Mormon MRIs, or, "The Holy Ghost in the Machine"

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The area of the brain that lights up with "the spirit" is the same area that lights up with addictive stimuli, food, learning so it's really not unusual that the pleasure center of the brain would light up when we have a positive experience or expect a positive experience. I don't know that there are any implications but this provides further evidence that as humans we are conditioned to have certain responses when we are exposed to stimuli that have produced positive experiences in the past. I would wager that the same brain centers that light up with the spirit also light up when the person is exposed to an exciting football game or an emotional scene in a movie. That does not mean the brain is lighting because of the spirit.

Nor does it mean it's not.

[Tacenda]

I guess for members of the LDS church, believing in prayer and the HG, is cheaper than drugs! I do remember feeling this way during prayer and some talks I've listened to, thinking it was the spirit. 

[HappyJackWagon]

37 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think an important aspect and measure of spiritual activity is what is done by the owner after his brain lights up.

Why?

I'm not sure exactly what you are saying. Are you saying that after the brain lights up and the individual believes they have felt the spirit, we would measure if it really was the spirit based on their actions?

If that's what you're suggesting, I see all kinds of problems with that approach. But if I'm not understanding you, I apologize.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I have no problem with what you're describing ultimately in the context of philosophical discussion.  I do think for the purposes of this thread I was trying to distinguish between what is the common Mormon teaching, that there is an external force called the Holy Ghost, that this personage without a physical body is actively acting and that people are experiencing a communication between two distinct individuals this Holy Ghost and themselves.  This is how we define spiritual experience within typical LDS church teachings.  

I'm open to research that turns that traditional paradigm upside down.  As new discoveries contradict the traditional narrative about two distinct individuals communicating = spiritual experience, then we should be open to ideas such as what I mentioned, that perhaps personal spiritual experience is not a communication between two individuals.  

Your point about the limitations of our ability to actually discern between external stimuli and internal stimuli I don't disagree with.  Its ALL INTERNAL, I think that's true at some level, but I also think that we exist in a world where day to day conversations about things would get pretty difficult if we spoke in those terms.

You should be just as open to evidence that confirms the old paradigm in different language.

A paradigm us a paradigm and neither is closer to the "truth", they are just descriptions from a different point of view

[HappyJackWagon]

15 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Nor does it mean it's not.

True, but it means that an MRI really can't be used to determine whether or not someone is experiencing the spirit.

[mfbukowski]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

True, but it means that an MRI really can't be used to determine whether or not someone is experiencing the spirit.

Yep, true.

The experience is not the interpretation.

There are no facts, just interpretations

Welcome to my world.

[Atheist Mormon]

31 minutes ago, Gray said:

Yes, some people don't seem to be able to access this experience. I know people who are believers who have never had it either. I would guess there is some kind of anatomical or chemical reason for that. 

You got that right; there's a very good chemical reason. once (or twice) long, long time ago I reached and surpassed that plateau of revelation....It was visual and disturbingly clear...The colors, sounds, all senses were real. But I did not want to get hooked, I never tried again. It was some good Afghanistan Hashish. 

[hope_for_things]

2 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

You should be just as open to evidence that confirms the old paradigm in different language.

A paradigm us a paradigm and neither is closer to the "truth", they are just descriptions from a different point of view

Paradigms are always changing in response to culture and understanding, and language is changing as well.  As long as people are aware that things are changing, I see no problem with doing what you suggest, reorienting language to evidence an old principle.  

Its the naive view that change isn't happening, that something is specifically and literally constant and that God has endorsed this constant and that God condemns other paradigms.  That kind of dogma is what I find untrue.  In essence its the dogma of exclusivity and that I find untrue, and unfortunately this dogma is very strong in contemporary Mormonism.  

[CV75]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Why?

I'm not sure exactly what you are saying. Are you saying that after the brain lights up and the individual believes they have felt the spirit, we would measure if it really was the spirit based on their actions?

If that's what you're suggesting, I see all kinds of problems with that approach. But if I'm not understanding you, I apologize.

I think the more fundamental expression of spirituality has less to do with what a person consciously concludes as a result of his brain lighting up, or the meaning or belief he attaches to his brain lighting up, but with what he does as the result of that phenomenon.

Definitions for spirituality differ (so one must be settled upon for a research experiment), but whether whatever he does can be classified as an instinctual, habitual or intentional response, I would think that action in the physical world, or what he perceives as his physical world, is what makes it a complete spiritual experience. What he does is the result of how he exercises (or in the case of habit, once exercised) his agency and will. I think this is the idea behind a spiritual-before-physical creation, and bringing heaven and earth together.

Most definitions involve a transcendence of sorts coming from or accompanying a personal connection to something bigger than ourselves, such as the synergy or aliveness we experience in the society of others (including deity and imagination) or under/with the influence of outside elements and forces.

Does lighting up the brain, and the brain lighting up in response to something, qualify as spiritual experiences? I would say yes – all things are spiritual. And lighting up the brain can be accomplished artificially and naturally, internally and externally, and by manipulation, practice, assistance, compulsion, suggestion, etc. So I think interacting with the world outside the head –even when that world is in the head! (I think this is an example of how we judge ourselves) -- in connection with that lighting completes the circuit of spirituality (for better or worse).

My post has nothing to do with judging whether another person has felt the Spirit according to his actions. But it might have something to do with judging ourselves, and with taking the dynamics of spirituality beyond the realm of thought, feeling and belief and into physical actions that bring thought, feeling and belief to others. And while the owner of a brain kept alive in a jar may not have as full a capacity to do that, it could be said that all things are fundamentally physical as well.

So by the same token, I must say that I think the more fundamental expression of physicality also has less to do with what a person consciously concludes as a result of his brain lighting up, or the meaning or belief he attaches to his brain lighting up, but with what he does as the result of that phenomenon.

[waveslider]

11 hours ago, canard78 said:

I'd recommend reading "How God Changes your Brain"

Different parts of the brain respond to different types of religious practice. 

For example, intense evangelical experiences (anything that is random and spontaneous, like speaking in tongues or sudden outbursts of jubilation) activate the fight or flight part of your brain (the amygdala). A more active amygdala also leads to greater fear and suspicion of "others."

The prayers or meditation of Buddhist monks and Cistercian nuns activates the anterior cingulate, the location of the brain that is the source of compassion and empathy. 

From a brain evolution perspective this particularly interesting as the amygdala and anterior cingulate are millions of years apart in development.

We share the amygdala in common with rats, lizards etc (it has been around for 400 million years), while the anterior cingulate, governing our ability to feel compassion and empathy, is relatively new, developing only around 15million years ago. 

The fact that nucleus accumbens is activated for Mormons is interesting. Not only does it lead to intensely rewarding experiences (on the same level of romantic infatuation and drug taking), but it's also located very close to the lymbic area of the brain and, in particular, the thalamus. 

The thalamus is the part of the brain that is your "lookout." It's constantly opening and closing: checking for threats and then closing to confirm there is no threat. 

In some religious brain scans, it has been shown that parts of the thalamus become dormant. In other words, it clocks off and stops checking. Perhaps this is how the brain experiences religious certainty. It could be that the brain becomes so convinced that there is no alternative to the given conviction that it concludes there is no risk of being wrong and simply stops checking for alternative possibilities. I'm not saying this is established for the effects of Mormonism in the brain, but the dormant parts of the thalamus have been observed in other high-demand, fundamentalist religious practitioners.

We're only just starting to understand the brain as an organ, but what is certain is that it responds very differently to various religious beliefs and practices. 

Thank you for the added knowledge on this subject. I was speaking of the Holy Ghost testifying of truth. I have been to an evangelical church where they all started speaking in tongues. I can tell you there were spirits present, but it wasn't the Holy Ghost. No wonder it triggers the fight or flight responses. I know I chose to head the flight response, and never went back to another place like that ever again.

[Nofear]

As has been noted by many, this observation isn't a problem for Mormonism. Here is a variant approach for such explanations.

Joseph Smith when talking about Temple Work had this to say, "All things whatsoever God in his infinite wisdom has seen fit and proper to reveal to us, while we are dwelling in mortality, in regard to our mortal bodies, are revealed to us in the abstract, and independent of affinity of this mortal tabernacle, but are revealed to our spirits precisely as though we had no bodies at all;" (https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-joseph-smith/chapter-41?lang=eng)

For spiritual experiences we see a causal chain like this:

A. Holy Spirit interacts with our spirit body
B. Our spirit body interacts with physical body
C. Our mortal, veiled mind interprets the response given by our physical body

The study does not state whether or not the mental response is causing the brain activity or whether the brain activity is causing the mental state (the latter is almost always assumed by neurology) but either interpretation or even some combination of them is ok. Our theology easily allows such, if it does not demand it.

 

[Thinking]

On 11/29/2016 at 10:35 AM, Gray said:

It would be interesting if we could compare these specific measurements on LDS test subjects with test subjects from other religious backgrounds.

Exactly. It's not much of an experiment if there is no comparative data.

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Paradigms are always changing in response to culture and understanding, and language is changing as well.  As long as people are aware that things are changing, I see no problem with doing what you suggest, reorienting language to evidence an old principle.  

Its the naive view that change isn't happening, that something is specifically and literally constant and that God has endorsed this constant and that God condemns other paradigms.  That kind of dogma is what I find untrue.  In essence its the dogma of exclusivity and that I find untrue, and unfortunately this dogma is very strong in contemporary Mormonism.  

Yes I actually agree on all points - sort of.  

I think a strong case can be made that Mormonism is philosophically the BEST religious view which works best within the paradigm you are here espousing.  Clearly Mormonism is the most "Pragmatic" of religions for those who endorse Pragmatism and other hermeneutic/phenomenological views http://www.phenomenologyonline.com/inquiry/orientations-in-phenomenology/hermeneutical-phenomenology/

These are Big Words for "truth is what interpretation works best".  From that point of view I personally fully accept the description of "the only true and living church on earth" because I think others don't even come close.  All of Christianity is much worse than Mormonism in this regard,  and I DO accept that repentance and the atonement of Jesus Christ is the key to eternal life and total peace during mortality, if we but do what we need to do to achieve it.   And of course I have my own interpretation of what all that means.

And yes I also agree that most Mormons are still bogged down in views totally incompatible with Moroni 10: 4-5, Alma 32, D&C 93, an a significant number of other scriptures, by still being stuck in Neoplatonism and the correspondence theory of truth.

But heck what can you expect from converted Protestants who don't study this stuff?  It's the best on earth such as religion is today. I know it will get better.

In Mormonese, we say that "we will progress as further light and knowledge is revealed".

From the above link:
 

Quote

 

Hermeneutical phenomenology

Basic themes of hermeneutic phenomenology are “interpretation,” “textual meaning,” “dialogue,” “preunderstanding,” and “tradition.”

Heidegger, Gadamer, and Ricoeur are the foremost representatives of the movement of hermeneutic phenomenology. Phenomenology becomes hermeneutical when its method is taken to be interpretive (rather than purely descriptive as in transcendental phenomenology). This orientation is evident in the work of Heidegger who argues that all description is always already interpretation. Every form of human awareness is interpretive. Especially in Heidegger’s later work he increasingly introduces poetry and art as expressive works for interpreting the nature of truth, language, thinking, dwelling, and being.

 

Of course my guy is Rorty but it's all essentially the same

Edited November 30, 2016 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Nofear said:

As has been noted by many, this observation isn't a problem for Mormonism. Here is a variant approach for such explanations.

Joseph Smith when talking about Temple Work had this to say, "All things whatsoever God in his infinite wisdom has seen fit and proper to reveal to us, while we are dwelling in mortality, in regard to our mortal bodies, are revealed to us in the abstract, and independent of affinity of this mortal tabernacle, but are revealed to our spirits precisely as though we had no bodies at all;" (https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-joseph-smith/chapter-41?lang=eng)

For spiritual experiences we see a causal chain like this:

A. Holy Spirit interacts with our spirit body
B. Our spirit body interacts with physical body
C. Our mortal, veiled mind interprets the response given by our physical body

The study does not state whether or not the mental response is causing the brain activity or whether the brain activity is causing the mental state (the latter is almost always assumed by neurology) but either interpretation or even some combination of them is ok. Our theology easily allows such, if it does not demand it.

 

What is really good for this whole view apologetically is the view of your typical ignorant atheist who makes the argument (like Dawkins and others):

 "There is no such thing as a spiritual experience!!!  It's all a product of brain processes !!

Our answer:  "Of course it is all brain processes- what else would it be??   That is the only way science knows how to describe it!"

We know that science is only one way to interpret phenomena, and so do philosophers.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Nofear said:

 

The study does not state whether or not the mental response is causing the brain activity or whether the brain activity is causing the mental state (the latter is almost always assumed by neurology) but either interpretation or even some combination of them is ok. Our theology easily allows such, if it does not demand it.

 

This is essentially the view of a famous ATHEIST philosopher named Thomas Nagel who takes on the view that consciousness can be defined by brain activity.  He has no axe to grind to support a religious position- for him the issue is pure logic.  He wrote a famous, landmark essay in the philosophy of the mind with a funny name- "What is It Like to Be a Bat"

http://organizations.utep.edu/portals/1475/nagel_bat.pdf where he says this:

Quote

I do not deny that conscious mental states and events cause behavior, nor that they may be given functional characterizations. I deny only that this kind of thing exhausts their analysis. Any reductionist program has to be based on an analysis of what is to be reduced. If the analysis leaves something out, the problem will be falsely posed. It is useless to base the defense of materialism on any analysis of mental phenomena that fails to deal explicitly with their subjective character. For there is no reason to suppose that a reduction which seems plausible when no attempt is made to account for consciousness can be extended to include consciousness. With out some idea, therefore, of what the subjective character of experience is, we cannot know what is required of physicalist theory. While an account of the physical basis of mind must explain many things, this appears to be the most difficult. It is impossible to exclude the phenomenological features of experience from a reduction in the same way that one excludes the phenomenal features of an ordinary substance from a physical or chemical reduction of it—namely, by explaining them as effects on the minds of human observers.4 If physicalism is to be defended, the phenomenological features must themselves be given a physical account. But when we examine their subjective character it seems that such a result is impossible. The reason is that every subjective phenomenon is essentially connected with a single point of view, and it seems inevitable that an objective, physical theory will abandon that point of view.

To put this in LDS terms, he is saying that any description of consciousness- or for us, spirituality- which simply looks at physical phenomena as observed by brain activity ignores "what it is like "to have the experience itself.  So if Joseph was hooked up to a machine while experiencing the first vision, we would see brain activity but DESCRIBING the physical activity does not describe the EXPERIENCE of speaking to God.

There have been incredible experiments where dreams have been "monitored" and even rough images of the dreams have been computer generated.  http://bodyodd.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/04/17603830-computers-can-see-peoples-dreams?lite

But does this capture the EXPERIENCE of the dream with its SIGNIFICANCE?  

Suppose we could wire Joseph's brain during the first vision- and "see what he saw" - what might we see?   Two men standing above him, who glowed brightly?   Would we feel what he felt?  Would we know what he knew?   Would we associate this experience and interpret it as he did?  No two individuals are alike, no two brains are alike and as Nagel says, what must be left out of any explanation based on the physical is the EXPERIENCE the given individual is having, with all its associations

It is like watching a movie.   Two people can watch the same movie and come out with a totally different experience.

An observation of someone's experience described in the third person cannot be made logically equivalent to a first person statement of what it is like to have that experience.  THAT is the point - pure logic- that Nagel is making.

I know a child who is terrified of eating anything white, due to experiences he had extremely early in his life.  When he sees mashed potatoes it is not the same reality I experience when I see mashed potatoes.  It's all in the interpretation for each of us

[canard78]

6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Where else could it be?

Some people seem to say it's happening in their spirit.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes I actually agree on all points - sort of.  

I think a strong case can be made that Mormonism is philosophically the BEST religious view which works best within the paradigm you are here espousing.  Clearly Mormonism is the most "Pragmatic" of religions for those who endorse Pragmatism and other hermeneutic/phenomenological views http://www.phenomenologyonline.com/inquiry/orientations-in-phenomenology/hermeneutical-phenomenology/

These are Big Words for "truth is what interpretation works best".  From that point of view I personally fully accept the description of "the only true and living church on earth" because I think others don't even come close.  All of Christianity is much worse than Mormonism in this regard,  and I DO accept that repentance and the atonement of Jesus Christ is the key to eternal life and total peace during mortality, if we but do what we need to do to achieve it.   And of course I have my own interpretation of what all that means.

And yes I also agree that most Mormons are still bogged down in views totally incompatible with Moroni 10: 4-5, Alma 32, D&C 93, an a significant number of other scriptures, by still being stuck in Neoplatonism and the correspondence theory of truth.

But heck what can you expect from converted Protestants who don't study this stuff?  It's the best on earth such as religion is today. I know it will get better.

In Mormonese, we say that "we will progress as further light and knowledge is revealed".

From the above link:
 

Of course my guy is Rorty but it's all essentially the same

Because I'm in the middle of my faith journey, I'm feeling an impulse to push against language that I feel is unnecessarily preferential to one religion over another.  There has been so much divisiveness and damage from exclusivistic language in the past and because of my personal journey with family and friends in the here and now, I am sensitive to the language that I feel is hurtful within the context of Mormonism.

I'm glad that you personally believe that Mormonism is philosophically the BEST religious view.  I just don't like that language as its stated.  I would prefer if you'd say that it works best for you personally.  I know thats likely what you mean, but you didn't say it, and words are important.  I would prefer you didn't say Mormonism is the MOST pragmatic.  Just say that its very pragmatic.  I eschew absolutes and comparisons in religious context because of the stakes involved, salvation & damnation in Christian context, so I don't like it when we rate and rank religions.  

I'm not personally worried about the true and living language within Mormonism.  I would prefer that instead of trying to recontexutalize the meaning of that language from D&C 1, that we would just reject it on its face.  I'm tired of trying to twist meanings, I find that in the twisting those who are still invested in black and white literalistic thinking don't learn any nuance and all the recontexualization just goes right over their heads.  A direct assault on the original interpretation is needed to open their eyes.  I don't believe this is the one and only true and living church.  That was an error in the scriptures.  God doesn't have one and only true organization.  God loves all creation.  Period.  

After the direct rejection of the old interpretation, then I think it appropriate to introduce nuance and interpretation.  This is how I've found things to work best in my circle of influence.  Doing this in a respectful, non-threatening way is all about the tone of voice and the body language you use.  Its not easy, and its not appropriate in every scenario either.  

 

Edited November 30, 2016 by hope_for_things

[canard78]

4 hours ago, waveslider said:

Thank you for the added knowledge on this subject. I was speaking of the Holy Ghost testifying of truth. I have been to an evangelical church where they all started speaking in tongues. I can tell you there were spirits present, but it wasn't the Holy Ghost. No wonder it triggers the fight or flight responses. I know I chose to head the flight response, and never went back to another place like that ever again.

No, that's not the point and that's not how it works. 

There are specific reasons why random and spontaneous activity activates the lymbic area. It's an experience that generates uncertainty and unpredictability. Therefore the part of the brain that manages and responds to uncertainty becomes more active. 

It's possible that if your amygdala was over-triggered by the new experience that you would have felt emotional discomfort. 

Many, years ago, before we could understand the brain, we created stories to explain our experiences like "evil spirits." We don't need to any more.  

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, canard78 said:

Some people seem to say it's happening in their spirit.

I have no problem with that but unfortunately but those who say that would also say we have a spirit body which is co-extensive with our physical body right?

If it is not, is your spirit floating around near mars or something while you are typing away on the board?   The whole image of the spirit in the glove of the body indicates the spirit is co-extensive with the body but unseen- there fore I guess it's all happening in the spirit body's "head?"

The point is no one knows "where" the spirit is but pretty clearly if you destroy the brain the spirit is not going to hang around for long.  I don't think anyone would disagree with that!

 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Because I'm in the middle of my faith journey, I'm feeling an impulse to push against language that I feel is unnecessarily preferential to one religion over another.  There has been so much divisiveness and damage from exclusivistic language in the past and because of my personal journey with family and friends in the here and now, I am sensitive to the language that I feel is hurtful within the context of Mormonism.

I'm glad that you personally believe that Mormonism is philosophically the BEST religious view.  I just don't like that language as its stated.  I would prefer if you'd say that it works best for you personally.  I know thats likely what you mean, but you didn't say it, and words are important.  I would prefer you didn't say Mormonism is the MOST pragmatic.  Just say that its very pragmatic.  I eschew absolutes and comparisons in religious context because of the stakes involved, salvation & damnation in Christian context, so I don't like it when we rate and rank religions.  

I'm not personally worried about the true and living language within Mormonism.  I would prefer that instead of trying to recontexutalize the meaning of that language from D&C 1, that we would just reject it on its face.  I'm tired of trying to twist meanings, I find that in the twisting those who are still invested in black and white literalistic thinking don't learn any nuance and all the recontexualization just goes right over their heads.  A direct assault on the original interpretation is needed to open their eyes.  I don't believe this is the one and only true and living church.  That was an error in the scriptures.  God doesn't have one and only true organization.  God loves all creation.  Period.  

After the direct rejection of the old interpretation, then I think it appropriate to introduce nuance and interpretation.  This is how I've found things to work best in my circle of influence.  Doing this in a respectful, non-threatening way is all about the tone of voice and the body language you use.  Its not easy, and its not appropriate in every scenario either.  

 

Of course you are again "pretty right". But if you are going to say 

Quote

 I would prefer you didn't say Mormonism is the MOST pragmatic.  Just say that its very pragmatic.

 

then you are still showing a preference for pragmatism.  

And I think we must have preferences- otherwise it is just someone's opinion that it is wrong to kill babies for fun and I am not ready to say that.   With pragmatism I can construct an ethics which shows certain things really are right and really are wrong.

Your tacit assumption here is that "we should not be threatening to other's religions" which of course I agree with- but you are not demonstrating neutrality with your position either.

In fact I think you are contradicting yourself by saying both

Quote

 

 .... I find that in the twisting those who are still invested in black and white literalistic thinking don't learn any nuance and all the recontexualization just goes right over their heads.  A direct assault on the original interpretation is needed to open their eyes.  I don't believe this is the one and only true and living church.  That was an error in the scriptures.  God doesn't have one and only true organization.  God loves all creation.  Period.  

 

 

 

AND THIS:

Quote

....I'm feeling an impulse to push against language that I feel is unnecessarily preferential to one religion over another.  There has been so much divisiveness and damage from exclusivistic language in the past and because of my personal journey with family and friends in the here and now, I am sensitive to the language that I feel is hurtful within the context of Mormonism.

How about a direct assault on your family and friends interpretation since "any nuance and recontextualization goes right over their heads"?

You think that will make them feel all cozy and warm?  How about telling them that "That was an error in the scriptures.  God doesn't have one and only true organization."?

If that doesn't convert them they are just not nuanced thinkers I guess, so forget about kindness.

You must have preferences and be able to show in kindness why yours may work better than theirs or you are contradicting yourself

I mean let's just make the contradiction as clear as possible

Quote

I'm feeling an impulse to push against language that I feel is unnecessarily preferential to one religion over another.

VS

Quote

A direct assault on the original interpretation is needed to open their eyes.

 

 

Edited December 1, 2016 by mfbukowski

[Nofear]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

What is really good for this whole view apologetically is the view of your typical ignorant atheist who makes the argument (like Dawkins and others):

 "There is no such thing as a spiritual experience!!!  It's all a product of brain processes !!

Our answer:  "Of course it is all brain processes- what else would it be??   That is the only way science knows how to describe it!"

We know that science is only one way to interpret phenomena, and so do philosophers.

It reminds me of the experiments that suggested that certain action potentials would rise (nerve stuff) before an individual became "conscious" of their choice. This was widely reported as casting into question the reality of free will. But here too, such observations (if they hold up) would fit nicely into the LDS paradigm of consciousness.

[Calm]

10 hours ago, Gray said:

Yes, some people don't seem to be able to access this experience. I know people who are believers who have never had it either. I would guess there is some kind of anatomical or chemical reason for that. 

I stopped being able to experiencing (being aware of through my own spiritual sense as opposed to an awareness of its effects on others)the spirit for several years on a particular drug...an antidepressant, so I never assume it is lack of trying or unworthiness these days (didn't very much before).

Edited December 1, 2016 by Calm

[Nofear]

20 hours ago, Gray said:

Yes, some people don't seem to be able to access this experience. I know people who are believers who have never had it either. I would guess there is some kind of anatomical or chemical reason for that. 

Joseph Smith quite acknowledged that how our bodies reacted to the holy Spirit varied. For him it was geneological.

''The Holy Ghost has no other effect than pure intelligence. It is more powerful in expanding the mind, enlightening the understanding, and storing the intellect with present knowledge, of a man who is of the literal seed of Abraham, than one that is a Gentile, though it may not have half as much visible effect upon the body; for as the Holy Ghost falls upon one of the literal seed of Abraham, it is calm and serene; and his whole soul and body are only exercised by the pure spirit of intelligence; while the effect of the Holy Ghost upon a Gentile, is to purge out the old blood, and make him actually of the seed of Abraham. That man that has none of the blood of Abraham (naturally) must have a new creation by the Holy Ghost. In such a case, there may be more of a powerful effect upon the body, and visible to the eye, than upon an Israelite, while the Israelite at first might be far before the Gentile in pure intelligencne.'' TPJS 149-150

This insight from Joseph had a profound impact on my own interpretation of spiritual effect. While I rarely experienced the emotional reaction of others I came to see and believe in the truth that was presented by the spirit and enlarged my soul. I came to understand the difference between my own thoughts and those brought by inspiration. While Joseph's take on adoption into the house of Israel is far from symbolic, whether or not true, it is sufficient to know that the physiological response of one's body responding to one's spirit body can and does vary from one individual to another individual in non-trivial ways. And as many of us know, even from one time to another time.

Edited December 1, 2016 by Nofear

[waveslider]

9 hours ago, canard78 said:

No, that's not the point and that's not how it works. 

There are specific reasons why random and spontaneous activity activates the lymbic area. It's an experience that generates uncertainty and unpredictability. Therefore the part of the brain that manages and responds to uncertainty becomes more active. 

It's possible that if your amygdala was over-triggered by the new experience that you would have felt emotional discomfort. 

Many, years ago, before we could understand the brain, we created stories to explain our experiences like "evil spirits." We don't need to any more.  

You can write it off as being some made up response from my brain, but I can tell you that spirits truly exist, both evil and good. It wasn't some over triggered Amygdala, It truly was possession of evil spirits in the people. I didn't create a story of, "evil spirits," I witnessed it first hand.

[Gray]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

I stopped being able to experiencing (being aware of through my own spiritual sense as opposed to an awareness of its effects on others)the spirit for several years on a particular drug...an antidepressant, so I never assume it is lack of trying or unworthiness these days (didn't very much before).

That's really interesting, Calm. One person I know who is a believer and has never had a transcendent Holy Ghost experience suffers from anxiety and takes medication for it.