Has any advance in science been as beneficial as religion?

[Grim Reaper 6]

2 hours ago, psyche101 said:

As great an engineer as he was, he was wrong often when he dabbled at science. 

I have often wondered about that myself. Some of his scientific concepts are certainly not excepted today. But, there is one project he attempted to build that wa never completed, because of a lack of funding. This was theory that by setting up transmission towers at specific location around the world that electricity could be transmitted wireless, and that the current could be extracted from the Earths magnetic field. In this manner mankind would have a limitless supply of free energy and he wanted to do it at no cost to anyone.

While he never succeeded in the concept of limitless energy and worldwide wireless power transmission he was the father of this technology and it is being used and improved upon today according to the principles and designs he developed over 100 years ago. Below is a Peer Reviewed article that explains and expands upon Tesla's concepts and discoveries.

Critical Review of Recent Progress in Mid-Range Wireless Power Transfer 

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/38025906.pdf

 

[lightly]

I gotta say that I think the medical science advancements which developed treatments, in the nick of time,which have kept me alive past the expected expiration date ! .  .  Seem to have been more beneficial than Sunday School was? 

[Horta]

On 3/31/2021 at 12:53 PM, psyche101 said:

 

 Millions of years of learning all combined to become what we know as consiouness. 

Elegantly simple yet powerful by application. And it makes much more sense than man's philosophies of spiritual ideologies. Also it's accountable to evolution. As such, I don't see how it's not clearly the very best explanation of consiouness to date. 

There's a problem there that creates quite a hurdle for scientists like Graziano ie. what people accept by the term "consciousness" to begin with. He does offer a simple and elegant explanation, but if you have ever seen him discuss it (even with other scientists), something can be obvious. People are often stuck in the "mind body duality" concept, even though they might realise intellectually that no such thing exists, underneath it all they still can't shake the intuitive feeling in a personal sense. Or to put it another way, people have trouble conceptualising what he is saying because it seems so different and possibly anathema to what they feel and experience every day. It simply doesn't compute, as they say. Even some neuroscientists.

Although no doubt that are academics who do understand it quite well and even value it, but are hesitant for a variety of reasons.

His basic underlying idea is that people don't have "non physical" experiences (though they can be completely convinced otherwise). Therefore it isn't possible to really study consciousness as such, it's only possible to study the reality of why people claim to be conscious. He uses some brilliant analogies but people can become quite affronted if you take away the "magic".

Strangely there are academics who accept the "non physical" component of consciousness, yet look for physical explanations, which is probably why the feild moves so slowly. We still have all sorts of definitions of consciousness that themselves can't be supported, and as people like Dennett point out, can amount to definitions of something that doesn't exist in reality anyway.

We also have popular nonsense such as Chalmers "hard problem" of consciousness, which illustrates the point as it's really just mind/body duality by another name, based largely on a plea to personal ignorance. He might as well be claiming that science can never explain why the holy spirit descends and animates our minds.  If we removed the bias and extended this logic to all other phenomena, there might be very few things we could claim to understand. There would be "hard problems" and "explanatory gaps" galore. Yet it doesn't exist outside of our own biases and illusions IMO.

I'm not sure this subject doesn't amount to an atheists version of a paranormal belief quite often. Where even rational atheists require scientific explanations to satisfy their belief that they experience something that is magic. 

I still favour the explanation given by Jaynes, but I don't see it conflicting with Graziano anyway. It's more of a psychological explanation, where Graziano offers a more fundamental and technical explanation. One of the strengths in Jaynes ideas is that it offers a very good explanation for the proliferation of religious beliefs.

Though I have all sorts of doubts that "consciousness" evolved biologically, in the strictest physical sense. I think it is a more recent phenomena than we believe and is learned culturally and socially. Though when differences in definition are accounted for, there isn't necessarily conflict there either and both viewpoints can be correct.

 

Edited April 8, 2021 by Horta

[Horta]

On 4/3/2021 at 2:57 AM, lightly said:

" The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of it's existence."   Nikola Tesla 

Is there a definition of "non physical phenomena" to go with that, or perhaps an example?

[+Hammerclaw]

44 minutes ago, Horta said:

Is there a definition of "non physical phenomena" to go with that, or perhaps an example?

The Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) project is a great example of this comprehensive approach to the subject — a project that ran from 1979 until 2007, it aimed to examine if there was factual basis for theories in mind/matter interaction, or extrasensory perception (ESP). Highly significant statistical deviation, far beyond what one could expect from chance, was seen there. Another example would be the University of Virginia’s Division of Perceptual Studies, in which they explore such phenomena as reincarnation, near death experiences (NDEs), and out of body experiences (OBEs).   cosmicscientist.com

[psyche101]

1 hour ago, Horta said:

There's a problem there that creates quite a hurdle for scientists like Graziano ie. what people accept by the term "consciousness" to begin with. He does offer a simple and elegant explanation, but if you have ever seen him discuss it (even with other scientists), something can be obvious. People are often stuck in the "mind body duality" concept, even though they might realise intellectually that no such thing exists, underneath it all they still can't shake the intuitive feeling in a personal sense. Or to put it another way, people have trouble conceptualising what he is saying because it seems so different and possibly anathema to what they feel and experience every day. It simply doesn't compute, as they say. Even some neuroscientists.

Although no doubt that are academics who do understand it quite well and even value it, but are hesitant for a variety of reasons.

His basic underlying idea is that people don't have "non physical" experiences (though they can be completely convinced otherwise). Therefore it isn't possible to really study consciousness as such, it's only possible to study the reality of why people claim to be conscious. He uses some brilliant analogies but people can become quite affronted if you take away the "magic".

Strangely there are academics who accept the "non physical" component of consciousness, yet look for physical explanations, which is probably why the feild moves so slowly. We still have all sorts of definitions of consciousness that themselves can't be supported, and as people like Dennett point out, can amount to definitions of something that doesn't exist in reality anyway.

We also have popular nonsense such as Chalmers "hard problem" of consciousness, which illustrates the point as it's really just mind/body duality by another name, based largely on a plea to personal ignorance. He might as well be claiming that science can never explain why the holy spirit descends and animates our minds.  If we removed the bias and extended this logic to all other phenomena, there might be very few things we could claim to understand. There would be "hard problems" and "explanatory gaps" galore. Yet it doesn't exist outside of our own biases and illusions IMO.

I'm not sure this subject doesn't amount to an atheists version of a paranormal belief quite often. Where even rational atheists require scientific explanations to satisfy their belief that they experience something that is magic. 

I still favour the explanation given by Jaynes, but I don't see it conflicting with Graziano anyway. It's more of a psychological explanation, where Graziano offers a more fundamental and technical explanation. One of the strengths in Jaynes ideas is that it offers a very good explanation for the proliferation of religious beliefs.

Though I have all sorts of doubts that "consciousness" evolved biologically, in the strictest physical sense. I think it is a more recent phenomena than we believe and is learned culturally and socially. Though when differences in definition are accounted for, there isn't necessarily conflict there either and both viewpoints can be correct.

 

I find it more bizarre that people still stick with the duality concept in this day and age. Computers demonstrate a client server architecture which should make it easy to distinguish and illustrate the biggest flaw in the duality concept. It can't work without some type of God figure. Pantheistic, mono or poly, there's still a "server" involved. That's where duality will fall apart everytime. The "server" is an idea to make an idea work. It's just compounding mistakes. 

However, regarding that non physical part you're referring to as "physical" evolution of consciousness, would that not be covered in the neural network I mentioned on the previous page? The mental workshop that cognitive scientists refer to? I would have thought that quite neatly wraps up how we come up with religious and spiritual concepts with regards to explaining observations? If agree there's no conflict with Jaynes, the human ability to introspect as he put it is what the mental workshop is proposed to actually do. I don't think he and Graziano would be in conflict at all. 

[XenoFish]

I'd say that the best advance by science over religion is neuroscience and psychology. We know that the "god voices" that people hear is either a delusion or schizophrenia. 

[Horta]

7 hours ago, psyche101 said:

I find it more bizarre that people still stick with the duality concept in this day and age.

It's probably not surprising for people in general, it might be more surprising when they don't. It sure feels (on the surface of it) that there's something magical and non physical going on. There are all sorts of cultural beliefs that reinforce it also.

It's stranger when academics who have access to the science and really should be working within a scientific framework basically give up and claim it can't be understood..it's magic. 

Quote

However, regarding that non physical part you're referring to as "physical" evolution of consciousness, would that not be covered in the neural network I mentioned on the previous page? The mental workshop that cognitive scientists refer to? I would have thought that quite neatly wraps up how we come up with religious and spiritual concepts with regards to explaining observations? If agree there's no conflict with Jaynes, the human ability to introspect as he put it is what the mental workshop is proposed to actually do. I don't think he and Graziano would be in conflict at all. 

The structures and processes that allow for consciousness (brain/nervous system) are obviously a result of biological evolution. Though I doubt that it logically follows that consciousness is an innate property in humans. Though Jaynes work doesn't delve deeply into the physical processes. Another area where he differs from most modern work is that it seems to infer at least some type of consciousness and the processes leading to it as being innate. What Jaynes is implying is that without the right social environment and without a form of communication (language) we would not be conscious. For him it is a social and linguistics based phenomena that is learned.

Though definitions are important here and Jaynes uses a very specific definition that might be narrower than most. I agree more with his definition. Though I know people like Graziano put large emphasis on the social nature of humans too, not sure to what extent. 

What he is really talking about is the change to a modern mentality, from an earlier one that was more instinctive, to a more reasoned and introspective one with an inner dialogue (that's a hugely simplified description though).

According to this idea religion didn't exist before this shift in mentality, but is a direct consequence of it. The reasons for this are fascinating and compelling IMO (but lengthy). This is different to normal ideas that have religion as being an innate cultural trait among humans for various other reasons.

There are also some predictions that could be made from this (and about language) that can be found among isolated and non literate people, that seem to support his ideas.

There are other difference but overall I doubt there's enough difference to be incompatible, I see much of modern research supporting his ideas (indirectly, if not directly). Though I can see where he was wrong about certain things, the thrust of his idea has merit IMO. Jaynes also approached it from a historical, cultural and psychological pov almost half a century ago, rather than a more strictly scientific one with access to the latest in neuroscience.

 

 

 

[lightly]

13 hours ago, Horta said:

Is there a definition of "non physical phenomena" to go with that, or perhaps an example?

  I don't know of Tesla giving an example.  He also spoke of  "a core  knowledge" which exists 'somewhere' outside of us.,that he said he hadn't yet accessed ..."but I Know it exists" .     Tesla was sorta Out There. 

. . Personally'  I wonder if Life ITSELF ..is non physical.   (as crazy and ignorant as that may sound)  .  Yes, we can see the biological structures it inhabits and animates ...and we can observe bio electrical processes...but can we actually See Life ITSELF  .  ?    Further, I wonder if Life and true inner awareness of our being are one and the same.    ?.?

       I know how kooky my thinking is...or at least seems...so ' I'm ready for my punishment .  Or, I could even shut up about it if it's a 'bother' .     

[Horta]

7 hours ago, lightly said:

  I don't know of Tesla giving an example.  He also spoke of  "a core  knowledge" which exists 'somewhere' outside of us.,that he said he hadn't yet accessed ..."but I Know it exists" .     Tesla was sorta Out There. 

. . Personally'  I wonder if Life ITSELF ..is non physical.   (as crazy and ignorant as that may sound)  .  Yes, we can see the biological structures it inhabits and animates ...and we can observe bio electrical processes...but can we actually See Life ITSELF  .  ?    Further, I wonder if Life and true inner awareness of our being are one and the same.    ?.?

       I know how kooky my thinking is...or at least seems...so ' I'm ready for my punishment .  Or, I could even shut up about it if it's a 'bother' .     

He was a weird and wonderful fella lol.

So a type of elan vital or vitalism? These aren't unusual beliefs at all and they have had their advocates at one time or other, fallen out of favour for quite a while now though.

[Talkofthecentury]

On 3/24/2021 at 5:10 AM, DingoLingo said:

ok.. got to ask.. what do you class as a enlightened mind ? .. one persons enlightened mind is anothers crack pot and visa versa.. 

Hats is enlightened.. if you read his posts on this very thread it will show you that.. 

The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing - Socrates

 

Socrates is chill, historically the first enlightened one. 

[jmccr8]

1 hour ago, Talkofthecentury said:

Socrates is chill, historically the first enlightened one. 

Hi Talk

I don't know about that, pretty sure the guy who figured out how to start a fire was considered enlightened but there are no records about who it was.

jmccr8

[Talkofthecentury]

2 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Talk

I don't know about that, pretty sure the guy who figured out how to start a fire was considered enlightened but there are no records about who it was.

jmccr8

Hello jmccr8, 

I believe you are confusing humans with their pre-evolution.

Edited April 18, 2021 by Talkofthecentury

[jmccr8]

10 minutes ago, Talkofthecentury said:

Hello jmccr8, 

I believe you are confusing humans with their pre-evolution.

Hi Talk

We are the seeds of our ancestors and am talking about the progression of development we are here and have what we have because of the last 2 million years of that eureka moment. 

jmccr8

[Timothy]

On 4/3/2021 at 2:57 AM, lightly said:

" The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of it's existence."   Nikola Tesla 

What if he simply meant studying things which we can’t see with our own eyes/feel with our hands etc?

I’ve never seen an explanation of the quote by Tesla himself.

I wonder what he would think about science and technology if he were alive today. 

[Talkofthecentury]

37 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Talk

We are the seeds of our ancestors and am talking about the progression of development we are here and have what we have because of the last 2 million years of that eureka moment. 

jmccr8

The whole thing about enlightenment is it deals with spiritual wisdom.  Socrates was the first to purpose the idea of the soul. I’m not sure if the predecessor of humans thought of themselves as more than physical?

Edited April 18, 2021 by Talkofthecentury

[jmccr8]

13 hours ago, Talkofthecentury said:

The whole thing about enlightenment is it deals with spiritual wisdom.  Socrates was the first to purpose the idea of the soul. I’m not sure if the predecessor of humans thought of themselves as more than physical?

Hi Talk

What is soul to you? Socrates came to his conclusion because those that came before him taught him, he may be the first recorded but not likely the inventor of the soul concept.

jmccr8

[Talkofthecentury]

1 hour ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Talk

What is soul to you? Socrates came to his conclusion because those that came before him taught him, he may be the first recorded but not likely the inventor of the soul concept.

jmccr8

Socrates was a nonconformist meaning his belief did not exist before him. I would describe a soul as metaphysical self.

[Boppo22]

Shirley, you jest!

[Wepwawet]

On 4/18/2021 at 10:07 AM, Talkofthecentury said:

Socrates was the first to purpose the idea of the soul. I’m not sure if the predecessor of humans thought of themselves as more than physical?

The Ancient Egyptians beat Socrates to the concept of the soul by about 2,700 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egyptian_conception_of_the_soul

[Mr Guitar]

Just about anything. All religion has brought brought about is divisiveness, strife, hate, and war. People don't need religion to act in a harmonious manner with others - it's ingrained that you either adhere to the standards of those around you or you're cast out (or worse). You don't need a preacher to tell you that - just common sense. Science has brought better medical care, safer food and water, and greater understanding of the world around us (as opposed to believing in a 'sky daddy' to take care of things). 

[Talkofthecentury]

On 5/23/2021 at 3:13 AM, Wepwawet said:

The Ancient Egyptians beat Socrates to the concept of the soul by about 2,700 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egyptian_conception_of_the_soul

Thanks for the info.

[Ogbin]

On 3/22/2021 at 11:12 PM, ted hughes said:

Has any advance in science or knowledge brought about the benefits that religion has brought to society?

At one time science was proving the existence of God? Religion is mans attempt gaining access in to heaven through works? And knowledge used wisely is always beneficial for any and all societies? 

[Duke Wellington]

On 3/23/2021 at 6:12 AM, ted hughes said:

Has any advance in science or knowledge brought about the benefits that religion has brought to society?

I would say no, not one.

All its done is lead people morally astray.

[Tatetopa]

4 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:

I would say no, not one.

All its done is lead people morally astray.

Good for you.  I hope you will be able to stand up for your beliefs.  I suppose this will be your last post before you give up the internet and all things electric.  Farewell.