It is commonly thought that understanding of mind, life, consciousness etc belonged to that vague discipline called "Mysticism" or religion and that science cannot, or should not try to deal with them. Layfolks often defend Mystics Theologians by saying "You cannot judge their approach to truth as wrong using logic or science". Laymen, mystics and theologians also feel that questions of life, consciousness etc should be handed over to mystical philosophers, spiritualists and, theologians, not scientists. Nothing could be further from the truth. By their aversion to materialistic pursuits and adhering to ascetic life style, the "mystics" may seem to create an aura of wisdom and superior cognitive power. This is not to question the sincerity of ALL the mystics, many do have the genuine yearning to grasp the meaning of the ultimate, but to question the means they are adopting and more importantly their claim (or putative claim by their defendors) to having the most priviledged, if not the sole access to the ultimate reality and their disdain for scientific methodology. Some may not disdain scientific methods but still belittle science by calling it just "another way" among many in the the effort to learn about reality. By implication they view scientific way as no better than any other way, mystical, religious etc. It is a serious mistake to equate the objective methods of science with just any other subjective belief systems. If someone claims to experience a very personal feeling of higher state of consciousness (in whatever subjective sense), or a sense of heightened illumination about some transcendent reality, that is perfectly acceptable as long as he/she characterizes it as such (i.e subjective). But when these experiences are attempted to formalize and made into an "ism" such as "mysticism" or when such personal subjective experiences are defended by others as equally "real", "objective", "true" like science, that is going a bit too far. "Divine" experience, if such existed, cannot be obtained through a prescribed set of regimens which when followed will yield that privileged experience to any individual. If that was the case it would become a routine mechanical method for anyone to attain ultimate insight and thus would be amenable to a scientific analysis and would be integrated with mainstream science. Such a prescribed regimen for any Moe/Joe to follow by "joining" the exclusive mystical school in order to experience the same personal subjective senses of illumination, ceases to be of any spiritual or transcendental nature. A divine experience or truth (about a transcendent world or entoty), IF it exists at all, cannot be acquired through pure procedural regimen. Truth about nature (non-transcendental,phemomena), on the other hand, may possibly be obtained in an epiphanic flash like it came to Einstein (Any such about nature, i.e a platonic truth, can be viewed as divine/religious in a sense, since that truth is not the creation of human mind, but a discovery), who out of pure metaphysical intuition grasped the truth that the space time we live in is curved (This concept has a precise objective meaning that can be shared with others, which no mystical "truths" possess). His insight is an enlightenment about objective reality and is not tangible through ordinary intuition but is amenable to the objective language of mathematics and physics, and to empirical observations of a very high sophistication. That's how his metaphysical insight was elevated to a universal truth. A divine "feeling" of enlightenment on the other hand cannot be translated into an expression capable of objective communication and so has to be solipsistic. Any belief in such amounts to a belief in testimony. Moreover a pure procedural regimen to stimulate such feeling will necessarily imply a non divine nature of the same, because the outcome of a mechanical procedure is necessarily a phenomenon, not a noumenon. Any attempt by mystics to elevate a personal subjective "feeling" of spiritual enlightenment and call it a universal truth and prescribing some regimen for others to experience the same would be disingenuous. It is true that through meditation and other induced means brain can go into an altered state which can produce a feeling or sense of enligtenment, joy, fulfilment, unity etc. That in itself does not imply that a contact with a transcendent entity/truth has been established, although any individual may justifiably believe it to be so in their own mind. At the end of the day it is really to each his own. Anyone can "subjectively" claim to have grasped the ultimate mystery of life. It is quite possible that mystics, meditators etc may experience some subjective feeling of enlightenment/vision/hallucinations etc, (Aviators when subjected to severe and sudden change of motions causing substantial oxygen deprivation to the brain also report similar psychedelic experiences, sort of induced effect of mystical mediation. In fact Harvard researchers have concluded that the experience of mystical meditation is indistinguishable from altered brain states induced by certain drugs. So for the mystics, theologists laymen to go one step further and assert that they have gained access to the ultimate truth and reality is a stretch. No real substantive or cerebral work goes into their pursuit to back up their presumptuous (though repetitive and often self evident truisms) talks and preachings. If at all any truth is arrived at through mystical means (meditation etc), then it cannot be communicated to others because it is bound to be highly subjective and subjective thoughts and realizations cannot be communicated unambiguously to others and generate the SAME subjective perceptions in them unless an objective language (symbolic/mathematical) is developed. No mystical studies have ever developed such objective language. Subjective perceptions or sensations may be stimulated in others through communication of rituals/regimens prescribed by some "mystic", but understanding or knowledge cannot. There is acrucial difference. Understanding inevitably involves knowing truth (Not personal perception of such). And truth requires an objective means for its expression and verification. And objective expression requires an objective language (Math Logic, Natural Laws, as expressed in terms of well defined concepts etc) to be unambiguously communicated. Mystics, New Age thinkers emphasize cognition through intuition. But the cognition that their non-inferential intuition results in cannot lead to the truth, at best a perception. Scientific intuition is infernetial, and is necessarily a prelude to en eventual expression of an objective truth, once the intuition is developed , refined and verified. Intuition, does play a crucial role in science. But unlike mystical intuition, scientific intuition does not end by a vague verbal assertion. A truth in the real sense must lend itself to a universal objective expression or an inferential derivation for it to be communicable and an objective criterion for its verification/ falsification. For, without a consensus reached through such communication the mystic's "truth" becomes a solipsistic concept devoid of any substantive value. No mystical studies have ever developed such objective expression of truth and its verification, and so cannot honestly claim to communicate the "TRUTH". On the other hand the hard sciences (Specially physics) do have the sophisticated objective language to not only communicate but to understand in a fundamental way subjective perceptions on such issues as mind, consciousness, life and reality in general. This is what has been and being done by scientists like Roger Penrose, Henry Stapp, David Deutsch, Paul Davies and others. None of these great yet humble physicists claim that Physics in its present form has solved the problem of explaining consciousness/mind/reality but that it may be explained fully in future by extending the present structure of physical laws through further discoveries and break throughs, if not within its present purview. The boundary between science and metaphysics philosophy is getting thinner each day. It is inconceivable that one could grasp the mystery of mind or consciousness without ever knowing the facts of Quantum coherence or collapse. To appreciate this one need only to check this link out on the attempt of a theoretical Physicst from Berkeley to understand consciousness. Here's another link of another PhD Physicist Evan Harris Walker's attempt to understand consciousness, and another on the inevitable role of Quantum Physics on consciousness research.

It is fair to say the ultimate truth about reality, if ever is explained, will be done so not by just by pursuing a formal study of reductionist Physical principles or non-cerebral meditation of mystics, but through a combination of a strong grasp of the reductionist principles of Physics and preceded or accompanied by metaphysical reflection/intuition. So either a Physicist has to become a "mystic", or a " mystic" has to grasp the fundamental truths of nature through a thorough grounding of the reductionist principles of Physics and mathematics in order to seek the truth about reality. That's why most of the leading minds in the area of consciousness and mind research are either from Philosophy, neuroscience or mathematics who have spent enough time to train themselves in the advanced principles of Physics and mathematics (Dennet, Lockwood, Chalmers et alia) or are Physicists who are equipped with the knowledge of the workings of brain/neurons (Penrose,Stapp et alia) and spent enough time inmetaphysical intuition and thinking. In their book "Where God resides in the brain", authors Allbright Ashbrook says in p-xxv that theoretical physicists are exceptions in the usual dichotomy of mystics and scientists. They appreciate the particular but also seeks order and theoretical beauty in ways reminiscent of mysticism. And on page 32 they comment that neuroscience resides between physics and metaphysics.

Dan Dennet is a distinguished philosopher (Educated in Harvard and Oxford) who is well versed in science and bases his philosophical ideas on solid scientific insights in an authoritative way unlike pseudoscientists and mystics. Richard Dawkins, the celebrated Biologist who insists on precision, has even objected to labelling Dennet as a philosopher rather than a scientist!. After all, bare mysticism/metaphysics strives to deal with intangible entities and constructs to arrive at some higher level of reality/truth based on the fundamental intangible entities. But lacking the necessary tool, it is bound to fail. On the other hand that's exactly how physics works. After all, uncertainty principle, quarks, superstrings, curvature of spacetime etc are the most intangible concepts which through series of intricate deductive mechanism give rise to higher level of reality of forces, matter and most all phenomena in the visible world and life. Traditional mysticism is a poor man's (intellectually, figuratively speaking) attempt to connect to the platonic reality. Metaphysical reflection based on the principles of Physics and Biology etc, on the other hand are the sophisticate's way. I must emphasize that no derogatory connotation is implied here. Its just that a well-intentioned effort is misdirected in the former case. It requires both the necessary tool and the proper mind frame to get the best possible grasp on reality. Some of the mystics may be well intentioned and have the desire and mental capacity but lack the necessary tool (A deep knowledge of Physical laws and mathematical logic) and hence do not really achieve anything substantive, in terms of contributing to out understanding on the fundamental reality for others to share. Metaphysics without Physics is like a car without fuel. It can go nowhere. The noted Cambridge Philosopher Michael Redhead says "Physics and Metaphysics blend into a seamless whole, each enriching the other, and that in very truth neither can progress without the other" (From "Physics to Metaphysics", page-87). Just as those who undergo rigorous and arduous physical training and exercise are the most capable of performing tasks that require physical skill by the same token the principles of advanced Physics and mathematics enforce a rigorous mental exercise and training that makes one prepared for an effective metaphysical speculation. What could be intellectually more rigorous a training than say the mathematics of the 11 dimensional hyperspace of Superstrings? Metaphysicians/mystics with no reductionist training cannot in an unambiguous and objective way, formulate/express reality of life and universe but do so in a vague and highly subjective manner that is only amenable to blind veneration and subjective acceptance, prompted by biased and wishful desires and. Also merely quoting or paraphrasing the truths of Physics (Quantum non-locality etc) by so called Quantum healers/mystics to back up their vague mystical affirmations does not/should not impart legitimacy to such assertions. One has to pay their dues through a formal training in the natural laws of Physics. It is simply an intellectual dishonesty to assume that all the fundamental facts and truths of nature discovered by painstaking mental efforts of brilliant minds are all useless or irrelevant and one can bypass them and gain direct access to some ultimate truth about reality by some vague mediation efforts alone. As physicist/skeptic Victor Stenger says his book "Physics and Psychics": "Despite widespread belief to the contrary, mo mystical revelation has ever told us anything about the universe that could not have been inside the mytic's head all along. The most basic truths about the universe - its size, constituents, the fundamental laws these constituents obey, and humankind's place in it -- are nowhere even hinted at in the sacred scriptures that recorded the supposed revelations of history's leading religious and mystical figures" (p-10-11, Physics and Psychics). Even if it was true that some special soul by some freak did gain access to ultimate reality through some meditation (Or may be without it, why even mediation, if it is a divine gift?) then he/she would be a lone inhabitant of an island of enlightenment since no other ordinary human being can ever grasp what the special person knows or feels, there is simply no mechanism to communicate it, other than a blind belief on his/her words generated in the minds of the ordinary folks through their charismatic traits (Ascetic life style, detachment from materialistic pursuits etc). It may be noted as a side that it is far easier for a physicist to get up to speed with neuroscience than it is for a neuroscientist to get up to speed with quantum theory, due to the inherent difficulty of grasping Quantum principles let alone its mathematical complexity. It should also be noted that it is Physics which is APPLIED TO neuroscience and not the other way around in the attempt to understand mind/consciousness. It is no surprise that most of the leading brain/consciousness researcher are from Physicist background, like John Hopfield, a quantum physicist turned brain scientist (Pioneer in neural net) appled Q.M. to neurons. Miguel Virasorz is a superstring theorist turned brain scientist (neural net. bottom up approach). Particle Physicist Leon Cooper (Nobel Laureate Physics) also turned into brain scientist. Physicist Eric Harth (Author of the book "The Creative Loop" and "Windows of the mind") also worked on mind/brain research for many years which has added valuable insight. For examples of physicist turned mystic check this link and this Also to understand the importance of Science and other worldview in understanding reality click here. Even Russell envisaged the role of physics in brain/consciusness very early in his essay "Cosmic Purpose" from his book "Religion and Science" where he said that Physics and Psychology will eventually be merged into one science. Mind and matter will not be the issue, but events". He also says in that essay that the belief that persinality is mysterious and irreducible has no scientific warrant, and is accepted chiefly beacause it is flattering to our human self-esteem. (from "Critiques of God").

In more recent time distinguished scientist and editor of prestigious Science magazine John Maddox in his book "What remains to be discovered" says on p-278: "Psychology will be a branch/handmaiden of Neuroscience".

Let me now move on to the meaning and relevance of Philosophy in the classical sense, in the context of today's world. The word Philosophy literally means love of knowledge. In ancient times the body of knowledge was too small and there was no division of labour among knowledge seekers. Philosophers were people who tried to understand everything in life including the structure of matter, origin of the universe, life/afterworld, consciousness etc. Not being aware of the natural laws that we know now they came up with unique and often ridiculous theories to explain everything. As you can see Zeno's paradox baffled scholars at that time, whereas today an average college student can figure out the flaw. Calculus was not known in Zeno's time. Here's an interesting quote by Dawkins from his BBC lecture in November 1996 : "You could give Aristotle a tutorial. And you could thrill him to the core of his being. Aristotle was an encyclopedic polymath, an all time intellect. Yet not only can you know more than him about the world. You also can have a deeper understanding of how everything works. Such is the privilege of living after Newton, Darwin, Einstein, Planck, Watson, Crick and their colleagues." (For the remainder of Dawkin's lecture see: http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/dimbleby.htm

Another Scientist and renowned author E.O. Wilson writes in his book Consilience(From http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/98apr/biomoral.htm):

"Now, this formulation has a comforting feel to it, but it makes no sense at all in terms of either material or imaginable entities, which is why Kant, even apart from his tortured prose, is so hard to understand. Sometimes a concept is baffling not because it is profound but because it is wrong. This idea does not accord, we know now, with the evidence of how the brain works." (referring to Kant's idea of categorical imperative)

..

"Had Kant, Moore, and Rawls known modern biology and experimental psychology, they might well not have reasoned as they did. Yet as this century closes, transcendentalism remains firm in the hearts not just of religious believers but also of countless scholars in the social sciences and the humanities who, like Moore and Rawls, have chosen to insulate their thinking from the natural sciences"

For another example lets take Hume's reasoning in Inquiry V II:

"Although many past cases of sunrise do not guarantee the future of nature, my experience of them does get me used to the idea and produces in me an expectation that the sun will rise again tomorrow. I cannot prove that it will, but I feel that it must."

This is ridiculous and simplistic by today's standard. We can certainly "prove" that it will, based on geometry and theory of gravitation. Its not just a belief based on past observations. Of course it will be a truism to say that there is no guarantee that the proof itself is not a guarantee that the sun will rise tomorrow. But then that is simply playing with words, one is not saying anything deep. After all what would mean by "guaranteeing" in this context? The proof is certainly there, however it is defined. In light of modern knowledge in Physics, Evolutionary and molecular biology, psychology, neuroscience, all the speculations, questions, reasoning etc of classical philosophers seem puerile today and reflects an ignorance of the deep knowledge of the Laws of Physics, Biology (evolutionary/ Molecular/Neuro). Nevertheless they stand in high esteem for the manner in which they reasoned and thought despite the primitive knowledge database that existed in their time. No one really needs to study them now to gain insight in life and nature. For that they need to study Physics/Cosmology, Evolutionary and molecular biology in depth AND (that's the vital part) try to understand the meaning of it all (i.e think metaphysically). Mere reading in a fact gathering manner, like feeding data into a computer is not adequate for human insight.

Humans today have been passed down a gene pool that contain the cumulative knowledge over millions of years and a research Physicist or a Molecular biologist today knows more about nature and life than the combined knowledge of all these primitive philosophers of ancient days. Even religion (eschatology) now is a more properly addressed by Cosmologists. The incredible level to which Physics and the Biological sciences have progressed has radically changed the traditional meaning of Philosophy in modern context. Philosophy today is primarily study of logic and epistemology. Logic is more an integral part of mathematics, and the rest of philosophy is only meaningful as a historical study of the evolution of human thought, epistemology and reasoning. Basically, Kant, Hume, Heidegger, Wittgenstein etc have put to rest all philosophical/metaphysical speculations by showing that they are just constructs of words with no meaning beyond that can be conclusively arrived at by consensus thru any objective means. All previous philosophical ideas are nothing but subjective verbiage of individual abstract ideas which can never be tested/verified or agreed upon in an universal way except for the obvious statements of individual perceptions that are common to all in an intuitive way (The feeling of mystery and awe about the infinite universe and its creation and existence etc). Here' s an interesting excerpt from cognitive scientist Roger Schank (See his bio at http://www.engines4ed.org/hyperbook/misc/rcs.html) who held triple faculty positions in Computer Science, Education and Psychology, referring to the remarks on consciousness in Mortimer Adler's "Syntopicon" by old philosophers like Aquinas, Montaigne, Aristotle etc : "These people have vague hand-waiving notion of what consciousness is about, with a religious tinge to it. Their work wouldn't fly at all in modern academics. Yet we're being told that if you haven't read them you aren't educated. Well, I'm reading them, but I'm not learning much from them. What I'm learning is that people have struggled with these ideas for the last two thousand years and haven't been all that clever about it a lot of the time. Now, with the computer metaphor, and a different way of looking at the idea of consciousness, we have entirely different and new and interesting things to say.." Stephen Hawking, in the final chapter of his celebrated book "A Brief History of Time" quotes the eminent Philosopher of this century Wittgenstein as saying that the only meaningful work left for philosophers today is the analysis of language ! Nobel Laureate Gerald Edelman has commented: "Philosophy is the graveyard of isms". Another nobel laureate Francis Crick (Codiscoverer of DNA) has said "Philosophers had such a poor record over the last two thousand years that they would do better to show a little modesty rather than the lofty superiority they usually display" . All the so called deep philosophical verbosity on Life, Soul, etc be it in Buddhism, Hinduism, Sufism, Hellenic Philosophy etc, can never be boiled down to any tangible fact or a precisely formulated truths of life/nature i.e there is no real substance but some rich literary/poetic/romantic imageries. To be a true seeker of knowledge (i.e philosopher) one has to understand the deep laws of Quantum Theory, Cosmology, Chaos theory, Molecular Biology. Reading on the early Philosophers and their works are only for historical interest and to understand how human thoughts have evolved and advanced with time to the sophistication today. The theories of Aristotle, Ptolemy, Copernicus appear so obvious and elementary today. But they were the pioneers of their days. But the combined knowledge/insight of top Physicist, Molecular Biologists and all the other disciplines today will far surpass the combined insight of all the ancient "philosophers" in existence. Today's hard sciences are ready to tackle even issues that were considered the exclusive realm of religion/ ethics/spirituality etc. In fact the laws of physics ARE the Laws of nature and the laws of biology are the laws of Physics (in the emergent form), so ultimately, Life/Consciousness, End of the World, etc will all be in the domain of Physics ("The Fabric Of Reality" by Oxford Physicist David Deutsch states this premise in a remarkably elegant and convincing way). In fact all contemporary philosophers (who still survive as a species) of today are either former professional Physicists/Mathematicians/Life Scientists or have strong background in such and constantly invoke the deep truths of those disciplines to construct their philosophical ideas. Science provides the "raw material", so to speak, for the philosophical speculations and views. Scientists themselves are so occupied in the actual hunt for the truth and refining it through painstaking series of precise tests and observations that they can hardly afford to pause and speculate about the metaphysical implications. But many do, and they are to me truly the true philosophers, like Paul Davies, Roger Penrose, Richard Dawkins etc. For example Philosophers have debated and written profusely on morality, ethics etc, but they all in the end analysis, reduce to verbal meanderings with no remarkably significant insight. But if these issues of human life is viewed in the light of the profound truths of evolutionary biology, genetics etc they do provide some remarkable insights into it, an example would be the ideas of Richard Dawkins as outlined in his book. "The Selfish Gene". Even the concern of the philosophers on the issue of the limit of human knowledge is more effectively dealt with through mathematical principles and Quantum Theory. So my whole point is that there is no such viable thing as philosophy in isolation from Science. Philosophy is just the pursuit of understanding of life and nature through "thinking" and this understanding is only possible, if at all through Science. Up until the thirties, there were intellectuals devoid of scientific background who were monopolizing the profession of "thinkers" while scientists merely writing technical books on scientific principles, forming two distinct cultures. Now it is the time of the Third culture where Scientists themselves are taking the role of thinkers since nobody with little or no scientific background can even dare think on the profound issues of life which are so intimately a part of scientific pursuit today. Modern philosophers of Science are really doing their thinking on ideas and issues that are already the result of the work of scientists by first mastering the ideas and then working on the implications and/or extrapolations thereof. For example look at the 1988 article at : http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/uncaused.html, to see what a 36 year old PhD in philosophy had to say about the origin of the Universe (Warning: Maybe too mathematical for you). All the contents of this article refer to the work of cosmologists(Scientists) like Einstein, Roger Penrose, Stephen Hawking, James Hartle etc. For other examples of philosopher's subject of study see the other articles by Quentin Smith at www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/. Finally the book "The Ends of Philosophy" by Harry Redner does a post mortem of traditional philosophy and the attempts to revive it new form. Click here for excerpts from the book. Einstein in an obvious sense of pity for the moribund state of philosophy commented in 1932 "Philosophy is like a mother who gave birth to and endowed all the other sciences. Therefore one should not scorn her in her nakedness and poverty, but should hope, rather, that part of her Don Quixote ideal will live on in her children so that they do not sink into philistinism. (From p-150, "The Quotable Einstein")