Re: Science, God and the ego.

shit man you took the words right out of my mouth its crazy to here the same thoughts but we as humans are learning about ourselves and what we know for sure is we can only live in this planet and the elements we thrive on so maybe we should stop there and focus on thriving together on what we know so simple right thats why there is always underdogs the simple way is easy

Thats interesting how you said the heart has feeling.I think we all know that,but I guess science only makes certain that what you believe is not a lie.Of course not everyone believes the same thing but I guess turning your heart cold may really exist.Perhaps its loss of connection or feeling.Perhaps its like being brain dead.

Religion isn't ritual or superstition; that is what it has been made to be or seem by organizations of decite. Religionhood is a way of seeing things soberly, but appreciating them for their entirety. Lies are necessary, for you to understand truth. Duality is a nature of the god apparatus.

The problem is not our knowledge it's how we act upon it.

No need at all to fall into the mysticism litterature. I choose pragmaticaly that scientific litterature need more empiricaly based rationalisation.

Science that understand that nowaday those cognitive predisposition that have evolve no longer give us the better chance at surviving because our environnement have drasticly change.(See evolutionnary psychology)That science exist, it is emerging, the notion that our capacity to tell the story of our existence is constrain and limit by the interraction of our central nervous system and our environnement is nowaday a scientific problem that I believe will lead to solution.

We do not need to find another way to resolve the problem of technology we need better science, science who understand that we are biological organism situated in a cultural environnement and who understand that logic, rationality, language and explanation are product of a brain that have been naturally selected to produce certain type of representation because in a certain environnement it have help us to survive.

In short, the point a wanna make is that Gregory Bateson saw back in the 70s what you are seeing now, that the alliance of our contemplative and technologycal epystemology is going to destroy our species. But that point CAN be adress and resolve by adding more science. Imagination and mysticism is not the answer because cognitive science and philosophy of cognitive science are starting to explain why we think the way we are thinking ! Science can see is own bias and try to limit the consequence.

But as a 21st century scientist I question the world not in a dualitic way, i'm past Descartes, I consciously know that I have bias. And my quest is to establish a scientific theory of these bias, ans we are as a community of believers in the myth of science acheving some progress. (see situated cogntion (Varela), ecological (Gibson) and developpemental (Hirchfield) psychology)

But since we all know that science is not giving an objective story of reality, because there`s no absolute picture of nothing. We have to choose a point a view ! We have to choose what we considered to be the best myth. I prefer science, because I'm a pragmatist. I prefer the myth of science because it's the more efficient myth I know. By that I mean that it offer a better predictability of the future event base on some initials conditions.