Well, that depends a whole lot on what you think it’s telling you, and that depends a whole lot on what you believe (which would be conscious, otherwise they’re (probably unspoken) assumptions and presuppositions) going in. I know that lots of work is being done here, but what are they really finding out. They can talk all they want about nets and networks and various functional areas, but I keep coming back to my neuroscientist buddy Manfred Spitzer and his three brains. They can’t explain them, so what we’re left with at bottom is plasticity, which is a fine notion, but it may not be as explanatory as they would have us believe.
What if things are the other way around? What if the neurochemical/hormonal phenomena that they are measuring are not causes but effects? What if the chemical/electrical process don’t generate thoughts/feelings/memories but rather are how thoughts/feelings/memories manifest in a “world of matter”. We long thought of ourselves as souls with bodies (and we managed to banish the notions of the soul and psyche), but what if in actuality we’re souls/psyches with bodies?
This is what I think Sri Aurobindo is saying. It’s very clear that this is what Steiner is saying. Do we really have a sound reason to simply reject what they are saying out of hand? Remember, the underlying or root meaning of “empirical” is “experience-based”. One form of experience is measuring, which in some circles has become the dominant form, but it’s certainly not the only form , and what if switching perspectives produced stronger explanatory results? You never know till you try, and I think some folks are trying that. That’s what I think Hammeroff and Penrose and Tipler – just to name a few who immediately spring to mind – are doing.
I’m not saying, I’m just saying.