Problems understanding Brains do not exist video

[MM1988]

What I dont get here is that science to my knowledge isnt as materialistic as leo makes it ought to be.

Isnt science basically admitting that nature is inherently magic. Science doesnt claim to be able to figure everything out. Science says we dont know where the big bang come from, we will probably never know, and even then we dont know what caused that etc. We dont have any idea what existence is, we know the everything goes through first person experience, we know quantum mechanics is paradoxical . Maybe the real answer is even too complicated for a human mind to even grasp at all. No scientist says he knows the external world exists, maybe its a simulation, and when it is what is outside of that simulation - no idea at all, a scientist will admit this. But then again we have no way of figuring this out anyway, so isnt science our best bet? Even when we know science wont even in theory be able to solve everything isnt it the best shot we got, and better than doing nothing since these problems cant be solved?

 

Leo on the otherhand makes the claim if you sit in a cave for 40 years and meditate the answer will come to you spontaniously eventually. Thats an outrageous claim, and nobody knows if thats true. Even if it were we can conclude that not even a monkey would be able to have access to that truth, because he will never sit still and meditate. There exists life on this planet from lifeless organic material like plants up to the humand mind, and lanything in between, literally anything. Why would just a human have access to this, why would we be so special?

 

Edited November 28, 2017 by MM1988

[Leo Gura]

Most scientists seriously claim that consciousness takes place inside a brain and reduces down to nothing more than the firings of neurons.

If you tell a scientist that paranormal phenomena are real, he will say you are nuts and tell his colleages to kick you out of the scientific community.

If you tell a scientist that reality is mystical, he will call your a superstitious Creationist.

If you tell a scientist that science doesn't access truth, but is a human invention, he will think you are crazy.

There is an enormous difference between the ideals of science and the actual closedmindness of science. In practice science is not objective and it does not care about truth. It cares about doing science-as-usual.

[MM1988]

If you tell a scientist that paranormal phenomena are real, he will run tests and studies. If these come back negative, or if they arent testable at all, wont a scientist say "granted, maybe what you tell us is real, but nobody else can prove it, test it, or observe it, therefore why wouldnt we be skeptical?" - whats wrong with that approach?

I'll give it to you most scientist probably dont live up to the ideal. But it isnt answering the second part of the question, why the enlightenment approach makes more sense than theoretically ideal science 

Edited November 28, 2017 by MM1988

[Faceless]

Yeah even science is limited in its nature  because it is broken into fragments. This is how thought/knowledge works. It focuses on particular points of a whole, not on the whole itself. Thought/knowledge can never capture the whole. The more we use thought/knowledge the more concentrated and narrow our investigation becomes. To get the most out of science we need to understand the limited nature of thought and knowledge. 

To be able to see the fact that theory’s are extremely partial, limited, a type of attempt to capture the whole. 

For example, this is similar to the fact that the word is never the thing in which it is pointing to. It’s only an attempt to capture and explain what is being described. It becomes a reality “fragmented” because thought makes it so, but it’s never “whole”or Truth in the deepest sense because Truth is beyond the realm of subjectivity. 

Edited November 28, 2017 by Faceless

[Leo Gura]

What you're taking for granted is how much the materialist paradigm blinds the scientists. You cannot do an honest investigation into anything which your paradigm assumes as impossible from the outset.

The issue with science is that it refuses to take seriously its implicit metaphysical assumptions. Science says, "Assumptions? What assumptions? Metaphysics? What metaphysics? We don't do any of that. We fairly investigate all of reality." No! You don't fairly investigate all of reality, you only investigate the stuff you think is real and only using the methodologies which agree with your existing paradigm. That is not objective, that's highly biased.

To do science properly, one would have to have zero methodological preferences. Your methods and metaphysics literally limit what you can discover. You cannot discover a thing which you hold to be impossible. In such a case, the mind will just dismiss the discovery away by saying something like, "Oh, well, that's just a hallucination. It's just taking place inside a brain, so that doesn't count."

I am not merely speaking about scientists not living up to some impossible ideal. I am making a point about a deep epistemic ignorance which permeates not only science but all human systems of knowledge. People do not realize how problematic their paradigms are.

The enlightenment approach doesn't make sense. It's just TRUE. Truth doesn't care one bit about making sense, or about proof, or about convincing you. Truth is just what is true.

It is actually impossible to access Truth through science because science is a symbolic system, and Truth is nonsymbolic. But good luck getting a scientist to understand that.

[MM1988]

@Shiva: of course you cant prove or disprove anything with science in an absolute sense, its more of a "this is a best we got" approach.

 

@Leo Gura If a consensus of science says "this is just a hallucination" this doesnt mean its the end of the story. Its just the theory most scientists at the time think is the most likely. But I think any scientist understands theories can be disproven anytime. Even simple physics stuff like velocity = length/speed isnt absolutely true. its just the theory most scientists think is  the most plausible because it worked most of the time in reality. 

[SOUL]

Science is a body of knowledge about the physical world and the scientific method is how that knowledge in attained. Although, the knowledge of life isn't limited to just what can be attained through the scientific method and there are many who are skeptical of any knowledge that has not been vetted through that method but this doesn't nullify or falsify the knowledge of personal experience.

It seems that most are preoccupied with focusing on who is right and what is true as if this is the pinnacle of all existence. The religious, the scientists, the mystics, so many it seems, nearly everyone wants not to just know what the "truth" is but tell others what "truth" is for them. There is too much energy put into attempting to discredit other people's knowledge they have gained through their own experience.

It's as if the mere presence of knowledge that doesn't fit their own experience is a threat to something...... hhmmmmm... what could be threatened by knowledge that doesn't support a certain narrative or paradigm..... I wonder. Although, it is especially humorous when people who claim this threatened 'thing' doesn't exist act as if they are consumed by it.

There are different methods that produce different kinds of knowledge, growing more aware of the distinctions between them and the correlations of them is just another form of enlightenment. Being that they are all part of one whole of existence I cannot understand how anyone would think they are unrelated except to protect the destruction of something that supposedly doesn't exist.

 

 

[Leo Gura]

26 minutes ago, MM1988 said:

But I think any scientist understands theories can be disproven anytime.

But they don't understand that "reality" is a theory! "Proof" is a theory. "Science" is a theory. "TIme" is a theory. "Space" is a theory. And all theories are NOT reality!

The whole problem here is that there IS an Absolute. So a "this is the best we've got" approach is not nearly good enough. And it's not the best we've got. Human beings have been conscious of the Absolute for over 5000 years. The reason scientists aren't conscious of it is because they refuse to surrender their flawed paradigm.

Scientists THINK they understand that theories aren't absolute. But they don't grasp the significance of that.

Take a close look at people like Richard Dawkins, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Bill Nye, Lawrence Krauss, Sean Carol, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris. << These people claim to represent science but they have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to understanding the ultimate nature of reality. They are factually wrong. But good luck convincing them of their ignorance. The ignorance is so deep it's hard to even know where to begin curing it. It's like cancer of the entire mind. And precisely because the cancer is so total, it goes unnoticed.

Every belief you have about reality is wrong. I don't think you grasp the significance of this.

[Socrates]

@Leo Gura And the funny part is that even if someone tries to debate with them (like Deepak Chopra) he can't win because the whole debate and logical arguments are just a game from the materialistic point of view. That's why there is so much ego involved.

This video is so cringy I just cant...

 

Edited November 28, 2017 by Socrates

[Leo Gura]

That's what I call paradigm blindness. To be inside a paradigm is to be unable to see any other valid alternative.

Paradigms are self-fulfilling prophecies. They validate themselves through confirmation bias while excusing and dismissing all counter-evidence as "not real evidence."

What's not understood is that one's paradigm determines what counts as "evidence".

Which is why you cannot argue a Christian, or a Muslim, or an atheist out of his belief that there is a God, or there is no God. No amount of reasoning will do the trick. Because the very mechanism of thinking has been corrupted by the paradigm.

It's like trying to rid your PC of a nasty virus. A really good virus will disable all the mechanisms for uprooting it. It will block access to all administrative functions, it will disable CTRL+ALT+DEL, it will disable the task manager, and it will hide itself in a dozen different places so that you can never delete it. A really clever virus will infect your system so thoroughly that you will not even know you're infected because you will have nothing to contrast it with. And a clever virus will have you get passionate about infecting others with your virus all the while having you believe that you're not really infecting them, but rather curing them of other bad infections.

That's how the Devil does his work. The Devil's first move it to make himself look like an Angel. He flips the script on everything so much that evil becomes good, and good becomes evil.

If you think I'm talking about somebody else -- not you -- you're kidding yourself. This mechanism of corruption is actively at work in every single human being: especially YOU! And especially scientists. The more Nobel prizes they have, the more infected they get.

Welcome to the world of epistemology

[sarapr]

@Leo Gura Mathematicians like to say math is the best tool for investigating reality because it makes the least assumptions (which to them are obviously true) and it also can tell you if it is capable of giving an answer on a specific matter or not so it's like a complete science that has all the answers before hand. 

[DnoReally]

But science needs these metaphysical assumptions. If it hadn't every scientist would be just like you or a yogi, exploring consciousness and the metaphysical. I actually like the scientific paradigm and its assumptions, because they are reliable and work in the physical world. They are practical and should remain the way they are in order to maintain our rate of progress.

Mysticism and science are not two seperate approaches to the same problem, they in fact deal with two non-overlapping parts of reality, and thats's the issue. I don't give a fuck what sadhguru says about the physical universe or what richard dawkins says about consciousness.

 

 

Edited November 28, 2017 by DnoReally

[Leo Gura]

6 minutes ago, sarapr said:

@Leo Gura Mathematicians like to say math is the best tool for investigating reality because it makes the least assumptions (which to them are obviously true) and it also can tell you if it is capable of giving an answer on a specific matter or not so it's like a complete science that has all the answers before hand. 

Yes, and a fox likes to say that he's the only one who should guard the hen-house.

Mathematics is a projection of the human mind. It is impossible to do mathematics without language.

[sarapr]

@Leo Gura but it does seem true that math can say wather sth is within its grasp or not.

[Leo Gura]

6 minutes ago, DnoReally said:

Mysticism and science are not two seperate approaches to the same problem, they in fact deal with two non-overlapping parts of reality, and thats's the issue. I don't give a fuck what sadhguru says about the physical universe or what richard dawkins says about consciousness.

Except when you separate reality into two domains: physical vs non-physical, or science vs mysticism, that itself is a metaphysical and epistemic position which is false, since in point of fact reality is nondual. So what you will get if you do that, is erroneous science.

By splitting itself off from mysticism, science actually damages itself. For example, it is a factual scientific error to say that consciousness is the product of neurons. And it's a scientific error to say that evolution is random. And it's scientific error to say that paranormal phenomena do not exist.

[Leo Gura]

10 minutes ago, sarapr said:

@Leo Gura but it does seem true that math can say wather sth is within its grasp or not.

Math certainly CANNOT say that!

Godel's Incompleteness theorem proved that all logic and mathematics is necessarily self-contradictory.

There are truths within mathematics which mathematics itself can never prove or grasp.

Truth is a much stronger notion than proof. Truth necessarily always eclipses proof, because proof itself is a subset of truth.

All these topics that you guys are bringing up are incredibly complex and tricky. You cannot take any of this stuff for granted. It requires decades of research to wrap your mind around all the problems plaguing fields like physics, mathematics, logic, and science. I've spent a lot energy studying these topics. I think about these topics more than I do personal development. It's mostly what I think about.

[DnoReally]

@Leo Gura What is the alternative? I mean, you might think it's an arbitrary division to say that science and mysticism aren't the same, but what really is the alternative? It has brought us tremendous wealth and lifted millions of people out of poverty.

Scientific arrogance and the belief that science holds, that it will one day be able to explain the world rationally might bother youy but so what? As long as they deliver results that deal with peoples lower needs on maslows pyramid I'm perfectly fine with the scientific paradigm. 

Yet I don't really understand the point you often make about evolution, hope there's a video covering this topic soon 

Edited November 28, 2017 by DnoReally

[Leo Gura]

@DnoReally The alternative is radical openmindedness, and developing awareness of all your metaphysical and epistemic assumptions, and then dropping them all, one by one.

Once your mind is free, and you are conscious, your ability to make scientific breakthroughs will skyrocket. You will be beyond Einstein-level of consciousness. You will be able to solve problems that no other scientist knows how to solve. And in your personal life, you will be significantly happier than your typical materialist scientist, who cannot see the infinite magic of reality that's right under his nose.

[Faceless]

I see what’s being said here Leo. And this is grasped once the ego which is thought are grasped in there true nature. But this word reality I see as being a process of an interpretation through thought projected as the absolute. What ever is influenced by thought becomes a reality. So in this case these theory’s, concepts, presumptions, dispositions are a reality. They are realities in there process but they are false realities. I think you are speaking of truth or what is true  when you use this word reality. What is so without the interpretation of thought/knowledge/time. Does this make sense? 

I think I know what u are implying though. And I’m with u on this observation.

It’s very important that this is communicated because these false truths can be very destructive in what and how we view life in its meaning. What we value or hold as significant is determined by what dispositions are conditioned by our sub cultures and society. If we see the structure and substance of these dispositions in there true nature these false realities wouldn’t influence our view of true meaning. We would  see that reality is only a perseption limited by our finite capacity to understand the whole. 

To see that every theory, concept, presupposition, premise, are only speculation in the attempt to capture what is immeasurable or immense is quite a beautiful thing. Most would be frightened of this and are. That’s why we hold to these assumptions. They offer us a sense of security and safety. Comfort in the idea that one day we will be able to control our environment. But the fact is we are our environment. We are our environment trying to explain itself.. But to me personally I think it’s a beautiful thing to know that there is much more to exsitense than these extremely limited points of view. 

 

 

Edited November 28, 2017 by Faceless

[Nahm]

@MM1988 the answer is so simple it’s just very easy to skip right on over it.