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

[Dan Arnautu]

@BjarkeT Scientists don't have the answer for most tough problems. If you study the philosophy of mind, you would see that neuro-scientists hadn't figured out how to solve the mind-body problem in more than 40 years of research. 40 YEARS OF SERIOUS RESEARCH.

Why? Because they operate in a certain paradigm. And you cannot solve a problem with the same kind of thinking or paradigm that created it.

Physics and biology don't have the answer either. Why do you think there are such courses in school like the philosophy of biology, science and others of the sorts? Because we already have known for 100's of years that science is not as reliable as people think, and that it has it faults, and that it can be no different from a religion where you are locked into a certain paradigm.

All knowledge is incomplete. All scientists make their conclusions based on intuition. Because you can't include every possible variable. At one point, they just say : "This is all the evidence we are gonna use. It is incomplete. We are only human and we don't know what we don't know. Maybe we will figure it out, but here is where we draw the line for now". Every decision is based on incomplete data.

[BjarkeT]

@Dan Arnautu but research take a while its sometimes take up to 20 years to came up or more with breakthroughs in science it have happen before but they still came up with what they where looking for just think it worth to mention

if i rember right it should have taken something like 20 years or something to come up with things like evolution and gravity

people also thought before that when they couldn't come up with an answer that said that was it and no way to solve it but then later somebody did(i am pahasing but its pretty similar)

Edited December 17, 2017 by BjarkeT

[Dan Arnautu]

@BjarkeT All breakthroughs come when there is a major change in paradigm and never before. The scientists are caught into a paradigm lock. If neuroscientists will continue with their belief that the body is physical and the mind is some ethereal thing split in two planes, they will search for the mind for the next 2000 years and never find anything. That's the power of a paradigm lock.

If some of the scientists were to take DMT, they would probably have a breakthrough in just a few years or less.

Edited December 17, 2017 by Dan Arnautu

[snowleopard]

@BjarkeT  The point is that if a hardcore materialist scientist became skeptical about materialism's inability to explain what has been called the 'hard problem of consciousness', then why not investigate and posit possible alternatives, instead of having blind faith in the materialist paradigm? It does no good to just keep referencing information from those who are indoctrinated into that paradigm, when clearly it doesn't provide all the answers.

[Dan Arnautu]

@BjarkeT And by the way: Scientists (one for example being Daniel Dennett) already know that the world is not material and had known for a while. I've talked to a few of them. The mainstream culture just hasn't caught up yet.

Edited December 17, 2017 by Dan Arnautu

[Spiral]

The scientific way of understanding the universe, is great of interacting with then universe. Because you learn the relationship a certain object or phenomenon interact  with other objects and phenomenons. With this knowledge you can manipulate the universe to you liking by putting small things together to create something greater then sum of it's parts. Like a for a computer for instance. Using this method you'll get to figure things out but, why it does not  really add much anymore, a iPhone six or and old Nokia. The newer phone doesn't make you happier. The expensive care doesn't have you happier.

Science is not wrong, but there is more to life than it.

[ajasatya]

8 minutes ago, BjarkeT said:

but it isn't just about belief there is more to it than that the way i understand it is that it's about getting data science have been in use way before computers 

i am a mathematician and a data scientist 

yes, the scientific method is about beliefs. not the usual beliefs that we hear everyday like "the apple falls because red things are repelled by the sky". but the belief that the falling speed of an object can be predicted by the formula v = sqrt(2gh), which in fact is just a sufficiently good approximation for speeds that are way lower than the speed of light.

and then science evolves. we find a new formula. we become more precise. we find better models. but we will never achieve Truth through models.

if you're still afraid of acknowledging your brutal ignorance (you're not special... we're all brutally ignorant), check out gödel's incompleteness theorem.

[Dan Arnautu]

@Spiral The scientific way of understanding the universe is not some fixed thing. Science is a system, and it's evolving. Concepts that were valid a few centuries ago are totally discarded today. The lens is changing all the time. Usually philosophy gives it new problems, and science tries to bring the problems to earth and analyze them. When they are solved, or until a new perspective appears, that is the lens that remains.

Before physics was called physics, it was called Natural Philosophy. When they finally invented some instruments that could measure, calculate and prove the movements of natural happenings, it became a science ----> Physics. All sciences were philosophies before their problems could be brought down to earth and analyzed, measured etc. When a philosophy can be brought down from the abstract to the concrete, you call that science, but that doesn't mean that philosophy has nothing to do with it anymore. It's still constantly watched by it to see if the science makes any conceptual mistakes or if there is a new way of looking at the problems.

Edited December 17, 2017 by Dan Arnautu

[BjarkeT]

@ajasatya why would i be afraid of acknowledging my ignorance if i was really afraid why would i have asked the question to begin with? 

what i understand of the scientific method is that it's about getting data that as close as possible to the turth like neil explain in this video

and what did you mean by stuck forever stuck from what?

 

Edited December 17, 2017 by BjarkeT

[snowleopard]

 

[ajasatya]

1 minute ago, BjarkeT said:

the scientific method is that it's about getting data that as close as possible to the turth

that is correct. there's nothing wrong with science. it just won't take you to the ultimate realization of who you are.

[BjarkeT]

@ajasatya

but what did you mean by being stuck stuck from what? And why did you think i was afraid of acknowledging my ignorance?

who said science was about the ultimate realization of who you are? Isn't it about understanding how the world works?

Edited December 17, 2017 by BjarkeT

[Dan Arnautu]

@BjarkeT Yeah, that's what they claim, but that's not what they do. They don't have the inner development and the radical openmindedness needed in order to truly question the things they are questioning with no self agenda. All they are usually doing is rearranging their prejudices.

Believe me, I'm surrounded by Phd's and researchers all day in my faculty. And they are philosophers, who are usually much more openminded than scientists. They are not authentically looking for truth. They are playing the politics of academia, getting their CV all beefed up by publishing ultra specialized research articles and books with no holistic understanding. They are looking after nobel prizes, keeping their position in the faculty and traveling to useless conferences. They are regurgitating what the past philosophers and scientists said and have no contemplation practice. They just combine ideas from different authors. They don't sit down to contemplate.

If you will have a chance to sit around philosophers or scientists for more than a year, you will be shocked by how little do we know. We don't know even 0.000001% of the universe and how it works. And most of what we have until now is not even authentic knowledge. They are just human projections of how we think the universe works.

Edited December 17, 2017 by Dan Arnautu

[ajasatya]

Just now, BjarkeT said:

what did you mean by being stuck stuck from what?

stuck from enlightenment

2 minutes ago, BjarkeT said:

why did you think i was afraid of acknowledging my ignorance?

because you seemed to be advocating for the scientific method as if it could fill the gaps exposed by leo

[BjarkeT]

@ajasatya i am not trying to be enlightenment at least at the moment because i have other things i need to get done(such as working on what i think my life purpose is and i have nothing against it just for clearification) i just try to focus one thing at a time as I believe it's the best way to get the best results(i am not saying that's that how it is only that's what i belive and it might be wrong) and all i am trying to do is to get a clearification on why there should be something wrong with the topic mentioned in the first post 

Edited December 17, 2017 by BjarkeT

[snowleopard]

Gotta love watching materialist scientists conceding that when it comes to consciousness, they are indeed baffled.

 

[Nahm]

@BjarkeT

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

it’s that science is a miniscule aspect.   consider everything (arguably) the scientists are using is powered by electrcity, and likely, none of them know what electrcity is. it’s similar to pointing to your body saying ‘me’, while not knowing what you are. 

[Leo Gura]

@BjarkeT The problem is that scientists, and you, are taking the scientific method for granted. You just assume it delivers truth. But that's not how it works at all. It constructs a conceptually-augmented reality instead. You misunderstand how the scientific method actually works, what it yields, and what its limits are.

For starters, scientific method doesn't prove ANYTHING. All it can do is rule out certain possibilities "within reasonable doubt".

To understand all that requires a very deep investigation of epistemology and metaphysics and history of science. Which hardly any scientists undertakes.

Science is a paradigm which comes with many unconscious metaphysical assumptions which simply turn out to be false. But good luck convincing a person who clings to that paradigm of this point.

[BjarkeT]

@Leo Gura but then how does it actually work?

[Leo Gura]

2 minutes ago, BjarkeT said:

@Leo Gura but then how does it actually work?

That is a very complex question that would requires a decade of research and contemplation to begin to understand.

I'm in the process of writing a book about it. It's extremely complex and challenging to write about.