How would science be different if it went post-rational and post-materialist ?

[sarapr]

 I Was thinking about how things could be different if science actually questioned its existing paradigms and went post-materialist. and all I can think of is that nothing would actually change cause if science accepted that, for example, reality is made of consciousness then what could it possibly do with that understanding? 

To generate the practical results which science is generating now, scientists have to do science the way they already do because science is more about discovering those relative truths and facts about reality which are more practical and can't really do much with absolute truths. There are very real limitations with understating the world with the mind using thinking so if scientists accepted that and wanted to act accordingly they would all have to just go through their own inner journies of finding the absolute truth which would be the same thing happening now. Yes maybe our understanding of the world would be changed but the way science has to operate to produce practical results can never change.

Basically what I'm trying to say is that science and none-materialism cannot go together. because nothing can really change about the way scientist do science even if their assumptions about reality changed. we would still need to operate in a relative reality and absolute truth cannot really help. maybe that's how I think because I never had any enlightenment experiences so for those of you who are more experienced, what is your thought on this?   

[Joseph Maynor]

It would be your science ‘in here’ rather than science as objectively understood ‘out there’.  I’ve written about this extensively in my Journals.

Here’s one example from my Journal Vol. 7: (Keep in mind that when I wrote this I was coming from a Stage Turquoise perspective.  My views on this today are a bit different.  For example, today I think you can know being through seeing, which is different than knowing being through Thinking.  So, "need to know being" isn't really a vice after all like I once thought it was.)

HOW CAN ENLIGHTENMENT HELP TIER-ONE SCIENCE? --LEMME REVIEW THE ‘FRAMEWORK OF TIER-TWO SCIENCE’

Tier-One Science goes like ham, eggs, and cheese with Tier-One Epistemology and Tier-One Metaphysics.  Enlightenment is hostile to Tier-One Philosophy because Tier-One Philosophy defines Truth in terms of [Conceptually] True, Justified, Beliefs about Reality.  Tier-One Metaphysics tells us about Reality by providing us with [Conceptually] True, Justified, Beliefs about Reality.  Tier-One Philosophy assumes the 'Paradigm of Paradigms or No paradigms'.  Enlightenment is about the transcendence of all Paradigms.  So, in that sense, Enlightenment is hostile to Tier-One Philosophy.  That's why I had to create and develop the Framework for Tier-Two Conceptual Understanding -- I needed a conceptual system in my Conceptual Understanding that Enlightenment is not hostile to.  Enlightenment is hostile to the Paradigm of Tier-One Conceptual Understanding: including Tier-One Science, Tier-One Philosophy, Tier-One Epistemology, Tier-One Metaphysics.

Tier-One Science is actually based in Pragmatism.  The problem is that Tier-One Science also wants to have a stranglehold on 'Knowledge' and to tell us what's 'True'.  Tier-One Science is a set of useful Frameworks masquerading as Conceptual Truths.  And I think Tier-One Science will always function this way, as a byproduct of business, university, and government money and as a career for researchers that are financed by that money.  Tier-One Science will always be an institution of pragmatic results masquerading as Truths.  So, I don't really think Enlightenment is gonna have much of an effect on Tier-One Science directly -- although it will indirectly because a new Framework will have to emerge that doesn't presuppose 'need to know BE-ing'.  I think eventually what will happen is that Tier-One Science will become much more interested in useful Frameworks rather than true Paradigms.  This will happen indirectly by Enlightenment -- because Enlightenment will prefer Tier-Two Conceptual Understanding -- and the Paradigm of Conceptual Truth will eventually be forced to be seen as unsustainable -- it will die on the vine.  This will drag down the Paradigm of Tier-One Conceptual Understanding as a whole in the long-term, as it's unsustainable because of it's implicit and explicit 'Need to know BE-ing'.  Basically, Tier-One Science will become more focused on what works than what's true -- and it won't lay claims to Conceptual Truth as much -- it will transition from true Paradigms to useful Frameworks.  

So, what's Tier-Two Science?  It's just a label I made up for Tier-Two Conceptual Understanding.  I think it's a useful label because it tracks Tier-One Science and lets us see the difference between the Paradigm of Tier-One Conceptual Understanding and the Framework of Tier-Two Conceptual Understanding.  Lemme lay out the Tier-Two Framework now:  Each Perspective has a Conceptual Understanding containing unique conceptual systems -- and those unique Conceptual Understandings corresponding to Perspectives are Complex Adaptive Systems with Egos of their own.  So, each Perspective has a unique Conceptual Understanding that has an Ego of its own.  And those Conceptual Understandings are each uniquely evolved systems.  No two Conceptual Understandings, taken as a whole, are equal -- that would be impossible.  So, while Tier-One Science is concerned with knowing BE-ing'out there', as well as pragmatic results -- Tier-Two Science is only focused on my more or less useful conceptual systems 'in here'.  Nothing means squat unless it means something to me at Tier-Two Conceptual Understanding.  This is because I'm no longer looking 'out there' for Truth.  I've become aware of my own unique Conceptual Understanding and the unique Conceptual Understanding of Other Perspectives.  I'm not looking for Conceptual Truth about BE-ing at Tier-Two Conceptual Understanding.  That's why I say, Tier-Two Science is me picking apples from the trees of Tier-One Science, but then baking them into my own Tier-Two Science pies.  Tier-Two Science is concerned 'in here' with my Science, my Knowledge, my Useful Conceptual Systems -- it's not concerned with finding [Conceptually True], Justified, Beliefs about 'Reality'.  That Paradigm of Tier-One Conceptual Understanding dies on the vine when you hit Enlightened Stage Turquoise

Edited October 16, 2018 by Joseph Maynor

[Forestluv]

@sarapr Excellent questions. 

Th scientific method involves formulating a testable hypothesis, making predictions, gathering and interpreting data, modifying the original hypothesis. Beyond the method, the scientist would strive to place the data into a model, which in turn would be placed within a larger model. For example, placing data of protein interactons into a model of cell division regulation which is placed into a larger model of cancer. 

Each point above is filled with subjectivity and biases. Scientists admit this to an extent (for example using double blind studies). Yet they are unaware of how deep the subjetivity/bias runs. It’s difficult for scientists to study the greater truth because science is *within* the greater truth. If there is one everything and there is no-thing, how can a scientist step outside of everything to objectively study some thing?

Science is a great tool to study the nature of reality. It is useful, yet limited. How can we make science better? I’d say by increasing our awareness of how science fits within a larger holistic view. To acknowledge that we scientists use metaphysics in our work. To acknowledge how little we understand about reality - and not just about the details of protein interactions in cancer cells - also fundamental aspects of reality. To give up the scientists’ obsession with controlling the narrative and to give up power as the arbitrator of truth.  To be open minded about how intuition can increase our ability to conduct science. To see science as one tool to study the nature of reality and combine this tool with other constructive tools in psychology and philosophy. More importantly, we should combine constructive science tools with deconstructive tools found in nonduality, mysticism, metaphysics etc. 

*Disclaimer: I was a life-long scientist within the scientific paradigm before escaping the trap a couple years ago. 

[Joseph Maynor]

4 hours ago, Outer said:

How is it that science works so well? @Serotoninluv

1. Is what works synonymous with what’s true?  
2. Is what works synonymous with what’s real?
3. Can Thought replace seeing what’s actually there?
4. Can Thought replace seeing what’s not actually there?  What’s illusory?

Edited October 16, 2018 by Joseph Maynor

[Forestluv]

11 minutes ago, Outer said:

How is it that science works so well? @Serotoninluv

The same way a chainsaw works so well.

[Forestluv]

4 minutes ago, Outer said:

But if you're hallucinating there might not even be these things that work so well? Why is this serotonin trip  so consistent?

I agree. Rather than assuming what is real, let’s get curious about what is real. 

Serotonin trips are consistent in that they are generally nondual. Yet, they can vary greatly.

That’s like asking “why are dreams so consistent?”

[Robert]

@sarapr Science is science, so it can't go "post-rational" because it's, by definition, rational (based on logic, observations, experiments, etc.) You're basically correct in what you're saying, except I wouldn't use the word "none-materialism" to go along with science. It's not necessary, although a materialist paradigm is not what I would advocate either.

If scientists were to raise their awareness with post-rationalism, the quality of their experiments and studies would increase significantly. This is why post-rational would be most valuable for them, for them to grow themselves. For them to do personal development, purify the spirit, not to try to force it on science itself which would be worse than useless and the epitome of counterproductive. Post-rationalism isn't helpful at all when it comes to understanding the universe. Rationalism and science is the best thing we have for that.

However, reality is infinite, so we can not deny the importance of post-rationalism within reality. It's divine, part of God's indescribable majesty. Cannot be put into words, but the best word I can think of right now is: MAGICAL. 

Great questions, OP.

Edited October 16, 2018 by Robert
Missed a sentence in my original first paragraph, leaving post unclear and misrepresenting my views. Edited to give a new paragraph that represents my views accurately.

[Forestluv]

12 minutes ago, Robert said:

@sarapr Science is science, so it can't go "post-rational" because it's, by definition, rational (based on logic, observations, experiments, etc.) 

Post-rational science is not only possible, it is a powerful spiritual method. The scientific method is not bound by logic - that view is constrained within the scientific paradigm. 

Try post-rational science on yourself. You are your best experimental subject to conduct post-rational science. You may find the data to be fascinating ?

[Preetom]

@sarapr

I think the main implication would be banishing the naive notion of materialism from all of culture and mainstream.

Imagine that the real nature of Reality is being studied and discussed from 1st grade textbooks. Can you imagine the metaphysical implications and the transformation in collective worldview if everyone was aware that there is no external physical world? From our current situation, it seems like it would produce uncontrollable chaos and madness.

There is nothing wrong that Science produces technologies to make life easier. But it is the noob rationality game they play and how they present their paradigms on pedestal as the only barometer of Truth. In the end, they MUST play this game for survival, just so they are revered as the torchbearers of Truth and everything Real in this life.

Would you honestly give a fuck about the new iphone if you and all of your surroundings knew in their deepest heart of hearts that there is no external world and only Consciousness exists?

Edited October 16, 2018 by Preetom

[Hellspeed]

Depends what you call science. There are many different techniques in science. Western science is just a technique. 

[Robert]

@Serotoninluv How would I do post-rational science on myself?

[sarapr]

3 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

@sarapr Excellent questions. 

Th scientific method involves formulating a testable hypothesis, making predictions, gathering and interpreting data, modifying the original hypothesis. Beyond the method, the scientist would strive to place the data into a model, which in turn would be placed within a larger model. For example, placing data of protein interactons into a model of cell division regulation which is placed into a larger model of cancer. 

Each point above is filled with subjectivity and biases. Scientists admit this to an extent (for example using double blind studies). Yet they are unaware of how deep the subjetivity/bias runs. It’s difficult for scientists to study the greater truth because science is *within* the greater truth. If there is one everything and there is no-thing, how can a scientist step outside of everything to objectively study some thing?

Science is a great tool to study the nature of reality. It is useful, yet limited. How can we make science better? I’d say by increasing our awareness of how science fits within a larger holistic view. To acknowledge that we scientists use metaphysics in our work. To acknowledge how little we understand about reality - and not just about the details of protein interactions in cancer cells - also fundamental aspects of reality. To give up the scientists’ obsession with controlling the narrative and to give up power as the arbitrator of truth.  To be open minded about how intuition can increase our ability to conduct science. To see science as one tool to study the nature of reality and combine this tool with other constructive tools in psychology and philosophy. More importantly, we should combine constructive science tools with deconstructive tools found in nonduality, mysticism, metaphysics etc. 

*Disclaimer: I was a life-long scientist within the scientific paradigm before escaping the trap a couple years ago. 

Yeah! so it could have an effect on how scientists do science because if science is actually subjective rather than objective then that means their biases are affecting the conclusions they draw from their research and if they were to admit the subjectivity of their conclusion then basically everything changes, right?

So i guess we could say the way science is done will not really change but the conclusions which then impact a lot of things will change and that's already a lot.

 

[Forestluv]

1 hour ago, sarapr said:

Yeah! so it could have an effect on how scientists do science because if science is actually subjective rather than objective then that means their biases are affecting the conclusions they draw from their research and if they were to admit the subjectivity of their conclusion then basically everything changes, right?

So i guess we could say the way science is done will not really change but the conclusions which then impact a lot of things will change and that's already a lot.

 

Bingo! 

I think most scientists enter their education in search of what’s true. Then, they get conditioned and cynical. They lose that chil-like curiosity and fascination to discover what IS, just for the sake of discovering what is. 

IMO, that mindest can help fuel the evolution of science. Many scientists are dogmatic and trapped within the scientific paradigm. You get grants, publications and tenure for following the status quo. Yet, that’s not how you get famous. You get famous in science by overturning dogma and status quo. It’s getting harder and harder to do, but it’s still there.

For example, quantuum biology may discover how observation alters the reality of biology at the molecular level. A pioneering scientist may develop new methods to account for this - opening up a whole new generation of biological research. Such a scientist would eventually be seen on a much higher level than your Richard Dawkins type scientists. Yet, our pioneering scientist would likely have to go against the grain and face risks. Personally, I hold back at my work because I’m not yet ready to lose my job. 

[Forestluv]

2 hours ago, Robert said:

@Serotoninluv How would I do post-rational science on myself?

One method is self inquiry. Contemplate something like “what is a thought?”. Do not get rational like “A thought is an impulse in the brain stimulted by neurotransmitters at synapses”. Rather, relax the mind and enter an empty stillness. Observe what arises. Imagine you are observing cells divide under a microscope. Observe your own consciousness. Record “data”. Then allow for integration of data points to create a more holistic view. Be mindful if you start analyzing things rationally.

Once you get the hang of it, it’s hella fun,. Rational thought and linear logic bores the hell out of me these days.  

[sarapr]

@Serotoninluv How do you hold back? And how would you lose your job if you didn't?

[thehero]

@Serotoninluv just curious - how much $ would you need per month to be okay with going into the science that goes against grain?

[Forestluv]

1 minute ago, sarapr said:

@Serotoninluv How do you hold back? And how would you lose your job if you didn't?

I’m mindful of how far I can step outside the scientific paradigm and the reactions of my collegues. 

I can develop my stage yellow without problem at my academic institution. Yet, if I venture too far into Turquoise. I will be labeled a pseudo-scientist or a quack.  I’m trying to figure a way to do it without being threatening to my colleagues. 

[Forestluv]

21 minutes ago, thehero said:

@Serotoninluv just curious - how much $ would you need per month to be okay with going into the science that goes against grain?

I wouldn’t want to do it alone. I would want to be at a Turquoise-level institution with awakened beings where we integrate science, metaphysics and nonduality. This area is just starting to emerge, yet is still considered fringe pseudo-science. 

If I evolve high enough, I may become a pioneer in this field - yet right now it looks unattainable and too risky to me. 

Personally, I would like to investigate if mutations are nonrandom and some paranormal phenomena. Yet, my institution wouldn’t be open to that.  Yet, if I develop more confidence, I might try to pull it off.

Yet stage Yelow stuff is lots of fun to and my institution is very supportive at that level. They just don’t like any whoo whoo stuff.  

[sarapr]

34 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

I’m mindful of how far I can step outside the scientific paradigm and the reactions of my collegues. 

I can develop my stage yellow without problem at my academic institution. Yet, if I venture too far into Turquoise. I will be labeled a pseudo-scientist or a quack.  I’m trying to figure a way to do it without being threatening to my colleagues. 

aren't there any institutions out there that you could do free research with?

[supremeyingyang]

@sarapr @Serotoninluv @Outer @Joseph Maynor

We have to go way deeper into Epistemology and Ontology. Of course from a perspective of an ego, because everything beyond would be senseless.
1. Is there some reality to observe? (I would say yes)
2. Can we observe it as real as it is? (I would say no, but we can observe it to different degrees)

If you say No/No I would like to ask you about this:
How is it possible to write a sentence on a piece of paper, drop it and go away... AND someone you did not know find it and read what you wrote?