Human Consciousness: stimuli, analog to digital (Humans)

by dhw, Tuesday, September 20, 2016, 16:16 (2984 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I reach a point from scientific evidence to conclude that beyond a doubt God exists. Then my belief appears. I know my belief isn't proof.
dhw: All agreed. But my complaint is against your claim that your belief is based on EXPERIMENTAL evidence. (My bold)-DAVID: Try this website essay which shares my point of view and I follow his research:
https://stream.org/new-study-shows-awe-bad-science-science-mean-atheism/-You are resolutely refusing to acknowledge that your beliefs are not based on EXPERIMENTAL evidence.-QUOTE: “The authors of this study think “awe drives theists away from scientific explanations,” but they only say that because they're using a distorted definition of science. To them, anyone who doesn't see science “as a superior, even exclusive guide to reality” is unscientific. They assessed this by asking participants in their study whether they agree that “we can only rationally believe in what is scientifically provable.” According to these professors, then, the very definition of science marks people of faith as scientific outsiders.”-No disagreement. May I draw your attention to the following paragraph in my “brief guide”, which was written ten years ago and which you seem to be unaware of:-“Science can only concern itself with the material world as we know it. Science cannot speculate on matters beyond the scope of what can be tried and tested, and so by definition any belief in a non-physical world must be unscientific. But unscientific does not mean unreal or non-existent. There are many things in our lives that transcend the material world as we know it - love, art, music, beauty, premonitions and so on - but more importantly, the tools with which we examine the material world are inadequate. Birds and insects are able to perceive things that we cannot. We are clever enough to devise instruments that hugely enhance our capabilities of perception, but even then, they will only be able to show us that which the human brain is able to perceive. How, then, can we know that there are no other forms of life and being that exist on a totally different plane? A deaf man might argue that because he can hear nothing, sound doesn't exist. This is not to denigrate science. It is simply a denial of the right of science to exclude the possibility of phenomena outside its range. By extension, it is a denial of the right of an atheist to claim that religious faith is unscientific and therefore wrong.”-dhw: What you do not seem to grasp is that by insisting that bacteria cannot be conscious because they do not have a brain, you are contradicting your OWN belief that consciousness does not depend on having a brain.
DAVID: And I view a brain as a required receiver to experience consciousness. Bacteria do not have any degree of a conscious experience or consciousness because they have no receiver. From NDE research.-NDE research (I'm not referring to OBEs here) suggests exactly the opposite - namely, that when the brain is clinically dead, the patient can enter a different world in which he/she DOES experience consciousness. You yourself have said you believe in an afterlife in which the brainless David WILL remain conscious. Therefore according to you it must be possible to experience consciousness without a brain.