# Actual Freedom ~ Frequently Asked Questions Frequently Asked Questions ## Did You Have a Brain Scan? RESPONDENT: Have you ever had a brain scan done? A nuclear magnetic resonance scan, electric or an infrared scan to determine the active versus inactive areas of your brain? RICHARD: No ... I rather fail to see what such scans would achieve in terms of assisting someone to free themselves of the human condition. Even if it provided some sort of a map, as it were, one cannot reach inside one’s brain with a screwdriver or pincers or whatever and do a nip here, a tuck there, a tweak at this place, a twitch at that spot and so on. Technological progress may prove me wrong, of course. RESPONDENT: I’ve had basically two questions in regard to a possible neurological condition for your current state. 1. Were the psychiatrists aware of the possibility of TLE or any other Temporal lobe affection ... RICHARD: You do have a strange way of putting such a question, then, as this is what you actually wrote: • [Respondent]: ‘Richard, have you given any thought that your past state (enlightenment) and present state might have been caused by what is known as Temporal Lobe Epilepsy (TLE) or any other affection of the Temporal Lobe? The problem is TLE is not included on the DSM - IV psychiatric manual (it’s a neurological condition), so the psychiatrist consulting you at the time didn’t have all the necessary ‘tools’ to conduct a correct investigation and thus come with an informed diagnosis’. (‘Jamais vu’; Friday 17/12/2004 12:17 AM AEDST). In other words what you asked was if I were aware of the possibility of TLE or any other temporal lobe affliction, not if the psychiatrists were, and then specifically stated that the psychiatrists did not have all the necessary tools to make such a diagnosis as TLE is not included in the DSM-IV ... a statement you repeated in your next e-mail: • [Respondent]: ‘I repeat that such disorder is (...) NOT included in DSM IV, the manual currently used by all psychiatrists around the world’. (‘Re: Jamais vu’; Fri 17/12/2004 10:42 PM AEDST). Yet a simple search shows that the DSM-IV, under the heading ‘Personality Change Due to a General Medical Condition’ and the coding note 310.1, has the following words: • ‘Personality Change Due to Temporal Lobe Epilepsy’. (http://behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/pcd.htm). RESPONDENT: ... [1. Were the psychiatrists aware of the possibility of TLE or any other Temporal lobe affection] and whether or not you have discussed the matter? I understand a ‘yes’ from your below response. RICHARD: I presume you are referring to this: • [Richard]: ‘... having personal acquaintance with a person who has suffered from epilepsy all their adult life I was sufficiently well-enough informed about such neurological conditions before both 1980-81 and 1994-97 to make my own appraisal ... even so it was a possibly I raised with the psychiatrist whose expertise you questioned in that other thread and had extensive and free-ranging discussions about same (just as I canvassed many other possibilities with them and they with me)’. RESPONDENT: 2. Have you had/have they recommended a brain scan? RICHARD: Before advocating specialist tests of any description a psychiatrist (who, unlike a psychologist, is a duly qualified medical doctor) has to first make their diagnosis from the symptoms and signs being presented in order to warrant such a course of action ... and to recommend a (as yet undesignated) ‘brain scan’ to test for the organic basis – the neurological cause – of TLE, or any other temporal lobe affliction, there does need to be evidence symptomatic of such afflictions so as to reasonably make such a diagnosis. Perhaps if I were to spell it out in no uncertain terms you may finally desist with this beat-up: I have never had, nor am I currently having, any epileptic seizures/auras of any description ... and neither am I about to go scampering off to a neurologist on the basis of someone’s – anyone’s – amateurish diagnoses, conducted solely via e-mail, when I have been closely examined, face-to-face in their rooms, by accredited professionals in the field who, despite your ill-advised disparagement, are well aware that more than a few ‘mental disorders’ have an organic basis. Indeed, the DSM-III-R, which was replaced by the DSM-IV in 1994, the very year I first consulted the psychiatrist in question, specifically used the term ‘Organic Medical Disorders’ for those ailments (whereas both the DSM-IV and the current manual, DSM-IV-TR, use the phrase already mentioned ‘Due To A General Medical Condition’). RESPONDENT: 2 – You have mentioned that you took DSM-IV or a psychiatric appraisal; were you ever interested in a MRI or relevant brain scans … RICHARD: One of the professionals in the field that I consulted was initially keen to have an fMRI scan done but when I rigorously enquired as to why – as in what purpose it would serve – they could come up with no satisfactory answer. RESPONDENT: And if done, though they haven’t located the self, would you think you will be aiding the research? RICHARD: In what way would a brain scan be an aid ... and an aid to what? For example: what do you mean by ‘relevant’ and what do you mean by ‘the research’ (as in relevant to what specific research)? I only ask because, as far as I have been able to ascertain, nobody has ever contemplated – let alone conducted research – on there even being a possibility of becoming actually free from the human condition ... it is a blank area in human consideration (let alone in human experience/human history). RESPONDENT: Maybe measure the amygdala activity? RICHARD: Presuming there is any such activity to measure ... in what way would that be an aid (and an aid to what research)? RESPONDENT: As a supplement to the conjecture that the amygdala (the reptilian brain or the limbic system) is the source of the psychic self? RICHARD: As no researchers, for all of their RI scans (Radio Isotope), CAT scans (Computerised Axial Tomography), CT scans (Computed Tomography), NMR scans (Nuclear Magnetic Resonance), PET scans (Positron Emission Tomography), MRA scans (Magnetic Resonance Angiography), MRI scans (Magnetic Resonance Imaging), and fMRI scans (functioning Magnetic Resonance Imaging), have been able to locate either ‘I’ as ego (the psychological self) or ‘me’ as soul (the psychic self) in what way will any such scans of the amygdalae in a person sans both the psychological self and the psychic self be a supplement to any such conjecture? In other words: as no self has been located with such scans how will those same scans determine the absence of a self? RESPONDENT: And an actual freedom from the human condition results in a reduced amygdala activity or even ends it? RICHARD: If I may ask? Why the focus upon the amygdalae (two almond-shaped organs in from and just to the back of and below the ears) when I specifically report that the pressure-pain happened in the base of the brain/nape of the neck? * RESPONDENT: I don’t know much about the scans, but I thought since you are a singular case, some such measurements can provide some pointers to those (just like the brain circuitry examples in the writings). RICHARD: Presuming there is any such measurement-pointers to those (presumed) activities ... in what way would that be an aid (and an aid to what research)? RESPONDENT: Do you think comparing scans of normal being like myself with yours reveal useful information? RICHARD: Again ... in what way would such a comparison reveal useful information? Or, to put that another way, what is it that you know about ‘MRI or relevant brain scans’ which prompts you to ask these questions? What I have found, when people ask this question/suggest this course of action (including the professional already mentioned), is that they know very little about what brain scans can or cannot reveal ... if anything at all. RESPONDENT: I am not sure of what use they might be ... just thought that as a supplement to the DSM IV, maybe. RICHARD: The DSM-IV (the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders – fourth edition – the diagnostic criteria used by all psychiatrists and psychologists around the world for diagnosing mental disorders) is only about illness, not wellness. RESPONDENT: Yes, viewed from the normalcy, it appears to be an illness; but the scans are objective data which can show an objective difference between a ‘normal’ brain and a brain that has transformed itself radically. RICHARD: And just what ‘objective difference’ would that be you are referring to? Or, to put that another way, what is it that you know about brain scans which prompts you to make such a statement? What I have found, when people make these statements/ suggest these courses of action (including the professional already mentioned), is that they know very little about what brain scans can or cannot reveal ... if anything at all. * RESPONDENT: Just to take a snapshot with all those parameters alpha, beta etc. Maybe in the future there might be enough understanding to make sense of the data. RICHARD: Make some sense of the (presumed) data for what purpose, though? RESPONDENT: At this stage, it is simply curiosity. RICHARD: I see ... I am to have all manner of brain scans so as to satisfy the curiosity of someone writing to me on the internet, eh? RESPONDENT: The purpose to make sense of the data is what exactly has happened to Richard’s brain using the neuroscientific knowledge we have now. RICHARD: I will ask it again for emphasis: as no self has been located with any brain scan how will such brain scans determine the absence of a self? RESPONDENT: As such, only your subjective experience of the pain which tells you that something happened in the brain. RICHARD: Not in the brain ... in the brain-stem (situated at the base of the brain/nape of the neck). RESPONDENT: What exactly has happened will only be revealed by measurement, no? RICHARD: What exactly has happened is that both an illusion (the psychological self) and a delusion (the psychic self) no longer hold sway in this flesh and blood body ... in what way can objective brain scans reveal the absence of a subjective illusion/delusion? RESPONDENT: What has changed subjectively since then, we have your report. RICHARD: Aye ... and a very detailed report it is: it is so detailed that anybody actively recalling a pure consciousness experience (PCE) knows ... um ... exactly what it is that I am reporting. RESPONDENT: Just probing ... with curiosity. RICHARD: Let me sketch out a scenario for you: I make an appointment with a local doctor (called a GP in Australia) in this seaside village I currently reside in and when the GP asks how they can help me I explain that someone writing to me on the internet wants me to have various brain scans done, which they neither not know much about nor are sure what use they will be, so as to satisfy their curiosity ... and when the GP asks me what the person writing to me on the internet is curious about, and I say that person wants objective proof of my report that both the illusory psychological self and the delusory psychic self no longer hold sway in this flesh and blood body, do you really think the GP is going to refer me to a specialist so that all manner of expensive brain scans can be made for you to look at and somehow (as yet unexplained) make sense of all the (supposed) data? * RICHARD: Make some sense of the (presumed) data from brain scans for what purpose, though? RESPONDENT: At this stage, it is simply curiosity. RICHARD: I see ... I am to have all manner of brain scans so as to satisfy the curiosity of someone writing to me on the internet, eh? RESPONDENT: No no, just trying to arouse your curiosity :) so as to derive some [unknown to me] benefits from [unknown to me] results one might find. I was thinking along these lines: Richard’s brain underwent some change ... RICHARD: If I may interject? It was in the brain-stem (situated at the base of the brain/nape of the neck) ... in what is popularly known as the ‘reptilian brain’. RESPONDENT: ... so there has to be a fundamental difference in the way it functions which might be revealed in these scans. RICHARD: The fundamental difference is that both an illusion (the psychological self) and a delusion (the psychic self) are no longer extant in this flesh and blood body. RESPONDENT: It would take a neuroscientist who takes your words and curious to find out what that fundamental difference is (with your co-operation). RICHARD: In what way can (objective) brain scans reveal the absence of a (subjective) illusion/delusion when such scans have been unable to reveal the presence of such a self? RESPONDENT: You are perfectly right in wanting a convincing reason (which I am not able to provide) to undergo all this stuff. I was asking you these questions just as my curiosity was aroused when I learnt that you underwent DSM IV – in the same spirit. RICHARD: As the spirit in which I sought psychiatric/psychological assessment was to ascertain what psychiatry/psychology made of being able to directly experience the pristine perfection of this actual world permanently, and not just temporarily in a pure consciousness experience (PCE), in what way does neuroscience – ‘a branch (as neurophysiology) of the life sciences that deals with the anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, or molecular biology of nerves and nervous tissue and especially with their relation to behaviour and learning’ (Merriam Webster Dictionary) – differ inasmuch it could come up with some other finding? RESPONDENT: I think I am beating around the bush a lot here :). Thanks for answering. RICHARD: Here is what that phrase can mean: • ‘beat about the bush (fig.): approach a subject indirectly, not come to the point’. (Oxford Dictionary). What I have found, when people ask me about brain scans, is that what they really want is proof that my report/description/explanation is true ... when the only proof worthy of the name is the experiential proof which is startlingly evident in a PCE. Then one intimately knows what I am talking about ... and why I am sharing it with my fellow human being. RESPONDENT No 32: No 80 questioned or thought whether or not the part of the brain with monitored high activity involved in producing happiness for the Buddhist monk while meditating is also involved in producing (a-caused) happiness for an actualist asking ‘Haietmoba?’ while apperception is operating. From your answer I can’t see any clear or implied ‘yes’, ‘no’ or ‘I don’t know’. PETER: From what I saw on the television program, I have no doubt that the Buddhist monk felt happy when he meditated – I didn’t need to see an image of increase in neural activity in one part of his brain to tell me this. I have experienced the very same thing whilst meditating – often I would feel blissful feelings and I presume these feelings resulted in increased neural activity in parts of this brain as well. From what I understand, any feeling that a feeling being has results in increased neural activity in some part or other of the brain, but it is not a subject that interests me at all, quite frankly. RESPONDENT: So, for the record – you are NOT willing to answer this question? PETER: If you care to look back at the original question I was asked – ‘if an actualist can produce similar results (to the high brain activity measured when Buddhist monks meditate)’ – you will see that I did answer in that I pointed to the fact that the aim of these monks is to find an inner feeling of bliss whereas the aim of an actualist is to be happy and harmless in the world-as-it-is with people-as-they-are. To put it plainly, the questioner wanted me to compare chalk and cheese. RESPONDENT: Are you to say that only feeling beings have neural activity? I am laughing right now as I type :) PETER: You are apparently laughing at a joke of your own making because this is not what I said. What I said was – ‘From what I understand, any feeling that a feeling being has results in increased neural activity in some part or other of the brain, but it is not a subject that interests me at all, quite frankly’. RESPONDENT: The spiritualists have their happiness backed up by scientific fact. PETER: Indeed, I have even read reports that scientists have discovered a so-called God-spot and are now debating whether this is a sign that God is an imaginary construct or whether God put the God-spot into humans so they would know of His/Her/Its existence. RESPONDENT: What would happen to an actualist who underwent the same study? PETER: No doubt the neurologically-obsessed would indulge in all sorts of fantasies dressed up as theories and speculations in trying to make sense of the effects of the instinctual passions, all the while ignoring the obvious root cause and the practical remedy now being pioneered. RESPONDENT: If no actualist is willing to undergo this study could we not conclude that Actualists are unwilling to look at the facts, while spiritualists are? This is absolutely absurd, but that is what is being propagated here. Peter, what you are saying makes complete sense, but both you and Richard are unwilling to open to such a scientific study. This would also give people much more information about actualism and what it can do... PETER: Okay, let’s take a walk in your speculations. Let’s suppose that a Buddhist monk and I were to have a ‘happiness shoot-out’ in matching MRI machines and let’s say he has more brain activity in certain areas than I do. Would that mean that the happiness he achieves by turning his back on the world and sitting in meditation is better than the happiness I experience in the world-as-it-is with people-as-they-are? If, on the other hand, I register more brain activity than he does in certain spots, then what does that mean? Given that this is not the first time you have raised this point on the mailing list, perhaps you could elaborate on precisely what ‘information’ such a ‘shoot-out’ would provide ‘about actualism and what it can do’ and of what value it be to those who are interested in the down-to-earth business that is actualism. Before you answer, I suggest that it would be useful to consider that scientists have an ingrained habit of measuring something, then speculating about the nature or cause of the measurement and then presenting the measurement as evidence that their theory is fact. Pretty soon other scientists are wont to take up the theory by taking more measurements of different things and speculating that they too are related to the theory and are thus ‘further proof’ of the initial … or speculate that the initial theory needs revising and hence more scientists are then able to take more measurements, construct more models or do more studies to support the initial theory or to support one of the newly emergent sub-theories. Sometimes this self-perpetuating chain of theorizing can keep a theory alive and running for generations upon generations until someone finally dares to touch base with common sense and challenge the status quo. No doubt you will see the relevance of what I am saying given that you are apparently demanding that the proof of the success of something that is utterly new in human history be based upon the scrutiny of scientific theories that are based upon a paradigm that has as its mantra that ‘it is impossible to change human nature … because this is the way it is, this is the way it always has been and this is the way it always will be’. RESPONDENT: But anyway, No 32 repeated a question that had not been originally answered, or secondarily answered. You have no speculation on the matter? PETER: At one stage I did become interested in the research being done on the human brain and its workings, in particular the empirical evidence of the ‘quick and dirty pathway’ of the instinctual impassioned response that precedes and predominates, and very often entirely prevents, a clear thinking reasoned response to either an actual or perceived danger. Due to this interest I produced several simplified schematics in order to explain the core scientific neuro-biological basis of the workings of the human instinctual passions. Apart from this empirical evidence, I have generally found the bulk of the neuro-biological research with regard to human emotions and human behaviour to be utterly dominated by speculation and presuppositions all firmly based upon traditional misunderstandings of the human psyche. In other words, the speculations and suppositions that masquerade as being fact are proposed by scientists trapped within the human condition attempting to make sense of the human psyche based on an archaic paradigm of superstition and mythology about the nature of the human psyche. In short, actualism requires thinking outside the box, something that is impossible if one persists on remaining an inside-the-box-thinker … or persists in giving credence to the speculations of other inside-the-box-thinkers. RESPONDENT: How does the extinction of that survival package [blind nature’s rough and ready survival package] translate at the level of brain architecture? RICHARD: Presuming that by [quote] ‘brain architecture’ [endquote] you mean the brain’s neurones (nerve cells) ... it does not translate. RESPONDENT: What changes? RICHARD: Again presuming that by [quote] ‘brain architecture’ [endquote] you mean the brain’s neurones (nerve cells) ... there are no changes. RESPONDENT: And where’s the evidence? RICHARD: Perhaps if I were to put it this way: when a software programme in a computer is deleted, not only does that deletion not translate at the level of a computer’s hardware/not make any changes to a computer’s hardware, there is no evidence – were there no ‘Recycle Bin’ to retrieve it from – that it was ever installed in the first place. RESPONDENT: So nothing changed at the level of brain architecture? RICHARD: Presuming that by [quote] ‘at the level of brain architecture’ [endquote] you mean the brain’s neurones (nerve cells) ... nothing changed. RESPONDENT: Not only no major re-wiring, but no re-wiring at all took place, nothing changed in the way your neurons function – nothing observable from the outside. Did I get that correctly? RICHARD: Presuming that by [quote] ‘re-wiring’ [endquote] you mean the way the brain’s dendrites receive information from its axons ... nothing either privately or publicly observable changed. Put simply: ‘my’ demise was as fictitious as ‘my’ apparent presence. RESPONDENT: So, to stay in the computer analogy, nature’s rough and ready survival package is not like a bios chip ... RICHARD: No ... if anything it would be akin to the ROM (software) programme of a bios chip. RESPONDENT: ... which, when it has been taken out and replaced, you can recognize from the outside as changed, but rather a software on a hard-disk which can be erased in a way so as to leave no trace at all and leave the hard disk exactly as before? RICHARD: Have you never flashed a (EEPROM) bios chip? * RESPONDENT: Is the demise of ‘me’ a simple (un-)learning process involving the neural network in its structure (...) RICHARD: No ... put simply: ‘my’ demise was as fictitious as ‘my’ apparent presence. RESPONDENT: ... where does that identity live, neuronwise? RICHARD: You may find the following to be of interest: • [Co-Respondent]: ‘Richard, we can take for granted that the temporal amygdalae are essential to feel fear in front of a frightening face. According to what I believe to understand, the sight of a frightening face or another thing, has not frightened you any more for several years. How do you explain this phenomenon? • [Richard]: ‘For the first thirty-four years of my life there was a parasite living inside this body (an identity). This ‘walk-in’ dominated so much that I could hardly get a word in edgeways. Then one day ‘he’ had a pure consciousness experience (PCE) and saw ‘himself’ for the very first time ... a lost, lonely, frightened and very, very cunning entity. Furthermore, ‘he’ saw that ‘he’ was standing in the way of the already always existing peace-on-earth becoming apparent. To cut a long story short ‘he’ psychologically and psychically (ontologically and autologically) ‘self’-immolated in ‘his’ totality (both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) for the benefit of this body and that body and every body. This altruistic action, set in motion with knowledge aforethought, precipitated much sensational activity at the top of the brain-stem/base of the brain (popularly known as the ‘lizard brain’/‘reptilian brain’). However, the amygdalae are located further up into the skull (just in from behind each ear) and there was no activity happening there. As the reflex function still operates (if a hot stove is inadvertently touched the hand jerks away automatically) it is obvious to me that that the ‘seat of consciousness’ is located in the brain-stem. I would suggest the ‘Substantia Nigra’ in or near the top two thirds of the ‘Reticular Activating System’ (sometimes known as the ‘Reticular System’) as being the source of the instinctual self/the instinctual passions. To put it simply: as ‘I’ am fear and fear is ‘me’, the extinction of ‘I’/‘me’ is simultaneously the extinction of fear’. And: • [Co-Respondent]: ‘Did you have a tomodensitometry of the brain (PET-scan)? • [Richard]: ‘No ... this is a matter I discussed in depth with both the accredited psychiatrist and the psychologist who both examined me over a three-year period (the first year on a weekly basis then on a three weekly basis). This is how I understand the situation: as no scientist has yet been able to locate ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul (the identity by whatever name) despite all their RI scans (Radio Isotope), CAT scans (Computerised Axial Tomography), CT scans (Computed Tomography), NMR scans (Nuclear Magnetic Resonance), PET scans (Positron Emission Tomography), MRA scans (Magnetic Resonance Angiography), MRI scans (Magnetic Resonance Imaging), and fMRI scans (functioning Magnetic Resonance Imaging) in any normal identity-bound flesh and blood body it would be pointless to scan for the absence of identity in this flesh and blood body. • [Co-Respondent]: ‘You know as me that the neurons of the Substantia Nigra are destroyed during the Parkinson’s disease what causes stereotyped neurological disorders. Which arguments make you think that Substantia Nigra could be the source of the instinctual self and/or of the instinctual passions? • [Richard]: ‘What caught my interest was the encephalitis that numerous people contracted as a result of the outbreak of what is popularly known as the ‘Spanish Flu’ epidemic that spread world-wide towards the end of World War I. In their case the Substantia Nigra was affected (which could be described as being ‘eaten away’ by the encephalitis), leaving them in what is popularly known as a ‘vegetative’ state ... yet large amounts of L-Dopa administered temporarily brought them out of their state into varying degrees of normality (there was a movie made about this phenomena) complete with an intact identity. This gave rise to speculation amongst various professionals in the field that the Substantia Nigra was the ‘seat of consciousness’ (the location of identity) and, as there was much sensational activity at the top of the brain-stem/base of the brain during the extinction of identity in this flesh and blood body, it makes sense to me to suggest that this speculation could very well be the case. Plus, as reptiles (and birds and fishes) do not have a ‘mammalian’ brain and/or a ‘cortical’ brain it seems obvious that the ‘seat of consciousness’ be located in what is popularly known as the ‘lizard brain’/ ‘reptilian brain’. An instinctual self, in other words, is the root of the problem’. RESPONDENT: So self-immolation, to speculate wildly, implies some restructuring in/bypassing of/deletion of/change in the firing pattern of neurons in the substantia nigra? RICHARD: Given that you start your query with [quote] ‘so ...’ [endquote] it is pertinent to note that nowhere do I mention neurons/neurones (aka nerve cells) – let alone an implication in regards any restructuring/ bypassing/ deletion/ change thereof – in the above text? Indeed, I specifically say ‘psychologically and psychically (ontologically and autologically) ‘self’-immolated’ – and not neuronally (by a neurone or neurones) and neurologically (as regards neurology) ‘self’-immolated – and especially mention that identity has not been located in such a manner ... in accordance to the neuron theory. Viz.: • [Co-Respondent]: ‘Did you have a tomodensitometry of the brain (PET-scan)? • [Richard]: ‘No ... this is a matter I discussed in depth with both the accredited psychiatrist and the psychologist who both examined me over a three-year period (the first year on a weekly basis then on a three weekly basis). This is how I understand the situation: as *no scientist has yet been able to locate ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul (the identity by whatever name)* despite all their RI scans (Radio Isotope), CAT scans (Computerised Axial Tomography), CT scans (Computed Tomography), NMR scans (Nuclear Magnetic Resonance), PET scans (Positron Emission Tomography), MRA scans (Magnetic Resonance Angiography), MRI scans (Magnetic Resonance Imaging), and fMRI scans (functioning Magnetic Resonance Imaging) in any normal identity-bound flesh and blood body it would be pointless to scan for the absence of identity in this flesh and blood body’. [emphasis added]. * RESPONDENT: To translate into the neurological terms which you have given above ... RICHARD: If I might interject? I gave no neurological terms in the text you are referring to ... indeed I specifically mentioned that identity cannot be located neuronally/ neurologically. Viz.: • [Co-Respondent]: ‘Did you have a tomodensitometry of the brain (PET-scan)? • [Richard]: ‘No ... this is a matter I discussed in depth with both the accredited psychiatrist and the psychologist who both examined me over a three-year period (the first year on a weekly basis then on a three weekly basis). This is how I understand the situation: as *no scientist has yet been able to locate ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul (the identity by whatever name)* despite all their RI scans (Radio Isotope), CAT scans (Computerised Axial Tomography), CT scans (Computed Tomography), NMR scans (Nuclear Magnetic Resonance), PET scans (Positron Emission Tomography), MRA scans (Magnetic Resonance Angiography), MRI scans (Magnetic Resonance Imaging), and fMRI scans (functioning Magnetic Resonance Imaging) in any normal identity-bound flesh and blood body it would be pointless to scan for the absence of identity in this flesh and blood body’. [emphasis added]. RESPONDENT: ... ‘twas but another metaphorical inquiry about neurological remainders of the ‘self’. RICHARD: As it is you who posits that identity has a neuronal/ neurological existence, and not me, I will pass without further comment. RESPONDENT: In your answer to No. 97 for the same question you used a computer analogy (deletion of a software program from a chip without a trace). RICHARD: Were you to be inclined to ponder the distinction between ‘... without a trace’ and ‘remainders of ...’ it might save a lot of to-ing and fro-ing of e-mails regarding Mr. Douglas Adams’ thinly disguised religio-spiritual/ mystico-metaphysical messages. RESPONDENT: In light of your response here I would ask: what happened to your substantia nigra? RICHARD: Put simply: ‘my’ demise was as fictitious as ‘my’ apparent presence. RESPONDENT: Given the magnitude of the problems you detailed above [all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides and so on], and thus a certain urgency or at least importance which you convey to exist for application of actualism ... RICHARD: If I may interject? The application of the actualism method is neither urgent nor important (as humankind has not only survived and multiplied but has become the dominant species worldwide over millennia without it there is no historical/ foreseeable reason to presume humankind will not continue to prevail) ... it is your choice, and your choice alone, each moment again as to how you prefer to experience this moment of being alive (the only moment you are ever alive). And it goes without saying, surely, what the identity in residence all those years ago preferred? RESPONDENT: ... a closer (neuro-scientifical) investigation of these aspects ... RICHARD: If I may again interject? Just what [quote] ‘aspects’ [endquote] are you referring to? RESPONDENT: ... [a closer (neuro-scientifical) investigation of these aspects] might, if it serves to convince some actual sceptics, be of use for this world. RICHARD: I am not in the business of convincing anyone of matters experiential ... I unambiguously make it clear that experiential proof is the only proof worthy of the name in regards to consciousness studies. For example (from the home page of my portion of The Actual Freedom Trust web site): • [Richard]: ‘I invite anyone to make a critical examination of all the words I advance so as to ascertain if they be intrinsically self-explanatory ... and if they are all seen to be inherently consistent with what is being spoken about, then the facts speak for themselves. Then one will have reason to remember a pure conscious experience (PCE), which all peoples I have spoken to at length have had, and thus verify by direct experience the facticity of what is written (*which personal experiencing is the only proof worthy of the name*). The PCE occurs globally ... across cultures and down through the ages irregardless of gender, race or age. However, it is usually interpreted according to cultural beliefs – created and reinforced by the persistence of identity – and devolves into an ASC. Then ‘I’ as ego – sublimated and transcended as ‘me’ as soul – manifest as a god or a goddess (‘The Truth’ by any name) and preach unliveable doctrines based upon their belief that they are ‘not the body’. [emphasis added]. RESPONDENT No. 5: No. 14 and No. 14 [as Sock-puppet], your posts asking for proof [fear response test] are excellent. RESPONDENT: I will repeat: I’m not a neo-buddhist skeptic like you [...]. Note about needs of proof: If that firsts astronauts didn’t have bring to Earth some rocks from the Moon, probably we will have much more than hoaxes today about Apollo 11. Credibility, dignity, sincerity, honesty, integrity, you name... in this consciousness business are the utmost, at least to me. RICHARD: Having swallowed the bait, hook, line and sinker you are being drawn in by an agent provocateur whose near-manic aim is to discredit actualism, in general, and its discoverer, in particular. (And I say manic, as in overactivity, simply because 479 emails, over 35 days, is equivalent to about 14 emails per day). Look, there is no way that a scientific test (aka an objective experiment) can prove or disprove matters pertaining to consciousness (aka subjective experience). I have written about this before: • [Respondent]: ‘What exactly has happened will only be revealed by measurement, no? • [Richard]: ‘What exactly has happened is that both an illusion (the psychological self) and a delusion (the psychic self) no longer hold sway in this flesh and blood body ... in what way can objective brain scans reveal the absence of a subjective illusion/ delusion?’ Richard, The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list, No. 66, 13 Apr 2004 And the much-promoted fear response test – based solely upon the sound of a gunshot being fired close to the ears (Message 6990) can in no way either prove or disprove that a particular flesh and blood body is living what a PCE evidences to be an actuality for twenty four hours a day/ seven days of the week/ three hundred and sixty five days of the year. At best it could only be inconclusive: there would then be demands for an aggression response test; then a nurture response test; then a desire response test. Shall I keep going? For instance: A love response test. A hate response test. A sorrow response test. A compassion response test. Want some more? For example: A happiness response test. A harmlessness response test. A peace response test. A harmony response test. Shall I continue? For instance: A depersonalisation response test. A derealisation response test. An alexithymia response test. An anhedonia response test. I could go on and on, of course, but instead I will leave you with this to consider: the identity in residence all those years ago did not demand objective proof but, with the confidence born of the certainty which PCE’s provide in abundance, just went blithely ahead and gladsomely vanished into oblivion (as in extinction) for the benefit of this body and that body and every body. Just think about it: were ‘he’ not to have done that, but had instead sat about insisting on some scientific proof, this discussion forum would not exist, this conversation would not be taking place, and both the meaning-of-life and peace-on-earth would still remain yet to be discovered. RICK: Richard, if I may ask, why now are you corresponding with us here on this message board? [snip quote]. RESPONDENT No. 5: Have you heard of [No. 5] who has no knowledge and is asking for a proof from Richard by way of a fear response test? RICK: That fear response test you propose is a really crappy one from what I’ve read. I wouldn’t be afraid of a gunshot shot at close range knowing full well that I was undergoing a controlled test and my life was not in danger. I may be startled, I may jump ... but that may just be an instinctive reflex and not a passionate instinctual reaction. I think that is what Richard is saying that the test would only produce results that are inconclusive. You need a better test (and one that won’t involve physical torture like water boarding or a really well done mock- execution ‘cause that’s just not right) in order to confidently rely on any data extracted from the results of the test. RESPONDENT No. 5: Maybe you missed my later post but later on I revised the test. Instead of firing a shot close range, I asked Richard to play a video game involving war. RICK: Are you serious? I was just talking to a friend today who is a Gulf War veteran, an Iraq War veteran and served in Afghanistan after 9/11. He’s seen his share of the ravages of war and we were just talking about the newest big-budget war video game that has just hit the market. He’s already bought it and plays that shit for FUN. Not everybody who’s experienced war suffers post-traumatic stress disorder. RESPONDENT No. 5: Alright then it should be a piece of cake for Richard to fly through but why assume? You want Richard to have fun, right? RICK: I’m sure Richard has plenty fun already and won’t need the videogame. Point is, the test that you propose is terrible (no pun intended). RESPONDENT No. 5: Point is that I already predicted that what you are doing is what actualists will start to do. RICK: Ha. Well, you win. I guess this concludes Richard has the full set of instinctual passions because he won’t play a war video game which, as we already know (or at least I know firsthand), does not bring about a trace of fear/ dread/ trauma in an instinctually-driven human being who has experienced his fair share of the ravages of war. With all due respect, your case against him so far is just plain silly. RICHARD: G’day Rick, In case you missed what was implied by your co-respondent’s initial response to your query about why I am corresponding on this message board (at the top of this email) I will provide the following: • [quote] ‘I knew it!!! I knew I should have added ‘He’s only come here to talk to me you guys, you watch ...’. (Message 5314) * In regards to your war-veteran friend and video games involving war: in the late nineties I became very interested in the potential which the first-person 3D war-game genre had for an ‘Actual Freedom’ game. With the ability to have a mannequin interact and move around in a 3D environment, progressing through different levels (which could change in both hue and brilliance in accord to either moods or clarity), it was quite appealing. As a consequence I purchased ‘Unreal Tournament’ and ‘Quake III Arena’ so as to get hands-on experience with the engines they were built on (otherwise costing $250,000) solely for a trial run in creating my own cyber-world environments. I also bought ‘Tomb Raider Chronicles’ for its engine and ‘Myst V’ for the same reason. (I created several very basic cyber-world environments – both indoors and outdoors – but that is another story). The point is I have a lot of hands-on experience at playing those type of games for no other reason than to find out how they operated and functioned. For instance, with ‘No One Lives Forever’ the first two levels were simply brilliant (although the engine is complex) and in order to poke around at my leisure, to find out how different details of the 3D world were created, I first had to go through and take out all the ‘Ninja Bots’ and then save the game once I had dragged all the ‘dead bodies’ out of sight into an alley behind a building. (I also purchased a 5.1 surround sound system for that game as I was quite taken with being able to be situated on a bridge over a river, with the sounds of rushing water from a gushing waterfall, and rotate so as to hear it in 3D whilst taking in the spectacular view as well). Now, while you say your war-veteran friend [quote] ‘plays that shit for FUN’ [endquote] for me taking out the ‘Ninja Bots’, for instance, was nothing but a necessary precursor to being able to move about at leisure afterwards. (For me the fun lay in that very moving around in, and being able to interact with, the cyber-world environment itself). The scope of 3D games is tremendous. Actual Freedom Homepage
Commonly Raised Objections – Index | Frequently Flogged Misconceptions – Index | Frequently Asked Questions – Index
Freedom from the Human Condition – Happy and Harmless Design, Richard's & Peter’s Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997- . All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer and Use Restrictions and Guarantee of Authenticity