Why Scientists need to accept Eastern thought

[Polymath257]

States of consciousness that go beyond the normal wakeful state. For instance, scientists have found that people who meditate are more aware of their brain activity (activity that would normally be unconscious to others) than non-meditators. This means that meditation expands your field of consciousness. The type of meditation that I practice takes this to the next level because not only does it make you aware of all of your brain but also the entire Universe.

People who meditate are more aware of their unconscious brain


You are correct.. consciousness exists everywhere. I brought up one of the physical consequences. Being aware of what would regularly be unconscious in most others. I accept that 'acquired' savant syndrome can also be an effect of meditation because some have experienced omniscience during meditation.

Well, I am waiting for a mystic to provide information that can be independently verified by a non-believer.

For example, make a prediction on a new particle and how to detect it. Or give the value of a reaction cross section for a reaction we have not yet observed. Or determine the mass of a neutron star. or the distribution of dark matter in some region.

There are plenty of things about the universe that, if the mystical view is correct, the new level of consciousness should be able to prove insights into. Instead, we only get stuff on psychology and a few experiences deemed mystical. While those might be useful information concerning which areas of the brain are relevant for certain states of consciousness, I fail to see anything that science in general needs to accept without a *lot* more specific evidence.

 

[George-ananda]

Well, I am waiting for a mystic to provide information that can be independently verified by a non-believer.

I think you'll have to keep waiting. A mystic is not looking at physical details but broader things like the nature of consciousness.

Mystics and scientists both have their place.

 

[blü 2]

States of consciousness that go beyond the normal wakeful state. For instance, scientists have found that people who meditate are more aware of their brain activity (activity that would normally be unconscious to others) than non-meditators. This means that meditation expands your field of consciousness. The type of meditation that I practice takes this to the next level because not only does it make you aware of all of your brain but also the entire Universe.

just to be clear, I have nothing against meditation. I don't use it myself, but I have friends who do.

And if indeed it makes one more aware of one's nonconscious brain functions,perhaps some men and women will benefit from meditation, whether they be priests, scientists, accountants or athletes.

That view makes meditation a tool, not an end in itself, of course.

You are correct.. consciousness exists everywhere. I brought up one of the physical consequences. Being aware of what would regularly be unconscious in most others. I accept that 'acquired' savant syndrome can also be an effect of meditation because some have experienced omniscience during meditation.

Alas, at this point our views diverge in major ways.

I know of many reasons to conclude that consciousness is generated by a working brain, and any example of it ceases to exist on the death of that brain. I know of nothing about reality that suggests reality itself is somehow conscious, or that there's only one consciousness and we all tap into it ─ there's never been a satisfactory demonstration of telepathy or other paranormal powers.

For instance, the sensation or conviction of knowing everything is entirely different to knowing everything in fact, just as it would be in a dream. Let one of these omniscient folk come back with ─ let's say ─ a formal proof or disproof of the Riemann hypothesis; or a testable demonstration of the nature of dark matter; or how to reverse global warming within the next twelve months, and I might have to change my mind. My extremely surprised mind.

 

[Polymath257]

I think you'll have to keep waiting. A mystic is not looking at physical details but broader things like the nature of consciousness.

Mystics and scientists both have their place.

Which is why scientists don't need to accept it.

 

[gnostic]

I will try to keep my topic simple. There are multiple reasons why Western scientists need to adopt but I will only offer two:

1. Eastern thought provides an objective approach to acquire knowledge.
Eastern mystics discovered a practice and tool long ago to explore consciousness and reality, and that practice is 'meditation'. This method is objective because it removes the filters that tend to distort reality - the mind and senses. If you cease all mental and sensory input, then you are no longer subject to bias, feelings, limitations but rather you experience reality as it is.

2. Eastern thought has a wealth of knowledge that deals with the same things that scientists deal with- the nature of consciousness and reality.
Eastern thinkers did not intend to explore every bit of physical Universe like science does. Eastern thinkers main focus was on the nature of consciousness and reality. As such, the mystics have discovered different states of consciousness that go beyond the limited classifications of scientists. One fact from Eastern thought is that consciousness does not exist independently of matter. Another fact is that consciousness can transcend "self" when it exists in everything (or as part of everything) as opposed to being fixed to one thing. Call this universal or Cosmic consciousness. Given the fact that Western materialist scientists are stumped when it comes to consciousness, it would be wise they seek insight from Eastern thinkers. To date, many scientists are flocking to the Dalai Lama so that should tell you something.

Your thoughts. Do you agree that science needs to adopt Eastern thought?

The only objective approach for science is through evidence that are observable, verifiable and testable.

So science to remain objective, they don’t need to follow any Eastern thought or Western thought.

Science shouldn’t be mired by any one philosophy, because philosophers will generally defend their philosophies or their “way of thinking” for its own sake, which leads them to being biased, hence not at all objective.

I don’t deny that some philosophies have some benefits during their existences, and some have become universal accepted. But many of the ancient and medieval philosophies have become rooted in traditions.

With science, it cannot be tied to any single tradition, whether these traditions be Eastern thoughts or Western thoughts.

So my questions to you is this, Swami:

What would happen if scientific evidences can refute a specific concept of Eastern thoughts?

Do you ignore the evidence for the sake of Eastern thoughts?

The last question is critical, because if you ignore the evidence because of the Eastern thoughts, you really aren’t being objective.

 

[sealchan]

I don't accept that meditation being a first-person tool should diminish it in any sense. There is reason to believe that the information from meditation would be more accurate than the information from "introspection".

Even if meditation is a first-person tool, it certainly leaves behind some effects that anyone can see, like you mention distinct EEG activity. I will also add omniscience. The condition called "acquired" savant syndrome indicates that all information in the Universe is already in us but we just have to tap into it. Many scientists already accept that meditation can be used to unlock the hidden genius in all of us.

Omniscience should be demonstrable in the lab but I suspect that it hasn't been shown to be a virtue of meditation in that context.

Can you link to any scientific study that has demonstrated that all information is in us?

 

[sealchan]

States of consciousness that go beyond the normal wakeful state. For instance, scientists have found that people who meditate are more aware of their brain activity (activity that would normally be unconscious to others) than non-meditators. This means that meditation expands your field of consciousness. The type of meditation that I practice takes this to the next level because not only does it make you aware of all of your brain but also the entire Universe.

People who meditate are more aware of their unconscious brain


You are correct.. consciousness exists everywhere. I brought up one of the physical consequences. Being aware of what would regularly be unconscious in most others. I accept that 'acquired' savant syndrome can also be an effect of meditation because some have experienced omniscience during meditation.

In a discussion of meditation and science I think it is important to distinguish between ones beliefs about meditation from what can be demonstrated scientifically. Making claims about the extent of consciousness and that there are higher levels is not supported by science.

David Chalmers, the philosopher, has posited consciousness as a fundamental property of the Universe, but there is no experimental evidence for this that is falsifiable. His argument takes on the form of a capitulation to mystery.

Douglas Hofstadter, a cognitive scientist who has a philosophical approach, has made much of the problem of self-reference in human cognition. In a rational exploration of cognition we often arrive at paradox. It is as if, as Daniel Dennet might say, we can see the sphexishness of our own mind.

I think that from a scientific perspective we must be suspicious any time we see the supernatural inside of the natural especially when it pertains directly to that which we identify ourselves with, our self-awareness. We are as like to be a human mouse running circles in a mobius wheel that we cannot cognitively escape from than to be in possession of God-like powers.

 

[Polymath257]

Imagine something that is the most readily available to man but we have little knowledge of it. I am referring to knowledge of the nature and origin of consciousness. This is the most important knowledge that anyone can have because without consciousness we would not "know" anything. From having this knowledge and experiencing it, I can tell you that discovering that nature of consciousness leads to the nature of reality. Therefore, the function that scientists assign to consciousness, as just a "brain" phenomenon is very limiting.

Well, the importance of this is your personal opinion. Not everyone shares that viewpoint. In fact, I consider too much emphasis on consciousness to be a sign of too much ego: thinking consciousness is special.

Yes, we would not know anything if we were unconscious, but that fact does not make consciousness the most important thing. it is simply a prerequisite for other, perhaps, more important things.

As for whether 'discovering the nature of consciousness' leads to 'the nature of reality' seems to be problematic for at least a couple of reasons. First, there is the question of whether you *actually* have determined the nature of consciousness, or whether you are simply self-deluded by your own experiences. Second, without other verification (which is lacking), there is no reason to think that knowing about consciousness will saying anything about particle physics, cosmology, or the cure for cancer. At most, it is one piece of knowledge about one aspect of reality. And it is far from clear that you actually have such knowledge.

 

[George-ananda]

Which is why scientists don't need to accept it.

It is not about 'needing' to do anything.

It is about learning about reality and the nature of consciousness and our being. It is not something you 'need' to do but for me it is the most enriching part of my existence.

 

[Polymath257]

It is not about 'needing' to do anything.

It is about learning about reality and the nature of consciousness and our being. It is not something you 'need' to do but for me it is the most enriching part of my existence.

Well, the OP is claiming science 'needs' to accept Eastern thought. I'm glad you also disagree.

As for the rest, see my post #149. Why should we believe Eastern thought really has discovered the nature of consciousness, let alone the larger issue of the nature of reality?

 

[Swami]

Well, I am waiting for a mystic to provide information that can be independently verified by a non-believer.

For example, make a prediction on a new particle and how to detect it. Or give the value of a reaction cross section for a reaction we have not yet observed. Or determine the mass of a neutron star. or the distribution of dark matter in some region.

There are plenty of things about the universe that, if the mystical view is correct, the new level of consciousness should be able to prove insights into. Instead, we only get stuff on psychology and a few experiences deemed mystical. While those might be useful information concerning which areas of the brain are relevant for certain states of consciousness, I fail to see anything that science in general needs to accept without a *lot* more specific evidence.

If you knew the nature of consciousness then you would not be concerned with these questions.

When I was younger, I used to take pride in being able to induce out-of-body experiences. I experienced telepathy and I chased after other special abilities. But I realized that I was wasting my time after I discovered the nature of consciousness. It is a waste of time to "explore" the Universe as something out there when I am the Universe. Everything you are experiencing is like a mental construct.

 

[Swami]

.
Alas, at this point our views diverge in major ways.

I know of many reasons to conclude that consciousness is generated by a working brain, and any example of it ceases to exist on the death of that brain. I know of nothing about reality that suggests reality itself is somehow conscious, or that there's only one consciousness and we all tap into it ─ there's never been a satisfactory demonstration of telepathy or other paranormal powers.

For instance, the sensation or conviction of knowing everything is entirely different to knowing everything in fact, just as it would be in a dream. Let one of these omniscient folk come back with ─ let's say ─ a formal proof or disproof of the Riemann hypothesis; or a testable demonstration of the nature of dark matter; or how to reverse global warming within the next twelve months, and I might have to change my mind. My extremely surprised mind.

Again, I suggest you use meditation to first discover the nature of consciousness. This also happens to be a scientific interest.

Once you discover this then you will understand how you can use meditation to obtain knowledge. You will understand that much of what you want to know is already in you but you don't realize it. You don't need to "learn" anything beyond self.

 

[Polymath257]

If you knew the nature of consciousness then you would not be concerned with these questions.

And so it is of no value to science since science *is* interested in such questions.

When I was younger, I used to take pride in being able to induce out-of-body experiences. I experienced telepathy and I chased after other special abilities. But I realized that I was wasting my time after I discovered the nature of consciousness. It is a waste of time to "explore" the Universe as something out there when I am the Universe. Everything you are experiencing is like a mental construct.

Such is your claim. Now prove it. Otherwise there is no good reason for science to devote any time to it at all.

 

[Polymath257]

Again, I suggest you use meditation to first discover the nature of consciousness. This also happens to be a scientific interest.

Once you discover this then you will understand how you can use meditation to obtain knowledge. You will understand that much of what you want to know is already in you but you don't realize it. You don't need to "learn" anything beyond self.

Such is your claim. But that appears ego driven to me. If meditation provides knowledge, as opposed to self-delusion, then it should be able to give some answers that can be verified independently. I gave a few examples of good questions, which you then dismissed.

 

[George-ananda]

Well, the OP is claiming science 'needs' to accept Eastern thought. I'm glad you also disagree.

As for the rest, see my post #149.

OK, I went back and read your post #149.

Why should we believe Eastern thought really has discovered the nature of consciousness, let alone the larger issue of the nature of reality?

I believe Eastern thought has the best answers from my personal consideration of the paranormal, psychic and spiritual. The materialist thought fails to have an answer to this input (much beyond denialism). Eastern and Theosophical masters present a model involving extra dimensions that makes sense of phenomena materialists pretty much wish to deny.

The Eastern thought with the deeper insights of the masters is IMO the highest philosophical reach mankind has made.

Also I think the key to advancement of science of the future and its eventually merger with Eastern thought will come from a recognition of the primacy of consciousness and life through extra-dimensional bodies.

 

[Swami]

The only objective approach for science is through evidence that are observable, verifiable and testable.

You did not mention field research. When scientists refuse to engage in meditation but yet are against it for reasons then they are engaging in philosophy. A true scientist would place field research over philosophy.

So my questions to you is this, Swami:
What would happen if scientific evidences can refute a specific concept of Eastern thoughts?

I am willing to reevaluate my claims.

Do you ignore the evidence for the sake of Eastern thoughts?

I do not ignore science. I should also say that a lot of Western scientists are flocking to the Dalai Lama.

 

[Swami]

Omniscience should be demonstrable in the lab but I suspect that it hasn't been shown to be a virtue of meditation in that context.

Can you link to any scientific study that has demonstrated that all information is in us?

I will start another discussion to discuss this topic

 

[Swami]

Such is your claim. But that appears ego driven to me. If meditation provides knowledge, as opposed to self-delusion, then it should be able to give some answers that can be verified independently. I gave a few examples of good questions, which you then dismissed.

I did not dismiss your claims. What I suggested you do is to go experience this for yourself. My reason for this is that answering all of your questions will not convince you. No one changes their mind from a "debate". The evidence shows that many, including atheists, convert to theism after they experience.

 

[Polymath257]

I did not dismiss your claims. What I suggested you do is to go experience this for yourself. My reason for this is that answering all of your questions will not convince you. No one changes their mind from a "debate". The evidence shows that many, including atheists, convert to theism after they experience.

On the contrary, beliefs are changed by evidence. Give some evidence of knowledge beyond what science already knows and there will be the kernel of belief.

I can always fool myself. Especially when the conclusions are only based on my own experience. What is *truly* convincing isn't my own experiences, but going beyond what is currently known and showing access to something more.

 

[Polymath257]

OK, I went back and read your post #149.

I believe Eastern thought has the best answers from my personal consideration of the paranormal, psychic and spiritual. The materialist thought fails to have an answer to this input (much beyond denialism). Eastern and Theosophical masters present a model involving extra dimensions that makes sense of phenomena materialists pretty much wish to deny.

The Eastern thought with the deeper insights of the masters is IMO the highest philosophical reach mankind has made.

Also I think the key to advancement of science of the future and its eventually merger with Eastern thought will come from a recognition of the primacy of consciousness and life through extra-dimensional bodies.

Publicly testable predictions will go a long way towards convincing skeptics.