Yoga and science

Yoga Discussion General Yoga
#21

Sooner or later String theory is going to emerge as the dominant theory of physics. It is already well known that what string theory predicates is predicated in Vedic metaphysics that all matter is the vibration of a primordial matter(Prakriti) governed by three fundamental modes called the gunas, which are described to be supersensible and infratomic forces. String theory says that matter is the vibration of a primordial matter known as superstrings.

String theory also says there are a number of other dimensions, but at the moment it has no consensus on how many dimensions and what is the nature of those dimensions. The Vedic metaphysics postulates 7 dimensions: physical(comprising 3), etheric, mental, causal, spiritual. Interestingly it is an octive in music.

It is easy to see then that modern physics and Vedic metaphysics are equivalent descriptions. This will force scientists to take Vedic metaphysics seriously, because there is no need to reinvent the wheel. If Vedic metaphysics is more in advance, obviously indicating its origins in an advanced scientific civilisation in pre-history, then modern science would be wise to engage with it and use it to advance science further.

#22

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;38023]Sooner or later String theory is going to emerge as the dominant theory of physics.[/QUOTE]

It’s pretty much there already.

#23

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;38015]Yogadam with comments like this " Saying science has an agenda, is like saying water is dry" you are simplying showing us you have a fundamentalist belief in science, namely classical physics. This comment is not really that different to somebody saying to me, “The bible cannot be false, to say it is false is like saying water is dry” .[/QUOTE]

I have two points here, What, in your view, is sciences agenda? Secondly, I do believe all science is necessary (not just classical physics, I don’t know why you limit science to just physics), in fact, should there be a more effective method of know the reality of or universe, we would need to prove that the new method is more effective then science through scientific means.

#24

[QUOTE=YogiAdam;38029]I have two points here, What, in your view, is sciences agenda? Secondly, I do believe all science is necessary (not just classical physics, I don’t know why you limit science to just physics), in fact, should there be a more effective method of know the reality of or universe, we would need to prove that the new method is more effective then science through scientific means.[/QUOTE]

I have already answered this point:

Your classification of science and pseudoscience is flawd I am afraid, because even science has an agenda. The most naive mistake is to think that science does not have an agenda. Science relies on funds and funds come either from governments or private companies. Scientists are hired to go out and do scientific research to back-up a hypothesis that private company or government has. This has been done for example with the millions spent on global warming research to push the agenda behind global warming. Drug companies do it all the time to produce favourable scientific data to support their drugs. A recent survey showed that scientists admit to fudging data to get a desired results. Some scientific proposals do not get any funding, and as a result they get sidelined.

It is naive to say that science has no agenda. There is politics galore in science. For example the peer-review process you tout as the defacto standard of deciding what is scientific is simply based on what a panel thinks of your research or whether they want to or can replicate your results. If they don’t like your research they can simply void it. This is a subjective process because it involves human judgement. Another area where human judgement creeps into the scientific process is known as the null hypothesis in science. The null hypothesis is the accepted hypothesis. If your scientific data contradicts the null hypothesis your contradictory data has to be rejected as just an anamolie unless there is significant contradictory data(who decides what is significant) in basic language it means science brushes under the carpet any scientific evidence that goes against the current theories and is highly reluctant to accept it. It took 20 years to accept Einstein’s work on the photoelectric effect. It has taken 80 years to accept some of the major findings of QM, and even today there is not wide acceptance.

I will add another way science allows human judgement to creep in is when they do a scientific experiment they isolate certain variables and reject others, as if they are unimportant. Those are variables that may give them results that they don’t want.

Science is riddled with confirmation bias and researcher bias. It is important to be cognizant of these factors, or you risk turning science into another belief system.

#25

Some quantities in scientific theory are set arbitrarily according to measured results rather than by calculation (for example, Planck’s constant). However, in the case of these fundamental constants, their arbitrariness is usually explicit. To suggest that other calculations may include a “fudge factor” may suggest that the calculation has been somehow tampered with to make results give a misleadingly good match to experimental data.

Cosmological constant

In theoretical physics, when Einstein originally tried to produce a general theory of relativity, he found that the theory seemed to predict the gravitational collapse of the universe: it seemed that the universe should either be expanding or collapsing, and to produce a model in which the universe was static and stable (which seemed to Einstein at the time to be the “proper” result), he introduced an expansionist variable (called the Cosmological Constant) whose sole purpose was to cancel out the cumulative effects of gravitation. He later called this, “the biggest blunder of my life.”[2]

Dark matter

Currently there is some controversy over the disagreement between general relativity’s predictions and the available astronomical data: In some situations, gravitational effects seem to be acting more powerfully than GR predicts. The current mainstream explanation is that the universe contains a certain amount of unseen dark matter of unknown composition. Due to the vagueness of this explanation, it is not yet clear whether the “dark matter” explanation represents a real discovery, or whether it is an arbitrary “fudge factor” invented to explain away the discrepancy between theory and experiment.

#26

Here is an example of a REAL scientific method.

  1. Collect as much data is as possible on a subject
  2. Explain data with the simplest explanation that can
    account for the data collected
  3. Publish

Here is what actually happens

  1. Begin with a hypothesis to test
  2. Collect specific data to support hypothesis
  3. Fudge data to support hypothesis
  4. Publish

Here is what happens when new scientific data is discovered accidentally which contradicts the the old theories

  1. New data that contradicts null hypothesis
  2. Reject data as anamolous and repeat experiment
  3. If new data is too strong and recurrent, then renormalize the data according to old theory
  4. If renormalization fails, then adjust old theory to accomodate new data
  5. If all fails, then reject old theory and develop a new one

If we were practicing a real scientific method free of human judgement and prejudice then it would not have taken 20 years to accept Einstein’s work on the photoelectric effect and 80 years to accept what QM says.

#27

In Yoga there is a REAL scientific method and the subject is the person themselves. It begins as such

Mental phenomenology:

  1. Stabalize the subject with standard controls of asana and concentration on single object
  2. Observe and record mental data
  3. Publish

Neurophenomenology:

  1. Stabalize the subject with standards controls of asana and concentration on a single object
  2. Hook the subject to various machines measuring EEG, blood pressure, skin temperature or to an MRI scaning machine to give physical data of the person.
  3. Record both mental and physical data
  4. Publish

In peer reviewed neurophenomenology , and mental phenomenology reports which date from modern day back to ancient times, consistent data has been collected. Modern mental phenomenologists such as Carl Jung and Robert Monroe confirm the phenomenological reports of Yogis, as well as the existence of disembodied consciousness, otherwise known as soul, and other scientists have been able to record measurable physical effects of the soul.

In investigative studies on reincarnation the psychologist and researcher Ian Stevenson has published 20 case studies that can only be explained by reincarnation. He was actually one of the modern pioneers in this field and he left an impact on psychology, to the point where reincarnation is now considered a valid scientific hypothesis and is covered in scientific journals:

The Explanatory Value of the Idea of Reincarnation
STEVENSON, IAN M.D.

Abstract:

The idea of reincarnation is presented as having considerable explanatory value for several features of human personality and biology that currently accepted theories do not adequately clarify. Reincarnation is not offered as a substitute for present knowledge derived from genetics and understanding of environmental influences; it may, however, usefully supplement such knowledge.

The present paper does not present evidence from cases suggestive of reincarnation. It does, however, cite cases of subjects who have claimed to remember previous lives, most of whose statements have been verified in the course of detailed investigations. For each case, a reference is provided to a detailed published case report furnishing the evidence in that case.

The idea of reincarnation may contribute to an improved understanding of such diverse matters as: phobias and philias of childhood; skills not learned in early life; abnormalities of child-parent relationships; vendettas and bellicose nationalism; childhood sexuality and gender identity confusion; birthmarks, congenital deformities, and internal diseases; differences between members of monozygotic twin pairs; and abnormal appetites during pregnancy.

Empirical studies of cases of the reincarnation type have so far not provided any evidence that justifies using reincarnation as an explanation for the occurrence of child prodigies or the large inequities in socioeconomic conditions of humans at birth.

#28

The findings of the research by the mental phenomenologist Robert Monroe.

http://www.monroeinstitute.org/hemi-sync/overview-of-focus-levels/

The term phasing is a metaphor derived from physics, which conceptualizes consciousness as a waveform that can either be aligned or non-aligned with physical reality. For example, when we are 100% phased into the physical we are considered perfectly aligned with normal physical input and waking reality. In Monroe speak, this is called C-1 consciousness or primary phasing. As consciousness moves further away from the physical (and the senses) consciousness is said to phase into other ‘focus levels’. The first of these is [F]ocus 10 - the state of mind awake/body asleep.

The first set of these focus levels (and the focus levels the Gateway Experience pertain to), can be said to a extent maintain varying degrees of relationship to the physical in that they usually do not automatically include being fully present at a certain “astral location”, but rather, involve an expanded state of awareness of some kind while still remaining in the same “location”. These focus levels have been described as follows (Monroe, 1994, p. 248):

[Focus 3: State of increased mental coherency and balance]
“Focus 10: Mind Awake/Body Asleep
Focus 12: A state of expanded awareness
Focus 15: State of no time
Focus 21: The edge of time/space where it is possible to contact other energy systems.”

“It is important to realize these focus levels are merely arbitrary numbers and signposts to identify the state of consciousness one is in. In case you’re wondering, there is no Focus 14 or Focus 16. However, beyond Focus 21, several other focus levels have been identified further removed from the physical …,” and which involve among other systems the perception of belief system territories (‘astral planes’). Thus, The Gateway Experience is meant as a platform from which to explore further on your own." [end quoted text from FOCUS 10: Mind Awake/Body Asleep by Ashes]

There is some confusion and uncertainty regarding the Focus 12 through 21 states and differentiating them appropriately. Several practiced “phasers” have noted how the transition from Focus 10 to 12 is often characterized by seeing several abstract forms and colors, often very quickly followed by a 3-D effect in the blackness surrounding you. Hence, there is some controversy on the exact delineation between Focus 12, 15 and 21. Perhaps the 3-D blackness of Focus 21 can be said to be more expansive to the extent that it starts to touch upon ‘astral locations’ beyond Focus 21.

This brings us to phenomena in Focus 21, which is the ideal platform for further experiences in the other Focus levels. The following quote will serve nicely to illustrate the transition into 12 up until 21, and how to reach the "higher

[SNIP]

However, staying with the ‘traditional view’ the following focus levels can be identified as follows on the basis of Monroe’s and Bruce Moen’s work (From Bruce Moen, Afterlife Knowledge Website).

Focus 22: Within Focus 22 we often find those perhaps still physically alive who are in an unconscious state. These include people in comas, in drug induced states, who are dreaming, who are insane or deranged. This is a very chaotic level.

Focus 23: In Focus 23, the human inhabitants tend to be those no longer physically alive who have become “stuck” for one reason or another. Often they are confused about or unaware of their death. Many here attempt to maintain contact with the physical world around familiar people or places. These are the ones we call ghosts. Focus 23 inhabitants are stuck because they are unable to leave through their own resources. The range of their free-will choices is extremely narrow. They are typically alone and completely isolated from communication with other humans. This can occur through the circumstances of their death or habitual patterns of thinking prior to death.

Focus 24,25,26: Inhabitants of The Belief System Territories are attracted to specific locations by Afterlife beliefs they held while physically alive. Every set of Afterlife beliefs held by humans at any time has a specific location with these Focus levels. In a sense, Belief System Territory inhabitants are stuck like those in Focus 23. The difference is that they are not isolated from contact with others. All inhabitants of a specific Territory are in contact with all others sharing their beliefs. Contact with anyone holding conflicting beliefs is severely limited. Free will choices here are restricted to only those compatible with the prevailing beliefs. Some of these areas look like Heavens, some look like Hells. Each one is rigidly structured around the beliefs held by the inhabitants. In my experience, it is extremely difficult to move people from this area to areas of greater free will choice.

Focus 27: Focus 27 is the Afterlife area of greatest free will choice for its inhabitants. It’s an area created by humans and often resembles physical earth environments. Contact and communication is open between all inhabitants. Many people living in Focus 27 provide assistance to new arrivals in their adjustment to living in the Afterlife. It is a highly organized and structured area. There are Centers of activity here providing for the needs of human beings in their continuing development in the Afterlife. In my explorations, I’ve found Centers for: Education, Life Review, Health and Rejuvenation, Planning, Scheduling, Rehabilitation, Humor, and many others. These Centers also coordinate activities in the physical world to assist in human development.

Lastly, there is beyond focus 27, which is outside of the realm of human consciousness as we know it.

#29

The correlation to the Vedic reality map is as follows

Focus 3 - Focus 10 is the physical dimension
Focus 10 - Focus 22 is the etheric dimension
Focus 22 to Focus 27 is the mental dimension
Focus 27+ is the causal dimension and spiritual dimension

In order to enter the focus levels Robert Monroe devised a technique known as the Robert Monroe techniques which makes very specific predictions. The technique can be found described here, with illustrations:

The Monroe technique is basically Patanjali’s technique and it is designed to induce Pratyhara and as a result you enter into other dimensions of reality.

So here you have a basic rule of cause and effect. Do the technique as prescribed and practice it for a good duration and regularly, as you need to reach a certain level of concentration power before you break into the other dimensions. Then you will directly experience the other planes of reality and your soul, prana, chakras and maybe even get past life memories.

Countless people of all backgrounds have done the techniques and verified it for themselves. I am one of them. These include reputed scientists and philosophers such as Carl Jung and Ken Wilber.

#30

I don’t know who you expect is going to read these bloody novels. I would be happy to converse on a point to point basis, but I’m not going to sit here and read pages and pages of quasi-science. Especially when there aren’t even enough hours in the day to enjoy genuine science.

#31

I don’t really think those posts are that long. You simply seem to be resistant to this information. Again in a same way a religious person is resistant to information that goes against their beliefs. What has thus far been shared with you is genuine peer reviewed scientific research and genuine problems about the politics of science. I do think your mind is firmly shut on this matter. You are responding neither to reasoning, nor are you responding to the kind of evidence you stipulated at the start, peer reviewed evidence from scientific journals. It is sort of obvious that you are finding it hard to part with your beliefs in face of the facts. You have obviously put a lot of emotional energy into your beliefs against religion and the supernatural, which can be seen in your passionate comments against it.

#32

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;38054]I don’t really think those posts are that long. You simply seem to be resistant to this information. Again in a same way a religious person is resistant to information that goes against their beliefs. What has thus far been shared with you is genuine peer reviewed scientific research and genuine problems about the politics of science. I do think your mind is firmly shut on this matter. You are responding neither to reasoning, nor are you responding to the kind of evidence you stipulated at the start, peer reviewed evidence from scientific journals. It is sort of obvious that you are finding it hard to part with your beliefs in face of the facts.[/QUOTE]

Oh they’re long baby! It’s not resistance, it’s boredom. I have evidence that I am not resistant. If you look at any of my past posts, I always try to honestly tackle any issues I find relevant, but I always switch off when I have to read more than about two or three paragraphs. I do have a life you know. If the task of convincing someone on a Yoga forum of the validity of my views becomes my main focus in my life, then it’s time for me to worry about what my life has become! Anyway, I don’t know why you would keep comparing me to a religious person. I’m an atheist and skeptic!.. uh, and your a Hindu, a religious Hindu that believes in a supernatural world!! All I believe in is whatever we have evidence for.

#33

I’m an atheist and skeptic!..

These are beliefs as well. They are negative beliefs. Not believing in something.

All I believe in is whatever we have evidence for.

You do not have evidence for a real objective world. Like I said QM has disproven that a real and objective world exists. You have been provided with half a dozen journal articles and with detailed information to deny this now. Still, you continue to believe in a real objective world, yes?

Nor do you have evidence that the mind and the body are the same thing. On the contrary you have been provided evidence to the contrary. Still you believe that the mind is just a product of the brain, yes?

I don’t think I am the believer here, my friend. I stick to evidence. If the evidence indicates the supernatural I accept the supernatural. If it does not, I reject it.

#34

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;38054]I don’t really think those posts are that long.[/QUOTE]

Yes. Very very long. Although I would like to participate in the discussion - no time to formulate a college thesis on the subject. Or read one.

Keep going though.

#35

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;38061]I don’t think I am the believer here, my friend. I stick to evidence. If the evidence indicates the supernatural I accept the supernatural. If it does not, I reject it.[/QUOTE]

It sounds like you live in a big supernatural world where nothing is real. Why don’t you kill yourself then? If everything is a big illusion and there is so much suffering in this illusion, why don’t you end it? Wouldn’t that be the most rational thing to do? Also if you kill yourself, you would prove that you don’t believe in an objective reality. That would be the best evidence ever.

#36

The reason you should not kill yourself is because

  1. It is foolish, you will just come back again with even heavier
    burden of karma and hence incur more suffering

  2. There is a reason we incarnate and that is to manifest the divine
    within us in this life. The vehicle of the body allows us to do that. To
    kill yourself or kill anybody is depriving yourself and them of the right
    to life, which is a grave sin and you will incur severe karmic consequences
    for it.

I think we should end this discussion here by the way. You asked for scientific
evidence, specifically from journals, and that scientific evidence has been furnished as per your request. The evidence has shown QM really has proven that there is no such thing as objective reality and without an observer there is no reality.

I have also cited a journal article discussing scientific evidence for reincarnaion.

What this goes to show your original assertion that it is “we” religious and spiritual people who are twisting QM to support our views is false. QM really does prove that there is no such thing as objective reality and the there is no reality withouot an observer.

#37

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;38078]The reason you should not kill yourself is because

  1. It is foolish, you will just come back again with even heavier
    burden of karma and hence incur more suffering

  2. There is a reason we incarnate and that is to manifest the divine
    within us in this life. The vehicle of the body allows us to do that. To
    kill yourself or kill anybody is depriving yourself and them of the right
    to life, which is a grave sin and you will incur severe karmic consequences
    for it.

I think we should end this discussion here by the way. You asked for scientific
evidence, specifically from journals, and that scientific evidence has been furnished as per your request. The evidence has shown QM really has proven that there is no such thing as objective reality and without an observer there is no reality.

I have also cited a journal article discussing scientific evidence for reincarnaion.

What this goes to show your original assertion that it is “we” religious and spiritual people who are twisting QM to support our views is false. QM really does prove that there is no such thing as objective reality and the there is no reality withouot an observer.[/QUOTE]

OK. so you call yourself rational then assert a belief in karma?

#38

Karma is no belief. As reincarnation is a proven scientific fact.

I don’t think you understand what rationality is. You are not a rationalist, you are an empiricist. A rationalist can entertain metaphysical propositions. As I have shown you in the past metaphysical propositions have been argued by some of the greatests Western philosophers of all time.

You are not a very consistent empiricist either. As you have been given empirical evidence now for QM’s proof that there is no objective reality and evidence for reincarnation cited in a scientific journal.

You are a believer in my books my friend. Otherwise, why would you continue to hold onto the view of realism despite QM’ disproving it?

#39

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;38093]Karma is no belief. As reincarnation is a proven scientific fact.

I don’t think you understand what rationality is. You are not a rationalist, you are an empiricist. A rationalist can entertain metaphysical propositions. As I have shown you in the past metaphysical propositions have been argued by some of the greatests Western philosophers of all time.

You are not a very consistent empiricist either. As you have been given empirical evidence now for QM’s proof that there is no objective reality and evidence for reincarnation cited in a scientific journal.

You are a believer in my books my friend. Otherwise, why would you continue to hold onto the view of realism despite QM’ disproving it?[/QUOTE]

OK, if you think reincarnation has been scientifically proven, this conversation is over. I don’t have time for such incompetencies. You have ‘proven’ nothing. You have only demonstrated what areas of QM you have been using to manipulate and mould into pseudo-science, as an attempt to reconcile your religious beliefs with science. I have made my points. I was not expecting you to understand. I thought the logic might be lost on you. I can only say this thread was aimed as tools for real science minded people. You are entitled to believe what you like, so we shall agree to disagree.

#40

:wink:

It is very clear for any objective reader to see you have been presented with the evidence you asked for, with a half dozen scientific journal articles and the evidence did in fact say that realism and locality has been disproven by QM.

Like I said you are not a scientist. You are a believer. You believe in materialism, with the same vigour that a Christian believes in Christianity or a Muslim believes in Islam. I think you should stop pretending you are a man of science. You are like most humans, you believe in some things and don’t believe in others.

The actual science does not support your beliefs I am afraid. This is going to hard for you to accept but I am afraid it is the truth. Materialism is pretty much dead.