Cito di Pense wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:
What have you said, here?

Only that Griffiths isn't saying much at all. Kafei goes on about "biologically normal" as if it meant something important, but even Griffiths' strongest claim for it, which is not supported by his evidence, that "70%" have CME from high doses of perception distorting drugs, is irrelevant to someone claiming that CME has anything to do with "seeing God".

Well that's fine, Graham. I don't know what 'seeing God' could possibly refer to. Worse yet, neither do you. So what do you conclude when someone else talks about 'seeing God'? You conclude you don't know what he's talking about. What do perception-distorting drugs do? They distort perception. This comes directly from the Department of Tautology Department.

Cito di Pense wrote:
What kind of shit is this, where we actually have to try to figure out what Kafei thinks he's saying? If hundreds of posts from Kafei have not convinced you that he's not very focused, then nothing will.

Kafei wrote:They don't simply distort perception, otherwise these researchers wouldn't apply this term "complete" mystical experience.

Kafei wrote:...

That's precisely why I say the "complete" mystical experience is the greatest challenge for the atheist, 'cause then you don't have to intellectually grope to understand by reading however many posts in a thread about it, you'd rather then understand by direct intuition within a phenomenon in consciousness.

Thommo wrote:

Kafei wrote:They don't simply distort perception, otherwise these researchers wouldn't apply this term "complete" mystical experience.

No.

newolder wrote:

Kafei wrote:...

That's precisely why I say the "complete" mystical experience is the greatest challenge for the atheist, 'cause then you don't have to intellectually grope to understand by reading however many posts in a thread about it, you'd rather then understand by direct intuition within a phenomenon in consciousness.

Have you considered marketing mono-rail technology to small urban communities?

Kafei wrote:[ I'd also add that the reason you can't fathom this phrase "seeing God" is precisely due to the fact that you've not had this experience for yourself. .

Kafei wrote:
They don't simply distort perception, otherwise these researchers wouldn't apply this term "complete" mystical experience..

Kafei wrote:...

Have you considered actually taking a little more sincerity in grasping precisely what this research entails or what the implications are?

Kafei wrote:

Thommo wrote:

Kafei wrote:They don't simply distort perception, otherwise these researchers wouldn't apply this term "complete" mystical experience.

No.

Pressing on your closed eyelids can distort your perception, but that doesn't say much about the experience now, does it?

Kafei wrote:
Have you considered actually taking a little more sincerity in grasping precisely what this research entails or what the implications are?

Cito di Pense wrote:

Kafei wrote:[ I'd also add that the reason you can't fathom this phrase "seeing God" is precisely due to the fact that you've not had this experience for yourself. .

The spoons still aren't bending, Kafei. If only you had a proper sermon prepared, one that could bend the spoons, at least enough to cause me to recognize the experience.

Over and over you've claimed that skepticism derives from not having had "the experience". But you'd only admit that I'd had the experience if I wasn't skeptical of it. See how that works? Those who have not seen, do not believe!

Kafei wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:
Don't forget, Kafei: You're begging ME to treat this as science. I know you do, but your ignorance of scientific method is deep and wide.

I'm not begging you.

GrahamH wrote:

Kafei wrote:
Have you considered actually taking a little more sincerity in grasping precisely what this research entails or what the implications are?

Until you can work out a way to test the validity of your own CME you won't be able to sell it to me. The line that taking drugs will make me believe something I wouldn't otherwise have any reason to believe and that I couldn't test it in any way is not an attractive proposition.

Kafei wrote:Basically, entheogens offer the most facile route to this experience.

Kafei wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:
Don't forget, Kafei: You're begging ME to treat this as science. I know you do, but your ignorance of scientific method is deep and wide.

I'm not begging you.

facile
/ˈfasʌɪl,ˈfasɪl/
adjective
adjective: facile

1.
ignoring the true complexities of an issue; superficial.

Thommo wrote:

facile
/ˈfasʌɪl,ˈfasɪl/
adjective
adjective: facile

1.
ignoring the true complexities of an issue; superficial.

Seems like the right word.

Although why it would be "this experience" rather than "an experience which might have some of these features" is another matter.

Kafei wrote:
The second entry is more aligned with the context in which I've used this word.

Kafei wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

Kafei wrote:
Have you considered actually taking a little more sincerity in grasping precisely what this research entails or what the implications are?

Until you can work out a way to test the validity of your own CME you won't be able to sell it to me. The line that taking drugs will make me believe something I wouldn't otherwise have any reason to believe and that I couldn't test it in any way is not an attractive proposition.

Psychedelics aren't required to elicit these mystical states of consciousness. However, they've proven reliable at triggering this experience on-demand. Meditation can take years sometimes, consider the trials and tribulations of Anthony the Great. Gautama practiced an extreme form of asceticism which he picked up from the Hindus. Basically, entheogens offer the most facile route to this experience.

GrahamH wrote:

Kafei wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

Kafei wrote:
Have you considered actually taking a little more sincerity in grasping precisely what this research entails or what the implications are?

Until you can work out a way to test the validity of your own CME you won't be able to sell it to me. The line that taking drugs will make me believe something I wouldn't otherwise have any reason to believe and that I couldn't test it in any way is not an attractive proposition.

Psychedelics aren't required to elicit these mystical states of consciousness. However, they've proven reliable at triggering this experience on-demand. Meditation can take years sometimes, consider the trials and tribulations of Anthony the Great. Gautama practiced an extreme form of asceticism which he picked up from the Hindus. Basically, entheogens offer the most facile route to this experience.

Whatever the route, there's still no testing it is there? Various ways to have visions of dragons but no way to tell if the dragons or real or illusory. Reason suggest they are illusory but you say I could distort my perceptions in various extra ways so that the dragons would "intuitively" seem real and leave me desperate to convince others I had seen dragons and they could too, if only they would set aside scepticism and dedicate time and effort and take drugs.

Kafei wrote:The second entry is more aligned with the context in which I've used this word.

GrahamH wrote:

Kafei wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

Kafei wrote:
Have you considered actually taking a little more sincerity in grasping precisely what this research entails or what the implications are?

Until you can work out a way to test the validity of your own CME you won't be able to sell it to me. The line that taking drugs will make me believe something I wouldn't otherwise have any reason to believe and that I couldn't test it in any way is not an attractive proposition.

Psychedelics aren't required to elicit these mystical states of consciousness. However, they've proven reliable at triggering this experience on-demand. Meditation can take years sometimes, consider the trials and tribulations of Anthony the Great. Gautama practiced an extreme form of asceticism which he picked up from the Hindus. Basically, entheogens offer the most facile route to this experience.

Whatever the route, there's still no testing it is there? Various ways to have visions of dragons but no way to tell if the dragons or real or illusory. Reason suggest they are illusory but you say I could distort my perceptions in various extra ways so that the dragons would "intuitively" seem real and leave me desperate to convince others I had seen dragons and they could too, if only they would set aside scepticism and dedicate time and effort and take drugs.

No thanks.


You work out how to test the experience and report back if you manage to verify any of it as real.

Cito di Pense wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

Kafei wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

Until you can work out a way to test the validity of your own CME you won't be able to sell it to me. The line that taking drugs will make me believe something I wouldn't otherwise have any reason to believe and that I couldn't test it in any way is not an attractive proposition.

Psychedelics aren't required to elicit these mystical states of consciousness. However, they've proven reliable at triggering this experience on-demand. Meditation can take years sometimes, consider the trials and tribulations of Anthony the Great. Gautama practiced an extreme form of asceticism which he picked up from the Hindus. Basically, entheogens offer the most facile route to this experience.

Whatever the route, there's still no testing it is there? Various ways to have visions of dragons but no way to tell if the dragons or real or illusory. Reason suggest they are illusory but you say I could distort my perceptions in various extra ways so that the dragons would "intuitively" seem real and leave me desperate to convince others I had seen dragons and they could too, if only they would set aside scepticism and dedicate time and effort and take drugs.

Me, I think I'll just press on my eyeballs.