Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Religion,superstition and spirituality
Options
Comments
-
-
Ignorant is dismissing something you do not understand.
Let's check your knowledge on something that is "understood". Could you explain in detail what is happening to people who have mystical experiences and include the evidence backing up your understanding.
Firstly you would have to define what you mean by people who have "mystical experiences". Detail what actually happened to them.0 -
It's strange that the dates co-inside and we were trying for a baby for 8 years.
Not particularly, in fact it would be far stranger, and less likely, if you went through your entire life without encountering two significant events falling on the same date. There isn't that many days of the year after all.0 -
'Spirituality' is simply the world understood through non-material means, i.e. systems of ideas for example.
I know most modern atheists believe that this term/state of being is just the play of the brain/emotions in some form, all existing within the head, yet this idea is just an assumption with no evidence at all to render it feasible.
Er, no. It is backed up by a ton of evidence, and is in fact they only theory explaining these experiences that has any evidence beyond it.
For example, you can trigger a whole host of "spiritual experience" in humans through very natural means.
Some people like to pretend that isn't the case because they prefer an idea of reality where these things are magical. But, unfortunately for them, the reality is more mundane, though it could be argued because we actually understand it far more interesting.The 'consciousness in the head' theory is rather a stay-over of previous thinking from times where where the soul was thought to reside in the head. Of course, there is no basis that full consciousness has to do with brain activity at all, it's just a dogma. A dogma increasingly under pressure from modern consciousness studies.
Again all evidence supports the theory that consciousness is a physical product of the brain. All evidence.
For example it has been shown the damage to the brain can effect a huge range of mental and cognitive abilities, from memory to personality to emotional state to motor skills.
There is zero evidence that any part of a persons mental or cognitive functions exist external to the brain, and a ton of evidence that they don't.
There is also a sound and solid theory as to why some people find that idea unpleasant and prefer to think of the mind as something separate to the body.
So not only is there no evidence that the mind is independent to the brain, we also know why humans would come up with such a concept anyway, and find the alternative so troubling.Atheists seem to have accepted this as a sacred cow from what I can observe.
Then you are observing wrong. Atheists accept this because it is the only theory of consciousness that is backed up by evidence.The conscious being has always been the true observer in a relational world, where each material object gains it's value via its relationship with other objects, where value comes from the intelligence, mind, ideas etc and other non-material sources.
"Value" is a human concept, something has value to someone if it is assigned value by that human. So while what you say is true, it is hardly profound and has very little to do with the concept of separation of mind and body.Even evidence doesn't gain meaning until we form it through the conscious experience. We should see spirituality in this context.
We do see spirituality in this context, we see spirituality as a poor and primitive attempt by early humans to describe experiences they didn't understand.0 -
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »"Coincidence of dates" is a lot more common than many people realise. What really fraks with peoples heads is when you ask them how many people you need to have in a room for the probability of any two of them sharing a birthday to be 50:50.
The most common answer I get is "365/2" which is 183ish and some people for some reason think the way to go is "365/4".
When you tell them the answer is merely 23 people.... I have seen (on only one occasion but still) eyes literally cross in confusion.
Whatever day someone dies on that you know... if you know 23 or more people it is even odds that you will know someone who was born on that day too. If you know 57 people the odds are around 99/100.
They like to say the only sure things in life are death and taxes.
I normally add a third: death, taxes, and people will not understand probability properly.
I would imagine a huge huge percentage of superstition, magical thinking and religion would evaporate over night if people had a better intuitive grasp of statistics and probability, since most of the evidence for all these things are based on the idea that something "impossible or very unlikely" happened, and they then assume some benevolent force is directing their lives.
Certainly that seems to be the justification most of the theists on the other forum give for their faith, that something "impossible" happened that demonstrated that God exists and is helping them out (never mind all the logical issues with a creator deity who then alters his creation in order to direct it).0 -
Advertisement
-
Firstly you would have to define what you mean by people who have "mystical experiences". Detail what actually happened to them.
Basically they feel all sense of ego dissolve and feel all of nature, including themselves, is interconnected. That's the basics.
Now tell us about the God Helmet? Apparently, it has something to demonstrate regarding these types of experiences.. or do you have additional explanations based on evidence?0 -
..and what's even more interesting is that this mental exercise is a perfect example of the difference between a coincidence and a synchronicity.
If you had say 15 people in a room, and two of them had the same birthday you would say that was a coincidence, as it is not that far from the expected even chance of it happening (23 people). However, if you nozzferrahhtoo were in a room of 15 people and someone had the same birthday as you, you could claim that as a synchronicity (if you were so inclined), as the even odds of that happening is in a roomful of 183 people. A synchronicity is a meaningful coincidence to the person involved.
It still doesn't have any significance though. It is "meaningful" simply by virtue of confirmation bias. Nozzferrahhtoo would have been in many rooms with 15 or less people where he didn't meet someone with the same birthday as him, but since that doesn't set off any pattern recognition for him these are not recorded.0 -
Basically they feel all sense of ego dissolve and feel all of nature, including themselves, is interconnected. That's the basics.
So they feel a sense of euphoria, contentment, well being and connection. Well that can be explained in any number of natural ways.
I already gave an example of being in a church, where the sense of space and the patterns cause the optical nerve and the parts of the brain that process vision to relax, reducing stress and causing a some times profound sense of well being in the person.
There is nothing magical or mystical about this, it is simply brain chemistry.Now tell us about the God Helmet?
I've no idea what the "God Helmet" is.Apparently, it has something to demonstrate regarding these types of experiences
If you say so.0 -
So they feel a sense of euphoria, contentment, well being and connection. Well that can be explained in any number of natural ways.. There is nothing magical or mystical about this, it is simply brain chemistry.
No, that's not what they feel. Euphoria, contentment, well bring and connection are what I feel when I am sitting in my garden with a glass of wine enjoying nature, or when I go to the pub with a few friends to watch a game and my team wins. Your church example would be similar. It is a perfectly normal state of consciousness, influenced by brain chemicals as you say. This is nothing like mystical or altered states of consciousness, think about lucid dreaming for an example of a basic altered state of consciousness.
Most models of consciousness have three main levels, the subconscious, normal waking, and transpersonal consciousnes. There are many proposed models with many subsets of each of the three levels, but transpersonal relates to altered states of consciousness. I know it sounds like hocus pocus but it's been studied by many different reseachers using widely different techniques. The subjective evidence, regardless of the method used, seem quite similar, although as with everything in Psychology there is much debate on this point.
As to where consciousness emerges from, there is no firm evidence on what consciousness is, let alone where it arises from or what has it and what does not. There is tentative evidence that it arises from the brain (fMRI and other techniques), and tentative evidence that the mental state and the physical state are separate (NDEs, OOBs, etc). The evidence from altered states suggests that every living entity has some level of consciousness. The problem with the mind-brain theory is are these causal effects or correlation effects. You also have to distinguish between the easy problem of consciousness and the hard problem. The easy problem is brain chemistry (feelings and emotions), the hard problem is our sense of self and the various levels that consciousness can achieve.
It is difficult to have this discussion with you because you are coming at the question of spirituality from a 100% rational scientific approach. Many people think the two are incompatible, that you can either be spiritual or rational, but not both. Once you get into the altered states world, nothing you have learned from the logical reasoned world makes sense. Where science and spirituality meet in my opinion is when we peel back the onion, we eventually get to a mystery. Whether it is the origin of the universe or the origin of life, there appears to be an irriducible problem whether we approach it from science or spirituality. Science suggest that at the beginning of the universe there was an infinite void, and those who claim to have reached spiritual enlightenment say that the source is an infinite void.
Apologies for linking you to the God Helmet. An earlier poster a few pages back referenced Michael Persinger's apparatus for applying EM radiation to the brain, and suggested you were the source of the information.0 -
..and what's even more interesting is that this mental exercise is a perfect example of the difference between a coincidence and a synchronicity.
Indeed. Coincidences that happen related to a subjective observer are often imbued by that observer as having a LOT more relevance and meaning that it actually does. One wonders just how much supernatural and religious belief is fueled by that error in subjective thinking. From people seeing a guiding hand behind "random" events.... to people looking for a "sign" and finding one.0 -
Advertisement
-
No, that's not what they feel. Euphoria, contentment, well bring and connection are what I feel when I am sitting in my garden with a glass of wine enjoying nature, or when I go to the pub with a few friends to watch a game and my team wins. Your church example would be similar. It is a perfectly normal state of consciousness, influenced by brain chemicals as you say. This is nothing like mystical or altered states of consciousness, think about lucid dreaming for an example of a basic altered state of consciousness.
I know what lucid dreaming is (and can also explain it), but you will have to detail what "altered state of consciousness" is.
Also on what basis are you saying what they experience isn't what someone experiences when they have a profound moment in a church? This seems to be as useful as arguing that the blue you see is different to the blue I see.Most models of consciousness have three main levels, the subconscious, normal waking, and transpersonal consciousnes. There are many proposed models with many subsets of each of the three levels, but transpersonal relates to altered states of consciousness.
Well firstly no it doesn't, that isn't what trans-personal psychology is. In fact in recent years there has been a major house cleaning exercise in the area of trans-personal psychology to push back against the romanticism of the field, as many with supernatural ideas but little to zero support for them have latched onto the sub-field of psychology mistakenly believing that it gave support for paranormal notions about mind and body.
As Harris Friedman put it
Romanticism is becoming increasing prevalent in transpersonal psychology, subverting efforts to develop scientific approaches in this subfield of psychology.
...
In view of romanticism's problems in fostering such cultural errors and embracing supernatural explanations when more ordinary ones suffice, the importance of transpersonal psychology's resisting the challenge of romanticism is advocated and suggestions for the further development of this subfield as a science are provided.
Btw "romanticism" is a very good term to describe your particular flights of fancy nagirrac.
Secondly trans-personal psychology is a sub-field of psychology, and a small one at that. Stating the "most" models of consciousness integrate trans-personal psychology is completely wrong.
The evidence for Near Death Experiences etc is poor at best, more often than not relying on the subjects personal assessment of where a memory came from. When objectively tested the data is not replicated (ie putting symbols on the top of shelves in operating rooms that are impossible to see from the ground)As to where consciousness emerges from, there is no firm evidence on what consciousness is, let alone where it arises from or what has it and what does not. There is tentative evidence that it arises from the brain (fMRI and other techniques), and tentative evidence that the mental state and the physical state are separate (NDEs, OOBs, etc).
What in the what now?The evidence from altered states suggests that every living entity has some level of consciousness.
Firstly can you actually define "altered states" (my brain moves through a number of different states simply putting on my pants), and secondly explain how a single bacteria in my gut has "some level of consciousness".The problem with the mind-brain theory is are these causal effects or correlation effects. You also have to distinguish between the easy problem of consciousness and the hard problem. The easy problem is brain chemistry (feelings and emotions), the hard problem is our sense of self and the various levels that consciousness can achieve.
The "hard problem" of consciousness is a descriptive problem (going back to say how do I know my blue is also your blue), it is not an issue for the idea that the brain produces consciousness.It is difficult to have this discussion with you because you are coming at the question of spirituality from a 100% rational scientific approach.
See quote about the problem of allowing romanticism into serious inquiry.
No problem.Apologies for linking you to the God Helmet. An earlier poster a few pages back referenced Michael Persinger's apparatus for applying EM radiation to the brain, and suggested you were the source of the information.0 -
I know what lucid dreaming is (and can also explain it), but you will have to detail what "altered state of consciousness" is.
As Harris Friedman put it
Romanticism is becoming increasing prevalent in transpersonal psychology, subverting efforts to develop scientific approaches in this subfield of psychology.
Btw "romanticism" is a very good term to describe your particular flights of fancy nagirrac.
It is quite dishonest to selectively quote a researcher pointing out the caution he highlights in one area where it suits your argument, while leaving out what he also cautions against that goes against your argument. From the same article by Harris Friedmann, where he cautions regarding scientism..
"This is characterized by an attitude that outwardly appears similar to science, but is actually dominated by a rigid and closed- minded view. It should be noted that scientism is not a legitimate aspect of the scientific approach per se, since openness is a core scientific value that is complementary to skepticism, but instead is a perversion of science that has been corrupted into a parochial ideology. Science should, on the other hand, never be an ideology but instead is an approach to knowledge that that is grounded in respect for experience. It is unfortunate that some adherenets to scientism have dismissed the whole field of transpersonal psychology as irrational.."
If we are playing the game of which "box" to put people in, then I would say most atheists, inlcuding yourself, are firmly in the scientism box. The God Helmet was actually a good example of this, where many atheists seized on the data released by Persinger and said "ha, proof that mysticism is mumbo jumbo, it can be recreated by applying an electric field to the head". Unfortunatey, 1) the experiences reported when examined carefully are not mystical, and 2) they have never been duplicated outside Persingers lab (compared to say Ganzfeld studies which have been duplicated in many labs worldwide). I am not clamining Persinger is a fraud but until his data is replicated elsewhere, one has to be highly skeptical. What's interesting in this example is that atheists could seize on one set of fringe data and use it to bolster their argument, while dismissing other fringe areas that actually have more solid data.
It is quite possible to be well balanced between scepticism and belief Zombrex. The acid test for me in terms of transpersonal psychology is does the claim have any genuine validity in terms of helping people. If there is no reproducible data that astrology, crystals, psychic readings, etc. actually help people then I discount these. However, if there is data that mindful mediatation, focussed thinking, taking psychedelics in a controlled setting, etc. have beneficial results then I do not discount these. I have seen the benefits myself, and seen the benefits in other people, so why would I discount it. Remember, it is anti science to discount something that is based on experience.
Finally on the subject of science, I am firmly in the camp that we should not restrict human endevour in terms of the pursuit of knowledge to what science can currently study. Meditation is a good example, where it has been known for thousands of years that advanced meditators enter "altered states" of consciousness. We are just beginning to understand this effect from a science standpoint from EEG studies. In our normal waking state we are predominatly in the beta state (13 - 38Hz), while lower frequency waves relate to sleep states. Gamma brain waves (38 - 100Hz)are a very recent area of study, and the preliminary data suggests these are associated with higher mental activity and consolidation of information (the binding problem in consciousness). Studies have shown that advanced Tibetan meditators produce much higher levels of gamma brain waves during meditation than is normal.
The point here is that meditation has been used for thousands of years to facilitate growth in human knowledge, there is no valid argument to be made that humans should have waited for science to "catch up" and explain what is going on.0 -
It is quite dishonest to selectively quote a researcher pointing out the caution he highlights in one area where it suits your argument, while leaving out what he also cautions against that goes against your argument.
Er, he isn't going against my argument. I'm not even sure I made an argument other than to not invoke romanticism in science, which is the same thing Friedmann does."Science should, on the other hand, never be an ideology but instead is an approach to knowledge that that is grounded in respect for experience. It is unfortunate that some adherenets to scientism have dismissed the whole field of transpersonal psychology as irrational.."
Given that I haven't dismissed the whole field of trans-personal psychology as irrational I'm not sure why you are putting that to me.
All genuine scientists would reject a dogmatic adherence to "scientism"
But then of course your objections are nothing to do with scientism, they are an objection to scientific standards.
Then you don't understand what scientism is.If we are playing the game of which "box" to put people in, then I would say most atheists, inlcuding yourself, are firmly in the scientism box.
Scientism is not skepticism, it is not pointing out that researchers have made mistakes or drawn un-supported conclusions.
You mis-use the charge of scientism to attack those who are simply pointing out that your beliefs do not have foundation.Unfortunatey, 1) the experiences reported when examined carefully are not mystical, and 2) they have never been duplicated outside Persingers lab (compared to say Ganzfeld studies which have been duplicated in many labs worldwide).
You are correct to dismiss the God Helmet (after doing some research). But in typical fashion you only apply this skepticism to things that contradict your own dogmatic/romantic notions, you don't apply the same level of skepticism to research you want to be true.
For example the Ganzfeld studies have been duplicated but that is because the original experiments were deeply flawed, and many many researchers have pointed out the original problems, but psi researchers have not compensated for these so they continue to get "successful" results.
Also all the Ganzfeld experiments found was statistic anomolies, anomolies that cannot be replicated at the individual level. Or to put it another way if you test hundreds of people you might find odd statistics appear, but no matter how much you test an individual you cannot replicate the results.I am not clamining Persinger is a fraud but until his data is replicated elsewhere, one has to be highly skeptical.
It is shame that you selectively apply your skepticism.What's interesting in this example is that atheists could seize on one set of fringe data and use it to bolster their argument, while dismissing other fringe areas that actually have more solid data.
And it is interesting that you do the same thing, while criticising others who do this. Can you really not see that you do the exact same thing?It is quite possible to be well balanced between scepticism and belief Zombrex.
Then why don't you?The acid test for me in terms of transpersonal psychology is does the claim have any genuine validity in terms of helping people. If there is no reproducible data that astrology, crystals, psychic readings, etc. actually help people then I discount these.
There is tons of evidence that these things help people, but this has been identified as the work of the placebo effect.0 -
Then you don't understand what scientism is.
Scientism is not skepticism, it is not pointing out that researchers have made mistakes or drawn un-supported conclusions.
Most of your post is just ad hominum so I will only repond to this.
Scientism is the view that empirical science is the most authoritative worldview and valuable part of human learning, to the exclusion of other viewpoints (wiki).
I reject this view, not based on science being the most authoritative (it is) but the exclusion of experience based knowledge which is what has driven human knowledge since long before science or the scientific method was founded. Should we not examine anything that cannot currently be measured by scientific means? If we had followed that philosophy we would still be collecting nuts and berries.0 -
Could you distinguish between scientific knowledge (acquired by our senses, or things that act on behalf of our senses) and what you refer to as "experience based knowledge" which I must assume you believe is not acquired by our senses?I reject this view, not based on science being the most authoritative (it is) but the exclusion of experience based knowledge which is what has driven human knowledge since long before science or the scientific method was founded. Should we not examine anything that cannot currently be measured by scientific means? If we had followed that philosophy we would still be collecting nuts and berries.0 -
Could you distinguish between scientific knowledge (acquired by our senses, or things that act on behalf of our senses) and what you refer to as "experience based knowledge" which I must assume you believe is not acquired by our senses?
The distinction between objective knowledge and subjective knowledge. Scientific knowledge, to me at least, is based on empirical evidence, something we can measure. This can go far beyond our senses, we cannot measure most of the electromagnetic spectum for example with our senses. We also have limitations on measurement, we have no current means to detect 96% of the matter and energy in our universe.
I would define experience based knowledge as memory and testimony. Thought is not regarded as a sense, or at least I have never heard anyone make a good argument that it is. A good example is Psychology, which for decades was not regarded as a science, as there was no clear empirical evidence involved. Today, Psychology is accepted as a science, largely due to the development of neuroscience.
Up to very recently, we have had no tools to measure thought empirically, and until we have more advanced tools this issue will remain. The topics of meditation and psychedelics I have been discussing with Zombrex are examples of this. We are making great strides in this area however with the development of more powerful EEG and other tools that can scan the brain in action. So far, they appear to be confirming what mystics have been saying for thousands of years, that altered states of consciousness are correlated with advanced learning and creativity. Zombrex does not agree, but I think this is one of those cases where we will just have to wait for more compelling data to settle the argument.0 -
Scientism is the view that empirical science is the most authoritative worldview and valuable part of human learning, to the exclusion of other viewpoints (wiki).
I reject this view, not based on science being the most authoritative (it is) but the exclusion of experience based knowledge which is what has driven human knowledge since long before science or the scientific method was founded. Should we not examine anything that cannot currently be measured by scientific means? If we had followed that philosophy we would still be collecting nuts and berries.
The purpose of science is to lend rigor and credibility to the way we acquire knowledge. It is meant to constrain the conclusions that people can reach until they are properly supported by the evidence. "Knowledge" acquired outside of science barely rises above the level of anecdote. It is always possible that any conclusions reached this way are accurate, but when that happens it is due to blind luck, merely stumbling upon the truth than actually finding it.
Crucially however, any conclusions that cannot be investigated by scientific means, are by definition impossible to validate. Correct conclusions are impossible to differentiate in any way from incorrect ones. The only option is to doubt all of them, until a way is found for science to investigate them, or loosen your grip on reality.0 -
Basically they feel all sense of ego dissolve and feel all of nature, including themselves, is interconnected. That's the basics.
"Today, a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration. That we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There is no such thing as death, life is only a dream and we're the imagination of ourselves. . . Here's Tom with the weather." - Bill HicksFingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.
0 -
Bill Hicks is such a loss, we needed him badly during the Bush years.0
-
Scientism is the view that empirical science is the most authoritative worldview and valuable part of human learning, to the exclusion of other viewpoints (wiki).
I reject this view, not based on science being the most authoritative (it is) but the exclusion of experience based knowledge which is what has driven human knowledge since long before science or the scientific method was founded.
You are correct to reject scientism, but you are not correct to replace it with "experience based knowledge".
As I already discussed with you, pointing out a problem with one philosophy is not a license to embrace another without examination of the problems with the other philosophy.
This is similar to how Creationists will some time point out (valid) problems with the theory of evolution, but then use this to as some sort of justification for Creationism.
There are large limits to what science can achieve, and there are people who ignore these problems and thus can be accused of scientism. That is not license though to replace science with methodologies that have far greater problems.
What ever your view point on science that says nothing to overcoming the problems with relying on testimony of personal experience.
Like I mentioned it is a great shame that you seem perfectly happy to apply your skepticism towards philosophies that are contrary to your beliefs, but not to areas that support them0 -
Advertisement
-
I think "Experience-based knowledge" in this case means "Something I accept because I prefer the sound of it".0
-
I think "Experience-based knowledge" in this case means "Something I accept because I prefer the sound of it".
Epic fail, Sarky.
"Experience based knowledge" is something one believes because they have experienced it. The value of Experiental Learning is unquestioned today, it is by far the best method of learning, where the student is directly involved in the work and it is meaningful to them.0 -
-
This would be the same experience that tells us the sun goes around a flat earth, that it's the room spinning when you're drunk and not your brain being fried, and that there's a magic man in the sky looking out for you, yeah? Unquestioned indeed.0
-
Like I mentioned it is a great shame that you seem perfectly happy to apply your skepticism towards philosophies that are contrary to your beliefs, but not to areas that support them
If we are being honest Zombrez we are all guilty of that, to a greater or lesser degree. Howeve, to the specifics of your argument.
Your claim is that I am skeptical about Persinger's work, assumedly because it does not agree with my beliefs, but I am not skeptical towards Dean Radin, because it agrees with my beliefs. This is nonsense of the highest order, as neither position has anything to do with my beliefs.
Persinger's work is qustionable in my opinion because a) the testimony does not back up the claim i.e. these are not mystical experiences; and b) the work has never been reproduced outside his lab. In fact there is a commercial "God Helmet" device endorsed by Persinger which apparently has generate a sum total of zero mystical experiences.
If I were interested in finding support for my beliefs, then I would fully endorse Persinger as he is one of the leading proponents of psi nowadays, based on parallel findings from the "God Helmet" work. However, I would not use him for support due to my skepticism of the "God Helmet" in general. This may be a little unfair on him as the data from his lab appears to suggest that applying EM fields to the brain enhances the psi effect. The results he has claimed are of the order of a 75% hit rate as opposed to 30 - 34% in most published Ganzfeld data.
When I look at the Radin data I see something entirely different. While it is absolutely true that criticism has been rightly levelled at some of the earlier Ganzfeld work, since 1983 all the work in this area is automated. Anyone who has actually looked at the data generated since 1983 agrees that the psi effect is real but not understood.0 -
Epic fail, Sarky.
"Experience based knowledge" is something one believes because they have experienced it. The value of Experiental Learning is unquestioned today, it is by far the best method of learning, where the student is directly involved in the work and it is meaningful to them.
Ummm ... you are sort of technically correct, but based on your previous posts I would imagine what you mean isn't correct.
Experience based knowledge includes things like empirical knowledge. It is basically first hand knowledge. I know the double slit experiment produces this result because I actually ran the double slit experiment.
In philosophy this is contrasted against propositional knowledge, knowledge you can second hand by being told about it or reading about it. I know the double slit experiment produces this result because I read about it in Nature.
Just because something is experience based doesn't mean you do not apply standards of examination to it. It does not mean that one simply takes an initial claim of what they experienced as accurate (oh I saw a ghost!)
Because something is experience based says nothing about the quality of the claim used to explain that experience. We do not hold experience based knowledge in any particular high regard just because it is experience based.0 -
Just because something is experience based doesn't mean you do not apply standards of examination to it. It does not mean that one simply takes an initial claim of what they experienced as accurate (oh I saw a ghost!)
Correct, experience based knowledge has to include reflective thought and active experimentation to bolster the experience. If someone sees a "ghost", they have to reflect on the experience and consider all other possibilities. Was I under the influence of hallunicogenics, was I just hallucinating as can normally occur, did I do anything experimentally to try and confirm it as a real observed thing, such as walk towards it or around it to check my perception, etc.
Your double slit example is an interesting one. Although literally anyone can run the basic experiment nowadays and get the same result, >200 years after it was first run we are still debating what it is telling us.0 -
If everything was turned around,could it be that the experience is controlling the reaction rather than the reaction controlling the experience...
Just say someone has a spiritual experience or sees a ghost etc
Could it be that this specter,ghost,God, angel, emotions, imagination to some is projecting something onto the observer.
Therefore causing the chemical reactions and various firing of the brain...
I'll get a rightly bombarded after this one but sure ill recover ok
Just like a person peeling a potato,or is the potato controlling the peeler...
Digging a hole here I know it...
Or like the red Indians saying the animal they hunted subconsciously offered itself up to the hunters....
I'll be back in a month slan :S0 -
This would be the same experience that tells us the sun goes around a flat earth, that it's the room spinning when you're drunk and not your brain being fried, and that there's a magic man in the sky looking out for you, yeah? Unquestioned indeed.
Or that if you wake up with a throbbing head and sore bum it must have been an alien abduction...Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.
0 -
Advertisement
-
Correct, experience based knowledge has to include reflective thought and active experimentation to bolster the experience. If someone sees a "ghost", they have to reflect on the experience and consider all other possibilities. Was I under the influence of hallunicogenics, was I just hallucinating as can normally occur, did I do anything experimentally to try and confirm it as a real observed thing, such as walk towards it or around it to check my perception, etc.
While reflection is important, it by itself is not enough as often people are not aware of the external influences that are effecting them, such as tricks of the mind or sub conscious bias. This is why objective measurement is so important, as our ability to determine the accuracy of our mind using just our mind is deeply flawed.Your double slit example is an interesting one. Although literally anyone can run the basic experiment nowadays and get the same result, >200 years after it was first run we are still debating what it is telling us.
It tells us nothing more than what it tells us.0
Advertisement