the telepathy thread

[Rolig Loon]

6 minutes ago, Moondira said:

I hope you don't think I was dissing scientists. I enjoy reading about science and admire scientists.

Not at all.  In fact, I think we are largely agreeing.  My point in bringing C.P. Snow into the discussion was to say that he and the educational system made some valid observations but came up with a poor way of addressing the imbalance between the two cultures of science and the humanities.  Instead of finding a way to help humanists become more science-literate, we have found a way to create more scientists.  (That was actually one of Snow's hopes, of course, but when people cite his essays they tend to focus -- as I did -- on the fact that the two cultures don't communicate with each other well .)   

As I hoped you would understand from my note, the real societal issue is that non-scientists have largely ceded the ground to science by remaining illiterate.  It is rather common for scientists and engineers to appreciate the arts and literature and, more than that, to be accomplished artists, musicians, and novelists.  It is rare for humanists to have more than a shallow familiarity with the sciences, except as consumers.  The non-scientific public has a distrust and fear of scientists, and scientists have a hard time engaging in lopsided discussions. This can lead to poorly informed public debates about vital issues like climate change and pandemic vaccines, and can result in imbalances in funding to address large social issues.  As I said in my final comment, I am dismayed as an educator that we have not been very successful at helping non-scientists understand what scientists are talking about, and to become equal partners in addressing the global problems we all face.

[Innula Zenovka]

1 hour ago, Moondira said:

But I see the world as a whole; I don't cut out parts of it so that I can make my point

Possibly you do, though most people's perception of the world is remarkably partial and selective.

However, I really don't see what that's got to do with it.    If you want me to accept that "that a true non-sensory experience might have occurred; that information could have been accessed by a means outside of our known sensory detection ability," I'm perfectly prepared to accept it could thus have been accessed, but you have to be prepared to accept that it might not have happened that way either, and that there may well be any number of equally plausible explanations that don't involve upending the laws of physics to get them to work.

If, however, you want to go any further than that, and persuade me not only that that information could have been accessed by a means outside of our known sensory detection ability, but that's what actually did happen, then I'm going to ask for proof that's the only possible explanation before I start to entertain it.

The Roman Catholic church takes a similar attitude to miracles -- obviously it believes in them a priori, which I don't, but it still takes a lot of persuading before it'll accept any particular account of one as genuine.

But I don't see where this takes us.     

Let's suppose that there is such a thing as "true telepathy," to use your phrase.    Unless it's in some way distinguishable from a lucky guess, what's the difference, and if there's no difference, why does it matter, and why should I be interested in it, until there is some way of telling them apart?

 

[Innula Zenovka]

2 hours ago, Moondira said:

But I also leave open the possibility that a true non-sensory experience might have occurred; that information could have been accessed by a means outside of our known sensory detection ability. The latter is the definition of true telepathy, and you are asking me to leave out the actual definition of it in my evaluation of it?

That doesn't work, and I've just realised why

"[A] true non-sensory experience might have occurred" and "a means outside of our known sensory detection ability" aren't the same thing at all.

A means outside out known sensory detection ability is quite possible.   We couldn't detect all sorts of wave and particle activity until one day we could.   

However, the reason we could detect it is that sound mathematical logic, backed up by our existing knowledge of physics and our existing understanding of the universe, tells physicists to go looking for snarks and boojums and all sorts of critters, and then they find what they find. 

That is, most things get detected because our attempts to understand what we already know, or think we know, lead us to suggest that something may be the case, and that one way to find out, or at least to find out a bit more, is to do something or look in a particular place, and then we try to make sense of what transpires.

You're looking at it the other way round -- assuming that ESP is, or may be, a thing, and then looking for evidence to support it.

I guess I want you first to explain to me what you think we should be looking for, and how we'll know when we find it, and what leads you to this based on what we know of how the brain and neural activity work.

 

 

[Madelaine McMasters]

On 7/17/2021 at 10:53 AM, Moondira said:

If telepathy rarely happens in a laboratory setting, and rarely happens between people who don't know each other, then the variables are not set up correctly.  Poor methodology produces poor results.

Twin telepathy stories abound, and there are 50 million sets of twins on Earth. That's a target rich environment for research, yet I'm unaware of any credible evidence of telepathy between twins, or anyone.

On 7/17/2021 at 10:53 AM, Moondira said:

Another problem is that experiments in telepathy are set up to test the physical world as detected by the 5 human senses. But true telepathy, by definition, transcends the physical world as we know it. We have to take into consideration quantum physics if we want to understand it, and I've never seen this taken into consideration in most telepathy experiments.

As @Coffee Pancakenotes, there are far more than five human senses. If there's a sixth, I suppose it's actually 24th to 35th. We're constantly learning of new senses and ways in which those senses can reinforce or interfere with each other in our perception of reality. By careful observation and analysis, we have determined that there are forces and things we cannot directly sense. We now have tools to observe these things and I own quite a few, some of which I've used to measure aspects of my own senses. I've also watched people misuse such tools to "prove" nonsense.

Science's discovery of Quantum Mechanics  and its weird, uncertain behavior is now being used as a sort of "get out of jail free card" to explain all manner of curious human sensation. We are told that some people tap into things that the rest of us can't sense. I find that unsatisfying. It seems to me that a "consideration of quantum physics" in telepathy is step two. Step one is finding evidence that telepathy actually happens.

[Love Zhaoying]

In the branch of Hinduism which I studied, and was taught, "telepathy" would be an example of a siddhi (or "power", "ability", etc.). And a pretty minor, boring one. To paraphrase, "unless [you] know the entire past, present, future, and all infinite possibilities"..(it may not impress some people). Because, to quote, "there are infinite possibilities in the nature of consciousness".

[Love Zhaoying]

46 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

Science's discovery of Quantum Mechanics  and its weird, uncertain behavior is now being used as a sort of "get out of jail free card" to explain all manner of curious human sensation.

That's one way to..SPIN it!

Spin? 

[Arielle Popstar]

3 hours ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

Science's discovery of Quantum Mechanics  and its weird, uncertain behavior is now being used as a sort of "get out of jail free card" to explain all manner of curious human sensation. We are told that some people tap into things that the rest of us can't sense. I find that unsatisfying. It seems to me that a "consideration of quantum physics" in telepathy is step two. Step one is finding evidence that telepathy actually happens.

Depends on how you define telepathy. Communication between two people by the mental projections of actual words seems to be what many envision but I personally think pictures, feelings and emotions are just as relevant and certainly enough stories of that happening even at a distance. I don't think it is a case that others cannot sense these things but that they are often too preoccupied, self absorbed or simply don't have a belief that something projected to them could be anything other than randomness coming from their own subconscious.

Another word that may better describe this connection experienced between twins and other peoples who are close emotionally or spiritually is synchronicity, where like metronomes they synchronize at certain times. Twins often relate how they suddenly were feeling or synced to the other twin when that one was going through some sort of physically or emotionally challenging experience.

[Coffee Pancake]

17 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Another word that may better describe this connection experienced between twins 

Twins are not magical. They are copies of the same person.

Studying twins doesn't explore the wonderous way twins work, it informs us about how we work.

 

[Chroma Starlight]

2 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

Twins are not magical. They are copies of the same person.

Studying twins doesn't explore the wonderous way twins work, it informs us about how we work.

It'd be funny if, because of deduplication, reality somehow treated twins as uncannily connected because of their deep similarity, like logging in with your account on the Second Life forums with two different instances of the same web browser and yet still seeing similar results.

[Madelaine McMasters]

On 7/18/2021 at 12:10 PM, Moondira said:

Regarding replication, I was referring to the religion aspect Madelaine brought into the discussion; I was basically saying that scientific replication is not the only way to arrive at truth.

No, it's not the only way, but it sometimes does a better job. On maximizing humanity's potential, science sometimes sheds little light. Still, it's the most powerful tool we've ever invented. Even in the unlikely event it is able to arrive at truth, we're not there until we get there and our power to do harm increases with every step, and our ability to guide science depends on our ability to understand it, and ourselves.

There is scientific research showing the power of belief, from placebo effect to spirituality, to generosity. We'd be foolish to ignore the wisdom embedded in our evolution and equally foolish to presume it's well adapted to the rapid social and environmental change we've brought upon ourselves.

I share Rolig's frustration over what seems to be a widening gulf between science and non-science.

On 7/18/2021 at 12:10 PM, Moondira said:

However, a primary criticism of Kahneman's book is that many of his experiments cannot be replicated:

Innula covered this. I don't believe fault was found with any of Kahneman's experiments, but rather the trust he placed in experiments performed by others. One or two of the 38 chapters of "Thinking Fast and Slow" have drawn significant criticism and Kahneman has agreed with that criticism. There is, of course, a delicious irony in the master tripping over his own warnings.

On 7/18/2021 at 12:10 PM, Moondira said:

Personally I'm not so troubled about some studies not being replicable and critique it on other grounds, some of them not even attributable to the book per se but instead in the manner in which others becoming aware of illogical thinking patterns misapply the theories to other people and situations. I've seen Madelaine do this repeatedly, and am hoping she'll take her beloved book off the altar, illumined lovingly by the candles shining upon it, and read it more carefully. 

Behavioral scientists in general can become quite cocky and divorce themselves from real life, only paying attention to the patterns they think they've discovered and misapplying them.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry reading these examples:

https://unherd.com/2020/03/dont-trust-the-psychologists-on-coronavirus/
https://jasoncollins.blog/2020-04-07-the-limits-of-behavioural-science-coronavirus-edition/

But regarding Kahneman's book specifically, I like his conceptualization of some of the illogical patterns he demonstrates, but my main criticism is that (although he assigns the 'left brain' rational mind the number 2 position and the more unconscious 'right brain' mind the number 1 position) he clearly favors the conscious, rational mind and assigns all bias to the other. I much more agree with a book published 2 years prior to his which gives the 'right brain' mind priority, The Master And His Emissary by Iain McGilchrist. His book stresses that the conscious, rational mind should be the servant of the 'right brain' and not its master. I believe the conscious, rational mind is overrated; one only has to look at the mess the Western world has created for proof of this. The Enlightenment? Just no.

Plus, you can't make someone rational by telling them to be so. Just look at the forum for examples of that! One must dig deeper/higher, and incorporate Transpersonal Psychology methods to effect lasting change. It might be fun for us intellectuals to play with our minds and see where we fool ourselves, but lasting change for society? Nope. So what's the point of Kahneman's book really? So us intellectuals can play with ourselves I guess.

I've put McGilchrist on my reading list. Perhaps "The Master and His Emissary" will end up next to "Thinking Fast and Slow". It's been decades since I read Maslow, one of the founders of Transpersonal Psychology. I'd have to reread him to clarify whether he's been widely misinterpreted, or truly crafted his hierarchy of needs from a potentially worrisome western perspective. Self actualization, rightly or wrongly, is often equated with Rugged Individualism.

There is great "wisdom" in the evolutionary wiring of our left brains, but I think there's reason to be concerned about how well it handles the challenges of the modern technical world, where significant advantage can be gained at scale by the application of technology. If the humanities don't cross the bridge to understand science, and its growing understanding of us, your concerns about "Enlightenment" will be well founded. Experiments in psychology are now running, 24/7, around the world, for profit. Facebook is a battleground that sells willing hands to ideological gun manufacturers. Wouldn't you want those hands to understand the neural levers being pulled?

 

[Madelaine McMasters]

16 hours ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Depends on how you define telepathy. Communication between two people by the mental projections of actual words seems to be what many envision but I personally think pictures, feelings and emotions are just as relevant and certainly enough stories of that happening even at a distance. I don't think it is a case that others cannot sense these things but that they are often too preoccupied, self absorbed or simply don't have a belief that something projected to them could be anything other than randomness coming from their own subconscious.

Another word that may better describe this connection experienced between twins and other peoples who are close emotionally or spiritually is synchronicity, where like metronomes they synchronize at certain times. Twins often relate how they suddenly were feeling or synced to the other twin when that one was going through some sort of physically or emotionally challenging experience.

The physics of synchronizing objects in this way is well understood and has been replicated countless times. I've done it mechanically, electrically and optically. Drawing an analogy from that to telepathy might seem right to someone who doesn't understand the physics, but it's nonsense to someone who does. When I posit subconscious processes with biases and vulnerabilities, I'm not making an analogy.

I've no problem with people expressing feelings of synchronicity or connectedness, deja vu or premonition, and wondering about them. I feel those things at times, and I wonder, too. Wondering is enjoyable.

I do challenge ascribing things to natural mechanisms that don't apply, or claiming things can't be caused by natural mechanisms that can, have, and have been explained, particularly if I've experienced and used those mechanisms myself.

I don't think I've ever said that alternative explanations can't exist, but rather that if they're extraordinary, I'll want evidence.

Edited July 20, 2021 by Madelaine McMasters
The neverending pursuit of spelling.

[Madelaine McMasters]

7 hours ago, Love Zhaoying said:

In the branch of Hinduism which I studied, and was taught, "telepathy" would be an example of a siddhi (or "power", "ability", etc.). And a pretty minor, boring one. To paraphrase, "unless [you] know the entire past, present, future, and all infinite possibilities"..(it may not impress some people). Because, to quote, "there are infinite possibilities in the nature of consciousness".

Is there a term for charisma? Is there a term for when it's used for good? For evil?

[Love Zhaoying]

6 hours ago, Chroma Starlight said:

like logging in with your account on the Second Life forums with two different instances of the same web browser and yet still seeing similar results.

..or posting under 2 different accounts / alts and getting the same Forum responses!

[Love Zhaoying]

3 hours ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

Is there a term for charisma? Is there a term for when it's used for good? For evil?

Build up charisma, as you become a "yogi". Use it for evil, and you are a "yogi demon" (or asura).

[Innula Zenovka]

3 hours ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

Is there a term for charisma? Is there a term for when it's used for good? For evil?

Would not maya, the magical power of illusion that some gods are said to posses,  cover it?

[Love Zhaoying]

2 hours ago, Innula Zenovka said:

Would not maya, the magical power of illusion that some gods are said to posses,  cover it?

Maya doesn't have that exact meaning for me personally, but yes - illusion, false goals, wrong intent, veil, dreams of ego satisfaction etc. But just "ego" and "selfish intent" are enough if you have "siddhis", to be a "demon"..yet Maya is involved yep. Gotta hide / cover the right approach (of not being a demon).

These "demons" performed the same worship (sadhana) as the yogis, but with selfish and impure intentions. 
 

Segue: Just like there could be "good telepaths" and "evil telepaths".

Edited July 20, 2021 by Love Zhaoying
"Intent" not "desires"

[Ceka Cianci]

[Moondira]

23 hours ago, Rolig Loon said:

As I said in my final comment, I am dismayed as an educator that we have not been very successful at helping non-scientists understand what scientists are talking about, and to become equal partners in addressing the global problems we all face.

Do you see any solutions? I know there are competent science writers who sometimes do a good job. Frequently I like to read the philosophy of science more than actual science experiments.

[Moondira]

21 hours ago, Innula Zenovka said:

23 hours ago, Moondira said:

But I see the world as a whole; I don't cut out parts of it so that I can make my point

Possibly you do, though most people's perception of the world is remarkably partial and selective.

However, I really don't see what that's got to do with it.    If you want me to accept that "that a true non-sensory experience might have occurred; that information could have been accessed by a means outside of our known sensory detection ability," I'm perfectly prepared to accept it could thus have been accessed, but you have to be prepared to accept that it might not have happened that way either, and that there may well be any number of equally plausible explanations that don't involve upending the laws of physics to get them to work.

I've never said there could not be plausible sensory explanations for any individual's claim to a telepathic experience (errors in logic, wishful thinking, for example).  Most cases of claimed telepathy are not true.
I'm only saying that when I evaluate a claim of telepathy I allow for the possibility that it could be true; I don't automatically rule it out.
Also, I think you need to read some of the newer Physics; there are numerous scientific articles embodying a new paradigm. Upending the laws of Physics -----YES! They are working on it  

21 hours ago, Innula Zenovka said:

If, however, you want to go any further than that, and persuade me not only that that information could have been accessed by a means outside of our known sensory detection ability, but that's what actually did happen, then I'm going to ask for proof that's the only possible explanation before I start to entertain it.

I don't want to persuade you of anything. I want you to read modern Physics. Also, I would like to have this thread be a space for others to simply express their telepathic experiences without being forced to justify them to you if they choose not to engage.

21 hours ago, Innula Zenovka said:

But I don't see where this takes us.     

Let's suppose that there is such a thing as "true telepathy," to use your phrase.    Unless it's in some way distinguishable from a lucky guess, what's the difference, and if there's no difference, why does it matter, and why should I be interested in it, until there is some way of telling them apart?

I'm not interested in telepathy per se, and I'm especially not interested in people who feign it or even make a game of the fact that there are ways of connection beyond what the current human conceptions and measurements allow.
It is the worldview which discounts a part of reality beyond what humans can currently perceive and measure that I rail against, that says anything humans can't conceive of or measure does not exist. Telepathy is but one facet of a worldview that says we are far more connected than what our measurements currently allow us to see. Telepathy should not automatically be discounted simply because we don't have the measurements to detect it, or because we see the world from a humancentric viewpoint.
There is a profound weakness in assuming that our particular sense organs and devices of measurement are the only way to define and perceive reality. Like someone said earlier, it's like placing a thermometer next to a computer and insisting there are no EMF waves emitted by it because the thermometer does not register them. Reality could very well be beyond what humans can normally sense, and indeed many affirm that it is.

Those who can affirm that it is (beyond what humans can normally sense) would have trouble convincing you intellectually. Some reading in the new Physics might provide a better frame of reference for you though. So in a way this intellectual discussion (at least with many participating in it currently) might not, as you say, take us anywhere. I only wish more humans could experience this reality because experiencing reality from an anthropocentric perspective is destroying our planet. When we relate holistically we take care of what is perceived as 'us' (what we genuinely feel connected to in the world), but when we separate from the world and only see it through human eyes we tend to control and exploit what appears separate and inferior. Our history, for the last X hundreds of years, has been nothing but separating everything into bits with humans becoming more individualized and unable to comprehend they are part of the whole. I do have some hope though as more holistic paradigms emerge and shake loose the old beliefs that deaden our world. 

Long ago the Native Americans lived in harmony with the land, and received instruction from it. They did not overstep bounds; they did not commodify the earth and hoard it in the way we Westerners do. The world was alive and appreciated in its own right; it was not dead matter that existed only for humans to exploit until it was destroyed or all used up. Can we go back to that mindset? Maybe, but another part of me says that the Ghost Dance and Wovoka's dream will come to pass, that the red man (aboriginal) will end up inheriting the continent, and sooner than we might like.

[Moondira]

20 hours ago, Innula Zenovka said:

23 hours ago, Moondira said:

But I also leave open the possibility that a true non-sensory experience might have occurred; that information could have been accessed by a means outside of our known sensory detection ability. The latter is the definition of true telepathy, and you are asking me to leave out the actual definition of it in my evaluation of it?

That doesn't work, and I've just realised why

"[A] true non-sensory experience might have occurred" and "a means outside of our known sensory detection ability" aren't the same thing at all.

A means outside out known sensory detection ability is quite possible.   We couldn't detect all sorts of wave and particle activity until one day we could.   

No, a true non-sensory experience might be detectable in the future, or it might not be. I've never separated them but it looks like you separated them in your mind and are imagining I did. I've always allowed a true non-sensory experience the possibility of detection in the future if new measuring devices allowed it. A true ESP experience simply means it is derived from what humans can't currently detect, and a false one is the wishful thinking and errors in logic we've been describing.

20 hours ago, Innula Zenovka said:

You're looking at it the other way round -- assuming that ESP is, or may be, a thing, and then looking for evidence to support it.

No, you are assuming I'm looking at it the other way around when I'm not, but this is what you've been doing. I've never said or implied that ESP is a "thing" separate from the rest of the world or any type of measurement we might come up with in the future. I've only said that normally we can't perceive these types of connections with our senses.  Like I said, I view the world holistically. ESP experiences are not a separate "thing" outside of the world we inhabit; it is only our lack of awareness of it that lends it any separateness. 

20 hours ago, Innula Zenovka said:

I guess I want you first to explain to me what you think we should be looking for, and how we'll know when we find it, and what leads you to this based on what we know of how the brain and neural activity work.

I would suggest reading some of the newer science on quantum physics and studies in consciousness, as well as meditating under the guidance of a competent teacher for one hour daily for at least a year. Not to experience telepathy per se but to experience the state of consciousness that can allow telepathy to incidentally occur -- a more holistic type of consciousness that isn't as limited by the ego (left-brain).

[Innula Zenovka]

2 minutes ago, Moondira said:

Telepathy is but one facet of a worldview that says we are far more connected than what our measurements currently allow us to see. Telepathy should not automatically be discounted simply because we don't have the measurements to detect it, or because we see the world from a humancentric viewpoint.

Try substituting "the unseelie fey"  for "telepathy" in that example and see if you think it makes any more, or less, sense.

Stuff that we can't detect may well exist, but unless you've got at least some reason to suspect it exists and  some idea how we'd go about detecting it if it does, so we know if we ever come across it, how does it differ from stuff that, as far as we know, doesn't and can't exist?

 

 

[Moondira]

15 hours ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

On 7/17/2021 at 10:53 AM, Moondira said:

If telepathy rarely happens in a laboratory setting, and rarely happens between people who don't know each other, then the variables are not set up correctly.  Poor methodology produces poor results.

Twin telepathy stories abound, and there are 50 million sets of twins on Earth. That's a target rich environment for research, yet I'm unaware of any credible evidence of telepathy between twins, or anyone.

Psychic experiences aren't so amenable to lab experimentation. Usually they occur unexpectedly, though there are ways to lessen the ego barriers that prevent them and so better facilitate their occurrence. I've not seen experiments which take these problems into account; i.e., bad design/methodology equals a bad result.

15 hours ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

Science's discovery of Quantum Mechanics  and its weird, uncertain behavior is now being used as a sort of "get out of jail free card" to explain all manner of curious human sensation. We are told that some people tap into things that the rest of us can't sense. I find that unsatisfying. It seems to me that a "consideration of quantum physics" in telepathy is step two. Step one is finding evidence that telepathy actually happens.

Sometimes we find, especially on the internet or in new-age circles, people who use quantum concepts to justify what they want to be true, but without understanding the science. Silliness and fads are always a part of the human experience. But ignorant people do not prove something is not true.

Check out the respected scientist Erwin Laszlo -- he ties together quantum physics with some of the concepts we're discussing here much better than any new-age mumbo jumbo.  Currently I'm reading his book 'Science and the Reenchantment of the Cosmos: The Rise of the Integral Vision of Reality'

Quantum Physics is not an easy topic to read, but he does a fairly good job simplifying it for the lay reader:

 https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/181822.Science_and_the_Reenchantment_of_the_Cosmos

 

[Innula Zenovka]

 

6 minutes ago, Moondira said:

No, a true non-sensory experience might be detectable in the future, or it might not be. I've never separated them but it looks like you separated them in your mind and are imagining I did. I've always allowed a true non-sensory experience the possibility of detection in the future if new measuring devices allowed it.

But what are these measuring devices supposed to measure?    We can measure stuff only if it has some effect on the physical world -- that is, it causes some discernible effects on atomic or subatomic activity that can be recorded and quantified.

How does something have an effect on a meter or a recording device other than by interacting with it at the molecular level at least?   "Because quantum woo-woo" doesn't work, because quantum woo-woo involves things we can definitely observe and measure doing stuff that doesn't make much sense according to our current understanding of physics, so we revise our ideas in the light of the new data that's definitely there, even though we don't understand it.

You've yet to persuade me there's anything there to detect, let alone how to know when I've found it.

If and when someone can say, "look, if we do this, then that more or less reliably happens, and the  best way to explain it is through this testable hypothesis, which may or may not explain much, but should tell us something" then there's some point to the conversation.    Otherwise it's just idle speculation.

[Ayeleeon]

12 hours ago, Arielle Popstar said:

and certainly enough stories of that happening even at a distance.

But are these cases truly common enough, and in situations controlled enough to be a valid basis for drawing a conclusion? Out of millions of people, 100 people get a feeling that corresponds to some event happening to someone they know far away. Our memories can be influenced, so there will be a tendency to remember the feeling at the time of the event, even if it occured before or after it. Whenever anyone had a feeling that does not corrispond to a real life event, it is forgotten. Those 100 people are offered up as proof, even though they are a minute percentage of the population, and the situations can easily be explained as mere coincidence.

Edited July 20, 2021 by Ayeleeon

[Moondira]

8 hours ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

I've put McGilchrist on my reading list. Perhaps "The Master and His Emissary" will end up next to "Thinking Fast and Slow". It's been decades since I read Maslow, one of the founders of Transpersonal Psychology. I'd have to reread him to clarify whether he's been widely misinterpreted, or truly crafted his hierarchy of needs from a potentially worrisome western perspective. Self actualization, rightly or wrongly, is often equated with Rugged Individualism.

When the word 'Self' in 'Self actualization' is capitalized, it refers to states of consciousness beyond the ego, and so has nothing to do with rugged individualism.

8 hours ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

There is great "wisdom" in the evolutionary wiring of our left brains, but I think there's reason to be concerned about how well it handles the challenges of the modern technical world, where significant advantage can be gained at scale by the application of technology. If the humanities don't cross the bridge to understand science, and its growing understanding of us, your concerns about "Enlightenment" will be well founded. Experiments in psychology are now running, 24/7, around the world, for profit. Facebook is a battleground that sells willing hands to ideological gun manufacturers. Wouldn't you want those hands to understand the neural levers being pulled?

I don't see science literacy as being the primary solution. I see the current emphasis on materialism, which creates the sense that the world is dead and void of any meaning, as the source of our woes. It's the excessive anthropocentric mindset that believes we are special and above or separate from our surroundings causing the problems contributing to our march toward extinction.