If Our Models of the Universe...

angelica · September 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

That model does win. Our school system and largely our public policies are based on science.

Then why doesn't science win in public policy?

Ahnimus · September 2007

angelica wrote:

Then why doesn't science win in public policy?

I think it usually does. Except when it infringes on religion and the science is too complex to explain with colourful pictures.

angelica · September 2007

Direct perception exists in everyone at all times. We always directly perceive our environment (right-brain, sythesis and intuitive intelligences). "left-brain" knowing of science and math must be taught, as they are logic and detailed.

And yet, millions of western-world people, while ascribing to science beliefs still hold a predominant religious view, or otherwise.

angelica · September 2007

And the bottom line is that people disagree all the time. And they continue to infringe on one another due to differing models of the universe or of reality. At sometimes great cost.

Ahnimus · September 2007

angelica wrote:

Direct perception exists in everyone at all times. We always directly perceive our environment (right-brain, sythesis and intuitive intelligences). "left-brain" knowing of science and math must be taught, as they are logic and detailed.

And yet, millions of western-world people, while ascribing to science beliefs still hold a predominant religious view, or otherwise.

I disagree.

angelica · September 2007

According to the human developmental model that I've cited on the board before, 30% (50% of the power) of the population worldwide are at a scientific worldview. 40% of the world population (30% of the power) sees from the rigid worldview that includes fundamentalist religion/right-wrong-thinking, etc.

The other levels that split up the rest of the populations and the power are not at a science level, but rather have their own worldview characteristics, such as a human-bonding/communitarian level, or an animistic/tribal type of view, for example.

So, in many places and many times science does not "win".

It is immensely dynamic, from situation to situation, moment to moment. It would be easy if science won by default.

soulsinging · September 2007

angelica wrote:

That makes sense to me. Any ideas why people are so invested in ideas of winning or losing?

winning gives me one up on my neighbor. gives me an advantage on them in terms of survival.

angelica · September 2007

soulsinging wrote:

winning gives me one up on my neighbor. gives me an advantage on them in terms of survival.

That makes sense, to some degree at least.

At the same time, we have this:

"The more complex societies get and the more complex the networks of interdependence within and beyond community and national borders get, the more people are forced in their own interests to find non-zero-sum solutions. That is, win–win solutions instead of win–lose solutions.... Because we find as our interdependence increases that, on the whole, we do better when other people do better as well — so we have to find ways that we can all win, we have to accommodate each other" ~ Bill Clinton

It looks like while our need to win, on one level may be an advantage, and yet from another perspective, it can be a disadvantage in that we'll do even better when we learn to implement win/win solutions.

catefrances · September 2007

angelica wrote:

To you and others, science wins. To millions, a predominantly religious/spiritual view wins. Some might see all that exists from a predominantly psychological or subjective model . For others a philosophical model is how they view the universe and reality. Essentially, there are as many models as there are humans on the planet, as no two science views of reality are exactly alike down to each minute detail. Ditto with religious views. Within Christianity alone, like science, each individual picks and chooses what rings true to them, and what matches their experiences, thusly making sense to them. There are many views/models withing quantum physics alone, with people adamantly differing with one another.

Who is "right"? How can we decide?

right off the bat angelica, your post appears biased. when you speak of science it is as if in your phrasing the perception is that only a 'few' rely on science for their grounding. when it comes to spirituality you try to give it more credence by coupling it with the word millions. it wouldn't be any stretch of my imagination to think that for millions of people, science was the word on which they rely to 'prove' a whole lot of things.

for me religion and spirituality is as far from verifiable reality as one can get. i can't often explain with much conviction what it is i feel within myself when talking about spirituality. i find it to be a very personal and unique thing. it can't be 'proved' with verifiable facts as science most often can be.

soulsinging · September 2007

angelica wrote:

That makes sense, to some degree at least.

At the same time, we have this:

"The more complex societies get and the more complex the networks of interdependence within and beyond community and national borders get, the more people are forced in their own interests to find non-zero-sum solutions. That is, win–win solutions instead of win–lose solutions.... Because we find as our interdependence increases that, on the whole, we do better when other people do better as well — so we have to find ways that we can all win, we have to accommodate each other" ~ Bill Clinton

It looks like while our need to win, on one level may be an advantage, and yet from another perspective, it can be a disadvantage in that we'll do even better when we learn to implement win/win solutions.

i don't think there is such a thing. for someone to be winning, someone else has to be losing a little bit. you can't split a cookie by magically creating two. someone is going from a whole cookie to a half.

angelica · September 2007

catefrances wrote:

right off the bat angelica, your post appears biased. when you speak of science it is as if in your phrasing the perception is that only a 'few' rely on science for their grounding. when it comes to spirituality you try to give it more credence by coupling it with the word millions. it wouldn't be any stretch of my imagination to think that for millions of people, science was the word on which they rely to 'prove' a whole lot of things.

for me religion and spirituality is as far from verifiable reality as one can get. i can't often explain with much conviction what it is i feel within myself when talking about spirituality. i find it to be a very personal and unique thing. it can't be 'proved' with verifiable facts as science most often can be.

If there are 10 million people with a predominantly science-based view, and 5 million with a predominantly spiritual-based view, there is still major conflict going on.

Whether these models are "verifiable" or not, they are the models of the universe that people hold. Within any general view (science or religion for example), there are major disagreements between individuals.

The conflict remains. People trying to dominate with their view remains. People being infringed upon for having their view remains.

In the end, they are all models of the universe. A model depicts how we perceive something, and yet it is not that thing. How do we judge which is accurate? Can we judge who is accurate and who is not?

I think it's great that we believe in our own view. Is it okay to go further and do what it takes to impose that on others, even when it includes infringment, because we think we are "right"?

angelica · September 2007

soulsinging wrote:

i don't think there is such a thing. for someone to be winning, someone else has to be losing a little bit. you can't split a cookie by magically creating two. someone is going from a whole cookie to a half.

What do you think of negotiation--wherein if one concedes at all, it's with free choice, and because the one conceding feels it's in their best interest? They make a conscious decision to adapt.

soulsinging · September 2007

angelica wrote:

What do you think of negotiation--wherein if one concedes at all, it's with free choice, and because the one conceding feels it's in their best interest? They make a conscious decision to adapt.

yeah but you've got to convince them it's in their best interest to concede. isn't that kinda what the people pushing their model are trying to do?

angelica · September 2007

soulsinging wrote:

yeah but you've got to convince them it's in their best interest to concede. isn't that kinda what the people pushing their model are trying to do?

Do we need to infringe in order to "convince"?

Negotiation might include presenting new evidence that brings about concession.

Negotiation might include (and oftendoes) making an offer of gain to the other side that brings about happy and willing concession.

Imo, there is a big difference between a spirit of cooperation including respect for others in one's dealings, and with infringment. There is a big difference between one party looking for the mutual agreement and that the ultimate interests of both sides to be met as much as possible, than looking out solely for one's own benefits, and to win. Having a spirit of "I'm right, and I expect you to change who you are in order for my needs to be met" is not cooperative and guarantees splits, disagreements, and ongoing conflict.

angelica · September 2007

Also, negotiation with models of reality might look like:

"I like to receive respect for my view, so I'm willing to offer you respect for your own, if you are willing to reciprocate."

If a deal is struck, then no one is giving up their view at all.

soulsinging · September 2007

angelica wrote:

Do we need to infringe in order to "convince"?

Negotiation might include presenting new evidence that brings about concession.

Negotiation might include (and oftendoes) making an offer of gain to the other side that brings about happy and willing concession.

Imo, there is a big difference between a spirit of cooperation including respect for others in one's dealings, and with infringment. There is a big difference between one party looking for the mutual agreement and that the ultimate interests of both sides to be met as much as possible, than looking out solely for one's own benefits, and to win. Having a spirit of "I'm right, and I expect you to change who you are in order for my needs to be met" is not cooperative and guarantees splits, disagreements, and ongoing conflict.

sounds to me like you're arguing more about them not playing fair. i think the motivations are the same, some groups just take it to an extreme. as to me personally, maybe i'm a cynic, but i don't see much hope for universal cooperation... eventually someone will see a chance to get theirs at someone else's expense and take it. i'd rather be on that side i guess. which is pretty normal human psych. people are more worried about losing what they have than the cost it might have on future benefits not yet received. ie. most people would rather hold onto their one cookie even if surrendering it means they could probly end up with 2 later.

angelica · September 2007

soulsinging wrote:

sounds to me like you're arguing more about them not playing fair. i think the motivations are the same, some groups just take it to an extreme. as to me personally, maybe i'm a cynic, but i don't see much hope for universal cooperation... eventually someone will see a chance to get theirs at someone else's expense and take it. i'd rather be on that side i guess. which is pretty normal human psych. people are more worried about losing what they have than the cost it might have on future benefits not yet received. ie. most people would rather hold onto their one cookie even if surrendering it means they could probly end up with 2 later.

The majority of self-help and human potential books are written for those who seek achievement. And to a large degree have to do with business, since people usually seek their potential in terms of status and money. What has always fascinated me is that these principles are applied in business all the time. And as business becomes more and more global, the need to cooperate with all kinds of varying underlying backgrounds is more and more challenging. And in the pursuit of personal success, people are more than very willing to resolve their own poor communication, or petty ego problems. They are willing to do what it takes in shooting for the moon.

There is always fallout--we're humans and we're learning all the time, from our mistakes. And yet, the very basics of business rely on cooperation, and of willingly negotiating for the greater good of two or more parties. Within this framework, one can continue to "rise" in one's ability to achieve. Through this framework boundaries and differences are being navigated amd risen above with diplomacy all the time. Not only can it be done, but it's constantly happening all around us all the time by those who are acquiring/achieving personal success.

catefrances · September 2007

angelica wrote:

If there are 10 million people with a predominantly science-based view, and 5 million with a predominantly spiritual-based view, there is still major conflict going on.

Whether these models are "verifiable" or not, they are the models of the universe that people hold. Within any general view (science or religion for example), there are major disagreements between individuals.

The conflict remains. People trying to dominate with their view remains. People being infringed upon for having their view remains.

In the end, they are all models of the universe. A model depicts how we perceive something, and yet it is not that thing. How do we judge which is accurate? Can we judge who is accurate and who is not?

I think it's great that we believe in our own view. Is it okay to go further and do what it takes to impose that on others, even when it includes infringment, because we think we are "right"?

i never said there wasn't conflict.

gue_barium · September 2007

angelica wrote:

The majority of self-help and human potential books are written for those who seek achievement. And to a large degree have to do with business, since people usually seek their potential in terms of status and money. What has always fascinated me is that these principles are applied in business all the time. And as business becomes more and more global, the need to cooperate with all kinds of varying underlying backgrounds is more and more challenging. And in the pursuit of personal success, people are more than very willing to resolve their own poor communication, or petty ego problems. They are willing to do what it takes in shooting for the moon.

There is always fallout--we're humans and we're learning all the time, from our mistakes. And yet, the very basics of business rely on cooperation, and of willingly negotiating for the greater good of two or more parties. Within this framework, one can continue to "rise" in one's ability to achieve. Through this framework boundaries and differences are being navigated amd risen above with diplomacy all the time. Not only can it be done, but it's constantly happening all around us all the time by those who are acquiring/achieving personal success.

Something I just noticed about your take in this thread. There is the element of persecution to what you are stating. Where is the persecution coming from?

Open · September 2007

angelica wrote:

Do you "know" that science models are more accurate than, say, spiritual models? And if so, how so?

For example, someone using a metaphysical or spiritual model for their sense of knowing universal truth, might say that the ten commandments are an accurate set of rules stemming from their spiritual model. And they might accurately predict that from past observation having an affair or lying, as are warned against in the ten commandments, will cause suffering. By that same token, one using an ethical model for their view of the universe might see the same thing, minus the tool of "the commandments" to live by.

In science A + B = C in spirituality A + B = F (faith)

If Our Models of the Universe...

Comments

Welcome!

Quick Links

Categories