I meant that benzyme has an education, thus an understanding of the mechanics of the brain/body, etc...(not something that you gain over night, there is years behind what his is saying to you)
His view on these matters is through a much larger window than most of us & would require you to have a basic knowledge of these physical structures in order to understand what he is trying to explain to you.
It's not just what he "thinks" is right. He is talking about things that people have tested & verified for many, many years.

It is not just some facts he picked up on a few random internet sites...there is generations of experimenting/documenting/educating/practice behind what he is trying to explain to you.
I sometimes wonder if people who grew up with the internet understand the difference between the two.


Before one can understand color...you first have to be able to see.
Before one can walk...you need feet.
Before one can understand acetylcholine signaling...you first have to understand the physics of our neuro/electro-chemistry.
Reading a few random websites will not provide you with a very full understanding of much in this world.


Not if your only looking to prove of what you already think/believe...that's not what science is for.
It's for finding the truth...as it exists without your beliefs.


WS

The problem with "these types of ideas", which is to say with metaphysics, is that instead of seeking gnosis and a broadening of experience, the metaphysician is simply one more person peddling a view of the world and trying to sort out his experience in such a way that it conforms to it. It is no accident that all the great mystics who have left a system, rather than a metaphysical picture, have stressed pragmatism and skepticism. So for instance, Crowley says "By doing certain things certain results will follow. Students are most earnestly warned against attributing objective reality or philosophical validity to any of them." When the monks go to the Buddha and ask him what they were in their past lives, and the Buddha tells them that they have shed more blood being beheaded than there is water in the ocean, the point is not that this is literally what happened, but that the question is stupid (or more politely, "unskillful" ).

I am not saying all this because I have some kind of abstract philosophical objection to doing metaphysics (though I do), but because I know from personal experience that however tempting it is to spin theories around your experience, in the end all you are doing is distracting yourself. The understanding is in the doing. The "proof" is in the doing, too, which is why the mystical "system" is not a "theory" about the universe, which you are supposed to believe, but simply a finger pointing at something and inclining you to "see for yourself."



First of all, science is a method and a body of knowledge; it is not a "metaphysics of materialism". The dogmatic materialist and the dogmatic spiritualist suffer from the same disease. The only metaphysical claim of science is naturalism, which is simply the claim that the world makes sense and that this sense can be teased out of it with the proper means.



This is funny. You mean as opposed to theoretical physics?



This is a terrible attitude. Holism and reductionism are two sides of the same coin - one is upward-looking, to see how the object of investigation fits into a bigger picture, while the other is downward-looking to see how the object constitutes a bigger picture for smaller units. It ought to be obvious that for proper understanding you need to do both, or at least you need to know how to do both, and how to decide.

Of course, you are not going to go out and buy a book on connectionism or evolutionary psychology or something, then have an "A HA moment" (or twenty) while reading it and connecting to what is said. Because you are prejudiced against an entire domain of human knowledge, just as the dogmatic materialist is. You think to understand something analytically is to disenchant it and to make it meaningless, but nothing could be further from the truth. If we had never "disenchanted" the flat earth and the firmament of fixed stars, we would never know the universe that we do know, which is not a few orders of magnitude more impressive and more interesting.



I am surprised at having to spell this out. I think it is a common thread running through all the mystical traditions (and it has certainly been the major insight of my own experiences) that the root of human suffering and delusion is the sense of a lack of "beingness", or the lack of an intimate connection with the world, and that this lack is caused precisely by a false and confused sense of who or what one is, i.e. what the self is. Redemption and freedom then consists in remembering or rediscovering one's self, finding or constructing a unity from a sense of identity that is fundamentally fragmented.

I think it is extremely exciting that people who are not spiritual practitioners, and who have not apprehended this dilemma in an intimate and experiential way, are looking at human cognitive architecture and rediscovering this exact same insight. The picture that is emerging from cognitive science is that "personality" or "identity" is an adaptive strategy that the organism takes on to deal with the world. And moreover, there is not one such personality, but there are really many personalities that go together with particular adaptive situations. This is exactly what one discovers through meditation or psychedelics, or any other non-ordinary state of consciousness that forces the brain to "break" its adaptive strategy and realize that a strategy is all it ever was. It was not an I, a self, or a subject. It was just something that was being done, or played, or performed. And if you ask, "well who was doing it?" the only answer that can be given is "the world itself" or, perhaps "no one", but these amount to saying the same thing.

Psychodelirium, I just have to say I am loving reading your words! You have put down very coherently a lot of what I think too, trying to find a balance between the 'spirituality vs science' (or whatever way you define these opposites), and having a pragmatic but open minded attitude

Maybe sometime I will give more input here but for now I'll stand back and see you guys go at it

I didn't say it is what he thinks. I said understands. Plus he has not taught me a thing, he threw out some random words that mean nothing to me or the vast majority of people who read them, and they in and of themselves explain nothing to me...provide even less of a glimpse into the subject as some random youtube video. Yes, I am blind in that sense but equally so to those who do not understand or believe mystical/spiritual experiences.

I take him at his word because he sounds educated. I give equal creedence to those whose ideas have been based on years of expreience and are equally or more greatly educated (often in the same philosophy) who have come to their consclusions by looking through a different pane of the same "large" window. I don't know his age, but I make the assumption it is between 25-35 as seems the median here. There are those who have studied the field he specializes in for longer than he may have been alive who are proposing these theories...what is the value of education now?


I am not trying to prove anything...I am only searching for truth. I love information and constantly change my beliefs when presented with new information that explains the world better than the information I had before. You make an assumption that is incorrent in my opinion, that there is a truth that can be learned, that there is an end to knowledge, a final answer if we only dig deep enough. That I do not think is possible, we are living in an emergent universe, and everything changes.

I think you are misunderstanding my worldview. You make some excellent points, and in actuality we agree on many many things.

I am a Relativist (at least for the moment, I am always willing to change my view when new information comes in). Each finds meaning in their own lives, that which gives value to their experiences. I don't discount science, I embrace it, as it is the best method we have for understanding the world in which we inhabit, and to improve the lives of others. The quantum communication paradigm we have been discussing is a scientific one, backed up by evidence. It is pragmatic, it explains the nature of reality in a way that may be true, but I am skeptical as it does not explain enough. I lend some creedence to the philosophy becasue its tenents fit in with some of my personal experiences. It is a signpost along the road of enlightenment, something that guides the way and points to a new place to look. In the grand scheme of things does it mean anything? Nope, only that for a moment there is resonance in what is meaningful for my personal journey. Some metaphysical ideas add one more piece to the puzzle, but they do not complete it, it is only a piece...but that piece is just as valid as every other one in order to fill in the "big picture"

If the questions I ask do not lead to more questions, then I know I am on the wrong track. If there is ever an "answer" that does not pose new questions, then I know it was no answer at all.



I know what science is, though there are some who use it as a metaphysics of materialism. That is a scientific materialist. I agree dogmaticism suffers from the same disease no matter what direction it comes from. This has been a point of discussion in other threads. The naturalist ignores an enormous body of evidence that contradicts their world view, and in the end is no different than those who take the bible as the direct word of God. I think you have gotten the impression that I am a dogmatic metaphycist, which could not be further from the truth.



I never said it was wrong, just that it is inaccessable. I guess neurobiolgy needs a better PR firm to make its ideas more readily available to those who are seeking answers. Or maybe my brain is just better geared to conceptualize the concepts put forth by physics...I dunno. I would be happy to learn more, point me to a paper, an article that can be read by a non-biologist. But when a one sentence answer is given to my question including words that look like a random collection of letters, it does not allow me to put much creedence into the idea. It has taught me nothing, educated me not one bit. It also contradicts a personal conversation I had with a neurobiologist who could not tell me difinatively one way or another what memory is.



How is this a terrible attitude? I said exactly what you said in response to me in without fleshing out the whole point. That we need BOTH in order to understand. There are things that science (IMO) can never tell us about the world in which we live, and thus one has to look elsewhere, ie metaphysics. But to discount the vast body of knowledge that does explain a great deal of what we experience on a day to day basis is equally ignorant. There is the mystery, and how the mystery works...having a desire for knowledge of both is important to being a complete being. Spirit and matter, Meaning and Function...two sides of the same coin.



Personalisms and attempting to tell me you know me? Ascribing motivations and thoughtforms of which you could not possibily have any knowledge? Poor philosophical form...your hubris is not even worthy of a response.



This is the core of the human condition, of suffering, the lack of beingness. I agree with your premise and you answered my questions quite well thank you. I wanted you to explain further and you did so nicely, though the condescention could have been left out. Remembering and rediscovering ones self is highly liberating, knowing that the ego is a construct of our entrance into this world, being able to look behind it and find the truth of our being...



I agree, it is exciting. Science and spirituality are merging...our technology and knowledge has gotten to the point where we are fining the difinitive answers to the questions posed by mystics and philosophers for thousands of years. Breaking the brain with non-ordinary states of consciousness do give us insight into the strategy of our apparent existence. But you make a assumption based on yoru personal experiences that those are the only two answers available to everyone, "the world" or "no one" and thus limit yourself. That is the relativistic conclusion you have come to, and thus is valid for you and no one else. All the world's a stage, and we merely players, and the curtain remains closed...

Mister, I bow down before the infinite power and wisdom of That from which your words seem to be coming from.

I hope I'll see the day when you and Burnt meet each other.

Just found the full version today, dunno if you've seen it already. Pretty ineresting and thought provoking, backed up with some inventive experiments.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJjONN50b6k

Nice work brother,
Thanks for the link.

What do you guys think about the theories regarding quantum computation within the cytoskeletal systems microtubules and microtrabecular lattice (web of microfilaments) talked about in Inner Paths to Outer Space? These guys are neuroscientists trying to understand the psychedelic experience and at least don't appear to be new age money hungry wishful thinkers, so i thought it was intriguing. The books full of great information but this idea (which i can't explain well) remains mostly over my head.

I do not know weather this is true or not, but my opinion is not.

And i must say, as a previous sucker to the conspiracy theories whith facts which never add up to be facts, this has the very familiar conspiracy vibe naraiting voice and feel.

“All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.”

http://thinkexist.com/quotes/max_planck/

I don't know about you guys, but I know remote viewing exists, albeit not very reproducibly.
it's nothing new

Love that quote benz!

All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.

I like that part also...

This is a brilliant thread (it was brought to my attention in the nexus quotes thread) which I have really enjoyed reading. No one has posted for a few months, so I thought it was worthy of resurrection, if only to get a larger audience rather than more posts.

Thanks Psychodelirium and Saidin (amongst others) for a thought provoking read. Pity Psychodelirium doesn't seem to post anymore - I think he / she is one of the best writers on the Nexus.

Jounce for relevance.

I vote we go find Psychodelirium, wherever he may be, and pay him to post regularly on the nexus!

I believe this is where you can view the complete documentary (at least this is where I found it):

http://topdocumentaryfil.../quantum-communication/

Skip directly to the 3rd video if you don't want to view the intros. Hope this helps!

Spot on!