In my recent posts there has been a clear thread which some have seen as being ‘in defense of science’.
I would argue that it they have been mostly about promotion of scientific method – or put another way the desire and willingness to ask questions.
The human brain is a wonderfully complex organ and the ‘mind’ that emerges from the electro-chemical processes is truly remarkable. The existence of mind need not presuppose any divine intervention or other dualist philosophy.
One way of thinking about things is that the brains primary function is to process sensory information, create physical links between different brain structures so as to collate the information it processes and the mind (the collection of neural processes) creates personal understanding.
One of the things our mind is extremely good at doing is pattern matching…
At some ‘level’ new sensory information is collected, collated and processed and linked to previous experiences or patterns.
Optical illusions are superb examples of the way our brains can be fooled. In the above picture there is no white triangle, but you are ‘happy’ to ‘see’ one there. Indeed the more I tell you that there is no white triangle the more apparent it may become.
Many people will look at such optical illusions, smile and then stop thinking about what is actually going on there. In point of fact you are hallucinating – your mind is seeing something that is not there, something that is only hinted at. Consider also that this ‘fooling’ of the senses happens in an a relatively emotional neutral state. You currently have no vested, personal interest in either disagreeing with what I am saying or for that matter agreeing with it.
However this simple optical illusion points to something very profound in the way we perceive the world. All of our senses and the way we interpret sensory input are easily fooled. More importantly we need to remember that perception is an ‘active process’. You don’t simply see, hear, feel, taste, touch, smell – your brain receives the signals and at an unconscious level makes some ‘decisions’ about what to make you consciously aware of. The ‘filters’ responsible for this unconscious sorting include your beliefs.
See the ‘demon’ in the smoke – evidence of the ‘evil’ behind this catastrophe?
Psychologists call the ability of our minds to find patterns in randomness paraiedolia, and it is this incredible perceptual ability (which can be shown in most of not all sensory modalities) that results in ‘visions’ of the Virgin Mary in a slice of cheese on toast or the smile of a Buddha in a collection of breadcrumbs….
There’s another psychological process going on as well – it’s called Cognitive Dissonance. This is the notion that people are inclined to ‘reject’ any information (sensory as well as cognitive) that stands in contradiction to what they believe and preferentially ‘pay attention’ to any information that supports their pre-existing ideas.
We are all prone to this – Scientists and Mystics alike.
This ‘dissonance’ is so pervasive in our everyday processing of sensory information that we are personally oblivious to it.
Some writers have commented upon the behaviour of President G W Bush as being a perfect example of such dissonance. Despite evidence that DID NOT support his ideas about the need to liberate the peoples of Iraq; the existence of weapons of mass destruction; the overall support the population of Iraq would give to an invasion he failed to consider it. In subsequent interviews and research some of his aides have actually said that they were in a position of telling him what he wanted to know rather than providing balanced information – he was surrounded by ‘yes men’. The extent to which the same is true of Tony Blair is perhaps cause for further discussion. Politicians are often inclined to surround themselves with those who support their beliefs and attitudes (Kennedy and the Bay of Pigs springs to mind) when in fact the thing they really need is someone who can a does play devils advocate. In the US this was true of Lincolns presidential advisors and seems to be true of Obamas.
….. I can hear you saying ….
“So what has this got to do with the origin of beliefs?”
Well let’s start by suggesting that ANY belief a person holds will influence how they perceive the ‘world out there’ and personally respond to it AND that once that belief is there cognitive dissonance will ensure that it is self reinforcing.
So our beliefs are nothing more that ways of explaining our observations, of framing our relationship with the world and creating some kind of order (pattern).
Consider a belief as a ‘table top’ and the legs of that table are the personal experiences which support it.
These ‘legs’ are as sturdy as the experience (personal evidence) we have for them. They are comprised of the things we have been told, the explanations we have been given, our cultural upbringing, our own desires and expectations and so on.
Our personal truth (belief) is the way in which we create meaning from our experience of the world.
Our experience of the world is shaped (if you like selected and biassed) by what we believe.
Skepticism and the Scientific Method encourages questions; they offer a structure upon which to challenge the bias of personal perception and experience in order increase understanding.
The thing is that we often do not want to be challenged about the things we ‘hold dear’ – our beliefs drive our behaviours and hence our relationships with others.
In recent weeks on
Haunted Cornwall FM, the internet Radio Show I contribute to, it has become more and more apparent that
opinion is often presented as
evidence and questioning (paranormal)
experience is seen as a direct challenge to personal
belief.
Being a Rational Mystic is about engaging rationality in order to explore the evidence that is offered for explanations of how the world works whilst accepting that beliefs and mystical belief systems can (sometimes) form a framework for exploring personal relationships with those things as yet unknown.
The real world of empiricism, rationality, is as vibrant and rich as any world that can be created by psuedo-science and mystical belief systems. Relating creatively to the metaphorical world of the mystic can be emotionally and personally rewarding and may inspire philosophical debate. The two world views are not mutually exclusive but the individual needs to be able to consider which world he or she is commenting from and whether or not they want to engage with the ‘devils advocate’ or not.
