Well, the interference pattern would be formed by the more thoughtful parts of the brain too. It's not just that we forget about our union with nature, but that no one can understand every aspect of that union. You'd have to be omniscient to do so.

Buddhists insist we can directly experience the union, which is enough, and I agree that peak states of consciousness are possible. Yet I don't see how enlightened Buddhists could make admirable choices without presupposing instrumental reason (basic animal intelligence), which is what science builds on. Scientific explanations entail that however unified nature may be at some level, nature also complexifies, so it's prudent to act on the basis of our limited understanding which divides the world according to our conceptions and preferences.

If a Buddha breaks free from all of that, why shouldn't that person behave chaotically or bizarrely, as some of them seem to do? What bothers me here is the whitewashing of enlightenment, the pretense that you can dismiss our limited conceptions and explanations as being undermined by the experience of cosmic unity, while still somehow justifying benevolent goals or the judgment that it's better to be at peace than to suffer? Shouldn't suffering, too, be united with tranquility? What's the difference between them, then, and why prefer one to the other, assuming the limited self is unreal?