The universe is conscious?

[Sriram]

 

[Outrider]

How is it possible that this gray soggy stuff can give rise to the richness and depth of your conscious experience? This is known as the ‘hard problem’ of consciousness.

As a result, many eminent philosophers (such as David Chalmers and Thomas Nagel) and scientists like Christof Koch and Tononi have rejected the idea that consciousness is directly produced by brain processes.

The argument from incredulity, with a Ph.D. attached - evidence, if it was required, that just having a qualification isn't sufficient basis to accept a conclusion.

O.

[Sriram]

It is questions and doubts like these that lead to breakthroughs and better understanding. If everyone was as cocksure as the old school people on here, we would be stuck with the same old forever.

Its funny (and quite telling) that many of you are scornful of qualified scientists and professors just because they have ideas that are different from yours. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

It is questions and doubts like these that lead to breakthroughs and better understanding.

Sometimes questions and doubts lead to breakthroughs (which is why science is essentially provisional) and sometimes they lead to dead ends. Your various claims and assertions for example are dead ends because there’s no accompanying means to investigate them. If you don’t think reason-based enquiry isn't up to the job, what other means would you propose? 

If everyone was as cocksure as the old school people on here, we would be stuck with the same old forever.

The only “cocksure” person here appears to be you. The reason science deals in theories is precisely that it isn’t cocksure – it’s always open to new information that could change its explanatory models.   

Its funny (and quite telling) that many of you are scornful of qualified scientists and professors just because they have ideas that are different from yours.   

No-one is “scornful of qualified scientists and professors”. Regardless of someone’s job title, if they commit a fallacy in reasoning (the argument from personal incredulity for example) then a fallacy it is. There is also a penchant for woo merchant such as yourself to cherry pick quotes from academics in entirely unrelated fields who comment on subjects in which they have no qualifications at all.     

[Outrider]

It is questions and doubts like these that lead to breakthroughs and better understanding. If everyone was as cocksure as the old school people on here, we would be stuck with the same old forever.

It is, but the bit in between the idea and the breakthrough - the accumulation of evidence and the rigorous process of hypothesis, testing and rejection and refinement is not an inconsequential thing. You can't simply presume that because someone has a question that therefore the established conceptual framework is fundamentally flawed.

Its funny (and quite telling) that many of you are scornful of qualified scientists and professors just because they have ideas that are different from yours. 

As I indicated, it's not that the idea differs from mine, it's that nothing is offered in support of the idea apart from the incredulity of the author - whilst a qualification often merits at least paying attention to the argument being proffered, there is no argument being put forward here, there's just 'well I can't believe it' as though not believing with a Ph.D is somehow more evidentiarily solid than not believing with just a GCSE in PE.

O.

[Sriram]

It is, but the bit in between the idea and the breakthrough - the accumulation of evidence and the rigorous process of hypothesis, testing and rejection and refinement is not an inconsequential thing. You can't simply presume that because someone has a question that therefore the established conceptual framework is fundamentally flawed.

As I indicated, it's not that the idea differs from mine, it's that nothing is offered in support of the idea apart from the incredulity of the author - whilst a qualification often merits at least paying attention to the argument being proffered, there is no argument being put forward here, there's just 'well I can't believe it' as though not believing with a Ph.D is somehow more evidentiarily solid than not believing with just a GCSE in PE.

O.

That's the way it is going to be, I am afraid. As we cross over from the measurable physical world to the quasi physical aspects of life....we are bound to face such challenges. It's no longer going to be 'bring out the microscope/telescope and lets have a look'. 

If Dark Matter and Dark energy and multiverses and strings can be taken seriously....'consciousness existing outside the brain' can definitely be taken seriously.

The problem is that such matters are relegated to the realm of the supernatural and scoffed at as religious beliefs. That is a major obstacle in the way of any meaningful discussion or research.

[Stranger]

It is questions and doubts like these that lead to breakthroughs and better understanding. If everyone was as cocksure as the old school people on here, we would be stuck with the same old forever.

You can't even assess accurately what's going on here. Nobody (apart from you) is expressing certainly, there is always a possibility that some speculation may be found to be the start of a new understanding.

It's actually your own, rather comical, certainty and desperation to, entirely uncritically, latch on to anything that you think might support your preconceived ideas, that is generally being criticised.

Its funny (and quite telling) that many of you are scornful of qualified scientists and professors just because they have ideas that are different from yours. 

This is generally not the case at all. The problem is that the articles you post are a mixed bag. Some are competent enough, others are sensationalised pop-science, and some have obvious problems (like the latest one here).

I actually have Penrose's original (1989) book on what he later called Orch OR (The Emperor's New Mind). I didn't find its central thesis at all convincing (not many people did) but at least he puts forward his case competently. I'm a great admirer of his work in general, he genuinely thinks differently and isn't afraid to disagree with mainstream ideas.

In contrast, you so often speak like you imagine you're thinking independently and are open to new ideas - but that really isn't the case at all. It's obvious that all you want is for reality to confirm to your fixed ideas and will simply ignore any problems with something as long as it's telling you what you want to hear. You are far more guilty of being cocksure and stuck in your own way of thinking than most others here seem to be.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

That's the way it is going to be, I am afraid. As we cross over from the measurable physical world to the quasi physical aspects of life....we are bound to face such challenges. It's no longer going to be 'bring out the microscope/telescope and lets have a look'.

Except of course you’ve no means to demonstrate the existence of these supposed “quasi physical aspects of life” at all, let alone that we’ll “cross over” to them. So far the only evidence we have points to the universe being “physical” (ie, material). You can speculate about a non-physical as much as you like, but that’s all you’ll have – speculations.   

If Dark Matter and Dark energy and multiverses and strings can be taken seriously....'consciousness existing outside the brain' can definitely be taken seriously.

That’s another failure in reasoning called the non sequitur. How on earth did you just jump from the former to the latter? “If Dark Matter and Dark energy and multiverses and strings can be taken seriously” can tap dancing unicorns on Alpha Centauri also be taken seriously then? Why not?

Your mistake here is to assume that the possibility of something unexpected being true somehow says something to other unexpected things being true. It doesn’t. 

The problem is that such matters are relegated to the realm of the supernatural and scoffed at as religious beliefs. That is a major obstacle in the way of any meaningful discussion or research.

No, the problem is (as Outy explained) that you have nothing to bridge the gap between speculation and verification.

Why is this difficult for you to grasp? 

[Outrider]

That's the way it is going to be, I am afraid.

I don't think it is.

As we cross over from the measurable physical world to the quasi physical aspects of life....we are bound to face such challenges.

No, we won't, there won't be a 'crossing over' to somewhere that there's no evidence for the claims, because in such a place there's no confidence in outcomes.

It's no longer going to be 'bring out the microscope/telescope and lets have a look'.

The instruments may changed, but the process won't. At best you'll find new instruments to measure phenomena that we couldn't previously detect, but they'll remain at best hypotheses until you do.

If Dark Matter and Dark energy and multiverses and strings can be taken seriously....'consciousness existing outside the brain' can definitely be taken seriously.

There is evidence for significant portions of the universe not currently being explained - there isn't currently any evidence to suggest that consciousness exists outside of brains.

The problem is that such matters are relegated to the realm of the supernatural and scoffed at as religious beliefs.

I'm not seeing the problem with scoffing at religious beliefs; when you've got something that elevates it above a statement of faith I'll stop scoffing.

That is a major obstacle in the way of any meaningful discussion or research.

How can we have a meaningful discussion about extraordinary claims devoid of evidence.

"Look, dude, consciousness is universal..."
"How do you know?"
"Evidenctalist bias, just take my word for it!"
Discussion over.

O.

[Sriram]

I don't think it is.

No, we won't, there won't be a 'crossing over' to somewhere that there's no evidence for the claims, because in such a place there's no confidence in outcomes.

The instruments may changed, but the process won't. At best you'll find new instruments to measure phenomena that we couldn't previously detect, but they'll remain at best hypotheses until you do.

There is evidence for significant portions of the universe not currently being explained - there isn't currently any evidence to suggest that consciousness exists outside of brains.

I'm not seeing the problem with scoffing at religious beliefs; when you've got something that elevates it above a statement of faith I'll stop scoffing.

How can we have a meaningful discussion about extraordinary claims devoid of evidence.

"Look, dude, consciousness is universal..."
"How do you know?"
"Evidenctalist bias, just take my word for it!"
Discussion over.

O.

There is plenty of evidence for consciousness being independent of the brain...which is why so much of discussion is going on about it currently among philosophers and scientists.  You just can't see it.

Many of you do treat these matters more as 'woo' peddling rather than as genuine matters requiring investigation.  That attitude itself can be a major hindrance. The two boxes syndrome.

[Stranger]

There is plenty of evidence for consciousness being independent of the brain...

Why do you never post any, then? More to the point, if there really were plenty of valid, objective evidence, why isn't it world headlines?

...which is why so much of discussion is going on about it currently among philosophers and scientists.

I've yet to see any of the more serious conjectures cite this as a motivation, largely, I suspect, because such evidence doesn't exist and their ideas wouldn't predict or explain it even if it did. The general motivation is to explain the subjective experience, i.e. why we aren't p-zombies.

Conjectures like Orch OR or IIT are not going to turn near death experiences (your favourite non-evidence) into death experiences. They do not lead to the conclusion that anything like a fully functioning mind could exist independent of the brain. This is the problem with being stuck in your ancient superstitious ways of thinking and just latching on to anything that looks (to you) a bit as if it might be something like what you want to be true.

You just can't see it.

"I know I'm right, it must be everybody else!" 

[Outrider]

There is plenty of evidence for consciousness being independent of the brain...which is why so much of discussion is going on about it currently among philosophers and scientists.  You just can't see it.

If it can't be seen, in what way is it evidence? If there's all this evidence, why are the articles you cite almost invariably a variation on 'we don't have a definitive explanation for consciousness, therefore it must be woo'.
 

Many of you do treat these matters more as 'woo' peddling rather than as genuine matters requiring investigation.

Everything is worth investigating, but you're offering nothing to investigate. You propose an intriguing concept, but give it no support whatsoever to lend it any credulity.

That attitude itself can be a major hindrance.

I'd consider skepticism to be a boon.

The two boxes syndrome.

Not a reference I'm familiar with, I'm afraid, and Google is giving me information on hoarding and OCD which I don't think is what you were meaning.

O.
[/quote]

[Sriram]

https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2018/03/03/the-two-boxes-syndrome/

     Try it.

[Outrider]

https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2018/03/03/the-two-boxes-syndrome/

     Try it.

OK, you're trying to make 'fetch' happen...

You've fundamentally misunderstood the boxes. People don't arbitrarily assign stuff into the boxes. You've talked about people putting 'phenomena' into boxes, but the examples in the woo box aren't phenomena. Soul isn't a phenomenon, it's not something demonstrable which requires an explanation; gravity, on the other hand, readily apparent to  all and therefore needs an explanation.

There are three boxes: there's the box of unexplained phenomena (dark matter, dark energy), there's the box of phenomena for which we have at least some degree of explanation (gravity, evolution) and then there' s a box for weird ideas that might be feasible but for which we currently have no direct evidence whatsoever (everything from souls to parallel worlds).

These boxes are not of equal value to us; which of the items from the third box we choose to entertain in passing might say something about us, but it's largely superficial until someone starts conflating the boxes by, say, suggesting that we should throw away our current understanding of neurology, biochemistry, psychology and sociology because they've got this idea about souls...

O.

[Sriram]

OK, you're trying to make 'fetch' happen...

You've fundamentally misunderstood the boxes. People don't arbitrarily assign stuff into the boxes. You've talked about people putting 'phenomena' into boxes, but the examples in the woo box aren't phenomena. Soul isn't a phenomenon, it's not something demonstrable which requires an explanation; gravity, on the other hand, readily apparent to  all and therefore needs an explanation.

There are three boxes: there's the box of unexplained phenomena (dark matter, dark energy), there's the box of phenomena for which we have at least some degree of explanation (gravity, evolution) and then there' s a box for weird ideas that might be feasible but for which we currently have no direct evidence whatsoever (everything from souls to parallel worlds).

These boxes are not of equal value to us; which of the items from the third box we choose to entertain in passing might say something about us, but it's largely superficial until someone starts conflating the boxes by, say, suggesting that we should throw away our current understanding of neurology, biochemistry, psychology and sociology because they've got this idea about souls...

O.

Why are you imagining that we should throw away  our current understanding of neurology etc. just because Consciousness (or soul) is fundamental?  They don't impinge on one another. One is the cause and the other is the mechanism. 

Just because  a car has a driver does not mean the wheels or pistons don't matter. They do!   

[Sriram]

OK, you're trying to make 'fetch' happen...

You've fundamentally misunderstood the boxes. People don't arbitrarily assign stuff into the boxes. You've talked about people putting 'phenomena' into boxes, but the examples in the woo box aren't phenomena. Soul isn't a phenomenon, it's not something demonstrable which requires an explanation; gravity, on the other hand, readily apparent to  all and therefore needs an explanation.

There are three boxes: there's the box of unexplained phenomena (dark matter, dark energy), there's the box of phenomena for which we have at least some degree of explanation (gravity, evolution) and then there' s a box for weird ideas that might be feasible but for which we currently have no direct evidence whatsoever (everything from souls to parallel worlds).

These boxes are not of equal value to us; which of the items from the third box we choose to entertain in passing might say something about us, but it's largely superficial until someone starts conflating the boxes by, say, suggesting that we should throw away our current understanding of neurology, biochemistry, psychology and sociology because they've got this idea about souls...

O.

Acknowledged facts don't require a box. It is the grey areas that I am talking about. Take something like the string or parallel universes.  Why are these ideas accepted as scientific ideas worthy of discussion and investigation while the  idea of a soul  or after-life  is dismissed outright even though cases of NDE's are available and consciousness is far from understood?  This is the two boxes syndrome. One is 'science' and the other is 'religion'...according to you. Its about the labels.

[Outrider]

Why are you imagining that we should throw away  our current understanding of neurology etc. just because Consciousness (or soul) is fundamental?  They don't impinge on one another. One is the cause and the other is the mechanism.

I'm not suggesting it, you're the one talking about intelligence guiding evolution, about forgoing all the established evidence the consciousness derives from brain activity. You're talking about causes and mechanisms, but you're citing assertions - what you're suggesting is neither a cause nor a mechanism, because it's not there - it's the acceptance of notions as valid purely on the strength of 'I like the idea' rather than any evidentiary basis that would undermine our current paradigm.

Just because  a car has a driver does not mean the wheels or pistons don't matter. They do!

Yes, but you're suggesting that we accept that God is our co-pilot, and that's a claim of a different order.

O.

[Outrider]

Acknowledged facts don't require a box. It is the grey areas that I am talking about.

There aren't really any grey areas - there are models for which we have supporting evidence, and models for which we don't.

Take something like the string or parallel universes.  Why are these ideas accepted as scientific ideas worthy of discussion and investigation while the  idea of a soul  or after-life  is dismissed outright even though cases of NDE's are available and consciousness is far from understood?

The idea of parallel universes isn't accepted, scientifically, it's at best an hypothesis; at the moment, to the best of my knowledge, there are a few sketchy ideas about how we might be able to find some evidence to support the notion. It's something that might become science in the future, because there's a possibility you could detect it, measure it.

Currently, though, it's in exactly the same box as the idea of a universal consciousness - that I think it's perhaps more likely to be validated or repudiated than the idea of souls says as much about my background as it does about the idea; I can imagine mathematically and computationally modelling the interactions of our universe with a parallel universe more easily than I can imagine doing the same for a soul.

This is the two boxes syndrome. One is 'science' and the other is 'religion'...according to you. Its about the labels.

And that just suggests to me that you don't really understand the science. Even if I presume that your use of 'fact' is the conventional day-to-day understanding of science - which is, technically, always provisional - you are assuming that those of us more mechanistically attuned don't differentiate between conjecture like parallel worlds, phenomena in need of an explanation like dark matter, and well-established scientific models like evolution and gravity. And, more to the point, you think that we put parallel worlds and souls in different boxes; we don't, we just make aesthetic judgements about those.

O.

[Sriram]

There aren't really any grey areas - there are models for which we have supporting evidence, and models for which we don't.

The idea of parallel universes isn't accepted, scientifically, it's at best an hypothesis; at the moment, to the best of my knowledge, there are a few sketchy ideas about how we might be able to find some evidence to support the notion. It's something that might become science in the future, because there's a possibility you could detect it, measure it.

Currently, though, it's in exactly the same box as the idea of a universal consciousness - that I think it's perhaps more likely to be validated or repudiated than the idea of souls says as much about my background as it does about the idea; I can imagine mathematically and computationally modelling the interactions of our universe with a parallel universe more easily than I can imagine doing the same for a soul.

And that just suggests to me that you don't really understand the science. Even if I presume that your use of 'fact' is the conventional day-to-day understanding of science - which is, technically, always provisional - you are assuming that those of us more mechanistically attuned don't differentiate between conjecture like parallel worlds, phenomena in need of an explanation like dark matter, and well-established scientific models like evolution and gravity. And, more to the point, you think that we put parallel worlds and souls in different boxes; we don't, we just make aesthetic judgements about those.

O.

Of course you do put parallel worlds and souls in different boxes. One is science and the other is a delusional religious belief. That makes all the difference in how you view them and how seriously you take them.

If you took souls and after-life (with the NDE evidence) as seriously as parallel universes, there would be more open and 'scientific' discussions about souls and after-life. They would not be laughed at and dismissed the way adam & eve and the six day creation are.

[Sriram]

One more interesting article....

https://mindmatters.ai/2020/05/why-is-science-growing-comfortable-with-panpsychism-everything-is-conscious/

************

A recent article at New Scientist treats panpsychism as a serious idea in science.

The question of how matter gives rise to felt experience is one of the most vexing problems we know of. And sure enough, the first fleshed-out mathematical model of consciousness has generated huge debate about whether it can tell us anything sensible. But as mathematicians work to hone and extend their tools for peering deep inside ourselves, they are confronting some eye-popping conclusions.

Not least, what they are uncovering seems to suggest that if we are to achieve a precise description of consciousness, we may have to ditch our intuitions and accept that all kinds of inanimate matter could be conscious – maybe even the universe as a whole. “This could be the beginning of a scientific revolution,” says Johannes Kleiner, a mathematician at the Munich Centre for Mathematical Philosophy in Germany.

At one time, a science mag’s typical contributors would merely ridicule the conscious universe, convinced that science will shortly explain consciousness away anyhow.

So why the thaw toward panpsychism over the past few years? Possibly, panpsychism offers a way to be a naturalist (nature is all there is) without the absurdities of physicalism (everything in nature must be physical).

But dropping physicalism likely entails some changes. Panpsychists need not be Darwinists, for example. That is, they need not account for human consciousness either as a trait that evolved to help ancestors of humans survive on the savannah or as a byproduct of such a trait. Bernardo Kastrup has argued explicitly, in response to Darwinist Jerry Coyne, that human consciousness cannot be a mere byproduct of human evolution because it cannot even be measured in traditional science terms.

Consciousness could be more like a fact of nature of the sort that doesn’t evolve, in the sense that oxygen and photons don’t evolve.

Panpsychists need not reject evolution in principle. But Darwinism, as commonly expressed, is an outgrowth of physicalism (everything is physical). That is why Darwinian accounts of consciousness are frequently restricted to considerations of what traits helped prehuman ancestors survive.

The integrated information theory assigns a numerical value, “phi,” to the degree of irreducibility. If phi is zero, the system is reducible to its individual parts, but if phi is large, the system is more than just the sum of its parts.

This system explains how consciousness can exist to varying degrees among humans and other animals. The theory incorporates some elements of panpsychism, the philosophy that the mind is not only present in humans, but in all things.

One attraction of panpsychism in general is that, if the conundrum of consciousness is resolved by ascribing consciousness to everything, the mystery is subsumed into the question of “Why is there something rather than nothing?”, originally asked by calculus pioneer Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646–1716). If to exist is to be conscious to some degree, the two questions can’t easily be disentangled. And Leibniz’s question is treated as a valid one in science.

************

[Stranger]

Of course you do put parallel worlds and souls in different boxes.

Why is it that you are so averse to ever learning anything? How many more times? "Parallel worlds" is not a thing. There are many different ideas for them, some of which are more credible than others. You arrive at one, for example, just by assuming space is infinite. Since space appears to be 'flat', as far as we are able to tell, and an infinite volume is the simplest topology associated with flat space, that is not a massive leap.

One is science and the other is a delusional religious belief. That makes all the difference in how you view them and how seriously you take them.

The difference is in how much evidence or other reasoning (like the above for infinite space) there is. There is simply nothing credible to support the idea of souls and some good reasons to reject it.

[Outrider]

Of course you do put parallel worlds and souls in different boxes. One is science and the other is a delusional religious belief. That makes all the difference in how you view them and how seriously you take them.

I cannot stress this enough - and I appreciate I'm not necessarily speaking for everyone on the 'rational' side of this debate - but parallel worlds is not science. Not yet, perhaps not ever, it's a conjecture which can be wrapped in scientific language; it doesn't suffer from centuries of cultural association with religion like the idea of 'souls' does, but that doesn't make it any more scientific.

If you took souls and after-life (with the NDE evidence) as seriously as parallel universes, there would be more open and 'scientific' discussions about souls and after-life.

Except that there are explanations for much of NDE which is entirely in keeping with the current, evidenced explanation of brain activity which doesn't require introducing unevidenced ideas like souls, and therefore avoiding all the knock-on effects of introducing souls like trying to explain where they are having any noticeable effects.

They would not be laughed at and dismissed the way adam & eve and the six day creation are.

And on the same basis; not just that they have  no evidence supporting them, but that accepting the notion would contradict well-established explanatory mechanisms we currently have for other activity. It's not just that there's no evidence, but that they also contradict the current evidence.

Until, and unless, someone comes up with better evidence for NDE, souls, spirits or parallel worlds, they all stay in the box marked 'Must try harder'.

O.

[jeremyp]

Of course you do put parallel worlds and souls in different boxes. One is science and the other is a delusional religious belief. That makes all the difference in how you view them and how seriously you take them.

If you took souls and after-life (with the NDE evidence) as seriously as parallel universes, there would be more open and 'scientific' discussions about souls and after-life. They would not be laughed at and dismissed the way adam & eve and the six day creation are.

Parallel universes and souls are both hypotheses. I don't think there is evidence for either of them being real (depending on your definition of "soul"). I think one has potentially more explanatory power than the other, but neither has evidence AFAIK.

[Enki]

Of course you do put parallel worlds and souls in different boxes. One is science and the other is a delusional religious belief. That makes all the difference in how you view them and how seriously you take them.

If you took souls and after-life (with the NDE evidence) as seriously as parallel universes, there would be more open and 'scientific' discussions about souls and after-life. They would not be laughed at and dismissed the way adam & eve and the six day creation are.

HHow do you have a 'scientific discussion' on souls and after-life when there is no evidence whatever that either exists. What can we measure? What mathematical equations can we use?  how do we find the characteristics of something if we don't know that it exists? I don't laugh at or dismiss any  such supositions, I simply find them wanting in so may ways.

It's no good comparing them with dark matter, dark energy or parallel universes as both dark matter and dark energy, by dint of objective measurement, suggest that something exists, and we simply use these names as place holders for that something. As regards parallel universes, as far as I know, these are simply scientific conjectures which try to explain such things as the nature of quantum mechanics.

So far, on the subject of souls and an after-life, there has been zero progress over the many, many centuries that humankind has embraced these ideas. It might be an idea for the supporters of such concepts to rely less on assertions and start producing solid, objective evidence for their existence. For me, until I see such evidence, I see no reason to accept them in any way.

[Sriram]

I cannot stress this enough - and I appreciate I'm not necessarily speaking for everyone on the 'rational' side of this debate - but parallel worlds is not science. Not yet, perhaps not ever, it's a conjecture which can be wrapped in scientific language; it doesn't suffer from centuries of cultural association with religion like the idea of 'souls' does, but that doesn't make it any more scientific.

Except that there are explanations for much of NDE which is entirely in keeping with the current, evidenced explanation of brain activity which doesn't require introducing unevidenced ideas like souls, and therefore avoiding all the knock-on effects of introducing souls like trying to explain where they are having any noticeable effects.

And on the same basis; not just that they have  no evidence supporting them, but that accepting the notion would contradict well-established explanatory mechanisms we currently have for other activity. It's not just that there's no evidence, but that they also contradict the current evidence.

Until, and unless, someone comes up with better evidence for NDE, souls, spirits or parallel worlds, they all stay in the box marked 'Must try harder'.

O.

There are many other ideas in science such as strings, multiple dimensions, time travel etc. which are also just conjecture.  Sure...there is lot of maths on pieces of paper but maths is not everything.  But these ideas are considered as 'science' and discussed in seminars and articles are written about them. 

But when it comes to the idea of a soul or after-life (for example), which are so fundamental,  it all becomes very funny and a 'you can't be serious' view is taken. This is what I am questioning.

Proposing scriptural events like the six day creation is one thing and proposing an after-life is another. They are not the same thing and cannot be categorized together. The problem is that they often are lumped together.  A soul (consciousness independent of brain) and an after-life are secular philosophical ideas and have nothing to do with religion or a God (though religions also advocate these ideas).

This is where the two boxes syndrome comes into the picture.