What I always find somewhat annoying is how we conflate so easily the lived first-person knowledge, a subjective direct perception of the spiritual experience, with religious or philosophical speculation.
Is there any scientific experiment ever conducted that doesn't begin with first person experience?"
There is a myth that scientific research is purely third person.
But how do you get to third person:
the "law" of gravity, of thermodynamics?
Right at the beginning, there was a first person observation of sensory experience.
No matter how much you abstract from that original experience - quantify it, abstract the relationships between quantities - you can't ever escape the original first person experience.
I'd love to see a series examining STEP BY STEP a physics experiment and make the precise connection for each step, with the original first person experience.
I think this is the way to show that not only are spirituality and science not opposed, they begin at the exact same place - only science looks outward and spirituality looks inward.
Though of course, with spirituality one reaches a point where there is no longer possible a precise distinction between inward and outward because there is only seamless Reality.
That’s right. But in the context of this blog post, the physicalists could reply that this is a reason more to refute the mystical experience and stick to the (pseudo-)third-person approach of science, which is (inter-)subjective enough. We need not add on top of that another subjective experience, making things only more complicated and gaining… what?
Oh wait - maybe I do - the mystical experience is purely subjective, whereas the third person is intersubjective.
Is that the key?
But that assumes they've disproven solipsism. To the best of my knowledge, nobody has ever come up with a logical refutation of solipsism, which means the intersubjective argument is invalid.
Everyone just "knows" solipsism is not valid, but that "just knowing" is not allowed here.
Or am I missing something? I think that to reveal the fundamentally subjective nature of science is still a perfect first step. If the skeptic tries to get out of it by bringing in intersubjectivity, then tell them they have to prove there is such a thing as intersubjectivity.
This is like my question, "What would be your proof we're not in a dream now?" There is not proof. It's just assumed but you can't prove it.
Similarly, there is - please prove me wrong if you can - no possibility of evidence (much less proof) for a purely physical "thing" or "stuff' existing in the absence of any kind of consciousness.
What do you mean with “there is no intersubjectivity”? When I point at a chair, and you agree, and you say “Yes, there is a chair”, isn’t that intersubjective?
Anyway, one might agree with all that you say (fundamental subjective nature of science, no evidence for purely physical things in the absence of consciousness, no proof that we are not in a dream, etc.) and, nevertheless, dismiss the mystical experience.
I mean you can't empirically prove (or even provide evidence for) intersubjectivity.
"you" point to a chair.
What empirical evidence do I have that "you" are not a character appearing in a dream? None.
As far as dismissing "mystical" experience, let's be precise.
1. What do we know, most directly? We have sensations, emotions, thoughts, ideas, images appearing in experience - experience which is of the nature of one field of awareness. We do not need evidence for this. It is self evident.
2. Since everyone seems to agree that we don't need logical proof to refute solipsism, we can both accept that within this field of awareness, there is somehow a concentration of that awareness such that Marco and Don experience that awareness by means of distinct minds.
3. The physicalist simply asserts - without even the need for evidence - that entirely distinct from this unified field of awareness within which appear Don and Marco's minds - there is something undefinable, unfindable, something for which there can never be any evidence much less proof - something that exists completely apart from any awareness whatsoever.
4. I say, since the only direct empirical evidence for anything we have comes through the medium of awareness, it is more logical (not parsimonious, just logical) to assume that what exists apart from Marco and Don's minds also exists within awareness.
5. There is not a single finding in centuries of science which requires an additional theory about some kind of dead, unconscious "stuff".
6. Furthermore, virtually everything, every theory, every experiment in science becomes utterly incomprehensible and inexplicable if we insist on postulating this. For some reason, when you ask skeptics how the laws of nature came about, they scoff and say, "they're just there, it's a ridiculous, useless question." But they don't apply that to any other area of science. "How did evolution occur?" "it doesn't need an explanation, it just happens." How does digestion take place?" "It just does, it doesn't need an explanation."
7. Yet virtually all scientific claims are based on the actions of these laws of nature. If you postulate - for no logical reason and with no possibility of empirical evidence - the existence of this dead stuff, you eliminate any possibility that any scientific theory or experiment will ever have any explanation. It all just is, just as when the fundamentalists say "God did it."
8. On the other hand, if you assume that whatever exists apart from Don and Marco's minds has the same nature as the experiential field of awareness - which we see everywhere acts in ways which are orderly, reflecting some kind of intelligence - then everything in science is perfectly explicable.
9. So the burden of - not even proof, just simple logic, rests entirely on the skeptic. why should we accept a theory from you that has no possibility of evidence, much less proof - and basically renders a truly scientific explanation virtually impossible?
I didn't make clear. I would never use the words "Mystical experience." You've ended any possibility of dialog at that point.
Similarly with contemplation, spirituality, meditation, etc.
You have to start, I think, where the scientist is at. Make clear what the scientist is doing - he/she has almost always never given a moment's thought to it. Don't give in to "intersubjective" - there's already an implicit admission of the non existence of a purely objective universe if they try to slip in that term - call them on it.
Lead them inexorably, step by step, to the point I got at the end - don't give an inch. If they want to claim this dead stuff is the ultimate reality, let them show why we should bother, when there's no evidence for it and it provides no extra explanatory value, whereas the contrary view - that reality is of the same nature as our experience - has infinite evidence every moment, and has infinite all pervading explanatory value.
I'll just say - I've been presenting this view now since 2011 and have never come across even one person who can reasonably reply to any of these points.
Ah, yes. In this sense, intersubjectivity implies a duality that isn’t. Agreed. That’s why I raised the topic of the universal consciousness. It seems to me that we reach the same conclusion, only coming from different routes.
“I would never use the words "Mystical experience." You've ended any possibility of dialog at that point. Similarly with contemplation, spirituality, meditation, etc. You have to start, I think, where the scientist is at.”
Ahhh…. Now I see what you mean. 😉
Ok, but I have done this so many times and in so many ways (sometimes with some progress, sometimes not) and this adds to it. However, I don’t believe there is only one universal approach, with all the others wrong. Here, I guess, we have two very different kinds of audiences in mind. Here I’m not only (and not so much) speaking to the die-hard materialist. I’m speaking to the (IMO much larger community) of those who are open and have already had some thought on it, but don’t know how and where to look. I believe there are also scientists that are open to the mystic experience but never thought much about it and can’t connect the dots. Moreover, my experience is that also the pure physicalist, after this conversation on mysticism, at least admits that there is more than just mystical philosophical speculation.
So, as to all your points, I obviously wholeheartedly agree. But ultimately, what you are doing (pointing at the fact that everything “has the same nature as the experiential field of awareness”) is precisely that of inviting people to take the mystic perspective seriously, only without naming it.
Is there any scientific experiment ever conducted that doesn't begin with first person experience?"
There is a myth that scientific research is purely third person.
But how do you get to third person:
the "law" of gravity, of thermodynamics?
Right at the beginning, there was a first person observation of sensory experience.
No matter how much you abstract from that original experience - quantify it, abstract the relationships between quantities - you can't ever escape the original first person experience.
I'd love to see a series examining STEP BY STEP a physics experiment and make the precise connection for each step, with the original first person experience.
I think this is the way to show that not only are spirituality and science not opposed, they begin at the exact same place - only science looks outward and spirituality looks inward.
Though of course, with spirituality one reaches a point where there is no longer possible a precise distinction between inward and outward because there is only seamless Reality.
That’s right. But in the context of this blog post, the physicalists could reply that this is a reason more to refute the mystical experience and stick to the (pseudo-)third-person approach of science, which is (inter-)subjective enough. We need not add on top of that another subjective experience, making things only more complicated and gaining… what?
Greetings from the devil’s advocate! ;)
Oh, this is good. I don't understand...
Oh wait - maybe I do - the mystical experience is purely subjective, whereas the third person is intersubjective.
Is that the key?
But that assumes they've disproven solipsism. To the best of my knowledge, nobody has ever come up with a logical refutation of solipsism, which means the intersubjective argument is invalid.
Everyone just "knows" solipsism is not valid, but that "just knowing" is not allowed here.
Or am I missing something? I think that to reveal the fundamentally subjective nature of science is still a perfect first step. If the skeptic tries to get out of it by bringing in intersubjectivity, then tell them they have to prove there is such a thing as intersubjectivity.
This is like my question, "What would be your proof we're not in a dream now?" There is not proof. It's just assumed but you can't prove it.
Similarly, there is - please prove me wrong if you can - no possibility of evidence (much less proof) for a purely physical "thing" or "stuff' existing in the absence of any kind of consciousness.
Ok, refute all of the above!!!
What do you mean with “there is no intersubjectivity”? When I point at a chair, and you agree, and you say “Yes, there is a chair”, isn’t that intersubjective?
Anyway, one might agree with all that you say (fundamental subjective nature of science, no evidence for purely physical things in the absence of consciousness, no proof that we are not in a dream, etc.) and, nevertheless, dismiss the mystical experience.
I mean you can't empirically prove (or even provide evidence for) intersubjectivity.
"you" point to a chair.
What empirical evidence do I have that "you" are not a character appearing in a dream? None.
As far as dismissing "mystical" experience, let's be precise.
1. What do we know, most directly? We have sensations, emotions, thoughts, ideas, images appearing in experience - experience which is of the nature of one field of awareness. We do not need evidence for this. It is self evident.
2. Since everyone seems to agree that we don't need logical proof to refute solipsism, we can both accept that within this field of awareness, there is somehow a concentration of that awareness such that Marco and Don experience that awareness by means of distinct minds.
3. The physicalist simply asserts - without even the need for evidence - that entirely distinct from this unified field of awareness within which appear Don and Marco's minds - there is something undefinable, unfindable, something for which there can never be any evidence much less proof - something that exists completely apart from any awareness whatsoever.
4. I say, since the only direct empirical evidence for anything we have comes through the medium of awareness, it is more logical (not parsimonious, just logical) to assume that what exists apart from Marco and Don's minds also exists within awareness.
5. There is not a single finding in centuries of science which requires an additional theory about some kind of dead, unconscious "stuff".
6. Furthermore, virtually everything, every theory, every experiment in science becomes utterly incomprehensible and inexplicable if we insist on postulating this. For some reason, when you ask skeptics how the laws of nature came about, they scoff and say, "they're just there, it's a ridiculous, useless question." But they don't apply that to any other area of science. "How did evolution occur?" "it doesn't need an explanation, it just happens." How does digestion take place?" "It just does, it doesn't need an explanation."
7. Yet virtually all scientific claims are based on the actions of these laws of nature. If you postulate - for no logical reason and with no possibility of empirical evidence - the existence of this dead stuff, you eliminate any possibility that any scientific theory or experiment will ever have any explanation. It all just is, just as when the fundamentalists say "God did it."
8. On the other hand, if you assume that whatever exists apart from Don and Marco's minds has the same nature as the experiential field of awareness - which we see everywhere acts in ways which are orderly, reflecting some kind of intelligence - then everything in science is perfectly explicable.
9. So the burden of - not even proof, just simple logic, rests entirely on the skeptic. why should we accept a theory from you that has no possibility of evidence, much less proof - and basically renders a truly scientific explanation virtually impossible?
I didn't make clear. I would never use the words "Mystical experience." You've ended any possibility of dialog at that point.
Similarly with contemplation, spirituality, meditation, etc.
You have to start, I think, where the scientist is at. Make clear what the scientist is doing - he/she has almost always never given a moment's thought to it. Don't give in to "intersubjective" - there's already an implicit admission of the non existence of a purely objective universe if they try to slip in that term - call them on it.
Lead them inexorably, step by step, to the point I got at the end - don't give an inch. If they want to claim this dead stuff is the ultimate reality, let them show why we should bother, when there's no evidence for it and it provides no extra explanatory value, whereas the contrary view - that reality is of the same nature as our experience - has infinite evidence every moment, and has infinite all pervading explanatory value.
I'll just say - I've been presenting this view now since 2011 and have never come across even one person who can reasonably reply to any of these points.
Ah, yes. In this sense, intersubjectivity implies a duality that isn’t. Agreed. That’s why I raised the topic of the universal consciousness. It seems to me that we reach the same conclusion, only coming from different routes.
“I would never use the words "Mystical experience." You've ended any possibility of dialog at that point. Similarly with contemplation, spirituality, meditation, etc. You have to start, I think, where the scientist is at.”
Ahhh…. Now I see what you mean. 😉
Ok, but I have done this so many times and in so many ways (sometimes with some progress, sometimes not) and this adds to it. However, I don’t believe there is only one universal approach, with all the others wrong. Here, I guess, we have two very different kinds of audiences in mind. Here I’m not only (and not so much) speaking to the die-hard materialist. I’m speaking to the (IMO much larger community) of those who are open and have already had some thought on it, but don’t know how and where to look. I believe there are also scientists that are open to the mystic experience but never thought much about it and can’t connect the dots. Moreover, my experience is that also the pure physicalist, after this conversation on mysticism, at least admits that there is more than just mystical philosophical speculation.
So, as to all your points, I obviously wholeheartedly agree. But ultimately, what you are doing (pointing at the fact that everything “has the same nature as the experiential field of awareness”) is precisely that of inviting people to take the mystic perspective seriously, only without naming it.