How to prove that GOD exists from a scientific point of view?

[Hans Blaster]

That is of course a good question.
However the inability to answer it does not affect whether or not it exists.

Gravity happens. Nobody can say "why". . Gravity is just a name used to describe behaviour of what normally happens from analysis of a patttern that repeats. It is not the description of an underlying mechanism for it. Labelling it as "gravity" or deciding it is inverse square does not "explain" it. It observes it.

Are you proposing that gravity is the force that mediates between the spirit and the brain? If not, this is irrelevant.

I suggest those who doubt separable consciousness, read a book called "the self does not die"

It is a compendium of so called veridical experiences, in which a second party has confirmed the details of what was experienced during an NDE. The details are way beyond reasonable doubt that those who were "out of body" did indeed witness events they could never have known from the standpoint of consciousness as a process of a brain. Not least because during cardiac arrest death and so flat ECG occurs after seconds. There can be no consciousness then if it is a brain process. Yet it is during those periods conscious experience is described.

There is some fascinating stuff in there.

No, it isn't. Not interesting at all.

 

[Hans Blaster]

you won't be able to understand them.

What "them" can't I understand, magnetic fields?

 

[Tinker Grey]

What "them" can't I understand, magnetic fields?

The first rule of DK club is that members don't know they're in DK club. (I don't mean you. I hope that's obvious.)

 

[Hans Blaster]

The first rule of DK club is that members don't know they're in DK club. (I don't mean you. I hope that's obvious.)

Is that the club with the foil head gear?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Is that the club with the foil head gear?

Sorry for being too cute. I meant Dunning-Kruger.

 

[Kylie]

Seriously. Saying " science" this and " scientific" that
with no evidence or citation is popular as a attempt
to fluff up credibility. It doesn't work.

Yeah, I see it all the time. "Our energy water has been exposed to vibrations which have been scientifically shown to increase its energy, allowing you to actualize your full potentialness!"

Translation: They shook the water.

 

[Kylie]

Occam's razor would also suggest that we discard materialism, because it proffers a step for which there is no need.

If we simply begin with the proposition that reality is the product of interacting fields, as quantum physics suggests, then there is no need for materialism. The fields themselves are capable of producing complex patterns, at least equal to, and quite likely far in excess of the patterns that any material entity can produce.

So why propose that a complex set of interacting fields first gives rise to a material world, and then this material world gives rise to a complex set of physical phenomena that we experience as consciousness?

Why not simply apply Occam's razor and assume that it's the fields themselves that are the source of consciousness, and that the material world is simply a manifestation thereof?

That's what Occam's razor would suggest that we do.

Why not take it to the extreme and stick with the brain-in-a-jar idea?

 

[Kylie]

Trial and error assumes that that which is evolving has a concept that it is evolving.

We don't see that (creatures remain largely oblivious, to which evolution is where).

No it doesn't.

All that matters is that individual animals in a population have slight differences. These slight differences are essentially random. But they will have either a neutral effect, an advantageous effect, or a detrimental effect.

If the effect is neutral, then it doesn't make much difference. If the effect is advantageous, then the animal is more likely to prosper and produce more offspring - which are likely to carry the genes that cause this advantageous difference. If the effect is detrimental, then the animal is more likely to die earlier and thus produce fewer offspring.

This is how new traits get spread throughout the population. Animals with advantageous changes spread the genes because they can have more children, so after several generations, the genes for the change are found in more and more members of the population.

None of this requires that the animals be aware of it.

 

[partinobodycular]

Why not take it to the extreme and stick with the brain-in-a-jar idea?

Because we're trying to have a rational discussion without resorting to contemptuous hyperbole.

If you have some rational argument as to why quantum fields can't give rise to consciousness I'd certainly love to hear it. Otherwise it would seem that giving rise to consciousness should be no more problematic than giving rise to matter, and Occam's razor suggests that consciousness being the simpler explanation, is more likely to be the correct one.

 

[Kylie]

Because we're trying to have a rational discussion without resorting to contemptuous hyperbole.

If you have some rational argument as to why quantum fields can't give rise to consciousness I'd certainly love to hear it. Otherwise it would seem that giving rise to consciousness should be no more problematic than giving rise to matter, and Occam's razor suggests that consciousness being the simpler explanation, is more likely to be the correct one.

Why not say that quantum fields create consciousness by giving rise to matter?

You are saying that if "A leads to B leads to C" is valid, then why not just get rid of B and say, "A leads to C?" However, you are missing the point that B may be an integral step of getting to C.

 

[SelfSim]

If you have some rational argument as to why quantum fields can't give rise to consciousness I'd certainly love to hear it.
Otherwise it would seem that giving rise to consciousness should be no more problematic than giving rise to matter, and Occam's razor suggests that consciousness being the simpler explanation, is more likely to be the correct one.

Ok then, so propose an objective test for your hypothesis that: 'Quantum fields might produce consciousness in the absence of the organ known as a brain'.

Good luck with that .. because unless you can do it, you don't have anything submissable to a reasoned Occam's razor heuristic.

 

[partinobodycular]

You are saying that if "A leads to B leads to C" is valid, then why not just get rid of B and say, "A leads to C?" However, you are missing the point that B may be an integral step of getting to C.

You are absolutely right, B may indeed be an essential part of the process. All I'm saying is that Occam's razor suggests that all else being equal, since "A leads to C" is the simpler explanation, it's more likely to be the correct one.

 

[partinobodycular]

Ok then, so propose an objective test for your hypothesis that: 'Quantum fields might produce consciousness in the absence of the organ known as a brain'.

Good luck with that ..

And I wholeheartedly agree, but by the same token I don't think that you can prove the opposite either.

because unless you can do it, you don't have anything submissable to a reasoned Occam's razor heuristic.

Except as @Kylie pointed out "A leads to C" is simpler than "A leads to B leads to C" which I believe is the whole point of Occam's razor. All things being equal, the simpler explanation is more likely to be the correct one.

 

[SelfSim]

You are absolutely right, B may indeed be an essential part of the process. All I'm saying is that Occam's razor suggests that all else being equal, since "A leads to C" is the simpler explanation, it's more likely to be the correct one.

That's not Occam's Razor. Occam's is about choosing the pathway that leads to a better understanding .. There is none of this looking for 'the correct one' of interest to the science you're basing your idea on.

 

[SelfSim]

And I wholeheartedly agree, but by the same token I don't think that you can prove the opposite either.

Don't have to .. Its up to you to support your hypothesis (if it is one at all).

Except as @Kylie pointed out "A leads to C" is simpler than "A leads to B leads to C" which I believe is the whole point of Occam's razor. All things being equal, the simpler explanation is more likely to be the correct one.

That's not Occam's Razor. Occam's is about choosing the pathway that leads to a better understanding .. There is none of this looking for 'the correct one' of interest to the science you're attempting to base your idea on.

 

[partinobodycular]

That's not Occam's Razor.

Really. If you don't mind I'll stick with the following from Britannica:

Occam’s razor, also spelled Ockham’s razor, also called law of economy or law of parsimony, principle stated by the Scholastic philosopher William of Ockham (1285–1347/49) that pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate, “plurality should not be posited without necessity.” The principle gives precedence to simplicity: of two competing theories, the simpler explanation of an entity is to be preferred. The principle is also expressed as “Entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity.”

Under this principle, "A leads to C" is definitely simpler than "A leads to B leads to C".

And I wholeheartedly agree, but by the same token I don't think that you can prove the opposite either.

Don't have to .. Its up to you to support your hypothesis (if it is one at all).

Let me get this straight. I admitted that I can't prove that I'm right. And all that I'm asking is for you to be intellectually honest enough to admit that you can't prove that you're right either.

Is that too hard for you to do?

 

[SelfSim]

Really. If you don't mind I'll stick with the following from Britannica:

.. and therein lies the problem with looking up dictionary definitions .. one either gets a history lesson, or a generalised definition which is not specific to the context at hand.

Since the first goal in science goal is to understand, and the simplest theory that agrees with data is the best path to understanding, then that's clearly the best theory. That's it, that's the Razor, nothing more.
People who believe understanding (or knowledge) is 'a something out there' to be discovered (and therefore exists independently from their mind prior ot its discovery), actually believe that the Razor leads to How Things Actually Work, (as if the universe was a simulation made by a fairly inexpert programmer who therefore had to keep it simple).

There is nothing invalid about: A leads to B, which leads to C, when there is direct evidence supporting each of those steps.

Under this principle, "A leads to C" is definitely simpler than "A leads to B leads to C".

Invalid application of the Razor, as scientific investigation never merely assumes that the simplest physical behaviours must therefore be correct (see above).

Let me get this straight. I admitted that I can't prove that I'm right. And all that I'm asking is for you to be intellectually honest enough to admit that you can't prove that you're right either.

Is that too hard for you to do?

You're asking the wrong question (of the wrong person) .. I'm not trying to prove anything. There is plenty of evidence from psychological experiments, reported by their human subjects, who were observably using their brains in making these reports. See here:

A study in 2016 looked at lesions in specific areas of the brainstem that were associated with coma and vegetative states. A small region of the rostral dorsolateral pontine tegmentum in the brainstem was suggested to drive consciousness through functional connectivity with two cortical regions, the left ventral anterior insular cortex, and the pregenual anterior cingulate cortex. These three regions may work together as a triad to maintain consciousness.

Do we really have to go into how they homed in on those particular regions of the brain, in their quest to further understand consciousness?

 

[Hans Blaster]

the creator of the magnetic fields doesn't know you nor you Him.
We're not on the same page.
You turned this to something else like a bully.
silly though.
move on.

Magnetic fields are created by moving currents. What does this have to do with the thread?

 

[Kylie]

You are absolutely right, B may indeed be an essential part of the process. All I'm saying is that Occam's razor suggests that all else being equal, since "A leads to C" is the simpler explanation, it's more likely to be the correct one.

And yet all the evidence we have indicates that B is an essential component. Why then do you leave it out?

 

[Kylie]

Except as @Kylie pointed out "A leads to C" is simpler than "A leads to B leads to C" which I believe is the whole point of Occam's razor. All things being equal, the simpler explanation is more likely to be the correct one.

You did not understand my point.

Leaving out essential steps does not make something simpler.