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 scienti�c 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 40 by Razorsedge]

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

Certainly everyone is entitled to a worldview, ie. an opinion. Fortunately, science does not depend on any particular worldview.

Many researchers disagree with Owen's contention that these individuals are conscious.

Again, consciousness has to be better defined. If you think "everything in the Universe is conscious", then your definition of the word is very different from the standard definition found in dictionaries. My point with the reference to the experiments in Dehaene's book is that these show, unambiguously, that the brain responds to signal inputs (visual, auditory) at a subconscious level and the subject is completely unaware that these signals exist. So in Owen's experiments his MRI signals could simply be these kinds of responses and the person is actually not "conscious", or aware of any of these input signals. It depends on how you define consciousness.

The less function the brain has then the less conscious expression you get.

Supporting the idea that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain.

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.

There's no such thing as "eastern" and "western" science. Science is science and has contributions from people living in all parts of the world. Hypotheses are made, and tested, and if the collected evidence supports the hypothesis and is reproducible it may become a theory or an accepted "fact." If experiments falsify the hypothesis and this can be repeated, then the hypothesis is discarded, or modified, and the process repeats. If the experiments and observations are not conclusive then the hypothesis remains an open research effort. It doesn't matter what worldview someone has for any "real" science, because opinions don't enter into the equation (or shouldn't ... there are dishonest scientists just as in every human occupation).

[William]

[Replying to post 41 by DrNoGods]

The less function the brain has then the less conscious expression you get.

Supporting the idea that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain.

Not necessarily - again this is what the Western mind-set interpreted, based upon - as you rightly speak to - how consciousness is defined to begin with...

How consciousness is defined becomes the premise from which the subsequent argument is built upon.

Take what you wrote here;

Again, consciousness has to be better defined. If you think "everything in the Universe is conscious", then your definition of the word is very different from the standard definition found in dictionaries.

My understanding of the Planet Earth in relation to consciousness being defined as "everything in the Universe is conscious" allows for the interpretation that what is seen therein re what is referred to as biological evolution, is a natural expression of consciousness being creative within its situation, in the form of said planet.

In that, it is not the 'thing' (the planet form in this case) which is conscious, but that which occupies the thing.

In relation to the human form (including the brain of course) this follows the same principle. The universe, the planet earth, the human form are all types of 'brains' through which consciousness uses to perform its creative works as it extends itself deeper into these layers the universe affords it the opportunity to do so.

In a sense, brains within brains within brains...but you get the picture...

The earth planet as a brain may allow the consciousness experiencing it, better access to the things we - as consciousness within the human form - know exist, but cannot experience as existing, such as color and light frequencies. The design of the human form could then be understood purposeful in that regard so as to limit what consciousness can experience through said form and in that, set the parameters of the focus, that we can only work within those limitations in order to find ways in which to accomplish works in that manner and also finding ways in which to navigate around those impositions in order to make them less limiting. This is a specific 'good' attribute of Western mid-set in my opinion.
That which does not simply settle for the limitations and is always pushing the boundaries. If Eastern discipline was used alongside this rather wonderful Western trait, we could also include cause and effect more sensibly instead of blasting our way into new and exciting discoveries without much forethought as to consequence - pollution, weapons, chemicals, plastics, planned obsolescence all spring to mind re that...the industrial push minus the forethought to consequence - greed, elitism, disparity...

It may indeed appear that the brain is the creator of consciousness, but appearances can be deceiving, and the Western mind-set is the most likely reason for this being the case.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 42 by William]

My understanding of the Planet Earth in relation to consciousness being defined as "everything in the Universe is conscious" allows for the interpretation that what is seen therein re what is referred to as biological evolution, is a natural expression of consciousness being creative within its situation, in the form of said planet.

Your understanding is irrelevant given that there is not a shred of evidence to support your fanciful contention.

[William]

[Replying to post 43 by brunumb]

Biological evolution is evidence.

As to how one might be able to otherwise prove the earth is conscious...that is for the scientists to develop if they ever decide to seriously pursue the matter...which of course is the main thrust of the OP subject and to which I was - in context - speaking to.

Your Western mid-set betrays you my brother/sister in life.

[Divine Insight]

Your Western mid-set betrays you my brother/sister in life.

This "Western mind-set" argument fails miserably. Science may have historically been credited by history as mainly being a product of mostly western cultures. However, this idea that science is a "Western mentality" is nonsense today. Science has been recognized as the most successful method of inquiry into nature by all cultures all over the world.

In fact, today many of the most recognized scientists are actually from eastern cultures and are totally familiar with the mystical eastern philosophies. Even they recognize that science is far superior to mystical dreaming.

Naturalism isn't only for "Westerners". Naturalism has proven to be recognized globally as the most intelligent method of discovering the true nature of the world in which we live.

In fact, China is currently passing the USA when it comes to A.I. research and making progress in machine learning. So what may have started out historically as a western approach to reality has since been recognized globally as the only rational way to go.

What has Pantheism produced in terms of any actual results?

Oh wait,... I know,...

Absolutely NOTHING.

In fact, in terms of actual results we currently have a scoreboard that reads something like the following:

Naturalism = 10^6
Pantheism = zero

[William]

[Replying to post 45 by Divine Insight]

However, this idea that science is a "Western mentality" is nonsense today. Science has been recognized as the most successful method of inquiry into nature by all cultures all over the world.

Once again you fail measurably DI in appreciating the thrust of the OP subject and resorting to ineffective diatribe unrelated to that bigger picture.

What is being shown is that the jury in not out in regards to the problem of consciousness, despite the opinion of the sect of naturalism that it is a done and dusted - accomplished - thing. That is the 'western mindset' being spoken to herein.

Speak to that if you will.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 43 by brunumb]

Biological evolution is evidence.

As to how one might be able to otherwise prove the earth is conscious...that is for the scientists to develop if they ever decide to seriously pursue the matter...which of course is the main thrust of the OP subject and to which I was - in context - speaking to.

Your Western mid-set betrays you my brother/sister in life.

No. Please demonstrate how this ball of molten rock and iron is conscious. Biological evolution is clearly not evidence. Your Eastern mindset betrays your reliance on primitive thinking that has yet to catch up with the present. Fraudsters and charlatans have persisted in the East peddling nonsense from rhino horn cures for impotence to psychic surgery for the removal of tumors. They rely on the credulous and gullible.

[Divine Insight]

What is being shown is that the jury in not out in regards to the problem of consciousness, despite the opinion of the sect of naturalism that it is a done and dusted - accomplished - thing. That is the 'western mindset' being spoken to herein.

Speak to that if you will.

That's simply wrong.

Naturalism does not claim that the answer to how consciousness works is "done and dusted - accomplish". Naturalism simply takes the position that there is no reason why consciousness should be expected to be anything other than a natural process just like everything else.

It's the same way with something like Abiogenesis. Naturalism isn't saying that Abiogenesis is "done and dusted - accomplish". To the contrary naturalists fully understand that there is a lot of work yet to be done to show precisely how abiogenesis has occurred. And there is absolutely no reason, or any indication, that Abiogenesis will not eventually be explained in detail as a perfectly natural process.

So Naturalists aren't treating consciousness any different from anything thing else. Naturalism has proven itself to be a valid explanation time and time again. There is simply no reason to suspect that all-of-a-sudden, out-of-the-blue, for no apparent reason things should start evading a naturalistic explanation. There's just no reason to suspect that this would happen.

All that appears to exist are people who have absolutely no evidence to offer proclaiming that they wish some magical explanation could be true.

Other than this, there simply is no reason to think that this should be the case.

It's just a matter of accepting the facts and facing reality. Truly.

If you could come up with some reason why we should expect naturalistic explanations to fail, then you'd have something we could work with. Until then all a naturalist sees is nothing other than empty complaints being filed by people who don't like naturalism.

That's hardly a compelling reason to give up on naturalism when it has such an overwhelming track record of its own.

[Swami]

[Replying to post 48 by Divine Insight]

Your usergroups are "agnostic" and "Buddhist" so I'm not sure what is your real view here.

Do you accept the view that consciousness exists everywhere or is in everything?

Do you accept that materialists have no clue of how to solve consciousness using third-person methods?

[Divine Insight]

Your usergroups are "agnostic" and "Buddhist" so I'm not sure what is your real view here.

It's always a bad practice to try to guess how someone thinks about a particular usergroup. You can almost always be guaranteed to be jumping to the wrong conclusions. Or at least to conclusions that mean wildly different things from how the person who joined the usergroup actually thinks.

Do you accept the view that consciousness exists everywhere or is in everything?

Yes and no. This can all depend on what a person means by "consciousness'. If they are using the term to mean sentient clarity of thought and the ability to make intentional choices based on reasoned thought, then no I do not think that consciousness exists everywhere or is in everything.

Do you accept that materialists have no clue of how to solve consciousness using third-person methods?

No. To the contrary I have actually heard several materialistic hypotheses for how consciousness can be explained. Have those hypotheses been demonstrated to be correct and true? No. But it hardly follows from this that materialists have 'no clue' how to solve consciousness using third-person methods. They actually have quite a few clues.

Also just because materialists have yet to explain consciousness in a perfectly naturalistic and physical way it doesn't follow that just anything goes and we should start embracing primitive superstitions that have absolutely no evidence to support them.

And I just pointed out in a previous post, Naturalism has a very good track record of explaining nature. These other superstitious idea do not.

Keep in mind that the Naturalists have no need to prove anything. All of their claims are perfectly sound and reasonable. All they are saying is that naturalism give the best promise of all methods of inquiry we have at our disposal.

Other ideas that have no track record of having been able to explain anything need to make their own case. They can hardly get a "free ride" by just complaining that Naturalism hasn't yet finish its investigative processes.

So trying to give superstitious speculations merit by proclaiming that Materialists and Naturalists haven't yet finished their investigations doesn't hold up.

If superstitious speculations are going to be put forth they need to present their own evidence for why they are proposing these hypotheses. If they can do that, good for them. If not, pointing to naturalism or materialism as having "no clue" simply doesn't hold any water. Materialism and Naturalism have earned their own merit via decades if not centuries of evidence and success in describing the world in which we live. So to say that they have "no clue" is simply not true.