The Need to Evolve

[Leonardo17]

I remember back in 1992 there was this movie with Sean Connery called “The Medicine Man”. Two American doctors are in the amazon rain forest trying to understand why one indigenous tribe has absolutely no record of cancer. Just when they understand it’s the ants living in one of the trees the road building company arrives and destroys everything.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicine_Man_(film)
 
This is an issue that goes back to the 1970’s. The Amazon rain forest used to be the second major carbon sink after the Oceans. In other words, it’s our lungs. It’s the source of the oxygen we all breathe.
 
And this is just today:
 



 
When I see this private security company members who are shooting on (white) people in Brazil in order to take their lands. And all of the soy production model described here that is designed for one thing and one thing only I start to become philosophical and I really start wondering what’s going to happen to us as intelligent beings who are basically trying to survive on this little planet.
 
One of the possibility is that we have reached a point in which we can’t afford to live like our forefathers did. It might simply be that the old way of doing things is going to end one way or another. So all of these thugs who think they can just destroy anything and everything for money are simply wrong and it might be that we need to show them that they are wrong.
 
How this inner change is going to occur is another issue. There are atheists who get there through observation, basic reason, scientific data and/or other philosophical material.
 
Some other (like me). Get there through more spiritual means. “Karma Yoga” for instance means action. It means that if we want a planet (for instance) we need to fight (take action) in order to protect this planet from being completely annihilated.
 
Also: Western Religions are a little backward on these issues. But eastern religions have very clear schemes that explain this human need of ever wanting more stuff even at the price of destroying its own living space. So if you know where to look, there are countless resources there that are in fact designed to free ourselves from these consumerism habits that are gradually taking all of us to the abyss.
 
So on a personal level, I’m not a promoter of any mythology and or dogmatic way of seeing life. But I believe in different forms of inner transformation which can also come in the form of spiritual work or understanding. 

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Short version: people are shitty, but should try to get better.  Got it.

Boru

[Sheldon]

When I see this private security company members who are shooting on (white) people in Brazil 

I am not sure why you think skin colour is relevant here? 

Some other (like me). Get there through more spiritual means. “Karma Yoga” for instance means action. It means that if we want a planet (for instance) we need to fight (take action) in order to protect this planet from being completely annihilated.

Is Karma Yoga part of the Hindu religion? Why should we care what this religion claims, unless you can demonstrate some objective evidence to support it?

eastern religions have very clear schemes that explain this human need of ever wanting more stuff even at the price of destroying its own living space. 

We don't need religion for that of course, and even if it does, so what? This on its own doesn't suggest that religion is true, or that its deities are real. 

I’m not a promoter of any mythology 

Hmm, so what do you believe, and why?

I believe in different forms of inner transformation which can also come in the form of spiritual work or understanding.

This seems to contradict your previous claim, unless you can accurately define "spiritual" and objectively evidence it exists outside of the human imagination, can you do this?

[Belacqua]

unless you can accurately define "spiritual" and objectively evidence it exists outside of the human imagination, can you do this?

In your epistemology, do you accept intersubjective evidence? Sometimes intersubjective evidence can seem quite persuasive, though (I suspect) you would not consider it objective. 

For example, if 9999 people out of 10000 people who take a drug report that it makes them feel happy, that seems like fairly good evidence. In a way it's subjective, because we have no objective way of observing or quantifying happiness. It is purely self-reported. Yet the fact that many people have the same experience tends to lend credibility to the claim. 

The fact that certain yogic practices have been reported to yield certain results for a very long time seems like evidence to me. 

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/husserl/#EmpIntLif

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

unless you can accurately define "spiritual" and objectively evidence it exists outside of the human imagination, can you do this?

In your epistemology, do you accept intersubjective evidence? Sometimes intersubjective evidence can seem quite persuasive, though (I suspect) you would not consider it objective. 

For example, if 9999 people out of 10000 people who take a drug report that it makes them feel happy, that seems like fairly good evidence. In a way it's subjective, because we have no objective way of observing or quantifying happiness. It is purely self-reported. Yet the fact that many people have the same experience tends to lend credibility to the claim. 

The fact that certain yogic practices have been reported to yield certain results for a very long time seems like evidence to me. 

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/husserl/#EmpIntLif

9 out of 10 dentists who recommend candy to their patients prefer chocolate.

Boru

[Thumpalumpacus]

There's just too many people on this planet.

[The Grand Nudger]

uuuuughhhhh.

Certainly too many of the wrong kinds of people, if you know what I mean, and I think you do, uh-huh...uh-huh.....uh-huh.

[Sheldon]

unless you can accurately define "spiritual" and objectively evidence it exists outside of the human imagination, can you do this?

In your epistemology, do you accept intersubjective evidence? Sometimes intersubjective evidence can seem quite persuasive, though (I suspect) you would not consider it objective. 

It just sounds like a shared idea to me, what specifically is it supposed to be evidencing, and can it be objectively verified in any way? 

For example, if 9999 people out of 10000 people who take a drug report that it makes them feel happy, that seems like fairly good evidence. In a way it's subjective, because we have no objective way of observing or quantifying happiness. It is purely self-reported. Yet the fact that many people have the same experience tends to lend credibility to the claim. 

Except we can easily objectively verify the result, a simple double blind clinical trial, with some test subjects receiving a placebo could confirm that the drug is causing the happiness, and of course since the claim is a natural physiological phenomenon, we already now the result is possible, we have no objective evidence that anything supernatural is possible. 

The fact that certain yogic practices have been reported to yield certain results for a very long time seems like evidence to me. 

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/husserl/#EmpIntLif

 Evidence of what? Specifically what's being claimed, and beyond this bare appeal to numbers you've offered here, what supports it? Also what does this have to do with the post I was responding to? For context here's my full response and the claim I was responding to:

I believe in different forms of inner transformation which can also come in the form of spiritual work or understanding.

Sheldon: This seems to contradict your previous claim, unless you can accurately define "spiritual" and objectively evidence it exists outside of the human imagination, can you do this?

[Belacqua]

Except we can easily objectively verify the result, a simple double blind clinical trial, with some test subjects receiving a placebo could confirm that the drug is causing the happiness, and of course since the claim is a natural physiological phenomenon, we already now the result is possible, we have no objective evidence that anything supernatural is possible. 

What objective evidence can we have that the people in the trial actually feel happier?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Except we can easily objectively verify the result, a simple double blind clinical trial, with some test subjects receiving a placebo could confirm that the drug is causing the happiness, and of course since the claim is a natural physiological phenomenon, we already now the result is possible, we have no objective evidence that anything supernatural is possible. 

What objective evidence can we have that the people in the trial actually feel happier?

Endorphin levels would be a good place to start.

Boru