If and When We Experience God, How do We Know that God is Real?

[Sunstone]

As I recall, there are experiments in which electrodes have been used to stimulate different locations in the brain. During at least some of these experiments, the stimulus seems to have prompted the person to have vivid memories of past events. For instance, one subject -- a middle aged man -- recalled playing the piano at an early age. But his experience was not quite like a normal recollection.

For one thing, it was far more vivid. For another, it was just as it had happened in the first place. There was no glossing over this or that, no difficulty recalling details -- it was if he was once again playing the piano as a child. But perhaps most important, he had a striking sense that what he was experiencing was real.

That, and many other things, suggests to me that our sense of something as real is a function of our brains.

That is, we are not sensing some property of real things. Rather, our brains are wired, so to speak, to produce under certain circumstances, the feeling something is real.

But if this is the case, then it might have certain implications for the mystic. One of the hallmarks of certain mystical experiences -- experiences which are sometimes interpreted as being of god -- is that they are accompanied by an overwhelming sense or feeling that they are real. In fact, that sense or feeling is so overwhelming as to produce in many people an absolute conviction that they are real.

But if our sense that something is real is a product of the brain can we trust it to tell us that the god of our experience is real? Or if not the god, whatever it is we interpret the content of our experience to be?

What do you think?

 

[allfoak]

Stimulating the brain is like turning on an old radio.
The signals are coming from the outside, the radio is turning the signals into something that we are able to interpret and the sound seems to come from the inside.

When the brain is stimulated it is like tuning it to a radio station.
With the extra stimulation we are able to interpret signals that we would otherwise not be able to pick up normally.
Our brain is an hologram, things are not stored there, we are interpreters of vibration not memory storage bins.
Everything that we experience inside is just as real as what we experience outside.
In fact, inside and outside don't even really exist at all.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

What do you think?

I think to some extent we find what we expect to find, according to our beliefs and assumptions. All such experiences are subjective of course.

I have some Quaker friends and join them for "silent worship", they talk about experiencing the God within. Coming from a Buddhist background that isn't the language I would use, though I suspect what we're experiencing sometimes isn't all that different.

 

[Aiviu]

... , he had a striking sense that what he was experiencing was real...

It didnt happened? A man may forget and oversees it but his heart wont forgot what echos in it. It never forgets. Its even able to let you travel in your life span if a heart had a connection with what you were doing or with whom you were at that time.

The heart will grow in relation to how you live it.

 

[Windwalker]

That is, we are not sensing some property of real things. Rather, our brains are wired, so to speak, to produce under certain circumstances, the feeling something is real.

Bear in mind this experiment of evoking a memory recall would give it a sense of real-time occurrence because it was not going through the normal memory recall process of "trying to remember", where it is clear to the mind it is a memory. Doing something to make it pop up in front of you would of course make it seem a real-time experience, along with all the other normal emotional and cognitive thoughts that come along with those normal experiences which would give it the sense of immediate live experience.

But if this is the case, then it might have certain implications for the mystic. One of the hallmarks of certain mystical experiences -- experiences which are sometimes interpreted as being of god -- is that they are accompanied by an overwhelming sense or feeling that they are real. In fact, that sense or feeling is so overwhelming as to produce in many people an absolute conviction that they are real.

I can of course attest to the fact they are experienced as absolutely real. They are not just hallucinations or the brain misfiring producing some sense that what you are experiencing is real, only afterwards to realize they were not. Note too, that the person who recalled his childhood experience by the manipulation of his brain did not then afterwards claim with all confidence that he actually was a child again, that he actually experienced time-travel. He could tell the experience was unreal after the fact. Not so with mystics.

The question for the mystic is not was it real, but more what do I understand from this, or how do I interpret and translate the real experience? Was this the God of my mythology? Etc. Those are questions for our interpretive frameworks, but the question of the experience is unmistakable, and it very much is repeated with the same tell-tale signs of that type of experience the world over.

But if our sense that something is real is a product of the brain can we trust it to tell us that the god of our experience is real? Or if not the god, whatever it is we interpret the content of our experience to be?

Can't the same thing be true of anything you experience on a daily basis, from eating toast to opening the door on your car, to loving your spouse, to enjoying the night sky? I think the reductionist approach to trying to determine what is "real" can lead us to some pretty insane conclusions. How does anyone judge what is real? How can anyone truly trust their own senses? How can anyone function in life at all? Everything we look at and consider is all done in the brain, including the experience of the divine.

You trust your experiences. But people should hold their ideas about their experiences with open hands, rather than using a mystical experience to prove your belief systems are right. I have a lot more to say to this, but I'm out of time.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

As I recall, there are experiments in which electrodes have been used to stimulate different locations in the brain. During at least some of these experiments, the stimulus seems to have prompted the person to have vivid memories of past events. For instance, one subject -- a middle aged man -- recalled playing the piano at an early age. But his experience was not quite like a normal recollection.

For one thing, it was far more vivid. For another, it was just as it had happened in the first place. There was no glossing over this or that, no difficulty recalling details -- it was if he was once again playing the piano as a child. But perhaps most important, he had a striking sense that what he was experiencing was real.

That, and many other things, suggests to me that our sense of something as real is a function of our brains.

That is, we are not sensing some property of real things. Rather, our brains are wired, so to speak, to produce under certain circumstances, the feeling something is real.

But if this is the case, then it might have certain implications for the mystic. One of the hallmarks of certain mystical experiences -- experiences which are sometimes interpreted as being of god -- is that they are accompanied by an overwhelming sense or feeling that they are real. In fact, that sense or feeling is so overwhelming as to produce in many people an absolute conviction that they are real.

But if our sense that something is real is a product of the brain can we trust it to tell us that the god of our experience is real? Or if not the god, whatever it is we interpret the content of our experience to be?

What do you think?

I'll take a stab at this, since I am one of those people that was previously very skeptical of such experiences before having one

Yes it seemed real, in a way that obviously cannot be communicated very easily so I won't bother to try, but another aspect to consider is the method of 'stimulation' you bring up

If somebody had jumper cables on my ears attached to a kite in a lightning storm, OK I can see how I might attribute an extraordinary experience to a malfunctioning imagination!

ditto for chemical stimulants, severe stress, illness etc

But when it is in a perfectly normal neutral relaxed/alert waking state, no unusual circumstances whatsoever- and it hits you out of the blue... I can rationalize that it is not entirely impossible, that some wiring in my head spontaneously and temporarily came loose/ was activated after decades of dormancy.. to produce a brief extraordinary unique one-off experience, leaving me with the distinct impression of an outward communication with something I never even used to believe in!... but whether or not this is the most probable explanation? I suppose depends on what odds we estimate for each possibility?

hmm.. I don't suppose that gets us very far!

 

[Rick O'Shez]

You trust your experiences. But people should hold their ideas about their experiences with open hands, rather than using a mystical experience to prove your belief systems are right.

I very much agree with that sentiment.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I think the brain is complicated. Who here hasn't had a dream where they were finally relieving their aching bladder - only to realize moments later that pissing your brains out appeared to have somehow failed? As you slowly come to consciousness you realize - ah! - this is a dream. And then you get up, go to the bathroom and do the real job. It seems so real while it is happening.

In the above instance of your mind playing tricks, however, there is a key linking of what is desired vs. what is actualized that doesn't exist when the experience is a "spiritual" one. And that is that the desire wasn't ultimately fulfilled because your physical state hadn't actually changed in the way you needed it to to provide relief. So you have immediate feedback that the situation wasn't real - i.e. you still have to pee. Basically I'm trying to say that the desire to have a spiritual encounter is automatically satisfied the moment your brain interprets one (whether that be a dream, or a hallucination, etc.) and so there is NO INCENTIVE to doubt its "reality".

 

[icehorse]

The range of experiences that the brain can expose the mind to is extraordinary, and there's no reason to think that we've even scratched the surface of what's possible to experience.

As far as god goes, I wouldn't interested in hanging out with any god that couldn't make the distinction clear. So - for example - a god worthy of trust and demonstrating compassion could announce upcoming miracles, perform them on time, reliably repeat them, and perhaps even take requests. That would be a god worthy of some attention!

 

[atanu]

As I recall, there are experiments in which electrodes have been used to stimulate different locations in the brain. During at least some of these experiments, the stimulus seems to have prompted the person to have vivid memories of past events. For instance, one subject -- a middle aged man -- recalled playing the piano at an early age. But his experience was not quite like a normal recollection.

For one thing, it was far more vivid. For another, it was just as it had happened in the first place. There was no glossing over this or that, no difficulty recalling details -- it was if he was once again playing the piano as a child. But perhaps most important, he had a striking sense that what he was experiencing was real.

That, and many other things, suggests to me that our sense of something as real is a function of our brains.

The reactions resulted from particular stimulation/s of the brain. Do you mean to say that the brain is the experiencer too?

 

[Jumi]

If the "ocean" of my experiences is a God, so be it. It's a word that tends to mislead since mainstream definitions offer me nothing. I don't see a connection to creator gods either, at least in the mainstream Christian way. I can't see it commanding anyone to do anything or accept something on faith. It's more subtle than that.

 

[mystic64]

As I recall, there are experiments in which electrodes have been used to stimulate different locations in the brain. During at least some of these experiments, the stimulus seems to have prompted the person to have vivid memories of past events. For instance, one subject -- a middle aged man -- recalled playing the piano at an early age. But his experience was not quite like a normal recollection.

For one thing, it was far more vivid. For another, it was just as it had happened in the first place. There was no glossing over this or that, no difficulty recalling details -- it was if he was once again playing the piano as a child. But perhaps most important, he had a striking sense that what he was experiencing was real.

That, and many other things, suggests to me that our sense of something as real is a function of our brains.

That is, we are not sensing some property of real things. Rather, our brains are wired, so to speak, to produce under certain circumstances, the feeling something is real.

But if this is the case, then it might have certain implications for the mystic. One of the hallmarks of certain mystical experiences -- experiences which are sometimes interpreted as being of god -- is that they are accompanied by an overwhelming sense or feeling that they are real. In fact, that sense or feeling is so overwhelming as to produce in many people an absolute conviction that they are real.

But if our sense that something is real is a product of the brain can we trust it to tell us that the god of our experience is real? Or if not the god, whatever it is we interpret the content of our experience to be?

What do you think?

Yours is the age old question ! So how about this? If one is communicating with something that is more knowing than one's self, then how can one test the information that is recieved in real life to see if the information or any parts of the information is real or not? As you know I have been a mystic for sixty odd years now and a yogi for forty odd years with thousands of hours of meditation experience and I have always been extremely empathic and somewhat telepathic. So the one thing that I have always been up against is, "What is real and what is not real?" "Where is all of this stuff coming from and is it real or is it all just a bio chemical brain chemistry delusion?" I don't know ! I can prove to myself that a lot of this stuff is real because it creates realities that work in real life, but when I attempt to prove to others that some of this stuff is real, they head for the tall and uncut ! They do not want to know, and I as one who is inclined to be a compassionate person have to respect that.

"What do you think?"

I can prove that I can manipulate my own brain chemistry environment with my conscious mind in a clinical environment and I have already proven that I am extremely empatic and somewhat telepatic in a clinical environment. But, that has nothing to do with proving a functional connection to the "profoundly powerful force with a conscious mind" (for lack of any other term). And no matter how you look at it, proving that in real life is extremely dangerous. At this point in time the best route to go seems to be to use the connection in one's day to day life, but also to be quiet about proving the validity of that connection. What do I think? I think, at least relative to myself, that it is not about "what you can do", it is about "should you do what you can do?" And so far it keeps adding up, "No! Absolutely not !" Somethings need to remain a mystery for the peace of mind of those around you .

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Yours is the age old question ! So how about this? If one is communicating with something that is more knowing than one's self, then how can one test the information that is recieved in real life to see if the information or any parts of the information is real or not? As you know I have been a mystic for sixty odd years now and a yogi for forty odd years with thousands of hours of meditation experience and I have always been extremely empathic and somewhat telepathic. So the one thing that I have always been up against is, "What is real and what is not real?" "Where is all of this stuff coming from and is it real or is it all just a bio chemical brain chemistry delusion?" I don't know ! I can prove to myself that a lot of this stuff is real because it creates realities that work in real life, but when I attempt to prove to others that some of this stuff is real, they head for the tall and uncut ! They do not want to know, and I as one who is inclined to be a compassionate person have to respect that.

"What do you think?"

I can prove that I can manipulate my own brain chemistry environment with my conscious mind in a clinical environment and I have already proven that I am extremely empatic and somewhat telepatic in a clinical environment. But, that has nothing to do with proving a functional connection to the "profoundly powerful force with a conscious mind" (for lack of any other term). And no matter how you look at it, proving that in real life is extremely dangerous. At this point in time the best route to go seems to be to use the connection in one's day to day life, but also to be quiet about proving the validity of that connection. What do I think? I think, at least relative to myself, that it is not about "what you can do", it is about "should you do what you can do?" And so far it keeps adding up, "No! Absolutely not !" Somethings need to remain a mystery for the peace of mind of those around you .

True.

What bothers me in this is that all of our experiences come from how we percieve things and how the mind and body interprets etc things like when we meditate to eating cheese burgers.

Just because it is a product of the brain and attributed as an outside source in some faiths why would it be less real than the Buddhist view that all percepts come from self even mystic ones?

 

[mystic64]

True.

What bothers me in this is that all of our experiences come from how we percieve things and how the mind and body interprets etc things like when we meditate to eating cheese burgers.

Just because it is a product of the brain and attributed as an outside source in some faiths why would it be less real than the Buddhist view that all percepts come from self even mystic ones?

...why would it be less real that the Buddist view that all percepts come from even mystic ones?" Carlita , yours is a beautiful question! It is not less real and I actually didn't intend it to be less real. I have been a mystic for over sixty years now and I have been out there and have had a pretty good look at things and it all seems to come from self . Based on my experience there is a profoundly powerful force with a conscious mind out there (or in there if one wants to approach things that way) and that profoundly powerful force with a conscious mind is "you", if you want it to be. Which would also mean that the wisdom from your ancestors is also you and that it comes from yourself. I have a problem, right or wrong , with that, to me your ancestors are real and they are not you, and the profoundly powerful force with a conscious mind is real and I am not "it" . "it" will be me if I want it to, but if I do not want it to, from there "it" then becomes something that I am sharing time with that is not me.

 

[Orbit]

As I recall, there are experiments in which electrodes have been used to stimulate different locations in the brain. During at least some of these experiments, the stimulus seems to have prompted the person to have vivid memories of past events. For instance, one subject -- a middle aged man -- recalled playing the piano at an early age. But his experience was not quite like a normal recollection.

For one thing, it was far more vivid. For another, it was just as it had happened in the first place. There was no glossing over this or that, no difficulty recalling details -- it was if he was once again playing the piano as a child. But perhaps most important, he had a striking sense that what he was experiencing was real.

That, and many other things, suggests to me that our sense of something as real is a function of our brains.

That is, we are not sensing some property of real things. Rather, our brains are wired, so to speak, to produce under certain circumstances, the feeling something is real.

But if this is the case, then it might have certain implications for the mystic. One of the hallmarks of certain mystical experiences -- experiences which are sometimes interpreted as being of god -- is that they are accompanied by an overwhelming sense or feeling that they are real. In fact, that sense or feeling is so overwhelming as to produce in many people an absolute conviction that they are real.

But if our sense that something is real is a product of the brain can we trust it to tell us that the god of our experience is real? Or if not the god, whatever it is we interpret the content of our experience to be?

What do you think?

In a way, I think this is asking the wrong question. If electrodes produce a mystic experience, it just means the electrodes are mimicking the brain state you achieve in meditation. It produces an experience. That experience is real in every sense of the word. The only way we have of perceiving anything is through our brains--therefore a mystic experience is just as real as you looking at the sky and experiencing the color blue. Why would you want to ruin that feeling by reducing it to dust in the atmosphere + rods and cones in your eyes? It's obviously so much more than that.

There is a science of experience that says the most important thing about experience is your interpretation of it. It's called phenomenology, and we should really be looking there to talk about what the mystic experience means to a person. But that's just one vocabulary for talking about it. There are other religious and philosophical discourses that can be used.

In short, yes mystic experience is as "real" as any other human experience, and the real importance lies in what religious/philosophical framework you use to make sense of the meaning of that experience. Some people may equate that with experiencing God, others see God as a metaphor for the experience of the ineffable, others see union with their own subconscious under the guise of Higher Self. All are equally valuable perspectives and I think humanity would be impoverished by not acknowledging this very real aspect of human experience.

 

[mystic64]

In a way, I think this is asking the wrong question. If electrodes produce a mystic experience, it just means the electrodes are mimicking the brain state you achieve in meditation. It produces an experience. That experience is real in every sense of the word. The only way we have of perceiving anything is through our brains--therefore a mystic experience is just as real as you looking at the sky and experiencing the color blue. Why would you want to ruin that feeling by reducing it to dust in the atmosphere + rods and cones in your eyes? It's obviously so much more than that.

There is a science of experience that says the most important thing about experience is your interpretation of it. It's called phenomenology, and we should really be looking there to talk about what the mystic experience means to a person. But that's just one vocabulary for talking about it. There are other religious and philosophical discourses that can be used.

In short, yes mystic experience is as "real" as any other human experience, and the real importance lies in what religious/philosophical framework you use to make sense of the meaning of that experience. Some people may equate that with experiencing God, others see God as a metaphor for the experience of the ineffable, others see union with their own subconscious under the guise of Higher Self. All are equally valuable perspectives and I think humanity would be impoverished by not acknowledging this very real aspect of human experience.

Orbit, I liked what you posted!

 

[Windwalker]

In a way, I think this is asking the wrong question. If electrodes produce a mystic experience, it just means the electrodes are mimicking the brain state you achieve in meditation. It produces an experience. That experience is real in every sense of the word. The only way we have of perceiving anything is through our brains--therefore a mystic experience is just as real as you looking at the sky and experiencing the color blue. Why would you want to ruin that feeling by reducing it to dust in the atmosphere + rods and cones in your eyes? It's obviously so much more than that.

There is a science of experience that says the most important thing about experience is your interpretation of it. It's called phenomenology, and we should really be looking there to talk about what the mystic experience means to a person. But that's just one vocabulary for talking about it. There are other religious and philosophical discourses that can be used.

In short, yes mystic experience is as "real" as any other human experience, and the real importance lies in what religious/philosophical framework you use to make sense of the meaning of that experience. Some people may equate that with experiencing God, others see God as a metaphor for the experience of the ineffable, others see union with their own subconscious under the guise of Higher Self. All are equally valuable perspectives and I think humanity would be impoverished by not acknowledging this very real aspect of human experience.

Great post.

 

[Papoon]

As I recall, there are experiments in which electrodes have been used to stimulate different locations in the brain. During at least some of these experiments, the stimulus seems to have prompted the person to have vivid memories of past events. For instance, one subject -- a middle aged man -- recalled playing the piano at an early age. But his experience was not quite like a normal recollection.

For one thing, it was far more vivid. For another, it was just as it had happened in the first place. There was no glossing over this or that, no difficulty recalling details -- it was if he was once again playing the piano as a child. But perhaps most important, he had a striking sense that what he was experiencing was real.

That, and many other things, suggests to me that our sense of something as real is a function of our brains.

That is, we are not sensing some property of real things. Rather, our brains are wired, so to speak, to produce under certain circumstances, the feeling something is real.

But if this is the case, then it might have certain implications for the mystic. One of the hallmarks of certain mystical experiences -- experiences which are sometimes interpreted as being of god -- is that they are accompanied by an overwhelming sense or feeling that they are real. In fact, that sense or feeling is so overwhelming as to produce in many people an absolute conviction that they are real.

But if our sense that something is real is a product of the brain can we trust it to tell us that the god of our experience is real? Or if not the god, whatever it is we interpret the content of our experience to be?

What do you think?

You've ruined everything for everyone here. Shut down the forum, it's all over folks.

 

[Windwalker]

You've ruined everything for everyone here. Shut down the forum, it's all over folks.

So you are saying we're all delusional? Science says it, you believe it, that settles it for you? Thus saith the neuroscientist?

 

[Sunstone]

So you are saying we're all delusional? Science says it, you believe it, that settles it for you? Thus saith the neuroscientist?

Are you implying that "science says we're delusional"? I ask because that would be a very poor misunderstanding of the science presented in the OP, if you were referring to that.