The Issue with Modern Day Science

[George-ananda]

I believe we live in an 11 dimensional universe. If as I believe M theory is closest to producing a GUT.

Well, whatever, my point was science's limits are too great to make it my central place of knowledge about existence. I think the paranormal evidence and the masters of certain wisdom traditions have produced stuff that, after careful consideration, I am going to take seriously in forming my personal worldview.

 

[Corvus]

I think the paranormal evidence and the masters of certain wisdom traditions have produced stuff that, after careful consideration, I am going to take seriously in forming my personal worldview.

Interesting, personally I'd rather find out for myself, with observation or experiment, than to rely on the so called wisdom and knowledge of others.

 

[Corvus]

my point was science's limits are too great to make it my central place of knowledge about existence

I don't know how you can say that in all seriousness. Remarkable. Utterly and completely alien to me. Science explains everything that matters, from atoms to galaxies.

 

[George-ananda]

Interesting, personally I'd rather find out for myself, with observation or experiment, than to rely on the so called wisdom and knowledge of others.

How long do you expect to live? You may be fine with saying "I don't know' but I personally am going to learn from all sources I deem worthy.

Eventually I see a merger between science and spirituality but not in my lifetime.

 

[George-ananda]

I don't know how you can say that in all seriousness. Remarkable. Utterly and completely alien to me. Science explains everything that matters, from atoms to galaxies.

I start with Consciousness being fundamental and matter being a derivative of Consciousness. This position comes from my consideration of those that I have come to believe have delved deepest into the nature of reality.

 

[Corvus]

How long do you expect to live? You may be fine with saying "I don't know' but I personally am going to learn from all sources I deem worthy.

I don't really think about my own life expectancy. The one thing I do know is that I am not going to wast my time chasing phantoms...

 

[Corvus]

I start with Consciousness being fundamental and matter being a derivative of Consciousness. This position comes from my consideration of those that I have come to believe have delved deepest into the nature of reality.

Now you are speaking in an alien language, the syntax of which I do not understand.

 

[George-ananda]

I don't really think about my own life expectancy. The one thing I do know is that I am not going to wast my time chasing phantoms...

I wouldn't want to either.....

 

[osgart]

non locality in quantum entanglement may be the proof of non physical realities.

I don't know why more people haven't thought this seeing that non locality defies all physics, conventional physics can't explain it.

non locality may be the missing puzzle piece in investigating consciousness. scientists like Donald hoffman, and Stuart hamerhoff, are exploring non physicality. why not more others?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

non locality in quantum entanglement may be the proof of non physical realities.

I don't know why more people haven't thought this seeing that non locality defies all physics, conventional physics can't explain it.

non locality may be the missing puzzle piece in investigating consciousness. scientists like Donald hoffman, and Stuart hamerhoff, are exploring non physicality. why not more others?

Because 'quantum entanglement' used in lay discussions by non-physicists boils down to people using the word incorrectly to assert things they haven't the foggiest idea about. Kind of like 'consciousness.' It's a gaps argument. Find something sufficiently advanced, high concept science and stick the metaphysical in there where there's no hope of sufficiently explaining it. You may as well be saying "you can see non-physical entities by fluctuating the subspace field harmonics" for all the explanatory power it has.

 

[YmirGF]

Because 'quantum entanglement' used in lay discussions by non-physicists boils down to people using the word incorrectly to assert things they haven't the foggiest idea about. Kind of like 'consciousness.' It's a gaps argument. Find something sufficiently advanced, high concept science and stick the metaphysical in there where there's no hope of sufficiently explaining it. You may as well be saying "you can see non-physical entities by fluctuating the subspace field harmonics" for all the explanatory power it has.

Really, eh? I know I barely understand the topic when I've read about it from reliable sources and to hear uninformed people bandy their oddball theories about "quantum this" or "quantum that" causes me to sound like a cat coughing up a hairball.

 

[Corvus]

Really, eh? I know I barely understand the topic when I've read about it from reliable sources and to hear uninformed people bandy their oddball theories about "quantum this" or "quantum that" causes me to sound like a cat coughing up a hairball.

It is not always easy to disseminate scientific fact from pseudoscientific nonsense. Only experts in their fields sometimes.

 

[George-ananda]

Now you are speaking in an alien language, the syntax of which I do not understand.

It's non-dual philosophy (God and creation are not-two) found in Vedic/Hindu and western traditions.

 

[Corvus]

It's non-dual philosophy (God and creation are not-two) found in Vedic/Hindu and western traditions.

Not something my knowledge encompasses currently.

 

[shawn001]

Love that the OP is complaining about modern science then uses an example of modern Neuroscience.


Reading Your Mind

"Neuroscience has learned much about the brain's activity and its link to certain thoughts. As Lesley Stahl reports, it may now be possible, on a basic level, to read a person's mind."

 

[ImmortalFlame]

When you overstate things like saying 'Sheldrake is a renowned hack whose ideas are largely discredited.'

That's not an overstatement. His ridiculous notions about "Morphic resonance" have zero scientific validity, and there have been countless exposes into Sheldrake's questionable claims, misuse of the scientific method and outright fabrication. He simply formulates his ideas to sell books to gullible people - nothing more.

I believe there is enough evidence already that shows the so-called paranormal exists beyond reasonable doubt.

If that were true, we would all believe it by now - including scientists.

But some with an obvious emotional dislike of such things can easily mire the information in controversy.

That's ridiculous. Like I said, BILLIONS of people already believe in the supernatural - do you not think they would jump for joy if such a thing were demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt? There is no conspiracy against supernatural or paranormal phenomena. Heck, I'd LOVE for stuff like that to be true - I'm a fan of fantasy and science fiction. But it isn't true, and you have absolutely zero hard evidence that it is. There is no secret cabal trying to keep this information coming to light. What keeps it from coming to light is the fact that it doesn't exist.

Where your argument above about a 'World Shaking Discovery' goes wrong is that there is no official determiner that all will accept. We each have to be our own determiner.

So you don't have hard evidence, then? Only subjective, personal experience?

Now, that may be close to correct, but an honest investigator considers the quantity, quality and consistency of the evidence before forming his position on the evidence.

Correct. Now, did you do that with the OP? Did you read the study they cited?

The OP (which I fully read) dealt with a topic I have been considering for decades; the problem with materialist science.

I didn't say you didn't read the OP. I said you didn't RESEARCH the OP - that is, read up on the paper they cited and look into his claims about Sheldrake's TedTalk. You clearly did neither. And you are obviously not properly qualified to say anything about science.

I am the only judge of my honesty that I am concerned with.

So it's okay to be dishonest, as long as you judge yourself to be an honestly dishonest.

Fair enough.

 

[Looncall]

I start with Consciousness being fundamental and matter being a derivative of Consciousness. This position comes from my consideration of those that I have come to believe have delved deepest into the nature of reality.

That makes no sense to me.

Are you sure that you are not being taken in by clever con men spouting balderdash to keep themselves out of the rice paddies?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Modern science cannot take into account the larger scope of reality because it is confined to physicality and to the materialist paradigm.

Unfortunately, remote viewing cannot be proved because, well... physically speaking... you are literally trapped inside your own body. No one can "join" you in there to witness what you are witnessing, we can't get a video feed of what's being seen through your mind. Every single person's mind is an astonishingly unique specimen of PHYSICAL changes that have taken place to create mental pathways and memories - meaning that even IF I could "jack into" your brain somehow, there is no "key" to decipher its contents except the one YOU have.

And making predictions of the future? That could actually be proven. So why don't we have people telling us what's going to happen next to prove themselves? Too scared they'll be carted off to some experimental lab? Oh wait though... we DO have those types of people - except all they ever gush over is fantastical generalizations that could fit nearly anyone who "sat down" to a reading. If true "future gazers" would be carted off to a lab for study, and ANY SINGLE ONE of those psychics were actual "future gazers", then why aren't they carted off to labs for study, I wonder? Could it be because people can't reliably tell the future well enough to warrant anyone giving a crap about their supposed "ability?" Nah... must be linked to a deeper part of the conspiracy.

 

[George-ananda]

That's not an overstatement. His ridiculous notions about "Morphic resonance" have zero scientific validity, and there have been countless exposes into Sheldrake's questionable claims, misuse of the scientific method and outright fabrication. He simply formulates his ideas to sell books to gullible people - nothing more.


If that were true, we would all believe it by now - including scientists.


That's ridiculous. Like I said, BILLIONS of people already believe in the supernatural - do you not think they would jump for joy if such a thing were demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt? There is no conspiracy against supernatural or paranormal phenomena. Heck, I'd LOVE for stuff like that to be true - I'm a fan of fantasy and science fiction. But it isn't true, and you have absolutely zero hard evidence that it is. There is no secret cabal trying to keep this information coming to light. What keeps it from coming to light is the fact that it doesn't exist.


So you don't have hard evidence, then? Only subjective, personal experience?


Correct. Now, did you do that with the OP? Did you read the study they cited?


I didn't say you didn't read the OP. I said you didn't RESEARCH the OP - that is, read up on the paper they cited and look into his claims about Sheldrake's TedTalk. You clearly did neither. And you are obviously not properly qualified to say anything about science.


So it's okay to be dishonest, as long as you judge yourself to be an honestly dishonest.

Fair enough.

We have nothing left apparently but to repeat ourselves......until some next thread where we will repeat this again

 

[George-ananda]

That makes no sense to me.

Have you truly tried to understand what non-dualism is saying? It is not a simple idea.

Are you sure that you are not being taken in by clever con men spouting balderdash to keep themselves out of the rice paddies?

Yes, I am pretty sure this is an advanced Vedic philosophical system