How does Nature inform your Spirituality?

[trueaspirer]

I never really thought about it, but nature is how I live...it might sound a little stupid, but I kind of go where the wind blows when I can...with some common sense mixed in along the way.

 

[heretic888]

Not exactly agreeing, or disagreeing here, but-while this seems to be reasonably true, we have no real way of knowing that the universe would exist without us to observe it (assuming, of course, that we are the only observers) and quantum theory bears this out-it's completely counterintuitive, and probably not true, but there's no real way of knowing. It's demonstrably true-in quantum mechanics, mathematically-that the moon is not in the sky when no one is looking at it.

Exactly.

Actually, a year or so back I read one of psychologist Jan Sinnot's books on the emergence of postformal thinking in adulthood. She drew some interesting parallels between postformal thinking and the development of postmodern philosophy, qauntum physics, systems theory, and so on.

What science gives us, rather than "answers" is models for answers. Reasoning coinsists of taking fact "A", combining it with "B", and producing new fact "C," but what truly makes "C " emerge? Is it a product of A and B, or does it arise independently and coincidentally?The model is like a map that helps us negotiate reality, and what we are seeing in all our experimental models is not the reality, but the map.

Well said.

Newotnian physics, for example, is mostly wrong. Newtons "laws" are a pretty fair map for the territory we occupy and observe, and work well for everything from automotive design to riding a bicycle to the yo-yo, but at the subatomic level, and the level of astrophysics, they're mostly wrong, and supplanted by an "Einstienian" model, which is also-we're finding now- mostly wrong.

This just highlights the fact that different levels of objective reality really do have different emergent properties.

Laterz.

 

[heretic888]

http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/Table/allascii.txt

This stuff seems pretty exact and pretty precise. And I believe that we could say that they are something we "know" about the universe.

Those "constants", of course, are calculated in numbers. Numbers are symbols. Symbols presume representational thought. Rep-thought is a schema associated with pre-operational thinking.

As such, any numerical value is really just a psychological construction we have developed to help us make sense of and interpret reality in an orderly way. Just like language.

Laterz.

 

[heretic888]

Okay, a little more on topic...

The capacity for awe is always something that gives my general bend towards atheism a pause. I think that this is something that all humans experience and I experience it especially strongly in natural settings by myself or with a few good friends. During these moments, a feeling of freedom and bliss settles in and it truly becomes a worthwhile and joyous moment. Recently, I've been feeling this while playing with my kids. The small things, you know, like catching a turtle, or a snake, or a frog, or a bug, and watching the awe form in them. Again, the common thread is nature.

Awe can also take place without observing the natural world, as in the case of some forms of Buddhist meditation.

Is this a spiritual phenomenon or is it biological? Is it both, and if it is, then does the spiritual part even matter?

Both. And, yes.

I can think of a test for these questions. Would it be possible for someone to take some form of chemical or alter themselves biologically so that they lose the capacity for awe?

Damaging the neurological system to impede spiritual experiences no more diminishes their validity than damaging the frontal lobe to impede rational thought diminishes the validity of arithmetic.

Unless, of course, you think "2 + 2 = 4" is just a bunch of swirly neurochemicals having fun with no basis whatsoever in reality.

Thus, spirituality would not be needed for humans to experience awe.

That depends on how you define "spirituality".

Peak experiences seem to happen to everyone, regardless of their religious backgrounds.

Laterz.

 

[Makalakumu]

Do you honestly believe that reality wouldn't exist without the schema in which we construct it? What would happen if the human race went extinct? Would the universe suddenly blink out of existence?

Humans are animals like any animal species and we've experienced the extinction of several million species during our forays on the planet. We are still here. Thus, I would say that the postulation of the existence of the universe independent of any schema is well supported.

What if we built a placed a satalite in space and then proceeded to eradicate all life on the planet? What do you really think the satalite would sense?

 

[Makalakumu]

Those "constants", of course, are calculated in numbers. Numbers are symbols. Symbols presume representational thought. Rep-thought is a schema associated with pre-operational thinking.

As such, any numerical value is really just a psychological construction we have developed to help us make sense of and interpret reality in an orderly way. Just like language.

Laterz.

The things these numbers represent would exist whether we are here or not.

 

[OnlyAnEgg]

The things these numbers represent would exist whether we are here or not.

No, they wouldn't.

They only exist as they do because we've agreed that's what they were. If we were not here, our agreement on what those numbers were would be gone, too. Another cephalized species might see them entirely different and laugh at how provencial we were/are.

 

[elder999]

Do you honestly believe that reality wouldn't exist without the schema in which we construct it? What would happen if the human race went extinct? Would the universe suddenly blink out of existence?

If there were no other "observer" present, it is mathematically demonstrable, within the scheme of quantum mechanics, that it would, in fact, do that very thing-whether or not it actually would or wouldn't is irrelevant as well, or, at the very least, unprovable one way or the other.

What if we built a placed a satalite in space and then proceeded to
eradicate all life on the planet? What do you really think the satalite would sense?

An interesting question-is the satellite an "observer?"

 

[Makalakumu]

The reason there it is not a "perfect reduction" is not because of a lack of information, it is because that's not how reality works. Reality is characterized by emergent properties, not reductionism. The components are necessary but not sufficient to create these emerging properties.

This is true whether we're talking about biology or cognitive development. While it is true that concrete operations are required to do formal operations, no combination or rearranging of concrete operations is going to result in third-person thought. Formal rationality is an emergent property. Likewise in the attempts to approximate population genetics from Mendelian genetics (as was described in the article I linked). It just don't work, because of the creative emergence of the new properties.

It sounds like you've reduced the universe to Emergent Properties...

The problem here is that evidence suggests that even those obey physical laws...

 

[Makalakumu]

No, they wouldn't.

They only exist as they do because we've agreed that's what they were. If we were not here, our agreement on what those numbers were would be gone, too. Another cephalized species might see them entirely different and laugh at how provencial we were/are.

I was attempted to talk about the "properties" the numbers represent. Not the numbers themselves. Whether or not we are around to create schema to represent these properties has no bering on their existance.

 

[heretic888]

Do you honestly believe that reality wouldn't exist without the schema in which we construct it?

You're still pontificating the Myth of the Given.

What you haven't quite grasped yet is that what you mean by "reality" are your observations, perceptions, and interpretations of it. Those are all created by the psychological and cultural schemas you have inherited (whether biologically or socially).

As I said before, the notion that there is a single "objective reality" or "objective truth" that everything else should be judged against is itself a product of the schema of formal operations. This schema is increasingly displaced in postformal development.

What would happen if the human race went extinct? Would the universe suddenly blink out of existence?

No. Human beings aren't the only things with schemas, in the broad sense.

Everything "interprets" the world in its own way, no matter how simplistically it may seem to us. Even single-celled organisms have their own meager forms of sensation and perception, which create a different "world" to them than for us.

Humans are animals like any animal species and we've experienced the extinction of several million species during our forays on the planet. We are still here. Thus, I would say that the postulation of the existence of the universe independent of any schema is well supported.

Please see above.

What if we built a placed a satalite in space and then proceeded to eradicate all life on the planet? What do you really think the satalite would sense?

Satellites don't have senses or consciousness. They are aggregates, not holons.

Laterz.

 

[heretic888]

The things these numbers represent would exist whether we are here or not.

Only if one accepts the metaphysical assumption that this is true.

 

[Makalakumu]

If there were no other "observer" present, it is mathematically demonstrable, within the scheme of quantum mechanics, that it would, in fact, do that very thing-whether or not it actually would or wouldn't is irrelevant as well, or, at the very least, unprovable one way or the other.

The assumption here is that "anything" can be an observer. Even a hydrogen atom. Thus, even hydrogen atoms have...um...schema.

Heh?

An interesting question-is the satellite an "observer?"

Does the satalite, an unthinking recording device, have schema?

 

[Makalakumu]

Satellites don't have senses or consciousness. They are aggregates, not holons.

What would the satallite record?

 

[heretic888]

It sounds like you've reduced the universe to Emergent Properties...

The problem here is that evidence suggests that even those obey physical laws...

Well, I prefer the term 'holons' but you get the idea. . .

Yes, they observe physical laws. I never said otherwise.

However, as elder999 pointed out before, the "laws" of one set of emergent properties might not be the "laws" of another set of emergent properties. The "laws" of Newtonian mechanics don't apply to subatomic emergent properties. The "laws" of Mendelian genetics don't apply to the emergent properties of population genetics. The "laws" of concrete operations don't apply to the emergent properties of formal operations.

This just seems to be how reality is set up. Go figure.

Laterz.

 

[heretic888]

The assumption here is that "anything" can be an observer. Even a hydrogen atom. Thus, even hydrogen atoms have...um...schema.

Heh?

In a manner of speaking, yes.

Does the satalite, an unthinking recording device, have schema?

No. Only holons have schemas. Aggregates do not.

 

[heretic888]

What would the satallite record?

I fail to see how this is relevant to the discussion.

 

[Makalakumu]

This just seems to be how reality is set up. Go figure.

I don't buy it. If two sets of "Emergent Properties" can both be "ultimately" correct, then why is there a conflict between quantum physics and Relativity?

The fact that they conflict seems to suggest that reality exists "outside" the boundaries of their schema.

 

[Makalakumu]

I fail to see how this is relevant to the discussion.

The Myth of the Given, as far as I understand it, states that reality is not just out there for us to grasp, it is constructed by our schema.

I have postulated a thought experiment in which all living things are eradicated from Earth and a recording device has been placed in space to record what happens.

If reality blinks out of existence, then the universe truly is depended upon the schema that we construct. If not, then it doesn't.

 

[elder999]

I don't buy it. If two sets of "Emergent Properties" can both be "ultimately" correct, then why is there a conflict between quantum physics and Relativity?

The fact that they conflict seems to suggest that reality exists outside their schema.

Because they are models of reality, not the reality themselves. Why can't either of them be reconciled with demonstrably true (for particles like human beings, anyway) Newtonian model? Same reason........the fact that they conflict not only suggests that reality exists outside their schema (and a variety of newer theories bear this out) but also demonstrates how they are inherently-like most scientific models-flawed-not useless, not worthless, not wrong, or even in error-just insufficient in explaining the "ultimate nature of reality," and they always (IMNSHO) will be-constantly evolving and approaching but never reaching at total explanation......ther is always going to be another layer of the onion called "reality" including realities outside this one.

Again, I believe that you can not completely reconcile religious/spiritual phenomena and science. One can certainly aid or inform the other, but as far as total proof, disproof or reconciliation goes, it is probably best avoided,because of the inherent irreconcilabe conflicts between their models of reality.