Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 19 to 27 of 28

Thread: Do Science & Spirituality ever meet?

  1. #19
    Olympic Champ kr1963's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Clearwater, Florida, United States
    Posts
    7,028

    Default Re: Do Science & Spirituality ever meet?

    Quote Originally Posted by arm-spin View Post
    Steve, I'm not sure who your previous post is diectd to, but my purpose in starting the original hell thread was to learn what some of my fellow poster's thoughts were on the subjet. I don't paticularly want to convince anyone of hell's existence; indeed, if someone convinced me that hell did not exist I would probably welome the news.

    Aw HELL, I start a NEW thread & you guys are still over here discussing HADES!

  2. #20

    Default Re: Do Science & Spirituality ever meet?

    Quote Originally Posted by kr1963 View Post
    Aw HELL, I start a NEW thread & you guys are still over here discussing HADES!
    You start a new thread by referencing a bunch of links. Are people supposed to read or see all that and THEN respond? How may months/years do you have?

    In all of my years on this and other message boards I rarely post links. I wouldn't expect them to be read. If I do post a link it will be only after already summarizing info or thoughts about those parts (to be found in the link) that are directly appopriate to a specific discussion.

    I don't mean to be disrespectful and I'm sure your cited references have really wowed you, but it's virtually certain that I won't read any of them.

    What I can repond to are you own thoughts about having choices restricted. That earned you a "bravo" from me.

    A year or two back, during a discussion about evolution one of the resident posters (I think he is still active) told me that either man evolved from a "premordial soup" or was created. Those were my (and mankind's) only two choices. He was quite insistent and pretty haughty/arrogant when I objected to those as being the only possible choices. He demanded to know what else was possible and my response was that we didn't know because we haven't conceived of it yet. My logic which he didn't like, was pretty simple. I didn't buy creationism. So if he was correct about man not evolving from "the soup", I conclude that there MUST by a third option we haven't imagined yet.

    He purports to be a scientist, yet I believe I have the history of science on my side. In the past, proclamations that the cause of something MUST be limited in choice to one of two possible reasons, have been rendered untrue when a third unsuspected reason was uncovered. I have speculated about self-organizing principles of our universe that are not understood (gravity would be one that we know something about, if not enough). Do we have any idea at all about self-organizing forces in effect on the micro level?

    As far as the discussion on sprituality meeting science. To me it's pretty simple. It will be encumbent upon science to be able to understand and describe spirituality. Since I believe spirituality to be directly dependent upon each individual's mind, then science must continue it's attempt to understand the mind of all homo sapiens.

    We have surprises ahead, even if most of us won't be around to see them.
    Last edited by LkwdSteve; 12-26-2009 at 04:36 PM.
    DSCH: a Soviet artist's reply to unjust criticism.

  3. #21

    Default Re: Do Science & Spirituality ever meet?

    Heisenberg went for a drive and got stopped by a traffic cop. The cop asked, "Do you know how fast you were going?" Heisenberg replied, "No, but I know where I am."

  4. #22
    Olympic Champ kr1963's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Clearwater, Florida, United States
    Posts
    7,028

    Default Re: Do Science & Spirituality ever meet?

    Now that's funny...

    The Art History equivalent would be:
    How many Surrealists does it take to screw in a light bulb? A Duck!

  5. #23
    Olympic Champ kr1963's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Clearwater, Florida, United States
    Posts
    7,028

    Default Re: Do Science & Spirituality ever meet?

    Quote Originally Posted by LkwdSteve View Post
    You start a new thread by referencing a bunch of links. Are people supposed to read or see all that and THEN respond? How may months/years do you have?

    So far 46...

    In all of my years on this and other message boards I rarely post links. I wouldn't expect them to be read. If I do post a link it will be only after already summarizing info or thoughts about those parts (to be found in the link) that are directly appopriate to a specific discussion.

    I will give you the reader's digest version then in a later post. Reading can be so...cumbersome.

    I don't mean to be disrespectful and I'm sure your cited references have really wowed you, but it's virtually certain that I won't read any of them.

    What I can respond to are you own thoughts about having choices restricted. That earned you a "bravo" from me.

    A year or two back, during a discussion about evolution one of the resident posters (I think he is still active) told me that either man evolved from a "primordial soup" or was created. Those were my (and mankind's) only two choices. He was quite insistent and pretty haughty/arrogant when I objected to those as being the only possible choices. He demanded to know what else was possible and my response was that we didn't know because we haven't conceived of it yet. My logic which he didn't like, was pretty simple. I didn't buy creationism. So if he was correct about man not evolving from "the soup", I conclude that there MUST by a third option we haven't imagined yet.

    THAT would be life in a box imo.

    He purports to be a scientist, yet I believe I have the history of science on my side. In the past, proclamations that the cause of something MUST be limited in choice to one of two possible reasons, have been rendered untrue when a third unsuspected reason was uncovered. I have speculated about self-organizing principles of our universe that are not understood (gravity would be one that we know something about, if not enough). Do we have any idea at all about self-organizing forces in effect on the micro level?

    Meaning BIOLOGICAL micro level?


    As far as the discussion on sprituality meeting science. To me it's pretty simple. It will be encumbent upon science to be able to understand and describe spirituality. Since I believe spirituality to be directly dependent upon each individual's mind, then science must continue it's attempt to understand the mind of all homo sapiens.

    Agreed, but someone has already done that...

    We have surprises ahead, even if most of us won't be around to see them.
    Unless you are reincarnated as a SPECTATOR...

  6. #24
    Olympic Champ kr1963's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Clearwater, Florida, United States
    Posts
    7,028

    Default Re: Do Science & Spirituality ever meet?

    The Tao of Physics, by University of Vienna Physics professor Fritoj Capra
    This is my take on this book, (which I read while living in Kathmandu, Nepal in the summer 1986; Nepal was the birthplace of Gautama Siddhartha, the Hindu prince who became the Buddha, the enlightened one)) was that Capra was noticing that what he studied in the Vedic Hymns & other Buddhist scripture was very similar to what he was actually studying & teaching in his classrooms in Vienna, (which was I was living before I moved to Asia).

    He felt he was looking at the SAME reality through different eyes; reading the same book but in two different languages.

    That reality described by QM is that the SOLID reality we experience is NOT really solid but a web of fluctuations of energy. He read Buddhist texts that were describing the same phenomena BUT 2500 years before scientists discovered that realm.

    He goes a lot further then this simplification into the details & math of why he thought the way he did. I agreed with just about everything he said both analytically & intuitively.

    The Hypothesis of Formative Causation by Biochemist Rupert Sheldrake


    NEW LINK:
    http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC09/Myers.htm

    THE STORY OF "The Hundredth Monkey" has recently become popular in our culture as a strategy for social change. Lyall Watson first told it in Lifetide (pp147- 148), but its most widely known version is the opening to the book The Hundredth Monkey, by Ken Keyes.

    The story is based on research with monkeys on a northern Japanese Island, and its central idea is that when enough individuals in a population adopt a new idea or behavior, there occurs an ideological breakthrough that allows this new awareness to be communicated directly from mind to mind without the connection of external experience and then all individuals in the population spontaneously adopt it. "It may be that when enough of us hold something to be true, it becomes true for everyone." (Watson, p148)

    I found this to be a very appealing and believable idea. The concept of Jung's collective unconscious, and the biologists' morphogenetic fields offer parallel stories that help strengthen this strand of our imaginations. Archetypes, patterns, or fields that are themselves without mass or energy, could shape the individual manifestations of mass and energy. The more widespread these fields are, the greater their influence on the physical level of reality.

    We sometimes mention the Hundredth Monkey Phenomenon when we need supporting evidence of the possibility of an optimistic scenario for the future, especially a future based on peace instead of war. If enough of us will just think the right thoughts, then suddenly, almost magically, such ideas will become reality.
    THIS DESCRIBES SOME THE IDEAS CONTAINED IN THIS BOOK.
    It basically describes a biological model that does not depend solely upon the physical to transfer information from one generation to another.

    Wholeness & Implicate Order by the late Penn State Professor of Physics David Bohm
    My father was a professor @ PSU so I had an opportunity to be exposed to his research when I was younger. He discovered the Aharonov Bohm effect which says that particles can effected by electro-magnetic fields even when the field CANNOT be measured.

    NEW LINK
    http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Aharonov-Bohm_effect

    His book goes over how the physical universe is a holographic projection that is dependent upon the viewpoint of the observer. This begs to ask then, WHO IS DOING THE OBSERVING? Am I a soul or am I the sum of my genetic code & synapses?

    It is this light, that also combines my countless personal spiritual experiences, aesethic sensibilities & keen analysis to go along with the data in these 3 books, that I say that UNEQUIVOCALLY Science & Spirituality DO meet & in fact have already met and shaken hands....long ago.
    Last edited by kr1963; 01-11-2010 at 04:21 PM.

  7. #25
    Olympic Champ kr1963's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Clearwater, Florida, United States
    Posts
    7,028

    Default Re: Do Science & Spirituality ever meet?

    Quote Originally Posted by grapplefan View Post
    I don't disagree that spirituality is a practice. nor did I mean to infer that. My view of religion isn't so much older as more conventional.

    "If the same thing can be done over & over again with the same result, could it qualify as a LAW, as an AXIOM, as a science?"

    No. Here is where we fundamentally disagree. It's not that such religious practices don't require the same rigor or dedication as science, or even more. It's that the results are seldom quantifiable, and usually the experience is personal, or in the context of a personal experience, even when shared with others. Many religions, (but perhaps not yours) begin with a meta-narrative, a grand story to explain the origin and purpose of our lives. Science is not really a narrative, but a collection of theories based on observations. Those theories evolve all the time based on new observations. Many of things we once thought were fact, are later thought to be totally wrong. Don't get your hopes up that science can save us or anyone. It's not about saving. It's about observing.

    The key word here is SELDOM. There are phenomena that are quantifiable & observable in the physical universe that have to do with the mind, (not the brain).

    And yes there are spiritual experiences that are personal but if you can duplicate those experiences with a specific technique then you do approach science if not cross over into that category entirely.

    You are not thinking just out of the box. You are taking a leap of faith, not that there is anything wrong with that. I am NOT judging that leap as inferior to science, just different. I respect those differences, but I don't share them. I have my own leap of faith that I keep separate from science.

    Faith requires believing without knowing. That's not what I am talking about.

    As for Hell, I don't concern myself with it. If it exists and I deserve that existence, so be it. If it doesn't, it doesn't matter. I've always felt that the preoccupation with an afterlife undermines my proper living of this life. What I especially don't want to do is to screw up this world in an effort to gain another (jihadists, fundamentalists, polluters, etc.)

    I do not put "the afterlife" into another category of life. To me it has everything to do with NOW. It has to do with being a spiritual being & whether or not you have a body or not. Life is a continuum that exists with or without the physical body.

    kr, I won't be going on with this discussion for lack of time. I usually don't respond to most of these topics on forums like this because it's like spitting into the ocean. But it has been refreshing to speak with you.
    See you back at the wrestling forum(s) which you keep up so well.
    I got that. Maybe you'll come back & read all of this when you have some more time, which I believe you can buy wholesale now @ Sam's Club by the hour or second dependent upon your personal needs!


  8. #26

    Default Re: Do Science & Spirituality ever meet?

    "Reading can be so...cumbersome."

    Very much so. And time consuming. Especially if it is truly thought-provoking.



    "THAT would be life in a box imo."

    Not sure what you mean.



    "Meaning BIOLOGICAL micro level?"

    NO, not exactly. Meaning that biological processes would, or could, be a product of forces and energies at work on all matter at at level that we can neither see or understand. Self-organization isn't restricted to the biological.



    "Unless you are reincarnated as a SPECTATOR"

    Funny, that's sort of what I feel I am now. Not sure what reincarnations will be available in the distant future.
    DSCH: a Soviet artist's reply to unjust criticism.

  9. #27
    Olympic Champ kr1963's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Clearwater, Florida, United States
    Posts
    7,028

    Default Re: Do Science & Spirituality ever meet?

    KR1963-"Reading can be so...cumbersome."

    LkwdSteve-Very much so. And time consuming. Especially if it is truly thought-provoking.

    KR1963-Now there's a HUGE problem in our culture currently... THINKING takes too much time....
    -----------------------------------------------------------
    KR1963-"THAT would be life in a box imo."

    LkwdSteve-Not sure what you mean.

    KR1963-I mean that if life was restricted to a TWO-Valued logic thought process, (as per your example) that would be very limiting, like living in a box.

    ----------------------------------------------------------

    KR1963-"Meaning BIOLOGICAL micro level?"

    LkwdSteve-NO, not exactly. Meaning that biological processes would, or could, be a product of forces and energies at work on all matter at at level that we can neither see or understand. Self-organization isn't restricted to the biological.

    KR1963-THAT is the premise of Sheldrake's work.

    ----------------------------------------------------------
    KR1963-"Unless you are reincarnated as a SPECTATOR"

    LkwdSteve-Funny, that's sort of what I feel I am now. Not sure what reincarnations will be available in the distant future.

    KR1963-Um, how about PARTICIPANT? Life is a game. You can be a Player or a Piece or even a broken piece. You can also be a spectator, (actually a falsehood as that itself is a choice as well) AND you can be a MAKER & UNMAKER of games.

    And that is the one thing that SOME (western) religions & Science have in common: THEY THINK SOMEONE ELSE ALREADY CREATED THIS GAME. They just argue over CAUSE.

    In SOME (eastern) religions, they realize the truth that the game is still being created by those responsible for it's genesis: You, me, US.
    WE made the GAME & are still making the GAME hence we can UNmake it if we so choose.

    The point of the texts I have suggested are a handful of Scientists who are seeing that the eastern model might correct & have found evidence of that model demonstrated thru studying mathematics, the Quantum world & Life itself.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •