Is Science Compatible with Mysticism?

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I'm basically taking my "study" of your actions - your inability to let go of the literal words on a paper.

First you responded that I demonstrated I didn't take mysticism seriously because i hadn't studied it's history. I have, and tried to show that. When I did, you claimed it was irrelevant. And you made a claim about what mysticism has always been throughout history at the same time.

You didn't answer a single question I asked. You know almost nothing about me. You have no idea what practices I have studied, or what journeys I have taken in terms of spiritual paths. You have read into history (making sweeping historical claims without any support). You read into my posts. And you are wrong in both cases.

If you understood "silence" in the sense that the rest of us use the word, or "interior space", or the "spaces in between" the way the rest of us use those types of phrases, you wouldn't be feeling so much frustration with those of us who self-identify as mystics.

I'm not frustrated with people who self-identify as mystics.

You're trying to go at mysticism the way one goes at a science experiment.

And you know this because you read a few posts, and the fact that you have no idea about my past experience isn't a problem here.

That is something that frustrates me. But it isn't unique to mystics or to any group. It's human nature to make snap judgments about others based on too little information.

It also frustrates me when people do what is called "moving the goalposts". You told me my lack of studying the history of mysticism was an indication of how I didn't take mysticism seriously. When it turned out I have studied its history, all of a sudden that doesn't matter anymore.

You're wrong about my views of both science and mysticism
You're wrong about my personal history and experience with both.
You're wrong about the history of mysticism.

you worship it because you give nothing else room in your life to provide answers.

In addition to such insulting assumptions about my life, you assume that science gives me the answers I really want. And you are wrong.

As I've said before .....If these scientific seekers of the truth really held empiricism in such high regard, they would do the most basic thing possible. They would take the inner journey themselves.

I have. Or have tried. I have, for example, studied under two masters of certain Eastern traditions.

I was lucky enough to live near the YMAA world headquarters of Dr Yang, Jwing-Ming. I say lucky for several reasons. The first is that apart from the world headquarters and the various regional headquarters in South America, South Africa, Europe, each of the 7 regional and 1 world headquarters is attached to schools in that country/region. But where he lives is where the world headquarters are, and where I trained.

The second reason I say lucky is because unlike most Chinese martial arts schools, Dr. Yang is adament about understanding the "Qi" part of Qigong and the preservation of traditional chinese practices. So learning to move Qi didn't simply involve imitations of patterns, postures, and breath, but learning about Jin types, how they are related to Qi and the movement, how important building up Qi in the lower abdomen is, Qi channels and vessels (and how to use these for healing, not just harming), the distinction between Jin and Li, etc.

I don't remember most of it because it didn't work for me. If it's because my use of circulations (including those to cultivate and store Qi) were off, or my breathing was, or whatever failure it might have been on my part, it didn't work. Over time, I started to wonder if there was anything to these theories and if Qi existed, and after a while, I quit.

 

[Open_Minded]

First you responded that I demonstrated I didn't take mysticism seriously because i hadn't studied it's history. I have, and tried to show that. When I did, you claimed it was irrelevant. And you made a claim about what mysticism has always been throughout history at the same time.

You didn't answer a single question I asked. You know almost nothing about me. You have no idea what practices I have studied, or what journeys I have taken in terms of spiritual paths. You have read into history (making sweeping historical claims without any support). You read into my posts. And you are wrong in both cases.

and you have read into many posts on this thread. When I said history, I was not just speaking of words in books, courses in classrooms, etc...

What you fail to miss when you get all caught up in the academics is what the cross-cultural (and historical) views among the many different mystical traditions have in common. That is what I meant by "history" but you immediately go to academic minutia and loose sight of the bigger picture.

This whole thread is filled with the bigger picture. You've read many times - throughout this thread - different people from different mystical backgrounds discuss things like: (Please avoid literalism here - look deeper, look at the overall concepts)

• ego
• clinging to things
• Terms such as "That which IS" .. "That is Thou"
• concepts like "Oneness" or "Interconnectedness"
• concepts like "inner silence" or "inner space"

What you fail to miss in all your academic minutia is the simple reality that (unlike in religious dogma) mystics world-wide describe a very "similar reality", mystics world-wide describe very similar ways of going beyond the world of distractions and clinging to a world of "inner silence" (again - the quotation marks are a caution against literalism).

In addition to such insulting assumptions about my life, you assume that science gives me the answers I really want. And you are wrong.

And now we are getting somewhere - because now you are talking from a place deep within yourself, instead of hauling out the academics.

I have. Or have tried. I have, for example, studied under two masters of certain Eastern traditions.

I was lucky enough to live near the YMAA world headquarters of Dr Yang, Jwing-Ming. I say lucky for several reasons. The first is that apart from the world headquarters and the various regional headquarters in South America, South Africa, Europe, each of the 7 regional and 1 world headquarters is attached to schools in that country/region. But where he lives is where the world headquarters are, and where I trained.

The second reason I say lucky is because unlike most Chinese martial arts schools, Dr. Yang is adament about understanding the "Qi" part of Qigong and the preservation of traditional chinese practices. So learning to move Qi didn't simply involve imitations of patterns, postures, and breath, but learning about Jin types, how they are related to Qi and the movement, how important building up Qi in the lower abdomen is, Qi channels and vessels (and how to use these for healing, not just harming), the distinction between Jin and Li, etc.

I don't remember most of it because it didn't work for me. If it's because my use of circulations (including those to cultivate and store Qi) were off, or my breathing was, or whatever failure it might have been on my part, it didn't work. Over time, I started to wonder if there was anything to these theories and if Qi existed, and after a while, I quit.

I applaud you for your attempt. I really do. Legion - I am not trying to create an enemy here. I've just witnessed so much clinging, on your part, to "outward knowledge" (again watch for literalism - look deeper). There is so much more to "all this" than what you are clinging to.

I can not tell you what particular path to take on your inward journey. What I would offer (in the way of friendly advice) is that if Qigong did not connect with you, don't stop. The journey still awaits, and it is available to everyone.

In what areas of your life do you notice and appreciate "silence"? Start there. I have benefited from disciplined study of Western Mysticism, but my path is not dependent upon the disciplines I use, it is dependent upon me creating a "space" which requires letting go of that which I cling to.

I was intentional in setting aside all your academic minutia because it is part of your ego (not being said negatively - only the way a mystic would use the word). In order for you to take the inner journey - you have to let go of that which your ego is attached to. You will never find the "space" if you don't.

(Please keep in mind - when I caution you to set aside all your academic minutia - I am not asking you to set aside your learning or what it has given you. There is a difference. That's why mystics the world over refer to something called "clinging". It is possible to benefit from something without clinging - with clenched fists - to that something.)

Beyond that - please know I am pushing you as hard as I am pushing you because I sense you want answers. The statement you made here:

In addition to such insulting assumptions about my life, you assume that science gives me the answers I really want. And you are wrong.

Confirms to me that you want answers. But you will not find the answers you seek arguing over minutia in this thread. You will find the answers you seek within your self. I do not have the answers, no one else in this thread has the answers, they are within you. And the way you will find them is to take all the searching you have done thus far, whether through science or any other discipline, and let them be. Don't cling to them. Take the path of silence, what you have learned in other areas of your life has built you up to this point in your life. It has its value, and that value is not going to cease because you quit clinging, in fact the value may very well increase. But ... the path of silence requires silence in all things - even in the the things that once gave us answers but now serve as distractions.

 

[Open_Minded]

Legion - after writing the above - I thought of one other thing. This "silence" that I speak of is not just silence of sound. It is also silence of distractions. For you, I pointed to the clinging you do to science and other disciplines you may have studied. In this thread I've noticed a clinging to academia.

But ... I am not being personal in pointing this out to you. Every human clings. Every human has ego. That is the whole point, that is why (in the bigger picture) mystic traditions in every culture caution against clinging and letting the ego get in the way.

When I spoke of silence, I meant silencing the ego to create this space. Silencing the distractions of the ego. Silencing the two-year old within ourselves that demands satisfaction and answers "right now". Allowing the two-year old within ourselves, that can become totally emersed in the "NOW" to emerge.

When I asked: In what areas of your life do you notice and appreciate "silence"?

I was speaking to the two year old within you who can become completely emersed in the "NOW" - with no distractions of yesterday or tomorrow. Start there - how do you increase that space in your life? Start there.

Some use music, others poetry, others out-door adventures, etc... all those things can be forms of meditation if they are practiced in "silence" (without distractions of yesterday or tomorrow).

 

[godnotgod]

Please keep in mind - when I caution you to set aside all your academic minutia - I am not asking you to set aside your learning or what it has given you. There is a difference. That's why mystics the world over refer to something called "clinging". It is possible to benefit from something without clinging - with clenched fists - to that something.)

Zen would ask: "Who is it that clings? Who is it that lets go?" because not only is there the clinging to things, ideas, and other people, there is also clinging to the notion of self; but also, there is the question as to why we cling to these things in the first place.

"Belief clings;
Faith lets go."
Alan Watts

 

[Windwalker]

It is true, except that the "used to" is more like a century ago, and the "more and more" should be located at the latest 50 years ago.

I'm not sure that this has been fully addressed 50 years ago. I know continuing issues present themselves all the time, such as is expressed in article from only 12 days ago: Neuroscience needs its Einstein - Salon.com

You may be more optimistic than those in science such as the above author.

The important difference, however, is that it can be shown when one interpretation or conclusion isn't correct. It might not be shown for a long time, even decades. But because the sciences are founded on cognitive and perceptual faculties common to most humans (their are those who can't see, or who can't here, etc.), scientific research is structured so that it diminishes as much as possible private or personal experience.

Reducing the human bias component in reading relatively stable structures in a far simpler task then where you are dealing with vastly less, or impossibly so, predictable things such as human relationships and behaviors.

Altered states of consciousness, visions, connections to forces or powers that are gained through individual, personal methods/practices, and other things typically associated with mysticism or mystics are the opposite. Over the centuries, various mystic traditions have not only kept their practices secret, but to the extent we know of such practices through various means, they are primarily personalized.

In a very basic way, the sciences rely on what every human being is required to rely on in order to survive: sensory data and interpretation. If I am driving a car, and I see a wall, I can wonder about the illusory nature of reality (even from a scientific perspective, in that most of the wall "empty space"), or I can try to avoid hitting it.

Yes, but the error is in thinking we can reduce everything that humans are actually required to do to survive, to simply things like seeing a wall and avoiding it driving a car. Human psychology is something far beyond simple behaviorism. Science really only tackles what it knows it can offer some insight into, and avoids the tougher challenges. And that creates the illusion it holds the promise of answers to life's real questions.

There is a reason that 2D pictures frequently appear to be 3D. I can show someone from another culture speaking another language a picture of mountains taken from some distance, and they will be able to see as I do that the mountains appear far away. Illusions play on those commonalities to the human visual system.

So while interpretations of data may differ, and while biases influence research, the reason that the sciences continue to advance in ways never before possible is because they use what we all do every day, but in a framework or structure which depersonalizes that every day experience.

Again though, these are looking at pretty basic functions of being human. It's sort of like looking at level 1 questions when we should be looking at level 5 questions. And as I just mentioned, it advances so miraculously as well because it picks and chooses what it feels it can look into. It avoids questions it knows it can't.

Case in point:

"Years ago, when I was a graduate student in physics, I was introduced to the concept of the “well-posed problem”: a question that can be stated with enough clarity and precision that it is guaranteed an answer. Scientists are always working on well-posed problems. It may take researchers decades or lifetimes to find the answer to a particular question, and science is constantly revising itself in accordance with new experimental data and new ideas, but I would argue that at any moment in time, every scientist is working on, or attempting to work on, a well-posed problem, a question with a definite answer. We scientists are taught from an early stage of our apprenticeship not to waste time on questions that do not have clear and definite answers."​

Read whole article here: Does God exist? - Salon.com


I'll come back to the rest of my response as time permits later. I just wanted to drop this out there.

 

[YmirGF]

Science really only tackles what it knows it can offer some insight into, and avoids the tougher challenges. And that creates the illusion it holds the promise of answers to life's real questions.

Without derailing your intentions, could you elucidate on what you think some of these "life's real questions" are?

 

[Windwalker]

Without derailing your intentions, could you elucidate on what you think some of these "life's real questions" are?

Right off the top of my head I'd start with existential questions. How do we create a cooperative world? Is there a God? How do we know peace? How do we experience joy? How should we live our lives? What value does mysticism offer? And so forth. What are the big questions for you?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I'm not sure that this has been fully addressed 50 years ago. I know continuing issues present themselves all the time, such as is expressed in article from only 12 days ago: Neuroscience needs its Einstein - Salon.com

You may be more optimistic than those in science such as the above author.

Trust me. I'm not:

In this thread alone, see posts 460 & 474.

For critiques I wrote of a particular study and how they relate to a larger problem, here's a sample from the thread "Conservatives big on Fear, Study Finds":

These findings are completely meaningless for a number of reasons. I'll try to give a point-by-point non-technical summary and then more detailed for those interested.


Then there is the additional problem of neuroimaging.

A look at the technical jargon & how it shows the researchers almost no clue what they did

On more general problems, including biases

Going outside of neuroscience to the social & behavioral sciences in general:

Researchers using advanced statistics without knowing much more than how to press buttons

On psychiatry
How psychiatry is more an industry than a science

On neuroimaging in general:
If you read an article that says something about what a neuroscience study found, it's probably wrong.


And just to round things out with something which ought to be a "must see" for everybody who reads articles about some brain scan study:
[youtube]iSSiN5OrRig[/youtube]

Reducing the human bias component in reading relatively stable structures in a far simpler task then where you are dealing with vastly less, or impossibly so, predictable things such as human relationships and behaviors.

It's far less about bias, and far more about a disconnect between the tools researchers who study human emotion, cognition, personality, & behaviors have at their disposal and how much they understand about their uses of these tools. However, as I noted in at least some of the links to previous posts above, and as is shown by the youtube clip, this is again not new. Problems such as those your source talks about still go on, but they are increasingly recognized as problems.

Yes, but the error is in thinking we can reduce everything that humans are actually required to do to survive, to simply things like seeing a wall and avoiding it driving a car. Human psychology is something far beyond simple behaviorism.

The use of "rewards" and "punishments" within psychology was part of the behaviourist program, which ended mainly in the 50s and 60s. It is anachronistic. Behaviourism (or behaviorism) treated the "mind" (including concepts) as a black box outside of scientific purview, and tried to understand how human cognitive systems worked by observing behaviors alone. This completely failed

well from a historical perspective of the last say, 60+ years of psychology, A.I. research, and neurobiology, while a lot of groundbreaking work remains exactly that, groundbreaking for it's time, in many ways the field abandoned (again) the approach it had used since psychology abandoned behaviorism.

Science really only tackles what it knows it can offer some insight into, and avoids the tougher challenges

I'm not sure what tougher questions you mean. I'd say trying to understand climate, the brain (including consciousnes/"mind"), and the cosmos itself are pretty tough challenges.

And that creates the illusion it holds the promise of answers to life's real questions.

I'm not sure I would agree. For one, I think that it tends more to create the illusion that their are no "real questions" insofar you mean things like the meaning and purpose of life, morality, etc. For another, apart from a few outspoken scientists, the most seem to agree that there are limits to what scientists are capable of answering.

Again though, these are looking at pretty basic functions of being human.

I don't tend to start threads, merely respond, but of the few I have these I feel relate to the above:

Human thought is culture-specific

How Free Will Works- An account without a model or free will

Galileo and the Origin of Science

The first is an discussion of research which is far more "pretty basic functions". The second I wrote to because, after reading numerous threads about "free will" and the arguments marshalled against it, I decided to respond with a simplistic but hopefully somewhat useful counter to these arguments.

The third is about science & religion, and in particular why it is important to realize that the sciences didn't originate in a vacuum but required a particular worldview and a motivation to understand God's works.

Case in point:

definite answer. We scientists are taught from an early stage of our apprenticeship not to waste time on questions that do not have clear and definite answers."
​

I couldn't disagree with this more, although I might understand why he said it. I believe I even covered the reason in this thread:

The research you just cited is part of an increasing realization that "Niels Bohr brainwashed a whole generation of physicists into believing that the problem (of the interpretation of quantum mechanics) had been solved fifty years ago. (Murray Gell-Mann in The Nature of the Physical Universe: the 1976 Nobel Conference ).

In this thread, I also quoted John Earman's account of this event. In a book he wrote in '95, he stats: "I vividly recall the occasion of a lecture on the measurement problem given in the early 1970s at The Rockefeller University by a Nobel laureate in physics. The reaction of the audience, composed largely of theoretical physicists and mathematicians, was distinctly cool if not unfriendly. The skepticism was directed not so much at the proposed solution as to the notion that there was a problem to be solved. After the lecture, the laureate remarked ruefully: "I suppose that I will have to do something new to restore my reputation." Today his lecture would likely get a different reception, at least judging from the fact that The Physical Review, the most prestigious journal in theoretical physics, now routinely publishes articles on this topic."

The author of your article was a phsyicist during the time when the "shut up and calculate" approach dominated. The link to that quote is interesting for a number of reasons, but one reasons is that although most attribute the quote to Feynman, the author of that article was the real source. And not only have his views changed, he states "I'm not proud of having said it. It's not a beautiful phrase. It's not very clever. It's snide and mindlessly dismissive."

So perhaps the author of your article happened to be in the one field when it was recovering from a monumental shock. It is not something that is true of phsyics or of the sciences.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

It's charming that the physicist Leonard Mlodinow and Deepak Chopra are nice to each other. But for the record, Mlodinow thinks what Chopra says about non-locality, quantum mechanics, etc. is just woo-woo. Let's not mistake politeness and civility for Chopra's views being somehow validated. "You are an infinite being taking on the identity of a physicist in space and time" .... as Michael Shermer said, politely: what the hell are you talking about?

And also for the record, Sam Harris takes mystical practice very seriously, he has studied it for years firsthand under yogis. And he also thinks Chopra spouts nonsense. Chopra and his supporters like the idea that their beliefs are somehow "beyond" science (that is, protected from skeptical scrutiny). But whenever they see an opportunity for science to support their beliefs, they seize it. How convenient. And, by the way, they distort the science in doing so (Chopra claims that the brain is "non-local" in a quantum physics sense, everything is a "field of possibility", etc.) It reminds me of religious people, they do the same thing .... faith trumps science, except when I can distort science to make it support my faith. It's heads I win, tails you lose.

Btw how many people here are scientists? If you can talk about science and mysticism without being a scientist, then I can talk about it without being a mystic. And Sam Harris is a mystic. So stop going there.

 

[Straw Dog]

Most of life's big questions are just pseudo-problems that we created to make things more complicated than they need to be.

 

[Open_Minded]

Most of life's big questions are just pseudo-problems that we created to make things more complicated than they need to be.

One could look at it that way ....

Or one could look at our ability to ask the big questions as a result of our evolution. That asking and answering the big questions may help us survive as a species.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

and you have read into many posts on this thread. When I said history, I was not just speaking of words in books, courses in classrooms, etc...

For clarity:

That is flat our wrong, but then again - if you really took mysticism seriously you'd study enough of its history to know that even after 1000s of years it continues to serve many.

Regardless of whether one never attends a course in one's life, there are only so many ways to know the history of anything over a period of "1000s of years". What sources were you suggesting I would use if I "really took mysticism seriously"? In particular, what sources outside of things like books and courses could I use to learn about 1000s of years of history?

What you fail to miss when you get all caught up in the academics is what the cross-cultural (and historical) views among the many different mystical traditions have in common. That is what I meant by "history" but you immediately go to academic minutia and loose sight of the bigger picture.

It's easy to make statements about the "bigger picture" of different traditiongs over thousands of years. And it's true that one can quite easily focus on rather minute differences. You first questioned my knowledge of history, and then said that it wasn't about my knowledge of history so much as it was my missing the big picture. My question to you is how you would know? If this:

Most mystics subscribe to a world-view that understands the "reality" and "world view" you live in is fleeting at best. That's the whole point, down through the ages, from all mystic traditions

is true, then there certainly is a big picture. It is also quite a claim, particularly if you haven't even heard of many mystic traditions, let alone what world-view they subscribe to.

From my personal experiences with and academic study of Eastern mysticism, what you describe seems to me to be true.

From my personal experiences with and academic study of certain other mystic traditions, it absolutely isn't. My personal experiences with Western mystic traditions is more was as seeker (I have not studied from any master), and comes from what mystics I have known or those I have at least talked with at length have told me, as well well as reading non-academic works on various traditions (Starhawk, Doreen Valiente, D. J. Conway, others weren't exactly people I could contact directly to learn from).

So when you say things like that quoted above about what "the whole point" is, about silence, about ritual, and it contradicts (often fundamentally) with what those I know have told me, with what those I've been lucky enough to speak with have told me, and what I've read from by practitioners of various traditions, I wonder why this is.

Is it that I'm so literalist that I've misread this:
“Many Eastern religions encourage quietism not because they believe the divine is truly immanent, but because they believe she/he is not. For them, the world is Maya, Illusion, masking the perfection of Divine Reality. …In Witchcraft, however, what happens in the world is vitally important. The Goddess is immanent, but she needs human help to realize her fullest beauty. The harmonious balance of plant/animal/human/divine awareness is not automatic, it must constantly be renewed, and this is the true function of Craft rituals.” (Starhawk's The Spiral Dance),

And that even though it is something that is quite similar to what I've been told in person by others, and even though Starhawk is quite explicit that her tradition is rather fundamentally opposed to Eastern traditions because she and those like her do not believe that what happens in the world "is not really important; it is only a shadow", I've somehow managed to miss something?

And that while ritual is central to many of those I've spoken to as it is a way to connect to the Goddess or to nature or to (as Starhawk says) bring balance to the physical, natural world, you said little about it?


Or that so many mystical traditions, which borrow from what the founder the "Order of Bards Ovates and Druid" calls "Western Mystery Tradition", place so much emphasis on is nature and the physical world, rather than thinking of the world as illusory? And that for them this:

Most mystics subscribe to a world-view that understands the "reality" and "world view" you live in is fleeting at best.

is not at all how they see "reality", or life, because for them the living, breathing web of life is of central importance, and ritual is a method for connecting to it (or to a deity or deities)? That "altered states of consciousness" are for a better understanding of the physical world and nature's (or Gaia's) web of life?

This whole thread is filled with the bigger picture. You've read many times - throughout this thread - different people from different mystical backgrounds discuss things like:

Actually, I haven't heard from people from "different mystical backgrounds" as much as I have people who have different but primarily Eastern mystical backgrounds. I have not heard a word about the Goddess, which is central in several mystic traditions. I have heard of silence and meditation but not ritual magicks and chants, nor the purposes these serve for the mystics who practice them.

So while you see a literalist who worships academia, I see someone who thinks that their knowledge of mysticism justifies unbridled arrogance in how it dismisses what those whom I have been close to (among many others) see as the essence of the mystic experience. I see someone who is willing to claim I worship science and dismiss anything mystical without knowing what my journey has been or how much I have devoted to trying to find faith and belief in something.

I don't have your access to knowledge through mysticism. But I have tried at least to be fair in this thread to what I do not know and what I cannot speak to. You, on the other hand, are willing to speak for all mystics over thousands of years.

What you call the "big picture" is what others whom I know would find offensive. They would take it as you saying their practice is not mysticism and lacks legitimacy.

 

[godnotgod]

A couple of quick observations, for now:

IChopra and his supporters like the idea that their beliefs are somehow "beyond" science (that is, protected from skeptical scrutiny).

You're twisting things again. Once again: the mystical experience is outside the sphere of rational thinking, such as science. Period. You distort this to say that it is made up as a convenience for deliberate deception. I suppose your ultimate point is that mystics are quacks and charlatans either for profit or notoriety. But the scientists are far, far more guilty of being profit-driven, as they compete against each other in a frenzied attempt to see who gets published first. We call this The Science Game, whose goal is 'Knowledge'.

But whenever they see an opportunity for science to support their beliefs, they seize it. How convenient.

As I previously pointed out, mysticism has been around a lot longer than science, and never required it for validation, nor does it now. There may be some who claim to be mystics and do just what you claim, but a genuine mystic would never do that. Amit Goswami (see below) and Chopra are only integrating QM into what is already known, via mystical insight, about the nature of Reality. The 'physical' world is already held within consciousness prior to the mind even approaching it; that what science 'discovers' about it is already there. If anyone is hijacking QM as proprietary ownership, it is Holy Science. "Oh, you don't have enough knowledge to understand QM. You have to read all the techno-jargon and get a Phd, and blah, blah, blah. Sounds like sorcery to me. OTOH, mysticism, though it seems so, is not Special Knowledge; it is available to all, but only some go see, for reasons already presented.

And, by the way, they distort the science in doing so (Chopra claims that the brain is "non-local" in a quantum physics sense, everything is a "field of possibility", etc.)

Speaking of distortion, did Chopra say the brain was non-local, or that consciousness was?

It reminds me of religious people, they do the same thing .... faith trumps science, except when I can distort science to make it support my faith. It's heads I win, tails you lose.

No matter that, here we are on the umpteenth page of this thread, in which it has been mentioned numerous times that there is no problem for mystics with science. This is not a competition between the two. You see it that way because of ignorance about mysticism, and because you are personally attached to your scientific views, and are therefore defensive of them, and so you continue to misrepresent mysticism. Mystics are not ignorant about science. Mysticism can include science, but science cannot include mysticism. Which view is narrower?

BTW, the goal of Religion is very different than that of Mysticism. The goal of Religion is Salvation, while that of Mysticism is Awakening. Salvation requires a doctrine of belief about Reality in which a self is in need of Salvation by a supernatural 'other'; mysticism is the direct apprehension of Reality itself in which divine union is realized; where there is no 'self' and 'other'.

Btw how many people here are scientists? If you can talk about science and mysticism without being a scientist, then I can talk about it without being a mystic. And Sam Harris is a mystic. So stop going there.

Sam Harris is not a mystic; Sam Harris just does'nt get it, that's all, I don't care how many years he has studied yoga, etc, or who he has studied under, so stop going there. And YOU don't get it either. Science is meant to be understood by people. If it cannot be so understood, it is useless. You don't understand mysticism for two reasons: you have science in the way, and you have never gone to see what it is the mystic is talking about. If you do, you need to leave your science baggage at the door. We don't need to know all the minutiae that science comes up with to 'understand' science. BTW, I was a Marine Invertebrate Zoology major in college, and I understand the idea of Evolution without having to get a Phd. I probably understand Evolution better than you, because I see it in the larger context of Ultimate Reality. But when it comes to the mystical experience, you cannot claim to know what you are talking about if you do not develop the kind of seeing that is required, and that kind of insight requires a shift of consciousness. You still want to approach it with the rational mind. Mystics have both the rational and the intuitive minds, both working together, so we can indeed talk about science, but we can also use it to talk about mysticism, which is what we are doing here.

Footnote: The water of an ocean wave is non-local. It is actually the ocean itself. The consciousness of man is likewise non-local. It is the consciousness of the the Universe. It is the ego that creates the false idea that consciousness is local, because it's attention is enslaved by the temporal wave-form, rather than being properly focused on the substance it is composed of, that it is 'mine' as opposed to 'yours', in an attempt to encapsulate Reality within form, within concept, within doctrine.

But the analogy does end here because, unlike the ocean/wave analogy, universal consciousness is outside of Space and Time, and is, therefore, outside of history, outside of memory.

[youtube]2V6SaBflpiM[/youtube]
Present! - Amit Goswami (Part One) a Quantum View of God - YouTube

 

[godnotgod]

Most of life's big questions are just pseudo-problems that we created to make things more complicated than they need to be.

'Before Enlightenment, sweeping the floor;
after Enlightenment, sweeping the floor."

 

[godnotgod]

I would like to see a scientific correlative study to see what relationship scientists have to PC's compared to mystics with Macs.

On a Mac forum, a PC person stated: 'If Macs are that great, why do they only command 5% of the market?, to which a Mac person responded: 'That is to suggest that fast food is superior to gourmet food because it has greater mass-appeal."

 

[YmirGF]

Right off the top of my head I'd start with existential questions. How do we create a cooperative world? Is there a God? How do we know peace? How do we experience joy? How should we live our lives? What value does mysticism offer? And so forth. What are the big questions for you?

Actually, I don't have many "big" questions anymore.

1. Why do human animals think their ideas about god are particularly meaningful or representative of reality. (We are a minor species on a small, backwater planet, in an unremarkable galaxy, after all.)

2. Is our reality formed by idea construction?

3. Is Coke really any better than Pepsi? (I prefer Pepsi, so there is some bias there.)

How we can know peace and how we experience joy is of little interest to me. I look at both as being the natural state of mind... How should we live our lives? In harmony, one would assume.

 

[atanu]

...

Footnote: The water of an ocean wave is non-local. It is actually the ocean itself. The consciousness of man is likewise non-local. It is the consciousness of the the Universe. It is the ego that creates the false idea that consciousness is local, because it's attention is enslaved by the temporal wave-form, rather than being properly focused on the substance it is composed of, that it is 'mine' as opposed to 'yours', in an attempt to encapsulate Reality within form, within concept, within doctrine.

But the analogy does end here because, unlike the ocean/wave analogy, universal consciousness is outside of Space and Time, and is, therefore, outside of history, outside of memory.

It is succint.

 

[atanu]

It's charming that the physicist Leonard Mlodinow and Deepak Chopra are nice to each other. But for the record, Mlodinow thinks what Chopra says about non-locality, quantum mechanics, etc. is just woo-woo. Let's not mistake politeness and civility for Chopra's views being somehow validated. "You are an infinite being taking on the identity of a physicist in space and time" .... as Michael Shermer said, politely: what the hell are you talking about?

And also for the record, Sam Harris takes mystical practice very seriously, he has studied it for years firsthand under yogis. And he also thinks Chopra spouts nonsense. Chopra and his supporters like the idea that their beliefs are somehow "beyond" science (that is, protected from skeptical scrutiny). But whenever they see an opportunity for science to support their beliefs, they seize it. How convenient. And, by the way, they distort the science in doing so (Chopra claims that the brain is "non-local" in a quantum physics sense, everything is a "field of possibility", etc.) It reminds me of religious people, they do the same thing .... faith trumps science, except when I can distort science to make it support my faith. It's heads I win, tails you lose.

Btw how many people here are scientists? If you can talk about science and mysticism without being a scientist, then I can talk about it without being a mystic. And Sam Harris is a mystic. So stop going there.

You are not entirely incorrect yet you are not different from those fundamentalists who stubbornly refuse to even consider other viewpoints.:yes:

 

[Mr Spinkles]

You're twisting things again. Once again: the mystical experience is outside the sphere of rational thinking, such as science. Period. You distort this to say that it is made up as a convenience for deliberate deception.

Thank you for demonstrating my point. Chopra talks at length explicitly about science.
Here is a video clip where Chopra says, and I quote:

"I think I'm going to have to say [about quantum physics] that science is now in a process of overthrowing ... the superstition of materialism ... that the essential nature of the physical world is not physical. Science also tells us ... that there are gaps between every two "ons" where you find a field of possibilities, a field of pure potentiality ... Science also tells us that there's a field of non-locality, where everything is correlated with everything else. ... Today, science tells us that the essential nature of reality is non-local correlation, everything is connected to everything else ... that there are quantum leaps of creativity; that there is something called the "observer effect", where intention orchestrates spacetime events which we then measure as movement, and motion, and energy, and matter. ... And all you have to do is understand the principles of science, that you have the resources within you to intuitively grasp this mystery."
​

So Chopra claims a bunch of nonsense about what science says. His words, not mine. Then you [godnotgod] come rushing in to complain that I can't criticize Chopra based on science. It is like Chopra has started a snowball fight, and when I try to throw one back you [godnotgod] cry "Quit it! Quit it! We're not playing anymore!"

I suppose your ultimate point is that mystics are quacks and charlatans either for profit or notoriety. But the scientists are far, far more guilty of being profit-driven, as they compete against each other in a frenzied attempt to see who gets published first. We call this The Science Game, whose goal is 'Knowledge'.

I don't make such sweeping accusations against entire groups of people, but in individual cases, if the shoe fits ... In Chopra's case, I suspect that his beliefs are sincere but they get reinforced by the profit and notoriety he gains from them. It's kind of hilarious that you think scientists, as a group, are more profit- and notoriety-driven than the likes of an individual such as Chopra ... yes, that's why people go into science ... for the money. :sarcastic Chopra doesn't care about getting published or making a profit, that's why he has limited himself to only sixty books. And his books have not-very-marketable titles like "Use your brain to change your age", "Creating health", "Superbrain: Unleashing the explosive power of your mind", and "The seven spiritual laws of success". Oh, and of course "Quantum healing". How does one make any money selling books like that? And yet, somehow, he soldiers on in his quest to show an unwilling public the truth ... meanwhile, books written by physicists fly off the shelves, like "Principles of quantum mechanics". *gasp!* Just look at that title! What won't they say to sell more books??

As I previously pointed out, mysticism has been around a lot longer than science, and never required it for validation, nor does it now. There may be some who claim to be mystics and do just what you claim, but a genuine mystic would never do that. Amit Goswami (see below) and Chopra are only integrating QM into what is already known, via mystical insight, about the nature of Reality.

... and then you post a video of Amit Goswami explaining how an experiment using EEG recordings of electrical activity in human subjects proves his theory. (In Faraday cages, no less, as a control!) But he doesn't require science for validation, no. It would be a mistake to suppose that. :help:

The 'physical' world is already held within consciousness prior to the mind even approaching it; that what science 'discovers' about it is already there. If anyone is hijacking QM as proprietary ownership, it is Holy Science. "Oh, you don't have enough knowledge to understand QM. You have to read all the techno-jargon and get a Phd, and blah, blah, blah. Sounds like sorcery to me. OTOH, mysticism, though it seems so, is not Special Knowledge; it is available to all, but only some go see, for reasons already presented.

... But of course if they do go see, and they still disagree with you, then you won't acknowledge them as "really" mystics. Like YmirGF or Sam Harris. So the operative variable here is whether people agree with you, not whether they "go and see" mystical experiences for themselves.

And for the record, I happen to be an enthusiastic promoter of the idea that anyone can understand physics, including quantum mechanics, with or without a PhD. But it won't help to disregard physicists when trying to do so.

Speaking of distortion, did Chopra say the brain was non-local, or that consciousness was?

Speaking of making unfair and baseless insinuations, Chopra said, and I quote:

[Addressing Sam Harrs] "I want to object to your saying that the brain does not obey non-locality. When you are thinking right now a hundred trillion neurons are firing simultaneously ... is that [not] non-locality?"​

No matter that, here we are on the umpteenth page of this thread, in which it has been mentioned numerous times that there is no problem for mystics with science. This is not a competition between the two. You see it that way because of ignorance about mysticism, and because you are personally attached to your scientific views, and are therefore defensive of them, and so you continue to misrepresent mysticism. Mystics are not ignorant about science. Mysticism can include science, but science cannot include mysticism. Which view is narrower?

The view that claims things about what science says, and won't listen to what science actually says, is narrower. I do not equate that view with mysticism.

BTW, the goal of Religion is very different than that of Mysticism. The goal of Religion is Salvation, while that of Mysticism is Awakening. Salvation requires a doctrine of belief about Reality in which a self is in need of Salvation by a supernatural 'other'; mysticism is the direct apprehension of Reality itself in which divine union is realized; where there is no 'self' and 'other'.

I understand and acknowledge the distinction.

Footnote: The water of an ocean wave is non-local. It is actually the ocean itself. The consciousness of man is likewise non-local. It is the consciousness of the the Universe. It is the ego that creates the false idea that consciousness is local, because it's attention is enslaved by the temporal wave-form, rather than being properly focused on the substance it is composed of, that it is 'mine' as opposed to 'yours', in an attempt to encapsulate Reality within form, within concept, within doctrine.

But the analogy does end here because, unlike the ocean/wave analogy, universal consciousness is outside of Space and Time, and is, therefore, outside of history, outside of memory.

Okay. But, in case you are interested, if consciousness is non-local the way an ocean wave is non-local, then it's not "quantum". Quantum non-locality is different, it involves something happening over here having an instantaneous effect on things way over there. Ocean waves can be spread out (to a greater or lesser degree) but they aren't "non-local" in the quantum sense. If consciousness is like an ocean wave, then any analogy to physics would be to classical, deterministic physics, which came long before quantum mechanics. This leaves me scratching my head because I thought you (and Deepak Chopra) really emphasized a mysterious "quantum" aspect to consciousness, and yet here you had no need of anything quantum. By the way, realistic waves occurring in nature are often localized in some pretty well-defined area. So even if consciousness was analogous to a wave or was "non-local" in that sense, that wouldn't imply consciousness couldn't fit between your ears.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

You are not entirely incorrect yet you are not different from those fundamentalists who stubbornly refuse to even consider other viewpoints.:yes:

This isn't true. For example, Chopra claims that Mlodinow is an "infinite being in the form of a physicist". I openly consider that view. I also consider other views, such as the view that Mlodinow is a finite, not infinite being. Upon considering the evidence, it seems to me to weigh in favor of the latter view. Accuse me of being wrong all you want, but you cannot accuse me of refusing to consider other viewpoints.