Why are scientists stuck?

[Inliytened1]

10 minutes ago, An young being said:

Both materialists and non dualists deny each other, and believe they are capable of knowing the absolute truth. 

Scientists discover things which are tinier and tinier and feel they are moving closer towards knowing the secret of the universe but there might never be an end to the search.

Similarly, non dualists experience directly the absoluteness , they do it repeatedly and get several insights into the truth, but different people have different insights for the same version. They see the truth but not able to explain it with clarity.

We as human beings are stuck with an analytical mind which analyses thoughts and memories and come to a conclusion. As long as we do that, we will never know the absolute truth. 

why can't one be both?  Why are you putting a "non-dualist" in a separate category than a "scientist"....why must they be separate and not incorporate both.  At some point one will hit the limits of science but it is incorporated and transcended without judgement.  It is still incredibly useful for what it is, though it may not get you to the ultimate Truth - its value is there.

Keep in mind that there is no need to demonize anything.  

[Roy]

I imagine many of them in their private lives indulged in learning about spiritual concepts or practices, it's kind of inevitable that you end up stumbling upon those things when you're always thinking about the big deep questions of life.

You have to realize though the culture of science that they are in throws the baby out with the bath water by conflating traditional religion and spiritually/mysticism as all the same thing. Anyone who publicly comes out espousing these things too much as a scientist or pushes back against their community will be shunned and ridiculed, which in turn can damage their careers and reputations.

They are "stuck" for now, but in 50, 100, 500 years spiritually will perhaps be the main course or at least heavily integrated into science in ways that seems preposterous now.

Progress is just slow and it looks bad now because we're in the dark ages relatively. Science isn't really that old when compared to religion.

Edited September 13, 2020 by Roy

[Gesundheit]

16 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

What you are saying is it is a part of infinity.  Of course everthing is.  Even the deluded are a part of Absolute Truth.  You can equally say a rapist is Absolute Love.  If you have One thing then this can't be escaped.  It is paradoxical in that way.  That said, at the same time you can become more conscious and transcend the materialist paradigm because you see it for what it is which is a deception.  It doesn't mean you are better in any way.

Becoming more conscious is a relative thing. Imagine a society where everyone adopts idealism as the mainstream ideology, to make discoveries within materialism would create an expansion higher than to keep studying idealism.

God is the devil.

[An young being]

7 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

why can't one be both?  Why are you putting a "non-dualist" in a separate category than a "scientist"....why must they be separate and not incorporate both.

Keep in mind that there is no need to demonize anything.  

25 minutes ago, Gesundheit said:

 

@Inliytened1 one can be both but most people are either this or that.

 

7 minutes ago, Roy said:

I imagine many of them in their private lives indulged in learning about spiritual concepts or practices, it's kind of inevitable that you end up stumbling upon those things when you're always thinking about the big deep questions of life.

You have to realize though the culture of science that they are in throws the baby out with the bath water by conflating traditional religion and spiritually/mysticism as all the same thing. Anyone who publicly comes out espousing these things too much as a scientist or pushes back against their community will be shunned and ridiculed, which in turn can damage their careers and reputations.

They are "stuck" for now, but in 50, 100, 500 years spiritually will perhaps be the main course or at least heavily integrated into science in ways that seems preposterous now.

Progress is just slow and it looks bad now because we're in the dark ages relatively. Science isn't really that old when compared to religion.

Yeah, science is too young and stuck in its own world but it's rapidly improvising. There are many scientists who are more eager to understand consciousness nowadays and are having an open mind.

[Someone here]

Because science Is a paradigm. In any  paradigm there are certain fundamental metaphysical assumptions that are just taking on blind faith and should not be questioned.. While everything else within that paradigm is open to questioning.   The scientific metaphysical assumptions are like :

1 there is an objective independent world out there. 

2 consciousness or mind is a second order emergent phenomenon. The fundamental reality is dumb blind matter. 

Ofcourse such assumptions are not proven nor even "provable" as no one has ever encountered something outside of consciousness or their subjective experience. 

Edited September 13, 2020 by Someone here

[Inliytened1]

4 minutes ago, Gesundheit said:

Becoming more conscious is a relative thing. Imagine a society where everyone adopts idealism as the mainstream ideology, to make discoveries within materialism would create an expansion higher than to keep studying idealism.

God is the devil.

Of course what is not relative (other than the Absolute).  Well you can actually reach a point where such labels are dropped and one just sees reality as it is.   You would not want Truth taken on as a belief and giving it a label like idealism is trying to lump it laterally with other beliefs.

[Javfly33]

1 hour ago, Gesundheit said:

No, no no no no no no.

That's totally incorrect. The truth is "unpointable" so to speak. It can be described, but all descriptions would be equally true, whether materialistic or idealistic or anything else.

 

Truth is beyond language.

 

[An young being]

14 minutes ago, datamonster said:

Guys don't underestimate world class scientists like Stephen Hawking. They probably know a lot of very profound things about reality that you don't.

Yes, we know about spiral dynamics and that the map is not a the territory, but that doesn't mean anyone of us is above them. We just happened to stumble upon a few good ideas that maybe Stephen Hawking didn't, that's all for most of us.

1 hour ago, Gesundheit said:

 

The problem with spirituality is that people can be easily deceived by wrong guidance and practices. There are a bunch of spiritual gurus who read pseudoscience from internet and claim that they have discovered something great by mixing science and spirituality.

Since people believe magical spiritual gurus blindly, they get mass number of followers whereas 'real' spiritual gurus who are more passionate in knowing the truth rather than gaining popularity have lot of wisdom but very few followers. 

People always want something more than reality. They want magic. Science can do great new magic but spirituality can only show that everything is magical.

 

[An young being]

5 minutes ago, Mikael89 said:

"Are scientists our greatest minds? Maybe, but moot.
Great intelligence and effective thinking seldom go together. In fact, not only are scientists not our best thinkers but, due to years of highly specialized education and training, they are probably the most narrowly focused and effectively indoctrinated people in the modern world.
This is as it must be, but such intense focus automatically disqualifies scientists from addressing the broadest questions of being. As Richard Feynman said, a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.

All scientific claims should be prefaced with a disclaimer. That seems like a scientific-y thing to do. A standard disclaimer would probably suffice in most cases:

Warning:
The scientific findings contained herein are based on the uncritical acceptance of consensus reality as true reality, and must therefore be viewed in the same light as mythology, folklore, superstition and religion.

But, as honest as it might be to provide this disclosure, science can't afford to acknowledge its operating assumptions. Those assumptions are what holds science up, and no one wants to cut the branch they're sitting on.
I suppose that any scientist would dismiss my assertions as laughable, but they can't do it scientifically. They can't falsify idealism and they can't prove anything, making science the most radical of fundamentalist religions.
We have to make every effort to understand this directly because science is the presumptive torchbearer of human knowledge, and much of thw wired world is kneeling in their church.
It's not my wish to deliver an anti-science polemic, but to encourage the reader to take a fresh look at the overhigh esteem in which we hold science."

- Jed McKenna (Theory of everything)

Even direct experience has the assumption that whatever we experience directly is the absolute truth. It can be a relatively more fundamental truth, but there is no guarantee that it is the absolute truth. Just like we believe that dream is an illusion when we wake up.

[Inliytened1]

@An young being yes most scientists today  (there were some founding fathers of quantum physics who got it even if they weren't enlightened) hold science as Absolute Truth.   They were indoctrinated into this by their culture and have never thought to question it or think it could be any other way.   And so they think that one day science will discover everything there is to know and then we will know Absolute Truth.  But this will prevent them from actually transcending beyond science and the human mind.   Hopefully at some point our civilization will evolve and advance to where science and spirituality come together in a metaphysical way.  Right now metaphysics isn't really mainstream because thats not where we are as a society yet.

[nitramadas]

▸ People who want to be physicists are generally overly logical and out of balance.  "If it can't be empirically verified, it's not worth investigating." 

▸ The education system forces this kind of approach on all students, to be academically successful in STEM, you must never mention anything subjective.

▸ Most people are at stage blue.  Of course most people are gonna be following the standards.

▸ Physicists want to keep their jobs.  The world being blue, you must follow the social hierarchy, if you say suggest a model that conflicts with your peers'/boss', you risk making them look bad.  Things like that are still considered taboo in 2020.  If your peers support your views, then that's risking the reputation of the entire company/institute.  

▸ Physicists often respect other physicists.  They don't want to disrespect their respected peers/teachers or famous physicists in history.   Though mostly it's just fear of ridicule and losing their career.

▸ For reasons above, any evidence of a non-deterministic, non-material, non-probabilistic reality get buried, ignored, and ridiculed.  

▸ Any scientist who gets too curious and investigates phenomenon that contradicts the current paradigm either:

▹ Already had the outcome decided before starting the experiment

▹ Declares it a "hard problem" or "spooky action at a distance" and leaves it at that.  Or says something like "oh, maybe the detector interfered with the result"

▹ Realizes he can nolonger go back to his job, just doesn't identify with the mindset of the field anymore.  

▹ Comes back and gets fired or is forced to leave, getting ridiculed and labelled "new-ager" or something to that effect.

 

 

 

Edited September 13, 2020 by nitramadas

[Carl-Richard]

@Mikael89 Freeman Dyson is a cool cat.

Edited September 13, 2020 by Carl-Richard

[Carl-Richard]

@Mikael89 Just rewatched this classic with both Dyson and Sheldrake: