Where is thought?

[Flash_hound]

An interesting question and I'm not sure if science has an answer for us yet is the question of where is thought?

We all naturally assume that our brain is what causes thought but could you guys show me something that says otherwise? Because to my knowledge it seems that no one has yet proven that thought takes place in the brain.

[journyman161]

Logic says it doesn't. Brains are physical, neurons, axons & dendrites, all of which operate using physical processes - chemicals trigger changes, the chemicals are usually triggered by electrical impulses from elsewhere etc.

One possibility is the thinking area is actually the mind, the holographic field generated by the electrical activity of the brain & body. The problem here is the difficulty of defining what generates a thought if we're trying to say that the thing that generates it is generated by the thing it is generating for.

Biology says that cells are not governed by DNA, but rather by the signals that come in through the membrane to trigger the changes. These signals can be chemical but also, research shows can be electrical or other fields.

There is much more to it, including some rather solid evidence & data from people 'inheriting' characteristics after a transplant, but basically, practical biology is saying that the controller for cells, & thus the source of brain changes that we call having a thought, is actually something that exists outside the cells & 'runs' the body via the signals delievered to cells. ie. we are not our bodies, we are some kind of field phenomena that exists outside the physical body but that connects to it & identifies with it.

So the source of thoughts would seem to be this rather nebulous (as science sees it) entity that is not physical. And remember, this is from biology, not from Consciousness research or similar. The alternative is a logical impossibility where DNA (what most people think of as the 'brains' of a cell) receives instructions from other DNA & nothing seems to originate it.

Where thoughts are 'run' is in the mind, which then generates the changes in the physical hardware (the brain) which then affects the body.

[ButterflyWoman]

There's a very large nerve centre in the gut, as a matter of fact, and another one in the heart (the latter one is a recent discovery; they've known about the "gut brain" for some time). When you know something "in your heart" or have a "gut feeling" there's actually some scientific backing for that.

And neither one of those places is your brain, though both the heart centre and the gut centre are in contact with the brain, of course (which is probably the purpose of the vegus nerve).

I personally believe that thought is a combination of many things chemical, electrical, physical, and spiritual, and that all of your senses play a part. After all, if you smell something nice and think, "Wow, that smells nice," isn't your nose having a part in the thought? If you touch something soft and think, "Wow, that's very soft," don't your fingertips have a role in the thought?

[blacktiger057]

I thinik part of the reason scientist's cannot answer this is because it is also a spiritual matter as well. Thoughts are part of our life force and what makes us all different.

[chips]

i have a theory, or idea, that everything around us is generated by thought. by the universal conciousness (God). as for where thought is, im not sure. i dont believe it's held within the brain. i dont think the brain is capable of creating thought, it just processes it.

[Korpo]

The Chinese believe these are the physical representation of the "Three Tantiens". Their go is to first develop the Lower one, to fully develop the physical body and stay grounded. Then the Higher one, for full mental capability. And then join them in the Heart-Mind, Hsin. Which is to them the real fully-integrated mind.

Oliver

[journyman161]

The problem with any physical explanation of where thought is, is trying to work out just how a thought might arise in physical terms. Saying it is in the brain is a generality - it it's there then it is in the neurons. There are other structures there, but it is neuronic activity that is seen by MRI when a person is thinking.

Now neurons are physical entities that operate via the reactions of chemicals. It seems a bit odd for a chemical to be the initiatory impulse for a thought - particularly when all the processes we know of in the brain are reactive processes. Like the normal cells, we can't seem to locate or identify initiatory impulses.

Biology, real biology, not the Creation stuff, is grappling with the problem but so far has no definite answers. But they see it is clear that cells are NOT run by DNA & react to their environment - which includes fields, not just chemicals.

We know energy fields can trigger changes in cells just like chemicals do. Makes for interesting speculation. But it seems a subject that is being avoided by mainstream media, even though it's possibly the most revolutionary information to even come from straight science.

Think about it; if ALL actions by cells & neurons are reactions, from where comes the initiation of a process? It applies to everything a body does, not just thoughts.

[White Wolf]

Well, observed brain activity certainly has a large correlation with activitys we consider to the thought. Specific type of activities have even been mapped to particular regions of the brain. So, I guess you got a chicken or the egg phenomenon. Choosing to believe the brain to be the seat of the mind certainly lets us make useful predictions that other theories lack. It's certainly a half truth, but its lets us get by until we understand more. Absolute truth is more of a goal than a obtainable destination, chasing it results in knowledge and understanding. Science is one method to do that.

The mind is general convieved as patterns generated by the firing of many neurons in the brain. Particularly the outter layers, as much of the inner layers are devoted mostly to sensory transformations, and integrations.

Many individualy cells connect and disconnect from each other's membranes through an ion exchange process that, over a large number of cells generates particular patterns. Recent research indicates that these connections can be created or destroyed at will, indicating a conscious control over processes that were thought to be too low level to control. Specificly, this research indicates quite strongly (the evidence is in the details, which I won't go into here.) that you can remember something very strongly after you have been exposed to the same stimuli 4 times (correcting, and lending credence to the age old trick of doing something 3 times to remember it). The connection types between neurons are characterized, and the type of connects that are made by stimulating them 4 times, forms the most permanent connect out neurons make. It also indicated conscious control to forgot. You can will yourself to forget.

New research indicateds a much more plastic brain than a decade ago had us believe. And more research is released every month indicating this trend. The we will our thought, actions, and experiences by conscious control, not the deep seated intial conditioning in early development.

We will ourselves into thought. We are smart if we want to be smart. We are good at math if we want to be good at math. We understand shakespear if we want to understand shakespear. The converse is true. If we want to forget, we do so. We MAKE our minds and our brains at will.

Well, that's what the (fairly) latest science tells us. Neuroscience, that is...not the dillydabbery of psycology, but hard sceince. Its fairly convincing stuff: repeatable, peer reviewed, objective science.

[journyman161]

All that is true - the problem is that none of it points at Initiation of anything. Yes the brain is the seat of thought or Mind, but that still doesn't explain Mind.

Look at it this way... A telephone exchange is the seat of the phone network, but it doesn't explain the information being passed across the networjk, day in, day out, 24/7, 365 per year. You can analyse the hardware till the cows come home & you will still have no reasonable concept of what the information universe is about.

Minds are what brains DO. Learning everything about brains will still not tell anyone what the mind will decide. What they are seeing in MRI etc is the physical implementation of something initiated outside ALL the cells. Biology tells us that.

So, in the concept of 'brain is ALL' where does a thought, any thought, begin? What process starts an original thought? Keep in mind you can't simply point out to another cell, because biology tells us ALL cells simply react - we have yet to identify any process within a cell that is an initiation.

So to put it in your terms, 'Who is we?' If 'We will...' in the physical model, just how do 'we will'? Language is nice, but if they want to posit a physical mechanism they MUST provide a mechanism for the initiation of an impulse - and so far, they haven't. Saying 'We will it' is exactly the same as saying 'God did it' & in science that translates to gibberish.

[White Wolf]

Well, about the whole initiation thing. That's what I meant by patterns, or the chicken and the egg scenario. Think of a patten like you do a circle, its a fairly simple apttens, but where does it begin, where does it end?

There's a whole book on how patterns develop from simple rules (A New Kind of Science by Stephen Wolfram), which I think is a step in the right direction to understanding how these patterns develop into the forms that we know. It is, I think, entirely concievable that the creator created the matter we are made of in just the right proportions to self assemble into the people we are of today, and thereby generate the particular patterns required to project back "home" so to speak.

The whole issue revolves around self assembled structures, and is in fact an explosive area of research right now. Who knows, maybe in a few years with further research, self assembly will be able to tell us exactly which came first, the chicken or the egg.

Off topic: Why all the hostility to science I keep sensing here? It seem like everywhere I turn on this forum, theres an almost tanglible contempt for science and imperical reasoning. Not that there's no attempt at understanding phenomenon in scientific terms, but they all somehow stop short of thorough investigation and verification. If ideas are unchallenged, then the path to deeper knowledge is blocked and it becomes dogma.

How does one seek new truths, if one already has the answers?

There is no need to invoke a spiritual explaination just because we don't understand something fully. God exists whether there is a physical explaination or not. In fact, I find observating god's handiwork in explicit detail so much, I decided to make a career of it. Understanding how our reality works doesn't somehow make it less magical, it makes it more so.

[ButterflyWoman]

A telephone exchange is the seat of the phone network, but it doesn't explain the information being passed across the networjk, day in, day out, 24/7, 365 per year. You can analyse the hardware till the cows come home & you will still have no reasonable concept of what the information universe is about.

The internet is a similar metaphor. Cyberspace exists. I'm participating in this conversation in cybersapce. I met my husband on the net, and we were on opposite sides of the planet and yet we became friends and fell in love, all in cyberspace (and later via the telephone, which, as noted, is a similar virtual space). Things that happen in cyberspace may be entirely inconsequential, but they may have tremendous impact on the non-virtual world.

And what is the internet? Well, it's a whole bunch of computers running the appropriate protocols and software to exchange packets of information, but that doesn't say anything about what cyberspace is...

I believe that the mind (as opposed to the brain or the gut or any other part of you that has a lot of neurons) exists in a similar virtual space. It is accessed via the brain and other neurons, the same way that you access the phone network via your handset or you access the net via your computer, but the mind exists in a way that can't be defined by the sum of its parts, and, I think, it exists apart from the brain that accesses it. When your brain dies, your mind, your consciousness, continues (at least, that's what I believe).

I've heard the argument that consciousness can be snuffed out at will via injury and anesthetic, and while the former may damage the apparatus with which we access the mind, and the latter may well completely disconnect your brain from your mind for a while, neither of those things can be demonstrated to do anything at all to the mind. It's the brain that is being affected, in my personal opinion.

I came to think about that thing with the anesthetic after I had surgery last month. Prior to going into the operating theatre I was meditating and practicing the deepest relaxation I could muster and visualising a positive outcome (which I did have), and then I went into the operating theatre and was getting adjusted on the table and all that and then I went out pretty much without warning (some anesthesiologists will tell you when they start to administer the drugs; this one didn't say a word, just flipped off my switch!). When I came out of the anesthetic I was moaning and saying "Ow ow ow ow ow" over and over, without even realising I was doing so...

When I recovered from the pain enough to start thinking philosophical thoughts again, I was pondering where my "consciousness" went. After a lot of thought and meditation I came to the conclusion that it didn't "go" anywhere. Just my brain stepped out for a little while.

It's a bit like when my broadband goes out, I think.... ;)

[White Wolf]

It funny you guys keep using technology metaphors, because I have this theory (doesn't everyone? :P) that one of the main functions of the physical body is that of a hugely complex antenae to send a receive gods will onto a plane capable of descrete calculation. That we are god's logic center, so speak.

It kinda makes some sense. Time appears to only exist in our dimension, from what little I've read. Time is require for calculation. You can define a mathematical equation, and it exsists in completeness, but it useless until you use it to calculate something. Calculation is descrete, it requires steps, steps require a concept of before and after, before and after are only relevant with a concept of time.

What happens if god decides to stop thinking himself? Do we go bye bye?

[Korpo]

WhiteWolf,

calculation needs not the passage of time, only discrete steps of cause and effect. Unless you prove that there is a smallest discrete unit of time that is not the same. ;)

All you perceive could have been you that created it, not vice versa. Why should we be God's logic circuits? Why should not be anything that exists our creation instead of the other way round?

Okay, not really convincing or probable, but from our current knowledge very possible. Your own existence is the only given to you. That makes too much logical thought a crutch, because thinking logically requires exactness, but all you have is inexact tools and an incomplete set of axioms to begin with.

Oliver

[CFTraveler]

Off topic: Why all the hostility to science I keep sensing here? It seem like everywhere I turn on this forum, theres an almost tanglible contempt for science and empirical reasoning. Not that there's no attempt at understanding phenomenon in scientific terms, but they all somehow stop short of thorough investigation and verification. If ideas are unchallenged, then the path to deeper knowledge is blocked and it becomes dogma. You may be sensing a hostility to science, not because of the pitfalls of science itself (I for one am grateful for the freedom of thought science has brought to our world) but for the way science is portayed in today's world, IMO. For example, there are many things that are looked at by scientists, but when they look at things that could be controversial (that is, not conforming to the expected results) then the studies are sometimes portrayed (by the media that delivers the scientific news) in misleading terms, often slanted by the beliefs of the ones doing the reporting.
To be more clear, there was a study that was done on the benefits of praying and it's effects of patients' longevity that were suffering of terminal illness. (This is by memory, so please bear with me) the study showed that people that were prayed for lived longer, but eventually all died anyway. It was reported two ways: The skeptical community decided that prayer didn't work because the patients eventually died, and the mainstream media portrayed it that way (the skeptical community then went on to make fun of people that prayed for the sick)- But if you went to the reports from the religious organizations that support prayer for healing, the report was portrayed as proving that prayer worked because the people that were prayed for lived longer.
Same data, different conclusions.
This is not so bad, but there have been other studies done by scientists eager to find out 'the truth', in which they have studied OBE effects. Many of them have come to the conclusion that 'they don't know', but when you read the news about it in the media, they will slant them to say that it showed OBEs are not 'real'.
There was another OBE study that was begun with the premise that it had to be some pathology- they were out (and said so on the study) that they were out to find out 'what was wrong with the patients'- When they caused autoscopy (which is not the same as OBE) they said they caused OBEs. And if you read the very last part of the study, they admitted that they knew that OBE was not the same autoscopy, and in the future they would do more studies.
So if you didn't dissect the whole study, you would have sworn that they could cause OBE in the lab by probing people's temporal lobes. Ps. these were all epileptic patients, so right off the bat they started with the premise that epilepsy was the cause of OBEs.....
I guess the point that I'm trying to make is that the 'scientific establishment' is what people should be hostile to, not scientists themselves- most scientists I ever met were trying to do real, conscientious studies into what they were trying to discover or cure or whatever- but when it comes to dealing with the established network, that's where the trouble starts.
Ask Rayson when (and if) he comes back about his scientist friend who was pressured to change lab results to get funding for her boss's facility.
This is the kind of thing that happens, and the scientists get blamed.

On another note (and this is turning into some sort of dissertation) you will also notice a hostility towards organized religion, christianity in particular (unfair to me, there are lots of other religions that are suppressive out there nowadays)- I believe this is in response to years of living under oppressive conditions due to the nature of specific churches or temples, yet the baby gets thrown out with the bathwater there too, (IMO).

I have been noticing this anti-scientific trend since the late 80's, and I believe it has to do with the politization (sp) of science, with debates over ecology, global warming, and the militarization of NASA in the US- the joy of discovery have taken a back seat to economics, politics and power.

Oh well- I for one am glad to have a scientist here (and a quantum physicist to boot) IMO there are a lot of things that are also misrepresented in that field and am glad to have someone who knows what they're talking about.

[journyman161]

Personally I think a little more of the principles of science would be quite valuable in the pursuit of the astral. While I have disdain for some of the things science does, the principles & methods can be very useful.

We are in the realm of matter & energy - we're here for a reason & as beings we appear to have moved through a variety of states, culminating (so far) with the material mastership of the physical realm. Prior to this we can be seen to have gone through a variety of magical, mystical & religious views of the universe; science has at least transcended those, or offered the chance to do so if we are willing to follow the path.

Real Science is adaptable to any situation, including the spiritual, & can be used to sort fact from fantasy. Fake science can be used to prove anything. Bad science is all around us & is being used to shape our lives. eg. there is NO evidence that 2nd hand smoke causes anything except asthma in very young children - certainly none that suggests adults get cancer or any other illness from it. Yet 2nd hand smoke is being used to shut smokers out of buildings & public places all across the world.

There IS statistical evidence that smoking 1st hand causes or is linked to increased rates of cancer & other illness, but the 2nd hand smoke link is simply political manipulation.

Another is the whole global warming issue - there is plenty of evidence it is happening - there is very little actual evidence at all that humans are anything other than a very minor part of a 'rebalancing' of the Earth after a period of unusual coldness. Yet human global warming is being used to jack energy prices, to raise costs & to change the way we live.

These things might need to be done, but why are we being made to do them based on lies? Politics, not science.

But good, science, the enquiry into causes & events based on the quest for knowledge, can transfigure what we know & how we see ourselves & the universes around us.

To me, one of the problems faced by the alternative world is the identification of sceince as all being bad & the rejection of the principles that have brought us to where we are? Why aren't we peons owned by the hereditary ruler of an empire? Science. How come we can spend our leisure pursuing such things as astral travel? Or even have leisure time at all? Science.

Why do we have the knowledge about attuning the two sides of the mind? Science. Yes gurus have been achieving it via hard work over decades, but they didn't know just what it was they were achieving. Science looked & found the rhythms & how they can be influenced & suddenly the average person can attune their mind with Binaural beats in months instead of lifetimes.

What humans do with it is typically human, but please don't mistake the machinations of people with a reason to alter your Point of View as being science - it isn't. Manipulation is always political, even if it isn't being done by politicians.

[White Wolf]

On the other scientists have been cowardly and conservative about their approaches. They judge on terms of externally observable behaviour because that is easier. The inner workings of the mind will be very hard to track that way, but that's the consensus.

If you ask me what science has done in the last years to give my life a meaning it's that easy: not much. ... The really important questions in your life are probably...
* What is my life purpose? Is there one?...

While I'm not sure you meant this the way it came out, but I have to take great exception to this.

Here are a few little known or uncredited generalizations about scientists:
1. Many continue going to school long after others have started the routines of life. Many forgo building a family, building a house, or visting with friends and accrue large sums of debt in pursuit of education. Those sacrifices don't end when they gratuate either.
2. Clearing you mind of mental work is a very hard things to do. It is very difficult to shut your mind off after you finish working for the day, and when you do, you usualy find exhaustion waiting to overtake you.
3. Researchs often work long hours, at home, on "vacation", and at work. Odd hours are routine. 9 to 5 seems like a distant bliss by comarison.

A good scientist has to use a very close line of reasoning to achieve good results. The path to error is great, and failure is an everpresent possibility. This is not something that comes easy, it requires discipline and focus.

One must come up with new ideas, and find ways to make them fail. Constant critisism, only a small portion which the public sees, is an everpresent companion.

Tell me a coward that would do this to themselves?

No, scientists make great sacrifices in persuit of one of the greatest and eternal gifts one can give to the community: knowledge.

As for what science has done for you? Well, it powers your home and car, allows for enough food to be availible to be on your table, helps cure you when you are ill, and makes cloths to go on your back.

And who says you can't have both science and spirituality? There are questions that only spirituality can answer, and other which science does a better job. The great thing is the wonder that knowledge provides us and the ever expanding awareness that it encompasses. Who knows, maybe someday science will begin to answer those questions you listed too. The skys the limit as far as I can see.

The reason why western societies have become less happy is a largely unbridal capitalistic market, and the corruption government from its purpose. That's really general, but the complexities are beyond me to divulge. I won't really go into that one, but I do say you have a bit of a point there.

My whole point behind this was to higlight that just because it is not science, does not mean you can't apply some scientific methods to imrpove understanding of how something works. Instead of taking your experiences at face value, next time try understanding how works, setup an experiment yourself, make a theory to explain it, check it, report your results here and see if other can do it too. That way we all move past the purely subjective experience and find some hidden principles that govern its behavior.

Some questions you might ask?

How long does it take for you to meditate until OBE?
What was your heartrate during the time during OBE?
How long can you stay gone before having to come back from an OBE before you don't remember the experience?
What was the temperature of the room before and after your started drawing energy?
What was your body temperature during meditation?

Its always the simple questions lead to other questions, which eventually leads to some sort of understanding about your experience which you didn't know subjectively.

At my day job, I found out that an additive was changing the temperature of my experiments, which lead to a deeper understanding the phenomenon I'm studying. It all from tracking fairly mundain data, and looking at it just the right way.

I'm just saying there's no harm in trying to be a little more thorough in your subjectivity. Who know maybe you learn something. And yes, I do think that more information is superior to less information.

[ButterflyWoman]

My husband is a scientist. Has a degree in computer science, but very nearly did a double degree in CS and physics. He's got numerous awards for his mathematics ability. He works at a university in the chemistry department (writing computer code, not doing chemistry; specifically, he works with nanotechnology).

I haven't got any issues with scientists. I don't have any issues with science. I find it to be an extremely useful way of looking at a lot of things, and it's sometimes preferable to other means of finding an answer. For example, I tend to look to medical science for medical issues. It's only when and if medical science is unable to help that I start looking at alternatives, although I do generally practice complementary things like meditation, positive visualisation, etc.

Where I have an issue is with some people who think science is the be all and end all of human experience, and try to apply scientific reasoning to everything, including ethics, morality, spirituality, and various other things that cannot and should not be included in the scientific method.

When science keeps itself to things scientific, I'm perfectly fine with it. When people start to use it to try to quantify or disprove or measure or otherwise discredit personal, subjective, spiritual matters, then I start to bristle.

I've said before that I haven't got that much faith in science, and it's true. This is because science is not something that requires faith, nor should it. Good science (as opposed to pseudoscience or bad science, and you know that's out there, too) is something that can be repeated and verified and measured. No faith required.

Spirituality, on the other hand, does require all sorts of faith. Faith that you're just just delusional or insane. Faith that you're doing something worthwhile with your energy. Faith that your subjective experiences means something (even if it's only to you).

Faith and science are two entirely opposing views of the world. So long as they remain so, it's fine.

I suspect that a lot of the people on this board have had encounters with people who worship reason and think science is the answer to everything and who are happy to tell you how delusional you are for believing in things that they can't measure in a laboratory. It does tend to leave a bad taste in one's mouth.

Certainly, not all scientists walk around with blinders on. I know of many who are genuine, serious scientists and who also have faith in and interest in things outside of science (philosophy, ethics, morality, spirituality of various kinds, etc.). My husband doesn't understand a lot of the stuff I talk about with regard to spirituality (he's one of the most non-intuitive people I've ever met :P), but he does understand perfectly that many things are just outside the realm of science. We get along pretty well, despite his interest in bizarre things that make no sense, things like, say, quantum physics... ;)

[Korpo]

As for what science has done for you? Well, it powers your home and car, allows for enough food to be availible to be on your table, helps cure you when you are ill, and makes cloths to go on your back.

If you credit these things magically to science you are wrong. Ever single piece of these things derive from the work people put into it, not science. People make these things happen, not science. Nothing is ever created without the work and creative power of even the seemingly least of us.

If you were to attribute anything the way you do to science, then you have to thank it for the pollution in the air, food, water, the nuclear bomb and a lot of other things, too. You could say Chernobyl or Seveso or Bopal was caused by science, too.

Science simply has not made people happier. That was my point. Do you think a car, TVs, prozac, central heating, the ability to take a flight to another continent have made people happier or spiritually more fulfilled? I don't think so.

Why do you think it is that a lot of people are unhappy having all these things, working the threadmill to obtain them, and impressing the Joneses and so on? And why do you think other people chose to go to a monastery and meditate their way to enlightenment facing a wall?

Because spirituality has answers to these questions that pertain to a deeper level of our being than science can be aware of. I agree with OlderWiser, there is a point beyond which the scientific method is missing the point entirely.

And I repeat my statement about cowardly attitudes, because you did miss the point. I'm not impressed by the hard work. A lot of jobs require hard work. An air traffic controller at an airport has to be more present than the thinker, for example.

Very few scientists actually dare to think outside the paradigm, and this still is to me cowardly and overly conservative. This view is shared by many more creative thinkers that outgrew this limitation. Like it is often said: The new idea will win the minds over when the proponents of the old idea have died out. ;)

Oliver

[journyman161]

If you credit these things magically to science you are wrong. Ever single piece of these things derive from the work people put into it, not science. People make these things happen, not science. Nothing is ever created without the work and creative power of even the seemingly least of us.

If you were to attribute anything the way you do to science, then you have to thank it for the pollution in the air, food, water, the nuclear bomb and a lot of other things, too. You could say Chernobyl or Seveso or Bopal was caused by science, too.

Science simply has not made people happier. That was my point. Do you think a car, TVs, prozac, central heating, the ability to take a flight to another continent have made people happier or spiritually more fulfilled? I don't think so.

Why do you think it is that a lot of people are unhappy having all these things, working the threadmill to obtain them, and impressing the Joneses and so on? And why do you think other people chose to go to a monastery and meditate their way to enlightenment facing a wall?

Because spirituality has answers to these questions that pertain to a deeper level of our being than science can be aware of. I agree with OlderWiser, there is a point beyond which the scientific method is missing the point entirely.

And I repeat my statement about cowardly attitudes, because you did miss the point. I'm not impressed by the hard work. A lot of jobs require hard work. An air traffic controller at an airport has to be more present than the thinker, for example.

Very few scientists actually dare to think outside the paradigm, and this still is to me cowardly and overly conservative. This view is shared by many more creative thinkers that outgrew this limitation. Like it is often said: The new idea will win the minds over when the proponents of the old idea have died out. ;)

OliverThe problem here is the confusion of Science with Technology. The Manhattan Project was enabled because of Science but it was a project wholly about Technology. Technology has both enabled the pursuit of happiness & brought abject misery. But it isn't Science. Science is the pursuit of Knowledge, seeking understanding of the cosmos around us. Technology is about the implementation of the Knowledge that Science has brought to light.

Science IS about thinking outside the paradigm & it has repeatedly stretched the boundaries of Knowledge. Science is in the process of bringing us a rational explanation of Consciousness & maybe even the structure of all the Cosmoi.

Yes there are humans doing the Science & so there are those who hang onto their ideas & concepts, but Science makes a habit of challenging all assumptions - religion & mysticism simply doesn't have the same track record - dogma is the curse of having 'faith' whereas Science, done properly, enables Knowledge.

Again, please don't confuse the worst of manipulation using pseudo-science with real science. That is the equivalent of evaluating all mysticism by asking GWB what Truth is.

[Korpo]

The interesting thing is that it needs belief that science can do all these things in order to start doing it that way.

There may be ways in which science might enable us to understand more about the cosmos. But IMO it is more probable that science as we know it, and that is commingled with technology, will always be blocked from finding the deeper reality of things which human beings possibly cannot fathom very much while still alive.

Thinking outside the paradigm is however not a trait of science, though. The real, existing scientific community on this planet thinks mostly within paradigms, not outside. The kind of idealised science that is often called upon does not exist, IMO. And it is heavily intermingled with technology, so it is very abstract to separate the two.

Given that science is one way to pursue a certain kind of knowledge (the one that can written down basically), does more knowledge of that kind really improve your life? Does what we know about quantum physics really improve my life? Probably not. When you transform it into technology, it might just help people do some things, and maybe people will be happy for some time with the results. But then you need to technology as mediator, and science still has not made you happy.

I think all the questions I posted above are to a degree unanswerable by science, but I also think the answers you come up with are vital for your life. Totally regardless of science. Science is totally orthogonal with spirituality, IMO. They are different dimensions of our experience.

You cannot live without some scientific understanding, true. But without any spiritual spark in you you are just a thinking machine.

It always depends on what questions you want answers to. IMO there are places and situations where the scientific paradigm of believing only what you can prove and validate in experiment denies us the joys that defines those experiences. I believe the scientific view of things is not all-encompassing, and there is a point beyond which it makes no sense.

Oliver

[journyman161]

The interesting thing is that it needs belief that science can do all these things in order to start doing it that wayUm, no, that turns out not to be the case. The whole thing about Science is that it doesn't require belief - that's the whole point of Science. If you have to believe it, it ain't Science.

There may be ways in which science might enable us to understand more about the cosmos. But IMO it is more probable that science as we know it, and that is commingled with technology, will always be blocked from finding the deeper reality of things which human beings possibly cannot fathom very much while still aliveWhile this is an interesting statement, it is scientifically a null statement. It is opinion & has no validity in any science except perhaps psychology.

Thinking outside the paradigm is however not a trait of science, though. The real, existing scientific community on this planet thinks mostly within paradigms, not outsideAnd yet strangely, science has consistently stepped the human race outside the current paradigms & into brave new worlds. People may hang onto a current paradigm, but the next generation of scientists, looking to make their place in the world, will break the old paradigm wide open.

I can understand why people look at the corruption around us & blame science, but science did not cause the corruption - that is the fault of greed & power seekers. If there are questions, Science can address them. Claiming anything within the universe is outside the realm of rational thought simply continues the faith paradigm & we all know where that has led us. All those things you are pointing out come from the continuation of that paradigm & the failure to fully implement rational thought.

Quantum ideas bring us the possibility of finally understanding what this universe is about. String Theory is an approach to understanding the basics of construction & some scientists are delving even beyond that.

And yes, without those interested in basic research, there would be very little development of spiritual or astral knowledge or experience. It is hard to find the leisure to meditate when nearly all waking hours are spent finding & preparing food & keeping the cave warm.

People do bad things with science; but people, for much longer, have done bad things with religion, spirituality & mysticism. It is the dedication of those pursuing basic knowledge that have brought Humanity to the potential for a better world.

[Korpo]

People have meditated since the dawn of time. There were always ways, they did not need science for that. In fact, before electric light illuminated all of our nights people had to stop most activities when sun went down. The way your time you was spent was very different, but just because you got not a day off does not mean these people were all unhappy. Most of them weren't spiritual seekers, either.

The scientific paradigm requires belief in the ultimate explainability of all things, and where would that come from?

Even if quantum and string theory provided accurate answers you may never have the computation capacity to use these answers to come up with concrete solutions.

It is quite possible that this world is only a denser environment loosely based on higher reality. And that your awareness is the only way to know that and perceive that. You might not find a single trace of that in our world except in your mind. Then science as we know it would be totally beside the point.

If you want to pursue that kind of knowledge, you can do that. But spiritually it is not that important. It depends on your priorities.

Oliver

[journyman161]

*shrug* It is only an opinion that Science can't deal with spirituality. We don't yet have Quantum or String theories nailed down so it is difficult to dismiss where they may lead us or what they may make us capable of achieving in such a casual way. As for computation capacity, if things keep going the way they seem to be, we may have all we need in both Consciousness AND the structure of the Universes.

It IS quite possible this universe is only a denser environment but that makes the full understand of it even more important - without knowing the basics of this, how can we ever do more than wish or fantasize about what the higher realms may be?

Given how many different & sometimes mutually contradictory views there have been using faith & mysticism as sole arbiters of Truth, I would think a rational approach might actually improve the situation. Even on these forums there is a lot of radically differing views about what is going on & what people are experiencing. Bringing some rational (ie. scientific) approaches to what members experience could help define what they are living & help them separate the real from the imagined.

Faith & 'knowing' through mystical means just what 'Truth' is has killed more & brought more misery to human life than any other cause. It is about time to start bringing real knowledge to the fore & start dealing with the myth that personal experience can't be rational.

[Korpo]

Actually, economy has killed most people, not religion. Economy matters more than politics or religion in the long run. ;)

You also constantly confuse spirituality and religion, it is exactly the same difference between science and technology you postulate. Spirituality just is.

I see you *believe* in science. You *believe* science will uncover this or that but you cannot possibly know. You are just betting on one option like anyone else.

Since can, BTW, according to its own rules, not uncover answers to all questions. Gödel proved that there are more questions you can ask than answers... ;)

Oliver

PS - Spirituality has one advantage. It can happen in *this* lifetime. It could do so 3,000 years ago. It does not require a specific point in time to work.

[journyman161]

The point about economy would be better made if religion hadn't controlled most of the known world for most of history. Economy doesn't demonise other people & provide justification for the worst excesses of history.

I have made it clear I don't confuse spirituality & religion. I don't 'believe' in Science in the way you say - I do believe it is the best method we have found so far to increase knowledge.

Godel proved no such thing - his theory deals only with mathematical systems...
In 1931, the Czech-born mathematician Kurt Gödel demonstrated that within any given branch of mathematics, there would always be some propositions that couldn't be proven either true or false using the rules and axioms ... of that mathematical branch itself. You might be able to prove every conceivable statement about numbers within a system by going outside the system in order to come up with new rules and axioms, but by doing so you'll only create a larger system with its own unprovable statements. The implication is that all logical system of any complexity are, by definition, incomplete; each of them contains, at any given time, more true statements than it can possibly prove according to its own defining set of rules.It is only implication that it could be extended even to other logical systems than mathematical ones. And it is Theory, something Science is good at & also good at improving upon.

Too many people look at scientific theories & make them over into 'fact' but Science doesn't do this - people with 'beliefs' do it.

[CFTraveler]

Guys, I'm with Jman on this one.

I can understand why people look at the corruption around us & blame science, but science did not cause the corruption - that is the fault of greed & power seekers. If there are questions, Science can address them. Korpo, I think you're right in that science can't answer all questions, but it can certainly address them. It doesn't mean it can answer questions of things that matter to you, but it allows you to ask them, something that religion (which is nothing but the organized and politicized application of spiritually obtained data) sometimes doesn't even allow.


Claiming anything within the universe is outside the realm of rational thought simply continues the faith paradigm & we all know where that has led us. All those things you are pointing out come from the continuation of that paradigm & the failure to fully implement rational thought. I agree with this too- the reason that the scientific establishment is so entrenched in their paradigm (as opposed to individual scientists that graduate with that fluffy-bunnyish wish to discover the unknown) is because of this way of thinking.

The thing is that this way of thinking (reactionary in the political sense) is true about any discipline that requires a power structure, be it religion, politics or science. So IMO this is a human trait, not a characteristic of any discipline in particular (which sounds a lot like what Jman said, but in my words).

So yes, I take what I get from meditation very seriously, but I won't take channeled information for an explanation on how things work, unless observation supports it. Of course this is how I view the world.

[White Wolf]

Godel's theorem proves the exapanding horizon of awareness that is mathematical discovery, and by association, science. That's really all it does. He also proves the existance of propositions which are known to be true, but yet are unproveable. As a kinda of limitation of logic.

I really don't know enough about it to say much further. I will say that what little I read on it, seems to be true. There's always more questions than answers, and the logic can not prove all solutions.

I think however, that science has proven that the area that is provable is far and wide indeed.

I think applying some rationality to spiritual matter might result in a net gain for both reason and spirituality. I'm not going to debate that. That is my opinion, and I don't think anyone can convince me otherwise of that assumption short of an explaination why it can not be.

As for your views, I think you have overly romantized spirituality in your world view. I know my science has flaws, just like spirtuality has flaws. It is only by testing your flaws that we rise above them. That's where reason come in and helps us clear the air.

Science does require belief. Its a very specific type of belief though. They are called assumptions. We assume the universe is infinite for instance. Thats probably the biggest one most people hold. The point is that the expanding horizon of knowledge eventually eclipses our beliefs and replaces them with understanding and truth. It is the struggle to understand that redeems our race from the obscurity of brush and propels us onward to the heavens.

[CFTraveler]

I think applying some rationality to spiritual matter might result in a net gain for both reason and spirituality. I'm not going to debate that. That is my opinion, and I don't think anyone can convince me otherwise of that assumption short of an explaination why it can not be. In his writings, Robert Monroe said something to that effect in a different way. He postulated that bringing right-brain function to left-brain experience was the way to achieve an 'awakening' of the collective unconscious. For isn't that what we do when we attempt conscious projection?

[journyman161]

Just a thought about Godel's Theorem - if indeed true & applicable to our quest for Knowledge in this Universe, it may be the defining purpose for which we are here.

If a thing cannot be known in its entirety without stepping outside the system that is the thing, then we have, in place, here & now, both the thing/system AND the point outside that makes Knowingness of the thing possible.

Consciousness. As near as anyone can tell so far, Consciousness lies outside the realm of the more mundane universe. It doesn't seem to answer to any of the definitions or explanations that even Quantum Theory bring to light. Relativity requires an Observer. It is thought that things exist in quantum flux until observed, at which time they collapse out into a specific 'reality' - so even in its infancy, Quantum Theory is bringing a scientific feasibility to the Being.

And maybe, just maybe, our purpose is to 'prove' (in that special Science sense) Godel's Theorem.

[White Wolf]

I said (in other words) earlier that science through quantum mechanics strongly indicates that subjectivity is the basic for our reality.

I think through this debate, that central idea got lost, but it bears repeating. You get what you ask, and no more.

As a little primer for those that understand. In physical terms, this means if you want to know more about the position of a particle, you are required to give up knowing its momentum ( velocity is speed, and direction, if you include mass, you get momentum). So if you want to know a particle's position with great precision, you must give up a protortionate knowledge of it's of its weight, direction of movement, and/or speed.

This is not science fiction, this is the basis for transitor, laser, and many medical scanning technologies. The universe is exactly this absurd at it's most fundamental levels. This is a 50-75 year old theory, but it is extremely accurate, and has passed nearly every test put forward against it.

So it's not like science has forgotten about its subjective roots. I think through its empirical process, it has proved it in a way that no spirital experience can provide. Not to say that I don't value my spiritual experiences. I think that are an essential guiding force behind my life, and even the whole of science.

Science is asking the questions, whereas spirituality is experiencing the answers so to speak. They both guide us to truth, but one is shared with the community, while the other is deeply personal.

Yeah, I have a wonky contorted world view, but it works for me.

[CFTraveler]

Science is asking the questions, whereas spirituality is experiencing the answers so to speak. They both guide us to truth, but one is shared with the community, while the other is deeply personal.

Yeah, I have a wonky contorted world view, but it works for me. I like it too.

[star]

But I thought that the world was only 6,000 years old?

Damn you science, damn you!

[journyman161]

Well, about the whole initiation thing. That's what I meant by patterns, or the chicken and the egg scenario. Think of a patten like you do a circle, its a fairly simple apttens, but where does it begin, where does it end?Patterns don't even begin to explain thought, or at least originating thoughts. Yes there are thoughts we can trace to outside events but there are also, (& it may just be what makes us human) the way we make new thoughts & so transform the world around us. Patterns simply don't explain this in any way.


There's a whole book on how patterns develop from simple rules (A New Kind of Science by Stephen Wolfram), which I think is a step in the right direction to understanding how these patterns develop into the forms that we know. It is, I think, entirely concievable that the creator created the matter we are made of in just the right proportions to self assemble into the people we are of today, and thereby generate the particular patterns required to project back "home" so to speakIt may be conceivable that the creator did this but the idea of a Creator is simply not proved yet, so to take a maybe/perhaps & use it to explain other facets of reality isn't science, it becomes belief.

Patterns are nice, but they haven't yet been shown to be the basis of anything except some nice (original) thoughts about how they may be related to the Universe around us - they have certainly not been shown to have anything to do with a Creator.


There is no need to invoke a spiritual explaination just because we don't understand something fully. God exists whether there is a physical explaination or not. In fact, I find observating god's handiwork in explicit detail so much, I decided to make a career of it. Understanding how our reality works doesn't somehow make it less magical, it makes it more so.Agreed there is no need to evoke a spiritual explanation when we don't understand something, but assuming God exists is simply a leap of faith & not science at all. God might exist - until we have some evidence of the matter it is blind fatih alone that allows one to say 'God exists whether there is a physical explaination or not' - science admits no such statements of belief.

[DM*Cubic]

No phenomenon is locatable in space.

[White Wolf]

I think if you pick up the book I mentioned you'll see all sorts of magic right before your eyes. You can see the mundane transform into magical, simple to complex, linear to non-linear. Its a impressive work. I'm using patterns in a very abstract definition here.

Its not perfect though. The patterns seem to top out in complexity. It is a proof of concept though. I think it holds promise.

You could call the creator the big bang and remove most of your issues with the second quote. There's no need to school me on logic. I know full well that I've purposely left the realm of known science, and you do too. "I think" being the operative word that clues the reader that I've entered speculation mode.

You missed the point entirely in your effort to dissect my inconsistencies. Yes, there are many, I'm not disputing it. My point was that belief in god is not determined by physical understanding. I could know everything there was to know about the world at this point in time, and yet if I chose to, still believe in god. There is no predicate for belief. It is something we will into being. Just as ignorance does not make one believe in god.

[CFTraveler]

My point was that belief in god is not determined by physical understanding. I could know everything there was to know about the world at this point in time, and yet if I chose to, still believe in god. There is no predicate for belief. It is something we will into being. Just as ignorance does not make one believe in god. I have to agree with this premise, because belief in God is often a choice, even when it doesn't seem to make sense in the context of cultural or familial history. That's why you have such different ranges of belief systems in the same family, mine being one good example of that.
This also reminds me of the threads about enlightenment, wherein before enlightenment one strives for something or comes to a realization, and after enlightenment one chooses whatever one wants to believe in.
Belief is a funny thing, and thinking less of someone because they believe in [insert belief here] is a form of prejudice, pure and simple.