They have no understanding for the inherent and insurmountable limitations of science.
Suppose that science can never explain consciousness. Can you (or anyone) explain why science can never explain consciousness?
If not, in what sense do you claim to understand the limitations of science? It sounds to me like you're just assuming that these are the limitations.
(We know a lot about the limitations of science. Science can't produce a rocket that goes faster than light, for example. Currently we don't know enough about consciousness to know what the limitations of science are with respect to it.)
One explination is that consciousness is beyond matter. Since modern science is only concerned with material universe, it cannot explain consciousness.
There is, however, a science, which asserts that every human being can understand consciousness and experience it as separate from the matter if he attempts. Read Raja Yoga by Swami Vivekananda if you are really curious.
Where did you get this idea that science only deals with matter?
Science is the discipline of publicly testing ideas by systematic observation, controlled experiment and Bayesian inference. Notice there is no mention of "matter" in that definition.
If an idea has any consequences it can be tested by practicing the discipline of science. If an idea is consequence-free it is boring. Ideas about consciousness that are fully decoupled from material consequences are boring: they entail that no human action is caused by consciousness. For example, my consciousness would have to be unrelated to the contents of this message, because it was generated by making various bits of matter move.
Material consequences are the most studied by science because they are the easiest to get at and they have the widest scope, but we use them to study immaterial and abstract causes all the time.
I mentioned that modern science deals with the matter, and not science because science itself is an abstract term.
Here by matter or material includes even ideas and inference because they all stem from mind and mind is built of subtlest matter (as per Samkhya philosophy upon which Raja Yoga is based).
The method to experience of consciousness in Raja Yoga is not consequence free – direct experience of ones own consciousness is the best experience a man can have, and it transforms him thereafter forever. Also read Kundalini by Gopi Krishna.
The process itself is far from boaring and you'll be surprised the changes/experiences you start to observe within few weeks/months of starting the enquiry. (But beware of scammers who sell trademark techniques!)
Btw, I'm not professing any religion here. It's just that there's a method of enquiry which many people throughout the history have attempted and they have experienced something which you also can provided that you dare to. (Samkhya philosophy in fact denies existence of God as we know it but only professes idea of pure consciousness)
Swamij.com is also a good read for curious folks. I have been researching and practicing for some time. I have good number of proofs which modern science has recognized, plus my experiences of last few months. I plan to write an article on this some day. .
Insofar as consciousness has an impact on the material world, it falls under the domain of science. Science deals with causality, and if something is in a causal relationship with the universe, it can be studied.
There's a science [0], and there's a step-by-step method if you really want to follow. And no it doesn't require you to visit temples or do rituals rather just like science, it requires you to observe, experiment and be patient with your body and mind so that you can eventually experience the third, consciousness.
You can't observe an experience. You experience conciseness, you don't observe it.
How can science work with something that you can't observe, and therefore can't measure?
Your line of reasoning is pretty much the same as a religious person asking an atheist to prove three is no God. Of course that will be impossible to prove.
The religious person is the one claiming something without and reasoning or evidence. Therefore the onus is on them to prove that God exists, rather than the atheist to prove he doesn't.
There is no evidence to suggest that science will be able to observe an experience, so the onus is on you to prove that its a reasonable suggestion.
Well, I was genuinely asking what you were talking about since your very very brief response were really not saying me anything.
This reasoning is nothing at all like being asked to prove there is no god, the history of science shows that we are able to untangle the mechanisms of the natural world, and there are no evidence to the contrary.
Now, in the eyes of science it is not the responsibility of a religious person to prove that god exists or does not exist, it is as much the responsibility of science - it's just very much a non-topic in science since no evidence have been found either way.
(And there are a lot of evidence that science will be able observe an experience - we already can do very basic recognition of patterns in brain waves based on what the subject is experiencing, we are starting to map, understand and simulate a human brain. Eventually that might turn into an engineering problem of hooking up the proper equipment to neurological pathways.)
Isn't it the other way around? You are assuming that we can't observe nor measure an experience while noselasd is leaving the question open (we don't have any proof in favor or against it). The burden of proof is not his/hers.
We may one day be able to measure experience, but we don't know yet. Until then science is the best tool we have.
It's exactly the reverse. So far experience has shown that the scientific method has been able to come up with answers for most things that at some previous time seemed mysterious. Thus, your claim that it cannot for "mysterious thing X" is a positive claim, putting the onus on you.
All human observations are experiences. There is nothing you can observe without passing it through the machinery of your thought along the way.
What we call measurement is a mental model that we invented to help us think about reality. We don't have a measurement model for consciousness yet, but that doesn't necessarily mean we never will.
Perhaps not, but these experiments were apparently able to induce an experience in mice, giving some hint as to how science might be able to "work with something that you can't observe."
Comments
Suppose that science can never explain consciousness. Can you (or anyone) explain why science can never explain consciousness?
If not, in what sense do you claim to understand the limitations of science? It sounds to me like you're just assuming that these are the limitations.
(We know a lot about the limitations of science. Science can't produce a rocket that goes faster than light, for example. Currently we don't know enough about consciousness to know what the limitations of science are with respect to it.)
One explination is that consciousness is beyond matter. Since modern science is only concerned with material universe, it cannot explain consciousness.
There is, however, a science, which asserts that every human being can understand consciousness and experience it as separate from the matter if he attempts. Read Raja Yoga by Swami Vivekananda if you are really curious.
Where did you get this idea that science only deals with matter?
Science is the discipline of publicly testing ideas by systematic observation, controlled experiment and Bayesian inference. Notice there is no mention of "matter" in that definition.
If an idea has any consequences it can be tested by practicing the discipline of science. If an idea is consequence-free it is boring. Ideas about consciousness that are fully decoupled from material consequences are boring: they entail that no human action is caused by consciousness. For example, my consciousness would have to be unrelated to the contents of this message, because it was generated by making various bits of matter move.
Material consequences are the most studied by science because they are the easiest to get at and they have the widest scope, but we use them to study immaterial and abstract causes all the time.
I mentioned that modern science deals with the matter, and not science because science itself is an abstract term.
Here by matter or material includes even ideas and inference because they all stem from mind and mind is built of subtlest matter (as per Samkhya philosophy upon which Raja Yoga is based).
The method to experience of consciousness in Raja Yoga is not consequence free – direct experience of ones own consciousness is the best experience a man can have, and it transforms him thereafter forever. Also read Kundalini by Gopi Krishna.
The process itself is far from boaring and you'll be surprised the changes/experiences you start to observe within few weeks/months of starting the enquiry. (But beware of scammers who sell trademark techniques!)
Btw, I'm not professing any religion here. It's just that there's a method of enquiry which many people throughout the history have attempted and they have experienced something which you also can provided that you dare to. (Samkhya philosophy in fact denies existence of God as we know it but only professes idea of pure consciousness)
Swamij.com is also a good read for curious folks. I have been researching and practicing for some time. I have good number of proofs which modern science has recognized, plus my experiences of last few months. I plan to write an article on this some day. .
Insofar as consciousness has an impact on the material world, it falls under the domain of science. Science deals with causality, and if something is in a causal relationship with the universe, it can be studied.
I think you'll find that that's not, in fact, a science. It's a philosophy at best, and a religion at worst.
There's a science [0], and there's a step-by-step method if you really want to follow. And no it doesn't require you to visit temples or do rituals rather just like science, it requires you to observe, experiment and be patient with your body and mind so that you can eventually experience the third, consciousness.
0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8753204
You can't observe an experience. You experience conciseness, you don't observe it. How can science work with something that you can't observe, and therefore can't measure?
Why would science never be able to observe or measure an experience ?
prove there is no God.
Sorry ? What are you talking about, and why would proving there is no God have anything to do with that ?
Your line of reasoning is pretty much the same as a religious person asking an atheist to prove three is no God. Of course that will be impossible to prove.
The religious person is the one claiming something without and reasoning or evidence. Therefore the onus is on them to prove that God exists, rather than the atheist to prove he doesn't.
There is no evidence to suggest that science will be able to observe an experience, so the onus is on you to prove that its a reasonable suggestion.
Well, I was genuinely asking what you were talking about since your very very brief response were really not saying me anything.
This reasoning is nothing at all like being asked to prove there is no god, the history of science shows that we are able to untangle the mechanisms of the natural world, and there are no evidence to the contrary.
Now, in the eyes of science it is not the responsibility of a religious person to prove that god exists or does not exist, it is as much the responsibility of science - it's just very much a non-topic in science since no evidence have been found either way.
(And there are a lot of evidence that science will be able observe an experience - we already can do very basic recognition of patterns in brain waves based on what the subject is experiencing, we are starting to map, understand and simulate a human brain. Eventually that might turn into an engineering problem of hooking up the proper equipment to neurological pathways.)
Isn't it the other way around? You are assuming that we can't observe nor measure an experience while noselasd is leaving the question open (we don't have any proof in favor or against it). The burden of proof is not his/hers.
We may one day be able to measure experience, but we don't know yet. Until then science is the best tool we have.
It's exactly the reverse. So far experience has shown that the scientific method has been able to come up with answers for most things that at some previous time seemed mysterious. Thus, your claim that it cannot for "mysterious thing X" is a positive claim, putting the onus on you.
This is a bold claim. You might as well say that science can't prove electrons exist or that water is wet.
What do you mean by 'proof', and why is that what you choose to mean by it?
fMRI?
All human observations are experiences. There is nothing you can observe without passing it through the machinery of your thought along the way.
What we call measurement is a mental model that we invented to help us think about reality. We don't have a measurement model for consciousness yet, but that doesn't necessarily mean we never will.
This is flawed logic arising from the idiosyncrasies of the Human Experience.
Technically though, when someone takes an MRI of your brain, that means your consciousness is being observed.
Oh really? http://m.sciencemag.org/content/341/6144/387
I see you miss the point completely. These are observations of mice behavior not mice experience. No one has any idea what the mice are experiencing.
Interesting study though.
Perhaps not, but these experiments were apparently able to induce an experience in mice, giving some hint as to how science might be able to "work with something that you can't observe."