Where does one experience spirituality ?

Where does one's memory of that experience get stored for later recall ?

I don't know. I suppose I am a magical thinker. I was taught about God and Jesus my whole life. My parents were non denominational. I was disappointed in my early adult life and so became Mormon. I realized 8 years in and another child later, I don't believe the doctrines so I returned to my original faith I was brought up in only now I won't go to church. I have prayed to and have had faith in Jesus my whole life. I have had doubts he exists at times but I hold out hope he is there. I know sometimes atheists don't understand but I am not willing to entertain that he may not be real. I choose to believe in him but do understand why others don't. I can't and don't want to entertain it. In that way I'm like a Mormon who goes off the burning in the bosom. I know this.

I'm a little confused by the question. Are you suggesting that magical thinking, spirituality, and theism are the same thing? If not, how do you define "magical thinking" and "spirituality"?

"Magical thinking" is a psychiatric term with a specific meaning. It does not refer to religious belief. Why do you persist in misusing terms like this one, and others, while at the same time claiming to be so much better-informed and rational than everyone else?

Idiot Detector Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why do you persist in misusing terms like
> this one, and others, while at the same time
> claiming to be so much better-informed and
> rational than everyone else?

I'm unclear on what Jesus Smith meant as well, and I'd like to +1 oddcouplet wrote.

But you, sir, are putting a lot of words in Jesus Smith's mouth when you could be clarifying what he meant instead.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/06/2012 01:33PM by athreehourbore.

Apart from a clinical context, "magical thinking" is a term used to insult theists. It seeks to reduce someone like Alister McGrath, say, to a believing 5 year old who *really* believes the pretty girl in sequins was sawed in half and then magically put together again.

Spirituality is one of those words that is flung around fast and loose nowadays. I read the Webster's dictionary definitions, and as varied as they are, they are not nearly so varied as those I hear from anybody I have talked to on the subject and those on this board.

Anybody wishing to discuss it needs to define their definition, or the discussion is pointless. Apples and oranges as they say.

Every word that starts with spirit, no matter what the ending, comes from that root, which in it's purest form means the intelligent or immaterial part of a man as distinguished from the body--or--the animating or vital principle in living things.

This has nothing to do with a deity or a religion. This has to do with what makes you, YOU. It might die when you die, it might live on.

My personal definition of spirituality is that it is the distillation of the purest essence of anything--the best of something distilled to it's most concentrated and potent strength, that when tapped into , can be accessed to enhance understanding, enlightenment and love--or in some cases get you drunk.

The terms "spirited horse" or "high spirited" are understood because we understand that those feelings are derived from our immaterial selves, and that is the purest source of "us".

I don't like the words soul or spirit because they carry a religious connotation that shouldn't necessarily apply since religion has nothing to do with true spirituality.

There are myriad sources for this experience from beauty to vastness to interconnectedness, but all lead to one thing--that which makes you supremely aware of your purest essence.

P.S Just to be clear though, I am an atheist. I don't really understand the magical thinking thing everyone is talking about.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 01/06/2012 04:26PM by blueorchid.

I assume that your reference to "magical thinkers" was pejoritively directed at those who claim to have genuine "spiritual" experiences. By genuine I simply mean in some sense transcendent or metaphysical. Notwithstanding your prior comments, I will also assume that as an atheist you do not believe in such experiences.

I suppose the basic question you are posing is as follows: "Where do such transcendent experiences reside such that they can be recalled?" The suggestion appears to be that they must reside somewhere outside the brain in order to be valid as transcendent experiences, meaning in order for them to in fact reflect a metaphysical reality beyond our normal experience. If this is your question, it is, of course, false. The answer is simply, such experiences are reflected in brain states and memory states in accordance with the general principals of cognitive science and neuroscience. In this regard there is nothing peculiar about them. What is peculiar (arguably) is their metaphysical interpretations.

Now, let's turn to your statement in the prior post about spirituality as related to atheism: You said,

"Both Henry and Human want to claim that there is something beyond measurable which is metaphysical. The problem I see with each explanation given above is everything claimed is a conscious experience. It resides in the consciousness--otherwise the experiencer would not have a conscious memory of it. As such, it is entirely measurable. And not metaphysical."

Response:

First, consciousness is metaphysical, unless you subscribe to the bizzare and refuted view of identity theory or eliminativism such that there is no ontological distinction between a conscious experience and its underlying neurological brain state. Consciousness is beyond physics. Moreover, it is NOT measurable. If you don't believe me, I invite you to check any Physics (or Neuroscience) textbook index for the word "consciousness." Then, tell me what are the units of measurement for consciousness, and what are the equations that tie consciousness to the rest of the material world. Again, consciousness is metaphysical, which is why it is so mysterious. (Not get confused. The fact that the physical brain, and its electrical and chemical underpinings are measurable does NOT imply that consciousness is measurable.)

"The definition many mystics want to apply to spirituality is the same kind of definition Gandalf would give magic in Lord of the Rings. Both are fiction. These same feel something profound and believe it goes beyond their consciousness. But there is no evidence for this at all. In fact, like I said, that it is in the memory shows it is consciousness. It's all material/physical."

Response:

Whether the interpretations of "spiritual" experiences that postulate a reality beyond the known physical world are "fiction" is, of course, an open question. The fact that such interpretations are not falsifiable suggests that they are not proper concerns of science. But you cannot label all metaphysical speculations as "magical thinking." Science itself is deeply engaged in metaphysics. Examples that come to mind are Cosmology, and Particle Physics. Both of these involve metaphysical speculations about the nature of reality. What distinquishes inquiries related to "spiritual experiences" and other, scientific, metaphysical claims, is the nature the the metaphysical entities that are being postulated, and the evidence for such entities. There is insufficient evidence that the Christian god exists as a viable explanation for conscious "spiriual" experiences (in my view). On the other hand, there is reason to postulate such things as Parallel Universes and the Higgs field, however metaphysical such postulations might be.

In short, asking the question about the location of spiritual experiences does not undermine them in any way, or suggest any paradox that can be used against religious faith.

Well, I recognized all the words at least.

Are you saying that if it does not register in your brain that it cannot exist? Is your definition of spirituality that it does not exist? Do you reject all definitions of spirituality, from the hippie to the pious mormons?

There is no proof that sentient consciousness could not have some other means of conduct besides the brain. If there were an immaterial part to you, why couldn't it feel? Why couldn't it have a conduit that bypasses the brain? Science doesn't know everything yet. There are more than likely parts to us that are yet to be revealed--or would that be immaterial?

I know what I mean if you don't and I am OK with that.

From what I read, he's stating that if you have a spiritual experience or transcendental state that in order for you to recall it, you have to remember it or be able to access it, which means that the experience is recorded in your brain.

He's also stating that sentient consciousness cannot be measured so that we don't really know where it resides. It may reside somewhere in the brain or somewhere outside, but since it can't really be measured it's not a question of science.

Ok, that's what I think he said. I could be wrong.

Enjoyed this post a lot.

Thanks. That is much clearer than what I had swirling around my brain. I like this topic and am confused and fascinated at the same time.

it is part of our world but sometimes it dont look that way...some of what happens at that level would/is considered magical...like particles/waves being in two different places at the same time! thats kinda magical wouldnt ya say?
also Stephen Hawking says this universe may have/did just "pop" into existance...magical...at least to "lay" paople! :)

Global consciousness is being claculated by some people look up:
The Global Consciousness Project
Meaningful Correlations in Random Data


...so you never know what might be found "out there" "out there" just might be "in there"(consciousness)or REALLY out there!:)

Those who understand & work in physics will never agree to characterize the rigor of QM, big bang/gravitation as "magical" in the sense I meant "real magic".

I understand that some took offense to my using the term "magical thinker" as if I meant it in a debasing, pejorative way.

No, not really. To me, the term magical thinking refers to those that believe in "real magic" of miraculous, supernatural or thaumaturgical events and powers. This opposed to the craft of magic by illusion.
(see this fun video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48ol4sHasA8#t=07m48s )

The reason I say this is because like "real magic" which has no explanation, it seems to me that magical thinkers have no way of truly explaining their spirituality in ways that can be assessed scientifically. As such, it becomes in the same category to me as how others see "real magic".

Personally, I believe in neither.

This is why I ask about where in the body/brain or person spirituality occurs. Where the memories of those experiences are stored.

From my perspective, the spiritual claims made here are not the same as those hypothesizing parallel universe, higgs bosons, etc because there is no experiment that can be done to rule them out. (Well, I will grant that the many worlds hypothesis is more difficult, but if you read your Hawkings, you can find that there are thought experiments to invalidate the hypothesis.)

There don't seem to be ways to invalidate spiritual claims because by definition they are defined or claimed as metaphysical. The former are not claimed in that realm. In fact, they are described by equations, which can (at the future) be possibly measured.

Now if one of you is saying that spirituality can be measured, then it is no longer metaphysical. And as such, we are back to where the atheist "spirituality" definitions become more valid.

I guess my issue is, those claiming that spirituality is outside of the physical and the only way to know if they exist is to experience them--they cannot be measured in a lab--are really making no different claim than Mormons about the truth of god's way being made known by the holy ghost.

This is problematic for me. I see the idea of any truth being made known by a metaphysical property/event/force/what-have-you as a compass spinning in all directions across the world. Been there done that in moism.

Reality-based, measurement capable "spirituality" (or consciousness based studies of well-being) are far more interesting and probably far more productive than haphazard wandering through a mystical and ill-defined something.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/06/2012 04:28PM by Jesus Smith.

I actually don't think spiritual experiences unmeasurable in a lab correlate to the mormon testimonial experience, although they do both share the immeasurability.

In my definition spirituality is something that represents our highest level of being possible for that moment. It has no relevance for anyone else, and is negated the second any selfish agenda is attached to it, such as the mormons do.

Interesting that you believe one type of personal spiritual experience is not measurable and not quantifiable yet maintain it is superior to those with agendas. On what basis are you ranking & judging this...if you can't measure...?


blueorchid Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I actually don't think spiritual experiences
> unmeasurable in a lab correlate to the mormon
> testimonial experience, although they do both
> share the immeasurability.
>
> In my definition spirituality is something that
> represents our highest level of being possible for
> that moment. It has no relevance for anyone
> else, and is negated the second any selfish agenda
> is attached to it, such as the mormons do.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/07/2012 06:30AM by Jesus Smith.

I wouldn't use the word superior. I just think it is such a personal thing, and only valid for personal use. So, ranking it or judging it is impossible. The person feeling it can only appreciate it for themselves.

By agenda, I mean taking your personal spirituality and trying to apply it to someone else. The pureness of it is lost at that moment for me and spirituality by my definition has to be the pure essence of something.

I am sure this makes no sense to anyone but me and the more I read this thread I think we are all talking about different things, but I find all of them fascinating, sincerely.

I especially like Summer's comparison of the spiritual to art. That is about right on to how I feel. When you see a piece of art and it makes you feel something you haven't felt before, it could be your brain creating a new sum from its parts, or, it could be something extra, that comes from somewhere else. Where else? I don't have a clue. But I am open to that possibility.

In science you have an observer and something that is observed. To me, spirituality attempts to erase the barrier between observer and observed so that both are perceived as being the same thing. That combined, same thing is perceived as being more than the sum of its parts. People often call that something more, "God." It's a different way of perceiving the world.

I've compared religion and spirituality to art more than to science. Art can be real, and can convey human truth, but it is not measurable.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/06/2012 07:26PM by summer.

Interesting take summer. I still maintain that it is a conscious experience so no matter what's perceived, it is measurable, even by external sensors such as fMRI. Art is absolutely measurable and quantifiable. Most transitions in art are founded in advances in science & technology. The emotional experience of the viewer/listener is a conscious experience and accessible to measurement.

summer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In science you have an observer and something that
> is observed. To me, spirituality attempts to erase
> the barrier between observer and observed so that
> both are perceived as being the same thing. That
> combined, same thing is perceived as being more
> than the sum of its parts. People often call that
> something more, "God." It's a different way of
> perceiving the world.
>
> I've compared religion and spirituality to art
> more than to science. Art can be real, and can
> convey human truth, but it is not measurable.

I think the feelings, emotions and thoughts of spiritual experiences can be measured in scientific ways. I think you also have to believe psychology and psychiatry are sciences to be able to measure them.

But, you know as well as anyone how many pathways there are in the human brain, and the variables involved in biology. So your result would probably be that there is not one single "spiritual" person who experiences their spirituality exactly the same as any other person. I doubt there would be any two darts that hit the same spot on the dart-board, although there would probably be groups of darts in the same general areas.

I certainly think spirituality can be measured, and the experience of it can be analyzed psychologically. Maybe I misunderstood your question.

+1 include neuroscience with psychology...