How God Changes Your Brain: Breakthrough Findings from a Leading Neuroscientist
by
by
Nov 12, 2021
·
Don’t Think of the Colour Blue… No Really, Don’t
OK, here’s the breakthrough experimental framework: the word ‘God,’ which has an indefinite meaning is hypothesised as having an integrative effect on the three different realities that, according to the researchers, all human beings have. Using advanced brain scanning technology they are able to say definitively that “If you contemplate God long enough, something surprising happens in the brain. Neural functioning begins to change.” They haven’t yet proven experimentally that these changes get the three realities to converge but someone somewhere is giving them lots of money to do so.
Unfortunately, the three realities that we all supposedly operate within (or generate, who knows?) are as indefinite as the word ‘God.’ The first is what is usually referred to as ‘objective reality,’ which is constituted by things without words that tend to distort and unreliably represent things. These things and events occurring among them are certainly ‘there’ but not as the words we use to describe them. So this reality is therefore mute and awaits interaction with us to speak… through us of course.
The second reality is subconscious and therefore also entirely wordless as well as mysterious - a sort of dark matter of the mind. We have to presume it’s there in order to make sense of other things - like the first reality which is also opaque (the phrase ‘blind leading the blind’ comes to mind). Essentially the subconscious consists of the neural algorithms that have proven useful for survival. Some of these are genetically programmed, others are learned as we develop. Since these neural algorithms are dependent upon experience in an historical set of circumstances, they may not always function to maintain life and limb in the future. In any case we only know of them by inference not observation.
The final reality is that of ‘consciousness.’ Of course this term is as indefinite as that of ‘God’ and ‘subconscious’ (some folk consider the two terms to be equivalent; this possibility has not been considered by the researchers however). In any case consciousness consists of lots of words, some of which we use to describe (or to map as the researchers prefer to say) the world we think we live in. Consciousness is a world that exists entirely within language.
It is only in language that we can express our conscious beliefs, feelings, thoughts, concepts, and explanations about the other two realities, and all those things exist only in language. Because it puts words out willy-nilly, consciousness gets pretty cocky and thinks it rules the roost. This is the essence of delusion. As is typical, the researchers don’t want to apply their theory to themselves. So they get themselves in a tremendous muddle. It is only necessary to apply their own words to themselves to understand why.
According to the authors, consciousness (which is necessarily the location of their theory, according to their theory) “represents a reality that is the farthest removed from the world that actually exists outside of the brain.” And, they go on “we have yet to discover if, and to what degree, these two inner realities [of the subconscious and the conscious] communicate with each other.” But they do know that there is only the most tenuous connection between where the two internal maps are located, the brain, and what happens in the world:
I have no problem with this psychological framework per se. If somewhat culture-specific and epistemologically as well as ontologically puerile, it is nevertheless standard Freudian stuff which these guys have imported to interpret their brain scans. Not that they can see the conscious or subconscious parts of the brain. All the can see are the scan results.
The experimental design is simple and has nothing to do with what actually happens in Reality #3 aside from researchers talking to subjects and interpreting brain scans. Signals in the form of words, phrases, and instructions are passed from the researchers to the subjects of the study. Changes in neural activity are then recorded. These are then correlated with verbal reports from the subjects to the researchers about their ‘state of mind.’ The conclusions reached by the researchers are that when the word ‘God’ or other rather imprecisely described ‘godly thoughts’ are involved in a researcher/subject interaction, specific neural pathways are created which are correlated with subjective reports of well-being.
It should be obvious that this is systematic research not into the psychology of religion but of applied linguistics. The researchers have no idea what interaction between the conscious and unconscious brain might be (or if indeed such a distinction has any foundation except in consciousness itself). Nor do they know anything about the consequent behaviour of the God-oriented subjects versus the rest of the population. Are there fewer criminals? More beneficent millionaires. Lower divorce rates? Fewer (or more) suicides? Etc. Apparently no one has sought to inquire.
And, more to the point, no one knows whether words other than ‘God’ can be contemplated with equivalent reported changes in goals, attitudes, or feelings of well being. The claim is that “the moment God is introduced to the human brain, the neurological concept will not go away.” And what about the colour ‘blue’ or the relationship ‘mother?’ Or for that matter E = mc2? Neither the researchers nor the subjects know what the other means by ‘God,’ that is, how God is connected to other words and what unconscious algorithms might be involved in determining that meaning.
I have no doubt that reflective thinking, whatever form that might take from Zen meditation (technically non-thinking) to a quiet moment in the park (where thinking is allowed to go rampant). It might even make you a better person. But these guys have a thing about Compassionate Communication which actually has nothing to do with God or their Freudian theory of reality. Their thesis is that civility and respect given to people often provokes them to respond in a similar manner. And even further, when that response happens, it tends to generate feelings of well-being!
I want to know where these guys get their funding. As an alumnus of the University of Pennsylvania where they do their research, I think I already have a leg up. I have an idea for which I want first round venture-finance, see? It’s a thing, the components of which are all equidistant from any arbitrary point by any arbitrary distance. I’ve already demonstrated its usefulness in moving heavy loads from point A to pint B. I’m keeping it general for the moment because I don’t want the practical consequences to leak. I have a prototype in my garage. Serious investors are welcome to inspect upon appointment.
Postscript: I think it would be useful to reference another rather less stupid book on neurological research in order to demonstrate the point that at any point in time most scientific results are just junk: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
OK, here’s the breakthrough experimental framework: the word ‘God,’ which has an indefinite meaning is hypothesised as having an integrative effect on the three different realities that, according to the researchers, all human beings have. Using advanced brain scanning technology they are able to say definitively that “If you contemplate God long enough, something surprising happens in the brain. Neural functioning begins to change.” They haven’t yet proven experimentally that these changes get the three realities to converge but someone somewhere is giving them lots of money to do so.
Unfortunately, the three realities that we all supposedly operate within (or generate, who knows?) are as indefinite as the word ‘God.’ The first is what is usually referred to as ‘objective reality,’ which is constituted by things without words that tend to distort and unreliably represent things. These things and events occurring among them are certainly ‘there’ but not as the words we use to describe them. So this reality is therefore mute and awaits interaction with us to speak… through us of course.
The second reality is subconscious and therefore also entirely wordless as well as mysterious - a sort of dark matter of the mind. We have to presume it’s there in order to make sense of other things - like the first reality which is also opaque (the phrase ‘blind leading the blind’ comes to mind). Essentially the subconscious consists of the neural algorithms that have proven useful for survival. Some of these are genetically programmed, others are learned as we develop. Since these neural algorithms are dependent upon experience in an historical set of circumstances, they may not always function to maintain life and limb in the future. In any case we only know of them by inference not observation.
The final reality is that of ‘consciousness.’ Of course this term is as indefinite as that of ‘God’ and ‘subconscious’ (some folk consider the two terms to be equivalent; this possibility has not been considered by the researchers however). In any case consciousness consists of lots of words, some of which we use to describe (or to map as the researchers prefer to say) the world we think we live in. Consciousness is a world that exists entirely within language.
It is only in language that we can express our conscious beliefs, feelings, thoughts, concepts, and explanations about the other two realities, and all those things exist only in language. Because it puts words out willy-nilly, consciousness gets pretty cocky and thinks it rules the roost. This is the essence of delusion. As is typical, the researchers don’t want to apply their theory to themselves. So they get themselves in a tremendous muddle. It is only necessary to apply their own words to themselves to understand why.
According to the authors, consciousness (which is necessarily the location of their theory, according to their theory) “represents a reality that is the farthest removed from the world that actually exists outside of the brain.” And, they go on “we have yet to discover if, and to what degree, these two inner realities [of the subconscious and the conscious] communicate with each other.” But they do know that there is only the most tenuous connection between where the two internal maps are located, the brain, and what happens in the world:
“… the human brain seems to have difficulty separating fantasies from facts. It sees things that are not there, and it sometimes doesn't see things that are there. In fact, the brain doesn't even try to create a fully detailed map of the external world. Instead, it selects a handful of cues, then fills in the rest with conjecture, fantasy, and belief.”
I have no problem with this psychological framework per se. If somewhat culture-specific and epistemologically as well as ontologically puerile, it is nevertheless standard Freudian stuff which these guys have imported to interpret their brain scans. Not that they can see the conscious or subconscious parts of the brain. All the can see are the scan results.
The experimental design is simple and has nothing to do with what actually happens in Reality #3 aside from researchers talking to subjects and interpreting brain scans. Signals in the form of words, phrases, and instructions are passed from the researchers to the subjects of the study. Changes in neural activity are then recorded. These are then correlated with verbal reports from the subjects to the researchers about their ‘state of mind.’ The conclusions reached by the researchers are that when the word ‘God’ or other rather imprecisely described ‘godly thoughts’ are involved in a researcher/subject interaction, specific neural pathways are created which are correlated with subjective reports of well-being.
It should be obvious that this is systematic research not into the psychology of religion but of applied linguistics. The researchers have no idea what interaction between the conscious and unconscious brain might be (or if indeed such a distinction has any foundation except in consciousness itself). Nor do they know anything about the consequent behaviour of the God-oriented subjects versus the rest of the population. Are there fewer criminals? More beneficent millionaires. Lower divorce rates? Fewer (or more) suicides? Etc. Apparently no one has sought to inquire.
And, more to the point, no one knows whether words other than ‘God’ can be contemplated with equivalent reported changes in goals, attitudes, or feelings of well being. The claim is that “the moment God is introduced to the human brain, the neurological concept will not go away.” And what about the colour ‘blue’ or the relationship ‘mother?’ Or for that matter E = mc2? Neither the researchers nor the subjects know what the other means by ‘God,’ that is, how God is connected to other words and what unconscious algorithms might be involved in determining that meaning.
I have no doubt that reflective thinking, whatever form that might take from Zen meditation (technically non-thinking) to a quiet moment in the park (where thinking is allowed to go rampant). It might even make you a better person. But these guys have a thing about Compassionate Communication which actually has nothing to do with God or their Freudian theory of reality. Their thesis is that civility and respect given to people often provokes them to respond in a similar manner. And even further, when that response happens, it tends to generate feelings of well-being!
I want to know where these guys get their funding. As an alumnus of the University of Pennsylvania where they do their research, I think I already have a leg up. I have an idea for which I want first round venture-finance, see? It’s a thing, the components of which are all equidistant from any arbitrary point by any arbitrary distance. I’ve already demonstrated its usefulness in moving heavy loads from point A to pint B. I’m keeping it general for the moment because I don’t want the practical consequences to leak. I have a prototype in my garage. Serious investors are welcome to inspect upon appointment.
Postscript: I think it would be useful to reference another rather less stupid book on neurological research in order to demonstrate the point that at any point in time most scientific results are just junk: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
posted by The Mind of BlackOxford @ November 12, 2021
0 Comments
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home