TL:DR3.

If Phil Spector wrote forum posts.

Keep It Real wrote:Psilocybin changed my life - for the worse. I drank some mushroom tea with friends, then fell asleep while still tripping. When I woke up it felt like my visual perception had shifted. As if I was viewing the world from a point six inches in front of my face. I felt so alien, so alone, so afraid. It's never left me although I am used to it now and can cope. I withdrew from my social circle; just wanted to be alone. A couple of years later I developed paranoid schizophrenia which has landed me in hospital 4 times following unimaginably traumatic psychotic episodes. Thankfully that's under control now through the use of anti-psychotics. I blame that mushroom tea for my schizophrenia. It's Russian roulette.

This endeavor is definitely not for everyone. These volunteers in the psilocybin study that I'm referring to are prepared for this experience. Conditions like set and setting are looked at very closely in order to prevent an experience such as the one you had. It does happen, but these aren't things to be taken lightly. It's said that if one has underlying schizophrenic tendencies, then without the proper precautions, they can manifest with great intensity during the experience. I think it can be a Russian roulette if you just go into it willy-nilly. I did it quite similarly before, but fortunately got out okay. I think with the proper shaman or guide, and the proper set and setting, your experience might've been different or not. To be honest, I initially went through an existential crisis after my experience, and became depressed. I thought the mushroom was implying "no free will," and when I looked up to see if anyone else was experiencing this with 'shrooms, I found the "EgoDeath.com" website which is precisely what I'm describing. This research defines and outlines the ego death theory, as a new systematic research framework and paradigm. Here's a quote from the website:

The ego death theory holds that the essence and origin of religion is the use of visionary plants to routinely trigger the intense mystic altered state, producing loose cognitive-association binding, which then produces an experience of being controlled by frozen block-universe determinism with a single, pre-existing, ever-existing future.

I have a different perspective now on all of that, but nevertheless I found it interesting that I wasn't the only one to experience this phenomenon of "no free will." You can definitely have within this experience an impression of everything being known. That there's no more mystery in life. Some kind of intuitive omniscience such that you can almost "feel" as though you've no free will, and what's actually going on is a hard determinism. I'm not saying that's the case, it's simply that I couldn't understand why such a phenomenon in consciousness exists. Why do we have this potential to have such an experience that leaves this strange impression, and why does it present itself as this "intuitive omniscience"? In other words, is it really that the universe is a kind of preordained set of laws that is unraveling in the only one possible way it can, and so in this experience, we're some how to intuit this fact? I'm not really sure what's happening here, but there is without a doubt this overwhelming impression which is usually expressed as interconnectedness, unity, pure consciousness, ego death, etc. People often report a sense of timelessness, that all past, present, and future has collapse into the immediate moment, and so forth and so on.

Hey Kafei, let's try this one point at a time, see if that helps.

Kafei wrote:

TinyTypingDragon wrote:

Kafei wrote:It may be anecdotal, but it is the case in these ravenous intellectuals such as Aldous Huxley or Alan Watts that they were eventually led to a Perennialist perspective based on mystical experience. I mean, we may have actual Bigfoot sightings, but they have long since been dismissed as misidentification, hoax, folklore, etc.

A TERRIBLE counter argument to my statement. It also cuts against your argument. You nearly used to BRAG in old conversations about how perennial philosophy was dismissed and now it's gaining traction.

Also, if someone who sighted bigfoot dismissed you as simply not understanding, and saying "I don't just think, I know", and when you point out there's no evidence they say "If you had the experience I had, you would be completely convinced", would that be enough for you, Kafei? Would you say "Okay, I have to accept that?" or would you try to dissuade them from drawing such conclusions or leading other people to such conclusions because it is a conclusion based on bad evidence?

The analogy remains, we have evidence of bigfoot sightings, but that isn't evidence of bigfoot. We have evidence of profoundly super duper wowsers experiences, that is not evidence of perennial philosophy. Which means by the way that a link to someone who you think was looking for these experiences is NEEDLESS as a response to my analogy.

No, I was simply saying that all the "so-called" evidence of Bigfoot has been disproven. Whether someone claims they saw Bigfoot or not, I really wouldn't care. I personally believe the Loch Ness monster is a submarine driven by Bigfoot. No, I'm kidding, but… We should probably delete these paragraphs and stick to the relevant issues.

... No, I got the analogy, I just don't think it applies. ... Most people aren't aware of this mystical experience, and so they're not necessarily looking for them.

ALL the evidence for bigfoot has been disproven? That would mean that personal experiences, something you consider evidence, have been disproven. If that's so, can you demonstrate that? If not, then there remains as much evidence for bigfoot as there is for perennial philosophy. Now, for the argument you gave as to why the analogy is not relevant...

Let me parse the relevant parts down for readers, bigfoot stories are known and stories spread about them, therefore it's different because Kafei might assume Canadians see hairy people as bigfoot. (Specifically that the lore is so well known people may be inclined to let their imagination run wild) Profoundly super duper wowsers experiences are profoundly super duper different because the ideas he's so proud are spreading all over the place, he assumes aren't as spread. (Specifically he assumes that even if people don't know about profoundly super duper wowsers experiences, they will describe having them similarly, this is a bit of a sleight of hand because if they don't describe the experience in a specific way, it wouldn't be considered a profoundly super duper wowsers experience in the first place). Okay, there's the recap.

It's irrelevant, and I'll tell you why.

I have already offered as a potential explanation that the experiences people have are because of similarities in the way brains react, especially at such high dosages, where with any drug you can likely expect similar reactions. This can be true of meditative practices as well. And that's just the start, there's no reason to assume that everyone who thinks they saw bigfoot was even aware of the legend first, though I'm sure many were. It could be that the way our eyes track motion, especially in certain lighting conditions, we all are prone to seeing things in certain ways in certain environs, things that may look like a giant ape-like creature in a forest out of the corner of our eye. By the way, your response implies that everyone who sees bigfoot was looking for them in the first place, there's also no reason to assume that.

Either way, the analogy points out that you have evidence by way of personal experience, in both cases that's the only evidence you have, and yet you think personal experience is reliable in one case but unreliable in another.

Let me state that all other points of data that might possibly coincide have other explanations. There are a good many times when those other explanations require less assumptions. This leaves us with no compelling reason to believe in bigfoot, after all previous evidence of bigfoot has been disproven. Likewise, it leaves us with no compelling reason to believe in perennial philosophy, after all previous religious claims have been disproven.

But even if you ignore that, which I can, I can easily grant that this is a different KIND of religious claim so you shouldn't have to defend that point. It still leaves you piecing together religious claims and study data and saying 'if what I assume to be correct is true, then this is evidence for it', that works just as well for any claim, but when we are objectively examining an unknown, we should eskew any assumptions, we should not try to piece together other data and try to get it to fit our conclusions, we should instead wait to form conclusions until the data is best explained by one model above all others.

TinyTypingDragon wrote:
ALL the evidence for bigfoot has been disproven? That would mean that personal experiences, something you consider evidence, have been disproven. If that's so, can you demonstrate that? If not, then there remains as much evidence for bigfoot as there is for perennial philosophy. Now, for the argument you gave as to why the analogy is not relevant...

It's not that all the evidence has been accounted for and dismissed, it's simply that bigfoot isn't accepted from a scientific or evolutionary standpoint.

TinyTypingDragon wrote:Let me parse the relevant parts down for readers, bigfoot stories are known and stories spread about them, therefore it's different because Kafei might assume Canadians see hairy people as bigfoot. (Specifically that the lore is so well known people may be inclined to let their imagination run wild) Profoundly super duper wowsers experiences are profoundly super duper different because the ideas he's so proud are spreading all over the place, he assumes aren't as spread. (Specifically he assumes that even if people don't know about profoundly super duper wowsers experiences, they will describe having them similarly, this is a bit of a sleight of hand because if they don't describe the experience in a specific way, it wouldn't be considered a profoundly super duper wowsers experience in the first place). Okay, there's the recap.

No, I wouldn't say that. I'd say that the reason Griffiths refers to this experience sometimes as mystical-type experience is because he distinguishes from having a full-blown mystical experience, which would mean all the defining characteristics are present, where as in other mystical experiences, you have people only exhibiting maybe two or three of the six main characteristics. I mean, I had left all this in the previous post.

TinyTypingDragon wrote:It's irrelevant, and I'll tell you why.

I have already offered as a potential explanation that the experiences people have are because of similarities in the way brains react, especially at such high dosages, where with any drug you can likely expect similar reactions. This can be true of meditative practices as well.

Well, the study has shown that the mystical experience induced by psilocybin and the mystical experience in the meditative experience are identical. So, you have two routes to achieve the same goal here. However, what happens in a "mystical experience" is quite different from what happens from any other type of experience with an intoxicant unrelated to entheogens. I agree it may be that we all have similar brains, and so we have this similar effect, but why is it that all people feel this sense of interconnectedness? Why is it that religious imagery in the form of fractals, mandalas, etc. appear in these visions? Why the sense of overwhelming love and so on? It's these very peculiar characteristics that can manifest in a mystical experience. I assure you, alcohol will not give you this impression of interconnectedness of all people and things unless you somehow manage to induce a near-death experience.

TinyTypingDragon wrote:And that's just the start, there's no reason to assume that everyone who thinks they saw bigfoot was even aware of the legend first, though I'm sure many were. It could be that the way our eyes track motion, especially in certain lighting conditions, we all are prone to seeing things in certain ways in certain environs, things that may look like a giant ape-like creature in a forest out of the corner of our eye. By the way, your response implies that everyone who sees bigfoot was looking for them in the first place, there's also no reason to assume that.

Either way, the analogy points out that you have evidence by way of personal experience, in both cases that's the only evidence you have, and yet you think personal experience is reliable in one case but unreliable in another.

Let me state that all other points of data that might possibly coincide have other explanations. There are a good many times when those other explanations require less assumptions. This leaves us with no compelling reason to believe in bigfoot, after all previous evidence of bigfoot has been disproven. Likewise, it leaves us with no compelling reason to believe in perennial philosophy, after all previous religious claims have been disproven.

But even if you ignore that, which I can, I can easily grant that this is a different KIND of religious claim so you shouldn't have to defend that point. It still leaves you piecing together religious claims and study data and saying 'if what I assume to be correct is true, then this is evidence for it', that works just as well for any claim, but when we are objectively examining an unknown, we should eskew any assumptions, we should not try to piece together other data and try to get it to fit our conclusions, we should instead wait to form conclusions until the data is best explained by one model above all others.

You do realize that there has been a body of work studying mystical experience as they relate to the historical accounts contained in the various scripture in the major religions. I mean, this is the work of Perennial philosophy, and I referenced plenty of links pertaining to this in my previous post so that you can indulge yourself, and instead you've chose to respond to a section of the post which I thought was the most irrelevant, and that we should even delete. I mean, how 'bout a proper response instead of jumping to the end of the post, and attempting to naïvely reply when you could have had an opportunity to inform yourself before posting your reply?

Kafei wrote:

TinyTypingDragon wrote:

Kafei wrote:No, I was simply saying that all the "so-called" evidence of Bigfoot has been disproven.

ALL the evidence for bigfoot has been disproven? That would mean that personal experiences, something you consider evidence, have been disproven. If that's so, can you demonstrate that?

It's not that all the evidence has been accounted for and dismissed, it's simply that bigfoot isn't accepted from a scientific or evolutionary standpoint.

Okay, do you retract the argument that all the evidence has been disproven? Keep in mind Perennial philosophy is no more scientifically accepted by cosmologists than bigfoot is by evolutionary biologists.

Kafei wrote:I referenced plenty of links pertaining to this in my previous post so that you can indulge yourself, and instead you've chose to respond to a section of the post which I thought was the most irrelevant, and that we should even delete. I mean, how 'bout a proper response instead of jumping to the end of the post, and attempting to naïvely reply when you could have had an opportunity to inform yourself before posting your reply?

I will dispute the former properly when it comes to that, however to claim I simply jumped to the end without informing myself of your entire post is simply another unfounded assumption, and once again it's unjustified. I read the entirety of your post and wrote out preliminary points which I will return to when we address each in time. However this is a point that you think should be erased, and I think is very relevant, I chose this point because it is going to be the clearest way to understand our differences. If we achieve understanding here, we'll have a better chance to do so more easily on other points.

However that's just talking about why I chose this point. Why I'm not addressing many points at once is another matter. That is because I want to approach this with a much more limited scope. If you want to continue to pad out each post, breaking my points apart and trying to add new lines of conversation, you are very welcome to do so. However if you think it is best to continue expanding the conversation, then you should be willing to wait longer for your older points to get a response.

Please keep in mind you leave me waiting months, once even over a year, for you to reply. When you do come back, your return replies have limited relevancy to the statements they are addressing. There are times when I give detailed rebuttals, asking you to actually do a little work and read back and show me why you think the way you do about our arguments, and instead I get responses similar to 'I think I may have been misunderstood' or 'possibly you're confused about something, I don't know'. Perhaps that's true, but they certainly aren't compelling statements without a reason for us to believe it. However if such issues are a problem, then narrowing the focus is only going to make it harder for such confusion be a factor.

I think a little patience on your part is a perfectly justified expectation.

Kafei wrote:
Well, the study has shown that the mystical experience induced by psilocybin and the mystical experience in the meditative experience are identical.

Q 2: Do you have any sign that the same brain "machinery" affected by psilocybin is identical to what people experience in spiritual epiphanies that occur without drugs?

Griffiths: That work hasn’t been done yet, though there is good reason to believe that similar mechanisms are at work during profound religious experiences, however they might be occasioned (for example, by fasting, meditation, controlled breathing, sleep deprivation, near death experiences, infectious disease states, or psychoactive substances such as psilocybin). The neurology of religious experience, newly termed neurotheology, is drawing interest as a new frontier of study.

Kafei wrote:
So, you have two routes to achieve the same goal here. However, what happens in a "mystical experience" is quite different from what happens from any other type of experience with an intoxicant unrelated to entheogens. I agree it may be that we all have similar brains, and so we have this similar effect, but why is it that all people feel this sense of interconnectedness?

Firstly all people don't "feel this sense of interconnectedness", some do. Second, you admit that similar experiences can be caused by similar brains and then ask why people feel a similar "interconnectedness". You answered your own question before you even asked it.

Kafei wrote:
Why is it that religious imagery in the form of fractals, mandalas, etc. appear in these visions?

Asked and answered: Similar brains, nothing mysterious about it. You might as well ask why all people tend to loose consciousness if hit on the head hard enough.

Kafei wrote:
Why the sense of overwhelming love and so on?

Asked and answered. But again it's not all people, now is it? It's some people. Similar brains explains it without invoking extra unobservable dimensions.

Kafei wrote:.
It's these very peculiar characteristics that can manifest in a mystical experience. I assure you, alcohol will not give you this impression of interconnectedness of all people and things unless you somehow manage to induce a near-death experience.

I think TinyTypingDragon has already addressed what you call "mystical experiences" as being what fits into your definition of a "mystical experience" so that there is an unnatural forcing to fit concerning your "mystical experiences". And then quite naturally all of your "mystical experiences" become quite similar.

Some people have tried to explain the 'Eastern Mystical' impression of Jesus' teaching by his travelling to the Far East (between childhood and 30) and picking it up from there. Similar brain functions can produce similar results albeit influenced by local language and culture.
These conspiracy theorists ignore the fact that with similar brain functions Jesus (and others in different places and different times) were bright enough and clever enough to work it out for themselves - didn't need any 'Eastern' influence.
Remove the local language and culture (and any mumbo-jumbo) and these 'mystical experiences' will turn out to be more or less the same (given the slight differences in brain structure that occur in all of us).

Regarding people describing 'feelings of interconnectedness', surely some of that is a result of people already knowing that that's how others describe their experiences, in the same way that religious people attribute experiences to the divine which other people wouldn't, and also frame them at the time that way

If one thinks of the feelings of 'loving everything' many people feel with particular pharmaceuticals, one person could interpret that as someone actually having affection for everything (in the sense that thinking about anything induces feelings of love), while someone else could interpret it as someone feeling an ongoing nonspecific euphoria which persists whatever they may happen to be thinking of.
There's quite a difference between the two, and neither actually relate to how things are, or how the person actually feels when not under the influence.
Someone already exposed to the first interpretation may well be predisposed to have aspects of the experiences at the time they have them as going along with their expectations.

Oldskeptic wrote:

Kafei wrote:
So, you have two routes to achieve the same goal here. However, what happens in a "mystical experience" is quite different from what happens from any other type of experience with an intoxicant unrelated to entheogens. I agree it may be that we all have similar brains, and so we have this similar effect, but why is it that all people feel this sense of interconnectedness?

Firstly all people don't "feel this sense of interconnectedness", some do. Second, you admit that similar experiences can be caused by similar brains and then ask why people feel a similar "interconnectedness". You answered your own question before you even asked it.

Well, what I mean is that attribute is altogether different from "getting drunk," despite the fact that we have similar brains. In other words, why does the brain prompt this powerful intuition that all things and all people are ultimately interconnected? This is one of the core features of the experience.

Oldskeptic wrote:

Kafei wrote:
Why is it that religious imagery in the form of fractals, mandalas, etc. appear in these visions?

Asked and answered: Similar brains, nothing mysterious about it. You might as well ask why all people tend to loose consciousness if hit on the head hard enough.

Well, I had a deeper point. That if you consider these phenomena, then suddenly it becomes obvious that religions were built upon these type of experiences. That's why we have mandalic art, the lotus flower, third eye, the Beatific vision, etc., etc. It's because all major religion ultimately stems from this particular altered state of consciousness. This is what Platonism in the times of Greek was about that ultimately culminated in Neoplatonism, and this evolved into the Traditionalist school of thought which now seems to be expressed most recently through Perennial philosophy. Sure, we could say there's "nothing mysterious about it," but this particular altered state hasn't been properly studied, and in fact, it's being repressed through the illegality of the shamanic substances used to induce this "mystical experience." So, it is mysterious from a scientific standpoint, and we're just barely beginning to scientifically re-discover this amazing potential that seems to be within each one of us.

Oldskeptic wrote:

Kafei wrote:
Why the sense of overwhelming love and so on?

Asked and answered. But again it's not all people, now is it? It's some people. Similar brains explains it without invoking extra unobservable dimensions.

It was most people, not all, but I believe if they simply used a bigger dose in the study it would ultimately be all people. They were only using a dose that was a threshold of this phenomenon, so it's quite understandable that not all people would experience it. There's so many factors that come into play here such as ADME, a person's sensitivity or lack of it to the substance, whether they were instructed to fast prior to the experience, etc. They're actually using bigger doses this time around, perhaps this will yield a higher hit-rate for mystical experience. I suppose we'll see. I believe they should just jump straight to the Kinlindi Iyi-recommended dose, and ensure this experience for all volunteers.

Oldskeptic wrote:

Kafei wrote:.
It's these very peculiar characteristics that can manifest in a mystical experience. I assure you, alcohol will not give you this impression of interconnectedness of all people and things unless you somehow manage to induce a near-death experience.

I think TinyTypingDragon has already addressed what you call "mystical experiences" as being what fits into your definition of a "mystical experience" so that there is an unnatural forcing to fit concerning your "mystical experiences". And then quite naturally all of your "mystical experiences" become quite similar.

Well, there's one problem. I don't have a definition of "mystical experience," I'm going off how the peer-reviewed study published in the Journal of Psychopharmacology is defining "mystical experience." It has absolutely nothing to do with the "unnatural." In fact, I'd go as far as saying we shouldn't even be calling it a "mystical experience," because much confusion ensues (just look at this entire thread), and we should instead call it a "natural experience" or something of the like to indicate this experience is completely natural and has nothing to do with the supernatural, the unnatural, the metaphysical, etc.

Kafei wrote:

Oldskeptic wrote:

Kafei wrote:
So, you have two routes to achieve the same goal here. However, what happens in a "mystical experience" is quite different from what happens from any other type of experience with an intoxicant unrelated to entheogens. I agree it may be that we all have similar brains, and so we have this similar effect, but why is it that all people feel this sense of interconnectedness?

Firstly all people don't "feel this sense of interconnectedness", some do. Second, you admit that similar experiences can be caused by similar brains and then ask why people feel a similar "interconnectedness". You answered your own question before you even asked it.

Well, what I mean is that attribute is altogether different from "getting drunk," despite the fact that we have similar brains. In other words, why does the brain prompt this powerful intuition that all things and all people are ultimately interconnected? This is one of the core features of the experience.

Oldskeptic wrote:

Kafei wrote:
Why is it that religious imagery in the form of fractals, mandalas, etc. appear in these visions?

Asked and answered: Similar brains, nothing mysterious about it. You might as well ask why all people tend to loose consciousness if hit on the head hard enough.

Well, I had a deeper point. That if you consider these phenomena, then suddenly it becomes obvious that religions were built upon these type of experiences. That's why we have mandalic art, the lotus flower, third eye, the Beatific vision, etc., etc. It's because all major religion ultimately stems from this particular altered state of consciousness. This is what Platonism in the times of Greek was about that ultimately culminated in Neoplatonism, and this evolved into the Traditionalist school of thought which now seems to be expressed most recently through Perennial philosophy. Sure, we could say there's "nothing mysterious about it," but this particular altered state hasn't been properly studied, and in fact, it's being repressed through the illegality of the shamanic substances used to induce this "mystical experience." So, it is mysterious from a scientific standpoint, and we're just barely beginning to scientifically re-discover this amazing potential that seems to be within each one of us.

Oldskeptic wrote:

Kafei wrote:
Why the sense of overwhelming love and so on?

Asked and answered. But again it's not all people, now is it? It's some people. Similar brains explains it without invoking extra unobservable dimensions.

It was most people, not all, but I believe if they simply used a bigger dose in the study it would ultimately be all people. They were only using a dose that was a threshold of this phenomenon, so it's quite understandable that not all people would experience it. There's so many factors that come into play here such as ADME, a person's sensitivity or lack of it to the substance, whether they were instructed to fast prior to the experience, etc. They're actually using bigger doses this time around, perhaps this will yield a higher hit-rate for mystical experience. I suppose we'll see. I believe they should just jump straight to the Kinlindi Iyi-recommended dose, and ensure this experience for all volunteers.

Oldskeptic wrote:

Kafei wrote:.
It's these very peculiar characteristics that can manifest in a mystical experience. I assure you, alcohol will not give you this impression of interconnectedness of all people and things unless you somehow manage to induce a near-death experience.

I think TinyTypingDragon has already addressed what you call "mystical experiences" as being what fits into your definition of a "mystical experience" so that there is an unnatural forcing to fit concerning your "mystical experiences". And then quite naturally all of your "mystical experiences" become quite similar.

Well, there's one problem. I don't have a definition of "mystical experience," I'm going off how the peer-reviewed study published in the Journal of Psychopharmacology is defining "mystical experience." It has absolutely nothing to do with the "unnatural." In fact, I'd go as far as saying we shouldn't even be calling it a "mystical experience," because much confusion ensues (just look at this entire thread), and we should instead call it a "natural experience" or something of the like to indicate this experience is completely natural and has nothing to do with the supernatural, the unnatural, the metaphysical, etc.

All you're doing is repeating yourself and adding more special pleading.

Oldskeptic wrote:

Kafei wrote:
Well, the study has shown that the mystical experience induced by psilocybin and the mystical experience in the meditative experience are identical.

Q 2: Do you have any sign that the same brain "machinery" affected by psilocybin is identical to what people experience in spiritual epiphanies that occur without drugs?

Griffiths: That work hasn’t been done yet, though there is good reason to believe that similar mechanisms are at work during profound religious experiences, however they might be occasioned (for example, by fasting, meditation, controlled breathing, sleep deprivation, near death experiences, infectious disease states, or psychoactive substances such as psilocybin). The neurology of religious experience, newly termed neurotheology, is drawing interest as a new frontier of study.

Kafei wrote:
So, you have two routes to achieve the same goal here. However, what happens in a "mystical experience" is quite different from what happens from any other type of experience with an intoxicant unrelated to entheogens. I agree it may be that we all have similar brains, and so we have this similar effect, but why is it that all people feel this sense of interconnectedness?

Firstly all people don't "feel this sense of interconnectedness", some do. Second, you admit that similar experiences can be caused by similar brains and then ask why people feel a similar "interconnectedness". You answered your own question before you even asked it.

Kafei wrote:
Why is it that religious imagery in the form of fractals, mandalas, etc. appear in these visions?

Asked and answered: Similar brains, nothing mysterious about it. You might as well ask why all people tend to loose consciousness if hit on the head hard enough.

Not just similar brains, but similar theological upbringing and sharing of stories about experiences.
IE expectations made manifest.

Oldskeptic wrote:

Kafei wrote:

Oldskeptic wrote:

Kafei wrote:
So, you have two routes to achieve the same goal here. However, what happens in a "mystical experience" is quite different from what happens from any other type of experience with an intoxicant unrelated to entheogens. I agree it may be that we all have similar brains, and so we have this similar effect, but why is it that all people feel this sense of interconnectedness?

Firstly all people don't "feel this sense of interconnectedness", some do. Second, you admit that similar experiences can be caused by similar brains and then ask why people feel a similar "interconnectedness". You answered your own question before you even asked it.

Well, what I mean is that attribute is altogether different from "getting drunk," despite the fact that we have similar brains. In other words, why does the brain prompt this powerful intuition that all things and all people are ultimately interconnected? This is one of the core features of the experience.

Oldskeptic wrote:

Kafei wrote:
Why is it that religious imagery in the form of fractals, mandalas, etc. appear in these visions?

Asked and answered: Similar brains, nothing mysterious about it. You might as well ask why all people tend to loose consciousness if hit on the head hard enough.

Well, I had a deeper point. That if you consider these phenomena, then suddenly it becomes obvious that religions were built upon these type of experiences. That's why we have mandalic art, the lotus flower, third eye, the Beatific vision, etc., etc. It's because all major religion ultimately stems from this particular altered state of consciousness. This is what Platonism in the times of Greek was about that ultimately culminated in Neoplatonism, and this evolved into the Traditionalist school of thought which now seems to be expressed most recently through Perennial philosophy. Sure, we could say there's "nothing mysterious about it," but this particular altered state hasn't been properly studied, and in fact, it's being repressed through the illegality of the shamanic substances used to induce this "mystical experience." So, it is mysterious from a scientific standpoint, and we're just barely beginning to scientifically re-discover this amazing potential that seems to be within each one of us.

Oldskeptic wrote:

Kafei wrote:
Why the sense of overwhelming love and so on?

Asked and answered. But again it's not all people, now is it? It's some people. Similar brains explains it without invoking extra unobservable dimensions.

It was most people, not all, but I believe if they simply used a bigger dose in the study it would ultimately be all people. They were only using a dose that was a threshold of this phenomenon, so it's quite understandable that not all people would experience it. There's so many factors that come into play here such as ADME, a person's sensitivity or lack of it to the substance, whether they were instructed to fast prior to the experience, etc. They're actually using bigger doses this time around, perhaps this will yield a higher hit-rate for mystical experience. I suppose we'll see. I believe they should just jump straight to the Kinlindi Iyi-recommended dose, and ensure this experience for all volunteers.

Oldskeptic wrote:

Kafei wrote:.
It's these very peculiar characteristics that can manifest in a mystical experience. I assure you, alcohol will not give you this impression of interconnectedness of all people and things unless you somehow manage to induce a near-death experience.

I think TinyTypingDragon has already addressed what you call "mystical experiences" as being what fits into your definition of a "mystical experience" so that there is an unnatural forcing to fit concerning your "mystical experiences". And then quite naturally all of your "mystical experiences" become quite similar.

Well, there's one problem. I don't have a definition of "mystical experience," I'm going off how the peer-reviewed study published in the Journal of Psychopharmacology is defining "mystical experience." It has absolutely nothing to do with the "unnatural." In fact, I'd go as far as saying we shouldn't even be calling it a "mystical experience," because much confusion ensues (just look at this entire thread), and we should instead call it a "natural experience" or something of the like to indicate this experience is completely natural and has nothing to do with the supernatural, the unnatural, the metaphysical, etc.

All you're doing is repeating yourself and adding more special pleading.

I am in no way special pleading. What I'm essentially talking about is what the Greeks called Theoria. It is now understood as a very particular altered state which neuroscientists today are referring to "mystical experience." I mentioned that an atheist who vaped DMT came down and described it by saying, "It felt as though I was somehow able to glimpse a higher dimension." This is not to say that the atheist literally believed that he was witness to a higher dimension, but that the experience itself gave this impression.

Now, to attempt describe it without the bias of religious influence or the contorted metaphors of an atheist which are just as profound as saying, "I witnessed God at the height of the experience." I believe these are simply two ways of describing the same phenomenon. I believe it's an area definitely worth exploring and is being explored and scientifically investigated as we speak. What happens generally is a kind of panesthesia, the brain being the generator of experience is now generating every possible experience, and some people interpret that through their religious upbringing, some people may reach for other metaphors and explanations as in the atheist saying "it felt as though I was glimpsing a higher dimenion." You see, people always tend towards metaphors and explanations. Rick Strassman noted that the volunteers in his DMT study that identified as atheist always tend towards descriptions such as "beyond dimensionality" or "fourth-dimensional."

People are obviously attempting to draw upon the most profound concepts they can think of in order to relate to such an experience, and if you're religious, that's going to be God, if you're atheist, you might say "It felt like hyperspace." I believe that's what's going on. That's what Perennial philosophy is talking about, that is what the Greek philosophers were obsessed with, the Neoplatonists, etc. Plotinus referred to it as "The One" which is basically this metaphor we've been talking about, the so-called "Ground of All Being." It manifest itself as a transcendent absolute of some sort which will be filtered through the lens of a particular individual whether religious or not.

All of religion from Greek philosophy, angient Egyptian religion to Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, etc. is riddled with all sorts of techniques to induce such states of ecstasy. Quietism as practiced by the Christian mystics c. 100 A.D. wherein which they even referred to this state as "Christ consciousness." The theosis and Cardiognosis of Eastern Orthodoxy which probably derived from the Hesychasm as practiced by the Greeks. The Way of the Pilgrim is an example of inducing this state through a contemplative discipline very akin to how a mantra is used in eastern philosophy. All these examples of asceticism and contemplation are various ways to induce mystical experience.

However, what must be made clear is what Perennial philosophy is proposing is not simply "mystical experience exist, therefore God exist." I believe that's missing the point. I believe all these metaphors such as Allah, God, Brahman, Beatific vision, nirvana, etc. were all various ways in pre-scientific cultures to describe the mystical experience. Now, we're coming to the understanding that all these religious descriptions are simply various interpretations of cultures throughout the world to describe this inner universal experience. The issue is that it simply doesn't happen all the time. It's a rare happening, and most people haven't had such an experience. The truth is we've lost touch with it, and we're just now beginning to rediscover it and explore it from a scientific standpoint. It was never truly lost, just mostly forgotten.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Kafei wrote:
Why is it that religious imagery in the form of fractals, mandalas, etc. appear in these visions?

Not just similar brains, but similar theological upbringing and sharing of stories about experiences.
IE expectations made manifest.

I don't think everyone who has a mystical experience necessarily adheres to a religion. They may find their way to Perennial philosophy, consider Alex Grey who was an atheist prior to this mystical experience. I don't think it's necessarily the expectations that are "made manifest" either. It's rather that expectations influence how one interprets what is essentially a universal experience.

I'm a pretty hard-nosed physicalist in day to day reality, like I find it very difficult to believe in divine intervention or ghosts or anything so fantastic, but when it comes to big abstractions like cosmic origins or a ground of all being I'm deeply agnostic. The truth is none of the theories or beliefs are coherent or intelligible and none of them are any less bizarre than the others. Hard atheists go with either brute fact or some weird kind of platonism, or a combination of the two, and I can't see how that's any less outlandish than 'bog did it'.

I just take hard atheists as another faction of fruitcakes. Fruitcakes are fruitcakes regardless of what they strenuously believe.

Wilbur wrote:I'm a pretty hard-nosed physicalist in day to day reality, like I find it very difficult to believe in divine intervention or ghosts or anything so fantastic, but when it comes to big abstractions like cosmic origins or a ground of all being I'm deeply agnostic. The truth is none of the theories or beliefs are coherent or intelligible and none of them are any less bizarre than the others. Hard atheists go with either brute fact or some weird kind of platonism, or a combination of the two, and I can't see how that's any less outlandish than 'bog did it'.

I just take hard atheists as another faction of fruitcakes. Fruitcakes are fruitcakes regardless of what they strenuously believe.

What do "hard atheists" have to do with anything other than being willing to say that a god doesn't exist or no gods exit rather than it's highly likely that a god exists or any gods exit?

Maybe the hard atheist says, after coming down, "fuck, I was STONED, dude".

That's how I saw it, anyway, with every pharmacological substance I could get my greedy little mitts on. Fuck, I saw the Loch Ness monster swimming across the ceiling, clear as day. However, once I crashed I realized Nessie wasn't really swimming across my bedroom, it wasn't real, any more than that sense of interconnectedness and universal brotherhood was. I was just stoned out of my gourd.

Should have been listening to ZZ Top, I'd rather have seen a naked cowgirl, though I admit Nessie was pretty cool.

I never understood this 'hard atheist' stuff. I think this is just the theists extending their labelling of the 'Evil Ones'. Nothing at all to do with atheism per se.

laklak wrote:Maybe the hard atheist says, after coming down, "fuck, I was STONED, dude".

That's how I saw it, anyway, with every pharmacological substance I could get my greedy little mitts on. Fuck, I saw the Loch Ness monster swimming across the ceiling, clear as day. However, once I crashed I realized Nessie wasn't really swimming across my bedroom, it wasn't real, any more than that sense of interconnectedness and universal brotherhood was. I was just stoned out of my gourd.

Should have been listening to ZZ Top, I'd rather have seen a naked cowgirl, though I admit Nessie was pretty cool.

you're my favorite guy on this board

Oldskeptic wrote:
willing to say that a god doesn't exist

there's no way of knowing that so anyone saying it is a dipshit. Any sort of metaphysical commitment is preposterous.

who knows/ who cares

Wilbur wrote:

Oldskeptic wrote:
willing to say that a god doesn't exist

there's no way of knowing that so anyone saying it is a dipshit. Any sort of metaphysical commitment is preposterous.

who knows/ who cares

What's with you and hardly being able to post without calling people names or generalizing whole categories of people with insulting epithets?

All so called "hard atheists" are no more fruitcakes and dipshits than are all of anyone else.

I'm not a 'hard atheist', but yeah, the dipshit thing is not the smartest comment I've seen. If some people feel safe, given the screaming lack of evidence for any god anywhere, to be willing to say that a god doesn't exist, I don't see how this makes them a dipshit. Surely it just makes them more willing to reach a conclusion about said screaming lack of evidence than some other people. I don't say it because I don't feel the need to, and it's the stating of an absolute which we cannot show to be true, but dipshit? Well, you know, this isn't the weirdest post from Wilbur I've seen over the past few days. I hope everything's all right there.