"Scientism" on Wikipedia ...

[joelr]

Thank you. I am doing fine. I have a overall content life and enough periodical happiness, so it is good enough for me.

Excellent.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Excellent.

Thank you.
You and I might be atheists, but that says nothing about our worldviews as such. You should know that.

 

[Sheldon]

You must be a total killjoy for a date to be with on a walk before a beautiful sunset at the beach.

Ah, you've met the ex wife? Clearing out my bank account seemed to cheer her up.

 

[Sheldon]

Yes it is, and yes, even there some people experience this as well. They just choose to not speak about it, because religionists have a way of putting mystics to death.

If it were the same, then you'd be fine, I am dubious sorry. Theism is not a single belief, oddly even monotheisms like Christianity that have historically been aggressive towards different beliefs, now has approximately 45000 different denominations globally. The evidence suggest that what people believe and experience is not the same, otherwise factors like geography and culture, would be very unlikely to produce such a massive variety of conclusions?

 

[Windwalker]

It isn't about interpretation, it's about is something there. Your sight only works by hallucination or photons. If it isn't a hallucination then you've seen something that bounces photons off it. There is an answer to what it actually is.

Yes, there is something there. But how you understand what that something is is always a matter of interpretation. No exceptions.

I don't think the brain does that.

Yes it does. That's how illusions work. When we don't see what we expect, the mind interprets it into something it can understand.

Why would we be able to view bizarre images in movies and see them fine? If a person dressed as an angel put on a jet pack and flew(they can do that now, a Green Goblin cosplay flew over Times Square on a drone) people would see an angel.

Not if you met one in the real world. We expect to see the fantastical on a movie screen because we expect the unexpected. The illustration Dennett gave was about the real world. Not a movie theater.

I understand we see a very misguided version of reality. But there is a reality there. There are laws and matter, energy, spacetime.

Do you understand that all our understandings are a construct of the mind, and not what the actuality of the thing we are seeing actually is? Do you understand that these 'laws' are simply models of "X", and that "X" can be perceived and interpreted in many varied and different ways? Do you understand that when we have an agreed upon perception or language of what "X" is, that that is in reality a "consensus reality"? That means that we have shared systems of thoughts and perceptions and language which creates the constructs of reality that we interface and interact with "X" through?

When you understand that, then the rest of what I am saying will make a lot more sense.

Right but things that are real can be demonstrated, it isn't just about a world view. We can demonstrate what is real.

What we are demonstrating is that the models we create to explain the world to us in terms that our minds can understand, is functionally reliable. Until it's not. A Newtonian model of reality was the general consensus, or lens through which we understood the nature of reality. Until it wasn't. Until Quantum Mechanics came along. That threw that paradigm of truth into tension. Einstein wrestled with this, "God does not play dice with the universe." In the letter, he wrote: "God tirelessly plays dice under laws which he has himself prescribed."

Yet, QM is true, and ever since physicists having been trying to find a grand unifying theory, M-theory for instance, that brings these two disparate views of reality together. Of course, where it is needing to go goes beyond science into philosophy, which is the complaint of many about things like String Theory.

I'm simply pointing this out to say that how we see reality, and what reality really is, are not the same things. I am convinced that reality is far stranger and beyond the mind's ability to comprehend using the empiric and anylystic sciences. Kuhn was right about paradigm shifts. And that's what I'm saying in all of this as well. The lenses through which we see reality, creates reality for us. And what doesn't fit our constructs of reality, is filtered out, disallowed, or misinterpreted.

So much for Scientism! And that's the real point here.

Yes I understand this. I hear about different "truths" but I find this to be less real than I once thought. If you have a truth it should have some power of demonstration if it's about reality. If other ways of knowing have any merit beyond psychology then they need to demonstrate why they are true. If there is an alternate way of knowing people should be able to correlate and share and come up with ways to demonstrate this truth.

I do agree. You can't just claim it's beyond science, and make up nonsense. There needs to be some validation, some confirmation that can be examined objectively, rather than nothing but subjective claims or pure anecdotal hearsay. There are checks and balances to confirm authentic experiences, from contrivances or simply a bad piece of cheese causing an hallucination.

Regarding the different modes of knowing, I took the time to create this to share, which I'll use in the future for others when this topic comes up again. It's a little heady, but worth trying to understand the different modes of knowing, and how what you and I are doing in these discussion is the mental domain trying to talk about the material and the spiritual domains using symbols. But how we "think" about things, is not the only ways of knowing, as he'll explain here.

BTW, this is not fluffy "New Age" stuff by any stretch of the imagination, so don't go there. It's based upon, in part, work by Jürgen Habermas, whom you can read about here: Jürgen Habermas - Wikipedia. I've included a photo of the chart Wilber is referring to from his book Eye to Eye, one of my favorites and most informative for me personally. Most of what I talk about in this and recent posts draws from this understand of the different modes of knowing and their relationships. Pay close attention to the modes he talks about, and it's key to understanding what I'm talking about:

​

We have seen that each of the three general modes of knowing - sensory, mental, and spiritual - has access to direct, immediate, and intuitive apprehensions or data (sensibilia, intelligibilia and transcendelia). Notice, however, that the very data of the mental mode - its words and symbols and concepts - simply because they are indeed symbolic, intentional, reflective, and referential can be used to point to, or represent, other data, from any other realm: sensibilia, intelligibilia itself, or transcendelia. We can indicate all these epistemological relationships as on page 214.

Mode #5 is simple sensorimotor cognition, the eye of flesh, the pre-symbolic grasp of the presymbolic world (sensibilia). Mode #4 is empiric-analytic thought; it is mind (intelligibilia ) reflecting on and grounding itself in the world of sensibilia. Mode #3 is mental-phenomenological thought; it is mind (intelligibilia) reflecting on and grounding itself in the world of intelligibilia itself. Mode #2 can be called mandalic or paradoxical thinking; it is mind (intelligibilia) attempting to reason about spirit or transcendelia. And mode #1 is gnosis, the eye of contemplation, the transsymbolic grasp of the transsymbolic world, spirit’s direct knowledge of spirit, the immediate intuition of transcendelia.

But notice: Whereas the data in any realm are themselves immediate and direct (by definition), the pointing by the mental data to other data (sensory, mental, or transcendental) is a mediate or intermediate process - it is a mapping, modeling, or matching procedure. And this mapping procedure - the use of mental data (symbols and concepts) to explain or map other data (sensorey, mental, or transcendental) - simply results in what is known as theoretical knowledge.

We come, then, to a crucial point. Neither the sensorimotor realms per se, nor the spiritual realms per se, form theories. They can be the object of theories, but do not themselves produce theories. The one is presymbolic, the other, transsymbolic, and theories are, above all else, symbolic or mental productions.

~Ken Wilber, Eye to Eye, pgs. 61-62
​

Until someone provides evidence for a God from theism they are not real. I would like Thor to be real. He is not.

Now that I've just laid the basis of my understanding of these things, when you ask for evidence, that is of course the mental mode of knowing you are referring to. But as above, what I hear you asking for sounds like mode #4, the empiric-analytic mode of mind looking to the sensorimotor or physical domain of reality. You sound like you're looking for a physical body to analyze. In reality, the correct mode for the mind to look for a mental comprehension of the spiritual, is mode #2.

The data for "God" does not come from mode #1 in order for the mind to use empiric-analytic thought. The data for "God" comes from mode #1, or the eye of contemplation or gnosis. Spirit to spirit apprehension is the data. Just as body to body apprehension is the data for mode #1. And the mind then to understand a transcendent apprehension, cannot use empiric-analytic thought to penetrate it, using the symbols of science and the material physical world referring to data from mode #1. The mind must instead use a different symbol set, which is by the very nature of the inquiry in question, dealing with things that are transcendent and absolute, going to be paradoxical in nature.

So bottom line, understand what it is you are asking for, and use the right tools to talk about it. You don't smell a rose using a shovel, for instance.

No I was never sure? I assumed there was evidence. Then I assumed there was evidence for Eastern mysticism or things related to it. There is not. Total fail on any evidence for all things supernatural/ESP. UFOs .....mmmmmmm, maybe a little...not sure

What exactly do you think you should find? I actually would say there is an enormous amount of confirming evidence for the claims of Eastern mysticism, found in account after account of researched material. But if you mistake symbols for transcendence with symbols for the physical world, the problem is not the Eastern practices. The problem is you mistaking the nature of what it is you are hoping to find. God is not a yeti, I like to say.

 

[lukethethird]

I have repeatedly said my experience is common, universal and cross cultural. I have never claimed I'm super special. In fact, pointing to the fact I'm not alone, makes it objective. I've been arguing just that point. What have I actually said that gives you the impression I think I'm all high and mighty? I think this is all in your own imagination.

Christianity is not universal and cross cultural, there are many religious and non religious communities in the world so describing experiences in your religious terms is lost on others.

I've have acknowledged this repeatedly. I don't know what you're smoking there. Is it legal? The only thing I take issue with is you claiming that because it's something that can be measured in the brain, that means it's not real. That's garbage reasoning.

I never said that, ever. Brains are real and whatever happens in the brain is real, that should be obvious and I never remotely suggested otherwise, and you have the audacity to ask what I'm smoking.

Everything is registered in brain activity, from smelling a rose, to having sex, to smiling at the pleasantness of the breeze on your face. All that is in the brain, just as the experience of the Divine is also registered exactly like all of those.

But they are all responses to something, both externally and internally. It's the type of experience that I'm focused on. Not whether your idea of God as some sort of external supernatural cosmic yeti has scientific proof for that creature's existence. That's just a mental image, not a literal creature.

Again, what is the Divine supposed to mean? There is no reason not to believe that there is a perfectly natural explanation, no need to invoke woo woo.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
There is no reason not to believe that there is a perfectly natural explanation, no need to invoke woo woo.

Do you understand the reason how come we have these 2 concepts:
Methodological naturalism versus philosophical naturalism?

Or do you need to learn something new? Just be honest and I will explain it to you.

 

[joelr]

Yes, there is something there. But how you understand what that something is is always a matter of interpretation. No exceptions.

Yes interpretation, in the mind. Of course.

Yes it does. That's how illusions work. When we don't see what we expect, the mind interprets it into something it can understand.

Not if you met one in the real world. We expect to see the fantastical on a movie screen because we expect the unexpected. The illustration Dennett gave was about the real world. Not a movie theater.

Illusions are designed to take advantage of out sight and how we process data. Not being able to see an angel sounds like a folk tale. Natives can see cars for the first time.

Do you understand that all our understandings are a construct of the mind, and not what the actuality of the thing we are seeing actually is? Do you understand that these 'laws' are simply models of "X", and that "X" can be perceived and interpreted in many varied and different ways? Do you understand that when we have an agreed upon perception or language of what "X" is, that that is in reality a "consensus reality"? That means that we have shared systems of thoughts and perceptions and language which creates the constructs of reality that we interface and interact with "X" through?

Yes but the laws cannot be broken. It doesn't matter how you perceived gravity it's still going to work on you. No one can perform ESP or magic without tricks.

What we are demonstrating is that the models we create to explain the world to us in terms that our minds can understand, is functionally reliable. Until it's not. A Newtonian model of reality was the general consensus, or lens through which we understood the nature of reality. Until it wasn't. Until Quantum Mechanics came along. That threw that paradigm of truth into tension. Einstein wrestled with this, "God does not play dice with the universe." In the letter, he wrote: "God tirelessly plays dice under laws which he has himself prescribed.
Yet, QM is true, and ever since physicists having been trying to find a grand unifying theory, M-theory for instance, that brings these two disparate views of reality together. Of course, where it is needing to go goes beyond science into philosophy, which is the complaint of many about things like String Theory.

M-theory/grand theory is just talking about unifying gravity with QM. String theory is called philosophy because the hypothetical size of strings is so small that we can never hope to experiment on them directly so critics say it's philosophy.
It's a size problem. They will have to come at it a different way. Maybe by understanding gravity or creating A.I.

The Newtonian model isn't gone? Classical physics is still how the macroscopic world works. Newtonian equations are used in space travel.

I'm simply pointing this out to say that how we see reality, and what reality really is, are not the same things. I am convinced that reality is far stranger and beyond the mind's ability to comprehend using the empiric and anylystic sciences. Kuhn was right about paradigm shifts. And that's what I'm saying in all of this as well. The lenses through which we see reality, creates reality for us. And what doesn't fit our constructs of reality, is filtered out, disallowed, or misinterpreted.

So much for Scientism! And that's the real point here.

Much physics was discovered because equations predicted something. QM does not follow classical logic but we did discover this realm. We discovered all the strange things in the subatomic realm and dark matter and dark energy. Al these discoveries has enabled technology that will allow further exploration. We all have computers and iphones because of science. A.I. may also open many doors. So much for scientism? These discoveries are from science.

I do agree. You can't just claim it's beyond science, and make up nonsense. There needs to be some validation, some confirmation that can be examined objectively, rather than nothing but subjective claims or pure anecdotal hearsay. There are checks and balances to confirm authentic experiences, from contrivances or simply a bad piece of cheese causing an hallucination.

That is why we need evidence for claims.

Regarding the different modes of knowing, I took the time to create this to share, which I'll use in the future for others when this topic comes up again. It's a little heady, but worth trying to understand the different modes of knowing, and how what you and I are doing in these discussion is the mental domain trying to talk about the material and the spiritual domains using symbols. But how we "think" about things, is not the only ways of knowing, as he'll explain here.

BTW, this is not fluffy "New Age" stuff by any stretch of the imagination, so don't go there. It's based upon, in part, work by Jürgen Habermas, whom you can read about here: Jürgen Habermas - Wikipedia. I've included a photo of the chart Wilber is referring to from his book Eye to Eye, one of my favorites and most informative for me personally. Most of what I talk about in this and recent posts draws from this understand of the different modes of knowing and their relationships. Pay close attention to the modes he talks about, and it's key to understanding what I'm talking about:

​

We have seen that each of the three general modes of knowing - sensory, mental, and spiritual - has access to direct, immediate, and intuitive apprehensions or data (sensibilia, intelligibilia and transcendelia). Notice, however, that the very data of the mental mode - its words and symbols and concepts - simply because they are indeed symbolic, intentional, reflective, and referential can be used to point to, or represent, other data, from any other realm: sensibilia, intelligibilia itself, or transcendelia. We can indicate all these epistemological relationships as on page 214.

Mode #5 is simple sensorimotor cognition, the eye of flesh, the pre-symbolic grasp of the presymbolic world (sensibilia). Mode #4 is empiric-analytic thought; it is mind (intelligibilia ) reflecting on and grounding itself in the world of sensibilia. Mode #3 is mental-phenomenological thought; it is mind (intelligibilia) reflecting on and grounding itself in the world of intelligibilia itself. Mode #2 can be called mandalic or paradoxical thinking; it is mind (intelligibilia) attempting to reason about spirit or transcendelia. And mode #1 is gnosis, the eye of contemplation, the transsymbolic grasp of the transsymbolic world, spirit’s direct knowledge of spirit, the immediate intuition of transcendelia.

But notice: Whereas the data in any realm are themselves immediate and direct (by definition), the pointing by the mental data to other data (sensory, mental, or transcendental) is a mediate or intermediate process - it is a mapping, modeling, or matching procedure. And this mapping procedure - the use of mental data (symbols and concepts) to explain or map other data (sensorey, mental, or transcendental) - simply results in what is known as theoretical knowledge.

We come, then, to a crucial point. Neither the sensorimotor realms per se, nor the spiritual realms per se, form theories. They can be the object of theories, but do not themselves produce theories. The one is presymbolic, the other, transsymbolic, and theories are, above all else, symbolic or mental productions.

~Ken Wilber, Eye to Eye, pgs. 61-62​

No idea? Weird way of speaking? He cannot just throw spiritual realms into a theory without evidence? What evidence do we have for this realm, how to we test for this realm, what advantages can be shown by accessing this realm and how can we use this to demonstrate there is indeed a spiritual realm. Otherwise it's just string theory. Philosophy.

Jurgen is a sociologist and other things not related to spiritual realms?
Have Ken go to his spiritual realm and bring back some information. This is frustratingly vague? It's meaningless?
​

Now that I've just laid the basis of my understanding of these things, when you ask for evidence, that is of course the mental mode of knowing you are referring to. But as above, what I hear you asking for sounds like mode #4, the empiric-analytic mode of mind looking to the sensorimotor or physical domain of reality. You sound like you're looking for a physical body to analyze. In reality, the correct mode for the mind to look for a mental comprehension of the spiritual, is mode #2.

I'm not looking for a physical body to analyze. Let someone who claims they can access a spiritual realm gain information about something they could not know. Read someones mind, remote view, do something. Ask some spirits for the answer to the Reimann hypothesis or how to unify gravity. Something. If none of that can be done, then creating alternate states of mind may just be alternate states of mind not related to any spirit realm.

 

[joelr]

The data for "God" does not come from mode #1 in order for the mind to use empiric-analytic thought. The data for "God" comes from mode #1, or the eye of contemplation or gnosis. Spirit to spirit apprehension is the data. Just as body to body apprehension is the data for mode #1. And the mind then to understand a transcendent apprehension, cannot use empiric-analytic thought to penetrate it, using the symbols of science and the material physical world referring to data from mode #1. The mind must instead use a different symbol set, which is by the very nature of the inquiry in question, dealing with things that are transcendent and absolute, going to be paradoxical in nature.

So Ken Wilber says. I don't believe any of this is real. I believe he gets people to meditate real deep and when they are deep in they have ideas about the spirit world and when they get woozy or whatever , they come out with ideas they saw the spirit world. I'm not interested until someone can use this to produce evidence. Go in the spirit world and read minds. anything. Of course I already hear some apologetic - you can't bring back information from the spirit world, or whatever. Ok, cool. Not interested.

What exactly do you think you should find? I actually would say there is an enormous amount of confirming evidence for the claims of Eastern mysticism, found in account after account of researched material. But if you mistake symbols for transcendence with symbols for the physical world, the problem is not the Eastern practices. The problem is you mistaking the nature of what it is you are hoping to find. God is not a yeti, I like to say.

NO, every test was a fail. Meditators claimed they could leave their body, gain telepathy, remote view, float, read cards they could not see, survive with food/water. There has never been any success testing gurus. The military also got involved with remote viewers. The program ended. Of course many many lies were spread about how they did work but eventually the truth came out.

James Randi offered 1 million dollars for any demonstration of any supernatural ability. Never happened. Even Sai BAba who had millions of followers. He would do all the parlor trick miracles that had always been done. Including weird healings using chicken guts and no actual insicions. Of course he never went to an actual hospital to heal children. He would only perform with his assistant at his temple. It's all fake. Buddah Boy, fake. Now wanted by police. His assistants snuck him food at night. HE raped and abused many women since he became famous.

Cold readers, all fake.

Derren Brown hired the best 5 psychics in the UK. Showed them a false website about a haunted restaurant where the owner died horrible. Then had them come to the restaurant and do a reading. They all "saw" the horrible death and said it was haunted.

The story on the website was fake.

Lynn McTaggart gave all sorts of information about people who demonstrated skills with random number generators and choosing cards in her book The Field. Was completely debunked and the actual results had been altered. Fakery everywhere.


Notice most of these people are making a living selling new age books. Ken is getting people to hear all these buzzwords, go into meditation, get relaxed and start a mental dialogue - "everything is spirt", I am aware of the spirit ".. and they feel happy and special and think they are aware of spirit now.

Of course they have no real power, just the one thing, they now think they are one with everything and understand spirit. Wow, so convienant!

Everything is not spirit. It's nature, with mathematical laws and this universe works strictly on probabilities and increasing entropy.

That isn't spirit, it's nature. The universe isn't spirit and living things are not spirit and they do not have spirits.​

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes interpretation, in the mind. Of course.




Illusions are designed to take advantage of out sight and how we process data. Not being able to see an angel sounds like a folk tale. Natives can see cars for the first time.



Yes but the laws cannot be broken. It doesn't matter how you perceived gravity it's still going to work on you. No one can perform ESP or magic without tricks.



M-theory/grand theory is just talking about unifying gravity with QM. String theory is called philosophy because the hypothetical size of strings is so small that we can never hope to experiment on them directly so critics say it's philosophy.
It's a size problem. They will have to come at it a different way. Maybe by understanding gravity or creating A.I.

The Newtonian model isn't gone? Classical physics is still how the macroscopic world works. Newtonian equations are used in space travel.




Much physics was discovered because equations predicted something. QM does not follow classical logic but we did discover this realm. We discovered all the strange things in the subatomic realm and dark matter and dark energy. Al these discoveries has enabled technology that will allow further exploration. We all have computers and iphones because of science. A.I. may also open many doors. So much for scientism? These discoveries are from science.



That is why we need evidence for claims.

No idea? Weird way of speaking? He cannot just throw spiritual realms into a theory without evidence? What evidence do we have for this realm, how to we test for this realm, what advantages can be shown by accessing this realm and how can we use this to demonstrate there is indeed a spiritual realm. Otherwise it's just string theory. Philosophy.

Jurgen is a sociologist and other things not related to spiritual realms?
Have Ken go to his spiritual realm and bring back some information. This is frustratingly vague? It's meaningless?
​

I'm not looking for a physical body to analyze. Let someone who claims they can access a spiritual realm gain information about something they could not know. Read someones mind, remote view, do something. Ask some spirits for the answer to the Reimann hypothesis or how to unify gravity. Something. If none of that can be done, then creating alternate states of mind may just be alternate states of mind not related to any spirit realm.

You can't give for evidence what matters to you or do it rationally. That is where it ends. I can do all you claim, yet I can't do it only as you claim, because I still need to do what matters to me for the world as such.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
NO, every test was a fail. ...

Yes, including if you test for if evidence and/or rationality can do everything for all aspects of everyday life.

 

[Sheldon]

There needs to be some validation, some confirmation that can be examined objectively, rather than nothing but subjective claims or pure anecdotal hearsay.

 

[Sheldon]

There's no irony here, as much you might like to create that as a fiction.

Given your claim here:

There needs to be some validation, some confirmation that can be examined objectively, rather than nothing but subjective claims or pure anecdotal hearsay.

You're just piling irony on top of previous irony. As your beliefs can achieve nothing like that, and you and many other theists vilify atheists for even suggesting theists do this for any of their claims, priceless.

I've explained this to you already. Zen masters must test and examine the claims of aspiratant as to their validity, for instance. Claims of mystical or transcendent experiences, are not just anything goes. Do they match up with others findings, or discoveries?

Wow, so what's you're point?

This can be examined objectively, as I said.

Maybe stop claiming it, and demonstrate some of that objective evidence?

But of course, being a fundamentalist, you disbelief anything is real that you haven't personally experienced,

Well it shows how desperate your spiel is, if it needs to make up false straw man fallacies of that nature.

your holy scriptures or priests have declared as the truth for you.

I have no holy scripture, or any holy priests, what on earth are you talking about?

The irony, is your posts. The irony is claiming critical thinking on your part, while you disregard actual data.

What data? Another irony overload...

You have yet to actually challenge anything I am saying, and most or your responses amount to this:

View attachment 58756

Oh dear, I think you may not understand the irony of that claim either, as in Cervantes's classic the hero is tilting at what does not exist in reality, it was symbolic.

 

[Windwalker]

No idea? Weird way of speaking? He cannot just throw spiritual realms into a theory without evidence? What evidence do we have for this realm, how to we test for this realm, what advantages can be shown by accessing this realm and how can we use this to demonstrate there is indeed a spiritual realm. Otherwise it's just string theory. Philosophy.

​

Jurgen is a sociologist and other things not related to spiritual realms?
Have Ken go to his spiritual realm and bring back some information. This is frustratingly vague? It's meaningless?

You really don't follow any of what I am saying. Wilber is talking about the domain of spiritual experience. This has been researched and discussed in academic circles with great minds and names like Maslow, James, Jung, etc. Start here: Transpersonal psychology - Wikipedia

You're imaging some supernatural magic land realm or something or other. He can put that in there, because it is a human experience, not fairyland like you want to make it be for some reason. Wilber is not an idiot. I am not an idiot. You're not having a discussion with me.

Anyway, I'm bored with this at this point. I can't get through to those who create strawman arguments to every intelligent thing that is presented with the best intentions, and research to back it all up with. Thor, green goblin, fairytale stuff. That's not a discussion with me, or anyone else in this thread.

These all just go to prove the point of the OP. This isn't actually rational, it's religious. It's just fundamentalism with another object of belief for the same religious impulse. It isn't actually about knowledge.

 

[lukethethird]

You really don't follow any of what I am saying. Wilber is talking about the domain of spiritual experience. This has been researched and discussed in academic circles with great minds and names like Maslow, James, Jung, etc. Start here: Transpersonal psychology - Wikipedia

You're imaging some supernatural magic land realm or something or other. He can put that in there, because it is a human experience, not fairyland like you want to make it be for some reason. Wilber is not an idiot. I am not an idiot. You're not having a discussion with me.

Anyway, I'm bored with this at this point. I can't get through to those who create strawman arguments to every intelligent thing that is presented with the best intentions, and research to back it all up with. Thor, green goblin, fairytale stuff. That's not a discussion with me, or anyone else in this thread.

These all just go to prove the point of the OP. This isn't actually rational, it's religious. It's just fundamentalism with another object of belief for the same religious impulse. It isn't actually about knowledge.

Transpersonal psychology is pseudoscience. Read the criticism in the article you provided.

 

[wandering peacefully]

There needs to be some validation, some confirmation that can be examined objectively, rather than nothing but subjective claims or pure anecdotal hearsay. There are checks and balances to confirm authentic experiences, from contrivances or simply a bad piece of cheese causing an hallucination.

This is rich. I must assume you read my post concerning my experiences during meditation since this post occurs after it. What was your response to my post to you? Crickets. But here you are now referring to "false experiences" caused by bad cheese. That my experiences need to be validated by a true mystic because they are not true. I'm lying about what I experience or I'm not understanding my experiences in the proper way.

I experience the same exact state of consciousness as your prophets and gurus. I understand the state is possible because of many years of practicing meditation and being able to enter that state by using my mind. It's not bad cheese and it's not a spirit world nor a god. It is mastery of meditation and nature.

actually would say there is an enormous amount of confirming evidence for the claims of Eastern mysticism, found in account after account of researched material. But if you mistake symbols for transcendence with symbols for the physical world, the problem is not the Eastern practices. The problem is you mistaking the nature of what it is you are hoping to find.

And here I am again, mistaking my experiences of no physical form, feeling of oneness with all existence, disappearance of all time and physicality, and even the ability to shapeshift into different animals. I'm mistaking my actual transcendence symbols, (if my reports of such experiences are even true according to your not so subtle accusations) for the physical world symbols.

I can understand your reluctance to want to discuss this. It is a complete antithesis and departure from your wished for spiritual worlds, universal consciousness, gods and transcendental interpretations of meditative states and existence itself.

I do not want to make you doubt what you believe about the spiritual worlds.Highly unlikely that would ever happen. Keep on believing what you want to. Just understand not everyone who experiences the transcendental needs or wants your version of interpretation or other magical thinking about the cause of the experience. And certainly it is rude to ignore a counter interpretation and explanation given by someone like me and then a couple posts later change the goalpost to my type of experience needs to be validated by a true mystic because I'm probably lying and eating bad cheese. You can deny it but seeing how you also ignored @joelr post concerning Sam Harris, it looks pretty obvious you are in denial and unwilling to look at this issue from other perspectives.

Some of us can enter these states and simply appreciate them for their peacefulness and fullness of understanding of the oneness of everything and all of life The life altering perspectives they bring are accepted without the need to add supernatural beliefs to the experience. We understand these experiences originate from within the complex human mind, not from "out there somewhere".

Just because you need or want gods, magic and spirit worlds does not mean all of us do. And to dismiss anyone who feels nature itself is most spectacular, mysterious, and holds all the magic needed for these experiences, is certainly closed minded and insulting.

Some of us are our own god and don't need people who act as some specialist in all things transcendental, telling us that if we don't see these things in the same way they believe they should be seen, we are obviously wrong and eating bad cheese. You don't see any of us claiming you are wrong in the way you understand these experiences, just that not everyone understands them the way you do. And you are free to understand any way you want but you should not be so condescending nor dismissive of those who disagree with your interpretations or understanding.

Our minds are extraordinary in their abilities to make our existence and experiences into just about anything we choose. If there is any magic left to be found, it is the magic of the human mind which we still do not fully understand. The magic occurs in the human brain not somel spirit world outside of us somewhere.

I used to believe just as you do. I don't believe that way anymore. My love, awe and admiration of nature, my love and enjoyment of my family, my experiences brought on by masterful meditation still bring me the most fulfilling life imaginable while understanding I myself have the ability to make it the way I want it to be. This marvelous way of life comes from within me, not from the outside through the beliefs of others.

Just wanted to point this out seeing how you are done discussing the issue that everyone other than yourself and @PureX are blind and dumb to.

 

[Windwalker]

This is rich. I must assume you read my post concerning my experiences during meditation since this post occurs after it. What was your response to my post to you? Crickets.

You are very insecure. My lack of posting has nothing to do with you, nor have I ever questioned your experiences. You brought this up before. I corrected you. You admitted you went overboard with this. Now you're back to this again.

My comments were about those who think that there are no checks and balances in order to validate mystical experiences. There are. These are built into the systems, such as Zen Buddhism. As far as your own, I'm sure they do fit in somewhere within the various categories that reserachers have outlined. No one here is being your judge. No one here is trying to invalidate you (except maybe the atheist fundamentalists who dismiss anything that doesn't fit their new belief system of Science with a capital S ).

Anyway, I'm done with this thread in general as I've made a New Years resolution to not debate fundamentalists anymore, even if I consider it mildly entertaining like debating Creationists. I need to focus on my productive uses of my mental energies.

It has nothing to do with you. If you wish to discuss your experiences with me in another thread, we can do that.

 

[wandering peacefully]

Whatever you say. And no thanks, enough has been said about this topic. The posts and thoughts speak for themselves.

 

[lukethethird]

You are very insecure. My lack of posting has nothing to do with you, nor have I ever questioned your experiences. You brought this up before. I corrected you. You admitted you went overboard with this. Now you're back to this again.

My comments were about those who think that there are no checks and balances in order to validate mystical experiences. There are. These are built into the systems, such as Zen Buddhism. As far as your own, I'm sure they do fit in somewhere within the various categories that reserachers have outlined. No one here is being your judge. No one here is trying to invalidate you (except maybe the atheist fundamentalists who dismiss anything that doesn't fit their new belief system of Science with a capital S ).

Anyway, I'm done with this thread in general as I've made a New Years resolution to not debate fundamentalists anymore, even if I consider it mildly entertaining like debating Creationists. I need to focus on my productive uses of my mental energies.

It has nothing to do with you. If you wish to discuss your experiences with me in another thread, we can do that.

You are an anti-science Christian fundamentalist, that's why you insist on believing your experiences are holier than thou. You equate science with atheism, and you oppose both.

 

[Sheldon]

No one here is trying to invalidate you (except maybe the atheist fundamentalists who dismiss anything that doesn't fit their new belief system of Science with a capital S ).

That reads like bigoted fundamentalism to me. Atheism isn't a belief system either, it need not involve any belief at all. I was born an atheist, and I am still one many years later, and that has little to do with science, and everything to do with the dearth of objective evidence for any deity.