Posted by Aparthib Zaman on 7/9/2002, 7:59 am
This article didn't seem any different from what dianetics, quantum healers, or Maharishi University folks would want us to hear and believe, the same reference to that elusive "mental energy/force", the same implicit claim to a special route to unlocking the mystery of mind that science has not yet able to achieve etc etc. This talk of God being right within you and The high energy level that one can experience by reaching the high-energy zone is latent within each" is the common theme of dianetics, quantum and spiritual healers, and other new agers. All of them of course are peddling their ware in a very appealing language for the gullible layfolks, who are not so science literate, but are easily influenced by these mystical languages . Truth never appeals to the layfolks, truth has no therapeutic value for the average, so these pseudoscientific languages will always appeal to the resigned majority. These languages strike a chord with them since they use mystique, rhetoric and poetic expressions that layfolks can easily relate to. "Mental energy", "spiritual force", "quantum mind", etc are examples of the most popular of such expressions that all these pseudoscientific disciplines resort to. The resigned layfolks are not eager to pursue the objective and hard route to seeking truth, but would rather seek an easy and appealing way, not caring to examine its reliability. Ease in grasping, "feel good", etc are the prime motivating factor for resorting to these routes for the mass, instead of the objective route of scientific method to the truth. Although no claim is made about the scientificity of the approach, it comes out loud and clear that indeed attempt was made to caste the ideas in scientific language. But the very reference to classic vague and unspeakable terms like "mental energy", "mental space", clearly points to its pseudoscientific nature. These are noncognitive terms, no definition, or evidence of its existence are possible, unless one confesses that this is really referring to what is already meant trivially in common parlancee, or what is known in science (brain, cortex, neurons etc). But in that case they would have to relegate these "new" ideas to science, which they would not of course for the sake of their ego. So what we have is again a vacuous references to Wittgenstein's unspeakable. It is equally vacuous to attempt to make the subjective notions of feeling, love as operational and build axes and space based on these notions. mentomatics is another noncognitive notion. We are yet to see it in any reputed consciousness journal. If readers are indeed eager to learn how consciousness is being tackled in a respectable way, they better look up journals of consciousness studies. The following references may be of relevance and interest:
1. Quantum Brain Dynamics and Consciousness: An Introduction - Mari Jibu, Kunio Yasue (This is hard science book by Physicist and neurosiemntist at the forefront of research in barin and consciousness studies)
2. http://www.qedcorp.com/pcr/pcr/stapp1.html (Lectures on the Physics of consciousness by Berkeley Physicist Stapp, a hard scientist)
3. http://psyche.cs.monash.edu.au/psyche-index-v2.html (A panel review of Roger Penrose's "Shadow of the Mind" by scientists in various field. )
4. http://www.consciousness.arizona.edu/problem.html (For a description of the problems in consciousnes being pursued at the University of Arizona 'sconsciousness research center).
Of course one can check with the "Journal of Consciousness Studies" for the latest update on this area that is being approached in a cross disciplinary fashion.
Regarding the comment that Buddha, Christ, Mohammed et al reached the High "energy zone" or "Godly Zone" while the rest of us were left groping, the only sensible thing we can say that people "believe" they reached "Godly Zone". There is no way to objectively verify anything about such belief, "Godly Zone" being another noncognitive notion. If at all, modern neurological research has identified the basis of their "mystical experience", as being nothing but altered states of the brain. And certainly the rest are not groping. Einstein, Heisenberg, Godel, Feynman were certainly not groping, nor is Hawking or Dawkins; some may argue they have gone far beyond what those much revered popular religious figures went. Besides there is no objective way to distinguish the "half- learned so-called saints" vs the saints slated to have reached the Godly zones. Time and place may have favored the latter. The latter may have had some leadership qualities and personal sacrifices, but as far as claim of divine connections the two groups cannot be distinguished on an objective basis. Also the remark "the norms and rules were relevant in those days, but may not be so critical today" flies in the face of the assertion that those saints reached Godly Zones, surely Godly Zones have to be timeless, not timebound.
Re the remark: >>I believe that a time will come when mentomatics will be developed, the laws of mental space will be explained and you would have a mentomatical method to reach a high-energy state within minutes or seconds. Sounds ridiculous?<<
No not ridiculous. There is no need to reinvent the wheel. Michael Persinger's lab already has achieved that. People can wear hemets and experience God instantly, no need to develop metamatics, whatever that is. Here is what Persinger has already found:
Beging Persinger:
Neuroscientist Michael Persinger at Laurentian University in Sudbury, Ontario claims almost anyone can meet God, just by wearing his special helmet. For several years, Persinger has been using a technique called transcranial magnetic stimulation to induce all sorts of surreal experiences in ordinary people (New Scientist, 19 November 1994, p 29). Through trial and error and a bit of educated guesswork, he's found that a weak magnetic field--1 microtesla, which is roughly that generated by a computer monitor-rotating anticlockwise in a complex pattern about the temporal lobes will cause four out of five people to feel a spectral presence in the room with them. Persinger runs what amounts to a weak electromagnetic signal around the skulls of volunteers. Four in five people, he said, report a "mystical experience, the feeling that there is a sentient being or entity standing behind or near" them. What people make of that presence depends on their own biases and beliefs. If a loved one has recently died, they may feel that person has returned to see them. Religious types often identify the presence as God. Some weep, some feel God has touched them, others become frightened and talk of demons and evil spirits."That's in the laboratory," Persinger said. " They know they are in the laboratory. Can you imagine what would happen if that happened late at night in a pew or mosque or synagogue? "His research, Persinger said, showed that "religion is a property of the brain, only the brain and has little to do with what's out there.
Whatever their validity, Persinger's experiments show that mystical experiences consist of not only what we perceive, but also how we interpret it. "We fit it into a niche, a pigeonhole," says Persinger. "The label that is then used to categorise the experience will influence how the person remembers it. And that will happen within a few seconds." There's a third aspect, too: the reinforcement that humans, as social animals, get from sharing religious rituals with others.
"Religion is all three of those, and all three are hardwired into the brain," says Persinger. "We are hardwired to have experiences from time to time that give us a sense of a presence, and as primates we're hardwired to categorise our experiences. And we crave social interaction and spatial proximity with others that are the same. What's not hardwired is the content. If you have a God experience and the belief is that you have to kill someone who doesn't believe as you do, you can see why the content from the culture is the really dangerous part."
- End Persinger
And as for God being a psychotherapeutic means as suggested, that is a trivial definition of God. It is already known that religion and faith have an evolutionary biological basis that is hardwired in the brain genetically. That is a scientific finding. And this finding is not new anymore. It is already quite dated. Just check the following references to learn more about these findings:
1. Newsweek May 7, 2001 (God and the Brain)
2. New Scientist magazine, 21 April 2000 (God and the brain)
3. Readers Digest March 2002 (Andrew Newberg on god and brain)
4. Why God Won't Go Away by Andrew Newberg, Eugene
d''Aquili and Vince Rause (Ballantine Books, 2001)
5. The Mystical Mind : Probing the Biology of Religious Experience -
Eugene G. D'Aquili, Andrew B. Newberg (1999)
6. "The neural substrates of religious experience" by Jeffrey Saver and
John Rabin, The Journal of Neuropsychiatry, vol 9, p 498 (1997)
7. "Experimental induction of the 'sensed presence' in normal subjects
and an exceptional subject" by C. M. Cook and Michael Persinger,
Perceptual and Motor Skills, vol 85, p 683 (1997)
8. The God Part of the Brain - Matthew Alper
(see http//www.godpart.com/premise.html)
9. Biological roots of religious belief :
http://www.SecularHumanism.org/library/fi/hunt_19_3.html
10. http://www.csicop.org/si/2000-11/beliefs.html (Why bad beliefs
don't die) 11. A. Mandell, "Toward a Psychobiology of Transcendence:
God in
the brain", in Psychobiology of Consciousness", ed Davidson &
Davidson" Plenum Press, 1980 (Also quoted in Schick - How to think of
weird things p-121) : The author says that sensory deprivation among
mystics practicing self-denial and self-discipline gives rise to
hallucination.
Published in : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-mona/message/6747
Message Thread:
« Back to thread