Is Science Compatible with Mysticism?

[Windwalker]

Godel's Incompleteness theorem says it cannot be determined within the system whether P is true. From that POV, any mental endeavour to know the objective truth within the mind-sense system is doomed.

As long as an endeavour generates lasting peace and joy it is worthwhile. And in this, IMO, wisdom is important rather than empiricism.

Beautiful! It just struck me, empiricism used as the ultimate judge of truth!, damnit!, is about being a club to beat others over the head with, not wisdom. It's the same thing with citing any sort of external authority such as ones' religious scriptures. It's focus is on being right, not being wise.

 

[Windwalker]

You are still looking at the issue through the filter of rational mind. Metaphysics is philosophyical in nature; mysticism is not, so mysticism is not metaphysics. The mystic is not looking at some object through the mind, applying thought, and then calling it 'reality'. As I stated, the mystical experience is that of divine union; that is to say, where the distinction between 'self' and 'other' becomes obliterated. Mysticism is not an experience about reality, looking at it from the outside-in; it is the experience of Reality itself.

I think right there, where I bolded and underscored answers every single thing discussed in these going on 50 pages of discussion so far. It is not an experience about a concept of reality, but the experience of reality itself. It is about the experience of..... Being.

This is a distinction that I think those who are married to empiricist views miss for the last few hundred years, and what has led to such counter movements to Postivism such as Existentialism, Aestheticism and the like. The latter were about the inner being, knowing who we are inside, not examining our brains in an fMRI and whatnot trying to figure out how we think, or feel, or create, etc. It is about knowing who we are inside. The experience of being itself and the knowledge about ourselves that no amount of examination from the outside could ever, even begin to penetrate into. The only way to know yourself, is to go into your mind, inside being you.

Mysticism is about that. It is about not just introspection in the sense of "thinking about yourself", but going beyond the illusions of self that our thoughts about ourselves generate! That is key. It is deconstructing artifices of self and reality that we daily interact within in our heads, within our mindspace, and getting to the essence of being, to the one who is doing all that thinking. Again, this is not in trying to analyze it by dissecting brain matter itself, but by deconstructing the mental objects we look at to be able to peer beneath them, as the one observing. Experiencing that observation. If I can see all those artifices that I was living within in my head assuming was the real me, assuming was reality, then who is it doing the looking? And back you go, stripping away further and further realities of symbolic forms until there is nothing left but the One looking.

Mysticism is the experience of the world beyond ideas about them, as the world itself. It is the experience of being. Where is the evidence of this? Inside all of us, just waiting for us to quit looking for it 'out there'.

 

[godnotgod]

Our scope is limited in "seeing reality as it actually is". If we were having a discussion 1000 years ago and I told you that there are these microscopic things called germs and they can make you sick, you probably would have laughed at me. Because it wasn't something tangible that you could touch and see. But that doesn't mean there was forces beyond our comprehension. That doesn't mean germs didn't exist. As for me jumping to conclusions, perhaps I am. But I'm not jumping to conclusions blindly. My conclusions are based on weighed evidence. Peace.

When I say 'seeing reality as it is', it does not mean that I know everything there is to know, but that I see into the nature of Reality. If you don't see Reality as it is, then you are not living in Reality; you are living in delusion.

Because the true nature of Reality is timeless, what mystics saw 1000 years ago or 4000 years ago as Reality is the same Reality we see now. It never changes.

How does the idea of God hiding from man mean he is testing man's faith? That is the conclusion you are jumping to, but I see no logic here, human or divine.

 

[Windwalker]

When I say 'seeing reality as it is', it does not mean that I know everything there is to know, but that I see into the nature of Reality.

Maybe a better way to put it is you know the nature of reality by knowing yourself. As you look into yourself beyond the masks, you unmask all that is. You are not separate from that in an isolated island, but see the entire thing as your Self. How the parts work in scientific terms is matter for the mind. Knowing Self, beyond the masks, is a matter of Spirit.

 

[godnotgod]

I think right there, where I bolded and underscored answers every single thing discussed in these going on 50 pages of discussion so far. It is not an experience about a concept of reality, but the experience of reality itself. It is about the experience of..... Being.

This is a distinction that I think those who are married to empiricist views miss for the last few hundred years, and what has led to such counter movements to Postivism such as Existentialism, Aestheticism and the like. The latter were about the inner being, knowing who we are inside, not examining our brains in an fMRI and whatnot trying to figure out how we think, or feel, or create, etc. It is about knowing who we are inside. The experience of being itself and the knowledge about ourselves that no amount of examination from the outside could ever, even begin to penetrate into. The only way to know yourself, is to go into your mind, inside being you.

Mysticism is about that. It is about not just introspection in the sense of "thinking about yourself", but going beyond the illusions of self that our thoughts about ourselves generate! That is key. It is deconstructing artifices of self and reality that we daily interact within in our heads, within our mindspace, and getting to the essence of being, to the one who is doing all that thinking. Again, this is not in trying to analyze it by dissecting brain matter itself, but by deconstructing the mental objects we look at to be able to peer beneath them, as the one observing. Experiencing that observation. If I can see all those artifices that I was living within in my head assuming was the real me, assuming was reality, then who is it doing the looking? And back you go, stripping away further and further realities of symbolic forms until there is nothing left but the One looking.

Mysticism is the experience of the world beyond ideas about them, as the world itself. It is the experience of being. Where is the evidence of this? Inside all of us, just waiting for us to quit looking for it 'out there'.

Once our own Enlightenment is realized, doing MRI scans of the brain is then brought into the correct context. We just seem to have it all backwards, and are being led on and on by the empty glitter of science and technology, while the immediate human condition of ignorance and metaphysical suffering gets repeated over and over.

Having said that, a major shift in consciousness around the globe would mean that we would be creating a very different world than the current sorry state of affairs.

 

[godnotgod]

Maybe a better way to put it is you know the nature of reality by knowing yourself. As you look into yourself beyond the masks, you unmask all that is. You are not separate from that in an isolated island, but see the entire thing as your Self. How the parts work in scientific terms is matter for the mind. Knowing Self, beyond the masks, is a matter of Spirit.

Yes, I was falling short of actually saying that, but that is true: to know one's own nature is to know the nature of Reality and the universe itself.

"You are not just the drop in the ocean, but are the mighty ocean in the drop"
Rumi

 

[Open_Minded]

In many ways, it doesn't. Theoretically, everything should be governed by quantum mechanics, because everything is made up of elementary particles and obeys the same fundamental forces. Quantum mechanics describes a world which violates everything empiricism told us was true (e.g., that an object cannot be in two places or states at once). And on small scales, as paradoxical as QM might appear, it has (as you say) worked. The MRI scanning I talked about in my previous post is a result of it working. Yet after decades of having physicists working with quantum systems and physicists working with much larger systems (all the way to astrophysics and cosmology), we still don't know why basically all of reality is governed by the laws of quantum mechanics, yet quantum mechanics states and processes which we never perceive or experience. We're learning more and more, but one of the things we're learning is that the seeming paradoxes of quantum mechanics can occur not just at the subatomic level, but with molecules.

Yes - it is fascinating to me - the more research done in this area the more we are discovering quantum mechanics at a macro level. One case in point

"There are definitely three areas that have turned out to be manifestly quantum," Dr Turin told the BBC. "These three things... have dispelled the idea that quantum mechanics had nothing to say about biology."

The most established of the three is photosynthesis - the staggeringly efficient process by which plants and some bacteria build the molecules they need, using energy from sunlight. It seems to use what is called "superposition" - being seemingly in more than one place at one time.

Watch the process closely enough and it appears there are little packets of energy simultaneously "trying" all of the possible paths to get where they need to go, and then settling on the most efficient.

"Biology seems to have been able to use these subtle effects in a warm, wet environment and still maintain the [superposition]. How it does that we don't understand," Richard Cogdell of the University of Glasgow told the BBC.
But the surprise may not stop at plants - there are good hints that the trickery is present in animals, too: the navigational feats of birds that cross countries, continents or even fly pole to pole present a compelling behavioural case.
Experiments show that European robins only oriented themselves for migration under certain colours of light, and that very weak radio waves could completely mix up their sense of direction. Neither should affect the standard compass that biologists once believed birds had within their cells.

What makes more sense is the quantum effect of entanglement. Under quantum rules, no matter how far apart an "entangled" pair of particles gets, each seems to "know" what the other is up to - they can even seem to pass information to one another faster than the speed of light.

Experiments suggest this is going on within single molecules in birds' eyes, and John Morton of University College London explained that the way birds sense it could be stranger still.

"You could think about that as... a kind of 'heads-up display' like what pilots have: an image of the magnetic field... imprinted on top of the image that they see around them," he said.

The idea continues to be somewhat controversial - as is the one that your nose might be doing a bit of quantum biology.

Most smell researchers think the way that we smell has to do only with the shapes of odour molecules matching those of receptors in our noses.

But Dr Turin believes that the way smell molecules wiggle and vibrate is responsible - thanks to the quantum effect called tunnelling.

Truly this is fascinating stuff

Originally Posted by atanu Godel's Incompleteness theorem says it cannot be determined within the system whether P is true. From that POV, any mental endeavour to know the objective truth within the mind-sense system is doomed.

As long as an endeavour generates lasting peace and joy it is worthwhile. And in this, IMO, wisdom is important rather than empiricism.

Excellent point atanu - short, concise and directly to the point. If empiricism was the only valid way to "know" reality - it would be solving all the worlds ills. We humans would know no internal pain, and because we felt no internal aching we would not project it onto others through our ignorance.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Truly this is fascinating stuff

It's also almost entirely wrong.

 

[Open_Minded]

It's also almost entirely wrong.

And why is it "almost entirely wrong"?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

And why is it "almost entirely wrong"?

Because it distorts current theories within physics, such as nonlocality (i.e., that superluminal signaling is possible due to nonlocal correlations between space-like seperated particles). Or that such entanglement has anything to do with bird navigation. It's sensationalism, pure and simple. It's not scientific literature.

 

[Open_Minded]

Because it distorts current theories within physics, such as nonlocality (i.e., that superluminal signaling is possible due to nonlocal correlations between space-like seperated particles). Or that such entanglement has anything to do with bird navigation. It's sensationalism, pure and simple. It's not scientific literature.

From the American Physical Society: Sustained Quantum Coherence and Entanglement in the Avian Compass

In artificial systems, quantum superposition and entanglement typically decay rapidly unless cryogenic temperatures are used. Could life have evolved to exploit such delicate phenomena? Certain migratory birds have the ability to sense very subtle variations in Earth’s magnetic field. Here we apply quantum information theory and the widely accepted “radical pair” model to analyze recent experimental observations of the avian compass. We find that superposition and entanglement are sustained in this living system for at least tens of microseconds, exceeding the durations achieved in the best comparable man-made molecular systems. This conclusion is starkly at variance with the view that life is too “warm and wet” for such quantum phenomena to endure.

...............

From New Journal of Physics -Quantum superpositions in photosynthetic light harvesting: delocalization and entanglement

We explore quantum entanglement among the chlorophyll molecules in light-harvesting complex II, which is the most abundant photosynthetic antenna complex in plants containing over 50% of the world's chlorophyll molecules. Our results demonstrate that there exists robust quantum entanglement under physiological conditions for the case of a single elementary excitation. However, this nonvanishing entanglement is not unexpected because entanglement in the single-excitation manifold is conceptually the same as quantum delocalized states, which are the spectroscopically detectable energy eigenstates of the system. We discuss the impact of the surrounding environments and correlated fluctuations in electronic energies of different pigments upon quantum delocalization and quantum entanglement. It is demonstrated that investigations with tools quantifying the entanglement can provide us with more detailed information on the nature of quantum delocalization, in particular the so-called dynamic localization, which is difficult for a traditional treatment to capture.

Just because it's not "Scientific literature" does not mean the work is not being done, that it's not valid, and that scientists themselves are not pushing the edges of what we know about quantum mechanics.

Would you prefer that scientists not do experiments to see whether quantum mechanics is "at play" in living systems?

You want to get all bogged down in details, and you're missing the larger point. Discovering the depths at which quantum mechanics affects our every day lives is in its very beginning stages. Scientists are doing the hard experimental work of figuring out whether quantum effects can be found in living systems. If you are honestly interested in letting empiricism define the way forward than you should be celebrating the attempts of experimental scientists to discover just how quantum mechanics impacts living systems. That should be something worthy of celebration - if for no other reason it is entirely fascinating.

 

[atanu]

The translation I have also uses the word "full" to translate पूर्ण/pūrṇa in the line
पूर्णमदः पूर्णमिदं पूर्णात् पूर्णमुदच्यते

However, I'm don't know how that translates into the concept of infinity. Again, my knowledge of Sanskrit is next to nothing, but one of the first things I learned were the numerals. There was, then, a concept of numbers beyond that in some language (where we find numerosity, rather than numerals; i.e., there may be a few numbers, but most of the words relating to counting are akin to the English words "a few", "several", "many", etc.). And there's the fact that for me, I think of infinity in terms of abstract spaces, functions, set theory, and so on. It seems clear that पूर्ण is different notion than that.

he he. Your apprehension is not without basis. But the problem is that in Indian Nyaya system, the fullness of light is unbroken black. The fullness of sound is silence. etc. etc. The deep sleep is full and it is infinite. The point is that if you are full without any delineated boundary you are infinite too.

I'm not sure I follow. As you pointed out when you brought up infinity, the sciences "rarely see the infinite space" (which, if I understand you, refers to the "fullness" in Isopanishad 1. Do you mean that science is reductive? That it seeks to understand the whole in terms of its parts? This I would agree with.

Yes. And I believe that parts do not make up the whole rather the mind braeks up the whole into diversity for entertainment.

"But I, being poor, have only my dreams" (Yeats)
I have no access to the owner, nor do I know that there is one.

Owner is more near than anything that we may experience/perceive. The owner perceives/experiences.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

The more complex the issues becoome, from temporal vs. rate enoding, to how coordinated networks work, to how these networks relate to input systems, etc., all the way to how people think, the more room for error there is. Which means that the "good reasons" one has for a theory of cognition are only "good" insofar as one has decided a series of ever more complex findings should be interpreted in a particular way.

Good point. I think that's the usual progression, though, there's nothing wrong with it in principle although it can be abused in practice. The world is too complicated to do otherwise. For example, you try to test the laws of thermodynamics in very special, controlled experiments. But if you want to look at a more realistic, more complicated phenomenon, such as the interactions of a bunch of proteins, then as you say there's enough wiggle-room to make the theory correct. So you don't do a strong test of the theory. You do a weak test, that is, assuming the theory is true, do observations cause the theory to contradict itself? And assuming the theory is true, does it help me learn something about proteins? So for example, as I'm sure you know, in early observations of beta decay there was "missing energy". Rather than interpreting this as a violation of the law of energy conservation, Pauli interpreted it as an as-yet-undiscovered particle that must have escaped the experimenters' notice. Years later they finally detected the neutrino and explained the "missing energy". Now, a skeptic could complain that the experimenters who detected the neutrino assumed conservation of energy in interpreting their observations. That's true. But the answer to the skeptics is that this was still a "soft" test of the theory, because we assumed our theory was right but Nature still got the last word, and the theory was shown to be self-consistent within the constraints imposed by Nature. I'm sure in cog. sci. Nature imposes more "squishy" observational constraints than in physics but you get the idea. This approach is okay as long as we acknowledge what we are doing (it sounds like in the lab you described they weren't acknowledging it).

Even if this is not the case, I believe it is extremely important for those who do research and/or those who (like me, you, and sunstone) think that empirical methods are the best methods for understanding the nature of reality and should be used when possible to know keep in mind how this can fail and why.

And the examples I gave in my response to what can be safely ignored are the best examples I know of to underscore the importance of keeping these things in mind.

Absolutely, you are right. I think what you, me, and Sunstone are trying to say is not that the scientific method is perfect. I think what we are trying to say is that it's the best method available for determining reality, including the reality of the mind. And I use "scientific method" broadly ... I wouldn't say it is necessarily "unscientific" to pursue/describe/interpret subjective experiences, including the mystical. Some have proposed in this thread that mysticism overcomes the limitations of science/reason/empiricism and gets at various truths (all is One, I am the universe, all matter is energy, everything is entangled right now, etc.). But actually when mysticism is used this way it just sidesteps fundamental limitations to human knowledge, and substitutes guesses in place of uncertainty. Just like faith/religion.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Open_Minded,

I think Legion's objection was that the BBC article gave the impression that perhaps two birds, or a bird and its nesting site, separated by hundreds of miles, can be entangled (superluminal influence on each other).

The physics article you cited is talking about something much more plausible, which is the role of brief entanglement of electrons or molecules, inside one bird, in the biochemistry or perhaps photochemistry of the bird's sensory system.

This is very cool but perhaps not for the reasons that some people on this thread would like to believe. It doesn't have the Earth-shattering implications which validate mystical experience that you want it to have. We already knew that all chemistry, including biochemistry, ultimately comes down to quantum mechanics. This would just be one more interesting way for molecules to do chemistry with each other, and with light or magnetic fields. Mystics who want quantum physics to validate their mysticism for large objects, such as an entire bird, will need to look elsewhere.

 

[Willamena]

Absolutely, you are right. I think what you, me, and Sunstone are trying to say is not that the scientific method is perfect. I think what we are trying to say is that it's the best method available for determining reality, including the reality of the mind.

But if, as you say, the empirical method is the best, you have to realize that it's not reality that is being determined, but a continuing narrative based on the previous accepted narrative.

 

[YmirGF]

You're missing the point. Things that are empirically verifiable must be dealt with. Things that are not empirically verifiable can be safely ignored. That's just the way it is.

Agree, albeit it is a bit of an overstatement. This harkens back to my comments about mysticism lacking credibility. Yes, they enjoy tremendous prestige within their own ranks, but not so much outside of those ranks. Certainly not much in the scientific establishment.

Science can be seen as telling us about the universe, to use your term. I believe that position implies methodological naturalism. To assume that science -- or anything, including mystical experiences -- tells us exactly what the universe actually is, is to dabble in madness. Also known as metaphysics, about which very little, if anything, can be known for certain.

Again, this echoes my own thoughts on the matter. The whole metaphysical aspect is fun to think about, but without any "real world" evidence to back the ideas up... it must necessarily remain in the realm of "fun things to think about" as to take the ideas seriously, as representative of reality, is taking that "fun" a bit far.

To what end? That we can dismiss ideas that we don't like because they are not empirically verifiable? That's what he said. We can "safely ignore them", further making references to Leprechauns and whatnot.

No one likes to be ignored. Anyone around me does so at their own peril, LOL.

My thinking is that its all very well and good that mystics talk about their experiences but they must remember who their audience is. Words are peculiar things and understanding varies from individual to individual of what words can mean as well as the unsaid implications or interpretations, and so great care must be taken in attempting to articulate the experiences we hold so dearly. One area that I think we should collectively rethink is to perhaps not overstate or exaggerate our thinking more than is necessary.

I believe in dualistic mysticism. But I'm thinking for most people, at least for myself, there has to be a strong degree of faith to reach that level of connection with our creator. Science and clues that our creator gave us increase faith which can lead to a stronger spiritual connection. So I believe in both mysticism and science with Quran being the backbone of my faith. It's all connected.... If that makes sense. Peace.

I was thinking about this a little a few days ago and like it or not, faith IS a component of the mystical side of the discussion. If anything, it would appear that some of us have too much faith in our given perspectives and just perhaps, need to look at our framework of understanding a bit more critically - that is, if we wish to be taken seriously. Or... we could simply decide to sit back and sing to the choir.

I don't see the two as being that compatible. Science demands empirical data and considers personal accounts to only be better than nothing, whereas mysticism dwells more on the experience and the individual and collective, which is something that science often times cannot explore, at least for now.

I agree. Again, it's not that one side has ALL the answers. Both sides are approximations of reality as viewed through human experience. To date, science describes physical reality far better than any other model and I rather suspect that is why mystics seek compatibility with science. That deference acts as an insurance policy lest we find ourselves on the scrapheap of outdated narratives. By accepting science, while somewhat condescendingly holding it arms length, we lengthen the shelf-life of our thinking. It's not rocket science, but it's better than fading into irrelevancy.

"But I, being poor, have only my dreams" (Yeats)

I have no access to the owner, nor do I know that there is one.

Such a great quote. What owner?

Beautiful! It just struck me, empiricism used as the ultimate judge of truth!, damnit!, is about being a club to beat others over the head with, not wisdom. It's the same thing with citing any sort of external authority such as ones' religious scriptures. It's focus is on being right, not being wise.

Like spirituality, I'm not even sure what wisdom is. As far as I can tell, it seems to be something exhibited by others, as I see no evidence of it in me.

he he. Your apprehension is not without basis. But the problem is that in Indian Nyaya system, the fullness of light is unbroken black. The fullness of sound is silence. etc. etc. The deep sleep is full and it is infinite. The point is that if you are full without any delineated boundary you are infinite too.

Yes. And I believe that parts do not make up the whole rather the mind braeks up the whole into diversity for entertainment.

Owner is more near than anything that we may experience/perceive. The owner perceives/experiences.

As one infinite being to another infinite being, I'd suggest that it would be more accurate to say the whole is more than the sum of the parts - but that's just me.

Hello friends...............

*Waves*

 

[Sunstone]

Some have proposed in this thread that mysticism overcomes the limitations of science/reason/empiricism and gets at various truths (all is One, I am the universe, all matter is energy, everything is entangled right now, etc.). But actually when mysticism is used this way it just sidesteps fundamental limitations to human knowledge, and substitutes guesses in place of uncertainty. Just like faith/religion.

It is characteristic of certain mystical experiences to leave people with an overwhelming sense of certainty that they have experienced an immediate insight into reality. But such overwhelming feelings of certainty do not guarantee what they appear to guarantee. To naively take them at face value is understandable, but unwarranted.

 

[Sunstone]

But if, as you say, the empirical method is the best, you have to realize that it's not reality that is being determined, but a continuing narrative based on the previous accepted narrative.

You might be overlooking that science often enough predicts outcomes. This seems to be something that goes beyond mere narrative because sometimes those outcomes agree with the existing narrative, and sometimes they do not.

 

[Willamena]

You might be overlooking that science often enough predicts outcomes. This seems to be something that goes beyond mere narrative because sometimes those outcomes agree with the existing narrative, and sometimes they do not.

It's a cleverly constructed narrative, to be sure.

 

[YmirGF]

It is characteristic of certain mystical experiences to leave people with an overwhelming sense of certainty that they have experienced an immediate insight into reality. But such overwhelming feelings of certainty do not guarantee what they appear to guarantee. To naively take them at face value is understandable, but unwarranted.

You know how adversarial we have been over the years, Phil, but I am with you 100%. I could not agree more and thank you for putting it so eloquently.

To elaborate: I don't doubt my experiences, though I have begun to embrace uncertainty about my assumptions regarding those experiences.