Consciousness should be Most important topic in Science

[Swami]

Strategically speaking, should not one know about a tool before they use it? We rely on awareness to know things. Should not scientists understand consciousness before proclaiming materialism?

Strategically, the thinkers and traditions of the East are better suited to understand reality because of their focus on the nature of self.

This speaker explains



*self= consciousness

[mgb]

I'd withhold judgement at least until you presented a strong argument.

Please let us all know when you've actually presented one.

I already have. Fine Tuning. But no matter what evidence I provide you will still say it is not evidence. If you reject Fine Tuning you need to present an equally convincing counter argument that explains why the universe is so convincingly intelligent in its design.

[JoeyKnothead]

I'd withhold judgement at least until you presented a strong argument.

Please let us all know when you've actually presented one.

I already have. Fine Tuning.

Please link to such evidence, and preferably explain why you find it compelling. I've not seen anything but your declaring your assertion a "strong argument".

But no matter what evidence I provide you will still say it is not evidence.

Let this be warning to all - don't drink from this'n here's well.

If you reject Fine Tuning you need to present an equally convincing counter argument that explains why the universe is so convincingly intelligent in its design.

Please note, site rules indicate nobody is required to refute your arguments. They'll stand or fall on their own merits (barring someone refuting em - then, well, there's that).

The implication being it's on you to support em.

I can't rightly reject evidence you fail to, or refuse to provide. Or are we to just pretend to trust you?

You'll either support your claim/s, or ya won't.

The observer is left to ponder on the why.

[JoeyKnothead]

I challenge you to not simply expect others to provide it for you, or to just read about it on the internet. Take the time to engage in field research. Every skeptic that has turned to spirituality has done so because of experience.
...

Like I told the other'n there, site rules indicate the claimant is responsible to support their claims.

Playing this non sense debate game is a waste of time when you are unwilling to experience it for yourself.

It's most certainly a "waste of time" to expect some folks who enter this site to support their claims.

The observer's left to fret how come it is you consider the rules of this site "nonsense".

[mgb]

Please note, site rules indicate nobody is required to refute your arguments. They'll stand or fall on their own merits (barring someone refuting em - then, well, there's that).

You don't need to resort to site rules to accept that a debate should be two sided. I don't know how much you know about the Fine Tuning Argument so if you let me know how much you have studied it we can discuss it.

[JoeyKnothead]

Edit cause I had OPs mixed up...

Please note, site rules indicate nobody is required to refute your arguments. They'll stand or fall on their own merits (barring someone refuting em - then, well, there's that).

You don't need to resort to site rules to accept that a debate should be two sided.

It's been two sided...

You declare how "fine tuning" makes for a compelling argument.

And I request what evidence you think supports your argument.

I don't know how much you know about the Fine Tuning Argument so if you let me know how much you have studied it we can discuss it.

How much I do or don't know about this alleged evidence you have regarding claims you make should in no way hamper you from supporting your claims.

[brunumb]

I already have. Fine Tuning. But no matter what evidence I provide you will still say it is not evidence. If you reject Fine Tuning you need to present an equally convincing counter argument that explains why the universe is so convincingly intelligent in its design.

That argument assumes an apparent appearance of fine tuning. That also assumes the end goal of the fine tuning was a universe that allowed for human life to exist. The existence of life is because it is allowed in this universe, but that does not mean that the universe was specifically designed with that end goal. The constants that we have measured that some claim have been fine tuned may be the only combination possible from a natural point of view. For all we know, universe formation has its own set of rules and many outcomes are possible. In most of them, the constants are different and the sorts of things we observe in ours may not be possible. We arose in this one because the conditions were favorable. There is no evidence that shows any intent behind the formation of this universe and that includes the appearance of fine tuning.

[brunumb]

If you reject Fine Tuning you need to present an equally convincing counter argument that explains why the universe is so convincingly intelligent in its design.

If you adopt the argument of fine tuning then you have to take on board every other issue associated with the creation of the universe designed for human habitation. The carefully designed constants allow for this universe to exist and support human life. Now we have to wonder how the following were also necessary as part of the design:
The immense size of the universe, too large to even comprehend,
Hundreds of billions of galaxies each containing hundreds of billions of stars.
A universe that is expanding at an ever increasing rate.
Incredibly cataclysmic events such as supernovae that threaten the existence of anything within millions of light years.
Deadly cosmic rays and other radiation threatening vulnerable life forms like humans.
The solar system with planets and moon that bear no semblance of design but rather signs of formation through natural forces.
Asteroids and comets threatening life on earth, such as in the impact that ended that incredibly long reign of the dinosaurs.

And the list goes on. God-magic never actually answers any questions. It's just an invented answer. You only ever end up with a truckload of more questions that then need answering. After a while going down that path you get confronted with a big sign that says...... FAITH.

[Miles]

Nope. Philosophically, materialism is a doctrine that asserts reality exists only in matter and its movement---the only reality doctrine rooted in convincing evidence---so I fail to see where or why understanding consciousness would necessarily bear on it.

There is plenty of evidence that materialism is false.

Then I challenge you to bring it on. Show us your evidence that materialism is false.

It can not explain the big questions.

If you're referring to questions of a supernatural nature then you will first have to show that the supernatural exists---with evidence of course. If they are something other than supernatural, please explain.

Practically, the thinkers and traditions of the East are better suited to understanding the sound of one hand clapping and why Buddha is five pounds of flax, and don't push their intellectual pursuits beyond such koanzles.

Why do so many Western Scientists flock to Eastern thinkers in search of answers?

From what I've seen exceedingly few Western Scientists do. As I see it, this is more a wish than a statement of fact.

I know at least a dozen scientists that have left their careers to spread a message that challenges the materialistic worldview. Dr. Eben Alexander comes to mind. Others are not as well known.

You "know," or "know of "? And as far as Eben Alexander goes, he wasn't a scientist, but a doctor. A neurosurgeon.

Great, I love evidence. Bring it on.

There is plenty of evidence that materialism is false and evil.

I challenge you to not simply expect others to provide it for you, or to just read about it on the internet.

I expect it because you're the one making the claim, so the burden of proof here isn't mine, but yours. As I said " I love evidence. Bring it on," and stop trying to wiggle out of it.

Take the time to engage in field research. Every skeptic that has turned to spirituality has done so because of experience.

Good grief, more Hyperbole.

Playing this non sense debate game is a waste of time when you are unwilling to experience it for yourself.

AHH, JUST TO BRING YOU UP TO SPEED HERE, THIS IS A DEBATE FORUM, WHERE DEBATE IS NOT ONLY EXPECTED, BUT DEMANDED.



.

[Miles]

Great, I love evidence. Bring it on.

I already have. The Fine Tuning Argument suits the definition of evidence you have given.

Ah yes, The Fine Tuning Argument Debunked. And from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy no less SEE HERE. How appropriate.

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

The key word here is 'Indicating'. That means it supports an argument. To indicate is not the same as proof.

Yup. Proof only exists in Logic, Mathematics, and Alcohol Measurement. And, while "indicating" may support an argument, it's more commonly used to point out or show. As in. . . .

in·di·cate
/ˈindəˌkāt/
verb
verb: indicate; 3rd person present: indicates; past tense: indicated; past participle: indicated; gerund or present participle: indicating

1. point out; show.

.

[mgb]

You declare how "fine tuning" makes for a compelling argument.

And I request what evidence you think supports your argument.

Isn't it self evident? Fine Tuning strongly points to an intelligently conceived universe and intelligence implies the existence of mind and mind implies the existence of God. That's the basic argument and it is compelling.