PNSE - Discussion
So, I read in his stuff that he tested people for evidence of stress and emotion which they claimed not to be experiencing, and reported that some people felt stress and muscular tension that they didn't seem to be aware of.
Is this so, and are there other people who have found this ?
I sometimes wonder if enlightenment is simply a process of making parts of the psyche unconscious, rather than expanding consciousness (which it is often said to be). So for example losing a sense of personal agency yet still being able to perform in the world means that an individual's emotional and mental activity is still present but no longer in the direct awareness of the individual, it becoimes hidden yet is still active.
Something akin to blind sight in which someone is not conscious of things that they are actually seeing - but affecting other functions of the brain, which are to do with emotion and mental activity, instead of vision ?
Maybe this is addressed in one of the various books on contemplative neuroscience ?
Thanks for the replies. Actually I felt a bubble of gratitude for Daniel & co for all the work they have done here
Is this so, and are there other people who have found this ?
I sometimes wonder if enlightenment is simply a process of making parts of the psyche unconscious, rather than expanding consciousness (which it is often said to be). So for example losing a sense of personal agency yet still being able to perform in the world means that an individual's emotional and mental activity is still present but no longer in the direct awareness of the individual, it becoimes hidden yet is still active.
Something akin to blind sight in which someone is not conscious of things that they are actually seeing - but affecting other functions of the brain, which are to do with emotion and mental activity, instead of vision ?
Maybe this is addressed in one of the various books on contemplative neuroscience ?
Thanks for the replies. Actually I felt a bubble of gratitude for Daniel & co for all the work they have done here
@Stickman. I'm worried that my above post may come across as having more vitriol than was intended. As I said, I'm not very
familiar with his work so I can't judge it specifically; I do plan to look into it at some point though. I think the above more reflects my ongoing general frustration that awakening isn't being taking seriously as an object of study, for the most part. Clearly I believe in it, being here, with my own experiences matching those of others, as well as how they're described by Daniel, Kenneth, Ron and others.
I'm not sure about the claim about parapsychologists being on the vanguard of double blinding, which would be quite fascinating if true. I see the scientific method itself as evolving and becoming better through building collective knowledge, in much the same way as other technologies and bodies of knowledge progress. I remember as an undergraduate it struck me how randomisation was something that had to be invented. It was popularised by the Cambridge statistician R. A. Fisher in the early 20th century, where, from memory, he was doing experiments on crops. Nevertheless, it drastically improved the quality of experiments as well as the knowledge gained from them. It's always been fascinating to me that these methods don't appear out of a vacuum, but are there for a reason and due to people attempting to make things better over time. It's still happening today, with moves towards better statistical testing (e.g. less emphasis on p values), pre-registration etc.
I see issues with peer-review and problems with replication as separate. As I said above, peer-review is a kind of minimum requirement. It doesn't guarantee that a study is good, but it's kind of a first quality check; which means that studies that can't muster that are suspect. In this situation, it's very possible that there simply aren't any good, reputable journals who would be willing to take a look at something like awakening, which would render my criticisms void! With replication, it's definitely an issue in science, but that's not just true in psychology (sociologists rarely seem to conduct experiments, I think?). It's also a real problem in basic biomedical research too. I see the move towards greater replication studies, as well as the criticism that led to it, is part of the evolution of science becoming better. Pre-registration of trials will also help remove a lot of dodgy practices.
In a way that's relevant to us, a question that interest me is... well, I think we can get so caught up in this stuff that we might forget what it's like for people who aren't on the ride. How do we work together to make awakening accessible and acceptable to those people?
Apologies if I'm getting off topic from what you want to explore Stickman. The intersection of science and awakening is just a passion of mine at the moment. I'll report back when I've delved into some of his work!
familiar with his work so I can't judge it specifically; I do plan to look into it at some point though. I think the above more reflects my ongoing general frustration that awakening isn't being taking seriously as an object of study, for the most part. Clearly I believe in it, being here, with my own experiences matching those of others, as well as how they're described by Daniel, Kenneth, Ron and others.
I'm not sure about the claim about parapsychologists being on the vanguard of double blinding, which would be quite fascinating if true. I see the scientific method itself as evolving and becoming better through building collective knowledge, in much the same way as other technologies and bodies of knowledge progress. I remember as an undergraduate it struck me how randomisation was something that had to be invented. It was popularised by the Cambridge statistician R. A. Fisher in the early 20th century, where, from memory, he was doing experiments on crops. Nevertheless, it drastically improved the quality of experiments as well as the knowledge gained from them. It's always been fascinating to me that these methods don't appear out of a vacuum, but are there for a reason and due to people attempting to make things better over time. It's still happening today, with moves towards better statistical testing (e.g. less emphasis on p values), pre-registration etc.
I see issues with peer-review and problems with replication as separate. As I said above, peer-review is a kind of minimum requirement. It doesn't guarantee that a study is good, but it's kind of a first quality check; which means that studies that can't muster that are suspect. In this situation, it's very possible that there simply aren't any good, reputable journals who would be willing to take a look at something like awakening, which would render my criticisms void! With replication, it's definitely an issue in science, but that's not just true in psychology (sociologists rarely seem to conduct experiments, I think?). It's also a real problem in basic biomedical research too. I see the move towards greater replication studies, as well as the criticism that led to it, is part of the evolution of science becoming better. Pre-registration of trials will also help remove a lot of dodgy practices.
In a way that's relevant to us, a question that interest me is... well, I think we can get so caught up in this stuff that we might forget what it's like for people who aren't on the ride. How do we work together to make awakening accessible and acceptable to those people?
Apologies if I'm getting off topic from what you want to explore Stickman. The intersection of science and awakening is just a passion of mine at the moment. I'll report back when I've delved into some of his work!