# A Though Experiment on Spiritual Evolution **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 11, 2016, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-though-experiment-on-spiritual-evolution/745825 "2016-02-11T16:04:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Stoneburg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/df705f/32.png) [@Stoneburg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoneburg)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2016, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-though-experiment-on-spiritual-evolution/745825/21 "2016-02-11T20:13:00Z")
> [@Totenfeier](#): > > Two aquatic critters swimming in the primordial seas of Earth; one has experienced a mutation resulting in its having a rudimentary photosensitive cell or cell cluster; the other has not. > > They exchange greetings. > > The first says to the second, “Hey! Did you know that light is pretty cool?” > > The second says, “What?” > > “Light, man! It’s groovy.” > > “I have no idea what you’re talking about.” > > “Well, with light, you know if you’re upside down or right-side up relative to the surface of the sea. It’s a bit easier to find food. It’s tremendously beneficial.” > > “This is nonsense. We’ve got a pretty good idea of how our environment works. You’re using meaningless terminology.” > > “It’s light, I tell you! I see it! It’s a good thing! Come to the light!” > > “Look: if you want to believe in some imaginary power called “Light” that helps your life, that’s your business. Just don’t ram it down MY throat. Nobody’s ever seen this “Light” shit. It’s unmeasurable and can’t, therefore, be proved scientifically. I. for one, think you are delusional, fanatical, and more than a little scary. Fuck off.” > > And they both swim away, and both are a little disturbed. > > Is another rudimentary human sense developing gradually? Mutationally, some have it, while others in the population do not? Remember that human evolution is barely underway, given the timescale of evolution. > > Thoughts? Rip it to pieces. I like this analogy and think it is fairly clever, and I would agree that what I call ”spirituality” is indeed a part of evolution, but that it’s different from what most people on this board think of as spirituality (which is what I would classify as religion and mythic beliefs). Valid and real spirituality has to do with consciousness, knowing what ones essence is, seeing through delusions, illusions, mental constructs and conditioning. It has very little (if anything) to do with belief or non-human entities. Some other people who have taken this approach are psychologists and philosophers Wilber, Beck and Graves who have systems called Integral Theory and Spiral Dynamics that explain how the human consciousness develops through some rather predictable stages, where the first stages are mythic/religions, the later stages are rational/scientific and the very last stages are trans-rational/spiritual. Unfortunately the different stages tend to be at war with each other, and this board that is very much at the rational/scientific stage will commit what is called ”the pre/trans fallacy”, confusing early mythical beliefs and superstitions with later translational insights and spiritual experience. So yes, according to them (and me) spirituality is very much part of evolution both in the micro and macro perspective. We all go through the stages as we grow up, both individually and collectively. And achieving ”rationality” is an important step on the way. You could say that the Western Enlightenment of the 1700’s was where we collectively moved out of the Mythic and into the Rational, and that another shift has been happening for the last 100 years or so where we are moving from rationality and modernism to trans-rationality and post-modernism collectively. This of course being the result of a relatively small group of people achieving a higher state of consciousness just as happened during the Enlightenment. And just as in the example, it’s actually almost impossible to ”explain” or ”show” this to someone, because every bit of information or experience will be filtered through the level of development that ones ego or consciousness is at. If one is at a Mythic stage, all scientific and critical thought arguments will be either denied or fit into the current paradigm. Once at the Modern or Rational stage, that filter will negate not just the previous stage (refusing to believe in Mythic religions) but also defend itself against trans-rational or post-modern concepts. The step that I would call genuinely ”spiritual” is the one that comes after the developmental level known as post-modern, where the very subject/object dualism is seen through and the ego or personal life is seen as a fiction, what the developmental psychologists call a ”phase shift” and what Zen monks call a ”satori”. That is when consciousness leaves the dialect of religion/science or myth/reason behind and becomes integral and spiritual. > [@Smeghead](#): > > A third, blind critter also comes swimming up. This one has suffered a different mutation that has caused him to go insane. He steadfastly insists to the first creature that light certainly DOES exist, but unlike critter #2, he declares it to be coming from the bottom of the ocean. He is just as certain and insistent as critter #2. > > How is critter #1 to decide which, if either, is correct? Blindly accepting what someone professes to be true is unlikely to lead him in the right direction (particularly if we throw in blind, insane critters #4-100, who all insist that light is coming from entirely different directions). The only way to be certain what the truth is is to check the claims against reality - in other words, science. Without knowing more about the capabilities of the critters, we cannot suggest an experiment that would settle the matter, but without solid data, it’s critter #2’s word against that of critters #3 through 100. Critter #1 would be a fool to blindly follow any of them. This is a very solid and good point. My main issue with the so called spiritual sector is that it is filled with charlatans, confused people and religious craziness competing for attention, and that the noise-to-signal ratio is very, very low. It is also why I save my respect for the parts of the spiritual sector (i.e. the real wisdom traditions) that are investigating the truth with what amounts to a scientific method, checking if results can be reproduced and comparing experiences with peers. This type of spirituality has however almost never shown its face in public in the west, where the spiritual debate has been dominated by dogmatic mythic beliefs rather that honest investigation of reality. The (very few) christians that ever had some real insight into the nature of the universe where either silenced or burned at the stake (Giordano Bruno), unless they were _very_ politically correct and managed to fit their insights into a shape that the christian dogma could accept (like John of the Cross, Meister Ekchart and Teresa of Avila). Personally I think it is a huge mistake to do what the modernists do and throw the baby out with the bathwater, basically claiming that anything transcendent is just more ”myth”, but frankly that is understandable. Especially in a country like the US where almost the whole sector is ”owned” by what is indeed silly and ignorant dogma in the form of mythical belief and there is very little real spirituality (with some noted exceptions of course, like Adyashanti, Wilber etc). But on the other hand there is not much you can do. Just like in the original example, the illusion can not be broken until the equipment is in place so to speak. My life was spent as a secular humanist (rabid atheist more like actually) and science nerd, I did the exact same thing, dismissed everything ”spiritual” as mythical nonsense and pledged myself the the ”scientific” paradigm. Now of course I find that highly ironic, but it is also clear it could not have happened any other way. Until you finally start investigating the source of your own consciousness you’re stuck in Plato’s cave, and I’m not even sure there’s anything to be done about it. After this discussion is done for example, my experience suggests that exactly zero people will have changed their mind or perspective in any meaningful way, because their mind will filter out whatever doesn’t confirm with its own reality tunnel. ---
**Author:** ![Stoneburg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/df705f/32.png) [@Stoneburg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoneburg)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2016, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-though-experiment-on-spiritual-evolution/745825/22 "2016-02-11T20:20:29Z")
[Here’s a link to a very brief description of the Spiral Dynamics I mentioned](http://rationalspirituality.com/articles/Ken_Wilber_Spiral_Dynamics.htm) and the[AQAL map](http://integral-life-home.s3.amazonaws.com/SteveSelf-Altitude.jpg) that is essential to Integral Theory. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2016, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-though-experiment-on-spiritual-evolution/745825/23 "2016-02-11T20:21:36Z")
> [@Smeghead](#): > > A third, blind critter also comes swimming up. This one has suffered a different mutation that has caused him to go insane. He steadfastly insists to the first creature that light certainly DOES exist, but unlike critter #2, he declares it to be coming from the bottom of the ocean. He is just as certain and insistent as critter #2. Easy. Critter 3 follows the “light” to the bottom of the ocean and gets crushed by the pressure. Critter #4 follows the “light” right into the jaws of a predator. But critter #2 uses the light to avoid predators and find food. When we followed the spiritual light we had plagues, famine and low life expectancy. When we followed the scientific light we had vaccines, plentiful food and long lives. And people who use the benefits of the scientific light to yap about how good the spiritual light is. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2016, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-though-experiment-on-spiritual-evolution/745825/24 "2016-02-11T20:25:39Z")
Stripping away the massive amounts of spin, buzz phrases and the like, I think the part that relates directly to the thought experiment is > [@Stoneburg](#): > > It is also why I save my respect for the parts of the spiritual sector (i.e. the real wisdom traditions) that are investigating the truth with what amounts to a scientific method, checking if results can be reproduced and comparing experiences with peers. So you say there are real experiments going on out there using the scientific method, checking to see if results involving spirituality can be reproduced? 1. Who has done these experiments? 2. Have there been any positive, verifiable results? ---
**Author:** ![Stoneburg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/df705f/32.png) [@Stoneburg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoneburg)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2016, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-though-experiment-on-spiritual-evolution/745825/25 "2016-02-11T20:30:43Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Stripping away the massive amounts of spin, buzz phrases and the like, I think the part that relates directly to the thought experiment is > So you say there are real experiments going on out there using the scientific method, checking to see if results involving spirituality can be reproduced? > > 1. Who has done these experiments? > 2. Have there been any positive, verifiable results? 1. People 2. Yes And no, I’m not going to waste time discussing it with you or posting links. If you’re interested (which you are not) there is plenty of information available online. I already posted two links. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2016, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-though-experiment-on-spiritual-evolution/745825/26 "2016-02-11T20:33:58Z")
> [@Stoneburg](#): > > 1. People > 2. Yes > > And no, I’m not going to waste time discussing it with you or posting links. If you’re interested (which you are not) there is plenty of information available online. I already posted two links. Your links do not answer the questions I asked in any form, and your answers in this thread show that you have no problem with wasting time. ---
**Author:** ![Stoneburg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/df705f/32.png) [@Stoneburg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoneburg)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2016, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-though-experiment-on-spiritual-evolution/745825/27 "2016-02-11T20:37:52Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Your links do not answer the questions I asked in any form, and your answers in this thread show that you have no problem with wasting time. I don’t consider it a waste of time to engage with people who are interested in achieving mutual understanding, or who seem honest in their inquiry. My experience with you has given me the impression that you do not fit into that category. So far I have never received anything remotely positive from my interactions from you and have no reason to believe this instance would be any different, so why not make the conversation as short as possible? Both you and I know that your questions are not coming from a place of honesty or integrity, so why pretend? Better to just ignore each other. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2016, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-though-experiment-on-spiritual-evolution/745825/28 "2016-02-11T20:46:54Z")
> [@Stoneburg](#): > > 1. People > 2. Yes > > And no, I’m not going to waste time discussing it with you or posting links. If you’re interested (which you are not) there is plenty of information available online. I already posted two links. To be fair, the questions that were asked related to _ **scientific** _ investigations, and your links did nothing to address them. What you linked are two blogs that look like New Age nonsense and quite literally make my eyes hurt to look at. A credible answer to the questions would be in the form of references to published articles in reputable scientific journals. Absent such citations, one concludes that no science is being done here. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2016, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-though-experiment-on-spiritual-evolution/745825/29 "2016-02-11T20:49:35Z")
> [@Stoneburg](#): > > I don’t consider it a waste of time to engage with people who are interested in achieving mutual understanding, or who seem honest in their inquiry. My experience with you has given me the impression that you do not fit into that category. So far I have never received anything remotely positive from my interactions from you and have no reason to believe this instance would be any different, so why not make the conversation as short as possible? Both you and I know that your questions are not coming from a place of honesty or integrity, so why pretend? Better to just ignore each other. When someone makes a claim, I try to find out if there is something real to back up that claim-I do not see where there is dishonesty in trying to uncover the facts of a situation. You may choose to handle uncomfortable questions by ignoring/deflecting them, but in an _honest_ exchange of ideas they must be asked. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2016, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-though-experiment-on-spiritual-evolution/745825/30 "2016-02-11T21:24:40Z")
> [@Totenfeier](#): > > Two aquatic critters swimming in the primordial seas of Earth; one has experienced a mutation resulting in its having a rudimentary photosensitive cell or cell cluster; the other has not. > > They exchange greetings. > > The first says to the second, “Hey! Did you know that light is pretty cool?” > The second says, “What?” > > “Light, man! It’s groovy.” > > “I have no idea what you’re talking about.” > > “Well, with light, you know if you’re upside down or right-side up relative to the surface of the sea. It’s a bit easier to find food. It’s tremendously beneficial.” > > “This is nonsense. We’ve got a pretty good idea of how our environment works. You’re using meaningless terminology.” > > “It’s light, I tell you! I see it! It’s a good thing! Come to the light!” > > “Look: if you want to believe in some imaginary power called “Light” that helps your life, that’s your business. Just don’t ram it down MY throat. Nobody’s ever seen this “Light” shit. It’s unmeasurable and can’t, therefore, be proved scientifically. I. for one, think you are delusional, fanatical, and more than a little scary. Fuck off.” > > And they both swim away, and both are a little disturbed. > > Is another rudimentary human sense developing gradually? Mutationally, some have it, while others in the population do not? Remember that human evolution is barely underway, given the timescale of evolution. > > Thoughts? Rip it to pieces. There’s no new insight here, you’re just reframing [Plato’s Allegory of the Cave](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_Cave). ---
**Author:** ![Stoneburg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/df705f/32.png) [@Stoneburg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoneburg)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2016, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-though-experiment-on-spiritual-evolution/745825/31 "2016-02-11T21:25:33Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > To be fair, the questions that were asked related to _ **scientific** _ investigations, and your links did nothing to address them. What you linked are two blogs that look like New Age nonsense and quite literally make my eyes hurt to look at. A credible answer to the questions would be in the form of references to published articles in reputable scientific journals. Absent such citations, one concludes that no science is being done here. What I linked to was a short summary of a branch of developmental psychology, based on research made in a vast number of countries. If you want to dismiss that as “new age” I don’t think we have anywhere near the same definition of what the word means. The reason I dismiss Czarcasm’s request for cites is that I know it will lead to absolutely nothing based on past experience. He’s not interested in an open discussion or an honest exchange of views, only in perpetuating his own reality tunnel and dismissing anything that contradicts it. In fact he’s a perfect example of the Orange level of ego development in the scales that I linked to. The level of actual knowledge about what spirituality is on this message board is _incredibly_ low. People consistently perpetrate the pre/trans fallacy, confusing valuable insights into the nature of consciousness with religious dogma. Basically this forum is set up to attack the Myths of pre-rational thinking (i.e. religion) but as a result of that completely ignores the actual insights of trans-rational thought and investigation. I felt that the OP was an invitation to discuss the issue in a more comprehensive and intelligent way, but that is not going to happen by indulging those who are convinced that anything “spiritual” is just woo-woo or nonsense. Socrates, Plato, Aurobindo, Buddha, Rumi, Eckhart, Ramana, Nisargadatta are examples of people who investigated consciousness, in the modern times there are other sages, some taking the mystical path (like Bernadette Roberts, Mooji, Adyashanti) some taking the scientific path (like professor Grof, dr Graves, Don Beck etc). But unless there is an actual and honest intention to look into it, rather than just reflexively defend whatever reality tunnel one happens to occupy, there’s not much point in discussing it. ---
**Author:** ![Stoneburg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/df705f/32.png) [@Stoneburg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoneburg)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2016, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-though-experiment-on-spiritual-evolution/745825/32 "2016-02-11T21:31:33Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > When someone makes a claim, I try to find out if there is something real to back up that claim-I do not see where there is dishonesty in trying to uncover the facts of a situation. You may choose to handle uncomfortable questions by ignoring/deflecting them, but in an _honest_ exchange of ideas they must be asked. Your questions are not “uncomfortable”, I just find them to be dishonest and pointless to pursue. You also don’t seem to have any understanding of the subject that is being discussed here (spirituality) than the average atheist, which means you do not differentiate between religious myth and spiritual insight. Add to that an attitude that essentially boils down to “It’s up to you to convince me” and you may be able to see why it from my perspective would seem like a colossal waste of time to run around chasing links in order for them to just be dismissed from a stance of ignorance wanting to defend itself. ---
**Author:** ![Totenfeier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/4bbf92/32.png) [@Totenfeier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Totenfeier)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2016, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-though-experiment-on-spiritual-evolution/745825/33 "2016-02-11T21:39:37Z")
> [@Stoneburg](#): > > I like this analogy and think it is fairly clever, and I would agree that what I call ”spirituality” is indeed a part of evolution, but that it’s different from what most people on this board think of as spirituality (which is what I would classify as religion and mythic beliefs). Valid and real spirituality has to do with consciousness, knowing what ones essence is, seeing through delusions, illusions, mental constructs and conditioning. It has very little (if anything) to do with belief or non-human entities. > > Some other people who have taken this approach are psychologists and philosophers Wilber, Beck and Graves who have systems called Integral Theory and Spiral Dynamics that explain how the human consciousness develops through some rather predictable stages, where the first stages are mythic/religions, the later stages are rational/scientific and the very last stages are trans-rational/spiritual. Unfortunately the different stages tend to be at war with each other, and this board that is very much at the rational/scientific stage will commit what is called ”the pre/trans fallacy”, confusing early mythical beliefs and superstitions with later translational insights and spiritual experience. > > So yes, according to them (and me) spirituality is very much part of evolution both in the micro and macro perspective. We all go through the stages as we grow up, both individually and collectively. And achieving ”rationality” is an important step on the way. You could say that the Western Enlightenment of the 1700’s was where we collectively moved out of the Mythic and into the Rational, and that another shift has been happening for the last 100 years or so where we are moving from rationality and modernism to trans-rationality and post-modernism collectively. This of course being the result of a relatively small group of people achieving a higher state of consciousness just as happened during the Enlightenment. > > And just as in the example, it’s actually almost impossible to ”explain” or ”show” this to someone, because every bit of information or experience will be filtered through the level of development that ones ego or consciousness is at. If one is at a Mythic stage, all scientific and critical thought arguments will be either denied or fit into the current paradigm. Once at the Modern or Rational stage, that filter will negate not just the previous stage (refusing to believe in Mythic religions) but also defend itself against trans-rational or post-modern concepts. > > The step that I would call genuinely ”spiritual” is the one that comes after the developmental level known as post-modern, where the very subject/object dualism is seen through and the ego or personal life is seen as a fiction, what the developmental psychologists call a ”phase shift” and what Zen monks call a ”satori”. That is when consciousness leaves the dialect of religion/science or myth/reason behind and becomes integral and spiritual. > > This is a very solid and good point. My main issue with the so called spiritual sector is that it is filled with charlatans, confused people and religious craziness competing for attention, and that the noise-to-signal ratio is very, very low. It is also why I save my respect for the parts of the spiritual sector (i.e. the real wisdom traditions) that are investigating the truth with what amounts to a scientific method, checking if results can be reproduced and comparing experiences with peers. This type of spirituality has however almost never shown its face in public in the west, where the spiritual debate has been dominated by dogmatic mythic beliefs rather that honest investigation of reality. The (very few) christians that ever had some real insight into the nature of the universe where either silenced or burned at the stake (Giordano Bruno), unless they were _very_ politically correct and managed to fit their insights into a shape that the christian dogma could accept (like John of the Cross, Meister Ekchart and Teresa of Avila). > > Personally I think it is a huge mistake to do what the modernists do and throw the baby out with the bathwater, basically claiming that anything transcendent is just more ”myth”, but frankly that is understandable. Especially in a country like the US where almost the whole sector is ”owned” by what is indeed silly and ignorant dogma in the form of mythical belief and there is very little real spirituality (with some noted exceptions of course, like Adyashanti, Wilber etc). But on the other hand there is not much you can do. Just like in the original example, the illusion can not be broken until the equipment is in place so to speak. My life was spent as a secular humanist (rabid atheist more like actually) and science nerd, I did the exact same thing, dismissed everything ”spiritual” as mythical nonsense and pledged myself the the ”scientific” paradigm. Now of course I find that highly ironic, but it is also clear it could not have happened any other way. Until you finally start investigating the source of your own consciousness you’re stuck in Plato’s cave, and I’m not even sure there’s anything to be done about it. After this discussion is done for example, my experience suggests that exactly zero people will have changed their mind or perspective in any meaningful way, because their mind will filter out whatever doesn’t confirm with its own reality tunnel. This, mostly. And I’m liking the discussion so far; as I said, tear into it. Don’t let me interrupt. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2016, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-though-experiment-on-spiritual-evolution/745825/34 "2016-02-11T21:41:39Z")
> [@Stoneburg](#): > > Your questions are not “uncomfortable”, I just find them to be dishonest and pointless to pursue. You also don’t seem to have any understanding of the subject that is being discussed here (spirituality) than the average atheist, which means you do not differentiate between religious myth and spiritual insight. Add to that an attitude that essentially boils down to “It’s up to you to convince me” and you may be able to see why it from my perspective would seem like a colossal waste of time to run around chasing links in order for them to just be dismissed from a stance of ignorance wanting to defend itself. When you are making claims of fact, it _is_ up to you to convince others of those claims. Sorry about that. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2016, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-though-experiment-on-spiritual-evolution/745825/35 "2016-02-11T21:43:42Z")
> [@Totenfeier](#): > > This, mostly. And I’m liking the discussion so far; as I said, tear into it. Don’t let me interrupt. No, please _do_ interrupt, since this is your thread. What have you to say about our responses to your scenario? ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2016, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-though-experiment-on-spiritual-evolution/745825/36 "2016-02-11T21:47:37Z")
> [@Stoneburg](#): > > Your questions are not “uncomfortable”, I just find them to be dishonest and pointless to pursue. You also don’t seem to have any understanding of the subject that is being discussed here (spirituality) than the average atheist, which means you do not differentiate between religious myth and spiritual insight. Add to that an attitude that essentially boils down to “It’s up to you to convince me” and you may be able to see why it from my perspective would seem like a colossal waste of time to run around chasing links in order for them to just be dismissed from a stance of ignorance wanting to defend itself. So you do not subscribe to the argument that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof? ---
**Author:** ![Stoneburg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/df705f/32.png) [@Stoneburg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoneburg)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2016, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-though-experiment-on-spiritual-evolution/745825/37 "2016-02-11T21:52:09Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > So you do not subscribe to the argument that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs? I do not subscribe to the idea that I have made any extraordinary claims. I have pointed out some obvious things, and also presented a few perspectives that comes mainly from established views in actual spirituality or psychological research. The fact that someone else finds it extraordinary is only a comment on their own level of insight and development. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2016, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-though-experiment-on-spiritual-evolution/745825/38 "2016-02-11T22:02:07Z")
> [@Stoneburg](#): > > I do not subscribe to the idea that I have made any extraordinary claims. I have pointed out some obvious things, and also presented a few perspectives that comes mainly from established views in actual spirituality or psychological research. The fact that someone else finds it extraordinary is only a comment on their own level of insight and development. You have made _this_ claim: > [@](#): > > It is also why I save my respect for the parts of the spiritual sector (i.e. the real wisdom traditions) that are investigating the truth with what amounts to a scientific method, checking if results can be reproduced and comparing experiences with peers. , and when I asked as for evidence of this claim you referred back to two links that had absolutely nothing to do with the claims you made, then called _me_ dishonest for daring to ask questions of you. Well, I’m asking again: Can you back up the factual claim of yours that I have quoted? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2016, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-though-experiment-on-spiritual-evolution/745825/39 "2016-02-11T22:11:29Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > No, please _do_ interrupt, since this is your thread. What have you to say about our responses to your scenario? And, just to expand on my earlier response: being color-blind, I’m effectively _in_ that situation. My wife, see, assures me that “purple” exists; and when she indicated that she’d like a purple scarf, I went to a shop and asked _which of these is purple,_ and the merchant told me; and I bought it, and showed it to folks who told me it’s purple; and when I gave it to my wife, she didn’t ask why I got her a brown scarf or a green scarf; instead, she said, _hey, thanks for the purple scarf_. That’s not a hypothetical; people really do claim to see what I don’t, and that’s in fact how I react. I don’t know if I’d call it an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary proof; I just know they routinely pass every test with flying – well, you know. ---
**Author:** ![Stoneburg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/df705f/32.png) [@Stoneburg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoneburg)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2016, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-though-experiment-on-spiritual-evolution/745825/40 "2016-02-11T22:13:49Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > You have made _this_ claim: , and when I asked as for evidence of this claim you referred back to two links that had absolutely nothing to do with the claims you made, then called _me_ dishonest for daring to ask questions of you. Well, I’m asking again: Can you back up the factual claim of yours that I have quoted? What is the claim that is so extraordinary that I need to “back it up”? That there are people making a rational investigation into the subjective experience of consciousness? In the west we call them psychologists (you may have heard of them) and in the east they have had this thing called “meditation” and “self inquiry” going for a couple of millennia. I’ve already given you plenty of names that you can google, as well as two links that are relevant. If you have any sincere intention of actually expanding your base of knowledge in this field there’s already plenty for you to work with. With your current level of understanding I find it pointless to engage with you on this issue, just as I am sure you would find it pointless to engage with me in whatever it is you are knowledgable about and I am ignorant about. I’m not your friend and I am not your teacher. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-though-experiment-on-spiritual-evolution/745825.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-though-experiment-on-spiritual-evolution/745825.md?page=3)