We have pointed out several times here that scientist by definition are only concerned with the material world, the 'objective reality'. How can he even begin to write a book claiming that science can have any value whatsoever on the subjective subject of morality, which is by definition outside the purview of the scientific? Someone reading this would be equally well off reading the bible thumping baptist preacher's book on Evolution and Cosmology. Why does it feel like science is trying to become the religion of the 21 Century?

DAVID: I've chosen this thread because we don't know how consciousness forms or arises, and there are atheistic scientists who feel they are masters of the game [...]-I agree with you and Balance_Maintained ... the Harris approach is an insult to science and philosophy. I also agree with you that hypnosis presents an additional problem in so far as we don't understand the mechanism by which one person's will can black out a level of consciousness in another person. -A few weeks ago The Guardian published conversations between David Attenborough and Richard Dawkins, and between Stephen Hawking and Brian Cox. They were all asked what problem they hoped scientists would have solved by the end of this century. Dawkins' reply was: "the problem of human consciousness." At least he recognizes one of the faith elements in his godlessness-of-the-gaps. Interestingly, Brian Cox (a researcher on the Large Hadron Collider) said that when he has time to spare, "my mind constantly and gently chews over problems and often an answer or idea will pop into my head almost at random". Another of the major problems for those who opt for a purely materialist explanation. -Although this is not the right thread, you might be interested in a few other quotes. On being asked what was the one piece of science everyone should know, Dawkins replied: "The unity of life that comes about through evolution, since we're all descended from a single common ancestor. It's almost too good to be true, that on one planet this extraordinary complexity of life should have come about by what is pretty much an intelligible process." (Comments, if any, under Evolution, please!)-ATTENBOROUGH: A physicist will tell me that this armchair is made of vibrations and that it's not really here at all. But when Samuel Johnson was asked to prove the material existence of reality, he just went up to a big stone and kicked it.-Here are three quotes that I have lumped together, as the three speakers may not have seen the underlying ironyAWKINS: The science of the future may be vastly different from the science of today, and you have to have the humility to admit when you don't know. But instead of filling that vacuum with goblins or spirits, I think you should say, "Science is working on it."-HAWKING: Science can explain the universe without the need for a Creator.-BRIAN COX (on the problem he hoped scientists would solve:) Also, understanding why the universe began in such a highly ordered state.-(Comments maybe on the Hawking thread.)

TONY: As a side note to the hypnosis conversation, I am curious as to how comparable hypnosis, self-hypnosis, and meditation are. They seem to be shades of the same color, closely related, but I wonder to what extent.-Self-hypnosis and meditation are self-induced, i.e. the mind shuts off certain areas of itself, whereas in hypnosis it appears that someone else's mind causes the loss of awareness. This to me suggests electrical waves passing from one mind to another, which raises the whole question of ESP. I don't know enough about that to launch an inquiry here, but perhaps you do or someone else does. -The quote from Poe (thank you for the source ... the statement came at the end of the first verse) raises several more aspects of consciousness: -All that we see or seem
Is but a dream within a dream.-When we go to sleep, we switch off our own consciousness. It's a kind of involuntary self-hypnosis, but how does it work?-Our subconscious carries on functioning, and that raises the question of where the dreams come from: the little grey cells having fun while we're away?
 
A third aspect is the extraordinary one of the creative process, in which our subconscious mind provides ideas, scenes, melodies, images, while our conscious mind edits and records them. We are spectators watching our own minds producing something that simultaneously is but is not ours.-Poe's brilliant lines (not so sure about the rest of the poem) capture the whole concept of consciousness within consciousness, but I guess the religious could take the meaning one step further, and say that our lives are our dream, and we are all God's dream. I'll take a leaf out of Graeme's/Shakespeare's book here:- PROSPERO: We are such stuff 
 As dreams are made on; and our little life
 Is rounded with a sleep. -As Hamlet points out, though: "To die, to sleep;/ To sleep, perchance to dream."-When confronted with all the mysteries of consciousness, I'm inclined to stick with Prospero:
 
 Sir, I am vex'd:
 Bear with my weakness; my old brain is troubled.