Science isn't the enemy of Spirit

[MiracleMan]

4 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Correct.

Science is a very general method. You even use science to determine how to troubleshoot your PC or how to best take a shower or how to have anal sex.

Yoga and Vipassana are sciences, even thought they aren't formally considered as such.

@Leo Gura, please read "The Science of the First Person" or "On Having No Head" by Douglas Harding.  They are very short reads, though he has larger bodies of work out there.  His legacy is continued by Richard Lang who was a student of Douglas.  I found this path after seeing a Batgap with Lang, and I've been stuck on the headless way since.

This path makes a lot of sense to me, perhaps because it's coming from a western mystic.  It's practicality is astounding, and Harding was the real deal.  This path isn't talked about much, but I think it could be useful to those with a western mindset and conditioning if there is a struggle to understand eastern approaches.

I think you'd really enjoy some of his insights, it's really unlike any other path I've explored as of yet.  He is such an interesting writer, it's really a pleasure to read.

 

 

[MiracleMan]

1 hour ago, PhilGR said:

I found this yesterday , do you agree?

I want to know your opinion.

This should come with a disclaimer that says "until proven otherwise" because we have seen throughout the centuries that scientific models and consensus change according to the current paradigm.  If this statement was true, then the Ptolemaic model would be still be valid, but it has since found to be untrue, at least from a different observational perspective according to science.  Notice also how Newtonian physics is running into a lot of problems with the discovery of general relativity and quantum theory.

The interesting thing about relativity is that it warns us to look at the bigger picture, not the observed phenomena but the observer himself and where he is positioned, it makes all the difference, the two can t be separated unless you only want half of the story.

So again, the sun rises relative to my position here.  It's also stationary relative to my position above the earth.  It's also moving relative to the position outside of the galaxy, and so on.  Einstein, not sure if he was enlightened, but he definitely looked within himself, never excluded himself, the first person observer, from the observed.  They go together.

Edited February 6, 2018 by MiracleMan

[Joseph Maynor]

@Shanmugam

  8 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said:

That's all just relative truth.  Focus on absolute truth instead.  Relative truth can lead to tail-chasing.  Use it but don't let it use you.  A lot of people are hard-headed about this and will be stunted on this path accordingly.  And they've been warned again and again and again, and they still don't grok it.  They are too addicted to conceptual truth. 

Shanmugam responds:

Joseph... Can I ask you a question?

Do you really think you are ready  to preach others? Do you realize the obsession you seem to have in aggressively trying to tell others what they need to do?

//

Excuse me?  The guy who writes a book on Enlightenment is projecting "preaching to others" on me?  Check your own projections and conceptualizations dude.  My posts are my posts.  We all preach, you included.  Otherwise there would be no need for the forum.  I just expressed mine in a more focused way in the instance you noted.  So, your criticism of me is a poor reflection on your own bias and judgment.  Why are you moralizing anyway?  You have more opinions about things yourself than most people do on here.  So, I think you projected your Shadow onto me.  Plus your criticism of me presumes you are wiser than me in some manner, which is false.  You teach the way you want to, and let me teach the way I want to.  Agreed?  I disagree with a lot of what you say on here too, so do I get to admonish you for preaching too on occasion?  But see -- I never do that and would never do that because it's very egoic and presumptuous indeed.  I let you do whatever you want to do and leave it at that.  I would never impugn your motive; instead, I  would address your statements themselves on their face.  So, I think by criticizing me for "preaching to others" you revealed a little bit of Ego in yourself.  You are patronizing and condescending in your tone, clinging to being right.  You should look at yourself, not me.  Go inside.  I'm not the first person to be blunt on here, and I know there are well-known people on here that are way more blunt than I am.  They make me look like a baby in comparison.  So -- it's your resistance to reality that is at issue here.  See, I am pretty smart eh?  Yep, I worked for a long-time to get that way -- as I'm sure you have too on your own path.  Like you, I am also writing a book.  And maybe there's gonna be some preaching in that book too!  So, be duly warned in advance man!  It definitely will be dangerous to any Ego to read anything I write now and also into the future.  I cannot do anything other than guide people (including myself) in the manner that the Universe is guiding me to do it.  I am not in control of reality -- and neither are you.  Everything I say, by the way, is what resonates with me.  I basically am just gifting teachings that resonate with me to others.  It's like glorified sharing.  That's what being a true guru is.  No pretense, no lying, just testifying honestly.  Testifying about what I actually use and do; what works for me.  That's what being a guru in this work is.  Getting out of the theory and just saying, this is what I actually find useful.  Now, let me gift that pearl to you, and now you go make something of it -- or not!  Your choice.  But, it's a benevolent motive of sharing that's the cornerstone of it all.   I saw something great, and now I want to tell everyone I know about it too so that they can know about it like I do.  Like that.  That's the best face of the motive.  Of course, there's always gonna be some Ego mixed in there to a greater or lesser extent -- but that's always the case with anything you do in life, this situation is no exception.  

Edited February 6, 2018 by Joseph Maynor

[Faceless]

4 hours ago, Shanmugam said:

@Outer  Actually, there are lot of factors which decide how one becomes a spiritual seeker, not just being smart. There is a one word answer in the ancient traditions, which is 'Karma'... But let us put aside the karma theory for a moment and talk about the factors that this 'karma' has supposedly given to a seeker.

How a person is going to behave and experience anything depends on two factors: Nature vs nurture.

The nature is purely genetics. And most of the personality traits are the results of genetics. I used to wonder if being high or low in certain personality traits makes one to have an extreme longing for liberation. And I was surprised to come to know about another person (who is possibly enlightened) that he also had an opinion regarding this. He said that a person who is high in neuroticism, high in open to experience and low in conscientiousness is more likely to have an intense longing for liberation. And my score of those personality traits would be 5/5 in neuroticism, 5/5 in open to experience and possibly 1/5 or 2/5 in conscientiousness. And the reasons he gave also made sense to me. But it is just an assumption. Unless studies are conducted in large scale with a huge sample size, it cannot be confirmed. Anyway, here is the link to the descriptions of the traits: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits

Then comes the nurture. Nurture actually includes everything that happened in one's life, till date. If there is a variety in life, it is certainly favorable, in my opinion. Above all, extreme courage to lose oneself is needed.

Just intelligence alone will not be sufficient. I know many extremely intelligent people who are hardcore Christians, Orthodox Hindus etc. They are for sure very intelligent and smart. But they can't afford to lose their beliefs or conditioning.

There is something worse that is happening in India. The party which is ruling India right now is a political party based on Hindu religion. The politicians indulge in kindling violence among various people regarding religions. There is nothing spiritual about it.

I will give you an example. After seeing all this, a famous actor tweeted saying that 'I am against any kind of Hindu terrorism'. He was obviously referring to the actual verbal wars, abuses etc that was happening in the name of religion. But a politician from the ruling party reacted to this tweet saying that 'Anyone who associates terrorism with Hinduism doesn't have any qualification to live. That actor has to be shot dead'... Doesn't this confirm what the actor actually tweeted about? . 

Indeed it does, Indeed it does. And It’s so obvious.

[Faceless]

5 hours ago, Shanmugam said:

 Correct!

The problem I see among spiritual seekers is that they have a certain stereotype about scientists. There seems to be a group called scientists who seem to act in a totally different way from the rest of the world's population. But is this true? First of all, attributing certain qualities for an entire group of human beings is in itself a huge fallacy.

In fact, some people even  have a typical image for a scientist: A person with a beard and a white lab coat looking something through the microscope and always thinking about stuff. He is usually an arrogant, close minded guy who has no idea about the beauties of life. He can't enjoy sunrise, sex, nature, music, art, love or poetry and he simply spends his time in just thinking hard, analyzing etc.

Throw this image out of your mind if anyone has it, no matter what group it is about. When a person sees another person as just a human being, without judging him based on his profession, race, gender, economic status, language religion etc, he has come out of one of the biggest traps. Because, stereotyping, even though is a tendency of a typical human mind, is actually a trap. This is one of the things which needs to be overcome...

Joseph... Can I ask you a question?

Do you really think you are ready  to preach others? Do you realize the obsession you seem to have in aggressively trying to tell others what they need to do?

You may ask, 'What is wrong with that? I am trying to help people'...

An important rule of thumb when it comes to spiritual path is to first help oneself completely, get actually liberated before he can guide others. Because, there is a big problem here. Do you know the reason why there are a lot of confusions, debates etc in many traditions? It is because, people who never actually got liberated have tried to preach others in the last 2500 years. A famous metaphor that is given to this is 'a blind man guiding another blindman'...This is not to be taken as an offense. No offense intended.

Anyway, what you are saying about people who are obsessed with concepts, and relative truth is true. But that doesn't mean relative truth doesn't have any importance. It doesn't mean whenever someone talks anything about relative truth at all, you should jump in and start to preach. It doesn't mean that the person who is talking about a lot of concepts is actually obsessed or identified with them.

And you said ' And they've been warned again and again and again, and they still don't grok it. '... Yes, that happens for anyone. Because, certain conditionings are so deep rooted that people will have a long time in throwing their attachments away. This is how it happened to me and this is how it happens to majority of people. If someone immediately gets something as soon as it is told, that person doesn't become any superior than others either.

Another suggestion.. Again, don't interpret as a judgement. I am not judging you. And I will come to that later in this post. My suggestion would be this: Don't make assumptions about people. This is a trap as well. Usually when this happens, there is an overconfidence and probably even a little bit of arrogance (which is not obvious because it happens unconsciously)  in the person's mind. This may not be true when it comes to you but I can't be so sure when it comes to what goes on in your mind. But to be honest, it seems to be the case. And this also annoys people.

Earlier (a few months before), I noticed that whenever anyone says anything in their post, you would immediately jump in to say 'it is a concept'.. Yes, as soon as something is put down in words, it is a concept. But that doesn't mean that the person who says that is actually obsessed or attached to those concepts. For example, when I write my posts, I am not writing from certain conceptual framework in my mind; I just sit down and words seem to flow, not from some conceptual understanding of some dogma that I have in mind, but from what spontaneously arises at the present moment.

But main problem I see here when I try to explain something is this: Most of the people seem to approach spiritual path with a wrong understanding of it from the very beginning. Because, most of the time, people are not ready yet. They have not seen a lots of ups and downs of life and they haven't probably began to live a life. If this is the case, then no one can help it. Because,unless a person has seen enough in life at least to some extent, he will not have the maturity to understand about spiritual enlightenment. There are exceptions though.

The reason why I said that is because, you already said in one of your posts that enlightenment is not binary. I also tried to explain that it is not the case. I am not sure if you understood that because I think you didn't really reply to that post. But this is a misunderstanding about spiritual path and enlightenment.

Unless you get this clarified once and for all,  there are chances that you will stay in duality, thinking that enlightenment is something that keeps happening throughout lifetime (But I see why you probably say that.. I will explain more in a minute). It is actually a good excuse that mind creates so that you can call yourself 'enlightened', start playing a role of a guru and start preaching to people right away. I am not exaggerating it because I know what I went through in my life. The first time I meditated in my life was when I was 7 years old. It is true. But the year when the duality completely dissolved was when I was about 31 years old. Life is so huge and there are countless layers in the mind which have to be stripped off. For me, it was a question of life or death.  And between the age 19 to 31, there were so many moments, countless moments when  I thought that enlightenment was near. In fact, during my 19th age, I clearly remember talking to my close friend everyday  about spiritual enlightenment and I even told him that enlightenment is very near for me. That was actually in 2003. I will shortly share an email conversation that I had with an American teacher in 2008, which was 5 years later.

It is true that there is a lifelong deepening and growth. But there is a line in the middle, during which you psychologically die and be reborn. I got my first glimpse in 2002 and I was extremely peaceful for the next 6 months (which obviously made me to think that I was close to enlightenment). But I didn't realize that many things are going to happen in the next 12 years.  After it occurred in 2014, it was very difficult to get my thoughts together about what happened. I was pretty sure that the journey as an individual is over. But I had no reason to talk about it for the next 2 years. Not only there was no reason to talk about it but I immediately realized that it is going to be very difficult to make people understand.

I even thought once that why would a person wants to teach this to anyone anyway, because it seems to be almost an impossibility (this is totally contradictory to what I thought in the early years, because I used to imagine myself as a Guru. It happened at least in a few occasions). Also,there were many other problems that I don't have time to discuss right away. But I had no issue in pretending that I was not enlightened. In fact, what happened to me didn't gel with what Sadhguru has been describing. I even thought that I accidentally stumbled upon something else that is not enlightenment but it was actually a complete fulfillment and liberation. The sense of lack disappeared; the sense of a separate self disappeared; and since then, the experience of reality has been pretty similar to how my mind was when I was about 3 or 4 years old. There is no conflict, no guilt and no resistance in experiencing life. Above all, there is a sense of innocence and authenticity. It is extremely authentic and real that nothing could be more authentic or real than this.

And I didn't plan anything that happened in the last one year. Because, after seeing a lot of confusions among seekers, I couldn't help but assist them. But I don't want to be labelled as a Guru because that label has already lost its appeal, especially in India, In the last one month, worst things are happening in Tamil Nadu in the name of spirituality. So, my choice would be to just remain as a friend.

And regarding judgement part, let me just quote one of my recent posts that I made in a different thread:
 

I took my time to write such a long post for you because at one hand, you seem to be so dedicated; on the other hand, you seem to have already come to conclusions about many things. So,I hope you take this post just as some suggestions from a friend and not take it personally.

Innocence and authenticity.. these qualities in a human being indicate a freedom from the self, liberation, and emptiness. Only an empty mind is free from from its conditioning. 

I hope people who read @Shanmugam are attending to what’s said. 

[Faceless]

@Joseph Maynor

hello joseph??

I have viewed various posts on this site and the only posts that seem to indicate any essence of wisdom are those of @Shanmugam. This does not mean that he has nothing else to learn. Life is a constant and prepetual movement of learning. Learning never ends. 

I don’t think he is trying to attack you. He clearly stated that he has gone through this guru stage before. If your going to take in anything shared on this forum as significant he would be one to Listen/attend to. Does not mean acceptance. Just listen without any compulsion to accept or deny. Just here out what is being said. 

Freedom from the self is to beautiful to pass up. The self by it’s very nature clings to resistance. See this clinging, watch it. 

I hope you undertand my intention of this post friend??

[Joseph Maynor]

5 minutes ago, Faceless said:

@Joseph Maynor

hello joseph??

I have viewed various posts on this site and the only posts that seem to indicate any essence of wisdom are those of @Shanmugam. This does not mean that he has nothing else to learn. Life is a constant and prepetual movement of learning. Learning never ends. 

I don’t think he is trying to attack you. He clearly stated that he has gone through this guru stage before. If your going to take in anything shared on this forum as significant he would be one to Listen/attend to. Does not mean acceptance. Just listen without any compulsion to accept or deny. Just here out what is being said. 

Freedom from the self is to beautiful to pass up. The self by it’s very nature clings to resistance. See this clinging, watch it. 

I hope you undertand my intention of this post friend??

I disagree with a lot of what he has said in the past, so I disagree with you.  That's fine, we have a difference of opinion.  I don't consider him to be wiser than me.  If I did, I would have taken the advice differently.  Appreciate my honesty, I know it comes off as blunt, but appreciate the fact that I am very open with how I feel and I'm very no BS.  I'm not trying to argue with anyone or hurt anyone here, I'm just trying to be honest.  Brutally honest, but honest nonetheless.  

Edited February 6, 2018 by Joseph Maynor

[Faceless]

@Joseph Maynor

i understand ??

[MiracleMan]

Back on topic? 

Edited February 6, 2018 by MiracleMan
Decided against the criticism, who am I to judge?

[SOUL]

It's all knowledge accumulated by methods of discovery but they are different methods to acquire understanding about different areas of scope. Spiritualists can be just as dogmatic if not more so than the scientific minded and if people were more open to accepting the potential in each of these fields of knowledge instead of just exploring one while denying the other it would lead to a sense of equanimity when encountering challenging ideas.

Edited February 6, 2018 by SOUL

[Joseph Maynor]

57 minutes ago, SOUL said:

It's all knowledge accumulated by methods of discovery but they are different methods to acquire understanding about different areas of scope. Spiritualists can be just as dogmatic if not more so than the scientific minded and if people were more open to accepting the potential in each of these fields of knowledge instead of just exploring one while denying the other it would lead to a sense of equanimity when encountering challenging ideas.

Very nice.  Here's a good one -- believing that you are the undogmatic one.  That's still an attachment, an Egoic identification.  Or, I am the enlightened one.  That's another identification, another conceptualization.  I am the wise one.  I am the good one.  I am the tolerant one.  That's a good one.  I am the openminded one.  Haha.  I could go on.  I am the humble one.  I am the egoless one.  I am the example of the right way to be, to live, to do x, y, or z.  And I have the right values, opinions, and theories.  I have the right advice, the right worldview, the right outlook on life.  I am right, I know, I am compassionate, I am helpful, I care, I am concerned.  All half-truths at best.  I am significant, calm, poised.  I am spiritual.  I am an athiest.  I am a good citizen.  I am honest.  Woah, that's a deceptive one.  I give back.  I am a great contributor.  I am a guru, selflessly helping others.  I have great advice to share with people.  I am, I am, I am.  I am.  Me, me, me.  I, I, I.  I, me, mine.  It's all about me.  I am selfless.  It's all about helping others.  I am the pure one.  I am the do-gooder.  I am the saintly one.  All traps.

Edited February 6, 2018 by Joseph Maynor

[Key Elements]

13 hours ago, Shanmugam said:

Just intelligence alone will not be sufficient. I know many extremely intelligent people who are hardcore Christians, Orthodox Hindus etc. They are for sure very intelligent and smart. But they can't afford to lose their beliefs or conditioning.

There is something worse that is happening in India. The party which is ruling India right now is a political party based on Hindu religion. The politicians indulge in kindling violence among various people regarding religions. There is nothing spiritual about it.

I will give you an example. After seeing all this, a famous actor tweeted saying that 'I am against any kind of Hindu terrorism'. He was obviously referring to the actual verbal wars, abuses etc that was happening in the name of religion. But a politician from the ruling party reacted to this tweet saying that 'Anyone who associates terrorism with Hinduism doesn't have any qualification to live. That actor has to be shot dead'... Doesn't this confirm what the actor actually tweeted about? . 

This sounds just as complex as to what is going on in Myanmar (Burma) with the Rohingas. If you are just an ordinary person, living in a big city in India, especially in the south, you won't be facing such problems on a daily basis. You'll be living in a gated community. The worst that can happen is singing the national anthem in the movie theater for "your" country.

I won't go into it because it's too controversial, political, and opens cans of worms. It's not what this forum is about. In order to be involved and seriously help ppl who are stuck in such situations, a life purpose is the way to go. Eventually, 'you' will run into a stage where you'll become a philanthropist, and then you can find ways to help out. You won't be stuck in a 9-5 job or other situations like that anymore.

[SOUL]

8 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

Very nice.  Here's a good one -- believing that you are the undogmatic one.  That's still an attachment, an Egoic identification.  Or, I am the enlightened one.  That's another identification, another conceptualization.  I am the wise one.  I am the good one.  I am the tolerant one.  That's a good one.  I am the openminded one.  Haha.  I could go on.  I am the humble one.  I am the egoless one.  I am the example of the right way to be, to live, to do x, y, or z.  And I have the right values, opinions, and theories.  I have the right advice, the right worldview, the right outlook on life.  I am right, I know, I am compassionate, I am helpful, I care, I am concerned.  All half-truths at best.  I am significant, calm, poised.  I am spiritual.  I am an athiest.  I am a good citizen.  I am honest.  Woah, that's a deceptive one.

The "I am" affirmation can be useful in our inner work when the ego brings us past thoughts and emotions to be identified with. "I am" is an empowering tool for being present in the moment and eschewing the past identities we may be attached to.

When it becomes dogmatic is codifying it into a "truth" that is projected out as a universal "truth" for everyone instead of recognize it's personal in nature and actually is evolving present being not stagnant in identity.

[Forestluv]

@Outer @Leo Gura

I teach, conduct, write and evaluate science. From my perspective, there is the scientific method of observation, formulating a question, developing a testable hypothesis, conducting experiments with controls, gathering/analyzing data, and interpreting data. There is also the scientific paradigm of concepts.

Within that scientific paradigm there is dogma and always has been. In the scientific community we love to tell stories about past dogma and how the great scientists had the insight, independence and courage to see through the dogma and discover truth. For example, biologists love the story of Barbara McClintock - an eccentric woman in a male-dominated field. She saw past the dogma that DNA is rigid and static and proposed the concept of "jumping genes". She was discredited and literally laughed off stage one time. But Barbara got the last laugh many years later as she accepted the Nobel Prize. Ahhh, it warms a scientist's heart to tell that story.

Yet, current dogma is different, it can be major hurdle toward progress. It can reduce/block the potential of the scientific method by limiting the scope of questions and data interpretation. Scientists applaud open-minded free thinking, yet most of the pressures are to stay within the mainstream - if a scientist was radically open-minded, how would you be perceived by your colleagues? how would it affect your funding potential? how would it affect career advancement? Ironically, one way to become a famous scientist is to challenge and refute dogma.

Leo's dogma example that "mutations are random" is a good example. I'm a geneticist and from my view the notion that mutations are random is generally assumed and has been ingrained in science for decades. I didn't realize how closed my mind was until reading Leo's ideas a couple months ago. I started asking "What is *random*"? I tried to start up a conversation with biology colleagues and was met with odd looks and statements like "Well, you know. . . random like rolling dice" or "an equal probability of outcomes". After discussions with colleagues in math, physics, chemistry and philosophy I realize it's not that simple. For example, image that as a person rolled dice, we knew everything about the quadrillon of factors that determine the future outcome: the size and texture of the dice and hands, every atom in the air and in the roller's nervous and muscular systems, the resistance of the table. With complete knowledge of every factor,  would we be able to predict the outcome of the dice roll? If so, is it still *random*? Is the lack of awareness/knowledge of underlying factors the *randomness*?. . . What if we knew the quadrillions and quadrillions of underlying factors that influenced the generation of a mutation? We could trace the path of that mutation from the environment into the body into the cell into the nucleus to the DNA sequence. If we knew every detail of quantuum physics, energy etc. would we realize only ONE outcome was possible and it happened exactly as it should?  And if we had all knowledge and looked for the original source of that mutation, where would it be?

Is this just silly metaphysical BS? Yes, until it's not. Over the next hundreds of years we will learn more and more about the underlying factors of mutations. For example, we now know that chromosomes have mutation "hotspots" and that the location of mutations are not random. Progress would be much faster if scientists would be open to ideas from within differing scientific disciplines as well as metaphysics, rather than boxing themselves within their specialty and dogma.

IMO, the greatest scientist in history was Leonardo Da Vinci. He had a holistic consciousness and was able to observe, process, inter-relate and integrate fine details of what others separated: engineering, geology, anatomy, philosophy, writing, art, paleontology. . . I'm not impressed by his greatness in seven different areas, I'm impressed by his greatness in ONE holistic area. 

 

[SOUL]

@Serotoninluv You make an interesting point about whether it's really 'random' if it just is a lack of awareness about the infinite variables that contributes to the outcome. An infinite cause and effect so to speak which is just another deterministic method and it would suggest if we could orchestrate the variables we could effect an outcome which is the idea behind genetic manipulation.

Although, allow me to take a philosophical view of this, if there is only order there wouldn't have ever been the infinite variable universe we observe. There requires an element of chaos, for a lack of a better word, for the infinite variability to exist in the universe and also cause the entropy that is observed. This may not quite be 'random' as we understand it but there is an indeterminate element that contributes to what is happening in the universe.

The interplay between order and chaos manifests in the observable universe, a 'dance' between the deterministic and indeterminate, what 'absolute' forms that these exist in may or may not be something we can discover using the scientific method. So, it may not be 'random' but it's not fully deterministic, either.

[Forestluv]

@SOUL Why assume there is an infinite number of variables?

[SOUL]

@Serotoninluv I'm just using that term to communicate that it's a whole lot of them but why assume it's not an infinite number of them? Or even suggest its limited to quadrillions of them?

Edited February 6, 2018 by SOUL

[Forestluv]

@SOUL Hmmm.

We’ve become much better predictors of weather. Is our inability to perfectly predict weather due to our ignorance of a vast, yet finite, number of variables? Or is it impossible to attain perfection due to an infinite number of variables? I don’t know.

If DNA in a given system had 100 trillion combinations of mutation patterns, yet we could predit with 60% accuracy, would we still consider it random mutations? What if an algorithm could reduce the number of possibilities to 100 thousand?

And then there is the question whether the is intention underlying mutations.

[SOUL]

@Serotoninluv Well, with weather there are constants, the mountains, valleys and other topographical features don't move much. Then add that to the increasing understanding of how weather is formed and behaves as well as the data base of previous weather conditions and data tracking so of course "predicting weather" becomes more of a known quantity.

Same thing with DNA, as we learn and we accumulate a database of understanding from experimentation added to the new knowledge that will come we will have a better base of understanding and manipulating the variables, however many of them there are, to get accurate results.

Now consider the number of variables that are at work in the universe.... is it a stretch to consider them an infinite number? How could we count them anyway? How could we even account for them? Sure science does a pretty good job of observing effects but that's all it is, watching and from that having an understanding of how it behaves. They then call that the "cause" of them but it's just a behavior effect.

Just like your name, scientists suggest love is merely a chemical reaction because they see the correlation between the chemicals and the feeling. They say the chemicals cause the love but if that were true every instance of the chemical would cause the feeling, but that's not the case since the chemicals correlate to more than just those feelings. So maybe the subjective experience of love is accompanied by the chemical reaction, not the chemicals causing it.

It's recognizing the indeterminate interacting with the determinate as a whole and possibly why Da Vinci had an insight that transcended mere knowledge accumulation, it's recognizing the whole just like you said, a holistic approach.

Edited February 7, 2018 by SOUL

[electroBeam]

13 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Correct.

Science is a very general method. You even use science to determine how to troubleshoot your PC or how to best take a shower or how to have anal sex.

Yoga and Vipassana are sciences, even thought they aren't formally considered as such.

have you got any example research papers that is open minded? I trying to figure out how to publish a paper without relying on assumptions that someone a century ago just arbitrarily made for convenience. Now that assumption is apart of the ritural of the specialization of that field.

Some examples of assumptions:

- there's a brain

- A measurement is real (like get a ruler and measure something) people think that distance actually exists. I get that its possible to rule something but that doesnt mean that distance exists. 

- In scientific experiments, everyone assumes that they are observing some phenomena. For example for figuring out gravity, not only do they assume that distance exists, but also that there's something observing the measurements happening (the falling down of a ball) this might seem like I'm nit picking, but this shift in understanding that there might be no one observing the phenomena is huge. Its what the empirical side of science is predicated upon. If everyone in the world had a mental disorder, all scientific empirical evidence would be warped to that disorder.

- If you repeat an experiment 5 times, it will repeat forever. Repeatability apparently proves reality will be of a certain form forever hahahahahahaah

- (this is the one am concerned of the most, because im trying to do research in this area) The physical phenomena is more important or real than metaphysical phenomena. This is a terrible belief that needs to stop. They have it backwards, they think that feeling pain is less real than an atom that we cannot see, all because Descarte just assumed there was an outside world. So any research I do on Metaphysical qualia gets either discarded straight away, or the peer reviewers will read it with an external cognitive lens. See happiness comes from the inside not the physical realm (if the physical realm exists we cant touch it anyway) so we should be focusing on qualia rather than atoms and cognitive science. 

 

Is there any paper that acknowledges these assumptions? Its very hard to publish a paper and get it passed while acknowledging these

And its very hard to get a paper published if you decide to just chuck out the euclidiana assumptions all together.

I'm not saying scientists are wrong, maybe distance does exists. But I think its highly unethical to just assume that these things exist because youre too lazy to do anything else...

Edited February 6, 2018 by electroBeam