I want to show people the limitations of science, but there is a problem

[Nivsch]

I want to show that science tries to communicate us the truth with external language that itself creates a closed loop.

I want to show that its never gonna solve our root inner problems - depression, anxiety and more mental problems, because to solve this we have to turn inwards and learn ourselves independently without any language.

The problem is, that people can comment me and write:

"But there are already psychological therapies. We can go to a psychologist and he will help us to go to our root problems in a direct manner trough conversation. So science is not supposed to solve our root problems, because for that you have the psychologists. So in conclusion, our culture is good enough in solving your root issues, we already do that. And psychology is even can be seen as a part of science. Because the therapies today are part of investigations, learning from mistakes and improving all the time. So you dont really have to go beyond language, as long as you have the right therapist. Language can be enough!"

 

Edited November 11, 2019 by Nivsch

[ajasatya]

@Nivsch The scientific method is a well-defined closure. If you want to debate with people that really understand Science, good luck! Such people are very rare.

Most people who go to universities and get their bachelors, masters or PhDs are just repeating old cycles without going meta and realizing what they're really doing.

Do you think you know enough to understand what Science is about in the first place in order to investigate its fundamental barriers? This is very tricky.

[Nivsch]

1 hour ago, ajasatya said:

@Nivsch The scientific method is a well-defined closure. If you want to debate with people that really understand Science, good luck! Such people are very rare.

Most people who go to universities and get their bachelors, masters or PhDs are just repeating old cycles without going meta and realizing what they're really doing.

Do you think you know enough to understand what Science is about in the first place in order to investigate its fundamental barriers? This is very tricky.

Actually my goal in the video is not proffessionaled and detailed analyze science, but more in the bottom line general line of that thing, to rise the consciousness of my facebook friends and my youtube chennel (small, yet ?) audience. And im doing ir through introducing the SD stages. Right now i thinking about stage green part B video, and want to show them the problem with materialistic logic thinking and why this thinking cannot solve our root personal problems, and therefore have to go beyond language (what new age's center of gravity wants to teach us).

But the problem is that people can write me that "Language is enough and we dont need meditation and self inquiry because there are psychologists and with them you can go deep enough to core issues. So our culture right now is good enough! So you dont have to go beyond language at all."

Edited November 11, 2019 by Nivsch

[Leo Gura]

14 minutes ago, Nivsch said:

But the problem is that people can write me that "Language is enough and we dont need meditation and self inquiry because there are psychologists and with them you can go deep enough to core issues. So our culture right now is good enough! So you dont have to go beyond language at all."

This is a very deep ignorance to correct in someone. A person who believes that there is no value in existential investigation is hard to convince that it has value. It requires serious inquiry to start to appreciate the limitations of things like language, science, psychology, culture, etc. Only very seriously openminded and curious people will go down that rabbit hole.

Entire books could be written (and have been written) about the limitations of science, language, and psychology. It requires a lot of reading, research, and personal contemplation to start to see a big enough picture, then the limitations become glaring. Until then it will appear like there are no problems.

In practice maybe just skirt around the issue. Rather than trying to convince people that science or language is limited, just teach them whatever helpful thing you want to teach them which is beyond those limits. If you teach people helpful techniques they won't really care if it's "scientific" or not. People are suckers for effective, practical techniques that can help improve their life.

[Aeris]

1 hour ago, ajasatya said:

@Nivsch The scientific method is a well-defined closure. If you want to debate with people that really understand Science, good luck! Such people are very rare.

Most people who go to universities and get their bachelors, masters or PhDs are just repeating old cycles without going meta and realizing what they're really doing.

Do you think you know enough to understand what Science is about in the first place in order to investigate its fundamental barriers? This is very tricky.

In France there is

I find two astrophysican PhD in physics ( teacher ) & PhD in philosophy : metaphysics' / epistemology.

But sure yellow/turquoise.

I m listening all his teachings and that's cool that he always break down langage & science / against scientism

[Jonac]

If you find a pretty smart scientist let him do their things. I've know some pretty smart people and they love to work, and are very passionate. 

[Skanzi]

Most psychologists have no idea what they're doing. They may have expertise, but this expertise won't help somebody for which the mind itself is the problem. People don't understand that the contents of the mind aren't the problem, but the identfication with mind itself is the problem. So trying to work on your personal mental issues isn't going to work if you're not reaching for something beyond it. If you're trying to play the game of "problem-solution", you're in the end only gonna find more problems with every solution you're going to come up with. That's just how to mind works. The mind itself is the problem; Most people don't understand that. Or maybe not the mind itself is necessarily the problem, but the identification with the mind in which the mind is in control of you instead of the other way around. And the way to dissolve this identification is to stop trying to think in terms of needing to have solutions and strategies for everything.

Psychologists may be good for helping someone who is less intelligent than them. In that case a psychologist may help his evolution a little bit further. If the psychologist is less intelligent than the client (which is not the same as being more knowledgeable), then the psychologist will only hold the person back.

Most psychologists today don't even understand or appreciate the value of the feminine and the passive. Usually, a psychologist is trying to activate you, to motivate you, to get you to be a more active participant in society. This can possibly be good for someone who is in the phase in his/her life where this person is in or near the springtime of his life, where such motivations are potentially helpful and applicable. And then only potentially... Because with many psychologists I question if they're really doing any good whatsoever.

However, if someone is in or near the autumn-season of his/her life, this kind of emphasis on trying to activate people can actually be very detrimental and damaging. It can create a lot of guilt in a person. The person is often quite helpless, really, as he is fighting against the natural current of life. You can't stop the autumn from happening, and the winter from coming. If you do try, you will waste a lot of energy, struggle a lot with yourself, and in the end not only fail but make things so much more difficult for yourself than it ever had to be.

Rarely I see someone encouraging just dropping it all and allow themselves to be or do nobody/nothing useful in particular. But if you do allow that for yourself for that to happen with your full permission and devotion to it, winter-time will turn out to be a very valuable phase in your life.

Hmmm... how did I suddenly come to talk about the seasons of life when I was just trying to talk about psychologists? 

Ah well...

 

I've found two good books you guys could use if you want to sharpen your capacity for argumentation against a dogmatic materialistic scientific position, if that's what you're going for.

Rupert Sheldrake has a pretty good book called either "The Science delusion" or "Science set free" (depending on whether it's in the USA or not). He talks about the limitations of science from the perspective of a scientist. But not only the limitations, but also the corruption, the hypocrisy, the hidden agendas, the biases and unquestioned assumptions... So he is a scientist himself, but at the same time not tied to materialism and rationalism, and very skeptical towards the integrity of the way science is operating in this day and age.

Osho has a juicy book called "intuition" which I'm reading right now, in which he is also clear about the limitations of not only science, but knowledge altogether. So he comes at it from the perspective from the mystic. Very good logic for logic transcending itself, as far as that's possible.

 

[tenta]

I see threads like this, but in reality even saying "yes action A is morally right from YOUR perspective, doesn't have to be from other people's" will cause insult hurling and maybe reinforce their closed mindedness, at least from my experience

[Nivsch]

@Skanzi thanks! Interesting. But if a therapist is able to find with you the origin of your beliefs than you can both transcend those and really solve emotional issues. I believe there are therapists who do that, but maybe its a minority of them.

Edited November 13, 2019 by Nivsch

[Nivsch]

@Leo Gura I want to show at least an intuition of why it is limited. I said that math is like a machine we input it and gets outputs and again input and this creates a closed loop which makes us overlook intuition, senses etc and dont think for ourselves. And that it like thinking in a closed pipe streams without see outside of these streams. And then I gave them first technique - observing thoughts and emotions (havent publish yet).

[Sirius Orion]

@Nivsch "You can lead a horse to the river but you cannot force him to drink"  

I feel you ... I really do ! In fine , only two things can change/convince people : exemple or excruciating pain (pain of the soul, not of the body) . Don not try to show people anything : incarnate it ! embody it !

Edited November 15, 2019 by Sirius Orion

[Consilience]

Here’s a very practical easy to follow example that demonstrates the limitations of science:

Imagine you are a world class scientist who studies the color red. You’ve determined all the energy frequencies that emit red, you know all of the particular wavelengths a red photon can have, you understand the anatomical structures of the eye, what chemical reactions begin when the photons make contact with the eye, you understand the chemical messenger systems that begin in the optic nerve and travel to the brain. You understand completely how the brain’s state changes once red is carried along this nerve pathway, you understand which brain structures are activated and how they communicate with one another to process the color red. You understand it all! 

Yet this is the tragedy of your situation: While you may be a world class scientist, and you understand all the physical, chemical, and biological mechanisms of red, you’re color blind and can only see on a greyscale. See, despite all of you’re intellectualizing and scientific investigation of this specific light phenomena, you’ve still missed a crucial component to what red *is* existentially. You’ve missed an experiential insight into what red is that no amount of science can help you with.

What this example demonstrates is that there are certain limitations within science and sometimes there are truths about reality which require a different form of investigation and a different form of insight than what science provides. If something as simple as “what is the color red?” cannot be solved by science, what other truths may be missing from the domains of science? 

This is how Id explain it to someone. 

[Sirius Orion]

@Consilience good exemple ! 

The famous analogy of the blind man who would deny the existence of colors and argue with other people who can see when they share with him their experience , all his mental landscape has been shaped to protect and backwards rationalize  his incapacity into "normality", diverging opinions being dismissed as hairy-fairy "ennemies-of-reason" : the roots of self-deception grows into egoistic survival and self-history preservation hence the impossibility to change it with rational argument but only with energy works (to dissolve the emotional knots) 

According to this an elegant definition of devilry would be : the negation of Infinity , the unquestioned, unconscious assumption that Truth can be hold and defined in a limited form and manner as a fixed object instead of a process of infinite expansion ...

[Nivsch]

On 15.11.2019 at 10:18 PM, Consilience said:

Here’s a very practical easy to follow example that demonstrates the limitations of science:

Imagine you are a world class scientist who studies the color red. You’ve determined all the energy frequencies that emit red, you know all of the particular wavelengths a red photon can have, you understand the anatomical structures of the eye, what chemical reactions begin when the photons make contact with the eye, you understand the chemical messenger systems that begin in the optic nerve and travel to the brain. You understand completely how the brain’s state changes once red is carried along this nerve pathway, you understand which brain structures are activated and how they communicate with one another to process the color red. You understand it all! 

Yet this is the tragedy of your situation: While you may be a world class scientist, and you understand all the physical, chemical, and biological mechanisms of red, you’re color blind and can only see on a greyscale. See, despite all of you’re intellectualizing and scientific investigation of this specific light phenomena, you’ve still missed a crucial component to what red *is* existentially. You’ve missed an experiential insight into what red is that no amount of science can help you with.

What this example demonstrates is that there are certain limitations within science and sometimes there are truths about reality which require a different form of investigation and a different form of insight than what science provides. If something as simple as “what is the color red?” cannot be solved by science, what other truths may be missing from the domains of science? 

This is how Id explain it to someone. 

Wow great example!!

[Leo Gura]

On 11/15/2019 at 0:18 PM, Consilience said:

Yet this is the tragedy of your situation: While you may be a world class scientist, and you understand all the physical, chemical, and biological mechanisms of red, you’re color blind and can only see on a greyscale. See, despite all of you’re intellectualizing and scientific investigation of this specific light phenomena, you’ve still missed a crucial component to what red *is* existentially. You’ve missed an experiential insight into what red is that no amount of science can help you with.

That's a classic example from philosophy of mind / phenomenology. Unfortunately even when you give that example, people still ignore it. Materialism simply discounts all phenomena as "subjective" and therefore insignificant.

A materialist scientist will simply not understand how seeing the color red has any importance to science. "Okay, so even if I miss the color red, so what? Doesn't change a thing."

[Consilience]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

That's a classic example from philosophy of mind / phenomenology. Unfortunately even when you give that example, people still ignore it. Materialism simply discounts all phenomena as "subjective" and therefore insignificant.

A materialist scientist will simply not understand how seeing the color red has any importance to science. "Okay, so even if I miss the color red, so what? Doesn't change a thing."

You're correct, but this is the key. When they do understand, when they finally can make the distinction, an entire new range of possibilities opens up. I remember when I was in college, when I first realized this distinction, I had a huge epiphany that lead me down the rabbit hole of consciousness and spirituality. So when discussing this stuff with a materialist, literally point this out to them. "Until you understand the distinction I'm making here that you are not, you won't understand." Either they can open up to the insight or there's no point in continuing the conversation, but at least now the materialist has a more precise understanding of where the disagreement arises from. This may eventually be the seeds needed to have insight.

[Forestluv]

Another approach might be to go meta and challenge their assumption of what the structure of science is. If one can’t distinguish between science and non-science how can they believe in the consent of science? . . . . For example, we can discuss how something is both existent and non-existent. We can discuss how existent/nonexistent is both everywhere and nowhere. This sure does sound like woo woo bullshit, yet it’s also called super position in quantum mechanics. Some say it’s pseudo-science led by quacks, others say it is the hard core science with the highest predictive power of all science.. . . . Another example is entanglement - instantaneous communication over distance. Is this New Age ESP bullshit? Even Einstein called it bs - “spooky action at a distance”. Yet the Nobel Prize in science thinks differently. And then there is multiple dimensions - Airy Fairy delusions of charlatans or String Theory science conducted by respected science with million dollar grants?

[Forestluv]

On 11/15/2019 at 3:18 PM, Consilience said:

 

Yet this is the tragedy of your situation: While you may be a world class scientist, and you understand all the physical, chemical, and biological mechanisms of red, you’re color blind and can only see on a greyscale. See, despite all of you’re intellectualizing and scientific investigation of this specific light phenomena, you’ve still missed a crucial component to what red *is* existentially. You’ve missed an experiential insight into what red is that no amount of science can help you with.

From a meta view, there is the question of what IS is. What is red, brings up relativity. On one level, what is red to one mind is green to another mind. For all we know, what you perceive as red I perceive as green - regardless of the underlying neuronal activity. Yet on another level, there is an underlying shared ISness.

[Scholar]

11 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

From a meta view, there is the question of what IS is. What is red, brings up relativity. On one level, what is red to one mind is green to another mind. For all we know, what you perceive as red I perceive as green - regardless of the underlying neuronal activity. Yet on another level, there is an underlying shared ISness.

Sero, as far as I see it either you are framing this a little bit clumsily, althought we had this disagreement a few times now.

You cannot perceive my Red as your Green. Red is Red no matter what. You might call it Green, but my Red will be your Red. The labels might differ, but ontologically they will always be the same.

This is why I don't like the Perceiver/Subjectivity framework. The language gets unclear resulting in misconceptions that in most people can actually lead to profound unconsciousness about existential issues. The relativity lies not in Redness vs Greenness itself, the relativity lies in the constructions surrounding Redness and Greenness.

In my opinion it is better to have a clear distinction between the Isness of Redness and it's surrounding conception framework. We would say "What one labels Red could be labeled Green in another mind, however Redness is the same Redness is both minds".

I still don't like the "mind" and "relativity" framework because of how attached it is to the materialistic paradigm, but if we are not going to abandon it atleast we can attempt to formulize it in ways so that there is the least amount of confusion.

[Forestluv]

@Scholar 

12 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

Yet on another level, there is an underlying shared ISness.