Neuroscience and the self

[Citta]

Neuroscience is an interesting and fast progressing field of science, and is concerned with questions connected to our conscious experience and the different contents of it. As you know, the field tries to explain these different phenomena through the structure and interactions of the brain instead of metaphysical speculations, and we've already learned a great deal.

But the question of how we preserve the notion and feeling of "self" is perhaps the biggest and hardest question, and a very old philosophical question that have made people's hair turn grey. It is also of great relevance for the members of the DMT-nexus, as our experiences often destructs the notion of self, giving the feeling that consciousness flows out of its constraints.

Some use these experiences as some kind of proof for transcendental realms, that we have a soul or something to that effect. Neuroscience currently doesn't have any definitive and concrete explanations and answer to the question of self, but that doesn't give any rational reason to turn to far out explanations and beliefs. In fact, new research looks very promising in guiding us towards a better, scientific understanding of where our self is located, and what actually happens when we have out of body experiences and the like.

The matter of fact is that we can stimulate different kinds of weird experiences through the use of weak electrical impulses in the right regions of the brain. The nature of the experiences and the link to the areas of the brain that are attacked points us in the direction of what regions may constitute our notion of self.

Let's talk about three different types of experiences that we can stimulate; "the shadow person", "rising spirit" and "alien body". By placing electrodes where the parietal- and temporal lobe meets, the so called temporoparietal area of the brain, we can stimulate the experience of "the shadow person". It makes us feel that another person is within our presence. By operating electrodes into the brain area angular gyros, lying in the back of the temporal lobe coordinating nervesignals from the bodies sight, hearing, feeling and balance senses with information about the positions of our limbs, we get the experience of "rising spirit", where one experiences to leave ones body behind. The last one, a brain damage in the posterior intraparietal sulcus in the back of the right part of the parietal lobe, gives the experience of the "alien body". Here the patient experiences that some sort of stranger invades his body, and that parts of his body is not his own.

In these three cases the brains ability to locate, identify and watch the body are disturbed and the information processing is conflicting. This suggests pretty clearly that these three areas, among many others, are vital to many of the contents of our conscious experience of reality, and that by manipulating electrical impulses (through electrodes, drugs like DMT and by other means) we can stimulate abnormal brain functioning which in turn leads us to have these funny experiences.

So, evidence suggest that these experiences, though they are very strong and very interesting, is not really proof of spiritual realms or anything like that. They don't even imply that this should or must be the case. Rather they, together with neuroscience, implies that abnormal, or should I say cool (!!), brainfunctioning creates abnormal states of consciousness, and not some magical access to trancendental realms.

 

[gibran2]

There is obviously no scientific proof that spiritual or any other non-physical realms exist or don’t exist, nor will there ever be such scientific proof.

However, the fact that brain regions can be stimulated to produce sensations that superficially mimic certain very limited aspects of psychedelic states should come as no surprise to anyone. It is our brain that mediates our experience of the world, and our experiences of “other-world”.

It seems you’re suggesting that, if we can stimulate a brain region to artificially produce a phenomenon, then the phenomenon is suspect. This isn’t true. Direct brain stimulation can cause you to see familiar faces – for example, it’s possible that if just the right group of cells are stimulated, you’ll see a vivid image of your grandmother. Now, just because an image of your grandmother can be artificially stimulated obviously doesn’t imply that your grandmother isn’t real!

Science has much to tell us about the brain and how it relates to our subjective experience, but as I’ve pointed out in numerous threads many times before, there are certain very basic aspects of existence – aspects which are brought to the forefront during many psychedelic experiences – that are simply beyond the scope of scientific inquiry.

 

[Citta]

There is obviously no scientific proof that spiritual or any other non-physical realms exist or don’t exist, nor will there ever be such scientific proof.

If these realms interacts with us (matter), they must in principle be detectable. The lack of scientific proof for any such realms is because for one, the different hypothesis that propose the existence of these realms are formulated in a manner that makes it logically impossible to falsify. This does not, however, raise the probability that the claims are correct in any way. Think of this example: Falsify the existence of the gnome in your shed. How are you going to do that? Logically you can't, it is impossible, but that doesn't mean that we should take people who claim they exist seriously. If you want to be taken seriously, you have to come with more concrete claims about what your hypothesis will bring about of testablity. What kind of experiments can be set up to confirm or falsify what you claim? If this can't be done, then there is no reason to not believe what you claim is just wild speculation and free fantasy. Or else we would have to start accepting the existence of everything between heaven and earth you could possibly think of - trolls, fairies, Santa Claus, the resurrection of Elvis, the tooth fairy, ghosts and what not because people have experienced them.

The other reason for the lack of scientific evidence to these claims is that those claims that are actually formulated in a falsifiable manner, have been falsified!

If you claim the universe to be such and such, then you are making claims about how the universe works, and expected is then solid arguments that explains why the universe must be such and such - if not you are just making guesses, and the probability for guessing right is practically equal to zero.

It seems you’re suggesting that, if we can stimulate a brain region to artificially produce a phenomenon, then the phenomenon is suspect. This isn’t true. Direct brain stimulation can cause you to see familiar faces – for example, it’s possible that if just the right group of cells are stimulated, you’ll see a vivid image of your grandmother. Now, just because an image of your grandmother can be artificially stimulated obviously doesn’t imply that your grandmother isn’t real!

I am not really proposing that the phenomenon is automatically suspect, what I am trying to say is that the experiences need no magical, unfalsifiable, spiritual new age mumbo jumbo explanations, but that they are simply abnormal brainfunctioning and/or brain malfunctioning, not really implying the existence of spiritual realms. The brain hallucinates. What makes your claims more credible than, say, a schizofrenic person?

Science has much to tell us about the brain and how it relates to our subjective experience, but as I’ve pointed out in numerous threads many times before, there are certain very basic aspects of existence – aspects which are brought to the forefront during many psychedelic experiences – that are simply beyond the scope of scientific inquiry.

If you go into a dialogue about whether or not the conversation with a non-physical entity is real or not, and say that we can't prove what is real and what is not because this in principle can be the dream of the bacteria inside of my nose, then this is more a semantic circle wank than it is a valid critique of the original statement.

A metaphysical speculation about whether or not everything is an illusion or a superconsistent collective dream is by all means interesting in itself, but that is a whole different discussion with a whole different meaning than when you ask yourself whether or not ghosts, gnomes in the shed or gods are real or not. We could for example discuss that what we experience directly and indirectly is just a small side of a bigger reality, but this doesn't stop us from saying something about the likelihood that these experiences are nothing else than false representations of events in humans subjective models.

We can easily use a definition of reality that makes the experience of the color red more real than the frequency of the light it represents for example, but this definition doesn't help when we are out to determine if you actually have a gnome in your shed, or if it just your imagination or your DMT hallucination.

There is no scientific procedure that we can make to determine whether or not Elvis has resurrected, but it doesn't mean, as I've pointed out earlier, that we have any reasons to assume that he actually has.

Claims about gods and entities showing themselves in psychedelic states can easily be falsified if you for example say "these entities are just a result of chemical influence on the brain and a subsequent distortion of the brains perception of the world around it", and then simply get concrete information from these entities that you couldn't get otherwise.

 

[Citta]

The materialistic philosophy doesn't neglect the reality of experiences. The experience of a god under DMT trance is real, but it doesn't mean the god itself is real. The materialistic philosophy differentiates between what is fantasy and what is not, and I am sure you do too gibran2. Let's say a buddy of yours come to you and says he is immortal and wants to jump off the building, would you actually say that "who are we to define what is real and what is not - in alternative definitions of reality you may actually be immortal!" or would you assume that your friend is completely batshit high or insane and prevent him from doing it? If you do the latter, then what you do in these discussions you are refering to is just putting a completely arbitrary line for what you consider as real, giving semantic nurture to your own convictions.

 

[gibran2]

Have you read this thread: The Improbability of Hyperspace ???

We can discuss what is real and what is not real within a particular scope or frame of reference. In a sense, I’m suggesting that like many other things, reality itself may be relative. For example, if my friend wanted to jump off a tall building, within the scope of reality as I’m currently perceiving it, I’d try to stop him. But in a broader scope, I can’t even know if my friend exists at all, or if I exist, or if the tall building exists.

For example, if this reality is a dream, then relative to the goings-on in the dream, my friend would suffer serious injury or death if he jumped off a building. And since my current frame of reference is also in the dream, I feel obligated to stop him. But outside the scope of the dream, it may not matter what he does. The problem is, there’s no way to know what reality, if any, lies outside of our current frame of reference.

So even if this reality is a dream by a dreamer in a higher reality, I can confidently say that, within the frame of reference of the dream, Elvis has not been resurrected and gnomes are not living in my shed.

 

[gibran2]

I’d also like to add that the materialistic philosophy – the “Primacy of Matter” paradigm – is a belief that has no scientific basis.

The “Primacy of Consciousness” paradigm is also a belief, but it’s foundation is resting on the only thing we can know absolutely to be true: consciousness exists.

 

[Citta]

The Primacy of Matter paradigm not having a scientific basis is true, but this notion rests on the metaphysical musings that you intelligently present and enjoy (for the record, I enjoy them myself), and doesn't really constitute a valid point in determining if you actually have gnomes in the shed, DMT-entities communicating with you or if these things are just hallucinations and imaginations. I pointed this out in the longer post above, so I agree with what you are saying, but it is more semantics than anything else the way I see it. The thread "A pragmatic approach: What is "real", and when is it actually useful to ask this?" comes to mind.

 

[gibran2]

Ultimately, the problem is this: How do we know what is real and what is not real?

And then it goes even deeper: What do we mean by “real”?

 

[Citta]

Ultimately, the problem is this: How do we know what is real and what is not real?

And then it goes even deeper: What do we mean by “real”?

Discussions around these questions are interesting, but they serve a whole different purpose than that of determining whether or not something exists. We could circle wank eachothers metaphysical cocks for an eternity, but it would only serve to give semantic nurture to personal convictions, and not constitute any valid points in the question of whether or not you have a gnome in your shed or talk to entities on DMT. What does or doesn't lie outside of our realm is irrelevant, because it's all just completely wild speculation with no root at all in what we pragmatically call reality. It's akin to trying to imagine how it is in a 3D world while living in a 2D-world.

Believe what you want and dance the dance you wanna dance, but all evidence suggests that meetings with gnomes, fairies, DMT entities and the resurrected Elvis are all hallucinations together with the flying locomotive, Russell's teapot and the flying spaghetti monster. There is no reason to rationally believe in any of these things, and the only arguments presented by many here is the very old and boring "science doesn't have all the answers" or "we can't really know what is real, because this shit can all be a dream!". They are hardly any serious arguments, and brings us nowhere in our investigations of these phenomena.

 

[gibran2]

I hope I’m misreading your posts, but there seems to be an increasing level of hostility on your part. I’m not sure if you’re addressing your comments toward me, or toward members in general or toward ???

Anyhow, I wouldn’t group hallucinations and “visions” in the same category as gnomes and the flying spaghetti monster. Gnomes, flying spaghetti monsters, and much of religious belief is based without any evidence whatsoever – someone you trust tells you the flying spaghetti monster is real, and so you believe the flying spaghetti monster is real.

Hallucinations, visions, and drug-induced mystical experiences are in another category. You subjectively experience something – you see with your own eyes – the flying spaghetti monster, and so you believe the flying spaghetti monster is real.

Everyday consensus reality is in another category: you see the flying spaghetti monster and several people around you see the flying spaghetti monster, and you close your eyes then open them and the flying spaghetti monster is still there, so you believe the flying spaghetti monster is real.

I agree that other than providing entertainment and a good intellectual workout, debating about things we can’t possibly know won’t necessarily add to our knowledge of the world, but sometimes entertainment and a good intellectual workout is just what the doctor ordered.

My interest in this discussion isn’t so much to express my beliefs regarding what I think is real or isn’t real, but rather to explore how we go about deciding what is real in the first place. Nothing in the world of consensus reality has a natural quality that distinguishes it as real, and nothing in the world of visions and hallucinations and delusions is naturally placarded with signs stating “This Is Not Real”.

We decide what is real – we apply reality-testing criteria to the things we experience, and if they pass the test, we proclaim that they are real. If not, we call them fantasy or illusion. What differentiates one person from another with respect to beliefs about what is real and what isn’t is the reality-testing criteria they apply to their experiences.

We can’t truly say what is real and what isn’t. All we can do is apply our reality tests, and if an experience passes the test, we call it real. If it fails the test, we say it’s not real.

So when you look around and observe your everyday reality and proclaim that it’s self-evidently real, what are you really saying?

 

[AlbertKLloyd]

I am sorry to have to ask this but I am ignorant regarding this concept;

what does self mean?

I read above that people are said to have a sense of self or perceive self, I am not sure that I understand that statement.

Who perceives self and when?

How is it perceived and what distinguishes it from what is not self?
Where is the line between self and not self, so to speak?

Also there seems to be the implied concept that there is a scientific ontology, like there is a set of beliefs or claims that constitute science and thus a paradigm for science. I would like to know what these claims or beliefs are, what does science believe or claim in some widespread and perhaps uniform way? Where can I find the set of things I must believe to believe in science? Are there beliefs that if I maintain then I cannot believe in science?

What is this dichotomy between the position of science and the position of what is not science?
What specific and contrasting beliefs constitute this ontological conflict?
What is the criteria that makes something scientific or not scientific?

Are there degrees of scientific and non scientific qualities?
For example science neutral, science opposing and science confirming might be three such essentially categorical degrees in relation to a scientific ontology.

As for a scientific ontology, I would like to learn more about it.
Everything looks right side up to me, but the image upon my retina is upside down. Still
I believe that I know I see right side up, and I know I believe.
I am not sure I know anything else.
Do you?

 

[gibran2]

Here's a quote I've made before:

The only thing we know for certain to be real is that “something” has conscious experiences, and we ordinarily call that something “self”.

Science is the study of the content, structure, patterns, and relationships of our own conscious experiences. Conscious experience seems to be all we have and all we are.

Science doesn’t study the physical world. The physical world as we know it is an abstraction used to make sense of the stream of our own conscious experiences. We cannot say whether or not a physical world exists outside of consciousness. (Which also means we can’t say whether or not our physical bodies exist.)

So we can be certain that our own conscious experience exists, yet we can’t be certain that physical reality exists.

 

[gibran2]

An Old Short Story

As a young child, like many young children, I believed that the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus were real. At some point early on, and I don’t remember the circumstances, I was told that the Easter Bunny isn’t real – he’s “make-believe”.

Soon after this, I began to question if Santa Claus might be make-believe too. I reasoned, “If it isn’t true that the Easter Bunny is real, then maybe other things I’ve been told aren’t true either. Maybe Santa Claus isn’t real.” Not long afterward, I decided that Santa Claus was “make-believe”.

The End



A New Short Story

I’ve had DMT experiences that are undeniably real. Yet being a reasonably rational fellow, I keep open the possibility that they weren’t real – that they were “make-believe”.

Soon after these “realer-than-real” experiences, I began to question if everyday sober reality might be make-believe too. I reasoned, “If it isn’t true that deep, realer-than-real DMT experiences are actually real, then maybe what I’ve always taken for granted isn’t true either. Maybe everyday reality isn’t real.” Not long afterward, I decided that everything was “make-believe”.

The End


Moral of the story: Those who still believe in Santa Claus shouldn’t criticize too vigorously those who still believe in the Easter Bunny.

 

[AlbertKLloyd]

Neat opinion.

I differ in mine so far, to me science is methodology.

 

[Citta]

I hope I’m misreading your posts, but there seems to be an increasing level of hostility on your part. I’m not sure if you’re addressing your comments toward me, or toward members in general or toward ???

Oh noes, I wasn't being hostile at all, so sorry if it got to you that way. Rest assured that I wasn't trying to be =)

Anyhow, I wouldn’t group hallucinations and “visions” in the same category as gnomes and the flying spaghetti monster. Gnomes, flying spaghetti monsters, and much of religious belief is based without any evidence whatsoever – someone you trust tells you the flying spaghetti monster is real, and so you believe the flying spaghetti monster is real.

Why not group hallucinations and "visions" in the same category? They are also completely without any evidence. If you and I one day walked into your shed and you perceived a gnome sitting there while I didn't, would it not be a hallucination? If you were totally healthy in all other aspects, I bet you would doubt the existence of that gnome in your shed, even tho he seemed so real to you.

But if you and I walked into the shed and smoked some DMT, had a serious breakthrough into hyperspace, and you considered it to be real - then what you are doing is just drawing a completely arbitrary line for what you consider as real. What is the difference between the hallucination in an ordinary state of consciousness where you and I are in the shed to get some tools, and the other situation where you and I smoke some DMT in the shed?

Hallucinations, visions, and drug-induced mystical experiences are in another category. You subjectively experience something – you see with your own eyes – the flying spaghetti monster, and so you believe the flying spaghetti monster is real.

There is a bunch of phenomena that people see with their own eyes; the resurrected Elvis, Santa Claus, gnomes in the shed, the tooth fairy, melting walls, ghosts and so on. But it doesn't mean they are actually there or that the wall is actually melting, and it seems to me that you would usually agree with this. You seem to have decided that drug induced mystical experiences, hallucinations and visions are evidently real because you feel like they are, but these other strange experiences (that for the ones who have them are evidently real, for example in the case of a psychotic person) are not. Again, this is a totally arbitrary distinction between what is real and what is not, and that serves to nurture your own convictions about what you see in hyperspace.

My interest in this discussion isn’t so much to express my beliefs regarding what I think is real or isn’t real, but rather to explore how we go about deciding what is real in the first place. Nothing in the world of consensus reality has a natural quality that distinguishes it as real, and nothing in the world of visions and hallucinations and delusions is naturally placarded with signs stating “This Is Not Real”.

We decide what is real – we apply reality-testing criteria to the things we experience, and if they pass the test, we proclaim that they are real. If not, we call them fantasy or illusion. What differentiates one person from another with respect to beliefs about what is real and what isn’t is the reality-testing criteria they apply to their experiences.

We can’t truly say what is real and what isn’t. All we can do is apply our reality tests, and if an experience passes the test, we call it real. If it fails the test, we say it’s not real.

So when you look around and observe your everyday reality and proclaim that it’s self-evidently real, what are you really saying?

Your critique about our reality definition is just a question of semantics, and doesn't change the nature of the matter at all. What you have then is kind of a religious statement saying that entities, gods and other things arising in drug-induced hallucinations are real, while you at the same time probably disregard the likelihood of hallucination objects such as flying locomotives, the cake monster, melting walls and so on. The statement is just dressed up in metaphysical suppositions as general metaphysical considerations.

What you seem to seek is to take in a very spesific and arbitrary definition of reality that includes hallucination objects in drug-induced states as real. It is very spesific and arbitrary because we could just as well take in a definition of reality that excludes hallucination objects, but that includes daydreaming or the last chapter in the fiction book I am reading.

Your convictions of the reality of your DMT experiences is no different than the conviction muslims have that Allah controls the universe and punishes mankind or any other religious conviction. These convictions are all based on personal beliefs without evidence.

The brain can be the greatest of tricksters with no problem creating things in your concious experience that is not really there, analogous with coupling together electrical signal pathways at will in a computer, and as Richard Feynman said "the easiest one to fool is yourself".

 

[gibran2]

You seem very intent on putting words into my mouth that I haven’t spoken and ideas into my head that I don’t ascribe to.

You obviously haven’t read many of my posts, because if you did, you’d see that I’m quite agnostic about this whole business: My DMT experiences haven’t led me to believe in an immaterial realm. In fact, I’ve said that beliefs anyone has about hyperspace, etc. are almost certainly wrong. How is this no different than Muslim beliefs?

I agree with you that we humans are easily fooled into believing in realities that don’t exist independent of our minds – many drug-induced hallucinations support this. It’s surprising how a few milligrams of a substance can so radically alter – or more correctly, replace - one’s reality.

This realization led me to go a step further: If our minds are so easily fooled, how do we know we aren’t being “fooled” right now? Our everyday reality “feels” real, but as you’ve correctly shown, it’s very easy to fool the mind into believing just about anything. What reason do we have to believe that the reality presented to us in our sober state is more than an illusion created by mind?

My conclusion is that we have no evidence that this “reality” is real. If we conclude that DMT-induced realities are fabrications of the mind, regardless of how real they seem, then we must also conclude that how real something feels and appears to be is not sufficient evidence to show it is real.

So you see, I’ve gone a step further. I no longer blindly accept the reality of everyday life. I acknowledge that it “seems” very real, and that its characteristics are very convincing, but, as you’ve pointed out, this is not evidence that it is real. In fact, there is no evidence at all that our everyday reality is “real”.

I stopped believing in the Easter Bunny a long time ago. And once I realized the Easter Bunny was make-believe, I began to wonder if Santa Claus might be make-believe too.

You accept that the Easter Bunny is make-believe, and attack and ridicule those who don't share your beliefs, yet still cling tightly to your belief that Santa-Claus is real.

That's funny! :d

 

[joedirt]

I am sorry to have to ask this but I am ignorant regarding this concept;

what does self mean?

I read above that people are said to have a sense of self or perceive self, I am not sure that I understand that statement.

Who perceives self and when?

How is it perceived and what distinguishes it from what is not self?
Where is the line between self and not self, so to speak?

Also there seems to be the implied concept that there is a scientific ontology, like there is a set of beliefs or claims that constitute science and thus a paradigm for science. I would like to know what these claims or beliefs are, what does science believe or claim in some widespread and perhaps uniform way? Where can I find the set of things I must believe to believe in science? Are there beliefs that if I maintain then I cannot believe in science?

What is this dichotomy between the position of science and the position of what is not science?
What specific and contrasting beliefs constitute this ontological conflict?
What is the criteria that makes something scientific or not scientific?

Are there degrees of scientific and non scientific qualities?
For example science neutral, science opposing and science confirming might be three such essentially categorical degrees in relation to a scientific ontology.

As for a scientific ontology, I would like to learn more about it.
Everything looks right side up to me, but the image upon my retina is upside down. Still
I believe that I know I see right side up, and I know I believe.
I am not sure I know anything else.
Do you?

Bingo. Hammer meet the nail.

Any attempt to have these discussions without addressing these basic questions are futile.

 

[Citta]

gibran2:

Allright, sorry about shoving words and ideas down your throat, I guess I interpreted you in the wrong way. I apologise. However, the arguments are relevant, at least the way I see it (to the overall discussion). Thanks for clearing that up! =)

It's hard to really discuss your last post, not because it is ridiculous but by the very nature of the issues you address. I agree that we can't really know for sure that what we perceive is what actually is, but this is where, in my mind, science comes into play. It is a very old matter-of-fact that our minds can delude us, but with the methodology of science and the creativity in its progress we seem to converge towards the consistencies in our collective experience, some kind of objectivity in the usual sense of this word, that in the end are totally independent of what we believe, what we think and so on. We can't know for sure that our objective theoretical models are identical to what the universe is and how it works, but by constantly throwing aside what really seems to be wrong subjective models by falsifying the wrong hypothesis we approach something in an honest and pragmatic way - something that logically has to be more real, likely and right than the whispering the schizofrenic person hears or the gnome in the shed etc.

This is the best way to investigate what the hell all of this is, or else we would have a total chaos of opinions, experiences and beliefs all being just as valid. We would be set back several hundred years, with religious wars and suppression and what not. The suicide bomber blowing himself up for Allah would be just as right as the physicist explaining how the sun shines, because both Allah and the fusion in the sun would be just as real. Our minds would be so open that our brains pop out

 

[gibran2]

This is the best way to investigate what the hell all of this is, or else we would have a total chaos of opinions, experiences and beliefs all being just as valid. We would be set back several hundred years, with religious wars and suppression and what not. The suicide bomber blowing himself up for Allah would be just as right as the physicist explaining how the sun shines, because both Allah and the fusion in the sun would be just as real. Our minds would be so open that our brains pop out

Of course science is the best way to investigate phenomena in the physical world. I’ve never suggested otherwise. But what I have said many times is that science has limitations – it is incapable of addressing many questions that are of interest to human beings. Sometimes materialists seem to forget this.

 

[Citta]

This is the best way to investigate what the hell all of this is, or else we would have a total chaos of opinions, experiences and beliefs all being just as valid. We would be set back several hundred years, with religious wars and suppression and what not. The suicide bomber blowing himself up for Allah would be just as right as the physicist explaining how the sun shines, because both Allah and the fusion in the sun would be just as real. Our minds would be so open that our brains pop out

Of course science is the best way to investigate phenomena in the physical world. I’ve never suggested otherwise. But what I have said many times is that science has limitations – it is incapable of addressing many questions that are of interest to human beings. Sometimes materialists seem to forget this.

There is no real evidence that something else than the physical world exists. Just for the record, what kind of questions are in your mind?