Science.

Maybe as research into the brain develops, they'll be able to tell how you feel with some kind of scan.

 

They are not measurable, it's just 'knowledge' that exists solely in the mind and therefore doesn't give any real insight in what the universe is, although they try to do a reasonable job in trying to understand things, but seeing as there are so many different theories and viewpoints I do not consider them as true 'knowledge' in the sense that science does.
At least in science things are measurable and repeatable for human standards.

 

Little to dispute there.

 

Indeed, but science is a method that can be reproduced with the same results and being backed up by mathematics, giving it at least some credibility over any other faiths or beliefs.

 

but what is the real universe?
where does the universe "out there" end and the universe "in here" begin?

Considering we are human and that is the only perceptual mode that is available to us, what is the logic in disregarding whatever it is that you consider "human hierarchies" (an explanation of what that is would be appreciated, otherwise empty words)

I think the problem is you are forcing the consideration of science into a juxtaposed position with religious/political belief and are ascribing to a lot of generalizations in your assessment.

Here is another thing to ponder,
Can you unequivocally prove to me that I am NOT the center of the universe?

All my subjective experiential knowledge actually indicates that I am indeed the center of the universe, just as your experiential knowledge indicates you are the center of the universe. It is that way for everyone.
The only thing I am absolutely certain of beyond any doubt is that I exist and I am aware, beyond that, who knows?

I mean even science and the scientific method teaches me that I never actually interact with the "universe" but rather I am presented an internal representation of it supplied by my very, very inefficient sensory apparatus.

Hey science is even teaching me now that even the very stuff I thought was real is nothing more the nebulous energy fields momentarily "stuck" in a manner that I can perceive with those shitty senses and that nothing "real" really exists in the first place......:willy_nilly:

 

First we need to get clear who or what this 'I' is that you speak of. Is it you as a whole? Your thoughts? Your brain? One quark?

In any way, with logic it is easy to dismiss you as the centre of the universe.

 

That's what I'm saying. It's the best method we have.

 

How could I be when we all know you are?

 

like I said, it's all based on observed probabilities and those probabilities are not absolute.

 

That is the most unrealistic thing I've ever read.

 

Some probabilities are absolute. Ask a roofer about gravity. It's a probability that will bust your hump if you ignore it. On and on-- within the parameters of science, it's prudent to pay attention to the theories that allow one to remain healthy.

 

We are all scientists.We learn to navigate the World from birth,and this is a form of scientific investigation.Some people just have a real talent for it and spend their lives perfecting their scientific knowledge.

 

We measure things for what they are.
To the maggots in the cheese, the cheese is the universe.
To the worms in a corpse, the corpse is the cosmos
How then can we be so cock sure about our worth?
Just because of our telescopes and microscopes and the splitting of the atom?
Certainly not.
Science is an organised system of ignorance!
There are more things in heaven and on earth, THAN THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY.
What do we know about the beyond?
Do we know what is behind the beyond?
I'm afraid most of us hardly know what's beyond the behind.

 

Gravity isn't absolute, or at least the amount of force exerted isn't.

Now roofers falling off roofs end up knocking their noggin's with enough regularity that for our immediate purposes on Earth of having to build dwellings upon which roofs must be secured, and the requisite need for roofers to risk experiencing the force of gravity first hand, that we have adopted a "law" of "stay the fuck away from the edge, Asshole!" that applies to roofers or any other human who finds themselves on a roof type structure or similar apparatus that affords the potential for falling from a height high enough to impart great physical and psychological trauma upon the observed high probability on planet Earth of impacting with the ground in such a manner as to personally confirm the fact of the "law of gravity" as it applies here on Earth.

Now to apply the scientific method to this problem we are gonna need some roofs of differing heights and roofers to fall off of them.


I will comprise the control group myself and stay on the ground testing the consistency of the force of gravity at ground level.
Essentially if I don't start floating, gravity is still working and it's clear for roofers to start falling.:2thumbsup:

any volunteers?
It pays $25 and a free sandwich.:mickey:

 

But would we be closer to the 'beyond' if we didn't know that the earth is not flat, that living bodies are composed of cells, if we had no computers?

Some scientist are cockshure, arrogant, dogmatic.
But they shouldn't be. A true scientist is one who is ready to drop one theory or paradigm if a better one emerges.

If you say 'science is an organized system of ignorance', you are correct in a sense. But do we have any better method of seeking to get out of that ignorance and into some kind of approximation of accurate knowledge about the universe?

 

Well, as long as you don't cook or give medicine to a baby....

 

"A pity scientific study makes the hands poisonous and bloody...." ~ A. Crowley

 

The trouble is that spiritual cultures which evolved in pre scientific ages had no accurate knowledge about the structure of the physical universe.
If scientists can't know that consciousness exists prior to the universe, then mystics etc can't know that galaxies exist, viruses, or any of the other things that science has discovered.

What method of knowledge do you think is more accurate than science?