Magical Materialism and Ufology

Materialism is hocus pocus. Nobody has ever touched matter. When you touch a table top the electrons from the table repel against the electrons from your hand. You then perceive this as matter. All science can say is perception is reality. So you percieve the hardness of a table top or the softness of a pillow.

Scientist believe in materialism. They believe there's a theory of everything that will explain how dead matter became aware of itself. This is just wishful thinking but materialist treat materialism as if it's true.

The logic goes like this. Consciousness is limited to the human brain therefore before humans it was just dead matter.

Luckily, some scientist are starting to realise that things like life are fundamental properties of the universe and that life finds a way. Life and consciousness manifest in what we perceive as matter.

Materialism has set the debate around ufology back and things move slowly because of it. This is because for years we looked at life as something rare because dead matter needed the perfect conditions to become living matter. So other planets couldn't harbor life unless they were like earth. They were either too hot, too cold and only earth was just right.

What we will come to see is that the universe is filled with life and some of those civilizations have become advanced enough to visit earth. This is because things like life and consciousness are not products of our perceived material reality.

Materialism is a belief system and science doesn't support it.

[edit on 11-1-2010 by Matrix Rising]

Your posts always make me think so hard, that i forget what I am going to say......


But I posted a thread, about exoplanets. In the thread, I mentioned that we search for earth-like planets, because that is what we KNOW supports our type of life.
But who is to say that our definition of life is the only one.

Thats still not exactly what I wanted to say, but it's a start. Ill be back later
But S&F, any way.

Consciousness/awareness is the only thing that materialism cannot account for. What alternative belief system can be justified? And how can you justify it? And look carefully at whatever that justification may be, because once we open the door to mysticism, we allow for the worldview that dominated the dark ages, and prevented substantial scientific advancement for thousands of years. I would rather let consciousness be a mystery for now and proceed with the productive aspects of scientific thinking then throw out the whole system because of one glaring inadequacy.

S & F


Going back now to re-read the OP

but from the moment I first read it, I was impressed by the content and presentation of the content

thank you for rendering this material and information comprehensible to the less scientifically minded

reply to post by Matrix Rising


Wish I could award multiple stars, because every time I read the OP, it's like a revelation. Congratulations to the OP for reducing it all so that what was previously so complex is now rendered so clear, so simple, so easily grasped

And of course, whilst this thread concentrates on Ufology, the same principles (as contained within the OP) could equally be applied to the paranormal

Originally posted by OnceReturned
Consciousness/awareness is the only thing that materialism cannot account for.

But that makes it sound as if science hadn't already discovered that 'matter' doesn't really exist as it was formerly thought to, but that everything is 'energy'. That can't be ignored for conveniences sake. It doesn't matter (excuse the pun) if materialism conveniently accounts for most things if it has already been proven false. A convenient error is still an error.

What alternative belief system can be justified?

What does cutting edge science reveal?

And look carefully at whatever that justification may be, because once we open the door to mysticism, we allow for the worldview that dominated the dark ages, and prevented substantial scientific advancement for thousands of years.

I don't think that the implication that the perspective being presented is similar to Dark Age mysticism would be accurate. But I understand where you are coming from.

I would rather let consciousness be a mystery for now and proceed with the productive aspects of scientific thinking then throw out the whole system because of one glaring inadequacy.

But the system is demonstrably false. In fact, the various branches of science have singularly failed - IMO - to incorporate and come to grips with the discoveries of the energetic nature of our universe and the relative unreality of matter.

Materialism is literally a retarded perspective which science itself exploded almost 100 years ago.


[edit on 11-1-2010 by Malcram]

reply to post by Matrix Rising



Nice thread to start to get people thinking about the real aspects of "reality". Star and flag from me...


[edit on 1/11/2010 by jkrog08]

reply to post by Malcram

Materialism is a retarded perspective which science itself exploded almost 100 years ago.

Really ? Then why don't they come out right now and state so, unequivocally ?

reply to post by Malcram

Materialism is literally a retarded perspective which science itself exploded almost 100 years ago.

I wouldn't say so much "exploded" in the sense of losing itself. More like "bombarded" with information learned over the centuries and tireless efforts of persons that will still likely take centuries to analyze and define.

Originally posted by Dock9
reply to post by Malcram

 

Materialism is a retarded perspective which science itself exploded almost 100 years ago.

Really ? Then why don't they come out right now and state so, unequivocally ?

"They" do, meaning those physicists is a position to speak authoritatively on the subject.

The problem is that many branches of science - which are supposed to take their cue from the more primary scientific discoveries - have failed to incorporate the new understanding of the nature of the universe and to adapt to them. That this is taking so long is, IMO, pretty shameful.


[edit on 11-1-2010 by Malcram]

Originally posted by jkrog08

I wouldn't say so much "exploded" in the sense of losing itself. More like "bombarded" with information learned over the centuries and tireless efforts of persons that will still likely take centuries to analyze and define.

I was referring to entering the quantum age around 100 years ago. But yes, there were people proposing for centuries theories similar to what was finally proven in the 20th century.

reply to post by Matrix Rising

Hi, Matrix Rising.

If you did not see the film "What the BLEEP!? do we know? Down the rabbit hole",
you are a good candidate for it !

See the link in te first line of my signature, and I URGE you to
borrow / buy / rent the 3 DVD kit, with 6 hours of stuff on it.

In there, we see that EVEN electrons are aware of being "observed or not" ! ! !

You will see that in the " double slit experiment " ! !

Blue skies.

Originally posted by C-JEAN
reply to post by Matrix Rising

 

Hi, Matrix Rising.

If you did not see the film "What the BLEEP!? do we know? Down the rabbit hole",
you are a good candidate for it !

See the link in te first line of my signature, and I URGE you to
borrow / buy / rent the 3 DVD kit, with 6 hours of stuff on it.

In there, we see that EVEN electrons are aware of being "observed or not" ! ! !

You will see that in the " double slit experiment " ! !

Blue skies.

This is interesting too.

There are many people who will groan at the mention of such movies.

However, the fact that the scientific establishment as a whole has failed to address the implications of physicists discoveries proving the 'energetic' nature of the universe has meant that 'amateurs' have beaten them to the punch and are popularizing scientific findings that mainstream science should have been addressing and disseminating, but did not. The Scientific establishment, stuck in a rut, has been outpaced by the population.

They can then hardly complain about any errors in understanding creeping in among the population, because they failed to meet their responsibility, leaving it to amateurs to take up their slack.


[edit on 11-1-2010 by Malcram]

reply to post by Malcram



I was too.

Not only that, but the Theory of Relativity and it's connection to Quantum Theory. Cosmology, etc, etc.... There is A LOT that has been thrown at us in the last 100 years, we are still working on it but I feel we are doing alright considering..

Originally posted by jkrog08
reply to post by Malcram

 

I was too.

Not only that, but the Theory of Relativity and it's connection to Quantum Theory. Cosmology, etc, etc.... There is A LOT that has been thrown at us in the last 100 years, we are still working on it but I feel we are doing alright considering..

Maybe. But it feels painfully slow to me.

It appears that we have physicists being very open about the 'illusion' of matter etc, then a huge disconnect with the rest of the branches of science looking the other way and acting as if these discoveries have never been made, and finally we have sections of the population deeply interested in the physicists discoveries and the energetic nature of reality and how it interfaces with consciousness, yet irritated and confused with the rest of the scientific establishment who seem hopelessly locked in an obsolete paradigm.

Of is it just me? LOL

reply to post by Malcram


I think it is more a disconnect from the majority of the population that really cares about this science. What we have learned so far seems to be bringing content to the masses every ten years or so, I feel we just need more people who care about these principles and the propagation of their aspects.

reply to post by Malcram


What exactly do you mean when you talk about the inadequacies of science with regard to the energetic nature of the universe? Do you mean the discrepancy between our experience of reality and its energetic nature? The difficulties when it comes to energy vs. matter within materialism seem trivial when we accept the fact that energy is material - in the sense that it has objective physical properties, which is the important part when it comes to describing reality from a materialist perspective.

And when you say, "But the system is demonstrably false. In fact, the various branches of science have singularly failed - IMO - to incorporate and come to grips with the discoveries of the energetic nature of our universe and the relative unreality of matter," what do you mean by the demonstrably false part? It seems to me that things are only objectivily demonstratable within a materialist framework. Nothing about consciousness is demonstratable.

Finally the exact way in which science fails when it comes to consciousness/awareness is a deep mystery, and is in fact too mysterious at this poin to be used to draw any solid conclusions about the scientific worldview. All that we can say for sure is that the picture of reality that has been painted by the physical sciences with mathematics as their basis leaves no room for - and fails to account for - consciousness/awareness.

I think that in order to reject science you first need a better alternative - which we don't have - and you also need to be able to explain the successes of scientific predictions and the development of technology with scientific discoveries as its basis - which is really hard to do without accepting the validity of science.

Originally posted by OnceReturned
reply to post by Malcram

 

What exactly do you mean when you talk about the inadequacies of science with regard to the energetic nature of the universe? Do you mean the discrepancy between our experience of reality and its energetic nature?

No, I meant that, for instance, the field of Biology has not really responded to the discovery of the energetic nature of things. The body is still treated like a lump of matter. A machine of separate material parts. Energy and consciousness are hardly given any consideration. It's pretty much the same in the other branches of science, as far as I can tell. Now, some may say that this is because it is not yet understood how the energetic nature of the body can be utilized. Maybe. Or maybe it's not understood because it hasn't received much mainstream scientific attention, because this mainstream is deeply reluctant to embrace a new paradigm? There are whole multi-billion dollar industries based on the old paradigm.

The difficulties when it comes to energy vs. matter within materialism seem trivial when we accept the fact that energy is material - in the sense that it has objective physical properties, which is the important part when it comes to describing reality from a materialist perspective

I'm no expert, but I disagree that energy is matter or has 'objective physical properties'. Energy is a word for something truly mysterious which has been observed, but displays a fluidity of state that shows it is neither one thing nor the other (wave nor particle) and neither here nor there, and further, that it interfaces to some degree with consciousness. These qualities have nothing remotely to do with 'matter'.

And when you say, "But the system is demonstrably false. In fact, the various branches of science have singularly failed - IMO - to incorporate and come to grips with the discoveries of the energetic nature of our universe and the relative unreality of matter," what do you mean by the demonstrably false part?

I mean, quite simply, that matter does not exist. It is an appearance, an experience, a perception, not a 'reality'.

It seems to me that things are only objectivily demonstratable within a materialist framework. Nothing about consciousness is demonstrable.

Yes things are perceived within a materialist framework, but not as they actually are, and this includes 'energy'. Energy has already resisted objective classification. It can be observed but has been observed to be this and that, here and there. In other words we have perceived it but not truly understood it. So what is it really? I'd suggest that it will never be truly 'pinned down'. As we go further into the investigation of energy we find more and more 'empty space' and things make less and less sense. 'Reality' keeps becoming more and more vaporous and dissolves into ever more tiny 'parts' in ever more vast empty spaces. Where do you think this will end? With 'nothing'? With 'consciousness' perhaps?

All that we can say for sure is that the picture of reality that has been painted by the physical sciences with mathematics as their basis leaves no room for - and fails to account for - consciousness/awareness.

As everything is actually 'energy', it fails to account for anything. All it does it express an experience and propose fantasies for 'why' this is our experience. I say fantasies because whatever material mechanism they discover, however 'real' it appears to be, is merely an appearance, with energy being the underlying 'reality'.

I think that in order to reject science you first need a better alternative - which we don't have

Oh, I think we do. It's just a bit too radical for the scientific establishment right now.

and you also need to be able to explain the successes of scientific predictions and the development of technology with scientific discoveries as its basis - which is really hard to do without accepting the validity of science.

Actually, those apparent successes are very easy to explain in the paradigm of 'energy' and consciousness, but as I said, that's probably far too radical for most, right now. But it's where mainstream science is heading, albeit at a snails pace, with a growing section of the population already light years ahead of them.


[edit on 11-1-2010 by Malcram]

reply to post by Malcram


Energy is simply the definition for the force applied to a particle.

There are many types of "energy", all those describe is what type of force interacts with said particle(s).

[edit on 1/11/2010 by jkrog08]

reply to post by OnceReturned


It is my content that all matter/energy(same thing) exists on different phases of reality. Thus it is impossible to realistically describe the quantum on our macro scale, and vice versa. IMO everything is fractal and is different phases (or dimensions). Now it is now prolly' best to stray back on topic...


[edit on 1/11/2010 by jkrog08]