If Our Models of the Universe...

soulsinging · September 2007

Open wrote:

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

your example might work better like:

science, 1+1=2
faith, 1+1=whatever i believe it does

angelica · September 2007

gue_barium wrote:

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?

You are perceiving an element of persecution towards what from me? Could you be more specific, please?

angelica · September 2007

Open wrote:

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

Yeah, it's pretty clear that matters of our "right brain" functioning, such as holistic perception, image-perception, intuition and future awareness operate with a markedly different criteria than the cause/effect, linear and analytical functions typical of the left brain thought.

That is to say they are different. It is not to say one is superior over the other. Some people have a world-view or model based on a more holistic, image-making perception, while others use a model that is more analytical and logical.

To judge non-linear functions by linear standards shows that the flaw is in the method of judgment-- using a method that is incapable of comprehending that which is being assessed regarding imagery, faith, or other items of a holistic nature. 1+1=2 is a linear form of math, and this type cannot judge an image, for example. We all know the saying "a picture says a thousand words". And image (right-brain function) can convey information that words (linear) cannot entirely describe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateralization_of_brain_function

gue_barium · September 2007

Timothy Leary thought computers were the logical technological extension to human thought. He actually said someting to the effect that to understand computer language and it's intricacies was to be able to understand how the human brain works. Not literally, but for arguments sake, this is often how I read into the way Ahnimus and Angelica express their understanding of how humans think. They express their views differently, however, they are both expressions in fiction. They both aspire to have an understanding of the human condition.

For comparison, in literature, let's take a couple of books... The Catcher in the Rye (which I think is a way over-rated, but not a bad read, nonetheless), and, say... A River Runs Through It. Two books, two expressions in fiction. They both aspire to have an understanding of the human condition.

So, why do you suppose I say that A & A are expressing themselves in fiction? Yet all the while they claim that their science is sound?

P.S. I'm bored.

angelica · September 2007

At times I use science as the metaphors or for the "models" it provides, in order to communicate a point. These metephors/models are signposts to what goes on, and by no way captures the actuality of what goes on. The same goes for any spiritual definition of reality, or other worldview that is communicated using human thought and words--it's a vague representation of human perception, which to me is quite different than reality itself. It's helpful to keep in mind that to me all communication of these subjects is superficial, whether it is science based, or spiritually based. The map is not the territory. Further than that, the map is immensely different than the terrain of the territory.

gue_barium · September 2007

angelica wrote:

At times I use science as the metaphors or for the "models" it provides, in order to communicate a point. These metephors/models are signposts to what goes on, and by no way captures the actuality of what goes on. The same goes for any spiritual definition of reality, or other worldview that is communicated using human thought and words--it's a vague representation of human perception, which to me is quite different than reality itself. It's helpful to keep in mind that to me all communication of these subjects is superficial, whether it is science based, or spiritually based. The map is not the territory. Further than that, the map is immensely different than the terrain of the territory.

I can't argue with that.

angelica · September 2007

catefrances wrote:

i never said there wasn't conflict.

I understand that. I think we all know I am biased, and we know in what direction--that's about where I am and my own model. However this thread is not about me pushing my own model. For me, it's about taking a step back so that we can look at a wider perspective and consider what works and what doesn't, given we all have varying perspectives and sometimes vociferously disagree.

gue_barium · September 2007

angelica wrote:

I understand that. I think we all know I am biased, and we know in what direction--that's about where I am and my own model. However this thread is not about me pushing my own model. For me, it's about taking a step back so that we can look at a wider perspective and consider what works and what doesn't, given we all have varying perspectives and sometimes vociferously disagree.

In other words, you're just having a little fun. AMT-style.

angelica · September 2007

gue_barium wrote:

In other words, you're just having a little fun. AMT-style.

Yeah.....er...uh...........fun........yeah, that's what it is.......;)

It's definitely "AMT-style", though, because to some, and certainly to parts of my own self, this is not fun!

gue_barium · September 2007

angelica wrote:

Yeah.....er...uh...........fun........yeah, that's what it is.......;)

It's definitely "AMT-style", though, because to some, and certainly to parts of my own self, this is not fun!

We all want to feel like we're part of the world in a beneficial way. It's hard, very hard these days to feel that this is possible.
Finsbury may have some educated historical perspective on that. I don't.

I do understand what you mean, though.

deadnothingbetter · September 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

I think the answer is pretty obvious. At every single argument between spiritual truths and scientific truths, science wins.

What is your sample size?

Spiritual: Me.

Science: Well, we cross studied 49 studies each with an average sample of 10,000 people, that would make our sample roughly 500,000 people.

There is just no contest, really. Spiritually held beliefs, like that of the ten commandments, may occasionally be true, they were probably determined by deep thought, but irrationally held truths might be more dangerous than well reasoned errors, it sets the precedent that irrationality is effective and well reasoned errors can be reasoned out.

i don't know... but i don't think either of these two wins... or at least... i might be splitting hairs here but i don't think, speaking in my own point of view, that science and spirituality contradicts each other. but ok... if you want to look at these two as separate then i'll argue that neither wins.

for example, you and me.... when did you win at any arguments pertaining to science and spirituality? when did i win? it's all in guesses.... i guess.

angelica · September 2007

deadnothingbetter wrote:

i don't know... but i don't think either of these two wins... or at least... i might be splitting hairs here but i don't think, speaking in my own point of view, that science and spirituality contradicts each other. but ok... if you want to look at these two as separate then i'll argue that neither wins.

for example, you and me.... when did you win at any arguments pertaining to science and spirituality? when did i win? it's all in guesses.... i guess.

I agree. Science and spirituality are different. They are entirely complementary to me.

I also agree, neither one wins.

Again, when someone takes something non-mathematical or non-science-oriented, and expects it to live up to math equations or to science, the problem is in that expectation, itself.

If I expect an apple to live up to the definitions of an orange, it's not the apple that fails--it is the model of expectation that does.

angelica · September 2007

Furthermore, to develop all of our main brain functions and to use them interactively is considered to be healthy, developed and interactive intelligence.

To frown on right-brain types of information processing, such as the instant understanding and perception we experience all the time, with a bias towards left-brain understanding of analysis creates the perceptive imbalance we in North America (as well as many other places on the planet) suffer from. We continue to perpetuate the imbalances our parents and their parents before them taught, even when we have the studies and awareness to show us how faulty and costly such practices are. People continue to perpetuate their limits and lacks all the time, arguing for and defending them.

We can each dramatically develop the types of intelligence that are recognized as highly developed forms of perception and awareness and yet are shunned in our western ways. We do so when we face, acknowledge and weed through our self-fulfilling prophecies of personal bias and limitation. We CAN use the typical "left" and "right" types of awareness together, where they are both valued and utilized, to a greater synergistic effect of the whole-brain, rather than continuing the imbalance of using one or the other at the expense of our potential inner information-processing capacity.

If Our Models of the Universe...

Comments

Categories