Do you believe there is a conscious realm of reality?

[Amorphos]

Do you believe there is a conscious realm of reality?

1. If consciousness continues after death, and with its eidos or information set [so it can think], where would it go?

2. If there is a realm of consciousnesses, would it be kinda like the world or morally based [like religion assumes]?

3. Would there be other kinds of consciousnesses? E.g. if we imagine that we are self deifying entities [consciousness which can individualise itself into a persona], can other kinds of consciousness do that?

3.1. Would there be deities as like gods of old, but would they share the same realm or world?
3.2. Would there be animals, plants, planets and stars etc or any such things? {moral implications?}

4. Would we be more advanced by default? We act like we do in this world because that’s the way of the world, hence if we existed on a higher plane would we not simply act better because we can? {moral implications?}

5. Would it be less advanced by default? Something like a realm where we are virtually asleep perhaps.

6. Do all consciousnesses become one ~ as there is nothing physical between them?

7. Would we then enter nirvana or a Socratic eternity by default? {moral implications?}

8. What would an atheistic conscious realm be like?

.

[Jack04]

No, I don't. Which rather limits any further comment I can make. I've never seen anything to convince me otherwise either.

[Amorphos]

No, I don't. Which rather limits any further comment I can make. I've never seen anything to convince me otherwise either.

You possess/are a consciousness are you not? Your thoughts are informational [non physical] and the primary instinct of consciousness is the desire to seek out info. One could assume that consciousness contains all that is need for a life-form to be alive and to think, as like a nut is to a tree? Certainly that our entire experience is mental and within the conscious sphere, irrespective that it is fed by sensory information from the brain.

[Jack04]

You possess/are a consciousness are you not? Your thoughts are informational [non physical] and the primary instinct of consciousness is the desire to seek out info. One could assume that consciousness contains all that is need for a life-form to be alive and to think, as like a nut is to a tree? Certainly that our entire experience is mental and within the conscious sphere, irrespective that it is fed by sensory information from the brain.

You need to define more specifically some of the terms you're using. "Physical", for example, is an incredibly vague term. I would contend that all thoughts would be physical, if we assume their being based on electrical impulses, informational or otherwise. I would also say that I'd look at it the other way around. A "consciousness" (that is, one's internal thought processes) arises from the brain developed through evolution, it is a consequence of our existence, not a mechanism for the furthering/initiating of that existence. I find the concept of a conscious "realm" (another term in need of defining) rather implausible, to be perfectly frank.

[Ancient Aliens]

No, I don't. Which rather limits any further comment I can make. I've never seen anything to convince me otherwise either.

This. No evidence suggests anything but consciousness being electric impulse in our brain.

[Amorphos]

btw folks, this isnt a debate concerning the question; 'does consciousness exist' though i dont mind going into that a little, the question of the debate begins with the notion that consciousness does exist, so what happens then ~ if it does.

Jack04

You need to define more specifically some of the terms you're using. "Physical", for example, is an incredibly vague term. I would contend that all thoughts would be physical, if we assume their being based on electrical impulses, informational or otherwise.

I’d contend they are not, certainly that informational thought is not the same as the information [if we can even call it that?!] derived of electrical impulses, ~ which are very mechanistic at most. Much of what the consciousness thinks is in terms of ideas and holisms, in what way do you think these things to be physical?

I would also say that I'd look at it the other way around. A "consciousness" (that is, one's internal thought processes) arises from the brain developed through evolution, it is a consequence of our existence, not a mechanism for the furthering/initiating of that existence. I find the concept of a conscious "realm" (another term in need of defining) rather implausible, to be perfectly frank.

So you assume that consciousness is the set of internal thought processes [mechanistic], is that what it feels like to you? We don’t know that material existence is all there is, or that it is there for its own ultimately pointless purposes. We could equally assume that if there is a realm of consciousness, then the material is there as either a consequence of it, a response to it or that there is some other manner of relationship betwixt the two.

This all sounds dualistic, so we could also assume also that reality has its distinctiveness in e.g. us, but also its unity in the whole/environment. Metaphysically both consciousness and the origins of the material universe would exist in the same original space, hence there would necessarily be a relationship between the two.

I suppose it comes down to weather or not there is a consciousness, but it’s the only thing we truly know, and I have yet to read a paper proving it doesn’t exist. Do you think it exist as you? …do you not think there is something there to wit we ascribe the term consciousness? What else other than it do you know?

Dubh the dark
Thanks, glad you enjoyed it.

Ancient Aliens

This. No evidence suggests anything but consciousness being electric impulse in our brain.

The evidence is that you can know the information you are reading right now, and that there is something doing that and knowing it.
Not sure if there is any evidence for electricity having such abilities?

[Ancient Aliens]

The evidence is that you can know the information you are reading right now, and that there is something doing that and knowing it.
Not sure if there is any evidence for electricity having such abilities?

Obviously I oversimplified a bit. It is the reaction between neurons, chemicals and blood in the brain, and electric impulses. No hard scientific evidence is out there to undermine this.

[Amorphos]

As far as I know there is no evidence that this is anything more than a matrix of electrical impulses, its still electromagnetism and little different to the patterns made by iron filings between magnets. There is no evidence that this can be informational thought, imagine how can it? How can such patters literally be ideas and meanings, how do you make a pattern into such things, its just implausible.

[Jack04]

Jack04

I’d contend they are not, certainly that informational thought is not the same as the information [if we can even call it that?!] derived of electrical impulses, ~ which are very mechanistic at most. Much of what the consciousness thinks is in terms of ideas and holisms, in what way do you think these things to be physical?

Based on what? We know from brain scanning that different thought processes result in different parts of the brain being used. We know that people who suffer severe trauma to their brains often end up with changes to their personality (varying in severity). That implies a fairly strong link between your brain and your thought processes/personality. What is the need to insert this extra-dimensional consciousness into the equation?

So you assume that consciousness is the set of internal thought processes [mechanistic], is that what it feels like to you? We don’t know that material existence is all there is, or that it is there for its own ultimately pointless purposes. We could equally assume that if there is a realm of consciousness, then the material is there as either a consequence of it, a response to it or that there is some other manner of relationship betwixt the two.

Is that what it "feels like"? That is a genuinely impossible question to answer (and, to be perfectly frank, quite a ridiculous one, if you'll only think about it for a minute). My consciousness "feels" the way it "feels". I cannot experience the alternative, so I cannot make a comparison. No, we don't know that material existence is all there is, but what is the use in asserting an extra conscious "realm"? Are there problems to do with the consciousness that material world interpretations have been demonstrated to be entirely incapable of solving (not haven't solved, but are never going to be able to solve)? Not that I'm aware of. There is no need to assume an extra realm of consciousness. It'd just be a pointless additional assumption, adding absolutely nothing to our understanding.

I suppose it comes down to weather or not there is a consciousness, but it’s the only thing we truly know, and I have yet to read a paper proving it doesn’t exist. Do you think it exist as you? …do you not think

There you go again. Opening up with a spectacular argument from ignorance. Something not being disproved is not a good enough reason to assume its existence unless it is demonstrably required by another, well demonstrated model. As far as I'm concerned it comes down to this:

Is there any reason to believe that a material/physical view of our brain cannot explain all of our thoughts/feelings and our perceived consciousness? I don't see why it shouldn't be able to, certainly no evidence that it is incapable.
Does assuming the existence of another realm of consciousness aid our understanding of our consciousness? No, not really.

So assuming it would be a complete waste of time.

[Dubh the dark]

Do you believe there is a conscious realm of reality?

1. If consciousness continues after death, and with its eidos or information set [so it can think], where would it go?

2. If there is a realm of consciousnesses, would it be kinda like the world or morally based [like religion assumes]?

3. Would there be other kinds of consciousnesses? E.g. if we imagine that we are self deifying entities [consciousness which can individualise itself into a persona], can other kinds of consciousness do that?

3.1. Would there be deities as like gods of old, but would they share the same realm or world?
3.2. Would there be animals, plants, planets and stars etc or any such things? {moral implications?}

4. Would we be more advanced by default? We act like we do in this world because that’s the way of the world, hence if we existed on a higher plane would we not simply act better because we can? {moral implications?}

5. Would it be less advanced by default? Something like a realm where we are virtually asleep perhaps.

6. Do all consciousnesses become one ~ as there is nothing physical between them?

7. Would we then enter nirvana or a Socratic eternity by default? {moral implications?}

8. What would an atheistic conscious realm be like?

.

What a great set of questions to present to a congress of religious leaders, leading scientists and philosophers.

I like the way your mind works.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Answer to the OP: Yes. There are certain states which can be reached, like samadhi, fanna-fillah, apophasis, etc... in which the consciousness is significantly altered and detached from the plane of individual perception, and there are also interesting arguments for mind-body dualism coming from Aristotelian-Thomistic perspectives, although I believe in a more monistic ("spiritual") constitution of being.

[Taiji]

Do you believe there is a conscious realm of reality?

1. If consciousness continues after death, and with its eidos or information set [so it can think], where would it go?

Nowhere. I imagine it would be non-local.

2. If there is a realm of consciousnesses, would it be kinda like the world or morally based [like religion assumes]?

The question does not make sense to me.

3. Would there be other kinds of consciousnesses? E.g. if we imagine that we are self deifying entities [consciousness which can individualise itself into a persona], can other kinds of consciousness do that?

3.1. Would there be deities as like gods of old, but would they share the same realm or world?
3.2. Would there be animals, plants, planets and stars etc or any such things? {moral implications?}

I guess, maybe.

4. Would we be more advanced by default? We act like we do in this world because that’s the way of the world, hence if we existed on a higher plane would we not simply act better because we can? {moral implications?}

Depends on the model used to determine relative levels of 'advancement'.

The point about acting, I'm not sure acting will be possible.

5. Would it be less advanced by default? Something like a realm where we are virtually asleep perhaps.

Depends on the model used, as above.

6. Do all consciousnesses become one ~ as there is nothing physical between them?

Maybe to the first part, probably yes to the second. But 'become one' deserves some questions: Become one what? Integration with others is a destruction of self? Inability to do makes thought pointless?... I am not seeing much heavenly opportunity...

7. Would we then enter nirvana or a Socratic eternity by default? {moral implications?}

Probably not. The terms are defined based on human experiences which we would have transcended.

8. What would an atheistic conscious realm be like?

It wouldn't have a god in it.

Or if you mean it in the sense that atheism is in some way against belief in god: It would be a place where theists got punished for their beliefs, funny thought

[Amorphos]

Thanks for all your interesting replies.

Jack04

We know from brain scanning that different thought processes result in different parts of the brain being used.

Naturally, if the material being is the vehicle then metal elements will correspond with physical ones, how else would it all work together. Equally if you take away some of those connections then the mind wont be able to functions as it had done.
.

My consciousness "feels" the way it "feels". I cannot experience the alternative, so I cannot make a comparison.

Meh, you could compare it to electricity and em outside of the body, would you say that complex circuitry is conscious? Even if it produced the exact same waves which our brains produced and we assume to ‘be’ the consciousness. All I was asking is to compare what you are with non human mechanistic things, computers for example, its not really ridiculous as a simple analogy now is it!
.

There you go again. Opening up with a spectacular argument from ignorance. Something not being disproved is not a good enough reason to assume its existence unless it is demonstrably required by another, well demonstrated model.

Not really, a chap from a philosophy forum took me through the materialistic arguments, I went through much of what we know about how we hear and experience music, how we hear it in our heads due to neurons memorising the sounds etc. to cut a long story short, after hearing all the facts none of them describe how em patterns/matrixes become informational thought, ideas and other holisms.
Seriously, you need to get off your high horse and stop making such presumptions, this is an internet forum and I am asking basic questions. You should not assume that people have not considered a notion just because they havent given you a lifetimes worth of background information ~ that my friend is ridiculous.
.

Is there any reason to believe that a material/physical view of our brain cannot explain all of our thoughts/feelings and our perceived consciousness? I don't see why it shouldn't be able to, certainly no evidence that it is incapable.

Think back to your early school days where you had a couple of magnets and some iron filings, and wooh they make a pattern. Although simplified in the extreme, this is essentially how magnetism acts, the brain produces a highly complex em pattern. How on earth can that equal a word or shape or understand what they are? The evidence is that we know how em works and it doesn’t entirely describe our subjective experience, in fact it barely describes much of our experience.
.

Does assuming the existence of another realm of consciousness aid our understanding of our consciousness? No, not really.

eh, ya for sure..
a. if we knew there was such a realm then we would know what we are and where we come from/are going to.
b. we would know what of us survives death.
Its kinda fundamental, and I cannot imagine why you would even ask that question.

-------------------------------

Taiji

Nowhere. I imagine it would be non-local.

Interesting, in the Buddhist sense I’d agree, if like a nut is to a tree the consciousness contains an eidos [info set] then it would not be Buddha being [even if it is to eventually attain that]. An intermediate realm perhaps?
.

The question does not make sense to me.

Would a conscious realm be as like this world I.e. a place, or would it be like e.g. heaven ~ morally based, only the good get to live in it. If simply a place then religion has no moral impetus concerning the afterlife, and atheist would go there as much as the most devout monk. Its an important distinction to make, no?
.

The point about acting, I'm not sure acting will be possible.

The environment would be different so we’d act accordingly, though I take your point concerning a nirvana like existence. I don’t know about that and it’s a massive discussion area, for some or most people it could take more lifetimes to achieve that for the sun to go supernova or for humans to go extinct or change into another species. Equally if we all died tomorrow would we then enter nirvana by default, ~ surely there would be realms to conclude our business - so to say, and I think this is why in Buddhism there are intermediate realms?
.

'become one' deserves some questions: Become one what? Integration with others is a destruction of self? Inability to do makes thought pointless?... I am not seeing much heavenly opportunity...

Hmm good questions! A oneness like nirvana or a Socratic eternity would necessitate a lack of individuality, though I doubt that would involve a process as ‘integration’ would imply. If consciousness contains no eidos then no it wouldn’t be able to do anything nor even think. With an eidos it can act and think.
.

It wouldn't have a god in it.
Or if you mean it in the sense that atheism is in some way against belief in god: It would be a place where theists got punished for their beliefs, funny thought

Hahaha nice one mate! …but nah I just inferred that an atheist realm would not have a god or any such religious basis ~ which I rather like the idea of.


.

[Jack04]

Meh, you could compare it to electricity and em outside of the body, would you say that complex circuitry is conscious? Even if it produced the exact same waves which our brains produced and we assume to ‘be’ the consciousness. All I was asking is to compare what you are with non human mechanistic things, computers for example, its not really ridiculous as a simple analogy now is it!

One can only experience one's own internal monologue (for obvious reasons). Even were computers capable of comparable conscious thought, I would not be able to be aware of it. Also, computers, however complex, are monumentally less complex than a human brain.

Not really, a chap from a philosophy forum took me through the materialistic arguments, I went through much of what we know about how we hear and experience music, how we hear it in our heads due to neurons memorising the sounds etc. to cut a long story short, after hearing all the facts none of them describe how em patterns/matrixes become informational thought, ideas and other holisms.

Ideas and thoughts can readily be described as memory analysis. Memory is a rather simple concept, computationally. I still see no reason why an extra realm of consciousness is required.

Seriously, you need to get off your high horse and stop making such presumptions, this is an internet forum and I am asking basic questions. You should not assume that people have not considered a notion just because they havent given you a lifetimes worth of background information ~ that my friend is ridiculous.

I did not assume you had not considered a notion. I merely pointed out your use of an argument from ignorance. Just because something is not demonstrated to be false is not reason enough to assume its existence.

Think back to your early school days where you had a couple of magnets and some iron filings, and wooh they make a pattern. Although simplified in the extreme, this is essentially how magnetism acts, the brain produces a highly complex em pattern. How on earth can that equal a word or shape or understand what they are? The evidence is that we know how em works and it doesn’t entirely describe our subjective experience, in fact it barely describes much of our experience.

Without wanting to sound insulting, this sounds terribly like a lot of creationist arguments. Simply because we cannot visualise the required complexity with respect to the individual elements (in this case, electrical pulses or whatever) does not mean they are not responsible for the effects.

eh, ya for sure..
a. if we knew there was such a realm then we would know what we are and where we come from/are going to.
b. we would know what of us survives death.
Its kinda fundamental, and I cannot imagine why you would even ask that question.

... but it is not necessary. We have no need to assert this assumption in order to understand our brains and the methodology of our thoughts. There is no apparent limit on materialist models that makes for a requirement for "something else" in order to extend and develop our knowledge. We gain no understanding from this assumption without evidence to back it up.

[Taiji]

Interesting, in the Buddhist sense I’d agree, if like a nut is to a tree the consciousness contains an eidos [info set] then it would not be Buddha being [even if it is to eventually attain that]. An intermediate realm perhaps?

I'm concerned by the archaic nature of the word 'realm'. As if agreement to use it might disable my ability to cope with more advanced notions. How about we go for a scifi term, like 'another dimension'. So it's non-local in human terms, but perhaps to some interdimensional wanderer it's just around the corner.

About information. The informing of whom about what using what method which abstracts data from where and processed it in what way? Oh yeah, and what is it for? For me that's probably the best question to start with: What would a dis-incorporated conscious ever need informing of?

Would a conscious dimension be as like this world I.e. a place, or would it be like e.g. heaven ~ morally based, only the good get to live in it. If simply a place then religion has no moral impetus concerning the afterlife, and atheist would go there as much as the most devout monk. Its an important distinction to make, no?

The question is so hard to answer because it's almost like "Nothing or one of these stories?". Let's just say I doubt the stories are intended to be taken literally, to me the morals of those fantastic stories are most likely the purpose of them. Just something to consider and nothing to worry about.

The environment would be different so we’d act accordingly, though I take your point concerning a nirvana like existence. I don’t know about that and it’s a massive discussion area, for some or most people it could take more lifetimes to achieve that for the sun to go supernova or for humans to go extinct or change into another species. Equally if we all died tomorrow would we then enter nirvana by default, ~ surely there would be realms to conclude our business - so to say, and I think this is why in Buddhism there are intermediate realms?

We may not be aware of any environment. That might be a lost distinction upon losing location. All kinds of geometry would probably cease to matter, maybe a new kind of geometry needs modelling.

Hmm good questions! A oneness like nirvana or a Socratic eternity would necessitate a lack of individuality, though I doubt that would involve a process as ‘integration’ would imply. If consciousness contains no eidos then no it wouldn’t be able to do anything nor even think. With an eidos it can act and think.

One problem with thinking without a brain would be that all the identified thinking behaviours linked to different parts of the brain, in neurology, would probably not happen.

Understanding ethics, I think those parts of the brain are still developing at 7 or so. Understanding relative morality seems beyond a great many adults. I really doubt there can be any kind of moral element to what happens after brain death.

Hahaha nice one mate! …but nah I just inferred that an atheist realm would not have a god or any such religious basis ~ which I rather like the idea of.

Thankyou, I liked having the funny idea that your question prompted. It never occurred to me before that there could be an afterlife like that.

[Amorphos]

Taiji

I'm concerned by the archaic nature of the word 'realm'. As if agreement to use it might disable my ability to cope with more advanced notions. How about we go for a scifi term, like 'another dimension'. So it's non-local in human terms, but perhaps to some interdimensional wanderer it's just around the corner.

I have considered this before, some people think of dimensions as like another world or place, but we both know that’s necessarily true and all dimension usually pertain to the universe rather than another place other than it. I could conceive of infinity as a dimension but not nirvana or eternity. As long as people understand ‘realm’ as a ‘place’ [in and of itself [its own place]], then I am happy to use it.
.

About information. The informing of whom about what using what method which abstracts data from where and processed it in what way? Oh yeah, and what is it for? For me that's probably the best question to start with: What would a dis-incorporated conscious ever need informing of?

Well if there was a conscious realm and you met another consciousness, then you need informing about both. Given the removal of the physical, perhaps consciousnesses may communicate directly as if within each others minds or a dream.
.

The question is so hard to answer because it's almost like "Nothing or one of these stories?". Let's just say I doubt the stories are intended to be taken literally, to me the morals of those fantastic stories are most likely the purpose of them. Just something to consider and nothing to worry about.

Agreed, they make for good adherence to morality for living in this world. So we are agreed another dimension/realm is more likely to be a place like the world is, rather than morally based like heaven in the abrahamic sense of the term.
.

We may not be aware of any environment. That might be a lost distinction upon losing location. All kinds of geometry would probably cease to matter, maybe a new kind of geometry needs modelling.

Certainly! Lets also assume two models for now, yours as above and my mind-like realm/dimension. Hmm I suppose ‘dimension’ can be applied to mind!?
Should we say there are two potential states of the mind-dimension then?

One is like infinity and has no x, y, z, dimensions, thus nothing is localised or particular.
The other is defined by its eidos and those within it, it is like a mind with minds in it. As the minds here and their eidos are considered as one ~ as consciousness, then we have a mind dimension and a conscious dimension.
.

One problem with thinking without a brain would be that all the identified thinking behaviours linked to different parts of the brain, in neurology, would probably not happen.

Sure but to we the consciousness what happens within our conscious sphere is one. Perhaps without the brain the consciousness would be more disparate, but I tend to think of the brain as its tool, and hence I don’t consider the tool to change the user.
Naturally the relationship is tighter than that implies.
.

Understanding ethics, I think those parts of the brain are still developing at 7 or so. Understanding relative morality seems beyond a great many adults. I really doubt there can be any kind of moral element to what happens after brain death.

Good point, this is dependent on if we consider such things to be already contained within the consciousness ~ like the nut analogy. We could think of our development in terms of the consciousness unravelling over time, rather than purely the development of the brain. Perhaps even that the brain is a massively impressive machine/computer, and could probably work very well from day one if not stupefied by our cumbersome consciousnesses!
.

Thank you, I liked having the funny idea that your question prompted. It never occurred to me before that there could be an afterlife like that.

Ha they could dwell in their own made hell until they realise their god does not exist, whilst there they must have copious amounts of drink and sex, and generally party until they projectile vomit.


.

[hellas1]

@Jack04,

Do the research yourself man.
Swami Rama was the mans name, he's dead now.

Regarding Uri Geller,

I don't know anything about him other than he could supposedly "bend spoons" with his mind......Whatever that means.
Now that I've answered your James Randi-ish question, Stop trying to bring me into credulity.

Next you'll be saying "What about Unicorns????" Bad line of reasoning on your part insofar as rebutting me is concerned.

Thanks,
hellas1.5

[leeho730]

Yes, that's why I argued that we lack technology to properly observe the phenomenon. What material are ghosts made of? Are they in IR or UV realm? If they are real, can a specimen be obtained? We seriously lack proper understanding of this phenomenon and as far as I know nobody made a clear way to identify and record such phenomenon so that wider scientific communities could analyzer and study it. Trust me, if someone can prove their existence through scientific means, that will be an almost instant Nobel Prize winner, because that will cause a major paradigm shift hitherto unheard of.

(By the way, how hard to become Nobel prize winner in science is that the chance you will win nobel prize in science is equivalent of winning 5 lotteries... in one day)

Moreover, all these supernatural phenomenon have nasty tendency of failing to show up when scientists try to analyse with equipments. Randy's 1 million prize hasnt been claimed yet.

I'm not a denier, I would LOVE to see the ghost myself, would be exciting!
But unfortunately, there is no scientifically proven case of appearance of ghost...

Science can make prediction even without direct observation. People knew earth was round more than 2,000 years ago despite lack of satellite or space telescope.

[hellas1]

@leeho730,

Science can only deal with quantifiable things.

When people see ghosts, the naked eye sees them and in that manner they ARE quantifiable insofar as visible things are concerned. Perhaps U.V. or spectrography will pick them up in the near future.
I don't know.

Now, I know what I saw and I wasn't under the influence of drugs, booze, hypnotism, trance, ecstatic mania or "positive imagination." O.K.?

This thing I saw was as tall as a person, had a wing like projection jutting out of its back which came to a point above its head and it had no arms, only a trunk which fanned out at the bottom like a dress coming down to the floor. It's face was gender neutral but I did make out a depression-like eye socket (I saw it from its right hand side btw) and an aquiline nose of sorts and the top of its "head" was flat, not squarish however without any "hair" in the human sense of the word.

This thing I saw floated literally across the floor of the hallway and disappeared after.

I was FULLY CONSCIOUS and of the 2 people I was with, only 1 saw the thing too as he was looking in that direction.

Ultimately, I don't know WHAT THE HELL I saw but it was real.

Comments? Well?
hellas1.5

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Quetzalcoatl's Post

Paranormal phenomena, even if they really occur, are hardly anything that should be paid attention to or that denote conclusive proof for anything.

The truly well versed man avoids the lure of extraordinary phenomena even when he can produce them, which by itself is an incredibly rare and difficult thing.

You made the claim that Swami was proof of consciousness being immaterial, so you are the one who needs to back that claim up.

There's no need to back up or investigate anything because the premises in which these investigations start are crooked. The interpretation that mind comes from matter ruins down when intentionality is taken into account, brain wave guru being brain wave guru or not.

Most phenomena of the inner sort brought by the practice of medidation are scientifically unproven, unmeasurable and incapable of being consistently replicated in lab conditions. Which does not alter their possibility one jot.