Thoughtful Living

Thoughtful Living Board => The Debating Club => Topic started by: Sam on September 27, 2007, 10:17:32 PM

Title: Science?
Post by: Sam on September 27, 2007, 10:17:32 PM
My reality contains science, it is not science. Reality is everything, every person, every tree, every rock, mountain, drop of water, blade of grass, reality is what is. You can't break it down into subjective or objective, right or wrong, black or white, that just isn't reality, it's only "accepted" reality which is false by definition. What people think, and believe does matter. They can not be separated into non-reality/reality by science or any other organization. If you are not dealing with all of reality you are not dealing with any of it. Many organizations in the past have tried to decide what people should believe in and what they should not believe in and otherwise attempt to control their lives, they all failed. I can remember when science studied reality and didn't try to create it. When truth mattered and logic didn't have to pass artificial doctrinal tests before it could be believed. I don't live in your world of half-truths artificially manufactured by dogma.
Title: Re: Science?
Post by: NowIsForever on September 28, 2007, 09:28:04 PM
I have some reflections regarding your post.  No disagreement really, just some observations that what you are saying is what is to be expected.

Just before science first came into it's own after the Renaissance a nascent political cartoonist made a painting of three old wise men—shades of the past, Plato, Aristotle and perhaps Saint Augustine—standing behind a child playing marbles at their feet.  The child was captioned as Newton.  Such was the reputation of science at the time.  You've come a long way baby!  Now the pendulum has swung in the opposite direction again and leading egos have migrated to the camp of science.

Nothing has changed really.  Those who think they know it all don't and the ones who know they don't know it all are in the right.  We as humanity have progressed onto another plane of dialectical understanding.  We are better off in so many ways, but our progress is still infantile.  The pointed problem now is that we have got to wake up.  Our powers of destruction are growing exponentially and we must awaken to our new responsibilities or all is lost for us.  We are not guaranteed tenure on this earth.  We must earn it.

One of the many ways I think we are underdeveloped is in our science of belief.  John Lilly made progress in this science with his experiments in the isolation tank both with and without the aid of LSD and other psychoactive substances.  As Lily expressed in his books there is much in our belief systems that can be discarded as so much extraneous baggage.  Contradistinctively we must not toss aside beliefs that are essential and propitious for our survival.
Title: Re: Science?
Post by: Sam on September 29, 2007, 12:43:26 AM
Like your post, you are right on.

Love
Title: Re: Science?
Post by: chet on September 30, 2007, 05:28:36 AM
Quote
If you are not dealing with all of reality you are not dealing with any of it. Many organizations in the past have tried to decide what people should believe in and what they should not believe in and otherwise attempt to control their lives, they all failed.

I can relate to this. I've spent a lot of time oscillating between religous viewpoints, and 'scientific' atheist viewpoints, indeed being open to any and every viewpoint I came across. I'm still open to opinions but hopefully won't ever think that any ONE standpoint or system IS the 'answer'. Maybe because of life experience, I now know that religions are systems that have some of the truth about life, and they sure do have their uses. But they only go so far. They can be hypocritical - in that their leaders KNOW that they don't have the whole truth but they masquerade as if they did.

Likewise science, properly so-called, is actually something neutral - it's just 'finding things out'. It shouldn't pretend to have all the answers  - how can anyone with a whole brain believe it does?! Science properly so called should be investigating paranormal phenomena, homeopathy etc. Fortunately some are, like Rupert Sheldrake.

I feel that the 'answers' of science shouldn't be standing opposite the 'answers' of religion and then have a slanging match - as Dawkins and, for example, Christopher Hitchens  do. I think these men are highly intelligent and stupid at the same time. I'll lbe interested to look up John Lilly :
Quote
As Lily expressed in his books there is much in our belief systems that can be discarded as so much extraneous baggage.  Contradistinctively we must not toss aside beliefs that are essential and propitious for our survival.





Title: Re: Science?
Post by: Joost on December 16, 2007, 04:45:48 PM
Hi everybody,

I'd like to react (a little late) to the things said above.

I think we should be be careful not to dismiss and jugde science and scientists too easily. We often tend to think of science as dry and non-spiritual, even quiet the opposite of spirituality. But there are a lot of scientists doing their work with great integrity, often genuinly moved by the beauty they find in this world. Not only can they be moved by the beauty of nature, but also they find great beauty in for instance mathematics, physics, geology or astronomy. These people can be completely passionate of all kinds of phenomena in their science. I myself am not a scientist, but I think to be able to practise  science like that is a gift; and to be moved to that extend by phenomena from this universe is very close to being or becoming spiritual.

The problem with this universe is, that it is so vast that once you start studying the details you easily lose track of the bigger picture. And that's what's happening to science. Is this a problem ? I don't think so. As long as people study the universe with integrity and genuine openness, the truth will be found sooner or later.

In fact this is already happening in quantumphysics. First quantumphysicists started too zoom in on matter, and the further you zoom in, the less there seems to be such a thing as solid and fixed matter; matter as we think we know it does not even seem to exist. Then they found out that the results of  quantummechanical experiments are dependent on the observer. In other words, it's dependent on consciousness. So they started to zoom in on the brain, to locate 'the observer'. Same story. Couldn't find the observer. Conclusion: there's no matter, and there's no observer ? Nothing is looking into nothingness ?? That's wonderfully dazzling isn't it? I think it's great! I think it's wonderful !
As a result, now some scientists dare to say that consciousness is the source of everything.

I think we 're moving in the right direction.

Love,

Joost
Title: Re: Science?
Post by: Sam on December 18, 2007, 03:59:00 AM
I think we are moving in the right direction also. All paths lead home.

Love
Title: Re: Science?
Post by: TRAVELLER on December 29, 2007, 01:25:43 PM
Ultimately, we should never take a stand on either side, at the end of the day it is logic that keeps us from becoming fundamental in our beliefs. Objectivity and rational open thought will guide us home every time.

Until recently, religion has kept us from exploring the truth. Science needs time to adjust to their newfound freedoms.

Traveller
Title: Re: Science?
Post by: Sam on December 30, 2007, 03:14:01 AM
and their methods.