This conversation is closed.

Science leads to death.

Objective science is not able to penetrate into the domain called life because it denies the validity of the subjective domain which contains the essential elements of life. Life is defined by the presence of conscious feeling in a body. Denying subjective feelings leads to numbness. When numbness has become total one is a corps, dead!

Scientific knowledge is objective knowledge and is only applicable to machine technology. It has nothing to offer in the quest for more life other than to kill it while make it more machine like claiming it to be life.

Humans have become convinced that they are human resources, a commodity at the service of capital. People now speak of their bodies in terms of being fantastic machines. Disease is no longer dis-ease or dis-comfort it is a diagnostic description used to amplify a patience's fear and dependence so as to lock in more income for the practitioner. Robotics and medical prosthesis' are actually blending sentient beings with machines. These humans are not victims. The self hatred of subjective denial has created their situations of need and the objectivity of the machine is there to serve.

Cultures with the most science have become the most insensitive to feeling because of the objective paradigms they hold. Thus they have killed, injured, maimed and tortured more people than one can imagine through declared and undeclared warfare with in the last hundred years. Millions upon millions. They now use drone machines to do their killing and intimidation and some how think it is not them pulling the trigger.



This is the result of humans following a consciously designed path of scientific objectivity which by its very nature is intended to desensitize and annihilate the subjective aspect of human consciousness. .

The followers of scientific objectivity are doomed to die from it as they drive feeling from the body. Steven Hawkins is a prime example of scientific objectivity carried to an extreme. Machines keep him alive.

  • thumb
    Jul 30 2012: Science is just one tool in our toolkit to better understand the universe and ourselves.
    One of the most important tools.

    But we still have art, music, love, philosophy etc, even if it seems the human consciousness is from our brain, even if we evolved etc. We are atoms born in the stars.

    That we are animals and biological machines does not prevent you from having a rich and meaningful life. It does not necessarily lead to dehumanising us. That is a choice, and not one I will take.

    While life has no objective meaning it does not stop us from finding meaning in life, in friends and family and community etc.

    Its a false dichotomy to think scientific understanding, technology and dumping superstition automatically leads to emptiness. It is our choice.
    • Jul 30 2012: We might look at how we are using the tools. What drives us to such use. What we hope to gain and what
      we are attempting to avoid.

      The avoidance is where we find the unconscious gap in consciousness which needs attention. The gap is where we act our denied emotions.
  • thumb
    Jul 28 2012: Science can also help prolong life. Science is just another tool for humanity to tame and use.
    • Jul 28 2012: What science calls prolonging life is creating zombies tied to machines, drugs with surgically removed parts. Life springs from accepting feelings and then understanding their meaning. Science denies the validity of feelings so it must only manifest numbed out zombies who seek to kill that which lives by saying do as I do, look at the benefits of my life extension.

      The science of objective knowledge is a tool and understanding what it is good for is essential. Its functions appropriately in the domain of machine technology only.
      • thumb
        Jul 28 2012: Here's the difference between a human and a computer.

        Humans can think, have emotions, understand, realize oneself and others.
        Computer can do. They can only do what they're told to do, but they're very good at that.

        It is computers who should work for us, not humans who work for computers. And I think people are smart enough to stop the whole human enslavement to computers
        • Jul 28 2012: The computer mimics and is created out of our understanding of our own mind's functions. Human enslavement to the computer is a reflection of human enslavement to our own minds. Scientific objectivity only recognizes the mind and can not contemplate consciousness as being the metaphysical origins of the mind because Science dismisses the metaphysical domain out of hand.

          Human enslavement to the computer and our own minds can be broken through the practice of meditation because it leads one to being conscious while not thinking. Experiencing this and gaining the understanding it has to offer puts the computer and mind in its right place. A place of service, not enslavement.
      • thumb
        Jul 28 2012: The computer can only mimic if we give it a bunch of 0's and 1's for it to read off of. Otherwise it can do no such thing, not even mimic.

        But maybe the message I'm getting from you is, people sometimes just need to take a break from computers and technology and just take a deep breath. Like they need to realize their own environment and situation. And be conscious of their own involuntary actions. So meditation, as you have said, is one method to do this. Well that's my interpretation of what you're trying to say anyways.
        • Jul 29 2012: Well put James, thanks for the chance to exchange with you..................John
  • Jul 28 2012: There was much more death when there was no science . Why not dig out examples of science saving millions of lives.
    • Jul 29 2012: My point is that we have reach the limits of their objective paradigm. It is time to include the subjective aspect of the human to the mix. Balancing the two will have a synergy in understanding which will take us where we are unable to go when only powered by objectivity..
  • thumb
    Jul 28 2012: Sorry I am unable to grasp the idea behind this idea !!!
    Does this idea means One Will Be Immortal if s/he Leaves Science?

    Interesting thing with SCIENCE is that it doesn't bother, when someone denounces it after taking all the advantages from IT.....
    • Jul 28 2012: Learning to relate subjectivity to objectivity is the first step in backing away from death. Being isolated to only one of the two domains leads to death. Finding the appropriate relationship between the subjective and the objective domains leads to more REAL LIFE, not an artificially supported one.

      Each individual is the subject of their own existence sounder by an objective reality. If the subject is being absolutely introspectively absorbed it dies of starvation. If the subject denies subjectivity and is absolutely absorbed in objectivity it dies of numbness. One of my primary paradigms is that life at its fullest will be found at the interface between these two domains where each blends with the other in what I speculate might be called sensual intellectualism. The senses guide the intellect inspires.

      Thanks for your ideas and statements.....................John
      • thumb
        Jul 28 2012: Thanks John for your reply....
        Well what does it mean ....
        to a fish
        to a bird
        to a deer
        to a tree
        to a plankton
        to a bacteria
        and so on
        All are dead ?
        • Jul 29 2012: Salim,
          In order to go on one must accept that the physical proceeds from the metaphysical. The Big Bang is the scientist's term for the emergence of the physical out of the metaphysical. I call it Original Cause, What took place in that moment we are still attempting to resolve through understanding. I am suggesting that with out integrating the objective point of view with the subjective point of view we are stuck with reoccurring death and birth.

          The metaphysical has an overview which can supply information to the physical concerning pain and death, if we are willing to listen. The metaphysical can only be accessed through the individual who practices subjective introspection (an aspect being meditation). Because science dismisses the metaphysical out of hand, we must accept that it can lead is to the door into the metaphysical, but we in our subjectivity are the only ones who can open it.

          The self importance held with in our egos wishes to avoid such a possibility because one sense that this self importance must die in order for one to open the door into the metaphysical. This dilemma of all of nature being stuck in the pain/death cycle can only be solved by the human aspect of nature. The self importance we are attempting to maintain out of the illusion it is us, is what I call The God Problem. The self importance is playing God.
      • thumb
        Jul 30 2012: Hi John
        What is your answer then to my question in the post above ?
        • Jul 30 2012: I did my best just below your question. It seems that I do not understand your question and you do not understand my answer. I should have asked for clarification befor attempting to give you an answer, so I do now..
      • thumb
        Jul 30 2012: Sorry John I couldn't find the answer of my question in your post about, whether a green plant, or a swimming fish , a multiplying bacteria etc are live or dead ?
        Moreover it is clearly evident that because of scientific development the life expectancy of human being has increased in most of the countries. Child mortality has gone down. So your main premise is not a valid one.
        • Jul 30 2012: Yes they have life and they have consciousness, consciousness of their own particular kind.

          From my understanding human population is expanding not because of more spirits being present but because denial has caused the original spirits to fragment into what looks like a human but which only has the form but not all of the pieces.

          Two people fucking, and by that I mean two people moving sexual rage between them selves may fragment there combined denied rage into a conception which the woman gives birth to. This I would call a rage fragment. These come back to haunt us in the form of domestic violence, mass killings (Norway, Colorado) and sociopath behavior which ends up doing jail time.

          Recently a man killed some Jewish kids at a Jewish school and it got a lot of press. When the police corned him he yelled something to the effect of, "kill me, I wish to die as much as you wish to live". This is self hatred incarnate. It walks talks and breaths. How much conscious feeling is there in that life form. How much consciousness. At least enough to seek death.

          Our fragmentation into more population has eliminated great numbers and many kinds of life forms as we kill them and over run their habitat. Do this increase in human population of depressed internalize rage fragments living lonely lives in city apartments or mad men on the prowl qualify as more life. Does it have more life than the animal, fish, tree, and microorganism population which they displace or use as resources to keep their bodies alive. That is a subjective value judgment for each persons tp make.

          I am not here to judge your values or level of understanding. I am attempting to understand the thinking and values of the humans around me while offering a different point of view.

          That may have value for you or not, I am getting what I need for my process.
  • thumb

    Gail .

    • 0
    Aug 28 2012: You are not well educated about quantum mechanics. You are not aware of the amazing discoveries that are coming through research of "mind" or "consciousness".

    I am not an admirer of S. Hawkins's views, but he does not speak for all of the science. HOWEVER, his claim that life could have started without a God thinking about it, designing it in his mind, and then creating it and watching over it as it grows is a very valid view and agreed upon by virtually ALL quantum physicists.

    I think that you will be pleasantly surprised if you check out what is happening in the relevant worlds of science. Not what you think, I assure you.
  • Aug 2 2012: Doesn't everything lead to death?
    • Aug 2 2012: No, or you would be alive to post your comment.
  • thumb
    Jul 30 2012: Funny, I actually think this is the best time ever to be alive.
    But there is a general issue.
    We have not necessarily evolved to handle our success.
    Nuclear weapons just a few hundred years after spears and clubs.
    Primal instincts not completely governed by reason.

    Even things like obesity. We evolved in a situation where it was a challenge to eat enough. Now we can ear ourselves to early deaths.

    Internet porn addiction.

    Video game addiction.

    Gambling addiction.

    We seek pleasure now.

    I suggest some science will help us understand and address our weaknesses.
    • Jul 30 2012: What you see as weakness is entirely in the subjective domain which can only be understood through introspective inquiries into ones self. My primary issue is that in order to evolve we must integrate the subjective with the objective with understanding of both. The subjective has been objectively analyzed which gives us knowledge of the subjective, but that level of knowledge is not able to give us an understanding of the subjective. That comes through introspection. In such an objective culture it is amazing that we even have developed the word introspection.
      • thumb
        Jul 31 2012: What do you mean by the subjective.
        Opinion?
        Religious beliefs. See above.
        Intuitive beliefs?
        Feelings?
        Valuing human and perhaps animal life?
      • thumb
        Jul 31 2012: are u simply saying that to say: "I know" is division, (banished from eden?)
        • Jul 31 2012: At each level of understanding we say "I know". This is not a problem if one also understands that the truth as I know it is only a stepping stone to the next truth or 'I know".

          Not understanding this transitory nature of truth one may get stuck in "I know" and then be bdivided, stuck or hindered in the process of becoming more of who we are.
    • Jul 31 2012: Thank you Obey Kinobe One,

      I know it is you and not a imposture by your signature directness to the point.

      It is interesting that in this entire thread with all of the purported intelligence which has showed up you are the first person to want to get clear on the most basic aspect of this conversation. It may be that people are so schooled and imbued in objectivity that they really can not comprehend the concept of subjectivity to the point that the question you asked does not occur to them.

      Some of the people I have communicated with here give me the strong impression that they fearsomely cling to the objective because they have so much terror of feeling, that the subjective is invalid from the get-go .

      This conversation may be of interest to many because it is time to get clear on what the subjective is and how to relate subjectively in life.

      Currently the objective domain is outside you, outside your skin. The subject domain is inside of you, from the out side of your skin in. I say currently because this is the way we have been relating to it and it is the first step at this level of our evolution. In time those hard boundaries will soften and the two will integrate and blend, but that is where we are going not where we are.

      The problem at hand is that western culture especially, is stuck in and with primarily the objective domain. Some of the most primitive cultures have the opposite problem. They are stuck in and with primarily the subjective domain.

      Primitive cultures could most benefit from a western formal education through the objectivity it teaches. Western cultures could most benefit from living in a primitive culture and learning the powers of the subjective it teaches. Besides living in primitive culture a western man could learn a tremendous amount by studying his woman’s ways. How she gets what she want using feeling as much as intellect.

      Subjectivity is rooted in the Will which resides in the emotional human feeling body.
      • thumb
        Aug 1 2012: Thanks John.

        I guess all our perceptions, thoughts and feelings to some extent are subjective.

        We see the world imperfectly through our sense and interpret this via our paradigms and experience and emotions.

        That is not to say some concepts are more objective or backed with more evidence than others. Or that we can not aim for shared understanding based on our interpretations.

        It is often beneficial when we can agree on the interpretation of certain shared experiences or perceptions even if what is going on in my head is different from others e.g. This is the Earth. That is the Sun. The Earth is a rough sphere and orbits the sun.

        I agree if you are proposing more of a balanced comprehensive approach rather than favouring subjectivity over objectivity or vice versa. Even with more subjective areas such as human happiness, mixing in objectivity helps. Funny how we can study happiness, what drives it and then ignore it in many interactions.

        Perhaps this all highlights finding the appropriate balance may be most effective.

        Perhaps there is a continuum where more or less objective approaches give the optimum result for different tasks and at different times.

        E.g. Intuition has a valuable role, especially if followed up by some objective analysis.

        Communication is helped by sharing definitions and context, but being able to pick up the human emotional responses helps deepen understanding.

        It's all part of understanding ourselves, the universe and how we want to live.
  • thumb
    Jul 30 2012: Any evidence for your claim? "Cultures with the most science have become the most insensitive to feeling because of the objective paradigms they hold"

    All humans are capable of dehumanising. The Hutus slaughtered the Tutsi's with machetes. Not much technology in that. We happily had slaves for thousands of years. Women are no longer property etc. We have progressed socially. Its a mixed bag. Our technology has risks but it is up to us whether we use it to improve or detract from the human condition.

    We actually train combat troops to be able to kill other. I agree that dropping a bomb from a plane or remote controlled predators makes the enemy or innocent bystanders killed less real.

    How do you know Steven Hawkins is not happy to be alive. Is he dead because of his bodies weakness. One of the greatest minds of our time, still contributing. It's almost insulting. It's his choice whether to live or not.

    Most technology has ethical questions to consider. But it is not all inherently dehumanising or evil. It is us, our greed, our laziness, our selfishness, our lack of foresight or self discipline and compassion that is the problem.

    One day we may be able to download our consciousness, or extend life centuries, or create AI that is conscious. There are serious questions to address. Again it comes down to our choices.
    • Jul 30 2012: We were not even told during the Vietnam war that we were bombing Laos. We dropped more bombs there than during the entire second world war. At the same time we killed two million Vietnamese. Imaging how may people were not killed but wounded to spend the rest of their lives maimed. Millions. We lost fifty thousand.

      And how did we justify doing that and many other such cases?
      • thumb
        Jul 31 2012: If you are arguing that the most powerful nations tend to do the most harm, you'll get no argument from me.

        Technology is a magnifier. Military power potentially allows more harm

        But at the human level, we are tribal and have been for as long as we have been around. Take a look at the bible and god tells his chosen people to annihilate many cities. Christians dehumanising the Jews for millennia peaking with the holocaust. Dehumanising people in Vietnam and now middle east

        I'm not sure the US is worse than the British empire days or the Roman empire days.

        I'm not convinced we value life less than in the past. Murder rates down. Globally War deaths down in the last 30 years. Still a long way to go.

        I'm not convinced more advanced countries are more dehumanised.
    • Jul 31 2012: The problem is in the gap between the objective mind and the subjective feelings. Western culture is stuck primarily in objectivity. This separation from the feelings creates a fascist kind of insensitivity. Primitive peoples have the problem of being stuck in feelings with not a lot of logical self observing mind presence. With out the mind presence of self observation they get lost in emotions which when they move unconsciously can be very cruel and destructive. I agree that primitive cultures have as much anger and violence being acted out as high tech cultures except that High tech can destroy the planet while the primitive can only destroy the neighbor.
  • thumb
    Jul 30 2012: Dear sir

    I would conclude from your thesis that you are not familiar with quantum physics (the forefront of science?) If u would like to inquire into the field, I recommend 'the tao pf physics' or 'the dancing wu li masters' : both fascinating bestselling books on the subject.
    Your initial accusations could be considered pertinent if levelled at pre 20th century classical or newtonian physics - however science has come a long way since then, fundemental concepts of modern physics being the uncertainty principal, and the blurring of the objective/subjective division.

    Meanwhile please consider the following prognosis:
    knowledge/belief => stagnation/crystallisation (aka death or simple existence)
    inquiry/ignorance => evolution/change (aka complexe life)
    I would consider the main objective of the scientist to be enquiry; any new theories immediately unveiling a whole new set of questions why.

    A few more ad hoc reactions to your text:
    part of current robotic research is trying to understand the functioning of the biological mind.(understanding ourselves)
    AI in modern warfare means being able to remotly destroy a single person (rather than a city) - France has been at war with Afghanistan, and everytime a soldier is killed we have national mourning (annually the military death toll is far less than mortality from traffic accidents)
    Stephen Hawkings is practically a poet/mystic, we can thank tech progress for being able to share in a small part of his vision.
    • Jul 30 2012: Thanks Douglas for your interest in communicating with me.

      I will get back with you once I have read The Dancing Wu Li Masters.
  • thumb
    Jul 30 2012: I'm glad my questions have been beneficial. The best conversations edify both parties. To further expound upon the objectivity of science and why it is a necessity, it is noteworthy to mention that in some cases a scientist's personal beliefs may interfere with the actual observation.

    For example: Consider that two scientist, one a strict evolutionist the other a strict creationist. They both observe a fossil. The evolutionist claims, "Oh wait great evidence for evolution", the creationist claims, "Oh what great evidence for creation". Now in reality they both observed a chicken bone covered in cement. This is a very very extreme case. I just used an exaggerated example to demonstrate the problems of using subjectivity. People tend to see what they want to see, not what is really there. That is why science must be objective.
  • thumb
    Jul 29 2012: Then does not the understanding of how that bird sings make it all the more beautiful? Knowing that for that bird to sing everything must harmonize together in a great unity. Does that not enhance its beauty?
    • Jul 29 2012: Thank you Andrew,

      Yes it does for some persons and I think that this is an example, to some degree, of integrating the objective with the subjective to arrive at a better understanding and appreciation of and for the beauty of nature.

      I am learning much in this conversation as it challenges me to think in new channels. Such questions as yours cause me to paws and think/feel so that I can language something in know and have never languaged,
  • Jul 29 2012: Positive will, positive intent....whether it is science, business or anything else will lead to positive results. Science is simply the pursuit of new knowledge. Science can be used for purely positive purposes.
    • Jul 29 2012: Yes Rhona as long as one does not deny the presence of the negative feelings which come up along the way. The emotional body does not do math. A positive statement or thought does not cancel a negative past suppressed into unconsciousness until the feelings of its presence pressures the present.

      For me the positive to negative feeling is a chance to choose a safe space and move the emotion involved as sound with out words. It frees up the connective tissue of the body while altering the chemistry of the interstitial fluids which nourishes the cells. It also returns memory/information of the events allowing mental resolution. It will convert a negative into a positive.

      Science is good if feelings are applied to the application of its knowledge. This brings objective/subjective balance.

      Thanks for being here...................John
      • Jul 30 2012: John, and thank you for being here. Let us consider the extent to which individuals choose their emotional response to things. Love, anger, for example. These are choices.
        • Jul 30 2012: Yes, I agree Rhona, these can be choices in the present if one is conscious enough to be self observant enough to make a choice.

          It still remains that we all seem to have a historical backlog of unconscious, unprocessed and suppressed emotional events in our past which may be triggered by a word, event or image that causes a knee jerk reaction with out a moments notice. These events for me are doors into my forgotten past making it possible for me to clear up some background static which is distorting my present....................John
      • Jul 30 2012: John, you make good points. Thank you. Awareness, consciousness seems of top importance, if we are to succeed in changing ourselves and in accomplishing our positive goals. People who lack consciousness, awareness seem to focus on trying to get other people to change, thinking that is the source of their happiness. It is up to each of us to express truth as we know it, speak and act in ways that will cause the positive results we desire. I find your inputs valuable. Thanks again. I am glad we are working together and with others of our ilk because it is accelerating the accomplishment of our positive goals. We are succeeding. Happy Today.
        • Jul 30 2012: Thank you Rhona for the thumbs up and the encouraging comments, they mean a lot in a world like this................John
  • Jul 29 2012: "Humans have become convinced that they are human resources, a commodity at the service of capital. People now speak of their bodies in terms of being fantastic machines...etc., etc."

    This is achieved through brainwashing, not science per se.

    Understanding is achieved through, well, understanding.
    • Jul 29 2012: True brainwashing has been a science for a very long time. It employs physiology, psychology, sociobiology, and many other of the disciplines. Its intent is to fragment the personality while creating gaps between them for the introduction of instructions.

      The more benign forms of brain washing are easily seen in our industrial marketing. The classical brainwashing as reference above is primarily governmental and supra governmental. Marketing is primarly associated with the private sector but it also us extensively used by the government. IRS intimidation is an example. Marketing uses all of the basic physical sciences as well as social sciences to accomplish its goals. This is a large topic but I imagine that you get my drift.

      Understanding will be defined and limited in its scope by the paradigms and belief one holds around ones paradigms.Our paradigms and beliefs are what shape our selection of information. The information which is select out of the vast amount available is information which will support our paradigms. Few people are able to notice that their paradigms are shaping their perception of reality.

      Understanding is achieved through first understanding ones own beliefs and paradigms.
  • thumb
    Jul 29 2012: Science does not destroy life it enhances it. We understand who we are because of science. I could not even imagine life existing without the scientific method. The reason one must be objective in observing nature is because nature is objective. It is not a dehumanizing act it is an understanding act.
    • Jul 29 2012: Objectivity makes you feel secure because it does not threaten to bring up uncomfortable subjective feelings. Because objectivity screens out subjective feeling, everything out side of the human domain thus observed seems to be objective. A person who still retains feeling feels that all of nature feels the joy of life, loves and cars fro its offspring and sings songs of beauty. Because the pitch range of our ears can not hear the song of a humming bird does not mean it does not sing.
  • thumb
    Jul 28 2012: There is only one problem with this whole rant. It is absolutely verifiably false, in every way. As technology has progressed, and become more effiecient at killing... Death... Is going down. Dramatically.

    On a per capita basis, we were far more violent, rapy, and theft oriented societies before modern scientific advances. Religious, and subjectively governed societies, have historically been the most brutal. No war between superpowers, which led to a land battle, has ever had less death, than dropping the bomb produced in Japan. It was the least death prone solution possible given the circumstances, and it was invented by science.

    Science oriented communities have lower rates of teen pregnancy, their marriages last longer, and they produce more wealth than religious communities.

    Keep believing nonsense if it helps you sleep at night though : )
    • Jul 29 2012: David,

      You are repeating to me what you have been told by social authorities to justify their behavior and keep people in a fog. Current examples of this can be seen in government economic reports which claim no significant inflation in consumer price. Of course no one knows how the statistics are developed, the parameters and definitions used and few understand statistics. Yet we stand around the market and talk about how much more things are costing and I am not speaking in terms of two percent.

      Yet the authorities continue insisting there is no significant inflation. I understand that they must pacify the population with lies (misinformation) as they destroy the value of the dollar while allowing domestic inflation. It is the only way to make us competitive with Asia because our labor is over priced in a competitive well educated global labor market. Understanding that does not mean that I must believe what they are telling me about inflation.

      We are told that there is less violence in the cities. It does not seem so to me. I am more inclined to believe that the statistics are fudged by changing definitions and so on.

      We are told that we live in a democracy and hardly any one know who counts the vote, who programs the computer and so on. We just want to believe.

      The war in Vietnam is another good example of authority’s lies and distortions. I never knew that we were also at war also with Laos. This was never mentioned. Now it turns out that more tons of bombs were dropped on them than on all of Europe and Japan combined during the Second World War.

      I do not take the authorities truths at face value. They twist the truth in order to have the public march to their music.

      Think for yourself, read behind the lines, look for alternative motives and you will uncover a lot
      • thumb
        Jul 29 2012: Authorities, almost always lie. They are horrible, and they are the remnants of religious dominated societies and aristocracies, which are slowly being irradicated. Far too slowly, for my taste... But, what you are saying has nothing to do with science.

        Science is why every human being on earth has a dramatically higher life expectancy now, than 100 years ago. Just because authorities, often lie, doesn't mean that all of human history is a lie. You ignored every point I made, because they're all true, but they don't fit into your worldview.

        No matter how much they fudge the inflation numbers, they can't fake their way to a decade increase in life expectancy and a 2 billion person increase to the LIVING population. If science was killing us, there would be less of us now, than before science. There are more. Lots more, so many more it's becoming a problem. Science has created too much life.
        • Jul 29 2012: The authorities use the knowledge of all of the scientific disciplines to accomplish its goal to dominate your thinking. They finance scientific research to discover our motives, modes of thinking, values and attitudes. They use science to determine the words and images which will get us to respond as they wish. It goes on and on. You may wish to rethink the idea that the authorities are not empowered by science in what they do.

          "On a per capita basis, we were far more violent, rape, and theft oriented societies before modern scientific advances." This has been fed to you on an academic silver spoon.

          Can you imagine the millions of people who died or lived maimed in Laos when we dropped more bombs on them during the Vietnam war than was dropped by us during world war two, or the two million Vietnamese (gooks) we kill in battle while loosing 50.000 men. If two million were killed, imaging how were seriously injured and lived on maimed. You art told these stories of how nice things are now so as to keep you from thinking.

          A prolonged life span I do not necessarily call "more life." More life is a quality, sensitivity and energy to enjoy. We are swamped with drugs to block feeling, alter moods, and stimulate our adrenalin to give us the sense that we have more energy when we are burning out.

          You could grasp the concept, that more people does not define as more life, if you understood fragmentation. Because you wish to ignore the metaphysical domain I can not give you new material to work with. But notice that we do no wish to look into the issue of why we keep having more children when we are already overpopulated. Earth worm stop reproducing when the food supply diminishes to where it will not support more.

          Only true subjective introspection with honest intent can discover the human motives which will continue to reproduce into poverty and starvation.

          Science will not encourage this because it will empower the individual to become more subjectively self aware.
      • thumb
        Jul 29 2012: Who keeps having more children? Religious people... Who lives responsible, sustainable, 1 and 2 child families? Scientists. Atheists.
  • thumb

    R H

    • 0
    Jul 28 2012: Thanks John for having the courage to present such a contrarian view. I see in your arguement that our obsession with the 'physical' world has led to a complete denial of any forms of 'life' beyond it - along with the totality of the human response and experience of it - and that immeasurable 'side effects' of our technological and scientific advancement are largely ignored under the banner of 'progress'. This is just the beginning as many believe (myself included) that we are entering an age of 'transformation' unlike any other, whereas our dependencies on our technologies will only increase. But along with this is further spiritual discovery and a re-definition of the meaning and essense of mankind. We are re-defining what it means to be human ethically, environmentally, and socially. No longer simply rats in a maze to be used, led, and controlled, we are evolving into a new consciousness of synergy, synchronicity, and the value of each individual. Your dark, yet somewhat accurate, assessment needs to be told if only to remind us of what we refuse to see, and what we could become if we continue on such inconsiderate trendlines.
    • Jul 29 2012: Thank you HR for letting me know that you understand what I am attempting to get at......................John
  • thumb
    Jul 28 2012: Why do you say science denies the validity of the subjective?
    • Jul 29 2012: Fritzie,

      Science considers objectivity to be the path to truth. Objectivity is based upon the observation of the external world. A world external to the subject observing that which is beyond the self that observes. To objectify is to measure and assess the out there with agreed upon methods and units of weight and measures.
      ob•jec•tive
      [ ob jéktiv ]

      1. free of bias: free of any bias or prejudice caused by personal feelings
      2. based on facts: based on facts rather than thoughts or opinions
      3. observable: describes disease symptoms that can be observed by somebody other than the person who is ill

      The scientist must deny subjective feelings, thinking that that will keep them from tainting their observations. The ability to deny subjectivity is one quality which defines a good scientist.
      • thumb
        Jul 29 2012: I understand this. But the requirements for experiments are not the same thing to me as what science accepts.as valid dispositions for humans in general.
        • Jul 29 2012: Please elaborate Fritzie. I am interested in this and I am sure others on this thread are interested.................John
      • thumb
        Jul 29 2012: One example is that tools of scientific inquiry can be and are used to study the formation of preferences or how people make decisions. Preferences are by their nature subjective as are decisions based on judgments made in the absence of complete information.

        While the research method is itself objective, there is no unwillingness to accept and embrace the range of human behaviors.
        • Jul 30 2012: It seems to me that this is a scientific study of subjective decision making processes. This is not to embrace the subjective it is to study it and statistically analyze it. The information then can be used in marketing, military recruiting, or political party campaigning.

          The subjective applies value to such work or disparages it according to the personal values of the subject.
      • thumb
        Jul 30 2012: I think you have an unusual and incorrect notion of what scientific inquiry is about. You seem to believe that the purpose of science is manipulative and evil and that those who think and work analytically disdain subjective judgment, emotion, and so forth.

        This is not a realistic picture of the values of the scientific community or of those who use analytical tools in inquiry.

        Those who use analytical tools also make subjective judgments in their lives, like some kinds of music and not others, and love as deeply and fully as those in different lines of work.

        If you believe that there is a place for objective and subjective judgment as part of the human experience, you should be pleased to know that essentially 100% of scientists would hold this view as well.
        • Jul 30 2012: Help me out Fritzie, Please point out to me where you picked this up in my conversations.

          Thanks.................John
      • thumb
        Jul 30 2012: You might reread your opening statement under the heading "Science leads to death," for example.
        • Jul 30 2012: Manipulate, yes! Science manipulates all kinds of things and life forms to uncover its objective knowledge. Science in intern is manipulated by those who finance its research. Science by its nature does not directly generate the wealth it needs to exist. It is the application of the knowledge which it discovers, to needs of the ruling class which generates wealth. They pay for certain research and get it because that employs scientists and scientists enjoy being paid for doing what they do.

          On the other hand, did not state or imply evil in the text or that science is evil. Your unconscious subjective subconscious applied that judgment to the text base upon your values which you applied to content with in the text.

          This is a very good first hand example of why the scientific method came about. People noticed the effects of their own subjective unconsciousness and did not know how to resolve it directly through introspection and emotional movement. Therefor they create a method that would attempt to screen out all subjectivity.

          For those times that was the best that could be done. Now it may time to find what was lost in separating subjectivity from knowledge.
  • Comment deleted

    • Jul 29 2012: " Insensitivity towards feelings is not a trait that is associated with science!" This statement indicates to me that you have not noticed what is really going on inside science. Notice the research done on animals as well as unsuspecting humans. if you start here it will mushroom as you learn to move through the fear of not fitting in to the general social paradigms concerning science.
  • thumb
    Jul 28 2012: What's your point?
    Sooo discovery that bacteria and virus cause disease, and then finding cures for said diseases are going to cause us all to die? And subjective science is the worst science. If emotion was part of science it would just be lies. O nooo look the Andromeda galaxy seems to be moving towards us and will eventually kill us all, well we don't like that so let's tell people there's no galaxy going to kill us. This is what happens if you let emotion into science. And just so you know "The followers of scientific objectivity are doomed to die from it as they drive feeling from the body" everyone dies eventually.
    And like seriously what is your point?
    • Jul 28 2012: Bacteria and virus do not cause disease. The individuals own system determines if the germ will thrive or not. If this were not the case everyone would have died of the black plague or other highly transmissible germs. Germ has traditionally meant the essence of life. The germ of a thought, A mans seamen as the germ of live and now that we know that for each cell of our body there are ten micro organism (germs) thriving and supporting our life from within we might consider questioning the germ theory._ Scientific medicine has made the germ the enemy to be fought just as we have fought the Vietnamese, Laotians, Muslim radicals, Al Qaeda and so on.

      I did not use the term subjective science nor imply that emotions should be included in science for that would be the application of a contradiction of terms. I suspect that your fear is distorting your mental perception of what I wrote. If you can feel into yourself as you think over this topic over, you may find fear or fear that is denied and been converted to rage. Consider it.

      My point is that death is not an inevitable eventuality if we can discover the paradigms which are leading us into death. Remember that if you wish to arrive at a different conclusion you must first change your paradigm.

      Thank you for honoring me with the expression of your thoughts.................John
      • thumb
        Jul 28 2012: Judging how little you understand what bacteria are, I can see how you must've hating science class in school.
        • Jul 29 2012: Geraid, I can hear your judgments, contempt, assumptions and fear. Possibly you can find more to offer.
      • thumb
        Jul 28 2012: Ok firstly your understanding of germ theory is non existent. If you want to assert that it is solely the conscious mind that decides whether disease thrives or not you require some extreme evidence. Though the study of noetics has shown and proven that having a good moral and being generally happy does boost your immune system though this is largely due to the increased energy one has. And also if your assertion is true then why do the most strong minded of people get disease? Your understanding of the black plague is non existent also and how disease spreads and how some can be immune whilst others can't.
        You do realise that it's science keeping almost everyone alive, and up above you said it creates zombies instead of prolonging life. How are vaccines or immunizations creating zombies? Or dialysis machines? Or organ replacements? or antibiotics, the only thing which truly does keep someone like a zombie is a life support machine and that's it.
        Now your basic premise is the idea that there is more than the physical and there is also a spiritual dimension of some kind yada yada yada. You just dressed it up with some vague science terms. This requires further evidence which it currently lacks and I don't see at all how adding emotion to the mix could bring this forward to us.
        • Jul 29 2012: You have an empirical model of the immune system based upon the reductionism mind set of science which is always searching for the silver bullet.

          The immune system is the totality of all of who we are, not just certain aspects defined as specific systems or certain cell structures. That is why your noting that having a good moral and being generally happy strengthens the immune system. Those traits strengthen all of who we are. Saying that one has increased energy is to say the totality of the person is at a higher level of function. One aspect of this is less illness.Our ability to remain in good health is rooted in accepting all of who we are with as little denial as possible. Each person at their specific level of self understanding will define ‘all of who we are’ differently. The healthier will be more inclusive of aspects of themselves.

          Germs as virus and bacteria are more plentiful in our body than our number of structural cell. Certain of these germs will be triggered into expanding their populations to create symptoms only when specific internal environmental condition with in the body manifest. Otherwise the germ is only contributing its individual systemic function in the cellular environment and not raising any red flags (symptoms). Dis-ease is not caused by the germ. It is caused by the specific imbalance in body chemistry which triggers the germ to multiply and create specific agents of irritation. This irritation is the manifestation of symptoms of disease and not the cause. The germ is not the cause of the problem but the agent that signals that there is an imbalance within the entire structure's function. (continue below)
        • Jul 29 2012: The germ theory of disease sees the germ as the cause of the problem and not as a symptom of the problem. Hence the search for the silver bullet with which to kill the germ. Anti-biotic is to correctly name the substance because it kill life. It kills the messenger who is raising the red flag signaling that there is a problem in the body’s structure and function. It kills many of the other germs which balance and maintain a healthy internal environment of the entire body. By eliminating the messenger germs and the message as symptoms the individual does not learn to take responsibility for their health at the level of maintaining a healthy internal environment in the body.

          This keeps the patient tied to the empirical germ theory model which make big money for the doctors and pharmaceutical industry. And yes it is each person’s responsibility to break free of this model and take personal responsibility for their own level of health.

          You state above "You do realize that it's science keeping almost everyone alive," I understand that this is your belief so it is your reality. I have created a different belief and thus a different reality for my own way of going. Our choice of beliefs determine our choice of a reality. I am just offering a choice outside of our societies consensus reality.
      • thumb
        Jul 29 2012: " Possibly you can find more to offer."

        Yes. A challenge ; where does your knowledge come from?
        I'm not talking about a few facts here and there. I mean it in a philosophical sense.
        In your worldview, where does knowledge come from?
        • Jul 29 2012: Good question Gerald,

          Knowledge arises with in the observer bases upon what the energy of attentions is directed upon. The knowledge that emerges is conditioned by the observer's paradigms ("a pattern or model, an exemplar".)and beliefs.

          The knowledge obtained is objective knowledge if the observer has pure objectivity.

          The knowledge obtained is subjective knowledge if the observer is in a state of pure subjectivity.

          Neither can be pure in the human domain because the human is composed of and created out of these two domains and will always incorporate some of the other while attempting to be pure in the one.

          Understanding begins to emerge as we learn to balance these two aspects of consciousness with in our mind/body complex. The better the balance between the objective and the subjective domains the higher is the understanding which emerges between them.

          Consciousness it the metaphysical aspect which manifests in from as the mind (central nervous system) which is most often associated with the brain but which is actually meant to be an all pervading aspect penetrating all of all of who one is.

          The metaphysical aspect which balances the Consciousness is Feeling and it manifests as the body (peripheral nervous system). Consciousness with out feel has no way to anchor itself in form.

          The more one denies feeling our of consciousness, the more consciousness is then driven out of the body until it results in death.
      • thumb
        Jul 29 2012: John you're Offering a pseudoscientific version of germ theory which requires a lot of evidence but I doubt you value evidence or would merely twist the current evidence.
        So firstly injecting a mouse with HIV will cause the mouse to die no matter how happy the mouse is, in your idea if you can just be happy enough you'll be able to be HIV free. Once again no evidence. And your idea completely fall apart when met with the self squires immuniies within the body. If in your idea we have an energy drop and we get the cold then our body fights it and makes the antibodies. Now by your logic an exact same fall in energy should trigger the exact same germ or disease. Yet it doesn't we become immune to things.
        You really need evidence, you're being contrarian for the sake of it and in doing so have abandoned all your faculties such as common sense and value of reason and evidence.
      • thumb
        Jul 29 2012: So, John, everything you say is neither objective nor subjective information, and is conditionned by your beliefs.
        How then do you know I'm wrong? What happens when you confront two ideas?
        I ask because it seems it's just one opinion against another in your philosophy.
        • Jul 29 2012: Gerald,
          I did not intend to communicate that I an neither objective nor subjective. I am attempting to integrate the two into a new personal reality for myself. My opinions are my truths at the moment and they are constantly evolving. A truth for me is just a stepping stone on the way to the next truth. My truths are framed by beliefs which give me general guidance on my path.

          Your opinions are your truths on your path of self realization. I do not presume to make you or anyone else wrong. Your life is your path of learning. Conflicts in opinions do not have to be assumed to make anyone wrong.if one is not afraid to change and and are willing to change. Conflicts in opinions are for me a chance to possible evolve my opinions/truths or not. If not I let it be and move on.
      • thumb
        Jul 30 2012: " Conflicts in opinions are for me a chance to possible evolve my opinions/truths or not. If not I let it be and move on. "

        Alright, this is the part i'm interested in. How do you know when you should "let it be and move" ?
        How does one learn anything interesting with that method?
        If I tell you that lead is poisonous, why should you believe me? Why not believe my neighbour who says lead is healthful? Someone must be wrong, and it's quite useful to have a philosophy able to objectively say who's more likely to be wrong. I call it science.
        How would you sort things out? Why not believe that lead is healthful?
        • Jul 30 2012: I know nothing about lead except that it is a soft metal which does not readily oxidize under normal atmospheric conditions. I know you both, you and your neighbor, I notice that you look healthier than your neighbor and are not so adamant concerning your point of view on lead. You are not attempting to convince me. Your feel more comfortable to be with you than with the neighbor. In our discussions you seem to notice points which indicate to me that you care for your health and support other in the same. I do not have much personal contact with your neighbor, some how he gives me the 'creeps'.

          I listen to you both and tilt the bias strongly in your favor. I do not have to absolutely believe you and give you the position of being right, just right for you. I like you and so not eating lead might not be right for me, and you do cause me to look into the matter on my own. I.do not have to make the neighbor wrong because lead may be giving him what he wants.

          Recently a man killed some children at a Jewish school and he got a lot of press. It was reported that when he was surrounded by the police he yelled something to the effect of,
          "Kill me! I want to die as much as you want to live". I do not remember the out come. His statement is what impressed me. I can not make him wrong for wanting to die.

          Possibly your neighbor has the same inclination with out being as clear about it and I am not interested in finding out. I just move on because he does not feel or appear healthy. Why would I make him wrong for enjoying lead. It may be what he needs for where he wants to go. He may also know others that enjoy lead for they all hold the same intent. So for that domain of persons seeking death lead is a good thing. I hopes the all eat a lot and move on out of my environment.
  • thumb
    Jul 28 2012: I'm guessing you have a better philosophical method than the scientic one, so I'm wondering how you got to your definition : " Life is defined by the presence of conscious feeling in a body. "

    Gut feeling? Opinion? Read it in a comic book?
    • Jul 28 2012: If consciousness leaves and is completely separated from the body what is left is called a corps.
  • Jul 28 2012: If one wishes to arrive at a new conclusion one must first change the premise. It has been my experience that people feel that consciously changing ones beliefs is dishonest or cheating and dismiss the possibility out of hand.