Naturally induced non-ordinary state of consciousness

[psy997]

The truth I'm talking about is the true nature of reality. It does not need to be defended to be the way it is. When humans believed the Earth was flat the Earth did not need to defend it's nature as a sphere to remain one. The truth does not need defending to be true.

The issue is not with science, the issue is with individuals like yourself who vehemently oppose the existence of anything not yet proven by science. There should most definitely be scientific studies done on holotropic breathwork, I would love to see what we can quantitatively measure. It's good to want scientific evidence of phenomena. However, that doesn't mean I'm going to shit on a technique successfully used by thousands of people around the world because there's no studies on it yet and it doesn't fit into my personal worldview of what reality is.

Science has it's place Ismene, but there are phenomena we will never be able to explain with our limited sensory perceptions and tools.

 

[Skorpio]

Psy997- I do agree with you when you say the truth needs no defense for its own sake, but science is not for that. It is a way of labeling it so humans can easily recognize it.

I do not think holotropic breathwork, meditation, or psychadelics elicit events unexplainable by science. They may not be studied well, but they are not beyond science.

 

[.:Holy::Toast:.]

Psy997- I do agree with you when you say the truth needs no defense for its own sake, but science is not for that. It is a way of labeling it so humans can easily recognize it.

I do not think holotropic breathwork, meditation, or psychadelics elicit events unexplainable by science. They may not be studied well, but they are not beyond science.

This^^
Further we can measure the subjective qualitative effects experienced by individuals, many cognitive psychology experiments operate under this basis.
This way we can compare to a control/placebo group and can determine whether this technique truly carries particular effects which aren't due to possible placebo effects or could be just as easily attained using other more easily (and freely) accessible mediation techniques.
If it does not then it is dishonest and manipulative to make such extraordinary and bold claims about it's efficacy and use these claims to sell said product.
You must remember that there is a whole slew of confounding factors and types of mental trickery that can skew a persons experience effectively rendering their anecdotal reports inaccurate and biased; effects such as suggestibility, influence by authority (in this case a doctor), and confirmation bias are very common and everyone can fall victim to their biases.
Further the anecdotal reports come only from people who had enough previous interest in the product to purchase it themselves therefore they are more likely to report placebo-induced positive effects which someone who is indifferent to the technique would not report.

 

[Jabberwocky]

The body of science and the scientific method are two separate things. Unfortunately, what becomes science on a fundamental level is based on what we accept as truth. Science tells us that consciousness is an epiphenomenon of the brain for example (the brain is also viewed classically as ball and stick interactions of molecules and electrical circuits rather than matter with quantum properties as we now reluctantly accept matter on that scale posseses). Fine, I'll bite. If that were the case many phenomena induced by drugs, meditation, so-called holotropic states or OBE's would be impossible, and those claiming them liars or deluded psychotics (if you're mean spirited) or simply confused individuals unable to separate fantasy from science if you're a bit more diplomatic. We seldom question the assumptions that form the foundation upon which the scientific method is applied. Without that axiomatic foundation we take for granted, applying the scientific method merely creates friction against the prevailing paradigm. Nobody believes it is my point because it can't be integrated. So let's acknowledge that or reframe it more eloquently so that we don't waste time saying more science is required when science cannot accept many of these claims, and any proof that contradicts the axioms of science will be glanced over in a heartbeat as has been done all throughout history. By adopting a geocentric model, for example, the motion of the planets can still be described and the scientific method can still be applied. We still can describe the motion of the planets mathematically, but the math is messy and even the brightest get confused easily. Our conclusions are so complicated that they become like magic. Sound familiar?

Claim: changing my breathing affects my conscious state
Scientific method: try it, plug into an EEG if you don't trust yourself to relate what your feeling to yourself
Science: do more rigorous science

See the problem?