Calling all skeptics, logicians, scientists, and the just plain cynical.

Great Debates
81

To the OP: I’m not entirely sure what you mean by ‘mystical.’ It seems to mean having a strange experience and connecting it with a God or other supernatural being. The former does happen to most people, but not necessarily the latter.

I have had experiences that others might call mystical. For example, I quite frequently see ghosts. However, there are a lot of theories on how ‘ghosts’ can happen, all of which are more persuasive to me than that they’re souls living without a body. Hell, if any experiments ever showed that consciousness produces or has any connection to any kind of power, then maybe sometimes it could have an effect after the death of the body - but it wouldn’t be the sentient, motivated, human-that-can’t-touch-stuff creature beloved of horror stories. Nothing supernatural, nothing to do with any God.

I have basked in awe at the beauty of landscapes, paintings, faces, and knowing that this awe is caused by the firing of synapses and a human prediliction for binary symmetrism doesn’t mean I don’t feel the awe. I’m in love, and can’t explain the feeling, but that doesn’t mean it’s inexplicable. It feels bigger than hormones and memories and instincts and whatever else, but I guess that because it is bigger; the whole effect is greater than the individual causes. Those causes are still there, I know they are, and I’m still in love.

Devilsknew:

What fear? What denial? Sceptics can appreciate the way the ancients perceived the Sun. I, personally, find ancient Sun-worshipping myths interesting for what they tell us about human society at the time, and I like the narrative structure of it. The Greek Myths are great adventures. But I don’t believe that when I look near the Sun I’m actually seeing Apollo. Some ancient Greeks did, sure. No fear, no denial.

What it ‘is’ is more important than what it ‘means’ depending on context. If you’re talking about psychology or the Classics or literature, then what it means prevails; if you’re talking science, or telling a kid why it shouldn’t look at the Sun, then what it is prevails. If you’re talking personal experience of a sunset, then it’s up to you mate.

You can look at a sunset and be amazed that ordinary, unwilled scientific processes have created something which pleases your human brain so much. That amount of chance is awe-inspiring. You can think of all the various people across time and history who’ve appreciated such sunsets. You can think of how they’ve interpreted them and bring in the Gods that they believed in. Why do you think the former interpreatation is less tna the others? The awe is till there.

Highway: You asked what was there before the big bang. This is such an elementary question that I’m abashed to be asking it, but: what was there before God then?

pmwgreen, damn you, I’ve wasted half an hour on that link now! Fascinating. It took 30 questions to get ‘candle’ (mostl because we disagreed on it being used with friends and in public), only 20 to get ‘paper clip,’ and gave up on ‘Russian/Matrioshka Doll.’

82

It’s interesting to see the smug skeptics come out of the woodwork when you open such subjects for debate. I would think, and I could be wrong, that most of the self-styled skeptics on here are in reality empiricists. They believe whatever they experience through the senses, that is they believe what is a posteriori. This is fine, believe what you want to believe, but ultimately you must except that you have no way of truly knowing what is real and what is not. You have no way of knowing if anyone else is alive and thinking like you seem to be. You might be as fine with this as your fellow co-religionists because that is really what believing what you cannot verify, a religion. We could be viewing some sort of movie (any Richard Bach fans?) for all we know. You really shouldn’t be so smug.

But I am after something else. I want to attempt to crack the code of existence. That is what I hope we are debating here. As we have learned we can unseat rationalism and mathematics, and anything else that claims it is a priori with Gödel’s Theorem. No one has ever been able to establish a rationalist basic mathematical/logical system.

I personally have never seen a ghost or have had any experience that could not be explained. I am however becoming more and more of the opinion that our minds shape the world around us more profoundly than we could possibly imagine. Ask a cop about the reliability of eyewitness testimony. The mind, when forced, will populate incomplete information received through the senses with what is required to make sense of it. I wonder if this holds true for the skeptic? If he sees something he does not believe or “mystical”, will his mind make sense out of it in the same fashion?

I think that we should start from the point of view that subjective reality is the basic truth of our existence: cogito ergo sum. Is this not a priori? Liberal? Everything else is seems somewhat shifty.

83

Highwayman:

Was this thread about debating anything specific? Did anyone else mention the nature of existence? I thought it was just asking for mystical experiences that sceptics have experienced.

Oh, we have learned that, have we?

Well, yes. That’s how minds work. When we look at a picture of several dots we fill in the lines in between. Sceptics, mystics, whatever, everyone does this. The difference being that the sceptic is aware of his mind filling in the blanks, or aware that there are blanks to be filled, and the mystic believes that the lines actually are there and he can see them because he’s enlightened.

Well, a full-on empiricist would be like Adams’ man in the shack and never believe in anything at all, even that which he can see. Scepticism is more pragmatic than that, as I see it at least.

I do hold some empirical views, and have done since I was about 8 years old when I realised that truth was subjective. I do think that anything beyond our own thoughts is unproveable, and our own thoughts are only proveable to ourselves, but I also think that, for the sake of existence, we have to act as if many other things are proveable. That is, in order to exist in day-to-day life, we are obliged to accept certain things as having a very high level of probable existence.

It’s not about saying that something is ‘real’ based on external evidence, it’s saying that, if enough independent people observe it, it has a 99% (or whatever percentage, depending on circumstance) chance of being real. This also means that nothing is ever 100% impossible, but it can be 99.999% impossible. It’s a sliding scale, not a jump between real/not real.

The fact that, in order to exist in this world, we must keep up the pretence that the world is real and exists, is good evidence that the world does indeed exist. If we fail to accept the existence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn our lives are unaffected. If we fail to accept the existence of buses our lives are going to be very short and end with a splat. Our faith or non-faith in buses doesn’t affect their reality, which means that, sadly, you can’t will a bus into arriving on time.

84

GREAT LINK. I’d like to buy the toy, but, though the internet site exists in several languages, only the english version seems to be sold…

85

Your english seems pretty good. I don’t doubt it’s up to a hand-held game :D.

86

Actually, while I was going on Highwayman’s definition of sceptics as really empiricists, the extreme form, where cogito ergo sum is all that is given, is of course solipsism. You all here will know the difference between them - I just wanted to make it clear that I do too!

87

But I would like to use it to entrertain my friends… :slight_smile:
By the way, I tried once more some instants ago and I’ve been amazed (the previous were amusing, but not particularily impressive)

  1. made of : other
  2. Can you use it for entertainment? No
    3)Do you need to hold it in your hand to use it? No
    4)Does it break when it falls? No
  3. Do you need to clean it regularily? No
  4. Can you buy it in a shop? Yes
    7)Can you bend it without breaking it? Partially
    8)Can you keep it in your pocket? Yes
    9)Is it flexible? Partially
  5. Is it hard? Partially
  6. Is it flat? Partially
    12)Can you use it at work? Yes
    13°Is it usually colored? Yes
  7. Was is used 100 years ago? Unknown
    15)Can you find it in a church? No
    16)Is it a common household item? Yes
    17)Is it made of metal? No
    18)Can you wash it? No
  8. Is it smaller than a golf ball? Yes
    Correct guess : an ink cartridge.
88

Well…sorry to have hijacked the thread. This topic should go to IMHO…

89

Which is why solipsim is worth discussing once, but hardly worth going over and over and over. It is an interesting idea for a Saturday night bull session in the dorm or barracks but useless as a basis for living. Sort of like Maxwell’s Demon is interesting but to no avail if you want to cool the air in your house.

90

Oh trust me Dave, I’m proactive in the world. I will agree that what I stated was solipsism. However, I do not deny that other people exist. My gut feeling is that they do. As you stated in this and other posts, the position is somewhat impractical when it comes to living in the day to day world. So we except what comes into our minds through the senses as “what is real”. It is not sophomoric to ponder on this regardless of what you say. Man is given the ability to shape his world through his perception. To what extent is what I primarily concern myself.

My questioning of reality stems from the attempted mastery of many disciplines. For example, after 17 (I’m not that old, I started young) years of being a musician, I realize that I could have gained mastery in a few years if I was a prodigy or I flipped the right switches in my mind and made it easier for myself. And this is the same for anything you learn: That is, it can be broken down to its basics elements and mastered very quickly. Now what accounts for this? Pathways in the brain, perhaps? Have you ever realized that you do better in the subjects in school that you like and poorly in those that you don’t? Have you ever perceived that time was going slow in some instances and running fast in others? Now the empiricist would say that this was not the case, that time runs the same for everyone, but as we suggested before perception is reality. Could we transcend space and time not by a mechanical means but by an alteration of the mind like the guild pilots in Dune?

My question to you all is: Are there clues in our minds that suggest a priori knowledge? Is the concept of eternity one of those things that we really have no basis for in this world but we have some concept of for some reason? How do we come to learn? How do we start learning as a newborn if we start with nothing to compare with the new information coming in? We begin to distinguish objects and concepts from each other but what was that first transaction like when the image, sound, or touch, had nothing to compare with?

I would have to admit, in keeping in line with the OP, is that deja vu is the hardest thing to explain for me. I experience it all the time and it is very puzzling.

91

Well, as I said, it merits a short discussion. But you work this out for yourself the best way you can and whatever you decide is OK by me.

92

Okay, getting back to the OP.
As has been established by my post track record, I am agnostic/soft atheist.
Pretty much anti-Xtianity.
So on to one of my “mystic” experiences.

One evening after work a friend called me to say he was having some friends over last minute, nothing fancy, just bring over a six pack.
No food so I headed to the local Whataburger(pretty good fast food) for a quick bite. I thought to myself “Okay, I’ll pick up a sixer of Shiner Bock(a Texas beer and my favorite) after a quick bite.” But then countered with “Hmm, most of the guys like Bud Lite. If I get Bud Lite more guys will appreciate it.” “But some do like the Bock so it wouldn’t just be all for me.” What to do? This I’m pondering while driving. So I pull into the Whataburger, walk in, get in line…

There are two people in front of me. The fella directly next to me was an older man, probably late sixties, disheveled, possibly homeless.

I’m perusing the menu up on the wall when he turns to me and says…
“Maybe you should go with the Bud Lite, maybe you’ll get lucky.”

I’m speechless, the proverbial cold tingle runs down my spine. More than likely my jaw dropped almost to the floor. I don’t what I’m supposed to do, how I’m supposed to react. I’m frozen in disbelief.
So he then turns back away and moves up to place his order. I follow behind just because I’m confused. Run? Collapse to the floor?
He places his order to go and sits on a bench by the counter where to go customers sit. I place my order and go and sit in the back of the place all the time my eyes are glued on the guy. Somehow I expected there would be more.
But no eye contact, he never acknowledged me again. Just picked up his order and left.

So was I talking out loud to myself unknowingly? I swear not!
How else can this be explained though?

93

To answer the OP now, yes, I’ve had a ‘peak experience’, or a ‘liminal experience’, or a ‘oceanic experience’, or whatever you want to label it as. During the night of january 31, 2000, stone cold sober, I felt what can only be described as an immense presence, definitely female, or rather, feminine. To steal another writer’s phrase, it was “vast, cool, and unsympathetic.” And yet, at the same time, it was infintely loving and warm. This entity felt as if it took a personal interest in me at the same time as I was just another mote of dust for it, that it was part and parcel of Universe and that through Her all things were connected and made the same. At that moment, or rather for the span of about four hours, it was as real to me as body and breath.

Now, this gives me very little trouble, and only points to the fact that the human nervous system is wired in such a way that with the proper electrochemical stimuli, we feel high, spaced out, and experience feelings of unity and a ‘greater being’. Where others might choose to see mysery, I see biology, chemistry.

94

And, erm, that should be mystery. :smack:

95

It’s not just skeptics who are capable of being smug, and I resent that remark. Your Tolstoy quote is applicable to everyone.

96

To answer Axel’s question "what was before God? I would have to say place,to be a being, you first need a place in which to “be”.

Monavis

97

I hate it when that happens.

So, when a tree fall in the forest and no one is around, it doesn’t make a noise? Heavier bodies fell faster until Galileo rolled balls down an incline?

It’s amazing to think that if one believes in the supernatural, one can still be more enchanted by fairy tales than by science & mathematics. How can learning to read the messages of the creator be anything but the most fascinating and wonderful avocation in which one can engage?

98

I used to be more mystically minded but then, between the medication and making sure my blood sugar doesn’t get too low, I have grown more logical, though I miss my hallucinations. These days I let myself be bowled over by reality, which can be pretty weird, and science like String Theory, which is MUCH weirder than any of my imaginings.

99

I didn’t create a straw man. I quoted you. You equated the belief in the supernatural to the acceptance of the success of the scientific method.

You are not “letting me slide.” You are being condescending.

Belive (or don’t) in whatever you want. I’m done with this.

100

I don’t.

If Elvis were a food, would he be more like chocolate or sirloin?

Just because a question can be asked doesn’t mean it has an answer. It may be an interesting, even compelling, question, but that in and of itself does not necessarily require that an objective answer be found or formulated for it. “Meaning of life” questions are like that for me; they’re the equivalent of Elvis, Candy or Meat? musings. One can go around and around in one’s head, or with other people, considering the issue, but at the end of the day there’s no answer, and, more importantly, no particular reason why an answer is necessary apart from our primitive emotional need for it.

And no, I don’t consider myself especially deprived, either. The world is an amazing place; I don’t need to distract myself with philosophical abstractions to make it more interesting. The story of the invention of Teflon, for example, is fascinating all by itself without adding speculations about why the tank of gas had randomly polymerized for Plunkett on that day and in that location instead of for someone else at some other time. Why is irrelevant. How is interesting enough in and of itself.

To The Highwayman, who wondered whether what we think of as science will be as valid in two centuries as it is today, I will answer, yes, absolutely and unequivocally. Because science is not a body of knowledge, and to characterize it as such is to miss the point entirely, and to overlook the true elegance and power of our modern way of thinking. Science, rather, is a method, a means of organizing, testing, and classifying knowledge. The basic method has remained unchanged since we hit on it a couple of centuries ago: Form a testable hypothesis, design and run your tests, and publish your results so others can evaluate and double-check your conclusions. I fail to see how this basic rationale will change, ever.

And what’s more, this is the sole human endeavor that is structured around the elimination of bias, error, and deceit. Every single other activity either tolerates or encourages these flaws; the scientific method is specifically designed to root them out. You cannot say this about politics, or art, or business, or anything else I can think of (with the possibly debatable exception of sport). In those fields, imprecision and dishonesty are accepted or even rewarded. We say, idealistically, that we try to eliminate them, but actual, practical experience gives the lie to our starry-eyed intentions. In science, and only in science, is the opposite true not just in practical experience but as a fundamental part of the field’s philosophical and operational foundation.

I know where my intellectual loyalties lie.