A serious discussion about the nature of mystical experiences

[polytrip]

The self is mentioned as, when stripped from all it's unnessecary atributes, the ultimate subject.
When you would consider the self as a naturally looping-phenomenon, it would make sense though, to say it can be both object and subject at the same time.
But ofcourse self-reflection has to be essential then.

 

[Garulfo]

was negative or positive then the aspects that are positive or negative are the result of psychological functions because the "spirit" is indifferent

.

Ok, agree. The negative or positive aspect is related to the 'psychological' state. By "spiritual" experience, I understand "an experience which is related to our spiritual nature", not judging if it is positive or negative. Harsh experiences can be spiritual (althought I tend to avoid them :roll: )

 

[blue_velvet]

Harsh experiences can be spiritual (althought I tend to avoid them :roll: )

Masochists would cherish such experiences. Ell oh ell.

 

[gosvami]

I highly recommend this lecture for all the guys, which try to get a deeper perception of the relationship between conscious and material world.

 

[burnt]

^^awesome thanks for the paper. Will check it out.

Any got a bit lost at where we were at in this discussion but its been fun. Good points made about the brain and its visual cortex by deedle doo. I picked up an excellent neurochemistry text recently (I need to know this stuff for my real life too :roll: ) has some interesting things to say about consciousness and some of the recent advances science has made in understanding it. I'll read it over again and if it has anything interesting/new that we haven't discussed I'll post it.

 

[blackclo]

I posted this a while ago but I recommend checking out this lecture from A Buddha Grandmaster. It literly covers a ton of amazing spiritual info such as:

* The Third eye and it's development (very descriptive, talking about the many levels of spiritual vision)

* Supernatural abilities (clarvoyance, retrocognition, precognition, telekenisis etc)

* Going beyond the 5 elements and the 3 realms

* Other dimensions (this part talks about different space times in different dimensions, entities, the multiverse, and so much more)

* Spirit possesion and entity attachments

* Ancient History of man

* Aliens

* Energy channels and how to strengthen then

* Turning primordial Chi into High Energy Matter

That's only some of the stuff I can remember but theres a heap more. After listening to this it helps answer many questions about all sorts of spiritual matters. It's quite a long lecture (over 10 hours) but it's split into 2 hour mp3's so it's easy to digest a bit at a time.

The simalarities between what this GrandMaster talks about And DMT are stounding. Although I feel that what he has to say and his methods are a safe, true and permenant way to enter these places.

Check it out here:

Lecture 1 http://media1.minghui.org/media/dafa/en_mp3/128/128-L1.mp3

Lecture 2 http://media1.minghui.org/media/dafa/en_mp3/128/128-L2.mp3

Lecture 3 http://media1.minghui.org/media/dafa/en_mp3/128/128-L3.mp3

Lecture 4 http://media1.minghui.org/media/dafa/en_mp3/128/128-L4.mp3

Lecture 5 http://media1.minghui.org/media/dafa/en_mp3/128/128-L5.mp3

Lecture 6 http://media1.minghui.org/media/dafa/en_mp3/128/128-L6.mp3

Lecture 7 http://media1.minghui.org/media/dafa/en_mp3/128/128-L7.mp3

Lecture 8 http://media1.minghui.org/media/dafa/en_mp3/128/128-L8.mp3

Lecture 9 http://media1.minghui.org/media/dafa/en_mp3/128/128-L9.mp3

 

[burnt]

Thanks for the links again will have to check them out when SWIM has time.

Anyway I have gotten the lecture posted by gosvami and I am already running into some issues with the author.

He talks a lot about the copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics and explains how his MUI theory is consistent with it. I can see that and yes his theory on the surface seems to be consistent with this well accepted interpretation of quantum mechanics, but I think his interpretation of the interpretation is going to far. Quantum mechanics seems to imply that no subatomic event happens until its observed which is fine (I can't really get into a detailed mathematical discussion of this because I simply don't understand that kind of math at all). But lets think about what an observer actually is. When people detect subatomic events they aren't observing anything machines are. We as observers are observing the result of many billions and billions of quantuam mechanical events these machines are designed to detect the smallest ones possible (down to plank length). This author implies that quantum mechanics requires conscious observers and that I don't see how he can claim that. Does anyone else see what I mean? Many scientists and spiritual leaders take this observation by particle physicists and takes it to mean that our consciousness makes these events happen. I think that is taking a giant leap forward with very little evidence to confirm it. Unless I am missing something? I still believe these events can happen regardless of consciousness because although we call it an observer anything can be an observer one subatomic particle interacts with another particle the other particle is the observer. I would agree that quantum mechanical events happen only when observed by what is observing them does not need to be conscious.

He also makes the argument that since physicalist science has not explained how consciousness arises from non conscious physical material that we need another theory. Yes hes correct other theories are fine but to make another theory one needs evidence he doesn't really provide any evidence except some mathematical framework for how conscious observers could construct physical objects that works with both theories physicalist and his MUI! Although I respect him for pointing out ways to further validate this theory and it should still be investigated of course. However I still don't buy it. Maybe I am being stubborn like as he quoted Einstein "do you really believe the moon is not there unless its being observed"? It is of course difficult to say yes its not there when I or anybody else is looking at it. But I still think its there. This author and many others are perhaps misinterpreting the copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. Observer = anything and everything without a need for consciousness and the copenhagen interpretation is still valid (I think). I see nothing about the theory that implies the observer needs to be conscious or that consciousness is what makes events happen. Its worth looking into but so far its just an idea.

 

[Garulfo]

I see nothing about the theory that implies the observer needs to be conscious or that consciousness is what makes events happen.

For what I understood/remembered from article about quantics, a particle is affected by the 'measure', whatever that measure is, from a mechanism or from a conscious entity, it does not matter.

 

[polytrip]

I see nothing about the theory that implies the observer needs to be conscious or that consciousness is what makes events happen.

For what I understood/remembered from article about quantics, a particle is affected by the 'measure', whatever that measure is, from a mechanism or from a conscious entity, it does not matter.

Indeed.
It comes down to particles being a range of different posibility's at the same time. Interaction with anything will determine wich of those possibility's is being realized.
Multi-dimensionality plays partly with the idea of different types of 'context' determining the outcome of this. So from our material dimension, when something behaves as 'X', this could be 'Y' to other material dimensions.

 

[burnt]

You know the more SWIM keeps thinking about his experiences with these substances the more SWIM is having trouble rationilizing it with his rational sober mind. It makes very much sense while its happening. SWIM doesn't know if he still holds the same opinions anymore about it all being in the head or well a figment of imagination.

Specifically last time SWIM did pharmahuasca SWIM found himself having a debate with whatever entity was out there about whether or not its real. SWIM felt like he offended it not intentionally maybe it wasn't offended SWIM doesn't know but the rest of the trip SWIM was convinced because it was so powerful. But then again when the sober mind comes back that fades.

Maybe SWIM should stop debating with everything and just listen?

The universe is a strange place...

 

[Cheeto]

"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"


Well, i don't know much about the brain, but when you take a hit of DMT or have an OBE or whatever the case, dosen't brain activity increase alot? If so, when activity is icreased that means your brain is processing more information correct? I can see your point though, with alot of the extra drug present in the brain that could be were the extra information is comming from, but what you see is not really explainable because what you see is not random. If it were just a drug reaction, it would never carry meaning would it, it would be random shapes, which is part of the trip, maybe thats what causes that part of the trip, but how does a random visual interact with you? Or the more crazy thing, how would 2 people manage to be able to see the same visuals at the same time if its just a random drug reaction, weather natural or smoked? I've had 2 crazy OBE's, one on acid and one on nothing. Both were the same, what i consider a real OBE, both times i just flew straigh out, it felt like i was only vision, had no body, but i was in this world, everything looked just as it would if i were looking through my eyes, both times when i realized i was not in the right spot i snaped back to my body. In that case there is not random patterns at all, everything looks normal other than my position of sight compaired to where my body is. Then also there is remote viewing, if what you see during one of these disruptions is an actual event taking place in the physical world, then surely its not just a fake image created by the mind. I'm sure thats not what you where trying to say, i'm just giving you other things to think about. I really want to here your thoughts on the Remote Viewing, and how you might be able to fit that in to your theory.

 

[Cheeto]

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 ...... 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...."

Your assuming to much, though i have never seen anyone fly, that dosent mean that people could not learn to fly. Because you truly don't know, you can never honestly dismiss it. Imagine humanity evolveing and more commonly usig TK, picture what TK is, you can move things with your mind, well, you exist so i assume you could also move yourself, thus flying, not by wing, but by overcoming gravities pull on you. You may think this will never happen, but as we evolve more people do seem to take interest in all different so called special talents. We now have physcic's helping police solve crimes, must be real if it really helps the police. So we have plenty of room to grow, what if the aliens didn't tell you that you could fly, maybe they showed you how to lift yourself with kenetic energy, maybe when you got back to the Real-World you remebered and used this energy to fly. I really doubt anyone would here a visual tell them they could fly, and instead of trying to fly straight up they decide to try for the first time by jumping off a building, come one, people aren't that dumb.

 

[Cheeto]

"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???"

That ones easy for me to explain, how can you relate i trick to the eyes to a hallucination?? Thats not a hallucination, thats you seing a glair and asumming its water and finding out its not. Like say you see a sign that has an eight on it, you get closer and see that really its a 9, would you consider that a hallucination, or a mistake in identification because of some other factor, weather a refflection of light or not being close enough to see the whole picture.

 

[burnt]

^^good point and maybe I did not pick the best example. But there are clearly cases of people hallucinating under extreme circumstances. The point I was trying to make is if we disregard those situations as mere hallucinations why do we consider mystical experiences more real when they are also tied in with abnormal brain behavior.

 

[Cheeto]

^^good point and maybe I did not pick the best example. But there are clearly cases of people hallucinating under extreme circumstances. The point I was trying to make is if we disregard those situations as mere hallucinations why do we consider mystical experiences more real when they are also tied in with abnormal brain behavior.

I see what you are saying. What if its not actually having the hallucinations that creates the experince, but more that the hallucinations help your mind unfocus from your body, allowing you to separate from body to experince the mystical things. Like with meditation you skip the hallucinations and go straight to seperation and have the mystical experience. With acid you hallucinate heavily, but that dosen't mean you'll have a mystical experience, unless your dose is strong enough to seperate your mind from body. Perhaps thats why DMT is so effective for the mystical experiences, because of how intense it is, it quickly gives you the seperation that leads to the mystical experience. If you will notice, i'm not completely sure, but i think in most cases of mystical experience you are in fact not aware of you body, which is why i think its not the hallucinations that is the true cause, but more the seperation. What do you think?

As far as it being tied with abnormal brain activity, that just means you strayed from normal, which makes sence because your doing, or experincing, something new, out of the norm. Dosen't really mean that its dysfunctioning, or operating in error, being that dysfunctioning means to function abnormaly, i guess the best way to put it is just because its abnormal dosent mean its error. Normal only stands for the typical results. Like me for example, were i live, my views and ideas are abnormal from others around me, but that dosent mean i'm incorrectly thinking, it just mean i'm thinking differently.

I have to say, i love this site. All the different views, theorys, and debates. Props to everyone for sharing your views. Without them we can only think to ourselfs, possibly getting stuck because of no new ideas flowing in, Weather you agree with what your reading or not, it still makes you think and further analyze, possible showing you another view you may like.

 

[Cheeto]

I just had another thought, say when your hallucinating your brain is working in error. But when you have a mystical experince it could actually not have anything to do with the brain. Many people including me would agree to say that life exist beyond the physical, life after death, in the case where there is no brain involved yet you still perceive. Myabye the mind/body seperation isn't seperating your mind from your body, but maybe your soul is being seperated from your mind and body, thus the mystical experince comes from you perceiving outside of the brain all together. Just a thought.

 

[Cheeto]

Another funny thing is, i have had a crazy OBE(Only once/non drug induced or intended), where it appeared that i just moved forward. My vision was the same as seeing with my eyes, but i could not haer, i did not have any kind of body(vision only), but felt weightless/floating. It felt very real, not a dream like event at all, and my memory of the hole experince, even out of body, is very vivid, just as i'm typing this i can recal it. Making the multidimensional theory believable to be on the right path. Meaning that once you seperate from mind and body you have many places you can be, including the phyisical world we all see as well as the mystical world/worlds people experience. Not really depending on what method was used to get there, weather it be meditation, drug induced, life threatening/shock, or anything else. Though i do find it interesting how you can remeber something that is being perceived outside of the brain. There must be some connection with the brain still for this to be correct, its mind fucking really, because for life after death to be true, you have to also be able to perceive without a brain. And ghosts seem to be an example that that is correct, being that you can see from all the reports, atleast a small fraction could be truth, and to personaly experince the phenomonae adds to your trust in that idea. I guess the soul is the key, it can possibly perceive Mutiple places with some part of it still being stationary. I don't know, it really is complex to think about. But maybe that also shows its on the right path to a degree, nature does tend to repeat its self, and most things in nature look simple at first, but then tend to be so complex that we can't fully understand it.

 

[jamie]

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.

...you said it..

 

[burnt]

I just had another thought, say when your hallucinating your brain is working in error. But when you have a mystical experince it could actually not have anything to do with the brain. Many people including me would agree to say that life exist beyond the physical, life after death, in the case where there is no brain involved yet you still perceive. Myabye the mind/body seperation isn't seperating your mind from your body, but maybe your soul is being seperated from your mind and body, thus the mystical experince comes from you perceiving outside of the brain all together. Just a thought.

Instead of error lets just say different. But yes all this implies that there is something beyond your physical body / brain and all the energy that you are made up of and interacting with. I am still not convinced such a thing is real, or well that there is such thing as a soul. I think so far all mystical experience can potentially be explained by the inner workings of the mind. Maybe not though we have not yet looked that deep.

Another funny thing is, i have had a crazy OBE(Only once/non drug induced or intended), where it appeared that i just moved forward. My vision was the same as seeing with my eyes, but i could not haer, i did not have any kind of body(vision only), but felt weightless/floating.

SWIM has had drug induced OBE with ketamine a number of times. However SWIM is also wondering did SWIM actually leave SWIMs body or was it that the brain lost so much of its normal communication with its body (in terms of perceptual awareness) that the consciousness of SWIM then thinks its separated from the body but its actually not. Its a tough question but certainly worth looking deeper into.

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./quote]

But could we still derive answers by looking not at things in reductionist sense but by looking at the big picture that will develop from knowledge that is gained by the reductionist model?

 

[burnt]

Oh boy this discussion got dug up

I explain the nature of junk DNA in your other thread. It serves to regulate other genetic material as well as to hide it from potential damage. At least thats the working theory. There could be more functions but there is no direct evidence that is contains some weird language only accessable in drug states. Please back that up.

The second possibility, which goes back to the thinking of Francis Crick. Its not a widely known fact that Crick was under the influence of LSD when he discovered the double-helix structure of DNA and that this supreme achievement of scientific rationalism, for which he won the Nobel Prize, came to him in an altered, even mystical state of consciousness.

Hallucinogens can help one visual complex structures in the minds eye. SWIM does it all the time with complicated work. Francis Crick was well on his way to discoverying the structure he already had ideas and numbers running around. LSD may have helped him see the big picture and connect some dots but thats normal.

The brain is fundamentally a receiver of consciousness, not simply a generator of consciousness. To function in the everyday world, our brains have to be set at a certain wavelength, and have to stay pretty much tuned in to that wavelength, like a TV tuned into a channel. But a variety of means exist (most of them long ago harnessed and exploited by shamans) by which we can change the receiver wavelength (vibrational frequency) of our brains and pick up other realities which are not normally present in our daily perceptions, but are in fact there. So we can reach other dimensions that way, not through some sort of mechanistic fantasy of 21st century technology, but simply through retuning our consciousness - and perhaps thats what these shamanic hallucinogens do.

As far as I know there is still just as much validity to the claim that the brain generates consciousness. I believe that we can see different aspects of reality by changing our brain. But its difficult to claim that our brain is purely a receiver of consciousness. This needs to be backed up also. The brain and consciousness are important in determining our picture of reality and perhaps in even generating that picture. We may access other dimensions by altering our brain we simply don't know yet. Our mechanistic fantasies might find those dimensions. Its not just some weird fantasy.