Oops. That last line should read “stimulus causes sensation”.
Honestly, I don’t know what my brain was thinking.
Well, “lack of activity” is a matter of preference, I suppose, in phrasing the idea. Some visual receptors, for one example (but not the only), are sort of like “normally on” states. The stimulus actually causes the suppression, and it is this supression which is the signal. There are other neurons which constantly fire at a given rate, until they are acted on, in which case that rate speeds up or slows down.
Again, a matter of preference, like considering “active highs” or “active lows” in a logic circuit. What is important is that there was a change in state; what one chooses to call the states is somewhat arbitrary.
If we consider that this is an area of the brain (well, areas) which are normally functioning in everyday experiences, we would liken this to active low circuits. It is a lack of input which is the signal itself.
I thought of a particularly interesting reason why this may be so, but its really more of a rationalization than a “reason,” and it assumes that there is indeed a spiritual sensor somewhere in this system. As the Perfect Master once commented, “Once you start with the premise that a miracle occurs you can come to any conclusion you want.” 
Such wit, but so true!
I never said that you shouldn’t have posted this thread and it was not you that I was asking, since I assumed you had read it or something similar.
Right. But unless I am misreading the articles linked here and others, the suppression can be correlated to the effects of meditation, or whatever techniques are used. In other words, the stimulus which results in this activity or state change is already known. It seems to me people are reading into this, though, and assuming that the sensation itself is showing some additional activity, or change of state. It isn’t.
What needs explaining, then, is why these “changes in state” are percieved the way they are. Some good explanations of why the perceptions might be as they are are provided in the article linked above:
etc.
The experiments, so far, by their nature provide as a given the cause of the state change. I see no indication anywhere of a stimulus other than meditation or whatnot, or of any activity or state change outside the affects of same.
The reason so many recent articles have come out about this is due to recent research and a couple of books on the topic. One of these is Why God Won’t Go Away and discusses a lot of what has been talked about here. I haven’t read the book, but a fellow reviewer on NonfictionReviews.com has and his review is slated to be publicly posted to the main page on Monday. But just for you, here is the direct link to the review.
One thing to be noted is that he says, “the authors are very careful not to argue for or against the existence of deities.” Indeed, a number of the points raised here were apparently discussed in the book as well – which came first, the “feeling” of God or God? Those of you who know me know what my answer would be. 
I also recently received another book which I think tackles a similar subject. I haven’t had a chance to read it yet, much less review it, but the book is Religion Explained, by Pascal Boyer.
Good thing the author’s name wasn’t Pascal Wager.
Who knows what “Boyer” means in other languages? Wouldn’t that be a great joke?
Oops, a thousand apologies, gotta do something about this jerky knee.
I suppose that that ‘somebody’ had no illusion of consciousness whatsoever.