A serious discussion about the nature of mystical experiences

[burnt]

I have brought this topic up before and have even brought it up on other forums but since people here tend to be quite intelligent I want to discuss it on this forum:

When someone is very thirsty and walking through the desert and they see an image of a water which turns out to be not real we call that a mirage or a hallucination. When someone is what society now calls psychotic hears voices or talks to imaginary friends that are very real to the individual experiencing the situation yet we call that experience a delusion.

On the contrary in the past many such experiences were taken seriously in certain cases, buddha, jesus, moses, mohammad are all people who's mystical experiences were taken very seriously. Of course there was battles over whether a saints vision was genuine but that really was just society trying to make sense of these experiences and fit them in within its frame work. The same goes for cultures who were using psychoactive substances to aid in inducing trance or altered states, it was taken seriously.

So whats real and whats not? Why do those who use psychedelic substances regard there experience as more genuine then that of a psychotic? I tend to believe its simply because they like the experience and it often satisfies some deep subconsiouss desires for a creator a spirit etc. The experience on a psychedelic drug is different then that of someone in meditation or that of someone undergoing psychosis but really all 3 are essentially doing the same type of thing to the brain.

Lets bring up the brain. I'd like to make the point that most signals being sent between neurons are pretty much the same the only difference being their intensity and connections the neuron makes. Different neurons also have different shapes and different receptors and transmitters but the signals are basically the same. The only difference between a drug, brain damage induced psyhosis, meditation is that they happen to effect a different part of the brain in a different way. A 5-HT agonist will increase the intensity of signals in certain parts of the brain where the drug has distributed itself too. Many 5-HT agonists can have different effects based on what subtype of receptor they hit, how long they persist before being metabolized, how strongly they bind, where in the brain they end up all play a role in causing different effects. The same can be said for certain types of psychosis paranoid schizophrenics seem to have a different brain profile then lets say someone with bipolar or perhaps other types of schizophrenia. When someone is in deep mediation certain parts of the brain get activated and start to project out imagines from the subconsciouss or imagination. The only difference seems to be what part of the brain is being effect and in what manner. But so far its all seems to be going on in the brain.

So if we are to accept that the experience of losing perception of ones body, traveling through some tunnel and emerging in a palace of white light after smoking something like DMT as real why do we reject the experience of a psychotic or the mirage in the desert? Now I think the experience of losing connection to the body can be explained in neurochemical reductionist terms because the part of the brain doing the interpreting isn't communicating with the part of the brain taking in signals from the outside world. This is testable!

Of course we always can bring up the question well what is consciousness and what is reality but those are tougher questions and if we need to define them then we can try but what I would most like to discuss is if all mystical experiences and altered states can be reduced to a simple disruption of neurochemical events then we must seriously consider how legit are they? I understand the psychological value of these substances but I don't want to focus on that end but more on the actual so called spiritual experience. Why is it spiritual? Why is it not just a disruption of the brains functioning?
Edit/Delete Message

 

['Coatl]

Great post dude! I'll comment later!

 

[endlessness]

yes excellent thread, will go into this during the weekend or something

 

[polytrip]

One of the differences between 'ordinary loonies' and 'prophets', seems to be, how well people can integrate the mystical experience in their daily lives. But it's a fine line. 'translating' the visions into intelligable trains of thought requires creativity, intuïtion, intelligence, honesty, balls and probably some other things i'm forgetting here.
I'm not that much into Freud, but it's like saying;'hey, maybe my dream wasn't about an elephant, but it might have had to do with strong desire's i haven't completely been aware of', instead of believing an elephant is realy going to kidnap your girlfriend or something.

 

[endlessness]

When someone is what society now calls psychotic hears voices or talks to imaginary friends that are very real to the individual experiencing the situation yet we call that experience a delusion.

yes, but neither the person´s subjective certainty, neither the opinion of the majority, say anything about the Real Realness of it (which nobody ever knows about). What we CAN talk about, though, is consensus reality, how well people incorporate their experience positively, how healthy they are and so on. To me, this is the best measure, not whether something is statistically common or not, but whether it is well dealt with and produces a healthy outcome.

this leads to:

On the contrary in the past many such experiences were taken seriously in certain cases, buddha, jesus, moses, mohammad are all people who's mystical experiences were taken very seriously. Of course there was battles over whether a saints vision was genuine but that really was just society trying to make sense of these experiences and fit them in within its frame work. The same goes for cultures who were using psychoactive substances to aid in inducing trance or altered states, it was taken seriously.

again here is the very big difference that in some cases, people have a hard time dealing with their experiences, and have a very significant inner suffering associated with these ´different´ experiences. In other cases, it is well dealt with and incorporated positively in life. To me that´s the golden key, because talking about Reality in it´s essence is not possible.

So whats real and whats not? Why do those who use psychedelic substances regard there experience as more genuine then that of a psychotic? I tend to believe its simply because they like the experience and it often satisfies some deep subconsiouss desires for a creator a spirit etc. The experience on a psychedelic drug is different then that of someone in meditation or that of someone undergoing psychosis but really all 3 are essentially doing the same type of thing to the brain.

Whats real and whats not we cant know.. Maybe as william blake said, ´everything possible to be believed is an image of truth", so it´s all real.. Maybe consensus reality and current science have got it. Maybe there´s ´something out there´. But to me it doesnt make much of a difference, what matters is the ´how its dealt with´, as said above.

and I dont think we can say that psychosis, meditation and drugs do the same to the brain.. The change in brain waves is particular, the neurotransmitter systems affected is unique to each, etc... I mean, think about it, if one and the same trip can, from a macroscopic view look as the same to a neurologist, inside the person´s mind things are VERY different from one second to the next. So even if there are some similarities, I think knowing the subtleties in the brain´s functionings and modulation of consciousness, it´s unfair to say ´its all essentially the same´

Lets bring up the brain. I'd like to make the point that most signals being sent between neurons are pretty much the same the only difference being their intensity and connections the neuron makes. Different neurons also have different shapes and different receptors and transmitters but the signals are basically the same.

and then here we come to the ´brain/consciousness´ question. First of all, are all signals exactly the same? Its all an electric impulse yes, but what about differences in possible fire rates? I mean, if you think about it, in the internet or telephone or whatever, all the impulses are also the same, some current flowing through a wire, but the patterns in the ´firing´ make a whole world of difference in the message. Not to mention that the brain is a highly complex system, so it´s hard to look at individual neurons firing to transmit a message (because if we could stop one individual neuron firing, the message probably wouldnt change noticeably at all), but rather we have to look at the system in work together.

So if we are to accept that the experience of losing perception of ones body, traveling through some tunnel and emerging in a palace of white light after smoking something like DMT as real why do we reject the experience of a psychotic or the mirage in the desert? Now I think the experience of losing connection to the body can be explained in neurochemical reductionist terms because the part of the brain doing the interpreting isn't communicating with the part of the brain taking in signals from the outside world. This is testable!


Of course we always can bring up the question well what is consciousness and what is reality but those are tougher questions and if we need to define them then we can try but what I would most like to discuss is if all mystical experiences and altered states can be reduced to a simple disruption of neurochemical events then we must seriously consider how legit are they? I understand the psychological value of these substances but I don't want to focus on that end but more on the actual so called spiritual experience. Why is it spiritual? Why is it not just a disruption of the brains functioning?

you are very right that talking about the Reality of psychedelic experiences and denying psychotic experiences in the blink of an eye is an elitist and unreasonable position, unless further argument for it is given.

BUT.. do you notice how we cannot go from a positive relationship to a cause and effect inference without making a big leap of faith, a supposition? Sure it all shows up in the brain, when a subjective experience is happening but does that say anything about the essential nature of consciousness? It only positively says that the brain modulates the experience, but it does not say that it CAUSES it.. So if a certain area of the brain lights up during a certain spiritual experience, this does not necessarily mean that the part of the brain caused the experience

(if one lights up a flashlight through a thin cloth or some coloured filter, the light that passes through will seem to be coming from the cloth or filter, and if one blocks the cloth/filter, it will block the light, but the light was not coming from the cloth, but rather being affected by it, as a secondary part of the process)

why is it spiritual, why is it not a disruption of brain functioning..? Well.. This is all dependent on the model one uses. Im quite pragmatic, and for me all these explanations are secondary to how one deals with it. To me, the sign of a disruption is a negative change in health, less equilibrium with the environment, so on and so on. If someone has an experience and starts being more friendly to others, studying harder, working better and saving up on natural resources, eating better and exercising, is it fair or accurate to call it a ´brain disruption´ ?

I think it is a mistake when people completely ´believe´ their drug experiences (or even their consensus reality experiences), but I also think it would be a mistake to fall for a reductionist model just because it is more tangible. We have to question everything and see what is better for us and for the world. Like dennis mckenna said in a talk, "dont believe what the shamans tell you, dont believe what science tells you, dont believe what the mushrooms tell you."


My answers dont tackle on the real nature of the experience, but I think anybody who claimed so would only be making assumptions.

 

[polytrip]

The question 'how do we know what's real?' is as old as mankind.
Traditionally, western philosophy is divided on this question in two mainstream philosophical directions; rationalism and empiricism. The rationalists say it's with the use of logic, we can determine what's real and what's not, we can find out what the world is like by logical enquiry. The empirists believe it's perception that tells us how things are.
Each of the two answers has it's shortcomings.
The german philosopher imanuel kant tried to combine the two, but eventualy he didn't succeed in answerring the question either.

I think that through evolution, the human brain evolved in such a way that it initially corresponds to impulses with simple reflexes, but that not only are neural pathways gradually being build during these reflexes but also new reflex-mechanisms are being develloped, based on the initial ones. Information that is similar with the information, processed during the first reflexes will be processed in the same areas, but because of it's variation causse slighly different electrical patterns wich will causse slightly different neuronal activity and therefore wiring. So eventualy an entire neural network is being build, that is able to recognize information in a very detailed and atriculated manner according to resemblences with prior information.

This means that logical insights as well as perception are gradually being made possible and that logical axioms are being derived from sensory input, but that recognition is at the same time being derived from axioms; both perception and rational insights are being develloped at the same time and like the famous 'chicken and egg problem' caused or made possible by eachother. Everything you see is based upon logical conclusions your brain has drawn from the input coming from the eyes and every conclusion you make is based on experiences you've had.

There is a correspondence between what we see and experience, with the real world, so a simple correspondence model on determining what's real and what isn't is sufficient, but what's enabling us to determine that there is a correspondence, is not just our daily experiences but also our use of it. Pragmatism alone is a very superficial way of looking at the world and correspondence-theory is impossible to verify on it's own. But it is a combination of pragmatism with correspondence theory that can lead to the stablishing of facts.
The limitations of the human mind and the way it's impressions realy correspond with what's out there can be overcome by aknowledging the validity of the information in a pragmatic sense, knowing it's limitations.

 

[Garulfo]

I understand the psychological value of these substances but I don't want to focus on that end but more on the actual so called spiritual experience. Why is it spiritual? Why is it not just a disruption of the brains functioning?

There is no need to oppose "spiritual" and "disruption of the brains functioning". It can be in fact exactly the opposite : I find that "normal" brain functionning (note the quotes around "normal") is often associated with a lack of spirituality. It is probably needed for the normal brain to be disrupted in order to see and feel the spiritual side of life.

 

[polytrip]

I wouldn't want to associate normal brain functioning with a lack of spirituality, nor disruption of the brain with spirituality.
The question about the difference between plain insanity and the mystical experience is a very legitimate one, though.
No matter how heavenly psychedelic experiences may seem, or how important, any disregard of the 'real world' would definately be a mistake. And if someone is in a state of mind where any functioning in the real world would be impossible ( i'm not talking about dreaming or a heavy dose of DMT ) would be closer to insanity than to a spiritual experience.
What i mean is that, for instance many people on this forum believe in elves and hyperspace. This is just something we could have a discussion on, but in the end it's just something you believe in or not. If on the other hand, people would start to believe that the elves could make them fly in THIS world and people would attempt to 'fly' from tall buildings, bridges or mountains, then someone is in a state of belief that clearly conflicts with the matters of fact in this 'real world' and this beliefs are at that moment in time a clear obstruction to any awarenes of and functioning in the real world. To such a degree even, that someones very existence in this 'real world' is likely to end or become extremely painfull.
Spiritual states of mind could lead to death or personal suffering as wel, but when this is the case, this is always a choice. For instance when Ghandi went on hungerstrike, this was such a choice. When he would have believed that he simply wouldn't need food anymore and then eventualy be struck with surprise, because he would still get hungry, then he would have been more insane tham insightfull.

 

[Garulfo]

Well, I need to clarify that by "normal brain functioning" I meant normal ego functionning in normal egocentism mode.
Also I do not associate seeing entities with spirituality (whatever the 'source' of that entities, insanity or hallucinogens)

 

[burnt]

cool glad for the replies all will take me a bit to read and think through. SWIM just had interesting pharmahuasca experience this weekend gives SWIM lots to process hehe.

 

[burnt]

Whats real and whats not we cant know.. Maybe as william blake said, ´everything possible to be believed is an image of truth", so it´s all real.. Maybe consensus reality and current science have got it. Maybe there´s ´something out there´. But to me it doesnt make much of a difference, what matters is the ´how its dealt with´, as said above.

I see what you mean about how people incorporate or deal with these experiences plays an important role in their influence on an individual and society.

and I dont think we can say that psychosis, meditation and drugs do the same to the brain..

Sorry I was not clear about this I mean that they are all similar in that their manifestations are all a result of brain functioning. Or well could be.

and then here we come to the ´brain/consciousness´ question. First of all, are all signals exactly the same? Its all an electric impulse yes, but what about differences in possible fire rates? I mean, if you think about it, in the internet or telephone or whatever, all the impulses are also the same, some current flowing through a wire, but the patterns in the ´firing´ make a whole world of difference in the message.

Yes thats correct I dont think I was clear there either. The ion signal itself is similar between most neurons but it varies in intensity and rate and where it goes and where it comes from. Also the neurotransmitters in neurons and receptors of course vary. And yes it is the sum of signals that makes significant messages.

BUT.. do you notice how we cannot go from a positive relationship to a cause and effect inference without making a big leap of faith, a supposition? Sure it all shows up in the brain, when a subjective experience is happening but does that say anything about the essential nature of consciousness? It only positively says that the brain modulates the experience, but it does not say that it CAUSES it.. So if a certain area of the brain lights up during a certain spiritual experience, this does not necessarily mean that the part of the brain caused the experience

Exactly thats where the confusion comes into my mind. Basically is consciousness all a result of brain function (ie. is the mind completely contained within our bodies) or is consciousness more then that is the brain leaky?

I think it is a mistake when people completely ´believe´ their drug experiences (or even their consensus reality experiences), but I also think it would be a mistake to fall for a reductionist model just because it is more tangible. We have to question everything and see what is better for us and for the world. Like dennis mckenna said in a talk, "dont believe what the shamans tell you, dont believe what science tells you, dont believe what the mushrooms tell you."

Excellent piece of advise. This is where I am essentially stuck in my beliefs about what is going on with these experiences.

What i mean is that, for instance many people on this forum believe in elves and hyperspace. This is just something we could have a discussion on, but in the end it's just something you believe in or not.

This again sums up what I am trying to ask. Is it real or not? I also came to one conclusion that its what I believe in or not but then being the scientifically minded person I am I couldn't let it rest at that and hence why I ask.

I meant normal ego functionning in normal egocentism mode.
Also I do not associate seeing entities with spirituality (whatever the 'source' of that entities, insanity or hallucinogens)

This distinction makes sense.



Ok so to summarize. I think most of us agree that how one incorporates an other worldly or altered state of consciousness into their life helps define it as spiritual or insane (ie. beneficial or dangerous). Something along those lines anyway.

So now what is the nature of consciousness given what we as a species think we know? We must understand consciousness to understand reality or the other way around?

I think of consciousness as a continium. But again I will come at it from my reductionist scientific viewpoint (although I am very open to other possibilities and would like to here others!). So we have system capable of recognizing and remembering stimuli and building a picture of reality based on that. Plants I would not consider conscious yet in this system but any organism with some kind of a nervous system I would. Plants and other organisms that lack nervous systems only rely on chemical communication but they have no way of forming a network or memories and data like organisms with nervous systems do. The more brain you have and the more that brain is doing stuff the more conscious an organism is. Certain substances or physical states can change this obviously. But consciousness could be something more then that and again that comes back to the is the brain leaky idea? Any thoughts? Am I making sense?

 

[polytrip]

I don't see a problem with the reductionist model. I also don't see a problem with taking much of 'consensus reality' for granted. There IS someting, and since our behaviour is like a constant test to the limits of our reality, there also must be a link somehow between our ideas and what's 'out there'. For instance, if crocodiles would be not simply predators, but just evil beings, and they would kill solely for this reason. this would conflict with the current 'model' on crocodiles, but not too far. The predictions on crocodile behaviour, made with both models show a high correspondence. SOMETHING in the real world does correspond with the data our model is based on. And when you think of it, even a cartesian evil spirit would be bound to this principle as long as you have the feeling that reality, dreamt or not, is stil tangible. As long as you keep the limitations of the 'consensus reality' model in mind, you can trust it at least to be partly true.

When modern science would have reached it's limits, would be complete, we would still have these questions though.
In the end there is a wall we stumble into. When we have reached the tiniest particle and this goes for particles of matter as much as for particles of thought, consciousness, there is no way of knowing what lies behind that wall, what's so to speak 'inside' those particles.

Maybe it's the programmer of 'the matrix' or maybe it's god. But that's where the reductionist model ends. End at the same time it's probably also where the answers to our questions lie.

 

[deedle-doo]

"Spiritual" is a state of mind that must be sensed. Because of this there are no spiritual experiences that are more 'authentic' than others. If it feels spiritual, it is. If you accept that spirituality is an emotional state, like joy or depression, then activating your spirituality with chemicals makes perfect sense. This is also why epileptic attacks lead to spiritual feelings. Another consequence of this is that spirituality is 100% personal: You and I can have the same experience and feel different emotions. For you it is spiritual, for me it is only scarry. So no experience is automatically spiritual for all people.

Science gave up describing how nature actually looks about 150 years ago. Nowadays we must be content to continually refine our models of nature. The question of whether a model with 100% predictive ability is an actual 1:1 mirror of nature is an unaswerable philisophical question. BUT, it wouldn't really matter. If a model has 100% predicive ability it is just as satisfying and usefull as a true knowledge of nature.

 

[polytrip]

Wel, if a model has a 100% (or nearly 100%) predictive ability, it's not just as useful as true knowledge of nature. It must also reflect nature somehow. Whether it's a 1:1 mirror is something else, but this counts for real, physical mirrors just as well.
The unanswerable part of the question is to wich extent it is a true reflection of nature, not if it is so at all.
Even in the scenario where for instance satan would posses our soul and make us believe that our model of the reality we live in is correct, he would have to feed us with impulses that precisely would fit our predictions and expectations. So something in his world, his side of the mirror so to speak, would still have to reflect our model.
That's why i sayed that on reality, i think a position somewhere in between the correspondence theory (our ideas correspond with reality) and pragmatism (When it's real to us it is just as good as real, whether it IS real or not) best answers the question how much certainty we can have on reality.
The fact that at this moment i'm not seeing 99.9% of all things happening in front of my very own eyes, do not dismiss the 0.1% of all things i do see.
When i play the piano with my eyes closed, it's not a coincidence that i'm hearing the note's i expected to hear before i pressed a key. The picture in my head of all possible tones and scales may be far from compleed, there are tonal systems with far more then 12 notes for instance. But i know what i'm doing and this is not an illusion.

I agree that you cannot call the experience of one person more authentic than that of another person (from your own experiences you can make the distinction) since we do not know how something he/she experiences resonates with his personality and current state of mind and so on. Although i think that you could maybe say that IF someone would experience something, the way you experience something you see as a spiritual experience, that this would then have to be a spiritual experience for him/her as well.

 

[deedle-doo]

Wel, if a model has a 100% (or nearly 100%) predictive ability, it's not just as useful as true knowledge of nature. It must also reflect nature somehow. Whether it's a 1:1 mirror is something else, but this counts for real, physical mirrors just as well.
The unanswerable part of the question is to wich extent it is a true reflection of nature, not if it is so at all.
. . .

That's why i sayed that on reality, i think a position somewhere in between the correspondence theory (our ideas correspond with reality) and pragmatism (When it's real to us it is just as good as real, whether it IS real or not) best answers the question how much certainty we can have on reality.

Totally. You have to have a touch of uncertainty built in for science to progress. You must question models. At the same time you must utilize other available models to construct the tools necessay for novel observations that can refine or refute a model of nature.

We humans will never have true reality in our beautifull imaginations. Maybe the organic chemist is agood example. This human can visualize molecules productively. He can predict the flow of electrons around and between molecules and model reaction chemistry. It works, however, small molecules do not actually 'look' like anything. They do not interact with enough light. So the structures drawn by the chemist are real but they are forever distinct from the actual objects they represent.

We have to reduce reality to the level of our sensory modalities but this by no means limits us to what our modalities naturally perceive. I think maybe psychadelics open up the ability to cram more and more abstractions up your sensory modalities.

 

[deedle-doo]

Although i think that you could maybe say that IF someone would experience something, the way you experience something you see as a spiritual experience, that this would then have to be a spiritual experience for him/her as well.

IMO this is kind of a loop because "the way you experience something" is what defines whether the experience is spiritual or sad or erotic or whatever.

I think we could say that two people with very similar spiritual responses to a broad range of experiences would both find some new experience spiritual.

 

[Garulfo]

Would you agree about one definition, saying that spirituality is "a sense of wonder that you ARE" ?
It is not an emotion, it is not a thought, it is... a realization. As long as someone is busy with everyday's thoughts or feelings or needs, he is stucked in a kind of self-made cage. I am not speaking about thinking : "ah dude, of course I am, are you fooling me !".
I am trying to put into (weak) words the wonder of "I AM".
"I AM" which is always there but which we are usualy not (what a sentence !) because we use to be the cage.
Events, disasters, illness, strong emotions, drugs,(...) may temporary remove the cage and let the wonder revealing itself. There is no gradation here, there is no levels like there could be levels of sadness, guilt, anger, joy, happyness...
When I AM is revealed, it can be followed by profound joy or by profound fear. It is a great temptation to transform it in a system, in rules, in laws (-> religions). We need 'proofs' because our brain is built up to handle cause-effects relationships.
In a certain way, everything is spiritual because everything can reveal the wonder that you ARE.
However I must say that althougth I had read many 'spiritual books' and met some 'spiritual masters', the cage had to be seriously shaked by DXM, Salvia, Shrooms, DMT... in order to let "I AM" smiling a bit. But that's just me and my iron ego.

 

[polytrip]

What i meant with 'the loop', and yes you are right about it being a totally invalid argument, being put this way, is that i think that spiritual experience is more or less the same thing to everybody. I think we all have this 'spiritual-mode' function in our brains. The stimuli needed to induce this state, are not the same for each person though.
So i think almost everybody can reach this same state of mind, but the things needed for this are different for each.

 

[ohayoco]

I agree with the distinction between what is beneficial and what is damaging to describe the difference between spirituality and insanity. To some people, their religion is spiritual and sane. To others, a religion such as scientology is insane- a cult that demands all from its members and attacks and damages those who oppose it. I would go further, personally, and call the three big Abrahimic religions insane for their unjustified intolerance of 'deviants' such as entheogen users (=witchcraft), women and homosexuals (the old testament is both sexist and homophobic). Buddhism is insane to me, because of its defeatist attitude that everything-is-an-illusion-so-let-them-chop-you-up-into-little-pieces, that mirrors the Christian turning-the-other-cheek. Both of these outlooks are not useful because in reality they lead only to the follower's oppression, which is why these religions were encouraged by the elites, and opposed by Marxism. To others, these beliefs are not insane, but comforting and stabilising... although I will never understand how people can believe something without some convincing proof- doubt is the most important tool of a philosopher or scientist.

The common perception of what is insane versus what is spiritual is a product of the 'conventional wisdom' of a culture. Our culture thinks that people who hallucinate with drugs are druggys and people who hallucinate without are mad- the difference being that the 'mad' don't need drugs for their brains to perceive differently from what is currently considered the 'healthy' norm. This is a significant difference.

As far as how the actual experiences FEEL, they're all variations of the same thing and the question is just whether the experience is helpful or not. My foaf's aunt has felt insane on LSD and shrooms before, but spiritual on salvia and mimosa/rue. Salvia and mimosa/rue have induced 'madness' while on them (strange actions/beliefs and depression respectively) but it felt real and spiritual at the time, which perhaps equates to how some 'insane' 'delusional' people feel.

In terms then of those who CAN function reasonably in society despite having what some may consider 'delusions': capitalist culture only acknowledges that which makes money, because profit is the only goal of the market systems that shape our social structure. Anything else is sidelined. A televangelist makes money, despite being crazy in many people's eyes, so is legitimised. A street preacher doesn't, so is ignored, and considered mad. If Jesus was around today, most people would consider him insane. Most people did 2000 years ago too!

We are perceptual beings, so to us, what we experience IS real, exactly because we experienced it. Everything else is unknowable, its true nature (if it has a true nature at all) determined only by common consensus. I think that the actual feeling of spirituality equates to 'Dasein', Being, an existential moment of realisation, much like a Eureka moment of inspiration. Some people like to get this feeling by inducing a trance through hours of prayer, others prefer perceiving something more tangible through the use of entheogens.

To me, spirituality is a product of evolution, of traits that enabled our ancestors to survive. We are programmed to be curious, so we ask big questions. We are programmed to find reasons for why things happen, so we make up explanations that would now be termed spiritual when we don't have scientific ones. We are programmed to be determined, so when something seems out of our power we try new ways of controlling our environment (prayer, rain dances etc). We are programmed to search for love, so we look for it unconditionally through god if we don't get enough from those around us. We are programmed to survive, so we will for eternal life. That could well be all there is to it. Or there could be more. Whichever way, many people need it, possibly one reason why religious people are happier than atheists. Perhaps entheogens are the 'cure' for atheism? A tangible spiritual experience, without the need to believe.

 

[burnt]

To me the word spiritual or the notion of spirit implies something beyond nature. I do not think there is anything above or beyond the natural universe (or multiple universes infinite who knows but does it matter?) and hence why I have trouble calling ANYTHING a spiritual or mystical experience. I have had experience that fit in with the definition of what we would call a spiritual experience but there was nothing above or beyond nature about most of them (the ones I consider real). The unity of all things can be found by just studying how things are connected in so many fundamental ways. I think thats what some scientists have meant when they say science is a mystical endevour.

We have gotten on this topic of consensus reality and how all reality is different for all organisms experiencing it and many seem to believe that since one experiences something it must be real. But no one has answered when we see water in the desert and it turns out to be a hallucination then the hallucination was not real. Is anyone going to really claim that the pond of water was there? No not even the person who hallucinated it (assuming they survived). It was a trick of the brain there was no water there! Why do we consider spiritual or mystical experiences to be above and beyond mere hallucinations???