• 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 am thinking that the process of something like an orgasm can be desribed through bio-chemical sciences..and the personal experiene of the orgasm and the behavioral and social aspects of it can be more readily describes by using behavioral and social sciences..

So then I am thinking that maybe spirituality the way I see it is best viewed as something that immerges as a certain behavior...to truely be wowed by everything one sees around them..the stunning complexity of everything etc..the great unexplained mysteries that still lie all around us..to find compassion with the smallest insect all the way up to the largest mammal..to have great respect for the cycle of life that seems to forever continue around oneself..and find humility..

A behavioral and social scientist might argue that spirituality in that sense is an important evolutionary advantage for the individual and for the social networks they rely on..the individual will be more accpeting of the natural cycles that exist all around them..like death and birth..they will be happier and probabily more stress free and in turn, healthier..they will feel more a part of something than a part of nothing..

This would carry over into the social newwork of the species since each individual would have more empathy for their peers, and be less willing to hurt or take away from their well being, and would most likely be more apt to working together..the society would run smoother.

In that sense spirituality is nothing more than a specific ideaology..a way of relating to life..similar but not limited to morals.
 
fractal enchantment said:
In that sense spirituality is nothing more than a specific ideaology..a way of relating to life..similar but not limited to morals.
Click to expand...

I see it more as an understanding than an ideology because each individual experiences it in a different way. To be idological there would have to be a set structure to which everyone could agree. Since it is uniquely personal, it is more a mode of being, an intuition, an understanding that goes beyond the empirical. It is one of those things that cannot be adequately explained, it must be experienced

But for morals, one needs a culture and inter-subjective meaning in which to frame them.
 
yeah I can agree on the word understanding..I think that comes first..the way one individually understands the world eventually leads one into a certain ideology I guess.
 
Reality can never ever ever explained by science, because YOU are the perceiver of reality.
Without you, there is no world for YOU.

So forget it.

People are saying i'm dogmatic..
I'm not. U are. With your science crap.

Science is just a tool of the mind.
And the mind should be a tool of YOU.

But i guess the mind has taken over control..
 
I'm interested in what people here think of consiousness..thats one thing I am not at all decided on..what the hell is it and where does it's boundries lie?..are there boundries?

I am open to the fact that everything has some level of conciousness..but that there are definatily more complex levels of it that arise out of certain states of complexity, like with humans for instance..obviously this whole thing is limited to ones defintion of conciousness, I understand that.

But can the universe itself as a whole be consious?..can we even begin to answer a question like that?

Everything fits together so damn well..everything leads in to something..simply because it must, or so it seems anyway..it's almost as if reality itself knows what it is doing..and it does it so well without a "second thought" that it is impossible to ever catch it "doing" it..it just happens..and the expression of that is the laws of physics..

I guess what I am getting at is communication..the universe at least has communication..becasue for something to lead into something else a certain way..it requires parametres..so either the chain of events themselves exist within those parametres, or those parametres are transferred..or both?
 
"Reality can never ever ever explained by science, because YOU are the perceiver of reality.
Without you, there is no world for YOU."

Yes this is why we have social sciences..things like cultural anthropology and sociology..
I feel that these fields are downplayed often in topics like this though..
 
Mr_DMT said:
Without you, there is no world for YOU.
Click to expand...

Could you please explain to me why?

Lot's of folk on this forum have been posting about this as their own conclusion, but when I question folk about it they never give a justifiable explaination.

fractal enchantment said:
I'm interested in what people here think of consiousness..thats one thing I am not at all decided on..what the hell is it and where does it's boundries lie?..are there boundries?
Click to expand...

Consciousness to me is the amalgamation of all systems (known and unknown) that are attached to an individual which give them the ability to be, no matter in what state.
 
"Consciousness to me is the amalgamation of all systems (known and unknown) that are attached to an individual which give them the ability to be, no matter in what state."

Thanks soulfood!..thats a great description..

so under that definition..would you say that plants can hold some level of conciousness..however distinct from out own that may be?

I mean..plants are the sum of many smaller systems working together, and the plant itself grows and thrives as a whole..

or what about an entire ecosystem?
 
fractal enchantment said:
so under that definition..would you say that plants can hold some level of conciousness..however distinct from out own that may be?

I mean..plants are the sum of many smaller systems working together, and the plant itself grows and thrives as a whole..

or what about an entire ecosystem?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm certainly not in any position to rule out the ability of any form of vegetation to be conscious on some level. They're after all the result of a chemical reaction, as are we and everything that continues to feed off of something else independently.

The fact is life only evolves to cater for its own needs in it's environment and until someone tells me any better that's how it is for me. Obviously plants seem to have gotten by just fine without waving at each other and having a verbal conversation. But take carnivorous plants for example. They grow to the best of my knowledge in areas with low soil nutrients and have adapted to take their nutrients from other creatures. They physically move to hold onto their prey which to me shows some level of consciousness which until someone with limitless knowledge on quantum biology tells me any different, I will continue to believe.

As for entire ecosystems... it'd certainly be interesting.
 
haha yes venus fly traps!..I was thinking about that myself! They grow in the bog down the street from my home..it's crazy how quickly they respond!
 
soulfood said:
fractal enchantment said:
so under that definition..would you say that plants can hold some level of conciousness..however distinct from out own that may be?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm certainly not in any position to rule out the ability of any form of vegetation to be conscious on some level. They're after all the result of a chemical reaction, as are we and everything that continues to feed off of something else independently.
Click to expand...

So...

Going one step further, would molecules be conscious? Since after all they are the result of a chemical reaction, as are plants and higher life formes, everything continues to feed off something else independently.

What prey tell is feeding upon us?
 
sure I concider molecules a species of sorts..I mean they are animate..they have molecular movement...they interact with other molecules in specific and distinct ways..so I guess we could say that they at least have "communication"..

I dont really have a problem with this stuff becasue i believe in analogy..you know the whole "as above, so below thing"..I wish I knew more about holographics..but the way that I see it is that all that there is that seperates us from other things is scale..as you move up in scale systems become more complex..so for things like humans maybe we have a broader range of experience due to our complexity, and that manifests as what we call "conciousness"..but it's all relative..molecules could have the sclaed down version of that same thing..less complex from where we stand bcause microscopic things seem so miniscule in comparison.. obviousily I am not talking about conciousnes as in the way most people think of it..
 
What about Atoms then? They are animate, distinct and interact with others of their level of manifestation in specific and distinct ways. Do they have a form of communication? Are they conscious?
 
honestly I personally think of the cosmos as one big organism..it changes and evolves just like every smaller componet of it does..I cant really picture it any other way..

Is it self aware?..well I dunno..it's a damn good question.
 
On the subject of consciousness I like to associate it with the word "life" which to me is not characteristic in a single molecule. However when we start talking in terms of cells, there occurs an intentional relationship beyond that of electromagnetism. I also know that one single cell has the ability to at least feed and reproduce.
 
I have also been thinking about this, but not only when it comes to plants, but when it comes to everything. The universe consists of countless of systems, it organizes itself into spesific patterns, spesific laws, spesific systems all which connects and create up a whole. Now, I am not going to propose anything about some intelligent design, because that is (for me anyway) definitely being far off. What I am proposing is that nature, the universe, somewhat and somehow is intelligent in itself, as an entity, as a whole. It pumps itself into existence with such a will...

Because the way the universe works fits the very definition of an intelligence. Something that organizes itself and works in conjunction with its parts to come across and defeat obstacles and so on. This we can see all the time through the different branches of natural science. So with this thought I am not saying that you pick up an individual little part and "Wow this is intelligent!", but to take into account the whole in which we find ourselves in, and that it is this whole, this "force" or whatever that is intelligent in some way or another.

I am not stating anything, this is just a thought that I would like to see discussed further =)
Click to expand...

I posted this in another thread, but I see now this is pretty much what you guys are getting into. Let's continue =)

Then with this in mind one could come to discuss the whole consciousness thingy. I mean, when some of the matter in the universe (us and other mammals) is conscious someway, has a consciousness of some sort, and when we look closer our bodies are just like everything else in existence. Then how big a jump would it be to suggest that everything is as well? Obviously not the way we are, because we are limited to this spesific form in time and space, with this particular consciousness. I refer again to the post I quoted myself with.
 
Back
Top Bottom