Refuting Mystical Experience: Possible?

[lightgigantic]

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Perhaps in the general sense, beacuse people do not have the background knowledge to define phenomena - after all a scientist can be "enthralled" by the mechanisms of a cell, "delighted" by the prospects of examining the solar system, etc etc - the same holds up for a mystical experience by one who has a background of knowledge in scripture (You may be surprised by the details, at least in the vedas, for determining what constitutes a transcendental experience)
”
I don't agree that knowledge of how to define phenomona is really that important.

Its important to knowledge (otherwise you have no means to explain or work with "things")

IMO, it's much more important to think rationally about information.

and how do you propose to do that without clarification of definitions?

The scientist may be "enthralled" about making discoveries about objective reality.

that was my point - definitions enables the proposition of objective reality (otherwise you could call a shovel a chair and a chair a shovel and people would understand you if you inquired "Do you have padded shovels?")

While someone exploring the subjective may be similarly "enthralled", the moment they claim it to be objective reality is the moment they take their hallucination and choose the path of delusion.

the point is that with or without emmotion, objectivity can be discerned - if it wasn't the case scientists would be ex-communicated for being happy with their findings

 

[(Q)]

However there are accounts of staunch "disbelievers" becoming "believers" after having a "mystical" experience

Of course you'd say such a thing, regardless of it being pure nonsense.

 

[lightgigantic]

Of course you'd say such a thing, regardless of it being pure nonsense.

I have to ask Q, why do you bother to post such things (ie groundless opinions).

Suppose I posted, in response to your comment this ....

Of course you'd say such a thing, regardless of it being pure nonsense.

.... what sort of response would you post?

 

[SkinWalker]

I have to ask Q, why do you bother to post such things (ie groundless opinions).

His opinions are no more groundless than your own, yet you post with reckless abandon on all manner of magical thought with assumption of reality -without a shred of "ground."

 

[lightgigantic]

Baum

“

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
With drugs you are hallucinating and without drugs you are halluciniating? What option does that leave us with?
”
It leaves us with that anything could be called a hallucination.

So anywhere mid stream in any argument on any thread at any time you could chime in "but how can you know this is not a hallucination" and in response to whatever they post in response to that you can respond "but how can you know this is not a hallucination" ad infintium.

In other words such a view is not conducive to sane living, what to speak of discussion.

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Agreed that a transcendental experience ("Mystical" could mean any number of things, fantastic or real, but generally in the mood of the former) can not be verified by the senses - if it could it wouldn't be transcendental - that is why transcendental experiences are validated by two agencies - saintly persons (ie those who have had transcendental experiences) and scripture (information given by god, who is a transcendental entity) -

in the absence of these foundations anyone could claim anything ("I have seen god - prove that I have not" .... or even better "I am seeing god right now - prove that I am not"), which is, ironically, the state of affairs of many religions (no knowledge of scripture and no knowledge of the qualities of a saintly person) that has enabled cheaters to take the position of spiritual leaders. Out of these two the greatest authority is scripture, which is why the first business of a cheater in the guise of a spiritual leader is to change scripture.
”
But scripture and testimony alone do not inform us firsthand.

No - but following the instructions of scripture/saintly persons has the possibility of warranting a transcendental experience (first hand direct perception)

We are given accounts of events in the past that may or may not have actually happened. We cannot experience them ourselves.

On the contrary there are numerous instructions in scripture onhow to come to the transcendental platform

They are mediated through the same faith that is placed in a false prophet;

Except that a false prophet cannot actually grant a transcendental experience by followingtheir instructions, just like a false medical practioner cannot grant good health

the only reason you have to consider their words true is that their veracity has been corroborated by an authority. Authority is just as arbitrary is any label, though, and so there doesn't seem to be any way to independently verify any of these so-called foundations.

therefore there is the process of questions and answers and testing (which is over 85% of the hard work of spiritual endeavour) to determine what constitutes a bona fide authority - an authority is self evident, just like the authority of a qualified doctor (with or without the university stamp) is self evident by their ability to diagnose and treat disease

That makes them entirely untrustworthy as sources of knowledge if we are to hold ourselves to a standard of critical inquiry.

If I say "this honey is sweet" it can be tested by you dipping your finger in it and trying it - in other words if you want to advocate that spiritual life doesn't operate on the principle of "Let me know absolutely everything about it before I move a step in that direction" I would agree

Our senses are our most intimate link to the external world, much more intimate than the word of a book or a person. Either of the latter could easily be doubted or denied, and we could still form a coherent picture of reality. With the senses, there is no way to be 100% certain that our experiences represent real things. We therefore assume the reality of our experiences, only doubting them when they can be justifiably characterized otherwise. Therefore if we doubt a strange experience that is nonetheless indistinguishable from what we consider reality, we must throw out our notion of reality altogether, and our picture of the world falls apart.

lol - happens all the time, with or without transcendental knowledge

That is the crucial difference. Many of these "hallucinations" seemingly cannot be logically denied without also denying the whole of reality. That is what makes mystical experience special and scriptural authority simple hearsay.

I will give you a practical example - its not uncommon in india for a yogi to display some minor yogic perfection (the ability to read minds, miracle cures of minor to major ailments, bodily tolerance levels that are super human etc) and develop a sort of following to the effect that they are god - the experiences they offer could perhaps be described as mystical (beyond normal human capacity or determinations of "reality") but on the basis of scripture they can be rejected becasue scripture clearly declares god to be more than just a mere mind reader, medical consultant or human punching bag (these are mundane results, after all even science can recreate such "perfections" to a greater or lesser extent)

 

[lightgigantic]

His opinions are no more groundless than your own, yet you post with reckless abandon on all manner of magical thought with assumption of reality -without a shred of "ground."

and how would you respond if I posted this in response to your post

My opinions are no more groundless than your own, yet you post with reckless abandon on all manner of specious thought with assumption of reality -without a shred of "ground."

(BTW - let me know when you get sick of this - I am sick of it already - but if you want to oblige by exchanging one groudless opinion for another it can go on for as long as you want)

 

[SkinWalker]

and how would you respond if I posted this in response to your post [...]if you want to oblige by exchanging one groudless opinion for another it can go on for as long as you want

Knock yourself out, friend. I usually just skim over your posts and read very little of them anyway. Particularly the ones that begin with "BG" or some esoteric poppycock. Most of your posts make about as much sense as

"Vivamus congue adipiscing est. Maecenas ac ante. Integer massa arcu, consectetuer at, lacinia quis, dignissim et, purus. Etiam nec ipsum sed quam sollicitudin placerat. Praesent tristique. Suspendisse orci. Suspendisse vel orci. Nunc non mauris id dolor tristique vehicula. Ut ac urna."

What's there to respond to?

Like I said, knock yourself out. I have "poppycock" in the clipboard and need only press [ctrl-v].

 

[lightgigantic]

Skinwalker

What's there to respond to?

thats my point - as long as you want to play the game of offering inane opinions it warrants that you will probably get one in return, (or alternatively offering no response, either to you or your sock puppets)

the result will be discussion develops into a battle of wills, evidenced by your previous post, which is moronic even in the real world, what to speak of the heights of stupidity such an endeavour reaches on net discussions (ie trying to personally insult a person you have never met in person)

 

[SkinWalker]

poppycock.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Its important to knowledge (otherwise you have no means to explain or work with "things")

Children, all non-human mammals, and probably other life forms seem to understand phenomenon without a formal definition.

and how do you propose to do that without clarification of definitions?

Don't know. That's not a proposal I suggested. I do know, that you believe an epistemiology is necessary to gain human perception that doesn't otherwise exist without it. There of course is no evidence that such a concept actually exists.

that was my point - definitions enables the proposition of objective reality (otherwise you could call a shovel a chair and a chair a shovel and people would understand you if you inquired "Do you have padded shovels?")

the point is that with or without emmotion, objectivity can be discerned - if it wasn't the case scientists would be ex-communicated for being happy with their findings

I am sure this is relevant to anything nor is it evidence that hallucaintion is anything more than hallucination.

 

[Sarkus]

To answer the OP - one would firstly have to know what you meant by "mystical".

When I was a child, of around 5 or 6, I believed in the mysticism of Magic - the kind where a person would be in one box to begin with, and then after a shake of a wand (plus the oh-so-important magic word) they would be in another box.

I believed it. It was there in front of my eyes - and it was true - magic existed.

Then I learnt how to think more rationally about things.
Then I learnt how magic was merely an illusion - and that the eyes, ears and our other senses can be deceived - and that nothing should be taken for granted - especially when they seem to go against the very nature of the world / universe we live in each day (i.e. when they go against the vast bulk of our experiences).

You can refute a mystical experience by setting up the necessary conditions, actions, sights, sounds etc, and demonstrating that it could have been (and by Occam's Razor would be more acceptable to any rational person) entirely within the realms of nature.
Failing that - a "mystical" experience is merely an experience that can't be fully explained - and the "mystical" is merely a romantic dressing.

 

[lightgigantic]

Crunchy cat

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Its important to knowledge (otherwise you have no means to explain or work with "things")
”
Children, all non-human mammals, and probably other life forms seem to understand phenomenon without a formal definition.

An example of a phenomena can be anything from an electron to a glass of water - both of which have formal definitions (at the very least animals don't confuse a bucket of water with a glowing fire brand)

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
and how do you propose to do that without clarification of definitions?
”
Don't know. That's not a proposal I suggested. I do know, that you believe an epistemiology is necessary to gain human perception that doesn't otherwise exist without it. There of course is no evidence that such a concept actually exists.

regarding your statement

IMO, it's much more important to think rationally about information.

Its not clear how rational thought processes can operate without definitions

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
that was my point - definitions enables the proposition of objective reality (otherwise you could call a shovel a chair and a chair a shovel and people would understand you if you inquired "Do you have padded shovels?")

the point is that with or without emmotion, objectivity can be discerned - if it wasn't the case scientists would be ex-communicated for being happy with their findings
”
I am sure this is relevant to anything nor is it evidence that hallucaintion is anything more than hallucination.

So far you have qualified a hallucination as something that evokes an emmotional response - I am not sure where we would go from here to any serious discussion of the nature of reality since you have just written off over 99% of life experiences

 

[(Q)]

I have to ask Q, why do you bother to post such things (ie groundless opinions).

Suppose I posted, in response to your comment this ....

Of course you'd say such a thing, regardless of it being pure nonsense.

.... what sort of response would you post?

I merely responded in kind, one groundless opinion for another.

If you don't wish to read such responses, don't offer them.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

An example of a phenomena can be anything from an electron to a glass of water - both of which have formal definitions (at the very least animals don't confuse a bucket of water with a glowing fire brand)

And animals probably work without a definition of phenomenoa as well.

regarding your statement

IMO, it's much more important to think rationally about information.

Its not clear how rational thought processes can operate without definitions

I never made the assertion that it can; however, I'll support that argument anyway. It seems that animals don't confuse a bucket of water with a glowing firebrand without a dictionary.

So far you have qualified a hallucination as something that evokes an emmotional response - I am not sure where we would go from here to any serious discussion of the nature of reality since you have just written off over 99% of life experiences

What I have communicated was misunderstood then. Hallucination is a subjective experience generated from internal stimulus. Dreams and the overlay from hypnogogia are examples.

The part obout emotion that I have been trying to communicate is that the content of hallucination can be very powerful and people tend to declare their hallucinatory experiences (theists especially) as objective reality strictly based on how it felt. They 'feel' its the truth therefore they make the claim that it is. Emotion is not a verification of truth. Reality is.

 

[baumgarten]

So anywhere mid stream in any argument on any thread at any time you could chime in "but how can you know this is not a hallucination" and in response to whatever they post in response to that you can respond "but how can you know this is not a hallucination" ad infintium.

In other words such a view is not conducive to sane living, what to speak of discussion.

Exactly.

following the instructions of scripture/saintly persons has the possibility of warranting a transcendental experience (first hand direct perception) . . . there are numerous instructions in scripture onhow to come to the transcendental platform . . . a false prophet cannot actually grant a transcendental experience by followingtheir instructions, just like a false medical practioner cannot grant good health

therefore there is the process of questions and answers and testing (which is over 85% of the hard work of spiritual endeavour) to determine what constitutes a bona fide authority - an authority is self evident, just like the authority of a qualified doctor (with or without the university stamp) is self evident by their ability to diagnose and treat disease

If I say "this honey is sweet" it can be tested by you dipping your finger in it and trying it - in other words if you want to advocate that spiritual life doesn't operate on the principle of "Let me know absolutely everything about it before I move a step in that direction" I would agree

Now this is a description of empirical knowledge. Add quantifiability and repeatability, and you have the scientific method.

[[ Our senses are our most intimate link to the external world, much more intimate than the word of a book or a person. Either of the latter could easily be doubted or denied, and we could still form a coherent picture of reality. With the senses, there is no way to be 100% certain that our experiences represent real things. We therefore assume the reality of our experiences, only doubting them when they can be justifiably characterized otherwise. Therefore if we doubt a strange experience that is nonetheless indistinguishable from what we consider reality, we must throw out our notion of reality altogether, and our picture of the world falls apart. ]]

lol - happens all the time, with or without transcendental knowledge

That it does. I daresay we may have found some common ground, LG.

 

[lightgigantic]

Crunchy cat

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
An example of a phenomena can be anything from an electron to a glass of water - both of which have formal definitions (at the very least animals don't confuse a bucket of water with a glowing fire brand)
”
And animals probably work without a definition of phenomenoa as well.

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
regarding your statement

IMO, it's much more important to think rationally about information.

Its not clear how rational thought processes can operate without definitions
”
I never made the assertion that it can; however, I'll support that argument anyway. It seems that animals don't confuse a bucket of water with a glowing firebrand without a dictionary.

are you saying that animals are incapabale of communicating to each other or are you saying that communication is dependant on dictionaries?

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
So far you have qualified a hallucination as something that evokes an emmotional response - I am not sure where we would go from here to any serious discussion of the nature of reality since you have just written off over 99% of life experiences
”
What I have communicated was misunderstood then. Hallucination is a subjective experience generated from internal stimulus. Dreams and the overlay from hypnogogia are examples.

The part obout emotion that I have been trying to communicate is that the content of hallucination can be very powerful and people tend to declare their hallucinatory experiences (theists especially) as objective reality strictly based on how it felt. They 'feel' its the truth therefore they make the claim that it is. Emotion is not a verification of truth. Reality is.

therefore an intelligent theist determines their experience by the authority of scripture and saintly persons, much like the theoretical foundations of science are established (established to persons who are not on the platform of direct perception) by science text books and practicing scientists established in direct perception with their field of study

 

[Crunchy Cat]

are you saying that animals are incapabale of communicating to each other or are you saying that communication is dependant on dictionaries?

Neither. I just said that an animals rational thought process can operate without a dictionary.

therefore an intelligent theist determines their experience by the authority of scripture and saintly persons, much like the theoretical foundations of science are established (established to persons who are not on the platform of direct perception) by science text books and practicing scientists established in direct perception with their field of study

In the case of science, scientists aren't really the authority. Reality is. Anything that a scientist does can be tested against reality to verify what they are asserting is true.

In the case of theism, theists lack a coherent authority at the end. 'God' doesn't come out and say if a theistical assertion is really true or not.

 

[lightgigantic]

Crunchy cat

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
are you saying that animals are incapabale of communicating to each other or are you saying that communication is dependant on dictionaries?
”
Neither. I just said that an animals rational thought process can operate without a dictionary.

and doesn't rational thought processes require definitions (with or without a dictionary)?
To get back to your original statement

I don't agree that knowledge of how to define phenomona is really that important. IMO, it's much more important to think rationally about information.

How do you propose that an animal communicates that water is pleasant and that a fire brand is unpleasant without some definition of what these things actually are?

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
therefore an intelligent theist determines their experience by the authority of scripture and saintly persons, much like the theoretical foundations of science are established (established to persons who are not on the platform of direct perception) by science text books and practicing scientists established in direct perception with their field of study

”

In the case of science, scientists aren't really the authority. Reality is.

same in the case of theism - in both cases however reality isn't self evident (the "facts" don't speak for themselves), so uncoveringthe nature of "reality" ultimately leads to discussions of methodology

Anything that a scientist does can be tested against reality to verify what they are asserting is true.

same with a theist - just like its a physicist that checks the nature of physics etc etc

In the case of theism, theists lack a coherent authority at the end. 'God' doesn't come out and say if a theistical assertion is really true or not.

Before I respond to your claim that theism lacks a coherant authority an the end it might pay to elaborate on what you are drawing on to make such a claim.
Given that god establishes the proper performance of religiousity, either personally or through an empowered representative, its not clear what your point is resting on.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Crunchy cat

and doesn't rational thought processes require definitions (with or without a dictionary)?
To get back to your original statement

I don't agree that knowledge of how to define phenomona is really that important. IMO, it's much more important to think rationally about information.

How do you propose that an animal communicates that water is pleasant and that a fire brand is unpleasant without some definition of what these things actually are?

If an animal want's to communicate those ideas then they can probably do it by example and let other animals observe. Yelping at the touch of a firebrand and drinking the water with gusto.

same in the case of theism - in both cases however reality isn't self evident (the "facts" don't speak for themselves), so uncoveringthe nature of "reality" ultimately leads to discussions of methodology

Reality is very self evident. Humans have sensory and spatial limitations; hence, we use inventions, process, and theory to overcome them and gain better visibility.

same with a theist - just like its a physicist that checks the nature of physics etc etc

Thats new news. I guess you have evidence (provided by reality) that 'God' exists, 'Heaven' exists, 'Hell' exists, 'Satan' exists, 'Angels' exist, 'Demons' exist, 'Souls' exist, ... <add whatever fantasy you like> exists.

Before I respond to your claim that theism lacks a coherant authority an the end it might pay to elaborate on what you are drawing on to make such a claim.
Given that god establishes the proper performance of religiousity, either personally or through an empowered representative, its not clear what your point is resting on.

My point is that in theism, man is the only authority for assertions of truth. In science, reality is the only authority for assertions of truth.

 

[lightgigantic]

Crunchy cat

and doesn't rational thought processes require definitions (with or without a dictionary)?
To get back to your original statement

I don't agree that knowledge of how to define phenomona is really that important. IMO, it's much more important to think rationally about information.

How do you propose that an animal communicates that water is pleasant and that a fire brand is unpleasant without some definition of what these things actually are?
”
If an animal want's to communicate those ideas then they can probably do it by example and let other animals observe. Yelping at the touch of a firebrand and drinking the water with gusto.

Even bees can communicate the exact location of nectar bearing flowers to other bees - even though you could argue whether they are communicating through Dance language, Odor plume or Trophallaxis it seems quite obvious that they know what they are talking about (you are right though - apparently they don't have dictionaries)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bee_learning_and_communication

rational thought without defintions doesn't exist, just like a plastic bag blows around aimlessly in the wind because it is not fastened to any reference points

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
same in the case of theism - in both cases however reality isn't self evident (the "facts" don't speak for themselves), so uncoveringthe nature of "reality" ultimately leads to discussions of methodology
”
Reality is very self evident. Humans have sensory and spatial limitations; hence, we use inventions, process, and theory to overcome them and gain better visibility.

Reality is not self evident - like for instance if I say "the water is green" it is not self evident why it is green (maybe there are green rocks on the bottom, maybe there is algae in the water or maybe someone dumped green dye in the water, or maybe I just have green spectacles on etc etc) - in otherwords methodology will reveal the nature of why the water is green

“

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
same with a theist - just like its a physicist that checks the nature of physics etc etc
”
Thats new news. I guess you have evidence (provided by reality) that 'God' exists, 'Heaven' exists, 'Hell' exists, 'Satan' exists, 'Angels' exist, 'Demons' exist, 'Souls' exist, ... exists.

just like a physicist has evidence that electrons exist - electrons certainly don't appear to exist according to the views of a high school drop out who perceives all scientists as egg heads and all science text books as full of rubbish.

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Before I respond to your claim that theism lacks a coherant authority an the end it might pay to elaborate on what you are drawing on to make such a claim.
Given that god establishes the proper performance of religiousity, either personally or through an empowered representative, its not clear what your point is resting on.
”
My point is that in theism, man is the only authority for assertions of truth. In science, reality is the only authority for assertions of truth.

If that is the case with science why does the knowledge change all the time.

Like for instance at one stage hawkins declared that no information can escape a black hole - then later on he changed his views to declare the opposite was in fact true - did reality change, or did a man change his views on reality?