So i’ve been thinking about a lot of stuff recently. The other day i got into a conversation with a guy about quantum physics, and he insisted that science and religion cannot be combined. He said that belief has no effect on reality. So i’ve been trying to think of a way to accurately describe the link and here it is.
You believe you are, lets say, hungry because you are supposed to eat three times a day. Are you really? How much of that feeling is created by your belief that it is so, and how much of it would remain were you not thinking about it? Have you ever drank coffee and or smoked cigarettes to either curb your hunger or to the point that you have forgotten to eat? You believe you need a drink or a smoke or a pill… are you afraid to go without or are you afraid of finding something else to do, are you afraid of a little pain? How much of what you believe you need and what you believe is happening to you are really so? Are you tired or are you just tired of doing certain things? Are you sexual for the feelings in your heart or in your loins or in your skin?
…and that’s just a little. Do you really see everything or do you just know what you can be certain about? So much information is riddled with opinion, how much do we do it to ourselves?
But i also just now saw this and i think i should share it it. It was a video where Geneticist and climate activist David Suzuki explains how conventional economics a form of brain damage in a clip from the 2011 documentary “Surviving Progress.” He is attempting to assert that there is something fundamentally wrong in the way we perceive economics. He says that the fact that their equations don’t factor in important aspects of the ecologic balance, that they view those resources as ‘outside’ the equation, makes it a form of brain damage. It’s always difficult to express things without emotion. I would say he’s trying to address the fact that economics as a ‘science’ as it is called, makes the base assumption that the accumulation of wealth is your sole objective, and costs based in ecological concerns don’t factor in damage to the ecosystem as a type of cost but instead focus on how that damage will affect the current effort to build income. It also doesn’t factor in psychological concerns and what makes us happy, or what is best for groups whose happiness is based around certain subcultures, or how people’s behavior is altered by marketing, landscape, societal roles and religion. That is, in fact, a serious problem which needs to be addressed, but calling it brain damage is not helpful to the cause.
The truth is that all sciences merge in different ways. I think I can only figure out what i have to do from where i’m sitting. Be here now, right? Harder than it sounds.