double post
Some of your points are valid, but some are silly:
You seem to have provided some evidence that they are not in the strict technical sense ‘hallucinations’, but you haven’t said much about the ‘other mental phenomenon’ which is often what is meant by the casual use of the term ‘hallucination’.
[/QUOTE]
His statement is a bit blustery with regard to generalizing how people react to related tales of personal experience, true. But the underlying point was that personal experiences are either not useful or at least not deterministic and usually unrepeatable scientifically and logically for certain types of research and this is true.
I mostly agree with you here, although I would label these ‘peak experiences’ rather than religious phenomenon, since these states do not have to be associated with religious iconology. And while they are healthy, they are by definition extreme outliers, if only in intensity, so while they may be ‘healthy’ they aren’t really ‘normal’. Just as extreme athletic feats are healthy but not normal.
This is just silly, a ‘no true Scotsman’ fallacy. If you define software as only running on computers, then by your definition it can’t run on brains. But certainly the brain has something akin to software or an operating system. If you want to call it by some other name you are more comfortable, do so by all means. But don’t pretend nitpicking the choice of a particular word is an intelligent rebuttal. Dawkin’s point remains true - the brain is very good at internal simulation. Choosing not to call it software doesn’t change that fact.
This is interesting and feasible. But again, not being a technical hallucination doesn’t make it not some form of internal mental phenomenon. There are plenty of other mental states that produce non externally related sensations such as a imagination, dreams, and stimulation of certain areas of the brain.
OK fine not hallucinations. Plenty of other mental possibilities though.
They ruled out several possibilities, more than you mention here, but not every possibility, and they did not characterize them as ‘genuine’.
Your article does not actually state that conclusion. Some of their other statements I find implausible, such that it is impossible to go through the motions of speaking without activitating the larynx. It’s a very interesting case, and clearly worth examining, but more for the biological extremes than the possibility of the vision being literally real.
I’d say the best evidence that these are not some external phenomenon is that they can be induced, and also that they are compartmentalized:
-
They can be induced - either by drugs or by the infamous ‘brain magnet’ machine. In both cases the mechanisms are fairly apparent, the results are mostly indistinguishable from spontaneous experiences.
-
They are compartmentalized - peak experiences are not uniform, some are about sensing an outside presence, some are about feeling a loss of identity or a feeling of oneness with everything, some are about mental travel to another place or scenario. Each of these is related to particular aspect of the brain, and can be stimulated and/or detected spontaneously individually.
I think it’s fairly obvious that these things can’t be literally true because like religions, they contradict each other. Can anyone seriously believe that both the Virgin Mary and space aliens (or some other deity from India for example) are visiting people? The visions themselves, if asked, would probably claim that the other visions are false. Which vision to believe?
I think we are left with three possibilities:
-
It’s all just the brain acting in unusual ways. I think this is mostly true but a little harsh.
-
It’s mostly just the brain, but there is also some aspect of that the normal brain functioning edits things - it both creates a particular mental model and also filters out a lot of sensory data in a way that is sometimes arbitrary. In letting in more data and softening the particular GUI we’ve established, we can have a more raw or true experience of the world than the usual mundane. This doesn’t mean that straight up visions are literally true, but it does mean that awareness is literally expanded, and our ego/identity model is revealed to be what it is - a useful construct. I think this is the best option.
-
There is some real - if not supernatural, than extraordinary in some way - external phenomenon that the brain is sensing, but because it is being sensed in a way that is not applicable to our normal sensory inputs, the brain interprets the phenomenon using whatever symbolic reference frame it has - if the person is Catholic they will see the Virgin Mary, if the person is a sci-fi fan they will see an alien. The being or whatever it is, is actually there, but the brain’s interpretation is biased. This is an interesting option, and while it’s probably not happening externally it probably is happening internally, that is, one part of the brain is generating content that is being interpreted by another part of the brain as external input, and the brain is interpreting it based on the person’s iconographic background.
In any case, whatever the explanation, these things are definitely worth further study, with specific tests to rule out each possible explanation.
That’s not surprising. The whole publish/peer review process is unreliable if not just downright rigged. Read here!
Hmmm. This is a religious thread; so does that make it resurrection instead of necromancy?
I suggest you start a thread on this if you wish. I’m sure a paper on zombies would be rejected.
There could be someone on the team who loved the movie “Dawn of the Dead”. That’s the point of the article. It’s about politics, the flavour of the month and who you run into on the day.
This won’t need a new thread.
The reason people are making comments about zombies is that you aren’t supposed to restart long dead threads.
Oooo, someone had a journal turn down his paper.
Nope. Zombies are a hot scientific topic.
OMG!
4 pages of total BS!
How long are you people going take to realize that SCIENCE is different from FAITH?
They are different things, and can never mingle. Please:
Scientific population and the faithful population, please learn to intermingle AND respect each other. It is OK to let the other kind live.
One is without evidence and the other is without hope. There should be someone who could notice the difference.
There is no other way!
Sorry, it should be 5 pages!
We do. Science is useful, and the best method we have of understanding reality. Religion is pure garbage; a collection of delusions that appeals to people’s self indulgent fantasies and has no reality to it.
Science and religion are incompatible. Reality and madness don’t mix well. And the believers are by their nature the enemy of everything, including each other; they are at war with reality, in the service of delusion.
Science has no hope? It’s science, not religion that has saved and improved lives by the billions. What religion offers is lies; false hope. It is a parasite.
Certainly there is. Religion can be sidelined, or in the future with genetic engineering correcting human defects eliminated entirely. Religion can win by bringing down civilization, and science with it. Or religion can kill us all, and destroy itself in the process.
I don’t practice any religion, but you need help. Seriously.
In which category do you define this screed as falling?
You got the wrong message.
What I meant is: We are fighting a futile battle
- Faith based religion/anything cannot accept ‘Evidence’
- Likewise, science based folks cannot accept ‘Belief’
I might look like a leer right now, but I just want to make sure that I am part of the group which has the label “Science”. I just want everyone to understand that people have different expectations and explanations. Just being someone who loves science doesn’t mean that I can sneer at them. Unless they do something stupid, I would think that everyone is equal to everyone else.
Grumpy pro-science?
But it isn’t futile; science and secularism in general has been winning for centuries. Religion is only a shadow of what it used to be in much of the world. And the fact that faith is hostile to evidence is part of the reason it should be fought against.
I was under the assumption that you can not question the religion - if you do, the answer usually is: it is beyond your comprehension. I guess that is matter for another thread!
But regarding the issue at hand, If religion can accept ‘Evidence’, it wouldn’t exist in the first place. But back here, it sure helps some people survive - who know nothing about science…
I am not just talking about ‘science’ and ‘religion’ - in this thread, I am talking about human values too. No matter how much importance we give to science, the same should be given to people who do not know what science is - its a fair deal, as far as I am concerned.
The believers no longer have the power to silence questions, at least around here.
And from what I see, it kills people all over the world on a regular basis; it hurts, it doesn’t help.
It’s not fair, because the believers are factually wrong, and dangerous to themselves and others. Religion should never be treated with better than fear, hatred and contempt. It is one of humankind’s great enemies, like smallpox.
Der Trihs,
Not just to differ from your pint of view, but…
I just want to say that “factually wrong” religious people ado so because they do not understand science, usually for no fault of theirs. It is not fair to assume that the world would be filled with people with people who comprehend science as much as we do. I am just telling that there are people for whom ‘science’ can be challenging to understand.
Unless they understand, SCIENCE will still be an education, not a way of life.
It’s more like a gallon of gas.