Tippaporn

Continued . . . It's not at all a question of "not understanding science," Hummin. Rather, just as some see the failings of religion others see the failings of religion and science. Again, as Sunmaster pointed and as Seth makes clear science, in it's current state, can only deal with objective reality. It is not yet equipped to deal with subjective, or inner reality and therefore is incapable of providing any true answers to explain that portion of our reality. And so, some of us . . . like me . . . like Sunmaster . . . look elsewhere for sources and answers which are capable of explaining that portion of reality to us. I would bet a dollar to a donut that you do not believe those sources exist. Now I've provided an example which shows the ineffectiveness of the "methodology of science" to arrive at a conclusion as to whether or not consciousness, or we, create our own reality. I've again asked @VincentRJas recently as yesterday point blank to give his opinion or comment since he more than anyone keeps insisting that my problem is that I so obviously don't understand the "methodology of science." Yet no matter who I ask, or how many times I ask it, not a single science oriented type here has addressed it. They avoid doing so as if the question were the plague. And I know that @VincentRJhas read that last request since I posted it yet he still ignores answering the question and continues to remain silent on it. Why? Because he, and all of the other science types here who are so thoroughly convinced that the "methodology of science" is capable of providing all answers to existence would have to admit that one of their most cherished beliefs, which they held to be true in the absolute, must now reconcile the fact that they've been wrong.

Now I promised to pile on but I have to start with that one paragraph Why, Hummin, do so many people turn away from religion? Is it because the easily recognise the fallacies? The many contradictions? The faulty logic? Of coarse. So those searching for answers to life and who once believed that religion had all of the answers now begin searching elsewhere. Many then turn to science as science does offer facts based on evidence, proofs and is backed up by solid logic. Science's answers can then be used quite practically to create numerous inventions for the benefit and convenience of mankind. How supremely wonderful! But, as Sunmaster so wisely points out: Here are a few quotes from Seth which would serve to further elucidate and expound on Sunmaster's quite astute answer. He is referring to science with this opening statement. The underlined, bolded text is per Seth's request. I should warn you first: if you have any aversions to learning you will loudly protest over having to read too much, or you'll excuse yourself by objecting to "copy & paste," or you'll come up with any other lame reason to not read . . . and then comment on what you've read. Or, as you've done in the past, you'll claim that it's "beyond" your understanding. Any reasons you offer as objections will not at all be true reasons but just excuses passed off as "credible" reasons. So far in any of your investigations, you have been probing exterior conditions, searching for their interior nature. To make this clear: When you dissect an animal, for instance, you are still dealing only with the "inside" of exterior reality, or with another level of outsideness. (Pause.) In a manner of speaking, when you probe the heavens with your instruments you are doing the same thing. There is a difference between this and the "withinness" out of which all matter springs. It is there that the blueprints for reality are found. There are various ways of studying reality. Let us take a very simple example. Suppose a scientist found a first orange, and used every instrument available to examine it, but refused to feel it, taste it, smell it, or otherwise to become personally involved with it for fear of losing scientific objectivity. In sense terms he would learn little about an orange, though he might be able to isolate its elements, predict where others might be found, theorize about its environment - but the greater "withinness" of the orange is not found any place inside of its skin either. The seeds are the physical carriers of future oranges, but the blueprints for that reality are what formed the seeds. In such dilemmas you are always brought back to the question of which came first, and begin another merry chase. Because you think in terms of consecutive time, it seems that there must have been a first egg, or seed.1 The blueprints for reality exist, however, in dimensions without such a time sequence. Your closest point to the withinness of which I speak is your own · consciousness, though you use it as a tool to examine the exterior universe. But it is basically free of that reality, not confined to the life-and-death saga, and at other levels deals with the blueprints for its own physical existence. In the entire gestalt from cellular to "self" consciousness, there is a vast field of knowledge - much of it now "unconsciously" available - used to maintain the body's integrity in space and time. With the conscious mind as director, there is no reason why much of this knowledge cannot become normally and naturally available. There is, therefore, a quite valid, vital, real and vastly creative inner reality, and an inward sequence of events from which your present universe and life emerges. Any true scientist will ultimately have to learn to enter that realm of reality. So-called objective approaches will only work at all when you are dealing with so-called objective effects - and your physicists are learning that even in that framework many "facts" are facts only within certain frequencies, or under certain conditions. You are left with "workable facts" that help you manipulate in your own backyard, but such facts become prejudice when you try to venture beyond your own cosmic neighborhood and find that your preconceived, native ideas do not apply outside of their context. Because of your attitudes, ideas do not seem as real to you as objects, or as practical. Thoughts are not given the same validity as rocks or trees or beer cans (two of which sat on the coffee tab/,e between us at the moment) or automobiles. In your terms an automobile gets you somewhere. You do not understand the great mobility of thought, nor grasp its practical nature. You make your world, and in an important manner your thoughts are indeed the immediate personal blueprints for it. When you manipulate objects you feel efficient. The manipulation of thoughts is far more practical. Here is a brief example. ( 10:36.) Your medical technology may help you "conquer" one disease after another - some in fact caused by that same technology - and you will feel very efficient as you do heart transplants, as you fight one virus after another. But all of this will do nothing except to allow people to die, perhaps, of other diseases still "unconquered." People will die when they are ready to, following inner dictates and dynamics. A person ready to die will, despite any medication. (Emphatically:) A person who wants to live will seize upon the tiniest hope, and respond. The dynamics of health have nothing to do with inoculations. They reside in the consciousness of each being. In your terms they are regulated by emotions, desires, and thoughts. A true doctor cannot be scientifically objective. He cannot divorce himself from the reality of his patient. Instead, usually, the doctor's words and very methods literally separate the patient from himself or herself. The malady is seen almost as a thing apart from the patient's person - but thrust upon it - over which the patient has little control. The condition is analyzed, the blood is sampled. It becomes "a blood sample" to the doctor. The patient may silently shout out, ''That is not just a blood sample - it is my blood you are taking." But he [or she] is discouraged from identifying with the blood of his physical being, so that even his own blood seems alien. The blueprints for reality: In greater terms they reside within you. In private terms they are part of your being.

Another superb answer, Sunmaster. Even Hummin liked it. Is he starting to crack?

And there you have it. Ignorance is bliss. Until the lights go out and you have no clue as to what to do to remedy the situation. Ignorance is bliss because . . . heaven knows that true knowledge will only f things up. You have to truly appreciate the irrationality of that statement . . . and have a boisterous and hearty laugh.

Wow!!! What a beautiful answer in response to a statement made in sheer ignorance!! Can I pile on? You bet I will. Again, thanks for a truly superb, insightful, and positively correct answer, Sunmaster. Listen up, Hummin. It would behoove you to actually listen for a change.

Since I don't want to overwhelm you with points then I re-ask that you answer this one single point which counters your claim that the 'methodology of science' can be used in uncovering the truth of any worldly phenomenon. I've provided an example where the 'methodology of science' cannot be used to prove the proposition as neither true or false. Do you then finally agree that the 'methodology of science' has limitations?

In evolution there are no sudden jumps from one species to another, its a gradual process of small incremental steps over thousands and millions of years. There never was a first of any species, just like there never was a first human. There was never a moment where a Homo erectus mother gave birth to a Homo sapien child, it doesn't work like that. It's analogous to how a human grows old from a baby to child, adult to middle aged or middle aged to an old man, There's never a moment, you don't go to bed a middle aged man then wake up in the morning an old man, but if you wait a sufficient number of years you become old. That's how evolution works but now we are talking about thousands and millions of years and it's very hard to grasp those time scales. Good answer. Evolution works in a slow and incremental fashion. And I admit to using the term, jump, which could be interpreted in different contexts, is perhaps not the best. Change would have been a more accurate term. So rather than "jump to" then "change to." Putting all other valid questions which could be asked about the process aside then I stand firm on the point that there are no physical records showing the progression of changes. That is something that science has to date been unable to show, let alone validate. Take it from there if you care to, Elad.

Thanks for the reply, VincentRJ. I have to say I appreciate your calm engagement here, and your persistence in continuing with well thought out posts in which you attempt to explain the world according to VincentRJ. Now you do a very good job of accurately describing the process of what happens when someone kicks a brick wall with a great deal of force. And I agree 100% with your apt description. But, you've only described part of the overall process. What about the rest of it? (I know that question will draw a look of puzzlement on your face.)

And you, GammaGlobulin, are certainly one of them.

GammaGlobulin, you truly are a most playful and delightful imp. And thoroughly enjoyable as always.

I can't remember reading it, probably because your posts are so long. I can't think of any example where the 'methodology of science' has failed, but there are numerous examples where the 'methodology of science' has not been applied with sufficient rigour, and numerous examples where erroneous assumptions have been made due to insufficient data and evidence, and/or incorrect interpretation of the data. It was actually contained in one of my shorter posts and to be fair about you missing it it was not in reply to one of your posts. It was a standalone post and not in reply to anyone. It does reference you and I should have used the @VincentRJwhen referencing you. But now that you can read it can you agree that science's methodology cannot be applied to any scientific investigation of whether creating one's own reality would be true or false? And would you also agree that science's methodology would be insufficient on discovering any real truth when subjectivity is involved? Would you agree that due to the fact that subjectivity cannot be observed, measured or quantified in an objective world to the degree which would satisfy the requirements of the protocols of the scientific method that it's application is neutered? Would you agree that you cannot import physical instruments into the subjective world where physicality doesn't exist? Would you then conclude that science, given it's present attitudes and methods, cannot possibly then explain all of the phenomenon which exists in this world? Telepathy, for instance. Precognition. Automatic speech or writing. OBEs. Dreams. How about the Ouija board? What the heck is that all about? Or any other subjective experience. Or does science simply wave off these types of phenomenon and experiences or find some way to explain them away? It's always a problem when you must provide answers, even when you haven't any. By the way, what did you think about the rest of my post? Is there any possibility in your mind, any at all, that consciousness creates form? I'm not asking you to confirm or deny. I'm just asking you if you think the concept has possibility?

Like I said, I couldn't quite remember the joke. Enough of it to serve the purpose of my analogy, though. But yeah, the punchline isn't there, nor is the much of the rest of the joke. Now I do doubt that a Muslim, Jew and Christian would agree that they have the same God.

I'll take up your question of whether or not we face the consequences of our actions in this life in an afterlife. No. Reflection? Yes. Now this answer runs strictly in opposition to that of religion. Per religious teachings we can expect a day (or two or three . . . maybe more depending on how lengthy the scroll is on which all of your sins are recorded ) of judgement. Given the rules of that game of Christianity it's quite straightforward. You are either sent to Hell for eternity or you are allowed entry to Heaven by St. Peter at the Pearly Gates. Reward or punishment. So repent while you can if this is your belief. Now if you're one who is of a scientific persuasion then no worries. There is no afterlife. So obviously no consequences will be faced for any of your actions here on earth since you no longer exist. Your question, Hummin, is a specific question of what will be encountered during the death experience. If you're interested let me know and I'll provide more extensive information. It will be unique and not what you may expect. I will copy and paste a portion which I find extremely humourous. I think you'll agree. In many cases, immediately on leaving the body there is, of course, amazement and a recognition of the situation. The body itself may be viewed, for example, and many funerals have a guest of honor amidst the com-pany - and no one gazes into the face of the corpse with as much curiosity and wonder. The imagine of a shocked, perhaps horrified individual staring in amazement at his own corpse brings tears to my eyes. Not of sadness but of laughter. It brings to mind an excellent, and very true quote from our very own Sunmaster. A very wise individual, btw. All of the folks who believe death to be the end all . . . lights out kinda stuff . . . are going to find themselves very ill prepared to deal with the experience of their demise when their day finally arrives. And when I imagine the shocked and horrified dearly departed stricken with astonishment and bewilderment as they view their sewn up mouth, their coiffured face and hair, laying in the luxuriousness of a casket, a luxuriousness which perhaps they have never been able to experience in life, I think of one of our wonderful science guys.