Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- state_specific_science [2012-08-14 13:34] – created nik
+++ state_specific_science [2012-08-14 13:37] – nik
@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 --Charles Tart
+====States of Consciousness and State-Specific Sciences====
+[This paper was originally published in Science, 1972, Vol. 176,
+-1210. (c) 1972 by The American Association for the Advancement of Science.]
+  * https://www.sciencemag.org/content/176/4040/1203.short
+  * DOI: 10.1126/science.176.4040.1203
+     Blackburn (1) recently noted that many of our most talented
+young people are "turned off" to science:  as a solution, he
+proposed that we recognize the validity of a more
+sensuous-intuitive approach to nature, treating it as
+complementary to the classical intellectual approach.
+     I have seen the same rejection of science by many of the
+brightest students in California, and the problem is indeed
+serious.  Blackburn's  analysis is valid, but not deep enough.  A
+more fundamental source of alienation is the widespread
+experience of altered states of consciousness (ASC's) by the
+young, coupled with the almost total rejection of the knowledge
+gained during the experiencing of ASC's by the scientific
+establishment.  Blackburn himself exemplifies this rejection when
+he says:  "Perhaps science has much to learn along this line from
+the disciplines, as distinct from the content, of Oriental
+religions" (my italics).
+     To illustrate, a recent Gallup poll (2) indicated that
+approximately half of the American college students have tried
+marijuana, and a large number of them use it fairly regularly.
+They do this at the risk of having their careers ruined and going
+to jail for several years.  Why?  Conventional research on the
+nature of marijuana intoxication tells us that the primary
+effects are a slight increase in heart rate, reddening of the
+eyes, some difficulty with memory, and small decrements in
+performance on complex psychomotor tests.
+     Would you risk going to jail to experience these?
+     A young marijuana smoker who hears a scientist or physician
+talk about these findings as the basic nature of marijuana
+intoxication will simply sneer and have his antiscientific
+attitude further reinforced.  It is clear to him that the
+scientist has no real understanding of what marijuana
+intoxication is all about (3).
+     More formally, an increasingly significant number of people
+are experimenting with ASC's in themselves, and finding the
+experiences thus gained of extreme importance in their philosophy
+and style of life.  The conflict between experiences in these
+ASC's and the attitudes and intellectual-emotional systems that
+have evolved in our ordinary state of consciousness (SoC) is a
+major factor behind the increased alienation of many people from
+conventional science.  Experiences of ecstasy, mystical union,
+other "dimensions," rapture, beauty, space-and-time
+transcendence, and transpersonal knowledge, all common in ASC's
+are simply not treated adequately in conventional scientific
+approaches.  These experiences will not "go away" if we crack
+down more on psychedelic drugs, for immense numbers of people now
+practice various non-drug techniques for producing ASC's such as
+meditation (4) and yoga.
+     The purpose of this article is to show that it is possible
+to investigate and work with the important phenomena of ASC's in
+a manner which is perfectly compatible with the essence of
+scientific method.  The conflict discussed above is not
+necessary.
+States of Consciousness
+     An ASC may be defined for the purposes of this article as a
+qualitative alteration in the overall pattern of mental
+functioning, such that the experiencer feels his consciousness is
+radically different from the way it functions ordinarily.  An SoC
+is thus defined not in terms of any particular content of
+consciousness, or specific behavior or physiological change, but
+in terms of the overall patterning of psychological functioning.
+     An analogy with computer functioning can clarify this
+definition.  A computer has a complex program of many
+subroutines.  If we reprogram it quite differently, the same
+sorts of input data may be handled in quite different ways;  we
+will be able to predict very little from our knowledge of the old
+program about the effects of varying the input, even though old
+and new programs have some subroutines in common.  The new
+program with its in-put-output interactions must be studied in
+and of itself.  An ASC is analogous to changing temporarily the
+program of a computer.
+     The ASC's experienced by almost all ordinary people are
+dreaming states and the hypnagogic and hypnopompic states, the
+transitional states between sleeping and waking.  Many other
+people experience another ASC, alcohol intoxication.
+     The relatively new (to our culture) ASC's that are now
+having such an impact are those produced by marijuana, more
+powerful psychedelic drugs such as LSD, meditative states,
+so-called possession states, and auto-hypnotic states (5).
+States of Consciousness and Paradigms
+     It is useful to compare this concept of an SoC, a
+qualitatively distinct organization of the patterning of mental
+functioning, with Kuhn's (6) concept of paradigms in science.  A
+paradigm is an intellectual achievement that underlies normal
+science and attracts and guides the work of an enduring number of
+adherents in their scientific activity.  It is a kind of "super
+theory," a formulation of scope wide enough to affect the
+organization of most or all of the major known phenomena of its
+field.  Yet it is sufficiently open-ended that there still remain
+important problems to be solved within that framework.  Examples
+of important paradigms in the history of science have been
+Copernican astronomy and Newtonian dynamics.
+     Because of their tremendous success, paradigms undergo a
+change which, in principle, ordinary scientific theories do not
+undergo.  An ordinary scientific theory is always subject to
+further questioning and testing as it is extended.  A paradigm
+becomes an implicit framework for most scientists working within
+it;  it is the natural way of looking at things and doing things.
+It does not seriously occur to the adherents of a paradigm to
+question it any more (we may ignore, for the moment, the
+occurrence of scientific revolutions).  Theories become referred
+to as laws:  people talk of the law of gravity, not the theory of
+gravity, for example.
+     A paradigm serves to concentrate the attention of a
+researcher on sensible problem areas and to prevent him from
+wasting his time on what might be trivia.  On the other hand, by
+implicitly defining some lines of research as trivial or
+nonsensical, a paradigm acts like a blinder.  Kuhn has discussed
+this blinding function as a key factor in the lack of effective
+communications during paradigm clashes.
+     The concept of a paradigm and of an SoC are quite similar.
+Both constitute complex, interlocking sets of rules and theories
+that enable a person to interact with and interpret experiences
+within an environment.  In both cases, the rules are largely
+implicit.  They are not recognized as tentative working
+hypotheses;  they operate automatically and the person feels he
+is doing the obvious or natural thing.
+Paradigm Clash between "Straight" and "Hip"
+     Human beings become emotionally attached to the things which
+give them pleasure, and a scientist making important progress
+within a particular paradigm becomes emotionally attached to it.
+When data which make no sense in terms of the (implicit) paradigm
+are brought to our attention, the usual result is not a
+reevaluation of the paradigm, but a rejection or misperception of
+the data.  This rejection seems rational to others sharing that
+paradigm and irrational or rationalizing to others committed to a
+different paradigm.
+     The conflict now existing between those who have experienced
+certain ASC's (whose ranks include many young scientists) and
+those who have not is very much a paradigmatic conflict.  For
+example, a subject take LSD, and tells his investigator that "You
+and I, we are all one, there are no separate selves."  The
+investigator reports that his subject showed a "confused sense of
+identity and distorted thinking process."  The subject is
+reporting what is obvious to him, the investigator is reporting
+what is obvious to him.  The investigator's implicit paradigm,
+based on his scientific training, his cultural background, and
+his normal SoC, indicates that a literal interpretation of the
+subject's statement cannot be true, and therefore must be
+interpreted as mental dysfunction on the part of the subject.
+The subject, his paradigms radically changed for the moment by
+being in an ASC, not only reports what is obviously true to him,
+but perceives the investigator as showing mental dysfunction, by
+virtue of being incapable of perceiving the obvious!
+     Historically, paradigm clashes have been characterized by
+bitter emotional antagonisms, and total rejection of the
+opponent.  Currently we are seeing the same sort of process:  the
+respectable psychiatrist, who would not take any of those
+psychotimimetic" drugs himself or sit down and experience that
+crazy meditation process, carries out research to show that drug
+takers and those who practice meditation are escapists.  The drug
+taker or meditator views the same investigator as narrow-minded,
+prejudiced, and repressive, and as a result drops out of the
+university.  Communication between the two factions is almost
+nil.
+     Must the experiencers of ASC's continue to see the
+scientists as concentrating on the irrelevant, and the scientists
+see the experiencers as confused (7) or mentally ill?  Or can
+science deal adequately with the experiences of these people?
+The thesis I shall now present in detail is that we can deal with
+the important aspects of the ASC's using the essence of
+scientific method, even though a variety of nonessentials,
+unfortunately identified with current science, hinder such an
+effort.
+The Nature of Knowledge
+     Basically, science (from the Latin scire, to know) deals
+with knowledge.  Knowledge may be defined as an immediately given
+experiential feeling of congruence between two different kinds of
+experience, a matching.  One set of experiences may be regarded
+as perceptions of the external world, of others, of oneself; the
+second set may be regarded as a theory, a scheme, a system of
+understanding.  The feeling of congruence is something
+immediately given in experience, although many refinements have
+been worked out for judging degrees of congruence.
+     All knowledge then, is basically experiential knowledge.
+Even my knowledge of the physical world can be reduced to this:
+given certain sets of experiences, which I (by assumption)
+attribute to the external world activating my sensory apparatus,
+it may be possible for me to compare them with purely internal
+experiences (memories, previous knowledge) and predict with a
+high degree of reliability other kinds of experiences, which I
+again attribute to the external world.
+     Because science has been incredibly successful in dealing
+with the physical world, it has been historically associated with
+a philosophy of physicalism, the belief that reality is all
+reducible to certain kinds of physical entities.  The vast
+majority of phenomena of ASC's have no known physical
+manifestations:  thus to physicalistic philosophy they are
+epiphenomena, not worthy of study.  But insofar as science deals
+with knowledge, it need not restrict itself only to physical
+kinds of knowledge.
+The Essence of Scientific Method
+     I shall discuss the essence of scientific method, and show
+that this essence is perfectly compatible with an enlarged study
+of the important phenomena of ASC's.  In particular, I propose
+that state-specific sciences (SSS) be developed.
+     As satisfying as the feeling of knowing can be, we are often
+wrong:  what seems like congruence at first later does not match,
+or has no generality.  Man has learned that his reasoning is
+often faulty, his observations are often incomplete or mistaken,
+and that emotional and other nonconscious factors can seriously
+distort both reasoning and observational processes.  His reliance
+on authorities, "rationality" or "elegance," are no sure criteria
+for achieving truth.  The development of scientific method may be
+seen as a determined effort to systematize the process of
+acquiring knowledge in such a way as to minimize the various
+pitfalls of observation and reasoning.
+     I shall discuss four basic rules of scientific method to
+which an investigator is committed:  (i) good observation; (ii)
+the public nature of observation; (iii) the necessity to theorize
+logically; and (iv) the testing of theory by observable
+consequences; all these constitute the scientific enterprise.  I
+shall consider the wider application of each rule to ASC's and
+indicate how unnecessary physicalistic restrictions may be
+dropped.  I will show that all these commitments or rules can be
+accommodated in the development of SSS's that I propose.
+Observation
+     The scientist is committed to observe as well as possible
+the phenomena of interest and to search constantly for better
+ways of making these observations.  But our paradigmatic
+commitments, our SoC's, make us likely to observe certain parts
+of reality and to ignore or observe with error certain other
+parts of it.
+     Many of the most important phenomena of ASC's have been
+observed poorly or not at all because of the physicalistic
+labeling of them as epiphenomena, so that they have been called
+"subjective," "ephemeral" "unreliable," or "unscientific."
+Observations of internal processes are probably much more
+difficult to make than those of external physical processes,
+because of their inherently greater complexity.  The essence of
+science, however, is that we observe what there is to be observed
+whether it is difficult or not.
+     We must consider one other problem of observation.  One of
+the traditional idols of science, the "detached observer," has no
+place in dealing with many internal phenomena of SoC's.  Not only
+are the observer's perceptions selective, he may also affect the
+things he observes.  We must try to understand the
+characteristics of each individual observer in order to
+compensate for them.
+     A recognition of the unreality of the detached observer in
+the psychological sciences is becoming widespread, under the
+topics of experimenter bias (8) and demand characteristics (9).
+A similar recognition long ago occurred in physics when it was
+realized that the observed was altered by the process of
+observation at subatomic levels.  When we deal with ASC's where
+the observer is the experiencer of the ASC, this factor is of
+paramount importance.  Knowing the characteristics of the
+observer can also confound the process of consensual validation,
+which I shall now consider.
+Public Nature of Observation
+     Observations must be public in that they must be replicable
+by any properly trained observer.  The experienced conditions
+that led to the report of certain experiences must be described
+in sufficient detail that others may duplicate them and
+consequently have experiences which meet criteria of
+identicality.  That someone else may set up similar conditions
+but not have the same experiences proves that the original
+investigator gave an incorrect description of the conditions and
+observations, or that he was not aware of certain essential
+aspects of the conditions.
+     The physicalistic accretion to this rule of consensual
+validation is that, physical data being the only "real" data,
+internal phenomena must be reduced to physiological or behavioral
+data to become reliable or they will be ignored entirely.  I
+believe most physical observations to be much more readily
+replicable by any trained observer because they are inherently
+simpler phenomena than internal ones.  In principle, however,
+consensual validation of internal phenomena by a trained observer
+is quite possible.
+     The emphasis on public observations in science has had a
+misleading quality insofar as it implies that any intelligent man
+can replicate a scientist's observations.  This might have been
+true early in the history of science, but nowadays only the
+trained observer can replicate many observations.  I cannot go
+into a modern physicist's laboratory and confirm his
+observations.  Indeed, his talk of what he has found in his
+experiments (physicists seem to talk about innumerable invisible
+entities these days) would probably seem mystical to me, just as
+many descriptions of internal states sound mystical to those with
+a background in the physical sciences.
+     Given the high complexity of the phenomena associated with
+ASC's, the need for replication by trained observers is
+exceptionally important.  Since it generally takes 4 to 10 years
+of intensive training to produce a scientist in any of our
+conventional sciences, we should not be surprised that there has
+been very little reliability of observations of untrained
+observers of ASC phenomena.
+     Further, for the state-specific sciences that I propose
+should be established, we cannot specify the requirements that
+would constitute adequate training.  These would only be
+determined after considerable trial and error.  We should also
+recognize that very few people might complete the training
+successfully.  Some people do not have the necessary innate
+characteristics to become physicists, and some probably do not
+have the innate characteristics to become, say, scientific
+investigators of meditative states.
+     Public observation, then, always refers to a
+limited,specially trained public.  It is only by basic agreement
+among those specially trained people that data become accepted as
+a foundation for the development of a science.  That laymen
+cannot replicate the observations is of little relevance.
+     A second problem in consensual validation arises from a
+phenomenon predicted by my concept of ASC's, but not yet
+empirically investigated, namely, state-specific communication.
+Given that an ASC is an overall qualitative and quantitative
+shift in the complex functioning of consciousness, such that
+there are new "logics" and perceptions (which would constitute a
+paradigm shift), it is quite reasonable to hypothesize that
+communication may take a different pattern.  For two observers,
+both of whom, we assume, are fluent in communicating with each
+other in a given SoC, communication about some new observations
+may seem adequate to them, or may be improved or deteriorated in
+specific ways.  To an outside observer, an observer in a
+different SoC, the communication between these two observers may
+seem "deteriorated."
+     Practically all investigations of communication by persons
+in ASC's have resulted in reports of deterioration of
+communication abilities.  In designing their studies, however,
+these investigators have not taken into account the fact that the
+pattern of communication may have changed.  If I am listening to
+two people speaking in English, and they suddenly begin to
+intersperse words and phrases in Polish, I, as an outside (that
+is, a non-Polish speaking) observer, will note a gross
+deterioration in communication.  Adequacy of communication
+between people in the same SoC and across SoC's must be
+empirically determined.
+     Thus consensual validation my be restricted by the fact that
+only observers in the same ASC are able to communicate adequately
+with each other, and they may not be able to communicate
+adequately to someone in a different SoC, say normal
+consciousness (10).
+Theorizing
+     A scientist may theorize about his observations as much as
+he wishes to, but the theory he develops must consistently
+account for all that he has observed, and should have a logical
+structure that other scientists can comprehend (but not
+necessarily accept).
+     The requirement to theorize logically and consistently with
+the data is not as simple as it looks, however.  Any logic
+consists of a basic set of assumptions and a set of rules for
+manipulating information, based on these assumptions.  Change the
+assumptions, or change the rules, and there may be entirely
+different outcomes from the same data.  A paradigm, too is
+alogic:  it has certain assumptions and rules for working within
+these assumptions.  By changing the paradigm, altering the SoC,
+the nature of theory building may change radically.  Thus a
+person on SoC 2 might come to very different conclusions  about
+the nature of the same events that he observed in SoC 1.  An
+investigator in SoC 1 may comment on the comprehensibility of the
+second person's ideas from the point of view (paradigm) of SoC 1,
+but can say nothing about their inherent validity.  A scientist
+who could enter either SoC 1 or SoC 2, however, could pronounce
+on the comprehensibility of the other's theory, and the adherence
+of that theory to the rules and logic of SoC 2.  Thus, scientists
+trained in the same SoC may check on the logical validity of each
+other's theorizing.  We  have then the possibility of a
+state-specific logic underlying theorizing in various SoC's.
+Observable Consequences
+     Any theory a scientist develops must have observable
+consequences, and from that theory it must be possible to make
+predictions that can be verified by observation.  If such
+verification is not possible, the theory must be considered
+invalid, regardless of its elegance, logic, or other appeal.
+     Ordinarily we think of empirical validation, of validation
+in terms of testable consequences that produce physical effects,
+but this is misleading.  Any effect, whether interpreted as
+physical or nonphysical, is ultimately an experience in the
+observer's mind.  All that is essentially required to validate a
+theory is that it predict that "When a certain experience
+(observed condition) has occurred, another (predicted) kind of
+experience will follow, under specified experiential conditions."
+Thus a perfectly scientific theory may be based on data that have
+no physical existence.
+State-Specific Sciences
+     We tend to envision the practice of science like this:
+centered around interest in some particular range of subject
+matter, a small number of highly selected, talented, and
+rigorously trained people spend considerable time making detailed
+observations on the subject matter of interest.  They may or may
+not have special places (laboratories) or instruments or methods
+to assist them in making finer observations.  They speak to one
+another in a special language which they feel conveys precisely
+the important facts of their field.  Using this language, they
+confirm and extend each other's knowledge of certain data basic
+to the field.  They theorize about their basic data and construct
+elaborate systems.  They validate these by recourse to further
+observation.  These trained people all have a long-term
+commitment to the constant refinement of observation and
+extension of theory.  Their activity is frequently
+incomprehensible to laymen.
+     This general description is equally applicable to a variety
+of sciences, or areas that could become sciences, whether we
+called such areas biology, physics, chemistry, psychology,
+understanding of mystical states, or drug-induced enhancement of
+cognitive processes.  The particulars of research would look very
+different, but the basic scientific method running through all is
+the same.
+     More formally, I now propose the creation of various
+state-specific sciences.  If such sciences could be created, we
+would have a group of highly skilled, dedicated, and trained
+practitioners able to achieve certain SoC's, and able to agree
+with one another that they have attained a common state.  While
+in that SoC, they might then investigate other areas of interest,
+whether these be totally internal phenomena of that given state,
+the interaction of that state with external, physical reality, or
+people in other SoC's.
+     The fact that the experimenter should be able to function
+skillfully in the SoC itself for a state-specific science does
+not necessarily mean that he would always be the subject.  While
+he might often be the subject, observer, and experimenter
+simultaneously, it would be quite possible for him to collect
+data from experimental manipulations of other subjects in the
+SoC, and either be in SoC himself at the time of data collection
+or be in that SoC himself for data reduction the theorizing.
+     Examples of some observations made and theorizing done by a
+scientist in a specific ASC would illustrate the nature of a
+proposed state-specific science.  But this is not possible
+because no state-specific sciences have yet been established
+(11).  Also, any example that would make good sense to the
+readers of this article (who are, presumably, all in a normal
+SoC) would not really illustrate the uniqueness of a
+state-specific science.  If it did make sense, it would be an
+example of a problem that could be approached adequately from
+both the ASC and normal SoC's, and thus it would be too easy to
+see the entire problem in terms of accepted scientific procedures
+for normal SoC's and miss the point about the necessity for
+developing state-specific sciences.
+State-Specific Sciences and Religion
+     Some aspects of organized religion appear to resemble
+state-specific sciences.  There are techniques that allow the
+believer to enter an ASC and then have religious experiences in
+that ASC which are proof of his religious belief.  People who
+have had such experiences usually describe them as ineffable in
+important ways--that is, as not fully comprehensible in an
+ordinary SoC.  Conversions at revivalistic meetings are the most
+common example of religious experiences occurring in various
+ASC's induced by an intensely emotional atmosphere.
+     In examining the esoteric training systems of some
+religions, there seems to be even more resemblance between such
+mystical ways and state-specific sciences, for here we often have
+the picture of devoted specialists, complex techniques, and
+repeated experiencing of the ASC's in order to further religious
+knowledge.
+     Nevertheless the proposed state-specific sciences are not
+simply religion in a new guise.  The use of ASC's in religion may
+involve the kind of commitment to searching for truth that is
+needed for developing a state-specific science, but practically
+all the religions we know might be defined as state-specific
+technologies, operated in the service of a priori belief systems.
+The experiencers of ASC's in most religious contexts have already
+been thoroughly indoctrinated in a particular belief system.
+This belief system may then mold the content of the ASC's to
+create specific experiences which reinforce or validate the
+belief system.
+     The crucial distinction between a religion utilizing ASC's
+and a state-specific science is the commitment of the scientist
+to reexamine constantly his own belief system and to question the
+obvious in spite of its intellectual or emotional appeal to him.
+Investigators of ASC's would certainly encounter an immense
+variety of phenomena labeled experience or mystical revelation
+during the development of state-specific sciences, but they would
+have to remain committed to examining these phenomena more
+carefully, sharing their observations and techniques with
+colleagues, and subjecting the beliefs (hypotheses, theories)
+that result from such experiences to the requirement of leading
+to testable predictions.  In practice, because we are aware of
+the immense emotional power of mystical experiences, this would
+be a difficult task, but it is one that will have to be
+undertaken by disciplined investigators if we are to understand
+various ASC's.
+Relationship between State-Specific Sciences
+     Any state-specific science may be considered as consisting
+of two parts, observations and theorizations.  The observations
+are what can be experienced relatively directly; the theories are
+the inferences about  what sort of non-observable factors account
+for the observations.  For example, the phenomena of synesthesia
+(seeing colors as a result of hearing sounds) is a theoretical
+proposition for me in my ordinary SoC: I do not experience it,
+and can only generate theories about what other people report
+about it.  If I were under the influence of a psychedelic drug
+such as LSD or marijuana (3), I could probably experience
+synesthesia directly, and my descriptions of the experience would
+become data.
+     Fig. 1 demonstrates some possible relationships between three
+state-specific sciences.  State-specific sciences 1 and 2 show
+considerable overlap.
+                       STATE-SPECIFIC SCIENCE 1
+                       _________________________
+                      |            |::::::::::::|
+                      |            |::::::::::::|
+                      |    T1      |:::: O1 ::::|
+                      |            |::::::::::::|
+                      |            |::::::::::::|
+                      |            |::::::::::::|
+    __________________|____________|____________|
+   |                  |            |::::::::::::|
+   |       T2         |   T1-T2    |:: T2-O1 :::|
+   |                  |            |::::::::::::|
+   |                  |            |::::::::::::|
+   |------------------|------------|------------|  STATE-SPECIFIC SCIENCE 2
+   |::::::::::::::::::|::::::::::::|############|
+   |:::::: O2 ::::::::|:: T1-O2 :::|## O1-O2 ###|
+   |::::::::::::::::::|::::::::::::|############|
+   |::::::::::::::::::|::::::::::::|############|
+   |------------------|------------|------------|
+                                                STATE-SPECIFIC SCIENCE 3
+                                                _________________________
+                                               |            |::::::::::::|
+                                               |            |::::::::::::|
+                                               |    T3      |:::: O3 ::::|
+                                               |            |::::::::::::|
+                                               |            |::::::::::::|
+                                               |____________|____________|
+[Apologies for the crudeness of this Wen diagram, the circles in the
+original look much better than these ASCII approximations]
+Legend for Figure 1: Possible relationships between three state-specific
+sciences.  The area labeled O1-O2 is subject matter capable of direct
+observation in both sciences.  Area T1-T2 consists of theoretical (T)
+inferences about subject matter overlapping the two sciences.  By
+contrast, in area O1-T2, the theoretical propositions of state-specific
+science number 2 are matters of direct observation for the scientist
+in state of consciousness number 1, and visa-versa for area T1-O2.
+State-specific science number 3 consists of a body of observation and
+theory exclusive to that science.
+     The area labeled O1O2 permits direct observation in both
+sciences.  Area T1T2 permits theoretical inferences about common
+subject matter from the two perspectives.  In area O1T2 by
+contrast, the theoretical propositions of state-specific science
+number 2 are matters of direct observation for the scientist in
+SoC number 1, and vice versa for the area T1O2.  State-specific
+science number 3 consists of a body of observation and theory
+exclusive to that science and has no overlap with the other two
+sciences:  it neither confirms, denies, nor complemements them.
+     It would be naively reductionistic to say that the work in
+one state-specific science validates or invalidates the work in a
+second state-specific science; I prefer to say that two different
+state-specific sciences, where they overlap, provide quite
+different points of view with respect to certain kinds of
+theories and data, and thus complement (12) each other.  The
+proposed creation of state-specific sciences neither validates
+nor invalidates the activities of normal consciousness sciences
+(NCS).  The possibility of developing certain state-specific
+sciences means only that certain kinds of phenomena may be
+handled more adequately  within these potential new sciences.
+     Interrelationships more complex than those that are
+illustrated in Fig. 1 are possible.
+     The possibility of stimulating interactions between
+different state-specific sciences is very real.  Creative
+break-throughs in NCS have frequently been made by scientists
+temporarily going into an ASC (13).  In such instances, the
+scientists concerned saw quite different views of their problems
+and performed different kinds of reasoning, conscious or
+nonconsciousness, which led to results that could be tested
+within their NCS.
+     A current example of such interaction is the finding that in
+Zen meditation (a highly developed discipline in Japan) there are
+physiological correlates of meditative experiences, such as
+decreased frequency of alpha-rhythm, which can also be produced
+by means of instrumentally aided feedback-learning techniques
+(14).  This finding might elucidate some of the processes
+peculiar to each discipline.
+Differences
+     A widespread and misleading assumption that hinders the
+development of state-specific sciences and confuses their
+interrelationships is the assumption that because two people are
+normal (not certified insane), their ordinary SoC's are
+essentially the same.  In reality I suspect that there are
+enormous differences between the SoC's of some normal people.
+Because societies train people to behave and communicate along
+socially approved lines, these differences are covered up.
+     For example, some people think in images, others in words.
+Some can voluntarily anesthetize parts of their body, most
+cannot.  Some recall past events by imaging the scene and looking
+at the relevant details; others use complex verbal processes with
+no images.
+     This means that person A may be able to observe certain
+kinds of experiential data that person B cannot experience in his
+ordinary SoC, no matter how hard B tries.  There may be several
+consequences.  Person B may think that A is insane, too
+imaginative, or a liar, or he may feel inferior to  A.  Person A
+may also feel himself odd, if he takes B as a standard of
+normality.
+     In some cases, B may be able to enter an ASC and there
+experience the sorts of things that A has reported to him.  A
+realm of knowledge that is ordinary for A is then specific for an
+ASC for B.  Similarly, some of the experiences of B in his ASC
+may not be available for direct observation by A in his ordinary
+SoC.
+     The phenomenon of synesthesia can again serve as an example.
+Some individuals possess this ability in their ordinary SoC, most
+do not.  Yet 56 percent of a sample of experienced marijuana
+users experienced synesthesia at least occasionally (3) while in
+the drug-induced ASC.
+     Thus we may conceive of bits of knowledge that are specific
+for an ASC for one individual, part of ordinary consciousness for
+another.  Arguments over the usefulness of the concept of states
+of consciousness may reflect differences in the structure of the
+ordinary SoC of various investigators.
+     Another important source of individual differences, little
+understood at present, is the degree to which an individual may
+first make a particular observation or form a concept in one SoC
+and then be able to reexperience or comprehend it in another SoC.
+That is, many items of information which were state-specific when
+observed initially may be learned and somehow transferred (fully
+or partially) to another SoC.  Differences across individuals,
+various combinations of SoC's, and types of experience will
+probably be enormous.
+     I have only outlined the complexities created by individual
+differences in normal SoC's and have used the normal SoC as a
+baseline for comparison with ASC's; but it is evident that every
+SoC must eventually be compared against every other SoC.
+Problems, Pitfalls, and Personal Perils
+     If we use the practical experience of Western man with ASC's
+as a guide, the development of state-specific sciences will be
+beset by a number of difficulties.  These difficulties will be of
+two kinds: general methodological problems stemming from the
+inherent nature of some ASC's; and those concerned with personal
+perils to the investigator.  I shall discuss state-related
+problems first.
+     The first important problem in the proposed development of
+state-specific sciences is the obvious perception of truth.  In
+many ASC's, one's experience is that one is obviously perception
+of truth.  In many ASC's, one's experience is that one is
+obviously and lucidly experiencing truth directly, without
+question.  An immediate result of this may be an extinction of
+the desire for further questioning.  Further, this experience of
+obvious truth, while not necessarily preventing the individual
+investigator from further examining his data, may not arouse his
+desire for consensual validation.  Since one of the greatest
+strengths of science is its insistence on consensual validation
+of basic data, this can be a serious drawback.  Investigators
+attempting to develop state-specific sciences will have to learn
+to distrust the obvious.
+     A second major problem in developing state-specific sciences
+is that in some ASC's one's abilities to visualize and imagine
+are immensely enhanced, so that whatever one imagines seems
+perfectly real.  Thus one can imagine that something is being
+observed and experience it as datum.  If one can essentially
+conjure up anything one wishes, how can we ever get at truth?
+     One way of looking at this problem is to consider any such
+vivid imaginings as potential effects: they are data, in the
+sense that what can be vividly imagined in a given SoC is
+important to know.  It may not be the case that anything can be
+imagined with equal facility, and the relationships between what
+can be imagined may show a lawful pattern.
+     More generally, the way to approach this problem is to
+realize  that it is not unique to ASC's.  One can have all sorts
+of illusions, and misperceptions in our ordinary SoC.  Before the
+rise of modern physical world that could not be directly refuted.
+The same techniques that eliminated these illusions in the
+physical sciences will also eliminate them in state-specific
+sciences dealing with nonphysical data-that is, all observations
+will have to be subjected to consensual validation and all their
+theoretical consequences will have to be examined.  Insofar as
+experiences are purely arbitrary imaginings, those that do not
+show consistent patterns and cannot be replicated will be
+distinguished from those phenomena which do show general
+lawfulness.
+     The effects of this enhanced vividness of imagination in
+some ASC's will be complicated further by two other important
+problems, namely, experimenter bias (8, 9), and the fact that one
+person's illusion in a given ASC can sometimes be communicated to
+another person in the same ASC so that a kind of false consensual
+validation results.  Again, the only long-term solution to this
+would be the  requirement that predictions based on concepts
+arising from various experiences be verified experientially.
+     A third major problem is that state-specific sciences
+probably cannot be developed for all ASC's: some ASC's may depend
+on or result from genuine deterioration of observational and
+reasoning abilities, or a deterioration of volition.  Those SoC's
+for which state-specific sciences might well be developed will be
+discussed later, but it should be made clear that the development
+of each science should result from trial and error, and not from
+a priori decisions based on reasoning in our ordinary SoC's.
+     A fourth major problem is that of ineffability.  Some
+experiences are ineffable in the sense that: (i) a person may
+experience them, but be unable to express or conceptualize them
+adequately to himself; (ii) while a person may be able to
+conceptualize an experience to himself he may not be able to
+communicate it adequately to anyone else.  Certain phenomena of
+the first type may simply be inaccessible to scientific
+investigation.  Phenomena of the second type may be accessible to
+scientific investigation only insofar as we are willing to
+recognize that a science, in the sense of following most of the
+basic rules, may exist only for a single person.  Insofar as such
+a solitary science would lack all the advantages gained by
+consensual validation, we could not expect it to have as much
+power and rigor as conventional scientific endeavor.
+     Many phenomena which are now considered ineffable may not be
+so in reality.  This may be a matter of our general lack of
+experience with ASC's and the lack of an adequate language for
+communicating about ASC phenomena.  In most well-developed
+languages the major part of the vocabulary was developed
+primarily in adaptation to survival in the physical world.
+     Finally, we should recognize the possibility that various
+phenomena of ASC's may be too complex for human beings to
+understand.  The phenomena may depend on or be affected by so
+many variables that we shall never understand them.  In the
+history of science, however, many phenomena which appeared too
+complex at first were eventually comprehensible.
+Perils
+     The personal perils that an investigator will face in
+attempting to develop a state-specific science are of two kinds,
+those associated with reactions colloquially called a bad trip
+and a good trip, respectively.
+     Bad trips, in which an extremely unpleasant, emotional
+reaction is experienced in an ASC, and in which there are
+possible long-term adverse consequences on a person's personal
+adjustment, often stem from the fact that our upbringing has not
+prepared us to undergo radical alterations in our ordinary SoCs.
+We are dependent on stability, we fear the unknown, and we
+develop personal rigidities and various kinds of personal and
+social taboos.  It is traditional in our society to consider
+ASC's as signs of insanity; ASC's therefore cause great fears in
+those who experience them.
+     In many ASC's, defenses against unacceptable personal
+impulses may become partially or wholly ineffective, so the
+person feels flooded with traumatic material that he cannot
+handle.  All these things result in fear and avoidance of ASC's,
+and make it difficult or impossible for some individuals to
+function in an ASC in a way that is consistent with the
+development of a state-specific science.  Maslow (15) has
+discussed these as pathologies of cognition that seriously
+interfere with the scientific enterprise in general, as well as
+ordinary life.  In principle, adequate selection and training
+could minimize these hazards for at least some people.
+     Good trips may also endanger an investigator.  A trip may
+produce experiences that are so rewarding that they interfere
+with the scientific activity of the investigator.  The perception
+of obvious truth, and its effect of eliminating the need for
+further investigation or consensual validation have already been
+mentioned.  Another peril comes from the ability to imagine or
+create vivid experiences.  They may be so highly rewarding that
+the investigator does not follow the rule of investigating the
+obvious regardless of his personal satisfaction with results.
+Similarly, his attachment to good feelings, ecstasy, and the
+like, and his refusal to consider alternative conceptualizations
+of these, can seriously stifle the progress of investigation.
+     These personal perils again emphasizes necessity of
+developing adequate training programs for scientists who wish to
+develop state-specific sciences.  Although it is difficult to
+envision such a training is contrary to what would be needed to
+develop a state-specific science, because it tends to produce
+rigidity and avoidance of personal involvement with subject
+matter, rather than open-mindedness and flexibility.  Much of the
+training program would have to be devoted to the scientist's
+understanding of himself so that the (unconscious) effects of his
+personal biases will be minimized during his investigations of an
+ASC.
+     Many of us know that there have been cases where scientists,
+after becoming personally involved with ASC's, have subsequently
+become very poor scientists or have experienced personal
+psychological crises.  It would be premature, however, to
+conclude that such unfortunate consequences cannot be avoided by
+proper training and discipline.  In the early history of the
+physical sciences we had many fanatics who were nonobjective
+about their investigations.  Not all experiencers of various
+ASC's develop pathology as a result: indeed, many seem to become
+considerably more mature.  Only from actual attempts to develop
+state-specific sciences will we be able to determine the actual
+SoC's that are suitable for development, and the kinds of people
+that are best suited to such work (16).
+Prospects
+     I believe that an examination of human history and our
+current situation provides the strongest argument for the
+necessity of developing state-specific sciences.  Throughout
+history man has been influenced by the spiritual and mystical
+factors that are expressed (usually in watered-down form) in the
+religions that attract the masses of people.  Spiritual and
+mystical experiences are primary phenomena of various ASC's:
+because of such experiences, untold numbers of both the noblest
+and most horrible acts of which people are capable have been
+committed.  Yet in all the time that Western sciences has
+existed, no concerted attempt has been made to understand these
+ASC phenomena in scientific terms.
+     It was the hope of many people that religions were simply a
+form of superstition that would be left behind in our "rational"
+age.  Not only has this hope failed, but our own understanding of
+the nature of reasoning now makes it clear that it can never be
+fulfilled.  Reason is a tool, and a tool that is wielded in the
+service of assumptions, beliefs, and needs which are not
+themselves subject to reason.  The irrational, or, better yet,
+the a-rational, will not disappear from the human situation.  Our
+immense success in the development of the physical sciences has
+not been particularly successful in formulating better
+philosophies of life, or increasing our real knowledge of
+ourselves.  The sciences we have developed to date
+     not very human sciences.  They tell us how to do things, but
+give us not scientific insights on questions of what to do, what
+not to do, or why to do things.
+     The youth of today and mature scientists in increasing
+numbers are turning to meditation, oriental religions, and
+personal use of psychedelic drugs.  The phenomena encountered in
+these ASC;s provide more satisfaction and are more relevant to
+the formulation of philosophies of life and deciding upon
+appropriate ways of living, than "pure reason" (17).  My own
+impressions are that very large numbers of scientists are now
+personally exploring ASC's, but few have begun to connect this
+personal exploration with their scientific activities.
+     It is difficult to predict what the chances are of
+developing state-specific sciences.  Our knowledge is till too
+diffuse and dependent on our normal SoC's.  Yet I think it is
+probable that state-specific sciences can be developed for such
+SoC's as auto-hypnosis, meditative states, lucid dreaming,
+marijuana intoxication, LSD intoxication, self-remembering,
+reverie, and biofeedback-induced states (18).  In all of these
+SoC's, volition seems to be retained, so that the observer can
+indeed carry out experiments on himself or others or both.  Some
+SoC's, in which the volition to experiment during the state may
+disappear, but in which some experimentation can be carried out
+if special conditions are prepared before the state is entered,
+might be alcohol intoxication, ordinary dreaming, hypnagogic and
+hypnagogic and hypnagogic states, and high dreams (18).  It is
+not clear whether other ASC;s would be suitable for developing
+state-specific sciences or whether mental deterioration would be
+too great.  Such questions will only be answered by experiment.
+     I have nothing against religious and mystical groups.  Yet I
+suspect that the vast majority of them have developed compelling
+belief systems rather than state-specific sciences.  Will
+scientific method be extended to the development of
+state-specific sciences so as to improve our human situation?  Or
+will the immense power of ASC's be left in the hands of many
+cults and sects?  I hope that the development of state-specific
+sciences will be our goal.
+References and Notes
+.	T. Blackburn, Science 172, 1003 (1971).
+.	Newsweek, 25 January 197 I, p. 52.
+.	An attempt to describe the phenomena of marijuana intoxication
+in terms that make sense to the user, as well as the investigator, has
+been presented elsewhere. See C  Tart, On Being Stoned: A Psychological
+Study of Marijuana Intoxication (Science & Behavior Books, Palo
+Alto, 1971).
+.	C. Naranjo and R. Ornstein On the Psychology of Meditation
+(Viking, New York, 1971).
+.	Note that an SoC is defined by the stable parameters of the
+pattern that constitute it, not by the particular technique of inducing
+that pattern, for some ASC's can be induced by a variety of induction
+methods. By analogy, to understand the altered computer program you
+must study what it does, not study the programmer who originally set it up.
+.	T. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Univ. of
+Chicago Press, Chicago, 1962).
+.	Note that states of confusion and impaired functioning are
+certainly  aspects of some drug-induced SoC's, but are not of primary
+interest here.
+.	R. Rosenthal, Experimenter Effects in Behavioral  Research
+(Appleton-Century.Crofts, New York, 1966).
+.	M. Orne, Amer. Psychologist. 17, 776 (1962).
+.	A state-specific scientist might find his own work somewhat
+incomprehensible  when  he was not in that SoC because of the phe-
+nomenon of state-specific  memory-that is, not enough of his work
+would transfer to his ordinary  SOC  to  make  it  comprehensible,
+even  though it  would  make  perfect sense when he was again in the
+ASC in which he did his scientific work.
+.	"Ordinary consciousness  science"  is  not  a good example of
+a "pure" state-specific science because many important discoveries have
+occurred  during  ASC's,  such  as  reverie, dreaming, and meditative-like
+states.
+.	N. Bohr, in Essays, 1958-1962, on Atomic Physics and Human
+Knowledge (Wiley, New York, 1963).
+.    B. Ghiselin,  The Creative Process (New American Library, New York,
+).
+.	E. Green, A. Green, E. Walters, J. Transpersonal Psychology. 2,
+(1970).
+.	A. Maslow, The Psychology of Science: A Reconnaissance (Harper
+& Row, New York 1966).
+.	The  ASC's  resulting from  very  dangerous drugs (heroin, for
+example) may be scientifically interesting, but the risk may be too
+high to warrant our developing state-specific sciences for them. The
+personal and social issues involved in evaluating this  kind  of
+risk are beyond the scope of this article.
+.	J. Needleman, The New Religions (Doubleday, New York, 1970).
+.	C. Tart, Altered States of Consciousness: A Book of Readings
+(Wiley, New York, 1969).