So you admit on the one hand that we don't know much about consciousness but then go on to say that the theory you believe in is the best fit -- just like everyone else is doing.
My point is that the scientific approach, as much as we know about the quantum world, does not necessarily contradict what happens in the macro world, to my knowledge. There may be some discrepancies, but nothing that warrants the dismissal of said explanations/hypotheses. Now you may say that it's just as good or maybe even worse than other proposed explanations, that are pseudoscientific or worse, which offer a better explanation. Here's the thing I wanted to stress - I believe in the word of science because it is based on real life observations, something that can be observed by (almost) anyone, reproduced and its theories undergo rigorous testing and peer-review. Other "disciplines" of science, aka pseudoscience, are not. Hence the pseudo-; if they were, it would be science.
Who's talking about souls? I wasn't. I'm talking about consciousness.
Who's to say that the quantum level isn't conscious? Who's to say that every molecule in the universe is or isn't conscious? What is consciousness?
Who or what is asking the question?
Soul, consciousness, whatever - not much difference in this context. So let's continue your line of thought. Who's to say that quarks aren't cousins of the flying spaghetti monster? Who's to say that weak force is not mediated by pink fairies? To ask those questions is a warranted degree of curiosity, because it is true that often those who make breakthroughs in science ask questions that may seem retarded to ordinary people. But to believe such things without a shred of evidence to support them is crossing the line into intellectual laziness.
There's no single object called "car". A car is a set of details and whatnot that put together correctly make it a useful and working piece of machinery. But those individual details aren't cars. If you catch my drift, then you will see that your line of reasoning just doesn't make much sense. Dirt is composed of the same elementary particles as us, so it has consciousness too? Or the whole universe is one big conscious being? That's too far-fetched, I'm sorry.
It's not about liking or disliking science. You can't just presume that because someone has a different understanding than you that they're in some kind of smoke-and-mirrors self-denial. That's hubris. It's about the obvious inadequacies and holes in its theoretical framework and existential assertions about the basis of reality. There's plenty of denial happening in the scientific community, on many levels, regarding many subjects, by virtue of it being a purely human system. Subjectivity masquerading as objectivity. I'm not interested in peer-reviewed reality, I want answers. Science doesn't provide all the answers I seek, period. Anyway, I'm not going to get into another debate where I try tirelessly to point out the limitations of science. If you believe science is the be all and end all, and it gives you peace of mind and motivation to get out of bed in the morning, then godspeed.
I see where you're coming from and I guess the only thing we can do is agree to disagree. If you seek answers that are not really based on hard facts, but have a more "spiritual" aspect to them, it's your freedom to do so. One thing I want to say about science is that it's not a religion or some sort of set of beliefs. You missed my point. I'm not saying that science is omnipotent and is the absolute truth, and has no limitations. It is limited by the fact that we're biological organisms and thus subjective observers. But that cannot be used as an argument against it!
It's not about liking or disliking science. You can't just presume that because someone has a different understanding than you that they're in some kind of smoke-and-mirrors self-denial. That's hubris.
No it's not, because that's not what I said. I didn't say that anyone who believes something different than me is in denial or is dumb. No, those who dismiss facts and observable reality are in self-denial. I believe in some aspects of supernatural and I have seen a thing or two, but I do not let that get in the way of seeing things for what they are. We're animals with an oversized brain, after all, and you can't forget that. We've always tried to explain things and when we can't produce a reasonable scientific explanation, we resort to coming up with all kinds of fairy tales. It's been done since the dawn of time; just look at the mythology of ancient, or even not so ancient (dark ages) people! Now we know how much bullshit that was, because we've been able to explain a lot of those things with the scientific method, so nobody worships the god of wind anymore for whatever weather-related issues - they ask a meteorologist!
PS I'm sorry if my post is hard to understand or is written poorly, because I didn't get much sleep last night and I find it hard to articulate myself as is, let alone in this state. My apologies and have a nice day.