Luc Turpin

.1 to 4 - yes 5- Molecules that make up proteins in the body remain lifeless on their own, even though they are integral to a living organism. It is the body as a whole that is alive, not the individual molecules. However, the key point is that the transformation of matter into living organisms has neither been observed in nature nor replicated in the lab. Nonetheless, we continue striving to understand nature, a significant portion of reality, even if our understanding can only approach it asymptotically. +1 for the post. However, I am not implying that God transformed non-living matter into living organisms. What I am stating is that, as of now, we have not observed non-living matter turning into a living organism, either in nature or in the lab. This is a factual observation, not a matter of belief. Speaking of physics, Heisenberg emphasized how science (quantum mechanics) shapes our understanding of reality. Or more broadly, Kuhn exploring how science expands our understanding of reality by examining shifts in scientific paradigms. Numerous renowned scientists believe that science plays a crucial role in shaping our understanding of reality.

So, science is not in search of understanding reality?

Molecules, even within the body, are not alive on their own. If I were to remove one from the body, it would not be alive by itself. For now, I prefer to say that we have not yet discovered how molecules transform into life, or what causes an amalgamation of molecules to sometimes form a living entity and other times remain non-living.

There is a major difference to be made between non-living molecules being incorporated into a living organism and life emerging from non-living matter on its own. The first is common, while the second has, I believe, never been observed in nature or recreated in a lab. CO2 is used by living organisms but remains non-living. On the other hand, abiogenesis refers to the process where non-living matter transforms itself into living organisms without life being present. 1-I disagree. Science does more than simply describe how nature works; it seeks to uncover the underlying mechanisms, and this brings us closer to understanding reality. Through theoretical models, for instance, science aims to explain and predict phenomena, which refines our understanding of the world. Ultimately, science’s goal is not just to describe nature, but to better comprehend the principles that govern reality. Beyond describing; understanding is the essence of science. 2- I do not see the relevance of bringing up "fantasy" in the discussion. Fantasy is separate from reality; it involves creating imagined thoughts that don’t align with the real world. In contrast, subjectivity starts with reality, interpreting and shaping it based on an individual’s experiences and perspectives. Subjectivity would not lead to the conclusion that a bicycle can fly, but it might influence how one perceives whether the rider is in control of the bicycle, based on observations and experiences. 3- I contend that it would bring science closer to undertanding reality in all of its's ramifications.

1- I have been saying that all along. 2- Relying on their own individual subjectivity, which is not very good. I am talking about collective subjectivity though.

A distinction must be made between individual subjective experiences and the collective patterns of those experiences that span across time and cultures. While science cannot and should not concern itself with individual preferences, as they are highly variable, it becomes significant when millions of people report similar subjective experiences. This suggests that there may be underlying forces at play in the nature of reality itself. By exploring these shared experiences, science can broaden its scope, bringing it closer to a deeper understanding of true reality. An approach that bridges the gap between objective and collective-subjective realities would greatly expand science’s exploration of the human condition.

Subjectivity is an inherent-integral part of the world we live in. So, do we simply choose to ignore it?

1-Science should engage with subjectivity if it seeks to truly understand the core of reality. 2- I wouldn't be trying to convince myself if it weren't for the fact that "bothersome" things tend to happen when the brain shuts down or is at rest. 3-It's the opposite — science is being hindered by a reluctance to engage with subjectivity. As for God, I’m uncertain of His existence.

You can experience it if you choose to. If you choose not to, your understanding of reality remains incomplete. After experiencing it, many find their perception of reality transformed, often gaining a deeper or modified view of existence.

The distinction between cause and result does not diminish the fact that the brain slows down during nitrogen narcosis. B.K. Butler, in Cognitive and Behavioral Effects of Nitrogen Narcosis, discusses how narcosis impairs various brain functions, including memory, attention, and motor control. This slowing of cognitive processes is a key aspect of the experience and illustrates the brain's altered state under pressure. You can explore the periphery of subjective experience using objective measures, but you cannot directly access the essence of subjectivity through objectivity alone. Agree! Reality isn’t limited to one or the other; it is a dynamic interplay of both objective facts and subjective experience. Both are integral to our complete understanding of ourselves and the world we live in. The "sense of omnipresence" can be chemically induced, but the key question is whether the substance is simply altering brain chemistry or unlocking access to another level of reality. Does it just change how we perceive things, or does it reveal a deeper, previously hidden experience? This distinction helps us understand if these experiences are purely brain-based or if they point to something beyond the physical world. No attempt at a bait-and-switch argument. If it seems that way, please feel free to point it out.

I agree, it’s impossible to provide empirical data for the actual experience of omnipresence, but one can describe a "sense of omnipresence"—an overwhelming feeling or awareness of interconnectedness, unity, and boundless presence. This subjective experience, while not measurable in the traditional scientific sense, is deeply felt and can be shared across different individuals and cultures.

Nice conversing with you!

Narcosis: "It can cause a sense of euphoria, altered perceptions, and sometimes a feeling of quieting or slowing down of the mind."

It seems you may be relying heavily on objective explanations, attempting to rationalize subjective experiences through the lens of cortisol and adrenaline. As for me, I’m doing my best, even if it doesn’t align with your perspective. If my thoughts seem imperfect, then so be it. Sometimes, the richness of experience doesn’t fit neatly into a structured framework.

Scuba divers experiencing nitrogen narcosis, pilots enduring high G-forces, individuals having near-death experiences, and practitioners of meditation all share a common thread: the mind is quiet. This stillness doesn't lead to nothingness, but instead opens the door to profound experiences of "somethingness"—a possible deeper reality or altered state of awareness. LSD and magic mushrooms induce a shift in perception, often unlocking a heightened sense of awareness that reveals a richer, more complex reality. These substances can alter sensory experiences, enhance emotional sensitivity, and create a profound sense of interconnectedness. While they may not necessarily quiet the mind in the traditional sense, they can disrupt habitual thought patterns, allowing for new insights and perspectives to emerge.

It unfolds both within you and around you. It is not a product of imagination, but when the mind quiets and imagination ceases to intervene, it naturally resurfaces. Part of the whole. It's just not coming from you.

Read the quotes!

While it’s challenging to test scientifically, experiencing it becomes more accessible when one is open and willing to eliminate mental distractions, allowing for a deeper connection to the present moment. Many surveys of meditators reveal that, upon quieting the mind and entering deep states of stillness, they report experiencing a sense of omnipresence, unity, disolving of ego and a higher order. When the mind is stilled, one might expect emptiness or nothingness, but instead, a whole new awareness seems to emerge, offering profound and unexpected insights. I could provide survey results if that would be helpful.

The experience unfolds within you, not from you. Omnipresence, by its nature, transcends both space and time; it is not confined to any dimension— it is everywhere all at once. You don’t need to search for or locate it; it’s already within you. To experience it, you need to let go of the need to control, think, or imagine - a hard thing to do for scientistis. Quieting the mind is the way to access to a deeper state of mind where time and space dissolve. In that state, unity and interconnectedness is revealed as always there, hidden by mental chatter. Be more specific about why my assertions are considered unsupportive or irrelevant. The examples I’ve provided are all spiritual experiences that might help explain our place in the universe. Dismissing these experiences fails to recognize the complexity of human existence, where both objective knowledge and subjective insights contribute to a fuller understanding of who we are, what are we doing here, what is life, etc. More quotes: "You are not a drop in the ocean. You are the entire ocean in a drop." – Rumi (Sufism) "In the woods, we return to reason and faith. There I feel that nothing can befall me in life—no disgrace, no calamity (assuming I am not myself)—which nature cannot repair." – Ralph Waldo Emerson "In that moment, I realized that the separation between myself and the universe no longer existed. I was the universe, and the universe was me." – Lama Anagarika "The experience of yourself as awareness, free from attachment to the body and mind, is the direct experience of truth." – Mooji "In the state of realization, there is no time, no space. The Self transcends time and space, because the Self is beyond both. It is eternal and without form. When the mind is stilled, the illusion of time and space ceases."- Ramana Maharshi "In mystical states, we have a direct perception of the interconnection of all things; time and space, as we normally know them, vanish, and we experience a unity of being that transcends ordinary understanding." - William James

No, the oneness that arises from a place beyond time and space, a place untouched by thought and imagination, where nothingness transforms into boundless presence. Or "I had to discover the truth for myself... It was the encounter with the unconscious that brought me to the realization that there are forces beyond the individual that shape the psyche." – Carl Young "I believe this is the most important thing that can happen to a human being: that he can experience the possibility of a state of mind beyond the ego." -Aldous Huxley "The truth is beyond religion, beyond name and form. It is the essence of your being, the essence of your soul." – Kabir "When the mind becomes still, the inner light shines forth. And this is the experience of the Self." -Patanjali But, this can only be understood by those who experience it. For others, it sounds silly.

Human cooperation is focused on external connections while spirituality is an inward-facing experience, often centered on connecting with something greater than oneself, whether that’s a higher powe or the universe. Spirituality can also just encompass mindfulness and inner peace without a divine focus. While cooperation shapes external relationships, spirituality provides a deeper, personal journey to understanding one’s place in the world, offering meaning to life.

Religion is a social construct, while spirituality is personal and individual. Religion is structured with doctrines, rituals, and often authority, and can sometimes-manytimes be used for control. Spirituality, on the other hand, focuses on personal growth, inner peace, and connection, without fixed rules or practices. One can be both religious and spiritual, or spiritual without a specific religion. Acknowledging that some things may remain mysterious shows humility, while blindly accepting everything is being gullible. You should also be humbled by the unknown and understanding that some truths may never be fully understood. As for the concept of gods, I agree that for some, belief in gods may be seen as a form of mental laziness or a way to explain things that are otherwise difficult to understand. Your statement oversimplifies science and religion. Both are complex and engage with reality in different ways. Science is not just about removing bias, which it can never fully eliminate. It is a process of inquiry and exploration that evolves with new evidence, promoting skepticism as well as open-mindedness, which is sometimes overlooked. Science constantly refines its understanding, but it can sometimes be too rigid in its conclusions. Religion is not merely about codifying biases. While it can be rigid at times, it also allows for growth, questioning, and offers a framework for understanding life, purpose, and meaning. Religion often embraces mystery, acknowledging the limitations of human knowledge. In short, both science and religion are dynamic. Science provides knowledge based on evidence, while religion offers wisdom rooted in experience and faith. Together, they offer complementary perspectives on reality. Science may often be right, but religion also illuminates aspects of life that science cannot fully address. Both science and religion can be destructive in their own ways. Therefore, I prefer to embrace the positive aspects of science while leaning toward spirituality rather than organized religion.

My understanding of science is that it is more than just a method; it’s also a growing body of knowledge based on observation and experimentation. New discoveries constantly expand our understanding, making science an ongoing journey that raises more questions than provides answers. However, claiming that science doesn’t consider an endpoint overlooks some views in the field. Many theoretical physicists believe that a complete understanding, like a Theory of Everything, could be a potential "end point." The search for fundamental particles, a key pursuit in modern physics as well, could also be seen as aiming for an endpoint. For me, though, this search for fundamental particles has shown that science is an evolving journey rather than a fixed destination. Additionally, claiming that religion knows everything is misleading. Most religious traditions embrace mystery and faith, recognizing that some truths are beyond human comprehension. In summary, saying that science avoids an endpoint oversimplifies the issue, while suggesting that religion knows everything misrepresents most religious traditions, which embrace mystery, faith, and uncertainty.

I agree on both points, but believe it’s spirituality, not religion, that keeps us humble. Spirituality allows a personal connection to the unknown, accepting mystery without needing rigid answers to life's uncertainties.

I’m not suggesting that religion is necessarily right, but rather that CharonY might have had it backwards: science seeks to understand everything, while religion acknowledges the mysteries that remain beyond our comprehension. Both religion and science have their shortcomings — religion has its failings, and science has its limitations. Moreover, the pursuit of knowledge beyond our current understanding is a virtuous endeavor. However, assuming that we will ultimately know everything may be presumptuous, as some aspects of reality may always elude our grasp.