Discussions

Question: Why is the Dalai Lama including science into the monastic teaching?

http://www.youtube.com/dalailama

Makes one consider the idea that mayhaps "sciencism" does exist, especially as the good folks at TEDx are discussing censorship of Mr Sheldrake's presentation.

I listened and thought his comments were spot on - only my studies in Philosophy of Science did suggest that science was only to've been modelling and that the rules we're to use to model the universe are only good for this place and time, and apt to change - eg: Nature abhors a vacuum, then there's outer space...

Perhaps we'll discover the Universal Constant when our consciousness reaches universal magnitude.

There is a great debate raging at TED regarding a Rupert Sheldrake TEDx talk.
http://www.ted.com/conversations/16894/rupert_sheldrake_s_tedx_talk.html

This was just posted by IONS. I like the fact that it incorporates the ideas of complexity and network theory, physics, and the soft sciences of psychology and social psychology, and demonstrates how they act as a foundation for the noetic sciences.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOVMb5t3HyQ

G'day Fallensoul

This again comes to the point that science only uses the five senses to make deductive reasoning’s while spirituality uses the sixth sense as well but of course this has its down sides in trying to use both methods at the same time to reach a deductive resolution, once you mix the five senses which are emotionally driven with the sixth senses it’s logical to think you might come up with the wrong deduction which has happened so much through past spiritual ideologies.

Using one or the other obviously gives us a better deductive resolution processes to evaluate our environment & ourselves, it’s when we find the key that will allows us to use both methods that will propel us on into a different conscious awareness.

Love
Mathew

dustproduction: Very nice post. Thank you. I do apologize for asserting the truth matter-of-factly, perhaps I should preface everything I say with, "According to my little perception of vedic wisdom..."

Now here is the point: Both these statements are the root cause of the scientism consciousness, which I'm challenging:

1) Science relies on being able to duplicate findings. This is an objective framework.

It should be clarified that science aims as far as possible to be objective, although it cannot be fully objective. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(science). Besides this the problem we face today is that while science may aim as far as possible to be objective, our modern scientific community, particularly certain prominent scientists use science as a tool for propagating scientism. Darwinian theory of evolution is one of the main tools. Because modern science has enjoyed its greatest success in the sphere of applied technology and the advancement of materialistic culture, the materialists have said, "Look. Just see what success you can have by concentrating on matter and excluding these old spiritual ideas." So materialists have used science to support their materialistic world view, although science per se doesn't support such a worldview.

In fact noetic.org is swimming against the materialistic current in performing scientific research in areas that show that science doesn't support such a materialistic view, but rather shows support for spiritual ideas that have been spoken of thousands of years ago. Using the same objective science we speak so highly off. So one point is that theres nothing wrong with good science in assisting us in determining reality. But we should appreciate its limits and bias in understanding reality. I have expanded this idea in a thread entitled The Psientific Method!

2) Spirituality depends on an individuals sense of perception, on a subjective experience, that cannot be verified, or falsified.
According to the vedic knowledge, vedic spirituality or vedic science can be verified and falsified in the same way as modern science works. Its expanded in another thread entitled Bhakti Yoga: Verifiable Spirituality.

We are discussing science in general. We are interested in the absolute objective truth as far as we can and not relative truths. I didn't make that 'common-knowledge' post so no comment on that.

In summary, these two assumptions are the greatest barriers to expanding one's consciousness and appreciating reality.

Re: "Unfortunately what you say here is false."

George Lakoff teaches a valuable lesson about linguistics and framing: it is not that the statements are false, rather it is that they are being perceived as being false. Let's suggest that the statements can be both, true and false, depending on ones perceptions. The question then becomes whether the conversation is a debate or a dialogue.

Re: "The results of the scientific method is dependent on the performers sense perception."

Science relies on being able to duplicate findings. This is an objective framework. Doesn't spirituality depend on an individuals sense of perception, on a subjective experience, one that cannot be verified, or falsified?

Re: terms such as "a truer reality -- closest to the truth.

Is truth and reality subjective or objective? While one might concede to an objective absolute truth or reality, it is arguable whether humans can know them, or whether our subjectivity limits us to perspective of a truth, of a reality.

Re: "I think your experience of spirituality/religion is a bit naive."

Perhaps "spirituality/ religion" as it is understood in the frame work of "common knowledge" is nave as well. What is under discussion here needs to be more clearly defined; are we discussing science in general or the perception of science as it is understood by more people, in the arena of common knowledge, are we discussion spirituality/religion in general, or the Verdic spirituality?

The link provided, and the topic question are the boundaries of the discussion, in my limited perception.

Finally, it seems that many here adhere to a single coherence, rather than a multi-coherence. This results in statements such as, "Unfortunately it may be too late to appreciate this truth, having become a disciple of the scientism gospel." This smacks of an egotism, a form of "I know the truth an you don't." Is this the point?

dustproduction: Unfortunately what you say here is false.

"It needs to be restated as frequently that spirituality is little more than a belief system...The scientific method involves asking a question, gathering information, forming a hypothesis, and designing and conducting experimentation from multiple trials that will support conclusions. Spirituality cannot submit to this to this process."

I think your experience of spirituality/religion is a bit naive. Vedic Spirituality can and does submit to this process, unfortunately you havent been to perform the experiments to see the results for yourself.

The other problem is what's stated in this thread. The results of the scientific method is dependent on the performers sense perception. The problem with this is that if one's senses are limited -- which they are, one cannot claim to have a complete picture of reality. However by performing the bhakti experiment, i.e controlling the senses and focusing ones consciousness on the Supreme consciousness, ones senses become enhanced, and that person's scientific method experiments reveals a truer reality -- closest to the truth.

It is unfortunate that modern scientists due to over use in sense enjoyment have developed very dull material senses, and due to this limitation, their outlook in life excludes the very real spiritual reality. So in essence we may agree that the scientific method is useful in establishing the truth of both material and spiritual realities, but the performer of the experiments has to be qualified, with enhanced senses to get the full benefit of the scientific method. Unfortunately it may be too late to appreciate this truth, having become a disciple of the scientism gospel.

While "common knowledge" might understand the decision-making self to be a soul/spirit, this argument quickly finds its limits when the brain becomes altered or damaged in some fashion, demonstrating the material nature of mind. A severed corpus callosum causes the right half of the brain to argue with the left half. Which is the self? Clearly mind is an emergent property of brain.

The main thing is for science not to interfere with the common knowledge of people, the broad outlines of the logic people use in their daily lives, the knowledge with which they love their family and friends, the logic people use when they talk in terms of choosing.

The logic of free will has two main parts, the agency which does the choosing, and the alternatives which are chosen. These two parts are wholy different from each other, the agency is called spiritual, what is chosen is called material. Together with these dual substances come dual ways of reaching a conclusion, subjectivity and objectivity. You have to choose to identify what is in the spiritual domain, resulting in opinions (subjectivity). You have to measure to find out what is in the material domain, resulting in facts (objectivity).

So then love, hate, God and so on are in the spiritual domain, and rocks, planets, fantasy figures are in the material domain. This makes for a clean distinction between science and religion.

The question of science vs spirituality resurfaces here in the discussions time and time again. It needs to be restated as frequently that spirituality is little more than a belief system. Aspect of the limitations of which are sum up very nicely in this George Lakoff talk:
http://www.closertotruth.com/video-profile/Do-Persons-have-Souls-George-Lakoff-/1525

Ww might ask, "What causes belief in religions?
http://www.closertotruth.com/video-profile/What-Causes-Religious-Belief-Thalia-Wheatley-/1842

If one were to suggest that science is also a set of beliefs as well the argument is still over whether spirituality seeks to falsify itself in the ways science does. The scientific method involves asking a question, gathering information, forming a hypothesis, and designing and conducting experimentation from multiple trials that will support conclusions. Spirituality cannot submit to this to this process.
IONS seeks to find evidence at the edges of spirituality in the hope that it will legitimize the beliefs in a variety of PSI issues, but in many of these discussions, such as this one, even these attempts are discounted because they employ science.

Re: “Bigotry In Science.”
This requires the admission of a "Bigotry of Religion." I am happy to forego both providing there is an alternative, but there isn't. And as such we remain in a discussion of science, albeit noetic science.

http://www.closertotruth.com/topic/Why-Science-and-Religion-Think-Differently/134

No two things anywhere in the known universe are alike (same or identical) be it on the cosmic level or on the micro level. No two events or actions are alike anywhere. The only exception to the last two phrases is that everything on all levels share one thing in common - everything changes always. Therein lies a singular and universal truth -the only constant is change - which defines the paradox of creation and the source power of our existence. If you can see the universe or even perceive seeing it in it's entirety you immediately step into another realm - outside the confines of the observer. Science separates the observer, limits our reality through measures of causality much the same way religion tend their flock, or the coveted elitist in their limited addiction to their perceptions of wealth and power. All forms of control (religious, scientific, government or corporate/elitism) in a constantly changing universe, are more an expression of ignorance than wisdom and is more on par with the definition of cultism, on many levels in our world. Necessity has always been the progenitor of creation - we need to decide was is necessary in our world in order for us all to survive.

http://johnlennox.org/index.php/en/resource/limitations_of_science/

Scientism without using what the Creator provides is filled with errors and omissions, and at times sounds ever so much like the braying of an ass. On the other hand those who use their dreams and visions like Einstein, Edison, Darwin, Franklin, Bell, Tesla and scores of others are leaders in science because they used their dreams. The Periodic Table of Elements, the benzine ring, the double helix of DNA were first found via dreams. So what scientific creation would you like to be remembered for? Or would you prefer it in music, art, literature or other social creations?

I posted this elsewhere, thought it might be valid here

---------

Well, first I agree. Science has become very important in society, particularly the West. So, I think religion and science need to try and "get along" better.

But, I personally find science to be the modern day myth that Western man uses. In saying that, I am defining myth as: an image that man forms, which enables him to get on in the world.

Actually, in many ways the mainstream scientifc community can act like a fundamental exoteric stream of a religion, in the following ways

(1) Appeal to Scripture (If it ain't in The Physical Review Letters and hasn't been under peer review, it's suspect)

(2) Sole Owner of The Truth (Religion is fantasy, psychology is not a science, empirical evidence subject to critical scientific analysis is the only path to truth)

(3) Intolerance Of Others Views (don't even bring up something not within the mainstream thought, or you're scoffed at, and it will be claimed the topic is unworthy of scientific investigation)

(4) Hypocrisy (it's okay to talk about String Theory for the past 40 years, even though NO supporting evidence has yet been found. And, the theory is admired. Reincarnaion, NDEs, psychic ability, etc are considered ridiculous though)

(5) The In Group (Relates to #3)

(6) Idol Worship (With modern day idol worship being wrapped around a concept. Humans have a tendency to get wrapped up on concepts of God and not being able to get past them. As Meister Eckhart says, "The ultmiate leavetaking is the leaving of God for God". Scientists get hung up on paradigms - reductionism, materialism - and, often, cannot see past them. But, just as religious folk hold their concepts of God precious, so to do scientists hold their paradigms as precious, and often both do so unconsciously)

(7) Dogmatic (In religion, follow these rules, or laws. In science, follow the scientific method to the letter, or it's not real science. Think this way, and don't think about other non-sense)

Anyhow, I could probably go on all day long, but you get the point.

Man can't help but to act "mythically", or even ritualistically, in thought. When you suppress and ignore- via a materialistic worldview - the deep psychic aspects of your myth, it can have negative manifestations. But, ultimately, the same human, or group, behaviors are still there.

So, science may look a lot different and maybe they did throw out all those "superstitious thoughts and deities", but the same underlying needs and behaviors are still there.

This isn't to put down science (or any religion, for that matter!). It 's just interesting to note.

It is one of those important, yet simple points all enlightened individuals must face. Is Science the true path to knowledge, or can Truth be found with science?
I say NO. Science is a tool within this reality and is part of the deception.
We live in duality, or a dual world. A world of Black and White. True and False. One's and Zero's. Science has a foundation in both
and is thus divided.

I was pondering this idea while watching a recent popular movie seqel to an old popular movie: Tron.
Reframe your comment about..."Science is based on an observation of facts, and is directed at finding patterns of order in the observed data."
within the "Grid" or simulation that Tron and Clue exist. Without users, is it possible for these sophisticated programs to find any real truth using those tools created within the Grid?

When the power is turned off what remains?

I'm not endorsing the views of the website, but I thought I'd share the information they are presenting here in this article as it is quite relevant to us.