Perception is internal, regardless of it seeming to have no causative connection. People try manifesting but change a surface thought and not any element of their world view. Then the world view snaps back in, and they say manifestation isn’t possible.
Is everyone familiar with what metaphysics is?
The why? It’s the branch of philosophy that focuses specifically on the concepts we use to understand reality itself, rather than what might be the best way to do something.
Science was originally classified as a philosophy, in my opinion it still is, but many object to the notion that science is still a philosophy. They point at what they feel is proof that science possesses substance that philosophy doesn’t, but how do we decide what to make of anything we learn? How are choices made regarding what research to fund?
Politics. Potential need. Supposed wisdom in one form or another. Many scientisticians say that many of the “soft sciences”, like sociology and psychology, don’t even deserve to be called sciences at all. What are your thoughts on that?
I think they are all racing for the funding.
I think if the results can be duplicated in a controlled way, then it’s a science.
With the evolution of information technology, much of human behaviour is showing that it follows more or less concrete laws, repeated and replicatable. This is why some scientists say there is no such thing as free will. There are predictable laws they can use to analyze human psychology, and individuals are often unaware of most of those principles, of what actually triggers behaviour or leads them to have a specific mood or mindset.
Like how our use of the internet (sites we visit, duration, etc.) is a unique fingerprint for every person. You can identify the person with it. Yes. They can even identify key personality traits based on it, even signs of mental illness.
There is a schism between science and metaphysics that I believe would be well served by being bridged rather than having the bridge burned. What do you think friends?
I find joining and comparing various bodies of knowledge can lead to new insights.
I think the next stage of evolution for science is a more holistic view. They need to be less a closed system to discover more.
I think being a closed system is what causes them to constantly come up with contradicting information, in recommendations for diet, for example. Yes, and they even claim that’s a virtue in a backhanded sort of way.
Your thoughts are welcome. Be well friends.