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

[SelfSim]

Ok lets simplify. I said that the nature of consciousness (qualia) cannot be measured by the scientific method because it only deals in quantitative terms. This conclusion is not a feeling I have. This is based on what even the original developer Galileo of the science method said.

A key moment in the scientific revolution was Galileo’s declaration that mathematics was to be the language of the new science, that the new science was to have a purely quantitative vocabulary. But Galileo realized that you can’t capture consciousness in these terms, as consciousness is an essentially quality-involving phenomenon. So Galileo decided that we have to put consciousness outside of the domain of science; after we’d done that, everything else could be captured in mathematics.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/does-consciousness-pervade-the-universe/

A lot happened since Galileo's time. Neuroscience has its own measurable ways of dealing with consciousness.

I'm not warming to you theme of there being nothing beyond 'mind'. Science cannot rule out the possibility that there may be a mind independent 'something' producing our perceptions (via our senses) .. At present, we just don't know .. There may be 'pointers'.

A sci-fi hypothetical question for your consideration arises: Do you consider it possible that some communicative alien intelligence may be encountered, somewhere in the universe, in the future, which might inform us about our suspicions about the (human) mind independent 'something' producing our perceptions? If so, then that may be a possible test for science .. right there .. so we cannot rule it out.

 

[Astrid]

Ok lets simplify. I said that the nature of consciousness (qualia) cannot be measured by the scientific method because it only deals in quantitative terms. This conclusion is not a feeling I have. This is based on what even the original developer Galileo of the science method said.

A key moment in the scientific revolution was Galileo’s declaration that mathematics was to be the language of the new science, that the new science was to have a purely quantitative vocabulary. But Galileo realized that you can’t capture consciousness in these terms, as consciousness is an essentially quality-involving phenomenon. So Galileo decided that we have to put consciousness outside of the domain of science; after we’d done that, everything else could be captured in mathematics.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/does-consciousness-pervade-the-universe/

Simplified further.
You feel that a guy who died in 1642
represents leading edge science.

 

[AV1611VET]

Simplified further.
You feel that a guy who died in 1642
represents leading edge science.

 

[dlamberth]

The concept of beauty is entirely subjective. There are objective markers as to whether someone is conscious or not.

Beholding beauty, yes is subjective in nature. As is Love, music, the arts, poetry, compassion...ect. That we are aware of these things can not be separated from consciousness. Which brings into play the subjective aspect of consciousness.

 

[Kylie]

Beholding beauty, yes is subjective in nature. As is Love, music, the arts, poetry, compassion...ect. That we are aware of these things can not be separated from consciousness. Which brings into play the subjective aspect of consciousness.

That does not mean that consciousness is subjective.

 

[dlamberth]

That does not mean that consciousness is subjective.

What it means is that the actual activity of consciousness as experienced by a person is totally subjective. Two people can look at the same thing or listen to the same music and each will see or hear it differently.

 

[SelfSim]

What it means is that the actual activity of consciousness as experienced by a person is totally subjective. Two people can look at the same thing or listen to the same music and each will see or hear it differently.

Everything underlined there are, objectively, 'actual activities'.

 

[Kylie]

What it means is that the actual activity of consciousness as experienced by a person is totally subjective. Two people can look at the same thing or listen to the same music and each will see or hear it differently.

The experience of consciousness is not the same thing as the consciousness itself.

 

[dlamberth]

Everything underlined there are, objectively, 'actual activities'.

Being a Human Being with human conscious experiences which are always subjective, (we aren't robots) I have no idea how the human experience can be objective. So I have to disagree. When younger I climbed mountains. The vista from the top was always for me a moment of spiritual high, which was totally subjective.

This subject points towards one of the reasons why Mystics of the various spiritual traditions are not understood.

 

[SelfSim]

Being a Human Being with human conscious experiences which are always subjective, (we aren't robots) I have no idea how the human experience can be objective. So I have to disagree. When younger I climbed mountains. The vista from the top was always for me a moment of spiritual high, which was totally subjective.

This subject points towards one of the reasons why Mystics of the various spiritual traditions are not understood.

'Objectivity' is defined by the scientific method itself. Wherever the method is able to be applied, (as decided by way of its criterion of testability), objectivity is determined.

You'll find this differs from broadly defined dictionary definitions, which are usually so generalised to the point of practical uselessness only ever producing circularity .. unlike science's definitions.

 

[AV1611VET]

Being a Human Being with human conscious experiences which are always subjective, (we aren't robots) I have no idea how the human experience can be objective. So I have to disagree. When younger I climbed mountains. The vista from the top was always for me a moment of spiritual high, which was totally subjective.

This subject points towards one of the reasons why Mystics of the various spiritual traditions are not understood.

My pastor says this is the reason Satan took Jesus up into a high mountain, thinking it would work.

Matthew 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
9 And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.
10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

 

[SelfSim]

...
10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, ..

Interesting .. so who wrote it? (Ie: given that it was already written?)
Did Satan ask for the evidence?

 

[Astrid]

Being a Human Being with human conscious experiences which are always subjective, (we aren't robots) I have no idea how the human experience can be objective. So I have to disagree. When younger I climbed mountains. The vista from the top was always for me a moment of spiritual high, which was totally subjective.

This subject points towards one of the reasons why Mystics of the various spiritual traditions are not understood.

Maybe if you say just what you mean by the word subjective.

Whether a mountain top is exhilarating or not is up
to the individual. See you v St Augustine for example.

Whether you or he were conscious at the time is not
a matter of how anyone feels about it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Interesting .. so who wrote it? (Ie: given that it was already written?)

Moses.

Deuteronomy 10:20 Thou shalt fear the LORD thy God; him shalt thou serve, and to him shalt thou cleave, and swear by his name.

 

[stevevw]

Then you should have no problem providing the scientific studies that were done to establish those facts.

The fact I am talking about is that consciousness is qualia. This is well acknowledged. As mentioned there are no facts about consciousness at present as far as verifying its fundamental nature. But we can say that conscious experience can only be understood from the subject and this is about qualitative experiences.

So in principle as science can only deal with quantifying the world then consciousness is beyond science. Science can only describe the behavior of consciousness, it cannot explain what it actually is.

In fact science cannot even tell us what matter is. It can only describe its behavior. So if we don't even know the fundamental nature of matter how can science help with consciousness.

 

[stevevw]

Simplified further.
You feel that a guy who died in 1642
represents leading edge science.

Its not about any particular theory. He contributed to the development of the actual science method which we still use today. Which is that science works with quantities and not qualities of the world. That' s why we don't use science to measure love, or joy or pain and consciousness because they are all about quality phenomena.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Its not about any particular theory. He contributed to the development of the actual science method which we still use today. Which is that science works with quantities and not qualities of the world. That' s why we don't use science to measure love, or joy or pain and consciousness because they are all about quality phenomena.

I don't think your getting it. The methods of science aren't determined by the first person to do something. Science uses math *because* it *is* useful, not because Galileo said it was useful.

As for the scientific examination of consciousness or mind states I would suggest you look to psychology and neurobiology. (These are in fact sciences.)

 

[stevevw]

A lot happened since Galileo's time. Neuroscience has its own measurable ways of dealing with consciousness.

Yes but its still a quantifying discipline. It can only describe the correlates to consciousness. It cannot account for the experience itself, what it is. Any theory of consciousness needs to address this issue.

I'm not warming to you theme of there being nothing beyond 'mind'. Science cannot rule out the possibility that there may be a mind independent 'something' producing our perceptions (via our senses) .. At present, we just don't know .. There may be 'pointers'.

But the pointers seems to say that whatever the explanation is it has to include a qualitative aspect which is the subjects experiences which cannot be reduced to mechanical processes.

A sci-fi hypothetical question for your consideration arises: Do you consider it possible that some communicative alien intelligence may be encountered, somewhere in the universe, in the future, which might inform us about our suspicions about the (human) mind independent 'something' producing our perceptions? If so, then that may be a possible test for science .. right there .. so we cannot rule it out.

How would we test for that. If there was such aliens then we would have our answer if they claimed to know and can show us.

But its interesting that we pose these thought experiments like the Simulation theory and Chalmers Zombie thought experiment. The fact that we contemplate these sorts of things for me only shows that we look beyond our world for answers because we intuitively know consciousness is something more than a material thing.

 

[Astrid]

Its not about any particular theory. He contributed to the development of the actual science method which we still use today. Which is that science works with quantities and not qualities of the world. That' s why we don't use science to measure love, or joy or pain and consciousness because they are all about quality phenomena.

A lot of people contributed and many if not most such .
we're not positive contributions.

Love and joy are states of consciousness, so
don't present that it's equivalently ineffable
with consciusness itself.

In the event one gets the impression that you are
merely going pseudoscience on us, having presupposed
that consciousness is inseparably a part of a
supernatural- god- spirit- immaterial- transcendent .
belief system ( forcwhich zerk evidence exists)
and thus you try to use science to demonstrate that
there actually is evidence for your views.

Quite convincing for you perhaps but it won't work
on those who don't go with your foundation less assumptions.

 

[dlamberth]

The experience of consciousness is not the same thing as the consciousness itself.

Sure it is. With out that experience, a person is consciously dead.