Perhaps, but he didn’t try and convince anyone that there was anything mystical about them.
Segments of psychology are science. A lot of it is still bullcrap descended from Freud and anyone else who came up with some cool sounding and unprovable theory over the last century.
I’m with **Chronos **on this. So what?
With all due respect to the OP, this is what happens when laymen try to do physics. Yes, we are all part of the infinite universe. But what this means “spiritually” is not something you should look to science for answers.
The impact is zero. The impact of the IDEA of duality is large, but that doesn’t make it real, or even worth taking seriously.
Lot’s of folks are taking it seriously, I don’t mean just the tree-huggin dirt worshippers either. Bonafide science is trying to find evidence of spirituality - However, that being said, my bad for forgetting the science purists we have. I’ll stay in my liberal imaginative sphere until we are recognized by the science community. As for it not being something to look to science for answer for, science has been proving wacked out ideas for a long time - you guys should know that. 
First, I bet you mean “evidence of spiritual entitites” or something like that, since no one would question the obvious fact that spirituality exists.
Second, I’d like to see which scientific research you’re referring to here.
-FrL-
I don’t understand. A’s being connected to B does not make A identical to B.
Why wouldn’t there be dichotomies etc.? Why do you think it must be that our mind is creating them? Again, just because things are connected doesn’t mean they’re identical. Indeed, they can’t be “connected” unless they aren’t identical. Just by saying “these are connected” you already presuppose a dichotomy between them.
-FrL-
We are our brains, as you note – fragile three-pound lumps of specialized tissue. That’s a cold, scary fact; no wonder people like a Doper I won’t mention except that his name rhymes with Schmekatt can’t accept that, and convince themselves of supernatural or pseudoscientific ways for that not to be true. (I’m not trying to be cute with the name; I just figure he regularly searches for his own name in order to get in there and hijack threads.)
Phlosphr, if a good study comes up with evidence for “chi” or “lifeforce” or a “soul” being something more than a mental image, I (and the rest of the world) will be very interested.
So will I, as you say, so will many people. Hereis the simple wiki article on transpersonal research and contributions to the academic field. I don’t have a lot of time right now - I’m off to work, but that gives at very least an overview of what is happening in the field and what scientists are trying to study. Basically, it’s transcendent experiences, meditation, peak experience, consciousness study etc…etc… All things traditional petri-dish science steers away from. But that doens’t mean we shouldn’t study these very real experiences.
Aah. . . yeah. Great. Well, if they ever find anything that isn’t purely psychological, give us a shout.
Of course! You kidding, this is would be the best spot to bring it up. For now, I should probably stay away from the foo foo cerebral stuff. 
Thanks for the morning humor. We all need a bit of that in these “troubling times”.
There’s nothing in our experience that requires a soul to explain it, and rather a lot of evidence to the contrary, including a hell of a lot of experiments that have turned up bupkus. Even without the latter, Occam’s Razor alone would be reason enough to reject duality. But in fact, it’s not just the Razor – notions of the soul are inelegant and the things in our experience are in fact *better *explained without it.
–Cliffy
I’d venture to guess that the majority of wacked out ideas get disproved, not proved. So statistically speaking, this argument doesn’t work in your favor.
You are confusing a bunch of different things here.
Everything in the universe is one substance (monism). There are some supporters of this in physics.
Everything in the universe is connected. This is true in some sense - everything effects everything else through the basic forces. But does this propagate any faster than the speed of light?
Our mind is psychically connected to, or has direct sensory perception of it’s connectedness with the entire universe. I don’t think this is well supported. Even if everything else in the universe was exerting a direct force on us, propagating instantly, this doesn’t mean that the force is large enough to detect, let alone that there is a reason for us to have developed the sensory cells to detect it or the brain algorithms to process that data.
The mind typically has a subject object dichotomy of perception, but can through certain training (meditation) or alternate means (drugs, powerful magnets, normal state of being for first few months of life) gain a sense of being at oneness with everything. But this is just a processing and perspective phenomenon - it says more about the way our brains do things than how the universe works.
Philosophically, there is no duality. This is true for the most part - duality is for the most part either a convenience or an illusion. If you look closely at anything, there are no real borders separating one thing from another.
There’s probably more too that I haven’t thought of. But basically, there are a lot of different issues being bandied about with the ‘nonduality’ label that don’t have more than a superficial connection to each other.
Not that I disagree with your hypothesis, but I don’t think your test is adequate. You could just as easily say that severing the connection to a series of external hard drives that are each optimized for a particular type of file or subject, one by one, proves that the information was in the connecting wire and not in the external hard drives, and that in fact the external hard drives are a myth. Or maybe a better example would be a series of wifi routers. The truth is we don’t know yet exactly how memory works or how it is stored. Being able to create a new memory, or modify it in a predictable way is a much better test. In general tests that involve making something fail to work are not reliable producers of this kind of knowledge.