Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including,

No I got your point, however my biological/chemical processes don't agree with you or experience such a reduction of consciousness into your terms. Funny how that works. Chemical reductionism of humanity still can't seem to eradicate choice when it comes to what one wants to believe and experience or disbelieve and experience.
The reference to communication and the idea that the cell recieves and recognizes information points to awareness. A much deeper function than just the mechanical interaction of a radio transmitter and a radio reciever.


Might be because you only see my point as a rant. I guess we'll just chalk that up to the anomaly of chemical processes that seem to separate the species in the radom outpicturing of beliefs and cognitive awareness.

And behind all of that is.....? (function of life within the universe etc. etc.)

Or in the case of the spiritual sage, it also allows one to percieve much more than just an identification with relative concepts which are individually or democratically determined to have some function in trying to deny the personal experience of something greater than those determined by a particular scope of vision narrowed to a scientific belief system.
What I find fascinating is that there has always been this split within the history of humanity where belief extends itself beyond the physical boundaries of fact finding missions in a controlled environment or a controlled thought process.

Some even follow those signals (using GPCRs) to find the source of the signal...


No I use the idea to exemplify that there is order to everything including the opposite to scientific reductionism. Where contrast is necessary to expansion of the intellect and awareness, and random activity is a reflection of potential and of consciousness which is not simply set within immutable laws derived from random observations.

It's been said, "THe human has the built in quality of expansion or the desire to dissolve the finite into the infinite quality of the universe as an inherent factor."

This quality and the observance of evolution of the species is evidence that (as you put it) humanity is naturally drawn to a source.

A pseudo-agreement known as the Copenhagen Interpretation provided the interpretation of Quantum Theory accepted by the bulk of the scientific community in the early 20th century. This agreement stated the proper goal of science was to provide a mathematical framework for organizing and expanding life’s experiences, rather than seeking to provide a picture of some reality that could lie behind those experiences.
From the Copenhagen point of view, quantum theory was satisfactory as it was; i.e. as impersonal mathematical equations concerning the behavior of subatomic structures. Thus, the Copenhagen Interpretation found the effort to understand the philosophical and spiritual implications underlying hard science theories was not productive for the betterment of science.
I think this kind of exemplifies a kind of religious (as in belief system) approach to reducing the universe to a set of defining principals set within the boundaries of relative measure.
The problem with rules is that there seems to be variations or random occurrances which consistantly challenge the rules.
Where as classical science started with the assumption that separate parts worked together to constitute physical reality – thus the parts determined actions and events of the whole – quantum mechanics was based on an opposite epistemological assumption: the whole could influence actions and events of the smallest parts. The ‘smallest parts’ – (the void) – was not a void at all, but rather sub-atomic particles constantly in a state of flux, coming into and going out of existence in microseconds, based on mathematical probabilities.
A fundamental difference between Newtonian physics and quantum theory was that Newtonian physics predicted events and quantum mechanics predicted the probability of events. According to quantum mechanics, the only determinable relation between events was statistical – that is, a matter of probability, but those events could not be stated with absolute certainty as Newton had tried to claim. These observations showed another surprising truth about sub-atomic particles: they could not be isolated as independent entities.
Being that this idea became part of quantum theory it has been postulated that everything, everywhere is connected and interactive even at the subatomic level.
The pioneers of quantum physics observed a strange ‘connectedness’ among quantum phenomena during their experiments in the early twentieth century. Then in 1964, J. S. Bell, a physicist at the Switzerland-based European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) zeroed in on this strange connectedness, creating a new mathematical proof, known as Bell’s theorem. Bell’s theorem proved that if the statistical predictions of quantum theory were correct, then some of our commonsense ideas about the world were profoundly mistaken: at a deep and fundamental level, the ‘separate parts’ of the universe were connected in an intimate and immediate way. Bell’s theorem states there is no such thing as ‘separate parts.’ In other words, everything in the universe is connected in an intimate and immediate way that was previously claimed only by mystics and other scientifically-objectionable persons.
Bell’s work found that either the statistical predictions of quantum theory or the principle of local causes (i.e. cause and effect) was false. It did not say which one was false, but only that both of them could not be true. Physicists Stapp, Clauser, and Friedman, confirmed that the statistical predictions of quantum theory were indeed correct. The startling conclusion was inescapable: The principle of local causes must be false! However, if the principle of local causes was false, and hence, the world was not the way it appeared to be, then one must wonder what is the ‘true nature’ of our world? Physicist David Bohm concluded when there was no separate parts in our world, i.e. locality failed, and so the idea that events were autonomous happenings must be an illusion.

Doctors have found a person’s state of mind can have significant effects on their body’s ability to heal itself. While that anecdotal observation has not provided enough solid evidence to cause every doctor to prescribe meditation as a form of medicine, quantum physicists have found definitively that at the sub-atomic level, the act of observation actually affects the reality being observed. This fact became known as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle: one cannot observe a phenomenon without changing or affecting it.

This either leads one to the conclusion that reality is not real but rather fabricated in your terms according to individual neuro/biological processes, or that these neuro/biological processes are in collaboration with a Universal reality that has form and function at every level. From the microcosm to the macrocosm.

Not really, it's actually quite liberating.

I use randomness to exemplify non random processes that scientists cannot align with, due to the dogma of scientific belief systems that reduce principles that are universal to principles that are of human origin.

God/Spirituality etc. Takes different forms for different people and their belief systems. You pretend to know what I believe due to an automatic response system you allow yourself to associate yourself with in a reductionists view of spirituality and religion as prescribed by your present experience and the corresponding belief and definition.

C'est la Vie.. Probably a downfall of some scientists, to allow themselves to generalize and define everything into a particular box.

Compelling... maybe, but then the authority/media always has a mesmerizing effect.
Ever heard of the Milgram experiment?



You mean like spirituality as taught by those who do not prescribe to mainstream religion or scientific platitudes?

Perhaps that is because it so aptly brings out the reality that you have assumed a position on spirituality as I see and experience it with the way you look at religion, without even asking me what I know and experience. Some scientists, tend to attempt to reduce the universe to a mechanical operative using a belief system, and instruments designed to work within a belief system and scope of vision. It is constantly reorganizing itself with the onset of qualities that re-emerge outside of the locals of the instrumental parameters. This ongoing process of re-emergence while staking claims in the deteriorating impressions, and then deriding something that has remained a constant within all of it, is just funny... The fact that scientists don't always agree with each other in every field is even funnier.


This seems kind of a departure from your first statement that eluded to the idea that value systems are within the nature of the individual. Now we are getting to the idea that social systems have influence on the individual. This is good, you are expanding into the idea that there is a connectivity within the human consciousness that exceeds the simple neuro/chemical process. Sort of like the 100th monkey effect, where stimuli creates neural impulses that begin to affect the very nature of the human idea above and beyond an inherent functionality of the basic human definition. Choice and awareness is now entering the picture.
Fair enough, I don't value your title, so I can give you that.
I see... so you believe the brain and the body can operate independantly of each other, and with the same consciousness or neural/biological processes as do people in general in and amongst each other. All simply an outcome of probable events which should then be predictable.

Tell me.

Are we as a species good or bad? Is there a delineation that science will or should make to remove one from the other, and will science or some chemical process formulate or discover the standard of measure to make such a determination?