My Philosophy
Post Reply
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-04-2013, 01:30 PM (This post was last modified: 15-04-2013 01:54 PM by Luminon.)
RE: My Philosophy
(15-04-2013 11:36 AM)Phaedrus Wrote:  Luminon, first you're reading far too much into what I said, almost to the point of putting words in my mouth.

You have also raised questions with me about whether you actually understand science yourself. The controlled environment of an experiment is meant to allow for consistency, and to allow you to vary one variable at a time, which allows you to find the root cause of a given phenomenon. But I'm not sure that's what you're talking about. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be positing some sort of mind-matter dualism. I must say, that dualism is undefendable as a philosophical position.

Saying something is supernatural, or part of an "invisible environment", is nonsensical. Things happen, yes? And there are things that we understand, and things that we don't understand. Saying that things we don't understand are completely non-understandable (supernatural) is a fallacy, whether the explanation is ghosts, ghouls, gods, or whatever you call this apparent "invisible environment" you are describing.
There is no other "dualism" than matter/energy. But they come in many varieties and just a tiny minority of them is visible by naked eye, tangible or easily measurable by our instruments. In principle, everything is real and measurable, because it is based on the basic natural forces. I hope you don't insert words into my mouth like magic or supernatural.

My rhetorics is against closed-mindedness, narrow-mindedness and taking our world for granted, especially such a small part of world. You choose your philosophy, because it's a tangible and provable fact, not because it is good. I'd say it's very provincial.
I say, the universe is great and very different from how we see the world. It is misleading to take our surroundings as the yardstick. Yet, it is also necessary to research new knowledge. To resolve this dilemma, we must stay aware that by conducting a controlled experiment we capture just a small piece of reality and by doing so we may prevent ourselves from seeing how it interacts with other real things. It is unlikely that the cause of all mysteries lies here, on our solid, relatively cold back yard, or even in this dimension. We are biased, we live in a small bubble of life called Earth where matter is stronger than a force field, which is by no means a standard in the rest of the universe. See what I mean? Consciousness, the greatest of the emergent properties.
You say emergent properties, I say open system.

I understand science. But I would like you to understand thinking outside the box, fieldwork, humanistic sciences, intuition and so on. By intuition I don't mean instinct nor reflex. I mean illuminative insight. I naturally gravitate towards qualitative research in sociology, as opposed to quantitative. Quantitative research often means to measure everything and understand nothing. Yet qualitative is a very diffcult, nebulous concept for many researchers, as it has no fixed principles. I suppose one has to be born for it. It is a fringe of science, yet very possibly still at least a part of science, a preparatory stage perhaps. See below.
Qualitative research is a part of science (sociology) that creates questions rather than answers them and the researcher is an indivisible part of it. He has to include himself in the research and has to observe himself. It has some disadvantages, but on the other side, it surprisingly eliminate bias and interpretation, that is otherwise rampant in quantitative measuring. It also works with an environment that is not under control. This is why sociology had such a hard time establishing itself as a science.

(15-04-2013 11:36 AM)Phaedrus Wrote:  "What if science threw out the baby with the bathwater?" -- Maybe. Maybe or maybe not. That's rhetoric, not argument.

"Egyptians, Hindus, Christians, and Amerindians had similar cultural aspects?" -- That's neat. It doesn't mean magic.

I'm disappointed, Luminon.
I also disappointed that you'd see me satisfied with magic and supernatural. The science gave me a computer that anyone can see and control, that sets a pretty high standard. But where you see cultural fairy tales, I see the things they were trying to describe with the metaphor. I can see that, because I experience things. There are processes going on with nerve and endocrine system that bring the same experience across cultures and various cultures try to preserve that in symbols, metaphors and legends. They commonly refer to the major endocrine glands, the point between eyebrows as something radiating on both sides, the skull cavity and the spinal column.
The Christian cross, the indian totem, the Egyptian ankh, the caduceus, and of course the very explicit Hindu blueprints of ida, pingala, sushumna and ajna. The "egyptian eye" symbol might actually show the same thing, a cut through skull cavity from the side, exposing corpus callosum, cerebellum, spine and hypophysis as the "retina". A metaphor that this is the actual "third eye" to see the unseen. Leave any greater culture long enough and it will have individuals who go through this experience, express it in symbols and make a religion around it. No wonder, that's what I'd do as well.

In my experience, this is the consciousness mechanism. If you want to achieve expanded states of consciousness, an ecstasy and inspiration like all the mystical traditions promise, you need to use this equipment. It works for me, after years of practice. That would be a great, wonderful answer to unite all religions. It might even change the philosophies from the current technical trans-humanist robotic limbs to something entirely different. For example, no philosopher would ever consider having the brain removed and placed in a vat to preserve longevity. This would be actually a turnoff compared to what might be our good old bio tissues capable of.

I'll go a little ahead here, stretch my imagination and make up a little story,
"...Our body, our consciousness is an open system. If we can use various disciplines, exercises and diets to purify our blood, increase the conductivity of our tissues and nerves, make our endocrine glads act in a synchronized way... all to generate such an electro-magnetic field around us, that we capture something of the sun's and cosmic radiation for sustenance, that we can perceive more of the world around us, and allow our fields to impress upon other people's thinking and feelings..."

There is actually a research that looks something like I've been looking for. Itzak Bentov and something called "Deeksha". Looks like he measured EEG on a person exercising with Kundalini meditation and has some knowledge of neurology. By now there's probably much cult following, commerce and debunking around that, but some of the articles look worthy of translating to local skeptics. I look forward to turning someone's worldview upside down, from solid materialism to non-solid, electro-plasmatic materialism Smile Until then I stop spamming here, sorry. I am in the state of meditation and my Kundalini energy massages the pleasure centers in my brain which means I feel a bit high as usual.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: