Science and spirituality

[ProfessorDavey]

Our experiences are correlated with changes in brain chemistry does not mean that the brain causes human experiences.

True - but nor does this mean they aren't.

However there is exceptionally good evidence to indicate a causal link as these kinds of feelings can be reproduced artificially by mimicking the release of chemical factors such as dopamine, endorphins and serotonin.

[Outrider]

Our experiences are correlated with changes in brain chemistry does not mean that the brain causes human experiences.

Not absolutely, now, but the precise measurement that shows brain chemistry which correlates with experience occurring prior to the sensation of the experience, and the lack of unexplained phenomena mean that it's a conclusion that fits with the available information, and does not leave a 'gap' which requires explanation.

If, therefore, you want to suggest some other mechanism you need a really strong support for it.

O.

[Sriram]

I am not suggesting any other mechanism. I am merely saying that the brain is just a piece of flesh. A dead brain does nothing....just as a computer that is switched off does nothing.  There is something other than just the 'hardware' that causes things to happen.

There is the software (the mind), then the electricity (prana) and then finally, there is the user (Consciousness). All these things put together make things happen.

The user is the one who experiences the world through all the hardware and software.  Similarly, it is the Self or Consciousness or soul that experiences the world using these mechanisms. They are not an end in themselves.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You can then conclude that certain brain activity is associated with joy, beliefs etc.

True but that can only be a partial explanatory of what joy is and how it works.

We would be at something amounting to a full explanation were we not only able to create real joy in a mechanism but also fully understand how we achieved that.

[Gordon]

True but that can only be a partial explanatory of what joy is and how it works.

We would be at something amounting to a full explanation were we not only able to create real joy in a mechanism but also fully understand how we achieved that.

Or you could just enjoy the joy and leave it at that.

[ProfessorDavey]

I am not suggesting any other mechanism. I am merely saying that the brain is just a piece of flesh. A dead brain does nothing....just as a computer that is switched off does nothing.

But there is no evidence to support any claim that feelings of joy, consciousness etc continue to exist beyond irreversible and permanent brain death. There is plenty of evident to support the idea that these things are manifestations of our highly complex endocrine and neuro- physiology.

There is something other than just the 'hardware' that causes things to happen.

So having said you aren't suggesting any other mechanism you then posit the need for another mechanism. There is no evidence for any other mechanism beyond our complex endocrine and neuro- physiology and no reason to suspect there is anything needed beyond that complex endocrine and neuro- physiology.

[Sriram]

You don't get it.  I am just trying to go beyond the known mechanisms, not trying to create alternative ones.

The existing mechanisms do not go far enough to explain qualia and the existence of Life......the various layers that are required to explain a living against a dead person.

[ProfessorDavey]

You don't get it.  I am just trying to go beyond the known mechanisms, not trying to create alternative ones.

The existing mechanisms do not go far enough to explain qualia and the existence of Life

Why - as far as I can see physiology arising from, and driven by, evolution is perfectly capable of explaining these things. Sure we don't understand the details fully, but there isn't anything in the basic concepts which seem insufficient.

......the various layers that are required to explain a living against a dead person.

Actually what we call 'life' is just a type of self sustaining chemistry - we think it unique and important as we come at it from a biased perspective. In a cosmological sense it is merely a manifestation of fundamental chemistry and physics.

[Sriram]

You seem to know conclusively everything about everything. Your cup is full! So....nothing to discuss at all.....

[ProfessorDavey]

You seem to know conclusively everything about everything. Your cup is full! So....nothing to discuss at all.....

Which part of:

'Sure we don't understand the details fully ...' implies that I seem to know conclusively everything about everything?

I'm a scientist Sriram - my whole professional life is about trying to learn more about things we don't fully understand yet. No scientist would ever suggest they know everything about everything because that would be non-sense and were it to be the case we'd be putting ourselves out of a job.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why - as far as I can see physiology arising from, and driven by, evolution is perfectly capable of explaining these things. Sure we don't understand the details fully, but there isn't anything in the basic concepts which seem insufficient.
Actually what we call 'life' is just a type of self sustaining chemistry - we think it unique and important as we come at it from a biased perspective. In a cosmological sense it is merely a manifestation of fundamental chemistry and physics.

Evolution may have done it like a lot of things, but it can only be a partial explanatory for we need to know what it is evolution has actually gone and done.

There is also the matter of what emergence is...construction of a kit of parts or phenomenon not possessed by the parts?

[ProfessorDavey]

Evolution may have done it like a lot of things, but it can only be a partial explanatory for we need to know what it is evolution has actually gone and done.

Amplified traits that are most likely to be inherited as they are linked to better survival, better adaptation to varying environmental conditions or are co-inherited with the former.

Because that is what evolution via natural selection is all about.

And for humans, whose ability to survive is associated with intelligence, creativity and social behaviour all these neurological and endocrine phenomena (higher consciousness, feelings of joy, empathy etc etc) are clearly likely to lead to better survival and will therefore be amplified within the population.

[Maeght]

True but that can only be a partial explanatory of what joy is and how it works.

We would be at something amounting to a full explanation were we not only able to create real joy in a mechanism but also fully understand how we achieved that.

Maybe joy is just that brain activity.

[Maeght]

You don't get it.  I am just trying to go beyond the known mechanisms, not trying to create alternative ones.

The existing mechanisms do not go far enough to explain qualia and the existence of Life......the various layers that are required to explain a living against a dead person.

What's wrong with just saying we don't know? We don't know if current mechanisms go far enough.

[ProfessorDavey]

Maybe joy is just that brain activity.

Yup - that sounds about right.

On the one hand amazing if you are the person with that brain activity. But on the other hand just a set of complex chemical/electrical activities. That those complex chemical/electrical activities feel so great to the person experiencing them doesn't stop them fundamentally being a set of complex chemical/electrical activities.

[Sriram]

Saying that 'we don't know', is fine. But saying that what we know about evolution and chemical reactions is enough to explain Life and death....is too much. That is certainly not true.

[Sriram]

What's wrong with just saying we don't know? We don't know if current mechanisms go far enough.

That is where philosophical speculation based on experiences such as NDE's become necessary.

[Maeght]

Saying that 'we don't know', is fine. But saying that what we know about evolution and chemical reactions is enough to explain Life and death....is too much. That is certainly not true.

That is where philosophical speculation based on experiences such as NDE's become necessary.

Speculation, as we have agreed before, is fine. People can believe what they want, but if people make claims in a discussion they need to back up those claims for the discussion to be worthwhile. Science has been the best tool for giving us an understanding of the reality we all see around us (if we doubt that reality then discussions go nowhere) and has consistently explained phenomena which were previously considered supernatural. I'm not sure that philosophical speculation has done the same.

I can't say that I am particularly clear on what is meant by spiritual by the way.

[ProfessorDavey]

That is where philosophical speculation based on experiences such as NDE's become necessary.

For which we have sound explanations based on electrical and chemical brain activity, likely linked to oxygen deprivation (well actually CO2 rise) that occurs near to death but also occurs in other situations where the individual isn't close to death at all. And of course the phenomenon can be mimicked experimentally based on our understanding of the triggers and mechanisms involved.

Do we know everything about these phenomena - nope - is there anything to suggest that they aren't caused by alterations in the chemical and electrical activities within the body and brain, nope.

[Gordon]

That is where philosophical speculation based on experiences such as NDE's become necessary.

Not really: that someone reports feelings that they ascribe to this 'NDE' notion seems to me to be, fundamentally, no different to someone reporting being frightened on having a nightmare - they are both internalised neurological events.

[ProfessorDavey]

Saying that 'we don't know', is fine.

What I said was that we don't know everything - that is different from knowing nothing. And where you know something the best approach moving forward is to take the evidence you have as a starting point to addition more knowledge and details, ultimately to know more in due course. To suggest that the best approach is to simply 'bin' the existing evidence because 'we don't know everything' and start down a route which is evidence-free and also intellectually incoherence is bonkers.

But saying that what we know about evolution and chemical reactions is enough to explain Life and death....is too much. That is certainly not true.

Again, that isn't what I said - my point was that there is very good evidence that the phenomena you mention are caused by, and manifestations of, physiological chemical and electrical activities within the brain and elsewhere in our bodies. Even though we do not have full details there is nothing inconsistent in considering that these phenomena are entirely driven by and manifestations of, physiological chemical and electrical activities. And further the origins of these phenomena are entirely consistent with the concept of evolution as they likely confer survival advantage and are hereditary. So there is no clunky 'that cannot be possible' - it is all eminently possible and plausible and there is huge amounts of evidence to support it, even if we aren't yet close to understanding the full mechanistic details.

[jeremyp]

Saying that 'we don't know', is fine. But saying that what we know about evolution and chemical reactions is enough to explain Life and death....is too much. That is certainly not true.

I don't agree. In my opinion it probably is true and science is the only method that can tell which of the two of us is right.

[Sriram]

This kind of 'Yes it is'....'No it isn't'...arguments could go on forever. 

I am of the view that our existing knowledge of evolution, chemical reactions etc. is only meant to explain mechanisms. They don't explain causes. Like explaining the running of a car through its petrol, pistons, wheels etc....without mentioning its driver. It is just not good enough and misses crucial elements of the process.

We have enough hints from scientific theories themselves  (see OP) to form hypotheses about probable causes.  That is my point.

You can try this also...

https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2019/01/13/beyond-science/

Thanks guys...

[ProfessorDavey]

Like explaining the running of a car through its petrol, pistons, wheels etc....without mentioning its driver. It is just not good enough and misses crucial elements of the process.

Really poor analogy as a car remains a car whether or not there is a driver sitting in it. And of course there are autonomous cars that require no driver. A driver is not a necessary element for a car to function.

And humans and other living species aren't like cars. Cars are top-down designed, living species are bottom-up evolved.

[Maeght]

This kind of 'Yes it is'....'No it isn't'...arguments could go on forever. 

I am of the view that our existing knowledge of evolution, chemical reactions etc. is only meant to explain mechanisms. They don't explain causes. Like explaining the running of a car through its petrol, pistons, wheels etc....without mentioning its driver. It is just not good enough and misses crucial elements of the process.

We have enough hints from scientific theories themselves  (see OP) to form hypotheses about probable causes.  That is my point.

You can try this also...

https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2019/01/13/beyond-science/

Thanks guys...

What do you think reading about your beliefs and your thoughts on science would achieve beyond knowing what you believe and think about science, when we already know about that?