Materialism, Idealism, and Neutural Monism are Philosophical/Metaphysical positions. They don't make it to the Scientific Journals because whatever of these positions an individual scientist holds, it makes not a heck of difference to the rigor of sceintific methodology she uses or any conclusion her research comes to. An Idealist no less than a Materialist works with what we call the physical world. The same rules apply in anyone's Science Lab.
Be warned, I'm about to use a naughty word in a Skeptic forum.
There are many Buddhists, some Science professionals, some Buddhist clergy, some lay people of both types, who are avidly interested in the neuroscience of Samadhi and other mystical states of mind. They are all very excited about brain research that is explaining how such states of mind come about.
Yes, Scientifically explianing how the physical brain does it. They embrace every new discovery. Nothing is explained away for them any more than the Science of digestion explains away my my personal process of turning food into energy and elliminating waste. It hasn't stopped me from eating because science can explain it. I don't stop thinking because Science might one day be able to explain how the brain does my self-consciouness, and these religious people don't stop their meditation practices because Science can show just what causes the altered states they seek. They even hope the research may uncover ways to help individuals experience mystical states sooner than the long periods of mental discipline it sometimes takes.
I'm sure you'll find that these Buddhist's, depending on the sects of Buddhism they are associated with, will gravitate toward Idealism or Neutural Monism when it comes to Metahysics. But it won't make a hay's difference in how they do the Science or the conclusions they come to. Putting it crudely: What the stuff is is irelevant to the scientific process. It's a matter of a different discussion. Independent of that it follows the same rules for all. JustGeoff and Hammy's prefered metaphysical positions don't bring anything to doing Science
above and beyond what a Materialistic position would bring. And their positions don't deny anything the Scientific Method could and would conclude.
INHO - any of these positions can be logical depending on certain base assumptions. These aren't assumptions that we can prove with the Sceintific Method because some of them are at the very foundation of our confidence that the Sceintific Method can yield us truth.
I haven't followed the Philosophical argument in this thead very closely. Maybe there is a way that JustGeoff can show his Neutural Monism is more logical than Mind is the ultimate stuff, or Matter is the ultimate stuff. I confess, I tend to be more pragmatic than Philosophical. Years ago I let go of the need of ultimate, absolute truths. What I do readily understand is that Science doesn't really care what the stuff is, and for whatever position you take, the business of Science goes on as usual.
Pragmatic means that I start complaining when something is really harmful and woo-woo productive. I mentioned Buddhist Scientists. You should understand that having a mystical experience doesn't deliver a theistic god. It doesn't make a sttement about physical reality. But in popular/folk religion of all sorts you get beliefs about physical reality that try to fly in the face of Science.
This is the pathological thing you so strongly object to.
I object to that kind of ignorance as well. A metaphysical position other than Materialism doesn't necessarily produce this kind of Woo-woo. That woo-woo comes from clinging to a supposed authority in Metaphysical content that makes pronoucements about physical reality as well. (Holy Scripture or some vision content) Whenever we have such authorities, we get woo-woo.
Standard Idealism or Neutural Monism doesn't make metaphysical claims that contradict what Science can show us.
But there are kinds of Bozoid Idealists who spew woo-woo. Take for example the New Age carpetbagger claims that you make your own reality. Do you smoke? They say it's OK, because it only hurts people who believe it can hurt them. That's when my pragmatism begins to strongly object. (Note that neither Justgeoff nor Hammy are promoting this swill.)
Another kind of swill my pragmatic bent objects to is a boziod materialism that claims value judgements are a no-no and that the best way to relate to each other is as pieces of meat or machines rather than persons. I know that isn't where you are in your preference for a Materialistic worldview, but I've seen some people paint themselves into that corner in this thread in their desperate arguments with JustGeoff.
Perhaps the Philosophers can set up the right deffinitions to keep our metaphisical stances from spilling over into hurtfull nonsense. or maybe they can't. The Sceintific method is neutural on that point. it treats all metaphysical positions as straw dogs.
In my way of thinking, Spirituality is about compassion. A compassionate life is sometimes facilitated by religion, but all to often hindered by religion. It seems to me to be the most hindered when Religion must subject eveyone to its supposed absolutes. The absolutes take precedence, and people are tortured to save their souls. Some who have escaped the tyranny of religion look to Philosophy to give them the ultimate, absolutes. An absolute Materialism or an absolute Idealism. and certain kinds of absolutistic Neutural Moism (Though I think Geoff would contest this) all tend to oppression and as much tyranny and torture as can come of Religion. And then, ironically, some turn to Science to be their God.
No thank you! Sceince doesn't play God. Silly people might who want to use the tools of science to create oppressive thchnologies, But Science itself is for people, not people for Science.
