If not meat, where? I don't mean to offend, but I am curious as to how one can separate pseudo-science, already disproven ideas (All matter is made from 5 elements) and some eastern tradition from posed hypothesis, repeatable experiments and conclusions that are up for being argued.

One approach is to say consciousness is properly basic like science assumes matter and/or energy are/is.

Quoting Richard Feynman -- "During the Middle Ages there were all kinds of crazy ideas, such as that a piece of rhinoceros horn would increase potency. Then a method was discovered for separating the ideas — which was to try one to see if it worked, and if it didn't work, to eliminate it. This method became organized, of course, into science. And it developed very well, so that we are now in the scientific age. It is such a scientific age, in fact, that we have difficulty in understanding how witch doctors could ever have existed, when nothing that they proposed ever really worked — or very little of it did."

"Yogis have nailed this...." You are saying Yogi's have nailed where consciousness comes from? Do you have any references we could look at?

We (western people) own that to the rationalist notion that anything thats spiritual, mistic, esoteric, has to be the complete opposite of rational. Theres no one or the other, both notions has to be part ot the Truth, if some theory dispises one or the other, it cannot lead to the Truth.

Did you just downmod without adding anything to the conversation?

Have you read the guidelines here?

"Resist complaining about being downmodded. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading."

http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

My mistake. Its just that its a little frustrating to be waiting for a thougth-provoking comment and find that i was just downmodded. Thanks for calling me on that.

No worries. Thought about what you wrote above and here's my take on it: First, in defining boundaries of a system, we inherently create an "inside" and "outside." By drawing boundaries, everything which adheres to a theory is "inside" and everything else is "outside." I am not sure what you mean by capitalized "Truth." If you mean it in a spiritual sense, then a theory that Jesus turned water into wine cannot encapsulate the opposite theory that Jesus did not turn water into wine. The "Truth" is that Jesus turned water into wine, so both notions cannot be part of the Truth.

In defining rational as "logical steps that can be replicated with enough of a probability that it can't be a one-off event," we can take a look at Tibetan monks who can withstand freezing temperatures and control their body temperatures. From a quick look, this appears to be a mystical power. In freezing temperatures/snow storms, I would freeze to death while a monk can meditate for hours. However, these monks can replicate these feats in such a way that they can train others to do this (even though it may take years). Going back to our water to wine example, only one person, according to history, has been able to perform this feat. The fact that it cannot be replicated with enough of a probability leads the event being label as non-rational.

For some things as enlightnement in zen/buddhist world views, there is no rational way to go from non-englightened to englightened. However, the event has been replicated enough times that you could argue that this is a rational thing can and has occurred.