Another Mopologist Bites The Dust, Bryce Haymond Edition

[Lem]

If only there was a clear explanation like differentiating types of trees for mystical experiences. I didn't just limit the response to all from the person. I said a good part to all. I gave the example of Muslims and Mormons to say that they are taught to recognize things in their own text and religion then they would in other texts or religions. The fact people respond to what they are taught is good evidence the body/mind is playing a good part in the response. Maybe even the whole part.

People recognizing what they are taught is a significant element in the persistence of the supernatural beliefs. Especially, when the immaterial can be explained only within cultural or familial lines, while science can replicate its material findings across ALL cultural and familial lines, it becomes obvious why material findings are a stronger predictor of cause than immaterial ‘experiences.’

[Themis]

I don't agree that it is more rational. A world view that relies on the pleonastic fallacy and questionable a priori assumptions is not really more rational. It is an ideology, really, one that is based on a narrow positivism. A lot of things have combined to vault this hard materialism to the peak of intellectual fashion, but its a priori assumptions are open to criticism. It amounts to declaring a set of rules that preclude the possibility of the competition's methods from consideration at the outset. Since only the material exists, then the immaterial is not to be considered. Heads I win, tails you lose.

Having said that, I fully grant that I live and operate in a world dominated by that ideology, and my own work basically sticks to its rules. I won't waste any time trying to refine the theology of Plotinus, for example. But I don't think modern materialists have a very compelling story to tell about why there is existence. They have a better story to tell about the material that results after existence is (metaphorically speaking).

Most if not everyone will agree that the body/mind is playing a role. One in which we have good evidence of. When we get to extraordinary claims of something going on outside of that we have a lack of evidence. That doesn't mean something cannot be going on, but a lack of evidence is not a great position to be in. Vague claims of a being that doesn't exist can never be dis-proven, and when there are so many vague claims about the universe mystical experiences people think are teaching them it doesn't seem wise to go with any of them. Maybe not even your own interpretations. There are too many interpretations I get from the very predictable senses I can get wrong.

As PG brought up all experience happens in the brain as it creates an image of what we perceive as reality. The five senses have very good records of consistency. The experience of trying to phase through a brick wall always has the same result no matter how many times we try. The mystical experience tends to be all over the place on what people think they have learned about the universe, and little to no predictability that we have with other senses that create what we perceive as reality. Little predictability seems a little less useful even though it can still be quite valuable to us. Scientific inquiry may not be very interesting for many, but it has given us mountains of useful information and predictability about the universe. Understanding the ins and outs how the spiritual experience works in my opinion would not lessen the value of having the experience, even if we find it is just coming from the body.

In any case, I don't agree that people who recognize what they are trained to recognize are merely manufacturing experiences in their brains and bodies. That's not necessarily true. They are not manufacturing experiences anymore than the expert on trees is manufacturing kinds of trees.

There is a huge difference in that the expert on trees has mountains of evidence for any non-expert to evaluate. The experience could be coming from some other source, but that belief lacks evidence. We can also manufacture some of these experiences in people who are not looking for them. That may not preclude something on the outside going on, but those beliefs atm are in the same boat as beliefs in a non-existent being we can never disprove.

[Themis]

People recognizing what they are taught is a significant element in the persistence of the supernatural beliefs. Especially, when the immaterial can be explained only within cultural or familial lines, while science can replicate its material findings across ALL cultural and familial lines, it becomes obvious why material findings are a stronger predictor of cause than immaterial ‘experiences.’

The interpretations of spiritual/mystical experiences are all over the place except within those familial lines. The experiences are highly subjective, so if we should be a little skeptical of interpretations we get from more objective senses like sight and sound because we know we get them wrong sometimes, we should be far more skeptical of our interpretations of highly subjective mystical experiences. Most people unfortunately don't think this way. This is why we will most likely not fully eradicate Covid 19 due to lack of skeptical and rational thinking.

[Kishkumen]

Most if not everyone will agree that the body/mind is playing a role.

Yes, indeed! Playing a role. Of course, these days it is more often given either the starring role or the exclusive role.

One in which we have good evidence of. When we get to extraordinary claims of something going on outside of that we have a lack of evidence.

I don't go in for the "extraordinary claims" business. For one thing, we are not talking about gold plates, angels, healing miracles, or anything of the sort. The question at hand is whether there is or is not some sort of absolute reality upon which all other things are contingent. The details of any system's specific claims and everyday beliefs about miracles, etc., are not an issue I am interested in hashing out. There is nothing about the logical argument in favor of such an absolute reality, which seems to be supported by the experiences of mystics, that necessarily entails believing in religious claims as they are commonly understood.

I don't agree that we have a lack of evidence. We have plentiful evidence of a subjective kind, because our mind is the instrument that is capable of collecting the simple datum of the existence of this absolute reality. It does so through mystical experience and philosophical argument. It may be that his does not satisfy people who insist that the only evidence that counts is that which fits their particular materialist paradigm, but I would not agree that there is *no* evidence or even a lack of it. What we lack is evidence that meets the demands of a positivistic, materialist paradigm.

That doesn't mean something cannot be going on, but a lack of evidence is not a great position to be in. Vague claims of a being that doesn't exist can never be dis-proven, and when there are so many vague claims about the universe mystical experiences people think are teaching them it doesn't seem wise to go with any of them. Maybe not even your own interpretations. There are too many interpretations I get from the very predictable senses I can get wrong.

I don't see that the claims are vague at all. What is true is that in common parlance people tend to bundle the word mysticism and vague out of linguistic habit and cultural prejudice. Abstruse, yes. Vague, not really. There are a number of disadvantages that classical theism has. One of the chief ones is that it is very difficult for the average person to access either the experience of the absolute reality or to develop the ability to discuss such a reality in a methodical and fruitful way.

One of the reasons that the Christian creeds are troublesome is that people haven't the foggiest clue what is behind them or where they are coming from. Most people will not develop the philosophical chops to deal with them. Most people will not engage in the discipline of life necessary to experience the related mystical phenomena.

As PG brought up all experience happens in the brain as it creates an image of what we perceive as reality. The five senses have very good records of consistency. The experience of trying to phase through a brick wall always has the same result no matter how many times we try. The mystical experience tends to be all over the place on what people think they have learned about the universe, and little to no predictability that we have with other senses that create what we perceive as reality. Little predictability seems a little less useful even though it can still be quite valuable to us. Scientific inquiry may not be very interesting for many, but it has given us mountains of useful information and predictability about the universe. Understanding the ins and outs how the spiritual experience works in my opinion would not lessen the value of having the experience, even if we find it is just coming from the body.

I don't agree that the mystical experience tends to be all over the place. The major classical theistic positions are remarkably consistent on certain things, and the experiences of mystics remarkably similar. What is true is that they are often described according to the particularities of a given culture. That may make them seem "all over the place," but I think there are important continuities underlying those differences. It may be incoherent to approach the mystical path from a hodgepodge methods, as Aristotle Smith has written in this thread, but I don't believe the resulting experience of going down one path is of something completely different from mystics in all other traditions.

There is a huge difference in that the expert on trees has mountains of evidence for any non-expert to evaluate. The experience could be coming from some other source, but that belief lacks evidence. We can also manufacture some of these experiences in people who are not looking for them. That may not preclude something on the outside going on, but those beliefs atm are in the same boat as beliefs in a non-existent being we can never disprove.

All you are doing is denying the value of an analogy from a material situation for an immaterial one.

[Lem]

People recognizing what they are taught is a significant element in the persistence of the supernatural beliefs. Especially, when the immaterial can be explained only within cultural or familial lines, while science can replicate its material findings across ALL cultural and familial lines, it becomes obvious why material findings are a stronger predictor of cause than immaterial ‘experiences.’

The interpretations of spiritual/mystical experiences are all over the place except within those familial lines. The experiences are highly subjective, so if we should be a little skeptical of interpretations we get from more objective senses like sight and sound because we know we get them wrong sometimes, we should be far more skeptical of our interpretations of highly subjective mystical experiences. Most people unfortunately don't think this way. This is why we will most likely not fully eradicate Covid 19 due to lack of skeptical and rational thinking.

I agree. It's unfortunate that 'skeptical and rational thinking', as you put it, are still so rare.

[Themis]

Yes, indeed! Playing a role. Of course, these days it is more often given either the starring role or the exclusive role.

Shouldn't be surprising when it is the only one we see at the party.

I don't go in for the "extraordinary claims" business. For one thing, we are not talking about gold plates, angels, healing miracles, or anything of the sort.

They are part of the extraordinary claims. Joseph Smith claimed through spiritual/mystical experiences to converse with angels and learn about and where gold plates were hidden. The claim something else is going on outside of the body is not an ordinary claim. Saying I saw a ghost of a dead person is not an ordinary claim even if most people believe it can happen. Saying I saw a rabbit is an ordinary claim.

I don't agree that we have a lack of evidence. We have plentiful evidence of a subjective kind, because our mind is the instrument that is capable of collecting the simple datum of the existence of this absolute reality. It does so through mystical experience and philosophical argument. It may be that his does not satisfy people who insist that the only evidence that counts is that which fits their particular materialist paradigm, but I would not agree that there is *no* evidence or even a lack of it. What we lack is evidence that meets the demands of a positivistic, materialist paradigm.

It's a lack of good evidence. Even a mystic may not believe another mystics claims. Especially if it does not fit their belief/understanding about the universe. That skepticism is because they don't have good evidence to accept another mystical claims.

I don't see that the claims are vague at all. What is true is that in common parlance people tend to bundle the word mysticism and vague out of linguistic habit and cultural prejudice. Abstruse, yes. Vague, not really.

If it lacks sufficient detail such that if it is untrue no amount of evidence will ever disprove it.

I don't agree that the mystical experience tends to be all over the place. The major classical theistic positions are remarkably consistent on certain things, and the experiences of mystics remarkably similar. What is true is that they are often described according to the particularities of a given culture. That may make them seem "all over the place," but I think there are important continuities underlying those differences. It may be incoherent to approach the mystical path from a hodgepodge methods, as Aristotle Smith has written in this thread, but I don't believe the resulting experience of going down one path is of something completely different from mystics in all other traditions.

It reminds me of reading about Joseph's possible use of psychedelics in the sacrament wine. Joseph did seem very good at guiding people in the mystical/spiritual experience to interpret them the way he wanted. Not that every time involved the use of drugs. When it comes to the spiritual/mystical experience I also see continuities, but I would expect that even if the experience is just all in our heads.

All you are doing is denying the value of an analogy from a material situation for an immaterial one.

Sorry it wasn't a good analogy. The biggest problem of the immaterial claims is one cannot provide good evidence their claims are true, while the other has lots.

[Kishkumen]

Shouldn't be surprising when it is the only one we see at the party.

But it isn't. People have mystical experiences.

They are part of the extraordinary claims. Joseph Smith claimed through spiritual/mystical experiences to converse with angels and learn about and where gold plates were hidden. The claim something else is going on outside of the body is not an ordinary claim. Saying I saw a ghost of a dead person is not an ordinary claim even if most people believe it can happen. Saying I saw a rabbit is an ordinary claim.

Lots of things are going on outside of the body. How we learn to interpret them is another thing that goes on outside of the body. The body interfaces with "outside the body" all the time. Mystical experiences may be just another thing that involves what goes on outside of the body. I understand that people object because one can't see a mystical experience when another person has claimed to have one.

Ultimately, I think what we are talking about is the significance a person chooses to place on these experiences. Anti-supernaturalists are adamant that such experiences are insignificant and only products of the body. Religious people think they reflect a higher reality. I don't think that their conclusions are irrational or impossible. I don't guide my life by their claims, but I am not enamored of the insistence that such things *can only be* products of the body.

It's a lack of good evidence. Even a mystic may not believe another mystics claims. Especially if it does not fit their belief/understanding about the universe. That skepticism is because they don't have good evidence to accept another mystical claims.

What do you mean by mystics not believing other mystics' claims? Claims that the experience happened? Or claims connected to their interpretation of the experience? I think the latter is more the case. A mystic will understand that mystical experiences happen because they have experienced such themselves. What they will differ with other mystics on is the interpretation of the experience.

If it lacks sufficient detail such that if it is untrue no amount of evidence will ever disprove it.

How many mystical accounts have you read? How much mystical material are you familiar with? There is a fair amount of evidence supporting the occurrence of these things, and that there is a fair amount of continuity in them, even between different traditions. It seems to me that the evidence is not really ambiguous there. The issue is one of interpretation, not evidence. You can adopt a worldview in which those things are discounted a priori, but that is really a matter of choice in interpretation, not really a lack of evidence.

It reminds me of reading about Joseph's possible use of psychedelics in the sacrament wine. Joseph did seem very good at guiding people in the mystical/spiritual experience to interpret them the way he wanted. Not that every time involved the use of drugs. When it comes to the spiritual/mystical experience I also see continuities, but I would expect that even if the experience is just all in our heads.

I am not aware that Joseph Smith had a mystical experience of the kind I am talking about. We need to establish what it is we are discussing. I understand that this is "DiscussMormonism.com" and that we are here primarily to talk about Mormonism, so it is my responsibility to signal when I am veering off of that topic. So, let me do better right now. I am talking about mystical experiences in a more technical sense, not just "visionary experience of supernatural stuff." I am talking about the kind of experience of ultimate reality that Platonists, Christians, and monks and holy men in eastern traditions have sought and attained.

Sorry it wasn't a good analogy. The biggest problem of the immaterial claims is one cannot provide good evidence their claims are true, while the other has lots.

I can see it didn't work for you, so in that regard it didn't do the job, but it is a perfectly serviceable analogy. The evidence that mystical experiences happen is the many accounts of mystical experiences across the globe. Evidence doesn't become non-evidence because you decide to define it out of consideration.

[Themis]

Shouldn't be surprising when it is the only one we see at the party.

But it isn't. People have mystical experiences.

Which is what I said. Most if not all agree the body is seen at the party, but other factors outside the body are not seen by many, so it should not be surprising the one everyone can see is the star at the party.

Lots of things are going on outside of the body. How we learn to interpret them is another thing that goes on outside of the body. The body interfaces with "outside the body" all the time. Mystical experiences may be just another thing that involves what goes on outside of the body. I understand that people object because one can't see a mystical experience when another person has claimed to have one.

Many things going on outside the body can be verified, but many experiences including mystical ones haven't.

Ultimately, I think what we are talking about is the significance a person chooses to place on these experiences. Anti-supernaturalists are adamant that such experiences are insignificant and only products of the body. Religious people think they reflect a higher reality. I don't think that their conclusions are irrational or impossible. I don't guide my life by their claims, but I am not enamored of the insistence that such things *can only be* products of the body.

I remember reading about astral projecting, which fits within the broad category of spiritual/mystical experiences. Essentially there is two camps of people. One that accepts the experience as all in the mind, but finds value in the experience. The other believes they are actually leaving their bodies. One thing about these claims of leaving the body is it there can be ways to verify one actually left their body. So far I am not aware it has been verified. Just as out of body experiences have not shown knowledge suggesting one was floating outside of their body. I believe there have even been a few studies done.

What do you mean by mystics not believing other mystics' claims? Claims that the experience happened? Or claims connected to their interpretation of the experience? I think the latter is more the case. A mystic will understand that mystical experiences happen because they have experienced such themselves. What they will differ with other mystics on is the interpretation of the experience.

Yes the ladder.

How many mystical accounts have you read? How much mystical material are you familiar with? There is a fair amount of evidence supporting the occurrence of these things, and that there is a fair amount of continuity in them, even between different traditions. It seems to me that the evidence is not really ambiguous there. The issue is one of interpretation, not evidence. You can adopt a worldview in which those things are discounted a priori, but that is really a matter of choice in interpretation, not really a lack of evidence.

If you know of any good evidence feel free to share. When I say lacking detail, it is in relation to it not being details that can ever be proven wrong. Even if the claims are false.

I am not aware that Joseph Smith had a mystical experience of the kind I am talking about. We need to establish what it is we are discussing. I understand that this is "DiscussMormonism.com" and that we are here primarily to talk about Mormonism, so it is my responsibility to signal when I am veering off of that topic. So, let me do better right now. I am talking about mystical experiences in a more technical sense, not just "visionary experience of supernatural stuff." I am talking about the kind of experience of ultimate reality that Platonists, Christians, and monks and holy men in eastern traditions have sought and attained.

That is just part of the bigger whole of spiritual/mystical experiences. I brought up a while ago having similar types of experience of feeling like I knew something was correct. It just felt so right, so true, yet when I awoke I knew it made no sense.

The evidence that mystical experiences happen is the many accounts of mystical experiences across the globe. Evidence doesn't become non-evidence because you decide to define it out of consideration.

It's good evidence that the experience probably happened. Not what they think learned. Doesn't mean they are wrong.

[Kishkumen]

Thanks for the conversation, Themis. I am talking about a narrower subset of experiences than you are, not anything that is popularly thought of as visionary, supernatural, or mystical. My point is that it is possible to exclude evidence of mystical experiences precisely because materialists tend to define evidence in such a way as to exclude these things. It is all a matter of foundational assumptions. I can try to use my radio to tune into tv stations, but I will doubtless never watch tv on my radio. If I rant that there can be no such thing as a tv because my radio does not show me moving pictures, then I think we know where the problem is.

[Themis]

Thanks for the conversation, Themis. I am talking about a narrower subset of experiences than you are, not anything that is popularly thought of as visionary, supernatural, or mystical.

Reminds of Mormons doing the same for their experiences, yet providing nothing to think they are really different or superior.

My point is that it is possible to exclude evidence of mystical experiences precisely because materialists tend to define evidence in such a way as to exclude these things.

An interesting claim, but I have not seen anyone provide that definition, or another definition that would be provide good reasons think something is coming from some other source outside the body. Especially since you seem to think certain spiritual experiences don't count, but some small subset does or is superior. What about this subset makes it superior?

It is all a matter of foundational assumptions. I can try to use my radio to tune into tv stations, but I will doubtless never watch tv on my radio. If I rant that there can be no such thing as a tv because my radio does not show me moving pictures, then I think we know where the problem is.

The problem is this can be used for any claim you want. It's another poor analogy because if someone created a TV then they can easily show it to anyone and how it works. No need to have faith. If someone has figured out how to access some new experience or information then they should be able to share maybe how, and maybe provide new information that shows to be accurate. It really doesn't seem much different than my own experiences in dreaming and feelings of knowing, understanding, etc.

The five senses we have mountains of reasons to think they are receiving stimuli from outside the body. Maybe that is all wrong, but we have great reasons to not think that. Maybe my dreams are accessing stimuli outside the body, but I don't have good reasons to think so. Perhaps people can leave their bodies, but I wonder why they never bring back useful information to reasonably think they were leaving their bodies. All the rest, including your subset of experiences have the same problem. In some ways that subset may be worse. It seems to be based more on feelings then visions and such.

the real question is what about the experience makes it reasonable to believe some part is coming from outside the body? Millions of people believe they have been abducted by aliens, but a more reasonable explanation is a dream state most people don't experience. Thinking about radio waves, at one time no one knew they existed. When someone finally discovered them, they didn't say just believe me. They showed how. They also had to show in ways that did not directly involve seeing, hearing, touching, tasting, smelling, or feeling them. I understand there is lots of reality out their my body cannot perceive, or like radios waves, have not been discovered in other ways.