Has science overlooked important aspects of reality?

Has science overlooked important aspects of reality? (Terence McKenna)



I'll let this video do the talking, but I found this to be one of the most interesting, humorous and enlightening talks that I've heard in a long time.

Oh those materialists, anything to avoid meaning, purpose and a potential joke that's being told at the expense of all our prior ignorance that can only be understood from a totally different perspective and vantage point, that the "rationalist" materialist cannot allow themselves to gain access to or even begin to consider because of a heavily anti-religious bias that was a throw over from the last 200 years.

The way he presents it though - hilarious!

Your thoughts?

a reply to: AnkhMorpork

I think he is trying to imply that science is wrong because of human perception. His fun to think about theories are not remotely valid though.

a reply to: Vector99

I got that he was saying that science threw out the baby with the bathwater and made a strong assumption about the nature of reality due to an old 18th and 19th century heavy bias against deistic thinking. Not that's it's wrong, but that it drew all the wrong assumptions in order to avoid the implications of the obvious, for fear of God as an explanation, when traditional concepts from the last 200 years about God aren't required to consider the human experience to be intrinsic to a meaning and a purpose of which we are an integral component, right at the very leading edge of what's happening, which as it happens is happening faster and faster as an evolutionary complexification.

The implication of this for a consciously aware observer having the experience of that occurrence is that we should also be concerned with an involution as much as evolution, and that a Newtonian, Cartesian, materialist monist scientific paradigm just isn't workable any more as a context by which to see and recognize our intrinsic involvement as we hurtle along to the end of history as we know it.

And indeed we can see the curve in a single human lifetime now, which will only get steeper and steeper with each generation until indeed suddenly, what will happen in a single day will be more than happened in the last 25,000 years.

The strange thing about what he's proposing is that it's the rational view, whereas the current scientific paradigm has missed it altogether, a view that might even think of the human being as nothing but a thing, and our world but a speck of dust.

a reply to: AnkhMorpork

Nah, it's more that our current limitations of knowledge are expanding at a great rate compared to our species history. The thing is though, that is how things work in physics. It prefers order over chaos, and with enough time order will become the norm. We are the result of around 14 billion years of atomic evolution. We could be the current pinnacle or we could simply be a milestone. Life in general is proof of a cosmos that prefers order over chaos, for example imagine a demolition derby event in which the cars could never be stopped or damaged. They can only ever combine to become a better car. Now imagine that demolition derby involves every car in America and the arena is the size of America, and that only represents .000000001% of all demolition derby's in our galaxy.

He is fooled by perception, and while intelligent I'm not so sure exactly how smart he is. He refers to an actual separation of humans and animals, which there isn't. He made up some big words a few times to sound smart, and believes the universe has a starting point. It was a fun video to watch though!

oh boy...oh boy. what a nice thread i wonder how it will go

some people are having visions of ghosts or other entities.
some people are seeing ufos.
some people are having NDEs.
some people are seeing shadow people and other entities.
some people have OBEs randomly and don't know what happened.
some people have shared dreams.
some people have spiritual experiences.
some people are experimenting with drugs to induce other states of consciousness and explore their mind.

some people are or were religious since history. And if there were nothing to it, i think people are smart and they would drop it in the sands of time just like anything else which was useless. Why would religions be different that way?
But religions as it is known today in general...i am strongly against it as religion is a personal science of wisdom and compassion for me, based on understanding and spiritual practice through meditation.

well i could go on...but the bottom line?
i think it ok to say that people are having weird phenomenon happening all around the globe. With the use of internet this is plainly obvious.
Now ask yourself, are such people mental or are having a brain fart when some weirdness happens?

if you are honest the answer is obvious as even if we bring mathematics into this, than the chances are that a lot of such phenomenon can be explained by simple ways, but can we explain them all?
In my view, even if 1% are true, then that means that science is wrong as it stands today, as it stand on materialism!

so there is no way science as we know it today should be used as a measuring stick for reality, as it is focused on wrong things and maybe even based on some wrong principles in my humble opinion.

should we make a choice between science or religion?
i am not about that, i think both are equal and have similar elements or aspects which are good and bad as both are human constructs and have the same potential.

So there should not be a choice of separation but an effort to bring these two field together and merge in my opinion!
why not?
well if people would drop all the blind beliefs and other attachments and assumptions, than we could begin to find a common ground and develop towards that end...but until people are so strongly attached to one camp and ignore the other?

it is even funny to me, as scientist say, prove that god exists. Religious people say that god works in miraculous ways and it will be revealed at due time to you personally if you are sincere...and spiritualists say, that everything is god.
well...what is funny about that?

in my view all people are right and this case.
Scepticism is great, until it is not extreme.
Faith is great, until it is not extreme.
Direct experiences are great, until not taken to extreme.

the problem being extremes and attachments to that end which brings arrogance and pride and ridicule of the other opposing views, not even considering them...
so yeah science IS blind to the reality we live in in my opinion.

For me, the two aren't mutually exclusive.

Science is how we quantify, theorize, and predict. Philosophy and theology are how we ascribe, derive, create, and/or discover meaning for ourselves. Subjective experience is how we take both in and conceptualize them as unique individuals.

This is how I like to think of it: Assume we have a means of perfectly and wholly quantifying, using science and technological measurements, say, the experience of a person sitting and watching a sunset. We can quantify, describe, and understand, perhaps even recreate a perfect copy (in this hypothetical thought experiment) of:

• All of the matter and energy (particles, waves, atoms, molecules, organs, etc.) present
  
• All of the biological - including neurological - processes and dynamics involved
  
• The precise neurotransmitters, brain activity, physiological mechanics, receptors, sensing organs and cells, etc. involved in the person perceiving and feeling everything they are during said experience.
  
• All of the laws of physics and physical properties that govern everything that is happening, and precisely why - the orbit and rotation of the planet relative to the sun, the precise wavelengths and frequencies of light and energy being seen, felt on the skin, etc. - the temperature in the air, the temperature of the body parts feeling all of the above, etc.
  
• The quality of the person's eye sight, the expected output in the brain of the aforementioned frequencies and wavelengths of visible light being seen, along with, based on said eye sight, the expected contours, fidelity, and accuracy of "what is seen" by them, etc. etc. etc.
  
• If we interview the person before hand, and for hypothetical purposes, assume perfect recall and articulation: the person's psychological makeup, profile, history, associations with memories, emotional states, etc. And since we know all of the above as well already listed, we also know the precise physical, neurological processes responsible for those things, and the dynamics of how they interact with this experience and all its involved external and internal stimuli.
  

Knowing all of that, even if we could hypothetically perfectly reproduce a "copy" of that entire dynamic... the best science could do is make a reasonable prediction - give a probability - of what the subjective experience is actually like for the entity sitting there observing it.

The subjective experience, somehow, is beyond the sum of all of those parts and our understanding of it. A simpler example is color. We all see the same wavelength when we look at, say, a single green leaf on a tree. But the precise subjective experience of that single green leaf on the tree, is unique to the individual. And even if we quantify all the reasons why it differs, however slightly, between you and I or anyone else, we can never quite perfectly articulate the totality of that subjective experience to anyone not directly, subjectively experiencing it. The closest we can get, is a symbolic or linguistic approximation... perhaps even an extremely close approximation... but never the direct experience itself that the individual has. No matter how similar they may be.

So the real question I think isn't, "Does science overlook important aspects of reality," so much as, "Are there facets of reality - particularly when it comes to subjective conscious experience - that science and logic alone simply cannot fully quantify or articulate?" And I would say the answer to that is, "Yes."

Science is how we quantify information, create models to explain that information, and then make predictions. It's extremely useful. Philosophy is how we arrive at statements like the one I made above - that there may be things science can't quite quantify or articulate perfectly about some facets of reality. And unique, personal, subjective experience, is one of those things imo. They are all important to the human experience in my eyes. None has preeminence over the others in terms of my existence as a conscious life form.

Peace.

originally posted by: AceWombat04

So the real question I think isn't, "Does science overlook important aspects of reality," so much as, "Are there facets of reality - particularly when it comes to subjective conscious experience - that science and logic alone simply cannot fully quantify or articulate?" And I would say the answer to that is, "Yes."


Peace.

This.

Which is why I don't rely on science entirely. Science is studied by man. We are limited. Therefore science (as we know it) will always be limited too. To me spirituality, religion etc etc are all just ways of trying to make sense of things that.... I don't think science will ever be able to fully explain.

originally posted by: AnkhMorpork
Has science overlooked important aspects of reality?

No. Science carefully ignores important aspects of reality.

This is something which I long to change. See for instance How I think the human soul is coupled to Dark Matter.

However a famous online encyclopedia is trying hard to hush my work on all levels. Mainstream media ignore all my submissions.

Why?

To maintain the current dogma.

Lucrative universities would hate to have to re-write the textbooks. It's as simple as that: inertia, the resistance to change.

Star and flag for the question in the thread title alone. And I would say yes.

a reply to: AnkhMorpork

I love Terrence Mckenna the "bard" as he was often referred to, he certainly has a way with words. While he was wrong about a few things he accepted that when it was proved to him. Over all though, he was a very intelligent and learned man, who gave many lectures that the Psychonauts out there will appreciate.

Food for thought indeed.

a reply to: AnkhMorpork

I got that he was saying that science threw out the baby with the bathwater and made a strong assumption about the nature of reality due to an old 18th and 19th century heavy bias against deistic thinking. Not that's it's wrong, but that it drew all the wrong assumptions in order to avoid the implications of the obvious, for fear of God as an explanation, when traditional concepts from the last 200 years about God aren't required to consider the human experience to be intrinsic to a meaning and a purpose of which we are an integral component, right at the very leading edge of what's happening, which as it happens is happening faster and faster as an evolutionary complexification

why is it every time someone says they have figured out the cosmic equation, they have somehow managed to wedge human ego into the very center of it all? seems fairly counter intuitive considering that the human species inhabits one planet out of billions in just one galaxy out of billions.

The strange thing about what he's proposing is that it's the rational view, whereas the current scientific paradigm has missed it altogether, a view that might even think of the human being as nothing but a thing, and our world but a speck of dust.

if you want to be technical, thats exactly what earth is. a speck of dust populated by pretentious self absorbed microbes.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Your opinion has been noted.

I disagree. I think as the man points out in the video, all the evidence points in another direction where life as we experience it is not a meaningless chance happenstance devoid of purpose, but reveals a desire and an intent of which our own experience is integral as part of its ongoing creative expression.

According to your view of life on Earth as nothing but a speck of dust and the human being as a thing. you rob yourself, and others, of the opportunity to explore another way of looking at it by simply writing off their observation as that of deluded, self-absorbed, solipsistic narcissists.

It could be that you are the one making an assumption that's based on the old scientific paradigm and are thus blinded by a heavy bias.

Well, science -- and particularly mathematics -- has a very difficult time with point-of-view. It wants to "objectify" reality, when at its very core reality is a subjective thing. It's based on individual perceptions processed in individual brains. If I didn't exist, as far as I know, neither would reality. And time as I understand it is also very personal. We try to standardize it, but in my reality my perception of time shifts depending on my degree of awareness.

So, for example, if there is a red apple on the table and two people are looking at it, "science" will try to objectify the apple as a thing that is somehow a separate and distinct object from the thing the two people are looking at. It's right in some ways, but the apple is actually different to the two people looking at it -- they're seeing it at different angles, different photons are bouncing off it to meet the eye and brain of the individuals, one may think in their head that it is an "apple" while the other person might think it is a "林檎." These are important differences that science/math is just not set up to account for. A hypothetical apple is NOT the same thing as a real apple. If a hypothetical tree falls in a hypothetical forest, there may be a hypothetical sound. But you ain't gonna hear it, because you're a real person.

Science is great. But it certainly has its inherent limitations. And it will remain so until it can figure out a way to incorporate consciousness and perception and a multiplicity of dimensions into its equations. Maybe it's beyond us, and we will have to wait for our much smarter artificial intelligence machines to figure it out.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
why is it every time someone says they have figured out the cosmic equation, they have somehow managed to wedge human ego into the very center of it all?

Try to imagine the universe without yourself in it. You don't exist. You have no body or anything that would help you perceive or contemplate the universe. It just doesn't exist. Yeah, you can philosophize and create a hypothetical objective reality, but you're only able to do that because you currently exist and have a real brain and body to do that with. If you didn't exist, neither would the universe. So that pretty much puts the ego at the center of everything.

a reply to: Blue Shift

As you bring up the Tree falling in a forest question, I will ask this. If a creationist makes a sound in a forest, and no atheist is around to hear him, would he still be wrong?


On a more serious note I disagree that AI will ever be able to figure it all out either, even that has it's limits ultimately as infinity itself implies it is beyond computation.

originally posted by: surfer_soul
On a more serious note I disagree that AI will ever be able to figure it all out either, even that has it's limits ultimately as infinity itself implies it is beyond computation.

I'm hoping that certain differences it will have -- like being able to process images from multiple perspectives simultaneously, and not being locked into a single "body" -- will give them enough of a different perception of reality that they'll be able to make more sense of it than we have.

It might end up, however, that reality is like those Russian nesting dolls where it's significantly different depending how big or small the doll is that represents "you," and one level is only semi-comprehensible to the dolls -- human or machine -- on that level.

a reply to: Blue Shift

It might end up, however, that reality is like those Russian nesting dolls where it's significantly different depending how big or small the doll is that represents "you," and one level is only semi-comprehensible to the dolls -- human or machine -- on that level.

Yeah that makes sense, I like the analogy

a reply to: UniFinity

But Science is slowly coming out of their faith dogma (materialism).

We have quantum physics theories on for instance consciousness that are getting more proof every year that materialistic thinking is a lie and people who believe just do not want to have to handle wormhole phenomena like entanglement.

We need more time to get the paradigm shift where entanglement is something we should not disregard and instead see it as a possibility to create better tools.

Western society have wasted time to progress the next frontier by saying that there was to much noise for quantum effect to happen in wet warm environment like a cell. And there is still people who cannot handle that it happens in the cells saying there point is valid since they have studied here and there. The point of some of the most well known physics is not valid when they hold back real progress since they do not feel comfortable with "quirkiness" of reality. From my point of view if a scientist cannot go with the data and where measurement leads then they should get out of the way for those who can.

originally posted by: AnkhMorpork
a reply to: TzarChasm

Your opinion has been noted.

I disagree. I think as the man points out in the video, all the evidence points in another direction where life as we experience it is not a meaningless chance happenstance devoid of purpose, but reveals a desire and an intent of which our own experience is integral as part of its ongoing creative expression.

According to your view of life on Earth as nothing but a speck of dust and the human being as a thing. you rob yourself, and others, of the opportunity to explore another way of looking at it by simply writing off their observation as that of deluded, self-absorbed, solipsistic narcissists.

It could be that you are the one making an assumption that's based on the old scientific paradigm and are thus blinded by a heavy bias.

Your opinion has been noted. It's interesting that you suggest desire and intent to the universe when it 99% of the universe that we have thus far observed is uninhabitable to life as we know it. Your assessment that there is a conscious and purposeful agency is based on one planet out of trillions . In terms of statistics that's useless . But let's be specific here, what aspects of reality has science overlooked and how would you propose to begin investigating these aspects reliably?

a reply to: swanne

The only thing you really need from my point of view to have one part of something do information exchange with your mind is to create entanglement. If dark matter is involved I do not know.

What the information is and where it is do not really matter when dealing with entanglement.

From my point of view every particle even dark matter in the end is just energy manifested on a probability field where the field decides the manifestation/projection and entanglement connections with everything else.