Let's Present Some Evidence ...

[PureX]

#526 is UPG no more no less. When you can recreate this "mystic experience" with any willing subject on demand you MAY have something. Failing that . . . UPG.

And the evidence is the fact that you CAN'T.

Further you have made far reaching claims of the after effects of this "experience." Where is the documentation - not reports - DOCUMENTATION of ANY of those claims? Any one will do. A clear and complete psy profile of the individual prior to this "experience" compared to after the experience. Where is it?

Interestingly, hypnotism doesn't work on every and all willing subjects, yet it's still considered a 'real' phenomenon, and is often used to help people correct unhealthy habits and behaviors. There are millions of people who can and do attest to that. I think you're 'choking' your criteria, here, don't you?

 

[autonomous1one1]

#526 is UPG no more no less. When you can recreate this "mystic experience" with any willing subject on demand you MAY have something. Failing that . . . UPG.

And the evidence is the fact that you CAN'T.

Further you have made far reaching claims of the after effects of this "experience." Where is the documentation - not reports - DOCUMENTATION of ANY of those claims? Any one will do. A clear and complete psy profile of the individual prior to this "experience" compared to after the experience. Where is it?

Interestingly, hypnotism doesn't work on every and all willing subjects, yet it's still considered a 'real' phenomenon, and is often used to help people correct unhealthy habits and behaviors. There are millions of people who can and do attest to that. I think you're 'choking' your criteria, here, don't you?

Greetings. Thank you, PureX. What is your answer to PureX, OK?

You are right, OK, about not being able to recreate, on demand, every time. In fact, there cannot be a guarantee that any specific willing subject will realize the experience; the last step seems to be outside the subject's control. However, with a willing, committed, and dedicated subject there is an increased probability of success at the present time because all of the information, techniques, and practices are available in unprecedented fashion. The fact that the Experience has been repeated and transmitted to others at all moves it out of the UPG category in my opinion.

By the way, OK, you touch on excellent points with the two subjects chosen to question. Concerning the second area, your insistence on DOCUMENTATION versus report is not quite clear to me. Please excuse my ignorance. Do you mean with witnesses, signature of a notary public, etc. ? Reports of the after effects are all over the place, including right here in RF. There is some interesting stuff going on in this area which we can come back on perhaps after your meaning is clear to me.

 

[themadhair]

Of course we all recognize that if one selects a sample on the basis of some commonality to the exclusion of other samples and then uses the same commonality to make a point, the point is not justified. That is not what is being offered in this thread beginning with post #526. No examples have been excluded on the basis of interpretation, only on the basis of being unknown.

How is the above not an example of my complaint?????? Not being funny here, but when you make comments like the above without seeing the problem then it would appear not all people “recognize that if one selects a sample on the basis of some commonality to the exclusion of other samples and then uses the same commonality to make a point, the point is not justified.”

One cannot include what one does not know.

Especially when it casts doubt on the conclusion you are attempting to reach.

We all, of course, can agree that examples left out which have differing conclusions from those put forward if there are any would be of interest and should be taken into account.

Or more likely, as I suspect based upon your posts, they would simply be ignored.

Even if true, a single example versus all the instances provided that are documented would not be justification to discard what has been proposed though it would shed some doubt as you express.

It would if it illustrates that the process used to gather your cited experiences had excluded it due to selective bias.

Imagine I claim all swans are black and I present 200 carcasses of black swans as evidence. Now imagine you presented a white swan. Would it make sense for me to argue that your single example paled in comparison to my 200 carcasses for establishing my claim? Probably not. But it would make even less sense as a defence against selective bias for which the white swan was produced to demonstrate.

When it was pointed out that these are included in the sample and are very much in the heart of establishing and continuing the Mystic Experience they dropped out of your argument.

This is somewhat misrepresentative of the conversation, and I’m a little suspicious of you doing this if I am honest.

If a Muslim concludes allah and a Christian concludes Yahweh they would both be included in your books – but those are completely different concepts of what ‘god’ means. This isn’t due to similarity of experience but similarity of theologies of the people who were included. I thought I was doing you a favour by directly avoiding these and focusing on ‘godless’ interpretations in order to make the point of selection bias.

I can certainly revisit this if you like. I will also make a mental note not to do such favours trying to remove ambiguities if it will only end up being thrown back into my face like this.

Since you consider two posts on the Internet and your discussions with Scientologists to have equal weight against the great number of instances and mammoth database of the Mystic Experience let’s take a look at your position and evidence.

When you rephrase my arguments, can you try to do so accurately in future?

Quoting myself from earlier – “ But yes, I do consider what I have presented to to be of equal value here. By selectively choosing experiences on the basis of interpretation, only to later argue that the similar interpretation of those selected experiences constitutes evidence, is flawed. In order to show this flaw it is necessary to present similar experiences where the interpretation differed. Hence why I consider this to be of equal value here since it cuts right to the heart of the tautology the experiences in #526 represent. ”

To one who is close to the Mystic Experience the comments made above prove that there is a lack of understanding of the Mystic Experience.

It isn’t that I am closed to those experiences, it is that I recognise (and have been trying to point out to) the problems of conformational bias. These are problems that you have not been able (or have refused) to address.

You did not read my post #526 carefully and have not even glanced at the table of contents of the History of Mysticism. That’s ok, it would not be expected from someone with no real interest in the subject.

Of course. If only I had read your post I would have understood. How could I have missed this?

It does raise the question, however, how could you possibly determine that experiences of Scientologists are the same?

Because they sound and describe the same emotions and feelings of enlightenment that I have heard described from Muslims and Christians perhaps?

There is an almost subtle irony here in that, when I was invited to one particular church, the main argument for why I should attend was on the grounds that you cannot get the ‘touch of god’ from a book.

Another puzzlement, in one of your posts you mentioned that from the description given in #526 that you can see that Scientologists have similar experiences but with different interpretations. Considering that you accuse me of examining only the interpretation, what description was that?

The description as given to me by Muslims and Christians. The total lack of characteristics offered by you outside of interpretations is one of the reasons I’ve taken issue with your use of such as evidence for commonality.

Now, if you tell me as you have posted that my discounting those examples is solely on interpretations, then the descriptions there must be interpretations and the conclusion remains that no counter evidence has been provided.

You can take them however you want. They serve to make the point of selective bias, and that was the context within which they were provided. Ultimately, the best bet imo for getting actual answers to these questions is the field of neurotheology.

Considering the secrecy about the higher stages within Scientology, do you think that the subject will even be discussed with me?

I don’t. The whole ban on ‘verbal tech’ would be an issue (i.e. there is an actual written policy forbidding such discussions). Better bet would be to try and get in touch with either FreeZoners or ex-members.

Where are you at this point?

I don’t really think people are that different from each other when it comes to their perceptive ability, but since the only realm that rewards/recognises/encourages/<insert suitable word here> such intense experiences of the nature we are discussing is religion there is a massive linking between the two. Thing is, I don’t think that linking is justified. Suppose a person had an experience of the type we are discussing, and suppose further that this person had never been introduced to the concept of ‘god’ – would they really conclude ‘god’ on the basis of their experience?

I do think such experiences have a real basis, but how much of the experience itself remains within reality is a difficult question. I’ve met a chap who is absolutely convinced he had been abducted by aliens. There is very likely a real basis for his experience (and I believe this to be the case) but I suspect the attribution and interpretation of it has gone out the window. The thing that interests me here is that, when the alien concept became popular, such attributions and interpretations became more common. When it comes to our discussion I think the ‘god’ concept is being used as an explanatory mechanism for something that does have a definite real basis.

What the term ‘god’ means here is another sticking point for me. Two people might attribute their experiences to ‘god’, but they may very different conceptions of what ‘god’ means. When it comes to this topic I’m hoping that neurotheology will provide some answers since it is largely independent of the ambiguities of language. In other words, the experiences can be studied without having to be mired in what ‘god’ means. The little progress that has been made has proven the experiences occur. I’m hoping for a cross checking of experiences between control groups since that is the most relevant for our discussion.

 

[themadhair]

Just a note regarding hypnotism &#8211; it doesn&#8217;t require interpretation in the way religious experiences do. Hypnotism can be demonstrated (as can religious experiences) &#8211; but that is far as you need to go with hypnotism since you aren&#8217;t attributing it to something outside of itself.

And I cannot be hypnotised apparently. Volunteered for more than a few sessions and have gotten nowhere. I did word association test which was supposed to determine hypnotic susceptibility and didn&#8217;t do very well.

 

[Commoner]

Just a note regarding hypnotism &#8211; it doesn&#8217;t require interpretation in the way religious experiences do. Hypnotism can be demonstrated (as can religious experiences) &#8211; but that is far as you need to go with hypnotism since you aren&#8217;t attributing it to something outside of itself.

And I cannot be hypnotised apparently. Volunteered for more than a few sessions and have gotten nowhere. I did word association test which was supposed to determine hypnotic susceptibility and didn&#8217;t do very well.

Exactly. :yes:

Nobody ever said that there is no such thing as a religious experience - it's just when you try to use it as evidence for god that we object.

 

[Willamena]

Nobody ever said that there is no such thing as a religious experience - it's just when you try to use it as evidence for god that we object.

And if that's all "god" is?

 

[themadhair]

And if that's all "god" is?

I think commoner could live with that, but I suspect that those citing such experiences could not.

 

[Willamena]

I think commoner could live with that, but I suspect that those citing such experiences could not.

The point was that if that is what "god" is to a person and they present it as evidence, and even then it's dismissed, then they can't win either way.

 

[Commoner]

And if that's all "god" is?

If that's all god is, we should stop using the word "god" to describe it. It is disingenuous, because of the many, many different connotations that come with it.

I mean, sure, I had plutonium for breakfast. It was actually just a sandwich, but I felt this "reaction"

Ok, maybe it wasn't this really heavy metal that we associate with nuclear reactions, but that's all I have. Why can't I call it plutonium?

 

[Commoner]

The point was that if that is what "god" is to a person and they present it as evidence, and even then it's dismissed, then they can't win either way.

But that has never been the problem - we know people have strange, inexplicable experiences, we ALL have them. The problem is, some draw really, really specific, unfounded conclusions from those experiences that they can't rationally explain and then base further actions and beliefs on those bad conclusions. Religion is just a way to exploit those tendencies, to offer shortcut rationalizations for what we can't explain and to build a community that fosters those ideas as actual explanations*. When religion comes in we no longer only look for comforting answers when we are stumped for real explanations, but are already seeking any way possible to confirm what we have already accepted as "the answer". And it's pretty clear that when we, humans, look for some pattern - eventually we'll find it, even if there is none.

So the question is, is it not perhaps religion that is the common denominator among the different "experiences". And should we expect anything less than similarity, when most of the world's population subscribes to basically the same religion (with minor differences)? Even if we take religion out of the equation, the fact remains that people have developed very similar mythological ideas in different parts of the world, in different cultures - ideas, that both atheists and theists recognize as nothing more than figments of our imaginations.

*not that that's all religion does, as with any community, there are also actual benifits.

 

[Willamena]

If that's all god is, we should stop using the word "god" to describe it. It is disingenuous, because of the many, many different connotations that come with it.

I mean, sure, I had plutonium for breakfast. It was actually just a sandwich, but I felt this "reaction"

Ok, maybe it wasn't this really heavy metal that we associate with nuclear reactions, but that's all I have. Why can't I call it plutonium?

Isn't it already "disingenuous" because of the many different connotations that come with it? Nothing's changed.

Else you mean to tell me what "god" is. . .

But that has never been the problem - we know people have strange, inexplicable experiences, we ALL have them. The problem is, some draw really, really specific, unfounded conclusions from those experiences that they can't rationally explain and then base further nonsense on those conclusions.

I believe the reference in post #526 was a particular explicable experience, not just any ole' inexplicable experience. The explanation is a profound understanding of reality that includes some part (thing, event, property or idea) --some piece of the picture --referred to as "God".

 

[Commoner]

Isn't it already "disingenuous" because of the many different connotations that come with it? Nothing's changed.

Else you mean to tell me what "god" is. . .

Connotation does not equal definition. I can tell you what god is to most people and it's not just "a religious experience". If you want to use it as such, you should convince the major religions to stop using the word to mean the "supernatural creator of all" and then we can use it to describe a particular type of experience. BTW, that was some mighty good plutonium I ate earlier.

I believe the reference in post #526 was a particular explicable experience, not just any ole' inexplicable experience. The explanation is a profound understanding of reality that includes some part (thing, event, property or idea) --some piece of the picture --referred to as "God".

The experience was certainly "explained" but I wouldn't call that an actual explanation and I see nothing special about it. The "profound understanding" unfortunatelly comes without any demonstrable knowledge. And even if it did - that's one of the mechanisms our brain uses to solve problems - when ideas just "pop" into your head (actually we just become aware of them consciously). What does that have to do with a creator of the universe?

*I should also warn you that I have edited the last two posts, so you probably didn't read them in their "current state".

 

[nonbeliever_92]

certainly there is yet to be any evidence for god to appear on this thread

 

[Commoner]

certainly there is yet to be any evidence for god to appear on this thread

Don't be sad, I'm sure it's just around the corner.

 

[Vile Atheist]

116 pages...we're getting there. Any time now.

 

[Willamena]

Connotation does not equal definition. I can tell you what god is to most people and it's not just "a religious experience". If you want to use it as such, you should convince the major religions to stop using the word to mean the "supernatural creator of all" and then we can use it to describe a particular type of experience. BTW, that was some mighty good plutonium I ate earlier.



The experience was certainly "explained" but I wouldn't call that an actual explanation and I see nothing special about it. The "profound understanding" unfortunatelly comes without any demonstrable knowledge. And even if it did - that's one of the mechanisms our brain uses to solve problems - when ideas just "pop" into your head (actually we just become aware of them consciously). What does that have to do with a creator of the universe?

*I should also warn you that I have edited the last two posts, so you probably didn't read them in their "current state".

It was? I think you need to re-read my post . . .

 

[autonomous1one1]

Greetings Themadhair. You make many interesting points (about Neurotheology for example) but in the interest of brevity for the sake of others let me address only your key objection about 'selective bias.' - one more last time.

...Imagine I claim all swans are black and I present 200 carcasses of black swans as evidence. Now imagine you presented a white swan. Would it make sense for me to argue that your single example paled in comparison to my 200 carcasses for establishing my claim? Probably not. But it would make even less sense as a defence against selective bias for which the white swan was produced to demonstrate...

From my perspective the imaginary example would be more like the following: Someone comes up with 200 black swans and tells another that these swans are evidence that swans are black. The second person says - no, you are guilty of selective bias because you used your conclusion to select black swans to demonstrate your conclusion that swans are black. Here is a white swan to prove your selective bias. The first person says, "errrr, sir, that is a white dove, not a swan. You did not read my three books provided that give all kinds of definitions and characteristics to see what a swan really is."

Your objection comes down to evidence that there are Scientologists who have the same experience and different conclusion (no God). In answer to my question about how you determined that the Scientology experience was the same as the Mystic Experience you gave the following.

Because they (referring to Scientologists) sound and describe the same emotions and feelings of enlightenment that I have heard described from Muslims and Christians perhaps?..

My position is that descriptions and interpretations of 'emotions and feelings' are not a valid basis to determine that experiences are the same. In addition, now your source of Muslims and Christians for enlightenment is suspect.

The total lack of characteristics offered by you outside of interpretations is one of the reasons I’ve taken issue with your use of such as evidence for commonality...

The three books offered in the post define the Mystic Experience and give all kinds of characteristics about it. In addition, the resultant being with extraordinary and unique characteristics from the Experience is taken into account in identifying the Experience. One of these, for example, is a dramatic shift in perspective to a nondual one. My post emphasized the interpretation that God was 'in the equation' not to be the basis for selection but because that is the evidence pertinent to this thread.

That's my two cents, Themadhair. Now you may have the last word. Keep a light heart.

Regards,
a..1

 

[themadhair]

You did not read my three books provided that give all kinds of definitions and characteristics to see what a swan really is."

And you have not spent any time to seek out the contradictory interpretations I describe. It works both ways here, particularly if you cannot quantify what criteria (independent of interpretational bias) should be used.

My position is that descriptions and interpretations of 'emotions and feelings' are not a valid basis to determine that experiences are the same.

Of course you hold this position – precisely because of your bias towards interpretation.

And I find the above rather interesting on two counts:
1) You haven’t offered any criteria that are independent of interpretation, which is crippling to your argument for commonality due to the inherent tautological basis with selection.
2) Bar emotions and feelings, the only other method of comparison that avoid interpretational issues that I am aware of is MRI scanning or similar. This would be the realm of neurotheology which, due to it being a scientific field, probably wouldn’t provide you much help.

In addition, now your source of Muslims and Christians for enlightenment is suspect.

When you make a point it would help somewhat if you provided something alongside the mere assertion of that point. It also raises an interesting question in that, by effectively asking me to discount personal interactions that provide much more insight into this phenomenon than any book can realistically capture, what real basis are you presenting other than declaring “your conclusion is wrong because it disagrees with me” ?

One of these, for example, is a dramatic shift in perspective to a nondual one.

This is something that I don’t get. You will dismiss experiences due to differing interpretations, and claim with a metaphorical straight face that you are not doing so, and yet when you reiterate a characteristic from #526 you reiterate one that is interpretation based???

Think about it. Nondualism is part of Christianity, Hindu, Muslim and Buddhist teachings, and I’m arguing that the experiences been discussed are being attributed to those respective theologies in an act of conformational bias. Given this, can you see why nondualism as a characteristic is interpretational?

Be honest now – what way do you expect me to react when you make comments like these?

My post emphasized the interpretation that God was 'in the equation' not to be the basis for selection but because that is the evidence pertinent to this thread.

And yet it, and the associated theologies giving rise to certain interpretations, would seem to be very basis for selection.

 

[autonomous1one1]

.....I see nothing special about it.---

Greetings Commoner. Your statement here on what you see is quite interesting - "nothing special." My post about this Mystic Experience must have been pretty weak.

So, let me offer some points just off the 'top of my head' about the Experience:

- it is extraordinarily transformative for the being (nondual perspective on reality, new sense of self, realization of eternal life, loss of fear, permanent sense of joy (ecstatic being as YmirGF offered in another thread), loss of sense of 'sin,' transcendence of the ego, among others)

- setting it apart from many other subjective experiences, it has been repeated, is currently repeatable, and can be transmitted from one person to another

- it is valued such that it has been transferred through several thousand years to the present period

- it is being taught now, it is happening now, and it is sought by tens of thousands around the world now

- once realized it becomes 'the center' of the being around which everything is related included meaning; it drives the being for the rest of ones finite participation

- and more

Commoner, if those normal effects do not make this special to you will you please explain what would.

Regards,
a..1

 

[Commoner]

It was? I think you need to re-read my post . . .

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to tell me. Could you explain?