Currently not understanding exactly how matter and energy interact to create a subjective experience does not negate the observed fact that matter and energy can interact to make a subjective experience. — Philosophim

The apex of creation was followed by “evolutionary scale” if you two bothered to read that paragraph properly. No theological assumptions granted there. — invicta

The constants of nature are ratios or balances. So they are “fundamental numbers” that emerge from processes in opposition.

The take home is that physics sounds reductionist to most ears, but it is actually structuralist in its metaphysics.

Reality is neither fundsmentally classical, nor even quantum. These are just the two matched limit state descriptions ... — apokrisis

... the role of man as the apex of creation ... — invicta

I think humans are clever animals who use language to manage their environment. I see no reason to theologize humans or utilize categories like 'apex of creation...' — Tom Storm

We don't have an "animalistic side" -- we are all animal--animals descended from animals.

Our best selves may have flourished when we were wandering hunter-gatherers. Being civilized for several thousand years doesn't seem to have civilized us all that much. — BC

Are you saying that these are examples of the 'ruses or delusions' by which humans deny their own inevitable decay? — Wayfarer

... my use of [Buddhist ideas] as a metaphor from outside of the scientific worldview (re: entropy)? — 180 Proof

To what end, though? — Wayfarer

All you're saying wisdom consists of is resigning yourself to the inevitable natural fact of death and decay, isn't it?

... striving to reduce foolery (& stupidity) seeks to align expectations with reality as an adaptive habit ... — 180 Proof

... as to man’s nature are we inherently bad or good ? Or perhaps we are both ? — invicta

Would you consider the possibility that this 'inherent disorder' is what is designated by 'avidya' (ignorance) in Buddhist and Hindu philosophy? — Wayfarer

And that in those schools of traditional philosophy, it is precisely detachment from the imperatives of nature that provides the pathway to liberation (mokṣa, Nirvāṇa)?

Whereas the identification with 'what decays and passes away' (in their terms) binds to the 'wheel of saṃsāra' (detachment from same being the aim of 'daily spiritual practice').

In the 20th century, Quantum physics undermined some of the basic assumptions of Classical Physics, by discovering that Nature does not present absolute Truth, but statistical Uncertainty. — Gnomon

The idea of "fundamental substance" is a metaphysical one, not a scientific one. It's a way of thinking, not a matter of fact. — T Clark

The neurology literature is full of examples of the disassociation of the conscious self from the awareness, experience and perception of the organism, blind sight is merely one example. — prothero

180 Proof
Do you think there is any progress offered by labelling 'consciousness' a system? — universeness

What is particularly fascinating and at first glance puzzling about this is that he identifies the wild, empty, and irrational pseudo-activity of the students with the increasing “technocratization of the university”. What could he have meant? — Jamal

Either:
1) Panpsychism (everything is conscious)
or
2) Emergentism (of some kind) (some things are conscious)
or
3) Eliminativism (nothing is conscious) — bert1

No, the hard problem exists if we start with something (anything) that isn't consciousness, and try to explain consciousness in terms of that. — bert1

If religions and spiritualities confer peace of mind to a person, that has some net positive effect on their relationship to their body and thus the functioning of their body/it's health. No tricks, just reason. — Benj96

So science will not replace religion. But it would be an excellent development if ethics did. — Banno

I won't try and summarise the already succinct Aeon article (which describes itself as being "only in bare outline"). However, what I found most fascinating is the idea that qualia constitute the self, rather than being something perceived by the self. — Luke

There are many possibilities for category error and reification. — Janus

Might science absorb values, ethics, and morals from religions? — Art48

Or might science somehow evolve to address the concerns and questions traditionally addressed by religion?

Science will never eventually replace religion. — Benj96

It may be that our role on this planet is not to worship God - but to create him. — Arthur C. Clarke