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.