The Burden of Life.

[ajaysinghgoshiyal]

I think that spirituality answers more questions about life than science does. Live and learn is my philosophy.

Edited October 4, 2013 by ajaysinghgoshiyal

[s1eep]

I think that spirituality answers more questions about life than science does. Live and learn is my philosophy.

I agree. Science, like everything else in the universe, has got too old and now exists as a aged entity that's only good due to it's productivity. It makes cool things, that's all science is now a days, it's coolness. Scientists themselves may deny this fact, but enjoy the egotistical boosts you get from being a scientist, and having the reputation that scientists have socially; they even use it to their advantage subliminally; they are associated with intelligence, socially. For the understanding of life, a youthful subject, science is a lesser methodology than spirituality, because it has edited life too much to suit it's own ego and idea of understanding.

Edited October 4, 2013 by s1eep

[Phi for All]

Science, like everything else in the universe, has got too old and now exists as a aged entity that's only good due to it's productivity.

So... it's only good because it works so well? Did I miss why we want to change that?

 

It makes cool things, that's all science is now a days, it's coolness. The scientists themselves may deny this fact, but they enjoy the egotistical boosts you get from being a scientist, and having the reputation that scientists have socially; they even use it to their advantage subliminally; they are associated with intelligence, socially.

You must know different scientists than I know. Socially, I'm happy if they mumble while looking at MY shoes instead of their own.

 

The bit about how they subliminally use their superior intelligence sounds like sour grapes to me.

 

For the understanding of the life, a youthful subject, science is a lesser methodology than spirituality, because it has edited life too much to suit it's own ego and idea of understanding.

Sorry, but the understanding of life is a pursuit older than science, probably older than religion. It got us all the way to the Dark Ages. Science has gotten us the rest of the way, and appears, as you yourself suggests, to be much more productive.

[s1eep]

So... it's only good because it works so well? Did I miss why we want to change that?

 

You must know different scientists than I know. Socially, I'm happy if they mumble while looking at MY shoes instead of their own.

 

The bit about how they subliminally use their superior intelligence sounds like sour grapes to me.

 

Sorry, but the understanding of life is a pursuit older than science, probably older than religion. It got us all the way to the Dark Ages. Science has gotten us the rest of the way, and appears, as you yourself suggests, to be much more productive.

But you still don't understand life; when the pursuit of understanding life is concerned, science is not the best methodology, is the point I am correctly making. Why is productivity significant? For what reasons is science associated with human intelligence? (i.e. people have the capacity for science, it would be intelligent to credit it where life is concerned; why is that so?)

 

EDIT: inb4 something totally irrelevant, "i don't understand", depression.

Edited October 4, 2013 by s1eep

[Moontanman]

But you still don't understand life; when the pursuit of understanding life is concerned, science is not the best methodology, is the point I am correctly making. Why is productivity significant? For what reasons is science associated with human intelligence? (i.e. people have the capacity for science, it would be intelligent to credit it where life is concerned; why is that so?)

 

EDIT: inb4 something totally irrelevant, "i don't understand", depression.

Well then what is the best methodology?

Can you show us what part of life science doesn't understand? Surely you can point out the parts that we cannot understand because there are parts we do...

[s1eep]

You do not understand life in the broad sense (i.e. the whole of life), like it is presented to humans; the state of mind prior to education. A wordless mind.

[Moontanman]

You do not understand life in the broad sense (i.e. the whole of life), like it is presented to humans; the state of mind prior to education. A wordless mind.

 

 

Why would you expect anyone with out education to understand anything they hadn't received an education on? I do understand life in a broad sense and many parts of it in detail, you still seem to be making claims you cannot back up...

[s1eep]

 

 

Why would you expect anyone with out education to understand anything they hadn't received an education on? I do understand life in a broad sense and many parts of it in detail, you still seem to be making claims you cannot back up...

That is confusing human education and natural wordless education, and you do not understand life in a broad sense. I asked you to explain before, I'll ask again, what then is life?

Edited October 5, 2013 by s1eep

[Moontanman]

That is confusing human education and natural wordless education, and you do not understand life in a broad sense. I asked you to explain before, I'll ask again, what then is life?

 

Once more...

 

Life is a self replicating chemical reaction...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

 

Life is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have signaling and self-sustaining processes from those that do not,^[1][2] either because such functions have ceased (death), or else because they lack such functions and are classified as inanimate.^[3][4]Biology is the science concerned with the study of life.

Any contiguous living system is called an organism. Organisms undergo metabolism, maintain homeostasis, possess a capacity to grow, respond to stimuli, reproduce and, through natural selection, adapt to their environment in successive generations. More complex living organisms can communicate through various means.^[1][5] A diverse array of living organisms can be found in the biosphere of Earth, and the properties common to these organisms—plants, animals, fungi, protists, archaea, and bacteria—are acarbon- and water-based cellular form with complex organization and heritable geneticinformation.

Scientific evidence suggests that life began on Earth approximately 3.5 billion years ago.^[6][7] The mechanism by which life emerged on Earth is unknown although many hypotheses have been formulated. Since then, life has evolved into a wide variety of forms, which biologists have classified into a hierarchy of taxa. Life can survive and thrive in a wide range of conditions. The meaning of life—its significance, origin, purpose, and ultimate fate—is a central concept and question in philosophy andreligion. Both philosophy and religion have offered interpretations as to how life relates to existence and consciousness, and on related issues such as life stance, purpose,conception of a god or gods, a soul or an afterlife. Different cultures throughout history have had widely varying approaches to these issues.

 

 

 

If this is not what you are talking about please let us know which parts are too complex to understand, saying all of it is too complex to understand is demonstrably not true...

[s1eep]

 

Once more...

 

Life is a self replicating chemical reaction...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

 

 

 

If this is not what you are talking about please let us know which parts are too complex to understand, saying all of it is too complex to understand is demonstrably not true...

How is that understanding life, and not the parts of life that are attributed to yourself? It's the same as me asking, "How do I understand your thoughts"? And you respond with a wiki page encircling thought; that wouldn't be understanding, you are a conscious creature, you could be thinking anything, I'm almost guaranteed to be incorrect about your thoughts if I tried to answer "What are you thinking?". How do you know that other beings in life don't have cognition and emotion of their own, through which a more complex sense of life for them can be achieved, one that you may understand if you could access it, but you cannot. Why is what the Sun may feel not a significant when understanding life? If you truly knew everything, you would know my next move and what each and every star looked like close up, the types of life on other planets, etc. You do not understand to the highest degree possible, life, and that is not the word simplification of life (the life you know), that is all of it's associations (the life you don't know) - you do not know enough about life to question it, you are not life-worthy, prior to having your say.

 

You do not know what is central to everything in the universe, everything is an individual and has it's own personality. Because you are a different life form to these things, you cannot know what they mean, or meant, truly, by living - and they are just as significant as you are to life. Life is like a complex question that is weighing on your head, you cannot answer everything, but you can answer some. You haven't got enough information to build a correct basis of life let alone to answer the question. What is life? Looking around, what I sense in myself, everything about myself, my perception, my pattern recognition, my body, etc, it's much more complex than something that can be defined on wiki. It's even got 360 degree 20-20 vision, how do I speak in the language of what I see? Can I even understand anything about life in the way that it was meant to be? There are so many visions unheard of and not experienced. To truly understand life, I would need every vision. That's impossible. The life you understand is a simplification, of things that are much more complex, so complex that it indicts you as unworthy of life, to even question it. It's just something you can apply to every life, but the application is egotistical - you believe that the subject is dead, or life-less, and forget that it has things central to itself, that you don't know.

Edited October 5, 2013 by s1eep

[Moontanman]

How is that understanding life, and not the parts of life that are attributed to yourself? It's the same as me asking, "How do I understand your thoughts"? And you respond with a wiki page encircling thought; that wouldn't be understanding, you are a conscious creature, you could be thinking anything, I'm almost guaranteed to be incorrect about your thoughts if I tried to answer "What are you thinking?".

Trust is the only way these things can be divined, we have to establish trust, once we do that we cab discuss the issues but to simply prattle on about it being impossible serves no one...

 

How do you know that other beings in life don't have cognition and emotion of their own, through which a more complex sense of life for them can be achieved, one that you may understand if you could access it, but you cannot.

I am quite sure other beings do have cognition, in fact that can be demonstrated, how complex that cognition is can be tested, emotions are more subtle but the fact that other beings have them can be demonstrated as well...

 

Why is what the Sun may feel not a significant when understanding life?

The sun is not a living being...

 

If you truly knew everything,

I have never claimed to know everything, in fact I would say that is not possible. "no one knows everything and every thing we do know is subject to some degree of error"

 

you would know my next move and what each and every star looked like close up, the types of life on other planets, etc. You do not understand to the highest degree possible, life, and that is not the word simplification of life (the life you know), that is all of it's associations (the life you don't know) - you do not know enough about life to question it, you are not life-worthy, prior to having your say.

Again, no one has claimed to know these things but they are with in the realm of obtainable knowledge. You keep inflating the lack of knowledge as though it is a permanent, the quest for knowledge is on going and the lack of total knowledge cannot be used to denigrate this...

 

You do not know what is central to everything in the universe, everything is an individual and has it's own personality. Because you are a different life form to these things, you cannot know what they mean, or meant, truly, by living - and they are just as significant as you are to life. Life is like a complex question that is weighing on your head, you cannot answer everything, but you can answer some. You haven't got enough information to build a correct basis of life let alone to answer the question. What is life? Looking around, what I sense in myself, everything about myself, my perception, my pattern recognition, my body, etc, it's much more complex than something that can be defined on wiki. It's even got 360 degree 20-20 vision, how do I speak in the language of what I see? Can I even understand anything about life in the way that it was meant to be? There are so many visions unheard of and not experienced. To truly understand life, I would need every vision. That's impossible. The life you understand is a simplification, of things that are much more complex, so complex that it indicts you as unworthy of life, to even question it. It's just something you can apply to every life, but the application is egotistical - you believe that the subject is dead, or life-less, and forget that it has things central to itself, that you don't know.

I think you are doing nothing but assuming these things will always be unanswerable so any quest to know them is meaning less. Why don't you be honest and tell us what your agenda really is...