posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 02:28 PM
reply to post by The GUT
["If consciousness can't be defined in any coherent way by science or anyone here debating these issues from a materialistic viewpoint, and,
further, it's not acknowledged that the so-called "scientific arguments" suffer because of that lack of understanding, it's a little monotonous,
and rather useless to discuss at length arguable scientific theories that often contradict each other."]
As you brought it up, it's on your head, if you bring it into a blind alley also. And if you knew this from the start, did you only take it up
There are two options apart from this.
One is to acknowledge that the scientific knowledge-gap (on the BASIC nature of awareness (christian: Soul, spirit?)) is a knowledge-gap on par with
e.g. trans-cosmic speculations, and that a theist 'filling out' such a knowledge-gap doesn't 'prove' anything. A theist claim isn't 'proved'
in ANY way through the absense of scientific answers.
Any efforts of such a pseudo-methodology is in the flying spaghetti monster category.
The other option is, that you choose your definition and application and support that one.
Quote: ["Plus, it's my understanding that you haven't ruled out a higher consciousness yet?"]
I'm actually the happy owner of a higher consciousness myself (got it cheap at a local second-hand store). It's an environmental, low fuel version,
not needing high-octane divine energy, but runs on ordinary inner silence and can bring me from zero to 'being there' in no time.