Can someone explain to me the problems with science?

[outlandish]

The fundamental problem with science IMO, is that it misses out on consciousness.

Science tries to find a coherent model of an objective reality that is external to consciousness. Science is what you get when subjective observers, peering out from consciousness, put a story together of what is out there, without ever being able to peer back at themselves.

The ultimate conclusion of this materialist outlook is that consciousness doesn't exist. Yet here we are, as conscious beings, experiencing being present in reality right now, and science really has nothing to say about it.

Science is on track to be able to pinpoint the exact neuronal firing patterns that correspond to the experience of tasting a mango, but it seems unlikely to be able to explain qualia, why it is that there is an observer experiencing tasting that mango, or what is that observer, or what is the nature of subjective experience.

Current science breaks when it starts looking at these questions. It's even hard to phrase these questions in language.

Science is the investigational toolbox for understanding the reality we find ourselves within. Ultimately, if science is any good, it needs to look at the elephant in the room, but that may be impossible. Then again maybe not. Science has changed a lot since it's birth during the enlightenment, and the future is vast.

It's interesting to note that the words science and conscious have shared roots.

I don't have any disdain for science btw. On the contrary I think it's the essence of being a being in this universe and that ultimately spirituality is an extension of science (or vice-versa).

[CreamCat]

1 hour ago, outlandish said:

The ultimate conclusion of this materialist outlook is that consciousness doesn't exist.

Many scientists think consciousness exists. They just think consciousness arises from brain.

[electroBeam]

Back in the day when I was trying to understand the problem of science, the thing that stood out to me the most was Descartes duality.

Descartes Duality says that there is an objective world outside of us, and then there is a soul which is somewhere in our brains, and this is seeing the world.

The best way to understand the problem with science is, it refuses to explain how that thing inside your head works. It even refuses to accept that its there.(to the non dual people here, I'm not saying it does exist, simply that people who are in duality don't even acknowledge that they are in duality).

Notice that the majority of people on this planet don't care that science cannot explain this duality. Notice that most of them just say "hmmm that's interesting, but I would much rather continue finding the nature of redshift. This problem of trying to understand duality is boring to me". 

The ultimate problem with science is that, the practitioners of science don't care enough about truth/understanding reality. If they did they would deeply care about understanding duality and be deeply concerned and intrigued that this duality even exists. 

 

Science isn't wrong, it does explain reality correctly, it just doesn't do it deeply enough. You need to be real hungry for the truth if you wish to go beyond science. 

[Shadowraix]

Science is good for surface level stuff. Its very good at recognizing patterns to and putting puzzles together. But it can't seem to dig into the deep metaphysical level of reality. Many scientists are still driven and unaware of their usual survival mechanisms (dualism) It does do a good job at building mental models to describe the most fundamental ways we can interact with reality. Science works from one end of the paradox while we are working on the other.

 

[outlandish]

17 hours ago, CreamCat said:

Many scientists think consciousness exists. They just think consciousness arises from brain.

Yeah, I think it's fair to say almost all scientists think consciousness exists, it's only the most radical materialists that argue otherwise. They usually think it arises in the brain, yet science itself gives absolutely no explanation for how consciousness arises in the brain, or what consciousness is. That's the elephant in the room that nearly everyone can see plainly, but there's barely any way to talk about it.

One materialist "explanation" for consciousness I've heard is that it's how it feels for information to be processed. But this just kicks the can down the road because it doesn't answer what is the "it" that feels, why does it even feel in the first place, and what is it to feel something?

[Inliytened1]

There isn't any problem with science.  Science can reveal a lot about Reality because reality literally dreamt it up.

You notice this especially after you awaken.

The way light can be a particle or a wave relative the observer and how they are observing it.  

Quantum tunneling in which protons pass through seemingly impossible barriers - this sounds very familiar...like what? Like mysticism

And much more.  So there isn't a problem with science it is just that the scientists themselves have to evolve and comprehend the philosophical and epistemic ramifications of these discoveries.  We aren't there yet.

Science is within reality.  It cannot capture all of reality.   But most think it still can - that is the problem.  You cannot grasp the whole from the part.  You must pass through that impossible barrier

 

Edited June 19, 2019 by Inliytened1

[Aakash]

19 hours ago, abrakamowse said:

1+1 = 1

Not one and not two

show me what proof you did to calculate this. 

33 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

reality literally dreamt it up.

show me the proof for this 

 

34 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

Science is within reality.  It cannot capture all of reality. 

 THE ATOM WILL REMAIN SUPREME FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS. SCIENCE IS GOING NOWHERE AND NEITHER IS THE ORANGE PARADIGM. if leo is right about spirituality then science will keep splitting particles into thousands of pieces which we will automatically gain the beliefs and it will become true for the majority of the population. RESULTS, RESULTS , RESULTS i don't see any proof of claim in what you've said. The double split experiment was a one off. They will find it one day.

okay i think i've got the gist of stage orange down, now how to trick myself  into believing it's true

[Shadowraix]

@Aakash The funny thing about the concept of atoms is nobody has ever seen an atom. Its just an abstract concept that works to some degree haha yet they demand proof for other things.

[abrakamowse]

29 minutes ago, Aakash said:

show me what proof you did to calculate this. 

1 + 1 = 1

Everything is God, God is one, so there is your proof. You are one.

[Aakash]

46 minutes ago, Shadowraix said:

The funny thing about the concept of atoms is nobody has ever seen an atom. Its just an abstract concept that works to some degree haha yet they demand proof for other things.

 

43 minutes ago, abrakamowse said:

1 + 1 = 1

Everything is God, God is one, so there is your proof. You are one.

Should animals be subject to human testing? 

[RendHeaven]

On 6/18/2019 at 4:23 PM, CreamCat said:

1+1=2

@CreamCat Time for the math class that everyone needs but nobody gets

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mathematics is fundamentally about relationships first and foremost; numbers are a way to express those relationships.

Hold out your finger. Let's call that "one." Now hold out another finger. Great. Let's call that "two."

So now we have "two fingers" held out.

But you see, this example necessarily RELIES on you defining a single finger as being "one."

If you do not tell yourself first and foremost that a finger = 1, you COULD NOT say that two fingers = 2.

What if I defined my hand as "one?"

Well, I could put out both hands and say "I have two hands." But again, I COULD NOT say that two hands = 2, unless I first said that a hand = 1

This is important, because what counts as "one" changes depending on the thing you are attempting to describe.

In the first example, 1 = a finger. In the second example, 1 = hand. This should tell you immediately that any numerical description you make of ANY PHENOMENA must be grounded in what you determine is equal to "one."

The problem is, you can call ANYTHING "one" to suit your needs. I can call my hand 1, but you could come along and argue with me that it's actually 5. Nobody is right or wrong in this case, because our "unit" (the thing we call "one") is different. For me, the unit is a hand. For you, the unit is a finger.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Immediately, the question you should have is this: "what allows me to call something 'one?'"

Well, you might think "I can just point to stuff and call it whatever I want, duh," but it's actually extraordinarily complex.

The reality is, we can label anything as anything, so nothing is stopping us from calling things "one." However, the label "one" would have no meaning unless it was purposefully defined against its opposite.

"one" means NOTHING unless there was such a thing as a "not-one."

So you see, every time you call something "one," you are accounting for the possibility of a "not-one;" be it "two," "three," or "four."

So when I label a single finger as "one," for that to have any meaning, I have had to already manifest a "two" without even considering any other fingers. Why is that?

Well, how else could it be? If I label my finger as "one," without accounting for a "two," then calling my finger "one" has no meaning or utility. I might as well call it "potato" or "wioehtgoiasgjgioaweo."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So to recap:

Mathematics is a study of relationships. Numbers facilitate this process.

In order to describe something numerically, we must first define a "unit." Otherwise, it is impossible to do numerical mathematics.

A "unit" only has meaning insofar as we view phenomena as "not-one."

So here's the kicker: You actually DO NOT know that 1+1=2

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You must first ask yourself "what is one?" "what is addition?" and "what is two?" You CANNOT know "1+1=2" unless you can answer these things.

As we have shown, "one" is a completely relative term. What counts as "one" is decided either on a whim or by a specific human motive. That means that there is never a "one" for you to find somewhere out in the world, as it is ALWAYS a label your mind must assign.

"But Rend, what about the spiritual gurus who say that all is one? Couldn't I find that out in the world?" Heh, they say that because it is what is communicable. The "oneness" that nonduality entails is nothing like the quantity "one" in mathematics.

Furthermore, because we've shown that a "unit" only has meaning insofar as we view phenomena as "not-one," this tells you that ALL NUMERICAL DESCRIPTIONS are grounded in you personally viewing phenomena as fragmented.

For example, who's to say I'm holding out 5 fingers? How do you know that it's not just 1 hand? What's a finger anyway? Isn't it just a part of the hand? So it's all just one big hand... there are no fingers... but wait, isn't the hand just a part of your arm? 

Etcetera.

You realize the only reason a "finger" exists is because you said it did? There is no "finger" there. Or is there? it's hard to tell.

The point is, you call things "one," "two," or "three" only because you are able to distinguish and categorize.

What if your distinctions and categories are wrong? What would you label as "one?"

How do I know I'm not deceiving myself when I say "I have 10 fingers?"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So this should send warning sirens in your epistemology radar (what, you don't have one?) already. We thought we knew that "1+1=2" But we cannot even say what "1" is without appealing to a whole host of complexities. And the more we define and categorize, the more we must defend and rationalize. It's a vicious cycle.

Here's the reality. You can't say what "one" is. No matter what you point to, it's all in your mind.

Even if you say that "'one' is a mental construct! I've got it! I know what it is! Beat that, Rend. It's all mind-stuff, see? It doesn't have to be physical but all you did was give physical examples." you're wrong, and you don't know what "one" is

Because, you see, now you have to explain to me what "mind" is. HAHAHAHA good luck.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So the wise thing to do here, really, is to admit that you do not know when you really dig deep. The problem is most people do not dig deep. You can do this "deconstruction" process with literally ANY piece of "knowledge" you think you have. Your knowledge feels so solid, like a mighty oak tree, until you realize there are no roots on this tree.

Now, that doesn't mean that you should give up on knowledge altogether, nor does it mean knowledge isn't useful.

Knowledge is SUPER USEFUL! In fact, that's all it really is! Utility.

1+1=2 is super useful when you're counting your possessions, for example. So you want to "know" these things insofar as they serve your well-being, while simultaneously being cautious that ultimately you really just don't know.

Edited June 19, 2019 by RendHeaven

[mandyjw]

It's the difference between a botanist studying a flower and a child looking at a flower. The child is a lot more likely to truly see the flower for what it is. 

[wren]

Wow, some really good thoughts here. It seems to me that those that are seeking the truth can see the usefulness of science, see the limits of science and move on, continuing to seek the truth. Anyone not really seeking the truth can see the usefulness of science and stay there and argue themselves into a corner. We, the seekers, argue about the usefulness of what is beyond science - but because it is personal experience and not explainable or provable except as personal experience, those in the 'materialist paradigm' cannot accept it.

So, perhaps there is no point arguing with someone who doesn't want to move beyond the usefulness of science.

But if you still want to, there are some wonderful arguments. One that Leo got me onto and I'm still trying to fully appreciate is Godels Incompleteness Theorem.

Godel proved through logic that logic (or specifically number theory) could not prove everything. He laid out a very rigorous proof that there are things that are definitely true but that cannot be proven. This brought an end to the era of mathematicians and logicians thinking that number theory was perfect and everything could be proven. Unfortunately, the rest of the world couldn't follow and for some reason still think that number theory is perfect and everything can be proven.

If the people you would like to enlighten, or yourself do not have the time and energy to work all the way through Godel (at it is a lot of time and effort to really get it, rather than reading the highlights and agreeing with the conclusion), then here is a very simple parallel to the incompleteness theorem. Ask a scientist to either prove or disprove this.

 

"This statement cannot be proven"

[abrakamowse]

4 hours ago, RendHeaven said:

So here's the kicker: You actually DO NOT know that 1+1=2

So, I wasn't so wrong... 1 + 1 = 1

[RendHeaven]

@wren Yes, Godel is fantastic!

@abrakamowse Depends on what you mean by "1"