Jump to content

The Brain


tana

Recommended Posts

I've mentioned before that I believe the real battle/search/quest isn't with each other as to which church is true, but between the materialists and the spiritualists. So I like to look for evidence that indicates this conscious experience we are having is not simply a by-product of brain function.

Just a few random, semi-connected observations I find interesting.

Stuart Hamerhoff as a professional anesthesiologist has some theories on consciousness. When people are under anesthesia their consciousness is nowhere to be found. They do not dream, they do not remember anything. Yet they have done some experiments with people under anesthesia. By directing a strobe light at a patients closed eyes they can cause the brain to become very active, as if the person were awake and functioning normally, and they can measure this, but the persons consciousness is nowhere to be found....and they remember nothing. Indicating that perhaps the brain isn't solely responsible for awareness.

He believes the consciousness/physical interface is to be found in quantum physics and entangled particle theory

In a series of landmark experiments in the 1920s, brain scientist Karl Lashley found that no matter what portion of a rat's brain he removed he was unable to eradicate its memory of how to perform complex tasks it had learned prior to surgery. Indicating memories are not site specific in, or even to the brain.

Candace Pert PhD puts forward that in essence the entire organism constitutes *the brain*. That since the nervous system and then the spinal cord are essentially a part of the brain, That the brain creates chemical "peptides" that dock in receptors in the cells, and that the nervous system interacts and communicates with the cells creating a feedback loop.

She believes that emotions are the *interface* between the couscous experience and the physical. Every emotion a person feels is accompanied by an associated chemical peptide created in the brain that are released into the bloodstream to dock in receptors in the cells of the body. The peptides are the physical, measurable substance, and the corresponding emotion is the conscious experience.

This makes sense to me as it seems when a person wakes from dreaming, the thing that sticks with you most is the feelings and emotions from the dream.

Richard Gerber MD. in his book "Vibrational medicine" puts forward that the physical body is secondary to and encompassed by an energy body. The interface between the two is through the chakras. That the consciousness is attached to/abides in and around the energy body.

Anyway, just a few ramblings.

Curt

Link to comment

The brain and mystery of consciousness is one of my pet subjects. But in this area I truly "know almost nothing about just about everything" (That's a mantra I repeat often.)

But I am not alone! Even researchers know practically nothing about the brain. They surmise a great deal. And in this area of science the motivation of the researcher is what drives them: many researchers want to prove awareness transcending the physical brain, i.e. the existence of some soul or similar; and many others are convinced that the brain is all there is to life; there is no "spark" that is immortal, etc. They are out to prove that religious belief in the immortality of the soul is bogus.

In effect, the research that you allude to above can be taken to show both agendas. That's the problem with this kind of science: too little is known to make positive theoretical advances. I've read books detailing how a comatose child (for instance) was able to relate, upon waking, the movements and conversations of family members at home many miles away. We are all familiar with NDEs: how the person upon returning to their body was able to describe positions and words of people in the room while they were lifeless, etc.

The trouble with this is that such conditions have never been replicated, or shown to be real when prepped for ahead of time. Science is stumped for a method to test for NDEs or traveling consciousness while the body is "dead" to the world.

So the evidence remains anecdotal and unconvincing to those who require empirical proof.

My personal take on consciousness and the interface with the physical brain is: the brain, as the body, is merely a conveyance, a machine for the "soul" to operate through. Our real selves are elsewhere, "dreaming" as it were, this life, in a very brief span of space-time as perceived by our immortal selves. A full life or even several lives, could be experienced within the passing of a single night's dreaming. It isn't that this world is only a dream world: it is real, empirical enough alright: but only while the immortal mind sleeps can it enter into a lifespan of experiences elsewhere. When we die, we either move on or wake up where our immortal selves physically are. And the key question: What is it for? This is obvious, to me: To teach us what Joy is. As immortals we are impervious to injury or death; there is no end to that state. We "awoke" to our first conscious awareness AS immortals at some moment in space-time; and we live forever "here". But without contrast, opposition, we would never be aware of Joy at all, even though we enjoy it continually in innocence. But after a space of time we are no longer innocent; we become discontent, bored even, and we "act out" improperly: we "sin" against Joy, through our ignorance, and thus we become "banished" from the Home World, as it were, where we were "born" as conscious beings. We do not return "there" until we "get it": understand what Joy is, and never "sin" against it again. We learn how to do this through our experiences (almost like virtual reality to an immortal) as mortal beings; on worlds where sin and imperfection, opposition in its myriad forms, and especially DEATH, run rampant throughout the landscape.

So, anyway, the brain is an imperfect "interface" through which the immortal mind enters this body and experiences this world; for what feels like years, a lifetime, but is really no more than a few moments or hours.

That's a brief of my cosmology; my favorite "explanation" (so far to date) of "what is really going on!" :P Take it or leave it. It's MINE, not yours or anyone else's. It sure as heck is BIGGER than Mormon cosmology. And BIGGER is what I am always after!

Link to comment

Good stuff QB.... thanks!

It sounds just a bit similar to Edgar Cayce's ideologies on god and existence.

This is a long article.....But I think some on here might find something of value.

Man demands a beginning and a boundary, so in the beginning there was a sea of spirit, and it filled all space. It was static, content, aware of itself, a giant resting on the bosom of its thought, contemplating that which it was.

Then it moved. It withdrew into itself, until all space was empty, and that which had filled it was shining from its center, a restless, seething mind. This was the individuality of the spirit; this was what it discovered itself to be when it awakened; this was God.

God desired to express Himself, and He desired companionship. Therefore, He projected from Himself the cosmos and souls. The cosmos was built with the tools which man calls music, arithmetic, and geometry; harmony, system, and balance. The building blocks were all of the same material, which man calls the life essence. It was a power sent out from God, a primary ray, as man thinks of it, which by changing the length of its wave and the rate of its vibration became a pattern of differing forms, substance, and movement. This created the law of diversity which supplied endless designs for the pattern. God played on this law of diversity as a person plays on a piano, producing melodies and arranging them in a symphony.

All this was a part of God, an expression of His thought. Mind was the force which propelled and perpetuated it: mind did everything God imagined; everything that came into being was an aspect, a posture, of mind.

Souls were created for companionship with God. The pattern used was that of God Himself: spirit, mind, individuality; cause, action, effect. First there had been spirit; then there had been the action which withdrew spirit into itself; then there had been the resulting individuality of God.

In building the soul there was spirit, with its knowledge of identity with God; there was the active principle of mind; and there was the ability to experience the activity of mind separately from God.

The plan for the soul was a cycle of experience, unlimited in scope and duration, in which the new individual would come to know creating in all its aspects, at the discretion of will. The cycle would be completed when the desire of will was no longer different from the thought of God. The consciousness of the new individual would then merge with its spiritual consciousness of identity with God, and the soul would return to its source as the companion it was intended to be.

(The idea that a return of God means a loss of individuality is paradoxical, since God is aware of everything that happens and must therefore be aware of the consciousness of each individual. Thus the return of the soul is the return of the image to that which imagined it, and the consciousness of an individual

Link to comment

Stuart Hamerhoff as a professional anesthesiologist has some theories on consciousness. When people are under anesthesia their consciousness is nowhere to be found. They do not dream, they do not remember anything. Yet they have done some experiments with people under anesthesia. By directing a strobe light at a patients closed eyes they can cause the brain to become very active, as if the person were awake and functioning normally, and they can measure this, but the persons consciousness is nowhere to be found....and they remember nothing. Indicating that perhaps the brain isn't solely responsible for awareness.

He believes the consciousness/physical interface is to be found in quantum physics and entangled particle theory

In a series of landmark experiments in the 1920s, brain scientist Karl Lashley found that no matter what portion of a rat's brain he removed he was unable to eradicate its memory of how to perform complex tasks it had learned prior to surgery. Indicating memories are not site specific in, or even to the brain.

Dang! The part in bold actually popped into my consciousness last week when I was reading about some entanglement experiments. I said to myself, "Hey, this might be an explanation of how we can be both here in this material space while at the same time are immaterial spirit beings!" I pictured that our Self is actually resident elsewhere (in the presence of God), while we operate our bodies at this location through an entangled particle or particles. And when we die, that particle loses its connection to the now-defunct body, and continues to wander here until the plug gets pulled, so to speak, from the Presence, where we are "really" located. To my mind this explains a lot. It would, for example, suggest a mechanism for visions, seen not with the mortal eye, but the spiritual.

The whole idea is a wonderful speculation, of course, and is entirely non-falsiable and non-provable. But whatever.

Link to comment

I've mentioned before that I believe the real battle/search/quest isn't with each other as to which church is true, but between the materialists and the spiritualists. So I like to look for evidence that indicates this conscious experience we are having is not simply a by-product of brain function.

EVERYTHING you do is a "product of brain function", but that doesn't say much. The question is what CAUSES the "brain function", and that cannot be proven. Does the experience "cause" the brain state or does the brain state "cause" the experience?

Suppose you are driving on a two-lane highway, and you suddenly see an 18 wheeler passing someone, and on your side of the road headed straight for you. You certainly are going to have some "brain functions", aren't you? You are going to have cascades of chemical reactions.

Now suppose you can mimic that exact reaction taking certain drugs.

Does that prove the 18 wheeler wasn't "real"?

The fact that you can reproduce the reaction you had to an 18 wheeler with drugs- doesn't prove that the 18 wheeler wasn't "real"

The fact that you can reproduce "spiritual experience" with drugs doesn't prove that spiritual experience isn't "real".

Unless of course you really think we are brains in a vat. If that is the case you have watched "Avatar" and "Matrix" too many times!

Link to comment

EVERYTHING you do is a "product of brain function",

Not really. The "doing" and the "brain function" happen at the same time. One does NOT cause the other. One is part of the other

but that doesn't say much.

...

The question is what CAUSES the "brain function", and that cannot be proven.

If you still don't know what "causes" brain function, how can you say it can't be elucidated through traditional science latter on as to render it unprovable?

Does the experience "cause" the brain state or does the brain state "cause" the experience?

again, neither. "experience" is a brain state and there is NO cause between them. do you know what this is? --> F=ma Where in there do you see something "causing" the other?

Suppose you are driving on a two-lane highway, and you suddenly see an 18 wheeler passing someone, and on your side of the road headed straight for you. You certainly are going to have some "brain functions", aren't you? You are going to have cascades of chemical reactions.

Now suppose you can mimic that exact reaction taking certain drugs.

Does that prove the 18 wheeler wasn't "real"?

The fact that you can reproduce the reaction you had to an 18 wheeler with drugs- doesn't prove that the 18 wheeler wasn't "real"

The fact that you can reproduce "spiritual experience" with drugs doesn't prove that spiritual experience isn't "real".

why talk of spiritual experience when you don't know what it is? What would an "spiritual experience" look like?

Link to comment

Dang! The part in bold actually popped into my consciousness last week when I was reading about some entanglement experiments. I said to myself, "Hey, this might be an explanation of how we can be both here in this material space while at the same time are immaterial spirit beings!" I pictured that our Self is actually resident elsewhere (in the presence of God), while we operate our bodies at this location through an entangled particle or particles. And when we die, that particle loses its connection to the now-defunct body, and continues to wander here until the plug gets pulled, so to speak, from the Presence, where we are "really" located. To my mind this explains a lot. It would, for example, suggest a mechanism for visions, seen not with the mortal eye, but the spiritual.

The whole idea is a wonderful speculation, of course, and is entirely non-falsiable and non-provable. But whatever.

I personally think you may be on to something SG. The nice thing about entanglement is science doesn't' seem to know any more about it than we (spiritualists) do.... and it seems to me they try/tend to ignore it....put it in the "too hard" basket, to be solved later.

David Bohm thinks that the explanation for entanglement is that we are simply looking at different aspects of the same particle/electron. All electrons are connected in the implicate/enfolded order and we are just seeing "tips of the iceberg" in the explicate/unfolded order.

As you suggest, to think that our awareness is actually located in a different dimension...enfolded, and doing some sort of remote viewing makes sense to me. I mean really, does our awareness actually exist/dwell behind our eyes and between our ears? And if not there then? In the aura/energy body perhaps?

I like the theory of; awareness is being beamed to us. Consciousness is the light from the projector in the theater behind the audience. We are so caught up in the movie, we fail to see the light

This explains for me anyway as to where a persons spirit may be when there is brain damage or Alzheimer's disease..... When the lights are on but nobodies home.

Anyway, thanks for the input....good stuff!

Link to comment

The theory of mind, consciousness, and free will is an immense subject with centuries upon centuries of discourse. Entire professions are dedicated to the subject or subsets of it ( I am not one of those individuals). And yet, no single consensus has ever arrived or even really been approached. It is a nearly intractable question.

That said, I believe Mormonism narrows the playing field of the philosophers significantly. With our belief in spirit matter and the spirit body we can reject out of hand all the philosophies that say the mind is a property of the physical brain alone such as emergent materialism or eliminative materialism (though it is possible to adapt these theories to include spirit matter). But as much as it might narrow things, the theory of mind, even in the framework of Mormonism is still quite wide open.

Examples:

Our consciousness existed before our physical body and will persist after death. But, does our consciousness reside fully in the spirit body? Or does it persist and exist without the spirit body?

How does the consciousness-spirit body-physical body interaction work? I can form memories here in my mortal body. Are these memories stored in the physical brain, the spirit brain, or both? Each of those three answers then brings up a whole number of other questions.

And how can we get traction on the theory of mind? While I'm a fan of Bohmian mechanics, I cannot yet say I buy into Bohm's holism. I'm still inclined towards reductionism. Nevertheless, whatever theory of mind one subscribes to will be fundamentally dependent on whether they are inclined towards holism or reductionism or can accept radical emergence as reality. And all of these will still depend on a better understanding of spirit matter.

Anyway, you've opened quite a Pandora's box with this question. Good luck. :P

Link to comment

Stuart Hamerhoff as a professional anesthesiologist has some theories on consciousness. When people are under anesthesia their consciousness is nowhere to be found. They do not dream, they do not remember anything. Yet they have done some experiments with people under anesthesia. By directing a strobe light at a patients closed eyes they can cause the brain to become very active, as if the person were awake and functioning normally, and they can measure this, but the persons consciousness is nowhere to be found....and they remember nothing. Indicating that perhaps the brain isn't solely responsible for awareness.

Or, perhaps, only certain parts of the brain are activated by the strobe light

In a series of landmark experiments in the 1920s, brain scientist Karl Lashley found that no matter what portion of a rat's brain he removed he was unable to eradicate its memory of how to perform complex tasks it had learned prior to surgery. Indicating memories are not site specific in, or even to the brain.

Do you have a reference for this? This runs contrary to everything i've learned in Psychology classes. For instance, the construction worker who had a pipe go through his brain and had his entire personality change.

Link to comment

Suppose you are driving on a two-lane highway, and you suddenly see an 18 wheeler passing someone, and on your side of the road headed straight for you. You certainly are going to have some "brain functions", aren't you? You are going to have cascades of chemical reactions.

Now suppose you can mimic that exact reaction taking certain drugs.

Does that prove the 18 wheeler wasn't "real"?

The fact that you can reproduce the reaction you had to an 18 wheeler with drugs- doesn't prove that the 18 wheeler wasn't "real"

The fact that you can reproduce "spiritual experience" with drugs doesn't prove that spiritual experience isn't "real".

It could be proven that the original 18 wheeler was real. All this proves is that we should be highly skeptical of our own perception. Our perception can easily be wrong and influenced by our environment.

Link to comment
Do you have a reference for this? This runs contrary to everything i've learned in Psychology classes. For instance, the construction worker who had a pipe go through his brain and had his entire personality change.

A brief description of that research is given here: wikipedia: Karl Lashley as well as some uncited statements that some of his conclusions were wrong.

Abstract link to one of Lashley's relevant publications: BRAIN MECHANISMS AND INTELLIGENCE, A QUANTITATIVE STUDY OF INJURIES TO THE BRAIN.

Suffice it to say, memory is not a locally stored entity but is distributed in some fashion throughout the brain. And in Mormonism... our memories are also stored in something that persists based the demise of the physical body.

Link to comment

How does the consciousness-spirit body-physical body interaction work? I can form memories here in my mortal body. Are these memories stored in the physical brain, the spirit brain, or both? Each of those three answers then brings up a whole number of other questions.

Always appreciate your input NF. I can tell from this and past threads you've put some serious thought into *existence* type subjects.

I think that knowledge, experiences and intelligence are separate from awareness. Awareness being the core of the entity, with experiences and learned knowledge being tacked on. That since these experiences and memories are transient, they can never be used to *describe* the entity. So they maybe aren't necessarily stored in separate individual files. Maybe they are simply a part of all knowledge of the universe....but they resonate at the same frequency as the entity who created them, which gives the entity access to them exclusively.

Link to comment

why talk of spiritual experience when you don't know what it is? What would an "spiritual experience" look like?

What does that mean?

What does any experience look like?

And yes, the experience and the state are part of each other. Your point?

Link to comment

...

Now suppose you can mimic that exact reaction taking certain drugs.

Does that prove the 18 wheeler wasn't "real"?

The fact that you can reproduce the reaction you had to an 18 wheeler with drugs- doesn't prove that the 18 wheeler wasn't "real"

The fact that you can reproduce "spiritual experience" with drugs doesn't prove that spiritual experience isn't "real".

Unless of course you really think we are brains in a vat. If that is the case you have watched "Avatar" and "Matrix" too many times!

I LIKE this reasoning. Good points!...

Link to comment
... I'm still inclined towards reductionism. Nevertheless, whatever theory of mind one subscribes to will be fundamentally dependent on whether they are inclined towards holism or reductionism or can accept radical emergence as reality. And all of these will still depend on a better understanding of spirit matter.

Anyway, you've opened quite a Pandora's box with this question. Good luck. :P

BOTH! There is no logic in anticipating ONE way that "God" manifests consciously. Perhaps this universe only has one "method"; but we can't know that. In the multiverse infinite manifestations of consciousness must occur, as "God" is infinite and creation is infinite and fecund. If each sapient "soul" is an egocentric universe, we already have a multiverse residing empirically on this planet of c. 7 billion egocentric universes. No two of us are exactly alike. So right here we have variation in how consciousness is perceived; and thus we have no consensus on HOW "God" manifests consciously: because no two of us perceive that TOTAL Consciousness the same way.

This is the foundational reasoning behind my disbelief in and rejection of dogmatic, organized religion as an essential to communicating with and reconciliation with "God". Such orgs and oracles are redundant in the extreme. No one has anyone or anything between them and "God". (but men have asserted that "authority" is required to get back to "God"; men have inserted themselves as "authorities" into the picture through manmade religion....)

Link to comment

No one has anyone or anything between them and "God". (but men have asserted that "authority" is required to get back to "God"; men have inserted themselves as "authorities" into the picture through manmade religion....)

Our very egocentric condition (the veil, sin, and death) separates us from God, the embodiment of unity, truth, righteousness, and immortality. This is evidenced in His supreme sacrifice to liberate us from our egocentrism and establish the way His altruism can be known and practiced by egocentric beings until we become like Him and united with Him. This path (the way, the truth, the light) requires interacting with us on our level, which He has condescended to do, employing uniting methods that bind heaven and earth, requiring and resulting in progressive human participation with Him. To participate, one must at some point be authorized by Him to enter the gate (it

Link to comment
I think that knowledge, experiences and intelligence are separate from awareness. Awareness being the core of the entity, with experiences and learned knowledge being tacked on. That since these experiences and memories are transient, they can never be used to *describe* the entity. So they maybe aren't necessarily stored in separate individual files. Maybe they are simply a part of all knowledge of the universe....but they resonate at the same frequency as the entity who created them, which gives the entity access to them exclusively.

I would concur with you that our seat of consciousness is not our memories/experience. Not sure what you mean when you say memories/experience are not stored in separate individual files but as part of all knowledge of the universe. As a strict materialist, I don't have the framework whereby to interpret your statement.

BOTH! There is no logic in anticipating ONE way that "God" manifests consciously. Perhaps this universe only has one "method"; but we can't know that. In the multiverse infinite manifestations of consciousness must occur, as "God" is infinite and creation is infinite and fecund. If each sapient "soul" is an egocentric universe, we already have a multiverse residing empirically on this planet of c. 7 billion egocentric universes. No two of us are exactly alike. So right here we have variation in how consciousness is perceived; and thus we have no consensus on HOW "God" manifests consciously: because no two of us perceive that TOTAL Consciousness the same way.

This is the foundational reasoning behind my disbelief in and rejection of dogmatic, organized religion as an essential to communicating with and reconciliation with "God". Such orgs and oracles are redundant in the extreme. No one has anyone or anything between them and "God". (but men have asserted that "authority" is required to get back to "God"; men have inserted themselves as "authorities" into the picture through manmade religion....)

I appear to have very little in common with your worldview of reality and your theology. Consequently, it is unlikely that we would have enough in common philosophically to have any rational discussion on a theory of mind.

Link to comment

What does that mean?

means there's no criterion for spiritual experiences that can make sense.

What does any experience look like?

by 'look' I mean how we can identify them. so, sunlight that strikes your eyeball can be said to relate to you "seeing". how can we identify a "spiritual experience"?

And yes, the experience and the state are part of each other. Your point?

My point is that a brain state doesn't "cause" your thoughts any more than your thoughts "cause" your particular brain state. Both happen at the same time.

Link to comment

My point is that a brain state doesn't "cause" your thoughts any more than your thoughts "cause" your particular brain state. Both happen at the same time.

One then is a shadow of the other?

What if you were to break the physical brain down into its quantum components....... and apply the "Copenhagen interpretation" (A system is completely described by a wave function ?, which represents an observer's knowledge of the system. (Heisenberg) IE. The observer plays a part in collapsing the wave function.

What would be your take on that? Who is the observer? How can the physical brain collapse its own wave function?

Link to comment

means there's no criterion for spiritual experiences that can make sense.

Augh! Make sense to whom? You don't make sense to me! Could you just give me one clear statement of what you are saying?

by 'look' I mean how we can identify them. so, sunlight that strikes your eyeball can be said to relate to you "seeing". how can we identify a "spiritual experience"?

Light hitting the retina says nothing about what kind of experience it is. Spiritual experiences could also be visual. We have subjective experiences like dreams all the time

As usual, I don't have a clue what you are trying to say.

My point is that a brain state doesn't "cause" your thoughts any more than your thoughts "cause" your particular brain state. Both happen at the same time.

For purposes of this conversation, I already acknowledged that, if you would actually read my post.

What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.- Wittgenstein

Link to comment

Augh! Make sense to whom?

MF, what kind of question is this? If you tell me something makes sense, do you think this would be a valid response from someone else to you?

You don't make sense to me! Could you just give me one clear statement of what you are saying?

how would you distinguish a "spiritual experience" from an non-spiritual experience? There.

Light hitting the retina says nothing about what kind of experience it is.

If we have the necessary and sufficient conditions stated that relate to this phenomenon and exclude most others then we have what is commonly known as the "cause". Now, what are the necessary and sufficient conditions to produce a "spiritual experience"?

Spiritual experiences could also be visual. We have subjective experiences like dreams all the time

we know the necessary and sufficient conditions for dreams and they don't seem to involve things of the spiritual and if it does we can't distinguish it (unless you give us a criterion here). My question to you is, how would we distinguish a dream that is of a "spiritual" nature or origin?

As usual, I don't have a clue what you are trying to say.

For purposes of this conversation, I already acknowledged that, if you would actually read my post.

LOL, sure but you asked me what my point was because you didn't get it the first; because of that I have to repeat it.

What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.- Wittgenstein

...

Link to comment

One then is a shadow of the other?

What if you were to break the physical brain down into its quantum components....... and apply the "Copenhagen interpretation" (A system is completely described by a wave function ?, which represents an observer's knowledge of the system. (Heisenberg) IE. The observer plays a part in collapsing the wave function.

What would be your take on that? Who is the observer? How can the physical brain collapse its own wave function?

to my shame, I'm an ignoramus in the philosophy of QM. It's shameful not because I'm ignorant of it but because, until now, I willingly refused to study it. I guess it's time to change that but for the moment I'll have to pass on this issue.

Link to comment

how would you distinguish a "spiritual experience" from an non-spiritual experience? There.

Uh, well I guess it would be a subjective experience which one defines oneself as being "spiritual" in nature. You see, the reason I am having trouble with your question is that I see spiritual experiences as "subjective" for lack of a better term.

What you are asking me is, to me, like asking "How does one distinguish a 'pain experience' from a 'non-pain' experience?"

When one is having pain, typically one doesn't doubt it. It is just happening and you know it.

Here's the problem with this discussion. I originally started talking about the "causes" of experiences. You didn't like that and said:

My point is that a brain state doesn't "cause" your thoughts any more than your thoughts "cause" your particular brain state. Both happen at the same time.

So I agree for purposes of discussion to put aside the question of the cause of experience since the whole concept is kind of specialized. (See my siggy- actually if you are serious about this, I am not sure we can proceed without discussing Nagel)

But then you come up with this:

If we have the necessary and sufficient conditions stated that relate to this phenomenon and exclude most others then we have what is commonly known as the "cause". Now, what are the necessary and sufficient conditions to produce a "spiritual experience"? ....

we know the necessary and sufficient conditions for dreams and they don't seem to involve things of the spiritual and if it does we can't distinguish it (unless you give us a criterion here). My question to you is, how would we distinguish a dream that is of a "spiritual" nature or origin?

So, putting yourself in my shoes, can you see why I am confused?

And if we know the "necessary and sufficient" conditions for dreams, keeping in mind what you said before, that brainstates don't "cause" experiences, I would be fascinated to hear what YOU think the "necessary and sufficient causes" are for dreams.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...