Using field research (Meditation) to discover Consciousness

[Swami]

On Fri Aug 24, 2018 8:39 pm, TSGracchus stated the following:

So you think that flipping coins and checking the I Ching, or laying out Tarot cards, or astrology will substitute for science?

Meditation can calm the mind. But it has not produced scientific discovery.

But, by all means, ignore or discard the findings of "Western science" and consult the lint in your navel for answers.

The statements above clearly show a lack of knowledge and experience with meditative practices. It also shows intolerance. As I proposed before, scientists can discover the origins and nature of consciousness and the Universe using field research. You have no evidence that my approach would not work because you lack the experience that I have with meditation. Your proposal is for science to continue in its failed reductionistic and materialistic approach. Centuries have passed and reducto-materialism has still left mankind with the same important questions that we've been asking since our beginning.

""insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result."


Let us address some of your claims and show why science needs to adopt meditation as a means to knowledge.

Why should scientist use meditation?
You stated that meditation "only calms the mind" but you're incorrect. Science shows that meditation leads to higher states of consciousness, changes in brain structure, and to emotional well-being. Science needs to be able to deal with consciousness directly instead of relying on "correlates" of consciousness. Meditation just so happens to be an effective first-person approach to deal with consciousness directly. No one has had more first-person experience with all levels of consciousness than the Eastern religionists - some 2,500 years worth of experience. It's only reasonable that scientists collaborate with Buddhists, Hindus, etc. Many are starting to do just that so that should tell you something!!

How does meditation lead to knowledge?
The simple answer is that meditation leads to a state and experience of pure consciousness. In that state, you can explore and experience how consciousness in its most pure form works which of course opens the door to direct "knowledge".

Locke and Hume, believed that we could gain knowledge about the mind through a careful examination of inner experience. If it is true that meditation makes
available certain kinds of inner experience that would not otherwise be possible, then those forms of experience might possibly result in new knowledge.

At the same time, many contemporary researchers in psychology may object to relying on a method of introspection to learn about the mind. In the past, philosophers and armchair psychologists, relying on introspection, have arrived at widely varying conclusions; they have also missed basic facts about how minds work that can be established by simple experiments. Psychologists might argue that introspection simply allows people to project their hypotheses and presuppositions onto their experience and does not help us learn new truths about how the mind works. Only careful experiments, carried out with scientic rigor and from a third-person point of view, can reveal such truths.

Buddhists could reply by drawing a distinction between trained and untrained introspection. In most people, they could argue, the faculty of attention is weak and undeveloped, and, as a result, attempts at serious introspection will typically be overwhelmed by various forms of distraction. But those who, through meditation practice, reduce the intensity and frequency of distractions and gradually develop their capacity for attention are eventually able to look at mental phenomena and see them as they actually are.

------------
Article quotations taken from Dr. Charles Goodman article, Buddhist Meditation Theory and Practice. http://www.academia.edu/36937894/Buddhi ... actice.pdf
You don't have to download anything. Just scroll down and the article will start showing up.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 23 by William]

Below is a video which I have also summarized in point. If one wishes to regard current interpretations of scientism as more the 'authority' on the subject than personal testimony of experience and this type of scientific inquiry, that is - of course - entirely one's own choice.

I don't doubt that there are many people like Dr. Greyson, yourself, etc. who can describe their own experiences. This is true for nearly any subject as people have a tremendous range of personal experiences that they can interpret in many different ways. Something like 80-85% of the world's population believe in a god of some sort, but that has no bearing on whether or not gods actually exist. If a million people described NDEs or OOBEs there might be some commonality in their descriptions because of similarities in how the brain responds to such events (eg. seeing bright lights, or perceptions of their favorite god, etc.). But what explanatory power do these kinds of things have in explaining consciousness? They are just individual experiences, with some common features. So I don't see where personal testimony of experience has any value in trying to work out the origin and nature of consciousness. These are just individual data points that might be used in a broader investigation of the issue from a philosophical standpoint.

...and in the case of the interpretation that consciousness is emergent of the brain, it is a theory. We shall have to see what the future holds as far as scientists having a very good chance of eventually explaining consciousness.

It is not yet a theory, but a hypothesis. And I agree fully with the the second sentence which has been my point all along. It can't be ruled out yet that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain ... the jury is still out. If it becomes a theory, then it will essentially have been proven to be the correct description.

The subject in focus is that consciousness is not created and was never created but has always existed. That is how the eastern mind understands consciousness.
Thus, if that is the case, then scientists will never be able to show consciousness is emergent of the brain, and that is what I was stating.

IF that is the case. My point is that your hypothesis that consciousness has always existed and is not an emergent property of the brain has no more evidence to support it than the hypothesis that consciousness IS an emergent property of the brain. It doesn't matter how many people describe NDEs and OOBEs, or other similar things, other than that their descriptions may provide some evidence that could be used in a proper scientific study.

But we do have some convincing evidence from the materialistic side that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, and that things like NDEs and OOBEs can be explained from that position. For example, we can track the evolution of brains from simple worms to modern humans and see the advances in size, complexity of structure, and functional capabilities. It is not a coincidence that the functional capability of brains is correlated with brain structure (and size to the extent that the structure is accommodated). When brain damage occurs, certain functions also may be impaired or eliminated. A good knock on the head can render a person unconscious and unable to respond to external stimuli. We can administer drugs and induce unconsciousness, and reverse that effect, within a single person. No brain = no consciousness; working brain = consciousness.

Dreams are another major data point in that we can clearly see that the brain is capable of producing all kinds of wild and crazy experiences via dreams that aren't possible in the real world. The brain is capable of putting "stories" together and producing complicated scenarios as the dreams play out. It isn't much of a stretch to believe that things like NDEs and OOBEs are similar in operation. These experiences are produced by the brain when in a less than fully awake state. So dreams are another data point that prove the brain is capable of producing events comparable to those experienced during NDEs and OOBEs, and it is reasonable to expect they could be related as far as their underlying mechanisms.

The nature of the data is hands on subjective experience of millions of people throughout the world. You are missing the point regarding this data of experience in relation to science. I know that you have great respect for what science can do but as explained, consciousness appears not to be a physical thing. Science deals with physical things so it can only measure consciousness in relation to how it interacts with the physical universe.

The underlined part is just a hypothesis. I would agree that consciousness itself is not a physical thing, by definition. But I favor the hypothesis that it is the result of the interactions of physical things (neurons, memory elements, feedback loops, etc.). In this case science will likely eventually explain the mechanisms in detail. If your hypothesis is correct, then it would fall into the same category as gods or other mysterious, supernatural forces or phenomena. Since no such phenomena have ever been shown to exist, I have a hard time believing explanations in that category simply for that reason. It has never been the correct explanation.

Perhaps eventually scientists will understand that consciousness cannot be understood using science.

Or, they will work out the mechanisms and show that consciousness IS an emergent property of the brain. As long as the jury is still out, this option is just as valid as any other and can't be dismissed. I'd still argue that hard evidence for consciousness being an emergent property of the brain is more prevalent than similar evidence for a non-materialistic explanation (which seems to be restricted to the instances of personal testimony that you reference, and simply the strong, personal belief that it is something mystical and supernatural).

[Swami]

Science is basically useless as a device to explain consciousness. Science is specific in helping consciousness explain materiel things.

This is specifically why the explanation "consciousness is an emergent property of the [materiel] brain" flies in the face of logic, because science has not and can not show this to be the actual case.

The good news is that Western scientists only have emergence left. Once emergence is proven wrong, the only logical option left is the Eastern view - consciousness is not caused but is an inherent part of everything! Western scientists know that their options are running out when more evidence shows that consciousness is present despite brain injury.

Adrian Owen still gets animated when he talks about patient 23. The patient was only 24 years old when his life was devastated by a car accident. Alive but unresponsive, he had been languishing in what neurologists refer to as a vegetative state for five years, when Owen, a neuro-scientist then at the University of Cambridge, UK, and his colleagues at the University of Lige in Belgium, put him into a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) machine and started asking him questions.

Incredibly, he provided answers. A change in blood flow to certain parts of the man's injured brain convinced Owen that patient 23 was conscious and able to communicate. It was the first time that anyone had exchanged information with someone in a vegetative state.

Doctors have assumed that the parts of the brain needed for cognition, perception, memory and intention are fundamentally damaged. They are usually written off as lost."

Owen's discovery1, reported in 2010, caused a media furore. Medical ethicist Joseph Fins and neurologist Nicholas Schiff, both at Weill Cornell Medical College in New York, called it a potential game changer for clinical practice2.

https://www.nature.com/news/neuroscienc ... er-1.10816

On another note, if brain "causes" or "controls" consciousness, then why does evidence show consciousness controls brain?

In a 2012 study, researchers compared brain images from 50 adults who meditate and 50 adults who dont meditate. Results suggested that people who practiced meditation for many years have more folds in the outer layer of the brain. This process (called gyrification) may increase the brains ability to process information.
A 2013 review of three studies suggests that meditation may slow, stall, or even reverse changes that take place in the brain due to normal aging.
Results from a 2012 NCCIH-funded study suggest that meditation can affect activity in the amygdala (a part of the brain involved in processing emotions), and that different types of meditation can affect the amygdala differently even when the person is not meditating.
Research about meditations ability to reduce pain has produced mixed results. However, in some studies scientists suggest that meditation activates certain areas of the brain in response to pain.

https://nccih.nih.gov/health/meditation ... w.htm#hed4


Consciousness can change genes?
Changing Our DNA through Mind Control?

A study finds meditating cancer patients are able to affect the makeup of their DNA
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... nd-control

/



This all goes to show the great potential of consciousness. Too many Western scientists are not interested in "experience" so they only have a very limited view of consciousness. The untapped potential of consciousness will most likely be discovered by those scientists who are willing to integrate Eastern ideas/practices.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 32 by Razorsedge]

Once emergence is proven wrong...

Come back to us when that extremely unlikely event ever happens. There has never been any empirical evidence to suggest that emergence is not the correct explanation for consciousness. Just the opposite ... as more and more research is done it is becoming more and more clear that this is the correct explanation, and the eastern ideas as you call them, or things like the Owen experiments, don't challenge this in any way.

Owen has monitored MRI signals from people in a vegetative state and saw exactly what you'd expect ... the brain areas that normally respond to certain stimuli such as a heard sentence with instructions, do respond. This only shows that the person's brain is still capable of some response to inputs, despite the "vegetative" state.

In the Stanislis Dehaene book I referenced earlier, he describes the results of all kinds of experiments that show that the subconscious brain can respond to various stimuli such as images, spoken words, etc. and react, well before the person is actually aware of the events in a conscious sense. These effects are well known, and well studied. It is also well known that the physical structure of the brain and/or its components can change due to certain activity. For example, neuron bundles associated with memory can and do become physically more robust as the memory is reinforced by repeated recall and use. This happens, of course, with other parts of the body as well (eg. muscles responding to physical workout). Nothing Owen has done disproves that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, or casts any doubt on that hypothesis in any way.

On another note, if brain "causes" or "controls" consciousness, then why does evidence show consciousness controls brain?

It doesn't. Explain how any of the examples you gave about meditation show that consciousness "controls" the brain. These are just more examples where exercise of a physical body part (in this case, the brain), can show physical changes in that body part. It has nothing to do with consciousness "controlling" the brain. Since thoughts, consciousness, etc. are manifestations of brain activity, and this activity involves the physical components of the brain such as neurons, memory structures, etc., you would perfectly well expect that increasing (or decreasing) activity in certain parts of the brain would have physical manifestations. There is nothing unexpected or magical about this process.

[William]

[Replying to post 32 by Razorsedge]

The good news is that Western scientists only have emergence left. Once emergence is proven wrong, the only logical option left is the Eastern view - consciousness is not caused but is an inherent part of everything! Western scientists know that their options are running out when more evidence shows that consciousness is present despite brain injury.

I don't think it is necessarily going to be a case of western scientists conceding they have been incorrect about their philosophy of emergence. Such evidence as it is, is no threat to the western world and its preferred way of thinking and doing things.

The more likely scenario is that things will continue along the path that the paradigm of such thinking continues to shape the world.
The universe is set up to allow for this to occur if people so choose. The next phase deals with those choices because it is set up for that purpose.

Those who believe in the philosophy of emergence are in for a shocking surprise in that regard, but of course do not believe this will ever be the case, as they believe that when their body dies, that will be the end of them.

On another note, if brain "causes" or "controls" consciousness, then why does evidence show consciousness controls brain?

At present I do not think it is a case of one controlling the other. Consciousness uses the brain but individual brains are not always ideal for allowing individuate consciousness to understand itself as 'not emergent of the brain' - yes it may be a case in some/many circumstances that the ego-personality created by consciousness as a means of dealing with its situation is given the overall leading role in self determinism, when consciousness could shelve the ego and deal with its fear of being in the situation head on...and this may effectively keep those neuron paths and bridges from being built or strengthened...thus the brain is near useless as a device to allow the consciousness from self realizing through that process...or some brains are simply faulty in that department and consciousness is none the wiser. Deep honest introspection is the key in discovering but it would be remiss of me to claim everyone can train their brains, if indeed this is not actually the case.

Rule of thumb would be that anyone who can understand it as possible, and even so - argue against that by conflating the philosophy of emergence as a matter of fact - is likely to be able to train their brains to otherwise think differently, but choose not to go there. There personal reasons for that choice is not my business to know or care about to any great extent. They make it so.

This all goes to show the great potential of consciousness. Too many Western scientists are not interested in "experience" so they only have a very limited view of consciousness. The untapped potential of consciousness will most likely be discovered by those scientists who are willing to integrate Eastern ideas/practices.

There are myriad pressures on western scientists to stay well away from such thinking, not to mention the fact that investment in scientific discovery is focused upon what can be extracted from the physical reality that pays the highest dividends, such as war, and shopping as the two most common examples.

These in turn create myriads of problems, but the philosophy of emergence does not encourage wise sentience, any more than the philosophies of western religions do.

A merging of western and eastern thinking may well help that situation, and we would be remiss not to support it in what ever way we can while we are in this situation. It is best not to get attached to desired outcomes regarding this. I manage to remain unattached to desired outcome by understand that this universe is simply a phase I am going through, and one which I can inject positive niceness into just because...it can't hurt to do so...but essentially it is just a stage we all must go through, just as the next is, and I do well to recognize that how I express myself in this phase will have consequences in the next.

[William]

[Replying to post 33 by DrNoGods]

In the Stanislis Dehaene book I referenced earlier, he describes the results of all kinds of experiments that show that the subconscious brain can respond to various stimuli such as images, spoken words, etc. and react, well before the person is actually aware of the events in a conscious sense.

The phrase "subconscious brain" is interesting and reminds me of my own interactions with the vaster self which we are all connected with, whether we are conscious of its existence or not.

There are lots of levels to individuate consciousness to which we each are unaware of as being the whole spectrum of the SELF/ individual that we actually are. Egos/personalities are simply shallow misrepresentations of the actual, which serve to assist consciousness with integration of the human body and the external reality being experienced - essentially meant to be a largely unavoidable impermanent device but more often than not adopted as the only device considered essential.

It is a wonderful thing indeed to connect with the greater reality of the I AM, but there requires a careful and calculated need to retain balance that the two realities are not competing but are complimentary.

Those in the competitive unbalanced mode are recognized through their expressions - such as using labels as 'woo' or 'unbeliever' etc.

[Swami]

Come back to us when that extremely unlikely event ever happens. There has never been any empirical evidence to suggest that emergence is not the correct explanation for consciousness. Just the opposite ... as more and more research is done it is becoming more and more clear that this is the correct explanation, and the eastern ideas as you call them, or things like the Owen experiments, don't challenge this in any way.

Emergence is just a fancy word to cover up for "I don't know". Based on my experience, consciousness is a matter of degree and not just an all-or-nothing phenomena. Scientists have not proven my view wrong. In fact, I know how they can prove it if they're willing to experience.

Owen has monitored MRI signals from people in a vegetative state and saw exactly what you'd expect ... the brain areas that normally respond to certain stimuli such as a heard sentence with instructions, do respond. This only shows that the person's brain is still capable of some response to inputs, despite the "vegetative" state.

You overlooked the part of the article where the scientists presumed that people were unconscious if they didn't have any purposeful response. Scientists are having to revise that criteria for judging someone to be conscious. The same can be said for patient's placed under anesthesia. Are they really unconscious or is it just that the patient can't respond in any measurable way? During cardiac arrest scientists said you're supposed to lose consciousness, as well, but we're finding that people are still having experiences (i.e. NDEs). I can follow this same logic all the way up to brain death. Scientists don't really know where to draw the line for consciousness.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 36 by Razorsedge]

Emergence is just a fancy word to cover up for "I don't know".

That is a gross oversimplification. There are far too many observations of human and animal behavior over a wide range of brain function (from completely intact in a healthy individual, to severely damaged, and everything in between) to make such a statement. And the results of studies described in books like Dehaene's and others are shedding more light on the subject every year. If you think an assessment of "I don't know" applies unless there is 100.000% understanding of a subject, then that could be said for a great deal of human knowledge. All the evidence humans have gathered to date suggest that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. DI has made some good comments on this in another thread (Before the Big Bang). It is simply the most rational and probable explanation we have so far, and is supported by many observations and experiments, even if not completely understood yet at a mechanistic level.

Based on my experience, consciousness is a matter of degree and not just an all-or-nothing phenomena.

If you're talking about various states of consciousness as in brain dead vs. partial function vs. fully functioning, this is also nothing unexpected or in violation of the idea that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. There are no doubt many different states of consciousness depending on the integrity of brain function, which is just what you'd expect if consciousness is an emergent property. I don't understand your point with this "degree of consciousness" statement as it is consistent with consciousness being an emergent property, and in fact is predicted by it (ie. an impaired brain would exhibit impaired conscioiusness).

You overlooked the part of the article where the scientists presumed that people were unconscious if they didn't have any purposeful response.

I did read that, and this was partly my point in referencing the Dehaene book. The brain can respond to stimuli and show activity well before that stimulus crosses the barrier of awareness by the subject. Dehaene gives many examples of this in his book. So even if a person were deemed to be "unconscious" because they are not responding to things like verbal commands or questions, visual stimuli, etc., their brain can still respond to these stimuli. Of course, there are conditions where the brain can be shut down to the point that even these "subconscious" brain responses no longer work. But the point is that Owen's experiments may simply be recording these subconscious responses that create MRI signals, and the person is still completely unaware of them at a normal conscious level (ie. they are not experiencing anything, even though their brain is responding in some way).

[Swami]

We can not always measure conscious activity if we don't understand all of the areas that causes consciousness, assuming that brain causes it. SOmeone may be conscious and may not be able to respond to questions at all:

When we are anesthetized, we expect consciousness to vanish. But does it always? Although anesthesia undoubtedly induces unresponsiveness and amnesia, the extent to which it causes unconsciousness is harder to establish. For instance, certain anesthetics act on areas of the brains cortex near the midline and abolish behavioral responsiveness, but not necessarily consciousness.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2743249/

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 38 by Razorsedge]

We can not always measure conscious activity if we don't understand all of the areas that causes consciousness, assuming that brain causes it. SOmeone may be conscious and may not be able to respond to questions at all:

It seems a definition of "consciousness" is needed as this word is being used in two different contexts. One is as a state of awareness of ones surroundings, and the other is a more generic "essence of being" which I think William likes to discuss. If a boxer is "knocked out" and said to be unconscious, then that is the former, while consciousness as a description of some kind of mystical, pervading force or energy is the latter.

My comments in this thread, and I think yours, are referring to the first definition as principally the state of awareness. In this case studies like those mentioned where the brain can respond, "subconsciously" to stimuli that the fully awake and alert person is not aware of show that the brain can be active at processing input signals even when the awake and alert person is unaware of these signals. You'd expect the same thing to happen if the person is "unconscious" (eg. the knocked-out boxer). And of course the hind brain makes sure certain core functions like breathing, heart beat, etc. continue even when the boxer is on the canvas unaware of anything going on around him. So clearly in this case the "unconscious" person still has a working brain ... at least parts of it ... despite being in an unconscious state.

There's every reason to expect that there are various levels of "consciousness" in this regard, depending on the state of the brain. The other definition of consciousness as a mystery force or energy of some sort (essence of being) is what I think a lot of people are referring to (eg. William, FTK and others) rather than simply a state of awareness. But as a materialist I'd argue that this type of consciousness is also nothing more than an emergent property of a working brain containing some hundred billion interacting neurons. It is not surprising that this level of complexity in structure could be the source of thought and sentience in human beings.

[Swami]

It seems a definition of "consciousness" is needed as this word is being used in two different contexts. One is as a state of awareness of ones surroundings, and the other is a more generic "essence of being" which I think William likes to discuss. If a boxer is "knocked out" and said to be unconscious, then that is the former, while consciousness as a description of some kind of mystical, pervading force or energy is the latter.

I agree with both definitions. Under my worldview, everything in the Universe is conscious. The physical medium (e.g. a brain) simply determines how consciousness will be expressed.

My comments in this thread, and I think yours, are referring to the first definition as principally the state of awareness. In this case studies like those mentioned where the brain can respond, "subconsciously" to stimuli that the fully awake and alert person is not aware of show that the brain can be active at processing input signals even when the awake and alert person is unaware of these signals. You'd expect the same thing to happen if the person is "unconscious" (eg. the knocked-out boxer).

I'm skeptical of an "unconscious" mental response. Adrian Owen, a neuroscientists, considers these patients to be conscious. The article I posted earlier of his study mentions this, "Many researchers disagree with Owen's contention that these individuals are conscious." (Read here} So the claim that you're making is not settled matter nor is his but based on my experiences I'm leaning towards his view.

And of course the hind brain makes sure certain core functions like breathing, heart beat, etc. continue even when the boxer is on the canvas unaware of anything going on around him. So clearly in this case the "unconscious" person still has a working brain ... at least parts of it ... despite being in an unconscious state.

I accept what you're saying here but when it comes to a mental or subjective experience, I believe that consciousness is involved at some level.

There's every reason to expect that there are various levels of "consciousness" in this regard, depending on the state of the brain.

Again, I respectfully disagree with your Western thinking. The state or integrity of the brain determines how consciousness is expressed, which is different than the mere of existence of consciousness or awareness. The less function the brain has then the less conscious expression you get. That doesn't take away awareness because you can be aware without having the ability to express it. I go through a pure state of awareness when I meditate.

Scientists are constantly changing their criteria of what consciousness involves so all of this is a moving target at this point. They first said it must involve behavioral bodily responses, but now that has been pushed back. Anesthesia awareness and NDEs during cardiac arrest are raising new questions.

Getting back to the point of this thread, nothing you said deals with my meditative experiences. You and your Western colleagues are unwilling to experience so you guys are restricting yourself of data that needs to be part of a theory of consciousness. Here's some good insight from another member in regards to your worldview:

It is the best explanation on offer as far as science can currently go, according to the western mindset.