The Mystic way of knowing (for the skeptics)

[dybmh]

I am more interested in reaching scientists than skeptics.

Really, the problem you're having is:

Your priorities do not match with a scientist's priorities.

If you want to "reach" the scientists, you need to do the work to approach their point of view. You have to do the "reaching".

 

[Swami]

Sure. The issue is how we should interpret an experience once we have it.

I accept that the experience itself would have value just as it has for every other skeptic who has experienced it. People don't usually doubt their experience from the start unless there is an obvious reason. It is usually innocent or truthful until proven guilty. Do you question if your experience of reading my post is real or not?

 

[Left Coast]

I accept that the experience itself would have value just as it has for every other skeptic who has experienced it. People don't usually doubt their experience from the start unless there is an obvious reason. It is usually innocent or truthful until proven guilty. Do you question if your experience of reading my post is real or not?

I don't doubt that I'm having an experience; again, it's the interpretation of the experience that's the issue. The degree to which I would question whether my experience comports with reality outside my head depends on the experience. Viewing an RF post is a mundane, everyday experience for me that I've had many times and that I can independently verify by, for example, asking someone else to look at my computer screen to confirm that I am in fact seeing an RF post.

If I see a woman appear in front of me who looks like the Virgin Mary, and she strikes up a conversation with me, that experience is a rather extraordinary one, and therefore I should probably question whether I'm actually talking to the mother of Jesus, or if perhaps something else is going on.

 

[Swami]

I don't doubt that I'm having an experience; again, it's the interpretation of the experience that's the issue. The degree to which I would question whether my experience comports with reality outside my head depends on the experience. Viewing an RF post is a mundane, everyday experience for me that I've had many times and that I can independently verify by, for example, asking someone else to look at my computer screen to confirm that I am in fact seeing an RF post.

If I see a woman appear in front of me who looks like the Virgin Mary, and she strikes up a conversation with me, that experience is a rather extraordinary one, and therefore I should probably question whether I'm actually talking to the mother of Jesus, or if perhaps something else is going on.

Our main disagreement is on the value of the experience itself.

In my view, the interpretation doesn't matter but rather it is the evidence that matter in terms of validity. An experience itself counts as evidence. If you have evidence that raises questions on the validity of the experience then that is one thing. But if you have an experience and you have no evidence against it, then the experience still holds some validity, even if on the level of belief.

 

[Left Coast]

Our main disagreement is on the value of the experience itself.

In my view, the interpretation doesn't matter but rather it is the evidence that matter in terms of validity. An experience itself counts as evidence.

Evidence of what? The nature of that experience and whether it can be independently verified indicates the likelihood that the experience actually matches reality outside your head.

If you have evidence that raises questions on the validity of the experience then that is one thing. But if you have an experience and you have no evidence against it, then the experience still holds some validity, even if on the level of belief.

The nature of the experience is exactly what raises questions about it. If you have experiences of things that can't be independently verified and seem to contradict how we understand the world works (random objects flying around the room, for example), that's a strong reason to question if you're experience matches reality.

 

[Howard Is]

A common observation I've made about many skeptics is that they have not had any mystical or extraordinary experiences. The willful close-minded ones do not even want to experience even if they were shown a way to have the experience voluntarily. This is far from a scientific attitude. An honest skeptic would remain agnostic and at least be willing to conduct their own "field research" (research outside of a lab and that involves the researcher engaging in the activities himself).

There are many examples of skeptics who have experienced and are now convinced that the materialistic view is insufficient to explain everything.

I have had plenty of extraordinary experiences.
I have been a meditator for fifty years.
I received years of instruction from swamis and Tibetan lamas.

I don’t agree with you.

Do you get that ?

I endorse and encourage meditation, but not cosmic superhero fantasy thinking.

 

[Swami]

Evidence of what? The nature of that experience and whether it can be independently verified indicates the likelihood that the experience actually matches reality outside your head.

George-ananda's criticism of your views is correct. You are pushing "scientism".

 

[Left Coast]

George-ananda's criticism of your views is correct. You are pushing "scientism".

He posted multiple definitions; some I agree with and others I don't. Regardless, that's not actually a rebuttal of what I said. Are you suggesting that if I have an experience of what seems to be the Virgin Mary appearing before me, and no one else can see or hear her, that I should just unquestioningly accept that experience at face value? I should believe with no further investigation that I'm actually speaking with Jesus' mom?

 

[Howard Is]

George-ananda's criticism of your views is correct. You are pushing "scientism".

The onus is on you to demonstrate that mysticism produces worthwhile results.

Science has already verified the physiological and psychological benefits of meditation.

You are suggesting that meditation can open up new areas of scientific research...well, make a real case.
Just saying it is true is meaningless.
Show us something tangible.

If you can’t demonstrate the use of meditation for scientific research ...stop making the claim !

All you are doing is giving meditation a bad name.

 

[Swami]

He posted multiple definitions; some I agree with and others I don't. Regardless, that's not actually a rebuttal of what I said. Are you suggesting that if I have an experience of what seems to be the Virgin Mary appearing before me, and no one else can see or hear her, that I should just unquestioningly accept that experience at face value? I should believe with no further investigation that I'm actually speaking with Jesus' mom?

After careful contemplation, I've come to the realization that you are not serious. You don't want to experience, and therefore you will never be convinced.

 

[Left Coast]

You are trying to take away from the experience before it happens.

No, I'm not. Why won't you simply answer the question I asked?

After careful contemplation, I've come to the realization that you are not serious. You don't want to experience. You would rather remain a skeptic.

And like the "way of knowing" being pitched throughout this thread, your "careful contemplation" has led you to: bullsh*t. You're wrong about me. And instead interacting with the content of my argument, you are attacking me personally. There's a name for that, look it up some time.

 

[atanu]

Yoga Sutras chapter 1, aphorism 49
The knowledge which is gained from inference and the study of scriptures is knowledge of one kind. But the knowledge which is gained from samadhi is of a much higher order. It goes beyond inference and scriptures.​

Yes. Without experience of samadhi, it will never be known that 'space-time-objects' are fleeting episodes in consciousness. Without experience of samadhi, one will always cling to the idea of separateness being the truth -- and that is clinging to avidya. Without experience of samadhi, the fear of death and fear of the second cannot be overcome.

I was reading about Nutrition science. It is interesting how 'fat' remained as a villain for last 30 years and now the pendulum has swung the other way and 'good fat' has now become the saviour for host of major life style diseases. What I mean to say is that the empirical sciences, if it clings solely to philosophical naturalism as its method, can never know the whole thing, it can never know that which is not empirical -- the cognising self that knows everything.

...

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
So subjectively, I completely understand you believing things simply because they make you feel good. But here's the thing about believing things without good evidence: although those beliefs often make us feel good, they also come frequently with unintended consequences. It may make me feel good to believe I can take heroin and it will be harmless, but the reality is that heroin is dangerous and taking it is likely to have undesirable consequences down the road. One of those consequences is that you may actually do harm to other people, not to mention yourself.

Could there be harmless, or maybe even helpful, baseless beliefs? I suppose so. But beliefs tend not to be isolated; they interconnect to form a worldview. And if you arrived at one belief irrationally, the likelihood is that you'll use that same irrational thought process again. And thus you increase your chances of unintended negative consequences again.

So if you care about the well-being of yourself and others, the preference should be to believe things when there's good evidence for them. If you don't care about the well-being of yourself or others, then you're right, I can't prove to you that you should.

...

You're assuming an awful lot about me. I substantially agree with you. Maybe your subjectivity needs a reality check?

...

Only if you equivocate about what faith means. Many other threads on RF have addressed this.

...

Actually it's both of our problem to solve mutually, because we live in a shared world and our beliefs and actions have an effect on each other. That is the whole origin of morality: humans had to figure out how to interact cooperatively with each other for our survival. And to do that, humans had to agree, to some degree, on a shared understanding of the reality we all can verify. So if you espouse a belief that contradicts our shared reality, and you even say that belief helps you - that's fine, as long as that belief keeps truly helping you and doesn't interfere with others' ability to navigate our shared reality. But many who have come before you have also had unsubstantiated belief in things that supposedly helped them, and those beliefs ended up being incredibly harmful to them and/or the world. So if you care about the well-being of yourself and others, I'm going to keep warning you of the risk of believing things that have no basis outside your head. If you don't care, so be it.

Okay, I have been rewriting this again and again. And every time it got to long.
So as short as I can do it. Yes, I projected unto you and I get that now.

The limit of reason, logic, knowledge, evidence and science. In short no positive metaphysics and ontology is possible with evidence for whether whether the world is natural or not.
So beliefs without evidence is not limited to religion. All versions of philosophical naturalism, materialism and physicalism are belief systems without evidence, proof, knowledge and what not.
If you like, we can go through it.

So for humans, here are the relevant variants.
There are humans functionally incapable of doing these kinds of discussions.
For those capable, there are those who don't care and don't waste time on this.
For those capable and who care, there are those who believe they know and those who know, that they don't know, but believe anyway.

Now where you fall as beliefs about what the world is, I don't know. But in practice the warning you gave, is not just relevant for religious beliefs, woo, CT and what not. They are relevant also for some non-religious humans.

 

[Left Coast]

Okay, I have been rewriting this again and again. And every time it got to long.
So as short as I can do it. Yes, I projected unto you and I get that now.

Not a big deal; it's easy to do especially when we're not face to face.

The limit of reason, logic, knowledge, evidence and science. In short no positive metaphysics and ontology is possible with evidence for whether whether the world is natural or not.
So beliefs without evidence is not limited to religion. All versions of philosophical naturalism, materialism and physicalism are belief systems without evidence, proof, knowledge and what not.
If you like, we can go through it.

No need. I'm not asserting philosophical naturalism. This thread has been more about epistemology than ontology.

So for humans, here are the relevant variants.
There are humans functionally incapable of doing these kinds of discussions.
For those capable, there are those who don't care and don't waste time on this.
For those capable and who care, there are those who believe they know and those who know, that they don't know, but believe anyway.

A fine summary.

Now where you fall as beliefs about what the world is, I don't know. But in practice the warning you gave, is not just relevant for religious beliefs, woo, CT and what not. They are relevant also for some non-religious humans.

Oh, I agree. We should only believe things when there is good evidence for them regardless of the topic: religion, medicine, politics, you name it.

 

[Swami]

The word "reality" has no strong only objective, observable or material referent, because it is always a thought in a brain.
This reality is not independent of the mind, because it requires a mind to think that reality is independent of the mind. That is the joke of strong reductive naturalism/materialism/physicalism/objectivism.

I accept everything here but I would like to go deeper into this thought. We need to go deeper than the "mind". As you correctly bring up, the world that is derived from the mind and senses can not be said to exist independent of the mind and senses. This is the problem of Western science - they can not truly nor fully remove the "subject" from the object (things outside the mind).

In contrast, Eastern thought provides a way to get even the mind and senses out of the way. When you are able to do this through meditation, you are left with "pure" perception or awareness, untainted by the mind and senses. Based on thousands of years of experience, many mystics have used meditation to discover that perception goes deeper than the senses, deeper than the mind, but it can not go deeper than awareness itself. Therefore, awareness is "fundamental". The ontology of the world is neither objective nor subjective, but rather it is awareness itself.

The Eastern mystics go on to not only offer us this ontology but also an epistemology to go with it. So far, none of the skeptics have provided a good reason for why scientists should not adopt the mystical way of knowing.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I accept everything here but I would like to go deeper into this thought. We need to go deeper than the "mind". As you correctly bring up, the world that is derived from the mind and senses can not be said to exist independent of the mind and senses. This is the problem of Western science - they can not truly nor fully remove the "subject" from the object (things outside the mind).

In contrast, Eastern thought provides a way to get even the mind and senses out of the way. When you are able to do this through meditation, you are left with "pure" perception or awareness, untainted by the mind and senses. Based on thousands of years of experience, many mystics have used meditation to discover that perception goes deeper than the senses, deeper than the mind, but it can not go deeper than awareness itself. Therefore, awareness is "fundamental". The ontology of the world is neither objective nor subjective, but rather it is awareness itself.

The Eastern mystics go on to not only offer us this ontology but also an epistemology to go with it. So far, none of the skeptics have provided a good reason for why scientists should not adopt the mystical way of knowing.

Well, since I am a general skeptic, I don't believe in being, existence and ontology. Being in effect is empty.
Now for awareness being fundamental, I don't believe in that.
Well, I don't doubt you can hit awareness itself, you are not doing that in this thread.
So let us play illusion, time, space and these other aspects of the everyday world are illusions, but they do seem to work, because you referenced all 3:
Based on thousands of years - time.
Eastern thought - place.
Mystics, skeptic, scientists for example as other aspects.
So I don't believe awareness is "fundamental". It is necessary, but not sufficient. If it was sufficient, you wouldn't have used all these other aspects of the everyday world,

In short, you are "over-doing" it.
Now, I don't doubt that you can do this. But awareness in necessary, but neither fundamental not sufficient.

 

[Shelter]

I am coming at this discussion from a slightly different direction. I don’t think people can fly through the air using only their mind. I also think reality is “real” and not caused by consciousness or awareness. But, the problem for me is what we can know given that our minds (and their interpretations of what our senses/extended senses in science are telling us) are our only tools for making scientific discoveries. Everything we discover has to be filtered through the human mind, which didn’t evolve to know true reality- it evolved to keep us alive. This has led to various cognitive shortcuts, biases, filters, etc that distort reality or affect our decision making processes without us necessarily being aware of them. And these all have affected science in the past and are surely affecting science today.

So, I do think science needs a way to generate deeper insights and deeper exploration of these issues. Mysticism/meditation (including others beside Eastern traditions) can be a way to develop these insights, by leading to direct exploration of the workings of the human mind. They aren’t the only ways. Studying the history and philosophy of science (which are deeply intertwined with the history and philosophy of religion) is another way to get scientists thinking about these issues.

Unfortunately, these are not usually taught in science programs. Those fields are seen as part of the “humanities” and not necessary for scientists. I barely heard a mention of history of science/philosophy of science/epistemology in 10 years of scientific training at top schools. Most working scientists I’ve met seem to be barely aware of the issues involved or have never considered them. So, I do think something is lacking in the current way science is practiced.

 

[ecco]

In another discussion, I tried to introduce my idea that scientists need to accept Eastern thought.

That didn't go over too well, did it?

The consequence of not doing this would leave science without answers to the big questions, the origin and nature of Universe, life, and consciousness.

Nothing in "Eastern Thought" has ever added anything to knowledge of the origin and nature of the Universe, life, and consciousness. Nothing!

 

[ecco]

Many skeptics have become convinced when they have experienced.

Care to name some of the many skeptics who have become convinced when they have experienced.

 

[ecco]

What develops with the so-called ardent skeptics is a desire to put down new views because they don't immediately fit in with traditional science and the traditional scientific method. After a time this desire even exceeds their desire to know the truth.

What "new views"? This nonsense has been peddled for thousands of years. Do you think this is the first time we have heard this nonsense? Are you that ill-informed or just that naive?