"Functional" MRI, as opposed to.....? But I know nothing about this sort of thing.
http://www.newsmonster.co.uk/searchi...the-brain.html
Well that’s where my God is. Where is yours?
Well, if you're going to talk about God, some of us coarse-minded brutes are going to ask not about what's going on inside your head but about what's going on outside it. :-)Originally Posted by Zaira
Well that’s where my God is. Where is yours?
I have been reading about us being our own Gods and creating own reality from the thoughts we entertain, so I can at least entertain the thought that that's where God is if anywhere - in my head.
Zaira,
You are incorrigible. :-)
Thak you.
In a series of studies conducted over the past several decades, Persinger and his team have trained their device on the temporal lobes of hundreds of people. In doing so, the researchers induced in most of them the experience of a sensed presence—a feeling that someone (or a spirit) is in the room when no one, in fact, is—or of a profound state of cosmic bliss that reveals a universal truth. During the three-minute bursts of stimulation, the affected subjects translated this perception of the divine into their own cultural and religious language—terming it God, Buddha, a benevolent presence or the wonder of the universe.
(From the full article in Scientific American.)
I wonder if this is classed as an hallucination or delusion.
Zaira, to answer your question, the article doesn't define "God", but if it means the "God" I assume the nuns believe in, then he is neither inside my head or out of it. He doesn't exist.
In a series of studies conducted over the past several decades, Persinger and his team have trained their device on the temporal lobes of hundreds of people. In doing so, the researchers induced in most of them the experience of a sensed presence—a feeling that someone (or a spirit) is in the room when no one, in fact, is—or of a profound state of cosmic bliss that reveals a universal truth. During the three-minute bursts of stimulation, the affected subjects translated this perception of the divine into their own cultural and religious language—terming it God, Buddha, a benevolent presence or the wonder of the universe.
(From the full article in Scientific American.)
I wonder if this is classed as an hallucination or delusion.
Zaira, to answer your question, the article doesn't define "God", but if it means the "God" I assume the nuns believe in, then he is neither inside my head or out of it. He doesn't exist.
The final paragraph of the article......
Moreover, no matter what neural correlates scientists may find, the results cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. Although atheists might argue that finding spirituality in the brain implies that religion is nothing more than divine delusion, the nuns were thrilled by their brain scans for precisely the opposite reason: they seemed to provide confirmation of God’s interactions with them. After all, finding a cerebral source for spiritual experiences could serve equally well to identify the medium through which God reaches out to humanity. Thus, the nuns’ forays into the tubular brain scanner did not undermine their faith. On the contrary, the science gave them an even greater reason to believe.
Zaira,
I think we have discussed this before:
http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/a...ls.php?id=8625
Whether something exists or not has nothing to do with whether it exists-relative-to-what-is-in-your-head.
Forget gods. Try unicorns.
Tom,
"Zaira, to answer your question, the article doesn't define "God", but if it means the "God" I assume the nuns believe in, then he is neither inside my head or out of it. He doesn't exist."
I agree. The nun's God doesn't exist. The God I'm reading about is more in the mind.. The power (potential) of the mind, when used correctly, will show us that we are in fact our own God! We are in control of our own life and our own destiny!
Zaira, if you genuinely want to learn something from this or any other sceptical site, you'll have to accept one thing:
There is only one reality. The idea that you can choose your own personal reality is nonsense - it makes the concept of "reality" meaningless. People can INTERPRET reality in different ways but facts are facts.
Julia,
"There is only one reality. The idea that you can choose your own personal reality is nonsense - it makes the concept of "reality" meaningless. People can INTERPRET reality in different ways but facts are facts."
I never said I choose my own reality. I said I create my own reality. There is a difference. And it is to do with cause and effect. Let's say I seriously upset someone and they are planning to get back at me - I did that, I caused it, I created it.
You and others keep talking about me learning things here. I have learned a lot believe me, but some of you have failed to understand what I mean by creating my own reality. Is that not what we are doing when we create our own destiny?
No.
Explain please.
Fer Pete's sake, Zaira, we have explained this to you in simple language several times! REALITY and DESTINY don't mean the same thing - you are comparing apples and oranges. I don't even know what you mean by destiny. If you mean "a course of action planned before I was born and impossible to change", as in the religious concept of predestination, you can't make your own destiny anyway. If you mean "a path in life leading to a goal", of course you can make your own destiny within reason, but you can't have your very own personal reality. There's nothing to stop me convincing myself that World War II took place between 1929 and 1934, but it doesn't alter the established fact that the actual dates were 1939 and 1945.
Sorry to SHOUT, but I can't understand why you find this so difficult to grasp...
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks