Perennial philosophy - Atheism and Theism are DEAD

198 posts / 0 new
Last post
Ivinski Borokove's picture
"leader of the research

"leader of the research himself taking the time to define "mystical experience"

The defintion is decided by the meaning of the words in the dictionary, not the subjective whims of a person.

Therfore;:

Mystical experience can(and is) defined as:

The process of doing and seeing things and of having things happen to you of or relating to mystics or religious mysticism.

Kafei's picture
Ivinski Borokove: Mystical

Ivinski Borokove: Mystical experience can(and is) defined as:
The process of doing and seeing things and of having things happen to you of or relating to mystics or religious mysticism.

Sure, but since you haven't been following this stuff, the notion of the mystical experience has shifted between a "union with the divine" to a more scientific approach which regards the mystical experience as purely an "altered state of consciousness." Go ahead and Wiki Perennial philosophy or Mystical experience for yourself, and see that within the development of neurotheology, we now have a vastly different definition of what we mean by "mystical experience."

CyberLN, arguing over how many participants were in the study instead of reviewing the results of the study itself is not trivial?

Ivinski Borokove's picture
You fail to understand: you

You fail to understand: you can't overrule the dictionary.

Kafei's picture
Actually, you can, and it has

Actually, you can, and it has been done. As I mentioned to Tracie and Russell, and to which Tracie agreed with me (Tracie of The Atheist Experience) that at one point "mystical experience" was thought to be an encounter with the divine or union, rather, with the divine, a kind of temporary apotheosis, if you will. However, these days the meaning has shifted to mean a very particular altered state of consciousness which exhibits very particular characteristics which are exclusive to this experience. I mean, if you actually believe what you've said here, then what you're trying to say is that these scientific studies are researching "mystical experience," the human ability to merge their consciousness with God (which is how mystical experience was originally defined). Do you actually believe that's what's going on? I doubt you do. So, why insist that is what's going on in these studies?

Ivinski Borokove's picture
I'm just going off

I'm just going off definitions. I'm a by-the-definition person. And, until the change is reflected in dictionaries, I will stand by the definition I gave.

Kafei's picture
Well, William James made the

Well, William James made the distinction a while back, here's a paragraph you may be interested in… or not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perennial_philosophy#Religious_experience

The two online dictionaries you references don't have entries for "mystical experience." So, like I said, all you defined was the word "mystical."

Ivinski Borokove's picture
You don't get it. You get the

You don't get it. You get the definition of a phrase by combining the definions of the words involved. Want the definition of Mystical Experience?
Combine the definition for mystical with the defintion for experience. Plane and simple.

Kafei's picture
@Ivinski Borokove, why would

@Ivinski Borokove, why would I do that when that's not how the scientific study is using the term? Roland Griffiths is well aware of the original meaning of "mystical experience," however it's made quite clear that what they're investigating is an altered state of consciousness. If a volunteer at the height of their mystical experience declares, "I am witnessing God," the researchers involved will not interpret the volunteers account as a literal encounter of the divine, but will regard the volunteers' description as an articulation of the inner experiential aspect of the mystical experience. Plain and simple.

Ivinski Borokove's picture
If the" scientific" study

If the" scientific" study isint using the words as defined by the dictionary, the scientific study is wrong.

Kafei's picture
I don't think a study that

I don't think a study that was peer-reviewed and published in The Scientific Journal is likely to be "wrong" about their findings. The term mysticism has roots in Greek which also referred to a "union with the Absolute." Plato, Socrates, etc. practiced techniques to induce such altered states, but of course, they saw 'em as a literal union of consciousness with the divine or Absolute. These days, whether you'd like to admit it or not, the definition of mystical experience is definitely shifting towards an altered state of consciousness as our knowledge of mystical experiences continues to grow. You can deny that all you want, and hug your dictionary very close and tight, but to not recognize this distinction is on par with trolling at this point.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysticism

Ivinski Borokove's picture
If its not dictionarily

If its not dictionarily correct, its wrong. The only correct definition for a word comes from the dictionary.

Kafei's picture
That's your argument? If not

That's your argument? If it's not in the dictionary, it's wrong? What happens when it makes an entry in the dictionary? Suddenly, you'll start singing a different tune? If that's your argument, I've already addressed it by emphasizing the distinction made between how the term is used in the study, and how it's been used historically. Even Tracie of The Atheist Experience agreed on the distinction, and she's a full-blown atheist. So, if you're going to use that trolling argument, it's already been addressed no matter how much "faith" you put in your dictionary.

CyberLN's picture
You don't seem to get it. A

You don't seem to get it. A study with 15 participants is hardly impressive. Additionally, you assert something in a debate room, it's advisable to have the data at your finger tips to back it up. Getting information wrong, plagiarizing, avoiding questions, blowing off corrections, is all behavior that doesn't add to my, and perhaps others', level of confidence in anything you have to say about anything else.

Kafei's picture
CyberLN, you're not getting

CyberLN, you're not getting it. There was only one particular study that used 15 participants. That was the study involving tobacco addicts. That's one study of multiple that were done that all yielded similar results. So, it's not as though we're simply talking about 15 volunteers here. These clinical trials have been going on since 2006. So, if you were to count all the volunteers over the past decade, you're going to end up with a much more impressive number than 15.

No one has yet to address the original post which is the entire reason I posted. Now, what in the original post is wrong or plagiarized? Where in the original post did someone correct me then I blew off their correction?

Nyarlathotep's picture
Kafei - "There was only one

Kafei - "There was only one particular study that used 15 participants."

+100 points for getting something wrong that was previously pointed out as wrong. The study you linked had experiments with 15 participants, as I pointed out in my criticism of it.
----------------
Kafei - "if you were to count all the volunteers over the past decade"

+25 points for trying to cheat statistics
----------------
Kafei - "arguing over how many participants were in the study instead of reviewing the results of the study itself is not trivial?"

+10 points for not knowing that a experiment with less than 30 participants is considered worthless.
----------------
Kafei - " peer-reviewed and published in The Scientific Journal"

+25 points for using a fictitious journal name.

Ivinski Borokove's picture
I guess Kafei won't be making

I went and counted them all up. Our friend Kafei is at 461 points! Definitely not making the par 9 today.......

Kafei's picture
@Nyarlathotep The study I

@Nyarlathotep The study I linked to actually had over 30 participants, but you obviously intentionally over looked this fact. And I'm not trying to "cheat statistics," the results of every clinical trial have produced very similar results. That's what's kept this study thriving, of course, after all. So, for the 15 participants with an addiction to tobacco, this study showed that 80% of the participants were able to kick the addiction. But this is not the only clinical trial involving a psychedelic that has this type of success in cure of an addiction without recidivism, and so this study obviously builds on the statistical data of other similar studies. And for the coup de grâce on your final comment of the "fictitious journal name," thanks for noticing that error. It's an unfinished title. This research has been published in The Scientific Journal of Psychopharmacology. C'est tout.

@Ivinski Borokove

I really don't care about points or kickers.

Ivinski Borokove's picture
And I coudent care less

And I coudent care less whether you do or not.

Nyarlathotep's picture
From the article you linked

From the article you linked by Kafei - "Accordingly, these data were analyzed using the following planned comparisons: (1) comparison (t test)of data obtained at screening for the group of participants that received psilocybin in session 1 (N=15) with that for the group that received methylphenidate in session 1 (N=15),(2) comparison (t test) of post-session 1 data for the group of participants that received psilocybin in session 1 (N=15) with the group that received methylphenidate in session 1(N=15)...participants that received methylphenidate on session 1 and psilocybin on session 2 (N=15)...there were no significant differences between the group that received psilocybin on the first session (N=15) and the group that received methylphenidate on the first session (N=15)...that received psilocybin on the first session (N=15) and the group that received methylphenidate on the first session (N=15)...One group (N=15) received methylphenidate on the first session and psilocybin on the second session (Methp 1st,Psil 2nd) and the other group (N=15) received the reverse order"

So let's see, 15 points each for a total of +165 points

Sir Random's picture
Carrying on Ivan's

Carrying on Ivan's calculation shows that our friend has racked up 626 points! Let's give him a multiplier for his amazing combo!

The Pragmatic's picture
@ Kafei

@ Kafei

If you were to summarize in 50 words, what exactly are you selling?

Kafei's picture
@Nyarlathotep I posted a few

@Nyarlathotep I posted a few links, which one are you referencing? If you're referring to the tobacco study, I've already mentioned there were only 15 participants in that study, so why repeat that? And I've also mentioned the reason they could accept 15 is because they were already building on studies that they had done in the past. So, they already had statistical data to build upon.

@The Pragmatic I've nothing to sell.

Sir Random's picture
Ya know, if you look at the

Ya know, if you look at the context, I think you will find he didn't mean sell literally.

Kafei's picture
@ Tieler I'm quite aware of

@ Tieler I'm quite aware of that. I say I've nothing to sell in the very fashion Alan Watts said it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YgEhvZDZVg

Sir Random's picture
I do like(sarcasum) that you

I do like(sarcasum) that you keep tossing links at us, but never actually quote jack squat. Besides, if you have nothing to sell, why are you even here. Surely you didn't come to hear yourself talk, and you don't strike me as the evangelist type. So, if not to try(and fail) to convince us of this......why are you here?

Kafei's picture
I believe I've already

I believe I've already answered this question before. I'm here to sharpen my ability to speak about these things. I can't go to a theist forum, 'cause I'll get banned immediately. They find all this stuff to be blasphemous, ironically enough. I believe this perspective will eventually become more mainstream since it's already being spoken about in books such as Michio Kaku's "The Future of the Mind," it's also something Alex Grey speaks about during his tours, and of course it's a point-of-view espoused by the neuroscientists involved in these studies. I don't think I necessarily have to convince anyone that mystical experiences occur, that much has already been scientifically established. So, if anyone here doesn't want to be convinced of that, they're simply just acting in denial.

Sir Random's picture
Show me a majority of 75% of

Show me a majority of 75% of neuroscientists concurring with that, and then I will take your "scientifically established". You would do well to remember that majority rules.

Kafei's picture
These trials that have taken

These trials that have taken place have already been peer-reviewed and published in The Scientific Journal of Psychopharmacology. Roland Griffiths have given lectures on the peer-reviewed material with an audience made up of neuroscientists, psychologists, psychopharmacologists, and other professionals interested in his work. No one jumps out of their seat in an air-clawing rave to denounce his work. I mean, sure, you have to inform yourself as to what the study is implying by "mystical experience," but rest-assured we're not talking about anything supernatural, magical, or anything transcending physics.

Sir Random's picture
Unless my common sense tells

Unless my common sense tells me something is undeniably correct, 75% concurrence is my minimum for thinking something is correct. Not saying (for certain) its not. Just saying the numbers I need to see arent there yet.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Well there isn't even a

Well there isn't even a number right now. Since those articles don't support the conclusion presented in the original post. Remember he eluded to the studies to give credibility to the phrase "mystical experience" but not for his conclusions. I already summarized what the articles say: if you give hallucinogens to people, some of them will have mystical experiences. I don't think that surprises anyone.

The big claim of Perennialism is: "each of the world's religious traditions...[share]...a single, universal truth on which [the] foundation all religious knowledge and doctrine has grown"(wikipedia). This is why Kafei claims "Atheism and Theism are DEAD". Think about that claim for a minute. Let's imagine you are allowed to fabricate the result of any experiment you want. What experiment and what corresponding results could you even fabricate to support that claim?

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.