Why I Think That Science Kinda Sucks

[Student of X]

"The Method of Science, the Aim of Religion"

What I think you may be doing though is conflating the subjective with the objective.

It looks that way to you because science depends on a subjective / objective dichotomy in order to operate. But mysticism transcends that dichotomy, thus showing it to be false. And that's why science kinda sucks. It forgets that it only assumes that the subject / object dichotomy is real. It ISN'T.

Experiencing a godform doesn't mean it truly exists beyond the confines of your mind (based on my own experiments, I know this fully well). That fact that another person experiences a similar godform doesn't prove the objectivity of it either, anymore than two people experiencing the word "Jabberwocky" proves the existence of it. We make them real.

Fine, we make them real. A godform doesn't have to "truly exist". The visionary form is secondary, symbolic, poetic, cultural, evolving. An archetype wears many forms and has many facets. They are autonomous and they can interact with the ego-self under the right circumstances. They can ride our psychic ability, so to speak, thus escaping the confines of the skull and entering the collective unconscious. That allows them to convey non-local information, verifiable information, that a person wouldn't otherwise have access to.

"Listen to presences inside poems,
Let them take you where they will.
Follow those private hints,
And never leave the premises."

- Rumi

 

[Valjean]

Haven't you been paying attention, Student? You're comparing apples and refrigerators. Science and mysticism are completely different "methodologies" and operate at completely different levels.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

It looks that way to you because science depends on a subjective / objective dichotomy in order to operate. But mysticism transcends that dichotomy, thus showing it to be false. And that's why science kinda sucks. It forgets that it only assumes that the subject / object dichotomy is real. It ISN'T.

Mysticism transcends the dichotomy just as much as science does, which is to say they merely label one as the other and are done with it.

Fine, we make them real. A godform doesn't have to "truly exist". The visionary form is secondary, symbolic, poetic, cultural, evolving. An archetype wears many forms and has many facets. They are autonomous and they can interact with the ego-self under the right circumstances. They can ride our psychic ability, so to speak, thus escaping the confines of the skull and entering the collective unconscious. That allows them to convey non-local information, verifiable information, that a person wouldn't otherwise have access to.

Of course the information is verifiable. If it weren't, you'd just be yammering on about intangible invisible dragons in your garage. It's not always right, however.

"Listen to presences inside poems,
Let them take you where they will.
Follow those private hints,
And never leave the premises."
- Rumi

Nice.

 

[Student of X]

Haven't you been paying attention, Student? You're comparing apples and refrigerators. Science and mysticism are completely different "methodologies" and operate at completely different levels.

But no-body said everything is mystical. So different levels or not, there is a vantage point somewhere that can compare them. When I criticize science, I am also criticizing religion. Both are kinda sucking right now. But don't mistake that for condemnation. I accept and love them both.

 

[gnomon]

But mysticism transcends that dichotomy, thus showing it to be false. And that's why science kinda sucks. It forgets that it only assumes that the subject / object dichotomy is real. It ISN'T.

How does it do that?

 

[Student of X]

Mysticism transcends the dichotomy just as much as science does, which is to say they merely label one as the other and are done with it.

Uh, no. Mysticism transcends the subject/object dichotomy, which is how I have united with God numerous times, and how the minds of people can share thoughts. Because below the illusion of individuality, there is a level of consciousness we all share.

Science can never reach that level of consciousness, because at that level the scientist and the subject of his experiment are one.

Of course the information is verifiable. If it weren't, you'd just be yammering on about intangible invisible dragons in your garage. It's not always right, however.

Who ever said it's always right? But there are patterns and they can be navigated.

The Trickster and the Paranormal

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Uh, no. Mysticism transcends the subject/object dichotomy, which is how I have united with God numerous times, and how the minds of people can share thoughts.

Subjectively.

Who ever said it's always right? But there are patterns and they can be navigated.

Perhaps someone should perform tests relating to how often the information is right compared to chance.

Wait...

 

[Student of X]

Subjectively.

When you obtain and verify non-local information often enough and share thoughts with people often enough and have dreams and visions that come true often enough, you have to be willing to reach a point where your skepticism no longer moves the goalposts. Otherwise your skepticism is pathological. Pathological skepticism isn't skepticism at all. It's dogmatic scientism, pseudo-skepticism.

Perhaps someone should perform tests relating to how often the information is right compared to chance.

Wait...

And do the skeptics performing those tests account for and control their own psi? Or do they just assume that they have no psi and that the subject/object dichotomy is "real" and therefore that their own conscious minds can't possibly influence the tests they perform?

 

[Gjallarhorn]

When you obtain and verify non-local information often enough and share thoughts with people often enough and have dreams and visions that come true often enough, you have to be willing to reach a point where your skepticism no longer moves the goalposts. Otherwise your skepticism is pathological. Pathological skepticism isn't skepticism at all. It's dogma.


And do the skeptics performing those tests account for and control their own psi? Or do they just assume that they have no psi and that the subject/object dichotomy is real and therefore that their consciousness can't possibly influence the tests they perform?

Double-blind.

 

[Student of X]

Double-blind.

Won't work.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Won't work.

Care to explain why, or is that a faith-based statement?

 

[gnomon]

When you obtain and verify non-local information often enough and share thoughts with people often enough and have dreams and visions that come true often enough, you have to be willing to reach a point where your skepticism no longer moves the goalposts. Otherwise your skepticism is pathological. Pathological skepticism isn't skepticism at all. It's dogmatic scientism, pseudo-skepticism.


And do the skeptics performing those tests account for and control their own psi? Or do they just assume that they have no psi and that the subject/object dichotomy is "real" and therefore that their own conscious minds can't possibly influence the tests they perform?

In other words, do X amount of drugs and reach enlightenment, or rather, a non-skeptical state.

 

[Student of X]

Care to explain why, or is that a faith-based statement?

For starters, because of retro-causal psi effects. Brain-centric models of consciousness simply can't control for psi...and skeptical scientists can't help but use such models when trying to detect it. Time and space won't block psi. Matter won't block psi. It's almost like a time-reversed placebo effect.

Time-reversed human experience: Experimental evidence and implications

This paper reviews four classes of experimental evidence for time-reversed effects in human experience, examples of phenomena discussed in conventional scientific disciplines that bear a resemblance to time-reversed effects, and a new experiment that distinguishes between information flowing forwards vs. backwards in time. One implication of the cumulative evidence is that time - reversed effects permeate all aspects of human behavior. Another is that experiments in all scientific disciplines may be vulnerable to time -reversed influences, including studies based on gold-standard techniques like doubleblind, randomized protocols. A third implication is that teleology, once taboo in science, deserves to be seriously reconsidered as another form of causation.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

For starters, because of retro-causal psi effects. Brain-centric models of consciousness simply can't control for psi...and skeptical scientists can't help but use such models when trying to detect it. Time and space won't block psi. Matter won't block psi. It's almost like a time-reversed placebo effect.

Time-reversed human experience: Experimental evidence and implications

This paper reviews four classes of experimental evidence for time-reversed effects in human experience, examples of phenomena discussed in conventional scientific disciplines that bear a resemblance to time-reversed effects, and a new experiment that distinguishes between information flowing forwards vs. backwards in time. One implication of the cumulative evidence is that time - reversed effects permeate all aspects of human behavior. Another is that experiments in all scientific disciplines may be vulnerable to time -reversed influences, including studies based on gold-standard techniques like doubleblind, randomized protocols. A third implication is that teleology, once taboo in science, deserves to be seriously reconsidered as another form of causation.

That went right over my head. Dumb it down for me.

 

[lunamoth]

Time-reversed human experience: Experimental evidence and implications

This paper reviews four classes of experimental evidence for time-reversed effects in human experience, examples of phenomena discussed in conventional scientific disciplines that bear a resemblance to time-reversed effects, and a new experiment that distinguishes between information flowing forwards vs. backwards in time. One implication of the cumulative evidence is that time - reversed effects permeate all aspects of human behavior. Another is that experiments in all scientific disciplines may be vulnerable to time -reversed influences, including studies based on gold-standard techniques like doubleblind, randomized protocols. A third implication is that teleology, once taboo in science, deserves to be seriously reconsidered as another form of causation.

It is formatted like a science paper and uses science-y words, but I'm going to call pseudoscience on that one.

 

[Student of X]

That went right over my head. Dumb it down for me.

If you want to perform tests relating to how often the information is right compared to chance, then there will come a point where you get the results. If you are a skeptical scientist, positive results will result in an emotional and intellectual disturbance.

The unconscious mind of the skeptical scientist, indeed the minds of all skeptics who would eventually be disturbed, can avoid that disturbance by unconsciously using psi to reach back in time and make a tiny little change somewhere. The skeptic need not know; psi is goal-oriented not process-oriented. It just wants to protect the conscious mind from disturbance by marginalizing the positive results somehow, and it can easily shield the conscious mind of the skeptical scientist from the fact that it is operating in the background.

So a skeptical scientist would need to control for his unconscious psi before he could hope to detect it. Catch-22, because no skeptic can do that. He would need to believe in it first. But then he wouldn't be a skeptic, and so the scientific community wouldn't trust him. It would excommunicate him as a pseudo-scientist.

fMRI and photo emission study of presentiment: The role of "coherence" in retrocausal processes

Results:

Eight experienced meditators were trained to meditate in the hostile environment of brain scanner. There they were presented with, in total, 64 random neutral, erotic and violent visual stimuli during meditation in the scanner. In a separate session they were presented similar stimuli during the resting state. The resting state measurements were also compared to data obtained from 8 control subjects.

Substantial effects of meditation on brain processing of different emotional visual stimuli were found in several brain regions. The relatively largest direct effects of meditation concerned Brodmann areas 18 and 19 in the Lingual Gyrus. Long term effects of meditation, inferred from the contrast between meditators in rest with control subjects in rest, were only found in brain regions that have been shown to be involved in attention.

For the evaluation of the hypothesis concerning presentiment we focused on the analysis of the anticipatory brain signals preceding neutral and emotional visual stimuli in the 36 regions of interest. In previous work with unselected subjects it was found that these anticipatory signals are dependent on the type of the future stimulus, in spite of the fact that at the time the signals are recorded the future stimulus is completely unknown and will be selected randomly.

Experienced meditators showed stronger presentiment especially when they were meditating. The effect of meditation was quite clearly that the ‘retrocausal’ effect of violent stimuli was reduced resulting in a relative larger contribution of erotic presentiment.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

For starters, because of retro-causal psi effects. Brain-centric models of consciousness simply can't control for psi...and skeptical scientists can't help but use such models when trying to detect it. Time and space won't block psi. Matter won't block psi. It's almost like a time-reversed placebo effect.

Rubbish cloaked in pseudo- Science is still rubbish
What you are writing would get a ripple A in that field.

 

[Student of X]

Rubbish cloaked in pseudo- Science is still rubbish
What you are writing would get a ripple A in that field.

Thanks for sharing your opinion. In return let me share a poem.

The Truth stands before me,
On my left is a blazing fire, and
On my right, a cool flowing stream.
One group of people walk toward the fire, into the fire,
And the other towards the cool flowing waters.

No one knows which is blessed and which is not.
But just as someone enters the fire,
That head bobs up from the water,
And just as a head sinks into the water,
That face appears in the fire.
Those who love the sweet water of pleasure
And make it their devotion are cheated by this reversal.

The deception goes further-
The voice of the fire says:
“I am not fire, I am fountainhead,
Come into me and don’t mind the sparks.”

Rumi​

 

[shawn001]

And Jesus said unto them, "And whom do you say that I am?"

They replied,
"You are the totaliter aliter, the vestigious trinitatum who speaks to us in the modality of Christo-monism.”
"You are he who heals our ambiguities and overcomes the split of angst and existential estrangement; you are he who speaks of the theonomous viewpoint of the analogia entis, the analogy of our being and the ground of all possibilities.”

"You are the impossible possibility who brings to us, your children of light and children of darkness, the overwhelming roughness’ in the midst of our fraught condition of estrangement and brokenness in the contiguity and existential anxieties of our ontological relationships.”

“You are my Oppressed One, my soul's shalom, the One who was, who is, and who shall be, who has never left us alone in the struggle, the event of liberation in the lives of the oppressed struggling for freedom, and whose blackness is both literal and symbolic.”


And Jesus replied, "Huh?"

 

[besart]

How is science a religion? It, unlike religion, is all based on facts, can be modified as time goes on and we figure things out, there are no churches to make you feel guilty and pay for you sins. How is is a religion? please tell me.