Talk:B. Alan Wallace/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Biography

A large section of the biography was previously deleted, citing copyright violation. However, after it was obvious that the work was originally written on wiki and then copied to the website listed. This was undone. 98.182.31.254 (talk) 14:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC) JE

Mass changes by Debatecontributor

Debatecontributor,

• You fixed the WP:COPYVIO by rephrasing sentence by sentence, all sourced to Wallace's own biography. This isn't how biographies on Wikipedia are written, and doubly so with regard to the bullet-list style. Wikipedia isn't a hosting service for Wallace's CV; please see WP:BLP.

• The lead is now a big wall of text, with wikilinks and paragraph breaks removed.

• As explained in one of my edit comments, Wikipedia doesn't use honorifics like "H. H."; it's not encyclopedic.

• Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy (in particular WP:PSCI) requires reception by mainstream experts to be included. It is inappropriate to remove criticism.

Huh, do you mean the 'cultivation of equanimity', well that would be a good start. Thank you.--DynEqMin (talk) 16:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• External links should not be in the body of the article (WP:EL). Some of these existed even before you came, but they shouldn't be there.
• Wikipedia isn't a platform for promoting Wallace; please see WP:NPOV.

Thanks for already the many reflections on the two outline articles (apropos: a Science of Consciousness) for integral consideration. On elaboration it would generate a very long list of sound references--DynEqMin (talk) 16:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC) We have been actually talking about the abuse of Wallace's person over many years here, and that of all related organisation.--DynEqMin (talk) 16:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• • • • • Manul, the text I wrote is not promoting but giving basic outlines for consideration. Regarding the text that remained for years: "Wallace's beliefs on consciousness have not gained acceptance within the scientific community and have been criticized for employing dualism and quantum mysticism." It is totally biased since many researchers such as Nobel Laureate Dr. Elizabeth Blackburn, Dr. Cliff Saron, Dr. Richard Davidson and Dr. Paul Ekman, all of them recognized scientists, have collaborated with Dr. Wallace and they think his hypothesis are worth putting to the test. In order to reach a consensus, Can you please edit that sentence and rephrase it as "Novella thinks: "Wallace's beliefs...". Also, you keep erasing this paragraph "In 2007, Dr. Wallace and Dr. Cliff Saron, (researcher from the Center for Mind and Brain at UCDavis) conducted a large-scale study of the effects of meditation training, known as "The Shamatha Project." Collaborating scientists were top scientists such as Nobel Laureate Dr. Elizabeth Blackburn amongst others." Can you please explain why are you removing it? this is verifiable information and I provided a reference. RegardsDebatecontributor (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Debatecontributor, sorry that has to stay in order to satisfy WP:NPOV, in particular WP:PSCI, WP:WEIGHT, WP:GEVAL. When it comes to scientific claims, Wikipedia is not actually neutral (WP:NOTNEUTRAL, WP:FRINGE). Encountering a slew of policies is a dreaded experience for newcomers; WP:NPOV is somewhat unintuitive at first, but it makes sense in the end.

I didn't remove the Shamatha Project part; as I said in the edit comment, I moved it to another section. Manul ~ talk 22:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

This is all pitiful, Wallace has always been careful not to make 'metaphysical or scientistic claims and assumptions', and to bracket extranuous assumptions, in context. Aloof and stupid indifference in relation to these Wiki's of import is verging on politics. All this is just speaking behind Wallace's back: why do things get posted that Wallace himself would prove wrong and dubious from the start. All the years of abuse that has gone on with this Wiki that effects others should somehow be reconciled by future edits not exacerbated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DynEqMin (talk • contribs) 10:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Can the disputed article be taken to the attention of Wiki in-house Arbitrators where there is waffle of plain and simple deformity to most crucial parts of science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DynEqMin (talk • contribs) 00:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

BLP and V

Any and all material not supported by verifiable quality secondary sources be that positive, negative or neutral material, has no place in Wikipedia articles in particular biographies of living people. Is this person is notable to have an article in Wikipedia, then such quality, and reliable secondary sources will be abundant. I have removed all material that does not fit that criteria. Please do not re-ad unless supported by a secondary and reliable source. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Note the AfD process specifically requires that articles not be blanked - for a fair debate, I have restored the 90% which had been unceremoniously deleted. Collect (talk) 19:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Keeping unsourced material is not an option. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:21, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Inasmuch as his doctorate from Stanford is not contentious [1] , removal seems to be more one of trying to remove all notability possible :(. When one sees non-contentious and vey easy to source claims, removal looks more like a political choice than an editorial one. Collect (talk) 22:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

What do politics have to do with this? Having a doctorate from Stanford and using a primary source for that is not enough. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

You misapprehend "primary" here. The "primary" source for a doctorate is the diploma. When a person is listed as having received a doctorate from that institution, the institution's list is a valid reliable secondary source. When a third party entirely refers to the dissertation as a doctoral dissertation with place and year, that is also a valid secondary reliable source. See the AfD discussion for a few of the sources. Collect (talk) 23:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

That is not the point I am making. What I am arguing is that a doctorate from Stamford is not notable unless that doctorate is described in a secondary source. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Your objections seem labile. The PhD is noted in a large number of non-SPS sources, including in citations of his work by others. Yet your initial objection was that he runs the Stanford website, calling it "SPS", as far as I can tell. Collect (talk) 12:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Dalai Lama

DL wrote "Consciousness at the Crossroads: Conversations With the Dalai Lama on Brain Science and Buddhism." Translation by B. Alan Wallace, Thupten Jinpa. Afterword by Wallace. Notable work.

"Tibetan Buddhism in Diaspora: Cultural Re-signification in ..." isbn=1317572815; Ana Cristina O. Lopes. "- multiple mentions of Wallace.

And so on. This alas is a tad ludicrous - I had never heard of Wallace before, but it is crystal clear that he is an authority in his field, recognized as such. Collect (talk) 12:14, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

books published by Columbia University Press

The following are published by CUP:

Meditations of a Buddhist Skeptic: A Manifesto for the Mind Sciences and Contemplative Practice B. Alan Wallace

Buddhism and Science: Breaking New Ground Edited by B. Alan Wallace

Hidden Dimensions: The Unification of Physics and Consciousness B. Alan Wallace

Contemplative Science: Where Buddhism and Neuroscience Converge B. Alan Wallace. with the assistance of Brian Hodel

Mind in the Balance: Meditation in Science, Buddhism, and Christianity B. Alan Wallace

Five books published by a reputable scholarly publisher. Collect (talk) 14:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Reverting mass of text again

This lengthy text is not supported by sources. Material on Wikipedia needs to draw from secondary sources, be verifiable, and contain no original research. Please take some time to read these and other Wikipedia policies. Manul ~ talk 17:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Manul for raising a relevant context, without projecting dogma on a biographical work of a communaly accepted master scientist of a primary field in science: 'integral consciousness studies' A dedicated team to work through benefitial dialogue and clarify these reflections is therefor of salient import to re-vision and mutual scientific vision-quest (explicit reference outlines); beginning with omitting previous and all round misleading comments on these pages.----DynEqMin (talk) 02:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)DynEqMin (talk) 10:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Some other notes follow:

Due to merit, Wallace has perennially by consensus been worthy of configuring many levels of standards as a reality of interdisciplinary 'network practice' (Buddhism and Science, defined lexicon). The 'cognitive science of the 'mindfulness introspective' that Wallace has co-pioneered in its essential outlines are non-controvertial in that it has been from the beginning, work qualified in mainstream branches psychology (even the mutually pragmatic demystification of aspects of religion and spirituality are secondary to this work). Wallace has been over four decades a figure with public responsibility, of representing 'wholly unbiased consciousness studies' and its most intricate semantics as founded in pragmatism; the language I use is none other than a scientifically emergent mutual lexicon of consensus for the developmental semantic analysis by many branches of science. Constructive efforts to facilitate such procedural comprehension, is fitting for such a credibly distinguished career of uncommon science realisation. There are international protocols that obviously apply to research on foundations of culture and science, that need no hindrance from any polarity in acknowledging paradigmatic attainments of ongoing science embodied. Following are the previous aspertions on these pages.--DynEqMin (talk) 02:30, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

section

Arguments of now-blocked user collapsed for improved talk page readability

It has been a useful start to reformulate the Main Page again without ideological-reification or aspersion in formulation. Mediation here has been with preliminary dialogue and debate so sense on these pages becomes a mainstay for all concerned. Salient Outlines are forwarded for these concerns at the bottom of the page, and two abstracts in the middle of this Talk Page marked in green represent initial salient dimensional material for dialogue that does need work on sources. One of these is on the Science of Consciousness as one of Wallace's primary projects including the International Shamatha Project (with the nominated byname of International Dynamic Equilibrium Project); the other being outlines of accomplishment. The phrase: 'endeavours to' is not adequate.--DynEqMin (talk) 23:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC) The following is copied from the Science of Consciousness pages that had been deleted from view. This was no kind of consensus-making or reasonable discussion? Cordial dialogue with outlines on the ways forward need to be visible.--DynEqMin (talk) 12:53, 31 August 2015 (UTC) This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --DynEqMin (talk) 12:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC) Records of clear outlines on ways forward to edit that 'working document' were deleted. There were many spurious comments made without cordial dialogue. The mention of SciCVN is a generic name for generic support initiatives and vocational support networks for an authentic science of consciousness without bias, apt for a project as modelled after the Genome Project. The last conversation about the deleted page was that there were no links inaugurated to other articles, and it is so far true. More sources are needed, not that there were none. However, the article now being stationed on this page is with due thanks and apologies due for inexperience and pressures accepted. The key disciplines which this page relates to is contemplative neuroscience, affective and positive psychology. To avoid future bias conflicts on this page, it should be made clear that many a so-called expert on 'mindfulness', do not even understand the primary dialectics that brought the research together in the first-place; let alone to pragmatically debate on such essential subjects. There is a definitive 'centrist philosophy' that configures in mutual dedication, the whole of that 'mindfulness introspective' in practice.--DynEqMin (talk) 00:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC) Update, 1st Sept: The bias of what was quoted previously in criticism on these pages was wholly unfair as together with the linked sources that according to WIkipedia's guidelines was not at all legitimate. It was for many years a premise for serious complaint. Another thing noticeable in that linked material of so-called scepticism, including the recorded interview (previously highlighted so prominently on this page), is the lack of analytical principles in criticism, against most comprehensive and uncontroversial principles of contemplative neuroscience that Wallace pioneered solely in consensus with others. In an interview mentioned as demeaning evidence (below on this page), the very questions are of obvious mis-knowledge if validly debated. This referred to no progress from the start made by a panel questioning Wallace (with due respect, a full report on this is also contained in the highlighted abstracts provided below). The biography page of discrepancies has now been reformulated (as a task previously nominated in process of these reflections), by first consideration of infinitely absurd grounds to omit this biography entirely; then this ended up with placing the one line of absurd criticism back on the page (that remained for years) backed by a link to a blog doing nothing but casting aspersions based of such premises that now refuted; those criticisms also implicitly relate to the mind and cognitive sciences, these two, because of their empirical renaissance for which Wallace has since the beginning, faithfully outlined its presidents (as part of the quantum revolution since Max Planck); as outlined in essential consensus articulated by various fathers of science itself in every era of its caring attention. This relates to the International Shamatha Project's (ISP) acknowledgement of key texts from mainstream scientific perspectives that contribute present understanding. Sources for all these reflections are evident throughout Wallace's integral and consistent research dedication in its completed scientific outlines to the present. The one line of criticism (a record of which is still preserved now later on in this page), therefor denigrates all concerned. DynEqMin (talk) 12:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)--DynEqMin (talk) 00:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)--DynEqMin (talk) 12:56, 12 September 2015 (UTC) Dreadfully sorry to say this - but Wikipedia does not care whether something is heresy or not - all we do is try to use what reliable sources state, and if we tried using "theological correctness" and epistemology as our foundation, we would have absolutely unreadable and unusable articles. In short - let's deal with this being a biography about a living person, and not try to elucidate the niceties of Tibetan Buddhism. Collect (talk) 19:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC) I do apologise for any superfluous and not pertinent words, more argument is a no no. To rephrase this again, there are implicit aspersions and assumptions in the above question that cause complexity. It adds to what was left so long and should not be associated to this space (by me or you). The first remark is more sarcasm, and lets not worry about the rest of it. With due respect to you, theology-correctness is evidently not at all the context: there is though, believe it or not, an implicit theology in your question. The speech protocols used are principles to cordially progress: e.g. I have not in all outlines presented referred to the 'Roof of the World'. The topic is one important background consideration requiring uncommon integrity; the primary generic considerations are of other categorical and definitive considerations so pertinent to this biography and of integral benefit to elucidate. Wallace's has established new levels of generic protocol in these ultimate respects, ever since his beginning comparative studies of pragmatic meaning.--DynEqMin (talk) 01:49, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments

Arguments of now-blocked user collapsed for page readability

Unfortunately, this current page is a hagiography. No criticisms or critiqueable content is included, just accolades from various non-scientific sources. Why don't you dig up some criticisms? I'll give you one: he's got a little bit of pressured speech going on. I first noticed it back in 1980. http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/audio/Episode002_Alan_Wallace_on_Achieving_Shamatha.mp3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.146 (talk) 04:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC) The criticism here is of highly fallacious slander, that arose when a panel of questioners, who were not able to demonstrate learning on questions they were trying to pose. They were most respectfully contradicted from the outset: this is the psychology of such science discussion. And it may or may not be appropriate to discuss what qualms the above author has on a specific podcast mentioned above. An appropriate strategy would be to remove such bickering to another secondary link. Because the referent so-called criticism-blog has so long impinged on these pages, it would be a good thing if all that mess of related pages were to be reformulated as well (that plethora of confusion), because it is all based on most provably false validity: it all stems from misconceptions. There is very little material that is in context to this bio. if any branch of science-related analytical praxis is to be facilitated, then errors should be admitted. The wit and knowledge of those protagonists would be useful if adjusted to admit what are contemporary scientific working-hypotheses (emergent for the benefit of all these causes over the last half-decade). Acknowledging the dialectics of import pioneered just in linguistic science (dialectics) through Wallace's own legacy, represent credible breakthroughs for human and psychological flourishing on the planet. Content of the five-hour or so discussion between distinguished Christof Koch and Wallace (of recent years), would be in-line with appropriate content for discussion instead of the related slander blog ('neuroscience' blog that so vaguely denies the breakthroughs of 'contemplative neuroscience'). Please let's think about removing the criticism content as it is a complete travesty (of so many years duration), and what has been the scientific implication of that misinformation should also be considered for scalable adjustments of use to specified purposes. Therefor, it is for the very foundations of science that these facts need be accurate: it is of notice that there are games being played with the Wiki's of several other related authors. Why not leave it for a week (from now: 26 Aug 2015) till Sept. then if no-one has anything intelligable to say it would be auspicious to scrap the chit-chat. DynEqMin (talk) 07:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)(----) ? In speaking in psychology of refractory-periods (Paul Eckman's term, Wallace's colleague in CEB) from reification (~from the Latin: of imputing a 'static-representational autonomous reality-tone' on objects in the 'universe of thought' (or outside of it). The nature of idealisation is very important in science, and in the course of history, many philosophers have wished that they were the most skeptical of all when it comes to what are called 'idols' (like seeing the moon's image in water and somehow reifying it, or moreover, being in equanimity regarding both reification and misconstruing the vacuous aspect of 'phenomenal-space'); yet, the cultivation of definitive vision-quests, (esp. those of 'innately-scientific' nature, and in authentic Buddhist and related discipline governed by intricate layers of ethics to wider most-distinguished acclamation) require valid practices in the genre of imagination (one of Jung's disciplines of primary import), to emerge with valid reason from its imbalanced fundamental deficits. It has been frequently mentioned by ISP commentary that Francis Bacon was one of the first in western science to elaborate on this, in reflection on various kinds of idols in the scientific investigation of reality. Alphabets of one kind or another become idolised to the extremes of reification and especially under scientific pretext, but they all represent aspects of import amidst progress possible to be made of generic interpersonal and transpersonal interaction of knowledge (on the scale of globalisation), for interests in the betterment and survival of the planet. --DynEqMin (talk) 00:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC) (----)--DynEqMin (talk) 08:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC) Below is an old comment, it looks like this refers to an elaborated previous version of the main page. {----} — Preceding unsigned comment added by DynEqMin (talk • contribs) 22:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC) This page is terrible and reads like a Buddhist pamphlet. Here's some criticism. http://theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=312#comments —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.116.88.146 (talk) 14:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC) I agree, this page is awful. Anyone reading this would think the ideas mentioned all have scientific credibility. Many of them have no evidence and therefore not science. Louis.Marti (talk) 20:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC) You agree, but it is a fact that Wallace has followed in an exemplary manner, the phenomenological rules of Husserl and Jung, and through a synthesis of much evolved multi-discipline that is plainly scientific I refer to the scientific-method of bracketing the internal discipline in its elaboration, by having constructed among the inter-disciplinary community of scholars, a 'contemplative natural langauge' with two features: one being in the context of discussion and mentorship in the scientific-epistemic context, and one based contemporary science praxis by way of foundational contemplative science, where Sanskrit roots of dialogue have from all-perspectives proven the most specifically dedicated of all in their evolution into Indo-European langauge (gen. linguistics). In terms of such a worldview, the features of simplicity, of first-person narrative practice of mental development, are those that have been replicable over the millennium. These are quintessential levels of inter-cultural praxis for the Asian roots, besides those established of trans-cultural progress in wider culture, science and art (these are functional and valid aspects of hermeneutics as clarified by a plethora of key university conferences from the beginnings of those consciousness studies)--DynEqMin (talk) 07:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)DynEqMin (talk) 18:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC). The ISP research is such a functional interwoven philosophy, and the quintessential aspects are more advanced features of scientific dialogue to interpersonal features of integrity. These factors are authentic records to attenuate dogmatic discrepancies of funding between neuroscience and contemplative neuroscience (there is no intrinsic 'dualism' when it comes to this). And all the talk about criticism can be checked (and has been) to consensus (as suggested by adjudicators), by a consensus among chief representatives of manifold traditions (science and spirituality). --DynEqMin (talk) 15:28, 13 September 2015 (UTC)(DynEqMin (talk) 07:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC))--DynEqMin (talk) 18:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC)--DynEqMin (talk) 18:29, 12 September 2015 (UTC) Below also seems vacuous to despondence, and it would be good if there could appear some sanity in these pages. (----)--DynEqMin (talk) 23:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC) "His life's work focuses on a deep engagement between Buddhist philosophical and contemplative inquiry and modern science and philosophy, with a special emphasis on exploring the nature and potentials of the mind in a radically empirical manner, as free as possible from the dogmas of religion and materialism." His research is not empirical at all, let alone whatever "radically empirical" means. It is also contradictory to say he is trying to stay free from the dogmas of religion when he approaches everything from a religious (Buddhist) perspective. The idea that Buddhism is free from dogma is delusional. Louis.Marti (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC) Some of the old content above and below seem to be more pure bickering as left so long in a criticism section on the main page but now still with a couple of lines of most dubious criticism — Preceding unsigned comment added by DynEqMin (talk • contribs) 17:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)--DynEqMin (talk) 18:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Recent removal of criticism

Arguments of now-blocked user collapsed for improved page readability

I restored the criticism removed by 169.231.32.13 (talk · contribs), and I provided a link to reporting on the levels of acceptance. The user has now removed even more criticism while not responding to my point. Wikipedia reflects the scientific consensus. It is against policy to use Wikipedia as a platform to advance the Wallace's ideas (WP:PSCI WP:REDFLAG WP:FRINGE). vzaak (talk) 17:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC) This issue is already an outdated record, to what end was this left here amidst all the other historical misuse left for years here.--DynEqMin (talk) 16:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC) After reading the link on fringe theories it's evident that the self-proclaimed-skeptic's view qualifies as a "singular view", and not one representative of the scientific community as a whole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.251.167.20 (talk) 06:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC) Does it qualify as a single 'view' when its own skepticism obscures it for any integrity in this contact? No. As noted above, see WP:FRINGE, specifically reporting on the levels of acceptance. vzaak 04:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC) Human flourishing is not by any means a 'fringe theory' in evolution, neither are any other aspects mentioned. The fact is that the ISP has been a primary investigator of scepticism itself and an adequate primary disciplinarian on it over four decades.--DynEqMin (talk) 01:56, 12 September 2015 (UTC) I removed the passage below because (a) the broad assertion about acceptance is unsubstantiated;; (b) the critique is by one writer who, as a clinical neurologist, is not particularly qualified to comment on philosophical or scientific issues; (c) the article does not even mention Wallace's views on consciousness, just his proposal on how some aspects of consciousness might be studied; (d) the critique of views was inappropriately appended to a factual section. If anyone wants to carry on this kerfuffle (I don't), they should start a section on Wallace's views on one or more topics, which he has strongly stated in countless places, and then add a section on critiques, with citations from appropriate, qualified commentators. --djlewis (talk) 16:23, 28 February 2014 (UTC) Passages that have been in question for years here:--DynEqMin (talk) 00:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC) Wallace's beliefs on consciousness have not gained acceptance within the scientific community. Steven Novella, a clinical neurologist, performed an analysis of Wallace's position and concluded there is no evidence for his claims, {{quote |text= I find Wallace’s position similar to the famous “kettle defense” – he seems to be marshaling whatever arguments he thinks he can use to defend his beliefs, but he is not articulating a coherent position. The reason is clear enough – he is making the classic mistake of starting with a desired conclusion (merging Buddhist mysticism with modern science) and then working backwards. To achieve these ends he tries but fails to make scientific arguments for dualism and he simultaneously tries to fudge the rules of science to sneak in mysticism as evidence to support his side. Also he utterly mangles quantum mechanics theory in an attempt to argue that – science says the world is weird, and my beliefs are weird, therefore science supports my views. The logic of this argument fails, but it doesn’t matter because the premise if wrong – quantum weirdness disappears at the macroscopic level. In the end Wallace does no better than anyone who tries to subvert science to support any ideology. |sign=Steven Novella |source=}} (a) No, this is explained in the link directly above your comment, reporting on the levels of acceptance; (b) Novella is qualified; (c) that's a good point; the criticism should be pared down to match; (d) no, per WP:PSCI criticism should be prominent. The large quote does seem disproportionate in relation to the brief explanation. I've replaced the criticism with a single sentence, with WP:ITA in mind. vzaak 17:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC) I edited the criticism to make it more neutral. Suggesting that Wallace's ideas and theories regarding consciousness are 'beliefs' implies that they are neither testable and are largely dismissible. This criticism also does not seem proportional with Wallace's published work. In other words, Wallace has done a large amount of collaborative work on the basic neuroscience and psychology of meditation. The critique, even as I've edited it, should almost be a critique of Tibetan Buddhism, as the cited reference from Novella doesn't talk about any of Wallace's original ideas and focuses more on the basic understanding of consciousness within a particular branch of Buddhism. Furthermore, I seriously question Novella's authority to make this critique, as he obviously is making strong assumptions regarding the nature of consciousness himself, that most scientists don't accept. That is, the nature of consciousness is a hot debate these days, and alternative theories are often proposed both by physicists and top-notch neuroscientists. Yet, Novella simply adopts the view that is consistent with his belief in scientific materialism. This view and belief in scientific materialism does not generate any new testable hypotheses, and is essentially a dead end . . . which is why it is a belief and not a theory. 128.111.113.237 (talk) 16:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC) JE References It is posited for dialogue that above accusations have no context through their history of questioning. After years of these inappropriate comments, below are two relevant abstracts of consideration..--DynEqMin (talk) 13:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)--DynEqMin (talk) 18:36, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Revision of Latter Outlined Document below: now in reversed order to the title below for clarity duly requested by Wikipedia policies. Questions on the Sci. of Consc. outline are welcomed in context of further editing to the bio.

Two updated documents below, in their previous versions of edit have been on the Wikipedia site since the beginning of Sept. 2015, the first of which is a report on previous bias remaining on the ISP Presidents main bio page and its Talk page for a long time. (1) SciCVN model outlines of research forwarded for reformulating the ISP President's bio on Wikipedia: Some prominent individual generic outlines that arose through questioning, are copies to highlight from the end of this section; below this is the first of the two documents that were left until this time (26th Sept. 2015) unedited. According to the SciCVN support model of notable progressions, one qualification of the ISP Presidents knowledge is a first-class background of model-U.N. peace-building, supported by intercollegiate pragmatic research corroboration configuring necessary understanding for foundational purviews of trans-disciplinary science. This is aptly phrased as 'inner and outer peacekeeping and peace-building', parallel to ancient and contemporary 'inner and outer science' in relation to such 'mindfulness-introspective' of qualified floursihing. This was something that remained for a while not even accurate, with a derogatory word expert remaining on its own. It would be incongruous if in these contextual subjects one were an expert without in some way being a pioneer. 'B. Alan Wallace is an American research pioneer with respect to the (specifically dedicated Buddhist and) general foundations of science and culture ('pragmatic intercultural-hermeneutics').' This is qualified by a defining proviso in modern scholarship that the 'ist' part of 'Budd' is a forien way of phrasing, present in the basic given sources: there is ten no grounds for predudice relating to secular foundations of culture. Any such guidelines require placement in context of the intricate context. Comprehensions of International Shamatha Project (ISP): Outlines in Dialogue, Research and Praxis, as pioneered by Dr. Wallace as primary science master. Taking into consideration the assimilative protocols of being aware of any notable criticisms on the ISP project within its four decades of endeavour, presumes an understanding of this leading scholar through his pragmatic dialogical and successful progression of working hypotheses, in this, Wallace has sufficiently engaged in both the educated and uneducated questions arising from manifold dialogue. In the past of this Wiki page there was left mention without any specific details given on four aspects of criticism without basis, in what used to be a section on the page under that name of Criticisms. Since 2013 or so, this changed to a couple of lines of unwarranted text. The material accompanies a link to other non-Wikipedia bias reflections (scientifically and legally), as if directly contributing to the integrity of ISP debate, that promotes a website community of neuroscientists (where the ISP mainstream science, of contemplative neuroscience, had not been of consideration). In these senses that material has not contributed to the scientific findings or contradiction as rhetorically claimed (it is therefore not a critique them, as that should demonstrate preliminary understanding of transdisciplinar consciousness studies). This would also include knowledge of the dedicated natural language (NL) lexicon, and established principles along with their definitions, pertaining to primary foundations of science and culture, that from the outset have been part of working hypotheses (as ontological theories of relativity, 'g/sTOR' *1 ). These qualms are partly mentioned on the nominated WIkipiedia entry on a 'Science of Consciousness', as long-ago the brainchild of Wallace's primary establishment. Material related to extraneous qualms are outlines below. First it should be clear that from the perspective of primary ISP scientist Wallace, there has never been any proposition of raising another belief system for the ISP project, by way of establishing a replete map of research confidence: in practice pertaining to clearly defined projects of an established science of consciousness. The ISP (with a byname of International 'Dynamic Equilibrium Project', and the abbreviation: 'DynEq' *2) not only includes larger mutual practice representations from deeper discoveries of science within culture, of co-extensive archetypes: a synthesis of ancient to contemporary practice (the Sanskrit construct expressing this is Maha-Ati, as together with the protocols of epistemic dialectics, of equanimity in wisdom; evolved as a mutual synthesis-model of consciousness studies (not just in terms of the conceptual lexicon); with historical development prior to and after Buddha in all-related foundations of culture. Mutual sources for these notations are a world heritage of equilibrium praxis clearly never an advocation of a further materialist or spiritual belief-system. With regard to dialogues on quantum-woo, Wallace and the consensus have consistently raised standards from the outset of research, through being optimally critical (not hyper-critical) on bias in science, as valid cultivation by the ISP synthesis of practices well-founded in an equanimity and profundity of practical wisdom. The conducted research is qualified by foundational postulates and definitions both explicit and implicit, of profound 'quantum-science' comprehensions (up to and including quantum physics) specifically established by the larger International Shamatha Project ('Int. Dyn.Eq. Project') and essential corroboration by other primary projects and branch science that have engendered such a 'mindfulness introspective'. The parallels to these outlines were first long-ago concertedly and devotionally defined in the Sanskrit language and its foundations for linguistic science, as primary roots of valid Indo-European and other language, culture and science. The Sanskrit Atiyoga (or Maha-Ati) progression from its beginnings (one primary source for the pragmatism of DynEq by such empirical outlines of praxis), denotes an innermost foundational synthesis of consciousness studies; as knowledge in practice (e.g. pertinent to peace-keeping and peace-building, outlining a cosmogony of inner and outer science); as an ancient to contemporary scientific outline of correlated research praxis (with generic phases of exploration, expressing an epistemic wellspring of qualified DynEq; including dialogical structures at the foundations of linguistics). Such profound non-contradictory features of 'introspective consciousness', embody the working principles of DynEq, as contemporary and learned experiential philosophy of consciousness: otherwise it could be called 'quantum woo'. Nor is there complacency in understanding such reliable knowledge by nature of those quantum realisations founded as all-interdependent levels of reality; but as such, scientists of that concerted research attend to multi-related epistemic dimensions of discovery being authentic aspects and modes of practice; of epistemic narration in tune with direct exploration and ex-pedition of those dimensions of consciousness. These are also phases and formats of experiential-philosophy in four genres: (1) experiential principles; (2) dialectics and epistemology; (3) salutary embodiment of creative praxis (known by various quintessential concepts such as 'foundations of culture'), including present Jungian perspectives of definitive internal-healing, of imagination-deficit disorder; and (4) intuition: the historical quantum-layer of such praxis (as a definitive form of quantum intuition in relation to what MB Menski outlines). In parallel are deeper and deeper correlations of import to the various maps as interconnected epistemic branch-science research-phases (esp, in the mind and cognitive sciences). ISP research outlines as correlated to extensive presidents in comparative-research preservation, therefor a century ago, emerged with various weaves on such corroborative discovery in western and all-related foundational science; very well documented as an evolution of primary understanding integral to DynEq praxis: that of conative, attentional, cognitive, and emotional intelligence; now with appropriate placement as mutual foundations of branch culture and science. These foundations of research acumen, comprise unique layers of scientific wisdom and knowledge in progress; transcending idealistic projection on empirical working-hypotheses. From consciousness studies in these present-centered phases, a generic branch-science symmetry has emerged both from the perspective of quantum cosmogony, and practices of DynEq. The Maha-Ati historical development of both theory (epistemic inquiry) and practice as contemporarily presidents of nurture, by West and East, are therefore mutual embodiments of vision quest (and thus in salutary representation by Wallace), and wellspring of historical representation, of essential principles intricately relating to the explicit historical research presidents: as contemplative science par excellence. The presented spectrum of practices correlating such a synthesis of meditative science and western phenomenology, has emerged as sufficient part of mainstream science in its aspirational research. The humility of that research is also due to devotion in the Himalayan-Sanskrit preservation of this related-knowledge, thankfully of celebrated aspects of purpose; as on the Buddhist and related perspectives, the Maha-Ati and DynEq synthesis (as ancient to contemporary expressions of 'quantum science' and not: quantum woo) of learning principles is both a personal and interdisciplinary vision-quest of practice to internal healing and outer flourishing; understood after the foundational evolvement of such dialectics to properly express and attain to such discoveries of mental development: as implicate level of accomplished understanding of interpersonal scientific acuity; as normative epistemic vision quest since the celebration of William James as a primary father of both psychology and its philosophy. Absurd criticisms in mention of 'dualism' with respect to ISP methodology (not 'method-olotory' as absurd rhetorical aspects of scientism), for that foundational science, correlates illuminating answers most pertinent to the authentic notation pertaining to insight apropos those dimensions of consciousness: such a discussion relates to the subjective/objective perspectives, and also to trans-relative processes of such ex-pedition as both pragmatic and paradigmatic. A general lexicon of contemporary terms is therefor comprehended as intricate acuity reflecting that science and its assimilated dialectics. The most pertinent epistemic interconnections as expressions of original and contemporary Sanskrit science in this regard, is from the perspective of non-duality ('nonduality'): e.g. the substrate consciousness as background dimension (also in the Vedic Advaita philosophy); that in ISP maps, is a portal of integrated relative and meta-relative factors. The discussion of these protocols with Wikipedians, has in ways solved qualms on standard of deeper or more general interpretation, dialogue, and debate; where previously this process has taken place over both history to the present, and specifically over four decades. With regard to prior discussions that pertain to general readership of branch science understanding and quantum physics are also of the interactive Buddhist and parallel dialogue qualified by layers of mutual ethics. With respect to research since the 70's, these topics have with great merit properly transitioned and demystified by way of contemporary mind-science perspectives of epistemic qualification and simplicity of that higher research, with integral praxis fully qualified by ethics, corroborative to mutual findings among the branch-sciences. That is, with larger integrity by every public phase of prior and post ISP science dialogue. Through the contributions of ISP syntheses, an historically objective pragmatism of methodology has transpired as contemporary, as 'epistemic' to exploration and discovery with respect to dimensions of consciousness; these have been excellently discussed in president publications and conference phases relating to branches of neuroscience and quantum physics by Atmanspracher and a plethora of others to most enlightening current conclusions. Further outlines in relation to this are worthy of mention as up-to-date details with no controversy between contrastive sides of dialogue. These details should have previously been clearer as dialogues on the outlines of ISP merit, and there was delay caused by various qualms on this integral document by its structure of outlining syntax meriting even further edit preliminary to proper discussion. Precise sources also did not accompany these records, but after all, there are so many various that as suggested in this document needed thoroughgoing cooperative analysis to mutual purpose. Previously, just two parallel references were already placed for discussions as representative basis of international sources: some of the details were already long-present on the Dialogue Forum page of this website in relation to the ISP Presidents bio page. ​As directed by Wikipedia policies, these aspects needed be clear although not unduly dogmatic for worthy contiguous and dedicated discussion by scientists in sense-making context; as furthering definitive reflections for science based on published empirical ISP and all-related developments of generic purpose. In simplicity, the ISP related research-lexicon functional of both higher and general research presentation, does not in any way transgress the semantic-linguistic constraints, or those of any other discipline; thus, there are no such discrepancies to acknowledgement in biographic outline. The answers to previously unqualified qualms, have long transpired in public debates through that epistemic integrity. Therefore, the deepest questioning on qualms have most clearly been solved to the best of merits through various branch-science symmetry and complementarity. The intricate wording is also of historical to contemporary validity, supportive of replicable working understanding as the real possibilities of such transformational science quest: as primary historical and contemporary science findings. The document on a 'Science of Consciousness' has undergone many sufficient edits and peer review in its various purpose-giving functionality, especially in terms of the deeper explicit purposes clarifying the perspectives of epistemic first-person and interpersonal outlook. Understanding these simplicities, as they are simply taught conceptually and practicably, are the requisite technical comprehensions including the asking of general questions on 's/gTOR' quantum correlation. A proposed SciCVN Wikipedia forum on the 'Science of Consciousness' has outlined clear protocols and principles of simplicity (intricate though they may be), as guides to foundations of integral scientific and cultural ethics (hermeneutics) in relation to discovered innate foundations of science possible to elucidate for the benefit of humanity. The nominated Wikipedia article, correlates what are working hypotheses of effort from beginnings of the Shamatha Project, concerning integral practice toward adjustments or attenuation of what may be called: quantum woo, as the concerted research into foundational aspects of empirical science (there again, not 'over-formulaic'). What astute philosophers and scientists know generally as consciousness studies, is of no contrast to Dr. Wallace's qualified progress, that poses no contrary to fundamental scientific and pragmatic findings and aspirations (adept positions of aspiration of great clarity proven by generic-principle). Care-giving acknowledgement is of empirical validity in meaningful associated dialogue. The outlines mentioned, especially on primary consultations of the 'g/s/TOR' ontological theory are also contributions and historical consensus in dialogues with a host of other pioneers. As a most pertinent outline of emergent world-view, the successful DynEq qualified-working-hypothesis in its various forms of network science practice, relate to Wallace's two 'ontological theories of relativity' ('s/gTOR'). 1. A byname for: General and Special Theories of Relativity, as 'g/sTOR', was nominated as far back as 2010 by SciCVN.org support initiatives. This entered usage at the same time in circulated aspects of commentary on the ISP project. 2. A byname for: Dynamic Equilibrium, as 'Dyn.Eq' , and the International Shamatha Project (ISP) as 'International Dynamic Equilibrium Project', was nominated as far back as 2010 by SciCVN.org support initiatives, and then known to enter usage by Wallace in collaboration with Dr. P. Eckman to define parts of the CEB training. Other general outlines as records in relation to the bio, are toward further placement here again on this site for editing, then to replace on the Wiki Talk page according with questioning on re-editing. (The following three clauses are copied at the top of the page) According to the SciCVN support model of notable progressions, one qualification of the ISP Presidents knowledge is a first-class background of model-U.N. peace-building, supported by intercollegiate pragmatic research corroboration configuring necessary understanding for foundational purviews of trans-disciplinary science. This is aptly phrased as 'inner and outer peacekeeping and peace-building', parallel to ancient and contemporary 'inner and outer science' in relation to such 'mindfulness-introspective' of qualified floursihing. This was something that remained for a while not even accurate, with a derogatory word expert remaining on its own. It would be incongruous if in these contextual subjects one were an expert without in some way being a pioneer. 'B. Alan Wallace is an American research pioneer with respect to the dedicated Buddhist and general foundations of science and culture ('pragmatic intercultural-hermeneutics').' This is qualified by a defining proviso in modern scholarship that the 'ist' part of 'Budd' is a forien way of phrasing, present in the basic given sources: there is ten no grounds for predudice relating to secular foundations of culture. Any such guidelines require placement in context of the intricate context. ​ (Further specific questions in relation to the wording of outlines in the following outline are welcomed, that will ell edit it, although the sources as explained are most integral to understanding). © SciCVN, 27th Sept. 2015 and as previous edits. A nominated Wiki-presentation on the: Science of Consciousness Founding contributions of research toward a science of consciousness, relate to established qualitative and normal faculties and functions of the mind-psyche and mapped dimensions of consciousness itself, in conjunction with a broader interface of epistemic and instrumental means included as 1st, 2nd, and 3rd-person guiding means in an empirical 3-dimensional science of the mind (and integral contemplative-neuroscience as pioneered in collaboration with the UCDavis Centre for Mind and Brain, *1 as the most comprehensive study to date on the effects of meditation on the mind and body). The interface was established through an initial Shamatha Project (representing the higher foundational and developmental research on the ‘mindfulness-introspective’), that after its foundational successful results expanded into the International Shamatha Project (ISP: with 'International Dyn.Eq. Project', *2 nominated as a byname of research by SciCVN.org). The project (2007) in its basic outlines, was due to the interdisciplinary determinations of B. Alan Wallace, a primary practitioner and scholar of the higher and evolutionary scientific research on mindfulness, in cooperation with a community of dedicated researchers in the U.S.A (supported by consultant scientists worldwide); who intuited the meditation- training programmes for the Shamatha Project, serving as guiding mentor for experimentation during three-month intensive comparative research symposiums of various control groups to the study. A lexicon of dedicated and guiding terminology in its mutual definitions of purpose among related interdisciplinary research traditions (as the basis of dialogue), has been brought into being over the last half-decade by the ISP, having grown as an evolved branch-science interface of intricate research-dialogue. The natural-language (NL) interfaces of network practice (along with their principles of validation) express a valid contemporary-lexicon, longitudinally pioneered, and consensually guided by standards of epistemic scrutiny; conducted by general research-guidelines of primary import as a responsibility of Dr. B. Alan Wallace in conjunction with a larger network of founding scholars and organisations in parallel-fields of science. It should be noted first-off that as he does not advocate yet another belief system for science, or spirituality, and the extraneous remarks formerly in a ‘criticism’ section of his Wiki (now not present, and duly kept as records on the Talk page, and this is proper in that Wallace is a primary founder pertaining to the introspective branch of 'contemplative neuroscience') were kept there without visible intervention, looking like a kind of counter-intuitive joke; a Zen Koan on humility (the discrepancies were therefor aptly documented with some concern for overseeing by UNA UK and other legal organisation so that concerted progress can be made). *3 The ISP is original in its dedicated non-sectarian functional phrasings, clearly comprehensive of what is included in the scientific working-hypotheses that a science of consciousness maps. This is of greatest approval, through its mapping of scientific aspirations included in the authors manifold publications such as a Contemplative Science of the Mind, related to prior historical phrasing as a natural philosophy of mind: a prior entry for science in much the same way scientists used to be called natural philosophers. New disciplines have concertedly evolved out of such extensive pragmatic nurture and paradigmatic shift into a world-view of interdependent dimensional realities, with such comprehension definitively known in positive and affective psychology, contemplative-neuroscience, social science, and other branch-sciences of empirical association to a science of consciousness; as a world-view of such presidents to a functional interface that is a quantum-world-view of science in its developmental and paradigmatic shifts (functionally expressed as integral, not least by MB Mensky’s principled guidelines): as branch-science collaboration that acknowledges MB Menski’s principled and called-for empathetic recommendations (specifically published in 2005 and 2010 by the Russian Academy of Sciences, Physics journal) of mutual collaboration, sufficient to be expressed by a natural language (NL) synthesis of propositional-calculus. That interface then indicates a high-level consultation on co-emergent templates of insight into a world-view relative to quantum-cosmogony, by way of nurturing practical interfaces of foundational corroboration; in dialogue and consideration of developmental-templates as contemporary projects of basic generic contemplative-inquiry: that is, through reliably discursive outlines in view of quantum-shifts of perspective on manifold scientific realities. These also consist of research protocols and principles, of guiding exploration of deepening insight with reliably established standards as functional roles clearly established by the 'Int. Dyn.Eq. Project'. It accompanies its prior collaborative and international research-history of interdisciplinary dialogue (since the 1970’s), serving to elucidate primary postulates and topics of historically related concern. Work on the interfaces of both secular and spiritual ethics are highlighted concerns, bearing clear presidents as worthy protocols for an ‘inter-faith’ of reliability for cooperative factors that equally improve standards in relation to both spheres; where since the nineteenth century there has in fact been a slow paradigmatic-lessoning of confusion (developmental shifts) with respect to such an introspective interface: but in parallel to global aspects of intransigence and lacks of caring attentiveness or progress in explicitly practical remedial-work on a corresponding world-view of the material eco-substrate. 1. For detailed information related to the Shamatha Project and its findings, visit: http://mindbrain.ucdavis.edu/labs/Saron/shamatha-project and: http://www.sbinstitute.com/shamathaproject.html: 2. Dynamic equilibrium (byname: ‘Dyn.Eq.) being a contemporary term determined by Wallace as most intricately related to near attainment of Shamatha, and the goal of exceptional mental balance. 3. On Wikipiedia, since a last view in Sept. 2015, and for some years previous; omitted in Sept., in order to avoid recurrence of biased formats and science mis-information relating to that 'master scientist' of the ISP and all-related concern. Update 25 Sept. 2015 © SciCVN.org Introduction to Ontological Relativity I: The exploration of scientifically tested paths for psychological and other integral types of flourishing and exceptional mental balance, is indeed credible in contrast to incredible, extraordinary but not incomprehensible. This is by way of evolved explicit of principles and protocols attenuating what has been phrased as ’quantum-woo’, in relation to empirical qualitative quantum-shifts of science and their evolved working hypotheses. Those principled aspects of network practice have signified the lessening of cognitive-fusion or speculation in terms of ‘secondary experimental anomalies’ of ‘dynamic equilibrium’s practice’, and in terms of deep-psychology. This is similar to Sono Shamdasani (Editor) and Hollier’s (commentator) *4 <site some pre and post lectures> elucidations, dispelling confusion, prior to and after 2009, on profound significations pending from the findings of Jung’s missing treatise (the ‘Red Book’); dispelling a mainstream of psychological scientific and common illusions of knowledge with respect to the whole era and beyond of Jung and Freud. Such reflections are significant to definitive phases of integral mental development (as integrated sequences of evolving practice). It is then most acceptable that the theory of complementarity (as well-defined by Jung and Pauli), primarily applies to those developmental modes and paradigm-shifts (from dream-like anomalies) into transparent empirical modes of interpersonal percipient understanding. ‘gTOR’ and ‘sTOR’ Outlines The ISP ‘General and Specific theory of Ontological Relativity’ (with an ‘g/sTOR’ byname), including a theory of interdependence, space, and vacuity, is well-formed as parallel complementarity within levels of reality in their aspects of quantum science, accompanying expression originating from pan-Buddhist and related wisdom pertaining to a ‘relative and absolute space of phenomena’. Complementarity is an aspect of both experiential-philosophy and quantum physics, e.g. in terms of: ’meaningful spaces of experience at the interface between mental states and the psychophysical world of definitive quantum shifts in generic science’. Harold Atmanspracher in neuroscience at the Jung Institute has published with mainstream acknowledgement as consistent dialogue of integrity toward a science of consciousness, with inferential and epistemic calls of that research being consistent and meaningful instantiations of mind-body inquiry; according to full investigation regarding the pertinent dimensions of extraordinary and profound experience in consciousness studies. The international forum of ongoing conference itinerary contributes to primary determinations of mind-science, of pragmatic nature and function, as a valid developmental world-view of meditative attainment in first-person practice, and secondarily to what are anomalous and extraordinary phenomena until understood properly by the discovered first-person means made available. Confirmation-bias and errors of inductive inference are what are dispelled in the principled development of ‘Dyn.Eq.’ (shamatha) practice and training, and from a quantum-holistic science perspective configured by an explicate-implicate cosmogony; both ordinary and quantum science qualified by a concurrent ‘s/gTOR’ map of gradient psychophysical development: as generic vision-quest understood. That empirical perspective then remains as necessary and satisfactory for configuration as a science of consciousness, of ‘tri-person perspective’. The following statement is from back-cover of ‘Contemplative science; where Buddhism and Contemplative Science Converge’ by Dr. Wallace: ‘A copy should go to every scientist--both physical and contemplative--in the land’. --The Scientific and Medical Network. The acknowledgement is pertinent to cross-disciplinary branch-science complementarity realised by the corroborative background of primary research. In that background and foreground of qualified synthesis, insight, development, and discovery, principles of agreement on optimal phenomenological methods have long-been refined as emergent, that empirically transpire aside from reified scientistic-assumptions from perspectives of science or spirituality (neuroscience or deep psychology). The contemporary scientific discoveries with regard to four empathetic-factors of cultivation, are those that bond the factors of Dyn.Eq., authentic well-being and happiness, and a robust psychology of flourishing: pragmatic findings of plain extraordinary nature. In the dialogues of research, it was clear from the beginning to Wallace and the cross-disciplinary community of scholarship, that the construction of a further belief-system does not figure either in a science of consciousness (as proposed by him), or at least among the three phases of Buddha’s teachings (‘three turnings of the dharmic wheel’): as an outline pertinent to each contemporary topic of ISP discursive teaching, with emergent principles on developing empirical kinds of awareness (percipience) perfectly-attuned as an instrument. Historically, one tested part of Buddha’s communal research followed another, transforming into tried and tested foundations of culture and cultivation. In essence, this is the ethical foundation and direction for first-person and interpersonal contemplative-science, as a primary evolution of interdisciplinary-science. Thus, the genres related by Dyn,Eq. and its discovered generic-definitions of exceptional mental balance, are based on an a variety of innately-related disciplines; branches of both knowledge and science, as a world-view of applied practice in the complementary genres of: experience, reason, imagination, and intuition. The advanced Jungian-maps that develop on therapeutic-practice in the genre of imagination (development of active imagination), counter that phrased by Wallace as the ‘imagination-deficit’ (as an adjunct to the ‘Wallace syndrome': obsessive compulsive delusional disorder OCDD), and are complemented by well-expressed templates of consciousness studies as yogic and other inner and outer science disciplines in common (esp. the science of lucid dreaming). A qualification of Jungian research is its proto-contributions to that cross-disciplinary science, arising from initialised ‘experiential-truths’, both discursive and non-discursive; as generic principles relevant to a ‘contemplative science of the mind’. The ‘Special Theory of Ontological Relativity’ relates to comparative stages of inner scientific development and attainment (the above publication was the primary work that expounded on these postulates). Intro to Ontological Relativity II: In the same perspective as a theory expressing the conservation of mass/energy: when the ‘course mind’ is not active it does not just dissolve into a nothingness--or into a composite of different nature to itself--but can be understood as dissolving into a substrate of consciousness; vis a vis, an underlying subtle-continuum of cognisance and luminosity. No research has actually inferred aspects of consciousness actually emerging from neurones and electrons (that is research-specific jargon); there still are no actual tests for choosing or validating among various classes of physicalist assertion: that the mind is either a function of, an emergent property of, or of equivalence to brain activity; thus, not being testable scientific theories they remain as conjecture (if reified they become metaphysical assumptions). The textbook, ‘irreducible Mind: Toward a Psychology for the 21st Century’. written by a whole team at Virginia University: ‘presents empirical evidence that reductive materialism is not only incomplete but false.’ By way of the integral research-breakthroughs and their sane international dialogues, unnecessary and false prejudice imputing controversy and philosophical difference on consciousness studies is solved; the principled elucidation of which does not veer from reasoning and empirical-standards of research-dialogue established in Chomskian linguistics, semantics, or from realist principles of cognitive science. ISP findings conclude that a perfect symmetry in that world-view has become scientifically explicate, of an integral substrate consciousness as together with its substrate: just as the substrate (space of mind and its contents) is regarded as a field of information (Sir John Wheeler’s definitions). Dr. Wallace further qualifies this with the postulate of a life force (jiva, an intimately related factor to the nexus of bio-energetic factors, bio-energies, and consciousness; epistemically gauged by yogic adeptness and foundational factors in Tai-chi): as co-extensive with that substrate. This factor is related to the subtle yogic template of bio-energies, in their being both physical and immaterial, like electromagnetic fields and other tangible scientific phenomena such as Hilbert space. *1 Wallace’s publication of Mind in the Balance, 2009 (p.108), publishes these outlines as a knowledgeable template: the life force as a field of information is meaningfully correlated to research on the ’nature of sentient life in the universe’, *2 (p.118), and in this sense to both an information configured space and a non-conceptual nature of substrate consciousness; that is, more fundamental than the conceptual constructs of matter or mind-psyche; considered in quantum experimentation as figuring among fundamental building-blocks of the universe. These are of thoroughgoing investigation by way of primary experimentation of consensual agreement through exhaustive debate on such ontological relativity: as pragmatic modes of research into aspects of ‘non-paranormal’ phenomena. All those postulates including the postulate of life force, that correlate with essential aspects of most basic contemplative-practice, are then separate domains of experimentation that contemplatives in professional training are bearing in mind with pragmatic outlooks toward the accomplishment of sound and purposeful phenomenological methods. Both the Alaya Test (or byname: ‘individuated-substrate’ test), and that of the life-force (jiva), are separate features of ISP experimental templates. The life-force is an important postulate to mention in being attributed as the psychophysical energetic continuum of the deeper awareness, and in the Mahayana research tradition well understood as the postulated repository of memories, mental traits, behavioural patterns; as a configuring causal-factor possible for physical marks of evidence in a plethora of scientifically correlated evidence on rebirth from one life to another (the dedicated forty years of research by Jim Tucker). This does not mean that premises such as a Buddhist theory of rebirth is then to be construed as a reified belief system; but to the contrary, a mentored practice of transformational consciousness and remains an integral spiritual view, with its ongoing testing from the inside-out of congruent postulates (embedded into the framework of mutual quintessential practices), as primary science resources of concerted illumination: when the jiva postulate becomes embodied, and there are clear scientific-senses when consciousness is not, it is simply ’influenced by the experiences and behaviour of the life-form with which it is conjoined.’ (p.108). Mind in the Balance (2009), elucidates seven years of experimentation on unique patterns and signatures of consciousness that are predictive-factors; e.g. unique and subtle aspects of explicate-individuated substrate-consciousness, as they are being measured by specific-inferences belonging to MRI-scan experimentation *2 and other means. This has obviously been taken seriously in relation to the now 40 year-old contemporary science of lucid dreaming (not to mention the pre-nineteenth-century western-science research determinations and beyond), and to empirical analogies of rebirth according to the vast extent of paranormal phenomena that have been explicit objects of integral scrutiny (including time-honoured respectful experimentation at monastic-university level). However, these dialectics of scientific orientation are relevant to a basic expression of shamatha methods, as basic templates of meditative attainment. What if such precise signatures were able to be matched with another-life at a future time, then what? Because of the accrued evolution of integrity among actual practitioners of a co-extensive meditative discipline, there would be no false-pride lost or complacency won as accompanying greater breadths of humility displayed by way of communal relations. However, none of such figuring is meant in contemplative ways of life as an object of superstition without connection to an empirically possible reality, and with that introspection it is specifically not the construction of a belief system. A further reasoning in practice is of qualifying meditative factors such as non-attachment to those other-worldly factors, or to an impracticable world-view. There are normal perspectives of focus in contrast to that regarded as paranormal or paradoxical; that have long-been of fully scientific scrutiny into a worldview of evidence to appreciate. The DNA-like signatures, especially in meditators, are especially stable-sources of contributive data, such as the registering of various meditative-signatures apropos empirical progress mapped; of modes correlating praxis by way of both defined working-hypothesis, and dimensions of mind clearly documented. It is then evident to speak normally of most meaningful introspective relations (qualified in non-judgemental or formulaic ways) in interdisciplinary forums of research communities and dedicated cultures, as there are qualitative protocols corresponding to definitive trans-formative-attainment; qualitatively verified not only by communities of adepts and yogins, but progressively through many decades now in collaboration with appropriate branches of science. Such experimentation has set standards that adequately dispel negative assumptions, through the facts of ‘empathetic-discipline’, open-minded knowledge, and consistent questioning to find truth. This attitude contrasts from circular hopes and fears of speculation, concerning ‘explanatory-gaps’. Implicit in these are an all round lessening of superstition that accompanies its 3D introspective science of explicate and implicate features, empirical in their world-view that does not originate from conceptual notions although the epistemic view occurs out of them (qualifying a mode bracketing illusions of knowledge as a blind-test in phenomenological method (elucidated by Husserl). Confidence or faith is then a part of introspection, giving inward safe-direction as a refuge to the mind and body (hands-folded): realities of such practice then are authentically motivated in mutually-congruent conative-ways (contextual definitions of conative-intelligence). Note: 1. Some topical outlines from International Shamatha Project (ISP) Spring sessions (28th April, 2011). Outlines for concluding paragraph: 30th April 2010 Phuket sessions on, ‘Explaining Mind and Brain’: ‘The mind exists, and it is something different than the brain’. 2. <from p.212> State-Dependent and State-Independent Features, NeuroImage 32 (2006): 283-292. Primary research papers by G. Tinguely, L.A. Finelly, H.P. Landholt, A.A Borbely, <Fr. accent> and P. Ackermann; ‘’Functional EEG Topography in Sleep and Waking. <Ed. Also as part of nominated Wiki-entries outlining a sci. of consc. and contributions to the cross-disciplinary project. These were preserved since the beginning of Sept 2015 on B. Alan Wallace's bio Talk page as outlines for re-editing.> © SciCVN.org Empirical and Experiential Foundations of the Dyn.Eq. (Shamath) Project The various assumptions that psyches of personal-history bring to the practices of dynamic equilibrium, means that motivation tends to be coloured by various conceptuality (hopes and fears, gender specificity, ethnic background, upbringing, etc.), by static representations amassed over the course of a lifetime configuring a particular psyche. Therefor, meditative sessions should involve a calming of conceptual-elaboration, so that the complex-instrument of consciousness is serviceable. Such questions of how the epistemic progress of consciousness is affected by the mind-psyche, is of rudimentary qualitative-relevance for Shamatha practices toward pathways of practice on the cusp of insight. When the discursive-mind has calmed, epistemic questions may then be asked of whether innate-awareness without the stirring of excitement or lethargy, is a nothing or something (out of which the gross mind has arisen).. If it is to the affirmative, then what is its nature? Does the delusion remain of imputing experience through clinging to impressions of the five sense-fields and more subtle energy fields in body, and what are the background processes of this occurrence? Are there extraneous impulses causing bias in the generation of both objective and subjective experience? If so, these are basic anomalies and normalities concerning proceeding the mindfulness introspective of reflection. Whatever our beliefs may be, vision quests pertaining to the deeper nature of consciousness, are in epistemic senses of cultivated mental focus, not intellectual-endeavours. In the science of lucid dreaming as also meditation, a core principle is in distinguishing conceptual elaborations from non-conceptual deeper modes of awareness, underlying that which is yogically phrased as a subtle-continuum of mental-consciousness in transition to mental stabilisation. Starting from a place of pragmatism, first-person extraneous conceptual and attitudinal-bias concerning innate cultural-possibilities of nature and nurture, are an object of considering human developmental-potential, with congruent empirical and secular perspectives as mediated by necessary and sufficient emergence of ethics. It is of functional care to highlight pure assumptions of knowledge made relating to mind having an identity as the brain, or in normal terms, a pure illusion. However, the extent to which mundane but not ordinary life is configured by extraneous destructive attachment to the physical plane, does not mean there are no entirely relevant dimensions of consciousness, mapped by working-hypotheses mapped by primary discoveries across science branches of endeavour. In analysis of excessive assumptions from the 17th c. century onwards, generalised attitudinal errors were starting to be of notice by various fathers of science, that things were not quite as they seemed amidst cognitive-fusion. Technological advances must also accompany mindful powers of stewardship and their proper use, free of extremes, efface recurrent delusional interpretation as materialistic-belief system based on hyper-speculation. Consensus may then directly enquire and facilitate answers to, what it is that obscures the dialogues on a generic-culture of awakening; and what the readily-available content of authentic dialogue is that transforms pitiful mistakes that are illusions of knowledge (‘mental-distortions’), with discerning wisdom. Contemplative-science experimentation has yielded an orientation process of thoroughgoing research, including longitudinal research-data that provides such a magnanimity of bone fide precedents for reliance on those principles related in consciousness studies. The tested data on the effects of empathy and compassion; mental health, exceptional mental balance and insight, skill and faculty development etc, all continue to demonstrate a definitive gradient of realisable standards and applications of consensually applied direction. The growing number people in the path of Tsunami storms on the planet who are the multitudes, those who are directly-affected by the subtle climate changes, are aware of how profoundly the dimensional climate is in need of the more profound rethink. This was voiced by thousands of unanimous scientists with valid consensual reason, at conferences such as the Copenhagen Conference (2014) on climate change. The grounds for a continuity on negotiating the collection of evidence is unprecedented, to preserve the momentum of selfless research on the nurture of conditions and mindful applications to help in those applied modes of dynamic equilibrium elucidated of consciousness. Dialogues in contemplative neuroscience have shown that brain by itself does not somehow or other give birth to consciousness. It does not emerge from neuronal configurations: as neurones come from neurones, nor do images, emotions, love, sadness, emerge from them. Christof Koch of the Karl Jung Institute, has carried out exhaustive research into the neural correlates of consciousness and acknowledges: ‘The characters of brain states and of phenomenal states appear too different to be completely reducible to each other.’ (Koch: The quest for Consciousness,18-19). Living up to the ideal of scientific scepticism and exploring the evidence is what is called for, with diligent and open-minded effort. Aside from conjecture, the basic hypotheses of a science of consciousness in one way or another have been longitudinally tested in pioneering research by way of both explicate and implicate knowledge. A naturally corroborative science would have progressed a whole lot better if the inner-science, the mind-science, was mutually determined as a first consideration in that history of paradigmatic-shifts. The basic grounds for those projects, are of course associated with experiential foundations of human and mental flourishing; as part of conscious evolution in contexts of empirically known methods in fathoming the deeper nature of reality, as real working scientific-hypotheses of research. Due to principle representations of Wallace and the dedicated longitudinal community of international scholars, the dimensions of consciousness, in view of a map of dynamic equilibrium concerning exploration of substrate consciousness itself known as the deeper-substrate of the psyche: this has been thoroughly researched, debated, investigated, and patiently ‘dredged’ by the modes of investigation in contemplative-science mutual practice over five sufficient decades; illuminating a deeper nature unspecific to human or animal species, and unspecific to conceptuality's of the psyche: not gender or ethnic-specific; and not configured by language-specific human expectations. An ordinary complexity of that nature is qualified by a map of psycho-physical development, beyond what is wrongly phrased as placebo or psyche, to a substrate consciousness phrased both for ordinary and mutually-extraordinary reasons as a stem-cell-consciousness configured by explicate and tangible imprints on it: including those of genetics and the acknowledged discoveries with respect to complex brain chemistry. Associated with the psyche are also a wide array of internal and external factors, that in psychological terms form ‘a complex’: as the appropriate Freudian term. By contrast, the Sanskrit term alaya-visnana, is aptly sourced and construed as substrate consciousness, and mutually related to other languages including the Indo-European. In Pali, a parallel postulate is of Bhavanga, as entry to the lexicon of epistemic inner-science, much assessed through manifold historical phases of experiential and experimental functionality. The nature of that research itself, is then of valid empirical-nature, as qualified by a three-dimensional-science of validation: both of first-person and interpersonal epistemic templates of empirical principle. These are the orientations phrased as Dyn.Eq. practices, inclusive of the broad-range of stages and modal pathways, of practice, qualified by achieved principles of insight. Such replicable discovery elucidates integral functions and features of substrate consciousness, more primal and foundational than personal conceptual-history. Deeper epistemic-correlations are included in what can be nominated as a quantum cosmogony of primordial ground, of relevance to a world-view of affiliated practice; aside from the phenomenal reification of ‘cognitive fusion’. Therefor, these other non-material dimension of consciousness as required foundational comprehensions for the bases of communal dialogue, is the clear comprehension of these (NL) terms of ordinary functionality, as consistent with the classical-contemporary psychological understanding of archetypes, and in more scientific terms as a ‘form-realm of archetypes’: as a configuring factor of the substrate consciousness and contents within ‘mental space of consciousness’. In first-person meditative assimilation, an ongoing flow of clear subtle awareness, as characteristics of cognisance and luminosity, are primary explicate characteristics of a ‘relative-ground-state of awareness’ (vis a vis: substrate consciousness); and beyond that individuation, to that posited as an implicate and non-contradictory, ‘ultimate ground-state of awareness’ or primordial-awareness: a quintessential level of nature. This is what is phrased, from the perspective of a broader bandwidth of practices, as the Buddha nature in Zen definitions of Mahayana practice, also defined as a primordial layer of consciousness in adept and valid qualitative-realisation. The relationship between that level of explanation and substrate consciousness, is wholly pragmatic in that the former postulate allows for a synthesis of key-aspects, and an interdisciplinary world-view in relation to a science of consciousness; otherwise not forthcoming among the individual standpoints of that communal world-view and cosmogony. The explicit complex-distinctions or qualitative-developmental factors, in regard to the above two generic outlines, are of import to both a foundational and essential integrity of that cosmogony; and the level of understanding is a well-elucidated synthesis of consistent principles and linked-practices to alleviate and transform ‘root-OCDD; as essential psychological factors of consideration. That innermost cosmogony is excellently expressed among each contrastive tradition of the ‘experiential-philosophy’ as a view of assimilation and accomplishment of contrastive and integrated means. In early Sanskrit knowledge this was aptly phrased as ‘innermost accomplishment’ (the Maha-Ati view); that is, a transformational-mode and of paradigmatic discovery: an apotheosis of wisdom. Multifarious Zen expressions contain essential research-records to that epistemic background: of integrative world-view and developmental praxis; as an epistemic template of consideration to non-contradictory insight. A general Buddhist and phenomenologically related definition of mind (as among salient relative characteristics of substrate consciousness) is regarded as a sufficient basis for understanding integral mental stability, as that which both illuminates and is cognisant (meditative luminosity and cognisance), as an explicate continuum of basic functioning: to illuminate and make manifest the qualia of all six senses aside from cognitive fusion, in relation to an inter-subjective worldview of dynamic equilibrium. As in the established science of lucid-dreaming, in related praxis, what directly-illuminates or makes-manifest the qualia of dream appearances (as purely non-physical postulates), is consciousness; that may become lucidly and aware of them with increasing epistemic-objectivity, and it is meditatively the same in relation to the external world at large (phenomenal) as experienced via the five senses; bearing in mind that colours are not viewed as directly-arising from neurones correlated to the material-substrate: look at a computer from behind the screen, and one notices that while appearances are arising on it, it is not that which is making them manifest. ‘There is a reason why scientists constantly preach that ”correlation is not causation.”. Untangling the tightly woven neural tapestry to discover what is real is one of the challenges scientists confront when crossing the mind-brain divide, linking the physics of excitable matter to ephemeral subjective, conscious experience, the most real thing there is.’ (Scientific American Mind, p.29, Jan./Feb. 2015) There was a great deal of sense in Freud’s assessment and stressing the importance of dreams being ‘relative states of delusion imputed as real’, although when the salient characteristics of consciousness are fathomed in the nature of three salient characteristics that are non-desirous bliss, luminosity, and non-conceptuality, it means that aspects of delusion have been to an extent dispelled. If there is no awareness of such cognitive fusion, in the same way as recognising a dream as a dream in its first-moment, this will act as cooperative cause for misapprehension of what is going on in successive moments. It is regarded that when these working-hypothesis are put into practice, it is profoundly transformative of conceptual beliefs, disbelief, faith and mundane-aspiration, inaccurately phrased as placebo-like effects because even those in relation to salt-tablets could more accurately be phrased as ‘mind-effects’ . *1 1. Phuket research, 30th April, 2010). © SciCVN.org May 2015, ect. to Sept. 2015 Integral Functions of a Science of Consciousness Included in the basic research aspirations of William James and Jung, were ways to map, understand, and assimilate the pragmatic potentials of ‘dynamic-equilibrium practice in its manifold forms (even though conclusions were at times were grossly inhibited), as no less than the insights of wisdom and compassionate attention to the human roots of psychological dilemma. These were founding roles for modern psychology and its philosophy, as humble beginnings of reliant first-principles on which all levels of scientists have provisionally collaborated, to further consensus at university-level in continuum since the end of the Victorian era as bridge to that applied developmental virtue. Such dedication is in parallel to quintessential and foundational derivative aspirations of Buddhist research (Theravada Mahayana, and Vajrayana as three contexts of dharma teaching), pertaining to contemporary praxis of inner science, with a common basis of outer discipline in mind, no less than an empirical-research orientation for human flourishing (as specifically outlined by cultivation of equanimity). Like in science it is for all its causes to thoroughly question underlying assumptions of interpretation, and then also to put into practice the conclusions of synthesis, based on verifiable introspection transforming the precedent theses into synthesis. Buddhist and related dedication of research in scientific modalities of dialogue, has been by way of thoroughgoing analysis as to the contrasts of view, assimilated through its explicit progress of contemporary research, common to a movement dating back to 4000-5000 years of evident contiguous effort, with extensive concurrence on the developmental and experimental templates of congruence (epistemic wisdom-gnosis): in that spirit of an empiricism elucidating the means of inter-personal realisation. Conative (of ‘innate aspiration’) application of the contemporary suffocated and rigorous inner-science means, has figured as a world heritage as art, science, and way of life, that bears a low noise-to-signal ratio of interactive bias; as introspectively supported by percipient mentorship (2nd-person, caring epistemic-stewardship) for first-person practical observation of consciousness, out of which the contemplative records have become progressively congruent and adequately verifiable in their outer epistemic expression. The guiding attainments and realisations of means, through applied practices of wisdom, have then also become discursively pragmatic as salient reliable praxis. Common roles in the caring empathy of that culture, also comprise purposes understood in the cultivation of equanimity, to directly alleviate anguish caused by deeper mental roots of internal distortion, destructive-attachment and frustration: the affects of which are all manifestations of disequilibrium. Extensive remedial work has been defined by profound levels of deeper concern, as consensus of communal interdisciplinary-science in which there are extensive callings to recognise non-dualistic consensus on precedent discoveries that define those dimensions of consciousness, and conducive templates of practice as ways of realising these; discovered to be available in first-person (interpersonal) experience. The profundity of those research dimensions are precedent progress for interdisciplinary curriculum studies. Epistemic principles for a science of consciousness have achieved a foundational and interdisciplinary role of configuring dialogue across branches of science (represented by Wallace’s key scientific text: ‘Contemplative Science: Where Buddhism and Neuroscience Converge’ and other works among 40 or so publishings), representing core developmental factors of pragmatic realisation correlating a higher-level-functioning ‘primordial consciousness’ in contrast to the primal and relative substrate-consciousness; by means of a synthesis of tested mental technology as also the epistemic-means of flourishing par excellence. These means are also scientifically qualified in their contemplative neuroscience of explicate and implicate discovery, conceptually and non-conceptually expressed as a synthesis defining gradient means for mapping mundane and supra-mundane epistemic-realisations as a generic scale of insight. These also correspond to course and subtle qualitative-levels of psychological, mental, and spiritual eudaemonia, and ethics as epistemic-experiential modes of knowledge and discipline expressed by contemporary parallels in ontological relativity. For the gifted neo-Platonist-as-mathematician Roger Penrose, the dimensions of such functional realisation are expressed as tangible expressions emergent out of a realm of pure-forms; and in adequate parallel dialogue correlating Buddhist narrative it is expressed as modes toward an innately accessible ‘form realm’ free of obscurations from the ‘desire realm’; sheer-archetypes of the natural world as expressive by natural language calculus (NL). The map of gradient forms pertaining to such mental development as deep psychology, are both qualitatively and quantitatively related to an essentially-relevant quantum view of science as illuminated by both a conceptual and non-conceptual working hypothesis of ‘interdependent relativity’. The synthesis of various advanced models is comprehensive of their intricate salient research documentation and branch-science correlation: as a deeper symmetry of epistemic inferential-and-direct-knowledge (Skt. pramana) expressing gradient development and configuration of ‘exceptional psycho-physiological balance’. This also yields a common-sense world-view of functional interactions concerning the abnormal material-world of relations, with a sane mental-balance of its subjects and objects, as together with a symmetry of non-dualistic paradigm- shifts by way of an objective functional view of substrate consciousness, of objective configuration. Note: The order of some outlines in these sections, follow on from a momentum of due dialogue of procedural inquiry, directly following on from a founding colloquium on Buddhism and Science at the Dept. of Physiology at Oxford University (Feb. 2010, and a plethora of other key conference work of collaborative elucidation). © SciCVN.org Updates: 23.3. / 20.8. / 27.8.2010/ Jan. ect. to Sept. 2015. These outlines are not those directly edited in ISP official presentations, and no matter how clear to intricacy they may be, these are dedicated preparatory SciCVN formulations; that should reflect technical and contextual accuracy through concerted reflection. Dialogue to further the intents are welcome. The important topical essays however have been circulated at every phase of their research, having followed advice where given, successful acknowledgements are due to the clarity of original sources.--DynEqMin (talk) 12:43, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Nominated Wiki-presentation on a Science of Consciousness (as long ago nominated and pioneered by Dr. Alan Wallace with international consensus); and also Comprehensions of the International Shamatha Project (ISP); Outlines in Dialogue, Research and Praxis (as pioneered by Dr. B Alan Wallace).

--DynEqMin (talk) 11:14, 5 September 2015 (UTC) A Science of Consciousness (as long ago nominated and pioneered by Dr. Alan Wallace with international consensus) Founding contributions of research toward a science of consciousness (higher definitive research on the 'mindfulness introspective'), pertain to established qualitative normal faculties and functions of the aspirational mind-psyche (in ISP established vocabulary as 'conative aspects') and its deeper dimensions of consciousness itself, in conjunction with a broader interface of epistemic and instrumental means included as 1st, 2nd, and 3rd-person guiding means: thus an empirical 3-dimensional science of consciousness (and integral contemplative-neuroscience as pioneered in collaboration with UCB,    *1    as the most comprehensive study to date regarding the effects of meditation on on mind and body). The interface was established through an initial Shamatha Project of the Santa Barbara Institute of Consciousness Studies (representing the higher foundational, developmental, and intuitive research on that ‘mindfulness-introspective’), after which, its foundational successful results expanded into the International Shamatha Project  (ISP: with 'International Dyn.Eq. Project'.   *2 The project (2007) in its basic outlines, was established by the interdisciplinary determinations of Dr. Alan Wallace, a primary practitioner and pioneer of contemporary scientific research on mindfulness, in cooperation with a community of dedicated researchers in the U.S.A and worldwide. Based on the extensive and dimensional elements of empirical breakthrough, teacher-training programmes for the Shamatha Project and other extensive organisation have been validly established, with Wallace as fully qualified interdisciplinary science master of such research. A lexicon of dedicated and guiding terminology in its mutual definitions of purpose among related interdisciplinary research traditions (as the basis of dialogue), has been brought into being over the last half-decade through the Shamatha project research, having grown as an evolved branch-science interface of intricate dialogue. The natural-language (NL) interfaces of network practice (along with their principles of validation) express a valid contemporary-lexicon, longitudinally pioneered, and consensually guided by standards of epistemic scrutiny; conducted by general research-guidelines of primary import as the long-term responsibility (4 decades) of Dr. B. Alan Wallace in conjunction with a larger network of founding scholars and organisations in parallel-fields of science. The established principles in no way advocate yet another belief system for science, or spirituality; and claims that others do not accept such 'beliefs' in this instance is an error dispelled in dialogues from the outset, like a Zen Koan on humility: this is because a belief system, philosophical bickering, or quantum woo has not been  engendered amidst the intimations of such an experiential science and philosophy.   *3   The ISP is original in its dedicated non-sectarian functional-phrasings, that are clearly comprehensive of what is included in the scientific working-hypotheses that a science of consciousness maps. The originating scientific aspirations included in the authors manifold publications such as a Contemplative Science of the Mind, relate to prior historical phrasings: a natural philosophy of mind, was a prior entry for science in much the same way scientists used to be called natural philosophers. New disciplines have evolved out of such pragmatic nurture and paradigmatic shift into a world-view of interdependent dimensional realities, with a comprehension definitively emergent in positive and affective psychology, contemplative-neuroscience, social science, and other branch-sciences of such empirical association; as world-view of such presidents to a functional interface also contributive to a quantum-world-view of science in its own developmental and paradigmatic shifts (expressed in MB Mensky’s principled guidelines): as branch-science collaboration that acknowledges MB Menski’s principled and called-for empathetic (Mahayana) recommendations (specifically published in 2005 and 2010 by the Russian Academy of Sciences, Physics journal), for empirical content that can be sufficiently expressed by a natural language (NL) synthesis of propositional-calculus. That interface then indicates a high-level consultation on co-emergent templates of insight into a world-view and cosmogony. Nurturing such practical interfaces of foundational corroboration, in dialogue and consideration of the developmental-templates, are contemporary projects of basic generic contemplative-inquiry: that is, through reliably discursive outlines in view of quantum-shifts of perspective on manifold scientific realities. These also consist of research protocols and principles, of guiding exploration of deepening insight, with reliably established standards as functional roles clearly established by the 'Int. Dyn.Eq. Project'. It accompanies its prior collaborative and international research-history of interdisciplinary dialogue (since the 1970’s and continuing from previous integral scientific deliberations), serving to elucidate primary postulates and topics of historically related concern. Work on the interfaces through both secular and spiritual ethics are highlighted concerns, bearing clear presidents as worthy protocols for an ‘inter-faith’ of reliability, for cooperative factors that equally improve standards in relation to both spheres; where since the nineteenth century there has in fact been a slow paradigmatic-lessoning of confusion (developmental shifts) with respect to such an introspective interface: but in parallel to global aspects of intransigence and lacks of caring attentiveness or progress in explicitly practical remedial-work on a corresponding 'world-view' of the material eco-substrate. Introduction to Ontological Relativity I: The developmental and paradigmatic, exploration and discovery modes of scientifically tested paths for psychological and other aspects of integral flourishing rooted in exceptional mental balance, are indeed credible in contrast to incredible, extraordinary but basically comprehensible. This is by way of evolved explicit of principles and protocol attenuating what has been phrased as ’quantum-woo’, in relation to empirical qualitative quantum-shifts of science and their evolved working hypotheses. Those principled aspects of network practice have signified the lessening of cognitive-fusion or speculation in terms of ‘secondary experimental anomalies’ of ‘dynamic equilibrium’s practice’, and deep-psychology. Of note are Sono Shamdasani (Editor) and Hollier’s (commentator) elucidations, dispelling confusion prior to and after 2009, on profound significations pending from the findings of Jung’s missing treatise (the ‘Red Book’); dispelling a mainstream of psychological scientific and common ontological illusions of knowledge with respect to the whole era and established work of Jungians and Freudians. Such reflections are significant to definitive phases of integral understanding and mental development (as integrated transformations of evolving practice), as integral to the working hypothesis of substrate consciousness and it's epistemic configuration of dynamic equilibrium: a deeper ontology in meaningful contrast to postulates of the mind-psyche. It is then most acceptable that such a theory of complementarity (as well-defined by Jung and Pauli), primarily applies to conclusive developmental modes and paradigm-shifts (from dream-like anomalies of reality) into transparent empirical modes of interpersonal percipient understanding. ‘gTOR’ and ‘sTOR’ Intimations The ISP ‘General and Specific theory of Ontological Relativity’ (with an ‘g/sTOR’ byname *4), including a generic theory of interdependence, space, and vacuity, is well-formed as parallel complementarity in their aspects of quantum science, accompanying expression originating from pan-Buddhist and all related wisdom: that pertaining to a ‘relative and absolute space of phenomena’. Such complementarity is an aspect of both experiential-philosophy and quantum physics, e.g. in terms of: ’the meaningful spaces of experience at the interface between mental states and the psychophysical world of definitive quantum shifts in generic science’. Harold Atmanspracher in neuroscience at the Jung Institute has published with mainstream acknowledgement, on the consistent dialogues of integrity toward a science of consciousness, with inferential and epistemic calls of that research being consistent and most meaningful instantiations of mind-body inquiry; according to the principles of thorough investigation regarding pertinent dimensions of extraordinary and profound experience in consciousness studies. The international forums of furthering conference itinerary of integral relationship represent that mind-science of pragmatic nature and function, as an emergent developmental world-view of meditative achievements in first-person practice ('s/TOR'), and secondarily to what are the anomalous and extraordinary natural-phenomena, both implicitly and explicitly comprehended by the strait-forward discovered first-person means made available. Confirmation-bias and errors of inductive inference are what are directly dispelled in the principled development of ‘Dyn.Eq.’ (shamatha) practice and training, and from a quantum-holistic science perspective, configured by an explicit-implicit cosmogony; both ordinary and quantum science qualified by a concurrent ‘s/gTOR’ map of gradient psychophysical development: as generic vision-quest understood. That empirical perspective then is the necessary and satisfactory configuration of a science of consciousness (in its integral perspectives).   The following statement is from back-cover of ‘Contemplative science; where Buddhism and Contemplative Science Converge’ by Dr. Wallace: ‘A copy should go to every scientist--both physical and contemplative--in the land’.  --The Scientific and Medical Network. The acknowledgement is pertinent to that cross-disciplinary branch-science complementarity, realised by the corroborative background of primary research. In that background and foreground of qualified synthesis of insight, development, and discovery, principles of agreement on the natural language (NL) interfaces (expressing general and specific phenomenological methods) have then in contemporary senses been consensually researched for half a century, aside from abstracted (reified) scientistic-assumptions from the perspectives of science (e.g. neuroscience or deep psychology) or spirituality. The contemporary scientific discoveries with regard to four empathetic-factors of cultivation, also qualitatively define innate aspects of wisdom and caring attentiveness, that are reciprocal non-idealistic factors of ’Dyn.Eq.’, authentic well-being and happiness: a robust psychology of flourishing with pragmatic findings of plain extraordinary nature (exemplary embodiment in humans). In the dialogues of research, it was clear from the beginning to Wallace and the cross-disciplinary community of scholarship, that the postulation of a further conceptual belief-system was not the object of a science of consciousness, and at least among the three phases of Buddha’s teachings (‘three turnings of the dharmic wheel’, dharma referring to the deeper and deepest aspects of consciousness studies): as a dedicated generic outline pertinent to contemporary topics of ISP discursive mediation and teaching, with emergent principles on empirical kinds of awareness (percipience) also epistemically attuned. Historically, one tested part of Buddha’s communal research followed another, transforming into tried and tested foundations of culture and cultivation. In essence, these aspects embody such ethical foundations and directions for first-person and interpersonal contemplative-science, as a primary evolution of interdisciplinary-science. Thus, the genres related by Dyn,Eq. and its discovered generic-definitions of exceptional mental balance, are based on an a variety of innately-related disciplines; branches of both knowledge and science, as a world-view of applied practice in the complementary genres of: experience, reason, imagination, and intuition. The advanced Jungian-maps that develop on therapeutic-practice in the genre of imagination (development of active imagination), counter that which Wallace calls ‘imagination-deficit’ (as an adjunct to the ‘Wallace syndrome': obsessive compulsive delusional disorder OCDD), and are complemented by well-expressed templates of consciousness studies as yogic and other correspondent inner and outer science disciplines in common (esp. the science of lucid dreaming). A qualification of the Jungian and Freudian research is in their proto-contributions to that cross-disciplinary science, arising from initialised ‘experiential-truths’, both discursive and non-discursive; as generic principles relevant to a ‘contemplative science of the mind’. The ‘Special Theory of Ontological Relativity’ then relates to comparative stages of that inner scientific development and attainment (the above publication among others continue as primary works expounding on these postulates that accompany the foundational published papers of dimensionality, also in co-authorship). Intro to Ontological Relativity II:  In the same perspective as a theory expressing the 'Dyn.Eq' conservation of mass/energy: when the ‘course mind’ is not active it does not just dissolve into a nothingness--or into a composite of different nature to itself--but can be understood as dissolving into a substrate of consciousness; vis a vis, an underlying subtle-continuum of cognisance and luminosity. No research has inferred aspects of consciousness actually emerging from neurones and electrons (that is research-specific jargon); there still are no actual tests for choosing or validating among various classes of physicalist assertion: that the mind is either a function of, an emergent property of, or of equivalence to brain activity; thus, not being testable scientific theories they remain as conjecture (if reified they become metaphysical assumptions). The textbook, ‘irreducible Mind: Toward a Psychology for the 21st Century’. written by a whole team at Virginia University: ‘presents empirical evidence that reductive materialism is not only incomplete but false.’  By way of the integral research-breakthroughs and their sane international dialogues, unnecessary and false prejudice imputing controversy and philosophical difference on consciousness studies is solved; the principled elucidation of which does not veer from reasoning and empirical-standards of research-dialogue established in Chomskian linguistics, semantics, or from realist principles of cognitive science.  ISP findings conclude that a perfect symmetry in that world-view has become scientifically explicate, of an integral substrate consciousness as together with its substrate: just as the substrate (space of mind and its contents) is regarded as various fields (Sir John Wheeler’s definitions). Dr. Wallace further empirically qualifies this with the postulate of a life force: (jiva, an intimately related factor to the nexus of bio-energetic factors, bio-energies, and consciousness; epistemically gauged by e.g. yogic adeptness (including foundational factors in Tai-chi and Chi-gong, as symmetry of complementarity among internal-healing systems): as co-extensive with that substrate. Such factors are correlated by subtle yogic templates mapping the bio-energies, in their being both physical and immaterial, like electromagnetic fields and other tangible scientific phenomena such as Hilbert space. Wallace’s publication of Mind in the Balance, 2009 (p.108), publishes these outlines as a knowledgeable template: the life force as 'epistemic field' is meaningfully correlated to research on the ’nature of sentient life in the universe’ (p.118); and in this sense to both an information configured space and non-conceptual nature of substrate consciousness; that is, more fundamental than the conceptual constructs of matter or mind-psyche; considered in quantum reasoning as figuring among fundamental building-blocks of the universe. These are of thoroughgoing investigation by way of primary experimentation of consensual agreement through exhaustive debate on such ontological relativity: as pragmatic modes of research into aspects of ‘non-paranormal’ phenomena. All those postulates including the postulate of life force, correlating to essential aspects of most basic contemplative-practice, are then separate domains of experimentation that contemplatives in professional training are bearing in mind with pragmatic outlooks of reliably purposeful phenomenological methods. Both the Alaya Test (or byname: ‘individuated-substrate’ test), and that of the life-force (jiva), are separate features of ISP experimental templates. The life-force is an important postulate to mention in being attributed as the psychophysical energetic continuum of the deeper awareness, and now well understood as the postulated repository of memories, mental traits, behavioural patterns; as a configuring causal-factor possible for physical marks of evidence in a plethora of scientifically correlated evidence on rebirth from one life to another (the dedicated forty years of illuminating research by Jim Tucker). This does not mean that premises such as a Buddhist theory of rebirth is then to be construed as a reified belief system; but to the contrary, a mentored practice of transformational consciousness remains qualitative, with its ongoing testing from the inside-out of congruent postulates (also embedded into templates of mutual quintessential practices), as primary science resources of concerted illumination: when the jiva postulate becomes physically embodied, and there are clear scientific-senses when consciousness is not, it is simply ’influenced by the experiences and behaviour of the life-form with which it is conjoined.’ (p.108).   Mind in the Balance (2009), elucidates successive phases of foundational experimentation over time, on unique patterns and signatures of substrate consciousness belonging to each individual; e.g. unique and subtle aspects of explicate-individuated substrate-consciousness, as they are being mapped by specific-inferences belonging to MRI-scan experimentation and other means. This has obviously been taken seriously in relation to the now 40 year-old contemporary science of lucid dreaming (that was validly and somewhat explicitly inferred as a possibility by pre-nineteenth-century western-science research determinations), and to its empirical analogies of rebirth, labeled so because of a vast extent of what are normative paranormal phenomena, accompanying empirically developed forms of contemplative scrutiny (correlating deeper and deepest aspects of normative reality) as explicit objects of integral scrutiny (including meticulous and meaningful aspects of normative evidence from a whole millennium of experimentation by monastic-universities). The contemporary dialectics of scientific orientation are relevant to how principle methods of Shamatha are valid basic templates of meditative ordinary and extraordinary attainment (relevant to a worldview of exceptional mental balance). In most pragmatic terms, DNA-type signatures and a plethora of integral data from every relevant perspective, relate to the attainments of meditators (mental development) of exceptional mental balance), and are the primary stable-sources of ongoing contributive data; via modes correlating praxis by way of both defined working-hypothesis, and dimensions of mind clearly documented. It is then evident to speak normally of most meaningful introspective relations (qualified in non-judgemental or formulaic ways) by interdisciplinary forums of research communities and dedicated cultures (as in all proposed Contemplative Observatory C.O. projects of the International Shamatha Project); as qualitative communal and cultural protocols corresponding to definitive trans-formative-attainment; qualitatively verified not only by communities of adepts and yogins, but progressively through many decades now in collaboration with appropriate branches of mainstream formal science. Such experimentation has set standards that adequately dispel contrastive negative assumptions, through the facts of ‘empathetic-discipline’, open-minded knowledge, and consistent questioning to find truth. This attitude contrasts from circular hopes and fears of speculation, concerning ‘explanatory-gaps’: implicit in these are an all round lessening of superstition that accompanies its introspective science of explicate and implicate principal, empirical in its world-view, as together with bracketing possible illusions of knowledge, as blind-tests in phenomenological method (elucidated by Husserl). Empirical confidence as faith also accompanies that introspection (without philosophical bickering): realities of such practice transpire as authentically motivated in mutually-congruent conative modes (contextual definitions of conative-intelligence that clarifies aspiration at the foundations of culture). What if such precise signatures were able to be matched with another-life at a future time, then what? Because of the accrued evolution of integrity among adepts of meditative discipline, there would be no false-pride lost or complacency won (in that pragmatic meaningfulness) by way of communal secular and spiritual relations. However, none of such figuring is meant in contemplative ways of life as an object of superstition without connection to empirically congruent realities, and with that, introspection is specifically not the construction of a belief system. These are normal perspectives of focus in contrast to that regarded as paranormal or paradoxical; that have long comprised scientific scrutiny into a world-view of evidence. Foundations of the Dyn.Eq. (shamatha) Project: both empirical and experiential Various assumptions that psyches of personal-history bring to practices of dynamic equilibrium, at times tend to be coloured by various conceptuality (hopes and fears, gender specificity, ethnic background, upbringing, etc.); by static representations amassed over the course of a lifetime configuring a particular psyche (e.g. metaphysical illusions of knowledge relating to physical correlations etc, ect.). Therefore, meditative sessions involve modes of calming conceptual-elaborations, so that the complex-instrument of consciousness is first serviceable. Such questions of how epistemic (developmental) progress of consciousness is affected by the mind-psyche (observer-participance), is of rudimentary qualitative-relevance for Shamatha practices, to pathways of exploration on the cusp of insight (that involve deeper processes of epistemic-questioning, of vision quest). When the discursive-mind has calmed, epistemic questions may then be asked of whether innate-awareness, without the stirring of excitement or lethargy, is a nothing or something (out of which the gross mind has arisen). If to the affirmative, then what is its nature?  Does the delusion remain of imputing experience through clinging to impressions of the five sense-fields or more subtle energy fields in body or mind, and what are the background processes of this occurrence?  Are there extraneous impulses causing bias in the generation of both objective and subjective experience?  If so, these basic factors colour such conclusions. Whatever our beliefs may be, vision-quests pertaining to the deeper nature of consciousness, are in epistemic senses of cultivated mental focus, not of intellectual or scholastic nature. In the science of lucid dreaming and its Shamatha-meditation, a core principle is of distinguishing conceptual elaborations from non-conceptual deeper modes of awareness, underlying that which is yogically phrased as a subtle-continuum of mental-consciousness in transitions to mental-stabilisation. Starting from a place of pragmatism, first-person extraneous conceptual and attitudinal-bias concerning innate-possibilities of nature and nurture, is an object in consideration of human developmental-potential, and for those contemporary empirical perspectives of necessary and ethically sufficient impetus. It is of functional care to bear in mind basic illusions and assumptions of knowledge made relating to mind having an identity as the brain or any bias aspects in relation to consciousness studies. However, the extent to which mundane but not ordinary life is configured by extraneous destructive attachment to the physical plane, does not at all mean there are no entirely relevant dimensions of consciousness as mediative, mapped by working-hypotheses of primary discovery across various science branches of endeavour. Historical analysis of excessive assumptions from the 17th c. century onwards reveal generalised attitudinal errors were starting to be of notice by the various fathers of science, that things were not quite as they seemed amidst the various branches of cognitive-fusion since Aristotle. Technological advances must also accompany mindful powers of stewardship and their proper use, free of extremes, efface recurrent delusional interpretation as materialistic-belief system based on hyper-speculation. Consensus may then directly enquire and facilitate answers to, what it is that obscures the dialogues on a generic-culture of such awakening; and what the readily-available content of authentic dialogue is that transforms with discerning wisdom, pitiful mistakes that are illusions of knowledge.  Contemplative-science experimentation has already yielded an orientation process of thoroughgoing research, including longitudinal research-data that provides a magnanimity of bone fide precedents for reliance on principles specifically pioneered for consciousness studies. The tested data on the effects of empathy and compassion; mental health, exceptional mental balance and insight, skill and faculty development etc, all continue to demonstrate a definitive gradient of realisable standards, and applications of consensually applied direction in vocational studies (SciCVN specific outlines). The growing number people in the path of Tsunami storms on the planet who are the multitudes, those who are directly-affected by the subtle climate changes, are aware of how profoundly the dimensional climate is in need of the more profound rethink. This was voiced by unanimous science with valid consensual reason, at a continuum of conferences on climate change (including one in Copenhagen in 2014, ect, ect.). The grounds for continuity in implementing the remedies of evidence is unprecedented to mediate the root causes of negative awareness. Dialogues in contemplative neuroscience have shown that neural configurations do not somehow or other give birth to consciousness: neurones come from neurones, nor do images, emotions, love, sadness, emerge from them. Christof Koch of the Karl Jung Institute, has carried out exhaustive research into the neural correlates of consciousness and acknowledges: ‘The characters of brain states and of phenomenal states appear too different to be completely reducible to each other.’ (Koch: The quest for Consciousness,18-19). Living up to the ideal of scientific scepticism and exploring the evidence is what is called for, with diligent and open-minded effort. Aside from conjecture, the basic hypotheses of a science of consciousness in one way or another have been longitudinally tested in pioneering research by way of both explicit and its implicit knowledge. Science would have progressed a whole lot better if the inner-science, the mind-science, was mutually determined as a first consideration in that history of paradigmatic-shift. Basic grounds for the projects of consciousness studies, are of course associated with the experiential foundations of human and mental flourishing; as part of conscious evolution in contexts of empirically known appreciable methods; in fathoming the deeper nature of reality through tried and tested contemporary working scientific-hypotheses.   Due to principle representations of Wallace and a dedicated longitudinal community of international scholars, the dimensions of consciousness, in view of a map of dynamic equilibrium concerning exploration of substrate consciousness itself, known as the deeper-substrate of the psyche: this has been thoroughly researched, debated, investigated, and patiently ‘dredged’ by those modes of investigation in contemplative-science mutual-practice over five sufficient decades; illuminating a deeper nature unspecific to human or animal species, and unspecific to conceptuality's of the psyche: not gender or ethnic-specific; and not configured by language-specific human expectations. An ordinary complexity of that nature is qualified by a larger map of psycho-physical development, beyond what is wrongly phrased as placebo or psyche, to a substrate consciousness phrased both for ordinary and mutually-extraordinary reasons as a stem-cell-consciousness ‘configured by explicate and tangible imprints on it’, including those of genetics and acknowledged discoveries with respect to complex brain chemistry. Associated with the psyche are also a wide array of internal and external factors, that in psychological terms form ‘a complex’, as an appropriate Freudian term among the many others. Historical Feature: By contrast, the Sanskrit term alaya-visnana, is in layering’s of research aptly sourced and construed as substrate consciousness, such that it is emergent in other mutually related languages including the Indo-European family. In Pali, a parallel postulate is of Bhavanga, as entry to the lexicon of 'epistemic inner-science' (the integral inner and outer sciences and knowledge commenced before Gautama), much assessed through manifold historical phases of experiential and experimental functionality. SciCVN.org's remit has long nominated emphasis on inner and outer peace-keeping and building, as primary applications of that science (and abstract on which is a feature of the website). The nature of that research itself, is then of valid empirical-nature, as qualified by a three-dimensional-science of validation: beginning with non-distorted first-person, interpersonal, and epistemic templates of empirical principle. These are orientations phrased as 'Dyn.Eq' practices, inclusive in qualifying the broad-range of related stages and modal pathways of practice, qualified by achieved principles of insight. Such replicable discovery then elucidates integral functions and features of substrate consciousness, more primal and foundational than a persons conceptual-history. Deeper epistemic-correlations are included in what can be phrased as a quantum cosmogony of primordial ground; of relevance to a world-view of affiliated practice with scientific orientations: aside from phenomenal reification of cognitive fusion. Therefore, the background in these senses of non-material dimensions of consciousness, are required foundational comprehensions for the bases of communal dialogue, in clear comprehension of the evolved natural language (NL) functional terms; as consistent with the classical-contemporary psychological understanding of archetypes, and in more scientific terms, as a ‘form-realm of archetypes’ (akin to the intimations of Roger Penrose et al), that express and configure the conceptual framework for exploration of substrate consciousness.  Historic Features: There are many other definitions to include as basic models and outstanding features of comprehension. The characteristics of cognisance and luminosity, are primary explicate characteristics of a ‘relative-ground-state of awareness’ (vis a vis substrate consciousness); and beyond that individuation, to that posited as an implicate ‘ultimate ground-state of awareness’ or primordial-awareness: a quintessential level of implicate discovery that qualifies substrate consciousness. This is what is phrased, from the perspective of a broader bandwidth of Buddhist practices qualified by shamatha principles, as the Buddha nature in Zen-definitions of Mahayana practice; defined as a primordial layer of consciousness. The relationship between that level of explanation and that of substrate consciousness, is wholly pragmatic in that the former postulate allows for a synthesis of key-aspects, and an interdisciplinary world-view in relation to a science of consciousness; otherwise not forthcoming in previous history among the individual standpoints of that communal world-view and cosmogony. The explicit complex-distinctions or qualitative-developmental factors in regard to the above two generic outlines, are of import to both a foundational and essential integrity of that cosmogony. In normative pragmatic understanding, that level of understanding is however, a well-elucidated synthesis of consistent principles and linked-practices to alleviate and transform most deeply rooted mental afflictions of the mind (outlined by Wallace as the obsessive compulsive delusional disorder: OCDD); as essential psychological factors of procedural consideration that obscure those dimensions of reality. Such an innermost cosmogony is well expressed by such a synthesis of purposeful natural language of the ‘experiential-philosophy’, as a non-biased communal view of comprehensive assimilation and accomplishment of contrastive and integrated means. Since the earliest Sanskrit Buddhist knowledge this was aptly phrased as ‘innermost accomplishment’ (the Maha-Ati view); that is, a transformational-mode and of paradigmatic discovery: an apotheosis of wisdom. Multifarious Zen expressions contain essential research-records to that epistemic background: of integrative world-view and developmental praxis; as an epistemic template of consideration to non-contradictory insight. A general Buddhist and phenomenologically related science definition of consciousness (as salient characteristics of relative substrate consciousness) and basis for understanding integral psychophysical stability, is that which both illuminates and is of innermost-cognisance, as an explicate continuum of functioning (as internal system of healing): to illuminate and make manifest the qualia of all six senses aside from cognitive fusion; in relation to an inter-subjective worldview of dynamic equilibrium (bearing in mind that colours are not viewed as directly-arising from neurones correlated to the material-substrate: looking at a computer from behind the screen, appearances may be arising on it, but the screen is not making them manifest). As in the established science of lucid-dreaming, for related praxis, what directly-illuminates or makes-manifest the qualia of dream appearances (as purely non-physical postulates), is consciousness, that may become lucidly and aware of them with increasing epistemic-objectivity. In this there is also a parallel to specified discursive contemplative art, for cultivating empathetic aspects of exceptional mental balance in relation to the external world at large (phenomenal). ‘There is a reason why scientists constantly preach that ”correlation is not causation.”. Untangling the tightly woven neural tapestry to discover what is real is one of the challenges scientists confront when crossing the mind-brain divide, linking the physics of excitable matter to ephemeral subjective, conscious experience, the most real thing there is.’ (Scientific American Mind, p.29, Jan./Feb. 2015) There was a great deal of sense in Freud’s assessment stressing the importance of dreams being ‘relative states of delusion imputed as real’, although when the salient characteristics of consciousness are fathomed in the nature of three salient characteristics: non-desirous bliss, luminosity, and non-conceptuality, it means that aspects of delusion have been to an extent dispelled. If there is no awareness of such cognitive fusion, in the same way as recognising a dream as a dream in its first-moment, this will act as cooperative cause for misapprehension of what is going on in successive moments. It is of regard that these working-hypothesis are profoundly trans-formative of conceptual beliefs, disbelief, faith and mundane-aspiration, inaccurately phrased as placebo-like effects; because even those in relation to salt-tablets could more accurately be phrased as ‘mind-effects’ .* *Note: This relates to a topic of annual Thanyapura Phuket research, 30th April, 2010.  Integral Functions of a Science of Consciousness Included in the basic research aspirations of William James and Jung, were ways to map, understand, and assimilate the pragmatic potentials of ‘dynamic-equilibrium's practice' in its manifold forms (even though the natural language intimations were at times grossly inhibited), as no less than the insights of wisdom and compassionate attention to the human roots of psychological dilemma. These were founding roles for modern psychology and its philosophy, as humble beginnings of reliant first-principles on which all levels of scientists have provisionally, and in the sense of aspiration, collaborated; to further consensus at university-level in a continuum since the end of the Victorian era as bridge to the cultivation of applied developmental virtue. Such dedication is in parallel to quintessential and foundational derivative aspirations of Buddhist research (Theravada Mahayana, and Vajrayana as three contexts of Gautama's dharma teaching), pertaining to contemporary praxis of inner science, with  a common basis of outer discipline in mind; no less than an empirical-research orientation for human flourishing (specifically outlined by cultivation of compassion, supported by other factors of wisdom). Like in science, it is for all its causes to thoroughly question underlying assumptions of interpretation, and then also to put into practice the conclusions of synthesis, based on verifiable introspection transforming the precedent theses.  Other historic features: Buddhist and related dedication of research in scientific modalities of dialogue, have been by way of thoroughgoing analysis as to the contrasts of view, assimilated through their explicit progress of contemporary research, common to a movement dating back to 4000-5000 years of evident contiguous effort (aspirations for an unclouded inner-science), with extensive concurrence on developmental and experimental templates (epistemic wisdom-gnosis): in that spirit of an empiricism elucidating the discovered means of inter-personal realisation to be practiced. Conative application (of ‘innate aspiration’) of the contemporary sophisticated and rigorous inner-science means available in practice, figures as a world heritage as art, science, and way of life, that bears a low noise-to-signal ratio of interactive bias; as introspectively supported by percipient mentor-ship (2nd-person, caring epistemic-stewardship) with regard to first-person practical observation of consciousness; out of which, contemplative records have become progressively congruent and adequately verifiable in their outer epistemic expression. The guiding attainments and realisations of means, through applied practices of wisdom, have then also become discursively pragmatic in various exemplary reliable praxis. Common roles in the caring empathy of that culture, also comprise purposes understood in the cultivation of equanimity: out of four reciprocal empathetic factors: (1) considerate attentiveness, deeper compassion for self and other, and empathetic joy, to directly alleviate despair and anguish caused by deep internal distortion, destructive-attachment, and frustration; the affects of which are all manifestations of disequilibrium. Extensive remedial work has been defined by such profound levels of deeper concern, as consensus of communal interdisciplinary-science in which there are extensive callings to recognise non-dualistic consensus on precedent discoveries that define those dimensions of consciousness, and conducive templates of practice as ways of realising these discoveries available in first-person (interpersonal) experience. The profundity of those research dimensions are precedent progress for cross-disciplinary curriculum studies.  Epistemic principles for a science of consciousness have achieved a foundational and interdisciplinary role of configuring dialogue across branches of science represented by Wallace’s key scientific text: ‘Contemplative Science: Where Buddhism and Neuroscience Converge’, and other works among 40 or so publishings; representing core developmental factors of pragmatic realisation correlating a higher-level functioning-perspective of ‘primordial consciousness’, in contrast to a more primal and relative substrate-consciousness; by means of a synthesis of tested mental technology as also ‘epistemic-means of flourishing par excellence’ (WIlliam James). These means are also scientifically qualified in their contemplative neuroscience of explicit and implicit discovery, conceptually and non-conceptually expressed as a synthesis defining gradient means for mapping mundane and supra-mundane epistemic-realisations on a generic scale of empirical insight. These also correspond to course and subtle qualitative-levels of psychological, mental, and spiritual eudaemonia, and ethics as epistemic-experiential modes of knowledge and discipline expressed by contemporary parallels in ontological relativity. For the gifted neo-Platonist-as-mathematician Roger Penrose, the dimensions of such functional realisation are expressed as tangible expressions emergent out of a realm of pure-forms; and in adequate parallel dialogue correlating Buddhist narrative it is expressed as modes toward an innately accessible ‘form realm’, free of obscuration from the ‘desire realm’; sheer-archetypes of the natural world, and complementary in various kinds of natural language propositional-calculus (NL). The map of gradient forms pertaining to such mental development as deep psychology, are both qualitatively and quantitatively related to an essentially-relevant quantum view of science as illuminated by both a conceptual and non-conceptual working hypothesis of relativity (theory of interdependence).  The synthesis of various advanced models is comprehensive of their intricate salient research documentation and branch-science correlation: as a deeper symmetry of epistemic inferential-and-direct-knowledge (Skt. pramana), expressing gradient development and configuration of ‘exceptional psycho-physiological balance’. This also yields a common-sense world-view of functional interactions concerning the abnormal material-world of relations, with a sane mental-balance of its subjects and objects, as together with a symmetry of non-dualistic paradigm-shifts by way of an objective functional view of substrate consciousness, of objective configuration. Note:  The order of some outlines in these sections, follow on from a momentum of due dialogue of procedural inquiry, directly following on from a founding colloquium on Buddhism and Science at the Dept. of Physiology at Oxford University among intercollegiate parallels (Feb. 2010, and a plethora of other related key conference work of collaborative elucidation). Updates: 23.3. / 20.8. / 27.8.2010/ June 2015. 1. For detailed information related to the Shamatha Project and its findings, visit: http://mindbrain.ucdavis.edu/labs/Saron/shamatha-project   and: http://www.sbinstitute.com/shamathaproject.html: 2. Dynamic equilibrium (byname: ‘Dyn.Eq', nominated by SciCVN.org) being a contemporary term determined by Wallace (and a definitive scholarly consensus of others), as most intricately related to 'Shamatha transformation' and that of exceptional mental balance. 3. Viewed on May 2015. 4. 's/gTOR', nominated as a byname by SciCVN.org. Yes, this most general information has all the sources to place to make it more complete, it will take time and patience as everything.--DynEqMin (talk) 16:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC) Comprehensions of International Shamatha Project (ISP) Outlines in Dialogue, Research and Praxis, as pioneered by Dr. B Alan Wallace Taking into consideration the assimilative protocols of being aware of any notable criticisms on the ISP project within its four decades of endeavour, presumes an understanding of this leading scholar through his pragmatic dialogical and successful progression of working hypotheses, in this, Wallace has sufficiently engaged in both the educated and uneducated questions arising from manifold dialogue. In the past of this Wiki page there was left mention without any specific details given on four aspects of criticism without basis, in what used to be a section on the page under that name of Criticisms. Since 2013 or so, this changed to a couple of lines of unwarranted text. The material accompanies a link to other libellous material (scientifically and legally), as if directly contributing to the integrity of ISP debates, and moreover the promotion of a website community of neuroscientists (where the ISP mainstream science, of contemplative neuroscience, has not been of reference in references to it); the material does not correspond to any scientific findings or any contradiction as rhetorically claimed (it is therefore not even in critique them, because that must demonstrate a preliminary understanding interdisciplinary consciousness studies). This also includes knowledge of the dedicated natural language (NL), lexicon, and established principles along with their definitions, pertaining to primary foundations of science and culture, that have from the outset been part of working hypotheses (as ontological theory of relativity, 'g/sTOR' *1 ). These qualms are partly mentioned on the nominated WIkipiedia entry on a 'Science of Consciousness', as long-ago the brainchild of Wallace's primary establishment. Material related to the extraneous qualms are outlines below. First it should be clear that the perspective of primary ISP scientist Dr. Alan Wallace, there has never been any proposition of raising another belief system for the ISP project, in establishing a replete map of research confidence, in practice pertaining to clearly defined projects of an established science of consciousness. The ISP (with a byname of International 'Dynamic Equilibrium Project', and the abbreviation: 'DynEq' *2) not only includes larger mutual practice representations, from deeper discoveries of science within culture (as infused by co-extensive archetypes as a synthesis of ancient to contemporary practice (the Sanskrit construct expressing this is Maha-Ati, that brings historical research together to form a congruous interdisciplinary worldview, as together with an internationally established epistemic dialectics of equanimity in wisdom; evolved as a mutual synthesis-model of consciousness studies (not just in terms of the conceptual lexicon), with historical development prior to and after Buddha (and related cultures), as definitive continuation of the modern primary scientific research of essential import; as a foreground to the background in various schools of applied research (esp. through all corroborative breakthroughs in western science) of what were in continuation: 'inner and outer sciences' of research. Mutual sources for these notations have become a world heritage of inherited authentic praxis (represented by dedicated and most diverse international centres of learning), although clearly never advocation of a further material or spiritual belief-system. With regard to an accusation of quantum-woo, Wallace has consistently been optimally critical on bias in science from every perspective, as cultivated in his well-composed practices of equanimity and profundity of practical wisdom. Wallace has long conducted research that specifically qualifies foundational postulates and definitions, that are contributions as no less than both explicit and implicit, profound 'quantum-science' comprehensions (esp. in the domain of quantum physics), as contributed through the International Shamatha Project ('Int. Dyn.Eq. Project'), and its essential collaboration in other primary projects that engendered the 'mindfulness introspective'; as first long-ago concertedly and devotionally defined in the Sanskrit language and its foundations for linguistic science, as a primary root of Indo-European and other language, and reliable source of knowledge in cultural evolution itself. The Sanskrit Atiyoga (or Maha-Ati) progression from its beginnings (as one of Wallace's primary sources in the pragmatism of such empirical outlines of praxis), denotes an innermost synthesis of consciousness studies, as knowledge in practice (e.g. pertinent to peace-keeping and peace-building, and an outlining cosmogony of inner and outer science), as an ancient to contemporary scientific outline of correlated research praxis (with generic phases of exploration, expressing an epistemic wellspring of qualified DynEq, including dialogical structures at the foundations of linguistics). Such profound features 'introspective consciousness' that embody the working principles of DynEq, are not of speculation in such a fresh experiential philosophy of consciousness (otherwise it could be called 'quantum woo'). Nor is there any complacency in the understanding of such reliable knowledge, as nature of quantum realisation relating to what are found as all-interdependent levels of reality, but as such, scientists of that concerted research attend to multi-related epistemic dimensions of discovery as various aspects and modes of practice; of epistemic narration in tune with direct exploration and ex-pedition into those dimensions of consciousness. These are also phases and formats of experiential-philosophy in four genres: (1) experiential principles; (2) dialectics and epistemology; (3) salutary embodiment of creative praxis (known by various quintessential concepts such as 'foundations of culture'), including present Jungian perspectives of inner-healing of imagination-deficit disorder; and (4) intuition: the historical quantum-layer of such praxis (it may be said to be a definitive form of quantum intuition (that MB Menski speaks of). In parallel are deeper and deeper correlations of import to the various maps as interconnected epistemic branch-science research phases (esp, mind and cognitive science). ISP research outlines as correlated to extensive presidents in comparative western-research preservation, therefor a century ago, emerged with various weaves on such corroborative discovery in western science, and very well documented as an evolution of primary understanding integral to DynEq praxis: that of: conative, attentional, cognitive, emotional, intelligence: now with appropriate placement as mutual foundations of branch culture and science. These foundations of research acumen, comprise unique layers of scientific wisdom and knowledge in progress; transcending idealistic projection on empirical working-hypotheses. From consciousness studies in present phases, a generic branch-science structure has emerged both from the perspective of quantum cosmogony, and the practices of DynEq. The Maha-Ati historical development of both theory (epistemic inquiry) and practice in contemporarily nurture, has long in the West and East, been a mutual embodiment of vision quest (and thus in its salutary representation by Wallace), and a wellspring of historical representation of essential principles, intricately relating to the explicit  historical research presidents as contemplative science par excellence. The presented spectrum of practices correlating such a synthesis of meditative science and western phenomenology, has emerged as a sufficient part of mainstream science in its aspirational research. The humility of that research is also due to devotion in the Himalayan-Sanskrit preservation of this related-knowledge, that thankfully all can celebrate in the aspects of purpose; as on the Buddhist and related side, the Maha-Ati and DynEq synthesis (as ancient to contemporary expressions of 'quantum science' and not: quantum woo) of learning principles is both a personal and interdisciplinary vision-quest of practice to internal healing and outer flourishing; understood after the foundational evolvement of such dialectics to properly express and attain to such discoveries of mental development; as an implicate level of accomplished understanding of interpersonal scientific acuity, as normative epistemic vision quest since the celebration of William James as a primary father of both psychology and its philosophy. On absurd criticisms in mention of 'dualism' with respect to ISP methodology (not 'method-olotory' as absurd rhetorical aspects of scientism), opens illuminating answers that update such a relation as notation pertaining to the dimensions of consciousness: such a discussion relates to the subjective/objective perspectives, and also to the trans-relative processes of such ex-pedition as both pragmatic and paradigmatic. First a general lexicon of contemporary terms should be comprehended as relative to an acuity of the dialectics assimilated. The most pertinent epistemic interconnections as expressions of original and contemporary Sanskrit science in this regard, is from the perspective of non-duality ('nonduality'): e.g. the substrate consciousness as background dimension also in the Vedic Advaita philosophy; that in ISP maps, is a portal of relative and trans-relative factors. To be cordially polite in Wikipedia, the listed qualms previously on this webpage are good topics for otherwise meaningfull discussion: there is no 'well-known' debate on duelism, that has occurred by way of any known ISP primary science dialogues, and the primary instance where Wallace does mention this is in terms of the meditative epistemic correlates between content in space of the mind, that feels like it is objective (philosopher: David Charmers intimations), and consciousness-itself as subjective construct. To conclude, Wallace consistently qualifies this by mentorship in giving attention not to impute further dualities between the contents of the mind and 'subjective vacuity'. If duality would mean that Wallace has used science terms in contrastive ways, then in his lexicon that does not in any way transgress the semantic-linguistics constraints, or those of any other discipline, thus there are no such discrepancies. If ever speaking from dualism, it is only from the perspective integrity of his epistemic science. Therefore, dualism, non-duality, and even epistemic modes beyond these are of a symmetry and complementarity, supportive of replicable working understanding in real possibilities of such transformational quests, presented in primary historical and contemporary science findings. That is: in the commonly illuminated outline of awareness of awareness, (Skt. advaita), there is no dualistic working hypothesis, and that also relates to the quantum level. Understanding these simplicities (as they are simply taught intellectually or practicably) are requisite in asking questions on 's/gTOR' quantum correlations. The fallacies are therefore invalid from perspectives in primary findings of cognitive science and linguistic science.  A related SciCVN Wikipedia forum on the 'Science of Consciousness', outlines  clear protocols and principles, guiding foundations of integral cultural ethics, that have made those innate foundations of science possible to elucidate for the benefit of humanity. The newly nominated Wikipedia article, refers to efforts from the outset of the Shamatha Project, concerning integral practice toward adjustments or attenuation of what may be called Quantum Woo,  as concerted research into foundational aspects of empirical science. What astute philosophers talk of generally as consciousness as a primary phenomena, is very little in contrast to Dr. Wallace's qualifications that pose no contrary to fundamental scientific and pragmatic aspirations (an adept position to aspire with great clarity by proven generic-principle). Such cordial acknowledgements are not present in the previously associated webpage. The cosmogony of Wallace has been thankfully taken into consideration in primary consultations on his 'g/s/TOR' ontological theory with the quantum physicist: MB Menski, also as contributions and historical consensus in dialogues with a host of other pioneers. As a principle: successful DynEq qualified-working-hypothesis in its various forms of network science practice, relate to Wallace's two 'ontological theories of relativity' ('s/gTOR'). 1. A byname for: General and Special Theories of Relativity, as'g/sTOR', was nominated as far back as 2010 by SciCVN.org support initiatives. This entered usage at the same time in circulated aspects of commentary on the ISP project. 2. A byname for: Dynamic Equilibrium, as 'Dyn.Eq' , and the International Shamatha Project (ISP) as 'International Dynamic Equilibrium Project', was nominated as far back as 2010 by SciCVN.org support initiatives, and then known to enter usage by Wallace in collaboration with Dr. P. Eckman to define parts of the CEB training.