A serious discussion about the nature of mystical experiences

[Garulfo]

Why do we consider spiritual or mystical experiences to be above and beyond mere hallucinations???

Because hallucination is just... an hallucination
An hallucination is a visual input perceived by the consciousness. The spiritual experience is related to the consciousness, the subject, not the object. I had spiritual experiences with Salvia which is hardly visual, and many overwhelming visual experiences with the spice, very pleasant and aesthetic... but not spiritual.

I use the word 'spiritual' as all what is closely related to the ultimate subject. But the word 'soul' is probably closer to that definition. Both words are connected tough.

I can't say if the ultimate subject is above or beyond nature. Some mystical (or spiritual) experience's memories may suggest that nature is 'included in' or created by the subject.

 

[polytrip]

Well, you can also see hallucinations as a metafor, for real things in life. That's where they differ from the 'fata morgana' thing, that's just caused by heated air. Dreams and psychedelic experiences are not caused by something outside of you, but by something inside.
That's where their possible relevance lies.

 

[burnt]

I certainly see the relevence of the hallucination or vision or sensation as it comes from some part of the mind. Kind of like a dream but of course very different.

What is meant by the ultimate subject? Like the ultimate truth? (just want to make sure I understand the term)

I would say the ultimate must include nature otherwise its just hocus pocus which I can't bring myself to believe in nor would I want to.

So another question is all the information obtained under the influence of psychedelics internal? Meaning does it all come from within you the individual based on your past experience memories etc as well as the sensory stimuli entering you at the moments of the psychedelic experience? If thats the case then the entities are not real just manifestations of the mind kind of like entities in dreams. If their is infact external information coming from different dimensions or levels of reality then maybe they are real?

 

[polytrip]

Well, i don't know if alien beings are thát real. The question on whether it's all just internal i look at this way; it not just goes back to our own personal memories and so on, but also to the basic functioning of the brain, consciousness and the very concept of 'reality itself'. Those are things of more universal value and i would say that these things themselves in their turn, go back to even more universal principles. In the end it might be traced back to the very basic principles of 'structure', wich leads to dimensional properties of matter, of wich the existence is the precondition of all possible structures, the realm of possibilities and therefore of mathematics, logic and all that can be thought.
It is my personal intuïtion that the wall we stumble into, once we've come this far, wich is the riddle of the very existence of matter itself that cannot be answered by science, is a wall behind witch the answers to all these questions lie. And i believe that the energy that occupies this matter might be the force of life, of our consciousness, might even very well be consciousness itself. And maybe with that it ís the portal to other worlds, but like i said. We cannot look inside of it, scientifically. It is the wall you eventually bump into if you always keep asking;'why?'. The source of all the axioms that cannot be seen itself. Why ís a straight line in a euclidian space always the shortest route between any two given points? Why ís there anything and not just nothing? Why cán something not just be and not be, at the same time?

 

[burnt]

Why can it not be looked at scientifically? I see no reason why not. We are delving deeper into the structure of matter and energy then ever before with scientific methodology. I think subjective experience will lead to the dead end as it has for SWIM, while objective scientific study will be the break through.

 

[polytrip]

It can not be looked at in a scientific way. Or at least not in a traditional/contemporary scientific way. As science has always studied the constelations of particles, now we are talking about the very existence of those particles themselves. That's different. But at least i don't see a technical possibility (yet?), because these are the final particles, the smallest. They cannot be split, so we cannot study the 'composition' of them and since there are no smaller ones, they cannot be scanned. And since they cannot be split and so on, there cannot be looked inside of them. We cannot see what they're made of. They cannot be looked through, X-rayed. That's why it's a 'wall' science bumps into.
I think that the energy they're made of is consciousness itself but nobody would ever be able to proof this, so certainly not someone like me, with no intention of proving anything.
I only think this is so because the scientific model of consciousness is not only far from complete, but even if it would be completed ever (wich will never happen (heisenberg, gödel, etc)) it would be seripously flawed.
I can think of only two possibility's; or we don't have a consciousness at all and our brain creates the illusion of consciousness; or we do have a consciousness and then it is an eternal mystery because it's not just information processed by the brain. Because if that would be so than you would expect for instance a printout of the content of the brain to be conscious. Ofcourse you could argue that ink on paper is information of a different nature, but also information embedded in physical structures (a clockwork or something) would not be different from this.

 

[Garulfo]

What is meant by the ultimate subject? Like the ultimate truth?

No, ultimate truth (if such thing would have a meaning) would still be an 'object'. By ultimate subject I mean what you may experience with a high dose of DMT, when everything vanish (body, ego, thoughts...) but 'you' remain. That 'you' is not the common everydays's you, it is what allow the common you to believe it exists.

 

[burnt]

No, ultimate truth (if such thing would have a meaning) would still be an 'object'. By ultimate subject I mean what you may experience with a high dose of DMT, when everything vanish (body, ego, thoughts...) but 'you' remain. That 'you' is not the common everydays's you, it is what allow the common you to believe it exists.

I see what you mean. Its the me without any stimuli in a way? My mind unaware of anything my body ego etc..Basically the state you are in when undergoing 'ego death'?

But now why state that the common me does not exist? I think I see what you are implying much like polytrip that the true state is this baseline consciousness a sort of egoless awareness no?

It can not be looked at in a scientific way. Or at least not in a traditional/contemporary scientific way. As science has always studied the constelations of particles, now we are talking about the very existence of those particles themselves. That's different. But at least i don't see a technical possibility (yet?), because these are the final particles, the smallest. They cannot be split, so we cannot study the 'composition' of them and since there are no smaller ones, they cannot be scanned. And since they cannot be split and so on, there cannot be looked inside of them. We cannot see what they're made of. They cannot be looked through, X-rayed. That's why it's a 'wall' science bumps into.

Yes these are the smallest most fundamental building blocks of matter but there are still a few pieces missing. For example why does a given particle have a mass? What is responsible for mass? Thats a huge question that is being investigated with scientific methods and may soon be explained. I see what you mean that we cannot take it apart and make things any smaller once they are the smallest the uncertainty principle makes this very clear why. It still does not take away the ability of science to explain how the universe may have come into being how particles have mass and why what types of energy are involved etc.

But I think what you are saying is that science cannot tackle this one...

I think that the energy they're made of is consciousness itself but nobody would ever be able to proof this, so certainly not someone like me, with no intention of proving anything.
I only think this is so because the scientific model of consciousness is not only far from complete, but even if it would be completed ever (wich will never happen (heisenberg, gödel, etc)) it would be seripously flawed.

I think this is what its coming down too. Personally I see this as a possibility that consciousness is the fundamental building block of existence, matter and energy. I may only disagree that its unprovable. I need an explanation why its unprovable or uninvestigatable.

I can think of only two possibility's; or we don't have a consciousness at all and our brain creates the illusion of consciousness; or we do have a consciousness and then it is an eternal mystery because it's not just information processed by the brain.

The illusion you mean by like that we are alive and our brain makes this awareness based on all the information memories etc that we aquire in our lives? Why can we not have consciousness as strictly a result of brain function and it be a perfectly non illusion type thing? Why all the illusion? Is it impossible by what we now know from modern physics that a mind can exist only within the brain? Or are some people misinterpreting what modern physics is telling us?

If consciousness is not only information processed by the brain I still don't see why it cannot be studied?

So I am back at the same point I always end up in this kind of discussion. Consciousness a result of the brains functioning memories etc and contained within the brain and most likely gone at the time of death oooooooor consciousness is the fundamental building block of reality and existence? Does anyone else see it like this?

Why is one answer better then the other and what is more closer to the truth or are there other options?

By the way great discussion guys I am enjoying it very much.

 

[gosvami]

So I am back at the same point I always end up in this kind of discussion. Consciousness a result of the brains functioning memories etc and contained within the brain and most likely gone at the time of death oooooooor consciousness is the fundamental building block of reality and existence? Does anyone else see it like this?

Just exchange the word “ooooor” by the word “aaaaand” like a Dzogchen Buddhist would do. Then you got it!
But: there will be no need for this kind of discussions any longer, no way to enjoy such discussions, once you've done this: once you've realised, that there is no difference between "or" and "and"!
(The wise man is silent... )

 

[burnt]

yes that makes sense the two can be linked with an and also and yes I can see how one can say it doesn't matter either way. However as I do not yet see buddhist wisdom as correct yet I will continue to discuss. Wisdom from knowledge gained by ego death / meditative states I still think can be deluding.

I am going to quote Peter Russel because he does summarize the dichotomy well although I often don't agree with this conclusions. TWM there is the link

The Hard Question
As mentioned at the outset, the very existence of consciousness is an insurmountable anomaly for the current superparadigm. How can something as seemingly unconscious as matter ever lead to something as immaterial as consciousness. The two could not be more radically different. The philosopher David Chalmers has dubbed this the "hard question" facing any science of consciousness. Even if we were to fully understand the workings of the brain, down to the tiniest detail, it would still leave unanswered the question as to why any of it should result in a conscious experience? Why doesn't it all go on in the dark, without any subjective aspect?
The question that is apparently being asked is: How does the underlying reality ever gives rise to consciousness? But never being able to know the underlying reality directly, we are not really in any position to even ask this question, let alone answer it. Indeed, for all we know, consciousness may be an intrinsic quality of the underlying reality In which case there is no hard question to answer.
The question that is actually being asked is: How does the material world—the world of space, time and matter—give rise to consciousness? But this is trying to account for consciousness in terms that are themselves manifestations of consciousness. Space, time, matter, and all the forms and structures we observe in the world, are aspects of the phenomenon arising in the mind; they are aspects of the image of reality appearing in consciousness.
The question we should be asking is the exact opposite. How is that consciousness, which seems so non-material, can take on the material forms that we experience? How do space, time, color, sound, texture, substance, and the many other qualities that we associate with the material world, emerge in consciousness? What is the process of manifestation within the mind?
But this is not a question that science may ever be able to answer. It is more in the domain of the mystic, and others in the more contemplative traditions, who have chosen to explore the nature of consciousness first hand.

So as mentioned consciousness can be looked at as being a result of brain function while at the same time being the fabric of reality itself. We can look at is like its both I think thats more fitting then just saying its the fabric of reality and not a result of brain function. Or we can still look at it only one way that its purely a result of inanimate matter becoming aware with sufficient information to do so (ie a brain with memories sensory organs etc).

I think one way to prove what is and what isn't is perhaps through artificial intelligence. But how would anyone know that the intelligence is conscious? How does anyone know that anyone else we meet is really conscious? But anyway if an intelligent entity could be built out of completely inanimate material doesn't that show that consciousness is a result of material structural functioning? I guess it can still be looked at that that inanimate material is conscious but when its put together its more conscious or conscious to a level that we understand and can observe. So maybe that is not the best way to prove it.

However I still do not think the idea that consciousness is ONLY a result of brain function has been ruled out yet. What if consciousness is not non material and is in fact material? Much like a computer that stores information. The information is electronic our brain also uses electronic systems to relay information. How can we know that there is more then that?

Many use their own subjective experience to argue that consciousness is more then that (ie through mystical experiences) and my point is that those could be deluding. Any thoughts?

 

[Garulfo]

I see what you mean. Its the me without any stimuli in a way?

Somehow, I guess that "me" without any stimuli can not hold itself and therefore vanish like a smoke in the air.

My mind unaware of anything my body ego etc..Basically the state you are in when undergoing 'ego death'?

?? I guess so. 'ego death' is a rather subjective expression.

But now why state that the common me does not exist? I think I see what you are implying much like polytrip that the true state is this baseline consciousness a sort of egoless awareness no?

Yes, the ego is clearly an 'artificial' construction but that can not be experienced from the ego state.

Many use their own subjective experience to argue that consciousness is more then that (ie through mystical experiences) and my point is that those could be deluding. Any thoughts?

At some point during a mystical experience (and I rather prefer the word spiritual experience), there is a kind of understanding that do not need words. That understanding makes also clear that the standard state of consciousness can not handle that understanding :twisted:
But once in the standard state, only remain a slight memory of that challenging koan.
Maybe it is deluding but your can remember that it is not a symmetrical point of view but a hierarchical one. The best analogy I see is with the concept of a 2D creature trying to understand the point of view of a 3D one. Whatever the complexity and the intensity of thinking of that 2D creature (with its 2D neurons , it can just not know what is the 3D world. The opposite is not true, the 3D creature can 'reduce' its point of view to figure out what is the life of a 2D creature. Well, just an analogy to try to formulate non-symetrical understandings.

But the concept of artificial intelligence with consciousness is fascinating. I doubt this can be tried before hundred of years tough.

 

[blue_velvet]

This is all so fascinating. Tee hee hee.

I think that if one considered an experience (let's say DMT) as spiritual, then all other DMT experiences by that person would have to be considered spiritual as well. If "spirit" is defined as something benevolent then all experiences would be positive. However, I hardly find this possible.

I believe it was Terrence McKenna that said something to the effect of "We learn more from the bad trips." Now, this man was most definitely familiar with DMT as well as other entheogens. If the spirit, reality, absolute, infinite oneness, Brahman, etc. was consistent it wouldn't plant contrary evidence of it's existence. To show itself as a gentle, loving force at one point and as an evil malicious entity at another would be a contradiction of itself. Set and setting are supposedly everything. If this is true then specific hallucinations could be the result of set and setting.

I do believe in some kind of "force" or "absolute reality" comprised of infinite consciousness, but I don't believe that it would sell out to the Yin or the Yang. It really doesn't give a shit. If it's all "one" then all the war and famine and suffering are a part of it too. In this case I believe that these experiences are largely psychological. I would only consider something completely novel as "spiritual."

What difference does it make if you're on mushrooms and a green dot slides off the wall and splashes on the carpet? It might, however, make a big difference one of the circle's drops splashes into your brain and imparts information that you didn't contain beforehand. Hopefully, you would then question everything it "said" and think before you believe. This is why insane people are considered insane. They have no reference point. Luckily, we have sobriety to look forward to after these "spiritual" experiences.

 

[Garulfo]

I think that if one considered an experience (let's say DMT) as spiritual, then all other DMT experiences by that person would have to be considered spiritual as well. If "spirit" is defined as something benevolent then all experiences would be positive.

Spiritual does not obviously mean positive. I would rather oppose spiritual and material. But not material in the meaning of solid things, or 'the world', no, I mean material as a materialist, a subject only interrested about objects, forgetting what he is primarily: a subject.

If the spirit, reality, absolute, infinite oneness, Brahman, etc. was consistent it wouldn't plant contrary evidence of it's existence.

It seems that you see the spirit, absolute, infinite oneness... as an object which is of course contradictory with the word 'oneness'

To show itself as a gentle,

Again, "show itself" are attributes of an object. Something that would be external to you. YOU see IT if it show itself. Let's try to face there is no YOU and IT.

If it's all "one" then all the war and famine and suffering are a part of it too.

Indeed :idea:

In this case I believe that these experiences are largely psychological.

Uch, I hardly see how you came to that point !

 

[deedle-doo]

So I am back at the same point I always end up in this kind of discussion. Consciousness a result of the brains functioning memories etc and contained within the brain and most likely gone at the time of death oooooooor consciousness is the fundamental building block of reality and existence? Does anyone else see it like this?

Just exchange the word “ooooor” by the word “aaaaand” like a Dzogchen Buddhist would do. Then you got it!
But: there will be no need for this kind of discussions any longer, no way to enjoy such discussions, once you've done this: once you've realised, that there is no difference between "or" and "and"!
(The wise man is silent... )

Ha! I agree.
We live in a universe of a bunch of different kinds of elementary particles interacting via a handfull of forces. This is the earth the moon and the stars and it is you and me too. Carl Sagan introduced and popularized how this can be a profoundly spiritual feeling realization.
AND none of this could ever be apparent to you had you never been born. We live in punctuated perception bubbles that we drag around with our sensory organs. Our imaginations can span the history of the universe and can interact with clever observations to build models of great explanitory (and predictive) quality. All of this goes on inside the skull. These experiences are made for 'you' by your head. Everything in your universe is made of events that go on in your brain. This aspect of our situation is celebrated by many mystical traditions.

These things square because consciousness is singular. If you were born and lived in a box nobody would know you were alive. Your concoiusness is seperated from mine. Thus the web-forum. So my universe is created by my counsciousness but I don't create yours. Where would I find the time? :d

 

[deedle-doo]

I think one way to prove what is and what isn't is perhaps through artificial intelligence. But how would anyone know that the intelligence is conscious? How does anyone know that anyone else we meet is really conscious? But anyway if an intelligent entity could be built out of completely inanimate material doesn't that show that consciousness is a result of material structural functioning? I guess it can still be looked at that that inanimate material is conscious but when its put together its more conscious or conscious to a level that we understand and can observe. So maybe that is not the best way to prove it.

If an AI becomes councoius it will tell us. This be a fantastic demonstration that human consciousness emerges from fantastically complex interactions between neurons. However, this is allready largely aparent really. We know how a neuron works, we know how functional neuronal circuits work and we know about how purturbing these can change human concoiusness. Cool thing about headwounds is they teach us what our concoiusness is constructed of. People have gotten some whaced out injuries that change their concoiousness in reproducible and explainable ways.

 

[polytrip]

I don't doubt that a computer could be build, that posesses inteligence. I even find it plausible that a computer could be build that behaves, as if it where a conscious being. But the main mystery of it all, to me is not that we have certain capabilities, but that we can EXPERIENCE these things and all other things in live. That a computer could be build that could experience is something i don't believe. First (circle) because science does not yet understand what experience is, secondly because i think when we would understand it we could find out experience might be just something more than just data-processing.
We use computers as a metaphor, maybe because even to IT-specialists, a computer appears to be 'deus ex machina'. It's a little box, you can feed with information and then something 'magical' happens. But when we look at it rationally we can explain the magic. But experience is something that falls outside all we can explain, even if a computer would behave as if it where experiencing something.

 

[deedle-doo]

That a computer could be build that could experience is something i don't believe. First (circle) because science does not yet understand what experience is, secondly because i think when we would understand it we could find out experience might be just something more than just data-processing.

Science DOES understand what experience is. We can: 1. predict the experience of a subject given a specific stimulus. 2. Gerenerate experiences by manipulating neurons in a subject.

Vilayanur S. Ramachandran has done really pioneering work on visual perception over the last 10 years. His discoveries have made it clear that visual perception is due to the activation of very specialized perceptual circuits in the CNS. So when you see a rose one part of your brain detects all the horizontal edges, another part detect vertical edges, yet a third part detects the rpesence of red light. Part of the circuit goes though the hippocampus and draws on your memory. Other circuits take processed information from these perceptual circuits and feed the info into the frontal cortex for manifestation in conscoius awareness.

It's cool because it's totally modular. So if you ding your head just right you can screw up vertical edge detection or color perception alone without effecting the rest of the circuitry.

I think edge detection goes crazy when you expose a brain to exogenous tryptamines. You see edges where there are none. It's pretty. This informaiton is still sending a stream through your memory which can help organize these edges into a beautifull lotus flower or geodesic dome or whatever. Soemtimes the memory sub-circuit can be partially ablated under enough tryptamines. Ever felt like a common object, like a tree or a flower, looks so strange and otherworldy? Sometimes trhe subcircuit can connect up with other cortical cuicuits that manifest emotional responce. Ever looked at a common object and, all of a sudden, it becomes very emotionally/spiritually significant for no real reason?

Ramachandran and others are beginning to map the circuits that underly our ability to have spiritual experiences. If you lack these circuits (and some do) you cannot really feel spiritual experiences.

It does not lessen us if we aknowledge that we are made of the same stuff interacting with the same forces as the whole rest of the universe. This makes us seemlessly integrated into the universe and that's kinda cool. Maybe the whole thing is magical but there's nothing extra-specially magical about human concoiusness except maybe its complexity.

 

[polytrip]

I agree with the last remar. But not with the proposition that science does understand experience.
What you describe is how the brain REGISTRATES information.
But registration does not mean EXPERIENCE.
I sayed that i don't doubt that a computer could be build that acts as if it experiences. You feed the computer with data and something comes out of it that is an exact duplication of human behaviour or even the behaviour of any imaginary creature with a conscious mind.
But i would say that our consciousness is more than intelligence and instincts. More even than to know that we exist. You can tell a computer to know that it exists and it will say that it knows it exists.
But our self awareness is more then just the factual conclusion that we exist.
I do not think that when you tell a computer that every information it processes is real, so it knows that the information is real, this will mean the computer now it can registrate the information as 'real', is aware of what it processes.

 

[deedle-doo]

OK, lets follow the rose into conciousness in more detail.
You can always learn about these things yourself but ONLY if you can hope that these kinds of things can be understood. There is a kind of hubris in humanity where if we do not understand something fully we prefer to say that it forever beyond us. Really smart people once said this about animal herredity. some clamed that the 'germ-plasm' would be forever too complex for human beings. Well. . . We have totally smashed this question open and we're rapidly mastering the herreditary code.

So anyway. Back to the rose. So far the rose has come into my eye and this information was filtered and partially processed right above my ears in the lateral geniculate nucleus (LGN.) This is an ancient part of the brain that serves as a central hub of visual processing in all vertebrates. I think in salvia states you may be seeing more or less directly into your LGN. It is just a sea of continous visual informaiton with no distinctions or understanding and only very weak direct connections with memory centers.

I am not yet conscious of the rose yet even though I have been looking at it for almost one milisecond now. For concious awareness of the rose to occur this informaiton must be transmited to the visual cortex. This is at the very back of my head. Cortex is a vast wrinkled sheet made up of six layers of neurons. There are simple processing circuits that span the layers and connections between them across the cortex. The visual cortex is where concious awareness of visual stimuli occurs. Both the LGN and the visual cortex connect to memory and emotion centers which in turn send connections back to the visual cortex. This charges your visual field with meaning. So visual perception is 'registered' in the LGN and 'percieved' by the visual cortex. Connections to the frontal cortex give you awareness of perception. (Learning about this in a little more detail and then thinking about it under the influence is highly recommended btw. it can be very beautifull.)

This constructs a map of your current visual field across the surface of your cortex. If you removed your brain and stretched out the wrinkly cortex into a sheet and then you watched a movie I could see the movie beeing seen with electrical probes. (this kind of thing has been done in monkeys.)

Visual concsousness gives us the ability to analyze our environment in great detail, this is why it has been prepeadedly selected for in the vetebrate linneage over 350 million years. Simple vertebrates do not have well developed visual cortex. In these animals the LGN mostly projects directly to motor neurons. So for these guys Stimulus->response. We do not ordinarily operate this way. Allthough we've retained some direct connections between sensory and motor systems most of the connections flow through the cortex. This is how conscious awareness arises and it's why coincoius awareness can generate volition. Conscious awareness is generated and resides in the cortex. For us Stimulus->concious perception->response. There are connections from the visual cortex to other, poorly understood cortical centers that probablty underly things like spirituality and erotisism. Or maybe not for you. Maybe you don't get awestruck or horny based on what you see but by what you hear. Then we'd hypothesize that the connections between your visual cortex and these other places are weak but the connections with your auditory cortex are strong. Everyone's a little different inside.

I hope in the future serious work can be done with psycheldelics in connection with brain imaging techniques to help get at this. Imagng technology has come a LONG was since Strassman.

 

[blue_velvet]

Hi, Garulfo. You punched holes in my argument, so I'll just try again. Why not? It's a learning experience for me.

Spiritual does not obviously mean positive. I would rather oppose spiritual and material. But not material in the meaning of solid things, or 'the world', no, I mean material as a materialist, a subject only interrested about objects, forgetting what he is primarily: a subject...

In this case I believe that these experiences are largely psychological.

Uch, I hardly see how you came to that point !

Okay I made a stupid point, but basically I'm saying that the "spirit" is indifferent. If you "experienced" something that could be described as a consciousness not of our five sense reality and that experience was negative or positive then the aspects that are positive or negative are the result of psychological functions because the "spirit" is indifferent.

It seems that you see the spirit, absolute, infinite oneness... as an object which is of course contradictory with the word 'oneness'...

No, it's not. It's just an object of infinite proportions. A chair is finite, yet for it to be part of an "infinite consciousness" it too would have to be infinite, but it's not. We're bound by our perceptions.

Again, "show itself" are attributes of an object. Something that would be external to you. YOU see IT if it show itself. Let's try to face there is no YOU and IT.

Alright, do you understand how hard it is to describe the "actions" of something that is transcendent of the reality that we perceive around us yet "is" that reality? Sure, you do. I think there definitely is a YOU and IT. IT is YOU, but YOU are not IT. This would explain why we can experience a "spiritual" experience objectively and remember it, but the "spirit" would remain unchanged because the events that transpired always had. I use the term "always" loosely as IT doesn't experience time the way YOU or I do. I also use the term "experience" loosely as it doesn't "experience," but rather is "The Experience."

Also if this "hypothetical" infinite oneness, spirit, absolute, God, Allah, reality really is "infinite" then it couldn't possibly be experienced in it's entirety by a human or by anything other than "The Experience." If WE (humans) were to truly transcend space and time, WE wouldn't come back.

Bill Hicks mentioned "...one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively..."
If this has any truth to it, then we are the subjects experiencing one consciousness, but if we can't experience infinity, then we are experiencing it only through other subjects. This would include all spiritual experiences, hallucinations, people, animals...everything we can possibly perceive. So, I guess a spiritual experience is really quite far from an absolute reality and always will be until we reach infinity. Sure, it may be significant to a human, but hardly conclusive. Definitely not the whole God.