Dear Dr. Tiwari,
Thank you for the patience and consideration you manifest in answering my questions.
Initially I misinterpreted the implication 1) => 2) as an attempt of a logical proof. Reading your supplementary explanation, I can see that it is in fact an experiment. My initial interpretation was that you suggest a thought experiment, and in fact it was about a "thoughtless experiment", to allow the experience of bliss.
I agree with you that the bliss experiences can be considered as an experimental proof of UC. There may be one reason why this kind of experience remains controversial in the current form of science. As I already mentioned, when somebody experiences the UC, the bliss is interpretable as brain chemistry. This may make many researchers to consider that the UC experience is just a hallucination, autosuggestion, etc. Please note that I never claimed that I do or don't accept the UC. I also never claimed that I did not experience the bliss. I am just discussing about the means of reproducing this experience of UC by others. You can discuss about it, and not be understood or believed. You can experience it in the more sophisticated laboratory, under qualified observation, and this experience be considered by other scientists just brain chemistry. Therefore, you can't transmit it by the means of objective science (including logical proof and objective experience).
Let's take your proposal: experience it by meditation. If somebody tries to do this, and fails, he/she may consider that there is no bliss, no UC. Whenever somebody will fail to do the experiment, the person who proposes the experiment may consider that it was because he/she was not able to be consciousness and thoughtless in the same time. So, the skeptic will remain skeptic, and the believer will keep his faith.
This makes the experiment totally different that what is usually considered an experiment in science.
I do admit that the science should not be limited to objective, measurable experiments, and logical deduction. I believe that, for mind processes, there should exist a "subjective science", which presents clearly experiments, together with scales for measuring them. One example may be what you proposed: the experiment to be performed is to meditate, and the measurable result is to experience the bliss and the UC. I think that it would be even more helpful if we can complete this experiment with two ingredients:
1. A way to make sure that it really was the UC experience and not a hallucination.
2. A way to make it doable by anyone who can follow a list of steps, like in a cookbook, without being required extraordinary skills for succeeding.
Everybody can throw rocks from a tower, or can decompose the light with a prism. But you say that not everybody can perform the UC experiment.
If this experiment requires special skills, can these skills be decomposed in smaller experiments? For example, a body builder can count the repetitions, and can measure the weights he uses. But how can we decompose the UC experience in small steps, like small recipes in a cookbook? Such that, each day you make one recipe, receive a feedback of your progress, to really know that you succeed in that particular recipe, and in short time you do the entire cookbook. And the cookbook is required to be doable in short time, not in several life spans, so that only in a future life to experience the bliss.
I do not intend to criticize your work. I am rather interested in it, and I propose several features to the UC experience, that can make the experiment reproducible by any curious scientist (or not scientist), and that can make us sure that is not madness, but real bliss.
If you consider these features desirable and doable, then the UC experience will be freely available.
Best regards,
Cristi Stoica
"Flowing with a Frozen River",
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/322
P.S. It happens to me often to try my best in being neutral, and to be perceived as rejecting an idea by its supporters, and as a supporter by the ones who reject it. I don't want to offend any side; I am just trying to understand both of them every time.