« More thoughts about Tai Chi and martial arts | Main | Marvelous putdown of supernatural nonsense »

April 30, 2021

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Empirical knowledge is not only prized by the rational mind, it is essential. Therein lies the whole problem with attempting to prove subjective experiences that are "non-material", i.e. "spiritual".

In 2012 scientists at CERN finally found the infamous Higgs-boson which is the "particle that gives all other fundamental particles mass". Empirical science is only concerned with the origins and evolution of the material universe, its laws and its secrets. Our five senses which allow our minds to compare, contrast and analyze material forms are aimed outwards, toward the material universe. The tangible, tactile world is all that physicists are desiring to understand and describe, reveling in a never-ending presentation of changing theories. Likewise, the discovery of the Higgs-boson has not led to a single understanding of either the origins of matter or the origins of consciousness. No one knows which came first: Consciousness or Matter.

To be seated anxiously at the edge of one's seat, awaiting science to supply anything of concrete value regarding the secret of life, is a waste of precious time and energy.

You came first...matter followed as a necessary accretion for experiences with resistance, pleasures, pain, suffering, desires, deterioration and death...a very long saga, indeed.

"Empirical science is only concerned with the origins and evolution of the material universe"


There is evidence for no other.


"Our five senses which allow our minds to compare, contrast and analyze material forms are aimed outwards, toward the material universe."


There is evidence for no other.


" The tangible, tactile world is all that physicists are desiring to understand and describe, reveling in a never-ending presentation of changing theories. "


That is the nature of the scientific method. New evidence gives rise to new theories, in a virtuous cycle of expanding (collective) awareness and knowledge.


"No one knows which came first: Consciousness or Matter."


There is no evidence of consciousness other than in and from matter.


"To be seated anxiously at the edge of one's seat, awaiting science to supply anything of concrete value regarding the secret of life, is a waste of precious time and energy."


To each their own. We are free to use our time and energy as we please. We each define for ourselves what is a worthwhile use of our time and energy.


"You came first...matter followed as a necessary accretion for experiences with resistance, pleasures, pain, suffering, desires, deterioration and death...a very long saga, indeed."


There is no evidence that this kind of a worldview is anything other than fancy and wishful thinking.

"(Einstein) believed in the God of Spinoza -- that is, the God of order in a universe that is beautiful, simple, and elegant. The universe could have been ugly, random, chaotic, but instead it has a hidden order that is mysterious yet profound."


All hail to Einstein's scientific genius, but do we really need to defer to his unevidenced philosophizing?

Spinoza's God (I had to look it up --- concisely presented here for those who likewise might need to look up, or at least brush up, their Spinoza: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza/#GodNatu) suffers from three drawbacks, or so it seems to me: first, it is a redefinition of an already existing word/term that causes unnecessary confusion and serves no real purpose; second, his "ontological proof" seems to be no more than question-begging; and, third, his God, while less outre than the more vulgar forms that people tend to worship, nevertheless lacks evidence, and is, therefore, for all intents and purposes equally as non-existent as the more dramatic conceptions of God.

-------

I seem, of late, to be channeling that wise soul, x/cc, whom I often used to disagree with in the past. *shrug* One's views change, I suppose, evolve with time. Or they should. Much like scientific theories.

"Appreciative reader is all over the place clutching at every which way straw that comes wafting across its wayward uncomfortable intellect"

-------

You may be right. There's no reason, after all, for me to keep shooting my (figurative) mouth off.

Apologies for unnecessarily hogging the comments.

Who needs Einstein when we got RSSB and GSD, rebranded as Science of the soul. Once you've worked out that RSSB is just deception and a fake science, and that you have been tricked most of your life, you can sort out your own life and get on with it.

Human nature vs neurological science
Where the fck are you going with this 'scientific research program'?

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10158232735848177&id=21641548176

Evidence that satisfies everyone is impossible, AR. Ultimately, you and you alone are the arbiter of all your experiences. Extracting evidence from the sensory-intellectual arena of normal mental functioning is but one small diameter of conscious perception, relegating proofs to only material outcomes.

There are wider and more expansive fields to explore with one's own awareness. I think you would agree, n'est pas? For example, take Brian's wonderful explorations with Tai Chi and his resulting keen perceptions about life. Unfortunately...or fortunately...these subtle energies cannot be measured by any material equipment made with physical materials, for the energies of perception and comprehension are non-molecular. Thus the terms "metaphysical vs. physical", or "esoteric vs. exoteric" come into stark contrast.

One's experimentation with these more refined and subtler energies, accessible by every human being if there is a desire to do so, necessarily remain in an intimate subjective domain characterized by individual efforts and evaluations that are private.

To me, life is dry and barren if only empirical science is allowed to dictate one's beliefs. Subjective experimentation with one's own gift of intelligence and conscious awareness is what Roddenberry may have really alluded to: "Consciousness...the final frontier. These are the voyages of the pilgrim soul."

His conscious explorations were appreciated worldwide.

Hello, albert.

Pardon my having butted in on to your comment uninvited. I myself enjoy testing my views against others', and it is in that spirit I'd posted that earlier comment, and this one as well.


-------


"Evidence that satisfies everyone is impossible, AR"


Agreed, but isn't that something of an irrelevancy? Because we're not really looking to an argumentum ad populum here. Indeed, there was a time, in the past, when a great many people would witness to miracles (led either by suggestibility, or some such). That did not make them true.

I realize it would be a bit of an issue if a scientist found himself the sole witness of his evidence, which in a sense is comparable to the kind of mysticism you're probably speaking of, am I right? But that is an issue only for the bona fide mystic, who's himself actually had those "observations", and not for others who might have heard of such at second or third hand. And even for the bona fide mystic I can think of a great many tests to validate their experience. But still, there's a bit of a gray area there, or there might be, I'll give you that much.


-------


"Ultimately, you and you alone are the arbiter of all your experiences. Extracting evidence from the sensory-intellectual arena of normal mental functioning is but one small diameter of conscious perception, relegating proofs to only material outcomes."


Actually that is the issue I had with your original comment, and that prompted me to speak out. Isn't this putting the cart before the horse? You speak of "only material outcomes". What other kind do we have evidence for, and, therefore, what other kind have we grounds to accept?

There is the *possibility* of supra-material realities, sure. But that would apply to just about anything our imagination can think up!


-------


"There are wider and more expansive fields to explore with one's own awareness. I think you would agree, n'est pas?"


That I would, albert, and without reservation! In some humble way I'm part of that experimentation myself.

But being open to other possibilities is different than accepting such prematurely.


-------


"For example, take Brian's wonderful explorations with Tai Chi and his resulting keen perceptions about life. Unfortunately...or fortunately...these subtle energies cannot be measured by any material equipment made with physical materials, for the energies of perception and comprehension are non-molecular. Thus the terms "metaphysical vs. physical", or "esoteric vs. exoteric" come into stark contrast.

One's experimentation with these more refined and subtler energies, accessible by every human being if there is a desire to do so, necessarily remain in an intimate subjective domain characterized by individual efforts and evaluations that are private."


Again, albert, those "chi" forces, we don't really have evidence for them, and so no grounds, really, to think of them as anything more than superstition and myth -- albeit worth exploring further if we want to, why not?


-------


"To me, life is dry and barren if only empirical science is allowed to dictate one's beliefs."


But why?

I agree, life might be thought of as limited, if one's explorations were limited by what empirical science has already uncovered. That much, I'm 100% in agreement with. But why jump the gun, as far as actual belief?


-------


"Subjective experimentation with one's own gift of intelligence and conscious awareness is what Roddenberry may have really alluded to: "Consciousness...the final frontier. These are the voyages of the pilgrim soul."

His conscious explorations were appreciated worldwide."


I'm afraid I'm not aware of Roddenberry. I'll check him out.

And as far as "subjective experimentation" -- the experimentation part -- I'm in full agreement with you, and with Roddenberry.

But only as far as experimentation, as well as, naturally, whatever bona fide results those experiments might yield. Not premature acceptance of any results, or any worldview that is based on such presumed results.

Oh, that was a Star Trek reference, was it? Cool.

And here I was thinking you were quoting some medieval RCC mystic or something. *rueful smile*

The quest for a theory of everything

Just ask GSD, a know it all who knows nothing but thinks he knows everything

This one book has more to gain from, than the Greed filled GSD & the non religion, religion rrsb.

In the end, I believe that we do create our own meaning in the universe.

So its always best to bin the trash, that's where GSD & the rubbish Rssb belong

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Welcome


  • Welcome to the Church of the Churchless. If this is your first visit, click on "About this site--start here" in the Categories section below.
  • HinesSight
    Visit my other weblog, HinesSight, for a broader view of what's happening in the world of your Church unpastor, his wife, and dog.
  • BrianHines.com
    Take a look at my web site, which contains information about a subject of great interest to me: me.
  • Twitter with me
    Join Twitter and follow my tweets about whatever.
  • I Hate Church of the Churchless
    Can't stand this blog? Believe the guy behind it is an idiot? Rant away on our anti-site.