Everybody's brain is producing a kind of hallucination

Today I finished reading the final pages of Anil Seth's book, "Being You: A New Science of Consciousness." Here's a provocative passage from the Epilogue.

Everything in conscious experience is a perception of sorts, and every perception is a kind of controlled -- or controlling -- hallucination.

What excites me most about this way of thinking is how far it may take us. 

Experiences of free will are perceptions. The flow of time is a perception. Perhaps even the three-dimensional structure of our experienced world and the sense that the contents of perceptual experience are objectively real -- these may be aspects of perception too.

The tools of consciousness science are allowing us to get ever closer to Kant's noumenon, the ultimately unknowable reality of which we, too, are a part.

This idea that conscious experience is a perception of sorts fits with what Sam Harris often says in the guided meditations I listen to on his Waking Up app.

For example, he'll ask if it seems that we're perceiving the world from a place somewhere inside our head. Then Harris will say that this seeming is itself a conscious experience, in the same way that objects in the world are conscious experiences.

In other words, we can't get outside of what the brain is doing. There's no ethereal observer, or self, floating around somewhere in our cranium. What there is are many billions of neurons connected in trillions of ways, which end up producing our conscious experiences.

I thought about trying to explain this from what I've learned in Seth's book. Then I recalled that Seth had written an essay published in the Boston Globe, "Reality is what you make of it," where he explains how the brain hallucinates reality.

I've copied in the essay below, which covers key points in his Being You book. 

I open my eyes and a world appears. I’m sitting on a plastic chair on the deck of a tumbledown wooden house, high in a cypress forest a few miles north of Santa Cruz, Calif. It’s early morning. Looking straight out, I can see tall trees still wreathed in the cool ocean fog that rolls in every night, sending the temperature plummeting. I can’t see the ground, so the deck and the trees all seem to be floating together with me in the mist.

There are some other plastic chairs, a table, and a tray arranged with coffee and bread. I can hear birdsong, some rustling around in the back — the people I’m staying with — and a distant murmur from something I can’t identify. Not every morning is like this; this is a good morning. I have to persuade myself, not for the first time, that this extraordinary world is a construction of my brain, a kind of “controlled hallucination.”

Whenever we are conscious, we are conscious of something, or of many things. These are the contents of consciousness. To understand how they come about, and what I mean by controlled hallucination, let’s change our perspective.

Imagine for a moment that you are a brain. Really try to think about what it’s like up there, sealed inside the bony vault of the skull, trying to figure out what’s out there in the world. There’s no light, no sound, no anything — it’s completely dark and utterly silent. When it forms perceptions, all the brain has to go on is a constant barrage of electrical signals that are only indirectly related to things out in the world, whatever they may be.

These sensory inputs don’t come with labels attached (“I’m from a cup of coffee.” “I’m from a tree.”). They don’t even arrive with labels announcing their modality, whether they are visual or auditory or sensations of touch, temperature, or proprioception (the sense of body position).

How does the brain transform these inherently ambiguous sensory signals into a coherent perceptual world full of objects, people, and places? The essential idea is that the brain is a prediction machine, so that what we see, hear, and feel is nothing more than the brain’s best guess of the causes of its sensory inputs. Following this idea all the way through, we will see that the contents of consciousness are a kind of waking dream — a controlled hallucination — that is both more than and less than whatever the real world really is.

Here’s a common-sense view of perception. Let’s call it the “how things seem” view.

In this view, there’s a mind-independent reality out there, full of objects and people and places that have properties like color, shape, texture, and so on. Our senses act as transparent windows onto this world, detecting these objects and their features and conveying this information to the brain, whereupon complex neuronal processes read it out to form perceptions.

A red coffee cup out there in the world leads to a perception of a red coffee cup generated within the brain. As to who or what is doing the perceiving — well, that’s the “self,” isn’t it?, the “I behind the eyes,” one might say, the recipient of wave upon wave of sensory data, which uses its perceptual readouts to guide behavior, to decide what to do next. There’s a cup of coffee over there. I perceive it and I pick it up. I sense, I think, and then I act.

This is an appealing description. Patterns of thinking established over decades, maybe centuries, have accustomed us to the idea that the brain is some kind of computer perched inside the skull, processing sensory information to build an inner picture of the outside world for the benefit of the self. This picture is so familiar that it can be difficult to conceive of any reasonable alternative. Indeed, many neuroscientists and psychologists still think about perception in this way, as a process in which the brain works from the “bottom up” to discern features of things in the world.

Here’s how the bottom-up picture is supposed to work: Stimuli from the world — light waves, sound waves, molecules conveying tastes and smells, and so on — impinge on sensory organs and cause electrical impulses to flow “upwards” or “inwards” into the brain. These sensory signals pass through several distinct processing stages, and at each stage the brain picks out increasingly complex features.

Let’s take vision as an example. At first the brain might detect features like luminance or edges, and later it might detect the parts of discrete objects — such as eyes and ears, or wheels and side-view mirrors. Still later stages of this processing system would respond to whole objects, or object categories, like faces and cars.

In this way, the external world with its objects and people and all sorts of everything becomes recapitulated in a series of features extracted from the river of sensory data flowing into the brain. Signals flowing in the opposite direction — from the “top down” or the “inside out,” serve to refine or otherwise constrain the bottom-up flow of sensory information.

This bottom-up view of perception fits well with what we know about the anatomy of the brain, at least at first glance. Perceptual systems of all modalities are organized in the brain as hierarchies. In the visual system, for example, the primary visual cortex of the brain is close to sensory inputs, while the parietal and frontal cortices, where later stages of processing are believed to occur, are further away.

Studies of brain activity also seem friendly to this bottom-up view. Experiments going back decades — investigating the visual systems of cats and monkeys — have repeatedly shown that neurons at early stages of visual processing respond to simple features like edges, while neurons at later stages respond to complex features like faces. More recent experiments using methods like functional magnetic resonance imaging have revealed much the same thing in human brains.

You can even build artificial “perceiving systems” this way. Machine vision systems based on artificial neural networks are nowadays achieving impressive performance levels, in some situations comparable to those of humans. These systems, too, are frequently based on bottom-up theories.

With all these points in its favor, the bottom-up “how things seem” view of perception seems to be on pretty solid ground.

---

Ludwig Wittgenstein: “Why do people say that it was natural to think that the sun went round the earth rather than that the earth turned on its axis?”

Elizabeth Anscombe: “I suppose, because it looked as if the sun went round the earth.”

Wittgenstein: “Well, what would it have looked like if it had looked as if the earth turned on its axis?”

In this delightful exchange between Wittgenstein and his fellow philosopher (and biographer) Elizabeth Anscombe, the legendary Austrian thinker uses the Copernican revolution to illustrate the point that how things seem is not necessarily how they are. Although it seems as though the sun goes around the earth, it is of course the earth rotating on its own axis that gives us night and day, and it is the sun, not the earth, that sits at the center of the solar system.

Nothing new here, you might think, and you’d be right. But Wittgenstein was driving at something deeper. His real message for Anscombe was that even with a greater understanding of how things actually are, at some level things still appear the same way they always did. The sun rises in the east and sets in the west, same as always.

As with the solar system, so with perception. I open my eyes and it seems as though there’s a real world out there. Today I’m at home in Brighton, England, and there are no cypress trees as there were in Santa Cruz, just the usual scatter of objects on my desk, a red chair in the corner, and beyond the window a totter of chimney pots. These objects seem to have specific shapes and colors, and for the ones closer at hand, smells and textures too. This is how things seem.

Although it may seem as though my senses provide transparent windows onto a mind-independent reality, and that perception is a process of “reading out” sensory data, what’s really going on is — I believe — quite different. Perceptions do not come from the bottom up or the outside in, they come primarily from the top down or the inside out. What we experience is built from the brain’s predictions, or best guesses, about the causes of sensory signals.

There is a real world out there, but the way in which that real world appears in conscious experience is always a construction — a writing as much as a reading. As with the Copernican revolution, this top-down view of perception remains consistent with much of the existing evidence, leaving unchanged many aspects of how things seem, while at the same time changing everything.

---

This notion of perception is best described as “controlled hallucination,” a phrase I first heard from the British neuroscientist Chris Frith many years ago. The essential ingredients of the controlled hallucination view, as I think of it, are as follows.

First, the brain is constantly making predictions about the causes of its sensory signals, predictions that cascade in a top-down direction through the brain’s perceptual hierarchies. If you happen to be looking at a coffee cup, your visual cortex will be formulating predictions about the causes of the sensory signals that originate from this coffee cup.

Second, sensory signals, which stream into the brain from the bottom up, or outside in, keep these perceptual predictions tied in useful ways to their causes — in this case, the coffee cup. These signals function as “prediction errors,” registering the difference between what the brain expects and what it gets at every level of processing.

These bottom-up signals therefore serve to refine and calibrate the top-down predictions. By adjusting top-down predictions so as to suppress bottom-up prediction errors, the brain’s perceptual best guesses maintain their grip on their causes in the world.

The third and most important ingredient in the controlled hallucination view is the claim that perceptual experience — in this case the subjective experience of “seeing a coffee cup” — is determined by the content of the (top-down) predictions, and not by the (bottom-up) sensory signals. We never experience sensory signals themselves; we only ever experience interpretations of them.

Mix these ingredients together and we’ve cooked up a Copernican inversion for how to think about perception. It seems as though the world pours itself directly into our conscious minds through our sensory organs. With this mindset, it is natural to think of perception as a process of bottom-up feature detection — a “reading” of the world around us. But what we actually perceive is a top-down, inside-out neuronal fantasy that is reined in by reality. It is not a transparent window onto whatever that reality may be.

And — to channel Wittgenstein once more — what would it seem like, if it seemed as if perception was a top-down best guess? Well, just as the sun still rises in the east and sets in the west, if it seemed as if perception was a controlled hallucination, the coffee cup on the table — the entirety of anyone’s perceptual experience — would still seem the same way it always did and always will.

When we think about hallucination, we typically think of some kind of internally generated perception, a seeing or a hearing of something that isn’t actually there, or that other people don’t hear or see — as can happen in schizophrenia or perhaps during a psychedelic adventure. These associations place hallucination in contrast to “normal” perception, which is assumed to reflect things as they actually exist out in the world.

In the top-down view of perception, this sharp distinction becomes a matter of degree. Both normal perception and abnormal hallucination involve internally generated predictions about the causes of sensory inputs, and the two share a core set of mechanisms in the brain.

The difference is that in normal perception, what we perceive is tied to — controlled by — causes in the world and the body, whereas in the case of hallucination our perceptions have, to some extent, lost their grip on these causes. When we hallucinate, as considerable evidence from psychological and brain imaging studies is now indicating, our perceptual predictions are not properly updated in light of prediction errors.

If perception is controlled hallucination, then — equally — hallucination can be thought of as uncontrolled perception. The two are different, but to ask where to draw the line is like asking where the boundary is between day and night. You could even say that we’re all hallucinating all the time. It’s just that when we agree about our hallucinations, that’s what we call reality.

Anil Seth, a professor of cognitive and computational neuroscience at the University of Sussex, in the United Kingdom, is the author of “Being You: A New Science of Consciousness,” from which this essay is adapted, with permission from Dutton, an imprint of Penguin Publishing Group. Copyright © 2021 by Anil Seth.

Comments

[Spence Tepper]

The human brain recreates our image of ourselves and our reality moment by moment. Our perception of this reality is largely unconscious. We normally don't distinguish this process from "reality".

In meditation we can learn to observe the process, so that there is the normal reality presented to us, what we see and hear and think, and the brain processing and producing this, from a separate, observer perspective in real time.

When we look back at what we did yesterday, what we thought, felt, and our actions, we are doing this, too. We are auditing ourselves. So there is the actor, and there is the auditor, and there is the writer and the director. And the brain, also functioning as the production crew.

Normally we don't perceive these as separate intelligences. But as an observer, we can learn to. Then we are opening our own cognitive perception into a wider window, and in so doing raising our level of conscious awareness.

We can view things from a different, higher perspective. That is the practice of raising our consciousness, the practice of meditation.

[dj]

Fuck, I'd go insane if I tried to digest your word salad essays on consciousness. To me its a given of the human experience, like being able to speak, and needs no (anal)ysis. Just do the things consciousness enables people to do, and stop spending so much time ruminating upon it.

[Xtra]

Fuck, I'd go insane if I tried to digest your word salad essays on consciousness. To me its a given of the human experience, like being able to speak, and needs no (anal)ysis. Just do the things consciousness enables people to do, and stop spending so much time ruminating upon it.

Posted by: dj | November 24, 2021 at 07:22 AM

Eloquent as always.

[Tendzin]

cf Hamlet, and the RS doctrine of maya.

[Appreciative Reader]

Lovely. Deliciously mind-bending.

Reminded me of this sci fi I'd read a good while back. Here's the wiki of it (spoiler alert!): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_World.

[Ro E.]

Much of what Seth states seems quite valid. I particularly like this ;- “Whenever we are conscious, we are conscious of something, or of many things.”

Interesting, 2,500 years ago the Buddha’s taught this re consciousness and the (six) senses. e.g. “There is eye consciousness; ear consciousness; smell, touch and taste consciousness.” The sixth sense being the mind (in that the mind sense perceives mental phenomena originating from within the mind itself.)

According to Buddhist teachings, mental cognitive awareness has the same characteristics as sensory cognitive awareness: both are contingent on certain conditions – or, that consciousness arises when subject encounters object – whether mental or physical. This still does not reveal how consciousness arise (a hotchpotch of ideas surface from this) just that it needs certain conditions – subject and object.

[Appreciative Reader]

"when we agree about our hallucinations, that’s what we call reality"

..........I re-read this very thought-provoking article/review one more time, just now, Brian, and I'm afraid I find it somewhat ...troublesome, the part I've quoted above. While I can't directly put my finger on exactly what's wrong with this POV, but here's an indirect argumentum ad absurdum that makes the point well enough, I believe, while still leaving the resolution itself incomplete (and awaiting more reasoned and better-thought-out clarification by someone else, should they be able to supply it, and should they care to make that effort).

Think about it. When we agree about our hallucinations, that's what we call reality, really? In a room --- or forum --- full of flat-earthers, everyone (or most everyone) agrees that the earth is flat. Does that make a flat earth a reasonable description of reality? Or, take another example: A very large number of people are theists, and their numbers grow much larger as we go back in time. At such places and times, then, is theism a reasonable description of reality?

Sure, the author says "that's we CALL reality", not "that's what IS reality". That wording could provide an escape route. Except it doesn't, really. Because ultimately, anything at all that is called reality, is called reality. That hardly bears spelling out. Even if people don't actually hallucinate, or even believe, nevertheless everyone calling a biblical worldview reality, means it gets "called reality".

"What everyone recognizes as reality" cannot possibly be a valid definition of reality, except only in a very technical and literal/semantic sense. What reality actually is, while the specific answer that we come up with is necessarily tentative and fluid and dependent on our current knowledge base, but still, that answer has got to be different than simply "what everyone says it is". Although what that right answer might be is something I cannot come up with myself, at least not off the cuff just now.

[Appreciative Reader]

Hm, thinking some more, here's what might be one way to get around this difficulty, that I wrote about in my previous comment: Perhaps "reality" is a meaningless concept after all? Or at least, not a particularly *useful* concept?

Our instinctual approach would be, I suppose, to see our model-building as the means to get us to apprehend reality as closely as possible. What if we took a very different approach, and saw our "model" not so much as a representation of some "reality", but merely as the means to make predictions? Although somewhat counter-intuitive, this seems a valid enough description of what we're about, basically; and as far as I can see it does "solve" the difficulty I'd commented on a while back.

Of course, I realize what I'm doing here is, basically, retreating to the "Shut up and calculate" approach of the Copenhagen crew. So well, not some blindingly brilliant new approach at all, merely a reinvention -- or at least, a re-apprehension -- of the wheel, except this applies not just to quantum weirdness but to everything. And for the first time, I'm beginning to see that the Copenhagen approach -- that I would think of as no more than a cop-out -- is a perfectly cromulent philosophical position.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi AR
Excellent comments.

Why do you need someone else's permission to define reality?

Scientists agree, but because their definitions are so strict, they can only agree upon what can be tested exhaustively. And that is only a part of reality.

Everyone lives in an individual state.

So agreement may be the basis of what we call reality. But the emphasis isn't on reality in that sentence. It's on that we all agree to call reality. Two separate things.

""when we agree about our hallucinations, that’s what we call reality"

That's what people call their reality. The flat earthers have their agreement, so that's what they call reality.

The Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, materialists have their own agreements and so that's what they call their reality.

So instead of dismissing individual experience as hallucination, maybe we should just say each brain produces its own individual experience of reality?

[Spence Tepper]

One thing seems clear.

When experience falls outside of another group's experience that group tends to label that as hallucination.

Even evidence is dismissed rather than considered for serious investigation.

[Appreciative Reader]

So that --- to sum it up, and tie it back to where I started from --- reality isn't "that hallucination that we all agree about", at all. Reality would, in that case, simply be the word that we're using, kind of loosely, to denote that model that best describes our observations, and gives us the best predictions.

Like I said, in the comment immediately preceding, reality is probably a meaningless concept, no more than barren wanking off by philosophers with nothing better to do. All we have are our models. That's all we've ever had, and that's all we can ever have, no matter how much we advance. "Reality", in other words, is nothing more than Plato jerking off inside a cave.

[Appreciative Reader]

Hey, Spence. We were cross-posting there I guess.

So, what do you think? Does this make sense? I ask because I seem to have come up with a neat question, and a neat answer to that question ---- always something to be looked at with caution, because our mind (ego?!) tends to color every bullshit nonsense that we ourselves think up as some blindingly brilliant insight, right?!

So, am I missing something here, or does this sound reasonable to you?

[Appreciative Reader]

Although --- if you're still here, Spence, and reading this --- no, what I myself was going for isn't, as you suggest, that everyone has their own reality. I'm not doing away with the need for consensus. A single person's view is prone to all manner of biases, and is unlikely --- not impossible, I grant you that much, but unlikely --- to yield very good results.

I'm saying, while consensus may be useful, even necessary, at arriving at the "best" model; but it would be a mistake to think of the consensus as somehow defining some reality that is somehow 'deeper' than our model. What I'm going with is that the model is all there is, and reality is a meaningless concept that, in practice, leads nowhere.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi AR
You wrote, "I'm not doing away with the need for consensus."
Wouldn't that be an agreement based on the common biases of the time? And hasn't history and science proven that what was once proclaimed as scientific fact has later been proven to be somewhat, if not entirely different?

"An era can be said to end when its basic illusions are exhausted.“ — Arthur Miller

[Dungeness]

@ A.R [ . "Reality", in other words, is nothing more than Plato jerking off inside a cave. ]

What a strangely accurate, albeit masturbatory, image of our plaything "Reality".
Speaking of solitary acts though, repeatability is seemingly important. A single
sighting of a disappearing Cheshire Cat isn't compelling. But see the bugger a
second time, the Cat 's in the "reality" bag. You tend to only believe what you
experience inside in consciousness at least once and preferably more.

Never see it though and you likely remain a healthy skeptic no matter how
many others swear they have. After all, mass hallucinatory events do occur.
Better to sit alone in that Cave inside and see for yourself. It's healthy and
you won't go blind :)

[Appreciative Reader]

“Wouldn't that be an agreement based on the common biases of the time? And hasn't history and science proven that what was once proclaimed as scientific fact has later been proven to be somewhat, if not entirely different?”

……….Well yes, absolutely, Spence. However, I don’t see that as a problem, at all. Here’s two (intertwined) reasons why:

(1) Sure, the consensus has been mistaken about lots of things in the past, and no doubt is mistaken about lots of things even now. But it’s important to look at the nature of the "mistake" here. When fresh evidence is found, then sure, one updates one’s views, and discards the earlier view. To that extent, sure, the old view was “mistaken”. However, the question to ask is, was the view correct or was it mistaken, given what evidence was then available? If given the evidence then available, some view in the past had been valid and justified and correct, then we can ask no more, can we, even if in light of evidence subsequently uncovered that past view turned out wrong?

What is important is to ensure that the method we use to arrive at some conclusion, some view, is correct. In that sense, what answer you’ve entered in you exam book is far less important than the work you’ve shown, so to say, that is, the methodology you’ve used to arrive at your answer. If your methodology is sound, then errors don’t really matter, because it’s a self-correcting thing you’ve got going there.

Which is why the answers of science, while often wrong, are still right. And the answers arrived at by religion are wholly fully entirely wrong, that is to say *fundamentally* wrong, in a way that science can never ever be wrong.

and

(2) I agree, even given impeccable methodology, the consensus is sometimes/often wrong. However, I don’t see that as a problem. Because compare that with the alternative: How many times, would you say, have the iconoclastic views of some crank turned out to be wrong, when compared to how many times the consensus itself had been found wanting? For every wrong consensus, I’m sure you can find literally thousands, if not more, wrong crank opinions. Therefore, it makes sense to go with the consensus.

Agreed, though, that there are times when the “crank” view turns out to be right, absolutely! And that isn’t a problem either, not really. You know what they say, that extraordinary claims call for extraordinary evidence. Should that extraordinary evidence be found, then absolutely, the individual iconoclastic “crank” conclusion then trumps the groupthink, no matter how wide the consensus.

And nor is this admitted bias in favor of the consensus some kind of a bar for work that challenges the consensus, at least I don’t see why that should be so. That some conclusion isn’t prematurely accepted as true, isn’t any reason why those interested and invested in some line of research shouldn’t put in the work to produce the necessary evidence, is it?

----------

What I find troublesome is not the (bias towards) consensus, but defining reality itself as the consensus, as the author of the book Brian’s reviewing here seems to have done here. First, because unlike our models, reality itself is unchanging, and it is epistemologically wrong to link what is simply a model with reality itself. And second, because, as it seems to me, reality itself is a meaningless philosophical concept: all we’ve ever had, and all we’ll ever have, are models, (hopefully) with better and better predictive values. It makes no sense to try to talk of “reality” at all, or so it seems to me.

(Which itself is a tall enough claim, I realize that, and needs more rigorous “work” than merely a few minutes’ worth of empty theorizing and some idle logic-chopping. Still, it seems reasonable, this thought, this POV that it is meaningless to speak of some deeper reality, at least as far as I can see.)

[Appreciative Reader]

Better to sit alone in that Cave inside and see for yourself. It's healthy and
you won't go blind :)
Posted by: Dungeness | November 25, 2021 at 05:37 PM
----------

LOL !!

[Spence Tepper]

Hi AR
You wrote
"If your methodology is sound, then errors don’t really matter, because it’s a self-correcting thing you’ve got going there."

Not only the method, but our self discipline in carrying it out without hidden or not so hidden biases.

Lacking perfect discipline or execution of the method, the method will be imperfect, as will our results.

There is some guidance in having a recorded standard from the past that seemed to have worked, but even there, methods often contain the cultural biases of their time. This is especially so in sciences that apply to the study of human beings, sociology, anthropology, psychology, social psychology, even nuero sciences.

MRI brain scans were touted as a window to human consciousness, but in the last three years the MRI research methodology, both around internal and external validity, has come under severe criticism, and in practice the approach has been discredited. Not to say it can't be refined, but where we stand today, especially with external validity, we are back to zero.

So that's actually progress, right? But several of those popular neuro science writers are still citing the old disproven conclusions they gained notariery upon.

It is the others who have not staked their claims on pseudoscience in the neurosciences who have brought rationality to the subject. But that doesn't mean the individuals who popularized the misuse of data have been willing to acknowldge they were wrong.

So, yes, science proceeds forward but not always on universal consensus. Indeed consensus is often the early adoption of an idea tested only by a few, and over time that consensus crumbles under refinement in method.

To site a common example, we have measured a lot about gravity, and understand how it affects matter and is affected by matter, but we still have no proof of what exactly gravity is. The millions of miles between stars and their planet's has nothing detectable connecting them. Yet we know exactly how one pulls on the other, and even analyzing their orbits can conclude much about the exoplanets themselves.

So even in the most fundamental things science has some gaping holes that have persisted and are likely to persist for some time.

With all we have discovered about the genome we still can't create life in the lab from the base insert chemicals life is based upon.

Science is young, but life is short.

What is the core standard that seems to carry human knowledge forward? An open mind willing to make some personal experimentation. Even about such things as religion and spirituality.

There is no hard evidence of their deities, so how can people find any evidence for their devotions? They do. Evidence that can be tested daily, and scrutinized over years. This is not evidence about their deity, which seems easy to disprove on physical grounds. It is evidence about the effects of belief upon the devoted practitioner. And here the hard sciences have proven the personal effects of belief are largely positive. In terms of life expectancy, health and psychological well being, an active practice of faith has been proven to be very positive.

And what about the supernatural aspects? That personal experience is real to them, as a subjective experience meeting every criteria of science for a subjective event, including the records of others' similar experiences in ancient writings., and consensus among similar practitioners who compare notes.

When Jesus appeared to his disciples as a stranger after he had died, and then immediately turned into the Jesus they knew, that may have been a real event even if only real in the subjective experience of those fortunate disciples

Having seen Gurinder turn into Maharaji and then back to Gurinder, with both versions holding up persistently under prolonged scrutiny, I can attest to the personal reality of events that are not based in this physical world but which are nonetheless quite real and persistent. Even shared by others.

So rather than use science to dismiss beliefs we don't hold, by a personal selection of data, and a personal exclusion of some scientific data we don't like to acknowldge, we should use science to look at all the available data, with as little bias as we can manage, to find the threads of reality in the miriad of personal opinions.

Reality may simply be more complex than we knew. We should honor that. Be thankful for the capacity to explore and discover, and even test, news things. That's the glory of science

[Osho Robbins]

@spence
You wrote “Having seen Gurinder turn into Maharaji and then back to Gurinder, with both versions holding up persistently under prolonged scrutiny, I can attest to the personal reality of events that are not based in this physical world but which are nonetheless quite real and persistent. Even shared by others.”

We have to make a distinction between
a) personal reality - i.e. MY version; my beliefs; my perception based on my experience (example, flatearthers)
And
b) generally accepted reality. For example: the earth is round
And
c) absolute reality.

Personal reality feels real to ME and is reinforced when I hang out with like minded people. So Sikhs hang out with Sikhs. RS followers hang out with other RS people. Confirms their reality. They feel better.

Generally accepted reality is what science and the general consensus believes. It’s the common sense view.

Absolute reality is hard to define and discuss, mainly because we don’t really know WTF it is, to use a technical term.

My first comment after a while, just getting used to life without my beloved mum in it. Not the same world without my mum. I see people as they really are. Not nice.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Osho
You carry your Mum with you. Whether you see her or not. And longing for her, she can't help but be right there.

So talk with her. Let her ease your mind.

There is a firm, physical reality that science has proven. We carry a model of everyone we have known within us, their persona, as we understand it. That's a part of our brain, our memories, and far deeper than that. Impressions so deep they are unconscious.

Our mind lovingly edits and refines, adds to and amends those memory personas based on our perceptions and experiences.

That is actually the only Mum you have ever known.

So, talk to her, listen to her, spend some time.

Even when you move on, she will still be there.

[Osho Robbins]

Hi Spence
I really appreciate you taking the time to write the above comments. I will take on what you have written. Thank you.

[Appreciative Reader]

Interesting and thought-provoking post, as usual, Spence.

But, and I don’t know if you realize this, but you’re not really addressing what we’d started out discussing, at all. I’d picked up what I believed was a small but important nit in the excerpt and the discussion Brian has presented here, and I’d wanted to discuss and thereby test the conclusions that, as far as I could see, seemed to follow from that particular nit. You, on the other hand, seem to have straddled your favorite hobby horse, and happily gone off on a ride on it, leaving that discussion well aside!

But hey, no matter. You raise some interesting points here, absolutely: some of which I agree cent per cent with, and some not so much. For instance:

“…Not only the method, but our self discipline in carrying it out without hidden or not so hidden biases. … Lacking perfect discipline or execution of the method, the method will be imperfect, as will our results. ”

“…science proceeds forward but not always on universal consensus. Indeed consensus is often the early adoption of an idea tested only by a few, and over time that consensus crumbles under refinement in method… ”

“… even in the most fundamental things science has some gaping holes that have persisted and are likely to persist for some time …”

“…What is the core standard that seems to carry human knowledge forward? An open mind willing to make some personal experimentation. Even about such things as religion and spirituality...”

“… Reality may simply be more complex than we knew. We should honor that. Be thankful for the capacity to explore and discover, and even test, news things. That's the glory of science ”

……….Agreed, absolutely, with all of that.

----------

As far as this:
“… Science is young, but life is short…”

……….I think you’ve touched on what I myself feel is a very important …well, lack, I suppose, in adhering to the scientific method and generally to a scientific worldview. Absolutely, these lead us, slowly but surely, to better and better models with which to apprehend and engage with the world; but, as you very rightly point out, our individual lives are short, so very short. Anything I personally will get out of whatever life has to offer, must be explored and sought and attained to within this short lifetime. To begin with, whether humanity will survive long enough to properly address all or even most of the questions that we ask today, that is something we don’t know, at all. And in any case, what will it avail me, me personally, even if “we” did arrive those answers a hundred years or five hundred years or a thousand years from now, given that I myself will cease to exist in maybe another fifty years or so (or, who knows, maybe next week itself)? As far as the personal POV, my world ends with me. That is one very real lack in the “slow but sure” methodology of science.

Is there a way out? I don’t know. That’s one of the reasons --- not the only reason, but one of them, certainly --- why I meditate, to see if I might not be able to directly experience a breakthrough, no matter the odds of that actually happening. That’s as far as the experiential part of it; but as far as one’s broader worldview, and regardless of any personal experiences, I really don’t see any shortcuts out of the “slow but sure” route of science --- no matter how unsatisfactory that may be at a personal level, given one’s very limited lifespan.

----------

Where I don’t agree fully, or in some cases at all, with your views, is where you go talking, in the latter part of your comment, about how the above ties in with religious and spiritual observances.

To begin with you bring up, once again, the positive side-effects, if I may call them that, of a religious and/or spiritual outlook. While I agree, I have to point out the very many baleful effects that often accompany a religious/spiritual outlook, which kind of balances out those benefits, net net and large picture. (Generally speaking, that is. Which side the balance actually tilts can be addressed factually I suppose, “scientifically” if you will, but it hasn’t, as far as I know.) More importantly, at one level this is all --- as we’ve discussed in the past --- a non sequitur, really, unless those side effects are the only reason, or the main reason, why people engage with religion and spirituality. The Christian who spends his life tithing away, and attending church, and engaging with works, and following all of those rules and norms that his religion dictates to him, he does that to save his immortal soul; some incidental psychological or physiological benefits --- even if we assume for the sake of argument that these outweigh the negatives, which is by no means a given --- are incidental nothings, and amount to nothing at all, if in fact there is no immortal soul to save.

Those Jesus legends don’t impress me either. Because legends are what they are. Long-drawn-out arguments predicated on Jesus’s disciples seeing and speaking with their Master after his death, I don’t understand why it isn’t very clear to you that they amount to nothing more than basing your arguments on Rowling or Tolkien or GRR Martin. As far as we can tell the Bible is nothing more than out-and-out fiction, and while we’re free to draw moral lessons from it (and indeed some of those moral lessons might themselves turn out to be valid and useful), but that’s no different than drawing moral lessons from fairy tales.

Although yes, the part where you speak directly of your own experiences, of seeing GSD turn into “Maharaji” and back again, that is a very different thing. But --- and I don’t mean to be in the least rude or insensitive here, Spence, but I don’t see any way to engage honestly with this without saying this --- surely you see that there’s a number of narratives that might explain something like that. Sure, one of those narratives involves an inner master and all the rest of it; but I’m sure I don’t really need to spell out the far more mundane narratives that might also explain something like that. I agree, this is something that needs to be sussed out; and should incontrovertible evidence for a supra-normal explanation for this emerge, evidence that you and I both agree hold up to scrutiny, then I’ll be very happy to agree with your more spiritual POV; but until such time, surely it makes sense to go with the more mundane explanations (while not stopping exploring further)?

---------

Finally, the part where you say this: “…rather than use science to dismiss beliefs we don't hold, by a personal selection of data, and a personal exclusion of some scientific data we don't like to acknowldge, we should use science to look at all the available data, with as little bias as we can manage, to find the threads of reality in the miriad of personal opinions …”

..........While naturally I agree with that sentiment wholly and fully, but we seem to be clearly treading strawman territory here.

Science is a tool that guides us towards the most reasonable beliefs, at some particular point in time. To misuse it in order to further one’s own ideological agenda, naturally that is simply a corruption of science. Naturally, and obviously. But why on earth do you mention this here? Who do you think is actually doing that, and how are they doing it? I mean, it is, equally, a corruption of science to chase lucre rather than a disinterested exploration that science demands; and similarly, there are very many “scientists” out there who answer to that training, broadly speaking, and also that job designation, but who don’t actually do any real science, but simply aim to and manage to look to empty career prospects with neither the talent nor the interest to do real science. It isn’t clear to me why do you bring this particular observation and this particular criticism here. Individual scientists are often fallible, sure, in the ways that you’ve described, and I too in this paragraph, and I’m sure in a hundred other ways, but I’m not sure how that ties in with this discussion here and now (not even this separate discussion that you’ve embarked on now). This last seems a derail off your own derail, whose purpose is not clear to me. If I’m missing something obvious --- as I well may be! --- then perhaps you could just spell that out clearly.

----------

Sorry, very long comment, already, but let me end by returning to something you’d said to me in an earlier comment on this thread, that I’d not contested at that time so as not to get off on a tangent; but since that tangent is what we’re now doing, let me say that I disagree in the strongest possible terms to this part of what you’d said then:
“That's what people call their reality. The flat earthers have their agreement, so that's what they call reality. … The Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, materialists have their own agreements and so that's what they call their reality. … So instead of dismissing individual experience as hallucination, maybe we should just say each brain produces its own individual experience of reality? ”

While it is trivially true that every individual brain produces its separate individual model of the world, but no, a hundred times NO, flat earthers and Christians and Jews and Muslims and Buddhists do not have separate realities. And no, to go for a consensus driven intersubjective model (or, to put it differently, a consensus-driven intersubjective apprehension of reality), is not to dismiss anyone’s individual experience, not in the least, at least not necessarily.

Let me cut to the chase and directly take up a specific and personal example. Let’s take your spiritual experiences. I think they’re remarkable, and absolutely, they deserve to be studied further and understood. But that is not to say one needs to directly acquiesce to some fantastic interpretation of those experiences that you yourself hold to, not unless one were presented with more specific evidence, and not unless other more mundane explanations were clearly ruled out. Until then there’s call for work on this, absolutely --- by such as are interested in this and invested in it --- but I don’t agree, at all, that not directly agreeing to some extraordinary explanation for these experiences amounts to dismissing them.

[Appreciative Reader]

Long comments tend to not get posted, sometimes. I've had this happen before, so I saved this comment that I'd addressed to Spence, and that ended up *very* long. It got lost in the ether once, and I gave it some time and then tried posting it again, just now. Same thing, though. I don't suppose there's any point in trying a third time now.

If you're reading this, Brian, perhaps you could check your spam folder, and post that comment of mine? Thanks!

[Appreciative Reader]

Welcome back, Osho Robbins! Great to have you commenting here again.

It's very touching, the deep love you clearly have for your mother. It's truly a blessing and a gift, to have had people in your life that you love with such depth, and also to possess the capacity for that kind of lasting love in the first place. That last, it isn't quite as common as one might imagine!

I don't suppose one can do any more than just reach out and express empathy, for what that's worth. God bless, Osho Robbins.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Appreciative!
You wrote
"But, and I don’t know if you realize this, but you’re not really addressing what we’d started out discussing, at all. I’d picked up what I believed was a small but important nit in the excerpt and the discussion Brian has presented here, and I’d wanted to discuss and thereby test the conclusions that, as far as I could see, seemed to follow from that particular nit. You, on the other hand, seem to have straddled your favorite hobby horse, and happily gone off on a ride on it, leaving that discussion well aside!"

Your point that consensus does not equate to reality itself is also mine.

Even science does not create reality. At best it is a more accurate drawing of reality. But the hand of the human artist in that drawing is also unmistakable and unavoidable.

Every scientific discovery is actually about something that already existed long before it was "discovered".

How many centuries, even millenia, has it taken for culture bound "science" to "discover"and publicly have consensus that blacks, hispanics, Asians, middle easterners are not different races at all but in fact the same race, essentially equal in construction?

And how many more millenia before said" science " does the same, as an accepted, universal consensus, that all varieties of human difference warrant the same rights?

Science is not driven by cold logic alone. People study subjects of personal interest. And that involves personal biases and conditioning.

But how easy to adopt a belief in inclusion immediately!

You wrote
" Science is a tool that guides us towards the most reasonable beliefs, at some particular point in time."

Yes, and it includes rational thinking and logic. But in the wrong hands it has undergone astounding abuse.

This is why I write that logic, which requires a foundation of "agreed" premeses, is like a prostitute who will assume any position for a fee. By the simple exclusion of some key data points you can manipulate a completely contrary conclusion.

So we can discuss the glory of science, and its abuse, as we can any religion.

You wrote
"While it is trivially true that every individual brain produces its separate individual model of the world, but no, a hundred times NO, flat earthers and Christians and Jews and Muslims and Buddhists do not have separate realities"

I'm sorry but physiologically, they do. All they perceive is sensation and perception that is filtered and augmented by their human brain.

Each brain creates its own set of perceptions.

Yours understanding that there is a reality beyond what your brain reports is your belief, founded upon rational thinking. But you are still living in the world inside your brain.

Each is imprisoned by what evidence is available to them, and which they accept as evidence. It is there reality. Upbringing and education have a lot to do with it.

Your view, which I share, that these personal realities each has their own levels of ignorance, and that a higher more universal physical reality exists, begs the question, how do we learn about it?

If there are other ways to perceive reality outside your brain, like electron microscopes, statistics, and other forms of evidence, all of that still must come through the filter of your brain before you can learn of it.

Are there other avenues of perception that are more direct than the traditional channels?

Yes, in deep meditation.

You wrote
"But that is not to say one needs to directly acquiesce to some fantastic interpretation of those experiences that you yourself hold to, not unless one were presented with more specific evidence, and not unless other more mundane explanations were clearly ruled out."

No explanation can be ruled out unless you have a means to test the evidence for yourself.

What evidence is publicly available is that the practice of meditation is extremely healthy, and the practice of active involvement in church attendance / participation actually adds years to life and higher levels of mental health.

But how can an atheist digest such scientific facts? How can they adopt such things into their own life?

Personally, I have known devout Jews, even Rabbis, who did so while maintaining a firm philosophy of Atheism. And the same for Some Satsangis, even ones giving Satsang. My friend Howard, who led our Sangat for many years, asserted that belief in God, karma and all the rest was entirely unnecessary to meditation and the active, painstaking exploration of our internal experience.

[Spence Tepper]

I will go one step further, Appreciative, and say that you must not adopt any claims about reality, even provisionally, until you have evidence, hard evidence.

Otherwise there is no chance at all that you will do the work for yourself.

The point of religion isn't belief, but salvation.
The point of science isn't data, but information.
The point of spirituality isn't to experience reality, bu to become real.

As for methods, yes, those always are always accepted provisionally so you have something to work with to get started, to build your own book of experience and understanding. Your own book of Reality.

[Appreciative Reader]

“Science is not driven by cold logic alone. People study subjects of personal interest. And that involves personal biases and conditioning.”

………. I’m sorry, Spence, but that’s totally wrong, as far as I can see. That is, your thinking about bias seems surprisingly …I don’t know, misplaced?

There’s two ways bias comes into play. The problem is when bias colors the conclusions we draw from what we observe. Should you find any instance where that has happened, then absolutely, that is the problem of bias right there. The scientific method is, actually, exactly the mechanism that is best suited to weed out such biases, and such erroneous conclusions, from our thinking.

What you’re discussing here is clearly something very different than that, even though the value judgment you express (or at least, imply) ends up conflating the two. What you’re actually talking about is the choice of subject to research. What do we aim our whole scientific method thing at, that is the question you’re effectively addressing here. And absolutely, that choice is driven by people’s subjective values, their personal interest, and, yes, their biases. How could it be otherwise?

Do we spend resources in researching ways to get to Mars? Do we expend resources to try to find out if there might be life outside of earth? Who else but we ourselves will decide that, and what else but our own personal wishes and personal desires and aversions and values can legitimately guide that decision?

While that too is “bias”, of a kind, but that is not the kind of bias that we want to weed out. That isn’t the kind of bias that is a problem.

Sure, it is possible to let even this kind of bias lead us along less than optimum routes, as far as policy, and some course correction may be called for at times. For instance, funding ever-burgeoning “defense” budgets (I use the scare quotes because what that budget funds is very often not “defense” at all, unless that word is used very loosely indeed!), while ignoring more pressing developmental research needs. Or, to take an example from your own field, using pharma research budgets to curate ever more refined solutions for a small number of people with money, while ignoring the needs of masses who don’t have that kind of money. Sure, that is a problem, that policy should address. But no, that is NOT a fundamental problem of science at all, that’s essentially a policy question.

We could discuss further on this if you wish, but I think the criticism you level here at the methods of science is entirely misdirected, and is, as far as I can see, the result of conflation of the two senses of the word “bias”.

----------

“How many centuries, even millenia, has it taken for culture bound "science" to "discover"and publicly have consensus that blacks, hispanics, Asians, middle easterners are not different races at all but in fact the same race, essentially equal in construction? … But how easy to adopt a belief in inclusion immediately!”

……….God, we seem to be disagreeing here about every little thing here, even though we started out broadly in agreement (as far as our criticism of the author of the book Brian’s reviewing conflating consensus-driven models with reality). I’m afraid this is entirely wrong, this line of thinking, as far as I can see.

Are people of different ethnicities and skin color basically the exact same human race, or are they different races? And are people of different ethnicities somehow fundamentally equipped differently as far as things like intelligence, and “character”, and physical endurance/strength, and so forth? These two are factual questions, and the factual answer that science has given to us is that we’re one race, with no fundamental difference in our abilities. And we derive much of our “inclusionary” thinking from that scientific conclusion.

I don’t see that you can cut short that process, and just directly leapfrog off to “inclusion”. That would be a classic instance of a fallacious argumentum ad consequentiam. We see different ethnicities as equal not because that is what is good and fair; we see them as equal because they happen, factually, to be “equal”. Had it been the case that some ethnicities are in fact better equipped to become doctors and engineers and scientists and politicians and generals and businessmen; and other ethnicities better suited to menial work, less mentally taxing work, less responsible work: well then we’d need to accept that, and base our policy on that fact. As it happens, that isn’t the case, at all.

Of course, what specific policy direction we follow is a different matter. Policy is driven by lots of things, such as likes and dislikes, and values, and, yes, “bias” as well, and quite legitimately so. That’s a separate discussion, that I hope I don’t need to belabor here.

A “belief in inclusion” cannot be arrived at directly, without science guiding that belief. That’s putting the cart before the horse. Of course, regardless of anything else, we might want to devise policy that is inclusionary: but that isn’t quite “belief in inclusion” at all. That is, once again what you’ve done is implicitly conflated two sense of the word “belief”. You and I may both “believe” that an inclusionary policy is what is desirable, regardless of anything else; but that is simply a preference, a bias if you will, and a policy decision. But whether we actually “believe” in the inclusionary nature of ethnicities in terms of what constitutes race, as well as how that corresponds with ability, that must needs be a function of what the facts dictate, and not what we’d prefer the answer to be.

(Incidentally, and although you probably know my personal views on this well enough, given that we both comment often enough here, but still, given the nature of what we’re discussing, let me just clarify: We’re fully in agreement about what the end-result of both kinds of "belief" is, as far as the question of ethnicity and race! I’m as much for “inclusion”, in both senses of the word, as are you, let there be no doubt as far as that!)

----------

“Yours understanding that there is a reality beyond what your brain reports is your belief, founded upon rational thinking. But you are still living in the world inside your brain.”

……….We come back now to the actual point that I was trying to discuss here.

We understand that there is a reality beyond what our brain reports, absolutely. But my point is, that that reality necessarily is always outside of our reach. The only thing that is within our reach is our model.

We tend to see the aim of our model-building as getting as close as we can to the actual reality. I was wondering if, philosophically speaking, it might not make more sense to jettison this obsession with a reality that we cannot ever fully apprehend. (Which is why I’d made those masturbatory references in connection with our efforts to understand “reality”. Those efforts go exactly nowhere at all. All of that philosophical discussion on epistemological is, at the end of the day, no more than impotent wanking off.) Perhaps we should be content to simply see our models as the means to deliver to us more effective engagement with our environment, in part by yielding better and better predictions.

Quite possibly this view that I’ve come up with isn’t original at all, and quite possibly others have already explored this philosophical idea; but I’m not aware, myself, of such; and. having stumbled on this idea in the course of reading Brian’s article, I was wondering if this off-the-cuff idea does actually hold up to scrutiny, and hence my original request to discuss this specific nuance.

----------

“I will go one step further, Appreciative, and say that you must not adopt any claims about reality, even provisionally, until you have evidence, hard evidence.”

……….Again, Spence, I find myself disagreeing, I’m afraid.

Your plea for not accepting any claims about reality, even provisionally, unless direct hard evidence is made available, that is something we’ve already discussed in the past. The burden of proof, and the wider framework of a scientific worldview, these two adequately address this. I’ll take you right back to Shadowfax (or, to attribute it directly to that idea’s original author, to Sagan’s garage dragon). Are we then to consider every garage the potential home of invisible dragons, and are we to keep our options open on every garden sheltering faeries and goblins and pixies, until such time as hard proof is made available that such is not the case? To take such a line is, I’m afraid, to completely miss the essence of a scientific worldview (even though one may rightly comprehend the technique of scientific experimentation). Missing the wood for the trees, as it were.

You further say, “Otherwise there is no chance at all that you will do the work for yourself.”.

THANK YOU FOR RAISING THIS PRACTICAL ISSUE, SPENCE. I’M HIGHLIGHTING THIS PART WITH CAPITAL LETTERS, TO DRAW ATTENTION TO IT, BECAUSE I THOUGHT THIS WAS A GREAT OBSERVATION.

I spent some time over this question, thinking whether this is actually the case. But as far as I can see, while that may well be so, but still, in sum, no, this argument doesn’t really hold. Because you have to ask, Which work? That is the question, isn’t it? If it is work directly only and solely towards some end that is justified only basis unsupported beliefs, then surely that work is best left undone? And if that work might justification even in the absence of unsupported belief, then I don’t see why drawing provisional conclusions should be an impediment to it.

To take a very concrete example: Say you’re embarked on RSSB-prescribed meditation. You’re doing the equivalent of suggesting that if by following strictly rational norms you conclude that RSSB theology is unsupported, then you will not be able to put in the required “work”. Well, I can think of two ways in which this doesn’t really stand up to scrutiny. First, because you can stretch it even further, and say that complete unquestioning blind faith in RSSB theology may be conducive to even greater effort at meditation, therefore you might as well advocate blind faith. Surely you see why that is not a very good idea, Spence, without my having to spell it out in detail, right? And secondly, there’s the question of how you define “better”.

Here’s what appears reasonable to me, as far as that specific example, and in context of what you’d said: Because RSSB theology is unsupported, therefore absolutely, it makes sense to hold, provisionally, that it isn’t true. However, that doesn’t stop one from being interested in probing this issue further; and also, if one wishes, to personally experiment on this; and for someone so inclined, consistent yet disinterested effort isn’t inconsistent with a rational philosophical position, as you seem to imply.

Actually this takes us right back to our earlier discussion on the implications of a scientific worldview. Sure, while you’re personally researching a subject, you remain agnostic about its outcome for the duration of the research. It cannot be otherwise, obviously, else there would be little point to the research and the experimentation. And to that extent, yes, you’re right, you don’t jump to conclusions, even provisionally, about the outcome of your particular research. However, for everyone else --- and also for you yourself outside of the narrow context of your actual research --- the usual rules of rationality are still valid, the burden of proof still holds, and all unsupported speculations it is reasonable to reject, provisionally and pending such support (whether that support is brought about by your own efforts and your own research, or someone else’s).

[Spence Tepper]

Hi AR

The problem is when bias colors the conclusions of a whole society of scientists, and reinforces with the power of consensus of the science community conclusions that are essentially false findings. That would infect problems of both internal and external validity. Experiments that appear to measure something objective but whose methods actually slant the results to the desired outcomes, even unconsciously, because neither the researcher nor their peers are aware of their shared biases, which affect both methods and conclusions.

You wrote
"Should you find any instance where that has happened, then absolutely, that is the problem of bias right there. The scientific method is, actually, exactly the mechanism that is best suited to weed out such biases, and such erroneous conclusions, from our thinking."

I'm surprised you would make such a bold and widely disproven claim.

There is a history demonstrating that a society's current scientific method is not suited to weed out its own universally accepted cultural biases.

You wrote

"What you’re discussing here is clearly something very different than that, even though the value judgment you express (or at least, imply) ends up conflating the two. What you’re actually talking about is the choice of subject to research."

Exactly. That choice is driven to affect how the experiment is operationalized. You must be unfamiliar with the whole arms of research of eugenics, intelligence and race, generating results flattering to the white European population of scientists initiating the research, who created these methods, using instruments designed in purpose to objectively measure these things but which, decades of debate, discussion and study across many cultures have revealed to be scientific instruments actually geared to favor white European culture, not intelligence or raw skill.

That feedback doesn't come from within the culture that created this biased research, but outside that culture.

In short, the cultural biases built in and supported by white cultures unaware of how blind they were, even by consensus. Their own accepted but blinded methods failed to be the source of enlightenment.

Rather than try to prove something to you that is a matter of historical record, here are some reviews for your consideration.

https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/seeing-through-cultural-bias-in-science

https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/seeing-through-cultural-bias-in-science

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/awareness-of-our-biases-is-essential-to-good-science/

https://science.howstuffworks.com/life/inside-the-mind/human-brain/10-types-study-bias.htm

Unaware of our biases, rules of rationality fail us.

But what does a person do to become aware of their biases? To think less emotionally, less reactively, and more rationally?

A calm, open and focused mind is critical. It is the basis of seeing who and what we really are.

But that mind is still limited to perceiving the environment around it, and in all cases this becomes the reference point for our agreed premeses and the conclusions we draw from them.

Science is helpless in the hands of the ignorance of a whole society.

[Spence Tepper]

Seen last week on the wall in the Boston Museum of Science

"Man must rise above the earth - to the top of the atmosphere and beyond - for only this will be fully understand the world in which he lives."
Socrates

[Spence Tepper]

Oops typos fixed
Man must rise above the earth - to the top of the atmosphere and beyond - for only thus will he fully understand the world in which he lives."
Socrates

[Appreciative Reader]

Spence, thanks for posting those links, they made for interesting reading. I especially enjoyed reading about those types of bias discussed in the howstuffworks.com piece. Some of them are commonplace enough, but some of them I’d never heard of before this.

(um, if you’re around and reading this, then you’ll love this: Apparently your “streetlight effect”, that you keep bringing up, is actually recognized formally as a bias, and formally labeled as such!)

-------

But Spence, I still understand neither your focused criticism directed at science, nor the larger point you’re trying to make here.

To my pointing out that the scientific method is the best tool to help us overcome our biases, you had this to say: “I'm surprised you would make such a bold and widely disproven claim. …There is a history demonstrating that a society's current scientific method is not suited to weed out its own universally accepted cultural biases.”

Let’s get this clear. What do you imagine these biases are? Do you imagine they somehow pop up every time we’re doing science, and that they are somehow some kind of an inherent shortcoming within the scientific method?

Here’s my understanding of what this amounts to, and why your criticism is entirely misplaced:

We humans are pattern-seeking creatures. Our brains have evolved to see patterns in everything around us. That is both our strength, in as much as this lets us create complex models with which to apprehend the world around us in ways that may not be directly apparent; and it is, at the same time, our weakness as well, in as much as those models are sometimes way off the mark, and lead us entirely astray.

These biases are an inherent part of how we think. You’re right, cultivating clarity in thought is one of the ways in which to recognize and avoid these biases; and yes, I agree, meditation is one way that facilitates cultivation of clarity in thought, so that meditation might indeed help us with biases, if only indirectly; but still, there’s only so much you can do with navel-gazing. Seeing patterns in tea leaves, and in the lines of one’s palm, and in constellations of stars, patterns that indicate events and trends in our affairs, both individually and as a collective --- that kind of magical thinking no amount of following your breath or puckering up your eyebrows or following your bodily sensations and thoughts can remedy. The one sure way to do that is science.

Biases are not a shortcoming in science. Biases are a “bug” within our own thinking. And it is my view that the scientific method is the tool that, essentially, helps weed out those biases, yes, absolutely. That is its primary function, and that is how it has helped us understand and achieve all that we have understood and achieved. It is the scientific method that lets us clearly see that homeopathy, for instance, is bullshytte, as are shamanic and voodoo and priestly cures centered around exorcising spirits, and that has let us develop a largely reliable body of evidence-based medical science.

Sure, there are lots of shortcomings in how science is done, in practice. So what? I mean, why should we expect that all the shortcomings in how we think and reason will magically disappear the moment we don white lab coats? The scientific method helps us weed out the biases in our thinking, I repeat; and, to take that gardening analogy a bit further, while we’re doing the weeding, we sometimes find some more weeds that we’d originally overlooked, or that might have grown again after we’ve cleared some area out, and so what we do is go ahead and remove those weeds as well. It’s a self-correcting mechanism; after all, those discussions center around biases recognized by and within the scientific community, which will, hopefully, devise the means to remedy them. It’s a self-correcting mechanism, but that correction doesn’t happen magically; it happens by people identifying flaws within the processes and systems, and working to set them right.

-------

Like I said, it isn’t clear to me what your broader point might be, in raising this bogey about biases. What is the remedy you suggest, then? Like I said, you seem to be imagining that these biases crop up every time we’re doing science, and that we’re free from them when we’re not doing science. The reality is exactly the opposite. We’re always subject to biases, and it is the scientific method that helps us become aware of and eliminate these biases, in a structured manner and when applied to specific issues. That it isn’t always perfect is true enough, but the only solution is to go after every individual flaw, and to straighten them out one by one. That seems straightforward enough to me.

No, meditation does NOT offer us an alternative to science. Yes, meditation does facilitate clear thinking, to an extent; and I agree, we’d be wise to take advantage of the benefits of meditation; but that’s kind of an irrelevancy as far as this discussion about science and bias, isn’t it? I mean, two different discussions altogether, as far as I can see, although both relate to bias: two very different approaches to dealing with bias, one psychological and a matter of training the mind, and the other methodological and a matter of application of the mind to specific questions about the world around and within us.

---------

Finally, Spence, while I find myself disagreeing squarely with you, but thanks very much for this very interesting discussion. This specific issue, about bias vis-à-vis the scientific method, isn’t something I’ve thought about before, and it is your thought-provoking comments that got me thinking and writing about this. (And yes, my thoughts are off-the-cuff, and it is entirely possible that I may be mistaken. Except I don’t see how. If I’m myself able to see any error in my thinking, or if you’re able to clearly point out such, as far as what I’ve said here in this comment, then I’m happy to revisit my opinion that I’m right about this and that it is you that is mistaken.) But regardless of that, regardless of which specific POV is correct in this case, what I’m trying to say is, this discussion you’ve introduced here, although it’s kind of a derail, was nevertheless very interesting, and I’m glad you did present your thoughts on this in such detail.

[Osho Robbins]

@AR
Thank you for your kind comments. In my mind I just thought my mum would be around for another decade or so. Nobody loves one like a mum. A mums love is unique yet we all take it for granted until the day she is no longer here.
If I could turn back time, I would, and freeze it there. The best thing was I got to spend lots of time with her in the last few months

[Appreciative Reader]

Osho Robbins, a purely personal observation, that may, just perhaps, help you in your time of grief:

It has been my own experience that, when you face deep personal loss, then, while small incidental regrets probably no one is able to avoid, but if by and large you've done, more or less, what was good and right when you had the chance, and neither you (nor, so far you can tell, the one you've lost) have/had major regrets over your time together, then the loss is, well, a clean one, if that makes sense. Like a clean cut? Unlike a cut it doesn't really heal; and nor, I guess, would you really even want it to "heal", as that would mean removing yourself from the closeness of that relationship. But that "clean" loss, or clean cut, it makes sure that the cut and the loss never ever putrefies, as it otherwise well might. The grief, in that case, while still painful, sometimes unbearably so, is a clean one, even a good one, and one that you can, sometimes, smile about.

Sorry, that sounds a bit like psychobabble, I realize. Just drawing from my own limited experience, to maybe offer some little comfort in your grief.

[um]

@ AR

Yes I am still around for awhile. ... hahaha

Ask yourself the question what the function of a big brain and the related mind as we call it is for.
Try to distance yourself from "my" brain, "my" mind for a moment and above all forget what others have to say about it be it expert knowledge or common sense ... being the light in the street.
Try to distance yourself as an cultural being and think about yourself as a natural being, living in a natural world.
In that emptimess of culture ask yourself what having a brain and a so called mind does for you.

It is simple .. what do hands mean for you, and what your eyes, your legs ... how you use the, how they are functional for you ... that is the key, that is the house.

What are you to do, being alive as a NATURAL being in a natural world ... forget about culture.

There are no laws in culture as there are in nature

If you can find a point to stand on, you will see many things and you will certainly understand how bias is related to both nature and culture.

What is culture, what is its function to the natural man.?

Human body needs a constant temperature, humans have to wear clothes, where their body cannot maintain the need warmth. Clothes have become a culture in terms of mode, trend, regional interestst etc but the original function can not be bypassed without paying a price.

[um]

@AR

Before I go back to my chai .... it has become cold ....

The need of a huge brain / mind is needed in nature for ADDAPTATION.
Humans are the only species that can re-created their ORIGINAL / NATURAL habitat.

Culture is an artificial natural surrounding, abstract, man made, ... but humans can only addapt and that is exactly what they do, also in culture.

As the cultural and socual surrounding are as divers as the natural surroundings, from the Northern pole to the other one, from the east to the west, these adaptations differ in form ... as does closing, quisine etc.

There is not such a thing as an absolute truth in adaptation, something that can be used in all surroundings.... hence ...what one calls a bias, is the correct adaption for another

[Appreciative Reader]

Agreed, um.

But the problem is, when what is correct adoption for one situation, gets used in another situation where it is not correctly adopted. And the thing is, there is no way to directly tell the difference.

It isn't as if the Catholic priest (or the voodoo shaman) who's out to exorcise demons and spirits from some "patient" is a gibbering dribbling idiot. Chances are he's as intelligent and as rational, in general, as anyone else. It's just that instead of looking at a model involving germs, he's looking at model that's to do with demons and God and what-have-you.

Which is why I was saying to Spence that while clarifying your thinking is all fine and good, and it is wise to incorporate all means that help us do that, including mediation; but merely clear thinking, in isolation, will not help you decide which model is the right one in some particular situation. Is it exorcism of spirits, or is it eradication of germs? Only science can tell us that.

----------

But hey, all of that aside, did you check out that link that Spence posted here, like I asked you to? Here's that link, one more time: https://science.howstuffworks.com/life/inside-the-mind/human-brain/10-types-study-bias.htm

That homegrown philosophy of yours, that you've spoken of so often here? About the folly of trying to find the key in the streets? Apparently this is a formally recognized bias, going by the name of "streetlight effect", that has its specific application --- mis-application, actually --- in research.

I mean, how cool is that, to find out that your homespun wisdom is actually recognized formally?!!

[um]

@ AR
>> It isn't as if the Catholic priest (or the voodoo shaman) who's out to exorcise demons and spirits from some "patient" is a gibbering dribbling idiot. Chances are he's as intelligent and as rational, in general, as anyone else. It's just that instead of looking at a model involving germs, he's looking at model that's to do with demons and God and what-have-you<<

You should not call him names, he does not deserves that as what he does is the adaptation by hime and his clans men

[um]

@ AR

>> I mean, how cool is that, to find out that your homespun wisdom is actually recognized formally?!! <<

What I write matters to me, its value does not depend on approval of anybody. Formal recognition doe not change it in any direction, it does not add either anything to it.

People are so used to discuss and think over what others have to say about life that they forget that, they are equipped for life to the full extend without the need of others like all living creatures do.

That mreminds me of a discussion with a scholar some years ago. Having finished what I had to say he said where did you got this. I answered from nowhere, not immediate understanding what he was hinting at. How so nowhere? What book? The light went on and I started laughing ... well I read from my own book .. I answered him. Hahahaha ... you should have seen his suprised face.

Then I told him ... look before ... BEFORE a book is written there was knowledge, experience... that hols for all that write ... it all starts IN the house.

[um]

@ Ar

And before you or anybody else feels the need to say it let me do it myself ...

I am not a scholar, nor a scientist, nor a mystic .. in fact ... I am a "no good" ... like the tree described by Lao Zi, that could live on in peace, because it produced nothing of worth for anybody.

So for that reason I never engage and compete in the fields that others have mastered; I even do not allow my self to attach meaning or value to that what they are known for.

You are a philosopher and have mastered rationalism, it has no meaning for me nor any value because if I did, it would blur my vision and would it become difficult to see you.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Appreciative!
Thanks for your thoughtful response.

You wrote:
"But Spence, I still understand neither your focused criticism directed at science, nor the larger point you’re trying to make here."

Science, like any human endeavor, has its moments of glory and its shame.

Is it the best way, as you have written, to know things? Not necessarily.

A clear objective mind, that sees things from a variety of perspectives, open to feedback, learning, seems to be the basis of rational and scientific thinking. But science as a communal practice has its ups and downs.

You wrote:

"To my pointing out that the scientific method is the best tool to help us overcome our biases, you had this to say: 'I'm surprised you would make such a bold and widely disproven claim. …There is a history demonstrating that a society's current scientific method is not suited to weed out its own universally accepted cultural biases.'

"Let’s get this clear. What do you imagine these biases are? Do you imagine they somehow pop up every time we’re doing science, and that they are somehow some kind of an inherent shortcoming within the scientific method?"

Yes, so long as science is conducted by human beings with their biases, so too, the experiments are not set up to be entirely objective, nor the clean objective review of data. And while having the checks and balances of a community of scientists definitely improve the level of objectivity, a whole community can also share biases, as they have in history. And this has led to accepted, but false, scientific results.

When you look at all that science hasn't yet explored, doesn't yet know, it cannot be relied upon for everything. Certainly not many daily decisions, or even decisions about how we should be spending our time. We still need to rely upon our own biased thinking.

So the self-exploration into our own biases, and daily work to remain objective, fair, helpful, etc will yield the greatest return on our efforts to see things as they are.

You wrote:
"Here’s my understanding of what this amounts to, and why your criticism is entirely misplaced:

"We humans are pattern-seeking creatures. Our brains have evolved to see patterns in everything around us. That is both our strength, in as much as this lets us create complex models with which to apprehend the world around us in ways that may not be directly apparent; and it is, at the same time, our weakness as well, in as much as those models are sometimes way off the mark, and lead us entirely astray.

"These biases are an inherent part of how we think. You’re right, cultivating clarity in thought is one of the ways in which to recognize and avoid these biases; and yes, I agree, meditation is one way that facilitates cultivation of clarity in thought, so that meditation might indeed help us with biases, if only indirectly; but still, there’s only so much you can do with navel-gazing. Seeing patterns in tea leaves, and in the lines of one’s palm, and in constellations of stars, patterns that indicate events and trends in our affairs, both individually and as a collective --- that kind of magical thinking no amount of following your breath or puckering up your eyebrows or following your bodily sensations and thoughts can remedy. The one sure way to do that is science."

If you are looking to see what is within you, and you see light, hear sound, see stars, and the activity yields these events repeatedly, you are seeing another part of reality, the reality within you.

Interpretation is another story. That would require much more vision, to see the event from many different sides, and even within time and outside of time. Until that happens, there is no need to interpret these things, or to attempt to. And when that happens there will be no need to.

Science uses small pieces of information to make brilliant forecasts about other things. But these are generally linear forecasts and have limited accuracy and utility.

They become unnecessary when we discover the place we were forecasting about. That is why the Mars landers have been so important. Having local information about a distant world has made our understanding significantly more accurate.

You wrote:
"Biases are not a shortcoming in science. Biases are a “bug” within our own thinking. And it is my view that the scientific method is the tool that, essentially, helps weed out those biases, yes, absolutely. That is its primary function, and that is how it has helped us understand and achieve all that we have understood and achieved. It is the scientific method that lets us clearly see that homeopathy, for instance, is bullshytte, as are shamanic and voodoo and priestly cures centered around exorcising spirits, and that has let us develop a largely reliable body of evidence-based medical science."

Yes and no. Since the people practicing science, even whole cultures share the same biases, you also have science that promotes racism, even slavery, even genocide. Science that said falsely testing on Thalidomide was complete and it is entirely safe. Even scientific reviews of science indicate that most scientific claims may be false.

https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

And every year scientists make retractions.

https://www.livescience.com/64353-top-retracted-papers-2018.html

Not all those were because of other science. Some of it was because a whistleblower revealed that the scientist faked their data. That wasn't science that uncovered the problem. It was ethical behavior, and character.

Without honesty, how can science proceed?

And yet everyone is honest only to a degree.

You wrote
"Sure, there are lots of shortcomings in how science is done, in practice. So what? I mean, why should we expect that all the shortcomings in how we think and reason will magically disappear the moment we don white lab coats? The scientific method helps us weed out the biases in our thinking, I repeat; and, to take that gardening analogy a bit further, while we’re doing the weeding, we sometimes find some more weeds that we’d originally overlooked, or that might have grown again after we’ve cleared some area out, and so what we do is go ahead and remove those weeds as well. It’s a self-correcting mechanism; after all, those discussions center around biases recognized by and within the scientific community, which will, hopefully, devise the means to remedy them. It’s a self-correcting mechanism, but that correction doesn’t happen magically; it happens by people identifying flaws within the processes and systems, and working to set them right."

But that correction is not always on the basis of more science, as mentioned above. It can be on the basis of professional ethics and honesty. Sometimes it is on the basis of someone's honesty in disclosing misbehavior, not more science.

You wrote
"Like I said, it isn’t clear to me what your broader point might be, in raising this bogey about biases. What is the remedy you suggest, then? Like I said, you seem to be imagining that these biases crop up every time we’re doing science, and that we’re free from them when we’re not doing science. "

They do crop up whenever we do science, and indeed whenever we do anything. They result from character flaw, lack of objectivity, and lack of experience with the experiment and in life.

You wrote:
"The reality is exactly the opposite. We’re always subject to biases, and it is the scientific method that helps us become aware of and eliminate these biases, in a structured manner and when applied to specific issues. "

Science has only studied a portion of reality, not even half of it. We must rely upon our own judgment for the rest. And even for the science we choose to accept.

Therefore, why not focus on our own objectivity, experience, and skill in discovering and learning new things? Certainly that will also make a better crop of scientists.

You wrote:
"That it isn’t always perfect is true enough, but the only solution is to go after every individual flaw, and to straighten them out one by one. That seems straightforward enough to me."

Yes, hence meditation and work on our own progress.

You wrote:
"No, meditation does NOT offer us an alternative to science."

It is a form of scientific inquiry into our own inner life that improves our cognitive ability to process and manage our worldly life. It improves our ability to be good scientists.

You wrote:
" Yes, meditation does facilitate clear thinking, to an extent; and I agree, we’d be wise to take advantage of the benefits of meditation; but that’s kind of an irrelevancy as far as this discussion about science and bias, isn’t it?"

It is entirely relevant as a means to remain calm, centered and objective in scientific and worldly activity.

You wrote:
" I mean, two different discussions altogether, as far as I can see, although both relate to bias: two very different approaches to dealing with bias, one psychological and a matter of training the mind, and the other methodological and a matter of application of the mind to specific questions about the world around and within us."

The methodological matter relies, unfortunately, upon a platform that is entirely psychological, and possibly spiritual.

You wrote:

"Finally, Spence, while I find myself disagreeing squarely with you, but thanks very much for this very interesting discussion. This specific issue, about bias vis-à-vis the scientific method, isn’t something I’ve thought about before, and it is your thought-provoking comments that got me thinking and writing about this. (And yes, my thoughts are off-the-cuff, and it is entirely possible that I may be mistaken. Except I don’t see how. "

It never hurts to continue evaluating ourselves, or else in engage in a pleasant activity that automatically cleans us of at least many of our biases.

You wrote:
"If I’m myself able to see any error in my thinking, or if you’re able to clearly point out such, as far as what I’ve said here in this comment, then I’m happy to revisit my opinion that I’m right about this and that it is you that is mistaken.)"

No, I'm not mistaken about this.

You wrote:
"But regardless of that, regardless of which specific POV is correct in this case, what I’m trying to say is, this discussion you’ve introduced here, although it’s kind of a derail, was nevertheless very interesting, and I’m glad you did present your thoughts on this in such detail."

When you understand that you, as an instrument and biological being, are your own laboratory, then all that love of science you profess will have a personal place to practice it and find results that improve your functionality, peace and awareness.

[Dungeness]

@ AR [ .. . meditation might indeed help us with biases, if only indirectly; but still, there’s only so much you can do with navel-gazing ... ]

Hm, I tend to disagree. If you sustain an intensively mindful practice,
as mystics do, you are increasingly aware of thoughts. That includes
the subtle background channels where confusion, irrationality, and,
yes, even biased thinking, frolics in murky water. A casual meditator
never sees them; the mystic does if he's a serious "navel gazer".

[Appreciative Reader]

@ AR [ .. . meditation might indeed help us with biases, if only indirectly; but still, there’s only so much you can do with navel-gazing ... ]

Hm, I tend to disagree. If you sustain an intensively mindful practice,
as mystics do, you are increasingly aware of thoughts. That includes
the subtle background channels where confusion, irrationality, and,
yes, even biased thinking, frolics in murky water. A casual meditator
never sees them; the mystic does if he's a serious "navel gazer".

Posted by: Dungeness | November 30, 2021 at 05:55 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hey, Dungeness.

Despite being a fan of meditation myself, I have to say that I disagree, and in the strongest possible terms, with your disagreement. I’m afraid you’ve either misunderstood the point I was trying to make there, and we may be talking at cross purposes here; or else, if not, then you’re squarely mistaken about this. I’ve discussed this specific point more than once, in my comments addressed to Spence and to um as well, but here goes, one last time:

Let me take this in four parts, to make this crystal clear, and to make sure there’s no scope for any further misunderstanding about what I’m trying to convey:

(1) Absolutely, meditation (when correctly applied, and regardless of the specific technique/s employed) does calm one, it does make one more centered, it does make one less susceptible than otherwise to wild swings in one’s emotions and thoughts. To that extent, yes, meditation is, without doubt, an aid to rationality and to lessening the negative impact of biases. As far as that, I agree cent per cent with you, and with Spence as well.

(2) While this is not quite proven, but I personally think it is likely that the effects of meditation go deeper than that. It is probably way more than a mere surface-level “calming” of the mind and lessening of surface fluctuations. Although, and unlike #1 above, we’re not now speaking of things proven beyond doubt, but still, meditation probably helps us uncover portions deep within our subconscious, and become aware of what might otherwise have forever remained hidden from us. And to that extent, meditation is an even more powerful an agent for facilitating rationality and lessening the negative impact of biases, than #1 would indicate. In this as well, I’m in full agreement with you, and with Spence as well.

(3) This third point is something of a non sequitur here, and you don’t bring this digression up yourself in your comment, but given that Spence keeps mentioning this so often, perhaps I might touch on this aspect as well here. It is possible that meditation might let us access information that is not merely the result of calming our outward agitation, or from excavating from deep within our subconscious. It is possible that meditation might actually help us access information beyond just that --- or, to put it differently, it is possible that our subconscious might hold much deeper information than commonly understood.

I’m talking supranormal stuff here. RSSB son et lumiere; some form of communication via telephathy, maybe, or maybe manifesting of some inner spirit or inner master, whatever; maybe even manifestations of siddhis and the like.

And no, obviously, not for a minute am I suggesting that this is a given, or even that it is likely. But absolutely, given the whole slew of accounts of this nature in spiritual literature, this is something that might legitimately be the subject of investigation. Just investigation, no more.

One firmly rejects, for now, for lack of persuasive evidence, that stuff like this might legitimately find their place in a rational worldview. But absolutely, this is very much a legitimate subject of further probing and investigation for those that might be so inclined.

Like I said, this third point is irrelevant, actually, to this specific discussion between you and I; but given how largely it’s figured in the discussions on this thread, thanks to Spence bringing this up, I thought I might clearly explain my (entirely common-sense) position on this here.

.

(4) This last is the part where I’m firmly disagreeing with Spence, and, unless we’re talking at cross purposes here, then with you as well.

Let me take two examples to explain my POV. I’ve touched on both already in my comments on this thread.

Example one: Think of these two competing models for what might cause illness (and therefore what its cure might be). On one hand you have this model that spirits and demons exist, and are able to “possess” people, and it is this possession that is the cause of (some) ailments; and therefore, the cure that is called for is to expel these spirits through magic spells, and/or calling on other spirits to help one, and/or calling on the one omnipotent God to help us. That’s what voodoo practitioners and shamans do, that’s what some mediums do, that’s what some Catholic priests do. And the other model is our everyday medical science, whose model is based on germs, et cetera.

Example two: The idea that the lines on your palm, and/or the position of the constellations in the night sky, and/or tarot cards, and/or tea leaves, etc, might indicate events and trends in our human affairs, both at the personal individual level, and also at a larger communal level.

On what basis do we accept or reject questions like these? The only correct answer is, on the basis of evidence. And how to properly collect and evaluate the evidence on this, and arrive at the correct explanation, is essentially what the scientific method is all about.

Clear thinking is all good and fine, and absolutely, in as much as a confused mind is more susceptible to coming under the sway of this kind of nonsense, to that extent a clear mind is better equipped to recognize nonsensical ideas for what they are. But no, clarity of mind in itself cannot possibly decide, on way or the other, whether spirits and ghouls and devils cause illnesses, or whether germs do. That is something only science can do. (And no, not just the letter of science, as it were, but the spirit of science; not just the specific methodology of scientific experimentation, but a scientific temper, a scientific and rational worldview. This parenthesis is directed at you, Spence, if you’re reading this, and for the umpteenth time! I doubt very much that there is, for instance, any scientific study specifically on whether demons cause disease, and yet it is because of science that we are able to discard exorcisms as, broadly speaking and for now leaving out derailing nuances about psychosomatic manifestations and one way of dealing with them, nothing more than superstition.)

It is our bias that gets us to accept these erroneous explanations for things around us. And it science that can help rid us that kind of bias (or at least, rid us of the effects of that kind of bias); and no amount of clear thinking, by itself, can do this for us.

And this is why, and like I’d said, “there’s only so much you can do with” meditation and mindfulness. This is why meditation is not, and can never be, a substitute for science. Which is not to deride the undeniable (as well as the potential for the as yet speculative) uses of meditation and mindfulness, but to not ascribe to them more than they can actually do for us.

(And this is regardless, entirely, of what someone’s specific position might be as far as #3 above. I spelled that irrelevancy out myself, and discussed it as it might relate to this particular exchange, to make sure that it doesn’t get thrown in as a red herring here.)

[Spence Tepper]

Hi AR:

Some people did not need science to tell them that all men and women are created equal and deserve equal rights and compassion.

They thought that way for millennia. That was clear thinking, often, based in spirituality.

But whole branches of science and the gathering of scientific evidence has been mounted to support the opposite, that the segment of the privileged population funding that science were superior in a whole host of ways to those who didn't look like them. And therefore they had privileged rights to impose their beliefs, often unscientific and without solid evidence, upon others.

Scientism is as much a danger as any religion.

But it is neither science nor religion's fault. It is ethnocentrism, the belief, hidden, subconscious, that leads to exploitation and abuse of the "other" by otherwise rational and compasisonate people.

Science is a tool only. You don't look for guidance on the important matters of treating others as you wish to be treated in a wrench anymore than you should in a crystal ball. You don't blame the wrench or the crystal ball. You credit or blame the ones using these tools.

And science is a tool, used like a prostitute, who has been and continues to be abused as often as she has been treated with respect.

[Dungeness]

@ AR [ And this is why, and like I’d said, “there’s only so much you can do with” meditation and mindfulness. This is why meditation is not, and can never be, a substitute for science... It is possible that meditation might actually help us access information beyond just that --- or, to put it differently, it is possible that our subconscious might hold much deeper information than commonly understood. ]

I agree, AR, meditative practice is no substitute for science and
I have stated so many times. My point was not to argue for the
existence of supranormal communication conduits but only that
an intensive meditative practice could and likely does expand
awareness more deeply into the ordinary daily thought stream.
Almost certainly beyond what the 15-minute-a-day meditator
could hope to glean. That said, he would still rigorously apply
standard evidentiary rules to test hypotheses and ferret out bias.

Moreover our harder working meditator would be more relaxed,
less distractable, clearer headed, warier of biased conclusions,
more attuned to hints from the subconscious if they arise, bias
averse, and, yes, devoutly loyal to science. Oh, and, lest we
forget, eager to find hard evidence for all claims including this
one... agreed?

P.S.
Col. Jessop: Are we clear, Lieutenant!? Lt. Caffey: Crystal.

[Appreciative Reader]

"Some people did not need science to tell them that all men and women are created equal and deserve equal rights and compassion.

They thought that way for millennia. That was clear thinking, often, based in spirituality."

..........We're kind of retreading the same ground here, Spence. I thought I'd addressed this already, and entirely clearly. You're free to disagree, obviously, but in that case a discussion of the reasons for that disagreement might be more useful than a repetition of the same old.

What you've described, just now, is the exact opposite of clear thinking. The lack of clarity, as I see it, stems from two things: first, conflating truth value and policy; and second, a fallacious argumentum ad consequentiam.

"Men and women are created equal" --- or, at any rate, "men and women are equal" --- is one statement and one claim. And "men and women deserve equal rights and compassion" is an entirely separate claim/proposal. You're making the mistake of conflating the two, just like you'd done earlier with your argument on racism (and that I'd discussed in a past comment).

Are men and women truly equal? Are women's brains equipped to take on tasks that a doctor needs to perform, or a lawyer, or a CEO, or a general, or an accountant, or a banker, or a scientist? Are their bodies equipped to take on the tasks that a soldier might be required to carry out, or an astronaut, or a deep-sea diver, or a professional fighter? Or are women's capabilities limited, in general and leaving aside occasional exceptions, to handling jobs like keeping house, and cooking, and sewing, and nursing, and teaching (teaching children, not graduate students), and having sex?

The above is a question of factuality. It can only answered by properly assessing the evidence. Science, in other words --- whether conducted formally or informally.

No amount of clear thinking, and no amount of spirituality, can, in isolation, pronounce a reasonable verdict on this issue. That is a matter for science. (And I repeat, not necessarily formally conducted science; informal is just fine, but it needs to be scientific and based on the actual evidence, the assessment, in order to be reasonable.)

.

The second part of that sentence of yours, namely, that "Men and women deserve equal rights and compassion" is a separate matter. That is a matter of policy. Agreed, some clear thinking, specifically on ethics, will probably make fully clear that both women deserve "equal rights and compassion", as well as opportunities and dignity and independence, et cetera, as men, and regardless of their ability. Agreed, clear thinking is probably enough to arrive at that latter part of your sentence, at that policy. And agreed, spirituality, and the kind of mentality it engenders, probably helps further this kind of thinking.

.

(Again, and as with that race thing, it's probably obvious but let me still clarify: I agree with you that men and women are indeed equal as far as those abilities. My point is, we can't say that they're equal merely because it feels good and right and fair that it should be so; they're equal because they're actually, factually equal; and that they're equal is something only science --- whether formally or informally conducted --- can tell us. Not merely clarity of mind. Not spirituality. Although those may help, indirectly.)

----------

And yes, absolutely, as far as this question, as well as any other question, the de facto practice of science isn't always perfect. People are fallible, and are susceptible to any number of failings. Those failings include their personal biases, absolutely. As a result of these failings, including but not limited to personal bias, absolutely, the system may well misfire. Which points not to an essential shortcoming in the philosophy and methodology of science, but in its execution; and that is remedied not by wildly positing things like spirituality as an alternative to science, and as a competing methodology of arriving at the truth value of propositions on factuality, but by identifying the wrinkles within the system, one by one, and ironing them out.

Which, like I was saying to Dungeness, is not to deride spirituality in any way, but only to refrain from ascribing to spirituality what is beyond its power to deliver.

----------

Like I said we're both of us repeating ourselves at this point. No point beating the poor beast to death, beyond this point!

And Spence, it seems that despite starting out from a point of agreement, this whole thread has been a whole series of disagreements, as far as you and I. Apologies if at any point, in attempting to make my point clearly, I may have ended up sounding less than fully cordial/gentle/courteous/whatever. All I'd been trying to do is to think clearly about this, and convey my thinking (and my reaction to yours) as clearly as I could, nothing more.

Speaking for myself, I enjoyed the discussion, and I hope you did too. Cheers!

[Appreciative Reader]

"... agreed? ..."

..........Agreed, Dungeness.

I find myself agreeing with most of what you've now said here. Some small issues linger with some points of emphasis, as well as how this POV relates to what you'd said earlier, but let me not overdo the hair-splitting here. Absolutely, agreed, broadly at least, with your POV here.

----------

"Col. Jessop: Are we clear, Lieutenant!? Lt. Caffey: Crystal."

..........Ouch.

Your gentle rebuke is well deserved. I may've gotten carried away, and expressed myself more brusquely than was called for. My apologies.

[spence tepper]

Hi AR:

You wrote:
"Are men and women truly equal? Are women's brains equipped to take on tasks that a doctor needs to perform, or a lawyer, or a CEO, or a general, or an accountant, or a banker, or a scientist? Are their bodies equipped to take on the tasks that a soldier might be required to carry out, or an astronaut, or a deep-sea diver, or a professional fighter? Or are women's capabilities limited, in general and leaving aside occasional exceptions, to handling jobs like keeping house, and cooking, and sewing, and nursing, and teaching (teaching children, not graduate students), and having sex?

"The above is a question of factuality. It can only answered by properly assessing the evidence. Science, in other words --- whether conducted formally or informally."

For centuries white men presumed that black slaves could not go to college for lack of evidence.
For centuries white men presumed women couldn't fight on the battlefield, or even formulate military strategy simply because women were not allowed to take those roles, and therefore the evidence was basically slanted by societies' prejudices. And a whole host of theories about women, false theories, as well as theories about blacks, etc, false and superstitious thinking, has been supported by the very format of your questions.

The very question of whether women can do....and listing jobs that other human beings have done is a spurious and biased approach. You will only get the evidence that exists, reflecting cultural biases unless.....

Unless you are willing to actually allow people to do whatever the hell they want. Without judging them based on the cultural limitations extant or from the past which they have been burdened with.

No, AR, it is not a matter of existing evidence, which is always self-reinforcing. To base answers to such questions on existing evidence is simply a circular and false argument.. It is a matter of understanding the biases within the culture.

A woman doesn't need to prove to you anything, to get your permission to live, breath and act as she wishes to. A person of color doesn't need your permission, AR. Enslavement takes many forms. Asking such slanted questions is one of them.

[Spence Tepper]

From a spiritual perspective, we are souls living in these shells. These bodies and brains, that constrain and influence us are not who we really are.

From that perspective, anyone can do anything if they want to badly enough. A man can become a woman. A woman can become a man if she likes. Certainly, if they have that desire, they should try, and trying may learn a better way than existed before, simply finding a new way they can do it. We can all learn from that.

So, there is a spiritual philosophy, AR, that lifts ones thinking much higher than the existing evidence, which is always slanted to cultural and political, ethnocentric biases.

A philosophy about what it really means to be here, and what we are about, and that is a philosophy that says we really are all brothers and sisters. Genetically, it is so. But before genetics, this philosophy raised thinking to the same noble result.

A platform well above the blinkered understanding of local and extant cultural bias.

[Appreciative Reader]

"And a whole host of theories about women, false theories, as well as theories about blacks, etc, false and superstitious thinking, has been supported by the very format of your questions."

..........No, it isn't the "format of the question" that has supported those false theories. It is a fallacious resolution to the question that had supported the lie in times past, and to an extent continues to even today.

"No, AR, it is not a matter of existing evidence, which is always self-reinforcing."

..........Only if the evidence-gathering, and the evidence-evaluating, is being done wrong. That is to say, only if the science is being done wrong.

"To base answers to such questions on existing evidence is simply a circular and false argument."

..........That is wrong on two counts. First, existing evidence that had been erroneously evaluated in the past, can certainly be discussed better, and explained better, in future. And secondly, and more importantly, this emphasis on "existing evidence" that you slip in here is itself spurious, no more than a strawman: because why on earth should a question that we feel has not been properly dealt with in the past necessarily now be evaluated only basis "existing evidence", and why must we not seek fresh evidence if we want to?

"It is a matter of understanding the biases within the culture."

..........Sure, no disagreement from me as far as that much.

"A woman doesn't need to prove to you anything, to get your permission to live, breath and act as she wishes to. "

..........Now you're descending to outright disingenuousness, and your attempt to subvert the discussion is starting to border on the desperate. Of course a woman doesn't need your permission, or mine, to live or breathe as she wishes to. What has that to do with anything I've said here? Not only have I not suggested anything of the kind myself; I've also gone out of my way, twice, to clearly state both my stand on women's capabilities, as well as the fact that policy, which is essentially what you're talking about here, is a matter of values, and values aren't necessarily related strictly with capability, and also what my specific stand on values as far as that particular issue is; so that it must have taken you a doubly Olympian set of contortions to jump both those hurdles to arrive at that particular posture that you try to assume here.

---------

Let it go, Spence. You're wrong about this, without a shadow of a doubt. Remember the law of the holes: "If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging." Digging further only makes it worse, as that last desperate attempt of yours at muddying the waters and posturing as some kind of champion for women's "right to live and breathe as they like, and without my (or anyone else's) permission" makes laughably clear.

[Appreciative Reader]

"anyone can do anything if they want to badly enough."

"A man can become a woman. A woman can become a man if she likes. Certainly, if they have that desire, they should try, and trying may learn a better way than existed before, simply finding a new way they can do it."

"there is a spiritual philosophy, AR, that lifts ones thinking much higher than the existing evidence, which is always slanted to cultural and political, ethnocentric biases."

..........None of that is in any way related to anything I've said here.

But, speaking in general, and without reference to our specific disagreement, that we've been trying to thrash out over our last few comments: Sure, I fully agree with what you've said here, and I offer my wholehearted endorsement to both the sentiment you express here and the particular policies you advocate here.

[Appreciative Reader]

Spence, just look at this this sentence from your comment, that kind of highlights the essence of the philosophy you're advocating here, and that also clearly exposes two fundamental flaws within that philsophy:

"there is a spiritual philosophy, AR, that lifts ones thinking much higher than the existing evidence, which is always slanted to cultural and political, ethnocentric biases."

First, and incidentally, it once again --- and for the third time now --- conflates factuality with values, factuality with policy. Evidence, and factuality, cannot directly dictate policy. What evidence does is helps us apprehend factuality correctly, and your implication here that there is some alternative route --- an alternative route that is reasonable and reliable --- of arriving at an understanding of factuality, is entirely unsupported and spurious. And in any case policy is something we base on our values; certainly we take onboard evidence and factuality to guide us, but the actual decision on policy stems first and foremost on our values.

Secondly, and more importantly: You're suggesting that your spirituality equips you with some kind of a vision that transcends our mundane everyday "worldly" wisdom and values, that in essence places the mystic and philosopher in some eyerie as it were, some high watchtower, from whence he sees things that the plebs down below cannot.

Do you not see how entirely messed up such a philosophy is?

It is precisely this kind of authority that the crazy mullahs draw from their version of "spirituality" that goads them on to commit all kinds of horrors that are not only reprehensible but that are, first and foremost, shown up as erroneous and self-sabotaging by a sober assessment of facts. It is their belief that their spirituality --- however defined --- that gives them a wisdom and an insight that is beyond normal everyday evidence that gets them to act as they do, and also gets their acolytes to follow them into furthering their murderous agenda.

Agreed, the ISIS and Taliban business is an outlier, and absolutely, it is unfair to paint all spirituality, or even all religion, with those colors. My point is, if you're going to claim visions that are above and beyond the rest of us, AND FURTHER IF YOU'RE GOING TO CLAIM THAT THAT VISION SOMEHOW EQUIPS YOU MAGICALLY WITH A PHILOSOPHY THAT TRANSCENDS EVERYDAY EVIDENCE AND EVERYDAY WISDOM, then that lets open the floodgates to all kinds of random madness. If perchance that "random madness" happens to be beneficient, as you're suggesting here, and indeed as it sometimes may, then sure, we're beneifited by it; but if it turns out to be toxic, and it often is that too in practice, then that is exactly the kind of thing that is wrong with religions.

The route that science opens to us, of apprehending the world and our place in it, is not a dramatic one. That is, while it has indeed given us really dramatic results, but it does not overnight and effortlessly give us some 'absolute' results and guidelines and directions, as religion does, and as spirituality --- if people look on spirituality as you seem to be doing here --- also may. It's results are slow but steady. It is fallible, but given to self-correction. And it's de facto observation is also given to error, in as much individual practitioners are fallible, but the only remedy is to iron out every wrinkle one by one. To posit spirituality/religion as some kind of atlernative and overreaching guide to factuality and policy without regard to evidence, that is not only misguided but can prove to be downright dangerous! (Dangerous not in your specific case, Spence, I know you to be a gentle soul who would never advocate harming others, but this is exactly like the dictator thing: a truly benevolent and wise dictator that is beyond all control of people can do far more good than a democracy ever can, but .... surely I don't have to spell out the error in that philosophy, and also how that relates with your position?)

[Spence Tepper]

Hi AR
I wrote and you responded...

'No, AR, it is not a matter of existing evidence, which is always self-reinforcing.'

"........Only if the evidence-gathering, and the evidence-evaluating, is being done wrong. That is to say, only if the science is being done wrong."

That happens all the time. For example even the questions you raise about men and woman have,, as science has shown, been proven to be spurious questions.

The variation among men, among women, among whites, among Hispanics, is so great that to try to compare one group to another on such things as suitability for a job that is entirely unrelated to skin color or sex, reflects the prejudice of the times. A prejudice invisible to otherwise rational thinkers.

So much science has been expended in such questions... Can a woman do as well in battle as a man?

The question is wrong because what makes men and women different has little to do with battle.

The difference between individual human beings may matter. The ability of a single person may matter. And they will work to their strengths. Someone may qualify on their brute strength. Someone else on their strategic capacity, or their ability to separate an opponent from their weapons. It could be any variety of skills more germain to the task, and nothing to do with someone's sex or color.

Therefore asking such a question reflects more about prejudice than any sincere, objective, scientific interest, which would be restricted to those skills specific to the job... A job that may be completed successfully in a variety of creative ways each emphasizing one's own unique skill mix. Creative ways that may be quite different from how that job has been done before... Maybe better.

This is why science, in the hands of prejudiced adults, which is to a degree everyone, can be manipulated to generate an answer that is actually false.

But spirituality, the essence within is all, and accessible to all, cannot be constrained to the variations in these shells. This is why spirituality is a superior platform for humanity, and science.