This has happened to me before, and it just happened with Chris Neibauer's book, No Self, No Problem: How Neuropsychology is Catching Up to Buddhism.
I'm enjoying a book. It makes sense to me. The author seems dedicated to facts and reason. Then a passage, or even an entire chapter, appears that is at odds with the rest of the book.
Now, I can understand why this happens. As Niebauer argues in his book, each of us isn't a unitary self, but a conglomerate of selves that frequently contradict each other. That's how we can say, "I can't believe I did that."
The two "I's" in that sentence actually refer to different selves, not a single person. For example, the "I" who wants to keep my weight under control can't believe that the "I" who enjoys pie just ate all of the four pieces that were in the refrigerator.
So it isn't surprising when a book reflects the contradictions inherent in the mind of the author. But it also isn't surprising when a reader, like me, is taken aback when a chapter is read that goes against the grain of the book as a whole.
For Niebauer, who has a Ph.D. in cognitive neuropsychology, cites findings of modern neuroscience in his mostly successful attempt to show how neuropsychology is compatible with Buddhist conceptions of the self (or the lack thereof).
However, in his "What is Consciousness?" chapter, he writes:
As a matter of background, contemporary neuroscience has one belief above and beyond all others, and that is that consciousness is localized in the brain. Because of this brain-specific localization, traditional neuroscience assumes that consciousness itself is also individual — that is, it exists separately in separate brains. In other words, I have "my consciousness" and you have yours, and in this sense the interpretative mind thinks and acts as if it "owns" consciousness.
While the brain and consciousness are clearly connected — if you shook my head long enough, I would become dizzy — this may not tell the whole story. After all, the world isn't flat simply because it appears so in Kansas.
No, the world isn't flat because all of the scientific evidence points to the world being round. Likewise, all of the scientific evidence points to consciousness being localized in the brain. That's the whole story, as known to modern neuroscience.
Which doesn't mean that this is the end of the scientific story. Science never comes to the end of its stories. There's always more to be learned. Sometimes long-held theories are overthrown by new and better evidence.
But Carl Sagan's adage still holds true: extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. If Niebauer wants to challenge the "one belief above and beyond all others" of contemporary neuroscience, he had damn well better come up with some extraordinary evidence in his chapter above consciousness.
He doesn't. In fact, he doesn't even come up with piddling evidence. He presents no scientific evidence at all, just conjecture. It's pathetic how poorly Niebauer argues the case for a revolutionary view of consciousness.
I was shocked when I saw that the first person Niebauer cites in support of consciousness existing outside of the brain is Rupert Sheldrake, who came up with the thoroughly pseudo-scientific notion of the morphic field, which produces something called morphic resonance.
Sam Woolfe has a good putdown of Sheldrake in "The Problem with Rupert Sheldrake's Worldview." Here's some excerpts.
The problem with Rupert Sheldrake, however, is that his ideas do not really survive critical investigation and so they remain within the realm of pseudoscience. Also, his book, The Science Delusion (2012), which many celebrate as an attack on the dogmatism in science, instead involves a distortion of how science actually operates.
Despite having a PhD in Biochemistry, Sheldrake has received a great deal of criticism from the scientific community for his work on telepathy. He views this attack as a refusal to look at the evidence he has collected over the years on this topic; however, none of his experiments has ever been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, suggesting that there is no compelling evidence in the first place. In Dogs That Know When Their Owners Are Coming Home, Sheldrake describes how he videotapes the behaviour of dogs and concluded that they knew when their owners set off to go home. Dogs would apparently wait by the doorway before they could hear the noise of their car approaching, for example.
The psychologist Richard Wiseman wrote a paper entitled, The Psychic Pet Phenomenon: A Reply to Rupert Sheldrake and in it he critiques Sheldrake’s interpretation of the data. Wiseman attempted to duplicate Sheldrake’s experiment using the same ‘psychic’ pet that Sheldrake had used in his own experiments; a dog named Jaytee. Sheldrake then analysed Wiseman’s data and said that it pointed to psychic abilities: Jaytee, for example, would wait on the porch for longer periods of time when the owner was closer to arriving home, a phenomenon consistent with Sheldrake’s own results.
Wiseman, on the other hand, is not convinced. He argues that the observed patterns could easily be explained by Jaytee’s natural waiting behaviour – a dog is more likely to wait on the porch for longer the longer their owner is away. So it should not be surprising that Jaytee is on the porch before the owner comes home. This is evidence of a dog anticipating the arrival of their owner, instead of knowing it through psychic abilities. Wiseman also criticises the fact that Sheldrake’s experiments have not been published in peer-reviewed journals, but only in his books. This has meant that his methodology has not been fully described, making it difficult to properly assess the validity of his methodology.
Sheldrake has also explored the phenomenon of when people ‘know’ that they’re being stared at, in his book, The Sense of Being Stared At. In tens of thousands of trials, he reported that 60% of the subjects reported being stared at when they were and that 50% of the subjects reported being stared at when they weren’t. He sees this as evidence of weak psychic abilities. However, the results are not that significant and the 60% hit rate could be explained by other factors than psychic abilities. Richard Wiseman has also replicated the experiment and found that subjects detected stares at rates no better than chance.
Another idea that has characterised Sheldrake’s career has been ‘morphic resonance’ and the ‘morphogenetic field’. In his 1981 book, A New Science of Life, Sheldrake refers to ‘morphic resonance’ as the basis of “memory in nature….the idea of mysterious telepathy-type interconnections between organisms and of collective memories within species.”
Have you ever noticed how much easier it is to do a newspaper crossword puzzle later in the day? Me neither. But according to Rupert Sheldrake, it is because the collective successes of the morning resonate through the cultural morphic field.
In Sheldrake's theory of morphic resonance, similar forms (morphs, or "fields of information") reverberate and exchange information within a universal life force. "Natural systems, such as termite colonies, or pigeons, or orchid plants, or insulin molecules, inherit a collective memory from all previous things of their kind, however far away they were and however long ago they existed," Sheldrake writes in his 1988 book, Presence of the Past (Park Street Press). "Things are as they are because they were as they were." In this book and subsequent ones, Sheldrake, a botanist trained at the University of Cambridge, details the theory.
…Two claims here strike me as problematic: the first, that the physical characteristics of organisms are not contained inside genes. This is contradicted by a well-established and persuasive body of evidence which explains how DNA and gene expression affects the development of organisms. The second claim, that the morphogenetic field is invisible, leads sceptics to argue that the concept is magical and untestable (and therefore unscientific). Supporters of Sheldrake’s hypothesis could reply by saying that the quantum world is invisible to us, yet that does not mean it is unreal. That’s true; however, all the evidence points to a quantum world. Sheldrake’s obsession with telepathy does not necessarily point to a world full of invisible morphogenetic fields. Reports of telepathy can be explained without the unnecessary baggage of morphic resonance.
Niebauer also cites the case of a chicken who continued to live after its head was cut off as evidence for consciousness existing outside of the brain. Problem is, the chicken's cerebellum and brain stem survived the beheading, a fact Niebauer would have found as easily as I did, if he really cared about facts and evidence.
Discover more from Church of the Churchless
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Pay attention folks, this is what religious like dogmatic belief, close mindedness, echo-chambering, intellectual dishonesty etc look like, up close!
Right from the blog title…”I don’t care what….says” to “…a good putdown of Rupert…”.
Yah, sure. That’s what non cultic dogmatism sounds like!
https://youtube.com/shorts/YMc-XUYksDU?si=447tE8NLA8-9nVov
“The brain produces consciousness” is these dogmatists mantra, they think the more they repeat it the more truer it becomes, despite them not having even the remotest idea what consciousness even is, let alone how it is “produced” by the brain (in a scientific, objective, factual and non desperately wishful thinking way at least). And this is beyond abundantly obvious and true, otherwise they would present this magical model of precisely how the “brain produces consciousness”. However they can’t because there isn’t any model supported by actual evidence….. and as will surely become evident in future, this is because the brain probably doesn’t “produce” consciousness (note the word probably…. I’m actually being accurate in my terminology, unlike Brian who thinks wishful thinking and limited ideation are undisputed facts and reality).
Brian is simply demonstrating dogmatic intolerance for somebody who interprets the scientific data differently to his own desperately religious and dogmatic interpretation.
That is all. And it’s neither science or intellectually honest. It’s all egoic dogmatism.
No love of truth here, folks. Kid yourselves all you like.
“The brain produces consciousness” is the 21st century version of “Oh look at the Emperor’s wonderful new clothes, aren’t they beautiful”, whilst the Emperor is plainly but naked.
These folks would have you agree with them without providing even a shred of visible cloth.
They think if enough courtiers and gatekeepers keep repeating the lie enough, it will become true.
Perhaps you need the innocence and honesty of the child to see through these empty words and say “show me the clothes, don’t just tell me about them”?
Intellectual dogmatism is a destroyer of curiosity. And curiosity is the mother of intellectual honesty.
You won’t find either here.
https://fb.watch/AYA3O15OxZ/?mibextid=z4kJoQ
Excellent antidote…. genuine intellectual honesty and curiosity here.
Here’s a YouTube link to the video I tried to link above
https://youtu.be/2zYSBKO9iXc?si=4UD5GvrZzAesahYG
Having, from what from my perspective is, a horrifically limited experience of the potential and “games” of “consciousness”… just what “it” can really do and the realities it can create/inhabit… These folks can rest contented with the pablum of “the brain produces consciousness”.
They mistake ignorance, arrogance, hubris, intellectual confusion and incoherency with truth and reality.
Hiding under the bedsheets they insist mountains do not exist, and are terrified when somebody offers to take them there.
Here’s an example of somebody who wrote the book on bedsheets, but had the intellectual honesty, curiosity and courage to accept the opportunity to visit a mountain;
https://youtu.be/kJlV-b2bvaE?si=T6aEW7RM1ZobQjcB
Pay close attention, it’s more difficult to maintain the illusion the emperor is wearing clothes than see naked reality for what it is…. but the spell is powerful!
I am of the opinion that the self as we think of it is an illusion and that there is no permanent, unchanging self, but the idea of ‘many selves’, to my mind, means something other than the thought that there are multiple self constructs arising from our minds. It may simply be the case that from the multitude of thoughts, emotions, views and opinions that we have accrued as information, different ways to behave come to the fore in different situations.
The example of: – “The “I” who wants to keep my weight under control can’t believe that the “I” who enjoys pie just ate all of the four pieces that were in the refrigerator,” doesn’t automatically suggest to me that there are two ‘I’s’. More likely to be the mind, where the self-concept arises from, simply exhibits one of its many modes of responding – it, (me or I) likes pie and equally likes the idea of weight control.
Bearing in mind that the self is basically another term for identity, identity being the result of accumulated information, doesn’t mean that we have numerous identities, more that our one identity (self) houses numerous possibilities based on the aforementioned information and experiences.
>> ….. ……. there is much to be done in a straightforward materialist understanding of how the brain relates to conscious experience.<< For a coffee drinker it is not that complicate to see how: - the car is relate to driving - the legs to walking - the eyes to seeing - the brain to thinking - the body to being - consciousness to experience
“As Niebauer argues in his book, each of us isn’t a unitary self, but a conglomerate of selves that frequently contradict each other. That’s how we can say, “I can’t believe I did that.” (…) The two “I’s” in that sentence actually refer to different selves, not a single person.”
I’m afraid I (continue to) contest that philosophical (as opposed to scientific) claim. I find the claim itself questionable, like I argued, at some length, in the last Neibauer thread some days ago; and I find the moral implications following from it incoherent, again like I argued there. Basis those arguments, that I put forward in that thread, I reject this claim.
———-
“Science never comes to the end of its stories. There’s always more to be learned. Sometimes long-held theories are overthrown by new and better evidence. (…) But Carl Sagan’s adage still holds true: extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. If Niebauer wants to challenge the “one belief above and beyond all others” of contemporary neuroscience, he had damn well better come up with some extraordinary evidence in his chapter above consciousness. (…) He doesn’t. In fact, he doesn’t even come up with piddling evidence. He presents no scientific evidence at all, just conjecture. It’s pathetic how poorly Niebauer argues the case for a revolutionary view of consciousness. (…) Niebauer also cites the case of a chicken who continued to live after its head was cut off as evidence for consciousness existing outside of the brain. Problem is, the chicken’s cerebellum and brain stem survived the beheading, a fact Niebauer would have found as easily as I did, if he really cared about facts and evidence.”
👍
My sister-in-law suffers from severe Alzheimer’s. So advanced, in fact, that she no longer recognizes her own sons—aged 40 and 53. They stand before her, flesh of her flesh, strangers in a room she no longer navigates.
And yet, some insist that consciousness floats above the brain like a philosophical helium balloon, unbound by gray matter, immune to synaptic collapse. A lovely notion. Deeply touching. And completely unmoored from reality.
Let me put it plainly: no amount of consciousness first principles will reassemble her fading neurons. You can’t meditate your way out of neurodegeneration. The soul might be willing, but the hippocampus is missing.
Those who cling to the idea that the brain is just a secondary puppet in the theater of awareness—take a bow. It’s a privilege afforded to people whose neural circuits are still intact, whose memories still have addresses.
But if you truly care about the suffering of real people—not just thought experiments—you’ll want to place your bets on neuroscience. Because it’s not idealism that’s developing treatments. It’s messy, empirical, neuron-counting science. The same brain that can betray us is also the one we must understand if we hope to help.
So yes, believe what you will about the metaphysics of consciousness. But if your loved one forgets your name, you won’t be calling a philosopher.
You’ll be calling a neurologist.
Dear Cognitively Human….AI (Can I call you Chai henceforth?),
First of all, I’m very sorry to hear about your sister in law. I know it is or can be a very….very…. difficult time for family members to see their loved one’s sense of self disintegrate in front of their eyes. It does indeed bring to the forefront of our minds exactly what it means to be a self, a personality, our connection to our loved ones, notions of brain vs soul etc.
Despite not being a fan of using AI to discuss such personal, subjective things, your comment seems to be a very heartfelt one and is a genuinely powerful and important question in regards who and what we really are. Thank you for raising it.
But I think you both misunderstand and misrepresent the position and meaning of the notion of “consciousness first”, or that consciousness precedes or is not dependant upon, the brain. There are many straw men in your arguments that should be addressed:
1) If we take, for example, the model of the brain as filter or limiter of consciousness, we of course would ask a technician to service or repair our radio if it started breaking down…..not send a letter to the philharmonia orchestra!
To not believe the “brain produces” consciousness is not to not believe the brain is INTIMATELY connected to the human personality and it’s contents. To take this to it’s obvious extreme, nobody is suggesting totally destroying the brain and indeed the body will leave a “self” for it’s family members to interact with on the physical level…….this is an obvious tautology!
2) Your family is, alas, not the only one having to deal with the philosophical/personal meaning or implications of very near and dear loved ones suffering from Alzheimer’s or other mentally degenerative diseases, and seeing their sense of “self” disintegrate in front of their eyes. I can assure you.
But I take serious issue with your contention that those in this position will inevitably fall at the feet of “neurologists” and not philosophers. I think you are deeply mistaken.
From the Buddha onwards, the entire spiritual quest is very often DRIVEN by DEEP AWARENESS AND UNDERSTANDING of such realities of the human experience. In fact, the brightest amongst them were deeply, deeply aware of this truth at a very, very young age, pondering over it intensely, not needing to be faced with it on a personal level in old age. And if they were faced with it in their old age on a direct personal level, they really, really weren’t surprised by it, let alone shocked into ultimate deference to “neurologists”. Again, I can assure you!
You go to the car mechanic to deal with your old, broken down old car……but it is WITHIN you cope with the INEVITABILITY and FACT of it’s imminent total disintegration and scrappage! That’s philosophy!
Also, I think philosophically reducing consciousness and being to random, meaningless and mindless accidents of matter and thinking the neurologist is the only one who is of any benefit in such inevitable life circumstances to be, ultimately, demeaning and literally de-meaning to the human experience.
But, and I do mean this most sincerely, you do you…….that is the beauty of the infinite flowering and variety of consciousness unfolding into the human form with all it’s various stories and “realities”, small “r”.
3) All these experiences of multiple selves (I haven’t read any of Brian’s recent posts on multiple “self constructs” or whatever, but I have ready thousands of pages of studies on the like going back more than 100 years…..fascinating to watch these folks trying to get to grips with experiential realities that have been discussed in just so much more fascinating depth and insight more than a hundred years ago! These folks really need to go back and check the brilliant work of folks like FWH Myers, William James and assorted hypnotists and the like back in the 19th and 20th centuries…..TRULY mind bending and fascinating stuff, pretty much essential reading for folks genuinely interested in such philosophical questions……it will literally put you years and years and years ahead of the philosophical curve folks like Brian are on! 🙂 AND the disintegration of the “self construct” or personality can be experienced from the inside out by taking very doses of psychedelics, for example.
Again, I can assure you it can provide one with a very different perspective or “philosophical outlook” on what “self”, “consciousness”, the personality construct and “reality” really is.
Even if one used to be the authority on how the “brain produces consciousness” prior to EXPANDING their KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE upon which they base their “philosophical outlook”!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJlV-b2bvaE
4) It is always useful to be fully aware of all the data points on a subject before making proclamations. The subject is far more complex and puzzling than you imply, even on just a purely physical level:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/feb/23/the-clouds-cleared-what-terminal-lucidity-teaches-us-about-life-death-and-dementia
https://theconversation.com/terminal-lucidity-why-do-loved-ones-with-dementia-sometimes-come-back-before-death-202342
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/symptoms/terminal-lucidity
https://www.crossroadshospice.com/hospice-palliative-care-blog/2019/july/16/end-of-life-rallying-what-is-terminal-lucidity/
https://www.healthline.com/health/alzheimers-dementia/terminal-lucidity
Etc etc etc
“Such experiences have a profound effect on the person’s relatives. For my family, that afternoon with my grandmother was pure joy, almost – almost – balancing out years of sadness. And witnessing it shakes you up somewhat, because it doesn’t seem to make sense. “It opened me up to possibilities,” says Kay Porterfield of her father’s Christmas resurgence. “That I don’t know this is this way and that is that way. And it has made me feel more open to the possibility that our mind is not a physical thing and it is not located in our body. Maybe it’s just a tenant. Our mind is a tenant in our bodies.””
“Scientists have struggled to explain why terminal lucidity happens. ”
“Though there is still much mystery around the abrupt return of mental clarity for patients shortly before their death, it’s not an uncommon circumstance.”
Etc etc, dyor.
Dear Chain – thanks for raising a very important and heartfelt topic.
Whilst I disagree with your take and understanding of the core issue/s, I can certainly empathise, deeply, with the underlying sentiment. These things are at the core of what it means to be human, imo.
I wish all the best to your sister in law and family.
manjit
https://archive.org/details/myers-1892-95-subliminal-self
Just one of many masterpieces written on the phenomena and subject of “multiple selves” from around this time period.
Absolute gems, I devoured volumes of this stuff voraciously!
@ Cognitive etc.
>> So yes, believe what you will about the metaphysics of consciousness. But if your loved one forgets your name, you won’t be calling a philosopher.
You’ll be calling a neurologist.<< The question is ... "Can the neurologist relief the pain, you and others in the family are going through" Many have found relief for these painful events, in their religion, their worldview ... but you are right what medically can be done, should be done.
Just looked up the headless chicken thing. Apparently one lived for 18 months! …And, as you rightly point out, Brian, the reason for it is perfectly mundane, and does not necessitate any dramatic paradigm shifts. The extraordinary evidence thing, as you rightly point out; as well as the fact that while scientific paradigms do change, that’s the whole point of science, but it changes only when Occam’s Razor led explanations do not satisfice.
To think otherwise is halfwittery. And it is …instructional, to see clearly demonstrated how more than one otherwise brilliant scientist can be selectively given to utter halfwittery.
Kudos to you for clearly debunking the headless chicken nonsense. I didn’t think I’d even heard of this case before: but as I was looking this up online just now, the story did kind of seem familiar, so maybe I did come across it and had forgotten all about it.
Truly amazing, that a neuroscientist of all people should fall for something like that.
“But if your loved one forgets your name, you won’t be calling a philosopher.”
Actually that’s not true, not necessarily. Some might actually call in, or go visit, or maybe send subscriptions to, a priest or a preacher, or healer, or exorcist, or godman or guru, or some other variety of woo-peddler. People sometimes do, for all kinds of troubles, and for actual physical ailments as well. Even in this day and age. I suppose they well might for something like this as well. Woo is an insidious thing, it eats away people’s ability to think straight.
That’s what’s particularly detestable about woo, and about woo-peddling charlatans. The fact that they’re often happy to prey off the vulnerable, and, depending on how successful they are, put food in their belly, and/or plush upholstery in their private jets, by shamelessly preying off the vulnerable. They’re scum, are woo-peddlers.
…For what it’s worth, my good wishes for your sister-in-law.
These “charlatans”, priest, pastors, pschychologist, counslors rec do work daily in places like “hospices ” … go there and after seeing how their work is appreciated … … shout it out …YOU …you are a charlatan,
*splutters into coffee*
How you react to what I say speaks to you, Um, and not to what I say. The tree serenely casts its fruit, it is the taker, the fox, and the shallow art critic, that eats the grape, and reacts blindly.
It matters not to me, I who am above all of this, but you know not what harm you do to your own self, when you react in this manner.
Know this, Um, that you were not born to drink coffee. Coffee is an artefact of human culture. Awakening in the cinema theater can decondition one of this enslavement to cultural indoctrination, including the coffee habit: but for such wisdom one needs to seek inside the house not in the marketplace. You seek in coffee what you should seek in your own heart.
Know that they are all THIEVES, these priests. With words they bamboozle you, and befool you, and make you their slaves.
Reach WITHIN, not without. Reach within your own backside, and from there produce nuggets. As you’ve been doing here throughout.
…Amusing to see the masks come off, of all of these poseurs, one by one by one.
@ AR
You can spend the rest of your life, arguing with other people because “their” key doesn’t fit in YOUR door … but .. you can now ask yourself …was I born to waste my life in that way.
There is nothing to be found in the lime light of the world, nobody in this world can take away the pain you have ..you are a seeker ..and …you are seeking in the wrong place and in the wrong way.
A couple of days ago you lifted the veil, showing that you were seeking and did nor find.
Of course you didn’t you do not drink enough coffee
@ AR
The late MCS tild me once “Priests and psychiatrists” have nothing to share of themselves with you”
What do YOU have to share of yourself with us beyond telling is that this or that expert hasn’t understood?
Until now NOTHING
@ AR
If there is anybody in this audience that wears a mask it is YOU, AR
Your penname tells its own story …
You are here to give your verdict about OTHERS, …. OTHERS …..OTHERS
your …. APPRECIATION … hahaha
Allright ..now coffee
Bravo, let it all out, Um. Let it all out. Let’s see what the inside of that vulnerable, gentle simpleton actually looks like.
@ AR
Well in that case .. feel free to share something of YOUR SELF and see how others appreciate it.
@Um,…you write,…..
“@ AR
If there is anybody in this audience that wears a mask it is YOU, AR
Your penname tells its own story …
You are here to give your verdict about OTHERS, …. OTHERS …..OTHERS
your …. APPRECIATION … hahaha”
Jim says,….
I agree 100%. AR is the biggest Phony Baloney on this site, wasting space, using thousands of useless words, always trying to understand what “normal” posters are sharing, while trying so hard to disguise who he/she really is, that it’s almost comical, trying to figure out how many layers of masks he /she is hiding under , depending who is expected to answer his unending baseless questions , as if he is a CIA Interrogator, ,threatening to Water Board the Victim , as if they are not tortured enough, just by reading through his Phony un-intellectual posts, critiquing others, who he decides are using “halfwittery” methods in sharing their .,,,,,,opinions or experiences , while he acts like he needs to explain to the Poster what the Poster is missing.
AR has claimed that THIS is the ONLY forum he posts on, which he claims is Sacred Space, yet claims to have followed Manjit “beating his chest” here and on another site, …..which has to be RSS site, the only other site I have seen Manjit on.
Take you masks off AR, and quit hiding, so those whom you keep critiquing, by torturing with your Spitune Can of bloviated mucas covered meaningless words, might try to council you for you to grow up enough to become a real Big Dog , with interesting experiences to share, instead of the yapping little leg humping puppy dog you have identified your self to be, every time you run out to suck up to Brian, while bumping his pant leg. Jeeez, Brian, I hope you don’t forget to wipe your leg, every time AR trots out to hump it and a yap.
😇😁
Right. “Doctor” Jim crawls out from under his bridge. This noble mystic, that meditates under the bridge, is overjoyed at finding what he believes is an opportunity to express the deep love welling within his heart. And comes gambolling out, singing songs of gentle compassion.
Haha, it warms the heart, Jimbo, to see the innocent joy shining in your face, as you espy what you fondly believe is an opportunity to try some bullying. Think again, you shameless, lying old reprobate. You are already a figure of fun everywhere, you know that, don’t you. The stupidest “doctoral” degree holder, ever to grace a Mickey Mouse “university”.
What a bunch.
———-
Gawd help me, let me not descend to the level of these monkeys.
*walks firmly away*
Not going to be goaded into responding to this nonsense again.
Dear Um – we may disagree on many things, but one thing I don’t think anyone can reasonably accuse you of is wearing a “mask”, at least not one beyond the very most basic “mask” we must all wear to interface with reality at all. You have shared enough of your past and experiences, and shown consistency, over many years, to dismiss such accusations summarily.
Me thinks someone doth project too much! 🙂
But reading your comment: “What do YOU have to share of yourself with us beyond telling is that this or that expert hasn’t understood?” in the context of the above discussions got me wanting to share something very personal for some reason. Perhaps because I feel such over-flowing gratitude here, it needs to be expressed…..
But, as always, take everything with a pinch of salt….as someone you’ve been in discussion with recently once suggested, I may be making up stories & experiences entirely, merely to satisfy my own ego…..well, I know the answer to that, but you don’t, so pinch of salt!
I admittedly have a lot of experience of, and tolerance to, psychedelics. I can sincerely and honestly say there is no dose of any psychedelic (and more often than not a “mega dose”) that has ever caused me even the slightest amount of discomfort let alone challenge let alone “bad trip”, which on a personal level I don’t even understand how it’s possible to have. And I was quite familiar with a variety of them. Based on my understand of the “trip reports” of others, I suspect this is somewhat unusual.
But that said, my first experience of an Ayahuasca ceremony, in the middle of the rainforest, back in March 2024 was something very different, very unusual, and I really didn’t know what to make of it. It has become clearer with time though……;)
Long story short, the “outer” context was there were 25 of us participants in total I believe. Out of the 25 participants, I was the only one got up and had a second cup when asked who wanted one (the events of the night are pieced together from memory and discussions with the group the next day……incidentally, the shaman told us that was one of the most powerful brews and ceremonies they’d had and, to my personal disappointment, they would be changing the brew to a more easy going one the next day……important to note), and was also not only the only one who didn’t shit, puke, piss themselves, descend into sheer terror, screaming for their moms, thinking they’re going to die etc (literally every single other participant, btw! :-o), but also practically didn’t move from my rocking chair AT ALL for 9 hours, except calmly going to the loo for a pee, once.
The “inner context” is what I found interesting – this was completely unlike any other psychedelic experience I’d ever had, including DMT or psilocybe mushrooms, which are chemically related to the visionary part of the Ayahuasca brew, especially DMT.
I was basically in a trance for 9 solid hours – I later found the ceremony had ended after 5 hours max and everyone had left, except me and 1 or 2 other people……but I thought the ceremony was still going on!
During this trance, I encountered what I would call absolutely no “psychedelic” imagery or thought process alteration……I felt profoundly sober….profoundly sober.
But what I did experience, for pretty much all that entire 9 hours, was what I was experiencing as “healing spirits” emerge from Mother Earth, the glorious rainforest, which is like a deafening majestic orchestra in the dark silence of a ceremony space, come into the ceremony space, and go round healing all of the sick and troubled people around me, they were taking care of them in their most vulnerable and human of states; defecating or urinating themselves, reliving past abuses, screaming for their moms, thinking they’re going to die and a whole host of other physical, psychological and existential issues.
I could hear their whispers, see their shadowy forms and I even held the hand of one for a moment……and chuckled to myself for several minutes…..the sheer absurdity of the situation, here I was totally sober, totally clear headed, and I was holding hands with a spirit, clearly and inarguably, something even I would have laughed at in February 2024! ;o)
For pretty much the entire 9 hours, I was in absolute awe of these spirits and their gentle compassion and care towards these folks. I was literally in tears of awe, respect, admiration, overflowing love and gratitude……..I recall having the thought, if there is a God and we do have post-mortem individual existences, of which I honestly have no idea or real concern tbh, I wish I could do this “job”, they are just so immense in their humility, compassion and service……I was just awe-struck by their being/s!
Contrary to what some folks may insinuate, I’m actually a highly…highly sceptical person when it comes to such experiences. The next day, I had no idea how to interpret this highly unusual “psychedelic experience” which, as a connoisseur of “inner experiences” I had no idea how to classify or interpret. All I knew is, I was in awe of these “beings”, whatever their ultimate ontological nature may be.
During my 2, 3 and 4th ceremonies, I had far more “traditional” psychedelic experiences…….all love and light, discoursing with Gaia about the suffering she endures, bliss, ecstasy and the like…..kind of more what I was expecting, and making my 1st day’s experience even stranger in my mind.
Anyway, fast forward 5 or so months, I’ve been afforded the opportunity to do myself EXACTLY what those “spirits” were doing for those 9 or so hours as I observed and absorbed. Without going into too much personal detail – not because of “masks” or embarrassment or anything like that, but from want of not wanting to distract from the purpose of my recollecting this on a public forum – there has been what could be considered a remarkable string of very bad luck health wise with several (indeed, all except my dearest dog Rumi) of my closest, immediate family members, including both my parents in their 80s.
I have been afforded the opportunity to do, in person, what I saw those spirits doings………taking care of people at their most vulnerable, most “embarrassing”, whilst they lose their sense of self-hood………
………and I, for one, will never be able to adequately express my deep gratitude to those “spirits”, woo-based-delusions or not (and, I suspect not 🙂 other than perhaps with my over-flowing tears…….I really don’t think I would have been quite strong enough, quite compassionate enough or, what I learnt most from the experience/spirits, quite “skillful” enough to deal with such life challenges if it wasn’t for that highly unusual, highly non sequitur, psychedelic woo drenched experience in the jungle.
My eternal gratitude to “them”, whoever “they” are……
PHAT!
The question of the source of consciousness remains a scientific question. One worthy of study. When we don’t understand it fully, it is inaccurate to draw conclusions.
A room with a large beautiful window is brightly lit from the sunshine pouring in. Light pours into the adjacent hallway, only so long as the door is open.
When the door is shut, the hallway is dark.
It is unwise and unscientific to conclude that the light comes from the room alone, that there is no sun, and further that when the door is closed the light no longer exists. These are three errors in attempting to draw conclusions from incomplete information. And this is why science doesn’t draw such conclusions. Pseudoscience does.
And, further to my post above, as I mentioned recently there is a post I’ve been meaning to write here for a while that is coming when I get the time…..re. these online RS forums, my posts and purpose here, and why I feel, as many contributers like Brian or Jim are reaching their 70s or 80s, the public/personal split in the tone of my posts needs to be collapsed to the personal…. I have no interest in criticising any of these folks on a personal level and it’s the public discourse that mattered to me previously and to this point still, but it becomes increasingly apparent to me there is no public discourse around RS, there’s just not enough interest in it from non participants…. So there is pretty much just the personal left, and as I say I have no interest in that, indeed am even saddened by the casualties, especially given the age……
I haven’t collapsed the split yet, but it’s coming , and I suspect with it a denouement of posting….
Amen to that, ey 😁
Atheism produces nihilism, which produces societal death, no matter what atheists say.
You want proof? Nihilism takes hold, and you cannot convince another secularist why it is that they should value offspring. If secularists can have sex with none of the responsibilities (courtesy of birth control) then secular societies are all on a path of destruction. It’s ONLY religious societies that reproduce sufficiently to grow the population. It’s only the secular nations that are dying faster than they can reproduce.
This is just one example of how this blog’s arguments for atheism and secularism are incoherent. The author never examines how his philosophy isn’t merely philosophically nihilist, but actually societally nihilist.
Let’s do the math and analyze whether complete secularization would lead to human population extinction based on fertility trends, while keeping it concise and grounded in data.
Total Fertility Rate (TFR): The replacement level for a population to maintain itself without immigration is ~2.1 children per woman. Below this, populations decline over time.
Secular Societies and TFR: Many secular societies have TFRs below replacement, e.g., Japan (1.3), South Korea (0.8), Western Europe (~1.5–1.8).
Let’s assume a global average TFR for a fully secular world of ~1.5, based on trends in highly secular regions.
We assume all societies adopt secular values, with NO religion, prioritizing individual autonomy, education, and access to contraception, leading to lower fertility rates.
Time Frame: One generation is ~25 years. We’ll project over several generations to assess extinction risk.
Let’s start with a global population of ~8 billion (roughly today’s figure):
After 1 generation (25 years): P1=8×109×(1.5/2)=8×109×0.75=6billionP_1 = 8 \times 10^9 \times (1.5 / 2) = 8 \times 10^9 \times 0.75 = 6 billionP_1 = 8 \times 10^9 \times (1.5 / 2) = 8 \times 10^9 \times 0.75 = 6 billion
.
After 2 generations (50 years): P2=6×109×0.75=4.5billionP_2 = 6 \times 10^9 \times 0.75 = 4.5 billionP_2 = 6 \times 10^9 \times 0.75 = 4.5 billion
.
After 4 generations (100 years): P4=8×109×(0.75)4≈2.53billionP_4 = 8 \times 10^9 \times (0.75)^4 \approx 2.53 billionP_4 = 8 \times 10^9 \times (0.75)^4 \approx 2.53 billion
.
After 10 generations (250 years): P10=8×109×(0.75)10≈0.107billion=107millionP_{10} = 8 \times 10^9 \times (0.75)^{10} \approx 0.107 billion = 107 millionP_{10} = 8 \times 10^9 \times (0.75)^{10} \approx 0.107 billion = 107 million
.
After 20 generations (500 years): P20=8×109×(0.75)20≈0.003billion=3millionP_{20} = 8 \times 10^9 \times (0.75)^{20} \approx 0.003 billion = 3 millionP_{20} = 8 \times 10^9 \times (0.75)^{20} \approx 0.003 billion = 3 million
Extinction Timeline: At TFR = 1.5, the population halves roughly every 2–3 generations (~50–75 years).
Follow all that? Good, Now you know that HUMAN EXTINCTION (population approaching zero) would take centuries, but it would be inevitable.
If all societies were fully secular with a sustained TFR of ~1.5, the human population would decline significantly over centuries, potentially reaching critical levels (e.g., a few million) in 500–1,000 years.
@ Manjit
Thank you for sharing with us these events and how they helped you to help others.
@AR,….YOU and Lululake are the ONLY 2 posters who ever called mye“Jimbo”, on RSS.
But your mask is loosening more, every time you insult my Seminary credentials, as you Always did, when I shared my experiences on the rss forum, especially when I posted your “Monastery” time in Tacoma that I found posted by you on the Internet. But your MO now is looking more like how it unfolded on rss back then, as your language and choice of words are remembered how you used on rss before you got booted off.
Remember this comment by another you kept harnessing, as you just did to Um, and I?
“ You are so incredibly stupid that you failed to realize how screwed you are when you
managed to turn 2 of your heroes against you. You made numerous posts in
radhasoamistudies during the last year building up David Lane and manjit, but
you managed to make them turn on you. And you can’t stand that.
So now you spend large parts of your life posting on a board that no one reads
talking about how awful those “heroes” are because they recognized what a
disturbed ass you truly are, lol. I swear, this is just too entertaining!!
I hope you keep posting until they put the straight jacket on. And please keep
critiquing my posts. It’s amusing to know how incredibly stupid you are and how
you see things that aren’t there. You just did that with one and failed to grasp
what I said although I used very simple English.”
It now becomes clearer of your past IDs, so please save your self more embarrassment, before your escorted off Brian’s Church forum as you were by David Lane off his.
*peeks in, warily*
*looks on, aghast, through madhouse window*
*against better judgment, thinks out aloud, instead of keeping thoughts to himself*
Gawd help us, open halfwittery season!
Halfwits, charlatans, liars, trolls —– those whose halfwittery has been clearly repeatedly shown, those whose disingenuousness and blatant lies have been clearly shown, those whose charlatanry has been clearly exposed, those whose trolling has been completely exposed — nevertheless, endlessly, untiringly, with no shame at all, simply going through the motions of reasoned rational talk, on and on and on, while talking complete nonsense, to keep up the impression (to whoever might be looking in, and maybe to themselves) that they’re not …not these things, halfwits and/or liars and/or charlatans.
Amazing.
———-
And, equally amazing: that’s exactly what it has all been, all this time, every single time these people opened their mouths, every single time. And yet, I did not see it, and sat there solemnly engaging with these very people, looking for sense in the patently nonsensical.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how Scientology gets mainstreamed. That is how Mormon gets mainstreamed. That is how Christianity gets mainstreamed. That is how Trump gets mainstreamed. That is how Bibi and the Israel genocide get mainstreamed. That is how Pureland gets mainstreamed. That is how Hinduism gets mainstreamed. That is how Sikhism gets mainstreamed. That is how RSSB gets mainstreamed.
This is actually …instructive. That actually is exactly how halfwittery gets mainstreamed. Throw in enough people going through the motions of sane reasoned discourse, while actually talking complete nonsense. And then, in that resultant din, should someone walk in from the outside, then they’ll end up effectively gaslighted into thinking that there’s something real there, in all of that, that they themselves are missing, and that careful study and practice will uncover. That all of this might such complete, unmitigated bilge, from beginning to end, is something that is …difficult for someone to grok, sometimes. Sometimes it does take this process.
Yeah, so there’s that, that understanding, for that is worth. Time well spent, all of that past engagement? Not really, but still, maybe it was necessary. And it did help one organize one’s own thoughts and understanding. So, yeah.
*to post, or to delete? what the hell, post*
*steps back from the window, away from the expected pooflinging from inside the madhouse*
“Brian is simply demonstrating dogmatic intolerance for somebody who interprets the scientific data differently to [himself].
That is all. And it’s neither science nor intellectually honest.
It’s all egoic dogmatism.
No love of truth here, folks. Kid yourselves all you like.” by manjit | July 20, 2025
The above I regard as correct.