Theos-Talk Archives (April 2001 Message tt00040)

For those among us of a scientific bent (or not:-) who might be interested in 
whether or not HPB's prophesy is being fulfilled -- that scientists may soon 
be faced with an understanding of the theosophical principles that they 
cannot deny -- below is a recent post I picked up from a leading scientific 
Journal forum that's been inundated for the past few months with heated 
dialogues between a few quantum physicists, philosophers and cognitive 
scientists quoting Buddhist and Vedanta scriptures with sound theosophical 
arguments against many others of a more materialistic viewpoint. It seem 
that this writer has a strong argument that is beginning to show the 
handwriting on the wall.  
It's a good sign that a respected scientific Journal is willing to 
consider this stuff in their carefully monitored forum -- (even though they 
find it hard to publish in their magazine because of the necessity for peer 
review). From this, I take it that Mr. Landry, like myself, may not be an 
academic scientist -- since they have given me the same treatment over the 
past five years with respect to the ABC field theory papers they post (which 
always include references to the Secret Doctrine).  
Incidentally, I attribute at least half of the hits to my web site 
over the past few years, as well as a large number of early hits to the 
blavatsky.net site by scientists, a possible result of these posts... (Some 
parts of which have appeared in modified form in my letters posted to the 
various theosophical forums.) Since I was the first (if not the only one for 
some time) to use this approach when consciousness became a serious 
scientific study around five years ago, It's my hope that my efforts in this 
direction has contributed to this recent upsurge in theosophical thought on 
the various scientific forums I've participated in. (Psyche-D, Quantum Mind, 
JCS, etc.)  
It's interesting that the three scientists whose works are the key to 
the presently growing acceptance of a universe where consciousness (outside 
of time and space) and matter (inside of space and time) are its twin poles, 
Einstein, Heisenberg and Bohm, were all theosophists and non-materialists in 
their scientific approaches and philosophical thoughts... And, that the 
synthesis of their work is the root of ABC as well as the latest 10 
dimensional Superstring/membrane theories that are offering a new paradigm of 
science that is not only upsetting all materialistic theories based on 
reductionism, but also are exactly in conformance with and based upon the 
three fundamental theosophical principles as outlined by HPB in the Secret 
Doctrine.

Wishing you all a happy Easter and a thoughtful Passover.

LHM
http://tellworld.com/Astro.Biological.Coenergetics/

------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John K Landry
To: jcs-online@yahoogroups.com (Journal of Consciousness Study)  
 
I recently wrote a small article for JCS and submitted it for 

publication. Anthony Freeman suggested that it would be more suited for 

posting here than for publishing in the magazine.

In the article I take issue with the abundant reductionism that can still 

be found in JCS. Here it is:


REDUCTIONISM IN SCIENCE


Abstract: 
Reductionism is bad science. It refuses to look at the effects that 

sometimes emerge when putting parts together to form a new whole. In 

Consciousness Studies in particular it eliminates the study of all subjective 

knowledge.


Let me start with a quote from Ramachandran that, I think, should not 

remain unchallenged (from an interview by Freeman in the Journal of 

Consciousness Studies Volume 8, #1): "People said that living things could 

never be understood in terms of chemistry because there was a mysterious élan 

vital, 'entelechy' or vital spirit, but the discovery of DNA's structure 

changed all this. Likewise it was widely believed that even though we may 

someday understand all the functions of the brain, we can never explain the 

'soul' or consciousness. This challenge too has been taken up (e.g. Crick and 

Koch, 1998) and few educated people now believe in a nonmaterial soul."

This is an example of many thoroughly reductionistic statements still 

being made from time to time in the Journal of Consciousness Studies. By my 

reckoning about half of the authors publishing in it still declare themselves 

to be reductionists. Yet reductionism is outdated, dogmatic, and bad science.

The basic premise of reductionism is that once we understand all the 

parts of a whole, we have discovered all there is to know about it. The whole 

is "nothing but" the sum of the parts. Consciousness is nothing but the 

firing of neurons in the brain. Art appreciation is nothing but events in the 

outside world causing brain chemistry via our senses. Life is nothing but DNA 

molecules doing their thing.

Of course over the last several centuries scientifically looking at parts 

of wholes has produced staggering amounts of understanding. Even today the 

study of component parts still contributes enormously to science. As 

Ramachandran observes elsewhere in the interview quoted above, reductionism 

is the most powerful strategy known to science. And indeed his work on art 

appreciation is meaningful. It brings clarity to parts of art appreciation. 

But reductionism is not the only scientific strategy! It is only a very 

powerful means science uses. Only studying parts of a whole by necessity 

ignores all elements that may emerge when combining parts into a new, more 

complex whole. Nuclear physics cannot "explain" biology. Biology is incapable 

of describing and predicting psychological phenomena. And brain chemistry by 

itself can never make consciousness completely understandable. As if the 

structure of DNA can explain the beauty of a sunset! As if there is no 

difference between a dead cell-a bunch of molecules-and a living cell-a bunch 

of molecules as well, but with life added!

When about four centuries ago Galileo invented the telescope, many of his 

contemporaries refused to look through it. It was too dangerous to do so 

because it would have threatened the prevailing worldview. This dogmatism, 

this fundamentalism, was clearly less than scientific and appreciably slowed 

down scientific understanding in Galileo's days. A very similar situation 

exists in today's scientific community. The refusal of reductionists to look 

at what happens when parts are assembled into new wholes is based on the 

belief that there is nothing to be learned from it. Exclusively studying 

parts of wholes is allegedly the only way that leads to understanding. How 

unscientific! Not doing the experiment-not looking in the telescope-because 

we may discover something that threatens our worldview, runs completely 

counter to scientific principles. In its refusal to study the effects that 

sometimes emerge when assembling parts, reductionism forces blinders upon us. 

It takes on faith that there are no such effects. Therefore reductionism isa 

form of religion, scientism, not science.

In the particular field of consciousness studies, what then is it that 

reductionism fails to study? And what have those who have looked in their 

telescope learned? At the very least it has become increasingly clear now 

that for studying consciousness, only looking at brain chemistry will not do. 

If we want to explore all aspects of it we need not only be objective but 

also subjective. For understanding consciousness in toto we have to look at 

the inner as well as the outer world. Consciousness includes 

self-consciousness. So apart from neurology we need to incorporate the 

introspective question of "who am I?" In consciousness studies ignoring this 

question is bad science.

The question then arises what the experience is of people who have done 

some introspection. What do those find who have added subjectivity to 

objectivity, who, in Wilber's language (1995), have not only looked at the 

realm of "it's," but also at the realms of "I" and "we?" Or phrased a little 

differently, one could, and should, ask what we find when objectively 

studying people with experience in introspection.

Both the study and the practice of introspection lead to the conclusion 

that there exists a vast realm of consciousness that lies beyond the limits 

of what the mind can understand. As almost all people who practice some form 

of contemplation will attest, stilling the mind can bring on experiences that 

the mind is utterly incapable of grasping but that are nonetheless knowable. 

The existence of such experiences is a scientific fact. For instance, a sixth 

sense, as in clairvoyance or precognition, is real. There are many 

irrational, nonmaterial phenomena like that, that really do exist. Yet 

reductionism denies all these because reductionists are by necessity 

materialists. Anything nonmaterial cannot exist. Consciousness is nothing but 

firing neurons.

This immediately brings up the question of cause and effect. Can parts of 

a whole cause effects in the whole? Of course they can. Cancer can cause 

death. Can wholes cause changes in parts? Yes, they can. Mind has power over 

matter. For instance, a nuclear physicist can, by consciously choosing the 

way of observing, cause the wave function to collapse. The mind of the 

physicist thus can create an electron.

Not everyone has experienced one or more irrational phenomena. But 

sufficient people have to make ignoring the field of consciousness beyond the 

mind thoroughly unscientific. Not investigating irrational phenomena because 

they do not fit in our worldview, is dogmatic fundamentalism and not science.

As a good example of subjective, irrational phenomena take those who have 

experienced their identify as their soul rather than their mind. There really 

are people who personally identify with an inner Silent Witness, an 

aspect-free and utterly nonmaterial entity capable of observing the thinking 

mind. Through introspection it is possible to become aware of the fact that 

what we usually think we are-our body/mind-is incomplete. Because what we 

really are is that which can observe our body/minds, that which can observe 

our thoughts. This Silent Witness we are includes the body/mind but is 

fundamentally more. As Douglas Harding (2000) would say, look for yourself 

(pun intended)!

For many who have done the necessary experiment of intensive, long-term 

contemplation, the experience of being a Silent Witness becomes indisputable. 

Those know that they are this nonmaterial Soul. They do not need to 

"believe," they know with absolute certainty because they have experienced. 

Once having gained this experience, being a nonmaterial, aspect-free Witness 

generally becomes much more real than the outer, objective world. The 

spiritual literature is chock full of authors who describe this. So, calling 

people who have had this experience uneducated is not only unscientific 

but-yes, I will return the compliment-uneducated.

Now, I can hear the howls of protest: "What you are talking about is 

highly controversial!" But so were Jupiter's moons as revealed in Galileo's 

telescope. Introspection and its results need not be controversial at all. 

Anybody who meditates long enough can verify to complete satisfaction that 

our identity is not our mind because we can learn to observe it, even to 

still it. As I said, we can experience ourselves as the Silent Observer. This 

Silent Witness can in principle observe all things material and not so 

material, not only our brain chemistry but also even our thoughts and our 

characteristics. So we clearly are more than the sum of our parts, for the 

simple reason that we can observe them. To those who have had the 

experience-and I am one of them-it is crystal clear that you cannot be what 

you can observe. My whole is fundamentally more than the sum of my parts. The 

seer in seeing cannot be seen. Life is fundamentally more than chemistry, 

just as chemistry is fundamentally more than nuclear physics. Tell people 

who, for instance, have had a premonition or a near-death experience that 

nonmaterial things do not exist, and they will just look for somebody less 

dogmatic to talk to. Although impossible to repeat on command, their 

experience is just as real to them as burning their fingers on a hot stove, 

if not more so.

We already know how to verify Witness Consciousness, namely by the 

experiment of prolonged meditation. That is why I chose it, rather than any 

other irrational phenomenon, as an example of something fundamentally more 

than the sum of my material parts.

Incidentally, Witness Consciousness is only the first level of spiritual 

awareness. At least three more exist (see for instance Landré, 1999). And 

spiritual awareness is only part of the realm of consciousness that lies 

beyond the understanding of the mind. But do not take my word for it; 

investigate for yourself. If, on the other hand, you are less than motivated 

to carry out the necessary experiment of prolonged meditation, you have no 

choice but to believe those who have. If you yourself have never seen the 

Chinese wall, do you maintain it does not exist?

In sum then, looking at the parts of a whole certainly is a powerful 

scientific tool. Yet believing that the sum of the parts always fully 

describes the whole is a form of religious dogmatism. Is it not time for 

people who call themselves scientists to realize that reductionism does not 

fit the facts? And is it not time for the editors and reviewers of the 

Journal of Consciousness Studies to bring to the attention of their authors 

when they cross the line between scientific observation and religiosity?"


Woodside, 4 April 2001.

John K. Landré



REFERENCES


Crick, F.H.C. and Koch, C. (1998), 'Consciousness and neuroscience', Cerebral 

Cortex, 8 (2), pp.97-107.


Ramachandran, V.S. (2001), Sharpening Up 'The Science of Art.' An Interview 

with Anthony Freeman, Journal of Consciousness Studies, 8 (1), pp. 9-29.


Harding, Douglas E. (2000), Look for Yourself: The Science and Art of 

Self-realization (Encinitas: InnerDirections Publishing). 


Landré, John K. (1999), Spirituality: Personal Growth in the Second Half of 

Life (Pittsburgh: Dorrance Publications).


Wilber, Ken (1995), Sex, Ecology, Spirituality: The Spirit of Evolution 

(Boston and London: Shambala).