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.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 58 by William]

Please demonstrate how this ball of molten rock and iron is conscious.


What nonsense is this being peddled? The earth is more than what you say above. What has the human brain got that the earth does not have?

If you can't demonstrate that consciousness is observed beyond living organisms with brains, then the concept of universal consciousness is nothing more than fanciful woo. How are planets, stars, galaxies conscious? Is my pet rock aware of me stroking it lovingly? You can be dismissive of such questions but they still remain. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

[Swami]

Do you consider all scientific investigations that are not yet 100% complete to be "failed"? Should we abandon the study of dark matter and dark energy and describe them as "failed" because physics has yet to understand them completely? What about cancer research? Should we stop all attempts to tackle this horrible class of disease through scientific R&D because there is of yet no complete cures? Neuroscientists are not pursuing some "failed materialistic, reductionistic approach." They are pursuing research paths that might actually lead to a better understanding of consciousness, and shouldn't abandon these paths until they are shown to be dead ends (or more likely, the paths will branch off into various new paths and those followed).

There are 1 or 2 things that skeptics tend to lack on this issue:

1. An understanding of "why" consciousness is a problem for science.
If you understood the problem of consciousness then you would not put it in the same category as other unsolved matters in science.

- Lacking "experience".
Do you know what separates a hard line materialist scientist from a reasonably open-minded scientist? Experience. I say this because scientists who actually 'experience' don't remain hard line materialists, and a recent example of this is neurosurgeon/Harvard professor Dr. Eben Alexander.

So now, you are a scientist, and not only have you not experienced but you also seem to take pride in proclaiming that you do not want to experience. Yet, you are making claims (mostly negative claims, "it's all imagination", etc.) about experiences which you have no knowledge or experience of. This seems like you've all but admitted that you don't want to deal with "all" of the data as it relates to conscious experience. This type of thinking will inevitably lead a scientist to pick-and-choose data that only confirms their pre-existing materialist views.

More of the eastern/western stuff. Scientists generally pursue research paths that have some promise of solving a problem, regardless of where on the planet they live. Their philosophies may shape their interest, but if many or even most "eastern" scientists (as you call them) have views similar to yours why aren't they doing this meditative research and publishing their results in peer-reviewed journals? Is it that they can't get funding for their ideas? Or they are getting funded but not finding any publishable results? Or, as another poster used to be fond of claiming, the whole scientific community and the journals they publish in is a rigged system (ie. another crazy conspiracy theory)? If the approach you are suggesting had any real merit, someone would almost certainly be pursuing it. My guess is that some are, but not finding anything useful that could pass peer review for a legitimate journal.

To be honest, I'm not aware of any well-known neuroscientists living in India and Asia. Perhaps most neuroscientists are in the West. I do know that studies on meditation are published in well-known scientifically peer-reviewed journals. In my view, it's not so much that the Eastern way is not working but rather that the West does not accept the Eastern way. My discussion here involves making a case that the Eastern way should be accepted.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 62 by Razorsedge]

If you understood the problem of consciousness then you would not put it in the same category as other unsolved matters in science.

So tell us why consciousness is "different." The study of the human body and how it works has been going on for millennia, and consciousness is just one aspect of our complicated physical systems. Why do you think it is something special, or should not be in the same category as the study of any other biological system? I see no reason to make that assumption.

Yet, you are making claims (mostly negative claims, "it's all imagination", etc.) about experiences which you have no knowledge or experience of.

I never made any claims that 'it's all imagination." You're apparently confusing me with someone else (brunumb?).

This type of thinking will inevitably lead a scientist to pick-and-choose data that only confirms their pre-existing materialist views.

But has anyone demonstrated that consciousness is something special that should be studied via methods other than the normal scientific method? Is there any consensus on this from the relevant scientific community (ie. neuroscientists and the like)? Those are the experts who have to be convinced that some nonstandard methods are needed, or that "experience" can play some role, and apparently they don't share this view at enough of a critical level to cause research dollars to flow into such studies. Why is that?

In my view, it's not so much that the Eastern way is not working but rather that the West does not accept the Eastern way. My discussion here involves making a case that the Eastern way should be accepted.

Again, you're suggesting that bona-fide scientific research has some dependence on where the scientist lives, or on the social environment that they live in. Science doesn't care about this at all. If this idea that consciousness was something special that cannot be studied via the approaches modern neuroscientists are using (anywhere on this planet), and if there were some evidence of this, that would be big news and would no doubt attract a lot of researchers who would want to help figure it out. I'm not a neuroscientist, but can't imagine that new ideas on consciousness would be ignored by the community if these ideas had any valid reason for their study.

Most scientists are in the game to help solve problems, and unsolved problems are the front lines that get the most attention and funding, as well as rewards if the problems are solved. I just can't believe that there is some conspiracy in the "west" to ignore thinking from the "east" regarding methods to study consciousness, if the "eastern" ideas had any real merit. That just doesn't make any sense.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 63 by DrNoGods]

I never made any claims that 'it's all imagination." You're apparently confusing me with someone else (brunumb?).

I think that might be the case. On the other hand, I didn't claim that it was all in the imagination. I asked for criteria that would allow us to distinguish between what was real and what was imaginary. They were not forthcoming.

I'm curious how the Eastern method differs from the scientific method. How does one know what level of consciousness has been achieved? How does one acquire information when the mind is meant to be cleansed of thought? How does one test the validity of any knowledge allegedly gleaned from higher levels of consciousness? Why are they referred to as 'higher' rather than just different? While I appreciate the mental and physical benefits of meditation, I am highly skeptical of claims about accessing different levels of consciousness.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 64 by brunumb]

I am highly skeptical of claims about accessing different levels of consciousness.

Likewise. Meditation is a "deep dive" into one's own mind, and without some magic, external force or influence it can only produce what an individual mind is capable of. Wikipedia give some typical definitions:

__________________________
Definitions or Characterizations of Meditation:
Examples from Prominent Reviews*

• "[M]editation refers to a family of self-regulation practices that focus on training attention and awareness in order to bring mental processes under greater voluntary control and thereby foster general mental well-being and development and/or specific capacities such as calm, clarity, and concentration"[27]:228–9 Walsh & Shapiro (2006)

• "[M]editation is used to describe practices that self-regulate the body and mind, thereby affecting mental events by engaging a specific attentional set.... regulation of attention is the central commonality across the many divergent methods"[28]:180 Cahn & Polich (2006)

• "We define meditation... as a stylized mental technique... repetitively practiced for the purpose of attaining a subjective experience that is frequently described as very restful, silent, and of heightened alertness, often characterized as blissful"[29]:415 Jevning et al. (1992)

• "the need for the meditator to retrain his attention, whether through concentration or mindfulness, is the single invariant ingredient in... every meditation system"[15]:107 Goleman (1988)

*Influential reviews (first 3 cited >80 times in PsycINFO,[30] Goleman's book is a classic text), encompassing multiple methods of meditation.
___________________________

How anything of this sort can yield quantitative, scientific information on consciousness is hard to see ... especially with regard to testing any questions relating to whether or not consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. I can see how some people may be able to relieve stress, or possibly deal with life problems, because the meditation process is fundamentally interacting with yourself and your own thoughts. But how this can yield scientific information on the nature and origin of consciousness is a mystery.

It makes a lot more sense to me that consciousness is just a manifestation of brain activity. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck ... it is probably a duck. And by all appearances, consciousness does not exist without a brain to produce it (using the definition of consciousness as a state of awareness, sentience, etc.).

[William]

[Replying to post 61 by brunumb]

The question was asked. "What has the human brain got that the earth does not have?"

Your answer skirted around having to reply to this.

Eastern understanding of consciousness is based upon experience which has allowed for those who have such experience to see things in a very different manner than what is generally understood through the lens of western mindset.

An example of western thinking is clear in your reply;

If you can't demonstrate that consciousness is observed beyond living organisms with brains, then the concept of universal consciousness is nothing more than fanciful woo.

Nature itself demonstrates extremely adequately but the western mind isn't able to comprehend what is demonstrated, because it is trained not to.

Even the definition of words clearly shows the western mindset is subdued, and things not understood are regarded with superstition and fear.

Your argument about consciousness stems from, and is based in, the western definition, but consciousness is so much more than that.

There are many things which do not have brains, but still function and express as one would expect to observe self awareness doing.

How are planets, stars, galaxies conscious?

This is where you fail to comprehend my argument. You believe that consciousness requires a brain in order to exist. Therefore you ask question based upon this belief.

It is the other way around. Consciousness is why things like planets, stars, and galaxies exist. They are formed through conscious invention and experienced through conscious interaction.

There is not reason why one cannot understand the planet earth as being the brain-body of a conscious entity. The explanation of a great deal many things can be derived from this one idea.

The expression 'hiding in plain sight' springs to mind.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 66 by William]

It is the other way around. Consciousness is why things like planets, stars, and galaxies exist. They are formed through conscious invention and experienced through conscious interaction.

No. They are formed through the action of gravity. They were not experienced until we were actually able to see them. Even then, the majority of conscious people have never interacted in any way with planets, stars and galaxies, cosmic consciousness notwithstanding.

There is not reason why one cannot understand the planet earth as being the brain-body of a conscious entity. The explanation of a great deal many things can be derived from this one idea.

It is the other way around. There is no reason why one should understand the planet earth as being the brain-body of a conscious entity. That's just a fanciful idea with nothing to back it up. By the way, why would it need to be a brain-body if the brain is not necessary for consciousness?

[center][/center]

[William]

[Replying to post 67 by brunumb]

It is the other way around. Consciousness is why things like planets, stars, and galaxies exist. They are formed through conscious invention and experienced through conscious interaction.

No. They are formed through the action of gravity.

What we call gravity is a device used for this purpose by consciousness, yes.

They were not experienced until we were actually able to see them.

From the human perspective, yes. Consciousness in human form only experiences through that form, so is limited in that regard.

Even then, the majority of conscious people have never interacted in any way with planets, stars and galaxies, cosmic consciousness notwithstanding.

Conscious people are consistently interacting with the Planet, and all religious/spiritual/esoteric etc individuals are indeed interacting with the Earth Entity, whether they understand this is the case, or not.

Indeed, even in the context of your own experience as an individual human being - you cannot avoid the natural connection with this entity, - other than to mistake it for something else...depending on your particular beliefs. Atheists are not exempt from the connection, only disconnect from the vitality and underlying purpose of the connection.

There is not reason why one cannot understand the planet earth as being the brain-body of a conscious entity. The explanation of a great deal many things can be derived from this one idea.

It is the other way around.

Certainly I can agree that for some folk, this is their preferred interpretation of their experience as a conscious entity.

There is no reason why one should understand the planet earth as being the brain-body of a conscious entity.

There are many reasons as to why one does understand the planet earth as being the brain-body of a conscious entity.
For me, these include.

1: Doing so provides an explanation for the intelligent process of biological evolution which is absent in the materialistic interpretation.

2: Doing so provides an explanation for the 'why' question, which also is absent from the materialistic interpretation.

3: Doing so provides an explanation as to alternate experiences, which is inadequate in the explanation of current materialistic interpretation.

4: Doing so provides an explanation as to why, when I have made irrational decisions based upon faith, there is always a string of coinciding events which show plainly that intelligence is behind those events, taking a directory role, indicating a living conscious self awareness - extremely capable - yet otherwise invisible. The materialistic interpretation 'it is only coincidence' doesn't work with the strings, as it can only be applied to stand-alone, disconnected events, and not even all of these, I suspect.

5: Doing so provides an explanation as to how come this otherwise invisible entity is recognized as 'GOD' in relation to all religions, even that those religions are different or even oppose each other. If they understood the common connection, they might be able to adjust their attitudes toward each other and the world in general. That is not the Earth Entities fault for making the effort to connect through that route as the spiritually inclined are just better receivers than than materialists. That the downside is mis-information, the reason for that rests solely on the side of the humans, as the creators of any such deceptions.

That's just a fanciful idea with nothing to back it up.

There are things which do back it up as per the above points.
The most honest materialists are those who acknowledge that the best position is agnostic, because they don't really know, even that they prefer to think 'the brain did it'. They certainly don't just make remarks which fob off what they don't want to, even politely - let alone sincerely - consider.

By the way, why would it need to be a brain-body if the brain is not necessary for consciousness?

To accommodate the idea of 'the brain did it' while maintaining the idea 'consciousness exists outside the brain.'

The idea being, that something other than a biological fatty organ can be used like a brain.

The planet itself has ample things in which this can happen through. A creative self aware intelligent conscious entity inhabiting such an object, would find it very useful for a great many things.

But the difficulty in getting ones offspring to notice you as that entity...a tricky long-term occupation, which might not even be the main agenda of the entity - but something of a sideline worth pursuing anyway. Also, perhaps if such could be accomplished, then the main agenda [in regards to the physical universe] might be a far more pleasant journey for everyone involved.

I am unconvinced that materialism is interested in pleasant journeys, perhaps seeing such as 'fanciful'?

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 68 by William]

Your post is just a string of assertions and opinions with not a shred of supporting evidence to indicate that any of them are true. You could just as readily suggest that the all-pervasive giant invisible cosmic octopus accounts for everything. It has as much merit as your fanciful explanation.

[William]

[Replying to post 69 by brunumb]

Your post is just a string of assertions and opinions with not a shred of supporting evidence to indicate that any of them are true.

So what? That doesn't mean it is incorrect.

You could just as readily suggest that the all-pervasive giant invisible cosmic octopus accounts for everything. It has as much merit as your fanciful explanation.

What are you looking for that makes you want to engage with people like me?

You live on a planet which - if it were indeed the abode of a living being - that would mean nothing more to you than 'the all-pervasive invisible cosmic octopus'?

Whatever your motivation is to express as you do, you will never change the world so that it pleases you. Get used to that brunumb.