[Ethos_]

Only religious idealism is true = reality is both matter and mind , the latter that's irreducible to the physical or to the material ,once again = that's the only conception of nature out there that does make sense in fact .

"Only religious idealism is true"..........Another example of your fight against the secular.

One does not need to abandon rational science to have faith. And, to attack one or the other is an attempt to defeat any chance for their co-existence. I value good science and my faith. I personally choose to preserve them both.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

thanks to consciousness mainly

Please define this remarkable stuff you keep talking about. What does it do?

Please , do some introspection : look within yourself : get in touch with your self ,or with your own subjective inner life .

From which I can only deduce that you have no idea what you are talking about, and your arguments and assertions are therefore worthless at best or invalid at worst. How sad to waste your considerable intellect on such a pointless exercise.

Are you saying just that , simply because you cannot deal with THE biggest and THE most important mystery of them all : consciousness ? Yours or otherwise .
What are you afraid of then ? Are you afraid of the implications of "taking the most serious and most important mystery of them all seriously ' ?
Is it a rational or a scientific thing to do to dismiss or ignore the huge importance of the biggest mystery of them all ,just because it is ?
Well, science is all about ,or  rather  should be all about , facing almost all mysteries of the universe ,by taking on those challenges ,  including and especially that of consciousness without which there can be no science ,in the first place to begin with , consciousness through which science is practiced by humans conscious scientists .
Just imagine with me what science would be like ,if science would deliberately choose to ignore some mysteries of this universe ,through scientists of course ,  simply because those mysteries  do happen to be  extremely hard ,if not impossible, to deal with empirically,or simply because the very nature of those mysteries cannot be accounted for by the a-priori held belief assumptions of those scientists  .

Science would become just a kind of dogmatic irrational orthodox ossified secular religion , as it almost has been the case , thanks to the mainstream materialist dogmatic false orthodox 'scientific world view ",despite all scientific huge achievements and despite the fact that science has been extremely successful , the latter facts that could be /can be, and will be accomplished only thanks to the effective and unparalleled scientific method that's like no other indeed = materialism has been having absolutely nothing to do with the latter facts ..

Hard -core or die- hard materialists lunatics such as Dennett , for example ,do even deny the very existence of consciousness as such ,ironically paradoxically enough , while they do experience consciousness every single day of their own lives,consciousness without which they cannot be functioning , thinking ,living, and behaving as they have been doing  .
Not to mention the fact that mainstream materialists do equate consciousness with brain activity , consciousness as an epiphenomena ,an almost  useless by-product of evolution they say,without any causal effect on matter ,while those same materialists do experience their own subjective and rational decision -making processes every single day of their lunatic lives  : how can consciousness, subjective and other conscious experiences rise from just neurochemsitry or from physics and chemistry then ?
Oh, yeah, right , we are just hardware programmed by consciousness as a software : how convenient= false machine analogy regarding life  .
And how can the most important process of them all be an epiphenomena or a by-product of biological evolution, the latter or just the materialist version of which that cannot account , per definition, for consciousness, and hence evolution cannot be just biological , but also mental non-physical .
Materialists just choose deliberatly to "see " consciousness within the context of that a-priori held materialist belief assumption of theirs ,that's just an extension of the materialist false "all is matter ,including the mind " conception of nature , otherwise they would be refuting their own materialism in the process .
Materialists are in fact just afraid of the implications "of taking consciousness seriously ",otherwise they would be knocking the last nail on the coffin of their own materialism ,or they would be just pulling the trigger of their own self-torturing conscience -gun  by triggering  the last bullet of mercy toward  the very soulless ,and already dead and false corpse of materialism  : they do  not even have  to do just that : their materialism corpse is already dead : was born dead in fact : a freak of nature : there is nothingelse in fact more serious and more important and vital than ...consciousness ,the nature of which has been reduced to just matter by materialists , just for materialist convenient ideological purposes  .
.....................
Come on , i know you're better than that you were saying here above .
Do i have to repeat the same answer to your same question , over and over again ? Come on, be serious , please .
There is nothing more important out there than our human consciousness through which we do practice science and most of the rest,science that's just a human conscious activity  : human consciousness as both THE obstacle today and THE key to understanding ourselves and the universe .
Do i have to define your own consciousness to you ? Get in touch with your own self ,or with your own subjective conscious inner life then .
Try to do some introspection : there is a whole universe out there within yourself waiting for you to dust it off , waiting for you to discover and explore,Mr.scientist  .
There is nothing out there better than trying to explore and discover our own subjective  conscious  inner lives .
Consciousness is the self , or self-identity , the soul or whatever .
That there still can be no clear definition out there of consciousness did not / does not and will not prevent scientists , thinkers or philosophers  , artists ....from trying to approach or relatively understand the mystery of consciousness : consciousness as THE mystery of them all ,science cannot afford to ignore as such any longer ....
Science must first try to reject its own materialist mainstream false "scientific world view " ,if science wanna be able to deal seriously and somehow empirically with consciousness .....the latter that's no useless epiphenomena or a minor by-product of evolution, as materialism wanna make you believe it is , consciousness that's not confined to the brain, that's not brain activity , consciousness that's nowhere and everywhere = non-local = within you and without ..........
There is nothing more fascinating or more important than ...consciousness .
Let's hope evolutionary science will be able in the future to shed some light at least on the most important ,vital , and extremely puzzling mysteries of them all : consciousness the amazing and fundamental power of which is almost unlimited ...
Science would benefit a lot form that , you have no idea ....

[Ethos_]

I am too outraged,angry  and appaled by your unscientific denials and attitudes right now to be able to continue this discussion .

So, i am leaving this forum ,right now , in order to cool down , and i will return to this forum only when i would see you all abandoning your unscientific and irrational accusations and materialist inquisitions.

Best wishes .

Ciao .

That was remarkably fast, so have you calmed down yet?

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Only religious idealism is true = reality is both matter and mind , the latter that's irreducible to the physical or to the material ,once again = that's the only conception of nature out there that does make sense in fact .

"Only religious idealism is true"..........Another example of your fight against the secular.

One does not need to abandon rational science to have faith. And, to attack one or the other is an attempt to defeat any chance for their co-existence. I value good science and my faith. I personally choose to preserve them both.

Who would reject science proper ? only idiots fools or ignorant folks would maybe .

You do neither know what you're talking about , nor are you aware or conscious of your own intrinsic paradox ,by both believing in the immaterial realm ,and in the materialist mainstream false 'scientific world view " ,the latter that has absolutely nothing to do with science whatsoever , even though science has been assuming that 'all is matter ,including the mind ", thanks to materialism .
The current "scientific world view " has been just the false materialist conception of nature .
How can't you understand these simple facts , i have been repeating to you and to the rest for so long now , over and over again : the more reason i should be repeating them thus .
.......................
Besides :
I meant religious dualism in fact : i am entiteld to hold that opinion or belief of mine , but i do not impose it as the 'scientific world view " ,as false materialism has been doing to all sciences for that matter , for so long now,by imposing its own false materialist conception of nature , world view ,philosophy or ideology as "the scientific world view " , for so long now , since the 19th century at least  .
Dualism period is the only plausible conception of nature that makes sense in fact,dualism that's been already present at the level of quantum mechanics  .
Dualism that's almost unfalsifiable =unscientific , as materialism is by the way , but dualism is not necessarily false ,as materialism is :see the difference ?
Materialism makes no sense whatsoever : matter cannot be the only reality thus : consciousness has been sending that myth to Alice's wonderland ,all along,and materialists do know that fact , deep down : they cannot  do acknowledge that simple fact  , otherwise they would be refuting their own materialism in the process  .
Materialists are thus just afraid of the implications of consciousness regarding materialism : that's why they either deny the existence of consciousness as such , or just reduce it to just brain activity ...for obvious materialist ideological purposes .

What has science to do with all that ?

Science has been materialist : that's the problem with science : the latter must reject materialism thus , in order to be less dogmatic , and more scientific , in order to be able to progress and regain its lost evolutionary nature and power .

[cheryl j]

But ,the main issue here is that materialism is false , so, we should be looking for non-materialist falsifiable theories of consciousness .
To continue trying to defend the indefensible materialism, by trying to refute dualism or other non-materialist theories of nature , can't make the fact go away that materialism is false , and hence materialism must be rejected by all sciences .

That might seem like the "main issue" to you, but that is your take on it. Other people might be interested in consciousness for other reasons, just interested in the topic itself, and their comments are not necessarily a "distraction" or irrelevant - consciousness was, after all, the original title of the thread, not "materialism is false."

 What's more, asking you to support your claims or ideas with evidence is not equivalent to defending materialism.  You would be expected to provide evidence, even if you were on a forum with just other dualists or believers in the immaterial,  in order to  support your particular version of it.

(One can only imagine what that debate would be like)

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

I am too outraged,angry  and appaled by your unscientific denials and attitudes right now to be able to continue this discussion .

So, i am leaving this forum ,right now , in order to cool down , and i will return to this forum only when i would see you all abandoning your unscientific and irrational accusations and materialist inquisitions.

Best wishes .

Ciao .

That was remarkably fast, so have you calmed down yet?

Don't worry about just that : i do know that all of you are relatively rational intelligent people , that's why i feel i do have to pursue this discussion ,regarding THE biggest mystery of them all (consciousness ) through which science is practiced ,  until the ..."end ", hoping that you would come back to your senses , unless confirmation bias , unless your a-priori held dogmatic beliefs , and other bias + other factors : cultural psychological ideological social economic political ...would prevent you from 'seeing the light " ....Don't misinterpret the last sentence "religiously " then. .

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

But ,the main issue here is that materialism is false , so, we should be looking for non-materialist falsifiable theories of consciousness .
To continue trying to defend the indefensible materialism, by trying to refute dualism or other non-materialist theories of nature , can't make the fact go away that materialism is false , and hence materialism must be rejected by all sciences .

That might seem like the "main issue" to you, but that is your take on it. Other people might be interested in consciousness for other reasons, just interested in the topic itself, and their comments are not necessarily a "distraction" or irrelevant - consciousness was, after all, the original title of the thread, not "materialism is false."

Well, that's the point :
Well, for your info, lady : materialism is false , mainly thanks to consciousness .
It is materialism in science , or the mainstream materialist false 'scientific world view " that has been preventing science from shedding light somehow on ...consciousness : "materialism is false " and this consciousness thread are intimately linked, in the above mentioned sense thus , more than you could ever know .

What's more, asking you to support your claims or ideas with evidence is not equivalent to defending materialism.  You would be expected to provide evidence, even if you were on a forum with just other dualists or believers in the immaterial,  in order to  support your particular version of it.

What do you think i have been doing all along , also via my relevant tons of posted  material on the subject here , that have been supporting my claims ?

I have been doing all that , by violating copyright and other issues , so ....= that's like stealing food for starving  people such as yourselves , guys: not much wrong about just that thus  .

Gotta go, ciao, take care .

[Ethos_]

Besides :
I meant religious dualism in fact : i am entiteld to hold that opinion or belief of mine , but i do not impose it as the 'scientific world view "

Listen just once Don....., you like myself have every right to our personal beliefs. I'm not here to change your mind my friend. I only stand to support science where it has given man the ability to improve his life.

If I want to boil an egg, I must reach a certain temperature relative to atmospheric pressure for a prescribed period of time. This knowledge is necessary to accomplish a physical act. That is Physics in it's purest form.

Now let's talk about the non-materialist.

You contend that consciousness is non-materialistic, and to some limited extent, I might agree. But let's get real here. Unless we are born into this material world and develop physically as a new born, our consciousness would never appear. So we should all realize that the origin of consciousness has to start in the brain.

Wherever consciousness takes us after that, it must still start in the physical brain. Nevertheless, I might be willing to agree with you that ultimately, consciousness may evolve beyond the physical, we really can't know for sure. But that is really beside the point. That state beyond the physical is where faith and religion are invariably drawn into the argument. And the problem we're having here Don.... is; You can't mix science with faith and expect to prove anything.

[alancalverd]

Consciousness is the self , or self-identity , the soul or whatever .
That there still can be no clear definition out there of consciousness

And therein lies the pointlessness of any discussion. Whatever facet of existence, behaviour or perception I explain, you will say "ah, but that isn't what I mean by consciousness".

My business as a scientist is to answer questions, not to guess what the questioner might be thinking about. And if you start the conversation by saying "you cannot possibly answer this question, or if you do, I won't believe you" then I dismiss you as a timewaster. Ars longa, vita brevis, my friend. Don't spend your vita being an ars.

[dlorde]

I was just teasing dlorde by calling him silly, since he implies that since there are still no falsifiable non-materialist theories of consciousness out there yet ,there will be none tomorrow, and hence   materialism must be not false .

I neither implied that nor meant it. You're reading your own prejudices into my posts.

Having said that, I know of no falsifiable non-materialist theories, I don't see how a non-materialist theory could be falsifiable, and I don't see a useful alternative to materialism at present.

The two Qualia Soup links express my current views on this quite well.

If you have anything beyond the plain assertion, incredulity, and hand-waving you've presented so far, such as evidence or plausible argument of any kind, to support a non-materialist theory, I'll consider it. However, I've already asked you this many times before without any useful result, so I won't hold my breath.

[dlorde]

My business as a scientist is to answer questions, not to guess what the questioner might be thinking about. And if you start the conversation by saying "you cannot possibly answer this question, or if you do, I won't believe you" then I dismiss you as a timewaster.

This is exactly what he has done - he admits he can't explain the consciousness experiments discussed earlier, so he dismisses them as flawed because they contradict his assumptions about materialism which are, in turn, based on his assumptions about consciousness itself, ("materialism is false , mainly thanks to consciousness"). He rejects empirical evidence about consciousness because it contradicts his a-priori assumptions about consciousness...

I'm sure he's aware that the gaping hole in that ridiculous circular 'logic' is the unsupported assumption that consciousness cannot be of material origin, but he seems quite unable even to consider the alternative. The truth is, we don't yet know, but Don insists that he does with a vehemence that suggests it's a threat to his entire belief system.

[cheryl j]

Besides :
I meant religious dualism in fact : i am entiteld to hold that opinion or belief of mine , but i do not impose it as the 'scientific world view " ,

That's exactly what you've been advocating for the last 51 pages, scientific acceptance of your dualistic view.


[/quote]

[cheryl j]

None can be more guilty of confirmation bias than materialists

Don, only you would claim that anyone who disagrees with you is biased. Do not you not see anything amusing about that?

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

None can be more guilty of confirmation bias than materialists

Don, only you would claim that anyone who disagrees with you is biased. Do not you not see anything amusing about that?

Try to read me well, sis :

Most scientists ,including  all materialists can only try to confirm the current materialist mainstream 'scientific world view ", so , none can be more guilty of confirmation bias than ...materialists in fact  ,  in the above mentioned sense thus .

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Besides :
I meant religious dualism in fact : i am entiteld to hold that opinion or belief of mine , but i do not impose it as the 'scientific world view " ,

That's exactly what you've been advocating for the last 51 pages, scientific acceptance of your dualistic view.

I am entiteld to hold that opinion or belief of mine : i just do not impose it as "the scientific world view ", as materialism has been doing to all sciences for that matter , by imposing its materialist false conception of nature , as the 'scientific world view ".
Non-materialists views of the world are unfalsifiable = unscientific , as materialism is by the way , but that does not mean they are all necessarily false , as materialism is .

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

My business as a scientist is to answer questions, not to guess what the questioner might be thinking about. And if you start the conversation by saying "you cannot possibly answer this question, or if you do, I won't believe you" then I dismiss you as a timewaster.

This is exactly what he has done - he admits he can't explain the consciousness experiments discussed earlier, so he dismisses them as flawed because they contradict his assumptions about materialism which are, in turn, based on his assumptions about consciousness itself, ("materialism is false , mainly thanks to consciousness"). He rejects empirical evidence about consciousness because it contradicts his a-priori assumptions about consciousness...

I'm sure he's aware that the gaping hole in that ridiculous circular 'logic' is the unsupported assumption that consciousness cannot be of material origin, but he seems quite unable even to consider the alternative. The truth is, we don't yet know, but Don insists that he does with a vehemence that suggests it's a threat to his entire belief system.

Since materialism is false , then those experiments and other ones must be explained in non-materialist ways , if they happened / happen to be flawless at least .

Since materialism is false , thanks to consciousness mainly , then the latter must be non-physical or non-material, since not 'all is matter " .

Consciousness that cannot have arisen from just physics and chemistry , no way .
When are you gonna be able to get this simple fact then ?
How can the subjective qualitative qualia "emerge or rise ' from neuro-chemistry , from matter , via some sort of magical materialist metaphysical 'computation or emergence property trick " , since consciousness is totally different from its alleged original neural components it allegedly 'emerged " from : it's a total form of lunacy to assume that consciousness can rise or emerge from the physical brain activity = materialist magic in science ,the latter must be liberated from , if science wanna be able to shed some sort of light on ...consciousness = materialism has been the one that has been preventing science from trying to do  just the latter .

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

How to Study  Consciousness ...Scientifically ? :

Guys : it goes without saying that i do not agree much with John Searle's views , as displayed here below , but , do feel free to  express your own views on the subject :

Thanks, appreciate indeed :

Here you go :

How to Study Consciousness Scientifically:
The most important scientific problem of the present era is one that until recently
most scientists did not regard as a suitable topic for scientific investigation at all.
It is simply this:
 How exactly do brain processes cause consciousness?
 Given our present models of brain functioning, it would be an answer to the question, "How do lower level neuronal firings at the synaptic connections cause all of our subjective experiences?" This is one of those areas of science where our ability to get a solution to the scientific problem is impeded by a series of philosophical obstacles and misunderstandings.
 We have in previous lectures begun to see some of these misunderstandings, and in this lecture, I want to make them fully explicit so that we can remove them.
This is one of those areas of science where progress is impeded by philosophical errors.
There are certain general background assumptions that underlie these specific
errors, and I will try to make these assumptions fully explicit as well.
 As with most philosophical mistakes, once you articulate the problem exactly, you can see its solution.

I. Three Background Assumptions:
A. Residual Cartesian dualism:
We still tend to think that mental phenomena in general, and consciousness in particular, are not part of the ordinary physical world in which we live.
B. The distinction between nature and machine.
Like the mind-body distinction, this was a useful distinction in the seventeenth century that has become an obstacle to progress in the twentieth century.
 The recent debates about chess playing computers reveal the sorts of confusions we are making.
C. The failure to distinguish between those features of reality that are intrinsic or observer-independent, from those that are observer-dependent or observer-relative.
 It is important to see that consciousness is observer-independent.
 It is an intrinsic feature of reality.
II. Here are nine philosophical errors that have prevented us from getting progress on this subject matter.
 I try to state and expose each:
A. Consciousness cannot be defined. We do not have a satisfactory definition.
Answer: We need to distinguish analytical from common-sense definitions.
 Analytic definitions come at the end, not at the beginning of our investigation.
 We can get a common-sense definition of consciousness easily at the outset.
B. Consciousness is, by definition, subjective; science is objective, so there
can be no science of consciousness.
Answer: We need to distinguish the epistemic sense of the objective-subjective
distinction from the ontological sense.
 Consciousness is ontologically subjective, but that does not prevent an epistemically
objective science.
C. We could never explain how the physical causes the mental.
Answer: We know that it happens. Our puzzles are like earlier problems in the history of science such as explaining life and electromagnetism.
D. We need to separate qualia from consciousness and leave the problem of
qualia on one side.
Answer: There is no distinction between consciousness and qualia.
Conscious states are qualia down to the ground.
E. Epiphenomenalism: Consciousness cannot make a difference to the world.
Answel": Consciousness is no more epiphenomenal than any other higher level features of reality.
F. What is the evolutionaty function of consciousness? It plays no role.
Answer: Even our most basic activities, eating, procreating, raising our young, are conscious activities. If anything, the evolutionary role of consciousness is too obvious.
G. The causal relation between brain and consciousness implies dualism.
Answer: This objection confuses event causation with bottom-up causation.
H. Science is by definition, reductionistic. A scientific account of consciousness must reduce it to something else.
Answer: We need to distinguish explanatory reductions from eliminative reductions. You cannot eliminate anything that really exists and consciousness really exists.
I. Any scientific account of consciousness must be an information processing account.
Answer: Information processing is observer-relative. Consciousness is intrinsic, observer-independent.

John Searle .

[cheryl j]

I am entiteld to hold that opinion or belief of mine : i just do not impose it as "the scientific world view ", as materialism has been doing to all sciences for that matter , by imposing its materialist false conception of nature , as the 'scientific world view ".
Non-materialists views of the world are unfalsifiable = unscientific , as materialism is by the way , but that does not mean they are all necessarily false , as materialism is .

What is the difference between religious dualism and the scientific kind? What specific properties do they share, or what is a property one has that the other does not have?

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

"Mind , Matter and Quantum Mechanics " By Henry Stapp :


Introduction
1 . . . and then a Miracle Occurs
A satisfactory understanding of the connection between mind and matter
should answer the following questions: What sort of brain action corresponds
to a conscious thought? How is the content of a thought related to
the form of the corresponding brain action? How do conscious thoughts
guide bodily actions?
Answers to these questions have been heretofore beyond the reach of
science: the available empirical evidence has been unable to discriminate
between alternative theories. Recently, however, mind/brain research has
provided powerfully discriminating data that lift these questions from the
realm of philosophy to that of science and lend strong support to definite
answers.
In attempts to understand the mind–matter connection it is usually assumed
that the idea of matter used in Newtonian mechanics can be applied
to the internal workings of a brain. However, that venerable concept does
not extrapolate from the domain of planets and falling apples to the realm of
the subtle chemical processes occurring in the tissues of human brains. Indeed,
the classical idea of matter is logically incompatible with the nature of
various processes that are essential to the functioning of brains. To achieve
logical coherence one must employ a framework that accommodates these
crucial processes. A quantum framework must be used in principle.
Quantum theory is sometimes regarded as merely a theory of atomic
phenomena. However, the peculiar form of quantum effects entails that ordinary
classical ideas about the nature of the physical world are profoundly
incorrect in ways that extend far beyond the properties of individual atoms.
Indeed, the model of physical reality most widely accepted today among
physicists, namely that of Heisenberg, has gross large-scale nonclassical
effects. These, when combined with contemporary ideas about neural processing,
lead to a simple model of the connection between mind and brain
that is unlike anything previously imagined in science. This model accommodates
the available empirical evidence, much of which is highly restrictive
and from traditional viewpoints extremely puzzling.
4 1 . . . and then a Miracle Occurs
Competing theories of the mind–brain connection seem always to have
a logical gap, facetiously described as “. . . and then a miracle occurs”. The
model arising from Heisenberg’s concept of matter has no miracles or special
features beyond those inherent in Heisenberg’s model of physical reality
itself. The theory fixes the place in brain processing where consciousness
enters, and explains both the content of the conscious thought and its causal
efficacy.
This model of the mind/brain system is no isolated theoretical development.
It is the rational outcome of a historical process that has occupied
most of this century, and that links a series of revolutions in psychology and
physics. Although the model can be discussed in relative isolation, it is best
seen within the panorama of the twentieth-century scientific thought from
which it arose.
The historical and logical setting for these developments is the elucidation
byWilliam James, at the end of nineteenth century, of the clash between
the phenomenology of mind and the precepts of classical physics. I shall
presently describe some of James’s key points, and will then review, from
the perspective they provide, some of the major twentieth-century developments
in psychology: the behaviorist movement, the cognitive revolution,
and the dominant contemporary theme, materialism. On the physics side,
the crucial developments are Einstein’s special theory of relativity, quantum
theory, the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradox, and the development
of some models of physical reality that meet the demands imposed by the
nature of quantum phenomena. Among these models the one proposed by
Heisenberg is, in my opinion, the best.
Coupled to James’s conception of
mind it produces a model of the mind–matter universe that realizes within
contemporary physical theory the idea that brain processes are causally influenced
by subjective conscious experience.
This model of the mind/brain links diverse strands of science, principally
physics, psychology, and brain physiology. I shall endeavor to provide the
necessary background in all three areas. However, I do not follow historical
order but construct instead a rational narrative.
The first critical point, which underlies everything else, is the fact that the
peculiarities of nature revealed by quantum phenomena cannot be dismissed
as esoteric effects that appear only on the atomic scale. The Einstein–
Podolsky–Rosen paradox, by itself, makes manifest the need for a radical
restructuring of our fundamental ideas about the nature of physical reality.
It also shows that this restructuring cannot be confined to the atomic scale.
Quantum physicists have for years been proclaiming this need for a profound
revision of ordinary ideas about the nature of the physical world. But their
reasons have usually been based upon interpretations of atomic phenomena

that are accessible only to experts in the field. To outsiders the whole
business has remained shrouded in mystery. But the EPR paradox is a
puzzle that can be expressed wholly in terms of behaviors of objects that are
directly observable to the unaided eye.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

I am entiteld to hold that opinion or belief of mine : i just do not impose it as "the scientific world view ", as materialism has been doing to all sciences for that matter , by imposing its materialist false conception of nature , as the 'scientific world view ".
Non-materialists views of the world are unfalsifiable = unscientific , as materialism is by the way , but that does not mean they are all necessarily false , as materialism is .

What is the difference between religious dualism and the scientific kind? What specific properties do they share, or what is a property one has that the other does not have?

What are you talking about ?  what scientific kind ? what do you mean exactly ?

Science has been materialist ,since the 19th century at least , remember .

I don't get what you were trying to say .

Can you be more specific, please ?

P.S.: I am a dualist period , leave that "religious " out of it then .