The Psientific Method

Posted Jan. 11, 2013 by Fallensoul in Open

commented on Jan. 24, 2013
by Jeanine Broderick



The Scientific method depends on a conscious personality using empiric instruments to perform experiments that can be verified to gain an understanding of reality. We could call this conscious personality (A) and the tools he or she uses to perform the experiments (B) with the results being (C). We could formulate then (A) + (B) = (C).

Now we must confess the limits of both (A) and (B) [as discussed in other threads]. The problem with (A) is that our senses are highly limited. There is a limit to the amount that our minds and senses can perceive. So too is there a limit of (B) our tools upon which our senses and minds make use of to enhance our perception. Impefect senses cannot produce perfect tools. Therefore one could argue that limited (A) + limited (B) will result in limited (C), i.e our perception of reality is limited.

At this point someone may argue and say, although this is true, this is the best method that we have for understanding the world. This is arguable (perhaps in another discussion) however if we assume this is the best method, let us consider how to enhance the scientific model to expand the limits of (C). The question then arises in what ways could we try to reduce the limits of (A) and (B). Considering (B), one could say that science prides itself in discovering new technologies to enhance the tools of perception. Such advancements have generated breakthroughs in many scientific fields, although it must be agreed there even with such advancements, our understanding and perception of the world remains limited.

Now let us consider (A). The conscious personality performing the experiments using his mind and senses. Suppose that certain information became available to enable the conscious personality to enhance his sensory capabilities and in doing so, would enable one to develop tools and experiments that would allow a fundamental breakthrough in the perception of reality. We could call this (A+) + (B+) = (C+)!

Now if such information is practiced by (A) and he is able to obtain this newer view of reality and other (A)'s follow the same "spiritual" practice which would allow them to verify the same reality through replicated experiments, wouldn't that constitute a newer improved scientific method:

I'm proposing that our modern scientific method is highly limiting and in need of revision, because there is a great lack of focus on the performer of the experiments rather than the tools or method themselves. If the senses of the performer is enhanced the subsequent results are too. In bhakti-yoga the focus is on developing the consciousness through Vedic information, then perceiving the world will result in higher perception. This we could call the Psientific Method.

  • Jeanine Broderick Jan 24, 2013

    I agree with the logic.

    I would add that bhakti-yoga is not the only path to greater cognitive ability, greater intuitive abilities, and access to more insights.

    Mainstream science has shown that positivity increased those aspects of the human brain. The same scientist is smarter when she is happy than when she is unhappy. See Barbara L. Fredrickson's Broaden and Build theory for starters on this. Her book also discusses that biases (such as racial) are decreased when positivity is increased.

    Mathew - I have FB and LinkedIn pages "The Crossroads: Where Science and Spirituality meet"

    ♡ Jeanine

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Jan 12, 2013


    The Einstein‐Podolsky‐Rosen Paradox in the Brain: The Transferred Potential

    J. Grinberg‐Zylberbaum1, M. Delaflor1, L. Attie1, A. Goswami2
    1Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México and Instituto Nacional Para el Estudio de la Conciencia, Apartado Postal 22‐836, Delegación Tlalpan, C.P. 14000 México, D.F.
    2Department of Physics and the Institute of Theoretical Science, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon 97403‐5203 U.S.A.
    Einstein‐Podolsky‐Rosen (EPR) correlations between human brains are studied to verify if the brain has a macroscopic quantum component. Pairs of subjects were allowed to interact and were then separated inside semisilent Faraday chambers 14.5 m apart when their EEG activity was registered. Only one subject of each pair was stimulated by 100 flashes. When the stimulated subject showed distinct evoked potentials, the nonstimulated subject showed “transferred potentials” similar to those evoked in the stimulated subject. Control subjects showed no such transferred potentials. The transferred potentials demonstrate brain‐to‐brain nonlocal EPR correlation between brains, supporting the brain's quantum nature at the macrolevel.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Jan 12, 2013

    This is coming from another thread where scientists are discussing research that looks at PSI

    While it doesn't resolve the question of how psi relates to physics,
    Carpenter's book "First Sight" presents a fairly clear theory
    regarding how psi may relate to psychology:


    Definitely worth reading if you haven't...

    I don't think it's contradictory to Sheldrake's broad morphic-field
    notion, nor to the various speculations regarding grounding psi in
    quantum theory or extensions thereof...

    Also this from a person I know who is visiting Tarq:

    The Grinberg-Zylberbaum et al. findings are a replication of the classic Puthoff and Targ findings (see Harold E Puthoff and Russell Targ 1976 A Perceptual Channel for Information Transfer over Kilometer Disitances: Historical Perspective and Recent Research, Proceedings of the IEEE 64(3, March), 329-354). Specificallyl, see page 334ff. If you are unable to locate the original article, it is reprinted in Charles T. Tart, Harold E. Puthoff and Russell Targ (editors). (2002). Mind at Large: IEEE Symposia on the Nature of Extrasensory Perception. Charlottesville, VA: Hampton Roads Publishing Company, Inc., Chapter 2 [ISBN: 1-57174-320-0].

    Regardimg your question of recent replications of this work, general discussions of these findings can be found in Russell Targ (2012). The Reality pf ESP: A Physicist's Proof of Psychic Abilities. Wheaton, IL: Quest Books - Theosophical Publishing House [ISBN: 978-0-8356-0884-8]

  • mrmathew1963 Jan 11, 2013

    G'day Fallensoul

    This is quite a plausible deduction, all you really need to do is heighten (A’s) awareness to improve on the process of (B) to obtain a more correct formulated answer of (C). What this is saying is we need to become more aware in the first place & most importantly accepting of any practice/belief that is going to improve on our awareness.

    I had a blog titled Science of Spirituality which was focused on the similarities of science & spirituality, in actual fact I pointed out that science derived from mysticism & philosophy. Through certain spiritual ideologies & practice one can obtain a better awareness which heightens our conceptive thinking to a more open view instead of being hindered by fixated dogmatic principles in both science & spirituality, it all comes down to accepting which leads to a better awareness state instead of busying ourselves with non-accepting principles which take up our time through conflictive ideologies.


Stay in touch with IONS