Are Mystical Experiences Intersubjectively Verifiable?

[Sunstone]

Are mystical experiences intersubjectively verifiable?

Are they in principle any less intersubjectively verifiable than, say, the observations of a field biologist or an anthropologist? If so, how? If not, why not?

 

[kadzbiz]

Sounds like a good question Sunstone, but I wish I could understand it. Can you make yourself a little clearer?

 

[michel]

Sounds like a good question Sunstone, but I wish I could understand it. Can you make yourself a little clearer?

I think he is asking if Mystical experiences can be verified by another person (than the one who is having the experience).

I would say "No" to that; I often walk down the road, and drift off, marvelling at nature - birds, trees, plants, and I guess I feel a warm glow of "being at one with nature" which I see as such an experience....but I don't suppose anyone can witness that.

 

[kadzbiz]

Thanks Michel. I would say that it is possible. Surely there have been instances where more than one person saw such "mystical" experiences at the same time.

 

[MaddLlama]

Well, one of them is a subjective, personal experience and therefore cannot be validated or invalidated by any other person. Not to mention that it may or may not even be a repeatable experience for the person experiencing it.

And, the other is a tangible, verifiable and often repeatable through experiment and observation, and because it is tangible and not hinged on interpretation of personal experience, it can be verified by outside sources.

I wouldn't go so far as to say one of them is better than the other. The methods are so different that it's really comparing apples to elephants.

 

[Sunstone]

Sounds like a good question Sunstone, but I wish I could understand it. Can you make yourself a little clearer?

"intersubjectively verifiable" is just short hand for "verifiable by more than one person". So, suppose you tell me there are these tiny things you call "mirco-organisms." Can anyone but yourself verify that those micro-organisms exist? If so, then the existence of those little things you call "micro-organisms" can be intersubjectively verified.

Perhaps a better way to ask the question in the OP would be, "Are mystical experiences intersubjectively verifiable by any qualified observer?"

 

[Sunstone]

Thanks Michel. I would say that it is possible. Surely there have been instances where more than one person saw such "mystical" experiences at the same time.

It wouldn't necessarily have to be at the same time. To illustrate, say we're talking about verifying the existence of micro-organisms. Do we have to look into the mircoscope at precisely the same time to legitimately reach the conclusion that micro-organisms exist?

Again, say we're field biologists studying wolf behavior. On Tuesday, you see a wolf eat a caribou. On Wednesday, I see a different wolf eat a caribou. Haven't we confirmed, verified, each other's observation even though we didn't see the same wolf at the same time?

Last, suppose Chin, a mystic, says he has an experience of all things being profoundly interconnected. Next, suppose Ahmed, another mystic, says he has an experience of all things being profoundly interconnected. Do the two of them have to be in the same room, looking at the same things, to have intersubjectively verified that humans can, at least in some cases, experience a sense, feeling, or perception that all things are profoundly interconnnected?

 

[Sunstone]

Well, one of them is a subjective, personal experience and therefore cannot be validated or invalidated by any other person. Not to mention that it may or may not even be a repeatable experience for the person experiencing it.

But aren't all experiences by definition subjective, personal experiences?

And, the other is a tangible, verifiable and often repeatable through experiment and observation, and because it is tangible and not hinged on interpretation of personal experience, it can be verified by outside sources.

But many observations made by anthropologists, sociologists, field biologists, etc are not replicable at will. Does that invalidate their observations?

 

[Sunstone]

I would say "No" to that; I often walk down the road, and drift off, marvelling at nature - birds, trees, plants, and I guess I feel a warm glow of "being at one with nature" which I see as such an experience....but I don't suppose anyone can witness that.

But what if a second person at a different time and place reports a similar "warm glow of being at one with nature"? Wouldn't that be additional evidence that it is possible for humans to experience a "warm glow of being at one with nature"?

 

[MaddLlama]

But aren't all experiences by definition subjective, personal experiences?

There's a difference though. If I say that I saw an image of God while meditating, that's not verifiable by anybody but me. But, if I say that I saw a monkey at the zoo, anybody could go to the zoo and see that monkey. Not to mention that I could take pictures of the monkey to show you.

But many observations made by anthropologists, sociologists, field biologists, etc are not replicable at will. Does that invalidate their observations?

But, it's always tangible. They can at least observe whatever subject, and someone else can also. A "mystical experience", by its very nature, is intangible. Its an internal process, rather than an external one. Therefore it isn't really fair to make a comparison to scientific processes.

 

[Sunstone]

BTW, Remember this is a DIR Forum. It's not for outside points of view or debate.

 

[Sunstone]

There's a difference though. If I say that I saw an image of God while meditating, that's not verifiable by anybody but me. But, if I say that I saw a monkey at the zoo, anybody could go to the zoo and see that monkey. Not to mention that I could take pictures of the monkey to show you.

I don't know what it would mean to "have an image of God while meditating", so let's stick to a common enough claim of mystics -- that they have experienced a sense, perception, or feeling of all things being profoundly interconnected.

Now, if Thistlethorp experiences that, and then, at some other time, Scorklesnip experiences that, what is the difference in principle between those two people experiencing the same thing and you and I going to the zoo to experience the same thing about monkeys?

But, it's always tangible. They can at least observe whatever subject, and someone else can also. A "mystical experience", by its very nature, is intangible. Its an internal process, rather than an external one.

All experience is ultimately internal.

Therefore it isn't really fair to make a comparison to scientific processes.

I've never claimed to be fair.

 

[jacquie4000]

But we can intersubjectively verify that people everyway feel discomfort if they are hungry. This can not be seen.

But it seems to me like lets say a public phenonmenon were a group of people see the same thing. They must all describe it alike which almost never happens. They may have the same basic idea but something is a little different in everyone's opinion so it can no be proved.

So when someone is having a personal mystical internal experiance and someone else has the same experiance they are bound to tell it a little different so it will not be intersubjectively verified. Is that correct or not I do not know, just a guess.

 

[doppelganger]

Mystic experience can be intersubjectively verifiable. It's a matter of whether the two or more persons sharing their experiences are open to understanding the language or symbols used by the others to relate to their experience. The point of mystic experience is that it happens outside of the reality of words and language and on reflection a person tries to translate it into reality. This is done with metaphor. If two people have the same connection of their personal experience with the same metaphor, then the experience can be shared and discussed. This communication is never complete.

People of the same faith "tradition" are much more likely to be able to understand one another when talking about spirituality. If they have the same symbols on their template to mark these experiences, it's much easier for them to communicate about it.

Another way is to learn how to listen and ask questions about the experiences behind a set of symbols and metaphors and try to discern where the connections lie for the person using the symbols. This is a much more difficult method for creating a communicative connection. And oftentimes, if the person is really attached to the symbols, they won't answer questions. I think once a person has practiced listening to mythology long enough, he or she can learn to relate to the symbolism used by pretty much anybody. Now sharing that methodology for moving between symbolic worlds is often feared because it disrupts certainty in the symbols as a thing in themselves. When people think they are the symbols they use, suggesting that the symbols point to something outside of certainty can be frightening.

 

[MaddLlama]

How can you verify that two people have the exact same mystical experience? One person can say they experience something, and someone else can interpret their own experience the same way, but is there any way to verify that both of those people have had the exact same experience?

The difference is that there are lots of ways for me to verify that I saw a monkey at the zoo. There is no way to verify that anyone has even had a mystical experience in the first place, let alone what exactly that was. If you tell me that you've "experienced the interconnectedness of life", what evidence other than your own statement do I have to verify that?

 

[doppelganger]

If you tell me that you've "experienced the interconnectedness of life", what evidence other than your own statement do I have to verify that?

You have personal experience that you may or may not be able to relate to the symbol "interconnectedness of life." If that symbol doesn't resonate with your experience, you can ask questions and try to relate. You might never relate it to your experience. You are right, though, it is much more difficult than comparing sensory perceptions of a discrete object (like a monkey), because that sort of communication actually is the function of language.

 

[Sunstone]

How can you verify that two people have the exact same mystical experience? One person can say they experience something, and someone else can interpret their own experience the same way, but is there any way to verify that both of those people have had the exact same experience?

1) Why would it be necessary that two people have exactly the same experience?

2) If it is necessary that two people have exactly the same experience, how can you verify that two people looking at monkeys in the zoo have exactly the same experience?

There is no way to verify that anyone has even had a mystical experience in the first place, let alone what exactly that was. If you tell me that you've "experienced the interconnectedness of life", what evidence other than your own statement do I have to verify that?

If you tell me you're hungry, what evidence other than your own statement do I have to verify that?

 

[!Fluffy!]

Are mystical experiences intersubjectively verifiable?

well i was just sitting there in the local Church of the Warm Glow of Being At One With Nature the other day when out of the blue, everyone felt a warm glow of being at one with nature. now let me tell you i am quite convinced several of those present are the worst kind of hypocrite who will go through the motions on Sunday and then go all worldly the other 6 days of the week, but they are the minority.

but i was there to witness firsthand, it was a definite glow felt by the majority of true believers, so the answer to your question is 'yes'.

if that isn't scientific evidence, well what can i say.

 

[Sunstone]

well i was just sitting there in the local Church of the Warm Glow of Being At One With Nature the other day when out of the blue, everyone felt a warm glow of being at one with nature. now let me tell you i am quite convinced several of those present are the worst kind of hypocrite who will go through the motions on Sunday and then go all worldly the other 6 days of the week, but they are the minority.

but i was there to witness firsthand, it was a definite glow felt by the majority of true believers, so the answer to your question is 'yes'.

if that isn't scientific evidence, well what can i say.

What does "mystical experience" mean to you, Moon Woman? I'm not following you at all.

 

[!Fluffy!]

that's because i'm being a little silly, uncle phil, and forgot to put in my sarc tag.
:angel2:


(really there's nothing mystical to see here, people. just more of moonwoman's inane pratter. move along.)