Science is the only way.

distinctions should be made between religious institutions and dogma on the one hand, and religious and mystical experiences on the other. Insofar as the latter communicates states of consciousness and awareness, and thus is able to guide and motivate science along the proper course, it is not worthless.

As a theologian, who is very interested in philosophy/psychology/pneumatology and religion, I agree. This is why, in my opinion, the claims made by all experts--including, parents, teachers, preachers, artists, philosphers, gurus, even scientists, whoever, be held up to the scrutiny of experimental science.

I say to all so-called experts: If you choose to define it, to name it and claim it--especially if you offer it for sale--then be prepared to prove it and be responsible for your claims, if things do not work out as you declare.

The spiritual stuff is all in the brain. *Mystical* experiences can be explained by abnormalities in the temporal lobe. *Englightened* people have a higher level of activity in the frontal lobes than the rest of the brain. Out of body experiences can also be induced by hypoxia..which is how the singer of inxs died trying to experience. Want higher states of consciousness? Do various drugs or tinker with various brain toys like neurofeedback

Or remove your testicles???

I also wanted to add that out of body experiences can be attained by stimulating the right angular gyrus. Seriously..its all in the head

I have done all you suggest and more. "Mystical" experiences have not been explained by temporal lobe activity, nor does higher levels of activity in the frontal lobes explain "enlightenment". Unless your definition of "explanation" is "sweep under the carpet". And if not, then pray tell how precisely does temporal lobe activity explain mystical experience? Or if you prefer, how exactly does elevated frontal lobe activity explain enlightenment?

I eagerly await your reply and really hope you can provide the details to back up your claims. Just reading about this stuff in science articles doesn't make it true, you know? Do you unquestionably believe everything you read? Don't you think reporters like to over-hype and over-sensationalize their reporting, and that scientists likewise have an incentive to over-hype their work to laymen science reporters? It's naive to unquestionably believe everything you read because people oftentimes have their own agendas.

And simply saying it's all in the head doesn't answer anything. The devil is in the details. Provide hard precise details, not vague fluffy statements that you parrot out of textbooks or Scientific American that are vacuous.

I posted an opinion as you have. But I seriously doubt you tried EVERYTHING I suggested. Unless you have stimulted your right angular gyrus with neurofeedback. What was it like?
*Mystical* experiences are just trips that people experience in their own private mind..it isnt reality. If it was reality, it could be documented, proven. But it isnt.
If belief in a higher power gives you hope, great..but that doesnt make it real. I have done some reading on neurotheology and had personal experineces that made me conclude its all in the head.
Curious, you ask me to post sources for my opinion. Got any scientific ones to back yours?

AnarchistAngel, I simply asked you to provide details and to back up your claims, and you haven't, even though you readily acknowledge the baselessness of your claims. Why is that?

What isnt in the head?? dont forget reality could be anything, a dream, hallucination, computer program, singular conciousness creating entertainment for itself, ect.

If we all began this journey we call physical existence as one-celled beings, could we not, also, say that everything is in the cell? Just thinking of this fills me with wonder and awe. It inspires within me the desire to work with this life--that is, GØD, in/through/around/beyond/below/above/out there/in here/wherever)--in me, others and all that is, including positive atheists, for good.

BTW, take a look at this quote, which I bring forward, from Shawn: Dec 14, 2003, 09:18 AM, Group: Admin
Joined: Jan 22, 2003

http://brainmeta.com/forum/index.php?showt...t=0&#entry16341
And I presume Jatavsa is still around.
http://www.reluctant-messenger.com/main.htm

Please stick around. I agree with your reasonings.

Whatever. You said you tried everything that i posted and then some. That is an obvious lie. You see what you want to see and believe what u want to believe..doesnt change reality though

If god is in you, why dont XRAY machines see it? If its in the heart, why isnt it mentioned in cardiology? The fact that religious people have to be figurative is a red flag for me

Much as I agree with you, I don't think they are talking about the heart, or god here. Out of body experiences are complete bunk--of course. There is no remote perception. There is no way of knowing something that does not come in through the senses. But I do grant that reality could be a computer program. In fact I think it is. But there will never be a way to hack the program.

AnarchistAngel, did you not understand our exchange? Are you doing too many drugs? What you said was the following:


And I replied



To which you reply:



See your illogical reasoning here?

Not at all, I guess you missed the post where I said *I also wanted to add that out of body experiences can be attained by stimulating the right angular gyrus. Seriously..its all in the head*

get off the crack already!

May we see a picture, or an XRAY of that red flag?

I refer you to the work of the MIT professor, Dr. Seth Lloyd--The Universe as a Computer. BTW, He has no problem using the "God" word.

http://www.me.mit.edu/people/personal/slloyd.htm
I notice that Seth gives his phone number on his pages. Has anyone ever taken the trouble to call him? Anyone, in his area, willing to do so?
Also check out:
http://www.physorg.com/news11202.html

You are out of line. Who said AnarchistAngel is on drugs?

Real intelligent comment. Not.

the irony

That is what has been said of reality for thousands of years.
Any interest in defining what is all in the head by the head tho seems a bit contradictory.

If life was a computer program then it would have to be designed and run by something or someone beyond the scope of those who are designed and programmed to run.

Out of body experiences, in body experiences.. if you define where they are associated in particular areas of the brain, who and what decides the process of evolution in which those areas are activated or stimulated?
Is it part of a program or is it in the consciousness that keeps you alive and gives you the inspiration to get up in the morning rather than shutting off at night permanently when you go to sleep.
Is there a part of the brain that decides for you if you will respond with happiness or sadness at your birthday party?
Internal programs that influence us in the choices we make and the feelings we feel, are the genes really responsible for what we retain in memory and in the way we use memory to project into the future?

I think Science is the nature of humanity to find itself or to explain the inner mysteries of the personality and if the predisposition to scientifically explore ourselves was linked to a gene, then that would make science no better than any other feeling or internal program.

Perhaps Science and spirituality are linked at the same root only those who have decided to program themselves along the lines of identification and those who are willing to be open to more have separated themselves in the idea of spirituality and science.
I think everyone can see that science is continually evolving as does the person who grows in applied spiritual practice.
One learns more about themselves and their associative relationship with others at a feeling level in spirituality while the labels are applied and the intellect is satisfied by defining humanity and the universe according to relative and or fixed points of reference to move outward.
One defines themselves by these fixed reference points.
The heart being the inner voice that leads all to move upward in evolution to improve both the inner and the outer and the mind that seeks to understand can go hand in hand but who would want to limit one or the other by separating the two?

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
- Albert Einstein, in The New Convergence

I think people who want to nail anything down to one single idea that is not inclusive of all others is limiting themselves and their ability to see more.

Long. Boring. And quotes are lame.

a single one line quote and you're complaining?

and I agree. This "All in the head" claim has been around for millenia. It's nothing new.

It's all in your head, of course it'd be boring.

Agree here. There is nothing like a wide-eyed kid who just discovered solipsism and thinks he is the FIRST EVER.

I hope i didnt give the impression that i thought i was the first ever to think its all in the head. I mean I read others perspectives on it LOL

Sigh* again we are going over this, okay first of all it has already been established that all perception of reality is directly related to the brain, its filters and how the brain percieves reality is diffrent than the actual stimuli that exists outside the brain, assuming it does infact, exist. Now with this said, we can now move on to the next established point "Truth is an opinion" Reality is a subjective experience and each reality has its own truths. Since no reality can be more or less right than another (they are simply all experiences, with neither a true nor false). We can then come to the simple conclusion that each individual has his/her own truths based on his/her beliefs based on his/her own reality. Thus the conclusion is formed that all universal truths and absolute laws are only absolute so long as they are seen in that way within the reality created by the individual, thus, god, mysticism, science and the like are neither more or less right, but rather simply exist. So in conclusion, we make our own truths.

we shouldn't get too bored with this proclamation since it is still a hypothesis. Yes, it's been around for millenia, but no, it's not necessarily absolutely true.

Yeah but what is true?

"What is truth?" Pilate asked Jesus. But he didn't really want to know.

haha but even if he did want to know, would the statement about truth be true?

Wasn't thinking of you at all. Really. Just commenting about a common occurance.

"religion is worthless, along with mysticism"- quite a statement that should certainly rouse some sentiments!

To be honest, I have gone back and forth on this issue (even though I have developed a website basically dedicated to mysticism). What if religion is just the opiate of the masses? What if the idea of God is just a big cosmic joke?

Yet, to my mind, if religion is worthless, then so are most of our human values. And if God does not exist, then perhaps this life is virtually a waste of time and amounts to nothing in the end.

Science does not have all the answers. Our knowledge may forever be limited despite the awesome advances in science and technology. I think we hope for too much from science. There seems to be something interior to all that is that science can't touch or see. What we may want to observe most of all may be forever missed if we don't learn how to look.

Man, I giggled at that... good shootin', Lindsay.

To rebut the topic, I would like to point out that mysticism, far from being worthless, is the root of science. Both mysticism and science arise from a primordial wonder at the phenomenal universe. They're both wondering about the mystery of the universe - the wonder is mystical in nature.

And now, at the risk of arousing the ire of the quote-bashers... here is a **gasp** quote!

"The most beautiful and profound emotion we can experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is good as dead."
- Albert Einstein

In response to AnarchistAngel:

Why can't we see your "self" when your head is given a XRay?
Why can't we see your hopes and fears all neatly packaged inside a hope or fear gland/organ?

Because those tools (X-ray machines) are designed for specific purposes from a level of intellect that projects certain realities.
It is necessary to use the tools that were used to create those tools but they have to be turned toward the things we wish to experience.
That'd be the mind/heart/intellect...

a couple more mystical quotes....

"As Above, So Below", Hermes - ancient Egyptian sage and purported contemporary of Moses who also received his divine revelations directly from God.

"The mind of man is but a universe in miniature", Robert Fludd - contemporary alchemist/physicist of Kepler.

This no doubt why many doctrinaire Christians say that Jesus is "the head" of the Church.

But seriously, surely, as already mentioned, Albert Einstein had a point when he wrote: "The New Convergence"
In my opinion any culture which is based on unreasoned, or blind, faith is very ill. In addition, if it is based on reason which is closed to the mystery of faith, hope and love, it is sick unto death.

Personally speaking I want a faith that is rational enough that it can be explained to anyone with the patience to listen; one that is flexible enough to change when new scientific evidence comes along.

Think of a just, joyful and truth-filled society as being like a bird. It is lifted up, over, and around the storms of life to a happy future by two wings: One wing is the hopeful and wise use of science and reason, which offers us a better future, and the other is a rational, artful faith, which provides the confidence to get things done. Both are gently guided by the tail feathers of love.

When AnarchistAngel says that 'it's all in the head' he is quite right, but mysticism is not the right word. It's mystic experiences that cause people to turn to God that are an illusion created by the mind.

Of course, the rationalist will say that all of reality is, or could well be, all in the mind. But the nature of science is to observe the reality we perceive, and only with rigorous observation can something be accepted as truth. Perceived reality itself is impossible to critique with this method. Religion is, and it falls short every time.

Some annoyingly finnicky points...


In your first clause, do you draw a distinction between the reality observed by science and the reality we perceive? Are they different? I prefer the word 'perceiving' because there is no truly external 'observation', and ultimately (of course, you've heard this before, but I don't think that its importance has been acknowledged) it is the human mind that is perceiving. I don't know about anyone else, but that simple fact persuades me that investigating the nature of the mind is perhaps the paramount scientific pursuit, because to the extent that we are ignorant about the goings on of the mind, we are ignorant of the device we are use to measure 'reality' - in fact we are ignorant about the vessel of all of our experience. We have no way of ascertaining whether our ideas about the world and our mind are not entirely illusory, whether the way we ordinarily relate to the world is perhaps right- or perhaps completely wrong-headed. We first need to investigate questions like: what are thoughts?, what are words?, what are symbols?, do any of these things describe what I perceive?, is language sufficient?, is perception without concepts possible?, if it is, might this be a more valid way to perceive than via conceptualisations?, is the world real?, my dreams seem real when I'm dreaming, so is there something about my waking experience that correctly convinces me that it is not like a dream? These difficult and thusfar inadequately answered questions underlie the entire edifice of scientific knowledge - could the structure therefore have no solid foundation? It might indeed be groundless.

From your second clause, I would point out something that's perhaps a technicality, but perhaps an important distinction: the thing that science observes rigorously is not the same thing that it accepts. Phenomena are observed, but phenomena are not accepted or rejected - hypotheses about phenomena are accepted or rejected. Hypotheses are conceptual constructs, and may be accepted or rejected. Perceived phenomena are not conceptual constructs until they are named, and they are precisely neutral to human acceptance or rejection. Do you agree?

And once again, in your last two sentences I would suggest this modification for the sake of accuracy:

Perceived reality itself is impossible to critique with this method. Religion is Some religious cosmologies are, and it they fall short every time.

Religious hypotheses about God or souls can be logically refuted, as long as we assume it is valid to subject them to logical analysis; it may not be appropriate to analyse irrational, religious propositions in an analytical, rational way, just as it is not so appropriate to analyse rational, scientific values in terms of the irrational.

Then again, beliefs are supposed to be true. It doesn't seem tenable to say "I believe in God" but then to shrug at a denial of God's existence.

I suppose my refuge in this argument - my position, if you like - is that there are some things that are irreducibly irrational; that concepts always fall short in some way; that no stated rational proposition is tenable in the ultimate analysis.

I can well imagine this might be infuriating (or perhaps just tiresome); perhaps you feel that the rational is necessarily superior to the irrational. I don't want to be tiresome or infuriating, so I'm sorry if I've harped on, but think these points might be valid ideas, and I think they might have serious implications for those who would throw out the irrational - 'religion' and 'mysticism' - and replace them with the rational - 'science'.

I understand your what you are saying, but my point is that the nature of our reality is impossible to criticise because our scientific tool of hypothesis and observation do not work on reality itself, because observation depends on a measure. We have no external perspective on our reality, nothing to compare it against or logically test. We must admit this, and unless someone discovers a way to change the nature of this, accept it.

Anything else within the realm of (assumedly) shared perceived reality is subject to rationality. This includes all religions. Whether we accept a belief system, and the nature of them beliefs is subject to scientific scrutiny, because they exist as idealogies and messages that are within our shared perceieved reality. Most, if not all religions will fall short if scrutinised by scientific rationalism.

Now, it is possible for something to exist irrationally to us if our rationality itself is flawed. But it is wrong to embrace this without a reason to doubt our rationality first, because it is not what is probable. One may say its a matter of faith, but why choice to put faith in something that isn't likely to be the truth? It is this same logic of accepting only what is probable that means we will not fully embrace the idea that reality is an illusion of some sort; it is possible, and interesting to philosophise about, but it isn't the likelihood, so therefore it is incorrect to assume the idea as truth.

If you based all rationality on the majority or the collective rationalisation of those around you, then you already doubt and mistrust your own reationality and have assumed your rationality is flawed. You are in practice operating from a measuring system based on the mistrust of your own senses, looking outside of yourself and creating a scientific process based on the mistrust of your own senses.

You mean why not eliminate choice altogether? That is the nature of the reality of human existence. The one you believe cannot be defined. Why not just accept it?


But you've already accepted it in your first paragraph:

I agree fully.


It's wrong to embrace what, exactly? I assume you mean a logically untenable belief, like an omnipotent benevolent creator god. In this case, I would agree with you. In fact, I agree with you on the whole.

But I still think you ought to prepare a list of the religious propositions you would reject, instead of talking about religion as a whole. Some 'mystical' or religious propositions have empirical grounding and are logically tenable.


When you say that it is wrong to assume the illusory nature of reality to be the truth, you are correct. However, it would also be wrong to assume the illusory nature of reality to be a falsity - unless you have satisfactorily concluded a thorough investigation into that question. Here you say that it's unlikely that the reality we usually perceive is illusory, and that is incorrect.

In fact it can be argued quite well that reality is illusory - or to put it more strictly, that the way we ordinarily perceive reality is illusory. We can't give an answer to the question of what convinces us that our waking reality is not like a dream (i.e. illusory and lacking substance), for instance, and that is a sign that we have not investigated sufficiently - otherwise surely we would be able to give a serious reason. In fact, no such reason is forthcoming. We have no rational reason to hold the view that reality is probably not illusory, except for convenience. And that is not a scientific approach - it is a peace treaty.

Yes, that is what I mean.



I agree that it would be wrong to entirely dismiss the illusory nature of reality, but, as I said before, we can't accept it because it is not the likelihood. Although we can't prove the scientific truth of our perceived reality, it is self-evident as far as our sensory experience is concerned. It is more likely that reality is as perceived because the evidence we can collect, merely the direct observation through senses, is the only evidence available, and points toward this view.

Our perception is the only evidence available. But if we closely examine our perceptual impressions, using logic to try and ascertain what might be the case, we may find that what we casually accept as the world is actually logically untenable. For instance, we might be inclined to accept, on the basis of our perceptions, that things are real, but...

This from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%9A%C5%ABnyat%C4%81..

The Buddhist concept of Śūnyatā signifies that everything one encounters in life is empty of soul, permanence, and self-nature. Everything is inter-related, never self-sufficient or independent; nothing has independent reality. Yet śūnyatā never connotes nihilism, which Buddhist doctrine considers to be a delusion, just as it considers materialism to be a delusion.

"Things are not as they seem. Nor are they otherwise."
- Buddha

Irrational indeed. But at any rate, what I've laid out here is hardly an argument - it's more just an example and some explication. It would be ambitious to try and reason the reasons (the arguments are extremely finicky and subtle) but it's probably necessary now that I've started down this road, so if you like I'll try to do it in another post. It's certainly some of the most arresting philosophy/logical argument I've read.

...I guess so.