Everyone is on drugs.

[Las Veghost grower]

At least you acknowledge the right to free thought. I find myself bashing religion sideways lately but not to anyone's face.

Tbh I didn’t really understand the point of religion until I saw my little 5 year old twin cousins lose their grandpa and dad within the same week, they kept telling people to go to heaven and bring them back…it was heartbreaking but in that I saw the true meaning of religion, hope that one day you’ll see the people that you love again, I’m not gonna shit on that parade

 

[ovenbakedskittles]

tl;dr sorry.

I was merely correcting you on some of your erroneous understandings of science. You have many critiques against science in a general sense but your descriptions of how genetics and epigenetics function aren't correct. It's easy to objectify science when you don't really understand it because it can remain abstract. Nobody in science actually believes that science knows everything or that their world view is complete. Science is reductionist and mechanistic, that's how they investigate the world. You're free to investigate the world in any other way you want. Likewise, biases in science are a given, nobody denies that. That's why theories and experiments are repeated until there is sufficient credibility to rely on those theories, until someone comes up with a proposition and a test that challenges the paradigm.

Nobody is saying that science is the be all an end all. Science is one philosophical branch, there are many others. There's the teleological, ontological, epistemological, and metaphysical. They all merry into a grander unity, but they still must exist as their discrete components in order to serve various aspects of consciousness. Writing it all of as oneness, while true, is lazy. You still have to exist as a human being, in a specific configuration, in a specific place and time, in a dualistic world that exists within a non-dual universe.

I agree that human social advancement must match technological advancement, or there will be no hope. We are seeing that play out now.

I will continue to disagree with your assessment of how schizophrenia, bipolar and other mental disorders form. We don't know their full etiologies but we reasonably know that they are brain centered and neurotransmitter centered. There may be a spiritual component, but what you're proposing is writing off medical science and just going with the spiritual, and I can't get on board with that. Schizophrenics have been treated as possessed for centuries, with all kinds of insane, useless practices forced upon them like exorcisms. The scientific understanding may not be complete but at least it's not wacko.

If you do not agree that scientists believe they have an accurate world view then why even criticize my thoughts on epigenetix??? Obviously you feel confident enough about it to where you think that I am the one who is misunderstood. I don’t even think that scientists themselves understand what science is and what it truly entails. They are just regurgitating old notions and behaviors that are passed down through academic institutions that are funded by governmental control systems.

And if science is not overly confident about their worldview why criticize spirituality to the point of ridicule and mockery? Not saying that’s what you did but it happens all the time. It’s embarrassing to the whole enterprise of science to have their most prestigious figures indulge in games that were made for children. To completely dismiss any type of spiritual thinking without a second thought just because the grand daddies of science told them to do so. This is the mentality that delays the process of making groundbreaking discoveries that change the world. Their skeptical reductionist thinking is actually their own worst enemy because it is a mentality built on fear and insecurity and trying to be careful and trying not to seem like an idiot to other people especially their colleagues. It seems they are confident enough in their worldview to be that dismissive so there’s no point in trying to make it seem like they are completely passive and unbiased and humble and open minded to that extent. They are not.

And to prove my point even further, you are so certain in your worldview enough to where you believe that mental illness is based on the brain and neurotransmitters when those are only lower dimensional receivers of the illness not the source of the illness itself. Your tests and experiments have only verified such a small percentage of the actual source which you accept as reality. So you are already contradicting your statement with multiple things you have said already. The etiologies of mental disorders would be obvious if you were more spiritually based and emotionally balanced and intuitively strong. You wouldn’t need to rely on scientific discourse and technology or suited up medical professionals who regurgitate symptomologies and academic neuroticisms. It is not something that you have to constantly impose various technological devices on. Most of which are dangerous to the body and mind anyways.

Most psychologists are just as crazy and mentally ill as their patients. So they are in no position to be the representatives for objective thought and discovering the true source of these mental disturbances. They are just as fragmented and traumatized as the rest of society and indulge in the same behaviors and mentalities. Maybe the reason you can’t get on board with the spiritual is because you have engulfed yourself in scientific thinking so much so that your mind cannot fathom a world without it. And there is fear and insecurity towards the spiritual even though you may be interested in some of its aspects, it’s more like a hobby to you it seems like. That is the abstraction in your mind similar to how you perceive science to be an abstraction in mines. Maybe you just don’t understand the subtleties and nuance of extra dimensional free form thought that is not bounded by the belief systems of socialized programming simply being passed down through academia and secular reductionist attitudes that try to turn off the mind and the authentic self.

And sure I can indulge in any type of philosophical thinking I want until I want to inject it into the legislature of society. Then you see their true colors of their incessant need for control and their insecurity towards a potentially spiritual and intuitive and emotional based society that defies physics and produces genuine healing and wisdom and knowledge and connection for the world.

And being aware of oneness is far from lazy. It requires discipline to build up your awareness to the unity of everything and how everything interconnects and is part of the same source. In my view, fragmentation is more on the lazy side. Because people reject oneness so that they do not discover the truth of who they are and what reality truly is. Because then they would have to sacrifice their own sense of personality and individualization. To become part of the greater whole is to become knowledge itself as well as wisdom and objective truth. You do not reach truth by separating various disciplines into sub categories for our own entertainment. If you see that as the dominant way to truth then you will be disappointed and disillusioned at some point and only find more separation and conflict and confusion amongst the masses.

 

[Foreigner]

If you do not agree that scientists believe they have an accurate world view then why even criticize my thoughts on epigenetix??? Obviously you feel confident enough about it to where you think that I am the one who is misunderstood. I don’t even think that scientists themselves understand what science is and what it truly entails. They are just regurgitating old notions and behaviors that are passed down through academic institutions that are funded by governmental control systems.

I'm sorry, I can't mentally process your enormous posts. Please write less.

I criticize your thoughts on epigenetics because they have no basis in reality. You accuse scientists of being lazy yet you turn around and make claims about epigenetics that are empirically lazy. The general public has wild perceptions about epigenetics and how they function. Almost no epigenetic changes in a person's lifetime make it into their offspring, and the random mutations that drive random selection still appear to be the primary drivers of biological change. People are making the same fallacious remarks about natural selection now that they did back in Darwin's day. People think that if giraffes have to reach their necks hard enough in a lifetime, that their constant reaching will change their genetics to create longer necks, and then their offspring will have longer necks. No, that's not how it works. What happens is independent assortment and crossing over during meiosis that forms gametes cause randomization of genetic traits, so that each generation has randomized alleles. Then the alleles of the traits that confer the best fitness to animals survive to reproduce while the others don't. So randomized births of giraffes with slightly different neck lengths over thousands (or millions) of years led to giraffes with longer necks surviving to reproduce. The ones with shorter necks didn't live as optimally and died out. Giraffes evolved to take advantage of a specific food niche, which was a food source that was higher up in trees. Giraffes with shorter necks who couldn't reach those food sources died out before having offspring.

Epigenetics is essentially a collection of methylated, acetylated and phosphorylated histones in a person's genetic material. These factors are added and re-arranged over a lifetime according to various pressures, including environmental. They alter gene expression, which has positive, neutral or negative impacts on the individual. However, when sperm and egg meet, the zygote is cleared of all the methylation, acetylation and phosphorylation that was in the genetic material of the parents. It's crossing over and independent assortment in gametes that drives most of the randomness of human change, not epigenetics.

Our thought patterns can certainly affect expression of our genes because negative thoughts can create stress and stress changes gene expression. But thoughts don't change our genes themselves. The content of thoughts is irrelevant. You can't activate or deactivate something that you don't already have, no matter how hard you wish for it.

If you want to make grandiose spiritual claims about how epigenetics work then you need to at least understand the fundamentals you're critiquing, and my point is that you don't. It's not that I'm so certain, it's that you don't know anything. The things I'm talking about here can be found in any first year university biology course. It would greatly enhance your understanding of schizohprenia, bipolar, etc. to read such materials.

 

[ovenbakedskittles]

I'm sorry, I can't mentally process your enormous posts. Please write less.

I criticize your thoughts on epigenetics because they have no basis in reality. You accuse scientists of being lazy yet you turn around and make claims about epigenetics that are empirically lazy. The general public has wild perceptions about epigenetics and how they function. Almost no epigenetic changes in a person's lifetime make it into their offspring, and the random mutations that drive random selection still appear to be the primary drivers of biological change. People are making the same fallacious remarks about natural selection now that they did back in Darwin's day. People think that if giraffes have to reach their necks hard enough in a lifetime, that their constant reaching will change their genetics to create longer necks, and then their offspring will have longer necks. No, that's not how it works. What happens is independent assortment and crossing over during meiosis that forms gametes cause randomization of genetic traits, so that each generation has randomized alleles. Then the alleles of the traits that confer the best fitness to animals survive to reproduce while the others don't. So randomized births of giraffes with slightly different neck lengths over thousands (or millions) of years led to giraffes with longer necks surviving to reproduce. The ones with shorter necks didn't live as optimally and died out. Giraffes evolved to take advantage of a specific food niche, which was a food source that was higher up in trees. Giraffes with shorter necks who couldn't reach those food sources died out before having offspring.

Epigenetics is essentially a collection of methylated, acetylated and phosphorylated histones in a person's genetic material. These factors are added and re-arranged over a lifetime according to various pressures, including environmental. They alter gene expression, which has positive, neutral or negative impacts on the individual. However, when sperm and egg meet, the zygote is cleared of all the methylation, acetylation and phosphorylation that was in the genetic material of the parents. It's crossing over and independent assortment in gametes that drives most of the randomness of human change, not epigenetics.

Our thought patterns can certainly affect expression of our genes because negative thoughts can create stress and stress changes gene expression. But thoughts don't change our genes themselves. The content of thoughts is irrelevant. You can't activate or deactivate something that you don't already have, no matter how hard you wish for it.

If you want to make grandiose spiritual claims about how epigenetics work then you need to at least understand the fundamentals you're critiquing, and my point is that you don't. It's not that I'm so certain, it's that you don't know anything. The things I'm talking about here can be found in any first year university biology course. It would greatly enhance your understanding of schizohprenia, bipolar, etc. to read such materials.

How could you say it has no basis in reality when you just admitted that no scientists think that their worldview is complete?? You just demonstrated again that you feel that our current scientific findings are a good representation of objective reality and they are far from it. All science can provide is the physical mechanics that are a result of metaphysical/spiritual phenomena. You don’t realize how many of your explanations or so called evidence or experimentations or studies that you are providing are actually just a very minuscule fragment of the entire reality. They are only a reflection of our current state of consciousness and mental evolution as a collective species.

And it’s weird that you are not able to process my information when you have implied that you have some sort of scientific qualification. You tell me to write less but then post a reply that is just as long as mines.

Either way. The randomization of alleles only appears random to the skeptical secular mind who sees a majority of the world as random. They think everything is just coincidence with no divine intervention at all and has to follow their preferred methods of what they think is logical and concrete. So of course the initial observers of this phenomenon will label it as random because they want to further perpetuate a worldview without any spiritual properties.

The epigenetics that are observed in modern science is not the full essence of what it really is. Thought and behavior goes beyond physical properties and is able to manifest reality in many kinds of different ways that are contradictory to our current understanding of how the world works. It doesn’t matter whether the histones become wiped out or not. The fact still remains that the offspring can adopt characteristics of the parent that aren’t physical such as certain fears and patterns of thought and behavior that keeps the offspring in a state of resistance throughout its life and makes it harder to achieve certain things as opposed to if they were born to a different family who didn’t have those same thought patterns. The histones do not make it but the metaphysical properties of thought and intention and focus still cross the barrier. Our scientific technology is just not advanced enough to observe that kind of process so all they have access to is the physical activities that are occurring which are only the surface of the true underlying reality that encompasses the process which is not physical in the same way of the 3 dimensional histones and alleles.

As a matter of fact I would say that those aspects are really the more irrelevant properties more so than the process of thought and intention. It is not simply a matter of wishing it to be true. The beings that are evolving are not usually conscious of this process so they will have unconscious wants and desires that are intensified enough for physical reality to follow suit. Sometimes the unconscious mind is stronger than the regular mind. And that is why it seems like something that is just happening randomly because the unconscious mind is not subjected to your expectations of how certain scientific processes work and it doesn’t follow our standard way of linear perception and observation and categorizing and filtering information in a way that we can understand in our current state of consciousness. We need to be more intuitively inclined in order to accommodate for all the activities that are going on. This is not just true for genetics but for all branches of science and philosophy. Especially quantum physics and dark matter/energy. We cannot rely on the rigid methods of science to give us the full objective view of what is really going on in these areas because by the act of observing the phenomenon in that standard linear way you already take away from the expansiveness and complexity and quality of the universe and its ability to produce so many activities and phenomena that are more free flowing and flexible and not bounded by egotistical impositions of rules and regulations and categorization. The methods of science completely contradict the behavior of nature which is where we ultimately come from and where science ultimately comes from as well. That is the reason why there tends to be a schism between people who are on opposite sides of the science/spirituality spectrum. Because one is aware of a certain fragment of reality and the other is aware of another fragment. The only reason that the scientific explanation is accepted is because it appeals to our primary state of existence which happens to be in the physical dimension. But that is not the only type of existence there is.

 

[Foreigner]

How could you say it has no basis in reality when you just admitted that no scientists think that their worldview is complete??

Because the premise of your view on how epigenetics works is false.

Science can be incomplete and you can be wrong. The two are mutually exclusive.

You just demonstrated again that you feel that our current scientific findings are a good representation of objective reality and they are far from it. All science can provide is the physical mechanics that are a result of metaphysical/spiritual phenomena. You don’t realize how many of your explanations or so called evidence or experimentations or studies that you are providing are actually just a very minuscule fragment of the entire reality. They are only a reflection of our current state of consciousness and mental evolution as a collective species.

You've provided no real evidence though that the scientific view of epigenetics is far from objective reality, other than your say so.

And it’s weird that you are not able to process my information when you have implied that you have some sort of scientific qualification. You tell me to write less but then post a reply that is just as long as mines.

Either way. The randomization of alleles only appears random to the skeptical secular mind who sees a majority of the world as random. They think everything is just coincidence with no divine intervention at all and has to follow their preferred methods of what they think is logical and concrete. So of course the initial observers of this phenomenon will label it as random because they want to further perpetuate a worldview without any spiritual properties.

Your faith-based beliefs are perfectly fine but they have no scientific applicability.

And of course allele randomization is RANDOM. It creates gametes with more random combinations than there are humans beings who have ever lived, in one gamete pool.

The epigenetics that are observed in modern science is not the full essence of what it really is.

You keep saying this but then provide no real evidence to support your claim, other than your spiritual beliefs, which are not objective evidence.

Thought and behavior goes beyond physical properties and is able to manifest reality in many kinds of different ways that are contradictory to our current understanding of how the world works. It doesn’t matter whether the histones become wiped out or not. The fact still remains that the offspring can adopt characteristics of the parent that aren’t physical such as certain fears and patterns of thought and behavior that keeps the offspring in a state of resistance throughout its life and makes it harder to achieve certain things as opposed to if they were born to a different family who didn’t have those same thought patterns. The histones do not make it but the metaphysical properties of thought and intention and focus still cross the barrier. Our scientific technology is just not advanced enough to observe that kind of process so all they have access to is the physical activities that are occurring which are only the surface of the true underlying reality that encompasses the process which is not physical in the same way of the 3 dimensional histones and alleles.

How convenient. You claim a mechanism that you believe is true but then say science lacks the technology to see it.

So how are YOU seeing it and how are YOU proving it?

As a matter of fact I would say

There's absolutely nothing factual about anything you're saying.

that those aspects are really the more irrelevant properties more so than the process of thought and intention. It is not simply a matter of wishing it to be true. The beings that are evolving are not usually conscious of this process so they will have unconscious wants and desires that are intensified enough for physical reality to follow suit. Sometimes the unconscious mind is stronger than the regular mind. And that is why it seems like something that is just happening randomly because the unconscious mind is not subjected to your expectations of how certain scientific processes work and it doesn’t follow our standard way of linear perception and observation and categorizing and filtering information in a way that we can understand in our current state of consciousness. We need to be more intuitively inclined in order to accommodate for all the activities that are going on. This is not just true for genetics but for all branches of science and philosophy. Especially quantum physics and dark matter/energy. We cannot rely on the rigid methods of science to give us the full objective view of what is really going on in these areas because by the act of observing the phenomenon in that standard linear way you already take away from the expansiveness and complexity and quality of the universe and its ability to produce so many activities and phenomena that are more free flowing and flexible and not bounded by egotistical impositions of rules and regulations and categorization. The methods of science completely contradict the behavior of nature which is where we ultimately come from and where science ultimately comes from as well. That is the reason why there tends to be a schism between people who are on opposite sides of the science/spirituality spectrum. Because one is aware of a certain fragment of reality and the other is aware of another fragment. The only reason that the scientific explanation is accepted is because it appeals to our primary state of existence which happens to be in the physical dimension. But that is not the only type of existence there is.

Yes thought and intention, blah blah, divine intervention, blah blah... go write a paper and have fun getting anyone to take it seriously.

Science and spirituality are not mutually exclusive. Only in your mind they are. You would benefit from a scientific education, it would help you to hone your spiritual understandings. You write off hundreds of years of science with the wave of your hand and substitute it with magical thinking that doesn't have credibility. I'm not saying it can never be proven, I'm saying there has been no evidence in any science experiment proving that thoughts and intentions have any relationship to genetics.

If you have evidence to the contrary then please feel free to put it forth.

Please understand, I am not dismissing your beliefs, I am critical of your dismissals of modern science based on non-existent evidence. If you want to dismiss science on scientific grounds then you need to provide objective evidence, and you haven't done that at all.

You're talking to someone with an incredibly rich spiritual life who is also a student of science. I find your dismissals and lack of complexity rather lazy.

 

[ovenbakedskittles]

Because the premise of your view on how epigenetics works is false.

Science can be incomplete and you can be wrong. The two are mutually exclusive.

I disagree. If science isn’t complete then there are many possibilities to reality that scientists might look back 100 years from now and realize that our worldview was actually the opposite of what reality really is in the same way people thought everything revolves around the earth.

You've provided no real evidence though that the scientific view of epigenetics is far from objective reality, other than your say so.

It is a matter of perspective and realizing that nothing in this modern society has a complete view of things whether it’s politics or psychology or ecology or archeology. They all share the same civilization and are all a reflection of eachother and a reflection of the society around them. So we are only dealing with the modern frame of reference and latching onto notions and ideas that are presented by them and accepting it as reality. Instead we have to use our own minds to

Your faith-based beliefs are perfectly fine but they have no scientific applicability.

It doesn’t take faith to realize the dehumanization of our modern day civilization. These are things that would become obvious to people if they detach from social programmings and cultural stigmas.

And of course allele randomization is RANDOM. It creates gametes with more random combinations than there are humans beings who have ever lived, in one gamete pool.

The quantity of gamete combination is irrelevant. Things could be in the trillions and still have divine consciousness within them. It is only relevant to the mentality of the observer when they make the discovery and any pre conceived notions and beliefs they had before making the observation.

You keep saying this but then provide no real evidence to support your claim, other than your spiritual beliefs, which are not objective evidence.

How can I provide evidence to something that hasn’t been established to the current model that you are relying yourself on??What might be evidence to me is not necessarily what you would consider evidence and therefore is impossible to convince someone who limits his or herself by modern physical scientific standards of examining life and reality. You ultimately have to make the decision yourself whether or not you want to partake in the discovery of a world that completely transcends the limits of your current belief systems and makes you aware of higher possibilities and higher evolution. That is not something I could just convince you of in a link or an article or a YouTube video or whatever type of evidence you are expecting me to give. That is yesterday’s methods. I honestly do not care whether or not you take it or leave it.

How convenient. You claim a mechanism that you believe is true but then say science lacks the technology to see it.

So how are YOU seeing it and how are YOU proving it?

Everyone sees it and everyone already knows it. It is only the truth that nobody wants to admit to and deny within themselves. For the sake of egotistical security and mind games and existential anxieties. If you were to alleviate your resistances to your own internal guidance system then certain things would just become obvious and science would become useless. Which is why they perpetuate the current paradigm in the first place. Obviously they are not gonna be aware of their own internal knowing because they are too busy being socialized into what universities and higher ups tell them. It is a collective self destructing cycle that keeps people in ignorance of their own authentic self and capabilities of perception.

Yes thought and intention, blah blah, divine intervention, blah blah... go write a paper and have fun getting anyone to take it seriously.

I am under no obligation and have no desire to prove these things to people who have such a limited mentality of only accepting information that comes from the narrow requirements of modern science. I don’t need anyone in that community to take me seriously because their opinion does not matter to me. What’s the point of living if you’re just gonna let a bunch of secular robots decide how to live your life and tell you what’s real?

Science and spirituality are not mutually exclusive. Only in your mind they are. You would benefit from a scientific education, it would help you to hone your spiritual understandings. You write off hundreds of years of science with the wave of your hand and substitute it with magical thinking that doesn't have credibility. I'm not saying it can never be proven, I'm saying there has been no evidence in any science experiment proving that thoughts and intentions have any relationship to genetics.

If you have evidence to the contrary then please feel free to put it forth.

Please understand, I am not dismissing your beliefs, I am critical of your dismissals of modern science based on non-existent evidence. If you want to dismiss science on scientific grounds then you need to provide objective evidence, and you haven't done that at all.

You're talking to someone with an incredibly rich spiritual life who is also a student of science. I find your dismissals and lack of complexity rather lazy.

You must have forgotten when I said that science is the offspring of spiritual phenomena so I very well know that they are not exclusive. But do you? You seem to exclude the two when it comes to that aspect of it. You think that just because you can indulge in both of them as personal activities that does not make them mutually exclusive but then on the other hand you fail to see how they are interrelated in regards to society as a whole and their attitudes towards eachother as separate communities. Only a very small percentage of scientists are interested in the spiritual nature of things while the majority patronizes it and scoffs condescendingly to people who are aware of things that are beyond the perception of modern science.

How is what I’m saying magical when all it has to do with is mechanisms of the mind that most people do not care to use? I am only referring to the natural phenomena that is occurring outside the perceptual view of science. There are many people who can see beyond that because they realized the power to do so themselves. Only problem is no one takes them seriously and they get sent to mental hospitals where they are forced to endure constant abuse of their metaphysical abilities for the sake of control and dominance and insecurity on the part of people who think they are being rational.

 

[Shady's Fox]

So tl:dr this thread is inspired by Mr.Robot?

 

[Foreigner]

Because the premise of your view on how epigenetics works is false.

I disagree. If science isn’t complete then there are many possibilities to reality that scientists might look back 100 years from now and realize that our worldview was actually the opposite of what reality really is in the same way people thought everything revolves around the earth.

That's conjecture. They could just as easily look back and think you're still wrong. Science works on evidence and some future construction of yours is not evidence.

It is a matter of perspective and realizing that nothing in this modern society has a complete view of things whether it’s politics or psychology or ecology or archeology. They all share the same civilization and are all a reflection of eachother and a reflection of the society around them. So we are only dealing with the modern frame of reference and latching onto notions and ideas that are presented by them and accepting it as reality. Instead we have to use our own minds to

I'm not arguing that it's complete. I'm merely arguing that if you're going to criticize science's epistemology then you must do so on scientific grounds, otherwise nobody cares. Science doesn't stake claim to ontology. It necessarily excludes it because ontology can't be tested. They are different branches of humanity.

It doesn’t take faith to realize the dehumanization of our modern day civilization. These are things that would become obvious to people if they detach from social programmings and cultural stigmas.

In other words, if they listened to you?

The quantity of gamete combination is irrelevant. Things could be in the trillions and still have divine consciousness within them. It is only relevant to the mentality of the observer when they make the discovery and any pre conceived notions and beliefs they had before making the observation.

Well I hear your beliefs but stating them as scientific fact is invalid since you have no scientific basis to do so.

Therefore gamete combination is not at all irrelevant, since you can't come up with evidence to refute it.

I accept your beliefs but they are just that: beliefs.

How can I provide evidence to something that hasn’t been established to the current model that you are relying yourself on??

I don't rely on science, actually. You keep trying to peg me into one camp or the other, which is pretty silly. I'm many things. If you want to critique science then you better know science, and clearly you don't. Believe what you want but don't call it scientific.

What might be evidence to me is not necessarily what you would consider evidence and therefore is impossible to convince someone who limits his or herself by modern physical scientific standards of examining life and reality. You ultimately have to make the decision yourself whether or not you want to partake in the discovery of a world that completely transcends the limits of your current belief systems and makes you aware of higher possibilities and higher evolution. That is not something I could just convince you of in a link or an article or a YouTube video or whatever type of evidence you are expecting me to give. That is yesterday’s methods. I honestly do not care whether or not you take it or leave it.

You assume I'm limited, but you're just plain arrogant.

Like I said, believe what you want. You'll find plenty of threads on here where I talk about spiritual phenomena. But if you want to talk science, then talk science. And if you don't have scientific proof for the things you're saying, then we need to talk about it in other terms that aren't scientific.

Your critique of science is, frankly, hypocritical.

Everyone sees it and everyone already knows it. It is only the truth that nobody wants to admit to and deny within themselves. For the sake of egotistical security and mind games and existential anxieties. If you were to alleviate your resistances to your own internal guidance system then certain things would just become obvious and science would become useless. Which is why they perpetuate the current paradigm in the first place. Obviously they are not gonna be aware of their own internal knowing because they are too busy being socialized into what universities and higher ups tell them. It is a collective self destructing cycle that keeps people in ignorance of their own authentic self and capabilities of perception.

Nobody is forcing you to go to university. There are spiritual schools out there. Ashrams, retreat centers, even spiritual universities.

You seem to think you're the only person in the world who's awake and I find that troubling.

I am under no obligation and have no desire to prove these things to people who have such a limited mentality of only accepting information that comes from the narrow requirements of modern science. I don’t need anyone in that community to take me seriously because their opinion does not matter to me. What’s the point of living if you’re just gonna let a bunch of secular robots decide how to live your life and tell you what’s real?

More condescending non-sense. Well, it seems like you've got it all figured out, including me. Saying that I'm mentally limited is 100% projection and incredibly ironic given that you don't even know the science you're critiquing.

Who said I'm secular? Did I say that? No. That's your assumption, and a very wrong one. You are steeped up to your eyeballs in hubris.

You must have forgotten when I said that science is the offspring of spiritual phenomena so I very well know that they are not exclusive. But do you? You seem to exclude the two when it comes to that aspect of it. You think that just because you can indulge in both of them as personal activities that does not make them mutually exclusive but then on the other hand you fail to see how they are interrelated in regards to society as a whole and their attitudes towards eachother as separate communities. Only a very small percentage of scientists are interested in the spiritual nature of things while the majority patronizes it and scoffs condescendingly to people who are aware of things that are beyond the perception of modern science.

That may be true but I don't think science is to blame for that. Before science there was Christianity in the west, and that was even more dismissive of plurality. So I don't know what you're complaining about -- that the world isn't good enough?

Why don't you quit the condescension and use some of your almighty spiritual prowess to show some compassion to your fellow human beings, instead of looking upon them like they are less than you?

How is what I’m saying magical when all it has to do with is mechanisms of the mind that most people do not care to use? I am only referring to the natural phenomena that is occurring outside the perceptual view of science. There are many people who can see beyond that because they realized the power to do so themselves. Only problem is no one takes them seriously and they get sent to mental hospitals where they are forced to endure constant abuse of their metaphysical abilities for the sake of control and dominance and insecurity on the part of people who think they are being rational.

If you think you can mentally alter your DNA then go ahead and do it. Nobody is stopping you from running that experiment. Let us know your results.

 

[ovenbakedskittles]

My apologies. I was not notified of your response.

That's conjecture. They could just as easily look back and think you're still wrong. Science works on evidence and some future construction of yours is not evidence.

Of course but my point is that even if there is a possibility that our current model is flawed then it wouldn’t make sense to completely write me off as someone who’s just speaking merely from belief. Because if you can acknowledge that possibility but still criticize my words and say that they are merely belief then you are contradicting yourself after saying that science is not claiming total objective reality. Because if there current model is wrong then the whole scientific foundation was just going on belief and any experimentation or evidence that they accumulated really did not matter that much at all other than leading them to that higher realization that our reality is completely different than currently perceived. And it would just validate that people who have come to similar realizations as me were using methods that were more accurate than the scientists themselves. But again I know you believe that is just opinion.

I'm not arguing that it's complete. I'm merely arguing that if you're going to criticize science's epistemology then you must do so on scientific grounds, otherwise nobody cares. Science doesn't stake claim to ontology. It necessarily excludes it because ontology can't be tested. They are different branches of humanity.

If nobody cares then that is not my loss. I am providing information that can improve quality of life. If they choose to not accept it and disregard it as magical thinking then that is their decision.

In other words, if they listened to you?

If they listened to themselves.

Well I hear your beliefs but stating them as scientific fact is invalid since you have no scientific basis to do so.

Therefore gamete combination is not at all irrelevant, since you can't come up with evidence to refute it.

I accept your beliefs but they are just that: beliefs.

This is something that anyone can know just by activating their minds rather than giving it away to socialization and scientific notions. It is like you asking me to provide evidence that the sky is blue when all you have to do is look up. Not saying that it is that easy to detach from social constructs but it is the same concept which should make you understand my perspective a little bit more when you ask for evidence of any of the things that we have discussed. You are only reserving yourself for the hope that science will provide you the answer later on rather than using the mechanisms of your mind that you have turned yourself off to/are unaware of. If you do not believe that discoveries are relative to the observer than you are denying a very fundamental aspect of human nature that can only be realized through personal observation and personal intellect and awareness no matter how unreliable you think those methods are for observing reality. As well as everything having divine consciousness within it no matter the quantity of it. That is not something I would expect a scientist to be aware of anyways.

In other words you are actually disabling your mind more and more by relying on physical evidence and technology because it has caused you to overlook the most fundamental things about human behavior and the activities that are going on beyond the physical dimension.

I don't rely on science, actually. You keep trying to peg me into one camp or the other, which is pretty silly. I'm many things. If you want to critique science then you better know science, and clearly you don't. Believe what you want but don't call it scientific.

I don’t think I called it scientific it is just reality that is apparent to people who have the genuine desire to know these things without the interference of socialized skepticism and doubt. That may be ridiculous to you but that is actually the only true way to see things as they really are.

And the only thing that is silly is the way you are trying to deny the part of yourself that favors scientific observation over spiritual and personal observation. No matter how many esoteric topix you might be knowledgeable in. The fact that you have disagreed with me this whole time and keep trying to convince me with trivial scientific explanation of certain mechanics and processes of genetics and histones and what not really shows that you lean more towards the physical rather than the spiritual. If you cannot acknowledge that spiritual creates physical then it is not accurate to say that you are completely considerate of both disciplines.

You assume I'm limited, but you're just plain arrogant.

Like I said, believe what you want. You'll find plenty of threads on here where I talk about spiritual phenomena. But if you want to talk science, then talk science. And if you don't have scientific proof for the things you're saying, then we need to talk about it in other terms that aren't scientific.

Your critique of science is, frankly, hypocritical.

I have been speaking in those terms all along but you are so attached to the scientific paradigm that you disregard it as magical thinking.

Nobody is forcing you to go to university. There are spiritual schools out there. Ashrams, retreat centers, even spiritual universities.

You seem to think you're the only person in the world who's awake and I find that troubling.

I wouldn’t characterize it as awake but rather I am just observant of certain things that would be obvious to anyone who does not limit their minds to institutions and outside information like media and books. I do not believe that I am the only one who has had these realizations so don’t worry. Although I don’t see how that would be troubling exactly. Sounds like more fear and insecurity to me.

More condescending non-sense. Well, it seems like you've got it all figured out, including me. Saying that I'm mentally limited is 100% projection and incredibly ironic given that you don't even know the science you're critiquing.

Who said I'm secular? Did I say that? No. That's your assumption, and a very wrong one. You are steeped up to your eyeballs in hubris.

It does not need to be said it is apparent through your outlook and unwillingness to accept physical phenomena as a result of metaphysical phenomena.

That may be true but I don't think science is to blame for that. Before science there was Christianity in the west, and that was even more dismissive of plurality. So I don't know what you're complaining about -- that the world isn't good enough?

The attitudes of scientists are perpetuating the dichotomy between themselves and the Christian community. They are like little kids arguing but yet scientists carry on the same attitudes as fundamentalist Christians in thinking that their worldview is the correct one and trying to make people believe that if they do not accept science then they are delusional and ignorant. They are just better at hiding their destructive attitudes to make it seem like they are better than Christians or that they are more intelligent and want the best for people so that people will be convinced of their notions.

It might not be the same as the dark ages but we are dealing with something a lot more destructive in this generation that people are not aware of or have a full understanding of and would probably take a whole book for me to explain it. I have already explained some of it though in my previous posts but if you are skeptical of my explanations then I wouldn’t expect you to make the same connections anyways.

The scientific community is in subconscious rebellion against the religious community and are in resistance to a pro human future. The whole science establishment will eventually reach a point where they have technological and secular control over everything and we will not be able to have free will anymore. That in a way is more destructive than anything the Christians did before the modern era. You cannot expect our civilization to have social and intellectual resolution with a system that is based on denying god and denying spirituality and denying your authentic self and inner truth. They will act like they just want to make incredible discoveries that will help humanity but will continue to impose excessive unnecessary technological devices and toxic medicines that scramble neurons in the brains of children. Not to mention that science is responsible for the atomic bombs and nuclear and biological warfare and yet they want to act like they are so much better than the Christians. The hubris of science is much larger than anything I can formulate with my personality or any individual person for that matter.

Why don't you quit the condescension and use some of your almighty spiritual prowess to show some compassion to your fellow human beings, instead of looking upon them like they are less than you?

I feel me providing this information to people does show my compassion but yet when people deny it and minimize and trivialize my contribution then you would understand why I behave the way I do. I am under no obligation to be compassionate towards people who only want to destroy themselves with their own ignorance and then criticize me for trying to help.

If you think you can mentally alter your DNA then go ahead and do it. Nobody is stopping you from running that experiment. Let us know your results.

I would think that you would realize by now that performing such an experiment is not as simple as your proposed mundane scientific methods that are really only applicable to third dimensional phenomena. But I assume that you are being dramatic. I never even said that it is possible to achieve that in this life time but it is something we can build to as a collective society if we learn how to integrate and decondition ourselves from social programming over a long period of time. It is not something that you can just achieve in a matter of months or couple years unless you are willing to completely separate from modern life.

 

[Foreigner]

There's a lot to unpack here and I don't have the energy, but I will do what I can.

Of course but my point is that even if there is a possibility that our current model is flawed then it wouldn’t make sense to completely write me off as someone who’s just speaking merely from belief. Because if you can acknowledge that possibility but still criticize my words and say that they are merely belief then you are contradicting yourself after saying that science is not claiming total objective reality. Because if there current model is wrong then the whole scientific foundation was just going on belief and any experimentation or evidence that they accumulated really did not matter that much at all other than leading them to that higher realization that our reality is completely different than currently perceived. And it would just validate that people who have come to similar realizations as me were using methods that were more accurate than the scientists themselves. But again I know you believe that is just opinion.

The current model is definitely flawed, but it can't be dismissed wholesale because it's only flawed to a certain degree. Similarly, one can't say that the model is "wrong", period. To me there is no "what if the model is wrong [completely]", because it's not completely wrong.

No offense, but dividing things into right vs. wrong is intellectually lazy. It takes proper acumen to dive into a system and really discern what is valuable from what is trivial, and every system has both.

As a truth seeker, I think all systems of discovery have grains of wisdom, and if there is a "greater reality", they are likely connected to it because we ourselves are part of that greater reality. I don't think the "greater reality" can be so different that it is completely divorced from human epistemologies. Most systems are expressing the same fundamental truths, even science, if you know how to approach it.

If nobody cares then that is not my loss. I am providing information that can improve quality of life. If they choose to not accept it and disregard it as magical thinking then that is their decision.

Well, it's not that what you're saying lacks plausibility, it's that you are criticizing science while bypassing the means of doing so, in a very general way. If you read any scientific textbook, they will talk about the experiments they did which provided proof for the conclusions they drew. That would be the place to construct effective critiques. But saying science is wrong or right is neither here nor there.

This is something that anyone can know just by activating their minds rather than giving it away to socialization and scientific notions. It is like you asking me to provide evidence that the sky is blue when all you have to do is look up.

This is so vague that I honestly don't even now what you're talking about anymore.

Not saying that it is that easy to detach from social constructs but it is the same concept which should make you understand my perspective a little bit more when you ask for evidence of any of the things that we have discussed.

You're critiquing science but not describing what you're actually critiquing, how you're critiquing it, or the evidence for your critiques. You're just saying vague things like there is a higher overriding reality that is so apparent that anyone can access it, and if they do they'll penetrate the sham that is science.

I'm wondering why science can't possibly be part of this discrete higher reality you're vaguely alluding to?

You are only reserving yourself for the hope that science will provide you the answer later on rather than using the mechanisms of your mind that you have turned yourself off to/are unaware of.

Or my psychic faculties are fully open, I'm taking them with me into scientific inquiry, and I'm using the scientific method to enhance my spiritual understanding of existence. Can someone engaging in the scientific method feel/experience spirit? Yes, yes they can. I know because it happens to me.

If you do not believe that discoveries are relative to the observer than you are denying a very fundamental aspect of human nature that can only be realized through personal observation and personal intellect and awareness no matter how unreliable you think those methods are for observing reality. As well as everything having divine consciousness within it no matter the quantity of it. That is not something I would expect a scientist to be aware of anyways.

If everything is part of divine consciousness then so is science, and that's the very thing you have been denying this entire time.

The very computer you're typing on was made by centuries worth of scientific discovery. If you want to get non-dual about it: okay, there is no actual computer... but if you want to be practical about it, yes there is a computer, and it's comprised of millions of miraculous circuits that are conveying conscious ideas from one location to another, which is all divine.

How is science separate from divinity?

In other words you are actually disabling your mind more and more by relying on physical evidence and technology because it has caused you to overlook the most fundamental things about human behavior and the activities that are going on beyond the physical dimension.

You're not qualified to speak to mental disability. Just because people arrive at conclusions differently than you does not mean they are spiritually blinded. Your hubris is off the charts.

I don’t think I called it scientific it is just reality that is apparent to people who have the genuine desire to know these things without the interference of socialized skepticism and doubt. That may be ridiculous to you but that is actually the only true way to see things as they really are.

Who are you to decide for everyone what the one true way of seeing things is? Who made you ruler of the universe?

How solipsistic can you get?

And the only thing that is silly is the way you are trying to deny the part of yourself that favors scientific observation over spiritual and personal observation. No matter how many esoteric topix you might be knowledgeable in. The fact that you have disagreed with me this whole time and keep trying to convince me with trivial scientific explanation of certain mechanics and processes of genetics and histones and what not really shows that you lean more towards the physical rather than the spiritual. If you cannot acknowledge that spiritual creates physical then it is not accurate to say that you are completely considerate of both disciplines.

I don't care to convince you of anything. If you think you can consciously alter your DNA then have at it. Nobody is stopping you.

Go ahead and keep negating all of reality and the conscious creations of other beings, which includes science, and just relegate everything to cosmic oneness. Why bother investigating anything? Why even bother talking to me as a separate person? It's all just God, right?

You are clearly enlightened, above and beyond me.

I have been speaking in those terms all along but you are so attached to the scientific paradigm that you disregard it as magical thinking.

In all my years in P&S, this has to be the most hilarious statement ever directed at me.

I am the most unattached person to the scientific paradigm you will encounter in P&S. Just because I defend science doesn't mean I'm a scientist or even an objectivist. Your repeat psychobabble about my inner state is so laughable I can't take you seriously at all anymore.

I wouldn’t characterize it as awake but rather I am just observant of certain things that would be obvious to anyone who does not limit their minds to institutions and outside information like media and books. I do not believe that I am the only one who has had these realizations so don’t worry. Although I don’t see how that would be troubling exactly. Sounds like more fear and insecurity to me.

Yeah man, you're so outside of the box! Nobody has ever thought those kinds of thoughts before. You're just so above it all.

I'm fearful and insecure? Pot meet kettle.

It does not need to be said it is apparent through your outlook and unwillingness to accept physical phenomena as a result of metaphysical phenomena.

Literally hundreds of threads in P&S prove otherwise.

The attitudes of scientists are perpetuating the dichotomy between themselves and the Christian community. They are like little kids arguing but yet scientists carry on the same attitudes as fundamentalist Christians in thinking that their worldview is the correct one and trying to make people believe that if they do not accept science then they are delusional and ignorant. They are just better at hiding their destructive attitudes to make it seem like they are better than Christians or that they are more intelligent and want the best for people so that people will be convinced of their notions.

Yes... you do seem to be the expert on who is delusional and ignorant, and who is enlightened and correct. I should have consulted you before I wrote my first word.

It might not be the same as the dark ages but we are dealing with something a lot more destructive in this generation that people are not aware of or have a full understanding of and would probably take a whole book for me to explain it. I have already explained some of it though in my previous posts but if you are skeptical of my explanations then I wouldn’t expect you to make the same connections anyways.

I'm way past being skeptical of you. You have spouted so much solipsistic rhetoric that I can't really commit anymore time to you in this thread. Reading your cyclical and cognitively dissonant diatribe over and over is not really serving me. Not to mention it's boring.

The scientific community is in subconscious rebellion against the religious community and are in resistance to a pro human future. The whole science establishment will eventually reach a point where they have technological and secular control over everything and we will not be able to have free will anymore. That in a way is more destructive than anything the Christians did before the modern era. You cannot expect our civilization to have social and intellectual resolution with a system that is based on denying god and denying spirituality and denying your authentic self and inner truth. They will act like they just want to make incredible discoveries that will help humanity but will continue to impose excessive unnecessary technological devices and toxic medicines that scramble neurons in the brains of children. Not to mention that science is responsible for the atomic bombs and nuclear and biological warfare and yet they want to act like they are so much better than the Christians. The hubris of science is much larger than anything I can formulate with my personality or any individual person for that matter.

Science isn't the problem. Neither is religion. It's closed minded people such as yourself, ones who think they have found the ultimate truth and try to foist it violently onto others while guising it as liberation.

I feel me providing this information to people does show my compassion but yet when people deny it and minimize and trivialize my contribution then you would understand why I behave the way I do. I am under no obligation to be compassionate towards people who only want to destroy themselves with their own ignorance and then criticize me for trying to help.

Spare me your self-aggrandization. Truly compassionate people don't go around talking about how compassionate they are because compassion and humility go hand in hand. Your compassion could use some work.

You have free will and can say whatever you want. Nobody is obliged to swallow it whole. I certainly won't.

You've been called out for mischaracterizing science and being vague when evidence is requested. Instead of having the humility to hear that, you've responded with some kind of weird pseudopsychological analysis of my way of seeing the world. You've also been very punitive in your language towards me, which really is just you having a tantrum because you can't get your ideological way. You try to come across as elevated but frankly I find you highly manipulative.

I would think that you would realize by now that performing such an experiment is not as simple as your proposed mundane scientific methods that are really only applicable to third dimensional phenomena. But I assume that you are being dramatic. I never even said that it is possible to achieve that in this life time but it is something we can build to as a collective society if we learn how to integrate and decondition ourselves from social programming over a long period of time. It is not something that you can just achieve in a matter of months or couple years unless you are willing to completely separate from modern life.

Science never claimed to be able to qualify anything beyond the third dimension. Only you are claiming it does that.

You're faulting science for not being able to qualify conscious reality as you experience it, when it's not supposed to do that. Then, when science defers to materialism, which is its only domain, you accuse it of being mundane and limited. Tell me... do you drive a car? Use a computer? Refrigerate your food? Use technology of any kind? Yeah, science gave that to you by being material reductionist. And you accuse it of being limited for not catering to vague metaphysical principles. Maybe instead of being angry that material reductionism won't get all metaphysical for you, you should go delve into a system that will?

If you can devise a way for science to test your metaphysical perceptions, then I'd love to hear it. Otherwise, your metaphysical perceptions would be better served if they were explained by a different system, or maybe no system at all. It's like being angry at a fish because it can't climb a tree. Maybe you should go talk to a monkey instead because trees are the domain of monkeys, not fish.

You fail to comprehend the simple difference between ontology and epistemology. Then you ream people out for having shallow and ill-conceived ideas which don't add up to your world view, and call yourself compassionate.

Respond to me if you wish. I no longer wish to continue this conversation. Cheers.

 

[ovenbakedskittles]

There's a lot to unpack here and I don't have the energy, but I will do what I can.

I know you will not respond to this because I am about to expound on my thoughts even more so than my previous posts but it does not matter. I will continue anyways.

The current model is definitely flawed, but it can't be dismissed wholesale because it's only flawed to a certain degree. Similarly, one can't say that the model is "wrong", period. To me there is no "what if the model is wrong [completely]", because it's not completely wrong.

There are many different models to many different parts of scientific investigation but ultimately modern scientific inquiry suggests that based on the discoveries we have made so far it is more likely that there are no spiritual components to reality at all and that is a major flaw on the part of science that will eventually contribute to the downfall of our civilization and the downfall of our conscious awareness of what is truly going on around us at all times metaphysically. Science has injected itself into the legislature of society in the same way that Christianity injected itself into the western world during the fall of Rome. And just like Christianity it will create a destructive pattern that will only be apparent to the collective in years to come. You can choose to disbelieve that if you want but it is inevitable that a physical based system will lose its essence due to the lack of spiritual awareness and gradually mislead the population into ever increasing separation and confusion.

No offense, but dividing things into right vs. wrong is intellectually lazy. It takes proper acumen to dive into a system and really discern what is valuable from what is trivial, and every system has both.

It’s not necessary to analyze every single aspect of what is right and wrong about a particular system. It is only necessary to realize that a system that does not acknowledge the spirit side of reality will eventually degenerate into unconscious biases and preferences toward 3 dimensional living and as a result not be able to perceive objective reality no matter how much they try to convince themselves and other people that that is what it is here to do.

As a truth seeker, I think all systems of discovery have grains of wisdom, and if there is a "greater reality", they are likely connected to it because we ourselves are part of that greater reality. I don't think the "greater reality" can be so different that it is completely divorced from human epistemologies. Most systems are expressing the same fundamental truths, even science, if you know how to approach it.

Every discipline is connected to and receives wisdom and inspiration from the god source being that they are just another expression of the everlasting consciousness that created the universes and everything in them. However that does not necessarily mean that all of those things are of a high enough vibration to be considered the most beneficial way for society to progress. For example you can also say that satanism and Mormonism and religion in general have some sort of inspiration and wisdom from the fundamental universal source as well but yet they have created difficulties for humanity which at times created more suffering and unconscious awareness and a de evolution in thought rather than pro evolution which leads to brightened awareness and genuine connection and unity and healing for humanity. I am not saying that science and satanism are synonymous but rather it just shows that just because something is part of the greater whole that is inherent with this wisdom and potential unity it does not mean that it is necessarily beneficial to the overall outcome of the modern social dilemma.

Well, it's not that what you're saying lacks plausibility, it's that you are criticizing science while bypassing the means of doing so, in a very general way. If you read any scientific textbook, they will talk about the experiments they did which provided proof for the conclusions they drew. That would be the place to construct effective critiques. But saying science is wrong or right is neither here nor there.

The whole process of experimentation and providing evidence is unnecessary so it is not so much bypassing as it is acknowledging the fact that the fundamental ground that modern science stands on is based on the disempowerment of utilizing your own mental and spiritual capabilities to discover the mysteries of both the physical and non physical universe. Why would i use the same methods of the thing I am criticizing?? That would not be a genuine criticism and will only validate the very thing I’m criticizing. And by validate I do not mean unintentionally proving it to be the best method but rather it will validate it for the establishment that created those methods in the first place and the people who are perpetuating and propagating the current secular outlook and I will be contributing to its faculties instead of realizing its discrepancies. It is a paradox that you seem to be unaware of.

This is so vague that I honestly don't even now what you're talking about anymore.

I am not sure how to make it any clearer. The things which you consider complex scientific occurrences that require a dissection of the various processes of physical life are simply unimportant to me and can be easily explained and observed by a more collective view of the source that is creating the phenomenon in the first place. The source which you have dissonance to because you believe that you cannot be aware of the overall higher phenomena which creates the lower phenomena that modern science observes i.e. various facts about the mechanics of genetics and DNA that are completely unnecessary for realizing the objective reality of something. I used the sky as a metaphor to demonstrate your unwillingness to be aware of these all encompassing metaphysical influences that are apparent at all times and demanding physical evidence instead. but yet you still express confusion and lack of understanding towards my words.

You're critiquing science but not describing what you're actually critiquing, how you're critiquing it, or the evidence for your critiques. You're just saying vague things like there is a higher overriding reality that is so apparent that anyone can access it, and if they do they'll penetrate the sham that is science.

That is part of what I am saying but they are not at all vague. Only to the minds that are solidified in physical life. Which you are in denial that you are more solidified in that space more so than the extra dimensional space which allows you to become aware of the shallow superficial and materialistic smokescreens that are inherent within all physical disciplines of modern society.

I'm wondering why science can't possibly be part of this discrete higher reality you're vaguely alluding to?

Everything is part of the higher reality. But like I said recently. Just because it is part of the source does not mean that it is exempt from unconscious destructive behaviors that cause more harm than good.

Or my psychic faculties are fully open, I'm taking them with me into scientific inquiry, and I'm using the scientific method to enhance my spiritual understanding of existence. Can someone engaging in the scientific method feel/experience spirit? Yes, yes they can. I know because it happens to me.

They can to a certain degree. I wouldn’t say it is the ultimate way to fully experience spirit and objective reality given that the methods that are being used in today’s science are rooted in fragmenting the reality that we see before us which would counteract your spiritual motivations. Furthermore that is obviously not the majority of scientists who have that experience and most of the qualified representatives propagate the opposite which is detrimental to collective conscious awareness of true reality.

If everything is part of divine consciousness then so is science, and that's the very thing you have been denying this entire time.

On the contrary I have been the one this whole time saying that science is the offspring of spirit and science fails to recognize and acknowledge its true origins while you happen to be the one between us to deny that fact by constantly favoring the mundane physical mechanics of certain processes.

The very computer you're typing on was made by centuries worth of scientific discovery. If you want to get non-dual about it: okay, there is no actual computer... but if you want to be practical about it, yes there is a computer, and it's comprised of millions of miraculous circuits that are conveying conscious ideas from one location to another, which is all divine.

How is science separate from divinity?

You were the one saying how gamete combinations are completely random while I was the one who pointed out the divine consciousness within them that proves them to not be as random as we interpret them to be. You seem to have overlooked that conversation and are just repeating what I said and trying to make it seem like I’m saying the opposite of what I’m actually saying.

You're not qualified to speak to mental disability. Just because people arrive at conclusions differently than you does not mean they are spiritually blinded. Your hubris is off the charts.

Qualification is unnecessary. Again you favor the socially constructed physical material view of what makes a person qualified to speak on something. I am an individual person who can speak on any subject I choose to. Either way I was not speaking of mental disability in psychological clinical terms. I was merely referring to the degeneration of thought that is inherent with indulging in modern scientific methodology and secular outlook.

Who are you to decide for everyone what the one true way of seeing things is? Who made you ruler of the universe?

How solipsistic can you get?

Your assumptions of me are incorrect. I don’t decide for everyone how they should see things. I’m simply pointing out that they have the power within themselves to figure out truth and they don’t have to rely on physical constructs that are designed for control and exploiting people’s fears and insecurities about human life and reality. If you view that as egotistical and self involved and arrogant then it would be wise to question your own compassion and consideration towards human life and the potential healing qualities that mind and spirit are capable of producing.

I don't care to convince you of anything. If you think you can consciously alter your DNA then have at it. Nobody is stopping you.

Again you are being dramatic. And yet you say i am the one throwing the tantrum. At the risk of sounding repetitive, I would expect someone of your intelligence and supposed academic achievement to comprehend that what I am explaining is a process that requires years and years of spiritual and psychological discipline that might not even be achieved in this lifetime. So just simply saying “have at it” is frankly transparent and reveals your unwillingness to investigate these concepts yourself and to accept the potential for a better alternative to the current living state of human beings. Instead you minimize the potential and try to make it seem outlandish which is exactly what was taught to you by the science institutions.

Go ahead and keep negating all of reality and the conscious creations of other beings, which includes science, and just relegate everything to cosmic oneness. Why bother investigating anything? Why even bother talking to me as a separate person? It's all just God, right?

You are clearly enlightened, above and beyond me.

Between the two of us I would say that I am the only one who is acknowledging the greater reality. I think you are confusing my criticisms toward physical based constructs and systems for a general avoidance towards reality as a whole. And again that just shows your reliance upon those systems rather than relying on the nature of reality that birthed those systems in the first place.

In all my years in P&S, this has to be the most hilarious statement ever directed at me.

I’m glad that you find my words entertaining.

I am the most unattached person to the scientific paradigm you will encounter in P&S. Just because I defend science doesn't mean I'm a scientist or even an objectivist.

Your responses seem to indicate otherwise. Granted you may not technically be a scientist but did you not imply that you have some sort of scientific qualification given to you by an academic institution?? That seems to be a little close to the mark for you to make it seem like what I am saying is completely far off. Either way I disagree. If you defend the current science methodologies and outlooks then you are another instrument who is influenced to propagate the current establishment and its motives to dehumanize the civilization and create a secular society that will be stripped of their free will and sense of self and true genuine awareness of self and everything that is perceived to be external to self. It will be the opposite of what many are expecting.

Your repeat psychobabble about my inner state is so laughable I can't take you seriously at all anymore.

More denial. Again your skepticism is not my loss. Neither is your unawareness toward your preferences for the physical.

Yeah man, you're so outside of the box! Nobody has ever thought those kinds of thoughts before. You're just so above it all.

That’s pretty much the opposite of what I just said so I wouldn’t even characterize that as sarcasm.

I'm fearful and insecure? Pot meet kettle.

Yes

Literally hundreds of threads in P&S prove otherwise.

But yet you still remain cynical and dismissive towards fundamental capabilities of the human mind and healing qualities of spirit. Interesting

Yes... you do seem to be the expert on who is delusional and ignorant, and who is enlightened and correct. I should have consulted you before I wrote my first word.

You don’t really have to be an expert to realize the narrow minded views of modern day science and to be aware of their own cognitive dissonance towards anything that suggests a higher divine consciousness influencing the material world.

I'm way past being skeptical of you. You have spouted so much solipsistic rhetoric that I can't really commit anymore time to you in this thread. Reading your cyclical and cognitively dissonant diatribe over and over is not really serving me. Not to mention it's boring.

That is amusing. Projecting your own cognitive dissonance onto me as if calling out the hypocrisies of science is somehow me avoiding something. And it appears cyclical to you because I have to repeat myself in hopes that you will understand more but it is obviously a brick wall situation which you ultimately just end up projecting onto me instead.

Science isn't the problem. Neither is religion. It's closed minded people such as yourself, ones who think they have found the ultimate truth and try to foist it violently onto others while guising it as liberation.

If you think this is violent then I would not want to live in your reality. I am merely expressing my observations to better enhance the understanding and awareness of people who may not have had these realizations yet. It is incredibly beneficial to acknowledge the healing properties of the ultimate divine and anyone who happens to discover that potential naturally feels compelled to share that beneficial information with others due to the incredible inspiration that is received by discovering this astounding quality of life. However there has been a change in my behavior and attitude and how I express this information to people over the years because I have realized that people do not want to be helped and would rather suffer with their own unconscious behaviors instead and belittle my contributions and try to make them seem like they have no application to current societal dilemma. So I have gradually cared less and less whether people take it or leave it and decided to exercise my own authenticity instead while still providing the information that has come from these revelations. Not to mention it is such a vast amount of information that is almost impossible to withhold it within the confines of my own personal space of mind and thought.

However I wouldn’t say my approach is violent. That is a bit of a reach. It just annoys me when people do not see what is right in front of them and try to justify their own denial with thoughts and ideas that are not their own. So I may come across as moody or intense but there really is no way around that. You would be surprised how the majority of people in this society are really just self destructive suicidal cynical condescending assholes who try to cover up their ugly nature with pretense and artificial ideas of morality. I do not care to be some kind of leader to try to counteract the suicidal maniacs. There is no breaking free will. You either realize the leader within yourself or you don’t. And my criticisms do not have to cater to yours or anybody else’s idea of how I should conduct myself or how I express this information.

Spare me your self-aggrandization. Truly compassionate people don't go around talking about how compassionate they are because compassion and humility go hand in hand. Your compassion could use some work.

I do not care about how you think compassion should work. Obviously we differ on that concept.

You have free will and can say whatever you want. Nobody is obliged to swallow it whole. I certainly won't.

You don’t have to. Recognize the truth about yourself and you will come to the same realizations as I.

You've been called out for mischaracterizing science and being vague when evidence is requested. Instead of having the humility to hear that, you've responded with some kind of weird pseudopsychological analysis of my way of seeing the world. You've also been very punitive in your language towards me, which really is just you having a tantrum because you can't get your ideological way. You try to come across as elevated but frankly I find you highly manipulative.

Hah. Manipulative is a word of the weak minded. Not to be harsh but there is no such thing as manipulation. You either have confidence in yourself or you don’t. And the ones that don’t will manipulate themselves and blame other people for their own internal confusion and lack of awareness.

Science never claimed to be able to qualify anything beyond the third dimension. Only you are claiming it does that.

I am claiming that science would be greatly enhanced if it incorporated metaphysical aspects to it rather than just rejecting it entirely and causing more fragmentation and separation within the social consciousness.

You're faulting science for not being able to qualify conscious reality as you experience it, when it's not supposed to do that. Then, when science defers to materialism, which is its only domain, you accuse it of being mundane and limited. Tell me... do you drive a car? Use a computer? Refrigerate your food? Use technology of any kind? Yeah, science gave that to you by being material reductionist. And you accuse it of being limited for not catering to vague metaphysical principles. Maybe instead of being angry that material reductionism won't get all metaphysical for you, you should go delve into a system that will?

It’s not that they are unable to examine those types of things it’s that they consciously choose not to be aware of it because it contradicts the whole foundation of what they spent their whole lives trying to study and uphold and gives validation to the religious community and new age community that they are rebelling against. The egos of scientists can not withstand that embarrassment and so they incessantly try to maintain the foundations of their establishment.

Technological devices can be helpful at times I will admit that but is it really worth the consequences? You have no idea what these devices like cell phones and computers are doing to the energy system of human beings and creates more damage to the mind than you might be aware of. I am only subjected to it due to me existing in a deterministic society where these types of devices happen to be necessary for our communication. However if we were to really activate our psychic abilities then we would not need these devices at all. Modern science prevents that from being a reality because their whole establishment would fall apart if that were the case. It is not that hard to realize that.

If you can devise a way for science to test your metaphysical perceptions, then I'd love to hear it. Otherwise, your metaphysical perceptions would be better served if they were explained by a different system, or maybe no system at all. It's like being angry at a fish because it can't climb a tree. Maybe you should go talk to a monkey instead because trees are the domain of monkeys, not fish.

Science will not be able to test those kinds of things unless it invites spiritual elements into the examination process which is not something that a lot of them are willing to do. And at that point it will be considered actual science and not the science that is perpetuated by modern scholars of academia which is more like a shell of self resistance and denial of a world that is beyond their current perception. My anger is mainly towards the solutions that arise out of these methodologies and experimentations such as antipsychotic medication and toxicity of the environment and nuclear warfare. They do not care about advancing society they only want death and destruction and suffering. It’s amusing that you try to use technology as a way to try to make me feel like I am being oblivious in some way. You are only proving my point even further.

You fail to comprehend the simple difference between ontology and epistemology. Then you ream people out for having shallow and ill-conceived ideas which don't add up to your world view, and call yourself compassionate.

I am very aware of the different avenues of humanity my point is that the fact that they are separate disciplines or separate ways of examining reality is exactly the problem and is just a reflection of the division that is inherent within today’s society in general. Ontology and epistemology are part of the same greater whole like two sides of a coin and both need to be integrated in order to view the whole objective reality. You might view that as a cop out or something but it is the only way to find truth. People need to deal with that eventually. It is not me who created the idea of integration and connection and trying to coerce people into following an ideology or whatever you are accusing me of. It is fact and anyone who looks up at the sky will realize that very same thing including yourself.

Respond to me if you wish. I no longer wish to continue this conversation. Cheers.

No surprise. The secular mind always tries to play off their arrogance by making it seem like fundamental explanations about metaphysical phenomena is just not worth their time. And yet I am the egotistical/solipsistic one. You claim to be spiritually aware but yet share the same attitudes as the common atheist trying to make it seem like you have better things to do.

 

[Yourbaker]

Long reads, but well written and worth the effort.

There isnt much I can contribute except a suggestion to try a different perspective.

I see science as a religion that fundamentally denies the existance of anything it can't measure and quantify. Kundalini energy is enough to trip over for any scientific explanation to fall short.

like all other religious beliefs it isnt necessary to become a scholar to see the deficiencies. You could waste youre whole life learning ancient languages just to argue from a "knowledgeable position". Becoming a physicist before being able to speak on the mystery of light seems like a lot of pointless time wasted.

before I wander too far off track I understand science reasonably well and use it daily in my work and life, I also see there is more occurring than the mundane science describes to me.

I make food, its a pretty simple job in reality but it is a very real job. Without food, people die. I'm actually a baker so I use basic physical properties, some chemical properties and living bacteria in combination. Science would say anyone using the same ingredients and recipies would arrive at the same results. This is far from true in anyone's experience, we all have experiences where no one seems to make a certain food as good as our grandmothers or mothers or even just one shop that excels.

I may use the same ingredients and identical methods but come out with a better product vs another baker (this is often the case). Science has no practical answer to this and insists on human ability to be subtly more accurate in measuring and timing. This makes my cinnamon buns better due to experience and skill only on a physical plane (I would say 4 dimensional world because it includes time). While there is reality to this answer it just doesnt explain the difference in eating expereince.

The whole world is a lot more simple if you dont exclude spirit.

 

[Antiprosynthesis]

Imo, these things you describe when the this topic was created, is that is due to the fact that our consious is simply a complex byproduct of our natural weapon to survive - we dont have huge teeth.or.claws OR anything,.we fight using our mind...

I believe that everything.our mind makes real and makes us capable to besides what is needed for RAW survival,.is simply.like a mistake,.A not needed and highly problematic.byproduct of our natural weapon ...

Also, our consious is still in its infancy, evolutionary speaking we are not even babies het...

So we know very little about this and have no control over all the problematic aspects of.this.consious...

Also, we were originally natural beings, but due to our capacities we evolved into cultural beings (some interesting cultural philosophy would be Hannah arendt about the vita activa and the vita contemplativa) and we now are Total strangers to our original natural state while we still are fully dominated by primitive and very strong instincts over which we have little to no control...

Its obvious.how stuff like this causes serious problems, certainly.with.a mind that.tries.to.find meaning in everything while often things dont have any intrinsic meaning but.just are... Just exist...