Seeing the Delusion of Scientists (and in us)

[Leo Gura]

12 hours ago, Mason Riggle said:

@Leo Gura everyone is a scientist any time they make some observation, for some idea about that observation, and perform some experiment to test that idea. 

If I look outside and see raindrops, and think, 'it's raining', and I look again to confirm this.. I have done science. 

You are a scientist whenever you do science. 

Yeah, well, most scientists are shit scientists.

8 hours ago, Tim R said:

@Leo Gura Lol. There are many scientists who are into metaphysics and spirituality who know that science, like anything else that is of the world, abstract and conceptual, isn't real.

A few might know it conceptually, but they don't really understand what I am saying.

You guys are not taking this issue seriously enough.

[Gesundheit2]

@Leo Gura Why should a scientist understand what you're saying?

Edited October 28, 2021 by Gesundheit2

[Mason Riggle]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Yeah, well, most scientists are shit scientists.

Ha! We agree on this for sure. 

[Gesundheit2]

5 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

You guys are not taking this issue seriously enough.

I asked you a serious question. You did not answer.

You're saying that most scientists don't understand that science is imaginary, but why do they need to understand that in the first place? Science is already working pretty well, and it's even advancing as we're talking, regardless of any ontological additions. So why is your perspective important? What does it add to science? How does it enhance it? What does it matter if science is imaginary or not?

[Mason Riggle]

@Gesundheit2 ?
 

[PepperBlossoms]

We can't ever know anything fully but yet we chase after knowing anyway. 

Logically - one can't ever prove anything

Emotionally - we enjoy seeking, exploring, experiencing, and the delusion of learning

I know I can't know but I want to know ANYWAY.  It's like a kid that wants candy even after it's mom says no you can't have any.

Science claims to seek knowledge but it is deluded in that it seeks delusion and adds more to the delusion with its discoveries.

But yet - I see a triangle and say, yes a triangle has for sides. I feel like I understand/know a triangle.  But yet a triangle may be different to every person.

The delusion to science may be that there may be no proof and everything is imagined.  Understanding may = delusion.  

I want to experience eating cake, I say I know what cake is..

What we see seems to be what seems to be the case.

Just because we can't prove or know something, we enjoy the experience of familiarity, similarity - so science seeks that and creates equations of familiarity.  We seem to want to know/experience ourselves (which is familiarity to self).

Science appears to be chasing a knowing that it won't ever get.

Edited October 28, 2021 by PepperBlossoms

[Leo Gura]

4 hours ago, Gesundheit2 said:

I asked you a serious question. You did not answer.

You're saying that most scientists don't understand that science is imaginary, but why do they need to understand that in the first place? Science is already working pretty well, and it's even advancing as we're talking, regardless of any ontological additions. So why is your perspective important? What does it add to science? How does it enhance it? What does it matter if science is imaginary or not?

Figure it out for yourself.

[Gesundheit2]

@PepperBlossoms You seem confused. Science does not seek knowledge. This is a story that you've been fed by your media in order to popularize science among people and give them a higher meaning for their lives. And it's a common misconception among those who haven't studied philosophy. There's a branch of philosophy called epistemology that deals with knowledge. Science is built on top of that branch and uses the foundations and concepts provided by it in order to interact with the world. Epistemology provides a framework for science to operate from. This framework is called metaphysics, and as of currently it's dominated by materialism, because survival nowadays and in the past few hundred years has been hyper-pragmatism, which fits perfectly with materialism.

Modern science is not an explanation of existence. That's never what it was meant to be. Other versions of science (e.g. religion) did not have a distinction between practical science and theoretical science. Both fields were enmeshed together and treated as one. But the truth is that philosophy is the study of the nature of things, while science is the fruit of that study. Like a tree that bears fruit.

Edited October 28, 2021 by Gesundheit2

[Gesundheit2]

14 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Figure it out for yourself.

Okay.

[PepperBlossoms]

7 minutes ago, Gesundheit2 said:

@PepperBlossoms You seem confused. 

I feel super confused yes.  There is so much futility.  Like yes we want to learn but yet there are so many holes that we won't meet but yet is all this existence imagined but yet if imaginary and real is the same thing... 

okay so who cares that we can't prove it - it works good enough right?

but yet, wait - can we even go along with this.. is this dogma?

but who cares if it is dogma, it works pretty good, right?

even the English language - - that works pretty good so we use it even though we could misunderstand what each other are saying

so with equations - we use them even if they may have some flaws and may not be be considering everything

Non duality is dogma but we use it anyway as it works pretty good

observation and study and writing about those in reports works pretty good for sharing perspectives

I guess the thing is that scientists/teachers need to be aware that every equation, statement, "fact", "history", "science", etc. will have flaws/holes in it and that it is a dogma too.  I guess the concern is that when the information is presented in school, there isn't really discussion that it is all dogma and just what we have right now..  We get tested on how well we can memorize the dogma and are wrong if we interpret it differently from the teacher

So the concern is that there needs to be more awareness about that as many students may be misinterpreting that what they are being told is truth instead of opinion/perspective/assumption.

"Scientist X discovered gravity.  Or discovered that the Earth is round."  Statements like that make it seem as if it is absolutely known instead of that it is something to consider, ponder, explore.

[PepperBlossoms]

15 hours ago, BenG said:

These few were incredibly arrogant with extremely high opinions of their own intelligence. They would position themselves as superior to students and expect the students to just “listen and understand”. They were also very dogmatic and didn’t respond well to questions which they didn’t like. I’m definitely not some Einstein asking key questions with the potential to shift paradigms. I was asking pretty surface level stuff and got shut down for it by these people.mously on an internet forum and that’s a little sad.

It seems that we all have our own dogma.  What we see seems to be the case and until we get enough info to see something new and it will still then be what seems to be the case (someone on the forum said).  The difference then it seems is one's attitude.  One can be arrogant and not wanting to go into discussion about what seems to be the case or one can be gentle and interactive about it.  One can be unwavering or one can be more open.

It seems that we can't escape our dogma and will just go from one form of it to another.

We can be open to discussing any idea or we can not - but our dogma may impact how we respond, what we are open to considering and discussing, etc.

15 hours ago, BenG said:

Now, the field of physics has a certain reputation among many as being an “ultimate” field with the potential to figure everything out given enough time. Actually, a lot of fields believe that about themselves, but I got the impression that this is particularly bad within physics. It’s even characterized as the field concerned with understanding the universe or nature of reality. When I started university, I was a materialistic reductionist, and was bought into this idea hard. I was seriously considering becoming a research physicist for a while.

About halfway through my sophomore year, I started to lose faith in the idea that physics was actually capable of finding the ultimate nature of reality. This came after I had spent some time learning about the hard problem of consciousness. That lead me to the idea of panpsychism, as a way of reconciling this problem, and that lead me to the work of Donald Hoffman which was an intro to a new way of thinking for me and breaking out of materialism. Another mindfuck for me was when I started contemplating the idea of measurement. What I ultimately realized is that all measurement is contrived and imaginary. And that’s a totally groundbreaking realization. We’re given all these units of measurement like grams and kilometers and seconds, and we combine them to make other units like force and energy, (Newtons and Joules). We can do amazing things with all of this, but at no point does anybody tell you that none of this is real.

Wow interesting points.  I also contemplated trying to do research in physics because it seemed super cool - like with magnetism and motion and stuff.

Physics seems to be helpful for the material world.  Psychedelics seem to be helpful for noticing the imaginary, constructed world.  Haha interesting point on the measurement.  I had the realization all time was made up and there is really no way to guarantee that a second that appears to last a second is actually lasting the same as another second because if stuff slows down the second may just take longer to happen..  And how this measurement is an imagined structure that we put onto another imagined thing.

I don't think the teachers tend to study metaphysics so they aren't as aware of all the made up stuff of reality??

15 hours ago, BenG said:

So, I started asking around about these problems that I was noticing, and a big red flag hit when nobody was able to help me. Ultimately the illusion that “science is perusing truth” was totally shattered for me, and that was hard, because I’d been motivated by that belief for years. Anyway though, the problem here is much bigger than “people misunderstand what science is doing”, in actuality, many scientists misunderstand what science is doing. It’s also totally unethical how a bunch of starry eyed freshen are swooned in under the delusion that the work they’re doing is true when in reality it’s not. And it bothers me a lot that the scientific community does absolutely nothing to break people out of this delusion, probably because most of them are bought into it as well.

Yeah the scientific/education community could do more to bring up metaphysics and delusions.  It is basically the same as someone spouting dogma - which many teachers of science and religion tend to do.  It works like this, it happened like this, ... no discussion that there could be other interpretations or that that could be wrong

15 hours ago, BenG said:

And in conclusion, I absolutely cannot say these things out loud. Part of it is that criticizing science generally is a very bad look. A shocking number of people just dislike science because they think it goes against their god or something. We certainly don’t want to appear to be giving these people any validity. Also though, I’m still trying to pursue work within science, and the ability to criticize science is something that needs to be earned. Neediness to say I haven’t earned that ability. I’m not some respected university scientist with tenure, I’m a grunt by anybody’s standards, and if I say what I want, I’ll be given an undesirable label and barred out of job opportunities. It’s not a game for me, nor is it just an intellectual exercise. The only place I can say what I want is anonymously on an internet forum and that’s a little sad.

I think a lot of educators may be married to the religion of dogma instead of skepticism, delusion, imagination.  It can be hard to imagine what one has not seen.  If/when psychedelics get more legalized, that could change more easily.  

It also seems to be based on the education norm of how stuff is typically taught and presented and changing how that is done.

Edited October 28, 2021 by PepperBlossoms

[Gesundheit2]

@PepperBlossoms

Quote

Scientist X discovered gravity. 

I can't believe you couldn't name Isaac Newton

Edited October 28, 2021 by Gesundheit2

[PepperBlossoms]

12 minutes ago, Gesundheit2 said:

@PepperBlossoms I can't believe you couldn't name Isaac Newton

haha 

I guess the consensus then may be rather that, schools, news stations, books, lecturers, newspapers etc. could do a better job at pointing out that statements are all limited opinions, perspectives, and ideas instead of as fact/absolute truth.  Students could be taught to use more "seem, appears, could be, may be" statements in addition to the typical "is, are, be, am" statements as well as some more of, "from my opinion, I think, I wonder, I see, I imagine" instead of just "I know, I am right, I am correct".

 School format has what seems to have been commonly presented as a religion/dogma and may do better if presented as open to debate, change, evolution.  The kids may get confused but may take more exploratory methodologies and get more involved/curious with their own learning at a younger age.  (Some schools may already do this to varying degrees - mine did not appear to).

Edited October 28, 2021 by PepperBlossoms

[Gesundheit2]

@PepperBlossoms

26 minutes ago, PepperBlossoms said:

I guess the consensus then may be rather that, schools, news stations, books, lecturers, newspapers etc. could do a better job at pointing out that statements are all limited opinions, perspectives, and ideas instead of as fact/absolute truth.  Students could be taught to use more "seem, appears, could be, may be" statements in addition to the typical "is, are, be, am" statements as well as some more of, "from my opinion, I think, I wonder, I see, I imagine" instead of just "I know, I am right, I am correct".

If you ever attend university or read a research paper from a highly-respected scientist, I assure you you will find a lot of what you're longing for here. The less technical words are used for the sake of simplicity in order not to confuse the kids. Kids cannot digest such complex concepts, they need them watered down.

Reflect on how much effort it took you to see this new perspective, and then compare your current self with your kid-self to see the difference and how hard it is to see through the mind.

Edited October 28, 2021 by Gesundheit2

[PepperBlossoms]

1 hour ago, Gesundheit2 said:

@PepperBlossoms

If you ever attend university or read a research paper from a highly-respected scientist, I assure you you will find a lot of what you're longing for here. The less technical words are used for the sake of simplicity in order not to confuse the kids. Kids cannot digest such complex concepts, they need them watered down.

Reflect on how much effort it took you to see this new perspective, and then compare your current self with your kid-self to see the difference and how hard it is to see through the mind.

I am to blame for not looking at enough scientists' papers first and making an assumption.  I can imagine that those that are most aware of the imagined aspects of science may tend to have an easier time formulating and imagining more parts of science to explore.

Money, language, time, distance, colors, tastes, feelings, etc. are all seemingly "imaginary" notions that we appear to have created but there seems to be great utility and so we tend to keep them.  History and science appear to have flaws too but they also tend to provide great utility as well and so it makes sense to keep them too.  Hence we don't need to "throw them away" but may rather just continue to evolve with them.

(It can take great effort to add tend, seems, appears, etc. to text as well and can be faster to not do so).

It seems to have taken me great effort to get to the point of exploring the meta part of life but I do question if schools could do a bit more - - but yes I am not educated in that topic of how well the kids could grasp it and how that could impact their studies.  If we tell them that everything is not certain and may be inaccurate, will they still be willing to read the textbook?  The grading system can seem fuzzy as who is to say what the "right" answer actually is aside from some imaginary hierarchy that is agreed to - but yet imaginary hierarchies can be helpful for moving in some sort of direction.

If we don't establish some walls (dogmas/structures), there can be so much stuff to see (or not see) that it can feel overwhelming.  Distinctions can create little shortcuts for messing with reality - like pre-constructed units instead of having to create it from scratch.

[Gesundheit2]

1 hour ago, PepperBlossoms said:

I am to blame for not looking at enough scientists' papers first and making an assumption.  I can imagine that those that are most aware of the imagined aspects of science may tend to have an easier time formulating and imagining more parts of science to explore.

Money, language, time, distance, colors, tastes, feelings, etc. are all seemingly "imaginary" notions that we appear to have created but there seems to be great utility and so we tend to keep them.  History and science appear to have flaws too but they also tend to provide great utility as well and so it makes sense to keep them too.  Hence we don't need to "throw them away" but may rather just continue to evolve with them.

(It can take great effort to add tend, seems, appears, etc. to text as well and can be faster to not do so).

It seems to have taken me great effort to get to the point of exploring the meta part of life but I do question if schools could do a bit more - - but yes I am not educated in that topic of how well the kids could grasp it and how that could impact their studies.  If we tell them that everything is not certain and may be inaccurate, will they still be willing to read the textbook?  The grading system can seem fuzzy as who is to say what the "right" answer actually is aside from some imaginary hierarchy that is agreed to - but yet imaginary hierarchies can be helpful for moving in some sort of direction.

If we don't establish some walls (dogmas/structures), there can be so much stuff to see (or not see) that it can feel overwhelming.  Distinctions can create little shortcuts for messing with reality - like pre-constructed units instead of having to create it from scratch.

This is an interesting way to articulate the issue. And even though I don't have much to add, I think it's only the tip of the iceberg. I can imagine how messing with complex systems is not an easy task, but I can't imagine how things would turn out just by changing one variable, which is why I trust the infinite intelligence and let it take care of everything.

[diamondpenguin]

@Gesundheit2 No one tells Leo what to do. There's where you first fucked up, if you tell Leo what to do, your logic and reason might not see the light of day again. 

Edited October 29, 2021 by diamondpenguin

[Johnny Galt]

@PepperBlossoms is number dogma? 

[PepperBlossoms]

1 hour ago, Johnny Galt said:

@PepperBlossoms is number dogma? 

hmm is this a trick question? hehe  

Yes it could be in the sense of the dogma that we tend to use to separate/divide subjects into their own isolated countable parts, what the dogma tends to say that the numbers represent and are defined as, as well the dogma of how the numbers tend to be used and integrated??  Or yes in terms of number is dogma is everything in terms of the nonduality dogma and everything appearing as one so could say XXX is YYY in regards to anything.

Or I could say no.  A number is just a number and dogma is just dogma and a number is only dogma if I say it is and project the notion of dogma onto the number.

@Johnny GaltIs a yes or no question dogma?  What do you think about "is number dogma?"

Edited October 29, 2021 by PepperBlossoms

[Johnny Galt]

@PepperBlossoms I appreciate your questioning nature

I posed that question because in a previous thread, it appeared that you were saying that all learned subject matter is dogma. As I experience it, we all identify a person as one, two people as two, three people as three, your hands/feet/and head, you have 5 and at the ends of these limbs you see a another 5, a fractal 5 we be  and all of this is universally identifiable and repeating in the human being. If I was to learn of this, I would simply observe my direct reality and so no blind belief or dogma is necessary to "learn" about the arithmetic of the body.