Why the bias against materialism?

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Zero
Can you site any objective evidences of these approaches showing some sort of measurable insight? Or is it just the general wisdom of anyone with some common sense, with or without spending 10 years eating treebark and sleeping in a cave?

I went through this at the old PF with DT Strain where no matter how many different ways I put it, he never seemed to hear what I was saying. I say that because if you only knew how much this statement -- "Can you site any objective evidences of these approaches showing some sort of measurable insight?" -- does not make sense.

In another post I said that the standards for knowing (and evaluating) the material world and the inner world are very different. An objectifying method is totally appropriate for studying objects. But how are you going to apply an objective research method to something that is not an object, and can only be experienced inside a person? The best you might do is notice someone's body and brain waves are running calmer, but then you will miss what people are really doing because that part of the inner experience does not register on anything (as far as I know).

What you are doing is applying your intellect to this, and the intellect doesn't work with it. It has absolutely nothing to do with thinking and intellectual understanding. What it does have to do with is . . . hmmmmmm, finding a term that won't be misinterpreted . . . let's call it sensitivity.

It is possible to learn to become very still, so still one’s mind is utterly quiet. Achieving that alone can take years, but that’s just the beginning. In that silence and stillness one can, if one feels and listens “inward,” detect an inner brightness and pulse which does not seem physical. If one can follow it without disturbing it in any way (another skill that takes a lot of practice), something can happen which traditionally has been called union in the West, or samadhi in the East. It is a sort of merging of consciousness with that bright pulse, and once merged one experiences something very lovely indeed. The merging only lasts a short while, especially at first, but with practice one can stay with it for longer and longer periods.

I absolutely love it, am addicted to it, and look forward to it every morning first thing. The effects aren’t just during actual union; afterwards everything seems so clear, and I feel happy and content inside. (Now, that’s practical don’t you think? Think how much insanity goes on because people are discontent and unhappy.) Also, and this is how I think it contributes to wisdom, the experience unifies consciousness so that one becomes acutely aware of the “whole” view of reality. When I debate here, I am always relying on that view to help me think about the various “parts” of reality we all discuss. Having that contrast is invaluable to me.

Now imagine practing union for decades, feeling that day after day, until some part of you becomes convinced of certain things from what that experience has shown you. How are you going to “prove” it to others? It is impossible, and so I would never try. What I will do however, is point to the long and distinquished history of it, and how some of the worlds most esteemed people have recommended it.

So when you and others say “there is no effective system for acquiring knowledge than an objective method,” I have to dispute that. That may be all you know about, and maybe all you care about. But I know for a fact that there is a subjective method, practiced in a VERY precise way, which is every bit as rigorous as sound objectivity is, and that produces significant results with one’s own consciousness. If you opt to ignore it and it’s long history, choosing instead to participate only in material study, then you will certainly become informed about material processes won’t you? But you will know nothing about union and its benefits, and therefore ethically should refrain from blanket statements about inner practices, as well as claiming material study is the only effective kind of study.

 

[heusdens]

LW Sweeth:

Please tell me what is the use of finding "truth" in staring at one's navel for years..

What good is it? What will it solve?

 

[Zero]

But does it DO anything? Are you claiming it does anything? Apparently you are only making the claim that it makes you feel happy and whatnot, right?!?

 

[Iacchus32]

What is Prayer?

Well you guys, you can't judge a book by its cover -- which, is exactly what you're doing. Hmm ... Is this all that materialism has to offer? ... A superficial "exterior" explanation to things?

I'm afraid if you want to find anything deep, you're going to have to "go inside."

And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly." (Matthew 6:5-6).

 

[Zero]

Bring us back some sort of proof that there is an 'inside', and get back to us!

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Zero
But does it DO anything? Are you claiming it does anything? Apparently you are only making the claim that it makes you feel happy and whatnot, right?!?

I've watched this discussion go on. Let me add a few words to see if I can muck it up good. Actually I would like to tie what AG, Zero and LWS have been saying together.

AG has recognized that all experience is subjective. Even our experience of the objective is subjective. He claims this to be a reason why we may never know the complete truth. If we think about our own conscious experience we all know that it is not perfect because some days things just look different than other days. That's part of being human. So we try to objectify things by verifying results in multiple subjective experiences. IOW, we have other people make the same inquiries. So in a way we can think of our subjective nature as a filter of objective reality. And as AG said, we try to control it so that it doesn't interfere with our gaining knowledge of the objective world.

Now I will risk making Les gringe. I will admit I know practically nothing compared to Les on this experience that he speaks of so my point here will be completely intellectual to try to connect with the opponents of it. If you don't agree Les, please say so.

We all know that consciousness has many levels ranging from deep sleep all the way to running for your life. The higher the level of conscious, the more accurate the subjective view of the objective world is likely to be. I hope we all can agree on that. When you're asleep and dreaming, many times you don't even know your asleep and dreaming. WHAT IF... the experience that Les is speaking of is a way to tap into the "reality" of a higher level of consciousness? It does not give him any answers. It doesn't "do anything" as Zero put it. It only allows him to remove more of the filter and see more clearly objective reality. So perhaps he has an even better view into "the way things are"! Science is currently trying to understand consciousness. Is there any evidence to suggest that 1 million years from now, evolution wouldn't provide for an even higher level of consciouness? Perhaps this is why it is so difficult for us ape-like creatures to reach this level? Our brains are not fully developed for it yet. The problem then is that we cannot objectify this clear view of reality because no one who would be in a position to objectfy it is willing to consider it as a possibility. Tsk tsk.

Sometimes I think like this... Imagine you exists before life ever happened, witnessing everything around you in nature. Could you have ever imagined of such a thing as consciousness? Forget about the obvious flaw that it would take conciousness for you to do this exercise(Don't miss the point). I could never have imagined of such a thing. So how can I be too sure what nature has in store in the next million years?

I don't think we even understand our current level of consciousness, let alone make any statements about anything higher. I do agree with Zero's approach, however. So it follows that all we can do is continue to study and explore consciouness and be open to the possibilities.

Bottom line: I think Les has a point. A being at a lower level of consciouness making statements about consciouness as a whole is like trying to hammer shingles on a roof from the basement.

A sleeping person can rant on about all kinds of irrational stuff until they "wake up" and then they realize how foolish they were. Makes sense that this same thing could happen at any level of consciouness.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
Bring us back some sort of proof that there is an 'inside', and get back to us!

So where does the "depth" of meaning come from anyway? If not through "our soul?" And how does one develop "depth in character" if one relies exclusively on the edicts of science? ... i.e., an "external" answer which, for all intents and purposes has no meaning (according to science anyway).

Maybe you're just too lazy?

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by heusdens
Please tell me what is the use of finding "truth" in staring at one's navel for years..

I did not say one stares at one's navel.

If you read my last post, you should be able to understand why it bothers me to have people speak inaccurately and carelessly about what a serious inner practice really is. If I came to PF and acted goofy, made claims about being enlightened, argued in favor of supernaturalism, prophesied, etc., then I could understand being lumped in with those who do. But I participate here as a philosopher, not a bodhisattva or guru or sage or prophet or anyone else who’s supposed to be spiritually accomplished. And I dare say I hold my own when it comes to logic and reason and citing supporting evidence.

I am really quite conservative when it comes to calling something the “truth.” I only believe what I experience, and even after all the years of inner experience, I am not sure what it is (I do have some pretty strong opinions). I know I like it, and I believe it has made me wiser. That last claim, that it has contributed wisdom, is because of gaining the ability to look at things with a quiet mind. Without one’s mind constantly going, it easier to see things without bias. Such stillness also, as I stated in my last post, accentuates the “wholeview.” That I find to be incredibly useful to understanding things.

But in the end, I just love the feeling of it, and I personally don’t need any other reason beyond that to practice.

Originally posted by heusdens
What good is it? What will it solve?

It is good for me, and it solves nothing. So what? We already have a wonderful tool for solving things, and that is science. What more does one need in the way of that kind of tool?

This is a tool for feeling good and seeing more clearly. One can love it and one can love science . . . there is absolutely no conflict unless, that is, you are determined to say only one is to be allowed. To me, that is exactly what a materialist does, and that is exactly what an idealist does. Both are precisely the same as far as I am concerned: biased.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Fliption

Bottom line: I think Les has a point. A being at a lower level of consciouness making statements about consciouness as a whole is like trying to hammer shingles on a roof from the basement.

A sleeping person can rant on about all kinds of irrational stuff until they "wake up" and then they realize how foolish they were. Makes sense that this same thing could happen at any level of consciouness.

Not to ba a nag(ok, I'm being a nag), but you are making the assumption that there is a higher level than we are at now! It is like sitting in a basement, and trying to guess how many floors the building has...or more like sitting in a closed box, and speculating on whether or not there is anything outside of it at all.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
So where does the "depth" of meaning come from anyway? If not through "our soul?" And how does one develop "depth in character" if one relies exclusively on the edicts of science? ... i.e., an "external" answer which, for all intents and purposes has no meaning (according to science anyway).

Maybe you're just too lazy?

And maybe you are imagining that there is such a thing as a 'soul'.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
I did not say one stares at one's navel.

If you read my last post, you should be able to understand why it bothers me to have people speak inaccurately and carelessly about what a serious inner practice really is. If I came to PF and acted goofy, made claims about being enlightened, argued in favor of supernaturalism, prophesied, etc., then I could understand being lumped in with those who do. But I participate here as a philosopher, not a bodhisattva or guru or sage or prophet or anyone else who’s supposed to be spiritually accomplished. And I dare say I hold my own when it comes to logic and reason and citing supporting evidence.

I am really quite conservative when it comes to calling something the “truth.” I only believe what I experience, and even after all the years of inner experience, I am not sure what it is (I do have some pretty strong opinions). I know I like it, and I believe it has made me wiser. That last claim, that it has contributed wisdom, is because of gaining the ability to look at things with a quiet mind. Without one’s mind constantly going, it easier to see things without bias. Such stillness also, as I stated in my last post, accentuates the “wholeview.” That I find to be incredibly useful to understanding things.

But in the end, I just love the feeling of it, and I personally don’t need any other reason beyond that to practice.



It is good for me, and it solves nothing. So what? We already have a wonderful tool for solving things, and that is science. What more does one need in the way of that kind of tool?

This is a tool for feeling good and seeing more clearly. One can love it and one can love science . . . there is absolutely no conflict unless, that is, you are determined to say only one is to be allowed. To me, that is exactly what a materialist does, and that is exactly what an idealist does. Both are precisely the same as far as I am concerned: biased.

Based solely on this post, I can't imagine me and you having any disagreement. I think introspection and 'quieting the mind' are perfectly valid things to do. No, you haven't made any claims as far as seeing things that aren't there, or whatever, and what benefit you gain from your meditations seems perfectly valid from where I'm sitting.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
So where does the "depth" of meaning come from anyway? If not through "our soul?" And how does one develop "depth in character" if one relies exclusively on the edicts of science? ... i.e., an "external" answer which, for all intents and purposes has no meaning (according to science anyway).

Maybe you're just too lazy?

Well...ok, on a second look, if all you are claiming is that you can develop yourself through meditation, that is fine by me...if you are claiming that you can get some sort of supernatural power from it, I'll have to draw the line there!


(BTW, the common, non-supernatural benefits of meditation fall well within materialism, IMO)

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
One can love it and one can love science . . . there is absolutely no conflict unless, that is, you are determined to say only one is to be allowed. To me, that is exactly what a materialist does, and that is exactly what an idealist does. Both are precisely the same as far as I am concerned: biased.

Linking to my last post, I would ask, if this will allow for a clearer, less biased view, then why wouldn't science want to explore it? It would be the perfect scientific tool! The perfect situation is that scientist performing science are actually experiencing it while they are working. Lol. Is this not useful? Or have I over-simplified it? I'm thinking higher level. I understand that no one scientists today could ever accomplish a perfect situation.

 

[Iacchus32]

Yeah, what do you say we get our minds together and comtemplate on it!

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Fliption
Now I will risk making Les gringe. I will admit I know practically nothing compared to Les on this experience that he speaks of so my point here will be completely intellectual to try to connect with the opponents of it. If you don't agree Les, please say so.

We all know that consciousness has many levels ranging from deep sleep all the way to running for your life. The higher the level of conscious, the more accurate the subjective view of the objective world is likely to be. . . . WHAT IF... the experience that Les is speaking of is a way to tap into the "reality" of a higher level of consciousness? It does not give him any answers. It doesn't "do anything" as Zero put it. It only allows him to remove more of the filter and see more clearly objective reality. So perhaps he has an even better view into "the way things are"!

Well said Fliption. I avoid the word "higher" so I don't make anyone think there is "lower," but essentially I do see a true inner practice as evolving one's consciousness. Hey, maybe with that the evolution process itself evolves!

And yes, I really do see it as removing filters in a sense because if you can look at things without your mind already going in a certain direction, then it is going to reflect more accurately.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
Well...ok, on a second look, if all you are claiming is that you can develop yourself through meditation, that is fine by me...if you are claiming that you can get some sort of supernatural power from it, I'll have to draw the line there!


(BTW, the common, non-supernatural benefits of meditation fall well within materialism, IMO)

Yes, but if we do have such a capacity, why do we have this means at our disposal? And, why is it that for some reason, the whole thing has been handed down in the name of God? Both of which go back a long ways by the way ...

Therefore, why would it be so wrong to consider the possibility that this might be the means by which to make the "God connection?" It only seems like the "next logical" thing to do.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Zero
Based solely on this post, I can't imagine me and you having any disagreement. I think introspection and 'quieting the mind' are perfectly valid things to do. No, you haven't made any claims as far as seeing things that aren't there, or whatever, and what benefit you gain from your meditations seems perfectly valid from where I'm sitting.

Now that we've made up I hate risk spoiling it but I suppose I should be totally accurate.

When I said before that I still don't know what the inner experience is of, but that I have some strong opinions, I do feel this bright pulse I spoke of inside is not material or derived from materiality. I still do not know what it is except that it seems powerful, and gets me high when I am able to join with it.

I realize there are ways one could explain the experience by way of our physiology. Mine is just an impression, so it's not going to stand up in court even though it is an impression left from many years of practice. Yet I don't really care if I understand it thoroughly or not, it has been a unfailing friend whatever it is.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Well said Fliption. I avoid the word "higher" so I don't make anyone think there is "lower," but essentially I do see a true inner practice as evolving one's consciousness. Hey, maybe with that the evolution process itself evolves!

And yes, I really do see it as removing filters in a sense because if you can look at things without your mind already going in a certain direction, then it is going to reflect more accurately.

yeah I cringed a bit on the word "higher" my self. Perhaps "more evolved" is better?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And, why is it that for some reason, the whole thing has been handed down in the name of God?

Because who would believe it if you told the truth, that it was handed down by your great-uncle Skip?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
Because who would believe it if you told the truth, that it was handed down by your great-uncle Skip?

Yeah, a miraculous thing indeed, how the mind works! Whereas what would we be, without being conscious?

Thus when you realize it, and get right down to it, this all we really have. Hmm ... Maybe consciousness is the source of gravity? -- at least to "our beings" anyway.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Yeah, a miraculous thing indeed, how the mind works! Whereas what would we be, without being conscious?

Thus when you realize it, and get right down to it, this all we really have. Hmm ... Maybe consciousness is the source of gravity? -- at least to "our beings" anyway.

LOL, now you are just making stuff up!

 

[Iacchus32]

While I suppose meditation could just be a means by which to access the dopamine in the brain? In which case that would be the "natural" cause and effect of the whole thing now wouldn't it?

Hmm ... even so, maybe they could use meditation as a means to treat/prevent Parkinson's disease?

 

[Pyrite]

So really the whole argument was just a misunderstanding. So many things end that way.

Of course, the Idea that any scientifically minded person on this thread is avoiding, (and that I suppose i can say without ridicule, since I don't necessarily believe in it.) is that it may infact be the human soul, and that what one perceives as "moving with the pulse" is actually connecting with it, which brings us closer to who we are.

(This is, of course, speculation. I don't plan on starting a new religion, despite the tax benifits.)

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Pyrite
Of course, the Idea that any scientifically minded person on this thread is avoiding, (and that I suppose i can say without ridicule, since I don't necessarily believe in it.) is that it may infact be the human soul, and that what one perceives as "moving with the pulse" is actually connecting with it, which brings us closer to who we are.

Yes, and if science were somehow in its "speculative nature" of objectivity able to determine this, just think of all the recalculations that would have to be made!

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Pyrite
So really the whole argument was just a misunderstanding. So many things end that way.

Of course, the Idea that any scientifically minded person on this thread is avoiding, (and that I suppose i can say without ridicule, since I don't necessarily believe in it.) is that it may infact be the human soul, and that what one perceives as "moving with the pulse" is actually connecting with it, which brings us closer to who we are.

(This is, of course, speculation. I don't plan on starting a new religion, despite the tax benifits.)

We aren't avoiding it, we're still waiting for some sort of EVIDENCE!


You didn't read the whole thread, did you?

 

[Pyrite]

this post was a mistake. sorry.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Pyrite
this post was a mistake. sorry.

LOL

 

[Pyrite]

I was posting in two forums, and i posted the one for the other forum here.

anyway, This is the second time I've worked so hard to read an entire thread just to be accused of having not read it. yes, I read all 10 pages. It took a half a day.

anyway... yeah.

We aren't avoiding it, we're still waiting for some sort of EVIDENCE!

this kind of statement is part of the bias against materialists. It's not just that you won't believe that which isn't proven to you, you don't even bother to discuss it. I noticed that not even the person writing about it had dared to say that this might be it (make no mistake, I am not saying that it is.)

 

[Another God]

Originally posted by Fliption
if this will allow for a clearer, less biased view, then why wouldn't science want to explore it? It would be the perfect scientific tool! The perfect situation is that scientist performing science are actually experiencing it while they are working. Lol. Is this not useful? Or have I over-simplified it? I'm thinking higher level. I understand that no one scientists today could ever accomplish a perfect situation.

Science does explore meditation.

Part of my job in working in the UNSW Biomedical library, is photocopying articles for students studying off campus (honours, PHD sort of students). And one of those students is quite obviously studying the effects of meditation (or something), because each month I probably photocopy about 30 or 40 articles on Meditation. This has been happening for about 8 months now. There is TONS of research on Meditation.

But hmm...I think I have a contention with your earlier post... I'll come back to that when I have finished reading all of the posts.

 

[Another God]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
When I said before that I still don't know what the inner experience is of, but that I have some strong opinions, I do feel this bright pulse I spoke of inside is not material or derived from materiality. I still do not know what it is except that it seems powerful, and gets me high when I am able to join with it.

I realize there are ways one could explain the experience by way of our physiology. Mine is just an impression, so it's not going to stand up in court even though it is an impression left from many years of practice. Yet I don't really care if I understand it thoroughly or not, it has been a unfailing friend whatever it is.

I respect you for having avoided saying it, and now expressing it as an 'opinion' etc, but I do just want to take this moment to observe that this is exactly the sort of thing that Zero and myself (as well sa many others) get annoyed at with the anti-materialists...

When they do something like what you do, and then go about claiming that this stands as proof of a soul. Or even evidence. This doesn't even stand as evidence in my mind, and I would maintain that stance even if I was to experience it myself (because of the pure subjective nature of it) (although, hmmm...good counter point right about here would be: Of course the soul is purely subjective.)(But I don't like that option. I probably have a reason for not liking it which isn't detrimental to the second argument you presented, but I can't be bothered thinking of it right now...)

 

[Another God]

Originally posted by Fliption
AG has recognized that all experience is subjective. Even our experience of the objective is subjective. He claims this to be a reason why we may never know the complete truth. If we think about our own conscious experience we all know that it is not perfect because some days things just look different than other days. That's part of being human. So we try to objectify things by verifying results in multiple subjective experiences. IOW, we have other people make the same inquiries. So in a way we can think of our subjective nature as a filter of objective reality. And as AG said, we try to control it so that it doesn't interfere with our gaining knowledge of the objective world.

Let mne just reiterate a few points : Experience = subjective, and objective cannot be experienced. Objective must be translated into subjective before it can be experienced. How accurately it is translated is the issue.

What that experience means...that is entirely subjective. There is no objective meaning.

A huge proportion of Science is interpretting the data. Trying to discern meaning in the results...

We all know that consciousness has many levels ranging from deep sleep all the way to running for your life. The higher the level of conscious, the more accurate the subjective view of the objective world is likely to be. I hope we all can agree on that. When you're asleep and dreaming, many times you don't even know your asleep and dreaming. WHAT IF... the experience that Les is speaking of is a way to tap into the "reality" of a higher level of consciousness? It does not give him any answers. It doesn't "do anything" as Zero put it. It only allows him to remove more of the filter and see more clearly objective reality. So perhaps he has an even better view into "the way things are"!

Perhaps. but what sparked this insight? Why would you postulate that?

Science is currently trying to understand consciousness. Is there any evidence to suggest that 1 million years from now, evolution wouldn't provide for an even higher level of consciouness? Perhaps this is why it is so difficult for us ape-like creatures to reach this level? Our brains are not fully developed for it yet. The problem then is that we cannot objectify this clear view of reality because no one who would be in a position to objectfy it is willing to consider it as a possibility. Tsk tsk.

Linking with my statements above, do you really think 'Objectifying' our perception of reality would help? Do you think taking meaning away from our daily lives would help?

I believe we are perfectly* evolved to interact without environment. We percieve our objective environment on a perfectly well balanced subjective ground, and then that perception is understood quickly and meaningfully.

The scientific requirement to reduce things to lower levels of objective understanding is a strange one, and only appropriate in that isolated sphere. (ie: In the sphere of making absolute statements about what things are, or how things work) Once we know how things work etc, then we need to understand that and apply our meanings to it (without forgetting that it, in itself, contains no inherent meanings).



So in reply to the concept at large being discussed here: The concept of meditation allowing you access to a special type of perception: I doubt it is possible. Meditation may serve many many practical things: EG Meditation is an internal way of accessing the typically subconscious controls of your body. It is likely that meditation allows the meditator to alter physiological aspects which are normally below the conscious control level, and it may allow the meditator to access particular mental drugs etc which normally only occur with particular external stimulus etc...but these effects are in no way a reflection of external universal truths. (other than the fact that for every subjective experience, an objective brain function is occurring. (as it by todays understanding mostly likely seems to be.)

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Pyrite
I was posting in two forums, and i posted the one for the other forum here.

anyway, This is the second time I've worked so hard to read an entire thread just to be accused of having not read it. yes, I read all 10 pages. It took a half a day.

anyway... yeah.


this kind of statement is part of the bias against materialists. It's not just that you won't believe that which isn't proven to you, you don't even bother to discuss it. I noticed that not even the person writing about it had dared to say that this might be it (make no mistake, I am not saying that it is.)

Jeez, you DID read all of it? DAMN!

Well, what is there to discuss? Seriously, tell me which point would you like to discuss, specifically, and we'll do it up proper!

 

[Another God]

PS: If introspection was truly able to reveal any functional truths about the universe, about nature, about the mind, about the soul, or even about subjectivity itself, then why has no progress been made in any of these fields over the past 2000 years that introspection has been applied to it?

Why has the only degree of understanding that has been gained, all come from external inspection? (science)

The Correlation is obvious. The causation is undeniable.




PPS: I am not denying the beneficial aspects of meditation, prayer, introspection etc...Just observing the non-productive nature of them in the field of human understanding and progress.

 

[Another God]

Originally posted by Pyrite

We aren't avoiding it, we're still waiting for some sort of EVIDENCE!

this kind of statement is part of the bias against materialists. It's not just that you won't believe that which isn't proven to you, you don't even bother to discuss it.

There is good reason for that. If we were to discuss every topic that 'could be' then there would be an infinite high pile of papers requesting science to address the possibility.

The burden of proof is a practical thing, which has very important consequences.

We will discuss anything, as long as there is a reason to discuss it other than "I think..." or "This book says..." or "I had a dream..."

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Another God
PS: If introspection was truly able to reveal any functional truths about the universe, about nature, about the mind, about the soul, or even about subjectivity itself, then why has no progress been made in any of these fields over the past 2000 years that introspection has been applied to it?

Why has the only degree of understanding that has been gained, all come from external inspection? (science)

The Correlation is obvious. The causation is undeniable.




PPS: I am not denying the beneficial aspects of meditation, prayer, introspection etc...Just observing the non-productive nature of them in the field of human understanding and progress.

Yeah, but you don't get to feel all groovy when you deal with 'cold hard facts', you know?