Science isn't the enemy of Spirit

[Edvard]

4 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Evolution through random mutation and natural selection violates the laws of information theory, which says that you cannot get information from noise.

20 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

 

You can't get much more ambiguous and unclear than this. I'm onboard with Einstein here, that if you can't explain something simplisticly (preferrably so a four year old gets it), you don't really understand it yourself. Seems like you've somehow picked a side by rationalizing because you thought something you've read criticizing science sounded plausible.

And, «the laws of information theory». Your not trying to use some logical («iiiik») theory some scientist came up with, are you?

I'm just telling you how it appears to me...

[Leo Gura]

@Edvard You won't understand until I spend an hour and a half explaining it. This is a highly technical topic which sits at the intersection of evolutionary theory and information theory.

You guys constantly keep falling into the trap of assuming that reality is simple and linear. When is it gonna dawn that every topic is enormously complex and counter-intuitive, requiring much research?

If you haven't read the latest research on evolution, then as Walter says in the Big Lebowski: "You're out of your element."

You can start by reading the books on my list.

[Edvard]

5 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

@Edvard You won't understand until I spend an hour and a half explaining it. This is a highly technical topic which sits at the intersection of evolutionary theory and information theory.

You guys constantly keep falling into the trap of assuming that reality is simple and linear. When is it gonna dawn that every topic is enormously complex and counter-intuitive, requiring much research?

If you haven't read the latest research on evolution, then as Walter says in the Big Lebowski: "You're out of your element."

You can start by reading the books on my list.

Okey, fine enough. But I don't assume anything. That's what I do if I just accept your claim that mutations are intelligent. Does complex and counter-intuitive = intelligent? I don't even know what you mean by intelligent.

It could certainly be right, but obviously my understanding is not deep enough. 

And any scientist can do research, so because you have read something about this doesn't automatically make you right. We could still talk about potential intellectual fallacies, if they exist, or your reasoning behind your claims. And you don't claim to intuit or believe this -- you actually claim to know it... which means that somewhere you read something that made it extremely obvious, you had an insight, or even an experience. But if experience alone did it, then it's only a matter of increasing consciousness and not discussing it intellectually, but you are discussing it intellectually, so there has to be an obvious intellectual understanding about it somewhere - given that you know it. And then we're also playing with the definition of knowing here... 

But look forward to your video on this.

[Leo Gura]

5 hours ago, Edvard said:

But I don't assume anything. That's what I do if I just accept your claim that mutations are intelligent. 

Ah, but you do assume.

You assume mutations are unintelligent. That was always just an assumption. And now it's time to call that bluff.

I don't claim to know absolutely. All my understanding is fallible. I'm just sharing unorthodox ideas to open up minds.

[Pramit]

On 2/6/2018 at 0:04 PM, Leo Gura said:

Name me one major physicist, neuroscientist, evolutionary biologist, psychologist, etc. who isn't dogmatic.

what do you think about donald hoffman? 

 

also, i am training to become a neuroscientist. 

Edited February 8, 2018 by Pramit

[Leo Gura]

6 hours ago, Pramit said:

what do you think about donald hoffman? 

 

also, i am training to become a neuroscientist. 

I'm not too familiar with him.

[MiracleMan]

I think the flaw of intellect is that it believes it's greater than what it was born from, and while practically an amazing tool, it has two sharp edges.

[Milos Uzelac]

On 2/5/2018 at 9:00 PM, MiracleMan said:

In fact, they go together like two halves of a whole, although western civilation is indoctrinated as science being the totality.  This is an incorrect assumption, ONLY in the respect that it causes suffering.  The science we are thereby educated is only one half:  the science of the "observed" or the "third person."  Our civilization is missing the other half, the science of the "observer" or the "first person" which is foremost and utmost in the epicenter of truth, the one reality, and the only authority for the truth.

Douglas Harding, who I'm channeling here, I'm a huge fan of, and he refers to these subjects as Science 1 (observer) and Science 3 (observed).  The two seem so contrasting, but if you really look hard at the evidence of both worlds, they truly confirm one another, they cooperate and verify an immense amount of confusion.

First bold statement:  The earth is flat.

 

But....

 

It is also a sphere.  Because it all depends on the position of the observer.  Einstein's genius shines as relativity can help tie in both what we see and what is seen.  The first person perspective, the only one true nature of reality, in this place, and this position, from my point of view, sees the world as a flat plane, that can roll up into hills, mountains, bounding streams and lakes and rivers, deep canyons, and eventually terminating at a vast ocean which eventually resolves into nothingness.  Even if I managed to walk in a straight line, and ended up in the same place I did before, I might have a hard time convincing myself of roundness, because my experience would still be of flatness.  It is only science 3 that would confirm that from some great distance, the flatness of the earth is now seen to be in fact not flat at all.

Now I never have, but I imagine if I took a rocket and burst straight out of the sky and looked back over my shoulder I'd see what resembled a sphere, and further still a pale blue dot, and even further still a tiny blip of light, and eventually nothing at all.

It's incredible to see that indeed science is not an enemy of spirituality, but rather a part of the sum total.  The issue in today's society is that science is seen as the totality of reality.

For example, I see the sun move in the sky, and I wouldn't be wrong for seeing it.  From the observer, it indeed moves.  From the observed, it is indeed stationary.  Neither is right or wrong, it's all a question of what perspective you take.  It's only when either party takes the side of righteousness that we run into problems.  If someone insists the world is flat, and only flat, they'd be only be looking at half the picture, and it's the same for the opposite.  Science 1 AND Science 3 together, and only together, not apart, have a sane perspective.  The two are actually one whole.

So, in my opinion, both are valid perspectives, one might have a more practical application when it comes to manifestation, but we can no longer ignore the first person as just a fluke or passerby, it's really ground zero for reality.  You could argue, and might be correct, in saying that it is the only reality possible.

I would start with the assumption that you have a head and face, if you're really honest with yourself you might find you have no face, no head, no eyes at all, but a seemingly clear, colorless, empty capacity for the entire world to appear in.  After all, the idea that the world is stuck inside a skull is just insane, but that seems to be the belief of society at large.

Great stuff! I plan on sharing your words on social media with people if its all right with you?