Susan's Place Transgender Resources

What do you think?

Is there any true enlightenment which science cannot measure?

Best as I can tell the only sort of "enlightenment" that xience (doncha like my new spelling?) :) can reliably measure is bound to watts and degrees of magnitude, etc.

The xience that measures intelligence, compassion, understanding, etc doesn't manage to be reliable and is definitely open to (a lot of) mis-measurement. 

There are lots of things we can't measure (yet) and perhaps some that never will be, not everything is quantifiable.

As it's something I've spent a great deal of time looking into, I'm really loathe to mention it because of the inevitable crackpot woo-woo that crawls out of the woodwork when it's mentioned but...

Qualia / subjective experience / the "hard problem" of consciousness - a complete explanation is currently beyond the reach of material, objective science.  Some, brain in the jar philosophers for example, would argue that it's impossible for science to explain.  I don't entirely agree because a sound theory just needs to be consistent with observation - there's no such thing as a theory with a zero probability of being wrong (hehe, well duh!)

Quantum science puts a kink in objective science's armor. The major break thoughts are due to paradigm shifts.

QuoteAccording to Kuhn, "When scientists must choose between competing theories, two men fully committed to the same list of criteria for choice may nevertheless reach different conclusions." For this reason, basically, the criteria still are not "objective" in the usual sense of the word because individual scientists reach different conclusions with the same criteria due to valuing one criterion over another or even adding additional criteria for selfish or other subjective reasons.
       

Thank you for using Kuhn in the one place he was really writing about, instead of - like everyone else - where he was not.

Ahh, good old "confirmation bias".  :)

Well remember, or find out, that quantum mechanics at least suggests that the very act of observing is changing the outcome. Objective may not be possible at some levels.

Yeah I meant the Kuhn reference to selective criteria.  Did you see that Futurama episode when the horse race ends in a quantum finish and Farnsworth screws up his docket with "No fair! You changed the result by measuring it?" :)  I do like that show.  Shame the films are a bit weak.

science is based on facts. so the fact is that enlightenment, in general is not all quantifiable by any science, Sure scientists can measure respiration rate and brain waves but the concept is so individual that i doubt accurate data could be gathered.
Budda couldn't explain it other than to tell his followers that life is an illusion.

QuoteThe English word covers two concepts which can be quite distinct: religious or spiritual enlightenment and secular or intellectual enlightenment. This can cause confusion, since those who claim intellectual enlightenment often reject spiritual concepts altogether.

Now if you are talking about it in a religious content then that is a subjective individual belief. It is about the same as believing in God.

There are lots of things science can't measure.

Yet, and Never (perhaps).  Many things can't be quantified, or measured - but, as such, they are outside the province of science (so far).  Currently, if you can't do that, its not science.

Quote from: ell on July 22, 2009, 02:53:05 AM
"enlightened" is itself such an exalted word, bordering on bombast

I agree.  It's conceited in the self-referential and usually condescending in the objective.

I've thought that science was a systematic collection (or understanding?) of knowledge. Which, to me, means a total degree of repoducibility. As in, if I have the collection of knoweldge to allow me to have this fact, then I can recreate this fact by following the same line of knowledge.

So, I am ignorant of many things but based on this definition I have problems with, political science, social science and definitly economic science, based on beyond anything but the most simplistic point. Political science, different political views exist, but the end point may be the same. Social science, a person born into poverty may have a worse life outcome than someone who isn't; but not always. Economic science - spend more than you earn you go broke, no seems to learn from that. Maths: 2+2=4; no matter how often you try it.

Cindy

With political science, economic science, social science etc., the "science" term is only used to try and make it sound like something more than guesswork - at best educated guesswork.

We're all in the same boat, and half the time we're up ->-bleeped-<-'s creek. -- Anonymous

It's easy enough to generate some feeling of bliss or lightness in a room full of people who are supposedly working spiritually. It's even easy to generate ecstasy. But a few beers, the right partner, and the Rolling Stones' music for an evening can do that too. -- Lee Lozowick

There is no method for scientifically measuring anything so completely subjective in nature.

QuoteWhich, to me, means a total degree of reproducibility

Not exactly. For example science has declared smoking is hazardous to your health. It is all probability. Like civil court you just need to tip the scales.

And science has declared that if you let go of an apple while standing on the earth, it will probably fall to the ground.

Quote from: finewine on July 22, 2009, 07:52:03 AM
And science has declared that if you let go of an apple while standing on the earth, it will probably fall to the ground.

Not if you are 250000 miles tall.

Quote from: lisagurl on July 22, 2009, 07:58:03 AM
Not if you are 250000 miles tall.

Hehe... :)

[pedant on]
Well, you'd still be within Earth's gravity well (the Moon is about 221k miles away and still held in orbit, albeit moving away at about 1 inch per year).
[/pedant off]

Quote from: lisagurl on July 22, 2009, 07:58:03 AM
Not if you are 250000 miles tall.

Yeah, I have to admit that I get really annoyed when those 250,000 mile tall people drop things!

And couldn't they rig up some sorta observation thingie where they aren't always stepping on things down here?

I mean the repairs to the roads alone cost $millions!

It will fall somewhere.  Matter at infinitely large distances attracts and matter at infinitely small distances repels.

I do believe our senses is limited.

Well yeah, we know that.  We only see a small portion of light, hear a small portion of sound, etc.  But... we also know we can invent Chandra and Hubble to see beyond our eyes (and not by faith, but by science and technology - and in the case of Hubble, like lots of science, by trial and error.)

Still, all of that give no reason why a non-material world exists beyond the material, that is faith.  And just because physics can not explain all at the present time, is no reason to leap into metaphysics.

And no matter what limits our senses have, our grammar is very exact.  It's senses (plural) ARE limited, not is, which is singular.

maybe enough enlightenment cannot be found to measure and then if enough was found then the tedious sorting and classification would begin. true, not true, somewhat true....

I'm not trying to proof the existence of any spaghetti-monsters or flying teapots,

Makes as much - if not more - sense then the other stories I've been told.

I was reading an interesting article the other day about how our universe could in theory be within a 5 dimension black hole.....don't know if this adds anything to the conversation, take it or leave it  :)

But the end fact is, we have a limited life and a clearly defined limited world with pretty reliable nature. Why not just enjoy the time and materials we have? It might be fun to dabble with metaphysics but it is a small part of life.

What science and technology can do is use biometric feedback devices to help you reach - if not enlightenment - at least 'right relationship.'

Quote from: tekla on July 22, 2009, 09:11:17 PM
What science and technology can do is use biometric feedback devices to help you reach - if not enlightenment - at least 'right relationship.'

But then some think drugs will do it.

Quote from: lisagurl on July 22, 2009, 09:17:50 PM
But then some think drugs will do it.

And others think that vipisana meditation will do it, or kundalini yoga. :) What works works, perhaps there are multiple answers as well as multiple worlds?

Can you say, multiple answers, Lisa? :)

QuoteCan you say, multiple answers, Lisa?

No, this machine will not let me make a sound.

Quote from: lisagurl on July 22, 2009, 09:23:58 PM
No, this machine will not let me make a sound.

Machine have you locked away again, my friend? Rage against the machine and stop being the ghost the machine swallowed!

Go ahead, shout it, Lisa MULTIPLE ANSWERS!
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Almost all rivers lead to the sea.  Eventually.

Quote from: tekla on July 21, 2009, 02:34:59 PM
Well remember, or find out, that quantum mechanics at least suggests that the very act of observing is changing the outcome. Objective may not be possible at some levels.

objectivity is an illusion altogether, on every level. Nothing is truly "objective"; everything we experience is filtered through squishy wetware that defines the limits of that experience. We agree on certain outcomes, and those are more or less what we call reality. Certainly there are those who do not agree, but we tend to lock those people up in asylums. Unless of course a whole lot of people share the same delusion, in which case we give them tax exemption. :angel:

Quote from: FairyGirl on July 22, 2009, 09:58:24 PM
objectivity is an illusion altogether, on every level. Nothing is truly "objective"; everything we experience is filtered through squishy wetware that defines the limits of that experience. We agree on certain outcomes, and those are more or less what we call reality. Certainly there are those who do not agree, but we tend to lock those people up in asylums. Unless of course a whole lot of people share the same delusion, in which case we give them tax exemption. :angel:

So if two or three are in agreement about that ... can we, too, get a tax exemption? :) 

Quote from: Nichole on July 22, 2009, 10:01:23 PM
So if two or three are in agreement about that ... can we, too, get a tax exemption? :) 

Nope, they'll raid your farm and take your guns. You have to have a LOT of people, think VOLUME lol

It's true that we can only perceive the world, and the readings of our scientific instruments, through the subjective interface of our senses. The problem with the strict "brain in a jar" view is that it forces us to abandon any further inquiry into the extrinsic.

I touch on this in my short post about the futility of the brain in a jar argument (http://www.jimmo.org/mind/?p=30). As it is unknowable and self-defeating, it cannot add value to the growth of knowledge, so aside from noting it as a metaphysical & philosophical conundrum, it may as well be discarded.

Put simply, so what?

I'm as fascinated about where stuff comes from as anyone and think it is important to make those inquiries, even if I also believe somewhat in "as above, so below". Or in other words the external unfolds from the internal, and both are infinite- none of us will ever figure it all out but it's really fun to try. I'll humbly concede to the multiple answers argument. :laugh:

Quote from: finewine on July 22, 2009, 11:12:29 PM
It's true that we can only perceive the world, and the readings of our scientific instruments, through the subjective interface of our senses. The problem with the strict "brain in a jar" view is that it forces us to abandon any further inquiry into the extrinsic.

I touch on this in my short post about the futility of the brain in a jar argument (http://www.jimmo.org/mind/?p=30). As it is unknowable and self-defeating, it cannot add value to the growth of knowledge, so aside from noting it as a metaphysical & philosophical conundrum, it may as well be discarded.

Put simply, so what?

Merging two singularly separate positions, a duality (black, white, material, spiritual, please find others that appeal to you,) is always an fairly impossible position. Certainly if the dualists (or duelists) refuse to find some possibility of a compromise, an agreement to be able to set parameters that allow discussion.

Hmm, more than just a firm divide between two sexes or genders, for instance. The possibility that black and white intersect in some area that's a mix, grey? Or that ... we go on.

You can discard the brain-in-a-jug argument as the brain-in-a-jug arguers can deny the brain-that's-able-to-sense-objectively argument as well. Which would be usual, I think, in both cases.

Leaves you right back where your essay says their notion leaves the matter. "You cannot talk about that because you're not abiding by my rules." "But you're rules aren't my rules." and so on ad infintitum.

Of course there might be a way provided that, for instance, one group could find it within themselves to agree that as matter gets refined the separation of what we refer to as matter and spirit is that one is just the other more grossly defined (unrefined sugar or iron ore) and the other more subtlely defined (refined and powdered sugar or tungsten steel, etc.) And then the other makes that same agreement.

You're right, as long as either, or both, side/s refuses to recognize the possibility of discussion and finding something they can agree with and accept on the other pole there's no meeting of the positions, anywhere, ever.

There's a great gulf that separates us said Father Abraham to the Rich Man in the parable.

"Oh, well," said the Rich Man in Hell, "so it goes, I don't believe in you either."

People would rather hold a position than talk or meet.

Quote from: FairyGirl on July 22, 2009, 11:25:29 PM
...  I'll humbly concede to the multiple answers argument. :laugh:

Sister!! twin sisters of different parents. :laugh:

Yup I agree Nichole.  There are many philosophical questions which force us to consider alternatives that we might not normally entertain.  My big issue with BIAJ is simply that it's logically redundant.  On the plus side, we can use it as a good excuse to stop what must be ultimately impotent science...hehe, let's abandon all scientific inquiry and go chill on the beach with beers & spliffs! :)  Now who's for a wet t-shirt contest?

Quote from: finewine on July 22, 2009, 11:45:48 PM
Yup I agree Nichole.  There are many philosophical questions which force us to consider alternatives that we might not normally entertain.  My big issue with BIAJ is simply that it's logically redundant.  On the plus side, we can use it as a good excuse to stop what must be ultimately impotent science...hehe, let's abandon all scientific inquiry and go chill on the beach with beers & spliffs! :)  Now who's for a wet t-shirt contest?

What's logic except the way words are put together in an argument? It still requires an agreement -- that the rules of a particular way to put together words are used by all. Logic doesn't make something right or wrong, it provides an agreed context for talking about things in common. :)

Beer and wet t-shirts? Well, sir, that's a very material sort of pasttime!

Thought you'd never ask! :laugh:

Hate to ruin that picnic girls, but I know lots of scientists who take the beer and green bud to the beach and do science, and talk science.  But we're geeks.  So the wet t-shirts are a keeper.

I can see it now, breaking away from the party to do a few sneaky M-theory equations on a chalk board hidden in the bushes!

"Hey, you!  Were you doing science back there!?"

Not to mention quadratic equations on the napkins.  Damn scientists.  And the tide pool?  Yeesh, don't even let them get near it.

Quote from: finewine on July 23, 2009, 12:03:28 AM
I can see it now, breaking away from the party to do a few sneaky M-theory equations on a chalk board hidden in the bushes!

"Hey, you!  Were you doing science back there!?"

no sir, we was philosophizin'. Pass the spliff please  ;D

Quote from: tekla on July 23, 2009, 12:00:41 AM
Hate to ruin that picnic girls, but I know lots of scientists who take the beer and green bud to the beach and do science, and talk science.  But we're geeks.  So the wet t-shirts are a keeper.

Long ago and in a place far, far away, I'd go out on a Saturday and swim in a cold rushing river that was frequented in summer by all sorts of people in the small city I lived in.

I went to swim, but also to talk with a mathematician who'd bring his children out to swim while he'd read philosophy. Loved talking with him.

Wet bathing-suit, but seldom a wet t-shirt! :) Besides, his interest was the philosophy and mine was as well.

They'd all be transfixed at the tide pool, ruminating on the problem of chaos theory and predicting turbulent flow.  I love lava lamps!

Quote from: finewine on July 23, 2009, 12:06:39 AM
They'd all be transfixed at the tide pool, ruminating on the problem of chaos theory and predicting turbulent flow.  I love lava lamps!

Then forget the wet t-shirts! What would be the point? Like I said, dawgs! :laugh:

Lava lamps and wet breasts go well together, ask any hippie.

Quote from: tekla on July 23, 2009, 12:10:36 AM
Lava lamps and wet breasts go well together, ask any hippie.

Must I re-quote? *sigh* I suppose I must:

QuoteIt's easy enough to generate some feeling of bliss or lightness in a room full of people who are supposedly working spiritually. It's even easy to generate ecstasy. But a few beers, the right partner, and the Rolling Stones' music for an evening can do that too. -- Lee Lozowick

Just add "lava lamp" to that! :laugh:

Mammaries are made of this
    - Dean Martin

Some people think having large breasts makes a woman stupid. Actually, it's quite the opposite: a woman having large breasts makes men stupid.

Rita Rudner

Ah, cry havoc and let loose the dawgs of horn!

Me a dawg? Nay sister - pachyderm!   Us horny elephants say...  "Trunky wants a donut!"

Quote from: finewine on July 23, 2009, 12:31:41 AM
Me a dawg? Nay sister - pachyderm!   Us horny elephants say...  "Trunky wants a donut!"

Trunky says that to his girlfriend though, right?

Quote from: Nichole on July 23, 2009, 12:37:37 AM
Trunky says that to his girlfriend though, right?

Ooh yes, this is a one-donut trunk.  Only another 20 days and I'll be back there with her to submit her visa paperwork and for the breast augmentation op.  Yay!  I hope we won't have problems with the visa - I've been pretty thorough with our documentation but let's see.

(trunky misses her very much)

QuoteWe agree on certain outcomes, and those are more or less what we call reality

Not when a reality does not depend on any humans. There are different types of reality.

Quote from: lisagurl on July 23, 2009, 10:09:49 AM
Not when a reality does not depend on any humans. There are different types of reality.

Whoa, Lisa. when a reality does not depend on any humans?

Now you have been mentioning quantum mechanics and observers changing with their observation "reality" -- at least the measurement of such things. And you've been right at least on a quanta-level.

What reality, in our world and for the purposes of this discussion "doesn't depend on humans?" I'm sorta at a loss on that.

QuoteGo ahead, shout it, Lisa MULTIPLE ANSWERS!

Not multiple answers but multiple relative viewing points, and only one answer . We would have to be in a different dimension to view a point from all angles at once at the same time.

As Einstein points out everything is relative.

---

Post Merge: July 23, 2009, 10:24:43 AM

---

QuoteWhat reality, in our world and for the purposes of this discussion "doesn't depend on humans?" I'm sorta at a loss on that.

So was God enlightened? How about the dinosaurs? When did this enlightenment start? When did humans start? You can not discuss things without including it all. That is making false walls.

Quote from: lisagurl on July 23, 2009, 10:09:49 AM
Not when a reality does not depend on any humans. There are different types of reality.

I agree, probably as many as there are people and animals and trees and rocks and flowers and, well, stuff. Everything experiences reality in it's own unique way, but in order to stay out of those asylums we humans more or less have to come to a consensus on what is real to the cultures we live in. There are many ways to explore other realities, and children do this all the time when they play pretend. Tekla's thread on sane or insane has some posts about people whose realities differ substantially from what most of us experience. Are their's any less real than ours?

QuoteEverything experiences reality in it's own unique way

Reality does not have to be experienced it just is.

I agree with Lisa, just because you not thinking its real, does not change the laws of physics.

you re saying you believe that reality is not dependent on consciousness and I believe that consciousness is the source of all realities. Not sure if either is provable, because we cannot step outside of our consciousnesses to find out.  Further, reality is made of consciousness, and that all things, including rocks and atoms, contain some form of it. That may be a "brain in a jar" argument but it doesn't preclude physics or the driving desire of the brain to explore the jar.

There is a very good book on this subject- "Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness Are the Keys to Understanding the True Nature of the Universe" by Robert Lanza and Bob Berman. Interesting reading, and the authors do not allude to any god or religion either, but make their arguments based on physical science.

Quote from: lisagurl on July 23, 2009, 10:19:27 AM
Not multiple answers but multiple relative viewing points, and only one answer . We would have to be in a different dimension to view a point from all angles at once at the same time.

Only one answer? Hmm, that seems a rather pervasive human desire; that there be but one answer.

Trouble with that is:

QuoteSo was God enlightened? How about the dinosaurs? When did this enlightenment start? When did humans start? You can not discuss things without including it all. That is making false walls.

How to include "it all" when, as someone likes to say, one is a bear of very little brain? And for that matter, a bear of very little experience when it comes right to the point.

Is the experience, for instance, of reading and processing Dr. Robert James Bakker's The Dinosaur Heresies a means to entering the reality of dinosaurs? Not one, but every dinosaur that ever inhabited the planet? If that can be done, why would getting at that through Dr. Bakker's book be anymore a valid way of understanding dinosaur realities than would watching The Land Before Time?

The brain-in-a-jug argument intervenes somewhere about here, I think. :)

Then we move along to Deity. Mother forfend! That brings an entirely different and very imaginative set of realities or reality to the fore. O my!

Shall we enter that set of realities through The Holy Bible (many believe that they may,) Brihadaranaka Upanishad, the Magnificent Koran, Sjoo and Mor's The Great Cosmic Mother, physics(good grief, which one? Newton's Einstein's Bohr's, Pythagorus' or some other, goodness knows physics remains static always, right?), Lanza's & Berman's, Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness Are the Keys to Understanding the True Nature of the Universe or just through the apprehension of a single entity's (yours or mine, or someone else's) perception, consciousness and mental facility?

Choose one and declare it's The Reality. The one reality that we seek and see how quickly the reality becomes that you cannot do that and obtain even the least agreement amongst two, let alone three minds.

I am at a loss just how we proceed, seemingly having run up against a wall of individual insistence on how that one reality looks, feels and smells to this bear of very little brain.

O, I do, however accept tekla's statement that just because you not thinking its real, does not change the laws of physics. That's pretty easily proveable: step out onto this three-story high ledge with me and step off. If physics doesn't have some worth and reality then you and I both should be able to walk safely three or four feet out into what appears to be air alone and return unscathed. :)

I think I'll go polish my nails now, my head is starting to hurt. (https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.faeriewylde.com%2Fimages%2Fsmiles%2Ftocktock.gif&hash=5c2d9aa217061babb9bb1f717bd488f69c4a2cdd)

Besides, all we bears of little brains know that reality is really in the eye of the beer-holder. (https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.faeriewylde.com%2Fimages%2Fsmiles%2Ftrink6.gif&hash=36a831cc9762e70d51e56b219e03f669cc268b18)

QED, FG! (https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.faeriewylde.com%2Fimages%2Fsmiles%2Ftrink6.gif&hash=36a831cc9762e70d51e56b219e03f669cc268b18)

What about the wet t-shirts? Mother knows it's been raining here for hours! :)

Quote from: Nichole on July 23, 2009, 12:42:39 PMWhat about the wet t-shirts? Mother knows it's been raining here for hours! :)

now that's a reality I can wrap my head around! (so to speak)  ;D

Just got back from a long day at the kiddies hospital having my daughter's eyes checked...good to see the usual philosophical chestnuts roasting on the fire of debate again :)

There are those who insist that nothing objectively exists (i.e. there is no moon if there is no observer) because without the perception of an observer, "reality" has no meaning...and each person's subjective view of reality is private to them.  Personally I think this is hogwash, although I'd be inclined to agree about proponents living in their own private reality!

Quoteyou re saying you believe that reality is not dependent on consciousness and I believe that consciousness is the source of all realities. Not sure if either is provable, because we cannot step outside of our consciousnesses to find out.

It is not my belief. Diamonds take millions of years to form. The earth was here billions of years before life. That existence is a reality, before the concept of reality or life.  We can use multiple measurements to make a  probability to separate personal realities from physical reality. The flaw in this is that we can not do it from every angle at the same time. But it is very useful in predicting physical material phenomena.

Now enlightenment has only subjective hearsay. But we can measure physical functions. So we would need a new paradigm of finding evidence and verifying it.

---

Post Merge: July 23, 2009, 03:28:55 PM

---

Quotescientists themselves seem very disinterested in improving the lot of mankind

Who said scientists wanted a goal to improve man kind? They just look for truth. It is the Philosophy that is more interested in mankind but then they only have ideas. It is mankind themselves that have to make the improvements.

Aside from the metaphysical. i just had a thought as i read  the posts. I liked at the question again and thought yes, In the last few years there has been an increase of enlightenment. It will or is measured by science. The paradigm is changing, society is becoming more open to same sex marriage, the immorality of prohibiting natural remedies to eliminate pain and suffering ( MJ reform) and gender dysphand .We, (US) is / are becoming more multi-cultural with less dissent. Maybe it is because our core beliefs have been challenged by the events of the last 10 years by terror, war and change. I couldn't say that would be defined as enlightenment but it is most likely the biggest paradigm shift the old has seen since the 60's
This seems way off topic .

finewine, you being too free with the spliffs again? :)

Not guilty, your honour.  Aside from a very rare fine cigar with a glass of vintage port, I quit all smoking materials long ago. :)

Always wondered about the tree falling in the forest and not making any noise. As for the carrot having no colour, well...

Cindy; being enlightening