Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Philosophy, in all its guises. => Topic started by: Sriram on May 27, 2019, 06:36:53 AM
-
Hi everyone,
There seems to be an impression on here that people who understand some science are very intelligent and have access to some deep knowledge that others don't have.
This might have been true to a large extent in earlier generations when there was some degree of discord between science and religions (mainly Abrahamic religions). Many people did not understand or even accept science and its discoveries. They were still rooted in religious mythology. So, some feeling of 'superior knowledge' among people of science was perhaps understandable.
Not any more!
Science is today commonplace. Millions of people are graduating in science and engineering every year world over. Knowledge of basic Cosmology, genetics, evolution etc. is widespread.
However, a widespread interest in spirituality is also in evidence at the same time. Youngsters are clearly not satisfied with a microscopic view of the world. They want to go beyond science. They are trying through Yoga, meditations, discussions, introspection to expand their own minds so as to be able to find answers to more involved questions.
So, merely quoting science and expecting that to put off spiritual aspirants is naive. We need to think beyond science and that requires changing from a microscopic view to a broader perspective. Merely demanding 'evidence' will not help.
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2019/01/13/beyond-science/
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Give it up. Your microscope/telescope analogy is flawed, and isn't working.
-
It obviously won't work with microscopic thinkers. With others it will. Unfortunately, there may not be many or any, here!
-
It obviously won't work with microscopic thinkers. With others it will. Unfortunately, there may not be many or any, here!
There are none, only you! ::)
-
Both microscopes and telescopes are scientific instruments, and I think most scientists - the good ones, at any rate - are aware of the need to look at the big picture as well as the detail. Evolution, general relativity, and other major scientific theories are all the result of looking at the big picture. If Darwin had spent his life doing nothing but studying the anatomy of finches and other creatures, he'd never have come up with his theory of evolution by natural selection. He had to look for patterns and connections to do that.
-
Hi everyone,
There seems to be some impression on here that people who understand some science are very intelligent and have access to some deep knowledge that others don't have.
This might have been true to a large extent in earlier generations when there was some degree of discord between science and religions (mainly Abrahamic religions). Many people did not understand or even accept science and its discoveries. They were still rooted in religious mythology. So, some feeling of 'superior knowledge' among people of science was perhaps understandable.
Not any more!
Science is today commonplace. Millions of people are graduating in science and engineering every year world over. Knowledge of basic Cosmology, genetics, evolution etc. is widespread.
However, a widespread interest in spirituality is also in evidence at the same time. Youngsters are clearly not satisfied with a microscopic view of the world. They want to go beyond science. They are trying through Yoga, meditations, discussions, introspection to expand their own minds so as to be able to find answers to more involved questions.
So, merely quoting science and expecting that to put off spiritual aspirants is naive. We need to think beyond science and that requires changing from a microscopic view to a broader perspective. Merely demanding 'evidence' will not help.
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2019/01/13/beyond-science/
Cheers.
Sriram
Science is a tool not a philosophy.
-
Hi everyone,
There seems to be some impression on here that people who understand some science are very intelligent and have access to some deep knowledge that others don't have.
This might have been true to a large extent in earlier generations when there was some degree of discord between science and religions (mainly Abrahamic religions). Many people did not understand or even accept science and its discoveries. They were still rooted in religious mythology. So, some feeling of 'superior knowledge' among people of science was perhaps understandable.
Not any more!
Science is today commonplace. Millions of people are graduating in science and engineering every year world over. Knowledge of basic Cosmology, genetics, evolution etc. is widespread.
However, a widespread interest in spirituality is also in evidence at the same time. Youngsters are clearly not satisfied with a microscopic view of the world. They want to go beyond science. They are trying through Yoga, meditations, discussions, introspection to expand their own minds so as to be able to find answers to more involved questions.
So, merely quoting science and expecting that to put off spiritual aspirants is naive. We need to think beyond science and that requires changing from a microscopic view to a broader perspective. Merely demanding 'evidence' will not help.
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2019/01/13/beyond-science/
Cheers.
Sriram
This is another fallacy-fest: you have, at the very least, a mix of begging the question and personal incredulity, with an added dash of argument from ignorance.
The woolly-woo of 'beyond science', 'more involved questions' and 'spiritual' are no more that wishful thinking notions unless you have a suitable approach to validate these presumptions - but, instead, you're falling back on the usual array of fallacies.
-
This is another fallacy-fest: you have, at the very least, a mix of begging the question and personal incredulity, with an added dash of argument from ignorance.
The woolly-woo of 'beyond science', 'more involved questions' and 'spiritual' are no more that wishful thinking notions unless you have a suitable approach to validate these presumptions - but, instead, you're falling back on the usual array of fallacies.
I think what Sriram is trying to say is:
drop some acid.
hallucinate.
write a song.
draw a picture.
become a mystic.
get famous
-
Both microscopes and telescopes are scientific instruments, and I think most scientists - the good ones, at any rate - are aware of the need to look at the big picture as well as the detail. Evolution, general relativity, and other major scientific theories are all the result of looking at the big picture. If Darwin had spent his life doing nothing but studying the anatomy of finches and other creatures, he'd never have come up with his theory of evolution by natural selection. He had to look for patterns and connections to do that.
Yes...he would have had a degree of Zoom-Out mind also. That is why some thinkers though they are scientists, do develop philosophical mindsets and do dabble in some amount of spirituality or psychology. Some scientists do get out of the microscopic mindset and think of the totality also. They will realize that the scientific method cannot be applied everywhere.
-
Science is a tool not a philosophy.
I agree with that. And that is why I say that it cannot be used everywhere. You can't use a screwdriver for everything. It has its specific uses.
But many people use science as a philosophy to support their materialistic mindset. That is not correct. Science offers insights only within a certain range of reality. Its methods cannot be used everywhere.
-
Yes...he would have had a degree of Zoom-Out mind also. That is why some thinkers though they are scientists, do develop philosophical mindsets and do dabble in some amount of spirituality or psychology. Some scientists do get out of the microscopic mindset and think of the totality also. They will realize that the scientific method cannot be applied everywhere.
Psychology is itself a scientific discipline, and spirituality is anything and nothing, and has nothing to do with seeing the big picture.
-
Psychology is itself a scientific discipline, and spirituality is anything and nothing, and has nothing to do with seeing the big picture.
Why do you say that?
-
Why do you say that?
Because "spiritual[ity]" is a hopelessly vague word that means whatever its user wants it to mean.
-
Because "spiritual[ity]" is a hopelessly vague word that means whatever its user wants it to mean.
... which is why Sriram should play on his home ground of 'Yoga' mentioned in his opening post rather than use Christian symbolism. There are a variety of 'yogas' which are better defined and related to method towards inner stillness rather than mental exercises towards finding answers to more involved questions.
-
Hi everyone,
There seems to be an impression on here that people who understand some science are very intelligent and have access to some deep knowledge that others don't have.
This might have been true to a large extent in earlier generations when there was some degree of discord between science and religions (mainly Abrahamic religions). Many people did not understand or even accept science and its discoveries. They were still rooted in religious mythology. So, some feeling of 'superior knowledge' among people of science was perhaps understandable.
Not any more!
Science is today commonplace. Millions of people are graduating in science and engineering every year world over. Knowledge of basic Cosmology, genetics, evolution etc. is widespread.
However, a widespread interest in spirituality is also in evidence at the same time. Youngsters are clearly not satisfied with a microscopic view of the world. They want to go beyond science. They are trying through Yoga, meditations, discussions, introspection to expand their own minds so as to be able to find answers to more involved questions.
So, merely quoting science and expecting that to put off spiritual aspirants is naive. We need to think beyond science and that requires changing from a microscopic view to a broader perspective. Merely demanding 'evidence' will not help.
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2019/01/13/beyond-science/
Cheers.
Sriram
Science is a tool for looking at and learning about the natural world. As such it has been eminently successful, not least because it is our best way of achieving objective results. It sits happily alongside ratrionality and logic. In this sense only is it superiot to any other method. As far as I know no one has claimed anything different to this basically. I suggest you are building up your very own magnificent strawman.
The whole idea of spirituality is a personal thing which affects people in a myriad of different ways because it is so obviously subjective. As such it may well bring benefits to the individual(comfort, stability, discipline) but it is just as likely to encourage disadvantages(frustration, bias, limitations), especially in its more extreme forms.
It is not that it is beyond science, just that its conclusions are impervious to the tools of science. In other words, science doesn't deal with the subjective.
Science only make an entrance when the spiritual person starts making objective claims which cannot be verified in any objective way. E.G. that there is some sort of conscious life force which exists in a different dimension but which pervades everything. It is at this point that science is entitled to make an entry as this objective claim can quite legitimately be challenged on the grounds of rationality and evidence.
It is at this point that such claims are found wanting, except of course to the spiritualist who happily accepts them on their own subjective level, no science or rationality needed.
My own position is that whatever the spiritual person's interpretation of their own sense of spirituality is, as long as it harms no one(including themselves). then it is not my business. It only becomes my business when that person seeks to persuade me that they are in possession of some sort of ultimate truths which I should recognise. It is then that I challenge them, and if they cannot answer that challenge or seek to evade that challenge, then I can, with confidence, dismiss their so called ultimate truths as at the best just a possibility and at the worst as hot air.
After all, I do not seek to impress or impose upon others my own sense of spirituality, because it essentially a personal thing and not amenable to any sort of objective or analytical discussion.
-
... which is why Sriram should play on his home ground of 'Yoga' mentioned in his opening post rather than use Christian symbolism. There are a variety of 'yogas' which are better defined and related to method towards inner stillness rather than mental exercises towards finding answers to more involved questions.
I would put 'Christian symbolism' in the same category as woo . I see yoga as a form of physical exercise , which is actually useful to good health .
-
... which is why Sriram should play on his home ground of 'Yoga' mentioned in his opening post rather than use Christian symbolism. There are a variety of 'yogas' which are better defined and related to method towards inner stillness rather than mental exercises towards finding answers to more involved questions.
Using Hindu words will only complicate matters on here. How does using terms like Yoga or Atma Vidya or Mukti help here?
I am trying my best to explain using those terms and references that people here are familiar with. In India I don't even have to 'explain' any of this. It is widely known. Young 20-30 year old's discuss such matters normally.
-
Because "spiritual[ity]" is a hopelessly vague word that means whatever its user wants it to mean.
I agree the word 'spirituality' is a little vague and has multiple uses. In India we usually use the term Atma Vidya... or...knowledge of the Self. It is used for the
developmental process through which we bring out our inner 'divinity'. I have defined the word here many times.
Try this...
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2016/06/06/spirituality-and-religion/
I place it beyond psychology in the spectrum. As far as precision is concerned it is ...Physics/maths....Chemistry....Biology....Psychology...Spirituality...in that decreasing order.
-
Science is a tool for looking at and learning about the natural world. As such it has been eminently successful, not least because it is our best way of achieving objective results. It sits happily alongside ratrionality and logic. In this sense only is it superiot to any other method. As far as I know no one has claimed anything different to this basically. I suggest you are building up your very own magnificent strawman.
The whole idea of spirituality is a personal thing which affects people in a myriad of different ways because it is so obviously subjective. As such it may well bring benefits to the individual(comfort, stability, discipline) but it is just as likely to encourage disadvantages(frustration, bias, limitations), especially in its more extreme forms.
It is not that it is beyond science, just that its conclusions are impervious to the tools of science. In other words, science doesn't deal with the subjective.
Science only make an entrance when the spiritual person starts making objective claims which cannot be verified in any objective way. E.G. that there is some sort of conscious life force which exists in a different dimension but which pervades everything. It is at this point that science is entitled to make an entry as this objective claim can quite legitimately be challenged on the grounds of rationality and evidence.
It is at this point that such claims are found wanting, except of course to the spiritualist who happily accepts them on their own subjective level, no science or rationality needed.
My own position is that whatever the spiritual person's interpretation of their own sense of spirituality is, as long as it harms no one(including themselves). then it is not my business. It only becomes my business when that person seeks to persuade me that they are in possession of some sort of ultimate truths which I should recognise. It is then that I challenge them, and if they cannot answer that challenge or seek to evade that challenge, then I can, with confidence, dismiss their so called ultimate truths as at the best just a possibility and at the worst as hot air.
After all, I do not seek to impress or impose upon others my own sense of spirituality, because it essentially a personal thing and not amenable to any sort of objective or analytical discussion.
Spirituality is subjective and to that extent beyond normal science. But it is not entirely personal. People can follow certain methods and techniques and can discuss common developmental issues. Individual development can even be monitored and regulated.
In India, almost all spiritual practices including prayer and temple rituals are often discussed in terms of how helpful they are in ones spiritual development. It is a personality development system and is regarded as a science.
-
Using Hindu words will only complicate matters on here. How does using terms like Yoga or Atma Vidya or Mukti help here?
I am trying my best to explain using those terms and references that people here are familiar with. In India I don't even have to 'explain' any of this. It is widely known. Young 20-30 year old's discuss such matters normally.
Sriram
if you are brought up on WOO it is normalised but it doesn't make it true or right . No matter how many millions discuss it is still just a figment of their imagination unless you can prove otherwise . You cant and neither can they.
There is a reason why the industrial revolution started in Britain and it doesn't involve WOO.
-
Spirituality is subjective and to that extent beyond normal science. But it is not entirely personal. People can follow certain methods and techniques and can discuss common developmental issues. Individual development can even be monitored and regulated.
In India, almost all spiritual practices including prayer and temple rituals are often discussed in terms of how helpful they are in ones spiritual development. It is a personality development system and is regarded as a science.
Yes, of-course, as it is not falsifiable it can be discussed forever without ever coming to any conclusion.
-
Sriram
if you are brought up on WOO it is normalised but it doesn't make it true or right . No matter how many millions discuss it is still just a figment of their imagination unless you can prove otherwise . You cant and neither can they.
There is a reason why the industrial revolution started in Britain and it doesn't involve WOO.
The same is true of materialism. If you are brought up on materialism...it is normalized. After that any mention of things non material phenomena will appear as woo. But that doesn't make it true.
-
Merely demanding 'evidence' will not help.
No, because, without evidence, you won't convince me that you are right. Without evidence, your words are just so much wishful thinking.
-
The same is true of materialism. If you are brought up on materialism...it is normalized. After that any mention of things non material phenomena will appear as woo. But that doesn't make it true.
Sriram ,
so being brought up and taught about the world , how to observe it , measure it , make predictions and therefor acquire an understanding of reality (the best we can), leads us to the conclusion that that's all there is .
I, personally don't have any inner feelings that there is anything 'otherly' about the world . I never have . And I've never seen any evidence in my lifetime to make me think there might be .
I know there are people who believe without evidence and there is a word for them , perhaps several .
Or there are people who make -up there own evidence to fit their perceptions as in Flat Earthers .
-
Using Hindu words will only complicate matters on here. How does using terms like Yoga or Atma Vidya or Mukti help here?
I am trying my best to explain using those terms and references that people here are familiar with. In India I don't even have to 'explain' any of this. It is widely known. Young 20-30 year old's discuss such matters normally.
I think it is important to be as precise as possible with the words used and indicate how they are used in conjunction with the end product of what you think 'spiritual' practices are aimed at. In your opening post you have already used the word 'yoga', which to Walter means physical exercise. If you had explained that it meant 'union' and that there are a variety of methods towards that 'union', one of which is hathayoga, it might have saved the confusion. 'Religion' is probably a different concept to 'union' as it come from the Latin verb 'to rebind', which possibly links it to the idea of a fall from grace or Heaven and the need to rebind through a saviour and repentance. This is not quite the same as Mukti or Moksha ... liberation. However, if you think you will complicate matters even more using Hindu concepts then I wish you the best of luck.
-
I think it is important to be as precise as possible with the words used and indicate how they are used in conjunction with the end product of what you think 'spiritual' practices are aimed at. In your opening post you have already used the word 'yoga', which to Walter means physical exercise. If you had explained that it meant 'union' and that there are a variety of methods towards that 'union', one of which is hathayoga, it might have saved the confusion. 'Religion' is probably a different concept to 'union' as it come from the Latin verb 'to rebind', which possibly links it to the idea of a fall from grace or Heaven and the need to rebind through a saviour and repentance. This is not quite the same as Mukti or Moksha ... liberation. However, if you think you will complicate matters even more using Hindu concepts then I wish you the best of luck.
You are going into lot of detail. I don't think Walter or any of the others here are interested or even mentally prepared to understand any such detail about spirituality, much less Hinduism. It is all just a lot of 'woo' to them. Their minds are completely closed to such matters.
What I have been trying to make people here understand in a general way, is that there are lots of things besides material and measurable phenomena that need to be understood. All this is usually brushed off as imagination or wishful thinking by these people. That is all it is about.
-
You are going into lot of detail. I don't think Walter or any of the others here are interested or even mentally prepared to understand any such detail about spirituality, much less Hinduism. It is all just a lot of 'woo' to them. Their minds are completely closed to such matters.
What I have been trying to make people here understand in a general way, is that there are lots of things besides material and measurable phenomena that need to be understood. All this is usually brushed off as imagination or wishful thinking by these people. That is all it is about.
If your philosophy does it for you that is ok, but you aren't doing yourself any favours by trying to force it down the throats of people who don't see it your way.
-
Sriram,
It obviously won't work with microscopic thinkers. With others it will. Unfortunately, there may not be many or any, here!
FIFY
-
I agree with that. And that is why I say that it cannot be used everywhere. You can't use a screwdriver for everything. It has its specific uses.
But many people use science as a philosophy to support their materialistic mindset. That is not correct. Science offers insights only within a certain range of reality. Its methods cannot be used everywhere.
Then why not address materialism, since this is the philosophy section?
-
You are going into lot of detail. I don't think Walter or any of the others here are interested or even mentally prepared to understand any such detail about spirituality, much less Hinduism. It is all just a lot of 'woo' to them. Their minds are completely closed to such matters.
What I have been trying to make people here understand in a general way, is that there are lots of things besides material and measurable phenomena that need to be understood. All this is usually brushed off as imagination or wishful thinking by these people. That is all it is about.
Sriram
it seems to be all about feelings , your feelings ,your intuition . I don't have those feelings so I cant have a conversation about them until I understand what you're talking about . You might as well be speaking in an alien language and until I have a translation we cant converse .
But simply insisting its my fault for not getting it rather than you explaining it properly ,then we are going nowhere .
I'm sure you are very frustrated with all this and so am I so give me something, some evidence or good examples and we can take it from there
-
Sriram
it seems to be all about feelings , your feelings ,your intuition . I don't have those feelings so I cant have a conversation about them until I understand what you're talking about . You might as well be speaking in an alien language and until I have a translation we cant converse .
But simply insisting its my fault for not getting it rather than you explaining it properly ,then we are going nowhere .
I'm sure you are very frustrated with all this and so am I so give me something, some evidence or good examples and we can take it from there
Hi Walter,
I am so glad that you at least want to understand. That is much more than what most others here want. :)
I am not frustrated here simply because I have been at this thing for 20 long years. I can easily find dozens of other sites where people will not only understand what I say but will also wholeheartedly agree with it. I am not interested in that.
I continue here because people disagree with me. It gives me the balance that I want. It makes me think of ways by which I can try to bridge the gap that I see between peoples perception of the material world and peoples perception of the subtle spiritual world. That is all I am trying to work towards.
About making you understand...well....we can certainly work on that, but its not easy. All of us have a certain mental make up based on our genes, epigenes, upbringing and culture. That will not change. Even if it does, it will take decades of introspection and study for any significant change to happen.
As I have said many times, it is not about information. Its about perception. The way we look at something. Take gravity for example. Its been there all along and everyone has experienced it for thousands of years, but it took Newton to think of it as a separate force exerted by the earth and then to generalize it to all other bodies. Its not about some strange, new and external force that no one has experienced. Its about making certain connections and observing certain patterns that exist all around us.
I promote spirituality. But that's a word many people don't understand. Each person has his own take on it. Also, most western people (including atheists) have this religious baggage that they have picked up from the Abrahamic religions. So, whatever is discussed, they inevitable filter according to that baggage.
But there is hope still that some day a common philosophy will emerge that everyone...religious people, philosophers, atheists, scientists... can accept and agree as the possible total philosophy of life for everyone and everything (including animals).
If you want to have an idea of what I mean by spirituality as different from religion, try this article.
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2016/06/06/spirituality-and-religion/
More next time.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Hi Walter,
I am so glad that you at least want to understand. That is much more than what most others here want. :)
I am not frustrated here simply because I have been at this thing for 20 long years. I can easily find dozens of other sites where people will not only understand what I say but will also wholeheartedly agree with it. I am not interested in that.
I continue here because people disagree with me. It gives me the balance that I want. It makes me think of ways by which I can try to bridge the gap that I see between peoples perception of the material world and peoples perception of the subtle spiritual world. That is all I am trying to work towards.
About making you understand...well....we can certainly work on that, but its not easy. All of us have a certain mental make up based on our genes, epigenes, upbringing and culture. That will not change. Even if it does, it will take decades of introspection and study for any significant change to happen.
As I have said many times, it is not about information. Its about perception. The way we look at something. Take gravity for example. Its been there all along and everyone has experienced it for thousands of years, but it took Newton to think of it as a separate force exerted by the earth and then to generalize it to all other bodies. Its not about some strange, new and external force that no one has experienced. Its about making certain connections and observing certain patterns that exist all around us.
I promote spirituality. But that's a word many people don't understand. Each person has his own take on it. Also, most western people (including atheists) have this religious baggage that they have picked up from the Abrahamic religions. So, whatever is discussed, they inevitable filter according to that baggage.
But there is hope still that some day a common philosophy will emerge that everyone...religious people, philosophers, atheists, scientists... can accept and agree as the possible total philosophy of life for everyone and everything (including animals).
If you want to have an idea of what I mean by spirituality as different from religion, try this article.
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2016/06/06/spirituality-and-religion/
More next time.
Cheers.
Sriram
As I have said before if it does the business for you to think as you do, that is fair enough. I will never see it your way, and as you cannot produce any evidence to back up your claims, you will never persuade me otherwise.
-
As I have said before if it does the business for you to think as you do, that is fair enough. I will never see it your way, and as you cannot produce any evidence to back up your claims, you will never persuade me otherwise.
...says the woman who never produces any evidence to back up her claims.
-
...says the woman who never produces any evidence to back up her claims.
And for which claims haven't I produced any evidence?
-
And for which claims haven't I produced any evidence?
Just off the top of my head: that making cycle helmets and hi-viz vests compulsory, as you advocate, would make a difference to injury statistics significant enough to justify the encroachment on individual liberty (or indeed at all).
-
Just off the top of my head: that making cycle helmets and hi-viz vests compulsory, as you advocate, would make a difference to injury statistics significant enough to justify the encroachment on individual liberty (or indeed at all).
When I am driving it is easy to see the cyclists, of whom there are many around here, who are wearing hi viz jackets, much harder to see those who aren't. If you are wearing a helmet, you have more protection for your head than if you aren't. Would you say it is an encroachment on individual liberty that motor cyclists are required to wear helmets?
-
When I am driving it is easy to see the cyclists, of whom there are many around here, who are wearing hi viz jackets, much harder to see those who aren't. If you are wearing a helmet, you have more protection for your head than if you aren't. Would you say it is an encroachment on individual liberty that motor cyclists are required to wear helmets?
Motor-cycling is a completely different issue. Motor-bikes are much more dangerous than cyclesor other forms of transport, by orders of magnitude. Cycle helmets, as statistics reveal, do not make a significant difference to safety, and anyway, road cycling is not dangerous.
However, the point is that you provided just the bald statement that you think they should be compulsory, with no argument or evidence, just your usual "imo", which you seem to think is an argument in itself. Therfore, you are in no position to criticise others for not producing evidence.
-
Motor-cycling is a completely different issue. Motor-bikes are much more dangerous than cyclesor other forms of transport, by orders of magnitude. Cycle helmets, as statistics reveal, do not make a significant difference to safety, and anyway, road cycling is not dangerous.
However, the point is that you provided just the bald statement that you think they should be compulsory, with no argument or evidence, just your usual "imo", which you seem to think is an argument in itself. Therfore, you are in no position to criticise others for not producing evidence.
Well have it your own way, if you have a bad accident because you are not seen by a car, you have only yourself to blame, if you are not wearing appropriate clothing, imo.
-
Hi Walter,
I am so glad that you at least want to understand. That is much more than what most others here want. :)
I am not frustrated here simply because I have been at this thing for 20 long years. I can easily find dozens of other sites where people will not only understand what I say but will also wholeheartedly agree with it. I am not interested in that.
I continue here because people disagree with me. It gives me the balance that I want. It makes me think of ways by which I can try to bridge the gap that I see between peoples perception of the material world and peoples perception of the subtle spiritual world. That is all I am trying to work towards.
About making you understand...well....we can certainly work on that, but its not easy. All of us have a certain mental make up based on our genes, epigenes, upbringing and culture. That will not change. Even if it does, it will take decades of introspection and study for any significant change to happen.
As I have said many times, it is not about information. Its about perception. The way we look at something. Take gravity for example. Its been there all along and everyone has experienced it for thousands of years, but it took Newton to think of it as a separate force exerted by the earth and then to generalize it to all other bodies. Its not about some strange, new and external force that no one has experienced. Its about making certain connections and observing certain patterns that exist all around us.
I promote spirituality. But that's a word many people don't understand. Each person has his own take on it. Also, most western people (including atheists) have this religious baggage that they have picked up from the Abrahamic religions. So, whatever is discussed, they inevitable filter according to that baggage.
But there is hope still that some day a common philosophy will emerge that everyone...religious people, philosophers, atheists, scientists... can accept and agree as the possible total philosophy of life for everyone and everything (including animals).
If you want to have an idea of what I mean by spirituality as different from religion, try this article.
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2016/06/06/spirituality-and-religion/
More next time.
Cheers.
Sriram
Sriram
that was a bit more than I was expecting .
Let's start simple , give me a working example of what you're professing to be real and true and then we can analyse it together .
thanks
-
Sriram
that was a bit more than I was expecting .
Let's start simple , give me a working example of what you're professing to be real and true and then we can analyse it together .
thanks
Analyze? That is like dragging out a vampire to have a good look in the light :)
-
Analyze? That is like dragging out a vampire to have a good look in the light :)
nice one :D
-
Sriram
that was a bit more than I was expecting .
Let's start simple , give me a working example of what you're professing to be real and true and then we can analyse it together .
thanks
Hi Walter,
Here we go again! :D
There is no 'working example' for what I am talking about. Either you see it or you don't. Simple as that.
Ok...let us start with a simple discussion...
What do you think is currently 'beyond science'...if at all anything? Have you read through my link in the OP? What is your opinion of it (Don't just brush it off with...'I think it is all rubbish'. That means you fail!).
From my side let me say that...I have no arguments against evolution, cosmology, QM, genetics etc. I know all these findings and hypotheses/theories of science are true.
-
Hi Walter,
Here we go again! :D
There is no 'working example' for what I am talking about. Either you see it or you don't. Simple as that.
Ok...let us start with a simple discussion...
What do you think is currently 'beyond science'...if at all anything? Have you read through my link in the OP? What is your opinion of it (Don't just brush it off with...'I think it is all rubbish'. That means you fail!).
From my side let me say that...I have no arguments against evolution, cosmology, QM, genetics etc. I know all these findings and hypotheses/theories of science are true.
Sriram
Yes, I've read your link and it begs the question ; why do YOU think there IS something more when I don't .?
I personally have never had any inkling that there is . As far back as I can remember I have never had any religious feelings although I had religious studies at school and was reprimanded once for not saying the lords prayer at around age 9 and couldn't understand this need to pray .
I became aware of other kids who believed in ghosts and the like but I never did and to cut a long story short I have spent much of my lifetime wondering what it is about people that causes them to 'believe' rather than look for reality and try to understand it
As a young kid I was fascinated by nature ,then as I got older I studied sciences (maths ,physics ,chemistry ,biology ) then narrowed it down to just physics .
Not once during all that time did I feel there was something else I was missing about the nature of the universe .
So I'm interested to understand why you do .
please give an example of what I'm missing
thanks
-
Took the words out of my mouth Walter.
-
Well said, Walter. I find myself in strong agreement with you. :)
-
Took the words out of my mouth Walter.
If I had been born twenty or thirty years later, I would be saying the same.
-
Either you see it or you don't. Simple as that.
The King of wishful thinking.
A great song.
-
Sriram
Yes, I've read your link and it begs the question ; why do YOU think there IS something more when I don't .?
I personally have never had any inkling that there is . As far back as I can remember I have never had any religious feelings although I had religious studies at school and was reprimanded once for not saying the lords prayer at around age 9 and couldn't understand this need to pray .
I became aware of other kids who believed in ghosts and the like but I never did and to cut a long story short I have spent much of my lifetime wondering what it is about people that causes them to 'believe' rather than look for reality and try to understand it
As a young kid I was fascinated by nature ,then as I got older I studied sciences (maths ,physics ,chemistry ,biology ) then narrowed it down to just physics .
Not once during all that time did I feel there was something else I was missing about the nature of the universe .
So I'm interested to understand why you do .
please give an example of what I'm missing
thanks
Hi Walter,
If you have read the article 'Beyond Science' completely and the one on 'Spirituality and Religion', They together explain why I think there are many phenomena that science does not and probably will not be able to explain. If you haven't read them through, please read them again patiently and without dismissing them off hand. It is too involved a discussion for me to elaborate on on this board.
If you think I am going to share with you some secret formula or information which will make you 'see' why I believe what I believe, you are going to be disappointed. That is not possible.
It is just some part of your brain/mind 'opening up' and then suddenly you perceive everything differently. You suddenly see the same world as part of a grand design and you see Consciousness everywhere.
It is not about God or religious mythology. You don't have to believe in God or any of the religious scriptures. You just have to shed the microscopic mind and you will see it.
For starters, what do you think of Consciousness and the Unconscious mind?
-
Hi Walter,
If you have read the article 'Beyond Science' completely and the one on 'Spirituality and Religion', They together explain why I think there are many phenomena that science does not and probably will not be able to explain. If you haven't read them through, please read them again patiently and without dismissing them off hand. It is too involved a discussion for me to elaborate on on this board.
If you think I am going to share with you some secret formula or information which will make you 'see' why I believe what I believe, you are going to be disappointed. That is not possible.
It is just some part of your brain/mind 'opening up' and then suddenly you perceive everything differently. You suddenly see the same world as part of a grand design and you see Consciousness everywhere.
It is not about God or religious mythology. You don't have to believe in God or any of the religious scriptures. You just have to shed the microscopic mind and you will see it.
For starters, what do you think of Consciousness and the Unconscious mind?
well, I tried but to no avail .
I gave you a perfect opportunity to give just one example we could investigate together on here but no . Referring me back to stuff you've already written will only take us in circles .
That's just lazy , besides I have no respect for your articles anyway .
So , last chance, give me an example you have personally experienced or risk ridicule for anything else you might pronounce on the subject .
thank you.
-
Don't be silly Walter!
You don't want to read what I have written. You don't want to discuss what I ask you about. You want some silly example of something you will never understand ....and you are now giving me a 'last chance' to prove myself. What??!! Really??!! ::) :D Which world are you in?
I am not putting up anything here for your or anyone else's approval! You have a bloody cheek!! Giving me a last chance indeed! Ha...Ha!
-
Don't be silly Walter!
You don't want to read what I have written. You don't want to discuss what I ask you about. You want some silly example of something you will never understand ....and you are now giving me a 'last chance' to prove myself. What??!! Really??!! ::) :D Which world are you in?
I am not putting up anything here for your or anyone else's approval! You have a bloody cheek!! Giving me a last chance indeed! Ha...Ha!
you ask 'which world am I in?'
Sriram , the real one mate , the real one .
-
in other words
shit or get off the pot >:(
-
My mistake in attempting to converse with you...Walter. Apologies!
Why don't you just go and get drunk somewhere instead of attempting philosophy. More your style, I should think. :) ;)
Cheers.
-
My mistake in attempting to converse with you...Walter. Apologies!
Why don't you just go and get drunk somewhere instead of attempting philosophy. More your style, I should think. :) ;)
Cheers.
Sriram
that's exactly the point , you didn't try and converse with me .
and as for getting drunk somewhere ,a very tempting idea even though you were trying to insult me. I should think .
-
Sriram
that's exactly the point , you didn't try and converse with me .
and as for getting drunk somewhere ,a very tempting idea even though you were trying to insult me. I should think .
Walter like you I'd like Sriram to give a rational, perhaps with a little logic thrown in, explanation about how and why he seems to think some of his thoughts are not indistinguishable from woo, I very much doubt holding my breath waiting for him to answer would be too good an idea, for health reasons.
I hope Sriram decides to give a rational answer instead of the usual unexplained conjecture.
Regards ippy
-
Walter like you I'd like Sriram to give a rational, perhaps with a little logic thrown in, explanation about how and why he seems to think some of his thoughts are not indistinguishable from woo, I very much doubt holding my breath waiting for him to answer would be too good an idea, for health reasons.
I hope Sriram decides to give a rational answer instead of the usual unexplained conjecture.
Regards ippy
I think I made a reasonable request , cant understand why it's so difficult, if he has genuinely experienced things 'beyond science' then he should be able to tell us all about it here , then we can discuss and perhaps understand it.
-
I think I made a reasonable request , cant understand why it's so difficult, if he has genuinely experienced things 'beyond science' then he should be able to tell us all about it here , then we can discuss and perhaps understand it.
I understand why it’s so difficult. It’s because his beyond science experiences have no objective evidence so he can’t persuade the skeptics that they are real. Whatever example he would put before you, you would say “how can I be sure that example is objectively real” and he would have no answer.
Sriram thinks the world would be a dull place if what we can observe is all there is and he can’t bear that thought for some reason.
-
I understand why it’s so difficult. It’s because his beyond science experiences have no objective evidence so he can’t persuade the skeptics that they are real. Whatever example he would put before you, you would say “how can I be sure that example is objectively real” and he would have no answer.
Sriram thinks the world would be a dull place if what we can observe is all there is and he can’t bear that thought for some reason.
for all we know Srirams life may be wonderful all the time , reality doesn't come into it . Maybe that's what he's trying to say .
-
Ok. I know you guys are 'waiting patiently' for me to provide you with some objective evidence so that you can give your nod of approval. The problem is that cannot be given. The evidence is everywhere including you yourselves. You just can't see it.
I have given some examples of gravity and 'blind men not seeing light' to make you understand that the evidence could be all around us but we may still not see it because either we lack the required perception or the faculty.
Nothing more I can do.
Have a good day guys!
-
Ok. I know you guys are 'waiting patiently' for me to provide you with some objective evidence so that you can give your nod of approval. The problem is that cannot be given. The evidence is everywhere including you yourselves. You just can't see it.
I have given some examples of gravity and 'blind men not seeing light' to make you understand that the evidence could be all around us but we may still not see it because either we lack the required perception or the faculty.
Nothing more I can do.
Have a good day guys!
You could try facing up to reality and the real world, which is in fact far more exciting and fascinating than any imagined fantasy one, and it helps one appreciate the unlimited, evolved, abilities of the human brain.
-
Ok. I know you guys are 'waiting patiently' for me to provide you with some objective evidence so that you can give your nod of approval. The problem is that cannot be given. The evidence is everywhere including you yourselves. You just can't see it.
I have given some examples of gravity and 'blind men not seeing light' to make you understand that the evidence could be all around us but we may still not see it because either we lack the required perception or the faculty.
Nothing more I can do.
Have a good day guys!
What a silly post! ::)
-
Ok. I know you guys are 'waiting patiently' for me to provide you with some objective evidence so that you can give your nod of approval. The problem is that cannot be given. The evidence is everywhere including you yourselves. You just can't see it.
I have given some examples of gravity and 'blind men not seeing light' to make you understand that the evidence could be all around us but we may still not see it because either we lack the required perception or the faculty.
Nothing more I can do.
Have a good day guys!
Pleased to see you say could. Is that a first?
You obviously believe there is evidence all around. Others don't. It means you see things differently. It could be you are right, it could be you are wrong.
-
What a silly post! ::)
Like to explain why?
-
What a silly post! ::)
another unqualified pronouncement from Lr
-
Ok. I know you guys are 'waiting patiently' for me to provide you with some objective evidence so that you can give your nod of approval. The problem is that cannot be given.
That's the same as saying that your experiences have no objective reality outside your head.
The evidence is everywhere including you yourselves. You just can't see it.
You just said it doesn't exist. Make up your mind.
I have given some examples of gravity and 'blind men not seeing light' to make you understand that the evidence could be all around us but we may still not see it because either we lack the required perception or the faculty.
They weren't examples, they were analogies. They were pretty poor analogies at that, as was demonstrated in the posts following up on them.
Nothing more I can do.
It's so unfair when people won't accept your fairy tales, isn't it. Boo hoo.
-
That's the same as saying that your experiences have no objective reality outside your head.
You just said it doesn't exist. Make up your mind.
They weren't examples, they were analogies. They were pretty poor analogies at that, as was demonstrated in the posts following up on them.
It's so unfair when people won't accept your fairy tales, isn't it. Boo hoo.
I really dislike to see the way in so many instances where your type of post is in some way pointed out to be inferior because you differ with Sriram's wonderfully enlightened way of seeing all sorts of things, even things that no one can possibly see, you need to be on a considerably higher plane jp, if you expect to see the things that Sriram, seems to think he sees.
Almost any quote of Douglas Adams very ably, sums up the lack of thought processes of those that adhere to their beliefs in horoscopes, leprechauns, unicorns, blue elephant headed human like people or imagine whatever you like and then believe in it type people.
Regards jp, ippy
-
I really dislike to see the way in so many instances where your type of post is in some way pointed out to be inferior because you differ with Sriram's wonderfully enlightened way of seeing all sorts of things, even things that no one can possibly see, you need to be on a considerably higher plane jp, if you expect to see the things that Sriram, seems to think he sees.
Almost any quote of Douglas Adams very ably, sums up the lack of thought processes of those that adhere to their beliefs in horoscopes, leprechauns, unicorns, blue elephant headed human like people or imagine whatever you like and then believe in it type people.
Regards jp, ippy
Frankly, I find it insulting when Sriram says that I am in some way damaged because I don't agree with him.
-
Frankly, I find it insulting when Sriram says that I am in some way damaged because I don't agree with him.
Well...I am not saying it. The article I have linked in the 'Religion Instinct?' thread says so. It clearly says that our spiritual experiences depend on brain wiring. Ask Andrew Newberg why he says what he says.
-
Well...I am not saying it. The article I have linked in the 'Religion Instinct?' thread says so. It clearly says that our spiritual experiences depend on brain wiring. Ask Andrew Newberg why he says what he says.
I don't think the article claimed that people lacking spiritual experience are damaged in some way. It was about neural plasticity, which is neither controversial nor anything new.
-
I don't think the article claimed that people lacking spiritual experience are damaged in some way. It was about neural plasticity, which is neither controversial nor anything new.
Yes..I agree. It is not about damage. But it is about certain capabilities or faculties that some people have and some don't.
-
Yes..I agree. It is not about damage. But it is about certain capabilities or faculties that some people have and some don't.
Its about interpretation of experiences not detection.
-
Its about interpretation of experiences not detection.
And who decides which interpretation is correct?!
-
And who decides which interpretation is correct?!
No one. That wasn't my point. I was clarifying what the article was about.
-
And who decides which interpretation is correct?!
apparently you do and the rest of us have to accept it
-
An interesting item on vision and technology ..... https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m0005ksk/click-the-tech-that-helped-maisy-see-again
-
Well...I am not saying it.
Yes you are.
The article I have linked in the 'Religion Instinct?' thread says so. It clearly says that our spiritual experiences depend on brain wiring. Ask Andrew Newberg why he says what he says.
But you are implicitly assuming that your wiring is better than mine because you believe religious crap.
-
Yes you are.
But you are implicitly assuming that your wiring is better than mine because you believe religious crap.
You people are just feeling sorry for yourselves. 'Better' and 'worse' is a relative judgement. I have not said any such thing. According to the article, some people don't have the necessary wiring to enable them to have spiritual experiences. That is all it is. Its sad but true.
But there is hope for you guys! According to the article, if necessary effort is taken through meditations, prayer etc. the wiring can change!!
So folks, start on the prayers from today ...and see the results...! Just make sure the prayers are sincere! Enjoy!
-
But you will never have evidence that your experiences refer to anything objective - and it doesn't matter. The experience is the point; where it comes from is irrelevant.
-
But you will never have evidence that your experiences refer to anything objective - and it doesn't matter. The experience is the point; where it comes from is irrelevant.
You are getting too much into the objectivity-subjectivity issue.
Life is only about experiences. Ultimately everything is subjective. Objectivity is just collective subjectivity. What you think of as objective reality is just your perception as a human with certain senses and with certain brain cells. If you were as big as a virus or an electron, you will have a very different idea of objective reality.
As Max Planck said....
"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness."
-
You people are just feeling sorry for yourselves. 'Better' and 'worse' is a relative judgement. I have not said any such thing. According to the article, some people don't have the necessary wiring to enable them to have spiritual experiences. That is all it is. Its sad but true.
But there is hope for you guys! According to the article, if necessary effort is taken through meditations, prayer etc. the wiring can change!!
So folks, start on the prayers from today ...and see the results...! Just make sure the prayers are sincere! Enjoy!
They don't have the wiring that means they interpret experiences as having a spiritual cause. That's what the article says.
-
You people are just feeling sorry for yourselves. 'Better' and 'worse' is a relative judgement. I have not said any such thing. According to the article, some people don't have the necessary wiring to enable them to have spiritual experiences. That is all it is. Its sad but true.
But there is hope for you guys! According to the article, if necessary effort is taken through meditations, prayer etc. the wiring can change!!
So folks, start on the prayers from today ...and see the results...! Just make sure the prayers are sincere! Enjoy!
We all have spiritual experiences Sriram, it's just that there are a lot of us that don't have a need to somehow kid ourselves there's some kind of imaginary friend waiting for us in the search for that mysterious place at the end of the rainbow or even expect to find any kind of imaginary friend anywhere.
Cheers old chap, ippy.