The Spiritual Brain

[greylorn]

You must be talking about the same Wilder Penfield who said the following in his book “The Mystery of the Mind”;
“Taken either way. the nature of the mind presents the fundamental problem, perhaps the most difficult and most important of all problems. For myself, after a professional lifetime spent in trying to discover how the brain accounts for the mind, it comes as a surprise now to discover, during this final examination of the evidence, that the dualist hypothesis (the mind is separate from the brain) seems the more reasonable of explanations. Since every man must adopt for himself, without the help of science, his way of life and his personal religion, I have long had my own private beliefs. What a thrill it is, then, to discover that the scientist too can legitimately believe in the existence of the spirit!”

Yes, that is exactly the same Wilder Penfield to whom I refer. I found reports on his research in a neuroanatomy textbook 3 decades ago. It did not include the quote you offer, so thank you! I was unaware that he’d written a book, so I will attempt to acquire and read a copy. The man was (*is *by my opinions) a genius. Unlike other researchers of his day and since, he saw the truth his experiments revealed.

Of course Penfield did not attempt to define the nature of spirit. That is our work, or at least, the work of those who have the courage to engage it.

 

[greylorn]

And you might want to take a serious course in Christian mysticism, which is what we’re talking about here. When Buddhist meditate, whatever they experience, they don’t feel they are in union with God, last I checked Buddhism is pretty silent on God. But if you’re talking about Christian mysticism, and the subjects of this study ***were ***Carmelite nuns, then; a) they don’t sit around meditating and going “ohhhmmm” while in contemplation, which maybe in your naivety you think they are doing. And b) they subscribe to the understanding that the “Prayer of Quiet” and other mystical unions come about when God decides to give them, that you can’t bring one on by any of your own efforts, such as “remembering” previous mystical states.

You’ve caught me up on this. My comment must have implied that I had some personal experience with meditation. Not so. I’ve tried it, can’t do it, and really do not see any value in it— for me. My biggest moments of personal stupidity include trying hip-hop dancing, outrunning the police through a desert full of cactus, and doing OOOMMMMs. Obviously meditation has value to others, and various forms and styles of it have changed lives for the better. A neighbor of mine is sane, and on relatively few pills, because of Buddhist style TM.

You are correct that Buddhists do not seek to get in touch with God via meditation. It would be pretty silly, since classical Buddhism does not include belief in God.

How did the issue of God creep into this conversation?

Let’s go back to the post of yours which I addressed:

I have a problem with that inference that they “experienced a mystical state”. All the great mystics, such as John of the Cross and Teresa of Avila, said you can not bring on a mystical state (such as the Prayer of Quite, Pray of Union, etc.) through your own actions. Recalling a previous Prayer of Quite isn’t going to cause a genuine mystical state, which can only be caused by an interaction from God. So I have my doubts about these so-called “mystical states” while under monitors.

Since I have been unable to personally experience a meditative state, I must rely upon the reports of those who claim to have done so. You did not specify if your knowledge came from experience. If it did, this conversation can go to a more solid footing, wherein you can teach me something of value from your personal experience. I would appreciate that.

But if your understanding of meditative states is simply hearsay, like mine, then your thoughts on the issue are simply opinions, as are mine.

In my serious attempts to interview those who have experienced meditative states (of several varieties) all I get back is useless. The individuals themselves are not noted for anything, and are oft regarded as “flakey.” All those with whom I spoke are on some form of social welfare, meaning, I’m paying their bills as well as mine, so I tend to regard their value as dubious.

I regard 20th-hand insights from Teresa of Avila at the same level-- hearsay information which cannot be reproduced. Don’t misunderstand me, please. I’ve no doubt that she was for real, as are others. But she and they have not passed along elucidative information.

Unless Teresa actually met God and conversed with him, she has no idea about the source or sources of her inspiration. Naturally she would credit God, but without any reason for doing so other than her beliefs.

 

[Peter_John]

Don’t know about the nuns, but say it’s important to do the test at the time of the experience, or they’re testing just ordinary memory of whatever. But there was an ekg study of people about habituation that included a zen monk. He just didn’t habituate. He knew hes seen the theobject before, of course, but his brain acted like it was the first time every time. Hey. there’s a skill for married folks, huh? (uh… smileys thing won’t work…)

Different partso f the brain are dedicated to actual autobograhical memories than to imaginative fabrication. An intersting study would be an fMRI comparing how people recount the esoteric and see if they activate more imagnation/delusional regions, or actual autobiographical regions.

Memories of specific experiences also activate the related areas of the brain assiociated with the initial experience. If validly prepared and reported studies indicate that someone during recall of a mystical experience manifests overall brain activity rather than anything region specific, it could be consistent with what some people in such experiences affirm about – in secular terms – being displaced in their perception of relaity. The expereince affects eveything about their perception and interpretation of their environment, so it activates everything when they relive the experience cognitively.