Posted by alexandra_k on February 3, 2005, at 14:44:33
In reply to Re: Newsweek article on religion and the brain, posted by smokeymadison on February 1, 2005, at 16:17:03
> Thanks for my sidetrack into religion. it wasn't exactly what you posted, but i really enjoy discussing it.
Thats ok. I don't mind talking about what other people want to talk about too :-)
> just because a certain part of the brain shuts down during these mystical experiences doesn't necessarily mean that the brain is malfunctioning.
Thats right. It doesn't seem to follow quite yet, so I'd need to try to tell a bit of a story...
>According to the article, the part that shuts down is the part that gives us the distinction between us and everything else. this distinction is necessary for everyday living; wihtout it we would not be able to carry out basic survival functions...
That seems correct. Although if we are interested in 'the ultimate nature of reality' then it seems that what we are grasping is a self-other distinction that exists in reality. How do we know that it exists in reality? Well, if you cannot grasp that distinction then you would die out pretty quick. It's the mechanism that stops us (well, lobsters anyway) eating themselves and that helps us look out for our bodies realising that our limbs etc are 'ours'.
>but this distinction may not actually exist on a spiritual level.
Here it would depend on what you mean by the 'spiritual level'. If you mean that when people are meditating they lose the self-other distinction then that is true, I grant that. But if you are talking about reality then I think that what is happening is that we are failing to grasp a distinction that is there in fact.
I would say, however, that statements that are spiritual or religious are true or false not because they correspond to reality. Reality doesn't come into the picture with respect to statements of religion, spirituality, or faith. One way of saying it is that they are 'not truth apt'. They are neither true nor false they are not about the world they are expression of a certain kinds of 'seems'.
(A lot confusing - sorry)
>this part of the brain draws the line for the above mentioned reason, but perhaps the distinction is a distortion of reality, just like our eyes distort reality in a way so that we can function.
The eyes 'distort reality'? They represent reality (beliefs formed on the basis of accepting our visual experiences as veridical) turn out to be incredably useful to us with respect to helping us navigate our way around the world. I would say that the 'distortion' is more a matter of 'simplification'. I would say that closing our eyes to the world compared quite well with not utilising the parts of the brain that represent distinctions in the world (like the self other distinction). That is not to imply that it is pigheaded or willfill at all - just that sometimes it is not reality that interests us.
> in Buddhism there is a saying about how we are waves in the ocean. we are not separate from the ocean but from our view, as individual waves, it seems as if we are. According to a Transcendental Meditation teacher i talked to once, meditation takes us beneath the surface and reunites us with everything else. the findings from the Newsweek article seem to point in this direction, i think.
Yeah. They seemed particularly keen on Buddist religious experiences. But what about people who say they have the experience of the holy spirit? Does that entail that the holy spirit exists? We cannot deny that they are having the experience they are having - but we can question whether it represents reality accurately or not. Even if it does not. Even if it is 'false' that may be the wrong way to look at or interpret religious discourse. We cannot deny the experience, but maybe the belief that 'it is the holy spirit' should be understood as an expression of faith rahter than as a claim about external reality.
I know another person who is working on a PhD in the same department and what she is looking at is showing how the best current physics is telling us that reality is fundamentally the way that the buddist principles always said it was. This is of course one interpretation of the best physics... And it is one interpretation of what religious discourse is trying to do (to make claims about the ultimate nature of reality). We can always choose to see things that way. But we have to see how far it gets us at the end of the day. You could always say that on the ultimate physical level there aren't any objects anyway, just degrees of charge in fields of force. If there aren't any objects then in a sense I suppose we could say that object distinctions (including the self other distinction) are false...
But then we have to worry what people are getting at and what people mean to say when they start to deny the existence of middle sized objects like tables and chairs and such...
> Science will never be able to prove or disprove God. ok, i take that back. it might happen in physics/chemistry. if you can prove that atoms break down into infinitely smaller particles, then i think that you can prove there is such a thing as eternity since time and matter are related. that would be the first step, since God has always existed in some form in most religions.
I am reminded of Wittgenstein, though I don't think I can get it word for word correct. Basically, this present moment is eternal Smokey. NOW. It is ALWAYS now. Forever and ever amen. (And according to Wittgenstein what came before and what comes after is of no interest to us).
I used to meditate on 'I am an active information processor', basically because I liked it... I have recently discovered 'I am here now'. See this statement is necesarily true no matter who utters it, where it is uttered, and when it is uttered. The people change, the places change, the times change but the statement remains necessarily true. It is a necessary truth that gives no information whatsoever as to WHO is uttering it WHERE they are uttering it or WHEN they are uttering it. But I like it as an example of a necessarily true (eternal) contentless statement. Some people like to think of numbers (which are supposed to be eternal and immutable too - you can never locate or destroy the number 7).
> i don't believe that God created the world exactly. i think that God has always been a part of it. Is it. so when we loose touch with ourselves,lose the distinction betwen us and everything else, there we find God.I think we can find peace and happiness. If that is what you mean by god then I could grant you that. But it depends on what you mean by god...
(I am not hostile to spiritual principles and if I had to pick I would go the buddist way.. I just enjoyed annoying a certain person in the department..)
But it all depends on what you mean by god..
poster:alexandra_k
thread:449954
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/write/20050118/msgs/452500.html