Can Mystical Experiences be Reduced to Neurophysiology?

[Sunstone]

Can mystical experiences be reduced to neurophysiology? That is, to the functioning of the nervous system?

For the purposes of this thread, I suggest (but do not demand) that the term "mystical experiences" be taken as referring to experiences in which the subject/object division of normal waking consciousness abruptly ceases, bringing about a unity or sense of oneness in the perceptual field. If you wish to depart from this definition, it would be helpful if you specified what mystical experiences are to you. Thanks.

 

[Sunstone]

My own view is that mystical experiences correlate with neurophysiology, but that their correlation to the functioning of the nervous system does not warrant asserting that neurophysiology is their sole or ultimate cause. About that, I remain agnostic.

 

[Sunstone]

By the way, it would be passing strange if mystical experiences did NOT correlate with the functioning of the nervous system! When I see an apple, seeing the apple correlates with my neurophysiology. But that in itself tells me nothing about the ontological status of the apple. Perhaps the apple exists ontologically, perhaps it does not. I cannot be sure of either option since all experience -- including my experience of seeing the apple -- is ultimately subjective. Yet the question of whether the apple existed ontologically would require me to experience it objectively -- something I cannot do.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

My own view is that mystical experiences correlate with neurophysiology, but that their correlation to the functioning of the nervous system does not warrant asserting that neurophysiology is their sole or ultimate cause. About that, I remain agnostic.

Do you think there a need to assume other causes?

 

[Sunstone]

Do you think there a need to assume other causes?

Assume other causes? No.

But I also don't think we need to assume mystical experiences can be reduced to the functioning of the nervous system.

I don't assume that my experience of seeing a computer monitor can be reduced to the functioning of the nervous system, nor assume that it can't be.

What would be the logical necessity of making either assumption?

 

[Windwalker]

My own view is that mystical experiences correlate with neurophysiology, but that their correlation to the functioning of the nervous system does not warrant asserting that neurophysiology is their sole or ultimate cause. About that, I remain agnostic.

I was going to say something to this effect. There's always the exterior half of the interior experience. I have a problem with those who imagine everything we experience is caused by the brain. Does the brain decide for us what experiences it's going to give us this day? Are we just along for the ride where it is outside our own choices? Are our choices dictated by our biology? And so forth.

I am of the opinion that there is a sort of dance between our choices, our "will" and our bodies. The exterior and the interior dance together to the music of Life, to wax poetic here. Whatever the reality of the inner world is, we experience it in these bodies, and the way it manifests to us is the notes the body provides. Our experience of God (or what we experience as this nondual Absolute), does not define the Absolute as that experience itself. But our experience is the human experience of God. It is our Ultimate Reality as humans.

It's the same with how we experience love. The notes of the body, the chemicals, the activities, the hormones, the emotions, etc, are all responses of our bodies to the interior self that is 'feeling' its way through the undefinable Divine in the world. It's not easy to put my thoughts into words here. When it comes to mystical experience we can literally choose to have them. We can condition and train ourselves to "touch the face of God" at will, in a similar way to the way we can make ourselves experience love though simply a thought. However mystical experiences typically they seem to occur randomly, or "out of the blue". But these momentary "peak experiences" actually do have some internal things going on that precipitate the brain responding in that way where we have a "death" experience, which is a breaking down of all these dualistic tensions we feel trapped within.

Peak experiences are typically precipitated by a deep subconscious need for an existential release from internalized suffering. Even though on a conscious level we don't know what's happening "down there" in us, it's literally the subconscious breaking forth, and our choosing to let it happen. We are choosing to experience "something" to have a break through this dark, nebulous tension, this "hood" covering us we need to be free of. And so, "Wham", like a lightening bolt, we experience release! The veil is pulled back and we see God. We passed through the door of death, letting go of the dualistic reality. And the light of the release is blasted into our experience through parts of the brain lighting up, producing an accepting of and release into death itself, as it does when our bodies are finished. The difference is, our bodies are still alive and not facing death, but we experience in our mystical experiences what it is to die, and yet live! Ever wonder about the common religious themes of death and resurrection? I believe this is it!

So when some "reductionist" bent on explaining away things claims that mystical experiences are the brain "misfiring", I think they are incredibly shortsighted and naive. If our brains are randomly misfiring neurologically, then we have a serious medical problem, and "God experiences" are probably the least concern! Yes, you may have instances of this happening in psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia, but just because the experiences parallels what may be experienced in mystical states in otherwise normal and healthy people, it does not translate therefore into a brain dysfunction for those who have mystical experiences. The causes are not arbitrary misfirings, but the result of some deep subconscious need for a profound release, an "awakening" of the mind beyond it's own prison.

And then there is meditation practices where one learns how to let this "accident" happen pretty much at will. It makes you "accident prone", because you are deliberately putting yourself at the door of death, so to speak. Passing beyond this world into the next, which when you walk through "everything becomes clear".

"Wanting nothing
With all your heart
Stop the stream.

When the world dissolves
Everything becomes clear.

Go beyond
This way or that way,
To the farther shore
Where the world dissolves
And everything becomes clear.

Beyond this shore
And the father shore,
Beyond the beyond,
Where there is no beginning,
No end.

Without fear, go."

 

[Sunstone]

There's always the exterior half of the interior experience.

I'm much less confident than you when it comes to ascribing an "exterior half" to any experiences, including mystical experiences. Metaphysics just ain't my thing, I guess.

From my standpoint, there is no logical necessity to take a stand on the issue of whether or not there is an exterior reality. So, like a good wus, I don't.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I'm much less confident than you when it comes to ascribing an "exterior half" to any experiences, including mystical experiences. Metaphysics just ain't my thing, I guess.

Yes, it's a philosophical can of worms! I think you could say that mystical experiences involve a significant change in perception, but not a "short-circuiting" of perception as some would claim.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Assume other causes? No.
But I also don't think we need to assume mystical experiences can be reduced to the functioning of the nervous system.
I don't assume that my experience of seeing a computer monitor can be reduced to the functioning of the nervous system, nor assume that it can't be.
What would be the logical necessity of making either assumption?

I broadly agree, though clearly some people DO assume that mystical experiences are more than just a different state of mind.

 

[Sunstone]

...clearly some people DO assume that mystical experiences are more than just a different state of mind.

Indeed! Just as some people assume mystical experiences are no more than just a different state of mind. I find neither assumption warranted.

But I think the notion that mystical experiences are more than just a different state of mind has a special -- almost always unmentioned -- difficulty to it. That is, even if we could somehow prove that mystical experiences had an exterior cause, we still might not be able to say much of anything about that cause.

Consider, for instance, that we perceive certain wavelengths of electromagnetic energy as colors. Colors, however, are mere interpretations by our brain of those wavelengths. So, though we in some sense detect those wavelengths of electromagnetic energy, our nervous system does not tell us a great deal about them.

In much the same way, even if we could prove that, say, a mystical experience of "god" had an exterior cause, we would not be able to say with confidence that the "god" we experienced was in any way an adequate representation of that cause. For all we might know, "god" could be just as much a creation of our nervous system as color is -- even granting that the ultimate cause of that creation was an exterior reality of some sort.

 

[Laika]

My own view is that mystical experiences correlate with neurophysiology, but that their correlation to the functioning of the nervous system does not warrant asserting that neurophysiology is their sole or ultimate cause. About that, I remain agnostic.

Is there any practical grounds for assuming a difference between correlation and causation and that correletation does not demonstrate at least some causation? The usefulness of a model is a good basis for demonstrating that it is true but only in a partial or limited sense.

I think that with due respect to the philosophical uncertianty concerning the field, (and not claiming a right to ridicule those who claim to have such experiences), I'm not seeing a reason to reject the "caused by neurophysiology" argument beyond treating that position as absolute or final which it clearly isnt settled in either case.

It should be subject to revision pending new evidence which can identify the multiplicity and interconnection of causes. These are still unsettled questions both philoposhically and scientifically but as a working hypothesis subject to further study it appears "reasonable". Ultimately what is reasonable is not wholly objective and so bias is a factor, but there may be practical or rational reason to accept such bias.

As to whether it is the sole cause, I'd cautiously disagree (from a position of ignorance on the subject). Even if you said it was the result of the nervous system that does not mean that some external stimuli didnt trigger the event. It could be a case of "crossed wires" in the way that some people taste colours, see sound, etc. ("synesthesia" according to google). The stimuli can cause the event, but the underlying cause is nuerological in representing that stimuli in a way other than would be expected. Attributing a cause does not necessarily entail reducing it to that one cause.

[edit: only just realised thus is in the mysticism DIR, so...opps.]

 

[Rick O'Shez]

In much the same way, even if we could prove that, say, a mystical experience of "god" had an exterior cause, we would not be able to say with confidence that the "god" we experienced was in any way an adequate representation of that cause. For all we might know, "god" could be just as much a creation of our nervous system as color is -- even granting that the ultimate cause of that creation was an exterior reality of some sort.

This is the sort of thing I used to discuss with the Quakers when I joined them for "silent worship". They talked about the experience of "the God within", though in discussion it sounded like what I would call meditative stillness. So I was doing the same practice as them but not making the same assumptions about it. I really did try to keep an open mind, I was curious and willing to have a different experience.

 

[Sunstone]

Is there any practical grounds for assuming a difference between correlation and causation and that correletation does not demonstrate at least some causation?

To assume that correlation implies at least some causation would be less than logically rigorous.

 

[Laika]

To assume that correlation implies at least some causation would be less than logically rigorous.

Logic is not necessarily the best guide for the predictive capacity of a hypothesis. Scientific knowledge is imperfect and is limited by the tools to study and reproduce natural pheneomena we have at our disposal. Generally, Its the ability to predict and reproduce mystical pheneomena that would demonstrate an adequate working explanation for it.

 

[Sunstone]

Logic is not necessarily the best guide for the predictive capacity of a hypothesis. Scientific knowledge is imperfect and is limited by the tools to study and reproduce natural pheneomena we have at our disposal. Generally, Its the ability to predict and reproduce mystical pheneomena that would demonstrate an adequate working explanation for it.

Let's not argue in a DIR. I was just trying to help out by pointing out that to assume correlation implies at least some causation is illogical. That's all.

 

[Laika]

Let's not argue in a DIR. I was just trying to help out by pointing out that to assume correlation implies at least some causation is illogical. That's all.

Fair enough.

 

[George-ananda]

Can Mystical Experiences be Reduced to Neurophysiology?

I vote 'No'.

Really this debate and so many debates here come down to the two fundamentally different sides

1) Human consciousness is a product of matter
2) Human consciousness incarnates matter

If you are a 1) then all human experiences including mystical ones must be reducible to neurophysiology.

If you are a 2) then I believe the most prevalent belief is that Consciousness/God/Brahman is without limits but takes on limits when incarnating matter hence the mystical experience is consciousness expanding beyond its bodily limitations and experiencing its true nature briefly as unlimited consciousness.

I am a 2) as my conclusion from my study of paranormal phenomena and spiritual teachers I have come to respect.

Now the frequent debate here seems to be if a 2) can show 2) to a 1) through the mystical experience. I certainly say it is not likely to convince a 1) because it can not provide any objective evidence that it must be something beyond neurophysiology. That to me is why I often refer to and harp on parapsychological phenomena as important in that we can see some real world events that just would not be possible under a scenario 1) universe.

 

[Windwalker]

I'm much less confident than you when it comes to ascribing an "exterior half" to any experiences, including mystical experiences. Metaphysics just ain't my thing, I guess.

From my standpoint, there is no logical necessity to take a stand on the issue of whether or not there is an exterior reality. So, like a good wus, I don't.

I think you misunderstood what I was referring to. The "exterior" half I was referring to was the brain. Just because it is "inside" our bodies, it is not our "interior". The "self" for instance is not your brain. What lights up in the brain is simply the exterior half of the interior "I".

 

[Windwalker]

Indeed! Just as some people assume mystical experiences are no more than just a different state of mind. I find neither assumption warranted.

But I think the notion that mystical experiences are more than just a different state of mind has a special -- almost always unmentioned -- difficulty to it. That is, even if we could somehow prove that mystical experiences had an exterior cause, we still might not be able to say much of anything about that cause.

Consider, for instance, that we perceive certain wavelengths of electromagnetic energy as colors. Colors, however, are mere interpretations by our brain of those wavelengths. So, though we in some sense detect those wavelengths of electromagnetic energy, our nervous system does not tell us a great deal about them.

In much the same way, even if we could prove that, say, a mystical experience of "god" had an exterior cause, we would not be able to say with confidence that the "god" we experienced was in any way an adequate representation of that cause. For all we might know, "god" could be just as much a creation of our nervous system as color is -- even granting that the ultimate cause of that creation was an exterior reality of some sort.

This is exactly what I said in my post.

 

[Windwalker]

This is the sort of thing I used to discuss with the Quakers when I joined them for "silent worship". They talked about the experience of "the God within", though in discussion it sounded like what I would call meditative stillness. So I was doing the same practice as them but not making the same assumptions about it. I really did try to keep an open mind, I was curious and willing to have a different experience.

You do realize that people can have the same experience of the same thing, and give it different names? Some people assign a theological significance to it, others do not.