the foundation philosophies of science.
After a generation or two, these philosophies morphed from foundation philosophies to become foundation doctrines.
Throughout the 20th Century, a social filtering process occurred which discouraged those that doubted these doctrines from entering science; therefore, the doctrines became self perpetuating.
Consequently, they are now taken as self evidently true, and are rarely questioned by people who wish to pursue science. When questions arise which challenge the doctrines, they are glibly dismissed by reference to the doctrine.
Rarely do contemporary scientists think about the fact that these doctrines were formulated in the late 19th century as part of a political rebellion, and that they have not been modified to accommodate current scientific knowledge. Nor do they recognize that there has been a filtering process which has ensured that scientists are predisposed to this particular belief system.
So how does this relate to the present discussion? (We can ignore religion and Darwinism.)
The doctrine of materialist determinism explicitly rejects the existence of any phenomenon unless it has been proven to occur as the consequence of known phenomena. Axiomatic to that is that a phenomenon does not exist if it cannot be explained in terms of known phenomena.
All of this applies to the current discussion.
The science shows that in the chemistry of biological systems A plus B produces C.
This is standard chemistry, is uncontroversial, and is not under dispute.
However, the reality is that in biological systems, there is an additional factor.
Ie: A plus B produces C in the presence of “life”; in biological systems, A plus B does not occur if “life” is absent. Also, in the laboratory we can react A and B to produce C, yet there is never any “life” resulting from the process.
So the controversy is: what is “life”, how does it enter the equation, and by what process does it affect A plus B?
In asking this question, the answers I have been getting are consistent with what would be expected under materialist determinism; Ie: “Since we cannot explain “life” or “consciousness” as functions of established knowledge, then they don’t or can’t exist as entities. However, we can see that A plus B produces C, and they usually occur in association with living things, so they must be just a natural consequence of A plus B.”
If we discard the 19th century doctrine of materialist determinism, then we can accept that there are some things that science has not yet uncovered. As scientists, we should not dismiss them because they do not fit within the current dogma. Most importantly, we should make an effort to formulate alternative explanations for observations, unconstrained by dogma.
So, what is required in this discussion is that the participants stand back and ask themselves whether they are repeating a dogma which was formulated as part of social rebellion in the late 19th century; or are they objectively looking at the scientific facts and interpreting them in the context of 21st century scientific knowledge, or lack thereof.
That is what science is all about.
The guy demanding that mystical energy fields contain consciousness, even though there is zero evidence that they do, while there is overwhelming evidence that consciousness is mechanical, maybe shouldn’t be giving lectures on science?
Up Next: Helen Keller on 19th century Impressionism.
If some one is Near death they are Not dead!
I think the fact that his source is Victor Zammit pretty much says it all, don’t you think?
In other news, science continues to fail to look for and find evidence of intelligent design.
The preceding inventive history lesson might be a good topic for a new thread. As an attempt to redirect this discussion in a specific direction, it is nothing but a hijack.
Responses to this “history” may be taken up in a new thread.
Comments on the the claim regarding what “science is all about” will no longer be entertained in this thread.
Attempts to continue this hijack with further claims about what scientists “believe” will also be considered a hijack and will not be tolerated.
Certainly, the dispute between those who hold to materialism and those who believe in a spiritual dimension are fundamental to this thread, but comments on how such differences arose are not suitable to this thread.
That goes for both those who accept one side or the other.
[ /Moderating ]