can science ever tells us anything about consciousness...

[MarkusSweden]

...that meditation can't? 

[Patang]

you see, science is only a story which is based upon core assumptions that cannot be proved (matter, energy, forces, and so on... for they are merely concepts to things that no one knows anything about). it is a belief, thus not true. on the other hand, consciousness is the only one that cannot be disproved, thus it is truth. so, as for your question, scientists can only tell you a story, you choose whether to believe it or not. are you a believer or on a quest to find the truth yourself?

Edited February 14, 2018 by Patang

[Nahm]

@MarkusSweden Science, consciousness, and meditation, can all be transcended by experiencing your source directly, without the dream.

[Nahm]

@Patang Eggscellent question! THAT is the only distinction one need make. 

[Joseph Maynor]

What is Science?  Im not trying to be cute here.  What is not Science?

[snowleopard]

As long as the science in question is fixated in a physicalist paradigm that assumes consciousness is an emergent epiphenomenon of brain activity, and/or certain arrangements of matter, then whatever it is telling us about consciousness can only be filtered through that mindset. A science based in idealism would tell us that consciousness is the fundamental essence that is the source of all phenomena, including brain activity. That switch of mindset would be paramount to any deeper scientific investigation.

[MarkusSweden]

11 minutes ago, snowleopard said:

As long as the science in question is fixated in a physicalist paradigm that assumes consciousness is an emergent epiphenomenon of brain activity, and/or certain arrangements of matter, then whatever it is telling us about consciousness can only be filtered through that mindset. A science based in idealism would tell us that consciousness is the fundamental essence that is the source of all phenomena, including brain activity. That switch of mindset would be paramount to any deeper scientific investigation.

Very true, but even after that switch, when science admits that consciousness is the fundamental essence..

..Still, can you imagine that science in that new paradigm ever to come up with a method more effective then pure resting in consciousness aka meditation? 

After all, consciousness can never be better grasped then when it's resting in itself? 

An even more interesting question is "How would snowleopard survive without the word "fixated"? 

   

Edited February 14, 2018 by MarkusSweden

[snowleopard]

@MarkusSweden There are enough synonyms that I may just manage to get by.

How a science, and a cultural ethos, based in idealism would change 'the world' is interesting to speculate about. We may never really know for sure, unless it comes to pass, as it may be beyond what the current paradigm can even imagine.

[Nahm]

Science is you indirectly experiencing you. Same as sharing your experiences with someone else. That someone else, is you. So you get to know what you are, by science, sharing experiences openly, and of course direct inward practices.

[Faceless]

2 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said:

What is Science?  Im not trying to be cute here.  What is not Science?

Science as generally practiced implies measure/thought/fragmentation/segmentat-ion 

Seems consciousness is an internal/mental/mind relationship to the whole of cosmos or ‘wholeness’

So one might ask how can a limited, fragmented, and segmented form of measure /thought grasp/comprehend/hold together  ‘THE WHOLE’ in which that very stream, movement, and process of thought/measure is a part of??? 

Can a ‘PART’ cover the ‘WHOLE’ ???

I would say this is Important to go into. 

Edited February 14, 2018 by Faceless

[Faceless]

Since science Focuses on parts of the whole then that implies it does have a limited capacity to explain a particular part. But to know it’s limits is a necessity.

[MarkusSweden]

@Faceless Any explanation of the whole must include the explanation of itself? Is that possible? 

[Dodo]

6 hours ago, Patang said:

you see, science is only a story which is based upon core assumptions that cannot be proved (matter, energy, forces, and so on... for they are merely concepts to things that no one knows anything about). it is a belief, thus not true. on the other hand, consciousness is the only one that cannot be disproved, thus it is truth. so, as for your question, scientists can only tell you a story, you choose whether to believe it or not. are you a believer or on a quest to find the truth yourself?

The thing about science that is strong is that it makes correct predictions. There is truth to science. Of course it's not the ultimate truth .

[Patang]

14 minutes ago, Dodo said:

The thing about science that is strong is that it makes correct predictions. There is truth to science. Of course it's not the ultimate truth .

sure it will, all human revelations and inventions, are as a result of science knowledge. in order the story to be trustworthy, it must be consistent.

[Faceless]

4 hours ago, MarkusSweden said:

@Faceless Any explanation of the whole must include the explanation of itself? Is that possible? 

What do we use to  investigate, explain, and examine? 

[GP1810]

Hi, If you haven't already I urge you to read the book 'Biocentrism' By Robert Lanza, it may bring you closer to some of the answers to your question.  It's completely changed my view on consciousness and existence.

Hope this helps.

[Faceless]

If we use thought which is fragmented and never whole how can thought grasp the whole??

Edited February 14, 2018 by Faceless

[Vingger]

By definition is not compatible
Science studies phenomenons using methods and reason,

and consciousness is not a phenomenon is where the phenomena occur, is made of nothing, a mystery

can't grasp it

Philosophy can't grasp it either, because is not base on experience also again, uses reason which is useless (any story in the dream will be only a context in the dream)

 

Edited February 14, 2018 by Vingger

[Faceless]

@MarkusSweden

if fragmentation/duality or thought is used how can that ever comprehend the whole? 

Can fragmentation be integrated into wholeness???

this also relates to topic in self actualization category under self image paradox

Edited February 15, 2018 by Faceless

[Faceless]

2 hours ago, Vingger said:

By definition is not compatible
Science studies phenomenons using methods and reason,

and consciousness is not a phenomenon is where the phenomena occur, is made of nothing, a mystery

can't grasp it

Philosophy can't grasp it either, because is not base on experience also again, uses reason which is useless (any story in the dream will be only a context in the dream)

 

Philosophy/science/method/reason Dream/story/experience/ all products of thought so that’s a no go huh