science

I've been thinking about this a fair amount recently, and I am coming to the conclusion that science is truly a blessed thing… although as I ponder it more and more it becomes more confusing and I can't figure out what it really means…

as I perceive it right now, I think science means a search for truth…. that and experimentation….

I think the one big leeway all scientists have is with experimentation… I suppose pretty much anything can be considered science…

but anyway, more to the point, I really think zaadz is a pretty cool website… seems a great storehouse of information… perhaps an internet hub for knowledge?… who knows…

maybe we can build a truly scientific community here, that will expand the bounds of thoughts….

I know I have more thoughts on this subject… but I just can't seem to conjur them up in my mind at the moment… please add on anything you want!!!…

Re: science

i did a degree in medicinal chemistry,so ithink i know a bit of science.the main problem with science is that every time you answer a question two more appear,so you could spend your entire life chasing rainbows, now i study aikido and experience the flow of energy{ki,chi,prana,etc} for which science has no real explanation.i think scintific enquiry leads us on to a path with more questions than answers-enjoy the pursuit of knowledge but above all enjoy life that is an answer in itsef

Re: science

To me, life is ultimately about seeking truth. There is no greater purpose. I believe that I, as a human being, am biologically programmed to help the species survive and thrive. And in my case (I’m not creating more members of the species), that means looking for answers that can help us solve problems for our planet’s health and wellbeing. So, science is the only way it makes sense for me to live my life. I see that each time scientific inquiry finds an answer to something, we get closer to knowing how to live more successfully and sustainably.

It will be wonderful when scientific inquiry discovers why Aikido is so good for us! It is wonderful that science is delving into Buddhism! And I can’t wait to find out what really is the cause of the common cold!

I think one of the main problems with the field of scientists we have now (at least in the Western world) is that their passions for studying things that are applicable to a healthy life have been hijacked by coporations run by money hungry people (who have been taught to believe that money can bring happiness). Fortunately, there are still many people trained in the scientific method who can help us find the real answers we need. those scientists working toward this goal.

Peace, Love, and Bicycles,
Turtle

Re: science

That last sentence somehow accidentally got partially erased. The last two sentences should say:

Fortunately, there are still many people trained in the scientific method who can help us find the real answers we need. And I hope that those of us who understand the need for reality-based science will offer their support to those scientists working toward this goal

Re: science

Interesting thread. I have always found that those who don’t have a background in science or a science degree tend to put science up on a pedistal. (I’m not saying that you don’t… just that this is my observation.) It is interesting that you say Turtle that, “It is wonderful that science is delving into Buddhism…” I can respect your enthusiasm but personally I don’t think it is wonderful at all as it would be like trying to describe love with mathematics. Science just does not have a rich enough vocabulary to describe the human experience. It does have a rich enough vocabulary to describe some of what makes us have human experience, but even this is pushing it. I have known many brilliant alternative scientists and inventors, and they have one thing in common… they tend to push past the boundaries of orthodox science… I don’t mean in terms of what they study or even the conclusions they come to… but how they study. What many “leading-edge” scientists do is not strictly the scientific method. Because most of the interesting stuff is not open to falsification because the influence of the mind etc. etc. can never be ruled out. So I believe that it is the end of science as we know it. Science has to either become more technologically focused, or move into the realm of mind. Even Karl Popper, one of the formulators of The Scientific Method would agree that The Scientific Method itself is not ammenable to the Scientific Method, and is therefore not strictly falsifiable. Just some thoughts on this, but I do respect your viewpoint, although don’t agree with it. :-)

I would definitely be one to join a science pod or group here. Please count me in!!!

Re: science

to have knowledge of something is to have power over it,to have power over something is to try and control it,science may have power over chemicals present in the brain durind the “mood” of love,but i prefer to let love have power over me. empty your mind of the quest for power{desire} and let your heart be filled with the beauty of everything{love} dont try to explain why the world is as it is,just enjoy it. peace to all

Re: science

I agree with you sometimes. I think we are all part of a living organism of human life and some are the heart and some are the minds etc. The heart, however, is the energetic pace setter for the body, so the heart needs to be listened to in all things. Not sure if I agree with your knowlege definition. I certainly “know” things, ie have know-ledge about them, when I have not had that input from normal sources. It is called heart wisdom or intuition. What is your definition of “power” here? To have control over? I know for example that I can never have control over spirit. Perhaps what you mean is that when you know something you have power over what that something represents to you?

Sorry I know you are a man who likes to just enjoy the world and feel the love and the bliss. Yes, peace to all. That is certainly a great and wise path. And others are given knowledge of different areas, such as healing, so that they may partake in the illusion of becoming whole again (although of course in the ultimate perspective we are always whole). In the end we are all playing a part in a grande scheme that is too large for the human mind to even begin to comprehend. Our only responsibility is to play our roles with authenticity.

Peace to you too… I do understand what you are saying and only come back with this because I have that sort of mind that is NOT at rest… and that is my authenticity in this moment (although sometimes I wish it wasn’t :-)

Re: science

example of power                                                  

i

Re: science

i work as a doorman{in subway} saturday night one of my aikido students came to see me, whilst we were outside chatting two ladies came to the shop,one a regular went in,the other said to me”why are you a doorman on subway?” i told her “i like to watch people i like psychololgy” she then asked if i could psychoanalyse her, i said “ok” at that moment she saw a lad talking to her mate and thought she was being abused. she walked up to the lad and started to threaten him,i walked over and said”do you want that analysis now lets talk outside” i told her she was full of anger which would hurt herself and others she said “thats ok i do muay thai” i told her that if she accepts that anger is the only way she knows then she would self destruct and it was far better to send love to people who offend you. at this point the lad in question came out of the shop expecting a punch. the lady apologised gave him a hug,gave me a hug,then hugged my student and when she left she left with a smile on her face.     this to me is how power should be used. science is abused too much by the millitary,and those that seek wealthand power for its own sake

Re: science

RE: don't try to explain why the world is as it is, just enjoy it.

Ahhh, the simple & pure lives of children.  :o)
We should kick grown folks @$$'s for corrupting us! :o{}
Oh yeah, we are the grown folks now. :o(
Carry on. :o/

To me the Adam/Eve story/metaphor sums it up.  The knowledge of how things work, etc. is our mentality (awareness, etc.) being kicked out of the Garden of Eden.  It's there, & we are too, but our attention (focus, awareness, etc.) isn't.  It's mental slavery.  We have pulled the world over our own eyes & are blinded by the who, what, where, when, & why of everything instead of just enjoying it all with the wonderment & amazement of a child (children of our Creator).  Now we are cursed with the journey of growing to become realized as that which we already are.  Their is the illusion of not being that (the mind fuck we do to ourselves) so we are chasing our own tails to discover what we already are instead of just being it.  A vicious & never ending cycle (like hamsters on a wheel - they probably know & are mocking us by doing it).

Re: science

'It's mental slavery.  We have pulled the world over our own eyes & are blinded by the who, what, where, when, & why of everything instead of just enjoying it all with the wonderment & amazement of a child (children of our Creator).'

What if OUR purpose is to do just that - to be searching knowledge?  

To only be a child in undefined bewilderment – isn't that 'disowning' the awe – how can you be in wonderment & amazement if you dont know who, what, where, when & why?  If we were only children – how would we feed ourselves?   or would we be animals scavenging for food… or cells only concerned with existance instead of evolving?   

Isn't the drive of 'who, what, where, when & why' the reason we have developed a brain that can ask those questions.   The thing i love about the adam/eve story — is SUPPOSE you were meant to disobey & learn — knowlege was placed on the tree for a reason… yes?   & the true sin would have been to OBEY — ????????? awe!!!

Re: science

In a nutshell!

In the book I'm now rereading, Thomas Berry's Dream of the Earth, he writes that we have become, through our scientific endeavor,  like the universe's eyes, with which it's able to see itself for the first time.  This an awesome part to play.

Of course, it also comes with a lot of responsibility, of which we are only now becoming aware.

Re: science

Fascinating to read this discussion.  I'm not a “big thinker” — and I hope I can say all this correctly, I don't have the scientific background but find that my inner drive seems to be to find the golden spot where science and mind/energy modalities blend.  Years ago, I was lucky enough to be working at Cornell and had a little bit of interaction with Carl Sagan – reading this thread makes me feel like I'm back there, listening to him on this subject.  He opened up my thinking to realize that the “wholistic or holistic” approach to nurturing life is the groundwork, the foundation of most scientific research and that if we could bring that intent back into science, we'd be accelerating the findings and the relevance of more trials.  That would also solve the vocabulary problem, of science not having the vocabulary to express findings in the metaphysical dimensions.  Intent … totally enthralling concept, totally magical in it's application, totally fulfilling. 

Re: science

RE: I see that each time scientific inquiry finds an answer to something, we get closer to knowing how to live more successfully and sustainably.

We only have an issue with non-sustainable practices from the discoveries of science.  before scientific discovery we naturally lived in accordance with the “Natural World Order” while science is what empowers the “New World Order”.  I'm not saying what we have developed through scientific discovery is all bad, it's how & what we do with it that can be bad.  It's all a matter of choice & unfortunately those without the common good in mind make the bad decision that affect the common+unity (community).  i.e. it's not the gun that's bad but the person who pulls the trigger.

RE: It will be wonderful when scientific inquiry discovers … what really is the cause of the common cold!

The cold is common to all of us & never really leaves our body (i.e. we are never “cured” of it).  When we seem to “get over it” it is simply defeated enough to withdraw back into hiding as a virus within our bodies.  When, like in The Art of War, the battle field is ripe for an attack it takes it's opportunity & does so. 

Re: science

Your point is very valid S.I.A., our science has created a lot of non-sustainable mess! But I think that, in the grand scheme of things, the human mind, and collective consciousness could not have evolved without such challenges. Learning from failure is a crucial step in learning to succeed, from an educational standpoint. Think of it as being like the terrible two’s where you go through a stage where you try everything you can, and end up getting hurt and hurting others in the process, but when you get to age three, you are the master of many things, and ready to take on the world! (Yes, I’m a preschool teacher, does it show?)

If humanity had stayed in a luddite mindset, we would have stagnated, intellectually and emotionally as a species. And, while I can’t say for sure what the grand purpose of our existence is, I suspect that stagnation isn’t a big part of it, or we would not have been designed (by nature, god, the universe, chance, whatever) to evolve and grow.

So, hopefully, we will be able to move on to the next stage of development by continuing to use the intellectual/sensory inquiry and experimentation of science for more sustainable purposes and for exploring our own purpose in the universe.

-Turtle

Re: science/theory of everything.

I saw a program called “Parallel Universes” last night on Discovery Channel.  The program was about physics and the grand “Theory of Everything”.  According to the program, Einstein was working on this theory before he died.  The main problem with the theories currently present is that the schools don't mesh together seamlessly.  For example, Quantum Physics and Classical Physics (Einstein, Newton, etc) do not meet in the middle making one grande theory.  There are discrepancies in the mathematics. 

String Theory was supposed to be the cats meow, but it was based on a 10 dimensional universe.  There were at least 5 versions of the theory, and it still didn't mesh with classical physics.  They broke the code when they added an 11th dimension. Now Scientists are looking at M-theory as the possible “theory of everything”.  According to M-theory, the big bang was actually two universes in an infinite sea of universes colliding to create OUR universe… Scary, huh?  So our little “pocket” universe is floating around in a sea of others, all of them expanding and waiting to collide. 

And do you know what interested me the most about this program? The way they came about the theory.  Four physicists got on a train together and just started having a conversation about the laws, the theories, the workable problems - No computers, no laboratories - just a great deal of abstract thinking, imagination, critical thinking and deductive reasoning. 

so my point?  Well, actually I didn't HAVE much of a point, except to say that I really encourage discourse and open sharing of ideas.  If they can figure all of that stuff out, then we can do SO much more!

Re: science/theory of everything.

Interesting Thea. I would like to have seen that program. Schools don’t mesh together quantum theory and classical because the maths is too difficult for the former. You are talking differential equations, minimum, which you only begin in what you would call 6th form if you do maths. Of course the philosophy can be taught earlier but again this can be confusing if you mix it with newtonian. The thing is that Newtonian is still such a simple and good approximation to quantum for our scale of things that with just a few very simple equations actual calculations can be made. Regarding your point about “discrepancies in the mathemetics”… there are actually no discrepancies as such because quantum and relativistic physics (two main branches of modern physics) do limit do approach classical physics in the limit. So the problem is not so much the discrepancy in maths but the discrepancy philosophically.

It should be kept in mind that modern physics is now largely a mathematical exercise, an exercise looking for consistency and some symmetry. It is not as objective as many believe. Of course this maths is checked against data from particle accellerators and cosmic observations. Most working modern physicists are more mathematicians, and even though the public read books about quantum theory and parallel universes, most working physicists don’t spend much time on the philosophical implicaitons of the maths they are formulating. The problem is that you can put a lot of different philosophical interpretations on a mathematical structure, whereas that structure is very very precise… any differences and it collapses. Remember… the maths can have many dimensions, but the question is does reality also have those dimensions. The maths is modelling reality, and it is an assumption that there is a direct correlation between the two. Physicists are looking for maths that predicts phenomena, period.

So just wanted to make the point that they only figure out stuff to the point of making consistent mathematical models that best fit reality. Each person who is not a scientist is also on the forfront of that experiment and making equally valid reality modellings. So I agree with you that “we can do SO much more!” because we are in touch with more dimensions/aspects of ourselves, which gives us a greater feal and imagination for All-That-Is.

Re: science/theory of everything.

Holding a B.S. in Mathematics, and being a former Calculus teacher, I found your insights highly profound, thunder… how did you learn so much about the math/physics correlation?

Re: science/theory of everything.

Hi Matthew… have a BS in theoretical physics but got bored with it as it didn't integrate with my spiritual experiences. So moved on. I remember even mentioning spiritual matters in a seminar I had to give and the anger that arose from that.. I suppose I asked for it! I think the main influences for me was material by Robert Anton Wilson (on modeling) which is ultimately based on Alfred Korzybski's work (although I found the latter quite hard and boring to read). I think models facinate me because it is the foundation of reality creation. I don't know how you did a maths degree though… I always found the philosophy kept me going. I remember having a discussion with a mathematician who told me that there were two main modalities used by mathematicians: visualisation and pure logic. We all tend to learn visualy in the first place but only those who can also do the pure logic get to be doing higher maths. The best tend to be the second group, and I was in the first group. If you did a B.Sc then you must be strong on pure abstraction as well as the visualization. Very useful for computer programming!

Re: science/theory of everything.

Actually, I excelled at the abstract.  In fact, Abstract Algebra was my favorite course.  But I also enjoyed visualization, modeling, and pure logic.  I became a teacher because I wanted to spread the love I had for all this cool stuff with others… (silly me).  Anyway, I've always been a mystic at heart, and that is why I am here now (pun intended :)  Oh, and I'm not even one of the programmers here… they've been keeping me busy on the business/relational end of things!  I'll have to delve back into the RoR books when I get a chance.  It's fun being a nerd.  Thanks for engaging that side of me!

Re: science/theory of everything.

LOL!…. you're a nerd huh?… hehe… welcome to my world =)… well… atleast partially…

so… I never thought anyone would respond to my post… I've never created a thread before!…. *gleams proudly*… *puffs chest out*… *looks around*… yes yes… I am amazing… hehe

so… umm… in terms of scientific inquiry… I suppose I would have to agree that the purpose of science would be a search for truth… I think I realized that when I was like 15 or so…

 anyway… my main question (at this point) is… if we are TRULY to be scientific… then what is to determine our actions?… it cannot be past habit… because that is well… dead, right?… so then what spurs our experiments?… fresh insight?… I suppose…

 well… for all you mathematicians out there…. this is what I'm still working on… what is the square root of -1…… I think it is 0…. because how can anything be less than zero?… isn't that impossible to subtract from zero?… *ponders*… any answers?…

 anyway… if you want something simpler… then ask this question…. what is inside the sphere?…. if you want a hint… it's as easy as pie…. =P… hehe… don't think too hard now!!…

glad to hear from some questioning minds… not enough of you guys out there =)

 Nic

Re: science/theory of everything.

The sqrt(-1) is definitely NOT 0.  It's an imaginary number, and is indeed used in “real” life… just ask an electrical engineer!  My suggestion: read a Complex Analysis book.  Lots of cool stuff in Complex Theory.  Ironically, it is not nearly as complex as Real Analysis.  

Re: science/theory of everything.

Hey… the nerd in all of us is coming out to play. Better not talk too loudly as it might put off people wanting to join Zaadz ;-) Arjuna… more posts like that please… NERDS NEED YOU! lol… And I can’t believe we are getting mathematics books recommended on here… cool one Matthew!

That is an interesting question Nic about square root of -1. I think the confusion comes with this one because people confuse mathematical models. Our school models are imagining apples or oranges etc. We see the maths as things. When we add 2 and 2 we are imagining 2 apples and another 2 apples to give 4. But maths isn’t actually things as such. That is just a metaphore used for explanation. And, incidently, it is a metaphore that has use… it does model real things quite nicely. When you do more maths, you have a more sophisticated model of mathematical functions. They are no longer equated with basic things but with concepts and abstractions. The maths is getting more sophisticated because it is being used to model much more complex aspects of reality. “Isn’t it impossible to subtract from zero?” It is if you are talking about apples and oranges… ie you are using the maths to model basic things. Numbers are not things… they are useful abstractions. The square root of minus one comes up a lot in physics equations. If you equate numbers to things, then it is nonsense. But if you equate numbers to useful abstractions, then it becomes okay if only because these strange equations with square root -1 are actually modelling reality rather well. They work!

Re: science/theory of everything.

Hi.

Taking up just one point for now…

————— 

anyway… my main question (at this point) is… if we are TRULY to be scientific… then what is to determine our actions?… it cannot be past habit… because that is well… dead, right?… so then what spurs our experiments?… fresh insight?… I suppose…

————

I'd just toss in that past habits ARE one good source of “information” to guide our actions… at least, insofar as our past habits are formed through honorable life-experiment; e.g.., acting in a certain way produces a desirable outcome rather than a bad outcome, so acting that way becomes habitual.

…which obviously gives rise to other questions such as how to define “desirable outcome”. But I'll ignore those questions for the moment, and simply say that the past IS useful for guiding our behavior. (I like “guiding” better than “determining”, because “determining” feels like there's no freedom and no consciousness.)

I'll hold out for an answer that treasures both scientific knowing and real-time conscious awareness.

Re: science/theory of everything.

Well

 on the square root of -1 you go on a premise there is nothing below 0 That means your -1 is itself nonexistent.

You are doing shadow boxing.

Fehu

Re: science/theory of everything.

There are several values that can go below 0. Yes, I think zero can be seen (metaphorically) as 'nothing'. But Minus one, is possible, even in physics. A negative acceleration is deceleration, but is expressed in a negative form. and the square root is a logical number as well, wasn't it e^i(Pi)? which was 1? Or am I completely of track here? I never was very good in irreeël numbers.

Re: science/theory of everything.

Science and spirituality have always seemed like two different poems compossed with different rules describing the same thing. Because of the limits of each one's rules of composition they each are partially correct. Ultimately though I think that science's attempt to explain everything is based on a flawed premise to begin with (which is that everything can be demonstrated and tested). I can't figure using a finite tool to describe an infinite thing.

Namaste

Re: science/theory of everything.

WELL…. You all are MUCH more equipped to answer this than I am (thank goodness for that!)  Theoretical physicists and mathemeticians, people at Cornel talking to friggen' CARL SAGAN…. SHEESH.  

Note to Arjuna:  Pat yourself on the back, wonderful discourse! I'm so happy I was able to participate, even if it was a laymen attempt -  but when they break out the numbers, charts and equations…. well, don't say I didn't warn you.

Namaste
Thea
The Sociology major
(You guys are going to be great case studies for my papers some day!)

Namaste

Someone I know recently sent this to me.

Namaste Means:

“The Great Perfection within me honors the Great Perfection within you”. The Great Perfection is the vast part of ourselves that is truly one with the universe, one with all others; one with all there is. This is true regardless of national origin, culture, race, age, political affiliation, religious or spiritual affiliation, gender, sexual orientation, physical looks, physical condition or whatever. These words are spoken with deep reverance as a recognition of the divine within another person.

Re: Namaste

I teach a form of Hatha yoga called Ashtanga yoga, not that the type of yoga matters.  Namaste is something that is said at the beginning and the end of all of my classes, mostly in an effort to get the students in a spiritual state of mind so that they will use the asana practice as a way to go inside and discipline their minds and affect their spirits, while being able to appreciate the physical benefits of the movements and postures but realizing that they are just that, benefits. The true practice of yoga is inner and is meant to keep the monkey mind under control.  Maybe more than you needed to know, but thats my story of namaste.  I also sign it to every email I said or post I make, even if the being I'm sending it to has no idea about the eastern side of things.  I figure they can look it up and learn something new, about me or about the word, whichever way they want to look at it.  The definition for the word is also on my website, www.keithmitchellyoga.com. 

namaste!

Re: Namaste

ah!  a list:

1. this is my first post here.  my name is summer, and i'm quite excited to be here.

2. my college communication professor began every class by kneeling down and saying namaste to the class. 

 3. earlier this year, i spent two hours on the telephone with a tech support guy in india.  i closed the call with an honest “namaste”, to which he replied “oh, super!”  it made me happy for a full twenty-four hours. 

Re: Namaste

Regardless of language known or heard, words come through with their meaning intact even when the language is unknown.  The first Yoga teacher I had that opened and closed each class with Namaste didn't bother to explain it until the third class, and by then, we all knew the symbiotic honoring implicit in the word.  Each time I hear it, the thirst of my soul is slaked and I am open to the joy of life. 

Re: Namaste

so very true.  my communication professor didn't explain it until halfway through the semester.  now, come to think of it, my yoga teacher closed class with it as well and never explained it.  and i think that's the most truthful and honest way to learn a new word – without definition, but through experience.  it's how we learn our first language, and if we want a particular word to create a deep meaning within us, it needs to be learned through experience like that. 

this makes me want to start my own ESL class.  i think i've got a new theory.

Re: Namaste

Namaste means I salute you. In Hindu thought every thing is God including human beings.To salute some other human being who understands the one who salutes is humility and recognition of the other Godhead.

In India it is in all languages In Tamil It is “Vannakkam” please see my postings in enlightenment pod.

Fehu

Re: science/theory of everything.

That is a good point. Science runs on the premise of falsefiability. If there is no way to falsefy a statement, then that statement cannot be assessed scientifically. So science cannot attempt to explain everything by defintiion… because there are many things that are not falsefiable. What scientists sometimes do to get around this, however, is to dismiss everything that is falseefialbe (my spelling is dreadful) and call it illusion. So, by definition, only those things that are scientifically testable are real. THis is the real problem with science and has little to do with working science and more to do with the ego and ambition of some scientisits. 

I personally see spirituality as the “spirit” in which we do everything else. So I see it as a higher order process and not the same thing at all. But that is my personal belief. I do also understand and respect the concept that they describe the same thing. I disagree with it though as the consciousness involved in the two processes is very different in each case.

Namaste

Re: science

I see science as the way to look at the universe with an open mind. Anything else seems prejudiced. In other words I don’t want to make judgements about how the universe works until I can be relatively sure that my beliefs are reality.

As for those who think that science kills love and beauty, I believe Carl Sagan is the one to help you see the awe in science: “Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known.” The more I learn about the life, the universe, and everything, the more beautiful it seems to me.

Knowing that there is a part of the brain, in humans at least, that creates what many call religious experiences is fascinating to me.

Now, I understand that many people are fans of magic tricks and are happy to not know the secret. That’s fine with me. But me? I wanna know! I want to know the truth, about everything!

-Turtle

Re: science

wow… wasn't expecting so many posts… I suppose there are a lot of true scientists out there…

I suppose I still have a question concerning the nature of truth though…

if we look at truth as being that which is… and we look at false as being that which is not… then we can erase false… simply because it isn't… correct?… then we are left with only truth?… what do we do when we have no “false”?… I suppose we must then delve into truth… but who knows truth?… I suppose we could look at it from a binary perspective… like a computer…. ones and zeros…

like… 1 is open?… zero is closed?… not certain which is which… but anyway… if 1 does not exist… then all we have is closed… if everything is closed… what is open?… *scratches head*…. anyway… this is the best I can come up with… I think it's simple enough… my original question that led me to this was WHY… not what… but WHY…

I once had a thought that… a person of lethargy asks why… and a person of energy asks… “WHY NOT!”… hehe… although I suppose that's more of a statement than a question…

like… it seems all humans search for is truth… I mean… lets say all your material props are taken away… what then do you want?…. obviously you have a question… right?… I know I do… but then… if we have no questions… what is left?…. nothing?… *ponders*… I have heard that the only question we need is “Who am I”… I suppose it makes sense, but I'm still in awe of it….

anyway… glad to hear from some investigative minds… glad someone else out there desires truth besides me!… LOL…

many thanks,

Nic… not arjuna… NIC… hehehehe

Re: science

Yes, Carl Sagan was great… but he was also quite orthodox in his science as well until we found out later that he smoked pot and used the creativity in his books. He probably had to appear quite orthodox because of his position at JPL.

Nic (Not Arjuna), you make some great points and questions. It is always interesting to talk to someone with a different perspective.

I think some of the paradoxes you point out might come from the labelling of experience as “truth”. The way I see it is that reality is something we are completely immersed into, multi-dimensionally (as we are multi dimensional). We try to make sense of this with our intellect/mind and we create models. However, our thinking is just not multi-dimensional enough to create a perfect model. (The ultimate model would be a double of All-That-Is itself… so there is always an information reducing effect going on so we can conceptualize it.) So what we are labelling as “truth” is actually a model of reality because we can never label reality itself unless we are truely connscious in our multi-dimensional bodies. As soon as we are asking with our mind… we are not there. If we drop into deep deep meditaion… we have more of a chance of experiencing reality rather than modelling it. And even then, who are we to say we are not modelling it with feelings.

So truth is very tricky. If your mind desires it it will NEVER be satisfied as it cannot hold truth… it can only try to model it. Truth cannot be reduced or conceptualized.

The interesting thing comes up when we think of “reality” in terms of its predictability. Surely gravity is a truth? Well, there are plenty of cases of peopel who defy gravity or meditate and bump their heads of the ceiling. Gravity may be a truth that we agree to under certain conditions, but if we are in a different energetic space, it may no longer be a truth. So maybe truth is a consensus truth, and in fact most communication between people is a reenforcement of consensus reality. We all know how nice it is to share throughts with someone on the same wavelength… it is reenforcing our reality and as our reality is mixed up with ego, our sense of self, this becomes deeply satisfying. We reenforce ourselves when we reenforce consensus reality.

I better stop there before I realize I might be talking BS! lol

So I am not sure if I desire truth as such… I desire to be conscious of the process of truth-manufacturing. That process is reality creation. That is my interest :-)

Namaste friends :-)

Re: science

~

just SHUT UP Thunderbeing from the science kindergarten cuz

FAR beyond Holographic Universe and M-Theory comes to a bookstore and a theater near u the Ultimate L~Theory Applied to knock down all the illusions that exist on this entire planet by One and Only ~ 25th century sexy nuclear physicist ~ Princess Jasmine LoveLsTzy ~5…  hold on to your seats…  as the ride has already begun……… ~ LOVE ~ LOVE ~ LOVE ~  ….. Glossary …..

(~ via ~ love ~)

Re: science

Well, maybe you could look at truth in a scientific/historical way. Why did we start researching, and finding out why things happened and how they did? Were we looking for truth, as that would automatically means, that curiosity is a search for truth. You could look at it, in a modern 'quantum' sort of way. No state in nature, is either fully true or fully false. Sure, It's not really logical to say that 1 + 1 isn't 2. But it could happen. As Mathematics are not always profoundly applicable on physics. You see, one apple plus another apple, are two apples. But one heap of sand and another combined, are still one heap of sand. You can also imagine the Fibanocci Rabbits, one plus one, will eventually become, well, a lot.
Quantum wise, everything has a constant possibility to be something, on which at a specific moment it can be calculated what it most probably is. Then again, even then there is always a change that it isn't. Truth, would therefore be subjective to what you personally think is most logically. Or most presumable. Truth, is therefore relative.
Funny is that scientist have already discovered that your personal mind is of great effect of such things. (I posted about this before) What if statistically the changes(of a certain state) of both opposites, are both exactly 50 percent? (at a given time?) (Schrödinger Cat). Then well, then the mind (your mind, the egocentric mind) makes up one of the to. (for further reference about the subject, check the work of Eugene Paul Wigner) So That would mean truth is not only relative but fully depended to your own mind.  

with kind regards,
D. ulixes

Re: science

~

i LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVE u D.ulixes ….

as YES….  1 + 1 is only one possibility out of 4… plsssss be my friend…. 

.

Love LsTzy

Re: science

Princess… I have heard rumours of L-Theory being developed by Dr. Lovelstzy at MIT and its applications to S-Loop Superstring Reverse Symmetry Theory but I just couldn't believe that Holographic symmetry Theory and M-Theory could be superceded so quickly! I can't believe that the originator of L-Theory is here on Zaadz! And I am facinated by the 2=5. (I hope she has warned her accountant about this advanced mathematics she is now employing.) And talking about Shrodinger's Cat… we did some statistical analysis back in the lab that seemed to suggest an increased probability that someone with a picture of a cat (Shrodinger's Cat???) in their profile here on Zaadz was more likely to be a friend of Dr. Lovelstzy than someone without a picture of a cat. Is this a further application of L-Theory, 2=5 and that enigmatic wonkey graph you have drawn with 5 points of origination? I am completely baffled… :-S

Re: science

@@@@@

************  ,*,*,   “0”0”0”

………………………. ))))))))))))))))))))))))

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = =

@@@@   ************  ,*,*,   “0”0”0”


%%%%%

you can find a thousand english-elvish dictionaries on google (try it!).

Re: science

lol… ELVISH?… I heard that elves are good listeners.. haven't heard much more about them…

umm… is that scientific, though?… like… I also heard that science is replicable… like… do the experiment again and again to see if you get the same results… anyone else?…. *ponders*

cool pictures…. don't really understand any of it, but pretty art =)… I'm a big art fan myself… not into flashy art, but I suppose I do create some every so often =)

Nic

Re: science

well, that is the bigger idea of science and falsification. It needs to be replicable. Why do you think we don't have cold fusion yet? (do we might have lukewarm fusion in the future (1700 degrees Kelvin) ;)

Elvish? is that a little like Gaelic?

Re: science

He who knows not speaks, 

He who knows speaks not 

 (quoted from Bodhidharma I believe) 

I essence: THE TRUTH can not be uttered

that said, my 5 cents are:

science and truth have nothing in common, even if you expand science out of the reductionist envelope it usually is wrapped in. It  is all about models as mentioned before (the map is not the territory).

however, as long as we move in 3d (or 4d for the more advanced) common language will do, for higher dimensions math as language will often help - none of it is absolute (which means all is relative) .

Does science one day solve all or even most “problems” ? (is it useful at all)

I dont know, I dont think so though.

I could envision an utopia with no science as we define it today 

So far all usefull means we have achieved with the help of science have been achieved by consciousness alone by those who had dedicated themselves to expand theirs suficiently.  That includes traveling to other planets and living if not forever so to a VERY old healthy age (multiple hundreds).

those who rely on solutions outside of themselves as science will provide make themselves dependent on that “outside” - it is certainly debatable if as long as in human flesh one will ever be completely independent (hey, you have to breathe ..) but learning to gain happiness from inside seems rather more useful to me (beats the next market crash and disease and global warming etc.. and is cheaper too) 

love

-sam 

Re: science

I'm afraid I have to step in here to defend science a bit. 

Thoughts such as these, happiness from inside and all that, are all well and good, but your external environment must at least support life well enough to allow you to meditate.  Try that when you're starving, or when a bomb's going off next door, and I seriously doubt that you'll manage to come up with much happiness.

The distrust of science I see seems a shame to me.  Living in the buckle of the bible belt, where distrust of science is taken to the extreme, I tend to view science as the domain of the rational vs. the realm of wish fulfillment.  Most of religion and too much of modern spirituality strikes me as immature grasping at desires.  Wanting something does not make it so.

Reality simply is.  Our perception of it is certainly not complete, but it is what it is, nonetheless.  The earth went around the sun even when we believed otherwise.  And reality doesn't budge.  Science can at least give us a better and better idea of what we're dealing with.  Beyond that, it can give us a very good idea, these days (see Paul Churchland's work) of what exactly we are, what the mind is.

And science, if freed to do so (minus the religious and geopolitical constraints it currently labors beneath), CAN solve many of the very real problems people face on this embattled planet.  Science already has solved many problems.  Cures and technolgies already exist, thanks to science, that only need to be implemented to save and improve countless lives.  And science will enable us to move upward in an arc toward a time when all humans can live harmoniously with a great diversity of life here.  It's science that enables the burgeoning permaculture movement.  It's science that has shown us a better picture of what goes on in a square inch of living soil, for instance, or the relationships between the flora and fauna that populate a healthy farm.

Science is not the problem.  Politics, especially corrupt politics that exist when corporations driven solely by the bottom line have too great an influence on legislation, is the problem.  And religion, too, which insists that moldy old books hold more truth than what we can see with our eyes, feel with our hearts, and discover with our minds.

I love science.  Of course, I'm married to a scientist, so I suppose I'm biased.  But I think science rocks.

 (And so does Carl Sagan.  My seven-year-old daughter thinks he's cute, too.)

Re: science

What a great and interesting discussion. I feel inspired. As stated above, it appears science and spirituality were both created by us to understand our universe. To answer our questions and explain what we see and/or experience, our reality.

Because of the duality of this search for awareness of the Universe/Consciousness/God there is the inevitable conflict and apparent separateness when trying to explain the same thing from different perspectives.  I'm grateful there is always hope.

It appears that when our science/spirituality is objective,inclusive and questioning our consciousness is coming to some of the same conclusions about ourselves and our universe like;
-We are all made out of the same substance; energy/Spirit/God.
-Nothing about the universe/consciousness/us is absolute, except maybe change.
-Change creates movement (which can have the appearance of growth, expansion or decline)
-Our involvement and or awareness (or lack of) affects the outcome of our findings/reality/faith.

Theoretically, once enough of the evidence/reality/belief of the similarities becomes visible/known/beleived our consciousness will evolve past the duality and “move” onto greater things. This evoltion/movement seems to be a prime imperative. (maybe even use an ultimately objective Prime Directive)

An evolving path that hopefully will move us on is the objective understanding and awareness of our consciousness itself.   Where science and spirituality can coexist in a respectful search to know ourselves.  Explaining our world/reality/ from a personal/universal/creative perspective as oppossed to an external/seperate/ego perspective.

The long search to know the self is leading to the discovery of our oneness and even our selflessness. 

Science and Spirituality are good frameworks and we have been relying on others scientists/institutions/religions to explain/understand/define… us.  When we look to ourself(ves) for the answers is when we move on.  Which is probably why the Blogosphere and communities like Zaadz are so awesome/needed/popular.

Know thyself and ourself too.

Of course, I'm not saying anything we don't already know.

Ours in CyberSpirit,
Russ

Re: science

Good point WendyB.

Science is a method of inquirey… that is it. It can be used intelligently, stupidly, dangerously, inspiringly etc. etc. It is a method of inquirey that tries to involve what is “out there” as much as possible, rather than falling back on personal opinions and beliefs. This process relies on the assumption that there is an “objective” universe “out there” to get to know. Science then becomes the process of getting to know this “reality” better and better until, maybe, we even have a theory of everything. That is the standard scientific paradigm, as as far as I can see you subscribe to that. And I can respect that. (Intrigued… so what exactly are we and what is mind according to the Paul Churchland model?)

The problem with science today is not its process, but its insitutions, its funding and scientists themselves. It is the human edifice of science that is a problem. Yes, a human being using the scientific method can solve loads of problems… and are solving them… but as often than not the live-giving ones are often opposed by the scientific community that supports a particular orthodoxy. Yes, science can tell us about healthy soil, but it is also science that invented and continues to refine the artificial fertilizers, pesticides, herbacides, genetically modified crops, and factory-farming techniques that are causing so much destructino of the soil. Just go to Argentina that has embrassed GMO technology wholeheartedly and see the terrible mess their agricultural system is getting into, care of biotechnology company Monsanto. Biotechnology is the gravest threat to the world's ecology.

This cannot be blamed just on politics, because science is done by human beings that carry their politics, their world views, their opinions, their beliefs into the lab every day. It is human beings that steer the course of science. And it is currently being steered by scientists and politicans in a very unhealthy direction. And yes, of course there are scientific pockets within the establishment that are producing live-gving theories, but overall it is not in a healthful direction. Just look at medicine… we are all actually getting more and more unhealthy. We now have 100,000 toxic chemicals circulating in our environment… all invented by scientists. A quarter of these are carcinogenic… and we wonder why cancer will shortly be taking out one in two of us, overtaking even heart disease as the main killer.

The problem, in my view, is not that science is innocent and that it has just been hijacked by bad politicians. It is that the very scientific paradigm itself is not life-promoting. Remember, you can practice the scientific method from many different perspectives and paradigms. But we are stuck in an outdated materialistic paradigm, one that form you post it would appear that you subscribe to. Lots of people do and it is put out there as “fact”. From where you live you probably think it is either bible thumping nonsense or scientific rationalism. And if I was given the choice between the two, I would go for the second! But we have much more than just these two choices. We have the choice to practice the scientific method (which is just basic enquirey… any rational person does it anyway) from a perspective that uses it to heal the world.

I love the scientific method too, but I don't love the prevailing scientific paradigm. That most certainly doesn't rock. And as for Sagan, he was fantastic at promoting the materialist scientific paradigm. I personally think this is only helpful if you live in a dualistic bible or science community where it is helping to move people away from religious bigotry. But you want to be careful you don't go too far into scientific bigotry. Sagan was an inspiration, but he was also renowed for being very critical of fringe/unorthodox science. His famous quote is”Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” But that is actually quite a subjective comment as what is extraordinary for one scientist may not be so for another. I personally find the viewpoint that we are just an aggregation of molecules living in an expanding void that came out of nowhere to be extraordinary. And I find the claims tht GMO produce will be helpful to the world to be extraordinary.

I better stop here… sorry for the lllloooonnnnngggg post. Will try to keep them shorter next time:-)

Namaste

P.S. Cold fusion does have some replication, although many labs have failed to do so as well. There are some big companies currently pouring some serious money into further research, and they would not be doing this if there was absolutely no replication. After all it was invented in '89!

Re: science

WendyB, Russ, Thunderbeing (an tons others I'm sure)

you guys rock!

 this kind of inspiration is what I need before breakfast …

(its 12:30 in Germany, I just got up after zaadz kept me going til sunrise last night )

 In NLP there is the concept of  “upchunker”, he who looks for truth in the largest structures,

and “downchunker” he who does so in the itsy bitsy smallest.

a discussion about the meaning of life between these two typs is always entertaining & enlightening.

 IMHO the “michaels messages” model of human developement is useful to consolidate our positions - it asumes a “soul-age” and the perception of thruth as dependent on it - much like a school model really, first graders see the world differently than fifthgraders etc. 

the percentage of people ready to replace “hard science” with the mind over matter paradim (and later consciousness over mind) is relatively small and approaching nil in the bible belt I would asume. of course the even younger souls who “believe” (thats pre-mind) sometimes look like they would be spiritual, however according to michael they have to pass thru the “mind is all there is” stage before reaching to true spirituality.

 e.g. is there such a thing as evolution? believers thumb bible and say no, mind says yes, spirit says “not really” but for entirely other reasons than bible thumpers.

time for orange juice - cant wait to see your replies … 

Re: science

Thunderbeing, you bring up a good point, that it is not the process or science itself but the context or paradigm we are using it that is important.  And as you probably agree, a big challenge right now.  Same could be said for Spirituality.  It seems they both have been turned into a commodity.  I think we also have to be careful of not only religious and scientific bigotry but also existential bigotry.  As we evolve every time we think we have the answer something will come along to change our perspective, at least I hope so.

Hey Sam, glad to see Zaadz  is keeping people “awake” all over the world.  I do beleive there is such a thing as evolution you can see it in the micro and the macro. In the current debate our consciousness is having with itself, the idea of evolution tends to get lost or mixed in with the discussion of creationism and the origin of species. 

I have to sign back off, but look forward to further discussions. good topic.

Re: science

Russ: The concept of evolution first tipped me off that something is not right in the world of science (I used to study Biology/Biochemistry with keen interest in genetics).

Let me expand: firstly most calculations how long it would take to evolve by accidential mutations from e.g. rat-like mamal to homo sapiens is MUCH longer than our current established timeframe allows for. so with no divine intervention this might reasonably take longer than the univers has existed yet (asuming those notions are right approx. 4.5 billion years). Second how does e.g. a none-flying entiety, take a raptor, evolve into a flying one? Evolution as survival of the fittest will certainly not allow for intermediate stages of  “no arms anymore but no wings yet” to suvive - they cant fly and cant grab a thing. But the change from arm to wing involves many gen loci to change - all at the same time? again 10 apes on a piano would faster create a symphony …

 on a more esoteric note: If you are familar with OBE you might have heard that time is the primary ordering principle of THIS universe - there are others with other orders at work (frequency, intimacy, conceptual relations etc.) Evolution seems so inescapable but works only in a time-based system. One could argue thats this is the case here but then again the higher spiritual planes who interact with us do not need (use?) time - (prime cause - god etc.) why would they implement evolution in the strictly scientific sense? (i do not mean evolution as striving to reach higher planes of consciousness)

 if aliens once show themselves that are biologicaly compatible with us (as some say) it becomes even more strange as they are supposed to be much older than we are and less time would have been available for them to develop in this universe.

btw: regarding aliens I have found this link to be of interest:

http://www.cutepiggy.com/full_disclosure_project_high_quality.html 

Re: science

Thunderbeing, I spoke out in defense of science as it can be, not what it is.  I don't subscribe to a model that posits it as all good, believe me.  Nor to I embrace a completely materialistic worldview.  I'm an agnostic with pantheistic leanings.  A kitchen witch, even (which puts me at odds with my surrounding culture, as you might imagine, which is why I'm pretty firmly in the broom closet, though I leave the door cracked). 

 And Monsanto is the most evil corporation on the planet.  I hate those folks (and besides fireants and Bermuda grass, I don't hate much).  I'd be quite happy to see them completely dismantled.

 I just don't like seeing science blamed for what is more appropriately laid at the feet of politics and greed.  I don't want to live in a world where science is feared because of what it's done in the past (those pesticides and herbicides that you've mentioned, or the current medical model of treating illness rather than fostering health).  It seems like if some folks had their way, we'd return to a time of simple superstition, and that doesn't seem like the way foreward, to me.  I look forward to a time when science (supported by an evolved paradigm that embraces diversity and wholeness) has helped us create a global culture which is sustainable.  Imagine water treatment plants that use vegetation to clean the water, solar energy, organic farming.  Agriculture that makes room for (and even benefits from) wildlife.  Writers like Wendell Berry point the way (who's a Christian, btw, but I don't hold that against him).  I know it can be done, and I know it can't be done WITHOUT science.

Re: science

Hi WendyB. Thanks for the clarification. I was confused as in your earlier post you were recommending Paul Churchland's work in relation to who exactly we are  and what mind is, and he is a rampant materialist. He would reduce love to a chemical interaction in the brain, and would certainly reject something like patheism.

I do understand that you don't like seeing science blamed for things that you feel are political etc. You live in a place where rationalism seems to have gone out the window, something that I am not exposed to, thank God, so we understandibly have a different take on things. I certainly don't envy you there!!

I suppose that I would reiterate that science is not separate from scientists and that no human being is 100% rational… even hardcore scientists… and so science is always biased depending upon the belief systems and worldviews of those undertaking it.

You last point that it can't be done without science is a moot one. There is a whole agriculatural system called Biodynamic Farming, for example, that honours the Earth and puts minerals back into the soil etc, but could certainly not be classified as scientific. The same goes for the community at Findhorn here in the UK. Their empasis was on angelic help, not scientific. And they have achieve literally miracles in that community. I am not saying science does not have a place… it has a central one… I am only saying that it is not the be all and end all. Some of the Amazonian Indians know complicated preparations for medicines that were not discovered scientifically. Ask them how they did it and they will say that the forest told them how to make them. I have taken ayahausca in the Brazilian rainforest and have taken in whole swathes of information that was not gleened scientifically. So yes, science has a role but there are plenty of other ways to gather vital practical knowlege that can help humanity.

Regarding Bermuda grass… sorry you hate it so much. I have a tortoise here in London who would love to get her little beak into some powered Bermuda grass! lol

Namaste and thank you for the clarification.

To Sam: upchunker and downchunker… I love it. Never heard that before and will use it. And to Russ: good point about existential bigotry.

Re: science

TB, I like Churchland's work in that it does a good job of explaining how our brains work, and that consciousness is a function of the neural nets there placed.  (My husband is a psychiatrist, and he faces a lot of opposition here, even among the medical community, from religious folk who just don't want to admit that the brain is an ORGAN which can sometimes need a little help.)  On a basic level love IS a chemical reaction in the brain inasmuch as any emotion can be traced to chemical reactions there, at the molecular level.  Are they more than that?  Seems so to me, but that doesn't mean that they are supernatural, just that the brain is so complex that its functions surpass our ability to understand.  I still am close to certain that consciousness does not stem from outside material reality (though I do suspect that it radiates outward from our brains and is not there confined, which is how I trust my magic works).  We are not ghosts in a machine.  I practice magic but don't believe in any pantheon; that's why I label myself a kitchen witch.  I work with plants.  (Your rainforest experience is one I've oft imagined, btw, having dabbled with a number of entheogens myself.  However, I don't entirely trust that the “information” acquired while under the influence was anything more than material generated by my own brain's interaction with the chemicals involved.) 

It seems to me that there is a middle way between strict materialism and airy spirituality.

You spoke in a previous post of the assumption that there IS a material reality to be known, as if there were some other possibility.  But to me (as to Ayn Rand – but don't go off on me there…I'm not a disciple) the assumption of reality simply being is necessary.  Anything else is silly solipsism.  I don't think science will ever give us a total picture of reality, but I do believe that it does give us a pretty good picture of something REAL, and that without that picture we face the danger of being surprised when the world rears up against us (think Katrina, earthquakes, tsunamis, blight, plague). 

You're quite right that science can't be divorced from the scientists, and that they bring to their work very real biases and pressures that lead them astray.  But eliminating science isn't the answer.  Altering those biases and alleviating those pressures is.

Love may be a chemical reaction in the brain, but it, too, is very real.  And I feel it.  For my family, which includes not only my husband and children, but the trees, the living dirt, the very wind.  And you, too.  Namaste.

Re: science

hehe… we are at it today! lol… Glad it is all in good humour!

I am personally uncomfortable with your worldview but of course I respect your right to have that viewpoint in the manner in which you have now clarified it.

Regarding how the brain works… it is one thing uncovering the processes and structure of the thought process (neural nets etc.)… that is scientific… but it is an assumption that this is the cause of consciousness. Some believe that neural nets make a quantum receiving device for the spirit that underpins “matter”. Just because a particular thought, feeling or emotions is correlated to a chemical reaction in the brain does not imply that it caused it. That implication is one that stems from the materialist paradigm in which it couldn't be any other way. But look at it form a different paradigm and the link would not be made in this way.

The brain is an organ… and it is involved with consciousness… but whether it is the cause of consciousness is quite another matter. Like many people I have had out of body experiences and have witnessed my sister having one too whilst I was completely awake and watching her sleep. Okay, from your perspective I was probably dreaming or deluding myself. But from my perspective I know this is true. I know the spirit can separate from the body and I know that we can think independently to the body/brain.

There is a lot of psychic research (see Dean Radin's book) which shows that consciousness can interact with distant matter. And remote viewing research shows that its effects do not taper off with distance as would be expected if the brain was radiating anything in the normal scientific sense of the term. So the materialist, consciousness is an emergent property of a complex neural net viewpoint is not cut and dried… in fact it does not agree with this sort of data (whcih is  why the data is generally dismissed).

Your outlook is very polarized: something is either materialistic or supernatural; if something isn't objective it is 100% subjective. This is not the case from my point of view; solipsism doesn't even come in to it. As I have said in my previous posts, there is a shared collective experience. We are not in our own worlds. And yet I am saying that there is no objective world as such. This is only a contradiction if you are looking at it through a materialistic scientific paradigm, which indeed you have described.

And did I write anywhere about eliminating science. Again, you are in this strongly polarized view that if I am not supporting science, I must be against it. (This is understandible considering where that you are surrounded by Christian fundamentalists, but if you read my posts you will see that I not said this at all.) Again, this comes from your materailistic paradigm that does not offer a middle way. And yet you say that there must be a middle way between materialism and “airy spirituality”. Again, there is bias in your words… “airy”???? Why is spirituality airy? Try telling those guys in the Finhorn Community that their angelic help is “airy spirituality”. They have managed to grow plants there that the conventional scientific agriculatural community believed were impossible in that northern part of scotland. And tell those Amazonian Indians that their spirituality is airy, when they have potions that even the pharmaceutical giants are looking into because they are so effective.

You will never find a bridge between materialism and spirituality as long as you operate in the materialist paradigm because spirituality will only ever have a place as an “airy” epiphenomenon of a complex system. (THe same could be said about consciousness as well.)

As for love… your idea that it is just a chemical reaction but one that feels real is not mine. For me, love is a fundamental foundation of the All-That-Is. Without it, even the atoms would collapse in on themselves. :-)

Re: science

A fascinating discussion indeed.  I have a feeling that if we kept this up (which unfortunately can't happen, as we both have lives to tend to) we'd end up agreeing, however polarized you read my words.

Yes, my worldview makes a lot of people uncomfortable.  Of this I am aware.  It's why I'm very selective about where I bother submitting my poetry.  Also why I don't participate as much as I might otherwise here at zaadz.  I am at home neither among strict materialists nor (how shall I say this without seeming biased to you? I used the word airy because it makes a good opposite for the solidity of matter) among those of alternative spiritualities.  Even among witches I'm not well received, since I don't go in much for things like egregores.

I do (and already did) realize you hadn't said we should get rid of science.  I was responding to you because you'd responded to me; the vehemence of my expression, as you're clearly aware, is caused by the daily attack on science here.  Creationists, now pushing the more reasonable-sounding arguments of Intelligent Design theory, have been trying to remove Darwin from the schools for a long time, or at least to get Creationism/ID equal play.  Pharmacists here refuse to fill my husband's prescriptions, even when his patients are trying to get things like lithium for bipolar disorder and are suicidial.  It's been documented that most often the first question anyone asks here on meeting someone new to town is, “Have you found a church yet?”

I like your idea that the brain somehow acts as a lens for consciousness as spirit stemming from another dimension (I know you didn't use those words, but that's what it seems like you're saying).  I will have to give this some thought.

Re: science

“However polarized I may read your words”… touche! hehe… Good point. Yes, we would probably agree in the end, and find that maybe we just used a different vocabulary, and we would probably be using the same vocabulary if I too had Creationists knocking at my door. Not well received? I know that one… we are outsiders! (and proud of it)

Thanks WendyB for going with the flow of this one in such good spirit. When I get my translation book out, I do understand where you are coming from and respect that place.

Namaste

P.S. Brain as receiver is not my idea… it has been put forward by a lot of people. Personally I have a more unified view whereby nothing is sent and nothing received. More of a quantum unity in which things correlate because they are birthed in the same process… All-That-is. (Something like an extension of Bell's Theorum.)

Re: science

The quote is from DAO DE JING (TAO TE KING) … the great book of change - of the Chinese philosophy…. if i am not wrong.

Re: science

One school of thought, Landmark Education, is that life is empty & meaningless & it's empty & meaningless that it's empty & meaningless.  There is meaning, only we (human beings) create meaning - they say we are meaning making machines making meaning out of everything.  What science is doing is discovering the “design” of what it's looking at through breaking it down into it's components & putting it back together (so to speak - I saw a scientific term for this in one of the numerous posting here but couldn't find it again now that I'm looking for it).  Design is different than purpose, meaning, etc. which is as varied as the infinite number of possibilities that we as human being can create for ourselves.  Take the musical scale.  There is but a few notes & half notes that can be played at different octaves.  The infinite number of combinations have & will continue to be the foundation for the variety of music that has & will be created.  It's the same with R.O.Y. G. B.I.V. (the “visible” color spectrum; red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, & violet).  Regardless of how much smaller we can break down things into their components to learn what things are made of & how they work there is still an ever expanding world of existence in contrast to the contracting world.  Scientific discovery is reaching to know both pulling it farther apart like taffy.  So far it seems the essential nature of all things is space or emptiness (i.e. there goes the empty & meaningless thing) which is no-thing.  Only out of no-thing-ness can anything be created.  Otherwise it's only a change of what already is.  If the source of all life is a creator (author of life) it only seems clear that no-thing is at the source of creation since it's a requirement for creation to take place.  i.e. a blank sheet of paper for the notes to be written down on or the colors to be applied to.  Art & science are side by side here.  Like 2 sides of the same coin using a different language tricking those who see one side to fight the other side that it's right.  Is “Hello” (English) any better than “Bonjour” (French)?  Both are actually calling the same thing into being (a greeting to another) but can be argued to be different.  Do we argue their difference (hate) or accept the greeting (love)?  Some say & believe, as I do, that love is all there is.  Anything that appears contrary to it is our interpretation of it being something else & by so deeply accepting it that it become “our” reality.  Through belief we can accept the false as truth.  It's part of the game that existence seems to be about.  Other wise there would be nothing to life except being what you already are.  But to believe you are other than you already are creates a journey to discover the truth.  Maybe when we get tired of chasing our tails we will sit still in exhaustion & in that moment awaken to that which we already are… the 0ne within 0ne-self & within every-0ne. :o)

Re: science

First of all, I'll hand over the standard hi, how are ya, what a wonderful bunch of people there seems to be here and I hope you think I'm kinda wonderful too (cuz I do) and how much fun zaadz is and as much as I want to talk about everything all at once, I'd better take a step back and hand this over.  Whew!

Anyway, science…fantastic stuff.  I embrace the theory and avoid the math, myself. I have always been a poet with the soul of a scientist (hey, that should be a pod.  Wait.  It already is, *wink*).

I'd like to open with a definition from Lee Smolin (a physicist who did a free lecture on the democracy of science that I saw): 

Science is the craft of error detection

That seems the most accurate of the numerous definitions I've encountered (okay, it's the only one that stuck to a memory that seems to have fractal Teflon patterns of forgetfulness).   Can't speak in exactlies with science, except for the “not exactly that”.

Re: science

Science is an amazing thing, without it we would never question and simply accept things completly on belief. The human race would have grounded to a halt where others said this is how it is and then the race would ahve accepted it. So I'm grateful for the Orange Meme,(for those of you familiar with Mr. Wilber.)

I think the ideas of universes colliding with eachother to create a whole new universe is simply amazing. And that is how things are made, they simple collide and for somethign totally new. But I think it will take some time to scientifically find that middle ground between marco and micro. But they are getting closer, now just find that negative energy in the universe and prove shaodw matter lol

Re: science

wow…. cool concept…

except I think that shadow matter has already been proven… if we take shadow matter to mean matter that doesn't exist…. although I suppose those are still technically my speculations…

anywho… just kinda resurrecting this thread… science is a central part of my life… is becoming so more and more, infact…. it almost entirely disappeared in my life for a while… got too engrossed in “believing” things… I'm rather afraid of belief now… LOL… in a certain sense… not completely afraid of belief…. more the blind kind…

but I suppose now I'm learning to be a tad more skeptical when someone tells me something is true… I read in a book once that we should give things “due reflection”…. that sounds like true science to me…. but still… I suppose science is a personal thing….

any thoughts?…

blessings,

Nic

Re: science

OM
Maybe 'feelings' deserve a chance!! Personal feelings, i mean, not the 'taught' kind.

Ananda,

ShibShakti 

Re: science

I think listening to feelings is very important, especially when it comes to interpersonal relationships.  But when it comes to forming a picture of the universe and our place in it, what we “feel” might just be a desire for things to be a way that comforts us emotionally, rather than any truth.

As I tell my children frequently, “Wanting something does not make it so.”  “Wanting something not to be so doesn't make it not so,” is also true.

While even in science desire can lead us astray, I think the process of inquiry into physical reality still stands a better chance of leading us to truth than most spiritual paths.  Science tells me that what the world needs is work from me.  Some spiritual paths might also reveal that, but only with a good teacher.  Mostly they seem to lead people to fall into pits of sloth, or egoism.  Prayer warriors, Zen adepts who never chop wood or carry water, self-actualized self-aggrandizement.

Science is not my religion.  I don't have one, unless love counts as one.  But I do see science as an invaluable tool in the way forward.  In all the golden ages, science has been something humanity could share, cutting across cultures and languages, even religions.  It's not a coincidence that the current (American) administration is anti-science.  These bozos don't want to face reality, and they certainly don't want to see us all get together and figure out that we don't need them or their stupid wars.

Re: science

These bozos don't want to face reality, and they certainly don't want to see us all get together and figure out that we don't need them or their stupid wars.

Radical words and true ones. Black-and-white thinking loves to provoke conflict, lives to justify its violence and is heavily invested in the paradigm of the given -  as in, holding a bedrock belief that their perspective is “a given.” Not buying into a wartime perspective is the most radical thing one can do, b/c if you hold out long enough and are seeing unity and peace the whole time, and manifesting the overwhelming of takers with the love of the givers nobody or almost nobody is going to get that. 

It is hard to grasp. The takers take and the givers give, that's who they are. So HOW can the givers overwhelm the takers? Look to Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jesus and Buddha for examples of this. VERY hard to do. Doing it requires the giver to be a bodhisattva. It' s one thing to take the vow, it's another to face down the hateful weaponry of the warlike with pure love.  That's why character does indeed count.

CalmEagle

Re: science

One of our problems is that we are comfortable only with second hand things. That is why though there could be Martin Luther Kings, Jesuses and Buddhas all over, we have only those few. As for 'science' too, maybe some day some scientist will tell us what is 'reality', what is 'truth'.. but isn't it better to taste the pudding than looking at it in the menucard? It may not be out of context to remember that pathbreaking scientific insights came, in many cases, just by contemplation.

We understand new things based on old experiences, direct or indirect. Truth being wholesome cannot be indirect or second hand…. and what can be expressed by ANY means of communication (as the future scientist would do to reveal the truth!) cannot be the whole … and thus cannot be the truth…. even the observer has to merge into the observed to 'feel' the truth… and at the end the feeling, perhaps, logically shoud vanish. But all these are logical deductions… the path of 'feeling' would lead to the right path, if, however, it is pure feeling…. pure and simple. Individual feeling…. no one needs to or would gain by handed down second hand things… the monk moves alone.

Re: science

Yes, but they came by contemplation of the facts of physical reality (like Einstein's observation of the difference in sound between an approaching and a receding train's whistle, which led to the whole relativity thing).  They've never come from contemplation of our thoughts, or our navels, or of scripture.

Re: science

neat ideas… I'm especially fond of the “bozos” in the white house quote… very funny!… LOL…

yeah… I'd like to pull a Gandhi if I could… a non-violent revolution would be nice… or perhaps someone who actually cares about the environment in office… that's what we really need… I think of like 10,000 years from now… if there are still people… what will they think of these few generations of ours?… I'm just still thankful I'm of the younger generation and have time to change… some older folks are just too stuck in habit to stop driving cars/smoking/eating meat/using air conditioners/turning on lights… all that stuff needs to go…

anyway… that's WAY off topic!… LOL…

I've had the thought that science is simply a search for truth, once one has accepting that one does not know truth… does this concur with anyone else's concept of science?… it makes sense to me… but whne i repeat the word enough times, then it kinda loses meaning… perhaps I haven't chanted it enough!… LOL!… anyway… just my thoughts….

blessings,

Nic

Re: science

My issue with considering science as the search for truth is the problem with truth, and using our certainly flawed perceptors to discern truth.  The most recent “What is Enlightenment” (how I found zaadz) has an interview with Ken Wilber (the second most recent person to jar my paradigms (the most recent being R. Buckminster Fuller, just 3 days ago!)).  Parentheses aside, Wilber and WIE editor Cohen discussed the myth of the given.  Science (and the atheist I was is still kicking in the back of my head here) cannot return 'truth' because we are all coloured by our social context.  There is no given; rather a set of assumptions we picked up with language to define a very nearly inexplicable inundation of energy.

Fuller, in an essay I found in his book “Oblivion or Utopia”, hammered this home for me.  The pre-Columbian Europe knew they lived on a plate of land floating in a sea of God's infinity. This set the fundamental ground for their epistomolgy.  When Columbus proved the (merely theoretical, kinda like evolution) finite globe, the worldview had to change.  This background of a finite globe as a parameter allowed Malthus to think about checks, Mendel to think about traits and, eventually, Darwin to think about finches. 

What is 'true' can change with a new perspective, so what's the point of ever asserting your certainty?

Re: science

Never assert your certainty, unless you are omnicient, of course :-)

I think that’s what makes real science great, the understanding that we are unlikely to ever know the complete truth, yet we don’t let that stop us from the quest for it.

-Turtle

Re: science

Science is simply a language used by those who choose that form of communication to find the truth that compells them.

 Its no different that a foreign language or how dolphins communicate.

Granted those with science backgrounds may be offended, but look at the 'end goal' of all the various complex organisms on this planet.

 Incarnate, search for peace(even psychosis seeks a neutral state), procreate if desired, then evaporate from this physical reality. Who really knows if we keep doing it over and over again… perhap those who have figured out how to directly access that which created us. But that's another discussion…

 Science, hypothesis, theory, passion, curiousity, stupidity or just plain old luck are all methods of discovery. Which one each of us chooses, is what compells us.

So I agree Science is great, for my goals it substantiates a message to those without a science background to change their belief about a behavior that is having a negative impact on the individual or our world.

To me, that makes it part of my language… of which is only one thing (of many) that compell me. S

o I'll take what science (and the contributions of many other NON scientists and 'blend' it with my inner purpose and make THAT the language of my soul.

-Stu - Chief Inspiration Officer

Quantum Inspiration 

Re: science

that's the absolute best definition of science I have ever heard… I've even copied it down into a .txt document so I can remember it!… lol… it really is a different method of communication than trying to be mystical, isn't it?… it's like bringing higher levels of conscious awareness back into our physical domain, so those who do not perceive can observe and perhaps experiment if they find it interesting… does that make sense?… I think I even understand my own definition of science at this point!… LOL… that's totally cool, Mr. Inspired =)…

any more thoughts?… I'm soaking it all in =)

Re: science

It took me 17,000 years to finally come up with that ;-)

 More thoughts…? Yyou may not want to open that can of worms =D LOL

 To your point though…. “Higher levels of conscious back to our physical domain…” (great analogy btw). I get that, spot on. I look at any level of conscious that is equal to or greater than my own having that ability to guide me… so I see it exactly the same way.

So… more thoughts… I'm opening the can…

Take the whole 'equal to or greater than my/your own' concept. I think it can be applied from consciousnes to any and all energy systems. To me its all the same stuff. I see energy systems, not as anything invisible, but the self contained individual energy systems we all are. A very scientific thing. Some of us have a higher frequency, the easy spot is those who siimply appear more energized, those truly understanding of a state of grace and those (in my humble opinion - IMHO) with the 'emotional' balance to give energy rather than take. 

Its these energy systems that do the same thing your scientists do… bring it back to us on a lesser engery level so that we can percieve, then observe and experiment if we find it interesting.

I lump all things into 'enegy systems' without much definition of who or what they do. Its my way of leveling the playing field.  

So here's my mantra - It spawned from a simple statement: I Am that I Am.

There's some other good posts on this. But I wrestled with the whole I AM that I Am thing since my youth. It just never made sense to me. Over the last few years I moved to consistently seekiing all sort of goodness. Widsom, Education, Passion, Empathy, Creativity, Humor, Leadership, Empowerment, Inspiration… you name it. So I was in the constant mode of seeking all this stuff from energy systems equal to our greater than my own. 

One day I figured out, I was constantly asking for these systems to 'give' to me. Sure I was grateful for what I recieved, but I was left unfilled. So I percieved, observed and played with all of it.  Being unfilled, I spent a great deal of time thinking/meditating on all of it. Then it occured to me, I needed to give it back. 

I simply added; I would ALSO seek to BE all of those things to those engergy systems equal to our less than me.

 Low and behold - I became a little sign post for people on their journey's. My sign post is a little bigger these days and a little brighter too… which brings me to my conclusion.

Sometimes in a hurry… I'd just repeat - “I Seek to be that which I Seek:”. After some time I reached a level of understanding that permitted me to stop seeking and start being.

 In one fell swoop - I AM that I AM made perfect sense. It was a Quantum Leap for me.

 So… yea… lots more thoughts and I love the thread you started… hope its soak worthy!

Stu 

Re: science

less and less about more and more

Quantumly Inspired has said in his blog that  - “I've come to the assertion that in order to change behavior, we must change the belief about the behavior. And major behavioral change is what our world needs.” -  I  believe that I  agree completely !

He also says -  ” However the 2006 spin is based upon the 'quantum ability to inspire yourself'.  Use these initiatives and good solid science to educate youth and teach them they have the power to control their sub-atomic realm and manifest that into a positive human experience. ”  - which presumably points to an all-inclusive solution ! ?

Might I suggest that the all inclusive solution has to be based on - the intuitive first person present tense here and now perspective - as well as - the objective third person perspective which science has always adopted - because at least half of the overall perspective, on which good solid science has supposedly been based, is missing !

Re: science

Sweeet!

A great reply… I love that!

My thoughts on 'good solid science' is related a lot to physiological science… perhaps I'll make that more clear - thank you for your guidance. Our little hypothalmus making all those langdons (including peptides) that dock with our recpetor cells BASED upon what we do, feel, react, eat, think… bascially everything… is the science I wish to 'brink back' (as Arjuna ponts out) so that those not even aware of it, can become aware and make their own decision to play with it, if it interests them. My goal is to use that, among some of the other quantum theories (that are much more esoteric and harder to grasp) to illustrate that we do in fact have the abilty to control some if not most of that stuff and have it affect our phyiscal self in a positive way.

 In essence, its translating a language to another so that folks understand it and should they choose the be inspired by it, can make a healthy effort to make our world a better place.

We can argue all we want about duality vs. non… Quantum Science speaks a language that says we can demonstrate we're all inexplicably link… we just can't really figure out why just yet… meaning, we have figured out that language yet. 

 But there is one fact - we are these phyical energy systems that we all see, touch, feel and get very emotional over.

I firmly believe that we are all 'one'… but we have this 'other' thing (call it the ego for arguments sake) that drives our oness. Its these folk I'm interesting in waking up… being able ot see the 'oneness' and the 'otherness' at the same time. Many lable that the objective observer… whatever it is, I can clearly be asleep at the wheel and wake up… I for a fact can tell the difference and it has a major physiological affect on me.

 So…sorry for the diatribe, if I'm reading you right, we have a common view. But I don't really care about what my view is… what I do care about is trying to create a positive change and do it in a language that those who are generally asleep would be permissive to waking up and hearing it… then judging for themselves whether its right for them… and delivering it in such a way that we leave 'religion and politics' out of it and reach as many people as possible. 

With my day job, I live in a world of 'win rates'… and net/net is you increase your win rate with a bigger pool of opporutunties. So the more we reach, the better chance we have of making a postive impact. 

 ok… I'm off my soap box… gotta go back to the day job.

Re: science

Please don't be sorry for the diatribe - I agree wholeheartedly with most of what you say - always of course in the context of Winston Churchill's statement that the USA and UK were two nations seperated by the same language.

I am particularly attracted by your statement  -  “ I don't really care about what my view is… what I do care about is trying to create a positive change and do it in a language that those who are generally asleep would be permissive to waking up and hearing it… then judging for themselves whether its right for them… and delivering it in such a way that we leave 'religion and politics' out of it and reach as many people as possible.”

I recently sent the following, by email to Obi, but have yet to receive a reply -

“Thanks for your welcome.

the mind of wisdom at the centre of our diverse personalities must, of course, be all inclusive from a first person singular present tense - point of view - particularly if  The Plan is to involve Capitalism, Spirituality, Enthusiasm, Love Service, Inspiration and Leaders.

As Osho once said  “The politician and the priest represent the ancient conspiracy against the innocence of humanity such that the masses have never decided anything for themselves and if humanity becomes awake, then there will be no need for priests and politicians”

Might I suggest, therefore, that The Plan should take the form of a matrix - designed for and by the masses - such that the collective all-inclusive first person singular present tense - point of view - will then lead to the establishment of  a new model & method of wealth creation, mutually beneficial to all.

I intend to post  my  plan for a matrix on my   zaadz blog   soon !

Re: science

WOW - THAT is Inspring!!!

Michael - I realize this may sound strange, but I could feel the energy in your message resonating deeply within me.

Perhaps this is 'your matrix' emanating within me. I actually agree with you totally on the 'all in' deal. Forgive my casual tone… its just easier for my feable mind. ;-0

I absolutely believe we can NOT make a postive change unless we come up with a new way… and it has to be 'all inclusive'… to me, its just a 21st century requirement. 

There's some work done on a Theory call the Zero Point Field… that could mimic your idea of a matrix.

 You've got a friennd am willing to help if you ever need it.

Stu 

Re: science

Absolutely Zero-Point Field in the context that it is said to exist in a vacuum – or what is commonly thought of as empty space - but at a resonable temperature so we can all keep communicating with each-other.

Thank you very much for your offer of help - we are all  certainly going to need it!

My very kindest regards

Michael

Re: science

The Zero Point Field (ZPF) is a fascinating subject. I love the word 'plenum' which is the opposite of 'vacuum' and describes everything that is, and everything that is must vibrate, or the Third Law of Thermodynamics (nothing can exist at absolute zero) is violated.  

So the plenum (or matrix, I suppose) vibrates everywhere, and that energy is theoretically on tap.  We just have to figure out how to tap into it (or, how we do tap it without knowing how, which is what I suspect). 

An issue I have with the word 'matrix' (other than being dissatisfied with the movie) is the grid-like nature of the subtext.  European-based thought (and its North American love-child) is heavily biased by a grid metaphor, mostly due to its effectiveness in cartesian geometry and the fact that we live in boxes.  The grid we build our cities on makes things easier for more people (check out the squatters of Rio de Janiero if you want to see how geography keeps out strangers).  

The grid was essential for the development of the modern and post-modern eras, but those familiar with R. Buckminster Fuller know that he asserted the grid isn't the best way to pack a universe.  Since the plenum (I don't know if Bucky ever used the word) is essentially lazy (he used that one), the actual structure of the universe is probably the one that is easiest to pack.  For him, this meant triangles.  I'm not sure how he manages it, having only read a summary he wrote, but a cubic grid allows for three dimensions, but with triangles (which are much sturdier), five dimensions can be graphed.

Now, you may be able to think in five dimensional, triangular matrices, but I sure can't! 

Re: science

My intuition tells me that the universe is packed with fluid, non-linear shapes.  A lot harder to graph, but much more likely, looking at the macroscosm.

I've been toying lately with the concepts of organization and entropy, and the balance that exists between the two in the Universe.  The organizatonal energy involved in the evolution of life and consciousness on this jewel of a planet, for example, requires a huge amount of chaos to balance it.  Like inconceivably vast expanses of space where stars explode and galaxies crash into each other, and planets that roil with volcanoes and endless hurricanes that make Katrina look like a waterspout.  (O yeah, that's what we've got.)

I think some folks think it's lonely to be an evolved being.  And it is, on one level.  No gods, no angels, no aliens close enough to talk to.  But golly.  There sure are enough of us around not to feel lonely, I'd think.  Though of course, I know what it's like to be in a room full of people I can't really talk to about much of anything 'cept the weather and children.  Good thing we've got this space, now.

QI, I really enjoy your ideas about language (as a poet, language is another concept my mind likes to bat around).  Do you have a homonymous pod?  Seems like I saw one.  I'm going to have to go check it out.

Re: science

My Absolutely Zero-Point Field post was a tongue in cheeck response to the thread I started here entitled less and less abour more and more.

Etceterist has said “The grid was essential for the development of the modern and post-modern eras, but those familiar with R. Buckminster Fuller know that he asserted the grid isn’t the best way to pack a universe”

and goes on to speak of 3 & 5 dimensions … but I thought the latest scientific thinking was based on 10 dimensions ! ?

By the way a matrix is just 2 words !

Re: science

10 dimensions, some say 11 in M-theory and most of them are curled dimensions.  I can't quite grok a curled dimension, although a piece of paper is two long dimensions (not counting thickness or time) and a straw is a long and a curled ( so still two dimensions) and that really helps me.

How I interpret Fuller is that we can construct something in 3 dimensions, so the cubic structure suffices, but the tetrahedral structure allows us to visualize 2 extra dimensions, which might be better.

Of course, Fuller predates string theory, but I was also reading “How Brains Think” by William Calvin and he asserted that triangular arrangements of synapses are likeliest.  Then I made the pod entry, and I am generally heavily influenced by whatever they are that I'm reading.

Re: science

WOW!… this is the most amazing thread!… I'm so honoured that I was able to start it!!!!!

umm… I don't mean to digress at all… but I couldn't read every single post since my last post… but I did catch what you… Mr. Inspired said…. that and the last post… talking about more dimensions?…

I suppose all I have heard about the higher dimensions is something a good friend told me about… I asked him what he thought the 5th dimension was… and he said another dimension of time… it might not sound that high minded to some people… but to me at the time it was VERY profound… since it takes time to understand =)…

but… an inspiration that came to me… if we all want to learn about higher realms… higher spheres… if you will… then I think we need to recognize certain sign posts and symbols… words are highly symbolic… I know that much… but to get to my point… perhaps we should work on finding “safe points”… like… I don't mean to disrespect any religion… but what I have heard is the essence of most large religions is the thought “he/she is our saviour”… I take this to mean that he/she will protect us from harm… so this is why I want to find “scientific safe spots”… perhaps we just need more words in the english language?… that's the best I can come up with =)… hehe….

perhaps we can all agree that zaadz is a safe spot?… I mean… it's almost alive, right?… LOL!… God knows it's almost beyond this physical universe =)… although in another sense it was created in this physical universe… *ponders*… anyway… just rambling at this point….

love and light!,

Nic

Re: science

May I at first thank Etceterist for his frank and open answer.

Fuller was first and foremost a man of  vision. It was his compassionate feelings for his fellow man which drove him, throughout his life, to develop “long term sustainable, environmental solutions” and the geodesic dome was just one of his many inventions.

Equally I salute you arjuna, firstly for starting the thread and secondly for raising the issues in your  “safe points”  paragraph and your statement that  ” perhaps we can all agree that zaadz is a safe spot?… ”

Out of defference to you both,  my respect and admiration for Fuller and all that he stood for and the fact that we are all ambassadors and only here communicating because of the zaadz founding fathers I have posted my own vision today for all who would wish to read it ! ?

My very kindest regards

Michael

Re: science

Hope and pray - Gautama Buddha said that patience is the best form of prayer - that I haven't stopped this thread in its tracks so to speak - or is it that you are all blinded by my vision ?

Re: science

The Vision is a beautiful example of accessing the future.

How do you access the future? Through RIGHT NOW! 

I don't think this thread has stopped. Much like the cooling housing market here in Phoenix… it was red hot, now leveled off. The science thread had for the most part dropped off 'recent' discussions, so I think its just a cooling off… but folks are still buying houses out here… so I'd imagine folks will still be stopping by.

Desire to Inspire,

Stu 

Re: science

Absolutely  -  yesterday is history,  tomorrow is a mystery and today is a gift - thats why they call it  -  the present  -  I certainly hope  that  folks will still be stopping by.

Re: science

Michael:  I'd thank you for your gratitude, but reflexive courtesy rapidly wears.  Rather, I read your entry on a matrix.  An interesting PoV.  The integration of 1st and 3rd person is certainly desirable.  I try to be objective about my subjectivity on a regular basis.  

How much thought have you given to the 2nd person?  “Where two are gathered…” and such.  More along scientific lines:  it is the development of the ability to imagine another's perspective with a high degree of accuracy that MAY have been the tipping factor for sentience.  What many call empathy became adaptive for the clawless, scaleless hooting protopeople.

Re: science

Just testing to see if this moves the margin over. If it does… reply to the very first post in any thread.

Stu

Re: science

Quantum Stu:  ever the questing mind, hmm?  A note for consideration:  you called this pod a thread; wouldn't 'vine' be more in keeping with the zaadz theme?

Re: science

Yes but is “the vine”  black or white …. and presumably not merlot !

In respect to Etceterist's earlier post - Chris Curry Director of Acorn Computers - designers of the BBC MIcro ( that's another tale ) - used to say of me that - I was always to free with my information and over the top in my search for the others' point of view

BEING PREPARED TO SURVIVE …. considering that in the world of chaos with which we are now faced - it is entirely possible that as The 2030 Spike predicted - ” a huge confluence of seven natural and human-made drivers will converge around 2030 and wreak havoc “   -  I would say is paramount.

My science blog post doesn't mean that I am anti-science, far from it.  I love science, as I do also the arts, philosophy, wealth creation etc. etc. but only because I have continuously sought to find out the answers for myself from a 1st person perspective and not as a result of only being told how to think by priests, politicians, academia, intellectual elites and the fifth estate! - thank goodness for Apple, Hypercard, Time Berners Lee, http, the internet, blogging and now zaadz.

My involvement with and understanding of science is very broad ( how long was it that it took to evolve the eye ? ) and increasingly based on the realisation that in order to survive we absolutely must consider the biggest picture that we can - I have owned the web site http://www.galactica.net/  for some years waiting for all the aspects of technolgy and science to converge to the point where the creation of  a place was at all possible.  I have had a 25 year involvement with Oxford University Press and it was I who persuded the OUP Charity Board to allow IBM to create the electronic version of the OED. I have also spoken to them about the concept of a second version of the OED which I have called the Alpha Index. A 0-9 A_Z reference guide for all those who have entered a place. As a result of my relationship with OUP I am absolutely sure that the only word in the english dictionary that the priests, politicians, academia, intellectual elites and the fifth estate - could possibly use to describe multiple universes of universes is galactica. In the same way that Tim Berners Lee created and gave us http so also I am prepared to place my ideas, experience, enthusiasm and commitment  into the public domain.

But I seek not fame or fortune. It is generally recognized by my close set of freinds that although they and my family have always enjoyed the best of lifestyles, they would have been better off financially to the tune of at least £1M had I not spent it on my life-long project. And understandably sometimes put off by my rants - but seemingly of the opinion over time that - ” Michael is not always right but he is invariably not wrong ! ” - boy do I need a holiday.

I have until now stalwartly avoided putting my thoughts into books - despite several offers of lucrative contracts from OUP and others over the years - because I abhor the concept of intellectual elitism - a concept, which was of course, at the root of the reason why Pirsig wrote Zen and the Art of Motor-cycle Maintenance.

Re: science

Michael:

One of my life goals is to obtain the unabridged OED.  21 volumes of words; what a smorgasborganization!  How many pages to expound on 'set' these days?

 So let's see.  A picture is worth a thousand words, the OED has, oh, let's say a half billion words in total (including the editor's introduction, which does go on) so is worth a five hundred thousand pictures (500 megapix).  Your close friends and family (what, 20 people, roughly?) claim a million pounds, or 2.2 Cdn$, making one picture worth about a pack of tabs.  I don't know, what would they want that for?

 Have you read Susan Blackmore's The Meme Machine?  This is the best broad-spectrum outline of cultural transmission of information.

However, you claim 'galactica' is in the english dictionary, but it's not in the Canadian Oxford.  I assume that the suffix -a is the Latin or Greek neutral plural (phenomena, carnivora) and not the informal (kinda, sorta). 

Or is it the noun-forming feminine singular?  After all, for any particular species, that with the larger zaad is the female.  For birds, this means the egg-layer has the XY chromosome, as arbitrary as an electron being 'negative'. 

What zaad is larger than everything?

As far as words go, where you say 'galactica' I say 'Anyverse'.

Re: science

What zaad is larger than everything? - The KINGDOM ….

Re: science

I have read most things on memes since Dawkins “Blind Watchmaker” - but then again he’s a self-declared atheist!

Re: science

I was a self-declared atheist myself for a while.  *beat* But I got better. Now I'm a non-practicing agnostic.

Just because the guy who coined the term defines himself by a lack of something doesn't invalidate the usefulness of studying society as the transmission of ideas.  

Re: science

Have only just seen this from Etceterist -

I was a self-declared atheist myself for a while.  *beat* But I got better. Now I’m a non-practicing agnostic.
Just because the guy who coined the term defines himself by a lack of something doesn’t invalidate the usefulness of studying society as the transmission of ideas.

Well well we ARE beginning to understand each-other - maybe ?

Re: science

Hi, just joining in now and it seems as though it's a bit of a circular subject.  That is, unless you're (I mean that generally) an 'expert', you could just go around and around without coming to the end of it.  An expert could give you a well defined answer(s) to one or some of your questions, thoughts, but that would kind of take the fun out of it, wouldn't it?  I think the answers are out there, and that the answer fits the person.  A stock answer or solution to anything just doesn't work.  And let's not forget that (at least in my book) anything claiming to offer a solution/answer/whatever to what we are seeking that doesn't take some philosophy/spirituality into account only has half the answer.

 Goodness, that came out quick!

 Hope it made some sense.

Additions anyone?

Re: science

You may be aware that the original EU blogger definition of an “expert” is “X” the unknown factor “spirt” a drip under pressure.

I think the answers are out there, and that the answer fits the person - absolutely 

A stock answer or solution to anything just doesn’t work - exactly the case 

And let’s not forget that (at least in my book) anything claiming to offer a solution/answer/whatever to what we are seeking that doesn’t take some philosophy/spirituality into account only has half the answer - couldn’t agree with you more

Re: science

Hi Mrs.  Welcome.

I'm not sure which circular subject you're pointing out here.  This is a general category catch all vine, no experts here, although some may think themselves expert.  I consider myself if anything an expert generalist, which only means I know a little bit more about a lot more than most people I know.  Most people have the focus and the tenacity to stick with one topic, or field, or thesis.  Not me.  I get distracted by shiny ideas often and easily.  I do hope whatever it all is that it all makes sense, and sometimes it does, or at least it seems to for a while.

Not only that, experts generally can't give a well defined answer in science unless you can understand the mathematics.  An expert would only confuse me, because I don't have the right vocabulary.  Only someone both competent at communicating abstract concepts with regular folk and expert in their field would be a valuable resource, and I know there's a few around here somewhere.  The trick is asking the right question.

Re: science

The trick is asking the right question -

As did HH the 14th Dalai Lama when he asked the group of emminent Russian scientists - ” What is MIND ? ” - following his “Flash of lightning in the dark of the night experience” - which itself led to the MindScience East-West Dialogue - and in so doing established a superb example of what - to para phrase Ken Wilber - has become the Tibetan Buddhist “Vatican II” to “coneyor belt” initiative !

Expert generalist - I like that - or in my own “words” - less and less about more & more

Re: science

Michael responded very favourably to my self-analysis of being an expert generalist; favourable to the phrase, if not the self-analysis.  He had also, in a previous thread, wondered if we had maybe begun some form of sympatico, or at least mutually reflective points of view (as in 'I see where you're coming from').  May do, may do.

Some time back, much theorizing occured over why he chose a mask as an icon for an avatar.  I think the answer is implied in the question.  Icony Irony.  Multiple levels of 'what-do-you-think-I-mean?' meaning embedded in the semantics of the subtext.

Re: science

The beauty of the internet is that we can at all communicate in the manner which we are doing - but REAL communication can only validly take place FACE to FACE and until we get REAL-TIME - ultimately 500MB/sec bandwidth - video conferencing capability as a function of the zaadz toolset - one snapshot of my face is meaningless in the multitude of snapshot possibilities that would have to be collated to iconise the multiple levels of ‘what-do-you-think-I-mean? as a result of every question / discussion posed !

Re: science

Equally Zhuang Zu said that “faces are a reflection of the soul” - if you care to peruse my own comments appended to My-Head and follow the threads there attached you may begin to truly understand where I am coming from.

Re: science

In my experience, all communication is REAL communication, no matter how it looks on the surface. Blind people can never see body language, and pretty much never have “face to face” conversations (not in casual company anyway!) but they manage to have real conversations, don’t they?

I’ve always been saddened that people consider the written word somehow inferior to spoken word, which are both seen as inferior to spoken word accompanied by visual body language. I feel like they are missing out on the big picture of language.

So many people seem to think that when I write my heart out in this little box on a website forum that it’s somehow not “really” me (a flesh and bones human being) talking to them. I can see how this could seem to be the case, since most people are trained to communicate “face to face” from the time they are young. But are you sure that that is the only way to “really” communicate? Or is it perhaps just one way, and maybe the way that you prefer, and feel most comfortable with?

I, myself, grew up with lots of books and other non-interactive (one-way) media. So, I learned to appreciate speaking in paragraphs, chapters, and artistic visual illustrations (kids’ picture books!). Therefor, I’m completely at home here in this box, sharing my life with you, and learning from the thoughts you share in your box. A box with our faces would not be more comfortable for me. You could chalk that up to me having psychological imbalances if you like, but I just consider it to be an equally good and different form of communication than “face to face” communication. Diversity, to me, is crucial for life, so I encourage people to live their lives in whatever way works best for them.

Oh, and I do sometimes like to have face to face conversations, but I get that all the time at work and at home with my family, so that’s why I especially appreciate the opportunity to be able to think more deeply here in this box.

It sounds like you, on the other hand, prefer talking to people one on one. That’s cool. Do you have people in your neighborhood who would join you in such a conversation about your theories about the universe?

Peace, Love, and Bicycles
Turtle

Re: science

Hi Turtle,

For sure, language is a great thing and the ability to use words to convey messages is a tool to be prized beyond, uh, words.

Thing is, a great part of our brain has cognitive functions that are nonlanguage. These can interfere with our ability to communicate effectively using linguistics. How else to explain the seemingly endless misunderstandings that arise through use of language? The spin? The doublespeak? 

Perhaps we could introduce two modes of talking, similar to the ones used in Japan for the two sexes. We could call them 'sciencespeak' and 'artspeak'. The first would be strictly Wittgensteinian (“Whereof one cannot speak, thereof ought one remain silent”, so, factual statements of the 'It is now eight o'clock', 'I work in a structural biology lab', 'I feel hungry' variety), the second would belong to the set of all-that-is-not-Wittgensteinian.

Politics as art, anyone? 

Re: science

Michael asserts ”REAL communication can only validly take place FACE to FACE” and I refute:  FACE to FACE communication has the highest signal fidelity.  Smoke signals are real communication, as long as the transmittor and the receivor ('-or' for differentiation from radio equipment) agree what the patterns of smoke mean. 

turtle present a poignant advocacy of the advantages to solitary time.  Myself, I like being alone, fear loneliness and endure feeling lonesome.

WOE has elsewhere typed disgruntlement about the fuzziness of Zaadz and may not return. Pity, as I would be curious about WOE's PoV on Dali-speak, or don't dentists ride giraffes?

Re: science

“FACE to FACE communication has the highest signal fidelity” - never SAID, INFERRED or IMPLIED such a position - but did use the word validly !

Smoke signals - smoke screen ! etc. etc. or should it be etcerist !

…. and here I am again trying to talk less and less about more and more - seemingly forever faced with the perspectives of more and more about less and less.

I do hope WOE does return and continues to BLOG post some validly scientific ideas - perhaps more comments at BLOG level would be appropriate on this subject of science ?

Re: science

Michael, please notice that the highest signal fidelity comment was my refutation and not attributed to you, implication, inference or otherwise.  

My name is indeed a reference to one who views the etcetera as a lifestyle choice without necessarily embracing the abbreviation. This is what I intended when I called myself an expert generalist.  You have taken the more Zen aspect of it with the less and less about more and more until one says nothing about all things thought.

However, back to signal fidelity, if you choose to limit your output, you shouldn't get too feisty when people don't understand what it is you're trying to say.  

Re: science

“turtle present a poignant advocacy of the advantages to solitary time. Myself, I like being alone, fear loneliness and endure feeling lonesome”

Intereseting interpretation of my thoughts. My intent was somewhat different, however, so I’m going to try and refine my thoughts about this…

In my viewpoint, I would suggest that aloneness is perhaps more a product of perspective. For example, I do not feel alone at all when I am conversing with you from my text box. I think of the written word as being simply a different form of being with others, not an inferior way of being with others.

I am both an intellectual being and a physical being. To be healthy, both my thoughts and my body need companionship - but they can find that companionship at different times and in different formats! I find that my intellect prefers slow, deliberate, spacious companionship, while my body prefers loving companionship. Sometimes I can get both at the same time, but sometimes it’s harder to focus on two things at the same time :-) (And no, I’m not talking about sex! Well, mostly not…)

Is that a little clearer, now?

Oh, and I liked the smoke signals thought. They are indeed communication! And serve some conversational needs quite well. Certainly, they encourage a slow and deliberate kind of discussion!

Dali-speak?

Peace, Love, and Bicycles
Turtle

Re: science

This vine seems to have atrophied.  It may be too general to carry
on.  So, I invite everyone here over to my little pod (http://pods.zaadz.com/poet_scientist) for some slightly more specific generalities and generalizations.  (In the war on ignorance, I'm a general!)

Re: science

I think science is spiritual.  It is an Exterior verification of the underlying design of Big Mind.  Ken Wilber uses Interior and Exterior as part of his AQAL (all quatrants, all levels) approach.  Every event has an interior and an exterior.  Try googling AQAL.

As an example of interior and exterior, let's say we want to study a Zen master.  He could meditate and tell us of his experience, which would be his interior.  Note that his experience cannot be transferred onto another person for confirmation, nor can it be measured.  Religion has traditionally emphasized the interior aspect of reality.

You could take EEG measurements of the Zen master's brain while meditating and note that the brain waves show predominantly delta waves.  This is a measurable exterior form of data.  Sciences such as physics is a study of exteriors.  Scientists usually try to collapse the interior into exterior by saying that the interior experience is nothing more than biochemistry, etc…

However, it is apparent that the interior is not the exterior, and vice versa.  Also, each event has both an interior and a correlating exterior.  Ken Wilber does a terrific job in explaining how exterior sciences (physics, psychology, etc…), interior sciences (psychology, etc), philosophy, and religion all fit together.  He can be found online at integralinstiture.org or integralnaked.org

Re: science

After a more than two month period of atrophy - Hail to Alan for his refreshingly new perspective on science in the context of this Think-Tank thread.