Religion was used to explain natural phenomenon BEFORE science, now science explains such things. However I believe that such things work in revolutions: religion will once again come to explain phenomenons that science currently explains. An example of this is artificial intelligence; 'God.'
Science-based spirtuality
- Thread starter Magical Realist
- Start date
I define consciousness and intelligence as that set of things, common to humans, which current machines and computers cannot do. This is inferred from the observation nobody has claimed to have a genuine AI machine. Yet humans are considered conscious and intelligent. The difference between these two sets, is what defines consciousness and intelligence.
Computers can memorize, record and repeat. This is not considered artificial intelligence. In terms of humans, this is not considered intelligence or consciousness or else that would mean all computers are intelligent by this standard. Humans will subjectively call memorizing intelligence to flatter the ego, and then use a different standard for machines.
We can make Disney Animatrons, which are human looking machines programmed to offer information and feedback. This is not considered AI, therefore this behavior is not human consciousness or intelligence. Nobody wants to hear this. Most of education does not teach intelligence or consciousness, but rather how to mimmic computers and machines, which are not intelligent.
Consciousness and intelligence are those things which machines can't do, since machines are not considered conscious or AI. Machines can't think outside the box of programming or invent something new. Machines can't feel nor can they make subjective judgements unique to the machine. Now we enter the realm of consciousness and human intelligence, i.e., beyond computers. These are the areas of religion. Religion deals in areas of the mind where computers fall short of AI or consciousness.
The way science can up its game is to focus on what machines can't do. Prayer, meditation, yoga, etc, can trigger parts of the brain that allows the brain to do things computer cannot. Science can learn unless it has become a machine.
Well wisher,
Computers are still evolving and at a massive rate. While what you state about machines is currently true we have no reason to believe it will remain that way. Consciousness appears to be an emergent property of neural complexity, and hence a practical issue of engineering for us to reproduce, and likely fairly soon.
Religions are merely artificial constructs that permit gullible people to apply fantasy explanations to phenomena that man has yet to explain in a controlled rational manner. The mistake is to assume that because explanations do not exist that they never will.
When faced with something we do not understand it is rational to simply state we do not know. The irrational among us refuse to wait for meaningful explanations and create nonsense as a result, I.e. religions.
Computers are still evolving and at a massive rate. While what you state about machines is currently true we have no reason to believe it will remain that way. Consciousness appears to be an emergent property of neural complexity, and hence a practical issue of engineering for us to reproduce, and likely fairly soon.
Religions are merely artificial constructs that permit gullible people to apply fantasy explanations to phenomena that man has yet to explain in a controlled rational manner. The mistake is to assume that because explanations do not exist that they never will.
When faced with something we do not understand it is rational to simply state we do not know. The irrational among us refuse to wait for meaningful explanations and create nonsense as a result, I.e. religions.
My understanding from various books and sources;
''Spirit'' is the substance just as ''matter'' is a substance.
The personality of a person reflects the conscious awareness of that person.
''Being spiritual'' is as you say tapping into the rawer, coarser self (although I wouldn't quite put it like that), but is more than ''just a feeling''. It is a realisation that one is ''spirit''.
jan.
Actually religion was used to explain the source of the natural phenomenon, and they used science to explain the inner workings of it.
jan.
Revisionist history.
Religion works, where science is yet to explain the things. Who knows! one day science may discover GOD also.
Galileo? His observations did not coincide with the orthodoxy of the time, not just in the source of the phenomenon, but in the details.
From what I understand, Galileo purposely didn't relate to the source of the phenomenon for fear of being branded a heretic. Is that correct?
jan.
jan.
I'm not sure what you're talking about here. Galileo certainly gave credit to God for controlling the motions of the planets.
He fell foul of the Inquisition because he had previously been told not to espouse the Copernican view, yet published a book that clearly favoured that view despite incorporating a thinly-veiled attempt to say that he didn't really hold it.
Nature-Guy
Registered Member
What an excellent opening post. I thought it might be helpful to reprint it again here as the thread grows.
My answer would be yes.
Both science and spirituality attempt to understand our relationship with reality, and address the needs of the human mind.
Addressing the needs of the human mind is a paramount concern. If the human race doesn't find a way to become saner, then science is doing us no favors by providing us with ever more power. There's been much discussion recently about the dangers of mentally ill people having access to guns. That's essentially the situation the human race is currently in. We are pretty well nuts as a species, and thanks to science, the guns keep getting bigger.
The arena of spirituality has been attempting to understand and meet the needs of the human mind for thousands of years before the development of modern science. Many of the people involved in that enterprise were highly intelligent, and might have been leading scientists were that option available in their time. We would be foolish to entirely discard this body of work.
Science offers us a new opportunity to test and improve upon some of these ancient understandings. Science offers us the opportunity to rapidly scale up and widely distribute any useful methods or procedures which these ancient insights might point to.
On a more personal level...
Each of us perceives reality as being divided between "me" and "everything else". This perspective tends to make us feel alone and isolated, very small and vulnerable in comparison to something very big and beyond our control. This introduces fear, which leads to anger, hate, escapism, and all the other manifestations of fear that can be described by the word insanity.
Some ancient spiritual type understandings correctly perceived that the foundation the insanity is built upon is this sense of a divide between "me" and "everything else". They propose this is an illusion created by the inherently divisive nature of thought.
There's no reason why this insight can't be studied in earnest by science.
Science is primarily left brained, while religion is primarily right brained. The left brain is differential, is based on cause and effect, and processes cultural language. The right brain is more spatial/integral, uses a symbolic or 3-D language, and is intuitive (faith).
The right brain of religion sees commonalities, such as one religion spread over 100 cultures. The concept of God tries to integrate all of reality, but needs to be felt with faith/intuition. Science is more differential and looks at the details of reality. The left brain does not integrate as well, but tends to further differentiate into specialization theory. Both use half the brain, consciously.
Interestingly, the philosophy of science breaks down when we explore the unconscious mind, which is connected to the unconscious or right side of the science brain. For example, dream details cannot be proven nor are the same details, repeatable, by other scientists. Dreams exist, since we all have them, but cannot be defined by the science philosophy in a way that is consistent with the philosophy. The philosophy of science was designed to differentiate the left brain. The same is also true of the right hemisphere and religious things of faith. One cannot differentiate these into specific data and proof subject to repeatable science. It remains as faith in an intuition.
There are two paradoxes, one for each side of the brain. The left brain paradox is how do you differentiate something that is integrated without altering the integration? The second is how do you integrate something that is differentiated without losing differentiation. As an example of the latter, we have the four forces of nature. If we integrated into one force, but lost the four known forces, this would be taboo. You are required to keep the traditional forces in the equation.
As an example of the first, I have a house that is all built and finished. If we differentiated this house, we need to break it down to all the details. But once broken down, you can't infer that specific house starting with a pile of supplies.
In my explorations, there is a type of conscious wall between the two sides of the brain, since the corpus colosseum that connects the two hemisphere does not currently have enough conscious data and firmware to consciously process back and forth. There is unconscious firmware that is able to do this. This conscious development is the future of human evolution. The path to the future begins with accepting two distinct processing methods, and then learning how to better access the right brain.
Since the left brain is differential it is what makes us feel unique; ego centric. Since the right brain is more spatial, it makes us feel more homogeneous such as connected to larger sets, such as humanity; spokes in the wheel. When you access the right brain you need to retain left brain uniqueness as long as possible but eventually you to become right brained. Then you need to find you way back to the left brain, by reinstalling the firmware and data within the left brain.
The right brain of religion sees commonalities, such as one religion spread over 100 cultures. The concept of God tries to integrate all of reality, but needs to be felt with faith/intuition. Science is more differential and looks at the details of reality. The left brain does not integrate as well, but tends to further differentiate into specialization theory. Both use half the brain, consciously.
Interestingly, the philosophy of science breaks down when we explore the unconscious mind, which is connected to the unconscious or right side of the science brain. For example, dream details cannot be proven nor are the same details, repeatable, by other scientists. Dreams exist, since we all have them, but cannot be defined by the science philosophy in a way that is consistent with the philosophy. The philosophy of science was designed to differentiate the left brain. The same is also true of the right hemisphere and religious things of faith. One cannot differentiate these into specific data and proof subject to repeatable science. It remains as faith in an intuition.
There are two paradoxes, one for each side of the brain. The left brain paradox is how do you differentiate something that is integrated without altering the integration? The second is how do you integrate something that is differentiated without losing differentiation. As an example of the latter, we have the four forces of nature. If we integrated into one force, but lost the four known forces, this would be taboo. You are required to keep the traditional forces in the equation.
As an example of the first, I have a house that is all built and finished. If we differentiated this house, we need to break it down to all the details. But once broken down, you can't infer that specific house starting with a pile of supplies.
In my explorations, there is a type of conscious wall between the two sides of the brain, since the corpus colosseum that connects the two hemisphere does not currently have enough conscious data and firmware to consciously process back and forth. There is unconscious firmware that is able to do this. This conscious development is the future of human evolution. The path to the future begins with accepting two distinct processing methods, and then learning how to better access the right brain.
Since the left brain is differential it is what makes us feel unique; ego centric. Since the right brain is more spatial, it makes us feel more homogeneous such as connected to larger sets, such as humanity; spokes in the wheel. When you access the right brain you need to retain left brain uniqueness as long as possible but eventually you to become right brained. Then you need to find you way back to the left brain, by reinstalling the firmware and data within the left brain.
What do you think or what is you explanation on many prophecy that have been fulfilled, yet I believe in science many things you believe , Should the individual like me , discard my experiences in spirituality because you don't believe ?
Nature-Guy
Registered Member
Couldn't agree more.
Facing the fact that we don't know pulls the rug out from under both theism and atheism, particularly the more adamant flavors.
Imho, it's only when we face the full implications of "we don't know", ie. the end of the entire theism/atheism merry-go-round, that we are likely to arrive at a "science based spirituality".
The foundation of science is observation of the real world. Within the realm of science observation is used as a means to another end, theories and conclusions.
The key to a science based spirituality is to pursue observation for it's own value. Forget about the theories and conclusions, and stick with the observation.