And as for specific points that you maintain that the researchers do not, there are many examples that have been covered extensively. A few:-

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

Kafei wrote:All the volunteers who meet criteria for the "complete" mystical experience also endorse that this experience is more real than their everyday waking consciousness.

Kafei wrote:

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

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

Yes, I maintain all these points.

And an example of what the researchers actually say about the metaphysical implications of their research:-

Thommo wrote:https://news.softpedia.com/news/Q-A-With-Roland-Griffiths-About-Sacred-Mushrooms-29364.shtml

Q 3: Is this God in a pill? Does it render God or "revelation" irrelevant?

The scientific method works with what can be observed in the physical realm, using tools such as atomic particle detectors, medical imaging devices, people's responses to psychological tests, interviews, and behavioral observations. We are attempting neither to validate nor to invalidate the truth of claims that some people have made about metaphysical realities as a consequence of their psilocybin experiences (or as a consequence of their meditation, fasting, or prayer experiences) - that's beyond our purview as scientists.

Kafei wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:You have been informed, repeatedly, that you haven't pointed to any research that documents anything you're trying to interpret from whatever it is you think constitutes the 'research'. Instead you talk about the utitilty of anecdote in so-called double-blind studies, and we went over why your citations don't reveal anything compelling to anyone who would be persuaded by rigorous research.

And I've pointed out repeatedly that this is merely an accusation made with absolutely nothing to back it but personal atheistic bias. What I've laid out here is in no way incongruent with the research. What I've said and what the research entails is fundamentally one and the same. I'm literally not saying anything other than what has been implicated and established by this research, and this is further evidenced by the fact that you nor anyone else participating in this thread cannot point to some fundamental difference in my interpretation and what's been established by this research.

What you claim is established by the research is not the same thing as what the researchers say is or is not established by the research. See Thommo's summary, immediately above this post.

You're not an analyst of psychophamacological research; you're evangelising the so-called Perennial Philosophy, and you are writing religious apologetcs. I don't know what else you do for a living, but don't give up your day job.

Thommo wrote:

Kafei wrote:What I've laid out here is in no way incongruent with the research.

Nor is atheism. Nor is theism.

It's your insistence that it does - one which is contained in no research - that is as wrong as it has become tedious.

I've stated repeatedly as these researchers have that this research has produced evidence which suggests that these mystical states of consciousness are a biologically normal phenomenon, that we're wired for such experiences. That's to say it's a potential within all our consciousness which these researchers say may be a feature of the very way consciousness itself is constructed, and they've recognized these experiences have been happening since perhaps millennia à la the Perennial philosophy.

Kafei wrote:

Thommo wrote:

Kafei wrote:What I've laid out here is in no way incongruent with the research.

Nor is atheism. Nor is theism.

It's your insistence that it does - one which is contained in no research - that is as wrong as it has become tedious.

I've stated repeatedly as these researchers have that this research has produced evidence which suggests that these mystical states of consciousness are a biologically normal phenomenon, that we're wired for such experiences. That's to say it's a potential within all our consciousness which these researchers say may be a feature of the very way consciousness itself is constructed, and they've recognized these experiences have been happening since perhaps millennia à la the Perennial philosophy.

That's meaningless.

My post is clear - atheism and theism are also congruous with the research.

The researchers don't contradict this, and more importantly nor does the research.

Thommo wrote:

Kafei wrote:

Thommo wrote:

Kafei wrote:What I've laid out here is in no way incongruent with the research.

Nor is atheism. Nor is theism.

It's your insistence that it does - one which is contained in no research - that is as wrong as it has become tedious.

I've stated repeatedly as these researchers have that this research has produced evidence which suggests that these mystical states of consciousness are a biologically normal phenomenon, that we're wired for such experiences. That's to say it's a potential within all our consciousness which these researchers say may be a feature of the very way consciousness itself is constructed, and they've recognized these experiences have been happening since perhaps millennia à la the Perennial philosophy.

That's meaningless.

My post is clear - atheism and theism are also congruous with the research.

The researchers don't contradict this, and more importantly nor does the research.

That's not meaningless, that's basically what this research has established in a nutshell.

Kafei wrote:

Thommo wrote:

Kafei wrote:

Thommo wrote:

Nor is atheism. Nor is theism.

It's your insistence that it does - one which is contained in no research - that is as wrong as it has become tedious.

I've stated repeatedly as these researchers have that this research has produced evidence which suggests that these mystical states of consciousness are a biologically normal phenomenon, that we're wired for such experiences. That's to say it's a potential within all our consciousness which these researchers say may be a feature of the very way consciousness itself is constructed, and they've recognized these experiences have been happening since perhaps millennia à la the Perennial philosophy.

That's meaningless.

My post is clear - atheism and theism are also congruous with the research.

The researchers don't contradict this, and more importantly nor does the research.

That's not meaningless, that's basically what this research has established in a nutshell.

Then the research is meaningless.

What you've listed is empty verbiage. "wired", "biologically normal", "potential within all our consciousness". That doesn't tell us anything about anything, let alone atheism or theism.

Fits of sneezes are more biologically normal, wired and potential within human consciousness than drug induced imagery and feelings are. But for some reason you seem capable of distinguishing that atheism and theism are compatible with fits of sneezes in a way that eludes you here.

Thommo wrote:

Kafei wrote:

Thommo wrote:

Kafei wrote:

I've stated repeatedly as these researchers have that this research has produced evidence which suggests that these mystical states of consciousness are a biologically normal phenomenon, that we're wired for such experiences. That's to say it's a potential within all our consciousness which these researchers say may be a feature of the very way consciousness itself is constructed, and they've recognized these experiences have been happening since perhaps millennia à la the Perennial philosophy.

That's meaningless.

My post is clear - atheism and theism are also congruous with the research.

The researchers don't contradict this, and more importantly nor does the research.

That's not meaningless, that's basically what this research has established in a nutshell.

Then the research is meaningless.

What you've listed is empty verbiage. "wired", "biologically normal", "potential within all our consciousness". That doesn't tell us anything about anything, let alone atheism or theism.

Fits of sneezes are more biologically normal, wired and potential within human consciousness than drug induced imagery and feelings are. But for some reason you seem capable of distinguishing that atheism and theism are compatible with fits of sneezes in a way that eludes you here.

This is simply a false analogy. What seems to allude yourself here is a sneeze is not a mystical experience, a sneeze is not something that's found in scripture to be reported at the core of the major religions, etc. And this is precisely why your example is simply a false analogy and lacks the greater context in which these things are actually defined. This may be why you're unable to understand what you call "empty verbiage" in the proper context in which these words have been said and described.

Kafei wrote:

Thommo wrote:

Kafei wrote:

Thommo wrote:

That's meaningless.

My post is clear - atheism and theism are also congruous with the research.

The researchers don't contradict this, and more importantly nor does the research.

That's not meaningless, that's basically what this research has established in a nutshell.

Then the research is meaningless.

What you've listed is empty verbiage. "wired", "biologically normal", "potential within all our consciousness". That doesn't tell us anything about anything, let alone atheism or theism.

Fits of sneezes are more biologically normal, wired and potential within human consciousness than drug induced imagery and feelings are. But for some reason you seem capable of distinguishing that atheism and theism are compatible with fits of sneezes in a way that eludes you here.

This is simply a false analogy. What seems to allude yourself here is a sneeze is not a mystical experience, a sneeze is not something that's found in scripture to be reported at the core of the major religions, etc. And this is precisely why your example is simply a false analogy and lacks the greater context in which these things are actually defined. This may be why you're unable to understand what you call "empty verbiage" in the proper context in which these words have been said and described.

No, it's not false. You say that a sneeze is not important because it's not an experience people describe as mystical, but an experience people describe as mystical is important because people describe it as mystical.

That's just obviously circular reasoning, not a grounds for calling something a disanalogy.

And again: Scriptures do not detail people scoring 60% on a questionnaire. There are a *very* few select passages which refer to something that some people interpret as being an experience which may (or may not) have some features in common with the experiences that scored 60% on the questionnaire. This is possible on the views of theism and atheism as well.

Rather than assuming others are missing something, you should listen to the criticism they actually offer. You demand examples of where you say things the researchers and research do not, then immediately sidetrack when you get it. This is a defense mechanism, and is diametrically opposed to the scientific attitude and spirit of improving your ability to actually describe the research that you persistently say is your goal.

By the way, just a nitpick, but I think the word you were looking for was "elude".

Thommo wrote:

And again: Scriptures do not detail people scoring 60% on a questionnaire. There are a *very* few select passages which refer to something that some people interpret as being an experience which may (or may not) have some features in common with the experiences that scored 60% on the questionnaire. This is possible on the views of theism and atheism as well.

By the way, just a nitpick, but I think the word you were looking for was "elude".

Also, the people subject to those "visions" in scriptures are always chosen by their god(s). It's what makes them unique, and their story worthy of being told. So claiming that those examples are evidence of this being hardwired in the human brain is just disingenuous.

Kafei wrote:a sneeze is not a mystical experience, a sneeze is not something that's found in scripture to be reported at the core of the major religions

If I said a sneeze was a mystical experience for me, would sneezing suddenly become the focus of unspecified research? Likewise, does the fact that a person says he had an experience where he encountered "God" mean that saying one had experienced an encounter with "God" should become the focus of unspecified research?

What is is about the core of major religions that makes saying one had an experience that felt like an encounter with "God" somehow become important and the focus of unspecified research?

It's still not true that just because a lot of people have a certain opinion that its a right opinion or that it necessarily reflects anything that should become the focus of unspecified research. So what is it about the religious experience (besides lots of people yakking about it) that makes it a worthy subject of unspecified research?

Kafei wrote:your example is simply a false analogy and lacks the greater context in which these things are actually defined.

You really need to take some time and try to figure out why you can't get to the point, Kafei. The context is the point, but you just keep yammering about the content of the world's major religions. What of it?

Kafei wrote:these mystical states of consciousness are a biologically normal phenomenon, that we're wired for such experiences.

So go have your experience. The point, if you could ever get to it, is why I need to know about your mystical experience?

Thommo wrote:

Kafei wrote:

Thommo wrote:

Kafei wrote:

That's not meaningless, that's basically what this research has established in a nutshell.

Then the research is meaningless.

What you've listed is empty verbiage. "wired", "biologically normal", "potential within all our consciousness". That doesn't tell us anything about anything, let alone atheism or theism.

Fits of sneezes are more biologically normal, wired and potential within human consciousness than drug induced imagery and feelings are. But for some reason you seem capable of distinguishing that atheism and theism are compatible with fits of sneezes in a way that eludes you here.

This is simply a false analogy. What seems to allude yourself here is a sneeze is not a mystical experience, a sneeze is not something that's found in scripture to be reported at the core of the major religions, etc. And this is precisely why your example is simply a false analogy and lacks the greater context in which these things are actually defined. This may be why you're unable to understand what you call "empty verbiage" in the proper context in which these words have been said and described.

No, it's not false. You say that a sneeze is not important because it's not an experience people describe as mystical, but an experience people describe as mystical is important because people describe it as mystical.

That's just obviously circular reasoning, not a grounds for calling something a disanalogy.

And again: Scriptures do not detail people scoring 60% on a questionnaire. There are a *very* few select passages which refer to something that some people interpret as being an experience which may (or may not) have some features in common with the experiences that scored 60% on the questionnaire.

By the way, just a nitpick, but I think the word you were looking for was "elude".

People aren't just and solely describing these experiences "mystical experience" or CME, and by people, I mean the researchers, recall that none of the volunteers self-describe their experiences as "mystical" nor do they even use this word "mystical" when describing the content of the experience. Then if that were the case, you'd be justified in calling it circular reasoning, but it's not the case. Rather the term "complete" mystical experience is used by the professionals to describe a volunteers' report insofar as they register on these measures that were designed to gauge this very experience. The context in which these things are defined in no way relate to a fit of sneezing. That's a poor and misleading analogy, that's why I've called it a false analogy.

And yes, I meant to type elude, because this very point still has eluded you.

Kafei wrote:recall that none of the volunteers self-describe their experiences as "mystical" nor do they even use this word "mystical" when describing the content of the experience.

Who cares how they describe it? The checkpoints on the quesstionnaire are full of religious and mystical or non-visual description and imagery. Not surprisingly, the subjects try to describe their experience from cues they've been given. And they took drugs. The appearance of religious language in the world's major religions is not surprising to me. But you seem to find great significance in that, whereas I don't. Get to the point. You keep falling short of saying that experiencing being in the presence of "God" means that "God" really exists, even as an overwhelming mental state. With good reason, you avoid saying that.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Kafei wrote:recall that none of the volunteers self-describe their experiences as "mystical" nor do they even use this word "mystical" when describing the content of the experience.

Who cares how they describe it? The checkpoints on the quesstionnaire are full of religious and mystical or non-visual description and imagery. Not surprisingly, the subjects try to describe their experience from cues they've been given. And they took drugs. The appearance of religious language in the world's major religions is not surprising to me. But you seem to find great significance in that, whereas I don't. Get to the point. You keep falling short of saying that experiencing being in the presence of "God" means that "God" really exists, even as an overwhelming mental state. With good reason, you avoid saying that.

What do you mean by "cues they've been given"? This assumption may be why it's so difficult for you to grasp these topics.

Kafei wrote:People aren't just and solely describing these experiences "mystical experience" or CME, and by people, I mean the researchers, recall that none of the volunteers self-describe their experiences as "mystical" nor do they even use this word "mystical" when describing the content of the experience.

You keep claiming to be precise and dilligent when you're anything but.

The experiences labelled as mystical are 60% on a questionnaire. I've been quite clear on this point. The experiences in scriptures, that you liken them to aren't 60% on a questionnaire. We cannot tell if the people they (allegedly) happened to would have scored 60% on a questionnaire. We also cannot tell if there were other important features not on the questionnaire in the experiences of the people they (allegedly) happened to.

Kafei wrote:Then if that were the case, you'd be justified in calling it circular reasoning, but it's not the case.

No, you've misrepresented the criticism you were offered. Just read it again and try again, because this is not what I said.

You offered only one difference between a sneeze and a mystical experience when you rejected the analogy - you said "What seems to allude [sic] yourself here is a sneeze is not a mystical experience" - that the reason that an experience people describe as mystical (it's the researchers and/or you who does that, I'm not attributing that annotation to the participants) is important is because it's an experience people describe as mystical and that this is not true for a sneeze. That is circular, you use your conclusion that "mystical experience" is important in order to validate your conclusion that "mystical experience" is important (and thus unlike sneezing, which presumably you agree isn't especially important).

You also falsely attributed a score of 60% on an MEQ to passages of scripture.

Kafei wrote:Rather the term "complete" mystical experience is used by the professionals to describe a volunteers' report insofar as they register on these measures that were designed to gauge this very experience. The context in which these things are defined in no way relate to a fit of sneezing. That's a poor and misleading analogy, that's why I've called it a false analogy.

And yes, I meant to type elude, because this very point still has eluded you.

It hasn't eluded me at all. It's wrong.

I did not say that "The context in which these things are defined relates to a fit of sneezing". I've explained the form of an analogy to you a lot of times, you should not be making this mistake any more: "A relates to B as C relates to D".

Look, the analogy was this:

The terms "wired", "biologically normal", "potential within all our consciousness" relate to fits of sneezing just as well as the terms "wired", "biologically normal", "potential within all our consciousness" relate to scores of 60% on an MEQ.

And thus, I reasoned, the terms "wired", "biologically normal", "potential within all our consciousness" are not informative about (the truth of) atheism, theism or perennialism.

The researchers, unlike you, are aware of and even explicitly spell out this lack of metaphysical implication.

Thommo wrote:
You keep claiming to be precise and dilligent when you're nothing but.

Anything but.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Thommo wrote:
You keep claiming to be precise and dilligent when you're nothing but.

Anything but.

Yes, my mistake, I'll correct it now.

Thank you.

Kafei wrote:...
Anecdotal data is quite important in these double-blind trials.

A reference to the publication and a summary of the data and conclusions drawn from these trials is the only requirement here.

You say "the plural of anecdote is not data" as though it's some sort of adage. Well, it's not. To ignore the anecdotal data that's filtered through the double-blind method, is just denying the evidence of which this research has established.

Then bring the data from these studies and reference the publication in which they were reported (i.e. not a link to a youtube) in your next post.

My guess is that you won't comply with this simple request and will simply repeat your other mantra that the trials are ongoing and not yet published.

Kafei wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Kafei wrote:recall that none of the volunteers self-describe their experiences as "mystical" nor do they even use this word "mystical" when describing the content of the experience.

Who cares how they describe it? The checkpoints on the quesstionnaire are full of religious and mystical or non-visual description and imagery. Not surprisingly, the subjects try to describe their experience from cues they've been given. And they took drugs. The appearance of religious language in the world's major religions is not surprising to me. But you seem to find great significance in that, whereas I don't. Get to the point. You keep falling short of saying that experiencing being in the presence of "God" means that "God" really exists, even as an overwhelming mental state. With good reason, you avoid saying that.

What do you mean by "cues they've been given"? This assumption may be why it's so difficult for you to grasp these topics.

How do people develop or produce the language to describe what they or someone else interprests as 'mystical experience'? Where do people learn language? From other people, perhaps? Do you think that might be remotely possible?

You've got it ass backwards that the similarities of anecdotes means something besides that the learning of language is going on in people's fitting descriptions of purported mystical experiences to the reality of mystical experiences. It just doesn't mean that the experiences have any significance to anyone but the individual. Hence, these are still nothing but anecdotes, and rendered in terms of language that they have learned from other people. The baseline language is: "I could not possibly put it into words!"

I'm having no trouble at all grasping that the rendering of anecdotes requires the learning of language. I mean, perhaps mystics should try fingerpainting on the lavatory walls with their own shit, and give a non-verbal description of mystical experience. They could even use somebody else's shit, if they started to run short of their own.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Kafei wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Kafei wrote:recall that none of the volunteers self-describe their experiences as "mystical" nor do they even use this word "mystical" when describing the content of the experience.

Who cares how they describe it? The checkpoints on the quesstionnaire are full of religious and mystical or non-visual description and imagery. Not surprisingly, the subjects try to describe their experience from cues they've been given. And they took drugs. The appearance of religious language in the world's major religions is not surprising to me. But you seem to find great significance in that, whereas I don't. Get to the point. You keep falling short of saying that experiencing being in the presence of "God" means that "God" really exists, even as an overwhelming mental state. With good reason, you avoid saying that.

What do you mean by "cues they've been given"? This assumption may be why it's so difficult for you to grasp these topics.

How do people develop or produce the language to describe what they or someone else interprests as 'mystical experience'? Where do people learn language? From other people, perhaps? Do you think that might be remotely possible?

You've got it ass backwards that the similarities of anecdotes means something besides the learning of language is going on in people's fitting descriptions of purported mystical experiences to the reality of mystical experiences. It just doesn't mean that the experiences have any significance to anyone but the individual. Hence, these are still nothing but anecdotes.

The point you don't get is that when Plotinus described his experience of Henosis as "The One" or when the Hindu describes his experience of samadhi as Brahman or the Christian mystic describes his experience of Theoria as The Father or Beatific vision, they are all variously describing one and the same mystical state of consciousness. This is not to say that the Hindu undergoing samadhi thinks he encountered Brahman or attributed his experience to Brahman or thought he was in the presence of Brahman. Rather and more accurately is that Brahman is the inner experiential phenomenality that is described from the vantage point of the state of samadhi or what these researchers are calling a "complete" mystical experience. And that's what these researchers claim they can reproduce in the majority of their volunteers. It doesn't matter how they, in particular describe it, whether the atheist says he no longer identifies with atheism after this event or a Christian has this experience and it confirms his belief in a Christian God. That's what they mean when they say they're not validating the claims of "some individuals," rather they discern a larger context in which these experiences have been defined and that is the Perennial philosophy.

newolder wrote:

Kafei wrote:...
Anecdotal data is quite important in these double-blind trials.

A reference to the publication and a summary of the data and conclusions drawn from these trials is the only requirement here.

You say "the plural of anecdote is not data" as though it's some sort of adage. Well, it's not. To ignore the anecdotal data that's filtered through the double-blind method, is just denying the evidence of which this research has established.

Then bring the data from these studies and reference the publication in which they were reported (i.e. not a link to a youtube) in your next post.

My guess is that you won't comply with this simple request and will simply repeat your other mantra that the trials are ongoing and not yet published.

I've linked to the studies going on at Johns Hopkins that have been peer-reviewed and published in the Scientific Journal of Psychopharmacology.

Kafei wrote:... Rather and more accurately is that Brahman is the inner experiential phenomenality that is described from the vantage point of the state of samadhi or what these researchers are calling a "complete" mystical experience. And that's what these researchers claim they can reproduce in the majority of their volunteers. ...

The citation required here consists of: Journal, Volume, Title, Author list, Date of publication and followed by the extraction of a quote that claims an equivalent to, "The inner experiential phenomenality (Brahman) derives from the state of samadhi and is what we refer to as a "complete" mystical experience and is what we have shown occurs in a majority (insert numerical data) of the volunteers in this test."