It's more like me being sad that many people don't want to integrate human-level experiences into science.
No, no, many scientists do, but quantum mechanics is not "human level". Its weirdness at the fine-grained level usually averages out at the macro scale: probabilistic, jumpy, chunky, etc. at the atomic scale or smaller become (for all practical purposes) deterministic, stable, and smooth at the macro scale. Quantum mechanics is rarely useful for analysis of macro-scale phenomena. It would be like studying the human perception of time passing by resorting to relativistic time dilation: VERY unlikely to play any important role at the human scale.
There are exceptions where QM and relativistic effects are visible at human scale, but that's not a smart place to start looking for explanations of human-scale phenomena. It would be like losing my car keys and flying to Tahiti to look for them. As interesting as Tahiti is, if my real goal is to find my keys, I should start in the house, garage, car, office, etc., and ignore Tahiti.
The place to start looking for an understanding of meditative phenomena is cognitive science, not quantum science, in my opinion.
I never heard of a scientist who actually tried really hard to study meditation
Some are working on it. Go to scholar.google.com and search for meditation. Unfortunately, most of this work is done by the least scientific of the "science" departments. My (controversial) opinion of it is that a great deal of what is done in "psychology" is leftist junk science. What they discover often depends on the current political agenda they are trying to promote.
Though there is good work done by psych departments, too, the best real science in human cognition (of which meditation is a part) is being done by cognitive modelers using computers and algorithms, and AI researchers. They don't just claim to find things about people, they build cognitive systems and see what phenomena emerge. They explain phenomena by reproducing them--far more scientifically rigorous.
Cognitive modeling is too low-level to be ideal for investigating real human-scale phenomena, so it has to be combined with psychology, but it's much closer to human scale than QM. I believe that we won't have any solid, scientific explanations of meditative states until we can build working models of human cognition that are very close to the real thing and recreate ordinary mental states. Trying to just jump straight into it instead of slowly building up to it is like the ancient alchemists trying to make gold from lead with no knowledge of atoms or molecules.
RE: quantum mechanics, my mentioning it is mostly in the sense of wondering if the quantum plane is the "place" where our true "essences" truly live. Again though, that's just a wild speculation without any scientifical substance. I realize that, it's simply something I grew to wonder about in the last several years. I honestly can't claim any relation to anything spiritual, that's a fact that can't be denied.
RE: human cognition: IMO until science has a very detailed understanding on how is the brain temporarily altered while under the influence of various kinds of drugs, we can't do much progress there. I mean, that way your normal state would be a partial baseline, and the altered states would be something producing a different set of parameters compared to the baseline. Comparing both would give some insights, perhaps -- sounds hard as hell though.
No, no, many scientists do, but quantum mechanics is not "human level". Its weirdness at the fine-grained level usually averages out at the macro scale: probabilistic, jumpy, chunky, etc. at the atomic scale or smaller become (for all practical purposes) deterministic, stable, and smooth at the macro scale. Quantum mechanics is rarely useful for analysis of macro-scale phenomena. It would be like studying the human perception of time passing by resorting to relativistic time dilation: VERY unlikely to play any important role at the human scale.
There are exceptions where QM and relativistic effects are visible at human scale, but that's not a smart place to start looking for explanations of human-scale phenomena. It would be like losing my car keys and flying to Tahiti to look for them. As interesting as Tahiti is, if my real goal is to find my keys, I should start in the house, garage, car, office, etc., and ignore Tahiti.
The place to start looking for an understanding of meditative phenomena is cognitive science, not quantum science, in my opinion.
I never heard of a scientist who actually tried really hard to study meditation
Some are working on it. Go to scholar.google.com and search for meditation. Unfortunately, most of this work is done by the least scientific of the "science" departments. My (controversial) opinion of it is that a great deal of what is done in "psychology" is leftist junk science. What they discover often depends on the current political agenda they are trying to promote.
Though there is good work done by psych departments, too, the best real science in human cognition (of which meditation is a part) is being done by cognitive modelers using computers and algorithms, and AI researchers. They don't just claim to find things about people, they build cognitive systems and see what phenomena emerge. They explain phenomena by reproducing them--far more scientifically rigorous.
Cognitive modeling is too low-level to be ideal for investigating real human-scale phenomena, so it has to be combined with psychology, but it's much closer to human scale than QM. I believe that we won't have any solid, scientific explanations of meditative states until we can build working models of human cognition that are very close to the real thing and recreate ordinary mental states. Trying to just jump straight into it instead of slowly building up to it is like the ancient alchemists trying to make gold from lead with no knowledge of atoms or molecules.