Transcendental Meditation

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

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

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

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.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

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.

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.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

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.