Kafei wrote:

newolder wrote:...
I've read and heard stories.

That sort sounds like, "I'm skeptical." Well, spontaneous mystical experiences have been reported throughout history whether you'd like to believe it or not.

You mean there have been stories (reports/anecdotes) throughout history and I agree. They are not interesting stories after the age of 6, in my case.

newolder wrote:...
Then they should provide something more than stories. I'm still walking and waiting...

They're starting to map these experiences via fMRI, and I'm quite confident they'll advance this to the point where they will no longer need stories, they will simply have to review an fMRI map to confirm a mystical experience.

Your confidence is irrelevant and using the term fMRI with no indication you know what that's about indicates precisely nothing.

However, until they have a better grasp of what neural pathways are effected, they will have to heavily rely on these anecdotes, but the "stories" as you call 'em are nothing to be dismissed. What you don't seem to realize is that the anecdotes as of right now are the only useful data we could really gain from such experiences, but the point isn't the anecdote. The point is the experience, that's the emphasis here, and that's something you've not had, and therefore to simply dismiss that as, "Oh, they're just stories," is completely missing the point.

No, insisting that the plural of anecdote is evidence is your repeated mistake, or intentional trolling.

newolder wrote:...
I have had a near death experience. I have stories (reports) and evidence (medical notes) about the related events. Obviously, near death experience in humans does not yield universal response.

Well, how do you know you were near-death? Did you flat-line? Were you conscious at all during this event? I mean, you're still alive, after all. Just because you can't recollect such an experience, doesn't mean it's not possible for you to have one.

According to first witness and family reports I was "given up for dead at the scene" and "flatlined" more than once in the ICU. The remainder of that^ wibble is laughable.

newolder wrote:...
Yes, the divine is about (very boring) stories told by folk and nothing else besides.

Ah, you see. You still think this is about stories which according to you are "boring," but what you're ignoring is the fact that you, too, have the potential to undergo this experience. So, the only reason you call it boring is simply because you've not had it for yourself.

No, I call them boring because I've heard the stories too many times and they contain nothing of use nor interest to me.

...
I'm merely sharing the science that's been established relative to these topics.

Sadly no, you are not. You are trolling an internet chat room with stories.

newolder wrote:
Sadly no, you are not. You are trolling an internet chat room with stories.

I assure, I'm not trolling. I also assure you that you've not had this experience, therefore your opinion bears no weight on these experiences. You simply call it "boring" precisely due to the fact that you've not undergone a "complete" mystical experience for yourself.

Kafei wrote:

newolder wrote:
Sadly no, you are not. You are trolling an internet chat room with stories.

I assure, I'm not trolling. I also assure you that you've not had this experience, therefore your opinion bears no weight on these experiences. You simply call it "boring" precisely due to the fact that you've not undergone a "complete" mystical experience for yourself.

Now you are just being silly.

Kafei wrote:

Thommo wrote:

Kafei wrote:Is there a problem with atheism being wrong?

No, and that's an irrelevant question. What there is is you hiding your belief that science has shown atheism to be wrong behind this kind of semantic game.

I'm not playing any semantic games.

Except that you are, even if you fail/refuse to acknowledge it.

Kafei wrote: If anything, I'd like to avoid ambiguous language that leads to semantic quibbles like this.

And yet you incessantly twist words, misrepresent the scientific papers and change your actual position whenever someone criticizes you.

Kafei wrote:

Thommo wrote:
Science has not shown atheism to be wrong.

With the science definitely hinting towards the Perennial philosophy,

It doesn't this PRATT of yours simply isn't true.

Kafei wrote: I'd say that the science is showing that atheism is incorrect.

Even after I've explained to you that atheism is not a truth claim and as such cannot be wrong or right.
Even after people on multiple fora have taken great pains to point out that the science doesn't say what you blindly assert it says.

Kafei wrote:

Thommo wrote:

Kafei wrote:I often hear atheists say that if they're shown evidence to the contrary, they will cease being atheists, but you seem to imply that atheism is the one sole rational, logical, and obvious conclusion to to make about our situation upon this planet. Is that what you think?

No.

It doesn't seem like it. Seems like you have an emotional bias towards atheism.

This is nothing but disengenuous personalisation and attempt #1255136136 to deflect attention away from your failure to address the point being made.
Whenever someone disagrees with you, rather than considering their points, you immediately accuse them of all manner of nonsense in an attempt to dismiss things out of hand.
You might have deluded yourself into thinking this is a rational and honest response, the rest of us are under no obligation to join you in that ludicrous notion.

Kafei wrote:

Thommo wrote:

Kafei wrote:Denying what? Yes, I believe the science is just re-discovering it, and while Dr. Roland Griffiths or Dr. Ralph Hood might be careful to say that we don't know for sure, I believe the science is definitely suggesting this is the case.

Right you believe it. It's an article of faith.

In the words of C. G. Jung, "I don't believe, I know."

Rather than this asinine name-dropping, you should realize that knowledge is a subset of belief.
Now do go ahead and perform another tap dance to admit being wrong about this particular point.

Kafei wrote:

Thommo wrote:We aren't discussing science, we are discussing your belief. And we keep doing this, but when you get called on it you throw up your hands and declare that it's just about the science.

You act as though I'm the one that has introduced the Perennial philosophy into the mix. I'm not.

You have introduced the claim that the science supports Perennial philosophy.
And that claim is not supported by the evidence which merely notes that there is a similarity between the phenomenon described in Perennial philosophy and those that take certain drugs.
However, correlation doesn't prove causation Kafei.

Kafei wrote:
It's these professionals which have emphasized the Perennial philosophy. That's what you can't quite seem to comprehend.

Because it is a bollocks misrepresentation.

Kafei wrote:

Thommo wrote:If science has disproved atheism, as you here tell us you believe, show us where. Exactly where. Specific quotes. Specific claims (by scientists is fine) that are in the science. The rest is irrelevant.

The fact that they've defined these mystical states of consciousness in accordance with the Perennial philosophy

They didn't.

Kafei wrote:

Thommo wrote:

Kafei wrote:Of course, there may be exceptions throughout history, but there's definitely enough evidence produced by this research which suggests that at the very core of the major religions you will find individuals engaging these mystical states of consciousness.

This is also a misrepresentation of the research. There is in fact no research giving the MEQ to figures like Mohammed, Jesus, Buddha et al. The research has only asked a select few participants, all of whom are alive in the modern era, to rate their experience on a questionnaire. It cannot ever show what happened to (for example) Jesus. It cannot show whether he had a mystical experience. It cannot ever show what the nature of that experience was or whether it scored 60% on a questionnaire.

This more recent research happening at Hopkins is building on earlier research like the work of Dr. Ralph Hood that I've mentioned where he's done extensive exegetical work on the scriptures of all the world's major religions. We may not have Jesus or Muhammad or Buddha's direct anecdote, no one was ever arguing that we did, but where the MEQ is used is in the assessment of these scriptures, of the reported mystical experience.

Yet another unsubstantiated claim. Cite your sources Kafei. The actual studies, not YT videos.

Kafei wrote:

Thommo wrote:What you're talking about is an inference, or in fact a set of inferences. Firstly that because some modern experiences meet this 60% score on a questionnaire, that all important religions have at their heart a person who also would have done so. This is not a scientific inference. Secondly that scoring 60% on the questionnaire would mean that their experiences were actually transcendent. That is also not a scientific inference.

Actually transcendent? What's that even supposed to mean? I've already made it clear that no one is arguing that the volunteers actually in a very literal sense transcended time and space.

It's not surprising that you've missed the point, yet again.

Kafei wrote:

Thommo wrote:In reality we do not know if Jesus had a mystical experience that scored 60% on the MEQ. If he did we could not, scientifically, separate out the possibilities that (i) this happened because he really was God (and the son of God) and that the rating of such an experience would naturally lead to a 60% score (ii) this happened because people are vulnerable to certain types of illusion under similar circumstances (e.g. dehydration, psychedelic inducement) and these illusions, like dreams about teeth, are simply natural byproducts of the way humans are wired, or (iii) this happened because certain mental states give access to a fundamental reality of love and unity.

What I'm trying to tell you is that's precisely what this research is.

No, that's what you keep asserting, but utterly failing to demonstrate. All you offer are bald assertions and misrepresentations of scientific studies.

Kafei wrote:
I want to recommend a talk given by Alan Watts

What part of 'cite actual studies' do you not understand Kafei?

Kafei wrote:

Thommo wrote:What you do is ignore the possibility that religions have roots in many things, ignore the possibility that some of these figures did not and would not have scored an arbitrary 60% on an MEQ, assume these things happened and then ignore interpretations (i), (ii) and any other possibilities and declare (iii) is right and that it is scientific.

The major concepts in all the world's great faith traditions are concepts born out of the mystical experience including Theoria in Christianity or The Trinity, sekhel mufla in Judaism, Tawhid or Fana in Islam, wu wei in Taoism, samadhi or Brahman in Hinduism, nirvana or satori in Buddhism, etc.

Except that you consistently fail to present evidence for this.
You just assert they are all the same thing, but never actually demonstrate.

Kafei wrote:
Sure, religion may have roots in many things, but the original religious impulse was individuals engaging mystical states of consciousness, and this is what influenced men like Muhammad or Christ or Gautama or Plotinus, etc.

Asserting it by phrasing it in a different way doesn't make it any less unsubstantiated Kafei.

Kafei wrote:

Thommo wrote:This is not the case. And those of us who reject the fiat declarations that these things must have happened and that (i) and (ii) are wrong are not being irrational to do so. It is not incumbent on the sceptic to form any view on (iii) just because you happen to like it. It's enough to know that no science shows (iii) to be preferable to (i) and (ii).

I don't speak on the Perennial philosophy 'cause "I like it." I speak about these things because it's what's been emphasized in the research.

Except that it hasn't. Not in the way you claim at least. You keep conflating similar but distinctly different things.

Kafei wrote:This was the major finding of the study, that these mystical states of consciousness have been happening since perhaps time immemorial. The core finding was that mystical states of consciousness are a biologically normal phenomenon in consciousness, that we're wired for such experiences.

Continued failure to actually cite the research noted. Continued failure to recognize it doesn't support Perennialism also noted.

Kafei wrote:

Thommo wrote:

Kafei wrote:

Thommo wrote:

Yes you would. And have, e.g "I'm not sure what you meant by all of this, but... I feel almost compelled to say why don't you try DMT? Then, we'll talk.". It just boggles my mind to wonder whether you're deluding yourself this much or knowingly lying.

Well, DMT is somewhat of a different story. With DMT, you're looking at 5 to 15 minutes. That's how long the experience, and one of the reasons Dr. Rick Strassman stopped doing his work is because they couldn't really get anything out of 15 minutes. It's even more difficult to sort it out. At least, with psilocybin, you have about maybe an hour and a half there at the height of this experience. So, they're two very different endeavors, but make no mistake, it is the ultimate challenge to the atheist whether you choose to approach it or not.

See here you go again. You are replying to your own denial that you would ever challenge anyone to this experience unless they've truly considered it by challenging indiscriminately. It's wildly self-contradictory.

It doesn't matter.

It does if you have even the least sense of intellectual honesty. Thommo pointed out that you are claiming contradicting things and when he demonstrates this you try to dismiss it out of hand.

Kafei wrote:The people who are interested and genuinely want to challenge their atheism will find their way to it. It doesn't matter what I say.

Again, since atheism is not a claim, there's nothing to challenge.
Evidence is what would convince most atheists into becoming theist. However you, like the millions of your peers and predecessors fail to present any evidence whatsoever.

Kafei wrote:

Thommo wrote:And no, it is no challenge to atheists or to atheism. There is no evidence of any kind to say it leads to any insight into truth or reality and no evidence to suggest it is likely to cause conversion.

That's what you think.

False, that's what the lack of evidence bears out, coupled with a basic understanding of logic.
Your failure to grasp either is your problem, not Thommo's.

Kafei wrote:Again, I'll remind you that you're speaking from ignorance, from not having these type of experiences.

Again I'll remind you that several people in this thread have spoken out of experience and that experiences while under mind altering drugs are even more unreliable than regular memory.

Kafei wrote:

Thommo wrote:This is again one of your articles of faith. There's no science in it.

No, there is science in it.

Ah, you finally admit to it.

Kafei wrote: I mean, there's the online survey data which shows that the majority of atheists no longer identify with atheism after this event.

Another PRATT you just keep regurgitating.

Kafei wrote: That's not a coincidence or faulty data or the atheists weren't "atheist" enough. That's what happens, the research certainly suggests that a mystical experience is a conversion experience for atheists.

Except that it doesn't.

Kafei wrote:

Thommo wrote:
What's with yet another repetition of the same Youtube links that are completely useless? Is this just some OCD thing? Like you get twitchy if you don't post it once every seven paragraphs or something?

Baffling.

I get it. You doubt there's atheists involved in the laboratory studies. Well, there is despite your doubt.

No, Kafei, you don't get it, you're once again making shit up.

Kafei wrote:

Thommo wrote:

Kafei wrote:I did provide those links. I'd also look into the work of Dr. Ralph Hood.

No, I'm not asking you for recommendations of what to look into. I keep asking you not to keep wasting my time with the same freaking Youtube clips over and over again.

Baffling.

Ralph Hood is speaking on research he's published. If you're not willing to even review the science that's been done.

A presentation via YouTube is nota scientific paper one can review Kafei. It's a bunch of claims, nothing more.

Kafei wrote: Then, there's no point to this conversation. You're basically admitting that you'd rather stick to your biased atheistic point-of-view over properly examining the research.

Baffling.

You owe me another 1000 hypocrisy and projection meters Kafei.

Kafei wrote:
No, it's not an insult to anyone's intelligence. More accurately, the insult to your intelligence is the fact that you haven't properly grasped this research.

Still a dishonest, unsubstantiated accusation Kafei.
The emperor is butt naked.

Kafei wrote: You say mystical experiences have nothing to do with the nature of reality, but the science disagrees.

No, your failure to understand or dishonest misrepresentation of the science disagrees.
Fortunately neither science nor reality cares what you think or misconstrue.

Kafei wrote:
It's been pointed out over and over that one of the characteristics is intuitive knowledge which is related to the nature of reality.

Which is never demonstrated, just reported as a feeling.

Kafei wrote:

Thommo wrote:Perennialism is a view about the nature of reality. The "complete mystical experience" does not in any way reflect on that. It does not claim to. You claim it, the science does not.

Wrong.

Yes you are.

Kafei wrote: I don't now how many times I have to remind you guys that I'm not saying anything other than what the science is saying.

You can also assert over and over that science says the earth is flat and the centre of the universe, doesn't make it true Kafei.
The science does not say what you claim it says.

Kafei wrote: You keep thinking that I'm somehow arguing something outside of the context of the research.

Not outside the context, outside the actual results.

Kafei wrote:Well, I'm not. I don't know how many times I have to repeat that before it's understood.

1. It is not a matter of understanding, it is counterfactual bullshit (your claims about what the science says, not the science itself).
2. Repeating something neither makes it convincing nor true. You can mindlessly regurgitate the same baseless and counterfactual claims until the day you die, it will never become more convincing or true.

Kafei wrote:

Thommo wrote:

Kafei wrote:This is something you could potentially experience for yourself if you volunteered in research like this or by various other methods and techniques I've mentioned.

Bollocks. I don't take drugs, and I'm not about to start because someone on the internet misunderstood some science, told me he'd never advise anyone to do so, then immediately advised me to do so.

You don't have to start taking drugs. All it would take is literally just one of these experiences to become convinced.

And how is one to have such an experience without the drugs Kafei?

Kafei wrote: This is not a drug of abuse.

And that statement is a straw-man.

Kafei wrote: Dr. Roland Griffiths often makes the point that none of his volunteers come back saying, "More, please." These are life-changing experiences, and people aren't keen on repeating them right away as soon as they have had one. Sure, I think everyone should at least have this experience once in their life, but it's not necessarily for everyone. There are risks involved, and not everyone comes out of this unscathed.

Thommo's objection had fuck all to with the number of uses of drugs.

Kafei wrote:

Thommo wrote:

Kafei wrote:

Thommo wrote:You have claimed that the research shows taking psilocybin causes atheists to convert the overwhelming majority of the time. This is not true. You have claimed that the research shows all religions have a common root cause. This is not true.

What's your refutation aside from saying "that's not true"?

That when asked for a citation you quoted research that said no such thing. Again, and again, and again. You confused an internet study that showed that atheists who claimed to have experienced God largely weren't atheists anymore.

I didn't have any confusion over this online survey study.

You deny anything and everything that might prove you wrong Kafei. Fortunately reality does not care for what you assert.

Kafei wrote: That was the conclusion of the survey data, that most atheists who've had this experience no longer identify with atheism after this event. That was no confusion, that was the fact of the matter.

Except it wasn't.

Kafei wrote:

Thommo wrote:Well, duh, of course they weren't. Atheists don't believe in God, so they don't believe they've met him.

These experiences were largely unbidden. Just because they don't believe God, doesn't mean that this cannot happen. None of the atheists expected to have this type of experience. They didn't intend for this experience to happen.

Point #721357272423 that flies over your head.

Kafei wrote:

Thommo wrote:I've looked through almost every link you've posted, watched hours and hours of Youtube videos and none of it claims this. I've read at least the abstract of every linked study from the Johns Hopkins Psilocybin project page. This thorough search showed up not a sniff of the things you claim.

Well, I've done a bit more than read the abstract.

Seems you don't understand what an academic abstract is.
Hint: one of the things it notes is the conclusions drawn in the paper.

Kafei wrote: I've read the entirety of these published papers, I've seen all these lectures in their entirety, not simply hours and hours of them. Some even more than once.

And yet completely failed to properly understand or went on to deliberately twist it to suit your ideological narrative.

Kafei wrote: Perhaps you're not looking hard enough. I did post a couple of links above.

They don't conclude what you claim the research shows Kafei.

Kafei wrote:

Thommo wrote:The claim that the science shows these things is simply the claim that there are scientific documents which state these things. Well, I can't find them, you can't find them.

Correction. You can't find them. I'm telling you they're there.

And for the umpteenth time: we do.not.care. what you assert.
You need to demonstrate not tell/assert.

Kafei wrote:

Thommo wrote:Nobody else can find them. Under any rational circumstance if something should be easily found, and nobody can find it, that's a compelling reason to think it's not there.

You simply haven't looked.

Baseless accusation #262978459254, as well as a continued failure to cite.

Kafei wrote:

Thommo wrote:But this ludicrous reversal of the burden of proof is telling. You made claims (that atheists convert after having mystical experiences almost always, that all religions have a common cause), when you can't back it up you play "God of the gaps" and demand that I search everywhere on your behalf. That is not even rational, let alone scientific.

It's not my fault that you don't follow this research, but I've provided a few links above to help yourself to realize this is no "God of the Gaps" argument that's being made here.

Except that what you linked does not support what you assert and your argument is exactly that.

Kafei wrote:

Thommo wrote:My counterclaim has been supported again and again, and if it were wrong would be easily falsifiable - if this research existed, your claim it does and that you've seen the results on the internet could prove me wrong by simply linking this research.

It is wrong. You've never really had a counterclaim.

More desperate hand-waving.

Kafei wrote:

Thommo wrote:If I said "Ewoks live on Endor and that disproves Islam" and a Muslim said "that does not disprove Islam" it's not suddenly incumbent on him to prove that Ewoks don't live on Endor. What you're doing is exactly that.

I don't even think anyone here understood your analogy.

That's because you keep projecting your own failings unto others. I understood the analogy just fine.

Kafei wrote:

Thommo wrote:

Kafei wrote:We're not talking about "believers."

Yes we are, that's why you frequently link to clips of spiritualists talking instead of scientists. Some of the people you link are believers who are also scientists, but the thing the people you link have in common is that they are believers.

These are professionals, these are scientists. They're not "believers."

And that's a false dichotomy.

Kafei wrote:This is simply the term you label them when they say something that doesn't agree with your particular perspective. That's all that's going on here.

Another 1000 hypocrisy and projection meters you owe me Kafei.

Kafei wrote:

Thommo wrote:All of that is irrelevant though, because I didn't ask about the beliefs of scientists. I asked about the science. That thing you keep insisting is all you want to talk about.

These scientists aren't speaking on their beliefs, they're speaking on the science that's been done. You can't quite seem to grasp this fact.

Because you consistently fail to present the studies and just blindly assert over and over that it is.

Kafei wrote:

Thommo wrote:

Kafei wrote:Well, I'm trying... I still think I'm being misconstrued here. Again, that's why I participate, I'm refining my abilities to speak on these topics.

No it isn't. Don't kid yourself. You certainly aren't kidding me.

I'm not kidding you. I'm being quite sincere.

Then you're sincerely deluded on this issue.
Because your actions demonstrate the exact opposite: a dogmatic bigotry, a refusal to even consider the possibility that you might be wrong, rather than the dozens of people who disagree with you.

Kafei wrote:

Thommo wrote:

Kafei wrote:Well, I'm trying to share the science relative to these topics

No you aren't. You eschew science at every turn. When asked about science you sidestep and reply about the beliefs of scientists, or what you infer they would be if they didn't have to constrain their comments to the actual domain of what the science shows.

No, when I talk about the science, you eschew it as "the belief of scientists" to avoid accepting it as the science it is.

Nope, your incessant need to conflate the two doesn't make it so Kafei.

Kafei wrote: I don't give a shit about the beliefs of these professionals. I'm speaking on the evidence of which this research has produced.

Evidence and research which you consistently fail to present.

Kafei wrote:

Thommo wrote:You talk about the beliefs of scientists, and just as often of non-scientists. You almost never engage on the detail of the science. You always prefer to avoid mention of the MEQ, and what it says and instead call it a "complete mystical experience" which you then equivocate with the divine or transcendent. That's just one example.

Smh. No, you still don't get it.

You still blindly accuse while failing to support evidence.

Kafei wrote: They're defining these mystical states of consciousness in accordance with the Perennial philosophy,

They're not and even if they were, this:

Kafei wrote: and within the view of the Perennial philosophy, the mystical experience is considered a glimpse into a divine, transcendent reality which underlies all of the major religions. Each of the major religions has a word which denotes this experience.

Is circular reasoning and question begging.

Kafei wrote:

Thommo wrote:

Kafei wrote:I realize you interpret it as evangelizing, but I don't know how you necessarily evangelize things like "ego death," a perspective that ultimately isn't a religion, but more accurately a perspective on religion which has existed long before you and I were ever born, etc.

The word for that is "religion". And what this paragraph is is evangelism. You're talking about your belief in a deliberately grandiose way to make it sound persuasive. How it's bigger than us. It existed "long before" we we ever born.

This is not science. This is evangelism.

It does not interest me and I won't be responding to any more of it.

I'm not evangelizing.

Counterfactual assertion #678425251

Kafei wrote:Perennial philosophy is simply not a religion.

It is a claim to the supernatural.

Kafei wrote: I don't know how many times I have to repeat this before it's understood.

As has been explained to you many times, 0 times as repeating unsubstantiated bullshit never makes it any more convincing or true.

Kafei wrote: And if you won't be responding, then that's fine. You weren't really offering any constructive criticism or anything of substance anyway.

Continued misrepresentation or failure of basic reading comprehension noted.

Kafei wrote: You were simply ignoring and doubting what's been established by the science that's been done.

No Kafei, what you assert the science has shown, but consistently fail to demonstrate by citing the actual studies.

Kafei wrote: If that's your game, then just admit it. Just admit that you doubt what's been established by this research.

It's not. It's what you keep desperately projecting onto your interlocutors.

Kafei wrote:

Thommo wrote:

Kafei wrote:In other words, there's no agenda of the ego to do any such thing, especially espouse a view that advocates the death of the ego.

Don't kid yourself. You're not kidding me.

Ego isn't a scientific concept either, I know my Freud. What there really is is people being conceited and self-centred. People who get a rush of endorphins from feeling they have the truth that others don't. Saying you believe in ego death does not mean you are immune to being one of those people. Something motivates you to post on this one topic again, and again, and again and to refuse to admit your mistakes. That something is an agenda. That interminable sole focus and repetitiousness is evangelism.

What drives me is the very discussion on this science which you refuse to have.

Another blatant lie or demonstration of delusion.

Kafei wrote: You'd rather sit there and criticize it instead of genuinely addressing it.

It has been addressed, multiple times, on multiple fora, by dozens of people.
All you've offered in response is a combination of blind dismissal, projection of your own failures, baseless and hypocritical personal accusations, misrepresentations of scientific studies and a continuous failure to cite studies that support your claims.

Kafei wrote:

newolder wrote:
Sadly no, you are not. You are trolling an internet chat room with stories.

I assure, I'm not trolling. I also assure you that you've not had this experience, therefore your opinion bears no weight on these experiences. You simply call it "boring" precisely due to the fact that you've not undergone a "complete" mystical experience for yourself.

Only True Scotsmen eat porridge after all, eh Kafei?

Cito di Pense wrote:

newolder wrote:
I have had a near death experience. I have stories (reports) and evidence (medical notes) about the related events. Obviously, near death experience in humans does not yield universal response.

The Department of Tautology Department's Chief Filosofeezer has ruled that if you don't have the universal response, you didn't really have a NDE.

Did I not call it, back here? I predicted how Kafei would respond.

Kafei wrote:

newolder wrote:
Sadly no, you are not. You are trolling an internet chat room with stories.

I assure, I'm not trolling. I also assure you that you've not had this experience, therefore your opinion bears no weight on these experiences. You simply call it "boring" precisely due to the fact that you've not undergone a "complete" mystical experience for yourself.

Oh, OK. Now you're back to wibbling about CME. Only a few posts prior, you were asking about the NDE. Did you give up on that one?

newolder wrote:

Kafei wrote:

newolder wrote:...
I have had a near death experience. I have stories (reports) and evidence (medical notes) about the related events. Obviously, near death experience in humans does not yield universal response.

Well, how do you know you were near-death? Did you flat-line? Were you conscious at all during this event? I mean, you're still alive, after all. Just because you can't recollect such an experience, doesn't mean it's not possible for you to have one.

According to first witness and family reports I was "given up for dead at the scene" and "flatlined" more than once in the ICU.

That one?

Kafei wrote:Perhaps you'll witness it prior to the moment of death since mystical experience is speculated to occur at near-death, but what the science has shown is that this revelation can be experienced in the here and now. You don't have to wait for death.

No, there's no need to wait for death, just doing nothing. You can spend much of your time trolling chatrooms with stories.

Just remember, when you try to weasel your way out of this one, you said prior to.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

newolder wrote:
I have had a near death experience. I have stories (reports) and evidence (medical notes) about the related events. Obviously, near death experience in humans does not yield universal response.

The Department of Tautology Department's Chief Filosofeezer has ruled that if you don't have the universal response, you didn't really have a NDE.

Did I not call it, back here? I predicted how Kafei would respond.

Yes. Yes you did. Kafei's spoon got bent out shape. (Hope the 'shroom soup doesn't get spilt off a bent spoon...)

newolder wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

newolder wrote:
I have had a near death experience. I have stories (reports) and evidence (medical notes) about the related events. Obviously, near death experience in humans does not yield universal response.

The Department of Tautology Department's Chief Filosofeezer has ruled that if you don't have the universal response, you didn't really have a NDE.

Did I not call it, back here? I predicted how Kafei would respond.

Yes. Yes you did. Kafei's spoon got bent out shape. (Hope the 'shroom soup doesn't get spilt off a bent spoon...)

Kafei's pulling what should be called a "Hague" or an "Ovchinin". He's on a ballistic return.

If the spoon is bent, does that mean it's a link dip?

I'm not a big fan of psychoanalytic theory, but if I were, Kafei would represent a classic case of reaction formation. There's a swell wikipedia page about reaction formation that reads:

It cannot adapt itself to changing circumstances as genuine emotions do; rather it must be constantly on display as if any failure to exhibit it would cause the contrary feeling to come to the surface.

(Calvin Hall, A Primer of Freudian Psychology)

The Freudian would say that Kafei is in danger of decompensating if he's forced to let go of his convictions about mystical experience. The compulsively encyclopedic replies he makes add to the suggestion that he's deeply anxious about something.

Free Fallin' - wasn't that a Tom Petty track?

Thought so:

newolder wrote:Free Fallin' - wasn't that a Tom Petty track?

Suddenly, all I can remember is Tom Cruise driving and singing along with the radio/CD player in Jerry Maguire.

Films (and most other events) from 1994-6 are still lost to me and I doubt that I would have voluntarily tried to recover Tom Cruise's career highlights in recovery. Heigh ho and no worries.

Kafei wrote:...

I'm not going to waste my time with more of this.

I see you skipped right past the post I separated out to focus on the issue we were discussing. I rejoined this conversation to point out that you claim that the science shows things that the thread participants here are wrong about.

I repeatedly asked you to state exactly what science said that and where it could be found. You've expended a good 6,000+ words replying to that question, but there's no answer. No clear statement of what the science shows (and exactly one link to any science, which came with no accompanying explanation of what you thought it said or how it showed anyone to be wrong), only repeated statements of confidence.

I am forced to conclude that you can't provide links to science that says what you say. There is a simple explanation for that - you're wrong about this.

Denials, bluster and distraction won't and can't change that. The only thing that could would be a clear, concise statement of what the science says that shows error and a direct link to science (not scientists talking around the subject, not spiritualists talking about scientists talking about the subject and definitely not hour long Youtube videos that say something completely different) that states the same thing.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Kafei wrote:
It's these professionals which have emphasized the Perennial philosophy. That's what you can't quite seem to comprehend.

Because it is a bollocks misrepresentation.

So, an actual professional involved in this research, who performs actual science relative to these topics is misrepresenting the research he's directly involved in? I truly doubt that. It's simply you who denies the fact that I'm not saying anything other than what's been presented by these professionals.

Thommo wrote:If science has disproved atheism, as you here tell us you believe, show us where. Exactly where. Specific quotes. Specific claims (by scientists is fine) that are in the science. The rest is irrelevant.

I've done this, you simply deny it with your every post.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Kafei wrote: The fact that they've defined these mystical states of consciousness in accordance with the Perennial philosophy

They didn't.

Except they did.


source: http://www.atpweb.org/jtparchive/trps-41-02-139.pdf

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Kafei wrote:

This more recent research happening at Hopkins is building on earlier research like the work of Dr. Ralph Hood that I've mentioned where he's done extensive exegetical work on the scriptures of all the world's major religions. We may not have Jesus or Muhammad or Buddha's direct anecdote, no one was ever arguing that we did, but where the MEQ is used is in the assessment of these scriptures, of the reported mystical experience.

Yet another unsubstantiated claim. Cite your sources Kafei. The actual studies, not YT videos.

What do you think Dr. Ralph Hood is speaking on? What you don't seem to grasp is this is not simply some YT video, Hood is speaking on the very work he's published.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Kafei wrote:


Actually transcendent? What's that even supposed to mean? I've already made it clear that no one is arguing that the volunteers actually in a very literal sense transcended time and space.

It's not surprising that you've missed the point, yet again.

You've never demonstrated that you've intellectually comprehended any of these points I've made in the first place.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Kafei wrote:


What I'm trying to tell you is that's precisely what this research is.

No, that's what you keep asserting, but utterly failing to demonstrate. All you offer are bald assertions and misrepresentations of scientific studies.

Then, precisely what do you think I'm misrepresenting? You keep claiming that I've supposedly misconstrued the research. How am I misconstruing this research? Should be easy enough to answer.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Kafei wrote:
I want to recommend a talk given by Alan Watts

What part of 'cite actual studies' do you not understand Kafei?

I have posted the studies, I said I recommend this lecture by Watts because it's quite insightful, too, and relative to these very topics.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Kafei wrote:


The major concepts in all the world's great faith traditions are concepts born out of the mystical experience including Theoria in Christianity or The Trinity, sekhel mufla in Judaism, Tawhid or Fana in Islam, wu wei in Taoism, samadhi or Brahman in Hinduism, nirvana or satori in Buddhism, etc.

Except that you consistently fail to present evidence for this.
You just assert they are all the same thing, but never actually demonstrate.

They are the same thing. Hood's work has established this in the extensive exegetical and hermeneutics work that he's published in The Scientific Journal of the Psychology of Religion.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Kafei wrote:
Sure, religion may have roots in many things, but the original religious impulse was individuals engaging mystical states of consciousness, and this is what influenced men like Muhammad or Christ or Gautama or Plotinus, etc.

Asserting it by phrasing it in a different way doesn't make it any less unsubstantiated Kafei.

Only it's not unsubstantiated. I understand you haven't had these experiences, and you doubt them, and you doubt everything about this research, but understand that's simply your opinion that you're asserting. You're speaking essentially from ignorance.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Kafei wrote:


I don't speak on the Perennial philosophy 'cause "I like it." I speak about these things because it's what's been emphasized in the research.

Except that it hasn't. Not in the way you claim at least. You keep conflating similar but distinctly different things.

Then, what are those "different things." Notice how you make the accusation, but you never support it.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Kafei wrote:This was the major finding of the study, that these mystical states of consciousness have been happening since perhaps time immemorial. The core finding was that mystical states of consciousness are a biologically normal phenomenon in consciousness, that we're wired for such experiences.

Continued failure to actually cite the research noted. Continued failure to recognize it doesn't support Perennialism also noted.

I have posted this research. I've left links riddled throughout this thread and "The Ground of Being" thread.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Kafei wrote:


It doesn't matter.

It does if you have even the least sense of intellectual honesty. Thommo pointed out that you are claiming contradicting things and when he demonstrates this you try to dismiss it out of hand.

No, I tried to give him a more accurate account of my view on these things. Terence McKenna would often tell people who were skeptic, "Surely, you have five minutes to invest in an experience that may challenge your entire ontology." He was speaking of DMT which lasts about 5 - 15 minutes. And I've admitted, yes, I do believe everyone should have this experience once in their life, but at the same time, they aren't for everyone. People should do it at their own risk, but nevertheless cautiously and responsibly.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Kafei wrote:The people who are interested and genuinely want to challenge their atheism will find their way to it. It doesn't matter what I say.

Again, since atheism is not a claim, there's nothing to challenge.

But nevertheless atheism is associated with secular views, disbelief in God, etc. These are the things that are challenged in the mystical experience.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Evidence is what would convince most atheists into becoming theist. However you, like the millions of your peers and predecessors fail to present any evidence whatsoever.

The extraordinary evidence is the extraordinary mystical state of consciousness of which you've never had, so therefore your criticism is baseless.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Kafei wrote:


That's what you think.

False, that's what the lack of evidence bears out, coupled with a basic understanding of logic.
Your failure to grasp either is your problem, not Thommo's.

No, that's your problem, not mine. The fact that you refuse to properly address this research is literally your problem. What you don't seem to understand is I'm not saying anything other than what's been presented by these professionals.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Kafei wrote:Again, I'll remind you that you're speaking from ignorance, from not having these type of experiences.

Again I'll remind you that several people in this thread have spoken out of experience and that experiences while under mind altering drugs are even more unreliable than regular memory.

Like who? Definitely not you. The only person I remember speaking about taking psychedelics was SpearThrower, and he hasn't participated in these threads lately. newolder claimed he had a near-death experience, but also claims no recollection of any such mystical experience. Hence, he didn't have one.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Kafei wrote:


No, there is science in it.

Ah, you finally admit to it.

Admit that I'm talking about science. Yes, that's right.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Kafei wrote: I mean, there's the online survey data which shows that the majority of atheists no longer identify with atheism after this event.

Another PRATT you just keep regurgitating.

In order for something to be a PRATT, it has to be refuted in the first place. Just because you like to type "PRATT" doesn't mean what you're typing towards applies to your accusation.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Kafei wrote: That's not a coincidence or faulty data or the atheists weren't "atheist" enough. That's what happens, the research certainly suggests that a mystical experience is a conversion experience for atheists.

Except that it doesn't.

And yet it was the conclusion of this online survey.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Kafei wrote:


I get it. You doubt there's atheists involved in the laboratory studies. Well, there is despite your doubt.

No, Kafei, you don't get it, you're once again making shit up.

I'm not making this up. There's been atheists involved in the past studies, and there's atheists involve in these ongoing studies. That's a fact.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Kafei wrote:


Ralph Hood is speaking on research he's published. If you're not willing to even review the science that's been done.

A presentation via YouTube is nota scientific paper one can review Kafei. It's a bunch of claims, nothing more.

Ralph is speaking on the published work. What's so hard to grasp about this?

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Kafei wrote: Then, there's no point to this conversation. You're basically admitting that you'd rather stick to your biased atheistic point-of-view over properly examining the research.

Baffling.

You owe me another 1000 hypocrisy and projection meters Kafei.

I don't owe you shit, man. Your hypocrisy meter is obviously broken.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Kafei wrote:
No, it's not an insult to anyone's intelligence. More accurately, the insult to your intelligence is the fact that you haven't properly grasped this research.

Still a dishonest, unsubstantiated accusation Kafei.
The emperor is butt naked.

More baseless criticism.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Kafei wrote: You say mystical experiences have nothing to do with the nature of reality, but the science disagrees.

No, your failure to understand or dishonest misrepresentation of the science disagrees.
Fortunately neither science nor reality cares what you think or misconstrue.

Fortunately, science doesn't care about your baseless criticism either. Again, I've only reiterated what these professionals have presented. I'm quite sure you didn't click the lecture I linked to associated with this, because it's a "YouTube video." Oh, no... You must think all YouTube videos are hokum, right? There can't be a YouTube video out there with an actual professional performing actual science and speaking on the actual peer-reviewed studies, right? Oh, no, that just doesn't exist in your mind, apparently.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Kafei wrote:
It's been pointed out over and over that one of the characteristics is intuitive knowledge which is related to the nature of reality.

Which is never demonstrated, just reported as a feeling.

Again, this research isn't about "grand feeling" or "big emotions," but you seem to think it is. The implications are far greater than simply that.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Kafei wrote:


Wrong.

Yes you are.

And yet you've never been able to demonstrate how I'm supposedly "wrong." You simply make this assertion, but you never back it up.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Kafei wrote: I don't now how many times I have to remind you guys that I'm not saying anything other than what the science is saying.

You can also assert over and over that science says the earth is flat and the centre of the universe, doesn't make it true Kafei.
The science does not say what you claim it says.

Another empty criticism that is entirely untrue. What do you think that I'm saying that's supposedly not presented by this research? Care to point it out? You've failed to do that thus far.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Kafei wrote: You keep thinking that I'm somehow arguing something outside of the context of the research.

Not outside the context, outside the actual results.

And what might that be?

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Kafei wrote:Well, I'm not. I don't know how many times I have to repeat that before it's understood.

1. It is not a matter of understanding, it is counterfactual bullshit (your claims about what the science says, not the science itself).
2. Repeating something neither makes it convincing nor true. You can mindlessly regurgitate the same baseless and counterfactual claims until the day you die, it will never become more convincing or true.

I could say these same points to you, because you just repeat empty criticism, but you never substantiate it.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Kafei wrote:

You don't have to start taking drugs. All it would take is literally just one of these experiences to become convinced.

And how is one to have such an experience without the drugs Kafei?

There's techniques and methods, but it can take years in some cases. Psychedelics seem to offer this experience on-demand. That's why they're used.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Kafei wrote: This is not a drug of abuse.

And that statement is a straw-man.

Well, they're not. Psychedelics aren't drugs of abuse. In fact, they actually help people to stop abusing more harmful substances.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Kafei wrote: Dr. Roland Griffiths often makes the point that none of his volunteers come back saying, "More, please." These are life-changing experiences, and people aren't keen on repeating them right away as soon as they have had one. Sure, I think everyone should at least have this experience once in their life, but it's not necessarily for everyone. There are risks involved, and not everyone comes out of this unscathed.

Thommo's objection had fuck all to with the number of uses of drugs.

Thommo's objection was simply that he didn't want to "use drugs."

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Kafei wrote:


I didn't have any confusion over this online survey study.

You deny anything and everything that might prove you wrong Kafei. Fortunately reality does not care for what you assert.

I could say the very same to you. So what? Fortunately, reality also doesn't care about the baseless criticism you assert.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Kafei wrote: That was the conclusion of the survey data, that most atheists who've had this experience no longer identify with atheism after this event. That was no confusion, that was the fact of the matter.

Except it wasn't.

It was. Go back and review it.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Kafei wrote:


These experiences were largely unbidden. Just because they don't believe God, doesn't mean that this cannot happen. None of the atheists expected to have this type of experience. They didn't intend for this experience to happen.

Point #721357272423 that flies over your head.

Wtf is Point #721357272423? I don't care about your point system or your hypocrisy scale. That's childish bullshit. Especially since your point system and hypocrisy meter are so inaccurate.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Seems you don't understand what an academic abstract is.
Hint: one of the things it notes is the conclusions drawn in the paper.

Yes, and the Perennial philosophy had been established in the earlier work, what Ralph Hood calls the "common core."

Thommo wrote:
And yet completely failed to properly understand or went on to deliberately twist it to suit your ideological narrative.

I'm not twisting anything. This is merely your projection.

Thommo wrote:
They don't conclude what you claim the research shows Kafei.

Again, I'm not saying anything other than what's been established by this research. If you think I am, please be specific and point it out. You haven't done that at all.

Thommo wrote:
And for the umpteenth time: we do.not.care. what you assert.
You need to demonstrate not tell/assert.

And I don't care for your baseless criticism which is backed by nothingness.

Thommo wrote:
Baseless accusation #262978459254, as well as a continued failure to cite.

More baseless criticism.

Thommo wrote:
Except that what you linked does not support what you assert and your argument is exactly that.

Again, what do you think that I'm saying that is separate from the research?

Thommo wrote:
More desperate hand-waving.

And even more baseless criticism.

Thommo wrote:
That's because you keep projecting your own failings unto others. I understood the analogy just fine.

If you understood the analogy, then you probably share the same misconceptions as Thommo. I don't see its revelance. I just see a false analogy.

Thommo wrote:
Another 1000 hypocrisy and projection meters you owe me Kafei.

Speak for yourself.

Thommo wrote:
Because you consistently fail to present the studies and just blindly assert over and over that it is.

I have presented the studies. You fail to recognize this fact.

Thommo wrote:
Then you're sincerely deluded on this issue.

Or you are.

Thommo wrote:Because your actions demonstrate the exact opposite: a dogmatic bigotry, a refusal to even consider the possibility that you might be wrong, rather than the dozens of people who disagree with you.

Dozens of people? You mean, the few atheists on this thread that disagree with me because they cling to their atheism? I wouldn't necessarily consider that "dozens of people." These professionals agree with me. It doesn't bother me that atheists can't fathom this stuff.

Thommo wrote:
Nope, your incessant need to conflate the two doesn't make it so Kafei.

Like I said, I don't care about the beliefs of these individuals, what I care about is what they've demonstrated with the science they've done.

Thommo wrote:
Evidence and research which you consistently and accurately present.

FIFY

Thommo wrote:
You still blindly accuse while failing to support evidence.

I've provided much more evidence for the case I'm making than you've provided against what I've laid out here.

Thommo wrote:
They're not and even if they were, this:

Is circular reasoning and question begging.

Exactly how so? You see, you just blurt these criticisms, but you offer nothing to back it up. You have a knack for that.

Thommo wrote:
Counterfactual assertion #678425251

Do you know what Evangelism is? I don't think the word means what you think it means.

Thommo wrote:
It is a claim to the supernatural.

No, it's not. This is further evidence that you've not understood what this research is about.

Thommo wrote:
As has been explained to you many times, 0 times as repeating unsubstantiated bullshit never makes it any more convincing or true.

Repeating a baseless criticism doesn't make it true, either.

Thommo wrote:
Continued misrepresentation or failure of basic reading comprehension noted.

Like I said, you've never shown any intellectual signs of grasping this research in the first place. So, therefore your notes are suspect.

Thommo wrote:
No Kafei, what you assert the science has shown, but consistently fail to demonstrate by citing the actual studies.


It's not. It's what you keep desperately projecting onto your interlocutors.

No, that's merely your own projection.

Thommo wrote:
Another blatant lie or demonstration of delusion.

Another baseless criticism with not a single shred of evidence to back it up. Not even an iota... a smidgen of anything substantial that supports your criticism.

Thommo wrote:
It has been addressed, multiple times, on multiple fora, by dozens of people.
All you've offered in response is a combination of blind dismissal, projection of your own failures, baseless and hypocritical personal accusations, misrepresentations of scientific studies and a continuous failure to cite studies that support your claims.

BS. I've pointed out flaws in your assumptions about the research. I'll say it again, you've shown no intellectual signs of grasping this research. Therefore, everything you type is suspect from your accusations and your claims that supposedly "dozens" of people have supposedly refuted the points I've made when no such thing has taken place.

Thommo wrote:

Kafei wrote:...

I'm not going to waste my time with more of this.

I see you skipped right past the post I separated out to focus on the issue we were discussing. I rejoined this conversation to point out that you claim that the science shows things that the thread participants here are wrong about.

I don't even think some of the thread participants grasp this research. Especially if Thomas thinks the Perennial philosophy has something to do with the supernatural. Frithjof Schuon has spoken about what he calls the "naturally supernatural kernel of the individual," but this is not to be conflated with the supernatural.

Thommo wrote:I repeatedly asked you to state exactly what science said that and where it could be found. You've expended a good 6,000+ words replying to that question, but there's no answer. No clear statement of what the science shows (and exactly one link to any science, which came with no accompanying explanation of what you thought it said or how it showed anyone to be wrong), only repeated statements of confidence.

source: https://files.csp.org/Psilocybin/Barret ... nology.pdf

Thommo wrote:I am forced to conclude that you can't provide links to science that says what you say. There is a simple explanation for that - you're wrong about this.

That or you've been overlooking what I've posted.

Thommo wrote:Denials, bluster and distraction won't and can't change that. The only thing that could would be a clear, concise statement of what the science says that shows error and a direct link to science (not scientists talking around the subject, not spiritualists talking about scientists talking about the subject and definitely not hour long Youtube videos that say something completely different) that states the same thing.

The YouTube videos aren't not saying anything different than what's been established by this research. These professionals in these lectures are speaking on the very peer-reviewed and published research we're discussing here.

Despite my statement that I was done with this thread I must interject something here, and mostly for personal reasons.

Kefei stated above that Spearthrower was the only thread(s) participant to speak of using hallucination inducing drugs. Apparently his memory is as faulty as his rhetoric since I related, in detail, both the variety and results of my own use of this class of drug. His responses were predictablely dismissive, condescending and trite.

His claim is a lie of either omission or commission. My feelings are that because my experiences do not match his unbending narrative he purposefully omitted any mention of my participation here. This speaks volumes to me.

He rails against those that haven’t taken these drugs as having no experience to draw upon, and waves away those of us that have as not doing the “right” dosage, strength or kind.

This, to me, is a prime example of trolling behavior dvoid of any semblance whatsoever to rational discourse.

With this I now return to my lurker status as I refuse to engage Kefei on any level as my level of disgust is indeed epic.

RS

theropod wrote:Despite my statement that I was done with this thread I must interject something here, and mostly for personal reasons.

Kefei stated above that Spearthrower was the only thread(s) participant to speak of using hallucination inducing drugs. Apparently his memory is as faulty as his rhetoric since I related, in detail, both the variety and results of my own use of this class of drug. His responses were predictablely dismissive, condescending and trite.

His claim is a lie of either omission or commission. My feelings are that because my experiences do not match his unbending narrative he purposefully omitted any mention of my participation here. This speaks volumes to me.

He rails against those that haven’t taken these drugs as having no experience to draw upon, and waves away those of us that have as not doing the “right” dosage, strength or kind.

This, to me, is a prime example of trolling behavior dvoid of any semblance whatsoever to rational discourse.

With this I now return to my lurker status as I refuse to engage Kefei on any level as my level of disgust is indeed epic.

RS

I must've overlooked it. Lots of people who lived through the 60s and 70s experienced psychedelics. However, that doesn't mean that they had a "complete" mystical experience. Dose factor is very important, you seemed to brush it off like if it doesn't matter, but dosage does make all the difference between sunyata and try again, Sam. Even Dr. Bill Richards has pointed out people in his experience who've claimed to take LSD hundreds of times, and yet never approached this experience. So, it's very possible to to have extensive recreational experience with psychedelics, and never approach these mystical states of consciousness at all.

Kafei wrote:I don't even think some of the thread participants grasp this research.

What exactly don't they grasp? Be specific. Cite research.

Kafei wrote:Especially if Thomas thinks the Perennial philosophy has something to do with the supernatural.

The research does not define (let alone scientifically) the Perennial philosophy. If you think it does, you have not grasped the research.

Kafei wrote:

Thommo wrote:I repeatedly asked you to state exactly what science said that and where it could be found. You've expended a good 6,000+ words replying to that question, but there's no answer. No clear statement of what the science shows (and exactly one link to any science, which came with no accompanying explanation of what you thought it said or how it showed anyone to be wrong), only repeated statements of confidence.

source: https://files.csp.org/Psilocybin/Barret ... nology.pdf

We've had this before. It's consistent with* the Perennial philosophy. It's also consistent with other things. This also is not research, as was pointed out last time. It's an extract from a textbook, explaining there the view of a mid 20th century science fiction writer, not a scientist.

If that's the best you've got. Then you've got nothing.

Kafei wrote:

Thommo wrote:Denials, bluster and distraction won't and can't change that. The only thing that could would be a clear, concise statement of what the science says that shows error and a direct link to science (not scientists talking around the subject, not spiritualists talking about scientists talking about the subject and definitely not hour long Youtube videos that say something completely different) that states the same thing.

The YouTube videos aren't not saying anything different than what's been established by this research. These professionals in these lectures are speaking on the very peer-reviewed and published research we're discussing here.

This is distraction, denials and bluster, not science. It's scientists talking around the subject not science.

Can you really not tell the difference?

*And you already replied today to an explication of exactly this difference, labelled (i), (ii) and (iii) in #630 in a point which again has sailed clean over your head in your attempt to Fisk the post down into unreadability.

Thommo wrote:

Kafei wrote:I don't even think some of the thread participants grasp this research.

What exactly don't they grasp? Be specific. Cite research.

Well, for starters, the supernatural has nothing to do with the Perennial philosophy as Thomas claimed.

Thommo wrote:

Kafei wrote:Especially if Thomas thinks the Perennial philosophy has something to do with the supernatural.

The research does not define (let alone scientifically) the Perennial philosophy. If you think it does, you have not grasped the research.

The Perennial philosophy has been defined for centuries. Why would it need another definition?

Thommo wrote:

Kafei wrote:

Thommo wrote:I repeatedly asked you to state exactly what science said that and where it could be found. You've expended a good 6,000+ words replying to that question, but there's no answer. No clear statement of what the science shows (and exactly one link to any science, which came with no accompanying explanation of what you thought it said or how it showed anyone to be wrong), only repeated statements of confidence.

source: https://files.csp.org/Psilocybin/Barret ... nology.pdf

We've had this before. It's consistent with the Perennial philosophy. It's also consistent with other things. This also is not research, as was pointed out last time. It's an extract from a textbook.

If that's the best you've got. Then you've got nothing.

You're right, we've been through this, I pointed out that's how you've contorted what it's saying to suit your atheist perspective. These professionals do, indeed, consider the mystical experience the very evidence for the Perennial philosophy.

Thommo wrote:

Kafei wrote:

Thommo wrote:Denials, bluster and distraction won't and can't change that. The only thing that could would be a clear, concise statement of what the science says that shows error and a direct link to science (not scientists talking around the subject, not spiritualists talking about scientists talking about the subject and definitely not hour long Youtube videos that say something completely different) that states the same thing.

The YouTube videos aren't not saying anything different than what's been established by this research. These professionals in these lectures are speaking on the very peer-reviewed and published research we're discussing here.

This is distraction, denials and bluster, not science. It's scientists talking around the subject not science.

The subject? The subject is the peer-reviewed and published research.

Thommo wrote:Can you really not tell the difference?

The difference? You mean, can I tell how you've separated these things by your own projection? Sure.

Kafei wrote:You're right, we've been through this, I pointed out that's how you've contorted what it's saying to suit your atheist perspective. These professionals do, indeed, consider the mystical experience the very evidence for the Perennial philosophy.

No you just got it wrong. You portray a summary of the view of a mid 20th century author as being science.

It's dumb. I mean really, really dumb. It's beyond a schoolboy error.