Will Science Ever be able to explain Consciousness?

[SQAAD]

So i have been watching Nassim Haramein (a scientist) on youtube and he talks about consciousness and how we must formalize what it is and etc. He also said that neither matter created consciousness and/or neither consciousness created matter... And that consciousness is like fields of information. 

I don't buy everything he says though as after many hours of watching Leos content i have become skeptical about the extent that which science can explain/interpret ''Consciousness''.

 

 What do you think? Can science explain consciousness? 

Edited January 22, 2019 by SQAAD

[TheAvatarState]

Current science will never be able to, because consciousness is obviously not materialistic. When science evolves to shed it's materialist paradigm, then it might be able to explain it in much the same way Leo is doing now. 

You have to understand that science as it's practiced today is not true Science...

Edited January 22, 2019 by TheAvatarState

[Mafortu]

Can dentistry explain art?

[ajasatya]

39 minutes ago, SQAAD said:

What do you think? Can science explain consciousness?

no. science is about measurements, hypothesis testing and modeling for predictions.

if you can't measure, model and test, there is no scientific value.

no model can ever fit Truth. models are mental abstractions and Truth can't be grasped by the mind.

[Arhattobe]

Blah blah blah, science. Truth blah blah blah. Blah blah. What scientists don’t understand blah blah blah.

5 meo 

[Forestluv]

@SQAAD Within the current scientific paradigm, no. Within more highly developed paradigms, it depends on your definition of "explain". Future scientific paradigms will shed deep insights into consciousness. Yet in the end, absolute consciousness is ineffible, so no construct can full explain it - including science, mysticism, art, spirituality etc. They are all partial truths. Even fully integrated as a holistic perspective, it will still fall short since saying even a single word is too much.

[TheAvatarState]

@Serotoninluv I see a future that when science drops the materialist paradigm, it could be centered around facilitating experiences of the absolute. This field is still in its infancy

[Forestluv]

1 hour ago, TheAvatarState said:

@Serotoninluv I see a future that when science drops the materialist paradigm, it could be centered around facilitating experiences of the absolute. This field is still in its infancy

I agree. Turquoise level science will blow our minds. I hope to see it in my lifetime.

I'm doing my best to pull my colleagues up, yet they are a stubborn bunch! If I pull too hard they think I've gone all Deepak Chopra on them  

[Leo Gura]

What needs to be grokked is that consciousness cannot be explained. The problem here is way deeper than science can understand. No knowledge or explanation is ever Truth or Being.

The only way to understand consciousness is to not-know it. But science is not in the business of not-knowing, it's in the business of knowing. So that cannot work.

Consciousness cannot be formalized because all formalization is finite while consciousness is infinite.

Consciousness has already been perfectly explained, so to speak, by mysticism. As soon as you understand consciousness you stop being a scientist and become a mystic by definition.

[Forestluv]

5 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Consciousness has already been perfectly explained, so to speak, by mysticism. As soon as you understand consciousness you stop being a scientist and become a mystic by definition.

Can a mystic practice science?

I would say once mysticism stages are reached the traditional scientific paradigm is destroyed and science becomes highly integrative with other fields to create a holistic mode of inquiry. I would say there is a lot of "science" within mysticism, yet scientists reject the mysticism in what they perceive to be outside their traditional scientific paradigm.

[Leo Gura]

5 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

Can a mystic practice science?

Sure, but the map is never the territory. Science is always conceptual, partial, and relative, never Absolute.

Which is why most mystics don't care too much about science. It's an endless game of relativity.

The problem with science is that it refuses to recognize its limits. Science is arrogant and foolish in this regard.

[Forestluv]

9 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Which is why most mystics don't care too much about science. It's an endless game of relativity.

That has been my experience. Yet, I have recontextualized science and it's not a traditional view of science anymore. 

I resonate more with Leonardo Da Vinci and Deepak Chopra these days. Both incorporate "science" into an integrated holistic view.

I agree that tier1 scientists (the vast majority) are arrogant and make many assumptions. Yet, I think this will be reduced as there are more and more Yellow-level scientists. I regularly point out assumptions and scientific arrogance to my students and try to raise there consciousness to integrative, interconnected holism. 

 

[Leo Gura]

@Serotoninluv Yes, you can do that. But also understand that you have not fully realized the Absolute yet. When your ego-mind is completely deconstructed, you will realize, much to your ego's shock, that all knowledge is conceptual, and not Being or Truth.

It's gonna be quite problematic for you to do science once you're fully conscious that past & future, and cause & effect are not real.

But if you ever reach that far, you also won't care, because by this point you'll be dead.

And then you'll be a happy mystic without a care in the world.

Could you still do science after that? Probably. But would you still want to? You gotta really wonder? Why do you do science at all? Why invest the time into it? What do you lack that it gives you?

[Forestluv]

4 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

@Serotoninluv Yes, you can do that. But also understand that you have not fully realized the Absolute yet. When your ego-mind is completely deconstructed, you will realize, much to your ego's shock, that all knowledge is conceptual, and not Being or Truth.

It's gonna be quite problematic for you to do science once you're fully conscious that past & future, and cause & effect are not real.

Wouldn't that be true of nearly all fields and careers? In my current baseline consciousness level it's all a game of relativity. I don't sense strong attachment to any concepts or knowledge as being true.

[Leo Gura]

7 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

In my current baseline consciousness level it's all a game of relativity.

That's still too much at the level of intellect. You say that, but you're still playing the games because your ego thinks it's getting something valuable out of them.

You haven't fully realized the significance of that statement. Relativity still runs your whole life, and you still treat the relative as though it has absolute value. Which is why you still cling to things, why you still have fear, anger, frustration, worry, negativity, etc. And why you struggle so hard to manipulate life every day, yet you keep failing and failing and disappointing yourself.

The quantity of suffering you experience every day is a measure of how little you are conscious of the above statement. Suffering comes from not being conscious of relativity, treating the relative as absolute.

[Forestluv]

@Leo Gura Thank you ? 

My sense is that it's been reduced significantly over the years. Yet, you are correct that there is still plenty of work to be done and I now have a bit more clarity.

[TheAvatarState]

@Leo Gura

Science - "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."

Isn't that exactly what your method is, except it's more informal and has no implied metaphysics of physicality? I don't see science and spirituality as separate in any way, actually, I think they come full circle. The true definition of spirituality you've presented is really close to how I envision science evolving to: the study of actuality through observation and experimentation. 

[Leo Gura]

@TheAvatarState No, that is not correct. That definition of science is woefully inadequate to really understand what science is. Science is a conceptual, symbolic activity. It is impossible to do science without concepts or language. Yet no concepts are ever reality. So how do you resolve that?

Yes, superficially science relies on observation, but then it turns those observations into a conceptual construct. Spirituality also relies on observation, but it turns observation into Being (if done properly) -- which science can never do. Science must always miss being for concept, not-knowing for knowing.

If you think you're gonna know enlightenment, you're wrong. You can only not-know it.

It is critical that you transcend the entire domain of knowledge. What we're talking about with spirituality is NOT knowledge! Notice how big of a problem this presents for you, since all you know, is knowledge!

[TheAvatarState]

@Leo Gura thank you. I understand everything you're saying, but what if science evolved to transrational? What if science were to understand the limits of concepts and language, did not proceed to make truth claims, and only was interested in studying and facilitating experiences of the Absolute? Would it be feasible for scientific application to AID or COMPLIMENT spirituality? 

[Leo Gura]

3 minutes ago, TheAvatarState said:

What if science were to understand the limits of concepts and language, did not proceed to make truth claims, and only was interested in studying and facilitating experiences of the Absolute?

That's called mysticism. Lol. And it's been around for at least 10,000 years.