I only ever report what they tell me!

And they say i am always right!

JBArk

Mooshypeaches wrote:



You have misunderstood the posts, if you are in any way referring to mine. I never claimed that science could explain or help us understand everything. I don't believe anyone here has. We are disputing the distinction between belief and fact, with, for me, the understanding that facts are consensual and verifiable "objectively". And beliefs are not, by their very nature. They require faith, to which proof is anathema. If anyone here really thinks about this, i think they would have to agree: the whole notion of "faith" is that it is NOT subjected to proof. And science IS. I still can't believe anyone would reasonably dispute this.

The problem with an "all is possible and admissible" approach is that in the real world it leads to apathy and nothing gets accomplished and no progress is entertained. At some point you have to choose A over B and commit to it. And if you can't even admit the nature of a fact, then you are in a philosophical quagmire to which there is no escape, and ideological drowning is the only option.

And there are know-it-alls on both sides of the fence, BTW.

And i know next to nothing. But the two ways I will arrive at some limited understanding of things is through :

A) subjective experience, which can neither be shared, nor proven or disproven
B) "objective" fact, which is verifiable, consensual, provable and as objective as possible in this world of many consciousnesses (or one multi-divided - as you wish)

A more interesting question is why do we need knowledge? what is progress? why does it seem a biological imperative that we evolve, branch out, strive for understanding and knowledge.

i think it is an adaptive strategy that assures our survival. And i think both sides play a part in this. But when I get on a plane, I will trust the engineer's assessment of its ability to fly over the mystic's.

JBArk

JBArk

I am both.

I can never share the love I have for ALL OFFFFF YOUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

Yes it is the end of their long count, which corresponds to 5125 years. Y2K had nothing to do with cycles of time, it had to do with computers supposedly not recognizing the changeover from 1999 to 2000, which was in fact just 99 to 00(early computers needed all the space they could get due to their lack of memory, so the majority of them only counted years with 2 units). It was a potential computer problem, recognized only a few years before 2000...and had nothing to do with cycles of time as the Mayan Calendar does.

In addition, the Gergorian calendar is linear(and until recently highly inaccurate), whereas the Mayan is cyclical (and extremely accurate, in fact far far more accurate when it was created thousands of years ago than the one we currently use today). Big difference.

I have watched that Nova program, it is a very good one, but only goes into how they eventually deciphered the symbology of the Mayan writing, but did not go into any more detail about what it actually said besides lineages. There are writings about the significance of each cycle of Mayan time, those of Chalam Balam which contain Tun and Katun predictions. These are from the Mayan's own writing.



Becasue it is about a process that happens over a period of time. They are guideposts to when certain changes occur due to the cyclial nature of time. It is not as if anything changes on one particular day, but the time period around that is where the change occurs. The 20 year period around 2012 is when the changes are to take place, but they begin before that date as well...building in intensity.

It could just be a huge coincidence that the world is changing so fast and significantly at this point in time, a point in time predicted by a calendar made 3000 years ago. 3000 years ago...and they are hitting the nail right on the head...coincidence, maybe, but that is pretty remarkable. We are on the verge of a discovery, or a revalation that will change us forever. I don't know what it is, but can't you sense or feel it? We are on the verge of a paradigm shift.



That has been the point of argumentation on this thread. The OP stated that 2012 had been debunked thoroughly because someone gave some evidence that the end of the world was not a legitimate interpretation of the calendar. To which I agreed, but it missed the real meaning of this period of time.

It is a countdown to a new cycle of time, as every beginning is some other beginnings end.

Does not a scientist verifiy experiements subjectively and come to the same conclusion? I said it was subjective, using objective processes. You set up a methodology, that method is followed by the experimenters and they come to the same results. It is not that different. I cannot verify experiments done in physics unless I take years worth of classes to get to the point where I can reproduce them accurately. Same with meditators, they have to study and train for years in certain diciplines in order to be able to reproduce the experiements themeselves. Where is the difference?

I guess the difference is that all those who use this objective framework to experience this knowledge subjectively could be deluded or lying. But wouldn't you have to apply this same questioning to science? I'll take the word of experts on the matter, just as I trust scientists who have gained knowledge which I cannot duplicate without enormous effort.

Learn to meditate, practice for years and see if you come to the same conclusions...do the experiement youself to see if it has validity. Or trust that they have gained knowledge which has been verified and repeated by others who have done the experiment over a period of thousands of years.

The method is verifiable and repeatable, and the result most certainly is. That was my point. Call it ginseng proof, but so to is the nature of the atom, or the existence of DNA, because these results through methodology have been carried out in exactly the same way.

Your need of proof is a double standard. Inexperiential proof is ok with certain things but not others...even when the rigors of experimentation are exactly the same.

Saidin wrote:



I said as much in my post about the method. The results however are certainly not.

If I (or you) observe a physicist taking measurements and conducting experiments, we will see EXACTLY the same results as he does. So will anyone observing the experiment .Without years of training. The phenomena is observable by all.

If I observe a monk for 50 years I will NEVER see the results of his meditations. Because they are subjective. By definition, Saidin.

The sky IS blue. The sky in your meditational space may be blue, but that is unprovable by definition. it is your impression of a subjectively conjured "sky". you can argue that it is no more or less true or real than the sky that is observable by all, but you can't prove its blueness. So stop saying you can!


I know you know what i mean - and I hereby accuse you of playing Saidan's advocate!

Are you going to make me re-explain this 50 different ways?

i might have to evoke god's prosecutor...

JBArk

Yes, science is slow to admit errors. The plodding nature of cosmology, evolution, just about every major breakthrough in science took a long time to be accepted by the mainstream. The current Big Bang nonsense, it still goes on to this day.

Religions have changed their views on morals and ethics, which is the only venue they have any appropiate say in. Some change quicker than others, but they do change. Religion has no basis to speak about the how of life, they can only speak to the why, and how to live in accordance with nature. Anything outside that beyond their true mandate. Just like science cannot answer the why, or what values and morals are. They move within their own circles, and conflicts occur when one oversteps their bounds into areas in which they truly have nothing to say.

The moral/ethical stance on slavery, civil rights, sufferage was a relatively quick turn around don't you think? Measured in decades/centuries just as you have said with science. Ethics and morals have to change as new paradigms come into existence, new understandings. The ability of these institutions to change to new ways of thinking is essential for their survival.

I agree science is humble, because it is value neutral. Scientists are not value neutral, they are human beings subject to questionable morals and ethics. And please indicate how a non-humble scientist doesn't last long? Humility has nothing to do with it if his/her theories are interpreted as correct. You produce new testable hypothesis you are accepted no matter how you may go about it. He could be a gigantic ass but that is irrelevant to science.

To suppose that one doctrine provides all the answers to everything is arrogant, deluded, and fails completely in the face of logic and reason. The same goes with science. To suppose that science is the only doctrine which provides all the answers to everything is also arrogant, deluded and fails completely in the face of logic and reason.

Organized religion vs. Scientific materialism...two polar opposites, and as always, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

1+1=2
1+1=2

What is the difference if I do the calculation in my head or on a caluclator? The results are still the same.

If the monk descibes the technique, the methodology, and the expected result and you sit with him and meditate and come to the same conclusion, how is that different than watching a scientist fiddle with apparatus which needs to be explained to you in so far as technique, methodology and expected result. You are taking his word for it that he knows what he is doing, and explaining to you accurately what your subjective observations will be. You are verifying his subjective experience of the experiment. When enough people find that their subjective experience is the same, then we term it "objective" proof.

Sure the sky is blue, but is your blue the same as mine?

I do know what you mean I'm just trying to show it is not as clear cut as you make it out to be.

Slavery to civil rights was a quick turnaround? Must i cite theroman empire and all subsequent empires?

Sufferage? I think women would be aghast at your suggestion. It took the entire history of democracy up to 1906 (in finland) and 1920 in the states for them to have the vote.

The only way either of these seems quick is if you indulge in an ameri-centric view of history and choose to dismiss thousands of years!

so i maintain again that faith, religion & systems of belief take an enormous amount of time to change because they are structured to withstand and resist change.

JBArk

1860-1964 A bit earlier with the British, and Im sure there were civilizations which did not condone slavery even before that. Then again slavery still exists to this day...



1776-1906(20)



Earth centric universe...4000BC-1500AD



I agree, they are structured to resist change. But if you think you already have the answer (whether it is right or wrong) why keep looking? This is not unique to religion, but to any system of belief, in which science is included.

The Big Bang is not nonsense. Its not complete and no one pretends it is. But its evolved dramatically in the last 50 years. Modern big bang theory has quite a lot of theoretical and experimental evidence to support it. Evolution is only about 150 years old. It was accepted by a huge number of biologists by the turn of the century 18th to 19th century which was only a few decades.

Science is only as slow as the evidence it takes to build theories is discovered. Modern science evolved further in a few hundred years then anything else in the previous 200,000 years of humanity.



Islam? Fundamentalist Christianity? The only people who claim to be religious and change from its teachings are people who reject half the teachings of their religions origins. But that's people changing not the religion itself. The Bible is the Bible it can't change unless you add or subtract a few scrolls. The Quran is the Quran it can't change its the absolute word of a made up god. People can ignore parts of it that's all. When religions change fundamental teachings it just shows how man-made it all is or how fickle and stupid god is.

Religion has no fundamental claims over morality either. The origin of human morals is ancient and never came from god. It came from humans. It came from our evolutionary need to work together to survive.



Your right. But most scientists don't claim or think that. Only religion and really warped people claim to have answers to things that it can't possibly have answers too.



Scientific materialism doesn't claim to have answers for things which it doesn't have answers for. Materialism just means you think that everything is made of matter/energy that's it. The reason people think that is because that's all there seems to be within our limited scope of knowledge. There is no evidence for a spiritual world. If there ever was evidence for other realms of existence they would be made of some material too it just might be different from the matter/energy we are used to dealing with. How can something be immaterial? It doesn't even make sense really when I think about it. Even if there were spirits or ghosts or any of this stuff it would still be made of something. So basically materialism just guesses that when and if we discover new stuff it will also be made of something. How could it not?

About meditation.

Meditation can induce reproducible conscious states. This is well known by its practitioners and has been confirmed by fMRI studies. The difference is in the interpretation. Spiritual people may have a sensation of being connected to everything while meditating. An objective analysis may show that that this sensation is caused by parts of the brain involved in creating the sense of self not functioning anymore. Your brain actively creates your sense of self and this sense of self can become obstructed thus making you feel like you are part of everything when clearly your not.

I dunno about it being so clear that I am not a part of everything..at the root of it all everything is connected..otherwise how is chaos theory plausible? I am directly conected to everything else through indirect circumstances.

^^Yes that's true I mean in some sense everything in the universe is connected but not instaneously all at the same time. It all might have the same origins etc etc. But I didn't mean that. I meant that you are still an individual in a body. You are not a rock you sit on. Its made of different stuff it doesn't hold your awareness and conscious self. This boundry becomes confused in certain brain states. Its well documented.

ok agreed.

The Big Bang is 95% incomplete. Terrible science.



I agree, in fact I would go further, science has progressed more in the last 15 years than the previous 200,000.



We can always pick the extremes and make an example of them. Christianity hasn't changed? How many different sects of Protestantism are there? Hundreds...they change over time, they are not stagnant. This is only one branch of Christianity, then you have all the various branches of all other religions. The Bible is the Bible and the Quran the Quran, but the interpreations can differ significantly. Southern Whites used the Bible to justify slavery, it all comes down to interpretation and what works for the individual/society in general at that time. It is not change from its teachings.



Science has no claim whatsoever over morality. Morals came from emotions and feelings and the need for cooperation over competitioin, and were worked into human belief systems (religions) to provide a framework for living together. Purely subjective. I never claimed they came from god. I just claimed that this modality is outside the purvue of science.



There is plenty of evidence, but it is subjective. I agree, if there are other realms they are made of a different state of matter/energy which we are currently unable to detect. The matter we percieve as the world is nothing but energy that is vibrating at a rate which we are able to percieve. Spirits and ghosts, if they exist, would be made of something. That something is energy in a different state than what we are able to dectect with out current technology. Energy/matter cannot be created or destroyed, it only changes form.

I'd say why but lets not bother its a whole different discussion.



A guy named Sam Harris is argeuing that this notion is a fallacy and that science can make claims about morality. But I am not going to rehash his arguments you can look him up.



But wouldn't you also be willing to admit that those subjective experiences could be delusions?

Have you ever met someone with serious psychosis? They really do have completely false ideas about reality and its obvious. It can even become obvious to them when they are medicated or when they snap out of it?

Could it also be possible that when someone sees a ghost they are just hallucinating?

Since its possible that both could be right you have to look at the evidence. The best way to do this is with objective analysis. When you objectively study paranormal claims they are nearly all debunked. Also some paranormal claims contradict fundamental aspects of reality and can easily be dismissed on that grounds alone. Although I think its useful to go the extra step and take a look at evidence.

But is your awareness then deluded, or is it part of the rock? Is there any way to prove this scientifically, that the experience of a state is not acutally that which is experienced?

I condede that it could just be boundry "confusion" but is this provable?



Will do, thanks for the breadcrumb.

^^I think so but its time to go to bed and confuse those boundries in my dreams