Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Karpel Tunnel]

Yes, but how do we deal with the problem of other minds? Communication. Our descriptions are even more sketchy than our senses, but they do provide plenty, which is why humans are so obsessed with it ... as we are doing now! What does the world look like through your eyes? asks one, and the other might ask the same question.

So afterwards I Googled the characteristics of the experience and found a striking similarity with others who'd enjoyed peak experiences. Bliss, a sense of unconditional love, and so forth. So there is a commonality. If it was just one other person describing the same experiences then that would be more open to question than many thousands.

But you did not whave the experience that God was present. Further those descriptions are very generalized. A word like bliss, what does that mean in terms of the actually sujective experience - really really nice feelings.

There remains mental opacity but it seems that, at emotional extremities - be it joy or suffering - we feel more similarly, and not just with other humans.

We certainly use the same kinds of words.

Being hunted by a tiger would be much the same experience for a human, deer, pig or large lizard, and the experience of being caught and eaten would probably be almost identical. Less disturbingly, I imagine that ultimate bliss is also similar.

You just compared a situation with a realy entity causing the feeling to one where you think there is no entity. And then you based a conclusion on precisely the same kind of guess you are making about other minds, now doing it with animals. I am sure you've heard of Nagels bat essay.

Yes. They were the first scientists of the internal dynamics of consciousness - observing, repeating, recording and communicating.

Some people are so inclined. Again, that is temperament. I have always been curious, a bit of a psychonaut, which I think started with a fascination about the way my mind would blank out in dangerous situations and wondered what went through my mind during those situations. My experiments and observations were successful - what went through my mind was "I can't believe it!"

Others, as you say, have taken those investigations rather further, as they had the opportunity and the nature tendencies to do so.

Right but it's different.

Fair point, although the former appears to be far more common than the latter, perhaps in the same way as novice painters are more common than masters. However, I think one can infer based on conduct whether a theist is of the type that simply took the opportunity to believe or whether the believer is a serious explorer.

Now consider these serious explorations, with "long term apprentice processes, with discipline and having experiences that are repeatable, predictive, mutual and useful". Explorers of the outside world - scientists - have done the same thing.

Yet is there a single scientist whom, if they claimed 100% that there was or was not any kind of existent or potential god (not just Santa for Grownups), we would consider credible in making that claim? Of course not! The boffins have been proving each other wrong for centuries - once the universe was a dome within the celestial clockworks with Earth at the centre. Then we found out about the Sun, then the Milky Way, then that the Milky Way was not alone, and so forth.

So why take grand claims about God or gods more seriously when coming from scientifically-minded mystics and psychonauts? Like scientists, they can make many useful and important discoveries, but they are just as fallible.

I am not arguing that you should or any agnostic or atheist should believe the conclusions theists reached about their experiences. I am arguing that when someone says 'I had the same experience but did not reach the same conclusion' we should not believe that either.

I am not telling you you should believe. I am telling you that I am skeptical that you can know you had the same experiences.

See the difference. I am not focused on convincing anyone that theists are correct. I am focused on YOUR claim. Not their claims.

I notice this pattern in a lot of discussions around God. If someone makes an argument against a specific claim made by an atheist or agnostic it is often taken as if it is an argument for the existence of God, rather than an argument against a specfic claim made by the atheist or agnostic.

[Sy Borg]

Yes, but how do we deal with the problem of other minds? Communication. Our descriptions are even more sketchy than our senses, but they do provide plenty, which is why humans are so obsessed with it ... as we are doing now! What does the world look like through your eyes? asks one, and the other might ask the same question.

So afterwards I Googled the characteristics of the experience and found a striking similarity with others who'd enjoyed peak experiences. Bliss, a sense of unconditional love, and so forth. So there is a commonality. If it was just one other person describing the same experiences then that would be more open to question than many thousands.

But you did not whave the experience that God was present. Further those descriptions are very generalized. A word like bliss, what does that mean in terms of the actually sujective experience - really really nice feelings.

Actually, the feelings completely outdid the great joys I've had in life with love, sex, marriage, children, gigging, divorce, retirement and financial freedom. What I felt at that time utterly dwarfed any "really, really nice feelings" I'd experienced in real life for all those decades beforehand. Since you didn't experience it I wouldn't expect that to mean much to you. Beforehand I too would have surely dismissed such talk. I am a little less cynical now.

Being hunted by a tiger would be much the same experience for a human, deer, pig or large lizard, and the experience of being caught and eaten would probably be almost identical. Less disturbingly, I imagine that ultimate bliss is also similar.

You just compared a situation with a realy entity causing the feeling to one where you think there is no entity. And then you based a conclusion on precisely the same kind of guess you are making about other minds, now doing it with animals. I am sure you've heard of Nagels bat essay.

One can only infer, but it's better than nothing. All I'm doing is noticing that the extremities of feeling - joy and horror - are much the same for every chordate while the more everyday sensations between species seem much more variant. This is made fairly clear via behavioural cues. That is just nature - most of the complexity and exotic difference happens at the mean, while the extremes are relatively homogeneous.

Try it - with anything. How about politics? Extremists of all stripes are just fascists. Wealth? The very rich and the very poor in any given nation are more similar to one another than the different middle classes, where individual culture is expressed more. Music? Extremely loud or extremely soft music of whatever genre will make a more similar impression than the different musics less close to those extremes. Physics? Extreme objects like black holes and stars are much more similar to each other, mostly defined by mass, than planets, where mass can be similar but the objects themselves wildly different.

I am not arguing that you should or any agnostic or atheist should believe the conclusions theists reached about their experiences. I am arguing that when someone says 'I had the same experience but did not reach the same conclusion' we should not believe that either.

I am not telling you you should believe. I am telling you that I am skeptical that you can know you had the same experiences.

What else should one infer if numerous others' descriptions of their experiences sound surprisingly similar to yours? I am skeptical about almost everything myself but if we cannot step back and be skeptical about our own skepticism then we just end up being another kind of believer. It went against the grain for me to wax mystical because I almost always argue from the atheistic side, but I'm not much interested in denying something extremely interesting because it runs against certain conventions.

[Felix]

I've had experiences similar to what Greta described, and they were totally unlike any physical pleasure, felt more like I had no body at all. Matter of fact, probably the most dramatic experience of this sort happened in the company of a so-called spiritual healer (that was actually his occupation, although he seemed reluctant to charge people for his services). If I was more credulous, I probably would have been quite willing to put him on a guru pedestal, but the idea seemed blasphemous to me.

[Sy Borg]

Your situation would have surprised me even more than mine did, Felix. I would have been shocked that someone claiming to be a spiritual healer was not a faker, that they actually knew how to leverage [whatever] to induce these experiences. If that's what it does, it certainly would be healing. People tend to be happier than before after peak experiences.

[Felix]

Yes, Greta, I was dumbfounded by it. Don't recall why I had a session with the guy, think I was stressed out at the time about college and work. And I didn't expect much from it 'cause like you said, these people usually turn out to be charlatans, well meaning or otherwise.

He had his customer lay down on a massage table and he would sit in a chair a few feet away and meditate, at least it looked like that's was what he was doing. Whatever he tuned into seemed to be contagious in some way, produced a major shift in my consciousness that lasted for hours. He was very successful at helping people overcome addictions. I could see why. After a taste of that elixir, a person would lose all interest in mundane forms of inebriation. Plus he didn't have any religious rap, said he was a follower of Sri Aurobindo/the Mother but I don't know how or even if that was connected with his healing work.

[Eduk]

Out of interest Felix. To date many 'gurus' or 'healers' have been tested for efficacy in peer reviewed double blinded studies. To date no reputable study has shown any effect from any self proclaimed 'healer', and even the 'dodgy' studies which sometimes do show an effect show an extremely small effect (basically noise).
At the same time there have been a multitude of studies which have shown the power of the human mind to deceive itself (in a huge number of ways). After all, science double blinds exactly because if it didn't then the failings of the human mind would render any data highly suspect.
So I was wondering, given no empirical evidence in support of 'gurus', given no prior plausibility of 'gurus', given no logical mechanism of 'gurus' and given the huge amount of empirical evidence, prior plausibility and mechanism to support self deception, how sure are you of your personal experience versus the scientific method? Where the scientific method is short hand for everything we know which does actually work and is responsible for more or less everything you interact with on a day to day basis.
I mean I get it. You know what you experienced. No one can take that away from you. I was just wondering how sure you of your conclusion given the known failings of the human mind? To put it another way how much neurological humility do you feel is appropriate?

[Felix]

To date no reputable study has shown any effect from any self proclaimed 'healer', and even the 'dodgy' studies which sometimes do show an effect show an extremely small effect (basically noise).

Well, I don't see you could confirm healing effects on humans. I know there have been reputable studies that have shown that some people's bioenergy field, or whatever it is, can stimulate or stunt the growth of plants or cell cultures in laboratories, so I would imagine something similar can occur in humans.

You know what you experienced. No one can take that away from you. I was just wondering how sure you of your conclusion given the known failings of the human mind? To put it another way how much neurological humility do you feel is appropriate?

That's a fair question, however, I knew nothing about this guy and had zero expectations about him at the time. But what I experienced was beyond anything I could possibly imagine, it was really ineffable. It was so dramatic that it would be like asking me after I had been knocked unconscious by a blow to the head if I had only imagined that it had happened.

[Eduk]

Well, I don't see you could confirm healing effects on humans.

Don't quite get this. You can measure if they have got better? Like for example do they still have cancer, is the arm still fractured etc.

I know there have been reputable studies that have shown that some people's bioenergy field, or whatever it is, can stimulate or stunt the growth of plants or cell cultures in laboratories, so I would imagine something similar can occur in humans.

I don't think 'bioenergy field' is something which is recognised in mainstream medicine (unless you can link otherwise?). So I very much doubt the veracity of the claim and the conclusion you draw doesn't seem to follow a logical progression to me. If such a thing did work then it would be testable and it was testable it would be provable.

But what I experienced was beyond anything I could possibly imagine, it was really ineffable. It was so dramatic that it would be like asking me after I had been knocked unconscious by a blow to the head if I had only imagined that it had happened.

We all 'know' that the testimony of bystanders is highly inaccurate but we all 'think' that it surely doesn't apply to us (only everyone else).

[Felix]

I said: "I don't see you could confirm healing effects on humans."

Eduk: "Don't quite get this. You can measure if they have got better? Like for example do they still have cancer, is the arm still fractured etc."

I was responding to this statement you made: "To date no reputable study has shown any effect from any self proclaimed 'healer', and even the 'dodgy' studies which sometimes do show an effect show an extremely small effect (basically noise)."

Your statement above was vague, and likely to be false - unless you have read every single scientific study ever published on the effects of nonphysical healing modalities. My guess is you have not.

Eduk: "If such a thing did work then it would be testable and it was testable it would be provable."

I know that double-blind studies have been done on nonphysical healing practices/practitioners but unlike you I am not familiar with every such study ever published.

Eduk: "We all 'know' that the testimony of bystanders is highly inaccurate but we all 'think' that it surely doesn't apply to us (only everyone else)."

Not sure what you're suggesting, obviously my experience was subjective, I neither expect nor care if anyone else accepts it. For what it's worth, I am not a suggestible person, on two occasions, professionally trained therapists have attempted to hypnotize me and failed.

[ThomasHobbes]

To date no reputable study has shown any effect from any self proclaimed 'healer', and even the 'dodgy' studies which sometimes do show an effect show an extremely small effect (basically noise).

Well, I don't see you could confirm healing effects on humans. I know there have been reputable studies that have shown that some people's bioenergy field,

Complete rubbish. No such study exists.

It is a simply fact that all non-chronic diseases spontaneously remit due to normal bodily processes. "Healers" what ever the hell they are might claim to have made a difference, but as yet 'snake oil" is still rubbish.

[Eduk]

I don't need to have read every study ever printed to be reasonably sure that healing with typical alternate medicine such as 'spiritual healing' or 'bioenergy' or the like hasn't been proven effacious.
For one I have read many meta studies which all conclude such practices have no effect.
And for two if a study like that had been printed then it wouldn't be called alternate medicine it would be called medicine. James Randi would have paid someone a million dollars. The science community would be amazed and overjoyed at the new science and unless I was living under a rock I would have heard of it.
You can easily prove me wrong by linking one non contentious study. I will happily admit to being wrong.
Hypnotism is interesting. You accuse me of vagueness, and I do believe you have a point, but such is the nature of these things that it is almost impossible not to be vague. For example define hypnosis. To my knowledge it has no good definition. And as such is notoriously hard to test or say what it actually is.
Again though your claims of profundity are likewise terribly vague. I have no way to test your claim. If you had achieved something otherwise impossible I would be inclined to regard that as evidence but your great profound experience seems to have had no effect on you (from my perspective). When faced with the choice of likely explanations my bet would be on the natural rather than bioenergy. Whatever bioenergy is.

[Felix]

Eduk: And for two if a study like that had been printed then it wouldn't be called alternate medicine it would be called medicine.

No, "alternative" just means not approved by the medical establishment. For a therapy to be accepted by the medical establishment it must be understood well enough to be taught and applied and consistently produce visible results upon demand, which is why the trend in modern psychiatry has been more towards dispensing drugs (e.g., antidepressants) rather than psychological/behavioural therapy. The result has been more prescription drug dependency and the health problems associated with it, including premature death from drug overdoses, than at any time in human history.

James Randi would have paid someone a million dollars.

How does he fit in, do you consider a stage magician a reputable authority on the efficacy of alternative therapies?

For example define hypnosis. To my knowledge it has no good definition

Your knowledge about these matters is obviously deficient. The AMA & APA defined clearly what hypnosis is before they approved the practice of it decades ago.

Again though your claims of profundity are likewise terribly vague. I have no way to test your claim.

Like I said, I'm not looking for converts, just file it away as an amusing anecdote. Presumably it was a natural and not a supernatural event, "bionergy" was just a term that occurred to me.

[Eduk]

It is interesting that when you google AMA and hypnosis the first two sites are one from the AMA which says

The American Medical Association (AMA) is concerned that many individuals using hypnosis may may be making the inaccurate statement that hypnosis is approved by the AMA as a legitimate therapy for medical or psychological purposes. The AMA has a current position that this statement is inaccurate and refers to a 1958 Council on Mental Health report that was rescinded by the AMA in 1987.

and the second is from the 'wellness' institute which says

The American Medical Association followed suit in 1958, answering the question “Does hypnotherapy work?” for medical professionals in the United States. In that year, the AMA published a short report it had commissioned, which read:

“Hypnosis has a recognized place in the medical armamentarium and is a useful technique in the treatment of certain illnesses when employed by qualified medical and dental personnel.”

This was a major step for the AMA; by publishing the report, it recognized hypnotherapy as an orthodox medical treatment — rather than one relegated to the realm of alternative or holistic medicine.

Also I can't easily find the AMA's definition of hypnosis, could you provide a link? Or were you just assuming that they had one?

This is where I get much of my medical information

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/hypnot ... onditions/

A view which is shared (surprisingly) by

https://www.adam-eason.com/defining-hyp ... -hypnosis/

Of course if you know better could you provide a link rather than just saying that you know better. I can say I know better all day long and no one would have learned anything.

which is why the trend in modern psychiatry has been more towards dispensing drugs (e.g., antidepressants) rather than psychological/behavioural therapy. The result has been more prescription drug dependency and the health problems associated with it, including premature death from drug overdoses, than at any time in human history.

This is my point really. Let us imagine two scenarios.
1. A person claims to have had an ineffable, consciousness raising, profound experience of great value and worth. They are incredibly humble, responsible, respectful, honest and fair. They talk informatively about a range of subjects while recognising their own limitations.
2. A person claims the same experience. They are incredibly arrogant, lazy, superficial and unreasonable. They argue informatively and don't respect their own limitations.
Now for my money person 1 makes a stronger claim than person 2.

[Sy Borg]

Out of interest Felix. To date many 'gurus' or 'healers' have been tested for efficacy in peer reviewed double blinded studies. To date no reputable study has shown any effect from any self proclaimed 'healer', and even the 'dodgy' studies which sometimes do show an effect show an extremely small effect (basically noise).
At the same time there have been a multitude of studies which have shown the power of the human mind to deceive itself (in a huge number of ways). After all, science double blinds exactly because if it didn't then the failings of the human mind would render any data highly suspect.

... I mean I get it. You know what you experienced. No one can take that away from you. I was just wondering how sure you of your conclusion given the known failings of the human mind? To put it another way how much neurological humility do you feel is appropriate?

Duk, it appears that you "got it" and then let it escape again.

The fact was that someone, by whatever means, induced a peak experience in a person with a normally cynical viewpoint. I don't think that "the power of the human mind to deceive itself" covers this situation. It might do if Felix claimed that he'd spoken to God and had been cured of all ailings, but not if he said he had a peak experience.

By the same token, lab tests aren't ideal for testing potential phenomena or dynamics that will be actively discouraged by the lab environment and awareness of being tested.

I am currently trying to write sci fi stories. If I was put in a laboratory with testing machines stuck on my head and told to think of story ideas, I expect the only idea I'd have would be for a dystopian future where people's brain activity was tested in laboratories and if deemed unsatisfactory the subject would be executed as a potential dissident and malcontent. The brain activity signature they'd be looking or would be joy and love for Big Brother ...

[Eduk]

The fact was that someone, by whatever means, induced a peak experience in a person with a normally cynical viewpoint. I don't "the power of the human mind to deceive itself" is the right response here. It might be if Felix was claiming that he'd spoken to God and had been instantly healed of all problems but not if he said had a peak experience.

Well you are assuming a lot there. Personally I prefer to be realistic.
1. A claim was made that someone (doesn't matter who, or the circumstances) had a peak experience.
2. It was then claimed that this was a profound and worthy experience (correct me if I am wrong as I forget the exact wording).
3. Another claim was made that this proved (or even suggested) some woo. Woo for those unfamiliar means made up stuff like (insert whatever stuff that you know is made up here).

1. I don't know what a peak experience is. I mean not really. For example my definition of peak experience would include a feeling of profundity while having no profundity so clearly my definition is at odds with 2.
2. Prove it. Define it. Demonstrate the worth. Don't just tell me it was worthy, that has no value to me at all. Many people claim many many things to be of worth which I absolutely know aren't. Show me what is unique.
3. This doesn't follow from the first two claims, especially if point 2 is false.