It is strange, since these scientists had to be interested in consciousness to devote life-long study to it.
Yes, I agree; however, when we investigate most of these "scientist's" interest in consciousness we find most of them are researching artificial intelligence, not contemplative, so they are just interested in mimmicing human intelligence with computers, not exploring their psyche to depths. Of the few who claim to be contemplatives, none of them have bothered to investigate the foundations of their belief systems around the contemplative arts, nor have the developed the skill of deep meditation.
I find science has a tendency to shun experiential evidence, because it wants a objectified way of measurement, such as "neural correlates", some measurable visual/maths and things/phenomena that correspond to physical matter. So strange, since they prize repeatability and viability, but yet fail to realize that people who go into deep meditation states experience this repeatedly... Or perhaps they felt challenged in their worldview. I know I was, when I first had these experiences, without any knowledge in the suttas/texts by saints, sufists or yogi.
Yes, I agree here as well. I research as a participant-observer-anthropologist; however, my research is not well received without measurable data from instrumentation. The problem here is there may not be any measurable data from instrumentation, because the experience of the mystic might just be purely subjective and non-physical. Thus, the problem for the physical science is they may never have the verification that they want from their instruments.
That makes sense. Perhaps I don't mean that they do not have consciousness, because I recall having a intimate non-verbal company of a wild bird, as well as noticing how humans don't exactly act much different from animals. Animals act a lot like humans too - I've seen how a mother elephant can take care of her children in a playful and almost "human" way.
I recall an experiment in developmental psychology where they tested the ability of animals to recognize themselves in the mirror. Some apes, elephants,dolphins, magpies and ants passed the test of self-recognition. However, it might be that the experiment itself is flawed. Recognizing oneself in the reflection of a pond or mirror might not directly correspond to the ability of self-reflection. Also, some animals rely on other faculties like smell/sounds since their vision can be poor.
Yes, it takes close, open-minded observation to recognize that animals behave with intelligence, self-awareness, and conscious decision-making; however, we err when we apply human behavior, and cognition to our study of animals. As you said, some, if not many, animals depend upon senses that we may not depend so heavily upon, such as smell, such that using a mirror to test self-awareness in animals may not work for animals that do not depend upon sight. I am reminded of my rabbit friend, who was clearly more driven by the senses of smell and hearing, than sight.
On a side note, I find myself very refreshed every time I go into a place with many trees, or perhaps somewhere closer to nature than the urban area. I plan to spend more time in the wilderness if I can, since I am studying in Australia for now. My hometown (Singapore) was miserably severed from nature as the only river it had was an artificially-constructed canal and there is hardly any forest, except for the natural reserves, which are artificially maintained. If anything, it is a fully urbanized island.
I am sure Singapore has changed much in the 50 years since I was there. It does seem that humans require close contact with nature for their mental health.
Since you are from Singapore, perhaps you visit it from time to time, and if so, then perhaps you would be interested in meeting one of our admins here, Sam Lim, who lives there. The two of you could form the beginnings of an Asian counter part to the GWV as a revival movement of the contemplative arts of Buddhism.
Thank you for the clarification. Perhaps "the All" was inappropriately translated. Looking at the Pali here, it seems like the word was translated from "sabbaṃ", which according to this site, means "world of sense-experience" and "whole，entire； all，every".
Sounds about right. interesting to take this part of the discussion back to the topic above in criticism of the physical sciences attempting to study the contemplative arts and mystics. As long as a scientist depends only upon physical world, measurable correlates, he or she will not ever understand, nor develop, the superior fruit of attainment (maha-phala).
I personally do not at all need an EEG or an MRI to tell me when I am meditating deeply, nor anyone else. What I look for is, "we know a tree by its fruit." If a person, who claims to be enlightened, does not understand the superior fruit of attainment (maha-phala); and exhibits addictive and compulsive behavior; then that person is not enlightened.
