Why Scientists need to accept Eastern thought

[Audie]

Other way around:get the calculations to fit what we observe about the universe.
.

It is the same with ToE; them scientists line up bones
and things to make them fit into their theory.
Sometimes they carve the bones if they cant fit
them any other way.

 

[Aupmanyav]

And what is more, this person, Parameshti Parameshwara or whoever, was not branded as a heretic, was not beheaded; but on the contrary, his hymn was honored by being included in the oldest and most revered scripture of Hindus, the RigVeda. That was a Hindu thought experiment. I do not believe in any kind of mysticism. I am hard atheist.

 

[viole]

I will try to keep my topic simple. There are multiple reasons why Western scientists need to adopt but I will only offer two:

1. Eastern thought provides an objective approach to acquire knowledge.
Eastern mystics discovered a practice and tool long ago to explore consciousness and reality, and that practice is 'meditation'. This method is objective because it removes the filters that tend to distort reality - the mind and senses. If you cease all mental and sensory input, then you are no longer subject to bias, feelings, limitations but rather you experience reality as it is.

2. Eastern thought has a wealth of knowledge that deals with the same things that scientists deal with- the nature of consciousness and reality.
Eastern thinkers did not intend to explore every bit of physical Universe like science does. Eastern thinkers main focus was on the nature of consciousness and reality. As such, the mystics have discovered different states of consciousness that go beyond the limited classifications of scientists. One fact from Eastern thought is that consciousness does not exist independently of matter. Another fact is that consciousness can transcend "self" when it exists in everything (or as part of everything) as opposed to being fixed to one thing. Call this universal or Cosmic consciousness. Given the fact that Western materialist scientists are stumbling ped when it comes to consciousness, it would be wise they seek insight from Eastern thinkers. To date, many scientists are flocking to the Dalai Lama so that should tell you something.

Your thoughts. Do you agree that science needs to adopt Eastern thought?

Does not look like science needs anything of the sort.

It would be like asking whether science at the time of the Vikings, if any, would have needed Norse mythology since it had a clear explanation for lightnings. Something scientists at that time were struggling with.

Ciao

- viole


Ciao

- viole

 

[exchemist]

I think it is just another version of how with the
right attitude one can know so much more than
those foolish people who actually study.

I'm afraid I suspect it is something political: Indian Nationalism. Modi's government encourages, or perhaps just reflects, a growth in nationalistic assertiveness. India is far from the only country where this is taking place (just look at the Godforsaken islands of Britain, hell-bent on self-impoverishment by pursuing a nostalgic English national dream of a past that never was), but I've seen more and more of this stuff from India in recent years on science forums.

There are, it seems, people who feel science is a "western" import (ignoring the huge contribution to science by Indians - ever heard of Bose-Einstein statistics?). They are aggrieved about that and demand parity of esteem for local ideas. That's all very well of course, but trying to shoehorn meditation and woo about consciousness into science is quite the wrong way to go about it.

 

[stvdv]

Nope. It is NOT objective because it is not public and repeatable for others. The rest is philosophy and not science.

This is how I see it:

Scientists live in the third dimension. Saints travel a few dimensions above that.
Of course it´s not repeatable for others. Can´t teach relativity theory to a 5 year old, and normally expect them to grasp it.
But one needs to be a bit humble to accept this truth. For me no problem to accept that there are some Saints way ahead of my capabilities.

Seems to me, this is exactly the problem with people who do Spirituality away as less than Science.
When Scientists only could let go of their EGO, then they would be able to do really great things.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I'm afraid I suspect it is something political: Indian Nationalism. Modi's government encourages, or perhaps just reflects, a growth in nationalistic assertiveness.

Well, what you say about Modi and his party is correct. They are nationalists, and why should not one be?

But in their team there are some chauvinist Hindus who claim that Indians had atom bombs in the time of Mahabharata or that we had aircrafts with speeds greater than MIG 25. I am not one of those Hindus, and in this forum and elsewhere, I have been the greatest critic of such people.

 

[Polymath257]

This is how I see it:

Scientists live in the third dimension. Saints travel a few dimensions above that.
Of course it´s not repeatable for others. Can´t teach relativity theory to a 5 year old, and normally expect them to grasp it.
But one needs to be a bit humble to accept this truth. For me no problem to accept that there are some Saints way ahead of my capabilities.

Seems to me, this is exactly the problem with people who do Spirituality away as less than Science.
When Scientists only could let go of their EGO, then they would be able to do really great things.

Well, that is the claim. But what *actual* evidence do we have of this? What 'great things' have these 'saints' actually done? What great insights (testable, please) into the nature of the universe?

You can't teach relativity to the 5 year old because 5 year olds typically don't have the language and reasoning skills required. The problem with mysticism isn't being able to understand what is being said. The problem is showing that it is correct.

I agree there is an EGO problem. But it seems to be on the side of those who think science should adopt their beliefs.

/E: Higher dimensions aren't difficult to understand for those trained to do so (which many physicists are). Once again, the problem isn't understanding. The problem is verification.

 

[Aupmanyav]

It was a thought experiment, and 3,000 years later science also says that virtual particles can arise from space. I think that is remarkable.

 

[stvdv]

What great insights (testable, please) into the nature of the universe?

I have even got myself great insides, and testable. I just did (a little) what the Scriptures declared. And Grace abounds.
But you do have to put in this little Self Effort. Others who know won´t serve it to you on a gold plate. That´s not how it works.
Remember .... it is `Beyond the mind`.

I agree there is an EGO problem. But it seems to be on the side of those who think science should adopt their beliefs.

I was not talking about `science should adopt`
I just said `if a scientist could only get rid of his EGO, he might reach far higher in wisdom`

Higher dimensions aren't difficult to understand for those trained to do so (which many physicists are). Once again, the problem isn't understanding. The problem is verification.

The sadhana needed to grasp `THAT´, has nothing to do with understanding, nor with verification. That is the first clue ... go beyond the mind.

I do like your quote under your posts. `There` you might find why `Eastern Thought` is so valuable.

You may have heard the phrase, “A little learning is a dangerous thing.” It’s found in Alexander Pope’s poem An Essay on Criticism, composed in 1709. Pope wrote “A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again.”

What does it mean? In effect, Pope is saying that a little learning or knowledge (the “shallow draughts”) will only befuddle (“intoxicate the brain”), misleading us into thinking we know more than in fact we do. Remedy for this problem lies in continuing to learn (“drinking largely” at the “Pierian spring,” the spring sacred to the Muses and the source of the knowledge of art and science). But the idea expressed in those verses is much older than the 18th century. It’s possible that it goes back a few thousand years.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Science and religion are just the same, search for truth. Christianity and Islam are not religions, but Jesus' or Mohammad's cult. Hinduism is a proper religion which was refined by millenniums of discussions. Reflection, meditation are thinking at its best.

That would be a very unscientific statement, not backed by data to prove that Christianity and Islam is not as valid as any other religious thought.

The other issue is, that the minds of Hindus have also been greatly influenced by both Christianity and Islam and had many centuries to do so.

The way forward is to drop all these petty predudices and find a Unity of mind. Then and only then, will true religious and scientific minds be opened.

Regards Tony

 

[QuestioningMind]

I will try to keep my topic simple. There are multiple reasons why Western scientists need to adopt but I will only offer two:

1. Eastern thought provides an objective approach to acquire knowledge.
Eastern mystics discovered a practice and tool long ago to explore consciousness and reality, and that practice is 'meditation'. This method is objective because it removes the filters that tend to distort reality - the mind and senses. If you cease all mental and sensory input, then you are no longer subject to bias, feelings, limitations but rather you experience reality as it is.

2. Eastern thought has a wealth of knowledge that deals with the same things that scientists deal with- the nature of consciousness and reality.
Eastern thinkers did not intend to explore every bit of physical Universe like science does. Eastern thinkers main focus was on the nature of consciousness and reality. As such, the mystics have discovered different states of consciousness that go beyond the limited classifications of scientists. One fact from Eastern thought is that consciousness does not exist independently of matter. Another fact is that consciousness can transcend "self" when it exists in everything (or as part of everything) as opposed to being fixed to one thing. Call this universal or Cosmic consciousness. Given the fact that Western materialist scientists are stumped when it comes to consciousness, it would be wise they seek insight from Eastern thinkers. To date, many scientists are flocking to the Dalai Lama so that should tell you something.

Your thoughts. Do you agree that science needs to adopt Eastern thought?

I disagree. The scientific method works precisely the way it's supposed to work the way that it is. No other method has reliably enabled us to discover more about how the universe functions than the scientific method. If it's not broken, don't fix it.

 

[stvdv]

That would be a very unscientific statement, not backed by data to prove that Christianity and Islam is not as valid as any other religious thought.

IMO: Any Religion claiming `My way is the highway for all` is arrogant by definition, and unfit to be called a True Religion.

The way forward is to drop all these petty predudices and find a Unity of mind. Then and only then, will true religious and scientific minds be opened.

Coincidentally the majority of the Christians and Muslims I have met (95% at least) suffer from this EGO disease, believing their religion is superior

At least Hinduism taught me the opposite. All are equal, meaning `1 is not superior, and the other is not inferior`.
Islam and Christianity still need to learn this lesson. If not, there will never be Peace on Earth (IMO)
Religion of Peace means just `stop this Spiritual Arrogance`; it's just spiritual discrimination.

There is 1 race, the race of Humanity.

They should focus more on the other meaning of `discrimination` = use your discrimination to `not discriminate` other's (non)faith

 

[TransmutingSoul]

IMO: Any Religion claiming `My way is the highway for all` is arrogant by definition, and unfit to be called a True Religion.



Coincidentally the majority of the Christians and Muslims I have met (95% at least) suffer from this EGO disease, believing their religion is superior

At least Hinduism taught me the opposite. All are equal, meaning `1 is not superior, and the other is not inferior`.
Islam and Christianity still need to learn this lesson. If not, there will never be Peace on Earth (IMO)
Religion of Peace means just `stop this Spiritual Arrogance`; it's just spiritual discrimination.

There is 1 race, the race of Humanity.

They should focus more on the other meaning of `discrimination` = use your discrimination to `not discriminate` other's (non)faith

I see that is valid thought.

Regards Tony

 

[Guitar's Cry]

You can get philosophical about it, but science is definitely not a philosophy.

It's a procedure used to establish and verify facts on just about anything that's testable.

By that criterion so is any intellectual discipline. You are right that this was the original meaning of the word, but it is not how it has been used in the last two hundred years or so, so far as I am aware.

I would suggest that science is ultimately made up of various philosophical elements: logical reasoning, epistemology, axiology, and to remove these is to leave science with only the instinct of induction.

Ultimately, we may be disagreeing on semantics, but I suppose this is always the case!

 

[exchemist]

I would suggest that science is ultimately made up of various philosophical elements: logical reasoning, epistemology, axiology, and to remove these is to leave science with only the instinct of induction.

Ultimately, we may be disagreeing on semantics, but I suppose this is always the case!

Science is the study of nature.

This is not what philosophy does, nowadays at least.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Science is the study of nature.

This is not what philosophy does, nowadays at least.

I think we may be using two different definitions of philosophy.

It is a fairly complex and tangled term, but it boils down to being the study of knowledge. Philosophy investigates human understanding of the world, and is thus the umbrella term for anything related to how we aquire knowledge, and in understanding and using it.

 

[Polymath257]

I think we may be using two different definitions of philosophy.

It is a fairly complex and tangled term, but it boils down to being the study of knowledge. Philosophy investigates human understanding of the world, and is thus the umbrella term for anything related to how we aquire knowledge, and in understanding and using it.

But not all thought is philosophy. So, if I am thinking about math, or physics, I may not be thinking about philosophy *if* I am not thinking about how knowledge of math or physics is possible. So, if I am studying the Stone-Cech compactification of some space, I am NOT doing philosophy, in all likelihood. I am simply doing math. If, later, over drinks, I discuss what it means for two different objects in math to be the same, I am more likely to be doing philosophy.

In this sense, philosophy is a meta-level: it talk about how we acquire knowledge, while science actually goes out and acquires it. Often, philosophy is pretty useless to working scientists since the question isn't the generalities of philosophy, but rather the practicalities of how to make a measurement.

 

[exchemist]

I think we may be using two different definitions of philosophy.

It is a fairly complex and tangled term, but it boils down to being the study of knowledge. Philosophy investigates human understanding of the world, and is thus the umbrella term for anything related to how we aquire knowledge, and in understanding and using it.

I would be the first to agree that science involves some philosophy: the philosophy of science. What I am saying though is that you cannot say science "is" philosophy. It uses it, implicitly, in its approach to understanding nature, but that is not the same thing. Most scientists spend their entire careers untroubled by any philosophical thoughts at all.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

But not all thought is philosophy. So, if I am thinking about math, or physics, I may not be thinking about philosophy *if* I am not thinking about how knowledge of math or physics is possible. So, if I am studying the Stone-Cech compactification of some space, I am NOT doing philosophy, in all likelihood. I am simply doing math. If, later, over drinks, I discuss what it means for two different objects in math to be the same, I am more likely to be doing philosophy.

I don't think one has to be aware that they are doing philosophy for it to be philosophy. For instance--and I am completely opening another can of worms here and will likely regret it!--math is essentially another philosophical tool and has its own philosophical basis. Again, it is a child of axiological and logical understandings. The use of math, experimentation, moral considerations, conclusions, and applications are all philosophically based.

In this sense, philosophy is a meta-level: it talk about how we acquire knowledge, while science actually goes out and acquires it. Often, philosophy is pretty useless to working scientists since the question isn't the generalities of philosophy, but rather the practicalities of how to make a measurement.

I thought of this, and considered changing my wording to "science is philosophy applied." But how is the doing of something not the something itself. In other words, even if I were to say that science is practical application of philosophical concepts, how is this not "doing philosophy"?

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I would be the first to agree that science involves some philosophy: the philosophy of science. What I am saying though is that you cannot say science "is" philosophy. It uses it, implicitly, in its approach to understanding nature, but that is not the same thing. Most scientists spend their entire careers untroubled by any philosophical thoughts at all.

See my reply to Polymath. You guys are taxing my ability to multitask with your interesting discussion!