--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <jflanegi@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajranatha@> wrote: > > > > > > http://www.sbinstitute.com/matofgaps.pdf > > > > > > Virtually all cognitive scientists today assume that > > consciousness > > > and all subjectively experienced mental processes are functions > > of > > > the brain, and are therefore emergent properties or functions of > > > matter. This is the mainstream scientific view of consciousness, > > and > > > those who reject this hypothesis are commonly viewed by many > > > scientists as being in the grip of a metaphysical bias or > > religious > > > faith. > > > > > > To evaluate this scientific perspective, let's first review some > > > simple, uncontested facts: Scientists have (1) no consensual > > > definition of consciousness, (2) no means of measuring it or its > > > neural correlates, and (3) an incomplete knowledge of the > > necessary > > > and sufficient causes of consciousness. The fact that no state of > > > consciousness in fact, no subjectively experienced mental > > > phenomenon of any kind is detectable using the instruments of > > > science means that, strictly speaking, there is no scientific, > > > empirical evidence for the existence of consciousness or the > > mind. > > > The only experiential evidence we have for the existence of > > mental > > > phenomena consists of reports based on first-person, > > introspective > > > observations of one's own mental states. But such first- person > > > accounts are not objective, they are not subject to third- person > > > corroboration, and they are generally presented by people with no > > > formal training in observing or reporting on their own mental > > > processes. Yet without such anecdotal evidence for the existence > > of > > > mental phenomena, scientists would have no knowledge of the > > mental > > > correlates of the neural and behavioral processes that they study > > > with such precision and sophistication. In other words, the whole > > > edifice of scientific knowledge of mental processes that arise in > > > dependence upon brain functions is based on evidence that is > > > anecdotal and unscientific. > > > > > Yes- plenty of subjective evidence, but no matter how much evidence, > > it never establishes proof. > > > > More like the brain is a very sensitive amplifier of consciousness, > > with dynamic filters that allow it to interpret consciousness > > according to the orientation of the senses, both inward and outward. > > > > The brain's amplified, dynamically filtered interpretation of > > consciousness is watched by the self, and as it moves through time > > and space, becomes the mind. > > > > So any measure of the brain can only prove that the mind is created > > out of consciousness, and can be measured in different states of > > consciousness, but the states of consciousness themselves can never > > be proven by these measurements of the brain. > > > > Science never proves anything. There is no scientific proof that the sun will rise tomorrow. > However, for most people, scientists can now eyeball various measures and tell when they > are asleep or awake or dreaming or even in samadhi during meditation. > Agreed- science will only provide evidence of a greater or lesser likehood of something's existence. This is easy to do for awake or dreaming states, because they are so universally recognized.
Not so for samadhi. The science of measuring samadhi is in its early stage. Right now it is still like a snake chasing its tail- Subjectively, the subject says, "OK I am in samadhi", and the subject is measured. Then the measurement becomes evidence of the state. In an average study, let's say there appears to be correlation between what, 100 subjects? Compared to billions, who I am sure would agree on when they were awake, or dreaming. So maybe Samadhi can be globally agreed upon as a state verified by science. That would be great! But I don't think there is enough consensus on the validity of the studies so far, to say that Samadhi has been scientifically validated.
