[extropy-chat] John Wright finds God

Tue Dec 14 10:55:38 UTC 2004

All of that said and heard,  I am not convinced that that are no 
transrational rather than merely irrational or pathological modes of 
experience.     Neither I nor many people who have had mystical 
experiences exhibit any sign of any known brain or psychological 
pathology.    From the assumption that the rational naturalist view is 
the pinnacle of human understanding and knowing you are of course right 
to see these things as utterly untrustworthy.  But I know of no way to 
validate that assumption.   I am not sure it is falsifiable.

- samantha

On Dec 13, 2004, at 9:22 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:

>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Samantha Atkins" 
> <sjatkins at gmail.com>
> To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 8:09 PM
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] John Wright finds God
>
>
>> Well, the "claim" is about what these rather extraordinary yet
>> widespread experiences mean.  What it means largely falls into two
>> camps.  One camp says that the experience means that reality is not
>> like we normally assume it to be and we ourselves are quite different
>> than what we normally believe to be the case.   The other camp says
>> that these experiences say little about what really is true beyond the
>> obvious fact that human beings can have such experiences.
>>
>> Which is the more extraordinary interpretration?  It looks to me like
>> it is the first.
>
> ### Indeed, Samantha, I agree with you that the latter interpretation 
> is less extraordinary: It requires fewer assumptions to be made about 
> available sensory evidence.
>
> For me, the observation of human brains obviously malfunctioning, and 
> the following behaviors, is an almost daily experience - in the clinic 
> I see patients with e.g. visual hallucinations due to dopaminergic 
> medication, or with olfactory hallucinations due to partial seizures, 
> or with delusions in Lewy body dementia. It is a simple matter of fact 
> to say that human brains malfunction frequently, and in many cases 
> without the patients themselves being aware of the malfunction.
>
> I make only the probabilistic assumptions necessary to provide an 
> explanatory and predictive framework for my daily sensory and noumenal 
> experience. This forces me to believe in the existence of e.g. 
> electrons, niobium, Corvettes, toilet paper, flagella, and all the 
> myriad of physical objects and their relationships that constitute my 
> (and other humans') direct and inferred experience - this, and nothing 
> more. Observation of phosphenes, THC-evoked illusions, or Purkinje 
> lights within my own visual system convinces me that my noumenal 
> existence is an aspect of the physical object I may see in the mirror, 
> and no further assumptions about the world are then needed to 
> interpret other noumena as aspects of a physical reality.
>
> Therefore, given the regularities in malfunctioning of human brains in 
> general, if confronted with an experience of seeing double, I would 
> first try to trouble-shoot my cranial nerves, and upon seeing rows of 
> little marching men in the corners of the room I would consider the 
> Charles Bonnet syndrome rather than sprites. This syndrome is defined 
> by presence of visual hallucinations without impairment of reality 
> testing, with the patient fully aware of the absence of external 
> referents to his experiences - which appears to be possible as long as 
> the hallucinations do not assume a form with high emotional impact and 
> the remaining parts of the nervous system perform their 
> reality-testing routines without malfunction. Of course, if I had 
> William James' "will to believe", if I was an atheist eager, rather 
> than loath to embrace a spirit, this detached attitude would be more 
> difficult to maintain - but then I would be a different person 
> altogether, rather than being just me skeptically waving away ghosts 
> flitting around in the corners.
>
> So, I interpret reports of certain experiences as most likely devoid 
> of the significance that others may attach to them, and not even 
> having such experiences myself would be enough to change this 
> attitude. Short of a physical rewrite of my prefrontal cortex, only 
> specific prophecies (be it regarding the Millenium, or the stock 
> market) coming true could convince me otherwise.
>
> Rafal
>
> PS. Ghostlike figures crowding in dark corners are really quite common 
> in older people, so to quote Damien, "It may happen to you".
>
>
>>
>> - samantha
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 13:34:17 -0600, john-c-wright at sff.net
>> <john-c-wright at sff.net> wrote:
>>> BillK writes:
>>>
>>> > John Wright is speaking as though his religious experience
>>> was something unusual. It isn't. Millions of people have had similar
>>> experiences and many also *know* the meaning of life.
>>> More than half of all adult Americans (and UK adults also) will 
>>> report
>>> having had some kind of religious experience. Religious experience is
>>> common to humanity worldwide, regardless of religious persuasion. 
>>> Even
>>> atheists have transcendental events in their lives. It is a
>>> fundamental part of how the human brain is structured.
>>>
>>> Will all due respect, you misquote me. I did not say my experience 
>>> was unique.
>>> Far from it. I merely opine that the most logical explanation to a 
>>> type of
>>> perception that an overwhelming majority of people have had is not 
>>> necessary the
>>> conclusion that the overwhelming majority of people are mistaken. It 
>>> could be
>>> that that are: but the burden of proof surely lies on the party 
>>> making the more
>>> extraordinary claim.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> extropy-chat mailing list
>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> extropy-chat mailing list
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat