Whats wrong with the scientific way of understanding the universe? And materialism?

[BjarkeT]

@Leo Gura awesome   Good luck  

Edited December 17, 2017 by BjarkeT

[Shin]

To study the universe you should be able to get outside of it, and this is impossible, it's a unity, a singularity, there is no "outside".

The same way you can't go outside your own body studying it, chopping off some limbs and study it after, on your own.

Edited December 17, 2017 by Shin

[snowleopard]

@BjarkeT   I don't think the problem is with the scientific method, per se, the problem is that it has failed to resolve the materialist assumption that consciousness is an emergent epiphenomenon of matter (the very premise of materialism as an ontological model), when quantum physics has never found any so-called 'matter' that hasn't been reduced to probable wave functions in a void of potential. So if that is not an example of the problem with materialism -- about which you asked in the title of your post -- and you can't see that, then I'm really not sure what one can possibly say to convince you otherwise.

Edited December 17, 2017 by snowleopard

[BjarkeT]

@snowleopard but I don't think anyone have said (I don't really think its fair to say it wouldn't convince me before somebody had a chance to write it) that so far but I suppose that make sense but the first thing about matter that came to mind was atoms, quacks, etcs i am not sure if that's what it is but just speculation in terms of what matter is made of as I don't have a understanding about what matter is made of

Edited December 17, 2017 by BjarkeT

[snowleopard]

@BjarkeT  You asked what was the problem with materialism, and you've been given several avenues to investigate ... Now go into it with an open mind, and reach your own conclusions. No-one else can give you answers in lieu of your own inquiry.

[sleeperstakes]

everything you do and think is based on the belief that what you perceive is true. You can't know things that you can't perceive, things without form or colour or shape, even with scientific tools. What does a 1 dimensional string look like? it doesnt look like anything. This is the problem with science. You can't know reality, because its not a fact or a number or an equation, those are just things that predict how it works. You are limited to your 5 senses. It is all you will ever know. unless you can realise that, and understand that consciousness is all there is youll be stuck in materialism.  

[Faceless]

Science works in within the field of thought/knowledge/time

Thought is conditioned and influenced by its evolution through past conclusions within the field of knowledge.

Thought is limited and specialized. 

The whole of the universe and all its implications can’t be grasped by a constituent such as science.   

I know quantum theory and consciousness have things in common. Like obsever effect on the observed.. but I learn this through self inquiry mostly

I dont know a lot about science but I know thought lol 

I am thought 

 

[Faceless]

Its all about the ground. Everything stems from that and falls back onto it. 

This state of mind is significant and where I like to reside 

Excuse the limitation of words I chose to express that lol

 

 

Edited December 17, 2017 by Faceless

[Faceless]

Science is useful as a function in technological, medical, and other fields that can bring a certain quality to our daily lives but if one derives significance or meaning in it well then that is a limited narrow disposition to have when it comes to meaning of man and his place in the universe. Or just the universe in itself... And this can be very destructive. Take the man created by god disposition or the filly automatic disposition and so on. These types of preconceptions,presuppositions, or assumptions bring with them a certain type of behavior and relationship with ourselves, one another, and our relationship with the environment. They are limited/fragmented  attempts by thought to capture the whole. 

Science is useful but is to me rather superficial and should not be looked to for psychological/spiritual significance, meaning or value. 

 

[SOUL]

The issue I see is people have their preferred paradigm perspective and they want to filter everything through it in calling their own preferred paradigm perspective 'reality' and 'truth' but the others are 'illusion' and 'false'.

[Extreme Z7]

7 hours ago, BjarkeT said:

How is smoking evidence? why that over the scientific method way of evidence?

That's exactly the point! You don't know about the veracity of a something if you haven't actually tried it for yourself. Which is why open-mindedness is extremely important when it comes to exploring reality. Until you have some deep psychedelic trips and have spent time studying the foundations of science deeply so that you really get what science is and is not (and I mean REALLY get it!), you can't even imagine yet how the paradigms you cling to could possibly be wrong.

7 hours ago, BjarkeT said:

But thats what the scientific method is about 

The scientific method is not about "just presenting evidence" for a thing. That's an incredibly naive and simplistic notion. It is limited to verifying expectations on the behavior of phenomenon. The behavior of phenomenon says jack about what the substance of the phenomenon actually is.

Edited December 18, 2017 by Extreme Z7

[BjarkeT]

5 hours ago, Extreme Z7 said:

That's exactly the point! You don't know about the veracity of a something if you haven't actually tried it for yourself. Which is why open-mindedness is extremely important when it comes to exploring reality. Until you have some deep psychedelic trips and have spent time studying the foundations of science deeply so that you really get what science is and is not (and I mean REALLY get it!), you can't even imagine yet how the paradigms you cling to could possibly be wrong.

The scientific method is not about "just presenting evidence" for a thing. That's an incredibly naive and simplistic notion. It is limited to verifying expectations on the behavior of phenomenon. The behavior of phenomenon says jack about what the substance of the phenomenon actually is.

But you should be able to know before you try something there is a lot of information out there there should be information about this too especially if its a common thing

Edited December 18, 2017 by BjarkeT

[Extreme Z7]

19 hours ago, BjarkeT said:

But you should be able to know before you try something

Yeaaahh. . .Maybe do some Epistemology 101 first, dude.

Direct experience is King. Yes, you can intuit that some things are not worth trying out at all but without the deepening of your experience, there is always going to be the possibility of not discovering something you don't know that proves you wrong. For example, I probably will never try smoking (tobacco) in my life ever but I won't say that I KNOW with absolute certainty that it's not good for you. But you can have intuitive certainties that can help you separate what's worth pursuing among what isn't.

On the other hand, just because you've experienced something, doesn't mean you actually know anything either. Because often times, things may not be as they seem. Just look at any person who's deep into organized religion.

[jse]

On 12/17/2017 at 11:41 PM, BjarkeT said:

Whats wrong with the scientific way of understanding the universe? And materialism?

Nothing wrong with the scientific way of inquiring about the nature of the universe, except when pre-assumptions are taken for granted (e.g., speed of light being a constant).

Now, to get help you over the belief of materialism based on our powerful conditioning, try the following simple exercise:

1) Stand up;
2) Fall flat on your face;
3) Rinse and repeat until all illusion of materialism transcends.

 

[Leo Gura]

20 hours ago, BjarkeT said:

But you should be able to know before you try something there is a lot of information out there there should be information about this too especially if its a common thing

That's called faith. The opposite of science.

You are turning science into dogma. Which is the problem. If you stop doing that, then there's nothing wrong with science. But that's a big IF. Cause you insist on holding it as dogma.

The problem is that you hold a thing as dogma while telling yourself, "It's not dogma". But telling yourself that doesn't make it true. That's precisely what religious fundamentalists do. They hold dogmas which they believe are not dogmas, but truth, but which are in fact dogmas.

[jse]

57 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

You are turning science into dogma.

Edited December 19, 2017 by jse
edit: added cute business doggie

[BjarkeT]

4 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

That's called faith. The opposite of science.

You are turning science into dogma. Which is the problem. If you stop doing that, then there's nothing wrong with science. But that's a big IF. Cause you insist on holding it as dogma.

The problem is that you hold a thing as dogma while telling yourself, "It's not dogma". But telling yourself that doesn't make it true. That's precisely what religious fundamentalists do. They hold dogmas which they believe are not dogmas, but truth, but which are in fact dogmas.

But what i am talking about is just doing research for preparation for doing something, like building your infra structure for success 

Edited December 19, 2017 by BjarkeT

[Joseph Maynor]

Watch these videos:

 

Edited December 20, 2017 by Joseph Maynor

[Ocean]

It’s always fun attempting to explain something to the scientific crew.

 

They observe their experiments usually through something, whether it’s numbers, microscopes or telescopes.

Most can’t grasp that’s all second level. Themselves and knowledge (consciousness) are the first microscope. 

 

They would never work with a dirty lens to see things properly, yet most are happy to do so. 

 

The deeper they get in a field the more narrow it becomes. They also have to stay inside the paradigm unless they want to lose funding (food, shelter, family safety) and safeguard their social in group. Anybody that steps out, loses respect and is best avoided. Don’t rock the boat style.

 

Nothing wrong with it per se- it’s a safety mechanism and keeps their joy and curiosity going leading to some cool descriptions of things. I do wonder what would happen if they became friendly with fringe and just enjoyed the ride of science rather than be so serious about things.

Edited December 20, 2017 by Ocean

[Leo Gura]

On 12/19/2017 at 1:10 AM, BjarkeT said:

But what i am talking about is just doing research for preparation for doing something, like building your infra structure for success 

You are not realizing that your intent to do research is biased, paradigm-locked, and not genuine. You only want to do the kind of research that fits your paradigm and validates your core assumptions about reality.

If you really cared about doing research, you would be eager to smoke some DMT, rather and coming up with excuses for why not to.