Again, yes, but maybe no. And here is why. Let's assume (for the sake of progressing the discussion) you are correct and these experiences that people are having (OBE's, NDE's, past-life experiences) are, in fact, occurring. Who is to say that these experiences can not be explained under current or expanded models of science?
Why do they necessarily have to exclusively some vague "spiritual and moral-based" system that science is unable to comprehend or comment on?
What would prevent these experiences from being a new way in which information is discovered to interact through time and space, instead of "spirits" or some-such thing.And even assuming these phenomena existed, why would they necessarily mean that their is an inherent purpose of meaning to life?
They wouldn't--all they would tell us is that these events occur and that they have some physical law of basis in reality, known or unknown by us from our relative position and understanding. People are making way too many assumptions with few facts.
All good points, its just I can't quite agree with the statement "science will catch up with spirituality".
You say it as if you definitely know all statements made about spirituality are already knowable, true and confirmed.
You seem to downplay the vital role that actually confirming and repeating something in a physical environment, rather than simply proclaiming it as "true" has.
You may have had a spiritual experience, but I have not.
So what does that say about my version of reality?
Also, there are many contradicting aspects of spiritually among a vast array of cultures. How do yo reconcile that?
I'm sorry---I just can't be as confident about it as you. Too much darkness and such a small candle I have. Anyway, good discussion. Thanks for the response.
I was going to ask you whether "non-local consciousness" has actually be proven to be true.
However, the fact that you don't see proof through reproducible means as a valid way of explaining phenomena
In context: Everything that is true, that exists, is already there, waiting to be discovered. Everything science uncovers, is just that, uncovering what has always been true, and there, and eventually evident no matter the means. Science is basically catching up to what already exists and is true. Atoms have always been, basically the pixels of reality, but have only in the last 100 years been proven beyond a doubt. That's what I meant by catching up
Yes, because they are being experienced, true, and confirmed all over the world. There are countless blueprints to reach enlightenment and confirm through direct experience whether or not enlightenment is real or not. People follow the blueprints and reach in direct experience such realities which confirm they are true. Only problem with this to science is that in this case, the consciousness of the individual is the laboratory where this can be tested. Even in brain scans of enlightened individuals there are parts of the brain lit up that are not lit up in the non-enlightened..
The scientific method does not validate subjective experience, even though, ironically, the scientific method itself is composed of a collective of subjective observers combined to create objectivity and repeatability. Subjectivity(Consciousness) itself is still slowly crawling out of the realms of science considering it taboo. Yet who would be dumb enough to say that they do no experience reality subjectively?
Consciousness is also non-physical, as are the spiritual realms. So we are now in a bit of a quandary in regards to strict materialist based science, which by the way is in its death thralls with the advent of quantum physics and and all the non-physical states that involve in wave collapse functions. All the new findings show that underneath it all, the foundations of reality are built on some non-physical type state anyway
That's all the exoteric outer shells of all the various paths to enlightenment. If you look at the esoteric inner core, they are all the same and discuss Uniting with reality via Enlightenment. Similar to how science can't agree to how many glasses of water we should be drinking per day. Used to be 8-12 glasses, and now its drink when thirsty. Those are minor details compared to what the underlying foundation of reality is.
Science needs to update itself to include phenomena that by it's very nature, will never repeat itself. Just like Time never repeats. This moment is already gone, yet
Originally posted by Blue Shift
The universe is the process by which randomness becomes slowly absorbed over billions of years and incorporated into life, which is anti-randomness. Once the entire universe is part of a living thing, then it observes itself and quantum shoestrings itself into existence at the beginning of time.
I would say that this is a loop (a torus, really), but it's more a constant flow backwards and forwards through time and space that produces the illusion of singularity.
Originally posted by ForwardDrift
That's a thought, but it is predicated upon the assumption that the universe can in fact become part of a "living thing". Not sure if that is actually possible, or how such an event could actually occur, or what it would look like. Crazy to imagine; interesting to try and grasp.
Originally posted by FollowTheWhiteRabbit
Intelligent life is THE pinnacle of the universe. Nothing that we can even try to fathom overcomes this. And in a universe of laws and order that gives birth to intelligent life that loves, dreams, and creates, the real hubris is the assumption that the universe is just a random machine that looks pretty, but in reality, is just a random mess of things. Things that we stare at, take measurements of, and pay attention to.
Does the universe have a purpose? It's purpose is ultimately intelligent life. Intelligent life that has evolved to the point where it can stare into the cosmos and truly comprehend and appreciate its wonderment and majesty.
Fie on anyone who mopes around, thinking that we're not special. We absolutely are special, and fortunate to have been given consciousness.
Meh, the brain-scans could, possibly, only indicate a certain physical part of the brain is being used during a particular chemically induced emotional experience and nothing more than that.
Mostly agreed, but do you really believe that there is no real true reality?
Isn't that actually one of the tenants of reaching Englightenment to know and understand the total truth of things?
Even if that truth is a set subjective truths that all exists in a state of some sort--isn't their collective totality still a truth?
Wouldn't that point to some type of extant objectivity, outside of all the individualized subjective experiences, even if we can't know it by any physical or non-physical means? An objectivity that is at the heart of scientific pursuit?
Not really sure what non-physical states you're referring to. The wave-collapse function has not been shown to be "non-physical", as far as I know Linkage: www.nature.com...
Meh, not really. There is a big difference between excepting Jesus Christ as a personal spiritual savior and the moral ambiguity of the Roman/Athenian deities and their mythology.
Fair point. But come on. How else are we practically supposed to go about testing phenomena?
I can't think of a single suitable method of replacement that isn't simply "Hey believe me, because I said its true.
"It isn't really.practical.
And in a reality where I am forced to make once choice out of many potential choices.
And have a perception out of many different perceptions. Why not pick the one that is the most practical, and applicable to a broader range of subjective experiences (though, admittedly, not all subjective experiences)?
Yes that seems more like an agnostic than an atheist reply to me. Until you get to the 99.9999% figure where it sounds a little less agnostic.
Originally posted by Kandinsky
reply to post by Phoenix267
'I'm not sure' is a good enough opening statement for Mr deGrasse Tyson and it's good enough for me.
I'm not sure.
If the universe has no purpose, I'm not sure it follows that all our lives are meaningless and without purpose. Even if the purpose doesn't come from some deity, our lives can and I think do have purposes that we ourselves can, and sometimes do, define. It's just an internally defined purpose instead of an externally defined purpose.
So if someone was to put a gun to my head, I'd have to opt for the *probability* that the Universe has no purpose. By extension, a meaningless universe would render all our lives meaningless - without purpose. I can live with that.
Subjectively, 'I'm not so sure.'
...As living expressions of an arguably purposeless universe, we could each represent the argumentative recyclings of a larger entity's existential crisis. Who knows?
I haven't experienced it, and I believe the people experienced what they say. However, there is more than one way to interpret these experiences as this article explains:
Originally posted by SinMaker
There is a purpose. Just ask anyone that experienced an NDE. It's a cross cultural phenomenon. You can't tell a person who has experienced this very unique experience any different. If you haven't experienced it, you won't believe it. Our consciousness survives.
Originally posted by ForwardDrift
reply to post by dominicus
I actually have more rebuttals and clarifications of points. But I'll choose to end this discussion here. Anyway, interesting thoughts. I will say this last thing though, I agree that "I don't know" was the best answer.edit on 6-4-2013 by ForwardDrift because: (no reason given)