Hello Edwin Eugene Klingman,
I offer you some more detailed feedback on your fine "The Nature of Mind" essay.
First, I don't like the subtitle. Perhaps because of the FQXi context and/or your own physics background, it seems here (and in other essays) physics/math is given too much consideration. The deeper point - the "It is" point - is that there is something novel (and significant) going on. Great. I figured that I might be flying solo in suggesting problems with the seemingly carved-in-stone materialist perspective.
You cover a tremendous range of material which provided an education trip for me. But it was the core point about "mak[ing] the same point" that was most significant and appreciated. I find the LSD and related material important but also hyped (I will return to this later).
You might have some QM baggage, perhaps for similar reasons that Alan Kadin does (he was a fine former colleague of mine). Those arguments might be of interest to the physics crowd (and perhaps irritating some of them), but that is peripheral here. As a note of coincidence, I followed some of David Bohm's work, although I never thought that the topic was important.
Jumping into your main point, I disagree with your consciousness field point. In my essay I simply wanted to highlight some contrary examples. The rigidity surrounding scientific materialism is profound (making the rigidity about PC-ness or QM interpretations appear like little league affairs) and I hoped to get some people questioning it. The BIG point in my essay is that fundamental assumptions about genetics - in particular that it accounts for the who-we-are (behavioral genetics) and what-happens-to-us (personal genomics) angles - are simply getting crushed. Very little variable DNA available and a decade's worth of searching and what is their batting average?
That general mystery and a surprisingly large collection of conundrums can be approached thru a general premodern observation (and experience?) that there is an elemental aspect to mind/consciousness and that it transcends biology (and death). Some easy fits and general coherence are available via this route as I pointed out in my overdue book.
So yes there is something profound going on with mind/consciousness but I think it is elemental and this connection to a soul (and continuity) provides a much deeper perspective on life and its challenges.
I have been involved with meditational practices for many years and this process eventually chewed thru all the excessive optimism. Buddhist practice in the West has been sold for many years in an essentially secular fashion, largely as some form of enlightenment science. The whole process - sometimes termed locally here as the "funnsy onesy business" - grossly exaggerates the likelihood of significant enlightenment experiences. But that isn't the half of it. The real question (limiting focus to this lifetime) is whether you can make that change stick (or stay). Perhaps the most significant Western book is J. Kornfeld's "After the Ecstacy, the Laundry" which opens with descriptions of people practicing mediation who had profound (and lengthy) openings (that word is commonly used) and then went on to crash profoundly back in lay life.
How does that fit the LSD et al? A good part of the stream of truth/oneness seeking crowd that came to Rochester starting 50 years ago (to our Zen Center) were ex-drug users looking for something more. Given how difficult the Zen Center practice was, that people from that drug background could come and follow thru here speaks to the limitations of drug use. And beyond this I would suggest that with a this-life-only perspective even serious meditational practice - certainly as a lay person - is an uphill struggle. I think it is the larger context that matters (and ultimate openings are traditionally viewed as much more likely to occur post-death).
Many related points are covered in my book. I included a big chapter on religion and science. And free will shows up. Anyway it is about time that people seriously question scientific materialism.
I really appreciated your work and hope things go well for you.
Sincerely,
Ted Christopher
Rochester, NY
