I'm going to have to agree with Ibeing, here: As ridiculous as some of these superstitious concepts can be, and though they may not hold any literal scientific credence, nor does science have or can even hope to have a comprehensive rational explanation of the human experience. Both, the scientific and superstitious viewpoints on the matter of spirit, regard it as in the manner of a purely supernatural concept and take it for granted.

The more science advances, the more boundless its frontiers appear, but it would be a complete cop-out to forgo hard road of research and discovery (a pursuit not born of the scientific tradition, but universal to every life in some degree) and opt for a more mystical explanation. At the same time, it's important for the scientific community to express humility in the limitations of their interpretations (which, more often than not, they do, though sometimes with great struggle). Science works well for what it is but should never attempt to replace tradition or religion as its successor, or it will succumb to similar follies--better the two be done away with than simply updated.

Mysticism has significance as an aesthetic interpretation of the personal experience, and the personal experience often-times proves remarkably insightful, resulting in scientifically applicable theories. Mysticism itself can often become the forerunner of proven scientific theory, but typically serves better as a signifier of common qualities of the human psyche; though the psyche, itself, has as much to do with the natural world as anything else.

From the individual standpoint, the natural world is all we have, and though we tend to settle on mystical interpretations of the unknown, based on our limited experiences, scientific reasoning has allowed us to recognize a trend in phenomena being of natural origin, allowing them to remain as open-ended curiosities for further study. It takes a more philosophical approach, however, to be able to distill a more comprehensive sense (a sense for the individual, rather than a literal explanation others) of the world out of both the hard empiricism of science and the abstract speculation of mysticism.

'Spirit' certainly signifies something common to the human experience, but perhaps it's something natural. Rather than being at odds with or somehow stratified above the body, perhaps it is something born of the body or of life or experience, in general.

One world at a time.

Thanks for your support amor, but I've got to say I don't believe this at all... I actually think science is the only way to understand anything, I'm not saying you can't use science to explain this, I believe you can, they just don't... science is really not limited, there is absolutely nothing to suggest science can't explain everything, there is nothing beyond the scope of science... everything is natural, nothing is supernatural, if something supernatural actually does exist then it is simply something not understood by science.... yet. Don't forget I'm siding with burnt here... I just believe the question of the nature of reality is one we can't answer properly... yet.

...yet.




it's funny you say that because as an analogy (which the holy grail is), science actually is the process of trying to find the holy grail... you're doing that science is equivalent thing again, science is the quest for truth, it's not the truth itself.

Science is just a tool. And this tool is created and processed by the mind and its logic!
Many things in nature just don't follow logic.
Therefore ordinary logic is not an appropriate approach to reality because realitie's nature is irrational!

A chakra is sanskrit for pinwheel

certain frequencies spin clock wise
certain frequencies spin counter clock wise
some don't spin at all.

see: Cymatics

We are composed of frequencies, the vibrations they emit mold space/time.

I'm sorry but these are weird responses guys.. I have no idea what you're talking about... this is completely off the wall stuff that claims logic yet completely fails in both premise and conclusion. You think you're using a scientific tool, logic, but you clearly don't know how logic even works....I mean no offence, you'd be amazed how many people take it for granted... the basics are you need to have a valid premise before you can form a valid conclusion, you have probably watched some of these anti-documentaries that trick people by making them believe a false premise which makes the false conclusion much easier to swallow.

I should have specified, but this is what I was referring to:



The rest was simply an expansion on this. I don't mean to presuppose what you believe in, as I don't honestly know what I believe in, let alone anyone else.



We certainly differ on this, as I feel that omniscience on any scope relies on the presumption of the possibility of a god's-eye view--something I just couldn't begin to validate.



This, however, is partly what I was getting at: Nothing is beyond natural. Where we differ is that "yet," as if some point of absolute enlightenment on the horizon just waiting for us to reach it. Science need only to move further and deeper in order to persist as such; to predict any sort of singularity in the matter is wishful thinking--idealism, really. Our best assumption for the moment is that "the more we know, the more we know that we don't know." This does not necessarily denote hopelessness in the matter...it's an incredibly affirmative concept for those not merely seeking remission in their pursuit of knowledge.

I'm not fully grasping what's being said here either, but regarding the last part: Frequency is a property of vibration, not something separate, and space/time would be composed of vibrations, rather than molded by them. How do frequencies spin? These terms (frequencies, vibrations, space/time) are meant for a rather empirical means of communication; applying them in such a way seems to rob them of meaning.

Anyone considering themselves to be of any level of faith would do well to read some Kierkegaard, as much of his writing is concerned with the pitfalls of attempting to apply rational explanation (historical, scientific, or otherwise empirical justification) to matters of faith.

its ok...
just watch some cymatics videos
you'll see what I was trying to say
:]

I don't think we differ on this, I'm saying the same thing, we can't suppose anything in that realm, you can't validate it, as in a god's eye view, I personally don't think a god's eye view even exists, but this is pure speculation... which we agree on, we agree this is an unknown. So you can't suppose it's out of science's reach, we don't know whether it is or it isn't. It's my hunch that everything can be understood by humans.. but one thing I know for certain is that nobody knows the limits of scientific understanding.

Sorry for the repetitive posting but...



Logic comes from 'logos', which most broadly refers to language. Logic is the way in we make sense of our experiences by being able to relate them to one another and derive a more enhanced and comprehensive sense of those experiences; basically, it's language (symbolic sensual memory like images and sounds, primarily) applied to perception in the somewhat mathematical spatially oriented way in which language generally manifests. So nothing simply follows logic, but logic is the way in which we approximate the interrelationship between experiences, often but not strictly to predict outcomes.

Logic as an approach in itself may be inadequate, I suppose, but it's at least an indispensable quality to any mode of thought.

I'm not saying that I simply don't know whether this omniscience is possible or not; I'm saying that it's an ill-gotten concept born of the faulty pathos of feeling isolated from one's experience--the false belief that one can be an outside observer. Science may never discover its boundaries and may persist seemingly limitlessly, but it persists within the constraint of the impossibility of omniscience. Imagine a plane with defined boundaries: Though the number of possible points within that plane is infinite, their coordinates can never exceed the boundaries of that plane, nor can the totality of those possibilities ever be accounted for.

Well I agree, but only for the people that believe one can be an outside observer... I don't believe that, as I said, I don't believe in a god's eye view, it's not really the right way to look at it... and I don't think most scientists do either... I think most approach it like a never ending onion, with always another layer to peel off, from the inside out...a bottom up approach that is infinite rather than a top down approach that is finite... my point is really not to set boundries, so as I said, I think we agree on that part.

Ibeing I think largely we share similar opinions on these issues. I wasn't really debating you either I was just pointing out why its almost impossible for these discussions to go anywhere. I also think we both have been powerfully moved by the psychedelic experience and as science oriented people it can be annoying when your collegues misunderstand them as just funny drugs that make you see pretty colors. Its also annoying when spiritual minded people disregard science and ignore how without it we wouldn't know anything really about these substances and their chemical nature how they work etc.

I am going to use the examples of Mr_DMT's responses to my idiotic statements to show what I mean. No offense intended Mr_dmt but I am going to be harsh.



No body fully understands reality. But no one needs too. Without science we wouldn't understand most of the reality that we do now understand. Without science we would still think infectious disease was caused by demons sent by satan. Science is the best tool for understanding reality.



See you don't even understand science so how can you critisize it? Light is made of photons. Atoms are made of protons and neutrons (which are made up smaller pieces like quarks etc) and electrons. Atoms can release photons when lets say an electron loses energy. But this is all particle physics and chemistry and many aspects are well understood. An atom is not the same as a photon. Thats an incorrect statement.

When you say it behaves differently I think you are referring to double split experiments which I am not going to get into details about. But basically if there is a detector around detecting electrons or photons it will influence the result. It has nothing to do with a human observer and everything to do with the detector being there and interfering with particles. Most people profoundly misinterpret the meaning behind the language of the scientists who first formulated quantum mechanics. You included.

When early researchers say that the observer influences the result they didn't mean a human being.



These studies are BS. Seriously if you are thinking of the ones I am thinking of. I studied molecular biology and worked in biochemistry labs for a number of years. These studies are a joke. They often just measured the UV absorbance of the DNA (oooooo big deal) and showed that the pattern was similar. There is no replicates no controls no crystal structure data nothing except a few UV spectra. Its pathetic excuse for a scientific study and its not even a real scientific study. Its not published in real peer reviewed scientific journals for a reason.

If you can find the study I will point out exactly why its BS.



Well actually scientists can explain why when an electron loses energy it releases a photon.

And its also very easy to explain the nonsense studies about DNA too. The UV absorbance spectra of two identical peices of DNA is going to be the same and they will both wiggle around and move in the same manner if they are in the same solution (in those cases I think it was just distilled water maybe with some ions floating around) which will slightly change the UV spectra. So all you have to do is measure them a number of times and you will get the spectra profile that shows look it wiggles the same! Who cares? Its a meaningless study with no real results or data.



They often are. Look ok there is a reason why when you meditate you get all these positive effects. So there are plenty of real explanations why that happens. But if you make up some BS about chakras then its supersitious nonsense. If you explain how meditation relaxes and effects the body then you are scientifically explaining what you thought was spiritual magic. So not all spiritual topics are nonsense but all superstitious explanations are.



I am not separate from reality I am part of reality. Your claim makes no sense. When I die reality for me goes away but for everyone else it goes on. To claim that the entire world zilches away when you or I or whoever passes on is absurd. I don't need to experience it to know its true. If that was true none of us would exist.



Well you were completely wrong about both scientific topics you tried to discuss. Sooo the wind is still blowing the same.



I am not sure what documentary you are referring to but I know about such studies. Charles Tart a so called transpersonal researcher was doing such studies. He had a number of a word behind a desk or on a shelf in an operating room and one time a woman in surgery had an OBE and saw the number. But then after a team went in to investigate they found there was a mirror in the room that would display the number / word. So it was a fraud study by a very crappy researcher (Tart).

This is almost nearly always the case with these kind of reports. I think since then many studies have been done with properly controlled conditions and no one ever sees the number.



I can provide evidence that your personal spiritual experiences are all the result of whats happening in your brain without any need for a soul to be involved. But you wouldn't listen to it because you don't even understand science at all which your above statements made clear.

yes my friend, i'm a total douche regarding science. You are 100% right.
Give me some time to go trough your links and I will search for the experiments i was talking about!

Then we can resume discussing. And be prepared, i will be PREPARED, hahahahaha

You should also realize I am not trying to argue or belittle you. I happen to spend all day everyday working on scientific problems and I like to help correct people about misinformation concerning science. Unfortunately that leads into conflict with religious or spiritual view points about topics that overlap like psychedelics drugs mystical experiences etc. I want to help solve that conflict but to do that people need to understand science.

another point came trough my mind, as I started to read some of your linked websites in the OBE thread:

What if your spiritual part (the soul) and your body are linked together in a way, that as long as your body lives, your soul has a connection.
Maybe these images when you are out of body are sendt to your brain.
I know it sounds a little bit weird, but it would explain a lot. Brain activitiy could be explained that way!

Because scientist always try to prove something. And reality just EXISTS.
If you lay a finger on reality it gets touched by your fingerprint. Doesn't matter if you use a "clean" fingerprint like science.
It's still not reality


I think reality is absolutely momentary. Nothing as viewed over a certain amount of time.
Because that would mean that the past is reality.
Because reality is always herenow, you can't rely on speculations from the past or over the future!