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

[Robert]

On 10/17/2018 at 1:31 PM, Serotoninluv said:

Hmmm, my job is that of a post-rational scientist. How can that be?

You're a post-rational scientist because you've integrated post-rationalism as part of your personal development, but you do science as a job. However, you don't do post-rational science as a job because science can only be rational. Nature of the beast.

[Jack River]

9 minutes ago, Robert said:

I mean that self-inquiry and contemplation are based rationality. You sitting there and asking questions like "what is consciousness" or "who am I" is you using rationality.

I feel ya dude. It can be seen as self conforming to thought to go beyond itself. I get what your saying now. I see your context. 

Edited October 20, 2018 by Jack River

[Jack River]

5 minutes ago, Robert said:

You're a post-rational scientist because you've integrated post-rationalism as part of your personal development, but you do science as a job. However, you don't do post-rational science as a job because science can only be rational. Nature of the beast.

Thought has limits..understanding these limits makes for less distortion/corruption of thought that always seeks security in its own bias. Yep nature of the beast fosho?

[Robert]

@Jack River Are you being snarky or serious?

[Robert]

@Jack River Be mature. Back yourself up. You haven't touched anything I said.

[Jack River]

6 minutes ago, Robert said:

Are you being snarky or serious?

Neither man. 

 

27 minutes ago, Jack River said:

I feel ya dude. It can be seen as self conforming to thought to go beyond itself. I get what your saying now. I see your context. 

 

23 minutes ago, Jack River said:

Thought has limits..understanding these limits makes for less distortion/corruption of thought that always seeks security in its own bias. Yep nature of the beast fosho?

I’m not disagreeing. Just saying thought has its limits. If we don’t understand those limits thought will cross its own limit without even knowing it did so. 

[Jack River]

9 minutes ago, Robert said:

Be mature

There is no maturity until these limits are comprehended. 

[Jack River]

Science is based on thought, psychological becoming is what determines how rational or irrational thought will be. Rational thinking is only as rational as the awareness of its limitation. Namean 

[Robert]

22 minutes ago, Jack River said:

Science is based on thought, psychological becoming is what determines how rational or irrational thought will be. Rational thinking is only as rational as the awareness of its limitation. Namean 

Nope. Thoughts are not required to do science. You're very mistaken.

[Jack River]

5 minutes ago, Robert said:

Nope. Thoughts are not required to do science. You're very mistaken.

I don’t understand what you’re saying in that post dude. 

Edited October 20, 2018 by Jack River

[Jack River]

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

less arguing, less opposition, actual communication without distortion from personal bias/prejudice. 

[Robert]

21 minutes ago, Jack River said:

I don’t understand what you’re saying in that post dude. 

Of course you don't understand. Instead of doing the work you'd rather spout nonsense before putting in any effort.

Get off the internet and start contemplating seriously, then maybe you'll comprehend the stuff I say. I'm not gonna answer any more questions from you in this thread.

Bye for now.

[Jack River]

6 minutes ago, Robert said:

Of course you don't understand. Instead of doing the work you'd rather spout nonsense before putting in any effort.

Get off the internet and start contemplating seriously, then maybe you'll comprehend the stuff I say. I'm not gonna answer any more questions from you in this thread.

Bye for now.

[Forestluv]

1 hour ago, Robert said:

I mean that self-inquiry and contemplation are based on rationality. You sitting there and asking questions like "what is consciousness" or "who am I" is you using rationality.

For me, self-inquiry and contemplation is post-rational.

One of the most important lessons I’ve learned: Just because I can’t imagine something, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

[Jack River]

6 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

One of the most important lessons I’ve learned: Just because I can’t imagine something, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

Right. It can be said that we can only imagine what we have accumulated through personal experience anyway. So what you say here seems pretty correct. Thought is never total. Never complete. 

Edited October 20, 2018 by Jack River

[Forestluv]

8 minutes ago, Jack River said:

Right. It can be said that we can only imagine what we have accumulated through personal experience anyway. So what you say here seems pretty correct. Thought is never total. Never complete. 

Leo has a nice blog post on the Dunning-kruger effect

[Robert]

30 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

For me, self-inquiry and contemplation is post-rational.

One of the most important lessons I’ve learned: Just because I can’t imagine something, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

It's not post-rational. To sit down and self-inquire or contemplate is to take a purely rational action.

I can agree with your second paragraph though.

[Forestluv]

11 minutes ago, Robert said:

It's not post-rational. To sit down and self-inquire or contemplate is to take a purely rational action.

You haven’t transcended rationality yet.

Leo addresses this in one of his videos. I think it’s one on contemplation - ehen he explains how to contemplate “what is a thought?” post-rationally

[Jack River]

7 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

Leo has a nice blog post on the Dunning-kruger effect

Does that refer to thoughts implicit nature to be bias? 

[Forestluv]

1 minute ago, Jack River said:

Does that refer to thoughts implicit nature to be bias? 

Ignorance is unaware of it’s own ignorance and will aggressively defend it’s own ignorance.