Science isn't the enemy of Spirit

[MarkusSweden]

@Joseph Maynor You are really dedicated and serious about your life and your path.

When I read your journal I'm impressed by your focus and energy! 

You're the real thing, and that's why we like you! 

But there is also time for being playful, humorous and occasionally say some non sense! 

Outer was just just socialising with a touch of irony/humor. 

It's just funny, go along!  

[Joseph Maynor]

12 minutes ago, MarkusSweden said:

@Joseph Maynor You are really dedicated and serious about your life and your path.

When I read your journal I'm impressed by your focus and energy! 

You're the real thing, and that's why we like you! 

But there is also time for being playful, humorous and occasionally say some non sense! 

Outer was just just socialising with a touch of irony/humor. 

It's just funny, go along!  

I'm just having fun applying the teachings. Like a dog enjoying a chew toy.  Ah yeah!

You were enlightened a minute ago, now you're trying to control me haha.  What happened?  

You're trying to control reality.  Trying to get me to become consistent with your self-agenda.

Funny how the Ego works like that huh?  You're trying to force your values on me.  That's Ego.

Edited February 7, 2018 by Joseph Maynor

[MarkusSweden]

@Joseph Maynor Point taken! True!  

 

[Heart of Space]

17 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

Leo's dogma example that "mutations are random" is a good example. I'm a geneticist and from my view the notion that mutations are random is generally assumed and has been ingrained in science for decades. I didn't realize how closed my mind was until reading Leo's ideas a couple months ago. I started asking "What is *random*"? I tried to start up a conversation with biology colleagues and was met with odd looks and statements like "Well, you know. . . random like rolling dice" or "an equal probability of outcomes". After discussions with colleagues in math, physics, chemistry and philosophy I realize it's not that simple. For example, image that as a person rolled dice, we knew everything about the quadrillon of factors that determine the future outcome: the size and texture of the dice and hands, every atom in the air and in the roller's nervous and muscular systems, the resistance of the table. With complete knowledge of every factor,  would we be able to predict the outcome of the dice roll? If so, is it still *random*? Is the lack of awareness/knowledge of underlying factors the *randomness*?. . . What if we knew the quadrillions and quadrillions of underlying factors that influenced the generation of a mutation? We could trace the path of that mutation from the environment into the body into the cell into the nucleus to the DNA sequence. If we knew every detail of quantuum physics, energy etc. would we realize only ONE outcome was possible and it happened exactly as it should?  And if we had all knowledge and looked for the original source of that mutation, where would it be?

Is that really dogma though?  I think when people say random it can often mean many different things like that it's deterministic in nature versus created with purpose by God, which is in my eyes completely compatible with what you're saying. It also doesn't necessarily mean that that's held as some sort of incontrovertible truth in the same way a Christian believes in young earth creationism.  If science has anything that could be considered dogma it's that an external material world exists.  Or that scientific conclusions and descriptions of reality are actual truth rather than mental conceptual scaffolding which helps map your way through reality.  Sorry if I'm nit picking your example, I just feel like dogma is too strong of a word for what you brought up.

[Leo Gura]

18 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

Leo's dogma example that "mutations are random" is a good example. I'm a geneticist and from my view the notion that mutations are random is generally assumed and has been ingrained in science for decades. I didn't realize how closed my mind was until reading Leo's ideas a couple months ago. I started asking "What is *random*"? I tried to start up a conversation with biology colleagues and was met with odd looks and statements like "Well, you know. . . random like rolling dice" or "an equal probability of outcomes". After discussions with colleagues in math, physics, chemistry and philosophy I realize it's not that simple. For example, image that as a person rolled dice, we knew everything about the quadrillon of factors that determine the future outcome: the size and texture of the dice and hands, every atom in the air and in the roller's nervous and muscular systems, the resistance of the table. With complete knowledge of every factor,  would we be able to predict the outcome of the dice roll? If so, is it still *random*? Is the lack of awareness/knowledge of underlying factors the *randomness*?. . . What if we knew the quadrillions and quadrillions of underlying factors that influenced the generation of a mutation? We could trace the path of that mutation from the environment into the body into the cell into the nucleus to the DNA sequence. If we knew every detail of quantuum physics, energy etc. would we realize only ONE outcome was possible and it happened exactly as it should?  And if we had all knowledge and looked for the original source of that mutation, where would it be?

It's much worse than that.

When I say "non-random" I don't mean some tricky notion of random. I mean that mutations are intelligent. Imagine, if you will, that the mutations are more intelligent than any human mind. After all, they did invent your mind.

Now try to get your scientist friends to consider that possibility seriously.

Good luck

P.S. The universe possesses infinite intelligence.

[Heart of Space]

23 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

There are many dogmas. Not one, but dozens.

Start off by reading Rupert Sheldrakes book about science. He enumerates some of them there.

Not ALL scientists of course. I am speaking about general trends. Like if I were to say that most religious people are dogmatic. That would be true, even though some relgious people are deeply enlightened and non-dogmatic.

Generally speaking, the same criticisms one can make of religion, one can make of science. Only the content will be different.

For example, most scientists believe evolution is purposeless and unintelligent. This is a dogma. The evidence indicates just the opposite.

As another example, if you start talking about paranormal phenomena to most scientists, they will dismiss you as a crackpot. But in fact the evidence for paranormal phenomena is massive, if one is openminded and willing to abandon the materialist paradigm -- which of course most scientists are not willing to do, so they have no option but to dismiss the evidence as crackpottery and illegitimate.

It is a dogma of modern science that no paranormal phenomena are possible because there is no model to account for it. This dogma is held a priori, without empirical investigation.

I mostly agree on both counts of dogma in regards to paranormal phenomena and evolution being purposeless and unintelligent.  

But, you lose me when you say that you believe that evolution is not unintelligent on the basis that your interpretation of the evidence shows otherwise.  Or, that science should believe in paranormal activity because the your interpretation of the evidence supposedly shows it.  Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I would say dogma has nothing to do with the content of a belief, but rather how tightly that belief is held by the mind or ego.  Ultimately the content of either belief is untruth, so whichever belief you do have doesn't really matter.  However, holding on to one or the other too tightly, as incontrovertible truth, is what makes it dogma.  That considered, whatever belief you have is just noise.  Also, I have alcoholic farts today and they're quite brutal.  

[Leo Gura]

24 minutes ago, Heart of Space said:

I mostly agree on both counts of dogma in regards to paranormal phenomena and evolution being purposeless and unintelligent.  

But, you lose me when you say that you believe that evolution is not unintelligent on the basis that your interpretation of the evidence shows otherwise.  Or, that science should believe in paranormal activity because the your interpretation of the evidence supposedly shows it.  Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I would say dogma has nothing to do with the content of a belief, but rather how tightly that belief is held by the mind or ego.  Ultimately the content of either belief is untruth, so whichever belief you do have doesn't really matter.  However, holding on to one or the other too tightly, as incontrovertible truth, is what makes it dogma.  That considered, whatever belief you have is just noise.  Also, I have alcoholic farts today and they're quite brutal.  

Dogma is a belief held a priori, without open empirical investigation.

Empirical investigation reveals that evolution is intelligent and that paranormal phenomena exist. Just because you haven't bothered to do the empirical investigation of these matters doesn't change the underlying facts. It just means you haven't bothered to look, because you assumed the results of the inquiry without having done the inquiry -- a classic epistemic mistake.

The point is, when you hold as a dogma that something as impossible, you have no incentive to investigate the matter seriously.

The reason this mistake happens is because you assume that what your culture (science) tells you is true. But this can never be assumed, as it begs the question. Whatever errors exist within modern science, of course modern science will not tell you about, because if it knew of the error, it would correct it. But the whole point is that there are errors of which science is ignorant and which it refuses to admit. Arrogance is huge distorting factor here.

The point you're missing is: new science isn't "science", it's mysticism. It only becomes "science" AFTER a long and difficult battle against the dogmatic naysayers.

Established science doesn't just surrender to truth, it resists truth tooth-and-nail until the old-guard literally dies off. So after you're dead, then the next generation will be more open to evolution being intelligent and paranormal powers -- which will be reclassified as "normal" and perfectly scientific. The next generation will grow up studying paranormal powers as perfectly legitimate scientific phenomena. And not only that, it will seem completely obvious to them that such powers exist. In fact, so much so, that you and your generation will be reclassified not as scientists but as dogmatic materialistic crackpots who held back true science. You and your current "scientific" position will become just another embarrassing epistemic blunder to litter the long and dirty history of science. But the good news is, you'll be long dead, so you won't know or care. You will be saved the embarrassment

The stuff you consider "normal" today was considered totally paranormal 200 years ago. You just take it for granted because you underestimate the complexity and trickery of knowledge.

[SOUL]

Both science and spirituality share a common blind spot, that there is some knowledge commonly seen as 'true' that is actually false. Science has a mechanism for eventually exposing this false knowledge through continuing use of the scientific method to discover and bring better understanding.

Spirituality doesn't have such a mechanism and with it's subjective interpretation of experience someone or groups and even over many generations an assumption of 'truth' will persist about something that is actually false.

So a 'dogma' in science can fall away if evidence reveals it to be false but in spirituality and religion those dogmas can remain with them potentially gaining strength of influence through group think belief in those tenets alone.

[Nahm]

So funny how all this maya is called “matter” and we congeal in it ? , all the while what ‘matters’, is why. ❤️ Science is hilarious!

[Joseph Maynor]

They’re both ultimately distractions.  What matters to enlightenment is stopping getting wrapped up in clinging to thoughts and resting in awareness in the present moment.  Enlightenment is not a nerdy thing at all.

Edited February 7, 2018 by Joseph Maynor

[Edvard]

3 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

I mean that mutations are intelligent. Imagine, if you will, that the mutations are more intelligent than any human mind. After all, they did invent your mind.

So how did you figure this out? How to research that mutations may be intelligent and paranormal phenomena? Mutations is a process, so it can't be it you refer to as intelligent. Or do you mean that it's intelligent because God made everything? And by that everything is intelligent. What regarding mutations are intelligent? The DNA? Or everything? And, you know, intelligent is a word. So what do you mean by that word?

[Forestluv]

4 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

It's much worse than that.

When I say "non-random" I don't mean some tricky notion of random. I mean that mutations are intelligent. Imagine, if you will, that the mutations are more intelligent than any human mind. After all, they did invent your mind.

Now try to get your scientist friends to consider that possibility seriously.

Good luck

P.S. The universe possesses infinite intelligence.

So. . . you previously gave me pause about my own intelligence. "I" am not the author of my thoughts and creativity. They arise from some mysterious place. Perhaps from a no-thing, every-thing, absolute infinity thing. 

Yet know when you speak of the "intelligence" of mutations, I'm lost. Is this the same intelligence that gives rise to thoughts and creativity?

[Forestluv]

4 hours ago, Heart of Space said:

Is that really dogma though?  I think when people say random it can often mean many different things like that it's deterministic in nature versus created with purpose by God, which is in my eyes completely compatible with what you're saying. It also doesn't necessarily mean that that's held as some sort of incontrovertible truth in the same way a Christian believes in young earth creationism.  If science has anything that could be considered dogma it's that an external material world exists.  Or that scientific conclusions and descriptions of reality are actual truth rather than mental conceptual scaffolding which helps map your way through reality.  Sorry if I'm nit picking your example, I just feel like dogma is too strong of a word for what you brought up.

I mean mutations are "random" in the sense that rolling dice is random. Twenty years ago, mutations were thought to be "completely random". Yet Genomics have revealed mutational "hotspots" on chromosomes - so we now know the locations are not completely random. If pressed, I'd imagine most biologists would be open to considering a natural determinism, yet would be closed to considering an underlying intention or purpose.

[d0ornokey]

10 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

P.S. The universe possesses infinite intelligence.

can someone explain what he means by infinite intelligence? 

my intelligence is infinite? 

[Heart of Space]

14 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Dogma is a belief held a priori, without open empirical investigation.

Empirical investigation reveals that evolution is intelligent and that paranormal phenomena exist. Just because you haven't bothered to do the empirical investigation of these matters doesn't change the underlying facts. It just means you haven't bothered to look, because you assumed the results of the inquiry without having done the inquiry -- a classic epistemic mistake.

The point is, when you hold as a dogma that something as impossible, you have no incentive to investigate the matter seriously.

The reason this mistake happens is because you assume that what your culture (science) tells you is true. But this can never be assumed, as it begs the question. Whatever errors exist within modern science, of course modern science will not tell you about, because if it knew of the error, it would correct it. But the whole point is that there are errors of which science is ignorant and which it refuses to admit. Arrogance is huge distorting factor here.

The point you're missing is: new science isn't "science", it's mysticism. It only becomes "science" AFTER a long and difficult battle against the dogmatic naysayers.

Established science doesn't just surrender to truth, it resists truth tooth-and-nail until the old-guard literally dies off. So after you're dead, then the next generation will be more open to evolution being intelligent and paranormal powers -- which will be reclassified as "normal" and perfectly scientific. The next generation will grow up studying paranormal powers as perfectly legitimate scientific phenomena. And not only that, it will seem completely obvious to them that such powers exist. In fact, so much so, that you and your generation will be reclassified not as scientists but as dogmatic materialistic crackpots who held back true science. You and your current "scientific" position will become just another embarrassing epistemic blunder to litter the long and dirty history of science. But the good news is, you'll be long dead, so you won't know or care. You will be saved the embarrassment

The stuff you consider "normal" today was considered totally paranormal 200 years ago. You just take it for granted because you underestimate the complexity and trickery of knowledge.

You know, I think this post is pretty spot on.  I can't really disagree with the fundamental idea behind what you're saying.  

I guess all I was really trying to get at is that I'm afraid that some people are sort of making the same mistake that you claim science is, just a different flavor of that mistake.  One way or another your interpretation of the evidence leads you to the belief that the universe is intelligent.  That's perfectly fine, but I just think that it could be hindering to spiritual progress to hold on to your beliefs too strongly regardless of whether or not contemporary science supports them or shuns them.  I think there's a tendency to have some resentment towards the arrogance and negative nihilistic view of western materialism and that can drive you to believe things like "the universe is intelligent" much stronger than is helpful to you.  I'm not necessarily saying you do this, for the record, I say 'you' rhetorically.  Because ultimately what is dogma experientially?  Too put it in a really unsexy sort of way it's simply a belief that's held onto tightly.  It's the kind of belief that when someone questions it you get a little tense, or emotional.  

Which is ultimately why I say that the belief in an unintelligent or intelligent universe is unimportant.  The content of the belief is unimportant.  How tightly those beliefs are held, either way, is very, very important.  It's kind of why enlightened people often tend to have seemingly crazy and ridiculous (to the western mind of course) beliefs about the world.  They sort of loosely paint the world in beautiful colors of the mind at their whim, but they are never too attached to any particular color.  It flows and is free.  That's why I feel Yogananda's view of the world is so touching and beautiful.  He was obviously so free and full of love and did not hold onto any particular interpretation of the world or belief.  Anyways, I hope that communicates what I was trying to say.  

Edited February 8, 2018 by Heart of Space

[Nahm]

 @Serotoninluv Have you looked into epigenetics by chance? Just a thought, in terms of a potential bridge for coworkers, helping them to move out of  their current paradigm a little. The movie Heal might be a great tool also. It’s an uplifting paradigm shifter. Really subtle. 

A while back, I pulled a couple ‘Jim Carreys’ and learned people think it’s flat out crazy to see that there isn’t really any thing such as random, so, I’m loving what you’re saying about random, and if we knew the quadrillions of data, is it really ‘random’... .....If we did have all that data, computed, what would it lead to? Like, where do you think it would end? 

@d0ornokey  

What you were asking about infinite intelligence...what if you saw it, and could look at it, and zoom in, what would you find?

[Leo Gura]

I will shoot a video about evolution in the future. It's a tricky and mindblowing topic. I have 2 books about evolution on my book list which point in the right direction, but still don't go far enough. Start by reading them with an open mind.

The mistake about intelligence that people make is they think that humans are intelligent while the universe is dumb. But it's actually the other way around. The intelligence you possess as a human is just a tiny sliver of the universe's infinite intelligence. Intelligence isn't yours, you're borrowing it from the universe. Sort of like how you siphon electricity for your house from a power plant. The power plant has way more of it than your house does.

Yes, it is the same intelligence which gives rise to thoughts, creativity, and insight.

What I'm claiming is that the actual process by which genes get rearranged is not accidental but intelligent.

It is actually impossible to design anything worthwhile through a random process, because a random process is just noise, not information. DNA is complex information. It cannot arise out of noise. It has to be intelligently combined. And natural selection is incapable of doing that.

Evolution through random mutation and natural selection violates the laws of information theory, which says that you cannot get information from noise.

You can experience the universe's infinite intelligence for yourself, at higher states of consciousness.

I'm still not sure WHY the universe is intelligent. I just know that it is. I'm still trying to figure out WHY. When I trip, I try to ask it "Why are you intelligent?"

[Heart of Space]

@Leo Gura

Very cool, I definitely look forward to that one.  Back when I was a typical skeptic atheist type I read and studied a lot of about evolution.  But, of course it was always from narrow keyhole perspective of materialist thinkers like Richard Dawkins, (the guy writes some brilliant science books btw).  The Selfish Gene in particular is a must read, even if anyone disagree's with the fundamental paradigm he comes from.  Shame Richard Dawkins never smoked some DMT, he'd probably have some really interesting things to say about it.  

And I concur on the idea about the universe having some sort of perfect and infinite intelligence.  I've had many very strong intuitive experiences of some sort of universal intelligence tripping and sober, so I'm definitely open minded to that sort of thing.  It's hard to articulate, but I did write some stuff a while back trying to describe it, maybe I'll post about it sometime.  Very fascinating topic.  It will be cool to hear your take on it.  

[Edvard]

4 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Evolution through random mutation and natural selection violates the laws of information theory, which says that you cannot get information from noise.

20 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

 

You can't get much more ambiguous and unclear than this. I'm onboard with Einstein here, that if you can't explain something simplisticly (preferrably so a four year old gets it), you don't really understand it yourself. Seems like you've somehow picked a side by rationalizing because you thought something you've read criticizing science sounded plausible.

And, «the laws of information theory». Your not trying to use some logical («iiiik») theory some scientist came up with, are you?

I'm just telling you how it appears to me...

[Leo Gura]

@Edvard You won't understand until I spend an hour and a half explaining it. This is a highly technical topic which sits at the intersection of evolutionary theory and information theory.

You guys constantly keep falling into the trap of assuming that reality is simple and linear. When is it gonna dawn that every topic is enormously complex and counter-intuitive, requiring much research?

If you haven't read the latest research on evolution, then as Walter says in the Big Lebowski: "You're out of your element."

You can start by reading the books on my list.