Spirituality is right. The world is unknowable. So?

[auroraglacialis]

Originally Posted by Human No More

Things that 'can not be explained' now will not be seen the same way in 50 years.

I won't say that this really is so or not, rather I will say that this is not really the point for me. Explanation (in scientific, physical, mechanistic terms) of things yet unexplainable may be possible within the physical and scientific realm. Naturally if one looks for a scientific explanation of anything, this is what one finds. If one looks for a different explanation, this one is what one finds. But understand that I do not say science is wrong. This fundamentalist religious notion to reject the knowledge brought into our culture by science as false based on mistrust, religious dogma or blind faith in opposing views makes little sense. A spirituality cannot exist if it denies the existence of these informations. It has to be inclusive, but unlike science it has to be inclusive in a way that is not appropriative, not denegrating the other. Science claims truth and denies religious, spiritual or even holistic philosophical thought that truth and bascially puts them in the corner of the fool. It calls them liars, superstitious nonsense and self-deluding idiocy. This kind of appropriative inclusiveness is damaging, it spells conflict and is borne aout of the neodarwinist worldview of Scientism that everything is competition, that the better explanation will win, that science is the better way to see things compared to other views, thus the other ones have to go away because they are "false gods" (I think it is no coincidence that this analogy to the christian bible exists by the way). So I think what is needed is a view that is truely inclusive, that threats the knowledge gained by science as real, but that maybe questions the ideological aspects of it. And most of all I think that the focal point has to be a different one.

everything, from love to enmity, can be seen at their cores as a drive to survive, to outcompete others.

This is the type of neodarwinism I was talking about - everything gets described in that way - that competition, struggle of survival just for the sake of it is at the base of everything. A physical, mechanistic property. A "hard and cold reality" of matter and energy. And all other things build upon it - cells, bodies, animals (who are mere biological machines built to transport the genes to the next generation), love, compassion, emotions, feelings, consciousness. And even the parts that are not yet explained are thought to be explainable given enough data. So eventually all of the mentioned will be attmpted to be explained by interactions of matter and energy, of DNA and hormones. I think at least there is one (probably many more) other way to look at it - namely that all these physical properties are there to manifest consciousness, feelings, emotions, compassion, love. That to manifest this there have to be animals that have to have neurons, hormones, brains, bodies, cells,...
This is not denying the results of scientific exploration, it is just looking at this world from a different viewpoint. Again "what is primary" - the choice is that either the physical is regarded primary, which inevitably leads to a certain nihilism. Because if it is all just particles interacting, what does it matter if something dies or lives or a species goes extinct or an animal screams in pain. Descartes, one of the first "scientists" who followed strictly that kind of worldview in which matter is primary described the shrieks and whines of the animals he cut open alive as mere squaking wheels in the clockwork mechanisms he was taking apart. The only way out of this mechanistic dilemma of utter darkness and the allowance of all behaviour is to create a construct of an enlightened human. Of a human that is (maybe by culture, maybe by some other superiority) able to go against the course of nature, against the course of competition at all cost. Or another way to look at it is to see it as a flaw, as a evolutionary relic that humans actually feel bad about torturing an animal. Just neurons blinking for no special competitive reason at all. I think these presumptions are shaky at best.
Looking at it the other way round - that for us as living beings what is primary is our experiences, our emotions, our consciousness and that the physical world is basically the means we are existing seems to me much more fulfilling. We can still marvel at the things science tells us, but we are not slaves to the notion of being basically just walking vehicles for competitive gene transfer.

knowing something doesn't diminish it. I could describe the basic function and design of every single significant part of a computer, but that does not give me a problem in using one - indeed, I would say it gives me a greater appreciation.

I think this is only party true, because it matters what you look at in the end, and from what point you look at it. Certainly I'd say to know how something works does diminish it in our thoughts to some degree and in some aspects. We may still wonder at complexity, at numbers of components or fine tuned mechanistic connections. All quantifyable stuff. That wonder and marvel is however IMO depending on an ever increasing property. Once we know one thing in detail, we NEED more complex, larger, or more efficient mechanisms to invoke wonder and awe again. At the same time, it is easy to forget the whole over the parts and most of all that at times the whole is actually more than the sum of its parts. The very least one should do is to look at it all - at the parts, at the whole, at the subjective experience of us ourselves. But most of all I think what is needed, desperately, is a guideline how do deal with what we know. I think the view advocated by Dawkins & Co is a very very bleak and destructive one - a deterministic, mechanistic world in which consciousness and free will is merely an illusion, created by competing genes and memes that have the only goal of surviving. If this is a cultures world view, it is no wonder that there comes a sense of entitlement, of superiority with it. But also a sense of nihilism and "f*ck it". A sense of "we can do whatever we want because if someone dies because of it he was just not well adapted, not strong enough". So I think clearly that this way of looking at the world and taking this as the story we enact in this world is leading to what we see now - widespread destruction. Instead we should realize that other concepts can explain the world we live in and maybe these are called "spiritual". Cooperation instead of competition can be a major force for example.

I will close with a funny (not accurately transcribed) quote from Derrick Jensen here. He quoted 'Dawkins saying that "There are working models to explain the world as it is in terms of cooperation or competition, the problem with cooperation [and presumably his conclusion is that therefore it has to be based on competition] is, that if you have a cheater around, everything breaks down." - Look around you Mr. Dawkins - there IS a cheater around and everything IS breaking down.'

[Clarke]

Originally Posted by Tsyal Makto

There are mystical or unexplainable elements to everything, what's your point?

Even logic? Even mathematics?

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

Science is not wrong - within its realm...

Where does its realm end? Why?

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

Science claims truth and denies religious, spiritual or even holistic philosophical thought that truth and bascially puts them in the corner of the fool. It calls them liars, superstitious nonsense and self-deluding idiocy.

Really? I didn't know science delivered emotional conclusions.

I think at least there is one (probably many more) other way to look at it

Of course there are, but the point of this thread is the question: What do those other ways tell you which is useful?

The only way out of this mechanistic dilemma of utter darkness and the allowance of all behaviour is to create a construct of an enlightened human.

You appear to think that emotions are necessary for the world to function. Why? Also, this appears to be an argument to consequences. Could you elaborate on why it isn't?

Looking at it the other way round - that for us as living beings what is primary is our experiences, our emotions, our consciousness and that the physical world is basically the means we are existing seems to me much more fulfilling. We can still marvel at the things science tells us, but we are not slaves to the notion of being basically just walking vehicles for competitive gene transfer.

I don't understand why this idea is mutually exclusive to the one garnered from science. Science tells you how the world physically works, it doesn't give any sort of accompanying values. At least, it doesn't at the moment; you would probably win a Nobel Prize if you could get it to.

EDIT: Correction: science doesn't give you values without you already knowing what it is you want to achieve. It can only tell you what's good and evil when you know, precisly, what "good" and "evil" mean. (The vast majority of people don't know in enough detail.)

[auroraglacialis]

Originally Posted by Clarke

Even logic? Even mathematics?

Actually yes. There are things in mathematics that are not solvable. Mathematics, unlike Scientism, does not claim that everything is solvable by its tools. That is not a problem of course because Mathematics is not a natural science. It is in a way not even a science, but rather a philosophy. It derives its conclusions neither from observations nor does it conduct experiments to prove hypothesis. It is precise, but it also needs axioms that are created by the human mind.

Where does its realm end? Why?

The realm ends when it comes to things that are not logical, not scientific. You cannot capture the essence of emotions with science. You can try to explain the physical results, hormones, neurons and all that, but you cannot really describe what love is or how fear feels. There are more examples, I am sure. Science is in the end a descriptive field - it does explain what is and how things change, but not why things are there. To that latter, science has only the answer of "pure chance", but there is little science in that explanation because to describe something statistically, one needs a little bit of a bigger dataset than 1.

Really? I didn't know science delivered emotional conclusions.

You know what I mean. Lets not start nitpicking.

Of course there are, but the point of this thread is the question: What do those other ways tell you which is useful?

These other ways tell us how to behave in a way that makes "sense" (another linguistically noteworthy correlation that this refers to sensual perception). To look at the world, the universe as a mechanistic machine leads to one set of behaviour, looking at it as being infused with meaning, or putting subjective experiencing at a higher priority leads to another set of behaviours. What kind of behaviours do you think will lead to a future that is desireable for human beings who after all are subjective, emotional, feeling, perceiving beeings?

You appear to think that emotions are necessary for the world to function. Why? Also, this appears to be an argument to consequences. Could you elaborate on why it isn't?

Emotions are not needed for the world to FUNCTION (as a machine functions), but they are needed for the world to be experienced in a way that suits the human experience.
It is not an argument at all, this is not a debate in that I am not trying to say that science is wrong.

I don't understand why this idea is mutually exclusive to the one garnered from science. Science tells you how the world physically works, it doesn't give any sort of accompanying values.

Exactly.

[Human No More]

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

Actually yes. There are things in mathematics that are not solvable.

There are contradictions, but those are not 'unsolvable' as they are never practically encountered - an example is P=NP - while both can not be true, in practice, by necessity, one must be true and contradict the other.

Mathematics is nothing less than the practical application of observation, on a level lower than even the most general of the laws of physics, which use it as a premise. By the simple premise that things can be observed, everything can be built via observation over countless layers of abstraction.

The realm ends when it comes to things that are not logical, not scientific. You cannot capture the essence of emotions with science. You can try to explain the physical results, hormones, neurons and all that, but you cannot really describe what love is or how fear feels.

Neither can you assume that the experience is consistent between individuals for that exact reason, yet people still recognise it in others.

It is not an argument at all, this is not a debate in that I am not trying to say that science is wrong.

That is completely beside the point - for one, it can also be called an appeal to consequences, and whether or not a point is an argument does not change its logical consistency or lack thereof.

Exactly.

Exactly.
'Accompanying values' are a matter of what the individual applies - their logic may be rigorous and based on observation, or it may be based on emotion and guesswork. That doesn't change the laws of physics, or any premise.

[Human No More]

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

Science claims truth and denies religious, spiritual or even holistic philosophical thought that truth and bascially puts them in the corner of the fool. It calls them liars, superstitious nonsense and self-deluding idiocy.

No, it demands evidence. It points out the failings of holding something as true without it, but does not 'deny' anything. Denial is a negative assertion - that is, to declare something, not necessarily with a body of proof.

A 'truly inclusive' view depends on whether or not it is still intended to be factual - a 'truly inclusive' one, by definition, would include blatant falsehoods and logical contradictions. Calling questioning anything held 'because that's the way people think it', not even seeking to negate anything, but simply for it to be proven on its merits 'damaging' completely contradicts your earlier statement of blind faith not making sense.

This is the type of neodarwinism I was talking about - everything gets described in that way - that competition, struggle of survival just for the sake of it is at the base of everything. A physical, mechanistic property. A "hard and cold reality" of matter and energy. And all other things build upon it - cells, bodies, animals (who are mere biological machines built to transport the genes to the next generation), love, compassion, emotions, feelings, consciousness. And even the parts that are not yet explained are thought to be explainable given enough data. So eventually all of the mentioned will be attmpted to be explained by interactions of matter and energy, of DNA and hormones. I think at least there is one (probably many more) other way to look at it - namely that all these physical properties are there to manifest consciousness, feelings, emotions, compassion, love. That to manifest this there have to be animals that have to have neurons, hormones, brains, bodies, cells,...

Do bacteria feel love, or anger? No.
Can anyone say that their feelings are identical to any other's in context? No.
Calling this simple analysis 'neodarwinism' is like calling mathematics 'neomathematics' - the fact is that it is not true, because it follows the same system as it. Just because something is reality doesn't mean people can't choose to live it as they like - indeed, while humans do more often, it is not just sentient animals that may occasionally act counter to instinct. No life was 'built', only selected for fitness.

This is not denying the results of scientific exploration, it is just looking at this world from a different viewpoint. Again "what is primary" - the choice is that either the physical is regarded primary, which inevitably leads to a certain nihilism. Because if it is all just particles interacting, what does it matter if something dies or lives or a species goes extinct or an animal screams in pain.

It matters because something unique has been lost.

Descartes, one of the first "scientists" who followed strictly that kind of worldview in which matter is primary described the shrieks and whines of the animals he cut open alive as mere squaking wheels in the clockwork mechanisms he was taking apart. The only way out of this mechanistic dilemma of utter darkness and the allowance of all behaviour is to create a construct of an enlightened human.

Of a human that is (maybe by culture, maybe by some other superiority) able to go against the course of nature, against the course of competition at all cost.

Other animals do it all the time. Humans aren ot unique, there is no special property - not even sentience.

Or another way to look at it is to see it as a flaw, as a evolutionary relic that humans actually feel bad about torturing an animal. Just neurons blinking for no special competitive reason at all. I think these presumptions are shaky at best.[/quote]
The fact that humans can see to their own survival to the degree that they can become concerned for other species (or even individuals less familiar than a mate, offspring, siblings/parents or an extended group they live with) without impacting themselves is rare, but not even unheard of other than mere scale. Some humans have even managed to be accepted by certain animals (primates are obviously the main candidate here, but it has also happened with wolves and dolphins) as something that, while obviously different, is considered worth having around, even protecting as they would one of their own.
That in no way diminishes the fact that at the core, they are simple biological functions of chemical interaction.

Looking at it the other way round - that for us as living beings what is primary is our experiences, our emotions, our consciousness and that the physical world is basically the means we are existing seems to me much more fulfilling. We can still marvel at the things science tells us, but we are not slaves to the notion of being basically just walking vehicles for competitive gene transfer.

What is primary for someone is very different to the basis of their biology - indeed, since the brain is electrochemical, it would, at least in theory, be possible to transfer memories between bodies or into a non-biological system. I would say that for the majority of people, their experiences and emotions are what drive them, certainly - but that does not mean they do not have instincts. Everything from the aversion to things like the blood of others of an unknown status, to simple reflexes, are learned behaviours which have in the past been necessary for survival, even if now not used so much. Humans being at a stage where they are capable of directing their own evolution is a clear indicator how how far they have come - that does not in any way prevent people from looking for anything they want - indeed, most would say it enhances that capability.

I think this is only party true, because it matters what you look at in the end, and from what point you look at it. Certainly I'd say to know how something works does diminish it in our thoughts to some degree and in some aspects.

To some people, it makes it all the more beautiful.

We may still wonder at complexity, at numbers of components or fine tuned mechanistic connections. All quantifyable stuff. That wonder and marvel is however IMO depending on an ever increasing property. Once we know one thing in detail, we NEED more complex, larger, or more efficient mechanisms to invoke wonder and awe again.

Again, as you said in the start, that's how people may choose to view it. A single cell is just as interesting as the scale of distant galaxies. Complexity depends on how you define it - many artificial constructs are more 'complex', but in many cases, a simpler one may perform as well - complexity exists where it gives an advantage that a lesser degree of complexity could not, but not where something less so does the same function as well, or even better.

At the same time, it is easy to forget the whole over the parts and most of all that at times the whole is actually more than the sum of its parts.

I do not understand how you can go from claiming people interpret it differently (which I agree with) to such an assertion, which is clearly false for just as many people.

I think the view advocated by Dawkins & Co is a very very bleak and destructive one - a deterministic, mechanistic world in which consciousness and free will is merely an illusion, created by competing genes and memes that have the only goal of surviving. If this is a cultures world view, it is no wonder that there comes a sense of entitlement, of superiority with it. But also a sense of nihilism and "f*ck it". A sense of "we can do whatever we want because if someone dies because of it he was just not well adapted, not strong enough". So I think clearly that this way of looking at the world and taking this as the story we enact in this world is leading to what we see now - widespread destruction. Instead we should realize that other concepts can explain the world we live in and maybe these are called "spiritual". Cooperation instead of competition can be a major force for example.

I think the view advocated by some is destructive - that things do not exist out of a sum of parts, and therefore, are less worth consideration as equal. In many cases, it has been people who think things exist specifically for them who have been lacking in respect for life, while an understanding of the simple origin and how humans have the same basis of life as everything, and below that, even the same basis of existing as even inanimate objects, and that this pattern is capable of repeating itself and building upon successive layers.

I will close with a funny (not accurately transcribed) quote from Derrick Jensen here. He quoted 'Dawkins saying that "There are working models to explain the world as it is in terms of cooperation or competition, the problem with cooperation [and presumably his conclusion is that therefore it has to be based on competition] is, that if you have a cheater around, everything breaks down." - Look around you Mr. Dawkins - there IS a cheater around and everything IS breaking down.'

It's interesting how people perceive that 'cheater' differently - indeed, I would say that going down to the most basic level reduces perceived differences between everyone.