Mind expansion

[Sriram]

Even if there is some value in the concepts he wants to talk about, ideas - "beyond the scope, methods and tools of science", why the heck does he want scientists to drop their work, understanding and improving our material existence, and start investigating these phantasms instead?

Isn't that a job for shamans and poets?

You want evidence that such other phenomena exist. You however don't want scientists to drop their 'useful' work and investigate such things because you believe they are phantasma (sic). You then again keep demanding evidence that they are not phantasma (sic).

As circular an argument as it gets!   

[Sriram]

Then, in the absence of any methodology, any means by which claims which have no evidence of events which leave no trace and are indistinguishable from events that didn't happen, how are we to determine whether there's anything there?

Methodologies might start off imperfectly, certainly, but they have something to start from. The current range of sciences started off as 'natural philosophy' or somesuch, and evolved over time, but they were a gradually refined set of 'rules' for looking at things, trying eliminate preconceptions and biases and the like, and ending up with a system. An imperfect system, but a useful system nonetheless.

Even the basis for a methodology would be a start, otherwise all you have is unsubstantiated claims, and you don't need science to dismiss those, they can be dismissed on the same basis as they were claimed - absolutely nothing at all.

O.

So...your assumption is your conclusion.....?!   

[Udayana]

You want evidence that such other phenomena exist. You however don't want scientists to drop their 'useful' work and investigate such things because you believe they are phantasma (sic). You then again keep demanding evidence that they are not phantasma (sic).

As circular an argument as it gets!   

No, I don't want such evidence as there can be none. If there were any known material effects we would be investigating them. Many claims have been investigated and come to nothing. Why would you expect immaterial "energies" (as you don't like "phantasms") to have material effects that can be investigated using scientific methods?

There is value in many of these ideas and they can be investigated, but not objectively.

[Sriram]

No, I don't want such evidence as there can be none. If there were any known material effects we would be investigating them. Many claims have been investigated and come to nothing. Why would you expect immaterial "energies" (as you don't like "phantasms") to have material effects that can be investigated using scientific methods?

There is value in many of these ideas and they can be investigated, but not objectively.

You are agreeing with me then... that.....reality could be composed of many aspects, of which only the material can be investigated by science and the non material cannot be objectively investigated!  That is fine then!

But you feel that the non material can still be investigated...how?

[Udayana]

Poetry, art, music, mythology. Religious practice - meditation, introspection. Physical activity - running, swimming, climbing. Talking, dreaming, sharing, loving, working ... by living your life? Suffering and dying.

Just don't assume that your experiences are necessarily worth anything to anyone else.

[torridon]

You are agreeing with me then... that.....reality could be composed of many aspects, of which only the material can be investigated by science and the non material cannot be objectively investigated!  That is fine then!

But you feel that the non material can still be investigated...how?

There is matter and there is energy and there is transmutability between the two.  Energy is the non material stuff, and we know a fair bit about it.  Is there reason to believe there is in addition some other non-material stuff that is not energetic ?

[Outrider]

So...your assumption is your conclusion.....?!

My conclusion is that if you don't even have the basis of a methodology to offer, you've given me no reason to accept your claim. Science has a methodology, it has a justification for the claims it makes. Those claims can prove to be wrong, when further data emerges, that's fine, but with the best information available you have a basis for your claim.

Without a methodology you just have an assertion, and assertions can be dismissed with an equally (in)valid counter-assertion: Oh no it isn't!

O.

[Sriram]

My conclusion is that if you don't even have the basis of a methodology to offer, you've given me no reason to accept your claim. Science has a methodology, it has a justification for the claims it makes. Those claims can prove to be wrong, when further data emerges, that's fine, but with the best information available you have a basis for your claim.

Without a methodology you just have an assertion, and assertions can be dismissed with an equally (in)valid counter-assertion: Oh no it isn't!

O.

The methodologies that you are binding yourself with are precisely the limitations I am referring to.   If you always need a methodology to observe and understand the world....it automatically imposes a severe limitation on you. 

You are  living.... and living itself is an experience and a source of information. The 'objective reality' stuff that we have gotten obsessed  with has only limited applicability. Life and death are still subjective. So are Mind and Consciousness....as also the Self. Most life experiences are subjective.

What we refer to as 'objective reality' is just the framework within which we exist.  By understanding that we don't understand ourselves. We still remain external observers to all reality. So...what is it that observes? What is the subject?

It is only through introspection and an understanding of our mind that we begin to understand ourselves. And it is incorrect to just brush of the subjective reality as imaginary or delusional.....something the brain does.

The subjective aspects of reality often meet the objective world. These effects can be observed and even perhaps documented. But to accept them as genuine effects of a real phenomenon, we need to develop appropriate methodologies and systems that can do the job.

But for this to happen, we need to take subjective experiences seriously and as part of the reality of this world. This is what is missing.

For example, if we all are born blind and only one person can see Light, would it be an objective reality or merely a subjective experience of one person?!

[torridon]

Measuring subjective experience is notoriously problematic though.  So unreliable that science has mostly eliminated it altogether to date concentrating on objective approaches.  If we can use an insentient instrument to take a measurement we can be pretty sure it isn't going to lie or have an off day or be subject to mood swings or be mistaken or have subconscious agendas or desires of its own.  Humans by contrast are chock full of such issues and this introduces noise into the data which is hard to eliminate. And all that presupposes that what you are measuring is amenable to calibration anyway; it is not easy to measure feelings.

[Sriram]

Measuring subjective experience is notoriously problematic though.  So unreliable that science has mostly eliminated it altogether to date concentrating on objective approaches.  If we can use an insentient instrument to take a measurement we can be pretty sure it isn't going to lie or have an off day or be subject to mood swings or be mistaken or have subconscious agendas or desires of its own.  Humans by contrast are chock full of such issues and this introduces noise into the data which is hard to eliminate. And all that presupposes that what you are measuring is amenable to calibration anyway; it is not easy to measure feelings.

You are obsessed with measurement.....which is a fallout of your science background. This itself could the problem. New generations may have to think beyond measurements.

How will blind people 'measure' light? How can that one person who sees light convince all the blind people that Light exists?

[SusanDoris]

You are obsessed with measurement.....which is a fallout of your science background. This itself could the problem. New generations may have to think beyond measurements.

Well, I just hope that if that happens, the people doing said thinking are not designing or constructing planes.

How will blind people 'measure' light? How can that one person who sees light convince all the blind people that Light exists?

The human species has been around for a million years or so, and in that time they have learnt that measurements made of the world around them, when found to be consistent and objective over a long period of time can be relied upon by others, whether blind or not, and do not need re-measuring every time. If this had not been the case, we would have become extinct.

[Outrider]

The methodologies that you are binding yourself with are precisely the limitations I am referring to.   If you always need a methodology to observe and understand the world....it automatically imposes a severe limitation on you.

Without a methodology, though, you're just throwing out innumerable equally invalid claims.

You are  living.... and living itself is an experience and a source of information. The 'objective reality' stuff that we have gotten obsessed  with has only limited applicability. Life and death are still subjective. So are Mind and Consciousness....as also the Self. Most life experiences are subjective.

Right, but what are they subjective experiences of? Whilst some subjective experiences are all well and good (and some aren't), it's difficult to determine how to improve them in a reliable fashion if you just settle for subjectivity.

What we refer to as 'objective reality' is just the framework within which we exist.  By understanding that we don't understand ourselves. We still remain external observers to all reality.

How do you know, unless you examine it. Without a methodology to determine if your subjective claim (or, at least, my subjective experience of reading what I think is your subjective claim) how do we actually know if we're external observers to reality, or simply complex parts of a more complex universe struggling to organise itself against ongoing entropy?

So...what is it that observes? What is the subject?

Why ask the question if you're happy with your subjective determination that we're external?

It is only through introspection and an understanding of our mind that we begin to understand ourselves.

Perhaps - certainly I'm inclined to agree with you - all we're differing on is how we understand that mind. You're looking for introspection, I'm looking to neurology, information theory and biochemistry.

And it is incorrect to just brush of the subjective reality as imaginary or delusional.....something the brain does.

Does it? My subjective experience is that my subjective experience is, at best, questionable - that's probably just something my brain does from it's subjective understanding, right?

The subjective aspects of reality often meet the objective world. These effects can be observed and even perhaps documented. But to accept them as genuine effects of a real phenomenon, we need to develop appropriate methodologies and systems that can do the job.

But for this to happen, we need to take subjective experiences seriously and as part of the reality of this world. This is what is missing.

I'm not sure where it is that you think we're ignoring our experiences; what we're not doing is accepting all of them uncritically, that's a different thing.

For example, if we all are born blind and only one person can see Light, would it be an objective reality or merely a subjective experience of one person?!

It would be an objective reality that would be demonstrable with scientific equipment - much as, say, radio waves and gamma rays are. We're all blind to them, but we can practically demonstrate them, derive predictions from our understanding, and then validate those predictions. We might still have an imperfect understanding, but we've demonstrated that we've an imperfect understanding of something that's actually there, because it has effects.

O.

[torridon]

You are obsessed with measurement.....which is a fallout of your science background. This itself could the problem. New generations may have to think beyond measurements.

How will blind people 'measure' light? How can that one person who sees light convince all the blind people that Light exists?

Measurements are good; being precise enables us describe and model mathematically.  This is at the heart of the problem of using subjective experience, it isn't easily amenable to rigorous quantification.  If asked how hungry I am , I can only answer vaguely, a bit, not much, ravenous etc .  How bright is that light - very, dim, etc not really very precise.

Subjective experience varying so much from person to person is another issue; there is no way to ascertain if my experience of redness is the same as your experience of redness.  Everyone's experience is unique to them as everyone's brain is entirely unique.  We try to bypass the unreliable reporter problem wherever possible by for instance using galvanic skin response or magnetic resonance technology that way we can at least get some measurements regarding subjective responses although that still falls short of bona fide subjective reporting.