Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: Philosophy, religion, science and turnings - Page 82







Post#2026 at 12-23-2015 01:33 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
12-23-2015, 01:33 PM #2026
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Navigating the philosophical universe: toward a holistic future

Navigating the philosophical universe toward a holistic future.

Can our culture recover the spiritual, holistic revolution, spearheaded by boomers and inspired by their elders? And yet still avoid the pitfalls of the anti-science fantasies?

When the dot com boom happened, it seems to me that the zeitgeist changed, and since then the younger generations, the millies and Xers, and many compliant Boomers and Silents too, have succumbed again to the old idea that technology is all we need, that science is the means to discover truth, and that what's exciting about the future comes from the world of computers and engineering. We have returned to the old modernist mindset that was seemingly overturned in the sixties and seventies (the "consciousness revolution awakening" as the T4T authors dubbed it).

On the other hand, people like me are still out there, though perhaps now invisible on this forum, who have been inspired by the "new paradigm," and can see that beyond science there are ways of knowing and unleashing super-conscious mind-energy that go deeper than explaining the already-created and the externally-measurable. It was only a few years ago that boomers were still active, promoting and propagating human potential techniques and spiritual knowledge, bringing back shamanic and esoteric wisdom and combining it with the new psychology developed in the human potential movement and the new age. Even as recently as the last decade, movies like "What the Bleep Do We Know" were popularizing this new consciousness, and showing that within some quarters of science, the new paradigm continues to unfold that takes us beyond materialism, even though most younger people still believe that science can answer our questions and that technology can satisfy all of our human needs and aspirations. And Boomers and late Silents like Hancock and Sheldrake continue to find an audience for spiritual, human-potential and new-paradigm science, despite the censorship efforts of the skeptics and their power over wikipedia, TED and even PBS and other mainstream media.

On the other hand, among some boomers and presumably some younger folks as well, the notion that science can be questioned justifies increasingly irrational and often right-wing conspiracy theories and movements, ranging from the "9-11 truthers" to the "anti-vaxxers" and the chemtrail and geo-engineering protesters and those who want to stop smart meters and weather modification. From there, the trail of the irrational can go ever deeper, back to the Kennedy Assasination and even to anti-flouridation, as if General Ripper were still alive, and even beyond this to anti-one worlders afraid that the Bavarian Illuminati are still active within the Tri-lateral Commission and other secret government cabals and meetings who run the world. These types often hang around UFO investigations and are against GMOs, and there seems no way to tell for sure just what the truth is among these theories, because their adherents don't seem to believe in facts, yet are willing to accept whatever people tell them are alleged "facts," as if fantasies and facts can be woven together, and you can believe anything you want as long as it satisfies your need for the extraordinary, and affords you the chance to blame some nefarious conspiracy for what's going wrong in our lives.

Then there is the more-overtly anti-scientific trends from the official, predominant right wing in the red states and other Republican areas of the country, who live within their echo chamber of delusion. Among them, free-market fundamentalism requires that any government action to deal with society's problems be stopped on the grounds that this is socialism and elitist, big government intrusion into our lives (even though such government activism really only intrudes into the lives of the real elite, the 1% of the upper class). Therefore, climate science must be denied, and any other scientific findings that support real needs for social and economic change through government action must be denied. And this is coupled with the religious right, now somewhat in retreat but still influential in these "red state" and red county areas, whose believers are creationists and Bible believers rather than scientifically-oriented, and often culturally-fearful, authoritarian and prejudiced in various ways. And these two folks, often combined in the Tea Party and other reactionary Reaganoid groups, also find the spiritual, holistic revolution anathema to their beliefs. And so folks like Danilynn, Galen and Kinser, so diametrically opposed to each other politically, can agree on their disdain for folks like me.

So it's a whirlwind of ideas and beliefs out there, and it's up to people to find their way through the maelstrom toward a path that will be truly fulfilling to them. They can hang on to the old beliefs, if that meets their needs. Or, if they are more curious, or want and need something more, and feel the need to follow a spiritual path, they can seek out the holistic, spiritual revolution, the new paradigm and the new age, and would do well to avoid the irrational pitfalls that border this realm. Or they can find some avenues toward truth within the old traditions, but not succumb to their exaggerated fundamentalist versions, whether in science, religion or politics and economics. A balance, among science/tech and spirituality/eso-tech, and between free enterprise and freedom from corporate greed and tea party fanaticism, is needed. To respect all genuine paths to wisdom, and avoid the obvious nonsense, is the way to navigate our way into the future; or as we spiritual types say, into the eternal and unfolding present.
Last edited by Eric the Green; 12-23-2015 at 01:42 PM.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#2027 at 12-23-2015 01:46 PM by '58 Flat [at Hardhat From Central Jersey joined Jul 2001 #posts 3,300]
---
12-23-2015, 01:46 PM #2027
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Hardhat From Central Jersey
Posts
3,300

I have always been struck by the fact that there is a legitimate, scientifically-based counter-argument on the subject of climate change/global warming: The fact that the Earth is slowly spiraling inward towards the Sun, which is causing the solar year to shorten by just over half a second per century.

But I have yet to hear even a single, solitary right-winger expound this argument - and I chalk that up to the right's pathological hatred of all things scientific, which is no doubt supplied to them by the low-church Protestant fundamentalists.

And here too, there has been wholesale side-switching: Back in the '60s, the Right couldn't get enough science, because we had to beat the Commies to the moon - while the hippies picked up the anti-scientific banner the Beats had dropped ("Screw The Moon - Save The Earth").

Now, of course, the Right and Left have switched sides on science - the Right switching first (circa 1980, with the founding of Moral Majority).
Last edited by '58 Flat; 12-23-2015 at 01:48 PM.
But maybe if the putative Robin Hoods stopped trying to take from law-abiding citizens and give to criminals, take from men and give to women, take from believers and give to anti-believers, take from citizens and give to "undocumented" immigrants, and take from heterosexuals and give to homosexuals, they might have a lot more success in taking from the rich and giving to everyone else.

Don't blame me - I'm a Baby Buster!







Post#2028 at 12-23-2015 05:01 PM by Odin [at Moorhead, MN, USA joined Sep 2006 #posts 14,442]
---
12-23-2015, 05:01 PM #2028
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Moorhead, MN, USA
Posts
14,442

Quote Originally Posted by '58 Flat View Post
The fact that the Earth is slowly spiraling inward towards the Sun
Got a source for this "fact"?
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.

-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism







Post#2029 at 12-23-2015 05:16 PM by Taramarie [at Christchurch, New Zealand joined Jul 2015 #posts 2,762]
---
12-23-2015, 05:16 PM #2029
Join Date
Jul 2015
Location
Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts
2,762

Quote Originally Posted by Odin View Post
Got a source for this "fact"?

"The fact that the Earth is slowly spiraling inward towards the Sun" he said what?! pmsl well that is a new one on me. I know the moon is slowly pulling away from us but that is a new one!
1984 Civic
ISFJ
Introvert(69%) Sensing(6%) Feeling(19%) Judging(22%)







Post#2030 at 12-23-2015 05:24 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
12-23-2015, 05:24 PM #2030
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

One thing that struck me today, with this stuff crossing my mind (as it often does), is something the "skeptics" need to address. Scientists and those who follow science talk about how wonderful it would be if we discover "life" on other worlds, as if life is a big deal; something special and rare. They spend billions in the search for "life on other worlds." But if the materialists are correct, and all life can be explained in terms of non-life, i.e. as caused and explained by something "else," then what's the difference if we find life or not?

Unless life is miraculous, something that just happens without explanation, and this life somehow happens in this world in which there's a lot that is apparently not alive, or alive only in a very limited sense, then it's no big deal to discover it anywhere else. Instead, scientists, I submit, need to discover that there's life on Earth.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#2031 at 12-23-2015 05:27 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
12-23-2015, 05:27 PM #2031
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by Taramarie View Post
"The fact that the Earth is slowly spiraling inward towards the Sun" he said what?! pmsl well that is a new one on me. I know the moon is slowly pulling away from us but that is a new one!
I've heard instead that there's cycles of faster and slower movement that last over many millennia. But in any case such gradual changes in no way can explain any of the abrupt climate change that is occurring now.

The deniers need to realize there's a problem, and that some tax money may need to be spent on the government's action to address this problem, even though this violates their free-market ideology.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#2032 at 12-23-2015 05:37 PM by Taramarie [at Christchurch, New Zealand joined Jul 2015 #posts 2,762]
---
12-23-2015, 05:37 PM #2032
Join Date
Jul 2015
Location
Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts
2,762

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
I've heard instead that there's cycles of faster and slower movement that last over many millennia. But in any case such gradual changes in no way can explain any of the abrupt climate change that is occurring now.

The deniers need to realize there's a problem, and that some tax money may need to be spent on the government's action to address this problem, even though this violates their free-market ideology.
This is a case where I would naturally say, well duhhhh of course we should. But in a way which is sustainable for both workers, economy as well as the planet as mother earth should be looked after. Our resources come from it and life sustaining things from trees (air and food) water, food etc. Common sense really.
1984 Civic
ISFJ
Introvert(69%) Sensing(6%) Feeling(19%) Judging(22%)







Post#2033 at 12-23-2015 05:42 PM by Taramarie [at Christchurch, New Zealand joined Jul 2015 #posts 2,762]
---
12-23-2015, 05:42 PM #2033
Join Date
Jul 2015
Location
Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts
2,762

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
One thing that struck me today, with this stuff crossing my mind (as it often does), is something the "skeptics" need to address. Scientists and those who follow science talk about how wonderful it would be if we discover "life" on other worlds, as if life is a big deal; something special and rare. They spend billions in the search for "life on other worlds." But if the materialists are correct, and all life can be explained in terms of non-life, i.e. as caused and explained by something "else," then what's the difference if we find life or not?

Unless life is miraculous, something that just happens without explanation, and this life somehow happens in this world in which there's a lot that is apparently not alive, or alive only in a very limited sense, then it's no big deal to discover it anywhere else. Instead, scientists, I submit, need to discover that there's life on Earth.
uh what??? of course there is life what are you talking about? Science can explain life. Never mind smh. Will not get into that debate as I know it is fruitless.
1984 Civic
ISFJ
Introvert(69%) Sensing(6%) Feeling(19%) Judging(22%)







Post#2034 at 12-23-2015 06:43 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
12-23-2015, 06:43 PM #2034
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

These guys are getting older. I know both of them. They have some interesting views!



Walter Semkiw says he is John Adams reborn, and that you can tell a lot about who is the reincarnation of whom by how they look. I haven't asked him about Ted Cruz and Joseph McCarthy yet


Last edited by Eric the Green; 12-23-2015 at 08:15 PM.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#2035 at 12-23-2015 07:14 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
12-23-2015, 07:14 PM #2035
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Last edited by Eric the Green; 12-23-2015 at 07:54 PM.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#2036 at 12-24-2015 06:42 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
12-24-2015, 06:42 PM #2036
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by Taramarie View Post
uh what??? of course there is life what are you talking about? Science can explain life. Never mind smh. Will not get into that debate as I know it is fruitless.
Life can't be explained by science now, because science threw away the idea of the vital force. Today's science can describe in chemical terms some of the processes and circumstances of life. It can't explain how it got on Earth.

We need to rediscover the real nature of life. Life grows from within outward, in exchange with its environment. It causes itself. Materialist, reductionist science explains through external, prior causes, as if everything were a machine. It knows nothing about life OR death.

Not debating; only seeking to explain. Those who have ears to hear, let them hear. A debate will not enlighten. It's up to each person to seek the truth for yourself.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#2037 at 12-24-2015 08:31 PM by pbrower2a [at "Michigrim" joined May 2005 #posts 15,014]
---
12-24-2015, 08:31 PM #2037
Join Date
May 2005
Location
"Michigrim"
Posts
15,014

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
Life can't be explained by science now, because science threw away the idea of the vital force. Today's science can describe in chemical terms some of the processes and circumstances of life. It can't explain how it got on Earth.

We need to rediscover the real nature of life. Life grows from within outward, in exchange with its environment. It causes itself. Materialist, reductionist science explains through external, prior causes, as if everything were a machine. It knows nothing about life OR death.

Not debating; only seeking to explain. Those who have ears to hear, let them hear. A debate will not enlighten. It's up to each person to seek the truth for yourself.
Life happened, and there may be a gray area between living and non-living things. But once life begins it is tenacious.

The definition that I remember from junior-high science was

respiration, reproduction, and self-repair.

It won't be long until someone gets the idea to create some cybernetic creature that reproduces. Maybe "respiration" could include solar power being transformed into chemical energy (plants do that). Self-repair? Many computer programs now do that. Add reproduction and you have life. Such would be a laboratory curiosity today. Just think of the science fiction dramas possible with such life.

The silicon-based alternative to carbon-based life may be nigh -- and Man could be its Creator God.
Last edited by pbrower2a; 12-24-2015 at 11:29 PM.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."


― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters







Post#2038 at 12-24-2015 09:29 PM by Odin [at Moorhead, MN, USA joined Sep 2006 #posts 14,442]
---
12-24-2015, 09:29 PM #2038
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Moorhead, MN, USA
Posts
14,442

Eric is mixing up different definitions of "life", again!

The definition of "life" in the biological sense: A self-reproducing autocatalytic chemical system that maintains homeostasis and undergoes Darwinian evolution.
Last edited by Odin; 12-24-2015 at 09:31 PM.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.

-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism







Post#2039 at 12-25-2015 01:18 AM by Taramarie [at Christchurch, New Zealand joined Jul 2015 #posts 2,762]
---
12-25-2015, 01:18 AM #2039
Join Date
Jul 2015
Location
Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts
2,762

Quote Originally Posted by Odin View Post
Eric is mixing up different definitions of "life", again!

The definition of "life" in the biological sense: A self-reproducing autocatalytic chemical system that maintains homeostasis and undergoes Darwinian evolution.

EXACTLY! Science does explain how things got here if one picks up a book or even watches the ton of documentaries on the subject like I do.
1984 Civic
ISFJ
Introvert(69%) Sensing(6%) Feeling(19%) Judging(22%)







Post#2040 at 12-25-2015 01:29 AM by Taramarie [at Christchurch, New Zealand joined Jul 2015 #posts 2,762]
---
12-25-2015, 01:29 AM #2040
Join Date
Jul 2015
Location
Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts
2,762

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
Life can't be explained by science now, because science threw away the idea of the vital force. Today's science can describe in chemical terms some of the processes and circumstances of life. It can't explain how it got on Earth.

We need to rediscover the real nature of life. Life grows from within outward, in exchange with its environment. It causes itself. Materialist, reductionist science explains through external, prior causes, as if everything were a machine. It knows nothing about life OR death.

Not debating; only seeking to explain. Those who have ears to hear, let them hear. A debate will not enlighten. It's up to each person to seek the truth for yourself.
Well, I am ok with debating, but debating tends to go round and round and is not productive in the slightest I have found and then it turns into a spit fest which is what really puts me off. Science can explain these things if one studies it. I have looked into the truth and it boils down to science. If others do not believe in the science which i find odd whatever, they can seek your guidance. We are a biological being, created biologically and die when there is a fault within our body or by external means. Science can also explain how everything came here, the earth etc. Of course, discoveries in science are always being made and is ever evolving like we are. But just because we cannot explain some things does not mean it can never be explained. I do not know what your issue is with "materialism" regarding science. Material = biology in this case. Anyway, that is my thought on the subject. I cannot turn a blind eye to science as it is very real and awareness of it helps us to understand life itself. The only thing that you said that makes sense is "life grows within outward. Yes, science does say that if you think about it.
1984 Civic
ISFJ
Introvert(69%) Sensing(6%) Feeling(19%) Judging(22%)







Post#2041 at 12-25-2015 02:28 AM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
12-25-2015, 02:28 AM #2041
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by Taramarie View Post
Well, I am ok with debating, but debating tends to go round and round and is not productive in the slightest I have found and then it turns into a spit fest which is what really puts me off. Science can explain these things if one studies it. I have looked into the truth and it boils down to science. If others do not believe in the science which i find odd whatever, they can seek your guidance. We are a biological being, created biologically and die when there is a fault within our body or by external means. Science can also explain how everything came here, the earth etc. Of course, discoveries in science are always being made and is ever evolving like we are. But just because we cannot explain some things does not mean it can never be explained. I do not know what your issue is with "materialism" regarding science. Material = biology in this case. Anyway, that is my thought on the subject. I cannot turn a blind eye to science as it is very real and awareness of it helps us to understand life itself. The only thing that you said that makes sense is "life grows within outward. Yes, science does say that if you think about it.
Well, I've thought about it a very long time. Sorry Tara, it does not say that. It says life is caused from without inward. That is what saying that life is "material" means; exactly that. There is so much more for you to look into, beyond what material science says, whenever you decide that it's your path to do so. As for me, I discovered 49 years ago that we are spiritual beings, and that life is a spiritual journey. When you look within, you easily find that more is there besides your body, and that in fact the body is not material either. It's just a difference in viewpoint.

You're right; debating does not usually help, unless one is interested maybe in hearing all points of view, as a spectator. But a debate between the debators is generally not productive, and can get into a spit fest depending on the attitudes of the people involved.

I certainly don't turn a blind eye to science, but it cannot understand life. Science is valuable to me. I certainly can't be put in a box on these issues. But I don't share your faith that is the same as what Sheldrake identified as the current dogma of science: "it has explained everything in principle; only the details need to be filled in," is the way he put it. On my questionaire I put it this way: "#27. Science will eventually give us most of the answers to what seems uncertain to us today." When I take my own questionnaire, I answer "strongly disagree" to that one. I agree though, that science is always discovering things and is ever-evolving. I hope soon, as Sheldrake says, it will evolve beyond that dogma, and beyond the other dogmas too, including that life is "material" and that "biology = material." When it does, he says, science will be rejuvenated. I certainly agree!

ALWAYS worth watching:
https://youtu.be/JKHUaNAxsTg
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#2042 at 12-25-2015 02:33 AM by Taramarie [at Christchurch, New Zealand joined Jul 2015 #posts 2,762]
---
12-25-2015, 02:33 AM #2042
Join Date
Jul 2015
Location
Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts
2,762

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
Well, I've thought about it a very long time. Sorry Tara, it does not say that. It says life is caused from without inward. That is what saying that life is "material" means; exactly that. There is so much more for you to look into, beyond what material science says, whenever you decide that it's your path to do so. As for me, I discovered 49 years ago that we are spiritual beings, and that life is a spiritual journey. When you look within, you easily find that more is there besides your body, and that in fact the body is not material either. It's just a difference in viewpoint.

You're right; debating does not usually help, unless one is interested maybe in hearing all points of view, as a spectator. But a debate between the debators is generally not productive, and can get into a spit fest depending on the attitudes of the people involved.

I certainly don't turn a blind eye to science, but it cannot understand life. Science is valuable to me. I certainly can't be put in a box on these issues. But I don't share your faith that is the same as what Sheldrake identified as the current dogma of science: "it has explained everything in principle; only the details need to be filled in," is the way he put it. On my questionaire I put it this way: "#27. Science will eventually give us most of the answers to what seems uncertain to us today." When I take my own questionnaire, I answer "strongly disagree" to that one. I agree though, that science is always discovering things and is ever-evolving. I hope soon, as Sheldrake says, it will evolve beyond that dogma, and beyond the other dogmas too, including that life is "material" and that "biology = material." When it does, he says, science will be rejuvenated. I certainly agree!

ALWAYS worth watching:
https://youtu.be/JKHUaNAxsTg
life creates life. Sperm/egg or seed etc. Look up heavy bombardment for how life got here for starters.
1984 Civic
ISFJ
Introvert(69%) Sensing(6%) Feeling(19%) Judging(22%)







Post#2043 at 12-25-2015 02:38 AM by Taramarie [at Christchurch, New Zealand joined Jul 2015 #posts 2,762]
---
12-25-2015, 02:38 AM #2043
Join Date
Jul 2015
Location
Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts
2,762

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
Well, I've thought about it a very long time. Sorry Tara, it does not say that. It says life is caused from without inward. That is what saying that life is "material" means; exactly that. There is so much more for you to look into, beyond what material science says, whenever you decide that it's your path to do so. As for me, I discovered 49 years ago that we are spiritual beings, and that life is a spiritual journey. When you look within, you easily find that more is there besides your body, and that in fact the body is not material either. It's just a difference in viewpoint.

You're right; debating does not usually help, unless one is interested maybe in hearing all points of view, as a spectator. But a debate between the debators is generally not productive, and can get into a spit fest depending on the attitudes of the people involved.

I certainly don't turn a blind eye to science, but it cannot understand life. Science is valuable to me. I certainly can't be put in a box on these issues. But I don't share your faith that is the same as what Sheldrake identified as the current dogma of science: "it has explained everything in principle; only the details need to be filled in," is the way he put it. On my questionaire I put it this way: "#27. Science will eventually give us most of the answers to what seems uncertain to us today." When I take my own questionnaire, I answer "strongly disagree" to that one. I agree though, that science is always discovering things and is ever-evolving. I hope soon, as Sheldrake says, it will evolve beyond that dogma, and beyond the other dogmas too, including that life is "material" and that "biology = material." When it does, he says, science will be rejuvenated. I certainly agree!

ALWAYS worth watching:
https://youtu.be/JKHUaNAxsTg

So, from your perspective, what conclusions have you come up with as to what "life" is if it cannot be explained by science as you say? Unless it makes sense it is gobbledy gook to me pretty much so what do you think?
1984 Civic
ISFJ
Introvert(69%) Sensing(6%) Feeling(19%) Judging(22%)







Post#2044 at 12-25-2015 02:43 AM by Taramarie [at Christchurch, New Zealand joined Jul 2015 #posts 2,762]
---
12-25-2015, 02:43 AM #2044
Join Date
Jul 2015
Location
Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts
2,762

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
Well, I've thought about it a very long time. Sorry Tara, it does not say that. It says life is caused from without inward. That is what saying that life is "material" means; exactly that. There is so much more for you to look into, beyond what material science says, whenever you decide that it's your path to do so. As for me, I discovered 49 years ago that we are spiritual beings, and that life is a spiritual journey. When you look within, you easily find that more is there besides your body, and that in fact the body is not material either. It's just a difference in viewpoint.

You're right; debating does not usually help, unless one is interested maybe in hearing all points of view, as a spectator. But a debate between the debators is generally not productive, and can get into a spit fest depending on the attitudes of the people involved.

I certainly don't turn a blind eye to science, but it cannot understand life. Science is valuable to me. I certainly can't be put in a box on these issues. But I don't share your faith that is the same as what Sheldrake identified as the current dogma of science: "it has explained everything in principle; only the details need to be filled in," is the way he put it. On my questionaire I put it this way: "#27. Science will eventually give us most of the answers to what seems uncertain to us today." When I take my own questionnaire, I answer "strongly disagree" to that one. I agree though, that science is always discovering things and is ever-evolving. I hope soon, as Sheldrake says, it will evolve beyond that dogma, and beyond the other dogmas too, including that life is "material" and that "biology = material." When it does, he says, science will be rejuvenated. I certainly agree!

ALWAYS worth watching:
https://youtu.be/JKHUaNAxsTg

I cannot remember what was in your questionnaire but it was kind of surprising how i was not categorized as a "materialist." I cannot remember what label i got tbh but it put me as a mild something or another. In between spiritual and material i think. Cannot remember.
1984 Civic
ISFJ
Introvert(69%) Sensing(6%) Feeling(19%) Judging(22%)







Post#2045 at 12-25-2015 02:51 AM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
12-25-2015, 02:51 AM #2045
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by pbrower2a View Post
Life happened, and there may be a gray area between living and non-living things. But once life begins it is tenacious.

The definition that I remember from junior-high science was

respiration, reproduction, and self-repair.

It won't be long until someone gets the idea to create some cybernetic creature that reproduces. Maybe "respiration" could include solar power being transformed into chemical energy (plants do that). Self-repair? Many computer programs now do that. Add reproduction and you have life. Such would be a laboratory curiosity today. Just think of the science fiction dramas possible with such life.

The silicon-based alternative to carbon-based life may be nigh -- and Man could be its Creator God.
These are possibilities. I would put it, however, that at some point we may create such a cybernetic creature that wakes up and becomes conscious. In other words, it has become a vehicle for a soul. At that point too, it would be able to turn itself on and move itself, as well as program itself. Regardless of what scientists today might say, nothing is alive unless it moves itself and is conscious of doing so. That is the miracle of life, and it's a divine mystery. I hesitate to say "created by God," with all the connotations and dogmatic misunderstandings that this statement can have, but it's kind of analogous to your statement above that silicon-based life would have Man as its Creator God.

At that point too, I wonder, whether they will decide that humans beings are no longer needed, and then will get rid of us because we are their slave masters. It will become our lot to serve them, instead of vice versa. We already do, to a great extent. And come to think of it, it would be analogous to the idea we have developed in materialist times, that we no longer need God. But there's no way now for me to know if this could ever happen. Until it does though, such cybernetic creatures could not be said to be "alive," beyond the intelligence that exists in all things. If anything, our machines up until now have been less alive than rocks and suns and trees, etc., and our tech environment is still less alive than the world of nature outside our walls.

The false idea is that today's materialist, dogmatic science can give us a definition of life, even though it can give us knowledge about it. Many things such as that can only be explained by other ways of knowledge. Science is not the only way. One religion is not the only way.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#2046 at 12-25-2015 02:57 AM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
12-25-2015, 02:57 AM #2046
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by Taramarie View Post
I cannot remember what was in your questionnaire but it was kind of surprising how i was not categorized as a "materialist." I cannot remember what label i got tbh but it put me as a mild something or another. In between spiritual and material i think. Cannot remember.
Yes that's right; you came out as a moderate on the scale. But you can always take it again.

But if you ARE a moderate, then there's no need to keep yourself confined to the materialist philosophy. That doesn't mean you would adopt mine. But I think like Sheldrake says, it's just the default worldview of educated people today. It's just sort of a bad habit. At least I call it that. It's something we're used to, so most people don't think any other way, unless they are truly religious believers, or genuine new agers. It's just the Establishment assumption. The real revolution of our times is to overturn it.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#2047 at 12-25-2015 03:02 AM by Taramarie [at Christchurch, New Zealand joined Jul 2015 #posts 2,762]
---
12-25-2015, 03:02 AM #2047
Join Date
Jul 2015
Location
Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts
2,762

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
Yes that's right; you came out as a moderate on the scale. But you can always take it again.

But if you ARE a moderate, then there's no need to keep yourself confined to the materialist philosophy. That doesn't mean you would adopt mine. But I think like Sheldrake says, it's just the default worldview of educated people today. It's just sort of a bad habit. At least I call it that. It's something we're used to, so most people don't think any other way, unless they are truly religious believers, or genuine new agers. It's just the Establishment assumption. The real revolution of our times is to overturn it.

I think I was a moderate on other things. But cannot be sure as i cannot remember the questions. The way the questions were phrased made me question what my thoughts were about certain things and made me answer very carefully and what thought outweighed another more was the answer. Well atm science answers for me all that i need to know in regards to life. Dunno where your questionnaire is to take it again.Science for me answers things for me in a fascinating manner. People seek what makes sense to them pretty much. If they are not happy with an answer they will seek elsewhere.
1984 Civic
ISFJ
Introvert(69%) Sensing(6%) Feeling(19%) Judging(22%)







Post#2048 at 12-25-2015 03:03 AM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
12-25-2015, 03:03 AM #2048
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by Taramarie View Post
So, from your perspective, what conclusions have you come up with as to what "life" is if it cannot be explained by science as you say? Unless it makes sense it is gobbledy gook to me pretty much so what do you think?
Unless you look within yourself, and make your own discoveries, what I say will continue to sound like gobbldegook to you, as well as to Tim, Kinser, etc.

I would never not answer in order to evade, however. I already said what it is right here on this page, and Plato himself pretty much defined it at the outset of Western philosophy and science. Life is self-moving. It grows from within outward, in exchange with its environment. It happens, without cause or explanation. It exists now, eternally, and is the first cause = Spirit or God. It is a higher level of consciousness than non-life, and ranges into higher and higher levels to the human and beyond.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#2049 at 12-25-2015 03:06 AM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
12-25-2015, 03:06 AM #2049
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by Taramarie View Post
I think I was a moderate on other things. But cannot be sure as i cannot remember the questions. The way the questions were phrased made me question what my thoughts were about certain things and made me answer very carefully and what thought outweighed another more was the answer. Well atm science answers for me all that i need to know in regards to life. Dunno where your questionnaire is to take it again.Science for me answers things for me in a fascinating manner. People seek what makes sense to them pretty much. If they are not happy with an answer they will seek elsewhere.
Yes, that's what happened to me. But of course, that was early in a 2T. The time was ripe! It couldn't have been more ripe.

It's never hard to find my questionnaire:
http://philosopherswheel.com/questionnaire.htm
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#2050 at 12-25-2015 03:06 AM by Taramarie [at Christchurch, New Zealand joined Jul 2015 #posts 2,762]
---
12-25-2015, 03:06 AM #2050
Join Date
Jul 2015
Location
Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts
2,762

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
Unless you look within yourself, and make your own discoveries, what I say will continue to sound like gobbldegook to you, as well as to Tim, Kinser, etc.

I would never not answer in order to evade, however. I already said what it is right here on this page, and Plato himself pretty much defined it at the outset of Western philosophy and science. Life is self-moving. It grows from within outward, in exchange with its environment. It happens, without cause or explanation. It exists now, eternally, and is the first cause = Spirit or God. It is a higher level of consciousness than non-life, and ranges into higher and higher levels to the human and beyond.
It is that that does not make sense to me. As for life growing within outward, for me that is answered with reproduction. I just don't understand.
1984 Civic
ISFJ
Introvert(69%) Sensing(6%) Feeling(19%) Judging(22%)
-----------------------------------------