Biology, Yoga, and the Philosophy of Science

Throughout my education, I considered myself to be a rational, scientific student of the world. I studied Zoology for my Bachelor’s degree. I loved the broad picture, the interconnectedness between all organisms through the process of evolution. I was intrigued by everything from cell biology to ecology. I even ventured into Chemistry and Physics. Anything which was driven by the scientific method was alright in my book. 

At the end of my bachelor’s degree I, like many biology students, was at a crossroads. I could venture into the world and try to get a job, or I could venture further into academia. I chose the latter. I had always wanted to be a zoo keeper or join a non-profit, and Colorado State offered a combination Master’s program focused on the biology and business of animal-based organizations. I was intrigued, and immediately signed up.

My coursework was an extension of my Bachelor’s degree, and I mainly studied the biology and behavior of captive animals, as well as the business classes required to manage the financials of a large organization.

However, in my first year as a graduate student I took a class which forever changed my entire trajectory.

The Philosophy of Science

The class was Science and Ethics. It had the dubious course code PHIL 666, which always struck me as odd. The professor later revealed that he had chosen the code to remind us that even science can be used to malicious ends. We studied everything from nuclear bombs to animal testing. It was a thorough review on many of the ways science has screwed up over the years.  

One of the most striking examples we covered was the emergence of psychology, and the effects it had on the rest of the scientific community. The details can be found in the book Science and Ethics by Bernard Rollin, but I will summarize the arguments here.

Rene Descartes was a French philosopher and scientists, born in 1596. Descartes studied a variety of subjects, and his writings have affected scientific ideology for centuries. Concerning biology, Descartes essentially argued that animals are automatons, or robots, which simply react to inputs they receive. The 1600s saw a drastic resurgence of science and technology. Sir Isaac Newton, born in 1642, helped lead math and physics into the scientific revolution. Other disciplines, such as biology and psychology, were keen to follow suit. 

However, they faced a significant challenge. Much of what they studied could only be described qualitatively. Newton ushered in a new era of ‘Quantitative is King’. Studies which could not prove their results mathematically were immediately criticized. 

But how do you discuss consciousness if you are not allowed to talk about it qualitatively? J.B. Watson, a leading psychologist at the time, decided it was better to avoid the subject altogether and focus on aspects of the mind which could be quantified. Instead, Watson started the study of behaviorism backed by the ideology that consciousness is immeasurable. This sound like an innocent premise, but it leads to detrimental consequences. 

Watson’s experiments, fueled by the desire to produce tangible and marketable results in the field of psychology, have been a source of controversy ever since. Watson’s aim was to prove that humans were more or less simple machines. He once said that he could take any man and condition him into whatever type of man was needed. He was also an advocate for not loving your children too much, as it makes them weaker. Is his most controversially experiment -- the “Little Albert” experiment -- Watson showed that he could condition a child to be terrified of a small white rat. He did this by creating a loud noise whenever the rat was present.

While this seems like a no-brainer to anyone who has been around a child, these and other experiments furthered Watson’s efforts to treat humans and animals as merely complex robots interacting with the world. Other scientists, like B.F. Skinner, developed devices such as the “Skinner box” which could both reward rats with treats or electrocute them as punishment. By today’s standards these experiments might be questioned, but at the time people just saw results. Skinner observed pigeons reacting in absurd ways to the constant and repetitive distribution of food, and correlated this to human behaviors such as superstition and ritual. While the human and animal minds are much more complicated than that, this ideology spread to the rest of the scientific community and hardened them against outside theories.

I took several more ethics classes during my time as a graduate student. Some were focused on science philosophy, and others were focused specifically on animal research. Through these classes and PHIL 666, my zeitgeist changed. I had a different view of the world. While I used to adore science, I now saw a major flaw. 

Quantitative science produced a scenario in which it was more important how long you lived, rather than the quality of that life. Quality of life is hard to define, and days lived is absolute. But is this actually how anyone outside of the scientific community views the world?

While I was previously aligned with science, and generally against things like ritual and religion, this general ideology of quantity over quality had me concerned. I looked inwardly, at my own career path. In the zoo and aquarium field, it is generally assumed that if you can keep an animal alive, it must be happy and healthy. Until recent years, most zoo animals were still considered ‘attractions’ instead of animals. Given that ‘happiness’ was an immeasurable object, scientists abandoned the subject of happiness in a captive animal. After writing my thesis on how zoos and aquariums could more effectively meet the needs of their captive animals and give back to the wild populations, I decided not to pursue a career in zoos or aquariums.

Instead, I began to explore other opportunities. I became a writer and researcher, and love diving into those topics which science has ignored. Many of these topics are now being rediscovered by a new generation of scientists. These scientists, like me, believe that just because we cannot measure a given theory, it is not instantly invalid and nonexistent. Quantitative studies, while more statistically rigorous than qualitative studies and anecdotes, also have their limitations. A qualitative study can more easily draw a ‘big-picture’ for the reader. It can allow them to understand interconnected concepts, which can then lead to the development of more rigorous quantitative studies. I decided to embrace a “Science plus Common Sense” approach to life. In other words, try not to rule anything out until you fully understand it. 

A key aspect of being a good researcher is using your ability to combine two or more areas of knowledge. If you do this with two areas which have been separated throughout history, it is much like holding two color filters over your vision. Each shapes your worldview separately, but together they reveal something completely new. A good researcher has good filters, and can see what they become when you look through all of them. I wanted to test my new Science and Common Sense approach, on something in my everyday life.

As a biology student, my main filter is usually biological. I understand how organisms work, how they survive, and how they evolve. As such, after college I began to notice some things about myself. My weight and heart rate were generally increasing, while my productivity and activity levels were generally decreasing. In non-biology terms, I was getting fat and lazy. I have never been a runner or enjoyed lifting weights. Deciding to embrace my new attitude, I looked into “alternative” exercises. 

I say that now as a joke, because Yoga is becoming very mainstream. But when and where I grew up, Yoga was on par with “Homeopathy” and “Voodoo”. Rural Americans are not typically fans of anything new and different. By the time I graduated college, Yoga was on its way up. Yoga studios were popping up in towns small and large across the United States. Even my little sister -- once a rooted, small town Catholic girl -- had gotten her Yogi certification. I decided it was time to check it out. 

How Yoga Added to My View of Biology

While Yoga has only recently been examined by Western medicine and scientists, it has been around for thousands of years, and practiced in various forms. At its base are a series of forms, stretches and breathing exercises. These exercises are intended to ‘unite the mind and body’. Yoga itself means ‘to join’, in reference to the mind and body. I went into it with an open mind, and was pleasantly surprised by the results.

I did some basic Yoga sessions, concentrating mostly on my body. My biological filter saw the benefit of these exercises immediately. My muscles were definitely being worked, despite the exercise being mostly static. Further, the breathing oxygenates your blood. This helps you feel relaxed, and gives you a heightened ability to concentrate. These measurable health benefits were easy to quantify, and thus the exercise portion of Yoga was easily adopted into Western culture. But what about the mental side of Yoga? Could Yoga help me be less lazy?

Some “fanatical” Yogis have claimed over the years to have the cures for depression, mental illness, and even some physical ailments, all in the form of control over one’s own mind. My biology filter told me this was nonsense, but only because I couldn’t see how it could be done. With my new credo in mind, I decided to drop my defenses and read a book on yoga.

With a little bit of digging, I quickly found that Yoga is broken into a series of different paths and focuses. There is a yoga that studies energy in the body, and one that is devoted to the different types of breath. There are paths in yoga which study the body, the muscles, and their movement as a whole. Other types of yoga get into mysticism and clairvoyance through crystals. I was not interested in these, and chose a book on ‘Raja Yoga’ by William Walker Atkinson, which is the branch of yoga which studies the mind and emotions. 

The book was written over a hundred years ago, and works to introduce the Western mind to foreign concepts. Interestingly, I found the concepts presented in the book to be strikingly familiar to those in my biology education. For example, one Yoga practice is to picture an object in your mind and hold it there as long as possible. As you do so, try to consider everything from the looks of the object to its uses. This basic task is what Western science refers to as visualization. Famous inventors and scientists throughout history have used visualization as a memory and concentration tool. Aristotle described building a “Memory Palace”. Nikola Tesla, inventor of AC electricity and many other fantastic things, constantly visualized his inventions before building them.

I decided to test the theories presented in the book, to see if I could use my mind to actively become less lazy. I visualized the work I needed to do, I allowed myself breaks in material, and actively learned to pass frustrating problems on to my subconscious to work themselves out. A look on Google Scholar into any of these areas will reveal that there is promising research combining many of these techniques to aid a multitude of ailments. I was surprised that this “alternative medicine” actually had some legs to stand on.

Encouraged by my small successes, and intrigued by the relationship between biology and Yoga, I finished the book, and have been intrigued by its most basic premise, which I am now trying to rationalize with my other filters of the world. The most basic premise of Raja Yoga is that because the mind and body are one, the mind can effectively control the body. The book (which at times is prone to the hyperbole of the early 1900s), effectively claims that the mind can control whether a person is healthy or sickly. While I was really skeptical at first, there is actually a lot of Western science to back this up.

Consider, for example, the placebo and nocebo effects. In the placebo effect, patients experience a reduction or elimination of their symptoms by taking a sugar pill and thinking it is medicine. In the nocebo effect, patients develop real and measurable side-effects. Sometimes these side-effects are entirely made-up, and patients still develop them. You could easily say someone is faking it, but it is really hard to fake a rash. Regardless of how you look at it, these patients have changed their health outcomes based on their mental state. Some have convinced themselves that the pill they are taking will save them, while others are convinced it will hurt them. It is amazing how powerful this effect is. Saying it works is one thing, but theorizing a mechanism for how it works is much harder.

A Theoretical Framework for Controlling the Body through the Mind

Here is a brief summary of how it could be possible, according to quantifiable science. We know for fact that the nervous system connects to nearly all systems in the body. Nerve signals are actually equivalent to electrical impulses. Electrical impulses are simply the movements of electrons and other charge-bearing molecules. What Raja Yoga describes as the Will, scientists call Chemistry. Both describe the relationships between molecules, and their ability or inability to combine. This ability is mainly governed by the subatomic particles in atoms, which adhere to almost mystical properties of quantum physics. Scientists still do not fully understand what governs these molecules. 

Combining my filters of biology and my emerging Yoga filter, the proposition of controlling your body with your mind becomes less muddled. By concentrating clearly on a subject, you are willing the electrical impulses required to make those thoughts into existence. Electrical impulses in the brain are similar to electricity in an electric wire. If the connection is there, it is likely the signal will pass. If the visualization is a goal, or a perceived fear, this signal eventually gets passed to the body. Over time, and with enough signaling, this could form a response in the body tissues. 

While the jury is still out on some of the claims of Raja Yoga, I can say this: It has given me a mastery over my emotions and general will power which I didn’t think was possible. It has also definitely increased my memory and visualization abilities, which are amazing tools if you learn how to use them. I also recognize that I could be experiencing the placebo effect, in a way, and that one person does not constitute statistical evidence.  

While I’m not saying Yoga is the only answer, I was definitely surprised by my journey into what I would previously call a ‘pseudo-science’. While Yogis do not subscribe to the same quantitative requirements for proof, they have found some interesting and worthwhile truths. I hope that in time Western science will find a way to more rigorously test some of these claims. It could provide a path to a healthier, more peaceful humanity. Use the scientific method, but don’t exclude subjects from your reality because you haven’t figured out how to test them. 

If you are interested in the concepts in this article, let me know by leaving me a comment below. I love to write about things people are interested in, and will try to structure future posts in a direction I think my readers will enjoy. 

Cheers,

Gabe

Sources:

A Series of Lessons in Raja Yoga by William Walker Atkinson

https://www.amazon.com/Lessons-Raja-William-Walker-Atkinson-ebook/dp/B0082VF70W/ref=mt_kindle?_encoding=UTF8&me=

Science and Ethics by Bernard E. Rollin

https://www.amazon.com/Science-Ethics-Bernard-Rollin-ebook/dp/B001APYSUM/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1525841106&sr=1-1&keywords=science+and+ethics

My Inventions: The Autobiography of Nikola Tesla by Nikola Tesla

https://www.amazon.com/My-Inventions-Autobiography-Nikola-Tesla/dp/B077R4MCZM/ref=sr_1_7?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1525841948&sr=1-7&keywords=tesla

All of the images are originals, taken by me with my Galaxy S6 on a hiking and meditation session while planning this post.