Scientific truth and religious truth

[Admin]

The extent of the scientific debate on climate change is approximately whether or not temperatures will increase by 0.15 or 0.20 degrees per decade in the next few decades. That's the margin of error.

Could the calculations be wrong? Here are some ways in which they could be wrong:
- An asteroid could hit the Earth, releasing a lot of particulates. This would reduce solar irradiance, and trigger an ice age. At that point we would benefit from more CO2
- A gamma ray burst could go off within a few thousand light years. This too would cause a drop in solar irradiance:
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/496914
Both of which would be treated as acts of Allah

It is in fact you who is behaving like your cousin, here, as you seem to believe that climate change might be a conspiracy of academics, scientists, and government organization. You reject the simplest explanation: That it's basic science in line with the fact that we've known about it for a hundred years.

Here's a basic science question for you: Why is the average temperature on Earth some ~30 degrees Kelvin hotter than that of the Moon, if the Earth and the Moon are at the same distance to the Sun? I'll put the answer below in white font, if you want to read it, you can highlite it:

It's because the Earth has a greenhouse effect due to water vapor and carbon dioxide.

I don't think scientific truth is the pinnacle of truth.

I know that's what people who are heavily scientifically-minded will often assume: "well it's science and there's nothing more real than science! How can you argue with the ultimate indisputable truth™?! It's a clever trick but I don't fall for it (anymore).

Let's get into a debate by proxy about that:



Warning: don't listen to this if your tolerance for frustration is low.

[pjhair]

I don't think scientific truth is the pinnacle of truth.

I know that's what people who are heavily scientifically-minded will often assume: "well it's science and there's nothing more real than science! How can you argue with the ultimate indisputable truth™?! It's a clever trick but I don't fall for it (anymore).

Let's get into a debate by proxy about that:



Warning: don't listen to this if your tolerance for frustration is low.

I disagree with this post. I think scientific truth is pinnacle of truth. I have listened to the Peterson/Harris debate. It's hard to pin down what Peterson is exactly saying(perhaps I should read his book to understand him more). However, from what I understand, he seems to be arguing that scientific truths don't have much meaning in absence of contexts (or stories as he calls it). I don't agree with this reasoning. I think stories and contexts themselves are scientific statements. I view "subjective" experiences as nothing more than a result of underlying objective facts. So the "stories" and "contexts" that Peterson speaks are in reality mere abstractions of scientific principles. What I am saying may sound confusing but the following example should elucidate my points.

Lets for example consider the sense of taste. It's often claimed that taste is subjective. For some people Chinese food is the best and for others Italian. But is taste really subjective? I prefer Indian food by virtue of being born and raised in India. My taste buds and brain have been shaped due to environmental factors/genetics/upbringing to prefer Indian food. In order to explain why I enjoy Indian food you will have to view me in appropriate "context"(or story). However there is a deeper truth to it. My taste buds and brain has a specific atomic arrangement. If I rearrange the atoms of your tongue and brain and make it exactly like mine you will acquire the same taste as mine. Not only taste, you will essentially become me. So we can claim that it's a scientific fact that the specific atomic structure I have results in being me. Different subjective experiences are nothing more than variations of objective facts.

[pjhair]

How are abstractions not more real than scientific facts? Are numbers real? How so?

Nothing is more or less real. In my post I have argued that abstractions themselves are scientific facts. My objection is to view them as something different. Also, as scientific facts are the foundation of subjective experiences, viewing them as something unimportant can have some serious consequences (such as denying gender differences).

With that example I can tell you've been listening to Sam Harris a lot.

Yes I do listen to him. Not all his podcasts but the ones related to consciousness, AI and Islam. However, my opinion on the issue of science was well formed before Sam Harris even started his podcast. He has zero influence on me when it comes to this topic. You will not find the examples, analogies and arguments I use in his podcasts or books as I arrived at them on my own.

I thought he and the other atheists were right before. I'll never go back though, as I believe atheism/rationalism partly almost did me in when during my downward spiral that was initially caused by my early hair loss.

Positive or negative impact of a belief system on you can't be used as an argument to determine it's validity or to determine if it's real. Just because a Muslim says that Islam gives him peace, it doesn't mean Islam is true. That said, I think Sam Harris and Peterson are both right. You are not wrong to follow Peterson. My only objection is the false distinction that is made between science and subjectivity. Just because I view differences in subjective experiences a result of variation of different objective facts, it doesn't mean I don't view them as important or view them as less real.

Symbolic truths, abstractions and grand narratives are definitely more real than scientific facts to me now.

My disagreement is with the use of word "more real". Like I said, they all are real. Symbolic truths and grand narrative may be more important to you. I only ask that make sure that the grand narrative and stories are based on consistent scientific principles. For example, there are people who want to believe in the narrative that there are 50 genders. It's fine but I only ask those people to make sure that the belief system they want to hold on to doesn't violate science. So essentially, I want science to have the final say.

Science removes the observer from the equation, we're not there anymore, it's "objective" fact, that in itself is wrong, as we are there, we are experiencing this world.

You can't remove us from the equation as if were were nothinh but a nuisance that would inject our irrational thoughts into that "pure" and objective science.

No, the presence of observer is a scientific fact. The experiences of observer are real and important. Reducing observer to nothing is a very narrow definition of science.

[pjhair]

They're both real, but the way I see it, there is a hierarchy, and in that hierarchy, I believe symbolic truths, grand narratives and abstractions should be placed higher than scientific facts.

I wouldn't call it hierarchy as it tends to devalue things that you put lower in hierarchy. What is currently more important to you (narrative or science) depends on what you are trying to achieve. For example, if you are shopping on Amazon, all you need is a functioning website. You don't need to worry about the code that has been written to make that website work. However, if there is a bug in the website, then you will have to worry about the code. Similarly, narratives may be important to you if you are trying to improve your life, however scientific methods become important if you are trying to convince people that there are not 50 genders. We live in a world where people have very diverse and often conflicting view on what is important or "real". Devaluing scientific methods and facts leads to conflicts and even wars.

I believe all agnostics and atheists are able to keep themselves "there", to keep thinking that way because their life isn't messy enough, and I believe they're using a lot of energy to avoid confronting the issues with their thinking.

False. Many agnostics and atheists have messy lives. Similarly, many religious people have good and happy life. Many times people in trouble turn to God but I simply disagree with your claim that "lives of all atheists and agnostics isn't messy enough".

Again, I've been there too, so I can definitely understand, it's a constant invisible struggle to push God and religion away, even though they don't realize it.

Many atheists, like me, don't believe in God because there is no evidence for him. That's it. It doesn't matter what personal benefits or advantages one can derive from this belief, as long as there is no evidence for his existence, I can't believe in God.

I have to go now but one last thing I will mention here is that I don't believe that people believe something just because they say so, as you mention the Muslims saying that their beliefs give them peace of mind. They can say that all they want, then you easily poke a hole in their belief system and watch them explode and viciously attack you like they just became possessed by the devil, peace of mind my ass.

Yes, Islam is a destructive religion but it just goes on to show the basic problem of blindly believing in narratives. If those Muslims employed scientific methods, they will probably leave their religion.

[Admin]

I wouldn't call it hierarchy as it tends to devalue things that you put lower in hierarchy. What is currently more important to you (narrative or science) depends on what you are trying to achieve. For example, if you are shopping on Amazon, all you need is a functioning website. You don't need to worry about the code that has been written to make that website work. However, if there is a bug in the website, then you will have to worry about the code. Similarly, narratives may be important to you if you are trying to improve your life, however scientific methods become important if you are trying to convince people that there are not 50 genders. We live in a world where people have very diverse and often conflicting view on what is important or "real". Devaluing scientific methods and facts leads to conflicts and even wars.



False. Many agnostics and atheists have messy lives. Similarly, many religious people have good and happy life. Many times people in trouble turn to God but I simply disagree with your claim that "lives of all atheists and agnostics isn't messy enough".



Many atheists, like me, don't believe in God because there is no evidence for him. That's it. It doesn't matter what personal benefits or advantages one can derive from this belief, as long as there is no evidence for his existence, I can't believe in God.



Yes, Islam is a destructive religion but it just goes on to show the basic problem of blindly believing in narratives. If those Muslims employed scientific methods, they will probably leave their religion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_Reason

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dechristi ... Revolution

And then you have the atheist regimes that the death of God spawned. If you give up one (scientific method, reason) or the other (truth, knowledge of good and evil, striving for heaven and getting away from hell), it often has murderous consequences.

There should never have been an opposition between science and religion, and many scientists and intellectuals have actually tried (and are still trying in the case of Jordan Peterson) to reconcile them.

You're right, in the material world, there is no evidence of the existence of God, and probably never will be, because he doesn't exist in that reality, which is why I believe putting science above God (which could be your idea of the highest good) is a mistake.

Believing in God and all it implies is an act of faith, you can't know if it's true before you give it a shot if you want. And it can take a while before everything properly aligns around you. But now I see it, and there's no going back. I wish I had stayed there but maybe it was part of the journey to doubt and have an atheist/agnostic phase, my girlfriend surprisingly had a similar experience. Christian => agnosticism/atheism => renewed (and strengthened) faith.

To address the 'there are 50 genders' claim (and it's not 50 but 63 you biggot! :p), well there are several ways to tackle that one, first, we know that gender is 0.97 correlated with sex, so yeah, it's basically the same thing, you can scrap that since it describes the same thing in reality. Second, a story, a good story is supposed to help us navigate in the world, and yes, a good one will often be aligned with what we find in science: here the chromosomes XX and XY. Trying to change that one will only produce more harm and suffering in the world. Confusion for children and neurotic people, a kind of false god for the radical leftist activists that will eventually make them insane and ostracized by people who don't buy their story, which is like 95% of the population.

Their narrative only creates chaos and has no leg to stand on, unlike religion and the story of Christ, it doesn't organically attaches itself on an existing structure in your mind, virtually no one wants to hear that story, and it's possible that even the most radical people pushing this idea don't believe it themselves. So what was the only way for them to make that harmful and unituitive interpretation of reality survive? First force it into academia, then into the school system and recently into the law itself. I just saw a few moments ago that Germany just put into the law that there was a third gender (diverse lol). Fools, they just unleashed chaos into their law system and society and some people are applauding it.

Anyway, if you have to shame someone into believing your story, threaten them and eventually make it mandatory to believe in it, chances are that it's wrong, and seriously wrong. And yes, I believe that the values that religion (I'm only talking about Christianity/Judaïsm here) taught people can help us destroy those harmful unscientific theories, thanks to the good/evil lens for example.

My last point would be, we've had the scientific method for a couple centuries so, how do you think that the average person would conduct their lives before that? Do you really think that we're superior beings with better lives because most of us in the West have elevated science above religion? It's not what I usually see, as I've said, we all know that the depression and anxiety levels have been skyrocketing in the last decades. So how come science and rationality don't seem to help us with existential angst? When I say that agnostic/atheist people's lives aren't messy enough, I mean that they can afford to have those beliefs without sinking, or their personality make-up also them to bear it for a long time. But me? Nah, neurotic and open as I am, rationality and materialism almost drove me insane.

In the end I see it that: my life is much, much better since I've become a Christian again, and it's not me convincing myself here, it's the truth, it's real, and therefore for me, God is real.

[Afro_Vacancy]

There is no truth from religion, just faith. Religion is almost certainly man's attempts to make sense of the world with whatever means were available. For example, the concept of the afterlife helps people cope with the pain of death, and gives them a fantasies that injustices in this world will be rectified in the next. It's what motivates some to blow themselves up.

Humans have a fundamental need to understand and interpret the world that will usually exceed our actual ability to understand and interpret the world. We need a framework and a set of values that we can cling militantly to. It is likely that a lot of modern political ideology are a product of this ancient neural infrastructure.

Ultimately, all of the epistemological gains in recent history have come from science. A few hundred years ago, philosophers were at the top of the intellectual pole. If you wanted to understand human nature you went and read Descartes. Nowadays, you would go to neuroscientists like Antonio Damasio. It used to be that if you wanted to understand nature you went to read Thomas Aquinas. That's not anymore, as there are better thinkers available: Einstein, Feynman, Heisenberg, etc. They have more accurate and more interesting things to say. Note that the top scientists are also philosophers, but the converse is not true.

You can spend years debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin and learn nothing. You're better off studying thermodynamics or physiology.

[Afro_Vacancy]

Nothing is more or less real. In my post I have argued that abstractions themselves are scientific facts. My objection is to view them as something different. Also, as scientific facts are the foundation of subjective experiences, viewing them as something unimportant can have some serious consequences (such as denying gender differences).



Yes I do listen to him. Not all his podcasts but the ones related to consciousness, AI and Islam. However, my opinion on the issue of science was well formed before Sam Harris even started his podcast. He has zero influence on me when it comes to this topic. You will not find the examples, analogies and arguments I use in his podcasts or books as I arrived at them on my own.

The greatest intellectual achievement of the 20th century, and likely in human history, is quantum mechanics. Though there's at least one higher level of knowledge to achieve in physics (quantum gravity), I don't expect it to be discovered in the 21st century as it is seemingly an incredibly difficult problem. We might go on not knowing for a very long time.

There are, however, at least two areas where we are likely to make fundamental discoveries in the 21st century. The first is that we might discover life on other planets -- the tools to measure that are scheduled to go online in 2037. The second is that we might understand consciousness. I understand that area a little less (re: significantly less), but there's clearly a lot of progress going on in that area, a lot of smart people working on it. It's the most interesting topic of the ones where I know comparatively little.

******

In terms of what's real, it's true that abstractions and definitions and logic are "real" in some sense. There is a distinction though. Real knowledge does not come from merely understanding logic, but specifically understanding the logic of this world. For example, failed theories of human nature are less interesting because they don't describe humans, but they might in fact be completely logical and adequately describe some other species in the universe.

[Afro_Vacancy]

I listened to the first hour of the Harris vs Peterson debate and it wasn't very interesting, due to the lack of content.

They spent about thirty minutes debating whether or not the atomic bomb represents a truth, and they mostly went around in circles. For real, genuine knowledge in that area, one would have the following superior options:
- Studying the physics of the atom bomb;
- Studying the sociology of the Manhattan project;
- Studying the history of atomic bomb use and threats of use;
- Studying the pros and cons of bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki;
Those are paths to actual knowledge. There's a competent historical drama on the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis called Thirteen Days. You can watch that and get a sense of how the atom bomb might have been used, and why it wasn't.

[Rudiger]

Is this for real? Lol

[pjhair]

And then you have the atheist regimes that the death of God spawned. If you give up one (scientific method, reason) or the other (truth, knowledge of good and evil, striving for heaven and getting away from hell), it often has murderous consequences.

I consider science to be the basis of human morality. Like I said in one of my earlier posts, I consider subjective experiences to be abstractions of underlying scientific facts. So if an atheist regime becomes murderous, they are ignoring scientific facts about human well being. The fault is not with the scientific methods. The fault lies with people who claim to adhere to them despite not doing so. Muslims claim that Allah is "merciful". And yet the same Allah burns non-Muslims in hell for eternity. So is being "merciful" not a good thing? The problem here is not the trait of "mercifulness". The problem here are people or entities who claim to be "merciful" and yet do exactly opposite of what a truly merciful person does. Also, when looking at the blood bath carried by athiest regimes, we shouldn't forget all the wars fought in the name of God. So both theist and athiest regimes are capable of horrendous crimes. Actions of these regimes have less to do with their theism/atheism and more to do with their failure to accurately apply scientific methods.

There should never have been an opposition between science and religion, and many scientists and intellectuals have actually tried (and are still trying in the case of Jordan Peterson) to reconcile them.

Religion is a catch all term which includes all kinds of faiths and beliefs many of which are anathema to human wellbeing. I am glad scientific methods have weakened those faiths. However, if you can arrive at a logically coherent set of beliefs that's doesn't negatively impact human well being (like Peterson), then there is no point opposing it. Hence I don't agree with angry atheists who spend all their day mocking religious people. It will be better if those atheists would focus on mocking bad ideas and practices.

You're right, in the material world, there is no evidence of the existence of God, and probably never will be, because he doesn't exist in that reality, which is why I believe putting science above God (which could be your idea of the highest good) is a mistake.

I am not completely opposed to the idea of assuming that “God exists” and deriving a set of values, beliefs and practices based on that assumption. However, my main concern is that this assumption many times leads to conflicting world view. For example, Muslims have many problematic beliefs because of their blind faith in Islam. To them their beliefs are not incoherent or immoral because of their assumption that Islam is true. Hence, I have long believed that morality should be rooted in human reason and not in religion. Whenever there is a conflict between the set of moral values derived from religion and the set of values derived from reason, the set of values derived from reason should take precedence.

Believing in God and all it implies is an act of faith, you can't know if it's true before you give it a shot if you want. And it can take a while before everything properly aligns around you.But now I see it, and there's no going back. I wish I had stayed there but maybe it was part of the journey to doubt and have an atheist/agnostic phase, my girlfriend surprisingly had a similar experience. Christian => agnosticism/atheism => renewed (and strengthened) faith.

I have no problem with modern Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and some other faiths. If it gives you peace, fine. However, there is a deeper observation here. You are employing scientific methods to arrive at your conclusions about God and religions. You compared your life now to when you were an atheist. You realize you are much better off now. You also see that your religious beliefs don’t hurt anyone and are not a bad influence on society. Hence you don’t see a reason to discard them. So, you see, you still have to resort to scientific methods to justify your beliefs. My concern is that many theists aren’t doing that and hence we see religious violence around the world.

a story, a good story is supposed to help us navigate in the world, and yes, a good one will often be aligned with what we find in science: here the chromosomes XX and XY. Trying to change that one will only produce more harm and suffering in the world.

So you recognize that beliefs that are consistent with science are good for the world. That’s exactly what my position is. I only suggest that scientific methods should take precedence over stories because they are the very tools that enable you to distinguish between good stories and bad stories. My concern is not science. My concern is well being of all living things and I see science as a very useful tool to maximize that.

Anyway, if you have to shame someone into believing your story, threaten them and eventually make it mandatory to believe in it, chances are that it's wrong, and seriously wrong. And yes, I believe that the values that religion (I'm only talking about Christianity/Judaïsm here) taught people can help us destroy those harmful unscientific theories, thanks to the good/evil lens for example.

Again, you are employing scientific methods to support your worldview. I urge you to recognize that scientific methods aren’t just confined to science labs. They are the very foundation of thought process that is even remotely coherent.

My last point would be, we've had the scientific method for a couple centuries so, how do you think that the average person would conduct their lives before that?

Scientific methods were always there and humanity has immensely benefited from them. I am not sure what you mean by how people conducted their lives in the past. People have always operated under the world view that they derived from the state of knowledge in the era they existed.

Do you really think that we're superior beings with better lives because most of us in the West have elevated science above religion?

Scientific methods have significantly elevated the quality of life. They have ended diseases that used to wipe out entire cities. They have given us technologies to improve our lives and have enabled us to gain a deeper understanding of our world. By employing reason, we have ended horrible practices such as slavery. I really don’t need to elaborate this point as these facts are pretty well known to anyone who is even remotely familiar with history.

me? Nah, neurotic and open as I am, rationality and materialism almost drove me insane.

In the end I see it that: my life is much, much better since I've become a Christian again, and it's not me convincing myself here, it's the truth, it's real, and therefore for me, God is real.

You may have your personal reasons to believe in God. However, like I pointed out earlier, your personal reasons can’t be used as an argument to reject science in general. Recognize that even you are relying on scientific methods and logical argumentation to justify your position. Science is still at the top of your “hierarchy”, believe it or not.

[Afro_Vacancy]

I consider science to be the basis of human morality. Like I said in one of my earlier posts, I consider subjective experiences to be abstractions of underlying scientific facts. So if an atheist regime becomes murderous, they are ignoring scientific facts about human well being. The fault is not with the scientific methods. The fault lies with people who claim to adhere to them despite not doing so. Muslims claim that Allah is "merciful". And yet the same Allah burns non-Muslims in hell for eternity. So is being "merciful" not a good thing? The problem here is not the trait of "mercifulness". The problem here are people or entities who claim to be "merciful" and yet do exactly opposite of what a truly merciful person does. Also, when looking at the blood bath carried by athiest regimes, we shouldn't forget all the wars fought in the name of God. So both theist and athiest regimes are capable of horrendous crimes. Actions of these regimes has less to do with their theism/atheism and more to do with their failure to accurately apply scientific methods.

It is problematic to assign the crimes of different societies as being entirely due to their theology. One can take the holocaust as an example. Is it due to the treaty of Versailles? The history of supercessesionism in Western Christian belief systems? The Great Depression? Modern industrial methods? The ideas of Nietzche? The occult theology of the Nazis? A lone nutcase? The inevitable culmination of attitudes to genocide that were hitherto mainstream in the west?

It is almost certainly due to the unique combination of the above and other factors unmentioned that are specific to 1930s Germany. We should not seek out the easiest and most comforting answers. Rather we should accept that some issues are genuinely substantial, and may require exhaustive time and effort to understand.

[pjhair]

The greatest intellectual achievement of the 20th century, and likely in human history, is quantum mechanics. Though there's at least one higher level of knowledge to achieve in physics (quantum gravity), I don't expect it to be discovered in the 21st century as it is seemingly an incredibly difficult problem. We might go on not knowing for a very long time.

There are, however, at least two areas where we are likely to make fundamental discoveries in the 21st century. The first is that we might discover life on other planets -- the tools to measure that are scheduled to go online in 2037. The second is that we might understand consciousness. I understand that area a little less (re: significantly less), but there's clearly a lot of progress going on in that area, a lot of smart people working on it. It's the most interesting topic of the ones where I know comparatively little.

Quantum gravity indeed is an incredibly difficult problem and one that holds answers to a lot of unanswered questions.

I am very fascinated by the topic of consciousness. Do you know that Roger Penrose claims that consciousness may be a result of quantum mechanical events occurring in microtubles? He says that in order to completely understand consciousness, we will have to first develop quantum gravity. This view is however rejected by most neuroscientists as they see consciousness as emergent property of the brain.

In terms of what's real, it's true that abstractions and definitions and logic are "real" in some sense. There is a distinction though. Real knowledge does not come from merely understanding logic, but specifically understanding the logic of this world. For example, failed theories of human nature are less interesting because they don't describe humans, but they might in fact be completely logical and adequately describe some other species in the universe.

I agree. What we mean by "real" depends on contexts. Are hallucinations triggered by LSD real? They are real in the sense that a person is indeed experiencing them. They are "real hallucinations". But the hallucinations themselves are not real in the sense that they don't really exist outside the mind of the person seeing them. So "reality" does have context.

[pjhair]

It is almost certainly due to the unique combination of the above and other factors unmentioned that are specific to 1930s Germany. We should not seek out the easiest and most comforting answers. Rather we should accept that some issues are genuinely substantial, and may require exhaustive time and effort to understand.

I agree with this 100%. I wish more people recognize this.

[Afro_Vacancy]

Quantum gravity indeed is an incredibly difficult problem and one that holds answers to a lot of unanswered questions.

I am very fascinated by the topic of consciousness. Do you know that Roger Penrose claims that consciousness may be a result of quantum mechanical events occurring in microtubles? He says that in order to completely understand consciousness, we will have to first develop quantum gravity. This view is however rejected by most neuroscientists as they see consciousness as emergent property of the brain.



I agree. What we mean by "real" depends on contexts. Are hallucinations triggered by LSD real? They are real in the sense that a person is indeed experiencing them. They are "real hallucinations". But the hallucinations themselves are not real in the sense that they don't really exist outside the mind of the person seeing them. So "reality" does have context.

Penrose can be argued to be the greatest classical philosopher alive. He has expertise on each of mathematics, physics, human behaviour, and probably some other ideas. I'd be hesitant to argue against him but ... the idea of that quote seems very unlikely. Quantum gravity is a high-energy phenomenon. The brain, though we don't understand it, is a low energy object. Most of our brains consume a pedestrian ~400 calories a day, and they're run on electrochemical interactions. We have some conceptual issues to overcome, so I'm inclined to agree with the "emergent phenomenon" explanation.

I mean, up until recently, people in the west thought that "reason" and "emotion" were completely separate things. It still shows up in our language sometimes, when we tell people, for example, not to let emotions cloud their judgment. However, it's silly and incorrect. We know that from modern neuroscience and psychology. People with emotional impairments, for example due to brain damage, are unlikely to make "rational" decisions. Within the human brain, reason and emotion are intertwined.

[pjhair]

Penrose can be argued to be the greatest classical philosopher alive. He has expertise on each of mathematics, physics, human behaviour, and probably some other ideas. I'd be hesitant to argue against him but ... the idea of that quote seems very unlikely. Quantum gravity is a high-energy phenomenon. The brain, though we don't understand it, is a low energy object. Most of our brains consume a pedestrian ~400 calories a day, and they're run on electrochemical interactions. We have some conceptual issues to overcome, so I'm inclined to agree with the "emergent phenomenon" explanation.

Some studies in the past few years have shown that quantum mechanics is used by some birds in navigation. Plants also use it in photo synthesis. So quantum mechanical events can indeed take place in living systems, according to them. I am not an expert on Physics so I am not sure if the studies are drawing valid conclusions.

https://phys.org/news/2011-01-quantum-robins.html