Selective Brain Damage Modulates Human Spirituality, Research Reveals

[Liffrea]

New research provides fascinating insight into brain changes that might underlie alterations in spiritual and religious attitudes. The study, published by Cell Press in the February 11 issue of the journal Neuron, explores the neural basis of spirituality by studying patients before and after surgery to remove a brain tumor.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100210124757.htm

[Treffie]

I had always wondered if my church pastor had had a frontal lobotomy.....

[Agrippa]

Interesting and something expectable, yet I'm always somewhat sceptical if hearing such news, mainly because I have to think about how the current system might use that knowledge.

From all we know they want simple functioning working and consumer material, which just does what they expect and all structures are made up to guarantee that, yet certain personality types are more likely to oppose that and being not as easy to manipulate by the structures made up for the masses.

Now the logical consequence for a radical Oligarchy would be to stay untouched themselves, probably becoming an even more independent elite, but eliminate all possible competitors from the masses. If propaganda, social pressures and corruption alone doesnt suffice, they might change to consider every kind of opposition as either
- terrorists
- a medical case with psychological problems

or both.

So if they know why some people work differently, they can begin to eliminate them by using all means to eliminate the reason for non-conformistic behaviour.

Obviously, its quite likely that this will be done in one way or another anyway, if there is further progress in the techno-civilisation, but the Plutocratic Oligarchy now would just produce Capitalist slaves rather than stable, free and highly evolved people.

Thats why I'm concerned, in a way, about certain aspects of scientific progress, because the Plutocrats have already so much power, some results just add more possibilities and means to their arsenal and thats not good, because their plans are not good for my people and mankind.

[Anthropos]

I'm not even sure that what they call 'self-transcendence' has anything to do with spirituality properly so-called; I am pretty sure it hasn't. In any event, traditional spirituality is not based on phenomena of this order, and thus it is not in any way affected by these findings.

[The Khagan]

Brain damage.... spirituality

BRAIN DAMAGE..... spirituality

Makes sense.

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Anthropos
I'm not even sure that what they call 'self-transcendence' has anything to do with spirituality properly so-called; I am pretty sure it hasn't.

From what they claim, I guess they are referring to the attitude of reflection in the more introspective that often leads one to conclusions regarding the individuals place in the universe around them. However I’m not sure that this is necessarily a spiritual subject, an atheist, presumably, has given enough thought to their existence to come to their conclusion. Perhaps this is more related to the capacity for introspection.

Personally I find this interesting there is a lot of evidence that suggests humans have an inbuilt urge to believe in higher powers i.e. God(s), draw what conclusions you will from that.

[Agrippa]

Personally I find this interesting there is a lot of evidence that suggests humans have an inbuilt urge to believe in higher powers i.e. God(s), draw what conclusions you will from that.

Yes, I heard about that, am not really sure about it though, yet its general presense is easy to explain.
Humans have a consciousness, they can think about the past, present and future, so they know that life can be hard, it might cruel, it can be painful and it will surely end. So to endure that while functioning effectively, they need some sort of "hope". That way, it doesnt matter how real "the hope" is, its very presence helps them to survive, to function and to be biologically successful, even though having a consciousness, pain, suffering etc.

On the longer run, a collective spirit, a higher (rational) Idealism is absolutely necessary for the further human development on a higher level for the individuals and the group. The problem comes from the irrational aspects of religion and idealism, which distort not just the view on the world, but also the possible reactions.

That way it doesnt matter whether a motivation is rational or irrational, as long as the reaction is rational, but the higher we develop, the higher the chances are that an irrational motivation will lead to an irrational, destructive reaction.

This is a great challenge for futher human evolution and something we have to consider for Eugenic programs, because the people need a higher motivation and goal, but at the same time their way of thinking and reacting should stay rational and adapted - what most religions aren't f.e.

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Agrippa
Yes, I heard about that, am not really sure about it though, yet its general presense is easy to explain.
Humans have a consciousness, they can think about the past, present and future, so they know that life can be hard, it might cruel, it can be painful and it will surely end. So to endure that while functioning effectively, they need some sort of "hope". That way, it doesnt matter how real "the hope" is, its very presence helps them to survive, to function and to be biologically successful, even though having a consciousness, pain, suffering etc.

Plausible….but largely unanswerable until if/when we have a good grasp of the reason for the rise of human intelligence specifically, rather than intelligence in general, which at present is pretty difficult to explain from a perspective purely based upon natural selection. At present we are increasingly knowledgeable as regards cognition, conscience is still something of an ongoing debate, and consciousness i.e. self awareness……However there are those, Stuart Kauffman (a professor at the Santa Fe Institute) for one, who perceive possible order within biological systems akin to the order within physics. In this perspective we would have an understanding for the reason behind higher human consciousness, which leads us into questions about the very nature of human society, art, culture etc.

From a purely evolutionary standpoint much of human intelligence is seemingly irrelevant, which means we either need to broaden our grasp of biological systems or we have to concede that there are other possibilities, perhaps even both.


On the longer run, a collective spirit, a higher (rational) Idealism is absolutely necessary for the further human development on a higher level for the individuals and the group. The problem comes from the irrational aspects of religion and idealism, which distort not just the view on the world, but also the possible reactions.

I agree, and I think it comes down to a holistic approach to life in general. One shouldn’t neglect developing the mind at the expense of the body and vice versa. Seemingly humans have both a rational mind and a mind based within “imagination”. Of course one could argue that rationalism doesn’t negate the more internal/imaginative/creative aspect of human nature, perhaps it even reinforces it.


That way it doesnt matter whether a motivation is rational or irrational, as long as the reaction is rational, but the higher we develop, the higher the chances are that an irrational motivation will lead to an irrational, destructive reaction.

I’m not sure I completely understand, do you mean a rational reaction to someone’s action regardless of their rational state?

Understanding where the boundary between logical thought and prejudice and inclination lies is important. Is it possible for us to know that? Are humans ever completely rational and free of prejudices?


This is a great challenge for futher human evolution and something we have to consider for Eugenic programs, because the people need a higher motivation and goal, but at the same time their way of thinking and reacting should stay rational and adapted - what most religions aren't f.e.

Eugenics aside, I’m open minded but far from convinced, I tend to agree.

I think it plausible to separate religion (if we accept it as a man made structure of ritual and dogma) from an inherent sense of spirituality, which perhaps does not even have to be based upon any external or “supernatural” phenomenon. When people ask me do the Gods exist I answer, yes definitely……..but as to what they are, external phenomenon or manifestations of the human mind, well that’s something else entirely. I’m convinced Odin exists, even Jesus, but I couldn’t say whether they are out there or archetypes if you like of my own sub-conscious thought a “system” if you will for this human to understand what’s out there.

Perhaps what humans really need is a sense of the sacred; however we choose to understand that.

[Agrippa]

I’m not sure I completely understand, do you mean a rational reaction to someone’s action regardless of their rational state?

Yes. But on a higher level this becomes less likely. In a way religion is like a genetic program, if you're lucky it fits into what you need, if you are unlucky it doesnt. A rational mind on the other hand might fail as well, but its potential is far greater, especially in unknown, new and challenging situations.

Even the best religious dogma - like that of Islam, being made for a very specific context. So no matter how good I think Islam worked for the Arabs in THEIR REGION and in the early phase, its no solution or alternative for other people or in other times to the same degree. Religions gives out rules made for "human eternity", yet the conditions change and the next generations can't alter the rules.

So if we assume that f.e. Mohammed was a rational person making rules and a religion for his Arab kinsmen, we can assume he would have made different rules and references if living hundred years later, two hundred years later etc.

Thats the basic problem of static rules, only interpretation being left to the later generations, which is still a great margin, but often not enough.

Because of that I can only accept rather generalised rules, basic principles as something eternal, mostly based on biological principles, because everything else could change to a degree, which we can't foresee, in which new rules are not just reasonable but NECESSARY for the well being and success of the people, the group as a whole.



Understanding where the boundary between logical thought and prejudice and inclination lies is important. Is it possible for us to know that? Are humans ever completely rational and free of prejudices?

We are never free of emotions, the subconscious etc. There are just different kinds of emotion, subconscious processes working and some produce more likely, more realistic and rational results than others so to say.