It's not like the ability to consistently induce perceptions in humans says anything about the underlying reality in some immediate way anyway. E.g.

newolder wrote:There's more than meets the eye here too. There are 12 black dots in the image but your brain won't let you see them all at once.

Someone's inability to see 12 circular black dots at once does not mean there are not 12 circular black dots at once. The misfire in our perception is far more universal than any psychedelic experience, and whilst it does represent something real, and common amongst most people that thing is not the direct truth of the perception.

Thommo wrote:It's not like the ability to consistently induce perceptions in humans says anything about the underlying reality in some immediate way anyway. E.g.

newolder wrote:There's more than meets the eye here too. There are 12 black dots in the image but your brain won't let you see them all at once.

Someone's inability to see 12 circular black dots at once does not mean there are not 12 circular black dots at once. The misfire in our perception is far more universal than any psychedelic experience, and whilst it does represent something real, and common amongst most people that thing is not the direct truth of the perception.

There's a singular myopia in an experimental protocol that doesn't classify an experience as a religious experience unless it meets certain criteria such as being described as a religious experience. I don't know the name for that fallacy, but it's gotta have a name. Or maybe we should just call it rank fuckin' stupidity.

There's nothing more wrong with religion that doesn't begin and end with its exclusivity.

Cito di Pense wrote:There's a singular myopia in an experimental protocol that doesn't classify an experience as a religious experience unless it meets certain criteria such as being described as a religious experience. I don't know the name for that fallacy, but it's gotta have a name. Or maybe we should just call it rank fuckin' stupidity.

I know what you mean. It's the same problem that plagues psychometric testing, best summarised by the old psychology question and answer: "What do IQ tests measure? IQ. What is IQ? It's what's measured by IQ tests."

IQ of course has some other virtues, like correlation with academic or economic performance that can be used to make certain types of prediction, but there's universal agreement amongst experts that IQ is not intelligence. The same is true of Mystical Experience (as defined by the MEQ) - it's not "mystical", it's just a score on a questionnaire.

That people put interpretations of dubious character on that is as underwhelming as people who say that quantum mechanics means "consciousness causes collapse".

Cito di Pense wrote:

laklak wrote:Funny how people who take the same drug report similar experiences, eh?

What's even funnier is how there's anyone left to remember the complete mystical experience once the CME is in progress. Me, I don't remember a thing about my CME. I just know I must have had one, because I'm such a wise-ass, now.

Well, I would say just because the ego disappears, doesn't mean you don't have an experience anymore. It's simply that consciousness is completely transformed into something else. And this is what people are recalling, it's this "something else" which is universally expressed beyond the memories, the misrememberings, thoughts, dreams, etc. of the individual. In other words, the detritus of the ego. It's nothing to do with that part of your psyche, what people are recalling is this complete transformation where consciousness is transformed in a very particular manner which is gauged by these measures.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Kafei wrote:You don't have to wait for death.

There's no percentage in it, as I've pointed out.

No percentage in it? I don't know what mean. You mean, you don't believe any mystical experiences occur at all in the near-death experience?

Thommo wrote:
The truth is Kafei you are a zealous evangelist for a particular religious view, not someone interested in science.

Perennial philosophy is not a religious view as Perennial philosophy is not a religion. And yes, I am referring to science which has produced evidence which hints towards the Perennial philosophy in the peer-reviewed papers.

Thommo wrote:You think you've found a line of attack against atheism

I'm not attacking atheists. I'm merely reiterating the science that's been established.

Thommo wrote:that atheists would instantly change their view if only they'd take psychedelics, and thus you feel some sort of superiority in issuing a challenge that atheists are somehow being intellectual cowards if they don't take those psychedelics.

I wouldn't put it that way. I don't feel any superiority in acknowledging that this is, indeed, a challenge to the atheist's views, their assumptions, their ontological foundations, etc. I don't think people in general, even atheists, are intellectually cowards for avoiding the experience. I wouldn't recommend this experience to anyone unless they've truly considered it. These are life-changing experiences. So, do you want to have an experience that'll forever alter the course of your life, forever change the way you view things? Those are serious questions to consider, and so I'm not telling anyone to jump into this experience. However, if an atheist wanted to challenge their atheism, this would definitely be the way to do it. I'm not telling you to do it. Although, it is very difficult to consider the implications of this research if you're merely intellectually considering it without having had this experience. I think that's why these researchers are having so much trouble getting it legalized. Because it is true that most people haven't had this experience. Without psychedelics, it's a quite rare phenomenon. I don't know if I mentioned it to you or someone else, but psilocybin as of October this year has been granted Breakthrough Therapy designation by the FDA for treatment-resistant depression. So, if you were feeling suicidally depressed, at the end of your rope, and if you're looking for a last resort apart from suicide itself, then you could take psilocybin legally in a therapeutic setting with professionals and medical support as precisely has been handled with these studies.

Thommo wrote:Unfortunately, as has been shown at unreasonable length this view of yours is founded on vapour, there's no such research. You misunderstood a Youtube video you watched and invented the whole thing out of wishful thinking.

Invented what? Please be specific. I've noticed lots of people here are quick to make accusations, but are never specific as to what they're criticizing. What is it that you think I'm saying differently than what has been demonstrated by the research? What is it that you think I've misunderstood?

Thommo wrote:Whilst I'm equally sure that you will be pathologically unable to accept this reality, I'm also equally sure you'll be unable to state exactly what it is the research shows that we are all mistaken about and show us where. The best we're likely to get is one of the same links to the same Youtube videos that feature true believers discussing science that does not say what you say.

I've posted all my links. Please, point out the scientist that is not saying what I'm saying.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oV3a2G9GS_E#t=11m47s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsgKUglCI7g#t=7m13s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxWvIp9XtUc#t=8m17s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuwkDgyIuao#t=23m04s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bu3q3GMHfE#t=34m36s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UF5l7wxN-k&t=53m52s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhbjKizniOU&t=13m24s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQ6gx-miUH4#t=1m59s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbQOpWlyV5Q&t=4m51s

Thommo wrote:And so the circus goes on.

Well, I'm glad you at the very least find it entertaining.

theropod wrote:Oh, my mushrooms weren’t powerful/potent enough eh?

Yes, it's quite possible. Like I said, I've had 15 gram-level doses myself, and it only gave me what I've had with about 4 grams of more potent mushrooms. These factors are definitely there.

theropod wrote:Considering I picked them myself, and sampled them several times before my epic dose, I would challenge that assessment.

I've participated in this plenty myself. I also spent some time growing them, but that became very risky, so I stopped a while back.

theropod wrote:Also considering I have done LSD, DMT, peyote buttons and an obscure drug called STP I assure you those ‘shrooms were very potent.

I'm following so far, however I've done other psychedelics myself. I'm quite fascinated by them. I wouldn't claim as much as Alexander Shulgin, but I haven't tried ayahuasca. That's on the bucket list.

theropod wrote:This wasn’t my first rodeo, and I know the difference between a mild trip and teetering on the edge. 14 grams, or more, of fresh Liberty Caps will tear anyone’s head wide open, and my sealed in a test tube ‘shrooms cuased me to see lava flows that would make the the Hawaii eruption look like a popped zit. That was probably the most profound hallucinations I ever experienced on ‘shrooms, but my anecdotal testimony doesn’t matter if it doesn’t conform to your bullshit, but yours do. Fuck me a runnin’.

Hmm... How shall I put this... Doug Stanhope, the comedian, was given DMT by Joe Rogan. He's definitely had this experience, and he made this point once that you might describe these things as "lava flows that would make the Hawaii eruption look like a popped zit." I consider this as what Doug's pointed out in his stand-up as "the colours." I think he says it around the 1:18 mark, but the whole clip is interesting, it's very short.

I want to in the very same spirit as requested by the psychiatrist that approached Alan Watts and told him, "I don't think you've really gone into this deeply enough. I could point out certain things to you that would be interesting, because you see, this drug is something you have to learn how to use. Just how you have to learn to use a microscope. There's a certain technique to it, supposing you're a biologist or a bacteriologist, you've got to learn the art of using the instrument." He mentions this at the very bottom link, but if you want to grasp the context, I'd start from the top link, if you've not that much time, then the middle link. If you want to ignore the context, and jump to the point, then third link.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TYh_zS2uKQ#t=10m45s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TYh_zS2uKQ#t=14m37s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TYh_zS2uKQ#t=16m21s

theropod wrote:See, here’s where your entire argument breaks down, but I don’t expect you to ever admit it. The simple fact is you dismiss anything and everything that counters your bullshit.

That's not true. I don't think citing the science is necessarily bullshit, and even if you think it is, you haven't said anything in specific which "counters" it.

theropod wrote:Even when someone that has done liquid LSD in dosage levels that would make your examples look like a cup of non caffeinated coffee in comparison it still isn’t enough for you.

Okay, there is, indeed, a threshold, and at the dose ranges you've mentioned regarding 'shrooms, I've said it's very possible to not elicit these type of experiences. You're not the only one who's done liquid LSD. Have you done the 200, 300 gamma range? I find it useless to go to a 1,000 micrograms or beyond with LSD, because then it's sensory overload, you shunt out the experience. What's the point, if you can't remember it?

theropod wrote:I am done here.

That's fine. I appreciate your feedback, but I also would point out that you were done before you started. What do you think here that you've said is any sort of criticism?

Thommo wrote:It's not like the ability to consistently induce perceptions in humans says anything about the underlying reality in some immediate way anyway. E.g.

newolder wrote:There's more than meets the eye here too. There are 12 black dots in the image but your brain won't let you see them all at once.

Someone's inability to see 12 circular black dots at once does not mean there are not 12 circular black dots at once. The misfire in our perception is far more universal than any psychedelic experience, and whilst it does represent something real, and common amongst most people that thing is not the direct truth of the perception.

Well, interesting that you've associated this with vision. If we were going to use this metaphor, the brain creates patterns, illusions upon the patterns you see within the blind spot of our eye. That's how the illusion you posted works. If you cross your eyes slightly, you can have the dot appear right in the center. You could have more than 12 dots appear simultaneously. One hobby I had as a kid was staring stereograms and seeing the image the artist produced, which can reveal itself inverted into the background or foreground depending how you perceive it. The artist usually intends the foreground illusion, the inverted illusion is usually accidental. Some artist have utilized this aspect, but I don't have any examples. I haven't done it years.

Now, in a psychedelic experience, it's as though you're shown all patterns that the brain could possibly produce simultaneously. I believe this is precisely why people say of this experience that they have this sense of having transcended space and time or a timelessness, because it is, essentially, a panesthesia, if you will. However, it's not simply that, there's emotional aspects as well, such as emotion as expressed in Christianity as Agapé, this is nothing like what's experienced in an ordinary state of consciousness. This is a love that is unconditional, without judgement, and ever-forgiving precisely as described in Christianity which is rooted in the Greek agapé, in the ahimsa of the Jains and Hindus, etc. But to say that these patterns do not exist, I don't think that's necessarily the case. The way the ancient mystics have interpreted the Holy Trinity is that the Son is the man or woman who is the conduit which receives insight to the Father by way of or through the Holy Spirit or what the mystics called "Theoria," what neuroscientists are referring to as a "complete" mystical experience. You're somehow able to perceive all the underlying permutations that constitute reality itself at once within this phenomenon in consciousness, and that's one thing to type, it's quite another thing to undergo. So that "The Father" is defined as the Ground of Potential, "The Ground of All Being," that could manifest itself in Mother Nature, again, mother nature not as an abstract Goddess entity, but as nature itself. This is why it is called "The All" or why Hindus say "Brahman" is timeless, eternal, etc.

Now, the dots are not there, because their energetic vibration is off. It's simply an illusion in the mind, but that doesn't mean that such a pattern couldn't manifest. Now, we don't experience things in our ordinary consciousness as all happening at once, nevertheless this is glimpsed by the mystic. That doesn't mean that these pathways are not there. You've simply not met it yet. Just like the TV can express many patterns, The Walking Dead, the video game Tekken, the salt-and-pepper screen that's supposed to be remnant of the Big Bang, etc. Your consciousness also projects patterns in its relationship to reality. In other words, no one's been to Jupiter, but if someone were to go, then they'd experience it first hand, and these patterns would react with their brain. But you don't necessarily have to go to Jupiter, if the same stimulations were put on your mind by some artificial means, you'd have the exact same experience. So, this experience of witnessing Jupiter first-hand was already a potential in your brain such that if you were to ignite these patterns in a particular way, you could have the exact same experience, as I pointed out. Well, what the psychedelic experience seems to be, by and large, is precisely this, the brain revealing all patterns it could possibly output. That's why I find this far more interesting than lava swirls no matter how large, because this experience encompasses far more than simply that, of course, that's included, but that's missing the more grand picture. As Douglas Stanhope said, "Don't just eat a few stems and see colours, eat a whole bag and see God once in your life."

Kafei wrote:

Thommo wrote:
The truth is Kafei you are a zealous evangelist for a particular religious view, not someone interested in science.

Perennial philosophy is not a religious view as Perennial philosophy is not a religion. And yes, I am referring to science which has produced evidence which hints towards the Perennial philosophy in the peer-reviewed papers.

Perennialism is a religious view, in fact, e.g. "relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity". This semantic distraction is as incorrect as it is irrelevant.

And yet again there's a mention of science you're referring to, but no actual reference to any science. No specific claim, no quote of that claim being made in a scientific document.

Kafei wrote:

Thommo wrote:You think you've found a line of attack against atheism

I'm not attacking atheists. I'm merely reiterating the science that's been established.

Again, you're not reiterating science you're making semantic quibbles. Attacking atheism is not the same as attacking atheists anyway. The fact is we've heard you phoning the atheist experience to explain why you think you have a superior view to atheism and have repeatedly heard you say as much here. You're just denying doing what we've all seen you do over and over in declarations like "I believe such an experience would allow you to see through theism or even atheism for what it is, and grasp a greater, deeper truth (whatever that may be).".

You absolutely and obviously think atheism is wrong. You clearly think these psilocybin experiments show it. However, you recoil in terror any time anyone says this explicitly.

Why are you denying doing what you do? Who the fuck knows. Apparently just being straightforward is not within your remit.

Kafei wrote:I wouldn't recommend this experience to anyone unless they've truly considered it.

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.

Kafei wrote:

Thommo wrote:Unfortunately, as has been shown at unreasonable length this view of yours is founded on vapour, there's no such research. You misunderstood a Youtube video you watched and invented the whole thing out of wishful thinking.

Invented what? Please be specific.

I have, many times. Given that you're here defending "research" in a post that asked you to be specific about what that research said and haven't cited any research it's a bit much to expect me to be specific.

Kafei wrote:I've noticed lots of people here are quick to make accusations, but are never specific as to what they're criticizing.

You can't notice things that aren't true. You've pretended this is the case to avoid being called to account. Our very last conversation was you evading your claim that atheists convert after taking psilocybin and claiming that you could cite a figure from a double blind study that was ongoing that would claim it. This study you referred to does not exist.

And again, the double standard here that in the very same post where you were asked to cite specific research and replied with none you're complaining about people making accusations without being specific? It's like pre-emptive Pee-Wee Hermanism. "I know you are, but what am I!"

Kafei wrote:What is it that you think I'm saying differently than what has been demonstrated by the research? What is it that you think I've misunderstood?

Can you really have forgotten? Is your memory this bad? We've exchanged tens of thousands of words on exactly this matter.

This does not speak well of psychedelic use.

Specifically you have claimed that the research is scientific evidence for a particular metaphysics of unity known as perennialism. This is not true. 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.

Kafei wrote:

Thommo wrote:Whilst I'm equally sure that you will be pathologically unable to accept this reality, I'm also equally sure you'll be unable to state exactly what it is the research shows that we are all mistaken about and show us where. The best we're likely to get is one of the same links to the same Youtube videos that feature true believers discussing science that does not say what you say.

I've posted all my links. Please, point out the scientist that is not saying what I'm saying.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oV3a2G9GS_E#t=11m47s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsgKUglCI7g#t=7m13s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxWvIp9XtUc#t=8m17s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuwkDgyIuao#t=23m04s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bu3q3GMHfE#t=34m36s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UF5l7wxN-k&t=53m52s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhbjKizniOU&t=13m24s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQ6gx-miUH4#t=1m59s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbQOpWlyV5Q&t=4m51s

Yeah, you've literally done exactly what I said you would, and it's inadequate for the exact reason articulated in the passage you're replying to.

You've spammed a bunch of links to Youtube videos of true believers. You have not even articulated one specific claim that people are somehow wrong about and you are right. You have not backed up any such claim with any research.

Again, in a post where you're banging on about a lack of specifics from your critics one would expect a much greater level of self-awareness.

Kafei wrote:

Thommo wrote:And so the circus goes on.

Well, I'm glad you at the very least find it entertaining.

Fair point, circus was the wrong word. This is far from entertaining, it's just extremely silly and belief-beggaring. You've asked for about the fifteenth repetition of a conversation we've already had, whilst avoiding giving any specifics whatsoever and simultaneously complaining about people being non-specific. If you weren't so evangelical I'd honestly be calling Poe now.

Kafei wrote:Well, interesting that you've associated this with vision. If we were going to use this metaphor, the brain creates patterns, illusions upon the patterns you see within the blind spot of our eye. That's how the illusion you posted works. If you cross your eyes slightly, you can have the dot appear right in the center. You could have more than 12 dots appear simultaneously. One hobby I had as a kid was staring stereograms and seeing the image the artist produced, which can reveal itself inverted into the background or foreground depending how you perceive it. The artist usually intends the foreground illusion, the inverted illusion is usually accidental. Some artist have utilized this aspect, but I don't have any examples. I haven't done it years.

Now, in a psychedelic experience, it's as though you're shown all patterns that the brain could possibly produce simultaneously. I believe this is precisely why people say of this experience that they have this sense of having transcended space and time or a timelessness, because it is, essentially, a panesthesia, if you will. However, it's not simply that, there's emotional aspects as well, such as emotion as expressed in Christianity as Agapé, this is nothing like what's experienced in an ordinary state of consciousness. This is a love that is unconditional, without judgement, and ever-forgiving precisely as described in Christianity which is rooted in the Greek agapé, in the ahimsa of the Jains and Hindus, etc. But to say that these patterns do not exist, I don't think that's necessarily the case. The way the ancient mystics have interpreted the Holy Trinity is that the Son is the man or woman who is the conduit which receives insight to the Father by way of or through the Holy Spirit or what the mystics called "Theoria," what neuroscientists are referring to as a "complete" mystical experience. You're somehow able to perceive all the underlying permutations that constitute reality itself at once within this phenomenon in consciousness, and that's one thing to type, it's quite another thing to undergo. So that "The Father" is defined as the Ground of Potential, "The Ground of All Being," that could manifest itself in Mother Nature, again, mother nature not as an abstract Goddess entity, but as nature itself. This is why it is called "The All" or why Hindus say "Brahman" is timeless, eternal, etc.

Now, the dots are not there, because their energetic vibration is off. It's simply an illusion in the mind, but that doesn't mean that such a pattern couldn't manifest. Now, we don't experience things in our ordinary consciousness as all happening at once, nevertheless this is glimpsed by the mystic. That doesn't mean that these pathways are not there. You've simply not met it yet. Just like the TV can express many patterns, The Walking Dead, the video game Tekken, the salt-and-pepper screen that's supposed to be remnant of the Big Bang, etc. Your consciousness also projects patterns in its relationship to reality. In other words, no one's been to Jupiter, but if someone were to go, then they'd experience it first hand, and these patterns would react with their brain. But you don't necessarily have to go to Jupiter, if the same stimulations were put on your mind by some artificial means, you'd have the exact same experience. So, this experience of witnessing Jupiter first-hand was already a potential in your brain such that if you were to ignite these patterns in a particular way, you could have the exact same experience, as I pointed out. Well, what the psychedelic experience seems to be, by and large, is precisely this, the brain revealing all patterns it could possibly output. That's why I find this far more interesting than lava swirls no matter how large, because this experience encompasses far more than simply that, of course, that's included, but that's missing the more grand picture. As Douglas Stanhope said, "Don't just eat a few stems and see colours, eat a whole bag and see God once in your life."

There are four lights twelve dots, in fact.

It betrays a certain lack of clarity of thinking that you can use quite so many words to miss that obvious point.

Perceptual errors that are far more common, far more easily reproduced and can be reproduced in far more people and with much greater reliability can still occur. Thus the fact that any particular perceptual error (e.g. the failure of the usual sense of time) can be induced is not indicative of anything about the nature of reality.

It's not complicated, and science certainly does not, and cannot, show otherwise.

Any sighted person's brain certainly has the potential to see what is on my desk right now. And we can easily confirm if they can do so. This is what perceptions of universal oneness, or traveling the galaxy to Jupiter singularly and without exception fail to do - pass any standard of independent confirmation. If psychedelics actually could set the mind free, they could produce actual confirmable information. But they can't. This is what's known as a failed hypothesis.

Thommo wrote:

Kafei wrote:

Thommo wrote:
The truth is Kafei you are a zealous evangelist for a particular religious view, not someone interested in science.

Perennial philosophy is not a religious view as Perennial philosophy is not a religion. And yes, I am referring to science which has produced evidence which hints towards the Perennial philosophy in the peer-reviewed papers.

Perennialism is a religious view, in fact, e.g. "relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity". This semantic distraction is as incorrect as it is irrelevant.

It's more a perspective on the major religions than it is a religion in and of itself. Just as mysticism isn't a religion, but is nevertheless the genesis of the major religions within the Perennialist view. However, Perennial philosophy in and of itself is not a religion. It's not like a Bahá'í faith that attempts to syncretize the major religions. Rather it respects each of the major religions and leaves them intact, but nevertheless recognizes their universal source in mysticism.

Thommo wrote:And yet again there's a mention of science you're referring to, but no actual reference to any science. No specific claim, no quote of that claim being made in a scientific document.

https://files.csp.org/Psilocybin/Barret ... nology.pdf
http://www.atpweb.org/jtparchive/trps-41-02-139.pdf

Kafei wrote:

Thommo wrote:You think you've found a line of attack against atheism

I'm not attacking atheists. I'm merely reiterating the science that's been established.

Thommo wrote:Again, you're not reiterating science you're making semantic quibbles. Attacking atheism is not the same as attacking atheists anyway. The fact is we've heard you phoning the atheist experience to explain why you think you have a superior view to atheism and have repeatedly heard you say as much here. You're just denying doing what we've all seen you do over and over in declarations like "I believe such an experience would allow you to see through theism or even atheism for what it is, and grasp a greater, deeper truth (whatever that may be).".

I still adhere to this, this view arising out of the sciences is not at all what is expressed in mainstream theism today or mainstream atheism.

Thommo wrote:You absolutely and obviously think atheism is wrong. You clearly think these psilocybin experiments show it. However, you recoil in terror any time anyone says this explicitly.

Is there a problem with atheism being wrong? 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?

Thommo wrote:Why are you denying doing what you do? Who the fuck knows. Apparently just being straightforward is not within your remit.

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. 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.

Thommo wrote:

Kafei wrote:I wouldn't recommend this experience to anyone unless they've truly considered it.

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 is approximately, 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. It does elicit this profound effect, but it's quick. Terence McKenna once said, "It's like watching a Bugs Bunny episode backwards in 11 dimensions." He also said no one has coined the perfect metaphor, and that's also true. Otherwise, the sermon on the mount would've been a done deal, the word would suffice. 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. It's an experience that's always been part of shamanic practices thousands of years in the past, it's just today we've become so out of touch that we have to re-learn how to be responsible with these particular altered states.

Thommo wrote:

Kafei wrote:

Thommo wrote:Unfortunately, as has been shown at unreasonable length this view of yours is founded on vapour, there's no such research. You misunderstood a Youtube video you watched and invented the whole thing out of wishful thinking.

Invented what? Please be specific.

I have, many times. Given that you're here defending "research" in a post that asked you to be specific about what that research said and haven't cited any research it's a bit much to expect me to be specific.

Kafei wrote:I've noticed lots of people here are quick to make accusations, but are never specific as to what they're criticizing.

You can't notice things that aren't true. You've pretended this is the case to avoid being called to account. Our very last conversation was you evading your claim that atheists convert after taking psilocybin and claiming that you could cite a figure from a double blind study that was ongoing that would claim it. This study you referred to does not exist.

Those survey data volunteers were primers for the laboratory volunteers, and yes, there's atheists involved in this research, and have been even in the earlier research, some of the terminally-ill cancer patients also had been atheists. They haven't done a study yet which specifically addresses atheists, and I'm sure they eventually will. Roland Griffiths has been speaking about the possibility for a while now.

Thommo wrote:And again, the double standard here that in the very same post where you were asked to cite specific research and replied with none you're complaining about people making accusations without being specific? It's like pre-emptive Pee-Wee Hermanism. "I know you are, but what am I!"

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

Thommo wrote:

Kafei wrote:What is it that you think I'm saying differently than what has been demonstrated by the research? What is it that you think I've misunderstood?

Can you really have forgotten? Is your memory this bad? We've exchanged tens of thousands of words on exactly this matter.

This does not speak well of psychedelic use.

Specifically you have claimed that the research is scientific evidence for a particular metaphysics of unity known as perennialism. This is not true.

It's true insofar as these are the very characteristics that universally manifest in the "complete" mystical experience. 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.

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"?

Thommo wrote:

Kafei wrote:

Thommo wrote:Whilst I'm equally sure that you will be pathologically unable to accept this reality, I'm also equally sure you'll be unable to state exactly what it is the research shows that we are all mistaken about and show us where. The best we're likely to get is one of the same links to the same Youtube videos that feature true believers discussing science that does not say what you say.

I've posted all my links. Please, point out the scientist that is not saying what I'm saying.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oV3a2G9GS_E#t=11m47s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsgKUglCI7g#t=7m13s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxWvIp9XtUc#t=8m17s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuwkDgyIuao#t=23m04s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bu3q3GMHfE#t=34m36s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UF5l7wxN-k&t=53m52s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhbjKizniOU&t=13m24s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQ6gx-miUH4#t=1m59s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbQOpWlyV5Q&t=4m51s

We're not talking about "believers." We're talking about professionals who are speaking directly on the on-going and published peer-reviewed and published scientific research which has been building for decades now.

Thommo wrote:Yeah, you've literally done exactly what I said you would, and it's inadequate for the exact reason articulated in the passage you're replying to.

And what exactly is that?

Thommo wrote:You've spammed a bunch of links to Youtube videos of true believers. You have not even articulated one specific claim that people are somehow wrong about and you are right. You have not backed up any such claim with any research.

You characterize those people as "believers." You forget that those are the very professionals who are performing actual science relative to these topics.

Thommo wrote:Again, in a post where you're banging on about a lack of specifics from your critics one would expect a much greater level of self-awareness.

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.

Thommo wrote:

Kafei wrote:

Thommo wrote:And so the circus goes on.

Well, I'm glad you at the very least find it entertaining.

Fair point, circus was the wrong word. This is far from entertaining, it's just extremely silly and belief-beggaring. You've asked for about the fifteenth repetition of a conversation we've already had, whilst avoiding giving any specifics whatsoever and simultaneously complaining about people being non-specific. If you weren't so evangelical I'd honestly be calling Poe now.

Well, I'm trying to share the science relative to these topics, 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. 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.

Kafei wrote:

Thommo wrote:And yet again there's a mention of science you're referring to, but no actual reference to any science. No specific claim, no quote of that claim being made in a scientific document.

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

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

Right, so you haven't made a mention of specific science, haven't made a specific claim and have linked the same document twice.

What is it you think people are saying about this that is wrong? What is it you claim this file shows that is important?

And let's keep it short and relevant please.

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.

Science has not shown atheism to be wrong.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 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 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.

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).

Kafei wrote:

Thommo wrote:

Kafei wrote:I wouldn't recommend this experience to anyone unless they've truly considered it.

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.

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.

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

Kafei wrote:

Thommo wrote:

Kafei wrote:

Invented what? Please be specific.

I have, many times. Given that you're here defending "research" in a post that asked you to be specific about what that research said and haven't cited any research it's a bit much to expect me to be specific.

Kafei wrote:I've noticed lots of people here are quick to make accusations, but are never specific as to what they're criticizing.

You can't notice things that aren't true. You've pretended this is the case to avoid being called to account. Our very last conversation was you evading your claim that atheists convert after taking psilocybin and claiming that you could cite a figure from a double blind study that was ongoing that would claim it. This study you referred to does not exist.

Those survey data

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.

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.

Kafei wrote:

Thommo wrote:

Kafei wrote:What is it that you think I'm saying differently than what has been demonstrated by the research? What is it that you think I've misunderstood?

Can you really have forgotten? Is your memory this bad? We've exchanged tens of thousands of words on exactly this matter.

This does not speak well of psychedelic use.

Specifically you have claimed that the research is scientific evidence for a particular metaphysics of unity known as perennialism. This is not true.

It's true insofar as these are the very characteristics that universally manifest in the "complete" mystical experience.

No it's not. The complete mystical experience is a defined entity. It means "this person scored 60% on the MEQ". That's it. There is no characteristic which is universal to these experiences because that figure is not 100%. And importantly these are questions about subjective feelings, not about metaphysics, not about the nature of reality.

This is a gross equivocation. And an insult to all of our intelligences.

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.

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.

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

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I liked the bit about the Ewoks.

Thank you. I like to think there's something there for everyone.

Once again Kafei fails to address the bulk of my post and what he does address, he addresses with silly dismissive gotchas and made up shit.

Kafei wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:How many times do we have to remind you that we do not care what you would say or think? Your repeated failures to engage your rational and critical thinking facilities made any appeal to the moot, pages ago. The facts contradict your claims.

How many times do I have to point out that the fact that you don't care what I think bears no weight on the fact that I'm citing legitimate science which has been established over decades of research?

You cannot point out something that isn't actually the point of dispute Kafei.
For the umpteenth time I am not disputing the science. What I am disputing is your misrepresentations and beliefs about the science.
That you need to conflate those two to pretend what you're arguing is just the science is dishonest and won't fly here.

Kafei wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
I don't give a fuck as to what you feel, dozens of people over multiple fora have demonstrated that your feelings are not backed by the available evidence nor the evidence you present.
That you justs keep mindlessly regurgitating them and insisting that it is what you truly, really-o feel, think or believe matters fuck all.

What you think about me matters fuck all to the science I've cited.

QED. I am not talking about science Kafei, I am talking about your beliefs about the science.
They are not one and the same thing.

Kafei wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:That's a failure of reading comprehension and/or delusion on your part.
Again, that you think that everyone of the dozens of people who've engaged with your woo, must be wrong, rather than you yourself is just silly.
Especially since you consistently fail to support that accusation and just assert it over and over.

The science I've referenced has absolutely nothing to do with your favorite word "woo."

You haven't a fucking clue what my favorite word is, so you can stuff patronizing remarks like that right back where they came from.

Kafei wrote:Please, stop trying to woo me with your woo.

I see wooing is yet another word you don't understand.
And your position is woo. It relies on making unsubstantiated claims and misrepresentations of scientific research.
All to defend a position that you don't even accurately define half the time.

Kafei wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:And yet you think that all those people are wrong, because you cannot possibly be.

I could say the same of the majority here.

That you don't even realize how you've just shot yourself in the foot is quite telling of your zealotry.

Kafei wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Kafei wrote:Even Augustine used it in the sense of "divine nature."

More misrepresentation. He meant the divine nature of the Christian god, not the universe or some metaphysical truth.

You're misrepresenting these things. It's not a Christian God as some supernatural entity. He meant it as all the great patristic theologians have meant it, and it's in this very same sense in which I've been attempting to convey here.

More rectally extracted, counterfactual nonsense.
Augustine was a monotheist. A Christian. His deity and divine was the Christian god.

Kafei wrote:...
You do realize that psychedelics aren't necessary to elicit such experiences, right?

I've read and heard stories.

Well, I'm here to repeat that if you're not concerned with the science that's been done, then you're forever going to circumambulate what these professionals consider the very evidence for the Perennial philosophy.

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

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.

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.

According to the Perennial philosophy, the divine has always been a revelation in the mind, it's never been revealed completely to man in any other way at the very origin of the world's great faith traditions.

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

Since you have not contributed to the science of drug P consumption, may I ask what you think you are achieving in a chat room on the internet with these stories? Are you, perhaps, engaged in some "Creative Writing" endeavour, simply trolling a group of readers or what?

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.

Thommo wrote:It's the same problem that plagues psychometric testing, best summarised by the old psychology question and answer: "What do IQ tests measure? IQ. What is IQ? It's what's measured by IQ tests."

What is taking massive doses of semi-poisonous mushrooms, after all, but a dimwitted kind of psychometric testing? It's dimwitted because the metric is the response to a questionnaire about the experience of having taken massive doses of semi-poisonous mushrooms, a questionnaire that is filled with suggestions of how to answer the question so as to satisfy the metric.

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

I would include in woo, any attempt to respond to non-human things as if they were human, when there is no evidence that this is an appropriate response.

Thommo wrote:It's not like the ability to consistently induce perceptions in humans says anything about the underlying reality in some immediate way anyway. E.g.

newolder wrote:There's more than meets the eye here too. There are 12 black dots in the image but your brain won't let you see them all at once.

Someone's inability to see 12 circular black dots at once does not mean there are not 12 circular black dots at once. The misfire in our perception is far more universal than any psychedelic experience, and whilst it does represent something real, and common amongst most people that thing is not the direct truth of the perception.

I think what happens there is that the brain actively fills in the blind spot with the surrounding colour (so that the black spots near the blind spot are greyed out), and this presumably evolved because it usually works well? In the same way, human brains have evolved to respond to a person by creating an illusion of a centre of consciousness “like me” out there, and this generally works well because it is in fact a highly effective way of making good guesses about what the other person will do. Some drugs may, in some people, trigger this evolved social illusion, giving a strong feeling that there is another consciousness out there, even when all the more solid evidence is clear that there is no human-like agency involved.

But it is heard in the Echoes:

I am you and what I see is me

twistor59 wrote:But it is heard in the Echoes:

I am you and what I see is me

Have you been observing the photon sphere around some black hole or other* whilst eating 'shrooms?

Long time no read, welcome back...

* Are you on a Event Horizon Telescope team, for example?

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

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

With the science definitely hinting towards the Perennial philosophy, I'd say that the science is showing that atheism is incorrect.

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.

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."

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

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 within these peer-reviewed papers is what I'm referring to, and I've given specific links, I've posted screenshots.

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.

Thommo wrote: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. And yes, these scriptural references are indicative on these measures of the "complete" mystical experience. You failed to address this fact.

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.

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. I want to recommend a talk given by Alan Watts that speaks on the mystical experience of Jesus and his relationship to the Perennial philosophy. Of course, Alan Watts used Richard M. Bucke's term "Cosmic Consciousness" over William James' "mystical experience." And again, I'd recommend looking into the work of Dr. Ralph Hood as he's done extensive exegesis in Biblical scripture.

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. 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.

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. 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.

Thommo wrote:

Kafei wrote:

Thommo wrote:

Kafei wrote:I wouldn't recommend this experience to anyone unless they've truly considered it.

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. 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.

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

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

No, there is science in it. I mean, there's the online survey data which shows that the majority of atheists no longer identify with atheism after this event. 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.

Thommo wrote:

Kafei wrote:

Thommo wrote:

Kafei wrote:

Invented what? Please be specific.

I have, many times. Given that you're here defending "research" in a post that asked you to be specific about what that research said and haven't cited any research it's a bit much to expect me to be specific.

Kafei wrote:I've noticed lots of people here are quick to make accusations, but are never specific as to what they're criticizing.

You can't notice things that aren't true. You've pretended this is the case to avoid being called to account. Our very last conversation was you evading your claim that atheists convert after taking psilocybin and claiming that you could cite a figure from a double blind study that was ongoing that would claim it. This study you referred to does not exist.

Those survey data

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.

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. 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.

Thommo wrote:

Kafei wrote:

Thommo wrote:

Kafei wrote:What is it that you think I'm saying differently than what has been demonstrated by the research? What is it that you think I've misunderstood?

Can you really have forgotten? Is your memory this bad? We've exchanged tens of thousands of words on exactly this matter.

This does not speak well of psychedelic use.

Specifically you have claimed that the research is scientific evidence for a particular metaphysics of unity known as perennialism. This is not true.

It's true insofar as these are the very characteristics that universally manifest in the "complete" mystical experience.

No it's not. The complete mystical experience is a defined entity. It means "this person scored 60% on the MEQ". That's it. There is no characteristic which is universal to these experiences because that figure is not 100%. And importantly these are questions about subjective feelings, not about metaphysics, not about the nature of reality.

This is a gross equivocation. And an insult to all of our intelligences.

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. You say mystical experiences have nothing to do with the nature of reality, but the science disagrees. It's been pointed out over and over that one of the characteristics is intuitive knowledge which is related to the nature of reality.

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. 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 keep thinking that I'm somehow arguing something outside of the context of the research. Well, I'm not. I don't know how many times I have to repeat that before it's understood.

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. This is not a drug of abuse. 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 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. 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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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." 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.

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.

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.

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

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

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. Perennial philosophy is simply not a religion. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this before it's understood. And if you won't be responding, then that's fine. You weren't really offering any constructive criticism or anything of substance anyway. You were simply ignoring and doubting what's been established by the science that's been done. If that's your game, then just admit it. Just admit that you doubt what's been established by this research.

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

newolder wrote:

Kafei wrote:...
You do realize that psychedelics aren't necessary to elicit such experiences, right?

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.

newolder wrote:

Well, I'm here to repeat that if you're not concerned with the science that's been done, then you're forever going to circumambulate what these professionals consider the very evidence for the Perennial philosophy.

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. 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.

newolder 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.

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.

newolder wrote:

According to the Perennial philosophy, the divine has always been a revelation in the mind, it's never been revealed completely to man in any other way at the very origin of the world's great faith traditions.

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.

newolder wrote:Since you have not contributed to the science of drug P consumption, may I ask what you think you are achieving in a chat room on the internet with these stories? Are you, perhaps, engaged in some "Creative Writing" endeavour, simply trolling a group of readers or what?

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