Spirit and Brain

Most Americans believe they have a material body and an immaterial spirit. (According to a 2009 Harris Poll, 82% of American adults believe in God, 75% believe in heaven and 71% believe in the survival of the soul after death.) I won’t go into whether the immaterial part can be subdivided into soul and spirit but will focus on the larger question of whether human beings are more than bodies, which is what I think.

If the spirit exists, why haven’t doctors and scientists found it? Because science is limited to studying the physical world with the five senses. It’s as likely to see the spirit as it is to smell the speed of light. Something without material substance won’t register on an EEG, CT, MRI or other scan. To find the immaterial you could look for its influence upon the material, like “seeing” the wind in the swaying trees.

Some neurologists claim to have found the spot where we experience the spiritual. This portal between dimensions is located in the brain’s temporal lobes. (Turns out Descartes was not far off. He suspected the “seat of the soul” was the pineal gland, which is situated a few layers deeper in the brain.) In his book Why God Won’t Go Away, neuroscientist Andrew Newberg points out that:

The brain is set up in such a way as to have spiritual experiences and religious experiences. Unless there is a fundamental change in the brain, religion and spirituality will be here for a very long time. The brain is predisposed to having those experiences, and that is why so many people believe in God.

A priori Assumptions

Some might say we evolved this capacity because it conferred survival advantages, but it could also be that our brains are predisposed to having spiritual experiences because we have a spirit.

“In recent years we have discovered that certain areas of the brain are the centers for various activities from movement of our limbs, to our vision, our memories and emotions. If seeing something, for example, activates a certain brain activity; does that mean that what we see is only imagined?” Shankar Vedantam, Searching for the Physical Basis of Spirituality.

Psychologist Daniel Batson notes: “The brain is the hardware through which religion is experienced. To say the brain produces religion is like saying a piano produces music.” To use another keyboard analogy, the temporal lobe is where spiritual messages are “typed” into the mind.

But just who is typing those messages? The Holy Spirit? Our subconscious? Your answer might have more to do with your a priori assumptions than with hard data. Another word for these is “faith.”

Seven Ounces

As finite beings, we don’t have much to work with when it comes to understanding God and processing spiritual input. The average human brain weighs three pounds. (Einstein was an exception at 2.7 pounds.) It is about 80% water, which means just seven ounces are solid tissue.

The brain is not lazy but it is soft—the consistency of JELL-O—and flabby. At nearly 60% fat, it’s the fattest organ in the body. When cranking at full capacity it uses enough energy to light a 25-watt bulb. Not a lot of candle power with which to contemplate the Creator.

If we kept our puny physiology in mind we would harbor fewer illusions about being able to:

master the mysterious,
unscrew the inscrutable,
comprehend life’s conundrums,
elucidate the enigmas of the eternal.

41 thoughts on “Spirit and Brain

  1. Ok, so science has it’s limitations. Some questions will probably always remain in the realm of mystery. So why presuppose the existence of God, or of a soul, or of a spirit?

  2. Why not presume the existence of God? Looking at a piano, it’s “natural” to assume the existence of a player, even if it can’t be proven.

  3. I don’t think the analogy holds. When examining the natural world, it’s not necessarily “natural” to assume the existence of a creative intelligence behind it. As the cosmologist, Martin Rees, recently said in an interview, the idea is too anthropomorphic to lend it any credibility.

    Even if it’s becoming a scientific fact that the brain is “hardwired” to be open to mystical experience, that doesn’t say anything about God or the soul. Those concepts have more to do with how we interpret or process mystical experience than anything else.

  4. One could argue that you assume the existence of a piano player when seeing a piano, only because you have seen a piano played.

    If this is the case, the argument that we must assume a designer or player when confronted with certain objects is severely undermined.

  5. The wind to spirit/soul analogy doesn’t work that well, either. We may not be able to see wind like we cannot see this supposed spirit/soul, but we certainly have well developed tools for measuring wind speed, and even know what molecules wind is made up of. This is not the case with spirit, or soul. Ergo, the assumption that a spirit or soul is the thing moving a part of our brain around–like the wind blowing the trees–is very flawed.

    I also object to this: “Evolutionists like Richard Dawkins insist we only evolved this capacity because it conferred survival advantages, but this a priori assumption is as difficult to prove as the existence of a spirit.”

    Evolutionary theory is well grounded in the empirical. That we evolved a certain neurological capacity as a survival mechanism is not purely conceptual knowledge, and definitely not an assumption.

  6. How does your second sentence in the first paragraph (the one in the parentheses) follow from your first? Do only theists believe there are non-material things? Are all forms of Buddhists materialists? Presuming all atheists are non-materialists is placing a belief on a group that doesn’t necessarily follow from their belief as atheists.

    Also, it seems that it is the case that not only can the spirit not be seen, it cannot be observed by any investigation (and essentially has become defined as something which cannot be reached by any sort of materialistic method of investigation). Additionally the mechanism by which the spirit (a non-material thing) interacts with material things has not been proposed, and when it is it will likely have to support it’s claim that this mechanism by which it interacts with material will be beyond the reach of investigation – and it will therefore be indistinguishable from it not interacting with material. (That is, nothing will ever be discovered [essentially by definition] about how the immaterial interacts with material and all things that ever will be discovered will be material.) It therefore seems that the hypothesis of “spirit” is destined to always be reserved for explaining gaps in knowledge (in this case about life, consciousness, &c.) but not contributing to discovery within those gaps, yes? The “spirit” hypothesis therefore offers no prediction, no application, seems to have no means by which to be falsifiable, and ought to be relegated to narrative and story, not science.

    You say “Some neurologists claim to have found the exact spot where the spirit sways the body.” Can you please share which neurologists have such an opinion. Your quote by Andrew Newberg does not seem to support this.

    One thing I personally have difficulties with is when people suggest that materialism is a presupposition, and the assumptions it makes are equal with assumptions that spiritualism or supernaturalism makes. You seem to take this track. It seems that all we have universal access to is materialism and materialistic causes and events. Non-materialism seems like it must propose a mechanism by which it interacts with material and additionally why that mechanism cannot be subject to materialistic investigation – thereby multiplying its assumptions and making it less reasonable out of the gate.

    Those things which have been determined to have materialistic causes have never been shown to have other causes (particularly never been shown to have other causes that makes knowing those other causes useful in any way). Whereas within the collective body of things for which supernatural causes have been proposed, the overwhelming direction of knowledge points to fewer and fewer supernatural causes [or points to supernaturalism as an explanation for those things as being superfluous or non-contributory to understanding when making predictions or applying that knowledge]. Cheers.

  7. I agree with Shane Proctor that your treatment of Dawkins in unfair when you say “Evolutionists like Richard Dawkins insist we only evolved this capacity because it conferred survival advantages”. I am out of my league here, but I think evolutionary theory suggests every trait must not necessarily lead to a survival benefit – one trait may be an artifact of or linked to another trait which does offer survival benefit. If Dawkins does say that our brains are predisposed to having spiritual experiences because such experiences have survival benefit directly, I would very much like a reference where I can read up on this. Thanks, and cheers.

  8. But just who is typing those messages? The Holy Spirit? Our subconscious? Science can never prove which and we are left with our a priori assumptions. Another word for these is “faith.”

    People have been proposing Mysterious Answers to Mysterious Questions for a long time. Eventually, the mysterious thing becomes less mysterious, but the label we gave that mysterious thing was just a place-holder for our ignorance after all. It’s not like saying “Faith!” or “HolySpirit!” helps clear up our confusion about what causes consciousness and emotions. We could just as well say “TheThing!”. For this reason, I think “Faith!” is a fake answer. It’s a place-holder that leaves us just as uncertain about our question as before. “Faith!” might make us feel more certain, but our brains can easily be tricked into feeling certain.

    Where do the messages come from? Who is typing the messages?

    I anticipate that consciousness and emotions will fall from the mysterious into our catalog of common things, but of course, this will take time. People will eventually stop asking who is pulling the strings of consciousness for the same reason that people no longer ask who throws lightening bolts.

    One time a friend asked me how I could justify loving someone if love is “merely” a state of my brain. I responded that if my brain were in a very different state I would certainly have experienced a different emotion and thought and desire of action. These differences would change my subjective experience of “love”, but that does not mean the experience is not real. It is very real. It is tied to causal events that are actually happening in the real world. So why use the word “merely”? Does there have to be magic behind the curtain before I accept an experience to be what it is? Do I have to reject “love” if it turns out to be reducible to a very long list of physical interactions?

    Understanding the physical events that cause our brains to think, or feel, or have desires will not change the fact that we do, in fact, think, feel, and have desires.

    And we love. The day I learn about the physical process that causes me to enjoy Pepsi will not be the day I cease to enjoy Pepsi. Sugar will still taste good and smiles will still spread happiness. You will still love your family even if there is not a mysterious, disembodied thing making the experience of love possible.

  9. Good comments, Shane. As to your first one: I would not say we “must” assume a player, but neither can science rule one out. And since we move from the known to the unknown in our thinking, our presuppositions about God are somewhat anthropomorphic. Hence people see God as father, watchmaker, piano player, etc The Christian would say such limited metaphors are still valid because humans are made in God’s image (Genesis 1:26).

    “Wind and trees” is a metaphor to make a point and not meant to walk on all fours. Yes, we can detect wind because it is part of the material world. Spirit could be immaterial and not subject to detection by scientific methods. As to what impact the immaterial can have on the material, that’s been thrashed around since before Descartes with more heat than light generated on the subject.

    Parts of evolutionary theory may be grounded in the empirical but neuroscience is in its infancy and we do bring our own a priori assumptions to it. Hopefully we can adjust these as our knowledge increases.

  10. My words “only evolved this capacity because it conferred survival advantages” may be too simplistic when applied to Dawkins’ thinking on how the brain evolved, but it would be safe to say he believes it did evolve naturally without any divine intervention.

    Here are two good places to start your reading on the subject: The NPR article, “Is This Your Brain on God?, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=110997741. And a response by The Richard Dawkins Foundation, http://richarddawkins.net/audio/3869-is-this-your-brain-on-god. I suggest a nice malbec or pinot noir as a study aid. Cheers!

  11. MH: But just who is typing those messages? The Holy Spirit? Our subconscious? Science can never prove which and we are left with our a priori assumptions. Another word for these is “faith.”

    If it is the Holy Spirit (or our souls, or some other immaterial “thing”), then those parts of our brains would be in violation of the principle of conservation of energy. Such a finding would be rather remarkable, and therefore such a claim ought to be backed up by empirical evidence.
    On the other hand, should it simply be the result of neurological processes (our subconscious, whatever), no violation of conservation principles is required, making this hypothesis rather mundane, and therefore I would suggest, far more probable and acceptable.

  12. How would the presence of a spirit or a part of the brain tuned to the spiritual be a violation of the law of conservation of energy?

  13. Well said, Robert. I think that faith is more than a placeholder, though. It can become more informed as knowledge increases and outgrow false concepts. We will never have complete knowledge but we can believe the same way we love, don’t you think?>

  14. MH: How would the presence of a spirit or a part of the brain tuned to the spiritual be a violation of the law of conservation of energy?

    If the “spirit” interacts with the brain in any manner, then it would by definition be imparting energy to the physical parts of the brain it interacts with. This energy would not be coming from the “material universe”, and would therefore qualify as a violation of the conservation of energy – it would, literally be, energy out of nothing. This would be a rather incredible finding – a demonstration that the material constituents of the universe behave differently depending on whether they’re in a (human) brain or not.

  15. We can believe the same way we love, don’t you think?

    There are so many different conceptions and definitions of faith that I’m not sure how to respond. Can I trust with partial evidence? Yes, I do, and some people label that “faith”. Can I believe [religious claim X]? In most cases, No, but I’m not completely sure how I make those distinctions.

  16. There are some theories speculating that consciousness is a quantum function of the brain. My understanding of quantum mechanics is limited but doesn’t it violate the conservation of energy with particles popping into existence all the time? Perhaps what we term spiritual experiences are along these lines. Pure speculation.

  17. Mike Hamel, you say: My words “only evolved this capacity because it conferred survival advantages” may be too simplistic when applied to Dawkins’ thinking on how the brain evolved, but it would be safe to say he believes it did evolve naturally without any divine intervention.

    “too simplistic” versus gross distortion (probably unintentional). You seem to understand that “it did evolve naturally without any divine intervention” is vastly different from “Evolutionists like Richard Dawkins insist we only evolved this capacity because it conferred survival advantages”. Thanks for correcting it in the comment section. But your post still uses words like “insist” and “only”. Ought we correct the post in an effort to be charitable (and more accurate) to “evolutionists” view, and remove the straw man? Cheers. Thanks for the wine suggestion. I prefer Scotch. But I drink beer.

    Also, in the links you provided, I could not find a neuroscientist who states that it is a spirit that interacts with the brain, as your post suggests. And the “response by the Richard Dawkins Foundation” just seems to be a string of comments at a blog entry which just links back to the NPR article. Might you try again so that if I obtain a malbec I have some reading to go with it.

  18. It seems to me that a major problem with claiming that consciousness is a quantum phenomena is that it ignores the statistical non-determinism of quantum mechanics. To make the claim that quantum phenomena are responsible for consciousness (or that the spirit/soul directs the brain via the quantum) completely ignores this aspect of the quantum – if quantum collapse were “directed” somehow, it would no longer be quantum mechanics as we understand it (and would require, once again, empirical evidence in support).

    Quantum phenomena can, as I understand it, violate conservation laws for very brief periods of time over very brief distances – the virtual particles you allude to. The particles pop into and out of existence, thereby conserving energy

    I don’t think that claiming spiritual experiences are similar to this is a supportable speculation.

  19. Neuroscientist Andrew Newberg who is cited in the NPR article has a book called “How God Changes Your Brain” (http://www.andrewnewberg.com/change.asp) that I have not read. The title suggests he explores the concept of God, if not the exact nature of the divine.

    My goal as a writer/blogger is to be provocative (stimulate thinking) and concise (under 600 words). This requires making summary statements that aren’t meant to be straw men.

    A better term than evolutionist would have been materialist.

    As a professional writer, scotch is out of my price range.

  20. i saw an interesting analogy, forgot where. physical brain is the movie film playing in the projector. spirit is the light shining through it. conscious mind is the movie playing on the screen, shades of plato’s cave!

  21. It feels as if you’ve provided excuses in lieu of being correct. The excuses I read from you are along the lines of 1) suspecting (and suggesting) something supports your assertion is in a book a you haven’t read, and 2)suggesting the demands of being provocative or concise prevent you from being accurate. You also admit to having chose a poor word (“evolutionist” for “materialist”) but have yet to correct it in your blog post. These methods honestly confuse me. Being wrong, misinformed, and poorly read, when suggesting you are otherwise and making assertions that show otherwise, and additionally trying to back your assertions with other’s work which you haven’t read, seems less than professional. And certainly isn’t provocative, at least not in the thought-provoking way. Cheers.

    From a cursory glace (I have not read the works) Newberg seems to distinguish belief in god from the existence of god; so again he doesn’t fit the role of a neuroscientist who has found “the exact spot where the spirit sways the body”. Any actual suggestions or neuroscientists which support your assertions? If your beliefs are correct I would like know what you base them on, other than pure unsupported speculation? Again, cheers.

  22. MH: The only book I’ve read on the subject is Evan Walker’s “The Physics of Consciousness: The Quantum Mind and the Meaning of Life”

    From reading some of the reviews on amazon, it looks like Walker is wedded to the Copenhagen interpretation of QM, but not just that, but an erroneous view of it (that a conscious observer is required to cause collapse). If that’s the case for the book, then it doesn’t appear to be particularly good.

  23. Have you read anything on consciousness that would throw light–or cast a shadow– on the subject of spirit?

  24. Just for clariication, Mike Hamel says “Some neurologists claim to have found the exact spot where the spirit sways the body.”

    Are you asserting 1) that some neurologists have located the exact spot where an immaterial “thing” interacts with the material body?

    Or 2) that some neurologists have located the exact spot which causes beeps and flickerings on equipment when certain people think about religious things.

    I feel you are asserting number 1, for it would support the overall thrust of this blog article. Can you offer some sources that say, as would be commonly inferred from a reading of your post, an immaterial “thing” causes brain functioning? I feel so far you have offered a linnk to an NPR article which does not support this, and a book recommendation which you havn’t read.

    Your wonderings I imagine are fine. But I am sofar unconvinced as they are unsupported; worse, you seem to be trying to quote or suggest “some neurologists” are on the same page as you so as to lend creedence to your wonderings. I may be of a different mind than you on this, but evidence will convince me to reevaluate, not merely unsupported wonderings. Cheers.

    Also, I am unaware of blog etiquette. Blogs are edittable, are they not? Blogs seem to be a very malleable medium; what is written can be changed to reflect acuracy, so it would seem.

  25. You have spent a lot of time deconstructing my post; perhaps more time than I spent writing it. Thanks. I have revised it to address some of the issues you raised. I have not cited new material but removed or modified statements that implied more than I meant to say. This is my “wondering,” on the subject, not an academic treatise. At some point I may expand upon it and address some of the more technical aspects I allude to, but that will have to wait for a less hectic season of life.

    Let me know if you decide to do a book on the subject. Blessings.

  26. MH: Have you read anything on consciousness that would throw light–or cast a shadow– on the subject of spirit?

    As I’ve tried to point out, in lieu of any evidence that the constituent matter making up human brains behave differently matter outside of human brains, there seems to be no reason to even begin thinking consciousness is non-physical or spiritual in nature.

  27. MH: thanks for clarifying your post.

    Havok and Robert: thanks for contributing your clear thoughts on the topic.

  28. A lot of comments thus far seem to have spiraled into abstract thoughts not really leading to anything definitive. I presume that the term immaterial spirit refers to what lies at the center of our cognitive experience of ourselves and everything related to that.To posit an immaterial soul is to posit something odorless,tasteless, invisible,etc. Following this to its’ logical conclusion nothing physical is involved but rather some kind of energy pattern that constitutes a personality.We certainly didn’t have consciousness before we were born with physical forms/brains and I see no reason to guess that some enery pattern wafts away from our bodies at death and maintains conciousness. Needless to say our experience of ourselves and the world around us is undeniably linked to the state of one’s brain.If the brain itself wasn’t responsible for our self awareness of existence then why is our consciousness affected by strokes, brain damage, being born with mental retardation,etc. To me a soul or immaterial spirit is just another name for consciousness/self awareness and would not exist without a brain. To propose an immaterial soul is rather like saying we are possessed by an entity who is however completely under the influence of our physical brains. Might as well say the probes we sent to Mars have immaterial souls.

  29. I think I agree with you Tony. One of my favorite quotes from the Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy was brought to my attention regarding issues similar to these: “The immaterial is becoming immaterial.” Much less poetically, I take this to mean the magic explanations we used to have to describe our gaps in knowledge are becoming superfluous. There are plenty of narratives and stories that anyone can come up with to explain a consciousness by appeals to supernatural magicness, but there is simply no evidence (that I am aware of) that supports any of what Mike Hemmel is saying, and I’m glad he has changed his blog post to be more clear that research by neurologists and neuroscientists does not support his claims. Imagination is easy, doing science is hard; this might explain why there are so many “professional writers” and much fewer professional researchers. Cheers.

  30. “Come with me, and you’ll be, in a world of pure imagination…what you’ll see will defy explanation.”

  31. Thanks for taking the time to comment, Tony. The idea of soul/spirit has been around as long as humanity. It is not something I am positing, just revisiting. William James’ classic The Varieties of Religious Experiences catalogues a wide range of what people believed to be interactions with the spirit and spiritual world and hundreds of other books have been written on the subject in the century since.

    The brain is certainly vital to interaction with the spirit/soul, if the latter exists. But could we say that while the brain is necessary to our spiritual experience, it may not be sufficient to explain everything? Back to my musical illustration; a piano is necessary to make music. If the piano is damaged, this will affect a musician’s ability to communicate with his audience. The piano is “necessary” to the making of music, but not “sufficient” of itself to make music.

    How the immaterial interacts with and influences the material is a longstanding debate; one I believe is worth having.

  32. Why don’t you guys simply sit down and learn all there is to learn about DNA. I highly doubt most human beings would be so arrogant and brainless (and illogical) as Richard Dawkins. The extreme complexeties of the cell should be recognized. They function together not because Uncle Orangutan came from Mother Rock from Soupville, but because someone or something put the 10,000 volume DNA code together. Evolution from proteins in a soup charged with thunder and lightening is as real as a good old fairytale; namely, the frog turns into a prince. Great that people with Ph.D’s still believe that, but Uncle Sam doesn’t. It would take an almost infinite amount of lifetimes just to sit down and read the DNA code. And no, time doesn’t heal anything. It’s about time Carl Sagan’s statement that “millions and millions of years” can create a masterpiece from random chemical reactions be labeled bluff and called what it really is: the greatest escape clause created since the theologian Charles Darwin tried his hand at science (and actually got accepted as a scientist!) and popularized the idea that the cell was a “cell.” Not only has the term been misleading, but it continues to be misleading, to this day! Ignorant people continue to view the “cell” as if it has four walls and bars of innate iron. Of course, the ignorant masses will never understand the complexities of the “factory” that we call merely “cell.” It’s time people came to their senses and started treating the cell (and DNA) as something intelligently created. And if they want to argue that random mutations can create complex organs like the eye, let them first demonstrate how any mutation is actually beneficial. Thus far, we have learned only one thing: every mutation is detrimental to growth and survival. Not a single mutation has ever benefited any living organism. (Unless you want to argue that mammograms actually prevent cancer.)

  33. MH: But could we say that while the brain is necessary to our spiritual experience, it may not be sufficient to explain everything?

    How the immaterial interacts with and influences the material is a longstanding debate; one I believe is worth having.

    While we don’t have a complete understanding of the mind, I think the preponderance of evidence from science indicates that it is a product of the brain – a previous commenter mentioned brain damage, which is excellent evidence in favour of this conclusion.
    A debate regarding how the immaterial interacts with the material begs the question regarding the immaterial. Even assuming we have decent independent reasons to think the immaterial does exist, the interaction issue seems to me to be a purely empirical question. The current empirical evidence does not favour the existence of the immaterial nor does it favour any sort of interaction (as I’ve tried to make clear in previous comments).

  34. –Why don’t you guys simply sit down and learn all there is to learn about DNA.

    i’m pretty certain that the way to persuade people is not through insulting them. btw, it is simply impossible for anyone to learn ALL there is about DNA. the best most of us will ever achieve is a simple familiarity with the terms.

    …some ID stuff

    —Not a single mutation has ever benefited any living organism.

    the nylon bug is a good place to start reading. looking at the various mutations of hemoglobin would be a 2nd point of departure for self study on beneficial mutations that i’m aware of.

  35. —Not a single mutation has ever benefited any living organism.

    It would seem to me that any mutation of viruses which have rendered our modern medicines (e.g. antibiotics) less effective would qualify as beneficial in my book. Good for them, bad for us. I, however am only a lay person.

    As far as conjecture on the “spirit”, this would seem as productive to me as conjecture on the habits of pixies in the wild. What pixies?

  36. Yes, but can you “prove” there are no pixies in the wild?

  37. Sorry, I was just being facetious. Your comment put me in a “pixieish” mood.

  38. Hi Mike, just came across this article again. When I think of your mysterious piano player I think that conjures up the allusion of a a self contained entity who directs things like a ghost in the machine although fully integrated with it. Since souls/brains begin with blanks slates and learn and develop over time, perhaps a better analogy would be the programming of a computer. Are people not programmed with the languages, cultures and religions and beliefs that are fed into their experience? These models of reality are input like algorithms that act as rules/guides for making sense of reality and give us an operating system to tie things together which also colors the nature of what each of us perceive as the truth of reality. I wonder if the sense of being an independent observer is really just a sort of neutral brain state either waiting for or trying to interpret the sonar pings that bounce back from experience. It is the ideas, perceptions and experiences that bounce around inside our brains forming connections of meaning. The brain is very good at making associations for logic reasoning or even abstract poetry. There seems to be a continuous feedback loop of thoughts and experience that get mixed and remixed in ever ongoing efforts to understand the nature of things. Some people have very rigid programs that make sense of reality for them and trying to suggest otherwise to them might seem like the gibberish of some language they don’t understand. Ideas/ programming are deeply imprinted in us and I guess that introducing strange or contradictory concepts is difficult because it acts like a glitch that disturbs the logic loops already in place which can in turn cause a systems crash which the mind finds very unpleasant. Whatever the soul /mind is, it seems to be a state of awareness in the moment to moment flow of experience and ever building upon or reshaping past experience. Everything we know in this universe is the product of energy and matter and no one has the foggiest idea how an immaterial spirit could exist. It makes as much sense as looking into a dark empty void while looking for something invisible. The closest we come to it are dreams or other surreal brain states when all the systems of the brain are not up and running or are in someway impaired, or sometimes let our imaginations run wild for the fun of it. The experiences are just as real and may even be revelations from the subconscious at times, but usually such states are like suspensions of the rules of the material universe where the brain creates an abstract poetry unguided by any rules of logic. Dreams and other forms of experience may just be abstract paintings sloshed on the canvas of the brain / mind. And we keep pushing the paint around trying to turn them into realism.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *