Yes, therefore I'm talking about something beyond tables.
Essentially you are saying organic or non-organic. I don't think physiosphere is widely recognized as being a real word.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
The problem with the term physiosphere, is that it implies a sphere that acts as a habitat for physical things. Problem being, the whole universe is a habitat for physical things, and we have no idea what shape it is.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Anyway, so you were talking about the universe and the biosphere...
Continue
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
The problem with the term physiosphere, is that it implies a sphere that acts as a habitat for physical things. Problem being, the whole universe is a habitat for physical things, and we have no idea what shape it is.
For me physiosphere means that there is a physical universe and all that is physical within it. Then a departure happens whereupon life forms and replicates itself. This sphere is beyond the physiosphere but it also includes it. So the biosphere is both biological and physical. It transcends the physical in that it has a dimension that goes a step farther than phsyical alone, being "life". Past the physiosphere and biosphere, there comes the noosphere whereupon life became aware of itself and entered the realm of mind/though. The noosphere includes both life and physical reality while also going beyond them--transcending them. For example, humans are physical, and they are part of "life", and beyond that they also developed cognition. Without the physiosphere, the biosphere or noosphere cannot exist. Without the biosphere the noosphere cannot exist. It is a natural hierarchy, where each one goes beyond the other but includes the other/s.
You could use geosphere, but that does not cover all physical matter that precludes life, which is the meaning I had with physiosphere--geosphere refers to the earth only, I believe.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
For me physiosphere means that there is a physical universe and all that is physical within it. Then a departure happens whereupon life forms and replicates itself. This sphere is beyond the physiosphere but it also includes it. So the biosphere is both biological and physical. It transcends the physical in that it has a dimension that goes a step farther than phsyical alone, being "life". Past the physiosphere and biosphere, there comes the noosphere whereupon life became aware of itself and entered the realm of mind/though. The noosphere includes both life and physical reality while also going beyond them--transcending them. For example, humans are physical, and they are part of "life", and beyond that they also developed cognition. Without the physiosphere, the biosphere or noosphere cannot exist. Without the biosphere the noosphere cannot exist. It is a natural hierarchy, where each one goes beyond the other but includes the other/s.
You could use geosphere, but that does not cover all physical matter that precludes life, which is the meaning I had with physiosphere--geosphere refers to the earth only, I believe.
So basically, the biosphere cannot exist outside the universe and life could not exist outside the biosphere and consciousness could not exist outside of life?
I don't see how any of that stuff is supervening or transcending the other. They exist within each other and are dependent on each other.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
So basically, the biosphere cannot exist outside the universe and life could not exist outside the biosphere and consciousness could not exist outside of life?
I don't see how any of that stuff is supervening or transcending the other. They exist within each other and are dependent on each other.
Do you see that if we have physical matter without life, it is lacking life? Therefore, when life arrives, that is beyond just being phsyical. It is physical with something extra.
edit: if the word "transcend" is too weird, we can use "beyond" for the same purpose.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I've been reading up on meditation for a few weeks now. I've wanted to start practicing it for some time now but wanted to have a firm grasp on the subject and what was needed of me before I actually got started.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Do you see that if we have physical matter without life, it is lacking life? Therefore, when life arrives, that is beyond just being phsyical. It is physical with something extra.
edit: if the word "transcend" is too weird, we can use "beyond" for the same purpose.
That's correct, without physical matter there is no life.
Without molecules creating friction, there is no heat.
Without matter, there is no gravity
Without the earth, there is no biosphere.
The problem is with words like "transcend" and "beyond" is implying that life can transcend or go beyond matter. It can't. We can't even leave the biosphere, we die, then our consciousness dies with the rest of us.
If matter can not exist beyond the universe, the biosphere can not exist beyond matter, life can not exist beyond the biosphere, consciousness can not exist beyond life. Consciousness is contained within the organism.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I've been reading up on meditation for a few weeks now. I've wanted to start practicing it for some time now but wanted to have a firm grasp on the subject and what was needed of me before I actually got started.
You need a few thousand bucks!
Or just sit down, close your eyes and don't think.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Well, normal in terms of brain-consciousness study.
That lecture at the University of Washington was like no other lecture I've ever seen. There was maybe 5 mins of actual scientific representation. The rest (1:25:00) sounded like mysticism or new-age psychobabble. Just listen to David Lynch talk for a few minutes and you will want to turn it off.
It's important for forum communication that we use concise descriptive words.
if you'e the communication god maybe. but brain-consciousness study is not the only way to talk about the experience or effects of transcendental meditation.
That's correct, without physical matter there is no life.
Without molecules creating friction, there is no heat.
Without matter, there is no gravity
Without the earth, there is no biosphere.
The problem is with words like "transcend" and "beyond" is implying that life can transcend or go beyond matter. It can't. We can't even leave the biosphere, we die, then our consciousness dies with the rest of us.
If matter can not exist beyond the universe, the biosphere can not exist beyond matter, life can not exist beyond the biosphere, consciousness can not exist beyond life. Consciousness is contained within the organism.
Okay, this whole transcend and include thing is a theory of everything. For example, people say atoms are the building blocks of the universe. But is consciousness made up of atoms? Is thought made of atoms? These are things we know are real by our experience. Due to this type of non-everything theory, the concept of holons was invented. This is the idea that the universe is made up of wholes that are individual in themselves while they are also parts of other wholes.
Like: atoms are wholes unto themselves. They are also part of wholes called molecules. Molecules are wholes in of themselves. They are also part of organisms. And so on. These are natural hierarchies in our universe. There is depth to these levels. For example, a human has more depth than a rock, because a human, as life, has advanced beyond mere physical reality.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
But is consciousness made up of atoms? Is thought made of atoms?
Atoms? Maybe
Here is the problem. How we perceive consciousness. Typically we perceive it as being separate from our brains. This leads us to think it exists via some other matter, or outside of physical reality.
However, we can perceive consciousness as a feature of the brain. Which eliminates any confusion about it's nature. In that case, consciousness is made out of atoms or electrons.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
For example, people say atoms are the building blocks of the universe.
Actually, atoms are the building blocks of physical matter, protons, neutrons and electrons are the building blocks of atoms. Quarks and Hadrons are the building blocks of protons, neutrons and electrons. All stuck together with gluons. If I remember correctly.
At CERN, they take two protons, which are one piece of a nucleus inside an atom, and they smash them together at 99.999~% the speed of light. What they get is a whole mess of other particles, named Quarks which stick together via some Gluons in a black hole like phenomena. Or something to that effect. http://public.web.cern.ch/Public/Welcome.html
Edit: My bad, I meant fermilab. CERN isn't operational yet. http://www.fnal.gov/
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Here is the problem. How we perceive consciousness. Typically we perceive it as being separate from our brains. This leads us to think it exists via some other matter, or outside of physical reality.
However, we can perceive consciousness as a feature of the brain. Which eliminates any confusion about it's nature. In that case, consciousness is made out of atoms or electrons.
Is philosophy made of atoms? See atoms are not universal to everything.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Is philosophy made of atoms? See atoms are not universal to everything.
Not to subjectivity no.
However, things that we perceive as subjective aren't always subjective. The solidity of a table is ontologically subjective. But is still very objective to our observation. Just as heat is ontologically subjective to atoms, it should be that heat is comprised of even smaller particles, perhaps quarks, in some amazing configuration.
When our brains operate, we generate an Electromagnetic Field of energy supervening our brain and contained within our cranium. This is comprised of electrons. Whether thought is a product of electrical and chemical synapses or the EM field is irrelevant to the question. Philosophy is a train of thought and therefor ontologically subjective, metaphysically.
When we learn enough about anything, it becomes objective and it becomes science. Prior to that it's just philosophy. We are at the dawn of an era understanding consciousness scientifically.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
However, things that we perceive as subjective aren't always subjective. The solidity of a table is ontologically subjective. But is still very objective to our observation. Just as heat is ontologically subjective to atoms, it should be that heat is comprised of even smaller particles, perhaps quarks, in some amazing configuration.
When our brains operate, we generate an Electromagnetic Field of energy supervening our brain and contained within our cranium. This is comprised of electrons. Whether thought is a product of electrical and chemical synapses or the EM field is irrelevant to the question. Philosophy is a train of thought and therefor ontologically subjective, metaphysically.
When we learn enough about anything, it becomes objective and it becomes science. Prior to that it's just philosophy. We are at the dawn of an era understanding consciousness scientifically.
As I was saying earlier, new paradigms are needed to have theories of everything. Science is a mode of study, of questioning. The idea of holons give a theoretical structure to concepts of any sort. Everything.
But, my original point from way back, regarding life, was that life itself is universal to all life. Therefore life is universal to yourself, to myself, and to a horse. It is that universal nature that is the stream of life I referred. You called the stream of life a hallucination. The stream of life is not a hallucination to all organic matter. It's very real.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
As I was saying earlier, new paradigms are needed to have theories of everything. Science is a mode of study, of questioning. The idea of holons give a theoretical structure to concepts of any sort. Everything.
To me, a theory of everything would have to be some kind of automaton or string theory. It would have to be represented mathematically, and I think it can be done.
But, my original point from way back, regarding life, was that life itself is universal to all life. Therefore life is universal to yourself, to myself, and to a horse. It is that universal nature that is the stream of life I referred. You called the stream of life a hallucination. The stream of life is not a hallucination to all organic matter. It's very real.
Sounds a lot like Chi(Ki), which is positively charged ion particles if I remember correctly. Or the theory of Psychic Matter which refers to positively charged Kaon (K+) and Pion (Na+) particles. Essentially potassium and sodium. Which have a half-life of 1.4 ms.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
To me, a theory of everything would have to be some kind of automaton or string theory. It would have to be represented mathematically, and I think it can be done.
The problem when you are talking about the physical sciences is that you are leaving many aspects of life out, which is why so-called authentic theories of everything must take into consideration objective studies, subjective ones, and inter-subjective ones (sociocultural). Physical sciences only map observable surfaces. There is more to life than observable surfaces, for example the depths that are the interior to the exteriors. For example, the differences in the conscious awareness of a one year old and a 25 year old cannot be covered by string theory--on the subjective level.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
The problem when you are talking about the physical sciences is that you are leaving many aspects of life out, which is why so-called authentic theories of everything must take into consideration objective studies, subjective ones, and inter-subjective ones (sociocultural). Physical sciences only map observable surfaces. There is more to life than observable surfaces, for example the depths that are the interior to the exteriors. For example, the differences in the conscious awareness of a one year old and a 25 year old cannot be covered by string theory--on the subjective level.
I think it can. It's a lot more complicated though. If you think about it, if you know a person's character, you can probabilistically predict their behavior. Knowing my friend Mandy, she would likely flee in a frightening situation. She has when unknown cars pull in the driveway, or if someone starts behaving violently. Her character, which has been shaped by her experiences, provides a probabilistic model for her decisions. All the sciences that study behavior and cognition, subjectively objectify consciousness and they do it quite well. I have no doubt that consciousness will be thoroughly explained by science. Believing we can not do so, is limiting our understanding. It has been hindered for at least 50 years by the philosophical conclusion that consciousness cannot be explained scientifically.
Edit: removed "epiphenomenal" improper use of word
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I think it can. It's a lot more complicated though. If you think about it, if you know a person's character, you can probabilistically predict their behavior. Knowing my friend Mandy, she would likely flee in a frightening situation. She has when unknown cars pull in the driveway, or if someone starts behaving violently. Her character, which has been shaped by her experiences, provides a probabilistic model for her decisions. All the sciences that study behavior and cognition, subjectively objectify consciousness and they do it quite well. I have no doubt that consciousness will be thoroughly explained by science. Believing we can not do so, is limiting our understanding. It has been hindered for at least 50 years by the philosophical conclusion that consciousness cannot be explained scientifically.
Edit: removed "epiphenomenal" improper use of word
Behaviour study is objective.
Depths and philosophies and interpretations and the theosphere, etc--there is much that is beyond the physical, so I disagree that physical science can touch the depths of reality. The surfaces, yes. That's why we use subjective study for subjective matters. Science sprang from philsophy. It is an offshoot of it. It does not encompass it. Science cannot contain the abstract. It must deal in terms of the empirical.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Depths and philosophies and interpretations and the theosphere, etc--there is much that is beyond the physical, so I disagree that physical science can touch the depths of reality. The surfaces, yes. That's why we use subjective study for subjective matters. Science sprang from philsophy. It is an offshoot of it. It does not encompass it. Science cannot contain the abstract. It must deal in terms of the empirical.
Science is the conclusion of philosophy. Philosophy theorizes about stuff until we can actually test it, then it becomes a science.
We can test it and are testing it. It is a matter of fact, that without the brain, consciousness does not exist.
If by some means, this stream of life like Chi can be measured. We can find out how it interacts with the body and how theta waves interact with the stream of life or Chi. Chi actually has a scientific theory. They use biomagnetic therapy to capture what they claim to be Chi. Which sounds like what you are explaining with stream of life. In fact, Bruce Lee might have said something like that, he did talk about being water a lot.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Science is the conclusion of philosophy. Philosophy theorizes about stuff until we can actually test it, then it becomes a science.
Science and philosophy are two different things. The both rely heavily on logic. However philosophy deals with the things science cannot. Science cannot deal with a belief that is beyond science--such as the "why's" of existence. It can deal with mechanics, but once we talk about why, that's philsophy, theory and beyond science. Science can deal with surface exterior brain chemicals in terms of assessing love. Science literally cannot assess the philosophical understandings of love. There is a distinct line here.
We can test it and are testing it. It is a matter of fact, that without the brain, consciousness does not exist.
Can you give me an example how we can test and further understand noumenon in science? How can we test God? Science cannot even legitimately acknowedge and test what "is not observed" in the sense of noumenon and God. Philosophers see noumenon, even when scientists don't. That's why they have the aptitude of being philosophers. If science doesn't see and acknowledge something, there's a pretty likely chance they won't consider it. They need the philosopher/shamans to help them see/conceptualize "chi" before they even consider it. This mystic awareness comes from "on high" and meets science at some point, but is not science. Granted, there are many scientists, especially coming to prominance, who display holisitic thinking and can weave these issues together creating actual theories of everything. However this is by weaving philosophy and science together, while still acknowledging their unique traits, including what is philosophically acknowledged that cannot be scientifically acknowledged. That is different than science coming up with a theory of everything. It's telling to me that those who are coming into prominance in common awareness are those with integrated approaches. Integration is our evolutionary goal at this point.
If by some means, this stream of life like Chi can be measured. We can find out how it interacts with the body and how theta waves interact with the stream of life or Chi. Chi actually has a scientific theory. They use biomagnetic therapy to capture what they claim to be Chi. Which sounds like what you are explaining with stream of life. In fact, Bruce Lee might have said something like that, he did talk about being water a lot.
Again, this is about holistic approaches. An ironic basis of holism is being able to discern fine lines. Philosophy and science are not fused together and undifferentiated. It is the opposite. The lines separating them and their practises need to be discerned in order for us to learn to see in highly complex ways and to develop ideas and vision beyond that. To see the multi-dimensions enfolded into the commonly perceived ones. We can see we are opening to being realistic and holistic when we find ourselves understanding paradoxes more and more, and when we realize reality is paradoxical rather than just logical.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Comments
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Essentially you are saying organic or non-organic. I don't think physiosphere is widely recognized as being a real word.
Essentially, yes, I'm referring to organisms or the level of life that is about living beings.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Yea, I got the biosphere, it's physiosphere, I don't get.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=physiosphere
http://m-w.com/dictionary/physiosphere
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/physiosphere
The problem with the term physiosphere, is that it implies a sphere that acts as a habitat for physical things. Problem being, the whole universe is a habitat for physical things, and we have no idea what shape it is.
Continue
You could use geosphere, but that does not cover all physical matter that precludes life, which is the meaning I had with physiosphere--geosphere refers to the earth only, I believe.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
So basically, the biosphere cannot exist outside the universe and life could not exist outside the biosphere and consciousness could not exist outside of life?
I don't see how any of that stuff is supervening or transcending the other. They exist within each other and are dependent on each other.
Do you see that if we have physical matter without life, it is lacking life? Therefore, when life arrives, that is beyond just being phsyical. It is physical with something extra.
edit: if the word "transcend" is too weird, we can use "beyond" for the same purpose.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
That's correct, without physical matter there is no life.
Without molecules creating friction, there is no heat.
Without matter, there is no gravity
Without the earth, there is no biosphere.
The problem is with words like "transcend" and "beyond" is implying that life can transcend or go beyond matter. It can't. We can't even leave the biosphere, we die, then our consciousness dies with the rest of us.
If matter can not exist beyond the universe, the biosphere can not exist beyond matter, life can not exist beyond the biosphere, consciousness can not exist beyond life. Consciousness is contained within the organism.
You need a few thousand bucks!
Or just sit down, close your eyes and don't think.
if you'e the communication god maybe. but brain-consciousness study is not the only way to talk about the experience or effects of transcendental meditation.
Okay, this whole transcend and include thing is a theory of everything. For example, people say atoms are the building blocks of the universe. But is consciousness made up of atoms? Is thought made of atoms? These are things we know are real by our experience. Due to this type of non-everything theory, the concept of holons was invented. This is the idea that the universe is made up of wholes that are individual in themselves while they are also parts of other wholes.
Like: atoms are wholes unto themselves. They are also part of wholes called molecules. Molecules are wholes in of themselves. They are also part of organisms. And so on. These are natural hierarchies in our universe. There is depth to these levels. For example, a human has more depth than a rock, because a human, as life, has advanced beyond mere physical reality.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Atoms? Maybe
Here is the problem. How we perceive consciousness. Typically we perceive it as being separate from our brains. This leads us to think it exists via some other matter, or outside of physical reality.
However, we can perceive consciousness as a feature of the brain. Which eliminates any confusion about it's nature. In that case, consciousness is made out of atoms or electrons.
Actually, atoms are the building blocks of physical matter, protons, neutrons and electrons are the building blocks of atoms. Quarks and Hadrons are the building blocks of protons, neutrons and electrons. All stuck together with gluons. If I remember correctly.
At CERN, they take two protons, which are one piece of a nucleus inside an atom, and they smash them together at 99.999~% the speed of light. What they get is a whole mess of other particles, named Quarks which stick together via some Gluons in a black hole like phenomena. Or something to that effect.
http://public.web.cern.ch/Public/Welcome.html
Edit: My bad, I meant fermilab. CERN isn't operational yet.
http://www.fnal.gov/
Is philosophy made of atoms? See atoms are not universal to everything.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Not to subjectivity no.
However, things that we perceive as subjective aren't always subjective. The solidity of a table is ontologically subjective. But is still very objective to our observation. Just as heat is ontologically subjective to atoms, it should be that heat is comprised of even smaller particles, perhaps quarks, in some amazing configuration.
When our brains operate, we generate an Electromagnetic Field of energy supervening our brain and contained within our cranium. This is comprised of electrons. Whether thought is a product of electrical and chemical synapses or the EM field is irrelevant to the question. Philosophy is a train of thought and therefor ontologically subjective, metaphysically.
When we learn enough about anything, it becomes objective and it becomes science. Prior to that it's just philosophy. We are at the dawn of an era understanding consciousness scientifically.
As I was saying earlier, new paradigms are needed to have theories of everything. Science is a mode of study, of questioning. The idea of holons give a theoretical structure to concepts of any sort. Everything.
But, my original point from way back, regarding life, was that life itself is universal to all life. Therefore life is universal to yourself, to myself, and to a horse. It is that universal nature that is the stream of life I referred. You called the stream of life a hallucination. The stream of life is not a hallucination to all organic matter. It's very real.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
To me, a theory of everything would have to be some kind of automaton or string theory. It would have to be represented mathematically, and I think it can be done.
Sounds a lot like Chi(Ki), which is positively charged ion particles if I remember correctly. Or the theory of Psychic Matter which refers to positively charged Kaon (K+) and Pion (Na+) particles. Essentially potassium and sodium. Which have a half-life of 1.4 ms.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I think it can. It's a lot more complicated though. If you think about it, if you know a person's character, you can probabilistically predict their behavior. Knowing my friend Mandy, she would likely flee in a frightening situation. She has when unknown cars pull in the driveway, or if someone starts behaving violently. Her character, which has been shaped by her experiences, provides a probabilistic model for her decisions. All the sciences that study behavior and cognition, subjectively objectify consciousness and they do it quite well. I have no doubt that consciousness will be thoroughly explained by science. Believing we can not do so, is limiting our understanding. It has been hindered for at least 50 years by the philosophical conclusion that consciousness cannot be explained scientifically.
Edit: removed "epiphenomenal" improper use of word
Depths and philosophies and interpretations and the theosphere, etc--there is much that is beyond the physical, so I disagree that physical science can touch the depths of reality. The surfaces, yes. That's why we use subjective study for subjective matters. Science sprang from philsophy. It is an offshoot of it. It does not encompass it. Science cannot contain the abstract. It must deal in terms of the empirical.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Science is the conclusion of philosophy. Philosophy theorizes about stuff until we can actually test it, then it becomes a science.
We can test it and are testing it. It is a matter of fact, that without the brain, consciousness does not exist.
If by some means, this stream of life like Chi can be measured. We can find out how it interacts with the body and how theta waves interact with the stream of life or Chi. Chi actually has a scientific theory. They use biomagnetic therapy to capture what they claim to be Chi. Which sounds like what you are explaining with stream of life. In fact, Bruce Lee might have said something like that, he did talk about being water a lot.
Can you give me an example how we can test and further understand noumenon in science? How can we test God? Science cannot even legitimately acknowedge and test what "is not observed" in the sense of noumenon and God. Philosophers see noumenon, even when scientists don't. That's why they have the aptitude of being philosophers. If science doesn't see and acknowledge something, there's a pretty likely chance they won't consider it. They need the philosopher/shamans to help them see/conceptualize "chi" before they even consider it. This mystic awareness comes from "on high" and meets science at some point, but is not science. Granted, there are many scientists, especially coming to prominance, who display holisitic thinking and can weave these issues together creating actual theories of everything. However this is by weaving philosophy and science together, while still acknowledging their unique traits, including what is philosophically acknowledged that cannot be scientifically acknowledged. That is different than science coming up with a theory of everything. It's telling to me that those who are coming into prominance in common awareness are those with integrated approaches. Integration is our evolutionary goal at this point.
Again, this is about holistic approaches. An ironic basis of holism is being able to discern fine lines. Philosophy and science are not fused together and undifferentiated. It is the opposite. The lines separating them and their practises need to be discerned in order for us to learn to see in highly complex ways and to develop ideas and vision beyond that. To see the multi-dimensions enfolded into the commonly perceived ones. We can see we are opening to being realistic and holistic when we find ourselves understanding paradoxes more and more, and when we realize reality is paradoxical rather than just logical.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!