Why Scientists need to accept Eastern thought

[Audie]

None of this means we need to accept "eastern thought" in our scientific work, which is what the OP was suggesting.

You seem unable to focus on the subject of the thread and to persist in making irrelevant general assertions. Is this, perhaps, because you are employing "eastern thought", do you think? Could that be the source of the woolliness in your thinking that is preventing you from being able to stick to the subject?

This "USA is only 200 yrs old so..l" is such garbage.

If the Americas had been peopled by "eastern" folks would
they have left all their culture and wisdom behind?
But westerners did? Sheesh.

A big part of the genius of western thought
and general success is precisely in shaking off
the dust and mold of the stagnant societies
left behind, and blending the strong and good
from many cultures.

Chinese society was stagnant and weak.
Shake it up a bit, abandon stupid regressive
practices (see oppression of women) and
see what happened!

If eastrrn culture elsewhere is sooo enlightened
they must surely have eliminated the caste system
and oprression of women.

Wooley thinking and garbage laden claims are not indicators
for a system of thought that will be a terrif boost to
Western science.

 

[Polymath257]

I´m very pleased to read your "OUR BIASES". One of you own biases consists clearly of the lack of connecting philosophical discussions with "substances in the real world", which otherwise is the essence of natural/philosophical thinking.

Well, I consider the philosophical notion of 'substance' to vague to be useful for understanding. It is also based on what we now know are false intuitions.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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?

Scientists will adopt any idea that the evidence supports.

Why hasn't the evidence supported adopting the parts of "eastern thought" that scientists haven't adopted?

 

[Native]

Well, I consider the philosophical notion of 'substance' to vague to be useful for understanding. It is also based on what we now know are false intuitions.

It cannot be any worse than "dark matter" which substance isn´t found - and which I find is based on false intuitions because modern cosmological scientists don´t include natural philosophy and thinking in their cosmological works.

 

[Nanoha]

And that is where you are wrong. We can, and do, replicate the types of physical evidence we find about historical events to see if we can reproduce the observations. So, people do test to see if it is possible to build large building using the suspected techniques of the Egyptians. We have extensive testing of the dating methods, the archeological techniques, etc.

Simply being a historical science doesn't mean testing is impossible. It is just a different sort of testing.

Doing such things will never tell us whether Caesar crossed the Rubicon, or whether Socrates or Jesus existed.

There are no such concepts.

Don't employ skepticism for philosophy but reserve it completely for science. It's uncontroversial and self-evident to say that the world exists and that our senses allow us to know anything about it, but really, there's no evidence for either of those things if you want to be extremely skeptical. But if you're that skeptical, empirical knowledge is impossible.

Sure. Kant used geometry as an example of a synthetic a prior set of truths. We now know that geometry needs to be verified by observation because there is more than one possible geometry.

Most philosophical discussions of the concept of 'substance' are nonsense. They tend to be rearrangements of our biases and have little to do with what has actually been discovered about the substances in the real world.

When Chalmers proposed his idea of a philosophical zombie, he assumed that his ability to imagine a possible world where consciousness and the physical are separated means that supervenience was disproven.

I can go on and on: from Aristotle's ideas about physics, to Plato's ideas about his cave, to Berkeley's ideas about mind. Philosophy is rife with ideas the proponents consider to be 'obvious' that are either meaningless or simply false.

You clearly don't know what it means for knowledge to be synthetic a priori. New findings in geometry, namely non-Euclidean geometry have in fact intensified the concerns Kant raised about mathematical knowledge. What's really obvious is that you haven't read any of these thinkers; that you don't understand substance shows you haven't even gotten as far as Aristotle's Categories. And "[they] have little do with what has actually been discovered about substances in the real world?" Do you even know what philosophy is about? It's not chemistry.

 

[ecco]

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'. [/quote]

Please show one invention or one discovery that resulted from meditation.

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.

Please show one invention or one discovery that resulted from sensory deprivation.

 

[osgart]

What is the Scientific Manifesto on the issue of morality and how to treat others?

What is the wisdom of science?

Knowledge is half the battle. What about wisdom, and subjective reality, freedoms and expressions?

Is Science also a world view and an way of life for all to conform to?

Does Science have boundaries? Or is it every facet of living life?

 

[Polymath257]

Doing such things will never tell us whether Caesar crossed the Rubicon, or whether Socrates or Jesus existed.

With Socrates, we see him mentioned in several independent sources (Plato, Aristophanes, Xenophon). That is a type of tesability. The basic story of Jesus doens't seem to unreasonable for that place and time. That the story became a myth later is an aspect of how humans work. Ceasar crossed the Rubicon at some point because he was in Gaul (verified in any number of ways) and was then in Rome (also verified in any number of ways).

Don't employ skepticism for philosophy but reserve it completely for science. It's uncontroversial and self-evident to say that the world exists and that our senses allow us to know anything about it, but really, there's no evidence for either of those things if you want to be extremely skeptical. But if you're that skeptical, empirical knowledge is impossible.

Funny, I have seen more than one debate on exactly the point you consider to be uncontroversial. In some ways, it is even at the base of much science denialism.

You clearly don't know what it means for knowledge to be synthetic a priori. New findings in geometry, namely non-Euclidean geometry have in fact intensified the concerns Kant raised about mathematical knowledge.

Yes, it has shown math to not be synthetic a priori. We need to make observations about the universe to know its geometry, for example.

Math is ultimately a language: it is not a collection of truths (except, potentially, that certain things are derivable from others).

What's really obvious is that you haven't read any of these thinkers; that you don't understand substance shows you haven't even gotten as far as Aristotle's Categories.

I have read them. I just think they are badly wrong. There is a difference.

And "[they] have little do with what has actually been discovered about substances in the real world?" Do you even know what philosophy is about? It's not chemistry.

Exactly. At best, it forces us to look at our assumptions. At worst, it claims to find truths about how things must be. Philosophy is best when it asks questions and worst when it answers them.

 

[ajay0]

Is this another entry for non sequitur prize of the month?

No, I have only described the trend in which western philosophy was and is going at the moment !

I would say I would deserve the Nobel Prize for peace if I can put the lid down on philosophies like nihilism and existentialism which are potentially dangerous with their argument that all values are abstractly contrived and irrevelant in itself, and which fuelled the thought process for the second world war. Even communism too have a nihilistic element in it, which explains the concentration camps of Stalin and Mao which killed millions of Russians and Chinese.

 

[ajay0]

None of this means we need to accept "eastern thought" in our scientific work, which is what the OP was suggesting.

We are not forcing eastern philosophy on anyone.

Only that immatured western philosophies mentioned earlier is incomplete and can be dangerous for intellectual consumption in the absence of other philosophies with a differing pov and a wider perspective.

 

[Swami]

I apologize for the late responses. I had many internet connection problems but I was able to read comments.

The comments against my view of integrating Eastern thought into science boil down to two points:
- The Eastern view has not produced any scientific valuable findings.
- The Eastern approaches, like meditation, does not conform to the scientific method.

The first point is beyond the scope of the discussion here. I will address the second point.

The purpose of science is to understand how the Universe works. To do this, scientists rely on methods that help ensure that they explore the world objectively (perceiving or dealing with phenomena as they are).

So where does meditation fit in?
In post 1, I already explained how “meditation” is objective even if it is a first-person approach. An obvious area where this type of method would be useful to science is in the study of consciousness. The nature of consciousness itself involves some “private” or first-person facts and phenomenology. If so, it does not make sense as one member claimed, for science to be only about “public” observation. History shows that science has relied on the practice of “introspection”. Although, it would found to be unreliable at times, but it is necessary, and if you integrate the Eastern approach, we have a superior approach in meditation. The lesson here is how can you claim that science is “public” if all of the phenomena in the Universe are not “public”? If we deal with consciousness objectively (as it is), then we can say that it contains a subjective level and science must adopt tools to deal with it as such.

 

[Swami]

So two people using meditation to access different states of consciousness experience the same thing?
Or are you suggesting there are multiple objective truths?

Not all meditation leads to the same experience. I practice 'raja yoga' (particularly 'samadhi') which is a practice that is rooted in Hindu philosophy. This is similar to transcendental meditation.

But to answer your question, I say yes. If two people practice samadhi or TM then it will lead to the same type of experience. The experiences from this form of meditation reveals the nature of consciousness. These experiences point to the conclusion that matter does not exist independently of consciousness.

So two people using meditation to access different states of consciousness experience the same thing?
Or are you suggesting there are multiple objective truths?

Not all meditation leads to the same experience. I practice 'raja yoga' (particularly 'samadhi') which is a practice that is rooted in Hindu philosophy. This is similar to transcendental meditation.

But to answer your question, I say yes. If two people practice samadhi or TM then it will lead to the same type of experience. The experiences from this form of meditation reveals the nature of consciousness. These experiences point to the conclusion that matter does not exist independently of consciousness.

 

[Swami]

No and I doubt you will find any serious Indian scientist who thinks so either.

As @Polymath257 has pointed out, most of what you have written is philosophy (or metaphysics) and not science. From the way you write it looks as if you do not understand the difference.

The essence of science is empiricism: reliance on objective observation of nature - or as near to objective as we can get - by means of reproducible observation of its behaviour. Science formulates testable hypotheses - testable by further observation - to account for the patterns observed. If you stray away from reproducible observation and testable hypotheses, you are not doing science any more.

There is not a single reference to either, in your entire post.

If you want to make a case that "Eastern thought" has a contribution to make, you would do well to consider how it can help either with making objective observations or - perhaps more likely - how it may be able to help with the creative process of formulating testable hypotheses.

Meditation involves experience (observations, perceptions). It can involve testing when multiple people can experience the same state. It can involve replicability when the practice and experience can be repeated.

 

[Swami]

Sure it is public and repeatable. It is repeatable just as personal sensory experience is repeatable and it is public via EEG monitoring.

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.

 

[Polymath257]

I think that the fact that people have the experiences they have while meditating can and should be considered by science.And it is.

It is, perhaps, a useful piece of information concerning how the brain works.

 

[Swami]

You will let us know when "eastern thought" actually
leads to some sort of accomplishment?

Eastern thought has accomplishments but mainly when it comes to psychology. In this discussion I am mainly concerned with consciousness. Certain practices reveal that we can be separate from our thoughts and feelings. Western science labels this "depersonalization" disorder but in Eastern thought this is not so. The reality is that you are not your thoughts, your mind, nor even your body. HOw you react to this, whether it is with fear vs. empowerment, determines how this reality affects you.

 

[Swami]

It's plain that the West's scientific method has made possible the acquisition of a great deal of knowledge and that the method has been adopted in the East and forms the basis of, not so much Eastern or Western these days, but world science.

So what knowledge, specifically, are you referring to?

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.

Are you saying that the benefits of meditation aren't amenable to scientific investigation?

The benefits of meditation can be studied by science, but my points have been about using meditation itself to obtain knowledge.

Further, what do you mean by 'mystic' here? What qualifications do 'mystics' have to analyze and explain brain function?

I am referring to the Indian mystics who devoted themselves to spiritual practices. They were certainly not scientists but don't focus so much on the "who" but rather on the "what". Meditation works to reveal the nature of consciousness regardless of who first practiced it.

We need a good, clear, hard-edged definition of consciousness here. My not-very-informed understanding is that 'consciousness' in the East has a significantly different meaning to 'consciousness' as used in the West. For example, 'consciousness' for me refers basically to being awake and aware. It doesn't include being asleep, it doesn't include the very many non-conscious brain functions and it doesn't include anything external to the brain.

What does 'consciousness' mean in the East, in your view?

Consciousness exists at the most fundamental level of reality. It is awareness. It is simply the witness of existence.

 

[blü 2]

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.


The benefits of meditation can be studied by science, but my points have been about using meditation itself to obtain knowledge.


I am referring to the Indian mystics who devoted themselves to spiritual practices. They were certainly not scientists but don't focus so much on the "who" but rather on the "what". Meditation works to reveal the nature of consciousness regardless of who first practiced it.


Consciousness exists at the most fundamental level of reality. It is awareness. It is simply the witness of existence.

Thanks for those answers.

My suspicion is that mysticism is not about facts but (like much of life) emotional states. I hope it doesn't sound too aggressive to observe that so is the consumption of alcohol, marijuana and a variety of drugs, and that drugs have a central and ancient place in many cultural religious traditions ─ not to mention wine.

Or to put that another way, what's an example of useful knowledge discovered by eg "Indian mystics who devoted themselves to spiritual practices"?

And am I correct in thinking that Eastern mysticism, unlike Western, considers consciousness / awareness to be present during sleep, and to be a single thing present everywhere rather than a phenomenon of individual brains? If that's correct then the hypothesis would clearly entail physical consequences amenable to scientific investigation, would it not?

 

[blü 2]

I´m very pleased to read your "OUR BIASES". One of you own biases consists clearly of the lack of connecting philosophical discussions with "substances in the real world", which otherwise is the essence of natural/philosophical thinking.

There's a philosophy of science.

Within science there are fairly robust theories of 'substance' eg the relation of all particles to mass-energy, the distinction between hadrons and leptons&photons and the role of the strong force in general, the nature of kinetic energy, and so on.

What in your view is "the essence of natural/philosophical thinking" in this context?

 

[Swami]

Thanks for those answers.

My suspicion is that mysticism is not about facts but (like much of life) emotional states. I hope it doesn't sound too aggressive to observe that so is the consumption of alcohol, marijuana and a variety of drugs, and that drugs have a central and ancient place in many cultural religious traditions ─ not to mention wine.

Or to put that another way, what's an example of useful knowledge discovered by eg "Indian mystics who devoted themselves to spiritual practices"?

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

And am I correct in thinking that Eastern mysticism, unlike Western, considers consciousness / awareness to be present during sleep, and to be a single thing present everywhere rather than a phenomenon of individual brains? If that's correct then the hypothesis would clearly entail physical consequences amenable to scientific investigation, would it not?

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.