• Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).

i wish there was an explanation that incorporated everything

Migrated topic.
I

imachavel

Rising Star
mind, as well as physics, so much of that is left out.

although i guess s.n. goenka explains all of that, the realm beyond mind and matter is an enlightened realm, and matter and mind are both two sides of the same coin, matter is just a set of vibrations, rapidly arising and passing away with great rapidity.

maybe that's the furthest the explanation can go.

i thought this forum would be more appropriate than the general discussions forum.

thanks
 
well, i'm not just talking about the brain. I'm talking about mind, vipassana meditators believe that everything is mind, when you go outside and enjoy a nice night, you get a feeling from the night, the air, the trees, the wind, everything around you.

vipassana meditators believe that mind is throughout the whole body, not just in the brain, the brain just sums it up. Like the steering wheel and consol in a car, they only hold the main control, the car could be full of passengers. They say that the mind is so concentrated and unsubtle filled with cravings and needs and opinions and desires that we can't feel the subtle flow of mind throughout the whole body, that's why we experience what we do as being 'centralized in the brain.'

although this can't really explain a lot of things in science, admitting that many things are mind made and unexplainable would open the field of science more. A lot of scientists believe 'if you can't prove it, it doesn't exist.' But many things you can't prove
 
a lot of times scientists get into this ethical debate with themselves and others that they need to keep proving everything to prove to everyone else that its true. and in many ways we can say some things are true but its also because the language in which we developed to say these things are true is our only way of understanding them.

but then again thats what people tried doing with religion...except they had some different tricks...
 
the issue with science is always reproducibility. if you can show that something can occur repeatedly to everyone, then it goes beyond mere theory, into scientific evidence.
you also have to figure, a lot of new age pseudo-science tends to get people disillusioned..usually for someone's own business agenda. metaphysical/paranormal science is all fun and good, but inconsistent. not everyone experiences the same results...and superstition has no place in science. religion seems to have that covered
true, not everything is describable, but we learn more every day
 
imachavel said:
mind, as well as physics, so much of that is left out.
Click to expand...

But then there would be no mystery for us to ponder, only knowledge to be mastered. We are in a beautiful period of time. There is an enormous rich mountain of knowledge to be mastered already. So much that no one of us can master it all. We must specialize and communicate to collectively contain all this knowledge.

At the same time there are active, living mysteries all around us. So many that if you have a bit of brains and a bigger bit of gumption you can make a living off thinking creatively about how to wring truth from nature.

Its fine that the mysteries make you uncomfortable but don't let the mystery push you towards the easy answers available on-line or at your local sunday morning dogma shop. We don't have it all figured out and thats fine. Just ride it.
 
It's two sided. We can never have a theory of everything that is complete. It's logically and methodologically impossible. But the same principle that determines this also determines that there is a lot we can know for sure, so those who want to drown in total relativity cannot get their way either.
You will see this same priciple occur in any branch of science and i don't know if this conclusion in any of them supercedes the others.
The most famous is the Heisenberg-uncertainty principle, another is gödel's theorem, yet another example is Descartes's 'cogito'or bergson's 'dure'.
I find Heisenberg's principle the most beautiful one.
It states that we can never know both the position and the movement of a particle, yet it is possible to have non-contradicting model's on the behaviour of particles with wich we can make accurate predictions. Models that to some extent are accurate.
For instance the position of an electron circling around the core of an atom could be seen as a cloud of possible locations, an outer peel of an atom. This holds true, until you start shooting things at the atom with similar speeds as the speed of the electron itself. then the model contradicts itself, since in one case you describe a particle moving with a certain speed as being everywhere it could be and in the other case you describe a particle with a similar speed as being in one place at a time.
You know now how far the extent to wich you can make predictions reaches.
 
Back
Top Bottom