3 ms·

>Psychological transformation (defined here as rapid, marked and enduring psychological change, where ‘psychological’ refers to perception, cognition and action

>Psychological transformation (defined here as rapid, marked and enduring psychological change, where ‘psychological’ refers to perception, cognition and action or behaviour) has been the focus of previous psychological and philosophical texts (Miller and C’de Baca, 2001; Paul, 2014) as well as influential therapeutic programmes (Wilson and Cohen, 2015), but it has received surprisingly little formal scientific investigation and past definitions have been vague. I'd argue this is one of the very few fields where religion, specifically Buddhism, is more advanced than modern science. I'm not joking either, Buddhists have been concerned with this exact thing for over 2,000 years. When studied, I think scientists will find that certain mystical practices induce these pivotal mental states, at least in a percentage of the population.

totetsu 3y ago
you might find this podcast episode about neuroscientist Richard Davidson who also studied with meditators interesting https://hiddenbrain.org/podcast/seeking-serenity-part-1/ https://hiddenbrain.org/podcast/seeking-serenity-part-1/
steve_adams_86 3y ago
I've been thinking recently about how Buddhism and even some western philosophies are arguably sciences of the mind. You can't refute that ancient thinkers dedicated to contemplating reason, virtue, meditation, or otherwise were ahead of their time, so to speak. We are still proving out what they discovered, however subjectively they may have done it. It's sort of a marvel. I'm not sure people appreciate how incredible it is that thousands of years ago, with little more than paper and brains, these people recorded insights about psychological phenomena which we still struggle to understand. That's not to say people in the past have necessarily understood it. They experienced it and recorded it though, and the evidence of these collective experiences throughout time and space have turned out to be remarkably consistent. My favourite thread throughout eastern and western philosophies, as well as modern psychedelic research, is how crucial dissolution of the ego is to attain clear perception (at least what we consider to be clear) and ultimately, more virtuous action in the world. Buddhists did it, Taoism, Hinduism, Stoicism... I'm sure there are others, but I'm not that well-educated, just interested in this stuff. Many people will be strict about what qualifies as a science and exclude anything that appears to be religion or philosophy. I think it's worth taking seriously, though. I certainly wouldn't have 10 years ago.
- ryandv 3y ago
  As a younger and far more naive kid I was drawn to Aleister Crowley for the motto he espoused in his "magickal journal," The Equinox: The method of Science, the aim of Religion. Much of his writing proposes a few experiments you can try for yourself; the first line of "Liber E vel Exercitiorum" reads, "It is absolutely necessary that all experiments should be recorded in detail during, or immediately after, their performance." Crowley was interesting in that he tried to bring an empirical, albeit subjective (since the target of study is the mind, psychology, subjective experience itself) and non-objective, non-quantitative approach to techniques of mysticism - meditation, breath work, and ritual, in particular. Buddhism also contains some experimentation of its own - I am quite fond of Daniel M. Ingram's work with the "fire kasina" technique, in which clear steps for reproducing the result are given, and falsifiable claims are made about what (note: subjective!) phenomena will occur as a consequence of the experimental procedure. It is possible to reproduce such claims for one's self, given sufficient time and practice. In the sense that some spiritual traditions and philosophies have as their subject of study the mind, and employ empirical techniques to gain insights into it, yes, I would say they are arguably sciences of mind.
p-e-w 3y ago
> When studied, I think scientists will find that certain mystical practices induce these pivotal mental states, at least in a percentage of the population. That's useless if those "mystical practices" don't consist of precise, actionable instructions, whose outcome can be measured in a way that eliminates expectation bias. The standard approach seems to be to give relatively vague guidelines for what to do, then if following those doesn't lead to any positive result, claim that the student either misapplied them, or didn't try hard enough, or tried too hard, or it wasn't their time, etc. etc. Which is factually indistinguishable from "there's nothing to it but smoke and mirrors".
- dijksterhuis 3y ago
  Preface: I’m into soto Zen Buddhism stuff but by no means any sort of expert. Still probably a rank amateur tbh compared to others. Massive grains of salt required. Brad Warner is a good person to look up on YouTube to find out more. > That's useless if those "mystical practices" don't consist of precise, actionable instructions, whose outcome can be measured in a way that eliminates expectation bias. They do and they can. Instructions: 1. Sit on a cushion in a specific posture. 2. Think the thought of not thinking. 3. Do it every day. I harm people around me when I don’t do this. I am being asshole. When I do it, I’m less of an asshole. I am being not-asshole. People say so. Even when I start practicing and don’t tell anyone (I’m a serial relapser when it comes to the cushion). My expectation of “being not asshole” is always wildly different to the reality of it too. That’s also part of the exercise/work. Learning to not pay attention to my own expectations. Usually they’re wrong. > The standard approach seems to be to give relatively vague guidelines for what to do, then if following those doesn't lead to any positive result, claim that the student either misapplied them, or didn't try hard enough, or tried too hard, or it wasn't their time, etc. etc. Yeah. The vague guidelines are the point. It is part of the practice. It’s not the student’s fault. Sometimes people just need to practice longer than others. So teachers say things like: that’s just the content of your zazen. Which basically means: Keep sitting on the cushion. Keep doing the work. The work is never finished. Phrases like that are meant to be a form of encouragement or reminder. > Which is factually indistinguishable from "there's nothing to it but smoke and mirrors". “Magic” is just stuff people don't understand yet. Whether that’s a good or a bad thing depends on individual perspective.

totetsu 3y ago

you might find this podcast episode about neuroscientist Richard Davidson who also studied with meditators interesting https://hiddenbrain.org/podcast/seeking-serenity-part-1/ https://hiddenbrain.org/podcast/seeking-serenity-part-1/

steve_adams_86 3y ago

I've been thinking recently about how Buddhism and even some western philosophies are arguably sciences of the mind. You can't refute that ancient thinkers dedicated to contemplating reason, virtue, meditation, or otherwise were ahead of their time, so to speak. We are still proving out what they discovered, however subjectively they may have done it. It's sort of a marvel. I'm not sure people appreciate how incredible it is that thousands of years ago, with little more than paper and brains, these people recorded insights about psychological phenomena which we still struggle to understand. That's not to say people in the past have necessarily understood it. They experienced it and recorded it though, and the evidence of these collective experiences throughout time and space have turned out to be remarkably consistent. My favourite thread throughout eastern and western philosophies, as well as modern psychedelic research, is how crucial dissolution of the ego is to attain clear perception (at least what we consider to be clear) and ultimately, more virtuous action in the world. Buddhists did it, Taoism, Hinduism, Stoicism... I'm sure there are others, but I'm not that well-educated, just interested in this stuff. Many people will be strict about what qualifies as a science and exclude anything that appears to be religion or philosophy. I think it's worth taking seriously, though. I certainly wouldn't have 10 years ago.

ryandv 3y ago
As a younger and far more naive kid I was drawn to Aleister Crowley for the motto he espoused in his "magickal journal," The Equinox: The method of Science, the aim of Religion. Much of his writing proposes a few experiments you can try for yourself; the first line of "Liber E vel Exercitiorum" reads, "It is absolutely necessary that all experiments should be recorded in detail during, or immediately after, their performance." Crowley was interesting in that he tried to bring an empirical, albeit subjective (since the target of study is the mind, psychology, subjective experience itself) and non-objective, non-quantitative approach to techniques of mysticism - meditation, breath work, and ritual, in particular. Buddhism also contains some experimentation of its own - I am quite fond of Daniel M. Ingram's work with the "fire kasina" technique, in which clear steps for reproducing the result are given, and falsifiable claims are made about what (note: subjective!) phenomena will occur as a consequence of the experimental procedure. It is possible to reproduce such claims for one's self, given sufficient time and practice. In the sense that some spiritual traditions and philosophies have as their subject of study the mind, and employ empirical techniques to gain insights into it, yes, I would say they are arguably sciences of mind.

p-e-w 3y ago

> When studied, I think scientists will find that certain mystical practices induce these pivotal mental states, at least in a percentage of the population. That's useless if those "mystical practices" don't consist of precise, actionable instructions, whose outcome can be measured in a way that eliminates expectation bias. The standard approach seems to be to give relatively vague guidelines for what to do, then if following those doesn't lead to any positive result, claim that the student either misapplied them, or didn't try hard enough, or tried too hard, or it wasn't their time, etc. etc. Which is factually indistinguishable from "there's nothing to it but smoke and mirrors".

dijksterhuis 3y ago
Preface: I’m into soto Zen Buddhism stuff but by no means any sort of expert. Still probably a rank amateur tbh compared to others. Massive grains of salt required. Brad Warner is a good person to look up on YouTube to find out more. > That's useless if those "mystical practices" don't consist of precise, actionable instructions, whose outcome can be measured in a way that eliminates expectation bias. They do and they can. Instructions: 1. Sit on a cushion in a specific posture. 2. Think the thought of not thinking. 3. Do it every day. I harm people around me when I don’t do this. I am being asshole. When I do it, I’m less of an asshole. I am being not-asshole. People say so. Even when I start practicing and don’t tell anyone (I’m a serial relapser when it comes to the cushion). My expectation of “being not asshole” is always wildly different to the reality of it too. That’s also part of the exercise/work. Learning to not pay attention to my own expectations. Usually they’re wrong. > The standard approach seems to be to give relatively vague guidelines for what to do, then if following those doesn't lead to any positive result, claim that the student either misapplied them, or didn't try hard enough, or tried too hard, or it wasn't their time, etc. etc. Yeah. The vague guidelines are the point. It is part of the practice. It’s not the student’s fault. Sometimes people just need to practice longer than others. So teachers say things like: that’s just the content of your zazen. Which basically means: Keep sitting on the cushion. Keep doing the work. The work is never finished. Phrases like that are meant to be a form of encouragement or reminder. > Which is factually indistinguishable from "there's nothing to it but smoke and mirrors". “Magic” is just stuff people don't understand yet. Whether that’s a good or a bad thing depends on individual perspective.