Thread: Science Explains Everything Challenge

Originally Posted by O'nus

Challenge:

Please name something that science cannot explain that something else can -besides personal revelation.

~

I take it this stems from a misinterpretation of my post in the "Sony/ESP" thread?

That's a loaded question along the lines of "Did you ever suck a d*ck you didn't like?"

But I'll bite.

Science can't explain the spark of life or the source of consciousness (as in A.I.), while religion or spiritual teachings claim to.

Clearly you're just looking for something to pick on, so have at it!

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

I take it this stems from a misinterpretation of my post in the "Sony/ESP" thread?

Inspired by it.

Originally Posted by The Cusp

That's a loaded question along the lines of "Did you ever suck a d*ck you didn't like?"

How..? Is it not possible to say likewise to the accuser against science? What is something that can be explained by something else and not science..? Seems fair to me.

But I'll bite.

Science can't explain the spark of life or the source of consciousness (as in A.I.), while religion or spiritual teachings claim to.

Clearly you're just looking for something to pick on, so have at it!

I'm not picking on anything - it just goes to expose some things. Notice you said claim to whereas science does not claim to. This is still not facing the challenge really.

What am I picking at?

Does this not prove a point? If there are things that science cannot explain, then it ought to be true that there is something else that can explain!

Am I unfair for asking this...?

~

*raises hand*

I was tought this one in bible school! The answer is faith!

/thread

Originally Posted by O'nus

Am I unfair for asking this...?

Not unfair. Naive.

Science is for "the people", as it were.
It deals with objective matters and describes/proves/etc. them for all to see.

Wisdom deals with objective matters on a subjective basis.
And it is naive to think you will get an answer to such a question.

The point is: it isn't that there aren't things that can't be proven by science but are known by non-science; it's that you will not be given that knowledge just for the sake of having it "proven".

"He who knows, does not speak. He who speaks, does not know."

That is the principle of non-science. It works on wisdom, personality, the mind and heart. That is exactly why it is "personal revelation" that proves such things. Because those with great wisdom are not bent on the concept of mass media.

To put it bluntly: no one owes you anything.
And do you truly think someone with great wisdom and power will share it with the public?

Therein lies the difference between faith and things truly "beyond".
Faith requires you to believe first, and then you supposedly get proof.
True wisdom and power requires you to want/need/yearn first, and then you will achieve what you desire.

And I assure you, curiosity doesn't even come close to truly wanting or needing any such things. Science is based on curiosity. And so it will never grasp that the greatest wisdom is gained through the power of the heart, through inspiration, rage, and a myriad of feelings, not the ponderings of the mind.

Originally Posted by Merlock

Science is for "the people", as it were.
It deals with objective matters and describes/proves/etc. them for all to see.

Wisdom deals with objective matters on a subjective basis.
And it is naive to think you will get an answer to such a question.

The ideal of science is to offer methods to reproduce subjective matters for other individuals to reach the same conclusion as the author, nay? Thus, science is subjective as well as it offers the means to subjective conclusions and experiences as others.

To put it bluntly: no one owes you anything.
And do you truly think someone with great wisdom and power will share it with the public?

This sounds like saving face more than anything. Am I supposed to quell the question on the basis that a non-speaking intellectual refuses to share wisdom with me asking for it's plausibility because I "fail" to see the power of subjective revelation? Science offers profound subjective revelation as well, don't neglect that.

And I assure you, curiosity doesn't even come close to truly wanting or needing any such things. Science is based on curiosity. And so it will never grasp that the greatest wisdom is gained through the power of the heart, through inspiration, rage, and a myriad of feelings, not the ponderings of the mind.

You are saying that science is not including inspiration, rage, and other feelings including the heart? I would find that an interesting thing to tell Galileo who died in the name of it and not too mention zounds of others that would attest differently. That's a very bold statement you make about scientists here.

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

You are saying that science is not including inspiration, rage, and other feelings including the heart?

no it doesn't. science can't explain feelings and emotions. science doesn't even fully understand the brain...or mind.

there are scientists that have done experiments with emotions and water,plants, and human DNA. But most just discredit them. ANd say they are a hoax or whatever.

Merlock is pretty much right. Some things you need to look inside yourself to prove. Or you just have to experience them.

Science cannot and DID NOT prove lucid dreaming....you can't prove it....you can only experience it. All it says is that you become conscious during your dreaming.

And before you ever knew about lucid dreaming, if someone would have told you about it....or shared an experience with you..you probably would have just laughed them off. or thought they were crazy.


Some people are just so engulfed with the mass media. You would believe anything the mass media told you. Mass media is actually a way to keep people under control, as occultist as it might sound.


from juruara

how can a scientist claim to understand the mind? how can a stranger claim to understand your mind? they would first have to understand their own mind. what profession is better suited to understand the self, except the man who is self reflective? spirituality is the self reflective practice, not science.

I'm not saying science has no place in this field, it does. but science currently only cares to talk about the objective. its too chicken to get into the subjective, as things can no longer be as easily defined. problem is, our minds are experiencing a subjective reality! how much can science tell us then???

the 'science' that talks about the subjective reality is eastern practices. I called it a science because like science, it has defined things and has defined how those things relate to each other

and maybe in the future, we will recognize the science of the subjective reality

That quote pretty much wraps it in a nutshell. He hit the nail right on the head.

Originally Posted by O'nus

This sounds like saving face more than anything. Am I supposed to quell the question on the basis that a non-speaking intellectual refuses to share wisdom with me asking for it's plausibility because I "fail" to see the power of subjective revelation?

You don't have to quell anything. This isn't just about non-science either.

The governments, wealthy people and mad scientists that discover truly powerful and renovative scientific things will keep them hidden too.

My point is: whether it's science or "beyond", such questions are naive.
You have to yearn for and take what you want to find yourself.
No one will just give you anything of true meaning just because you want to know.

Originally Posted by HaRd_WiReD

there are scientists that have done experiments with emotions and water,plants, and human DNA. But most just discredit them. ANd say they are a hoax or whatever.

The 'scientist' (Masaru Emoto) that performed the experiments with water and emotion pretty much said it was a hoax.

Originally Posted by HaRd_WiReD

Science cannot and DID NOT prove lucid dreaming....

Sure it can and it did:
http://sciencelinks.jp/j-east/articl...04A0674103.php

LaBerges research counts as well, doesn't it?

Originally Posted by O'nus

Notice you said claim to whereas science does not claim to.

Actually science is chock full'o theories that are nothing more than "claims".

Originally Posted by O'nus

Challenge:

Please name something that science cannot explain that something else can -besides personal revelation.

~

Well, seeing as how you apparently misinterpreted what I said, I think it's only fair to me that it get cleared up.

What I said was that science alone cannot explain everything. You took the liberty of assuming that, by that, I was implying that there was something else that could, which isn't true at all.

As I (and many scientists) had said, science is widely known as the best tool that we have for explaining natural phenomena, and the universe at large. But, scientific discovery is limited to what humans can perceive. We have to be readily equipped to detect a phenomena and its components, before we can explain it. Even if it's something invisible to our naked senses, we then have to rely on tools that we invent, to broaden our perception. Does this mean that we will ever be able to see all forces and energies that exist in the universe? No. It takes a human mind that is willing to travel down certain avenues and, in many cases, let go of dogmatic paradigms, in order to devote his/herself to such fringe areas of exploration, and even then, there is no guarantee that (being that the discovery falls upon the shoulders of the human scientist) whatever force is at work in a phenomenon will ever be discovered.

By saying that "science, by default, can't explain everything," I wasn't implying that we have a better system or tool that can. I was stating that sometimes science isn't enough, because it ultimately falls back on the will and open-mindedness of the person using science as a tool, and in many cases, that person (or those people) just do not have the perspective required to get to the bottom of something, sufficiently.

The origin of consciousness, for example, may never be fully explained. It does not mean that there is a better tool than science with which to explain it, only that - so far - human investigation and experimentation, using said science, has not been sufficient.

As an aside: A major flaw presented in why this whole thing came up (as is duplicated often) is that - when trying to dissent against psychic phenomena, the people who are dead-set in proving that it doesn't exist usually say something like "I know there is a perfectly good, scientific explanation for it." This, alone, proves bias. IF such phenomena do exist, then the explanation, no matter what it is, will be scientific, because it will likely be explained using the scientific method. Those people throw the word scientific around, as if it somehow clashes with the idea of the 'paranormal,' when in fact - should these phenomena exist - they aren't even 'paranormal'. They are just normal. They aren't 'supernatural'. They are natural. People try to discredit the possibility of their existing by constantly referring to them as such, even when evidence that they might exist has been expressly documented.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Challenge:

Please name something that science cannot explain that something else can -besides personal revelation.

~

Beside "personal revelation", you really have nothing. There is nothing outside of subjective knowledge; no subjective Reality.

The problem is, science just explains. What happens when it tries to explain the unexplainable? Nothing happens. There is no capacity anyway. The unexplainable is Reality itself. Science is within it like a blade of grass in the field. The grass cannot really do anything but grow, and the field needs nothing to do, and it encompasses all possibility.

What can never be explained can only be revealed; revealed As It Is. And it can only be revealed since it already Is, as radical subjective Reality. If we ask "what is the unexplainable", there is no need for science; no need for any explanation, and no challenge. The typical problem is that there is the illusion of the contrary, which argues the need for an explanation. If the problems were understood and dissolved, there would be Divine Revelation.

It would be foolish to say that anything can or cannot be explained by science, since in reality science is only a method of inquiry and doesn't in itself offer any explanations.

If you are asking whether or not there is any truth that cannot be arrived at using the scientific method, this to me is also a foolish question since the only answer can be "only time will tell."

If you are asking if there are any phenomena which currently are unexplained through scientific means, then you should just look around you since the answers are everywhere. Conscious experience sticks out in my mind, although perhaps you include that in "personal revelation". I'd say that objective reality as a whole stands outside of any scientific inquiry, by its very definition. As a matter of fact, this one could really answer any of the three different questions I presented here. The scientific method is a form of subjective experience, and so could never even begin to deal with any possible objective state of existence.

There is so much wrong with your post HaRd_WiReD.

Originally Posted by HaRd_WiReD

no it doesn't. science can't explain feelings and emotions. science doesn't even fully understand the brain...or mind.

Not right now, your point? There were things in the past we didn't fully understand. Parts of our body that seemed incredibly complex then are relatively simple now. How does science not fully understanding the brain or mind equate to it can't explain them at all? Given time, in the future these things have the possibility of being as simple to us as walking is now.

And yes, it can explain feelings and emotions and has. You may not like it, but its simple chemical reactions. The brain releases certain chemicals that cause happyness, anger, euphoria, sadness, rage, depression, joy, fear. The question is the stimuli, why certain things cause certain reactions. We know most of the circumstantial evidence for such things, but have yet to understand the cold hard science of it fully but that doesn't mean we won't.

Science is perfectly capable of explaining all these things.

Originally Posted by HaRd_WiReD

there are scientists that have done experiments with emotions and water,plants, and human DNA. But most just discredit them. ANd say they are a hoax or whatever.

What you've said here is ridiculously misleading. Doing experiments is part of science, and an experiment can't be a hoax unless you say you're doing something you're not. The results can be a hoax, or the results can be false based on the 'scientist' not following proper process.

Someone mentioned Emoto, the man who said that thinking positive things to a glass of water would make it form beautiful crystals and thinking negative things would make it ugly. He provided all sorts of evidence, but what he actually did was pick and chose results that fit his already decided conclusion while ignoring those that didn't follow suit. Which is NOT the scientific process.

And just as some scientists do experiments that fail, that is again not a reason why science can't explain everything. Another scientist will do another experiment eventually that works and seeks to get an answer for the question that the one that failed couldn't reach.

Originally Posted by HaRd_WiReD

Science cannot and DID NOT prove lucid dreaming....you can't prove it....you can only experience it. All it says is that you become conscious during your dreaming.

And before you ever knew about lucid dreaming, if someone would have told you about it....or shared an experience with you..you probably would have just laughed them off. or thought they were crazy.

Again, your point?

"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible." - Lord Kelvin

There are many things that if you said in the past that people would of just laughed at you. If I told someone in the 1800's that, in the future, I could write with light and create 3D landscapes that I can interact with that don't really exist on a machine that displays this all on a pane of glass or glass like material, what do you think they'd say?

And science did prove Lucid Dreaming. Consciousness can be measured. The brain behaves in certain ways when conscious. The experience was what gave someone the idea to prove it. But experience isn't everything. It's part of the process, but alone its misleading. People have said they've experienced ghosts. Simply experiencing a ghost isn't enough to prove them. Your mind could be playing tricks on you, you could be seeing what you want to see, someone could be using a projector to project an image of a ghost and thus your interpretation is wrong.

That said, your point is moot. Science proved Lucid Dreaming. People had the experience of it, and some said "You can only dream that you know your dreaming, and feel that way but its not real. Its still just a dream." Basic idea. Then they stuck electrodes to peoples heads and measure brain activity and found the patterns changed when people achieved Lucidity, yet still remained asleep. They were asleep, yet conscious. This discredited any of the circumstancial evidence against it, and proved it.

Similarly, your lack of understanding of science is not enough to disprove that it can prove anything.

Challenge:

Please name something that science cannot explain that something else can -besides personal revelation.

I think you need to elaborate slightly; are you asking if there are things which will always be outside of the scope of science, or just if they simply are at the moment?

But I can answer your question anyway: no, science cannot explain many objective truths. In my opinion, science is simply one method to ascertaining objective truth about reality; namely the method of empirical observation. It has been extremely successful over the last few centuries in particular. However, there is another separate, but equally valid method: logical deduction. I place both of these methods under the general branch of philosophy, which I regard as the sum of methods for ascertaining truth. They are often used in conjunction.

To give an example of a truth which is independent of empirical evidence: Fermat's Last Theorem.

And indeed, the totality of mathematics.

Another example of something which currently lies outside of science, mathematics, and hence philosophy, is consciousness, as The Cusp suggested. We do not understand the reasons for it at all. That is not to say we shall not; I am open to the possibility that we could discover much more through science and logic.

One more example is the multiverse theory, which one can currently discover through deduction, but not through empirical observation; again, this may change.

Then again, there are many things which cannot be deduced at all, and will lie forever outside of philosophy (such as what any specific planet which lies outside of the observable universe is like).

Originally Posted by HaRd_WiReD

no it doesn't. science can't explain feelings and emotions. science doesn't even fully understand the brain...or mind.

Neuroscience is in the works. Plus, my point is that if science cannot explain it, ought something else be able to given the insinuation?

there are scientists that have done experiments with emotions and water,plants, and human DNA. But most just discredit them. ANd say they are a hoax or whatever.

Merlock is pretty much right. Some things you need to look inside yourself to prove. Or you just have to experience them.

This being personal revelation which does only good to explain it to you but not everyone or anyone else.

Science cannot and DID NOT prove lucid dreaming....you can't prove it....you can only experience it. All it says is that you become conscious during your dreaming.

Again, my point is - name something science cannot explain that something else can. Psychology can still explain the manifest content of dreams.

Originally Posted by Merlock

The governments, wealthy people and mad scientists that discover truly powerful and renovative scientific things will keep them hidden too.

My point is: whether it's science or "beyond", such questions are naive.
You have to yearn for and take what you want to find yourself.
No one will just give you anything of true meaning just because you want to know.

This is not really answering my question more or less just telling me to figure it out myself which still leads to personal revelation. So, are you to say then that the only alternative for explaining things, to yourself, is personal revelation. However, when explaining to others, it is only science..?

Originally Posted by The Cusp

Actually science is chock full'o theories that are nothing more than "claims".

I was only speaking of the beginning of time. There is no way I would neglect or be ignorant to the theories of science - that's what drives it!

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Well, seeing as how you apparently misinterpreted what I said, I think it's only fair to me that it get cleared up.

What I said was that science alone cannot explain everything. You took the liberty of assuming that, by that, I was implying that there was something else that could, which isn't true at all.

Don't get personal now, Oneironaut. I am simply bringing this up because I see it often said and the point is this;

If you say "science can't explain anything" then there ought to be something else to explain things. Otherwise, science is the only thing.

As I (and many scientists) had said, science is widely known as the best tool that we have for explaining natural phenomena, and the universe at large. But, scientific discovery is limited to what humans can perceive. We have to be readily equipped to detect a phenomena and its components, before we can explain it. Even if it's something invisible to our naked senses, we then have to rely on tools that we invent, to broaden our perception. Does this mean that we will ever be able to see all forces and energies that exist in the universe? No. It takes a human mind that is willing to travel down certain avenues and, in many cases, let go of dogmatic paradigms, in order to devote his/herself to such fringe areas of exploration, and even then, there is no guarantee that (being that the discovery falls upon the shoulders of the human scientist) whatever force is at work in a phenomenon will ever be discovered.

By saying that "science, by default, can't explain everything," I wasn't implying that we have a better system or tool that can. I was stating that sometimes science isn't enough, because it ultimately falls back on the will and open-mindedness of the person using science as a tool, and in many cases, that person (or those people) just do not have the perspective required to get to the bottom of something, sufficiently.

What you are speaking of is now is truly a tangent and digressive to my point. Don't take this personally, please. I am making this assertion to those that make the statement in opposition to science. I am all for the fact that science does not claim to know everything - it is always developing and integrating new data. I would hope you know that I share this position by now.

The origin of consciousness, for example, may never be fully explained. It does not mean that there is a better tool than science with which to explain it, only that - so far - human investigation and experimentation, using said science, has not been sufficient.

Right, see, this is a tangent from my challenge to those that are opposed to the ideal of science and it's humbleness.

In fact... you are misinterpreting me.

No worries, I love you.

Originally Posted by really

Beside "personal revelation", you really have nothing. There is nothing outside of subjective knowledge; no subjective Reality.

Now I knew what path you would take and I like it. Your point will be hard for many to grasp but I got a feeling I will agree with what you will have to say here.

What can never be explained can only be revealed; revealed As It Is. And it can only be revealed since it already Is, as radical subjective Reality. If we ask "what is the unexplainable", there is no need for science; no need for any explanation, and no challenge. The typical problem is that there is the illusion of the contrary, which argues the need for an explanation. If the problems were understood and dissolved, there would be Divine Revelation.

I am beginning to understand you a lot better now, really. I like what you have said here and I think your point can be exposed like this; you can take the most scientific explanation and offer it to a rock and a person. The only reason the person will listen and agree is because they can perceive the offer.

What do you think of that...?

Originally Posted by Xei

I think you need to elaborate slightly; are you asking if there are things which will always be outside of the scope of science, or just if they simply are at the moment?

You're right - I mean for those that are opposed to science and feel it can never explain something.

But I can answer your question anyway: no, science cannot explain many objective truths. In my opinion, science is simply one method to ascertaining objective truth about reality; namely the method of empirical observation. It has been extremely successful over the last few centuries in particular. However, there is another separate, but equally valid method: logical deduction. I place both of these methods under the general branch of philosophy, which I regard as the sum of methods for ascertaining truth. They are often used in conjunction.

How is logical deduction not scientific..? Is it not a crucial mechanism for the scientific method and statistics..? Don't get me wrong, I completely agree, but I would still call that scientific.

To give an example of a truth which is independent of empirical evidence: Fermat's Last Theorem.

And indeed, the totality of mathematics.

Oh I see, you're going to say math is not science...?

Another example of something which currently lies outside of science, mathematics, and hence philosophy, is consciousness, as The Cusp suggested. We do not understand the reasons for it at all. That is not to say we shall not; I am open to the possibility that we could discover much more through science and logic.

One more example is the multiverse theory, which one can currently discover through deduction, but not through empirical observation; again, this may change.

Then again, there are many things which cannot be deduced at all, and will lie forever outside of philosophy (such as what any specific planet which lies outside of the observable universe is like).

I see that you are distinguishing empirical observation from logic but I am confused as to why. Bertrand Russel and Wittgenstein who originated the structures of logical symbolism would still assert that it is a form of empirical observation as it offers means to reproduce experiences for others to have.

For example, whatever logical deduction you utilize, you offer it to someone else to reach the conclusion of the logical theorem.

The above is the precise definition of science to! However, science includes more methods than just logic.

What do you think...?

~

Science is the body of knowledge gained via the scientific method.

The scientific method is essentially

- Form a hypothesis
- Observe the relevant phenomena
- Interpret the observations so as to support or not support the hypothesis

Logical deduction such as mathematical proof is completely different as it involves no empirical observation of anything physical at all.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Don't get personal now, Oneironaut. I am simply bringing this up because I see it often said and the point is this;

I wasn't trying to get personal. It seemed (seemed like this was a direct response to my post. I said that you apparently misinterpreted what I said, because you seemed to be implying that by my saying that "Science can't explain everything" I was asserting that there is something else that can.

Originally Posted by O'nus

If you say "science can't explain anything" then there ought to be something else to explain things. Otherwise, science is the only thing.

I looked back at the other thread, and it seems that I misinterpreted metcalfracing's 1st point. He said "ya science can explain everything," and doing so in the same vein as the rest of his dissenting post, I figured he was committing the same fallacy as so many others; which was saying that "none of this phenomena is real. There is a scientific explanation for it." But, going back and reading someone else's post, I came to figure that metcalf was replying to someone who said "Perhaps science really can explain everything", without quoting him (so I didn't realize he was responding to someone, instead of just making a point which - when interpreted as such - fits perfectly with his dissenting viewpoint on the matter).

So, basically my saying "science can't explain everything" (which I stand by, but only in the context of how I'd previously explained it - as being a tool which is only as good as its user. I suppose it was a poor way to word it.) was then re-misinterpreted by you as my being one of those people expressing opposition to science and contributing to your starting of this thread, which was then re-re-misinterpreted by me as a direct dig at me. Haha. What a mess.

Originally Posted by O'nus

What you are speaking of is now is truly a tangent and digressive to my point. Don't take this personally, please. I am making this assertion to those that make the statement in opposition to science. I am all for the fact that science does not claim to know everything - it is always developing and integrating new data. I would hope you know that I share this position by now.

Yea. I understand where you're going with it now.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Right, see, this is a tangent from my challenge to those that are opposed to the ideal of science and it's humbleness.

In fact... you are misinterpreting me.

No worries, I love you.

Lol. Don't mind me. I'm just going to pretend like none of this ever happened. Carry on.

My apologies if this seems like a shameless plug, but the information in the posts here may be relevant to the current path this discussion is on.
http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...ad.php?t=72707

Originally Posted by Xei

Logical deduction such as mathematical proof is completely different as it involves no empirical observation of anything physical at all.

In point of fact, the scientific method represents the integration of rationalism and empiricism. That being the case, logical deduction is absolutely fundamental to science. For example, in order to test scientific theories, scientists must deduce specific, testable hypotheses from them.

It may be an integral part, but it is also separable; the point is rationalism can be used in its pure form to obtain truths with no empirical elements at all. Such as mathematics.

What about the arguments for functionalism, as another example (or at least counterarguments against biological chauvinism)? As far as I can see they are flawless and ascertain an objective truth - that consciousness is the result of systems - but science is not, and cannot, be involved in this process.

Originally Posted by Xei

It may be an integral part, but it is also separable

No argument here.

Originally Posted by O'nus

This is not really answering my question more or less just telling me to figure it out myself which still leads to personal revelation. So, are you to say then that the only alternative for explaining things, to yourself, is personal revelation. However, when explaining to others, it is only science..?

Of course it isn't an answer. That's the whole point. You won't get an answer.

As for the latter part, not quite so. "Personal revelation" and the like can be explained to others, but only those you trust and those who trust you. Good friends and the like. Again, based on the heart, mind, feelings, ideals, etc.

Where as science has "proof", which doesn't require trust, thus easily dispersed into the masses in the form of experiments caught on tape or paperwork to corroborate them, etc.

But again, no matter who might've died for science in their day, science is still about proving something, discovering it, curiosity, etc. -- not the polar opposite concepts that make up matters of the mind and heart: ambition, desperation, vengeance, etc.

Science is used for things we "need" technically. But when do you think people turn to magic and the like? When they really need something, socially, not technically. When one needs to resurrect a dying family member or best friend and science tells them, "Not going to happen", where do you think they will turn?

And in such cases, do you really think anyone will share the knowledge they really need for their own important purpose with the public at large? Never.

Modern society is drowning in apathy and losing sight of the importance of personality, ambitions, principles and all that.

That's why this question came up in such a naive manner. You think you're entitled to just be told what you want to know for the sake of knowing. Just like many think they're entitled to "rights" and "freedoms", and entitled to a great deal of things, just "because".

But there shall always be a larger stake at play as long as society exists and doesn't become a mindless mass of apathetic cattle: purpose. True purpose. Social purpose. Not curiosity, not technical capability, but purpose revolving around things that truly matter to us as conscious self-aware beings with personalities, not beasts that just require means to an end to survive.

And as long as that purpose exists, there shall never be an ideal scientific or occult community that shares its findings for the "greater good", because if everyone suddenly started focusing on the greater good, we would have world peace...the most terrifying concept ever conceived.

Originally Posted by O'nus

I am beginning to understand you a lot better now, really. I like what you have said here and I think your point can be exposed like this; you can take the most scientific explanation and offer it to a rock and a person. The only reason the person will listen and agree is because they can perceive the offer.

What do you think of that...?

That's true. Not only that, if the rock were able to perceive the offer, how would the rock respond? The point is simple regardless. We are both conscious and reasoning beings.


When you said "everything" in the title, I understood it as: Total Reality, in its Absolute "meaning". I.e. Reality as perfectly understood by virtue of being itself. "The meaning of life", etc. Now that I think again, what did you mean by "everything"? Reality as a total singularity, as I have said, or instead, the objective universe? Understanding the Context for All Reality is not possible through science (science is part of the "content"), but radically through other means.

Originally Posted by Xei

Logical deduction such as mathematical proof is completely different as it involves no empirical observation of anything physical at all.

It is still based on objects, symbols and limitations of form. There is no maths required for "Everything" as an infinite totality.