The Neural Basis of NonDuality

[Veritas Aequitas]

The nondual community and people like DAM often touted and peddled nonduality as if it is something great and they are superior people.
(I have had such altered states of consciousness in various forms, it is nothing great)

The nondual experience is an altered state of consciousness that happened to some people due to various mental [sane and insane] issues.
An altered states of consciousness can also be induced in many natural and artificial ways.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altered_s ... sciousness

• 4 Induction methods
  4.1 Pharmacological
  4.2 Non-pharmacological
  4.3 Pathologies/other
  4.3.1 Traumatic experience
  4.3.2 Epilepsy
  4.3.3 Oxygen deficiency
  4.3.4 Infections
  4.3.5 Sleep deprivation
  4.3.6 Fasting
  4.3.7 Psychosis

Basically all normal human being has a basic conscious state, i.e.
the Minimal Conscious State [MCS]
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25317
This is the self-awareness with a sense of "I-ness" in the non-waking state.

This MCS is switched off during sleep but switched on during the dreaming state.
This MCS is also active when a person is in coma.

In the normal human being, the person has a waking state that operates in degrees within a continuum.
Example a person can be awake and be drowsy, drunk, etc.
A person in normal conscious state can even dream at the same time, note Lucid Dreaming.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucid_dream

A normal person in a waking conscious state is self-aware with an ego, i.e. the conscious I-ness, "me-ness" and is conscious of an independent external reality out there.

What happened in an altered state of consciousness is the normal waking state of consciousness is switched off in a split second [sudden knock on the head, a TKO in boxing or even in a orgasm] or some period of time as in a drug or hallucinogen session.

In the typical nondual altered state of consciousness as it had happened to those in the nondual community, the normal waking state of consciousness is switched off but the Minimal Conscious State [MCS] is still on.
When the normal waking state of consciousness [waking-I] is switched off, thus there is no experience of normal reality of the external reality and the waking-I [ego] but the MCS [the fundamental "I"] is still active.
It is because the MCS is still active that the nondualist can have hindsight reflection of that altered state of consciousness but find difficulty to put the experience into words precisely.

One good example of a non-bias experience of nonduality is that from Jill Bolte a rational neuroscientists who did not deliberately seek it but rather experienced it from a serious brain damage during a stroke.

My stroke of insight - Jill Bolte
https://www.ted.com/talks/jill_bolte_ta ... anguage=en

One will notice from Jill Bolte's recall, she still have some sense of "I" [i.e. MCS] while being totally lost with her "ego".
This indicate her MCS is still active while her normal conscious self is switched off and she strove [from MCS and somewhere] to switch back her normal conscious self to call for help.

The neural basis of the nondual altered state of consciousness is this;
the normal person's waking conscious state is switched off by various reasons. i.e.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altered_s ... on_methods
but the person's Minimal Conscious State [MCS] is still active.

Some nondualists will speculate from their experience to insist a real Absolute/Oneness exists. This based on a transcendental illusion and is delusional.

Views?

[Walker]

Neurology is in the realm of the atomic form, which is a sheath, or kosha, that simultaneously exists with other, more subtle forms of the same entity/being.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosha

[Eodnhoj7]

The nondual community and people like DAM often touted and peddled nonduality as if it is something great and they are superior people.
(I have had such altered states of consciousness in various forms, it is nothing great)

The nondual experience is an altered state of consciousness that happened to some people due to various mental [sane and insane] issues.
An altered states of consciousness can also be induced in many natural and artificial ways.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altered_s ... sciousness

• 4 Induction methods
  4.1 Pharmacological
  4.2 Non-pharmacological
  4.3 Pathologies/other
  4.3.1 Traumatic experience
  4.3.2 Epilepsy
  4.3.3 Oxygen deficiency
  4.3.4 Infections
  4.3.5 Sleep deprivation
  4.3.6 Fasting
  4.3.7 Psychosis

Basically all normal human being has a basic conscious state, i.e.
the Minimal Conscious State [MCS]
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25317
This is the self-awareness with a sense of "I-ness" in the non-waking state.

This MCS is switched off during sleep but switched on during the dreaming state.
This MCS is also active when a person is in coma.

In the normal human being, the person has a waking state that operates in degrees within a continuum.
Example a person can be awake and be drowsy, drunk, etc.
A person in normal conscious state can even dream at the same time, note Lucid Dreaming.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucid_dream

A normal person in a waking conscious state is self-aware with an ego, i.e. the conscious I-ness, "me-ness" and is conscious of an independent external reality out there.

What happened in an altered state of consciousness is the normal waking state of consciousness is switched off in a split second [sudden knock on the head, a TKO in boxing or even in a orgasm] or some period of time as in a drug or hallucinogen session.

In the typical nondual altered state of consciousness as it had happened to those in the nondual community, the normal waking state of consciousness is switched off but the Minimal Conscious State [MCS] is still on.
When the normal waking state of consciousness [waking-I] is switched off, thus there is no experience of normal reality of the external reality and the waking-I [ego] but the MCS [the fundamental "I"] is still active.
It is because the MCS is still active that the nondualist can have hindsight reflection of that altered state of consciousness but find difficulty to put the experience into words precisely.

One good example of a non-bias experience of nonduality is that from Jill Bolte a rational neuroscientists who did not deliberately seek it but rather experienced it from a serious brain damage during a stroke.

My stroke of insight - Jill Bolte
https://www.ted.com/talks/jill_bolte_ta ... anguage=en

One will notice from Jill Bolte's recall, she still have some sense of "I" [i.e. MCS] while being totally lost with her "ego".
This indicate her MCS is still active while her normal conscious self is switched off and she strove [from MCS and somewhere] to switch back her normal conscious self to call for help.

The neural basis of the nondual altered state of consciousness is this;
the normal person's waking conscious state is switched off by various reasons. i.e.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altered_s ... on_methods
but the person's Minimal Conscious State [MCS] is still active.

Some nondualists will speculate from their experience to insist a real Absolute/Oneness exists. This based on a transcendental illusion and is delusional.

Views?

And how do you prove all of this is not relegated to 99.9 hallucination as you claim the majority of existence is? I am not following your logic.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Neurology is in the realm of the atomic form, which is a sheath, or kosha, that simultaneously exists with other, more subtle forms of the same entity/being.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosha

All these 'Kosha' can be explained by its emergence from the fundamental atomic brain.
The test is, kill the brain and all the "Kosha" vanishes. QED.

[Veritas Aequitas]

And how do you prove all of this is not relegated to 99.9 hallucination as you claim the majority of existence is? I am not following your logic.

I believe you missed and misunderstood my point re ALL [100%] of conscious reality is hallucination.
I stated hallucinations are inversely proportionate to reality.
99.9% hallucination is 0.01 reality.

The neural basis of nonduality is >90% real.
However the Absolute [aka God, Oneness] concluded by nondualists is a 99.9% hallucination.

[Eodnhoj7]

And how do you prove all of this is not relegated to 99.9 hallucination as you claim the majority of existence is? I am not following your logic.

I believe you missed and misunderstood my point re ALL [100%] of conscious reality is hallucination.
I stated hallucinations are inversely proportionate to reality.
99.9% hallucination is 0.01 reality.

The neural basis of nonduality is >90% real.
However the Absolute [aka God, Oneness] concluded by nondualists is a 99.9% hallucination.

And what is "reality" without hallucinating over a defintion that stems through consciousness?

To claim the neural basis of nonduality is 90 percent is to claim 10 percent of it is not normal, thereby making the neural basis multiplicitous.

[Veritas Aequitas]

And how do you prove all of this is not relegated to 99.9 hallucination as you claim the majority of existence is? I am not following your logic.

I believe you missed and misunderstood my point re ALL [100%] of conscious reality is hallucination.
I stated hallucinations are inversely proportionate to reality.
99.9% hallucination is 0.01 reality.

The neural basis of nonduality is >90% real.
However the Absolute [aka God, Oneness] concluded by nondualists is a 99.9% hallucination.

And what is "reality" without hallucinating over a defintion that stems through consciousness?

To claim the neural basis of nonduality is 90 percent is to claim 10 percent of it is not normal, thereby making the neural basis multiplicitous.

Nah, you misunderstood my point.
The 10% reservation is because we have not yet fully understood the brain.
We are on our way, i.e.
http://www.humanconnectomeproject.org/

[Eodnhoj7]

I believe you missed and misunderstood my point re ALL [100%] of conscious reality is hallucination.
I stated hallucinations are inversely proportionate to reality.
99.9% hallucination is 0.01 reality.

The neural basis of nonduality is >90% real.
However the Absolute [aka God, Oneness] concluded by nondualists is a 99.9% hallucination.

And what is "reality" without hallucinating over a defintion that stems through consciousness?

To claim the neural basis of nonduality is 90 percent is to claim 10 percent of it is not normal, thereby making the neural basis multiplicitous.

Nah, you misunderstood my point.
The 10% reservation is because we have not yet fully understood the brain.
We are on our way, i.e.
http://www.humanconnectomeproject.org/

So you cannot say it is non dual, nor equate the brain as the sole origin of consciousness (heart transplant victims receive emotional memories from the donors as well) under a statement of probability as probability is a dualism between actuality and potentiality.

There is no evidence except a potentisl infinite progress, hence incomplete understanding of the brain leaves it entirely dualistic from an empirical perspective.

[Veritas Aequitas]

And what is "reality" without hallucinating over a defintion that stems through consciousness?

To claim the neural basis of nonduality is 90 percent is to claim 10 percent of it is not normal, thereby making the neural basis multiplicitous.

Nah, you misunderstood my point.
The 10% reservation is because we have not yet fully understood the brain.
We are on our way, i.e.
http://www.humanconnectomeproject.org/

So you cannot say it is non dual, nor equate the brain as the sole origin of consciousness (heart transplant victims receive emotional memories from the donors as well) under a statement of probability as probability is a dualism between actuality and potentiality.

There is no evidence except a potentisl infinite progress, hence incomplete understanding of the brain leaves it entirely dualistic from an empirical perspective.

I have not stated the brain is the sole determinant of human 'consciousness'.
The range of human consciousness in conditioned by the living person's whole physical self and the brain is the primary. The heart and the other parts of the body [notable visceral parts] are secondary.

If you insist God exists as real, where is the evidence to justify your claim?
Note at present you are using your brain/mind in making a claim 'God exists' which is illusory. How can you even proceed when you do not understand thoroughly what is going inside your brain/mind?

[Walker]

Neurology is in the realm of the atomic form, which is a sheath, or kosha, that simultaneously exists with other, more subtle forms of the same entity/being.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosha

All these 'Kosha' can be explained by its emergence from the fundamental atomic brain.
The test is, kill the brain and all the "Kosha" vanishes. QED.

As far as you can tell.
Your reasoning is based on the periodic table.

Only the physical exists.
Atomic elements that comprise the “neural basis,” are identified on the periodic table.

The body exists.
The elements of the body are identified on the periodic table.

Thoughts exist.
Thoughts are not found on the periodic table.

Conclusion: The periodic table does not identify all things.

[Eodnhoj7]

Nah, you misunderstood my point.
The 10% reservation is because we have not yet fully understood the brain.
We are on our way, i.e.
http://www.humanconnectomeproject.org/

So you cannot say it is non dual, nor equate the brain as the sole origin of consciousness (heart transplant victims receive emotional memories from the donors as well) under a statement of probability as probability is a dualism between actuality and potentiality.

There is no evidence except a potentisl infinite progress, hence incomplete understanding of the brain leaves it entirely dualistic from an empirical perspective.

I have not stated the brain is the sole determinant of human 'consciousness'.
The range of human consciousness in conditioned by the living person's whole physical self and the brain is the primary. The heart and the other parts of the body [notable visceral parts] are secondary.

So this range of part negates a non dual nature.



If you insist God exists as real, where is the evidence to justify your claim?

The question is subjective to your interpretation, unless you provide a framework for evidence. But this framework is subject to personal desire or fallacy of equivocation and bandwagon at the larger level. Regardless, pick a framework of evidence.




Note at present you are using your brain/mind in making a claim 'God exists' which is illusory. How can you even proceed when you do not understand thoroughly what is going inside your brain/mind?


Actually above you said the brain is not the soul determinant of consciousness so the argument contradicts itself.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Neurology is in the realm of the atomic form, which is a sheath, or kosha, that simultaneously exists with other, more subtle forms of the same entity/being.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosha

All these 'Kosha' can be explained by its emergence from the fundamental atomic brain.
The test is, kill the brain and all the "Kosha" vanishes. QED.

As far as you can tell.
Your reasoning is based on the periodic table.

Only the physical exists.
Atomic elements that comprise the “neural basis,” are identified on the periodic table.

The body exists.
The elements of the body are identified on the periodic table.

Thoughts exist.
Thoughts are not found on the periodic table.

Conclusion: The periodic table does not identify all things.

True the present periodic table do not identify all things.
However it there is any thing not in the periodic table at present, it has been identifiable, i.e. verifiable and justifiable by Science and rationally acceptable.

However it is not rational to insist that is not possible and provable as possibly real, example a soul that survives physical death and God [aka Absolute] which are impossibilities.

Note I did not insist only the physical exists, I know the non-physical, i.e. mental such as thoughts, dreams do exist.

[Veritas Aequitas]

So you cannot say it is non dual, nor equate the brain as the sole origin of consciousness (heart transplant victims receive emotional memories from the donors as well) under a statement of probability as probability is a dualism between actuality and potentiality.

There is no evidence except a potentisl infinite progress, hence incomplete understanding of the brain leaves it entirely dualistic from an empirical perspective.

I have not stated the brain is the sole determinant of human 'consciousness'.
The range of human consciousness in conditioned by the living person's whole physical self and the brain is the primary. The heart and the other parts of the body [notable visceral parts] are secondary.

So this range of part negates a non dual nature.

Not sure of your point.


If you insist God exists as real, where is the evidence to justify your claim?

The question is subjective to your interpretation, unless you provide a framework for evidence. But this framework is subject to personal desire or fallacy of equivocation and bandwagon at the larger level. Regardless, pick a framework of evidence.

The framework I pick is that of Science and the highest possible framework of critical thinking within philosophy-proper.
Now prove to me your God [illusory] exists within the above frameworks.

Note at present you are using your brain/mind in making a claim 'God exists' which is illusory. How can you even proceed when you do not understand thoroughly what is going inside your brain/mind?
Actually above you said the brain is not the soul [sole] determinant of consciousness so the argument contradicts itself.

What?? did not expense your skull to be that thick.
Yes, it is not the sole but I stated it is the ultimate determinant of human consciousness.
The brain/mind is the ultimate [with the heaviest weightage] in judgment.

[Eodnhoj7]

I have not stated the brain is the sole determinant of human 'consciousness'.
The range of human consciousness in conditioned by the living person's whole physical self and the brain is the primary. The heart and the other parts of the body [notable visceral parts] are secondary.

So this range of part negates a non dual nature.

Not sure of your point.


If you insist God exists as real, where is the evidence to justify your claim?

The question is subjective to your interpretation, unless you provide a framework for evidence. But this framework is subject to personal desire or fallacy of equivocation and bandwagon at the larger level. Regardless, pick a framework of evidence.

The framework I pick is that of Science and the highest possible framework of critical thinking within philosophy-proper.
Now prove to me your God [illusory] exists within the above frameworks.

Okay.

The scientific method is dependent upon a progressive circularity that makes it a conscious means of interpretation. This circularity is common within all natural law and human reasoning and is premised within the book of the 24 philosophers directly and indirectly as one of the definitions of God (along with the Socratic and medieval interpration of circularity being divine.)

The scientific method, exists because of this circularity, and as such and extension of the human conscious. Both observe a further circularity where man as image of God is God existing through man. The scientific method, as a rational means of consciousness, is an extension of Divine consciousness where while it cannot exist on its own terms is still a means of truth and is an approximation of God and Man as an image.

The scientific method itself, and it's framework, is a proof of God with circularity due to its infinite nature being a defintion of God.



Note at present you are using your brain/mind in making a claim 'God exists' which is illusory. How can you even proceed when you do not understand thoroughly what is going inside your brain/mind?
Actually above you said the brain is not the soul [sole] determinant of consciousness so the argument contradicts itself.

What?? did not expense your skull to be that thick.
Yes, it is not the sole but I stated it is the ultimate determinant of human consciousness.
The brain/mind is the ultimate [with the heaviest weightage] in judgment.

It cannot be the ultimate if it is dependent upon other functions of the body to exist. It would be like saying the arm is the most useful aspect of the body, but it is fundamentally useless without a strong back, or eyes to give it direction.

[Veritas Aequitas]

...

Not sure of your point.


If you insist God exists as real, where is the evidence to justify your claim?

The question is subjective to your interpretation, unless you provide a framework for evidence. But this framework is subject to personal desire or fallacy of equivocation and bandwagon at the larger level. Regardless, pick a framework of evidence.

The framework I pick is that of Science and the highest possible framework of critical thinking within philosophy-proper.
Now prove to me your God [illusory] exists within the above frameworks.

Okay.

The scientific method is dependent upon a progressive circularity that makes it a conscious means of interpretation. This circularity is common within all natural law and human reasoning and is premised within the book of the 24 philosophers directly and indirectly as one of the definitions of God (along with the Socratic and medieval interpration of circularity being divine.)

The scientific method, exists because of this circularity, and as such and extension of the human conscious. Both observe a further circularity where man as image of God is God existing through man. The scientific method, as a rational means of consciousness, is an extension of Divine consciousness where while it cannot exist on its own terms is still a means of truth and is an approximation of God and Man as an image.

The scientific method itself, and it's framework, is a proof of God with circularity due to its infinite nature being a defintion of God.



Note at present you are using your brain/mind in making a claim 'God exists' which is illusory. How can you even proceed when you do not understand thoroughly what is going inside your brain/mind?
Actually above you said the brain is not the soul [sole] determinant of consciousness so the argument contradicts itself.

What?? did not expense your skull to be that thick.
Yes, it is not the sole but I stated it is the ultimate determinant of human consciousness.
The brain/mind is the ultimate [with the heaviest weightage] in judgment.

It cannot be the ultimate if it is dependent upon other functions of the body to exist. It would be like saying the arm is the most useful aspect of the body, but it is fundamentally useless without a strong back, or eyes to give it direction.

I am not asking you to give a critique of the Scientific Method.

If you insist God exists is real, then call or point to your God and subject it to the Scientific Method and if all scientists accept the paper presented then I will agree God exists as real subjected to the Scientific Method.

Note Stephen Hawking who body had degenerated and was still recognized as one of the world best scientific thinkers. Because his brain/mind was still very active, I bet if he was supported by an artificial heart, and other artificial organs, he would had been able to think and express this thoughts via what his brain/mind can direct and communicate with, e.g. eyelids, lips, etc.
This prove the brain/mind is the ultimate determinant of a person's basic consciousness.