This is the forum for all who are interested in the theory of what may happen to consciousness at the point of death as explained in the books 'Is There Life After Death - The Extraordinary Science Of What Happens When You Die' and The Daemon.
Moderator: Martin Higgins
Anthony Peake wrote:
Thanks for the suggestion for me to read "Punk Science". As usual you are amazingly "on the ball" with these things to the extent I sometimes feel that you may be psychic. The author of Punk Science - Inside The Mind of God, Dr. Manjir Samanta-Laughton, contacted me in the Autumn having read ITLAD and she had her publisher ("O Books") send me a copy. I had first been introduced to Dr. Samanta-Laughton's work by long-time itladian Gary Plunkett ("Aloha Gary") about two years ago.
Now why this is a weird coincidence is that literally today Manjir and I have agreed on a date for me to be interviewed for her forthcoming movie project.......
Derkein wrote:klaatu wrote:And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you." (LUKE 17:20-21)
Here is the crux of my post. Aldous Huxley, amongst other writers, spoke of the brain as a "reducing valve" - a filter which enables us to function in the material world but which also prevents us from experiencing reality as it truly is.
I also have absolutely no doubts whatsoever that the second above is not just true, but an undisputable scientific fact.
Alex Tsakiris (host): You make some interesting connections between the “fainting game”, erotic asphyxiation and some new research with psychedelic mushrooms. You suggest that when we really look at what’s going on in the brain we actually see a dampening down of brain areas – the opposite of what we would expect. So what are the implications of this in terms of this idea of filtering of consciousness?
Bernardo Kastrup: The current paradigm says that conscious experience is an epiphenomenon, a by-product, of brain activity. So you should always be able to find a tight correlation between conscious states as reported by the subject and measurable brain states as measured, for instance, with an FMRI scanner. Usually this correlation is there, but there are instances, like this study you mentioned, where this correlation is not there in a very spectacular and repeatable way. What it suggests is that we have to find another model of reality, if you will, to accommodate this. A model that accommodates both the fact that normally, ordinarily, conscious experience is modulated by brain states, but also sometimes there is a lack of correlation in a spectacular way.
Alex Tsakiris: So these anomalies you’re talking about, for example, with psilocybin and reduced brain functioning, or brain injuries that lead to increased consciousness, these have to be explained. We can’t just sweep them off the table and say, “well, materialism seems to work pretty well in the general sense,” right?
Bernardo Kastrup: These anomalies are major anomalies. They are gigantic anomalies. The only way we can get away with them and still honestly believe in the materialistic paradigm as many of us do is because that paradigm embodies an approach of looking upon the world that is a third-person perspective. In other words, it’s not through personal experience but through reports and measurements.
These anomalies are major anomalies. They are gigantic anomalies. The only way we can get away with them and still honestly believe in the materialistic paradigm as many of us do is because that paradigm embodies an approach of looking upon the world that is a third-person perspective. In other words, it’s not through personal experience but through reports and measurements.
Thanks for your comment; I think I misunderstood your meaning - you're talking about the brain filtering input from the material world, rather than the brain and material world emerging from the ground of consciousness.
And of course I can see that this is indisputable scientifically - some animals can see in the infrared or ultraviolet; bats can echo-locate; my dog can smell a sausage from the other side of the road! And our perceptions are indeed coloured by all sorts of emotional overlay.
klaatu wrote:Still, if this was also Jesus' meaning - that the "kingdom of heaven" (material reality in all its fullness, or maybe emotional openness to this reality) lies just beyond our senses, and that expanding our awareness of this reality is desirable because it enables us to have a better life (this was indeed Wren-Lewis' experience)
klaatu wrote:- then there's a paradox: Why should Nature have arranged things that we filter so much out, when allowing it in would make us function more effectively? Surely this would have had survival advantages, so why has the human brain evolved with "shutters down"?
- then there's a paradox: Why should Nature have arranged things that we filter so much out, when allowing it in would make us function more effectively? Surely this would have had survival advantages, so why has the human brain evolved with "shutters down"?
Try and see that tiger coming to eat you while your attention is grabbed by all the x-rays, gamma rays and neutrino streams filling your unlimited eyes.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest