并非无稽之谈


'连接到源,由 赛琳娜的艺术.
赛琳娜的艺术的版权,经允许使用。

在我的书的第二章 为什么唯物主义是鲍洛尼—到目前为止我最畅销的—I elaborate on the notion that the 脑 is the extrinsic image of a process of 本土化 普遍意识。因此,个人就像遍及个人的普遍经历中的漩涡。如果是这种情况,人们会期望 正确的类型 of 脑 activity should induce a 德 -localization—an 扩张—意识。在本书中,我通过许多研究和已知的案例实例来证实这一预测。 减少 of 脑 activity do, indeed, correlate with an 扩张 or -经验的本地化,这是物理学主义无法解释的。

那里 is a tricky balance involved in showing this empirically, in a controlled and statistically significant way: not 所有 脑 activity should relate to the mechanism of 本土化 itself; much of it should consist instead of already localized contents of experience. Returning to our analogy, both a large and a small whirlpool can be perfectly localized: one simply has more contents than the other. A 德 -localized whirlpool is not necessarily a small one, but one losing its coherence and beginning to release some of its contents into the broader stream. Indeed, much of the activity in our 脑s relates to already localized cognitive and executive functions, such as motor control, language centers and self-reflective cognition. Damaging the associated 脑 areas or otherwise inhibiting their activity won't necessarily 德 -localize our awareness, but simply impair motor and cognitive function. Not 所有 减少 of 脑 activity will open the doors to transcendence; only the 那些。

那里fore, to test the prediction in the book robustly, one has to have a sufficient number of study subjects in which 正确的类型 of 脑 activity have been inhibited—e.g. by prior physical damage to the 脑—但不会损害运动和认知功能,使受试者能够 报告 their experiences. For instance, it is conceivable that people who suffer widespread 脑 damage due to accidents may very well have nonlocal, transcendent experiences 所有 the time, but be unable to 报告 any of it because they are in a vegetative state. A very fine balance is thus required; one that may only very seldom occur. Most of the times, chances are that the subject either doesn't have sufficient damage/inhibition in the 对 脑 locations, or has so much other damage that they lose self-reflection, language skills, the ability to speak or move their bodies, etc. In other words, they become unable to 报告 their experiences.


这就是为什么 最近发表的研究 非常有趣:研究了100个主题;数量之多和前所未有的。这是怎么 《每日邮报》描述了这项研究及其结果:
The group looked at more than 100 patients who were veterans of the Vietnam War, and who had undergone a battery of cognitive tests before the war and once they returned. From CT scans showing the extent of damage to certain parts of their 脑s, the researchers were able to predict how likely they were to have a 神秘 experience. ... The researchers found that those with damage to the 'God spot' region of the 脑, in the frontal and temporal lobes, were more likely to 报告 神秘 experiences compared with those without damage to these regions.
以下是《每日邮报》的摘要:
[The] study has found that 'dialing down' the 脑's inhibition boosts mysticism. ... Damage to the frontal and parietal lobes increased 神秘 experiences. These regions are linked to inhibitory functions, suppression of which appears to open up a 'door of perception', exposing us to the 神秘.
I chose to quote the Daily Mail, instead of the scientific article itself, because it so well captures the essence of the study's conclusion, which directly corroborates what I wrote in the book. 那里 is also LiveScience文章 值得一读。

并不是每天都做出与普遍的智慧相矛盾的预测,然后在不到两年的时间里通过一项大型研究就相当惊人地证实了这一预测。这样的短期辩护是意外的收获,特别是因为该研究的结论是 究竟 我所预测的

Emboldened by this, I will make a new prediction here: further research will pin down more precisely what the specific regions of the 脑 are that, when damaged or otherwise inhibited, lead to 德 -localized consciousness and transcendent experiences. I also anticipate that we will eventually invent technology—例如,基于 经颅磁刺激—that, by inhibiting those regions, will induce 神秘 states routinely.

确实,在我即将出版的书的第3部分中 不仅仅是寓言,我讲了一个故事,准确描述了这项技术的外观,以及它如何工作……这个故事融合了事实与虚构。毕竟,谁知道还没有哪种秘密技术? ;-)

致谢: 感谢Ian Wardell指导我进行这项研究!
分享:

22条评论:

  1. I'm afraid that if science keeps on associating 脑 damage to 神秘 experiences it will lead to the conclusion that they are a distorted view of reality, an unnatural state of mind, a hallucination coming from an injured 脑 that 德 serves no credit. They could even transform it in another psychiatric/neurological disease.

    回复删除
    回覆
    1. One will still be left with the need to explain _where the hell these intense and broader experiences come from_, if 脑 activity is only reduced in the process. This is especially true in case of verifiably veridical experiences that transcendent ordinary sense perception. I discussed 所有 this extensively in 为什么唯物主义是鲍洛尼, so have a look there.

      删除
    2. Correlates well with the fMRI studies of Carhart-Harris and Nutt with respect to inhibition of the 德 fault-mode network by psilocybin and LSD. The evidence is clear that the 神秘 experiences are MOST VIVID in the setting of reduced/inhibited DMN activity, consistent with the 脑 as 'reducing valve'.

      删除
  2. But someone might make the argument that the damages injured regions that inhibit the 脑, and the experiences are a result of 脑 activity that is no longer inhibited.

    回复删除
    回覆
    1. But as shown in Imperial College studies, 脑 activity increase nowhere else. The book discusses 所有 these tentative alternative explanations.

      删除
    2. One thing we have to remember is that 脑 activity is simply electrical impulses and there is no way to get from electrical impulses to an experience. You can probe electrical impulses 所有 you want and never be able to predict what experience is associated with it without getting a subjective input from the experiencer. 那里 is math and measurements you can make between a wire with current and magnetism for instance but 那里 is no math, transfer function, or measurement you can make to predict or measure an experience.

      说电脉冲可以创造一种体验,这是不能以任何方式证实的断言。

      删除
    3. 而这项特殊的研究没有'没说关于兴奋性活动?因为那个'唯物主义者会问些什么。

      顺便说一句,如果我没记错的话,在您的佛陀在加油站的访谈中,您谈到了与约翰·哈格林(John Hagelin)进行播客的有趣之处。有什么计划吗?

      感谢您的时间! :)

      删除
    4. 这项研究没有功能扫描,只有CT。所以'只是身体上的伤害,他们没有'无法衡量活动或缺乏活动。
      我原定于去年10月与Hagelin进行小组讨论,但他不得不取消。我们将看到何时可以重新安排时间。

      删除
  3. 这让人想起神经解剖学家吉尔·博尔特·泰勒(Jill Bolte Taylor)'s "My Stroke of Insight" that 德 tails her 神秘 experiences after she suffered a massive left hemisphere stroke.

    回复删除
  4. 您可能会对看Ed Kelly感兴趣's writings on Myers' "filter theory" in "Beyond Physicalism"做出类似的预测。据我'我知道,他先前编辑过的书中提到了很多研究,"Irreducible Mind" involves similar instances where 脑 damage correlated with greater tendency toward 神秘 experiences. A phenomenological study and differentiation of the lumped together category of "神秘的经历"我认为也会产生很多见识。

    顺便祝贺您的成功预测!

    回复删除
    回覆
    1. 谢谢唐。我当然很熟悉Ed'的工作。我引用他在《为什么唯物论是布洛尼》(WMIB)一书。 WMIB之后出版了他的新著作《超越物理学》。和"filter theory"至少要回到伯格森,所以's very old. My claim is not to have merely observed that certain types of reduced 脑 activity correlate with broader experience, but to have provided a coherent ontological framework to explain how and why this should be the case, without contradicting the ordinary 脑 function-experience correlations. It is this that configures a true prediction and goes beyond the traditional 'filter theories,'这些问题比他们回答的问题多得多。干杯,B。

      删除
    2. 嗨,贝尔纳多-令人着迷。我没有'没意识到那是精确的预测。辛苦了

      I'想知道-您能否根据BP中的六种本体论框架所缺少的解释性功能来说明框架到底提供了什么?这是我的印象-它'自从我看过以来已经有半年或更长时间了-BP的重点是提供各种可能具有一致的本体论框架,这些框架具有精确的预测价值。

      但是我还是'看了一会儿。如果您能确切地说明这些内容中缺少的内容以及您的框架所提供的内容,那么我想这将对许多读者有所帮助。

      删除
    3. 唐, in 所有 honesty, this is beneath you. I don't have interest, time or patience enough to engage in this game. Though most readers of this comment will not know the context for this brisk reply from me, you and I know very well, so let's skip the dissimulation. You're entirely familiar with my work as well as BP. No 'brain as filter' theory I have ever seen provides a closed ontology for 所有 aspects of reality (not only the extraordinary) the way this summary, for instance, does: //www.scribd.com/doc/295795222/On-Why-Idealism-is-Superior-to-Physicalism-Bernardo-Kastrup. Most (if not 所有) of them are based on one or another form of unclear and ambiguous dualism, which is untenable and raises more questions than it answers. You may agree or disagree but I won't re-word my case here having made it abundantly clear in the body of my work. You have been for over a year now on this mission to point out that nothing I say is new. 那's fine. But at least be straight. Turning sardonic and disingenuous in my own website isn't constructive and borders on malicious. It's a waste of time for both of us. I'm sorry I don't do things the way you'd like me to do, but I am on my own journey here, not yours. Be well, B.

      删除
  5. 我没有'这么久没看这些东西,我'我忘记了细节,但是我忘了一些事情。

    那里'一个神经心理学家-能'现在回想一下他的名字-上世纪90年代初,他写了一篇关于神经心理学的巨著,并有一个有趣的章节(约100页),其中他将对边缘系统极其特定区域的损害(部分与癫痫发作有关)与"mystical"经验。我发现的问题是他的想法"mystical" is what most 'mystics"将被称为低级的隐秘经验。

    麦克劳克林?拉芙琳不确定名字,几年后写了一本书,在书中他做了进一步的区分。在更大的非二元论框架内,"brain" as the external image of processes occurring in Consciousness, he posited that changes - not just damage - to specific parts of the 脑 would result in different kinds of non-ordinary experiences. For example, damage to the frontal lobes would be more likely to lead to these lower level experiences, whereas further 德 velopment - greater integration, coherence etc (which is consistent with the more recent 脑 studies of that French Buddhist monk whose name escapes me now) would lead to "higher level" experiences of profound intuitive insight, seeing the connection, for example, between the external image of the 脑 and processes in Consciousness! But seeing this without any loss of left hemisphere analytic functions, as occurred with Jill Bolte.

    我认为吉姆·卡彭特's First Sight theory, though not paired with an ontological view, presents even more specificity, and references hundreds of excellent empirical studies showing how changes or lower levels of activity in very specific regions of the 脑 lead to greater psi awareness. Paired with the many ontological frameworks presented in BP, these 所有 have immense relevance to your own work.

    同时,我'我真的很想了解您自己的理论的更多细节,并了解我是否能够更深入地了解它。提前感谢您抽出宝贵的时间来解释它。

    回复删除
    回覆
    1. My ideas are summarized here: //www.scribd.com/doc/295795222/On-Why-Idealism-is-Superior-to-Physicalism-Bernardo-Kastrup. As per my other reply to you above, I think we've had enough dissimulation. So that everybody else reading this comment knows why I am saying this: you, 唐, have been on a quest for at least months, perhaps over a year, going out of your way to point out that nothing I say is new, and that the world's wisdom traditions have been saying the same thing, in the same or better ways, for a long, long time. I not only concede, but emphasize that, insofar as its conclusions are concerned, nothing I am saying is new. I have written this much multiple times, even in my own books. But I believe that _the way things are articulated_ in my work is novel, otherwise I wouldn't have bothered to write six books and be busy with a seventh. And certainly previous articulations haven't done the job, have they? Otherwise we wouldn't be where we are today, as a culture. So there certainly is room for new and fresh perspectives and this is what I am trying to do. 那里 is today no closed, unambiguous, _analytical_ articulation of a consciousness-only ontology that meets contemporary standards of logical consistency, empirical honesty and lack of ambiguity. I am trying to help produce one.
      我将不再重复该解释,因为在过去的几个月中,我已经多次向您详细说明了。坦白说,我厌倦了为你辩解。所以我赢了't anymore. B.

      删除
  6. 我完全同意,您解释一元唯心主义的清晰,科学且毫不含糊的方式远远优于过去的奥秘和通常故意隐秘的传统。谢谢你,伯纳多。

    回复删除