You can't have perfect knowledge through science

[doppelganger]

The scientific method is based on a flawed axiom that we can know the reality through our senses.

The scientific method does not have that flaw. Misunderstandings of the nature of the models yielded by the scientific method have that flaw.

EDIT: and now that I notice this thread is 17 pages long, I suspect someone probably already said something of this sort and I didn't read it.

 

[doppelganger]

Why must thinking be of itself?

Grammatical convention and social necessity.

 

[atanu]

Buddha himself said that anyone can reach that point by shedding the individual.

Yes. But he was not teaching that objects were the truth. Here we are observing some objects with given power of cognition and then we negate the cognitive power as secondary and uphold the objects as primary truth.

You may join the following thread, if wish to discuss this:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/philosophy/118799-origin-human-general-awareness.html

 

[atanu]

Why must thinking be of itself?

That is Buddha's realm. But your question is based on assumption of itself.

Grammatical convention and social necessity.

Yes. But he (Buddha) was not teaching that objects were the truth. Here we are observing some objects with given power of cognition and then we negate the cognitive power as secondary and uphold the objects as primary truth.

If thought is truly not of itself then 'you' also will not arise, except for the sake of convention and communication.

But obviously you are not speaking from that state of non-cognition of "I", when you are speaking of observed objects as truth, while negating the observer on which the observations depend.

One cannot have it both ways.:sleep:

 

[idav]

So, kindly say this in your deep sleep.

What makes you think I haven't.

 

[idav]

Yes. But he was not teaching that objects were the truth. Here we are observing some objects with given power of cognition and then we negate the cognitive power as secondary and uphold the objects as primary truth.

Why do you assume we all have that misconception? Who is we? Science certainly does not uphold the object as primary truth in fact it dismantled the object and found nothing is what it appears to be. Science has confirmed Buddha.

 

[PolyHedral]

If thought is truly not of itself then 'you' also will not arise, except for the sake of convention and communication.

Why not? Also, why is it unacceptable for it to be a convention, nothing more? That is what all language is.

Science certainly does not uphold the object as primary truth in fact it dismantled the object and found nothing is what it appears to be. Science has confirmed Buddha.

:sarcastic
Science still has entities composing the universe. As I said, there are 17 of them.

 

[idav]

Science still has entities composing the universe. As I said, there are 17 of them.

17 that are not the object. The object is mere conception.

 

[atanu]

What makes you think I haven't.

If you have seen the mind in deep sleep, then you have seen the causal mind that is not visible/knowable to the waking or dreaming minds. If you have seen the causal mind then you have transcended the world.

 

[Walkntune]

The scientific method is based on a flawed axiom that we can know the reality through our senses. Unfortunately all human beings are subject to four defects:
1) Our senses are limited and imperfect
2) We make mistakes
3) We are in illusion
4) We cheat.

Due these defects we can not know the Truth through this method. In order to have perfect knowledge you must hear from higher authority. Just like if you want to know your father you have to ask your mother. You can't go to every man and test them.

Don't forget science is based in analytical left brain thinking and can only observe a materialistic world and leaves out the right brain which observes the spiritual aspects in reality.When the right and left brain function as one and in harmony then there is no illusions and no confusion and truth is revealed!

 

[atanu]

Why not? Also, why is it unacceptable for it to be a convention, nothing more? That is what all language is.

Why not? Grammar and language do not stand on their own. They have being as the support and the expression of the Being is "I am".

Without, "I am", the the 'yuo' is meaningless.

Without "I am", the universe is indeterminate.

Without "I am", the 17 objects that you talk about will be meaningless.

It is not a mere convention that everone says "I exist" and "I see" etc. It is the given fact. Any amount of intellectualiation does not negate that.

Science still has entities composing the universe. As I said, there are 17 of them.

What are those seventeen and how they are known? Are then known in absence of given power of awareness? Are these seventeen the funadamental ones?

 

[atanu]

Why do you assume we all have that misconception? Who is we? Science certainly does not uphold the object as primary truth in fact it dismantled the object and found nothing is what it appears to be. Science has confirmed Buddha.

That is good Idav. But, I will say that it points towards that. But science working with objects of mind-senses cannot reach the source of mind and language, the Being.

 

[Photonic]

That is good Idav. But, I will say that it points towards that. But science working with objects of mind-senses cannot reach the source of mind and language, the Being.

There is still nothing proving the mind and brain separate.

 

[jarofthoughts]

That is good Idav. But, I will say that it points towards that. But science working with objects of mind-senses cannot reach the source of mind and language, the Being.

What a bunch of over-mystified nonsense...

 

[PolyHedral]

Why not? Grammar and language do not stand on their own. They have being as the support and the expression of the Being is "I am".

Of course they do; this becomes obvious when you look at the languages of things that don't have "I am."

Without "I am", the universe is indeterminate.

The universe is indeterminate anyway, so "I am" doesn't improve anything.

Without "I am", the 17 objects that you talk about will be meaningless.

I could, if you absolutely insisted, go through and define the entirety of mathematics, from arithmetic through to field theory, without using the phrase "I" once. There is no observer in mathematical reasoning, and so nothing to say, "I".

What are those seventeen and how they are known? Are then known in absence of given power of awareness? Are these seventeen the funadamental ones?

The 17 are: the up, down, top, bottom, strange and charm quarks, the electron, muon and tau particles, (and corresponding neutrinos) and the force carriers: the photon, gluon, and W and Z bosons. There's also the graviton/Higgs mechanism, which hasn't been verified to exist, but probably does. They are known because they are part of a mathematical construction that has yielded correct answers to all current experiments.

Incidentally, They can be known by entities that do not make the connection about what an "I" is.

 

[doppelganger]

Of course they do; this becomes obvious when you look at the languages of things that don't have "I am."

Excellent point. The structure of the languages of human civilization is so completely dependent on verbs of being - and especially that one - that it's hard to imagine we could communicate anything meaningful without them.

However, that's what E-prime attempts to do and it may very well resolve all the many phantoms, demons and spooky homunculi that creep around in our language and cause untold confusion.

 

[atanu]

Of course they do; this becomes obvious when you look at the languages of things that don't have "I am."

Language does not stand on its own. But kindly tell me of one human language where "I" or its equivalent is absent.

The universe is indeterminate anyway, so "I am" doesn't improve anything.

But your sense objects are true?

I could, if you absolutely insisted, go through and define the entirety of mathematics, from arithmetic through to field theory, without using the phrase "I" once. There is no observer in mathematical reasoning, and so nothing to say, "I".

Whether you used an "I" or not, would not matter. In fact that would be artificial. And then you yourself said "I couldy explain".

The 17 are: the up, down, top, bottom, strange and charm quarks, the electron, muon and tau particles, (and corresponding neutrinos) and the force carriers: the photon, gluon, and W and Z bosons. There's also the graviton/Higgs mechanism, which hasn't been verified to exist, but probably does. They are known because they are part of a mathematical construction that has yielded correct answers to all current experiments.
Incidentally, They can be known by entities that do not make the connection about what an "I" is.

They are known to whom? Not to Seers and Knowers? This is becoming weird. 'They can be known by entities', but those entities are supposed to be lacking awareness? How any thing is known?

 

[atanu]

Excellent point. The structure of the languages of human civilization is so completely dependent on verbs of being - and especially that one - that it's hard to imagine we could communicate anything meaningful without them.

However, that's what E-prime attempts to do and it may very well resolve all the many phantoms, demons and spooky homunculi that creep around in our language and cause untold confusion.

Do you think that structure of language stands on its own, without any subject to give and obtain meaning?

 

[atanu]

The ego "i" is an illusion but so are its objects. The ego "i" is illusion because there is intelligence beneath. Lack of awareness does not give rise to any illusion or wrong notion -- lack of awareness does not give rise to any notion.

 

[idav]

That is good Idav. But, I will say that it points towards that. But science working with objects of mind-senses cannot reach the source of mind and language, the Being.

The source? The immediate source can be easily seen with science. We are made of stars. The originating source is just matter and energy.