The Mystic way of knowing (for the skeptics)

[George-ananda]

I'm not sure what this means, do you mean you started out more prone to believe these claims than not?



Experimental data? You already said your view is not science and not testable, so I'm not sure what experimental data you're talking about. The Dr. Schwartz stuff? Because we already covered how his doesn't really cut the mustard. What experimental data are you talking about, what did it show, and how was it analyzed? Give us your best, most convincing example.

I'm also not sure what you mean by "investigative" data?

Anecdotes, I hope you can agree, are not a solid foundation for a worldview, especially when you're alleging something as extraordinary as people having supernatural powers.



Ok well George, that's a pretty vague generality. Nobody thinks science has discovered all the answers in the universe, that's obvious. So what do you actually mean? What, specifically, has been "dramatically shown" and how?



Decades of experience? Do you mean you've actually observed/experienced psychic phenomena? Do tell.

My reason tells me so-called paranormal normal things have occurred billions of times to billions of people in the course of human history. I fully consider this also with a skeptical mind considering the reasonableness of explaining all these things away without requiring dramatic new additions to what science knows as possible. I am convinced beyond reasonable doubt that these things that dramatically do not fit into current science's understanding do occur. We can make that a separate debate and thread topic but let me try to stick closer to this thread's topic.

Again, by "current science" you just mean, "science." Science can never and will never discover any non-physical reality, because it is limited to exploration of the natural world via empirical data.

Actually, so-called paranormal and psychic things are part of an expanded view of the natural world. In this view, the natural world is not restricted to the dimensions directly detectable by our physical senses and instruments. If it exists it is part of nature and consequently part of science. As I see it, current science is a great thing but limited to a subset of nature. The paranormal and psychic is the evidence that tells me 'more' is out there than we can directly study at this time.

The fact that something is consistent doesn't mean it's correct, right? Lots of Mormons have all told me the same thing about Joseph Smith, that doesn't mean what they all said about him is true, right?

Right. We should consider all sources and argumentation that might bear on the question of Joseph Smith not just 'lots of Mormons'.

So how did these "esoteric wisdom traditions" determine the existence of these other non-physical realms?



What does "consciousness is connected and the source is ultimately One" mean, and how did mystics determine this?

Here is another key point that I am making that you are not seeing. The clairvoyants and mystics are not 'determining', they are observing and experiencing. They later try to bring this down to our level of words and understanding if they wish to try to teach laymen. My other very important point is that I have found the higher and most intelligent of these people present a grander understanding of reality that is consistently on the same page.

 

[George-ananda]

Or, perhaps more correctly stated - you don't want to "tie-down" the mystical experience to something that you must then back with a guarantee of return on investment.

A 'guarantee of return on investment'? I am not sure where you are coming from with that. It seems to me the mystical gurus/swamis (or whatever term) are offering us their view on the nature of reality in the effort to help those who are willing and ready to hear what they have to say. There's nothing wrong in that approach.

And this most probably because you are frightened that it doesn't carry any actual weight, has no actual grounding in reality, and may very well not provide an interested participant anything at all.

The true guru/swami is speaking from personal experience. I do not see any fear in them at all.

 

[Left Coast]

My reason tells me so-called paranormal normal things have occurred billions of times to billions of people in the course of human history.

Really? How does your reason tell you this? I see billions of unexplained or misunderstood things have happened to billions of people billions if times. How did you rationally conclude any of these things are actually "paranormal" or magical?

I fully consider this also with a skeptical mind considering the reasonableness of explaining all these things away without requiring dramatic new additions to what science knows as possible.

Ok, so you're saying it's reasonable to conclude these things are not actually paranormal/magical? Then how did you rationally conclude they actually are?

I am convinced beyond reasonable doubt that these things that dramatically do not fit into current science's understanding do occur.

Ok, but the fact that something is currently unexplained by science doesn't mean it's paranormal or supernatural. It could just be natural, but not understood yet. So how do you tell the difference between a phenomenon that's natural but not understood and a event that's actually paranormal/supernatural/magical?

We can make that a separate debate and thread topic but let me try to stick closer to this thread's topic.

Actually I think it's very on point for the thread. This gets to the heart of the way, the how, the method, of establishing that these paranormal/supernatural/magical things actually happen.

Actually, so-called paranormal and psychic things are part of an expanded view of the natural world. In this view, the natural world is not restricted to the dimensions directly detectable by our physical senses and instruments. If it exists it is part of nature and consequently part of science. As I see it, current science is a great thing but limited to a subset of nature.

Science by definition is and will always be limited to what is physically detectable. Think about it: if something is not physically detectable, how can you possibly establish that it exists?

The paranormal and psychic is the evidence that tells me 'more' is out there than we can directly study at this time.

But we can directly study psychics and the paranormal, can't we? We've actually done it. That's why I said at the outset that when we actually rigorously study these phenomena, we find that they are not what is claimed.

Right. We should consider all sources and argumentation that might bear on the question of Joseph Smith not just 'lots of Mormons'.

Great, so the fact that lots of people have claimed to experience a non-physical realm is not a convincing reason to believe them. So what else convinces you, then?

Here is another key point that I am making that you are not seeing. The clairvoyants and mystics are not 'determining', they are observing and experiencing. They later try to bring this down to our level of words and understanding if they wish to try to teach laymen.

I see, so the determination is on your end, not theirs. You've heard someone share their experience, and you determined that their experience was of a non-physical realm. So how does that work? How can you tell from someone else's experience that they experienced a non-physical realm?

My other very important point is that I have found the higher and most intelligent of these people present a grander understanding of reality that is consistently on the same page.

But we've covered both of those things George. The fact that a worldview is "grand" doesn't mean it's falsifiable, and if it's not falsifiable it's not rationally convincing. And the fact that lots of people consistently believe in that unfalsifiable thing doesn't make it rationally convincing either.

 

[Martin]

In another discussion, I tried to introduce my idea that scientists need to accept Eastern thought. The consequence of not doing this would leave science without answers to the big questions, the origin and nature of Universe, life, and consciousness. A lot of misunderstanding of my view seems to be centered around how the Eastern approach leads to "knowledge". I will explain further by reference to a good article on Mysticism vs. Reason.

This is taken from Bertrand Russel's essay, Mysticism and Logic.
"The first and most direct outcome of the moment of illumination is belief in the possibility of a way of knowledge which may be called revelation or insight or intuition, as contrasted with sense, reason, and analysis, which are regarded as blind guides leading to the morass of illusion. Closely connected with this belief is the conception of a Reality behind the world of appearance and utterly different from it. This Reality is regarded with an admiration often amounting to worship; it is [10]felt to be always and everywhere close at hand, thinly veiled by the shows of sense, ready, for the receptive mind, to shine in its glory even through the apparent folly and wickedness of Man. The poet, the artist, and the lover are seekers after that glory: the haunting beauty that they pursue is the faint reflection of its sun. But the mystic lives in the full light of the vision: what others dimly seek he knows, with a knowledge beside which all other knowledge is ignorance.

[…These more or less trite maxims may be illustrated by application to Bergson's advocacy of "intuition" as against "intellect." There are, he says, "two profoundly different ways of knowing a thing. The first [(intellect)] implies that we move round the object: the second [(intuition)] that we enter into it. The first depends on the point of view at which we are placed and on the symbols by which we express ourselves. The second neither depends on a point of view nor relies on any symbol. The first kind of knowledge may be said to stop at the relative; the second, in those cases where it is possible, to attain the absolute."[4] The second of these, which is intuition, is, he says, "the kind of intellectual sympathy by which one places oneself within an object in order to coincide with what is unique in it and therefore inexpressible" (p. 6). In illustration, he mentions self-knowledge: "there is one reality, at least, which we all seize from within, by intuition and not by simple analysis. It is our own personality in its flowing through time—our self which endures" (p. 8)."
----------------------------------------------------
Bertrand Russel is very intelligent. He "read" about the way of the mystic but he did not experience it for himself. Under the yogic system, becoming one with an object is called "samadhi". Using this approach, you can become one with the Universe, life, and consciousness which will reveal their true nature.

I suspect it comes down to different ways of knowing, and which methods are regarded as valid, in different cultures and times. Personally I think that empiricism has it's limits, and that an open mind is better than a mind with fixed positions, either of belief or disbelief.

 

[George-ananda]

Really? How does your reason tell you this? I see billions of unexplained or misunderstood things have happened to billions of people billions if times. How did you rationally conclude any of these things are actually "paranormal" or magical?

Because by definition 'paranormal' just means 'beyond the normal'. I am not making a claim as to what it 'is' at this point. I am only saying things happen that have no reasonable normal explanations and would require dramatic additions to what we call 'normal'. That's what I call 'paranormal' and never use the term 'magical' in this sense.

Ok, so you're saying it's reasonable to conclude these things are not actually paranormal/magical? Then how did you rationally conclude they actually are?

To ask a convoluted question like that, you must not be getting my point that the paranormal is just the normal not yet understood by science.

Ok, but the fact that something is currently unexplained by science doesn't mean it's paranormal or supernatural. It could just be natural, but not understood yet. So how do you tell the difference between a phenomenon that's natural but not understood and a event that's actually paranormal/supernatural/magical?

I highlighted in red the part where I agree. Ghosts and etc. are part of the natural world in my thinking. Our difference is that I hold that part of our natural world may be in dimensions we can not directly detect.

Science by definition is and will always be limited to what is physically detectable. Think about it: if something is not physically detectable, how can you possibly establish that it exists?

Two ways off the top of my head.

1) Through effecting the physical world such as poltergeists, temporarily semi-materialized ghosts. Science doesn't work well with temporary spontaneous phenomena but that doesn't mean the spontaneous phenomena didn't occur.

2) Through the use of super-physical senses. Many involved in the esoteric tell us that we have physical as well as etheric and astral (psychic) senses. So non-physical things can then be directly perceived by those with more heightened psychic senses. Once again science can not work well with information that is not demonstrable to everyone's physical senses but this does not mean psychic senses don't exist.

But we've covered both of those things George. The fact that a worldview is "grand" doesn't mean it's falsifiable, and if it's not falsifiable it's not rationally convincing. And the fact that lots of people consistently believe in that unfalsifiable thing doesn't make it rationally convincing either.

Although I think science is great, I am not a follower of so-called 'Scientism' implying I do consider things outside of physical science like psychic abilities, spiritualism, paranormal phenomena, mysticism, etc. in forming my personal worldview.

 

[Swami]

Yoga Sutras chapter 1, aphorism 49

The knowledge which is gained from inference and the study of scriptures is knowledge of one kind. But the knowledge which is gained from samadhi is of a much higher order. It goes beyond inference and scriptures.

I will like to point out that a sole reliance on intuition without intellect (buddhi) may be dangerous, unverifiable and often misleading.

For he purpose of this thread, we are mainly concerned with the first, yogic perception, which includes experiential states reported by contemplatives in deep mediation. Their cognitive objects (usually the no ego Self or God) are taken to be experienced in a direct and unmediated way, but generally without the operation of the external senses. Given their experiential character and their agreement with other sources of knowledge like scripture and inference, yogic experiences are taken as veridical, produced by non-normal perception.

So, IMO, this alone is the source of difference. Science, if it binds itself in philosophical naturalism, cannot admit that our subjective experiences are more real than any external experience that a scientist can gather. I feel that Bertrand Russel, as noted in OP, and other philosophers and scientists have pointed this.

Thank you for the reference. The benefit of "samadhi" as a way of knowledge is that it allows for direct experience of an object (any person or thing). Knowledge of the "mind" provides a good example to compare samadhi with sensory/reason based knowledge. The connection between consciousness and mind/body is samadhi in that both aspects are one. Because of this union, we know what our bodies are like, what are minds are like (its thoughts, feelings, etc). This goes beyond what scientists can know about your mind and body using their methods.

As I mentioned before, samadhi is not just limited to consciousness and mind/body union. I can also become one with Universe and experience its boundlessness, or become one with an elephant and experience its strength and massive size. This does not mean I will know everything there is to know about the elephant. From my mystical experience of it, I may ascertain some facts but that doesn't make for a complete understanding of it.
​

 

[Swami]

I think you meant for this to impart the usefulness of these "mystical" endeavors - but I don't understand how any of this is useful.

Useful to science? The Eastern way of knowledge, particularly "samadhi", is useful in trying to discover the nature of consciousness. Being able to merge our consciousness with any and all matter not only reveals the nature of consciousness, but also reveals information that would otherwise be closed off to the third-person perspective or through the use of the senses. Please refer to my last post to atanu where I gave an example comparing how a scientists would know about our minds vs. how the individual would know of their own mind. For instance, I can do samadhi on a person to know their thoughts, even thoughts and memories in their unconscious (telepathy?). I can engage in samadhi with Brahman, the Universe, or a deity to have access to omniscience.

Also be mindful that the process of samadhi is not just about knowledge, but with it also comes extraordinary abilities. Some examples are the ability to control matter, the ability to levitate, to increase and decrease bodily temperature, the ability to see and pass through solid matter, etc.

You readily admit in your last sentence that you cannot affect "every other level of the world" using only "consciousness," and state that "we should expect to find this at the level of consciousness that goes beyond mental and sensory input" - but what does that mean?

The fullest expression of consciousness is as a Universal entity that is tied to everything in the Universe. Being at this level, the effects of consciousness on the world is more apparent and full scale. The level of consciousness that we normally experience (the waking state) you will notice little effects here and there and this is because it is not tied to everything. You'll only notice effects on things that you are in immediate contact with.

How is this useful? You're saying we should be searching out in a "level" that goes beyond mental and sensory input? How do we do this? Where is it?

Become a yogi. This does not involve becoming a religious ascetic, but rather it is about practicing samadhi until you master it. Then you will notice that you can perceive without the senses and mind.

And in the end, what does it benefit us to find it? Can we simply not know until we get there? Are there people who have gone there? What did they find? Was the experience useful to them? If so - can they reproduce or demonstrate anything from this "level" now that they have been there?

Everything I have said is teachable. It is repeatable and verifiable. Many scientists, including Albert Einstein, have been known to consult Eastern mystics so that they can understand consciousness and reality, overall.
​

 

[Windwalker]

View attachment 34577

Are you really that much of a cynic? I have experience something almost identical to what you call "made up".

 

[Windwalker]

May I ask what it is that you feel this "deeper level of consciousness" provides the people who attain it? What benefit is there to achieving this, and what can one expect when attaining it?

A complete loss of fear. Feeling absolute love, connection, joy, abundance, openness, transparency, grounded, alive, vibrant, endless, and above all, beyond the darkness of our imaginations we are alone in this world. I'd call that a profound benefit to one's life.

But I would correct one confusion with the words "attain" or "achieve". In reality, it is nothing of the sort. It is nothing something you get through effort, like a 4 minute mile. Rather it is realizing the truth you already are. It's simply pulling back the curtain to realize what you already fully are and have been all alone. It's just losing the illusion, not gaining something "out there".

 

[Windwalker]

Everything I have said is teachable. It is repeatable and verifiable. Many scientists, including Albert Einstein, have been known to consult Eastern mystics so that they can understand consciousness and reality, overall.
​

​

Thank you for this thread. I'm smiling with every post. I read this earlier today I thought you might enjoy, as it pertains directly to this thread. It is the thoughts of Albert Einstein on exactly these things.

"Man has infinite dimensions and finds God in his conscience. [A cosmic religion] has no dogma other than teaching man that the universe is rational and that his highest destiny is to ponder it and co-create with its laws.

I like to experience the universe as one harmonious whole. Every cell has life. Matter, too, has life; it is energy solidified. Our bodies are like prisons, and I look forward to be free, but I don’t speculate on what will happen to me.

I live here now, and my responsibility is in this world now. I deal with natural laws. This is my work here on earth.
....

And as man becomes conscious of the stupendous laws that govern the universe in perfect harmony, he begins to realize how small he is. He sees the pettiness of human existence, with its ambitions and intrigues, its ‘I am better than thou’ creed.

This is the beginning of cosmic religion within him; fellowship and human service become his moral code. Without such moral foundations, we are hopelessly doomed.

If we want to improve the world we cannot do it with scientific knowledge but with ideals. Confucius, Buddha, Jesus and Gandhi have done more for humanity than science has done.

We must begin with the heart of man—with his conscience—and the values of conscience can only be manifested by selfless service to mankind.

Religion and science go together. As I’ve said before, science without religion is lame and religion without science is blind. They are interdependent and have a common goal—the search for truth.

Hence it is absurd for religion to proscribe Galileo or Darwin or other scientists. And it is equally absurd when scientists say that there is no God. The real scientist has faith, which does not mean that he must subscribe to a creed.

Without religion there is no charity. The soul given to each of us is moved by the same living spirit that moves the universe.

I am not a mystic. Trying to find out the laws of nature has nothing to do with mysticism, though in the face of creation I feel very humble. It is as if a spirit is manifest infinitely superior to man’s spirit. Through my pursuit in science I have known cosmic religious feelings. But I don’t care to be called a mystic.

....


Many people think that the progress of the human race is based on experiences of an empirical, critical nature, but I say that true knowledge is to be had only through a philosophy of deduction. For it is intuition that improves the world, not just following a trodden path of thought.

Intuition makes us look at unrelated facts and then think about them until they can all be brought under one law. To look for related facts means holding onto what one has instead of searching for new facts.

Intuition is the father of new knowledge, while empiricism is nothing but an accumulation of old knowledge. Intuition, not intellect, is the ‘open sesame’ of yourself.

Indeed, it is not intellect, but intuition which advances humanity. Intuition tells man his purpose in this life.

I do not need any promise of eternity to be happy. My eternity is now. I have only one interest: to fulfill my purpose here where I am.

This purpose is not given me by my parents or my surroundings. It is induced by some unknown factors. These factors make me a part of eternity.”

~Albert Einstein
​

From here: Link

 

[dybmh]

The benefit of "samadhi" as a way of knowledge is that it allows for direct experience of an object (any person or thing).

OK.

Ready for something useful?

Science still cannot replicate the olfactory sensitivity of a Kodiak bear. Do you think it would be possible for a human to "directly experience" a parade route in the same way as a kodiak bear for the purpose of detecting explosives along the route?

This same tech could be used to protect schools, airports, shopping centers... concert venues...

And then why stop at bears? The hummingbird and the octopus would be next on the list to "directly experience" because they are two of the oldest most highly evolved animals on the planet. Don't even get me started on insects

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

A 'guarantee of return on investment'? I am not sure where you are coming from with that. It seems to me the mystical gurus/swamis (or whatever term) are offering us their view on the nature of reality in the effort to help those who are willing and ready to hear what they have to say. There's nothing wrong in that approach.

All I am saying is that if someone can't offer a substantive reason you should be doing something, it doesn't make much sense for them to be such a strong advocate of it, as you seem to certainly be.

 

[Left Coast]

Because by definition 'paranormal' just means 'beyond the normal'. I am not making a claim as to what it 'is' at this point. I am only saying things happen that have no reasonable normal explanations and would require dramatic additions to what we call 'normal'. That's what I call 'paranormal' and never use the term 'magical' in this sense.

As I said, it's obvious that unexplained things happen all the time. If you're not making a claim as to what is actually going on in these events, then how are you concluding that people are actually reading minds or the disembodied spirits of dead people are actually visiting Earth?

I highlighted in red the part where I agree. Ghosts and etc. are part of the natural world in my thinking. Our difference is that I hold that part of our natural world may be in dimensions we can not directly detect.

If we can't detect something, we have no rational basis for believing it's there, whether you claim the thing is natural or supernatural.

Two ways off the top of my head.

1) Through effecting the physical world such as poltergeists, temporarily semi-materialized ghosts. Science doesn't work well with temporary spontaneous phenomena but that doesn't mean the spontaneous phenomena didn't occur.

But the fact that something could have occurred doesn't mean it actually did. You're creating another unfalsifiable claim here. By positing an explanation that breaks the known rules of how the world works, you can explain away literally any data, or lack of data.

The time to believe that poltergeists are temporarily affecting the physical world is when you have good evidence for that proposition. So if a phenomenon occurs, you have to investigate that phenomenon (by gathering empirical data) to determine why it's occurring. If it's temporary and you can't investigate it, you don't just get to insert your favorite explanation because it "could" explain it.

2) Through the use of super-physical senses. Many involved in the esoteric tell us that we have physical as well as etheric and astral (psychic) senses. So non-physical things can then be directly perceived by those with more heightened psychic senses. Once again science can not work well with information that is not demonstrable to everyone's physical senses but this does not mean psychic senses don't exist.

And once again, the fact that something could exist doesn't mean it actually does. If you want to rationally get to the conclusion that something actually exists, you need good hard evidence. How do you possibly demonstrate that people have a sixth sense to detect non-physical things?

Although I think science is great, I am not a follower of so-called 'Scientism' implying I do consider things outside of physical science like psychic abilities, spiritualism, paranormal phenomena, mysticism, etc. in forming my personal worldview.

Yes, I know you believe in these things. The whole point of the conversation is to establish why. And "lots of people have believed this" and "it's a grand worldview" are not rational reasons, as we've covered.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Useful to science? The Eastern way of knowledge, particularly "samadhi", is useful in trying to discover the nature of consciousness. Being able to merge our consciousness with any and all matter not only reveals the nature of consciousness, but also reveals information that would otherwise be closed off to the third-person perspective or through the use of the senses. Please refer to my last post to atanu where I gave an example comparing how a scientists would know about our minds vs. how the individual would know of their own mind. For instance, I can do samadhi on a person to know their thoughts, even thoughts and memories in their unconscious (telepathy?). I can engage in samadhi with Brahman, the Universe, or a deity to have access to omniscience.​

You keep saying things like this... BUT WHAT DOES IT ACTUALLY ACCOMPLISH? Do you understand what I am asking, or no?

Also be mindful that the process of samadhi is not just about knowledge, but with it also comes extraordinary abilities. Some examples are the ability to control matter, the ability to levitate, to increase and decrease bodily temperature, the ability to see and pass through solid matter, etc.

Now those would be some truly useful benefits! Why didn't you mention these things before? Why is it apparently SO DIFFICULT for you to comprehend what the word "useful" means? Now... if only you could provide readily reproducible evidence of these things then we'd really be cooking. Can you do that?

Everything I have said is teachable. It is repeatable and verifiable. Many scientists, including Albert Einstein, have been known to consult Eastern mystics so that they can understand consciousness and reality, overall.

Ah... apparently you CAN do that, right? So I guess just point me to all the videos of people levitating, controlling matter, passing through solid matter, etc. Let me know where I can get an actual demonstration of these things, and if it is compelling enough and passes a few minor tests of scrutiny, then perhaps you can make a believer out of me. As it stands, I just don't see people utilizing talents like these at all. Nor do I see a lot of investigation into these things, or people hell-bent on achieving it because it is known to be attainable. The culture here in the U.S. seems to be obsessed with "super powers" at the moment. My expectation is that I would see people flocking to "mysticism" in droves if it was known that it could actually deliver on these types of abilities. Instead, all I've seen is the entertainment industry cashing in on the mere idea... as if a rumor that they know everyone wishes were true.​

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

A complete loss of fear. Feeling absolute love, connection, joy, abundance, openness, transparency, grounded, alive, vibrant, endless, and above all, beyond the darkness of our imaginations we are alone in this world. I'd call that a profound benefit to one's life.

I see how a change in perspective could benefit a person, surely. However this also sounds like something that wouldn't work for everyone. Sounds like it requires a lot of interpretation and levels of self-reflection that some people simply aren't going to be able to muster.

But I would correct one confusion with the words "attain" or "achieve". In reality, it is nothing of the sort. It is nothing something you get through effort, like a 4 minute mile. Rather it is realizing the truth you already are. It's simply pulling back the curtain to realize what you already fully are and have been all alone. It's just losing the illusion, not gaining something "out there".

It honestly sounds like I have already done this then. In my own self-reflection I have come to realize that what I call "myself" is nothing more than a wisp of what we call "consciousness" that has been selected to be the captain of a vessel of individual living creatures - all with their own "wisp" as well. My role is merely to guide the ship, keep it out of trouble, and decide what to provide it as sustenance. Anything I "do" beyond that is merely extra, and may or may not gratify the "illusion" I think you're speaking of. That is... the ego, id, "self" that most people believe is "what they are." The one they like to think will somehow make its way into eternity, and like to pretend is "everlasting." The "wisp", in other words, is what they like to pretend is the goal of it all... the most important thing. When it is, most certainly, nothing of the sort.

 

[George-ananda]

All I am saying is that if someone can't offer a substantive reason you should be doing something, it doesn't make much sense for them to be such a strong advocate of it, as you seem to certainly be.

I can't imagine something more substantively advantageous than living with increased levels of peace, love and happiness brought about through a richer and more complete understanding of reality and the purpose of life,

 

[George-ananda]

As I said, it's obvious that unexplained things happen all the time. If you're not making a claim as to what is actually going on in these events, then how are you concluding that people are actually reading minds or the disembodied spirits of dead people are actually visiting Earth?

I am making a claim first that these things are happening. Secondly then I am considering theories that explain how. This is normal human reasoning steps.

If we can't detect something, we have no rational basis for believing it's there, whether you claim the thing is natural or supernatural.

A rational basis is empirical evidence that 'something' unknown is going on. From there we can rationally consider theories by those that claim additional insight into the nature of this unexplained phenomena. Again, that's Rational Reasoning 101.

But the fact that something could have occurred doesn't mean it actually did. You're creating another unfalsifiable claim here. By positing an explanation that breaks the known rules of how the world works, you can explain away literally any data, or lack of data.

The time to believe that poltergeists are temporarily affecting the physical world is when you have good evidence for that proposition. So if a phenomenon occurs, you have to investigate that phenomenon (by gathering empirical data) to determine why it's occurring. If it's temporary and you can't investigate it, you don't just get to insert your favorite explanation because it "could" explain it.

I would not insert my 'favorite' explanation but rather I might state that theory XYZ makes the best sense after all things are considered. This is a standard reasoning processes.

And once again, the fact that something could exist doesn't mean it actually does. If you want to rationally get to the conclusion that something actually exists, you need good hard evidence. How do you possibly demonstrate that people have a sixth sense to detect non-physical things?

When what they say best explains empirical events in a rational way. Also involved is a personal judgment about the quantity, quality and consistency of the sources presenting the understanding. 'Science' may not work this way but we all work this way when considering what is most reasonable to believe and in forming our personal positions.

We'll leave the subject of scientific testing aside as we we'll not agree on its success.

Yes, I know you believe in these things. The whole point of the conversation is to establish why. And "lots of people have believed this" and "it's a grand worldview" are not rational reasons, as we've covered.

I hope by now I have explained 'why' I believe as I do as a rational person.

 

[Shelter]

I think this is more likely to be a public perspective about scientists than the actual views of most scientists. In fact, most scientists are faced on a daily basis with things we cannot (yet) explain. That is sort of the point of doing science.

One example of what I mean by “to someone with a hammer, everything looks like a nail” is the strong tendency among biology and biomedical researchers to look to genetics first to find the answer. We have great and ever-improving tools for genetic and genomic research. As a result, I think many biologists look to genetic explanations first, without deeply thinking about alternatives. I do think my mystical practices helped me recognize and avoid this type of assumption. I’ll explain.

A type of study called a genome-wide association study (GWAS) has been a very active area of research with huge investments of time and money in the last few decades. The basic idea behind GWAS is that some traits, like height, and some diseases, like schizophrenia, are thought based on previous studies to be very heritable (heritability is a measure of the percentage of the variability in the trait that is inherited from the parents, as opposed to coming from other sources like the environment). Heritability is usually assumed to be entirely or almost entirely dependent on genetics. But, for height, schizophrenia, and many other traits/conditions, the genetic variants known to be associated with that trait or disorder only explain a small percentage of the variation that is observed. This is known as the “missing heritability problem.”

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) are intended to find that missing heritability by looking for multiple genetic variants throughout the genome that each have a small effect. Presumably many small-effect variants and a few large-effect variants could add up to the full heritability that is observed.

But problems have become apparent. These two articles New Turmoil Over Predicting the Effects of Genes | Quanta Magazine

Learning from our GWAS mistakes: from experimental design to scientific method

summarize statistical problems that have been found in many GWAS studies… certain unfortunate assumptions and experimental design flaws probably contaminated the results from a large number of studies.

This article discusses other types of problems with GWAS approaches. New concerns raised over value of genome-wide disease studies

Especially see “the great beyond” section of the article, which discusses why heritability estimates that provided the impetus for GWAS studies may be flawed. The prenatal environment and epigenetic influences are not typically factored into heritability calculations, but both are increasingly understood to be extremely important in many areas of human development. I would add to the discussion that heritability estimates for some traits hold only in the environment/population where they were measured, but are often assumed to apply in other populations. To take the example of height, which the article uses, heritability may really be 80-90% in an environment where everyone is well-fed. But in an environment where 50% of children are stunted because of malnutrition and parasite infections, the genetic heritability will be much lower. Height will depend much more on environment in the second environment than the first. Some apparent heritability may come from non-genetic factors, like that parents who are themselves stunted may have more trouble obtaining food for their children, and so malnutrition and short stature are passed on in a non-genetic way. Height can also be affected by the preferred diets of different groups in a population (meat and dairy vs. vegetarian, etc), which are passed through families but not genetically.

To me, these problems show… if you really believe that genetic influences explain most human variation in a wide range of traits, you can “find” genetic influences whether they are really there or not. Many, many scientists have an unexamined assumption that genes are primary, and other, similar unexamined assumptions that they’ve learned in school or absorbed from the scientific community. Scientists tend to be better at recognizing these assumptions than the average person, but still not as good as we need to be. Anything that can improve our insight about our own minds can help.

When I was in grad school, several years before the above problems began to be recognized, my dissertation adviser very much wanted me to work on a GWAS. I did some research on GWAS approaches, and… something just seemed wrong to me. A lot of what was being published looked like wishful thinking. I do think my mystical practices kept me from just going with my adviser’s advice… partly by breaking me out of ordinary thinking, teaching me to always question my and others’ assumptions, driving me to always look deeper. I pushed back and ended up doing a different project.

Also, a quote from the end of the Nature News article:

“There could be scarier and more intractable reasons for unaccounted-for heritability that are not even being discussed. ‘It's a possibility that there's something we just don't fundamentally understand,’ Kruglyak says. ‘That it's so different from what we're thinking about that we're not thinking about it yet.’”

 

[Valjean]

You keep saying things like this... BUT WHAT DOES IT ACTUALLY ACCOMPLISH? Do you understand what I am asking, or no?​

It's an awakening, as from a dream; an expanded awareness.
Is waking someone from a coma a "substantive improvement?"​

 

[Left Coast]

I am making a claim first that these things are happening. Secondly then I am considering theories that explain how. This is normal human reasoning steps.

Yes, and the whole point of our conversation is to discuss how you're considering these ideas. How do you determine that disembodied spirits of dead people are actually haunting a house, and that something else isn't going on? "Its possible" is not a rational answer. "Lots of people believe it" is not a rational answer. "It forms a grand worldview" is not a rational answer.

A rational basis is empirical evidence that 'something' unknown is going on. From there we can rationally consider theories by those that claim additional insight into the nature of this unexplained phenomena. Again, that's Rational Reasoning 101.

The how of the consideration is what makes it rational or not. If a person claims additional insight into the nature of a phenomenon, they need to be able to demonstrate that insight. They need to show good evidence that their idea of what's going on is not just "possible," but is actually the best explanation of the evidence. (Hint: you can't rationally show an explanation is the best, ie most accurate, one, without testing it.)

I would not insert my 'favorite' explanation but rather I might state that theory XYZ makes the best sense after all things are considered. This is a standard reasoning processes.

An unfalsifiable explanation, like magic, can always perfectly fit the evidence - that's the problem with them. Using the word "theory" is confusing here because it has a specific meaning in science. Any idea or model is not a theory. To be considered a theory, an idea or model has to survive lots of rounds of testing - ie, it has to be falsifiable. If something isn't falsifiable, it's never reasonable to believe it.

When what they say best explains empirical events in a rational way.

Believing that a non-physical thing caused physical phenomena is never rational because - say it with me George - it's not testable. And if it's not testable, you have no way of confirming that it's actually the right explanation.

Also involved is a personal judgment about the quantity, quality and consistency of the sources presenting the understanding. 'Science' may not work this way but we all work this way when considering what is most reasonable to believe and in forming our personal positions.

I wouldn't generalize too much about what "we all" do. A quality source of information is one that shows the evidence, including the evidence from testing an idea to see if it holds weight.

I hope by now I have explained 'why' I believe as I do as a rational person.

I can see you're trying, but unfortunately your method keeps coming up short. I've already pointed out to you multiple times where your stated reason for believing isn't rationally sufficient to justify your belief. Without a testable explanation to measure against what we see in the world, your view is not rational - it's rationalized.