Is the Pineal Gland our way of connecting to the spiritual realm?

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



I wasn't sure whether to put this in the Science forum or this one, but I decided to choose the one with more activity. I've been extremely fascinated with researching this gland. I first heard about it through a conspiracy theory website, and ever since, I have been fascinated by the spiritual implications that many attribute to this small organ inside the brain.

The gland produces DMT and Melatonin, which are hormones that are produced to help you sleep.

I'm agnostic, so I think there's something out there, and all these theories about this gland being our connection to spiritual dimensions has really intrigued me. There's many personal accounts of people who claim that they have become spiritually awakened by activating their pineal gland. They say there's a sharp pain that's felt in the middle of the brain once activated and is supposed to enlighten humans and give them godlike awareness. Some say it allows you to achieve astral projection: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astral_projection

Here's a good article that describes much of what I'm talking about: http://www.wakingtimes.com/2012/06/...rd-eye-the-biggest-cover-up-in-human-history/

One thing that's stated constantly on conspiracy forums is about how large amounts of fluoride become centered in the pineal gland and calcify it. It's said that you can't activate it unless you change your diet and decalcify it.

I've never been good with dedicating my mind to reaching such high states of consciousness, so I want to ask whether or not the pineal gland in our brains is a mental pathway to the spiritual realm, and if so, which of you guys have tried it? I really would like to learn from those who have personal experience with this and hopefully if it works, I can work on activating mine.

 

Interesting, I'm not sure of the "godlike awareness", but its interesting.

 

It could be, IMO. DMT is found in a lot in the plant kingdom as well as us. I completely advise against it but supposedly DMT is the most powerful psychedelic drug known to man.That is, when it is cultivated. I have heard numerous testimonies of people experimenting with it and always coming back with the belief that "there is something out there" etc..

Again, I do not think this is the way to go about enlightenment because many people go to places in their minds that they do not want to be. The testimonies of DMT users sound rather terrifying to me and I would never do it but in answer to your question, I think there seems to be a connection if we are looking at it from a scientific standpoint.

 

Have you ever seen the film From Beyond (1986) ?

I watched it as a young child and it frightened the bejesus out of me!

 

I'd have to say I'm certain that the answer is no. The gland is involved in a number of things that mystics like to link to spirituality: sleep, sexuality, drug response, and so on. So it's easy to understand why people gravitate towards the thought that the pineal gland is spiritual in some way. The moment there is a scrap of evidence of a spiritual realm in the first place, in fact, the pineal gland will be what I'll start thinking of. But nothing of the sort has been furnished, so it's hard for something to be a connection to something else that, in all likelihood, does not exist.

 

I think that this ties in really well with the 20 plus methods of inducing an out of the body or near death experience!

And to answer your question, personally I believe that yes the pineal gland may well be like a gateway to the higher dimensions of space - time that are indicated by String Theory.

http://www.near-death.com/triggers.html
Triggers of Near-Death Experiences
How NDEs Can Be Induced

 

I recommend drugs of most types to reach religion....much the same effect.

Warping the mind.

The organ in question probably does play a role in non reality based thought........but, is that a wise thing to do?

 

I have heard that the gland possesses a lens and rods/cones in the same way of an eye, and would allow people to perceive X.

Issue being, I have not read this on what I would consider a legitimate source.

 

I'll give you a hint.

If you got it from a conspiracy website, or a religious one, it's not science.

 

The whole brain is part of the aether. That means quantum physics is all up in that thing. Electrons tunneling here and there. Neurons firing due to the tunneling. Extra dimensions opening and closing all up inside yo brain! The whole brain is a connection to whatever the heck the universe is and any realms that we call spiritual. Now start meditating or praying to access it! Or have someone put some electrodes up into that thing and zap zap zap away! Hahahahaha

 

At least some hypothesize that consciousness can only be explained through quantum mechanics:

http://www.livescience.com/37807-brain-is-not-quantum-computer.html

If it was true, it could imply the possibility of consciousness surviving bodily death.

 

No, no, no. Agnostics don’t “think there’s something out there”. No, no, no. (And whiceepeedee-uh is not a legitimate source.)

 

While youre right in general, clearly some do think that. And wikipedia can be a perfectly legitimate source for a variety of applications as long as you bear in mind its limitations.

 

No, no....no. Agnostics, (ooffaa) by definition...oh my....<*grabs the Digitalis*>...I can’t go on...

Let me try it this way: no person with any self-respect would cite Wookeepeedee-uh for anything serious; If I didn’t boycott it, then I might use it to get a good earthworm pie recipe.

 

Yes, that's right, you can't go on, or else you'd have to provide the definition, which will show that I'm entirely correct. Agnostics by definition do not KNOW that a single very specific "something" does exist - god. It says nothing about other "somethings" out there, nor does it by definition preclude you from believing in a god despite not knowing whether they exist.

As I said, though, generally agnostics dont believe. So, generally, you're right, though there can be exceptions.

This discussion is 'serious'?

 

The topic is serious. The topic is serious. My discussion is serious. Earthworm pie recipes are not serious.

If I can’t go on, then it is due to lack of Valium as supplement to the Digitalis and not for lack of confidence in being right or fear of being wrong.

An Agnostic suspends judgment about something. (Period; end of definition.) The Agnostic decides not to decide.

There are those who believe in or do not believe in some “God” or another but won’t or can’t point to proof. They are happy dreamers and pessimistic malcontents, respectively. In either case, the Agnostic is not one of them and has good reason to feel superior in relation to them.

I may start a thread about the religious Agnostics and Atheists; some of you will need duct tape for that--you know who you are.

 

Well then, I respectfully disagree.

 

I am agnostic. I do not know if there is a god(s) or not.

I am an atheist. I do not have a belief in any gods.

Agnostics are not fence sitters nor are they believers.

 

How could you find out? (It might be simpler than you think it is... but if you want absolute proof, you can forget it)

 

Oh. No, no, no, no, (oh my), no, no,....<*cough*>....,

No no no no no no....not in this (my) hemisphere.

Oy. I’m really going to have to think about starting a thread on “linguistic anarchy”; a term that I coined while navigating the sprawl of this fora and, as we all see daily, pervades these political pixels.....faithfully.

I’m quite sure that I hurt myself typing that last sentence.

“Thank me”! (I’ll do this-next, like an SAT question.)


“I do not know if there is a god”_:_”I do not have a belief in any gods”

I possess no proof of god_:_.___________________

REWORDED, for mercy:

“I do not know whether god exists” _:_I do not believe that gods exist

“I do not possess proof that god exists” _:_.________________

 

Squirm all you want. He is agnostic in the sense that he does not believe he KNOWS whether god exists, which has no direct effect on whether he BELIEVES god exists. If you don't think that meets the criteria you would use for being described as 'agnostic' then thats up to you, but you dont get to decide how other people can use the word.

 

Squirm?

Correct I don't get to decide how other people can use the word (duh). I do decide when and how I’ll object.

People decide definitions at their own peril. If they are lucky, then the result is mere embarrassment.

 

I'm sorry if he embarrassed you.

 

Who the bleep is the 'he' you mention repeatedly?

 

The guy whose religious beliefs we were discussing. You took issue with him calling himself an agnostic, remember?