Archive for senses

Spiritual Superiority and Scientific Ignorance

March 22, 2012 alan Balance Views, beliefs, brain science, closed minded, cognitive dissonance, conversations, critical thinking, dogmatic opinions, empiricism, experience, feelings, Free Will, fundamentalism, god, Good, inflexibility, is this for real, logical fallacies, logical fallacy, metaphysics, mind, mysticism, neurology, neuroscience, opinion, opinions, perception, perception bias, personal truth, psychology, rational mystic, rational mysticism, sceptic, scepticism, science, scientific literacy, scientific method, sensation, senses, Skeptic, skepticism. science, the real twilight zone

So we’re back again…

On a recent The Real Twilight Zone episode there was a presentation by a singer who was interested in the connection people had to the land. More to the point she was promoting an event in which groups of people could gather at the same time across the UK and ‘sing thanks’ to the planet.

Now, as you might expect, I immediately see the social, emotional and cultural value of such an activity. Bringing individuals together in order share an experience in which the focus is ‘gratitude’ and ‘personal connection with place’ is a vote winner in my book.

But because I accept this positive and affirmative action I need not accept some of the metaphysical constructs that my guest on the show presented.

Ley Lines. Earth Energies and the plausibility of Dowsing being areas which need not go hand in hand with a general support for the Earth Singing activity.

It was interesting to sit back and watch the debate that this interview provoked and so I thought I’d try to encapsulate some idea that allow me, as a Rational Mystic, to hold what may appear to be contradictory views.

So, lets start with Philosophy.

As a discipline this area of academic study can be considered as providing a framework which supports and encourages debate. The framework is built around logic, reasoning and the synthesis of information to extend and explore understanding.

My apologies to any Philosophers ‘out there’ who might feel I’ve oversimplified their specialism. So to make sure I’m at least getting some of this right, lets listen to a philosopher….

 

Now, Science.

Science is about asking questions, proposing hypotheses, collecting observations, conducting experiments, analysing data and sharing findings  - the scientific method. The business of science is to construct meaningful questions which set out to identify the ways in which the cosmos (in it’s broadest sense) works. The derivation of Laws and Theories, upon which further hypotheses can be tested is part and parcel of the process of science.

Again, my apologies to any Scientists ‘out there’ who feel misrepresented.

Science provides a method by which we can explore the world and the cosmos. There is often a by-product to this processes of science which results in technological innovation.

Philosophy provides a vehicle through which findings from scientific explorations, historical reflection and personal introspection can be brought together  in broader terms – such as the consideration of morals, ethics and mores.

Both approaches can be mutually supportive. One deals solely with the world of objective reality no matter how abstract that reality can become. The other deals with what the findings and innovations of science mean – their relevance to the past, present and future and what we can call ‘the human condition’.

It is also true to say that both approaches to knowing and understanding are based upon human constructs – i.e. methods, ways of questioning, ways of being.

They are also built around the ability to ‘deconstruct’ ideas and phenomena in order to question the specifics (the variables) whether they be in terms of abstract concepts, physical objects, observations and even the structure of words themselves. Defining ‘terms’ and ‘variables’ is an essential part of the philosophical and scientific debate.

So what of ‘mysticism’?

Well the branch of philosophy known as Metaphysics deals with aspects of what we know as mysticism. For me it as about personal, subjective experience that we either seek (or not) to place into our own constructs of how the cosmos works.
The same experience can happen to dozens of people all of whom will interpret it initially according to the way they feel they connect with the world – and this is a good thing.

The challenge comes when we try to share what we have experienced and what we mean by the words we use to describe experience. Now I personally enjoy metaphysical debate and provocation BUT only when the people I debate with can engage is such a personal thing without feeling their beliefs are under attack…

Our personal constructs about the world are just that – personal AND we are connected emotionally to the things we accept as being ‘real. Hence there will of course be some hesitation, or even reluctance, to consider questions which run counter to what we ‘feel to be true’.

The more dogmatic we are in our beliefs the less open we are to real debate. I would go a stage further, however, and suggest that fundamentalism is dogmatism plus fear.

If we are unable to tolerate anothers position is it because we feel threatened by their difference?

If we cannot debate our position is it because we are so insecure in our own beliefs that we cannot bear any question?

If we believe that to question spiritual ‘truths’ is wrong are we in danger of persecuting others for their understandings?

Whether there is or is not a God or are or are not Angels is not really a question for science. Behaviours which result from a belief is of interest to psychologists and sociologists and were there to be ‘physical manifestations’ of spiritual beings then sure, science would be able to ask questions.

Most of the statements and beliefs held by those on a ‘spiritual’ or ‘mystical’path and the experiences often quoted as evidence are by their very nature ‘intangible’ and not easily reducible to things science can measure. This does not mean the experiencing of them is not important or relevant to the individual or shared collective consciousness.

For me it is easy to recognise and value the different ways of interacting with the world; the different kinds of experiences we can have and the questions we can choose to ask (or not).

For me it is easy to recognise and value the limitations of each of the ‘ways of experiencing’. It is great that ‘science does not know everything’ because this allows for questions and development of new ideas as well as the redefinition of old ones.

So back to the title of this essay ..

Scientific Ignorance for me is best demonstrated by those who say things like …

“Science doesn’t know everything you know” – said with a ‘told you so’ patronising edge

“It’s only a Theory” – said as if to reduce the status of scientific theory to a ‘cute idea’.

From so-called scientists,

“Well my ideas is so revolutionary that the scientific community won’t even consider it” – usually from those who have an idea (which they call a Theory) that does not fit with ‘conventional wisdom’…

And, from creationists,

“Well if evolution was a true then why don’t we see monkeys having human babies” – yes this was actually said by a Creationist!

Spiritual Superiority can be summed-up when anyone with a metaphysical or spiritual point to make suggests that ‘the reason you don’t understand is because you’ve not reached the same level as we have….” or any other such hierarchical claim.

For me ….

The Rationalist wants to ask empirical questions about objective reality

The Mystic is happy to ‘talk’ about ideas which are inclusive BUT is more interested in what a personal, subjective experience means to me.

I want to be open to different ways of experiencing, relating to and being with myself in relation to the wonderful cosmos and the potential that we have as people to be more than we are…

I want to think about ‘how I know what I know’ and absorb what I can from the range of teachers, philosophers, scientists, mystics and situations I have been fortunate enough to encounter.

….I’m obviously not sure of what I don’t know and so tentative about the things I do think I know…. of course what I feel is another thing entirely.

So for those of you who like ‘videos’ here are some I found to keep you thinking. Not saying I like the style, or endorse the views – but there’s some food for thought here…

 

 

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta
No comments , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Brains Behind It…

July 6, 2010 alan brain, brain science, feelings, intuitions, mind, neuroscience, paranormal experiences, perception, questioning reality, reality, sensation, senses

On some recent Haunted Cornwall FM radio shows I have spoken with medium Angie Kruger about the possibility that many, if not all, of those experiences we call ‘paranormal’ are caused by errors in perception, errors in the way perceptual information is processed or internal brain functions (or dysfunctions).

So lets stop for a moment and reflect…
EVERY experience we experience is a result of the way the brain interprets what we see, hear, feel, taste, touch, smell and think. These processes give rise to an inner sense of ‘mind’. 
Often brian and mind are used interchangeably but in the strictest possible sense BRAIN is the biological structure inside our heads and MIND is the collection of processes it drives. Whilst some people like to think of ‘mind’ as being somehow separate and different to the brain, and therefore consciousness relating to something esoteric and distinct (the basis of spiritual thinking perhaps), most neurologists seem to accept that Mind and Consciousness is an emergent property of brain processes. This idea is not, however, what I wanted to talk about here…
Angie’s agreement with me that ‘brain chemistry’ has a lot to do with ‘psychic’ abilities and perception spurred me to do a little research about some very specific brain functions. It seems that as each month passes scientists who ask questions (and then investigate ways of challenging and answering them unlike some so called paranormal investigators who simply anomaly hunt) about the brain are make more and more sense of what is one of the most complex systems known.
We know that if the living brain is ‘stimulated’ with small electrical charges (electricity is the language of the brain) the person will experience some very real sensations. Such sensations can include 
a ‘feeling’ that there is some ‘higher self’, ‘god-like presence’, ‘otherworldly entity’ in contact with the individual….

a sense that the individuals own consciousness is outside of itself and looking down upon the ‘body’…
hearing sounds
seeing shapes, shadows, patterns, flashing lights, people
recalling memories and the associated feelings
All of these are REAL to the individuals concerned – they are genuine personal experiences.
Of course this research must have implications for any and all paranormal experiences.
I recently sent out a series of emails, Twitter posts and chat room calls for people to submit their ‘best evidence’ for ANY paranormal event. Now whilst I’ve only had a few dozen responses, it is no surprise that the ‘best’ evidence is ‘personal experience’ – and of course perhaps it should be. However powerful and personally relevant these experiences are for the individual (and this is where my mytsical/transpersonal psychology interests lie) the fact of the matter is that personal experience are the result of personal brain processing.
Now before I get too many comments saying what about ‘shared’ experiences, I have to say that the mechanisms for individuals sharing a ‘reality’ bring into play some other powerful social-psychological process that need to be explored before we can simply accept as ‘real’ any jointly witnessed paranormal event.
What are these possible social-psychological processes?
Well they could include confabulation, mass-hysteria, social compliance, mass hallucination, misperception, misrecognition, spiritual rapture, hypnotic effects (which could be all of the above) as well as environmental conditions that are conducive to any or all of the above – infrasound, weather conditions … and so on.
Back to the brain..
I thought it’d be interesting to give a generalised overview of what types of experience are generated within which part of the human brain.
The boxes in yellow show the kind of sensations that have been experimentally produced in people, under laboratory conditions, when those parts of the brain have been stimulated. In most, if not all cases, the sensation faded or stopped as soon as the external stimulation  ceased.
There are a number of questions that must come from these kind of studies..
1) Can the findings be generalised  across the whole human race?
2) Are there naturally occurring situations in which the same targeted stimulation of the brain could be achieved?
3) How do each of these independent sensations combine to produce a perceptual understanding of the ‘outside world’?
4) Is there any distinction between the world as it is ‘out there’ and the world we create ‘in the mind’
5) How do we really know what is real?
Ummm – more than enough questions for a Tuesday afternoon.
Alan
Useful reference for the research on this topic can be found HERE
One comment