Someone here

@Vibroverse @Inliytened1 My main point in this thread is that we know plenty, but there’s plenty more we don’t know, that’s what makes life interesting. There is a vast amount of stuff to know, it’s impossible to know everything, but be wary of anyone who says we know nothing. Of course we know things, if a tiger is eating you, you’ll know it. If someone asks you what two plus two is, you know the answer. If someone asks you if you exist, you know you do. Many things we know are backed up by many sources of evidence, that’s what makes Science a powerful knowing system. Sure sometimes it’s mistaken, sure the edges at any moment in time can dip into philosophy, sure sometimes tweaks need to be made, but it’s a damn fine way of knowing and knowing for sure.

? lol. I know exactly what you mean and can relate to that . It's like in one hand everything is what it is..so it's just obvious. But on the other hand everything is so mysterious and alien to us that we literally have no clue what anything is. We only believe, we really don’t know what is true. The sense of Knowing is only a product of Faith. By belief, i do not mean only for religious beliefs. Belief is more common than you think. Believing is a sign that our senses is interacting with the world. The perception cannot interact without believing. We are constantly choosing what to believe, we are constantly choosing the idea that makes the most sense to us. We have a list of conditions in our brain that helps us to decide what to believe. That list contents the knowledge we have learnt, and the things we have learnt is not necessary truthful. Do we really know the knowledge we have gained from our observations? Have you doubted your own knowledge? Why do you believe your senses while you are observing? Could your senses be lying to you? By only believing in your senses is already an act of faith. We see it, we believe it, and we know it. What we know is what we believe, it is our perception that is interacting with the world. The perception cannot reach what has not been touched by it, we cannot know what is beyond. What we have known is only a belief.

@Vibroverse are you trying to say that there is a universal subconscious mind that contains all the knowledge about all things like the idea of the Akashic records? But then i ask you again the same thing we've debated last week ..how to access this unlimited knowledge? It must be somewhere right ? What exactly is preventing us from becoming totally omniscient? Honestly, the realization of how little I knew hit me like a wall when I started my first year of college. I was so clueless about so much.. and the realization of how much there was to learn flooded into my mind and made me feel so small and insignificant. But this realization was also, honestly, thrilling. I had a seemingly unlimited amount of awesome shit I could learn and so much of it was fascinating. Of course, I could never dream of learning anything more than a fraction of the knowledge that exists.. but still, a lifetime of learning was something I realized could happen and I was excited

this video perfectly explains everything about knowing vs not knowing. And the distinction between knowing at the level of being vs relative knowing.

Which heaven?

God is also the most despicable evil shit you can imagine . Think the Holocaust.

Because that's all that there is to life .what's the point of life if you cannot get pleasure/happiness/satisfaction from it ?

You got deep down into samsara out of desires to experience samsara(That is eternally going on functional affairs of the world with all its illusions and delusions). Once you are into samsara there is no escape without experiencing the samsara thoroughly. Having reached the peak of samsara you detach yourself from it by becoming free having no desire left like ripen fruits falling off trees.

Leo you sound more delusional recently..are you OK brother ? Why such outlandish and extreme claims ? It's even dangerous to have unprotected sex with people (even attractive people) because you might catch an STD. Let alone having sex with animals which is with the least vulgar language possible disgusting. I mean I could fuck a pink unicorn if it has some feminine curves and shiny colors ?..but goats .no fucking way lol.. I would stil fantasise about banging blondes ..you fantasise about banging goats .. Enjoy your "meta-heaven " .

Why specifically sex with a goat lol.?what's so appealing/pleasurable about that? All religions preach immortality. The question is what kind of immortality is it ? You might end up in hell .who knows ?

@AtheisticNonduality@Inliytened1 that's interesting in theory. But if I present to you a good big mac meal and a pile of dog shit ..all of that will fly out of the window and you will be imagining that there is duality between objects. I mean I get it ..it's impossible to draw a concrete boundary between any two objects in existence. Because it's all one field of consciousness .but at least that's how it appears to be. our conventional experience of a physical world made of separate physical objects is a functionally adaptive chronically sustained delusion. Its a delusion. But it's good for our survival .

That is literally nonsense. It is not sense I Don't just my mind .I use my senses as well .and my senses tell me that reality is just a bunch of colors and sounds and discrete objects and so forth ..if you wanna call it nothing, feel free to do so .but if you actually aren't conscious that it's "nothing " then you are likely deluding yourself.

How ?

We trust scientists when they tell us that the earth is round without needing to see it for ourselves. Because the scientific method have always been successful and truthful in explaining reality. The problem I notice with you is this extreme level of skepticism that its almost epistemological nihilism. There are a lot of things scientists do not know nor do they claim to. Like what is the reason for gravity. There must be something about matter in any form that causes it to be attracted to other matter. The list goes on and on. The question that remains is do they know specifically what things they don’t know. No, they don’t even know that. That doesn’t mean they do not feel good about the things they do know. If they didn’t think they knew a great deal about the world, there would not be such a thing as science. That would be glorious to those who want to keep everything in life a mystery. The one thing scientists don’t know is what they don’t know because once they are made aware of what they don’t know, they know. You know? If that is confusing, suppose a scientist does not know that he does not know how to calculate the mass of the Earth relative to that of Mars. Once she is aware that she does not know how to calculate it, she now KNOWS where her knowledge falls short. Once the unknown is known, it can no longer be unknown.

If I asked you what causes the night and day? Isn't the answer simply that the earth rotates around its axis ? Watch Leo's video called "the power of not knowing ". He pointed out the trap of confusing the first order type of knowledge and the second order type of knowledge. At the level of being..its true ..we don't know Jack shit ..we have no idea what anything is ...BUT that does not mean we can't know stuff relatively. To create a map that approaches the truth ,without actually reaching it fully. Because the truth is infinite .and our scientific instruments are finite . Well..you can read the history of science and how it originated after the dark ages in Europe. It was a new way of understanding reality after religions have shown their impotence in that domain.

That's a meaningless question. It's analogous to asking :is water wet ? You deconstruct everything means you question every belief you have about reality . Namely : 1).the belief that you are a separate self. 2).That there is an external objective reality . 3).that what you are can be captured in a sentence (like I'm infinity or I'm god or I'm love). 4).That you don't have anything else to deconstruct. You only finish the deconstructing process by being left with the only thing that's actually real in reality. which is direct experience.

I seriously considered skipping this but I realized that doing so would have been an answer of sorts already. It's so misguided. Reducing science to just practical work to improve humanity's condition is a huge underestimating of science. I told you the ultimate objective of science is to have perfect and complete understanding of absolutely everything. So science can answer the whys ,the how's, the what's, and anything else . while I do believe that well-posed questions about Nature will always find answers in the sciences, there are plenty of philosophical questions that are of great interest to people, which will never have a “scientific” answer. For instance: Why does the universe exist? Why are we here? What is the meaning of life? And so on. As I said in a few of my answers, those seeking answers to these questions (and not being able to provide answers of their own) should seek advice from priests and philosophers, not scientists Consider this: 10,000 years ago, we knew practically nothing. Now, we know a vast amount about how the universe works. 10,000 years is a blink of the cosmic eye. The universe is nearly 14 billion years old. If our species continues on its current trajectory for even one million years, we may understand all that there is to understand. The universe appears to be deterministic. What this means is that each set of unique conditions appears to lead to one possible outcome that is unique, and cannot be arrived at by other initial conditions. Thus, it should be possible, albeit difficult, to know the initial conditions of the universe, and the conditions of the universe for every moment in time until the end of time. Will we know everything soon? No. But it’s possible, we’re plucky, and we’ve got billions of years to keep learning. My money is on the humans…or their descendants

OK..I apologise for any confusion I caused in this thread .my intentions weren't bad .I just noticed something and pointed it out . Maybe I should think more carefully before posting to not hurt people's feelings . Enjoy your time guys and gals . Much love ❤

Science is not an illusion. The discussion here is whether science arrives at objective knowledge about the world. My friend thinks Objectivity is a goal we can aspire to, but it can never be attained. To understand why, first we need to clarify what exactly is meant by objectivity. Before we discuss science, let's start with mathematics. Most people would say that 2+2=4 is an example of an objective mathematical truth. But, in fact, it is only true relative to a certain set of axioms. You and I are free to choose different axioms, and 2+2=4 may be false for your axioms but true for mine. So, it is clearly not a completely objective truth. Similarly, if I adopt axioms of Euclidean geometry, the interior angles of a triangle always add up to 180°, while if you adopt axioms of non-Euclidean geometry, they do not. So, this geometrical proposition is not a completely objective truth. Because mathematical truth depends on our free, subjective choice of axioms, it is not completely objective. However, if we both adopt the same axioms, we will both necessarily agree upon what is true and what is false relative to that choice. In that sense, mathematical truth is objective, but only if we agree to constrain our subjective choices in the same way. Now, let's consider objectivity in empirical science. Most people would say that the 100-yard length of a football field is an example of an objective fact. But, in fact, according to relativity, intervals of length are only well defined relative to our choice of reference frame. Such choice is a free, subjective choice. You can choose one frame, and I can choose another. And the football field will have one length in your frame and another length in mine. We can say the length of the field is objective only if we agree to constrain our subjective choice of reference frame in the same way, e.g., we both adopt the frame of the football field.

Gravity is not a hypothetical thing . Please research the scientific method .we first observe the the phenomenon..then we come up with possible hypothesis that have varying explanatory power..and after exhaustive attempts of experiments and trial and error we come to the right conclusion/hypothesis and then it becomes a theory .or even stronger than that a physical law . Laws of physics are baked into the structure of the universe. They are not invented. They are discovered. And there is a huge difference between the two . The reason of the phenomenon of objects falling dowm instead of moving up has one explanation which is gravity. Now you can say that there is an invisible demon who lives 5000 feet under the ground who's pulling those objects down with his invisible ropes ..but until you prove it using testing and empirical evidence then it will remain a hypothesis not a theory . With that being said..There is no such thing as 100% objectivity in science because the foundational assumptions and method of science itself are not dictated by nature and forced upon us. Consequently, what is discovered by the scientific method of inquiry is true only relative to the conventions of science that are selected by the scientific community, and could have been chosen otherwise. Even the 'hard data' of measurements only have well-defined meaning relative to the conventions of measurement that are chosen by the scientific community, and could be chosen otherwise, as is evident by the evolution of metrology and the periodic redefinition of basic units of time and length. Nature does not force upon us a particular standard for the measurement of time, for example. Yet scientific measurements of time would have little meaning unless they all were calibrated and traced back to a common universal standard. So, even scientific data are not 100% objective. Science provides such reliable and universal knowledge not because it is 100% objective, but because it endeavors to precisely define universal methods for making measurements and correlating them consistently with each other. To the extent that we adhere to such controlled observations, we will have the assurance that what is observed will not be distorted by arbitrary uncontrolled factors. That is, by controlling observations, what is observed is clearly distinguished from what is observing. Only by clearly defining what is subjective, is an object clearly defined relative to that. The situation is analogous in some ways to mathematical knowledge. There is no such thing as a purely objective truth in mathematics. The truth of a theorem is only defined relative to axioms and rules of inference that are freely assumed, and could be chosen otherwise. Once they are chosen, of course, then theorems are either true or false (or undecidable) relative to that freely chosen foundation. And it is only by making the definitions, axioms, and rules of inference completely clear and rigorous that we can have complete certainty of theorems relative to them. About the utility thing ..scientists don't do their science just to invent more technologies and advance mankind ..that's a huge part of the scientific work..but more importantly science is in the busines of figuring out everything about nature. The current objective of physics for example since the time of Einstein is to come up with a (TOE) :a theory of everything. Can you tell me what's the utility of having a theory that explains absolutely everything In the universe?

I think this is an argument for science being subjective . If I remember correctly from Leo's series about science..he mentioned that science is the new era religion. It comes with epistemic and metaphysical background and worldview. That's why they don't study ghosts and paranormal phenomenon. Because the materialist paradigm is baked into science. If a phenomenon can't be measured materially the it doesn't exist .and ghosts of course are immaterial. I think Science is definitely subjective, and mathematics, models, simulations and their wrong interpretations of everything are merely wrong assumptions even though they are so ultra-hardcore believed to be true, just like the actual religion is. that’s what science is, religion, instead of admitting limitations and the unknown, people cannot accept these limitations of knowledge, actually, limitations of assumptions, since the only way we can 100% know that something is knowledge is to have the entire picture of everything, all of it, and we cannot even get knowledge from this tiny directly observable part, and the smaller picture we are able to observe, the more wrong we are-just real-world facts.

Oh come on..don't be such a drama queen lol jk It's OK guys .OP is fully awake and I'm full of BS. If that makes you happy .

When we hear the term "emptiness " or "nothingness " or even "non-existence " we can't help ourselves but to imagine a black scene. It has to be black .not any other color .but why ? It should qualityless .meaning it has no shape or form or even color .yet it's associated in our minds with a specific Color which is black .but why black and not red for example? Can you see that it's completely arbitrary. Yet we can't help ourselves but to think of nothingness as having a black color . I'm simply asking why is that case ? I mean I get it ..we can't imagine colorlessness because all we ever see is color . But why the color black specifically to represent nothingness rather than white or any other color? ?

I get the first paragraph. Not sure I follow the second one .sometimes you remind me of Nahm with your cryptic style Well..scientists observe carefully and repeatedly..Then they study what they have observed and form theories using what they deduce from their observations. They determine what the theory predicts will happen under specific conditions. Then they design and run experiments to test those prediction. Then other scientists run those same experiments to verify that the results are the same for everyone. If everything works out and matches up they and there is no other theories around that explain the same thing just as well they start calling it an accepted theory. That’s as close as they ever get to “knowing” something because tomorrow a new discovery may be made that their theory should predict and doesn’t If that happens, they adjust the theory to take the new discovery in to account and go back to the testing phase. Sometimes the new discovery makes so much difference it can’t be worked in to the existing theory. Then they go back to the raw data and start over from there to create a whole new, entirely different theory. So it's a self-correcting system. Science is the most objective method to arrive at conclusion about the nature of universe,biology, chemistry, physics, or really anything. I know I'm sounding like a stage orange materialist but it Is what it is . I believe science has more both truthfulness and practicality than mysticism or spirituality. But that's just me . No .that's one point .but there are many others . To arrive at an accurate knowledge about the world. Here is where epistemology kicks in. How do we know ANYTHING? In my opinion via direct experience and direct experimentation. You might ask what's the point of that either ? And here there is really no answer. You can have sex with your pragmatism all you want but being practical and pragmatic about everything isn't gonna produce the desired results in your life .maybe because you have your priorities backwards. You think that practicality is more important than Truth .while I think the opposite is the case .