Is Science Compatible with Mysticism?

[godnotgod]

IWhen you say "the connection to the non-local" are you just describing what the experience feels like? Godnotgod cited a mystic who talks about "non-local" as more than just a description of how an experience feels. He claimed that experiments have shown that through meditation people can transmit signals through their minds, and these signals can be detected as electrical activity (EEGs).

I don't think that is what the experiment says. Here is a description of the experiment by Goswami from his blog. I think he is saying exactly the opposite:


"Quantum physics gives us an amazing principle to operate with–nonlocality. The principle of locality says that all communication must proceed through local signals that have a speed limit. Einstein established this speed limit as the speed of light (the enormous but finite speed of 300,000 km/s). So this locality principle, a limitation imposed by Einsteinian relativity precludes instantaneous communication via signals. And yet, quantum objects are able to influence one another instantly, once they interact and become correlated. The physicist Alain Aspect and his collaborators demonstrated this in 1982 for a pair of photons (quanta of light). The data does not have to be seen as a contradiction to Einsteinian thinking once we recognize quantum nonlocality for what it is–a signal-less interconnectedness outside space and time.

Grinberg, in 1993, was trying to demonstrate quantum nonlocality for two correlated brains. Two people meditate together with the intention of direct (signalless, nonlocal) communication. After twenty minutes, they are separated (while still continuing their unity intention), placed in individual Faraday cages (electromagnetically impervious chambers), and each brain is wired up to an electroencephalogram (EEG) machine. One subject is shown a series of light flashes producing in his or her brain an electrical activity that is recorded in the EEG machine from which an “evoked potential” is extracted with the help of a computer upon subtracting the brain noise. The evoked potential is somehow found to be transferred to the other subject’s brain onto his or her EEG that gives (upon subtraction of noise) a transferred potential (similar to the evoked potential in phase and strength). Control subjects (those who do not meditate together or are unable to hold the intention for signal-less communication during the duration of the experiment) do not show any transferred potential.

The experiment demonstrates the nonlocality of brain responses to be sure, but something even more important–nonlocality of quantum consciousness. How else to explain how the forced choice of the evoked response in one subject’s brain can lead to the free choice of an (almost) identical response in the correlated partner’s brain? As stated above, the experiment, since then has been replicated twice. First, by the London neuropsychiatrist Peter Fenwick in 1998. And again by the Bastyr university researcher Leana Standish and her collaborators in 2004."

Can Science and Religion be Integrated? : Amit Goswami, Ph.D.

If what he is saying is true, this is the real cutting edge science of consciousness at the moment, and it will leave old thinking in the dust, because it turns everything upside down. My exposure to Goswami is very recent, but already I sense doors are beginning to open. I feel almost like the old man at the end of 2001: A Space Oddysey, where something dawns on him, and he slowly raises his finger to point to the dancing lights just above the monolith. I know something really new for me is there; I just need to return to that space and continue being more attentive in anticipation of it opening up more and more.

 

[atanu]

Yes, that is what Zen teaches. I disagree with their bypassing of the usefulness of this stage. 2nd person relationships to the Divine, is a gateway to moving beyond the ego through recognition of self and higher Self. There is much to be learned on that path that allows integration. IMO, to simply bypass that to the "good stuff" is a premature birth.

Again, if you read what happens in that process, through identification with the deity form, you merge with and become the same as that. As the quote said, "The worship, the worshiper, and the worshiped, those three are not separate". And then, "One dissolves into Deity, as Deity - that Deity which, from the beginning, has been one's own Self or highest Archetype.".

I can attest to this process through personal experience. Which is why when I read this I said "That's it!". Even though I have on numerous occasions experienced this pure merging, where "heaven dissolves", I still spend much of my practice in the subtle forms. Why? In a word, integration. I have much to learn, and as easy as it is to just jump to the end, it's premature birth, IMHO.

:clapWarmest regards.

 

[godnotgod]

Ya. But, both you and GNG are correct. That is the problem. What GNG is telling is true from the perspective of singularity. What you are saying is true from the perspective of discrete diverse objects.

Yes. From the point of view of ordinary consciousness, multiplicity is true; from that of Higher Consciousness, it is not.

 

[Willamena]

Lookie, m'dear: 'ordinary consciousness': is it delusional or not?

If it's a true nature, it has no opposite.

Decidedly yes and no.

 

[YmirGF]

Decidedly yes and no.

Quite so. :flirt:

 

[godnotgod]

Yes, that is what Zen teaches. I disagree with their bypassing of the usefulness of this stage. 2nd person relationships to the Divine, is a gateway to moving beyond the ego through recognition of self and higher Self. There is much to be learned on that path that allows integration. IMO, to simply bypass that to the "good stuff" is a premature birth.

Again, if you read what happens in that process, through identification with the deity form, you merge with and become the same as that. As the quote said, "The worship, the worshiper, and the worshiped, those three are not separate". And then, "One dissolves into Deity, as Deity - that Deity which, from the beginning, has been one's own Self or highest Archetype.".

I can attest to this process through personal experience. Which is why when I read this I said "That's it!". Even though I have on numerous occasions experienced this pure merging, where "heaven dissolves", I still spend much of my practice in the subtle forms. Why? In a word, integration. I have much to learn, and as easy as it is to just jump to the end, it's premature birth, IMHO.

Enlightenment is never early or late. It's always right where it is, right here, right now.

In the phenomenon of makyo, the students actually think Jesus, Buddha, etc. are standing right in front of them. They are hallucinating.

To dwell on these idols is just to accumulate more baggage.

"He does not linger about where the Buddha is, and as to where there is no Buddha he speedily passes by"

All is emptiness.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I don't think that is what the experiment says. Here is a description of the experiment by Goswami from his blog. I think he is saying exactly the opposite...

Okay, he says it's not a signal. Those details don't matter to the distinction I was making. At the end of the day, the experiment measures something which (supposedly) shows that meditating human subjects are ACTUALLY connected somehow, in the physical, objective world explored by science. The interconnectedness (or non-locality or whatever) is not merely a description of how meditation feels to the subjects meditating. This is the difference between doing LSD and feeling as though you are flying, vs. becoming Superman and actually flying in plain view of everyone else.

Do you understand/acknowledge this distinction?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Well, godnotgod, are you going to answer my questions or not?

[W]hen Chopra talks about what science says, that is inside the sphere of reason, no? Of course, maybe what science says is right; maybe it's wrong. But if we are allowed to discuss anything at all inside the sphere of reason, it must be what science says.

Surely we can agree on this much, at least?

I have a very simple, yes-or-no question for you: is it possible for the scientific experiments done in Mexico, described by Goswami, to validate Goswami's theory of the mind? (Or at least provide supporting evidence for it, let's say.) From the video, it seems clear to me the answer is "yes" and Goswami would agree, and I would agree too. But I want to make sure you agree for clarity.

 

[atanu]

Human consciousness, ordinary or not, is not a place where a thing can be contained within. The recognition of a thing in reality is consciousness--without things, there is no consciousness.

To cast delusion beyond consciousness is to isolate consciousness in a place and make it a thing.

I agree to the blue. But I will like to rephrase the red. As the red part is now, consciousness is made into an object.

 

[atanu]

Yes. From the point of view of ordinary consciousness, multiplicity is true; from that of Higher Consciousness, it is not.

It is somewhat like looking from two ends of a telescope on different days and declaring two different truths on two different days. This is called forgetfulness, which afflicts most, or rather all, of us.

(It may be interesting to those who have seen the image of 'Shiva -- the auspicious one', sitting immoble with half closed eyes, to know that his name is 'tryambakam', which means three eyed. Two eyes get the stereo picture of the universe. One third eye, however, never leaves the singularity, that is the source of the diversity as seen by the out-looking two eyes.)

 

[atanu]

To dwell on these idols is just to accumulate more baggage.

"He does not linger about where the Buddha is, and as to where there is no Buddha he speedily passes by"

All is emptiness.

This, I am afraid, is not correct, from the perspective of consciousness. What is perceived is true since consciousness is true.

Spoiler: detail

You can search and find Buddha having prescribed making of his idols, since as per Buddha, those idols would provide solace to many. It is bad business to berate a person for seeking solace in an idol, since that actually is the Self/Heart brought out and idolised. Further, it is ego that hates idols, like the destruction of Bamiya Buddha idols that happened in Afganistan.

What is suitable for Zen practice may not be suitable for a devotional man who sits in front of a Shiva, Krishna, Buddha, or any other idol. Eventually, it is the intent and goodness that matters.

 

[godnotgod]

Well, godnotgod, are you going to answer my questions or not?

Originally Posted by Mr Spinkles
[W]hen Chopra talks about what science says, that is inside the sphere of reason, no? Of course, maybe what science says is right; maybe it's wrong. But if we are allowed to discuss anything at all inside the sphere of reason, it must be what science says.

Surely we can agree on this much, at least?

Science is just one method that employs Reason. So does philosophy. So does religion.

Originally Posted by Mr Spinkles
I have a very simple, yes-or-no question for you: is it possible for the scientific experiments done in Mexico, described by Goswami, to validate Goswami's theory of the mind? (Or at least provide supporting evidence for it, let's say.) From the video, it seems clear to me the answer is "yes" and Goswami would agree, and I would agree too. But I want to make sure you agree for clarity.

I think that's why I posted the piece?

 

[godnotgod]

This, I am afraid, is not correct, from the perspective of consciousness. What is perceived is true since consciousness is true.

The boogeyman in the closet is true because consciousness is true?

You can search and find Buddha having prescribed making of his idols, since as per Buddha, those idols would provide solace to many. It is bad business to berate a person for seeking solace in an idol, since that actually is the Self/Heart brought out and idolised. Further, it is ego that hates idols, like the destruction of Bamiya Buddha idols that happened in Afganistan.

Ego both loves and hates idols. That is the problem of ego; it's 'love' is conditional.

What is suitable for Zen practice may not be suitable for a devotional man who sits in front of a Shiva, Krishna, Buddha, or any other idol. Eventually, it is the intent and goodness that matters.

Perhaps, but makyo is hallucination. There is, in reality, nothing there.

 

[atanu]

The boogeyman in the closet is true because consciousness is true?

Of course. A dream love making can make one ejaculate sperm.

Whatever is held true in consciousness becomes true since consciousness is true.

Ego both loves and hates idols. That is the problem of ego; it's 'love' is conditional.

Perhaps, but makyo is hallucination. There is, in reality, nothing there.

Destruction of idols that some people may love as their own heart is another kind of makyo that is more dangerous. I gave you the example of Buddha teaching making of his idols.

There is a distinction between using a physical or mental idol for dhyana and considering a mental vision as reality.

 

[atanu]

Perhaps, but makyo is hallucination. There is, in reality, nothing there.

That is an ego statement, perhaps. Ego is born of a more primal delusion, which of a more primal delusion.....

For ego to say "... delusions that are sources of me are delusions that must go" is a big fat boast. Actually the ego must go.

It is the formless-unborn that gives rise to the word, which multiplies. When an ego, which is last in the chain of the process of becoming, pre maturely burns the word it is burning its raft that will carry it to the unborn state.

That is why I am sceptical of academic mystics. But that is me. YMMV.

 

[godnotgod]

[/COLOR]

Of course. A dream love making can make one ejaculate sperm.

Whatever is held true in consciousness becomes true since consciousness is true.

The dreamer awakens to find the object of his affection about which ejaculation occurred is nowhere to be found.

The dreamer in Identification awakens to find the image of his idolatry was a projection of his own ego.

I. APPARENT LOVE OF OTHERS BY PROJECTION OF THE EGO

This is Idolatrous Love, in which the ego is projected onto another being [eg.; "Jesus"]. The pretension to divinity as "distinct" has left my organism and is now fixed on the organism of the other. The affective situation is one in which the other has taken my place in my scale of values. I desire the existence of the other-idol, against everything that is opposed to him. I no longer love my own organism except insofar as it is the faithful servant of the idol; apart from that I have no further sentiments towards my organism, I am indifferent to it, and, if necessary, I can give my life for the safety of my idol (I can sacrifice my organism to my Ego fixed on the idol; like Empedocles throwing himself down the crater of Etna in order to immortalize his Ego). As for the rest of the world, I hate it if it is hostile to my idol; if it is not hostile and if my contemplation of the idol fills me with joy (that is to say, with egotistical affirmation), I love indiscriminately all the rest of the world. If the idolized being rejects me to the point of forbidding me all possession of my Ego in him, the apparent love can be turned to hate.

from ’Zen and the Psychology of Transformation: The Supreme Doctrine’, by Hubert Benoit; Pantheon Books, ISBN 0-89281-272-9

Destruction of idols that some people may love as their own heart is another kind of makyo that is more dangerous. I gave you the example of Buddha teaching making of his idols.

There is a distinction between using a physical or mental idol for dhyana and considering a mental vision as reality.

Maybe. The Christian uses the crucifix as a symbol of his personal savior he believes died for his transgression, and who dwells in a far away heavenly realm. I see this as the reflection of several delusions.

In Buddhist and Zen temples, there are statues of Buddhas. Buddhists bow to them, not out of worship or idolatry, but in reverence for the Buddha within their own being. Perhaps this is closer to your meaning?

Hindus bow to another, in recognition of the divinity within them, but this is not idolatry.

The destruction of the statues you mention in Afghanistan were, as I recall, politically motivated acts which were cruel and malicious, born of fear and ignorance.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Science is just one method that employs Reason. So does philosophy. So does religion.

Okay but that doesn't answer my question....

I have a very simple, yes-or-no question for you: is it possible for the scientific experiments done in Mexico, described by Goswami, to validate Goswami's theory of the mind? (Or at least provide supporting evidence for it, let's say.) From the video, it seems clear to me the answer is "yes" and Goswami would agree, and I would agree too. But I want to make sure you agree for clarity.

I think that's why I posted the piece?

I'll take that as a "yes". Follow-up question: would it be possible for such experiments to invalidate (or at least provide evidence against) Goswami's theory of the mind?

 

[atanu]

The dreamer awakens to find the object of his affection about which ejaculation occurred is nowhere to be found.

The dreamer in Identification awakens to find the image of his idolatry was a projection of his own ego.

I. APPARENT LOVE OF OTHERS BY PROJECTION OF THE EGO

This is Idolatrous Love, in which the ego is projected onto another being [eg.; "Jesus"]. The pretension to divinity as "distinct" has left my organism and is now fixed on the organism of the other. The affective situation is one in which the other has taken my place in my scale of values. I desire the existence of the other-idol, against everything that is opposed to him. I no longer love my own organism except insofar as it is the faithful servant of the idol; apart from that I have no further sentiments towards my organism, I am indifferent to it, and, if necessary, I can give my life for the safety of my idol (I can sacrifice my organism to my Ego fixed on the idol; like Empedocles throwing himself down the crater of Etna in order to immortalize his Ego). As for the rest of the world, I hate it if it is hostile to my idol; if it is not hostile and if my contemplation of the idol fills me with joy (that is to say, with egotistical affirmation), I love indiscriminately all the rest of the world. If the idolized being rejects me to the point of forbidding me all possession of my Ego in him, the apparent love can be turned to hate.

from ’Zen and the Psychology of Transformation: The Supreme Doctrine’, by Hubert Benoit; Pantheon Books, ISBN 0-89281-272-9



Maybe. The Christian uses the crucifix as a symbol of his personal savior he believes died for his transgression, and who dwells in a far away heavenly realm. I see this as the reflection of several delusions.

In Buddhist and Zen temples, there are statues of Buddhas. Buddhists bow to them, not out of worship or idolatry, but in reverence for the Buddha within their own being. Perhaps this is closer to your meaning?

Hindus bow to another, in recognition of the divinity within them, but this is not idolatry.

The destruction of the statues you mention in Afghanistan were, as I recall, politically motivated acts which were cruel and malicious, born of fear and ignorance.

See my previous post please.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I don't think that is what the experiment says. Here is a description of the experiment by Goswami from his blog. I think he is saying exactly the opposite:

"data does not have to be seen as a contradiction to Einsteinian thinking once we recognize quantum nonlocality for what it is–a signal-less interconnectedness outside space and time.

The brain uses signals. Electrical signals. If:

Grinberg, in 1993, was trying to demonstrate quantum nonlocality for two correlated brains

and Grinberg was using

an electroencephalogram (EEG) machine.

then the results were measuring signals. That's what EEGs are: records of electrical signals.

How does one measure

a signal-less interconnectedness outside space and time.

with a device designed only to measure electrical signals in space and in time?

The experiment demonstrates the nonlocality of brain responses to be sure

What it demonstrates is that one of the poorest imaging methods as far as spatial resolution and signal processing is concerned showed correlations between spatially seperated subjects. Because neural activity is constant, and EEG is the worst possible neuroimaging tool to use for determining what that activity is or where. It's very good at determining when, of course, but again as signals are all over the place all the time, for many experimental designs using electroencephalography is just inadequate. For example, if you want to see whether brain activities between two spatially seperated subjects are correlated, picking a method to use measurements of "evoked potentials" using a device that does this through summing all active currents in the brain (or all open field generators) seems like a bad way to do it.

If what he is saying is true, this is the real cutting edge science of consciousness at the moment

First, he didn't get Dr. Standish's name correct. Second, two studies from the 90s and one from 2004 published in The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine isn't exactly "cutting edge" anything. First, because using EEG imaging to understand consciousness is like using TNT to open a can of soup. Second, because there's a reason for the sharp decline in EEG studies. They have a limited application because of their poor spatial resolution. It's great that EEG imaging can detect very fast that somewhere something's going on, but as it can't tell you what or where, it's only useful in consciousness research if you don't mind any validity to your research because you've already made up your mind in the first place.

and it will leave old thinking in the dust, because it turns everything upside down.

Yes, because Dr.s Leanna J. Standish, Peter Fenwick, and Jacobo Grinberg Zylberbaum are, by virtue of almost entirely medical research on HIV/AIDs, sleep, epilepsy, and (for Jacobo Grinberg Zylberbaum, disappearing mysteriously in 1994) being an infamous mexican neuroscience mostly in new age circles, there's no way the entire neuroscience community couldn't possible be turned upside down.

Unless, of course, the entire neuroscience community included, well...neuroscientists. Then we'd have pretty much what we do now: a handful of people who publish their studies in journals that they run, and who often publish a lot more popular literature than research. Meanwhile, the neuroscience community, whatever deficits it has, continues to point out problems with these "experiments", or at least the conclusions.

 

[atanu]

How does one measure with a device designed only to measure electrical signals in space and in time?.

It is a valid question yet that is what all brain studies do (and that what that they can do) .. measure the effects in the brain.

One can have other such measures also..