Hi Jason -
I personally caveat science-citing to say, that while I appreciate any logical look at anything/anyone -- philosophy, science and their professional stewards may be no more or less likely to uphold a logical, objective-aspiring view than anyone else.
However, because they usually exist in a realm of peer review and scrutiny, I do think stewards of the scientific method are a bit more likely to be logical in their proposals and conclusions than the non-scientific method population. With this tremendous information age, knowledge, scrutiny and conclusions can be subjected to so many more considerations, to everyone's advantage, in my opinion.
What I use in regards to any conclusion being promoted:
-- its sources (which can include financial-backing, which backing can grossly re-size the nature of a study and can strongly influence for desired outcomes)
-- its methodology
-- its ability to withstand challenges to its methodology
What I do to form personal conviction (which I require for myself in lieu of faith), is to seek answers through experience and logic. If I cannot recreate the experience/experiment, I scrutinize the methodology (if there is one).
With actualism, one can perform the experiments for themselves. With AF, I do not know if I can perform the experiment for myself yet, but it is logical that a) some in the forum have conviction that anyone can do the AF experiment for ourselves, and b) others in the forum trust the experiment is worth doing.
I.e., It took a long time for Stanley to get his 1919 image of space-time, but he did, which photo brought Mr. Einstein's theories to millions rather quickly (and nearly a century of experimentation, scrutiny and applications!).
___
I have admired the tibetan tradition of debate and the requirement that its monastic children be able to express for themselves their conviction in an isolated subject, i.e., nothingness. The students spend hours a day in practice, study and debate. The debate has conduct codes in ensure orderly process and learning, as well as respect between the defender and the questioner.
here is a video and write-up:
http://www.snow-crest-inn-dharamsala.com/tibetan-monks-debate.html
For me, DhO offers this wonderful opportunity.
___
So, back to the point: brain stem - anyone what to share their brain-change?
More from sir richard on the brain stem change:
The day finally dawns when something irrevocable happens inside the skull. In an ecstatic moment of being present, ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul expire. ‘I’ the personality and ‘me’ the being ceases to exist, permanently. There is a sensation inside the top of the brain-stem that is experienced as a physical ‘turning over’ of some kind ... something that can never, ever, turn back. Something irrevocable happens and everything is different, somehow, although everything stays the same physically ... with the outstanding exception of a perfection and purity permeating all and everything.
Something has changed, although it is as if nothing has happened ... except that the entire world is a magical fairy-tale-like playground full of incredible joy and delight that is never-ending. ‘My’ demise was as fictitious as ‘my’ apparent presence. I have always been here, I realise, it was that ‘I’ only imagined that ‘I’ existed. It was all an emotional play in a fertile imagination ... which was, however, fuelled by an actual hormonal substance triggered off from within the brain-stem because of the instinctual passions bestowed by blind nature. Thus the psyche – the entire affective faculty born of the instincts itself – is wiped out forever and one is finally what one actually is: this thinking and reflective flesh-and-blood body simply brimming with sense organs, delighting in this very sensual world of actual experience.
http://actualfreedom.com.au/richard/default.htm
___
[EDIT: grammar and added 'aspiring' after 'objective'. In my view no being can not achieve 100% 'objective' view do to the containment of the being's lens. I.e., we can see many aspects of a flower, but we cannot see it in the full UV spectrum, because the human lens does not allow for UV perception as such. This is a point of mental curiosity though and not necessarily needed for practice, although may benefit practice].
[EDIT2: clarification of my admiration for the tibetan dialetic]