BANNED Ted Talks

[sarapr]

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

That is too deep a topic to address in a forum post.

I'll shoot some videos about that in the future.

As I said in my Recontextualization video, science gets the context wrong.

• Neuroscience is wrong
• Western medicine is wrong
• QM interpreations are wrong
• Reductionism is wrong
• Materialism is wrong
• Evolutionary theory is wrong
• Paranormal research is being denied
• Etc.

But if you cannot see how phrenology was part of science, then you will not understand my critiques of modern scientific problems. You must understand the past before you have a hope of understanding the present.

Unless you have studied the history of science or philosophy of science this will go over your head. These are very tricky issues that require years of careful study and contemplation.

The way you are writing it strikes me that you have not invested any time investigating what science is or how it works at the epistemic level.

Are you saying that science in the bigger picture context in the absolute sense is wrong and correct in the relative sense?

[Leo Gura]

@sarapr Science doesn't even know an Absolute sense exists. And it is also wrong in many smaller relative senses. It is also correct in some relative senses. Where science is most correct is with empirical measurements of "physical" "reality".

[sarapr]

10 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

@sarapr Science doesn't even know an Absolute sense exists. And it is also wrong in many smaller relative senses. It is also correct in some relative senses. Where science is most correct is with empirical measurements of the "physical" "reality".

Would you say neuroscience done today is wrong even in the relative sense?

Edited July 25, 2018 by sarapr

[Emerald]

2 hours ago, Outer said:

He actually isn't hating on science. He's just saying that science is not the ultimate perspective.

Let me put it to you this way: Do you think the scientists that work in the Matrix, can use science to realize that they're in the Matrix?

The answer is no, if they live in a perfect Matrix like we do. That's because they are studying reality from within the system of reality. They have no ability to get an outside vantage point.

So, science is incredibly useful within the illusion. It's great at observations of how things work, which can then be used to invent things within the illusion. And its a hallmark of human development that's allowed us to thrive as a species in many regards. 

Having said that, it's horrible for recognizing the illusion for what it is. That can only be achieved in the firsthand experience, which science is a part of but is not outside of.

But you don't have to believe me or Leo or anyone about this. Just be able to separate belief from things that you actually know about reality. And once you can separate the wheat from the chaff, you'll realize that it's all chaff. And it will be in your best interest at that point to realize that you're in the ultimate blindspot. You know no more about the actual nature of reality than you did as a newborn baby. That's true no matter how deep your scientific knowledge and understanding goes.

So, if you are in your living room, you don't know if your bedroom actually exists. For all you know, everything could cease to exist every time you stop perceiving of it.

All you'l ever have of reality is your little bubble of reality and its consistency of patterns and understanding. This gives the feeling that there is a continuity and 'realness' to it. But for all you know, it could be a complete and total illusion. And you can never know one way or another.

All you'll ever truly know about reality is the awareness of the present moment, which is a non-point because the present moment has no set duration. So, all you know is the fodder of the mind, which is just sounds and images floating around in your field of perception. 

But to boil it down to basics; science is the wrong paradigm for examining questions of an existential nature. 

Edited July 25, 2018 by Emerald

[Emerald]

Just now, Outer said:

The only way to realize you're in the matrix is to get out of it, science and technology can aid someone in getting out of it, just like in the movies. It's called Neuroscience in this matrix.

Now, look at this statement and tell me how you know it's true. 

[Emerald]

Just now, Outer said:

No, reasoning doesn't work that way. Reasoning comes after.

I know that to be true but I don't know why.

Why does reasoning come after? Is that a belief? And how can you be so sure you know it's true, when you don't even know why you think that?

[Emerald]

20 minutes ago, Outer said:

It's an observation. People make up reasons, they don't know why they do anything. If you ask me enough I might give reasons, but they are not authentic, it's made up in a sense. How for instance do anyone know why they like a specific tea over an other? They don't, they just like the other one better. Someone will ask after they've picked a specific brand why they like it. After.

But we're not talking about subjective opinions here or what type of tea you like. We're talking about what you OBJECTIVELY know and don't know about reality. So this very statement illuminates the truth in what I said before. 

You've basically just said in your statement that you take the 'realness' of your interpretations on faith, without any proof because you don't know anything.

And you know what, that the first thing you've said that's absolutely true and honest. That's what human beings have to do in order to function in this reality that they literally know nothing about. They have to create a premise based upon their past experiences and things they've learned in this reality. They have to exercise faith that when they're walking that the floor won't disappear underneath them. And they'd do well to practice a relative belief in science as a perspective and tool for practical functioning.

But when you're grounding yourself in what's true, these faith-based beliefs (including the beliefs that science works and that the floor won't disappear underneath you) have to be recognized for what they are. They are only beliefs based upon what you've noticed in the past and learned to be true.

But the past doesn't exist. It may have never even existed. All you have of reality is the present moment, which is a non-point. And everything you've ever experienced may have simply been an illusion. And you'll NEVER know. 

Edit: I won't be able to come back to this for a while because I have to film a video. But I'd be happy to see what you have to say. 

Edited July 25, 2018 by Emerald

[InfinitePotential]

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

"Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: Ye must have faith. It is a quality which the scientist cannot dispense with."

"Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve."

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Max_Planck

[Hansu]

12 hours ago, Outer said:

 

Dayum this is a sexy picture

Anyway. I have a quick question for you:

Do you hate people who bash science, or do you hate the idea that too much hating science makes people not research it?

We can use laws of gravity and Newtons third law to somewhat understand what we need to build in order to build a rocket engine. Then we have to use facts discovered in other areas of science build us a rocket engine that can take us to the next planet so that the humanity is not doomed if a mere rock hits the earth.

Does this make me a firm believer in science? Lol no!
I still keep the option that maybe i am everything and maybe non-duality is true, and i will keep searching for them. At the meantime im going to finish my engineering diploma and continue researching the subject which i believe will change how every singe one of us lives on earth during next 2-3 decades

I don't have a problem holding two contradicting beliefs. I just hold them.

 

 

Edited July 25, 2018 by Hansu

[pluto]

The eyes only "see" what the mind is prepared to comprehend.

[Nahm]

@pluto Down right insane how deeply true that is. 

[fluidmonolith]

On 7/25/2018 at 1:31 AM, Emerald said:

He actually isn't hating on science. He's just saying that science is not the ultimate perspective.

Let me put it to you this way: Do you think the scientists that work in the Matrix, can use science to realize that they're in the Matrix?

The answer is no, if they live in a perfect Matrix like we do. That's because they are studying reality from within the system of reality. They have no ability to get an outside vantage point.

So, science is incredibly useful within the illusion. It's great at observations of how things work, which can then be used to invent things within the illusion. And its a hallmark of human development that's allowed us to thrive as a species in many regards. 

Having said that, it's horrible for recognizing the illusion for what it is. That can only be achieved in the firsthand experience, which science is a part of but is not outside of.

But you don't have to believe me or Leo or anyone about this. Just be able to separate belief from things that you actually know about reality. And once you can separate the wheat from the chaff, you'll realize that it's all chaff. And it will be in your best interest at that point to realize that you're in the ultimate blindspot. You know no more about the actual nature of reality than you did as a newborn baby. That's true no matter how deep your scientific knowledge and understanding goes.

So, if you are in your living room, you don't know if your bedroom actually exists. For all you know, everything could cease to exist every time you stop perceiving of it.

All you'l ever have of reality is your little bubble of reality and its consistency of patterns and understanding. This gives the feeling that there is a continuity and 'realness' to it. But for all you know, it could be a complete and total illusion. And you can never know one way or another.

All you'll ever truly know about reality is the awareness of the present moment, which is a non-point because the present moment has no set duration. So, all you know is the fodder of the mind, which is just sounds and images floating around in your field of perception. 

But to boil it down to basics; science is the wrong paradigm for examining questions of an existential nature. 

I agree. There are many misconceptions about science, but a lot of it stems from the incorrect expectations people have of it. Science is a great tool, but it is not the appropriate tool for existential questions.

I think we need to be careful to understand what science can do and can't do. Some mistakes people make include:

1) Asking science 'why' rather than 'how'. Science can tell us how the sky is blue. But it cannot tell us why conditions exist to make the sky blue rather than pink. But some people (including some scientists!) expect science to be able to tell us 'why'.

2) Confusing science with scientists. Scientists are humans, and sometimes they make claims, even within their field of expertise, that are not directly verified by their data. What raw scientific data actually tells us is very limited. We have to make inferences to turn that data into something useful, and those inferences can just be whims or presumptions influenced by our thoughts or culture, or even other scientific data for which a correlation has not yet been tested and confirmed.

3) Expecting science to prove things. Science cannot prove something true or false with 100% confidence. Science cannot say "gravity exists". Science can only say "to the best of our knowledge, gravity exists and has these properties."