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

where can spirituality and science meet?

Migrated topic.
I don't require proof just something. For example people once thought OBE's were sure signs that there is a soul or that the conscious of a person could leave the body. But now we have a heap of evidence to suggest they are hallucinations. Before learning about the evidence I thought it was evidence that OBE's were real too, SWIM had even experienced OBE's. But once strong evidence was presented that they are hallucinations SWIM believes it until something shows otherwise.
 
lbeing789 said:
Aegle "Only you can prove it to yourself, through your own experience..."
MRDmt "You can't prove it. That's what i say !"

Both Aegle and MR DMT hold dogmatic positions, these statements are great examples, said as statements of fact that neither person couldn't possibly know, you guys don't know if these statements are true yet you're forcing them on people, you think they're true... it's not open minded at all.... a scientist wouldn't even phrase a statement in such a way, they could never assign that much certainty.
Click to expand...

I dont really agree that the need to prove something to yourself is dogmatic..
It's the same with trying to learn something..you wont really get it until you see it for yourself..as much as others can sit there showing you..in the end it is YOU that teach yourself through the actaul experience..you cannot teach anyone anything, all you can do is set up the situation in which someone may see it for themselves..

There is nothing about that logic that is forced..it just makes sense..

Do you think that you could just get in a standard and drive away without stalling it just becasue someone tells you first how it's done?..I doubt it..it would require first hand personal EXPERIENCE to really undertand it for yourself.

The key word in Aegles statment is experience..how is a scientist all that differnt?..they require the experience of seeing proof for themselves as well..they dont just blindly believe what someother person tell them..no, they test it for themselves.
 
burnt said:
I don't require proof just something. For example people once thought OBE's were sure signs that there is a soul or that the conscious of a person could leave the body. But now we have a heap of evidence to suggest they are hallucinations. Before learning about the evidence I thought it was evidence that OBE's were real too, SWIM had even experienced OBE's. But once strong evidence was presented that they are hallucinations SWIM believes it until something shows otherwise.
Click to expand...

Yeah that's interesting burnt... a lot of people are assuming 100% proof, but for most new-age ideas there aren't even any arrows pointing the direction...
 
burnt said:
I don't require proof just something. For example people once thought OBE's were sure signs that there is a soul or that the conscious of a person could leave the body. But now we have a heap of evidence to suggest they are hallucinations. Before learning about the evidence I thought it was evidence that OBE's were real too, SWIM had even experienced OBE's. But once strong evidence was presented that they are hallucinations SWIM believes it until something shows otherwise.
Click to expand...

Yes that is a valid point..

What puzzles me is why people suddenly then dismiss the whole thing as irrelevant..hallucination, OBE..in the end should the details surrounding the situation really be of so much focus? Either way whatever it is..it's a perfectly natural thing. The content of the experience is what is really interesting.

Just becasue science can explain the mechanics behind an "OBE"..doesn mean that we should downplay the validity of the experience and what the experiencer gets out of it..just as we have sex for a reason, eat and drink and sleep and for a reason..it could very well be that we have "OBE's" for a reason.

It's like dismissing happyness becasue we suddenly found a neurological situation from which it arises..but noone would do that!..it would be absurd!
 
fractal enchantment said:
I dont really agree that the need to prove something to yourself is dogmatic..
It's the same with trying to learn something..you wont really get it until you see it for yourself..as much as others can sit there showing you..in the end it is YOU that teach yourself through the actaul experience..you cannot teach anyone anything, all you can do is set up the situation in which someone may see it for themselves..
Click to expand...

I don't think you got what I meant there, in logic a statement can either be evaluated as true or false... saying you cant prove something is the thing I have a problem with, they don't know if they can't prove it... so those statements are invalid.

Unfortunately I think you did one as well with "all you can do is set up the situation in which someone may see it for themselves", you don't know that Fractal.

Now again though, you're saying see it for yourself, but in my view once you try to understand soemthing, you're doing science... if you can't explain something in scientific terms to someone else then you don't really understand it, and that thing that you don't really understand (because you can't describe it) is the void that is understood by everyone... it seems only the spiritual folk are able to be certain about that void... and it seems (to me) only doing science are you able to fill that void.

Don't get me wrong I respect your views and I'm trying to understand where you're coming from, it's funny because I probably feel the exact same way you do I just don't use the same words.
 
"it's funny because I probably feel the exact same way you do I just don't use the same words."

Ha ya I know that is where semantics fails us..
 
I think most scientists take the beauty of the universe as a given, they've moved on to trying to understand it... and believe me the rush you get from a scientific discovery is powerful, and every new piece of understanding you gain enhances your view of the world... I'm not a phyisicist but I'm sure they can appreciate the beauty of physics more than someone who knows nothing about it.
 
I get what you are trying to say by statements having to be true of false..to a extend I agree..

But something about that just doesnt seem right to me..what about things like metaphore?..granted that it a thing of culture and linguistics..but still it is there..and I know how out there that starts to sound..trust me!

Some things are only culturally reletive..only true to an extent..sure if we break it down far enough we may get to the root of it..but then you are taking it out of the context from which it sits..you see what I mean?..this is what makes social and cultural sciences so interesting..

Like Mckenna said..something like "somethings are only true enough"...from our perspective anyway.

I am not saying that IS science..but it is the world that at least I live in..so I have to accept that. This is where it gets iffy beacsue some scientist will call BS on me for saying things like that..but I dunno if there is a solid one line answer to this sort of thing..
 
lbeing789 said:
Aegle "Only you can prove it to yourself, through your own experience..."

Both Aegle and MR DMT hold dogmatic positions, these statements are great examples, said as statements of fact that neither person couldn't possibly know, you guys don't know if these statements are true yet you're forcing them on people, you think they're true... it's not open minded at all.... a scientist wouldn't even phrase a statement in such a way, they could never assign that much certainty.
Click to expand...

lbeing789

I am sorry that you feel that way. I was just saying to Burnt if he wanted proof its always best to find answers through your own experience.

I cant see how thats dogmatic.


Much Peace and Happiness
 
On the subject of OBE's, not to change the subject... I was blown away by it because before I experienced it, it was entirely theoretical and I was sceptic... but the idea that my mind was projecting it as well as my existing experience was the amazing thing to me and it felt good to know more about that....sure sometimes poses more questions than answers, but questions are a form of answer in science. Probably the most amazing thing was my trip involving a picture perfect tibetan mandala complete with avatars, and when I say mandala I do mean the universe represented in a 4d illustration and entities that I would associate with gods, I mean on the same level.... now if I was not a scientist I probably would've fallen into the trap and got a god complex, the reason why I did not because I understood that the experience was not attached to the account of the experience, I mean, I'm now sure that I shared an experience with people in the past, but these people jumped to a conclusion and maybe formed a religion around it... it would be foolish of me to believe the religious account, I don't know how it works exactly, but neither does he.... doesn't undermine the experience, but it does undermine the explanation of it...
 
Aegle said:
I am sorry that you feel that way. I was just saying to Burnt if he wanted proof its always best to find answers through your own experience.
Click to expand...

When you put it like that it's not dogmatic, but the statement of fact that you used before was.... this is an interesting point too, scientists use statements and words very differently, I actually use a lot of formal logic in my sentences... so to help me break down what a person is saying, I will evaluate each statement as true or false... aristole was a fan :)
 
fractal enchantment said:
I dont really agree that the need to prove something to yourself is dogmatic..It's the same with trying to learn something..you wont really get it until you see it for yourself..as much as others can sit there showing you..in the end it is YOU that teach yourself through the actaul experience.

The key word in Aegles statment is experience..how is a scientist all that differnt?..they require the experience of seeing proof for themselves as well..they dont just blindly believe what someother person tell them..no, they test it for themselves.
Click to expand...

Fractal Enchantment

Thank you for getting where I was coming from....


Much Peace and Sunshine
 
yes the whole OBE thing is interesting..especailly the NDE ones..becasue alot of people come back and completely rearrage their lives for the better based on the realizations they had durring that experience..that is why I dont think that the validity of the experience can really be challenged at all by a given description of the mechanics behind it..
 
Aegle said:
fractal enchantment said:
I dont really agree that the need to prove something to yourself is dogmatic..It's the same with trying to learn something..you wont really get it until you see it for yourself..as much as others can sit there showing you..in the end it is YOU that teach yourself through the actaul experience.

The key word in Aegles statment is experience..how is a scientist all that differnt?..they require the experience of seeing proof for themselves as well..they dont just blindly believe what someother person tell them..no, they test it for themselves.
Click to expand...

Fractal Enchantment

Thank you for getting where I was coming from....
Click to expand...


Hold on Aegle, this was a disagreement before and now you say this is what you meant, yet this statement is clearly saying all you're doing is science and that's it the same thing.... so of you of the opinion that we're all scientists now? or not?

Please let's not forget our respective positions here... but hey if we could agree on something that would be awesome.
 
Shit I was reading through all this and I had a point but I forgot because I am baked...

Hmmm..

Oh yea I remember.

Orgasms. Science can pretty much explain the physiology behind an orgasm. What happens in the brain what muscles contract what nerves are important how blood flow and heart rate are etc etc. But science doesn't say what that actually feels like. To know what it feels like you have to have one.

People often take this argument to mean that "because I experienced it its true because science has nothing to say about it only my own subjective experience". This is fine because yes the experience was real. The only real debate between most of my views and perhaps some of the views of the fun people (and i mean that i don't get to have these kind of discussions often in real life without freaking people out) I've debated here is in the interpretation of the experience.

If someone tried to claim that having an orgasm was the result of interstellar beings tickling their insides I would require some kind of reason or evidence to believe that. Most people here don't make claims like this. But this kind of thinking can make people become so open minded to any and all experiences and their interpretations that they will believe things they probably otherwise wouldn't or in some cases shouldn't (because they are dangerous beliefs or they generate confusion on large scale etc things like this).
 
fractal enchantment said:
yes the whole OBE thing is interesting..especailly the NDE ones..becasue alot of people come back and completely rearrage their lives for the better based on the realizations they had durring that experience..that is why I dont think that the validity of the experience can really be challenged at all by a given description of the mechanics behind it..
Click to expand...

You've got it Fractal, I mean I can tell from your posts that you get it... it's a void, it's unclear, we don't have to come any conclusions yet but we shouldnt be jumping to any conclusions be it scientific or spiritual in nature (and they're just terms after all anyway)... enjoy it, appreciate it, understand it in any way you can..... buddism to me is probably the most acceptable form of spirituality because it uses logic, doesnt get too supernatural, it believes in science... in many ways it's a way of appreciating things in the void... and perhaps the world needs more of that kind of thing... because it does seem difficult for humans to accept not knowing something.
 
"Orgasms. Science can pretty much explain the physiology behind an orgasm. What happens in the brain what muscles contract what nerves are important how blood flow and heart rate are etc etc. But science doesn't say what that actually feels like. To know what it feels like you have to have one."

yes that is a good example burnt..science can tell us all about the mechanics behind it, but in the end it doesn't make the experiene felt first hand any less valid or amazing..'

I have had this converstaion with people who seem to think that becasue science can describe the how..that suddenly the relevance of the experience isn't there anymore..which is what I dont get..obviously there are systems behind the way things work...things dont just appear from nowhere!(which is why the universe is such a mystery in the first place)...
 
fractal enchantment said:
I get what you are trying to say by statements having to be true of false..to a extend I agree..

But something about that just doesnt seem right to me..what about things like metaphore?..granted that it a thing of culture and linguistics..but still it is there..and I know how out there that starts to sound..trust me!
Click to expand...

Actually the topic of logic is one I can recommend to everyone... most people don't do it right, and it's a remarkably powerful way of understanding the world and learning things quickly... a lot of people take logic for granted, but if you read just 1 introductory book on the subject, it actually changes the way you look at the world and you understand a fundamental truth that is true throughout the universe.
 
fractal enchantment said:
"Orgasms. Science can pretty much explain the physiology behind an orgasm. What happens in the brain what muscles contract what nerves are important how blood flow and heart rate are etc etc. But science doesn't say what that actually feels like. To know what it feels like you have to have one."

yes that is a good example burnt..science can tell us all about the mechanics behind it, but in the end it doesn't make the experiene felt first hand any less valid or amazing..'

I have had this converstaion with people who seem to think that becasue science can describe the how..that suddenly the relevance of the experience isn't there anymore..which is what I dont get..obviously there are systems behind the way things work...things dont just appear from nowhere!(which is why the universe is such a mystery in the first place)...
Click to expand...


I think about this a bit but it wrecks my head, but I can imagine a scenario where all of a sudden you can understand exactly how the "experience" works, this is something a lot of philosophers discuss and a lot of people are resigned to say that it can't be understood by us... but this is an assumption, new physics could come along where all of sudden consciousness totally makes sense, experience totally makes sense, and we look back at it and wonder why we never saw it before... this has happened repeatedly throughout history and even if it is impossible, it is a logical failure to say we never could.
 
burnt said:
People often take this argument to mean that "because I experienced it its true because science has nothing to say about it only my own subjective experience". This is fine because yes the experience was real. The only real debate between most of my views and perhaps some of the views of the fun people (and i mean that i don't get to have these kind of discussions often in real life without freaking people out) I've debated here is in the interpretation of the experience.
Click to expand...

My position is that both are true. There is the scientific processes that lead to orgasm, all the physiological changes, and that is real and true. But there is also the subjective experience of it, big or small, exhausting or energizing, lust or love, revenge or criminal. Those are equally real and true, and are singularly relevant to the individual at hand. Both halves make up the experience, both are valid interpretations, and the integration of the two makes the entirety of the experience.

One cannot separate subject from object, they are intertwined.
 
Back
Top Bottom