Psychotropics and the Nature of Reality

[RainDog]

a really interesting presentation by Michael Persinger about the science of religious experience from the pov of brain function.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7991385426492181792#docid=4292093832329014323

[RainDog]

1. like evolution...

...studying the physical world that creates our reality via brain chemistry does not address the issue of first causes.

however, understanding or elucidating the brain chemistry that makes religious experience a universal phenomena does explain why such an experience is possible. it also explains the cultural nature of belief - the experience is the same - someone is watching over you, there are beings that are not human that exist outside of this reality, there is a passage from life to death - the names given to the perception of various gods, or angels or ancestors depends upon what you were taught to believe as a child (usually, but sometimes with adulthood) within a specific culture.

those who choose to place reality outside of the boundaries of reality will find a force outside of the physical world - and this, too, is explained by their brain chemistry.

iow, religious belief is a self-contained chemical process in the brain and the process itself allows believers to maintain their belief, if they so choose.

the long-standing relationship of drugs and religion exists because it allows a culture to create that religious experience reliably, because of the known effects of various chemicals upon the chemicals in the brain - tho some people can and often do manufacture a religious experience without the use of a helper. religious experience, iow, is a form of creativity. imagination.

if one's religious belief consists of acknowledging the universality of the human experience, of suffering, of the value of compassion, of the value of assuaging the fear of death - that belief seems to have value in and of itself.

doctrine, on the other hand, is bullshit, at least at the biochemical level.

ymmv if doctrine enables you to acquire power over others in your culture, to inculcate fear, to promote hatred of difference and to manipulate the ignorant.

...at least that's what I got out of this person's work.

[DeSwiss]

2. K&R - Excellent video. n/t

[cleanhippie]

3. I think Carl Sagan adresses this topic in "The Varieties of Scientific Experience"

He talks about how our brains have receptors for many different molecules, and that for every molecule found in the natural world that our brain responds to, our bodies can also MAKE the same type of molecule inside the body. He states that this is the most likely cause for "the religious experience"...
I am paraphrasing and do not remember exactly how he puts it, but thats the gist of it.

[TZ]

4. Lots of neurological studies in this area, actually.

This is the best one from a really quick google search..
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/02/brain-damage-transcendence/

[struggle4progress]

5. The actual video is sort of a mishmash, consisting mainly of a rambling lecture to undergrads

It sounds like the fellow may know a lot about brain function, but this video isn't the place to learn what he really knows

If it had mainly been about the biology of religious experience, or about psychotropics, or about producing mental states by magnetic fields, it might have been more interesting

Although I find it quite credible that one can produce anomalous psychological states by eternal magnetic fields, I will suspect that precise analogs of psychotropic-chemical effects cannot be obtained in this manner, since the mechanisms are rather different: the psychotropics affect specific neurotransmitter sites, not gross magnetic fields

He also seems to get his history casually wrong: the Luther-lightning story is usually told to explain why Luther became a monk, not why Luther suddenly changed from a nondescript monk to a reformer; and the etymology of "assassin" may not actually be associated with hashish

[RainDog]

6. yes. I knew the etymology of hasish was questioned

- that the story came from Marco Polo and was suspect. that has nothing to do with his discussion of the neurochemistry of belief, however.

I wasn't aware of the Luther story but do know of a similar one - that Paul's conversion was an epileptic seizure. some people with complex partial seizures (that effect the temporal lobe/s) have religious experiences, hallucinations, etc. as part of that experience too.

I can't speak about the weak magnetic fields - tho it seems he has a body of work that is available to look at in relation.

SSRIs, which target specific neurotransmittors (sites) are really sort of like scatter shot, even tho they do work to target specific chemical reactions - so I don't know how specific something like, say, LSD is, either.

in any case, sorry it wasn't interesting to you. I thought it presented a subject in very easy to understand terms - and spoke specifically about quite a few myths in this society about psychotropics, as well.

[originalpckelly]

7. A short jaunt in Wikipedia shows that his "God Helmet" was independently tested...

only the researchers doing it could not find any relationship between the magnetic fields and religious experiences. I believe this an interesting field of research, but as to whether or not people have managed to figure this shit out yet, I doubt it. The brain is incredibly complicated. That's what I find so interesting about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_helmet#Replication_studies

[RainDog]

8. wiki also notes other researchers who questioned the danish experiment

and the danish experiment did not exactly replicate the initial experiments. (having said this, I'm not actually defending persinger's experiments per se... whether his helmet is valid or not, it has already been established that temporal lobe epilepsy creates various experiences in various human brains w/o any helmet involved... a catholic friend of mine who dealt with them saw demons, a catholic women in the UK thought she gave birth to Christ, an atheist thought he had seen the afterlife... just some examples. (the last two were featured on a BBC Horizon show if you want to watch it on google, btw.)

The ability to create sensations in the brain, and to alter/vary the levels of brainwaves has been demonstrated with meditation, spinning (whirling) sensory deprivation experiments (and torture). Hypnosis does the same but does not work the same for everyone - not everyone has the same level of ability to respond of hypnotic suggestion. But hypnosis does work for some people as a way to alter behavior and thought. Meditation utilizes different parts of the brain and depresses the function of other parts - as well as the type of brain wave - compared to sleep or attention to tasks or simple relaxation. Psychotropic drugs like mescaline, etc. create hallucinogenic visions that create experiences within the mythology of one culture or another.

another person who has interesting remarks on the issue is Susan Blackmore. she did (unlike Dawkins) have a reaction to the helmet and hopes people will do further experiments to test the concept. I am inclined to think that, like hypnosis, some people may be more open to the experience b/c, while our brains have a standard basic model, we're all variations on chemical themes - as demonstrated by schizophrenia and manic depression (both of these may cause hallucinations but they are not the same sort of difference.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Blackmore

here's an interview with her you can listen to online

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Blackmore

she's an interesting public intellectual, to me. she's studied paranormal phenomena, debunks it, and yet also notes that religion is highly adaptive for humans - when the goal is selfish gene reproduction. a little irony there.. Dawkins' selfish gene concept demonstrates religion serves a useful purposes for individuals. religious individuals reproduce more (because their ideologies encourage this, for the most part... not the Shakers, rip. Prayer and meditation have health benefits. being part of a group increases chances of survival and a sense of psychological well being. so at the most basic level, religion confers a reproductive advantage.

...but I wonder... when the human population reaches a point that it overburdens the planet, however... does that make religion less adaptive? - or is the selfish gene in conflict with a larger view of humankind and species survival.. are we so successful as a species that we are going to destroy our habitat b/c we operate at an atomized level of consciousness of what constitutes who we are? - i.e. personal vs. species existence. maybe we don't care about our species if our own genes aren't involved.

and, again, the issue doesn't get to first causes. people can and do argue that the brain has "god antennae" for the purpose of receiving from this god-ness.

on the other hand, people argue that studying meaning and consciousness in and of itself results in a loss of meaning for people and, therefore, is a "bad" thing - tho that gets into the realm of existence - existential ideas of meaning.

not to mention this same idea - that it is useful for people to have beliefs, no matter if they're valid or not, serves the purpose of a civilization - Leo Strauss' view and the view of people like Kristol and Wolfowitz.

but the idea of religion as a form of creativity is also interesting to me - as an ability to imagine different states of being.

just some rambling...