Comments on: Neurotheology

By: Occult Investigator » Persinger’s Neurotheology Busted?

Occult Investigator » Persinger’s Neurotheology Busted? — Sun, 26 Jun 2005 20:09:19 +0000

[...]

Persinger’s Neurotheology Busted?

Update on the neurotheology front: the science journal Nature has an article about a Swedish team w [...]

By: alistair

alistair — Sat, 18 Jun 2005 18:57:11 +0000

fell,i read your post on women and i think the plural is uterii….
you might want to try the ross jeffries approach also.
by the way,ken wilber`s the theory of everything has been attempted and certainly coveted by everyone from einstien to aristotle and they failed.wilber is an egowhore with a good publicist and an intellectual wankster.he may also be the anti-christ.you have to be suspicious of handsome head shavers.
i also liked your description of the neurotic girl in your lecture.i`m surprised she can leave the house with that baggage.

By: Fell

Fell — Sat, 18 Jun 2005 17:39:04 +0000

Well, Ken is a handsome dude. I have his A Theory of Everything, just haven’t read it yet.

Gina, thank you for that Neotech URL!

As for the whole reality vs free will concept, this week’s issue (18 June) of New Scientist has that as their cover story.

By: Occult Investigator

Occult Investigator — Fri, 17 Jun 2005 04:35:45 +0000

you know what pisses me off the most about that dude: HIS PICTURE IS ALWAYS INCLUDED IN EVERYTHING HE DOES.

ALWAYS.

I bet when that dude takes a shit, a little picture of him squirts out.

By: Haeresis

Haeresis — Fri, 17 Jun 2005 03:25:04 +0000

I gotta say I’m always a bit suspicious about anyone whose name precedes them. ken Wilbur seems to be mostly about Ken Wilbur.

By: alistair

alistair — Thu, 16 Jun 2005 19:18:19 +0000

ken wilber busted himself when he said that matter existed for billions of years before human conciousness came along.how the fuck does he know.and to base a whole movement on an unproveable position,to my mind,makes it a religion.he wants his position to be the cutting edge of psychology and spirituality.
that was his arguement against minds creating matter.that was his irrefutable proof.fuckwit.

By: Occult Investigator

Occult Investigator — Thu, 16 Jun 2005 18:40:34 +0000

yeah ken wilber pisses me off.

By: alistair

alistair — Thu, 16 Jun 2005 18:37:13 +0000

oh and,yes i am,without a doubt,schizophrenic.the person in me that rides my bike for twwnty miles is vastly different from the one that makes breakfast for my children and gets them off to school and again vastly different from the one that posts here.
ken wilber suggests that polytheism is spiritual laziness in that it allows us immediate access to dieties without the preperation and focus that he believes is necessary to become spiritual.i`ve heard that position taken by others who suggest we aren`t qualified to comment unless we`ve reached thesis level in whatever discipline we are involved in.the world is only for phds(taxi drivers) then.
ken`s a smart guy.no doubt about that,but he is being a bit of an elitist.

By: alistair

alistair — Thu, 16 Jun 2005 18:25:18 +0000

the discussion of what if and how is valid and necessary,without this vigourous inquiry we wouldn`t be anything but robots…..and i`m stating this carefully so as not to appear as if i`m negating the process.we need proveable,reproducable results to validate ourselves.that is science(though some may debate whether that`s science`s agenda,these days.) so here`s some reproducable stuff we can all do to discover,or remind ourselves of what we are.
imagine a yellow,fresh lemon.cool to the touch.firm and slightly ridged surface texture.in your imagination,place the fruit on a cutting board and slice it with a sharp knife.cut a section from the slice,see the juice run from the slice onto the knife and your fingers.
now,bite the slice and taste the bitter juice.
if there is nothing more to our existance than that experience alone we are still god.
to include gods or entities after the fact is,to my mind,merely making playmates(or a boss or tormentor.)
the process described above is applicable to creating universes,in our minds.the thing we created god to explain.we are doing it ourselves.
we might actually be alone in this universe.but who cares when we can create so much of anything we want,right now.
we can make our heart rate increase or decrease,we can make our skin temperature go up or down,we can make our body repair it`s self and we can choose to be in a good mood for no reason.we can.we can watch a movie where we know that the people are only actors but we scare the shit out of ourselves or we sit in a room full of attractive women and read thier minds and convince ourselves that they wouldn`t want talk to us.and then feel it………..
visualisation is the key to this.
see the positive outcome and get the feelings as a result.stir up these feelings and ride the wave.
i find life is better this way.

By: lyam

lyam — Thu, 16 Jun 2005 16:15:04 +0000

Interesting idea. To drill down further it could be suggested that the nature of modern discursive thought is the result of a frission caused by dualistic concepts in order to produce a third new concept.

This mode of thought could be considered the flip side of analagous thinking where new parallel thoughts are created by grouping like thoughts together.

It’s interesting to note that this model could mesh with Jayne’s bicameral model. A bicameral mind (in practice a single mind directed by the gods) results in a mystical involvement with the rest of the world. A non-dualistic mode of conception. A non-bicameral mind (in practice a double mind consisting of consciousness and the unconsciousness) results in a withdrawl of mystical involvement. A dualistic mode of conception.

By: Occult Investigator

Occult Investigator — Thu, 16 Jun 2005 15:57:13 +0000

lyam, no worries. that was an excellent run-down on jaynes.

i was thinking last night too about the whole bicameral mind thing. and it brought up for me the topic of duality in religions. how you have good vs. evil, etc. i want to write more about this, but what if duality in religions simply springs from the split bicameral mind phenomenon, where the practitioner identifies more heavily with one side?

then you’d have non-dualistic religions, such as ones which focus on “love” and these would arise from a brain type that was more balanced or centered. ive heard someone say once that the symbol of the “dove” represents the brains corpus callosum (the connector between the two halves) and the wings outstretched, indicate the union of the two halves of the brain. if that really is the case, it would make sense that jesus was baptized in the holy spirit, received the “dove” and then went about to teach a message of unity

By: Occult Investigator

Occult Investigator — Thu, 16 Jun 2005 15:43:50 +0000

yeah i dont buy the 3000 year old definition either alistair. in fact, i would argue something much more radical: that “modern” consciousness is an illusion. that its not consistent from person to person, and that schizophrenia (or polytheism) is a more accurate model of the normally functioning human mind. but ill get into that some other time. ive written about that in more detail elsewhere

http://www.timboucher.com/journal/2004...1/monotheistic-polytheistic-mind.html

gina: yeah i remembered that link last night, and plan to read it today. thanks!

boing: do you have links to any articles where persinger talks about abduction phenomena? there was one interesting one where he or somebody else i read said that if you make a person believe a red hot nickel is in their hand, their skin would turn red in a circle. seems to fit in possibly with some physical injuries of abductees

i also agree with what you guys are saying that just because it “reduces” it to a biological experience, it doesnt eliminate the mystery or answer the “big questions”. at first thats how i felt about it, but the more i read and thought about it, i realized it asks more questions than it really answers

By: lyam

lyam — Thu, 16 Jun 2005 15:42:37 +0000

After having read this link, I realize that most of what I said is to be found there. Apologies.

By: lyam

lyam — Thu, 16 Jun 2005 15:41:46 +0000

Julian Jaynes wrote an interesting book postulating the evolution of human consciousness based on a breakdown of the bicameral mind. In a nutshell, he speculated that the two halves of the brain communicated with each other as if independant entities resulting in the belief in an ethereal/spiritual world inhabited by gods. As time progressed and civilizations developed around various trade routes, the need for a more complex interaction between between both halves of the brain necessitated a unifying structure. A more robustly developed corpus collusum. Through this bridge the voices from the gods died away and we were left with a more subtle internalized voice, that of the unconscious.

All of that does not in anyway contraindicate the existence of sophisticated cultural relics from the bicameral era. The artists merely believed they were creating things as decreed by the gods, rather than their own imagination.

Though I believe, flawed, Julian Jayne’s The Origin of Consciousness and the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind is a fascinating book with a lot of interesting ideas embedded within. Particularly if you are interested in Psychology, Human Consciousness, Mystical Experiences, and Religion.

By: alistair

alistair — Thu, 16 Jun 2005 13:54:19 +0000

if the conscious aspect of bicameral function is only 3000 years old as stated in the neo-tech link,then how does one explain chinese arts and crafts culture of thier iron age,rich in symbolism and metaphor,agreed to be over 5000 years old.or the i ching?not to mention the water damage to the sphinx at giza which,embarrassingly for egyptians,points to a 10,000+ year date for that structure.

By: Gina

Gina — Thu, 16 Jun 2005 13:08:53 +0000

Remember the link on Neotech I sent you a month or so ago?

here it is again, highly relevant

CONTROLLING MYSTICS THROUGH THEIR
BICAMERAL MINDS

http://www.neo-tech.com/neotech/discovery/nt3.html

By: hf

hf — Thu, 16 Jun 2005 06:51:41 +0000

Philisophically, it seems unjustified to say that something must ‘have’ the experience. But yes, the experience itself is real, and we can distinguish it from the corresponding event in (our model of) the brain.

By: boing!!!

boing!!! — Thu, 16 Jun 2005 05:24:39 +0000

Persinger has produced several articles explaining how psychological phenomenon similar to abduction and other paranormal experiences can be simulated using electromagnetic stimulation of a variety of types. Very interesting stuff but it cannot demonstrate (as noted above) causality of the greater phenomenon, just the potential for a set of interpretations of perceptions which may be influenced by said emf. Is such a set of em spectrum phenomenon present adjacent to, say, a UFO or the Lady of Fatima-type presence? Numerous physical ufologists assert so through the presence of other phenomena-burns on witnesses, eye pain on same, and so on. It leads me to wonder parenthetically if the reason that some people and equipment cannot detect these phenomena is that they are acting electromagnetically on our brains rather than at the energy level required to actually manifest physically in a dramatic way. Then there is the question of agency…….

By: slomo

slomo — Thu, 16 Jun 2005 03:28:52 +0000

Tim, great post. I don’t have much to add to your 3 points at the end of the post.

However, I would emphasize what may already be obvious to most of your readers: just because there is a reductionist explanation of a phenomenon doesn’t invalidate the phenomenon itself. Fine, Dr. Persinger can describe, in detail, the neurophysical/neurochemical dynamics that correlate strongly with subjective phenomena. But we already know that there are neurophysical correlates to almost every aspect of cognition. Why should religious experience be different? The fact is, something is actually having an experience. That something is a spirit or soul or emergent property or whatever, but it is real. And the experience it is having is real.

BTW and FWIW, I don’t have an issue with “science” . I, too, possess those three little letters after my name. But I’m very aware of the nature of the game I play professionally. Science is great at describing the “how”. But it is terrible at answering the “why”. It’s a travesty when people mistake a description of the former for an answer to the latter.