Comments

  1. Muz says

    Yeah, 6 hours of v e r y s l o w converation more. Do you wanna clue us in to the highlights maybe?

  2. paxoll says

    As an atheist, on an atheist blog, what I care about is what people believe, why people believe it, and what is the philosophical and scientific reasoning that leads me to either agree or disagree with someone’s belief.

    “Mystical” states, appear from what has been laid out on todays TAE show, to be nothing other than multiple common aberrations in how the brain misinterprets reality. There is no evidence that these experiences reflect a yet unknown aspect of reality, or are insights into any kind of existence outside of our reality. The fact that science has investigated these states of consciousness and found useful applications in them, only interests me in so far as I see myself needing that kind of help. Since this, at the moment, seems limited to correcting mental illness and I have no mental illnesses at the moment I wish to correct. The topic has no interest to me.

    Kafei, is there any particular reason you think anyone here would care to listen to 6 hours of talk about this topic?

  3. Walker says

    I am going to have to agree with paxoll on the mystical topic as well as the his question regarding the video length.

    I found the conversation with jimmy unproductive in the sense that he failed to grasp what Matt and Phil were saying, but i dont think i could have come up with a way that would get him to grasp it. Between the two of them, Matt and Phil tried every method i could think of.

    With Johns call, i am curious what others thought of it. It seemed to me that he was trying to disagree with Matt and Phil every chance he got, even to the extent of contradicting himself, unless it was something that even he realized wasnt really debatable.

  4. Loveromates says

    I think I understand what Jimmy said to certain extent because I had that “mystical” experience.

    It is like a person is struggling to find a solution for some problem. Despite his effort, he cannot figure out what he should do. Then one day, he saw a tree leaf fall on a river. Seeing the stream moves the leaf, all of a sudden he knows the answer for his quest.

    That instantaneous intuitive recognition is what people going through mystical experience are trying to explain. It is difficult to verbalize because the experience is spontaneous, emotional, and highly intuitive. If you ever practice zen, you may understand my sayings better.

  5. Monocle Smile says

    For those who are fortunate enough to be unfamiliar, Jimmy/Kafei is a repeat caller who repeats the exact same script and makes wild ass assertions every single appearance. Do not engage if you don’t want to punch a wall.

  6. t90bb says

    The term mystical experience is similar to a term I heard of in AA….”spiritual experience”,,,,,which no one can quite define. And few attempts are similar….. It seems we have brain states that temporarily or permanently change our perspective. If someone wants to call those “mystical”….sure, fine. We have experiences that can change our perspective..OK.

    If Jimmys point is that we, as humans, often want to assign agency to that process…and therefore create religious and individual supernatural explanations for these experiences I might be on board. But I dont think that is where he was going….but who knows he was so all over the place he was hard to follow. If he actually had a point he is a horrible communicator.

  7. Thane McKinsey says

    John from Huntington Beach, If you were God why would you create people which require billions of bacteria to live inside of them for their very survival, why would you create people and require them to consume other living things to just survive. If you are this all powerful creator god who can make anything work, why would you create a world like ours? A God could create people of fire whom burn without consuming anything at all. A all powerful creator god could create people like stuffed toys and these stuffed toys could have all of the assets that people currently have. A all powerful God could create a world in which there is no rime or reason for why things work.
    John, because we can explain how and why the world works as it does, isn’t that evidence that the world wasn’t created?
    And just because we can;t explain something now doesn’t make it unexplainable.
    John are you not, just being single minded in your ideas of creation?

  8. RationalismRules says

    @Loveromates

    It is like a person is struggling to find a solution for some problem. Despite his effort, he cannot figure out what he should do. Then one day, he saw a tree leaf fall on a river. Seeing the stream moves the leaf, all of a sudden he knows the answer for his quest.
    That instantaneous intuitive recognition is what people going through mystical experience are trying to explain. It is difficult to verbalize because the experience is spontaneous, emotional, and highly intuitive.

    I don’t see what about that is ‘mystical’. Puzzling over something for some time and suddenly realizing the solution is a common experience – a ‘eureka moment’ – and like overcoming any difficult challenge, often brings a strong emotional reaction.

    I don’t know how intuitive leaps work in our brains, but there are a gazillion things about the brain we don’t yet know, and I don’t see any reason to claim that we will never unravel them, which is what I take ‘mystical’ to imply (in part).

    ‘Mystical’ anything just sounds like woo to me.

  9. says

    I attempted to respond, but if someone would be so kind as to send me their e-mail and post this very elaborate response I’ve left, then this discussion might have something worth talking about. If not, then please refer to the 3h27m46s point in the stream I posted in my first post which I originally meant to elaborate on so-called mystical-type experiences and the “complete” mystical experiences.

  10. Loveromates says

    @RationalismRules

    In my view, mystical simply means being connected to something greater than ourselves. It is transcendent, but it is not supernatural because our brain is the medium for this feeling to occur.

    Is it SOLELY a chemical reaction in our brain?
    Is it POSSIBLE that something transcendent is out there and that thing influences the molecules in our brain so that we can sense its presence?

    I don’t have the answer for these 2 questions. I go with the 2nd one because of my experience. However, I will not rule out the possibility of number 1.

  11. indianajones says

    Whereas, Loveromates, I go exactly the other way around for the same reason PLUS the awesomely ,more important one that I don’t have to invoke physics busting pixies.

  12. Loveromates says

    @RationalismRules

    Just like you say, the experience brings out strong emotion. It also has a profound impact on the individual’s view about things in life, and it mostly changes their lives for better.

    Unless you go through this experience, it is difficult to rationalize it in a satisfactory manner, just like the experience of falling in love with someone you dislike initially. You can explain to an outsider about your feelings, but they won’t make sense to them if they are never in love.

  13. Paul Money says

    @ 11
    ” Is it POSSIBLE that something transcendent is out there and that thing influences the molecules in our brain so that we can sense its presence?”
    You haven’t demonstrated that it is possible, never mind how probable that might be without any examples to compare it with. It is possible that there is a chocolate teapot in orbit around Saturn. As (I think) Richard Feynman points out, “It is possible that the next apple to fall off the tree will fall upwards, but I don’t think that it is useful to spend much time pondering the possibility”
    Loveromates chooses to go with the example for which there is no evidence whatsoever, rather than the example for which we have abundant evidence. This is amusing, but not perhaps worth bringing to a blog peopled largely by sceptics.

  14. Paul Money says

    @ No 10.
    “…if someone would be so kind as to send me their e-mail and post this very elaborate response I’ve left, then this discussion might have something worth talking about.”
    What is the probability that the course of action that you request will produce the result that you consider possible?

  15. says

    that the universe demonstrates a comprehensible order actually argues against the god that self-pwning john of huntington subscribes to. the reliability of the movement and activity of things cosmic and subatomic allows us to tease out mathematics, logic and the laws of physics and confirm them through prediction. we call these things “laws” because no one has yet shown that they can be violated. any manipulations by john’s slut-hating god would make it that much harder to discern what rules exist and that much harder if not impossible to comprehend. how would we discover the laws of thermodynamics if they were being violated on the whims of invisible super-beings? such a universe would appear arbitrary, unstable and ultimately unfathomable.

  16. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    For context…
     
    Comment: Axp 22.23 – Loveromates #150

    I will be honest with you that I am not a skeptic. I am skeptical in many areas of my life. There are areas in my life my skepticism seems to shut down

     
    Comment: Axp 22.23 – Loveromates #153

    I have no idea why that poor dog got hit by the car. I was a bystander who saw that. Because I was the person who was close to the dog after the car hit him, that triggered me to feel like I was guided to him and I was meant to be there. I am not saying that “something out there” caused this accident. I really don’t know.
     
    “Do I think that God tortured an animal to give me a sign, so I could get a sweet job?”
    If by God, you mean a deity in Abrahamic religions, my answer is no. It implies that I know God is conscious being who dictated people’s lives. I am a theist in the context of Emerson’s transcendentalism. I am not a theist who believes in God’s omni properties. I believe simply because when I quiet myself and listen to my heart, I feel like something out there gives me signs.
     
    Whether that cause is the reason other things happen to other people, I don’t know.
    […]
    I drew this conclusion after the fact. It is my interpretation of the event. After everything was settled, there was this sense of relief, happiness, and fulfillment that flooded my emotion. Therefore, I believe that it was my destiny to be in this profession.

     
    Loveromates may befefit from re-reading as well.
    The thread continued after their last post.

  17. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    @Loveromates #11:

    Is it POSSIBLE that something transcendent is out there and that thing influences the molecules in our brain so that we can sense its presence?

    Basically, no.
     
    Article: Sean Carroll – The Laws Underlying The Physics of Everyday Life Are Completely Understood

    All we need to account for everything we see in our everyday lives are a handful of particles – electrons, protons, and neutrons – interacting via a few forces – the nuclear forces, gravity, and electromagnetism – subject to the basic rules of quantum mechanics and general relativity. You can substitute up and down quarks for protons and neutrons if you like, but most of us don’t notice the substructure of nucleons on a daily basis. That’s a remarkably short list of ingredients, to account for all the marvelous diversity of things we see in the world.
    […]
    Of course revolutions can always happen, but there’s every reason to believe that our current understanding is complete within the everyday realm. Using the framework of quantum field theory – which we have no reason to doubt in this regime – we can classify the kinds of new particles and forces that could conceivably exist, and go look for them.
    […]
    if they can’t be found by our current techniques, they are also unable to influence what we see in our everyday lives. We have very little idea how big the region of our understanding is, compared to all that there is to be understood; but we know that it’s bigger than what we need to understand to make sense of the world we see with our unaided senses.

     
    Article: Sean Carroll – Physics and the Immortality of the Soul

    nobody even tries to sit down and do the hard work of explaining how the basic physics of atoms and electrons would have to be altered in order for this to be true. If we tried, the fundamental absurdity of the task would quickly become evident.
    […]
    If you believe in an immaterial soul that interacts with our bodies, you need to believe that this equation is not right, even at everyday energies. There needs to be a new term (at minimum) on the right, representing how the soul interacts with electrons. (If that term doesn’t exist, electrons will just go on their way as if there weren’t any soul at all, and then what’s the point?)

  18. RationalismRules says

    @Sky Captain
    Thanks for the context. I had no idea I was diving into such a well of credulity.

  19. RationalismRules says

    @Loveromates
    #11

    In my view, mystical simply means being connected to something greater than ourselves. It is transcendent, but it is not supernatural because our brain is the medium for this feeling to occur.

    Happy to go with your definition. Still don’t see any reason to believe that intuitive problem-solving leaps point to ‘something greater than ourselves’. Where can this ‘transcendent thing’ be found, other than in your imagination?
     

    Is it SOLELY a chemical reaction in our brain?

    SOLELY? I don’t know for certain. What I do know is that SOLELY chemical/electrical brain processes have been demonstrably linked to brain functions like thoughts and emotions. No ‘transcendent thing’ has ever been discovered, let alone demonstrably linked to anything. So if we ask the question “what can we reasonably accept as a contributing factor of brain function?”, the answer is SOLELY chemical/electrical processes at this stage, because no other contributing factor has ever been demonstrated. (and yours hasn’t even been demonstrated to exist). It is not reasonable to accept hypothetical ‘other things’ based on nothing more than your imagination.
     

    Is it POSSIBLE that something transcendent is out there and that thing influences the molecules in our brain so that we can sense its presence?

    Is it POSSIBLE that the center of our earth actually contains another entire universe, in micro form?
    I don’t know. Maybe it’s possible. But just because I can imagine it, and just because I can look at some physical phenomena like earthquakes and imagine they are linked to my imaginary micro-universe doesn’t mean I’m in any way justified in believing it without evidence. Just ‘feeling’ that it exists is worthless.
     

    I don’t have the answer for these 2 questions. I go with the 2nd one because of my experience. However, I will not rule out the possibility of number 1.

    Your ‘experience’? Do you have actual experience of a ‘transcendent thing’? Of course you don’t. What you have are experience of your feelings. Which you choose to attribute to an imaginary source. Because your feelings are just so goddamn powerful that they just can’t be anything as prosaic as chemicals and electrons, they just can’t. There’s gotta be something more, because feelings are just so… feely.
     
    I don’t know for sure whether or not the micro-universe at the center of the earth really exists, but the other day I saw an ant get stepped on and afterwards I felt this amazing sense of micro-ness emanating from the ground, like reeealllly deeep down, so I’m just going to go with that. That’s My Experience, and I’m going with it.

    [Oh, by the way, don’t bother trying to understand the feeling of micro-ness. I could try to explain it to you, but there’s just no way to understand it unless you actually experience it yourself]

  20. speedofsound says

    It’s impossible for anything transcendent to affect the brain in the way that people of certain mystical persuasions think it might. The information carrier that results in the delusion of ‘mind’ is very much bound to the historical creation of neuronal pathways. The best that can be hoped for is strong magnets influencing large swaths of brain in big sweeping ways.

    I consider myself a mystic. What fucking kills me is whether a skeptic or a mystic, many people fly off on this ‘revealing great secrets of reality’ bullshit. No. That never fucking happens. You do get insights but you may well of come to those same insights in some other way by for instance reading a fucking book.

    However, if you have one of these experiences you will be changed and you will be amazed that your brain could make you feel like that. In the same manner if you take 1200 mcg of LSD this too will amaze you. The point is, and I think the point of the caller, that these experiences shape human thought and belief when they occur and could well be foundational to why believers abandon reason and why religions gain power.

    Now that said. Matt really went off the deep end, again, and did not listen to the caller. His interruptions are distracting to the task of figuring out what the caller is actually saying. I was particularly displeased when Matt said that he knew all about how religions got started and knew for a fact that mystical experience wasn’t a part of it. I’m sure that he regrets his handling of that call. Room for improvement here.

    Anyway. My big thing is that mystical experiences are at the core of believerism. They are the singular greatest problem that we have to solve in naturalism, that we may go forward and get rid of this supernatural crap. John Hopkins research is what we need not what we want to jeer at and make fun of. Every religious caller on every show always, at some point in the call, refers to ‘faith’ or ‘personal connection to god’ or some other emotional complex that indicates mystical experience in some measure. It is why they will not listen to reason. They need to have this brain thingy explained to them before they are going to let it drop.

    I am an individual who has had many of these experiences in different intensities throughout my life. I have mastered a few of these methodologies and used them to improve my life. At no time, ever, in my entire life have I considered moving off of metaphysical naturalism. I study phenomenology in written material and in my own lived experience. Hence it’s kind of my baby so apologies for my possible bias.

  21. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    @speedofsound #21:

    I think the point of the caller, that these experiences shape human thought and belief when they occur and could well be foundational to why believers abandon reason and why religions gain power.
     
    Matt said that he knew all about how religions got started and knew for a fact that mystical experience wasn’t a part of it.

     
    Matt (40:53):

    You go down this road of saying, “The exegetical hermeneutics looking at scripture have concluded that… Hey, there were mystics reporting these experiences, and they were misunderstood, and that’s the origin of religion.”
     
    And I will put it to you… that, of the people I know who have actively studied the history and origin of religions, that is a gross oversimplification. It is certainly one possibility, of many, of how different religions arose. But to say that is the origin of religions is simply something that you can’t demonstrate.

  22. Wiggle Puppy says

    @ speedofsound #21:

    “His interruptions are distracting to the task of figuring out what the caller is actually saying.”

    When Matt directly asks multiple times what the caller’s point is, and the caller keeps talking about Johns Hopkins studies and William James – as he has on five or six calls before this one – it is the caller who is distracting from the task of figuring out what the caller is actually saying.

  23. Wiggle Puppy says

    Let’s try this with an example –

    Point:
    People often think of the New Deal as the era in which the US federal government most rapidly expanded its reach into everyday American life, but in reality, it was World War II.

    Supporting evidence (NOT a “point”):
    In terms of money spent, World War II saw ten times as many dollars spent by the federal government as the New Deal did. In addition, the expansion of the draft and the war bond campaigns radically transformed ideas about individual obligations to the federal government.

    Neither a “point” nor “supporting evidence”:
    Historian James Sparrow writes about World War II and the federal government in the book Warfare State.

    Now, in terms of the caller –

    Point:
    [insert caller’s point here]

    Supporting evidence (NOT a “point”):
    [insert supporting evidence here]

    Neither a “point” nor “supporting evidence”:
    William James wrote about mystical experiences in The Varieties of Religious Experience. Researchers at Johns Hopkins are doing research on mystical experiences.

  24. speedofsound says

    @Wiggle Puppy Point taken. It just seemed to me that the guy was so nervous due to the aggression that his mind stopped working. I kind of like The Talk Heathen tempo better.

  25. says

    @Sky Captain:

    Article: Sean Carroll – The Laws Underlying The Physics of Everyday Life Are Completely Understood

    Article: Sean Carroll – Physics and the Immortality of the Soul

    two of my favorite pieces from him. both articles you cite are available on youtube from his live tours.

  26. says

    @speedofsound:

    It just seemed to me that the guy was so nervous due to the aggression that his mind stopped working. I kind of like The Talk Heathen tempo better.

    he is a repeat caller who has in fact already tried his spiel on talk heathen. he pissed off even those guys.

  27. Grammie K says

    Excuse my previous message. I’m new here, and I don’t know how to delete it or if that’s possible. Regarding “mystical experiences,” I think we underrate the power of our minds. Yes, they are products of the physical processes of the brain, as far as we know. But I enjoy speculating about the edge of what is known and not known about nature–a la Ursula Le Guin? As long as I don’t start telling other people what goes on in my imagination, I don’t see the harm in speculation.

  28. JoAnn Kuhr says

    Sorry for the previous comment. I’m new here and I don’t know if I can delete it or how to do that.

    Regarding “mystical experiences,” I think we underrate the power of the human mind. Yes, it is the result of physical processes in the brain, as far as we know. But I like to speculate on the edge of what is known and not known about nature.–a la Ursula Le Guin. As long as I don’t confuse imagination with reality, I don’t see the harm.

  29. einy says

    @kafei please provide links to the sources you are claiming:

    A lot of what you say is word salad.
    So please provide some links to the studies you are claiming so we can read the studies ourselves.
    Do NOT provide links to your own diatribes.

    Even in the video I could tell how others came across they were trying to make sense of your position.

    “The highest mystical vision from all the religions are one in the same”—-Now prove this assertion.

    But in the end , what is the point of this? What are you trying to get people to understand? If people “understood” what you are tying to explain what changes? That there is more to natural world? But remember if we can explain it through natural means it is natural.

  30. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    @JoAnn Kuhr #29:

    I don’t know if I can delete

    Nope. Nor edit.
    Mistakes can be retracted in later posts.
    Typos will be forever enshrined for posterity. =)
     
     
    * Technically mods can edit/delete, but that almost never happens.

  31. einy says

    ​ Kafei – also why can’t use answer direct questions? In the video they asked you what is YOUR personal reading, your experience and you respond with nonsense. Then of course you had “to leave” and even the host said after you left you didn’t answer the question.

    Sorry but you across as dishonest and without a thought of your own when you can’t answer the questions they are asking , just like when the hosts here do it.

  32. Pony says

    Two things from the show:

    1) I wonder why it is that people who assert something like a “first cause” (the caller who felt there must be a creator) typically default to a *single* first cause, i.e. a monotheistic point of view. If there were such things as eternal beings “living outside time and space” (which sort of throws the notion of “eternal,” doesn’t it?) why couldn’t there be, say, 12 of them, or 42, or 16,932,701,276?

    Is it just cultural, the fact that people who make this assertion have grown up in a monotheistic environment?

    2) Unconditional love is horseshit.

    I suppose in the throes of a freaky drug trip or quivering amid the vibrations of your charismatic, Pentecostal buddies in church one might believe, in that moment, that he or she feels “unconditional love.”

    But let’s face it, if you are human, it’s highly unlikely, unless you are suffering from some kind of brain damage, that your “unconditional love” would survive, say, being made to witness the brutal torture of your child.

  33. Pony says

    @Thane McKinsey

    There’s a pretty fascinating science-fiction novel by scientist Robert L. Forward called “Dragon’s Egg.” The novel is a fun and plausible attempt to imagine intelligent life that is wildly, utterly different than life as we know it, which thrives on the surface of a neutron star with gravity 67 billion times that of earth.

  34. Ian Butler says

    I was kinda hoping oreoman would call this week. Maybe he was getting the fluid changed in his brain vat.

  35. jeuandavid says

    Some excellent responses and explanations on this show; lots of important points addressed. A good learning experience. Good work!

  36. says

    @t90bb The term mystical experience is similar to a term I heard of in AA….”spiritual experience”,,,,,which no one can quite define.

    Well, I’ve also been in A.A., and I’ve heard these type of experiences even from some of the instructors I’ve encountered, and they’re usually associated with the delirium tremens (DTs) that accompany the withdrawal symptoms of severe alcoholism. The most severe of which can occur after a straight month of binge drinking, and we’re talking about dousing yourself with vodka everyday straight for an entire month or just being a long-term drinker of the heavy stuff. We’re not talking Bud Lite here, but maybe 15 years of drinking malt liquor everyday, and then suddenly you decide to quit. The DTs definitely sound quite akin to mystical experiences, and perhaps they’re related in some way, because very often a bout with DTs causes one to quit drinking. Not all the time. There is relapsing, then kindling, but these experiences are often described as spiritual experiences. As one guy put it to me, “I just saw my soul light up before my eyes.” Of course, it’s not always pleasant, some people have described walls of insects, demons, among other things, and just like the mystical experience, not everyone has a blissful experience. In fact, there are some individuals from the original pilot study who are still seeking psychiatric help because they could not cope with their experience, it left them in an existential crisis because they had such a bad trip. That’s something perhaps paxoll may want to consider. However, I will say that they have shown, by and large, that most people under the conditions and settings of these psychedelic sessions, they can reliably produce these so-called “complete” mystical experiences that end up being either one of the most meaningful and beneficial experiences or the most meaningful experience in their lives, and these changes can happens in various fashions.

    And few attempts are similar….. It seems we have brain states that temporarily or permanently change our perspective. If someone wants to call those “mystical”….sure, fine. We have experiences that can change our perspective..OK.

    In the “complete” mystical experience, it definitely causes these lasting changes, and they may very well be permanent as these follow-up assessments can reveal no deviation from these changes. A better distinction than simply recognizing these changes is one that Michael Pollan very eloquently expresses, and I won’t try to sum it up here unless someone really doesn’t want to click the link, then I’ll attempt to wordify it, but if not, I believe he makes a more useful distinction that we perhaps could elaborate on here.

    If Jimmys point is that we, as humans, often want to assign agency to that process…and therefore create religious and individual supernatural explanations for these experiences I might be on board. But I dont think that is where he was going….but who knows he was so all over the place he was hard to follow. If he actually had a point he is a horrible communicator.

    Well, I had a horrible interlocutor when it came to these particular topics, did you consider that? Listen to the stream I attended with atheists present, and you’ll find the situation went quite differently. I linked it at the very top. However, you’re right in that wasn’t where I was going with this, I wasn’t speaking about a “We, as humans, often want to assign agency to that process…and therefore create religious and individual supernatural explanations for these experiences,” and I’m willing to elaborate a discussion, for sure. Although, I’ve had issues in the past where I suddenly cannot post at all on these threads or my posts aren’t simply being published. I’m not sure if it was a temporary ban or what, but I’ve had a MOD vouch that I was, indeed, experiencing issues on the 104 comment of the Tracie and Mitchel Diamond thread when he was a guest on the show, and so that gives me hope that perhaps this is truly a place where you can freely share your thoughts. However, to address how you characterized it, if I may with an example in that the Hindu mystic or the Hindu guru, the man or woman who has undergone what Hindus call samadhi or moksha, etc. or what Buddhists call nirvana, satori, kensho, etc. or what the Greeks called Henosis or what Christians call Theoria or the Beatific vision or what these neuroscientists are calling a “complete” mystical experience; is not something the Hindu attributes to Brahman or something that the Hindu associates to Brahman or the Hindu “assigns agency” to Brahman, but rather Brahman is the very description of the inner experiential reality from the vantage point of the “complete” mystical experience or what is also distinct, as these mystical experiences occur on a spectrum, from the visionary/archetypal mystical experiences to the description from which Brahman is being described at the level of what these professionals call the unitive mystical state of consciousness which makes up the “complete” mystical experience. Which Michael Pollan does not describe, by the way, while he definitely had the visionary/archetypal experience, this is orders of magnitudes different from what these professionals describe as the “complete” mystical experience or if you’d like to save time typing, the CME. He certainly seems as though he was just on the brink of it, and he’s brought back some interesting insights which caused him to write his book “How to Change Your Mind.” Did you read his article published in the New York Times on Christmas Eve of 2018? Anyway, that’s enough of that. I’ll stick around for the dialogue that unfolds here.

  37. t90bb says

    33……Oreonut may be a one trick pony….a one and done fella. We see this a lot. Guys show up here, pound a topic…and disappear forever. Not sure whether it becomes frustration or embarrassment or……..?? A few peeps here were getting close to his actual identity btw. I knew who this was all along and we were getting ready to expose him. That plus his argument for and against could only ultimately end in a stalemate probably led him to lose interest. That said..hope he comes back with better arguments….was a fun week with him.

  38. ecostarr says

    I’m still trying to figure out what Jimmy’s call has to do with Atheism and why he feels the need to call the Athiest experience.

    First, he is misrepresenting what the researchers at Johns Hopkins Universty said in their study on “Mystical experiences.” Here’s the research: https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/Press_releases/2006/07_11_06.html

    According to the lead researcher, Griffiths is quick to emphasize the scientific intent of the study. “We’re just measuring what can be observed,” he says; “We’re not entering into ‘Does God exist or not exist.’ This work can’t and won’t go there.”

    The only connection to religion in the study is that people’s descriptions of their “mystical experiences” were universal across different religious beliefs . . . OK. So what? If the study ultimately doesn’t weigh in on a belief in God, what is its relevance to Atheism? As Matt asked. What’s your point?

  39. Monocle Smile says

    Shitloads of YouTube links, name-dropping of irrelevant people and exactly nothing of interest to the general topic of AXP.
    Same old crack pipe Kafei.

  40. Monocle Smile says

    @ecostarr
    Your wonderment is going to be a theme as long as Kafei is here. This is the ultimate pet issue for this character. He’s here for monologue, not dialogue.

  41. einy says

    @42
    No shit. this question was asked”: @t90bb The term mystical experience is similar to a term I heard of in AA….”spiritual experience”,,,,,which no one can quite define.”

    and @38 he goes on and on about DT;s etc…Why not answer the question in his OWN words and not others. He cut and pastes whatever he has to say sprinkled in with some of his commentary to add some personalization and that’s it. Heck the video he posted they called him out for not answering the question and said there was a lot of word salad going on.

  42. Thane McKinsey says

    Loveromates you says;
    “Is it POSSIBLE that something transcendent is out there and that thing influences the molecules in our brain so that we can sense its presence?”

    We know that gravitational waves are out there and we know they have a influences on the molecules in our brains, so the question is can we sense of a gravitational wave’s presence?
    And
    How can you differentiate a gravitational wave which there is evidence for from a transcendent which that there is no evidence for?

  43. speedofsound says

    Reading Kafei’s posts here. Ok. I get it now. Frustrating. I suggest he lay off the psychedelics for a few months. I have seen this before.

  44. says

    @speedofsound You know, Dr. Roland Griffiths often points out that none of his volunteers come back saying, “More, please.” You may be underestimating the fact that these are life-changing experiences, and I don’t do this often in my life either. Twice or thrice a year is excessive, but I do try and do this annually. So, “lay off the psychedelics for a few months.” Well, I’ve done that, I’ve been doing that.

    @MODs What’s the deal with my posts not being published? I write these very elaborate posts only to have them never appear.

    @Monocle Smile “Your wonderment is going to be a theme as long as Kafei is here. This is the ultimate pet issue for this character. He’s here for monologue, not dialogue.”

    I’m here for sincere discussion. The links I’ve provided in my post are not for my own convenience as I’ve seen every single one in the full entirety, some even more than once. I provide all these links for anyone here who wishes to inform themselves on these particular topics.

  45. Thane McKinsey says

    Ian Butler says

    I was kinda hoping oreoman would call this week. Maybe he was getting the fluid changed in his brain vat.

    ME TOO
    Bring it oreoman!

  46. einy says

    @kafei from this study:
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5772431/

    Don’t miss this part of the conclusion:” there has been little evidence from studies in healthy volunteers that psilocybin produces enduring changes on well-validated trait measures of disposition or personality. ”

    Conclusion:

    Although previous research shows that psilocybin, under appropriate conditions, can reliably occasion mystical-type experiences to which participants frequently attribute enduring positive changes in well-being and worldview, there has been little evidence from studies in healthy volunteers that psilocybin produces enduring changes on well-validated trait measures of disposition or personality. In the present study, psilocybin was administered in the context of undertaking a nonsectarian program of meditation and other spiritual practices that emphasized integration of spiritual values in daily life. The study showed robust interactive positive effects of psilocybin dose and added support for spiritual practices on a wide range of longitudinal measures at 6 months including interpersonal closeness, gratitude, life meaning/purpose, forgiveness, death transcendence, daily spiritual experiences, religious faith and coping, and rating of participants by community observers. Analyses suggest that the determinants of these effects were the intensity of the psilocybin-occasioned mystical experience and the rates of engagement with meditation and other spiritual practices. Most broadly, as a model system for studying so-called quantum change experiences, which have been described for centuries but which have eluded rigorous prospective experimental analysis, further investigation of psilocybin-occasioned experiences may have broad implications for the development of drug and non-drug interventions in both therapeutic and nontherapeutic applications in order to engender enduring positive trait-level changes in attitudes and behavior and in healthy psychological functioning.

  47. Pony says

    Regarding AA and the notion of “spiritual,” kafei is wildly out of his depth. The first clue is his reference to “instructors” in AA, but tossing in baloney about the DTs is not even remotely what AA people are referring to when they use the word “spiritual.”

    Granted, the AAers aren’t any more specific or concrete about what they *do* mean, but kafei demonstrates his ignorance throughout that whole comment.

  48. twarren1111 says

    I only found the first two callers of interest to respond. Here are my comments as the calls were occurring:

    Jimmy from San Antonio
    This is a common problem that ends up wasting a lot of time. Definition. One of the ways the scientific process helps weed out error is by defining as many things as possible. Being as clear as possible.

    For example, why do you think oncologists developed and continue to develop as more data accrues what the particular stages of cancer are? The primary reason is so that every oncologist understands what the every other oncologist is saying. If in Florida I have a stage IIIA adenocarcinoma of the right upper lung then every oncologist in the world understands what exactly I mean by stage IIIA adenocarcinoma of the lung.

    Plus, staging gives prognosis. You can think of staging as a measure of the likelihood that we are wrong. If we say you have a stage I colon cancer we are wrong 10% of the time, stage II 20% of the time, and stage III 50% of the time. And how were we wrong? Because it was stage IV (wide spread) but it was just that we couldn’t see it yet.

    So the fundamental problem Jimmy has is that he is thinking that there is an accepted definition of a ‘mystical experience’. He even said early on in the call “it’s pretty much accepted in science now” and Matt immediately shut that down.

    You cannot collect evidence for a hypothesis until you define what you are looking at. Mystical experience, god, the holy spirit, etc, all need to be defined BEFORE we can talk about the evidence for or against.

    This happens all the time in science. An excellent example is Irritable Bowel Syndrome. It is poorly defined. It always has been. And then add to it that we don’t have good treatments for it regardless. And then add to the situation that anxiety issues can manifest greatly in the bowels (every get diarrhea when confronted with speaking in front of a large crowd for the first time? Dry mouth? Nausea?). Another is fibromyalgia. The best thing that ever happened for this ill defined entity is that a medication that affects nerve function was recently found to be effective.

    Back to Jimmy: he is now talking about ‘univerversal experience’ and Matt is referring to that if you smoke pot you will feel a change in time. But Jimmy still doesn’t get it.

    Jimmy: you have to define what you are measuring. Exactly what you are measuring. As best as you can. Then, you need to have a hypothesis to test. Then you design an experiment to test whether or not you can affect in some way the thing you have defined that you are interested in looking at.

    So, yes, Jimmy, religions often claim a ‘mystical experience’ and you are claiming it is at the ‘root’ of the religions. That’s a good start. But you can’t make ANY conclusions. You have to DEFINE a lot first. You have to define ‘mystical experience’ and you have to define ‘religion’ and then you will need to make a hypothesis. And you can do this retrospectively by studying the history of religion but that only helps you in generating hypotheses to test.

    This is why not following the scientific process WASTES time. The fastest way to the truth, the fastest way to reality, is you have to overcome the problem of induction by using the scientific process rigorously to keep getting closer and closer to reality.

    John Huntington Beach, CA
    He says he’s going to present evidence for god
    He brings up the evidence for design
    This is pareidolia
    In fact, there is NO evidence for design. At All.
    I would highly recommend that John read Jerry Coyne’s book on Why Evolution is True. When you look at nature and the world the ONLY theory that explains EVERY thing we see, EVERY fact is the concept of evolution. And before life developed, then the theories of geology and paleontology and cosmetology are the ONLY theories that EXPLAIN every fact. There is actually nothing to suggest design by an intelligent being. The only way one can see that type of pattern is to exclude every other piece of evidence. That’s why it is called pareidolia.
    A previous poster: Lyndale demonstrated this fallacy in a fascination manner with their post last week in which they link to videos about google earth showing evidence of god. Another poster asked Lyndale follow up questions but these have not been answered as yet. Another thing Lyndale did was provide a link to an outdated paper documenting what were referred to as W-waves in plants and while that is fine, this person then made the jump that this one paper proves that plants are conscious.
    Yes, John, circumstantial evidence is evidence, but evidence is not valid if it is better explained within another theory. That is the problem with ALL scientific theories to date: none require the hypothesis of god or the supernatural to work.
    Matt confirms that John is a theist. He then points out that John is not defining ‘his’ god as opposed to all the other gods. And this gets us back to the above regarding Jimmy’s post and how science works to determine reality.
    John now brings up the idea that ‘we are it’ in the universe. This is a big fallacy of course. Fallacy of incredulity or ignorance or whatever other ones you want to pick out.
    Indeed, Matt uses John’s argument to provide what is the ‘problem with induction’. John is demonstrating this fallacy outright (are you listening Oreoman1987?). And what is the solution to the problem? TO point out what I pointed out in my posts last week: yes, there is a problem with induction and how we account for that is by repeated testing, using our peers, and the scientific process, is the method in which we reduce and elimininate the error associated with the problem of induction. John is going so wildly inductive he is using the ‘therefore god’ conclusion which is the ultimate fallacy associated with the problem of induction. But, Oreoman, notice how easy it is to handle this fallacy? Just listen to Matt. That’s how we’ve gone beyond the issues warned about by Hume.
    John is all fallacies related to the problem of induction….and that is why the process of science and religion to determine reality are so different. This is why Oreo is so wrong in everything they say.
    Matt got to an excellent point with John when they started talking about sex and promiscuity and John revealed things. This is the problem with using a religious based process to determine reality. What is promiscuous? Why is it wrong? Why is it right? How about this idea: if you are an adult and you consent and the person you have sex with is an adult and they consent then why does anyone have anything to say about it who is not those two people?
    This is why religion is the root of all evil.
    And by religion, i define it as follows: using a process to determine by FAITH what the evidence is for a hypothesis. And by FAITH I mean the process by which reality is determined by ideas IN SPITE of evidence. Faith can agree with evidence. But the problem is that faith can refute evidence.

  49. einy says

    Lastly,
    I have been reading many articles about psilocybin which is what Griffith was studying. But @kafei is not mentioning in many of the instances whether it is with Chronic smokers that eventually stopped or the cancer patients that showed improvement with their depression, in each case the psilocybin was used in conjunction with either behavioral modification(with the smokers) or counseling (with the cancer patients).

    This paragraph from the article i read i think is common sense and did not even have to read this piece. For me i think it is common sense. Humans have a need a need to make sense of the world around them and so when Griffith says we are wired for meaning , of course we are.

    “Many psilocybin study participants report the classic hallmarks of a mystical experience, including a feeling of sacredness, interconnectedness, and a sense that the drug trip is more real than everyday life, Griffiths says. He believes the brain is wired to have such experiences. From the poet Rumi to St. Thérèse, people across time and cultures have experienced these flashes of the divine. In most cases, the experiences occur spontaneously, say when a person is walking in the woods or praying. “Humans are wired for meaning, and I think that is at the core of religions and philosophies and traditions,” says Bossis. The two are also working on a pair of studies looking at the effects of psilocybin on clergy, a group of people who have trained their brains to be open to such experiences.”

    At the end of the day I think the study shows a certain drug has X effect on the brain and because of that, they will have experience something. So what? Has nothing to do with God other than supporting the idea human made up the God concept because us mere humans need to create meaning for our existence.

  50. says

    @einy In that stream, I only leave for about 5-10 minutes before I return and address their questions. I have heard Dr. Rolland Griffiths talking about how the healthy volunteers found this experience to be beneficial for them, too, and if I can find it, I’ll post it. This is on-going research, and there is healthy volunteers participating right now as we speak in this research. Recall, the original pilot study was done on healthy volunteers because they wanted to assess how they were going to go about this before they started dosing terminally-ill cancer patients, drug addicts, the depressed, etc. Dr. Roland Griffiths did a recent dialogue back in August of 2018 that sort of goes over this, but unfortunately the audio is very, very low, so if you don’t have headphones or loud speakers, you may not be able to hear it.

    @Pony I say this because I was an alcoholic during my late teens to my mid 20s, and I’ve experienced DTs first-hand and wouldn’t wish that experience on my worst enemy. I’ve been to A.A. classes, and I believe even the founder of A.A., Bill Wilson, considered adding LSD to his program. Another thing to point out is that lots of people who drink alcohol often don’t experience DTs. DTs usually only occur in the withdrawal symptoms of severe alcoholism. Lost of people in A.A. are usually there because it’s court-ordered because they got some DWI or maybe even PI, but usually, these people aren’t extreme alcoholics. My step-father who’s downs a 6-pack of Budweiser every single night, sometimes one or two 12oz bottles over that, has never had experienced DTs in his life. I’m half his age, and didn’t drink Budweiser, but malt liquors like Olde English, Steel Reserve, Mickey’s, etc. or if you’ve got the money for it, as I once did when I was working for a mobile company, I was buying a 6-pack of 12oz bottles of Double IPA every single night. That’s about $12 a six-pack, the alcohol content is %9 ABV, and so that’s over $300 a month spent on alcohol for a single person. At the time I had the funds to be able to do that, but when that position ended, I had to switch back to the cheap stuff, the malt liquor, and during that adjustment, that’s when I had my first bout with the delirium tremens.

  51. einy says

    @52 I only leave for about 5-10 minutes before I return and address their questions.—Irrelevant. They thought your responses was word salad and you didn’t answer the last question.

    Also i think his study was flawed since it used people with already existing spiritual practices.
    I think you are flawed if you taking anything from the study to mean more than it does within the confines of the study, Griffith himself stated :

    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. It is within the purview of science to study the changes in mood, values, view of self, and behaviors that may follow such experiences.

    One thing i will say is you suffer from the No true Scotsman fallacy when it comes to people who claim to have experiences whether through drugs or not. You have discounted many on the chat online stating they didn’t have real experiences. I think that is total crap because it doesn’t conform to your world view.

    Again at the end of the day what does this have to do with god and atheism?

  52. says

    @twarren1111

    So the fundamental problem Jimmy has is that he is thinking that there is an accepted definition of a ‘mystical experience’. He even said early on in the call “it’s pretty much accepted in science now” and Matt immediately shut that down.

    He didn’t “shut that down,” he simply denied this fact. What I was at great pains to express to Matt is that these states aren’t vague, misty or ambiguous, but rather quite concretely defined and refined over decades worth of scientific research.

    You cannot collect evidence for a hypothesis until you define what you are looking at. Mystical experience, god, the holy spirit, etc, all need to be defined BEFORE we can talk about the evidence for or against.

    Well, here’s how Griffiths puts it, “A mediating mechanism (psychological or otherwise) for a transformative perceptual shift after an introvertive mystical experience is that the individual now knows that a portal to something of inestimable and ultimate value resides within — an access point to a sense of the transcendent, which is variously described in religious traditions as Soul, Holy Spirit, God, Brahman, or Buddha Nature.” I also recommend listening to Dr. Bill Richards’ lectures on this peer-reviewed and published research.

    Back to Jimmy: he is now talking about ‘univerversal experience’ and Matt is referring to that if you smoke pot you will feel a change in time. But Jimmy still doesn’t get it.

    I don’t think Matt got it, again, I wasn’t simply referring to “time dilation” as Matt put it. We’re talking about a very literal experiential reality of experiencing a complete sense of transcending space and time or a timelessness from the stand point of the height of the “complete” mystical experience. This is universally reported by all the volunteers who meet criteria for the so-called “complete” mystical experience, and this is expressed in various ways; people will say it felt as though all time has froze or 4th dimensional or beyond dimensionality, etc.

    Jimmy: you have to define what you are measuring. Exactly what you are measuring. As best as you can. Then, you need to have a hypothesis to test. Then you design an experiment to test whether or not you can affect in some way the thing you have defined that you are interested in looking at.

    That’s precisely what’s been done. Recall, this research has a rich history initiating with the work of William James in the early 1900s, it’s been further elaborated through the decades by Dr. Walter Pahnke, Dr. Walter T. Stace, Dr. Ralph Hood, Dr. Jim Fadiman, et al, and it’s been most refined in the more modern research led by Dr. Rolland Griffiths which has prompted psychedelic research all over the world.

    So, yes, Jimmy, religions often claim a ‘mystical experience’ and you are claiming it is at the ‘root’ of the religions. That’s a good start. But you can’t make ANY conclusions. You have to DEFINE a lot first. You have to define ‘mystical experience’ and you have to define ‘religion’ and then you will need to make a hypothesis. And you can do this retrospectively by studying the history of religion but that only helps you in generating hypotheses to test.

    Again, this is precisely what’s been done, as I mentioned to Matt Dillahunty, there’s been extensive exegetical and hermeneutics done on the scriptures of the major religions in which these professionals have sifted for what Dr. Ralph Hood calls the “reported” mystical experience, but what I didn’t mention to Matt, and I should have made clear, is that neither these ancient mystics nor any volunteer refers to this experience specifically as a “mystical experience.” This term was developed much later to categorize these type of experiences. What you find in the scriptures are various terms that reference this phenomenon in consciousness. You know, samadhi in Hinduism, nirvana in Buddhism, sekhel mufla in Judaism, Theoria or the the Beatific vision in Christianity, wu wei in Taoism, baqá wa faná in Islam, The One in Neoplatonism, it is the Gnosis of the Gnostics and so on. It just seems to be something that’s intrinsic to the human organism, and it can be facilitated in many different ways.

    This is why not following the scientific process WASTES time. The fastest way to the truth, the fastest way to reality, is you have to overcome the problem of induction by using the scientific process rigorously to keep getting closer and closer to reality.

    Well, hopefully you take the time to review my post and realize this is simply not the case with this research.

    @einy

    Lastly, I have been reading many articles about psilocybin which is what Griffith was studying. But @kafei is not mentioning in many of the instances whether it is with Chronic smokers that eventually stopped or the cancer patients that showed improvement with their depression, in each case the psilocybin was used in conjunction with either behavioral modification(with the smokers) or counseling (with the cancer patients).

    Well, yes, I believe that’s the big point, that what’s curing these individuals is not a drug, it’s not a meditation that is to be taken over and over, but more accurately, it’s the memory of the drug experience which is curing the individual. And I believe there was a nicotine study done back in the 60s with psilocybin when it was legal than to research these compounds, it may have been the Marsh Chapel Study, I’m not too sure. I’ll have to look it up or I probably have it bookmarked somewhere, but Mike Young who was in his early 20s and a smoker when he participated in the Good Friday Experiment over 50 years ago, and to this day still does not smoke. Michael Pollan gives some insight, as he’s interviewed the nicotine addicts in the more recent studies, as to how this change occurs. I know no one here seems to like Jordan Peterson, but he’s also spoken quite eloquently on Dr. Griffiths’ research relative to the nicotine studies.

    This paragraph from the article i read i think is common sense and did not even have to read this piece. For me i think it is common sense. Humans have a need a need to make sense of the world around them and so when Griffith says we are wired for meaning , of course we are.

    He (Griffiths) didn’t say we’re wired for meaning, he said we’re wired for these type of mystical states of consciousness.

    “Many psilocybin study participants report the classic hallmarks of a mystical experience, including a feeling of sacredness, interconnectedness, and a sense that the drug trip is more real than everyday life, Griffiths says. He believes the brain is wired to have such experiences. From the poet Rumi to St. Thérèse, people across time and cultures have experienced these flashes of the divine. In most cases, the experiences occur spontaneously, say when a person is walking in the woods or praying. “Humans are wired for meaning, and I think that is at the core of religions and philosophies and traditions,” says Bossis. The two are also working on a pair of studies looking at the effects of psilocybin on clergy, a group of people who have trained their brains to be open to such experiences.”

    Tony Bossis is awesome, but that’s not what Griffiths said.

    At the end of the day I think the study shows a certain drug has X effect on the brain and because of that, they will have experience something. So what? Has nothing to do with God other than supporting the idea human made up the God concept because us mere humans need to create meaning for our existence.

    These professionals are quick to note that these experiences aren’t exclusive to psychedelics, they can happen by natural means as well such as meditation or asceticism or sometimes spontaneously for seemingly no reason at all as in the case of Ramakrishna or what Alan Watts called a “natural satori.” And the implication is that this phenomenon in consciousness has been happening for millennia à la the Perennial philosophy. So, you see, God in this context is not something “made up” or “conjured,” but rather construed or interpreted via mystical states of consciousness. In fact, in the time of the early mystics, the title “Theologian” was not applied in the modern academic sense of theological study; the title was designed only to recognize someone who spoke from personal experience of Theoria (vision of God). One of the principal teachings of Symeon the New Theologian was that humans could and should experience theoria (literally “contemplation,” or direct experience of God), and this experience was regarded by these mystics as crucial to the spiritual and mental health of every living thing, including human beings. So, it’s no surprise today that science is rediscovering these facts, that these experiences are very helpful to our psychological health and mental stability. The eastern mystics, of course, recognized this as well, and this is emphasized in Buddhism as the “Nirvana Sutra,” which highlights that enlightenment or Nirvana is a potential in all sentient beings.

  53. says

    @einy

    One thing i will say is you suffer from the No true Scotsman fallacy when it comes to people who claim to have experiences whether through drugs or not. You have discounted many on the chat online stating they didn’t have real experiences. I think that is total crap because it doesn’t conform to your world view.

    I deal with this very thing on reddit, and if you’re interested in that, post at this thread.

    Again at the end of the day what does this have to do with god and atheism?

    I’ve answered this a couple of times now in posts that have yet to be published. I’m not sure what’s happening, but if you’d like to continue the discussion, because I’m having major issues here, please post at YouTube or the G+ threads.

  54. paxoll says

    Kafei,
    Any post with more then 3 or 4 links is automatically moderated. Meaning you will not have it post quickly enough to have a conversation. By the way this forum is for discussion. What you are doing is preaching, the video you posted by Robert Jesse not only exemplifies what people on this forum is complaining about (ambiguity, inability to have non-subjective measurements) it compounds it by adding layer upon layer of more subjective measurements. It goes on to talk about how “important” the “experience” was to the individuals, how much “spiritual” importance did it have….
     
    So please, if you wish to continue posting here. What is the fucken point you are trying to make? If your point is that drugs and “mystical” experiences is why religions started, Matt already said you haven’t and likely can’t give evidential proof that would rationally lead anyone to believe that, and nothing you have since posted here is evidence of that either. Correlation does not equal causation and that doesn’t change regardless of how closely things correlate.
    If your point is that “mystical” experiences cause permanent changes to the rational thinking capabilities of people, therefore religions persist in large part because of “mystical” experiences causing them to not think rationally, we all would probably say you are a good demonstration that this is at least true to some small part.
    Whatever your point is, make it, back it up with real evidence and not a million links to youtube videos, because I would guess that everyone here would rather read a published research article instead of watching a video of someone talking about a published research article.

  55. einy says

    You are dealing with it because it is true. I don’t have to go to reddit or some other source. We are here and your actions prove that to be the case no matter how you try to justify it.

    “I’ve answered this a couple of times now in posts that have yet to be published. ” —Funny how the thing we want answered you can’t seem to post but your other things do. I am sure you are having major issues.

    Give me an answer in 2 sentences. The best you have as to what this has to do with god since the studies don’t connect the dots to it.

    We are on this thread so post it here. I think your issues with posting are self inflicted.

  56. Wiggle Puppy says

    @ paxoll 56:

    “What is the fucken point you are trying to make?”

    Jimmy has called the show several times, and several times, Matt has asked him if he believes in a god. Jimmy then responds with something like “The view of perennial philosophy sees God, Allah, and Brahmin as all inspired by the same type of mystical experience.” Matt then asks again him if he believes in a god. Jimmy then responds again with some variant of “Perennial philosophy sees God, Allah, and Brahmin as all inspired by the same type of mystical experience.”

    I wouldn’t expect an answer to your question anytime soon.

  57. says

    Give me an answer in 2 sentences. The best you have as to what this has to do with god since the studies don’t connect the dots to it.

    We are on this thread so post it here. I think your issues with posting are self inflicted.

    Whatever is going on, I’ve already lost about 10 paragraphs worth of typing, and so I’m not sure I’ll continue posting if this keeps happening. In a nutshell, this research has produced evidence which suggests that these mystical states of consciousness are a biologically normal phenomenon which has been happening for millennia à la the Perennial philosophy. That’s it. Perennial philosophy is a theist stance, by the way, and I’ve repeated this, but it hasn’t been published, that the very word theism was coined by a Cambridge Platonist by the name of Ralph Cudworth in the 17th century.

    I mean, that’s a very short, rudimentary and simplified statement of what I really wanted to say about these things, but unfortunately my posts haven’t been published. So, it’ll have to do for now.

  58. t90bb says

    55…Jimmy…

    Interesting…..I get the idea that your interest of mystical experiences relate to the type claimed by 12 step recovery groups…much like the white light experience claimed by the AA founder Bill Wilson.

    that is all well and good.

    But what does that have to do with atheism or theism…until you make a point as to how this relates I will just ignore you. Many of us have had profound experiences in life, some while under the effects of drugs, some not. These can be positive or negative. We are still working to understand how the brain functions. Have you ever felt de ja vu? Is it your point or opinion that this is evidence of a god or gods??? or evidence against??? Until you make a point I am done with you.

  59. t90bb says

    Jimmy lets try this////..do you?

    A. Believe that a god or gods exist

    B. Lack a belief that a god or gods exist

    A or B, Jimmy?

  60. Walker says

    @t90bb #39 I figured out who oreoman is, or at least how i know him from a combination of rhetoric, common spelling and grammer errors, common tactics and because he started he was using versions of lines i have used against him.

    I would be curious how you know of him.

  61. says

    @t90bb Well, I made a succinct point on the 60th post. I’m not sure if you caught that. However, regarding people who’ve had these type of experiences, and supposedly claim to remain atheist, I also address this in other forums. Unfortunately, I was banned there unjustly, and while some people were attempting to defend that fact, they were bashed for simply attempting to defend me. But fortunately, the posts are still there to view.

    I addressed your question in post 60 on this page, but to elaborate, the reason why the Perennial philosophy is addressed, for one, is that “God” is not the only name for the divine or transcendent. According to the Perennial philosophy, the highest mystical vision is one and the same in all of the major religions, Theoria (vision of God) or what’s also called the Beatific vision in Christianity is precisely synonymous with “The One” of Plotinus or the description of Brahman in Hinduism or the Buddha-hood of the Buddhists, it is called wu wei in Taoism, it is sekhel mufla or Shekhinah in Judaism, it is also called the Tawhid or baqá wa faná in Islam, the Gnosis of the Gnostics, etc., etc., etc. I mean, there’s a lot more I could say on this, but in risk of my posts not being published, I’m going to keep it short for now.

  62. einy says

    In a nutshell, this research has produced evidence which suggests that these mystical states of consciousness are a biologically normal phenomenon ——Yes we agree there is a biological component to people having these experiences.

    I call bullshit on it pointing to some ultimate truth / Perennial philosophy. That is your opinion and not a conclusion reached within the study. Did you miss this part from Griffith? “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 experience”

    So for you to say the study supports Perennial philosophy, it just utter bullshit.

  63. einy says

    Also for people within X culture having an experience and seeing what they most likely grew up indoctrinated with would not be a surprise when they have drugs in their system and seeing whichever highest level being they believe in. It would be expected.

  64. StonedRanger says

    Kafei, as has already been explained, when you post something with more than a couple of links it is held for moderation which can sometimes be slow, especially with matts shows because he doesnt come to the blog. The fact that you have ignored this when others have told you shows you are not reading what others are saying to you.
    Ive taken LSD and/or mescaline over 500 times and all your bullshit about mysticism is just that, its bullshit. I have not had what I would consider a mystical experience in all those trips. Im not even sure what you mean by mystical because you refuse to define what the hell that even means. Its my experience that anything ive felt while on these drugs was caused by the drugs. After a few hundred trips I was able to control my hallucinations to a high degree. Nothing magical, nothing mystical, just my brain on drugs. All the rest of what youve posted is woo and garbage.

  65. paxoll says

    @Kafei
    I told you exactly why your posts are not showing up.

    So you are claiming your religion (perennial philosophy) is true. You are using correlation of other religions to try and demonstrate a common source, purpose, and truth that has been packaged into something labeled “Perennial Philosophy”, and you are desperately seeking some kind of scientific validation of this by inducing mystical experiences and mining for result data that could be labeled “good”. There is so much fundamentally wrong with this logically and scientifically that you should probably go back to your reddit thread because no one here is going to pay any attention to it.

  66. larpar says

    Kafei
    1) Do you need to use drugs to have a ‘mystical experience’?
    2) What evidence do you have that the founders (for the lack of a better term) of all the various religions used drugs?

  67. says

    @StonedRanger

    Kafei, as has already been explained, when you post something with more than a couple of links it is held for moderation which can sometimes be slow, especially with matts shows because he doesnt come to the blog. The fact that you have ignored this when others have told you shows you are not reading what others are saying to you.

    No, I read that, so there’s a filter to stop inappropriate hotlinks from being posted. Okay, fine. It just puts a damper on this discussion. I mean, we’re all adults here, aren’t we? What could be so inappropriate that it has be viewed by a moderator first? I suppose, it’s necessary precaution, but I’ve lost many paragraphs to it.

    Ive taken LSD and/or mescaline over 500 times and all your bullshit about mysticism is just that, its bullshit. I have not had what I would consider a mystical experience in all those trips. Im not even sure what you mean by mystical because you refuse to define what the hell that even means. Its my experience that anything ive felt while on these drugs was caused by the drugs. After a few hundred trips I was able to control my hallucinations to a high degree. Nothing magical, nothing mystical, just my brain on drugs. All the rest of what youve posted is woo and garbage.

    I’ve heard many people speak about this type of extensive experience, and even Bill Richards has spoken about it in his experience. That it is very possible to have myriads of recreational psychedelic experiences, and never come close to what these professionals are calling a “complete” mystical experience. If you could do it so often, and not be deterred, then it’s quite likely that you’re probably not getting the full-spectrum experience. In other words, you’re taking many recreational doses. The doses they’re using in the Hopkins study are quite high, akin to what TerenceMcKenna called the “heroic dose,” but in pure psilocybin contained in a single pill. So, it’s very possible to have tons of these experiences, and never approach a mystical experience at all. In my own experience, the more powerful the experience is, the longer you usually stay away from it and mull it over. Dr. Roland Griffiths also points out that none of his volunteers come back saying, “More, please.” The experience is simply far too powerful. It’s sort of like being shot with a shotgun, and surviving, and while that experience might have made you stronger and more insightful and you may even be appreciative that you went through it, it’s not something you necessarily want to repeat, and many people describe the CME (“complete” mystical experience) in this fashion.

    @paxoll

    So you are claiming your religion (perennial philosophy) is true. You are using correlation of other religions to try and demonstrate a common source, purpose, and truth that has been packaged into something labeled “Perennial Philosophy”, and you are desperately seeking some kind of scientific validation of this by inducing mystical experiences and mining for result data that could be labeled “good”. There is so much fundamentally wrong with this logically and scientifically that you should probably go back to your reddit thread because no one here is going to pay any attention to it.

    Perennial philosophy is not a religion, it’s not a syncretism or a Universalism, it’s not an almagamation of religions to form a new religion, it rather and more accurately a perspective on the major religions which respects all the major religions, leaves them all intact, but merely recognizes their source in mysticism, in individuals engaging these mystical states of consciousness.

    t90bb

    .jimmy so are you an atheist or a theist??? only need a one word answer….which?

    I’ve answered this, I’m an adherent of the Perennial philosophy which is quite obviously a theist stance. I even mentioned the Ralph Cudworth who coined the term theism, Cudworth whom also was a proponent of the Perennial philosophy.

  68. says

    @larper

    Kafei
    1) Do you need to use drugs to have a ‘mystical experience’?

    Drugs aren’t necessary to elicit mystical states of consciousness.

    2) What evidence do you have that the founders (for the lack of a better term) of all the various religions used drugs?

    Well, there’s many ways to induce mystical states of consciousness, and yes, there’s speculation that the early religions also utilized psychedelics to elicit these mystical states of consciousness, but there’s also a lot of evidence of natural techniques and disciplines such as meditation or asceticism or these two used in combination.

  69. t90bb says

    69…Ffor the record…..I had a massive change in perspective due to my experience with alcoholism and recovery. Now,.if some insist it was a “spiritual or mystical experience” thats fine I guess. When this perspective shift occurred I was told by the many in AA that it was God revealing himself and taking control of my life. For purposes of unity I played along and may have actually believed it for a short time. However, I became engaged with many critical thinkers and when I exposed my “AA thinking” to critical analysis….it never held up. I realized that I could not fully explain my perspective change and allowed others to dictate its origin, mainly by appealing to an argument from ignorance. I slowly realized the foolishness, hypocrisy, and wishful thinking that pervaded much of the AA approach. I found that in many alcoholics/addicts engaged in destructive behavior an inability to deal with uncertainty fuels the anxiety that is often at the roots in alcoholism/addiction. Thats why most in AA are perfectly willing to claim they have been rescued by God. When challenged they will often without pause tell you that this belief makes them happy..and that they would rather “be happy than right”. It solves a riddle in a way that cannot be dis proven and in that they find their mind quiets down and the need to drink diminishes or even disappears.

    Considering how deadly alcoholism and drug addiction can be….I dont try to take this apparent delusion away from them. I just know when challenged I realized I lacked sufficient reason to conclude anything magical or mystical or supernatural had occurred. Shortly after that, about 8 years ago I quickly went from a conforming theist, to a deist for a few months, to an agnostic atheist.

    There are lots of closet atheists in AA that get benefit from the meetings and fellowship. Many of us find benefit from many of the basic principles that underpin much of the step work (honesty, open mindedness, willingness, integrity, humility, empathy, compassion, service……..) And we appreciate them strictly from a secular perspective without a belief in god or gods..

    Jimmy seems to indicate that its impossible to have gone through a deeply trans-formative experience and deny the existence of a deity. That people who do so merely claim to to deny. This is not true. There is a large and ever growing sect of recovery people that address recovery without belief in a god. This is not debatable. It is a fact. We do not claim to fully understand the process that changed us….but the time to believe that a god or gods were involved is when that can be demonstrated. People do change….many to a remarkable degree in all areas of our lives. If you want to play semantics and argue that these changes and experiences are “mystical”….because they are not completed understood….fine. Then much of life is mystical…and mystical experiences are a dime a dozen. It seems to me that labeling gaps in human understanding mystical does little other than making those who make the claims feel really special.

    Sorry to have delved off so far fellas….this was more directed at out friend,Jimmy.

  70. t90bb says

    Well now we are getting somewhere…..Jimmy is a theist. So jimmy what god or gods do you believe in and what evidence do you claim to posses to convince us????

  71. t90bb says

    Also…Jimmy….what evidence do you have that “mystical states of consciousness” are anything more the physical and chemical brain/body states?? And how do these mystical states in any way demonstrate that a god exists???

    Can you induce yourself into a mystical state and ask your god to reveal my social security number and post it here, perhaps??

  72. einy says

    sounds like someone not only suffers from no true Scotsman fallacies but also suffers from Argument from authority fallacies. Bill Richards or TerenceMcKenna are not the end all be all on someone’s experience of drugs.

    Putting youtube links puts a damper on conversations, not the other way around.

    Theist definition= broadly defined as the belief in the existence of the Supreme Being or deities. If that is you then you are a theist. From what I read about Perennial Philosophy (which the studies don’t support as you claim) it more of a religious stance and not a theistic stance. For it to be a theistic stance it has to have some type deity / god like figure. If it doesn’t it is not theistic Since Perennial Philosophy, which is the basically at the center of all the great religions and wisdom traditions is the same mystical experience of Ultimate Reality.. No God? Not a theist.

  73. says

    Just listening to the show now…. I have taken a mountains of LSD/DMT/Ayahuasca with shamans / charlatans / friends and solo. I have had dozens of these “mystical” experiences. I am still an atheist… in fact it has solidified my atheism more than ever. So next time someone lays a claim that one needs to try these drugs first and then see what they believe…. just point them to me. I am obviously not alone as I know others in my social circle that take part in these ” ceremonies ” that are all firm atheists despite the so called “mystical” experience

  74. larpar says

    Kafie

    …but there’s also a lot of evidence of natural techniques and disciplines such as meditation or asceticism or these two used in combination.

    I asked for this evidence, not speculation. Also, the evidence needs to be from a peer-reviewed , reliable source, not some talking-head on a youtube video.

  75. larpar says

    t90bb @# 74
    I have had a mystical vision, and your SSN is 631 952 0874.
    Now, the vision was a little blurry, so it may be a little off. Some numbers could be transposed, omitted, or used more than once.
    If by some off chance that I’m wrong, I’ll try again. But it will be in a couple of weeks, because my guy is out of town.

  76. t90bb says

    78…..larpar……wtf!!! how in the heckk!!!!!…..you sir are good….now take it down…..

  77. RationalismRules says

    @Grammi K/JoAnn Kuhr

    …I enjoy speculating about the edge of what is known and not known about nature–a la Ursula Le Guin? As long as I don’t start telling other people what goes on in my imagination, I don’t see the harm in speculation.

    I don’t think anyone’s arguing against speculation or imagination. Those are foundational to human advancement. I would even argue that discussing your imagination with other people is a Good Thing and also foundational to human advancement.

    The problem only arises when one starts believing in speculation without confirming evidence. That’s the bit we’re arguing against.

    Loveromates has decided to believe in something for which there is no evidence whatsoever, purely based on his feelings.
    Kafei is taking limited evidence of a specific brain phenomenon, and speculatively extending it to make claims that are completely unjustified by the actual evidence, and then attempting to claim that speculation is supported by the initial evidence.
     
    I read Le Guin’s Earthsea series, and very much enjoyed her writing. I haven’t read any others of hers, but I’m up for a bit of speculative reading. Any particular title you’d recommend?

  78. says

    @einy

    sounds like someone not only suffers from no true Scotsman fallacies but also suffers from Argument from authority fallacies. Bill Richards or TerenceMcKenna are not the end all be all on someone’s experience of drugs. Putting youtube links puts a damper on conversations, not the other way around.

    I don’t suffer from either. Dosage is very important when it comes to these experiences, and it’s not a matter of a “No True Scotsman” fallacy, but rather the various factors involved in ADME in pharmacokinetics. There’s a threshold that must be exceeded to elicit these “complete” mystical experiences, and that threshold isn’t necessarily the same for all people, and these experiences aren’t always blissful, like I said, they can be rather terrifying, terrifying enough so that a person would consider never taking them again.

    Theist definition= broadly defined as the belief in the existence of the Supreme Being or deities. If that is you then you are a theist. From what I read about Perennial Philosophy (which the studies don’t support as you claim) it more of a religious stance and not a theistic stance. For it to be a theistic stance it has to have some type deity / god like figure. If it doesn’t it is not theistic Since Perennial Philosophy, which is the basically at the center of all the great religions and wisdom traditions is the same mystical experience of Ultimate Reality.. No God? Not a theist.

    The issue here is you’re assuming God should be necessarily defined as a deity. As I pointed out to Matt in my call, this is a misconception. I mentioned that the scriptures were written by mystics, men who had this afflatus, and wrote from their insights from these mystical states of consciousness. Then, as religion lost touch with these experiences, theologians then relied on scholasticism, intellectual reasoned argument for scripture which evolved to what we now know today as apologetics. So, if you read scripture written by a mystic, and you have no knowledge of mystical experience, you may mistakenly attribute this aspect of the mystical state of consciousness of the sense of transcending time and space to a “deity” that exists outside of space and time instead of attributing as these mystics had to a phenomenon in consciousness. I also pointed out that the Perennial philosophy addresses an original etymology. That is to say the deeper you go back into the scriptures, what you’ll find is descriptions of the divine that are invariably henotheistic, monistic, and panentheistic (not to be confused with pantheism), you simply will not find the monotheistic deity, what Einstein rightly referred to as the “childish analogy of religion.” If you’re interested in how the divine is defined within the context of the Perennial philosophy, I recommend the last post on this G+ thread where I’ve taken several excerpts from Ken Wilber’s book “Up From Eden” which very eloquently describes what is meant by God from the vantage point of the Perennial philosophy.

    @t90bb

    Well now we are getting somewhere…..Jimmy is a theist. So jimmy what god or gods do you believe in and what evidence do you claim to posses to convince us????

    I’ve already explained the divine as described within the context of the Perennial philosophy, and the evidence is the “complete” mystical experience in and of itself which has been shown to be powerful enough to convert even atheists who undergo this experience, and whom ever afterwards, no longer identify with atheism.

  79. Monocle Smile says

    I mentioned that the scriptures were written by mystics, men who had this afflatus, and wrote from their insights from these mystical states of consciousness. Then, as religion lost touch with these experiences, theologians then relied on scholasticism, intellectual reasoned argument for scripture which evolved to what we now know today as apologetics

    This is straight from the ass of Kafei. Pure speculation. These are not evidenced facts. EnlightenmentLiberal clobbered you with the Mormonism example last time and you looked like a fucking idiot.

  80. Einy says

    Kafei no the issue is not us but the issue is you. You are the one that does not understand. You are making assertions about early scripture writers that you can’t back up with evidence.

    Sir you are full of crap. Gods / deity are the same thing. People might have different variations of what they consider a god or deity but the point is it’s some type of being.

    You are like these people who try to redefine God to mean the universe. Guess what, we don’t have to do that because we already have a word for it.

    So no, no assumptions here. You are a full of it and make claims that you can’t back up. This is why most that respond to you think you are full of it, why the people on the video you posted thought your answers were word salad.

    You will not be taken seriously because you are a fraud that makes up crap.

  81. t90bb says

    82…jimmy YOU SAY:

    “I’ve already explained the divine as described within the context of the Perennial philosophy, and the evidence is the “complete” mystical experience in and of itself which has been shown to be powerful enough to convert even atheists who undergo this experience, and whom ever afterwards, no longer identify with atheism.”

    Sure Jimmy….people become theists…….and many theists become atheists……I am afraid you swing and you miss. You make up your own definition a “complete” experience (or combo of traits)…..and if someone finds it convincing then they beieve. People believe in God and many other things for the most bizarre reasons ever, so having them have a powerful and unexplained experience as a basis for conversion is not at all surprising.

    I am afraid however….that this is one big argument from fallacy….incredulity and ignorance. SOME PEOPLE HAVE A POWERFUL EXPERIENCE….CANT EXPLAIN IT…AND ATTRIBUTE IT TO A SKY GENIE….

    And that folks at the end of the day is all jimmy has…..one big argument from ignorance……..so easy.

    But hear is the good news Jimmy…..you get to keep it!!!! If it makes you feel better and you dont care that your conclusion is logically sound…..YOU STILL GET TO BELIEVE IN YOUR SKY DADDY! just dont drink!

  82. says

    @larper

    I asked for this evidence, not speculation. Also, the evidence needs to be from a peer-reviewed , reliable source, not some talking-head on a youtube video.

    Evidence for what? That ancient cultures used psychedelics? I mean, there’s lots of evidence for Aztec and Mayan cultures, there’s evidence of the tribes in South America that have utilized ayahuasca for thousands of years, however, for many other ancient religions, all we have is speculation as to how they accessed these states. However, Dr. Ralph Hood has claimed that with his measures, he can definitely confirm mystical experience expressed in the scriptures, but what he makes clear is that he cannot show how these ancient mystics were accessing these mystical states of consciousness. That’s what’s speculated, and there’s lots of it, there’s the possibility that Soma may be the Amanita muscaria or Psilocybe cubensis of Vedic Hinduism. Terence McKenna has spoken about the fact that psilocybin mushrooms grow from spores, and if you don’t have any microscopes, you might assume the mushroom growing from the dung of the cow is a gift from the cow, and perhaps this is why cows have been so sacred in Hinduism, there’s the Blue Water Lily in Egyptian religion, there’s also the theory that Benny Shannon has that “burning bush” of Moses may have been the Acacia nilotica, a shrub rich in N,N-DMT, perhaps even combined with peganum harmala which would produce a concoction quite similar to ayahuasca. Of course, there’s the Kykeon of the Eleusinian mysteries, a ritual drink that was shared annually by the great philosophers of the time, we know that Muhammad had his vision in a cave, a very classical shamanic setting that would induce this type of experience, quite akin to how it was approached by Alexander the Great, Terence McKenna also speculated that the fruit in the Edenic myth may have been a remnant of a memory of some sort of psychedelic, because in the scripture, it says that if you eat of this fruit, you will become like God. Well, what do entheogens do? They generate the divine within. Jerry Brown also suspects psychedelics may have been used in early Christianity, but all we have are paintings, very obvious artifacts of art that unmistakably resemble psychedelic fungi and plants, but nothing conclusive enough to establish it as known fact, and I don’t know why you’d expect such evidence, especially of these religions that were practiced thousands of years ago. We have conjectures. We have fiercely defended hypotheses but we have very little that is concrete to go on. However, it’s not as though it’s unwarranted speculation, some of these scholars make very convincing cases.

  83. RationalismRules says

    @t90bb #39

    I knew who this was all along

    Assuming you’re correct about his identity, from past experience is he pure troll or a genuine philosophy fan who is just really bad at clear thinking (and honesty)?

    [P.S. There was a joke to be made about how his chosen name aligned to his black & white view of the world, I just couldn’t find a good way to frame it.]

  84. says

    @Einy

    You are like these people who try to redefine God to mean the universe. Guess what, we don’t have to do that because we already have a word for it. So no, no assumptions here.

    This is a common misconception, and that’s why I made sure to add in parenthesis (not to be confused with pantheism) which is what you’ve just described. The divine within the context of the Perennial philosophy is quite akin to the description Spinoza used, and he made it clear in a letter to Henry Oldenburg where he states, “as to the view of certain people that I identify God with Nature (taken as a kind of mass or corporeal matter), they are quite mistaken.” So, no we’re not relabeling the universe “God,” this is a very common misconception.

    You are a full of it and make claims that you can’t back up. This is why most that respond to you think you are full of it, why the people on the video you posted thought your answers were word salad. You will not be taken seriously because you are a fraud that makes up crap.

    You can look these things up for yourself. I’m not making any of this stuff up.

    @t90bb

    Sure Jimmy….people become theists…….and many theists become atheists……I am afraid you swing and you miss. You make up your own definition a “complete” experience (or combo of traits)…..and if someone finds it convincing then they beieve. People believe in God and many other things for the most bizarre reasons ever, so having them have a powerful and unexplained experience as a basis for conversion is not at all surprising.

    Once again, I did not coin the term mystical experience, it’s been established in the scientific literature now for quite some time.

    I am afraid however….that this is one big argument from fallacy….incredulity and ignorance. SOME PEOPLE HAVE A POWERFUL EXPERIENCE….CANT EXPLAIN IT…AND ATTRIBUTE IT TO A SKY GENIE….

    I don’t think anyone here is attributed a “complete” mystical experience to a sky genie.

    And that folks at the end of the day is all jimmy has…..one big argument from ignorance……..so easy. But hear is the good news Jimmy…..you get to keep it!!!! If it makes you feel better and you dont care that your conclusion is logically sound…..YOU STILL GET TO BELIEVE IN YOUR SKY DADDY! just dont drink!

    Well, this is my contention, that the “sky genie” or “sky daddy” is a very naïve conception of the divine, and if this is the concept you reject to justify your atheism, then you have rejected a very childish notion of God in order to announce yourself an atheist. Einstein rightly referred to that conception as the childish analogy of religion, it’s something even a child could conjure, and that wasn’t what Einstein adhered to, he would often invoke Spinoza whenever someone asked him about how he described God.

    @Monocle Smile

    This is straight from the ass of Kafei. Pure speculation. These are not evidenced facts.

    There’s many authors who’ve written on these topics, and how we lost touch with the mystical experience. Of course, we haven’t lost complete touch as it still exists in some religious sects, we still have a vibrant shamanism practiced in various countries throughout the world, and of course, there’s this scientific research, but in the mainstream churches of today in the U.S. and the U.K., it’s quite a vacant enterprise. This is Vladimir Lossky’s life work, he emphasizes the Schism of 1054 as a major break off from the mystical dimension of theology, and since then it has dwindled, only to revive now and then by mystics throughout the ages, but today is quite vacant as Ted Nottingham has pointed out in his talks as well.

  85. Einy says

    Claiming the studies support your philosophy is bullshit and a lie. It does no such thing and to claim Griffith implied this is a lie..

  86. says

    @Einy

    Your response didn’t help you, still bullshit.

    Perhaps to you and like-minded individuals who resonate with your thinking, but certainly not to any of the professionals I’ve mentioned. I mean, you can think whatever you’d like of me or these ideas, and in fact, please do, but to simply call something bullshit, and not offer an explanation as to why you think that is so is nothing more than a mere baseless accusation. Joe Rogan once joked that when people call you out, they call you out on your bullshit, when it’s somewhat of a pun, because mushrooms grow from bullshit, and it’s the one thing that could definitely cause you to discern what’s truth from what’s bullshit.

  87. Einy says

    I get it, your shtick is keeping mentioning someone else in your responses. I already pointed out why you are full of shit and a liar. You wouldn’t know there truth if it hit you up the side of your head.

  88. twarren1111 says

    @Kaifeh

    I read the post on rational skeptics to which you linked in post #63 where you were banned for being a troll. Above you do state in post #59 as succinctly as you can what your claim is all about. I looked over Perrenial Philosophy on Wikipedia and followed up on various papers written by authors you mention.

    Here is a link to a pertinent paper: http://buddhiststudies.berkeley.edu/people/faculty/sharf/documents/Sharf1998,%20Religious%20Experience.pdf

    Now, please try to listen:
    1. A journal being peer-reviewed does NOT have ANY indication or bearing if the journal is SCIENTIFIC.
    2. Many of the links to articles regarding shared mystical experiences and religion are published in peer-reviewed RELIGIOUS journals. Due to the religious process using faith to determine evidence means these peer-reviewed journals are the OPPOSITE of science process
    3. It is freely admitted in all the articles I read that the evidence of these ‘experiences’ is anecdotal and suffers from LACK of definition as to what these experiences even are.
    4. From page 270 of the paper in the above link the following statement is made: To begin with, critics note that we do not have access to mystical expe- riences per se, but only to texts that purport to describe them, and the perennialists systematically misconstrue these texts due to their a priori commitment to the perennialist position. Read impartially, there is little internal evidence to indicate that these very disparate accounts are actually referring to one and the same experience.
    5. In the rational skeptic blog you repeatedly used the word ‘established’ to refer to these papers discussing CMEs. In my post #50 I typed as you made your call the following: So the fundamental problem Jimmy has is that he is thinking that there is an accepted definition of a ‘mystical experience’. He even said early on in the call “it’s pretty much accepted in science now” and Matt immediately shut that down.
    6. In conclusion, 100% of the sources of literature, the authors of the literature are NOT PUBLISHING SCIENCE BUT OPINION, RELIGION, OR PHILOSOPHY (THAT IS NOT VALID VIA FORMAL LOGIC; YOU CANNOT HAVE PREMISES BE VALID IF UNDEFINED WHICH CME IS; THIS MEANS MATHEMATICS CANNOT BE APPLIED TO THE PHILOSOPHICAL CONCEPTS)
    7. The most appropriate term for what you are WASTING SO MUCH TIME ON was “perrenial philosophy” as coined by Aldous Huxley but the modern term would be New Age Woo.
    8. Perhaps you should ‘discover’ David Avocado Wolfe and stop immorally wasting entropy on sites devoted to rationality in which you persist in not learning from. Continuing to espouse ideas you have been shown are false while still pursuing them is immoral, unethical, and if it continues when I now know two separate skeptical blogs have repeatedly called you out on wasting E=mc2 then you will be crossing the line to evil.

  89. says

    @Einy

    I get it, your shtick is keeping mentioning someone else in your responses. I already pointed out why you are full of shit and a liar. You wouldn’t know there truth if it hit you up the side of your head.

    You do realize it’s not I who has interjected the Perennial philosophy into this research, but rather it is the professionals involved in this research which have defined these mystical states of consciousness as to be consistent with the Perennial philosophy. I’ve posted the peer-reviewed and published paper where this is emphasized.

  90. Einy says

    The mystical experience do not indicate some underlying unity between all the different experiences. You have made great leaps to come to your conclusion. There is no evidence to support anything Divine exists.

    But let me ask you what are you defining as Divine? Don’t give me some other person’s definition, gives me yours.

  91. Einy says

    Also I am an atheist because there is zero evidence that anything other than the natural world exists. When we die that it. No evidence for any god, afterlife etc. If your definition of god is the universe and is indistinguishable from the universe, they universe exists but it’s not god.

  92. twarren1111 says

    Kafei

    Please get this: NOTHING PUBLISHED that you refer to is SCIENCE. Yes, some of the authors may hold professorships at universities in departments that are a science such as the sociology department, but that does NOT MEAN that what they publish is science even if what they publish is in a peer-reviewed journal.

    Hence, I would suspect that 99% of the authors you cite that are from universities in science departments publish papers on these topics when they are either associate professors or professors. I doubt any will be assistant professors. Why? Tenure.

    Here’s what you should look for: papers published in ONLY neuroscience/neurobiology related peer-reviewed journals. You should see many figures such as functional MRIs, PET CT scans, EEGS, being performed during these experiences. By necessity, the experiences will need to be defined by a descriptive list of signs/symptoms that all the participants have.

    You would then see control arms and test arms. Eg, a group of Pentecostal parishioners who are speaking in tongues and not speaking in tongues, American Indians on placebo or peyote, double blinded, who were having visions, college students double blinded between psilocybins, THCs, LSDs, Ketamine, opiate.

    The read out would be how all these differently induced CMEs, all having the same symptoms, appeared on all these different types of seeing how the brain functions.

    REMEMBER: there is no aspect of the ‘mind’ that occurs from a non-biological structure in the brain. Thus, using fMRI, PET, EEG, etc would be the first step in determining a baseline and then going from there.

    And what’s funny is we already know the answer. Watch a few Dan Dennett lectures. Watch a talk by Andy Thompson (Why we believe in god” He’s an academic neuropsychologist. His talks shows fMRIs! https://youtu.be/1iMmvu9eMrg)

  93. says

    @twarren1111 Matt didn’t shut anything down. He admitted not looking into the research, therefore he doesn’t realize that these mystical states of consciousness are concretely defined over decades of research, and this is indeed science we’re discussing here, not the mere opinions of professionals. Your “pertinent” paper is out-dated. The scientific research I’ve cited has a rich history, the more contemporary research being published in the Scientific Journal of Psychopharmacology.

  94. larpar says

    Kafie @# 87

    We have conjectures. We have fiercely defended hypotheses but we have very little that is concrete to go on. However, it’s not as though it’s unwarranted speculation, some of these scholars make very convincing cases.

    This is a nice summation of your position. It’s sad that you think that conjecture and no concrete evidence makes a convincing case.

  95. says

    larpar

    This is a nice summation of your position. It’s sad that you think that conjecture and no concrete evidence makes a convincing case.

    Well, you do realize what I was speaking of, correct? We do have extensive hermeneutics and exegetical work that’s been done that is unmistakable for mystical experience, but what we don’t know necessarily is how these experiences were achieved in some of these major religions. Were the ancient Greeks drinking a psychedelic cocktail which they called the Kykeon or did they rely on Henosis, more natural means, to enter these type of experiences. That’s what we don’t have concrete evidence for.

  96. Einy says

    And still it brings none of us closer to not being an atheist because no matter the reason it has a natural explanation. Again, nothing that requires a belief in some being.

    It just solidifies our position that being an atheist is rational because any woo experience you have is either caused naturally in the brain or via some mind altering drug.

    Thanks!

  97. says

    @Einy

    And still it brings none of us closer to not being an atheist because no matter the reason it has a natural explanation. Again, nothing that requires a belief in some being.

    Well, I never said that words were the ultimate convincing factor here. William James held this attitude, as well, he concluded that while the revelations of the mystic hold true, they hold true only for the mystic; for others, they are certainly ideas to be considered, but can hold no claim to truth without personal experience of such. So, the primary convincing factor for this is the “complete” mystical experience in and of itself, which you’ve not had, and so therefore remain doubtful. Why don’t you come back and say something after you’ve undergone such an experience. Even Matt said that he’d sign up if they were recruiting confirmed atheists to volunteer in the research. Graham Hancock once challenged Richard Dawkins to try ayahuasca, but he wouldn’t do it. He gave an interesting response, however. The recording is on YouTube of Graham’s encounter with Dawkins. Dawkins has admitted not to having such experiences, so has Matt Dillahunty, not just in this clip, but on other occasions, too.

    It just solidifies our position that being an atheist is rational because any woo experience you have is either caused naturally in the brain or via some mind altering drug.

    And yet atheists who undergo this experience no longer identify with atheism after this event.

    Thanks!

    For what? For giving you a narrative to which you can deny all these things? Sure, okay.

  98. Einy says

    Since consciousness is a byproduct of a brain there is no reason at present time to think it’s exists independent of the brain. In fact when people become brain damaged or tumors grow in certain places on the brain it can have profound impact on personality traits. Further supporting the consciousness is dependent on the brain.

    Since every person who every tried to take the James Randi challenge had failed (including ones claiming they can leave their body) it demonstrates more likely than not, once again consciousness is a product of the brain. No woo needed to understand it.

  99. Einy says

    ** complete mystical experience= wild trip. I saw the video. It doesn’t take you closer to God. Those already spiritual it might reinforce what they already believe but for a someone skeptical most would take it for what it is, a wild trip.

    Does this mean an atheist could change their mind? No, of course not. People believe for all sorts of bad reasons. Even for me a complete mystical experience as defined in your video would not make me a believer. Why? Because I understand the drugs are altering my perception which means it can’t be trusted.

    Furthermore, there will be people that no longer believe in a god just as well based on the experience. If you are dating every atheist that went through the event became a believer I want the source from the medical stating that in the conclusions /findings. If it doesn’t, then the fact an atheist because a believer means nothing. How many atheists were tested and out of that number how many converted? Again I want to see your source. If you don’t have one then again it is meaningless.

  100. says

    @Einy

    Since consciousness is a byproduct of a brain there is no reason at present time to think it’s exists independent of the brain. In fact when people become brain damaged or tumors grow in certain places on the brain it can have profound impact on personality traits. Further supporting the consciousness is dependent on the brain.

    Since every person who every tried to take the James Randi challenge had failed (including ones claiming they can leave their body) it demonstrates more likely than not, once again consciousness is a product of the brain. No woo needed to understand it.

    The fact of the matter is neuroscience hasn’t explained away consciousness. It’s merely an assumption that it’s a byproduct of the brain. It may be, but there’s no concrete science to support that. There are other takes on consciousness that would imply otherwise. Are you familiar with Aldous Huxley’s “Reducing Valve of Consciousness“?

  101. twarren1111 says

    Kafei
    1. The plural of anecdote is not data
    2. Please provide a link to the paper from the journal you reference in #99
    3. You know how standardized tests often have a situation where two or three answers are a close variation on a them and the fourth answer is some outlandish thing you’ve never heard of? Remember, the purpose of testing is to discriminate who knows what. A good piece of test taking advice I got in my fourth year of medical school was that if I hadn’t heard of it by now, it’s probably the wrong answer. And this is mostly true: the outlandish answer is the ‘self-doubt’ answer you panic and change your original answer to while the three answers that are highly similar is where the correct response lies. What I’m trying to say, is that science is the process of repeatedly trying something, assuming you are doing it wrong every step of the way, where you then go the trouble to write down exactly what you did so that you can beg everyone to look over your work and show you where you messed up. In the process, your peers get knew ideas. Which means new hypotheses which means new tests which means new data. This is why scientific theory is fact. There are TRILLIONS of facts supporting evolution by natural selection. Every field in hard science adds new facts and NONE of these facts disagree with the theory. My point: even if this is an excellent paper in a peer-reviewed scientific paper, I am not aware of any data supporting any mystical philosophy behind religion.
    4. There is NO CONCRETE set of data, from multiple peer-reviewed scientific papers to support ANY aspect of CME and a shared perrenial ideology behind religion or religious experiences. It just doesn’t exist. Or a Nobel or two would have been won. What this means is, that in addition to point 3:
    5. Do not try to replace your misunderstanding of ESTABLISHED science with the idea of CONCRETE EVIDENCE like you do above.
    6. Be honest.

  102. says

    Einy

    ** complete mystical experience= wild trip. I saw the video. It doesn’t take you closer to God. Those already spiritual it might reinforce what they already believe but for a someone skeptical most would take it for what it is, a wild trip.

    Does this mean an atheist could change their mind? No, of course not. People believe for all sorts of bad reasons. Even for me a complete mystical experience as defined in your video would not make me a believer. Why? Because I understand the drugs are altering my perception which means it can’t be trusted.

    Just because you think you have an understanding that a drug is altering your perception, doesn’t mean that you’re going to come out of the experience with this opinion intact. You’re just assuming this is so. It’s quite one thing to read about a description of a “complete” mystical experience, it’s quite another thing to actually undergo this experience.

    Furthermore, there will be people that no longer believe in a god just as well based on the experience. If you are dating every atheist that went through the event became a believer I want the source from the medical stating that in the conclusions /findings. If it doesn’t, then the fact an atheist because a believer means nothing. How many atheists were tested and out of that number how many converted? Again I want to see your source. If you don’t have one then again it is meaningless.

    If you’re referring to the study with the atheists, it’s currently in progress. However, they have completed half of that research which Griffiths mentions in that particular lecture I linked to, now they’re doing the follow-up interviews, and still collecting data, but as soon as that study is done, I will definitely post it.

  103. Einy says

    They don’t have to explain all aspects of consciousness but it’s more than just an assumption. Evidence like I mentioned supports that it is a byproduct of the brain.

    Do you have any example of consciousness existing outside the brain that can be tested? No you don’t.

    You can’t just help putting in links can you? You must have a file open with hundreds of links you cut in paste while having conversations.

    Huxley wasn’t a neuroscientist and I am quite tired of your endless YouTube links. Unless you have scientific evidence showing consciousness is not connected with Brain I am not interested in what philosophers have to say.

    If science every shows that it is independent it will be at that time I can change my stance on the subject.

  104. twarren1111 says

    Kafei

    OMG! YOU MUST STOP. Your post #106 is so absurd it isn’t even wrong.

    When you are asleep, are you conscious or not?
    When you are in a coma are you conscious or not?
    Why were lobotomies performed?
    What part of the brain was destroyed?
    Have you heard of strokes?
    Have you heard of mirror neurons?
    Have you heard of Cotard, erotomania, thought insertion?
    Do you know why schizophrenics hear voices and don’t realize that they are their own voices?
    Are you aware that we can show up to 10 seconds before you are CONCIOUS of the IDEA which limb you will move?

    And I could go on for hours. You are the embodiment of the fallacy of incredulity.

  105. Einy says

    So you are commenting about a study regarding atheists without it being complete? So at present time you can’t give me a percentage of atheists that converted that I can verify myself reading the paper?

    Aren’t you premature spouting out that atheist converted? The% matters. The definition of what they are considering atheists in the group matters, so I will expect whatever link you provide (the paper not YouTube) will have this info.

  106. says

    The plural of anecdote is not data? That’s a common misquote. You said, “I am not aware of any data supporting any mystical philosophy behind religion.” Well, now you are. Go to the “Mystical Experience Chapter 2017” in this link, and you’ll find the paper you’ve requested. Refer to the paper to for my response to #4. As to your 5th entry, I’d point out this is on-going research, but lots has been established, and I linked you to that particular paper, and I wouldn’t be surprised at all if Dr. Roland Griffiths ends up winning a Nobel prize for this groundbreaking research.

  107. twarren1111 says

    Kafei

    Maybe this will help you:
    1. Strong nuclear force
    2. Weak nuclear force
    3. Electromagnetism
    4. Gravity

    That’s it. Those 4 forces are all that’s needed to explain everything we have thus far discovered about our world. There’s no woo. There’s no supernatural. By definition, we can’t test the supernatural using these 4 natural forces.

    You are using a religious based process to determine the validity of your evidence. All evidence is either true positive, false positive, true negative or false negative. Once you have all your data from one experiment regarding your one hypothesis that you are testing, the likelihood your hypothesis is valid is given by the formula TP/TP+FP. What the religious process does, is they confuse hypotheses for experiences, they don’t collect accurate data and they don’t care bc they are using faith to believe their hypothesis no matter the data. And how do they do this in mathematical terms? The shove their FP as close to 99% as they can and drive their TP rate as low as they can. That way, you can make any evidence, even if it’s wrong, support your idea.

    In complex systems (which is any system that refers to itself which basically means anything we deal with in our every day lives) there is no black or white. There is no 0 or 1. There are actually an infinity between the 0 and 1. And all the answers we get for a particular problem have to add up to 1. See?

    For your ideas to be valid, you need to start with a one sentence hypothesis. Then ask yourself how that can be tested. And then look to see if the answers are there.

    While yes, Michael Pollan and Aldous Huxley May have insights, you just can’t use them for the ideas you are claiming.

  108. Einy says

    @112 ask for Trixie and the complete mystical experience. It will cost you a hundred but well worth it. 😛

  109. says

    @twarren1111

    OMG! YOU MUST STOP. Your post #106 is so absurd it isn’t even wrong.

    When you are asleep, are you conscious or not?
    When you are in a coma are you conscious or not?
    Why were lobotomies performed?
    What part of the brain was destroyed?
    Have you heard of strokes?
    Have you heard of mirror neurons?
    Have you heard of Cotard, erotomania, thought insertion?
    Do you know why schizophrenics hear voices and don’t realize that they are their own voices?
    Are you aware that we can show up to 10 seconds before you are CONCIOUS of the IDEA which limb you will move?

    And I could go on for hours. You are the embodiment of the fallacy of incredulity.

    Yes, you’ve just listed the various reasons why people assume consciousness is generated by the brain. You care to present some actual scientific evidence for your case, or are you going to just spout examples that support your opinion?

    @buddyward

    What is a complete mystical experience and how do I know I am having one?

    Perhaps you’d like to hear one of these professionals explain just what a “complete” mystical experience entails.

    Dr. Robert Jesse on the “Complete” Mystical experience
    Dr. Roland Griffiths on “Complete” mystical experience
    Dr. Alex Belsar – “Complete” Mystical Experience

  110. twarren1111 says

    Of course, you should and could simply admit that you are using a theistic, religious based process to determine reality. That’s your out. Why? Bc that’s the truth of what you are doing. We are all telling you the same things you and these things bc u refused to learn from your peers is why you were banned from Rational Skeptic.

    So, once you wrap your head around and admit that you are believing things based upon faith, we are all then going to ask you just one thing: WHY?

  111. Lamont Cranston says

    Kafei – says

    It just solidifies our position that being an atheist is rational because any woo experience you have is either caused naturally in the brain or via some mind altering drug.

    And yet atheists who undergo this experience no longer identify with atheism after this event.

    Please cite documented evidence that validates this claim. Otherwise such a claim is just empty words that are basically worthless.

    The claim, as stated, provides for no exceptions. It did not say some atheists…, or there are atheists…,therefore we are asked to accept that this is the case for all atheists who have this experience. If that was not the intention of the claim, please correct the claim then provide evidence in support of the revised claim.

    Lamont Cranston

  112. says

    @twarren1111

    Of course, you should and could simply admit that you are using a theistic, religious based process to determine reality. That’s your out. Why? Bc that’s the truth of what you are doing. We are all telling you the same things you and these things bc u refused to learn from your peers is why you were banned from Rational Skeptic.

    I was banned from the RationalSkepticism forum because there were people there like yourself who are hell bent to dismiss things like this, to attempt to declare this as “not science” when it so obviously is. Jordan Peterson has commented on this sort of attitude, that atheists cringe whenever they intuit something that offends them, even if it’s legitimate science that’s taking place here. If you actually examine those posts there, you’ll find quite clearly that I did nothing wrong. It was simply a bunch of atheists that cried to the MODs to get me to leave. That was simply it. Nothing more, nothing less.

    So, once you wrap your head around and admit that you are believing things based upon faith, we are all then going to ask you just one thing: WHY?

    Who said anything about faith? All I’ve done here is merely reiterate precisely what’s been established by the scientific research that’s been done. Once again, nothing more, nothing less.

  113. buddyward says

    @Kafei

    Perhaps you’d like to hear one of these professionals explain just what a “complete” mystical experience entails.

    Dr. Robert Jesse on the “Complete” Mystical experience
    Dr. Roland Griffiths on “Complete” mystical experience
    Dr. Alex Belsar – “Complete” Mystical Experience

    Interesting, why can’t you define it? You have been using it very liberally in these discussions and yet you refer me to someone else to get its definition. How can we have a discussion on your position when you want me to read someone else’s?

  114. says

    Please cite documented evidence that validates this claim. Otherwise such a claim is just empty words that are basically worthless.

    The claim, as stated, provides for no exceptions. It did not say some atheists…, or there are atheists…,therefore we are asked to accept that this is the case for all atheists who have this experience. If that was not the intention of the claim, please correct the claim then provide evidence in support of the revised claim.

    Lamont Cranston

    That study is actually still in progress, but the survey study that Dr. Roland Griffiths mentions in the lecture is complete. That portion of the study is done, but they’re still assessing their laboratory volunteers with follow-up interviews where they further assess each volunteer, they even interview close family members, spouses, co-workers, acquaintances, it’s a very robust study that collects quite a lot data, but if you’re interested, I’d recommend hearing out Dr. Roland Griffiths lecture on it. It was the majority of atheists, not simply some, but that’s been the track record in all of these studies, that in most people volunteered, they can induce what they’re calling a “complete” mystical experience, and this is the very factor which causes these quantum changes in these individuals. These are life-changing experiences that will alter your personality forever.

  115. Monocle Smile says

    Quantum changes and Jordan Peterson. Do you leave the house with your pants on your head?

  116. says

    @buddyward

    Interesting, why can’t you define it? You have been using it very liberally in these discussions and yet you refer me to someone else to get its definition. How can we have a discussion on your position when you want me to read someone else’s?

    Because I didn’t coin this term. If I were to define it, I’d refer to precisely how it’s defining in the research. So, I offer these lectures, I even time-stamped where they begin to define what is meant by “complete” mystical experience for your convenience, and my own in the sense that I don’t have to re-type and paraphrase how they’re defining this term. All these links that I’ve posted here, by the way, I’ve seen in their entirety, so it’s not as though I’m pointing you to some content that I haven’t even witnessed myself. What’s wrong with hearing the professionals lay it out?

  117. paxoll says

    you’ve just listed the various reasons why people assume consciousness is generated by the brain.

    No, consciousness has been demonstrated to be generated by the brain because if you give the brain drugs, it changes consciousness which is what this whole stupid conversation is about. If you remove a persons brain, they cease to have consciousness. If you give a brain anesthesia consciousness goes away. If you physically damage the brain consciousness changes. There is not a single bit of evidence that consciousness or “mind” exists apart from a brain.

    This is exactly why your bullshit is a religion. It is a system of dogmatic beliefs that non-evidenced “divine”, “ultimate reality” bullshit exists.

  118. buddyward says

    @Kafei

    Because I didn’t coin this term. If I were to define it, I’d refer to precisely how it’s defining in the research. So, I offer these lectures, I even time-stamped where they begin to define what is meant by “complete” mystical experience for your convenience, and my own in the sense that I don’t have to re-type and paraphrase how they’re defining this term. All these links that I’ve posted here, by the way, I’ve seen in their entirety, so it’s not as though I’m pointing you to some content that I haven’t even witnessed myself. What’s wrong with hearing the professionals lay it out?

    There are many scientific terms which I have not coined myself but if I were to use the term in a discussion you can bet that I will be able to define them or at the very least present my understanding. The problem with using someone else definition of a specific term is that I may argue a specific point from another person’s description and you can say “oh no that is not my understanding.”

    I took a little bit of time and watched the one from Dr Robert Jesse. At the time stamp you presented he discussed that ranking 60% or higher in those criterions they consider as CME, but the question that comes to mind is why? Why those 8 criterions? One of the criterions is transcendence of space and time, how do you measure this? Can you please tell me what Robert Jesse mean by these?

  119. t90bb says

    LET ME SUMMARIZE JIMMY..

    PEOPLE HAVE POWERFUL EXPERIENCES THAT ARE CURRENTLY NOT EXPLAINABLE. BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT CURRENTLY EXPLAINABLE PEOPLE ASSUME GOD DUNNIT….. SO GOD EXISTS/////..

    THANKS JIMMY….NICE JOB

  120. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    @Kafei #103:

    Graham Hancock once challenged Richard Dawkins to try ayahuasca
    […]
    atheists who undergo this experience no longer identify with atheism after this event.

     
    @Einy #105:

    It doesn’t take you closer to God. Those already spiritual it might reinforce what they already believe but for a someone skeptical most would take it for what it is, a wild trip.

     
    Podcast: Ross and Carrie Find Their Rythmia (13x 1-hour series)

    Intro from part 1: Ross and Carrie accept an invitation to Rythmia Life Advancement Center […] through the power of Ayahuasca, a brew made from a hallucinogenic plant […] prepare for what we’re told is a miraculous experience that will change us forever.

     
    Excerpts from the end of part 13…
    (0:58:02)

    Ross: Okay. Creepiness: 10. Tententententen. […] The standing scorpion in the fire! My body being possessed. Automatic writing. Writhing about and biting things. Oh I saw dark creepy weird twisted stuff. Masks lit up in subtle purples, and the H.R. Giger patterning all over them- Oh creepy crepy s- The trickster guy, the joker grinning at me slowly. Oh it was so f*cking creepy. oh yeah. Now in hindsight, it’s deliciously creepy, but this tipped out the creepiness scales. Absolutely ’cause I was experiencing these things really close up. TEN. How ’bout you?
     
    Carrie: Y’know, I didn’t have the same experience. […] I was on something as strong or stronger (Ross: Oh yeah, the homeopathy thing. That drives up the pseudoscience rating as well.) […] I didn’t have any creepy visions. It seems like a lot of the time that you WERE having creepy experiences, I was like, reading To Kill a Mockingbird in my bed. So really not that creepy. 3?

    (1:04:27)

    Ross: That third night on ayahuasca was just this huge elation… and the sense of connectedness… and I could feel my brain going down all these rabbit trails of thought but not losing its stride like it normally does, not getting distracted. Even if the insights were superficial, just the sheer number of connections and that sense of all of those connections happening was REALLY cool.

  121. says

    @paxoll

    No, consciousness has been demonstrated to be generated by the brain because if you give the brain drugs, it changes consciousness which is what this whole stupid conversation is about. If you remove a persons brain, they cease to have consciousness. If you give a brain anesthesia consciousness goes away. If you physically damage the brain consciousness changes. There is not a single bit of evidence that consciousness or “mind” exists apart from a brain.

    Sure, we observe all of these things, but this doesn’t warrant justification to believe that consciousness is generated by the brain. That’s the point you’re missing. If you think it is, then please, point to the peer-reviewed and published paper which claims “Consciousness is generated by the brain.” Care to back up your opinion with evidence? Otherwise, you’re simply spouting a baseless opinion of yours. You’re basically ranting and defending for what is made fun of in this parody here.

    This is exactly why your bullshit is a religion. It is a system of dogmatic beliefs that non-evidenced “divine”, “ultimate reality” bullshit exists.

    Once again, Perennial philosophy is not a religion. The evidence for the divine according to the Perennial philosophy is the reliably reproducible, demonstrable, repeatable and extraordinary “complete” mystical experience.

  122. t90bb says

    JIMMY IS AS PUMPED UP ABOUT HIS MYSTICAL DELUSIONS AS THE FLAT EARTHERS ARE ABOUT THE EARTH BEING FLAT…….AND JUST ABOUT AS OPEN TO REASON..LOL….

    JIMMY HAD AN UNEXPLAINED EX[PERIENCE AND GAWD DAMMIT IT WAS SKY DADDY.

    COOL STORY BRAHHHH

  123. twarren1111 says

    Kafei
    I watched Dr. Jesse’s presentation. What do you take from his study? What does it tell you?

    There are many types of tools used to measure things. Often, when we are in a situation where we don’t know much, we will use a questionnaire. It is important to understand that there are different types of questionnaires in terms of how you can use the results. A good example in lung cancer is in the late 1990s the largest lung cancer study to date in stage 4 lung cancer was published. It’s primary goal was to compare the 4 most commonly used and best validated chemotherapy regimens to determine if one was better. That means survival. The second end point was side effect differences. This was an international study and involved over 2000 patients. We weren’t hopeful there would be any differences between the four arms. So, for the first time, a quality of life questionare was included. It was validated meaning the results could be quantified. Each patient filled out the questionare with each cycle of chemo. As feared, there was no clear winner among the 4 regimens though one was least toxic. But what was stunning was the quality of life results. What the questionare showed was that the most important thing was whether the patient was up and about more than half the day or not. If she was, treatment was ethical. If she was not, she would die faster with treatment. Soon, over about 5 years, this simple fact of life was shown to be true in every cancer and actually every disease. In other words, if your bed ridden, hospice is usually the wisest choice.

    These questionares that are used are clearly validated by many prior studies (that’s how when he showed results he could put error bars on the symptoms). And the word ‘mystical’ is just a word. It has NOTHING TO DO WITH GOD OR SUPERNATURAL OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. What Dr. Jesse shows is an excellently done study that is a teeny tiny baby step on the road to desmystifying psychelidic drugs.

    An excellent example in cancer was using Ritalin (the control drug in his study for mushrooms) to treat fatigue. Two excellent phase 3 studies were done in patients over the age of 50. One study was in cancer patients being observed and on no treatment. The second was in patients receiving therapy. Both studies were blinded: placebo vs 20mg of Ritalin (Dr. Jesse used twice the dose). The results in both studies were the same. 50% felt a lot better. Indeed, Ritalin (speed) is an upper and the fastest acting antidepressant. Of the 50% who didn’t respond, increasing the dose usually worked. So now Ritalin is used all the time.

    But, Jimmy, here’s the thing: NOTHING IN THE STUDY PRESENTED HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION OR GOD OR ANYTHING SUPERNATURAL. Yes, the questionares used are validated but they are primitive tools. Studies like the one presented are what are referred to as hypothesis generating studies. In clinical terms this is called a phase 2 study. Personally, one of the worst parts of religion, like the DARE program and the War on Drugs is that we should be much further along in our understanding of how these natural agents can be used. In general, things we evolved with (that don’t require processing like cocaine and opiates) could be powerful agents.

    But this has ZERO to do with god, religion, Aldous Huxley, perrenial philosophy. Do you see this?

  124. twarren1111 says

    Kafei
    I will watch the other two videos and respond later.
    And yes, the presentation by Dr. Jesse was excellent. I immediately thought about how psilocybin could be used to Palliati symptoms in cancer patients. Also, what about as an adjunct to treat depression.

    See? That’s hypothesis generation from a phase 2 study. Please stop confusing the term Complete Mystical Experience for more than what it is. It is simply a validated questionare to quantify people’s answers to questions related to their perception of the mental and physical state.

    Frankly, it’s a horrible name. Many things in science are horribly named; usually bc they are named before we know what they do.

    An excellent example is Lupus anticoagulant. It’s found in most people without lupus and it doesn’t cause bleeding; it causes clotting.

    The CME I’m inferring was developed in sociological research into religion previously. Please note that it is but one of like 4 questionares he uses.

    And yes, as I’ve shown to you with reviewing your first video, you are using FAITH by denying what the nicely presented evidence shows you to substantiate your theistic hypothesis by misinterpreting the ‘idea’ he is presenting so you can have your preformed conclusion to your concept of some supernatural n]being that underpays all religion and our misinterpretation of CME is why we have different religions but underneath is one deity.

    Do you understand now?

    And btw, EVERY PIECE OF DATA HE PRESENTED can be explained by chemicals causing changes via the 4 known forces in specific areas of the brain resulting in novel neurobiological circuits being activated in the patient’s. All of which, of course, beg for imaging studies to be done. But, as I stated, this is a small phase 2 study. It was cheap. If you had to do a phase 3 study, probably 200 patients per arm, dose escalation the cost of scans at about $3000 per scan means a study that will take a couple million and 2 years to complete.

    This is just another indictment on the use of religion to determine reality: we should be far far far more along on using THC, LSD, MDMA, mushrooms, etc in studies to figure out how to help people than we are.

    And do you know why we are so behind, ?Jimmy? It’s those god fearing Christians saying you can’t use my tax money to study getting high! F@#k those cancer patients!

  125. paxoll says

    Kafei
    That IS the scientific evidence. You don’t have scientific evidence for a “complete” mystical experience because, it is just subjective bullcrap, while the scientific evidence I mentioned is objectively demonstrated. This is the basis for rationality. There is evidence for one proposition and NONE for the other, and regardless which is actually true, there is no way to rationally believe the second. There might be a sky daddy watching everyone masturbate with plans of sending some spiritual representation of them to an eternal torment, but we have NO evidence for that and until sufficient evidence is provided it is completely irrational to believe it.

  126. says

    @t90bb

    LET ME SUMMARIZE JIMMY..

    PEOPLE HAVE POWERFUL EXPERIENCES THAT ARE CURRENTLY NOT EXPLAINABLE. BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT CURRENTLY EXPLAINABLE PEOPLE ASSUME GOD DUNNIT….. SO GOD EXISTS/////..

    THANKS JIMMY….NICE JOB

    That’s not how it’s described in the research. That’s simply how you’ve contorted the findings to avoid what the research actually entails. You see, God or Brahman or Allah, etc. are not the attributes that people make to this experience, they don’t associate with the divine, rather these are various ways to describe the inner experiential content of the “complete” mystical experience. It’s not something conjured or imagined, but rather something that is construed or interpreted from the experience itself. That’s more accurately how it’s described by this research.

    @buddyward

    There are many scientific terms which I have not coined myself but if I were to use the term in a discussion you can bet that I will be able to define them or at the very least present my understanding. The problem with using someone else definition of a specific term is that I may argue a specific point from another person’s description and you can say “oh no that is not my understanding.”

    I apologize, if I had more time, I’d spell it out here, but it’s just quite an elaborate definition. I suppose I’m just too lazy to re-type out all here when there’s these lectures available given by these professionals directly involved in this research that explain this stuff.

    I took a little bit of time and watched the one from Dr Robert Jesse. At the time stamp you presented he discussed that ranking 60% or higher in those criterions they consider as CME, but the question that comes to mind is why? Why those 8 criterions? One of the criterions is transcendence of space and time, how do you measure this? Can you please tell me what Robert Jesse mean by these?

    Well, it’s certainly not just the “time dilation of weed” that Matt’s talking about at 48:52 seconds into the show, and it’s definitely not how Matt Dillahunty attempted to describe it. He said that you have to have a “thought” and that “thought” takes time to have, and he went on to say that just saying it or acknowledging an experiencing of it is necessarily temporal and offered an example of Phil Session getting up and saying, “I feel completely transcended of all space and time.” I don’t know why Matt, if he’s unfamiliar with the research, is trying to hold forth on speaking about it. That’s not at all how these things happen. The assessment is done after the experience, and so when they attempt to recollect this experience, this is definitely one feature of it that is universally reported. And sure, it’s not very easy to understand on paper, especially if you haven’t had the experience. I’ll attempt to describe it, but Terence McKenna once made the point that English is too low dimensionally a language to even begin to describe it, but it nevertheless puts the horse of language through a lather.

    You see, what happens is a kind of panesthesia, if you will. As you are looking at this screen, your brain is perceiving a specific patterns in reality, what we might call consensus reality, I suppose. But now consider this for moment, what if you your brain at this instant decided to show you every single possible pattern it could manifest inside a phenomenon in consciousness such that you would have a very powerful experience of undergoing all experience at once. You are, from the vantage point of a unitive mystical state of consciousness, everything that ever was, everything that is, and everything that ever will be. This is what’s meant by “all time collapses into the present moment.” It’s as though your consciousness suddenly transformed into a Tralfamadorian-like perspective that is expressed in the writings of Kurt Vonnegut Jr. in his novel “Slaughterhouse-Five.” You see, from that vantage point, the experiential reality inside this phenomenon in consciousness is of the complete and pure experience of there being no time at all, and this is often phrased different ways such as transcending time and space or beyond dimensionality or a timelessness. You see, if you were undergoing all possibilities at once, from that point-of-view, there is no time. Everything is static, timeless, eternal, etc. And lo and behold, these are precisely the attributes of Brahman or of Allah or the Tawhid or The Father in Christianity or The All in Hermeticism, etc. These are all various metaphors for the “complete” mystical experience, and that’s how this ties in with the Perennial philosophy.

    As Ken Wilber has pointed out, It is not an everlasting lasting state, but rather a timeless state. Ken Wilber calls it the Totality of Nature, it’s as though you’re consciousness transforms into the very sum of existence itself. And while this has absolutely nothing to do with the supernatural in the sense of defying the laws of physics, I don’t think the supernatural ever meant anything of the sort at the very origins of the major religions. To quote a couple of excerpts from Ken Wilber’s book “Up From Eden”:

    According to the perennial philosophy, then, one’s real self or Buddha Nature is not everlasting and death-defying; it is rather timeless and transcendent. Liberation does not mean going on forever and forever and forever in some sort of gold-embossed heaven. It means a direct and immediate apprehension of the spaceless and timeless Ground of Being. This apprehension does not show a person that he is immortal — which he plainly is not. Rather, it shows him that where his psyche touches and intersects the timeless Source, he ultimately is all of a piece with the universe — so intimately, in fact, that at that level he is the universe. When a person rediscovers that his deepest Nature is one with All, he is relieved of the burdens of time, of anxiety, of worry; he is released from the chains of alienation and separate-self existence. Seeing that self and other are one, he is released from the fear of life; seeing that being and non-being are one, he is delivered from fear of death.

    The basic Nature of human beings, then, is an ultimate Wholeness. This is eternally and timelessly so—that is, true from beginning, true to the end, and most importantly, true right now, moment to moment to moment. This ever-present and ultimate Wholeness, as it appears in men and women we call Atman (after the Hindus), or Buddha-Nature (after Buddhists), or Tao, or Spirit, or Consciousness (super-consciousness), or less frequently (because of its loaded connotations) God.

    This is often true to those whom this experienced has occurred, that one will completely lose their fear of death. Michael Pollan speaks of his interview with Dinah Bazer, one of the cancer patients that volunteered in this research, and he wrote in an article that her fear of death was drastically diminished, and so the fact checkers interviewed Dinah to confirm this, and she said, “No! He got it all wrong! My fear didn’t diminish, it was completely extinguished!”

    Frithjof Schuon said it like this:

    It has been said more than once that total Truth is inscribed in an eternal script in the very substance of our spirit; what the different Revelations do is to “crystallize” and “actualize”, in different degrees according to the case, a nucleus of certitudes which not only abides forever in the divine Omniscience, but also sleeps by refraction in the “naturally supernatural” kernel of the individual, as well as in that of each ethnic or historical collectivity or of the human species as a whole.

    In Christianity, this vision of God is referred to as Theoria. In the Eastern Christian traditions, theoria is the most critical component needed for a person to be considered a theologian; however it is not necessary for one’s salvation. For these ancient mystics, an experience of God is necessary to the spiritual and mental health of every created thing, including human beings. Symeon the New Theologian made this the very principle of his teaching. As I mentioned, “Theologian” was not applied to Symeon in the modern academic sense of theological study; the title was designed only to recognize someone who spoke from personal experience of the vision of God. One of his principal teachings was that humans could and should experience theoria (literally “contemplation,” or direct experience of God).

    This is also emphasized in eastern philosophy of Buddhism as the Nirvana Sutra, even the Buddhists understood that this experience of what they call enlightenment or nirvana or Buddha-hood is a potential in every sentient being. Now, the scientists are waking up to this fact as well. They’re only rediscovering what the ancient mystics had always known.

  127. Monocle Smile says

    Unless it is possible to break physics and completely halt or undo entropy, there is no such thing as “timeless experience.” Thus, all references to it are nonsense. These people are talking nonsense. Maybe similar nonsense, but still nonsense.
    Still waiting for relevance to AXP, which you’ve been asked about like 150,000 times with no answer.
    Also, good job lying your ass off about RatSkep. The mods are extremely clear about why they warn and ban people.

  128. Thane McKinsey says

    Kafei , anyone who chooses to do so can mix a concoction of cactus juice with tobacco juice and then pour it into their nostrils. Then they can enter a dark cave which has a small hole at the far end that lets in sunlight which strikes a idol of some sort that has been chiseled into a stone. A religious person will call it a “mystical experience” while a non-religious person will call it a “wild trip”. Many people who try this experience will never what to do it again, I for one don’t ever want to ever try it in the first place. How gullible do you think we are? Dumb-ass!

  129. buddyward says

    @Kafei

    Well, it’s certainly not just the “time dilation of weed” that Matt’s talking about at 48:52 seconds into the show, and it’s definitely not how Matt Dillahunty attempted to describe it. He said that you have to have a “thought” and that “thought” takes time to have, and he went on to say that just saying it or acknowledging an experiencing of it is necessarily temporal and offered an example of Phil Session getting up and saying, “I feel completely transcended of all space and time.” I don’t know why Matt, if he’s unfamiliar with the research, is trying to hold forth on speaking about it. That’s not at all how these things happen. The assessment is done after the experience, and so when they attempt to recollect this experience, this is definitely one feature of it that is universally reported. And sure, it’s not very easy to understand on paper, especially if you haven’t had the experience. I’ll attempt to describe it, but Terence McKenna once made the point that English is too low dimensionally a language to even begin to describe it, but it nevertheless puts the horse of language through a lather.

    You see, what happens is a kind of panesthesia, if you will. As you are looking at this screen, your brain is perceiving a specific patterns in reality, what we might call consensus reality, I suppose. But now consider this for moment, what if you your brain at this instant decided to show you every single possible pattern it could manifest inside a phenomenon in consciousness such that you would have a very powerful experience of undergoing all experience at once. You are, from the vantage point of a unitive mystical state of consciousness, everything that ever was, everything that is, and everything that ever will be. This is what’s meant by “all time collapses into the present moment.” It’s as though your consciousness suddenly transformed into a Tralfamadorian-like perspective that is expressed in the writings of Kurt Vonnegut Jr. in his novel “Slaughterhouse-Five.” You see, from that vantage point, the experiential reality inside this phenomenon in consciousness is of the complete and pure experience of there being no time at all, and this is often phrased different ways such as transcending time and space or beyond dimensionality or a timelessness. You see, if you were undergoing all possibilities at once, from that point-of-view, there is no time. Everything is static, timeless, eternal, etc. And lo and behold, these are precisely the attributes of Brahman or of Allah or the Tawhid or The Father in Christianity or The All in Hermeticism, etc. These are all various metaphors for the “complete” mystical experience, and that’s how this ties in with the Perennial philosophy.

    As Ken Wilber has pointed out, It is not an everlasting lasting state, but rather a timeless state. Ken Wilber calls it the Totality of Nature, it’s as though you’re consciousness transforms into the very sum of existence itself. And while this has absolutely nothing to do with the supernatural in the sense of defying the laws of physics, I don’t think the supernatural ever meant anything of the sort at the very origins of the major religions. To quote a couple of excerpts from Ken Wilber’s book “Up From Eden”:

    The question that I have is really simple. What is mystical and why ranking over 60% on those criterions is considered mystical. You see, in order for anyone to accept those metrics the term mystical would first have to be defined. Only then can anyone accept or reject whether or not it is justified to assert that those criterions are valid metrics for CME.

    With regards to transcendence of space and time, as I have said, it is one of the criterion used not the only measure. I asked, how do you measure this criterion? From what you have described, the subjects are asked after the fact of being under the influence of a mind altering substance. Which means that they are heavily depending on the subject’s interpretation of their experience while their mind is altered.

    How do I know the feeling that all time had collapsed? How do I know that my brain is showing me all the pattern it could perceived? Not once in my entire life have I experience this and if it is indeed possible. And thus I will not be able to tell you whether or not I have had this experience. If I were to imagine that right now being shown all possible patterns all at once would result in something that is complete darkness. Does that mean that if I go into a dark room or close my eyes, I am having a mystical experience?

    Telling us the criterion which they used to determine CME does not give us a definition of mystical. Because we do not know if those criterions are valid measures that determines CME. So please, define mystical and from that definition please connect how seeing patterns validates CME.

  130. says

    @twarren1111

    I will watch the other two videos and respond later.
    And yes, the presentation by Dr. Jesse was excellent. I immediately thought about how psilocybin could be used to Palliati symptoms in cancer patients. Also, what about as an adjunct to treat depression.

    That’s awesome that you appreciate the content. Your fellow atheists here haven’t been so appreciative, so I appreciate your appreciation. Whether they disagree with the research or not, it is nevertheless quite interesting.

    See? That’s hypothesis generation from a phase 2 study. Please stop confusing the term Complete Mystical Experience for more than what it is. It is simply a validated questionare to quantify people’s answers to questions related to their perception of the mental and physical state.

    One thing to point out is that these these are questionnaires that have been extensively studied over decades, they have demonstrated cross-cultural and cross-religious tradition generalizability, and they’ve been refined throughout all the studies that have been done relative to these mystical experiences. There’s also survey data that they’re building to further assess these experiences, and they’re quite interesting you may want to review that as well.

    Frankly, it’s a horrible name. Many things in science are horribly named; usually bc they are named before we know what they do.

    The name has definitely been the source of great confusion. It’s probably why I’ve had to call Matt over and over attempting to clarify these things, and I really do hope he finally looks into this stuff, and perhaps I can call again and we can discuss his new understanding. But what do you call it? I mean, Richard M. Bucke called it “Cosmic consciousness,” Abraham Maslow used “peak experiences,” Romain Rolland once attempted to inform Freud of these experiences, and he called it the “oceanic feeling,” Pierre Teilhard de Chardin called it the “Omega Point,” Terence McKenna called it the “Gaian Mind” or “The Transcendental Object at the End of Time,” the Australian aboriginies call it the “Dream Time,” Carl Jung called it the “collective unconscious,” it is also known in psychological parlance as “ego death.” I mean, perhaps no one has coined the perfect term for it, and I believe the only reason why “mystical experience” stuck, is because that just so happened to be the term William James popularized. Could we use a neologism? Perhaps, it may clear up the semantic confusion regarding these topics.

    An excellent example is Lupus anticoagulant. It’s found in most people without lupus and it doesn’t cause bleeding; it causes clotting.

    The CME I’m inferring was developed in sociological research into religion previously. Please note that it is but one of like 4 questionares he uses.

    Yes, I’m aware that they use various measures to gauge these experiences. I don’t know if you know this, but I’ve been following this research quite diligently for about a decade, and initially I didn’t realize it had a richer history that went all the way back through decades of research to the work of William James.

    And yes, as I’ve shown to you with reviewing your first video, you are using FAITH by denying what the nicely presented evidence shows you to substantiate your theistic hypothesis by misinterpreting the ‘idea’ he is presenting so you can have your preformed conclusion to your concept of some supernatural n]being that underpays all religion and our misinterpretation of CME is why we have different religions but underneath is one deity.

    I don’t think the notion of a deity has absolutely anything to do with the research or the Perennial philosophy. The way the divine is defined within the context of Perennialism is of a panentheism (not to be confused with pantheism). In other words, we’re not simply calling the universe “God.” This is a very common misconception that I see made all the time.

    Do you understand now?

    I’ve understood these things.

    And btw, EVERY PIECE OF DATA HE PRESENTED can be explained by chemicals causing changes via the 4 known forces in specific areas of the brain resulting in novel neurobiological circuits being activated in the patient’s. All of which, of course, beg for imaging studies to be done. But, as I stated, this is a small phase 2 study. It was cheap. If you had to do a phase 3 study, probably 200 patients per arm, dose escalation the cost of scans at about $3000 per scan means a study that will take a couple million and 2 years to complete.

    They have major funding from various sources such as M.A.P.S., Usona Institute, Heffter Institute, etc. It’s exciting times to live in, definitely.

    This is just another indictment on the use of religion to determine reality: we should be far far far more along on using THC, LSD, MDMA, mushrooms, etc in studies to figure out how to help people than we are.

    These studies on all these things happening right now. It’s happening so quickly that I don’t know what’s going to be legalized first, psilocybin or cannabis, country-wide. Cannabis might be first, because I don’t think they’re going to legalize psilocybin to be sold over-the-counter at your local pharmacy or even on the shelves somewhere. I think they’re going to have to figure out how to utilize these things for the everyday joe-schmo who just needs a little help with his anxiety. That’s the challenge now.

    And do you know why we are so behind, ?Jimmy? It’s those god fearing Christians saying you can’t use my tax money to study getting high! F@#k those cancer patients!

    Definitely. You know, people in forums often think that I have some vendetta for atheists, and that’s simply not true. I prefer to speak to atheists, because they’re usually quite pedantic, they like things to be precise, and it’s forced me to clean up my language big time. I realized I couldn’t be so loose, and I had to curb the hyperbole, and be very careful with my output. So, I’ve appreciated that, but in some instances, there’s a kind of hyper-skepticism and hyper-pedanticism that is expressed by some of the atheists I meet that really makes these sort of discussions almost impossible, and that’s what I’m trying to clear up. I think if we can have sincere, mature, and intellectually honest discussions on these matters, then maybe we can get somewhere. But if someone is anti-theist from the start, then the dialogue that unfolds is probably not going to be the most constructive and productive one, and perhaps you’ve witnessed that here. But I’m not out for atheists, you see, I believe there’s a lot of theists out there that are going to have to come to terms with the science as well.

    Anyway, that’s all I got for tonight. G’night all.

  131. Thane McKinsey says

    Kafei I would agree that pouring cactus juice and tobacco juice into one’s nostrils is a life altering experience.

  132. says

    @buddyward

    The question that I have is really simple. What is mystical and why ranking over 60% on those criterions is considered mystical. You see, in order for anyone to accept those metrics the term mystical would first have to be defined. Only then can anyone accept or reject whether or not it is justified to assert that those criterions are valid metrics for CME.

    With regards to transcendence of space and time, as I have said, it is one of the criterion used not the only measure. I asked, how do you measure this criterion? From what you have described, the subjects are asked after the fact of being under the influence of a mind altering substance. Which means that they are heavily depending on the subject’s interpretation of their experience while their mind is altered.

    How do I know the feeling that all time had collapsed? How do I know that my brain is showing me all the pattern it could perceived? Not once in my entire life have I experience this and if it is indeed possible. And thus I will not be able to tell you whether or not I have had this experience. If I were to imagine that right now being shown all possible patterns all at once would result in something that is complete darkness. Does that mean that if I go into a dark room or close my eyes, I am having a mystical experience?

    What happens when your TV displays all the RGB inputs? You see a white light, right? Well, I’m not saying that’s the answer to the NDE or what the “complete” mystical experience entails, but it’s an analogy to get a sense of what happens. Of course, there’s no darkness, if your consciousness showed you all possibilities, you’d see a profound inner light which Christians referred to as the Tabor light or uncreated light, because it’s not something that manifests in the physical reality, it is rather a revelation in consciousness. And so to ask, “How do I know the feeling of all time had collapsed?” Trust me, if this actually happened to you, you wouldn’t be asking such a question. You’d simply know. You only ask because you haven’t had the experience, and so you speculate about it, that’s why you called it a “darkness,” but there’s no darkness in this experience.

    Telling us the criterion which they used to determine CME does not give us a definition of mystical. Because we do not know if those criterions are valid measures that determines CME. So please, define mystical and from that definition please connect how seeing patterns validates CME.

    Reading a description of a CME is reading a description of a full-blown mystical experience.

    @Thane McKinsey

    Kafei , anyone who chooses to do so can mix a concoction of cactus juice with tobacco juice and then pour it into their nostrils. Then they can enter a dark cave which has a small hole at the far end that lets in sunlight which strikes a idol of some sort that has been chiseled into a stone. A religious person will call it a “mystical experience” while a non-religious person will call it a “wild trip”. Many people who try this experience will never what to do it again, I for one don’t ever want to ever try it in the first place. How gullible do you think we are? Dumb-ass!

    Well, whether you call it a trip or a full-blown CME, you’re talking about the same thing. You do realize none of the volunteers in the research use the word “mystical experience” to actually describe what they experienced, right? Likewise, none of the ancient mystics used the word “mystical experience” to describe this experience, rather depending on the religion they are familiar with, a Buddhist might say nirvana, a Toaist might say the “flowing of the Tao,” a Christian might say a “union with the divine,” a Hindu might say “the absorption into Brahman,” etc. These are all ways of expressing the CME. Jordan Peterson even calls it a “trip,” and it’s important that you must have the “trip,” otherwise you won’t undergo the consequences that follow that trip.

    @Monocle Smile

    Unless it is possible to break physics and completely halt or undo entropy, there is no such thing as “timeless experience.”

    We’re not speaking of a human being literally transcending time and space, but rather a timeless state of mind. There is an unmistakable experiential phenomenon that is universally described as a sense of “transcending time and space.” This is something even you would say, if you actually had this experience. I’ve posted in at Rational Skepticism about an atheist who volunteered in Dr. Rick Strassman’s research who described this aspect as “time froze.”

    Thus, all references to it are nonsense. These people are talking nonsense. Maybe similar nonsense, but still nonsense. Still waiting for relevance to AXP, which you’ve been asked about like 150,000 times with no answer.
    Also, good job lying your ass off about RatSkep. The mods are extremely clear about why they warn and ban people.

    I’ve given my answer, but I’m not quite sure you’ve understood it. Regarding RatSkep, the ban was completely unjust. I wasn’t warned prior to the ban, I was simply banned. There was some users there that tried to call out the MODs for the unfair ban, but they criticized for doing so. The posters there were anti-theists, they hate religion, and by extension, this research. None of them wanted to accept it as legitimate science, when it, in fact, is.

  133. Thane McKinsey says

    Kafei The finishing touch to quantify your “mystical experience” of cactus and tobacco juice in your nostrils is a nose-bone through your nose.
    He-he-he.

  134. Monocle Smile says

    Cry me a river. I’ll piss in it.
    You’re still lying about RatSkep, as you were warned by the mods a few times. It’s amazing that you think we’re all just too stupid or something to do our due diligence.

    We’re not speaking of a human being literally transcending time and space, but rather a timeless state of mind. There is an unmistakable experiential phenomenon that is universally described as a sense of “transcending time and space.”

    Meaningless twaddle. I could say I feel like a unicorn, but since unicorns don’t exist and there’s seemingly no way I could know what it’s like to be a unicorn, then I’m talking nonsense, aren’t I?
    Since you’re posting here butthurt about being banned on other fora (several others, it seems) and quoting people nobody should give two shits about (I mean, Jordan Peterson? Seriously?), I’m probably going to find something else to do.

  135. says

    @Thane McKinsey

    Kafei The finishing touch to quantify your “mystical experience” of cactus and tobacco juice in your nostrils is a nose-bone through your nose.
    He-he-he.

    You should hear Terence McKenna speak on the virola snuffs of South Brazil. It’s DMT resin from the bark of the Anadenanthera peregrina tree which is rich in N,N-DMT. They pack it in a bamboo, and one guy will blow it up your nostril, because of course, you wouldn’t do this to yourself. So, you fall back, salivate, your eyes water, you’re in incredible pain, you’re wishing you were dead, and by the time you can reassess yourself, your friend has packed the bamboo to prepare it for the other nostril.

  136. says

    @Monocle Smile

    Cry me a river. I’ll piss in it.
    You’re still lying about RatSkep, as you were warned by the mods a few times. It’s amazing that you think we’re all just too stupid or something to do our due diligence.

    I wasn’t warned by the MODs at all. They had warm me on something I didn’t do, because I was falsely accused of plagiarizing when I first posted on the forums back in 2014 on the “Ground of All Being” thread, but I don’t associate that with what happened in 2018, and it wasn’t associated with that. Again, I wasn’t warned, I was just banned because of social outcry.

    Meaningless twaddle. I could say I feel like a unicorn, but since unicorns don’t exist and there’s seemingly no way I could know what it’s like to be a unicorn, then I’m talking nonsense, aren’t I?
    Since you’re posting here butthurt about being banned on other fora (several others, it seems) and quoting people nobody should give two shits about (I mean, Jordan Peterson? Seriously?), I’m probably going to find something else to do.

    I’m completely unfazed by your lack of enthusiasm. You’ve never shown any intellectual signs of grasping this stuff, not before, not now, especially if you’re comparing this stuff to a false analogy such as this unicorn example of yours. The difference being, the CME is universally reported and can be recognized in the scriptures of all the world’s great faith traditions, unicorns cannot. If anyone is butt-hurt here, it is only yourself. You’ve nothing to contribute to this dialogue, because you already doubt the very evidence which this science has produced.

  137. buddyward says

    @Kafei

    What happens when your TV displays all the RGB inputs? You see a white light, right? Well, I’m not saying that’s the answer to the NDE or what the “complete” mystical experience entails, but it’s an analogy to get a sense of what happens. Of course, there’s no darkness, if your consciousness showed you all possibilities, you’d see a profound inner light which Christians referred to as the Tabor light or uncreated light, because it’s not something that manifests in the physical reality, it is rather a revelation in consciousness.

    How do you know this? If all possible patterns are presented why would darkness be excluded?

    And so to ask, “How do I know the feeling of all time had collapsed?” Trust me, if this actually happened to you, you wouldn’t be asking such a question. You’d simply know. You only ask because you haven’t had the experience, and so you speculate about it, that’s why you called it a “darkness,” but there’s no darkness in this experience.

    This is a non-answer. If I know how it feels, I would not be asking you. This demonstrate that you actually do not know what it is that you are talking about. You cannot even define what it is that you are describing and yet expect others to accept it. I am speculating about it because you are not providing any information at all.

    Reading a description of a CME is reading a description of a full-blown mystical experience.

    This is yet another non-answer. Face it, with all the word salad you are tossing around it all boils do this. You are incapable of defining mystical which is the key concept that holds your arguments together. Failing to do so means that whatever follows fails as well as we do not even have any fundamental basis for your arguments.

    Based on the answers you have given, I really do not think that you are interested in an honest conversation. You are simply making some bold assertions with nothing to support it.

  138. says

    @buddyward

    How do you know this? If all possible patterns are presented why would darkness be excluded?

    Because I’ve had a CME for myself.

    This is a non-answer. If I know how it feels, I would not be asking you. This demonstrate that you actually do not know what it is that you are talking about. You cannot even define what it is that you are describing and yet expect others to accept it. I am speculating about it because you are not providing any information at all.

    I have provided plenty of information. The visionary phenomena that is associated with these type of experiences have been referred to as “form constants” in the scientific literature, but in religious scripture, as I’ve mentioned, Christian mystics have called it the “Tabor light,” this is the divine light generated from within, in eastern philosophy, it is even called enlightenment. I’ve mentioned this, so I’m not sure why you’re saying I haven’t provided any information. Perhaps you’ve been overlooking it.

    This is yet another non-answer. Face it, with all the word salad you are tossing around it all boils do this. You are incapable of defining mystical which is the key concept that holds your arguments together. Failing to do so means that whatever follows fails as well as we do not even have any fundamental basis for your arguments.

    It’s quite elaborately defined in the research. Perhaps you haven’t listened to the lectures given by professionals regarding these experiences that I’ve posted throughout this thread.

    Based on the answers you have given, I really do not think that you are interested in an honest conversation. You are simply making some bold assertions with nothing to support it.

    I’m definitely interested in sincere discussion on these topics. Are you? Because it seems as though you’ve completely overlooked the information I have, indeed, provided.

  139. buddyward says

    @Kafei

    You, yourself have not defined mystical. You keep referring to the other people’s lectures for definition and when asked for details your answer is “You would simply know.” That is not providing information that is a cop out response.

    You describe transcendence in time and space as being presented all possible patterns that my brain can perceive how do you know that my brain will exclude darkness as a pattern. Your claim to experiencing CME would therefore be different than mine because all the possible patterns that my brain can perceive would be different from what your brain can perceive. So stating that darkness would be excluded is a claim that is not justified as you have no way of knowing what my brain can perceive.

    The fact that you failed to provide evidence to many of your claim despite numerous requests shows that you are not interested in an honest discussion. If you are you would not have ignored those requests and presented your evidence. The fact that you are more than willing to respond with “You would simply know.” when ask how I would know shows that you are not interested in an honest discussion. Simply asserting that you are does not make it so because your actions says otherwise.

  140. says

    jane claims to have had a “complete mystical experience”.
    robb claims to have had a “complete mystical experience”. (but he’s knowingly lying).

    how do we determine if either is telling the truth?

  141. says

    @buddyward

    You, yourself have not defined mystical. You keep referring to the other people’s lectures for definition and when asked for details your answer is “You would simply know.” That is not providing information that is a cop out response.

    I’ve said that I wasn’t going to transcribe what these professionals quite clearly describe in these lectures. Recall, that this experience is universal, hearing a description there would be no different from hearing my own. Not only that, it feels tedious for me, I’ve done in many threads over and over again, I am in no mood to do it now. I’d rather focus on more important points, if you really want a description of this experience, I highly recommend listening to those lectures. What you have to understand is that these aren’t your ordinary subjective experiences, they have been described as rather impersonal or perhaps transpersonal in the sense that the “complete” unitive mystical experience has nothing to do with your personal history, with the detritus of your personal and unique subconscious, etc. That’s why these experiences are called ego-dissolving or ego death. And most people who find their way to this experience usually stumble across it in various fashions, be it sheer curiosity like myself or being at the end of your rope, and contemplating suicide as in the case of Alex Grey or Amber Lyon. If you’d really like to hear my own experience, I could link you to threads throughout the internet that I’ve explained all this on, if you really want to hear my own experience, that is. Just say the word. However, it’s completely unnecessary for you to grasp what this stuff is about, there’s plenty of information that I’ve posted throughout the 100+ posts of this thread alone.

    You describe transcendence in time and space as being presented all possible patterns that my brain can perceive how do you know that my brain will exclude darkness as a pattern.

    This might be a misconception you have. Darkness is not necessarily a colour or even pattern, darkness is simply the absence of light. The distinction I would make is that if the TV is off, it’s like consciousness being off, and you experience this every single night when you fall asleep. This experience of “no experience.” That’s one way to phrase it, but what we may be referring to is simply perhaps a semantic argument/confusion. Of course, there’s dreams, but I’m speaking of deep sleep where when you wake up you simply cannot recall. That’s why I used this analogy of the TV, because the TV can display, very much like the projection of our own consciousness as we perceive reality before us, a stream of images and sounds of patterns that constitute a certain tv show, an ad, a movie, etc. Just like your consciousness right now constitutes a certain pattern of reality which you call your life. Alan Watts called this spot-light consciousness which he contrasted with the flood light consciousness. So, if the TV was to show all the patterns at once, all the RGB signals would light at once, but you see, that’s not to say that darkness it not part of the pattern. For light isn’t displayed in pure light, just like the RGB lit signal on the TV isn’t pure light, it’s a very rapid vibration of light/dark. However, our minds are very prone to recognize the active portion of a vibration, we emphasize the crest represented as the lit RGB, vs. the trough, the unlit RGB, which when these are wavering in rapid motion, it appears to us as seemingly pure light, just as we see white on a screen, but you see, you won’t get any light at all without this necessary relationship between light/darkness. To offer a very elaborate quote of Watts’…

    “The Buddhists have a view of the universe which is based, of course, on ancient Hindu ideas that the wheel is of vast proportions. There isn’t only this Solar System world. It’s so striking how the Buddhists and the Hindus differed from medieval Christians who thought that there was just this one little world and our planet was the center of it and there were the various spheres outside, but they’ve always thought in terms of their being untold myriads of worlds not only vast outwardly in space going on and on and on forever, but also vast inwardly, so that in every speck of dust there are innumerable cosmoses full of beings of all kinds, full of gods and events and wars and even galaxies and things, inside a grain of dust, in every direction in every way, they see myriads of universes and they go on forever and ever. And, although, we think of the rhythm of the universe we are in, in Hindu cosmology as being based on the Kalpa. It manifests for a period called a Kalpa, four million, three hundred and twenty thousand years and then it’s withdrawn for an equivalent period and then manifests again. There are tiny Kalpas governing the universes in a grain of dust which come and go with from our point of view unbelievable rapidity and then also far beyond our conception there are immense Kalpas where cosmos is unthinkable in dimensions come and go, and so are always the question about this view of the universe is “Are you hooked on it or aren’t you?” Are you doing it with delight or is it a drag? Are you surviving, you see, or are you going on living every day because you feel bound to or you’re too afraid to die or are you living every day because you really will to? Now, they see, you see, the universe as always playing a game with itself. Sometimes it knows what it is. That there is nothing to be afraid of at all! Nothing, nothing, nothing! That you are it! You are the indestructible sunyata. This word literally means voidness, but it doesn’t mean voidness in the sense of nothing, of just negative, it means voidness in the sense of ultimate consciousness. You can’t, you see, if you would consider what would God, what sort of an impression of himself would he have. He obviously wouldn’t look at his hands like we do and see he’s an old man with a beard sitting on the throne. God as the kind of ultimate, ultimate then which there is no whicher, outside which there is nothing, which has no edges. He wouldn’t, therefore, look like a ball, he wouldn’t look like a cube, he wouldn’t look like a body — there will be no way at all of conceiving the final Self of all selves. So that’s why it’s represented as voidness, as total transparency, as a kind of ultimate space in which everything can happen. That’s what there is. That’s what we all are at root. Only it plays that it’s not that, that it’s all of our separate existences and it goes in, therefore, and it gets into trouble on purpose, but when you get into real trouble on purpose, and then you forget that you got there on purpose and you can complain because you, you’re in a trap, and then you want out, you see. So then there’s a way out, but how exciting. This goes on endlessly because it’s a game of now you see it now you don’t, hide-and-seek, and that corresponds to the basic impulse of life which, as we know it physically, is vibration. It’s a wave system where there are crests of the waves and troughs. So if you take what we call sound, and you listen to sound carefully, sound is not sound. Sound is sound/silence. It goes on and off, on and off, on and off, on and off and where you say you hear the noise, that’s the crest of the wave, where you don’t hear the noise, that’s the trough, but you won’t get any sound at all without both crest and trough. Pure sound doesn’t exist, and so according to the basic ideas that underlie Hinduism and Buddhism, all being is like that. It is coming and going. It is, therefore, not only life… Life is life/death. What we call reality is not merely a solid, it’s solid/space. Here it is, here it isn’t. It vibrates… and the illusion that is involved in this is that it looks as if you could have the one without the other. It looks sometimes as if we could have nothing without something. That nothing would triumph and that everything would disappear and it wouldn’t happen anymore. At other times, it looks as if the solid element were the only real one, but that alone is there. So all beings, all sentient beings as the Buddhist call them, constantly scare themselves that it might stop and that there would be nothing. In other words that the dark side might win. So they play a game which is that the white side must win. They play it against the dark and have an extraordinary adventure doing just that, and you can get involved in this and you can get anxious and you can get all your hair raised, and just terrifying… but it’s a joke. Right down to its funny heart, and when you wake up and you find out that there never was anything in the dark side to be afraid of, nothing is left but to laugh, so that’s what the that’s what Buddhism is about.”

    Alan W. Watts

    Your claim to experiencing CME would therefore be different than mine because all the possible patterns that my brain can perceive would be different from what your brain can perceive. So stating that darkness would be excluded is a claim that is not justified as you have no way of knowing what my brain can perceive.

    Well, hopefully these examples I’ve given have cleared that up. If not, I have another way to attempt to explain this experience, and if you listen to that link, I try to point out that these early mystics did, in fact, interpret “The Father” of the Holy Trinity in contrast to mother nature, as all the possible permutations that could possibly express itself in mother nature.

    The fact that you failed to provide evidence to many of your claim despite numerous requests shows that you are not interested in an honest discussion. If you are you would not have ignored those requests and presented your evidence. The fact that you are more than willing to respond with “You would simply know.” when ask how I would know shows that you are not interested in an honest discussion. Simply asserting that you are does not make it so because your actions says otherwise.

    “You would simply know” is definitely pointing to an extant phenomenon in consciousness. That’s the entire point. The Jains would refer to this experience as Kevala jñāna, I’ve spoken how this is referred to as the Nirvana Sutra in Buddhist philosophy or Theoria in Christian mysticism, etc., etc., etc.

  142. says

    @buddyward

    You, yourself have not defined mystical. You keep referring to the other people’s lectures for definition and when asked for details your answer is “You would simply know.” That is not providing information that is a cop out response.

    I’ve said that I wasn’t going to transcribe what these professionals quite clearly describe in these lectures. Recall, that this experience is universal, hearing a description there would be no different from hearing my own. Not only that, it feels tedious for me, I’ve done in many threads over and over again, I am in no mood to do it now. I’d rather focus on more important points, if you really want a description of this experience, I highly recommend listening to those lectures. What you have to understand is that these aren’t your ordinary subjective experiences, they have been described as rather impersonal or perhaps transpersonal in the sense that the “complete” unitive mystical experience has nothing to do with your personal history, with the detritus of your personal and unique subconscious, etc. That’s why these experiences are called ego-dissolving or ego death. And most people who find their way to this experience usually stumble across it in various fashions, be it sheer curiosity like myself or being at the end of your rope, and contemplating suicide as in the case of Alex Grey or Amber Lyon. If you’d really like to hear my own experience, I could link you to threads throughout the internet that I’ve explained all this on, if you really want to hear my own experience, that is. Just say the word. However, it’s completely unnecessary for you to grasp what this stuff is about, there’s plenty of information that I’ve posted throughout the 100+ posts of this thread alone.

  143. speedofsound says

    @kafei
    “And yet atheists who undergo this experience no longer identify with atheism after this event.”

    I had one of these experiences, without drugs, at age 15, and never budged from atheism. Alan Watts was the source and the guide for this event. I’ve taken acid over 100 times and experienced some other drug induced experiences that lasted days beyond the drugs action in my body. Still atheist. So what do you mean by this?

    I think the difference is that whatever mindset or world view you have laying around before and during these experiences its going to color the kind of noetic deepities that you discover.

  144. speedofsound says

    I would however classify what happened to me as a mystical experience. It fits the description in the literature. So what makes it a ‘mystical’ experience? First, it fits the description in the literature! 🙂 I agree that it gets tedious to keep redefining it or trying.

    a. Sensory experience turns up it’s volume to about max.
    b. Self-evaluation has the feeling of being unbiased and outside of the self.
    c. Long lasting (days, weeks) changes to how you are thinking happen immediately.

    My hypothesis is that a significant change occurred in the area of my brain that I had come to trust as my source of who, what, and where I am in the universe occurred. That is a pathological state much like having them jam 50,000 volts into your temples. But even electro-shock therapy has it’s benefits. It simply offers you a persistent brain state where self-evaluation can work with a new paradigm. Now that is ‘all it is’ but the issue here between bleevers and non-bleevers is that the latter want to discount the experience entirely. Trivialize it. For those of us who have had it, that kind of pooh-paw treatment is offensive. For the typical bleever the problem is the injection of all sorts of woo of a multitude of descriptions. That pisses us atheists off.

    So I am a little unique, maybe, in that both sides are really pissing me off.

  145. Einy says

    @150…I think there is misunderstanding. It is not a question that people are experiencing these mystical states, however you want to define it. I for one believe people are having them. The part that is being discounted is that these experiences are some how indication of the “divine” (which i asked kafei define multiple times) whatever that actually means of god etc….That is the part where there is a giant freaking leap.

    I am sure these experiences can have a profound impact on people but that does not mean it is god or kafei warped definition of it. Kafei has stated the conclusions of these studies support his Perrenial Philosophy and i read the conclusion of some of the papers and that was not stated at all. In fact the papers stated on the onset the purpose was not to test the validity of the experiences themselves. So it evidence are stories of people on drugs and that is supposed to be concrete evidence? Seriously?

    Anyway hope that clarifies it.

  146. speedofsound says

    My belief, and it is only that at this point, is that the study will find that these states, no matter how they are induced, create a persistent brain state that allows for radical changes in what one believes. That’s fucking dangerous when you think about it. Unless! Unless you have a trained psychologist guiding them to get something positive out of the experience like addiction treatment etc.

    What the woo crowd is not admitting is that it is bleeding obvious that you are dangerously vulnerable in these states to brainwashing. Hence all the connections to religious insights and the effect it has had on religion. With this research we are discovering the science behind false beliefs.

  147. buddyward says

    @Kafei

    I’ve said that I wasn’t going to transcribe what these professionals quite clearly describe in these lectures. Recall, that this experience is universal, hearing a description there would be no different from hearing my own. Not only that, it feels tedious for me, I’ve done in many threads over and over again, I am in no mood to do it now. I’d rather focus on more important points, if you really want a description of this experience, I highly recommend listening to those lectures. What you have to understand is that these aren’t your ordinary subjective experiences, they have been described as rather impersonal or perhaps transpersonal in the sense that the “complete” unitive mystical experience has nothing to do with your personal history, with the detritus of your personal and unique subconscious, etc. That’s why these experiences are called ego-dissolving or ego death. And most people who find their way to this experience usually stumble across it in various fashions, be it sheer curiosity like myself or being at the end of your rope, and contemplating suicide as in the case of Alex Grey or Amber Lyon. If you’d really like to hear my own experience, I could link you to threads throughout the internet that I’ve explained all this on, if you really want to hear my own experience, that is. Just say the word. However, it’s completely unnecessary for you to grasp what this stuff is about, there’s plenty of information that I’ve posted throughout the 100+ posts of this thread alone.

    Oh geez you just don’t get it. I am going to try one more time and this will be it for me.

    Let’s say we are talking about a Complete Car Experience, I asked you “What is a car.” You then give me 3 videos that describes the criterions used to determine a Complete Car Experience. I go back to you and tell you the videos does not describe a car and how do the criterions determine a car? In one of the videos it said that there is this feeling of acceleration, I asked you what is this feeling of acceleration? I never had a car and I do not know that feeling. Your response is “You would simply know it.” At the end of all this you still haven’t told me what a car is and all you are doing is distracting us with all of these links and references for us to spend time on and watch. What this demonstrate to us is that you have no clue as to what you are talking about because when asked a question all you do is refer to a link and when asked for further question we get some useless tautology responses like:

    Reading a description of a CME is reading a description of a full-blown mystical experience.

    If God is capable of creating the universe why can’t he just show up in my kitchen table so that we can have a cup of coffee and discuss things.

    Let me take a page from your logic:

    God does not exist, because I took Tylenol last night and I simply know. Reading about how God does not exist is reading about how completely God does not exist.

  148. speedofsound says

    For me since the big pre-drug SE/ME it has been 53 years but here is what it was like as near as I can remember. I was reading what amounts to a zen koan. A thought experiment. I had this ‘got it’ feeling where all fo a sudden I GOT IT. I felt like my brain had been slapped. I started to walk or glide around and I was thinking rapidly but feeling very calm. It was luminous in that all my senses were heightened and pleasurable. Light was much brighter than it should be. For the next three days I looked at things involving myself as if I were outside of them floating above. Not literally mind you, but I had a perspective change that put myself into a bigger picture where I had no skin in the game. I was self-critical in a relaxed and unattached way. I felt ‘peace and love’? I guess. It was this feeling of everything is just perfect the way it is. Everyone was perfect. Even my mother-fucker alcoholic mess of a dad.

    Now I think what happened is that the junction ‘tween the temporal and parietal lobes, that interconnected area where our sense of self in the world is learned and imprinted, got massively disturbed by a prolonged epileptic signal. Enough to take it out of commision for a few days. If you review the literature on this; psychedelics, stress, and disease related epilepsy have similar effects in the temporal and parietal lobes and the junction. There is enough evidence here to warrant some thinking on the matter.

  149. t90bb says

    I have what some may call mystical or special experiences every sunday afternoon as i watch the intro roll to TAE. TAE has given me many trans-formative experiences. Sometimes when watching the hosts splash reality on callers like Jimmy..i get goose bumps. My perspective on life has been legitimately impacted by the show. And I am. and remain an atheist….

    Also….I have a friend who insists he had a mystical encounter with God while on a long distance run. He never heard of the runners high..and too this day uses the experience as basis for his theism.

  150. t90bb says

    And also….just a thought…..

    Jimmy might be looking for a justification to continue drug use. What better rationalization to keep using. He has admitted to being in recovery in the past. No judgement as I self disclosed earlier.

  151. speedofsound says

    One thing only hard core addicts such as myself know is that psychedelics are not the kind
    drugs we are addicted to.

  152. t90bb says

    157…people can claim to have powerful experiences on drugs other than psychedelics……i suspect people that are addicts would find the idea that continues use has legitimate and useful purpose. The mind has some great defense mechanisms…….drugs and booze are not bad….the are the doorway to truth lol……

  153. Nazzul says

    Great show! As somone who has a number of “mystical” experinces without the use of drugs, I can see why someone believes that what they experinced is real especially when they lack the necessary tools to understand reality and why you can’t just rely on your perception. We as a species seem to fall into supersition and assumptuon easily.

  154. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    If you think it is, then please, point to the peer-reviewed and published paper which claims “Consciousness is generated by the brain.”

    For example, see the work by Dan Dennett.

    Once again, Perennial philosophy is not a religion. The evidence for the divine according to the Perennial philosophy is the reliably reproducible, demonstrable, repeatable and extraordinary “complete” mystical experience.

    Evidence that people have mystical experiences is not evidence that there is a divine .. something .. that is somehow part of causing those mystical experiences. Rather, it’s just evidence that people have mystical experiences.

    There is an unmistakable experiential phenomenon […]

    False. Some of the others others are granting this absurd proposition, but I’ll attack it straight on. People can be mistaken about their personal experiences, even while they’re having them. I don’t just mean “people can be mistaken about what is logically entailed by their experiences”. I also mean “people can be mistaken about what they’re experiencing”. Memory is fallible. Cognitive biases abound. Just because you have a mind does not mean that you are an infallible expert about it.

    For example, while in that experiential state, you might feel that it stretches on forever, e.g. timeless, but that doesn’t mean that you are accurately knowing or remembering or reporting your own experiences. What “feels like” timeless experience may not be timeless experience.

    By way of analogy, someone has an experience that “feels like” to the person to be the most possible blissful experience possible. However, they could be wrong. There could be a more blissful experience. Just because it “feels like” something to them does not mean that they’re infallible about it. Similarly, just because it “feels like” that the experience goes on forever doesn’t mean that it actually goes on forever.

    To expand your understanding of what it means to experience something, I suggest the following paper by Dan Dennett on the difficulty of defining qualia.
    https://www.uoguelph.ca/~abailey/Resources/Dennetta.pdf

    And of course, just because you have certain inner experiences says almost nothing about what really exists outside of your mind in our shared reality. That deductive leap is wholly unjustified at the moment.

  155. speedofsound says

    @t90bb

    No no. Psychedelics do not do the trick for us addicts. I have had much experience with this. Coke, Crack, Meth, alcohol, have instant gratification you just don’t get with psychedelics. The best you can hope for with those god damned pussy drugs is to get ‘cured’ or some shit like that.

  156. says

    @speedofsound

    I would however classify what happened to me as a mystical experience. It fits the description in the literature. So what makes it a ‘mystical’ experience? First, it fits the description in the literature! 🙂 I agree that it gets tedious to keep redefining it or trying.

    a. Sensory experience turns up it’s volume to about max.
    b. Self-evaluation has the feeling of being unbiased and outside of the self.
    c. Long lasting (days, weeks) changes to how you are thinking happen immediately.

    You said you’d classify your experience as a mystical experience as it’s defined in the scientific literature, then you went on to define it in your own terms. What I think you don’t realize is that these professionals have defined these mystical states of consciousness as to be consistent with the Perennial philosophy. So, for you to say that you’ve had such a mystical experience, but don’t attach these other things, is simply a denial of how these things are concretely defined in this research. Perhaps you haven’t thought about it enough, and I really believe that’s the case that’s going on with atheists who admit to having such experience. I address this very topic on a reddit thread I’ve posted. This is also something that Dr. Bill Richards has spoken about. He talks about an atheist volunteer in this psilocybin research he’s involved in who after this experience said, “I’m an atheist…. and I saw God, I’ll have to think about that.” That’s precisely what’s happening, these atheists haven’t thought it through. They simply don’t realize that these mystical states of consciousness have been defined in accordance with the Perennial philosophy.

  157. says

    @EnlightenmentLiberal

    For example, see the work by Dan Dennett.

    I’ve read Dennett when I was going through a hard determinist phase just following my initial CME. He doesn’t refer to any concrete evidence that the brain is the generator of consciousness.

    False. Some of the others others are granting this absurd proposition, but I’ll attack it straight on. People can be mistaken about their personal experiences, even while they’re having them. I don’t just mean “people can be mistaken about what is logically entailed by their experiences”. I also mean “people can be mistaken about what they’re experiencing”. Memory is fallible. Cognitive biases abound. Just because you have a mind does not mean that you are an infallible expert about it.

    For example, while in that experiential state, you might feel that it stretches on forever, e.g. timeless, but that doesn’t mean that you are accurately knowing or remembering or reporting your own experiences. What “feels like” timeless experience may not be timeless experience.

    I agree that people’s memories can be faulty at times, but what I don’t think you’re understanding is that these various characteristics are all reported by these volunteers who meet criteria for the so-called “complete” mystical experience, and this is not a blurry experience or an experience where one’s memory begins to fail. I want to take a quote from Alfred, Lord Tennyson, describing in a letter the “waking trance” that descended upon him from time to time since his boyhood:

    All at once, as it were out of the intensity of the consciousness
    of individuality, the individuality itself seemed to dissolve
    and fade into boundless being; and this was not a confused
    state, but the clearest of the clearest, the surest of the surest;
    utterly beyond words, where death was an almost laughable
    impossibility; the loss of personality (if so it were) seeming
    no extinction, but the only true life.

    Michael Pollan actually puts a number of these sort of entries in his book “How to Change Your Mind: What the New Science of Psychedelics Teaches Us About Consciousness, Dying, Addiction, Depression, and Transcendence,” and people often describe the experience this way, as if it was the point in their life where they had the most clarity occur. Alan Watts has also spoken on these experiences as what he calls a “natural satori,” and again, he describes it as being a state of mind in which everything is absolutely clear, you suddenly see that there isn’t a grain of dust in the whole universe that’s in the wrong place, and this is a very common theme of these experiences. This clarity William James referred to as the “noetic quality” of the mystical experience, also referred to as “intuitive knowledge” by Dr. Bill Richards.

    @buddyward

    If God is capable of creating the universe why can’t he just show up in my kitchen table so that we can have a cup of coffee and discuss things.

    Perhaps the reason you can’t grasp how the divine is defined within the context of the Perennial philosophy is because you’re assuming God is a “he” that can materialize himself before you, and sit down on a table, and explain all this to you to make it all clear. I’ve said throughout this thread that the God or the divine is of a panentheistic description quite akin to Spinoza’s God, and that is not to be confused with pantheism (that the universe is God). This is saying something quite different than that, and this description draws from the original etymology found within the scripture of all the world’s major religions. The Paradise of Muslims is, of course, symbolically synonymous with the Promised Land of the Jews, the kingdom of God (or heaven) of the Christians, the gnosis of the Gnostics, moksha of the Hindus and Jains, nirvana of the Buddhists, and being accord with the Tao of the Taoists. They are all metaphors for the experience of mystical enlightenment. But while mystical experience appears to have been the genesis of all the major religions, and their vital center or essence, mysticism, itself, is not a religion.

  158. Einy says

    You keep using the word divine and asked in your words what do you mean.

    “the divine is of a panentheistic description quite akin to Spinoza’s God”—– useless.

    So again when you use the word divine what do YOU mean? It should be a simple answer.

  159. speedofsound says

    No True Scotsman Kafei? I get this shit a lot when I try and discuss what happened to me with bleevers.

  160. Einy says

    @165 you should know by now when it comes to Kafei everyone else is wrong or when you point out the flaws he denies them.

  161. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    To Kafei
    Let’s see if we can structure this discussion. I’m coming in fresh, e.g. I don’t really recall anything from you before.

    What’s your point? Do you have a point? Do you have somewhere that you’re trying to reach? Life after death? Materialism is false? We can influence the work around us with happy thoughts via some magic extraordinary influence? I don’t know what you mean by perennial philosophy. I’ve looked it up, but I still rather that you describe why it matters to you.

    Typically, I really only understand claims in terms of what those claims entail in terms of experiments and observations. For example, for someone to say that Big Bang theory is true, I understand what they mean because it’s a very detailed model of reality with loads of predictions about future experiment and observation. I don’t understand yet if you have anything similar for your claims.

  162. says

    @Einy

    You keep using the word divine and asked in your words what do you mean.

    “the divine is of a panentheistic description quite akin to Spinoza’s God”—– useless.

    So again when you use the word divine what do YOU mean? It should be a simple answer.

    If it were a simple answer, this thread wouldn’t be dragging on and on. Here’s what I’ll do, I’m going to take several excerpts in which Ken Wilber attempts to describe the divine as it’s defined within the context of the Perennial philosophy. If it takes him several paragraphs to do this, then it should be clear that this isn’t something easily put into words. Spinoza wrote extensively on it, books worth. This is not something, obviously, that can be described on a mere bumper sticker. This is from the introductory portion of “Up From Eden” written by Ken Wilber, and reading this actually clarified my own thoughts on my CME, and honestly, I don’t think I could phrase it better than Wilber. He’s had much more time than I to dwell on it, that’s quite patently so. So, perhaps we can start from there, and see where that goes.

    Unfortunately, the orthodox Western conception of God is not simply as a psychological Other (separated from us by unconsciousness) or a temporal Other (separated from us by time), or an epistemological Other (separated from us by ignorance). Rather, Jehovah—God of Abraham and Father of Jesus—is an ontological Other, separated from us by nature, forever. In this view, there is not just a temporary line between man and God, but an unmovable boundary and barrier. God and man are forever divorced—they are not, as in Hinduism and Buddhism, ultimately one and identical. Thus, the only contact between God and man is by airmail: by covenant, by pact, by promise. God promises to watch out for his chosen people, and they in turn promise to worship no other gods but him. God promises his only begotten Son to his peoples, and they promise to embrace his Word. God’s contact is by contract. Across this gaping abyss God and man touch by rumor, not by absolute union (samadhi), and thus history was viewed as the unfolding of this contract, this covenant, through time.

    But there is a much more sophisticated view of the relation of humanity and Divinity, a view held by great majority of the truly gifted theologians, philosophers, sages, and even scientists of various times. Known in general as the “perennial philosophy” (a name coined by Leibniz), it forms the esoteric core of Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Sufism, and Christian mysticism, as well as being embraced, in whole or part, by individual intellects ranging from Spinoza to Albert Einstein, Schopenhauer to Jung, William James to Plato. Further, in its purest form it is not at all ante-science but, in a special sense, trans-science or even ante-science, so that it can happily coexist with, and certainly complement, the hard data of the pure sciences. This is why, I believe, that so many of the truly brilliant scientists have always flirted with, or totally embraced, the perennial philosophy, as witness Einstein, Schrödinger, Eddington, David Bohm, Sir James Jeans, even Isaac Newton. Albert Einstein put it thus:

    “The most beautiful emotion we can experience is the mystical. It is the sower of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger… is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms—this knowledge, this feeling, is at the center to true religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only I belong to the ranks of devoutly religious men.”

    The essence of the perennial philosophy can be put simply: it is true that there is some sort of infinite, some type of Absolute Godhead, but it cannot properly be conceived as a colossal Being, a great Daddy, or a big Creator set apart from its creations, from things and events and human beings themselves. Rather, it is best conceived (metaphorically) as the ground of suchness or condition of all things and events. It is not a Big Thing set apart from finite things, but rather the reality or suchness or ground of all things.

    A scientist who guffaws at the existence of any sort of “Infinite” but unashamedly marvels aloud at the “laws of Nature (with a capital N)” is unwittingly expressing religious or numinous sentiments. According to the perennial philosophy, it would be acceptable to speak symbolically of the absolute as the Nature of all natures, the Condition of all conditions (did not St. Thomas say that God is natura naturans?). But notice, in this regard, that Nature is not other than all life forms: Nature is not something set apart from mountains, eagles, rivers, and people, but something that, as it were, runs through the fibers of each and all. In the same way, the Absolute—as the Nature of all natures—is not something set apart from all things and events. The Absolute is not Other, but, so to speak, is sewn through the fabric of all that is.

    In that sense, the perennial philosophy declares that the absolute is One, Whole, and Undivided—very like what Whitehead called “the seamless coat of the universe.” But note that “seamless” does not mean “featureless.” That is, to say that Reality is One is not to say that separate things and events don’t exist. When a scientist says, “All things obey the laws of Nature,” he doesn’t mean, “Therefore, no things exist.” He means that all things subsist in a type of balanced Wholeness, a wholeness he calls Nature and whose laws he attempts to describe. As a first approximation, the perennial philosophy describes the Ultimate as a seamless whole, an integral Oneness, that underlies but includes all multiplicity. The Ultimate is prior to this world, but not other to this world, as the ocean is prior to its waves, but not set apart from them.

    This concept is not, as a logical positivist would have it, a meaningless or nonsensical concept—or rather, it is no more meaningless than a scientific reference to Nature, to the Cosmos, to Energy, or to Matter. Just because the ultimate, the integral Wholeness, does not exist as a separate and perceptible entity, does not mean it doesn’t exist. Nobody has ever seen Nature—we see trees and birds and clouds and grass, but not some specific thing we can isolate and call “Nature.” Likewise, no scientist has ever seen Matter—he sees what he calls “forms of matter”; but nobody, no scientist, layman, or mathematician, has ever seen a pure bit of just matter. Yet I doubt any scientist would say, “Therefore, matter doesn’t exist.” All sorts of intuitive and nonscientific certainties lead to the scientist to state that matter is real—and, in fact, for the great majority of scientists, matter is the only real, even though they have never seen it, touched it, or tasted it.

    The same thing, of course, holds for Energy, since mass and energy are interconvertible. No scientist has ever seen energy, even though he talks of “forms of energy,” such as thermodynamic energy, nuclear binding energy, and so on. Although he has never seen just pure and plain energy, he certainly doesn’t say, “Thus energy isn’t real.” But long ago, a geologist and philosopher Ananda Coomaraswamy saw precisely the crux of this “scientific assumption”: “This is the predicament of the positivist or the ‘nothing-morist,’ that in acknowledging the reality only of that which can be grasped, he is attributing ‘reality’ to things that cannot be grasped because they never stop to be, and is driven, in spite of himself, to postulate the reality of some such abstract entity as ‘Energy’—a word that is nothing but one of the names of God.”

    Keeping in mind that the perennial philosophy defines God not as a Big Person but as the Nature of all that is, then Coomaraswamy is obviously quite right, and it matters not one whit whether we say all things are forms of Nature, forms of Energy, or forms of God. I am not, of course, trying to prove the existence of the Absolute—I am simply suggesting it is no more improbable than the existence of matter, energy, nature, or the cosmos.
    Now, when a person believes that the ultimate is some sort of Big Parent who watches after all his offspring as a shepherd over sheep, then that person’s notion of religion is petitionary. That is, the aim of his religion is simply to receive protection and benediction from that god, and in turn to worship and give thanks. He lives in accord with what he believes to be that god’s laws, and generally hopes, as a reward, to be able to liver forever in some sort of heaven. The aim of this type of religion, quite simply, is to be saved. Saved from pain, saved from suffering, saved from evil, saved ultimately from death.

    I have no quarrel with all that—it simply forms no part of the perennial philosophy whatsoever, and thus is not a view I am here advancing. For the “religion” of the perennial philosophy is quite different from salvation. Since the Ultimate is here pictured as an integral Wholeness, the aim of this type of religion is not to be saved but to discover that wholeness. And thus, to find oneself whole as well. Albert Einstein called it the removal of the optical delusion that we are separate individuals set off from the Whole:

    “A human being is part of a whole, called by us “Universe”; a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest—a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest us. our task must be to free ourselves from this prison” -Albert Einstein

    According to the perennial philosophy, this “discovery of Wholeness,” the removal of the optical delusion of separateness, is not merely a belief—it is not a dogma one accepts on mere faith.For if the Ultimate is indeed a real integral Wholeness, if it is equally part and parcel of all that is, then it is also completely present in men and women. And, unlike rocks, plants, or animals; human beings—because they are conscious can potentially discover this Wholeness. They can, as it were, awaken to the Ultimate. Not believe in it, but discover it. It would be as if a wave became conscious of itself and thus discovered that it is one with the entire ocean—and thus one with all waves as well, since all are made of water. This is the phenomenon of transcendence—or enlightenment, or liberation, or moksha, or wu wei, or Satori. This is what Plato meant by stepping out of the cave of shadows and finding the Light of Being; or Einstein’s “escaping the delusion of separateness.” This is the aim of Buddhist meditation, of Hindu yoga, and of Christian mystical contemplation. That is very straightforward; there is nothing spooky, occult, or strange in any of this—and this is the Perennial philosophy.

    At the very base of men and women’s consciousness, then, lies the ultimate Wholeness. But—and here is the rub—it is not, in the vast majority, consciously realized. Thus, the ultimate whole is, for most souls, an Other. It is not, like the Jehovah, an ontological Other—it is not set apart, divorced, or separated from men and women. Rather, it is a psychological Other—it is ever-present, but unrealized; it is given, but rarely discovered; it is the Nature of human beings, but lies, as it were, asleep in the depths of the soul.

    The basic Nature of human beings, then, is an ultimate Wholeness. This is eternally and timelessly so—that is, true from beginning, true to the end, and most importantly, true right now, moment to moment to moment. This ever-present and ultimate Wholeness, as it appears in men and women we call Atman (after the Hindus), or Buddha-Nature (after Buddhists), or Tao, or Spirit, or Consciousness (super-consciousness), or less frequently (because of its loaded connotations) God.

    Because Atman is an integral Whole, outside of which nothing exists, it embraces all space and time, and is itself therefore spaceless and timeless, infinite and eternal. Infinity does not, for the perennial philosophy, mean Extremely Big—it means that spaceless ground which underlies and includes all space, much as a mirror underlies but embraces all its reflected objects. Likewise, eternity does not mean a Very Long Time—it means that timeless ground which underlies and includes all time.

    According to the perennial philosophy, then, one’s real self or Buddha Nature is not everlasting and death-defying; it is rather timeless and transcendent. Liberation does not mean going on forever and forever and forever in some sort of gold-embossed heaven. It means a direct and immediate apprehension of the spaceless and timeless Ground of Being. This apprehension does not show a person that he is immortal — which he plainly is not. Rather, it shows him that where his psyche touches and intersects the timeless Source, he ultimately is all of a piece with the universe — so intimately, in fact, that at that level he is the universe. When a person rediscovers that his deepest Nature is one with All, he is relieved of the burdens of time, of anxiety, of worry; he is released from the chains of alienation and separate-self existence. Seeing that self and other are one, he is released from the fear of life; seeing that being and non-being are one, he is delivered from fear of death.

    Thus, when one rediscovers the ultimate Wholeness, one transcends — but does not obliterate — every imaginable sort of boundary, and therefore transcends all types of battles. It is a conflict-free awareness, whole, blissful. But this does not mean that one loses all egoic consciousness, all temporal awareness, that one goes into blank trance, suspends all critical faculties and wallows in oceanic mush. It simply means that one rediscovers the background of egoic consciousness. One is aware of the integral Wholeness and of the explicit ego. Wholeness is not the opposite of egoic individuality, it is simply its Ground, and the discovery of the ground does not annihilate the figure of the ego. On the contrary, it simply reconnects it with the rest of nature, cosmos, and divinity. this is not an everlasting state, but a timeless state. With this realization, one does not gain everlasting life in time, but discovers that which is prior to time.

    Now according to the perennial philosophy, the rediscovery of this infinite and eternal Wholeness is man’s single greatest need and want. For not only is Atman the basic nature of all souls, each person knows or intuits that this is so. For every individual constantly intuits that his prior Nature is infinite and eternal, All and Whole — he is possessed, that is, with a true Atman intuition. But, at the same time, he is terrified of real transcendence, because transcendence entails the “death” of his isolated and separate-self sense. Because he won’t let go and die to his separate self, he cannot find true and real transcendence, he cannot find that larger fulfillment in integral Wholeness. Holding on to himself, he shuts out Atman; grasping only his ego, he denies the rest of the All.

    Yet notice immediately that men and women are faced with a truly fundamental dilemma: above all else, each person wants true transcendence, Atman consciousness, and the ultimate Whole; but, above all else, each person fears the loss of the separate self, the “death” of the isolated ego. All a person wants is Wholeness, but all he does is fear and resist it (since that would entail the “death” of his separate self). And there is the dilemma, the double bind in the face of eternity.

    Because man wants real transcendence above all else, but because he will not accept the necessary death of his separate-self sense, he goes about seeking transcendence in ways that actually prevent it and force symbolic substitutes. And these substitutes come in all varieties: sex, food, money, fame, knowledge, power — are all ultimately substitute gratifications, simple substitutes for true release in Wholeness. This is why human desire is insatiable, why all joys yearn for infinity — all a person wants is Atman; all he finds are symbolic substitutes for it.

    Even an individual’s feeling of being a separate, isolated, and individual self is a mere substitute for one’s true Nature, a substitute for the transcendent Self of the ultimate Whole. Every individual correctly intuits that he is one nature with Atman, but he distorts that intuition by applying it to his separate self. He feels his separate self is immortal, central to the cosmos, all-significant. That is, he substitutes his ego for the Atman. Then, instead of finding timeless wholeness, he merely substitutes the wish to live forever; instead of being one with the cosmos, he substitutes the desire to possess the cosmos; instead of being one with God, he tried himself to play God.” – “Up From Eden – Ken Wilber”

  163. Lamont Cranston says

    Kafai said:

    The claim, as stated, provides for no exceptions. It did not say some atheists…, or there are atheists…,therefore we are asked to accept that this is the case for all atheists who have this experience. If that was not the intention of the claim, please correct the claim then provide evidence in support of the revised claim.

    Lamont Cranston

    That study is actually still in progress, but the survey study that Dr. Roland Griffiths mentions in the lecture is complete. That portion of the study is done, but they’re still assessing their laboratory volunteers with follow-up interviews where they further assess each volunteer, they even interview close family members, spouses, co-workers, acquaintances, it’s a very robust study that collects quite a lot data, but if you’re interested, I’d recommend hearing out Dr. Roland Griffiths lecture on it.

    So your original claim is incorrect. Any revised claim about “most” atheists would also be currently unsupported by evidence which you admit is not available. Also, any claim about people changing from atheist to theist or theist to atheist has to deal with the often directly demonstrated fact that people claim certain spiritual status without any good reason (often just that that was the way they were raised, or it is because of the particular country in with they were born). People can be either atheist or theist for emotional reasons that may have no rational basis.

    I have listened to the lecture. The doctor has established that magic mushrooms affects the emotional state of people and seems to have a persistent effect for an extended period of time. He has established the we can certainly have a biological basis for how we “feel.” This is not news. What is news is the degree of effect of this particular drug.

    Then the doctor goes out on a limb with his own opinions about spirituality which are not supported by his data nor any other evidence. This just establishes that otherwise rational people can develop irrational beliefs. They are not immune to them any more than anyone else.

    Addictive behaviors are often driven by the same emotional issues that drive depression and anxiety. Again, not news. So it is equally not surprising that a drug that affects one’s emotional status will affect addictive behavior especially when combined with Cognitive Behavior Therapy as was done.

    There is no doubt that these people “feel” better. However, this has nothing to do with proving whether these things like “unity” or “connectedness of everything” etc. are real. The doctor clearly has a predisposition toward the idea that a “mystical realm” is more real than reality and this unfairly biases the opinions he expresses relative to the data he is obtaining.

    Lamont Cranston

  164. says

    @speedofsound

    No True Scotsman Kafei? I get this shit a lot when I try and discuss what happened to me with bleevers.

    I address this in post #72 to StonedRanger, and also in #84, and more elaborately towards your case in that reddit thread I mentioned to you. Did you go through the reddit thread at all? So, I’m definitely not invoking some type of “No true Scotsman” fallacy. I want to make it clear that this these states of consciousness have absolutely nothing to do with all with a “No true Scotsman” fallacy.

  165. says

    @Lamont Cranston

    I have listened to the lecture. The doctor has established that magic mushrooms affects the emotional state of people and seems to have a persistent effect for an extended period of time. He has established the we can certainly have a biological basis for how we “feel.” This is not news. What is news is the degree of effect of this particular drug.

    Well, I never said it was “new.” I’ve repeatedly said that these scientists are merely re-discovering what has always been known by ancient mystics as the Perennial philosophy. And I wouldn’t characterize these experiences as simply “feeling.” These professionals are quick to point out that this experience isn’t simply about “wonderful emotion” or “big feelings,” and they’re certainly not trying to knock that, but that is definitely not what they’re talking about when they speak on the “complete” mystical experience.

    Then the doctor goes out on a limb with his own opinions about spirituality which are not supported by his data nor any other evidence. This just establishes that otherwise rational people can develop irrational beliefs. They are not immune to them any more than anyone else.

    Which specific portion of the lecture are you referring to?

    Addictive behaviors are often driven by the same emotional issues that drive depression and anxiety. Again, not news. So it is equally not surprising that a drug that affects one’s emotional status will affect addictive behavior especially when combined with Cognitive Behavior Therapy as was done.

    These aren’t just subtle changes in behavior, these are quantum changes in behavior. We’re seeing people turn their lives completely around on a dime. These are vastly life-changing experiences for the majority of the volunteers.

    There is no doubt that these people “feel” better. However, this has nothing to do with proving whether these things like “unity” or “connectedness of everything” etc. are real. The doctor clearly has a predisposition toward the idea that a “mystical realm” is more real than reality and this unfairly biases the opinions he expresses relative to the data he is obtaining.

    Well, this phrase that volunteers endorse of the experience being “more real than everyday waking consciousness” is not because they’ve been shown some kind of delusion. Aldous Huxley had this concept of what he called the “Reducing Valve of Consciousness. That consciousness actually is filtering reality and so when you have this experience, these filters dissolve, and you experience a higher bandwidth of reality, if you will.

  166. paxoll says

    The essence of the perennial philosophy can be put simply: it is true that there is some sort of infinite, some type of Absolute Godhead, but it cannot properly be conceived as a colossal Being, a great Daddy, or a big Creator set apart from its creations, from things and events and human beings themselves. Rather, it is best conceived (metaphorically) as the ground of suchness or condition of all things and events. It is not a Big Thing set apart from finite things, but rather the reality or suchness or ground of all things.

    Does anyone see anything different in this definition than that of pantheism

    Known in general as the “perennial philosophy” (a name coined by Leibniz), it forms the esoteric core of Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Sufism, and Christian mysticism, as well as being embraced, in whole or part, by individual intellects ranging from Spinoza to Albert Einstein, Schopenhauer to Jung, William James to Plato.

    a fallacious appeal to authority (which they would probably object to being coopted into).

    Because Atman is an integral Whole, outside of which nothing exists, it embraces all space and time, and is itself therefore spaceless and timeless, infinite and eternal.

    a baseless assertion as we have zero evidence for anything existing outside of space and time. we have no evidence if space and time is finite or infinite.

    It means a direct and immediate apprehension of the spaceless and timeless Ground of Being. This apprehension does not show a person that he is immortal — which he plainly is not. Rather, it shows him that where his psyche touches and intersects the timeless Source, he ultimately is all of a piece with the universe — so intimately, in fact, that at that level he is the universe

    great if someone is the universe and their psyche touches the timeless source then all knowledge past, present, and future can be known, which is not just a baseless assertion, but is demonstrably false. No surprise here why no one who is a believer in this religion ever got the James Randi million dollar reward.
     
    Not going to torture myself reading anymore of this tripe. Good luck to anyone else who wants to play in the new age woo.

  167. says

    @paxil

    Not going to torture myself reading anymore of this tripe. Good luck to anyone else who wants to play in the new age woo.

    This has absolutely nothing to do with woo. Wilber is speaking how these things are defined from the vantage point of a CME.

  168. Einy says

    Forget Kafei, you are lost cause. I asked you in your OWN WORDS not someone elses words. You just can’t help yourself.
    Quite sad that you don’t have an original thought in your head. All you have are you pre-made list of things you like to blabber on about always referring to someone else but not yourself. I have no interest trying to talk to someone who refuses to listen to anyone else but the sound of their own voice. (in this case typed commentary but the sentiment is the same)

    You also do not have a clue to what the words concise, succinct, accurately, precisely mean either.

    Done playing your stupid game and no longer interested in your bullshit philosophy. Go mental masturbate elsewhere.

  169. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    To Kafei

    When a scientist talks about energy, he is talking about a specific model of reality which makes clear testable predictions. Thus far, I haven’t seen anything resembling a testable prediction from you concerning the “Oneness” or “Wholeness”. I think that you don’t have any. Thus, you are wrong about the logical positivist; the logical positivist would dismiss everything you’re saying as meaningless drivel.

    PS:

    The same thing, of course, holds for Energy, since mass and energy are interconvertible.

    This is wrong. This is a common mistake, but it is a mistake. In short, mass is a property of all forms of energy, including kinetic energy, potential energy, and matter. “E = m c^2” is better written “m = E / c^2”. All forms of energy have an amount of mass that is given by that formula. Thus, mass cannot be converted to energy, nor energy converted into mass. For a longer explanation with examples, see:

  170. says

    @ Einy

    Forget Kafei, you are lost cause. I asked you in your OWN WORDS not someone elses words. You just can’t help yourself.
    Quite sad that you don’t have an original thought in your head. All you have are you pre-made list of things you like to blabber on about always referring to someone else but not yourself. I have no interest trying to talk to someone who refuses to listen to anyone else but the sound of their own voice. (in this case typed commentary but the sentiment is the same)

    You also do not have a clue to what the words concise, succinct, accurately, precisely mean either.

    Done playing your stupid game and no longer interested in your bullshit philosophy. Go mental masturbate elsewhere.

    I didn’t found the Perennial philosophy, it’s been around for ages. The reason I reference Wilber is because he is quite more articulate than myself when describing the divine within the context of the Perennial philosophy. I’ve also said I’m willing to elaborate from that definition, but it seems you’re opting not to do that. That’s fine. I’ll be here, if you change your mind.

    @EnlightenmentLiberal

    When a scientist talks about energy, he is talking about a specific model of reality which makes clear testable predictions. Thus far, I haven’t seen anything resembling a testable prediction from you concerning the “Oneness” or “Wholeness”. I think that you don’t have any. Thus, you are wrong about the logical positivist; the logical positivist would dismiss everything you’re saying as meaningless drivel.

    The Oneness or seamless Wholeness is the experiential phenomenality that is the core feature of the reliably reproducible, demonstrable, extraordinary “complete” mystical experience.

  171. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    The Oneness or seamless Wholeness is the experiential phenomenality that is the core feature of the reliably reproducible, demonstrable, extraordinary “complete” mystical experience.

    Is that all of your testable predictions? “Humans will have certain kinds of experiences?”. I am completely unimpressed.

    I could just appeal to brain chemistry, which explains the same thing with more parsimony, e.g. with appeal to less things, e.g. it works better under Occam’s Razor. Your model of reality fails this basic test of plausibility and utility.

  172. says

    @Secular Strategy

    I still don’t know what his point is.

    Well, I did ask Matt if he’d volunteer in one of these studies, and he said yes. Would anyone here do that? Because, you see, you wouldn’t have to intellectually grope any point here, if you had the experience, you’d rather understand it completely and intuitively via a phenomenon in consciousness.

  173. says

    @EnlightenmentLiberal

    Is that all of your testable predictions? “Humans will have certain kinds of experiences?”. I am completely unimpressed.

    The primary convincing and impressive factor here is the “complete” mystical experience in and of itself.

  174. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    To Kafei

    I’m still lost. Are you positing that there is divine something with separate causal power, causal power that is separate from the mere materialistic reductionist causal power of reality? Is this divine something a separate entity in terms of causality? Does it exist as something that you can prod with a stick, or an advanced scientific instrument?

    Consider the word “biosphere”. It refers to a large collection of things on Earth’s surface (and immediate sub-surface)? The biosphere is simply a collection of parts and nothing more. Consequently, I could completely describe the biosphere by describing its parts. “Biosphere” is an abstraction of the actual physical entities. Is your divine just like this? Just an abstraction with no meaning separate from the collection of its parts?

    In other words, do you reject reductionism and embrace some form of real emergentism?

    In other words, are we having a discussion about causal reality? Or are you describing something apart from causal reality? It seems that you are talking about causal reality, because at the very least, this divine something has some sort of causal relationship with people and their mystical experiences.

  175. Einy says

    This is my last response to you Kafei. You are a self centered , dishonest piece of a garbage who only listens to himself and quite frankly an asshole to most you interact with. You disregard everything we say and when we asks you specifics in your own words you fail miserably at that.

    You can take all your youtubes and appeals to authority and no true Scotsman and shove it.

  176. says

    @EnlightenmentLiberal

    I don’t know if you’ve been following the backlog of posts here, but to attempt to sum up. For example, the Hindu mystic who achieves moksha or samadhi does not attribute the experience to Brahman, rather and more accurately, the Brahman is the inner experiential description from the vantage point of the state of samadhi or what neuroscientists today are calling a “complete” mystical experience. Likewise the Theoria or Beatific vision of Christianity or nirvana in Buddhism or Fana or Taqhid in Islam, etc., etc., etc. So “God” or the “divine” at the core of the major religions, according to the Perennial philosophy, never meant anything else. We’ve misconstrued these writings of the ancient mystics whom these experiences occurred and they wrote about and we anthropomorphized the attributes of this state of enlightenment, and applied them to a “supernatural being” outside of space and time, instead of recognizing this potential for a state of transcendence within ourselves. People, in other words, have been attempting to interpret scripture without the vital knowledge of mystical experience. When you do that, that’s what leads to scholasticism, and this devolves into what we now today as apologetics.

  177. says

    @Einy I find it rather ironic, even somewhat amusing that someone who’s undergone an experience of complete ego dissolution is accused of being a self-centered piece of garbage who supposedly only listens to himself. I’ve been listening and quoting others, and responding. So, if you’d rather not participate, then it’s simple: Don’t participate. But you had to throw an insult in there before you made your exit. Well, whatever floats your boat. If you change your mind, I’ll still be here.

  178. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    So, the phrase “Ground of All Being” suggests to the uninitiated that you’re talking about something with a causal existence separate from the existence of the person having the mystical experience. “The ground of all being” is a standard theist concept, of a god so that reality would not exist without the god willing it to exist. It now sounds like you are not endorsing that view. You have been exceptionally unclear, seemingly purposefully unclear. If you don’t mean to endorse the standard theist / deist view, then please don’t use phrases like “the ground of all being”, and instead stick to clear terms like “personal Nirvana” and “personal enlightenment”. You’d get far less pushback.

  179. twarren1111 says

    to Kafei (and everyone else actually):

    Please take a look at this paper:
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3539773/#!po=78.7129

    Kafei,
    This is the paper in which the Mystical Experience Quesstioinare is validated. Please read it. All of it. It is very very clear. In the 1960s an investigator (Stace) developed a series of questions about what he referred to as religious or mystical experiences. I don’t know who this investigator is, but I will assume that he was a series investigator and that what is described in this paper is that he looked at the world’s religions and pagan rituals and came up with a series of questions to quantify and qualify what these experiences were.

    TO study something, you need, you have to, define it. Again, if I am talking about a stage IIIA (T3N1M0) adenocarcnioma, grade 1, of the right upper lobe of the lung what I am doing is telling everyone who reads what I am writing exactly what type of lung cancer I am talking about: it’s histology (adenocarcinoma), it’s size (T3), the lymph node stations involved in the mediastinum (N1), the lack of wide spread disease (M0) and how this all adds up to stage IIIA. I am doing this so that what I am doing to these patients and the outcomes I get can be compared. Its as simple as that.

    What the paper I provided a link to is what looks like the definitive paper in which a Dr. Grifiths, from Johns Hopkins, has rigourously validated this questionare delevoped in the 1960s. It is a standard type of paper in which a questionare or checklist is validated.

    To wit: Dr. Robert Hares Pscyhopath Checklist- Revised (PCL-R) is such a check list, the International Prognositic Index for risk stratifying aggressive diffuse large cell lymphomas, the FACT-L quality of life questionare I referenced in an earlier post that was used to determine when to give chemo to lung cancer patients. All of these take just a simple google search. ANd how did I find the above paper I linked to? I googled “validation study of complete mystical experience questionare” and that was the first link I got.

    Now back to science: ALL THIS QUESTIONARE DOES is to provide a method of asking the patient to answer these questions about their experience in regards to an experience. The POWER of it is that you can design studies, like Dr. Jesse did in the first video you linked to in post #116 in which you can use this questionare to obtain data and analyze that data statistically. So you can get error bars so that you can determine significance from statistical standpoint.

    THiS IS HOW SCIENCE WORKS.

    But here is the key part: YOU ARE SOMEHOW CONFUSING THE WORD ‘MYSTICAL’ IN THE TITLE OF THE QUESTIONAIRE AS IF IT RELATES TO SOMETHING SUPERNATURAL OR BEYOND THE NATURAL OR EXPLAINS RELIGION AS SOMEHOW REAL.

    The second video you linked to in #116 is another excellent presentation by an respected researcher on the effects of hallucingens. What is so far beyond me is how you get from what he is talking about to all the gibberish you put on top of it.

    OF COURSE MUSHROOMS CAUSE PSYCHEDLIC effects!! But what is ‘psychedelic’? See? You need a tool to measure what that means. And why is it that you ignore all the other tools the investigators use and keep focusing on the one tool that has MYSTICAL in it’s title.

    You are committing the fallacy of equivocation. Dr. Griffiths and Dr. Jesse are simply investigating in rigorous way how different compounds induce different effects and these questionares are the most rudimentary beginning. So much more needs to be done. But if we have nuts like you making claims otherwise diminsishes the work these scientists are doing

  180. twarren1111 says

    Kafei
    I just can’t make up how you think!

    So I click on the third link you provided in post #116 and it opens on a part of a talk in which the speaker is saying how cancer patients who take a drug (I’m presuming it’s mushrooms again, but I’m done wasting time on you now and I have no interest in watching the whole thing) and who achieve a ‘complete mystical experience’ benefit from it.

    DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT IS HAPPENING IN THIS VIDEO??????? This just like the studies in which Ritalin was used to treat the symptom of fatigue in patients with cancer over the age of 60 i mentioned in a previous post. The read, however, was not done using the Mystical Experience Questionare I provided a link to in my post #186. And why would scientists asking the hypothesis if speed can alleviate fatigue NOT USE THE MEQ? Well, how about you re-look at Dr. Jesse’s presentation which is the first link you provided in #116. BECAUSE RITALIN IS NOT A HALLUCINOGENIC. So, you use a questionare that focuses on FATIGUE.

    And this is where language comes in to play and how you are deluding yourself with a subtype of paroidelia which is called word equivocation.

    Do you know why the first study to show a benefit in giving chemotherapy to women with node postive breast cancer that was done and published in the 1970s had some amazing ethics attached to it? Because it was done in Italy. In Italy, they were so concerned about the word ‘cancer’ that their institution was called the National Tumor Institute. And the women didn’t know they had cancer and they didn’t even know they were getting chemotherapy!!!!!!!

    So, how much accepting would people be to filling out a questionare that said at the top: Complete Hallucinogenic Experience Questionare as opposed to Complete Mystical Experience questionare?

    THink about that.

    So, the first link you provided in #116 is a scientist showing in what is called a randomized phase II study that the effects of a hallucinogen can be quantified as compared to an amphetamine. He shows that the study is possible and gives valuable information about not only how to do a study but also what symptoms to expect. This then raises a lot, i mean a LOT of new hypotheses to test. It opens up a shit load of phase I studies too: you need to determine doses of mushrooms, peyote, LSD, etc and obtain all these questionare results to quantify and qualify symptoms. And think of the possibilities of using agents like these to treat various mental illnesses, sympotms from diseases like cancer, autoimmune disorders. ANd I still have no clue where you get any other ideas about what is going on here.

    The second link is another researcher presenting more data on the how to test the effect of various agents.

    The third link is how these agents my palliate the suffering of cancer patients. When the investigator says that the patiens achieved a complete mystical state what he is saying, Kafei, is that according to the questionare validated by Dr. Griffith as published in 2013 that cancer patients who achieved a statistically significant pattern of answers on the questionare that is defined as a complete (mystical) response felt better. Take out the word mystical. IT appears to confuse you.

    Now please leave us alone if you refuse to learn. I’ve spent hours helping you. I learned a ton. Some really cool stuff. But in the end, everything I wrote about you as your call was happening and was my first post on this thread hasn’t changed. Only now, if you refuse to learn, you have become immmoral. EVIL. You are wasting entropy dude. E2=M2c4 as you know.

  181. buddyward says

    @Kafei

    Perhaps the reason you can’t grasp how the divine is defined within the context of the Perennial philosophy is because you’re assuming God is a “he” that can materialize himself before you, and sit down on a table, and explain all this to you to make it all clear. I’ve said throughout this thread that the God or the divine is of a panentheistic description quite akin to Spinoza’s God, and that is not to be confused with pantheism (that the universe is God). This is saying something quite different than that, and this description draws from the original etymology found within the scripture of all the world’s major religions. The Paradise of Muslims is, of course, symbolically synonymous with the Promised Land of the Jews, the kingdom of God (or heaven) of the Christians, the gnosis of the Gnostics, moksha of the Hindus and Jains, nirvana of the Buddhists, and being accord with the Tao of the Taoists. They are all metaphors for the experience of mystical enlightenment. But while mystical experience appears to have been the genesis of all the major religions, and their vital center or essence, mysticism, itself, is not a religion.

    Great you defined god. Now show us evidence that this god exists and since you once again used the word mystical please define mystical.

  182. says

    @Thane McKinsey

    ,Mystical is something that has not and can not be defined. Checkmate

    Actually these mystical states of consciousness have been defined quite concretely over decades of scientific research. As I pointed out to Matt Dillahunty, mystical states of consciousness is pretty much a scientific concept at this point.

  183. buddyward says

    @Kafei

    Actually these mystical states of consciousness have been defined quite concretely over decades of scientific research. As I pointed out to Matt Dillahunty, mystical states of consciousness is pretty much a scientific concept at this point.

    So once again you answer a question with a stupid YouTube video that does not in anyway define what mystical means. No wonder you got banned from RatSke you cannot even answer simple questions and instead of admitting that you do not know what you are talking about you just keep wasting everyone else’s time by sending them videos and documents that does not provide the information requested.

  184. says

    @buddyward Did you watch the lecture or did you skim through it? You do realize that this term isn’t merely described in a single paragraph. That entire lecture is dedicated to describing this experience. I’ve also left several links throughout this thread that aim to define what precisely is entailed by a so-called “complete” mystical experience. I’d argue that you’re simply being introduced. On the other hand, I’ve been following this research for a little over a decade. If you really wanted to know what a mystical experience is all about, then undergoing one for yourself would certainly give you a leg up. Then you don’t have to complain that you can’t discern in through these links I’ve posted. You could also Google this term yourself and find myriads of sources that describe this experience. You don’t have to rely on what I’ve laid out here. And, by the way, I was banned from RatSke because I was showing this scientific research to a group of anti-theists who couldn’t accept that fact, they couldn’t even fathom that there’s science out there that undermines atheism. They were so offended by that notion that it kept them from accepting this research as the legitimate science that it is.

  185. speedofsound says

    @Kafei #170.
    Your claim is that atheists who have these experiences become theists. Right? OR, as in my case where this did not happen that “you haven’t thought about it enough”.

    I have ‘thought about it’ for 53 years. And read about it for 53 years.

    What I think you don’t realize is that these professionals have defined these mystical states of consciousness as to be consistent with the Perennial philosophy. So, for you to say that you’ve had such a mystical experience, but don’t attach these other things, is simply a denial of how these things are concretely defined in this research. Perhaps you haven’t thought about it enough, and I really believe that’s the case that’s going on with atheists who admit to having such experience.

    Neuroscientists DO NOT define states of the brain to be metaphysical conjectures. Not unless they are the kind of ‘scientist’ that we have at the creationist institutions.

    You should be very interested in someone like me who has had these experiences and remained secular throughout instead of trying to wave me off with a ‘haven’t thought about it enough’. I could provide you with a source of information about your experience that helps you to be more coherent in expressing your views.

    I know neuroscience very well. I know the neurophilosophy of ‘consciousness’ very well. I have spent all of my adult life thinking about and studying what happened to me at age 15. Don’t be giving me this kind of shit.

    Now I think what you are missing here, and hence not having any luck in communicating, is the ideas about evidence from subjective experience. Atheists really like ev-ee-dense. We have to establish how you get from the experiments to concrete evidence.

  186. speedofsound says

    @Kafei or someone

    What was your handle on RatSkep. I’m SpeedOfSound over there. Spent a bit of time with metaphysical all-is-one mind guys over there. 33000+ posts.

  187. speedofsound says

    Bill Richards should review what happened to Timothy Leary and consider the dangers to one’s career.

  188. says

    Kafei,

    Well, I did ask Matt if he’d volunteer in one of these studies, and he said yes. Would anyone here do that? Because, you see, you wouldn’t have to intellectually grope any point here, if you had the experience, you’d rather understand it completely and intuitively via a phenomenon in consciousness.

    You are doing a terrible job of assessing this conversation. I’m going to make this as clear as I possibly can:
    Explain what your point is. Try to limit yourself to no more than 3 sentences. Explain it like I’ve never witnessed any of the previous conversations on the show or in these threads.
    If you can’t do that, then you can only blame yourself for being misunderstood.

  189. speedofsound says

    On a second more thorough review of the Jimmy call I conclude that Matt handled it very well. I stated earlier that he did not. I was wr-wr-wr-Wrong! I apologize.

  190. says

    @twarren1111

    So the fundamental problem Jimmy has is that he is thinking that there is an accepted definition of a ‘mystical experience’. He even said early on in the call “it’s pretty much accepted in science now” and Matt immediately shut that down.

    He didn’t “shut that down,” he simply denied this fact. What I was at great pains to express to Matt is that these states aren’t vague, misty or ambiguous, but rather quite concretely defined and refined over decades worth of scientific research.

    You cannot collect evidence for a hypothesis until you define what you are looking at. Mystical experience, god, the holy spirit, etc, all need to be defined BEFORE we can talk about the evidence for or against.

    Well, here’s how Griffiths puts it, “A mediating mechanism (psychological or otherwise) for a transformative perceptual shift after an introvertive mystical experience is that the individual now knows that a portal to something of inestimable and ultimate value resides within — an access point to a sense of the transcendent, which is variously described in religious traditions as Soul, Holy Spirit, God, Brahman, or Buddha Nature.” I also recommend listening to Dr. Bill Richards’ lectures on this peer-reviewed and published research.

    Back to Jimmy: he is now talking about ‘univerversal experience’ and Matt is referring to that if you smoke pot you will feel a change in time. But Jimmy still doesn’t get it.

    I don’t think Matt got it, again, I wasn’t simply referring to “time dilation” as Matt put it. We’re talking about a very literal experiential reality of experiencing a complete sense of transcending space and time or a timelessness from the stand point of the height of the “complete” mystical experience. This is universally reported by all the volunteers who meet criteria for the so-called “complete” mystical experience, and this is expressed in various ways; people will say it felt as though all time has froze or 4th dimensional or beyond dimensionality, etc.

    Jimmy: you have to define what you are measuring. Exactly what you are measuring. As best as you can. Then, you need to have a hypothesis to test. Then you design an experiment to test whether or not you can affect in some way the thing you have defined that you are interested in looking at.

    That’s precisely what’s been done. Recall, this research has a rich history initiating with the work of William James in the early 1900s, it’s been further elaborated through the decades by Dr. Walter Pahnke, Dr. Walter T. Stace, Dr. Ralph Hood, Dr. Jim Fadiman, et al, and it’s been most refined in the more modern research led by Dr. Rolland Griffiths which has prompted psychedelic research all over the world.

    So, yes, Jimmy, religions often claim a ‘mystical experience’ and you are claiming it is at the ‘root’ of the religions. That’s a good start. But you can’t make ANY conclusions. You have to DEFINE a lot first. You have to define ‘mystical experience’ and you have to define ‘religion’ and then you will need to make a hypothesis. And you can do this retrospectively by studying the history of religion but that only helps you in generating hypotheses to test.

    Again, this is precisely what’s been done, as I mentioned to Matt Dillahunty, there’s been extensive exegetical and hermeneutics done on the scriptures of the major religions in which these professionals have sifted for what Dr. Ralph Hood calls the “reported” mystical experience, but what I didn’t mention to Matt, and I should have made clear, is that neither these ancient mystics nor any volunteer refers to this experience specifically as a “mystical experience.” This term was developed much later to categorize these type of experiences. What you find in the scriptures are various terms that reference this phenomenon in consciousness. You know, samadhi in Hinduism, nirvana in Buddhism, sekhel mufla in Judaism, Theoria or the the Beatific vision in Christianity, wu wei in Taoism, baqá wa faná in Islam, The One in Neoplatonism, it is the Gnosis of the Gnostics and so on. It just seems to be something that’s intrinsic to the human organism, and it can be facilitated in many different ways.

    This is why not following the scientific process WASTES time. The fastest way to the truth, the fastest way to reality, is you have to overcome the problem of induction by using the scientific process rigorously to keep getting closer and closer to reality.

    Well, hopefully you take the time to review my post and realize this is simply not the case with this research.

    @einy

    Lastly, I have been reading many articles about psilocybin which is what Griffith was studying. But @kafei is not mentioning in many of the instances whether it is with Chronic smokers that eventually stopped or the cancer patients that showed improvement with their depression, in each case the psilocybin was used in conjunction with either behavioral modification(with the smokers) or counseling (with the cancer patients).

    Well, yes, I believe that’s the big point, that what’s curing these individuals is not a drug, it’s not a medication that is to be taken over and over, but more accurately, it’s the memory of a single drug experience which is curing the individual. And I believe there was a nicotine study done back in the 60s with psilocybin when it was legal than to research these compounds, it may have been the Marsh Chapel Study, I’m not too sure. I’ll have to look it up or I probably have it bookmarked somewhere, but Mike Young who was in his early 20s and a smoker when he participated in the Good Friday Experiment over 50 years ago, and to this day still does not smoke. Michael Pollan gives some insight, as he’s interviewed the nicotine addicts in the more recent studies, as to how this change occurs. I know no one here seems to like Jordan Peterson, but he’s also spoken quite eloquently on Dr. Griffiths’ research relative to the nicotine studies.

  191. says

    @einy

    This paragraph from the article i read i think is common sense and did not even have to read this piece. For me i think it is common sense. Humans have a need a need to make sense of the world around them and so when Griffith says we are wired for meaning , of course we are.

    He (Griffiths) didn’t say we’re wired for meaning, he said we’re wired for these type of mystical states of consciousness.

    “Many psilocybin study participants report the classic hallmarks of a mystical experience, including a feeling of sacredness, interconnectedness, and a sense that the drug trip is more real than everyday life, Griffiths says. He believes the brain is wired to have such experiences. From the poet Rumi to St. Thérèse, people across time and cultures have experienced these flashes of the divine. In most cases, the experiences occur spontaneously, say when a person is walking in the woods or praying. “Humans are wired for meaning, and I think that is at the core of religions and philosophies and traditions,” says Bossis. The two are also working on a pair of studies looking at the effects of psilocybin on clergy, a group of people who have trained their brains to be open to such experiences.”

    Tony Bossis is awesome, but that’s not what Griffiths said.

    At the end of the day I think the study shows a certain drug has X effect on the brain and because of that, they will have experience something. So what? Has nothing to do with God other than supporting the idea human made up the God concept because us mere humans need to create meaning for our existence.

    These professionals are quick to note that these experiences aren’t exclusive to psychedelics, they can happen by natural means as well such as meditation or asceticism or sometimes spontaneously for seemingly no reason at all as in the case of Ramakrishna or what Alan Watts called a “natural satori.” And the implication is that this phenomenon in consciousness has been happening for millennia à la the Perennial philosophy. So, you see, God in this context is not something “made up” or “conjured,” but rather construed or interpreted via mystical states of consciousness. In fact, in the time of the early mystics, the title “Theologian” was not applied in the modern academic sense of theological study; the title was designed only to recognize someone who spoke from personal experience of Theoria (vision of God). One of the principal teachings of Symeon the New Theologian was that humans could and should experience theoria (literally “contemplation,” or direct experience of God), and this experience was regarded by these mystics as crucial to the spiritual and mental health of every living thing, including human beings. So, it’s no surprise today that science is rediscovering these facts, that these experiences are very helpful to our psychological health and mental stability. The eastern mystics, of course, recognized this as well, and this is emphasized in Buddhism as the “Nirvana Sutra,” which highlights that enlightenment or Nirvana is a potential in all sentient beings. Now, science is waking up to the fact that mystical states of consciousness are built into the very way consciousness itself is constructed, something the major religions had been alluding to for millennia.

  192. buddyward says

    @Kafei

    Did you watch the lecture or did you skim through it? You do realize that this term isn’t merely described in a single paragraph. That entire lecture is dedicated to describing this experience. I’ve also left several links throughout this thread that aim to define what precisely is entailed by a so-called “complete” mystical experience. I’d argue that you’re simply being introduced. On the other hand, I’ve been following this research for a little over a decade. If you really wanted to know what a mystical experience is all about, then undergoing one for yourself would certainly give you a leg up. Then you don’t have to complain that you can’t discern in through these links I’ve posted. You could also Google this term yourself and find myriads of sources that describe this experience. You don’t have to rely on what I’ve laid out here. And, by the way, I was banned from RatSke because I was showing this scientific research to a group of anti-theists who couldn’t accept that fact, they couldn’t even fathom that there’s science out there that undermines atheism. They were so offended by that notion that it kept them from accepting this research as the legitimate science that it is.

    Yes I watched it and wasted 32:55 of my time looking for the definition of mystical and none were provided. I am not asking for the definition of the phrase mystical consciousness nor am I asking for the definition of compete mystical experience. I am asking for the definition of mystical.

    I am no longer going to waste my time watching another stupid video or reading another stupid document that you are presenting. At this point in time you have failed multiple times in answering a very simple question that is the key to what you claim to be true. If this is what you did in RatSke when you claim to “try and show scientific research” they again I do not blame them for banning you.

  193. says

    speedofsound

    Bill Richards should review what happened to Timothy Leary and consider the dangers to one’s career.

    Well, Dr. Bill Richards is just one of the professionals working in this research led by Dr. Roland Griffiths. Richards was also involved in the psychedelic research in the 60s before these substances were made illegal, so I’m quite sure these professionals are quite aware of the ramifications of what happened in the 60s and 70s with psychedelics. However, they have shown under careful and suitable conditions, you can lessen the likelihood of a “bad trip,” and increase the chances of reliably producing these so-called “complete” mystical experiences that are highly beneficial for their volunteers. So, they’re attempting to rid of the stigma that has been associated with these compounds.

    @Secular Strategy

    You are doing a terrible job of assessing this conversation. I’m going to make this as clear as I possibly can:
    Explain what your point is. Try to limit yourself to no more than 3 sentences. Explain it like I’ve never witnessed any of the previous conversations on the show or in these threads.
    If you can’t do that, then you can only blame yourself for being misunderstood.

    I’ve actually done this many times. In a nutshell, this research has produced evidence which suggests that these mystical experiences are a biologically normal phenomenon that have been occurring for millennia à la the Perennial philosophy. I mean, if you want a bumper sticker statement, there it is, but of course, that’s not sufficient for anyone’s grasp because most people here are just being introduce to the very concept of the mystical experience, and they’re being introduced to the Perennial philosophy as well, so it’s not so readily or easily understood.

    @buddyward

    Yes I watched it and wasted 32:55 of my time looking for the definition of mystical and none were provided. I am not asking for the definition of the phrase mystical consciousness nor am I asking for the definition of compete mystical experience. I am asking for the definition of mystical.

    If you’re asking for the definition for “mystical,” then go to a dictionary. The word “mystical” has nothing to do with this research. They’re defining what they’re calling “mystical experience” or “mystical states of consciousness.” The aim of the lecture is to define these mystical states of consciousness which occur on a spectrum ranging from archetypal/visionary experience to the unitive “complete” mystical experience, and Dr. Bill Richards thoroughly explains the difference between the two, and explains what these mystical experiences are all about in that lecture.

    I am no longer going to waste my time watching another stupid video or reading another stupid document that you are presenting. At this point in time you have failed multiple times in answering a very simple question that is the key to what you claim to be true. If this is what you did in RatSke when you claim to “try and show scientific research” they again I do not blame them for banning you.

    I presented scientific research to a group of anti-theists who essentially denied that this research is, indeed, science. They simply wouldn’t accept it. I was unfairly banned, I was given no warning, it was just a bunch of whining atheists who wanted me removed.

  194. says

    @speedofsound

    Neuroscientists DO NOT define states of the brain to be metaphysical conjectures. Not unless they are the kind of ‘scientist’ that we have at the creationist institutions.

    They’re defining mystical states of consciousness to be in accordance with the Perennial philosophy. You may want to review the published material, particularly the 2017 mystical experiences chapter, and do a word search for “common core” or “perennial philosophy.” Bill Richards has also published a paper where he states that these professionals do, in fact, define mystical states of consciousness in accordance with the Perennial philosophy, and if I could find that bookmark, I’ll present it.

    You should be very interested in someone like me who has had these experiences and remained secular throughout instead of trying to wave me off with a ‘haven’t thought about it enough’. I could provide you with a source of information about your experience that helps you to be more coherent in expressing your views.

    I am interested in your experience, however I suspect that you are, indeed, defining these things outside of the context in which they’ve been defined. I bring this very point up to Barney, an atheist who also claims he had this experience with his atheism intact, and it’s addressed in the live stream at approximately the 6h32m42s point that I’ve posted in the very first comment of this thread.

    I know neuroscience very well. I know the neurophilosophy of ‘consciousness’ very well. I have spent all of my adult life thinking about and studying what happened to me at age 15. Don’t be giving me this kind of shit.

    Have you ever looked into the neuroscience of religion? Because that’s essentially what’s being discussed here.

    Now I think what you are missing here, and hence not having any luck in communicating, is the ideas about evidence from subjective experience. Atheists really like ev-ee-dense. We have to establish how you get from the experiments to concrete evidence.

    Well, obviously, the evidence that’s being addressed here is the repeatable, demonstrable, and extraordinary “complete” mystical state of consciousness.

  195. buddyward says

    @Kafei

    If you’re asking for the definition for “mystical,” then go to a dictionary. The word “mystical” has nothing to do with this research. They’re defining what they’re calling “mystical experience” or “mystical states of consciousness.” The aim of the lecture is to define these mystical states of consciousness which occur on a spectrum ranging from archetypal/visionary experience to the unitive “complete” mystical experience, and Dr. Bill Richards thoroughly explains the difference between the two, and explains what these mystical experiences are all about in that lecture.

    It would have been useless to go to a dictionary to find the definition of mystical because it is apparently different from what you mean as mystical. The reason why I am asking you is so that we can discuss what you mean. If I were to use the dictionary definition of mystical we would be talking past each other because you may disagree with that definition.

    If mystical has nothing to do with this research then the word mystical can be removed and\or replaced with something else. A “mystical states of consciousness” can simply be called “states of consciousness” or a “mystical experience” can just be called “experiences while under the influence of Psilocybin”. However, you do not want to do that because that removes the connection to the devine and to god that you are so desparate to make.

    I presented scientific research to a group of anti-theists who essentially denied that this research is, indeed, science. They simply wouldn’t accept it. I was unfairly banned, I was given no warning, it was just a bunch of whining atheists who wanted me removed.

    Yes, I would deny that this is science also because the fundamental concept is not even defined. Why would anyone who is skeptical would accept this research when the research cannot even make a simple definition of what they are trying to talk about? And now you are claiming that the word has nothing to do with the research and yet you continue to use it as if it has something to do with it. You are clinging to the word because that is the only connection you have in order to be able to insert god or the devine in this research. You deserve to be banned from that forum and frankly you deserve to get banned from this one as well. All you did here is waste people’s time by having them watch YouTube videos, you, yourself, added nothing of use.

  196. speedofsound says

    It seems that Kafei believes that science has discovered a conscious phenomenon that somehow tunnels into a deeper truth about the universe. Some Zen teachers and even Alan Watts himself have cautioned about this noetic delusion. Now when I took acid, or had these experiences due other means, there was a transformation of perception so great that it rocks your reason back on it’s heels. If you are not ‘grounded’ as Zen and Watts have cautioned, you could end up believing just about anything that would explain how all of a sudden the world got a hundred times more ‘real’ and you no longer perceived yourself as a little bot looking out of a porthole.

    The thing is. Your brain is a physical hunk of jellied cells that deliver electric shocks. This is how you perceive what, where, and who you are. If you pull out a few standard habitual patterns from the hunk of jelly it is no surprise at all that you suddenly have very different answers to the w-questions.

    It’s WHERE you go from there that matters. I kind of like my furthering journey into hard-core metaphysical naturalism. The one thing that explains both the experience and the fucking goo-jelly that allows for it.

    So Kafei. Say something plain and simple. Look at my first line and simply admit that you think we are ‘connecting’ with ‘deeper truth’ in these experiences.

  197. paxoll says

    No, Kafei, you are not presenting scientific research, you are presenting other people presenting (in a bullshit way) poorly done research. These experiences are subjective and different, and the research is nothing but a load of biases that have ridiculously tenuous ties with the bullshit the Perennial Philosophy people are peddling. This is exactly what Matt demonstrated with his talk with Jordan Peterson. The research scientifically demonstrates one thing (poorly), and all the bullshit that Peterson was trying to claim that it demonstrates is not scientific evidence. Peterson admits Matt is correct and then claims well thats just your opinion. No it is the way science works and is the scientific opinion.
     
    Nothing you have shown in any way demonstrates that any infinite reality behind reality exists or that drugs or any other human state of mind gives access to that. Again I see no difference between this and pantheism and it is just absurd that you think these experiments demonstrate anything other then an altered mental state.

  198. paxoll says

    You can watch this Griffith guy’s descent into “woo” by seeing how his early research calls it a “mystical-type experience” and then discards the word type that designates its subjective descriptive nature and starts calling it a “mystical” or “complete mystical” experience.

  199. says

    @speedofsound Alan Watts didn’t disagree with the Perennial philosophy, he held this view himself. He’s one of my favorite philosophers and speakers on this very topic.

    @paxoll

    Nothing you have shown in any way demonstrates that any infinite reality behind reality exists or that drugs or any other human state of mind gives access to that. Again I see no difference between this and pantheism and it is just absurd that you think these experiments demonstrate anything other then an altered mental state.

    I never said this research demonstrates an “infinity reality behind reality exists,” and I’ve also emphasized that this is not a pantheism, but more accurately a panentheism à la Spinoza.

  200. Monocle Smile says

    “It’s not this one useless concept, it’s this OTHER useless concept that one dude you should care about for some reason proposed!”

  201. Einy says

    Perennial philosophy, Pantheism, panentheism à la Spinoza, all nonsense . No evidence to support any of these stances in reality. Perennial philosophy with the universal truth all from a single foundation is garbage and not supported in reality. The fact many religions contradict one another with their respective truths show this to a bunch of wishful thinking.

    Again each of their gods are man made concepts. Special pleading doesn’t exempt the Perennial god either.

    I disagree with you about Griffith and wired for meaning. While Bossis said those exact words what Griffith described are components with finding meaning.

    Also when you said this: “it’s the memory of a single drug experience which is curing the individual”

    That is a total huge lie and that is you making false extrapolations. You could only make this claim if the single experience was the ONLY thing that occurred. But it clearly said counseling and behavioral modifications were used to treat them. So tell me how you can state the memory of the single drug experience cured them? Here is a hint you can’t. That is why it is a lie.

    So again when you say you relay things “accurately and precisely nothing more nothing less” it is a boldface lie.

    Maybe you need to go through another ego dissolution because I don’t think the first one was as complete as you think it was. (or just evidence that it is subjective woo nonsense)

  202. Monocle Smile says

    No wonder this fruitcake loves Jordan Peterson so much. Peterson was dumb enough to state that nobody can quit smoking without having a mystical experience. Must have given Kafei a raging boner.

  203. says

    Hi, I am Gem from Manila and saw you guys on youtube together for first time and found it very interesting. I went to Catholic school but rejected their teachings on religion by age 10. Later I spent many years reading on religions and philosophy and then made up my own mind based on that. I am a theist and always will be but I belong to no religion and never will. I would love to explain what I believe and why. Thank you for your interesting show and especially for your kindness in helping the poor people who live in the streets their in your country. We have a great many like that in Manila also, and I wish I could help them too but it is very difficult.

  204. says

    @Einy Roland Griffiths does, indeed, say that this research definitely suggests that these experiences are biologically normal. That is to say that we’re wired for such experiences.

  205. twarren1111 says

    Kafei (Jimmy)
    This is my first response to you sense my last post regarding your claims and evidence (#187). I may include comments on the posts of others as well as your posts. Thus, this post could be considered by the blog as a ‘tally’ of where we are at with you. Where possible, I will continue to use the same number to identify the same issue between posts.

    #189 Thane McKinsey
    1. Accepts what you have defined as god. They then ask that you provide evidence.
    2. They note that in your definition that you use the word ‘mystical’ again and they ask that you define that word.
    3. I am asking: do you define ‘mystical’ as determined by the Mystical Experience Questionnaire (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3539773/#!po=78.7129)? If you do not define ‘mystical’ per this questionnaire then how do you define this term and then how do you use it when you make claims as to the claims you make about your god?

    #191 Kafei
    3 (same concepts as in 3 above). You respond to post #189 by Thane McKinsey by saying ’these mystical states have been defined concretely over decades of scientific research”. The only way this statement is valid is if you are using the term ‘mystical’ to be defined by the questionnaire provided in the link above. This paper provides the validation of the questionnaire first started by Stace in 1960.
    4. You then state: “as I pointed out to Matt Dillahunty, mystical states of consciousness is pretty much a scientific concept at this point”. I want to clarify exactly what you mean by these words. What the paper I linked to, published in 2013 did, was to validate a questionnaire. This questionnaire had its start in 1960 but was not validated until Dr. Griffiths, et al, published the paper in that link in 2013. What this means, is that NOT UNTIL 2013 could this questionnaire be used to compare answers between different people because the results of the questionnaire had not been validated, i.e., had not been rigorously shown using standard statistical models to be able to determine differences between people and their responses. This DOES NOT MEAN THAT MYSTICAL EXPERIENCES as in ‘religious experiences’ like at a pentecostal church meeting where speaking in tongues and handling of snakes occurs is recognized as a REAL THING. Simply put, what this questionnaire does is standardize how people characterize hallucinogenic states. What these hallucinogenic states is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT MATTER. So, when you make this statement about mystical states of consciousness being a ‘scientific concept’ is misleading.

    #192 buddyward
    I understand their consternation. The videos you link to are using a standard clinical research protocol(s), which means you need to have a tool to measure something related to the hypothesis you are exploring, and ONE of these tools is the questionnaire as outlined in the link above. In particular, these videos are to research being presented regarding the use of psilocybin and what signs and/or symptoms it causes. To provide a read out, ONE of the tools they use is this questionnaire. The data being submitted has NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING SUPERNATURAL. NOTHING TO DO WITH GOD.

    Let me put it this way: if you are an intern in internal medicine, there is one particular ‘diagnosis’ you get a lot of exposure to. It’s the “altered mental status” admission. As you can imagine, the possibilities as to the cause of the altered mental status (which is called the diagnosis of the altered mental status) is quite long. Indeed, I just googled “altered mental status” and got 51,300,000 results in 31 seconds. One of the causes of an altered mental status is hallucinogens. And, as is so well pointed out in the first video you link to where Dr. Jesse presents his data, a person with altered mental status due to Ritalin (generic methyphenidate, slang speed or meth) is different from altered mental status related to mushrooms. That’s why we have WORDS and LANGUAGE. But you need to stop equivocating that because a questionnaire calls these symptoms mystical that this means that science is exploring the supernatural aspects of god or the universe.

    #193 Kafei
    I WATCHED ALL THREE VIDEOS. I CLAIM AS A PHYSICIAN, IMMUNOLOGIST, EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGIST, AND MEDICAL ONCOLOGIST WITH 25 YEARS OF PRACTICE IN BOTH ACADEMIC AND PRIVATE SETTING, HAVING HAD GRANTS FUNDED ON IMMUNOLOGICAL RESEARCH ON THE TREATMENT OF CANCER WHILE IN ACADEMICS, TO HAVING ENROLLED HUNDREDS OF PATIENTS ON VARIOUS CLINICAL TRIALS (MOST IN THE PRIVATE SETTING BECAUSE THATS WHERE 95% OF PATIENTS ON CANCER RESEARCH STUDIES COME FROM) TO HAVE THOROUGHLY REVIEWED THE VIDEOS. With that said, they ARE EXCELLENT presentations. I learned a lot. I didn’t know how far the research had gotten.

    You want to know something else, Kafei. On a personal level. I got married to a woman wasn’t in love with. And after 20 year of marriage my divorce was horrific. But a friend who happened to be a woman powerfully helped me. And I finally wondered, ‘what the f#$k am I feeling for this woman? Is this what love is?’ So I went to google. This was 2015. And I searched “neurobiology of love” and I was floored. Just floored. I had NO IDEA so much research had been done. I had NO IDEA how much neurobiology had been figured out. And related to this, because of events in my life, I had already developed an intense interest in psychopathy (aka narcissistic personality disorder) and the amount of what we know about psycopathies is also beyond profound.

    I get the idea that this is what happened to you as you discovered these concepts you did. You even in this post talk about ‘complete mystical experiences’ as if that is something special. All it means Jimmy is that the person scored high on the tools they were using. The videos were all showing that the tools they used to measure the affect of mushrooms captured what they were trying to capture. And the last video did what we want scientists to do: applied the knowledge gained. Specifically, they showed how cancer patients may benefit from mushrooms.

    AND THATS ALL THEY SHOW. IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT CANCER PATIENTS ‘SAW GOD’. Do you get this yet?

    Look at it this way: do you know why scientists and rational people get so mad at people like David Avocado Wolfe, Dr. Oz, Dr. Deepak Chopra? Because they are doing what you are doing on purpose and selling it. And it’s a problem because selling this kind of thinking, which is religious based AKA faith based thinking to people helps them buy into fallacies like vaccines not only don’t work but hurt. ITS DANGEROUS WHAT YOU ARE DOING. AND WHAT MAKES YOU SCARY IS THAT WE ARE ALL ON THIS BLOG EXPLAINING TO YOU IN MANY WAYS REALITY AND YOU STILL HOLD ONTO YOUR FAITH.

    #194 speedofsound
    I agree with their thoughts completely. He is making a lot of sense from a personal aspect. He is pleading with you. Please listen.

    #197 Secular Strategy is telling you that your view of how Matt responded to you on the call is not reality. I agree completely. You are so invested in the equivocation you have over the word ‘mystical’ that you can’t see what we are talking about. They then ask you to state concisely what your point is. In other words, they are asking you to:
    
5. State a claim (hypothesis). This is one sentence. Then, you state the evidence(s). Each piece of evidence should be able to be stated in one sentence. Then you make a conclusion that wraps the hypothesis and the evidence together (this is one sentence). You do this for EACH claim (hypothesis).

    #199 Kafei

    You respond to my early post and deny that Matt shut you down. Let me specific. When you claim that ‘mystical experiences are well accepted in science’ the most rational response is to immediately shut that idea down. Why? This is why I went into my analogy of test taking before. First, do you understand that science uses tools based upon nature, right? Thus, science can not EVER be used to elucidate things about the SUPERNATURAL. Do you see this? I am using words and their meaning. If something is supernatural then it is beyond natural. Thus, when you say ‘science accepts the mystical’ one does not need to know what it is you know because the concept you are stating is IMPOSSIBLE. And, Kafei, he did shut you down on this point.

    Second, as this post (and all the others have been trying to do) is to explain to you why the evidence you present is NOT SUPPORTING THE HYPOTHESIS YOU THINK YOU ARE CLAIMING. A questionnaire and other tools meant to assess the affects of hallucinogens IS NOT MYSTICAL AS IN SUPERNATURAL OR GOD OR ONENESS WITH THE UNIVERSE OR BUDDISM OR DAOISM OR ANY ISM. All mystical means is hallucinogenic experience. And what is the hallucinogenic experience????? READ THAT PAPER I LINKED TO. They lay out EXACTLY WHAT THE SYMPTOMS ARE. In fact, they provide a supplement with a sample of the questions/concepts they validated.

    Third, you then link to statements by Dr. Griffiths: yes, I see what you are taking about…but this is his opinion now of what these hallucinogenic experiences mean. Remember, these experiences are related to psilocybin. This is why native americans fought so hard (and successfully) to keep peyote legal for them. And yes, these feelings are given words like “soul, holy spirit, god, brahman’ etc but he can only say that this what language people use to describe the experiences given by hallucinogenic agents. HE CANNOT SAY AND IS NOT SAYING THAT HIS RESEARCH PROVES THE EXISTENCE OF THESE RELIGIOUS CONCEPTS.

    This is what is so crazy about what you are doing, and its the same shit creationists, eg, do. Do you not realize that every time you say what you are saying as in this post, you are actually proving what we are trying to tell you? It’s just like with creationists talk about ‘design’ or ‘fine tuning’. They are making such a mistake because of the problem of induction that when you point out the broader picture, the broader evidence that what they see as design or fine tuning is nothing of the sort and what they see in isolation because of the problem of induction is actually much more consistent with the theory of evolution and the big band. Again, a theory in science means that there are many facts, usually billions and/or trillions that support the theory and that NOT ONE FACT disagrees with the theory. Thats how science works; it’s how we get rid of the stuffing called ‘the problem of induction’ that Oreoman previously trolled about.

    My point it this: what Dr. Griffiths is saying is that when you give mushrooms to people, and have them use these tools to explain their experience, because we have validated the questions and the answers we can use the results to make conclusions. And what we conclude is that when people take mushrooms they have experiences that correlate with what humans in religions have described as holy sprit, god, etc, etc. Why is that so hard for you to understand???????? Why do you take what he is saying as “and this PROVES THE EXISTENCE OF GOD, SOUL, ETC”. Don’t you see how the OPPOSITE IS TRUE. He does a well done study, he uses a NATURAL thing called a questionaire, he gives a NATURAL drug called a mushroom and he shows how the effect that NATURALLY comes out is the idea of GOD. The idea of GOD is not SUPERNATURAL. It is based on and uses the only 4 forces we know of: weak and strong nuclear force, gravity, and electromagnetism. And where these forces act is in the brain. And that IS NOT GOD.

    Why do you bring up William James? Yes, he is the ‘father’ of modern psychology but his time was so long ago he is not relevant at all to current thinking. You mention Dr. Walter Pahnke. Yeah, sure, he, along with Stace were investigators from decades ago who started looking into these ideas. But what you should be taking from it is that not until you have VALIDATED TOOLS TO MEASURE THINGS that you only then can you start valid research. All of these scientists you quote lead up to the 2013 paper by Dr. Griffiths. This is why the phrase, “standing on the shoulder of giants” is used.

    I can’t treat cancer until I understand there is a cell. And I can’t understand there is a cell until I understand DNA. And I can’t understand DNA until I know about the atom. And so on. But, I don’t go around telling people we need to start using immunotherapy and apply leeches because Aristotle.

    You then go on in your response to me to say that you are defining things. But you are getting the definitions wrong.

    #206 speedofsound
    They in this post I think are saying what I am trying to say to you: “it seems Kafei believes that science has discovered a conscious phenomenon that somehow tunnels into a deeper truth about the universe.”

    EXACTLY. AND KAFEI YOU ARE WRONG. WRONG.

    This is why you have to ‘start’ small and build from there. You have built such an edifice on no foundation, you’ve invested so much energy and time into your concepts that it is understandable that you are unwilling to let it all go. And that is just another reason why using faith based methods (meaning believing in evidence that isn’t true just because you want your hypothesis to be true) instead science based methods to determine reality are so dangerous and such a waste of time.

    IT all comes down to this: what you think is shown by the read out of these questionnaires into hallucinogens experiences has nothing to do with religious aka mystical aka supernatural aka zen phenomenon. What all the data you have pointed out shows is why we has humans have a neurobiological basis to believe a tiger is in the bushes as opposed to it just being wind.

    #207 paxoll

    I understand their frustration with you….but the three videos you linked to in the one post way back are good science. The results and methods are good. The investigators are legit. But, no theistic claims can be had in any of the stuff you present Kafei.

    #211 Einy
    What they are trying to tell you Kafei is that you are extrapolating too much from the research. And they are right.

    In conclusion,
    this is why discussions like on this blog and any other aspect of life are prone to the Gish Gallop. It’s important that we not move on without first having the proper foundation. So, with all what I’ve written here in mind, this is where we are Kafie:

    1. Define your god. In post #188 your posted ‘concepts’ of god are laid out, but can you be more succinct? Your hypothesis will then be “God is defined by….”
    2. What is your evidence for your hypothesis?
    3. You can not use any of the ‘mystical experience questionnaire’ related data as evidence for you god. Why? Because it is not evidence for any god. All the evidence you have presented shows simply that humans can have states of consciousness in which the words hallucinogenic or mystical can be used to describe what these humans experience when taking hallucinogenic agents.

    and isn’t it odd, Jimmy, that after holding your feet to the fire, that what all of it bails down to is: how do you define god, and what is your evidence? And that has nothing to do with any of the evidence you have presented thus far because the evidence you presented has nothing to do with god. Indeed, if ANY of the evidence you presented had ANYTHING TO DO WITH GOD do you know what the title of the papers would be???????? Have you considered this???????? I title it something like: “Evidence for the existence of god using a multi-factorial, validated questionaire in normal subjects using hallucinogenic mushrooms”

  206. twarren1111 says

    #212 Monocle Smile
    I so agree with Smile’s comment. Kafei, the idea that you can quote Jordan Peterson as a credible source is revealing. He belongs on the same list as Deepak Chopra and Dr. Oz.

    #213 Kafei
    I hope you understand Jimmy that what you post here is exactly what we all have been trying to tell you. So, why, if you can understand from Dr. Griffith’s research that him showing data regarding people’s experience with mushrooms is normal biology and that this does not relate to anything supernatural????

  207. larpar says

    Gem @# 218
    Go ahead and explain what you believe any why. You might want to wait until a fresh thread is posted. This one has been hijacked by a crank and his pet hypothesis. Your story might get lost in the shuffle.
    Some people here were also believers and studied religion, but that led them to the atheist position. I would like to know how you ended up a theist.
    New threads are usually posted at the beginning of the week. Welcome to the blog!

  208. Lamont Cranston says

    I have listened to the lecture. The doctor has established that magic mushrooms affects the emotional state of people and seems to have a persistent effect for an extended period of time. He has established the we can certainly have a biological basis for how we “feel.” This is not news. What is news is the degree of effect of this particular drug.

    … I wouldn’t characterize these experiences as simply “feeling.” These professionals are quick to point out that this experience isn’t simply about “wonderful emotion” or “big feelings,” and they’re certainly not trying to knock that, but that is definitely not what they’re talking about when they speak on the “complete” mystical experience.

    All the definitions I can find with regard to mystical experiences, including the one you use, revolve around “feelings.” The feeling of the experience being more real than reality (not an evidence based fact), the feeling that everything is connected (not an evidence based fact), the feelings of love and joy (not evidence based facts), etc. Mystical experiences are all about subjective feelings that have not been proven or supported with evidence.

    Also, a drug induced “mystical experience” is not what I would call a highly trustworthy way of establishing the truth of anything since it is being done by a brain in a drug induced altered state of consciousness. That is kind of like trusting the drunk man who claims he drives much better after having a few drinks. I am sure he believes that is true, but it is factually untrue.

    Then the doctor goes out on a limb with his own opinions about spirituality which are not supported by his data nor any other evidence. This just establishes that otherwise rational people can develop irrational beliefs. They are not immune to them any more than anyone else.

    Which specific portion of the lecture are you referring to?

    I was referring to his summary comments at the end.

    Addictive behaviors are often driven by the same emotional issues that drive depression and anxiety. Again, not news. So it is equally not surprising that a drug that affects one’s emotional status will affect addictive behavior especially when combined with Cognitive Behavior Therapy as was done.

    These aren’t just subtle changes in behavior, these are quantum changes in behavior. We’re seeing people turn their lives completely around on a dime. These are vastly life-changing experiences for the majority of the volunteers.

    I’m guessing you don’t mean “quantum”. Quantum generally refers to very small scale effects rather than BIG effects. Again, if the areas being effected are caused by “feelings” (most addictive behaviors) it is natural to expect that something that alters “feelings” will have an affect (either good or bad). This is not surprising. It also does not make all the things true that are being “believed” as a result of the drug induced or mystical experience.

    Lamont Cranston

  209. t90bb says

    Jimmy is this weeks OREO,,,,,..

    At the end of the day what we can reasonably state is that some people have powerful experiences they attribute to god. THATS IT. And these people are convinced a GOD exists as a result. Well thats fucking cute!!!……

    How is this anything but one big argument from ignorance??

    Jimmy…when you can demonstrate a god exists and is involved….please alert the scientific community. You will be famous. Until then your another goof. And rather pitiful I may add. That is all.

    PS..in case your response is “they are working on it”….get back to us when the do. Now scram.

  210. speedofsound says

    @Kafei

    Alan Watts didn’t disagree with the Perennial philosophy, he held this view himself. He’s one of my favorite philosophers and speakers on this very topic.

    Nowhere in any of Watts works does he say there is a god that is no more than just the sum of all things natural. It amazes me how many people hear that even though he never says that. I got my idea about all religions being based in these experiences from Watts. That is what the video is about. We agree on that much. Mystical experiences are the motive force behind religious belief.

    Now. Read my post #21 and respond simply with clarity. I found you on RatSkep and it is clear you were banned as a troll because you refused to answer with simple clarity.

  211. StonedRanger says

    @Monocle Smile #217 I quit smoking a little over five years ago. My mystical experience that enabled me to quit was my insurance company sending us a letter telling us that if I continued to smoke it would cost an additional 15 dollars a week for health insurance. That 60 bucks a month was mystical as hell. I quit cold turkey.

  212. says

    @speedofsound

    Anyway. My big thing is that mystical experiences are at the core of believerism. They are the singular greatest problem that we have to solve in naturalism, that we may go forward and get rid of this supernatural crap. John Hopkins research is what we need not what we want to jeer at and make fun of. Every religious caller on every show always, at some point in the call, refers to ‘faith’ or ‘personal connection to god’ or some other emotional complex that indicates mystical experience in some measure. It is why they will not listen to reason. They need to have this brain thingy explained to them before they are going to let it drop.

    I am an individual who has had many of these experiences in different intensities throughout my life. I have mastered a few of these methodologies and used them to improve my life. At no time, ever, in my entire life have I considered moving off of metaphysical naturalism. I study phenomenology in written material and in my own lived experience. Hence it’s kind of my baby so apologies for my possible bias.

    Well, I did address this, perhaps if you could respond to my comment at #136. Then perhaps we can take it from there. While I realize that this comment was directed towards buddyward and maybe you’ve overlooked it. However, there is a specific point I attempt to elucidate that could be quite easily found if you run a word search for “everlasting lasting” which was a typographical error I’ve made which slipped passed me.

  213. Thane McKinsey says

    Kafei – says
    Actually these mystical states of consciousness have been defined quite concretely over decades of scientific research. As I pointed out to Matt Dillahunty, mystical states of consciousness is pretty much a scientific concept at this point.

    Bullshit
    Over new years holiday I went snowmobiling in the Rocky Mountains with my friends, this is something we’ve been doing for thirty years. My friends and I haul ass down the trails, some of which are only three or four feet wide between the trees. Your heart starts pounding and the adrenaline flows, you push your luck and your skill, focusing all your attention on the trail ahead of you. You enter a mental zone of heighten awareness and enlightenment. A mystical state which temporary changes your perception of reality but I’m still a atheist. You can experience this driving a car or flying a plane too.
    Just because I call it a mystical state doesn’t mean its the same state as someone tripping on LSD enjoy a mystical experience nor is that the same mystical state as someone meditating in a deprivation chamber.
    Calling something a mystical experience or mystical state is a blanket term.
    This morning the sunshine was striking the mist rising off of the lake creating a mystical experience as I drank my cup coffee.
    Why can’t you see your mistake?

  214. says

    @speedofsound You’ve brought up a very good point, because Matt Dillahunty stated that he fundamentally disagreed on this very point. So, we definitely should make clear a distinction between these concepts, because this was definite one of Matt’s major contentions.

  215. says

    @t90bb

    I don’t think Jordan Peterson got it wrong. He was talking about addictions. We’re not talking your casual smoker here who decides to quit day and does so at the drop of the hat, and uses this as an example to counter the validity of this research. Jordan Peterson was speaking to the power of these quantum changes in behavior, which include the cessation of smoking without recidivism in about 80% of volunteers, that is in a single dose. However, the Big Point that is emphasized in this scientific research is that it is not simply a medication that you take day to day, but rather it’s the memory of drug experience that is curing the individual.

  216. Monocle Smile says

    I think in #232 that Kafei has clearly shown his hand. We’ve gotten off his script and his buffoonery becomes more plain. What a laughably stupid heap of feces.

  217. jigglefresh says

    @Kafei What is your favorite color? Please, don’t link me to a video where someone else says what his/her favorite color is. I just want to know yours.

  218. speedofsound says

    @Kafei
    You still haven’t given me my simple answer as asked for in post 211. A clear statement of what worldview you are claiming where it concerns these experiences. Also what is your favorite color?

    However, the Big Point that is emphasized in this scientific research is that it is not simply a medication that you take day to day, but rather it’s the memory of drug experience that is curing the individual.

    Yes. It is the memory of my experiences that changed my life. Along with all the reading I did in my life. That goes to worldview and its relation to mystical experiences. There is none. It is a way to change your brain. Your brain is a bit of goo in a sea of dust and empty space. Do you agree that this is all subsumed by psychology and neuroscience or are you claiming something more? Something that physicists need to worry about?

    Again! Clarity. Show us all your cards.

    On the disagreement with Mat on the ’cause’ of religion; He did acknowledge a connection then added that it is more complicated than this. I agree with his assessment. I do not agree with him sometimes, seemingly, on his dismissive attitude toward these experiences. In his defense he is a little tired of hearing about ‘mystical’ for the same reason you are pissing me off. You don’t seem to want to clearly state what you think this means in terms of theism and worldview. You keep sliding around. Again you got kicked off of RatSkep for the same.

  219. speedofsound says

    The experiences I had along with a rating on the ‘mystical scale’:
    1. Pre-druggy days, koan induced. A solid 10
    2. LSD/Mescaline/Psilocybin. 8
    3. Near death overdose of methamphetamine. 9
    4. nervous breakdowns. Suicide attempt followed by falling apart. 6
    5. hitting rock bottom in the cocaine/alcohol business. 5
    6. Continued work in AA 12 step. 6

    All of these experiences have led me to a more solid atheism. I realized that all the mysterious goo that bleevers talk about is subsumed by these experiences which I can fully explain with naturalism. So Kafei, what you claim, that all atheists who have the experience become theists, is falsified by my instance of one exception.

    The point of contention between you and I is that I maintain these are natural states of a natural brain and nothing more.

    However, I do agree with all of what the actual buddhists teach, that self is a delusion, and I maintain that that too is the logical conclusion of naturalism.

  220. speedofsound says

    I had an experience that was profound and hyper-real where my St Bernard was telling me to kill everyone in the house right away. I realized that this was just an experience, in my head, and it was not about any reality. Hence everyone is still breathing. And I am sane.

    I had another profound experience where I felt outside of space and time. I realized that this experience tells me that I have entered the hyperplane of consciousness via M-theory and reality is all about what is in my head which is the god-head actually and I am now in touch with the cosmic expanse.

    Should I see a doctor about this?

  221. buddyward says

    @Kafei

    I don’t think Jordan Peterson got it wrong. He was talking about addictions. We’re not talking your casual smoker here who decides to quit day and does so at the drop of the hat, and uses this as an example to counter the validity of this research. Jordan Peterson was speaking to the power of these quantum changes in behavior, which include the cessation of smoking without recidivism in about 80% of volunteers, that is in a single dose. However, the Big Point that is emphasized in this scientific research is that it is not simply a medication that you take day to day, but rather it’s the memory of drug experience that is curing the individual.

    Jordan Peterson did get it wrong as he is attributing the cessation of smoking with that of the “reported” mystical experience. I can accept that taking psilocybin may aid in quitting smoking but extrapolating anything more than that is unjustified. Jordan Peterson is claiming that you cannot stop smoking without any supernatural intervention and yet we do not have any evidence that the supernatural exist.

    In the video that you linked the speaker describes it as “it APPEARS to be a psychological shift, ALMOST a quantum shift”. These are very vague description that does not claim anything. The speaker also described a small study in Hopkins composing of 15 smokers. Given a couple (not a single dose) of psilocybin trips, supported by cognitive behavioral therapy. This is hardly enough data to confirm anything conclusive not to mention this is not what you are describing at all. You are describing a single dose and just the memory of the trip from that one dose. Michael Pollan also stated that what people do not realize is that epiphany in a psychedelic trip has a weight and authority that they do not have in real life. Meaning that people may change their mind base on what they experienced while tripping on psychedelics. Does this mean that what they are experiencing is true? Absolutely not.

    Just because you use the word “quantum” does not mean that it has any mystical or magical connotations to it. Quantum in this sense is simply any sudden and significant change, advance, or increase. Therefore, a “quantum change” in behavior is simply a sudden change in behavior. Nothing divine or god like about it.

  222. Thane McKinsey says

    Kafei – says
    Actually these mystical states of consciousness have been defined quite concretely over decades of scientific research.
    One more time Kafei.
    Your statement is a fallacy.
    How can a mysterious mystical state of consciousness be defined concretely, is truly a mystery.

  223. t90bb says

    well folks…honestly Jimmy’s case is so weak I have generally lost interest….

    He likes to believe people have powerful experiences and this demonstrates the existence of a god. Thats very nice…..as I have said ten times hes arguing from a fallacy….(ignorance and/or incredulity). He might as well just say..”look at the trees!”.

    I heard him out….and I think his position in laughable.

    Jimmy if you get anything else that you think demonstrates a god exists let me know. Until then..see ya.

  224. buddyward says

    @t90bb

    Jimmy if you get anything else that you think demonstrates a god exists let me know. Until then..see ya.

    Be careful with what you ask, he might just start flooding you with useless links to YouTube that has nothing to do with what you request.

  225. speedofsound says

    One thing is for damned sure. If you take high doses of psychedelics you will not recognise the reality that your mind is reporting to you. The surprising thing is that this is experienced often but not always as very pleasurable and peaceful. I think that is the problem.

    Now if you are not grounded in a strong naturalist understanding of reality you will be launched into the damndest set of strange beliefs. Worse yet the power and the pleasure from the experience will bias you strongly and result in massive posting of woo-links galore.

    I am reminded of my addiction days when I happened to ingest enough meth to bring about a Total Bug Experience. Not that this one was pleasurable (IT WAS NOT!) but the experience was so damned real that no one and nothing could convince me that my bedroom was not filled with millions of DNA projectile launching beetles from Hell. I even called the University of Minnesota to discuss my findings for this strange new insect.

    Now if you have never had a TBE you will just not get what I am saying here.

  226. says

    @speedofsound I knew your SN looked familiar. What you’re saying is precisely the point I make about Nikola in the “I am You” thread at RatSke. You’re willing to say that you’ve had aspects or perhaps the “complete” mystical experience, but you still insist on defining it on your own terms rather than how it’s been defined within the context of the research. However, what you don’t realize is that mystical states of consciousness have been defined in accordance with the Perennial philosophy. The only way to maintain your atheism is to essentially contort the established definition of the the mystical experience which has been established to be consistent with the Perennial philosophy.

    @Thane McKinsey

    Kafei – says
    Actually these mystical states of consciousness have been defined quite concretely over decades of scientific research.
    One more time Kafei.
    Your statement is a fallacy.
    How can a mysterious mystical state of consciousness be defined concretely, is truly a mystery.

    Well, I’m merely reiterating precisely what has been lectured by these professionals.

    @buddyward
    I believe the only point Jordan Peterson was attempting to make is the major point emphasized by this research.

  227. buddyward says

    @Kafei

    I believe the only point Jordan Peterson was attempting to make is the major point emphasized by this research.

    You are now trying to represent what Jordan Peterson believes without actually referencing what he actually said. That is just dishonest to tell us what his point is and try to lead us to believe that you have internal knowledge of what he thinks.

    Jordan Peterson clearly disagreed with Matt Dillahunty when Matt said that you can stop smoking without any supernatural intervention. That is not an interpretation of what I think Peterson said nor is that a claim that I know what he meant. That is clearly what he said. You are flat out wrong and you think that trying to overload us with useless information would make us believe that you are correct. People here are not as stupid as you might think.

  228. says

    speedofsound

    Now if you are not grounded in a strong naturalist understanding of reality you will be launched into the damndest set of strange beliefs. Worse yet the power and the pleasure from the experience will bias you strongly and result in massive posting of woo-links galore.

    I am reminded of my addiction days when I happened to ingest enough meth to bring about a Total Bug Experience. Not that this one was pleasurable (IT WAS NOT!) but the experience was so damned real that no one and nothing could convince me that my bedroom was not filled with millions of DNA projectile launching beetles from Hell. I even called the University of Minnesota to discuss my findings for this strange new insect.

    Now if you have never had a TBE you will just not get what I am saying here.

    You didn’t find a new insect. This phenomenon is known as formication in medical literature. I’ve experienced this myself with alcohol in a bout I’ve had with delitrium tremens (DTs). Yes, it does appear as though insects are crawling and spilling all over the walls and surface of objects. I didn’t know at the time that I was experiencing DTs, I thought I was going nuts. I would try and meditate to make it go away, and in my meditation, with eyes closed, I’d see an appearance of a dot in the middle of my visual field, again, with eyes closed. This infinitesimally orb of light would appear at the center, the longer I was able to maintain my meditation, the larger this light would grow, but then something would come to destract me, and it would eat the orb of light. Everytime I’d fall back into meditation, I’d see this orb appear, but as soon as it did, it was almost as though this gargoyle like creature would come and he was pissed that I was even producing this light. I know this sounds like a weird experience, but then I now see this gargoyle/demon at the center of my vision holding this orb, and moving around to as to distract me from meditation or distract me from having this orb of light continue to grow and grow until I was engulfed in it, that was the intuition I felt was happening, but didn’t happen, because this demon would prevent it, by grabbing and eating it.

    I really, at the time, thought I was on the brink of death with my alcoholism, but I was able to hop on the internet, and see that this was commonplace among individuals who have bouts with delirium tremens, and so I was able to pacify my mind, and convince myself that perhaps I wasn’t dying. However, this is sort of off-topic, but I can definitely relate to the insects crawling on objects phenomena that occurs during those bouts. I’ve had the TBE.

  229. says

    buddyward

    Jordan Peterson clearly disagreed with Matt Dillahunty when Matt said that you can stop smoking without any supernatural intervention. That is not an interpretation of what I think Peterson said nor is that a claim that I know what he meant. That is clearly what he said. You are flat out wrong and you think that trying to overload us with useless information would make us believe that you are correct. People here are not as stupid as you might think.

    I think, like Matt, you’re hung up on the word “supernatural.” Matt even admitted in my call to him that he didn’t even know what the word meant, so if Jordan Peterson is using it, he probably has some definition other than Matt’s framework, which is just to assume the definition. Again, Matt says he doesn’t even know what the word itself means. If you want a more clear and distinct take on Jordan Peterson’s side, then I recommend a lecture where he gets into it more thoroughly than what was displayed with his encounter with Matt Dillahunty.

  230. says

    @paxoll I disagree. I believe Matt, being ignorant to these topics, caused much more confusion than clarity with his encounter with Jordan Peterson, especially if the man (Matt Dillahunty) doesn’t even know what the word “supernatural” means as he’s admitted on multiple occasions.

  231. buddyward says

    @kafei

    I think, like Matt, you’re hung up on the word “supernatural.” Matt even admitted in my call to him that he didn’t even know what the word meant, so if Jordan Peterson is using it, he probably has some definition other than Matt’s framework, which is just to assume the definition. Again, Matt says he doesn’t even know what the word itself means. If you want a more clear and distinct take on Jordan Peterson’s side, then I recommend a lecture where he gets into it more thoroughly than what was displayed with his encounter with Matt Dillahunty.

    The person using the term is the one responsible for defining the term. Just like how you keep using the term mystical in all the research you are describing and yet you cannot even define mystical. Further more you have already stated that mystical have nothing to do with the researches. If the word have nothing to do with it, why use it? Perhaps the reason why you keep using the word is that without it you cannot make an argument that connects the divine and\or god to the research.

    We do not know what supernatural is because there are no evidence for the supernatural and yet you just like many others keep using that word and asserting that it exist without evidence to support it.

    Going back to my previous response, just in case it went over your head, the point is that you are trying to represent what someone else’s point is but you clearly have no basis to make that representation. All you did was point to some YouTube video and say “I think this is what he believes.” with no justification whatsoever as to why. In the meantime, there are other sources being pointed out that clearly shows what Peterson believes. Your rebuttal to this is that you are putting the blame on Matt for not understanding the term. If that is the case then why in the world would Peterson disagree with Matt if the term is misunderstood. Disagreeing with Matt’s statement means that Peterson agrees with whatever definition that Matt has for supernatural.

  232. buddyward says

    @kafei

    I disagree. I believe Matt, being ignorant to these topics, caused much more confusion than clarity with his encounter with Jordan Peterson, especially if the man (Matt Dillahunty) doesn’t even know what the word “supernatural” means as he’s admitted on multiple occasions.

    It is funny that you referred to your conversation with Matt right after he said he does not know what supernatural mean and you did not even bother defining it for him in order to be clear that both you and him agree. You avoided giving him the definition of the supernatural just like you have avoided defining mystical here in the forum. You blame Matt for causing confusion while you who is supposed to know these terms does not clarify it.

  233. t90bb says

    Jimmy likes to play the same bullshit as they do in AA….

    Alcoholics Anonymous claims that is you are a “real” alcoholic….only a “spiritual experience” or spiritual awakening” can save you. They claim is anyone recovers by any other means then they were never really a “real alcoholic” or arent even truly sober…..

    Even though they (AA) cant accurately or consistently define a spiritual experience or spiritual awakening……

    Its complete woooo……and Jimmy has roots in AA…so its pretty clear where some of his nonsense is rooted.

    I assume Jimmy has made his absolute best case for his magical world…..and its laughable.

  234. t90bb says

    Jimmy likes placebos……calling something magical or mystical or supernatural makes his balls tingle and might even give him the courage to face the day. Isn’t that cute..

  235. t90bb says

    Pretending that a “complete mystical experience” is a real thing makes people like Jimmy feel better. We get it. Now run along.

  236. ecostarr says

    Since Kafei refuses to address this question, I’ll post it again.

    What does your call have to do with Atheism and why do you feel the need to call the Athiest experience?

    You have cited Griffiths–the lead researcher in the Johns Hopkins study–multiples of times.

    But, according to Griffiths, “We’re just measuring what can be observed. We’re not entering into ‘Does God exist or not exist.’ This work can’t and won’t go there.”

    That is, in fact, the case for all of these scientific studies.

    If these studies don’t ultimately weigh in on a belief in God, what is their relevance to Atheism?

  237. says

    @buddyward

    The person using the term is the one responsible for defining the term. Just like how you keep using the term mystical in all the research you are describing and yet you cannot even define mystical. Further more you have already stated that mystical have nothing to do with the researches. If the word have nothing to do with it, why use it? Perhaps the reason why you keep using the word is that without it you cannot make an argument that connects the divine and\or god to the research.

    Because they’re not simply using the word “mystical,” but more accurately, and pay attention to the italics here, the term “mystical experience” which has, indeed, been quite concretely defined over decades of research.

    We do not know what supernatural is because there are no evidence for the supernatural and yet you just like many others keep using that word and asserting that it exist without evidence to support it.

    I never said the “supernatural” exists, especially if you’re defining in terms that defy the laws of physics. What I’m at great pains to express is that supernatural defined in the sense of defying the natural laws of physics or being something akin to magic has absolutely nothing to do with the original etymology which references the divine found in the scriptures of all the world’s major religions. That’s simply my point.

    Going back to my previous response, just in case it went over your head, the point is that you are trying to represent what someone else’s point is but you clearly have no basis to make that representation. All you did was point to some YouTube video and say “I think this is what he believes.” with no justification whatsoever as to why.

    I don’t think that’s what these professionals believe. More accurately, I’m reiterating precisely what has been established by these professionals. I’m not saying anything different than what they’re saying.

    In the meantime, there are other sources being pointed out that clearly shows what Peterson believes. Your rebuttal to this is that you are putting the blame on Matt for not understanding the term.

    Well, Matt’s had plenty of time to look this stuff up. I e-mailed him about this stuff back in 2013, I called the show the first time around in 2014 (but the initial call was with Tracie Harris and Russell Glasser), then again in 2016 (Matt and Tracie), once again 2017 (Matt and Jen), then in 2018 (Matt and Phil), and now again finally in 2019 (Matt and Phil once again).

    If that is the case then why in the world would Peterson disagree with Matt if the term is misunderstood. Disagreeing with Matt’s statement means that Peterson agrees with whatever definition that Matt has for supernatural.

    He was disagreeing that when people have legitimate addictions, it’s quite hard for them to quit. The drugs we have available known to help cease addiction work by weening people off, they certainly don’t have the efficacy of working in a single dose. That’s all he was trying to emphasize, but Matt obscured this by his confusion over the term “supernatural.”

  238. says

    @echostarr

    You have cited Griffiths–the lead researcher in the Johns Hopkins study–multiples of times.

    But, according to Griffiths, “We’re just measuring what can be observed. We’re not entering into ‘Does God exist or not exist.’ This work can’t and won’t go there.”

    That is, in fact, the case for all of these scientific studies.

    If these studies don’t ultimately weigh in on a belief in God, what is their relevance to Atheism?

    Yes, you’re quoting something he said back in 2006, I believe. He’s a more updated quote from a 2017 interview.

    The big question—and perhaps this is beyond the realm of science—is what do these experiences mean? Are people really tapping into a deeper reality? “There’s no question they feel like they are,” Griffiths says. “It goes beyond anything I have a ready explanation for, philosophically or scientifically.” So—does he believe in God? Griffiths stammers. “I don’t even know how to answer that question,” he says. “I’ve become comfortable with God as a placeholder for the benevolent mystery for which there are no words, and I think that’s what people must mean by God.”

    Dr. Bill Richards has iterated in a paper he’s published a quit similar sentiment which I’ll quote, he says, “Once again, we are aware that it is not in the purview of science to prove or to disprove the reality of God.” In other words, it’s not the goal or object of science to go out there and prove or disprove God. Rather they can only demonstrate what they can demonstrate, and what they’ve established is evidence which suggests that these mystical states of consciousness are a biologically normal phenomenon in consciousness which has been happening for millennia à la the Perennial philosophy. That’s pretty much it in a nutshell, and I have addressed this point, many times throughout this thread.

  239. Einy says

    #258 do you really think the updated quote changes anything in #256? It doesn’t.

    Based on your snippet: ‘and perhaps this is beyond the realm of science—”—I.e Nothing to do with science.
    ” “I’ve become comfortable with God as a placeholder for the benevolent mystery for which there are no words, and I think that’s what people must mean by God.”—–This doesn’t come close to any theistic god. It basically a different way of saying I don’t know or have an answer so we will call that god. If you think he is referring to a being, your comprehension is as flawed as your extrapolations.

    Please. stop using “More accurately, I’m reiterating precisely ” Because it doesn’t mean what you think it means because you have done the opposite.

    Also your last entry just shows any extrapolation you or they are making are NOT scientifically based.

    This part of the quote might be real “Rather they can only demonstrate what they can demonstrate, and what they’ve established is evidence which suggests that these mystical states of consciousness are a biologically normal phenomenon in consciousness which has been happening for millennia ” which, is a no shit sherlock………I think you are adding “à la the Perennial philosophy. ” to it….Link the paper it came from. Because there is no way a scientist can come to that conclusion through scientific means. (basically because the philosophy is bullshit) but because not even the scientific evidence backs it up.

    So if you can’t show the quote from the original source you sir are a fraud.

  240. says

    @Einy

    So if you can’t show the quote from the original source you sir are a fraud.

    What happened to your claim at post #187 was your last response to me? The source was linked in my very last post. I’ve posted them several times throughout this thread. I screenshot specifically here[1] and here[2] where the Perennial philosophy is emphasized in the research.

    1. Classic Hallucinogens and Mystical Experiences: Phenomenology and Neural Correlates
    2. The Rebirth of Research with Entheogens :Lessons from the Past and Hypotheses for the Future

    The 2nd paper I do link in my very last post, and I’ve posted how to find the first one in post #208. For some reason, it does not let me link them directly, that’s why I redirect your attention to those posts.

  241. Einy says

    What happened to your claim at post #187 was your last response to me?————–I changed my mind because your lied irritate me.

    Your first screenshot is from Huxley not Richards and the second one mentions several scholars. It doesn’t show Bill Richards making the quote.

    So, as i expected, you put your own extrapolation on it, didn’t give me what i asked. (the quote from richards) but things i did not ask for. I know scholars are putting their OWN NON SCIENTIFIC OPINION regarding what it means but the science DOES NOT back up the BS philosophy you are peddling.

    If Bill Richards didn’t make that quote actually mentioning Perennial philosophy as you implied, then my original assessment of you is correct.

  242. says

    @Einy

    What happened to your claim at post #187 was your last response to me?————–I changed my mind because your lied irritate me.

    Okay. We’ve got a mind-changer here.

    Your first screenshot is from Huxley not Richards and the second one mentions several scholars. It doesn’t show Bill Richards making the quote.

    That paper was written by Dr. Bill Richards. He was referencing how it’s been articulated, but Huxley isn’t the founder of the Perennial philosophy. It had been around for millennia. He could’ve just as easily taken an excerpt from Ralph Cudworth, Frithjof Schuon or other prominent writings who contributed to the Perennial philosophy.

    So, as i expected, you put your own extrapolation on it, didn’t give me what i asked. (the quote from richards) but things i did not ask for. I know scholars are putting their OWN NON SCIENTIFIC OPINION regarding what it means but the science DOES NOT back up the BS philosophy you are peddling.

    That is Richards, that’s a published paper he’s written. He also has given lectures on this research, and directly invokes the Perennial philosophy.

    If Bill Richards didn’t make that quote actually mentioning Perennial philosophy as you implied, then my original assessment of you is correct.

    That is Bill Richards mentioning the Perennial philosophy. You do realize Aldous Huxley has been dead for many years. Dr. Bill Richards published that paper in 2009. The other paper which also highlights this “common core” or the “Perennial philosophy” was published by Griffiths, et al. in 2017.

  243. says

    @Einy

    I changed my mind because your lied irritate me.

    I don’t think it’s a lie that’s irritating you, because I’ve not lied. I’ve been discussing these topics quite sincerely. What is irritating you is the fact that I’m not lying. That’s what’s irritating you. You don’t seem to want to accept that I am reiterating precisely what has been established by this science, and the evidence is clear when you say that you thought it was merely a projection of mine that I was somehow inserting “à la the Perennial philosophy” into this research on my own. Not true. The reason I mention the Perennial philosophy is because these professionals have made it clear that these mystical states of consciousness are consistent with what has been historically known by truly gifted mystics, philosophers, theologians, physicists, etc. as the Perennial philosophy. If you’ve an issue with that, then don’t take it up with me. Take it up with the professionals involved in this research, because they’re the ones that have emphasized Perennialism. Not I, you see, as you have been assuming so throughout this thread.

  244. Einy says

    You have to be on of the most dishonest posters I have ever come across. No wonder you get banned,

    The fact it is mentioned else where does not mean he is saying the SCIENCE supports it. In fact it doesn’t as others as rightly as pointed out. Even what you posted in the screen shot doesn’t even talk about the science.

    I know Huxley is dead, what does that have to do with the tea in china? Did i say he was alive? No. Of course you post more irrelevant bullshit. Just like i didn’t ask who started your BS philosophy. It doesn’t matter to the discussion.
    So you can post all these long responses which is nothing but world salad to try to hide the fact that you are just dishonest.

    I rather change my mind then be dishonest like you. Besides , if one was to believe your BS CME, you technically are a mind changer too.

  245. says

    @Einy

    You have to be on of the most dishonest posters I have ever come across. No wonder you get banned,

    I’ve explained that I was banned for no reason at all but simply because a crowd of whiny atheist bothered some MODs to have me removed. If you actually follow that thread, there are still people insisting that the ban was unjust. Some posts even posted today as that thread continues without me.

    The fact it is mentioned else where does not mean he is saying the SCIENCE supports it. In fact it doesn’t as others as rightly as pointed out. Even what you posted in the screen shot doesn’t even talk about the science.

    This research is science, therefore science does, indeed, support this.

    I know Huxley is dead, what does that have to do with the tea in china? Did i say he was alive? No. Of course you post more irrelevant bullshit. Just like i didn’t ask who started your BS philosophy. It doesn’t matter to the discussion.
    So you can post all these long responses which is nothing but world salad to try to hide the fact that you are just dishonest.

    I was responding to your irrelevant nonsense that you thought Huxley was emphasizing the Perennial philosophy in this research. How? He was dead before this research even got started. That’s why I mentioned his death.

    I rather change my mind then be dishonest like you. Besides , if one was to believe your BS CME, you technically are a mind changer too.

    I haven’t been dishonest about anything here. I maintain everything I’ve said. I haven’t changed my position at all.

  246. Einy says

    #263 You are a liar,

    Reiterating precisely what has been established by this science—–No, no you haven’t. You make extrapolations science is not saying anything about and trying to pass it off as it was. That sir is dishonest.

    Take it up with the professionals involved in this research, because they’re the ones that have emphasized Perennialism. Not I—
    Another lie, You have talked about the BS philosophy countless times in this thread. You are the one peddling the bullshit with NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. The drug trials are not evidence for the philosophy you peddle.

    I also find it Ironic that you have not addressed Twarren #220,#221 who broke it down nicely your many issues.

    Truth is you don’t care about the truth. It is easier for you to live in WOO land then reality.

  247. Einy says

    “I was responding to your irrelevant nonsense that you thought Huxley was emphasizing the Perennial philosophy in this research. How? He was dead before this research even got started. That’s why I mentioned his death.”————There you go being a liar again. I pointed the screen shot YOU gave after the section YOU circled said (Huxley 1947) when I asked for the DIRECT QUOTE FROM RICHARDS.

    You can maintain whatever you want. You are still dishonest.

  248. Einy says

    “I’ve explained that I was banned for no reason at all but simply because a crowd of whiny atheist bothered some MODs to have me removed. I”””——Yes, always someone else’s fault. You got banned probably due to your dishonesty.

  249. says

    @Einy

    Reiterating precisely what has been established by this science—–No, no you haven’t. You make extrapolations science is not saying anything about and trying to pass it off as it was. That sir is dishonest.

    Like what specifically? I maintain, I haven’t said anything that hasn’t been established by this research. I’ve said nothing more, nothing less.

    Another lie, You have talked about the BS philosophy countless times in this thread. You are the one peddling the bullshit with NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. The drug trials are not evidence for the philosophy you peddle.

    Yes, and every single time I’ve brought up on these threads, I was referring to the science that’s been done that supports these facts. Like I said, this research has been going on for decades now.

    I also find it Ironic that you have not addressed Twarren #220,#221 who broke it down nicely your many issues.

    Twarren admitted he was just being introduced to this stuff, and would respond when he has a better grasp of it. So, I’m not sure what you thought he was pointing out. Perhaps you can be more specific, because in #221 he makes it clear he’s just as confused as Matt is, and it’s precisely due to this term “supernatural.” I’ve made this point many times, but it’s probably worth reiterating. Perhaps Twarren can give his take on this, but you see, it’s a flat-out mistake on behalf of the atheists I encounter to necessarily define God as something supernatural. That is to say, to define the divine with the requirement that its description should be something that defies physics or is synonymous with magic, etc. Einstein rightly referred to this as the “childish analogy of religion,” and ironically it’s the one notion most atheists I meet have as for their very reason for their rejection of theism. You see, the atheist essentially conjures his/her own conception of God, makes it supernatural, omniscient, omnibenevolent, etc. from the influence of their, shall I say, eisegesis of what they understand about religion, then proceeds to reject the very thing which they themselves conjured. Seems quite silly, but this is, in fact, the case.

    The science is saying something quite different and has implications towards the very origins of the major religions (Perennialism), the nascency of each of the world’s great faiths residing in individuals engaging what they’re referring to as a “mystical experience,” and have found it is, indeed, a biologically normal phenomenon.

    Truth is you don’t care about the truth. It is easier for you to live in WOO land then reality.

    I deeply care about the truth, and these experiences throughout ages have been regarded by the major religions as glimpses into ultimate truth.

  250. buddyward says

    Because they’re not simply using the word “mystical,” but more accurately, and pay attention to the italics here, the term “mystical experience” which has, indeed, been quite concretely defined over decades of research.

    Pay attention to the rules of grammar here. The word that comes before the word experience determines what kind of experience it is. A sexual experience is understandable because sex is clearly defined. A culinary experience is understandable because culinary is well defined. You are positing that there is an exception when it comes to “mystical experience”. This is a bullshit response and you cannot justify why it would be an exception. This is yet another attempt to avoid having to define your terms.

    I never said the “supernatural” exists, especially if you’re defining in terms that defy the laws of physics. What I’m at great pains to express is that supernatural defined in the sense of defying the natural laws of physics or being something akin to magic has absolutely nothing to do with the original etymology which references the divine found in the scriptures of all the world’s major religions. That’s simply my point.

    And yet you as well as Jordan Peterson use it as if it exists.

    Please show me the “original etymology” of the word supernatural and not some interpretation from a vague passage in scripture. As far as I can determine the etymology of supernatural according to dictionary.com is it comes from the Latin word supernaturalis, meaning beyond nature.

    I don’t think that’s what these professionals believe. More accurately, I’m reiterating precisely what has been established by these professionals. I’m not saying anything different than what they’re saying.

    You are claiming that this is what Jordan Peterson believes without any evidence to support it.

    Well, Matt’s had plenty of time to look this stuff up. I e-mailed him about this stuff back in 2013, I called the show the first time around in 2014 (but the initial call was with Tracie Harris and Russell Glasser), then again in 2016 (Matt and Tracie), once again 2017 (Matt and Jen), then in 2018 (Matt and Phil), and now again finally in 2019 (Matt and Phil once again).

    It does not matter how much time Matt or anyone else have. In the few days we have been discussing this along with all the bullshit references you presented you have undeniably failed to justify the connection between people taking psychedelic drugs and the divine and\or god. You even went as far as saying that mystical has nothing to do with it which therefore follows that there is no connection.

    He was disagreeing that when people have legitimate addictions, it’s quite hard for them to quit. The drugs we have available known to help cease addiction work by weening people off, they certainly don’t have the efficacy of working in a single dose. That’s all he was trying to emphasize, but Matt obscured this by his confusion over the term “supernatural.”

    For someone who insist on people watching the YouTube links and reading the documents that he posts you sure do not even take the time to check what you are saying. Peterson said that the combination of taking psilocybin AND having mystical experiences are the factors that made these smokers quit. This is right after he disagreed with Matt when Matt said you can stop smoking without supernatural intervention.

  251. says

    @einy

    “I’ve explained that I was banned for no reason at all but simply because a crowd of whiny atheist bothered some MODs to have me removed. I”””——Yes, always someone else’s fault. You got banned probably due to your dishonesty.

    Well, the thread still exist and all the posts are there for anyone to examine and judge for themselves. Like I said, there are still people there defending me, who know that this was unjust. To take an excerpt from one such individual:

    I have to say that I think an injustice has taken place here. Has this individual been given any warnings about his posts infringing forum rules? Kafei clearly has a convinction about drug induced mystical experiences. He believes that scientific studies support these drug induced mystical experiences. Forum members disagree upon this essential issue. However, Kafei repetitively asserts his conviction. Why should he not be warned – with specific examples – as to why his repetitiveness is merely preaching or trolling? This way, he can either take heed, or pursue his path and incur the penalty.

    Instead, he seems to have been banned without prior warnings because certain members do not consider his conviction to be legitimate, and therefore his constant repetitiveness, in the face of constant opposition, has to be that of a troll or an evangelist.

    If Kafei has indeed not received any prior warnings, and has been banned simply as a result of accumulated outrage, then I consider this to be the worst case of moderation that I have observed on this site.

  252. Einy says

    It’s been pointed out many times your erroneous extrapolations, so look above.

    Atheists aren’t making the mistake about defining god. We don’t believe one exists. Some we know came exist based on the definition other definitions are just useless because we already have words that describe what they are calling god. The theist like yourself defines it. But when your definition includes woo terms not based in reality and can’t be verified using scientific tests that sounds not natural. If you can’t provide evidence then there is no reason to believe it.

    There is science and implications using certain drugs and the impacts it has like with this study but the science is not doing anything to support the philosophy.

  253. says

    @buddyward

    Pay attention to the rules of grammar here. The word that comes before the word experience determines what kind of experience it is. A sexual experience is understandable because sex is clearly defined. A culinary experience is understandable because culinary is well defined. You are positing that there is an exception when it comes to “mystical experience”. This is a bullshit response and you cannot justify why it would be an exception. This is yet another attempt to avoid having to define your terms.

    No, this is a very valid reply in that they’re not simply referring to these experiences as mystical. This was Matt’s confusion, no volunteer, no ancient mystic even uses the word “mystical” to describe this experience. More accurately, the term mystical experience is being used by the professionals to categorize a phenomenon in consciousness.

    And yet you as well as Jordan Peterson use it as if it exists.

    No, I’ve addressed this point at post #136, and I quote Frithjof Schuon here, too. You can run a word search for “everlasting lasting” and find this quite easily. This comment was, in fact, directed towards, you, I’m not sure if you perhaps overlooked it. If the term is to be used by Jordan Peterson or myself, I am definitely not using it as its been bandied about by atheists to refer to something that defies the laws of physics or that is something akin to magic. That’s what I want to make clear.

    Please show me the “original etymology” of the word supernatural and not some interpretation from a vague passage in scripture. As far as I can determine the etymology of supernatural according to dictionary.com is it comes from the Latin word supernaturalis, meaning beyond nature.

    Well, I’ve searched the etymology myself, and it’s not clear. It could’ve been a term that was developed to refer to these misconceptions about religion, about interpreting miracles literally, and if that’s the case, then it never anything to do with religion at all. If it’s beyond nature in the sense that it is the subjective experience which gives an impression of beyond nature, that is to say, this timeless state of mind, then it is not referring to something that is literally contradicting nature, but that is not nature as ordinarily experienced. If that’s the case, then supernatural is merely the experiential reality that accompanies mystical states of consciousness, and that people describe as timeless or eternal or beyond dimensionality, etc. But that’s not to say that it is unnatural or defying of the laws of physics, you see. That’s where the confusion comes in, once someone assumes that it means something that defies the natural laws or that is akin to magic.

    You are claiming that this is what Jordan Peterson believes without any evidence to support it.

    I’m not sure what Jordan Peterson believes. I’ve never heard him talk about the Perennial philosophy, and he also admits that he’s never had such mystical experiences, but he’s nevertheless quite intrigued by them and does seem to be more familiar with the research than Matt Dillahunty, that’s for sure.

    It does not matter how much time Matt or anyone else have. In the few days we have been discussing this along with all the bullshit references you presented you have undeniably failed to justify the connection between people taking psychedelic drugs and the divine and\or god. You even went as far as saying that mystical has nothing to do with it which therefore follows that there is no connection.

    I never said “mystical” has nothing to do with it. I just said that they’re referring to this phenomenon as a “mystical experience,” they’re not simply and solely calling it “mystical.” And I have made established these connections. I’d argue that people are simply unwilling to accept this science. Perhaps they’re too clingly to their atheism. It’s an ego thing. They’d rather ignore science that undermines their position, than to attempt to accept it and re-evaluate their entire position. Don’t you see how it’s simply easier to adhere to the former, than the latter? That may simply be all that’s happening here. Otherwise, if you truly wanted to challenge yourself, then a CME would simply do it.

    For someone who insist on people watching the YouTube links and reading the documents that he posts you sure do not even take the time to check what you are saying. Peterson said that the combination of taking psilocybin AND having mystical experiences are the factors that made these smokers quit. This is right after he disagreed with Matt when Matt said you can stop smoking without supernatural intervention.

    Peterson said, “No, not really” in that particular discussion. He was referring to how addicts use the patch, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t, but it’s something that has to be used again and again while the psilocybin experience is a single dose with very powerful efficacy to cause an addict to quit after one single session. That’s not to be undermined with this semantic confusion presented by Matt.

  254. says

    @Einy

    It’s been pointed out many times your erroneous extrapolations, so look above.

    No, it hasn’t. People thought they were making a valid criticism when they actually weren’t. So, do you have anything in specific to point to that you thought was valid?

    Atheists aren’t making the mistake about defining god. We don’t believe one exists. Some we know came exist based on the definition other definitions are just useless because we already have words that describe what they are calling god. The theist like yourself defines it. But when your definition includes woo terms not based in reality and can’t be verified using scientific tests that sounds not natural. If you can’t provide evidence then there is no reason to believe it.

    What I’ve spoken about has nothing to do with woo, this research has nothing to do with woo. This “woo” is merely a projection of your own mind. Otherwise, what in specific do you think is “woo”? Why can’t you specifically point to anything rather than saying, “Look up there in thread, it’s up there, somewhere. People have pointed it out.” Pointed out what, exactly?

    There is science and implications using certain drugs and the impacts it has like with this study but the science is not doing anything to support the philosophy.

    Except that the science has defined these mystical states of consciousness in accordance with the Perennial philosophy. It’s as though you can accept all the science has done, except that one fact which is, indeed, also included as a part of what’s been established by decades of scientific research.

  255. Einy says

    More lies and false extrapolations. The science in Griffiths studies makes no proclamation about the philosophy or the validity of the experiences themselves.

    So it has 0 to do with atheists giving up anything, but everything to do with you unable to show the drug studies gives evidence in favor of some ultimate truth.

    LMFAO everyone’s criticism was not valid. No, your understanding of science is not valid.

    Science created different states based off a questionnaire of which is still based off of subjective experiences.. outside of that the science doesn’t validate what you think it does.

  256. says

    @Einy

    More lies and false extrapolations. The science in Griffiths studies makes no proclamation about the philosophy or the validity of the experiences themselves.

    So it has 0 to do with atheists giving up anything, but everything to do with you unable to show the drug studies gives evidence in favor of some ultimate truth.

    LMFAO everyone’s criticism was not valid. No, your understanding of science is not valid.

    Science created different states based off a questionnaire of which is still based off of subjective experiences.. outside of that the science doesn’t validate what you think it does.

    Well, obviously, the professionals that have been involved in this scientific research would disagree with you. I’d go even further to add that if you would undergo a CME for yourself, then all argument would cease, because the experience in and of itself is the primary convincing factor. Not reading words about it or understanding concepts, etc. That’s why I told Matt, “Forget studying, why don’t you have one of these experiences for yourself?” Which he obviously has not, and therefore is just as clueless as yourself about them, and the implications that arise from them.

  257. Einy says

    I’m going out to dinner but I want to say this.
    I think you will have better luck going to a theist blog as they already believe things on faith which is what you need to believe in the nonsense you call perennial philosophy. No one is buying what you are pedaling. you keep saying we are wrong when we point out your errors. So I think we are at a standstill. At this point I don’t even know what you’re trying to accomplish now? If it’s that people have weird experiences when they’re on drugs we agree. Anything about an ultimate truth you’re in fairytale Land.

  258. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    As far as I can tell, Kafei isn’t actually peddling supernatural claims. Rather, he just wants to talk about mere non-supernatural materialistic inner personal experiences (and he uses confusing language to talk about it). Also, he claims that all of the world’s religions started talking merely about non-supernatural, materialistic inner personal experiences of an unusual and special but still materialist character, and over time they all got corrupted into making real supernatural claims. Correct me if I’m wrong Kafei.

    Also, Kafei is a pisspoor communicator. I almost think that it’s deliberate.

    Also, Kafei might be holding on to some supernatural beliefs, but it’s far from clear, and my reading of his posts seems to indicate that he doesn’t have any real supernatural beliefs, and instead his sole problem is insistence on unclear terminology and a really pisspoor ability to describe what he actually believes.

  259. says

    @Einy

    I think you will have better luck going to a theist blog as they already believe things on faith which is what you need to believe in the nonsense you call perennial philosophy.

    The ancient mystics often approached the Perennial philosophy by virtue of their mystical experience. These mystics would often recognize themselves in a line of mystics throughout history who’ve made this discovery. A CME doesn’t require faith, but the act of faith itself might help one to fully embrace a mystical experience, because without faith, then the ego can undergo what’s called a “bad trip,” and without faith, has no foundation to simply let go based on faith, therefore the ego clings.

    No one is buying what you are pedaling. you keep saying we are wrong when we point out your errors.

    Again, I ask, what error? I’ve requested that you point to something in specific, and thus far you’ve failed to do so. You simply say, “Look up there! It’s somewhere in the thread. Many have pointed it out.” What have they pointed out, I ask? Care to apply any specificity whatsoever?

    So I think we are at a standstill. At this point I don’t even know what you’re trying to accomplish now? If it’s that people have weird experiences when they’re on drugs we agree. Anything about an ultimate truth you’re in fairytale Land.

    This research didn’t simply conclude “drugs cause weird experiences,” that’s been my contention. The implications were more profound than simply that.

  260. says

    @EnlightenmentLiberal

    As far as I can tell, Kafei isn’t actually peddling supernatural claims. Rather, he just wants to talk about mere non-supernatural materialistic inner personal experiences (and he uses confusing language to talk about it). Also, he claims that all of the world’s religions started talking merely about non-supernatural, materialistic inner personal experiences of an unusual and special but still materialist character, and over time they all got corrupted into making real supernatural claims. Correct me if I’m wrong Kafei.

    I wouldn’t say they were necessarily corrupted. Perhaps you can put it that way, but they were definitely misconstrued throughout the centuries, and I suppose that could lead to a corruption or what Ted Nottingham calls a “devolution of religion.” However, make no mistake, we are speaking about a natural phenomenon in consciousness, and whether it’s supernatural or not depends on how you’re defining supernatural. If you’re defining supernatural as that which defies the laws of physics, then of course that’s not what we’re talking about, but that’s not what supernatural really means, that’s simply how atheists have bandied about a definition they’ve applied to this term.

    Also, Kafei is a pisspoor communicator. I almost think that it’s deliberate.

    Also, Kafei might be holding on to some supernatural beliefs, but it’s far from clear, and my reading of his posts seems to indicate that he doesn’t have any real supernatural beliefs, and instead his sole problem is insistence on unclear terminology and a really pisspoor ability to describe what he actually believes.

    It’s not that I’m doing a piss-poor job. Consider my interlocutors who seem to rather deny or reject this science upon sight. It’s more accurately that I’m speaking to a group of people, most of which I’m willing to wager have not had this experience, and so therefore have no way to relate. You see, no one has coined the perfect metaphor to describe precisely what goes on in these mystical states of consciousness. That’s it’s so difficult to speak or write on these type of experiences, but nevertheless here we are, and the science has been studying these states for decades, and has established certain things about these experiences. The research at Johns Hopkins is merely building on earlier established research that holds roots in the work of William James produced in the early 1900s.

  261. buddyward says

    No, this is a very valid reply in that they’re not simply referring to these experiences as mystical. This was Matt’s confusion, no volunteer, no ancient mystic even uses the word “mystical” to describe this experience. More accurately, the term mystical experience is being used by the professionals to categorize a phenomenon in consciousness.

    If it is not a “mystical” experience then what is it? Why use the word mystical if it is indeed not mystical. How do you justify calling it a “mystical” experience if it is not mystical? This is not a difficult concept to grasp. You call it what it is.

    No, I’ve addressed this point at post #136, and I quote Frithjof Schuon here, too. You can run a word search for “everlasting lasting” and find this quite easily. This comment was, in fact, directed towards, you, I’m not sure if you perhaps overlooked it. If the term is to be used by Jordan Peterson or myself, I am definitely not using it as its been bandied about by atheists to refer to something that defies the laws of physics or that is something akin to magic. That’s what I want to make clear.

    Our discussion of the word supernatural did not occur until post 246. I have no clue how you can say that you have addressed a point with me on a topic that we have not yet discussed.

    Well, I’ve searched the etymology myself, and it’s not clear. It could’ve been a term that was developed to refer to these misconceptions about religion, about interpreting miracles literally, and if that’s the case, then it never anything to do with religion at all. If it’s beyond nature in the sense that it is the subjective experience which gives an impression of beyond nature, that is to say, this timeless state of mind, then it is not referring to something that is literally contradicting nature, but that is not nature as ordinarily experienced. If that’s the case, then supernatural is merely the experiential reality that accompanies mystical states of consciousness, and that people describe as timeless or eternal or beyond dimensionality, etc. But that’s not to say that it is unnatural or defying of the laws of physics, you see. That’s where the confusion comes in, once someone assumes that it means something that defies the natural laws or that is akin to magic.

    I have no idea what beyond nature means. The multitudes of if statements you are presenting here are mere conjectures and demonstrates that you also do not know what it means. What if I tell you that beyond nature simply means anything outside of our universe. That would have been a more concrete definition which does not include any woo, like a timeless state of mind or a mystical (there is that undefined word again) state of consciousness.

    I’m not sure what Jordan Peterson believes. I’ve never heard him talk about the Perennial philosophy, and he also admits that he’s never had such mystical experiences, but he’s nevertheless quite intrigued by them and does seem to be more familiar with the research than Matt Dillahunty, that’s for sure.

    Then do not represent his belief as if you know what they are. That is simply dishonest.

    I never said “mystical” has nothing to do with it. I just said that they’re referring to this phenomenon as a “mystical experience,” they’re not simply and solely calling it “mystical.” And I have made established these connections. I’d argue that people are simply unwilling to accept this science. Perhaps they’re too clingly to their atheism. It’s an ego thing. They’d rather ignore science that undermines their position, than to attempt to accept it and re-evaluate their entire position. Don’t you see how it’s simply easier to adhere to the former, than the latter? That may simply be all that’s happening here. Otherwise, if you truly wanted to challenge yourself, then a CME would simply do it.

    Yes you have, at 207 you said the following:

    If you’re asking for the definition for “mystical,” then go to a dictionary. The word “mystical” has nothing to do with this research.

    Research is not science. Research is research. Up until the research have been published, peer reviewed and the results replicated and confirmed to be valid it is not science.

    You are making an assessment about atheists that are simply not true. Most atheist I know are skeptics but they are also honest in evaluating a claim. If there is evidence for a claim contrary to what we believe we have no problem changing our minds. We are not the ones who claims that something exists and we will continue to believe it exist with or without evidence. Atheists are usually the ones that will not believe on a diety unless there is evidence presented.

    Peterson said, “No, not really” in that particular discussion. He was referring to how addicts use the patch, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t, but it’s something that has to be used again and again while the psilocybin experience is a single dose with very powerful efficacy to cause an addict to quit after one single session. That’s not to be undermined with this semantic confusion presented by Matt.

    You are once again missing the part where Peterson said “AND having mystical experiences”. Peterson is attributing the efficacy of the treatment not only to magic mushroom but additionally to having a mystical experience. Matt even said that he can believe that there may be something in the drug that can cause people to quit smoking but Peterson corrected him and said that it is not just the drug but also having a mystical experience.

  262. paxoll says

    because the experience in and of itself is the primary convincing factor

    Anyone else see this as ridiculous as any religious person saying “when you believe, than god will reveal himself.” Lol.

  263. says

    @EnlightenmentLiberal

    As far as I can tell, Kafei isn’t actually peddling supernatural claims. Rather, he just wants to talk about mere non-supernatural materialistic inner personal experiences (and he uses confusing language to talk about it). Also, he claims that all of the world’s religions started talking merely about non-supernatural, materialistic inner personal experiences of an unusual and special but still materialist character, and over time they all got corrupted into making real supernatural claims. Correct me if I’m wrong Kafei.

    I wouldn’t say they were necessarily corrupted. Perhaps you can put it that way, but they were definitely misconstrued throughout the centuries, and I suppose that could lead to a corruption or what Ted Nottingham calls a “devolution of religion.” However, make no mistake, we are speaking about a natural phenomenon in consciousness, and whether it’s supernatural or not depends on how you’re defining supernatural. If you’re defining supernatural as that which defies the laws of physics, then of course that’s not what we’re talking about, but that’s not what supernatural really means, that’s simply how atheists have bandied about a definition they’ve applied to this term.

    Also, Kafei is a pisspoor communicator. I almost think that it’s deliberate.

    Also, Kafei might be holding on to some supernatural beliefs, but it’s far from clear, and my reading of his posts seems to indicate that he doesn’t have any real supernatural beliefs, and instead his sole problem is insistence on unclear terminology and a really pisspoor ability to describe what he actually believes.

    It’s not that I’m doing a piss-poor job. Consider my interlocutors who seem to rather deny or reject this science upon sight. It’s more accurately that I’m speaking to a group of people, most of which I’m willing to wager have not had this experience, and so therefore have no way to relate. You see, no one has coined the perfect metaphor to describe precisely what goes on in these mystical states of consciousness. That’s it’s so difficult to speak or write on these type of experiences, but nevertheless here we are, and the science has been studying these states for decades, and has established certain things about these experiences, most specifically about its relationship to the Perennial philosophy. The research at Johns Hopkins is merely building on earlier established research that holds roots in the work of William James produced in the early 1900s.

  264. says

    @paxoll

    because the experience in and of itself is the primary convincing factor

    Anyone else see this as ridiculous as any religious person saying “when you believe, than god will reveal himself.” Lol.

    I certainly don’t as you don’t have to believe in anything to undergo a CME. I don’t think beliefs is what we’re talking about here at all, but rather a knowing.

  265. says

    @ buddyward

    If it is not a “mystical” experience then what is it? Why use the word mystical if it is indeed not mystical. How do you justify calling it a “mystical” experience if it is not mystical? This is not a difficult concept to grasp. You call it what it is.

    Well, yes, of course these professionals refer to it as a mystical experience, but this is a term that means something quite specific. You see, the term “mystical” by itself has baggage, and is often associated with things that have absolutely nothing to do with this research. So, in effort to avoid ambiguity, this distinction is made.

    Our discussion of the word supernatural did not occur until post 246. I have no clue how you can say that you have addressed a point with me on a topic that we have not yet discussed.

    At post #231, I point out that this is, in fact, Matt Dillahunty’s major contention. That if we can clear up what we mean by “supernatural,” we may be able to choke out this ambiguity that necessarily is associated with these type of discussions. If you look into the etymology of the word “supernatural,” I believe it may have been a term that arose to describe things which had been construed as miracles, as the example Matt used that I link to in #231, but you see, he argued that whether they were metaphor or not, and that’s when I asked him if he studies comparative religion. He might have some insight into his own religion that he gew up with, because after all, he was studying to become a minister, but he focused primarily on the religion he rejected. I’ve never heard Matt give any of his insight into Buddhism or any other eastern philosophy, for that matter.

    I have deeply studied all the major religions, with perhaps the exception of Egyptian and Gnosticism, I’m just getting started with those, and I do plan to go through Manichaeism after that. I find all these religions quite interesting, and I believe that’s what happens when you do have a CME, because now you can actually relate to what the hell these mystics were talking about so long ago. I suddenly found myself understanding completely what Plotinus meant by “The One” or when Jesus referred to “The Father.” And yes, as I told Matt, the early mystics did, indeed, interpret the scriptures by analogy and metaphor. I’m speaking of the Early Church Fathers, the Cappadocian Fathers, the Hesychast ascetics, the Byzantine Christian monks even before that to the great philosophers of the time of ancient Greece rejected the mainstream religion of Zeus and his offspring, and instead emphasized what Plotinus would eventually call “The One.” From Bias of Priene going back to Xenophanes and the Mystery religions. Likewise, even the Hindu sages did not literally believe Shiva as a supernatural entity God they should worship, for them, it was merely a symbol or archetype for creation and destruction in the manifested universe. Rather, the Hindu mystics pointed to Atman or Brahman, which is the core emphasis of Hinduism. Making Hinduism not a polytheism as many naïve people assume, but rather, as I’ve been emphasizing a panentheism, and to emphasize once more, not to be confused with pantheism. That is a very, very common misconception.

  266. buddyward says

    Well, yes, of course these professionals refer to it as a mystical experience, but this is a term that means something quite specific. You see, the term “mystical” by itself has baggage, and is often associated with things that have absolutely nothing to do with this research. So, in effort to avoid ambiguity, this distinction is made.

    This is yet another document that is such a waste of time. There is an acknowledgement that the word “mystical” has certain vague meaning in both religion and psychology and yet they continued to use the word in the context of religion. Further more using the word in the context of religion will come with it certain bias that tries to connect the divine and god. Is this what you mean by mystical?

    At post #231, I point out that this is, in fact, Matt Dillahunty’s major contention. That if we can clear up what we mean by “supernatural,” we may be able to choke out this ambiguity that necessarily is associated with these type of discussions. If you look into the etymology of the word “supernatural,” I believe it may have been a term that arose to describe things which had been construed as miracles, as the example Matt used that I link to in #231, but you see, he argued that whether they were metaphor or not, and that’s when I asked him if he studies comparative religion. He might have some insight into his own religion that he gew up with, because after all, he was studying to become a minister, but he focused primarily on the religion he rejected. I’ve never heard Matt give any of his insight into Buddhism or any other eastern philosophy, for that matter.

    We have already gone through this, you have already admitted that there are no clear etymology for the term supernatural in scriptures and I have shown you the dictionary.com etymology of the word supernatural. The most that you can offer as a definition is a whole bunch of if statements that I have not seen demonstrated to be true. You have not defined and demonstrated what supernatural is and despite all of that you are referring to it as if it exist.

    Matt or anyone for that matter does not have to give you any insight into religions or philosophy that he has no expertise in because that would be dishonest. The burden of proving the validity of a claim is from the one making the claim. So it does not matter whether or not anyone studied comparative religion, or buddhism or eastern philosophy. If you are going to claim something as supernatural you have the burden to prove your claim is true. I do not have to be an expert in every religion in order to determine which god exists. I just have to be presented, convincing, demonstrable evidence that a specific god exist.

    I have deeply studied all the major religions, with perhaps the exception of Egyptian and Gnosticism, I’m just getting started with those, and I do plan to go through Manichaeism after that. I find all these religions quite interesting, and I believe that’s what happens when you do have a CME, because now you can actually relate to what the hell these mystics were talking about so long ago. I suddenly found myself understanding completely what Plotinus meant by “The One” or when Jesus referred to “The Father.” And yes, as I told Matt, the early mystics did, indeed, interpret the scriptures by analogy and metaphor. I’m speaking of the Early Church Fathers, the Cappadocian Fathers, the Hesychast ascetics, the Byzantine Christian monks even before that to the great philosophers of the time of ancient Greece rejected the mainstream religion of Zeus and his offspring, and instead emphasized what Plotinus would eventually call “The One.” From Bias of Priene going back to Xenophanes and the Mystery religions. Likewise, even the Hindu sages did not literally believe Shiva as a supernatural entity God they should worship, for them, it was merely a symbol or archetype for creation and destruction in the manifested universe. Rather, the Hindu mystics pointed to Atman or Brahman, which is the core emphasis of Hinduism. Making Hinduism not a polytheism as many naïve people assume, but rather, as I’ve been emphasizing a panentheism, and to emphasize once more, not to be confused with pantheism. That is a very, very common misconception.

    I could care less with what it is that you have studied. You have already failed to define the fundamental concepts of what you are trying to advocate. I am not going to go any further in the discussion pretending that your previous arguments are valid when it is clearly not.

  267. Monocle Smile says

    Of what utility is panentheism? What does this add to our knowledge base? How does that help understanding of anything?

  268. says

    @buddyward

    You have not defined and demonstrated what supernatural is and despite all of that you are referring to it as if it exist.

    At that same token, I could say the same to you. Matt, himself, admits that he doesn’t even know what the word “supernatural” means, but he has an intuition of what he thinks it might mean. This is the issue I’ve been highlighting throughout this thread, and is the contention that Matt Dillahunty makes quite clear in the clip. The supernatural defined as that which defies the laws of physics is absolutely irrelevant to how the divine is defined within the context of the Perennial philosophy which is more akin to the description of God as articulately spoken and written about by Spinoza which is what Albert Einstein himself would refer to when someone would corner him on his conception of the divine.

  269. Thane McKinsey says

    Not once have I heard anyone mention “Altered states of conscious”.
    Mmm, I wonder why that is? Because it is science and not theism.

  270. says

    @Thane McKinsey Or perhaps because there’s many sorts of altered states that aren’t associated with this type of experience, that’s why I use these very specific terms that are emphasized in this scientific research. However, there has been other names, of course, Richard M. Bucke and Alan Watts called these experiences Cosmic consciousness, Abraham Maslow called ’em Peak experiences, Romain Rolland used the term Oceanic feeling, etc. but make no mistake, these are simply different ways of saying one and the same thing.

  271. says

    @Thane McKinsey There are myriads of altered states, and it’s funny you mention this, because I tried to use the example of a caffeine rush that might follow after you’ve downed a cappuccino or two, but Matt acted ignorant as though he didn’t know what a cappuccino was. Maybe he really didn’t. I don’t know, but I thought it was pretty obvious what I was referencing.

  272. t90bb says

    jimmy..you go right ahead and pretend you and others have had special super dooper experiences …….wake me up when you find proof you magic sky fairy was involved……..lol……….pitiful…….

    hundreds of posts later,,,,,you have convinced no one……or even moved the needle.

    but be my guest….pretend. you really are precious.

  273. twarren1111 says

    Why are you talking about Matt, Einstein and AronRa?

    1. What is your claim (hypothesis)(definition) as to what ‘god’ is?
    2. What is your evidence?

    Thus far, I cannot tell what your answer to number one is. As for evidence, the two ‘ideas’ you have presented evidence for is that psychologists have done testing demonstrating that a questionnaire based tool can be used by subjects to describe aspects of their experience taking psychoactive drugs in a statistically significant manner and that there is a concept called universalism or perennialism or perennial philosophy that states that what links and unifies all religions can be described as having properties that can be summarized as a oneness that is grounded in the person as they travel on their path in their life as part of the universe.

    The first piece of evidence has no bearing at all to anything other than measuring the effects of hallucinogens. The second item is not evidence. It is another claim (hypothesis)(definition). You have provided no evidence to date for this claim either.

    Intriguingly, you have documented yourself about a 5 year interaction with AXP and still no answer to question 1 or 2. We’ve seen a discussion you had in 2014 with @speedofsound on RatSkep in which you again pulled the Palin/Trump word salad.

    So, as so many of us have asked repeatedly: can you state your hypothesis for a deity and provide the evidence for that deity?

  274. Monocle Smile says

    @Kafei
    In the US, the vast, vast, vast majority of believers believe in that god and most of the harm generated by religion stems from that belief. You are in a remarkably tiny minority. Bitching that prominent atheists spend their time and effort addressing the religious beliefs that threaten the well-being of the population and beat us over the head all day every day instead of your pet nonsense makes you sound like you never leave your basement.

    What I mean to say is: “Go fuck yourself, you self-absorbed asshat.”

    Personally, I think you’re butthurt about something else, and your love for Jordan Peterson hints at it a bit.

  275. says

    @Thane McKinsey I’ve said over and over throughout this thread that the primary convincing factor is not reading some posts you read on a freethoughtblog or even something you overheard on The Atheist Experience, but rather the unitive “complete” mystical experience in and of itself. Unless you’ve the same notion of the divine as t90 does, God as the “sky genie,” if that’s what you’re waiting for, then keep waiting. As Alan Watts once said, “You don’t look for God, something in the sky, (that something, of course, being the sky genie or the magic sky fairy, whathaveyou, but rather you look in you. Christopher Hitchens often said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Well, the extraordinary evidence is none other than the “complete” mystical experience in and of itself, and for yourself.

  276. buddyward says

    At that same token, I could say the same to you.

    No you cannot. Clearly you have no idea what the burden of proof is. I am not making any assertions or claims about the supernatural. You on the other hand claims that the word is rooted in scripture and even go as far as throwing out probable definitions.

    Matt, himself, admits that he doesn’t even know what the word “supernatural” means, but he has an intuition of what he thinks it might mean. This is the issue I’ve been highlighting throughout this thread, and is the contention that Matt Dillahunty makes quite clear in the clip. The supernatural defined as that which defies the laws of physics is absolutely irrelevant to how the divine is defined within the context of the Perennial philosophy which is more akin to the description of God as articulately spoken and written about by Spinoza which is what Albert Einstein himself would refer to when someone would corner him on his conception of the divine.

    It is clear in the video that Matt said that he does not know what supernatural means that is not in anyway making any claims about the supernatural. I do not know how you are able to assertain what Matt thinks or what his intuitive definition of supernatural as he clearly stated that he does not know. You are once again trying to represent what someone thinks without any justification.

    It is also clear in the video that you are the one that said “According to Atheist, supernatural is defined as that which defies the laws of physics”. No one agreed with you on this. There is nothing about atheism that defines supernatural. Arguing that the definition you provided is irrelevant to how the divine is define means that you are only arguing with yourself as no one accepted your definition. This is known as a strawman argument since no one is making the argument that you are trying to knock down.

  277. twarren1111 says

    @Kafei (#295)

    Here is an article from 2008 when Einstein’s letter was found with the phrase you use.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1951333/Einstein-thought-religions-were-childish.html
    Here is the relevant part of the article with the quote from Einstein:
    The great scientist’s views on religion have long been debated, with many seizing upon phrases such as “He [God] does not throw dice” as evidence that he believed in a creator.
    But the newly-unveiled letter, a response to the philosopher Eric Gutkind, has cast doubt on the theory that Einstein had any belief in God at all towards to the end of his life.
    In the letter, dated January 3 1954, he wrote: “The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.
    “No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.”
    Einstein, who died the following year aged 76, did not spare Judaism from his criticism, believing Jewish people were in no way “chosen” by God.

    HOW THE FUCK DID YOU GET WHAT EINSTEIN SAID CONPLETELY WRONG; A COMPLETE INVERSION? How do you keep doing this?

    And btw, go back to the 2013 paper by Dr. Griffith where he validates the questionnaire which is built upon all the researchers you quote and name drop back to Stace in 1960. Show me where he ONCE:
    1. Uses the word “perennial”
    2. Uses the phrase “perennial philosophy”

    This is why you get banned.

    I’m holding off on your Peterson mushroom smoking claptrap….for now.

    You’re behavior is either idiotic (I.e., you truly do not understand your irrationality) or evil (ie, you are doing thus knowingly). And NO that is not an ad hominem bc you have been doing this for years and your behavior and manner of thinking and lying, EVEN WHEN USING DIRECT WORDS OF EINSTEIN, is reprehensible.

  278. Thane McKinsey says

    Kafei, I’m not superstitious, I don’t believe in luck or karma.
    What do I need a God for?

  279. twarren1111 says

    Kafei

    We are not asking you for a convincing experience or evidence for god you idiot.

    We are asking you FIRST FOR THE CLAIM. AKA THE HYPOTHESIS. AKA THE DEFINITION. WE ARE LIGHT YEARS FROM EVIDENCE OR EXPERIENCE OR ANY OTHER KIND OF EVIDENCE YOU MORON. SO;
    1. Define your claim as to what god is. Write a damn sentence. Use your primary language if you want which apparently isn’t English.

  280. twarren1111 says

    Kafei re: #303
    1. EINSTEIN WAS AN ATHEIST YOU MORON
    2. STOP TRYING TO HIDE BEHIND SPINOZA AND HUXLEY AND STACE AND WHOMEVER.
    3. THERE IS NO WAY ANYONE CAN BELIEVE YOUR INTERPRETATION OF ANYTHING SAID OR PUBLISHED BY SOMEONE ELSE. YOU CLEARLY, REPEATEDLY HAVE DEMONSTRATED AN INABILITY TO UNDERSTAND CONCEPT DESPITE MANY ATTEMPTS TO COMMUNICATE WITH YOU.

    WE DONT CARE WHAT ANYONE ELSE’S CLAIM/HYPOTHESIS/DEFINITION OF GOD IS BUT YOU. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS. YOU ARE THE INVESTIGATOR. YOUR ARE THE P.I.

    SO WE/I ASK YOU, YOU, YOU, YOU, JIMMY/KAFEI, ONLY YOU;

    1. What is your claim in one sentence as to what god is?

  281. says

    @Monocile Smile

    In the US, the vast, vast, vast majority of believers believe in that god and most of the harm generated by religion stems from that belief. You are in a remarkably tiny minority. Bitching that prominent atheists spend their time and effort addressing the religious beliefs that threaten the well-being of the population and beat us over the head all day every day instead of your pet nonsense makes you sound like you never leave your basement.

    I don’t live in a basement. The vast major of people do people God in a naïve fashion, just as atheists reject this same naïve notion of the God. Ken Wilber goes very deeply into these various understandings of what he calls “spiritual intelligence.” How aware you of these states of awakening. I have no issue admitting most people are fucking dumb, I say it in the call with Matt. You might think these same ignorant theists are the ones causing all the issues. Perhaps, but this is the same problem with atheism. However, the solution isn’t the complete eradication of religion, as Ken Wilber elucidates in that link I’ve posted above.

    What I mean to say is: “Go fuck yourself, you self-absorbed asshat.”

    Personally, I think you’re butthurt about something else, and your love for Jordan Peterson hints at it a bit.

    Interesting. I’m not a huge fan of Jordan Peterson, by the way, although, I know some people going through issues with that, though.

    @twarren1111

    So, as so many of us have asked repeatedly: can you state your hypothesis for a deity and provide the evidence for that deity?

    Perennial philosophy has nothing to do with God as conceived of as a “deity,” you asked why I was referencing AronRa and Matt in those posts, well, that’s precisely why. I also address this on post #188.

    1. EINSTEIN WAS AN ATHEIST YOU MORON

    Not true.

    2. STOP TRYING TO HIDE BEHIND SPINOZA AND HUXLEY AND STACE AND WHOMEVER.

    I’m not doing that.

    3. THERE IS NO WAY ANYONE CAN BELIEVE YOUR INTERPRETATION OF ANYTHING SAID OR PUBLISHED BY SOMEONE ELSE. YOU CLEARLY, REPEATEDLY HAVE DEMONSTRATED AN INABILITY TO UNDERSTAND CONCEPT DESPITE MANY ATTEMPTS TO COMMUNICATE WITH YOU.

    WE DONT CARE WHAT ANYONE ELSE’S CLAIM/HYPOTHESIS/DEFINITION OF GOD IS BUT YOU. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS. YOU ARE THE INVESTIGATOR. YOUR ARE THE P.I.

    SO WE/I ASK YOU, YOU, YOU, YOU, JIMMY/KAFEI, ONLY YOU;

    1. What is your claim in one sentence as to what god is?

    @Thany McKinsey

    Kafei, can you define God?

    Before I do that for the two of you, may I ask if you read my post to Einy at #173?

  282. twarren1111 says

    Kafei
    Again:
    Here’s the letter link:
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1951333/Einstein-thought-religions-were-childish.html

    And did you read the Wikipedia page?

    Again, you are not a reliable interpreter of anything outside yourself. Yes, I read your post #173 as I indicated in my summary post to you of #220. Again, you are not a reliable narrator. No one wants your impression of other people’s ideas about theism. Do not use any proper pronouns. What is YOUR claim as to theism. There is no reason this cannot be one sentence.

    So again:
    1. What is your claim as to theism?

  283. Monocle Smile says

    Wilbur essentially puts blobs of clearly different colored paint next to each other on a canvas and then smears them all together before crying “look, they’re all the same!” They are clearly not the same. Some have similar roots in the same made-up stuff, but there are independent blobs.

    You might think these same ignorant theists are the ones causing all the issues. Perhaps, but this is the same problem with atheism.

    This is simply not true. This reads like an argumentum ad “because I said so,” which is how most of your screeds go, although some are by proxy (“because said so.”).

  284. twarren1111 says

    Btw kafei, as the Wikipedia page you linked to on Einstein and religion says this:
    Hypot: 1. As for the claim of an abrahamic deity?
    Evid: 2. I don’t know but it seems like just about the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard

    That kafei is what a RELIABLE NARRATOR READING THAT PAGE WOULD SAY.

    Even shorter: agnostic but practically an atheist.

  285. says

    @Thane McKinsey

    Kafei, just a smorgasbord of fucking CRAP.
    What do I need a God for?

    Well, if God is all the underlying possible permutations (Ground of Being) that could manifest in the material world, then for one, you’d need God to exist in the first place. Often mystics were renowned for their probity, because as I mentioned to Matt, there is also an unconditional love that accompanies this experience, and this is what without a doubt which is the moral compass that impelled Moses to bore through the stone the tablets that held the Ten Commandments. I’d say without God, you wouldn’t have been brought to this moment. And now we’re starting to re-discover what these mystics have always known throughout history, but finally from a scientific standpoint. Without that knowledge, Terence McKenna once said, “We’re so alienated from our souls that when we finally meet our soul, we think it’s from another star system.”

    I mean, that’s the sort of response you give at 1:00 AM when you really can’t focus your thoughts, but another way to answer it is if you knew God, you wouldn’t therefore have to ask, “What do I need God for?”

  286. says

    @twarren

    No one wants your impression of other people’s ideas about theism. Do not use any proper pronouns. What is YOUR claim as to theism. There is no reason this cannot be one sentence.

    So again:
    1. What is your claim as to theism?

    I happen to share that very same exact idea. I agree with Spinoza, Wilber, Einstein, this scientific research, etc. I wouldn’t say anything other than what they’ve been saying all along. I’d only phrase it differently, perhaps, in my own way, but I’d be essentially saying one and the same thing. That’s what you can’t quite seem to grasp there. That letter you keep highlighting, by the way, only shows that Einstein was at great pains to say that he didn’t believe in a personal God. He didn’t conceive of God so naïvely. Rather, he’d often invoke Spinoza when questioned about his conception of God. As Einstein has been quoted himself, he is not an atheist. In an interview published by the German poet George Sylvester Viereck, Einstein stated, “I am not an Atheist.” According to Prince Hubertus, Einstein said, “In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views.”

  287. twarren1111 says

    Kafei

    You saying this just kills me:
    ‘You might think these same ignorant theists are the ones causing all the issues. Perhaps, but this is the same problem with atheism.’

    THIS IS THEISM JIMMY:
    Hypothesis: there is a god
    Evidence: blah, blah supports at greater than 95% probability that my claim is true.

    THIS IS ATHEISM JIMMY:
    Hypothesis: there is a god
    Evidence: no

    That’s how the scientific process works. It’s that simple. So how the hell do you equate the damage people done by people who determine reality when they claim their claims are true based on no evidence to those who demand that not only there be evidence, but that evidence needs to be weighed as to true positive, false positive, true negative and false negative probabilities and then the evidence for the hypothesis needs to be greater than 95% (aka a p value greater than or equal to 0,05) when the calculation of TP/TP+FP is done?

    Your complete lack of understanding of how the scientific process works is directly related to your INSISTENCE ON USING A RELIGIOUS BASED AKA FAITH BASED PROCESS TO DETERMINE YOUR REALITY. And what EINSTEIN was referring to you about the childishness of religion IS YOU KAFEI. WHY?

    BECAUSE YOU CANT EVEN PUT INTO A COHERENT SENTENCE WHAT YOUR CLAIM ABOUT THEISM IS. INSTEAD, YOU RESORT TO EVERYONES IDEAS AND CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE BUT YOUR OWN SO THAT IN NO WAY CAN ANY CLEAR HYPITHESIS BE DISCERNED. SO WHAT YOU DO THEN IS USE THESE PEOPLES IDEAS AND EVIDENCES AS THE PROOF OF YOUR CLAIM WHICH YOU CANT EVEN STATE. ITS GIBBERISH. LIKE A CHILD BABBLING. AND ALL OF IT IS BASED UPON A LACK OF COHERENCE. YOU NEED A HYPOTHESIS BEFORE YOU CAN KNOW WHAT YOUR EVIDENCE NEEDS TO BE. YOU HAVE TO DEFINE YOUR PROBLEM BEFORE YOU GO LOOK. SCIENCE ISNT A FISHING EXPEDITION. THATS RELIGION. YOU ARE JUST SPOUTING WORDS WITHOUT EVIDENCE. YOU ARE USING RELIGION/FAITH TO EXPLAIN YOUR RELIGION/FAITH.

    THIS IS WHY YOU ARE AN INFINITE REGRESS OF CURCULAR REASONING.

    RELIGION IS THE PROBLEM OF INDUCTION.

    GO EAT AN OREO.

  288. twarren1111 says

    Oh for satan’s sake.

    You still can’t do it.

    1. One sentence that states your theistic claims.

    That’s it.

    Once we have your sentence. Then we go for evidence.

    So….answer this question. And please read the words:

    What is YOUR OWN CLAIM as to your theism?

  289. twarren1111 says

    I’m out for tonight…i don’t expect you to be able to do this. It appears you haven’t been able since at least 2012 per your admission.

  290. Thane McKinsey says

    Kafei says;I mean, that’s the sort of response you give at 1:00 AM when you really can’t focus your thoughts, but another way to answer it is if you knew God, you wouldn’t therefore have to ask, “What do I need God for?”

    The entire point is that I don’t know god and I have never had a need to know god.
    I’m an agnostic atheist, multi generational. I don’t know that there is a god and I don’t believe in one.
    All you have are assertions with no evidence to support them.
    You have nothing but pretend and make-believe.
    The world is spectacular with out a need for god.
    Life is incredible..

  291. Thane McKinsey says

    Kafei
    We all know that you don’t have any evidence for God.
    If you did you would surly present it.
    I think that you are dishonest and delusional and attempting to convince us good people to take hardcore drugs so we can
    experience a mystical state of conscious is pure unadulterated evil.
    You Kafei have provided the evidence to support our claim that religion is dangerous and harmful.
    You should be ashamed of yourself.

  292. Monocle Smile says

    Moses never existed and the Jesus character described in the Bible didn’t exist, either, you simpering monkey fuck. You’re just another new age woomeister obsessed with his navel.

  293. RationalismRules says

    @EL #278

    Also, Kafei is a pisspoor communicator. I almost think that it’s deliberate.

    I entirely agree. He has been repeatedly requested to provide a clear concise statement of his position and his response, every time, has been bloviation, obfuscation and diversion. Once or twice can be excused as poor communication skills, but over multiple times it becomes clear for what it is – a strategy.

  294. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    To everyone else:
    I know that Kafei has probably been needlessly difficult and needlessly obscure, but I think you’re all being a little too harsh and rude. Feel free to ignore me because my own opinion here is just my own opinion and carries no moderation weight; carry on.

    PS:
    I’m with Monocle Smile that I suspect there’s more going on that Kafei is not letting us know, and especially because Kafei makes occasional references to the scumbag Jordan Peterson as though Peterson was a respectable expert.

  295. speedofsound says

    @Kafei

    However, this is sort of off-topic, but I can definitely relate to the insects crawling on objects phenomena that occurs during those bouts. I’ve had the TBE.

    I meant to call it a Complete Bug Experience but I have a cold so I fucked up. Do you get how this relates to the topic if I call it a CBE? You seem a bit myopic on this matter. BTW. Mine was not DT’s. I was not hitting the vodka that hard during this period of my addiction. Just Meth. Lots of meth. I had a psychotic experience in which all other aspects of my psychology were normal. The meth left my system after 24 hours and the state of mind concerning bugs persisted for about four days.

    Now I could have concluded that there actually were bugs. That the bugs were actually in some other physical dimension (cue pop-physics) and that only I was in this grand state fo mind where I could see them and no one else could.

    You are doing the same thing when you say (in post #245) that there is no way I can keep my atheism after a CME. Even though I did remain an atheist as have thousands of others who had these experiences.

    You keep seeing it from this one perspective. That you found some truth about things outside of your psychology while having the experience. Oddly you seem incapable of admitting to this in a simple and clear manner. I am guessing that if you allow yourself to engage with us in there terms we are using that you know, in your heart of hearts, that a CME is not evidence for metaphysics. What you need is a CME that is not drug induced so you can enter the next level of this mysticism thing. The one where you abandon your dogma and come back to the earth.

    I will address your post 245 more later.

  296. speedofsound says

    @t90bb

    Jimmy likes to play the same bullshit as they do in AA….

    Alcoholics Anonymous claims that is you are a “real” alcoholic….only a “spiritual experience” or spiritual awakening” can save you. They claim is anyone recovers by any other means then they were never really a “real alcoholic” or arent even truly sober…..

    Even though they (AA) cant accurately or consistently define a spiritual experience or spiritual awakening……

    Its complete woooo……and Jimmy has roots in AA…so its pretty clear where some of his nonsense is rooted.

    I assume Jimmy has made his absolute best case for his magical world…..and its laughable.

    Let’s not get off topic here so message me if you want to pursue this. But AA makes no such claims. You need to attend a ‘real’ AA meeting cuz that is the only place where claims are made, By each individual. We call it ‘an opinion’.

  297. speedofsound says

    @Kafei. Please answer a simple question. Have you had a CME without drugs or prior to any psychedelic usage?

    To all:
    Kafei is well read and it is a damned shame that he can’t listen at a deeper level to those who have studied this phenomenon for years. Like Alan Watts, who I maintain is an atheist. As far as I can tell ‘perennial philosophy’ simply is the idea that all religion is based on these experiences. I somewhat agree. Religious belief is based on a perfectly normal and common ability to simply stop thinking. THIS is why Kafei can’t and won’t define his theist ideas. You can’t define a pure and prolonged state of simply not thinking and verbalizing. It feels profound as fuck and yet there is nothing to take away from it other than that you felt good or you felt unconditional love.

    My first posts to him in RatSkep were about an experience that I actually had at age 15, prior to any drug use including pot. Kafei wants to brush anyone that has not had the experience off with this:

    #277

    I’d go even further to add that if you would undergo a CME for yourself, then all argument would cease, because the experience in and of itself is the primary convincing factor.

    He has to brush me off with indirection about my not having a ‘real’ CME. I find myself wondering if he has had one without the drugs. I could do the same damned thing he does. No True…

    The research has established, as far as I read, a description of a psychological state and the researchers go no further except at the level of press where they may allude to more. Each individual has his bit of wonder in his worldview. Einstein tried to express this humbly and got misinterpreted all to hell. Scientists need to shut the fuck up when the press is listening.

    With this description they have of a mystical experience, and I have no problem labeling it as such, they are now able to do brain scans to find out what is really going on. The work I have read about indicates that there is a brainstorm of sorts in the area that we normally hold constant throughout life. The area that joins visual streams and frontal streams into our ground state of interpreting where, what, and who we are. If you throw a rock at that mechanism in just the right way you will inevitably experience great joy, peace, love and all that other good shit.

    But any of you can experience some of this right now just by meditating for 30 minutes. Not the Big One but some part of it. You can also experience this by deeply and emotionally giving yourself up to jesus or anything else. You can also choose to jsut give yourself up to nothing! You do not need belief or dogma to enter these states. This giving up feeling, which is behind AA addiction recovery, is something we all experience in some measure every day. It’s part of how your brain works. The degree to which you give up determines the depth and power of the experience.

    But there is no need whatever to give up reason after you come back to us. You haven’t …
    Kafei post #269

    and these experiences throughout ages have been regarded by the major religions as glimpses into ultimate truth.

    …tapped into some deep truth about consciousness and god grounding the fucking universe! You have simply had a fucking experience. Put a bullet through your brain and you will have another kind of experience.

    Now I think this is a most important topic for atheists. This is why bleevers believe and refuse to apply reason and science. All of them are afraid of losing the feeling if they lose their dogma. Every caller refers to this faith thing, or a personal connection to god or some other such, and this is what has hold of them.

    Now I am very fortunate to have never had any of these beliefs and to have been brought into this experiential realm by Alan Watts, who was an atheist and a very good guide to the mystical experience. I enjoy all of these feelings daily. I quit a 6.2 pack a day smoking habit eight years ago without drugs or a spiritual experience but I used some of the techniques acquired. I quit a eight-ball per day/ quart and half of vodka per day addiction using these techniques, 12 years ago.

    The bottom line for you theists is: Come on over to the atheist side! You can bring your fucking cake with you.

  298. speedofsound says

    Phenomenology is something where science is still in the dark ages. But we can do some things. If you can imagine having an experience where someone is asking you about something and you finally defer to “I don’t know”, there is a feeling associated with that. I think it has to do with leaving a highly attentive state and entering a more restful global state. It’s often in this state that these pesky intuitions pop up. The reason for that is that you have gone to a wider context and let go of focus.

    This is a milder and common version of what it is to let go in these religious contexts. When Kafei has one of his drug induced ME’s, everything that he normally uses to ground himself in his real life is thrown into flux. Time, space, and identity go all to hell. In most cases this is oddly pleasurable much like saying “I don’t know the answer”. There is a sort of giving up state. It’s probably what you see in mammals that have been seized by a lions jaws in the savannah just before it gets munched.

    But it is from these don’t-know-what-the-fuck-is-going-on states that intuition arises. Unfortunately the goto intuition seems to be some kind of world-mind or theist BS.

  299. says

    @EnlightenmentLiberal

    I know that Kafei has probably been needlessly difficult and needlessly obscure, but I think you’re all being a little too harsh and rude. Feel free to ignore me because my own opinion here is just my own opinion and carries no moderation weight; carry on.

    I agree. I don’t know how people can simply use the anonymity of their online status to insult others and disrespect them, and then demand an answer from them as though they deserve to be respected back. I mean, I have the patience to respond to everyone here, despite their insults, and so I’m going to do that, but if I didn’t have the patience, I’d probably respond to a select few that weren’t using insults, such as yourself, and ignore the rest.

    I don’t think it’s that I’ve been “needlessly obscure.” These topics aren’t easy to talk about, that’s for sure. Loveromates brings up this point very early in the thread at post #5, and then again at #13 where he/she (sorry, I’m not sure, but I’m guessing Loveromates is a he) says, “Unless you go through this experience, it is difficult to rationalize it in a satisfactory manner.” I absolutely agree with that, and that’s why Loveromates stopped participating. He (if I may assume so) doesn’t need to participate, because he already knows the experience entails. He admitted to having a mystical experience for himself, therefore he doesn’t linger on the thread to demand it be explained as everyone else has done, because he already knows. It’s a universal experience, so if you’ve had it, you don’t need explained to you. I also repeat this point at the bottom paragraph for you in post #284. Did you by chance listen to Dr. Bill Richards lecture where he explains why these experiences are so difficult to write or speak about? Everyone here has this expectation that they’re going to understand in a paragraph or two, and I don’t think that’s how it works. The experience is practically necessary to have a complete understanding of it, and without it, it’s very difficult to grasp what this mystical state of consciousness is about. And I have crunched it to as down to a bumper sticker as I can. Einy took my phrasing from the live stream at post #31 where I say the highest mystical vision is one and the same at the very core of the major religions, that’s as down to a bumper sticker it can possibly be compressed into. So that this vision is known as Theoria (vision of God) or Beatific vision in Christianity, sekhel mufla or Shekhinah in Judaism, wu wei in Taoism, baqá wa faná in Islam, The One emphasized by Plotinus, it is the Gnosis of the Gnostics and so on and so forth. There are all various ways for referencing the same phenomenon in consciousness which neuroscientists today are calling a “complete” mystical experience.

    @Thane McKinsey

    We all know that you don’t have any evidence for God.
    If you did you would surly present it.

    If you’re paying any attention at all, the evidence is the CME in and of itself, and for yourself. It is a metanoia, a fundamental change in perception.

    I think that you are dishonest and delusional and attempting to convince us good people to take hardcore drugs so we can
    experience a mystical state of conscious is pure unadulterated evil.

    Again, drugs aren’t necessary for the experience, but I doubt you want to sit in an ashram for 30 years meditating when you can have this experience in a single night via entheogens.

    You Kafei have provided the evidence to support our claim that religion is dangerous and harmful.
    You should be ashamed of yourself.

    I disagree. Religion can be harmful, but it’s a double-edged sword. It’s also, what I believe, has brought humanity to this moment. Who knows where we’d be without it. Would every town resemble a Sodom and Gomorrah, but in modern day fashion? You really can’t say, because we have this one sample size, our reality as its been unfolding.

    @speedofsound

    I meant to call it a Complete Bug Experience but I have a cold so I fucked up. Do you get how this relates to the topic if I call it a CBE?

    I got what you meant the first time around. TBE, CBE, same thing. However, I do not think it relates in how you’re attempting to connect it. You see, A CBE or what is more accurately referred as formication is still operating in this subject-object duality. You’re still something separate from the bugs you’re witnessing. Now, in a CME, the experience is unitive such that the subject-object duality completely dissolves, so your everyday experience that you have in ordinary consciousness where you’re a bodily entity that looks out to the world that is seemingly other than yourself, you look and see people, you see objects, you see the universe, and you contrast this with yourself. Now, that boundary within the unitive mystical experience completely dissolves to the point where all that exists in the experiential content of the CME is pure consciousness or a complete unicity, all is one, that is the very literal experiential content of a CME. There is no self to see an other, there is no duality of any sort, there is no viewing modality that is consciousness that looks out to something else, be it spiders, bugs, people, demons, whatever. None of these entail the unitive mystical experience.

    You seem a bit myopic on this matter. BTW. Mine was not DT’s. I was not hitting the vodka that hard during this period of my addiction. Just Meth. Lots of meth.

    I saw you say meth. I’m familiar with the drug. It’s not my cup of tea, but I’ve known people to get pretty lost in it. It’s one of the most addictive substances in the U.S. right now. There’s definitely a lot of meth addicts out there. Yes, this visual phenomenon of formication can also occur with meth, it’s not exclusive to alcohol withdrawal.

    I had a psychotic experience in which all other aspects of my psychology were normal. The meth left my system after 24 hours and the state of mind concerning bugs persisted for about four days.

    Now I could have concluded that there actually were bugs. That the bugs were actually in some other physical dimension (cue pop-physics) and that only I was in this grand state fo mind where I could see them and no one else could.

    Well, since you’re saying that you think these bugs were real, that you somehow tapped into glimpsing perhaps a parallel reality, maybe.

    You are doing the same thing when you say (in post #245) that there is no way I can keep my atheism after a CME. Even though I did remain an atheist as have thousands of others who had these experiences.

    I find it very interesting that in a thread of “rational skeptics,” you’ve no issue concluding that what you saw was real. I’m not saying I don’t believe you or I’m skeptical of your conclusion, I just sincerely find it interesting. Michio Kaku has said that modern physicists take very seriously the notion that we, by analogy of frequency, tune into our reality, but we simultaneously exist in all other possible realities. So, in your very room, there is the wave function of dinosaurs, there’s the wave function of the world as it would have occurred if Hitler won the war, there’s a wave function of perhaps a world of sentient aliens which resemble bug-like creatures that inhabit a parallel reality, and perhaps that’s what we glimpse when we undergo formication. I told you that I glimpsed a gargoyle/demon like creature in my bout of DTs, and so your conclusion makes me wonder about this gargoyle. Was that real somewhere in the multiverse or is simply some powerful archetype of the subconscious? I have no idea, but I don’t discount any of these possibilities. However, I will say that they do not comprise of what entails the unitive mystical experience, they are rather more closely related to the visionary/archetypal experiences that people report on these substances. I mean, people do report full-field 360 degree visionary scenarios of alien jungles, deserts, ice fields, ruined cities, machine-scapes and a whole bunch of other stuff which is not so easily dropped into any category of experience that we’re familiar with. But highly organized, three-dimensional self-sustaining transformed modalities that you cannot pour language over. One way Bill Richards illustrates the visionary experience is by the analogy of the caveman who takes an entheogen and finds himself in the center of a Metropolitan area of a major city, and he sees very coherent objects like skyscrapers, smartphones, cars, traffic lights, etc., then when he returns to his cave, and his wife asks, “Well, what did you see?” All he can do is grunt or say, “It was big! It was impressive! It was awesome.” But he doesn’t have the vocabulary of cellphones, skyscrapers, etc. This is quite akin to what happens to modern humans, they find themselves in the Metropolitan area of a major extraterrestrial city made of pure technology, and then we return to Earth, 2019, and all we can say is, “It was far out, man!” This description is unsatisfying for the person listening, of course, and while I find these visionary experiences very interesting, they are pale in comparison to the CME, the complete unitive experience which seems to be comprised of all these things, it’s as though you’re having all the experiences seen in the visionary mystical state, but all at once, such that then when all experience is present, then there is no time there, because it’s all happening at once. That is a very possible phenomenon that can occur in consciousness, and that’s what this research is all about, and it’s what the major religions have been raving about for millennia.

    You keep seeing it from this one perspective. That you found some truth about things outside of your psychology while having the experience. Oddly you seem incapable of admitting to this in a simple and clear manner. I am guessing that if you allow yourself to engage with us in there terms we are using that you know, in your heart of hearts, that a CME is not evidence for metaphysics. What you need is a CME that is not drug induced so you can enter the next level of this mysticism thing. The one where you abandon your dogma and come back to the earth.

    I wouldn’t say it’s outside psychology, but rather a fundamental transformation of perception, it’s a metanoia that occurs. You see, in the CME, the mystic is able to enlarge his vision, to look more deeply into the unfathomable miracle of existence. The mystic knows that in some mysterious and indescribable manner, God and his universe, in all times, and all places, are one. The mystic perceives all things as one, all men as his brothers, all creatures as his fellows and all matter holy. The mystic vision is one of unity and modern physics lends support to this perception when it asserts that the world and its living forms are variations of the same elements. In physics, it is even the goal to find a ToE (Theory of Everything), a theory that will unify all the fundamental forces of the universe. The mystical consciousness is so much more deeply rooted than any other human impulse and is characterized by an experience that goes beyond the ego, and death itself. The mystical experience enables the individual to be so open and sensitive to organic reality that the ego begins to be seen for the transparent abstraction that it is.

  300. says

    @speedofsound

    Please answer a simple question. Have you had a CME without drugs or prior to any psychedelic usage?

    No, I hadn’t any clue as to what a CME was until I had psychedelics or as Richard Alpert put it, “I didn’t get one whiff of God until I took LSD.” Or Doug Stanhope has put it this way, “Don’t just eat a few mushrooms and see colours, eat the whole bag and see God, for once in your life.”

    Kafei is well read and it is a damned shame that he can’t listen at a deeper level to those who have studied this phenomenon for years. Like Alan Watts, who I maintain is an atheist.

    Watts definitely spoke from the vantage point of a Perennialist perspective. He definitely wasn’t an atheist. In fact, he criticized atheism in many of his lectures, he called it an intellectual fad. He was also very good friends of Aldous Huxley who wrote on the Perennial philosophy. That talk I linked you to titled “Jesus and His Religion” is unmistakable for the Perennialist view. While Watts doesn’t use the term “mystical experience,” he uses the synonymous term “Cosmic consciousness.” Perhaps at the time it was more popularly used than William James’ term.

    As far as I can tell ‘perennial philosophy’ simply is the idea that all religion is based on these experiences. I somewhat agree. Religious belief is based on a perfectly normal and common ability to simply stop thinking. THIS is why Kafei can’t and won’t define his theist ideas. You can’t define a pure and prolonged state of simply not thinking and verbalizing. It feels profound as fuck and yet there is nothing to take away from it other than that you felt good or you felt unconditional love.

    It’s not that I can’t and won’t define it, it’s more accurately that it is difficult to define an experience that is outside of space of time in a language that is invented to speak in terms of tensed of time. Past tense, present tense, and future tense. Terence McKenna once said that English is too dimensionally low a language to begin to describe these things, but it nevertheless puts the horse of language through a lather. People are able to bring certain things out of the experience, and say a bit about it, but no one has coined the perfect metaphor that is readily understood by everyone. I don’t even know if that’s possible.

    My first posts to him in RatSkep were about an experience that I actually had at age 15, prior to any drug use including pot. Kafei wants to brush anyone that has not had the experience off with this:

    He has to brush me off with indirection about my not having a ‘real’ CME. I find myself wondering if he has had one without the drugs. I could do the same damned thing he does. Not True…

    Well, the reason I am skeptical is because you were comparing a CME to your example of a CBE, which I felt was a false analogy for the reasons I’ve explained in my previous post.

    The research has established, as far as I read, a description of a psychological state and the researchers go no further except at the level of press where they may allude to more. Each individual has his bit of wonder in his worldview. Einstein tried to express this humbly and got misinterpreted all to hell. Scientists need to shut the fuck up when the press is listening.

    Einstein was so misconstrued that people actually believe he was an atheist. I believe even Richard Dawkins has done a disservice by categorizing Einstein as an atheist in his book “The God Delusion.” He was clearly not an atheist, and he was at great pains to express this fact during his lifetime.

    With this description they have of a mystical experience, and I have no problem labeling it as such, they are now able to do brain scans to find out what is really going on. The work I have read about indicates that there is a brainstorm of sorts in the area that we normally hold constant throughout life. The area that joins visual streams and frontal streams into our ground state of interpreting where, what, and who we are. If you throw a rock at that mechanism in just the right way you will inevitably experience great joy, peace, love and all that other good shit.

    Perhaps that’s an explanation, but I think there may be more to it than that. These scientists present it as a feature of consciousness itself, that it’s built into the very way consciousness is constructed. The Hindus also believed that wherever sentient beings arise throughout the multiverse, they too, would arise out of the perception of ego, only to rediscover this same truth of which they understood is truly nameless, but nevertheless have called Brahman. The nameless source of all things which throughout the ages has had many names, Brahman, Allah, God, nirvana, atman, gnosis, Fana, etc., etc., etc.. Just as Laotzu said, “The name that can be named is not the eternal name.”

    But any of you can experience some of this right now just by meditating for 30 minutes. Not the Big One but some part of it. You can also experience this by deeply and emotionally giving yourself up to jesus or anything else. You can also choose to jsut give yourself up to nothing! You do not need belief or dogma to enter these states. This giving up feeling, which is behind AA addiction recovery, is something we all experience in some measure every day. It’s part of how your brain works. The degree to which you give up determines the depth and power of the experience.

    I have had these experiences with meditation alone, without psychedelics, but definitely, as you said, not as powerful as the psychedelic vision.

    But there is no need whatever to give up reason after you come back to us. You haven’t …
    Kafei post #269 …tapped into some deep truth about consciousness and god grounding the fucking universe! You have simply had a fucking experience. Put a bullet through your brain and you will have another kind of experience.

    Or you’ll have the same experience. The Hindus believed that when we die, we simply return to Brahman. So, perhaps that’s what happens when you put a bullet through your head, but you simply won’t live to tell the tale. People who’ve had CMEs in their lifetime through disciplines like meditation or by psychedelics or even a near-death experience, and survive, often live to tell the tale.

    Now I think this is a most important topic for atheists. This is why bleevers believe and refuse to apply reason and science. All of them are afraid of losing the feeling if they lose their dogma. Every caller refers to this faith thing, or a personal connection to god or some other such, and this is what has hold of them.

    I was an agnostic who slightly identified with atheism prior to this experience. I definitely didn’t start out theist. I sort of despised religion, because it made no sense to me, and yet it seemed the most important thing to some people. Now that I get it, even more so than the average theist, especially the theist who’s not had this experience, who believes their religion simply on the momentum of tradition bestowed to them by their family or culture, etc. These people usually have a very superficial understanding of religion.

    Now I am very fortunate to have never had any of these beliefs and to have been brought into this experiential realm by Alan Watts, who was an atheist and a very good guide to the mystical experience. I enjoy all of these feelings daily. I quit a 6.2 pack a day smoking habit eight years ago without drugs or a spiritual experience but I used some of the techniques acquired. I quit a eight-ball per day/ quart and half of vodka per day addiction using these techniques, 12 years ago.

    I don’t know why you think Alan Watts was an atheist. He simply wasn’t. Perhaps you’ve contorted you perspective and made him atheist in your view. Have you considered that? Because I’ve listened to many of his lectures, I’ve read his books, he has never said in any instance that he was an atheist. In fact, he’s rather on many occasions criticized atheism.

    The bottom line for you theists is: Come on over to the atheist side! You can bring your fucking cake with you.

    I started out on that side. Why would I go back?

    Phenomenology is something where science is still in the dark ages. But we can do some things. If you can imagine having an experience where someone is asking you about something and you finally defer to “I don’t know”, there is a feeling associated with that. I think it has to do with leaving a highly attentive state and entering a more restful global state. It’s often in this state that these pesky intuitions pop up. The reason for that is that you have gone to a wider context and let go of focus.

    I don’t perceive it as a feeling of “I don’t know.” It is referred to as Kevala jñāna in Jainism which means “supreme knowledge.”

    This is a milder and common version of what it is to let go in these religious contexts. When Kafei has one of his drug induced ME’s, everything that he normally uses to ground himself in his real life is thrown into flux. Time, space, and identity go all to hell. In most cases this is oddly pleasurable much like saying “I don’t know the answer”. There is a sort of giving up state. It’s probably what you see in mammals that have been seized by a lions jaws in the savannah just before it gets munched.

    But it is from these don’t-know-what-the-fuck-is-going-on states that intuition arises. Unfortunately the goto intuition seems to be some kind of world-mind or theist BS.

    I don’t think these are confused states as you seem to be making them out to be. They are very coherent states, and often are expressed as the “clearest of the clearest.” These are moments of awakenings, and people often express that during the experience, they beheld the deepest insights known to reality. It’s just really hard as hell to bring them back.

  301. Monocle Smile says

    I’d say without God, you wouldn’t have been brought to this moment

    Without the material universe, I would not have been brought to this moment.
    How is what you said any different what I said? This is the root of what we’re getting at.

  302. speedofsound says

    @Kafei. You should read all of Watts’ books again. I truly understand why these experiences have you thinking cosmic conscious connection. The point I was making with my complete bug experience is that things go very wrong with brains. The CME is a case where they go very wrong but it’s a delightful life changing experience. My first CME changed the course of my entire life.

    Now if you read some Zen and read a lot of Watts and look carefully for clues you will hear a great deal about how dogma formed after and as a result of the experience is not the experience in itself! They warn you about this sort of thing. Now you have understood that the myth religions that formed had dogma that was incorrect. You get that. What you are not getting is that ANY dogma formed as a result of these experiences is equally dangerous. The experience is ineffable. It is as close to dying and dissolving as you can get while still breathing. When you come back you cannot bring the in-eff-able with you. The in-eff-able will fuck you if you try to do that. Now if you want to live simply and abide by this experiential lesson then just go do that. Don’t drive yourself nuts trying to convince the world that you found the Secret.

    BTW. I am very impressed with the depth of your knowledge. Can’t wait till you rediscover metaphysical naturalism and sober up a little.

  303. twarren1111 says

    Kafei

    I apologize for calling you an idiot and a moron.

    Despite me saying my use of those terms weren’t an ad hominem, I was using that informal fallacy and that is always wrong.

    Thank you for not using that fallacy on me.

  304. t90bb says

    So Jimmy needs to get ripped on drugs to meet gawddddd……how utterly laughable………So a God designed our existence and the only way to get to him is to alter the state we are born into with heavt hallucinogens……lolololololol….

    Jimmy do me a favor the next time you are on a trip and talk to him…..tell him this was from me…and kick it in the nutz…

    that is all.

  305. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    @EnlightenmentLiberal #278

    Kafei is a pisspoor communicator. I almost think that it’s deliberate.

     
    Kafei #152:

    I’ve said that I wasn’t going to transcribe what these professionals quite clearly describe in these lectures. Recall, that this experience is universal, hearing a description there would be no different from hearing my own. Not only that, it feels tedious for me, I’ve done in many threads over and over again, I am in no mood to do it now. I’d rather focus on more important points, if you really want a description of this experience, I highly recommend listening to those lectures.

     
    This is someone who enjoys wasting words, even as they write about NOT writing.
     
    The absurd amount of preparation and effort put into proposing something so trivial in a manner that invites miscommunication… repeating rather than clarifying when questioned… It reminds me of superatheist and their wiki (20.15, 20.16).

  306. Thane McKinsey says

    Kafei says “If you’re paying any attention at all, the evidence is the CME in and of itself, and for yourself. It is a metanoia, a fundamental change in perception.”

    Bullshit Kafei what your attempting to do is place this idea into gullible people’s minds to invoke hallucinations.
    It’s that simple.

    Kafei says “Again, drugs aren’t necessary for the experience, but I doubt you want to sit in an ashram for 30 years meditating when you can have this experience in a single night via entheogens.”

    I have been practicing meditation for over forty years now and on drugs too, and in a deprivation chamber. I have had the out of body experience and discovered that you really don’t leave your body. Your just in your mind and not communicating to your body. As far as a mystical experience with a god, deity or the supernatural something, NEVER. This is just horseshit.

    Again you shouldn’t be encouraging and enticing people to use harmful drugs. This shows how desperate you theists are.

  307. Thane McKinsey says

    I really never have had any interest at all in having a religious mystical experience. I don’t care for religion, instead I always wanted to be abducted by aliens so I could steal their spaceship. I’m laughing.

  308. says

    @speedofsound

    Now if you read some Zen and read a lot of Watts and look carefully for clues you will hear a great deal about how dogma formed after and as a result of the experience is not the experience in itself! They warn you about this sort of thing. Now you have understood that the myth religions that formed had dogma that was incorrect. You get that. What you are not getting is that ANY dogma formed as a result of these experiences is equally dangerous. The experience is ineffable. It is as close to dying and dissolving as you can get while still breathing. When you come back you cannot bring the in-eff-able with you. The in-eff-able will fuck you if you try to do that. Now if you want to live simply and abide by this experiential lesson then just go do that. Don’t drive yourself nuts trying to convince the world that you found the Secret.

    BTW. I am very impressed with the depth of your knowledge. Can’t wait till you rediscover metaphysical naturalism and sober up a little.

    Well, if your concern is getting stuck in dogmas, empty platitudes and hollow ceremonialism, you need to consider for a moment that if mystical states of consciousness were, indeed, the genesis of the major religion, then there must’ve been a breaking point where the mystical dimension of theology dwindled, and scholars recognize many points where mysticism began to diminish, however one event they emphasize is the Great Schism of 1054. This is the lifework and the major emphasis of Vladimir Lossky. To take an excerpt from Wikipedia:

    Lossky’s main theological concern was exegesis of mystical theology in Christian traditions. He argued in The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church (1944) that theologians of the Orthodox tradition maintained the mystical dimension of theology in a more integrated way than those of the Catholic and Reformed traditions after the East–West Schism because the latter misunderstood such Greek terms as ousia, hypostasis, theosis, and theoria.

    For Lossky, Christian mysticism and dogmatic theology were one and the same. According to Lossky mysticism is Orthodox dogma par excellence. The Christian life of prayer and worship is the foundation for dogmatic theology, and the dogma of the church help Christians in their struggle for sanctification and deification. Without dogma future generations lose the specific orthodoxy (right mind) and orthopraxis (right practice) of the Eastern Orthodox path to salvation (see soteriology).

    For the early Christian mystics, rational thought be it reason brought about by the intellect or speculation, etc. was considered what they referred to as False Spiritual Knowledge, the only direct knowledge of the divine came through these direct perceptions of God, what they then called Theoria, what modern day neuroscientists are calling a “complete” mystical experience. To take another excerpt from Wikipedia on Christian contemplation:

    In the Orthodox Churches, Theoria is regarded to lead to true spiritual knowledge, in contrast to the false or incomplete knowledge of rational thought, c.q. conjecture, speculation, dianoia, stochastic and dialectics). After illumination or theoria, humanity is in union with God and can properly discern, or have holy wisdom. Hence theoria, the experience or vision of God, silences all humanity.

    The most common false spiritual knowledge is derived not from an experience of God, but from reading another person’s experience of God and subsequently arriving at one’s own conclusions, believing those conclusions to be indistinguishable from the actual experienced knowledge.

    The mystics were often accepting of reformation of religion to cater to the growing and evolving culture around the church. Of course, when you lose that latitudinarian attitude towards religion, and you lose knowledge of the mystical experience, then religion devolves into rigid dogmas, and that’s precisely what happened for over a thousand years, after the Great Schism and what culminated in the Hesychast controversy, then religion dwindled into what Ted Nottingham calls “the fragmentation of fragmentation,” you had a religious clergy that would argue over scripture, its meaning, its interpretation, and you’d have interpretations upon interpretations which attempt to construe religion without the knowledge of the mystical experience, and so what that leads to is the myriads and myriads of sects of western religious sects and that’s precisely what we see today.

    @twarren1111

    Kafei

    I apologize for calling you an idiot and a moron.

    Despite me saying my use of those terms weren’t an ad hominem, I was using that informal fallacy and that is always wrong.

    Thank you for not using that fallacy on me.

    You’re good. I realize lots of people believe Albert Einstein was an atheist. Especially after Richard Dawkins book attempted to characterize him in such a way. So, no problem. I recommend this podcast, if you haven’t heard it. Michio Kaku dedicated it to Einstein’s religious and political views.

  309. says

    @Monocle Smile

    Without the material universe, I would not have been brought to this moment.
    How is what you said any different what I said? This is the root of what we’re getting at.

    I mentioned that the ancient mystics were often renowned for their probity, their honesty, they were moral paragons by virtue of their mystical experience. They would cultivate the various techniques and disciplines of mysticism, and integrate these mystical experiences into their daily lives. We’re speaking of these states of unconditional love. You see, once you’ve had this glimpse of an unconditional love, that memory continues to direct your life. It also seems to be the underlying moral compass of all the major religions, an experience of unconditional love. That is a very real possibility for everyone. The Christians called it Agapé, the love Christ felt for humanity which was not sexual in nature, but rather spiritual, or if you prefer, maternal in nature. It’s very hard for someone, once this experience has occurred, to commit any major sins, let alone kill a bug. I made the point in the stream that after this experience, I found myself no longer killing bugs. If a fly wandered indoors, then instead of swatting it to death, I would simply direct it out the door. In a unitive vision, seeing all as one, like I said, all matter becomes holy, all humanity united in brotherhood, and all creatures are fellows of man. This is something even Dr. Bill Richards has spoken on this point as well.

    I believe a lot of what we see today, the mass shootings, murders, rapes, etc. are because people have completely lost touch with this inner moral compass. From the vantage point of unconditional love, you can have the impression that the entire world is emotionally asleep. You can sense how far away we are from that possibility in our everyday ordinary consciousness. If a person who was contemplating those type of atrocities were to undergo a CME, they’d simply repent in the experience. Murder or rape wouldn’t even occur to them. However, we live in a world where most the CME is absent in most people, and so it would make sense to see what we see today happening in the world.

    I mean, that’s one way this relationship with God/Brahman/Allah/Tao, etc. has molded various cultures throughout various times in history. That’s what I mean that it was this religious morality that has brought us here to this moment. You see, if the metanoia occurs after such unitive mystical states of consciousness, wherein which all is one, this is also precisely what you find in the etymology of all the world’s major religions, terms that reference the divine that are monistic, henotheistic, and panentheistic in description due to the very fact that these descriptions are born out of the unitive mystical state of consciousness. They are descriptions of the divine that are not conjured by the fanciful imagination, but rather construed or interpreted out of this non-dual state of consciousness.

  310. says

    @Thane McKinsey

    I have been practicing meditation for over forty years now and on drugs too, and in a deprivation chamber. I have had the out of body experience and discovered that you really don’t leave your body. Your just in your mind and not communicating to your body. As far as a mystical experience with a god, deity or the supernatural something, NEVER. This is just horseshit.

    If you had psychedelics, I’d say you probably didn’t take enough. That’s all. They are using doses that are the equivalent of what Terence McKenna called the “heroic dose.”

    Again you shouldn’t be encouraging and enticing people to use harmful drugs. This shows how desperate you theists are.

    I’m not enticing anyone to use this stuff. I’m merely pointing out the fact that it is the greatest challenge for the atheist. However, if you are considering trying this stuff out, you might want to take heed at what I address in the first paragraph of my post at #207.

    I really never have had any interest at all in having a religious mystical experience. I don’t care for religion, instead I always wanted to be abducted by aliens so I could steal their spaceship. I’m laughing.

    Terence McKenna once said, “You can meet the alien… tomorrow tonight! If your connections are good enough.”

  311. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    I’m merely pointing out the fact that it is the greatest challenge for the atheist.

    You’re also an atheist.

  312. speedofsound says

    @Kafei. You and I differ in one essential point. I believe that consciousness is entirely local to me (and my immediate surroundings-that is often misunderstood as a bit of woo but it is not). C has nothing to do with physics or the structure of the universe.

    One place where I am different than most who have studied neuroscience becomes clear when someone says “science knows nothing about C”. This is bullshit IMO. We know everything there is to know about consciousness, we simply cannot or will not accept the truth of what we have found. It’s just biology of a particular kind and nothing more. When you CME you are still alone in your bubble and you have reached nothing whatever ‘out there’.

    What the experience does give you amounts to what you can get to in another way; by fully accepting naturalism which will tell you what kind of a fleeting form or shape of molecules you really are and that you are not simply connected to the world but you ARE the world, vibrating in a human sort of way. It is only life and it will be over soon.

    But just like a description of color not being the same as seeing the color, CME’s are a fine way to glimpse your quandary all at once.

  313. says

    @speedofsound

    . You and I differ in one essential point. I believe that consciousness is entirely local to me (and my immediate surroundings-that is often misunderstood as a bit of woo but it is not). C has nothing to do with physics or the structure of the universe.

    I don’t think we can say consciousness has simply been explained away. You said yourself that you believe the bugs you saw during that encounter with formication to be real, somewhere out there in the universe/multiverse. What model of consciousness accounts for that? You see, I mentioned that Michio Kaku and many other prominent physicists say that we “tune into” our reality. If this is so, then there’s no grounds to believe that consciousness is generated by the brain. If you have that model, then that raises whole different possibilities.

    One place where I am different than most who have studied neuroscience becomes clear when someone says “science knows nothing about C”. This is bullshit IMO. We know everything there is to know about consciousness, we simply cannot or will not accept the truth of what we have found. It’s just biology of a particular kind and nothing more. When you CME you are still alone in your bubble and you have reached nothing whatever ‘out there’.

    Why would you need to reach something “out there”? In the atheist live stream I posted in the first comment, I mentioned the notion of panpsychism or panexperientialism. This is the very, very old idea espoused by indigenous peoples, the Hindus, Buddhists, the Jains, etc. You see, I mention the possibility of consciousness being a fractal phenomenon, and I posit for the sake of argument, the possibility that if there is, indeed, an all-encompassing mind that is essentially the entirety of all that is, the Brahman, then at the heights of these “complete” mystical experience, that is what is reflected in the CME, it is reflected as what Hindus call the Atman, but you see, because it is a complete reflection, the Brahman and Atman are essentially identical. This is why Indra’s net is used as a very powerful metaphor in Hinduism. I’ll give a couple of quotes from Alan Watts to elucidate this here, Watts said, “Imagine a multidimensional spider’s web in the early morning covered with dew drops. And every dew drop contains the reflection of all the other dew drops. And, in each reflected dew drop, the reflections of all the other dew drops in that reflection. And so ad infinitum. That is the Buddhist conception of the universe in an image.” The CME is consciousness, in a sense, is the Atman which is reflecting all that ever was, all that is, and all that will ever be, the Brahman. Alex Grey has also painted a similar representation in his painting titled “Net of Being.”

    Alan Watts also did say, “You don’t look out there for God, something in the sky, You look in You.” It’s as though we occupy a slice of three-dimensional reality, but this slice is taken from a higher dimensional source, which contains all possibilities, it is what philosophers call the “Absolute.” So, none of are original, we do not originate our ideas, we merely draw from a pool of infinite permutations that is the Absolute, that is all already there, in a sense, but since we experience it only in this three-dimensional slice of time, we perceive it as unfolding, rather than it being static as it’s perceived from the vantage point of Atman or Brahman.

    What the experience does give you amounts to what you can get to in another way; by fully accepting naturalism which will tell you what kind of a fleeting form or shape of molecules you really are and that you are not simply connected to the world but you ARE the world, vibrating in a human sort of way. It is only life and it will be over soon.

    Sure, but you’re not saying anything other than what’s been said at the very core of these origins, that’s my point. That’s precisely how the Hindus saw it, too, they didn’t believe in a literal karmic reincarnation, that souls transmigrate from body to body, but rather in the very same way a wave moves across water, that wave is not the same particular set of H20 molecules that make up the wave, the wave is simply a motion running over the water, and is different set of H20 molecules at every point across the wave. Well, in that very same way, atoms are moving like a wave through us. It may not be happening as quickly as water that moves across a wave, but it is nevertheless happening in this very similar way, but of course, at a much slower rate.

    But just like a description of color not being the same as seeing the color, CME’s are a fine way to glimpse your quandary all at once.

    Barney used this example in the atheist stream. He said something along the lines that a CME is similar in the same sense we all see the colour red. Now we all may not see the precise same colour red, but we what we understand as red is a very similar concept, even if we see different shades of red or a different colour altogether. You see, if consciousness was truly explained away, then a CME would be explained away since it is a potential in consciousness, and it’s simply not. I think there is much we have to learn. I believe it was Stuart Sutherland who said, “Nothing worth reading has been written about consciousness.”

  314. says

    @speedofsound

    . You and I differ in one essential point. I believe that consciousness is entirely local to me (and my immediate surroundings-that is often misunderstood as a bit of woo but it is not). C has nothing to do with physics or the structure of the universe.

    I don’t think we can say consciousness has simply been explained away. You said yourself that you believe the bugs you saw during that encounter with formication to be real, somewhere out there in the universe/multiverse. What model of consciousness accounts for that? You see, I mentioned that Michio Kaku and many other prominent physicists say that we “tune into” our reality. If this is so, then there’s no grounds to believe that consciousness is generated by the brain. If you have that model, then that raises whole different possibilities.

    One place where I am different than most who have studied neuroscience becomes clear when someone says “science knows nothing about C”. This is bullshit IMO. We know everything there is to know about consciousness, we simply cannot or will not accept the truth of what we have found. It’s just biology of a particular kind and nothing more. When you CME you are still alone in your bubble and you have reached nothing whatever ‘out there’.

    Why would you need to reach something “out there”? In the atheist live stream I posted in the first comment, I mentioned the notion of panpsychism or panexperientialism. This is the very, very old idea espoused by indigenous peoples, the Hindus, Buddhists, the Jains, etc. You see, I mention the possibility of consciousness being a fractal phenomenon, and I posit for the sake of argument, the possibility that if there is, indeed, an all-encompassing mind that is essentially the entirety of all that is, the Brahman, then at the heights of these “complete” mystical experience, that is what is reflected in the CME, it is reflected as what Hindus call the Atman, but you see, because it is a complete reflection, the Brahman and Atman are essentially identical. This is why Indra’s net is used as a very powerful metaphor in Hinduism. I’ll give a couple of quotes from Alan Watts to elucidate this here, Watts said, “Imagine a multidimensional spider’s web in the early morning covered with dew drops. And every dew drop contains the reflection of all the other dew drops. And, in each reflected dew drop, the reflections of all the other dew drops in that reflection. And so ad infinitum. That is the Buddhist conception of the universe in an image.” The CME is consciousness, in a sense, is the Atman which is reflecting all that ever was, all that is, and all that will ever be, the Brahman. Alex Grey has also painted a similar representation in his painting titled “Net of Being.”

  315. says

    @speedofsound Alan Watts also did say, “You don’t look out there for God, something in the sky, You look in You.” It’s as though we occupy a slice of three-dimensional reality, but this slice is taken from a higher dimensional source, which contains all possibilities, it is what philosophers call the “Absolute.” So, none of are original, we do not originate our ideas, we merely draw from a pool of infinite permutations that is the Absolute, that is all already there, in a sense, but since we experience it only in this three-dimensional slice of time, we perceive it as unfolding, rather than it being static as it’s perceived from the vantage point of Atman or Brahman.

    What the experience does give you amounts to what you can get to in another way; by fully accepting naturalism which will tell you what kind of a fleeting form or shape of molecules you really are and that you are not simply connected to the world but you ARE the world, vibrating in a human sort of way. It is only life and it will be over soon.

    Sure, but you’re not saying anything other than what’s been said at the very core of these origins, that’s my point. That’s precisely how the Hindus saw it, too, they didn’t believe in a literal karmic reincarnation, that souls transmigrate from body to body, but rather in the very same way a wave moves across water, that wave is not the same particular set of H20 molecules that make up the wave, the wave is simply a motion running over the water, and is different set of H20 molecules at every point across the wave. Well, in that very same way, atoms are moving like a wave through us. It may not be happening as quickly as water that moves across a wave, but it is nevertheless happening in this very similar way, but of course, at a much slower rate.

    But just like a description of color not being the same as seeing the color, CME’s are a fine way to glimpse your quandary all at once.

    Barney used this example in the atheist stream. He said something along the lines that a CME is similar in the same sense we all see the colour red. Now we all may not see the precise same colour red, but we what we understand as red is a very similar concept, even if we see different shades of red or a different colour altogether. You see, if consciousness was truly explained away, then a CME would be explained away since it is a potential in consciousness, and it’s simply not. I think there is much we have to learn. I believe it was Stuart Sutherland who said, “Nothing worth reading has been written about consciousness.”

  316. oreoman1987 says

    Oreonut may be a one trick pony….a one and done fella. We see this a lot. Guys show up here, pound a topic…and disappear forever. Not sure whether it becomes frustration or embarrassment or……..?? A few peeps here were getting close to his actual identity btw. I knew who this was all along and we were getting ready to expose him. That plus his argument for and against could only ultimately end in a stalemate probably led him to lose interest. That said..hope he comes back with better arguments….was a fun week with him.,

    I’m still able to respond to anyone on here. Just haven’t been on in a while. And, yes, I can still refute every single point you guys bring up.

  317. oreoman1987 says

    “t90bb says
    January 9, 2019 at 7:36 pm
    Jimmy is this weeks OREO,,,,,..
    At the end of the day what we can reasonably state is that some people have powerful experiences they attribute to god. THATS IT. And these people are convinced a GOD exists as a result. Well thats fucking cute!!!……
    How is this anything but one big argument from ignorance??
    Jimmy…when you can demonstrate a god exists and is involved….please alert the scientific community. You will be famous. Until then your another goof. And rather pitiful I may add. That is all.
    PS..in case your response is “they are working on it”….get back to us when the do. Now scram”

    I never once argued for this position. I simply pointed out the weaknesses of science and what the unsolved problems in philosophy pose to it. So far, I have yet to see a single person on here solve them. I’m also skeptical of religious claims. Unfortunately, I don’t think I can reason with anyone on here and get them into philosophy to question the methods of science.

  318. oreoman1987 says

    “Loveromates chooses to go with the example for which there is no evidence whatsoever, rather than the example for which we have abundant evidence. This is amusing, but not perhaps worth bringing to a blog peopled largely by sceptics.”

    The problem of induction is a reason to be skeptical of science and the uniformity of nature in the future.

  319. Thane McKinsey says

    Kafei
    Speaking of Aliens, why wouldn’t an advanced alien race also being exploring altered state of consciousness?
    Humans are!
    There are many claims of alien abductions and alien contact, maybe instead of experiencing a mystical experience, maybe your experiencing alien contact? I have a theory of how this might be possible, it has to do with quantum physics and quantum entanglement. This is very interesting stuff and anyone whom is interested can explore this on their own.
    Kafei in a drug induced state of altered consciousness how could you possibly be able to distinguish an Alien contact from some supposed mystical experience??????????

  320. Monocle Smile says

    Panpsychism is woo for people who failed all their physics classes.
    Your blather about higher dimensions is just blather.
    Stuart Sutherland is a dumbass. The name dropping is beyond annoying and has lost you what defenders you may have had.

    PS Oreo, go fuck yourself.

  321. oreoman1987 says

    “Panpsychism is woo for people who failed all their physics classes.
    Your blather about higher dimensions is just blather.
    Stuart Sutherland is a dumbass. The name dropping is beyond annoying and has lost you what defenders you may have had.
    PS Oreo, go fuck yourself.”

    This is a way to not engage in debate. It’s what leads to close mindedness and faith. Ignoring the unsolved problems of philosophy doesn’t make them go away.

  322. Thane McKinsey says

    I forget the precise quote.
    But
    An Alien race with sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from god.

  323. says

    oreoman1987

    At the end of the day what we can reasonably state is that some people have powerful experiences they attribute to god. THATS IT. And these people are convinced a GOD exists as a result. Well thats fucking cute!!!……

    That’s not what I’m saying at all. That’s what I’ve been at great pains to express that I’m not saying. Rather, and more accurately, what I’m saying is that, yes, there is a powerful phenomenon in consciousness wherein which from that perspective one’s consciousness is transformed in such a way that the experiential reality is of a Totality, of the very sum of existence, this is why it is expressed as transcending space and time or a timelessness. In other words, people didn’t attribute this experience to God, but rather God or Brahman or nirvana, etc. is the very description of the very content of the “complete” mystical experience. That’s a more accurate way to put it. People didn’t mistakenly attribute it to God or Brahman, they didn’t accidentally misconstrue it as God or Brahman, rather God or Brahman is the very description of that particular altered state, and each of the major religions has a word for this experience. María Sabina, the Mazatec curandera, who introduced Gordon Wasson and in turn, the rest of western culture to psilocybin-containin mushrooms said that the mushrooms take her to the place “where everything is known.” Likewise, the Jains called it Kevala jñāna, an omniscient principle that is at the core of all souls, the Jains, like the Hindus and Buddhists, and even the Christian mystics, saw this experience as intrinsic to our consciousness just as science is beginning to rediscover this in modern times.

    How is this anything but one big argument from ignorance??
    Jimmy…when you can demonstrate a god exists and is involved….please alert the scientific community. You will be famous. Until then your another goof. And rather pitiful I may add. That is all.
    PS..in case your response is “they are working on it”….get back to us when the do. Now scram”

    That’s what is going on, that’s what I’ve been at great pains to express here.

    I never once argued for this position. I simply pointed out the weaknesses of science and what the unsolved problems in philosophy pose to it. So far, I have yet to see a single person on here solve them. I’m also skeptical of religious claims. Unfortunately, I don’t think I can reason with anyone on here and get them into philosophy to question the methods of science.

    Well, now science is understanding as Hypatia understood in her time, she echoed the teachings of Plotinus who taught that the goal of philosophy is a “mystical union with the divine.” Essentially what these neuroscientists today are calling a “complete”mystical experience.

    @Thane McKinsey

    Kafei
    Speaking of Aliens, why wouldn’t an advanced alien race also being exploring altered state of consciousness?
    Humans are!

    Well, perhaps they have, the Hindus believed that wherever sentient beings arise in the multiverse, they, too, start from ego, and slash away at that abstract illusion until they arrive at Brahman, the ultimate reality underlying all phenomena experienced in this phenomenon in consciousness.

    There are many claims of alien abductions and alien contact, maybe instead of experiencing a mystical experience, maybe your experiencing alien contact? I have a theory of how this might be possible, it has to do with quantum physics and quantum entanglement. This is very interesting stuff and anyone whom is interested can explore this on their own.
    Kafei in a drug induced state of altered consciousness how could you possibly be able to distinguish an Alien contact from some supposed mystical experience??????????

    Well, this is certainly what speedofsound was saying at 325. That the alien abduction or encounter may not be a separate phenomenon. He witnessed what he called “bugs,” what in the medical literature refers to “formication,” but this phenomenon has never been fully explained. Why do we see such things? I’ve certainly saw this during my bout with DTs (delirium tremens). I saw these bug-like creatures, and we call them bug-like because that’s the closest thing they resemble in our reality, but when examined closely, they aren’t like any bugs we know here on Earth. These bugs I witnessed were bizarre. They seemed quite alien, in fact. They seem like the bugs you’d find on a planet in a different galaxy altogether from our own, and so the implication is that perhaps during the altered state, you can shift your frequency of perception, and what you’re witnessing is actually a parallel reality which is inhabited by these alien bug-like creatures. Perhaps. speedofsound did say that was his conclusion.

    Terence McKenna has pointed out that this is precisely what happens in the visionary states of N,N-DMT, that this is one of the reasons why DMT aficionados are so impatient with pop-alien and UFO people, is because the alien stories these people give are so pedestrian and so ordinary when compared to the DMT flash. I tried to link you this in my last post, but it was a dead link. Well, anyway, here’s the working link, this is Terence McKenna speaking on the topic of N,N-DMT that I meant to link in my last post.

  324. says

    oreoman1987

    At the end of the day what we can reasonably state is that some people have powerful experiences they attribute to god. THATS IT. And these people are convinced a GOD exists as a result. Well thats fucking cute!!!……

    That’s not what I’m saying at all. That’s what I’ve been at great pains to express that I’m not saying. Rather, and more accurately, what I’m saying is that, yes, there is a powerful phenomenon in consciousness wherein which from that perspective one’s consciousness is transformed in such a way that the experiential reality is of a Totality, of the very sum of existence, this is why it is expressed as transcending space and time or a timelessness. In other words, people didn’t attribute this experience to God, but rather God or Brahman or nirvana, etc. is the very description of the very content of the “complete” mystical experience. That’s a more accurate way to put it. People didn’t mistakenly attribute it to God or Brahman, they didn’t accidentally misconstrue it as God or Brahman, rather God or Brahman is the very description of that particular altered state, and each of the major religions has a word for this experience. María Sabina, the Mazatec curandera, who introduced Gordon Wasson and in turn, the rest of western culture to psilocybin-containin mushrooms said that the mushrooms take her to the place “where everything is known.” Likewise, the Jains called it Kevala jñāna, an omniscient principle that is at the core of all souls, the Jains, like the Hindus and Buddhists, and even the Christian mystics, saw this experience as intrinsic to our consciousness just as science is beginning to rediscover this in modern times.

    How is this anything but one big argument from ignorance??
    Jimmy…when you can demonstrate a god exists and is involved….please alert the scientific community. You will be famous. Until then your another goof. And rather pitiful I may add. That is all.
    PS..in case your response is “they are working on it”….get back to us when the do. Now scram”

    That’s what is going on, that’s what I’ve been at great pains to express here.

    I never once argued for this position. I simply pointed out the weaknesses of science and what the unsolved problems in philosophy pose to it. So far, I have yet to see a single person on here solve them. I’m also skeptical of religious claims. Unfortunately, I don’t think I can reason with anyone on here and get them into philosophy to question the methods of science.

    Well, now science is understanding as Hypatia understood in her time, she echoed the teachings of Plotinus who taught that the goal of philosophy is a “mystical union with the divine.” Essentially what these neuroscientists today are calling a “complete”mystical experience.

  325. says

    @Thane McKinsey

    Kafei
    Speaking of Aliens, why wouldn’t an advanced alien race also being exploring altered state of consciousness?
    Humans are!

    Well, perhaps they have, the Hindus believed that wherever sentient beings arise in the multiverse, they, too, start from ego, and slash away at that abstract illusion until they arrive at Brahman, the ultimate reality underlying all phenomena experienced in this phenomenon in consciousness.

    There are many claims of alien abductions and alien contact, maybe instead of experiencing a mystical experience, maybe your experiencing alien contact? I have a theory of how this might be possible, it has to do with quantum physics and quantum entanglement. This is very interesting stuff and anyone whom is interested can explore this on their own.
    Kafei in a drug induced state of altered consciousness how could you possibly be able to distinguish an Alien contact from some supposed mystical experience??????????

    Well, this is certainly what speedofsound was saying at 325. That the alien abduction or encounter may not be a separate phenomenon. He witnessed what he called “bugs,” what in the medical literature refers to “formication,” but this phenomenon has never been fully explained. Why do we see such things? I’ve certainly saw this during my bout with DTs (delirium tremens). I saw these bug-like creatures, and we call them bug-like because that’s the closest thing they resemble in our reality, but when examined closely, they aren’t like any bugs we know here on Earth. These bugs I witnessed were bizarre. They seemed quite alien, in fact. They seem like the bugs you’d find on a planet in a different galaxy altogether from our own, and so the implication is that perhaps during the altered state, you can shift your frequency of perception, and what you’re witnessing is actually a parallel reality which is inhabited by these alien bug-like creatures. Perhaps. speedofsound did say that was his conclusion.

    Terence McKenna has pointed out that this is precisely what happens in the visionary states of N,N-DMT, that this is one of the reasons why DMT aficionados are so impatient with pop-alien and UFO people, is because the alien stories these people give are so pedestrian and so ordinary when compared to the DMT flash. I tried to link you this in my last post, but it was a dead link. Well, anyway, here’s the working link, this is Terence McKenna speaking on the topic of N,N-DMT that I meant to link in my last post.

  326. says

    @oreoman1987

    This is a way to not engage in debate. It’s what leads to close mindedness and faith. Ignoring the unsolved problems of philosophy doesn’t make them go away.

    I agree. I don’t think philosophy or even science has dealt with this, and ignoring definitely will not make it go away. Have you ever heard Rupert Sheldrake speak on that very topic? I find his perspective quite interesting.

    @Thane McKinsey,

    I forget the precise quote.
    But
    An Alien race with sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from god.”

    It was Arthur C. Clarke’s third law of prediction, and Matt uses this argument to explain that he ultimately wouldn’t know what would change his mind about God. Well, obviously, he hasn’t considered a CME.

  327. t90bb says

    Oreo..glad to see you manned up and called the show….

    You spent a week arguing for a position most of us already agreed upon….that science does not get us to absolute certainty and that all its conclusions are tentative. .We argued that science is a useful tool….you said it was not. You argued induction is without value. We showed over and over and over that you live with confidence in science and induction. You were caught living with the same confidence in science and induction as the rest of us. Your intellectual position and your actions are contradictory, which was pointed out by everyone. You just dont like being caught being hypocritical. You trust science and induction about as much of the rest of us!

    In hundreds of posts…you made ZERO points other than stating the obvious and pretending it was nuanced.

    Be a man and call the show if you think you have anything to offer….Baa bye.

  328. t90bb says

    Jimmy……so you need to get completely wrecked on drugs to discover God……do I have this correct??? You do not find this absurd???

    By altering our brain state with heavy doses of drugs we sometimes get an experience that feels powerful…..and you decided it was God…..lolololololol

    People have very powerful experiences with and without drugs…..these are so powerful they convince those that have them that they are god…or have been abducted by aliens repeatedly…or can fly…….lolololololol

    I think you just like to take drugs buddy.

  329. Monocle Smile says

    They seem like the bugs you’d find on a planet in a different galaxy altogether from our own, and so the implication is that perhaps during the altered state, you can shift your frequency of perception, and what you’re witnessing is actually a parallel reality which is inhabited by these alien bug-like creatures. Perhaps. speedofsound did say that was his conclusion

    Or, you know, your brain is playing tricks on you because it’s suffering. Occam’s Razor. This delve into parallel realities just exposed your woo for what it is. You’re making this up as you go along…or, more accurately, you’re parroting stuff that other people have made up as they went along.

  330. says

    @t90bb

    Jimmy……so you need to get completely wrecked on drugs to discover God……do I have this correct??? You do not find this absurd???

    No, I never made this claim. I said this phenomenon in consciousness can be achieved by various means, with and without psychedelics.

    By altering our brain state with heavy doses of drugs we sometimes get an experience that feels powerful…..and you decided it was God…..lolololololol

    No, that’s not the argument at all. This is your misconstruing of what I’ve said. The experience is not to be found in the drug, but the human mind itself. It’s a phenomenon in consciousness which we all have the potential to experience.

    People have very powerful experiences with and without drugs…..these are so powerful they convince those that have them that they are god…or have been abducted by aliens repeatedly…or can fly…….lolololololol

    No, the visionary states can be quite alien or they can be perhaps vivid aspects of our own imagination, the visionary states, that is, but the unitive mystical experience is something quite different from the visionary/archetypal experiences that people report in these type of altered states of consciousness.

    I think you just like to take drugs buddy.

    I think you underestimate this experience. I don’t think anyone is going into this state often. I do it annually, but the goal is to do it through pure and natural meditation, and in fact, my psychedelic experiences have helped my meditative practices. I don’t think once a year is drug abuse. Sometimes I stay away from it even longer than year, depending on how powerful the experience was, because these experiences aren’t just intellectually digested over a period of days, but rather weeks, months, even years in some cases. It’s something that one will ponder unto death.

  331. says

    @Monocle Smile

    Or, you know, your brain is playing tricks on you because it’s suffering. Occam’s Razor. This delve into parallel realities just exposed your woo for what it is. You’re making this up as you go along…or, more accurately, you’re parroting stuff that other people have made up as they went along.

    Well, I never said that speedofsound’s conclusion was my own, but it’s something I’ve certainly considered. Even modern physicists believe that we tune into one frequency, “our reality,” but we simultaneously live in all other possible realities. I have had this experience for myself, so I’m not simply parroting what other people have said about it. You’ve had even speedofsound say that he did, in fact, conclude that these bugs were real somewhere out there in the universe/multiverse. Terence McKenna used to say that for him, these hallucinatory phenomena that occur on psychedelics were a kind of perfect proof that the content wasn’t being generated from his own imagination, that perhaps it is something that we, indeed, tap into. Perhaps, it is certainly the overwhelming impression within the experience itself.

  332. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Even modern physicists believe that we tune into one frequency, “our reality,” but we simultaneously live in all other possible realities.

    Belief among professional physicists in the manyworlds interpretation of quantum physics is widespread, but it is nowhere near universal. Other popular alternatives exist in the physics community, including Bohmian mechanics, spontaneous collapse models, and also a substantial chunk of physicists are of the sort “shut up and calculate”.

  333. Monocle Smile says

    Terence McKenna used to say that for him, these hallucinatory phenomena that occur on psychedelics were a kind of perfect proof that the content wasn’t being generated from his own imagination

    Then Terence McKenna is a dumbass. Why should I care?

  334. Thane McKinsey says

    Close Encounter of the eight Kind. Alien contact in a altered state of the conscious mind.
    If there are intelligent aliens out there why would they “not” be wondering if there are aliens out there, and even attempting to make contact.

  335. says

    @Monocle Smile

    Then Terence McKenna is a dumbass. Why should I care?

    No one said you should care about what Terence McKenna says, but Ockham’s razor isn’t always applicable in a universal sense. I mean, try applying that principle to the multiverse theory. There are always exceptions to the rule. Unless you’ve had this experience, then it’s merely your opinion that the “brain is playing tricks on you.” If that’s the case, then at the core of everyone’s consciousness, this potential of the CME is ultimately a lie, if you follow your train of thought. I don’t think so, because the noetic quality is intrinsic to this experience.

  336. says

    @Monocle Smile

    Then Terence McKenna is a dumbass. Why should I care?

    No one said you should care about what Terence McKenna says, but Ockham’s razor isn’t always applicable in a universal sense. I mean, try applying that principle to the multiverse theory. There are always exceptions to the rule. Unless you’ve had this experience, then it’s merely your opinion that the “brain is playing tricks on you.” If that’s the case, then at the core of everyone’s consciousness, this potential of the CME is ultimately a lie, if you follow your train of thought. I don’t think so, because the noetic quality is intrinsic to this experience.

  337. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    but Ockham’s razor isn’t always applicable in a universal sense.

    Yes, it is.

    I mean, try applying that principle to the multiverse theory. There are always exceptions to the rule.

    Again, this is far from a consensus position in physics.

    Unless you’ve had this experience, then it’s merely your opinion that the “brain is playing tricks on you.”

    Exactly what a con-man would say. It’s also exactly what liars for Jesus say, i.e. “you have to really pray for it, and want to believe, in order for you to hear Jesus”.

    If that’s the case, then at the core of everyone’s consciousness, this potential of the CME is ultimately a lie,

    I don’t understand what this means.

    I don’t think so, because the noetic quality is intrinsic to this experience.

    As I already wrote, one can always be mistaken about one’s experiences, even while experiencing them.

  338. speedofsound says

    @oreoman1987

    The problem of induction is a reason to be skeptical of science and the uniformity of nature in the future.

    There is no problem of induction, except for with undergrad embryonic philosophers.

  339. speedofsound says

    @Kafei

    They seem like the bugs you’d find on a planet in a different galaxy altogether from our own, and so the implication is that perhaps during the altered state, you can shift your frequency of perception, and what you’re witnessing is actually a parallel reality which is inhabited by these alien bug-like creatures. Perhaps. speedofsound did say that was his conclusion.

    I concluded WHAT? WTF? No I did not conclude THAT. I concluded that sleep deprivation and methamphetamine induced a very common form of V1 cortex malfunction that when further processed upstream gave me a very common hallucination of dangerous insects. Fully explained by de science.

  340. says

    @speedofsound

    I concluded WHAT? WTF? No I did not conclude THAT. I concluded that sleep deprivation and methamphetamine induced a very common form of V1 cortex malfunction that when further processed upstream gave me a very common hallucination of dangerous insects. Fully explained by de science.

    Ah, I see. You said “I could have concluded that there actually were bugs. That the bugs were actually in some other physical dimension (cue pop-physics) and that only I was in this grand state of mind where I could see them and no one else could.” So, you’re saying that you attribute things like formication and paresthesia to a V1 cortex malfunction. I suppose, I could see that, I’ve had dream where I saw pareidolia in every direction, faces with mouths and eyes moving, but were made up of the objects and the textures on the walls that surround me. And so, perhaps that explains the CBE. I’m wagering you believe some similar mechanism would explain the visual phenomena of the CME. I’ve read the papers published on form constants, but a lot of it is conjecture and assumption. None of it is concrete, and it only accounts for the visual aspect of these hallucinatory phenomena associated with the CME, if we’re going to consider it an explanation at all.

  341. says

    @EnlightenmentLiberal

    Yes, it is.

    Nevertheless, Ockham’s razor has had its fair share of criticism.

    Again, this is far from a consensus position in physics.

    It’s certainly the consensus among string theorists. Physicists that actually work in string theory.

    Exactly what a con-man would say. It’s also exactly what liars for Jesus say, i.e. “you have to really pray for it, and want to believe, in order for you to hear Jesus”.

    Except this can happen without praying for it, you don’t have to believe it, and you don’t even have to believe in Jesus. That’s the primary difference between that and what I’m talking about.

    I don’t understand what this means.

    That you don’t trust the noetic quality of the CME, essentially.

    As I already wrote, one can always be mistaken about one’s experiences, even while experiencing them.

    And yet the this noetic quality is universally reported, and has been for millennia.

  342. Thane McKinsey says

    Kafei says@337 “Again, drugs aren’t necessary for the experience, but I doubt you want to sit in an ashram for 30 years meditating when you can have this experience in a single night via entheogens.”

    Kafei – says@341
    If you had psychedelics, I’d say you probably didn’t take enough. That’s all. They are using doses that are the equivalent of what Terence McKenna called the “heroic dose.”

    Kafei did you even take a breath before you contradicted yourself. You said, drugs aren’t necessary for the mystical experience, then you said, I didn’t take enough drugs.
    OR
    When you said that I needed to meditate for thirty years to experience a mystical experience, did you mean that I had to actually sit in an ashram without moving or drinking or eating etc. for thirty years?

    If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance then baffle them with bullshit.

  343. says

    Thane McKinsey

    Kafei says@337 “Again, drugs aren’t necessary for the experience, but I doubt you want to sit in an ashram for 30 years meditating when you can have this experience in a single night via entheogens.”

    Kafei – says@341
    If you had psychedelics, I’d say you probably didn’t take enough. That’s all. They are using doses that are the equivalent of what Terence McKenna called the “heroic dose.”

    Kafei did you even take a breath before you contradicted yourself. You said, drugs aren’t necessary for the mystical experience, then you said, I didn’t take enough drugs.
    OR
    When you said that I needed to meditate for thirty years to experience a mystical experience, did you mean that I had to actually sit in an ashram without moving or drinking or eating etc. for thirty years?

    If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance then baffle them with bullshit.

    I’m speaking particularly of the “complete” mystical experience. Now, there’s a few ways to go about this, but the most effective and reliable method is via the use of entheogens at the sufficient dose or what Terence McKenna calls the “heroic dose.” What is contradicting about that?

  344. t90bb says

    OREO….YOU have confidence in science and induction….so do i……thanks for taking my position. it was my position before you came to the board…..night

  345. t90bb says

    jimmy…..no one can stop you from taking drugs and pretending you made contact with sky daddy………people do all sorts of crazy shit to feel better……..

  346. Thane McKinsey says

    Kafei – says
    @speedofsound Alan Watts also did say, “You don’t look out there for God, something in the sky, You look in You.” It’s as though we occupy a slice of three-dimensional reality, but this slice is taken from a higher dimensional source, which contains all possibilities, it is what philosophers call the “Absolute.”

    I myself have always considered our reality to be four dimensional, time being the fourth dimension.
    I also take issue with this idea of “Absolute.”, a “higher dimensional source, which contains all possibilities” is “infinity”.
    Why should I care about what Alan Watts has to say?
    You say?

  347. Thane McKinsey says

    oreoman1987@349 says; “The problem of induction is a reason to be skeptical of science and the uniformity of nature in the future.

    The problem of induction is a reason to be skeptical of induction.

  348. Thane McKinsey says

    Kafei @361 “Even modern physicists believe that we tune into one frequency, “our reality,” but we simultaneously live in all other possible realities. I have had this experience for myself, so I’m not simply parroting what other people have said about it.”

    I have also had this experience.

  349. Thane McKinsey says

    Kafei – says@371
    Except this can happen without praying for it, you don’t have to believe it, and you don’t even have to believe in Jesus. That’s the primary difference between that and what I’m talking about.

    This can happen by simply imprinting the idea that this can happen.
    Kafei is attempting to indoctrinate us.

  350. says

    @t90bb

    jimmy…..no one can stop you from taking drugs and pretending you made contact with sky daddy………people do all sorts of crazy shit to feel better……..

    I don’t think the Perennial philosophy has anything to do with what atheists mockingly call the “sky daddy.” That is as Einstein rightly pointed out, “the childish analogy of religion.”

    jimmy. I think you underestimate a complete alien abduction encounter

    It’s very possible that the psychedelic experience and the alien encounter may be one and the same phenomenon.

    @Thane McKinsey

    Kafei @361 “Even modern physicists believe that we tune into one frequency, “our reality,” but we simultaneously live in all other possible realities. I have had this experience for myself, so I’m not simply parroting what other people have said about it.”

    I have also had this experience.

    What experience, the visionary/archetypal experience or the unitive mystical state of consciousness also called the “complete” mystical experience?

    I myself have always considered our reality to be four dimensional, time being the fourth dimension.
    I also take issue with this idea of “Absolute.”, a “higher dimensional source, which contains all possibilities” is “infinity”.
    Why should I care about what Alan Watts has to say?
    You say?

    This is not something Alan Watts has said, it’s something that he’s reiterated that has been echoed by mystics throughout the ages. I had made a typo in that particular post, but I meant to say none of our thoughts are original, none of our ideas are new. We rather draw from permutations that, in a sense, are “already there.” We draw from what philosophers have called The Absolute.

  351. Thane McKinsey says

    Kafei – says@373
    “I’m speaking particularly of the “complete” mystical experience. Now, there’s a few ways to go about this, but the most effective and reliable method is via the use of entheogens at the sufficient dose or what Terence McKenna calls the “heroic dose.” What is contradicting about that?”

    So, meditating alone isn’t going to give me the “complete” mystical experience, first I need to be brain-washed and indoctrinated into the idea of a mystical experience, then I need to get stoned out of my mind.
    Is that how it works?

  352. Thane McKinsey says

    Kafei
    @Thane McKinsey

    Kafei @361 “Even modern physicists believe that we tune into one frequency, “our reality,” but we simultaneously live in all other possible realities. I have had this experience for myself, so I’m not simply parroting what other people have said about it.”

    I have also had this experience.

    What experience, the visionary/archetypal experience or the unitive mystical state of consciousness also called the “complete” mystical experience?

    The experience that we simultaneously live in all other possible realities.

  353. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Nevertheless, Ockham’s razor has had its fair share of criticism.

    I don’t give a fuck.

    It’s certainly the consensus among string theorists. Physicists that actually work in string theory.

    One, I doubt that it’s the consensus specifically among string theorists. Citations please. Two, string theory is not necessarily the forefront of real physics. String theory hasn’t produced any experimentally verified result in spite of decades of research.

    That you don’t trust the noetic quality of the CME, essentially.

    I don’t even know what you mean when you use the word, and that’s almost entirely your fault for failing to properly explain.

    And yet the this noetic quality is universally reported, and has been for millennia.

    One, most people in this thread have no idea what you’re talking about nor what you mean by the word “noetic”. Two, whatever it is, seemingly it’s not universally reported, e.g. reported by all persons. At best, you can claim that most societies in history have produced persons who subscribe to this or similar ideas. A small fraction of persons is not “universal”. Eating, breathing, sleeping – those are human universals.

  354. says

    @Thane McKinsey

    So, meditating alone isn’t going to give me the “complete” mystical experience, first I need to be brain-washed and indoctrinated into the idea of a mystical experience, then I need to get stoned out of my mind.
    Is that how it works?

    No, it’s a phenomenon in consciousness, but the disciplines found in mysticism aren’t easily done. Alan Watts once asked a Roshi, “How long will it take to reach Satori?” He replied, “It may take three minutes. It may take 30 years. I mean that.”

    These disciplines aren’t easy. Meditation, ancient meditation or correct meditation or transcendental meditation involves the cessation of volition which is, of course, easier said than done. However, the Roshi is right, some people get it quite quickly, within minutes, others take many, many years, and I’d wager die without ever undergoing it, and perhaps they receive it the moment prior to death. I make the analogy in the stream I posted in the first comment that you can, like a mountain climber, learn the skills involved to climb the mountain, and you can be a long way before you finally reach the peak or you can take a helicopter ride, and make it to the top in minutes, but that doesn’t make the experience any easier. At least, with the spiritual disciplines, you are in a way bracing yourself, and preparing yourself to receive that insight. On the other hand, it’s sort of forced on you with the psychedelics, but make no mistake, they are two routes to the same goal.

    I did point out the psilocybin study they did on long-term meditators, and nearly all these volunteers said that the psilocybin experience was more intense than anything they’ve encountered through their meditation. There’s many things to consider about this… For instance, if the naturally occurring mystical experience does involve an induction of endogenous N,N-DMT, then if you’re an alcoholic or you spend a lot of time consuming fluoride-containing faucet water, then you probably have an unhealthy pineal gland, and if this is the source of our naturally occurring N,N-DMT, then suddenly the emphasis on health or what in eastern philosophy what is called ahimsa or what the Buddhist call “Right livelihood” becomes of the utmost important, especially The fifth precept, if you are to engage this experience by natural means. And you can find this emphasis in all of the major religions. So, are you willing not only to practice these disciplines, but to abstain from drugs, and change your diet, etc.? Otherwise, you will proceed in vain. The more healthy you are, the more prone or sensitive you are to encounter these experiences non-pharmacologically.

    The experience that we simultaneously live in all other possible realities.

    Well, from the vantage point of Brahman, it’s not simply the experience that you live in all other possible realities, but that you are all the realities that could ever be. That’s why it’s expressed as a timeless, as unchanging, and eternal. If you’ve had this experience, then why seek it with drugs or meditation? Alan Watts did also say, “Once you get the message, hang up the phone.”

  355. says

    @EnlightenmentLiberal

    I don’t give a fuck.

    This may be the reason why you’re having issue understanding this stuff.

    One, I doubt that it’s the consensus specifically among string theorists. Citations please. Two, string theory is not necessarily the forefront of real physics. String theory hasn’t produced any experimentally verified result in spite of decades of research.

    For the people that actually work in string theory, it certainly is the forefront of physics. The only reason we haven’t anything concrete is because experiments are very hard to perform in cosmology, you’d have to create a baby universe. Michio Kaku calls M-theory “the only game in town” when it comes to science’s explanatory power to attempt to accurately describe what’s going on. You seem to be almost anti-M-theory/string theory.

    I don’t even know what you mean when you use the word, and that’s almost entirely your fault for failing to properly explain.

    I don’t think it’s my fault. These professionals have explained that is very difficult to write or speak on these experiences. Even the very articulate author, Michael Pollan, has realized this in his own writings. To try and make it seem as though it’s simply my fault or even “almost entirely my fault” is a internecine to even admit in the first place.
    .

    One, most people in this thread have no idea what you’re talking about nor what you mean by the word “noetic”. Two, whatever it is, seemingly it’s not universally reported, e.g. reported by all persons. At best, you can claim that most societies in history have produced persons who subscribe to this or similar ideas. A small fraction of persons is not “universal”. Eating, breathing, sleeping – those are human universals.

    It’s a universal potential in consciousness. And it is definitely universally reported in this research by all the volunteers who meet criteria for the CME. Sure, it’s not going to happen in most people, because most people don’t practice disciplines like meditation or asceticism and most people have never taken a high dose of a psychedelic. William James referred to the “noetic” quality as the intuitive insights or knowledge gained in these type of experiences.

  356. Monocle Smile says

    No important question has been answered.
    Other than the experience itself, what knowledge is gained? Will it make me faster? Will it allow me to create breakthroughs in technology with revealed equations? You’re basically saying that the experience itself is its own reward, which makes it little different than an orgasm or heroin high.

  357. says

    @Monocle Smile

    No important question has been answered.

    Well, it’s often said of these experiences, that you don’t get what you want, but you get what you need. Dr. Bill Richards is fond of saying, “Don’t think about what you can do with a mystical experience, it might be more useful to think what a mystical experience can do with you.”

    Other than the experience itself, what knowledge is gained?

    Well, aside insight into the source of the Perennial philosophy? There is certainly an intuition that this may help in problem-solving, and I think that’s why people micro-dose, but aside from that people like Amber Lyon says she has no anxiety whatsoever. That it just simply does not occur at all anymore, likewise Dinah Bazer, the cancer patient corrected Michael Pollan in an article he wrote about her where he wrote her “fear of death had diminished.” She said, “No! My fear of death is completely extinguished!” Just because you can lose completely the fear of death, doesn’t mean you’re going to go off and commit suicide. It means you can live your life without that fear or anxiety. I mean, those are some benefits. It also causes people to become more patient, more open-minded, more open in expressing themselves, etc. I mean, I certainly an attest to all of these benefits.

    I mean, you may not have issues with anxiety or a fear of death, because you’re not a terminally-ill cancer patient, and Michael Pollan has even said that he started out simply interviewing the terminally-ill cancer patients who were part of this research speak on their spiritual/mystical experience, and Michael didn’t have anything necessarily wrong with him that would qualify him as a volunteer in this research, so he said he grew to envy the participants’ accounts of these type of experiences. This culminated in his own interest and curiosity to try these things out, and so he sought sources outside of the research. I believe he tried ayahuasca twice, I believe, 5-MeO-DMT, and ‘shrooms; a total of four experiences for his book.

    Will it make me faster?

    Terence would often say that psychedelics made people think faster, weirder, broader, smarter, etc. Y’ever seen that movie “Lucy” with Scarlett Johansson? The blue powder in the movie may as well be N,N-DMT. It’s also the alien soy sauce in the flick, “John Dies at the End.”

    Will it allow me to create breakthroughs in technology with revealed equations?

    I don’t think it works necessarily like that for everyone. I think the more mind you have to start out with, then it could really enhance you. In other words, the smarter you are already, the more you’ll be able to benefit from it. For instance, if Michio Kaku really wanted to find a ToE, then a psychedelic experience may give him a leg up in doing so. Likewise, Steve Jobs said that LSD was one of the most important things he had done in his life, and attributed a lot of work to the creativity he had gained from that experience. The way I’ve heard someone put it, “The more mind you have, the more interesting it is to perturb it with psychedelics.”

    You’re basically saying that the experience itself is its own reward, which makes it little different than an orgasm or heroin high.

    No, I’ve said that it is the memory of a drug experience that helps these individuals quit smoking, overcome their fear of death, anxiety, PTSD, etc. It reconnects them with nature. If you take a look at this image here, this image has been produced by the research Robin-Carhart Harris is involved with in the U.K. This image shows the placebo effect on the left, and the height of a psychedelic experience on the right. These neuronal pathways that otherwise never communicate with each other are highly active in these experiences, as you can see in the diagram. So, this experience is able to address you, specifically, because it is, in a sense, your own mind, but you suddenly have access to the entire domain of your subconscious, and your mind is able to show you the one thing that you cannot resist. This is how the mystical experience addresses specifically you, and these usually lead to the visionary/archetypal experience, and if you can manage to go beyond that, then that leads into the unitive mystical experience, and while the majority of volunteers do have the CME, they don’t all get it. So, I mean, while I cannot answer your question definitively, because different people gain different things from this experience, different insights, etc. but nevertheless they do find these insights beneficial, and they continue to benefit them throughout the rest of their lives. As I’ve said, these are life-changing experiences and once you’ve had it, it’s something that you will ponder unto death. Of course, you’ll ever know precisely what you’d can gain from it, unless you actually do it, and that’s something ultimately up to you.

  358. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Well, aside insight into the source of the Perennial philosophy?

    Don’t care. I don’t care about this “theory” about the shared origin of the world’s religions.

    There is certainly an intuition that this may help in problem-solving

    What?

    I mean, those are some benefits. It also causes people to become more patient, more open-minded, more open in expressing themselves, etc.

    Citations please. Proper ones. That use proper statistical methods.

    I mean, I certainly an attest to all of these benefits.

    “Anecdote” is not a synonym for “data”.

    Y’ever seen that movie “Lucy” with Scarlett Johansson?

    Lucy is one of the worst movies ever made. I have not seen it. I have been avoiding it like the plague. Maybe I’ll watch it with friends just to see a movie that’s so bad. Maybe see if it’s worse than Gigli – a tall order mind you; Gigli is pretty bad.

    Bolding added:

    I don’t think it works necessarily like that for everyone. I think the more mind you have to start out with, then it could really enhance you. In other words, the smarter you are already, the more you’ll be able to benefit from it. For instance, if Michio Kaku really wanted to find a ToE, then a psychedelic experience may give him a leg up in doing so.

    This is a lot of wishy-washy language. Again, give me data, or go home.

    https://i.vimeocdn.com/video/555274864_1280x720.jpg

    I might not be an expert on the brain, but I’m pretty sure that is not a picture of the brain in any way. It’s also not a picture of real neurons in any way. That is clearly mere artwork, an artist’s rendition of something. At best, it’s a metaphorical visualization. This is like posting a picture of the stereotypical Valentine shaped heart, i.e. “<3", and saying that the picture shows the functioning of human cardiac muscles; e.g. bullshit.

    and while the majority of volunteers do have the CME, they don’t all get it.

    Again, do you have citations for this? I haven’t bothered to look at your sources yet. Do you have real, proper, scientific studies on this? What is the sample size? What is the methodology? What are the actual results? Is the experiment double-blind or single-blind? Is there even a control group or different experimental groups of any kind?

    So, I mean, while I cannot answer your question definitively, because different people gain different things from this experience, different insights, etc. but nevertheless they do find these insights beneficial, and they continue to benefit them throughout the rest of their lives.

    Not everyone who smokes gets cancer, but we can say something very definite about the fraction of people who smoke and get cancer who would not have gotten cancer otherwise. This is called science. What you’re doing is seemingly not that. What you’re doing is seemingly asspulling, extrapolating from anecdote, with a preconceived conclusion. To quote Richard Feynman concerning the scientific method: “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool”. My opinion is that you are fooling yourself in part or in whole.

    As I’ve said, these are life-changing experiences and once you’ve had it, it’s something that you will ponder unto death. Of course, you’ll ever know precisely what you’d can gain from it, unless you actually do it, and that’s something ultimately up to you.

    This is also true of many other experiences that one can do. As Monocle Smile said, all of this is equally true from orgasm, from love, from reading a book, etc.

  359. speedofsound says

    Well, I never said that speedofsound’s conclusion was my own, but it’s something I’ve certainly considered. Even modern physicists believe that we tune into one frequency, “our reality,” but we simultaneously live in all other possible realities. I have had this experience for myself, so I’m not simply parroting what other people have said about it. You’ve had even speedofsound say that he did, in fact, conclude that these bugs were real somewhere out there in the universe/multiverse. Terence McKenna used to say that for him, these hallucinatory phenomena that occur on psychedelics were a kind of perfect proof that the content wasn’t being generated from his own imagination, that perhaps it is something that we, indeed, tap into. Perhaps, it is certainly the overwhelming impression within the experience itself.

    Again. NOOOOO!!! I did not conclude that. I had an hallucination. These kinds of forays into so-called metaphysics are what I consider junior philosophers first trembling steps into the field. Baby’s first steps. Nothing in experience or concluded from experience can ever reach ‘out there’ and make some observation about how the universe works.

  360. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    @Kafei #385:

    spend a lot of time consuming fluoride-containing faucet water, then you probably have an unhealthy pineal gland

     
    Article: Wikipedia – Water Fluoridation, Safety

    Fluoridation has little effect on risk of bone fracture (broken bones); it may result in slightly lower fracture risk […] There is no clear association between fluoridation and cancer or deaths due to cancer […] Other adverse effects lack sufficient evidence to reach a confident conclusion.
    […]
    water utilities in the developed world reduce fluoride levels to regulated maximum levels in regions where natural levels are high, and the WHO and other groups work with countries and regions in the developing world with naturally excessive fluoride levels to achieve safe levels.

     
     
    @Kafei #385:

    Meditation, ancient meditation or correct meditation or transcendental meditation […] routes to the same goal.

    @Kafei #389:

    you can live your life without that fear or anxiety […] It also causes people to become more patient, more open-minded, more open in expressing themselves, etc. […] think faster, weirder, broader, smarter, etc.

     
    Article: Wikipedia – Transcendental Meditation, Health effects

    It is not possible to say whether meditation has any effect on health, as the research is of poor quality, and is marred by a high risk for bias due to the connection of researchers to the TM organization and by the selection of subjects with a favorable opinion of TM.
     
    Most independent systematic reviews have not found health benefits for TM exceeding those produced by other relaxation techniques or health education. […] [F]or hypertension, […] other interventions such as exercise and device-guided breathing were more effective and better supported by clinical evidence. A 2014 systematic review and meta-analysis […] found no evidence that mantra meditation programs such as TM were effective in reducing psychological stress or improving well-being.

  361. speedofsound says

    ‘heroic dose’. I like that. I like to think that I was heroic the time I drank a quart and a half of vodka and did two eight balls of coke in one day or that time i did 4200 mcg of LSD and thought the sky was shooting fireballs a the earth was me being Heroic. I took one for team many times. 🙂 Research Motherfuckers!

  362. speedofsound says

    EnlightenmentLiberal

    most people in this thread have no idea what you’re talking about nor what you mean by the word “noetic”.

    Let me take a stab at noetic experience. First you are in a state where all of your sense are reporting a reality drastically different from what you have been used to all of your life. This is combined with a hell of a dose of ‘happy’ endorphins that give you the single most relaxed and accepting state you have ever encountered. A couple of neurochemical systems working in conjunction to make you basically ‘bat shit crazy’. I will claim that from this state good things can come. But. Most people who are not grounded in science and therefore reality will come out of the experience and conclude all sorts of nonsensical metaphysics.

    Simple little formula. Extended-Temporary-Psychotic-State >> I-ACTUALLY-SAW-GOD

    Now I don’t want to discount these experiences having had a few. It actually changed my life significantly. The change I luckily avoided though was in starting to believe that I had found a tunnel into The Truth. I think the reason we need to study these things and consider them is that they are indicative of a phenomenon in the brain that occurs in varying degrees and it leads to all sorts of Woo. It binds people to false beliefs much like the pharmacology of addiction binds the addict to his dope. Kafei is a prime example of someone who is ‘blinkered’ so badly from these experiences that there is little likelihood of recovery.

  363. Monocle Smile says

    @EL
    Thanks! I really am trying to get at the root of this, because I still don’t fully know if I’ve missed something. Kafei’s material seems mostly inaccessible. Maybe it’s just me.

    @Sky Captain
    I totally missed the fluoride crack! The crank-o-meter is steadily rising.

  364. oreoman1987 says

    “There is no problem of induction, except for with undergrad embryonic philosophers.”

    Without philosophy you wouldn’t have science and you also wouldn’t be able to justify anything. The reason people earn PhDs from universities is because everything you study came from philosophy.

  365. oreoman1987 says

    EnlightenmentLiberal, Occam’s razor is a terrible way to find truth. by its own logic, we should believe in solipsism instead of scientific realism.

  366. oreoman1987 says

    “OREO….YOU have confidence in science and induction….so do i……thanks for taking my position. it was my position before you came to the board…..night”

    The use of something isn’t the same as believing in it. Using something is also not the same as taking a position on it.

  367. says

    @EnlightenmentLiberal

    Don’t care. I don’t care about this “theory” about the shared origin of the world’s religions.

    That’s fine. Whether you care or not, the professionals involved in this research seriously consider these things. Some even will flat-out call these mystical states of consciousness the evidence for the Perennial philosophy.

    I mean, those are some benefits. It also causes people to become more patient, more open-minded, more open in expressing themselves, etc.

    Citations please. Proper ones. That use proper statistical methods.

    I’ve done that plenty of times throughout this thread. Here’s the main body of published studies done at Johns Hopkins can be found here.

    “Anecdote” is not a synonym for “data”.

    These kinds of benefits have been consistent throughout this research.

    Y’ever seen that movie “Lucy” with Scarlett Johansson?

    Lucy is one of the worst movies ever made. I have not seen it. I have been avoiding it like the plague. Maybe I’ll watch it with friends just to see a movie that’s so bad. Maybe see if it’s worse than Gigli – a tall order mind you; Gigli is pretty bad.

    You haven’t seen it, but you already know it’s one of “worst movies ever made”…. Riiigghhht. Well, there’s a reason I mentioned these two particular movies, “Lucy” and “John Dies at the End.”

    I don’t think it works necessarily like that for everyone. I think the more mind you have to start out with, then it could really enhance you. In other words, the smarter you are already, the more you’ll be able to benefit from it. For instance, if Michio Kaku really wanted to find a ToE, then a psychedelic experience may give him a leg up in doing so.

    This is a lot of wishy-washy language. Again, give me data, or go home.

    I’ve posted data throughout this thread. Have you been paying attention to any of the links?

    I might not be an expert on the brain, but I’m pretty sure that is not a picture of the brain in any way. It’s also not a picture of real neurons in any way. That is clearly mere artwork, an artist’s rendition of something. At best, it’s a metaphorical visualization. This is like posting a picture of the stereotypical Valentine shaped heart, i.e. “<3", and saying that the picture shows the functioning of human cardiac muscles; e.g. bullshit.

    This is merely your assumption. What you don’t realize is that rendition is based on actual fMRI scannings of volunteers under the influence of fMRI, the picture on the left, of course, a non-psychedelic placebo. So, yes, that’s a very accurate representation of what happens when you take a high-dose of psilocybin.

    Again, do you have citations for this? I haven’t bothered to look at your sources yet. Do you have real, proper, scientific studies on this? What is the sample size? What is the methodology? What are the actual results? Is the experiment double-blind or single-blind? Is there even a control group or different experimental groups of any kind?

    These are double-blind trials, and yes, this has been the track record with all of these studies. Psilocybin can occasion in most people studied these “complete” mystical experience which look virtually identical to naturally occurring mystical experiences which have been reported by mystics throughout the ages. You can find these facts in the main body link I’ve posted above.

    So, I mean, while I cannot answer your question definitively, because different people gain different things from this experience, different insights, etc. but nevertheless they do find these insights beneficial, and they continue to benefit them throughout the rest of their lives.

    Not everyone who smokes gets cancer, but we can say something very definite about the fraction of people who smoke and get cancer who would not have gotten cancer otherwise. This is called science. What you’re doing is seemingly not that. What you’re doing is seemingly asspulling, extrapolating from anecdote, with a preconceived conclusion. To quote Richard Feynman concerning the scientific method: “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool”. My opinion is that you are fooling yourself in part or in whole.

    Well, that’s not the case at all. I’d simply say you’re unaware of this research. You keep asking for citations as though none exist. Well, I’ve news for you. They do.

    As I’ve said, these are life-changing experiences and once you’ve had it, it’s something that you will ponder unto death. Of course, you’ll ever know precisely what you’d can gain from it, unless you actually do it, and that’s something ultimately up to you.

    This is also true of many other experiences that one can do. As Monocle Smile said, all of this is equally true from orgasm, from love, from reading a book, etc.

    I wouldn’t compare a CME to any of these examples you’ve mentioned. These things are very different, night and day difference, in fact.

  368. says

    @SkyCaptain The next time you cite articles, you might want to make sure they’re not out-dated. The reason I mentioned fluoride is because it’s associated with the calcifying of the pineal gland. The healthy benefits of meditation are real. The articles you’ve posted are simply out-dated. Here’s something a little more up-to-date.

  369. says

    @speedofsound

    Let me take a stab at noetic experience. First you are in a state where all of your sense are reporting a reality drastically different from what you have been used to all of your life. This is combined with a hell of a dose of ‘happy’ endorphins that give you the single most relaxed and accepting state you have ever encountered. A couple of neurochemical systems working in conjunction to make you basically ‘bat shit crazy’. I will claim that from this state good things can come. But. Most people who are not grounded in science and therefore reality will come out of the experience and conclude all sorts of nonsensical metaphysics.

    One of the reasons psychedelics aren’t addictive is because they don’t really effect the dopamine/endorphin reward system. In fact, if you set a rat in a cage with the lever it can press to administer the drug to its veins or it can have some sugar water spiked with the drug being studied, and with cocaine, it’ll continue to hit that lever until it dies or heroin, it’ll press it ’til it’s addicted. Now, when it comes to LSD, the rat will press it once, and never again. Perhaps it’s too upsetting an experience.

    Simple little formula. Extended-Temporary-Psychotic-State >> I-ACTUALLY-SAW-GOD

    Nice stab, but I don’t think that’s the case. I believe it may be more issue of semantics, than what you’re describing here. People don’t go “bat shit crazy.” At post #168, I mention the fact that people feel that this is the clearest of the clearest state of mind they’ve ever been in. It’s in these brief moments where they feel genuinely awakened. Dr. Roland Griffiths points out the fact that his volunteers will endorse that the experience is “more real than everyday waking consciousness.”

    Now I don’t want to discount these experiences having had a few. It actually changed my life significantly. The change I luckily avoided though was in starting to believe that I had found a tunnel into The Truth. I think the reason we need to study these things and consider them is that they are indicative of a phenomenon in the brain that occurs in varying degrees and it leads to all sorts of Woo. It binds people to false beliefs much like the pharmacology of addiction binds the addict to his dope. Kafei is a prime example of someone who is ‘blinkered’ so badly from these experiences that there is little likelihood of recovery.

    I certainly don’t consider myself someone who adopts “woo” as a worldview. In fact, I despise “woo” just as much as the next person here. This research has absolutely nothing to do with “woo.” I quoted Einstein when he said, “A human being is part of a whole, called by us ‘Universe’; a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest—a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest us. our task must be to free ourselves from this prison.” Alan Watts expressed a very similar sentiment when he was explain what Buddhism is about.

  370. speedofsound says

    oreoman1987
    “There is no problem of induction, except for with undergrad embryonic philosophers.”
    Without philosophy you wouldn’t have science and you also wouldn’t be able to justify anything. The reason people earn PhDs from universities is because everything you study came from philosophy.

    Solipsism is another favorite of the undergrad embryonic philosopher.