What if my understanding of science is 100-500 years ahead of the world?

[Thought Art]

So I’ve been watching and researching Leo’s 3 part series on science and things are starting to click and I’m now diving deeper into reading books on the philosophy of science. 
 

If my understanding of science is really 100-500 years ahead of my scientists today… and I’m not part of academia… there has to be loads of risks in the social matrix I need to look out for. What are your thoughts on this? Over the next 10 years with this information I’m going to be entering a new frontier in the merging of spirituality and science.

Im trying to grasp what this could mean for my life…. It’s likely gonna take a few years to grasp what Leo is saying, to grasp and contemplate what I am reading. I think I’m being oriented toward this work. 
 

warning: I’m not claiming my understanding is more advanced than anyone else’s… just wondering

Edited January 14, 2022 by Thought Art

[Tim R]

I've always advised people to be very careful with their "understanding of science". Too often I see people trying to be meta-scientific when actually, they're mostly just being un-scientific. 

 Leo's understanding of science, as presented in that 3 part series, is extremely, extremely philosophical and abstract and has, quite frankly, not very much to do with actual science as it is practiced in universitites and research facilities around the world, and it paints a very skewed picture for those who haven't had at least some experience at university and in research. I've even thought about making a very extensive post, perhaps multiple posts, about the limits of and misconceptions in that series. Because I was worried that it might create an image of science in people's minds that has nothing to do with actual science, thus misrepresenting it and making a strawman (which it certainly did for some people).

3 hours ago, Thought Art said:

If my understanding of science is really 100-500 years ahead of my scientists today… and I’m not part of academia… there has to be loads of risks in the social matrix I need to look out for.

Well, that really depends. If you're not part of academia, then realistically, all that you have to worry about is people getting offended by your criticism of materialism or rationalism, that's it.

@Thought Art Or what do you suppose would be that load of risks that would come along with your meta-scientific understanding? in what context would those risks manifest? 

[JosephKnecht]

4 hours ago, Thought Art said:

If my understanding of science is really 100-500 years ahead of my scientists today… and I’m not part of academia

What is your vision about the science conducted 100-500 years from now? What do you see? 

[undeather]

5 hours ago, Thought Art said:

So I’ve been watching and researching Leo’s 3 part series on science and things are starting to click and I’m now diving deeper into reading books on the philosophy of science. 
 

If my understanding of science is really 100-500 years ahead of my scientists today… and I’m not part of academia… there has to be loads of risks in the social matrix I need to look out for. What are your thoughts on this? Over the next 10 years with this information I’m going to be entering a new frontier in the merging of spirituality and science.

Im trying to grasp what this could mean for my life…. It’s likely gonna take a few years to grasp what Leo is saying, to grasp and contemplate what I am reading. I think I’m being oriented toward this work. 

@Tim R put it really well. 

As a scientist myself, let me tell you some words of caution: 
Doing actual science is extremely difficult, boring, repetitive, highly statistical and has for the most part nothing to do with the grandiose ideas you put forwards in your post. In fact, any reasearch faculty around the world will laugh at you if you come forward with such propositions. Can you do it without them? Propably not. Even if you could come up with the necessary financial support, your ideas just wont be taken seriously at all. So, either you are going to play after their rules, or you are not going to play at all. Also, what exactly do you want to work on? Science is an extremely broad term - like sports. Also, do you realize that futuristic science/conciousness science already exists? Psi-reaserach has experiments which are methodically immaculate, highly statistically signicant, repeatable ad infinitum - and are still, mostly ignored by the mainstream. Thats the behemoth you are up against. 

If you really, really want to double down on this (which is a great life purpose by the way) - then you just WONT get around recieving a degree from a decent university in that chosen field. By the way, with degree I mean that your name has to be followed by the suffix "PhD". Without that, no chance. 

I also wanted to change the medical field after realizing nonduality a couple of years ago. Let me tell you that it took a lot of sweat and blood to get where I am now and it will cost even more to actually change stuff. After years of doing slave-like work, starting in university, I slowly start be taken seriously by peers and financial supporters. I am nowhere near at enough reputition where I could put out ideas and concepts that really could change the medical system for the better. In fact any "woo" I put out now will come back to bite my ass in my later years. Still, the fight is worth it and lets see where it goes!

 

Edited January 14, 2022 by undeather

[Thought Art]

2 hours ago, Tim R said:

I've always advised people to be very careful with their "understanding of science". Too often I see people trying to be meta-scientific when actually, they're mostly just being un-scientific. 

 Leo's understanding of science, as presented in that 3 part series, is extremely, extremely philosophical and abstract and has, quite frankly, not very much to do with actual science as it is practiced in universitites and research facilities around the world, and it paints a very skewed picture for those who haven't had at least some experience at university and in research. I've even thought about making a very extensive post, perhaps multiple posts, about the limits of and misconceptions in that series. Because I was worried that it might create an image of science in people's minds that has nothing to do with actual science, thus misrepresenting it and making a strawman (which it certainly did for some people).

Well, that really depends. If you're not part of academia, then realistically, all that you have to worry about is people getting offended by your criticism of materialism or rationalism, that's it.

@Thought Art Or what do you suppose would be that load of risks that would come along with your meta-scientific understanding? in what context would those risks manifest? 

I think everyone would appreciate if you made those posts. Let’s have this deeper conversation.

I am not saying I am 500 years ahead… obviously being cautious is important. I’m saying that If Leo is correct and I embark on this mission of studying the philosophy of science and epistemology over the next 10-20 years that I could be.

The more I listen to the 3 part series, take notes and then go listen to scientists I see that Leo has a lot of points. I’d like to see your specific criticisms actually of the series.

[Tim R]

To actually change science in the (grandiose) way presented in this post, you have to become an extremely prestigious or popular scientist or philosopher, like Neil deGrasse Tyson or Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris, those type of people. Chances are that you will never become like them, because an academic career is unbelievably tough (at least in the natural sciences, I don't know how it's in other fields). Even with your fancy PhD you will most likely not get anywhere, because PhD students and Post Docs are really struggling. 

Guess I'll make that post in the future. People have a completely naive and romanticised view on science, and I don't exclude my fellow forum members from that.

23 minutes ago, undeather said:

Doing actual science is extremely difficult, boring, repetitive, highly statistical and has for the most part nothing to do with the grandiose ideas you put forwards in your post. In fact, any reasearch faculty around the world will laugh at you if you come forward with such propositions. Can you do it without them? Propably not. Even if you could come up with the necessary financial support, your ideas just wont be taken seriously at all. So, either you are going to play after their rules, or you are not going to play at all. Also, what exactly do you want to work on? Science is an extremely broad term - like sports. Also, do you realize that futuristic science/conciousness science already exists? Psi-reaserach has experiments which are methodically immaculate, highly statistically signicant, repeatable ad infinitum - and are still, mostly ignored by the mainstream. Thats the behemoth you are up against. 

If you really, really want to double down on this (which is a great life purpose by the way) - then you just WONT get around recieving a degree from a decent university in that chosen field. By the way, with degree I mean that your name has to be followed by the suffix "PhD". Without that, no chance. 

I also wanted to change the medical field after realizing nonduality a couple of years ago. Let me tell you that it took a lot of sweat and blood to get where I am now and it will cost even more to actually change stuff. After years of doing slave-like work, starting in university, I slowly start be taken seriously by peers and financial supporters. I am nowhere near at enough reputition where I could put out ideas and concepts that really could change the medical system for the better. In fact any "woo" I put out now will come back to bite my ass in my later years. Still, the fight is worth it and lets see where it goes!

@undeather Exactly. It's really tough shit. But props to you, man! 

[Thought Art]

29 minutes ago, undeather said:

@Tim R put it really well. 

As a scientist myself, let me tell you some words of caution: 
Doing actual science is extremely difficult, boring, repetitive, highly statistical and has for the most part nothing to do with the grandiose ideas you put forwards in your post. In fact, any reasearch faculty around the world will laugh at you if you come forward with such propositions. Can you do it without them? Propably not. Even if you could come up with the necessary financial support, your ideas just wont be taken seriously at all. So, either you are going to play after their rules, or you are not going to play at all. Also, what exactly do you want to work on? Science is an extremely broad term - like sports. Also, do you realize that futuristic science/conciousness science already exists? Psi-reaserach has experiments which are methodically immaculate, highly statistically signicant, repeatable ad infinitum - and are still, mostly ignored by the mainstream. Thats the behemoth you are up against. 

If you really, really want to double down on this (which is a great life purpose by the way) - then you just WONT get around recieving a degree from a decent university in that chosen field. By the way, with degree I mean that your name has to be followed by the suffix "PhD". Without that, no chance. 

I also wanted to change the medical field after realizing nonduality a couple of years ago. Let me tell you that it took a lot of sweat and blood to get where I am now and it will cost even more to actually change stuff. After years of doing slave-like work, starting in university, I slowly start be taken seriously by peers and financial supporters. I am nowhere near at enough reputition where I could put out ideas and concepts that really could change the medical system for the better. In fact any "woo" I put out now will come back to bite my ass in my later years. Still, the fight is worth it and lets see where it goes!

 

Yeah, what your saying just isnt true though. Go meet a yoga, reiki teacher or Qigong teacher for example. They are not PhDs. But they have practices and make careers out of this. This is an entire world and economy outside academia.

And who knows, maybe I’ll work toward that. There are non phds writing amazing books and influencing society. 
 

Not convinced advanced science needs the beaucracy. 

Edited January 14, 2022 by Thought Art

[Thought Art]

6 minutes ago, Tim R said:

To actually change science in the (grandiose) way presented in this post, you have to become an extremely prestigious or popular scientist or philosopher, like Neil deGrasse Tyson or Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris, those type of people. Chances are that you will never become like them, because an academic career is unbelievably tough (at least in the natural sciences, I don't know how it's in other fields). Even with your fancy PhD you will most likely not get anywhere, because PhD students and Post Docs are really struggling. 

Guess I'll make that post in the future. People have a completely naive and romanticised view on science, and I don't exclude my fellow forum members from that.

@undeather Exactly. It's really tough shit. But props to you, man! 

I should clarify that I never stated I was going to change science…. Simply that my personal understanding will soon be more advanced than most scientists in academia. 
 

Which, in some ways I am already more advanced than most reductionistic scienctists who specialize in o e field because I have a much larger holistic understanding of reality. I don’t have their technical knowledge that’s for sure but I see things they can’t…

Edited January 14, 2022 by Thought Art

[Tim R]

Just now, Thought Art said:

6 hours ago, Thought Art said:

Over the next 10 years with this information I’m going to be entering a new frontier in the merging of spirituality and science.

I should clarify that I never stated I was going to change science

@Thought Art Sorry, that sentence sounded to me like you wanted to. 

1 minute ago, Thought Art said:

Simply that my personal understanding will soon be more advanced than most scientists in academia. 

That'd be great, and if my posts could help you pursue tht goal, I'll gladly make them. Will take some time tho? I even thought about making a video, that would be faster

[Thought Art]

@Tim R I understand. It is a new frontier within a finite domain of human health. 
 

It’s a new frontier, not saying I’m going to change the entire epistemology of the West or anything. But, Western scientific epistemology does have a lot of flaws. It’s a new frontier, but also an old one.

[hyruga]

Congrats! You are a visionary!

[undeather]

1 hour ago, Thought Art said:

Yeah, what your saying just isnt true though. Go meet a yoga, reiki teacher or Qigong teacher for example. They are not PhDs. But they have practices and make careers out of this. This is an entire world and economy outside academia.

And who knows, maybe I’ll work toward that. There are non phds writing amazing books and influencing society. 
 

Not convinced advanced science needs the beaucracy. 

Quote

 

I should clarify that I never stated I was going to change science…. Simply that my personal understanding will soon be more advanced than most scientists in academia. 
 

Which, in some ways I am already more advanced than most reductionistic scienctists who specialize in o e field because I have a much larger holistic understanding of reality. I don’t have their technical knowledge that’s for sure but I see things they can’t…

 

 

 

You are talking about potentially being hundreds of years ahead of our current scientific understanding, which is an inherently nonsensical statement. The ideas behing Yoga, Qigong or Reiki have in some cases been practiced for thousands of years - they are great teachings, but you are not doing anything "new" or particular scientific if you make a career out of them. Some ideas in those system stem from magical thinking paradigms that are well below stage orange from a sprial dynamic perspective.

If you want to be more advanced than anyone else, than you need to pour your life into it. Otherwise, no chance. If you want to change society or the world for better - then you need decades of expertise in most cases. 

Reductionism is not a bad thing - in fact, the most respected theories in almost any field of inquiry are highly reductionistic. Neo adveita vedanta teachers like Jed McKenna or Rupert Spira are HIGHLY reductionistic in their spiritual approaches. What comes with a high level of reductionism is a high level of specificity. Its true that this can hinder progress, as we can see for example in modern medicine, but its also extremely usefull in a different regard. 

Edited January 14, 2022 by undeather

[Thought Art]

9 minutes ago, undeather said:

You are talking about potentially being hundreds of years ahead of our current scientific understanding, which is an inherently nonsensical statement. The ideas behing Yoga, Qigong or Reiki have in some cases been practiced for thousands of years - they are great teachings, but you are not doing anything "new" or particular scientific if you make a career out of them. Some ideas in those system stem from magical thinking paradigms that are well below stage orange from a sprial dynamic perspective.

If you want to be more advanced than anyone else, than you need to pour your life into it. Otherwise, no chance. If you want to change society or the world for better - then you need decades of expertise in most cases. 

Reductionism is not a bad thing - in fact, the most respected theories in almost any field of inquiry are highly reductionistic. Neo adveita vedanta teachers like Jed McKenna or Rupert Spira are HIGHLY reductionistic in their spiritual approaches. What comes with a high level of reductionism is a high level of specificity. Its true that this can hinder progress, as we can see for example in modern medicine, but its also extremely usefull in a different regard. 

What you consider magical thinking may be right. Or it may be your own biases that you haven’t actually taken them time to verify. It’s probably just a belief you hold. But, at the same time there is ‘magical’ thinking in sciences as well. There is false ideas in most epistemological systems. Partly due to self bias but also because these systems are finite and inherently ‘false’ as all finite systems are.
 

It’s also it like you don’t think you can take these practices to a higher level or do something new with them. You totally can, that’s the beauty of infinity. Humanity isn’t even at 1% of its potential.
 

Having a better understanding of reality in general that most people is something I will have in the 10 years. 
 

Very true about pouring your life into it… obviously. 
 

New is a relative term. There are new discoveries in western medicine that the Chinese have known about for thousands of years for example. 
 

 

Edited January 14, 2022 by Thought Art

[undeather]

7 minutes ago, Thought Art said:

What you consider magical thinking may be right. Or it may be your own biases that you haven’t actually taken them time to verify. It’s probably just a belief you hold. But, at the same time there is ‘magical’ thinking in sciences as well. There is false ideas in most epistemological systems. Partly due to self bias but also because these systems are finite and inherently ‘false’ as all finite systems are.
 

It’s also it like you don’t think you can take these practices to a higher level or do something new with them. You totally can, that’s the beauty of infinity. Humanity isn’t even at 1% of its potential.
 

Having a better understanding of reality in general that most people is something I will have in the 10 years. 
 

Very true about pouring your life into it… obviously. 
 

New is a relative term. There are new discoveries in western medicine that the Chinese have known about for thousands of years for example. 
 

 

Good luck! 
I sincerely hope you reach your dreams! 

[Thought Art]

The soooounds of science

[Carl-Richard]

2 hours ago, Tim R said:

To actually change science in the (grandiose) way presented in this post, you have to become an extremely prestigious or popular scientist or philosopher, like Neil deGrasse Tyson or Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris, those type of people.

And that's not the end of the story. The reason these people are popular in the first place is because they're reflecting the worldview of the majority. They didn't really change anything. They just entered a preprepared niche 

[Tim R]

@Carl-Richard Yes, I just said that in order to change anything, one first has to become like these guys. Gotta bait people?

[undeather]

19 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

And that's not the end of the story. The reason these people are popular in the first place is because they're reflecting the worldview of the majority. They didn't really change anything. They just entered a preprepared niche 

Science communicators are usually not very accomplished scientists ;D

Edited January 14, 2022 by undeather

[HypnoticMagician]

I am glad I met someone with similar vision. He doesn't seem to be as advanced as me. I like his confidence anyway. lol

Edited January 14, 2022 by HypnoticMagician

[Thought Art]

Yes, a vision that will take years of hard work, failure, mistakes, discoveries etc

Im really interested in something beyond science… a spiritual science…

Edited January 14, 2022 by Thought Art