Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

The God Spot

C-Realm Listener, TirikiteToker, started a thread over on the C-Realm forum on the Grow Report website about Michael Persinger and his so-called "God-helmet." The discussion has grown lively.

link: http://www.thegrowreport.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=613



( 9 comments — Leave a comment )
Nov. 13th, 2007 09:10 pm (UTC)
*shrug* The idea that there are neurological patterns that correspond to (putative) spiritual activity, and that we can manipulate our bodies into simulating those experiences, is no big deal. If the human person is a unity of both physical and spiritual natures, then you would expect spiritual causes to have physical effects of some sort. I think it is the materialist who has some explaining to do: why would hallucinations of God, et al., be so common and persistent, when there is nothing behind them and (as is often alleged) no particular survival value associated with them?
Nov. 13th, 2007 09:52 pm (UTC)
if spiritual causes any physical effects it is, therefore physical.
Nov. 13th, 2007 10:00 pm (UTC)
No, more like, if a solid object is half visible and half invisible, and an invisible force acts on the invisible half, the visible half will still move.
Nov. 13th, 2007 10:03 pm (UTC)
all radiation above and below the visible spectrum is invisible, yet very physical.
Nov. 13th, 2007 10:04 pm (UTC)
Words are also physical, but analogies are not. I guess this explains my failure to communicate with you.
Nov. 13th, 2007 10:12 pm (UTC)
You failure is in being stuck in that shell of opposite whereIn I will gladly leave you. Maybe you bite, who knows?
Nov. 13th, 2007 09:50 pm (UTC)
God Helmet. haha. Rather call it a Helmet of God!

However, to your almonds example, kmo. if "we" are to find a place in the brain, which would produce a smell of almonds under stimulation. This would mean that we, probably, have found a place where the smell of almonds is created in our "perception" of reality, and existence of this smell (not almonds as you argue, even though you are merely following the original logical fallacy) can very well be explained by electrochemical activity in that region. Well, if you can call it an explanation. There is another possibility: stimulation of this part, produces activity in a completely different part of the brain which actually produces the "almonds smell".

Regardless of it. You mentioning inconsistency of that research is interesting. Let me quote Alexander Riegler:
"In neurophysiology, it is useless to search for neuron clusters whose activations correlate with external events in a stable referential manner. Understanding representation from the perspective of constructivism gives us a clue as to what we have to look for in the representational substratum; namely, mechanisms which allow the generation of adequate behavior."
Nov. 13th, 2007 10:37 pm (UTC)
Would you say more?
I'm not sure I grok your use of the quote from Alexander Riegler.
Nov. 14th, 2007 08:02 pm (UTC)
Re: Would you say more?
It's hard (for me) to say more about radical constructivism without you reading more about it first, simply because I am not sure if I understand it correctly myself. But I do have an intuitive notion, that it is a very correct model.
So, in my understanding of it, brain would be a construct that is simply created from a positive experience, in the mind of an observer and is not precise reflection of the "objective reality". Reality itself is a merely construct from such an experience. And how "really" things are we simply have no idea.
( 9 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

March 2017


Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Ideacodes