This Is Your Brain On God

[Freak80]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

This is truth. EVERYTHING we experience and KNOW is a function of our brain responses. That does not invalidate human knowledge. It is a preposterous claim.

No one is suggesting that it invalidates human knowledge.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

This is truth. EVERYTHING we experience and KNOW is a function of our brain responses. That does not invalidate human knowledge. It is a preposterous claim.

Originally Posted by Freak80

The point was to show that "religious experience" is not necessarily evidence for religious/ supernatural claims.

But it doesn't show that.

Originally Posted by Freak80

No one is suggesting that it invalidates human knowledge.

You just did suggest that by singling out the religious experience as invalid when it is no more and no less a brain response than any other involved in knowledge. You need some OTHER evidence of its invalidity and there is none.

[victorianpunk]

Originally Posted by Freak80

The point was to show that "religious experience" is not necessarily evidence for religious/ supernatural claims.

And what idiot would believe that?

And "supernatural" and "religious" are NOT NECESSARILY THE SAME THING! A Wiccan may think a walk in the woods is a religious experience. So either the woods don't exist or that was, for the Wiccan, a religious experience.

And no, you can have a certain area of the brain light up when around something spiritual that may light up for other reasons. Someone may also have an erection because they see leaked pictures of Emma Watson, or because they have to urinate really badly. Does that mean Emma Watson isn't real? Of course not.

[victorianpunk]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

You just did suggest that by singling out the religious experience as invalid when it is no more and no less a brain response than any other involved in knowledge. You need some OTHER evidence of its invalidity and there is none.

Exactly. I mean, if there was a high pitches whistle that only a few people could hear, and it turned out that their brains were lighting up in a certain spot, would that mean said whistle didn't exist and it was "just in their brains?" Maybe, maybe not.

And if seeing God acts on a certain part of the brain does that mean that God doesn't exist? Maybe, maybe not. Nothing is proven here.

[Freak80]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

But it doesn't show that.
You just did suggest that by singling out the religious experience as invalid when it is no more and no less a brain response than any other involved in knowledge. You need some OTHER evidence of its invalidity and there is none.

The burden of proof lies on the person making the claim that "religious experience" is proof of gods/afterlives etc. So far, emotional states generated by the brain have not given us evidence for gods or afterlives.

Anyone can make a claim.

For example: I experienced god and heaven in my sleep last night! For real!! That means gods and heaven are real!!!

Now...do you believe that??

[Freak80]

Originally Posted by victorianpunk

And no, you can have a certain area of the brain light up when around something spiritual that may light up for other reasons. Someone may also have an erection because they see leaked pictures of Emma Watson, or because they have to urinate really badly. Does that mean Emma Watson isn't real? Of course not.

I do not understand what you are trying to say here. Other than that Emma Watson is quite a hottie.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

But it doesn't show that.
You just did suggest that by singling out the religious experience as invalid when it is no more and no less a brain response than any other involved in knowledge. You need some OTHER evidence of its invalidity and there is none.

Originally Posted by Freak80

The burden of proof lies on the person making the claim that "religious experience" is proof of gods/afterlives etc. So far, emotional states generated by the brain have not given us evidence for gods or afterlives.
Anyone can make a claim.
For example: I experienced god and heaven in my sleep last night! For real!! That means gods and heaven are real!!!
Now...do you believe that??

What you refuse to acknowledge is that altered states of the brain produce different perceptions of reality. We have evidence that one of the things that can produce the altered state that detects a presence and sense of oneness is weak EM fields. This reveals that the brain senses fields and interprets them that way. We accept that when the brain senses light waves trhough the eye it interprets a visual reality and we don't say . . . that is just the brain interpreting things. We accept it as real. We have a weak clue about the brain's ability to sense fields and interpret them. We do not accept it as a real sense. Our reality is comprised of field and 95+% of it is not measurable by us . . . but no one accepts that the brain could be capable of sensing that 95% of reality when in a specific altered state. Why??

[Arach Angle]

let's not overcomplicate it ladies. The god helmet shows that when you "energize" the brain, all that the brain can do gets "better" or "enhanced". that's the base premise. Like sticking the a juicer's needle in your butt makes your muscles better.

So what are our choices and how reasonable are they?

We already have shown clearly that no-nothing and Omni-dude are pretty much out.

So, With enhanced brain functions It is reasonable to suggest that the brain can "feel" more connect to the surrounding system. It is also reasonable to suggest that the biosphere is alive and when we feel connected to it we feel connected to a much larger life form. Two life forms "feeling connected" can cause a feedback loop. It may even strengthen that connection. It would also offer the illusion of an "infinitely large" feeling.

On the other hand and enhanced brain can feel connect to inanimate things also. "hoarders" and people that buy pet rocks are excellent example of how a "broken brain" can misplace its "affection" onto non-life form items. Not only that but we also see how some people "LOVE" something that can revolt most people. The word "taboo" come to mind.

so how do we employ reason, common, sense and control to help us? For many it stops there and they are happy to choose right here. But some of us will need to tie up some obvious loose ends. But we do not have to get crazy due to the limited amount of information we have. I would suggest , maybe five, pieces of data that can complement each other to make your choice.

also I think we should understand how past experiences can hedge our choice to one side or the other. I am not going into detail because this is such a basic notion that if you don't know please don't be "a "preachy" atheist or theist. You will be exposed.

For me, I use particle interactions (any level), thermodynamics, and fields tied together with the notions of hierarchy of structure and emergence. Then move (change) as many perceptions as I can. From 10^-35 to 10^35. And look at what it means to say the words "our type of life based on carbon and water" and "humanity".

Many people, even here, are much better at writting this stuff, but please let me know where I am wrong. You can use anything you want and it is allowed as long as it is reasonable and you stay within your experiences and understanding.

[Freak80]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

What you refuse to acknowledge is that altered states of the brain produce different perceptions of reality.

I DO acknowledge that. Anyone who has ever had too much alcohol acknowledges that.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

We have evidence that one of the things that can produce the altered state that detects a presence and sense of oneness is weak EM fields. This reveals that the brain senses fields and interprets them that way. We accept that when the brain senses light waves trhough the eye it interprets a visual reality and we don't say . . . that is just the brain interpreting things. We accept it as real. We have a weak clue about the brain's ability to sense fields and interpret them. We do not accept it as a real sense. Our reality is comprised of field and 95+% of it is not measurable by us . . . but no one accepts that the brain could be capable of sensing that 95% of reality when in a specific altered state. Why??

Nobody is denying that weak electromagnetic fields are real. I don't understand what you are trying to say here. What do you mean that 95% of reality is not measurable?