"I am you" nonsense

Anything that doesn't fit anywhere else below.

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: "I am you" nonsense

#581  Postby Kafei » Dec 06, 2018 10:15 am

GrahamH wrote:
Kafei wrote:That analogy was irrelevant to what has been established by this research or what the Perennial philosophy entails.


This research establishes nothing about perenial philosophy.
It establishes that people inclined to such views interpret unusual but actually mystical experiences in that light. The basis of the experiences is not shown to be any more significant than a dead arm or any perceptual illusion.


Ah, okay, I see where your confusion is… and correct me if I'm wrong, but if I'm not, I cleared this up with Matt Dillahunty on my last encounter with him on The Atheist Experience. What you're assuming here is that it's the volunteers that interpret their experience as "mystical experience" when that's not the case at all. In fact, if you look at the transcripts of these reports, none of the volunteers even use the word "mystical" to describe their experience. Rather, this is a term used by the researchers to gauge whether a volunteer registers on measures used in this research for a "complete" mystical experience. These are measures which have been refined over a period of decades and go all the way back to the work of William James.


GrahamH wrote:Your continued evasion of the likely mundane biological basis of these experiences just shows how narrow minded you are about your pet subject.


You think Perennial philosophy is my pet subject? You think I coined the term Perennial philosophy or something? This is nothing new. Science, in my humble opinion, is only re-discovering what has always been known by these mystics who've encountered these mystical states of consciousness.

GrahamH wrote:You should be honest about whether you want to follow the science or the woo because you keep mixing them up, as do your 'researchers', and it's clear that it's the woo that appeals to you, and them. You are here to preach and that's not allowed.


What woo? Please, be specific. Don't just accuse someone of woo, please specify what precisely do you mean by "woo." Because I maintain nothing I've expressed here has anything to do at all with woo. So, if you can't bother to do that, then please, stop attempting to woo me with your woo.
User avatar
Kafei
 
Posts: 555

Country: United States
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: "I am you" nonsense

#582  Postby newolder » Dec 06, 2018 10:26 am

Kafei wrote:...
And more and more anecdotes that support what the research has established will continue to pile.
...

And you demonstrate here, again, that you are "not getting it" and you are going to refuse to "get it" no matter what an interlocutor replies.

The number of anecdotes that amounts from your researches will provide evidence that humans supply anecdotes in units of "pile", if one so defines. It will not supply evidence that anything described in the anecdotes is a separate entity beyond the pile.
Geometric forgetting gives me loops. - Nima A-H
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 5396
Age: 7
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: "I am you" nonsense

#583  Postby Cito di Pense » Dec 06, 2018 10:27 am

Kafei wrote:What you're assuming here is that it's the volunteers that interpret their experience as "mystical experience" when that's not the case at all.


No, it's the so-called 'researchers' interpreting the anecdotes of their subjects, and connecting that with brain activity induced by ingesting large amounts of semi-poisonous mushrooms. Get that straight and the dicussion can proceed intelligently.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Ivar Poäng
Posts: 26999
Age: 22
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: "I am you" nonsense

#584  Postby GrahamH » Dec 06, 2018 10:29 am

Kafei wrote:
GrahamH wrote:
Kafei wrote:That analogy was irrelevant to what has been established by this research or what the Perennial philosophy entails.


This research establishes nothing about perenial philosophy.
It establishes that people inclined to such views interpret unusual but actually mystical experiences in that light. The basis of the experiences is not shown to be any more significant than a dead arm or any perceptual illusion.


Ah, okay, I see where your confusion is... I cleared this up with Matt Dillahunty on my last encounter with him on The Atheist Experience. What you're assuming here is that it's the volunteers that interpret their experience as "mystical experience" when that's not the case at all. In fat, if you look at the transcripts of these reports, none of the volunteers even use the word "mystical" to describe their experience. Rather, this is a term used by the researchers to gauge whether a volunteer registers on measures used in this research for a "complete" mystical experience.


What a joke! :nono: Subjects are asked to interpret their experiences. The questionaires collect anecdotes.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5203697/

"Feeling that you experienced something profoundly sacred and holy"

And this one is a gem: "Certainty of encounter with ultimate reality"

The subject can't actually measure sacredness or holiness or reality so this can be called a delusion.

Some of it does relate to perceptual errors, such as:
"Loss of sense of your usual sense of time" and "loss of usual awareness of where you were"
And the researches seem to lump that into "transcends space and time", but they should probably label it "confused perception" because it provides no measure of place or time at all.
Last edited by GrahamH on Dec 06, 2018 3:01 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 18736

Print view this post

Re: "I am you" nonsense

#585  Postby Cito di Pense » Dec 06, 2018 10:34 am

Kafei wrote:Science, in my humble opinion, is only re-discovering what has always been known by these mystics who've encountered these mystical states of consciousness.


Well, your opinion, which is not humble at all, and is not worth anything much by virtue of its humility or arrogance, can just go fuck itself, particularly the bits that purport to know anything about the conduct of scientific investigations.

Kafei wrote:These are measures which have been refined over a period of decades and go all the way back to the work of William James.


You call it 'refinement'; I call it "stirring the bullshit with a darning needle".
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Ivar Poäng
Posts: 26999
Age: 22
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: "I am you" nonsense

#586  Postby Alan B » Dec 06, 2018 2:46 pm

Kafei wrote:Science, in my humble opinion, is only re-discovering what has always been known by these mystics who've encountered these mystical states of consciousness.

Rubbish.
Any hallucinogen will produce different effects for each person depending on how the pathways in the brain are connected. The pathways are determined by life experiences and memories.
Some groups of hallucinogenic drugs will produce different 'sets' of effects from other hallucinogenic drug groups.
In the case of the, er, 'Magic Mushroom' derived hallucinogen, the 'set' of effects has been described as 'mystic' even though each subjective description uttered has been shown to be totally different from one person to another.

'Science' has nothing to do with it except to possibly show (fMRI?) the actual pathways and areas of the brain that may be involved. Which has nothing to do with Gawd or any other 'mystic' thingy.
I have NO BELIEF in the existence of a God or gods. I do not have to offer evidence nor do I have to determine absence of evidence because I do not ASSERT that a God does or does not or gods do or do not exist.
User avatar
Alan B
 
Posts: 9042
Age: 82
Male

Country: UK (Birmingham)
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: "I am you" nonsense

#587  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Dec 06, 2018 5:12 pm

Once again Kafei quotes me to then not only fail to address the points being made but to dodge said points by projecting his own ignorance and incompetence on me and other participants in this thread, writing entire paragraphs about irrelevant stuff (no Kafei age doesn't prove validity) and just reassert any number of bullshit claims that have already been refuted.

This is not new for Kafei as he has behaved the exact same way, if not worse, on a number of other science, atheist and rationalist fora. He's nothing more than a stuck record unwilling to critically examine his own beliefs or address the criticisms his interlocutors offer.
This is because Kafei is either unable or unwilling to consider that he might be wrong and not the dozens of people who disagree with his assertions.
He's got nothing to offer but ideological zealotry and bigotry.

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/116078-biases-and-content-control/
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/perennial-philosophy-atheism-theism-are-dead
https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/116056-hijack-from-god-and-science/
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 29182
Age: 29
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Ads by Google



Re: "I am you" nonsense

#589  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Dec 07, 2018 12:30 pm

Kafei wrote:
Dude, stop being a complete A-hole. Did you just now Google the etymology for deity or did you recite the source you cited from memory? Be honest. If you just Googled it, then I recommend you dig a little deeper into its etymology before you accuse people of making shit up.

Your source does not contradict mine.
Your source points out you are conflating the etymology of the gerrmanic word god with the etymology of the grecco-roman word deity, which has a different origin.
Ergo I was completely justified in pointing out that your original claim about deity was false.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 29182
Age: 29
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: "I am you" nonsense

#590  Postby Kafei » Dec 08, 2018 3:33 pm

newolder wrote:
Kafei wrote:...
And more and more anecdotes that support what the research has established will continue to pile.
...

And you demonstrate here, again, that you are "not getting it" and you are going to refuse to "get it" no matter what an interlocutor replies.

The number of anecdotes that amounts from your researches will provide evidence that humans supply anecdotes in units of "pile", if one so defines. It will not supply evidence that anything described in the anecdotes is a separate entity beyond the pile.


No one is arguing that the volunteers' descriptions of these experiences imply a "separate entity beyond the pile." I'm not sure why you think this is a criticism at all. Perhaps you can elaborate.

Cito di Pense wrote:
Kafei wrote:What you're assuming here is that it's the volunteers that interpret their experience as "mystical experience" when that's not the case at all.


No, it's the so-called 'researchers' interpreting the anecdotes of their subjects, and connecting that with brain activity induced by ingesting large amounts of semi-poisonous mushrooms. Get that straight and the dicussion can proceed intelligently.


If by interpretation, you mean gauging, then sure. And none of the laboratory volunteers are ingesting poisonous mushrooms of any kind. Perhaps if we can get that straight, we can proceed with a more intelligent discussion.

GrahamH wrote:
Kafei wrote:
GrahamH wrote:
Kafei wrote:That analogy was irrelevant to what has been established by this research or what the Perennial philosophy entails.


This research establishes nothing about perenial philosophy.
It establishes that people inclined to such views interpret unusual but actually mystical experiences in that light. The basis of the experiences is not shown to be any more significant than a dead arm or any perceptual illusion.


Ah, okay, I see where your confusion is... I cleared this up with Matt Dillahunty on my last encounter with him on The Atheist Experience. What you're assuming here is that it's the volunteers that interpret their experience as "mystical experience" when that's not the case at all. In fat, if you look at the transcripts of these reports, none of the volunteers even use the word "mystical" to describe their experience. Rather, this is a term used by the researchers to gauge whether a volunteer registers on measures used in this research for a "complete" mystical experience.


What a joke! :nono: Subjects are asked to interpret their experiences. The questionaires collect anecdotes.


This is a bit more accurate than how Cito characterized it. Correct, the subjects are asked to interpret their experiences, and the researchers have various measures they use which have been refined and studied over decades to assess the volunteers' output. Also, I emphasized that in no volunteers' description will you hear them use the word "mystical" or even "mystical experience," for that matter, in describing these experiences. That was my point.

GrahamH wrote:
"Feeling that you experienced something profoundly sacred and holy"


This is one of the primary six characteristics that is reported even among the atheists who register for the CME.

GrahamH wrote:
And this one is a gem: "Certainty of encounter with ultimate reality"


Well, yes, the data given is attempting to characterize what's encountered, and so they're given various options between an emissary of God, or God, or "ultimate reality." To quote Griffiths: "We are writing up some interesting survey data about God encounter experiences that people report either after taking a psychedelic drug or in absence of any history of psychedelic exposure. Those that take the psychedelic are most likely to use “ultimate reality” as the best descriptor of what they encountered. Those who did not take a psychedelic are most likely to use “God” as the descriptor. Despite that difference, the attributes of that which was encountered and the claimed enduring effects are very similar between the two groups."

GrahamH wrote:The subject can't actually measure sacredness or holiness or reality so this can be called a delusion.


I don't think that's what they're measuring. They're measuring how people react towards this experience, and they react by reporting that they have a sense of humility before a majesty of something that is intuit to be sacred. That is universally reported in the CME.

GrahamH wrote:Some of it does relate to perceptual errors, such as:
"Loss of sense of your usual sense of time" and "loss of usual awareness of where you were"
And the researches seem to lump that into "transcends space and time", but they should probably label it "confused perception" because it provides no measure of place or time at all.


You obviously have never had this experience. It's not an experience of confusion, people quite literally are describing the experiential phenomenality that accompanies this experience. In other words, the sense of having transcended space and time or timelessness is not a perceptual error, it's the overwhelming very literal impression within the vantage point of this experience. It's such that if you were to have it, you wouldn't come down saying, "I had a perceptual error." You'd come down saying, "It felt as though I somehow transcended time and space, and was experiencing my consciousness from that perspective." That's more accurately what people are articulating.

Cito di Pense wrote:
Kafei wrote:Science, in my humble opinion, is only re-discovering what has always been known by these mystics who've encountered these mystical states of consciousness.


Well, your opinion, which is not humble at all, and is not worth anything much by virtue of its humility or arrogance, can just go fuck itself, particularly the bits that purport to know anything about the conduct of scientific investigations.


I've not mischaracterized this research at all. The main issue I perceive here is that the people participating in this thread not only have no experience whatsoever with what these researchers call a "complete" mystical experience, and so they either underestimate it, doubt it, or make assumptions about it based on their ignorance, and by ignorance I mean not having the experience for themselves.

Cito di Pense wrote:
Kafei wrote:These are measures which have been refined over a period of decades and go all the way back to the work of William James.


You call it 'refinement'; I call it "stirring the bullshit with a darning needle".


You can say what you want about it, but what you don't seem to realize is that there's a literature developed on this, that's been developed over decades that indicates this extraordinarily clearly.

Alan B wrote:
Kafei wrote:Science, in my humble opinion, is only re-discovering what has always been known by these mystics who've encountered these mystical states of consciousness.

Rubbish.
Any hallucinogen will produce different effects for each person depending on how the pathways in the brain are connected. The pathways are determined by life experiences and memories.
Some groups of hallucinogenic drugs will produce different 'sets' of effects from other hallucinogenic drug groups.
In the case of the, er, 'Magic Mushroom' derived hallucinogen, the 'set' of effects has been described as 'mystic' even though each subjective description uttered has been shown to be totally different from one person to another.

'Science' has nothing to do with it except to possibly show (fMRI?) the actual pathways and areas of the brain that may be involved. Which has nothing to do with Gawd or any other 'mystic' thingy.


These volunteers are explaining universal phenomena within these experiences. The CME has nothing to do with the personal subconscious or particular memories of an individual. Rather the content of the CME is outside the personal history of the individual, and what is experienced is a phenomenon that is universally described, and the volunteers who describe all six characteristics are said to have registered for the "complete" mystical experiences. That's what the "mystic thingy" is all about, that's how it's defined, and how it relates to God is that they're defining these experiences within the context of the Perennial philosophy. Do you really dislike God so much that you have to spell it out as "Gawd"? I mean, this already reveals a bias on your behalf. This is perhaps why you don't seem to grasp what this research is about.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Once again Kafei quotes me to then not only fail to address the points being made but to dodge said points by projecting his own ignorance and incompetence on me and other participants in this thread, writing entire paragraphs about irrelevant stuff (no Kafei age doesn't prove validity) and just reassert any number of bullshit claims that have already been refuted.

This is not new for Kafei as he has behaved the exact same way, if not worse, on a number of other science, atheist and rationalist fora. He's nothing more than a stuck record unwilling to critically examine his own beliefs or address the criticisms his interlocutors offer.
This is because Kafei is either unable or unwilling to consider that he might be wrong and not the dozens of people who disagree with his assertions.
He's got nothing to offer but ideological zealotry and bigotry.

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/116078-biases-and-content-control/
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/perennial-philosophy-atheism-theism-are-dead
https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/116056-hijack-from-god-and-science/


I wouldn't say I'm a "stuck record." I feel this research important and holds vast implications for how we view religion in general. I really don't see people disagreeing more so as misconstruing what this is all about. I've participated in many other forums such as ThinkAtheist, Atheist-Nexus, Google+ threads, The Atheist Experience blog, YouTube communities, etc.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Kafei wrote:
Dude, stop being a complete A-hole. Did you just now Google the etymology for deity or did you recite the source you cited from memory? Be honest. If you just Googled it, then I recommend you dig a little deeper into its etymology before you accuse people of making shit up.

Your source does not contradict mine.
Your source points out you are conflating the etymology of the gerrmanic word god with the etymology of the grecco-roman word deity, which has a different origin.
Ergo I was completely justified in pointing out that your original claim about deity was false.


Augustine Hippo coined the term deity from these earlier terms which are part of its etymology. However, despite all this, my point still remains, and that is the term "deity" never originally meant how people interpret it today as some kind of supernatural entity that is out there in the universe somewhere or outside of it that watches over it and can intervene, etc. That's the point. Even Augustine used it in the sense of "divine nature." This is how all the patristic theologians used this term. Symeon the New Theologian also emphasized in his lifetime that humans could and should have a direct experience of God.
User avatar
Kafei
 
Posts: 555

Country: United States
Print view this post

Re: "I am you" nonsense

#591  Postby newolder » Dec 08, 2018 3:48 pm

Kafei wrote:...

No one is arguing that the volunteers' descriptions of these experiences imply a "separate entity beyond the pile." I'm not sure why you think this is a criticism at all. Perhaps you can elaborate.

The argument put forth in this topic is that drug P consumption provides evidence for the Perennial Philosophy (PP). Since PP claims that there is a common, single metaphysical truth - the separate entity beyond the pile of stories - and no such truth is demonstrated by those who consume drug P in any dose then this elaboration shows that someone has argued for such an entity and it is not shown by drug P consumers.
Geometric forgetting gives me loops. - Nima A-H
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 5396
Age: 7
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: "I am you" nonsense

#592  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Dec 08, 2018 4:40 pm

newolder wrote:
Kafei wrote:...

No one is arguing that the volunteers' descriptions of these experiences imply a "separate entity beyond the pile." I'm not sure why you think this is a criticism at all. Perhaps you can elaborate.

The argument put forth in this topic is that drug P consumption provides evidence for the Perennial Philosophy (PP). Since PP claims that there is a common, single metaphysical truth - the separate entity beyond the pile of stories - and no such truth is demonstrated by those who consume drug P in any dose then this elaboration shows that someone has argued for such an entity and it is not shown by drug P consumers.

:this:
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 29182
Age: 29
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: "I am you" nonsense

#593  Postby Kafei » Dec 08, 2018 4:43 pm

newolder wrote:
Kafei wrote:...

No one is arguing that the volunteers' descriptions of these experiences imply a "separate entity beyond the pile." I'm not sure why you think this is a criticism at all. Perhaps you can elaborate.

The argument put forth in this topic is that drug P consumption provides evidence for the Perennial Philosophy (PP). Since PP claims that there is a common, single metaphysical truth - the separate entity beyond the pile of stories - and no such truth is demonstrated by those who consume drug P in any dose then this elaboration shows that someone has argued for such an entity and it is not shown by drug P consumers.


Well, this use of the word "entity" or even "separate entity beyond the pile of stories" is misleading. What the research has shown is that experiences triggered by psilocybin or virtually identical to those reported in the scriptures of all the world's major religions. This is why the researchers suggest that experiences triggered by "drug P consumption" provides evidence which strongly suggest the indication of a Perennial philosophy. That these experiences are precisely what prompted Plotinus to write on "The One," what prompted Hindus to write on the nature of Brahman, Theoria is what prompted the ancient Christian mystics to write on the nature of the Trinity, the Taoists to write on the nature of the Tao, or what has prompted modern day neuroscientists to write on the nature of the so-called "complete" mystical experience. All these terms are various ways of referencing one and the same thing.
User avatar
Kafei
 
Posts: 555

Country: United States
Print view this post

Re: "I am you" nonsense

#594  Postby GrahamH » Dec 08, 2018 4:47 pm

Kafei wrote:
GrahamH wrote:
And this one is a gem: "Certainty of encounter with ultimate reality"


Well, yes, the data given is attempting to characterize what's encountered


It's not "what's encountered", it's only a subjective seeming in the subject. That requires no thing to be encountered.

Kafei wrote:
GrahamH wrote:The subject can't actually measure sacredness or holiness or reality so this can be called a delusion.


I don't think that's what they're measuring. They're measuring how people react towards this experience, and they react by reporting that they have a sense of humility before a majesty of something that is intuit to be sacred. That is universally reported in the CME.

GrahamH wrote:Some of it does relate to perceptual errors, such as:
"Loss of sense of your usual sense of time" and "loss of usual awareness of where you were"
And the researches seem to lump that into "transcends space and time", but they should probably label it "confused perception" because it provides no measure of place or time at all.


You obviously have never had this experience. It's not an experience of confusion, people quite literally are describing the experiential phenomenality that accompanies this experience. In other words, the sense of having transcended space and time or timelessness is not a perceptual error, it's the overwhelming very literal impression within the vantage point of this experience. It's such that if you were to have it, you wouldn't come down saying, "I had a perceptual error." You'd come down saying, "It felt as though I somehow transcended time and space, and was experiencing my consciousness from that perspective." That's more accurately what people are articulating.


I just quoted from the questionnaire! "loss of usual awareness of where you were".

Note how well that fits my suggestion of what the basis of these experience could be.
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 18736

Print view this post

Re: "I am you" nonsense

#595  Postby newolder » Dec 08, 2018 4:51 pm

Kafei wrote:...

Well, this use of the word "entity" or even "separate entity beyond the pile of stories" is misleading.

When you can show something separate and beyond the pile of stories be sure to let me know.

What the research has shown is that experiences triggered by psilocybin or virtually identical to those reported in the scriptures of all the world's major religions.

reported as in stories, you mean. Yes, I know that's all you have. Be sure to let me know when you have something beyond a pile of stories, m-kay?

This is why the researchers suggest that experiences triggered by "drug P consumption" provides evidence which strongly suggest the indication of a Perennial philosophy. That these experiences are precisely what prompted Plotinus to write on "The One," what prompted Hindus to write on the nature of Brahman, Theoria is what prompted the ancient Christian mystics to write on the nature of the Trinity, the Taoists to write on the nature of the Tao, or what has prompted modern day neuroscientists to write on the nature of the so-called "complete" mystical experience. All these terms are various ways of referencing one and the same thing.

And this "thing" is nothing but a pile of stories. Be sure to let me know when you have something other. Bye for now.
Geometric forgetting gives me loops. - Nima A-H
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 5396
Age: 7
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: "I am you" nonsense

#596  Postby Cito di Pense » Dec 08, 2018 4:52 pm

Kafei wrote:What the research has shown is that experiences triggered by psilocybin or virtually identical to those reported in the scriptures of all the world's major religions.


You mean, reports of experiences triggered by psilocybin are similar to experiences reported in reports of religious experiences; these are not reports of observations of anything. They're anecdotes. These reports are given in retrospect of the experience itself, and reports are easily copied. People like telling those kinds of stories about their so-called 'religious experiences'. Maybe it makes them feel 'religious'. If that's how they feel, then that's how they feel. You have yet to account for the significance of people's reports of their experiences, because these reports are not observations cannot be used to show that the 'experiences' themselves have any similarities. This is because all that is being compared are the anecdotes told about their experiences. That's the difference between the experience and the anecdotes about it. As soon as you can keep that straight between any two of your posts, you can begin to participate in an intelligent discussion of whatever it is you seem to want to discuss.
Last edited by Cito di Pense on Dec 08, 2018 4:54 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Ivar Poäng
Posts: 26999
Age: 22
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: "I am you" nonsense

#597  Postby Kafei » Dec 08, 2018 4:52 pm

GrahamH wrote:
Kafei wrote:
GrahamH wrote:
And this one is a gem: "Certainty of encounter with ultimate reality"


Well, yes, the data given is attempting to characterize what's encountered


It's not "what's encountered", it's only a subjective seeming in the subject. That requires no thing to be encountered.


Yes, this is the universal subjective seeming in the subject, and it's universally reported. Whether an "ultimate reality" is something truly extant is irrelevant to this very point.

GrahamH wrote:
Kafei wrote:
GrahamH wrote:The subject can't actually measure sacredness or holiness or reality so this can be called a delusion.


I don't think that's what they're measuring. They're measuring how people react towards this experience, and they react by reporting that they have a sense of humility before a majesty of something that is intuit to be sacred. That is universally reported in the CME.

GrahamH wrote:Some of it does relate to perceptual errors, such as:
"Loss of sense of your usual sense of time" and "loss of usual awareness of where you were"
And the researches seem to lump that into "transcends space and time", but they should probably label it "confused perception" because it provides no measure of place or time at all.


You obviously have never had this experience. It's not an experience of confusion, people quite literally are describing the experiential phenomenality that accompanies this experience. In other words, the sense of having transcended space and time or timelessness is not a perceptual error, it's the overwhelming very literal impression within the vantage point of this experience. It's such that if you were to have it, you wouldn't come down saying, "I had a perceptual error." You'd come down saying, "It felt as though I somehow transcended time and space, and was experiencing my consciousness from that perspective." That's more accurately what people are articulating.


I just quoted from the questionnaire! "loss of usual awareness of where you were".

Note how well that fits my suggestion of what the basis of these experience could be.


Sure, there's a loss of awareness of where you are in the here and now, because consciousness is completely transformed within this experience. Your criticism is obviously arising from a vantage point of not having this experience, and so you've made assumptions about it.
User avatar
Kafei
 
Posts: 555

Country: United States
Print view this post

Re: "I am you" nonsense

#598  Postby Kafei » Dec 08, 2018 4:53 pm

newolder wrote:
Kafei wrote:...

Well, this use of the word "entity" or even "separate entity beyond the pile of stories" is misleading.

When you can show something separate and beyond the pile of stories be sure to let me know.


I believe that's what this research has done. It's simply that you haven't grasped this point.

newolder wrote:
What the research has shown is that experiences triggered by psilocybin or virtually identical to those reported in the scriptures of all the world's major religions.

reported as in stories, you mean. Yes, I know that's all you have. Be sure to let me know when you have something beyond a pile of stories, m-kay?

This is why the researchers suggest that experiences triggered by "drug P consumption" provides evidence which strongly suggest the indication of a Perennial philosophy. That these experiences are precisely what prompted Plotinus to write on "The One," what prompted Hindus to write on the nature of Brahman, Theoria is what prompted the ancient Christian mystics to write on the nature of the Trinity, the Taoists to write on the nature of the Tao, or what has prompted modern day neuroscientists to write on the nature of the so-called "complete" mystical experience. All these terms are various ways of referencing one and the same thing.

And this "thing" is nothing but a pile of stories. Be sure to let me know when you have something other. Bye for now.


Sure, I can explain it a bit more, if you'd like, because you obviously missed the entire point.
User avatar
Kafei
 
Posts: 555

Country: United States
Print view this post

Re: "I am you" nonsense

#599  Postby Kafei » Dec 08, 2018 4:56 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
Kafei wrote:What the research has shown is that experiences triggered by psilocybin or virtually identical to those reported in the scriptures of all the world's major religions.


You mean, reports of experiences triggered by psilocybin are similar to experiences reported in reports of religious experiences; these are not reports of observations of anything. They're anecdotes. These reports are given in retrospect of the experience itself, and reports are easily copied. People like telling those kinds of stories about their so-called 'religious experiences'. Maybe it makes them feel 'religious'. If that's how they feel, then that's how they feel. You have yet to account for the significance of people's reports of their experiences, because these reports are not observations cannot be used to show that the 'experiences' themselves have any similarities. This is because all that is being compared are the anecdotes told about their experiences. That's the difference between the experience and the anecdotes about it. As soon as you can keep that straight between any two of your posts, you can begin to participate in an intelligent discussion of whatever it is you seem to want to discuss.


It didn't make them feel religious. They describe this experience in such a way because that's the very nature of the experience itself. It's not sacred because people "feel that it's sacred," it's sacred because that's what's directly intuited by anyone who has this experience. That's what you don't seem to understand here.

Another way to put it is that the Hindu when undergoing samadhi doesn't think or feel he has encountered Brahman, rather Brahman is the very description of the content of samadhi.
Last edited by Kafei on Dec 08, 2018 4:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Kafei
 
Posts: 555

Country: United States
Print view this post

Re: "I am you" nonsense

#600  Postby GrahamH » Dec 08, 2018 4:56 pm

Kafei wrote:
newolder wrote:
Kafei wrote:...

No one is arguing that the volunteers' descriptions of these experiences imply a "separate entity beyond the pile." I'm not sure why you think this is a criticism at all. Perhaps you can elaborate.

The argument put forth in this topic is that drug P consumption provides evidence for the Perennial Philosophy (PP). Since PP claims that there is a common, single metaphysical truth - the separate entity beyond the pile of stories - and no such truth is demonstrated by those who consume drug P in any dose then this elaboration shows that someone has argued for such an entity and it is not shown by drug P consumers.


Well, this use of the word "entity" or even "separate entity beyond the pile of stories" is misleading. What the research has shown is that experiences triggered by psilocybin or virtually identical to those reported in the scriptures of all the world's major religions.


A was pointed out earlier, that isn't true. There are some similarities to some religions but I don't see a justification for your grand claim here. We simply don't need to appeal to any "mystical experience" to explain most of the Judaeo-Christian scripture.

Even if it were the case it would undermine those religions somewhat but it's not particularly important except to some theists who are open to rational arguments against their beliefs. Why should we care?
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 18736

Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to General Debunking

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest