Let's Present Some Evidence ...

[autonomous1one1]

And you have not spent any time to seek out the contradictory interpretations I describe. ......(continue)
......
.....

Greetings. There is a lot for me to comment on throughout your post, Themadhair, but you may have the last word on this line of debate unless you wish me to continue this point/counterpoint. It is your option if we continue. We do not seem to be getting anywhere although it is interesting and fun for me. The reason the option is raised is because of a few concerns. Are you having fun with the discussions or do you react negatively? Are you all right with it? Do you think that with our continuation and posts getting longer and longer we should have a concern about boring others or hindering their participation in this thread? Choice of continuance or no continuance does not reflect on the strength of our arguments; it just means that we are willing to stand on what has already been presented.

Best Wishes,
a..1

 

[Commoner]

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

Oh, please, let's not start this again.

Which of these things, specifically, do you feel points to something supernatural - something that is not present in other experiences, including mental disorders? One single special thing, a single attribute that points to it being supernatural.

What I would be impressed with is a peer reviewed article claiming that we have discovered something supernatural, backed up by a large study conducted by scientists from the appropriate fields. That would be a really special experience for me.

 

[themadhair]

@ autonomous1one1

If you met me in real life you be astounded at the difference between my posts and my discourse. The lack of tone doesn’t really help matters. I use the same turns of phrase and pretty much the same words, but without tone they may come across as being blunt. The bottom line is that if I didn’t enjoy my experience here I would not be here. Sometimes, when I don’t beat around the bush, it can come over as being negative – but if you met me you wouldn’t see it that way.

At present I don’t really think we can be said to have derailed any discussion. This is how threads usually go and, no doubt, there may be folks to continue the discussion after us.

 

[Copernicus]

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)​

This is not evidence of anything. Taking powerful psychoactive drugs can be extraordinarily transformative, but it usually isn't a good idea to do that. Delusions and psychotic events can also be transformative, but that does not suggest that we ought to strive to be deluded or psychotic.

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

Skepticism of religion is also a repeatable experience that can be transmitted from one person to another. This kind of thing is hardly evidence of anything at all, other than the fact that people communicate with and influence each other.
​

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

Again, this is not particularly impressive. Lots of false beliefs and superstitions have been valued and transferred through several thousand years to the present period, but they aren't necessarily worthy of being valued. Astrology, for example, is provably false, yet it has a very old history of belief and preservation.

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

You seem very impressed by the popularity of beliefs. There are lots of deluded beliefs being taught in the world, and some have very popular followings. Why do you consider this kind of argument persuasive?
​

- 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

It is also true that such "realizations" can be reversed. Lots of people change their minds about religion all the time. In that case, it does not "drive the being for the rest of one's finite participation". Again, there is no real force behind your argument. Subjective experiences are not evidence for the beliefs you are promoting. People disagree about how to interpret such experiences all the time.

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

I can't speak for Commoner (although we probably agree on the assessment of your argument), but we have given you examples of the kind of evidence that would be convincing. Christians in general believe that actual physical events--miracles--have stood as evidence for their beliefs. Physical evidence of that sort is very powerful, and it is often subject to empirical (scientific) investigation. Such investigations seem never to lead to much support for Christian beliefs, but Christians who proffer such evidence are on the right track.

 

[Willamena]

This is not evidence of anything. Taking powerful psychoactive drugs can be extraordinarily transformative, but it usually isn't a good idea to do that. Delusions and psychotic events can also be transformative, but that does not suggest that we ought to strive to be deluded or psychotic.

Yes, those things can be extraordinarily transformative, but that's sort of irrelevent.​

And tell me again why you would want to take drugs, be deluded or psychotic based on anything A1O1 said?​

You're making no sense.

Edit: You know what. . . you want to take your drugs, you go take your drugs, I don't care; but that has nothing to do with the conversation to date.

 

[Willamena]

Astrology, for example, is provably false, yet it has a very old history of belief and preservation.

It's also remarkably demonstratably functional, but of course that depends on what you consider "astrology" to be.

Again, this is not particularly impressive. Lots of false beliefs and superstitions have been valued and transferred through several thousand years to the present period, but they aren't necessarily worthy of being valued.

Also irrelevent, since it's not them that are the topic of discussion.

 

[Vile Atheist]

I think the "Why don't you just take drugs?" argument is a little weak. There are psychological occurances that may lead to false belief that don't involve drugs. Those are much more plausible than "You're just hallucinating".

I point to decoupled conversations and HADD.

 

[Willamena]

. . .we have given you examples of the kind of evidence that would be convincing.

Oh? *looks around*

 

[themadhair]

It's also remarkably demonstratably functional,

If by 'functional' you mean ‘doesn’t work outside of vague generalisations that serve only to generate forer effect’ then we agree.

 

[Willamena]

If by 'functional' you mean ‘doesn’t work outside of vague generalisations that serve only to generate forer effect’ then we agree.

By 'functional' I mean a practical use for symbolism.

 

[themadhair]

By 'functional' I mean a practical use for symbolism.

If by ‘practical use’ you mean ‘not of practical use outside of generating a warm fuzzy feeling’ then I agree.

 

[Willamena]

If by ‘practical use’ you mean ‘not of practical use outside of generating a warm fuzzy feeling’ then I agree.

By 'practical use' I simply mean a use that is practical. I say what I mean, and I mean what I say.

 

[themadhair]

By 'practical use' I simply mean a use that is practical.

For something to be practical it has to be usable and it has to, you know, actually work as described. When you say ‘practical use’ you do seem to mean something very different.

 

[Willamena]

For something to be practical it has to be usable and it has to, you know, actually work as described. When you say ‘practical use’ you do seem to mean something very different.

As I said earlier, it depends on your understanding of what "astrology" is.

 

[themadhair]

As I said earlier, it depends on your understanding of what "astrology" is.

Without you defining it I think it fair to assume that by ‘astrology’ you meant ‘astrology’. Unless of course you mean something different which seems to happen unite often.

 

[Willamena]

Without you defining it I think it fair to assume that by ‘astrology’ you meant ‘astrology’. Unless of course you mean something different which seems to happen unite often.

Yup --just like those people who mean 'god' when they say 'god'.

 

[Commoner]

As I said earlier, it depends on your understanding of what "astrology" is.

Well why don't you, for once, explain what you mean. If you want to say something, just say it, no need for innuendos and semantics.

There's only one practical use for astrology as far as I can see - it's to make money exploiting the superstitious. Is that what you meant?

 

[Willamena]

Well why don't you, for once, explain what you mean. If you want to say something, just say it, no need for innuendos and semantics.

There's only one practical use for astrology as far as I can see - it's to make money exploiting the superstitious. Is that what you meant?

It's not inuendo or vague. This simply isn't the place for such discussion, which is grossly off-topic. :slap:

 

[autonomous1one1]

Oh, please, let's not start this again.

Oh, begging your pardon, Commoner, if you have been through this before. However, readers might misinterpret your words to be condescending to my message, but in actuality we have never exchanged a word on it have we Commoner? If my memory has failed to recall, just point us to those posts please.

Which of these things, specifically, do you feel points to something supernatural - something that is not present in other experiences, including mental disorders? One single special thing, a single attribute that points to it being supernatural.

What I would be impressed with is a peer reviewed article claiming that we have discovered something supernatural, backed up by a large study conducted by scientists from the appropriate fields. That would be a really special experience for me.

You touch on a very noticeable point here Commoner. Sometimes one gets the impression that many of you are trying to slay your own concept of God - not the one some of us are writing of. There is nothing supernatural mentioned in my posts (unless it is all supernatural) and all that has been covered is deemed totally natural by me. In fact, many are in agreement with Ken Wilber, Andrew Cohen, and one of the early western authors about it Richard Maurice Bucke (early 1900's) for examples that elements of this Experience are part of the next steps in evolution for humankind.

Regards,
a..1

 

[Commoner]

It's not inuendo or vague. This simply isn't the place for such discussion, which is grossly off-topic. :slap:

And yet we've just filled the last couple of pages with a back-and-forth of one-liners. Wouldn't it have been better to just explain what you meant in the first place?