Evolution....of science

[Sriram]

Because of the self-reference here there is a boundary through which we can't penetrate ... the  "observer" is one and the same as the "caveman", maybe wearing a different face.  And the actual "cavemen" (or people) were just as able to realize that as we are.

If we focus on the "external" world - the one we seem to able to communicate about (this is what we call "science"), the better we understand it, the better we will be able to understand the inner.

Not bad!   That is why science has to evolve beyond its present self declared boundaries and methods.

[ippy]

Dear ippy,

Steady old son

The bit where he mentions cavemen, the bit where he mentions,

The bit where he mentions,

The bit where he mentions,

It all resonated with me.

Gonnagle.

All very well but that's no answer to my post 15 on this thread.

ippy

[Maeght]

Not bad!   That is why science has to evolve beyond its present self declared boundaries and methods.

To do what exactly?

[ekim]

1.  Because of the self-reference here there is a boundary through which we can't penetrate ... the  "observer" is one and the same as the "caveman", maybe wearing a different face.  And the actual "cavemen" (or people) were just as able to realize that as we are.

2.  If we focus on the "external" world - the one we seem to able to communicate about (this is what we call "science"), the better we understand it, the better we will be able to understand the inner.

1.  That is one of the difficulties with the methods (usually meditation) used to dis-identify with an ego self, another 'superior' ego self can replace it.  You either recognise this and persevere with whatever transcendent method you employ or give up and say it can't be done.  The ego mind is very good at thwarting any efforts because it's fighting for its survival.
2.  Understanding the mechanisms of the inner based upon external observations is perhaps what psychiatry is about and for those who are happy to or have no option then handing themselves over to an external observer may be helpful but I'm not sure that intellectual understanding is the same as transformation.

[Sriram]

1.  That is one of the difficulties with the methods (usually meditation) used to dis-identify with an ego self, another 'superior' ego self can replace it.  You either recognise this and persevere with whatever transcendent method you employ or give up and say it can't be done.  The ego mind is very good at thwarting any efforts because it's fighting for its survival.
2.  Understanding the mechanisms of the inner based upon external observations is perhaps what psychiatry is about and for those who are happy to or have no option then handing themselves over to an external observer may be helpful but I'm not sure that intellectual understanding is the same as transformation.

Yes....but the ego is also always tricked into pursuing what it believes are its subjective goals....but which eventually turn out to be carrots in front of the horse.  So.....ultimately there is no problem.  The Self always wins....maybe after many lifetimes....but it always does.

I agree that it appears pointless for science to pursue an objective understanding of the Self....when what we are really looking for is an inner transformation. I agree.  But the more science evolves and expands into non material areas....the greater chances there are for the ego (at least in some people) to escape the trap of materialism and pursue the inner Self.

Even today, with just some  relatively minor  forays of science into philosophical matters such as what I have often mentioned in other posts........many people realize that there is more to life than just the objective material world..... and they turn to spiritual matters.

So....further ventures into such areas will certainly help....if not directly...indirectly. 

[SusanDoris]

What do you mean, 'turn to spiritual matters'? A child singing a rhyme with their mother, or looking with pleasure at flowers is developing the spiritual side of their nature. All thoughts andideas which can be counted as being a development of an aesthetic sense can equally be counted as spiritual. Some people add an extra complexity to the subject, namely a god of some sort, but this is unnecessary.

[jeremyp]

Hi everyone,

The point raised in another thread is relevant. The Theory of Evolution......and science itself needs to evolve and develop beyond its present status.

Science is a process. In what way does it need to evolve?

It is too static and stagnant. 

New scientific discoveries are made every day. How can you possibly say it is static and stagnant?

People here try to present science  as though it is some profound 'God's word'...immutable and unchangeable.

You mean you do. Nobody else does. You're the one who is claiming it is static and stagnant, not any of the people who actually understand it.

It has also become too 'nose in the air'.

You mean it disagrees with what you would like to be true.

Scientists really seem to imagine that they are a separate group, superior to all the other billions of humans around the world who according to them are 'so gullible, stupid and ignorant'.

You've never met a scientist then.

Just some thoughts.

Here's a thought: just because science tells us your fantasies are fiction doesn't mean it is wrong or needs "improving".

[torridon]

Not bad!   That is why science has to evolve beyond its present self declared boundaries and methods.

Science has 'self declared boundaries and methods' ?

I'm not sure what that means; we have a track record of continually confounding what earlier generations claimed 'couldn't be done'.  We couldn't measure the length of coastlines, so we invented a whole new branch of mathematics - fractals - to enable just that. They said men would never go to the Moon; so we built rockets and went there.  People said the mind was beyond empirical investigation; but now we have a plethora of research approaches unravelling the mysteries of conscious experience and mental phenomena. So much for self-declared boundaries.

[Sriram]

Science is a process. In what way does it need to evolve?

New scientific discoveries are made every day. How can you possibly say it is static and stagnant?

You mean you do. Nobody else does. You're the one who is claiming it is static and stagnant, not any of the people who actually understand it.

You mean it disagrees with what you would like to be true.
You've never met a scientist then.

Here's a thought: just because science tells us your fantasies are fiction doesn't mean it is wrong or needs "improving".

You don't even understand what I am saying. So...why do you bother? 

[jeremyp]

You don't even understand what I am saying. So...why do you bother? 

Yes I do. You are saying that science needs to change so that you can pretend your idea are correct. Well bollocks to your sad little fantasies.

[Stranger]

You don't even understand what I am saying. So...why do you bother? 

You are totally transparent. You don't like that science doesn't support your primitive superstitions and you'd prefer that it did...

[Sriram]

Science has 'self declared boundaries and methods' ?

I'm not sure what that means; we have a track record of continually confounding what earlier generations claimed 'couldn't be done'.  We couldn't measure the length of coastlines, so we invented a whole new branch of mathematics - fractals - to enable just that. They said men would never go to the Moon; so we built rockets and went there.  People said the mind was beyond empirical investigation; but now we have a plethora of research approaches unravelling the mysteries of conscious experience and mental phenomena. So much for self-declared boundaries.

Yes...I am not talking about its successes. I am talking about its limitations.

Even today you believe what cannot be sensed or detected through our instruments cannot exist. You still believe that complexity and all emergent properties arise through random means.  You even today believe that Consciousness is a product of the brain and that the brain is some self creating self deciding organ. You still believe NDE's are just hallucinations.  You still have no clue about what life and death are. And many other such things I am too tired to elaborate. 

So....science does need to evolve to overcome such limitations. 

Good night!

[Shaker]

Even today you believe what cannot be sensed or detected through our instruments cannot exist.

Who has stated that? Be specific, please.

You still believe NDE's are just hallucinations.

By all means demonstrate otherwise. Burden of proof and all that. 

You still have no clue about what life and death are.

And I suppose you do.

Ignorance and arrogance separately are obnoxious enough, but in tandem they're truly repulsive.

[Maeght]

Yes...I am not talking about its successes. I am talking about its limitations.

Even today you believe what cannot be sensed or detected through our instruments cannot exist.

The scientific method relies on measurements and observations. if you are using something else then it isn't science - it is something else.

You still believe that complexity and all emergent properties arise through random means.  You even today believe that Consciousness is a product of the brain and that the brain is some self creating self deciding organ. You still believe NDE's are just hallucinations.  You still have no clue about what life and death are. And many other such things I am too tired to elaborate.

I think presenting these things as beliefs is incorrect. People argue that there is no scientific evidence to support the things you mention so to contend that they definetly exist is a belief. Science leaves the door open to new discoveries and theories are changed if new evidence is found - but it does require measurements and testable observations. If you are using something else then it isn't science - it is something else.

So....science does need to evolve to overcome such limitations.

No it doesn't, it needs to remain true to the scientific method to be science. If you want it to be something else then it isn't science.

I think jeremyp got it spot on in saying 'You are saying that science needs to change so that you can pretend your idea are correct'. You want to wear the clothes of science so as your beliefs are not viewed as what they are but not to actually stick to the scientific method. Better to accept that ypur beliedfs are not supported by the scientific method and just accept it in my view.

Good night!

Good night.

[ekim]

What do you mean, 'turn to spiritual matters'? A child singing a rhyme with their mother, or looking with pleasure at flowers is developing the spiritual side of their nature. All thoughts andideas which can be counted as being a development of an aesthetic sense can equally be counted as spiritual. Some people add an extra complexity to the subject, namely a god of some sort, but this is unnecessary.

I'll leave Sriram to explain what he means by 'spiritual' as it is a western word and I expect he will have a more Hindu approach.  Using your words "looking with pleasure at flowers" as a starting point, the distinction to me is that the pleasure or joy is dependant upon the external as a stimulus which brings about.  The so called 'spiritual' path finds the joy within and exports it i.e. enjoys or puts joy into everything and does not require a stimulus.  The former leads to pleasure seeking and the latter perhaps to pleasure giving.  Of course, you only have to look at the news headlines these days to see how many distractions there are to sustaining that latter state and how much publicity is given to attaining the former.

[jeremyp]

Yes...I am not talking about its successes. I am talking about its limitations.

Even today you believe what cannot be sensed or detected through our instruments cannot exist.

Nobody says that.

However, if it cannot be sensed or detected with instruments, how can you know anything about it.

You still believe that complexity and all emergent properties arise through random means.

Nobody believes that.

You even today believe that Consciousness is a product of the brain

All the evidence points to the brain as being the seat of consciousness. Do you have any evidence to suggest there is something else?

You still have no clue about what life and death are.

Most people that have lived a few years know exactly what life and death are.

So....science does need to evolve to overcome such limitations. 

Testing things against the real World is what science is. If a phenomenon can't be sensed or detected with instruments, it can't be tested. Trying to admit such things as science means you no longer have science.

[torridon]

Yes...I am not talking about its successes. I am talking about its limitations.

Even today you believe what cannot be sensed or detected through our instruments cannot exist. You still believe that complexity and all emergent properties arise through random means.  You even today believe that Consciousness is a product of the brain and that the brain is some self creating self deciding organ. You still believe NDE's are just hallucinations.  You still have no clue about what life and death are. And many other such things I am too tired to elaborate. 

So....science does need to evolve to overcome such limitations. 

Good night!

We believe dark matter exists although we cannot currently detect it.  This is an example of science pushing its boundaries, we don't know how to detect it so we experiment at CERN, we put heavy water detectors in the world's deepest mines and so forth.  Sooner or later we will figure out how to detect it.  I don't know where you get this idea that science is static.  Worldwide we are spending billions on consciousness research pulling together widely different disciplines from mathematical modelling to neuroscience to psychology to artificial intelligence to quantum biology and in the process we will probably learn new insights about the fundamentals of matter. I really don't know where you get this idea that science is static, nothing could be farther than the truth, in reality we are continually breaking new ground.

[Leonard James]

We believe dark matter exists although we cannot currently detect it.  This is an example of science pushing its boundaries, we don't know how to detect it so we experiment at CERN, we put heavy water detectors in the world's deepest mines and so forth.  Sooner or later we will figure out how to detect it.  I don't know where you get this idea that science is static.  Worldwide we are spending billions on consciousness research pulling together widely different disciplines from mathematical modelling to neuroscience to psychology to artificial intelligence to quantum biology and in the process we will probably learn new insights about the fundamentals of matter. I really don't know where you get this idea that science is static, nothing could be farther than the truth, in reality we are continually breaking new ground.

Indeed! On the contrary, all the airy fairy stuff about gods, spėrits divine forces etc., is totally static. It never gets beyond proclaiming untestable "theories", and the only "evidence" it can offer is the feelings experienced by human brains, which are notoriously unreliable.

[Bubbles]

Science tries to objectively state what is there and how it works, without any cultural bias.

If there is something else we haven't found out about, that too needs to be looked at objectively.

It's like seeing a ghost. It doesn't prove life after death. Neither do NDEs, not conclusively.
For the ghost there are many things it could be.
It could be many things including a hallucination, or a rare timeslip a glimpse into the past ( bearing in mind light from the stars is the past).

Even seeing a ghost doesn't prove life exists after death.

If science manages to detect something, there would still be a long way to go, before science could objectively find out about it.

The problem is everything gets clouded up by personal opinion and what people want to be true.

You have authors of books wanting to soup up their books to sell them.

Science looks deeper and tries to find an answer not based solely on opinions.

That's why it's so fussy about evidence and won't take on my or Srirams worldview.

Science says, but what if it's something else?

I'm all for Science being skeptical, even though I have my own beliefs.

That's because if scientists do finally decide something is there, then it will have value.

If it just accepts people's opinions based on culture, then it won't be as valuable because it's judgements won't be as reliable.

 

[L.A.]

We believe dark matter exists although we cannot currently detect it.  This is an example of science pushing its boundaries, we don't know how to detect it so we experiment at CERN, we put heavy water detectors in the world's deepest mines and so forth.  Sooner or later we will figure out how to detect it.  I don't know where you get this idea that science is static.  Worldwide we are spending billions on consciousness research pulling together widely different disciplines from mathematical modelling to neuroscience to psychology to artificial intelligence to quantum biology and in the process we will probably learn new insights about the fundamentals of matter. I really don't know where you get this idea that science is static, nothing could be farther than the truth, in reality we are continually breaking new ground.

It seems to me that the problem is that many people think of science as FACT -  whereas I would view science as a process for modelling 'Life the Universe and Everything'. It probably never will be a perfect model and right now it's a very long way off perfect.

Therefore, it's not sensible to condemn people with alternative models that might fill some of the gaps.

[Shaker]

Therefore, it's not sensible to condemn people with alternative models that might fill some of the gaps.

It is if they're claiming something about the world but can't offer any evidence or methodology to evaluate it.

[Nearly Sane]

It seems to me that the problem is that many people think of science as FACT -  whereas I would view science as a process for modelling 'Life the Universe and Everything'. It probably never will be a perfect model and right now it's a very long way off perfect.

Therefore, it's not sensible to condemn people with alternative models that might fill some of the gaps.

Which is why if people claim alternative models you ask what is their methodology.

[Bubbles]

It seems to me that the problem is that many people think of science as FACT -  whereas I would view science as a process for modelling 'Life the Universe and Everything'. It probably never will be a perfect model and right now it's a very long way off perfect.

Therefore, it's not sensible to condemn people with alternative models that might fill some of the gaps.

Other Scientists are always sceptical, I'm sure there were a few that found it initially difficult to move away from the idea that dinosaurs were cold blooded clumpy critters.

With enough evidence the idea of dinosaurs changed. They became much more exciting altogether and faster, less clumpy.

Facing up to skepticism is part of it.

Part of the challenge to fight your corner, show you hold the most likely answer.

With evidence.

[Bubbles]

Sometimes I think people think scientists won't even look at something odd, but they do

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11214511/Ghosts-created-by-scientists-in-disturbing-lab-experiment.html

They tried this one and it's only one aspect of what it could be, which is why it says probably.

They can measure this.

If you want to prove something else you have to find a way of producing some sort of results that can be repeated.

[SusanDoris]

Rose

There are no such things as ghosts. All apparent sightings of such things are anecdotal. There are never any objective facts or sensory evidence on which a hypothesis could be based and thence tests set up.

On what grounds do you believe, or seem to, there are from how I read your post?