Science seeks physical "proof" where Spiritual practice seeks awakening from within.

[Spirit of Light]

Everything can be quantified by science even spiritual practices.

What I mean by that is you can look at brain scans and such and see how the various regions of the brain operate.

People who meditate a lot excetera, have will typically show different patterns with say somebody who doesn't.

I do not disagree that science can see many things in the physical realm with their machines, but those same abilities do exist within us as beings too (extraordinary abilities) But those have to be cultivated before they will open up to us.

 

[atanu]

OK, it seems to me that you are setting up a dichotomy here. Science, rules, and reason are on one side. Spirituality, needs, and imagination are on the other.
.

You have also joined the brigade or are you the leader?

I have already pointed out that that dichotomy was proposed by another poster. I tried to show that dichotomy was false by suggesting that science and spirituality are two ends of the ‘knowing’ universe. I am aware that such an idea will not be palatable to some from both sides.

Can you kindly check up again?

 

[Polymath257]

You have also joined the brigade or are you the leader?

Mostly just trying to understand why spirituality is such a big deal to so many people.

I have already pointed out that that dichotomy was proposed by another poster. I erased that dichotomy by suggesting that science an spirituality are two ends of the ‘knowing’ universe.

Can you kindly check up again?

The problem is whether spirituality (based, as you say, on need and imagination) is legitimately a form of 'knowledge'. I can *imagine* all sorts of false possibilities. Needs are either physical (food, companionship, etc) or imagined. The latter being irrelevant to knowledge as far as I can see.

 

[Windwalker]

I do not disagree that science can see many things in the physical realm with their machines, but those same abilities do exist within us as beings too (extraordinary abilities) But those have to be cultivated before they will open up to us.

Surely, you're not saying I will gain x-ray vision if I cultivate it? Don't let that secret get out to all those young boys out there.

 

[atanu]

Mostly just trying to understand why spirituality is such a big deal to so many people.

Nice. I respect you for this. But again I must remind that spirituality is based on need and imagination was a comment of Skwim. I tried to show the fallacy in that assumption.

The problem is whether spirituality (based, as you say, on need and imagination) is legitimately a form of 'knowledge'. I can *imagine* all sorts of false possibilities. Needs are either physical (food, companionship, etc) or imagined. The latter being irrelevant to knowledge as far as I can see.

But is there never any false starts in science? We are fallible.

With regards to spirituality, let me try again.

Essentially, the spiritual traditions teach that the mind can be seen as bipolar to start with -- an individualistic mind-intellect that suffers from desires and pain on a continuous basis and another calm-peaceful seer of the desiring ego-mind. You may or may not believe it. But most spiritual traditions further suggest turning the attention of the desiring-troubled ego-mind to the seer mind. This can happen in two ways: by devotion and surrender or by conscious meditation/attention on the movements in the mind. The latter is meditation, wherein essentially one tries to be the seer of the monkey mind thereby detaching from the notion that "I am troubled".

Now. There is enough scientific data, that with time, not only the pattern of brain waves change on a continuous basis but actual physical changes take place in the brain. The plasticity of the brain is documented.

But I do not go only by literature support. I have my own experience. Does that constitute evidence or no?
...

 

[Spirit of Light]

Surely, you're not saying I will gain x-ray vision if I cultivate it? Don't let that secret get out to all those young boys out there.

I dont know all the different abilities that exist

 

[Bear Wild]

Have you heard about jokes? Sience geeks was fun way to jokes a bit toward those who only are sience as the real answer.
As you know i have very little faith in sience.

I actually am aware of jokes believe it or not. There are questions that science cannot answer and spiritual things is certainty one of those. Science can only approximate the truth of our world, but to deny the value of this approximation that science does present is to ignore truth of our world. Science is not religion but it should strengthen ones religion by being aware of what we are and our relationship to this world. There are many strong religious believers in this forum who have seen this wisdom. For those without a theistic religion or any proposed religion at all also benefit from what science teaches us about our world and us.

 

[Bear Wild]

Everything can be quantified by science even spiritual practices.

What I mean by that is you can look at brain scans and such and see how the various regions of the brain operate.

People who meditate a lot excetera, have will typically show different patterns with say somebody who doesn't.

Also those who participate in altered states of consciousness (shamanic practices although I do not like the word shamanic) show similar patterns in the brain as in dream states.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

A very clear thing is that Science does seek physical proof that can be measured, whereas Spiritual practice measure the wisdom that arises from within each person, so it is a personal answer that arises, and it will differ from person to person what they have awakened to.

What part of the situation in both science and spiritual practice is difficult for you to grasp?

I'd quibble a little around spiritual practise seeking to 'measure' anything.
But I'm a methodological naturalist, so the broad thrust of your position makes sense to me.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Everything can be quantified by science even spiritual practices.

What I mean by that is you can look at brain scans and such and see how the various regions of the brain operate.

People who meditate a lot excetera, have will typically show different patterns with say somebody who doesn't.

Are you suggesting that science can effectively measure all things?
Or are you suggesting that in theory, some future state science can?
Or neither of those?

Sorry, just clarifying. I went to type a response, but then thought I might be misinterpreting your post.

 

[rational experiences]

Everything can be quantified by science even spiritual practices.

What I mean by that is you can look at brain scans and such and see how the various regions of the brain operate.

People who meditate a lot excetera, have will typically show different patterns with say somebody who doesn't.

How does doing studies with machines whose natural mass was changed to be a machine study in what machines already owned

Feedback fake information to look and see to claim I can see what physical sight does not see

And you claim it spirit in science terms

When a whole human form is a human spirit what machines record on the outside is just a recording

Science will not find their holy grail power in our bodies

Science Sophia said no man is God

Satan occult sciences ufo says man is a machination

 

[rational experiences]

Also those who participate in altered states of consciousness (shamanic practices although I do not like the word shamanic) show similar patterns in the brain as in dream states.

Science says what is beyond is not real

Says God in a universe

God philosophy stone just our God

You say laws by conscious observation

Do you SEE those laws?

You live by natural LAW first

Natural origin observation

One self yet group aware

Did one self believe I know it all or was it group agreed?

Yet each self is a self

Science itself says greater consciousness

Single self experience correct

N o w if I say I had an eternal aware experience

The word as said owned taught by living males said to have a word then it was known

Eternal is not in creation

Spirit science never agreed with Jesus theme for Jesus was an Image of man

Eternal never saved a human it lost u s from its body we die

The one portion of self in eternal wa s who we got cut off from

Why when we die we always owned it

Any rational spiritual mind will say I own it only after I die

Jesus image in clouds angels cloud mass cloud image that forms in the presence of cloud mass saves life from sun radiation

How it was taught

Spiritual teachings say the eternal lost a portion of its mass that fell into creation

Cosmos theme not a God earth theme
Phi fallout is owned historically by sun

Etched in stone no life

Portion science reaction machine is owned in natural first machine caused it ground shows partial effect to doing nuclear

2012 ufo would have stopped

1000 Satan
1000 Jesus 0 but sacrificing hotter atmosphere still existed radiation cause effect life was still sick as proven

Evolution cooling natural ice accrual to cool earth gases by 2012 how it was science notified cooling is natural evolution

 

[gnostic]

@Amanaki

You have not replied to post 56:

Proof is something like an equation or formula.

For examples, Einstein's famous mass-energy equivalence:

E = m c^2​

That's equation is proof, not evidence.

Newton's universal gravitational equation:

F = G (m1 m2) / r^2​

That's also proof, not evidence.

Ohm's Law:

I = V / R​

Again, another proof, not evidence.

Equations and formulas are bunch of variables, some numbers; they are something that scientists have formulated, and it is part of formulation of the explanatory models.

Each of these equations can be right or wrong, and they are only valid if the evidence support the proof.

Evidence is carrying out testings in the field, discovering evidence, performing experiments to test a hypothesis, recording observation on video, taking measuring, and so on.

Don't get me wrong, Amanaki, mathematical proof is and can be very useful tools to science that allow scientists to frame their hypothesis in logical ways, but in the real world, maths and mathematical proofs don't always provide the correct solutions in understanding natural phenomena. That is evidence is far more important than proof.

I have given you examples of what proofs are. Ohm’s law, Einstein’s mass-energy equivalence equation and Newton’s Universal Gravitation formula, gravity constant, pi, etc, these are all proofs, not evidence.

Proofs are not “physical”.

Just as hypotheses and theories are explanatory models to explain the natural or physical phenomena, they are not evidence.

Likewise, proofs are logical models by using mathematical equations or formulas or metrics and constants, but proofs themselves are not evidence.

Evidence are what can be observed, measured, quantified, tested. When you discovered evidence that can be detected or measured, then that’s evidence, not proof. Whenever you perform experiments in a lab, getting test results in the form of recordings on videos, taking measurements, and so on, these data are evidence, not proofs.

When you watching movies, involving court trials, forensic and detectives, they often used evidence and proof synonymously. They are wrong, because in the science and mathematical worlds, they are not the same things. Forensic science gather evidence and test evidence, they don’t find and test proofs.

There are distinctions between evidence and proof, and only evidence can test any model (eg hypothesis, theory, proof) being true or false.

I am simply trying to enlighten you on the differences, and dispelled common misconceptions.