I'm guessing you're also interested in the differences between solar and atomic time .

Except that the Standard Model might be totally wrong, as new evidence might suggest...

Standard Model Flawed? Subatomic Particles' 'Misbehavior' Pokes Holes In Reigning Physics Theory
http://www.huffingtonpos...cs-theory_n_1609954.html

One could make the argument that Amazonian Shamans have a pretty good idea as to how the universe works, and the vast majority of their knowledge would be denied by or unacceptable to scientists.

Tek:'what this does, is steal away the soul of man'.

And what if it would be true that the brain is the source of our counsciousness? Would you be willing to lie to yourself, and to deliberately ignore neuro-science because you don´t like the idea of it? Because the idea of an immaterial entity appeals more to you than facts that have been well established?

But the most important question is ofcourse: Why would knowing that my thoughts are produced by a series of processes, steal away my soul? I know that a clock is not some magical device that realy knows what time it is, but a machine....But does that steal away it´s usefullness to me? Does it realy change anything, when i know that there´s no live symphony orchestra in my soundsystem? Do i enjoy the music less, when i know that it´s just physical instead of magical processes that cause it to produce sound?

Why would something need to be immaterial to be of any real value? Why would something be stolen from you, the moment it turns out to have an inner working?
Could my mind only have any real value to me, when it would be completely immaterial?

Explain to me please, how i´m being robbed of something, the moment i would find out that i have a brain. Nothing realy changes. Maybe i would focus less on possible advantages i may enjoy in the afterlife, when leading a fruitfull catholic life. But would focussing more on the here and now, instead of on an afterlife of wich it´s existence maybe entirely fictional, make my life actually less meaningfull?

Totally wrong is an exaggeration, and of course everybody versed in science knows the Standard Model is not the "end all" answer. If anyone thinks it is, they don't understand what science is and what it does.

Before this experiment the Standard Model of particle physics were known to have limitations, unanswered questions and what not. I'm not even sure what you're getting at, because even though this experiment (among other things) pokes holes in the Standard Model, it's still not a bad theory. In fact, it is working AMAZINGLY well to explain almost everything in the microscopic realm thus far. Guyomech also said that it explains almost all physical phenomena, but not everything. Scientists freely and frequently admits this.

Now, let's take an example; Newton's theory of gravitation and the motion of planets (Principia, 1687) were also in a lot of trouble during the 18th and 19th century. From the day it was published, there were observations the theory could not account for. After a while the shit got more serious when the theory couldn't make sense of Mercury's orbits, and in order to solve this mess physics had to wait for Einstein general theory of relativity. However, Newtons law of gravitation still works like a charm in most situations, it is used in a great deal of situations, and it is not wrong at all - it's just approximate. Every goddamn theory and model in physics is approximate, and all students of physics still have to go through the old, inaccurate Newtonian mechanics and all the way up to the more and more accurate stuff.

In the same way the standard model is not wrong per se, and it might be relieved by some better theory that can explain more in the future (with all likelihood it will), but people will still have to learn about it and people will still use it in many situations, just like we use classical, newtonian mechanics to build bridges, shoot up spacerockets, build cars and calculate a hell of a lot that doesn't require us to use relativity or quantum mechanics, for example.

So again, what are you getting at?



Are you serious? How can one argue this? Can they tell me how to cure a variety of diseases, cure certain types of cancer, make advanced surgery, tell me how the internet works, what lights the sun, how the planets move, how the chemical elements were formed, how they react to make new substances, how earth was made, how life evolved, how the brain works, how to land people on the Moon, predict the weather, predict a hell of alot many others things and launch satellites into orbit? Can they tell me the principles behind modern technology, behind modern medicine, how far it is to the sun, how big the earth is, how much it weighs, how far it is to the nearest galaxy, what the sun is made of? The list goes on and on and on and on. I could write a book with a list of questions. Many of these questions however, can't be answered by shamans accurately and to the extent modern society and scientists can. Why? Because shamans don't have such a good idea of how the universe works, period. Even we don't have that a good understanding, but we've come a hell of lot further than Amazonian shamans. Arguing otherwise seems silly to me, so I am seriously interested in how you figure you can argue that they know pretty well how the universe works. These people, unless educated, knows just as much we did thousands of years ago in most areas.

Now, this is not to say they might not have principles and views on certain things that are far more healthier than what many of us in a modern society have (the connection and care for nature, the value of family etc), perhaps well versed in certain therapautical practices and techniques to heal a sick mind and so on, but how the universe works? Come on.

Sounds like a very poor argument.

Care to expand in what way they know how the universe works?

And how comes some shamans are completely opposed to another and have opposing views of how the universe works and what is 'right' or 'wrong', which one is right?

And how comes many are eager to learn from western knowledge, if they already know how the universe works?

Sounds like you're idealizing shamans. Not to say we can't learn from them some things (like related to sustainability or social organization), but to say they know more about the universe is a wild claim, and the burden of proof is on you to show in what way.

PS: Often the knowledge indigenous people comes from something akin to scientific method: isolating variables and coming to conclusions. For example they give a certain plant to someone sick, they note the results, they give another plant, they note the results, and then they make conclusions based on this, and this is passed through generations. Or they observe how in different times of the day (i.e., the different variables), certain animals they want to hunt appear, or whatever else. This is essentially how science works.

You are correct, I did not choose my words carefully. Totally wrong is an exaggeration. The point I was inferring, and which I did not expand upon, is that what we think of as true today may not necessarily be so tomorrow. Paradigms shift all the time, and saying the world is a certain way today does not mean we will have the same understanding tomorrow.

One can make that argument easily. Just because their worldview is not the same as the western variety does not mean it lacks validity or truth. I am sure they have their own version of the story as to how life evolved, how the earth was made, how the planets came into being, etc. Questions that have not been answered beyond a doubt by science.

There are certain questions you pose that are in contradiction even among scientists. How the sun works for example, how the earth was made, how life evolved...

They cure diseases all the time, stories abound how cancer has been cured, depression, mental disorders...Modern medicine has learned an enormous amount from shamans, and given them none of the credit. The internet, landing people on the moon, launching satellites, how big the earth is, how much it weighs, how far it is to the sun, etc, all seem to be irrelevant questions from an indiginous perspective.

These people have a much better understanding about how we are all connected, how life works symbiotically, how we are connected to nature and each other. A much greater understanding about consciousness, which is the fundamental property of the universe from a primacy of consciousness perspective. Some cultures knew about the center of the galaxy before science even knew that we were in a galaxy!

So yes, I would say that shamanic cultures have a pretty good understanding as to how the universe works. We as a culture deny much of what they purportedly "know" but that does not make them wrong and us right...

Just as scientists are completely opposed to one another and have opposing views of how the universe works. For example: Big Bang vs Electric Universe or any of the other contradicting cosmological theories that are out there.

I never said they know MORE about the universe. I said they have a pretty good idea, one that has likely been passed down generation to generation for thousands of years. More consistent and less likely to change than our own. Just because their theories or explanations are different than modern interpretations (all ranging from wild to educated guesses) does not mean they are invalid or wrong.

I don't idealize shamans, but when one has experienced inexplicable, dare I say miraculous things they have facilitated one would naturally give a bit of credence to what they have to say about who we are and why we are here...

As a scientist. I agree. I also try meditation, yoga, and other subjective technologies.

You gotta stop trying to judge science based on a few of it's SCIENTISTS. Science is science. It is not good, it is not bad. It is a method of exploring, sharing and reproducing results. There is literally nothing stopping you, me, or anyone else from coming up with something better, less limited, and perhaps spiritual. Problem is, it ends up losing the reproducible part and then becomes subjective and then is nothing like science, soo....the only rational thing to do is leave science behind and use philosophy as a guide if you want to explore these territories, and philosophy/logic can be great tools for picking up the path were science leaves off. J

BTW One last thought.

I am spiritual because of science not in spite of science.

Thank you. I am guilty of exactly what you state above; judging science on the view of the scientists that make the most noise in mainstream society and then placing a value judgment on the practice itself. This is an error on my part and I did try to make a distinction earlier that what I was arguing against is a materialist interpretation of the universe, not science itself, but what I ended up doing was arguing about science anyways and that wasn't the intent.

Your spirituality coming as a result of science is, imo, what a true scientist is. Thus my admiration for the late Carl Sagan. He became a scientist just because he looked out at nature and wondered. You have to admire that. You don't have to call it spirituality, but it doesn't take a very observant person to realize that the type of science Sagan believed in is not the type that is taught in most schools today.

yall care to much.

no, y'all are wrong.

science is part of the grand conspiracy to suppress spirituality.

exactly! see the illuminati was influenced by alchemy, but they knew the spiritual truths contained therein were too great for the ordinary man, so they devised a plot to separate the spirituality out of alchemy, into what is now known as "science"

i even have a conspiracy pyramid chart and everything (its like a food pyramid, only instead of telling you what to eat and how much, it tells you what secret societies to hate, and how much you should hate them.)

Then I understand you, and agree completely with the fact that our theories and perspectives on the world changes. This is the provisional nature of science, which is one of its greatest virtues.



No, but it doesn't mean they are right either. I wouldn't put my money on their alternative stories of how life evolved, how the earth was made and how the planets came into being. They have myths, religious/shamanic beliefs without any foundation except for their metaphysical systems build upon their hallucinogenic and shamanic experiences. This hardly counts for verifiable and real knowledge. They will with all likelihood talk about hidden, spiritual forces in Nature, Gods and spirits and similar things. These are fairy tales anyone can cough up with, and western society left much of that behind during the Age of Enlightenment.



There is some agreement in a lot of these questions. Evolution is how life evolved, confirmed to a great extent, and the majority of scientists agree this is the case. Sure, we miss details, we will always miss some details, but we have a general picture and can explain a hell of a lot with this. Our understanding of how the solar system and specifically earth was made might be limited, but progress is made by cycling through the scientific process of hypothesis, prediction, measurement, theory, and hypothesis... We understand more everyday, and there are great models and ideas that are consistent with data, consistent with laws and prior understanding. We know a lot, yet we know little. When it comes to the sun we have a great general picture of how it works, but we are missing details here as well.

Now, let's not dwell too much into that, but remember the fact that I wrote "Many of these questions however, can't be answered by shamans accurately and to the extent modern society and scientists can". I did not say all of these questions can be answered, and I also highlighted that shamans can't answer many of them accurately the way we can, and (I should have written or) to the extent we can. Now, if these shamans have such a good understanding of how the universe works, they surely should have some say in these questions, perhaps even more than we can in certain of them. Moreover, I wrote that even we don't understand that much - again highlighting our ignorance in many questions - but that we sure as hell have come further than Amazonian shamans in many areas.



But there are also many diseases they don't have a chance to cure, but that we can cure. If they have such a good understanding of how the universe works and how to cure disease, how come life expectancy is so short in Amazonian tribes far out into the jungle? How come they have so bad teeth? Their average life expectancy at birth doesn't even reach 50 in many areas, and many of them die young because of infections and parasitic disease that we fight off easily because of our understanding of how the universe works and consequently our good understanding of said infections and disease. Average life expectancy within tribal settings in general tends to be low, typically less than thirty years of age, primarily due to high levels of infant and child mortality. Their health and life expectancy is similar to what we had more than 150 years ago, when modern medicine and modern science were in its early phases.

And yes, there are stories of how cancer is cured, but stories are just stories and should not be taken at face value unless reproduced. And what is this enormous amount that modern medicine has learned from shamans? If we learned that much from shamans, isn't it strange they don't manage to cure a variety of infections and disease that we actually can? Or are you going to argue that this is irrelevant for them?

As for the questions you said seems unimportant to them, this is too simple of an answer. You can't bypass the fact that they don't really have such a good understanding of how the universe works simply by hand-wavering it away with "it is not so important for them to know such and such".



I already said that they might have perspectives and principles that are far healthier than what many of us here in a modern society has, and I mentioned the connection and care for nature and the importance of family etc. But just understanding or having a perspective of how we are connected to nature in ways many people here don't think doesn't mean they have a good understanding of how the universe works. A hippie can preach all he wants about how everything is connected to everything else, but ask him about something concrete about how the universe functions and he is probably going completely blue. The same goes for many shamans (for example in questions I raised in the last post, which are direct and concrete questions about how the universe works).

Furthermore, endlessness asked you how come there are many indigenous people wanting to get western education and knowledge? If they have such a good understanding, surely they wouldn't need this education at all. These people are primitive in so many ways, Saidin, and yes, you seem to be idealizing them. They have a bunch of irrational beliefs without any foundation, they make animal sacrifices and so on. They simply got left behind when much of the rest of the world made significant progress in philosophy, secular values, ethics, politics, science and knowledge about the universe. In many areas, these people are where modern society was hundreds, even thousands of years ago.

Also, what do you mean they have a "much greater understanding" of consciousness? Do they really? I doubt it. And this center of the galaxy thing, what culture, what did they know? I can also start talking about how the ancient Greeks "knew" that the earth was not flat, or that the sun was the center of our solar system and not us, but our modern society and modern science still knows a lot more than what these people did ages ago.

Now, I agree with you that indigenous people may have healthier perspectives on some things, they may have more effective therapautical techniques to cure a sick mind in many instances and so on. I am also glad you have not said they know more than us, but claiming they have a pretty good understanding of how the universe works is a pretty long shot, and they clearly don't.

Saying scientists are completely opposed is false. "Electric universe" ? Are you serious? Show me peer reviewed publications from good journals about it. Did you google "electric universe debunked" ?

That's pseudoscience, not science. Also it's the evidence that matters, scientific knowledge has to adapt to evidence, not the other way around. Sure in some manners there are different theories and ways to interpret, but that is far from being 'completely opposed'. In fact, so that scientists disagree, they do it in an informed manner and they have a lot of previous knowledge they agree on, before they can suggest alternative models based on the evidence.

As for Shamans knowledge being reliable, im still waiting for examples. You're just being generic and not presenting much of an argument. You say they are "less likely to change", how is that a positive argument? The church ideas are also less likely to change and they've been there for long, and that doesn't mean they are right. That's appeal to tradition fallacy.

Apart from what endlessness commented on in this post, I would like to add to the excerpt here. You say shamans have a pretty good idea, one that has likely been passed down generation to generation for thousands of years. Sure, I don't dispute that ideas were passed down through generations. But the fact that it has been passed down generation to generation, more consistent and less likely to change than our own shows its weakness. Their "knowledge" is dogmatic, not subject to change and new evidence if this is indeed the case. Our knowledge and our science is subject to great change. We constantly figure new things out, falsify hypotheses, refine theories, make new and better hypotheses, make new and better observations and get better and better theories and models. This is the provisional nature of our science and understanding - it is open minded, it is not dogmatic, it is subject to change and revision and it goes where the evidence is.

Can this be said about shamanic beliefs when they are passed down generation after generation, with little change? Nope. These shamans don't have a pretty good understanding of how the universe works, do they? I think their unfounded beliefs just resonates with your own (no offense intended).

I understand when people feel opposed to a bleak, depressive, mechanical view of the universe, when people are critical of powers that be, when people criticise some scientists' attitude, when people feel there is more to living than just rationality, etc. I agree with these sentiments.

But you see, this is NOT science. Science doesn't say 'if it isnt proven, it doesnt exist', science neither says 'any subjective experience that isn't explained directly by current scientific knowledge is not valid/worthy'. Once again: science is a method, a systematic process to gather a certain kind of knowledge, pure and simple.

I wonder if you'd trust a shaman to be the engineer and make the revision for the airplanes you travel with. I wouldn't.

For being a sitter/facilitator during an ayahuasca trip, maybe I would trust one, as I have before, but even than, not just because they are indigenous I would idealize them, it woud depend who I would trust. Some are good some are bad, some may not care about you or ask if you're taking medications while some would, some would add datura while others not, some may be charlatans, some may honestly believe what they do and yet be harmful in their actions or be very off in their ideas etc etc.

Also it's important to have critical thinking, which seems some people end up forgetting. It's like going from one extreme to another, as soon as you think the current paradigm doesn't resonate with what you think, then anything else is ok, the wildest speculations and crackpot theories, as long as you believe in them and they arent against your ideas, it's justified. And all because "science doesn't know everything', which is the famous 'god of the gaps'.

Existance can still be a mistery and a miracle even if you explain and understand the patterns and how it happens through scientific knowledge. Even if I know exactly how a tree photosynthesizes, I still think that is a miracle. The fact that anything exists at all is amazing! Maybe you need a levitating shaman and disagreing scientists to think it's a miracle?

Yes, I am serious about Electric Universe Theory. I infer by your response that the depth of your research into the theory is your above mentioned google search. Funny, I did a google search on Big Bang Debunked and got 188,000 results. Funny how that is don't you think? Psuedoscience? Hardly. It explains the evidence much much better than Big Bang Cosmology.

Electric Universe/Plasma Cosmology can explain 90-95% of the universe based on current observations without magical and unproven components like inflation, dark energy and dark matter (Big Bang Theory can explain 4-5% of what we have observed). It also offers an explanation of redshift that matches observations rather than ignoring data that contradicts current models. For example two galaxies that are physically connected but have such varying redshifts that one should be billions of light years away from its companion. Or some galaxies that are so far redshifted they would have to be traveling away from us faster than the speed of light.

Peer reviewed articles are meaningless, though I'm sure there are some out there. One can write all the papers they want about a paradigm that is incorrect and all they will do is corroborate an inaccurate model of the universe. You can reference all the peer reviewed articles you want that say that 2+2=5, it does not make it so. Not to mention that the number of peer reviewed articles that are being retracted has never been higher in the history of science. It appears that an ever increasing number of modern scientists like to fabricate data in order to get themselves published and advance their careers...

I agree that critical thinking is important. Unfortunately there are many who get trapped by the blinders of a paradigm they assume to be correct and then lose their own ability to think critically. Of course when a current paradigm doesn't resonate with what someone KNOWS, or what the evidence suggests, then one begins searching for theories or ideas that better explain what the evidence shows. Just because the theories are different than what we have been TOLD and CONDITIONED to believe, does not make them crackpot or invalid.



I'm not personally a shaman, so I wouldn't dare to speculate. It is true, I am being generic. Arguing more against scientific dogmaticism and the materialist worldview than for a paradigm I am not familiar enough with to list concrete examples. Less likely to change is a positive argument if the paradigm is true. Why change or alter a theory if it is the best current explanation? A paradigm developed through thousands of years of consciousness expansion and verified generation after generation. As for the church, can you say with 100% certainty that their paradigm is false? It doesn't mean they are right, but it doesn't mean they are wrong either...

Did you actually look into those claims? You might find some surprising results when you do. Or are you only cherry picking the things that agree with you?

And many people here seem to think that the Big Bang theory is a theory about how the universe started, and they are wrong. The Big Bang theory is about what happened right AFTER it started. Some things in the theory still have question marks but it has a lot of evidence that keeps growing seemingly every day.


Kind regards,

The Traveler