Science Gains a Soul

Originally Posted by spiritualized

Are you familiar with Dr Miller; Stephen?

http://youtu.be/5FA0T1XdWsQ

http://drmiller.com/2010/05/ask-dr-miller-what-is-presence/

Excellent find Spiritualized! I love his old school roots with the Esalen Institute and the likes of Allen Watts and Gregory Bates.... Really good influences of the day! I perused through some of Millers interviews and found this interesting exposure. Rich Hayes goes into some detail about how the advertising industry works to keep us off kilther and tilting toward their products... in relation to the fears and outright lies that they implant into the cultural lexicon...

http://drmiller.com/2012/03/truthiness-fever-dr-rick-hayes-roth/

And thanks again for linking to Anthony de Mello! I've enjoyed his library of recordings on the page that you linked to once already, and am part way into a second listen! His words and insights are like massage therapy for the soul! :^)

Originally Posted by StephenK

Excellent find Spiritualized! I love his old school roots with the Esalen Institute and the likes of Allen Watts and Gregory Bates.... Really good influences of the day! I perused through some of Millers interviews and found this interesting exposure. Rich Hayes goes into some detail about how the advertising industry works to keep us off kilther and tilting toward their products... in relation to the fears and outright lies that they implant into the cultural lexicon...

Thanks for the Link - Will watch later.

Are you familiar with Michael Tsarion? This 11 part U-Tube Lecture is worth a look -

Michael Tsarion - Subversive Use of Symbolism (1 - 11)

http://youtu.be/wjdgpBAGKeQ

Jean Kilbourne's work & the 'Killing us Softly' series is very good as well - Here is a sample -

http://youtu.be/DIno37_JJ_E

And thanks again for linking to Anthony de Mello! I've enjoyed his library of recordings on the page that you linked to once already, and am part way into a second listen! His words and insights are like massage therapy for the soul! :^)

Really glad that you have enjoyed it all & got something from it. There is a transcript that can be downloaded from the same page - also stuff on U-Tube. He wrote a number of books as well.

Originally Posted by StephenK

I'm finding this to be common among a number of things that I've been tracking as of late. In some the scientific examples that are used strongly conflicts with what others took-away from the process... What I've been doing, instead of taking everything that each person is saying as though it were gospel, I've been looking to where they're generally pointing, and tracking that in regards to my own exposures and to what others are saying on each subject.

I wouldn't be so generous. The Michelson-Morley experiment (MM) is from the late 1800s. The conclusions of this experiment have not changed substantially since then, and have in fact been confirmed multiple times. If Gregg Braden is going to use this experiment to make a point, he is obligated to actually understand basic details about the experiment. To focus only on where someone is "generally pointing" can lead you astray if all of the details the conclusion is based on are incorrect.


Brief background about the MM experiment first: Light is an electromagnetic wave, and it can travel through a vacuum. This seems strange at first, because someone might ask "In a vacuum, what is waving?" (or in other words, what is the medium of propagation?). In water waves, the water is the medium. In sound waves, the air is the medium. Neither of these types of waves can travel in a vacuum because, in a vacuum, there is no water or air. So, it was proposed that light travels through a special medium called the ether. Michelson and Morley set out to test for the existence of this ether in their famous experiment.


Here's his quote (starts around 4:20):

Originally Posted by GreggBraden

The equivalent of the [Michelson-Morley experiment], is if you were to go outside of the building where you are in right now, and moisten your finger and place it in the air above your head, and in that moment you felt no wind against your finger, and from that concluded that no air exists around you …that’s the equivalent of this Michelson and Morely experiment. They believed that if this field actually exists it must be moving, and when they tested for movement, they found none and from that concluded that the field does not exist.

The point Braden is making is that Michelson and Morley (MM) were testing for the ether at one location, and that it is fallacious to conclude that the ether does not exist generally since it was not found at only one point. This criticism misses the fact that MM were looking for the ether by measuring differences in the propagation of light (due to ether drag). Since they were measuring light, and light is supposed to propagate through ether, by measuring no difference in the propagation of light due to the ether, they were able to conclude that light propagates by some other mechanism. Since the ether was invented only to provide a mechanism for the propagation of light, and measured light did not exhibit the effects one would expect if the ether did exist, there is no problem with simply throwing out the ether hypothesis.

To reiterate: The ether was proposed to explain the propagation of light. This ether hypothesis included some experimentally verifiable predictions. These predictions were shown to be false. Therefore, the ether is not the correct model. So, Gregg's "finger in the wind" analogy is a straw man, and his criticism is not valid.

Originally Posted by GreggBraden

They believed that if this field actually exists it must be moving, and when they tested for movement, they found none and from that concluded that the field does not exist.

This is just a detail, but details are important. They did not necessarily believe the field be moving, but that the earth is moving relative to the field. They tested for the effects of this relative motion. They found none, and so the ether hypothesis was thrown out.

It is not uncommon for spiritualists to build up their spirituality on a foundation of misunderstood and misinterpreted scientific experiments and concepts.

Sorry for such a long post, I hope someone got something useful out of it.

Originally Posted by Kepler

It is not uncommon for spiritualists to build up their spirituality on a foundation of misunderstood and misinterpreted scientific experiments and concepts.

Nice... I enjoyed your description in the way that I would enjoy a good artist during the making of a complex origami creation... your intellect is well developed and efficient... :^)

But you do see the problem here... science has become the bastion of the isolated and measurable, while spiritualism is generally the record-of-humanized-consciousness busy dreaming about its overall self ...

At some point they'll need to merge if the whole picture is to be addressed.... and happily they're getting there... quantum physics is a song about energy, using math as the lyrics, and spirituality has been getting burnt-out on some aspects of itself... happily the new age is about over and giving way to a more sober reflection of possibility....

As to the latter part, let me ask you something Kepler.... have you ever had an out of body experience, lucid or pre-cognitively dreamed, or telepathically connected with another?... have you had an experience that actually left you befuddled, had you wondering why science seems so stuck in the lab, while a whole nother life is shining brightly with pregnant possibility...?

The scientific models are good if one has never had their apple cart tipped... You're really good as describing what you've found on the table, I'm curious to see if you've peeked over the horizon... :^)

Richard Dawkins comes to call -

http://www.sheldrake.org/D&C/controversies/Dawkins.html

Controversies -

http://www.sheldrake.org/D&C/controversies/

Originally Posted by spiritualized

Richard Dawkins comes to call -
http://www.sheldrake.org/D&C/controversies/Dawkins.html

Thanks for the link Spiritualized! This pretty much dismantles the credibility of Richard Dawkins motives, and blatantly demonstrates his deep lack of overall curiosity...

Now on the subject of Sheldrake... I love that man....! what a wonderful intellect and intuitive insight he has! I recently stumbled across the most interesting group of fascinating discussions involving Terence McKenna, Ralph Abraham, and Rupert Sheldrake! They span between the years of 1989 to 1998. There's over 30 of these discussions recorded over that time and what a treat it is to be be privy to this exposure! I'm still downloading and converting them into mp3's, to be listened to at work, and am still in the earlier episodes of these meetings...

From start to finish I'm wanting to listen to them all!
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL0F7A7AD569AE8595&feature=plcp

And one other point....

Have you noticed how the "scientifically minded" among us want to pick apart all that is relevant to spirituality on "factual" grounds, and yet they know little to nothing about the actual experience of "spirituality" itself... they tend to enter the conversation front-loaded with scientific expectations, thus expecting us to cow-tow to their dictates... sorta funny in a very Dawkins kinda way!

Spirituality as I see it is a process of direct experience and participatory insight. The primary delivery system for this insight comes through the process of profound exposures.... Much of what I'm currently seeing that's emerging from the "cutting edge sciences" today I was personally exposed to back in the early to mid 1970's. This is all general "soul-knowledge" open to anyone who has an ear to hear with, and who has a curious heart ready to embrace the integrity of ones spiritual origins...

Those who rely strictly on material-based studies in order to judge the validity of that which is energy-based are coming to the table with one empty hand. To them, credibility is strictly one way... with that being defined by the congealing of energy that's been formatted into a physical presence... never mind the core energy that feeds this machine... they are mesmerized by the way things "look" at the most surface of levels...

There are a lot of serious scientist out there who started off in this way and shifted dramatically once they had an out of body/lucid dream/ or psychedelic experience... they were opened to the greater experience of being... and their findings from then-on were quite interesting.... :^)

Originally Posted by StephenK

Now on the subject of Sheldrake... I love that man....! what a wonderful intellect and intuitive insight he has! I recently stumbled across the most interesting group of fascinating discussions involving Terence McKenna, Ralph Abraham, and Rupert Sheldrake! They span between the years of 1989 to 1998. There's over 30 of these discussions recorded over that time and what a treat it is to be be privy to this exposure!

Thanks for the Link/info - will have a listen.

Have you noticed how the "scientifically minded" among us want to pick apart all that is relevant to spirituality on "factual" grounds, and yet they know little to nothing about the actual experience of "spirituality" itself...

The 'scientific' materialists are in a box of their own making. I wonder if it will have deeper ramifications for them than they realise?

Sorry for my absence - I'm currently in the midst of the last weeks of this academic semester.

Originally Posted by StephenK

But you do see the problem here... science has become the bastion of the isolated and measurable, while spiritualism is generally the record-of-humanized-consciousness busy dreaming about its overall self ... At some point they'll need to merge if the whole picture is to be addressed.... and happily they're getting there... quantum physics is a song about energy, using math as the lyrics, and spirituality has been getting burnt-out on some aspects of itself... happily the new age is about over and giving way to a more sober reflection of possibility....

It's worth pointing out that I'd never claim that science provides a complete description of "reality", nor is it perfect in describing things generally. That being said, science has done an amazing job of describing things in a useful way.

(Also, energy has always been an important concept in physics. Quantum mechanics provides no more emphasis on energy than does classical physics, nor does it provide any new fundamental insights into the concept.)

Originally Posted by StephenK

As to the latter part, let me ask you something Kepler.... have you ever had an out of body experience, lucid or pre-cognitively dreamed, or telepathically connected with another?... have you had an experience that actually left you befuddled, had you wondering why science seems so stuck in the lab, while a whole nother life is shining brightly with pregnant possibility...? The scientific models are good if one has never had their apple cart tipped... You're really good as describing what you've found on the table, I'm curious to see if you've peeked over the horizon... :^)

Sure, I've "peeked". I've had my share of lucid dreams, ghost hunts, religious study, etc.

Originally Posted by StephenK

Have you noticed how the "scientifically minded" among us want to pick apart all that is relevant to spirituality on "factual" grounds, and yet they know little to nothing about the actual experience of "spirituality" itself... they tend to enter the conversation front-loaded with scientific expectations, thus expecting us to cow-tow to their dictates... sorta funny in a very Dawkins kinda way!

Feeling that this is directed (at least partly) towards me, here are my thoughts:

Please notice that whenever I argue from the "hard science" perspective, I'm almost always clearing up a misconception about science itself (see for example this post). I never would quote a law of thermodynamics to disprove a personal, spiritual experience. But, if a person claims that they communicated telepathically via quantum entanglement, I will definitely correct the scientific misunderstanding bit by offering up more "hard science". This does not change the fact that they may have actually communicated telepathically.

I've never criticized spirituality generally, but I have criticized the bad science on which spirituality is often based. But of course, as has been pointed out many times, spirituality is based on many other things besides scientific findings. That's fine - I have no problem with this. But remember! This is the Science and Spirituality section of the forum! So yes, of course I have some scientific expectations when entering into these conversations.

Originally Posted by StephenK

Spirituality as I see it is a process of direct experience and participatory insight. The primary delivery system for this insight comes through the process of profound exposures.... Much of what I'm currently seeing that's emerging from the "cutting edge sciences" today I was personally exposed to back in the early to mid 1970's.

Can you give some examples of 70s spirituality that is now "cutting edge science"?

[hybrid]

Originally Posted by Kepler

To reiterate: The ether was proposed to explain the propagation of light. This ether hypothesis included some experimentally verifiable predictions. These predictions were shown to be false. Therefore, the ether is not the correct model. So, Gregg's "finger in the wind" analogy is a straw man, and his criticism is not valid.

actually gregg analogy make sense, because the only thing that the MM experiment had proven is that "there is no ether wind".
there is no ether wind therefore there is no ether.
the assumptions MM had taken about the ether during those times are all false assumptions in the first place. we should know better now.

Originally Posted by Kepler

Sorry for my absence - I'm currently in the midst of the last weeks of this academic semester.

Which is a serious challenge of it's own.. I'm impressed that you have time for the forums at all! :^)

Originally Posted by Kepler

Sure, I've "peeked". I've had my share of lucid dreams, ghost hunts, religious study, etc.

In these incidences the Lucid Dreaming stands out as the gem in the list. It's our consciousness in an awakened state within a domain of greater exposure. The other two are fun, but they only serve to entertain our current experience with "assumption", so they're somewhat neutral when it comes to our deeper explorations.

Originally Posted by Kepler

Feeling that this is directed (at least partly) towards me, here are my thoughts:

Not at "you" as a whole, but at that part of you that appears vulnerable toward drifting into a definition-of-self that may insulate you and isolate you from more interesting exposures. Science as it's been generally practiced is somewhat sterile. It's religiously in the sense that it entertains "assumptions" as fact. And then it bases "credibility" on ones adherence to these assumptions. Just like with religion, the deeper you're drawn into the discipline in this way, the less "outside the box" you're willing to venture. When I read your replies I'm watching two people... the one that is curious, expressively intelligent, with a great deal of integrity and purity in your intentions... and then the other version of you which is drawn-in by convention. You want to firm your definitions-up into something of a solid and are using the scientific establishment as the meme in which to do so.

This first version of "you" is a wonderful ticket for a most amazing experience, and on so many levels... while the later version is more of a stiffing agent, and can lead you to frustration and a more jaundiced feeling toward life in the long run. So I'm fanning the former and am concerned for the later.

Originally Posted by Kepler

I've never criticized spirituality generally, but I have criticized the bad science on which spirituality is often based. But of course, as has been pointed out many times, spirituality is based on many other things besides scientific findings. That's fine - I have no problem with this. But remember! This is the Science and Spirituality section of the forum! So yes, of course I have some scientific expectations when entering into these conversations.

But science itself is always shifting... so when you employ "scientific expectations" you're basing it on your best interpretation of the current modality. Ten years from now the assumptions will likely shift to some degree, while 50 years from now we may be entertaining an entirely new matrix of thinking. Look how much it's shifted in the last 100 years, and the pace of such shifting is accelerating exponentially... I run into this myself all the time... I'll take a firm stance on something that makes sense in the moment, then have to retract later in favor of a more complete picture. This has happened enough that I've developed the habit of holding all with an open hand... "information" is a moment of frozen assumption, easily thawed when exposed to the welcomed heat of new knowing...

Originally Posted by Kepler

Can you give some examples of 70s spirituality that is now "cutting edge science"?

Actually the 70's spirituality was pretty lame... all these were personal experiences.. experiences that were so daunting that I saw them as both fascinating, while almost cruel considering the lack of support at the time for such exposures. There was hardly anything in book form, no internet to explore, just me an my little catholic upbringing to ferret through the implications of this intensified exposure.

In a nutshell they blew my lid off... I won't detail them here but will summarize that they focused on the energy-makeup of reality. That matter isn't matter, that solid isn't solid, that the backdrop of the physical is a really intense illusion, and that this background hum of energy is the designing force of creation. That "matter" is the tail-end of a very long process, and that being physical is a means of freezing ones perceptions into a format that's convincingly narrow...

You were privy to a part of this process while you were lucid dreaming.... you likely experienced a level 2 or 3 (out of 10) intensity in your exposure as to how this is done.. I had a few spikes where it was dialed up to a 6 or 7 and frankly resented the exposure for some time... being phyical is a dumb place to have to figure this stuff out... happily some of the sciences and specific individuals are drifting into areas that I was stuck needing to process... it's taken me into my 50's before this started becoming fun.. I no long feel like I'm in this alone.... :^)