The Taboo of Subjectivity: Towards a New Science of Consciousness

Rating:
Summary: a brillant synthesis
Review: B. Alan Wallace's new book, The Taboo of Subjectivity: Toward a New Science of Consciousness, makes the provocative claim that science has become, in many ways, a modern cult, which promotes certain ways of knowing and metaphysical beliefs to the exclusion of others. Subjectivity, an integral aspect of our experience, has been neglected to the point that its existence is in doubt.

Since the book is aimed at people familiar with the common view of scientific materialism, it focuses upon the weaknesses in the scientific materialist view, and how taking contemplative practice and experience seriously can allow us to see that this scientific view is lacking an awareness and understanding of subjectivity. This exclusion is related to assumptions which may have been necessary to get science off the ground (objectivism, monism, universalism, reductionism, the closure principle, and physicalism). However, these assumptions have become ensconced, and now play a role often attributed to religious doctrines: they go unquestioned, lead us to believe stories regarding our origins and nature which are not empirically grounded, and blind us to aspects of common, everyday experience. He traces the roots of these metaphysical beliefs to ancient Greek philosophy and to early and Medieval Christian theology to point out that these are beliefs, and are not empirically proven. The scientific materialist view has many weaknesses, among them: it gives a highly problematic account of the origin and nature of consciousness, and of the relation of mind and body, based more on faith and dogma than on scientific findings; it has no method for systematically exploring consciousness firsthand; scientific knowledge is inadequate for dealing with either global problems, such as environmental pollution (which it has helped to create), or personal problems, such as mental well-being. He points out that "from a contemplative perspective, scientific materialism arrests human development in a state of spiritual infancy; and when a society of such spiritual infants is put in control of the awesome powers of science and technology, global catastrophe seems virtually inevitable." Since "a thoroughly materialistic view of the universe based on science suggests a [certain] set of values and ideals, with profound implications for dealing with the personal, societal, and environmental problems that beset us today," it is imperative to examine this view in depth, and compare it with other world views, in the light of our current situation.

The two main arguments that have been leveled against the subjective from the scientific side are that: 1. subjective influences taint experiments (of implicitly objective phenomena), 2. subjective phenomena aren't scientifically analyzable, which has developed into the extreme position that such phenomena aren't real, but are merely epiphenonema.

Introspection has traditionally been used to investigate consciousness, but many scientists ignore introspection, claim that it cannot tell us anything important, or argue against the possibility of there even being such an activity. Wallace reviews these claims, showing that many of the objections to the use or possibility of introspection could be equally applied to scientific knowledge and techniques; and yet, science works. Therefore it seems that it is primarily the metaphysical beliefs of scientists which prevent them from admitting, and engaging in, ways of knowing such as those based on introspective, contemplative practice. Wallace supports a pragmatic approach to knowledge: "the only guide for methodology is the universal one, namely, to use anything that works."

But we cannot just tack another viewpoint, such as "the spiritual worldview", onto our accounts from science; there are real conflicts here, especially with respect to consciousness, and its origins and nature. For example, as he points out in another article, "Buddhist inquiry into the natural world proceeds from a radically different point of departure than western science, and its methods differ correspondingly.... Buddhism begins with the premise that the mind is the primary source of human joy and misery and is central to understanding the natural world as a whole." He reviews several kinds of divisions commonly made (subjective/objective, private/public, sacred/profane, fact/value) which might permit some kind of clean compartmentalization, and rejects them all. Instead, he calls for a dialogue between different ways of knowing. In order to open the way for a new science of consciousness, we must radically reevaluate the metaphysical stances of the scientific worldview, and of the relations between science and religion. For example, he argues that contemplative practice is in many ways in the spirit of science: it involves rigorous training to prepare the contemplative to inquire, through experience and reasoning, into the nature of things.

However, for people who are reluctant to admit that there can be nondelusional spiritual experiences, this contemplative perspective is going to seem like a belief, and probably won't shake whatever faith they have in the scientific worldview. This is one reason why Wallace constantly emphasizes that the claims of contemplatives are claims to be evaluated (both experientially and through reason), rather than established facts (which usually assumes some kind of general agreement within a community of which the reader and author are part). It is also probably why he emphasizes how contemplative practice could inform a new science of consciousness, rather than simply claiming that these practices have value on their own, as he does in some of his other books, aimed at different audiences.

Perhaps realizing the limitations of our current sciences of the mind will open us to new methods and new views, to explore the knowledge of other societies, and recover ways of knowing that may have been lost within our own traditions. It is hard to know where a truly open-minded, open-hearted dialogue between science and religion could lead, but it is exciting that this seems to be a genuine possibility today, probably more so than any time in the past. Thus, the central question of book is: "does a way exist to integrate the power of religion and of science for the physical, mental, and spiritual well-being of humanity?"

Rating:
Summary: The Taboo....
Review: I cannot add much to what the above author has offered, other than expressing my deep respect for B. Alan Wallace as my professor. I am enrolled in a course he is teaching at UC Santa Barbara titled "Religion, Science and Consciousness" and I am quite lucky to hear him pontificate and elaborate upon the ideas set forth in his book, amongst many other topics. Mr. Wallace brings light to the ongoing, seemingly inflexible attitude among scientific materialists toward religious ideas concerning the nature of the mind and consciousness. He, in his clear and unique writing style, enlightens the reader regarding the boundaries of the compatibility of religion and science....After all, in the most colloquial of terms- if religion is defined as the way in which we question and know why the hell we exist and science does the same, who is to say they are not compatible, in some way... Religion is not all about hell-fire, brimstone and heresy, as many scientific materialists would have one think! It is time to look to contemplatives in both our culture and others for assistence in the quest for knowledge (The Buddha is quite knowledgable about such things!)

Rating:
Summary: A needed and healthy alternative to scientific materialism
Review: In this book Alan Wallace clearly documents how the trend of science since Galileo was to reject subjective experience and how the scientific materialists by the time of William James (~1900) had made that trend a dogma. Subjective experience became "taboo" within science. Wallace makes the case that Western philosophy and psychology made a mistake following the scientific materialists, instead of James. James bucked that dogma -- as did Alfred North Whitehead later -- for one thing it makes the mind and consciousness impossible to understand. And this is the main subject of the book. Beyond that scientific materialism makes reality in general impossible to fully understand. (Wallace also makes this point in his book: Choosing Reality: A Buddhist View of Physics and the Mind. ) Wallace interestingly points out that William James said many things some Buddhists had been saying for ages -- but James evidently was fairly unaware of Buddhist thought. Wallace quotes Whitehead often in both books, but never mentions Whitehead's process philosophy. That's unfortunate, I for one would be very interested in what Wallace thinks of process philosophy. In any event, the 20th century science was dominated by scientific materialism.

Wallace is trying to push the 21st century into a direction closer to that of James' philosophy. I see that as a very good, healthy and needed thing. But to be honest I'm somewhat pessimistic it is possible -- most scientists and engineers I know (and I'm a scientist myself and have worked with scientists and enginners for over 20 years) are still scientific materialists. A few are "dualistic" conservative Christians (they embrace the old Cartesian body/soul dualism). And of course many outside science (at least in America) are dualistic Christians -- some of whom mistakingly reject much of science intelf -- like evolution -- in order to fight the quasi-religious view of scientific materialism. IMHO both of these groups have it wrong -- but they are in the vast majority -- the "battle" is mainly between them and being fought by their terms. Folks like James (and other radical empiricists), Whitehead (and process thought folks), Wallace (and Buddhists that think like him), among others (Ken Wilber, Carl Jung, Joseph Campbell, etc.) have it more right -- but they are currently a small minority. Maybe with excellent books like this one, alternatives to dogmatic views will win larger followings. I hope so. In any event, it's a joy to someone like Wallace -- a member of the non-dogmatic minority.

Rating:
Summary: The Taboo....
Review: Normally the word science conjures up images of the new technologies in communications, medicine and manufacturing that are the hallmark of modern life. But science's influence extends beyond matter to the mind. Its main impact there has been to question, if not invalidate, everything from religion to the commonplace components of our inner lives - our thoughts and emotions, values and ideals. Such subjective phenomena are not to be found on science's objective map.

The Taboo of Subjectivity takes on both science and religion in an attempt not to reconcile the two, but to reveal their common connection in consciousness itself. To accomplish this, Alan Wallace, whose academic background includes both physics and religion, sets out to show that science and religion have each embraced "fundamentalist" attitudes that distort their essential natures.

Science, he suggests, has fallen under the spell of scientific materialism, a philosophical interpretation of science, based on Newton's mechanical model of the universe: if something can't be measured objectively, it doesn't exist. This view maintains a hold on both the public and many scientists despite its having been debunked over 100 years ago. The quantum physics pioneered by Max Planck reintroduced subjective human consciousness into nature, emphasizing the importance of the observer and questioning the existence of a universe made up of solid particles unconnected to human perception.

Religion, according to Wallace, has largely abandoned its roots in contemplation, which the author views as a science of consciousness. Religious fundamentalism denies direct human contact with the divine - the aim of contemplation - in favor of unquestioned belief. Science similarly denies validity to consciousness - the realm of free will, the soul, and the possibility of life after death - by reducing all mental phenomena to mere electro-chemical patterns in the brain. Thus there is double taboo against our subjective selves.

How effective are Wallace's arguments? Sound critiques of scientific materialism have already been crafted by philosophers of science, Paul Feyerabend and Bas C. van Fraassen among them. Contributions from the humanistic tradition have come from William James, Aldous Huxley, Alan Watts, and, more recently, Ken Wilber. Wallace synthesizes these strands into a scathing, three-pronged attack claiming that: 1) Scientific materialism is antiquated in its refusal to accept the conclusions of quantum physics. 2) It inflates the conclusions of valid experimental science - especially where neuroscience reduces consciousness to brain processes, for which there is no compelling scientific evidence. 3) The requirement of scientific objectivity ignores the bias of science's own assumptions, which include mathematics and the inculturation process of scientific training.

But most fascinating and compelling are Wallace's chapters on the subjective exploration of the mind - contemplation. The author's contention is that the meditational practices of many Eastern religions are no less reliable and "objective" in their own sphere - the mind - than is experimental science in the realm of the material. It's not all voodoo and hocus-pocus.

Wallace, a religious studies professor at the University of California at Santa Barbara, has expertise in this area. He spent 14 years as a Buddhist monk, teaches meditation, and is a student of and translator for the Dalai Lama. A variety of approaches to contemplation are explained in some detail, showing that the techniques are extremely exacting. As with proofs in experimental science, similar outcomes can be obtained by the meditator using different practices. Results can be repeated and then confirmed by meditational experts.

These arguments cannot be shunted aside as easily as Ken Wilber's more poetic approach in The Marriage of Sense and Soul (1998, Broadway Books). Whereas Wilber speaks in general terms and relies on a grand theory all his own, Wallace is more specific, demonstrating a firm grasp of physics and the history of science. He cements his case with logical arguments that opponents may find challenging to refute.

A response is called for, especially from the neurosciences, because the implications of Wallace's book are sweeping. The incorporation of subjective, contemplative methods within a scientific framework for the exploration of the mind could lend credence to many subjective aspects of human mental life and effect a repositioning of science - as a brother discipline to the arts and humanities rather than as their unforgiving father.