Let's Present Some Evidence ...

[themadhair]

Imagine two people, one is afraid of spiders and the other likes them. You subject them both to the same conditions - you make them hold the spider in their hands. One will feel fear and might suffer some long lasting effects from it - some people develop really strong phobias when subjected to such a stressful event, but the other person wont really find the experience significant.

If you define "experience" as what they felt - then you can dismiss the second person, since there was no significant effect on him and you can place a very high significance on the "experience" of the first person. But in reality, they experienced the same event - having to hold a spider in their hands.

And if you, the researcher, didn't understand why it had such an effect on one person and not the other, you might consider that something else must have happened to the first person - something "special" must have occured. In my opinion, that's what you are doing.

I had been struggling to articulate this point through the use of neurotheology, but this is so much better and clearer. Frubals when I can give you some.

 

[Willamena]

I had been struggling to articulate this point through the use of neurotheology, but this is so much better and clearer. Frubals when I can give you some.

What significant point does it make, though? The holding of a spider is experienced, emotion is experienced, awareness is experienced, alarm is experienced (for one). It simply looks at one part of the whole experience at the expense of the rest.

 

[themadhair]

What significant point does it make, though?

I think Commoner already explained that:
“ If you define "experience" as what they felt - then you can dismiss the second person, since there was no significant effect on him and you can place a very high significance on the "experience" of the first person. But in reality, they experienced the same event - having to hold a spider in their hands.

And if you, the researcher, didn't understand why it had such an effect on one person and not the other, you might consider that something else must have happened to the first person - something "special" must have occured. In my opinion, that's what you are doing. ”

 

[Willamena]

I agree, but that wasn't the point. We not only experience the way our brain works, we also understand how the brain works, we measure it, we disect it. The point was, we have basically the same cpu as we did a thousand years ago.

Really? I thought it was that since we have the same CPU as we did a thousand years ago, "you can't draw any more significance on that basis as you can from myths, mental illnesses, our affinity for sweet food or our fear of the dark. They are equally (in)significant." But you can, even though we have the same CPU as we did a thousand years ago, because "the way the brain works" does not produce experiences, it is an experience.

Then how am I distinguishing between a psychotic event and "god"? God isn't really my problem. If you wish to call the mystic experience god, that's your call, I just find it unnecessary.

You had indicated an aesthetic distinction that would disallow the experience from being "God". If you don't want go into that, fine.

I believe he was actually pointing out the absurdity of the notion. My point was more of a practical nature, not to do with black holes in particular.

He wasn't pointing out absurdities at all. Schrödinger made a valid point about the nature of knowing. Your point ("Our minds play tricks on us, it's not enough to be convinced of something") is not unlike a black hole or Schrödinger's box --into it we can place anything (including reasoning) and if we rely on what we don't know, there will always be certainty there.

The mystic doesn't rely on what he doesn't know.

No, the actual strenght of the argument came from the realization that no one has presented a justified reason for the claim. That I can't think of an experience that would justify the claim is simply an observation. But anyone is free to present one.

If the mystic becomes omniscient, that should be really easy to demonstrate. Until then...

How so? How would you demonstrate it?

 

[Willamena]

I think Commoner already explained that:
“ If you define "experience" as what they felt - then you can dismiss the second person, since there was no significant effect on him and you can place a very high significance on the "experience" of the first person. But in reality, they experienced the same event - having to hold a spider in their hands.

And if you, the researcher, didn't understand why it had such an effect on one person and not the other, you might consider that something else must have happened to the first person - something "special" must have occured. In my opinion, that's what you are doing. ”

If you can't address what I said, okay, but repeating previous posts that I've already read isn't going to help.

Looking at the experience either as only emotion or only a thing that is held is filtering it to suit your needs. The total experience is neither of its parts.

 

[Willamena]

Oh, what is greater than all? Expectation.

Can god create a rock he cannot lift? If the believer "expects" he can, god cannot lift his big ol' rock. If the believer "expects" he cannot, god will pull an Atlas. God doesn't have to be omniscient to be god, he just has to be smarter than us.

Frubals for that.

 

[themadhair]

If you can't address what I said, okay, but repeating previous posts that I've already read isn't going to help.

To be honest it was the significant point he was raising. You asked for that point. Ignoring what he was presenting by asking your question doesn’t help matters either you know.

The total experience is neither of its parts.

There is a distinction to be drawn between the ‘experience’ and the ‘effect and interpretation of that experience’. The former is the phenomenon while the latter is the where the problem starts. Not going to let you away with this equivocation after berating PureX for so long on doing the same thing.

 

[Commoner]

Really? I thought it was that since we have the same CPU as we did a thousand years ago, "you can't draw any more significance on that basis as you can from myths, mental illnesses, our affinity for sweet food or our fear of the dark. They are equally (in)significant." But you can, even though we have the same CPU as we did a thousand years ago, because "the way the brain works" does not produce experiences, it is an experience.

I don't really understand what your point is, word it any way you'd like, what does this have to do with my objection?

You had indicated an aesthetic distinction that would disallow the experience from being "God". If you don't want go into that, fine.

I think I've answered your question. "God" is not my problem - if you describe a car to me, I don't care if you claim that it's a mouse, Angelina Jolie or "god" (whatever that might be). Until I see a distinction between your description and a car, I simply can't accept it as anything else than a car - or something synonymous (not that I even have to except that it is a car if there's not enough information). There might be a distinction - I never said it couldn't be god, you've misinterpreted that.

He wasn't pointing out absurdities at all. Schrödinger made a valid point about the nature of knowing. Your point ("Our minds play tricks on us, it's not enough to be convinced of something") is not unlike a black hole or Schrödinger's box --into it we can place anything (including reasoning) and if we rely on what we don't know, there will always be certainty there.

Schrödinger's thought experiment was simply a critique of a certain principle in quantum mechanics, he was pointing out a particular paradox that arises in the application of that principle. It has nothing to do with our practical perception of the world. Maybe you're refering to something else with which I'm not familiar. In any case, I don't see how this has anything to do with what I was saying, other than a reference to the "black hole" that I used.

How so? How would you demonstrate it?

Well, making accurate predictions about the future would be a good start - just take a coin and start flipping.

 

[Commoner]

What significant point does it make, though? The holding of a spider is experienced, emotion is experienced, awareness is experienced, alarm is experienced (for one). It simply looks at one part of the whole experience at the expense of the rest.

I don't think I can make it any clearer really. You can't dismiss other interpretations of what might be the same event, simply because the interpretations don't seem significant to you. Not if you want to use those interpretations to explain the event that caused the experience.

 

[Willamena]

I don't think I can make it any clearer really. You can't dismiss other interpretations of what might be the same event, simply because the interpretations don't seem significant to you. Not if you want to use those interpretations to explain the event that caused the experience.

Okay, I see that, but that's not what is happening (that other interpretations are ignored). That the experience is transformative is description (just as that an item is "hot" is description). It was asked that the experience be described, and for that ONLY the intepretation can be relied upon. How can the experience (for example of the "hot" item) be communicated otherwise?

 

[Willamena]

Not if you want to use those interpretations to explain the event that caused the experience.

Usually the "event" that caused the experience is meditation or contemplation, but that hasn't yet been touched upon (that I've seen).

 

[Commoner]

Okay, I see that, but that's not what is happening (that other interpretations are ignored). That the experience is transformative is description (just as that an item is "hot" is description). It was asked that the experience be described, and for that ONLY the intepretation can be relied upon. How can the experience (for example of the "hot" item) be communicated otherwise?

It is exactly what's happening here. You've simply defined the problem in such a manner, that only one interpretation is possible - and from that one interpretation you draw certain conclusion about the actual cause of the experience that might have been interpreted in very different ways by other people.

Some people might disagree and say it wasn't hot (and maybe it wasn't hot!) - but if you've already defined the experience as feeling heat (transformative), you'll never hear the other side - you're only listening to the people describing heat and concluding the what must have cause the experience must have been an item with a high temperature. They might have been feeling extreme cold - since people can confuse it quite easily with heat, because of a similar burning sensation. Your problem is you'd have to actually get to the cause of the experience and investigate that.

 

[Commoner]

Usually the "event" that caused the experience is meditation or contemplation, but that hasn't yet been touched upon (that I've seen).

Well, rather than "event" I actually mean the "cause". Whatever it was that was behind the experience, behind the sensations, behind the emotions.

 

[Willamena]

It is exactly what's happening here. You've simply defined the problem in such a manner, that only one interpretation is possible - and from that one interpretation you draw certain conclusion about the actual cause of the experience that might have been interpreted in very different ways by other people.

Some people might disagree and say it wasn't hot (and maybe it wasn't hot!) - but if you've already defined the experience as feeling heat (transformative), you'll never hear the other side - you're only listening to the people describing heat and concluding the item must have had a high temperature. They might have been feeling extreme cold - since people can confuse it quite easily with heat, because of a similar burning sensation. Your problem is you'd have to actually get to the cause of the experience and investigate that.

Well, rather than "event" I actually mean the "cause". Whatever it was that was behind the experience, behind the sensations, behind the emotions.

"God" has not been professed as the "cause" of the experience; rather, the claim was that the experience evidences "God." In the same manner, "hot" is not given as the cause of an experience when what is experienced evidences that something was "hot".

Those who claim it wasn't hot didn't experience anything "hot" did they? There is no "hot" outside of interpretation --"hot" is the interpretation.

And trust me, being transformed * isn't defined until it's experienced (until it's been). Until then, all we have is our descriptions.

The "interpretation" given is the sole possible, because it is the one that describes the experience for A1O1 (and many others). Claiming something to be other than "hot" fails to describe the experience of "hot".


* Or any experience, for that matter.

 

[Commoner]

"God" has not been professed as the "cause" of the experience; rather, the claim was that the experience evidences "God." In the same manner, "hot" is not given as the cause of an experience when what is experienced evidences that something was "hot".

Those who claim it wasn't hot didn't experience anything "hot" did they? There is no "hot" outside of interpretation --"hot" is the interpretation.

And trust me, being transformed * isn't defined until it's experienced (until it's been). Until then, all we have is our descriptions.

The "interpretation" given is the sole possible, because it is the one that describes the experience for A1O1 (and many others). Claiming something to be other than "hot" fails to describe the experience of "hot".


* Or any experience, for that matter.

No problem, then god is only a concept, nothing more. The concept of god simply describes a specific experience - but is not the cause of it. It is the "hot" of temperature. There is no actual "hot" and there is no actual "god".

 

[Willamena]

"God" has not been professed as the "cause" of the experience; rather, the claim was that the experience evidences "God." In the same manner, "hot" is not given as the cause of an experience when what is experienced evidences that something was "hot".

Those who claim it wasn't hot didn't experience anything "hot" did they? There is no "hot" outside of interpretation --"hot" is the interpretation.

We do not experience "hot" or "God" or anything I put in brackets . . . experience itself has no language. Interpretation is the experience made language (made communicable).

 

[Willamena]

No problem, then god is only a concept, nothing more. The concept of god simply describes a specific experience - but is not the cause of it. It is the "hot" of temperature. There is no actual "hot" and there is no actual "god".

"Concept" is an interpretation, so if you're content with that, I'm sure all the mystics would be too.

 

[Commoner]

"Concept" is an interpretation, so if you're content with that, I'm sure all the mystics would be too.

They should also be content with the fact that there is no actual god.

 

[Commoner]

We do not experience "hot" or "God" or anything I put in brackets . . . experience itself has no language. Interpretation is the experience made language (made communicable).

Describe "hot" for me then - interpret it.

 

[Willamena]

They should also be content with the fact that there is no actual god.

Many of them are. Some forms of Hinduism, many forms of Buddhism, and pretty much all of Zen, for example, consider themselves atheist.