--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@> > wrote: > > > > From the viewpoint of a scientist doing research, > > experiments can only manipulate physical variables. Any > > conceptualisation of what is occurring that is given a > > metaphysical explanation is out of range. So from a > > scientific perspective, regarding mind and brain as > > different ways of explaining the same phenomena seems > > like the best approach. > > Just to clarify (again), my post did not take a position > on the relationship of mind to brain. My point was that > the neuropsychologist who wrote the article misrepresented > his own opinion on the matter as established fact, when the > issue is significantly controversial. > > The "best approach" in this case is faute de mieux. > > (snip) > > Perhaps the reasons for the debate regarding mind and > > brain are psychological rather than having anything to > > do with the reality of the situation. Suppose, > > hypothetically, that a concrete proof were possible > > that showed mind and brain were identical in every way > > and physical. What would that do for you psychologically? > > And if one were a die-hard empiricist, and the converse > > was possible to prove, what would that do for you? > > "The reality of the situation" is that hypothetically, > Materialism can be falsified (e.g., by levitation) but > not proved, and Idealism can be proved (e.g., by > levitation) but not falsified.
I was just making a general comment, perhaps more directed toward bhairitu's direct response to the original post. The idea that levitation is physically impossible to achieve via a mental technique would be blown out of the water by an actual verifiable demonstration. But other explanations could be possible. Small animals such as frogs and spiders have been levitated using magnetic fields, though the power required to do this would light up a small city. What would make the investigation of mind and levitation more likely would be a demonstration of levitation in which there would be no detectable physical anomaly, such as magnetic fields etc. The problem with metaphysical explanations is *any* metaphysical explanation that fits the facts is equally probable because of the un-falsifiability. Thus, one could be lifted off the ground by the giant hand of Apollo, or by mysterious, incredibly powerful immaterial fart rays, or by an undetectable akashic vortex overhead sucking one off the ground. One thing is clear about research, we do have considerably more scientific knowledge of how the brain works, and metaphysical explanations as a result seem to have less lustre. When a neurosurgeon has to operate on a brain, the patient is normally awake, and the surgeon has to spend some time poking around with an electrode to find out what functions are located where, because they are different in every brain, though typically in the same general areas. Language may be in a very small tight location, or more diffuse, and interestingly this corresponds to how well a person manipulates words. If the person speaks more than one language, the areas of the brain for each language are different. All the functions that allow the person to work in the world have to be mapped before the surgeon cuts out a tumor or tissue associated with a palsy etc., otherwise just following a general plan would leave the patient a vegetable. It is this tit for tat correspondence with the way the mind works when the brain is damaged that leads us to the idea that mind and brain are different ways of looking at the same process. For example, a woman that had specific damage to one part of the brain could still write sentences, but she would leave out all the vowels. Yet she still left placeholders for all the vowels. This indicates that consonants and vowels are likely stored in different areas of the brain, and that the location of vowels in a sentence may also be stored in a separate area. That is the observation, but just how the brain pulls all this together (the 'binding problem' is what it is called) is currently unknown. If the mind creates the brain, why does damage to the brain incapacitate the mind? If the mind is separate from the brain, why, if the brain is damaged, does it not remove itself to a more suitable host? The research that shows computers analysing the electrical activity of the brain can predict what decision a brain will come to many seconds before it becomes a conscious experience is another area that make one wonder what is going on, with the mind seemingly the horse behind the cart being pulled along. All this is leading to attempts to create functional computer analogical models of the human brain, that can use input, and can be taught just like us. There is this this little robot in my home that vacuums the floor. It maps out the space and vacuums around the edge and then vacuums everything in between, avoiding obstacles along the way, and when the power gets low, it returns directly to its battery charging station. Is this the the rudiments of conscious behaviour? To do its job, the machine has to learn something, though it is far far less complex than what we do. If we say the ground of existence is consciousness, then this little machine must have some kind of consciousness. On the other hand if we say consciousness is some special kind of thing that is somehow inserted into the world via us - human life - there is the problem of the mechanics of how this would work. Is it a soul? How do souls hang out when they are not associated with a body? Are there mechanics involved in getting a soul to inhabit a body, and what are their characteristics? If there are no characteristics, how could anything happen? There are some scientists and philosophers who feel this nit picking about consciousness might be asking the wrong questions, that is, the questions that are being asked create the problem to be solved because they are red herrings. My view, at the moment, is being through having an internal structure becomes conscious, that being is pre-conscious, and so the story goes that being and consciousness are slightly different. But in this scheme mind and brain are the same, as that is the internal structure. This POV of course is really nonsense, because to say anything you have to make up concepts, or adopt ones others make up, to manipulate and arrange in relation to one another, to explain how you experience things. If you experience everything in silence without a thought, no question arises, it's all there, and that is that. Now regarding that post with Lawson. I read Robin's post you referenced, and I generally agree with him on levitation not being a requirement for enlightenment. No tradition other than the TMO, and that one only recently, give that as a requirement. And Mahahishi said, for example, Krishnamurti was too far gone in unity, and Krishnamurti never levitated, and was scornful of spiritual techniques en masse. So, how could Maharishi say that, if levitation were really a requirement, having made Krishnamurti an exception to such a rule? If I were to speculate on why he espoused such a requirement it would have to be either he wanted people to keep at the practice, or he was just using it as a way to get people to funnel money into the movement, or perhaps both. And writings in Maharishi's tradition (and other traditions as well) warn of following the path of special powers, if you want enlightenment. Using levitation as a requirement for enlightenment is a good way for keeping people in place, for if that were true, no one in the absence of a concrete, verifiable demonstration could ever displace the assumption that Maharishi was in unity, and that they, in the absence of that demo, could never aspire to usurp his position as a source of wisdom. That said, if no one practicing these techniques ever really levitates, it would mean the TM panoply of spiritual techniques is a demonstrable failure for achieving the sought-for end. Maharishi said that the TM-Sidhi programme would shorten the path to enlightenment by many years. I do not know if that is true, but mental techniques in this business are tools to achieve an end, not an end in themselves. To achieve an end, sometimes you have to use certain tools, and then at some point discard those tools, and pick up others. And at the end, maybe tools are not needed, having accomplished their task.
