I won't blame anyone if they say the paragraphs below are BS for the following reasons. Analogy: If a forty something year old person born blind suddenly regains their sight at the age of forty five, the whole vision thing would never make sense to them. Because their brains have never developed to interpret light. Light would confuse them more than anything else. Soon they would be shouting "give me back my blindness".
You're assuming that you're the only spiritual person here and no one else has spiritual experiences. You are wrong. You can use science for what it is - testing hypothesis through experiment and observation, and using theories to make predictions.
The problem with "spiritual science" is that you usually can't create any experiments, can't make any useful predictions, and if a hypothesis is shown to be false then it's immediately replaced with a new testable one. It lives in the darkness where the light of knowledge has not yet reached. Religion is the same -- as human knowledge has advanced, more and more religious explanations for things have been replaced with factual, evidence-based explanations, and religion is forced to retreat into the areas that remain dark.
It's fine to believe in the spiritual and also uphold science, but it's not ok to pervert science into pseudo-science by bending it such that you find yourself able to admit the untestable, unverifiable and unpredictable into the realm of science. IMHO it's healthy to beleive ideas about the spirit, but you don't have to try and marry them with science -- if they can't lead to any verifiable predictions, then they're not a scientific hypothesis, so they're scientifically useless. By bending science to allow it to work without evidence renders science as a whole useless.
This is because we were are born into a world which still recollects how the medieval church persecuted Galileo and other early scientists for saying, "the earth is round not flat", the "earth is not at the center of the universe" and the fear of Charles Darwin for his concept of evolution. And so science is saying NEVER AGAIN. NEVER AGAIN would we be suppressed by the church and spiritual things. Yes the medieval church got it very wrong, but that does not justify "killing off" the concept of the Spirit part of Man and spiritual realm
No, science does not accept matters of religion and spirituality for the simple fact that it is not proven. If someone created an experiment that proved the existence of God, then scientists the world over would have to accept it as fact, or work to find the flaw in the experiment/observation/conclusion. That's the whole point - what we can prove, is science.
However, your assumption that science ignores the spiritual realm is also wrong. There's been A LOT of studies done into the power of prayer, which is religious nonsense, but nonetheless it has been tested and observed by scientists wishing to prove that it has an effect on the world (spoiler: it doesn't).
Another example is that, if the spirit is not bound by the physical realm, that means that astral projection, out-of-body experiences, etc, might possibly allow people to gather information from afar. That is of crucial importance to the military, so yes, the military has spent a lot of money funding scientific research to determine whether spiritual travel to other locations in our physical realm is possible or not (spoiler: it's not).
First as a start physics does not realize that it is beginning to agree with the spirituality (note this is not religion). When they are now postulating parallel universes, when they are discovering ghostly energies and matters such as Dark Energy and Dark Matter, ghostly particles such as Neutrinos, when physicists like Neil Turok are beginning to say that the big-bang cannot be the real beginning of the universe....
Those developments are all firmly within the realm of physics, not metaphysics or spirituality. They have no relevance to spirituality, except, that dark energy/matter still contain many unverified parts of scientific knowledge. They are dark corners of human knowledge, which as always, provides places for people to insert magical explanations (for now, until we come to understand them, at which point the magic will retreat to other dark corners)...
Difference between a Human and an advanced robot: Cognitive logic: Use a black pen to draw a table on a flat A4 sheet of paper, a machine would read series of black and white dots. Programmers can use mathematical algorithms and logic to teach it to interpret those black dots as a table.. The drawing will be interpreted by the machine using mathematical logic. But an average human would use implicit creativity and intuition to instantly recognize the drawing as a table
So can current state-of-the-art AI's, which are not programmed using logical rules like we do in game development, but which are grown out of an incredibly massive array of (simulated-)wet-tissue. They already demonstrate both intuition and creativity!
The big question is: does a different life experience (feedback loop) result in a different consciousness of the mind? Take for instance if Instead of being born and bred in the UK if I was born and bred in Saudi Arabia, i would speak a different language, meet different people have a completely different life experience and maybe develop a different character/personalty from what i am now hence different feedback loop, but would this make my base consciousness different from what it is now? If you think because i have a different experience that makes my consciousness different then the possibilities of several consciousness in my life time are infinite. Every time I turn left instead of right and encounter a different experience i have developed a different consciousness to what i would have if i turned right instead of left. But we all know this can't be true.
So my point is if you lived in Africa instead Australia your personalty maybe different but your consciousness (the I AM ME) remains as it was since birth. Likewise for twins. What I'm saying in essence is different experience is not what give identical twins separate consciousness, its because they have a separate "spirit being"
Experiences may twist/change your personalty but they don't change your consciousness (I AM ME)
What makes you say that? You say "But we all know this can't be true" as if this is self-evident and obvious. I would say that the fact that consciousness changes is self-evident and obvious...
"Altered state of consciousness" is an accepted term in psychiatry, so it's kind of assumed that consciousness has more than one form, and can change. Is the consciousness of a dog the same as a mouse? From personal experience, the me as a child is a completely different person to me today -- it's not just that my personality is different, but the actual modes of thought are different, and my feelings of connectedness to my spirit is also different.
On substance aided journeys, I've felt my "spirit" leave my body and felt the presence of other spiritual beings - but you have to believe every explanation for these feelings. That means simultaneously believing in what you want to believe about the spiritual realm, and also simultaneously believing in a cold, hard, mechanical, neuroscience explanation with equal weight.
If I went to sleep tonight and woke up tomorrow with a different spirit, how would I know? If the mind/personality is separate to the spirit, then it would continue on unaffected!
Is there an experiment that I could create that could tell if I have the same spirit every day? That would require the ability to detect the spirit in the first place...
Seeing this isn't possible, then it's irrelevant to science, and we don't get to say whether it's true or not.
What you do get to do is arbitrarily pick a version of it to be assumed to be true, as a starting axiom, and then develop ideas that would stem from that assumption.
However, I would recommend also doing the same exercise but assume the opposite axioms, and see what ideas follow from that.
It's extremely self-limiting to set your worldview in stone, especially when it comes to "facts" that cannot be tested or proven. IMHO it's much more useful to explore the philosophical implications of every possible version of these unknown facts, and to simultaneously believe in all of them, pending further discoveries that show which are actually right (if any).
Previously I mentioned that identical twins are neurologically identical (you might not be able to reach this for free at the mo). If this is interpreted as meaning they have the same memory then that's not what I meant. But I meant they are cognitively identical, and neurologically the same in the sense that if one, inherently or by mutation, has a biological condition it would be exactly shared by the other
Hence for reason described in the paragraphs above, the different paths taken by identical twins on its own, is not enough to splits their consciousness.
Your link goes to a study of Neurological abnormalities in schizophrenic twins. These studies show that while both twins share the same genetics, this is only a partial risk factor in the development of schizophrenia. It's possible for one twin to suffer a neurological abnormality while the other doesn't... Neurological development is also largely dependent on environment -- both twins will have different fingerprints, because fingerprint patterns are epigenetic (dependent on environment, such as how they bounce around in the womb). The folds of the brain are also epigenetic, so they're not at all neurologically identical, whatsoever.
(sorry for reason already explained no citation for the following, but has been proven via paranormal experiences.... will soon edit and add relevant references ) The theory in brief: ~ 99.9% of sperm contain one "Existence consciousness" or spirit. But occasionally ~ 0.1%, two occupy a sperm. Thus 2 personalities exist in a developing egg. But then is forced to split in two, because two "spirit" cannot exist in one body.
Yeah no, that's not been "proven". Your photo is also not proof of anything (except that you have a very low bar for evidence).
Man-Machine hybrid? Depends what parts are human and what parts are machine. A lot of human parts can be machine with the entity still retaining its entity as a human ie - machine - legs, arms/hands, heart pump, other internal organs, eyes... In fact the only part that would remove humanity from an entity is the brain and the soul (in accessible). That's why a machine would never die (part can wear-out and get replaced), but it doesn't die in the human sense.
We've done a lot of (horrible) experiments with removal of parts of the brain. At what point is a man destroyed? It's possible to take small parts of almost any brain region and have a person still continue to exist. What if we were to replace those taken parts slowly with mechanical equivalents? And yes, researchers are working on artificial brain implants. If you slowly replace every part of a man with a mechanical equivalent, does his soul move into the new body? If no, what's the threshold? If there's one brain-cell left of him, will it stay? FWIW the brain isn't the only organ with neurons in it -- the gut also contains large synaptic webs of "brain tissue" to coordinate digestion (and perhaps generate your "gut feeling"), the heart also contains "brain tissue" to coordinate it's own work. Is one of the heart's brain cells enough to keep the soul present? How would we even know?
This is also neglecting the fact that the human body is a machine!
^^ That protein is not alive. No part of you is alive when viewed in isolation. Individually it's just a whole bunch of neat shapes that happen to interlock in very interesting ways that give rise to interesting macro behaviours.
It's impossible to study biology without realizing that we are just made up of nano-technology. Despite our building blocks being tiny little robots that execute code, compute and build via the statistical interlocking of shapes, somehow the experience of being alive arises, and the experience of consciousness arises (in some forms of life).
^^ None of this is alive. It's just a nano-machine. Look small enough at any life and it's all just nano-robots.
Seeing as we are conscious machines, there's every reason to believe that it's possible for other conscious machines to exist.
What if we could build a perfect simulation of the universe, down to the base strings (if string theory turns out to be correct...), capable of simulating every quantum interaction perfectly --- if you could copy a man into that simulation, he would function as normal, and from exterior observations, he would appear just like any other man. We could talk to him and interrogate his experience. We can't ever actually experience what he's experiencing though -- just how I can never experience your life. We would not know whether he's truly conscious or just a convincing automaton -- just as I can't ever know whether you're truly conscious or just a convincing automaton.
If humans are machines like you said, then scientists should be able to bring someone pronounced dead back to life by replacing parts such as the brain etc. The reason it can't be done is once the spirit depart we can't get it back, ie its not tangible to us
We do routinely bring the dead back to life. That's a common event in modern hospitals...
The reason it can't be done after someone's been dead for too long is that their brain begins to degrade, so even if we did revive them, the particular pattern of synaptic connections that used to represent their personality (and bodily function regulators) no longer exists. If it was possible to take a snapshot of their pre-death brain, heal all the brain-cells, and reconnect them back into the same arrangements, then there's no reason why we wouldn't be able to revive them... but that's an impossibly advanced technological feat that we're not going to be able to test any time soon.
We didn't used to understand this. It was one of those dark corners of human knowledge, so we filled it with religion and magic. No one understood much about how life functioned, so we invented magical explanations. We've shone a light over this area now and have no need for magic here any more. There are ways to explain life without resorting to the untestable.