Quote:Frankly, modern science hasn't the first clue as to "how consciousness is produced by the brain". Plenty of speculation. No evidence. No experimental results. No working models. In fact, one could legitimately argue (see, for example, McGinn's The Problem of Consciousness) that we will never make "progress in understanding how consciousness is produced by the brain" -- i.e., that this field is beyond the boundaries of science.
It's true that modern science has very little knowledge about this. However, you could not argue that it will never be possible...that is a ridiculous claim. If it can be created, than there is a way for it to be created, than this way can be known. it's as simple as that....even though we don't know this way yet. you can't say that it's impossible to understand something.
To say that something is not explainable by science is not logical. Science does not exclude the seemingly un-scientific. Anything that can be explained becomes part of science. If it were proven that God existed, then God would become a scientific fact. The only distinction between scientific and un-scientific is "proven beyond reasonable doubt" and "just guessing".
Furthermore, although we are very far from understanding consciousness, we HAVE made notable advances of knowledge. For instance:
1 - consciousness can be created, have lapses, or be removed
2 - consciousness is found in many advanced organisms other than just humans, but not in simple organisms
3 - consciousness requires a physical energy source
4- consciousness requires a physical organ such as a brain to be functioning to exist
5 - consciousness seems to have more 2 states (on/off), it seems to vary in cognitive ability, emotion, and logical method
However rudimentary you may think these facts (which I am sure are not encompasing of ALL we know about consciousness), they have been learned, and there is nothing to suggest that we will not continue to learn.
. We all suffer from the danger that our religious views seem superior to others' religious views, because we are comparing them by means of the standards and assumptions of our religious system. The applies to ethnocentric comparisons between cultures as well. To make comparisons objectively, we must be able to stand outside of both. I have been a fundamentalist Christian (in my youth), and I have a brother who is a fundamentalist Baptist minister. My exposure to Hindu mysticism is less extensive; my experience is with Buddhist teachers and meditation. Nevertheless, I would not say that this double exposure affords me objectivity. So how do I claim to know which religious perspective is better? I confess, I DO NOT know that answer objectively. But I'll ask you to decide--since I have no problem with my judgement--by reading the Vedanta texts of the Upanishads, and works by Pat Robertson or Billy Graham.
)