Collecting Questions & Objections About The Limits Of Science

[Akemrelax]

 Do you consider eastern traditions like Yoga to be above science since they are at least concerned with sharpening one's ability to perceive (raise consciousness/connection to infinite intelligence)? 

Contrast that with today's scientist, who want to improve reasoning, memory, and rationality. We know that these things are highly limited. They see no value in the ability to feel emotions deeply, serendipity, awareness, or any other such faculty, but some of these eastern traditions do. 

[Leo Gura]

9 minutes ago, Akemrelax said:

 Do you consider eastern traditions like Yoga to be above science since they are at least concerned with sharpening one's ability to perceive (raise consciousness/connection to infinite intelligence)? 

Contrast that with today's scientist, who want to improve reasoning, memory, and rationality. We know that these things are highly limited. They see no value in the ability to feel emotions deeply, serendipity, awareness, or any other such faculty, but some of these eastern traditions do. 

It's not above per se. They are very different worldviews with various pros and cons. Yoga is a sort of inner science, but it doesn't deal with all the other subjects that science deals with. So yoga is deep but narrow. You can't just replace science with yoga.

East and West, of course, must be holistically integrated.

[RendHeaven]

12 hours ago, Gesundheit said:

The question is, how would you know that science and truth are two different things

To that, I'd ask: why would you assume science and Truth are the same thing?

You're right: if you explore the possibility that science is not the same as Truth, you are making an assumption about Truth.

However, if you don't explore this possibility, you are still making an assumption about Truth.

Even if you claim that you are removing the concept of Truth out of the picture entirely, that is also a(n assumptive) Truth claim.

At every level, (the notion of) Truth is inescapable.

Edited October 28, 2020 by RendHeaven

[Leo Gura]

13 hours ago, Gesundheit said:

The question is, how would you know that science and truth are two different things unless you already have a concept of the truth in your mind?

Truth is not a concept.

It is obvious that science and truth are not the same thing because science itself admits of being false. Only a total moron would think that science = truth.

The only thing you have to do to show that science != truth is to find a single instance of science being wrong, ever in human history.

Anything which scientists admit they do not understand about nature, tells you they don't have the truth about it.

[Leo Gura]

18 hours ago, Harikrishnan said:

Leo's video discussed in reddit

https://www.reddit.com/r/PhilosophyofScience/comments/jis0ol/could_anyone_fact_check_this_video_from_a_million/

I enjoy how one of the guys says something along the lines of, "Yeah, what Leo says might apply to some dumb redditors, but not real scientists" and then they all unironically proceed

[Gesundheit]

5 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

The term empiricism is very problematic because it comes with much historical baggage and wrong ideas.

The science I advocate for isn't based on empiricism, it's based on CONSCIOUSNESS. Consciousness contains within it all experience, all phenomena, all data, anything measurable or knowable.

This is one of the paradigm shifts science has yet to make. Science is currently stuck in an empirical and pragmatic framework. We need to evolve it to a consciousness framework. This is very challenging to do because hardly anyone understands what consciousness is.

From Wikipedia; https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism

"In philosophy, empiricism is a theory that states that knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory experience. It is one of several views of epistemology, along with rationalism and skepticism. Empiricism emphasizes the role of empirical evidence in the formation of ideas, rather than innate ideas or traditions. However, empiricists may argue that traditions (or customs) arise due to relations of previous sense experiences.

Historically, empiricism was associated with the "blank slate" concept (tabula rasa), according to which the human mind is "blank" at birth and develops its thoughts only through experience.

Empiricism in the philosophy of science emphasises evidence, especially as discovered in experiments. It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation.

Empiricism, often used by natural scientists, says that "knowledge is based on experience" and that "knowledge is tentative and probabilistic, subject to continued revision and falsification". Empirical research, including experiments and validated measurement tools, guides the scientific method."

Isn't that exactly what you teach about consciousness, except that you emphasize more on the subjective experience rather than consensus ("objective" truth)?

I've found two other concepts that may be more compatible with your teachings; 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_idealism

And

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_idealism

Which one is closer?

5 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Working science is completely independent of that question. You can do science inside a video game, virtual world, a dream, or an illusion.

In fact, all the science done by mankind has been done inside a dream. What scientists are really studying, without realizing it, is how to manipulate dreams.

Okay, but then if it's a dream and an illusion, how can one distinguish between truth and falsehood? What are the criteria? You said that the current science contains falsehood, but how do you distinguish between truth and falsehood inside a video game? Based on what would you consider something truth and something else falsehood?

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Truth is not a concept.

Okay, let's say that's true. Now we have a concept that truth is not a concept. From this one concept we create our method? Is that what you're saying?

If that's our basic assumption, how is it different from an a priori? When we say truth is not a concept, we would have to exclude concepts from our method, and so we would require a method that contains no concepts. Right? But how can we do science without concepts?

[Gesundheit]

4 hours ago, RendHeaven said:

To that, I'd ask: why would you assume science and Truth are the same thing?

You're right: if you explore the possibility that science is not the same as Truth, you are making an assumption about Truth.

However, if you don't explore this possibility, you are still making an assumption about Truth.

Even if you claim that you are removing the concept of Truth out of the picture entirely, that is also a(n assumptive) Truth claim.

At every level, (the notion of) Truth is inescapable.

I like Leo's analogy of that tribal scientist with the yellow flower. The scientist was curious, he went out and tried things for himself and then made conclusions to the best of his abilities. That scientist did not think about truth. He did not even think about science. He made a number of experiments, and reported what happened while ruling out the things that did not concern him. In that analogy, there's no concept of science or truth. These concepts did not emerge at the time. The moment they started to emerge was the moment he took his conclusions to the tribe. Someone in the tribe may have objected to his discoveries. At that point, the scientist would have to provide a convincing case for his claims. He would have to make distinctions as to use concepts like truth and falsehood to make his tribe believe him.

I seriously can't think of any other way than that for "truth" and "falsehood" concepts to emerge. I think after making the first distinction between truth and falsehood, concepts like "science" and "the scientific method" can emerge based on what truth and falsehood concepts mean according to the tribe.

Edited October 28, 2020 by Gesundheit

[Leo Gura]

31 minutes ago, Gesundheit said:

From Wikipedia; https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism

"In philosophy, empiricism is a theory that states that knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory experience. It is one of several views of epistemology, along with rationalism and skepticism. Empiricism emphasizes the role of empirical evidence in the formation of ideas, rather than innate ideas or traditions. However, empiricists may argue that traditions (or customs) arise due to relations of previous sense experiences.

Historically, empiricism was associated with the "blank slate" concept (tabula rasa), according to which the human mind is "blank" at birth and develops its thoughts only through experience.

Empiricism in the philosophy of science emphasises evidence, especially as discovered in experiments. It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation.

Empiricism, often used by natural scientists, says that "knowledge is based on experience" and that "knowledge is tentative and probabilistic, subject to continued revision and falsification". Empirical research, including experiments and validated measurement tools, guides the scientific method."

Isn't that exactly what you teach about consciousness, except that you emphasize more on the subjective experience rather than consensus ("objective" truth)?

Again, the problem here is the historical baggage and the dualistic and materialistic notion of "experience" and "perception". This is a very limited paradigm.

What empiricism think of as "human experience/perception" is actually Absolute Being/Consciousness. But they don't understand that. Empriciism is inherently dualistic and materialist.

Quote

I've found two other concepts that may be more compatible with your teachings; 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_idealism

And

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_idealism

Which one is closer?

These are better, but again, the philosophies come with a ton of historical baggage and none of them are quite right.

Quote

Okay, but then if it's a dream and an illusion, how can one distinguish between truth and falsehood? What are the criteria?

Consciousness is the only way. Since Consciousness = Truth, and falsehood does not exist at all.

Quote

You said that the current science contains falsehood, but how do you distinguish between truth and falsehood inside a video game? Based on what would you consider something truth and something else falsehood?

There are two notions of truth that get confused. One is Absolute Truth and the other is relative truth. Relative truths are the truths of science. These are always limited and partial truths. They are distinguished by correspondence. Ex. "It is hot outside" >> you go outside and it is cold. Therefore, false.

Quote

Okay, let's say that's true. Now we have a concept that truth is not a concept. From this one concept we create our method? Is that what you're saying?

No. A concept of truth is not truth itself.

You can't create a method. The only method is trial and error and consciousness.

Quote

If that's our basic assumption, how is it different from an a priori? When we say truth is not a concept, we would have to exclude concepts from our method, and so we would require a method that contains no concepts. Right? But how can we do science without concepts?

Your method can use concepts of course. But concepts are not identical to truth. The map is not the territory. But also, the map is the territory.

Look, these are extremely nuanced and profound points that must be contemplated by you for YEARS. This not suitable for an internet discussion.

When, some day, I publish my book, all of this will be explained. But I cannot explain it here.

[Gesundheit]

@Leo Gura I'm contributing to your thread since you said you want objections for your future videos. But somehow my point is still not getting across.

There are a few points that you make both here and in the video that I don't find quite correct. I'm questioning the grounds of your work. You said that true science should be based on consciousness and non-duality as if those things were absolute truth. But whether they are actually absolute truth or not is not my question. My question is that there is absolute truth whatever that is, and then there is a concept that we make about it. In order to align science with truth, we'd have is to align two concepts together. This problem is inescapable. However, you're claiming that you're suggesting a form of science where you can align science as a concept with truth as an absolute. But how can that ever work? How can we align a concept with a non-concept? Is that possible, even in theory? I hope the message is clear now.

Edited October 28, 2020 by Gesundheit

[Leo Gura]

55 minutes ago, Gesundheit said:

@Leo Gura I'm contributing to your thread since you said you want objections for your future videos. But somehow my point is still not getting across.

Okay, good then.

Quote

My question is that there is absolute truth whatever that is, and then there is a concept that we make about it. In order to align science with truth, we'd have is to align two concepts together.

No, you align concepts with Absolute Truth. That's why science works at all. Conventional science has always been aligning concepts with Absolute Truth, they just are conscious that they are doing so. They're doing in unconsciously via trail and error.

Quote

However, you're claiming that you're suggesting a form of science where you can align science as a concept with truth as an absolute. But how can that ever work? How can we align a concept with a non-concept? Is that possible, even in theory? I hope the message is clear now.

Easy, because all concepts are Absolute Truth! Lol

Like I said, the map is not the territory. But also, the map IS the territory!

This contradiction/paradox is not a mistake, it arises necessarily because everything is ONE.

Relative and absolute truth is different, but also identical. Depending on how you look at it. Remember, reality is perspectival. This gets extremely tricky here because we are using mind to explain mind, language to explain language, which results in self-reference paradoxes and strange loops.

It's as if you are standing in the middle of New York City trying to draw a map of the city which must be so accurate and complete that it must also include a map of you drawing a map, drawing a map, drawing a map, drawing a map... to infinity.

[Hello from Russia]

@Leo Gura

Nice

Do you think it is correct to say that the Nature of Reality is paradoxical at its core? Like, the paradox is a fundamental building block of reality? Meaning, when you get rid of dualistic thinking/cognition - only the paradox remains. And, non-dual cognition = pure embrace of paradox?

Edited October 28, 2020 by Hello from Russia

[Fran11]

20 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

It's as if you are standing in the middle of New York City trying to draw a map of the city which must be so accurate and complete that it must also include a map of you drawing a map, drawing a map, drawing a map, drawing a map... to infinity.

Nice picture, would be great for the series.

A representation is also an actuality, but the problem comes when you confuse the actuality of the representation for the actuality of the thing it represents. 

[Leo Gura]

33 minutes ago, Hello from Russia said:

@Leo Gura

Do you think it is correct to say that the Nature of Reality is paradoxical at its core? Like, the paradox is a fundamental building block of reality? Meaning, when you get rid of dualistic thinking/cognition - only the paradox remains. And, non-dual cognition = pure embrace of paradox?

You could say that, but you could also not

Paradox is generally a function of dualistic cognition and symbolic representation.

When you are in a state of Infinite Consciousness and total ONENESS, there is no paradox. Notice that you don't find paradox out in the world. You find it when you think about reality. Thinking is necesarily paradoxical because thinking is duality, and two must become one.

The ego-mind is what experiences paradox. To a rock, there is no paradox. A rock just is. It isn't thinking about its isness, but you are.

[Gesundheit]

51 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

It's as if you are standing in the middle of New York City trying to draw a map of the city which must be so accurate and complete that it must also include a map of you drawing a map, drawing a map, drawing a map, drawing a map... to infinity.

I see. So, we're somewhere in the middle with a number of drawings of drawings of drawings of maps. Now, the question for me is; shall we reach a point where we stop drawing maps? Or shall we continue drawing maps forever? Science is about drawing more and more maps to infinity, but will that process ever stop? Or perhaps more accurately, is it better to stop it? Or doesn't it matter? These are the kinds of questions that I struggle with. Because to align with truth means to align with evolution/future. And I am not certain of the future.

Also I have a deeper problem that is kinda out of context; it's that you equate being with absolute truth (I used to). Now I've come to start doubting that. Idk I just felt like sharing.

[Leo Gura]

30 minutes ago, Gesundheit said:

I see. So, we're somewhere in the middle with a number of drawings of drawings of drawings of maps. Now, the question for me is; shall we reach a point where we stop drawing maps? Or shall we continue drawing maps forever? Science is about drawing more and more maps to infinity, but will that process ever stop? Or perhaps more accurately, is it better to stop it? Or doesn't it matter? These are the kinds of questions that I struggle with. Because to align with truth means to align with evolution/future. And I am not certain of the future.

In practice humans must be drawing maps to survive.

You can stop drawing maps if you enter a state of total nonduality and not-knowing.

Quote

Also I have a deeper problem that is kinda out of context; it's that you equate being with absolute truth (I used to). Now I've come to start doubting that. Idk I just felt like sharing.

Being = Absolute Truth

27 minutes ago, toocrazytobecrazy said:

you just wrote these in 14 minutes apart. 

explain please. 

Are you trying to give relativistic answers for different individual for their different paradigms?

No. Like I told you, paradox is necessary here. It is not a mistake.

Absolute Truth != relative truth

Absolute Truth = relative truth

Both are the case, depending on perspective.

The glass is both half-full and half-empty at the same time.

[Gesundheit]

9 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

In practice humans must be drawing maps to survive.

Well, I'm not sure about that anymore. Because:

1. It's a map drawn by the ego-mind, so it's self-created and therefore groundless.
2. Insane people survive.
3. Intellect does not prevent death.

[Nthnl]

Can science, in any way shape or form, be used in higher level thinking to help us understand the true reality of the world? Or is it entirely impossible. I get that it clearly has its limitations, but can pieces of it also be used in collaborations with enlightenment teachings? Or is it entirely useless after a certain point?

[willmarin]

@Nthnl Science (as we know it) is just one of the many activities that consciousness may participate in, if it so chooses

[Brenzo2]

3 hours ago, Gesundheit said:

Well, I'm not sure about that anymore. Because:

1. It's a map drawn by the ego-mind, so it's self-created and therefore groundless.
2. Insane people survive.
3. Intellect does not prevent death.

I think insane people are still surviving by drawing maps, just radically different maps. 

Also your point about intellect not preventing death...

Intellect does maintain the sense of self in a way.

Leo has previously stated that from the egos POV it does survive even if the 'physical body' does not. I can see this to be true from the egos perspective. 

The ego is not the 'physical body'. 

Survival is not merely 'physical'.

Sorry if I misunderstood your points, but this could be some food for thought. 

 

[Gesundheit]

6 minutes ago, Brenzo2 said:

I think insane people are still surviving by drawing maps, just radically different maps. 

Also your point about intellect not preventing death...

Intellect does maintain the sense of self in a way.

Leo has previously stated that from the egos POV it does survive even if the 'physical body' does not. I can see this to be true from the egos perspective. 

The ego is not the 'physical body'. 

Survival is not merely 'physical'.

Sorry if I misunderstood your points, but this could be some food for thought.

Yeah, I know.

Here we are talking about the relationship between ego survival and physical survival. What I'm saying is that the two are unrelated, contrary to popular belief, even though it seems like they're at least somewhat related. Some people even think that they're one and the same thing. But to me it doesn't seem like that anymore. All thinking seems like a huge BS and a complete illusion that only provides a feeling of safety against the harsh reality of not-knowing. Thinking only covers up the fear underneath it, and the more thinking one does, the more fearful he is. To let go of fear and thinking is the biggest challenge in life. I can't do that, even though I am quite certain of what I'm saying. It's really, really hard.