Eastern Perspective and Science: Regarding Omniscience

[ecco]

I am more interested in proving the source of someone's knowledge when it is not "learned".

Then go ahead, prove it.

 

[Swami]

How do you know that you’re experiencing actual omniscience rather than merely imagining that to be the case? We know our brains are capable of generating vivid false images, whether we want it to or not.

I have had transcendental experiences but my focus was not on any content. Most focus is on the perception of boundlessness and connectedness. One way to prove omniscience is by knowing things that you did not learn.

I’m not convinced this is necessarily evidence of any kind of external input though. Savant Syndrome isn’t necessarily a gain of new data but an increased ability to recall and process it. There are plenty of conditions and common experiences that suggest a vast amount of information from our day-to-day experiences remains stored away in our brains but most of us are not capable of accessing much of it under normal circumstances.

What you say is true in some cases. There are other cases, like music savants who had no prior experience with an instrument but yet they were able to play it masterfully. Here is one case:

Born with severe birth defects, Lemke suffered from mobility impairments that made it difficult for him to learn to swallow and walk. His birth defects were so severe that doctors had to remove his eyes. Despite so many challenges, Lemke had an astounding ability to play the piano. Although Lemke never had any musical training, his mother, a nurse who adopted him at birth, discovered Lemke playing Piano Concerto No. 1, after hearing it only once on television.

What Is Musical Savant Syndrome And How It Effects The Mind

 

[HonestJoe]

I have had transcendental experiences but my focus was not on any content. Most focus is on the perception of boundlessness and connectedness. One way to prove omniscience is by knowing things that you did not learn.

Someone knowing something they had no apparent access to could be evidence for an omniscience but even that wouldn’t be the sole possible explanation.

What you say is true in some cases. There are other cases, like music savants who had no prior experience with an instrument but yet they were able to play it masterfully.

It says no musical training, not no experience of the piano at all. It also says he can play a piece having only heard it once, which means there is no need for there to be any other outside source. What is amazing is the ability of his brain to process the information, not the source of the information itself. If he could play a piece having never heard it at all you’d have something to support your hypothesis.

 

[sealchan]

I am more interested in proving the source of someone's knowledge when it is not "learned". Where did this information come from? Why do you assume that it's limited or not omniscient? Based on my thinking and experience, it makes more sense to accept that an omniscient source exists and that we can tap into it and even merge with it.


Please answer the questions I posted earlier. Also, what scientists have discovered so far shows limited and specific intelligence. How do you know savants are just limited to being knowledgeable of music or just math? This does not mean it can not be expanded beyond this, especially when meditation is involved.

Logically you cannot determine omniscience is in the lab. It is not logically possible. To indicate omniscience requires an experimental proof that all knowledge is present in that source. But once you have obtained access to all knowledge experimentation becomes redundant. So there is no logical sense in this. You have the problem of self-reference when using such "whole terms" as omniscience.

This is analogous to counting until you reach infinity as well.

A principle in science is elegance for behind a lack of elegance is arrogance.

You raise a whole other question with "Where did this information come from?" We should examine what we know about where information or knowledge comes from perhaps through reference to Information theory and complex, adaptive systems. This raises the issue of the cost of knowledge in terms of energy and time. How can we know omniscience except through some reference to an infinite energy source that would be capable of storing this knowledge. Then again there is the problem of self-reference where knowledge of the state of the information stored must also be stored and so on...

Then there is the problem of the subjective...there is so much meaningful subjective knowledge out there and omniscience should emcompass it all. But actually what is found through "omniscience" is that whatever is known is transcended for that individual knower. that experience, for them, is meaningful and lasting and it commonly seems more than what one can ever exhaust in one's own life and experience. One gains such a sympathy and compassion for others as well as one's self. No need to call it omniscience..."merely" transcendental and wholistic and salvational and...

I don't mind reading some mystical text which talks about omniscience...the term itself doesn't bother me. I know how to use that word, as with all words which are imperfect, in its context.

How is knowledge represented in the human psyche and the brain? Is it built up from atoms of knowledge like a Lego construction kit? Is it the result of the division of wholeness into ever finer and finer detail? Is it a dance we do between a knower and the known where the two are infinitely intertwined and inseparable? All of the above IMO. In all of that where will we ever be able to say with finality that we have obtained omniscience? We can't hardly imagine a God with omniscience and have it be a rational thought. Only mystical perception (intuition) can provide us with this experience of transcendence tied to our own rationally constructed sense of reality.

If in all that there is not an answer to your question simply repost the question and I will attempt to do better.

 

[sealchan]

What Is Musical Savant Syndrome And How It Effects The Mind

These are briefly summarized stories of people. As such they unintentionally mask any process or limitations of their ability. You will note that apparently in each case there is significant brain damage or dysfunction. One thing to keep in mind is that neurons exists in highly interconnected networks and a large part of the work of storing skill and knowledge and motor control in the brain involves the reduction in that interconnectivity. Well what if there is a severe reduction such that one has a deficit in what is considered normal cognitive capabiilities? Sometimes that can free up a region of the cortex to hyperfocus on a skill or range of skills. Without all of the typical interconnectedness you might have a super aural to motor cortex translation system shielded from distraction by "fortunate" brain damage. Then you have a higher quality mental capability.

I have a family friend on Facebook who is able to play a song on the guitar after only hearing it a few times. They are able to translate the notes to the strings very rapidly. No doubt that makes amateur musicians such as myself somewhat envious. But that is not miraculous, "only" gifted. And gifted is enough for lifelong meaning.

 

[Swami]

My previous post was meant to show how science has recognized differences and changes in awareness. Can you not grant that these things are, in fact, a step toward science accepting something of what you have claimed to experience? Even if it threatens your belief?

I can appreciate when science and Eastern thought reach similar conclusions, even when we use different language.

Science should listen to eastern mysticism...but that works both ways. Perhaps you are not the ambassador needed 5o accomplish the goal you are after.

The problem is that both sides are not respected equally. I only offer what someone doesn't have. The Western scientists do not know the nature of consciousness. Eastern thinkers understand this nature. In this case the West is in need of the East. This is why I and many other Eastern mystics are willing to offer our perspective. In fact, many Western scientists admit that we are on the right track which is why many of them come to meet with the Dalai Lama and other Eastern thinkers.

 

[sealchan]

I can appreciate when science and Eastern thought reach similar conclusions, even when we use different language.


The problem is that both sides are not respected equally. I only offer what someone doesn't have. The Western scientists do not know the nature of consciousness. Eastern thinkers understand this nature. In this case the West is in need of the East. This is why I and many other Eastern mystics are willing to offer our perspective. In fact, many Western scientists admit that we are on the right track which is why many of them come to meet with the Dalai Lama and other Eastern thinkers.

Certainly...how I phrase this is that Eastern mystics know a lot about the phenomenology of consciousness which Western science has very little in the way of terminology. Philosophical psychologists such as William James and Carl Jung have contributed to this, but that hasn't found its way into the Consciousness Studies community which has formed in the last couple decades as sciences biggest serious effort to address the nature of consciousness. I don't know if I mentioned this but I participated briefly in this community and it was acknowledged at the outset that Eastern meditative and mystical perspectives were a very valid perspective. I don't know how successfully this perspective has been addressed however.

Familiar with the Journal of Consciousness Studies?

Journal of Consciousness Studies - Imprint Academic

All the big names in peer reviewed science have contributed articles to this journal. This is where science is at with respect to understanding consciousness.

 

[ecco]

In fact, many Western scientists admit that we are on the right track which is why many of them come to meet with the Dalai Lama and other Eastern thinkers.

Care to name some.

Or are you including scientists like Lady Gaga? Alternatively, the Beetles met with Maharishi Mahesh Yogi.

So?

 

[ecco]

The Western scientists do not know the nature of consciousness. Eastern thinkers understand this nature.

Western scientists know as much and more about the mind than "Eastern Thinkers". The difference is that Western scientists know how to separate knowledge from woo beliefs whereas Eastern Thinkers wallow in them.

 

[Swami]

What does "refuse to experience" mean? Does it mean not wanting to sit in a lotus position for hours or days on end? Yeah, I'd refuse too.

For the record, I am not here for "endless" debate. These types of debate are only ways to provide excuses and ego gets in the way. The reason I recommend that people experience is because the experience itself can convince you and bring understanding. This is better than what I can explain. In fact, no one here can say that the experience would not convince them.

However, if anyone could provide evidence that doing that would result in my becoming omniscient, I'd sure be open to trying it. I'm sure there are many non-skeptics who have tried and been successful - right? These omniscient people would be able to win huge amounts of money betting on the outcome of sporting events. If that were the case no one would doubt the wonderment of "Eastern Philosophy". At that time they would probably stop referring to it as Woo.

Again, if you first experienced the nature of consciousness then all of what I am saying would fall into place. If you want to experience just one aspect, and try to understand it, then it would be like trying to understand a passage that you took out of context. Knowing the nature of consciousness provides the context and theory that explains how the Eastern approach is possible, why Western scientists are failing to answer the big questions, etc.

 

[Swami]

Someone knowing something they had no apparent access to could be evidence for an omniscience but even that wouldn’t be the sole possible explanation.

It says no musical training, not no experience of the piano at all. It also says he can play a piece having only heard it once, which means there is no need for there to be any other outside source. What is amazing is the ability of his brain to process the information, not the source of the information itself. If he could play a piece having never heard it at all you’d have something to support your hypothesis.

Your point does not outrule the type of omniscience that I am referring to. I do not claim that someone would know everything from the start. The way they "realize" it in bits and pieces is by first experiencing it in some way, and then noticing that they knew it all along by performing at a masterful level all of the sudden. Pressing a few keys on a piano would not mean that you can suddenly play a masterpiece. Leslie Lemke, the music savant, went from playing around on a piano to performing a masterpiece. I am sure some of your comic book heroes discovered their powers in the similar ways - stumbling upon it as opposed to knowing all along.

For other skeptics, please explain how the beaver knows how to build a dam without experiencing it from other beavers. There are documented cases of beavers building without prior experience. Perhaps the beavers are more in touch with the Universe than many of the skeptics.

 

[sealchan]

Your point does not outrule the type of omniscience that I am referring to. I do not claim that someone would know everything from the start. The way they "realize" it in bits and pieces is by first experiencing it in some way, and then noticing that they knew it all along by performing at a masterful level all of the sudden. Pressing a few keys on a piano would not mean that you can suddenly play a masterpiece. Leslie Lemke, the music savant, went from playing around on a piano to performing a masterpiece. I am sure some of your comic book heroes discovered their powers in the similar ways - stumbling upon it as opposed to knowing all along.

For other skeptics, please explain how the beaver knows how to build a dam without experiencing it from other beavers. There are documented cases of beavers building without prior experience. Perhaps the beavers are more in touch with the Universe than many of the skeptics.

I think that a lot of innate knowledge can be explained by using very simple innate cognitive rules which arise naturally out of the structure of the nervous system and the commonplace experience of the environment. It is no less amazing that DNA can specify more or less the full functional capability of the entire organism...having some innate behavioral patterns is probably not too much more of a wonder to accomplish. And as with birds and nests...you have to wonder what sort of teaching, if any, happens in any case. It may be that a basic visual impression is enough for a beaver to construct a dam and that visual impression may be an expression of the instinctual need that lies behind it. Beavers need not understand what a dam is only that they will feel compelled to exhibit behaviors that cause them to create one. For a beaver not to witness how a stick changes the flow of water is probably not a possibility and such witnessing may be enough to spontaneously give the beaver the motivation to create a dam. For a beaver to appreciate a small pool of still water in a thicket and then to extend that by their own effort is also probably not too difficult a task.

 

[Swami]

I think that a lot of innate knowledge can be explained by using very simple innate cognitive rules which arise naturally out of the structure of the nervous system and the commonplace experience of the environment. It is no less amazing that DNA can specify more or less the full functional capability of the entire organism...having some innate behavioral patterns is probably not too much more of a wonder to accomplish. And as with birds and nests...you have to wonder what sort of teaching, if any, happens in any case. It may be that a basic visual impression is enough for a beaver to construct a dam and that visual impression may be an expression of the instinctual need that lies behind it. Beavers need not understand what a dam is only that they will feel compelled to exhibit behaviors that cause them to create one. For a beaver not to witness how a stick changes the flow of water is probably not a possibility and such witnessing may be enough to spontaneously give the beaver the motivation to create a dam. For a beaver to appreciate a small pool of still water in a thicket and then to extend that by their own effort is also probably not too difficult a task.

George-Ananda provided the alternative to your explanation. Read from his post here: Eastern Perspective and Science: Regarding Omniscience. Scientists have found that experiences, including meditation, can also modify brain wiring and even genes. I understand why the materialist would presume that arrow of causation always start with brain but that is debunked.

Another reason I accept that more than just cognitive rules involved because we do not access all of the information in the unconscious brain. So in that sense, our brain knows more than we realize. Meditation allows us to access all of the information in our brain, as well as all of the information of the Universe.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Savant syndrome points to omniscience. Omniscience points to universal awareness.

Omniscience, by definition, is universal awareness.

Savant syndrome points to detailed knowledge in a specified field. Detailed knowledge in an intellectual anthropomorphic attribute...an attachment, and is not, in my understanding, associated with universal awareness, i.e. pure consciousness.

 

[HonestJoe]

Your point does not outrule the type of omniscience that I am referring to.

I'm not ruling anything out, only pointing out that you've not provided evidence for the specific belief you hold. The core problem is that you've already reached a conclusion and are now seeking evidence for it. That isn't how the process works.

 

[Swami]

I'm not ruling anything out, only pointing out that you've not provided evidence for the specific belief you hold. The core problem is that you've already reached a conclusion and are now seeking evidence for it. That isn't how the process works.

I don't hold any beliefs. As a yogi, everything I accept comes from experience. You have not experienced so you are missing a big piece of the puzzle.

For the audience:
- Please do not take my explanation here in isolation. If it were all I had then I would also hold on conclusions. Instead, also consider the self-transcending experience. My explanations (also supported by others here) and the experience, when taken together, is more than enough proof.

 

[HonestJoe]

I don't hold any beliefs. As a yogi, everything I accept comes from experience. You have not experienced so you are missing a big piece of the puzzle.

No it doesn’t. You’ve presented other people’s experiences of Savant Syndrome as evidence for the existence of omniscience. If you were talking exclusively about personal experience, you wouldn’t have mentioned evidence or science at all.

 

[Swami]

No it doesn’t. You’ve presented other people’s experiences of Savant Syndrome as evidence for the existence of omniscience. If you were talking exclusively about personal experience, you wouldn’t have mentioned evidence or science at all.

Okay Joe. Let's try another approach. Set aside the concept of omniscience. Let's just say that savant syndrome involves being extremely smart and gifted. It is a fact that your scientists want to bring on this condition in a voluntary way as opposed to it arising after brain injury or through some genetic factor. These same scientists have found that "meditation" can be used for that task.

So now we can say that "meditation" can make you extremely smart and gifted. This by itself is an extraordinary feat. Are you at least willing to accept this or experience it for yourself? This would be a good start. When you can do this, then perhaps you and I can talk about going to the next level by reaching omniscience.

 

[HonestJoe]

Okay Joe. Let's try another approach. Set aside the concept of omniscience. Let's just say that savant syndrome involves being extremely smart and gifted. It is a fact that your scientists want to bring on this condition in a voluntary way as opposed to it arising after brain injury or through some genetic factor. These same scientists have found that "meditation" can be used for that task.

So now we can say that meditation can make you extremely smart and gifted. Are you at least willing to accept this or experience it for yourself? This would be a good start. When you can do this, then perhaps you and I can talk about going to the next level by reaching omniscience.

They’re not my scientists, they’re just scientists.

I’ve absolutely no issue with meditation. I’ve even tried it in the past (not hugely successfully I have to admit – I don’t think I have the right mind-set for it). There are all sorts of techniques and methods for improving various elements of how our brains gather and process information. Meditation is a perfectly valid one but I don’t see it as any kind of special case.

 

[ecco]

For the record, I am not here for "endless" debate. These types of debate are only ways to provide excuses and ego gets in the way.

Then it becomes clear that you are here to make unsupported assertions and expect us to blindly accept them.

The reason I recommend that people experience is because the experience itself can convince you and bring understanding. This is better than what I can explain. In fact, no one here can say that the experience would not convince them.

Convince me of what? That sitting in a lotus position for ten hours would bring enlightenment leading to omniscience. All you need do is present several people who have discovered omniscience. Then you need to explain why they have not shown the cures for cancer and the elimination of mosquito borne epidemics. Either these people are very selfish or they don't exist regardless of the "experience".

Again, if you first experienced the nature of consciousness then all of what I am saying would fall into place. If you want to experience just one aspect, and try to understand it, then it would be like trying to understand a passage that you took out of context. Knowing the nature of consciousness provides the context and theory that explains how the Eastern approach is possible, why Western scientists are failing to answer the big questions, etc.

Because Western scientists really don't care about woo.





ETA: Also, Western Scientists, like most rational people, don't confuse savants with omniscience. Perhaps a good Western dictionary would help. Google would work as a starting point.