Voyager I

[Tenet Nosce]

Early reports are suggesting that the Voyager I probe has left the solar system! We are awaiting confirmation of the data by NASA.

http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2012/10/mor...ar-system/

I have long held a "pet theory" that technological milestones are a reflection of changes in our inner consciousness. What can I say? It's the Hermeticist in me.

If this is true, we should expect some big surprises very soon, both inside and out.

[zenmaster]

Shouldn't it be obvious that our tools and expectations reflect our acceptance, aspirations and informed judgement? Also, this event does not owe itself to any recent technological innovation or change in inner consciousness.

[Tenet Nosce]

Shouldn't it be obvious that our tools and expectations reflect our acceptance, aspirations and informed judgement?

Dunno, should it be? Many things I think are obvious appear dubious to others.

Also, this event does not owe itself to any recent technological innovation or change in inner consciousness.

Not saying there is a causal relationship. But my thought process is more along the lines of... something that shifted deep in our consciousness back in 1977, which is about to emerge at the surface.

[Bring4th_Austin]

Shouldn't it be obvious that our tools and expectations reflect our acceptance, aspirations and informed judgement?

Obvious to whom?

And what sort of real-life experiences are people having (and supposedly ignoring if they don't realize this) that would make this obvious?

[zenmaster]

I was somewhat incredulous that our "experiential nexus", as Ra calls it, would be considered a personal theory. The means we use to understand our experience is completely inseperable from our experience. Is that not obvious?

[Tenet Nosce]

The means we use to understand our experience is completely inseperable from our experience. Is that not obvious?

I suppose we think it is obvious. Some others believe that our technologies enable us to obtain objective information about our universe. Certain branches of empiricism go so far as to believe that sensory experience is an entirely unreliable means of gaining knowledge, but at the same time believe that technological extensions of our senses extremely reliable.

The scientific method, for example, asserts that knowledge may only be obtained through empirical observations by our senses, or technological extensions of them. Thus, it intrinsically denies that nonrational modes of thought, like intuition, can lead us to knowledge. Since intuition cannot be empirically validated, and reliably reproduced in an experimental setting, it is discredited. And according to some, it doesn't even exist at all.

Go figure.

But anyway, the notion which I am trying to get at is that technological achievements are an outer representation of denied inner abilities. For example, telephone/radio represents clairaudience, television represents clairvoyance, and the Internet represents telepathy.

The general view is that these experiences are dependent upon technology (ie particular rearrangements of 1D entities in time/space), and would not be otherwise be accessible to our consciousness.

According to my view, the fact that these technologies exist means it should be obvious that consciousness has the capacity to experience these things independent of technology. But again, to most, it is not obvious at all. And to some, it is absurd to even assert that they exist, since we cannot prove them (as of yet) via empirical methods.

BTW, by saying "pet theory" I didn't mean to imply that it was an original idea. Jose Arguelles wrote about it extensively in Time and the Technophere. (Not that I agree with everything he wrote.)

Of course, these ideas didn't originate with him either. They're very old.

[zenmaster]

The scientific method, for example, asserts that knowledge may only be obtained through empirical observations by our senses, or technological extensions of them. Thus, it intrinsically denies that nonrational modes of thought, like intuition, can lead us to knowledge.

Your conclusion is faulty. In almost every case, the investigator made use of their intuition to form a hypothesis. The investigator, would of course openly acknowledge that fact. Thus using the rational faculty to flesh out the intuited notion, there is something gained in actual experience. And thus, intuition indeed leads to knowledge using the scientific method.

[Tenet Nosce]

The scientific method, for example, asserts that knowledge may only be obtained through empirical observations by our senses, or technological extensions of them. Thus, it intrinsically denies that nonrational modes of thought, like intuition, can lead us to knowledge.

Your conclusion is faulty. In almost every case, the investigator made use of their intuition to form a hypothesis. The investigator, would of course openly acknowledge that fact. Thus using the rational faculty to flesh out the intuited notion, there is something gained in actual experience. And thus, intuition indeed leads to knowledge using the scientific method.

The premise might be a bit faulty, but the conclusion is sound. You seem to be conflating the scientific method with axiomatics.

In axiomatics, intuition plays a large role in the development of axioms, from which propositions are derived using logic. The propositions are then proved/disproved, which adds or subtracts credibility to the axiom(s).

In pure scientific method, hypotheses are derived from characterizations, which include definitions, observations, and measurements. Little room for intuition there.

To be termed "scientific", a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. Thus, the scientific method is a branch of natural philosophy which can be traced back through historical personages like Lord Kelvin (notorious for bombastically false prognostications of scientific knowledge, such as xrays were a hoax, flying machines were impossible, and radio had no future), Francis Bacon, Decartes, Newton, Hippocrates, Aristotle, to Thales. Thales, of course, being the Greek philosopher that set our minds to looking for "natural causes" to observable phenomena rather that making an appeal to the supernatural, or the gods.

Notions of intuitive knowledge have been passed down to us through the Pythagorean lineage of philosophy which places more value on knowledge derived from mysticism, intuition, and states of consciousness beyond our normal sense perception. These ideas have been passed down to us through Plato, to the Hermeticists, Paracelsus, Idealists, Leibniz, Pascal, to the Theosophists.

Incidentally, the ideas of metempsychosis (reincarnation) and vitalism (on which acupuncture and energetic healing is based) come down to us through the latter branch of philosophy. Which plays directly into why modern Western medicine, which is decidedly in the empiricist camp, is loathe to concede any potential value to these ideas.

To be fair, Western medicine is right to criticize claims that these kinds of ideas are "scientific". They're really not scientific at all. IMO where Western medicine and empiricism crosses the line is when it represents to the public that the scientific method has somehow succeeded in proving the other branches of philosophy false. It hasn't done this in the least. Empiricism might be the consensus view at this particular moment, but to assume that, just because it has the majority of adherents, it must be more valid, is to commit a fundamental logical fallacy.

Personally, I tend to be a modern rationalist, and observe that all systems of thinking have value. One of those things that should be obvious IMO. But yet most of philosophy and science is still engaged in this false dichotomy of empiricism vs idealism going back over 2500 years.

I will, however, acknowledge a bias against the empiricists. I suspect that I lived a live contemporary with Lord Kelvin and have a tendency to project his bombastic and derisive attitude onto modern day scientists undeservedly. But then again, most empiricists would sneer at me for even considering past lives as a possibility. So it's not totally undeserved.

---

Found this: The Role of Intuition in the Scientific Method (1963)

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/p014626.pdf

From the Defense Technical Information Center of all places. It concludes:

The conclusion I wish to draw from these remarks is that knowledge depends as much on intuition as it does on extrospection and logic; and that these aspects are interdependent. I have hoped to make you more aware of the implication that the nature of the rational act is much more complicated than heretofore supposed and that the simplistic views of cognition mus irrevocably be discarded.

I would agree with this conclusion.

[zenmaster]

The conclusion I wish to draw from these remarks is that knowledge depends as much on intuition as it does on extrospection and logic; and that these aspects are interdependent. I have hoped to make you more aware of the implication that the nature of the rational act is much more complicated than heretofore supposed and that the simplistic views of cognition mus irrevocably be discarded.

I would agree with this conclusion.

This is sort of my point.

[Patrick]

You guys realize that as of yet there has never been a consensus on "the scientific method"? We could say the scientific methods. But I do know some scientists who are opposed to Popper's version of the scientific method (the one most widely recognized). They say it's too old school and it's not business friendly enough. So they adapted it to fit their needs and release papers more quickly and with much less costs.

Of course we could all debate if what they do is still science. But since there is no consensus on any "scientific method", they can do pretty much whatever they want.

Only the peer review system could help in such situations, but peer reviews are not lucrative and they rarely churn out new science making them less exciting.

[reeay]

A British medical society found major methodological errors in something like 50% of the studies that were peer reviewed and published over long period of time (I wish I could find the article again).

There seems to be very little emphasis on reviewing one's own personal biases and assumptions and intention to study what we study. Perhaps get stuck by attempting to confirm our own biases and assumptions by finding other studies that match their own understanding. Researchers tend not to be transparent about their methodology. There are times when who funds the research influences the results, or, someone's need to prove something influences the result (by throwing out results that do not confirm own hypothesis, etc.).

[Tenet Nosce]

I would agree with this conclusion.

This is sort of my point.