Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
It isn't just materialism and idealism though, there is also dualism.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Can Mystical Experiences be Reduced to Neurophysiology?
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
It isn't just materialism and idealism though, there is also dualism.
You do realize there are lots of studies on just this? But I have to say I have a certain dislike for the assumption that to be able do science around it "explains" it, particularly so when you move past the realm of physics into things like psychology and spirituality. If we were nothing but dumb rocks in orbit around a center of gravity just following laws programmed into the machine, one might offer an "explanation" of our movements. But when it comes to actual human beings the science of explanations are far from being quite so clean and apparent, wish as much as we would they were.
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
Of course, but that "theological significance" is usually based on existing beliefs and assumptions. If somebody believes in God, they are much more likely to assume that a meditative or mystical experience relates to God. So for example a Christian mystic and a non-theist Buddhist could have the same experience and make very different assumptions about it.
So these experiences are inherently subjective, and their inherent subjectivity means that they are not a valid basis for making ontological claims. When people do make such claims, it becomes a matter of religious belief.
Last edited:
Oh, now I see where you were coming from! Thanks for the clarification!
Sure, it's a little hard to explain it typing it out, but I try.
To better state what I just said, the brain is actually the exterior half of the "I". Consciousness itself is the interior. I'll keep thinking of better ways to talk about it.
Obviously you have to evaluate things like cultural influences, since you couldn't say that because multiple Christians experience Jesus, therefore the Bible is right and Jesus rose from the dead, any more than Buddhists seeing Avalokiteshvara means there is a literal being with a thousand arms . But the type of experience itself setting aside the symbolic representations we experience it though, becomes actually objective material you can make claims about in that you have multiple people experiencing the same thing across cultures. The types of experience can be looked at and evaluated scientifically, and from that you can make certain objective claims with objective evidence.
I always say that at a certain point in mystical awareness, questions of God become moot. It is neither theistic nor atheistic. It's just that earlier on, in subtle states, people tend to understand their experience within their given frameworks, be that mythological, rationalistic, magical, etc. Understanding that lets us just see it's just languages. It's all just language when you make claims of "what it is".
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
I think the only objective claim you can make is that people experience different states of mind/consciousness. The rest is a matter of subjective interpretation and belief.
You do realize there are lots of studies on just this? But I have to say I have a certain dislike for the assumption that to be able do science around it "explains" it, particularly so when you move past the realm of physics into things like psychology and spirituality. If we were nothing but dumb rocks in orbit around a center of gravity just following laws programmed into the machine, one might offer an "explanation" of our movements. But when it comes to actual human beings the science of explanations are far from being quite so clean and apparent, wish as much as we would they were.
No, and I admit my knowledge on this is essentially zero. trying to find a scientific explanation for mystical experiences is controversial but is for me a personal bias. It has both a degree of utility for when it works but I also find it reassuring to believe there is an answer even if its not a perfect one.
I am struck by the word "reduced". Why must this be a reduction? Why do we think that the physical brain is lesser? I think implicit in this is the idea that some people hold that the physical body (including the brain) is dirty, corrupt, nasty. And that anything non-physical is beautiful and pure.
I don't share that perspective. The human brain is a beautiful strange and literally awe inspiring physical thing.
I cannot say definitively that the mystical experience is a completely neurological phenomenon, but I am ok with the possibility that it is. And that possibility does not in anyway reduce my mystical experience.
This describes science as a whole too, doesn't it? One has to interpret the data. But the data is objective, nonetheless. You can actually objectively map out different types of states. It can't just said to be "something happens", and simply leave it at that. You can objectively look at and map it out. If it's of any consolation, I do not believe it's valid to take the data and say it proves your theology is factually correct.
To me the far more weighty question is not so much the cause, but the effect. What effect does mystical experiences have on the individual? Is it worthwhile? Is it harmful? Does it affect others? Etc. What I dislike is when people use things like neuroscience to "prove" it's "Just the brain", meaning their is no reality to the beliefs one has in God, as though that proves something. Is "God" being an objective entity the basis of spiritual experience? Does the validity of a belief alter the fact of the experience itself? I think these so-called skeptic debunkers misusing science this way aren't seeing the forest through the trees. Belief is totally secondary to the mystical experience. In fact, ask most mystics and they will affirm that mystical experience is literally "beyond belief", meaning beliefs actually get in the way of it! It's not about the causes to us, but the impact and what it exposes in us.No, and I admit my knowledge on this is essentially zero. trying to find a scientific explanation for mystical experiences is controversial but is for me a personal bias. It has both a degree of utility for when it works but I also find it reassuring to believe there is an answer even if its not a perfect one.
The impact of my believing that nuerological pheneomena can be understood scientifically, if only by crude trial and error, is that it gives me the ability to cope with mental illness and the hope of recovery. Its not rational and Im aware of it but you have to believe in yourself if there is no higher power to make it stop.
If you feel threatened by scepticism I more than understand why as very often there are people who try and deconstruct things to a point where it is painful, hurtful and humilitating. I dont have the luxury of scepticism to deal with the daily "weirdness" of depression, anxiety or whatever it wants to be at that particular moment when my head is trying to find ways to make me miserable. You just hold on to the hope that knowledge, no matter how vague, will give me the power to recover. For me scepticism is barely distinguishable from abuse because its dehumanising, trying to tell me that my experiences arent real, that they dont matter and essentially that I dont matter. So I more than understand if you feel defensive and Im not looking to upset anyone by diminishing the value of their experiences.
This isnt my DIR anyway so Ill leave you be.
I have never understood a rough sketch of how that would work, but OK. What would a dualist make of mystical experiences? I'm not sure.
One problem with dualism from my brief understanding of it, is that it is not compatible with discarnate consciousness as I believe does actually exist (through strong cases of some so-called paranormal phenomena). Doesn't dualism require matter and consciousness coming together to produce experience?
Good point, as in the unsolvable question of 'is science only seeing the physical corollary of a true super-physical experience and mistaking the corollary as the cause?'.You do realize there are lots of studies on just this? But I have to say I have a certain dislike for the assumption that to be able do science around it "explains" it, particularly so when you move past the realm of physics into things like psychology and spirituality.
"Reduced" is being used here in it's meaning within the philosophy of science of entirely explaining one thing in terms of another. No moralistic judgments about the nature or value of the brain are implied. Explaining something by reducing it to something else is common in the sciences. Reductionism.
Fair enough, just wanted to make sure, and express my perspective.
Orbit
I'm a planet
Sure, you can say they are caused by brain states, but the meaning that those states impart to your life goes far beyond physiology.
The second one listed is not idealism. It isn't anything.
A mystical experience to me would be a glimpse of the future, and that couldn't be reduced to neurophysiology. Another mystic experience, which is not verifiable, is connecting to a huge unseen telepathic river that is too large to contain in your own mind. Experiences like these are not easily reduceable. It is a mystical experience when you perceive you are about to get a phone call from someone, and then they call. You connect to information that you shouldn't 'Neurophysically' be able to.
Although, one might argue that the brain state is the material side of the experience. I tend to like to think of these things less in terms of causation, and more in terms of the material component of experience itself. Does our brain cause us to love? Or does our brain respond a particular way to love and help shape and define it? Do we ever say, "My brain loves you, and my chemicals are overjoyed hearing your voice, informing my body to respond to articulate in linguistic structures that it loves you?"
I think life is more little more subtle and poetic than what reductionist philosophies tell us.