Seeing the Unseen

[devildavid]

I don't see science and spirituality as opposed, but as it stands there is no scientific means to measure or detect spirituality. Spirituality as a "thing" is postulated. That may change, but for now...

Science and spirituality have nothing to do with each other. Spirituality is not something that can be scientifically examined. If it could be, it would then be something physical, and no longer called spirituality. Science purposely limits itself to physical reality. That is what is was created by man to do. Philosophy, which is basically thinking about things and writing about them, is the method invented by man to discuss such concepts of spirituality. Without physical evidence to observe, measure and test, we have no basis for science as we designed it. And science also depends on the ability to independently verify and test evidence. This is impossible with concepts such as spirituality in which all claims are contained within the thoughts of individuals, and it is impossible to produce verifiable evidence. If such evidence existed, what we call spiritual would then actually be physical.

 

[Good4Nothin]

Why would the connection need to be spritual?

I don't want to get all tangled up in trying to define "spiritual." But we can just define it to contrast with a mechanistic view of the world. In a mechanistic view, things are separate, as they appear to be. But in a spiritual view, there is an underlying connection.

But I don't want to get all philosophical because I know you will deliberately twist everything into nonsense.

 

[Good4Nothin]

Something that is undetectable may as well not exist.

There are thing the physical senses can't detect. Some of them can be detected by instruments or devices. How do you know that instruments and devices can detect everything that exists?

How do you know there is nothing that was not yet discovered and that humans don't know how to detect?

How the fork could you know that????

 

[devildavid]

There are thing the physical senses can't detect. Some of them can be detected by instruments or devices. How do you know that instruments and devices can detect everything that exists?

How do you know there is nothing that was not yet discovered and that humans don't know how to detect?

How the fork could you know that????

If physical instruments detect things it means they are physical. And if a physical device is invented to detect spirits and gods that means that spirits and gods are physical.

 

[devildavid]

I don't want to get all tangled up in trying to define "spiritual." But we can just define it to contrast with a mechanistic view of the world. In a mechanistic view, things are separate, as they appear to be. But in a spiritual view, there is an underlying connection.

But I don't want to get all philosophical because I know you will deliberately twist everything into nonsense.

Spiritual does not mean there is an underlying connection. And an underlying connection can be physical and compatible with what you call a mechanistic view of the world. So why is an underlying connection significant?

 

[<alt>doxygen]

It depends on what "spirituality" means. Quantum consciousness research suggests something spiritual. For example, the idea that everything is connected on some level, not divided up into the little particles that seem to make up our world.

Hameroff is not afraid to venture into spiritual speculation, and to me he makes a lot of sense. Not all quantum biologists would speculate in that way. But with or without speculation, quantum seems to be the future of science.

That's still speculation, as you said.

At this time, any spirit universe is only experienced inside ones head. I have no issue with that, personally.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

Science and spirituality have nothing to do with each other. Spirituality is not something that can be scientifically examined. If it could be, it would then be something physical, and no longer called spirituality. Science purposely limits itself to physical reality. That is what is was created by man to do. Philosophy, which is basically thinking about things and writing about them, is the method invented by man to discuss such concepts of spirituality. Without physical evidence to observe, measure and test, we have no basis for science as we designed it. And science also depends on the ability to independently verify and test evidence. This is impossible with concepts such as spirituality in which all claims are contained within the thoughts of individuals, and it is impossible to produce verifiable evidence. If such evidence existed, what we call spiritual would then actually be physical.

I basically agree.

 

[Tim the plumber]

I agree with you in so much as I only would argue your conclusion does not follow ["…so it is real"] well recognizing your underlying criticisms and arguments are not without merit.


Absolutely, the best way we have found to discover truth about the unknown; however, sometimes that process is not applicable at least for a time. One can not make an educated hypothesis if they have an incomplete testing methodology. Science doesn't work with flawed methodology. A curious party must guess, based on the knowns and this is where the distinction between an educated guess and wild guess comes into play. The guessing system of religion does not start from the scientific facts. So what? The basis is in traditions based in time tested 'trial and error' and insight going back before recorded history. Why would that be worse from a pragmatic point of view which is the criteria of a guess?

Supernatural/woo cases today sometimes have no testing methodology and other times they do. In cases where they don't, okay choose to craft a guess on occam razor and the scientific knowns(~atheism) or make them based on interpreting the traditional 'trial and error' (~theism) or heck hybrid them (~pantheism). End of the day you have an educated guess, the next step to keeping it educated is to compare and contrast them via the testable knowns like psychological outcomes. In the case of theism, you woud need to add where the line between medaphor & abstract truth from literal reading.


When a thread title states "seeing the unseen" it's a contradiction of terms. A paradox. This obviously sets the meaning to be 'abstract' or 'philosophical'. No one is literally talking about seeing the unseen. It's a metaphor for when truth is strang and irrational.

A scientific explanation and model for religion subjects would(can) be wonderful! It would not however address in the slightest the questions, motivations or intentions of 98% of spiritual writers nor the meaning or pragmatic value relgionious people take from it.

Scientific truth isn't 'real' truth. Truth is an abstract concept, same as religion. it's just that. a measure of "What is" comapred to "what we want something to be".


I am just as supportive of these activities, secular or otherwise. The more universal the pursuit of 'truth' and 'honesty' the better for everyone. Religion is painted as dishonest and untruthful by some simply because it works differently. I reject that for many many reasons. The possibility that the realm of "God" might one day be explained by science or that secular humanism might prove more effective than religion. That is always a possibility, based on the 'fruits' however that seems very unlikely. Jury is still out. I like you focus my time where the evidence points and where there is pragmatic application.

That's the lying bit.

The rest is dressing with lots of words to hide dishonesty.

 

[Angel]

That's the lying bit.

The rest is dressing with lots of words to hide dishonesty.

You're still confused about what "lying" is.
How can you expect anyone to take seriously anything you have to say about anything when, after years of being corrected on your misuse of the concept, you still don't get it?

 

[Conaeolos]

That's the lying bit.

The rest is dressing with lots of words to hide dishonesty.

If you two both think and highlight that as a lie then that explains a lot. Thanks, always appreciate you getting right to the point.

 

[Conaeolos]

You're still confused about what "lying" is.

but Angel I wonder if you see the same profoundness of that post…

Truth is an abstract concept to reflect "what is" compared to "what we want something to be".

Scientific truth isn't 'real' truth. It's simply one measure, and one of the best.

Just as one example, about 30% of agree peer review 'science' at any time is knowingly false due to statistical false positives and false negatives. Not to mention p-hacking, methodical error, culture against publishing negative results, ethical limitations, funding issues, commercial, academic and government interests…

No matter which of the three main branches: physics, chemistry, bio there are always times when we can not properly 'view' an interaction so we model them and test only the principles teaching the model as reality[one need only look though a microscope verse a teaching model to see that first hand]. In cosmology for example most planets size, shape, composition and weight are based on star dots. Do we teach stardots or planets? And more still 'science' rarely chooses to account for outliers….

It's imperfect, which is perfectly okay. No one expects it to be perfect. Only pragmatic. Right enough to move forward, which it guarantee because science encourages from day one 'intellectual humility': challenge the orthodox. Replicate. Disprove. Simplify. Here are my tools and methods - improve them.

Religious truth isn't 'real' truth either. It's simply stories and recorded ideas from our ancestors (peer reviewed over generations) relating wisdom from their experiences.

Just for example, the oldest bibles are written greek. The language they were conceived in Aramaic both having very different cultural relevance. In Aramaic , many gospels read like poems. Not to mention little changes like "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." becomes "It is easier to thread that common camel hair fishing rope through a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God". The difference being difficult verses impossible. Heck there a good case to be made, jesus(Joshua) of the bible was never a person but referred to events in the heavens. These misunderstanding true of every reglion right up until the modern day and even if you corrected all of them reflect an incomplete picture even on just spiritual subjects.

In the end, we do best to hold religion lightly. It's wisdom what counts not the letter nor weight of its words. Ritual too, has only experiential value. If jews rebuild the template and start sacrificing animals again - that's not a step forward - nor does that fact make the practice in their day wrong.

There is a story of a monk, summed up "Before Enlightenment chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment chop wood, carry water". Isn't that the essence of religious achievement?

The point of both science and religion are to find truth but they are different methods. Science is interested in content, zooming in to reality. Religion is interested in context, zooming out in so far what can be express back is in the form of the literary.

The truth in religion in the abstract. The truth of science in the physical.

End of the day, to highlight what I said as a lie. Expresses ever so clearly the writer finds the physical sacred. And I know Tim finds me as arrogant, pretentious and bullheaded, and perhaps I am, so perhaps it is just that or perhaps I have disrespected that physical truth in some way.

It stands to reason though as I care very little for the physical nor appearing humble. I have never not been able to meet an engineering goal nor struggled with crafting an experiment. Science a relative bore in comparison to the spiritual, which I find sacred, at least in so much as God. Context always more important than content. I work on spirituality as it leads me closer to truth.

In politics, why I come here, the same kind of choice is often made as party's claim lies when some technical details are out of place(sometimes even intentionally). Truth is the realm of the abstract, and in that realm, by their 'fruits you shall know them'. A person's use of hyperbolic or inpercise language doesn't make them a liar anymore than being technical percise in one speech hides when their intent is to deceive.

 

[Tim the plumber]

You're still confused about what "lying" is.
How can you expect anyone to take seriously anything you have to say about anything when, after years of being corrected on your misuse of the concept, you still don't get it?

Scientific truth isn't 'real' truth. Truth is an abstract concept, same as religion. it's just that. a measure of "What is" comapred to "what we want something to be".

As always you have no clue or attachment to reality.

 

[zyzygy]

Seeing the unseen
Knowing the unknowable
Tasting the untasteable
Feeling the unfeelable
Kicking the unkickable
Wow, that's so deep!!
So Deepak.

 

[Angel]

Seeing the unseen
Knowing the unknowable
Tasting the untasteable
Feeling the unfeelable
Kicking the unkickable
Wow, that's so deep!!
So Deepak.

So zyz.