Can you prove God's non-existence(question only for atheists,if possible)?

[zoobyshoe]

I mean: trying to trivialize something that people have devoted many years to becoming skilled at by comparing it to a brain malfunction.

Is this what I was doing? I think you are writing from an impressionistic misunderstanding of something you thought I was saying based on not having read all my posts.

I suspect you were taking aim at religion, but you still have to be careful not to over generalize.

If you would just go back and follow the train of the conversation in my posts in this thread, with the intention of simply understanding what I was saying, you'll see that I was never able to get back to my original intention, which was to say that, while you can't disprove the existence of God, you can point to neurological problems as the source of many experiences that are taken as proof of the existence of spirits, ghosts, past lives, and many other things.
Overdose, very ill-advisedly in my view, switched the subject to something he, and others, aren't willing to entertain anything but a "spiritual" explanation for. Everything since then has been me scrambling to simply maintain there is a logical neurological explanation for this experience to be considered by anyone who wants to look for a non-religious, scientific explanation of things religious. That is what the OP asked for.

The bug up my behind isn't religion, but something else: there is a distinct contingent of people around here who "aren't playing cricket." Their heads explode, so to speak, if you offer a logical and scientifically sound explanation for their pet mystical, paranormal, or spiritual belief.

I think it is unwise for people to bring any belief they feel tender and protective about to Skepticism and Debunking where it is subject to mundane, scientific explanations they don't want to hear.

I can understand anyone who is unimpressed and unpersuaded by a particular scientific explanation and who prefers to favor their intuition. In that case, though, they should simply state that as their reaction, instead of letting their heads explode in frustration.

But there are others who aren't so worried about the perfect belief. They are after a certain feeling. When it feels right, they are rather flexible about how someone chooses to interpret that feeling.

This strikes me as a resonant paragraph with many overtones.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I was responding to what you just said. I even quoted you.

Therefore, for example, if the brain can be stimulated in such a way that one hears a sound, we can conclude that there is no such thing as real sound? Mental illness aside, that these spiritual experiences can be duplicated in the lab only shows that the perception of these experiences can be real - claims as such are not necessarily false memories or lies. It doesn't imply that no genuine experiences are found; only that the claimed state of mind, or the perception of this experience is possible.

I'm talking about this post. To whom were you speaking when you wrote this? You didn't quote the addressee, but it seemed to be directed at godzilla.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Is this what I was doing? I think you are writing from an impressionistic misunderstanding of something you thought I was saying based on not having read all my posts. . . . Everything since then has been me scrambling to simply maintain there is a logical neurological explanation for this experience to be considered by anyone who wants to look for a non-religious, scientific explanation of things religious. That is what the OP asked for. . . . The bug up my behind isn't religion, but something else: there is a distinct contingent of people around here who "aren't playing cricket." Their heads explode, so to speak, if you offer a logical and scientifically sound explanation for their pet mystical, paranormal, or spiritual belief.

If you were to survey all of my posts, you would find me consistently critical of "spiritualism," which is my own general term for that bug up your behind (have you seen a doctor for that? )

However, in your responses I thought I detected the attitude that any sort of spiritual experience might be given an adequate neurological explanation, and if you really do think so, then I'd suggest there is no way you can know unless you are an expert on the spiritual experience.

Most skeptics study only what supports what they believe, select facts which do the same, and ignore information which gives points to what they are skeptical about. As someone who values objectivity, that's what gives me the "bug." I've yet to run into a skeptic of all things spiritual who has taken the time to really educate himself in the more profound areas of the subject.

Also, your so-called "logical and scientifically sound explanation" isn't necessarily that when it comes to consciousness. Giving a logical explanation isn't the same thing as giving a sound explanation. There is a huge debate still on about what consciousness is, yet the scientific explanation often operates under the assumption that the issue is already solved in favor of consciousness being purely physical (i.e. neurological). So with that unsound (i.e., insufficiently supported by evidence) assumption in place, the neurological model can be made to "logically" follow the assumption.

Just to offer my little point of view, attributing everything to neuronal activity is like pointing to an artist's paint brush and saying it creates the painting. True, the brush's role is indispensible, it does move exactly in accordance with the shape the paint takes, the paint is transferred by it, etc., so one might "logically" formulate such an explanation. After all, look at all that evidence. Some others of us complain the mechanics of brush strokes don't explain the "art" aspect of the painting. Believers in brush stroke theory say, "well, one day we will discover that." Or, "art is just an illusion." Or "brushes, given billions of years of evolution, eventually start acting artistic." Hmmmm.

I think it is unwise for people to bring any belief they feel tender and protective about to Skepticism and Debunking where it is subject to mundane, scientific explanations they don't want to hear.

Maybe so, but I can't see how that relieves posters from being fair, respectful of others beliefs, and informed. If one side is over-sensitive, I'd say the skeptic is often insensitive to the same degree or more.

I can understand anyone who is unimpressed and unpersuaded by a particular scientific explanation and who prefers to favor their intuition. In that case, though, they should simply state that as their reaction, instead of letting their heads explode in frustration.

True, it isn't good to let one's head explode. But there's another "assumption" popping up. Why do you say the alternative to a scientifc explanation is one's intuition? I think if I hear that again I'm going to scream . . . in fact, I think I will anyway .

How, for example, do you know you, the individual, exists? Can you look at your "self" under the microscope, track it with an oscilliscope, weigh it . . . ? Is the certainty that there is a "you" mere intuition, or is it simply years of inner, non-observable experience that convinces you.

Many science devotees think all that's knowable must be made available to sense observation, and in such a way that everybody can observe it. Well I say, there are potentials with pure inner experience they know nothing about (even though they could study it if they chose), but which they knee-jerk resist simply because it doesn't fit their "externalizing" epistomological preference for empiricism.

I probably agree with you more than not about some of the "spiritual" arguments made in favor of God. I usually don't even answer such posts because it never seems to lead anywhere. In fact, my signature -- "introspectionists should make sense" -- is my little message to those who feel there is "something more," and want to discuss it philosophically.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Interesting. But in the spirit of science, do any testable predictions result from this logic?

I don't know if you were addressing that to me, but if so I don't know which bit of logic you are referring to.

 

[zoobyshoe]

If you were to survey all of my posts, you would find me consistently critical of "spiritualism," which is my own general term for that bug up your behind (have you seen a doctor for that? )

Every gastroenterologist I've called about it says they don't handle bugs up the behind.

However, in your responses I thought I detected the attitude that any sort of spiritual experience might be given an adequate neurological explanation

If by "adequate neurological explanation," you mean explained away as illusory, then you didn't read my posts. I clearly pointed to one example, accurately seeing the future, as something I had never seen explained as any kind of pathology. I didn't mention it in this thread, but I'm also open minded about telepathy, or mind linking of some sort.

I've yet to run into a skeptic of all things spiritual who has taken the time to really educate himself in the more profound areas of the subject.

Hehehe. The skeptic of all things spiritual isn't allowed into the profound areas.

Also, your so-called "logical and scientifically sound explanation" isn't necessarily that when it comes to consciousness.

What's this about? Don't tell me you think baseballs might be sentient.

There is a huge debate still on about what consciousness is, yet the scientific explanation often operates under the assumption that the issue is already solved in favor of consciousness being purely physical (i.e. neurological). So with that unsound (i.e., insufficiently supported by evidence) assumption in place, the neurological model can be made to "logically" follow the assumption.

If I were to touch your thalamus with a feather you would fall instantly unconscious. If I were to remove two parts of the left side of your brain, Broca's area, and Wernicke's area, you would be completely unable to understand or produce speech. Your capacity for introspection and abilty to philosophize would be gone forever. Don't denigrate your brain. You don't know what you've got.

Some others of us complain the mechanics of brush strokes don't explain the "art" aspect of the painting. Believers in brush stroke theory say, "well, one day we will discover that." Or, "art is just an illusion." Or "brushes, given billions of years of evolution, eventually start acting artistic."

I'm not getting what you're saying with this brush metaphor. It sounds like you're suggesting we're being moved around by larger, intangible forces. Is that it?

Maybe so, but I can't see how that relieves posters from being fair, respectful of others beliefs, and informed. If one side is over-sensitive, I'd say the skeptic is often insensitive to the same degree or more.

If one side is over-sensitive any opposition is going to come off to them as unfair, disrespectful, and being spoken from ignorance. This is why I think people should not post concerning concepts about which they feel tender and protective.

Why do you say the alternative to a scientifc explanation is one's intuition? I think if I hear that again I'm going to scream . . . in fact, I think I will anyway .

I have no idea why this bothers you.

How, for example, do you know you, the individual, exists?

What I really want to know is how any individual who gets himself worked up about quetions like this can ever quiet his interior monolog?

In fact, my signature -- "introspectionists should make sense" -- is my little message to those who feel there is "something more," and want to discuss it philosophically.

Same again. I'm now curious about what school of meditation you practise. I know that if you were involved in any branch of Buddhism I've ever heard of, they'd be telling you to drop the whole philosophy hobby, because it just stimulates your interior monolog to greater activity, instead of helping to quiet it.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I'm talking about this post. To whom were you speaking when you wrote this? You didn't quote the addressee, but it seemed to be directed at godzilla.

No, it was primarily in response to your posts. You keep avoiding the point that an explanation isn't necessarily the only explanation; be it feelings, perceptions of "real" events, visions, sounds, or whatever one associates with a "spiritual experience". For example, people with various mental problems might imagine something to be true - as I said, they might suffer auditory hallucinations - but sound does still exist. Your logic suggests that since auditory hallucinations are found, there is no such thing as real sound.

 

[Les Sleeth]

If I were to touch your thalamus with a feather you would fall instantly unconscious. If I were to remove two parts of the left side of your brain, Broca's area, and Wernicke's area, you would be completely unable to understand or produce speech. Your capacity for introspection and abilty to philosophize would be gone forever. Don't denigrate your brain. You don't know what you've got.

Say you were incased in a robot which forced you to relate to the world through it's mechanical systems; and you were born in it so you don't even realize the robot isn't you. Because you are 100% dependent on robotics to do anything in this universe, if someone messes with the robot's computer circuitry it causes the robot to act without your conscious input, or can even cause a disconnect between you and this universe.

I don't denigrate the brain, and please don't suppose I am ignorant of brain physiology and its neuronal realities just because I don't believe the brain is "causing" consciousness. Experiences I have in meditation make me lean toward seeing myself as consciousness encased in a robot, dependent on my bio-robot to interact with the universe, but NOT dependent on the robot to retain my nature as consciousness.

I'm not getting what you're saying with this brush metaphor. It sounds like you're suggesting we're being moved around by larger, intangible forces. Is that it?

No, I am saying you think you are the brush (robot), but I think you are the mover of the brush.

What I really want to know is how any individual who gets himself worked up about quetions like this can ever quiet his interior monolog?

Same again. I'm now curious about what school of meditation you practise. I know that if you were involved in any branch of Buddhism I've ever heard of, they'd be telling you to drop the whole philosophy hobby, because it just stimulates your interior monolog to greater activity, instead of helping to quiet it.

Quieting my interior dialogue isn't a worry, which is why I am not concerned about getting my mind in gear to talk philosophy . . . because I know I can get it quiet again. And Buddhism . . . everybody in the West seems to think Buddhism is exempt from being as dogmatic, belief-oriented, and mindless as Christianity can be. These days it hardly has the meditation focus it had when the Buddha was teaching; I see it as primarily religion and little more. Yet if you were to go back in time and speak with the Buddha, you would have found he had no problem talking philosophy (read his discourses if you doubt that).

However, all philosophy isn't practiced the same way internally. One might speak from the experience of quiet, and return to quiet when done speaking. One might also speak from the complexity of incessant thinking, and so never reflect quiet since one doesn't ever experience it; and that's even if, like many of the modern self-proclaimed "enlightened," they actually talk about quiet all the time. They just speak from concepts, they've not really submitted to the years of practice it takes to actually quiet the mind.

As for my school of meditation, that's a private thing for me. I am not preaching meditation, I am trying to point out that it is possible to look at it as evidence about what consciousness is, and why some people think there might be a greater consciousness behind everything which they've labeled "God." That is, there is a particular experience in meditation once can eventually attain where one seems lifted out of the body, and joined with some greater conscoiusness that already exists there.

This is most definitely not "my" idea, believe me. You can easily study the history of this type of report, which is what I have done (besides meditating myself). The reports are most commonly associated with people who practice samadhi (East) or union (West). I've suggested many times that the experience of union or oneness with that background thing is where the most powerful reports have come (like Jesus "I and my Father are one"), and that it's people's fascination with that phenomenon that has given us all the speculation about God.

 

[Jameson]

Les, I'm curious, I think I remember you once saying that you're an atheist. Is this true?

Only curious.

Jameson

 

[zoobyshoe]

Your logic suggests that since auditory hallucinations are found, there is no such thing as real sound.

Not at all. My logic in the case of auditory hallucinations is that, if they can be produced by electrical stimulation during brain surgury, then they can be produced by electrical stimulation during seizures. What that means, in practical terms, is that people who have auditory hallucinations during seizures don't have to worry, after the fact, if they are being haunted by the ghost of Newton repeating the phrase "The apple fell! The apple fell! The apple fell!" over and over, or whatever their particular hallucination might suggest.

Your logic suggests that, just because electrical stimulation produced the same auditory hallucination, doesn't mean the person can be sure they aren't actually being haunted by the ghost of Newton.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Not at all. My logic in the case of auditory hallucinations is that, if they can be produced by electrical stimulation during brain surgury, then they can be produced by electrical stimulation during seizures. What that means, in practical terms, is that people who have auditory hallucinations during seizures don't have to worry, after the fact, if they are being haunted by the ghost of Newton repeating the phrase "The apple fell! The apple fell! The apple fell!" over and over, or whatever their particular hallucination might suggest.

That's true. But your postion from day one has been that since these can be produced artificially, basically anything that you don't wish to consider as potentially genuine -edit; spiritual experiences, hauntings, and similar phenomena - is due to some kind of seizure. That doesn't follow. It only means that people can have hallucinations.

Your logic suggests that, just because electrical stimulation produced the same auditory hallucination, doesn't mean the person can be sure they aren't actually being haunted by the ghost of Newton.

What do you mean the same auditory hallucination? The same as what?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Most generally, it sounds like you are saying that any sounds heard that don't have a known explanation - that can be explained by science - are hallucinations.

 

[zoobyshoe]

But your postion from day one has been that since these can be produced artificially, basically anything that you don't wish to consider as potentially genuine -edit; spiritual experiences, hauntings, and similar phenomena - is due to some kind of seizure.

No. And the way you phrased this is very telling: you are phrasing it such that you ascribe the desire to dismiss something as preceeding my knowledge of it being a seizure. That isn't the case at all.

After I read about, say, ten people who have the out-of-body experience as a seizure symptom, and about the woman who permanently lost her sense of being in her body after nervous damage, and about other disorders of the sense of proprioception, I have to accept the fact that this is almost certainly where the whole notion that we have a spirit that can be separated from the body originated in the first place.

People having these kinds of simple partials before brain and nerve function was remotely understood would have had no possible way to explain them neurologically, and a resultant spiritual lore about them would be the natural result.

Now, your insistance that I can't exclude the possibility of a non-seizureal out-of-body experience seems strained and unrealistic to me. You obviously have a non-scientific attachment to the idea of an "authentic" out-of-body experience that I don't share, and can't endorse, because the evidence I have to look at doesn't go there.

It's the same problem with the Deja Vu. When I explain it's a seizure, everyone scrambles to insist there must also be a non-seizureal deja vu, with no evidence whatever that there is. Their motivation isn't a mystery: people are afraid of the word "seizure," which is understandable if the only kind they've ever heard about is the Grand Mal, full body convulsions. In spite of that fear, I can't endorse the invented fiction of a non-seizureal Deja Vu to make people feel better. It much better if people come to accept the fact that seizure activity can be very minor, localized, anomalous, and of no particular concern.

What do you mean the same auditory hallucination? The same as what?

Your logic suggests that just because electrical stimulation produces the same auditory experience that a person has during their seizures, say a voice repeating the phrase "The apple fell" over and over, it doesn't mean they can be sure it is a seizure when they hear that voice saying that phrase outside the experimental setting. You seem to want to keep the door open on the possibility that it really could be Newton's ghost haunting them.

 

[selfAdjoint]

zooob, f you thhink the word "seizure" is causing people to reject your explanations, why not use a different word. It's not as if these people have any physical symptoms, which is what the word seizur naturally suggests. Get some learned word going, like neurogogic pseudopsychia.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Les, I'm curious, I think I remember you once saying that you're an atheist. Is this true?

Well, I used to be, but even then it wasn't from knowing anything one way or another. It was just to escape the doom my family's religion dumped on me, and because once I thought about it, the religious explanation didn't seem to fit the facts.

I have come around slowly because of the experience in meditation I've described. Yet I still cannot say definitively that I actually "know' there is a greater consciousness. Mostly it is a feeling from all those mergings in meditation, plus I don't think the physicalist theory makes sense. But as of now, my opinion is that behind all the appearances of creation is some sort of consciousness.

 

[Les Sleeth]

After I read about, say, ten people who have the out-of-body experience as a seizure symptom, and about the woman who permanently lost her sense of being in her body after nervous damage, and about other disorders of the sense of proprioception, I have to accept the fact that this is almost certainly where the whole notion that we have a spirit that can be separated from the body originated in the first place.

LOL. The only reason you "have to accept" your own theory is because you are already convinced what the answer is!

There is another perfectly possible explanation, and that is that seizure really did cause those individuals to have out of body experiences. And that woman who permanently lost her sense of being in her body after nervous damage . . . well, maybe it did permanently disassociate her from her body. Don't you see? It is your a priori assumptions which make you "dismiss" her reports simply because there is an associated physical symptom (seizure). Your epistomological priority makes you choose to look at the physical symptom over listening to her first-hand report.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Experiences I have in meditation make me lean toward seeing myself as consciousness encased in a robot, dependent on my bio-robot to interact with the universe, but NOT dependent on the robot to retain my nature as consciousness.

Does this mean you believe your consciousness will survive your bodily death?

No, I am saying you think you are the brush (robot), but I think you are the mover of the brush.

Yeah, I'm not getting this metaphor at all.

My take on the course of anyone's life is that things were set in motion with the big bang that are going to take their course, including all the tiny details of our lives. It's possible to look at ourselves as being locked in a single, unalterable path, despite the vivid illusion of freedom.

That is, there is a particular experience in meditation once can eventually attain where one seems lifted out of the body, and joined with some greater conscoiusness that already exists there.

Shunriu Suzuki talks about this, (I think he's referring to something like this) saying that we all have our daily "small" mind, but that in practicing zazen you realize you also have a "Big" mind or "Buddha mind". One of the tenets of Zen is: "All beings are Buddha from the beginning."

Zen Buddhists don't believe in a God, and they don't speak of the experience of "Big" mind as a "joining" with something greater, rather as a realization of something that was always already part of you.

-----

I have to admit in conclusion that, even though I have never had this experience, I think that if I had, I wouldn't post about it in a breezy manner on the internet.

 

[zoobyshoe]

LOL. The only reason you "have to accept" your own theory is because you are already convinced what the answer is!

What convinced me?

There is another perfectly possible explanation, and that is that seizure really did cause those individuals to have out of body experiences.

I don't think you are following the seizure/out of body relationship.

First off, I want to make sure you're up to speed on the meaning of a simple partial seizure. This is localized to one, small part of the brain, but the complicated thing about them is that they can happen in any part of the brain at all. Since each part of the brain governs a different thing, 100 different people having a simple partial seizure, each in a different part of the brain, will each experience a different symptom than everyone else. There is never a loss of consciousness in a simple partial. (That's what the "simple" stands for."Complex" when applied to seizures, means there is defect of consciousness.)

The motor strip of the brain across the back of the frontal lobes is small in area compared to the rest of the brain, and the majority of simple partial's don't take place there: motor simple partials are fairly rare, meaning: no convulsive muscular activity.

So the symptoms a person experiences depend exclusively on what part of the brain is affected. If the little brain storm is in one of the occipital lobes, they will experience some visual disturbance. That could be flashes of light, strange geometric shapes becoming superimposed in their field of vision, or maybe macropsia, where everything looks much closer and larger than it is. The specific visual experience will depend on the exact location within the lobe.

Now some seizures hyper-exite the location, and others shut it down completely. You know of convulsive seizures, but there are also atonic seizures where the muscles suddenly lose all ability to contract, and the person flops to the ground like a rag doll. The same shut down can occur anywhere a hyperexitation can occur, (which is everywhere).

Now, when the seizure activity takes place in the part of the brain where proprioception is processed, the person experiences distortions in their sense of where their body or sometimes just parts of their body, are located. Here's a couple examples:

"A patient of Russel and Whitty (1953), wounded in the left posteror parietal region, had attacks in which he suddenly and strongly felt that his right arm was in a position elevated above his head with the hand clenched. In some attacks he would look up, expecting to see the arm, only to find it not there but at his side. In other attacks, however, the feeling might be so strong that he asked his wife to pull the arm down, though in fact it was still by his side. Riddoch (1941) described a woman with cortical atrophy of the right parietal lobe whose attacks were characterized by a feeling `as if she had two sets of toes on the left side, the phantom toes being curled down under the sole of her foot.'"

-Partial Seizures and Interictal Disorders
David P, Moore M.D.
1997, Butterworth Heineman, Boston




Now, the odd thing is that he describes some other people who'se sense of proprioception for an individual limb seems, not to mis-inform about where the limb actually is, but to shut down any sense that they even have the limb. The result is exceptionally queer and hard to explain: they react to the sight of their real limb with horror, because their senses are telling them it shouldn't be there.

Somehow, when the sense of having the limb is shut off, the person seems to lose their intellectual understanding of the fact it is supposed to be there. Oliver Sacks tells the story of a guy in this condition who tried to throw a leg he woke up to find in bed with him onto the floor, but who went over with it, because it was his own living leg.

VS Ramachandran has done a lot of work with phantom limb patients, amputees who feel the limb they've lost is still there, and still feeling sensations. The limbs are gone but the parts of the brain that process all the limbs sensory and positional information are still there. His experiments indicate that these areas that no longer get imput from a limb, allow imput from whatever area is right next to them to stimulate a corresponding "output". A touch to the jawline makes a missing thumb seem to be still there because these two are right next to each other on the sensory strip.

So, the out-of-body seizure occurs when the main processing center for body position experiences seizure activity. I don't really know if this is a hyperexitation or a shut down, but either way the person no longer can locate themselves where they actually are, and, probably for the same reason the guy tried to throw his leg out of bed, they hallucinate themselves to be almost anywhere as long as it's not in this body they no longer recognise as their own.

The person doesn't leave their body in reaction to having a seizure, the out of body experience is the seizure symptom. The only symtom, in this kind of seizure: no convulsions, no loss of consciousness.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Does this mean you believe your consciousness will survive your bodily death?

I don't know. I can't say I "believe" it since I don't recall ever dying and surving death.

Zen Buddhists don't believe in a God, and they don't speak of the experience of "Big" mind as a "joining" with something greater, rather as a realization of something that was always already part of you.

It is a common misconception that Buddhists (Zen or otherwise) deny the existence of God. The Buddha never taught such a thing. What he said was to experience samadhi and let that teach you, don't speculate about "what it is."

In this sense, the Buddha was a great scientist for relying on experience to know and teach, while limiting explanations primarily to the boundaries set by his lead principles; and because of that we can see how much he trusted the inward experience to tell its own story.

That is why when questioned by the wanderer Potthapada whether the universe is permanent and infinite, if the soul and body are the same, and if the realized being exists after death the Buddha answered, “[I have not declared these things because] that is not conducive to the purpose, not the way to embark on the holy life, it does not lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to higher knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nirvana. That is why I have not declared it.”

So there was no denial of God, there was a prohibition against speculating about God. The emphasis was on attaining an experience where one can see and decide for oneself what's there. Until one attains that, discussion about what "might be" there were discouraged because all it did was put concepts in the way of a neutral practice.

I have to admit in conclusion that, even though I have never had this experience, I think that if I had, I wouldn't post about it in a breezy manner on the internet.

What is "breezy" about the way I post it? While you haven't experienced it, I've practice an hour (usually more) every single day for almost 32 years. For the last ten years I've experienced union daily. So for me, it is something I am familiar with, intimate with, and love more than any other experience of my life. I am not breezy about it, I am passionate about it.

I don't claim to be enlightened, I don't claim to know the answers to all the ultimate questions. I simply am reporting what the experience "is like" for me, and also, since I have studied the history of the experience, I try to communicate about that too. How many people do you know with such expertise. What should I do, hide it from everybody?

Here at PF I always try to talk about it in a practical sense, usually as a relatively unknown consciousness potential. I do not try to make it something "spiritual." I simply haven't limited my definition of practical to what can be observed/manipulated physically as most seem to around here.

I find your comment irritating, and I'm wondering about your motives. Is it that you want to stifle anyone who actually knows something about the experience?

 

[PIT2]

Is it possible to have seizures (or hallucinations) while being clinically braindead?

I remember some near-death-experience research which mentioned that there are cases where ppl are still conscious (and some having an OBE) while clinically braindead. They only know because these people(and this also included blind people), made observations during this period of clinical braindead which were subsequently verified.

*heres the paper:
http://profezie3m.altervista.org/archivio/TheLancet_NDE.htm

 

[Les Sleeth]

I don't think you are following the seizure/out of body relationship.

I am familiar with much of what you described, and many other of the strange symptoms brain problems or manipulation can manifest.

Most of what you listed as "out of body" experiences weren't what I thought you meant by the phrase. It seems phantom limb, disorientaton, hallucination, etc. would have been more apt terms.

The out of body experience inner practitioners report, as well as those who use certain psychotropic drugs like peyote, is something quite different than anything you described.

 

[zoobyshoe]

What is "breezy" about the way I post it?

I don't claim to be enlightened, I don't claim to know I find your comment irritating, and I'm wondering about your motives.

This is why I asked about the school of meditation you subscribed to, earlier. I'm only familiar with Zen Buddhism, and they discourage, not only talking about what happens during meditation, but talking in general. I do believe they would frown on someone posting personal accounts of their experiences on public forums on the internet. Important experiences are only openly discussed between the student and the roshi.

The reason they are this way, I think, goes back to what you were saying about the Buddha neither confirming. nor denying many things: descriptions just create expectations for anyone else who embarks on it. Once a person has a preconception about the kind of experience they should expect, that's the kind of experience they'll try to have.

You're the first non-Zen Buddhist I've ever talked to, and by comparison to the story of the master who gave the meaning of life as "Three pounds of flax," as well as every other Zen story and account I've read, you continually strike me as downright "chatty" on the subject.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Most of what you listed as "out of body" experiences weren't what I thought you meant by the phrase. It seems phantom limb, disorientaton, hallucination, etc. would have been more apt terms.

I don't know what you mean by out-of-body experience if it is different from what I mean, but the full blown version of the simple partial seizure is where the person experiences themself as being completely outside their body, not just one limb out of place, usually floating in the room, and able to actually look at themselves as if from outside. I didn't specify that in words, figuring we already meant the same thing.

I had the impression, correctly or not, you first thought that the people I'd read about had jumped out of their bodies in a fear reaction to having a grand mal seizure. I was trying to make sure you understood there is no symptom in this kind of seizure exept the experience of "being out of the body," fully or partially, due to distortion of the sense of proprioception. No convulsions or loss of consciousness. The only thing affected is the sense of proprioception.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Is it possible to have seizures (or hallucinations) while being clinically braindead?

The answer, of course, is no. If a person is braindead they don't have the capacity to hallucinate or seize.

The trouble is that it is very possible to be declared braindead when you aren't. I had a discussion about this with Ivan last year, but I can't remember what thread it was in.

EEGs actually have a very shallow depth to which they are sensitive. This creates all kinds of diagnostic problems when it comes to seizures. Alot of seizures happen so deep in the brain they can't be picked up on a surface EEG. This has been proven when electrodes placed under the bone, right on the brain, have picked up seizure activity in people whose surface EEGs were clear. The scull really gets in the way of these things.

A better system of EEG is becomming more widely used the past few years and it senses at a greater depth, but still doesn't get right to the center: the limbic system, which is the touchiest part of the brain, and the one most likely to experience seizure activity.

So, a person's EEG could look like they were brain dead, if the cortical (surface) activity were quiescent.

I'm not sure if you ever saw the film "Awakenings" with Robert DeNiro and Robin Williams, but it was about a clinic that housed all these people whose brains seemed just about totally inactive on EEGs. Later, when a drug was tried that "woke them up" it turned out that they were all perfectly alert and conscious of everything going on around them the whole time their EEGs said they must be unconscious.

That's not just a movie, it's based on the autobiographical accounts of Oliver Sacks, who is played by Robin Williams.

 

[PIT2]

Lets take this one case of Pam Reynolds for example(im sure uve heard of her). Apparently, she was attached to 3 different kinds of EEGs, all of which said there was no activity in the brain.
Also, her eyes were taped shut, so she wouldn't be able to see anything, even if fully awake.
Also, she did not have any blood flowing to and in her brain for several hours. One can wonder if some part of the brain remain active without any bloodflow for so long.

I have read some skeptic comments on this case (and they seem to agree that she was really clinically braindead), but the explanations given so far are not satisfactory(meaning that the explanations are far fetched and may not even be possible at all).

Btw, i have seen awakenings and also a documentary (Horizon) about the real events, but i missed the part where they performed EEGs on obviously alive patients and found no activity in the brain.

Whatever the case, NDEs remain enigmatic.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Lets take this one case of Pam Reynolds for example(im sure uve heard of her). Apparently, she was attached to 3 different kinds of EEGs, all of which said there was no activity in the brain.
Also, her eyes were taped shut, so she wouldn't be able to see anything, even if fully awake.
Also, she did not have any blood flowing to and in her brain for several hours. One can wonder if some part of the brain remain active without any bloodflow for so long.

No, I haven't ever heard of this. What's the end of the story? She came out of it somehow and reported an NDE?

 

[Les Sleeth]

This is why I asked about the school of meditation you subscribed to, earlier. I'm only familiar with Zen Buddhism, and they discourage, not only talking about what happens during meditation, but talking in general. I do believe they would frown on someone posting personal accounts of their experiences on public forums on the internet. Important experiences are only openly discussed between the student and the roshi.

The Ch'an tradition refocused a small group in China on meditation, because (IMO) by the time Bodhidarma got there (a 1000 years after the Buddha) the full-blown religion of Buddhism was in place. So it might have been a reaction to all that religious theory that the original master over-emphasized silence. In India there have always been yogis who eschew any talking whatsoever, and silence was a technique in Western monasteries as well. So I'm not disputing it cannot be used.

But do you think just because someone associates himself with Zen today he really knows his stuff? A couple of months ago I received in the mail an invitation from a local Zen monastery to buy audio tapes made by one of the monks. The monk was 26 years old and had been meditating for a year. Gimme a break! Joshu, the greatest Zen master in my opinion, meditated 40 years before trying to teach others.

Today, meditation-wise, all I ever hear about and meet are slackers. In my life, I have not met one, single, solitary Zen meditator who has been as dedicated as myself. Once I met a guy who claimed he'd practiced for 15 years, and I was really impressed with that. But he quit after that figuring he wasn't getting anywhere. I regularly browse bookstores and am constantly amazed at all the people writing about Zen who mostly got their understanding from reading books. They don't even meditate, and that is what Zen was originally all about (as was the Buddha's teaching).

Even six hundred years after its origin as Ch’an, meditation was still the central practice, as is shown by Japanese Zen master Dogen’s words (who had traveled to China to study Zen), “In the study of the Way, the prime essential is sitting meditation. The attainment of the way by many people in China is due in each case to the power of sitting meditation. Even ignorant people with no talent, who do not understand a single letter, if they sit whole-heartedly in meditation, then by the accomplishment of meditative stability, they will surpass even brilliant people who have studied for a long time. Thus students . . . do not get involved with other things.”

You might think that silence is the standard when it comes to meditation, but you are wrong. In fact, there are types of meditation disciplines that set aside sessions which require one to "speak from the heart" what one has experienced within. It's actually a pretty powerful centering technique when done properly.

The reason they are this way, I think, goes back to what you were saying about the Buddha neither confirming. nor denying many things: descriptions just create expectations for anyone else who embarks on it. Once a person has a preconception about the kind of experience they should expect, that's the kind of experience they'll try to have.

It is one thing to speculate, and it is another to speak from experience. The Buddha himself represents the ideal of the path toward enlightenment, not Bodhidarma, and the Buddha wasn't all that silent. He traveled incessantly speaking to anyone who would listen, and so did his experienced monks. If you are experienced in meditation, then there is nothing wrong with describing your experience. What is wrong (in terms of a meditation practice) is to speculate about the nature of the universe as though you know. I enjoy theoretical discussions, but I challenge you to find me claiming I "know" the truth about reality.

You're the first non-Zen Buddhist I've ever talked to, and by comparison to the story of the master who gave the meaning of life as "Three pounds of flax," as well as every other Zen story and account I've read, you continually strike me as downright "chatty" on the subject.

Zen is not the standard for all meditation! And if you are going to compare me to the way Zen is practiced today I think you are really off target (go to the bookstore). You don't see me writing books, claiming to be a "master," or trying to acquire students. But just check out all the so-called Zen teachers offering themselves to potential students. What a joke. They haven't put in nearly the work I have, and I am quite certain I am NOT qualified to teach.

The only time I speak with certainty is when it comes to relating my own personal experience. And that is well within the inner tradition to do so, especially if you have spent over 30 years dedicating yourself to learning a single skill. Geez, how long do I have to practice before I'm allowed to speak with some authority? Up until about two years ago, I never talked about it, not even to my friends. This is a sort of coming out for me where I am finally relating a bit of what I have learned.

Just slapping a label on yourself as High Zen Guy, being able to piously Falwell-like, repeat Zen koans and parables, being silent, acting humble . . . none of that means anything actually realized has occurred inside.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I don't know what you mean by out-of-body experience if it is different from what I mean, but the full blown version of the simple partial seizure is where the person experiences themself as being completely outside their body, not just one limb out of place, usually floating in the room, and able to actually look at themselves as if from outside. I didn't specify that in words, figuring we already meant the same thing.

Yes, that is how I understand the out of body experience.

I had the impression, correctly or not, you first thought that the people I'd read about had jumped out of their bodies in a fear reaction to having a grand mal seizure.

No, I was thinking more that if the brain holds consciousness within the physical system (which was the alternative I offered to your theory), then a seizure might somehow trigger a partial release from the physical system.

I was trying to make sure you understood there is no symptom in this kind of seizure exept the experience of "being out of the body," fully or partially, due to distortion of the sense of proprioception. No convulsions or loss of consciousness. The only thing affected is the sense of proprioception.

Well, you say it is due to the distortion of proprioception, and I suggested it might be that consciousness really is somewhat released from its physical constraints. How do you know that isn't the case?

 

[pattylou]

Hey Les, you look like you are all alone in your perspective here. :)

I look forward to reading the thread in more depth later. I have only skimmed bits here and there. But as I'm new here and don't know anyone yet, and vice versa, I'll happily mention that I enjoyed occasional OBE of several varieties for a period of a couple years, when I was meditating in a disciplined fashion.

My meditation was in response to personal trauma, and I fully intended it to be a lifestyle for the long run. I still expect I will "get back to it" someday. At present I am more involved with children, education, politics --- ummm --- Samsarra? Never learned the terminology. Transcendence seems very much not a part of making change for the better in an engaged fashion in the world. At present I am lucky to have the occasional lucid dream. But really - someday I'll get back to it. :)

I just hated to see you presenting a reasoned face and feeling irritated, so I thought I'd just pipe up. I'll pipe back down now. Carry on.

 

[Jameson]

Wow Les I'm impressed with your knowledge on meditation.

Question - What about meditation takes practice? I know one can't perfect it in a day like most things: tennis, piano, etc... but what specifically do you focus on improving when you meditate?

The only technique I know of pertaining to meditation is breathing in and out slowly, trying to focus on nothing else besides that. I find it very relaxing. Do you have any other good ones?

Jameson

PS... I think the debate between you two is heading nowhere.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Hey Les, you look like you are all alone in your perspective here. :)

I look forward to reading the thread in more depth later. I have only skimmed bits here and there. But as I'm new here and don't know anyone yet, and vice versa, I'll happily mention that I enjoyed occasional OBE of several varieties for a period of a couple years, when I was meditating in a disciplined fashion.

My meditation was in response to personal trauma, and I fully intended it to be a lifestyle for the long run. I still expect I will "get back to it" someday. At present I am more involved with children, education, politics --- ummm --- Samsarra? Never learned the terminology. Transcendence seems very much not a part of making change for the better in an engaged fashion in the world. At present I am lucky to have the occasional lucid dream. But really - someday I'll get back to it. :)

I just hated to see you presenting a reasoned face and feeling irritated, so I thought I'd just pipe up. I'll pipe back down now. Carry on.

Thank you Pattylou (hey, that rhymes), and welcome to PF. I like your name, it's almost as good as Math is Hard, and your writing style (as well as your compassionate outlook) reminds me of hers. Please don't hesitate to contribute your two cents worth. None of us know what the hell we are talking about anyway when it comes to philosophy and all the weird stuff people believe.