[canajan, eh?]

David, on Dec 23 2008, 07:44 PM, said:

Hi Jen,
I would be interested in the details. Please provide the name of the clinic and the date the scan was done. Please provide the names of the researchers and any name associated with the study or research they were doing. Do you know whether they published? If so, please provide the details.
Thanks,
David

Hello, David. You'll have to forgive me if I say I don't think you're at all interested in the details of my life or my experience, which is okay with me, as your journey is your journey, and my journey is my journey. You've made it clear in the past that you don't believe or accept what I say. But, you know, I have to draw the line at your plain ol' fashioned rudeness. Where do you get off demanding the names and details of my private medical information? Would you like it if I demanded the name of your doctor and the results of your latest checkup? Maybe you think this is okay. But I don't. I think the questions you've posed here are intrusive. Furthermore, I am not stupid. I'm aware that you have made up your mind about me, and that no information I provide to you will change your mind about me. Therefore, I must view your questions as being intentionally aggressive.

I've read the discussion you started about davidk in the "TCPC Cafe." Your complaint there seems to be that davidk doesn't share the beliefs of Progressive Christians, and you're tired of listening to him.

I share all the beliefs stated in Points 1,2,4,5,6,7, and 8 on the main page. (I'm a bit shaky on 3, unless the bread and wine are being presented solely as a remembrance of gratitude to God for the gifts of food and drink on our kitchen tables.) I have repeatedly expressed my support for these ideas. This is not good enough for you and many others. I must not only express my support of the Points, but I must also apparently agree to give up my faith, my belief in a God who is active every day in our lives, my willingness to ask new questions, my willingness to open up the doors of Christianity to the fields of neuroscience and quantum physics, and my intense joy.

Ashes to ashes and dust to dust is what I see in a mechanistic faith based on logic, rules, polity, and deism.

The sun is shining. The moon has just set. The Saturday morning paper and my second cup of Fair Trade coffee are calling to me. I'm going to go enjoy my day.

Jen

This post has been edited by canajan, eh?: 14 March 2009 - 07:39 AM

[David]

You are right that I have no right to inquire about any personal medical issues. However you posted that the “the scan was undertaken as part of a research study. The study was on the physiology of "the normal brain." I responded to a call for research subjects, and in my initial inquiry to the research director, I was very clear that I am a channeller. The research director wasn't phased. The clinic had already done SPECT scans on other mystics, including Buddhist meditators. To be part of the study, however, I had to go through the same screening process as all other candidates, plus they threw in some extra preliminary screening tests because I claimed to be a channeller. Most subjects accepted into the study had two SPECT scans done -- one a base-line scan, and one a focussed concentration scan. I had both those scans, plus a third scan: a scan while I was channelling. The data bar imprinted by the computer on the third scan even says "channel." It was an intentional and above-board scientific investigation.”

This post does not describe personal medical issues. This post describes scientific research. It is that research that I am interested in and I would again ask that you share with us what you know about that research.

[canajan, eh?]

David, on Mar 14 2009, 08:02 AM, said:

This post does not describe personal medical issues. This post describes scientific research. It is that research that I am interested in and I would again ask that you share with us what you know about that research.

David, I must disagree. "Scientific research" is what I have done in the past in a lab with beakers and pipettes. "Personal medical issues" deal with a person's "guts" (metaphorically speaking) and a person's relationships with medical staff. My brain is not a glass beaker. And the psychological testing I had to go through to get into the study was highly personal, as it explored all aspects of my mental health. Perhaps you have never been included in a medical testing procedure that was later included in a medical research study. If you had, you would not be cavalier about the personal aspects of the process.

If you are genuinely interested in learning more about this kind of research, it is already in the public domain. You can find it if you're interested.

One book I highly recommend is The Spiritual Brain: A Neuroscientist's Case for the Existence of the Soul by Mario Beauregard and Denyse O'Leary (New York: HarperOne, 2007). It seems to be selling well in Canada. A trade paperback version is now available. I'm sure you can order it. It summarizes recent scientific findings, but is written for a lay audience. The researcher, Mario Beauregard, has published his own findings on Carmelite nuns in a peer-reviewed journal. The book does not include "quack" research, only peer-reviewed research.

Jen

[canajan, eh?]

Quote

"It is still a long way from Harneroff's hypothetical (and experimentally unproven) quantum neurons to a sentient, conscious human brain. But many human experiences, Harneroff says, from dreams to subconscious emotions to fuzzy memory, seem closer to the Alice in Wonderland rules governing the quantum world than to the cut-and-dried reality that classical physics suggests. Discovering a quantum portal within every neuron in your head might be the ultimate trip through the looking glass."

So where is this quote from?

Is it from a science fiction novel?

Or a TV show about the paranormal?

It is the concluding paragraph of an article printed in the February 2009 edition of the science magazine Discover. The article is entitled "Entangled Life," and the author is Mark Anderson.

And you thought the Bible was mystical . . . .

[David]

canajan, eh?, on Mar 15 2009, 04:11 AM, said:

David, I must disagree. "Scientific research" is what I have done in the past in a lab with beakers and pipettes. "Personal medical issues" deal with a person's "guts" (metaphorically speaking) and a person's relationships with medical staff. My brain is not a glass beaker. And the psychological testing I had to go through to get into the study was highly personal, as it explored all aspects of my mental health. Perhaps you have never been included in a medical testing procedure that was later included in a medical research study. If you had, you would not be cavalier about the personal aspects of the process.

If you are genuinely interested in learning more about this kind of research, it is already in the public domain. You can find it if you're interested.

One book I highly recommend is The Spiritual Brain: A Neuroscientist's Case for the Existence of the Soul by Mario Beauregard and Denyse O'Leary (New York: HarperOne, 2007). It seems to be selling well in Canada. A trade paperback version is now available. I'm sure you can order it. It summarizes recent scientific findings, but is written for a lay audience. The researcher, Mario Beauregard, has published his own findings on Carmelite nuns in a peer-reviewed journal. The book does not include "quack" research, only peer-reviewed research.

Jen

I am familiar with this work. This work is an example of what I am trying to learn from you. Certainly there were real persons involved in the work that led to this book. Yet the purpose of the work was for the information to become public. You have described a process where the purpose of the work was to become public. I am sure that this was explained to you and I am surprised that you now feel that it is a private matter.

[minsocal]

Until this morning I was not all that familiar with Mario Beauregard, but a swing through the internet assured me that his work is serious and highly respected. His research centers in the area of the brain sometimes called the limbic system which was no surprise to me. This is the region of the brain that governs both emotion and intuition. The manner in which this area of the brain is "wired" is very different when compared to brain centers where rational processing takes place. It has been shown that this area of the brain processes information much more rapidly than the rational centers and, as I have noted elsewhere, it is the seat of moral emotions and moral intuitions.

Based on this I can understand how this can be a very personal matter. I test as highly intuitive and have difficulty presenting rational/intellectual justifications for what "I know" and what "I feel" unless I make an extreme effort to turn the language into a form thinking types understand.

[David]

I would not want Jen to have to release any more personal information concerning this study than she already has. I am not interested in her specific scan. I am interested in the study that she talks about where people who are having religious experiences are scanned. I can not imagine that when this study was published that it gave any specific information that could be traced to Jen. I suspect that Jen was lumped into a general catagory like "mystics" where she could not be specifically identified. If this is the case then there is no way that a person who looks at this study could tell how Jen as one person affected the study and therefore no way for Jen's privacy to be invaded.

[minsocal]

The more I read about Mario Beauregard * the more I realize that he is using Jungian theory to describe much of his work. Although he is investigating the physical correleates of unio mystica , he is a non-materialist. Dr. John Searle, well known for his views on consciousness, is also a non-materialist. The issue that is gaining traction in the scientific community is that what we call the mind is "real" and not a mere epiphenomenon. In other words, these people are suggesting that we really need to get past the so-called mind-body problem, and bring the spiritual sphere back into focus. In short, mind and body are both required for what we might call a religious or spiritual experience.

Unio mystica is very much like what others describe as a "peak experience". Maslow did a lot of research on the subject and Joseph Campbell wrote quite a bit about it also. Both are linked to Jungian theory. Unio mystica and peak experiences are quite rare. Regardless of the terminology, the subject is linked to what we think of as "progressive" in many different ways.


* BTW, the internet has a number of articles and interviews available.

[David]

I am trying to figure out why Jen has been so defensive about the research study. If I had been a part of a study based upon the “normal brain” and there were published findings related to that study I would have no problem telling people about that study knowing that by doing so I would not release any information about my medical history.

Jen gave me this challenge (See “Song of Solomon”): “I also am a channeller. If you wish to engage me in a scientific debate about what I am doing and how I am doing it, I can meet me at every conceivable level in that debate. I am a channeller who had the guts to get my brain scanned so that I would have some scientific documentation for what I do and how I do it. I know of no other channeller who has had the courage to stick his or her own brain under a SPECT scanner, and allow the science to speak.”

“Scientific documentation” is public documentation. “Allowing the science to speak” is public documentation otherwise there is no “speaking”. But I am really not asking for the part of the study that would show Jen’s specific scientific documentation and show her specific scan because that would not be shown specifically in the study. Jen would have to release personal medical records to show the documentation that she says is there. But I’m not asking for that. I’m just asking for information related to the study itself so I can research that study and see how it fits into the larger picture.

[minsocal]

Ahh ... The Song of Solomon. According to legend, the last Rabbi to see the face of God and live through the experience claimed that the Song of Solomon was the holiest book in the Bible. Now I am quite sure I know where Jen is speaking from. The pieces all fit together!

[David]

Well you may want to read the whole "Song of Solomon" thread. And you may want to ask Jen "where she is coming from". The "Song of Solomon" thread shows "where I am coming from". I tried to challenge Jen and support her at the same time. So far in this thread I am not showing much support but it is there and it will come out.

[minsocal]

David, on Mar 16 2009, 12:43 PM, said:

Well you may want to read the whole "Song of Solomon" thread. And you may want to ask Jen "where she is coming from". The "Song of Solomon" thread shows "where I am coming from". I tried to challenge Jen and support her at the same time. So far in this thread I am not showing much support but it is there and it will come out.

Actually, I have read the Song of Solomon thread. And, I have read almost everything Jen has posted. It is largely a matter of translation between a variety of disciplines, theories and theologies that appear different, but are not. The language of cognitive neueoscience in relation to spirituality remained dormant for a more than a century and has now resurfaced in much greater detail than ever before. In short, God did not mess up creation, nor did humans.

[canajan, eh?]

David, on Mar 16 2009, 02:27 PM, said:

I am trying to figure out why Jen has been so defensive about the research study.

Good grief, David, based on what you've said in your last few posts here -- Jen is being defensive and can't imagine why! -- I'm going to take a wild guess here, and suggest that I'm not the first person you've pissed off because you did not consider the relationship aspects of your post before you pushed the "add reply" button.

Please go back and reread what you said in Post #20. Try to put yourself in my place. Do you think you sound friendly? Curious? Supportive? Empathetic?

If you think you sound either friendly or curious or supportive or empathetic, then you might consider revisiting your written communication skills, as you do not sound at all friendly in Post #20.

I base my understanding of your intent towards me on what you said in the past to both me and others. Since your intent towards me has been fairly consistently unfriendly, it was reasonable and appropriate for me to read your post in this light.

I have already said how I "read" your post, and will not repeat my impression here.

Quote

This work is an example of what I am trying to learn from you. Certainly there were real persons involved in the work that led to this book. Yet the purpose of the work was for the information to become public. You have described a process where the purpose of the work was to become public. I am sure that this was explained to you and I am surprised that you now feel that it is a private matter.

Again, problems with empathy. "I am sure that this was explained to you . . ." Well, yes, it was explained to me that, as in the case of all medical research, there are high ethical standards involved, ethical standards of putting the patients' best medical interests ahead of research interests (even when, as sometimes happens, a medical research study has to be stopped cold because too many negative side effects are showing up in patients.) The patients' best interests also include respecting the psycho-social aspects of their involvement in any sort of medical treatment, and respecting their privacy and confidentiality.

The patients come before the research, you see, and I'm not getting a sense from you that you understand that. Therefore, I don't really trust you with my personal information. (And please don't tell me again that "it's not personal." For me, it's personal. Okay?)

I hope I explained clearly enough why I am being defensive.

Jen

[David]

Jen,

You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say that you want “the science to speak” and claim to be a part of a research study that by it’s very nature is public while at the same time saying that what you are claiming is in fact a part of your medical records which will stay private. I say “public research” and you say “medical records”. I now suspect that we are really talking about are your medical records and not about any public research. So please don’t again say that you are willing to support your personal view of your medical records by having “science speak”. Don’t ever again say that “I'm a human being with a very rare but very real and scientifically verifiable skill: I'm Jesus' human channelling partner” and don’t ever again say “I have copies of the scans, which I'm grateful for. Should anymore want to know more about this part of my story, please let me know. The scans themselves are pretty cool if you're into neurophysiology, psychology, or psychiatry.”

Science has been speaking about whether the brain has a “God spot” or not. In the latest study researchers used a functional magnetic-resonance imaging machine which can identify the most energetically active regions of the brain. They found that people of different religious persuasions and beliefs, as well as atheists, all tended to use the same electrical circuits in the brain to solve a perceived moral conundrum and the same circuits were used when religiously inclined people dealt with issues related to God. This suggests that there is no unique “God spot” that is related to religious visions or voices. The studies suggest that the brain is inherently sensitive to believing in almost anything if there are grounds for doing so, but when there is a mystery about something, the same neural machinery is co-opted in the formulation of religious beliefs. (If anyone wants to continue a discussion on “neurotheology” let’s start a new thread).

I do not see any specific research on channeling. There is research on those who hear voices and see visions. I do not see in any of that research anything close to a conclusion that those voices or visions are more than the individual’s mind at work. I do not see that the "quality" of what is said by those voices makes any difference. Those voices may be speaking “truths”, but there is no research to show that the brain circuits support those "truth claims". How this specifically relates to you is obviously contained in your medical history and known by people like your family who know you. You have the absolute right not to share that private information with us.

What is important to me is how Progressive Christianity should respond to the fact that you claim to channel the historical Jesus. It seems to me that because your Jesus may be progressive does not give your claims any more validity than the claims of Pat Robertson who shares with you the claims of direct dictation. “How we know what we know” seems more important to me for Progressive Christianity that “what we know”. The search for the historical Jesus is much more related to “how we know what we know” and is a good example of what Progressive Christianity is all about. Scholars disagree on what that evidence supports as far as what Jesus said and did, but scholars and scientists agree on some basics of “how we know what we know”. I know of no scholar or scientist who would seek you out as a link to the historical Jesus as you wanted us to do when you first came to this website (there are websites out there where people will do what you wanted to do for us—send Jesus a question and the chancellor will obtain the answer). I see that no one took you up on your offer to answer questions sent to the historical Jesus. You evidently are progressive in many ways, but your claim to channel the historical Jesus is not included in Progressive Christianity by any leader of this social movement that I know of.

You can take this personally and conclude that the problem is my lack of empathy. But this is not a conversation between you and me. Whether you trust me or not, this is a public conversation. Others can and will decide whether to trust you and your claims not because they really “know” you, but based upon the public claims that you make. Others will have to decide when you say that “I have talked to many different angels, including Jesus, and I have also talked directly to our divine Mother and Father” whether “how you know” is different than the rest of us. The one thing we can say is that science does not support that you receive direct dictation from angels, the historical Jesus or God. That is really all we can ever know about someone who comes to this website.

Now, believe it or not, I am very supportive of Jen, the person. Jen, the person has showed remarkable insight and wisdom. You seem to ignore those conversations that we have had that show that support. You become very defensive when I or anyone dares to question your channeling claims which tells me that this is much more about Jen the person than the historical Jesus. I would suggest that this is “not all about you” and that empathy is not the issue. I would suggest that we all would welcome your continued insights and wisdom. Just use your own name.

David

[minsocal]

David,

Jen has spoken. Whose doubts are you confronting? Do you not know your own experience?

Minsocal

[minsocal]

Hmmm ... it was just that simple. I came to know my own experience! Thanks Jen, I get it now..

[David]

Minsocal,

I am wary of simple. But you evidently like mysterious sounding postings.

Try this one: A buffalo with its head, horns and four legs all pass through a lattice window. Why is it that its tail gets stuck?

David

[minsocal]

David, on Mar 18 2009, 02:27 PM, said:

Minsocal,

I am wary of simple. But you evidently like mysterious sounding postings.

Try this one: A buffalo with its head, horns and four legs all pass through a lattice window. Why is it that its tail gets stuck?

David

Because it did get stuck.

[David]

Repeating the question as the answer is sort of like answering your own question with your own answer which by the way I am glad you did since you evidently are now satisfied.

[David]

I have made posts about experience and knowing. I like to talk about epistemology. But it is not as simple as your question makes it appear to be.

I was thinking about the movie “A Beautiful Mind”. In that movie a brilliant person fooled his own wife for a long time into thinking that his “friends” were real persons when in fact they lived only in his own head. He in fact could never persuade those “friends” to go away even after he gradually realized that no one else saw or heard them. If one were going to attempt to decide whether those “friends” were real or not the last thing one would do would be to ask that person to “know their own experience”.

I have no idea how this relates to Jen. Apparently otherwise “normal” appearing people can make fantastic claims like being abducted by space aliens and those people will never be persuaded that they do not “know their own experience”. But that does not mean that people will accept what “space aliens” say to those people even if those “space aliens” provide very wise and progressive messages. I have no idea how this relates to Jen but the one thing I do know is that the last person who we can trust to testify on this is Jen. Only her medical records and people who actually know her can speak to this.

Jen had shouted out for some time that there was independent scientific evidence related to a research study. As it turns out her specific information is protected by her medical records and generally the scanning process that she talks about really does not show what she claims. In other words Jen has lost the ability to show us anything other than her own testimony and we can not accept her own testimony for the reasons I have stated. So although Jen, like all of us “knows” her experience it is not that simple.

This post has been edited by David: 20 March 2009 - 12:26 PM