Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
What Science can't explain
Hello everyone,
I am new here, interested in your thinking and would like to ask you a question.
To me it seams that in our modern society science tries to explain everything. But what are they missing? What can't they explain and what will they never be able to explain in your eyes?
I am really exited to hear some answers.
Thanks
I am new here, interested in your thinking and would like to ask you a question.
To me it seams that in our modern society science tries to explain everything. But what are they missing? What can't they explain and what will they never be able to explain in your eyes?
I am really exited to hear some answers.
Thanks
0
Comments
Science doesn't try to do anything, it just stored knowledge. Scientists try to find that knowledge. What are they missing? The new technologies, models and frameworks which may or may not be developed in the future.
So science can answer observable questions based on the assumption that the subject is a pure filter. Basically science in itself is functional but is based on assumptions. Thus most science is theory. Though that theory can work and help us with technology. That theory in itself cannot be the theory of everything. Until recently science has developed a TOE. But that TOE brings up a shitstorm of more questions, which science can assume but will never know for fact.
Science has also conveniently ignored the notion of consciousness. Without consciousness science could not exist. But consciousness is quite the tricky thing for scientists. Just bury it and move on!
So from this framework. Science is empty. Science is just looking at things as it is.
We take that experiential knowledge and construct various theories and ideas around them. Or we can skew that data to fit our ideologies. Whatever works.
It's an endless rat race. The more answers we find, the more questions arise. In my opinion science won't ever find all the answers to all the questions.
Science focuses on the external. Whereas religion focuses on the internal. The internal meaning consciousness. Science avoids consciousness. Consciousness seems really interesting.
Sorry if this is going in different directions.
I sooner or later someone is going to claim that scientists can't study consciousness because they assume that consciousness is within the mind which is within the brain, while in reality the brain picks up consciousness rather than generates it (or something like that anyway).
The more willing we are to accept what we observe, the easier life is to navigate. The less willing, due perhaps to not liking the way things are or not wanting to believe them, the more of a struggle (suffering).
Science can explain as much as anything else, since science is just humans chipping away at the fabric of space-time, trying to figure it all out. It can tell us how things are, to a degree, but the mind itself must be malleable and pliant, able to adapt and see reality as it is. This is where science becomes nothing more than knowledge, and skillful means (through vehicles such as Buddhism) must be applied to awakening the mind.
No matter how new and ground shaking the findings promise to be, science always tells us what we DO NOT know.
(can I get in on that hug, BTW? It look SO cozy and comforting!)
Going OT a bit (I am sorry) but there's always time for a Cupcake of Science Joy Break:
(Let's party 'til the mods shut us down! :rocker: :clap: :om: :vimp: )
("Party responsibly"??! What does that mean? Don't engage in substance abuse? I never do. Just cupcake abuse.
I just googled "What Science Can't Explain" for Original Poster Kimay. Got this link and this picture:
http://www.null-hypothesis.co.uk/science/strange-but-true/item/top_ten_science_cant_explain
Science is very good at extending HUMAN knowledge. I say HK because Science will never get to spiritual issues.
Actually, as far as genuine (non-human?) spiritual issues are concerned? Humans will only get the chance to attain Enlightenment which has one HUGE drawback: it can not be explained NOR communicated: only experienced.
So science, with the lovely mathematics and the mega-impressive instruments like CERN are all created by humans (yes even the mathematics are created) will ONLY give us what humans can handle think and communicate.
.
Science will never reveal something in other-than-human terms. Even with a fully realized fully advanced science, we're still going to be stuck here for a while, in the dirt and grit - biologically speaking, with these sense organs and these limited brains and cultural collective memory - including all our potential to be amazed and filled with wonder. Not that there's anything wrong with that!
Many people say that Buddha's method of enquiry was like a scientist.
I didn't expect so many answers. Really really cool. Thanks so much. There were some really helpful ideas in this conversation. Let me think about it for some time and than I will come back to you.
Thanks
Kim
I also think anything that we can understand and communicate will be merely human understanding and for the merely human. If humans can be understood as spirits they will be human spirits.
In a word: were trapped!! No escape (except on a deeply personal _private_ level) for the time being from this realm. Speculating sure can be fun though!
Oh! Check this brief article/summary out!!! Dr. Persinger research presents yet another messy situation:
wait!!! link wont work see below!!!
http://www.rexresearch.com/persinger/persinger.htm
:clap:
When we become more capable to explore these issues scientifically we'll see they are scientific (logical, rational scientific method of inquiry).
Also, people will still go around and claim "supernatural" and "divine" connections. Won't matter; both will coexist as usual. All of it will be human inventions.
IOW, Nothing will really change from the way it's been since the advent of modern science in the 17th century.
(Oooh... did I say that out loud?)
Sorry, I think I've gotten a bit excited myself. OK, so what you were inferring was this:
It is through the mind that we experience reality.
It is through the mind that we experience the physical world.
It is through the mind that we formulate theories.
It is through the mind that we debate, assert, disprove theories.
It is through the mind that we know about our bodies.
It is through the mind that we know about brain.
It is through the mind that we devise measuring devices and experiments.
It is through the mind that we interpret the outputs from the measuring devices.
And lastly, just to throw in some Buddhism,
It is through the mind that realise that we can't find the mind.
Seriously though, postulating that mental function is a side effect of the movement of ions is all well enough, but, there are a few problems:
1) we don't know what electrons are,
2) we don't know what quarks are,
3) we don't know what neutrons are because they are made of quarks,
4) we don't know what protons are because they are made of quarks,
5) we don't what what atoms are because they are made of electrons, protons and neutrons,
6) finally we don't know what ions are because they are made of all of the above!
So we have a brain made from ????
We can describe our brains in terms of movement of charge, but, the things that are the carriers of charge are undefined by our present level of knowledge and there is no indication, other than "blind faith" that we will find the solution to these problems as time goes on.
Also we have a predictability problem here. A succession of neurons firing can generate an electric field, fair enough, *but* an electric field has recently been shown to induce neurons to fire. At first look this may not seem much of an issue, but if anyone has any experience of feedback systems, even a second order feedback system with one feedback path can get very complicated very quickly. As the order of dimensions increase by one, the complexity increases exponentially. What we are talking about here is a billion odd network of neurons that induce electric fields which can then induce neurons to fire. It is looking like the complexity of this system for a single human brain may be approaching the complexity of the global weather, maybe worse because I haven't even considered the effect of chemical stimulants and suppressants in the brain. And when we start heading towards chaotic systems, then the predictability of the laws of physics fall to pieces.
Anyway, its all fun!!! BTW I wish to add a disclaimer, that I love maths, science and engineering, but I also love its limitations as it makes things a bit more exciting and mysterious!
Cheers, (its late and time for me to meditate....take care :bowdown: )
WK
For example a polymer is a string of linked molecules. A giant macromolecule. The energy to break the bonds in the polymer is quite a bit higher than the energy to melt the polymer.
When you drive on the road your tires wear down. The only understanding is that the polymer for the tire is deposited on the road. But think how many cars drive by and how much each tire is worn in a year. Why isn't the road coated with a tire polymer film?
But yet understanding the material as a polymer allowed us to make the tire in the first place!
It's sensible that mind can "jump into" all sorts of forms throughout all sorts of universes. Diverse and different forms which we humans can't possibly comprehend because of the biological brains we're stuck in..., err..., I mean..., because of the our biological brains which the mind is stuck in.
One thing is sure in my mind..., err..., in my brain..., err..., in my..., uh..., whatever is this: The chemical/biological/neurological brain is holding mind back; the brain is limiting mind.
Yup! The human brain/organ limits MIND, like meat, fat and gristle in a tight sausage casing.