I know God

[RexDart]

*Originally posted by lekatt *
**http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/internet/personalitystudies/case_types.cfm#NDE

This and other studies I believe will eventually prove what NDEers have said all along.
**

The new issue of Skeptical Inquirer reports that OBE’s have been induced by electrically stimulating a part of the brain. The researchers are neurologists from Geneva, they published their findings in Nature. I imagine the broader category of “near-death experiences” has a similiar cause. Once we found out about the “God Module”, we shouldn’t be surprised as we now find out that the brain causes all these experiences.

Color is a function of wavelength of light, but it takes on an experiential character because the brain turns the data into a conscious experience. Theoretically, it ought to be possible to make a person perceive something (say, a large red object) even when no such object is there, merely by manipulating certain areas of the brain. Similiarly, it ought to be possible to induce these seemingly paranormal/supernatural perceptions by manipulating certain other parts of the brain. Now that they’ve done it with OBEs, I suspect more will follow until we have a nice tidy explanation for all of this.

[lekatt]

*Originally posted by RexDart *
**The new issue of Skeptical Inquirer reports that OBE’s have been induced by electrically stimulating a part of the brain. The researchers are neurologists from Geneva, they published their findings in Nature. I imagine the broader category of “near-death experiences” has a similiar cause. Once we found out about the “God Module”, we shouldn’t be surprised as we now find out that the brain causes all these experiences.

Color is a function of wavelength of light, but it takes on an experiential character because the brain turns the data into a conscious experience. Theoretically, it ought to be possible to make a person perceive something (say, a large red object) even when no such object is there, merely by manipulating certain areas of the brain. Similiarly, it ought to be possible to induce these seemingly paranormal/supernatural perceptions by manipulating certain other parts of the brain. Now that they’ve done it with OBEs, I suspect more will follow until we have a nice tidy explanation for all of this. **

Give me a break, the “research” consisted of one individual, who said he saw himself as if he were out of body whatever that means. Read some real research for a change.

Love
Leroy

[lekatt]

There are no paranormal or supernatural events, we just don’t understand the cause, so it gets a label. It is very hard for me to believe that people really think they are only a brain and/or body.

Love
Leroy

[Zoe]

My understanding is that Dr. Ramachandran’s has done quite a bit of research in this area. I’ve watched a couple of television programs about it from fairly reliable sources and read a little on the internet at the time.

[quote]
Once we found out about the “God Module”, we shouldn’t be surprised as we now find out that the brain causes all these experiences.[/quote}

All of our perceptions of reality may be just brain chemistry. A rational, logical mind may be just the failure of part of the brain to convey an “ultimate reality.” In that case, this post would be self-referential and a paradox.

Most cientists probably won’t jump to the unscientific conclusion that some perceptions of the brain (sight, taste, smell, touch, hearing) are accurate and that other sensations (those detected by the so-called “God Module”) are inaccurate and unreliable.

Think of the sensations detected by the God Module as possibly being, perhaps even a more reliable sense than sight, etc.

[Bryan_Ekers]

*Originally posted by lekatt *
**There are no paranormal or supernatural events, we just don’t understand the cause, so it gets a label. It is very hard for me to believe that people really think they are only a brain and/or body.

Love
Leroy **

Well, call me Ripley.

[Zoe]

I consider myself a skeptic. That requires of me that I remain open-minded – not dismissive.

[lekatt]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Zoe *
**My understanding is that Dr. Ramachandran’s has done quite a bit of research in this area. I’ve watched a couple of television programs about it from fairly reliable sources and read a little on the internet at the time.

[quote]
Once we found out about the “God Module”, we shouldn’t be surprised as we now find out that the brain causes all these experiences.
[/quote}

All of our perceptions of reality may be just brain chemistry. A rational, logical mind may be just the failure of part of the brain to convey an “ultimate reality.” In that case, this post would be self-referential and a paradox.

Most cientists probably won’t jump to the unscientific conclusion that some perceptions of the brain (sight, taste, smell, touch, hearing) are accurate and that other sensations (those detected by the so-called “God Module”) are inaccurate and unreliable.

Think of the sensations detected by the God Module as possibly being, perhaps even a more reliable sense than sight, etc. **[/QUOTE]

The evidence is strong that consciousness lives after the death of the brain and body. There has been a lot of research on this by many different researchers and the most reached conclusion is that we will live after death.

Raymond Moody, psychiatrist
Elizabeth Keubler-Ross. MD
Kenneth Ring, MD
Jeffery Long, MD
and some studies done by research groups available on my site.
The study being done now at University of Virginia.
and many other lesser known researchers.

has provided a lot of material showing consciousness lives after the body is dead.

I have no problem with this, having had a NDE and many other spiritual experiences including OBEs, and such.

With me it is certain, but I understand how others can remain skeptical. I also understand why such things as a “brain module” come into existence and it is not what brain researchers think.

We are spirits inhabiting physical bodies for the purpose of learning about ourselves. Anytime the physical body, brain, is diminished the spiritual is increased.

Not wanting to retype a lot of stuff:

http://ndeweb.com/FAQz02.htm

explains it in more detail.
Love
Leroy

[Liberal]

Latro wrote:

There is some basis in seeing someone play down his views in order not to step on any religious toes. It happens all the time.
Maybe you’re right and that isn’t the case here. It is, however, not an arbitrary interpretation to the extent of your Dr King example.

Do you deny that there is some basis in seeing someone play down his views in order not to step on any political toes? It, too, happens all the time. Dr. King was a political statesman.

And why aren’t we allowed to question people’s motives?
We could all stop our debates right now.
Who are we to question the motives and veracity of Bush, Saddam, Ritter, the Bible and God knows who and what.

You are allowed to question motives when the question is pertinent. If this were a debate about the Bible, citing errors and contradictions would be appropriate. But conjuring imaginary poison wells would be inappropriate.

---

Lekatt wrote:

I thought an EKG measured heart beats. I think you meant an EEG, that measures brain waves. It does not measure God, He is too big for anything we have to measure.

Thank you for the correction. And I agree that it does not measure God. It does, however, measure an event that correlates with a spiritual experience.

---

RobertTB wrote:

He did not measure ‘spiritual activity’ in brains. He measured peoples responses (people with various neurological ailments, mind you) to ‘religeous stimuli’. Even he states that this is not the same as finding a ‘God Module’, as has been reported.

That is imprecise. His conclusion was that he could not determine whether his findings indicated that God was generated by the brain or vice-versa.

---

RexDart wrote:

The new issue of Skeptical Inquirer reports that OBE’s have been induced by electrically stimulating a part of the brain. The researchers are neurologists from Geneva, they published their findings in Nature. I imagine the broader category of “near-death experiences” has a similiar cause. Once we found out about the “God Module”, we shouldn’t be surprised as we now find out that the brain causes all these experiences.

Non causa pro causa. By what scientific principle do you presume that you may select between one of these interpretations of such experiments:

(1) Brain activity causes near death and spiritual experiences

(2) Near death and spiritual experiences cause brain activity

As Ramachandran said, the data could be used to argue for, rather than against, the existence of God.

---

Zoe wrote:

Most cientists probably won’t jump to the unscientific conclusion that some perceptions of the brain (sight, taste, smell, touch, hearing) are accurate and that other sensations (those detected by the so-called “God Module”) are inaccurate and unreliable.

Exactly right. What will happen is what usually happens with science. The lay public will pick sides, and each side will presume rightness over the other.

Think of the sensations detected by the God Module as possibly being, perhaps even a more reliable sense than sight, etc.

Again, correct.

As Ramachandran said in the same chapter:

I hasten to add that as far as the patient is concerned, whatever changes have occurred are authentic — sometimes even desirable — and the physician has no right, really, to attribute a value label to such esoteric embellishments of personality. On what basis does one decide whether a mystical experience is normal or abnormal? There is a common tendency to equate “unusual” or “rare” with abnormal, but this is a logical fallacy. Genius is a rare but highly valued trait, whereas tooth decay is common but obviously undesirable. Why is the revealed truth of such transcendent experience in any way “inferior” to the more mundave truth that we scientists dabble in?

[RexDart]

*Originally posted by Libertarian *
**
Non causa pro causa. By what scientific principle do you presume that you may select between one of these interpretations of such experiments:

(1) Brain activity causes near death and spiritual experiences

(2) Near death and spiritual experiences cause brain activity

**

The experiment showed that a stimulation of a part of the brain induced such experiences in the individual. They were causing the brain activity with electrical stimulation. So NDE/spiritual experience wasn’t causing the brain activity, scientists were. So that rules out (2). If they had simply observed brain activity correlating with the OBE, that would be different. They induced the brain activity and the subject had an OBE. Since the cause of the brain activity is a known factor in this experiment, it’s not a simple case of inferring causation from correlation. Nor is it a case of two effects sharing a common unknown cause.

As for choosing between the senses, my point is that none of the senses are ultimately reliable. In the ordinary course of existence, we assume that we see a red object because there is something really there that is reflecting light at a wavelength corresponding to “red”. This experiential component of this perception-event comes from the brain. So proper manipulation of the brain could make you think a red object was before you, when in fact it was not. Thus, IMO, the experiential component of a perception-event is only reliable when you have reason to believe extrinsically that your perception is of reality. Most of the things we regularly encounter in our perceptions, we have no reason to doubt. If, however, our perception took place under particular circumstances where we have reason to doubt our senses (state of semi-consciousness, under extreme chemical or drug-induced stress, etc.), or when the observation is so unusual as to merit doubt and/or defies in an essential way all prior experience…then we should question our perception.

[Liberal]

RexDart wrote:

The experiment showed that a stimulation of a part of the brain induced such experiences in the individual. They were causing the brain activity with electrical stimulation. So NDE/spiritual experience wasn’t causing the brain activity, scientists were. So that rules out (2). If they had simply observed brain activity correlating with the OBE, that would be different. They induced the brain activity and the subject had an OBE. Since the cause of the brain activity is a known factor in this experiment, it’s not a simple case of inferring causation from correlation. Nor is it a case of two effects sharing a common unknown cause.

The point you are missing is that the experimenters were intelligent interventionists. It proves that intervention by intelligence may affect brain activity. It might be that all they did was model God’s relation with man. That’s why Ramachandran said that the experiments may be used to argue for, rather than against, the existence of God.

[RexDart]

*Originally posted by Libertarian *
**RexDart wrote:

The point you are missing is that the experimenters were intelligent interventionists. It proves that intervention by intelligence may affect brain activity. It might be that all they did was model God’s relation with man. That’s why Ramachandran said that the experiments may be used to argue for, rather than against, the existence of God. **

Are you suggesting that god electrically stimulates the brain? That’s what the scientists were doing, that’s the “key to the door”, so to speak. Does he simply fashion the electricity from nothing and put it there? Are you really suggesting that the law of Conservation of Energy is just tossed out the window, because god wants to make some energy spontaneously appear? When has anything like that ever been observed?

I can see how the presence of a “God module” could be integrated with a theory that god “designed” us and put it there. It would nevertheless be natural and self-contained, because the stimuli that cause the module to react are physical in origin. It’s purpose in this theory would be merely to allow people, under certain circumstances, to have an interesting and unique experience that would cause them to ponder the nature of the divine, or some such thing. It’s cause would still be natural, even if the effect was “designed” to bring people to consider the supernatural.

Far more likely is that “magical thinking” was somehow useful to our caveman ancestors, so it developed biologically and stuck around. Likewise, the simplest explanation for NDEs is that they are a brain response to the death-event designed for some purpose, perhaps as a self-defense mechanism against the uniquely human knowledge of our own mortality.

[Liberal]

RexDart wrote:

Are you suggesting that god electrically stimulates the brain? That’s what the scientists were doing, that’s the “key to the door”, so to speak. Does he simply fashion the electricity from nothing and put it there? Are you really suggesting that the law of Conservation of Energy is just tossed out the window, because god wants to make some energy spontaneously appear? When has anything like that ever been observed?

It would behoove you to stop arguing with your own imagination. The brain itself is an electro-chemical organ. Electrical charges may be enduced by chemical reaction.

I can see how the presence of a “God module” could be integrated with a theory that god “designed” us and put it there. It would nevertheless be natural and self-contained, because the stimuli that cause the module to react are physical in origin. It’s purpose in this theory would be merely to allow people, under certain circumstances, to have an interesting and unique experience that would cause them to ponder the nature of the divine, or some such thing. It’s cause would still be natural, even if the effect was “designed” to bring people to consider the supernatural.

Well, there you are.

Far more likely is that “magical thinking” was somehow useful to our caveman ancestors, so it developed biologically and stuck around. Likewise, the simplest explanation for NDEs is that they are a brain response to the death-event designed for some purpose, perhaps as a self-defense mechanism against the uniquely human knowledge of our own mortality.

Ah, yes. Invocation of the most mystical religion known to man: materialism. Are you suggesting that evolution works in mysterious ways?

[Zoe]

[quote]
If, however, our perception took place under particular circumstances where we have reason to doubt our senses (state of semi-consciousness, under extreme chemical or drug-induced stress, etc.), or when the observation is so unusual as to merit doubt and/or defies in an essential way all prior experience…then we should question our perception.

[quote]

Doesn’t that assume that a sate of semi-consciousness, the use of chemicals or drugs or a state of stress alters our sense of reality in a negative way? I agree that these things may change our perceptions, but perhaps what we glimpse under these conditions is closer to the “truth.” I remain open-minded about that possibility.

If we have an experience that defies all prior experiences, then we should question the perceptions of our original experiences as well.

[quote]
I have no problem with this, having had a NDE and many other spiritual experiences including OBEs, and such.

With me it is certain, but I understand how others can remain skeptical.

[quote]

I’m not using “skeptical” in any negative sense. I am just referring to “suspended judgment.” I [believe that the essential part of us does not die. But I don’t know that with absolute certainty any more than I can “know” that I am actually sitting at a desk in a city on a speck of debris in the cosmos.

I think the end result is the same, lecatt. We both believe (or, in your case “know”) based on our own experiences.

Do any of you distinguish between OBE, the “unity” experience or Maslow’s peak experiences?

[RexDart]

*Originally posted by Libertarian *
**RexDart wrote:

It would behoove you to stop arguing with your own imagination. The brain itself is an electro-chemical organ. Electrical charges may be enduced by chemical reaction.
**

The chemical reaction still needs a cause.

**
Ah, yes. Invocation of the most mystical religion known to man: materialism. Are you suggesting that evolution works in mysterious ways? **

Materialism is still, to my mind, the absolute best explanation for the world I observe. Everything fits nice and perfectly, and quite simply, in my conception of the universe, so I’ll stick with it. There’s nothing at all mystical about it. Does evolution work in “mysterious ways”? Well, it might work in ways that are epistemically unknowable (I’m not asserting that, but admitting the possibility), but yet metaphysically natural and explainable.

[Liberal]

RexDart wrote:

The chemical reaction still needs a cause.

Perhaps a spiritual experience is the cause.

Materialism is still, to my mind, the absolute best explanation for the world I observe. Everything fits nice and perfectly, and quite simply, in my conception of the universe, so I’ll stick with it.

That’s nice.

I found that those of my friends who were admirers of Marx, Freud, and Adler, were impressed by a number of points common to these theories, and especially by their apparent explanatory power. These theories appear to be able to explain practically everything that happened within the fields to which they referred. The study of any of them seemed to have the effect of an intellectual conversion or revelation, open your eyes to a new truth hidden from those not yet initiated. Once your eyes were thus opened you saw confirmed instances everywhere: the world was full of verifications of the theory. Whatever happened always confirmed it. Thus its truth appeared manifest; and unbelievers were clearly people who did not want to see the manifest truth; who refuse to see it, either because it was against their class interest, or because of their repressions which were still “un-analyzed” and crying aloud for treatment.

The most characteristic element in this situation seemed to me the incessant stream of confirmations, of observations which “verified” the theories in question; and this point was constantly emphasize by their adherents. A Marxist could not open a newspaper without finding on every page confirming evidence for his interpretation of history; not only in the news, but also in its presentation — which revealed the class bias of the paper — and especially of course what the paper did not say. The Freudian analysts emphasized that their theories were constantly verified by their “clinical observations.” As for Adler, I was much impressed by a personal experience. Once, in 1919, I reported to him a case which to me did not seem particularly Adlerian, but which he found no difficulty in analyzing in terms of his theory of inferiority feelings, Although he had not even seen the child. Slightly shocked, I asked him how he could be so sure. “Because of my thousandfold experience,” he replied; whereupon I could not help saying: “And with this new case, I suppose, your experience has become thousand-and-one-fold.”

Karl Popper, Conjectures and Refutations

[RexDart]

*Originally posted by Zoe *
**
Doesn’t that assume that a sate of semi-consciousness, the use of chemicals or drugs or a state of stress alters our sense of reality in a negative way? I agree that these things may change our perceptions, but perhaps what we glimpse under these conditions is closer to the “truth.” I remain open-minded about that possibility.

If we have an experience that defies all prior experiences, then we should question the perceptions of our original experiences as well.
**

I think that since altered mental states exist the minority of the time, and are known to generate unreliable thought processes and inhibit our accurate perception of things, there should be a presumption that odd perceptions experienced during those times should be considered doubtful. If you want to hop in Ken Kesey’s bus with Tim Leary and try the Kool-Aid, go right ahead, but there’s not much basis for thinking you’ll learn any “truth” from that experience. Ever get really drunk? The mind doesn’t work as well, it doesn’t relate to the world as well, reasoning is impaired, vision isn’t as good. That doesn’t seem much like “truth” to me.

And I think the anomalous experience should be the one presumed to be erroneous. A long string of similar experiences, through virtue of their consistency, allow us to use inductive reasoning to draw a conclusion about the world. It isn’t always right, but at some point it becomes so likely that it’s presumably correct. One anomalous experience doesn’t have much weight against all that, because it’s likely a mistake. It’s true that all you need to rebut the claim “all crows are black” is one white crow, but when you see that white crow you’re sure going to be surprised, and rightly so. It’s only natural to be very rigorous in determining whether you saw what you think you saw. If you were in an altered mental state at the time you observed the white crow, I think you’d be justified in presuming your experience had been illusory or otherwise unreal.

[RexDart]

Lib, materialism not only explains observed phenomenon, it not only explains it, it does more. It is harmonious not merely with the events we perceive, but with the causes of those events we’ve discovered.

Nor is it like a sitter for a psychic medium, who remembers the hits and forgets the misses, and therefore thinks John Edward was accurate in reading them. You can examine all the known phenomena in this universe and discover a materialist explanation for them.

Not to say that some new experience couldn’t be discovered with no materialist explanation, but rather that the virtually endless list of phenomenon that do have such an explanation raise a rebuttable presumption that all future incidents will have a similarly materialist cause.

[Liberal]

I will leave that untouched.

[RexDart]

Fair enough, Lib. Our back-and-forth this morning has already consumed two threads, and I need to get a 1 hour nap before my Family Law final exam, so I’ll leave it for another day. Enjoyed arguing with you, as always…though again I wonder how I always end up arguing against the guy whose handle is Libertarian, when I’m a libertarian. I sure wouldn’t have thought when I came here that we’d be in constant disagreement. Oh well, pleasant discussion as always

[Liberal]

I value our discussions, my friend. Just goes to prove that we are not the Borg. May your rest edify you. And may God go with you.