V.V. Raman, emeritus professor of physics and humanities at the Rochester Institute of Technology writing in Science & Religion Today asks Is Consciousness Fundamental?
it is fair to say that consciousness is fundamental to the full expression of the physical universe, just as an audience is fundamental to an enacted play. If the world is a sonnet that happened by chance, consciousness is the reader without whom that sonnet would forever remain in a dark abysmal depth. In this sense, the emergence of consciousness was as important an event in cosmic history as its natal big bang.
Read Is Consciousness Fundamental?. Then read Carlos Otal’s comments in this blog, as seen here and wonder is Resurrection fundamental to any image. Is every non-faked image not steeped in miraculous occurrence?
This is a Bing Translation of Carlos’s comment. I’m sorry, it is the best I have:
a-Yannick CONFUSES readers:
-To the Rogers proposal be scientific, the Maillard reaction would have been interrupted suddenly by the withdrawal or the theft of the corpse of Jesus within 36-48 hours of their stay in the Sepulchre.
-Not be interrupted abruptly the Maillard reaction, "image" would have been a great spot report by the action of the products of the decay and PUTREFACTION of the body of Jesus.
(b)-Yannick is confused:
-Yannick said to admit the resurrection of Jesus, the "dematerialization" of the body of Jesus within 36-48 hours of their stay in the Sepulchre.
-Yannick says to support the supernatural interruption of the reaction of Maillard (reaction proposed by Rogers).
-The hypothesis of a supernatural interruption of the reaction of Maillard is not scientific.
c Yannick must learn to be consistent.
-Rogers hypothesis is scientific if the Maillard reaction is interrupted by a NATURAL environment.
[what does not mean that is true]
-Yannick hypothesis is not scientific (interruption of the resurrection by Maillard reaction).
d-the shroud being one object PHYSICIST REAL, all scientific to study the possible effects on the shroud of "chemical" reactions (be Rogers or is Garlaschelli, etc.) or reactions "physical" (or Fanti, Di Lazzaro, Antoacci that was), it will be a good scientist or will be an evil scientist because of the methodology applied, not because of their religious beliefs.Every scientist, believer or unbeliever, knows that NO there is no physical or chemical energy that can RESURRECT the dead.
For the first part of this posting, we note that V.V. Raman appears with David Chalmers, John Searle,Marilyn Schlitz, Paul Davies, and Andrei Linde in “Is Consciousness Fundamental?” the 37th episode in the Closer to Truth: Cosmos, Consciousness, God TV series.The series airs on PBS World (often Thursdays, twice) and many other PBS and noncommercial stations. Every Friday, participants discuss a recent episode.
For the second part, we note that Carlos Otal is an important regular reader of this blog