What if god...

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

While it’s challenging to test scientifically, experiencing it becomes more accessible when one is open and willing to eliminate mental distractions, allowing for a deeper connection to the present moment.

Many surveys of meditators reveal that, upon quieting the mind and entering deep states of stillness, they report experiencing a sense of omnipresence, unity, disolving of ego and a higher order. When the mind is stilled, one might expect emptiness or nothingness, but instead, a whole new awareness seems to emerge, offering profound and unexpected insights.

I could provide survey results if that would be helpful.

“Sense of omnipresence” ≠ omnipresence 

[iNow]

5 minutes ago, Genady said:

SCUBA divers report the same after experiencing nitrogen narcosis

People eating magic mushrooms and LSD feel the same. Exactly as you said, easily explainable neural response. 

[Luc Turpin]

2 hours ago, iNow said:

So, contrary to your original point, NOT “beyond time and space.”

If this is the case, why did you argue when I suggested it only existed in one’s imagination? Now you’re agreeing with me. 

It unfolds both within you and around you. It is not a product of imagination, but when the mind quiets and imagination ceases to intervene, it naturally resurfaces. Part of the whole. It's just not coming from you.

 

 

 

Edited Saturday at 03:37 PM by Luc Turpin

[iNow]

4 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

It is not a product of imagination, but when the mind quiets and imagination ceases to intervene, it naturally resurfaces.

If not imagination in one of its many forms, then from where?

Anything which surfaces naturally has a natural explanation and source underlying it. Those are both subject to scientific inquiry.

[Luc Turpin]

1 hour ago, Genady said:

SCUBA divers report the same after experiencing nitrogen narcosis. A common brain response.

Scuba divers experiencing nitrogen narcosis, pilots enduring high G-forces, individuals having near-death experiences, and practitioners of meditation all share a common thread: the mind is quiet. This stillness doesn't lead to nothingness, but instead opens the door to profound experiences of "somethingness"—a possible deeper reality or altered state of awareness.

LSD and magic mushrooms induce a shift in perception, often unlocking a heightened sense of awareness that reveals a richer, more complex reality. These substances can alter sensory experiences, enhance emotional sensitivity, and create a profound sense of interconnectedness. While they may not necessarily quiet the mind in the traditional sense, they can disrupt habitual thought patterns, allowing for new insights and perspectives to emerge.

[iNow]

Yes, that’s the point

[Luc Turpin]

2 hours ago, iNow said:

Meditation is quite beneficial, but it changes one’s cortisol and adrenaline and stress levels much like relaxed breathing does through increased oxygen consumption, but (beyond the small space between your ears) does not alter spacetime itself.

I encourage you to keep meditating because right now your thinking is rather sloppy and perhaps that will help. You don’t even realize how often you contradict yourself because you’re so convinced everyone else is wrong and must be argued against.

A poet might say that humans are the universe trying to understand itself for a little while, and poetry often provides us with new perspectives and insights, but it’s value again involves thoughts and feelings not in altering spacetime more broadly (and no, survey results are also irrelevant to the claims you’re making). 

It’s important keeping an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out. 

It seems you may be relying heavily on objective explanations, attempting to rationalize subjective experiences through the lens of cortisol and adrenaline. As for me, I’m doing my best, even if it doesn’t align with your perspective. If my thoughts seem imperfect, then so be it. Sometimes, the richness of experience doesn’t fit neatly into a structured framework.

[Genady]

3 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

the mind is quiet

What does make you think that SCUBA diver on a depth of 60m, monitoring gages and dive computer and communicating with other divers, has a quiet mind?

[Luc Turpin]

3 minutes ago, Genady said:

What does make you think that SCUBA diver on a depth of 60m, monitoring gages and dive computer and communicating with other divers, has a quiet mind?

Narcosis: "It can cause a sense of euphoria, altered perceptions, and sometimes a feeling of quieting or slowing down of the mind."

Edited Saturday at 03:58 PM by Luc Turpin

[iNow]

4 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

you may be relying heavily on objective explanations

Correct, bc opinions are like arseholes. Everyone’s got one and they usually stink… and this a science forum FFS

Edited Saturday at 03:59 PM by iNow

[Luc Turpin]

Just now, iNow said:

Correct, bc opinions are like arsehole. Everyone’s got one and they usually stink 

Nice conversing with you!

[iNow]

Thanks

[Genady]

1 minute ago, Luc Turpin said:

Narcosis: "It can cause a sense of euphoria, altered perceptions, and sometimes a feeling of quieting or slowing down of the mind."

It says that quiet mind is the result, not a cause of this condition.

[Luc Turpin]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

“Sense of omnipresence” ≠ omnipresence 

I agree, it’s impossible to provide empirical data for the actual experience of omnipresence, but one can describe a "sense of omnipresence"—an overwhelming feeling or awareness of interconnectedness, unity, and boundless presence. This subjective experience, while not measurable in the traditional scientific sense, is deeply felt and can be shared across different individuals and cultures.

[iNow]

25 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

This subjective experience, while not measurable in the traditional scientific sense

There are machines which measure activation and intensity and blood flow across brain regions. 

[TheVat]

Science can't be the tool for all aspects of existence. A fMRI could monitor a brain in some meditative state, seeing what areas are most active, but that wouldn't fully address all the subjective aspect of a mystical experience.  Those experiences are more to be approached through epistemology and metaphysics, where one acknowledges that scientific claims cannot be made.  I don't think some human intuitions or holistic perceptions will ever be scientifically reducible in a way that somehow forms a complete explanation.  As others note, science seeks to ask specific questions about the physical world and possibly make an inference to the best explanation.  This in no way promises to answer all the big questions of philosophy.

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

I agree, it’s impossible to provide empirical data for the actual experience of omnipresence, but one can describe a "sense of omnipresence"—an overwhelming feeling or awareness of interconnectedness, unity, and boundless presence. This subjective experience, while not measurable in the traditional scientific sense, is deeply felt and can be shared across different individuals and cultures.

Subjective is a key word here. How can something subjective be giving you “perspectives on reality”? Isn’t reality, by definition, comprised of things that are objectively true? Your “sense of omnipresence” can be chemically-induced (along with being a bait-and-switch argument)

[Luc Turpin]

2 hours ago, Genady said:

It says that quiet mind is the result, not a cause of this condition.

The distinction between cause and result does not diminish the fact that the brain slows down during nitrogen narcosis. B.K. Butler, in Cognitive and Behavioral Effects of Nitrogen Narcosis, discusses how narcosis impairs various brain functions, including memory, attention, and motor control. This slowing of cognitive processes is a key aspect of the experience and illustrates the brain's altered state under pressure.

 

2 hours ago, iNow said:

There are machines which measure activation and intensity and blood flow across brain regions. 

You can explore the periphery of subjective experience using objective measures, but you cannot directly access the essence of subjectivity through objectivity alone.

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

Science can't be the tool for all aspects of existence. A fMRI could monitor a brain in some meditative state, seeing what areas are most active, but that wouldn't fully address all the subjective aspect of a mystical experience.  Those experiences are more to be approached through epistemology and metaphysics, where one acknowledges that scientific claims cannot be made.  I don't think some human intuitions or holistic perceptions will ever be scientifically reducible in a way that somehow forms a complete explanation.  As others note, science seeks to ask specific questions about the physical world and possibly make an inference to the best explanation.  This in no way promises to answer all the big questions of philosophy.

Agree!

19 minutes ago, swansont said:

Isn’t reality, by definition, comprised of things that are objectively true?

Reality isn’t limited to one or the other; it is a dynamic interplay of both objective facts and subjective experience. Both are integral to our complete understanding of ourselves and the world we live in.

19 minutes ago, swansont said:

 Your “sense of omnipresence” can be chemically-induced

The "sense of omnipresence" can be chemically induced, but the key question is whether the substance is simply altering brain chemistry or unlocking access to another level of reality. Does it just change how we perceive things, or does it reveal a deeper, previously hidden experience? This distinction helps us understand if these experiences are purely brain-based or if they point to something beyond the physical world.

19 minutes ago, swansont said:

 (along with being a bait-and-switch argument)

No attempt at a bait-and-switch argument. If it seems that way, please feel free to point it out.

Edited Saturday at 06:39 PM by Luc Turpin

[swansont]

4 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

reality isn’t limited to one or the other

If there’s something I can’t experience, how is it part of reality?

[Luc Turpin]

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

If there’s something I can’t experience, how is it part of reality?

You can experience it if you choose to. If you choose not to, your understanding of reality remains incomplete. After experiencing it, many find their perception of reality transformed, often gaining a deeper or modified view of existence.

[Phi for All]

3 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

You can experience it if you choose to. If you choose not to, your understanding of reality remains incomplete.

Reality, something else so subjective that science isn't interested. 

Look, if you choose to convince yourself that your lack of knowledge means there's a supernatural mystery instead of simple ignorance waiting to be banished with some objective reasoning, there are plenty of people willing to hold hands with you and pretend the compassion and camaraderie and oneness you all feel is because of some higher power instead of simple biological functions and behaviors. I remember being that way in my 20s, and thinking that I had answers when all I had was junk pushed on me by miserable people who wanted company. 

What if god is holding you back from understanding the universe around you by helping you pretend you know what's "real"?

[swansont]

20 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

You can experience it if you choose to. If you choose not to, your understanding of reality remains incomplete. After experiencing it, many find their perception of reality transformed, often gaining a deeper or modified view of existence.

You don’t know this to be true. You may want it to be true, but if the experiences aren’t identical, how can you say it’s part of reality? 

[Luc Turpin]

3 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

1-Reality, something else so subjective that science isn't interested. 

2-Look, if you choose to convince yourself that your lack of knowledge means there's a supernatural mystery instead of simple ignorance waiting to be banished with some objective reasoning, there are plenty of people willing to hold hands with you and pretend the compassion and camaraderie and oneness you all feel is because of some higher power instead of simple biological functions and behaviors. I remember being that way in my 20s, and thinking that I had answers when all I had was junk pushed on me by miserable people who wanted company. 

3-What if god is holding you back from understanding the universe around you by helping you pretend you know what's "real"?

1-Science should engage with subjectivity if it seeks to truly understand the core of reality.

2- I wouldn't be trying to convince myself if it weren't for the fact that "bothersome" things tend to happen when the brain shuts down or is at rest.

3-It's the opposite — science is being hindered by a reluctance to engage with subjectivity. As for God, I’m uncertain of His existence.

[swansont]

1 minute ago, Luc Turpin said:

1-Science should engage with subjectivity if it seeks to truly understand the core of reality.

Science does not seek to understand reality. It describes how nature behaves.

It’s like saying a bicycle should fly. That’s a nice fantasy, but not the function of a bicycle.

1 minute ago, Luc Turpin said:

3-It's the opposite — science is being hindered by a reluctance to engage with subjectivity. As for God, I’m uncertain of His existence.

Science would be further hindered by trying to dilute it by making it incorporate extraneous things.

[Luc Turpin]

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

You don’t know this to be true. You may want it to be true, but if the experiences aren’t identical, how can you say it’s part of reality? 

Subjectivity is an inherent-integral part of the world we live in. So, do we simply choose to ignore it?