"I am you" nonsense

Cito di Pense · **#941** by **Cito di Pense** » Dec 13, 2018 4:44 pm

Kafei wrote:That's precisely why I say the "complete" mystical experience is the greatest challenge for the atheist

Cito di Pense · **#942** by **Cito di Pense** » Dec 13, 2018 4:49 pm

Kafei wrote:I understand you're skeptical of this, but to there's no reason to flat-out reject this without even considering it.

If you could show by your own example that it had left you with anything besides an obsession, that is, show that it had done you some general good, I might be less skeptical. Just keep rehearsing your obsession. That'll convince 'em.

Kafei wrote:I wouldn't compare that to a "complete" mystical experience. These are two very different phenomena.

Compare what with what? Don't just blow empty assertions out of your ass, Kafei. Convince us. Don't just declare that 'science has demonstrated something'. Demonstrate its effects on you. Show; don't just tell and tell and tell. Bend a fucking spoon.

GrahamH · **#943** by **GrahamH** » Dec 13, 2018 5:00 pm

Kafei wrote:
GrahamH wrote:
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.

That's a false analogy, because I believe that's what this research is, that these mystical states of consciousness seem to be part of how consciousness itself is constructed. That's what's real about this phenomenon in consciousness, and according to the Perennial philosophy, the highest mystical vision in each of the major religions is essentially synonymous. I understand you're skeptical of this, but to there's no reason to flat-out reject this without even considering it.

Yes, I know you can't verify the experience. All you can do is imagine that you are in some non-specific unverifiable woo woo sense "in unity" with these few other drugged up people, and God that you know nothing about. Odd that. Multiple consciousnesses in unity, transcending space and time and yet you can't even pass a simple message take a look at any little verifiable thing. And still you think humans were purpose designed to have this experience of unified transcendent consciosness in a way that absolutely denies any possibility of verification.

Either your dead wrong (you know where my money is on that) or maybe there is a God that made you that way because He has a sick sadistic sstreak and likes to watch you squirm and fail to make any sort of case for what you want to believe in.

The research does nothing for your cause. Nothing at all. Nothing about it offers one shred of verification for the veracity of any aspect of CME.

Thommo · **#944** by **Thommo** » Dec 13, 2018 5:25 pm

Kafei wrote:That's a false analogy, because I believe that's what this research is...

And that's what it always comes back to. That you think your belief affects what research shows, or what is.

A "ghost sighting" does not mean ghosts exist, because you don't believe in ghosts, but a "mystical experience" means the mystical exists because you believe in the mystical.

Graham's analogy is fine, he said there's no way (provided by you) to tell if the dragons are real or illusory and no way (provided by you) to tell if the mystical is real or illusory.

You cannot provide any such way, which means there's no reason to take your belief seriously. You mistake separating out more parts of the issue and thinking about it more comprehensively with not "even considering it".

Kafei · **#945** by **Kafei** » Dec 13, 2018 6:20 pm

Thommo wrote:
Kafei wrote:That's a false analogy, because I believe that's what this research is...

And that's what it always comes back to. That you think your belief affects what research shows, or what is.

A "ghost sighting" does not mean ghosts exist, because you don't believe in ghosts, but a "mystical experience" means the mystical exists because you believe in the mystical.

Graham's analogy is fine, he said there's no way (provided by you) to tell if the dragons are real or illusory and no way (provided by you) to tell if the mystical is real or illusory.

You cannot provide any such way, which means there's no reason to take your belief seriously. You mistake separating out more parts of the issue and thinking about it more comprehensively with not "even considering it".

It is a false analogy, because ghost sighting is not a universal phenomenon à la mystical experience. It's not found uttered in all in the scripture of all the major religions in the way the mystical experience is, that's the difference. That's what gives this experience weight over a supposed "ghost sighting," whatever that is, mystical states of consciousness are more concretely defined than that. I was invited to atheist live stream to speak on these topics yesterday, and I thought it went okay.

Thommo · **#946** by **Thommo** » Dec 13, 2018 6:31 pm

Kafei wrote:
Thommo wrote:
Kafei wrote:That's a false analogy, because I believe that's what this research is...

And that's what it always comes back to. That you think your belief affects what research shows, or what is.

A "ghost sighting" does not mean ghosts exist, because you don't believe in ghosts, but a "mystical experience" means the mystical exists because you believe in the mystical.

Graham's analogy is fine, he said there's no way (provided by you) to tell if the dragons are real or illusory and no way (provided by you) to tell if the mystical is real or illusory.

You cannot provide any such way, which means there's no reason to take your belief seriously. You mistake separating out more parts of the issue and thinking about it more comprehensively with not "even considering it".

It is a false analogy, because ghost sighting is not a universal phenomenon à la mystical experience.

That's meaningless because you haven't defined "universal", or how alleging something is "universal" means that it cannot be an illusion.

All humans dream, they are a universal human experience (in the sense that all humans have them and do not need to take drugs to induce them). This does not mean the things that people dream are real.

Or here's one we had before: Every person who sees this image sees motion:

newolder wrote:It would be like seeing motion where no motion occurs.

ETA Should have included: (© 2005 George Mather) Oops!

That does not mean the motion is real. Universality is not an objection. It does not show disanalogy, or any sort of relevant difference.

Kafei wrote:It's not found uttered in all in the scripture of all the major religions in the way the mystical experience is, that's the difference.

That's not the difference. I am aware of no major scripture which claims people score 60% on a questionnaire*.

And neither are you.

You're confusing your inferences about figures like Jesus with what the scriptures say.

Kafei wrote:That's what gives this experience weight over a supposed "ghost sighting,"...

An analogy is not about "weight". It's a pattern of inference "A is to B as C is to D". An experience of (what is perceived to be) a ghost does not mean ghosts are real. An experience of (what is perceived to be) the mystical does not mean the mystical is real.

The relationship is exactly the same, the difference is that you believe in the mystical but you do not believe in ghosts, so you treat the same relation as evidence in the case where you like the conclusion and not as being evidence in the case where you do not.

Kafei wrote:...whatever that is, mystical states of consciousness are more concretely defined than that.

Right, they are a 60% score on a questionnaire, which no (supposedly) sacred text references.

*Not that what scripture says is persuasive anyway. And it's certainly not scientific.

Cito di Pense · **#947** by **Cito di Pense** » Dec 13, 2018 6:52 pm

Thommo wrote:
*Not that what scripture says is persuasive anyway. And it's certainly not scientific.

What the heck? Scripture isn't persuasive? Consider all the people who take scripture very seriously. They're persuaded.

And you could be persuaded, too, if only you were not so skeptical (or, as in my case, combative).

Kafei wrote:ghost sighting is not a universal phenomenon à la mystical experience. It's not found uttered in all in the scripture of all the major religions in the way the mystical experience is, that's the difference.

That's how persuasive scripture is. Every scripture writer likes to copy from some earlier scripture, as if repetition made it more true.

Thommo · **#948** by **Thommo** » Dec 13, 2018 6:54 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
Thommo wrote:
*Not that what scripture says is persuasive anyway. And it's certainly not scientific.

What the heck? Scripture isn't persuasive? Consider all the people who take scripture very seriously. They're persuaded.

I was speaking for myself mostly. And to a lesser extent for the audience of atheists to whom perennialism is being marketed as an alternative.

But I would say very few people are persuaded by scripture. People are generally taught religion from a young age, and those who already believe tend to quote scripture once they've acquired the additional skills required to read it. There is a small minority who convert later in life, of whom I would surmise some are persuaded by scripture. They are the exception rather than the rule though.

Any given scripture is certainly unpersuasive to all the followers of other faiths as well.

Cito di Pense · **#949** by **Cito di Pense** » Dec 13, 2018 6:57 pm

Thommo wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:
Thommo wrote:
*Not that what scripture says is persuasive anyway. And it's certainly not scientific.

What the heck? Scripture isn't persuasive? Consider all the people who take scripture very seriously. They're persuaded.

I was speaking for myself mostly. And to a lesser extent to the audience of atheists to whom perennialism is being marketed as an alternative.

But I would say very few people are persuaded by scripture. People are generally taught religion from a young age, and those who already believe tend to quote scripture once they've acquired the additional skills required to read it. There is a small minority who convert later in life, of whom I would surmise some are persuaded by scripture. They are the exception rather than the rule though.

Any given scripture is certainly unpersuasive to all the followers of other faiths as well.

What? That's why people are religious? Because they're indoctrnated as children? I suppose most of them are. What about all those testimonials of mid-life conversions, as when somebody takes a heroic dose, and ceases to identify as atheist?

Yes, I have heard that a given scripture might not be persuasive to everyone. But the whole Perennialism thing just cuts right through all that confusion to discover that religious rapture is a universal phenomenon, a substantive aspect of consciousness itself!!

But let's be serious for a moment. I think I'd rather have a bad tooth extracted via my rectum than read the Perannial Philosophy.

Thommo · **#950** by **Thommo** » Dec 13, 2018 7:03 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
Thommo wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:
Thommo wrote:
*Not that what scripture says is persuasive anyway. And it's certainly not scientific.

What the heck? Scripture isn't persuasive? Consider all the people who take scripture very seriously. They're persuaded.

I was speaking for myself mostly. And to a lesser extent to the audience of atheists to whom perennialism is being marketed as an alternative.

But I would say very few people are persuaded by scripture. People are generally taught religion from a young age, and those who already believe tend to quote scripture once they've acquired the additional skills required to read it. There is a small minority who convert later in life, of whom I would surmise some are persuaded by scripture. They are the exception rather than the rule though.

Any given scripture is certainly unpersuasive to all the followers of other faiths as well.

What? That's why people are religious? Because they're indoctrnated as children. I suppose most of them are. What about all those testimonials of mid-life conversions, as when somebody takes a heroic dose, and ceases to identify as atheist?

Some people are persuaded of the truth of any given scripture, and I suspect some are even persuaded by the scripture. Since none of the people in this conversation - you, me or Kafei are one of those people I'm not sure I'm all that concerned with it right now though.

The scriptures say that Jesus literally was the son of God, that Mohammed cut the moon in half and that Moses parted the Red Sea. Are any of us persuaded these things are true? Are any of these things scientific?

Well, I'm not persuaded, and I definitely can't remember being persuaded by the bit about Jesus taking psilocybin and a questionnaire.

Cito di Pense · **#951** by **Cito di Pense** » Dec 13, 2018 7:06 pm

Thommo wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:
Thommo wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:

What the heck? Scripture isn't persuasive? Consider all the people who take scripture very seriously. They're persuaded.

I was speaking for myself mostly. And to a lesser extent to the audience of atheists to whom perennialism is being marketed as an alternative.

But I would say very few people are persuaded by scripture. People are generally taught religion from a young age, and those who already believe tend to quote scripture once they've acquired the additional skills required to read it. There is a small minority who convert later in life, of whom I would surmise some are persuaded by scripture. They are the exception rather than the rule though.

Any given scripture is certainly unpersuasive to all the followers of other faiths as well.

What? That's why people are religious? Because they're indoctrnated as children. I suppose most of them are. What about all those testimonials of mid-life conversions, as when somebody takes a heroic dose, and ceases to identify as atheist?

Some people are persuaded of the truth of any given scripture, and I suspect some are even persuaded by the scripture. Since none of the people in this conversation - you, me or Kafei are one of those people I'm not sure I'm all that concerned with it right now though.

The scriptures say that Jesus literally was the son of God, that Mohammed cut the moon in half and that Moses parted the red sea. Are any of us persuaded these things are true? Are any of these things scientific?

Well, I'm not persuaded, and I definitely can't remember being persuaded by the bit about Jesus taking psilocybin and a questionnaire.

Well the kicker for the Perennial Philosophy and mystical tales is that they stay away (as much as they can) from visual imagery. Dragons are a kind of visual image. So is cutting the moon in half. Even 'ghosts' are things that people 'see'.

GrahamH · **#952** by **GrahamH** » Dec 13, 2018 7:07 pm

Kafei wrote:
Thommo wrote:
Kafei wrote:That's a false analogy, because I believe that's what this research is...

And that's what it always comes back to. That you think your belief affects what research shows, or what is.

A "ghost sighting" does not mean ghosts exist, because you don't believe in ghosts, but a "mystical experience" means the mystical exists because you believe in the mystical.

Graham's analogy is fine, he said there's no way (provided by you) to tell if the dragons are real or illusory and no way (provided by you) to tell if the mystical is real or illusory.

You cannot provide any such way, which means there's no reason to take your belief seriously. You mistake separating out more parts of the issue and thinking about it more comprehensively with not "even considering it".

It is a false analogy, because ghost sighting is not a universal phenomenon à la mystical experience. It's not found uttered in all in the scripture of all the major religions in the way the mystical experience is, that's the difference. That's what gives this experience weight over a supposed "ghost sighting," whatever that is, mystical states of consciousness are more concretely defined than that. I was invited to atheist live stream to speak on these topics yesterday, and I thought it went okay.

Stories of ghosts is far, far more common than stories of anything like CME. So I think it is more of a "Universal phenomenon" than CME. Not that either are "universal". I don't agree that CME is "more concretely defined"

People see apparitions or strange lights, sense a presence in a room, hear noises or feel a sudden drop in temperature. They smell a deceased relative's favorite breakfast cooking in the kitchen or hear a favorite song playing while the stereo is off. Objects fall from shelves and doors open and close on their own. The electricity goes haywire, causing lights to flicker or televisions to turn on and off by themselves. Sometimes, people don't experience anything unusual at all, but they notice strange apparitions or shapes when they look at pictures they've taken.

We could easily sort those into 6 characteristics that make up a "complete ghost experience" that is no more arbitrary than what Griffiths used.

Cito di Pense · **#953** by **Cito di Pense** » Dec 13, 2018 7:09 pm

Kafei wrote:mystical states of consciousness are more concretely defined than that

Concretely!

Maybe I should make a joke about the aggregation of anecdotes, just to cement my reputation.

Thommo · **#954** by **Thommo** » Dec 13, 2018 7:21 pm

So, uhh, anyone feel like taking one for the team and watching that 7 hour Youtube video Kafei linked this time?

Kafei · **#955** by **Kafei** » Dec 13, 2018 7:42 pm

Thommo wrote:So, uhh, anyone feel like taking one for the team and watching that 7 hour Youtube video Kafei linked this time?

They don't chime me in till 3h27m46s.

aban57 · **#956** by **aban57** » Dec 13, 2018 8:08 pm

Kafei wrote:
Thommo wrote:
Kafei wrote:That's a false analogy, because I believe that's what this research is...

And that's what it always comes back to. That you think your belief affects what research shows, or what is.

A "ghost sighting" does not mean ghosts exist, because you don't believe in ghosts, but a "mystical experience" means the mystical exists because you believe in the mystical.

Graham's analogy is fine, he said there's no way (provided by you) to tell if the dragons are real or illusory and no way (provided by you) to tell if the mystical is real or illusory.

You cannot provide any such way, which means there's no reason to take your belief seriously. You mistake separating out more parts of the issue and thinking about it more comprehensively with not "even considering it".

It is a false analogy, because ghost sighting is not a universal phenomenon à la mystical experience. It's not found uttered in all in the scripture of all the major religions in the way the mystical experience is, that's the difference. That's what gives this experience weight over a supposed "ghost sighting," whatever that is, mystical states of consciousness are more concretely defined than that. I was invited to atheist live stream to speak on these topics yesterday, and I thought it went okay.

Your insistence to use religion books as a source of knowledge is just ridiculous, and not doing any good to your credibility.

Cito di Pense · **#957** by **Cito di Pense** » Dec 13, 2018 8:32 pm

"Those who say, don't know. Those who know, don't say."

So why do some people talk so much about their mystical experience? They talk, and talk, and talk, and talk.

The motivation for seeking mystical experience cannot be the same as the motivation for evangelizing it. Evangelizing is a waking activity (to be contrasted with the so-called 'mystical experience').

They sound like victims of alien abductions. I guess I don't begrudge anyone his personal steaming cup of Special Sauce, but I listened to Kafei for half an hour, sounding like a high-school whiz kid who gets to college and finds out he's not nearly as special as he got used to thinking he was. For a lot of college kids, waxing analogic about "mystical experience" is a way to get back that aura of distinction.

Come on, Kafei. bend a spoon or learn a useful trade. You're not going to make a name for yourself as an evangelist of the Perennial Philosophy.

Kafei · **#958** by **Kafei** » Dec 13, 2018 9:50 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:"Those who say, don't know. Those who know, don't say."

So why do some people talk so much about their mystical experience? They talk, and talk, and talk, and talk.

The motivation for seeking mystical experience cannot be the same as the motivation for evangelizing it. Evangelizing is a waking activity (to be contrasted with the so-called 'mystical experience').

They sound like victims of alien abductions. I guess I don't begrudge anyone his personal steaming cup of Special Sauce, but I listened to Kafei for half an hour, sounding like a high-school whiz kid who gets to college and finds out he's not nearly as special as he got used to thinking he was. For a lot of college kids, waxing analogic about "mystical experience" is a way to get back that aura of distinction.

Well, Terence McKenna put it slightly differently in a way that perhaps is more serviceable to this context, he said, "In a way it's impossible to talk about DMT but on the other hand it's fun to try to talk about it because it pushes the horse of language into a lather. The reason it's so confounding is because its impact is on the language-forming capacity itself. So the reason it's so confounding is because the thing that is trying to look at the DMT is infected by it—by the process of inspection. So DMT does not provide an experience that you analyze. Nothing so tidy goes on. The syntactical machinery of description undergoes some sort of hyper-dimensional inflation instantly, and then, you know, you cannot tell yourself what it is that you understand. In other words, what DMT does can't be downloaded into as low-dimensional a language as English."

Cito di Pense wrote:
Come on, Kafei. bend a spoon or learn a useful trade. You're not going to make a name for yourself as an evangelist of the Perennial Philosophy.

I'm not trying to make a name for myself with this stuff. I study comparative religion as a hobby, and I follow this research out of interest. I said in a previous post on the Ground of Being thread that the insight of this experience is so "deep," for lack of a better word, that the insights are not going to solve the drought or find your car keys, but simply give you peace of mind in the here and now. Another way that's phrased is you may not get what you want out of this experience, but you'll get what you need.

Cito di Pense · **#959** by **Cito di Pense** » Dec 13, 2018 10:25 pm

Kafei wrote:I study comparative religion as a hobby, and I follow this research out of interest.

That's fine, as far as it goes. But you also have a hobby of baiting atheists who in turn have a hobby of baiting theists. You have made hundreds of posts about a single topic in this forum alone, and many more in other conversation sites. I don't doubt that you have a hobby or an interest and that it extends to convincing yourself (and very few others, apparently) that there's a scientific basis for your claims. We'd almost all be in the same boat, baiting each other, but your peace of mind is not much on display. Anyone can simulate peace of mind via asserting strong beliefs. What it looks to me like you have is something of an obsession. I would not give the tiniest crap about whatever claims you care to make, but you're abusing the scientific method as you go.

Not far up-thread you linked to a many-hours long podcast of some kind in which you started talking after it was several hours in progress, and you got to chat with some people who have similar interests, but who seemed to have a more subtle take on comparative religion compared to you. Whatever's going on with you, it's not just a hobby. Like one of your interlocutors said, you can enjoy the climb, or you can take a helicopter ride to the peak. This stuff is too often all about who's got the most devout approach to mysticism.

Kafei wrote:The syntactical machinery of description undergoes some sort of hyper-dimensional inflation instantly, and then, you know, you cannot tell yourself what it is that you understand. In other words, what DMT does can't be downloaded into as low-dimensional a language as English.

I'll say this for Terence McKenna. He sure knows how to spread the fertilizer around. Remember what I said about the cargo cults and their simulated radios? McKenna is sorta doing that right there. Philosophy is fine, if you don't pretend to be doing anything MORE than playing with language to titillate your intellect the same way you scratch your balls.

Kafei · **#960** by **Kafei** » Dec 14, 2018 12:27 am

Cito di Pense wrote:

Kafei wrote:The syntactical machinery of description undergoes some sort of hyper-dimensional inflation instantly, and then, you know, you cannot tell yourself what it is that you understand. In other words, what DMT does can't be downloaded into as low-dimensional a language as English.

I'll say this for Terence McKenna. He sure knows how to spread the fertilizer around. Remember what I said about the cargo cults and their simulated radios? McKenna is sorta doing that right there. Philosophy is fine, if you don't pretend to be doing anything MORE than playing with language to titillate your intellect the same way you scratch your balls.

Well, I don't think of philosophy that simply. I'm more inclined to agree with the ancient female philosopher by the name of Hypatia who echoed the teachings of Plotinus who said the goal of philosophy is a "mystical union with the divine."

"I am you" nonsense

Re: "I am you" nonsense

Re: "I am you" nonsense

Re: "I am you" nonsense

Re: "I am you" nonsense

Re: "I am you" nonsense

Re: "I am you" nonsense

Re: "I am you" nonsense

Re: "I am you" nonsense

Re: "I am you" nonsense

Re: "I am you" nonsense

Re: "I am you" nonsense

Re: "I am you" nonsense

Re: "I am you" nonsense

Re: "I am you" nonsense

Re: "I am you" nonsense

Re: "I am you" nonsense

Re: "I am you" nonsense

Re: "I am you" nonsense

Re: "I am you" nonsense

Re: "I am you" nonsense

Who is online