Parshvik Chintan
Esteemed member
benzyme said:
-
Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).
Science vs. Mysticism
- Thread starter Veritatis cupitor
- Start date
timothylearysdead
Rising Star
That's a good video. He implies that "reasonable experimental conditions" are the unquestioned benchmark to be used for measuring objective 'truth'.Parshvik Chintan said:benzyme said:
Unfortunately, this assumption nullifies his point; proves that it is based upon an unquestioned-belief; and further shows science-itself to be a 'faith'!
:!:psychedelic
Rising Star
The title seems a little contradicting to me: science vs mysticism?
What I feel at the moment is that science is what we ''know'' to be true, and mysticism what we believe could be true. When mysticism is revealed isn't it a part of science? May not be very clear but I hope you get what I mean.
Also, I only know Terrence Mckenna from the people you mentioned, and I like his ideas.
I personally do believe we are collective-conscience/collective-consciousness.
This is because if I ask you to point at yourself, you wouldn't be able to would you?
Not your chest or your head, but YOU. Or even the person next to you.
I think me/you is just a label we create because ''we'' experience each other simultaneously.
Atoms are 99.999% empty space, concluding that solid objects only appear solid. Everything we see is an illusion. What we know to be ''real'' is only what we perceive with our five senses.
You can look at each cell individually in ''your'' body and give each one a name, because each one of them works individually. Or do they? Now lets zoom out to view ''your'' whole body. No more trillions of named cells, now it's only one individual body, call it John or whatever.
Now zoom out a little more, and there are 6+ billion of individual bodies, and each one of them is a separate individual and working solo. Or are we?
Now zoom out to the solar system. Yes. Same thing. Planet, zoom out, planets, zoom out, milky way, zoom out, galaxy, then galaxies etc.
If replace each one of the cells from your body to my body, one by one, at what point do I become YOU or vise versa?
I truly believe all separation ''we'' create between ''ourselves'' is an illusion.
Or in better terms: The idea of separation is an illusion.
Peace
What I feel at the moment is that science is what we ''know'' to be true, and mysticism what we believe could be true. When mysticism is revealed isn't it a part of science? May not be very clear but I hope you get what I mean.
Also, I only know Terrence Mckenna from the people you mentioned, and I like his ideas.
I personally do believe we are collective-conscience/collective-consciousness.
This is because if I ask you to point at yourself, you wouldn't be able to would you?
Not your chest or your head, but YOU. Or even the person next to you.
I think me/you is just a label we create because ''we'' experience each other simultaneously.
Atoms are 99.999% empty space, concluding that solid objects only appear solid. Everything we see is an illusion. What we know to be ''real'' is only what we perceive with our five senses.
You can look at each cell individually in ''your'' body and give each one a name, because each one of them works individually. Or do they? Now lets zoom out to view ''your'' whole body. No more trillions of named cells, now it's only one individual body, call it John or whatever.
Now zoom out a little more, and there are 6+ billion of individual bodies, and each one of them is a separate individual and working solo. Or are we?
Now zoom out to the solar system. Yes. Same thing. Planet, zoom out, planets, zoom out, milky way, zoom out, galaxy, then galaxies etc.
If replace each one of the cells from your body to my body, one by one, at what point do I become YOU or vise versa?
I truly believe all separation ''we'' create between ''ourselves'' is an illusion.
Or in better terms: The idea of separation is an illusion.
Peace
tetra said:
Then I wonder if we are talking about the same kind of mysticism/science, because they don't match perfectly. I wrote about why on the first page, Korey did too, and it's really not difficult to see.
However, if you by mysticism mean that the Universe is a mystery, that it is profound we are here, that there are riddles - sure, science and mysticism fucks like a charm. If you by mysticism strictly mean the mental experience absent of any formation of concepts about the world on the basis of them, then science and mysticism don't conflict, sure (though they still don't match). If you by mysticism mean notions of transcendence, a world beyond matter, accessing the fundamental reality from which all else emerge, that consciousness begets matter and so on and so forth, it is incompatible with what science infers from its data and thus they don't match.
Perhaps you can explain why mysticism and science go hand in hand?
Science doesn’t infer anything from its data – scientists may or may not make inferences upon examining data.Citta said:
Regardless, how is the belief that consciousness begets material existence incompatible with science? You seem to hold very tightly to an alternate belief – the belief that matter begets consciousness – yet there is no evidence for this either.
In fact, there is no scientific experiment that can “prove” material existence exists independently of consciousness. After all, to devise such an experiment, to observe its results, and to interpret its results all require consciousness!
There is no experiment one can perform to prove that one is not “dreaming”.
gibran2 said:
Fine, scientists do, but they do so from or through science. Anyway, that is a semantic issue, I think the point remains the same. And yes, evidence does in fact point to the fact that what we identify as consciousness and mind arises from physical processes in the brain. This is something that can easily be inferred from the massive amount of data. I don't know how you can argue against this. How else should we explain everything that seeps out of neuroscience everyday? How else should we explain evolution, the history of the universe before consciousness were there and so on? Where, and how, did consciousness exist in the early universe? Where, and how, did it exist before matter?
These are serious questions, and why can't we control reality more if consciousness in fact creates it? Shouldn't it then be possible to collectively create, say, hamburgers ex-nihilo? Or walk through walls? Something like this? How does even consciousness, something immaterial, create matter? This would essentially violate everything we know about the universe. There are no plausible solutions to these problems, as far as I know.
I sincerely think that the progress of evolution on earth shows an unmistakable trajectory from matter to mind. Considerable evidence exists that the phenomena we call mind and consciousness arise from the natural mechanisms of a purely material brain. For instance, as brain function decreases, so does consciousness until we eventually lose it, as when under full anesthesia. If consciousness does not arise from a material brain, but is immaterial in nature, why does this happen, I wonder? If it is not immaterial, then why could it not arise from the brain as modern neuroscience suggests it does?
I just can't reconcile the idea of consciousness creating matter with the evidence we have over decades of scientific inquiry. It does not seem to make any sense, and it meets considerable explanatory problems that must be tackled for this to be taken more seriously. Please do offer some solutions to these problems if you have them, and perhaps I'll join the primacy of consciousness paradigm
Neuroscience is making progress, everyday, toward a fully material understanding of consciousness - whereas semantic arguments like yours; "but everything arises in consciousness!" really brings us nowhere. This claim is, the way I see it, completely removed from reality and is not contingent upon how reality works. It is akin to claiming there are unicorns in every house but that they are placed so no one can find them.
The hypothesis that brain creates consciousness is completely compatible with all the evidence and data we have from neuroscience. Reverse causality is even more difficult to infer from the data, not to say explain satisfactory. Here are some more examples from neuroscience;
Damage to the fusiform gyrus of the temporal lobe causes face blindness, and stimulation of this same area causes people to see faces spontaneously. Loss of conscious visual perception can occur to stroke-caused damage to the visual cortex region called V1. With functional MRI we can directly measure changes in conscious experience, as well as with electroencephalography and single-neuron recordings. Neuroscientists can even predict human choices from brain-scanning activity before the subject is even consciously aware of the decisions they are going to make. How is this reconcilable with the reverse hypothesis of consciousness creating matter, and thus the brain? And how does this not support the original hypothesis of matter giving rise to consciousness?
Yes, certainly neuroscientists are not in agreement over which physicalist theory best accounts for mind, but it does not mean that the hypothesis that consciousness creates matter holds equal standing. If it did, one ought to think there are more suggestions going this way within neuroscience, or?
No one denies that consciousness is a hard problem, and one of the greatest mysteries of science today, but before we reify consciousness to the level of an independent agency capable of creating its own reality, let’s give the hypotheses we do have for how brains create mind more time. It does, metaphysical circle wanks left aside, make a hell of a lot more sense imo.
Another problem I have raised several times to you, but that I never got any answer to, is the following; place an object in a room, a place where I can't possibly know. Now exit the room and leave no observers there. I think we can agree that there is no consciousness perceiving this room now, right? Or the object? So, if consciousness creates matter, this object should not exist at all as far as I understand your philosophy (shoot me if I am wrong). How come, if I enter some time after, I will find the object at the exact same place you put it? The only rational explanation for me is that this object has some kind of defining properties, whatever they are, that are not contingent upon the observation made by consciousness. Some defining properties that exists independently of consciousness that makes it persist at this place in space and time. This problem can be generalized as well, and then we get the huge problem of existence between "time of perception" and that of shared reality.
Anyway, I am not saying I am right and you are wrong per se (ultimately I don't know), it is just that the hypothesis that brain gives rise to consciousness is the most widely supported, and accepted, hypothesis among our greatest experts in the field - and the easiest one to reconcile with data and evidence. That is my take on it, however, as you may know. We've been through this many times, and now I guess I must embrace myself for one of your untouchable metaphysical arguments again. Perhaps we can continue talking over PM's as to not hijack the thread, but I guess its kinda relevant.
Peace gibran2
3rdI said:
Haha, yeah we do. Gibran2 is one of my best, if not the best, verbal sparring partners!
Hey Citta, I have a question for you personally. You clearly are very well versed in science, but how familiar are you with any of the more 'esoteric' knowledge? It doesn't really seem like your cup of tea just from getting to know you around these forums, but a lot of this material infers that to figure out some of these questions you raise you must find out on an individual level. This goes back to that whole subjective/objective game which I really don't want to get into. Just wondering if you have read up on any of the 'woo-woo' stuff with an open and honest mind, and if so what you thought about it and why.
Veritatis cupitor
Space Cadet
The immiscibility of science and mysticism is an inherent property of nature just as oil and water. Sure, a nice median is desirable. Having a dualistic view incorporating both a spiritual and transcendental approach with the rigors of structured scientific approach is possible. I think both science and mysticism can mix but only in the right variable proportions. Let me try to support my conclusion.
One's perception changes variably with the ebb and flow of one's existence. We all obviously view the world as curious and vulnerable monkeys when we are younger. When we hit the age of forming our own conclusions about reality or one's culture, we have shifted into a different perceptive frame.
Of course anyone who's discussing these matters has a uniquely established frame of conscience. We have all been exposed to various forms of material helping to sculpt the way we view reality. Factors from one's upbringing also play a vital role in the way one views reality and the plasticity of ones values and beliefs.
Anyone who has experimented with perception-altering substances will feel included in a variant group of individuals; people who have shared different shades, tones and tints of the same spiritual wavelength of light. These "mystical" substances don't change the laws of physics, nor do they laugh in the face of deductive science, they simply adjust the perception of the intoxicated. A less related but important observation... when you get drunk you change your perception just as you would smoking a j. But when you come down nothing has changed, just one's "State" of mind.
SO, all this to say, depending upon any persons frame of conscience, there are countless variables that interact with both science and mysticism. A person can believe in a "God" or a "Law-keeper" and at the same time believe in gravity. In the right proportions, I personally don't see why one can't believe in both.
One's perception changes variably with the ebb and flow of one's existence. We all obviously view the world as curious and vulnerable monkeys when we are younger. When we hit the age of forming our own conclusions about reality or one's culture, we have shifted into a different perceptive frame.
Of course anyone who's discussing these matters has a uniquely established frame of conscience. We have all been exposed to various forms of material helping to sculpt the way we view reality. Factors from one's upbringing also play a vital role in the way one views reality and the plasticity of ones values and beliefs.
Anyone who has experimented with perception-altering substances will feel included in a variant group of individuals; people who have shared different shades, tones and tints of the same spiritual wavelength of light. These "mystical" substances don't change the laws of physics, nor do they laugh in the face of deductive science, they simply adjust the perception of the intoxicated. A less related but important observation... when you get drunk you change your perception just as you would smoking a j. But when you come down nothing has changed, just one's "State" of mind.
SO, all this to say, depending upon any persons frame of conscience, there are countless variables that interact with both science and mysticism. A person can believe in a "God" or a "Law-keeper" and at the same time believe in gravity. In the right proportions, I personally don't see why one can't believe in both.
Tek said:
Hey Tek. Well, I have read some of the more esoteric stuff from some time back when I was younger, tripped harder, studied less science and so on. I found it very convincing, and I took a lot of it at face value. I don't now, unfortunately. It's just that having subjective answers mean shit to me as a scientist, because I am interested in hypotheses that are testable and falsifiable, objective measurements, results that are reproducible, the logic of mathematics to create models to explain observations and predict new ones and so on. In short, I am interested in using the scientific method, that has proven its success to us, to acquire knowledge about this universe that we are in. Knowledge that is not purely subjective, but can be shared and confirmed amongst independent individuals.
I just find this to be the best way to somehow approach some "truth" about our condition here.
Furthemore, much of the metaphysical and philosophical musings that gibran2 are very, very good at, is not so interesting in deducing sound conclusions either. They are interesting in and on itself, yes, but they ultimately lead us nowhere I think, and we can still make conclusions that are applicable to this universe we find ourselves in. I mean, gravity still pulls us to the earth even though all of this existence in principle could be the dream of a bacteria inside the nose of a cow. We can create metaphysical arguments for just about anything, arguments that are completely removed from every day reality and not contingent upon how it works as revealed to us by our senses, objective observations and technological instruments. For example, I can claim unicorns exists in every house, but they are placed so no one can see them. This is not an invalid argument per se, but it doesn't make much sense, even less practical sense when concluding whether or not they exist beyond reasonable doubt.
The scientific method incorporates a means to adjudicate disputes that otherwise might run in circles, never converging as disputants on all sides of an issue continually redefine and refine their language. This is what happens in many of these esoteric stuff, as well as metaphysical circle wanks. It's all semantics and/or personal, subjective experiences. I call upon empirical observations to be the final judge in many of these cases, if not with 100 percent certainty (which it seldom does, if ever), at least beyond reasonable doubt.
With that said, I must thank gibran2 for engaging with me in discussions like these, because it makes me think pretty damn hard when discussing, and it also highlights my ultimate ignorance when it comes to many matters. Also, it is nice to think about stuff like this when sitting in the armchair
I have an intuition, and I'm probably wrong, that what a material understanding of the universe does is describe only a subset of reality.
This is like many times when science has branched itself off into a subset. For instance, we used to believe the world was flat. Then we discovered that, without a doubt, the Earth is round. Yet, for our immediate and everyday purposes, a flat earth explanation works just fine. In fact, all of our land surveying is done on flat Earth principles. Its only when you pull away that the concept of it being round matters at all.
Same thing with relativity and newtonian mechanics. Relativity did not negate Newton's findings, Newtonian mechanics works just fine on small scales but when you increase the scale you have to use relativity to give you a more accurate description of the universe.
I feel as though this is a similar situation we're finding ourselves in. Whether science comes up with a larger and more comprehensive view of reality or not remains to be seen, however I think just like the examples I used eventually the material mindset will hit a wall. Right now, that wall seems to be the nature of conciousness in a material universe.
It will be exciting to see how our concepts develop, especially with the potential finding of the Higgs boson. I would very much like to see a material understanding of the universe become a subset of a larger spectrum, but what I like and what turns out to be the truth could be very far apart.
This is like many times when science has branched itself off into a subset. For instance, we used to believe the world was flat. Then we discovered that, without a doubt, the Earth is round. Yet, for our immediate and everyday purposes, a flat earth explanation works just fine. In fact, all of our land surveying is done on flat Earth principles. Its only when you pull away that the concept of it being round matters at all.
Same thing with relativity and newtonian mechanics. Relativity did not negate Newton's findings, Newtonian mechanics works just fine on small scales but when you increase the scale you have to use relativity to give you a more accurate description of the universe.
I feel as though this is a similar situation we're finding ourselves in. Whether science comes up with a larger and more comprehensive view of reality or not remains to be seen, however I think just like the examples I used eventually the material mindset will hit a wall. Right now, that wall seems to be the nature of conciousness in a material universe.
It will be exciting to see how our concepts develop, especially with the potential finding of the Higgs boson. I would very much like to see a material understanding of the universe become a subset of a larger spectrum, but what I like and what turns out to be the truth could be very far apart.
Citta said:Tek said:
Hey Tek. Well, I have read some of the more esoteric stuff from some time back when I was younger, tripped harder, studied less science and so on. I found it very convincing, and I took a lot of it at face value. I don't now, unfortunately. It's just that having subjective answers mean shit to me as a scientist, because I am interested in hypotheses that are testable and falsifiable, objective measurements, results that are reproducible, the logic of mathematics to create models to explain observations and predict new ones and so on. In short, I am interested in using the scientific method, that has proven its success to us, to acquire knowledge about this universe that we are in. Knowledge that is not purely subjective, but can be shared and confirmed amongst independent individuals.
I just find this to be the best way to somehow approach some "truth" about our condition here.
Furthemore, much of the metaphysical and philosophical musings that gibran2 are very, very good at, is not so interesting in deducing sound conclusions either. They are interesting in and on itself, yes, but they ultimately lead us nowhere I think, and we can still make conclusions that are applicable to this universe we find ourselves in. I mean, gravity still pulls us to the earth even though all of this existence in principle could be the dream of a bacteria inside the nose of a cow. We can create metaphysical arguments for just about anything, arguments that are completely removed from every day reality and not contingent upon how it works as revealed to us by our senses, objective observations and technological instruments. For example, I can claim unicorns exists in every house, but they are placed so no one can see them. This is not an invalid argument per se, but it doesn't make much sense, even less practical sense when concluding whether or not they exist beyond reasonable doubt.
The scientific method incorporates a means to adjudicate disputes that otherwise might run in circles, never converging as disputants on all sides of an issue continually redefine and refine their language. This is what happens in many of these esoteric stuff, as well as metaphysical circle wanks.
With that said, I must thank gibran2 for engaging with me in discussions like these, because it makes me think pretty damn hard when discussing, and it also highlights my ultimate ignorance when it comes to many matters. Also, it is nice to think about stuff like this when sitting in the armchair
I really appreciate that response, and that's a hard position for me to try and argue against and I definately wouldn't want to. I can and do respect that position and it is highly needed to pull people back down to Earth, myself included in that group. It is very important never to forget that even with a different interpretation of reality, we still exist day to day in THIS reality, and figuring out the how's and why's of it is extremely important.
Thanks for that reply.
Tek said:
This is a nice position to take, Tek. This is open mindedness, at the same time acknowledging that one might be wrong and the difference between wishes and actuality. All of what you say regarding views of the world changing is correct as well. Who knows, perhaps we will actually have to adopt the primacy of consciousness paradigm, or perhaps we won't. Or perhaps we will have to adopt something completely different. Regardless, our science and thus our perspective of the universe will likely dramatically change in the near future, and that is the beauty of it
timothylearysdead
Rising Star
This reminds me of Tarot:Citta said:Regardless, our science and thus our perspective of the universe will likely dramatically change in the near future, and that is the beauty of it
"There may be big changes in the near future; these will give you a new perspective, and unexpected challenges."
Gemini - obviously!
Here's an idea...
rather than applying the known methods of extraction, dream about the end product, or perhaps pray really intently. pray to the psychedelic jesus (or buddha) to turn bark into spice.
rather than applying the known methods of extraction, dream about the end product, or perhaps pray really intently. pray to the psychedelic jesus (or buddha) to turn bark into spice.
Veritatis cupitor
Space Cadet
"Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day; teach a man to fish he'll eat for a lifetime; tell a man to pray for a fish and he will starve."
Veritatis cupitor
Space Cadet
A good point benzyme!
Similar threads
Staff online
-
VoidmatrixRearranging the void