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 80 by Razorsedge]

Scientists know that these two topics are real important to our knowledge so they can't let them go. Eventually they will be forced to adopt new methods and framework (panpsychism?) that are better suited to deal with these issues.

Like making up a load of nonsensical gibberish and declaring it as revelation to the gullible masses? We already have that method.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 80 by Razorsedge]

This is philosophy and outside the realm of science.

Science is about what you can observe with your senses and has nothing to do with the metaphysical.

Scientists know that these two topics are real important to our knowledge so they can't let them go. Eventually they will be forced to adopt new methods and framework (panpsychism?) that are better suited to deal with these issues. The hard line reducto-materialistic scientists who refuse to adapt will become more and more marginalized.

Science has always had limits the only difference today is that scientist want to try to take science into areas where it cannot go, like origins and evolution. Which are clearly taught in the Bible of where we originated from.

But your pantheistic belief has the problem of starting when the universe starts. There is no evidence that there was some force that you can point to. Unless you are trying to portray the God of the Bible as your force. But the God of the Bible was very specific about what man is and what He is like and what man is like.

Man is not part of God man is distinct from God. So you will have to go somewhere else to find your evidence for your pantheistic force.

[Danmark]

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.

I propose to study whether rocks have consciousness. I will accept no arguments about this topic from those who claim rocks are not conscious. Statements by those who disagree with me will clearly show a lack of knowledge and experience with the meditative practices of rocks. They also show intolerance. Scientists can discover the origins and nature of rock consciousness and the Universe using field research. Detractors have no evidence that my approach would not work because they lack the experience that I have with the meditation of rocks.

[Swami]

I propose to study whether rocks have consciousness. I will accept no arguments about this topic from those who claim rocks are not conscious. Statements by those who disagree with me will clearly show a lack of knowledge and experience with the meditative practices of rocks. They also show intolerance. Scientists can discover the origins and nature of rock consciousness and the Universe using field research. Detractors have no evidence that my approach would not work because they lack the experience that I have with the meditation of rocks.

Hi Danmark. I left this discussion a few months ago in hopes that my message of "experience" is what most would get out of it. I admit I am not a skilled debater but I also do not want to be forced into one either. I usually avoid debate because I found that getting people to experience works best. Not to mention that I've spent years presenting evidence just to have skeptics show their intolerance. Instead of offering you a debate I figured I'd offer my experience of how a debate usually goes.

(Mock debate in response to Danmark's comments)...
Mystic: The rock and the Universe came from the same source, i.e. consciousness. Consciousness is boundless, formless, pure awareness. It is the most fundamental part of existence from which everything else emerges.

Even your bodily form is not "you": “The body sleeps, the heart sleeps, the mind sleeps -- but you remain alert because you are nothing else but alertness. Everything else is a false identification. Awareness is your nature. The body is your abode. The mind is your computer. Awareness is you; it is your very being.�
- Osho

Skeptic (DrNoGods, Brunumb, Inigo Montoya, Neatras, Danmark, TSGracchus): Evidence?

Mystic: Experience.

Skeptic: Personal experience is unreliable.

Mystic: Likewise, Western (materialist) science, by itself, is unreliable when it comes to studying consciousness. In contrast, Eastern science incorporates experience in its understanding of mind. The West deals with consciousness indirectly by studying "correlates" while the East studies it directly via experiences in pure consciousness state.

Skeptic: Consciousness is a matter of biology. Scientists are studying it and we will be able to explain it just like any other biological process.

Mystic: This does not add up given the differences between biology and consciousness. The former is based on third-person perspective and objective processes while the other is not. The problem that Western science has with figuring out consciousness is not only a lack of knowledge but also a lack of a good approach. I don't claim to have all of the knowledge but I offer a good approach (meditation)! My goal is only for the West to meet Eastern science and take it seriously.

The gift of mental power comes from God, Divine Being, and if we concentrate our minds on that truth, we become in tune with this great power.

–Nikola Tesla

As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clearheaded science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about the atoms this much: There is no matter as such! All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. . . . We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.

- Max Planck (father of quantum physics)

Consciousness cannot be counted for in physical terms, for consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else. Quantum physics reveals a basic oneness of the universe. Multiplicity is only apparent; in truth; there is only one mind.

— Erwin Schrodinger

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 84 by Razorsedge]

In other words, you cannot mount an argument to support your claim that:

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 argument, essentially, is summed up with your "You have no evidence that my approach would not work ...."
I suggest that the better argument would be one, with documented facts, that shows your "approach" works.

[Swami]

[Replying to post 85 by Danmark]

I don't think I need to prove anything here. The fact is that there is a huge gap in our understanding of consciousness. Meditation works to

[Swami]

Lets shift the conversation to a practical one.

2 Corinthians 12:2
I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago—whether in the body I do not know, or whether out of the body I do not know, God knows—such a one was caught up to the third heaven.

This passage provides some interesting insight into consciousness. But what was not known to the experiencer (Paul?) was a method of inducing these out-of-body experiences. This is where Eastern practices comes to the rescue with its practice of meditation.

Although many here profess to having practiced meditation but I've seen little evidence that they're willing to explore it in-depth - beyond just a relaxation exercise.


Inducing OBEs:
Two common types of meditation I engage is transcendental meditation and single object meditation. The former involves clearing mind of all thought while the latter involves having one object (a thought, your breathing, etc) of focus. The latter type of meditation has given me the most success as inducing OBE or pure consciousness state. My object of focus tends to be a mental image that I see moving back-and-forth, e.g. a ball on string that swings rapidly. I have intense focus on it and follow it with my mind until it propels my awareness out of my body.

Here's how a Buddhist induced OBEs:
[youtube][/youtube]

From years of practice I've discovered that the highest level of reality is simply a state of pure awareness. I've come to realize that there is no subject-object split since all objects (matter and thought) emerge from this pure awareness level. I consider this to be God's level of awareness. Even an OBE, while involving a pure conscious state, is not on this level since often times you're still left with experiencing the objects of consciousness whether it be the astral plane, spirits, or ordinary things and events, as opposed to experiencing the Source of all of these things.

To connect this back to post 1, the reason meditation works for discovering the nature of consciousness is because people are able to prove it to themselves. Everything I'm telling you I've experienced for myself and I've read and heard about the experiences of many others. The readers can go further back into this thread to read more on this point.

[Danmark]

Lets shift the conversation to a practical one.

2 Corinthians 12:2
I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago—whether in the body I do not know, or whether out of the body I do not know, God knows—such a one was caught up to the third heaven.

This passage provides some interesting insight into consciousness.

No it doesn't. It gives no insight into anything but the credulity of Paul and his version of Christianity. Most translations give 'paradise' for 'the third heaven.'

The ESV (with more verses for context) gives us:
"I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows. And I know that this man was caught up into paradise—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows— and he heard things that cannot be told, which man may not utter."

From an epistemological viewpoint, this passage is the purest speculative drivel. Paul is vague about this '3d heaven' or 'paradise;' he recounts this story from an unknown man 14 years in the past; he admits he 'does not know;' he does not know if it is spiritual or bodily; and he says these things are unknown and cannot be uttered.
This is actually hilariously nonsensical and vague, vague even by Paul's own admission. It gives us no insight into consciousness, just like your efforts.

[Swami]

[Replying to post 87 by Danmark]

I assume that you're an atheist since your profile has you listed as "former evangelical". I also assume you haven't tried meditation since you did not mention a word about the good practical advice in my last post. In dealing with people of different beliefs, the religious/spiritual and atheist/agnostic, I've noticed 3 common reasons why people are unwilling to even try meditation. People usually don't try because of moral reasons, intellectual reasons, or ignorance (you don't really know what meditation is). Given your insistence that I must "prove" my claims as opposed to getting you to experience for yourself, your reasons may be your reliance on intellect. The following information might help you understand my position and the fallacy of relying solely on intellect:

This is taken from Bertrand Russel's essay, Mysticism and Logic.

The first and most direct outcome of the moment of illumination is belief in the possibility of a way of knowledge which may be called revelation or insight or intuition, as contrasted with sense, reason, and analysis, which are regarded as blind guides leading to the morass of illusion. Closely connected with this belief is the conception of a Reality behind the world of appearance and utterly different from it. This Reality is regarded with an admiration often amounting to worship; it is [10]felt to be always and everywhere close at hand, thinly veiled by the shows of sense, ready, for the receptive mind, to shine in its glory even through the apparent folly and wickedness of Man. The poet, the artist, and the lover are seekers after that glory: the haunting beauty that they pursue is the faint reflection of its sun. But the mystic lives in the full light of the vision: what others dimly seek he knows, with a knowledge beside which all other knowledge is ignorance.

[…
These more or less trite maxims may be illustrated by application to Bergson's advocacy of "intuition" as against "intellect." There are, he says, "two profoundly different ways of knowing a thing. The first [(intellect)] implies that we move round the object: the second [(intuition)] that we enter into it. The first depends on the point of view at which we are placed and on the symbols by which we express ourselves. The second neither depends on a point of view nor relies on any symbol. The first kind of knowledge may be said to stop at the relative; the second, in those cases where it is possible, to attain the absolute."[4] The second of these, which is intuition, is, he says, "the kind of intellectual sympathy by which one places oneself within an object in order to coincide with what is unique in it and therefore inexpressible" (p. 6). In illustration, he mentions self-knowledge: "there is one reality, at least, which we all seize from within, by intuition and not by simple analysis. It is our own personality in its flowing through time—our self which endures" (p. 8).

If you continue reading where I left off you'll find that Russel tries to refute some of Bergson's claims but of course Russel gets the last word in his essay. Interestingly, he did not disagree with Bergson completely. I'm more in favor of Bergson's view but then again I view mysticism as not just simply being about knowledge from intuition but also knowledge from mystical "experience" - and most notably the tool we have to access it based on our own efforts - meditation.

I've tried your way Danmark and this is as far as intellect will take us. Now it's up to you to do the field research that I've offered on this forum or simply make clear that you're unwilling which seems to be the case.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 87 by Danmark]

I assume that you're an atheist since your profile has you listed as "former evangelical". I also assume you haven't tried meditation since you did not mention a word about the good practical advice in my last post. In dealing with people of different beliefs, the religious/spiritual and atheist/agnostic, I've noticed 3 common reasons why people are unwilling to even try meditation. People usually don't try because of moral reasons, intellectual reasons, or ignorance....

Your assumptions are false. I not only have tried meditation, I still meditate. What I dismiss is your supernatural claims. Meditation is simply an effort to get in touch with one's own unconscious. The unconscious mind is so deep, profound, and unfathomable that people mistake it for God and imagine supernatural explanations.

BTW, I don't call myself an atheist. For want of something better, I use 'non theist.' I believe in natural explanations. Once one starts to consider supernatural forces and beings there is no limit to the fantasies one can imagine. Some even come up with nonsense like astral projection. Resorting to the supernatural 'creates' Gods and Goblins and there is no difference between the two in terms of reality.