Scientists See God on the Brain

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
reply to post by HunkaHunka

 

HI HUNKA, HUNKA, BURNING LOVE,

We are all deterministic meat puppets who's only motivation is an internal sense of comfort. Even if we are sacrificing, we do so, because we would feel bad about ourselves otherwise...

Are you spiritual at all?

I do not see how seeing us as meat machines helps us evolve.

As you can probably tell from my last lengthy post, yes I would refer to myself as spiritual...

If you see people as meat machines, you are less likely to take things personal, and more likely to figure out how to get someone to respond in a particular way as opposed to being upset that they responded in a way you were not hoping for.

It's like when a child hits an adult... the adult most likely might say "Well, they are only a child, and don't know any better"

I guess I would call this "conditionism" if I had to coin a phrase for it.

Seriously, I strongly suggest you read the What is Man essay, and weigh it out for yourself...

I posted it, only because I felt Sam did a great job of describing this...

The last thing I will say, is that this entire post of mine, was in line with my egoic nature. I, Jimmy, really enjoy discussing these things... so I do... because it makes me feel good :-)

I enjoy it too I guess, never thought is was egoic, I also love Rumi.

reply to post by HunkaHunka

As you can probably tell from my last lengthy post, yes I would refer to myself as spiritual...

I think most are, even if we think we are not, if we find the beauty or see the beauty in being, or a sunrise, we are spiritual.

Originally posted by HunkaHunka

State 3. Jimmy and John disappear and now I am simply a motive... Many people confuse this state with selflessness, when in fact, it's simply JimmyandJohnlessness to a certain degree. However, now the motive takes on the sense of importance, and this is where many people get sidetracked into a sense of a messiah complex...

Although I agree with you that seeking to annihilate the ego can only arise as a goal OF the ego itself, I think that where you stopped here in your stages may be the reason you come to the conclusion you do.

There is another stage.

4) The realization that your highest "Self" is neither the thinker, nor the motive, but the Observer of thought and motive. And the realization that your own egoic, or personal thoughts and motives are no more important or dear to "YOU" as the observer, than the thoughts and motives of any other being.

You can realize that you are not motive, nor thought, but rather Consciousness itself, without thought or motive. The eternal Observer of "All that Is" without judgment of it, desire for it to be different than it is, without any negative, (or overtly positive) response to it at all. Simply accepting and being aware of whatever is in front on One. Peacefully. Utterly non-resistant to the experience, even if, as a physical actor in the experience, one must struggle. (Fight)

While I agree that "seeking" this (as an act motivated by ego) is unlikely to lead one to it, one can indeed stumble upon it, and there may be some paths that make one more likely to stumble upon it than others.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


That's a great post, illusion, ego is not necessarily the enemy.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

Originally posted by HunkaHunka

State 3. Jimmy and John disappear and now I am simply a motive... Many people confuse this state with selflessness, when in fact, it's simply JimmyandJohnlessness to a certain degree. However, now the motive takes on the sense of importance, and this is where many people get sidetracked into a sense of a messiah complex...

Although I agree with you that seeking to annihilate the ego can only arise as a goal OF the ego itself, I think that where you stopped here in your stages may be the reason you come to the conclusion you do.

There is another stage.

Indeed... I thought about going into this as well, and then mentioning Ken Wilber, but I got sidetracked by some other stuff, and wanted to cut to the chase.

4) The realization that your highest "Self" is neither the thinker, nor the motive, but the Observer of thought and motive. And the realization that your own egoic, or personal thoughts and motives are no more important or dear to "YOU" as the observer, than the thoughts and motives of any other being.

Yep... I completely agree... as I mentioned thanks for picking up where I left off...

You can realize that you are not motive, nor thought, but rather Consciousness itself, without thought or motive. The eternal Observer of "All that Is" without judgment of it, desire for it to be different than it is, without any negative, (or overtly positive) response to it at all. Simply accepting and being aware of whatever is in front on One. Peacefully. Utterly non-resistant to the experience, even if, as a physical actor in the experience, one must struggle. (Fight)

While I agree that "seeking" this (as an act motivated by ego) is unlikely to lead one to it, one can indeed stumble upon it, and there may be some paths that make one more likely to stumble upon it than others.

I don't really see the seeking as a negative thing, it is simply replacing the desire for something mundane with the desire for something more than mundane.

If I gave the impression that I didn't believe seeking was a worthy process, then please forgive me. I mean only to suggest that the deliberate process of seeking is no more egoless than eating a hotdog, it's simply an attraction toward a different experience.

I will go so far into heresy as to suggest though, that it doesn't really matter. Seek or don't seek... it's really up to your inclination or "chance" as it were, no way of living is ultimately more valid than any other way. Although, you might find some more enjoyable than others if you have the good fortune of being on the up side of contrast.

reply to post by HunkaHunka

Seek or don't seek... it's really up to your inclination or "chance" as it were, no way of living is ultimately more valid than any other way.

True, I know some people who are just naturals.

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

 

That's a great post, illusion, ego is not necessarily the enemy.

And that was really my whole point in the defense of selfishness.

Illusion really helped to round out the whole story though as for the entire process...

Funny, that above sentence makes sense in so many ways.


[edit on 13-3-2009 by HunkaHunka]

Originally posted by HunkaHunka

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

 

That's a great post, illusion, ego is not necessarily the enemy.

And that was really my whole point in the defense of selfishness.

Illusion really helped to round out the whole story though as for the entire process...

Funny, that above sentence makes sense in so many ways.


[edit on 13-3-2009 by HunkaHunka]

Yea,

not one line.

When speaking of naturals, I think of reincarnation, and what if even though we don't remember, we subconsciencely bring the knowledge with us.

Or we are trying to remember.

Ancient holy text are like time capusels.

reply to post by HunkaHunka

ndeed... I thought about going into this as well, and then mentioning Ken Wilber, but I got sidetracked by some other stuff, and wanted to cut to the chase.

Aaaaah! I was thinking about mentioning Ken Wilber as well! I love it when that happens!

4) The realization that your highest "Self" is neither the thinker, nor the motive, but the Observer of thought and motive. And the realization that your own egoic, or personal thoughts and motives are no more important or dear to "YOU" as the observer, than the thoughts and motives of any other being.

Excellent. This is what I was trying to get at as well. With this in mind, I'd be hesitant to describe humans as "meat puppets," even though in a sense that is what we are, it just doesn't convey the immensity of what it is to be conscious, or to have consciousness, or of actually being conscioussness. But thats just a little semantic quibble.

All that study has claimed is that the same parts of the brain are activated when reading religious text as are when reading riddles, philosophy, and deciphering puzzles.

Considering most religious texts are riddle like, it's not really surprising.


Yes, some of you can argue that reading religious text is doing you good, as you are in fact attempting to decipher a puzzle.
But it's no different than puzzles of any other nature.

Unfortunately, journalists will often purposely select information, and ignore other information, in order to make the juiciest story.

They've done this test before, so I'm not entirely sure how it wound up becoming a new news article... but they've also done the same test on people playing chess, solving math equations, reading philosophy, and simply solving jigsaw puzzles. The same "higher brain functions" were observed in every event.

The religious text stimulant occurs as a result of the wording of the religious texts resembling the format of a philosophical puzzle. As it's meant to be, so that different readers can get the message they want from it.


The last article I saw twisting this concept claimed something to the effect of the brain having a "god center"... what the article didn't explain is that same part of the brain is responsible for deciphering any and all puzzles we come across.

reply to post by johnsky



It is sad we don't get much follow up articles.

It seems the gist of the scientist Jordan Grafman comment is to classify his research as materialism and evolution. Don't know whether he actually believes this or he's putting in a sound bite that facilitates future funding.

The spirit occupies and animates the body including the brain. The mind is also matter residing at a much higher level than the body and is also animated by the spirits energy. Often the mind, like the body consume the spirit energy running their own cycles/compulsions against the best interests of the spirit being. The scientists are able to identify what thoughts result in a more uplifting effect on the brain and which ones degrade it. That is good science. The mind is in two basic parts, higher mind which looks "up" in the direction of the purely spiritual realms and the lower mind that looks down into matter and more and more dense material realms. When the spirit is focused on sex, for example, it degrades into the material lower mind. When the focus of attention is on a plane of consciousness above the individuals current plane of attention then science apparently recognizes uplifting characteristics on the brain, which is good.

This is, in its own way, a demonstration of the limitations of "science" and academia. While "scientists" like Mr. Grafman can memorize all the right information and obtain who knows what status and degrees, without the spiritual/karmic state and intuitive capacities he can never understand the results obtained in their true light. Such people will always bias the results with their own limitations and/or the agendas or those working as instruments of repressing knowledge of the true nature of "man" for the purpose of career and ideology.

The spirit.
yup
My brain hurts.

[edit on 113131p://bSaturday2009 by Stormdancer777]

[edit on 113131p://bSaturday2009 by Stormdancer777]

Originally posted by ctjctjctj
GOD is acronym for Genius Of Design, our master designer of our universe and everything ever first created.

Religion was invented by (shadow) governments to split up humanity in the name of GOD so each of us elusively fights for our own so-called god, fake religion and false consciousness, and hence will never unite and stand up together against the (shadow) governments and cabals.

Think, GOD does not want her people to fight for her sake.

Wake up, sheeple!

Hello ctj, I don't know if you are serious or not but the word "God" is not an acronym. It has many other counterparts and has a literal english translation to tetragrammaton which relates to sacred geometry.. the word tetragrammaton derives from the ancient hebrew name for the lord, or god.. Yahweh or IAEU..

Hmmm.. again not sure if your serious with the second paragraph either, but religion was defenitely not created by governments. However, it is being used as a tool by shadow government to foster evil and segregate masses of public.

I was thinking about to reply in a denying way, but then regretted of thinking in such a way. The thing is, I have given myself a permission to believe because it is all in human evolution to do so. I could go on with my life and deny everything that is a belief but it would not make me a happy person. What does make me happy, because of evolution, is belief.

I cannot help but to realize that there is belief to be had, be it any religion or any science, that observation alone cannot account for all facts that I am able to explain. No, really. Human mind creates explanation out of nothing by a form of belief system and I am beginning to be happy with that situation. I have had a lot of issues towards religion, none of which have been satisfactory. Quite interestingly, when I take into account all that research which is about human religious beliefs, I find that believing in some religion is more satisfactory than what it would be to believe in none.

All in all, I believe we all see the same god, although with different ethics. Go figure.

Brain scans showed that participants fell back on higher thought patterns when reacting to religious statements, whether trying to figure out God's thoughts and emotions or thinking about metaphorical meaning behind religious teachings.

And you can gain the same higher thought patterns when reading any old book!

reply to post by andre18

And you can gain the same higher thought patterns when reading any old book!

Really? How would you know? Have you studied the thought patterns of two people reading "any old book" and found them to be the same? And what do you mean any old book? Any old book? I don't think you've given much thought to that statement. I also get the feeling you don't read too many books.
Out of curiosity, what makes you think any two thought patterns are the same?



[edit on 14-3-2009 by outsider13]

reply to post by outsider13


In the article, it says that just from listening to preaching from the bible people 'fell back on higher thought patterns' from either trying to figure out God's thoughts and emotions or thinking about metaphorical meaning behind the religious teachings.'

If you read any old book, let's say eg fairly tale, people are going to be tring to figure out the meaning of the book which causes them to fall 'back on higher thought patterns.'

It doesn't matter what book or what it is you're reading or listining to, as long as what ever it is, is causing you to think about it more deeply. And to suggest that only the bible can make you think deeply is quite arrogant.

[edit on 14-3-2009 by andre18]