God, Wormholes and Static on the TV
I was watching an episode of Through the Wormhole this evening. The episode was a fascinating one, exploring the neurology of reality, spirituality and higher perception. The show explored the idea that we create God as part of the higher processes within our own brains - yet God is more than something we imagine. In a way, we create God and God creates us.
One idea the show explored was that the mind tries to impose order on the world around us, even when that order apparently doesn't exist (or so we assume). One particular experiment showed that a feeling of loss-of-control made a volunteer subject more likely to see patterns in static.
The feeling of loss of control was generated by frustrating a logical test of associating a symbol with meaning. The person was made to feel that they failed the test even though they did their best - the reasons being factors beyond their control. In the control group, the person was correctly evaluated as having established the right answer for answers in the test.
After taking the test, the volunteer was then asked to view a screen full of static, indicating whether they observed a pattern within the static, and if so, to indicate what that pattern is.
When a person had a sense of control, making sense of their physical universe as being rational, etc., then when they looked at a screen full of static, they saw exactly that, static with no meaning. However, when they experienced a loss of control, their world was less rational, less rule-bound. When these subjects were shown a screen full of static, they were able to see patterns in the snow.
The conclusion of the experimenter was that the brain seeks to find order in our world. When it can't find order, it will invent it - as in the static on the TV. The assumption was that there was in fact, no order in the static on the TV, that the subject invented the patterns that did not exist. However, was that assumption actually correct?
A more 'Eastern' or theistic view might be that once the ego had given up its hold on the subject's reality, then a higher vision was able to engage. In that case, the higher sight was able to see patterns within the static. This does not necessarily mean that the patterns were actually in the static, but that perhaps the static served as a vehicle of concentration, a local channel for non-local perception.
Another example the show used was that of a Tarot reader. In this case, the experimenter psychologist played with Tarot cards as a hobby, finding uncanny abilities to see patterns in life, reflected in the Tarot deck. Again, she assumed that the pattern reflection was not actually there, and the apparent correspondence was only an illusion.
However, what if, once again, the Tarot deck served only as a vehicle of concentration, allowing a higher level of perception to engage. Then, perhaps this vision was able to see the patterns, maybe non-locally.
The assumption that when a physical channel of perception is not there, that the actual perception process is not present, rather than a non-local or parapsychological process being at work is an assumption. To me, it is a flaw in the methodology of the experiment, reflecting an underlying belief system in which parapsychology is not valid.
The show brought out the idea that we impose patterns on nature, often using vehicles such as spirituality and/or religion as a bridge when no rational cause/effect can be determined. We picture random acts of nature, fortune or tragedy as somehow being the will of God.
Indeed, it is possible to identify areas of the brain which perform this function, a 'God spot' in the brain. Thus, the show suggests that religious or spiritual beliefs are 'nothing more than' attempts to see patterns where none are there.
A fundamental question looked at within the sow was what is the nature of reality? One idea is that our mind, our perception and filters, and even our reality, itself, can be thought of as a pattern of neuronal and synaptic states. At least in principle, by understanding and replicating these aggregate states, we could reproduce the person's mind - their fundamental being.
Is the sum total of a person's mind, the current state of their neuronal brain, their synapses? Are the synaptic weights the means by which a person's mind is fully encoded? This idea does not take non-locality into consideration. Dr. Stewart Hameroff and the University of Arizona team studying quantum consciousness, suggests that more is required - interaction of the brain with the external non-local universe. Indeed, in this model, much of the mind is external to the brain. The brain may even function more as an antenna than a computer
The show looked at brain scans of people of various religious beliefs - including atheists - while conducting meditation or prayer. It found that deep meditation or prayer corresponds to activity in the frontal lobes - similar to being in conversation, except in this case, the conversation is with God, rather than with a person physically present.
Buddhist meditation, where the divine is more, abstract, it found that the patterns in the brain were different. They were less in the pattern a conversation, yet the peak experience was there. Even more so, the atheist in meditation showed no conversational pattern in brain - not having a conversation with God because they did not believe God exists. There may be a spiritual experience, yet the experience may not be religious in nature. Thus for the religious, the experience is real, as if God is physically present. Spirituality and religion may be two separate experiences.
Does the idea that a particular part of the brain specializes in the spiritual/religious experience make religion or spirituality any less valid? Does the idea that a particular part of the brain specializes in mathematics make math any less valid? Similar with music or with any other area of human experience.
The idea of the show suggests that the states of our brains are where reality crystalizes for us. Our reality is the sum of what we observe, filtered by our beliefs, yielding our perceptions and models of the world. Part of this model of the universe is God.
Did we invent God or did God invent us - or both? Are both ideas correct? Searching for God within the self, once we get our egos out of the way, we are able to perceive the God that already exists. Or maybe we do indeed create our creator.
