Chaos Magic

[PixyMisa]

What you refer to as "the accumulated knowledge of civilization" are a collection of propositions and interpretations based off of the experiences of individuals other than yourself. They are essentially a large body of stories that you've personally selected as worthy of investing a certain degree of faith in. Among the milieu of accumulated human stories are innumerable accounts of "spirit communication", or whatever one wants to call it. The fact of the matter is that those are just a selection of stories that you have not chosen to accept as evidence.

Poppycock.

 

[PixyMisa]

It might make the situation seem even more unusual if you mention the odd things you told me about, but it is up to you if you don't want to.

It makes you wonder why he is so convinced, though.

 

[!Kaggen]

I would seriously suggest reading the work of
Prof. David Lewis-Williams

His books
The Mind in the Cave
Inside the Neolithic Mind
Conceiving God

Article
http://web.wits.ac.za/NR/rdonlyres/...illiamsLawsonHelskogWhitleyMellarsTheMind.pdf

Interview
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6K4_7h1lajE&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kN0IpgnzvzE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnBv_23UJQo&feature=related

He is a world authority on rock art, specifically San rock art and has a very, very interesting hypothesis on the origins of religion.
This hypothesis explains both sides of this debate using our current understanding of neurology.
In fact his hypothesis also throws some important light on the consciousness debate in the other threads.

 

[Robin]

Just remember, one does not drink the mud of the well. No animals come to an old well. And then...flip a coin.

And if you tie two birds together, though they have four wings they cannot fly.

It is like a finger pointed at the moon - if you focus your attention on the finger you miss the glory of the heavens.

Let me try walking on that rice paper again.

 

[carlitos]

Again, under what circumstances do you consider it justified to question your own senses and faculties? Do you pinch yourself every time you think you've woken up in the morning? When a friend mentions what they had for lunch that day, do you ask them if they're sure and insist on a number of other things you think they must have eaten? If they reply that they are absolutely sure of what they ate, do you accuse them of arrogantly presuming the infallibility of their senses?

Yes, because describing lunch is just like paranormal claims. Congratulations. You can continue to feel special and superior to me, because I'm done responding to your tripe. Theosophy 101.

 

[AkuManiMani]

It might make the situation seem even more unusual if you mention the odd things you told me about, but it is up to you if you don't want to.

Oh gosh, I'm already pulling enough aggro as it is. Don't really need to tell them my whole life story, nor is it necessary for me to convince them of the validity or amazingness my accounts. As I already said, I've other reasons for mentioning what I have and the details, as given so far, are more than sufficient.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Again, under what circumstances do you consider it justified to question your own senses and faculties? Do you pinch yourself every time you think you've woken up in the morning? When a friend mentions what they had for lunch that day, do you ask them if they're sure and insist on a number of other things you think they must have eaten? If they reply that they are absolutely sure of what they ate, do you accuse them of arrogantly presuming the infallibility of their senses?

Yes, because describing lunch is just like paranormal claims. Congratulations.

Please share what your definition of 'paranormal' is and explain why it cannot exist

You can continue to feel special and superior to me, because I'm done responding to your tripe. Theosophy 101.

Now, now, Carlitos... Atleast -try- to keep your projections out of this

ETA: I also noticed that you've elected to sidestep a number of questions I've asked you. Should I attribute this to some ulterior petty motives on your part? :-0

 

[AkuManiMani]

Poppycock.

Poppyseed!

 

[AkuManiMani]

I would seriously suggest reading the work of
Prof. David Lewis-Williams

His books
The Mind in the Cave
Inside the Neolithic Mind
Conceiving God

Article
http://web.wits.ac.za/NR/rdonlyres/...illiamsLawsonHelskogWhitleyMellarsTheMind.pdf

Interview
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6K4_7h1lajE&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kN0IpgnzvzE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnBv_23UJQo&feature=related

He is a world authority on rock art, specifically San rock art and has a very, very interesting hypothesis on the origins of religion.
This hypothesis explains both sides of this debate using our current understanding of neurology.
In fact his hypothesis also throws some important light on the consciousness debate in the other threads.

Thanks for the links, !Kaggen. I'll definitely give'em all a look-see

 

[Hokulele]

Oh gosh, I'm already pulling enough aggro as it is. Don't really need to tell them my whole life story, nor is it necessary for me to convince them of the validity or amazingness my accounts. As I already said, I've other reasons for mentioning what I have and the details, as given so far, are more than sufficient.

Determining what may have happened would be much easier if we also had the woman's account to compare and contrast to yours.

 

[carlitos]

Pointless

There's no point in providing more details; doing so would not do anything in the way of removing doubts. In any case, removing doubt is not my goal

Hokulele, you are correct that it would help, but he's not interested in removing doubt or determining what may have happened. He just wants to feel special.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Determining what may have happened would be much easier if we also had the woman's account to compare and contrast to yours.

I've provided as much detail as I'm willing to regarding my friend's own account here and here. Most of the other details are either not germane to the discussion or are of a personal nature. I hope you find what I have provided sufficient to evaluate the consistency and similarity of the accounts, as given.

 

[Hokulele]

Hokulele, you are correct that it would help, but he's not interested in removing doubt or determining what may have happened. He just wants to feel special.

Eh, AkuManiMani can do with it what he wants, it is more of a general comment about this sort of thing. I mentioned something similar to Limbo before (it was ignored), but single data points regarding an event aren't very useful. To determine what may or may not have happened, multiple sources of evidence converging on a single explanation are generally what are required to come up with even a tentative conclusion.

This leads to a larger issue with what Limbo has been promoting on this forum since his very first thread; he wants people to study comparative religion/mythology, but that doesn't teach you anything other than that people's brains work in a similar manner (no duh!). The main flaw with both Campbell and Jung is that they are looking for similarities, so guess what they find? Similarities! Campbell in particular is guilty of shoehorning things with only surface similarities into a pigeonhole, as well as the fallacy of translation.

It is by studying where human experience and religion differ that you learn the most about what may be "real". My favorite book that I read in the past year is this one. It is about how language shapes our perception of the world, and directly addresses the translation fallacy that trips up many mystics.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Hokulele, you are correct that it would help, but he's not interested in removing doubt or determining what may have happened. He just wants to feel special.

You seem to know an awful lot about such motivations. Care to share what you're basing this conclusion upon?

 

[Hokulele]

I've provided as much detail as I'm willing to regarding my friend's own account here and here. Most of the other details are either not germane to the discussion or are of a personal nature. I hope you find what I have provided sufficient to evaluate the consistency and similarity of the accounts, as given.

That is your account of your friend's experience, not hers. I am sorry, but I do not find that very helpful in developing an explanation.

 

[AkuManiMani]

That is your account of your friend's experience, not hers. I am sorry, but I do not find that very helpful in developing an explanation.

Just out of curiosity, what sort of information do you feel would be sufficient to develop a suitable explanation?

 

[Hokulele]

Just out of curiosity, what sort of information do you feel would be sufficient to develop a suitable explanation?

Well, I would want to have first person accounts from all of those involved as anything else is simply hearsay, the weakest form of evidence. I would prefer to acquire those accounts on my own, or at least use a trusted source. Getting those accounts as close to the event as possible would help in establishing the accuracy of the emotions and details, but obviously isn't guaranteed to do so. With your account of her experience, I have no idea if you influenced her retelling with leading questions and the like. I am not saying you did, just that I cannot discount the possibilty based on what has been provided.

Any physical evidence is the most helpful, although there wouldn't be any in your particular case.

I would also need more context as to what had happened prior to both of you (independently) and the timing of each of these experiences. From what you have provided, it is impossible to tell whether or not there were prior shared experiences that may have influenced your perception of the event in question.

I know you are probably sick and tired of having terms like "confabulation" thrown at you, but I don't trust my brain to provide me accurate information. As a very basic level, I am horrendously nearsighted and have a scotoma in one eye, so I know perfectly well that what I see is not what I get.

Another great book on the human brain and how it can fool itself is V.S. Ramachandran's Phantoms in the Brain. It is rather eye-opening in how we can't trust all of our experiences.

 

[Elizabeth I]

It is by studying where human experience and religion differ that you learn the most about what may be "real". My favorite book that I read in the past year is this one. It is about how language shapes our perception of the world, and directly addresses the translation fallacy that trips up many mystics.

Thank you for that. I have just put it on hold at my library!

 

[!Kaggen]

Eh, AkuManiMani can do with it what he wants, it is more of a general comment about this sort of thing. I mentioned something similar to Limbo before (it was ignored), but single data points regarding an event aren't very useful. To determine what may or may not have happened, multiple sources of evidence converging on a single explanation are generally what are required to come up with even a tentative conclusion.

This leads to a larger issue with what Limbo has been promoting on this forum since his very first thread; he wants people to study comparative religion/mythology, but that doesn't teach you anything other than that people's brains work in a similar manner (no duh!). The main flaw with both Campbell and Jung is that they are looking for similarities, so guess what they find? Similarities! Campbell in particular is guilty of shoehorning things with only surface similarities into a pigeonhole, as well as the fallacy of translation.

It is by studying where human experience and religion differ that you learn the most about what may be "real". My favorite book that I read in the past year is this one. It is about how language shapes our perception of the world, and directly addresses the translation fallacy that trips up many mystics.

Thanks for the link about the Piraha again, I really need to get around to reading more about them.
Lewis-Williams also points out that Campbell was flawed in that he assumed religion originated as way of an explaining natural events which were unexplainable at the time.
This was a common idea amongst anthropologists and sociologists from christian monotheistic backgrounds. It kind of justified the "heir-achy" of religions from animism->totem-ism/ ancestor worship->polytheism->monotheism.
In fact modern neurology tells us that this idea is actually the other way around.
Neurological events can be so powerful that they influence the way we interpret natural events. We project our neurological events onto the natural, not as an explanation but as a description thereof. Religious descriptions are not metaphor's they are literal descriptions of events. The fact that we have more useful descriptions through the work of science is besides the point. As someone said to me the other day. In the end the best story wins.

ETA: So yes the brain tells us what to see

 

[AkuManiMani]

Just out of curiosity, what sort of information do you feel would be sufficient to develop a suitable explanation?

Well, I would want to have first person accounts from all of those involved as anything else is simply hearsay, the weakest form of evidence. I would prefer to acquire those accounts on my own, or at least use a trusted source. Getting those accounts as close to the event as possible would help in establishing the accuracy of the emotions and details, but obviously isn't guaranteed to do so. With your account of her experience, I have no idea if you influenced her retelling with leading questions and the like. I am not saying you did, just that I cannot discount the possibilty based on what has been provided.

Any physical evidence is the most helpful, although there wouldn't be any in your particular case.
I would also need more context as to what had happened prior to both of you (independently) and the timing of each of these experiences. From what you have provided, it is impossible to tell whether or not there were prior shared experiences that may have influenced your perception of the event in question.

This is true.

Short of providing actual physical evidence, I don't think there really is any way to solidly establish anything about the accounts short of relying on our own word. It doesn't really matter what information is provided, how it is articulated, or how much of it is forthcoming, the fact of the matter is that we're stuck with a situation in which all you really have is the hearsay of some stranger(s) on the other side of the internet.

I really don't think it is possible to prove any of the claims I've presented [especially not on a web forum] but it is possible to speculate and brainstorm based on the information as presented. There is really no need to believe or disbelieve a proposition presented to you in order to evaluate it. Even if one personally finds a claim/proposition questionable it helps to tentatively assume it true for the sake of evaluating a scenario "from the inside", so to speak. In this way one can atleast determine it's logical self-consistency and possible (in)consistency with one's own prior experiences and exposure to other propositions.

I've found that such a suspension of judgement has been very useful in situations where information is not forthcoming or where I've had to deal with individuals with a history of insidious lying. While such an approach doesn't guarantee that you'll get conclusive answers, it does provide a way to generate an array of potentially useful hypotheses that one would otherwise not even consider. Eventually, some semblance of the truth usually makes itself apparent.

I know you are probably sick and tired of having terms like "confabulation" thrown at you, but I don't trust my brain to provide me accurate information. As a very basic level, I am horrendously nearsighted and have a scotoma in one eye, so I know perfectly well that what I see is not what I get.

Hehe. I understand

Another great book on the human brain and how it can fool itself is V.S. Ramachandran's Phantoms in the Brain. It is rather eye-opening in how we can't trust all of our experiences.

I'll definitely give that one a read, as I've found Ramachandran's lectures to be very informative and thought provoking. I have many of own theories regarding the nature of experiences like the ones I've just reported but they are mostly in the "hold that thought" box of my speculative playspace. Maybe one day I might actually be able think of some way to systematically test the nature of such "spirit encounters". As of now, its safe to say that I'm not exactly convinced that they are all "just" hallucinations