Wow. That's a convincing argument. How do you kow, based upon scientific examination of the evolutionary source of "scientific beliefs" and the evolutionary source of "religious beliefs" that one should be included and the other excluded?

I just said that religion shouldn't be excluded; science shouldn't be excluded, either, so I don't "know" that either one should be excluded.

One could argue that science is what scientists do.

One could. But why should one believe it is true? Do you know what a tautology is?

Do scientists never "do religion," asnd do religionists never "do science"

In fact, many ministers and priests have engaged in scientific research, and great scientists have also been theologians.

Since both science and religion have their source in the same process, how do we know that science isn't religion and that religion isn't science? Try not to beg the question, please.

Where are the "scientific" papers which explore "scientific belief"

It seems on the surface obvious to me, but maybe scientists are actually engaging in some kind of worship I'm unfamiliar with, and theologians are doing lab work I haven't heard about. I don't know where those scientific articles researching science itself are, since I've never looked for them. Thats why I suggested you write and submit your science paper demonstrating that science is religion.

Religion shouldn't be excluded; it just shouldn't be called "science" when it isn't.

Wow. That's a convincing argument. How do you kow, based upon scientific examination of the evolutionary source of "scientific beliefs" and the evolutionary source of "religious beliefs" that one should be included and the other excluded?

One could argue that science is what scientists do.

One could. But why should one believe it is true? Do you know what a tautology is?

Do scientists never "do religion," asnd do religionists never "do science"

Good luck with that line of argument.

Since both science and religion have their source in the same process, how do we know that science isn't religion and that religion isn't science? Try not to beg the question, please.

Where are the "scientific" papers which explore "scientific belief"

If science and religion are both the result of the same processes, why should science be allowed while religion is excluded?

Religion shouldn't be excluded; it just shouldn't be called "science" when it isn't.

How do we determine, scientifically, whether a given belief is religious, as opposed to, say, scientific?

That would be with empirical research. One could argue that science is what scientists do. Perhaps you can apply for a research grant to analyze what is being published in peer reviewed science journals.

What if we can demonstrate scientifically that "science" is a religious belief?

Maybe you'll win a Nobel Prize. Let us know when you submit your research paper demonstrating that "science" is a religious belief to a peer reviewed journal.

Ions in liquids undergo stochastic diffusive motion. The translational quantum states are so close together none of them can actually be occupied with any significant probability; the vibrational states of the solvent cage last only as long as the cage, which means picoseconds. This is a quintessentially classical problem.

The stochastic nature of these processes is driven by inputs from the quantum mechanical level. I'm not claiming quantum coherence or entanglement is even necessary, simply that a driver of the stochastic variations in the probabalistic nature of ion channel / nerve firing response is quantum indeterminancy.

Like I've stated before, the brain looks very much like a device to amplify the effects of probabalistic variation starting at the quantum level. Are there "hidden variables" going on there?

Thanks to Art for correcting the out-of-context quotation of my words.

Thank Art for making it seem like you don't do what you claim you do.

I do quantum calculations on biomolecules.

My only point with this quote is that people actually do quantum calculations on biomolecules. You claim that you do so. Are you now retracting this claim? And since my only point was to establish that people actually do quantum calculations on biomolecules, how am I quoting you out of context?

One of the key hallmarks of biological function is ordering in space and time, and at least two great classes of biological orchestration should serve as a call to action for physicists: the coordination of physical structures and processes and the orchestration of information"¦"¦ In many instances, the machines of the cell are integrated into collections of many parts, often with proteins, nucleic acids, lipids, and other molecules working in concert. One of the most important ways that physicists come to terms with systems comprising many interacting degrees of freedom is to consider collective excitations. For example, phonons characterize the vibrations of a crystalline solid and magnons describe collective excitations of magnetic spins.

Indeed, physicists talk of "-ons" of all kinds. The biological setting provides a loose analogy because some biological structures are characterized with the label "-somes," which derives from the Greek word for "body." The term refers to macromolecular assemblies that are made from multiple molecular components that act in a collective fashion to perform multiple functions. Some of the most notable examples include the ribosome, used in protein synthesis; the nucleosome, which is the individual packing unit for eukaryotic DNA; the proteasome, an assembly that mediates protein degradation; and the transcriptisome, which mediates gene transcription. By mechanisms and principles that are still largely unknown, proteins assemble into -somes, perform a task, and then disassemble again.

Function is dependent on organized collectives.

I'd like to ask Matthew why he thinks the movement of ions in the synaptic cleft is quantum mechanical. Ions in liquids undergo stochastic diffusive motion. The translational quantum states are so close together none of them can actually be occupied with any significant probability; the vibrational states of the solvent cage last only as long as the cage, which means picoseconds. This is a quintessentially classical problem.

Since you seem to know a lot about this I would be interested in any comment on the articles mentioned here. Apparently one candidate for quantum tunneling is tryptamine a neurotransmitter.

I'd like to ask Matthew why he thinks the movement of ions in the synaptic cleft is quantum mechanical. Ions in liquids undergo stochastic diffusive motion. The translational quantum states are so close together none of them can actually be occupied with any significant probability; the vibrational states of the solvent cage last only as long as the cage, which means picoseconds. This is a quintessentially classical problem.

What is the scientific basis for excluding intentional causes from science?

Method only. Scientific analysis works best when one looks for proximate causes first, and it works best when one does not assume supernatural causes that cannot be detected. Our human experience, dating back some 5,000 years, has amply demonstrated that the assumption of supernatural cause tends to obfuscate true causes and delay the accumulation and use of practical knowledge.

What possible scientific, or ethical, basis could exist for honest inquiry under any different fashion? Consider Semmelweiss's work on handwashing. Consider Franklin's work on the nature of lightning. Consider medical work on mental illness. Is there a single example where the assumption of a non-proximate cause has led to useful discovery? If there is any such example, is there evidence that such inquiry can methodically lead to more knowledge?

Go ahead, Mung — tell us how non-science could produce different, and better, results.