|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 25, 2022 18:52:11 GMT -5
Yes, … speaking about what you can see yourself insofar as the Earth is round …. I seem to remember once reading about how it was that the Earth was originally deduced to be spherical. Basically, if in a boat you go far enough out in the ocean so that no land is visible , i.e. just water as far as the eye can see- in any direction. Then panaramically the horizon (where the sky meets water) is always equidistant from where you stand on the deck of the boat. That holds for any ocean on Earth, and I think the range of vision is actually 2.9 miles. The reason given for this is that it is due to the curvature of the Earth, which seems pretty reasonable. I can't remember who it was, but way-back-when, some bright spark used that distance measurement to calculate the size of the planet. Which turned out to be remarkably accurate, when with the subsequent advent of satellites they were able to measure this quite accurately. Now, whenever I hear about flat-Earthers, I wonder how they go about accounting for this fact. That on the ocean the horizon is always equidistant. I assume they must have an alternative explanation of some sort, but can't imagine what that might be. The horizon issue is one of their favourites, it's a 'go-to'. I looked briefly for some of the old main players on youtube, but looks like a lot of it has been scrubbed. I haven't watched this, but the title caught my eye because this is kind of how I see it.... 'Wrong but not stupid' www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8DQSM-b2ccI haven't hard a flat earth conversation in a long time, my science isn't good enough to discuss it, and I start to see their point of view, which I don't like the feeling of. The Mandela Effect is similar....it's really interesting but after a while, I don't like the way it feels. www.buzzfeed.com/morgansloss1/mandela-effects-redditThey're alive and well over on odysee.  |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 27, 2022 8:35:29 GMT -5
Yeah, they oppose creationism and then they come up with stuff like the big bang theory. Aces!  And in a sense, we've already got a church of scientism these days, it usually comes along as rule by so-called 'experts'. What is especially interesting about the church of scientism is that religious movements usually attempt to give life meaning and people a special purpose, but the religion of scientism does the exact opposite, it basically took any meaning or purpose out of life by reducing everything to random collections or formations of particles that are ruled by laws of probability. No wonder people are depressed these days and are drifting aimlessly thru life, functioning but not really alive. Like I said if there were a church, I might attend. There isn't. My life has no purpose and yet I'm as happy as "room without a roof." Probably because of it. Looking forward to a hitting session on the tennis courts today before the thunderstorms come. My knee is starting to heal. There's a Sandhill crane clucking in the back. They make a distinctive kind of sound. It's so cool. Ah yes, your knee. Did you follow Steve's advice? |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 27, 2022 8:47:53 GMT -5
The horizon issue is one of their favourites, it's a 'go-to'. I looked briefly for some of the old main players on youtube, but looks like a lot of it has been scrubbed. I haven't watched this, but the title caught my eye because this is kind of how I see it.... 'Wrong but not stupid' www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8DQSM-b2ccI haven't hard a flat earth conversation in a long time, my science isn't good enough to discuss it, and I start to see their point of view, which I don't like the feeling of. The Mandela Effect is similar....it's really interesting but after a while, I don't like the way it feels. www.buzzfeed.com/morgansloss1/mandela-effects-redditThanks for the links. It was a well-reasoned and put together video by the Lady. So a lot of it comes down to the fact that they will only trust information processed with their own senses. I wonder whether they include mind as part of the sense sphere, coz doubtlessly there's an element of deduction in something like ascertaining the Earth is round. And of course that includes being perceptive enough to know when to accept certain scientific evidence, that okay, in all probability is above our own pay-grade. Really, any decision whether to accept something as empirical or not is ultimately a 'blanket' value judgement, and accordingly she pointed out a certain mistaken delineation they make in the specific type of empirical evidence they require, which basically amounts to a level of objective proof that will have been seen to be fallacious by many folks who frequent this sort of forum. Tbh, I'm disinclined to get into it any further, based on that alone. That tells me all I need to know. If I were being brutally honest I would say that I felt the title of the video was a bit generous. But I'm mindful of the fact that you concede you find yourself getting sucked into it occasionally. Clearly not too far though. I'm sure they've got some arguments that do actually track, but we're talking about the body of evidence, right. Additionally, I'm confident that the horizon example as I laid it out, should be enough for any reasonable person to deduce the fact that the Earth is indeed spherical, to the extent that I would say it's unequivocally self-evident on that point alone. So that’s before you even get a blanket judgement on all the other available evidence. Which imo would only back that up. Fwiw, I'm supremely confident no-one would be able to come up with a satisfactory counter argument to the horizon issue. It's a reasonable position to only trust what you can verify for yourself. But as we all know, appearances can be deceiving. So, as a simple common sense suggestion, all you need to do is hop on an airplane and look out the window at 40,000 ft with your own eyes. You can't miss that curvature. |
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Mar 27, 2022 8:51:41 GMT -5
Like I said if there were a church, I might attend. There isn't. My life has no purpose and yet I'm as happy as "room without a roof." Probably because of it. Looking forward to a hitting session on the tennis courts today before the thunderstorms come. My knee is starting to heal. There's a Sandhill crane clucking in the back. They make a distinctive kind of sound. It's so cool. Ah yes, your knee. Did you follow Steve's advice? Yes. And doing the "knees over toes" guy's program. Are you still doing your 30 minutes in the AM? |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 27, 2022 9:02:39 GMT -5
Okay, cool. I'll have a watch thru those. It doesn't surprise me. I see it as kinda an 'all roads lead to Rome' / Perennial Philosophy type thing, if that makes any sense. I suspect it's what happens when the respective material gets refined to the point where it becomes less of a doctrine and more a half decent system of pointers. They begin to intersect at the point of Truth, so to speak, … or Dhamma (the living Truth).  Rumor has it that there's a different kind of science, somewhat esoteric, that has been kept secret for a very ling time and is financed by a black budget, and that has solved a lot of riddles our current mainstream science is still struggling with like free energy devices and space travel. This is technology that is allegedly more than 50 years ahead of our current level of understanding in terms of science and that, if released to the public today, would immediately create a new golden age of abundance and thriving. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 27, 2022 9:13:22 GMT -5
That's a good example. It shows you how accumulating data for scientific purposes is one thing, but sifting thru that data and adding meaning to that data is quite another, maybe even more challenging. And as mentioned, I used be a member of the church of scientism and believed all that stuff about big bang and black holes. In school they would teach these mere models as established fact. So it took me a while to find out that it was just theory, an educated guess. And there are other, more elegant theories out there. They just don't get much air time, like the Electric Universe model. It explains a lot more with a lot less complexity. [...] Black holes by themselves are not scientism. They used to be "theory", but now we've observed them with telescopes and, more recently, via gravitational waves. There may be some "scientism" associated with black holes - I don't know. Maybe somebody talking about how they are doorways to an astral plane or something. The details of general relativity are difficult, but the basic idea is not. Light is effected by gravity. You can see it even with planets and stars, with a telescope. "Gravitational lensing" - the light bends around the object. Get a massive enough object, and the light can't get out of the gravity well, and that's a black hole. I've heard about that theory, black holes being doorways to a higher dimension. But IMO, that does show a fundamental misunderstanding. How do you get from 2D to 3D? It's a change in perception, not a change in location. I think it was Seth who said that Earth is a multi-dimensional being and that all these other dimensions and beings from other dimensions are right here. But we don't see those because they are outside of our range of perception. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 27, 2022 9:23:28 GMT -5
Thanks for the links. It was a well-reasoned and put together video by the Lady. So a lot of it comes down to the fact that they will only trust information processed with their own senses. I wonder whether they include mind as part of the sense sphere, coz doubtlessly there's an element of deduction in something like ascertaining the Earth is round. And of course that includes being perceptive enough to know when to accept certain scientific evidence, that okay, in all probability is above our own pay-grade. Really, any decision whether to accept something as empirical or not is ultimately a 'blanket' value judgement, and accordingly she pointed out a certain mistaken delineation they make in the specific type of empirical evidence they require, which basically amounts to a level of objective proof that will have been seen to be fallacious by many folks who frequent this sort of forum. Tbh, I'm disinclined to get into it any further, based on that alone. That tells me all I need to know. If I were being brutally honest I would say that I felt the title of the video was a bit generous. But I'm mindful of the fact that you concede you find yourself getting sucked into it occasionally. Clearly not too far though. I'm sure they've got some arguments that do actually track, but we're talking about the body of evidence, right. Additionally, I'm confident that the horizon example as I laid it out, should be enough for any reasonable person to deduce the fact that the Earth is indeed spherical, to the extent that I would say it's unequivocally self-evident on that point alone. So that’s before you even get a blanket judgement on all the other available evidence. Which imo would only back that up. Fwiw, I'm supremely confident no-one would be able to come up with a satisfactory counter argument to the horizon issue. Yes. I'm definitely not arguing their case, and I feel there's a lunacy to the whole thing (though lunatics can be right of course). As someone that has been strongly conspiracy oriented, I definitely believe that powerful groups are brilliant at cover-ups, at weaving narratives, and manipulating people's conditioning, but the idea of a 'flat earth' cover up is very extreme indeed, even by my standards. The level of cover-up and manipulation would be extraordinary. So bearing in mind my lack of science skill, I was considering it mainly from this angle. Would it be possible to cover it up? In the end, I went with 'no'....partly because of a sense of discordance with the whole thing, partly because I don't resonate with their religious beliefs, and partly because, at a rational level, I don't think a cover-up of this level would be possible. I guess if I was really interested, I'd look closely into the science of it all, but... I'm just not inclined. I'm happy to park it in the back of mind as 'extremely unlikely'. I'd say it's entirely possible. It all depends on how deeply you get people locked into the matrix. And science, I'm afraid, is not only part of the matrix, but some kind of matrix in itself. Some actually say rational thinking is the work of the devil because it will lead you away from your true path and destroy your peace of mind. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 27, 2022 9:41:54 GMT -5
There's a book called "The Self-Aware Universe: How Consciousness Creates the Material World" that is still on my reading list. It's these kind of concepts where science and spirituality meet, which I think is the best way forward for science at this point. Much of what he wrote escaped my interest until after Tolle. One of the most fascinating topics he covers has nothing to do with the physical world, but he offers a metaphor for the existential delusion involving √-1 as a model for self-referential thinking. As I recall he doesn't frame it in exactly those terms, but that's the bottom line of it. The problem with modeling consciousness and the entanglement of consciousness with what we perceive as physicality is that the models imply a material answer to the question of self-inquiry. There are two general forms of the answer that I've perceived, and any such answer comes along as an essentially subconscious assumption that the modeler isn't really all that aware of in the process. One is that consciousness emerges from the complex action of the physical world, which incorporates elements of both unpredictable chaos, and predictable order. The other is that consciousness is an innate characteristic of reality itself - which sounds alot like some of our pointing. The two different assumptions can be related to each other but can also be distinguished from one another. This is all a cultural artifact that's been long in the making, and I suspect that the discovery of QM was catalytic to it. As ZD likes to point out (or, at least, as I'll paraphrase him), what if none of these thoughts about consciousness arise, what if none if it is either true, or false. What then?  Seems to me that these assumptions underlie the folly of scientism, and even replacing a localized, physically embodied observer with some other sort of observer doesn't seem to me to cure that folly. That's interesting. I came to QM via spirituality. And it seems you came to spirituality via QM. Yes, who in the scientific community actually understands what consciousness really is? Probably no one. Nevertheless, their discussion of these subjects can work as a bridge for others. As I've mentioned once, I've learned about Ramana from a textbook on psychology of consciousness where the author quoted Ramana. And I got hooked immediately! |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 27, 2022 10:23:32 GMT -5
I see science as a product of the intellect. Which means at best, at least theoretically, the limits of the intellect are also the limits of science. So science will never be able to understand the intellect, let alone mind or what lies beyond. For that, it takes an intuitive approach, as Andrew mentioned. And in practical terms, the limits of science aren't really the limits of the intellect, science is a lot more limited than that because of the scientific method and its basic principles that science has to adhere to in order to be considered proper science as opposed to pseudoscience. So don't expect science to find answers to existential questions! Am with Andrew on this... 'For that, it takes an intuitive approach.'
Something outside the perifery of the 'known' I will add, the fact that something deeper exists
and we name it intuitive as though it arises from within. I must add, I cant understand your post Reefs.
In that context, it's interesting to read again what Seth had to say about science: The origins of the universe (1)
Seth: "The universe will begin yesterday. The universe began tomorrow. Both of these statements are quite meaningless. The tenses are wrong, and perhaps your time sense is completely outraged. Yet the statement: 'The universe began in some distant past,' is, in basic terms, just as meaningless. In fact, the first two statements, while making no logical sense, do indeed hint of phenomena that show time itself to be no more than a creative construct. Time and space are in a fashion part of the furniture of your universe. The very existence of passing moments belongs to your psychological rooms in the same way that clocks are attached to your walls. Whenever science or religion seeks the origin of the universe, they search for it in the past. The universe is being created now. Creation occurs in each moment, in your terms. The illusion of time itself is being created now. It is therefore somewhat futile to look for the origins of the universe by using a time scheme that is in itself, at the very least, highly relative." (session 882) The origins of the universe (2)
Seth: "In certain terms, science and religion are both dealing with the idea of an objectively created universe. Either God 'made it', or physical matter, in some unexplained manner, was formed after an initial explosion of energy, and consciousness emerged from that initially dead matter in a way yet to be explained. Instead, consciousness formed matter. As I have said before, each atom and molecule has its own consciousness. Consciousness and matter and energy are one, but consciousness initiates the transformation of energy into matter. In those terms, the 'beginning' of your universe was a triumph in the expansion of consciousness, as it learned to translate itself into physical form. The universe emerged into actuality in the same way, but to a different degree, that any idea emerges from what you think of as subjectivity into physical expression. Your closest approximation - and it is an approximation only - of the state of being that existed before the universe was formed is the dream state. In that state before the beginning, your consciousness existed free of space and time, aware of immense probabilities. This is extremely difficult to verbalize, yet it is very important that such an attempt be made. Your consciousness is part of an infinitely original creative process." (session 882) You create your own physical environment
Seth: We know that our so-called tables are not solid. Even your science knows this now, and yet your eyes see the table as solid. Face up to it, my dear lovelies: Your senses lie. The table is a conglomeration of quickly-moving atoms and molecules but you see it as a table, and you see it as solid. Your senses are perceptors of a camouflage physical world which is created by the inner self... You are dealing with camouflage. Your outside senses are perceptors of camouflage, and your table which you rest your arms upon is not solid. This does not mean that your arms will suddenly fall to the floor. It does mean that even your science is discovering the existence of the inside world, which it will be unable to deny much longer. Because I say that you create your physical universe in the same manner and as automatically and as unself-consciously as you create with your breath a pattern of steam upon a glass pane, this does not mean that you create all that is. It merely means that you create your own physical environment. (Session 26) Camouflage structures: successive time & cause and effect
Seth: The idea of past, present and future is a necessary one on your plane, but this certainly does not mean that time exists in the manner which you suppose. You are obsessed with the theory of beginning and end, because in your situation your camouflage constructions seem to have a beginning and an end. For the same reason you are also obsessed with the idea of cause and effect, with the illusion of successive time bringing forth the other. Here we have two of your most basic idea camouflage structures: your conception of time as a succession, and your idea of cause and effect. There is no cause and effect in the terms in which you understand the words. Nor is there a succession of moments that follow one after the other; and without a succession of moments following one after the other you can see that the idea of cause and effect becomes meaningless. An action of the present in your terms cannot be based or caused by an action in the past, and neither action can be the cause of a future action in a basic reality where neither past nor future exist. The distortive illusion of successive moments, and of the resulting conception of cause and effect, are both on your plane the result of the observation by the outer senses, and are practical and useful on your plane and therefore have a certain validity, if for you only. (Session 41) The problem with scientific/objective experiments
Seth: Concentrating upon your own camouflage universe, you are able to distinguish only the distortive pattern, and from this pattern you deduce your ideas of cause and effect, past, present and future, and ideas of an expanding universe that bloats. Consciousness takes up no space nor is it enclosed by time, as you know time. The camouflage patterns that seem to enclose consciousness are temporary, for short term only, and for limited but necessary purpose. Any investigation of the basic inner universe, which is the only real universe, must be done as much as possible from a point outside your own distortions, but the only way open for you to escape the distortions of your own physical universe is to journey inward. To get outside your own universe, you must travel inward, and this represents the only perspective free of distortive elements, from which valid experimentation can be carried on. Your so-called scientific, so-called objective experiments can continue for an eternity, but they only probe further and further with camouflage instruments into a camouflage universe. The subconscious, it is true, has elements of its own distortions, but these are easier to escape than the tons of distortive camouflage atmosphere that weigh your scientific experiments down. (Session 45) Consciousness comes first
Seth: The atoms and molecules that make up all physical cells are not basically bound by your time. They act within the framework of your time, but the condensed knowledge that they contain carries with it its own peculiar and unique consciousness, that is not bound by your physical laws. Chemicals themselves will simply not give rise to consciousness or to life. Your scientists will simply have to face the facts that consciousness comes first, and evolves its own form. But this is, and involves, individuality, and also interdependence. The physical body that you imagine consists of some sort of separate consciousness, controlling a framework of completely unconscious parts, is quite farfetched... (Session 50) Each individual inhabits a completely different world
Seth: You see, or are aware of, only your own idea constructions. Basically each individual inhabits a completely different world. As you are not aware of many so-called realities with which your own cat is familiar, so you are completely unaware of other universes that coexist with your own. Your outer senses are equipped to perceive your own camouflage patterns. They are not equipped to deal with other camouflage patterns. The camouflage patterns within your own physical universe are coherent enough so that all individuals of a given species appear to perceive more or less the same surroundings. There are groupings of perceptions belonging to various species, but all of these perceptions are not inherent in each species. The fact is, that even in your own universe all of your camouflage forms are not perceived by any one species, your own included. At best your scientists will only discover more of these camouflage patterns, but the entire system will simply not be perceived by any one species, and you will never perceive camouflage patterns outside of your own patterns. You are simply blocked in the pursuit of knowledge beyond a certain point as long as your scientists persist in the lines of their present development. The inner senses can perceive other camouflage patterns, with training. There are universes coexistent with your own, but your camouflage outer senses cannot perceive these. Nor with your limited cause and effect theories will you ever get very far. The cause and effect theory is a result of your ideas of time. As long as you persist in thinking in terms of past, present and future, then the cause and effect theory is a logical and seemingly infallible result. When you develop your time theory and realize that present, past and future are merely effects and distortions caused by your own perspective, then your scientists will realize that cause and effect is a passe and antiquated theory, useful only for a short time and should be discarded. (Session 51) Form, matter, objects (1)
Seth: Form is not a characteristic of matter, despite appearances. Matter in itself does not possess durability. It is in itself therefore incapable of either growth or deterioration in your terms. Matter is, as you know, formed. Matter is the result of molecular composition. An object is composed of matter, this is true. Your outer senses then perceive the matter as particular, differentiated, separate objects. Objects exist, and yet objects in another sense do not exist. I have told you, for example, how you and others construct say, a television set, a chair, an image or a table. Using energy, you manipulate existing atoms and molecules into a certain pattern which you then, and others like you, recognize as one particular object. The object then does, in this sense, exist. The fact is, however, that it exists as a particular object because of your intimate construction of it into a particular pattern, and because of the recognition you give it. The space between this couch and table is as filled with molecular structure as either the space taken up by the couch, or the space taken up by the table. The matter contained within the space taken up by the distance between them, is all the same. You simply have not constructed of the atoms and molecules any pattern which you call an object, and which you recognize. Objects then are really arbitrary designations given to certain arbitrary divisions of atoms and molecules as a whole. There is no objective universe, and yet there is an objective universe. (Session 72) Form, matter, objects (2)
Seth: You must act as if there were an objective universe. The world, or field, that you presently inhabit is real, definite on your level. The fact that its reality is only limited to your level, and does not extend to other fields, must not tempt you to discount it; and yet while you must behave in a large manner as if your universe were inherently and basically objective, you must still retain the knowledge that this apparent objectivity has great limits, even practically speaking; and a too-great dependence in a world of objectivity can lead to a psychic imprisonment which is unnecessary. Matter is not an imprisoning form. It is a means by which consciousness expresses itself within the limits of the physical field. Objects therefore, are arbitrary designations, divisions that you set up. You perceive portions of the endless sea of molecular constructions. You form portions into separate objects that are actually no more separate or different from the whole sea than is one burst of seaspray from another. That is, one burst of sea spray, while separate for a moment, is like all other sea spray in its basic components and construction. Form is not a characteristic of matter. You will have to look elsewhere for durability and form. Your cause and effect theory, again, is responsible here for many distortions, such as the idea that the matter of say, a flower, grows from matter of a seed directly. Such is not the case. (Session 72) Mental physicists and dream-art science (1)
Seth: The blueprints for reality will not be found in the exterior universe. Some other civilizations experimented with a different kind of science than the one with which you are familiar. They met with varying degrees of success in their attempts to understand the nature of reality, and it is true that their overall goals were different than yours. Such people were focusing their consciousnesses in a completely different direction. Your own behavior, customs, sciences, arts, and disciplines are in a way uniquely yours, yet they also provide glimpses into the ways in which various groupings of abilities can be used to probe into the “unknown” reality. Art is as much a science, in the truest sense of the word, as biology is. Science as you think of it separates itself from the subject at hand. Art identifies with the subject. In your terms, then, other civilizations considered art as a fine science, and used it in such a way that it painted a very clear-cut picture of the nature of reality — a picture in which human emotion and motivation played a grand role. Your scientists spend many long years in training. If the same amount of time were spent to learn a different kind of science, you could indeed discover far more about the known and unknown realities. There are some individuals embarked upon a study of dreams, working in the “dream laboratories”; but here again there is prejudiced perception, with scientists on the outside studying the dreams of others, or emphasizing the physical changes that occur in the dream state. The trouble is that many in the sciences do not comprehend that there is an inner reality. It is not only as valid as the exterior one, but it is the origin for it. It is that world that offers you answers, solutions, and would reveal many of the blueprints that exist behind the world of your experience. (Session 700) Physical reality is not false
Seth: Creation and perception are far more intimately connected than any of your scientists realize. It is quite true that your physical senses create the reality that they perceive. A tree is something far different to a microbe, a bird, an insect, and a man who stands beneath it. I am not saying that the tree only appears to be different. It is different. You perceive its reality through one set of highly specialized senses. This does not mean that its reality exists in that form in any more basic way than it exists in the form perceived by the microbe, insect, or bird. You cannot perceive the quite valid reality of that tree in any context but your own. This applies to anything within the physical system that you know. It is not that physical reality is false. It is that the physical picture is simply one of an infinite number of ways of perceiving the various guises through which consciousness expresses itself. The physical senses force you to translate experience into physical perceptions. The inner senses open your range of perception, allow you to interpret experience in a far freer manner and to create new forms and new channels through which you, or any consciousness, can know itself. (Session 515) |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 27, 2022 17:36:20 GMT -5
Goswammi, yes, one of the last in a series of books before I stumbled onto Tolle. Much of what he wrote escaped my interest until after Tolle. One of the most fascinating topics he covers has nothing to do with the physical world, but he offers a metaphor for the existential delusion involving √-1 as a model for self-referential thinking. As I recall he doesn't frame it in exactly those terms, but that's the bottom line of it. The problem with modeling consciousness and the entanglement of consciousness with what we perceive as physicality is that the models imply a material answer to the question of self-inquiry. There are two general forms of the answer that I've perceived, and any such answer comes along as an essentially subconscious assumption that the modeler isn't really all that aware of in the process. One is that consciousness emerges from the complex action of the physical world, which incorporates elements of both unpredictable chaos, and predictable order. The other is that consciousness is an innate characteristic of reality itself - which sounds alot like some of our pointing. The two different assumptions can be related to each other but can also be distinguished from one another. This is all a cultural artifact that's been long in the making, and I suspect that the discovery of QM was catalytic to it. As ZD likes to point out (or, at least, as I'll paraphrase him), what if none of these thoughts about consciousness arise, what if none if it is either true, or false. What then? Seems to me that these assumptions underlie the folly of scientism, and even replacing a localized, physically embodied observer with some other sort of observer doesn't seem to me to cure that folly. That's interesting. I came to QM via spirituality. And it seems you came to spirituality via QM. Yes, who in the scientific community actually understands what consciousness really is? Probably no one. Nevertheless, their discussion of these subjects can work as a bridge for others. As I've mentioned once, I've learned about Ramana from a textbook on psychology of consciousness where the author quoted Ramana. And I got hooked immediately! |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 29, 2022 0:44:37 GMT -5
Being quite familiar with IVF. I know that embryos are tested for genetic defects and discarded. So Dawkins position doesn't seem too far out. Down's syndrome can be detected in the first trimester where in most places pregnancies can be terminated. So it's happening all the time. yeah! There's all sorts of things happening that I would say express high level of 'smartness' but very little insight. I found this statement quite revealing,''Those who took offence because they know and love a person with Down's syndrome, and who thought I was saying that their loved one had no right to exist, I have sympathy for this emotional point, but it is an emotional one not a logical one.'' Though I would also have a darn good go at challenging his logic too. Impeccable logic doesn't automatically mean correct or true. There are a lot of theories out there, both in science and spirituality, that are flawless in terms of logic but hopelessly flawed in terms of their basic premise. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 29, 2022 1:12:16 GMT -5
Maybe he is a monster. He's definitely a callous a-hole. Don't like him. I'd punch him in the nose just to see how he'd respond logically. Most science folks I know, mostly those in my family understand the limits of logic. lol yes I can relate...I also found it callous. On the flip side, at a minimum, I find his desire for less suffering and more happiness easily relatable. It's interesting that humans are obviously incredibly smart as a species, and yet somehow, we screw so much up. That's a touchy subject that can't really be resolved from normal human perspective. Seth used to talk about this. There needs to be a certain minimum of quality of life or else consciousness will withdraw. And one point Abe and Seth both made is that animals can easily let go, but humans usually not. Abe made the point that a dog would rather run around freely in the neighborhood at the risk of getting run over by a car the next moment than spending ten more years safely in some backyard chained to a wall. I remember people asking in A-H workshops about intensive animal farming and the horrible conditions there and Abe would always reply that the consciousness that is about to emerge into whatever form knows exactly what it is getting itself into. So I'd say the screw-up part is a matter of relativity. It depends on our perspective. The broader our perspective and the longer the time frame as our context, the less things we will find that look like screw-ups. That's why a few moments in alignment will basically 'solve' all your problems immediately. They suddenly stop looking like problems. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 29, 2022 2:01:19 GMT -5
I'd say our understanding of science has changed significantly over the centuries. Politics also always had an impact on science, but I think in the long run, that influence isn't really significant. What I find a lot more significant is specialization and, especially recently, compartmentalization. Just think of ancient Greece and their understanding and practice of science, like Pythagoras' esoteric numbers, or Kepler who was not just an astronomer but also an astrologer. So along the way, science has accumulated a lot of new knowledge and in terms of how this translates into modern technology, science has an impressive track record. However, specialization may have gone too far in some fields, especially where it reached the stage of compartmentalization, like let's say medicine. That's where (over)specialization actually can do more harm than good. A scientist that can still see the big picture, i.e. where his particular field of research fits in with all the other sciences as well as the place of science in general, is very rare these days, but it was the standard in ancient times. Specialization was inevitable as the body of knowledge grows along with the complexity and depth of that body. It's also likely to continue. Any given one man or woman's ability to comprehend is always going to be limited. We can distinguish between scientists and engineers - although, that distinction can and does blur at times - and for engineers this specialization is necessary to produce something like the Webb telescope, but then there's always this competing trend where a demand arises for generalists as well. In academia they'll distinguish between the two, and a more ephemeral example of it is the fad of employment advertising for "full stack developers". While I think your critique about specialization definitely applies to medicine, and while myopia can delay progress and lead to rabbit trails in any field, I'd observe that the nature of scientism is a flow of ideas from science, to philosophy/spirituality, so it seems to me that there is a movement from the specific to the general in that flow. So, for instance, you have influential figures that I might associate with scientism, like say, Carl Sagan, and he does that work by stepping outside of his specialty. Given the enormous amount of accumulated knowledge, it's not easy to be a polymath these days. So specialization seems to be more logical. However, the problem with specialization is that you only get better and more efficient at what you already have, but you don't get anything new. It's the difference of going from 1 to 2 vs. from 0 to 1 as Peter Thiel likes to explain. These are totally different mindsets that create totally difference results and experiences. Thiel is famously associated with the phrase "competition is for losers" and what he means by that is that as a business, you should always aim at creating a monopoly, meaning that you are so far out there on the leading edge and so good at what you are doing that there isn't even any competition possible because you are truly one of a kind and impossible to imitate. That's what he means by going from 0 to 1. And I find that pretty much in alignment with what A-H teach, that competition is not the realm you wanna operate in if you want to truly fulfill your potential. Now, applied to science and engineering, free energy in the sense of green technology would be a 1 to 2, free energy in the sense of (Nikola) Tesla technology would be a 0 to 1. And Tesla is probably the best example of someone who comes closest to Seth's 'dream-art scientist'. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 30, 2022 8:59:22 GMT -5
Science can't give life meaning or assign your life a purpose. So in that sense, science will fail you. However, depression is mostly a matter of focus. If you don't focus deliberately and don't pay attention to your inner calling but instead just react to whatever enters your field of awareness in the moment and only follow the loudest voices around you, it's almost certain that you will end up depressed at some point. Just browsing thru the news these days for half an hour will already make you depressed, no matter how good your life is. And here science can actually help, because this is just about the simple mechanics of how mind works, and in that area, neurology and cognitive psychology have a lot to offer and can really help. They still can't give your life meaning or tell you your unique individual purpose, but they can help you get pointed into the right direction and lose some unhealthy mental habits that prevent you from discovering your life's meaning and purpose. In the end though, you are always on your own. No one can help you here. And the sooner you realize that, the better it will go for you. No one can tell you why you are here and what your purpose here is. You have to find that out for yourself. And until you haven't found that, you are just passing thru life but don't really live. Philosophy tries to answer existential questions, but (predictably) fails at finding any definite answers. Religion usually claims to have definite answers, but many who follow these religions will eventually discover that just knowing it conceptually doesn't cut it either. Scientists like to answer the question of life purpose with "so that the Universe may know itself". It's an answer that has to be fully questioned to the point of dropping it to fully appreciate it. That reminds me of Satch insisting that the purpose of life is self-realization. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 30, 2022 9:06:22 GMT -5
The horizon issue is one of their favourites, it's a 'go-to'. I looked briefly for some of the old main players on youtube, but looks like a lot of it has been scrubbed. I haven't watched this, but the title caught my eye because this is kind of how I see it.... 'Wrong but not stupid' www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8DQSM-b2ccI haven't hard a flat earth conversation in a long time, my science isn't good enough to discuss it, and I start to see their point of view, which I don't like the feeling of. The Mandela Effect is similar....it's really interesting but after a while, I don't like the way it feels. www.buzzfeed.com/morgansloss1/mandela-effects-redditThey're alive and well over on odysee. There used to be a lot of videos that debunked flat earth theory and then videos that debunked that debunk again and then videos that debunked the debunked debunk... |
|
