The Science of Interconnectedness.

[Doer]

IMO, theism is a form of spirituality, even though its mostly religion, they do in believe in a spirit/soul. Spirituality just puts less importance on the "creator" because we are no different from him/her. At least thats the message I get from most spiritual people I talk to.

Yet, spiritual is self proclaimed. It is no different than the Cult of Harley Davidson. Just attracts a different kind of person.
And there is different style for Hair, dress., Rings and bangles, speech patterns and such.

Let the blind lead the blind and the dead bury the dead. The fact that you have come here to listen to us, like a moth to a flame is
meaningful for you. Despite the foggy motives of our natter-minnd, Self will seek Truth. It is my opinion, OK?

 

[Zaehet Strife]

“The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it.”

"Cherish those who seek the truth but beware of those who claim to find it."

 

[Chief Walkin Eagle]

This is just rewritting to have it your way. Uh, uh, not me, it's them. Not discussion. You are berating and protesting what only you are providing. It's still what I have pointed out. No one is butt-hurt but you. It is the job of the religious to spread the word. But, the true devotee is unconcerned, in a state of bliss, beyond teaching, he is convinced of Self. There are no rules and as you see I didn't call you out about that. More tap dance, Chief, to hide the fact that no one is belittling you. Just you feel belittled. It is a simple lack of confidence, my friend. I've been there and done that. The buddhists call it right action with detachment from result. That is key. Else the responses comes off as hurt and belittled....as you say.

And not knowing you are the looks on your face, I can only point out what it seems, not what it is. I only know one thing, that's IT.

Lol what ever you say Doer. It is a form of belittlement when one thinks science is a superior form of knowledge to spirituality. I am just politely speaking with the same condescending tone that skeptics do towards the spiritual and theists. There is no butthurt on my end, I only see it on the skeptics end. Almost no one even considered what I had provided and the ones that did were motivated by ignorance and already had there minds made up that the subject matter is "woo". I was just speaking about the subject matter in a non aggressive, polite way thats open to discussion, but the skeptics have shown no sign of discussing, just ignorance.

 

[Heisenberg]

Lol what ever you say Doer. It is a form of belittlement when one thinks science is a superior form of knowledge to spirituality.

You spend 40 years meditating in a cave, and I'll spend 40 years learning what science has to say. Which of us do you suppose will be able to design an airplane at the end? Which of us would be able to design a hydroelectric turbine? You wouldn't even be able to build a toaster. If we value knowledge by how it helps us survive and improve life, then clearly science is superior, and the belittlement is inherit on the side of spirituality. Science gives us much, spirituality has given us little.

That is not to say I feel spiritual concepts have no value, I am speaking only on the idea that one is better than they other. When we need accurate answers about our world, science is clearly superior not only to spirituality, but ever other belief system. It may be foolish to use science to completely discount spirituality, but it is not belittlement, and it is not wrong to favor scientific answers about our world over spiritual ones during times when they both try to speak about the same idea.

It is simply a contradiction to say "My idea is beyond the study of the physical world, my idea effects the physical world."

 

[Chief Walkin Eagle]

You spend 40 years meditating in a cave, and I'll spend 40 years learning what science has to say. Which of us do you suppose will be able to design an airplane at the end? Which of us would be able to design a hydroelectric turbine? You wouldn't even be able to build a toaster. If we value knowledge by how it helps us survive and improve life, then clearly science is superior, and the belittlement is inherit on the side of spirituality. Science gives us much, spirituality has given us little.

That is not to say I feel spiritual concepts have no value, I am speaking only on the idea that one is better than they other. When we need accurate answers about our world, science is clearly superior not only to spirituality, but ever other belief system. It may be foolish to use science to completely discount spirituality, but it is not belittlement, and it is not wrong to favor scientific answers about our world over spiritual ones during times when they both try to speak about the same idea.

It is simply a contradiction to say "My idea is beyond the study of the physical world, my idea effects the physical world."

Do you need an airplane? Do need a hydroelectric turbine? Do I need a toaster? No, we dont. Those are simply wants. We only value them because we are brought up in a world were these things are a must. It is the shallow version of materialism, kinda like having a nice car. Im not against these things though, and I am not against science, it seems you think that, Im just against the out dated material view of science.

Theres more to spirituality than meditation as well. Z obliviously uses spirituality quite often with his lucid dreams where almost anything is possible. The Flower of Life is a spiritual figure and it uses science because the table of elements is found in its geometry and many other pieces of information are there and its dismissed as multiple coincidences because theres supposedly no way the ancients knew of such things. Can we not agree that all the material rules of reality may be flexible and outright wrong? Since this is a world of complete uncertainty, its impossible to know anything, right? So why so passionately defend the uncertain?

 

[cannabineer]

Actually, those things are needs. Technology's single mightiest engine of advancement has been war. While an individual might not need jets and guns and stuff, the nation that wishes to remain a nation most definitely does need them. cn

 

[cannabineer]

Do you need an airplane? Do need a hydroelectric turbine? Do I need a toaster? No, we dont. Those are simply wants. We only value them because we are brought up in a world were these things are a must. It is the shallow version of materialism, kinda like having a nice car. Im not against these things though, and I am not against science, it seems you think that, Im just against the out dated material view of science.

Theres more to spirituality than meditation as well. Z obliviously uses spirituality quite often with his lucid dreams where almost anything is possible. The Flower of Life is a spiritual figure and it uses science because the table of elements is found in its geometry and many other pieces of information are there and its dismissed as multiple coincidences because theres supposedly no way the ancients knew of such things. Can we not agree that all the material rules of reality may be flexible and outright wrong? Since this is a world of complete uncertainty, its impossible to know anything, right? So why so passionately defend the uncertain?

The bolded is backward logic. The Flower of Life is a geometric figure. The periodic table of elements is not. It cannot be found in the figure. This is a prime example of mistaking the suggestive for the conclusive, of trying to provide an illegitimate scientific veneer for a metaphysical concept.

The blue part is a wolf in sheep's clothing. We can agree that parts of the scientific edifice are probably headed for revision. But the implication is that the whole edifice might be found false. That could only be done if a truly unnatural thing were found to be fact, requiring us to redefine the object of science. But until there is such a thing, the seemingly harmless suggestion is actually an act of sabotage, suggesting without cause or backing that science is just as subjective as, well, the subjective. That way lies madness ... and worse, uselessness. There's a baby in that bathwater. cn

 

[Heisenberg]

Do you need an airplane? Do need a hydroelectric turbine? Do I need a toaster? No, we dont. Those are simply wants. We only value them because we are brought up in a world were these things are a must. It is the shallow version of materialism, kinda like having a nice car.

These examples were arbitrary. The point was, to survive and reduce suffering in the world we need accurate answers about the world. When seeking accurate answers about the world, science is clearly the superior system. It is not shallow to want to be healthy, to want to move around safely, to want to sustain existence in an efficient manner. Science gives us excellent data to aid in this goal, while spirituality speaks to why we face this goal in the first place. When are questions are about the how and not the why, it is not belittlement or arrogance to say science rules, it's proper. Just as it's proper to say that in matters of spiritualism, science does not rule, or even hold sway.

Im not against these things though, and I am not against science, it seems you think that, Im just against the out dated material view of science.

Science can not be anything other than materialistic. That is because it's paradigm is based on the physical. To try and 'update' science is to want to bring it past the physical, and science is not equipped for that. Use science for what it's worth, tailor your inner filter, your philosophy, as you think will best help you get through life, because life is about more than just the physical. You don't update a hammer to apply it to screws, you just use a screw driver.

You want for science to be outdated because that will then explain the conflict you encounter. You recognize that something must explain the discourse you experience, and so you have decided that the error is on the side of science. The error is just that you do not properly separate science and spirituality in your head, because if you did you would have to radically adjust your answers. If you can conflate science and spirituality then your ideas can agree, but only if you ignore the opposition that comes along with science. Not only do you want to mingle what is by definition different, you want to do it on your own terms.

Theres more to spirituality than meditation as well. Z obliviously uses spirituality quite often with his lucid dreams where almost anything is possible.

Meditation was an arbitrary example. Can you offer a spiritual practice that does deliver answers that help survival and to reduce suffering?

The Flower of Life is a spiritual figure and it uses science because the table of elements is found in its geometry and many other pieces of information are there and its dismissed as multiple coincidences because theres supposedly no way the ancients knew of such things.

You are the one who has decided that it's dismissed due to coincidence. What is said is, it's been examined and the presents of those things can not be demonstrated to not be coincidence. Can you give an example of two things happening together and we connect them for no reason? Can you explain why we should automatically assume a connection without a demonstrative reason? You seem to think that it should be considered obvious and the only reason to not say it's obvious is ulterior concepts like the ancients being too ignorant. Maybe we say it's not obvious because we do not find it obvious.

Can we not agree that all the material rules of reality may be flexible and outright wrong? Since this is a world of complete uncertainty, its impossible to know anything, right? So why so passionately defend the uncertain?

Where do you see me passionately defending the certain? Again we are not talking about the answers science gives, but the process.

It's impossible to know anything to absolute certainty. Even if I think I just tied my shoes, I can't know for sure. Do you suppose that translates into a world of absolute uncertainty? Can I not have anything to say about my shoes being tied? Does the fact that we are forced to experience reality subjectively mean I can never make positive statements with some degree of confidence? What do you suppose the chance is that we someday learn DNA has nothing to do with heredity? What do you think is the likelihood of us finding the moon is made of cheese? Criticizing bad ideas is not the same thing as defending the uncertain.

If we value self correction, then it must follow that we can never be absolutely certain. The only alternative is a closed mind. When I defend science, I am not defending the uncertain, I am defending concepts like self correction.

 

[Chief Walkin Eagle]

The bolded is backward logic. The Flower of Life is a geometric figure. The periodic table of elements is not. It cannot be found in the figure. This is a prime example of mistaking the suggestive for the conclusive, of trying to provide an illegitimate scientific veneer for a metaphysical concept.

The blue part is a wolf in sheep's clothing. We can agree that parts of the scientific edifice are probably headed for revision. But the implication is that the whole edifice might be found false. That could only be done if a truly unnatural thing were found to be fact, requiring us to redefine the object of science. But until there is such a thing, the seemingly harmless suggestion is actually an act of sabotage, suggesting without cause or backing that science is just as subjective as, well, the subjective. That way lies madness ... and worse, uselessness. There's a baby in that bathwater. cn

Professor Robert Moon proved that the periodic table of elements is found in the platonic solids. The platonic solids make up Metitrons Cube. Metitrons Cube is found in the Fruit of Life. The fruit of life is found in the Flower of Life. It is all dismissed as multiple coincidences because the ancients valued the Flower of Life that holds all this amazing information and theres apparently no way they knew these things. Now that you know the periodic table is found in the geometry of the Flower of Life, Im guessing that you too see this as multiple coincidences that say nothing about reality.

We are starting to form plausible theories that if proven true would abolish the laws of reality that we accept. The topic of this thread is an example of that. It wouldnt completely destroy how we see physics though, we would just view things from a new light and discard out dated material concepts for the good of humanity.

 

[Chief Walkin Eagle]

These examples were arbitrary. The point was, to survive and reduce suffering in the world we need accurate answers about the world. When seeking accurate answers about the world, science is clearly the superior system. It is not shallow to want to be healthy, to want to move around safely, to want to sustain existence in an efficient manner. Science gives us excellent data to aid in this goal, while spirituality speaks to why we face this goal in the first place. When are questions are about the how and not the why, it is not belittlement or arrogance to say science rules, it's proper. Just as it's proper to say that in matters of spiritualism, science does not rule, or even hold sway.




Science can not be anything other than materialistic. That is because it's paradigm is based on the physical. To try and 'update' science is to want to bring it past the physical, and science is not equipped for that. Use science for what it's worth, tailor your inner filter, or maybe 'head science', as you think will best help you get through life, because life is about more than just the physical. You don't update a hammer to apply it to screws, you just use a screw driver.

You want for science to be outdated because that will then explain the conflict you encounter. You recognize that something must explain the discourse you experience, and so you have decided that the error is on the side of science. The error is just that you do not properly separate science and spirituality in your head, because if you did you would have to radically adjust your answers. If you can conflate science and spirituality then your ideas can agree, but only if you ignore the opposition that comes along with science. Not only do you want to mingle what is by definition different, you want to do it on your own terms.



Meditation was an arbitrary example. Can you offer a spiritual practice that does deliver answers that help survival and to reduce suffering?



You are the one who has decided that it's dismissed due to coincidence. What is said is, it's been examined and the presents of those things can not be demonstrated to not be coincidence. Can you give an example of two things happening together and we connect them for no reason? Can you explain why we should automatically assume a connection without a demonstrative reason? You seem to think that it should be considered obvious and the only reason to not say it's obvious is ulterior concepts like the ancients being too ignorant. Maybe we say it's not obvious because we do not find it obvious.




Where do you see me passionately defending the certain? Again we are not talking about the answers science gives, but the process.

It's impossible to know anything to absolute certainty. Even if I think I just tied my shoes, I can't know for sure. Do you suppose that translates into a world of absolute uncertainty? Can I not have anything to say about my shoes being tied? Does the fact that we are forced to experience reality subjectively mean I can never make positive statements with some degree of confidence? What do you suppose the chance is that we someday learn DNA has nothing to do with heredity? What do you think is the likelihood of us finding the moon is made of cheese? Criticizing bad ideas is not the same thing as defending the uncertain.

If we value self correction, then it must follow that we can never be absolutely certain. The only alternative is a closed mind. When I defend science, I am not defending the uncertain, I am defending concepts like self correction.

Say theres some people that KNOW 'god' (try to imagine 'god' not as 1 supreme being). Throw that subjectivity stuff out the window for now, these people are not being deluded and they know 'god' (remember, this is only an example). With their true relationship with 'god', they have the knowledge that really matters like how the universe started, what the REAL rules of reality are, what holds things together, and how they can use this knowledge to learn, evolve and achieve bigger and better things. Would science still be the superior form of knowledge? I really hope I dont get the response Im expecting with this question...

Sheldrake is using science to test non-materialistic things and he is getting consistent results. Is the only explanation is that his results are flawed because hes testing non-material things?

Theres no inner conflict I am going through because of materialistic science not being able to justify my beliefs. I just know that 'if' the supernatural exists (god, spirit world) then materialism is an out dated concept and holding humanity back from objectively knowing these things, not that the scientific process is necessary for knowing these things, imo.

Isnt the purpose of meditation to reduce suffering and reflect upon yourself to make you a better person? Achieving lucid dreaming can be an example of that as well because you gotta be a well balanced person who is comfortable and has his priorities straight. Lucid dreaming is just another form of astral projection too and theres much you can gain from astral projection. Dont worry, I know what you have to say about things like astral projection lol. Also, negativity and a destructive personality can leave you open to illness, so its good to be balanced and have a healthy spirit. I also know what you have to say about that lol. (edit) Sheldrakes plausible theories are also a good example.

I could show a few more pieces of credible information that would make coincidence an even smaller fraction of possibility about the Flower of Life, but I dont think you would be at all interested and even if you were I doubt you'd move away from your opinion of it.

I didnt say criticizing bad ideas is the same as defending the uncertain. Im just saying that a lot of the ideas you see as bad is because of the materialistic paradigm, a paradigm that you are uncertain is the most correct path.

 

[tyler.durden]

Professor Robert Moon proved that the periodic table of elements is found in the platonic solids. The platonic solids make up Metitrons Cube. Metitrons Cube is found in the Fruit of Life. The fruit of life is found in the Flower of Life. It is all dismissed as multiple coincidences because the ancients valued the Flower of Life that holds all this amazing information and theres apparently no way they knew these things. Now that you know the periodic table is found in the geometry of the Flower of Life, Im guessing that you too see this as multiple coincidences that say nothing about reality.

We are starting to form plausible theories that if proven true would abolish the laws of reality that we accept. The topic of this thread is an example of that. It wouldnt completely destroy how we see physics though, we would just view things from a new light and discard out dated material concepts for the good of humanity.

As I understand it, In Professor Moon's model of the Periodic Table, the protons in the nucleus arrange themselves in concentric forms that have the shapes of the Platonic Solids. Okay, so what? None of the ancients, even the Greeks, knew that sub-atomic particles existed. The Greeks were the most advanced, and they theorized that the atom was the absolute smallest unit. So, if it's the protons that are arranged in concentric forms that have the shapes of the Platonic Solids, how would ancients know this when they weren't even aware of anything smaller than atoms? They may have oohed and ahhed at the pretty shapes, but are you suggesting they knew what they were seeing was tied into the forms that protons take? If these things are somehow related, they had no clue. Is that coincidence? I can't think of another word to describe the situation. By the by, have you seen the movie Pi by Darren Aronofsky? It's one of my favorites and would be right up your alley: everything in the universe all comes down to a 217 digit number, once one recognizes the pattern, one can predict everything with absolute certainty; stock prices, hurricane stirkes, the lottery. But, the price to pay for discovering this knowledge is very, very high It's a well-paced awesome thriller, you should check it out...

 

[Chief Walkin Eagle]

As I understand it, In Professor Moon's model of the Periodic Table, the protons in the nucleus arrange themselves in concentric forms that have the shapes of the Platonic Solids. Okay, so what? None of the ancients, even the Greeks, knew that sub-atomic particles existed. The Greeks were the most advanced, and they theorized that the atom was the absolute smallest unit. So, if it's the protons that are arranged in concentric forms that have the shapes of the Platonic Solids, how would ancients know this when they weren't even aware of anything smaller than atoms? They may have oohed and ahhed at the pretty shapes, but are you suggesting they knew what they were seeing was tied into the forms that protons take? If these things are somehow related, they had no clue. Is that coincidence? I can't think of another word to describe the situation. By the by, have you seen the movie Pi by Darren Aronofsky? It's one of my favorites and would be right up your alley: everything in the universe all comes down to a 217 digit number, once one recognizes the pattern, one can predict everything with absolute certainty; stock prices, hurricane stirkes, the lottery. But, the price to pay for discovering this knowledge is very, very high It's a well-paced awesome thriller, you should check it out...

I dont think the Greeks were the most advanced. I think whoever built the pyramids were, and whoever built Machu Picchu, and who ever built Puma Punku... And... And... And . I think the earlier we go, the smarter we were. The Greeks being one of the first civilizations that lost knowledge, but were still very smart. Their art was more perfect earlier in their existence but had imperfections in their later years. Today we are at the lowest point in knowledge because we are deluded by stupid tech toys that make us think we're smart. Hell, we're still questioning if 'god' exists .

I'm pretty sure the Greeks valued the Flower of Life as well but I may be mistaken. I know they loved that platonic solids though. The Flower of Life being found in many ancient civilizations that supposedly had no contact with each other should also raise an eyebrow, the oldest being the Egyptians, to which we have no idea on how to understand their ancient writing. We just know they valued the Flower of Life and also the Kabbala that is also found in the flower of life.

I think I might of heard of this movie though. Is it the one where great ancient artists used Pi in their masterpieces so they can be beautiful and mathematically correct?

 

[tyler.durden]

Say theres some people that KNOW 'god' (try to imagine 'god' not as 1 supreme being). Throw that subjectivity stuff out the window for now, these people are not being deluded and they know 'god' (remember, this is only an example). With their true relationship with 'god', they have the knowledge that really matters like how the universe started, what the REAL rules of reality are, what holds things together, and how they can use this knowledge to learn, evolve and achieve bigger and better things. Would science still be the superior form of knowledge? I really hope I dont get the response Im expecting with this question...

In your example, how would they acquire this knowledge, would god tell them? As it stands, the thousands of religions who claim to have a true relationship with god all state the he told them a thousand different things. If all religions stated that god said the same thing to all of them, that would be compelling. Using knowledge to learn, evolve and achieve bigger and better things is the scientific method...

Sheldrake is using science to test non-materialistic things and he is getting consistent results. Is the only explanation is that his results are flawed because hes testing non-material things?

This had me wondering, what is a non-material thing? Aren't all things material? If there were non-material things, how would we know about them?

Im just saying that a lot of the ideas you see as bad is because of the materialistic paradigm, a paradigm that you are uncertain is the most correct path.

I think the reason that we perceive any ideas as bad is because they are illogical and don't stand up to even mild scrutiny. This goes for any ideas, natural or supernatural...

 

[Chief Walkin Eagle]

In your example, how would they acquire this knowledge, would god tell them? As it stands, the thousands of religions who claim to have a true relationship with god all state the he told them a thousand different things. If all religions stated that god said the same thing to all of them, that would be compelling. Using knowledge to learn, evolve and achieve bigger and better things is the scientific method...



This had me wondering, what is a non-material thing? Aren't all things material? If there were non-material things, how would we know about them?



I think the reason that we perceive any ideas as bad is because they are illogical and don't stand up to even mild scrutiny. This goes for any ideas, natural or supernatural...

You're incapable of imaging 'god' as being anything else besides a supreme being that is separate from yourself, so that kinda flew over your head... This would be the scientific method of using spiritual, non material knowledge to achieve bigger and better things?

Telepathy, for one. DNA has recently been found to have a scientifically impossible telepathic quality. To me, the observer effect is telepathic as well, and telepathy is non material. Check out Sheldrakes website ya lazy bum! lol Hes the one with the research and controlled experiments with consistent results of these non material things. The best thing you can do is go to his "controversies" section and listen to a debate hosted by skeptics where you can hear both sides of the argument and decide for yourself.

 

[tyler.durden]

I dont think the Greeks were the most advanced. I think whoever built the pyramids were, and whoever built Machu Picchu, and who ever built Puma Punku... And... And... And . I think the earlier we go, the smarter we were. The Greeks being one of the first civilizations that lost knowledge, but were still very smart. Their art was more perfect earlier in their existence but had imperfections in their later years. Today we are at the lowest point in knowledge because we are deluded by stupid tech toys that make us think we're smart. Hell, we're still questioning if 'god' exists .

I'm pretty sure the Greeks valued the Flower of Life as well but I may be mistaken. I know they loved that platonic solids though. The Flower of Life being found in many ancient civilizations that supposedly had no contact with each other should also raise an eyebrow, the oldest being the Egyptians, to which we have no idea on how to understand their ancient writing. We just know they valued the Flower of Life and also the Kabbala that is also found in the flower of life.

I think I might of heard of this movie though. Is it the one where great ancient artists used Pi in their masterpieces so they can be beautiful and mathematically correct?

Well, you didn't answer my questions about the sub-atomic particles and the lack of knowledge these peoples had of them. The earlier we go the smarter we were? So, it is your view that we were smarter as hairy primitive beings with no language than the peoples that built the impressive structures you mentioned? That doesn't seem logical. How was ancient Greek art imperfect, and what makes any art perfect or non-perfect? Art is merely self-expression. For instance, their human sculptures' proportions may have been more realistic earlier on, but they realized they would have more of an aesthetic impact if they exaggerated certain aspects (larger hands, unrealistically longer torsos). This was by design and showed more creativity imo. Their literature certainly got better over time. What are your examples of their artistic sense degrading?

I asked you a question earlier in another thread that was sincere: If we ever get to the point of acquiring knowledge that showed that there is certainly nothing spiritual/supernatural, would you be okay with that and adjust your beliefs accordingly? I can tell you that if it were shown that that realm were true, I would certainly adjust my beliefs.

That movie Pi is much different than the one your thinking of, this one is about a lone, reclusive genius mathematician in modern America who is on a similar quest as yourself, and the closer he gets to the truth about everything being connected, the more everyone is after him (the DOD, Wallstreet, corporations) and the closer he comes to madness. It's awesome, you'll love it...

 

[tyler.durden]

You're incapable of imaging 'god' as being anything else besides a supreme being that is separate from yourself, so that kinda flew over your head... This would be the scientific method of using spiritual, non material knowledge to achieve bigger and better things?

Telepathy, for one. DNA has recently been found to have a scientifically impossible telepathic quality. To me, the observer effect is telepathic as well, and telepathy is non material. Check out Sheldrakes website ya lazy bum! lol Hes the one with the research and controlled experiments with consistent results of these non material things. The best thing you can do is go to his "controversies" section and listen to a debate hosted by skeptics where you can hear both sides of the argument and decide for yourself.

To be fair, you cannot know what I'm capable of. I could easily imagine any definition of god you'd like to convey. If it's knowledge, it is necessarily material as knowledge is a series of neural connections in the brain, or a series of symbols or words representing such. How would we go about knowing something without the requisite neural connections? Telepathy, if it existed, would also be a material phenomena, much like radio waves. Some form of energy would be needed to send thoughts between brains, that would be material. What's much stranger than DNA's seemingly telepathic properties is quantum entanglement, or what Einstein called 'Spooky action at a distance'. There are many strange phenomena we know to exist, but don't have the slightest clue on how they work. Scientists LOVE this shit, they live to attempt to observe and explain these mysterious things. They'll do so by careful and thorough observation and testing, not by some non-material magical process. So, we're still stuck not being able to identify anything either of us know of that is non-material.
You're right about me being lazy about looking at Sheldrake's info, I'll get off my ass and spend (waste?) an hour doing so. Probably when there's nothing on TV...

 

[Chief Walkin Eagle]

Well, you didn't answer my questions about the sub-atomic particles and the lack of knowledge these peoples had of them. The earlier we go the smarter we were? So, it is your view that we were smarter as hairy primitive beings with no language than the peoples that built the impressive structures you mentioned? That doesn't seem logical. How was ancient Greek art imperfect, and what makes any art perfect or non-perfect? Art is merely self-expression. For instance, their human sculptures' proportions may have been more realistic earlier on, but they realized they would have more of an aesthetic impact if they exaggerated certain aspects (larger hands, unrealistically longer torsos). This was by design and showed more creativity imo. Their literature certainly got better over time. What are your examples of their artistic sense degrading?

I asked you a question earlier in another thread that was sincere: If we ever get to the point of acquiring knowledge that showed that there is certainly nothing spiritual/supernatural, would you be okay with that and adjust your beliefs accordingly? I can tell you that if it were shown that that realm were true, I would certainly adjust my beliefs.

That movie Pi is much different than the one your thinking of, this one is about a lone, reclusive genius mathematician in modern America who is on a similar quest as yourself, and the closer he gets to the truth about everything being connected, the more everyone is after him (the DOD, Wallstreet, corporations) and the closer he comes to madness. It's awesome, you'll love it...

I kinda answered your question about the sub-atomic particles. The Greeks being one of the first civilizations to lose knowledge, of that knowledge was sub atomic particles and ways of the spirit and reality. Though they obliviously had the representation of sub-atomic particles with the platonic solids... The past is a mystery. We were primitive hunter gatherers for the longest time then BAM! Full on structured civilization with fully written languages, there was no gradual change into that, it was very sudden, shits crazy. I believe the very earliest civilizations to be the most intelligent and those are the Egyptians and Sumarians. Though primitive hunter gatherers went through some amazing evolutions of knowledge as well with how they spontaneously developed imagination, symbolism, and art... And I think it was that movie I was talking about where Greeks and other artists from hundreds of years ago used Pi and the Golden Ratio to make their artwork more perfect. I watched about 10 minutes of it and only remember seeing one example of Greek art where the sculpture had to have a support placed in for one of the arms because the sculpture wasnt mathematically correct, and that was later on in Greeks history.

Im not too worried about science making such discoveries, I think it would of already happened if it was possible, and I dont think its possible at all. I just see hard atheist scientists trying so hard to convince the world of a completely godless theory.

I guess I can simplify my question that went over your head. Never mind asking "how did they get this information?" because this is only an example. Say the world of the gods was proven to be real and we could now interact with this world. Would you see/feel the amazing things they are capable of and accept their humble explanations of reality or would you still stick to the materialistic paradigm and not use spirituality to test there explanations?

 

[Chief Walkin Eagle]

To be fair, you cannot know what I'm capable of. I could easily imagine any definition of god you'd like to convey. If it's knowledge, it is necessarily material as knowledge is a series of neural connections in the brain, or a series of symbols or words representing such. How would we go about knowing something without the requisite neural connections? Telepathy, if it existed, would also be a material phenomena, much like radio waves. Some form of energy would be needed to send thoughts between brains, that would be material. What's much stranger than DNA's seemingly telepathic properties is quantum entanglement, or what Einstein called 'Spooky action at a distance'. There are many strange phenomena we know to exist, but don't have the slightest clue on how they work. Scientists LOVE this shit, they live to attempt to observe and explain these mysterious things. They'll do so by careful and thorough observation and testing, not by some non-material magical process. So, we're still stuck not being able to identify anything either of us know of that is non-material.
You're right about me being lazy about looking at Sheldrake's info, I'll get off my ass and spend (waste?) an hour doing so. Probably when there's nothing on TV...

Ah the certainty of materialism... In a universe that is uncertain...

 

[tyler.durden]

Ah the certainty of materialism... In a universe that is uncertain...

Well, we both seem pretty certain that there are no non-material things, as neither of us can name a single one...

 

[Chief Walkin Eagle]

Well, we both seem pretty certain that there are no non-material things, as neither of us can name a single one...

So the soul would have to be material? Even though when the soul leaves the body theres no physical mind to hold knowledge yet us souls still have vast knowledge and consciousness? I think if the supernatural were to be proven to be natural, you would stubbornly label them material even if you have no idea on how they function. This certainty of materialism has reached its limits in my opinion, its time to evolve and move on to bigger and better things.

• I guess I can simplify my question that went over your head. Never mind asking "how did they get this information?" because this is only an example. Say the world of the gods was proven to be real and we could now interact with this world. Would you see/feel the amazing things they are capable of and accept their humble explanations of reality or would you still stick to the materialistic paradigm and not use spirituality to test there explanations?
  
  In case you forgot...​