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

[BjarkeT]

But i have no clue what DMT is at all but i am aware that i am doing research that seems to "mirror" my world view but actually the way i do it is to go with what i find likely to be as close to reality as possible that would work for example if i where to research a plan for something that requires learning the things i would look for is deep work, deliberate pratice etc as they seem to be the one i most likely need for the project to be successful in this case if it where something to deal with emotions what you describes in how to deal with strong negative emotions seems to be what would be most useful at least to have something to start with (really awesome video btw)

Edited December 20, 2017 by BjarkeT

[Leo Gura]

@BjarkeT That's precisely the point of research: to investigate things which you have no clue about.

If you only research the things you know, then you're researching in a circle.

[BjarkeT]

@Leo Gura but i am not researching the things i already know except if i want to know more about them it was only an example (of previous/earlier research) the usual approach i do when researching is doing it for something I don't know a lot about but think is useful 

Edited December 20, 2017 by BjarkeT

[Ocean]

@Leo Gura I miss that solid circle in many ways. Easy to play along. When it became that enso thing, everything lost it's structure  

[Leo Gura]

@Ocean Yes, of course. The circular logic which holds together every paradigm is the only thing there is to create a sense of solid reality. Which is precisely why people are so adamant about continuing their circular logic. No circular logic, no reality.

[Egosum]

Hey @BjarkeT , maybe this will help:

“The scientific method allows us to study and model the observable patterns and regularities of nature. For instance, the observation that objects consistently fall when dropped – a regularity observed anywhere on the surface of the planet – allows us to infer the law of gravity. The observation that crystals form according to symmetrical shapes allows us to infer specific patterns of crystallization for different materials. Modelling the observable patterns and regularities of nature is all that science is about, because it is all that it can be about. Nothing else can be falsified by direct comparison with nature, therefore nothing else can be considered scientific. By observing the consistency of these patterns and regularities, scientists can create mathematical models to capture them, run such models as computer simulations, and then predict how similar phenomena will unfold in the future. Such an ability to predict the phenomena of nature lies at the heart of the technological prowess of our civilisation and represents the main social value-add of science.

But our ability to model the patterns and regularities of reality tells us little about the underlying nature of things. Scientific modelling is useful for informing us how one thing or phenomenon relates to another thing or phenomenon – this being precisely what mathematical equations do – but it cannot tell us what these things or phenomena fundamentally are in and by themselves. The reason is simple: science can only explain one thing in terms of another thing; it can only characterise a certain phenomenon in terms of its relative differences with respect to another phenomenon. [3] For instance, it only makes sense to characterise a positive electric charge relative to a negative electric charge; positive charges are defined in terms of their differences of behaviour when compared to the behaviour of negative charges, and the other way around. Another example: science can explain a body in terms of tissues; tissues in terms of cells; cells in terms of molecules; molecules in terms of atoms; and atoms in terms of subatomic particles. But then it can only explain one subatomic particle in terms of another, by highlighting their relative differences. Science cannot explain the fundamental nature of what a subatomic particle is in itself, since all scientific explanations need a frame of reference to provide contrasts. [4]

Capturing the observable patterns and regularities of the elements of reality, relative to each other, is an empirical and scientific question. But pondering about the fundamental nature of these elements is not; it is a metaphysical question. The problem is that, in recent decades, scientists who have little or no understanding of philosophy have begun to believe that science can be a metaphysics. [5] This dangerous combination of ignorance and hubris has done our culture an enormous disservice. Childishly emboldened by the technological success achieved by our civilisation, many scientists have begun to believe that the scientific method suffices to provide us with a complete account of the nature of existence. In doing so, they have failed to see that they are simply assuming a certain metaphysics – namely, materialism – without giving it due thought. They have failed to see that the ability to predict how things behave with respect to one another says little about what things fundamentally are.

The notion that technological prowess is proof of some deep scientific understanding of the underlying nature of reality is simply equivocated. Let us put this in context with an analogy: one needs to know nothing about computer architecture or software in order to play a computer game well and even win; just watch a five-year-old kid. Playing a computer game only requires an ability to understand and predict how the elements of the game behave relative to one another: if your character shoots that spot, it scores points; if your character touches that wall, it dies; etc. It requires no understanding whatsoever of the underlying machine and code upon which the game runs. You can be a champion player without having a clue about Central Processing Units (CPU), Random-Access Memories (RAM), Universal Serial Buses (USB), or any of the esoteric computer engineering that makes the game possible. All this engineering transcends the “reality” accessible empirically from within the game. Yet, the scientific method limits itself to what is empirically and ordinarily observed from within the “game” of reality. Scientific modelling requires little or no understanding of the underlying nature of reality in exactly the same way that a gamer needs little or no understanding of the computer’s underlying architecture in order to win the game. It only requires an understanding of how the elements of the “game,” accessed empirically from within the “game” itself, unfold relative to one another.

On the other hand, to infer things about what underlies the “game” – in other words, to construct a metaphysics about the fundamental nature of reality – demands more than the empirical methods of science. Indeed, it demands a kind of disciplined introspection that critically assesses not only the elements observed, but also the observer, the process of observation, and the interplay between the three in a holistic manner; an introspection that, as such, seeks to see through the “game.””

From: http://www.newdawnmagazine.com/articles/the-fairytale-of-materialism-how-fundamentalists-hijacked-science

[molosku]

Materialism states that from matter arises something called a human and from the material human there somehow arises consciousness. We can explore the material world with our consciousness or knowing of it, and find objective truths from reality. So matter first, then consciousness.

 

But this is ass backwards.

 

How do you know matter?

With consciousness of it: a perception of a "material" object.

What is a perception of matter?

Its a phenomena in consciousness, that could be further divided as a sight, sound, taste etc. Something about something is known: known in consciousness. When you truly trace it down honestly, everything you think you know, everything you perceive is just known. So if every piece of knowledge about this so called world is ultimately ALWAYS a perception, everything IS a perception. So what is a perception? It IS consciousness, its not separate from it. Perceptions don't appear separate from consciousness, consciousness does not appear separate from perceptions, thus there is no sense in talk about them as separate things. They are the same thing and "happen" simultaneously, "consciousness" and "perception" are just convenient words, as we can in fact separate them verbally. Alan Watts loves to talk about this. But words are not reality, reality is reality,

All this is deeply counter intuitive, because it truly _feels_ that there is an outside world with properties, that is not you, but it just does not stand when honestly investigated. The rabbit hole here goes very deep:

There is/are no physical:

• space
• world
• humans
• body
• organs
• parents
• children
• physical anything, you name it

To say that matter exists as its own reality, is like (Im maybe too much of a Ruber Spira fanboy. Rubert <3 please someone burst my bubble) saying that an image on a screen has more reality than the TV. It gives matter more reality than it deserves.  Table, TV, chair, dragon, what ever. They are all on the same line: a perception.

But wait, there is more

When you have an enlightenment experience, you realize that everything is consciousness/perception. Point to the thing you call your "self" in your direct experience. It must be there, because it has been with you all your life, right? All you can do is point to a story about who you are. What ever you tell me you are, is not really who you are, that is what you tell yourself to be. By talking to me about yourself is actually claiming that you are a sentence, and that's rather ridiculous. And so is your story of yourself. Now stay silent. That is what you really are: a knowing.

In the realization of no self, lies a deep mind fuck. Yes, you find out the most important and relevant truth for you: who you are, but you do not get any information about _what_ you are actually perceiving. Like holy fuck what is happening here? A DOG and a CAR? There are perceptions, sure, but can someone plese tell me what is this thing called reality I'm perceiving?

 

That is what I call a cry for materialism

 

I agree, none of the content of your perceptions make any god damn "sense", but when you have an enlightenment experience, you realize that it really, really, REALLY does not matter what it is, because that whole quest for meaning and "base" for everything rises from the materialistic paradigm, and you know better now.The "stuff" you would eagerly call matter, that you perceive, is made of itself, that is, perception.

The notion of "stuff made from itself" rises an immediate scientifically minded rejection/objection that goes like this:

"But i can investigate what underlies things! When I investigate a matryoshka doll, I find another doll. Surely I can run this process on everything, and ultimately reality itself! Saying that stuff is made of itself is just giving up!"

 

This is just another way of saying

"I will juggle perceptions until I arrive at a non-perceptual truth!"

 

To say that there is a material world, that you are perceiving, is jumping to conclusions based on your intuition, not on careful investigation of what is true unconditional of your assumptions. Remember, that you can't deny that perceptions of _something_ is all you REALLY have of the "world". When you hear a cat barking, or a lion mooing, you assume based on the sound that there is this particular source for it. You must realize that every time you make a connection like this, a claim about the reality that is outside from your direct experience, you are making an assumption. We don't like assumptions here on Truth city.

We could put a cat in a box a million times and hear its bark, and take it out, and hear a ba- okay that joke died, hear a meow outside of the box the cat now visible, and a million times you would say that the cat is meowing in the box, but that is just not your direct experience, and will never be, unless you directly see or otherwise perceive the cat meowing. It's ridiculously counter intuitive, I know, but run trough the logic for yourself and see for yourself that when materialism and non-materialism are put in a cage, the matter gets eaten.

I'm on the same boat as @Leo Gura on this, that the bottom line for materialism is that there is absolutely zero evidence for it, because there never could be. Personally, I sure as hell feel like there is matter, but yeah. It's just a feeling. Or dare I say it: a perception of it

 

Edited December 22, 2017 by molosku

[Leo Gura]

@molosku Well put.

[Leo Gura]

@Egosum The better the model, the bigger the problem

 

[Guest username]

@molosku I think Rupert is one of the best people on the non-dual scene. 

[Wind]

It's nothing wrong with scientific method per say. It's great. It's just limited to concepts; to how you can understand reality.

Ask yourself if concepts are the only way to underatand reality?

Also look into 'the philosophy of science'. You will see how arbitrary it actually is.

Edited December 22, 2017 by Wind

[Edvard]

14 hours ago, molosku said:

I'm on the same boat as @Leo Gura on this, that the bottom line for materialism is that there is absolutely zero evidence for it, because there never could be. Personally, I sure as hell feel like there is matter, but yeah. It's just a feeling. Or dare I say it: a perception of it

But does scientists actually claim to know what matter is? Any examples? And whether it's material or immaterial, consciousness is the only thing we can be certain is, and many scientists admit this, Sam Harris, i.e..

In many ways it could make sense to "conclude" this is immaterial, but I guess one could also notice that because everything is an illusion, one might just as well actually call it material - just because this is the "content" of the illusion. Illusions are per definition immaterial, but nevertheless the illusion appears material, in the same way we appear to exist. This is how God created this (first time I use the word God in this way, lol).

Any concept or word becomes false in the ultimate sense, which we are indeed talking about, being it "material" or "immaterial". But it is useful and I agree, important, to get rid of the material paradigm as a position. I just wouldn't create a new paradigm which says it's immaterial. But I see it has it's purpose in a very material-minded world...

[molosku]

1 hour ago, Edvard said:

Any concept or word becomes false in the ultimate sense, which we are indeed talking about, being it "material" or "immaterial".

Well said my friend. I juuuuust commented about this to another person, ill just copy paste it below. And yes, any scientist that is not married to the paradigm of science knows this: science is the investigation of the properties of the seeming reality we exist in, and it will never (and it never was supposed to) touch the "what" of things. But yeah here is the copypasta:

The evidence that a materialist claims to be evidence of matter, is first and foremost actually evidence of existence of perceptions. It still leaves the discussion of reality of matter open, because it does not objectively falsify the notion of matter, just the evidence for it.

I don't know man, all this confuses the hell out of me, to be honest. In unsure times like these, meditation as a being feels nice and simple my small brain does not compute the challenges of western philosophy. My current feeling about the metaphysics of matter is, that it simultaneously exists, and does not exist. I heard one weird skinny bald guy calling that a strangeloop, but I don't know about that fuzz. Could be a scam to sell something, I don't know.