Science vs. Mysticism

[timothylearysdead]

"We have been to the moon, we have charted the depths of the ocean and the heart of the atom, but we have a fear of looking inward to ourselves because we sense that is where all the contradictions flow together."

Terence McKenna - The Archaic Revival (1991)

I think that this is the answer, personally!

 

[benzyme]

"We have been to the moon, we have charted the depths of the ocean and the heart of the atom, but we have a fear of looking inward to ourselves because we sense that is where all the contradictions flow together."

Terence McKenna - The Archaic Revival (1991)

I think that this is the answer, personally!

that is a great one. TM was really out there, sometimes in a 'mad' way, but he certainly
had his wit and wisdom.

 

[Veritatis cupitor]

Indeed. What happens outside is nothing in comparison to the controversy of the soul.

 

[timothylearysdead]

My reading of it:

The 'contradictions flow together' towards no contradictions.
Individually.

There are no contradictions in reality.
Attempts to describe and to explain reality to others produces these contradictions.

Contradictions allow for explanation.
Explanation leads to progress.

Progress depends upon the model of explanation.
Our thoughts are the model of explanation.

Society holds the benchmark for stable thinking.

Accepting that benchmark gives (social-)stability of thought.
Thinking can change at will.
Thinking can return to society's benchmark.

To find no contradictions we can withdraw to our individual minds.
Our individual minds seek no explanation.
Individually.
Socially - we seek to explain.
Language is a social necessity.

 

[tetra]

Perhaps you can explain why mysticism and science go hand in hand?

It's pretty simple, really, but I can't give you that knowledge, it's not something you'll ever see on the nightly news/blues, or printed and widely distributed. You take the journey and come up with your own conclusions. Perspective is everything. I think in terms of "the big picture", as I understand it now, which is of course constantly expanding, and I'm sure my view is still very, very tiny compared to The Big Picture.

I enjoy putting the pieces together, though. I think I found a few corner pieces, now if only the rest would come into focus . . .


*** I'm not trying to be purposely cryptic, it's just nothing I say will change your personal perspective, nor would I want you to believe me. Believe whatever makes sense to you, and it shall be so. ***

 

[timothylearysdead]

Are you a Gemini???

 

[Citta]

Are you a Gemini???

Yes, why?

 

[timothylearysdead]

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

This reminds me of Tarot:
"There may be big changes in the near future; these will give you a new perspective, and unexpected challenges."

Gemini - obviously!

 

[Citta]

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

This reminds me of Tarot:
"There may be big changes in the near future; these will give you a new perspective, and unexpected challenges."

Gemini - obviously!

Hehe, hoping those changes are benign then!

 

[Parshvik Chintan]

rather than applying the known methods of extraction, dream about the end product, or perhaps pray really intently. pray to the psychedelic jesus to turn bark into spice.

"okay, now turn around...okay now turn back"

 

[timothylearysdead]

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

This reminds me of Tarot:
"There may be big changes in the near future; these will give you a new perspective, and unexpected challenges."

Gemini - obviously!

Hehe, hoping those changes are benign then!

Haha. You know when you've been read..!
I won't quote myself again; but if you refer to posts 21, 22, 23...
And I don't need to tell you how old you are, do I???

Twins in heaven, Venus in sky
:!:

 

[timothylearysdead]

Gemini - obviously!
Are you a Gemini???

Yes, why?
Hehe, hoping those changes are benign then!

And I don't need to tell you how old you are, do I???

Humor me...... this could be relevant to the Science vs. Mysticism debate...
Rationalism - the scientific method...... the mysticism method...

 

[gibran2]

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.

You’re using a circular argument here. You start with the assumption that the object and the room exist physically – outside of consciousness – and then you try to explain consciousness in terms of “object permanence”.

Here are a couple of problems with your argument:

You presuppose that objects, rooms, people who place objects into rooms, and people who find objects in rooms all exist physically and independently of consciousness. You can’t show that consciousness depends on material existence by first presupposing the same.

Related to the first problem, you assume that consciousness cannot exist independently of perceiving entities – people who go in and out of rooms. The idea that consciousness is only in a room when a perceiving being is in the room makes no sense from the primacy of consciousness perspective.

For a simple example of the primacy of consciousness, read this story:

Joe enters a room carrying a small package. After a few moments alone in the room, he exits and asks John to enter the room, telling him to search for the package.

John enters the room and looks around. He finds the package and opens it. He asks Joe if the item in the package is the item he placed in the room earlier. Joe responds affirmatively.

You might suggest that this story strongly suggests that matter exists independently of consciousness because the object placed in the room by Joe was found by John and confirmed by Joe.

I suggest that it shows nothing of the sort – it’s a story I just made up.

There is no package. There is no room. There is no Joe or John. Yet paradoxically, here we are talking about Joe and John and the package and the room.

If you dream that someone places an object in a room, and later in your dream you enter the room and find the object, does this prove that the object exists independently of consciousness?

Now I’m not suggesting we’re living in a dream. What I’m suggesting is that because of the nature of conscious perception, there’s no way to prove what, if anything, lies outside of consciousness. You seem to disagree.

 

[Eliyahu]

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.

Veritatis cupitor wrote:

"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."

Seems fairly easy to make fun of something like prayer that is actually not really well understood in my opinion. Prayer to me is a state of complete inner silence...as it says in the bible "pray not as the gentiles do using vain repetitions".. and also "the lord knows thy heart."

I could be wrong here but I am fairly certain that there are a great many benefits to disciplining the mind by practicing inner silence in order to enhance awareness..

Of course it only stands to reason that "God" would not answer foolish and self serving prayer such as please make DMT for me or please Fish for me..

 

[benzyme]

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.

Veritatis cupitor wrote:

"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."

Seems fairly easy to make fun of something like prayer that is actually not really well understood in my opinion. Prayer to me is a state of complete inner silence...as it says in the bible "pray not as the gentiles do using vain repetitions".. and also "the lord knows thy heart."

I could be wrong here but I am fairly certain that there are a great many benefits to disciplining the mind by practicing inner silence in order to enhance awareness..

Of course it only stands to reason that "God" would not answer foolish and self serving prayer such as please make DMT for me or please Fish for me..

it stands to reason that it would be foolish to expect "God" to do anything that wouldn't have occurred anyway. but that's why faith is so convenient, reason is irrelevant

 

[endlessness]

"Pray to God, but tie your camel's legs"

 

[Citta]

You’re using a circular argument here. You start with the assumption that the object and the room exist physically – outside of consciousness – and then you try to explain consciousness in terms of “object permanence”.

Here are a couple of problems with your argument:

You presuppose that objects, rooms, people who place objects into rooms, and people who find objects in rooms all exist physically and independently of consciousness. You can’t show that consciousness depends on material existence by first presupposing the same.

I disagree. In this example, nothing is being presupposed. There is no need to assume either consciousness creates matter or matter creates consciousness when working through it. What I have done in this example of the room, is only to take a concrete observation into account and then look at the two hypotheses under question; namely consciousness is a result of matter, and matter is a result of consciousness. The first hypothesis explains this observation without any difficulty, while the last one doesn't really seem to be able to explain it without further ad-hoc hypotheses and assumptions.

Related to the first problem, you assume that consciousness cannot exist independently of perceiving entities – people who go in and out of rooms. The idea that consciousness is only in a room when a perceiving being is in the room makes no sense from the primacy of consciousness perspective.

Not really something new. The christian philosopher George Berkeley was a proponent of this form of subjective idealism. He saw a real problem with situations like that of the room, and concluded that if something is going to exist between observations, then it must be in the consciousness of somebody in the meantime. This something was, unsurprisingly in his case, God. You do the same kind of argument, just that you imply some kind of all-pervasive, unknown consciousness. This seems to me like a complete ad hoc, and it has really no explanatory power, no predictory power and it introduces new unknowns that make the hypothesis less likely (Occam's Razor). And in this case the objects under discussion exists independently of our consciousness, because they are apparently defined by this all-pervasive consciousness you introduced, and the result is identical with the result of an objective, material world.

As for the rest of your post, I am not sure I follow your story. Are you by this implying that some kind of mind is just telling a story to itself? That there is no world, no people, no nothing - it's just a story told by some undefinable, unknown Mind or Consciousness that is... is where? Well, whatever floats your boat, but however amusing it is to entertain this - how likely and rational does this seem at all? Regardless of your answer to that question, it remains completely metaphysical and thus completely removed from reality as we know it and not contingent upon how the universe actually works. Such an assertion or argument is pretty much on equal footing with my often used example of unicorns in every house, placed so no can find them. It's absurd, doesn't make much sense and is an assertion that can't, in strict terms, be touched at all by the very nature of its formulation.

I also raised many other problems you didn't care to reply to. It's fine if you don't want to, but I asked those questions not to necessary "prove" you wrong or anything, but just because I wonder how one should solve them/explain them satisfactory with your hypothesis.

As a final remark; if we first assume that there actually exists something outside our consciousness, i.e something that is ontologically objective, which there are many good arguments for doing, then we have (scientific) methods to determine whether or not something existing independently of our consciousness is likely or not.

All of our semantics aside gibran2, I am not sure that the problem of consciousness will ever be solved, or if it even can be. All the paradoxes seem to meet there, and they put you out for a real spin

 

[ayaya]

The scientific method assesses facts23.

The fact that someone predicted your star sign is a fact.

Your presupposition is that there is no answer to be found. So factual inquiry is disregarded in your approach, yet you reject mysticism for the same reason?

It's bemusing.

 

[benzyme]

The scientific method assesses facts.

the scientific method assesses evidence, or lack thereof.

 

[ayaya]

Ok--- so what? Different word--- same point.