People claiming "personal" surety of gods existance.

roosh

King Mob wrote: »

Thing is, no spiritual theories can be (or have been) verifiable.

Thing is there there are and have been.

Spiritual theories are verifiable, just as scientifc theories are, by individuals themselves. Just as with scientific theories, these can be published, and people who haven't verified them can choose to believe them, or undertake to verify themselves.

They may take a different form, the means by which they are taught may be different, the experiments required for verifying them may be different, as they differ across different scientific fields, but the theories of spirituality are verifiable from evidence gathered via sense experience, or to put it another way, empirically.

King Mob wrote: »

That's not what atomic theory is.
Atomic theory states that matter is composed of discrete units called atoms.
That's it.

Apologies, your right on that one. I had "illusion" in my head, which is where Atomic theory comes in. It is rather the study of visual perception and how what we see is just a representation in the mind, that corresponds to the statement that phenomena are dreamlike.

King Mob wrote: »

Also the thing is with relating current theories with stuff from ancient text is they are very easy to interpret after the fact.
Take the "predictions" of Nostrodamus for example.

Indeed, and apologies for the example above, however saying that phenomena are dreamlike, and the subsequent findings that our visual perception is just a representation in the mind, is arguably pretty accurate. It is however a minor point, as all spiritual theories are subject to empirical investigation, in a similar manner to those of scientific theories, namely by individuals for themselves.

King Mob wrote: »

I'd love to know how some spiritual theories can be any more supported by evidence than another, considering there is not verifiable evidence for any of them.

Some can be more supported than others in a number of ways. More people can investigate a spiritual theory for themselves, than another. A spiritual theory may perhaps make a claim that no one verifies, even through empirical investigation.

Or, as in the case of Buddhism, there may be a greater body of scientific research into the tradition that others.

Of course, any claim made by a spiritual tradition can be personally investigated, in a similar manner that a scientist must personally investigate a scientific claim, in order to know whether it is accurate or not - as opposed to believing their peers.

Choosing which spiritual tradition to investigate, might perhaps be similar to choosing which scientific field to forge a career in. Spirituality can however be practised/investigated in conjunction with any career.

King Mob wrote: »

Quantum Mysticism is basically butchering and misinterpreting quantum physics. Mostly for the purposes of making money.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mysticism

cheers for the link, I had heard of the term alright, when looking into QM, and read a tiny bit about it, but it wasn't the main focus of my search at the time, so I left it.

It is probably what is being referred to by Qmysticism, but one area that spirituality might be essential to the field of QM is with regard to the all-important observer. The reason being, that spirituality is focused mainly on the investigation, of the nature, of said observer.

King Mob

mangaroosh wrote: »

Thing is there there are and have been.

Spiritual theories are verifiable, just as scientifc theories are, by individuals themselves. Just as with scientific theories, these can be published, and people who haven't verified them can choose to believe them, or undertake to verify themselves.

They may take a different form, the means by which they are taught may be different, the experiments required for verifying them may be different, as they differ across different scientific fields, but the theories of spirituality are verifiable from evidence gathered via sense experience, or to put it another way, empirically.

That's not how science works.
Things that can be verified are done so by repetition and objective measurement.

Spiritual experiences cannot be objectively measured.

mangaroosh wrote: »

Apologies, your right on that one. I had "illusion" in my head, which is where Atomic theory comes in. It is rather the study of visual perception and how what we see is just a representation in the mind, that corresponds to the statement that phenomena are dreamlike.

Indeed, and apologies for the example above, however saying that phenomena are dreamlike, and the subsequent findings that our visual perception is just a representation in the mind, is arguably pretty accurate. It is however a minor point, as all spiritual theories are subject to empirical investigation, in a similar manner to those of scientific theories, namely by individuals for themselves.

I'm not following you were you're getting this connection.
But you really aren't describing Atomic theory.

mangaroosh wrote: »

Some can be more supported than others in a number of ways. More people can investigate a spiritual theory for themselves, than another. A spiritual theory may perhaps make a claim that no one verifies, even through empirical investigation.

Or, as in the case of Buddhism, there may be a greater body of [url=http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66932094&postcount=43scientific research[/url] into the tradition that others.

Of course, any claim made by a spiritual tradition can be personally investigated, in a similar manner that a scientist must personally investigate a scientific claim, in order to know whether it is accurate or not - as opposed to believing their peers.

Choosing which spiritual tradition to investigate, might perhaps be similar to choosing which scientific field to forge a career in. Spirituality can however be practised/investigated in conjunction with any career.

Again, all spirituality relies on subjective and unverifiable experiences that are indistinguishable from imagination or delusion.

Science relies on objective, verifiable measurements.

mangaroosh wrote: »

cheers for the link, I had heard of the term alright, when looking into QM, and read a tiny bit about it, but it wasn't the main focus of my search at the time, so I left it.

It is probably what is being referred to by Qmysticism, but one area that spirituality might be essential to the field of QM is with regard to the all-important observer. The reason being, that spirituality is focused mainly on the investigation, of the nature, of said observer.

And this is where most of the nonsense comes from.
The Observer effect doesn't come from some spooky magical beam that shoots out of your soul.

To observe a particle you must cause it to interact with another one, usually a photon, otherwise it could be observed..
It's this interaction that causes the effect.

roosh

King Mob wrote: »

That's not how science works.
Things that can be verified are done so by repetition and objective measurement.

Spiritual experiences cannot be objectively measured.

That would depend on the definition of objectivity and subjectivity, as well as the pre-conceptions about objective measurement.

A person's claims can be tested by experienced masters, with a proven lineage. The actions of an individual are equally an indicator of their level of realisation, as spiritual practice materially affects behaviour. The obvervance of behaviour, that runs counter to the behaviour predicted by spiritual theory, can be observed "objectively", by a large number of masters/individuals.

Of course, if there is a pre-conceived notion that objective measurement must be in the form of numbers, or can only be produced by machines, then this will run counter to it. This however is equally changing, with fMRI technology now being used to conduct scans on the brains of those who practice meditation, particularly Buddhist monks. The issue is that what is being objectively measured, is largely incsequential to the spritual theory, as it merely shows how the hypothesised affects materialise, while spirituality is more concerned with "whether they do or not".

Regardless, Spiritual practice is, conducted on the basis of empirical research and, as such, there is no need for "objective" measurement, as spiritual investigation can only be carried out by an individual themselves, and the beneifts of spiritual practice can be acquired by the spiritual practitioner - who judges for themselves whether or not they are realising the effects. That is, it is only the person themselves that can know if they understand impermanence, or if they feel happier, or if they have gained insights - which of course can also be verified objectively.

A person may lie about their spiritual experiences, but it is utterly immaterial, as it remains entirely down to other individuals as to whether or not they choose to believe the person's claims. Plus, if someone does lie, to use the old addage, "they are fooling no one but themselves".

Indeed, spiritual practice can offer an insight into the nature of objectivity and subjectivity.

King Mob wrote: »

I'm not following you were you're getting this connection.
But you really aren't describing Atomic theory.

mangaroosh wrote:

Apologies, your right on that one. I had "illusion" in my head, which is where Atomic theory comes in.

It is rather the study of visual perception and how what we see is just a representation in the mind, that corresponds to the statement that phenomena are dreamlike.

Indeed, and apologies for the example above....

As was acknowledged.

mangaroosh wrote:

Again, all spirituality relies on subjective and unverifiable experiences that are indistinguishable from imagination or delusion.

Science relies on objective, verifiable measurements.

Is the emboldened opinion or fact? Presumably opinion as the scientific research here would tend to completely disagree.

On issue of objectivity and subjectivity, see above.

Also, how are the objective, verifiable measurements verifiable? Is it by individual, subjective scientists?

mangaroosh wrote:

And this is where most of the nonsense comes from.
The Observer effect doesn't come from some spooky magical beam that shoots out of your soul.

To observe a particle you must cause it to interact with another one, usually a photon, otherwise it could be observed..
It's this interaction that causes the effect.

cheers for the clarification, I was working purely on presumption, on that one.

King Mob

mangaroosh wrote: »

That would depend on the definition of objectivity and subjectivity, as well as the pre-conceptions about objective measurement.

Objective:
Does not depend personal experience.
Subjective:
Depends on personal experience.

Some people like coffee, some do not. The taste of coffee is subjective.
However the chemical structure of the coffee is the same for everyone.

mangaroosh wrote: »

Of course, if there is a pre-conceived notion that objective measurement must be in the form of numbers, or can only be produced by machines, then this will run counter to it.

No it's not the only way, just the most accurate way to actually measure things.

mangaroosh wrote: »

This however is equally changing, with fMRI technology now being used to conduct scans on the brains of those who practice meditation, particularly Buddhist monks. The issue is that what is being objectively measured, is largely incsequential to the spritual theory, as it merely shows how the hypothesised affects materialise, while spirituality is more concerned with "whether they do or not".

What exactly spiritual is being measured here?

mangaroosh wrote: »

....or if they have gained insights - which of course can also be verified objectively.

Can you please porvide a few examples of things that where gained by spiritual insight which has been verified?

mangaroosh wrote: »

Indeed, spiritual practice can offer an insight into the nature of objectivity and subjectivity.

So can reading books on the subject.
More effectively in fact because it's relying on sources other than you own mind.

mangaroosh wrote: »

Is the emboldened opinion or fact? Presumably opinion as the scientific research here would tend to completely disagree.

Again what spiritual functions are actually being observed?

mangaroosh wrote: »

Also, how are the objective, verifiable measurements verifiable? Is it by individual, subjective scientists?

By running the experiment multiple times independently. By testing and looking for mistakes in the experiments or measurments.
By forming a falsifiable hypothesis based on the measurements.
A great example of this is the prediction of the return of Haley's comet.

When Newton derived the Laws of Gravitation from observation and mathematics, another scientist, Haley, used these laws to plot out the orbit of a regular comet.
He accurately was able to predict not only the date of it return but it path across the night sky.

A similar thing happened with Einstein's theory of relativity.
He postulated that mass distorts the space around it, causing light to bend.
So a large mass like the sun could in fact bend the light of stars behind it making them visible from Earth. This of course is usually made impossible by the suns light.
But during a total solar eclipse the suns light is blocked.
So one particular eclipse....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity#Deflection_of_light_by_the_Sun

These of course are just two of the most spectacular examples of hundred and thousand of others.

There however is not a single example of something like this coming from spiritual means.

roosh

King Mob wrote: »

And this is where most of the nonsense comes from.
The Observer effect doesn't come from some spooky magical beam that shoots out of your soul.

To observe a particle you must cause it to interact with another one, usually a photon, otherwise it could be observed..
It's this interaction that causes the effect.

This is a good example of how a commonly understood concept, can lead to an incorrect interpretation when taken outside of it's intended context.

If the same reasoning is applied to the concept of God, which has not only been taken out of context, but also passed down over thousands of years, translated and re-translated, interpreted and re-interpreted, it highlights the potential for misunderstanding the concept.

King Mob

mangaroosh wrote: »

This is a good example of how a commonly understood concept, can lead to an incorrect interpretation when taken outside of it's intended context.

If the same reasoning is applied to the concept of God, which has not only been taken out of context, but also passed down over thousands of years, translated and re-translated, interpreted and re-interpreted, it highlights the potential for misunderstanding the concept.

Thing is I can explain to you (in the hypotheical sense, I'm not that good at Quantum Mechanics) how the observer effect works. Given the right equipment I can also demonstrate it in action. I can show it mathematically as well.

You can't do the same with any spiritual concept.

roosh

King Mob wrote: »

Objective:
Does not depend personal experience.
Subjective:
Depends on personal experience.

Some people like coffee, some do not. The taste of coffee is subjective.
However the chemical structure of the coffee is the same for everyone.

The above appears to be a somewhat common [mis]understanding of the two terms. If we take the two "definitions" above, we can see how science, nor anything else, can possibly claim objectivity.

If subjectivity means "depends on personal experience", then there is a major stumbling block that science, and every other discipline cannot possibly overcome. That stumbling block is, that the very nature of human [as opposed to the true nature of] existence is subjective. According to that definition, everything you, or I, or any of the worlds most eminent scientists do, is tainted by the fact that our experience is "subjective". This includes reading apparently "objective" measurements from apparently "objective" instruments.

Of course the instruments do not invent themselves, they are made by "subjectively" experiential beings. This of course measn that those instruments are somewhat imbued with the subjectivity of the indiviudal/team that made them.

A furhter, issue is that all of those instruments, are merely extensions of our own senses, they serve to enhance our senses, to be able to see, hear, or measure things that we would not ordinarily be able to observe. This merely leads to a form of enhanced-subjectivity or super-subjectivity if you will.

Of course, the very act of measuring is, iteslf "subjective"


As for the chemical structure of coffee being the same for everyone, so too is the nature of human existence i.e. "subjective", by the above definition. Thus making the chemical structure of coffee, which must be epxerienced i.e. examined, measured, etc., "subjective"

A discussion on the nature of subjectivity and objectivity would be welcomed, but it probably should be pointed out that many of the issues have already been discussed, starting from (around) here I thin, in the Most annoying/frustrating atheist arguments? thread.

King Mob wrote: »

No it's not the only way, just the most accurate way to actually measure things.

That depends on what is being measured. Behavioural Psychology, which would overlap greatly with spirituality, would perhaps require different methods of analysis or measurement.

King Mob wrote: »

What exactly spiritual is being measured here?

Indeed, this is one of the issues, where assuming that the measurement techniques that apply to the physical sciences can necessarily be applied to psychology or spirituality.

However, a generic spiritual claim that is made, is that states of mind can be cultivated, and that meditation can increase such states as happiness, compassion, etc. Such fMRI technology, and our understanding of the neuro-plastic nature of the brain, re-inforces these claims. Research into the brain activity of Buddhist monks, and non-monastic (or even non-buddhist) meditators, highlights that the area of the brain that is actice when people are happy, is more active in meditators both during and outside of meditation.

wiki wrote:

Some of the most interesting work on the relationship between Buddhism and science is being done in the area of comparison between Yogacara theories regarding the store consciousness and modern evolutionary biology, especially DNA. This is because the Yogacara theory of karmic seeds works well in explaining the nature/nurture problem

Buddhism and Psychology


Of course, measuring these things "objectively" is to completely miss the point. A scientist who verifies that meditation actually stimulates the parts of the brain, that "cause" happiness, doesn't actually know if it results in [what is referred to as] happiness. In order to know that it does, they must practice the meditation for themselves and verify it empirically, in this manner.

King Mob wrote: »

Can you please porvide a few examples of things that where gained by spiritual insight which has been verified?

I'll see if

So can reading books on the subject.
More effectively in fact because it's relying on sources other than you own mind.

Again what spiritual functions are actually being observed?


By running the experiment multiple times independently. By testing and looking for mistakes in the experiments or measurments.
By forming a falsifiable hypothesis based on the measurements.
A great example of this is the prediction of the return of Haley's comet.

When Newton derived the Laws of Gravitation from observation and mathematics, another scientist, Haley, used these laws to plot out the orbit of a regular comet.
He accurately was able to predict not only the date of it return but it path across the night sky.

A similar thing happened with Einstein's theory of relativity.
He postulated that mass distorts the space around it, causing light to bend.
So a large mass like the sun could in fact bend the light of stars behind it making them visible from Earth. This of course is usually made impossible by the suns light.
But during a total solar eclipse the suns light is blocked.
So one particular eclipse....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity#Deflection_of_light_by_the_Sun

These of course are just two of the most spectacular examples of hundred and thousand of others.

There however is not a single example of something like this coming from spiritual means.

Will return to the rest when I get a chance, lunchtime now

Zombrex

This is the old nothing can be proven so every idea is equally valid argument and we have been over this so many times with other posters (looking at you antiskeptic) that I'll weep if we have to go over it again.

mangaroosh do you agree that while there is no way for a human to know for absolute certain about anything there are methodologies (such as science) that produce a greater level of confidence in claims than other methodologies (such as tea leaf reading).

If that is the case then the question for you is what methodologies do "spirituality theories" use and how do these concepts increase confidence in the accuracy of these theories.

King Mob

mangaroosh wrote: »

The above appears to be a somewhat common [mis]understanding of the two terms. If we take the two "definitions" above, we can see how science, nor anything else, can possibly claim objectivity.

If subjectivity means "depends on personal experience", then there is a major stumbling block that science, and every other discipline cannot possibly overcome. That stumbling block is, that the very nature of human [as opposed to the true nature of] existence is subjective. According to that definition, everything you, or I, or any of the worlds most eminent scientists do, is tainted by the fact that our experience is "subjective". This includes reading apparently "objective" measurements from apparently "objective" instruments.

Of course the instruments do not invent themselves, they are made by "subjectively" experiential beings. This of course measn that those instruments are somewhat imbued with the subjectivity of the indiviudal/team that made them.

A furhter, issue is that all of those instruments, are merely extensions of our own senses, they serve to enhance our senses, to be able to see, hear, or measure things that we would not ordinarily be able to observe. This merely leads to a form of enhanced-subjectivity or super-subjectivity if you will.

Of course, the very act of measuring is, iteslf "subjective"

No you seem to misunderstand how science is objective.
The instruments and people etc. are just making the observations.
What makes things objective, is the fact that the are the same for all observers and can be verified.

There are hundred of ways for you to measure the speed of light in a vacuum. But they all lead to the same number.

We can also derive the measure meant mathematically from other measurements, and still get the same number.

We could also find someone who doesn't know the speed of light, get him to design a way to measure it and he would still get the same number.

So are you saying that the speed of light is not 299,792,458 m/s in a vaccum?

mangaroosh wrote: »

As for the chemical structure of coffee being the same for everyone, so too is the nature of human existence i.e. "subjective", by the above definition. Thus making the chemical structure of coffee, which must be epxerienced i.e. examined, measured, etc., "subjective"

Yes but two independent observers can verify that they are seeing the exact same thing.

mangaroosh wrote: »

A discussion on the nature of subjectivity and objectivity would be welcomed, but it probably should be pointed out that many of the issues have already been discussed, starting from (around) here I thin, in the Most annoying/frustrating atheist arguments? thread.

And the whole, "everything is subjective" schtick has been done to death as well...

mangaroosh wrote: »

That depends on what is being measured. Behavioural Psychology, which would overlap greatly with spirituality, would perhaps require different methods of analysis or measurement.

You are aware that Behavioural psychology depends a lot on statistical analysis for their experiments right?

And which areas exactly overlap?

mangaroosh wrote: »

Indeed, this is one of the issues, where assuming that the measurement techniques that apply to the physical sciences can necessarily be applied to psychology or spirituality.

However, a generic spiritual claim that is made, is that states of mind can be cultivated, and that meditation can increase such states as happiness, compassion, etc. Such fMRI technology, and our understanding of the neuro-plastic nature of the brain, re-inforces these claims. Research into the brain activity of Buddhist monks, and non-monastic (or even non-buddhist) meditators, highlights that the area of the brain that is actice when people are happy, is more active in meditators both during and outside of meditation.

Buddhism and Psychology

Of course, measuring these things "objectively" is to completely miss the point. A scientist who verifies that meditation actually stimulates the parts of the brain, that "cause" happiness, doesn't actually know if it results in [what is referred to as] happiness. In order to know that it does, they must practice the meditation for themselves and verify it empirically, in this manner.

So why exactly is any of that "spiritual"?
Why is changing of brain chemistry leading to changes in mood etc. anything other that evidence that the mind resides in the brain?

Morbert

mangaroosh wrote: »

The experience is the necessary truth, from which other things, might perhaps be inferred.

But logic is nothing more than the study of inference. If you infer anything, then you are using logic. If we accept experience (I will for the sake of this discussion), then anything we infer from it will bring in other assumptions.

roosh

King Mob wrote: »

Can you please porvide a few examples of things that where gained by spiritual insight which has been verified?

One has to wonder if it would make the slightest difference?

Insights on the nature of "the self", how the conceptual "self" is different from the true nature of our self.

Insights into the causes of suffering and the potential liberation from suffering.

Karma - the law of cause and effect

The beneifts of meditation

King Mob wrote: »

So can reading books on the subject.
More effectively in fact because it's relying on sources other than you own mind.

Reading books on the subject would surely entail the use of ones own mind, and presumably the author of the book would have been relying, to a degree, on their own mental faculty.

Of course there are spiritual books, which a person can read too, that would involve "[relying] on sources other than your own mind".

King Mob wrote: »

Again what spiritual functions are actually being observed?

The physical affects and benefits of meditation, not that such "objectively verifiable evidence" is actually necessary, or of any particular use, as with spirituality, "the proof of the pudding is in the eating", or the proof of the meditation is in the practice.

Knowing fMRI imaging of brain activity during meditation, does not actually give rise to the benefits of practicing it, in fact they develop whether we know what is going on inside the brain or not. Equally, brain scans do not offer an experiential understanding of our own mind and how to cultivate positive states. Neither do we gain insights into the habitual nature of the mind and how our habitual reactions, actually lead to unfavourable situations. Neither do they offer us an insight into the nature of our own social conditioning, which can act as a major obscuration to viewing things "objectively".

There are of course benefits for such brain scanning images, perhaps it may lead to modern, mainstream science and medicine realising the practical benefits of meditation and thus embracing it. This can only help raise awareness of the benefits of spiritual practice. However, understanding how the brain behaves during spiritual practice, does not provide the practical benefits of doing the practice.

King Mob wrote: »

By running the experiment multiple times independently. By testing and looking for mistakes in the experiments or measurments.
By forming a falsifiable hypothesis based on the measurements.
A great example of this is the prediction of the return of Haley's comet.

When Newton derived the Laws of Gravitation from observation and mathematics, another scientist, Haley, used these laws to plot out the orbit of a regular comet.
He accurately was able to predict not only the date of it return but it path across the night sky.

A similar thing happened with Einstein's theory of relativity.
He postulated that mass distorts the space around it, causing light to bend.
So a large mass like the sun could in fact bend the light of stars behind it making them visible from Earth. This of course is usually made impossible by the suns light.
But during a total solar eclipse the suns light is blocked.
So one particular eclipse....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity#Deflection_of_light_by_the_Sun

These of course are just two of the most spectacular examples of hundred and thousand of others.

Genuinely, thanks for the rundown on the scientific approach above. It doesn't however address the question of how the "subjective" nature of human existence is somehow side-stepped. Every single scientist who "independently" verifies or falsifies hypotheses, is subject to this "limitation" of human existence. Where then does the "objectivity" come into it?

King Mob wrote: »

There however is not a single example of something like this coming from spiritual means.

This almost sounds like the voice of experience.

As has been outlined above, with regard to the use of fMRI technology providing evidence for brain activity during meditation, such scientific methods offer no practically useful benefits to the practice of spirituality, despite perhaps being useful in some other respect. So to try and apply the same criteria, is misguided, at best.

Spirituality might be better compared to the discipline of psychology.

roosh

King Mob wrote: »

Thing is I can explain to you (in the hypotheical sense, I'm not that good at Quantum Mechanics) how the observer effect works. Given the right equipment I can also demonstrate it in action. I can show it mathematically as well.

You can't do the same with any spiritual concept.

This of course, despite being incorrect, has absolutely no bearing on the truth.

Karma for example, is the law of cause and effect.

roosh

Wicknight wrote: »

This is the old nothing can be proven so every idea is equally valid argument and we have been over this so many times with other posters (looking at you antiskeptic) that I'll weep if we have to go over it again.

On the contrary, this is the old "we can prove certain things, so only those things that are provable are valid" argument.

Wicknight wrote: »

mangaroosh do you agree that while there is no way for a human to know for absolute certain about anything

We can and do know, for absolute sure, and for 100% certain, that there is experience (or what is referred to as experience), and what is referred to as consciousness.

Wicknight wrote: »

there are methodologies (such as science) that produce a greater level of confidence in claims than other methodologies (such as tea leaf reading).

No arguments, that science is better than tea leaf reading, I'd even go so far as to say that science is perhaps one of the single most important disciplines known to mankind. The scientific method has done more for mankind, than perhaps any other movement in history.

Wicknight wrote: »

If that is the case then the question for you is what methodologies do "spirituality theories" use and how do these concepts increase confidence in the accuracy of these theories.

"Spiritual theories" use empirical methodologies, the subject matter is different however, indeed it deals with, apparently, the sole area of existence outside the remit of the scientific method - one's own mind, and one's own being.

How do these methodologies increase confidence in the accuracy of the theories? The proof of the pudding is in the eating, or put another way, empirically.

roosh

Morbert wrote: »

But logic is nothing more than the study of inference. If you infer anything, then you are using logic. If we accept experience (I will for the sake of this discussion), then anything we infer from it will bring in other assumptions.

Agreed, the issue was, that we had arrived, through logical regression, to nihilism, where we had to assume the existence of experience as we could not infer it from any necessary truths.

In order to have necessary truths, empiricism is required. In this case, one of the very few necessary truths we can be sure of, is that there is what is referred to as experience.

As experience itself is non-conceptual, we need to conceptualise the necessary truth, before we can start to use logic.
We can, based on our empirical findings, form the statement, "experience exists". From there we can start to infer.

Of course, with Logic, we can only form beliefs about what should be true, given what we know to be true. These beliefs are subject to verification through empiricism.

The issue with relying on assumptions, is that all one needs to do, to bring down the entire logical reasoning is successfully challenge the assumption.

King Mob

mangaroosh wrote: »

One has to wonder if it would make the slightest difference?

Because it would falsify my position?

mangaroosh wrote: »

Insights on the nature of "the self", how the conceptual "self" is different from the true nature of our self.

Insights into the causes of suffering and the potential liberation from suffering.

Which insights?
How do you know they where "spiritually obtained?"
How are they verified?

mangaroosh wrote: »

Karma - the law of cause and effect

There isn't a "Law of Cause and Effect."
You are probably thinking of Newton's Second Law which is colloquially defined as:
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Karma, as I understand the concept (open to correction), is the idea that your moral actions accumulate and determine what your afterlife is.
One, this isn't the same as "cause and effect".
Two, in it's proper and original context (not the popular version) only has an effect in the unverifiable afterlife.

mangaroosh wrote: »

The beneifts of meditation

Any activity that promotes relaxation has benefits.
Fishing, golf, knitting...

mangaroosh wrote: »

Reading books on the subject would surely entail the use of ones own mind, and presumably the author of the book would have been relying, to a degree, on their own mental faculty.

Of course there are spiritual books, which a person can read too, that would involve "[relying] on sources other than your own mind".

I meant as in you would be sure that the information you are receiving comes from outside you own head.
However you cannot be sure it's not coming from your mind if you are using "Spiritual" means.

mangaroosh wrote: »

The physical affects and benefits of meditation, not that such "objectively verifiable evidence" is actually necessary, or of any particular use, as with spirituality, "the proof of the pudding is in the eating", or the proof of the meditation is in the practice.

Knowing fMRI imaging of brain activity during meditation, does not actually give rise to the benefits of practicing it, in fact they develop whether we know what is going on inside the brain or not. Equally, brain scans do not offer an experiential understanding of our own mind and how to cultivate positive states. Neither do we gain insights into the habitual nature of the mind and how our habitual reactions, actually lead to unfavourable situations. Neither do they offer us an insight into the nature of our own social conditioning, which can act as a major obscuration to viewing things "objectively".

There are of course benefits for such brain scanning images, perhaps it may lead to modern, mainstream science and medicine realising the practical benefits of meditation and thus embracing it. This can only help raise awareness of the benefits of spiritual practice. However, understanding how the brain behaves during spiritual practice, does not provide the practical benefits of doing the practice.

I'm still not seeing how the MRI's of meditating people verify anything spiritual.
The brain reacts whenever you do anything.
In fact there's a few studies showing the scans of brain of people playing videogames.

mangaroosh wrote: »

Genuinely, thanks for the rundown on the scientific approach above. It doesn't however address the question of how the "subjective" nature of human existence is somehow side-stepped. Every single scientist who "independently" verifies or falsifies hypotheses, is subject to this "limitation" of human existence. Where then does the "objectivity" come into it?

Simple.
If these original theory where little more that subjective observations how where other people able to use them to make predictions that came true?

mangaroosh wrote: »

This almost sounds like the voice of experience.

As has been outlined above, with regard to the use of fMRI technology providing evidence for brain activity during meditation, such scientific methods offer no practically useful benefits to the practice of spirituality, despite perhaps being useful in some other respect. So to try and apply the same criteria, is misguided, at best.

And this is what we call special pleading.

Why, if science works on everything that it is observable, are spiritual things immune when you must obverse them to know they exist?

mangaroosh wrote: »

Spirituality might be better compared to the discipline of psychology.

Psychology uses the scientific method.
Falisifaction, experiment and of course tons of statistical maths.

mangaroosh wrote: »

This of course, despite being incorrect, has absolutely no bearing on the truth.

Karma for example, is the law of cause and effect.

Addressed above.

Morbert

mangaroosh wrote: »

Agreed, the issue was, that we had arrived, through logical regression, to nihilism, where we had to assume the existence of experience as we could not infer it from any necessary truths.

In order to have necessary truths, empiricism is required. In this case, one of the very few necessary truths we can be sure of, is that there is what is referred to as experience.

As experience itself is non-conceptual, we need to conceptualise the necessary truth, before we can start to use logic.
We can, based on our empirical findings, form the statement, "experience exists". From there we can start to infer.

Of course, with Logic, we can only form beliefs about what should be true, given what we know to be true. These beliefs are subject to verification through empiricism.

The issue with relying on assumptions, is that all one needs to do, to bring down the entire logical reasoning is successfully challenge the assumption.

So, regardless of our disagreement over experience as necessarily true, does this mean you agree that any inference of things other than experience are based on assumptions and not necessarily true? Would you disagree with a solipsist, for example?

roosh

King Mob wrote: »

Which insights?

Meditation practice cultivates:
happiness
increased awareness
relaxation
non-attachment
reduced suffering (both mental and physical)
Imporved perception

King Mob wrote: »

How are they verified?

Apart from direct personal experience,

Marc Kaufmann - Washinton Post wrote:

Brain research is beginning to produce concrete evidence for something that Buddhist practitioners of meditation have maintained for centuries: Mental discipline and meditative practice can change the workings of the brain and allow people to achieve different levels of awareness.

Marc Kaufmann - Washinton Post wrote:

Davidson's research is consistent with his earlier work that pinpointed the left prefrontal cortex as a brain region associated with happiness and positive thoughts and emotions. Using functional magnetic resonance imagining (fMRI) on the meditating monks, Davidson found that their brain activity -- as measured by the EEG -- was especially high in this area..

Meditation gives brain a charge, study finds

Science Daily wrote:

study in the January edition of Psychosomatic Medicine reports that Zen meditators have lower pain sensitivity both in and out of a meditative state compared to non-meditators

Zen meditation alleviates pain, study finds
Zen meditation:thicker brains fend off pain

Research on meditation - wiki wrote:

In 2000, Tloczynski et al. studied the perception of visual illusions (the Müller-Lyer Illusion and the Poggendorff Illusion) by zen masters, novice meditators, and non-meditators. There were no statistically significant effects found for the Müller-Lyer illusion, however, there were for the Poggendorff. The zen masters experienced a statistically significant reduction in initial illusion (measured as error in millimeters) and a lower decrement in illusion for subsequent trials.[23]
The theory of mechanism behind the changes in perception that accompany mindfulness meditation is described thus by Tloczynski:

“A person who meditates consequently perceives objects more as directly experienced stimuli and less as concepts… With the removal or minimization of cognitive stimuli and generally increasing awareness, meditation can therefore influence both the quality (accuracy) and quantity (detection) of perception.”

Brown also points to this as a possible explanation of the phenomenon: “[the higher rate of detection of single light flashes] involves quieting some of the higher mental processes which normally obstruct the perception of subtle events.” In other words, the practice may temporarily or permanently alter some of the top-down processing involved in filtering subtle events usually deemed noise by the perceptual filters.

Meditation and perception

King Mob wrote: »

How do you know they where "spiritually obtained?"

Can't know that they were, but they are the "theories" of Buddhism, and quite possibly of Hinduism and other spiritual traditions, and pre-date modern science.

King Mob wrote: »

There isn't a "Law of Cause and Effect."
You are probably thinking of Newton's Second Law which is colloquially defined as:
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Karma - wiki wrote:

Karma is the concept of "action" or "deed", understood as that which causes the entire cycle of cause and effect
....
Theistic schools of Hinduism such as Vedanta thus disagree with the Buddhist and Jain views and other Hindu views that karma is merely a law of cause and effect but rather is also dependent on the will of a personal supreme God

Subhamoy Das wrote:

The theory of karma harps on the Newtonian principle that every action produces an equal and opposite reaction. Every time we think or do something, we create a cause, which in time will bear its corresponding effects.

About Hinduism

King Mob wrote: »

Karma, as I understand the concept (open to correction), is the idea that your moral actions accumulate and determine what your afterlife is.
One, this isn't the same as "cause and effect".
Two, in it's proper and original context (not the popular version) only has an effect in the unverifiable afterlife.

That's pretty close to be fair, but it doesn't just affect our afterlife, it affects our current life. Basically it is that everything we do has a consequence, sometimes the consequence might not be realised immediately but at some point it will. It is said that our Karma can affect how we are re-incarnated - this part may perhaps be unverifiable.

The issue of re-incarnation, however, is not as straight forward as we might think, as it is inextricably linked to the concept of the "self". Spiritual traditions assert that how we perceive ourselves is incorrect, therefore any interpretation of re-incarnation from this flawed perspective will be misleading.

King Mob wrote: »

Any activity that promotes relaxation has benefits.
Fishing, golf, knitting...

Meditation promotes more than just relaxation, as highlighted above. It can help with the natural healing processes of the body, by restoring the body to more of an equilibrium and boosting the immune system

Leonard Holmes wrote:

People who underwent eight weeks of meditation training produced more antibodies to a flu vaccine and showed signs of increased activity in areas of the brain related to positive emotion than individuals who did not meditate.

Meditation can boost the immune system

King Mob wrote: »

I meant as in you would be sure that the information you are receiving comes from outside you own head.
However you cannot be sure it's not coming from your mind if you are using "Spiritual" means.

That is where the guidance of experienced practitioners comes in, and reading books on the subject, or listenting to "lectures" on the topic comes in. The theory is presented, and then one researches it for themselves. Of course the above scientific research highlights that it is increasingly less first-person centric.

King Mob wrote: »

I'm still not seeing how the MRI's of meditating people verify anything spiritual.
The brain reacts whenever you do anything.
In fact there's a few studies showing the scans of brain of people playing videogames.

Spiritual theory postulates that the above mentioned states of mind can be cultivated, fMRI's show that those parts of the brain, associated with the above mentioned states of mind, are active both during and after meditation practice.

Of course, the only true test of whether meditation makes us happier, more aware, less prone to illusion, less sensitive to pain, less attached to ideas and concepts, is to try it out for ourselves.

King Mob wrote: »

Simple.
If these original theory where little more that subjective observations how where other people able to use them to make predictions that came true?

The above cited examples of spiritual claims re:happiness, reduced stress, cultivating states of mind, etc., are examples of where predictions are made and come true.
Other predictions pertain to the nature of our thinking, which cannot necessarily be detected using fMRI technology, we must experience it for ourselves, to verify the claims.

King Mob wrote: »

And this is what we call special pleading.Why, if science works on everything that it is observable, are spiritual things immune when you must obverse them to know they exist?

No special pleading here, merely statements of fact. Knowing whether meditation actually makes you happier or not, is not proven from looking at scans of brain activity. The proof that meditation actually makes us happier, is introspection to determine whether we are actually happier or not. The same applies to awareness and most of the other states claimed by spiritual theory.

The reason that there are spiritual "things" which are immune, is because science cannot account for such things as the mind. The realm of the spritual i.e. the self and our own existence, is a realm that appears to lay outside the "jurisdiction" of the scientific method. We cannot use the scientific method to explore one of the only things we can almost be certain exists, and that is "the self". The whole "external" world could simply be the manifestion of "the matrix", but we still know that we exist, in some capacity. We are all aware of our experience of our own mind, yet the scientific method does not provide the means for us to explore it for ourselves. Spirituality does.

It is for this reason that the scientific method may remain incomplete, unless it adopts the first-person method of investigation, that is spiritual science. Obviously, only in those areas where it might be necessary, such as the study of consciousness.

Dalai Lama wrote:

A comprehensive scientific study of consciousness must...embrace both objective and subjective methods: It cannot ignore the reality of first-person experience but must observe all the rules of scientific rigor.

Given that one of the primary characteristics of consciousness is its subjective and experiential nature, any systematic study of it must adopt a method that will give access to the dimensions of subjectivity and experience.

What Buddhism offers science

King Mob wrote: »

Psychology uses the scientific method.
Falisifaction, experiment and of course tons of statistical maths.

And western psychology is increasingly exploring eastern spirituality, in it's quest to understand the human mind.
Integrating Psychology and Spirituality
Buddhism in clinical settings - wiki

gbee

I, think the posts are vastly too BIG.

I scrolled 30 seconds in ONE reply above. Needless to say I don't read that fast, and if I WANT Google or Wikie, I CAN LOOK THE FU*IN STUFF UP MYSELF

King Mob

mangaroosh wrote: »

Meditation practice cultivates:
happiness
increased awareness
relaxation
non-attachment
reduced suffering (both mental and physical)
Imporved perception

That's an insight?
Really?

All off these things can be cultivated by any activity.
For me I get all of these things from practising and performing magic.

mangaroosh wrote: »

Apart from direct personal experience,

Meditation gives brain a charge, stdy finds

Zen meditation alleviates pain, study finds

Research on meditation

There is some more reading in
Buddhist techniques in clinical settings

Again how exactly is any of this "Spiritual"?

mangaroosh wrote: »

Can't know that they were, but they are the "theories" of Buddhism, and quite possibly of Hinduism and other spiritual traditions, and pre-date modern science.

Can't know= don't know. So why do you think they are?

mangaroosh wrote: »

That's pretty close to be fair, but it doesn't just affect our afterlife, it affects our current life. Basically it is that everything we do has a consequence, sometimes the consequence might not be realised immediately but at some point it will.

Pretty close doesn't cut it.
Nostrodamus was "pretty close."
Haley however, was precisely accurate.

Further more, how do you know karma effects our current lives?

mangaroosh wrote: »

Meditation promotes more than just relaxation, as highlighted above. It can help with the natural healing processes of the body, by restoring the body to more of an equilibrium and boosting the immune system

Meditation can boost the immune system

This is a testable falsifiable claim.
Please post a link to the studies showing this.

Otherwise it's what we in the business call bull****.

mangaroosh wrote: »

Spiritual theory postulates that the above mentioned states of mind can be cultivated, fMRI's show that those parts of the brain, associated with the above mentioned states of mind, are active both during and after meditation practice.

Of course, the only true test of whether meditation makes us happier, more aware, less prone to illusion, less sensitive to pain, less attached to ideas and concepts, is to try it out for ourselves.

The above cited examples of spiritual claims re:happiness, reduced stress, cultivating states of mind, etc., are examples of where predictions are made and come true.
Other predictions pertain to the nature of our thinking, which cannot necessarily be detected using fMRI technology, we must experience it for ourselves, to verify the claims.

Again how does this show anything spiritual?
"Think of positive thoughts and the part of your brain associated with positive thoughts light up"?

And who and where was these predictions made exactly?
What was their exact wording?

mangaroosh wrote: »

No special pleading here, merely statements of fact. Knowing whether meditation actually makes you happier or not, is not proven from looking at scans of brain activity. The proof that meditation actually makes us happier, is introspection to determine whether we are actually happier or not. The same applies to awareness and most of the other states claimed by spiritual theory.

The reason that there are spiritual "things" which are immune, is because science cannot account for such things as the mind. The realm of the spritual i.e. the self and our own existence, is a realm that appears to lay outside the "jurisdiction" of the scientific method. We cannot use the scientific method to explore one of the only things we can almost be certain exists, and that is "the self". The whole "external" world could simply be the manifestion of "the matrix", but we still know that we exist, in some capacity. We are all aware of our experience of our own mind, yet the scientific method does not provide the means for us to explore it for ourselves. Spirituality does.

It is for this reason that the scientific method may remain incomplete, unless it adopts the first-person method of investigation, that is spiritual science. Obviously, only in those areas where it might be necessary, such as the study of consciousness.

Dude, that is exactly special pleading.

"We can't know anything, there fore science doesn't work, therefore anything I can dream up is valid."

If you claim to know about something spiritual, you must have observed it, otherwise you couldn't know about.
If you observed it you can do science to it.

And I see you've dodged the question.
If all observation is "just experience" how exactly where the predictions I mentioned, accurately made?

mangaroosh wrote: »

And western psychology is increasingly exploring eastern spirituality, in it's quest to understand the human mind.

Using the scientific method and statistics....

roosh

Apologies, I'm responsible for some confusion in this line of discussion. On one hand I'm attempting to paint empirical spiritual investigation in the same light as the scientific method, while on the other saying that the scientific method doesn't apply.

King Mob wrote: »

That's an insight?
Really?

I know the idea of cultivating states of mind, may not seem like such a revelation, and when it was proposed over 2500yrs ago (at least), it may not have been met with much jubilation, but when we consider that, up until the 1970s, it was believed that:

Neuroplasticity - wiki wrote:

"the nervous system was essentially fixed throughout adulthood, both in terms of brain functions, as well as the idea that it was impossible for new neurones to develop after birth."

The discovery of this feature [neuroplasticity] of the brain is rather modern; the previous belief amongst scientists was that the brain does not change after the critical period of infancy

Neuroplasticity

The idea of being able to change ones state of mind, seems like, at the very least, an interesting insight.

Equally, an insight into the nature of human suffering, and that it stems from our attachment to a false perception of the self, as well as our attachment to objects and ideas, is, again at the very least, very interesting.

King Mob wrote: »

All off these things can be cultivated by any activity.
For me I get all of these things from practising and performing magic.

This migh explain how you manage to circumvent the "subjective" nature of existence, and transform it into "objectivity", through the scientific method.

For the record, I'm trying to knock the scientific approach, or science in general, I'm merely trying to point out a fact of reality, that cannot, as of yet, be circumvented.


The above however, highlights a lack of awareness as to what meditation practice actually is and what it achieves.

King Mob wrote: »

Again how exactly is any of this "Spiritual"?

Meditation is a spiritual practice, and is the subject of the investigation. The research supports the claims made within spirituality, that meditation cultivates positive states of mind and reduces suffering (both mental and physical).

King Mob wrote: »

Can't know= don't know. So why do you think they are?

Be careful, that statement has logical implications.
We cannot know that we are not brains in a vat, or living in the matrix (apparently), this then has logical implications for the field of science, in that science could not be considered a source of knowledge.

What we can know, however, is that there is experience and consciousness, which the scientific method cannot verify. The spritual method can, however verify this, which would make the only reliable source of knowledge.

The reason I think they are spiritual insights, is because they come from Hinduism and Buddhism, which are spiritual traditions which pre-date modern science.

King Mob wrote: »

Pretty close doesn't cut it.
Nostrodamus was "pretty close."
Haley however, was precisely accurate.

It is at this point, I must wonder whether, or not, you have simply established an [egoic] mental position, where you disagree with the fundamental assertion (that God exists), and are simply disagreeing on that basis with everything that is said, based on the habitual tendency to defend our position?

The reason I say this, is because when I said,

mangaroosh wrote:

That's pretty close to be fair

I was referring to your description of Karma. Unless of course I am mistaking a very noble act of self-deprecation or someone who has a habitual tendency to berate themselves for anything less that "Haleyistic" perfection.

King Mob wrote: »

Further more, how do you know karma effects our current lives?

A basic understanding of Karma will reveal this. One such example is that every action, including our thoughts, have causal, as well as effectual, consequences. For example, if you feel happy then there is some reason for causing that happiness - perhaps the practice or performance of magic. That feeling of happiness, will itself, cause another effect, perhaps simply a smile, or depending on your identification with the conceptual mind, it could cause complacency which may cuase a mistake in the magic performacnce, which could lead to unhappiness, which itself will have its own subsequent consequences.

King Mob wrote: »

This is a testable falsifiable claim.
Please post a link to the studies showing this.

Otherwise it's what we in the business call bull****.

hahahaha, what business is this? the bull****ing business?

apologies though, I had to edit the post and fix some of the links, I think it should be in the original post now, but here it is again:
Meditation can boost the immune system

King Mob wrote: »

Again how does this show anything spiritual?
"Think of positive thoughts and the part of your brain associated with positive thoughts light up"?

Again, a fundamental misperception of what meditation actually involves. It is more like [paraphrasing] "don't think happy thoughts, in fact don't try and think any thoughts, maintain a suitable posture, remain relaxed yet alert, allow whatever thoughts arise to simply arise, without attaching to them. If positive thoughts arise, do not get caught in a day-dream because they bring pleasure, if negative thoughts arise don't try and suppress them because they are not pleasant. Simply allow your mind to be. As a help, it can be useful to focus your attention lightly on the breath, so that you have an anchor, so when you find that you've become "entangled" in your thoughts, simply drop the thoughts and return your focus to the breath (or other object). Practising this letting go of thoughts, and returning to your natural state of being, or awareness, is the practice of meditation. By practicing this, you can train the mind to be more aware, not get caught up in habitual thinking or reactions that can cause suffering to you or others. It can also offer insights into the nature of the self and the reality due to clearer, non-conceptual perception. Cultivating this state of mind will result in increased happiness, less attachment to your ""self" and objects, and will result in decreased suffering, both physical and mental.

King Mob wrote: »

And who and where was these predictions made exactly?
What was their exact wording?

The exact location is probably up for debate, but they were made by Siddartha Gautama ("the Buddha"), as well as, most likely, by other indian Yogis, sometime around 500 B.C.

As for the exact wording, a basic knowledge of Pali or Sanskrit would probably be required, but the complete predictions are available in the Buddhist texts, which would be too vast to post here, but there are a number of publications in english, that can be researched. The power of Now by Eckhart Tolle, might be an easy place to start on the topic of spirituality, as it explains pretty simply the basic ideas and makes predictions about mental states, which can be verified by the reader - even if they have no trust in their own subjective abilty to observe the workings of their own mind.

King Mob wrote: »

Dude, that is exactly special pleading.
"We can't know anything, there fore science doesn't work, therefore anything I can dream up is valid."

It's interesting how the complete opposite of that can be interpreted as the above.

We can, and do, know "stuff". Science does work. Anything I can dream up isn't necessarily valid.

Spirituality is concerned with the investigation of the nature of the mind, the self, consciousnes, suffering, attachment, etc. etc. The scientific method cannot, as of yet, fully account for the mind, nor consciousness, it cannot measure attachment, it is incapable of investigating the self, and the physical make-up of suffering has not yet been discovered.

This is why western psychology is, increasingly, looking to spirituality, because of the clear insights it offers into the nature of the human mind, the nature of suffering, happiness and habitual tendencies. It is equally why neuro-biologists are studying the brains of spiritual practitioners, to gain further insights.

The two areas are increasingly merging, and thus far it is modern science that is drawing the benefits. No doubt spirituality will start to benefit from a more clearly defined scientific approach. As of yet this has not happened.

Again, no special pleading, but facts!

King Mob wrote: »

If you claim to know about something spiritual, you must have observed it, otherwise you couldn't know about.
If you observed it you can do science to it.

Observation of the mind appears to be just out of the reach of the scientific method, at present. Psychology is a good attempt, but as it increasingly explores eastern traditions, it becomes clear it is not on par.

King Mob wrote: »

And I see you've dodged the question.
If all observation is "just experience" how exactly where the predictions I mentioned, accurately made?

This was the question that was asked.

King Mob wrote: »

Why, if science works on everything that it is observable, are spiritual things immune when you must obverse them to know they exist?

Apologies if it wasn't answered clearly. The scientific method does not apply because spirituality deals with the nature of the mind, the self, suffering, attachment, etc.

Thus far, the scientific method cannot fully account for consciousness or the mind.
How does the scientific method measure suffering?
What are the physical dimensions of the human mind?
What, according to any scientific definition, is attachment?

This is why we can't "do science" to the observations, because science, thus far, has no method for approaching these "things".

King Mob wrote: »

Using the scientific method and statistics....

Yes, on spiritual insights. Highlighting the deficiency of the field of Psychology.

roosh

King Mob wrote: »

And I see you've dodged the question.
If all observation is "just experience" how exactly where the predictions I mentioned, accurately made?

Lest I be accused of dodging this question.

Presumably what is meant, is how were the predictions accurately verified?

Short answer: empirically

Longer answer: Spiritual practitioners, from Hindu and other traditions - in the years B.C. - practiced meditation (and other spiritual practices). Bacame familiar with the workings of their own mind, and how to cultivate positive states.

They taught these methods to others, and explained the theory behind them, these people tried it, and for some it presumably worked i.e. they verified the claims for themselves.

These methods were passed on through a lineage of Teacher/student relationships, to the present day, where masters from Tibey, India, Viet Nam, Japan, and other asian countries are now teaching in the west.

Of course all of this could be just made, but the practices seem to work.

King Mob

mangaroosh, I really don't have the time or energy to address that monster of a post.
Most of it quite frankly is metaphysical waffle.

The one point I will address is this:

http://mentalhealth.about.com/cs/mindandbody/a/meditimmune.htm

That is not a good study.
It is neither double blinded nor placebo controlled.
Also about.com is not exactly what you'd call a medical journal.

Claiming that meditation boosts the immune system is nonsense.

Can you please explain by what mechanism do you think this works?

King Mob

mangaroosh wrote: »

Lest I be accused of dodging this question.

Presumably what is meant, is how were the predictions accurately verified?

Short answer: empirically

So it works despite human perception being so flawed?

mangaroosh wrote: »

Of course all of this could be just made, but the practices seem to work.

Well in that case if you are so confidant they work and are spiritual in nature, how would you like a million dollars?
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html

roosh

Morbert wrote: »

So, regardless of our disagreement over experience as necessarily true, does this mean you agree that any inference of things other than experience are based on assumptions and not necessarily true? Would you disagree with a solipsist, for example?

do you mean your disagreement with this necessary truth?



I would say that anything that is inferred logically, from the necessary truth "experience exists", will be based on assumptions. This does not mean that they are not necessarily true however, rather that we cannot know them to be necessarily true, without verifying them against experience.

As for disagreeing with a solipsist, it would entirely depend on the individual solipsist claim. If the claim was the "idea, that only one's own mind is sure to exist"
Solipsism wiki

Then the assumption about the nature of this "one", would have to be questioned. Presumably it would mean that "I can only know that 'my' mind exists". If this was the case, then we would have to question the nature of this "I" who is in possession of this mind, which can only be known to "me".


This is where spiritual investigation comes in.

Ush1

On an unrelated point, but does every theist have to reem off their favourite word of the day toilet paper waffle before failing to prove any point they're making.

It's like a defense mechanism they seem to have on here.

"If I talk enough gibberish and use a nice turn of phrase, they will just get tired of trying to make sense of what I'm saying!"

To try and nail down the essence of their point is like trying to pin down an eel, STOP SQUIRMING!!!

Morbert

mangaroosh wrote: »

I would say that anything that is inferred logically, from the necessary truth "experience exists", will be based on assumptions. This does not mean that they are not necessarily true however, rather that we cannot know them to be necessarily true, without verifying them against experience.

We would not be able to verify them against experience though. All we would have is the experience, and not any implications. We would have to be content with "experiences exists".

roosh

King Mob wrote: »

No you seem to misunderstand how science is objective.
The instruments and people etc. are just making the observations.
What makes things objective, is the fact that the are the same for all observers and can be verified.

The issue that seems to be misunderstood, is the fact, that the act of observation is what makes things "subjective". So, regardless of the "fact" that everyone may reach consensus, on what is observed, observation of something in order to verify it, makes the verification "subjective".

Acoording to the definition that subjectivity relies on personal experience, that is.

King Mob wrote: »

There are hundred of ways for you to measure the speed of light in a vacuum. But they all lead to the same number.

We can also derive the measure meant mathematically from other measurements, and still get the same number.

We could also find someone who doesn't know the speed of light, get him to design a way to measure it and he would still get the same number.

So are you saying that the speed of light is not 299,792,458 m/s in a vaccum?

Not at all, what I am saying is that concepts such as metres and seconds are entirely subjective. They were initially formed on the basis of someones personal opinion, and consensus in adopting them as standard units, did not suddenly convey any level of objectivity on them.

Equally, the act of observing light in a vacuum is a "subjective" observation, regardless of whether everyone observes it the same.

King Mob wrote: »

Yes but two independent observers can verify that they are seeing the exact same thing.

Just as two spiritual practitioners can verify that they have experienced the same thing. Again, however, this "subjective" verification remains "subjective".

King Mob wrote: »

And the whole, "everything is subjective" schtick has been done to death as well...

Now that, is special pleading.

It is, of course, the conlusion we are interested in.

King Mob wrote: »

You are aware that Behavioural psychology depends a lot on statistical analysis for their experiments right?

And which areas exactly overlap?

This article addresses the areas of overlap, and should hopefully answer a few further questions.

Buddhist Psychology, Psychotherapy and the Brain: A Critical Introduction - Brendan D. Kelly wrote:

Abstract: Buddhist psychology is increasingly informing psychotherapeutic practice in the western world. This article: (a) provides a general background to Buddhist tradition; (b) outlines the central tenets of Buddhist psychology, with particular emphasis on the practice of meditation; (c) provides an overview of research into the effects of Buddhist practice on the brain; (d) outlines the relationships between Buddhist psychology and existing forms of psychotherapy; (e) provides an overview of Buddhist approaches to specific psychiatric disorders and the psychological aspects of physical disorders; and (f) discusses the emergence of Buddhist psychotherapy in western societies and explores likely future developments. There is a need for further research into the neuroscientific correlates of Buddhist concepts of mind and the evidence-base for the use of specific techniques (e.g., medi- tation) in psychotherapeutic practice.

Just a couple of extracts:

Buddhist Psychology, Psychotherapy and the Brain: A Critical Introduction - Brendan D. Kelly wrote:

This exchange between neuroscience and Buddhism is a complex, evolving and occasionally controversial process (Adam, 2005; Fields, 2006) which is difficult to summarize at this relatively early stage. Nonetheless, it is clear that there is a certain amount of common ground between the two approaches on a number of psychological themes, including the nature of consciousness (Houshmand et al., 1999), the concept of ‘self ’ in western and Buddhist psychologies (Galin, 2003), and various aspects of contemplative practice (Ricard, 2003). Moreover, in terms of more basic cognitive processes such as thought, perception and awareness, DeCharms (1998) argues that the two approaches may be complementary and that ongoing dialogue between neuroscientists and practitioners of Buddhism may help to build models of brain and mind that combine ‘hard’ neuro- scientific knowledge with the more experiential or phenomenological perspective of Buddhist practice

Buddhist Psychology, Psychotherapy and the Brain: A Critical Introduction - Brendan D. Kelly wrote:

Brown, Forte, and Dysart (1984a) studied visual sensitivity in practitioners of Buddhist mindful- ness meditation before and after a three-month retreat which involved mindfulness meditation for 16 hours each day. After the retreat, prac- titioners were able to detect shorter single-light flashes and required shorter intervals to distinguish between successive flashes, compared with before the retreat. The authors suggest these findings, along with similar results (Brown, Forte, & Dysart, 1984b), support the Buddhist assertion that mindfulness is associated with changes in perception.

King Mob wrote: »

So why exactly is any of that "spiritual"?
Why is changing of brain chemistry leading to changes in mood etc. anything other that evidence that the mind resides in the brain?

It is spiritual because it pertains to Buddhist meditation, which is a spiritual practice.

It may well be taken as evidence that the mind resides in the brain, but it is the spiritual practice of meditation that causes this brain chemistry. Also, however, to suggest that the mind resides in the brain is to ignore that the brain is not separate from the rest of the body, and that body posture - a critical part of meditation - affects the mind. It would suggest rather, that mind and body are one.

King Mob

Again, not arsed addressing a thesis, especially when there' so much waffle.

mangaroosh wrote: »

Just as two spiritual practitioners can verify that they have experienced the same thing. Again, however, this "subjective" verification remains "subjective".

Can you provide examples of this?

If you can, you might be in for a million dollars.

Metalfan

Its simple people who claim to have personal evidence of gods existence or whatever are either lying or are dillusional

roosh

King Mob wrote: »

mangaroosh, I really don't have the time or energy to address that monster of a post.
Most of it quite frankly is metaphysical waffle.

Take your time, read it in sections if needs be.

Barring the point on Karma, the rest addresses the obvious ignorance, with regard to what meditation actually entails.

It equally outlines why the scientific method, does not necessarily apply to the spiritual approach to emprical investigation. Namely because the current scientific method cannot account for the the mind, consciousness, suffering, attachment, awareness, etc., all of which are central to the issue of spirituality.

King Mob wrote: »

The one point I will address is this:

http://mentalhealth.about.com/cs/mindandbody/a/meditimmune.htm

That is not a good study.
It is neither double blinded nor placebo controlled.
Also about.com is not exactly what you'd call a medical journal.

While about.com may be exactly what you'd call a medical journal, Psychosomatic Medicine - Journal of Bio-behavioural medicine which is the reference for the article, would be.

There are of course issues with regard to blinding and placebos, in non-pharmacological trials:

wrote:

Behavioral Research and the Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Methodology: Challenges in Applying the Biomedical Standard to Behavioral Headache Research - Rains & Penzien (2004)]The randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled experimental design has prevailed as the "gold standard" in biomedical research, intended to control potential bias in patient/group assignment, investigator allegiance, patient expectations, and nonspecific therapeutic effects. Properly executed, such designs ensure a study's internal validity and allow differential group outcomes to be attributed to the active treatment. These controlled trials generally yield more conservative outcomes than open trials and case reports and establish efficacy in pharmaceutical research. In meta-analytic reviews, studies are often assigned quality scores based in part on the degree to which they meet this scientific standard. Applying the biomedical research design standards for blinding and placebo control to clinical trials evaluating behavioral and other nonpharmacologic headache treatment nearly always is either infeasible or simply not possible. Only rarely is blinding meaningfully achievable in administration of behavioral or psychological therapies. Various "psychological placebo" control conditions have been forwarded in behavioral studies (eg, sham treatments, pseudomeditation), but these controls are incapable of emulating an inert control condition comparable to that of the pill placebo in pharmacologic research, and they are best reserved for studies examining the mechanisms whereby an intervention produces improvement. This article reviews the conceptual and procedural challenges in applying the standard pharmaceutical clinical trials research design to behavioral headache research as well as implications for meta-analyses across studies of various treatment modalities.

Headache - the journal of Head and Face pain

wrote:

Randomized Controlled Trials - blinding (wiki): if an RCT involves a treatment in which active participation of the patient is necessary (e.g., physical therapy), participants cannot be blinded to the intervention.

RCT - Blinding (wiki)

Of course meditation involves the active participation of the patients.

Also, as the issue of blinding the researchers may be somewhat redundant, as they cannot necessarily bias the outcome, as it is brain activity and number of anti-bodies that is being measured. Another reason it may be redundant, they would [very likely] be able to tell which participants belong to which group, on the basis of the brain scans.

King Mob wrote: »

Claiming that meditation boosts the immune system is nonsense.
Can you please explain by what mechanism do you think this works?

The question we should be asking is, why did any of the scientific researches ever believe such nonsense could be plausible in the first place.

The obvious answer would be, due to reduced stress, but in their own words, the reason why the proposed such an idea was:

wrote:

Alterations in Brain and Immune Function Produced by Mindfulness Meditation - Davidson et al.

Left-sided activation in several anterior regions is observed during certain forms of positive emotion and in subjects with more dispositional positive affect (10, 11). We therefore hypothesized that because meditation decreases anxiety and increases positive affect, subjects who were practicing meditation should show increased left-sided activation in these territories compared with those in a wait-list control group. Recent studies have established that greater relative left-sided anterior activation at baseline is associated with enhanced immune function using measures of NK activity (12, 13). There has been a paucity of serious research attention to possible immune alterations that might be produced by meditation (14). This is somewhat surprising in light of the fact that negative psychosocial influences on immunity have now been well established (15–17). Recent research indicates that relaxation and stress management procedures increase T-cytotoxic/suppressor (CD3+CD) lymphocytes in HIV-infected men (18). On the basis of recent research demonstrating the negative impact of stressful life events on antibody titers in response to influenza vaccine (19), we vaccinated all subjects at the end of the 8-week meditation program (in mid November), along with the subjects in wait-list control group at the same time. We hypothesized that the meditators would show greater antibody titers in response to the vaccine compared with the subjects in the wait-list control group. On the basis of the association we have previously reported between anterior activation asymmetry and NK activity, we also predicted that the magnitude of change toward greater relative left-sided activation would be associated with a larger increase in antibody titers in response to the vaccine.

Alterations in Brain and Immune Function Produced by Mindfulness Meditation - Davidson et al.

roosh

King Mob wrote: »

So it works despite human perception being so flawed?

A bit like the scientific method, yes!

King Mob wrote: »

Well in that case if you are so confidant they work and are spiritual in nature, how would you like a million dollars?
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html

This again, highlights the misunderstanding of what is actually meant by spirituality.

It has nothing to do with "other worldly" influences.

roosh

King Mob wrote: »

Again, not arsed addressing a thesis, especially when there' so much waffle.

Yet more special pleading!!

The responses might be shorter, if there wasn't so much misperception to correct. It is an interesting approach though, ignore any challenges and responses, and try and single out one specific point that will hopefully be successful.

I will try and cut out the waffle next time, though, by leaving out your quotes.

King Mob wrote: »

Can you provide examples of this?

If you can, you might be in for a million dollars.

I'm intrigued by this idea of a million dollars. what do I have to do to qualify?

Do you know if they make the distinction between spirituality and spiritualism?

As for examples, Ringu Tulku, Chogyam Trungpa, HH The Dalai Lama - Tenzin Gyatso, have all verified the transformative power of meditation, as well other insights into the nature of human existence, such as impermanence, the nature of "the self", the nature of the mind, ego attachment (which I need to work on myself after this discussion), suffering, etc.

roosh

Metalfan wrote: »

Its simple people who claim to have personal evidence of gods existence or whatever are either lying or are dillusional

the only delusion, pertains to the [subconscious] idea of God as a bearded old dude, sitting on a cloud, listening to peoples wish-list on his cosmic-CB radio.

gbee

King Mob wrote: »

mangaroosh, I really don't have the time or energy to address that monster of a post.

Ditto, a fantastic post wasted.

gbee

mangaroosh wrote: »

the only delusion, pertains to the [subconscious] idea of God as a bearded old dude, sitting on a cloud, listening to peoples wish-list on his cosmic-CB radio.

What's his call sign and is he on 27.555?

But, don't forget that maybe 90% of earth's humans are simpletons, they rush to buy the iPad the Christmas sales ~ even Muslims for Christ sake!!!!

Which sadly means that, that same 90% NEED a simpleton answer, for their own sanity, they NEED to be told, SHOP NOW, GOD wants it, GOD loves you.

And we need to respect this, they don't know the freedom one has when disclosed.

roosh

Morbert wrote: »

We would not be able to verify them against experience though. All we would have is the experience, and not any implications. We would have to be content with "experiences exists".

While we know that "experience exists", the content of the experience can change, so while any logical inferences from "experience exists", would be based on assumptions, they could potentially be verified against the changing content of experience.

This would depend on what is logically inferred, and how the inferences are conceptualised. If the concepts used, have an inherent assumption of existence, they would probably be incorrect and only "verifiable" through a mistaken [conceptualisation of an] experience.

roosh

@King Mob - Sorry, for the below reply,

mangaroosh wrote: »

Yet more special pleading!!

The responses might be shorter, if there wasn't so much misperception to correct. It is an interesting approach though, ignore any challenges and responses, and try and single out one specific point that will hopefully be successful.
<snip>

it was somewhat uncalled for, and it belies - or, more accurately, is indicative of - the fact that your posts are quite challenging and are forcing me to question some of my own assumptions.

WARNING: Blatant attempt to pander to the masses (despite being true):

As are the majority of posts in the A&A forum, hence why I tend to post here more often.

The manner in which I am attempting to explain things, is not, perhaps, ideal. There do appear to be, however, some fundamental misunderstandings about the nature of spiritual practice.


The issue of applying the scientific method, to the practice of spirituality, is, as of yet, not entirely possible. The idea that because something is being observed, then it should be possible to apply the scientific method, does not take into account the current limitations of the scientific method, and the nature of what is being observed in the practice of spirituality.

What is being observed during spiritual practice, is ones own mind. This is an area, that currently, appears to be beyond the scope of the scientific method, as there is currently no experimental methodology that accommodates this approach.

Some might say, that this is for practical reasons, and indeed in most cases it is, however with regard to the "subject matter" that spirituality is concerned with, it isn't. This might be illustrated by asking a number of questions:

• Do we think? - presumablythe answer is yes
• How doe we know we think?
• How do we know what the content of our thoughts are i.e. what our state of mind is?
• How do we know that we are happy, unhappy, angry, fearful, joyful, etc.?

Western Psychology attempts to address some of these issues, by utilising the scientific method of second-party (third-party in some cases?) observation. This of course is a very useful approach, but one fundamental issue is not addressed. That issue is, how does the Psychologist, themselves, know that they are not the ones in need of treatment?


There appears to be great distrust for this form of self-investigation, on some levels, perhaps even be fear. Part of the distrust pertains to the idea that people can delude themselves into believing things that are not true, people can have hallucinations, which they believe exist, but are just tricks of the mind, etc.

This again, however, highlights a fundamental misundertanding of what spiritual practice entails. While spiritual practice may involve observing our own thoughts, and in some cases gaining insight into the nature of our self and reality, it does not necessarily involve, believing what we think. It is actually somewhat the opposite, it is about cultivating a state of awareness of ones thoughts, and not believing what we think; it is about cultivating a state of mind where conceptual thoughts are not dominant in the mind (as they habitually tend to be); it is about cultivating a stillness of mind, where the veil of perception is lifted, and thereby allowing insights to arise, as opposed to being obscured by incessant thinking. This might be explained by the knowledge that experience exist, not because we think it or believe it, or can logically infer it, but because we experience it. The issue is that all-too-often, the habitual nature of our ["ordinary"] mind, verils our perception of reality.

Spiritual practice is concerned with cutting through delusions, because it cultivates a state of awareness where thoughts can come and go, but are not necessarily believed. Initial research, also supports (if not verifies) the claims that meditation can impove visual perception

Does any spiritual practitioner expect anyone to believe any of this? Not in the least:

wrote:

“Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.”

- Siddartha Gautama (a.k.a. Buddha) c.a. 500 B.C.

Memnoch

"Spiritual practioners" are charlatans who hide behind words and double speak because they have nothing beyond placebo and false belief to offer.

The reason the scientific method doesn't apply to this nonsense is because it is nonsense.

roosh

Memnoch wrote: »

"Spiritual practioners" are charlatans who hide behind words and double speak because they have nothing beyond placebo and false belief to offer.

The reason the scientific method doesn't apply to this nonsense is because it is nonsense.

The mounting body of scientific research, would indicate that this assertion is totally unfounded.


EDIT: Lest there be any confusion over the apparent contradiction above. The benefits of meditation, are gaining support from scientific research into the effects of meditation on the brain. Knowing what happens to the brain, during and after meditation, is not necessary for the benefits to accrue - just as we don't need to know what happens to the body during sex, to enjoy the benefits of it.

Memnoch

I have no problem with things like meditation. I have a problem when people start using something like that to support nonsense like "experience of god," or the "supernatural" and all other such rubbish.

The processes by which sex and meditation work to help the body have been scientifically documented and studied. So it does not fall under your category of spiritual nonsense that cannot be observed and studied scientifically.

bnt

mangaroosh wrote: »

The issue of applying the scientific method, to the practice of spirituality, is, as of yet, not entirely possible. The idea that because something is being observed, then it should be possible to apply the scientific method, does not take into account the current limitations of the scientific method, and the nature of what is being observed in the practice of spirituality.
...
Western Psychology attempts to address some of these issues, by utilising the scientific method of second-party (third-party in some cases?) observation. This of course is a very useful approach, but one fundamental issue is not addressed. That issue is, how does the Psychologist, themselves, know that they are not the ones in need of treatment?

Here's a basic misunderstanding of what goes on when we "do Science". We use various methods to avoid and remove personal bias. As well as double-blind trials, etc., there is collaboration between scientists, sometimes working together, sometimes in different parts of the world. One person working alone is a potential source of bias, and we know it and work to avoid it. Then, before your results are published in a journal, they are subjected to peer review, so that a fresh pair of eyes can take a look.

So, this "psychologist in need of treatment" idea is just an attempt to muddy the waters, in my opinion. No, I'm NOT saying that the system is perfect, that personal bias never comes in to it, and I'm sure you could dig up some cases where that has happened (cold fusion, anyone?). Such cases only emphasises the need to work to eliminate personal bias from published results. Scientists are people too, y'know...

roosh

Memnoch wrote: »

I have no problem with things like meditation. I have a problem when people start using something like that to support nonsense like "experience of god," or the "supernatural" and all other such rubbish.

That's completely understandable, and I would agree to a certain extent, in that, to quote Eckhart Tolle:

wrote:

The word God has become empty of meaning through thousands of years of misuse. I use it sometimes, but I do so sparingly. By misuse, I mean that people who have never even glimpsed the realm of the sacred, the infinite vastness behind that word, use it with great conviction, as if they knew what they are talking about

The thing is, that the conept of God comes from the spiritual traditions, where meditation is the quintessential practice. The issue arises when we assume, that we understand what the concept of God actually means, based on no, or a very limited, understanding of spirituality.

When we realise that spirituality is about investigation of ourselves, we can then realise that the conept of God is meant to be understood in this context - even if a huge majority of the people in the world who espouse a belief in God, do not realise it.

It is obvious that contemporary christianity, and perhaps the other monotheistic religions, have become almost completely devoid of spirituality. Probably due to the politicisation of the religions, way back when. This will have inevitably lead to a corruption of the concept of God, as the original context was removed. There do remain, however, a number of spiritual traditions that do not seem to have been so corrupted, and so can offer us an understanding of the original context within which the word God was understood.

With a better understanding of the concept, we can better determine whether or not there is evidence for its existence. Again, to quote Tolle:

The word God has become a closed concept. The moment the word is uttered, a mental image is created, no longer, perhaps, of an old man with a white beard, but still a mental representation of someone or something outside you, and, yes, almost inevitably a male someone or something.

The main point, is that God is not an entity external to us, but rather that everything in existence, is what God is made up of. That is our true nature, and the true nature of everything in existence, is what is referred to as God. Using M-theory as an analogy, can help us to conceptualise this.

Spirituality is "charged" with helping us to realise our true nature, and giving us an experiential understanding of it.

Memnoch wrote: »

The processes by which sex and meditation work to help the body have been scientifically documented and studied. So it does not fall under your category of spiritual nonsense that cannot be observed and studied scientifically.

The thing about understanding the processes of meditation scientifically is, that a scientist may observe the relevant brain activity and say "the part of the brain associated with positive emotions and thoughts, lights up during meditation, and remains lit up afterwards". However, a spiritual practitioner may not know this scientific explanation, but they will experience it.

There is suffering in life, there is happiness, there is attachment, there is joy, all of which are subjective experiences, yet I don't think anyone could deny that they experience them at some stage.

The scientific method does not, and cannot account for these - at present. It may explain what happens to the body when these states are experienced, but it doesn't explain why this is the case, or more importantly what the nature of the experience is.

This is precisely what spirituality does.

Again, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

roosh

bnt wrote: »

Here's a basic misunderstanding of what goes on when we "do Science". We use various methods to avoid and remove personal bias. As well as double-blind trials, etc., there is collaboration between scientists, sometimes working together, sometimes in different parts of the world. One person working alone is a potential source of bias, and we know it and work to avoid it. Then, before your results are published in a journal, they are subjected to peer review, so that a fresh pair of eyes can take a look.

So, this "psychologist in need of treatment" idea is just an attempt to muddy the waters, in my opinion. No, I'm NOT saying that the system is perfect, that personal bias never comes in to it, and I'm sure you could dig up some cases where that has happened (cold fusion, anyone?). Such cases only emphasises the need to work to eliminate personal bias from published results. Scientists are people too, y'know...

This is fully and completely understood, the issue, however, is that there is an assumption that the scientifc method is a "one size fits all" methodology, without taking into consideration the nature of what is being observed or investigated. The scientific method (in its current incarnation), is the best approach for examinging the "external" world.

The issue of "the psychologist needing treatment", isn't an attempt to muddy the waters, rather to highlight a fundamental, unexamined assumption, upon which this approach relies. It is also intended to highlight the role that spiritual investigation plays, in dealing with that assumption as well as highlighting the limitations of the current scientific model, without recourse to first-person methods.

The scientific model is applicable to psychology, as the patient is the "external object", which is examined and observed. The assumption here is, that the psychologist is "fit" to be carrying out these experiments. How does the psychologist know that they are "fit" to be doing this?

We might say, that the psychologists themselves must, as a code of practice, be subject to regular therapy themselves. The same issue applies however, what makes their assessor "fit" to practice?

They may have the relevant qualifications, but then the question must be asked, how do we know their tutor was "fit" to teach?


There is an iherent bias which is built into the system, which gets covered over by the assumption, that the an increase in the number of observers has a proportional effect on removing bias. The issue of course, is the fact that everyone in the process may operate on the same unchecked, base assumption, which never gets checked, and is therefore built into the system.

Spiritual practice works on identifying these biases or assumptions, examining them and correcting them.

Memnoch

mangaroosh wrote: »

That's completely understandable, and I would agree to a certain extent, in that, to quote Eckhart Tolle:


The thing is, that the conept of God comes from the spiritual traditions, where meditation is the quintessential practice. The issue arises when we assume, that we understand what the concept of God actually means, based on no, or a very limited, understanding of spirituality.

When we realise that spirituality is about investigation of ourselves, we can then realise that the conept of God is meant to be understood in this context - even if a huge majority of the people in the world who espouse a belief in God, do not realise it.

It is obvious that contemporary christianity, and perhaps the other monotheistic religions, have become almost completely devoid of spirituality. Probably due to the politicisation of the religions, way back when. This will have inevitably lead to a corruption of the concept of God, as the original context was removed. There do remain, however, a number of spiritual traditions that do not seem to have been so corrupted, and so can offer us an understanding of the original context within which the word God was understood.

With a better understanding of the concept, we can better determine whether or not there is evidence for its existence. Again, to quote Tolle:

The main point, is that God is not an entity external to us, but rather that everything in existence, is what God is made up of. That is our true nature, and the true nature of everything in existence, is what is referred to as God. Using M-theory as an analogy, can help us to conceptualise this.

Spirituality is "charged" with helping us to realise our true nature, and giving us an experiential understanding of it.




The thing about understanding the processes of meditation scientifically is, that a scientist may observe the relevant brain activity and say "the part of the brain associated with positive emotions and thoughts, lights up during meditation, and remains lit up afterwards". However, a spiritual practitioner may not know this scientific explanation, but they will experience it.

There is suffering in life, there is happiness, there is attachment, there is joy, all of which are subjective experiences, yet I don't think anyone could deny that they experience them at some stage.

The scientific method does not, and cannot account for these - at present. It may explain what happens to the body when these states are experienced, but it doesn't explain why this is the case, or more importantly what the nature of the experience is.

This is precisely what spirituality does.

Again, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating via tastebuds, another process documented and identified scientifically.

All of the above emotions you've described have evolutionary origins. And are tied into our primitive breed and survive instincts.

Just as the need to believe in a supernatural deity and to find justification for this through "spritituality" is an evolutionary vestige that we would do well to cast aside.

midlandsmissus

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The issue for me with these claims, is that the people claiming them are unwilling or unable to describe to me a mechanism to differentiate between their claims, and the claims of people who are personally assured that they were abducted by aliens, ort hat they are Napoleon reincarnated.

People actually get personally offended when you do not just accept their personal assurances as to the truth of the religious claims.

Yet they would stand right by you in rejecting the personal assurances of the claims of Hindus, alien abductees and reincarnates.

So if they can so wantonly reject the claims of others, while expecting others to accept their own… then surely they are aware of SOME mechanism by which to distinguish. Why they are so adamant about NOT sharing that mechanism is… for me… suspect in the extreme.

I believe in God, reincarnation, claims of Hindus and alien abductions.

Ush1

It is strange that only they are subject to this "proof".

Aside from hallucinationing, it's fairly easy to trick the human brain. We can easily think the wind sounds like voices, folds in clothing look like a face, shadows as burglars etc....

roosh

Memnoch wrote: »

The proof of the pudding is in the eating via tastebuds, another process documented and identified scientifically.

All of the above emotions you've described have evolutionary origins. And are tied into our primitive breed and survive instincts.

Just as the need to believe in a supernatural deity and to find justification for this through "spritituality" is an evolutionary vestige that we would do well to cast aside.

You are totally correct, the proof of the pudding is be " in the eating via tastebuds, another process documented and identified scientifically". This might perhaps, give us a foundation on which to understand the disconnect between science and spirituality, and how they are complementary as opposed to competing.

While the process of taste, is indeed a well scientifically, documented process, it does not provide a complete and thorough description of what it is actually like to taste something.

To paraphrase [some dude I had never heard of before] Swami Satchidananda,

Suppose I give a talk for three hours about blueberry pie
[and give a detailed, scientific account of how the taste process works].
Can you taste it?
No.

I will be wasting my time. Instead, I have to give you the recipe: One cup of this, a tablespoon of that; put this together, mix, and then put it all in the oven. But even that is not enough. You can't just take the recipe book, gold-gilt it, put on an altar, wave incense, and say, "Blueberry pie, blueberry pie". You have to get the ingredients, cook them, and eat the pie...

While science can give us the detailed, scientific account of what happens during the baking process [of the blueberry pie], spirituality deals with our own experience of actually eating the pie.

So while the emotions that are described, might have their origins in our evolution history, it does not change the fact that we experience them. Knowing scientifically what happens to the body, when we experience them, doesn't change the fact that we experience them.

The ironic thing is, that the practice of spirituality is such, that it teaches us to try and look at our emotions more objectively, and not interpret them subjectively. The practice of meditation is focused on cultivating non-attachment and non-judgement towards our experiences, that is, not to label them as good or bad, nice or not nice (or according to any other conceptual scheme). Spirituality is focused on becoming aware of the physical sensations, and not interpreting them as anything other than physical sensations - the practice is focused on cultivating a more objective state of mind.

We can only do this ourselves, no one else can train our minds for us. Scientific information can help in the process of looking at things more objectively, but it is still us who have to look at things more objectively.

roosh

gbee wrote: »

What's his call sign and is he on 27.555?

the local parish priest informs me, that it is, funnily enough, "big papa smurf"

gbee wrote: »

But, don't forget that maybe 90% of earth's humans are simpletons, they rush to buy the iPad the Christmas sales ~ even Muslims for Christ sake!!!!

Which sadly means that, that same 90% NEED a simpleton answer, for their own sanity, they NEED to be told, SHOP NOW, GOD wants it, GOD loves you.

And we need to respect this, they don't know the freedom one has when disclosed.

I would agree to an extent, but wouldn't necessary call them simpletons, as they are the product of their environment and there go you and I but for the grace of.........nature.

The above can however, I would say, explain how we have come to such a fallacious image of what God is supposed to be. As Dawkins said, we are all atheists when it comes to Thor and Zeus and all the rest, but atheists go one further. I would share that atheistic belief, with pretty much all atheists, in that I don't believe in the God, that most of the atheists I discuss with, argue against. I just think on the strenght of the evidence, that the conceptualisation that most people have of God, is inaccurate.

jesse.j

Galvasean wrote: »

Having a 'personal experience with God' or what have you is just a kop out way of not having to back up one's BS.

I think it was anthony DeMello who said "the church loves a Mystic (saint) - after they're dead". the reason being, the mystic saints, when alive challenged the flaws of the church and the theologians, no matter how knowledgeable could never out argue them. the single problem with anyone attempting to explain is that it (a spiritual experience) will only be understood when one experiences it. you wont be convinced, you won't get it from secondhand accounts. An enlightened atheist is one who understands the reason for not believing. Me, I understand why I believe in a higher power. Given a chance I could Give a scientific explanation If there were any open minded atheist's interested. either way i don't give a f##k. Hard core atheist's have more in common with organised religion than not.

mikhail

jesse.j wrote: »

I think it was anthony DeMello who said "the church loves a Mystic (saint) - after they're dead". the reason being, the mystic saints, when alive challenged the flaws of the church and the theologians, no matter how knowledgeable could never out argue them...

It's long been difficult to argue with someone who insists that they're right because they say so.