Animavore wrote:

Kafei wrote:

Animavore wrote:

Kafei wrote:

The doses they're using in the study are very high, most people haven't had this experience. Like I said before, Dr. Bill Richards has pointed out that he's met people who've taken LSD hundreds of times, and never approached anything like what these researchers are referring to as a "complete" mystical experience. It's quite necessarily to undergo these higher doses to elicit these mystical states of consciousness. So, it's very possible to take psychedelics, and not have this experience at all.
Ah! So you have to take incredibly, dangerously high doses which completely blow your brains to experience "the mystical"?

It's practically impossible to OD with psychedelics, so there's no mortal danger. The emphasis is full-spectrum doses, that means the point where the psychedelic elicits its full-spectrum of effects, basically.

I know you can't OD, that doesn't mean psychedelics can't affect you detrimentally in other ways.

Sure, it's important to emphasize the risks. There's volunteers that were part of the initial pilot studies that began in '99 and were published in 2006 on healthy volunteers, some of which to this day see psychiatrists because they had such a bad experience due to participating in this research. So, sure, there's definitely risks involved. Not everyone gets out unscathed.

Kafei wrote:

Animavore wrote:

Kafei wrote:

Animavore wrote:

It's practically impossible to OD with psychedelics, so there's no mortal danger. The emphasis is full-spectrum doses, that means the point where the psychedelic elicits its full-spectrum of effects, basically.

I know you can't OD, that doesn't mean psychedelics can't affect you detrimentally in other ways.

Sure, it's important to emphasize the risks. There's volunteers that were part of the initial pilot studies that began in '99 and were published in 2006 on healthy volunteers, some of which to this day see psychiatrists because they had such a bad experience due to participating in this research. So, sure, there's definitely risks involved. Not everyone gets out unscathed.

Animavore wrote:Why is "Trump" capitalised?

Yeah, I was wondering why I did that too.

Trump derangement syndrome on my part, probably. Too much time in that other depressing thread.

Kafei wrote:

Animavore wrote:

Kafei wrote:

Animavore wrote:

It's practically impossible to OD with psychedelics, so there's no mortal danger. The emphasis is full-spectrum doses, that means the point where the psychedelic elicits its full-spectrum of effects, basically.

I know you can't OD, that doesn't mean psychedelics can't affect you detrimentally in other ways.

Sure, it's important to emphasize the risks. There's volunteers that were part of the initial pilot studies that began in '99 and were published in 2006 on healthy volunteers, some of which to this day see psychiatrists because they had such a bad experience due to participating in this research. So, sure, there's definitely risks involved. Not everyone gets out unscathed.

Totally worth it though, cos if you avoid being scarred for life you can transform your life into sticking it to atheists on the internet!

Thommo wrote:

Kafei wrote:

Animavore wrote:

Kafei wrote:


It's practically impossible to OD with psychedelics, so there's no mortal danger. The emphasis is full-spectrum doses, that means the point where the psychedelic elicits its full-spectrum of effects, basically.

I know you can't OD, that doesn't mean psychedelics can't affect you detrimentally in other ways.

Sure, it's important to emphasize the risks. There's volunteers that were part of the initial pilot studies that began in '99 and were published in 2006 on healthy volunteers, some of which to this day see psychiatrists because they had such a bad experience due to participating in this research. So, sure, there's definitely risks involved. Not everyone gets out unscathed.

Totally worth it though, cos if you avoid being scarred for life you can transform your life into sticking it to atheists on the internet!

That's simply a side-effect of the findings of the research. However, the fact that you think I'm trying to "stick it to atheists" just reveals this point I've made before, that you've an emotional investment in atheism, and that's why you characterize it in this fashion. I asked you, "Is there anything wrong with atheism being wrong?" You said no, but you seem to have an objection.

Thommo wrote:Or is this that semantic game again where you refer to Huxley's opinion as a "professional" and then equivocate "professional" with people like Griffiths who are doing some actual research (that does not show the truth of Huxley's opinion in any way, shape or form)?

I don't think it was Huxley's opinion. He was writing on a view that had already existed. And yes, I would say that Dr. Roland Griffiths' research is definitely hinting towards a Perennial philosophical view on the major religions which is arising out this scientific research.

Kafei wrote:That's simply a side-effect of the findings of the research. However, the fact that you think I'm trying to "stick it to atheists" just reveals this point I've made before, that you've an emotional investment in atheism, and that's why you characterize it in this fashion.

Fucking bollocks.

It's that you phone up The Atheist Experience to tell atheists they are wrong, it's the fact that you challenge atheists to take drugs that you know can be harmful, it's the fact you say stuff like "You refuse to accept, and you'd rather construe it in your own way so that you can keep your atheism intact" or "you've an emotional investment in atheism" or "I believe such an experience would allow you to see through theism or even atheism for what it is" or "So, atheism might seem like a rational position, but what most atheist do not consider, and in fact, have not experienced is the mystical experience itself." at every turn, it's the fact that 100% of your posts are on the same fucking subject that makes me think you're trying to stick it to atheists. That is it's instances of you seeking out atheists and trying to stick it to them and their abundancy.

You paint a false equivalency yet again. I don't seek out perennialists and try to convert them or tell them what to think or believe. I doubt I've ever even said Perennialism is wrong. I've said that science doesn't show what you say it does, because that's what I care about. You say you can tell us all about some interesting science, that's the attention grabbing promise. You just fail to deliver on it.

Kafei wrote:I asked you, "Is there anything wrong with atheism being wrong?" You said no, but you seem to have an objection.

IIIRC what I said was "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.".

Atheism could be wrong. But the logical possibility is, alone, basically meaningless. You think, and claim, that science has shown atheism to be wrong. You couldn't be more wrong about that, which is why you defend that claim with bizarre rambles about how Aldous Huxley was a philosopher who wrote non fiction instead of science.

That is a problem - specifically a logical problem known as a non sequitur.

Kafei wrote:

Thommo wrote:Or is this that semantic game again where you refer to Huxley's opinion as a "professional" and then equivocate "professional" with people like Griffiths who are doing some actual research (that does not show the truth of Huxley's opinion in any way, shape or form)?

I don't think it was Huxley's opinion. He was writing on a view that had already existed. And yes, I would say that Dr. Roland Griffiths' research is definitely hinting towards a Perennial philosophical view on the major religions which is arising out this scientific research.

None of that matters in the slightest. The claim is what science has shown, weasel words about a writer who never did any science just couldn't be of less importance.

Literally, your trump card, the absolute epitome of what you think constutes good, solid science, lest we forget, is (according to you) that people can take drugs and as long as they don't get psychologically scarred for life have an experience. Now, I wouldn't call this scientific at all (because it obviously isn't) and I would have said your trump card was a reference to a non existent study and this (rather irrelevant) screenshot summarising the opinion of a sci fi author:

but there you go.

Thommo wrote:

Kafei wrote:That's simply a side-effect of the findings of the research. However, the fact that you think I'm trying to "stick it to atheists" just reveals this point I've made before, that you've an emotional investment in atheism, and that's why you characterize it in this fashion.

Fucking bollocks.

It's that you phone up The Atheist Experience to tell atheists they are wrong,

They have been wrong. I even got Matt to admit that he was unfamiliar with the research, and he was wrong in how he was approaching it in my most recent call. I don't know if you've seen that one.

Thommo wrote:it's the fact that you challenge atheists to take drugs that you know can be harmful,

No one's saying you have to vape DMT. Calm your cheeks. However, Terence McKenna used to say, "You can meet the alien... tonight... if your connections are good enough." It was just a facetious and joking way of saying that yes, there is this experience that an challenge your perspective whatever it may be that exists. You don't have to experience it now, if you don't want. That's fine. While these drugs can be harmful, by and large, they're more beneficial in most cases, and in my participation here, and I know you've been on the other threads I've posted here at this forum, you don't seem like a person that would have issues with this experience. However, I could be wrong, and Dr. Bill Richards has said that people who don't have some particular religious bent like a devout Christian or a rigid atheist, you know, like an honest agnostic with an open-mind are good candidates for a "complete" mystical experience. They don't have an ego to cling to, then can let go a bit easier it seems.

Thommo wrote:it's the fact you say stuff like "You refuse to accept, and you'd rather construe it in your own way so that you can keep your atheism intact" or "you've an emotional investment in atheism" or "I believe such an experience would allow you to see through theism or even atheism for what it is" or "So, atheism might seem like a rational position, but what most atheist do not consider, and in fact, have not experienced is the mystical experience itself." at every turn, it's the fact that 100% of your posts are on the same fucking subject that makes me think you're trying to stick it to atheists. That is it's instances of you seeking out atheists and trying to stick it to them and their abundancy.

Well, it wasn't my intention to speak unadulterated truth and offend your atheism. That's why I make these observations, because they're true, otherwise you wouldn't feel as though I've attacked you. I believe theists are going to have to succumb to what the science is saying, too. I'm not just targeting atheists as you seem to think, I participate in theist forums, too. However, due to the pedanticness of the atheist, I've found that I've had to really sharpen how I express these things in a way where I'm not really challenged to do so in theist forums.

Thommo wrote:You paint a false equivalency yet again. I don't seek out perennialists and try to convert them or tell them what to think or believe.

Omg, man. That's funny. Seeking out Perennialists to convert 'em. I don't see Perennialism like that, I see it how I see Buddhism or Hinduism in that it's a reactionary thing to a universal phenomenon in consciousness. Carl Jung called it the "collective unconscious."

Thommo wrote:I doubt I've ever even said Perennialism is wrong. I've said that science doesn't show what you say it does, because that's what I care about. You say you can tell us all about some interesting science, that's the attention grabbing promise. You just fail to deliver on it.

Only it does say what I've said. I'm merely reiterating what has been established by the science. What do you think I'm saying that is different? That's what I've yet to hear you say.

Thommo wrote:

Kafei wrote:I asked you, "Is there anything wrong with atheism being wrong?" You said no, but you seem to have an objection.

IIIRC what I said was "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.".

Basically you said no. That was my point, but you don't act on that, you become defensive as though I'm solely after atheists. I'm not. I'm merely redirecting people's attention to the science relative to these topics, not simply atheists.

Thommo wrote:Atheism could be wrong. But the logical possibility is, alone, basically meaningless. You think, and claim, that science has shown atheism to be wrong. You couldn't be more wrong about that, which is why you defend that claim with bizarre rambles about how Aldous Huxley was a philosopher who wrote non fiction instead of science.

No, I was just pointing out that your criticism on Aldous Huxley is irrelevant to the fact that Perennialism had already existed for ages.

Thommo wrote:That is a problem - specifically a logical problem known as a non sequitur.

According to you, but you haven't seem to quite to grasp any of this thus far, it seems.

Thommo wrote:

Kafei wrote:

Thommo wrote:Or is this that semantic game again where you refer to Huxley's opinion as a "professional" and then equivocate "professional" with people like Griffiths who are doing some actual research (that does not show the truth of Huxley's opinion in any way, shape or form)?

I don't think it was Huxley's opinion. He was writing on a view that had already existed. And yes, I would say that Dr. Roland Griffiths' research is definitely hinting towards a Perennial philosophical view on the major religions which is arising out this scientific research.

None of that matters in the slightest. The claim is what science has shown, weasel words about a writer who never did any science just couldn't be of less importance.

What science would you want Huxley to do? He didn't have any access to psychedelics in the way that Griffiths does. He wrote extensively on the world's major religions from the lens of the view that has been historically been known as the Perennial philosophy. And you keep focusing on Huxley as though he's somehow the arbiter of the Perennial philosophy. Perennial philosophy has no arbiter, it's a view that had been known and written upon long before Huxley came along. Huxley was just making his contribution. Even the ancient mystics that recognized the Perennial philosophy had done so by virtue of their mystical experience, and once this ego death happens, the mystic simply seems himself or herself in a chain of mystics that eventually come to this revelation. That's why it's called The Perennial philosophy or the Perennial wisdom. The Eternal wisdom. The Eternal re-occurring philosophy.

Thommo wrote:Literally, your trump card, the absolute epitome of what you think constutes good, solid science, lest we forget, is (according to you) that people can take drugs and as long as they don't get psychologically scarred for life have an experience. Now, I wouldn't call this scientific at all (because it obviously isn't) and I would have said your trump card was a reference to a non existent study and this (rather irrelevant) screenshot summarising the opinion of a sci fi author:

but there you go.

Whatever narrative you've got to tell yourself to avoid what this research is saying, to avoid a "complete" mystical experience itself. That's the real trump card here.

Kafei wrote:Only it does say what I've said. I'm merely reiterating what has been established by the science.

You very obviously aren't. That's the only thing that matters.

Kafei wrote:What do you think I'm saying that is different? That's what I've yet to hear you say.

This is literally delusion. I must have answered this question a hundred times. Here's just one example - from this very conversation:

Thommo wrote:That doesn't make it science. That doesn't make it true. You make strong claims, then bait and switch and defend weak ones and think that nobody will notice.

Well, we do. This is what you ask everyone to believe:

• You have claimed that the research is scientific evidence for a particular metaphysics of unity known as perennialism.
• You have claimed that the research shows taking psilocybin causes atheists to convert the overwhelming majority of the time.
• You have claimed that the research shows all religions have a common root cause.

You confirmed that you believe every one of the listed items. That is you say the science says those things. What you defend is instead this:

Thommo wrote:

• People have claimed to have had mystical experiences for a long time.
• Aldous Huxley wrote non fiction.

These lists are really, painfully obviously not the same. The science shows none of the things in the first list, and you can't muster up any source whatsoever, no matter of how poor quality, saying otherwise, which is why you produce screen grabs of what Aldous Huxley thought 70 years ago instead.

Thommo wrote:

Kafei wrote:Only it does say what I've said. I'm merely reiterating what has been established by the science.

You very obviously aren't. That's the only thing that matters.

Alright. Explain to me how the Perennial philosophy is completely divorced from this science, why don't you?

Thommo wrote:

Kafei wrote:What do you think I'm saying that is different? That's what I've yet to hear you say.

This is literally delusion. I must have answered this question a hundred times. Here's just one example - from this very conversation:

Thommo wrote:That doesn't make it science. That doesn't make it true. You make strong claims, then bait and switch and defend weak ones and think that nobody will notice.

Well, we do. This is what you ask everyone to believe:

• You have claimed that the research is scientific evidence for a particular metaphysics of unity known as perennialism.
• You have claimed that the research shows taking psilocybin causes atheists to convert the overwhelming majority of the time.
• You have claimed that the research shows all religions have a common root cause.

You confirmed that you believe every one of the listed items. That is you say the science says those things. What you defend is instead this:

Thommo wrote:

• People have claimed to have had mystical experiences for a long time.
• Aldous Huxley wrote non fiction.

These thing are really, painfully obviously not the same. The science shows none of the things in the first list, and you can't muster up any source saying otherwise, which is why you produce screen grabs of what Aldous Huxley thought 70 years ago instead.

What you don't seem to understand is Perennial philosophy is not a thought of Huxley's, it's not opinion of Huxley's, it's more accurately a historical view that had already existed, and that he was writing on from the vantage point of a philosopher. I think you're too hung up on Aldous Huxley. I'm quite sure they could have chosen any philosopher who's writings truly reflected what this view entails. What I'm not necessarily defending, but I'd say redirecting people's attention to is not Huxley, in particular, but rather the decades of established research on these mystical states of consciousness that have initiated with the work of William James, that have been further elaborated throughout the decades by William T. Stace, Walter Pahnke, Ralph Hood, et al. and that have been most refined in these studies led by Dr. Roland Griffiths which has now prompted many other studies across the globe.

Kafei wrote:Basically you said no. That was my point, but you don't act on that, you become defensive as though I'm solely after atheists.

I don't care if you're solely after atheists. I care that your stated intentions don't match your actions, but on reflection I don't care all that much. It makes you look bad, but so what?

And I do absolutely act in accordance with my answer. The logical possibility of the falsity of atheism is meaningless. How could I even act against such a possibility? This was my point you believe there is scientific evidence showing atheism to be wrong, and that's something we can discuss.

As it turns out you're just wrong and there's no such evidence. Acting in accordance with that I am free to think atheism is likely or unlikely. Lack of evidence informs nothing.

Kafei wrote:No, I was just pointing out that your criticism on Aldous Huxley is irrelevant to the fact that Perennialism had already existed for ages.

I haven't criticised Aldous Huxley. He was a good writer.

What I've criticised is the fucking ludicrous elision of the distinction between science, scientist, philosopher and sci-fi author. What a sci-fi author thought is not a reflection of what science shows. At all.

And if we want to be fair to him - he never said or implied otherwise. You did.

Kafei wrote:What science would you want Huxley to do?

None. But if you quote him and claim it's science, then it needs to be science or you're wrong.

In this case, you're wrong.

Kafei wrote:Whatever narrative you've got to tell yourself to avoid what this research is saying, to avoid a "complete" mystical experience itself. That's the real trump card here.

No, saying that a non-scientific book is not science is not a narrative at all.

The point is the conversation (if we strip the ludicrous amount of sidesteps you've taken) goes like this:
Kafei: Science has shown the metaphysical truth of a fundamental, immanent divine reality of unity and love.
Me: Where specifically has science shown this?
Kafei: Here in this book that says Aldous Huxley believed it to be true.
Me: But what Aldous Huxley believes and what science shows are two entirely different things.
Kafei: You're just a defensive atheist who will deploy any narrative to avoid confronting the truth!

It is depressingly short of content, and that last step is just, as I said before, fucking dumb. Nothing about the difference between a writer from the mid 20th century and scientific research hinges on atheism.

Kafei wrote:

Thommo wrote:

Kafei wrote:Only it does say what I've said. I'm merely reiterating what has been established by the science.

You very obviously aren't. That's the only thing that matters.

Alright. Explain to me how the Perennial philosophy is completely divorced from this science, why don't you?

Why should I? You've twisted what I said into a question to try and imply I have some burden of proof for your claim. It's clownishly bad rhetoric, completely illogical.

I think there are connections between this research and the philosophy - clearly many of the researchers have become interested in the drugs because of their pre-existing beliefs and they want to investigate them. Does that meet the criterion of "completely divorced"? Or violate it?

I have no idea, because I've never used the concept in the discussion, you just brought it up for some reason that has nothing to do with what the science actually shows, or what I've said.

Kafei wrote:

Thommo wrote:

Kafei wrote:What do you think I'm saying that is different? That's what I've yet to hear you say.

This is literally delusion. I must have answered this question a hundred times. Here's just one example - from this very conversation:

Thommo wrote:That doesn't make it science. That doesn't make it true. You make strong claims, then bait and switch and defend weak ones and think that nobody will notice.

Well, we do. This is what you ask everyone to believe:

• You have claimed that the research is scientific evidence for a particular metaphysics of unity known as perennialism.
• You have claimed that the research shows taking psilocybin causes atheists to convert the overwhelming majority of the time.
• You have claimed that the research shows all religions have a common root cause.

You confirmed that you believe every one of the listed items. That is you say the science says those things. What you defend is instead this:

Thommo wrote:

• People have claimed to have had mystical experiences for a long time.
• Aldous Huxley wrote non fiction.

These thing are really, painfully obviously not the same. The science shows none of the things in the first list, and you can't muster up any source saying otherwise, which is why you produce screen grabs of what Aldous Huxley thought 70 years ago instead.

What you don't seem to understand is Perennial philosophy is not a thought of Huxley's, it's not opinion of Huxley's

No, stop there. I'm not saying anything about the origins. I'm talking about what you've cited as scientific evidence.

The point is that if something is not scientific evidence, you don't get to call it scientific evidence. I asked you for scientific evidence and that's what you produced - you were wrong, it's not scientific evidence.

The only thing I care about is this claim that science has shown things. It hasn't. And you seem incapable of focussing on that point for even a single post.

Thommo wrote:

Kafei wrote:Basically you said no. That was my point, but you don't act on that, you become defensive as though I'm solely after atheists.

I don't care if you're solely after atheists. I care that your stated intentions don't match your actions, but on reflection I don't care all that much. It makes you look bad, but so what?

And I do absolutely act in accordance with my answer. The logical possibility of the falsity of atheism is meaningless. How could I even act against such a possibility? This was my point you believe there is scientific evidence showing atheism to be wrong, and that's something we can discuss.

As it turns out you're just wrong and there's no such evidence. Acting in accordance with that I am free to think atheism is likely or unlikely. Lack of evidence informs nothing.

Kafei wrote:No, I was just pointing out that your criticism on Aldous Huxley is irrelevant to the fact that Perennialism had already existed for ages.

I haven't criticised Aldous Huxley. He was a good writer.

What I've criticised is the fucking ludicrous elision of the distinction between science, scientist, philosopher and sci-fi author. What a sci-fi author thought is not a reflection of what science shows. At all.

And if we want to be fair to him - he never said or implied otherwise. You did.

Kafei wrote:What science would you want Huxley to do?

None. But if you quote him and claim it's science, then it needs to be science or you're wrong.

In this case, you're wrong.

Kafei wrote:Whatever narrative you've got to tell yourself to avoid what this research is saying, to avoid a "complete" mystical experience itself. That's the real trump card here.

No, saying that a non-scientific book is not science is not a narrative at all.

The point is the conversation (if we strip the ludicrous amount of sidesteps you've taken) goes like this:
Kafei: Science has shown the metaphysical truth of a fundamental, immanent divine reality of unity and love.
Me: Where specifically has science shown this?
Kafei: Here in this book that says Aldous Huxley believed it to be true.
Me: But what Aldous Huxley believes and what science shows are two entirely different things.
Kafei: You're just a defensive atheist who will deploy any narrative to avoid confronting the truth!

It is depressingly short of content, and that last step is just, as I said before, fucking dumb. Nothing about the difference between a writer from the mid 20th century and scientific research hinges on atheism.

Again, as per the point I made in the last paragraph of my previous posts, you're pouring way too much emphasis on Huxley. I consider Aldous a variable. They could've chosen any philosopher who has written on the Perennial philosophy by expressing what it precisely entails. They could've used Frithjof Schuon or even the writings of René Guénon.

Thommo wrote:

Kafei wrote:

Thommo wrote:

Kafei wrote:Only it does say what I've said. I'm merely reiterating what has been established by the science.

You very obviously aren't. That's the only thing that matters.

Alright. Explain to me how the Perennial philosophy is completely divorced from this science, why don't you?

Why should I? You've twisted what I said into a question to try and imply I have some burden of proof for your claim. It's clownishly bad rhetoric, completely illogical.

Yes, if you're bashing Huxley, then you're essentially saying that the Perennial philosophy has nothing to do with this research. How else am I supposed to interpret that? Yes, that is a burden of proof you're creating for yourself.

Thommo wrote:I think there are connections between this research and the philosophy - clearly many of the researchers have become interested in the drugs because of their pre-existing beliefs and they want to investigate them. Does that meet the criterion of "completely divorced"? Or violate it?

I don't think any of these professionals had an agenda going into this research, if that's what you're implying. So, you think there's some connection, but you don't know what, right? Well, what do you think that connection might be?

Thommo wrote:I have no idea, because I've never used the concept in the discussion, you just brought it up for some reason that has nothing to do with what the science actually shows, or what I've said.

So, you admit, that you don't know? Is that what I'm hearing?

Thommo wrote:

Kafei wrote:

Thommo wrote:

Kafei wrote:What do you think I'm saying that is different? That's what I've yet to hear you say.

This is literally delusion. I must have answered this question a hundred times. Here's just one example - from this very conversation:

Thommo wrote:That doesn't make it science. That doesn't make it true. You make strong claims, then bait and switch and defend weak ones and think that nobody will notice.

Well, we do. This is what you ask everyone to believe:

• You have claimed that the research is scientific evidence for a particular metaphysics of unity known as perennialism.
• You have claimed that the research shows taking psilocybin causes atheists to convert the overwhelming majority of the time.
• You have claimed that the research shows all religions have a common root cause.

You confirmed that you believe every one of the listed items. That is you say the science says those things. What you defend is instead this:

Thommo wrote:

• People have claimed to have had mystical experiences for a long time.
• Aldous Huxley wrote non fiction.

These thing are really, painfully obviously not the same. The science shows none of the things in the first list, and you can't muster up any source saying otherwise, which is why you produce screen grabs of what Aldous Huxley thought 70 years ago instead.

What you don't seem to understand is Perennial philosophy is not a thought of Huxley's, it's not opinion of Huxley's

No, stop there. I'm not saying anything about the origins. I'm talking about what you've cited as scientific evidence.

The point is that if something is not scientific evidence, you don't get to call it scientific evidence. I asked you for scientific evidence and that's what you produced - you were wrong, it's not scientific evidence.

The only thing I care about is this claim that science has shown things. It hasn't. And you seem incapable of focussing on that point for even a single post.

I am focusing on that point. There's a reason they highlight the Perennial philosophy, perhaps when you understand that, then you'll find that I've always been focusing on this point.

Kafei wrote:Again, as per the point I made in the last paragraph of my previous posts, you're pouring way too much emphasis on Huxley.

No, I'm not. You cited him as a scientific source. Not me. He's not one.

If there is some other scientific source, by all means link that instead. Here's where he came up:

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

Yeah? Do you get it now?

You're defending these three attributions to science:

• You have claimed that the research is scientific evidence for a particular metaphysics of unity known as perennialism.
• You have claimed that the research shows taking psilocybin causes atheists to convert the overwhelming majority of the time.
• You have claimed that the research shows all religions have a common root cause.

And this is the only evidence you have provided for these extraordinary claims. But it's not evidence for them. Huxley is irrelevant because he's not science, which is what you said showed these things.

Thommo wrote:

Kafei wrote:Again, as per the point I made in the last paragraph of my previous posts, you're pouring way too much emphasis on Huxley.

No, I'm not. You cited him as a scientific source. Not me. He's not one.

If there is some other scientific source, by all means link that instead. Here's where he came up:

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

Yeah? Do you get it now?

You're defending these three attributions to science:

• You have claimed that the research is scientific evidence for a particular metaphysics of unity known as perennialism.
• You have claimed that the research shows taking psilocybin causes atheists to convert the overwhelming majority of the time.
• You have claimed that the research shows all religions have a common root cause.

And this is the only evidence you have provided for these extraordinary claims. But it's not evidence for them. Huxley is irrelevant because he's not science, which is what you said showed these things.

Huxley's relevant to this science in that these mystical states of consciousness are being defined within the context of the Perennial philosophy. It doesn't matter who offers the description, just so long as it's true to the Perennial philosophy as its been written about for ages. In this case, they've taken the text from a highly-esteemed philosopher. They also use Ralph Hood's term "common core," and so why you don't attack him, too, if you're going to follow that same logic, you should. That's what you can't quite seem to understand, this is how it's related to this scientific research. Again, as I've pointed out, you're pouring way too much emphasis on Aldous Huxley.

Kafei wrote:

Thommo wrote:

Kafei wrote:

Thommo wrote:

You very obviously aren't. That's the only thing that matters.

Alright. Explain to me how the Perennial philosophy is completely divorced from this science, why don't you?

Why should I? You've twisted what I said into a question to try and imply I have some burden of proof for your claim. It's clownishly bad rhetoric, completely illogical.

Yes, if you're bashing Huxley, then you're essentially saying that the Perennial philosophy has nothing to do with this research. How else am I supposed to interpret that? Yes, that is a burden of proof you're creating for yourself.

What? That makes no sense.

Kafei wrote:

Thommo wrote:I think there are connections between this research and the philosophy - clearly many of the researchers have become interested in the drugs because of their pre-existing beliefs and they want to investigate them. Does that meet the criterion of "completely divorced"? Or violate it?

I don't think any of these professionals had an agenda going into this research, if that's what you're implying. So, you think there's some connection, but you don't know what, right? Well, what do you think that connection might be?

What? What does this have to do with your claim of what science shows?

Science showing something doesn't depend on what you think about Griffiths et al (who by the way, very clearly did already along with McKenna believe this long before the project started up). Science showing something doesn't depend on me guessing what you think some connection is. Science depends on reliable, reproducable hypothesis testing that's subjected to peer review and criticism.

Kafei wrote:

Thommo wrote:I have no idea, because I've never used the concept in the discussion, you just brought it up for some reason that has nothing to do with what the science actually shows, or what I've said.

So, you admit, that you don't know? Is that what I'm hearing?

I admit that I have no idea what you meant by "completely divorced", since it wasn't anything I was talking about. If that admission excites you, fill your boots.

Kafei wrote:I am focusing on that point. There's a reason they highlight the Perennial philosophy, perhaps when you understand that, then you'll find that I've always been focusing on this point.

There you go evading with weird oblique implications instead of specifics. If the science shows something, show us some science.

Christian biologists believe in Christianity. That doesn't mean biology proves Christianity. And any "reason" they highlight Christianity is of no interest to me and no application to the science. The exact same is happening here. You have your wires so badly crossed you won't even answer a straight yes or no question.

Kafei wrote:Huxley's relevant to this science in that these mystical states of consciousness are being defined within the context of the Perennial philosophy. It doesn't matter who offers the description, just so long as it's true to the Perennial philosophy as its been written about for ages. In this case, they've taken the text from a highly-esteemed philosopher. They also use Ralph Hood's term "common core," and so why you don't attack him, too, if you're going to follow that same logic, you should. That's what you can't quite seem to understand, this is how it's related to this scientific research. Again, as I've pointed out, you're pouring way too much emphasis on Aldous Huxley.

What are you even talking about?

I'm not attacking Huxley. You're saying what he said is science. It isn't. The whole thing is summed up in those nine words.

I didn't emphasise Huxley - you did. I didn't pick him out - you did when you put that big red ring around things he said and called it science.

Thommo wrote:

Kafei wrote:

Thommo wrote:

Kafei wrote:

Alright. Explain to me how the Perennial philosophy is completely divorced from this science, why don't you?

Why should I? You've twisted what I said into a question to try and imply I have some burden of proof for your claim. It's clownishly bad rhetoric, completely illogical.

Yes, if you're bashing Huxley, then you're essentially saying that the Perennial philosophy has nothing to do with this research. How else am I supposed to interpret that? Yes, that is a burden of proof you're creating for yourself.

What? That makes no sense.

You said you think it's related, but you haven't explained how. I'm still waiting. Is it related, is the Perennial philosophy related to this science in anyway? What's the deal?

Kafei wrote:

Thommo wrote:I think there are connections between this research and the philosophy - clearly many of the researchers have become interested in the drugs because of their pre-existing beliefs and they want to investigate them. Does that meet the criterion of "completely divorced"? Or violate it?

I don't think any of these professionals had an agenda going into this research, if that's what you're implying. So, you think there's some connection, but you don't know what, right? Well, what do you think that connection might be?

Thommo wrote:What? What does this have to do with your claim of what science shows? Science showing something doesn't depend on what you think about Griffiths et al (who by the way, very clearly did already along with McKenna believe this long before the project started up). Science showing something doesn't depend on me guessing what you think some connection is. Science depends on reliable, reproducable hypothesis testing that's subjected to peer review and criticism.

Yes, and the reliable, reproducible event is this "complete" mystical experience.

Thommo wrote:

Kafei wrote:

Thommo wrote:I have no idea, because I've never used the concept in the discussion, you just brought it up for some reason that has nothing to do with what the science actually shows, or what I've said.

So, you admit, that you don't know? Is that what I'm hearing?

I admit that I have no idea what you meant by "completely divorced", since it wasn't anything I was talking about. If that admission excites you, fill your boots.

No, I'm saying you admit that you have absolutely no clue as to how the Perennial philosophy is involved in all of this, that's what I'm saying. Unless you'd like to enlighten me.

Thommo wrote:

Kafei wrote:I am focusing on that point. There's a reason they highlight the Perennial philosophy, perhaps when you understand that, then you'll find that I've always been focusing on this point.

There you go evading with weird oblique implications instead of specifics. If the science shows something, show us some science.

I have, you just find ways to jump around it, and avoid asking these very direct questions I'm telling you.

Thommo wrote:Christian biologists believe in Christianity. That doesn't mean biology proves Christianity. And any "reason" they highlight Christianity is of no interest to me and no application to the science. The exact same is happening here. You have your wires so badly crossed you won't even answer a straight yes or no question.

And yet another false analogy.

Thommo wrote:

Kafei wrote:Huxley's relevant to this science in that these mystical states of consciousness are being defined within the context of the Perennial philosophy. It doesn't matter who offers the description, just so long as it's true to the Perennial philosophy as its been written about for ages. In this case, they've taken the text from a highly-esteemed philosopher. They also use Ralph Hood's term "common core," and so why you don't attack him, too, if you're going to follow that same logic, you should. That's what you can't quite seem to understand, this is how it's related to this scientific research. Again, as I've pointed out, you're pouring way too much emphasis on Aldous Huxley.

What are you even talking about?

I'm not attacking Huxley. You're saying what he said is science. It isn't. The whole thing is summed up in those nine words.

I didn't emphasise Huxley - you did. I didn't pick him out - you did when you put that big red ring around things he said and called it science.

It became part of the science when these researchers established the definition of these mystical experiences in accordance with the Perennial philosophy. I wouldn't argue that Aldous Huxley's writing on the Perennial philosophy in and of itself is science, but rather it does offer an accurate description to how these professionals are defining mystical states of consciousness.

Kafei wrote:

Thommo wrote:

Kafei wrote:

Thommo wrote:

Why should I? You've twisted what I said into a question to try and imply I have some burden of proof for your claim. It's clownishly bad rhetoric, completely illogical.

Yes, if you're bashing Huxley, then you're essentially saying that the Perennial philosophy has nothing to do with this research. How else am I supposed to interpret that? Yes, that is a burden of proof you're creating for yourself.

What? That makes no sense.

You said you think it's related, but you haven't explained how. I'm still waiting. Is it related, is the Perennial philosophy related to this science in anyway? What's the deal?

What? Quote what I said that you're asking after, because the genesis of this strand was here:

Kafei wrote:

Thommo wrote:

Kafei wrote:Only it does say what I've said. I'm merely reiterating what has been established by the science.

You very obviously aren't. That's the only thing that matters.

Alright. Explain to me how the Perennial philosophy is completely divorced from this science, why don't you?

Where you said you were only relaying exactly what science said, I disagreed in unequivocal terms and you asked a question that had nothing to do with showing what the science said at all.

I then speculated about what you meant by "completely divorced", pointed out that the term was not one I'd used and said that individuals like Griffiths and McKenna were already believers before the start of the Johns Hopkins project and wondered whether or not that would violate this condition of "completely divorced" you introduced.

There was no unsubstantiated claim there (unless what you're asking for is me to provide you with citations going back 15 years of Griffiths' and McKenna's views, which I'm sure are easily available).

After this point the quote tags are fucked up, making it doubly incomprehensible. I'll try to extract some sense from it:

Kafei wrote:

Thommo wrote:Science showing something doesn't depend on what you think about Griffiths et al (who by the way, very clearly did already along with McKenna believe this long before the project started up). Science showing something doesn't depend on me guessing what you think some connection is. Science depends on reliable, reproducable hypothesis testing that's subjected to peer review and criticism.

Yes, and the reliable, reproducible event is this "complete" mystical experience.

Right, they can reproduce 60% scores on a questionnaire which establishes nothing metaphysical or divine and which they do not claim does. Which one of the three claims you're making:

• You have claimed that the research is scientific evidence for a particular metaphysics of unity known as perennialism.
• You have claimed that the research shows taking psilocybin causes atheists to convert the overwhelming majority of the time.
• You have claimed that the research shows all religions have a common root cause.

Do you think is a mere reiteration of the ability to induce some people to score 60% on a questionnaire?

Kafei wrote:No, I'm saying you admit that you have absolutely no clue as to how the Perennial philosophy is involved in all of this, that's what I'm saying. Unless you'd like to enlighten me.

They do say attack is the best form of defence, but how exactly does this tell us what the science shows?

Kafei wrote:I have, you just find ways to jump around it, and avoid asking these very direct questions I'm telling you.

Again, just accusing people of the things you're doing as a form of attack isn't, perhaps, as clever as you hope it is. We're here discussing your claim that you are merely reiterating science. You don't need to ask me questions to provide scientific evidence.

If the evidence shows something, then it doesn't matter what I think. Just cite the relevant scientific literature.

Kafei wrote:

Thommo wrote:Christian biologists believe in Christianity. That doesn't mean biology proves Christianity. And any "reason" they highlight Christianity is of no interest to me and no application to the science. The exact same is happening here. You have your wires so badly crossed you won't even answer a straight yes or no question.

And yet another false analogy as the cherry on top.

At least you've correctly identified an analogy this time. But how does stating it false help anything? Does this provide evidence for your claims about what science shows?

• You have claimed that the research is scientific evidence for a particular metaphysics of unity known as perennialism.
• You have claimed that the research shows taking psilocybin causes atheists to convert the overwhelming majority of the time.
• You have claimed that the research shows all religions have a common root cause.

And just to be clear (not that you mounted any argument, just a fiat declaration) the analogy is perfectly sound, the relation of the religious beliefs of the researchers to the truth of the research they conduct is identical, as is the relation of their beliefs to their research proving their beliefs true.

Thommo wrote:And just to be clear the analogy is perfectly sound, the relation of the religious beliefs of the researchers to the truth of the research they conduct is identical, as is the relation of their beliefs to their research proving their beliefs true.

The relationship to the researchers. So, let me get this straight. Your argument is that the researchers were Perennialist prior to the research? I don't think so, I think that's just simply the direction this scientific research took, it's simply where the evidence led. It wasn't under the sway of some influence of the professionals, is that what you think?

Terence McKenna, by the way, if that's who you're referring to by McKenna, was an atheist prior to his psychedelic experience. Likewise, Richard Alpert, Rupert Sheldrake, Alex Grey, Aldous Huxley, Alan Watts, Jack Kerouac, Allen Ginsberg, etc., etc., etc.