On Not Knowing

 Space: it's big and it's out there. But what's in here?

Recently a good friend of mine, Simon Buckland (see his blog here), sent me a link to an interesting TED talk by neuroscientist David Eagleman. He makes a case for "possibilianism", which is a philosophy of "not knowing" - admitting that there is so much in the universe that we do not know at this time in the development of science (which is where he is coming from). From this not knowing the joy and wonder of the world, cosmos and life can be appreciated in its fullness. 

It was actually something of a synchronicity that Simon shared this, as I had been thinking of writing a post about not knowing before I got sidetracked with other things these last two weeks. In the workshop I attended in Beijing a few weeks ago - with mystic Leonard Jacobson - he talked about the power and beauty of not knowing. But are Eagleman andJ acobson talking about the same thing. The answer is "Yes, but only a bit." Let me explain.

Eagleman's possibilianism is the next step beyond scientism - a hard core belief in the methods of reductionist science - and is much preferable to it, in my opinion. The idea of not knowing is indeed very powerful. However Eagleman's understanding is delimited by the fact that at a personal level he is not making an inner journey of any depth. Many of his insights are relatively simple, the kinds of things most primary school kids think of - for example that there are so many religious perspectives and gods that religion obviously cannot be taken literally. This is obviously true. 

Yet there are some "certainties" that Eagleman claims that are untrue, and unfortunately these fundamental presuppositions of Eagelman's are central to the understanding of the human experience. The most telling of these is his belief that "we are our brains", which is incorrect. Even at a scientific level this claim is problematic - we have to dismiss all the insights of mystical traditions and the scientific evidence into the extended mind and psi experience to maintain the view. And Eagleman does just that, saying there is no evidence for ESP. This is an inexcusable bit of ignorance/denial for a neuroscientist. There is definitely enough evidence from parapsychology to say that there is a solid possibility that various psi experiences and capacities are real (check out Dean Radin's site, for example). A true "possibilian" would acknowledge that. Of course the real "evidence" for ESP, clairvoyance etc. does not come from analysing data, but through first person experience, and this is part of the reason why Eagleman gets it wrong. I can say this with certainty having done a great deal of inner work myself.

One of the reasons why many scientists, academics and others don't make that inner journey is because it requires not knowing at a much deeper level than what Eagleman is prepared to admit. In fact it requires the dismantling of ego - surrender (at least in part) - and this is actually quite frightening and often very painful because it requires allowing the hurt parts of the psyche to find expression. Thus the control of ego remains in place for most of today's knowledge gurus, and the capacity for deeper perception is retarded.

Another problem for Eagleman is that he does not realise that there are direct inner perceptions that reveal deeper truths, and they emerge from a release of cultural knowledge, an unlearning. Thus he is wrong to say that all "religious" views are culturally based. Undoubtedly culture still influences the way we interpret the deeper knowings, and how we communicate them via language. But the influence of culture and prior learning is minimised or almost negligible in the actual moments of perception; in perfect presence they cease to function.

Interestingly the first book I ever wrote when I was 26 - a little self-deluded tome called the Freedom of Dynamic Consciousness - basically mirrors what Eagleman says. I came from a philosophical position and argued that being unattached to knowing was better than the fundamentalism of mainstream religion and science. I hadn't made much of an inner journey at that time My awareness now is much deeper, including, ironically, my awareness of the importance of not knowing.

In short, it's good Eagleman moves into the unknown - that is a tiny step towards loosening the strings of ego. But his understanding is still delimited by his worldview and the ways of knowing it legitimates (and forbids). And by the grip of the ego/mind.

It is certainly true that not knowing is very powerful. In deep, silent presence not knowing (via the mind) is the prime way of knowing - in something of a seeming contradiction. Each moment just unfolds. It is the "knowing" of the mind that occludes that deeper "not knowing".

I have to admit seeing this talk by Eagelman and the huge audience he garners does make me slightly sad. I have met and worked with the most amazing people who know so much more about this than Eagleman does - Leonard Jacobson is just one of them. But they don't get a voice on any stage, let alone the world stage. The dominant paradigms just don't allow it. And the truth is that much of their understanding is too far off the map to make sense to most scientists and academics anyway.

That's one of the reasons why I started this blog, and called it "22Cplus". It's about long term perspectives of the future - into the 22nd century and beyond. Trish MacGreggor left a comment on a previous post last week that it might take another 200 years for science to fully acknowledge the existence of the soul. That may well be true.

But who knows?

Here's the TED talk by Eagleman.

Blessings,

Marcus

 

Cheers,

Marcus

The Deckard Confusion. Let me know the ways.

Yadda, yadda, yadda. Invasion of the talking heads

The universe is not conscious – yet. But it will be. Strictly speaking, we should say that very little of it is conscious today. But that will change and soon. I expect that the universe will become sublimely intelligent and will wake up…

Ray Kurzweil, The Singularity is Near (2005 p. 390).

I now believe that the universe was created and is permeated by cosmic consciousness and superior creative intelligence… on all its levels and in all its dimensions. The image of the cosmos as a giant supermachine with Newtonian characteristics, consisting of separate building blocks (elementary particles and objects), gave way to a vision of a unified field, an organic whole in which everything is meaningful interconnected. I now see each individual human psyche as an integral part of the overall field of cosmic consciousness and essentially commensurate with it.

Psychiatrist Stanislav Grof, When the Impossible Happens, (2006 p. 349).

The Deckard Confusion is a term I use to describe the confusion of many Artificial Intelligence experts, who fail to distinguish the difference between the information processing of machines and human consciousness.  The term is based on the 1980s classic sci-fi movie Bladerunner, (I wrote about this some months back) . Rick Deckard (played by Harrison Ford) falls in love with a ‘replicant’ (cyborg) named Rachael (Sean Young). In fact, Deckard is possibly a replicant himself, although it is unclear if he suspects this (the movie is ambiguous on this point, and it varies from one “cut” of the movie to another). It seems that Deckard cannot distinguish a machine from a flesh and blood person. Thus the term “the Deckard confusion”.

The fragmentation of mind in the modern era has created a similar problem. This includes a widespread confusion in modern cognitive science, where the computer metaphor currently dominates brain science and psychology. To put it simply, many experts believe the human organism and its consciousness to be merely a biological machine, when the reality is that consciousness contains essential, intrinsic qualities which are non-mechanistic. They seem unable to distinguish machine from organic life – or, dare I say, matter from “Spirit”.

In this post I am going to propose a provocation for you. I use the term provocation in the sense that Edward de Bono does. It is a deliberate attempt to throw a spanner in the works of the rational, linear mind. Once beliefs are established (via experience and conditioning) in the mind, that mind tends to regulate further experience in terms so the pre-existing thought structures, self-defined categories and so on. A provocation is meant to be something of a slap on the face, to snap you out of your slumber. In this case, the slap is more directed at mainstream thinking in cognitive science, and especially AI theory.

If you have seen the movie Bladerunner, you will recognise this eye. Is it human or robotic?

My provocation is...

What is Spiritual Realism?

Realism and spirituality are sometimes thought of as opposite ends of the spectrum. This is particularly true with those who are more skeptically inclined.

·         “Spiritual? Get real!”

·         “You are delusional!”

·         “I’m an empiricist. If you can’t see it or touch it, it ain’t real.”

·          

Those with a spiritual bent are sometimes equally dismissive of action in the world. Many believe that introspection and being ‘as one’ via some non-ordinary state is what matters most.

·         “Money and business are not spiritual. They are evil.”

·         “The world is an illusion. Only spirit is real!”

·         “I am a spiritual being having a human experience. I don’t need this stuff!”

·         “Sexuality is best avoided.”

Most developed societies today are dominated by cultures and education systems which focus upon the physical world of money, markets and technology at the expense of the spiritual. This imbalance needs to be corrected.

Here I am going to state the case for spiritual realism.

Spiritual realism acknowledges the reality of the spiritual dimensions of mind and experience, but also finds value in actions and experience in the physical world.

Spiritual realism begins with the currently non-testable (although personally verifiable) assumption that human beings have both a physical body, and a spiritual consciousness. That spiritual component exists in conjunction with the physical body, but also transcends it. Put another way, the spirit survives the physical death of the body.

This does not mean that the physical body is not important. Spirit is expressed through the body and brain, including all its biological and evolutionary drives.

Spiritual realism finds business and capitalism to be neutral in themselves. In terms of positives, they present endless opportunities for individuals to take action and learn about their soul purposes, and their soul issues. The human collective can also learn from the market place. Capitalism is often driven by egotism, greed and lack of compassion and respect for human dignity. It tends to bring out some of the negative aspects of the human species – the shadow. Yet it is in seeing this dark side that these collective issues can be acknowledged and transcended. The market place is also a medium through which the reverse side of the coin can be seen: compassion, generosity, respect for fellow human beings. Actions taken in alignment with spirit trends to be respectful of the highest good of all.

Any action taken in the world is driven by inner processes. These can be biological and egocentric: the selfish gene in action. Such actions are essentially driven by the alienated mind – consciousness which lies in ignorance of its inner spiritual aspects. Alternatively, an individual can relax and enter a state of receptivity. In receptivity, actions can be driven by the wisdom of spirit.

Spiritual realism involves a deep commitment to the truth. My reading is that the current average level of commitment to truth is around 3%. In alternative spiritual movements it is around 5%. In mainstream western science it is around 7%. Both mainstream science and alternative spiritual movements remain largely at the whim of the ego, which is a trickster. Each has its common delusions, although they tend to occur at opposite ends of the philosophical spectrum.

I arrived at these percentage readings from doing a quick check, which is an intuitive tool taught to me in years gone by my spiritual teachers.

Those of a spiritual predilection might feel a little offended by my reading which suggests that mainstream science rates more highly than alternative spirituality in its commitment to truth. I was a little surprised by the reading myself. The reason is that there are just a whole lot of people of spiritual persuasion who are basically part-timers. They play around with the nicer parts of mystical/spiritual practice, but are not really committed to a genuine inner process. This drags the average consciousness level and commitment to truth down.

Having said this, a genuine commitment to truth in either science or spirituality can take a person well beyond the typical level of commitment to truth. In fact there is no need to separate these two domains.

A genuine science permits a full range of questions, a full range data to be acknowledged, and a full range of theory to be developed. Of course in practice, this is far from the case, as mainstream western science is still dominated by the mechanistic paradigm and western materialism in general. This has held western science back for the past century.

A fully embracing spirituality is also “empirical”, in the sense that it permits a full range of experience and data to be acknowledged and processed by the mind. In practice, however, the ego tends to dominate much spiritual and religious practice. A common result is that there is a large level of delusion in many spiritual practitioners. In fact, spiritual realism acknowledges this tendency towards self-deception, and is comfortable with being “wrong”. It asserts that the mind tends to create concepts and beliefs and attach to them, because they create a sense of certainty, of safety. In this sense the ideal attitude is one of relaxed observation of the mind and its games, witnessing the delusions as they surface.

The human ego is part of the deal in being a human being. In fact the human ego is a protective mechanism which emerges from our biology, to maximise the chances of survival of the physical body. You are not going to be getting rid of your ego anytime soon. The key then is to witness its machinations and develop the right relationship with it.

One of the best things about spiritual realism is that it permits a full expression of fun and playfulness. What’s the point of having a spiritual philosophy if you can’t have a good time with it? That’s not an excuse to become hedonistic. It’s an invitation to lighten up and enjoy having a body – dance, sing, eat, drink and express sexuality in moderation! (the expression of these will vary from person to person, and change throughout the lifespan).

Finally, in order to enact spiritual realism, the individual needs to be able to bring about a state of presence at will. For it is in presence, in living in the moment, that the mind becomes silent and still, and that the intuitive voices from within can be heard. Presence seeds receptivity.

The truth is that it is not easy to enact spiritual realism. It’s challenging. That’s what makes it so rewarding. It can be stressful if approached the wrong way, but it can be uplifting and a whole lot of fun if done the right way. What would be the point if it was all too easy!? The key is to relax with it. Throw away the spiritual robes and allow yourself to be authentically human!

Marcus

Small Things and the Big Picture

Marcus T Anthony's new web site and blog can be found at: www.mind-futures.com.

Today, a little bit of philosophy of mind...

One day neuroscientist D. James Austen had a rather unusual experience as he waited for a train in London.

..he glanced away from the tracks towards the river Thames. …suddenly (he) felt a sense of enlightenment unlike anything he had ever experienced. His sense of individual existence, of separateness from the physical world around him, evaporated like morning mist on a bright dawn. He saw things “as they really are,” he recalls. The sense of “I, me, mine” disappeared. “Time was not present,” he says. “I had a sense of eternity. My old yearnings, fear of death and insinuations of self-hood vanished. I had been graced by a comprehension of the ultimate nature of things (Begley 2001 p 41).

One might expect that this profound experience would have led Austin to question some of the standard assumptions of mainstream science. Some might have interpreted the experience as evidence of a human perception that transcends ordinary awareness. Austen did no such thing. He concluded that it was merely “proof of the existence of the brain” (Begley 2001 p 41). Austen based this interpretation on the belief that “all we see, hear, and think is mediated or created by the brain” (Begley 2001 p 41). The experience was therefore ‘reasoned’ in reductionist and mechanistic terms.

It can be seen that Austen interpreted the experience in the language of neurophysiology. The event was an illusion created by the cessation of “certain brain circuits” – the amygdale, the “parietal lobe circuits”, and the “frontal and temporal lobe circuits” (Begley 2001 p 41). There is an implicit championing of reductionist knowledge, where analysis is the key way of knowing. With this comes a complete rejection of the actual insight (direct experience) provided by the mystical experience, and that insight was that there is a wholeness which pervades the cosmos. Here, the microscale neural activity has become more real than the experience itself.

This little incident in the life of one man epitomizes the entire discourse of modern mind science, which consciousness is defined in terms of the data gleaned from microprocesses within the brain, with the data at the first person level effectively ignored. What the neuroscientist sees is not the whole, but the parts, and those parts are mediated by technology. The image below shows what a neuroscientist might typically see of the ‘mind.’ The inner world of the mind, and the data of the mystical insight disappears with this methodology, while the reductionist and ‘scientific’ achieve privileged status within the system.

The excessive and unbalanced reductionism of much of modern science emerges from its materialism. The key issue is science’s often unexamined assumption that the microscale is primary, while the macroscale (whole) is secondary, built up from mechanistic micro-processes, in a one-way system. This is significant because reductionist science underpins neo-Darwinism, and neo-Darwinism underpins neuroscience, cognitive psychology and ultimately consciousness theory.

Mechanistic Western science, including the vast majority of mainstream evolutionary theorists, approaches the understanding of nature and cosmos in markedly different ways from thinkers holding a mystical/spiritual worldview. For Western science the focus is upon the bits and pieces of systems, the microscale. For those with a mystical bent, the whole – often in the form of ‘spirit’ - is seen as important, and often as the very basis of the entire system. The predominance of reductionism in western science illegitimates the very knowledge base of mystical spirituality and integrated intelligence, and conceals the knowledge it might potentially contribute to our understanding of the world and the cosmos.

This has been disastrous for the representation and understanding of inner and intuitive worlds. First person experience and all the data within the mind, has been reduced to neuro-chemistry and micro-processes. This has resulted in the rejection of thousands of years of

Magnetic Resonance Imaging; (MRI) brain scan. The modern neuroscientist does not see into the mind. What she sees is the ‘surface’, the externalities of the brain. This methodology and this culture emerge from the mechanistic paradigm.

data garnered from mystical spirituality. Current cognitive psychology continues in this vein, and its reductionism is typically uncritically represented in both academic and popular science. Charles Tart writes that a repeated theme is the attempt to explain consciousness via simpler, non-conscious sub-components, reducing the mind to information processing within physical systems. The digital computer has inevitably become the key metaphor.

A passage from neuroscientist and sceptic Michael Persinger (2001) sheds further light here. Persinger consistently argues for a reductionist and brain-based explanation for paranormal phenomena. His verbs of knowing (in bold) reveal an interpretation that is typical of the critical/rational worldview and modern science.

From the perspective of modern neuroscience, all experiences are generated by brain activity, or at the very least strongly correlated with brain activity. As the complexity of this brain activity is mapped and described mathematically, the nuances of thought and the idiosyncratic noise that define us as individuals will be quantified. To date there has not been a single type of paranormal experience that is not understandable in terms of known brain functions. The consideration of these experiences as predictable (control) components of brain activity will allow the differentiation between the illusions of intrinsic stimulation and the validity of information obtained through mechanisms yet to be explained (Persinger 2001 p 524. Italics added).

Here Persinger presents a hyper-materialistic conception of mind, mirroring neo-Darwinian assumptions. His view epitomises mainstream discourse in psychiatry and cognitive psychology, where the brain and consciousness are depicted as essentially synonymous. Internal choice/free will (which is difficult to reduce to micro-components) is often depicted as an illusion, and all unknowns are explained in terms of “mechanisms” that – even if unknown at present – will be identified in due course. More than a hundred years ago, William James referred to this kind of thinking as ‘promissory materialism’. Thus Persinger effectively eliminates first person data from the discussion, reflecting deeper paradigmatic asumptions – most notably the mechanistic paradigm’s reductionist privileging of micro-processes over macro-level processes.

The verbs of knowing tell us much. Microscale neuronal activity is “described” and “defined” – where visual and verbal/linguistic intelligences are key. The verb “mapped” represents the materialisation of subtle phenomena, ascribed to the hard page, and in abstract form. It can be seen that five key ‘rational’ ways of knowing are given privileged status: experimentation, analysis, classification, mathematical/logical and verbal/linguistic intelligences. Mathematical description is the ultimate validation process, and consciousness is depicted as “quantified… idiosyncratic noise”.

With this kind of representation of psi experience, the material substrate becomes the entire focus of the examination, while the mystical experience itself becomes forgotten, almost invisible.

There is another notable weakness in Persinger’s account. There is no deep questioning at the systems or worldview levels. This is consistent with empirical science’s typical reluctance to submit its own worldview to scrutiny, or to consider the possibility that its knowledge structures have a socio-cultural basis.

Persinger is an actor in a mythological play, playing the role of detached and impartial scientist. His part is to act as if he is untouched by the uncomfortably affective world of the human psyche and its nebulous, intuitive feelings.

Personally, I doubt that any human being exists in such a floating fortress of perfect objectivity.

Marcus

References

Begley, S. (2001, May 7). Religion and the brain. Newsweek, 52–57.

Transcending the Rational Mind

It is commonly believed in many circles - particularly those dizzying circles one finds oneself in within academic and educational institutions – that the rational mind is the highest cognitive set currently available to human beings. The rational mind is higher than the emotional mind, it is assumed, because the emotional and unreflective mind led us into mass superstition during the dark ages. Then science, with its empirically founded scientific method, led us out from the darkness and into Enlightenment. Thereafter came massive progress in science and social science; and the benefits to society are obvious. Just look at all those clean hospitals, computers on office desks and airplanes that can whisk us around the world in a matter of hours.

In the dark ages of prehistory people pretty much believed whatever Mum or the village idiot told them. Most people couldn’t read or write for a start. It was said that there was only one literate man, a clergyman, in all of Britain after the fall of the Roman Empire. Now almost everyone in Britain can read and write; and you take your capacity to make sense of the black squiggles on this page for granted. Thank about that for progress!

People haven’t always employed the critical/rational mind the way we do today.