Epistemic Fallacies of Materialist Science
posted by yellowseed | June 7, 2010
- Login or register to post comments
- Print this page
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Propeller
Reddit
Magnoliacom
Newsvine
Furl
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
Icerocket
- The present state of the world is called "gola" (exile). The state of the world as it will soon be is called "geula" (redemption). The two words are exactly the same, except that "geula" has the letter "alef" inserted in the middle. "Alef" means "master". It also means "one".
To make gola into geula, we only need reveal the alef—the One Master of the Universe who is hidden within the artifacts of our present world.
—Menachem Mendel Schneerson
What are the stars without us?
Something—we know not what.
What is the Earth without us?
We can never say.
What is reality in our absence?
We will never know.
For all our modern knowledge about the universe, every one of those images, concepts and theories is a product our embodied cognition: beyond our perception, we can never know "what is".
So before we say that anything exists—to be logically and epistemically sound—we must always say "I am" (saying X, Y, and Z exist).
Anything else is ignorance, self-denial, naïveté. And that is the fatal flaw of the modern materialist myth.
Materialist science has failed to form a coherent picture of the world because it ignores that there is something forming pictures of the world, and it lacks a useful understanding of man because it ignores man's striving for understanding.
We cannot escape our existence. Why did we ever try to?
Comments
oh Sam...
— Jun 08, 2010
<yawn>
— Jun 08, 2010
Yellowseed, you need to differentiate incoherence from incompleteness. "Incoherent" means that computers don't function. "Incomplete" means that they're not sentient; that they're not conscious yet. Big difference.
You speak as if you believe I don't understand these ideas of yours, as if I haven't thought these very thoughts 10 years ago.
You're like, "Gee Lion, aren't you amazed? Aren't you astonished? Aren't you blown away? Or are you just puffed up like science, and don't get it yet?"
(snore)
I'd love it if you'd
— Jun 08, 2010
I'd love it if you'd actually take a shot at any of the specifics in these posts (instead of putting words in my mouth or reaching for classical logical fallacies).
Granted, a lot of this writing is more free essay than distilled dialectic, but I don't need to spoonfeed you. The ideas are clear.
Is it possible that you may have missed something 10 years ago?
I don't expect you to agree with me, only the fact-checking you promised (remember no words in my mouth), and a reasoned discourse.
you need to differentiate incoherence from incompleteness. "Incoherent" means that computers don't function. "Incomplete" means that they're not sentient; that they're not conscious yet. Big difference.
What?
Peace and Love
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TL9FNlW7h3w
"Incoherent" means that a
— Jun 08, 2010
"Incoherent" means that a collection of statements are self-contradictory.
"Incomplete" means that a collection of statements are not totally describing something.
Science is plenty coherent. The incapacity to explain consciousness is an incompleteness, not an incoherence.
If science were substantially incoherent, we wouldn't be able to manufacture a computer.
Do you deny that you accuse science of puffery? Do you not constantly on and on about this revolution in science? Are you playing ignorant here? Why not just fess up to what you're saying, rather than arguing about particulars?
And yes, of course the ideas are "clear." I never spoke otherwise. (See, you're attacking straw men again.) I told you, I've known these ideas for at least 10, 15 years.
Wow yellowseed. You really
— Jun 09, 2010
Wow yellowseed. You really pushed E Sam's, and Lion's buttons with this blog. You have them accusing you of being mentally ill, telling you what to write and who to write like, rudely yawning in the face of your efforts (can you imagine if someone yawned at you in a real-life discussion?) and resorting to splitting hairs over the use of a word. These are all typical responses to when one's belief system is offended. The badge-wearing pragmatist quickly succumbs to emotion, personal attack and innuendo in an effort to defend the ego which has seemingly come under fire. And yes, whether people want to admit it or not, relying on institutional, materialistic science ( the thoughts, ramblings,and math equations of OTHER PEOPLE) to be the basis of one's world-view, does amount to a belief system. And it's a very limited one at that.
What the materialists seem to constantly fail to realize is that you cannon find Truth via the methods, and proclamations of others (including me or anyone else, so don't believe a word I say ;)). Not the capital 'T' Truth that is needed in today's world. Corporate / government funded scientists and their publications are no exception. All they can produce is one agreed upon framework in which the world is viewed and operates. And we have to keep in mind that this particular framework is driven heavily by capitalism, conformity and often times, authoritarianism. Thankfully there are other options when it comes to seeking Truth. And that is what I'm here to support. That inner realization that can only come from within, not from without.
Nice post.
Jumping in at The Middle of a Conversation
— Jun 09, 2010
Yah -- you have no idea what you're talking about.
Sam, Yellowseed, and I have been talking for many, many months now.
So, all the things you're saying? You're talking about an image you have from jumping in at the middle of a conversation, and you don't really know my thoughts, or Sam's for that matter.
"Yah -- you have no idea
— Jun 09, 2010
"Yah -- you have no idea what you're talking about." - LionKimbro
First, I'll just let that comment of yours sit right up there so we can ponder it and get to know you better.
I based my comments on THIS blog and the comments below IT. That's the way things generally work here. If you and Sam decide to bring old baggage to this comment section (which is sorta silly isn't it?) then expect that there might be some misunderstandings. But please don't expect me or anyone else to presume there might be emotionally driven, past drama before we post. The way I see it, it doesn't really matter what your history is with yellowseed. There's still no justification for the hubris in your comments here and now ("OCD", "< yawn>"?! come on guys).
"So, all the things you're saying? You're talking about an image you have from jumping in at the middle of a conversation,"
No, not ALL. My second paragraph was directly related to the blog post to share an opinion with yellowseed. I'm sorry if you felt that it applied to you.
Allow me to explain.
— Jun 09, 2010
First, you're just blatantly lying when you say I've accused yellowseed of being mentally ill. I have never done that, and you owe me an apology for such a careless accusation.
Next: "Can you imagine if someone yawned at you in a real-life discussion?" Yes -- definitely -- It's happened to me, and I've done it to others. In each case, it's been appropriate.
What a yawn means is: "You're getting boring, endlessly repeating the same thing, even when we've agreed with you (on whatever point.)" If you look at the past few several months of yellowseed's posting, you'll see the broken record and you may -- I dare suggest -- yawn a bit yourself, as well.
"Yawning" is a perfectly acceptable rhetorical move in my move. I'm not holding anyone to a standard I don't hold to myself.
This has nothing to do with "offended belief-systems," which is just purely your own mental universe now.
The situation is this:
Yellowseed has gained an insight into the nature of consciousness, and the fact that naturalistic science as it presently exists does not cover this.
On this, we are all agreed.
(You should be now seeing the emptiness of the "offended belief-systems" thing of yours -- if I agree with yellowseed, then how can he be offending my belief-system? You see the hollowness now?)
The matter of "incoherence" and "incompleteness" hairsplitting is to point out to yellowseed that: "You're talking a lot, but there needs to be a rearrangement of your attitude here, if you're really wanting to make a difference."
yellowseed is so elated by his discovery, that he's a bit unhinged off the tracks, so to speak. "Yeah," it's a big and important discovery. "Yeah," it's going to change the course of science over the next few decades. It already has.
But: The way yellowseed is talking about these things is way over-the-top, and, further, he's now (and has in the recent past) going into a delusional territory where he spouts things like "quantum mechanics says [xyz]" and "idealism is true!!" and on and on.
Yellowseed wants to work in the realms of the real, and I see great promise in yellowseed's capacity to do so -- but he's veering off in dangerous directions right now, and needs to see reality. Otherwise, I do him no favors by just letting him go off into obscuranta land.
All this nonsense from you about "relying on institutional, materialistic science, to be the basis of one's worldview" -- you simply have no idea who I am or what I think. I didn't invite you to this conversation, you just showed up and started saying what's going on. If you want to be a part of this conversation, fine -- we can have that conversation. The more the merrier. Do a bit of research before you start saying what's what about me, though.
Your end-statement about the nature of truth is garden-variety. I've discussed this to-end (not "endlessly," but rather, to complete and mutual satisfaction) with may people.
Get the sense that there is more going on here than appears at first glimps.
Relax. Everything is Ok. You
— Jun 09, 2010
Relax. Everything is Ok. You just seem to be missing the greater point here. Sorry if I offended you. But please re-read my comments. You'll see that they're not all about you.
What are your thoughts, and what are you here to say?
— Jun 09, 2010
OK, I feel more relaxed now. Thanks for hearing me out.
I guess my question is then, for you --
What are your thoughts?
And: What are you here to say?
Is this a conversation interests you, that you want to participate in?
not trying to jump in....
— Jun 09, 2010
i'm not trying to jump into any kind of dialogue here, and its nice to see people communicating honestly with each other
I just wanted to suggest for anyone who cares to listen, that the best way to communicate a point to someone else, especially if its any kind of counter statement or criticism, is through supportive, compassionate speech.
in all cases, insults and harsh speech will only cause others to put up a guard, and stop truly listening to what you have to say.
this can be seen often when lawyers and politicians, all of whom have valid points to add to a discussion, argue so fiercely that by the end it becomes a battle for victory, and not an enriching dialogue at all.
so perhaps we should all take a second to remember that we're all on the same team, and we all joined this sight to enrich ourselves and others.
peace be with you all
“No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it.” -Albert Einstein
oh, i almost forgot!
— Jun 09, 2010
what i was actually here to say is that because material science Does exist, and Has been so widely developed, that perhaps we can still use bits and pieces of its findings to assist us on our own personal journeys towards Truth...
yellowseed, i see where you're coming from here, and i'm glad you posted this, but maybe it would be good to think about all of this like we think about our dreams. While a dream does not actually have a physical effect on the reality that we wake back up into, it can help aid our understanding of that reality.
so maybe while science cant completely explain the small piece of Truth that we can see, perhaps it can still be useful to us and is not worth discarding
to this comment, but not the one above, i would love to hear what anyone thingks...
“No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it.” -Albert Einstein
oh absolutely
— Jun 17, 2010
I need to work on coming on a little less harsh on "science" perhaps. Could you help me with this?
I love science, it's all I've studied, all I know, and I believe the path to the new world.
But my problem is not "science", it is materialism, the philosophical standpoint which has informed the entirety of the concepts and entities of today's science.
If I say "modern science is an illusion" it is because materialism claims to paint an "objective" picture of reality with no need for our humanity, and that's just nonsense, innocence, and ignorance. It is the same un-consciousness responsible for all humanity's problems right now.
So it's a conceptual, pre-scientific revolution, if you will. I'm not concerned with the sciences' particulars and their awesome power, I'm talking about building the sound epistemic framework they deserve, about putting the whole back together on firm foundations.
Parting Words for the Thread
— Jun 09, 2010
Caramel Giraffe, if you want people to listen to you, take your own advice, and be willing to listen to them -- none of this "I get to talk and you don't" bull.
Yellowseed, if you want to develop your thoughts on this, you know how to get in touch with me. I am ready (eager, really,) to give you my full attention in synchronous communication. I will answer any question or challenge you pose to me, and will give you my own questions and challenges as well. I cannot guarantee that we will agree, but I will guarantee that you will find our exchange very interesting. I am not interested in parlaying with you through these asynchronous message-in-a-bottles before a crowd that requires that we keep redefining our terms for them, that just bumps in at random and assume they have the context.
If you don't want to talk with me, that is fine too, -- but I have fair requests: If you're not going to engage with me, then don't send indirect notes out to me through your blog. ("This one goes out to Lion Kimbro" type of thing.) Second, don't state what you believe my position is as if it were actually my position, because you consistently get it wrong.
And Jim, -- my apologies for not taking the time to explain what you were walking into first, right off the bat.
I'm all ears
— Jun 10, 2010
i wasnt saying that nobody can respond to that first message- please do.
i just meant that i was commenting on this post with the intention of discussing its content, and not jumping into the argument that had ensued
i only wrote the first part because i was reminded by what i read above it that we're all on the same team here, and felt like sharing that might be a good idea
but once again, i didnt mean to impose any beliefs or stick my nose in something that wasnt my business just to put my two cents in
so if you dont vibe with what i said, then please disregard it.
“No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it.” -Albert Einstein
Response to Caramel Giraffe
— Jun 10, 2010
(What Caramel wrote:)
I just wanted to suggest for anyone who cares to listen, that the best way to communicate a point to someone else, especially if its any kind of counter statement or criticism, is through supportive, compassionate speech.
...
in all cases, insults and harsh speech will only cause others to put up a guard, and stop truly listening to what you have to say.
My disagreement with these statements stems from evidence in my life to the opposite -- from both the receiving and the giving end.
There have been myriad times in my life where someone has given me a pointed statement that directly challenged everything I believed in, that I was basing my actions in, -- and that demanded (and created) an immediate change in my outlook, behavior, and response.
Further, there have been many times in my life where I was given "the run-down;" Where it was made very clear: "Oh, that's who you think you are? Well guess what, -- it's really like this." -- and it has caused me to really re-evaluate, and rethink what was going on.
The vehicle of these deliveries was harshness.
Some times, the change is immediate. Some times, it takes a day to recover, and then think about "what comes next?"
But it has happened many, many times.
The idea that pointed arrows "never" work is, in my opinion and observations, part of a way of thinking that becomes a system of control characterized by passive aggression and inability to communicate clearly, because the communications are so full of manipulations and calculations.
Witness Wind-Fox's and FractalBob's posts, and you'll see that when you take direct confrontation off the table, you inevitably end up with passive-aggression as the mode of communication.
Deeper than this, there's a point at which "the community" and "the problem individual" (or "problem individuals") just have to part -- and no amount of dialog or mutual sympathies or being on the same side can cure the situation.
Interesting
— Jun 10, 2010
Good post yellowseed!
In regards to the discussion, this kind of conflict is interesting (and frustrating to read at the same time). I think it would be useful if the folks involved would re-read the discussion, and putting personal matters aside, pay attention to what is actually playing out here.
I think (or hope) you might discover something interesting!
Hurt people, hurt
— Jun 10, 2010
Hurt people, hurt people.
Just my 2 cents but I think you guys just need to follow the "4 agreements". There are a lot of assumptions(agreements) at every step.
Money-a symbol for the efficient distribution of human energy.
thanks
— Jun 17, 2010
