Science vs. Spirit

[omega minimo]

“If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't.” --Lyall Watson

The split between Science and Spirit is huge, enormous; a divide that impacts nearly every aspect of our lives and many threads on DU. This split is also a false construct that has been institutionalized and reinforced down the ages by both the science- and spirit industries. Even so, the entire past century spawned experimentation, literature, science and art that defied this obsolete, artificial conflict. In the meantime, technology has created products that make the perpetual Spirit/Science/Mind/Body split ever more dangerous.

The 21st century moved us beyond the merely mechanistic scientific view (I thought!) of the Universe. Discussions here are limited by cliches about science that even Science doesn't hold out for any more.

Then I came upon "Out of the Depths" in a book of travel essays. Lyall Watson, from "Gifts of Unknown Things," describes an experience on a small storm-wrecked wooden boat in the ocean east of Bali. A large bioluminescent form has arisen from the depths, "clearly twice the size of" the boat. "On every side-- a soft, clear glow billowing at the edges like a flourescent cloud... roughly ovoid.... through a depth of water it was impossible to pick out any details."

“I didn’t know what to do. I tried desperately to see some detail in the illumination, some concrete feature that would allow me to identify and classify it, to give a biologically meaningful account of it to my colleagues, but there was none.

I remembered my own exasperation with the incomplete reports of others in similar situations and understood for the first time the difficulty of being an eyewitness to anything really unusual. Objectivity is all very well, but it is possible only when you can describe your experience in terms of standard weights and measures. I did not know the frequency of the intensity of the light I was seeing. I could not provide an accurate record of its size, shape or weight, and I have no scientific way of assessing its intelligence or intent.

As a biologist in this situation, I was a total failure; but as a biological system, I continued to function very well. I can provide an account of my contact with the light that is totally subjective and of no practical value in any court of law or academy of science, but I believe it is nevertheless meaningful.

To begin with, I was both enthralled by the presence of the light and appalled by its size and my total lack of understanding. I do not remember feeling afraid; I was aware instead of a sense of privilege, the sort of synthesis of honor and awe that I usually associate with proximity to large whales. A feeling almost of exultation, of a kind of grateful elation that is very close to worship. A compound of “Praise Be!” and “Why Me?”

We lack the instruments necessary for recording stimuli of this order, and we seem to have lost the capacity for providing an appropriate response. It would help to be born again, but perhaps what we need to do is redevelop a kind of organic innocence, recapture the receptiveness of childhood and show a willingness to take part in and be filled, or emptied, by whatever it is that happens. I am beginning to believe that there may be no other way to experience, or even begin to explain, certain kinds of reality.”



http://www.lyallwatson.com/New_Look/Home2.htm

http://www.lyallwatson.com/Books/Bibliography_1.htm

http://www.lyallwatson.com/Books/Gifts.htm

"I found myself immersed in a world where magic and miracles, prophecy and telepathy, and even the survival of death, were accepted as ordinary, everyday events. And in remembering that astonishing time, I have tried to make sense of it all by seeing just how far our science can go toward understanding such happenings on their own terms."

Lyall Watson

:hi: I have written this in the interest of bridgebuilding, because when people toss stones over the divide at the other "side" -- they forget to make a point and share information that might interest and benefit everyone.

[alarimer]

1. First off, the bioluminescent thing was probably a bloom

of many very tiny organisms, and not in fact an entire organism. Science is based on the provable, on evidence gathering and hypothesis testing. In other words, reason and logic. "Spirit" is unprovable, therefore beyond the realm of hypothesis testing and logic. I think people use religion and mysticism as a crutch because they cannot handle the fact that we are merely animals with bigger brains. And our existence is due to sheer chance.

[Cerridwen]

2. And the first post out of the gate is a load of TNT

to blow up a nascent attempt at bridge building.

If I understand you correctly, "'Spirit' is unprovable, therefore beyond the realm of hypothesis testing and logic." and therefore beyond the realm of science?

It brings to mind an old quote I read (magazine and author lost in the mists of time). "Man created the Supernatural to justify his own limitations."

[omega minimo]

3. "FIRST OFF"

"First off" :rofl: that's the sort of kneejerk macho caca catapulting I was talkin bout! Didn't bother reading or thinking about it either!

[alarimer]

5. There is no bridge

If it can't be tested, it is beyond the realm of science. You obviously do not understand the scientific method. All the scientific method does is DISPROVE things. If you perform an experiment in which your null hypothesis is that there is no difference, your alternative hypothesis (and the thing you are most likely wanting to prove) would be that there is a difference. Let's say that your null hypothesis is that drug A has no effect on condition B. Your alternative hypothesis is that drug A does have an effect on condition B (most likely your actually hypothesis would be more complex than this). You perform an experiment with appropriate controls (at least one group in which a placebo is used) and analyze the data with appropriate statistical analysis. If your tests show you that drug A fails to have an effect on condition B, you "fail to reject" the null hypothesis. And if you repeat these tests and get these same results, you have in one sense "proven" that drug A has no effect on condion B. So it is probably safe to say that drug A is useless against condition B. If at some point the opposite result had occurred, you are said to have "falsified" (not in the sense of "faking") your null hypothesis. Two important things in science are falsifiability and repeatability. You have to be able to repeat the results. If someone does the experiment again they get the same results. A hypothesis such as "God exists" (or for that matter "God does not exist") are not falsifiable (you cannot disprove them) and therefore outside the realm of science. I consider that all such metaphysical questions fall outside science.

[omega minimo]

7. So you say (well)

"I remembered my own exasperation with the incomplete reports of others in similar situations and understood for the first time the difficulty of being an eyewitness to anything really unusual. Objectivity is all very well, but it is possible only when you can describe your experience in terms of standard weights and measures."

"We lack the instruments necessary for recording stimuli of this order, and we seem to have lost the capacity for providing an appropriate response....I am beginning to believe that there may be no other way to experience, or even begin to explain, certain kinds of reality.”


"A hypothesis such as "God exists" (or for that matter "God does not exist") are not falsifiable (you cannot disprove them) and therefore outside the realm of science. I consider that all such metaphysical questions fall outside science."

Not so sure that ALL metaphysical questions fall outside science, especially as science has developed to a point that does NOT disprove metaphysical realities.

(No one is trying to dis/prove "God" here)

[omega minimo]

4. Yes, if you read the OP or are interested in the author's work

(links provided) he is a professional practitioner of the scientific method and comments on this in the excerpt.

This is why I offered the reading as an olive branch to DU science types who may or may not think they are "bags of skin" and whose own human spirits are not enough proof to themselves that spirit exists.

The reason I am commenting on the science-bound belligerence that often accompanies scientifically obsolete attitudes is this:

Smart folks on DU may not realize how ignorant it sounds to say we are "bags of skin" or "merely animals with bigger brains." Presenting that sort of limited perspective AS IF IT IS THE ONLY CORRECT AND INFORMED ONE -- with hostility -- is doing a lot of damage and missing a lot of opportunities here.

:hi:

[alarimer]

6. Find me a scientifically valid test that shows otherwise

Science is a method, nothing more. Do I use Analysis of Variance or Multiple regression to prove that the human "spirit" exists? Design an experiment (with appropriate controls). It is not a question that can be answered with the scientific method. It falls under philosophy or metaphysics, subjects I am completely uninterested in myself.

[omega minimo]

8. Who exactly are you referring to as

"I" and "myself"? Can you prove your own existence?

"...subjects I am completely uninterested in myself."

The OP quote is an interesting view from a scientist whose experiences PROVE to him the limits of the scientific method.

If this is what you meant by "test that shows otherwise...."

"Smart folks on DU may not realize how ignorant it sounds to say we are "bags of skin" or "merely animals with bigger brains." Presenting that sort of limited perspective AS IF IT IS THE ONLY CORRECT AND INFORMED ONE -- with hostility -- is doing a lot of damage and missing a lot of opportunities here."

People may think that-- fine. What I am commenting on-- and we are referring to in bridgebuilding-- is not "presenting that sort of limited perspective AS IF IT IS THE ONLY CORRECT AND INFORMED ONE -- with hostility."

[trotsky]

9. That sort of "limited perspective"...

is the only one that has anything resembling actual evidence to support it.

Everything else is unsupported conjecture. Feel free to ponder and propose, but until you have some shred of evidence or facts to back yourself up, it's not another perspective, it's just imagining stuff.

[hfojvt]

21. there is no actual evidence to support many of those sciometaphysical

claims.

Show me the evidence to support these two claims - "the fact that we are merely animals with bigger brains. And our existence is due to sheer chance."

or these two

"There is no soul, no supernatural."

You might say that there is no evidence to support the reverse claims - that we are more than just animals with big brains (or we can be if we so choose) and that our existence has meaning (or in existentialist philosophy, that we can choose to give our existence a meaning of our own choosing (and if we choose not to decide, we still have made a choice :evilgrin:)) Many people would say that the evidence abounds, but it is not evidence that can be seen, measured or mass produced by a machine.

[trotsky]

35. Umm, okaaaaay...

The evidence is we breathe oxygen, have hearts that pump blood, have bodies made of cells that have DNA at their nucleus, etc. Everything about us identifies us as animals that are barely different than some of our closest relatives in the animal kingdom - we just have more evolved brains capable of higher thinking.

By the way, have you ever heard of the phrase "proving a negative"? I can't prove we have no soul any more than I can prove that there are no unicorns - but that doesn't mean unicorn belief is equally justified as non-belief, does it?

[hfojvt]

84. proving a negative

No, just showing the evidence of statements, or a perspective, which you claimed was the only one backed up by evidence. Just show me the evidence. The evidence of similarity in animal and human bodies is kinda hollow because nobody is denying that humans are animals. The question is whether they are also something more - "animals +" as it were.

Look at your statement. (annotated)
Everything (even the "higher thinking?") about us identifies us as animals that are barely (a value judgement word, is it warranted by the facts? A conscious person is "barely" different than an unconscious one, but that "bare" difference seems pretty "hugh") different than some of our closest relatives in the animal kingdom - we just (again a value judgement, not a statement of scientific fact) have more evolved (a different phrase since the original word was "bigger" implying a mere quantitative difference rather than a qualitative one)brains capable of higher thinking. (to admit that there is "higher thinking" is more than most reductionists do. You seem to have admitted to the +, but at the same time feel it is pretty small, perhaps inconsequential. Do you have evidence for that? (The distance between 2.001 and 2.0011 is pretty small, but there are an infinite number of real numbers between them.)).

I refer you to EF Schumacher's "A guide for the perplexed"

"The extraordinary thing about the modern 'life sciences' is that they hardly ever deal with life as such, the factor x, but devote infinite attention to the study and analysis of the physiochemical body that is life's carrier. It may well be that modern science has no method for coming to grips with life as such. If this is so, let it be frankly admitted; there is no excuse for the pretense that life is nothing but physics and chemistry.
Nor is there any excuse for the pretense that consciousness is nothing but a property of life....Naturally, since man, as it were, contains the three lower Levels of Being, certain things about him can be elucidated by studying minerals, plants, and animals - in fact, everything can be learned about him, except that which makes him human."

To minimize, or worse yet, deny the difference between humans and animals is to take away much of the motivation or justification for treating humans with dignity and respect and helping them to realize their higher potentials. As George Bailey put it to Mr. Potter "people were human beings to him, but to you - a warped, frustrated old man - they're cattle".

In that sense I find belief in the soul to be far more justified than belief in unicorns or belief in the non-existence of the soul. At least a person should have doubt rather than certainty in a negative they cannot prove.

[trotsky]

85. I've shown you the evidence.

You are choosing to obfuscate everything, right down to the very words used, so you can introduce enough "wiggle room" to justify (to yourself) that there's enough gray area to hold those things you want to believe in.

You're claiming there's something "more" about humans compared to other animals. You're making the claim - you prove it. First, define a "soul," then present your evidence for its existence. Pretty simple, dontcha think?

[KittyWampus]

11. Spirit or CONSCIOUSNESS is part of Nature. Are you saying a natural

phenomenon can't be studied scientifically?

Or can't be studied using a particular set of ARTIFICIAL scientific rules that you cling to?

BTW, your view of Humans as mere physical objects goes quite well with things like slavery.

[immoderate]

37. How can you study consciousness without studying its effects on matter?

As always, I'm looking for just a single example that would give your cause a case. I am of the school that agrees that studying these concepts puts them beyond science.

I know that you and the OP are claiming the definition of science has been changed. But that wasn't done by scientists.

As for being a "bag of skin" as the OP mentions. Of course you are. Name somebody that isn't. In if that bag of skin has bones, internal organs and a nervous system, and is in proper working order, you can have consciousness. And it can be demonstrated by appropriate animism. Otherwise how do you demonstrate this disembodied consciousness? I never get an answer to that question.

While bridge-building may be the goal here, it's going to be difficult if all you can do is twist definitions of words and make unsupported claims to people who may know what they're talking about.

Look up the Fox Sisters, who invented spiritualism and seances. They admitted the hoax before they dies. Yet there are many to carry on the tradition. Sorry, you'll have to prove that the world is not full of gullible people. Are you prepared to make that claim?

--IMM

[omega minimo]

50. Good question. Indians, Chinese, Native Americans have a few

millennia head start on that.

"As always, I'm looking for just a single example that would give your cause a case. I am of the school that agrees that studying these concepts puts them beyond science."

"Your cause"? Not sure there is a "cause" IMM, as such. There are people on DU with different viewpoints.

"I know that you and the OP are claiming the definition of science has been changed. But that wasn't done by scientists."

I am not "claiming the definition of science has been changed." Science has changed. Consciousness, the para/normal, meta/physics, etc. are being studied and have been for a long time. Physics has moved to a level that no longer automatically rejects what used to be called "supernatural." So that sort of "chauvinism" that smacks down anything that isn't "scientific" just seems misguided.

"Otherwise how do you demonstrate this disembodied consciousness? I never get an answer to that question."

If you get a reference will you check it out or are you predisposed to discredit it? B-).................

"While bridge-building may be the goal here, it's going to be difficult if all you can do is twist definitions of words and make unsupported claims to people who may know what they're talking about."

...........cuz that sounds real snotty :evilgrin:

Actually it's that arrogance of "to people who may know what they're talking about" (and think that empowers them to smack down other viewpoints) that inspired these efforts to hear MORE from "people who may know what they're talking about" to support THEIR claims rather than mere belligerence and cliches.

[immoderate]

54. Sorry about the 'tude.

Science endures challenges like that all the time. I know that scientific methods are applied to "paranormal" studies. The results have been less than spectacular. I read the ESP studies that came out of Stanford Research Institute when they came out in the 60s. Very exciting. Then they were debunked. Seems those scientists were hoaxed. I've read Of Dr. Gary Schwartz' claims of ESP at U of Arizona, but he won't release his data, so no one can replicate or even study his results.

India? A bunch of fakirs! Seriously, those folks believe anything. What? Psychic surgery, where they pull chicken guts out of someone's abdomen?

Sure, claims are constantly being made that break the basic conservation or thermodynamics laws, which have been demonstrated to be valid by every study for hundreds of years. Not one has been backed up. So please enlighten me. You don't say what you're talking about.

Sure I'd like to see your data. But if it's not replicated and peer reviewed, what's the point. Someone is making a claim that seems improbable. Sure many of these have taken a chance with objective testing, and to my knowledge, they've all been smacked down, by the evidence. Have you ever seen James Randi's movie about dowsing? He tested the top 10 dowsers in Australia. They all agreed in advance that the test was fairly designed, and they brought their own judge. And every one of them failed.

Now I don't know what you are referring to, since you don't get specific. Tell me how science has changed, for instance. I would love to know. What can I say that won't piss you off except, "Sure, sure."?

--IMM

[immoderate]

55. Physics never rejected the "supernatural."

It rejects things which contradict accepted theory without evidence. For instance, if you tell me you can fly, I'd want to see it. If you can demonstrate it, repeatedly, under scrutiny, then the theories will be adjusted. No problemo. But you are talking about things that are unsustantiated, I guess, because you won't even tell me about what you're talking about.

You can either study something or you can't. If it occurs, it's natural. If it can't be observed, it's hard to study it.

--IMM

[omega minimo]

60. I think you just answered your questions and debunked your debunking

"You can either study something or you can't. If it occurs, it's natural."

Why present specifics if they are met only with scorn and predetermined "'tude"? Your other post starts "Sorry about the 'tude" and ends "What can I say that won't piss you off except, "Sure, sure."?" Anecdotal evidence indicates that this will go nowhere.

"India? A bunch of fakirs! Seriously, those folks believe anything. What? Psychic surgery, where they pull chicken guts out of someone's abdomen?"

You can't be serious.

"Tell me how science has changed, for instance."

I already said, as specifically as the tea leaves recommend.

[immoderate]

65. So, what would you say to someone who showed the proper attitude?

Sounds like you can only share information with people who already agree with you.

I thought you might be aware of the problems that India has with faith healers, fortune tellers and the like. It is a serious problem for them.

How do you know how specific statements would be met if you don't make any? And why is what I say that important? Something might be better than nothing, which is why I'm pressing. Do you think that assertions about natural laws don't have to be backed up? If so, that defines a new type of science for me, and we can leave it there.

Tea leaves? I can't tell if you're serious there, and I guess that sums it up.

--IMM

[omega minimo]

68. Why is it only bullies say this?

"Sounds like you can only share information with people who already agree with you."

"Do you think that assertions about _________ don't have to be backed up?"

This was an experiment in conversation, not confrontation. You seem more interested in the sort of smackdown that inspired the experiment. Thank you.

[immoderate]

70. Too bad.

I really do have a sincere desire to know what you're talking about. I like having my ideas challenged. But asking questions upsets you. Smackdown? Bully? You can't really substantiate that.

--IMM

[sub.theory]

80. Spirit != Consciousness

Let's not play semantic games. Consiousness is a result of increasingly better understood biochemical reactions. There is no paranormal at work. The biochemical reactions in my brain and in yours follow the exact same rules as all other chemical reactions in the known universe. Is it fascinating? Absolutely. Is it magic? Not a chance.

Face it, there is no spirt. If you claim there is, then the burdon of proof is on you. Where is your evidence?

Science isn't a religion. Science is the very logical concept that the claims about our universe should be testable. If you think that something is true, then test is out. That's all there is to it. Again, no magic at work.

You last comment doesn't even deserve a response. It's one of the most idiotic things I've ever read.

[omega minimo]

82. Who said anything about magic?

[sub.theory]

87. Call it what you like, it's all the same old lie

Call it magic, call it god, call it miracles, call it spirit, call it anything you want. In the end it's all boils down to a belief in mysticism - a belief that I think is both false and dangerous.

One can, of course, believe whatever one likes. I can choose to believe that there are invisible, undetectable monkeys flying out of my butt. Who's to say that there aren't? You just can't see them.

Or maybe I control the entire universe with my mind. Everything that happens is because I willed it that way. You don't think so? Maybe I'm just making you think that. How do you know?

Do you see the total breakdown that occurs when any concept of objective reality is abandonned? One can literally claim anything at all. This is what is so maddening about dealing with people who subscribe to such mystic beliefs: they refuse to deal in objective reality. Everything is always "beyond our ability to know".

I am not refusing to accept the concept of a spirit, but I do require some observable evidence. Again, where is your evidence? How can I see for myself that this "spirit" exists?

[omega minimo]

94. I can smell them

"I can choose to believe that there are invisible, undetectable monkeys flying out of my butt. Who's to say that there aren't? You just can't see them."

"Or maybe I control the entire universe with my mind. Everything that happens is because I willed it that way. You don't think so? Maybe I'm just making you think that. How do you know?"

How can a bag of skin control anything?

"Do you see the total breakdown that occurs when any concept of objective reality is abandonned?"

Like spelling?

"This is what is so maddening about dealing with people who subscribe to such mystic beliefs: they refuse to deal in objective reality. Everything is always "beyond our ability to know"."

The scientist in the OP was talking about objective reality beyond current science' ability to measure.

"I am not refusing to accept the concept of a spirit, but I do require some observable evidence. Again, where is your evidence? How can I see for myself that this "spirit" exists?"

If you have no concept of yourself as a spirit, what can I say? :shrug:

[Matariki]

28. YOU have COMPLETELY misunderstood the point of the OP

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

10. Here's Some Sincere Unsolicited Advice For You

You keep posting threads with claims of bridge building. That's an honorable premise. My advice, however, is that when truly trying to engage in bridge building one must attempt to take two sides separated by a gap and have them meet comfortably in the middle.

When I read many of your threads that claim an intent on bridge building, I too often instead see an attempt at trying to stretch one of the sides to come over to meet the other side. In such a case, it is likely to be expected that the side attempted to be stretched will snap back in reverse with force and may end up even farther apart then when you started in the first place.

To truly engage in bridge building, one must play give and take. One must have a true objectivity of both sides of the situation with willingness to be flexible in their thinking in order to find the common ground that both can agree on.

To illustrate what I'm saying, you'll notice the OP does nothing to boost up science at all or find the common ground with science as it relates to spirituality. Instead of bridge building, it seems more of an exercise of "here's why I stand on the side I stand on. If you can learn to agree with these reasons as I do and become enlightened to my way, we no longer will argue". That's not really how bridge building is supposed to work. You must be as willing to give as you are to take, and as willing to give on your position as much as you are asking others to give on theirs.

That's my unsolicited yet sincere advice. It is sound and of good intent. I hope you'll use it.

As far as this thread goes, I couldn't exactly determine the true argument being presented. Science absolutely has its own value and is indispensable in our lives. But spirituality is on a plane all its own and is unrelated to science in my opinion. I've always regarded Science as being of the physical realm, while spirituality deals with levels beyond the physical plane. I think they each can compliment each other, but cannot replace each other. I'm just not sure what the specifics of the arguments are in your OP and am not sure if there truly were any made. Regardless, I still hope you will take the above mentioned advice to heart anyway.

[omega minimo]

23. This essay and the author's work IS a bridge

"You keep posting threads with claims of bridge building....when truly trying to engage in bridge building..."

"When I read many of your threads that claim an intent on bridge building, I too often instead see an attempt at...."

DU Rules: "Do not "stalk" another member from one discussion thread to another. Do not follow someone into another thread to try to continue a disagreement you had elsewhere...Do not start a new topic in order to continue a flame war from another discussion thread."

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

31. It Was Sincere And Sound Advice Omega. I Hope You'll Consider It.

And no one is stalking you, so please don't flatter yourself.

You say the essay and the author's work is a bridge. How so? Saying that it is by using caps to emphasise the word 'is' does not make it so.

It appears several others in this thread do not see a bridge either. If you read my original reply again it may offer some insight as to why that is. I hope you'll consider it with an open mind. After you do, if you do, I'd like to hear your thoughts if you disagree with what I wrote, or some insight on your part as to why your OP was in fact bridge building while providing insight into how, so that some explanation is provided to lend credibility to it being bridge building as opposed to just being an attempt to pull people over to your side of the fence on the issue.

[CanSocDem]

29. "...levels beyond the physical plane."

It's at those levels that "science" is exposed as just another belief system, that works fine if you BELIEVE in it.

I don't disagree with your analysis of the OP. In fact, I have a hard time accepting anything posturing as scientific fact, so don't expect to see me "stretching...to come over.." to your side.

However, I fully support your right to believe whatever you want and if it seems to me that the human sprit is being shortchanged in deference to your amazing technology, I might have to reply.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

32. With All Due Respect, I Have Taken Neither Side.

You seem to be implying some sort of assumption on where I stand or where my passion would reside on this issue. I really don't have any stake on either side of the issue so don't be so ready to assume where I am coming from.

I don't have a problem with either Science or Spirituality, and in fact cherish them both as valuable in my life but not in any competitive way at all.

[aikoaiko]

12. I see no bridge,

You say this author works with the methods of science, but there is a philosophy of science that informs that method. A first principle is that science deals with the natural world.

Spiritworld? Not so much.

[helderheid]

13. Rent an early 90s movie called "Mind Walk" - you'll be glad you did

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/6302670306/104-3821393-8006338?v=glance&n=404272



* Plot Synopsis: A US politician (Sam Waterston) visits his poet friend (John Heard) in Mont. St. Michael, France. While walking through the medeival island discussing their philosophies of life they happen upon Sonja (Liv Ullman), a scientist in recluse, who joins in their conversation. The two men listen to the ideas of this brilliant woman and discuss how her ideas can work in their own politician and poet lives.
* Plot Keywords: Independent Film | Conversation | Cult | Intellectual | Intelligence | Philosophical | Philosophy
* › Show all plot keywords recommended by customers

Product Details

* Actors: Liv Ullmann, Sam Waterston, John Heard, Ione Skye, Emmanuel Montes, See more
* Directors: Bernt Amadeus Capra
* Format: Closed-captioned, Color, NTSC
* Language: English
* Number of tapes: 1
* Studio: Paramount
* VHS Release Date: January 1, 1998
* Run Time: 110 minutes
* average customer review: based on 77 reviews. (Write a review.)
* From IMDb: Quotes & Trivia
* ASIN: 6302670306
* Amazon.com Sales Rank: #250 in Video (See Top Sellers in Video)

Theatrical Release Information

* MPAA: Safe::Root0::PI::Media::Description=HASH(0x59a52424)
* Production Company: Atlas, Mindwalk
* USA Box Office: $1 Million
* Filming Locations: Mont Saint-Michel, Manche, France

Editorial Reviews
Amazon.com
This strange experiment in filmed conversation finds three people--a physicist, a poet, a politician--yammering about the environment, science, art, government, and much else, all in an effort either to find or to dispute connections between disparate subjects. There is no story, as such--just lots of chatter (much of it not particularly profound) shot against a variety of picturesque backgrounds. If director Bernt Capra thought this would turn out to be another My Dinner with André, that fantasy falls on its face. --Tom Keogh
Customers who viewed this item also viewed

*
* Baraka (Special Collector's Edition) DVD ~ Ron Fricke What the "Bleep" Do We Know?! - Down the Rabbit Hole Quantum Edition DVD ~ William Arntz
* Hobson's Choice VHS ~ David Lean

Explore similar items
Cast and Crew

* Cast:

Sam Waterston as Jack Edwards John Heard as Thomas Harriman Ione Skye as Kit Hoffman
Sam Waterston
as Jack Edwards John Heard
as Thomas Harriman Ione Skye
as Kit Hoffman

* Cast continued....
o Liv Ullmann as Sonia Hoffman, Emmanuel Montes as Romain, Jean Boursin as Sacristan, Gabrielle Danchick as Tour Guide, Jeanne Van Phue as Tourist #1, Penny White as Tourist #2, Ione Skye as Kit Hoffman, Emmanuel Montes as Romain, Jean Boursin as Sacristan, Gabrielle Danchick as Tour Guide, Jeanne Van Phue as Tourist #1, Penny White as Tourist #2...
o › See all Cast

* Crew:
o Bernt Amadeus Capra - Director, Bernt Amadeus Capra - Writer (Story), Floyd Byars - Writer (Screenplay), Fritjof Capra - Writer (Screenplay), Adrianna A.J. Cohen - Producer (producer), Robin Holding - Producer (associate producer), Klaus Lintschinger - Producer (executive producer), Stephanie Moore - Producer (associate producer)...
o › See all Crew

Tag this product (What's this?)
Your tags:
(Edit) (Add|Edit)
(Press the 'T' key twice to quickly add tags.)
Customers tagged this product with
First tag: quarterlife resource (Jason C. Steinle "author of Upload Exper... on Jan 27, 2006)
Last tag: quarterlife resource

Search Products Tagged with

See most popular tags
quarterlife resource (1)
Spotlight Reviews
Write an online review and share your thoughts with other customers.
Search Customer Reviews (What's this?)




96 of 101 people found the following review helpful:
Mind Walk is a gift to be savored time and time again. . . ., June 11, 2000
Reviewer: "joyce_walters" (USA) - See all my reviews
At first glance, this video may seem a bit dry. After all, how intersting can it be to listen to a poet, politician and physicist talking about quantum physics and worldviews, right? The answer to that question lies deep in your heart, soul and consciousness. If you watch this movie, you cannot help but view the world through an entirely different lens.

Each member of our family has enjoyed the richness of Mind Walk several times. Our children range in age from 13 to 20 and we find this is a wonderful way to open their minds to the challenges of clinging to a Cartesian worldview. Sharing the movie as a family sparks amazingly deep conversations about the important issues that face our generations. We have noticed a quickening in their understanding of the holistic view of nature, man and the universe. Our two oldest children have used Mind Walk to write papers for school on the emerging worldview. What a gift to learn about this open and hopeful way of viewing the world at their age! My husband and I only wish we had learned of this in our teens rather than waiting until we were adults to fully understand the interconnectedness of all living things - and that all of nature is enchanted and alive.

I recommend this video to you, your family, your friends and acquaintances. It is a gift to your soul and the souls of others - from the soul of the world.

Was this review helpful to you? YesNo (Report this)





20 of 21 people found the following review helpful:
A film is as distinguished by its detractors as by its fans, January 28, 2005
Reviewer: M. Clark - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)
I love this film...preachy? Well, of course it is, but it's also lyrical and beautiful. Pretentious? No, just ambitious. Those who want us all to remain in a comfortable (for them) Skinner box built of one form of orthodoxical ignorance or another, will not like it. Those of us who live in the world of thinking the unthinkable...our time among the red-colored drapes...will love this film.

Was this review helpful to you? YesNo (Report this)


Customer Reviews
average customer review:
Write an online review and share your thoughts with other customers.



1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
The 3 P's : Physics, Politics and Poetry, July 16, 2006
Reviewer: B. Anderson - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)
Don't be fooled by how intelligent this movie is.

The REAL reason you haven't heard of it is because it is brave.

This is the bold little movie that could.

This film reaches right past your emotions and goes for your hand-hold on reality.

Bravo!

Was this review helpful to you? YesNo (Report this)





13 of 13 people found the following review helpful:
The film that "What the Bleep" fans should be watching, February 15, 2006
Reviewer: Denise Van Slyke "Lover of all things bright and beautiful" (San Diego, CA United States) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)
Over the years since I first experienced Mindwalk in a theater upon its opening, I've revisited it several times. Each time it holds something new to discover. On the surface, an accessible introduction to quantum theory, a visual feast, and a simple 3-person conversation that ultimately creates the paradigmatic thesis-antithesis-synthesis triangle. Going deeper, an examination of the incomprehensively complex interactions of cause and effect that create "the human condition." Finally, a meditation on why all the knowledge scientific in the world can't help us when it slams up against the wall of political reality, an examination of why changing our course as a species may be utterly impossible, and a final monologue (delivered by the poet) that is truly remarkable.

I've shown this film to college freshmen as a prompt for writing, and it never fails to spark interesting thinking.

I was dragged by a friend to see that OTHER "metaphysical physics" movie and was beyond disgusted. Mindwalk tackles many of the same themes in an infinitely more intelligent, and intelligible, way. (Plus, it has the added appeal of having been based on the work of an actual physicist, rather than the channeled messages of a 35,000 year-old Lemurian spirit named Ramtha who happens to speak through a woman who looks a lot like Tammy Faye Bakker.)

The performances are moving, the subject matter is challenging, and the arguments among characters are provocative. Those who enjoy intellectual, moral, and political arguments will love it. Action movie fans, True Believers (in anything), and children under the age of 12 will, however, probably scream and run from the room after the first 20 minutes.

Was this review helpful to you? YesNo (Report this)





10 of 10 people found the following review helpful:
Great summary statement for complex systems, December 12, 2005
Reviewer: W. Jamison (Eagle River, Ak United States) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)
This straightforward argument between a politican looking at things from the Cartesian point of view, a physicist looking at things from a systems point of view, and a poet as both the catalyst and the summary of the argument, is a great way to invite students into the discussion. This is not a movie that uses the three second rule to keep the viewers' attention, nor is there sex or violence to seek a killing at the box office, but instead of straight lecture this movie puts these positions artfully on display in a skillful interplay. This movie is well worth having in a school library and becoming a nice part of the curriculum. It will spark great discussions among students who had no interest in the subjects before but will after.

Was this review helpful to you? YesNo (Report this)





10 of 10 people found the following review helpful:
HISTORY and FUTURE in around 90 minutes, November 29, 2005
Reviewer: Ear Candy Junkie (out there) - See all my reviews
Science has been responsible for the dominant paradigm (worldview) in Western society for nearly 500 years. This was based on the successes of Isaac Newton and others, and the Industrial Revolution wasn't far behind. Science has moved beyond this worldview, and society at large is still stuck in the past. This film will open your eyes to how modern science views the world. The result is fascinating, liberating, and unifying for those with an open mind.

This movie is almost entirely based on "The Turning Point", the phenomenal book by physicist Fritjof Capra (brother of the director). The poet character, played very sharply by John Heard, represents the jaded male viewpoint, as the author's perspective (the physicist) is admittedly feminist, based on the larger dynamic swing of paradigm that our society is lurching painfully into (well done by Liv Ullman). Therefore, this character is played by a female.

The politician character (Sam Waterston) portrays the devil's advocate, as well as demonstrating the difficulty of introducing strong changes into government policy.

The film is dated in one respect: The Cold War was still in full swing at the time the book was written, and the threat of global annihilation has since receded (has it?), but the dangers of nuclear energy persist. Outside of that, every other concept in this film is still poignant and enlightening. With an open mind, the effect of our history is seen in perspective, and the direction that we are hopefully going can be seen as positive.

Was this review helpful to you? YesNo (Report this)

[helderheid]

16. just bought this

http://froogle.google.com/froogle?q=mindwalk+dvd&btnG=Search+Froogle&lmode=online&scoring=p

[omega minimo]

19. "open their minds to the challenges of clinging to a Cartesian worldview"

"....we find this is a wonderful way to open their minds to the challenges of clinging to a Cartesian worldview."



"This straightforward argument between a politican looking at things from the Cartesian point of view, a physicist looking at things from a systems point of view, and a poet as both the catalyst and the summary of the argument, is a great way to invite students into the discussion."



"Science has been responsible for the dominant paradigm (worldview) in Western society for nearly 500 years. This was based on the successes of Isaac Newton and others, and the Industrial Revolution wasn't far behind. Science has moved beyond this worldview, and society at large is still stuck in the past. This film will open your eyes to how modern science views the world. The result is fascinating, liberating, and unifying for those with an open mind."



Cool! Thanks, Helderheid. Some here "clinging to a Cartesian worldview" seem to think they have the Democratic Party platform on their "side." :evilgrin:

[RagAss]

14. Bohm...it's a Hologram...........

[Odin2005]

15. Not this nonsense again.

There is no "split between Sciene and Spirit because there is no "Spirit," when you die you are WORM FOOD. There is no soul, no supernatural. Intelligent people who beleive in an afterlife and a personal God are engaging in wishful thinking. Humanity has spent the last 250 years trying to rid itself of the evils of superstition and irrationality it was mired in for 200,000 years and I'll be damned before we regress back to that condition.

BTW, that light was the result of bioluminescent microbes disturbed by the boat, nothing mysterious about it. It is a well understood phenomenon.

[helderheid]

17. but I remembered past lives and rituals that I couldn't have known

The fact that I can communicate with you is a miracle. is it not? Why not co-concurrent lives?

[immoderate]

38. Your whole world view is a memory.

It can be shown that memories can be false. What else do you need to know?

--IMM

[omega minimo]

20. It's not either/or, Odin

Maybe YOU are worm food but that doesn't mean everyone is, or that countless cultures around the planet and throughout the ages can be dismissed as "wishful thinking." An honest scientific inquiry will include all evidence, not selectively base exploration on a predetermined outcome.

And this has already occurred in the realm of consciousness. Your interpretation is just really cliched-- and that's up to you, but those cliches don't have to dominate discussion on a Democratic board as if that is the Democratict interpretation.

Reducing this to a war b/w Almighty Science and "an afterlife and a personal God" is oversimplified and -- I'm sorry -- stupid. There's more to it than that. Science is already big enough to accommodate larger concepts. :hi:

[rman]

22. But BEFORE you die - is there no spirit?

Is a living being not more than the sum of its parts?

[immoderate]

39. Yes. As a newspaper is more than ink and paper.

The ink and paper are arranged in a certain way. That's called information. When the newspaper is burned, what happens to the information? Hint: you have to be able to read it.

If a cat smiles and disappears, does the smile remain?

--IMM

[TheFriedPiper]

30. I wish more people had the guts to say this

over and over and over until it is the religious people that feel out of place and isolated, instead of rational people.

[omega minimo]

34. Who said anything about religion?

:shrug:

The idea here is to listen to other points of view and have better threads, where people actually make their point instead of play smackdown.

There is a range of human experience and it is silly to be limited to either/or attitudes that are obsolete.

A hard-edged, mechanistic, anit-consciousness Almighty Science is one of them.

The reading above might draw out some of the "rational people" and scientists who already get that or encourage others to not be afraid of what they don't know. Actually, THAT is the "scientific spirit" -- exploration.

[cobalt1999]

90. Pearls before swines unfortunately.

True, humanity has spent 250 years trying to rid itself of superstition and irrationality, but we can't regress because we haven't made much progress. People just WANT to believe. Even when given a rational logical answer, they don't want to abandon their superstitions.

[omega minimo]

92. Yer kiddin

:hi:

[helderheid]

18. let me be recommed #1

[Crowdance]

24. K&R. Thanks, OM, for the Watson info and this attempt at moderation.

Looks like a few good reads on that Watson page.

[omega minimo]

26. Cool, Crowdance! He wrote "Supernature"

I found the excerpt from "Gifts of Unknown Things" in 'The Road Within' 'true stories of transformation and the soul' from Travelers' Tale Guides.

Edited by Sean, James and Tim O'Reilly

:hug:

[Beelzebud]

25. Sounds like a description of bioluminescent organisms.

Nothing spiritual or supernatural about that at all.

The experience the author had probably seemed very real, and seemd very spiritual, but it sounds more like a hallucination based on being in a scary situation, and then being confronted by something you don't understand (bioluminescent organisms).

[omega minimo]

27. There was preceding section on being encircled by

bioluminescent squid. You're right, it was an extreme situation and his perceptions were heightened, no doubt. As you can see, he was familiar with bioluminescent organisms and, as a biologist, he was unable to fit this particular phenomenon into predetermined scientific measures.

Your comment "nothing spiritual or supernatural about that at all" goes back to the conflict I am saying is obsolete: the lines have been blurred and even Science no longer has this Either/Or approach. Necessarily.

This reading struck me as a scientist and traveler being honest and "scientific" about recording his observations. As he put it "a naturalist who followed his nose and made notes" and ended up writing dozens of books, including "Supernature."

[immoderate]

41. Are hallucinations real?

Having worked in a mental hospital, I encountered people who had seen all kinds of things. How do we know if what they saw is real? I can tell you that they were as convinced of their reality as I am of mine.

How do you convince someone else that what only you can see is real?

What I'm requesting is some demonstration of what you are talking about, that I can experience repeatably. Or some instance of a discovery of this "new science." I know that this question disturbs you, but how else can I get a notion of what you are talking about? The references you make, seem to me, to be of subjective experience or philosophical notions. That's not how I use the word science. You are talking about something else, and naming it as "science" and then taking science and renaming it as "old" or "hard" science it having no spiritual component.

Scenario: "Let's assume that all circles are squares... They're not? Don't be so hard nosed and recalcitrant!"

:hi: Back.

--IMM

[Matariki]

33. Conversations like this remind me of Yul Brenner in The King and I

when he decrees that snow doesn't exist because he's never seen or heard of it.

people know what they know, and don't know what they don't know. they imagine the world is really as limited as they are capable of experiencing it and too bad for them. they'll never know what a marvelous playground 'reality' actually is.

but i'm glad for this attitude really, because these same people who say they're nothing more than a 'bag of bones' and 'wormfood' and believe themselves to be 'realists' and 'scientific' are the same sorts of people who would have burned people like me at the stake a few short generations back.

[muriel_volestrangler]

36. Remind me, who was in charge of burning people at the stake?

Was it atheists? Agnostics? People who said there was not such thing as the supernatural? Deists? Humanists? Or was it, perhaps, people who said they knew there were souls, and spirits, and magic that could be used against people? People who asserted there was an afterlife? That sounds more like the Inquisition and witchfinders to me than people who are 'scientific'. I'm not sure what you think would have got you burnt, but the people who did all the burning were passionately convinced of the existence of 'spirit'. Deny the existence of the soul and you'd be more likely to end up getting burnt too.

[Matariki]

56. It was people who were dogmatic about their beliefs

and felt the need to punish people with beliefs they didn't understand.

[immoderate]

43. Quite the contrary.

It was the spiritual people who burned others at the stake. I would need some sort of reference from you to accept the fact that scientists executed people for their beliefs. Especially when part of the scientific method is to challenge established ideas. Religion and spirituality cannot tolerate that challenge.

Example: Galileo challenged the notion that earth is the center of the universe. Result: He was condemned to death by the church. (I know he ultimately bargained down to life. Nice guys.)

Example: Science has just demoted the planet Pluto. Based on actual evidence of course.

Example: Pope just fired the head of the Vatican observatory for promoting the theory of evolution.

You are just mixed up.

--IMM

[omega minimo]

46. Watch "The Burning Times"

[immoderate]

48. More info needed.

Is that a movie? It's not on Amazon. I find that stuff interesting. I assume it is about Christians burning pagans. I do not condone that!

I take it that it's not about scientists burning witches, which would be news. Again I point out that part of the scientific model is to invite others to refute its conclusions. No spirituality I am aware of does that. Unless you know different.

--IMM

[omega minimo]

58. Googled it -- it is on Amazon, tried to bring link but...

[muriel_volestrangler]

64. Give us a quick summary, then

And tell us how it relates to the idea of scientists burning people at the stake.

[omega minimo]

67. are you still beating your wife?

Give it a Google, MV, if you're interested.

[muriel_volestrangler]

79. I found some rather unflattering reviews

which I thought wouldn't be very objective. I thought someone who admired the film, like you, I presume, would give a better account of its message. Since you brought it up in relation to a claim science-based view was responsible for at least some stake-burnings (not something I've seen anything about in the reviews I've seen), I thought you ought to expand on that idea you introduced. I presume, therefore, you introduced it to show IMModerate is absolutely correct about it being Christians who burnt people at the stake, not atheists. Why you think my asking for more information than the one-liners you've given about it are of the "wife-beating" type, I can't tell.

[omega minimo]

81. It is on Amazon and there are other reviews as well

You are confusing who said what.

[muriel_volestrangler]

83. I feel no confusion over who said what

Kineta said:

these same people who say they're nothing more than a 'bag of bones' and 'wormfood' and believe themselves to be 'realists' and 'scientific' are the same sorts of people who would have burned people like me at the stake a few short generations back.

IMModerate said:

It was the spiritual people who burned others at the stake. I would need some sort of reference from you to accept the fact that scientists executed people for their beliefs. Especially when part of the scientific method is to challenge established ideas. Religion and spirituality cannot tolerate that challenge.

You said:

Watch "The Burning Times"

Thus, you were clearly talking about the claim that scientists killed people for having spritual beliefs.

The Amazon reviews do not mention scientists. That's why I asked you to explain why you brought it up in reference to a claim of scientists killing people. Thank you for confirming that it says it was spiritual people who killed other spiritual people, as I and the Amazon reviews said, and it had nothing to do with science.

[omega minimo]

86. Quite the leap of logic there.

"Thus, you were clearly talking about the claim that scientists killed people for having spritual beliefs."

[muriel_volestrangler]

88. Since you started this thread, why don't you

contribute some meaningful replies to it? I've never seen anyone try to disrail their own thread quite so consistently.

No, no leap of logic there at all. You replied to IMModerate, who was talking about that claim that scientists killed people for having spritual beliefs. But how about you say something significant, rather than single sentences that say nothing at all?

[omega minimo]

89. see #62

"Why people who believe we live in a purely material world feel so much antagonism toward those of us who don't continues to be a mystery to me. We're not hurting anybody by believing there is more to us than electrical impulses. I completely respect the views of the materialists, and I wish they would be respectful of my beliefs in return."

[muriel_volestrangler]

100. That's it? Your reply to a post requesting you post a contribution

to your own thread, is to repeat something someone else said - that has no relevance to what I posted? You're unbelievable. Have you any intention of talking to other DUers at all?

[omega minimo]

101. see #91

:hi: I thought maybe you would notice it

[muriel_volestrangler]

102. What's the answer?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

103. See #101.

Then see #91 again. Then make a left when you hit Albuquerque.

:rofl:

[omega minimo]

91. Who benefits?

Who benefitted when the traditional community leaders, property owners, healers and midwives were systematically eradicated-- over a period of centuries-- as "witches"?

This film tells the story.

[Matariki]

57. Narrow-mindedness is narrow-mindedness

whether it was christians a few hundred years ago or people dogmatic about the Science de Jour.

[muriel_volestrangler]

63. No, burning people was not being "narrow-minded"

It was violently asserting one unsupported idea of what the supernatural is over another, or over none. There's a world of difference between that, and someone who just says "we are what we see", and leaves it at that. Saying "we are just animals" is no more dogmatic than saying "there is a supreme being" or "there is a world spirit".

[H2O Man]

40. I can remember

a time when some scientists asked Lame Deer if they could conduct tests during a prayer tent (sweat lodge) ceremony. They were good young adults, who were very sincere. It was an interesting thing to consider, for a variety of reasons.

In today's New York Times book review section, there were two articles about a book by Harvard scientist Marc Hauser about the general topic mentioned in the OP. I'm not sure that it matters as much if one agrees with him, or disagrees .... as it matters that one is capable of discussing their opinion, and the opinions of others, with respect.

[omega minimo]

44. Now we're talkin'

"I'm not sure that it matters as much if one agrees with him, or disagrees .... as it matters that one is capable of discussing their opinion, and the opinions of others, with respect."

So far, so good B-) :hi:

There are studies along the lines being requested in the thread, including civilizations and traditions 10,000 or so years old, as well as "new" physics, but one hesitates to offer something that might be seen as "proof" of our "cause" to be clobbered rather than considered.....................

Maybe though.......

[H2O Man]

47. 10,000 years or so ......

I will quote a letter from April 1979. While the paper it is on may not be 10,000 years old, the message is. It is taken from an Experiment Conducted in an Unnatural Laboratory of the Human Spirit. I was, of course, a student assistant:

"For people sometimes imagine that they can understand anything, once they are told about it. But this is quite wrong. People have been told things since the beginning of time and where has it led us? Mankind's knowledge is so far in advance of his Being, that Man's technical knowledge today is endangering his whole future -- and our scientific knowledge is so far ahead of our present behavior, that we find ourselves in imminant danger of destroying ourselves! So the development of understanding, of seeing the differences, is a long and tedious process. Everyone knows that little children cannot be taught about life directly because their understanding is so small, and their only world consists of their mother and their crib, and it is not enough to be told what they are about. ...."

[omega minimo]

52. "...a long and tedious process"

"Mankind's knowledge is so far in advance of his Being, that Man's technical knowledge today is endangering his whole future -- and our scientific knowledge is so far ahead of our present behavior, that we find ourselves in imminant danger of destroying ourselves! So the development of understanding, of seeing the differences, is a long and tedious process."

So it would be stupid and unscientific to destroy the planet. :think:

[H2O Man]

69. Indeed, it would.

That should be a shared belief that we can all appreciate.

[Odin2005]

59. 10,000-year-old Civilizations? LOL! Civilization started 5,500 years ago.

[H2O Man]

66. Sure.

from Olduvai Gorge, Bed 1
The Water Man Museum

[renate]

62. R-E-S-P-E-C-T

Scientists in nearly every discipline disagree with others in their field--though usually respectfully (well, in public anyway). It's what keeps science from becoming static. People who say "science = absolute truth" don't work in a scientific field. Which is fine... people don't need to be scientists to have an opinion about science... but real scientists have open minds. Maybe not necessarily wide open--not everything merits investigation--but claims that we are meat puppets, case closed, are not any more valid than claims that we are more than that.

The scientific method is beautifully applicable to things that can be measured and experiments that can be replicated. Maybe it's not fair to require the same thing of experiences like those that were reported by the researcher in the OP. (It probably was bioluminescence--but what accounts for the sublimity of the experience? Neurochemicals. But who is experiencing the effect of those neurochemicals? Would a single neuron in a dish have had the same, albeit tinier experience when exposed to those chemicals? I don't know... but neither do neuroscientists. Therefore, the question remains open.)

Why people who believe we live in a purely material world feel so much antagonism toward those of us who don't continues to be a mystery to me. We're not hurting anybody by believing there is more to us than electrical impulses. I completely respect the views of the materialists, and I wish they would be respectful of my beliefs in return.

[omega minimo]

71. Thank you renate, this is perfect

The whole story, including the prelude with hundreds of bioluminescent squid surrounding the boat, also involved the question of behavior and consciousness-- of individuals and the community.

"but claims that we are meat puppets, case closed, are not any more valid than claims that we are more than that."

Not valid, not "smart" and here, possibly not even serious.............

"Why people who believe we live in a purely material world feel so much antagonism toward those of us who don't continues to be a mystery to me. We're not hurting anybody by believing there is more to us than electrical impulses. I completely respect the views of the materialists, and I wish they would be respectful of my beliefs in return."

Well said-- and the mystery of that antagonism is connected to hints in this thread (that will remain hints only, since discussions can't get off the ground) of the history and origin of the "split" in the first place.

:hi:

[marions ghost]

93. in response to

this quote from renate:

"Why people who believe we live in a purely material world feel so much antagonism toward those of us who don't continues to be a mystery to me. We're not hurting anybody by believing there is more to us than electrical impulses. I completely respect the views of the materialists, and I wish they would be respectful of my beliefs in return."

--my thoughts:

Scientists are kind of defensive after being knocked around by the Bush regime (in every scientific realm except maybe high-tech weaponry and surveillance/communications). Maybe that's why the current backlash goes against anything "spiritual." Could it be that scientists do literally feel hurt by those who profess to believe in the non-material? Certainly the scientists talking about climate change have been brutally repressed for years. People who tend to like everything logical and quantifiable can get pretty disturbed by some of the crazy faith-based thinking that is out there affecting policy today. And I don't think any of us would say that kind of "religion" is healthy. But I think scientists are way overreacting in lumping astrologers, tarot-readers and psychics along with Christian fundamentalism, a cult which seeks to violently stamp out those of other religions.

I agree with you, renate--intelligent, non-fundy 'non-materialists' have more in common with 'materialists' than not. These clashes are just another feature of living under the most divisive administration in US history in a time of diminishing resources. Creativity in any realm is diminished. :(

[ismnotwasm]

42. I always enjoy speculation

What was that white crow quote, something about to prove the existence of a white crow, it's not necessary to find a flock, just a single white crow? (I'm sure I mucked THAT up, I'm too lazy to look it up)

That being said, I've never seen or heard a ghost, read minds, seen UFO's, experienced or seen God, predicted the future, had prescience dreams, had strange coincidences, watched levitation,(although I had a psychology teacher who swears he saw an aesthetic type yogi levitate--this same psychology professor helped design a method of debunk "aura" readers, by the simple method of putting people behind a wall of a certain height, one where the "aura" should show--the aura readers were unable to do it)I've never seen or heard anything that couldn't be explained by science. I have see charlatans, con artist taking advantage of the gullible. Some of them in organized religions.

But speculation is fun. I remain open to the science that will find a way to demonstrate it's all wrong. Right now, as it stands, I believe there is NO scientific proof of what do you call it? Paranormal? (Not trying to be insulting, these things cover a lot of ground)

Or develop a theory why it's right, possible, or probable.

I find the spiritual in life itself, and the science that goes along with it. For me, there is no division.

[omega minimo]

45. You said it-- "no division"

"I find the spiritual in life itself, and the science that goes along with it. For me, there is no division."

That's exactly what this open-minded scientist floating in the ocean wrote about:

"To begin with, I was both enthralled by the presence of the light and appalled by its size and my total lack of understanding. I do not remember feeling afraid; I was aware instead of a sense of privilege, the sort of synthesis of honor and awe that I usually associate with proximity to large whales....We lack the instruments necessary for recording stimuli of this order, and we seem to have lost the capacity for providing an appropriate response....perhaps what we need to do is redevelop a kind of organic innocence, recapture the receptiveness of childhood and show a willingness to take part in and be filled, or emptied, by whatever it is that happens. I am beginning to believe that there may be no other way to experience, or even begin to explain, certain kinds of reality.”

"I remain open to the science that will find a way to demonstrate it's all wrong."

That is why some those waving the banner of science so stridently don't seem to follow their own credo of the "scientific method." It's been shown in the laboratory (how many decades/centuries?) ago that the experiment/er influences the outcome. Being "open to the science that will find a way to demonstrate it's all wrong" is NOT a science-minded statement.

In fact, science has proven that the phenomenon you claim never to have experienced and consider "wrong" to be possible and plausible as the view of the nature of reality via physics continues to develop.

Many children experience those sorts of things up until the age that it is (sometimes literally) beaten out of them by adults. That may explain why some "scientists" have such a violent reaction to even considering the possibilities.

[ismnotwasm]

49. Physics keeps me open-minded

I can't claim to understand the theories, or even the mathematics leading up to it, but the doors physics seem to open--even a crack-- reminds me the moment I shut my mind to possibilities, or speculation-- for me, I negate science itself.
One of the most spiritual experiences I ever had was in biology 101. We were studying cells. A single cell to be exact. I was one of those older learners, so perhaps that's why it blew me away the way it did. I didn't stress over naming parts and transport systems or upcoming tests, I was fascinated by whole microcosm a cell carries. The further my science courses took me, the more fascinated I became.

That's when I realized there is no division between spirit and science. There can't be. Not to get all Jungian, but everything is connected. The possibilities are seemingly endless. It didn't leave me to believe in God or ghosts, I don't. But it did leave me with an open mind. I went from atheist to agnostic after organic chemistry.
I'm just like that, I guess.

[omega minimo]

53. Cool

:thumbsup: Yep, cells are amazing

One of these days I'll google the difference b/w atheist and agnostic............... :hi:

[immoderate]

51. I'm a bit confused by that post.

Science it always open to its assertions being challenged. That's part of the frame work.

I agree with the statement that one can find spiritual satisfaction in nature. I see a lot of rainbows here in South Florida. It gives me a thrill every time. The thrill is not diminished by the fact that I know how it happens.

I like thunder storms too. Could your "ancient scientists" explain a thunder storm better than I can? Am I less in awe because I can explain it? The spirit is part of the emotional makeup of the human being. But it still requires a funtioning human being.

As I pointed out above, I am more than a mere sack of skin. I am an animate sack of skin. Just as a newspaper is not simply paper and ink. There is an arrangement. It is more than the sum of it's parts, but would not exist without those parts.

--IMM

[omega minimo]

61. Thanks to all who joined in this "experimental" thread

:grouphug:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

72. NOMA

Non-Overlapping Magisteria.

Science has nothing to do with the matters of the spirit, and vice versa.

To try and conflate the two is an insult to both and, worse, pointless.

The guy's right about being a failure as a biologist. Any first year biologist should be able to recognize an algae bloom immediately and to try to pretend it's something "magical" and "supernatural" is, like I said, insulting to science and spirit.

[omega minimo]

73. Your comprehension skills are truly stunning

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

74. Thanks.

Certainly better than Professor Obvious in the OP.

[omega minimo]

75. Yes worthy of the title:

Professor Oblivious

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

76. Oblivious-

1. unmindful; unconscious; unaware

Unmindful of bioluminescent algae, unconscious that there's a rational explanation for the event, unaware he's made a fool of himself.

Yup, that fits him too.

[omega minimo]

77. !

:spray:


"Yup, that fits him too." Pretty smart-- if yer in jr. hi

[omega minimo]

78. Consciousness was part of the idea here and the author

was much more aware and interested in it than the cranky "bags of skin" who showed up here

"Unmindful of bioluminescent algae, unconscious that there's a rational explanation for the event, unaware he's made a fool of himself."

It's also clear if you read the quote that he is aware of what he is looking at, as well as the limitations of current scientific tools to measure or explain it. This type of hostile statement about it makes the "science" chauvinists just look ignorant and limited in their perspective. THAT is not science.

[TheFriedPiper]

95. Reality vs Religion

[omega minimo]

96. Openminded vs. Cliches

:thumbsup:

[cobalt1999]

97. I've heard the "Open minded" thing many times.

From the UFO/alien/anal-probe/Area 51 group, from the Moon-Landing Hoax people, from the New-Agers, from etc., etc.,...

My response has always been "If being open minded means pouring bullshit into my head without examining it critically first, then damn right I'm not".

Open-minded means not thinking about it first.

Sorry, you probably really believe in all this and that's great if it makes you feel better or makes your day go by easier. I understand some people really need their belief systems, so have at it.

[omega minimo]

98. What "all this"? We are not all the same person, dude.

See your cliches are clouding things for you

:hi:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

99. Openminded/ Intellectual/ Delusional

Being open minded means having the capability to be objective and not have pre-conceived notions with anything that is poured into your head.

Being intellectual means having the capability to filter, from what is poured, the Gold from the Gunk.

Being delusional means trying to convince people that the Gunk, is in fact Gold, if you justtttt view it at the right angle...

[cobalt1999]

107. You're right and that's much better than my definition.

Frankly, I don't know why I post in these belief threads, it's usually pointless. Bridges to fantasyland, oh boy.

[omega minimo]

108. Rigid belief in disbelief can also be delusional

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

109. Only When That Disbelief Is Towards Something Obvious & Readily Understood

[bloom]

104. I'm not familiar with Lyall Watson

but one can look to Einstein and any number of scientists to see that they found it worthwhile to consider and try to discuss things like "Cosmic Religious Feeling" and things like that. It looked like Watson had lots of interesting links to other people.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=214&topic_id=1387

or there is Schrödinger...

Erwin Rudolf Josef Alexander Schrödinger (12 August 1887 – 4 January 1961) Austrian physicist, a pioneer of quantum mechanics and winner of the 1933 Nobel Prize for Physics; famous for his proposal of the Schrödinger's cat thought experiment....

who said, "This life of yours which you are living is not merely apiece of this entire existence, but in a certain sense the whole; only this whole is not so constituted that it can be surveyed in one single glance. This, as we know, is what the Brahmins express in that sacred, mystic formula which is yet really so simple and so clear; tat tvam asi, this is you. Or, again, in such words as "I am in the east and the west, I am above and below, I am this entire world."


I think that is often people who are interested in science and spirit (not always what some people assume) both - who are the ones to go looking for answers that no one has answered. I've noticed that there are a lot of anti-mystical or anti-spiritual people who try to argue that Schrödinger wasn't "really" mystical. I think that they just don't "really" know.

________________

I wonder if the people who are so quick to dismiss spiritual/mystical things are the same ones who have no aesthetic appreciation. I cannot comprehend people who would just as soon look at crap (badly designed objects) than something that is beautiful. I think that most beautiful art is based on an appreciation of nature in some form or another. It's something that I think is an integral part of the Japanese culture. For the most part - it is absent from ours.

Einstein wrote, "In my view, it is the most important function of art and science
to awaken this feeling (cosmic religious feeling) and keep it alive in those who are receptive to it."

[omega minimo]

110. Brilliant! (Duh-- it's Einstein, Einstein;) ) Thank you bloom!

"The individual feels the futility of human desires and aims and the sublimity and marvelous order which reveal themselves both in nature and in the world of thought. Individual existence impresses him as a sort of prison and he wants to experience the universe as a single significant whole."
:bounce:
"Only those who realize the immense efforts and, above all, the devotion without which pioneer work in theoretical science cannot be achieved are able to grasp the strength of the emotion out of which alone such work, remote as it is from the immediate realities of life, can issue."
:bounce:

Watson:
"...perhaps what we need to do is redevelop a kind of organic innocence, recapture the receptiveness of childhood and show a willingness to take part in and be filled, or emptied, by whatever it is that happens. I am beginning to believe that there may be no other way to experience, or even begin to explain, certain kinds of reality.”

Einstein:
When Einstein was once asked to define God he gave this allegorical answer.
"I'm not an atheist, and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they were written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books, but doesn't not what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's pantheism, but admire even more his contribution to modern thought because he is the first philospher to deal with the soul and body as one, and not two separate things."
-- From G.S. Vierek, Glimpses of the Great (MacCauley, New York, 1930). Quote by D. Brian Einstein, A Life, pg. 186.


More from your link-- I hope the hidebound will read as this is the spirit :spray: of the thread:

After discussing historic development from religion based on fear to moral religion:

"....Common to all these types is the anthropomorphic character of their conception of God. In general, only individuals of exceptional endowments, and exceptionally high-minded communities, rise to any considerable extent above this level. But there is a third stage of religious experience which belongs to all of them, even though it is rarely found in a pure form: I shall call it cosmic religious feeling. It is very difficult to elucidate this feeling to anyone who is entirely without it, especially as there is no anthropomorphic conception of God corresponding to it. The individual feels the futility of human desires and aims and the sublimity and marvelous order which reveal themselves both in nature and in the world of thought. Individual existence impresses him as a sort of prison and he wants to experience the universe as a single significant whole."

"...In my view, it is the most important function of art and science to awaken this feeling and keep it alive in those who are receptive to it. We thus arrive at a conception of the relation of science to religion very different from the usual one. When one views the matter historically, one is inclined to look upon science and religion as irreconcilable antagonists, and for a very obvious reason. The man who is thoroughly convinced of the universal operation of the law of causation cannot for a moment entertain the idea of a being who interferes in the course of events provided, of course, that he takes the hypothesis of causality really seriously. He has no use for the religion of fear and equally little for social or moral religion. A God who rewards and punishes is inconceivable to him for the simple reason that a man's actions are determined by necessity, external and internal, so that in God's eyes he cannot be responsible, any more than an inanimate object is responsible for the motions it undergoes.

<snip>

"It is, therefore, easy to see why the churches have always fought science and persecuted its devotees. On the other hand, I maintain that the cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest motive for scientific research. Only those who realize the immense efforts and, above all, the devotion without which pioneer work in theoretical science cannot be achieved are able to grasp the strength of the emotion out of which alone such work, remote as it is from the immediate realities of life, can issue. What a deep conviction of the rationality of the universe and what a yearning to understand, were it but a feeble reflection of the mind revealed in this world, Kepler and Newton must have had to enable them to spend years of solitary labour in disentangling the principles of celestial mechanics! Those whose acquaintance with scientific research is derived chiefly from its practical results easily develop a completely false notion of the mentality of the men who, surrounded by a skeptical world, have shown the way to kindred spirits scattered wide through the world and the centuries. Only one who has devoted his life to similar ends can have a vivid realization of what has inspired these men and given them the strength to remain true to their purpose in spite of countless failures. It is cosmic religious feeling that gives a man such strength. A contemporary has said, not unjustly, that in this materialistic age of ours the serious workers are the only profoundly religious people."

(Albert Einstein, Ideas and Opinions, Crown Publishers, New York, 1954).
http://home.earthlink.net/~johnrpenner/Articles/Einstei...

:applause:

[H2O Man]

105. Beyond fear ....

Both the Buddha and the Christ taught: "Do not be afraid."

I'm amused by the responses from many people to the gentle message of the OP. Gandhi said that intolerance betrays a want of faith in one's cause.

[H2O Man]

106. Who scared you?

by The Doors


Who scared you and why were you born, my babe?
In two-time's arms with all of your charms, my love.
Why were you born, just to play with me,
To freak out or to be beautiful, my dear?
Load your head, blow it up, feeling good, baby
Load your head, blow it up, feeling good, baby.
Well my room is so cold, you know you don't have to go, my babe.
And if you want it up right, I'm gonna love you tonight, my love.
Well I'm glad that we came, I hope you're feeling the same.
Who scared you and why were you born? Please stay.
I see your rider coming down the road.
Got a virgin carrying a heavy load,
One sack of silver and one bag of gold.