The Mystic way of knowing (for the skeptics)

[George-ananda]

In science we don't just want any answers. We want answers that are testable, measurable, and independently verifiable.

As a believer in the validity of many mystical and psychic experiences myself, I actually agree with you.

However, not being of the 'Scientism' mentality, I am also interested in what mystics and the psychically gifted tell us too. I am certainly a supporter of physical science but also in the studies of mysticism and psychic perceptions.

I would expect in the next century bridges between science and mysticism will start to be seen.

 

[epronovost]

But just because you don't understand the explanation doesn't mean it's bull.

It's not because I didn't understand the explanation that I think its bull.

 

[Left Coast]

As a believer in the validity of many mystical and psychic experiences myself, I actually agree with you.

However, not being of the 'Scientism' mentality, I am also interested in what mystics and the psychically gifted tell us too. I am certainly a supporter of physical science but also in the studies of mysticism and psychic perceptions.

I would expect in the next century bridges between science and mysticism will start to be seen.

I'm also interested in allegedly psychic or "mystical" phenomena. Unfortunately, what we find is that when people who are supposedly "psychic" undergo rigorous objective testing for their abilities...lo and behold, they're not actually psychic.

"Mystical experience" means different things to different people depending who you ask, but usually refers to some sort of altered state of consciousness. I don't have any issue acknowledging that people experience altered states of consciousness; the question becomes what causes them and what do they indicate (if anything).

 

[George-ananda]

I'm also interested in allegedly psychic or "mystical" phenomena. Unfortunately, what we find is that when people who are supposedly "psychic" undergo rigorous objective testing for their abilities...lo and behold, they're not actually psychic.

I disagree with that. Psychic abilities are a tricky thing to test. I believe there are innovative tests by scientists like Dr. Gary Schwartz that show indeed that something not understood by physical science at this time is occurring with the most gifted clairvoyants.

However even beyond testing, the world of the paranormal has shown me beyond reasonable doubt that dramatic things indeed lay outside the reach of current science.

In the top quality psychics/clairvoyants I have found a greater model of reality that can not be directly investigated by current science. Their claims of the super-physical realms dovetails much with the 'unexplainable' paranormal claims of millions of regular people.

"Mystical experience" means different things to different people depending who you ask, but usually refers to some sort of altered state of consciousness. I don't have any issue acknowledging that people experience altered states of consciousness; the question becomes what causes them and what do they indicate (if anything).

I agree that the word 'mystical' is vague in common usage. What I respect most are the consistent observations of the masters/gurus/Self-Realized that consciousness is all connected and ultimately One (Non-Dualism). Until I verify for myself the nature of reality, I (after my rather thorough consideration) consider what they say to be the highest and most reasonable philosophy of which I've been acquainted (and that includes the materialist model).

 

[syo]

View attachment 34527

We have flying planets and you don't call that magic? Magic is the mother of science. The whole cosmos is magical.

 

[Left Coast]

I disagree with that. Psychic abilities are a tricky thing to test. I believe there are innovative tests by scientists like Dr. Gary Schwartz that show indeed that something not understood by physical science at this time is occurring with the most gifted clairvoyants.

Sorry, no. Even a brief Google search reveals Dr. Schwartz's research as not scientifically rigorous:

How Not to Test Mediums | Skeptical Inquirer

Gary Schwartz's Subjective Evaluation of Mediums - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com

However even beyond testing, the world of the paranormal has shown me beyond reasonable doubt that dramatic things indeed lay outside the reach of current science.

How would something be shown to you "beyond testing?"

In the top quality psychics/clairvoyants I have found a greater model of reality that can not be directly investigated by current science.

How do you determine something is a "greater model of reality" (I assume this means a more accurate model?) without scientific investigation?

Their claims of the super-physical realms dovetails much with the 'unexplainable' paranormal claims of millions of regular people.

Well that's not surprising. Magic is always a potential explanation for unexplained phenomena - by definition, it can break any known rule of how the world works. But the problem is, when we learn more about the phenomena, the eventual explanation we uncover never ends up being magic. Magic, like God, is just an unfalsifiable catch-all explanation we insert to explain things we don't understand.

I agree that the word 'mystical' is vague in common usage. What I respect most are the consistent observations of the masters/gurus/Self-Realized that consciousness is all connected and ultimately One (Non-Dualism).

I'm not even sure what this means, much less how a person could ever come to such a conclusion.

 

[Milton Platt]

I'm now reading a book by Dr. Sy Garte, PhD biochemistry who has had over 200 scientific papers published in areas such as genetics, molecular epidemiology and cancer research.

His research and study of areas such as quantum mechanics, evolutionary biology , chaos theory and other areas gradually turned him from a dedicated and committed atheist to a believer in God, and in his case a Christian.

https://smile.amazon.com/Works-His-...r_1_1?keywords=sy+garte&qid=1574318658&sr=8-1 for any that are interested.

It will be interesting to read his published scientific paper demonstrating how he confirmed the presence of a deity using those fields of study. I won't hold my breath for publication.

 

[Valjean]

I accept that magic doesn't work but out of all of the scientific tools you posted you left out consciousness. Consciousness is not magic. Everything that we know of is based on our "awareness" of it. It is not too much of a leap to say that not only is "knowledge" based in our consciousness but all of the "Universe" is as well.

The Eastern mystics discovered that you don't need the bodily senses to "know". If anything, the senses only lead to an illusion that everything is separate from yourself. In the pure conscious state (without sensory and mental input) you perceive reality differently. Instead of perceiving the moon as seperate, you realize that you and the moon are one - there's really no separate existence. You can even experience as the moon experience.

While I agree with you about consciousness, I don't see how you can call it "scientific." It's intangible; we have no way to detect, observe, or measure it. It's not predictive or falsifiable.

 

[George-ananda]

Sorry, no. Even a brief Google search reveals Dr. Schwartz's research as not scientifically rigorous:

How Not to Test Mediums | Skeptical Inquirer

Gary Schwartz's Subjective Evaluation of Mediums - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com

The Skeptic's Dictionary? I am aware of all that. My opinion is that such pseudo-skepticism is really just ardent materialists' best effort to denigrate every figure or subject in the paranormal world with anything positive to say about anything.

I am sure such things appeal to where you are at so our debating that will not end.

How would something be shown to you "beyond testing?"

Through reasoned analysis of the quantity, quality and consistency of anecdotal reports. In such analysis I may not be able to formally show 'proof' but I can conclude 'beyond reasonable doubt' status.

How do you determine something is a "greater model of reality" (I assume this means a more accurate model?) without scientific investigation?

It has a stronger explanatory power than any other model. For example the paranormal shows me the model I subscribe to has explanatory power beyond that of the materialist model.

The extra-dimensional realms model makes better sense of anecdotal paranormal claims as opposed to the denialism and explain-away of the materialist model.

Well that's not surprising. Magic is always a potential explanation for unexplained phenomena - by definition, it can break any known rule of how the world works. But the problem is, when we learn more about the phenomena, the eventual explanation we uncover never ends up being magic. Magic, like God, is just an unfalsifiable catch-all explanation we insert to explain things we don't understand.

I already posted the following in this thread:

As a believer in the validity of many mystical and psychic experiences, I am not holding the position that the answers are 'magic'. I hold the position that our physical realm is just a subset of a greater reality that science can not yet directly detect with physical senses and instruments.

To call that 'magic' in the way you have comes across as an intentionally derogatory attitude. We say there is 'science' behind everything but our science at this time is restricted to the physical realm subset of all reality.

I'm not even sure what this means, much less how a person could ever come to such a conclusion.

Well, it is conceptually challenging for us to conceive of what anything not physical 'is'. However, if we want higher understandings we need to challenge our thinking. Denying paranormal phenomena after a point looks like desperate clinging to a universe inside-a-box we can kind of get our heads around.

 

[Wandering Monk]

We have flying planets and you don't call that magic? Magic is the mother of science. The whole cosmos is magical.

Flying planets?

Physics is the mother of 'flying planets.'

 

[ChristineM]

We have flying planets and you don't call that magic? Magic is the mother of science. The whole cosmos is magical.

Gravity is not magic while flying is the art of throwing yourself at the ground and missing.

 

[Swami]

Apart from being an unprovable, and probably irrelevant, assertion, that is an assertion about a subjective interpretation of a mental state.

I don’t see why that would be crucial to science, or for that matter to yoga and meditation.

The views that I and many other mystics are offering are very relevant to science. Eastern thought focuses on the nature of consciousness. This is the same focus of many scientists, and they have not explained consciousness. An increasing number of scientists consult with the Dalai Lama and other mystics so this should tell you something.

You also call the Eastern approach "subjective". The subjectivity in meditation is very different from the subjectivity you refer to. In the Western thought, subjectivity is limited to "mind", like the thoughts and feelings. In meditation, the experience is personal or private but it is not associated with the mind.

 

[Wandering Monk]

The views that I and many other mystics are offering are very relevant to science. Eastern thought focuses on the nature of consciousness. This is the same focus of many scientists, and they have not explained consciousness. An increasing number of scientists consult with the Dalai Lama and other mystics so this should tell you something.

You also call the Eastern approach "subjective". The subjectivity in meditation is very different from the subjectivity you refer to. In the Western thought, subjectivity is limited to "mind", like the thoughts and feelings. In meditation, the experience is personal or private but it is not associated with the mind.

 

[Swami]

I'm now reading a book by Dr. Sy Garte, PhD biochemistry who has had over 200 scientific papers published in areas such as genetics, molecular epidemiology and cancer research.

His research and study of areas such as quantum mechanics, evolutionary biology , chaos theory and other areas gradually turned him from a dedicated and committed atheist to a believer in God, and in his case a Christian.

https://smile.amazon.com/Works-His-...r_1_1?keywords=sy+garte&qid=1574318658&sr=8-1 for any that are interested.

Thanks for the reference.

Perhaps what is described above as intuition isn't a form of knowledge? Maybe it's better described as awareness?

Maybe mysticism skips over knowledge in favor of awareness?

Interesting way of looking at it. I am not a philosopher so I can't break down what knowledge means. I can say that you can't have knowledge without awareness.

 

[Left Coast]

The Skeptic's Dictionary? I am aware of all that. My opinion is that such pseudo-skepticism is really just ardent materialists' best effort to denigrate every figure or subject in the paranormal world with anything positive to say about anything.

I'll wait for you to actually interact with the substance of the critiques. Dr. Ryman identifies multiple basic flaws in both Schwartz's methodology and his interpretation of results.

I am sure such things appeal to where you are at so our debating that will not end.

I eagerly wait for such debate.

Through reasoned analysis of the quantity, quality and consistency of anecdotal reports.

What kind of "reasoned analysis" of such anecdotes would you do that's not scientific? What methodology do you use to select the anecdotes? What methodology do you use to analyze them?

In such analysis I may not be able to formally show 'proof' but I can conclude 'beyond reasonable doubt' status.

"Proof" is the stuff of math and logic. In science we look at evidence and our conclusions are probabilistic. I'm, again, fascinated to hear what non-scientific analysis you do to reach conclusions beyond a reasonable doubt.

It has a stronger explanatory power than any other model. For example the paranormal shows me the model I subscribe to has explanatory power beyond that of the materialist model.

That's always going to be the case with magic/God/the supernatural, because by definition those explanations can break any known rules of how the world works, so they can therefore be used to explain literally any data. That's why explanatory power is not enough to establish that a model is more accurate than its competitors. Models have to be falsifiable.

I already posted the following in this thread:

As a believer in the validity of many mystical and psychic experiences, I am not holding the position that the answers are 'magic'. I hold the position that our physical realm is just a subset of a greater reality that science can not yet directly detect with physical senses and instruments.

If this reality is non-physical then by definition science will never and can never detect it. So again, how did you determine it's there?

To call that 'magic' in the way you have comes across as an intentionally derogatory attitude. We say there is 'science' behind everything but our science at this time is restricted to the physical realm subset of all reality.

Science is not merely restricted to the physical "at this time," it's restricted to the physical by definition.

When you describe an explanation that operates exactly how magic is supposed to, as an unfalsifiable catch-all that defies physical laws and can literally explain any data, then I'm going to continue calling it magic. It's not derogatory, it's accurate.

Well, it is conceptually challenging for us to conceive of what anything not physical 'is'.

It's "conceptually challenging" because it contradicts the very notion of what existence means. To exist is an action that requires time and space. To say something "exists" outside time and space (ie, the physical) is therefore incoherent/meaningless.

However, if we want higher understandings we need to challenge our thinking.

Searching for what we want is a textbook recipe for confirmation bias. It's not about what we want, it's about what we can rationally, empirically demonstrate.

Denying paranormal phenomena after a point looks like desperate clinging to a universe inside-a-box we can kind of get our heads around.

Oh come on.

Can you imagine how amazing it would be if people could actually read other people's minds, or talk to dead people? I'd be thrilled! We would never have another cold case ever again. Innocent people would never languish in prison under false charges. Guilty people would never get off scott free.

My skepticism has nothing to do with not wanting these things to be true. It has to do with these claims not passing basic scientific scrutiny.

 

[Valjean]

We have flying planets and you don't call that magic? Magic is the mother of science. The whole cosmos is magical.

Magic is effect without cause. We know the causes of flying planets.
Perhaps amazing or awesome would be more accurate.

 

[Swami]

Well, anyway, that is the claim. But how can that claim be verified?

Suppose, for example, I experience 'being one with the universe'. How do I know that experience isn't just another illusion? How do I know that what I think is the 'true nature' really *is* the true nature?

And that gets to the more fundamental point. The very essence of the scientific outlook is skepticism. New ideas are adopted, but only after thorough testing by people who initially disagree with the ideas. That is an absolutely crucial aspect to how to approach knowledge: always be skeptical, especially when you have an intense experience.

This is tricky because consciousness has both unobservable and observable aspects. We may have a hard time proving beyond your own observation that you are one with the Universe, but we should be able to prove some of the implications. There would also be some objective effects. Such an experience would open the door to omniscience among other things.

Earlier this month, I brought up a mystic who gained omniscience while engaged in deep meditation. Fast forward today, we find scientists now saying that "meditation" can unlock a hidden genius in all of us. This finding was based on the fact that savant syndrome can be "acquired" and that meditation is one way to unlock it . In fact, one math savant, Jason Padgett, says that he sees math the way the Universe sees it.

 

[Swami]

While I agree with you about consciousness, I don't see how you can call it "scientific." It's intangible; we have no way to detect, observe, or measure it. It's not predictive or falsifiable.

Consciousness itself is unobservable but it has some observable effects. We can account for its existence indirectly by observing the things it effects. My worldview also has certain implications if true and some of this should be provable. I think the fact that science has not explained consciousness, nor does it seem that they have a way to even deal with it, is itself support for the Eastern worldview.

 

[Swami]

We use tools and peer review to eliminate our conscious or unconscious biases.

Bias is a product of the mind. It is not a product of awareness. It would help if you knew the difference between introspection and meditation.

 

[Swami]

We use tools and peer review to eliminate our conscious or unconscious biases.

Meditation is far superior to the introspection of the West. Here is one study:

"The accuracy of subjective reports, especially those involving introspection of one's own internal processes, remains unclear, and research has demonstrated large individual differences in introspective accuracy. It has been hypothesized that introspective accuracy may be heightened in persons who engage in meditation practices, due to the highly introspective nature of such practices. We undertook a preliminary exploration of this hypothesis, examining introspective accuracy in a cross-section of meditation practitioners (1–15,000 hrs experience). Introspective accuracy was assessed by comparing subjective reports of tactile sensitivity for each of 20 body regions during a ‘body-scanning’ meditation with averaged, objective measures of tactile sensitivity (mean size of body representation area in primary somatosensory cortex; two-point discrimination threshold) as reported in prior research. Expert meditators showed significantly better introspective accuracy than novices; overall meditation experience also significantly predicted individual introspective accuracy. These results suggest that long-term meditators provide more accurate introspective reports than novices."
Meditation Experience Predicts Introspective Accuracy

I explain this result as being due to the fact that meditation involves less "mental input" - less bias, less distortion.