Has science overlooked important aspects of reality?

originally posted by: Blue Shift
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.

That's an interesting concept and one that as far as I know quantum physics supports.

There is no such thing as an objective reality that's separate from the subjective observer.

This doesn't mean to say that the subjective observer collapses the probability wave and actualizes reality, but it does suggest a couple of ideas.

One, that all what is, was and ever will be, includes everything that is, and that there is nothing that is not.

While we don't know precisely what happens when we die in this physical form, on an individual basis, within this all-inclusive POV it could be said that death has no meaning or significance.

God as the all-in-all is the God of the living and of each generation, not the dead. To God all people are alive.

The implication of this, is that, at the most fundamental level, we always were, are, and will always be, because no other context is available as a possibility.

Of course the materialists will beg to differ and say that we're just a thing in a bag of skin nothing more in an impersonal, meaningless accident for which questions of meaning and value, intent or purpose cannot be asked. How dare you?!

But even within that context they can be shown to be mistaken on the basis of an interdependent, cosmological unity apart from which they would not exist.

I see it as a very strange and very mysterious predicament of sorts, that to face and "be with" is the only intellectually honest position to take, however inscrutable although there are a whole array of things that can be deduced from within that space, which is really the domain that Mr. McKenna was exploring and likes to explore and theorize from within, from a POV that's at least HONEST, and that doesn't make all these presuppositions about some sort of dead thingness with the human being set apart as just another thing and the Earth a speck of dust, and life of no significance, meaning, or purpose.

Life itself has flung us headlong into this predicament, and it's perfectly ok to ask these kinds of questions and try honestly to face it and come to grips with it, or losing one's grip on everything they presumed to "know", instead of trying to sell us something that just doesn't sell any more, in light of our own continued evolution, and involution and our POST-modern worldview and understanding. There's nothing unscientific about any of this either, since it's a continual inquiry on the basis of everything now known, including the measurement of the fine-tuned Higgs Boson Mass and Cosmological Constant.

The prevalent and predominant, materialist monist dead thing theory, just doesn't stand up under any amount of real scrutiny and analysis, and honest intellectual inquiry where the only real knowledge is the knowledge of experience that cannot stand apart from that experience and point to itself and call itself nothing but a thing and everything a random, coincidental happenstance as a capricious random addition from nothing and for no reason. I liked his analogy there, where even the proposition that God is a clam in the center of the galaxy as say held as a variation on the theme of the Mormon faith, is more believable than what the competing viewpoint of the modern scientific era is trying to sell us, even in the face of this obvious process of which the present moment is it's purpose as something that intentionally bootstrapped itself all the way to this moment, including the human experience.

My God there's a rational basis for faith as a state of gnosis, who's inherent inkling and whim is the mirth and charm involved in placing us in this very predicament while forcing us to ask a question of it, but one that assumes nothing, and simply goes by the data at hand (looking around, feeling within).

Rene Descarte mulled this over, and he arrived the conclusion that when you're staring at the apple, both must be arising in consciousness or a thought form for there to be an objective reality within which the subjective observer resides, even if all he can rely upon is a dimly filtered perceptual reality via the five sense. That a mind is perceiving it, and that's it's there and real in it's own right without the possibility of subjective experience and objective reality being somehow divided, set apart, distinguished and removed from the equation (then where are we?), has utterly astounding implications, even if they cannot be determined with any degree of precision.

It's like he says, when you discard the unworkable paradigm in the face of the reality and allow yourself, with courage, to explore it as an intelligent phenomenon which was meant (that fully intended to), from the beginning of time, to unwind itself in this particular manner placing us in this very predicament that we are now in and face, and well, it might begin to appear that God (whoever or whatever that might be) has quite the sense of playful irony and humor that invites further exploration, not of evolution in "outer space", with the human being and Earth removed from the equation or thought of as well, as nothing at all of any meaning or value or significance or purpose or a dead thingness, but of the domain of involution where the only possible knowledge can arise. It is the humor of the knowledge of true understanding. But first you have to admit that you're screwed and can't get out of it, where perhaps even suicide would accomplish nothing at all to change it.

Once in it, always in it, at least right now.

The materialists want to avoid, not just God or accountability to some all-knowing supreme being, although that's probably part of it and who wants God operating like a peeping Tom anyway, but to avoid and evade at all cost, the question of why, and what does it mean and signify?

Some of them are even willing to entirely lose their own sense of humor on the alter of the old paradigm for fear of the new.

We can know more, by knowing that we don't know, and by knowing what we do and can know for sure.

The prevailing scientific paradigm that makes this cowardly presupposition in the face of the obvious, just to avoid the implications of further inquiry along these lines, is a purely subjective and unscientific presumption. It's chicken#, and it's very much a leftover strong bias against deism of the 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th centuries.

It's not just so 2 minutes ago, it's so hundreds of years, ago, this line of thinking and frame of reference.

We've moved on and are growing up, but into what we cannot say and whatever it is, it's certainly not reversing it's trend or slowing down any time soon, and so he's right to say that the time we are in "history" is getting closer to a great rise in novelty and complexification.

So the predicament only gets even worse, in light of the new context, but that said

"There is nothing the universe loves more, than courage."
~ Terrance McKenna

a reply to: LittleByLittle

Fascinating vid thanks for sharing, the the idea of platonic information being embedded right down to the Planck scale is very interesting, it becomes very much like as above so below so to speak.

I'm no fan of religions I should add, but there appears to be some truth in what the mystics envisioned after all.

It's a valid question beyond current science
The saddest part is many people won't engage in the conversation, won't follow the logic to any conclusion, won't accept that if the foundation is not valid, then all othe assumptions must be questionable

I guess if you believe, you believe because you want to or have to.

a reply to: LittleByLittle

nice post. Thanks for writing that.

My own view is also optimistic and i wish that sooner than later science will undermine their own issues of materialism and grow and evolve..well not science but people doing science as you said already.

And to think that modern science origins is alchemy which was at its core a spiritual path with hidden occult meanings, created by groups of people who practiced and achieved something like transformed led to gold aka. human consciousness to divine ...

is this irony..i think it is?
if we view how science is now, what it was and what potential it holds for the future

I think when the inquiry is made from the POV that Terrance McKenna is advocating as a more reasonable position to take, and we enter that frame of reference, we discover a great mystery at the heart it of all and end up with the impression that all existence, including our own within it, is a miracle of the most improbable nature.

That's a very good thing, and who cares if it makes the materialists uncomfortable or upset.

That very reframe alters the way we view the world, the cosmos, other people, ourselves, what we're up to, what's important, the whole thing.

The best way I think to approach it, is to replace materialist monism (matter alone is primary) with monistic idealism (consciousness is primary as the ground of being).

After that shift, when we look at ourselves looking at the apple, and understand that both the object and subject arise in consciousness, as Descarte deduced, then the distinction between subjective observer and the observed, instead of being separated, blurs.

Would we not treat the world better and take much greater care in our attention to detail when we better understand the deeper nature of our involvement in "what's going on".

And if the universe is a type of non-local, holographic phenomenon, with consciousness as the ground of being, then from that perspective, local matters.

The dead thingness, seperative viewpoint, isn't only absurd, but it's unhelpful.

I even suspect that it's driven by an impulse of a sort of nihilistic hatred that does not want us to discover our true place at the very heart of it all, and that prefers this view so as to prevent ourselves and others from seeing the truth that we are co-creators and partners and active participants in the whole thing as an expression of an original intent.

It's a fearful way that refuses to enter into mystery, and it will fight tooth and nail to avoid going into it.

a reply to: AnkhMorpork

It's nihilistic hatred to think that we are not the center of universal attention? How many planets or families do you think about off in some other Galaxy? Do you ever consider who may be starving or dying in Alpha Centauri? Or maybe pray for war refugees in the Andromeda Galaxy ? it's weird how you acknowledge this vast Cosmic landscape and yet you are only concerned for the role that we play in it. Science may be incomplete but at least true neutral science is honest.

a reply to: TzarChasm

You've misunderstood the whole premise, and if other civilizations have passed through the stage we're in, I doubt very much that they are at war or starving because of their willingness to recognize that it's all part of one interconnected whole.

The concern is really here, and much of the problems we face are due to this fear born of a sense of separation, or the strong desire to relegate us to a thing on a speck of dust in an impersonal, meaningless and purposeless existence, where I suppose it doesn't much matter what people do, as long as they get away with it.

There is a type of hatred in your responses that I discern, as a strong resistance to the emerging paradigm that might have the capacity to save us from ourselves and to also be a force of goodness and love in the universe.

The old paradigm just isn't helpful, in part because it's incongruent with the way things really are where consciousness, not dead matter, is the ground of all being and becoming.

And remember too that the purpose of science was to try to grapple with questions like why are we here and for what purposes did this come about.

Point being that it's not a mindless process, the human being isn't a "thing", and the world we inhabit, and the life that we experience is a lot more significant than that of a speck of dust.

You are sadly mistaken in your presumptions that this new paradigm and way of seeing is born of a narcissistic tendency to make the human experience an exclusive, sole object of attention.

You didn't get it, didn't watch the video in the OP, didn't even stop for a moment to consider that the paradigm you're operating by is false, even absurd in the face of the occurrence of the phenomenon of which you are a part, but even moreso, unhelpful to the arrow of progress and a deeper understanding that might even help save the world.

Yes, there's hatred in it, born of fear, and it comes through loud and clear.

What I find curious is where it comes from and from what impulse it arises.

a reply to: AnkhMorpork

Science doesn't address questions of why, it is more concerned with how. But if you think science has missed something then you are more than welcome to suggest an alternative method provided you can demonstrate its Superior efficacy. You must admit there is a certain irony in validating an alternative science method by using the current science method.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

Science doesn't address questions of why, it is more concerned with how. .

I don't know, I think this is a bit of a cop out answer. We hear this claimed all the time and I find it's just a convenient tool of ignorance to be used when why a certain phenomenon happens can't be adequately answered by science.

Are we really that absent minded to think the question of "why?" is never broached in scientific discourse?

So is the question: 'why is the sky blue?' a matter of philosophy now?
Or how about, 'why do birds fly south for the winter?'
Or even better, 'why does life evolve?'

There are a million more like these. All philosophical I'm sure

originally posted by: PhotonEffect

originally posted by: TzarChasm

Science doesn't address questions of why, it is more concerned with how. .

I don't know, I think this is a bit of a cop out answer. We hear this claimed all the time and I find it's just a convenient tool of ignorance to be used when why a certain phenomenon happens can't be adequately answered by science.

Are we really that absent minded to think the question of "why?" is never broached in scientific discourse?

So is the question: 'why is the sky blue?' a matter of philosophy now?
Or how about, 'why do birds fly south for the winter?'
Or even better, 'why does life evolve?'

There are a million more like these. All philosophical I'm sure

Or perhaps you're just disappointed that science doesn't go out of its way to orient the human ego firmly in the center of the cosmic equation.

How is a mechanical question and why is more indicative of a decision making process or in other words conscious intent.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Or perhaps you're just disappointed that science doesn't go out of its way to orient the human ego firmly in the center of the cosmic equation.

How is a mechanical question and why is more indicative of a decision making process or in other words conscious intent.

Well sure, if I harbored an anthropocentric view of the world perhaps you'd be correct.

Science is afterall a human endeavor.

Oh and there's that weird thing about humans existing seemingly at (almost) the median of the universal spectrum as it relates to size. If a human represents 1 (10^0) on the scale and we traverse the scale from plank length to astronomical scale then it looks something like this: (it's rough)

10-35 Planck length, size of string, quantum foam, smallest conceivable size
10-24 Size of neutrino
10-22 Sub-atomic particles of quarks and gluons
10-21 Sensitivity of greatest physics accelerators
10-18 Electrons
10-15 Proton
10-14 Lead nuclei
10-10 Atom
10-7 Virus
10-6 Red blood cell
10-5 Bacteria
10-4 Human cell
10-3 Raindrop
10-2 Queen Honeybee
10-1 Human Hand

10^0 (= 1, human )

10^1 Blue Whale
10^2 Washington Memorial
10^3 Yosemite Waterfall
10^4 Mt. Everest
10^6 Los Angeles to New York
10^7 Distance to center of earth
10^9 Radius of Sun
10^11 Distance to Sun
10^13 Solar System
10^16 Nearest Star
10^21 Radius of our Galaxy, the Milky Way
10^26 Visible Universe

And somehow we can see almost all the way up and all the way down the scale of the universe. If we were just one order of magnitude in either direction perhaps that wouldn't be the case. Pretty cool, huh

a reply to: PhotonEffect

Forgive my ignorance but what is your point exactly?

a reply to: TzarChasm
I think it has to do with numbers and arbitrary rounding thereof.

a reply to: AnkhMorpork

And he lost me with the phrase "Mayan calander" in the first sentence or so..... this whole talk is full of UPG (Unverifiable Personal Gnosis, or possibly USG (Unverifiable shared gnosis). Its a whole talk full of new age nonsense. I am not saying this as a scientist (I am) I am saying this as a Pagan. Its a hodge podge of a talk. He is talking about things outside of his expertese.

For examples he is talking to the moments (its not moments) after the big bang where its too hot for "bonds to form" yet he talks about "atoms condensing" after that. Big hint (I'm a chemist) one needs atoms to form bonds, therefore WHICH is it Terence?

He uses a complex word (Complexidication) to whine about science being "too complex". Way to go...

Now don't get me wrong. I'm a pagan. I believe in magic, many gods, things I can't see. But he's a typical new ager, so many compeating, ideas, which exclude each other.

So from a point of view of his and others spirituality. More power them. Not my bag however.

The bits on science? Yeah not so much. Again I am a scientist too. He's jumping around, with no coherence. All I see is that he has an axe to grind. Good for him But he needs to tighten his story and take fewer of natures fun chemicals

a reply to: swanne

Holy crap swanne......I had no idea you went this deep into it......time for some reading.

a reply to: swanne

So how do we measure the human soul again? Science needs to be able to observe or measure something in some way, to get involved. I believe in the soul, I have no idea as a scientist how we'd measure it. Mind you I'm probably the wrong sort of scientist (Chemist).

When you take a look at quantum physics, things start to get a bit shaky with this material word. It becomes obvious that human perception plays a large role and without it, you are left with a pool of probability. a reply to: Vector99

a reply to: AnkhMorpork

Considering many scientists and researchers are continually baffled at their studies/theories not arriving at anticipated results, I can only surmise that they are missing some universal truth.

What science has disregarded is any evidence of a cosmic design with mathematical properties that are too beautiful to be the product of coincidence. This is of course because for a scientist to point out such evidence contradicting the central scientific paradigm is to commit professional suicide.

Here is such evidence:
smphillips.8m.com...
There is a form of knowledge that transcends BOTH empirically-based science and faith-based religion. It is not filtered through the conceptual representations of the human mind, being based upon the distortion-free intuition of the highly evolved soul, not physical sense experiences and digital readouts. Being mathematical, it is free of the uncertainties of philosophical debate and ad hoc models. If any of you long for rigorous evidence connecting mystical and scientific ideas, showing that they are really but two sides of the same epistemological coin, study the research at the above link.

a reply to: micpsi

I now have enough reading and afterthought to keep me busy for an eternity. Thanks.

smphillips.8m.com...