The Frightening Resemblences Between Christians and Schizophrenics

Intense emotional disturbances and a nightmarish sense of confusion sometimes mark schizophrenia. This is usually related to specific precipitating stresses. Isn't this the same as the turmoil and confusion, which marks the point at which a person becomes a born-again Christian? Ask a Christian about his life before he became a Christian. Listen as he describes turmoil, and confusion.

Both the schizophrenic and the Christian live in a world filled with fantasy, illogical ideas, and invisible beings. Christians live in a world of gods, devils, angels, ghosts, heavens and hells. Is this reality, or the fantasy realm of the schizophrenic? The Christian believes in one god-the Father, the son and the Holy Ghost. It that logical thinking, or illogical?

Clearly the latter. And both groups claim that what they believe is true to the point where all logic contrary to their ideals is dismissed. No matter what.

Schizophrenics sometimes have false beliefs (delusions) that aliens are monitoring their thoughts. A schizophrenic might believe his thoughts are being broadcast on his neighbor's television, or that communists are trying to take control of his brain. Likewise, the Christian believes that God monitors his thoughts, and the Devil is trying to control him.

Delusions of grandeur and of persecution are typical schizophrenic symptoms. Christians have both delusions. The Christian believes in the grandiose delusion of immortality, and that he is a part of "God's Plan." He also believes that satanic, demonic influences are persecuting him, the world around him, and constantly luring him toward evil.

Hallucinations are common with schizophrenics. The most common ones are auditory. The patient hears voices, and believes they are real. Hallucinations can also be visual, gustatory (taste), somatic ("I can feel Jesus in my heart"), tactile "(I felt God touch me"), emotional or olfactory (smell). Doesn't the Christian "hear" God during praying, and don't some see "visions" that aren't really there?
The schizophrenic typically is incapable of experiencing common everyday pleasures. How does this comment on the notion of some fundamentalists that playing cards, social drinking, dancing, sex, etc., are generally evil and to be avoided? How does this reflect on the typical Roman Catholic idea that our purpose in the world is to suffer?

Other features of mental illness with parallels in Christian behavior are Poverty of speech content (vagueness, empty repetition of meaningless obscure phrases). Examples are the hymn “Holy, Holy, Holy”, chanting “Amen” or suddenly shouting “Hallelujah”. The Christian also uses empty quotes from the bible, most of the time, without any clue what they mean.

Poverty of Speech Amount (brief, unelaborated responses), such as “I just know”, is another common quality. Incoherent speech (speech which is not understandable) is common.

Obsessive-Compulsive behavior (irresistible impulses to perform repeated irrational actions)is yet another shared quality. Have you ever seen a priest kiss a cross around his neck? Baptizing infants makes no sense at all, yet is common practice. Hell, even attending church or spreading the word of God to everyone you see is an act of Obsessive-Compulsive behavior.

www.geocities.com/godisimpossible/frentic.html

The neural substrates of religious experience
JL Saver and J Rabin
UCLA-Reed Neurologic Research Center 90095, USA.

Religious experience is brain-based, like all human experience. Clues to the neural substrates of religious-numinous experience may be gleaned from temporolimbic epilepsy, near-death experiences, and hallucinogen ingestion. These brain disorders and conditions may produce depersonalization, derealization, ecstasy, a sense of timelessness and spacelessness, and other experiences that foster religious-numinous interpretation. Religious delusions are an important subtype of delusional experience in schizophrenia, and mood-congruent religious delusions are a feature of mania and depression. The authors suggest a limbic marker hypothesis for religious-mystical experience. The temporolimbic system tags certain encounters with external or internal stimuli as depersonalized, derealized, crucially important, harmonious, and/or joyous, prompting comprehension of these experiences within a religious framework.

M*W,

The symptoms apply to anyone who maintains strong spiritual beliefs such as yourself for example.

Originally posted by Cris
M*W,

The symptoms apply to anyone who maintains strong spiritual beliefs such as yourself for example. And with a *ping* the nail is hit :)

Originally posted by Cris
M*W,

The symptoms apply to anyone who maintains strong spiritual beliefs such as yourself for example.

So spirituality does not exist then....and everything is material?

Love

Jan Ardena.

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
So spirituality does not exist then....and everything is material?

Love

Jan Ardena.

That's not what Cris was saying. The point is this: Those symptoms can be interpreted so that anyone of strong religous/spiritual beliefs will fit them. How you got spirituality doesn't exist from that, I haven't a clue.

It's all about what is perceived by the majority as normal or 'sane' and the degree to which those symptoms are present.
ie, biting your lip in times of stress would be a nervous habit. Biting you lip all day, to the point where blood is flowing because you felt you had to would be OC. A more relevant example: Arguing, occasionally, against someone because you feel their argument isn't well supported is a normal action. Constantly attacking someone day in and day out, over and over, demeaning them, and pointing out how they are 'mentally unstable' (even when you show yourself in the same light) because you feel compelled to prove you are right would be OC.

Frankly, I was thinking the exact same think Cris.

Originally posted by Mephura
How you got spirituality doesn't exist from that, I haven't a clue.

M.W. said,

"Both the schizophrenic and the Christian live in a world filled with fantasy, illogical ideas, and invisible beings. Christians live in a world of gods, devils, angels, ghosts, heavens and hells."

Cris said,

"M*W,

The symptoms apply to anyone who maintains strong spiritual beliefs such as yourself for example."

I know that is not the sum total of what M.W. implied, but her implication that Christianity is a fantasy plus what most of us know as Cris's understanding of religion in general, could easily be concluded as spirituality is non-existent. So my enquirey was intended to clear everything up. :)

Thanks for taking an interest.

Love

Jan Ardena.

Originally posted by Cris
M*W,

The symptoms apply to anyone who maintains strong spiritual beliefs such as yourself for example.

And your atheistic beliefs as well, Cris.

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
So spirituality does not exist then....and everything is material?

Love

Jan Ardena. What is “spirituality”? If “spirituality” is not physical then it can not be perceived in the physical sense and thus you would not have any idea about it. Does a body without a brain still have “spirituality”? Simply put, what most people perceive as “spirituality” is directly related to feelings they experience which again are directly related to chemical reactions occurring in their brain. Hence it is not uncommon for people to take a “drug trip” and later (sometimes years) still talk about how that puyt them in touch with god. Or the schizophrenic who hears gods voice in his head and has weekly visits from Marry and/or Jesus. We call these people chemically imbalanced. And sure enough when given a bit of lithium or other psychotropic drug they may stabilize and the spirituality manifestations can permanently abate. All evidence points to this fact. When you feel love for someone it’s considered natural. If I were to say hello to you on the street and for years you followed me around professing your love then I think we can agree that is an psychological imbalance directly related to chemical processes going on in your brain. So in that sense yes, everything is material and any spirituality feelings you experience can easily be described, in general, as chemical reactions occurring in your brain. As a matter of fact, put under certain conditions I can physically produce those same (or similar – maybe better) spiritual experiences you have had using physical means.

If everything spirtual is chemical then everything that we see and hear are chemical as well. So why do you trust your physical sight?

Originally posted by okinrus
If everything spirtual is chemical then everything that we see and hear are chemical as well. So why do you trust your physical sight? Yes you are correct - everything we see and hear are chemical reactions.

What did you think the senses were?

A hair is stimulated by a sound, it causes a physical change in a cell which causes a chemical change, this chemical change causes other cells to have chemical changes these chemical changes cause yet other chemical changes to occur. The sum of these chemical changes are preserved as sound and hearing.

A photon hits a photon-reactive cell in the retina, this catalyses a chemical reaction which causes this cell to release chemicals that cause other chemical reaction to occur in other cells. The sum of these chemical changes are preserved as sight and images.

Originally posted by okinrus
If everything spirtual is chemical then everything that we see and hear are chemical as well. Bingo!

Originally posted by okinrus
So why do you trust your physical sight? Why shouldn't I? Under normal circumstances why shouldn't we?

<i><b>Why shouldn't I? Under normal circumstances why shouldn't we?</b></i>
Well I don't want to perturb you, but in that case we can't even trust ourselves. How did this thing called trust get started anyways? Or shall we say, how does random group of chemical reactions happen to manifest themselves into trust. Something that we know we have or we don't but if we don't, we know it's lacking.

<i><b> A hair is stimulated by a sound, it causes a physical change in a cell which causes a chemical change, this chemical change causes other cells to have chemical changes these chemical changes cause yet other chemical changes to occur. The sum of these chemical changes are preserved as sound and hearing.</b></i>
Yes, but there's difference. Sound that is off the scale is labeled noice but Mozart isn't. Is this a evolved trait? Does listening to music improve our survival rate?

Originally posted by okinrus
Well I don't want to perturb you, but in that case we can't even trust ourselves. How did you arrive at that?

Originally posted by okinrus
How did this thing called trust get started anyways?Here’s one answer - the big bang.

Originally posted by okinrus
Or shall we say, how does random group of chemical reactions happen to manifest themselves into trust.Great question and there are a number of people working in those areas. However, as of now its not yet fully understood. One day it could be fully understood.

Originally posted by okinrus
[B<i><b> A hair is stimulated by a sound, it causes a physical change in a cell which causes a chemical change, this chemical change causes other cells to have chemical changes these chemical changes cause yet other chemical changes to occur. The sum of these chemical changes are preserved as sound and hearing.</b></i>
Yes, but there's difference. Sound that is off the scale is labeled noice but Mozart isn't. Is this a evolved trait? Does listening to music improve our survival rate? [/B]Yes there’s a difference? What are you talking about? Between what and what? Some people would call Mozart noise and static music. So what?

Is what an evolved trait? Hearing?

Listening to music may indeed improve an animals (human) survival rate or listening to music could be a by-product of just plain listening. And I think one can understand that yes listening does improve an animal’s chance of survival.

Jan,

So spirituality does not exist then....and everything is material?Spirituality certainly exists but its cause appears to be material.

Can you demonstrate otherwise?

M*W,

And your atheistic beliefs as well, Cris.Isn’t this ‘you too’ riposte somewhat unimaginative and childish and simply inappropriate?

I understand how you would not wish to be grouped in with the Christians and their religion which you seem to hate with an extreme and strenuous fundamentalist fervor, but you should also take a closer look at yourself since you also exhibit many of their traits. Your own spiritual beliefs and assertions surrounding your own version of pantheistic and New Age concepts categorizes you very much in the same class as the Christians that you appear to despise so vehemently.

While I certainly have strong anti-religious views and have debated them here I am afraid your hateful Christian bashing crusade in this forum goes way over the top. If you ever felt that they might be persuaded by your arguments or that others might sympathize with you then I feel you are sadly mistaken. Your extreme confrontational approach is very counter-productive and is largely destructive of the efforts of many who genuinely want to persuade Christians of alternative ideas.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cris
[B]M*W,

Isn’t this ‘you too’ riposte somewhat unimaginative and childish and simply inappropriate?

I understand how you would not wish to be grouped in with the Christians and their religion which you seem to hate with an extreme and strenuous fundamentalist fervor, but you should also take a closer look at yourself since you also exhibit many of their traits. Your own spiritual beliefs and assertions surrounding your own version of pantheistic and New Age concepts categorizes you very much in the same class as the Christians that you appear to despise so vehemently.

While I certainly have strong anti-religious views and have debated them here I am afraid your hateful Christian bashing crusade in this forum goes way over the top. If you ever felt that they might be persuaded by your arguments or that others might sympathize with you then I feel you are sadly mistaken. Your extreme confrontational approach is very counter-productive and is largely destructive of the efforts of many who genuinely want to persuade Christians of alternative ideas.
----------
M*W: Not any more unimaginative and childish than your comment to me. Obviously, you don't read my posts. If you did, you would know that I am not a pantheist. Christians are pantheists. I believe in One God. They believe in three.

As moderator of this forum, you certainly hold biased views. You have not said anything against those who Muslim-bash which has been quite rabid on this forum which is yet unmoderated. You condemn my spiritual beliefs, and you're an atheist! What is this, a witch hunt? Sure sounds like it. Besides, where does it say this is a Christian forum only?

Those of us who choose to express spiritual ideas which may be different than mainstream get bashed by you--the atheist! The reality of it is, I don't hate Christians for what they believe but what they don't want to believe. Sure, I could be a passive member afraid to say what's really on my mind, but what would that prove? I believe the time has come for non-xians to stand up for the truth on a global scale. If we don't do it, who will? Muslims, Jews?

I don't bash Christians because I am ignorant about the dogma of their religion. I bash them because I was one of them, and I saw firsthand how a little fish in a big ocean of lies endeavored to enslave me based on the lie to save me. Talking sweet and holding them gently while trying to free them from the depths of their own delusions is not my style nor does it make for an interesting cyber cat fight if all we posted was sweet nothings for ears that won't hear. They've already heard the soft voice of truth and they drowned it out with their zombie-induced proseltyzing. They're still trapped in their mind-bending prisons of religion. Maybe I've been louder. Maybe I've been meaner. Maybe I've stirred up their dander. Maybe I've hit a nerve or two. Maybe that's what needs to be done to get their attention, make them mad, make them fume, make them fight back. It's when they start to fight back to protect the lies they've believed, they're more likely to find the truth buried deep within their ruffled human emotions. Sweetness and light just won't do it. My daddy used to tell me, "You can't tell a mule anything. You've got to hit it over the head to get its attention first."

Maybe your goal is to have a more docile forum. Maybe you fear commitment, that's why you're an atheist. Maybe you're a Libra always striving for that perfect balance. I don't know if you noticed, Cris, but once I became vocal and started bashing the Christians, more of them signed up on the forum! And they could possibly be paying members, too. Then everybody wins. If you want me to stop bashing them, I will, but in all fairness, of which you haven't been guilty, you would need to stop ALL the bashing that goes on on the religion forum and not just mine. Maybe your goal is to turn it into a totally atheist forum, I don't know. If that's the case, I can see how you'd think I'm as brainwashed as them. I stand up for what I believe, so if you're looking for a hermetically sealed forum of people who don't make waves, then that's what you'll get.`Yet, not once have you said anything to those who have bashed me! Why? Because you're an atheist, either way, what xians believe, and what I believe, are not what you believe. Maybe it's your world that is hermetically sealed and, in that case, you are neither non-biased nor fair as the religion moderator.

M*W,

As moderator of this forum, you certainly hold biased views. As moderator I do very little because everyone behaves very well, mostly. As a contributor I certainly have my own views. I work very hard to keep the two functions separate. My comments here are less about my role as a moderator but as a fellow contributor and I see your posts doing more harm than good. And I note that tiassa has also found it necessary to point out the flaws in your tactics.

In the past and before your time we have had some extreme posters who dominated every thread and topic and while we tolerated them for a while they were eventually banned. These were mostly Muslim bashers. Everyone currently is mild in comparison.

You condemn my spiritual beliefs, and you're an atheist! What is this, a witch hunt? Sure sounds like it.But I haven’t. This is perhaps paranoia on your part.

Besides, where does it say this is a Christian forum only?It is interesting that I think we have had more Islamic related threads in the last few months than in the entire history of the forum. But while this isn’t a Christian forum neither is it a “Christian bashing” forum which is how it appears from any thread where you participate, and that means many threads.

Those of us who choose to express spiritual ideas which may be different than mainstream get bashed by you--the atheist! There is a significance difference between senseless provocative bashing and intelligent critical debate.

Sure, I could be a passive member afraid to say what's really on my mind, but what would that prove? It isn’t about passivity but your prolific ‘unpleasant’ debating style that is beginning to dominate the forum. A full frontal onslaught creates a heightened defensive reaction, and makes you look very foolish.

Maybe your goal is to have a more docile forum. No, you can still be forceful, but it is also possible to be courteous and respectful to other members at the same time.

Maybe your goal is to turn it into a totally atheist forum, I don't know.We did have an atheist forum here for a while, and I voted it be abandoned, everyone simply agreed with each other.

not once have you said anything to those who have bashed me! Why? Because it is predominantly you who initiates the provocation each time.

you are neither non-biased nor fair as the religion moderator.I have never claimed to be neutral as a contributor, but as a moderator I maintain a significant hands-off approach which I believe most here respect. And as far as I know no one has complained.

Originally posted by Cris
Jan,

Spirituality certainly exists but its cause appears to be material.

Can you demonstrate otherwise?

The cause of spirituality is indeed material and is also due to the fact that we are spiritual beings temporary occupying material suits. We reflect on our material lives and our spiritual brain struggles to understand and we mature spiritually. I have always wondered why god created sleep? Why do we sleep everyday for extended hours? Sleep and dreams are spirituality. Our mind must rest from being exposed to all these materials and our spiritual brain needs time to rest and record this foreign materials. We sleep because we are spiritual beings and the world is foreign to us....we sleep to rest and comprehend... Something very interesting. Do you know that if you are deprived of sleep, you start hallucinating. Hallucination is a separation from reality. Without the much needed sleep, our spiritual self would separate from the foriegn reality. Without death, we would separate and hallucinate....

We die because we are spiritual beings. We don't live to be spiritual as you state. We are what we are because we are spiritual. If we were purely material beings, then we would live forever and never need to sleep die.

Originally posted by Cris
Jan,

Spirituality certainly exists but its cause appears to be material.

Can you demonstrate otherwise?

I'm not quite sure what you mean by matter is the cause of spirituality. :confused:

Love

Jan Ardena.

Cris

You have my respect and sympathies...
I feel for ya.

Originally posted by Michael
What is “spirituality”?.

It is the description of activities of the soul. The individual soul is described in Vedic literature as Brahman (spirit), an atomic portion of Param-Brahman (Supereme Soul). It's constitutional position is that of loving servitor to God, it is eternal, full of knowledge and ecstacy.
When the individual spark desires to enjoy as an individual (God) as opposed to being part and parcel of the whole, he enters into the material atmosphere where he acts out his fantasies but due to forgetfulness of his original primeval identity, he gets caught up in a network of activities (conditioned) and becomes locked in a perpetual cycle of birth and death (karma).
Spiritual acitvity helps the individual remember his true identity (self-realisation), in order to get out of the conditioned state of existence, cycle of birth and death (samsara), and go back home, back home to Godhead. :)

If “spirituality” is not physical then it can not be perceived in the physical sense and thus you would not have any idea about it.

Why not?

Does a body without a brain still have “spirituality”?

Can a body without a brain still be alive?

Simply put, what most people perceive as “spirituality” is directly related to feelings they experience which again are directly related to chemical reactions occurring in their brain.

Everything we experience is directly related to chemical reactions in the brain, but the experience is real and does not occur by the brain, but by the mind. The mind dictates to the senses then the brain reacts.

All evidence points to this fact. When you feel love for someone it’s considered natural.

Why do you think it is considered natural?

If I were to say hello to you on the street and for years you followed me around professing your love then I think we can agree that is an psychological imbalance directly related to chemical processes going on in your brain.

I agree with you, but this isn't spirituality.
I think we should talk more about spirituality in the hope of better understanding.

As a matter of fact, put under certain conditions I can physically produce those same (or similar – maybe better) spiritual experiences you have had using physical means.

You're being delusional, you don't understand what spirit is.

Love

Jan Ardena.

Jan,

I'm not quite sure what you mean by matter is the cause of spirituality. See the current research in neurotheology.

http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/neuro/neuronewswk.htm
http://www.quinion.com/words/turnsofphrase/tp-neu2.htm

Briefly – what scientists are finding is that the brain generates the spiritual experiences that many people across the world and of all faiths experience. Many do not experience any such experiences. Others experience the same through mediation or through the use of drugs.

The conclusion I see is that spirituality is less about a supernatural influence than it is about normal brain function, i.e. the cause of those experiences is entirely due to the material brain.

Originally posted by Cris
Briefly – what scientists are finding is that the brain generates the spiritual experiences that many people across the world and of all faiths experience. Many do not experience any such experiences. Others experience the same through mediation or through the use of drugs.

How do they know it is the same experience?

[/quote]The conclusion I see is that spirituality is less about a supernatural influence than it is about normal brain function, i.e. the cause of those experiences is entirely due to the material brain. [/QUOTE]

Firstly i don't see how you put "super-nature" and "spirituality" in the same sentence, they are two completely different things.
Secondly, what do you regard as a spiritual experience?

Love

Jan Ardena.

Originally posted by Cris
Briefly – what scientists are finding is that the brain generates the spiritual experiences that many people across the world and of all faiths experience. Many do not experience any such experiences. Others experience the same through mediation or through the use of drugs.
Ofcourse brain only can generate experiences. Generation of brain generated experiences caused by either medi(t)ation OR drugs OR unknown inducing force. Unless the complete mechanism of these brain activities by various causes is shown beyond doubt for any case of spiritual experience your argument is debatable.
The conclusion I see is that spirituality is less about a supernatural influence than it is about normal brain function, i.e. the cause of those experiences is entirely due to the material brain.
Not yet the time for assertions, Cris.

A simple example would be fine :

In a closed room if you find a wire passing thro the opposite walls
and you measure a mild potential difference in volts between visible ends of that wire you can come to a conclusion that the actual ends of the wire might be connected to a battery / AC outlet. What most (not physicists) would miss is the possibility of a moving/oscillatiing magnetic field that could induce current and hence the potential difference.

I think there is a similarity between schizophrenia and christianity, however, if you ever met anyone who is both christian AND schizophrenic, you would see that is much, much worse.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by spidergoat
[B]I think there is a similarity between schizophrenia and christianity, however, if you ever met anyone who is both christian AND schizophrenic, you would see that is much, much worse.
-----------
M*W: Interesting point, spidergoat. I think you're right about this. I've known all kinds of xians with different personality disorders, but the kind you mention are along the lines of Jim Jones, David Koresh, and the Rev. Moon!

Spidergoat, no reason for the side tracking. This thread have miraculously taken a productive directional change from the intent thanks to Jan Ardena, Everneo, okinirus, Consequent Atheist, Cris, and others.

Originally posted by Flores
We sleep because we are spiritual beings and the world is foreign to us.... Dolphins sleep, dogs sleep and dream are you suggesting dolphins and dogs have spirits? Or maybe dreaming is part of the mechanics of having a large brain and therefore just another biological function no different than immune response.

Originally posted by Flores
We die because we are spiritual beings. We don't live to be spiritual as you state. We are what we are because we are spiritual. If we were purely material beings, then we would live forever and never need to sleep die. Ergo bacteria are also “spiritual beings”. Could it not be that death is just another biological function no different than immune response? If our bodies are viewed as machines used by genes to propagate copies of themselves then death isn’t so spiritual and becomes just another step in successful replication.

Everneo,

Generation of brain generated experiences caused by either medi(t)ation OR drugs OR unknown inducing force.The first two are OK, but you can’t conclude that the brain can be stimulated by alleged unknown forces. We don’t know about any such things.

Unless the complete mechanism of these brain activities by various causes is shown beyond doubt for any case of spiritual experience your argument is debatable.I disagree. For example - I know how a car operates but I don’t have to show and list all the people or beings that know how to drive a car.

What I gleam from Neurotheology is that when the brain is suitably conditioned and receptive it will generate a spiritual experience. The trigger becomes largely irrelevant.

The conclusion I see is that spirituality is less about a supernatural influence than it is about normal brain function, i.e. the cause of those experiences is entirely due to the material brain.

Not yet the time for assertions, Cris.But these are the findings of the research.

The essential issue is that the spiritual experience is not an experience of God or some other external supernatural force but something that the brain generates.

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
It is the description of activities of the soul. The individual soul is described in Vedic literature as Brahman (spirit), an atomic portion of Param-Brahman (Supereme Soul). It's constitutional position is that of loving servitor to God, it is eternal, full of knowledge and ecstacy.
When the individual spark desires to enjoy as an individual (God) as opposed to being part and parcel of the whole, he enters into the material atmosphere where he acts out his fantasies but due to forgetfulness of his original primeval identity, he gets caught up in a network of activities (conditioned) and becomes locked in a perpetual cycle of birth and death (karma).
Spiritual acitvity helps the individual remember his true identity (self-realisation), in order to get out of the conditioned state of existence, cycle of birth and death (samsara), and go back home, back home to Godhead. :)Or there could be no soul and what you perceive as a soul is nothing more than an explanation for an emotional experience caused by chemical reactions in the brain. I wonder if that’s in any way similar to the feelings achieved by someone on the drug – which is aptly called – “ecstasy”. In short there is not one shred of evidence for this elaborate tale you have just woven - while juxtapose, chemical and mechanical euphoria are well documented.

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
If “spirituality” is not physical then it can not be perceived in the physical sense and thus you would not have any idea about it.
Why not? [/B]Obviously physical senses are physical.

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
Can a body without a brain still be alive? [/B]Yes, so I’ll ask again, Does a body without a brain still have “spirituality”?

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
Everything we experience is directly related to chemical reactions in the brain, but the experience is real and does not occur by the brain, but by the mind. The mind dictates to the senses then the brain reacts. [/B]Experience does not occur in the brain Aye? In the mind Huh? Jan, you can not separate the mind from the brain. The “mind” is a construct created from the intricate pattern of neurons that make up the brain. If I reach into your head with a spoon and scoop a bit of brain out – you can bet it will have an affect on your mind.

The mind is not the brain . . . Pfff

Everything we experience is directly related to chemical reactions in the brain, but the experience is real
The experience may indeed be real. That has nothing to do with reality. Did you ever watch/read “A Beautiful Mind”? If you had, you would know that some of the characters in the protagonists life were “real” and some where “real experiences” for the protagonist but were nevertheless, not real people. I just happen to believe that the “real experiences” you feel and have been interpreted as a “soul” do not represent a soul but do represent “real experiences” you have had that were simply formed from complex chemical reaction in your brain.

Certainly, you would agree that a person on the drug ecstasy is not in touch with god? Even if their experiences of coming together with god are real these are just the effects of tacking a drug-trip. Hence the name taking “drug-trip”. If you should think that is the case then I think we can agree that all objectivity it gone and it is no longer worthwhile to remain on this track.

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
You're being delusional, you don't understand what spirit is. Nothing I have related to you is “delusional” - it’s actually scientific dogma. From your reasoning the entire scientific world is delusional while you Jan are the only one who is sane.

Now who again is delusional? :)

My point about spirit is this. You have no evidence for spirit. You can not measure spirit. You clam that there exists a physical realm and a spiritual realm and that the spirit is in a spiritual realm. I simply said – then you would never know about it – obviously you would need a physical interaction with your physical brain at some point to comprehend spirit. At that point there would be a physical interaction. So you can not say there are two separate realms. If that were the case then the spiritual realm would be measurable. As there has never been any evidence for a spiritual realm, never a single measurement, then I think it probably is as likely to exist as a chocolate jelly bean realm :D

So what does that leave us with? It’s obvious that there is one thing explicable in the physical world that could be a rationalization for the emotional experiences that leads some to believe that they posses a “soul”. That being chemically induced emotions. These are arrived at by plain old chemical reactions in the brain. If I give you a bit of psychotropic drug – you Jan, will experience feelings of euphoria and may attribute these feelings to a god or gods. One can also, without the help of drugs, experience chemical related euphoria. When people do they naturally try to come up with an explanation.

As for the “love” emotion that I was describing. Most everyone has had the emotion. Some more than others. Some to an extreme irrational state. In the same manner many people have had emotional experiences related to a godly feeling of euphoria – perhaps of being in the presence of a higher being. All of which can be duplicated via drugs. However, at the lower extreme people do experience this godly-euphoric feeling and then want an explanation. In your case someone told you it was god and perhaps went on to talk about the word “soul” and how it is in touch with god – *eerry Simpson’s music* in the Spirit Realm. Just like a drug-tripper you will forever remember this feeling and cling to the explanation someone gave you for it. If you had lived in a country that doesn’t have the concept of soul you would have never arrived at that explanation. Maybe someone would have told you it was the Wolf-Prince blessing you and that would have been your explanation. So just like the Wolf-Prince Realm you have no evidence for this “Soul” of yours in touch with this “Spirit Realm” of yours.

So Jan, you can now see it’s all quite coherent, logical, and scientifically replicable. Perhaps it is you that are marginally delusional with your fanciful stories of Brahman (spirit), an atomic portion of Param-Brahman (Supereme Soul).

Originally posted by everneo
Ofcourse brain only can generate experiences. Generation of brain generated experiences caused by either medi(t)ation OR drugs OR unknown inducing force. Unless the complete mechanism of these brain activities by various causes is shown beyond doubt for any case of spiritual experience your argument is debatable.Although this is true, then by you saying it you would agree that I can say that generation of brain generated experiences is caused by invisible chocolate jellybeans interacting at a sub-sub-subbidy-tubbidy-atomic level.

everneo, I think we can agree chemical reactions occurring in the brain are what shape our perceptions of the world and induce the emotions we experience. These can and do occur quite naturally and there is no need to introduce god(s), spirits, and/or chocolate jellybeans to the equation.

Flores living a dream-state:

The cause of spirituality is indeed material and is also due to the fact that we are spiritual beings temporary occupying material suits.

When did this become fact and by whose authority?

We reflect on our material lives and our spiritual brain struggles to understand and we mature spiritually.

What is the difference between the spiritual brain and the brain?

I have always wondered why god created sleep? Why do we sleep everyday for extended hours?

Our bodies require sleep to regenerate; your gods had nothing to do with it.

Sleep and dreams are spirituality.

So, when the frontal lobe of the brain is damaged and dreaming becomes impossible, does that mean there no longer exists spirituality?

Our mind must rest from being exposed to all these materials and our spiritual brain needs time to rest and record this foreign materials.

So, the ‘spiritual’ brain is working overtime recording foreign materials? The ‘silly meter’ just went off the scale.

Do you know that if you are deprived of sleep, you start hallucinating. Hallucination is a separation from reality.

You must be continually deprived of sleep. Hallucination is the perception of something that is not there. One is not separated from reality.

Without the much needed sleep, our spiritual self would separate from the foriegn reality. Without death, we would separate and hallucinate....

Huh??? At what point do we ‘separate and hallucinate’? Can you verify anything you’ve stated thus far?

We die because we are spiritual beings… If we were purely material beings, then we would live forever and never need to sleep die.

Seems like it should be the other way round. If spiritual, we should live forever. It is the degradation of our bodies that causes us to die.

We don't live to be spiritual as you state. We are what we are because we are spiritual.

Then we have no need for these so-called ‘material suits.’

Most, if not all of your posts are pretty silly, but you’ve certainly outdone yourself with this one.

Originally posted by Medicine*Woman
I don't bash Christians because I am ignorant about the dogma of their religion. I bash them because I was one of them
And so you just paint them all with the same brush!

Are xians schizophrenic?

Pathetic.

Originally posted by Cris
Jan,

See the current research in neurotheology.

The conclusion I see is that spirituality is less about a supernatural influence than it is about normal brain function, i.e. the cause of those experiences is entirely due to the material brain. ever stop to ask yourself why we have that so-called 'God module'? Ah, could it be that we are connected to God, hard-wired to the Creator? Think about that for awhile, and to quote a famous line, "Explain!"

Originally posted by Medicine*Woman
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cris
[B]M*W,
I don't bash Christians because I am ignorant about the dogma of their religion. I bash them because I was one of them, and I saw firsthand how a little fish in a big ocean of lies endeavored to enslave me based on the lie to save me.

Talking sweet and holding them gently while trying to free them from the depths of their own delusions is not my style nor does it make for an interesting cyber cat fight if all we posted was sweet nothings for ears that won't hear. They've already heard the soft voice of truth and they drowned it out with their zombie-induced proseltyzing. They're still trapped in their mind-bending prisons of religion.

My daddy used to tell me, "You can't tell a mule anything. You've got to hit it over the head to get its attention first."

so a former Christian, ehh? I'm guessing you're muslim now, you support many of their views. You must be the xian, you always talk about. Feel like you have to hit us over the head? My, my, what a temper, you can't believe anyone else can see your truth? Oh, poor baby! I'll refrain from calling you a mule

Originally posted by Medicine*Woman
The Frightening Resemblences Between Christians and Schizophrenics
a better question would be"Is Medicine*Woman schizophrenic?" or depressed? or Bipolar?

Randolfo,

ever stop to ask yourself why we have that so-called 'God module'? Ah, could it be that we are connected to God, hard-wired to the Creator? Think about that for awhile, and to quote a famous line, "Explain!"That could make sense if God, with such a perfect direct connection actually made use of it to transmit truth, but what we observe is that largely depending on what country you are born into you will tend to interpret the experience as pertaining to the teachings of your local religion, theist or otherwise. And those with a secular outlook will see it as personal inspiration, and the drug induced citizens see it as escape.

All of this seems to indicate overwhelmingly that the experience is simply a brain generated phenomenon.

Originally posted by Cris
Randolfo,

That could make sense if God, with such a perfect direct connection actually made use of it to transmit truth, but what we observe is that largely depending on what country you are born into you will tend to interpret the experience as pertaining to the teachings of your local religion, theist or otherwise. And those with a secular outlook will see it as personal inspiration, and the drug induced citizens see it as escape.

All of this seems to indicate overwhelmingly that the experience is simply a brain generated phenomenon. could it be we put 'static', 'snow' or 'noise' into the equation, thereby making it hard to distinguish from the noise of our society, culture?

Originally posted by Cris
The first two are OK, but you can’t conclude that the brain can be stimulated by alleged unknown forces. We don’t know about any such things.
We would not know any such things unless exploring all the possibilities rather than asserting what we know is the ulitmate truth.

I disagree. For example - I know how a car operates but I don’t have to show and list all the people or beings that know how to drive a car.
We don't know about brain as much,or completely, as we know about car. BTW, it is not listing of all the people that know driving but all operations of car and their causes / reasons.

What I gleam from Neurotheology is that when the brain is suitably conditioned and receptive it will generate a spiritual experience. The trigger becomes largely irrelevant.
experiences induced by drugs is no match for experiences caused with an intention and control, for that matter trigger plays a role. Removing the safety pin of a granade and pressing the start/stop button of nuclear reactor trigger different type reactions though both are explosions but the latter is controlled ; mean to say the different effect of different triggers make triggers very relevant.

But these are the findings of the research.
Findings always forthcoming, one after another either refining or denying the earlier findings.

The essential issue is that the spiritual experience is not an experience of God or some other external supernatural force but something that the brain generates.
I already agreed that brain generates, but the issue is denial of further exploration of the causes other than drugs and other knowns.

Originally posted by Michael
Although this is true, then by you saying it you would agree that I can say that generation of brain generated experiences is caused by invisible chocolate jellybeans interacting at a sub-sub-subbidy-tubbidy-atomic level.
I am pretty sure that there cannot be any chocolate jelly beans that are invisible and operate at sub-atomic level. Kids may find them as amusing familiar terms & to be the reason for unkonwn processes. But if one prefers to call, what theists presume as God, in terms of funny semantics then it is ok for them as for as the characteristics & functions are similar.

But why theists and atheists, alike, assess and restrict God in familiar terms is an interesting question.! Strange, one redicules the other for being less scientific while both refuse to come out of their preconcieved notions.

I think we can agree chemical reactions occurring in the brain are what shape our perceptions of the world and induce the emotions we experience. These can and do occur quite naturally and there is no need to introduce god(s), spirits, and/or chocolate jellybeans to the equation.
Chemical reactions trigger signal transmissions and processes, I agree with that. But that could be achieved thro' electrodes too and that removes the sole exclusiveness of chemicals (with their reactions) as agents for brain activities. Once the exclusiveness gone its an open field for debate.

Originally posted by everneo
I am pretty sure that there cannot be any chocolate jelly beans that are invisible and operate at sub-atomic level. Kids may find them as amusing familiar terms & to be the reason for unkonwn processes. But if one prefers to call, what theists presume as God, in terms of funny semantics then it is ok for them as for as the characteristics & functions are similar.

But why theists and atheists, alike, assess and restrict God in familiar terms is an interesting question.! Strange, one redicules the other for being less scientific while both refuse to come out of their preconcieved notions. But the point is, that although many things are unable to be proved untrue, when determining whether something is true we must fall back to preconceived notions. Just because something is preconceived doesn’t mean that it is incorrect. If these preconceived notions are grounded in unbiased science – all the more likely they are true. If these preconceived notions are based on wishful thinking – well then who knows one way or the other. If these preconceived notions are based on something that has never ever been observed – well they’re probably false.

To question that “feelings” of interacting with god (I’ll call euphoria) are caused by chemical reactions in the brain is testable. This question has been tested and has been found to be true (experimentally). To question that feelings of euphoria are caused by god is not testable. This question has never been tested and has never been proven to be true (experimentally). To question that feelings of euphoria are caused by invisible chocolate jelly beans is not testable. This question has never been tested and has never been proven to be true (experimentally). There are many questions that can not be tested. That doesn’t mean they are not true, but when given a choice between the two – a person not prejudiced or inclined to believe in gods (as you but it preconceived notions) would logically come to the conclusion that those feelings of euphoria attributed to interactions with gods are in actuality just chemical reactions in the brain w/o any gods needed.

Let’s build on this. We know that people with chemical imbalances sometimes “talk to god”. When given lithium these “conversations” disappear. One can never “know” whether this person “talked with god” but the likely conclusion is that there was a chemical imbalance – again no god. Other people appear to be “prone” to religious phenomena. These people tend to have a “closer” relationship with god than most. If one were so inclined, one may conclude that these people have a slightly different chemistry in their brain (perhaps just in the Keq of a few reactions) that has altered their perception just enough. In the same way one person may have a few drinks and never drink again while another can not stop drinking. Just slightly different chemistry in one another’s brain. Now lets move on to the “normal” persons brain. This person sits and meditates for days while fasting and suddenly has a “vision”. Certainly we can agree that fasting for days while concentrating on “god” could cause one to have a “vision” and that this vision is entirely chemically bases with no basis in the “spiritual realm”. Some people found in the desert dieing of dehydration have had similar “visions” (which is something to think about – when wondering why we have the gods notion to begin with). Of course we can never know one way or the other. But a logically minded person will of course conclude that it is simply chemical reactions – and that these can explain the phenomena without the necessity of postulating gods.

Originally posted by everneo
Chemical reactions trigger signal transmissions and processes, I agree with that. But that could be achieved thro' electrodes too and that removes the sole exclusiveness of chemicals (with their reactions) as agents for brain activities. Once the exclusiveness gone its an open field for debate. “electrodes” or electrical signals are transmitted via chemicals. Specifically calcium, sodium, and potassium vie chemically formed channels found on chemically formed plasma membranes interacting with proteins – which are just big chemicals. But your point is that electrical current is an added phenomena. Electrical current is the movement of electrons – a basic building block of atoms again the basic building block of chemicals. So in actuality it is these “parts” of the atoms that shift between chemicals and these do not need to be thought of as separate than chemical interactions. As a matter of fact THEY SHOULDN’T BE - the movement of electrons ARE chemical reactions!!

IMHO religious experience is a common experience that the majority of humans share (other animals may also share this but I find myself on a limb even claiming other people have the same experiences that I have).

The experience is self-awareness. I believe that self-awareness is either the cause of religion/spirituality or the result. Depending of course on your point of view.

I would also suggest that with our current medical and technical knowledge that self-awareness cannot be duplicated with chemical or electrical brain stimulation.

Originally posted by Michael
If these preconceived notions are grounded in unbiased science – all the more likely they are true.
There are examples where this might not be entirely true. Unbiased science is not an absolute term. The classical notions of sub-nuclear particles / light, based on classical physics, turned out to be not so true. To understand the realm of quantum theory one has to shed some of the classical notions.

There are many questions that can not be tested. That doesn’t mean they are not true, but when given a choice between the two – a person not prejudiced or inclined to believe in gods (as you but it preconceived notions) would logically come to the conclusion that those feelings of euphoria attributed to interactions with gods are in actuality just chemical reactions in the brain w/o any gods needed.
Correlation does not necessarily establish cause. Chemical reactions might be a necessary base and effects of a spritual experience rather than being the sole cause. However, and for the same reason, I agree that it is difficult, objectively by a 3rd person with the aid of current science, to differentiate between a delusional bliss and a spritual experience thro the measurements of brain activities.

Let’s build on this. We know that people with chemical imbalances sometimes “talk to god”. When given lithium these “conversations” disappear. One can never “know” whether this person “talked with god” but the likely conclusion is that there was a chemical imbalance – again no god. Other people appear to be “prone” to religious phenomena. These people tend to have a “closer” relationship with god than most. If one were so inclined, one may conclude that these people have a slightly different chemistry in their brain (perhaps just in the Keq of a few reactions) that has altered their perception just enough. In the same way one person may have a few drinks and never drink again while another can not stop drinking. Just slightly different chemistry in one another’s brain. Now lets move on to the “normal” persons brain. This person sits and meditates for days while fasting and suddenly has a “vision”. Certainly we can agree that fasting for days while concentrating on “god” could cause one to have a “vision” and that this vision is entirely chemically bases with no basis in the “spiritual realm”. Some people found in the desert dieing of dehydration have had similar “visions” (which is something to think about – when wondering why we have the gods notion to begin with). Of course we can never know one way or the other. But a logically minded person will of course conclude that it is simply chemical reactions – and that these can explain the phenomena without the necessity of postulating gods.
I agree with your medical diagnosis and treatment for supposed delusionals with chemical imbalances in their brain causing extrodinary experiences. But, this is like treating the symptoms than cause. One amazing thing of brain, you would agree, is its ability to counter balance any imbalances in chemicals or qualitative changes in the recptors / axons or the mechanism that releases neurotransmitters. Counter balancing should not be construed as imbalance by mistake.

“electrodes” or electrical signals are transmitted via chemicals. Specifically calcium, sodium, and potassium vie chemically formed channels found on chemically formed plasma membranes interacting with proteins – which are just big chemicals. But your point is that electrical current is an added phenomena. Electrical current is the movement of electrons – a basic building block of atoms again the basic building block of chemicals. So in actuality it is these “parts” of the atoms that shift between chemicals and these do not need to be thought of as separate than chemical interactions. As a matter of fact THEY SHOULDN’T BE - the movement of electrons ARE chemical reactions!!
The chemicals - neurotransmitters and sodium-ions are required for signal transmission between pre/post-synaptic neurons and along the axons respectively. Obviously there are not electornic switches and cables to do the signaling & transmission but had to rely on these bio-chemical substrates. what i meant was electrodes could intercept and control the signaling and transmission mechanism hence the role chemicals being the sole players (triggering / controling ) becomes suspect.

Originally posted by MShark
I would also suggest that with our current medical and technical knowledge that self-awareness cannot be duplicated with chemical or electrical brain stimulation.
Yes, I agree. Self-awareness / consciousness cannot be duplicated by any means, IMO.

Originally posted by Michael
Dolphins sleep, dogs sleep and dream are you suggesting dolphins and dogs have spirits? Or maybe dreaming is part of the mechanics of having a large brain and therefore just another biological function no different than immune response.

Yes Michael, Our material world is a spiritural perception by our material body and brain. All creations are spiritual and are created by ONE entity named god for lack of better terms, from dogs to one celled bacteria. Now go sleep on that thought so your soul can absorb my words properly.

PS. If you don't believe me, I challenge you to deprive yourself from sleep for a week or two and try to coherently tell us more about how good and lovely is our material world.

Originally posted by Michael
If I reach into your head with a spoon and scoop a bit of brain out – you can bet it will have an affect on your mind.

No shit sherlock! :rolleyes:
I bet if you reached inside Motzart's head with a spoon and scooped a bit of brain while he was alive, you wouldn't find "flight of the bumblebee," would you?
Or maybe you think you would.
But in all seriousness my question to you is;
Where in the brain could you find such manifestations such as the flight of the bumblebee?

I just happen to believe that the “real experiences” you feel and have been interpreted as a “soul” do not represent a soul but do represent “real experiences”

Just out of curiosity, what feelings have people had that makes them interpret it as a soul?

Certainly, you would agree that a person on the drug ecstasy is not in touch with god?

The whole idea is dangerously stupid to begin with. It is just a ploy to put people who believe in God, in a derogatory category. A cheap shot.

Nothing I have related to you is “delusional” - it’s actually scientific dogma. From your reasoning the entire scientific world is delusional while you Jan are the only one who is sane.

You cannot produce those "spiritual experiences" because you don't know what they are. You can only produce what you think they are. If you want to convince yourself that they are the said experiences Jesus or Muhammad experienced, that is your own business. Okay?

Now who again is delusional?

You're not delusional "again" just delusionsal.

In your case someone told you it was god and perhaps went on to talk about the word “soul” and how it is in touch with god –

You're a cheeky little rascal aint you. :D
You don't even have a full understanding of what you're talking about nevermind telling me what i know and don't know. Work your own stuff out first then maybe we can talk on this level. :eek:

Love

Jan Ardena.

Originally posted by everneo
I agree that it is difficult, objectively by a 3rd person with the aid of current science, to differentiate between a delusional bliss and a spritual experience thro the measurements of brain activities.First, how would you define “delusional bliss” as well as define “spiritual experience”? I would assume “delusional bliss” would concern chemicals while “spiritual experience” would have something to do with a “spirit”. We can test the effects of chemicals on the individual. However, there is no evidence for sprit and spirit is not observable and therefore not measurable. As such, it could be that we can replace “spiritual experience” with all sorts of ideas. On such untestable idea could be that highly advanced telepathic invisible aliens living in an overlapping dimension cause humans to experience said emotion.

Or, we can postulate it has to do with chemical changes occurring in the brain. Which is testable and has been tested. Overwhelmingly the evidence from these studies suggest that chemicals, interacting in our highly developed noggin, are what are causing said experiences.

Originally posted by everneo
Correlation does not necessarily establish cause. Chemical reactions might be a necessary base and effects of a spritual experience rather than being the sole cause. However, and for the same reason, I agree that it is difficult, objectively by a 3rd person with the aid of current science, to differentiate between a delusional bliss and a spritual experience thro the measurements of brain activities. Chemicals that are found to correlate are then studied and in many cases are quantified as well as. It's not fully inderstood exactly why Zyban causes 65% of people to quit smoking. If one were to postualte it is god, as of now, you could make the same argument. But, I think, a logical minded person would understand that it is indeed Zyban and that the chemical pathways have not been fully mapped out - rest assured that one day they will be.

Originally posted by everneo
Yes, I agree. Self-awareness / consciousness cannot be duplicated by any means, IMO. This is a great question and let Isaac Asimov to write his series "I robot". We are physical machines – maybe one day consciousness will be duplicated. I mean who would have thought we’d have gone to the moon or have the understanding of physical reality that we do. In 50000 years anything is possible :)

I, Robot (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0553294385/qid=1068678817//ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i0_xgl14/102-8569906-9956927?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)

Originally posted by Flores
Yes Michael, Our material world is a spiritural perception by our material body and brain. All creations are spiritual and are created by ONE entity named god for lack of better terms, from dogs to one celled bacteria. Now go sleep on that thought so your soul can absorb my words properly. Firstly, your postulation that the material world and that all creations are spiritual is a little confusing. If you mean "spiritual" in the sense of: made of energy - then yes I would agree. If you mean in the sense that everything is represented by a wave and that even you are wave and particle. Again - yes sounds good. If you mean some invisible non-measurable non-observable non-necessary consciousness, then I’d say – how do you know? If you say someone told me after interpreting a document written 2 millennia ago and I believe it because it feels right to me. Well, you may be correct – but there is no evidence that suggests that is the case.

Originally posted by Flores
If you don't believe me, I challenge you to deprive yourself from sleep for a week or two and try to coherently tell us more about how good and lovely is our material world. I can postulate – the world is only material. There is nothing other than that observable. If you don’t believe me sleep all you want but do not eat for a month or two. Try to coherently tell us more about how good and lovely is our spiritual world.

You see how silly this sort of testing can be. I go crazy and you think you have evidence for a spiritual realm - you die of hunger and I think I have evidence against it :)

Incidentally, the necessity of sleep in no way implies there is a spiritual world.

But let me ask you this. If your postulation is the case and you are fully convinced of it. I have a little test. If I can find a person who has a natural mutation in their DNA and does not enter REM sleep and such a person, with this rare medical disorder, is lucid and otherwise (as yet known) indistinguishable from the norm. Will you then agree that there is no spiritual world?

(we dream in REM)

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
The whole idea is dangerously stupid to begin with. It is just a ploy to put people who believe in God, in a derogatory category. A cheap shot. This wasn’t a cheap shot. I was simply giving an example of how people under the influence of a chemical can experience the same (or at least think they do) feeling of being in the presence of god.

Do you see the color red as I do? Who knows, but we can agree we both see something! In the same case, when you talk to people that say they have honestly been touched by god or been in gods embrace or etcetera you don’t worry if it’s the same as the way god has touched you. You just accept it. If you were unbiased you would have seen that this was what I was getting at when I gave the “ecstasy” example. There’re indistinguishable.

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
Where in the brain could you find such manifestations such as the flight of the bumblebee There may be a specific area. Lets move to something a little more correlative with humans – that is instead of an insect lets study something with a developed brain. Birds.

Birds are of great importance to neuroscience. In an interesting study using two types of Birds, a specific area of brain from developing Bird A was removed and placed in a developing Bird B (both are born with the innate ability to whistle a specific melody). Later Bird B could only sing Bird A's song. So yes, it is in specific areas of the brain.

If you’re interested look up bird and brain and song on pubmed:
Pubmed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PubMed/) There are hundreds of articles.

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
You're not delusional "again" just delusional. Cute :D

You're a cheeky little rascal aint you. :D
You don't even have a full understanding of what you're talking about nevermind telling me what i know and don't know. Work your own stuff out first then maybe we can talk on this level.[/B] :rolleyes:
Not cheeky – what I was getting at was what I've been saying all along - I think that if a person had been raised in a society that had no concept of “soul” then they would never think along those lines to answer the feelings of God/Euphoria. Just look at the typical modern Chinese (Atheist) and (unless you think you'd do different than 1 billion people) you'll agree.

Originally posted by Michael
First, how would you define “delusional bliss” as well as define “spiritual experience”? I would assume “delusional bliss” would concern chemicals while “spiritual experience” would have something to do with a “spirit”.
Spiritual experience, IMO, is a higher state of consciousness rather than the notion that it has something to do with a spirit. Perhaps this notion might be leading you refuting spritual experience altogether ( dubbing as delusion or caused by chemicals in the brain ) in the absense of 'reasonable' evidence in your following statements :

We can test the effects of chemicals on the individual. However, there is no evidence for sprit and spirit is not observable and therefore not measurable. As such, it could be that we can replace “spiritual experience” with all sorts of ideas. On such untestable idea could be that highly advanced telepathic invisible aliens living in an overlapping dimension cause humans to experience said emotion.


---------------------------

I am always amused at the way you guys put contenders (invisible choc. something, invisible aliens with dimensional cross over capabilities etc.) of God. The concept of God is well thought out for centuries besides more apparent worshipping. Invisible choc.beans, aliens etc won't fit the bill of God.

Originally posted by everneo
Spiritual experience, IMO, is a higher state of consciousness rather than the notion that it has something to do with a spirit. Perhaps this notion might be leading you refuting spritual experience altogether ( dubbing as delusion or caused by chemicals in the brain ) in the absense of 'reasonable' evidence in your following statements. What is a “higher state of consciousness”? Could you give an example of consciousness that is more conscious than normal? Even given the obvious rebuttal of “higher state of consciousness can be attributed to chemical changes in the brain" (as all consciousness is) I still don’t really understand what it is exactly. Why would you call it “higher” why not “lower”? Higher almost implies a state that would be desirable because of a “super lucidity” that is achieved like an epiphany of complete understanding of reality. These sorts of euphoric feelings are quite common with people who ingest LSD.

So what is it exactly?

Originally posted by everneo
I am always amused at the way you guys put contenders (invisible choc. something, invisible aliens with dimensional cross over capabilities etc.) of God. The concept of God is well thought out for centuries besides more apparent worshipping. Invisible choc.beans, aliens etc won't fit the bill of God. The concept of god has changed and continues to change. Certainly you wouldn’t go in for a tree god? And a polytheist may think your monotheism rather dull – an Hindi for example. A Buddhist probably feels you’re notions of God are primitive and have been superseded by the elegance of Buddhism. A comparison with Taoism would, at the minimum, reveal the Masculine nature of all of the above and therefore lead that person to think they’re all hypocrite and as such outdated. While a strong Atheist may think they have “broken free” of all mysticism.

Nevertheless, because the concept of god has been well thought out for millennia we know that as of today there is not a single argument that can successfully make the case. If you have one please publish it. With that in mind, an agnostic atheist (like myself) will use that fact to postulate other things that are in the same boat as god. Such as invisible beans or advanced aliens. You see, the same arguments for god can be used to (in specific examples) to argue for these fantasy beings as well (even given that there is a real god(s)). So by stating the ridiculous I hope to point out a major facet of, perhaps, your own belief. And, in all seriously, without ANY sort of evidence or proof or even the ability to be tested, your arguments are really no different. Not that they are worng – just that they have the same likelihood of being true as mine.

Originally posted by Michael
What is a “higher state of consciousness”? Could you give an example of consciousness that is more conscious than normal?
It depends on what is the normal state of consciousness.

Even given the obvious rebuttal of “higher state of consciousness can be attributed to chemical changes in the brain" (as all consciousness is) I still don’t really understand what it is exactly.
I am helpless to make you experience that.

Why would you call it “higher” why not “lower”? Higher almost implies a state that would be desirable because of a “super lucidity” that is achieved like an epiphany of complete understanding of reality. These sorts of euphoric feelings are quite common with people who ingest LSD.
LSD addicts achieving complete understanding of reality? you mean, like their hearing the picture, seeing the song, smelling the temperature.. etc.? these screwed-up feelings are what the brain, under influence of drugs, presents. That means chemicals can mess-up what you think as reality. In that case what is the normal state of consiousness is not really absolute. It is then just a usual state of consiousness in which you have all the science and tools to back-up & to verify with. Your perception of reality is not actual reality but is constrained by chemicals in their usual state of quantity and quality in brain. Then the whole arguement of who is right is moot in an absolute sense.

Back to the topic. Higher consiousness. The term 'higher' is an indication of how closer it is to the truth. LSD delusions are far removed fro the usual reality as well as the truth.

So what is it exactly?
Not an effect of chemical reactions in the brain.


Nevertheless, because the concept of god has been well thought out for millennia we know that as of today there is not a single argument that can successfully make the case.
On whose term.? That concept is not a scientific theory.

If you have one please publish it. With that in mind, an agnostic atheist (like myself) will use that fact to postulate other things that are in the same boat as god. Such as invisible beans or advanced aliens. You see, the same arguments for god can be used to (in specific examples) to argue for these fantasy beings as well (even given that there is a real god(s)). So by stating the ridiculous I hope to point out a major facet of, perhaps, your own belief. And, in all seriously, without ANY sort of evidence or proof or even the ability to be tested, your arguments are really no different. Not that they are worng – just that they have the same likelihood of being true as mine.
Prima facie, invisible choc. beans something are not at par with advanced aliens in scientific terms. None is involved in any scietific research as for those beans are concerned.

And invcible choc.beans, invisible green dragons or whatever are not at par with God in theological terms.

Still if you take them as vaild for arguement, either scientific or theological, you redicule yourself.

Try mushrooms instead. I recommend Stropharius cubensis as a good starter 'shroom.

The majority of the content of acid trips is superficial fluff and dazzling sleights of brain. But with so many barriers down, new connections can be made. It all depends on the psyche that uses the stuff.

Besids, LSD isn't the best example. Check out Doors of Perception, in which Aldous Huxley recounts, as best he can, his experiment with mescaline. Just as a place to start.

Crowley liked to eat rye-mold. He turned the Judeo-Christian mysticism on its ear. And yes, it fed both his paranoia and his megalomania, but again we look at the psyche in question: It was already ... strange.

Again, my point is that you have no evidence for god other than what you “feel” is correct. And although you may think that there is a differentiation between “feeling” like you are in touch with god and a person on a drug trip “feeling” they’re in touch with god – in reality there is no way that anyone can prove one way or the other.

What does that leave us with then? Standing on the outside looking in, one would conclude that both people are indeed just experiencing the effects of chemical reactions in their respective brains. That is, after all, why people meditate and fast for months on end.

Lets make a list:
1) Person (we’ll say you) in touch with god (and really is).
2) Person on drugs who “thinks” they are in touch with god (but we’ll say isn’t).
3) Person who has a natural chemical imbalance and “thinks” they are in touch with god.
4) Person who meditates and fasts for a week and “thinks” they’re in touch with god.

If we allow for the first to be true – there is still no way to tell they others apart from this first one. And if we had to suppose – we’d suppose all of the above were just chemical reactioins and there were no gods in touch with any of them.

Here are a list. Can you prove that one is true? Do you have observable evidence that one is true. If so do so or provide it.

1) Your God
2) Invisible Aliens living in an adjacent dimension that control some people.
3) Non-observable chocolate jelly beans
4) Tree god
5) Athena
6) Shinto ancestral spirits
7) Sprites
8) Shiva manifestation
9) Allah
10) Buddha

Here is a list. Can you prove that one is not true? Do you have and observable evidence that any are not true? If so do so or provide it.

1) Your God
2) Invisible Aliens living in an adjacent dimension that control some people.
3) Non-observable chocolate jelly beans
4) Tree god
5) Athena
6) Shinto ancestral spirits
7) Sprites
8) Shiva manifestation
9) Allah
10) Buddha

Originally posted by everneo
Higher consiousness. The term 'higher' is an indication of how closer it is to the truth. LSD delusions are far removed fro the usual reality as well as the truth First of all, you can not prove that – who are you to say? What if I can show you someone that proved a mathematical theorem while on LSD?

Maybe it’s the question not the state.

Regardless, LSD usually just provides people with a feeling of Euphoria – like the world makes sense all of a sudden and more importantly – their place in it (which is usually seen as meaningful/important).

This is not unlike the Euphoria experienced by some “born again” Christians - subsequently they are “on fire for the Lord” for sometime thereafter.

Regardless, I may have a much higher consciousness than you because I realize the truth that there are no gods (or any of 1 – 10). You can see, your definition of “higher consciousness” leaves a little to be desired – who is it that determines who is closer to the truth? Someone else with higher consciousness :) and how were they qualified? By someone else with higher consciousness . . . etcetera etcetera (oo).

So what is it (higher consciousness) exactly?
Not an effect of chemical reactions in the brain. Never give this answer for a test.
Q:
What is 1/2 + 1/5 ?
A:
Not 11!

I take it you don’t have an idea of the answer? Again, I think it’s because this concept of "higher consciousness" has some major faults and we are beginning to see that now.

Originally posted by everneo
Prima facie, invisible choc. beans something are not at par with advanced aliens in scientific terms. None is involved in any scietific research as for those beans are concerned.

And invcible choc.beans, invisible green dragons or whatever are not at par with God in theological terms.

Still if you take them as vaild for arguement, either scientific or theological, you redicule yourself. I certainly did not take anything for a scientific argument. I stated that my notion of advanced aliens/ jelly beans holds as much water as your notion of god.

Originally posted by Michael
Again, my point is that you have no evidence for god other than what you “feel” is correct. And although you may think that there is a differentiation between “feeling” like you are in touch with god and a person on a drug trip “feeling” they’re in touch with god – in reality there is no way that anyone can prove one way or the other.

What does that leave us with then? Standing on the outside looking in, one would conclude that both people are indeed just experiencing the effects of chemical reactions in their respective brains. That is, after all, why people meditate and fast for months on end.

Lets make a list:
1) Person (we’ll say you) in touch with god (and really is).
2) Person on drugs who “thinks” they are in touch with god (but we’ll say isn’t).
3) Person who has a natural chemical imbalance and “thinks” they are in touch with god.
4) Person who meditates and fasts for a week and “thinks” they’re in touch with god.

If we allow for the first to be true – there is still no way to tell they others apart from this first one.
I already said :
Correlation does not necessarily establish cause. Chemical reactions might be a necessary base and effects of a spritual experience rather than being the sole cause. However, and for the same reason, I agree that it is difficult, objectively by a 3rd person with the aid of current science, to differentiate between a delusional bliss and a spritual experience thro the measurements of brain activities.
-------------------

And if we had to suppose – we’d suppose all of the above were just chemical reactioins and there were no gods in touch with any of them.
That seems to be a blanket statement.:)

Here are a list. Can you prove that one is true? Do you have observable evidence that one is true. If so do so or provide it.

1) Your God
2) Invisible Aliens living in an adjacent dimension that control some people.
3) Non-observable chocolate jelly beans
4) Tree god
5) Athena
6) Shinto ancestral spirits
7) Sprites
8) Shiva manifestation
9) Allah
10) Buddha

Here is a list. Can you prove that one is not true? Do you have and observable evidence that any are not true? If so do so or provide it.

1) Your God
2) Invisible Aliens living in an adjacent dimension that control some people.
3) Non-observable chocolate jelly beans
4) Tree god
5) Athena
6) Shinto ancestral spirits
7) Sprites
8) Shiva manifestation
9) Allah
10) Buddha


1) Your God - True and i am not able to pull him in to physical reality as material evidence.!

2) Invisible Aliens living in an adjacent dimension that control some people. - Cannot say totally impossible. So far we have not encountered anything to suggest this.

3) Non-observable chocolate jelly beans - Impossible. It is your pure construct defying natural laws.

4) Tree god - God as such is not a tree or fungus.
5) Athena - No comments.
6) Shinto ancestral spirits - No comments.
7) Sprites - No comments.
8) Shiva manifestation - Manifestation of God. Cannot provide material evidence.
9) Allah - Same as above.
10) Buddha - State of enlightenment and liberated from illusions. Proved already but not accepted by brains-based people.!

First of all, you can not prove that – who are you to say? What if I can show you someone that proved a mathematical theorem while on LSD?

Then he is still in touch with usual reality.! I've no experience with LSD or any other drugs. Only read about. From that read, i presume the tricks of temporally, materialy induced chemical imbalances. But as Tiassa said it has something to do with 'psyche' of the person also. I am not sure. He might be able to provide more details.


Regardless, LSD usually just provides people with a feeling of Euphoria – like the world makes sense all of a sudden and more importantly – their place in it (which is usually seen as meaningful/important).

This is not unlike the Euphoria experienced by some “born again” Christians - subsequently they are “on fire for the Lord” for sometime thereafter.
One obvious difference i could observe is one is depending on the external material (drugs) and the other is not. That makes difference to me. But again i am third person in both cases.!

Regardless, I may have a much higher consciousness than you because I realize the truth that there are no gods (or any of 1 – 10). You can see, your definition of “higher consciousness” leaves a little to be desired – who is it that determines who is closer to the truth? Someone else with higher consciousness :) and how were they qualified? By someone else with higher consciousness . . . etcetera etcetera (oo).
Truth is not what you believe to be the one. Truth is the real reality, not the usual perception of reality.

Never give this answer for a test.
Q:
What is 1/2 + 1/5 ?
A:
Not 11!

10 oranges + 5 apples = ?
I don't find anything wrong in saying "Not 15 oranges" .

I certainly did not take anything for a scientific argument. I stated that my notion of advanced aliens/ jelly beans holds as much water as your notion of god.
Well, with that notion you won't be able to explore the concept of God with any seriousness.