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.

[benchwarmer]

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

This sums it up nicely. It seems some theists are often happy to jump to conclusions based on nothing more than religious propaganda, feelings, beliefs, and wishful thinking.

Just because scientists have not currently figured something out doesn't mean it won't be in the future. The track record of science is clear. Just look down at what you are currently typing on. How quickly has this technology changed the pace of information exchange and progress?

Here is my analogy of how things often seem to go:

Anti science person A and science person B see a box containing puzzle pieces. 'A' insists the puzzle, when put together, will be a picture of Jesus because the artwork on the box leads them to that feeling. 'B' asks 'A' not to jump to conclusions and starts putting the puzzle together. 'A' notes that there are 100,000 pieces in the box and 'B' will never get there, just accept it'a a picture of Jesus. 'B' prefers to do the work and find out what the picture really is and is fine if the end result is a picture of Jesus, but refuses to jump to conclusions based on feelings.

[William]

[Replying to post 49 by Razorsedge]

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

There is no board rule which says that one has to actually hold the position of any of the usergroups one chooses to list themselves in.
On occasion the creator/moderator of the group might boot someone who is shown not to be adhering to the groups particular description, but also there is no rule which says one has to actually hold a particular position of any group one creates and becomes moderator of, so general rule of thumb is to treat all group listings under a persons forum handle as largely irrelevant.

As such, the best option is to ignore this misleading thing and focus on the way any individual generally expresses their self and from that one can gather what their preferred position is and then understand them from coming from that position - as they will always bring their argument back to that, so save yourself time and simply always speak to that.

I call myself a Panentheist because it appears to fit best with my actual position and I see no point in pretending to be anything I am not. I do find it an interesting tactic when observing it employed - mostly theists are happy to stick with their actual position rather than to pretend they are something they are not, whereas atheists use the tactic frequently which does tend to confuse those who are not aware of the dynamics of this message board as to what is allowed and what is not.

I fell for it a few times myself until it was explained to me. Once one knows, one can navigate around it and it loses its effect as a tool of distraction and confusion.

[William]

[Replying to post 48 by Divine Insight]

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

Panetheism includes naturalism in its philosophy, because to exclude anything is not Panentheism. Somehow you have skirted around that in order to make your statements, and in doing so, your statements fail to address my arguments.

Naturalism does not claim that the answer to how consciousness works is "done and dusted - accomplish".

Good then we agree.

However, I did not say the theory of naturalism claims this is the case. What I actually stated was;

What is being shown is that the jury is 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.

The 'opinions of the sect' is what I was referring to. Not the theory of naturalism.
The opinions of the sect make statements that imply everything is done and dusted.
"Consciousness is emergent of the brain" is one such statement.

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.

[Swami]

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

This sums it up nicely. It seems some theists are often happy to jump to conclusions based on nothing more than religious propaganda, feelings, beliefs, and wishful thinking.

I'm only here to advocate for "experience". I admit I've been using "experience" as a buzzword but it's to get the point across of using first-person approach (e.g. meditation) to discover the origins and nature of consciousness.

I'm not sure at what point you started reading the discussion. I would hope that the general audience read the whole thing while keeping two points in mind:

1. There is a difference between Eastern thinking and Western thinking and that's true even when it comes to science, particularly medicine and psychology.
2. Meditation, refined by science, can be used as a first-person tool for knowledge of the origin and nature of consciousness.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 54 by Razorsedge]

Meditation, refined by science, can be used as a first-person tool for knowledge of the origin and nature of consciousness.

That statement really tells us nothing. It's just an unsupported assertion. What exactly does "refined by science" mean? What criteria can be applied to distinguish between actual knowledge of the phenomenon and things generated by the imagination? The meditative state is an ideal playground for the latter.

[Swami]

[Replying to post 54 by Razorsedge]

Meditation, refined by science, can be used as a first-person tool for knowledge of the origin and nature of consciousness.

What exactly does "refined by science" mean?

I mean scientists improving on the practice and experiences of meditation.

Scientists can improve on the practice by getting a better understanding of meditation and then use that to make it easier (perhaps with technological aid) to access pure consciousness.

Scientists can improve on the experience by creating methods that would lead to more accurate and precise descriptions of what's being observed. This can help to reduce variance or inconsistencies amongst experiencers that may be due to unwarranted assumptions, ignorance, etc.

What criteria can be applied to distinguish between actual knowledge of the phenomenon and things generated by the imagination?

This of course would be a more adventurous endeavor. Scientists would have to develop first-person methods that involve first-person critical observations, first-person experiments, etc. The researchers engaged in this would obviously have to be trained, almost as if they're training to explore a new world or new planets.

There are many people who are already experimenting with these experiences but they are not always trained. They may lack knowledge in science, lack knowledge of Eastern thinking, etc. The best way to put it is that there's no organized and collective effort thus far - everyone is scattered doing their own research. This is not effective. But then again it's also not effective to have neuroscientists pursuing the same failed materialistic, reductionistic approach. Thankfully, there are Western thinkers who are calling out for new concepts and approaches when it comes to dealing with consciousness.

The meditative state is an ideal playground for the latter.

If you are truly focusing by filtering out all thought, imagination, and feelings, then it is not a playground for "imagination". Even in a lucid dream, I know that I'm dreaming; it's all my imagination. Many of the meditative experiences are like lucid dreams where I can do everything, except that I'm awake. I know that I'm awake! I consider it just as real as I would any other experience in my waking state.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 56 by Razorsedge]

But then again it's also not effective to have neuroscientists pursuing the same failed materialistic, reductionistic approach.

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).

Thankfully, there are Western thinkers who are calling out for new concepts and approaches when it comes to dealing with consciousness.

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.

[William]

[Replying to post 47 by brunumb]

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?

Biological evolution is clearly not evidence.

Indeed, it explains well enough the intelligence behind the process, that the earth is the form of an extremely intelligent creative self aware entity.

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.

Name-calling? General rule of thumb, those who degrade into flinging insults do so because they have no real argument left in them.

The focus of the thread has to do with the problem of consciousness and you would do well to focus on that instead of pulling stunts like this brunumb.

If you can't get your head around what I am saying, all well and good, but don't cover up your weakness in that department by projecting this crap onto me.

[William]

[Replying to post 50 by Divine Insight]

Keep in mind that the Naturalists have no need to prove anything. All of their claims are perfectly sound and reasonable.

Wrong.

Claims have to be proven, before accepted as true.
The problem of consciousness does not go away just because a naturalist waves his arms about and says so.

It has been explained how consciousness could derive from itself rather than a biological brain. So 'the brain did it' isn't necessarily the correct claim, and does require actually proving before the claim can be accepted as the truth of the matter.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 50 by Divine Insight]

Keep in mind that the Naturalists have no need to prove anything. All of their claims are perfectly sound and reasonable.

Wrong.

Claims have to be proven, before accepted as true.
The problem of consciousness does not go away just because a naturalist waves his arms about and says so.

It has been explained how consciousness could derive from itself rather than a biological brain. So 'the brain did it' isn't necessarily the correct claim, and does require actually proving before the claim can be accepted as the truth of the matter.

You're right. I misspoke. I should have said:

Keep in mind that the Naturalists have no need to prove anything because all of their claims are perfectly sound and reasonable and have already been historically proven.

And this is why they have no need to prove them. There's no need to prove things that are already water over the historical dam.

Keep in mind William, that Naturalists, aren't claiming that consciousness is an emergent property of a brain. What they are claiming is that all the evidence points in that direction. An there is absolutely no evidence that suggests otherwise.

And that's all they really need to claim.

The people who want to claim alternative philosophical ideas that have absolutely no evidence to support them are the ones who need to come up with some support for their ideas.

Naturalism don't need to bother because their ideas are already well supported.

In other words, Naturalists don't need to prove anything because all they are doing is repeating what has already been proven.