Chaos Magic

[dlorde]

Again, under what circumstances do you consider it justified to question your own senses and faculties?

The obvious circumstance is when something apparently inexplicable has happened.

You'd probably question your own senses and faculties when an illusionist, mentalist or magician bamboozles you with a trick for which you have no explanation. We're simply suggesting applying the same scepticism of senses and faculties to other apparently inexplicable experiences. As with the illusionist's trick, you may never know the explanation, or the most likely explanation may be disappointingly mundane, but that's real life for you. Mind you, there are some people who really believe that some mentalists use paranormal powers to do their tricks, despite all the evidence...

 

[AkuManiMani]

Again, under what circumstances do you consider it justified to question your own senses and faculties?

The obvious circumstance is when something apparently inexplicable has happened.

You'd probably question your own senses and faculties when an illusionist, mentalist or magician bamboozles you with a trick for which you have no explanation. We're simply suggesting applying the same scepticism of senses and faculties to other apparently inexplicable experiences. As with the illusionist's trick, you may never know the explanation, or the most likely explanation may be disappointingly mundane, but that's real life for you. Mind you, there are some people who really believe that some mentalists use paranormal powers to do their tricks, despite all the evidence...

This is EXACTLY the essence of what I've been getting at. What one considers to be "supernatural" or "mundane" are all relative to what they consider to be explicable within their own conceptual model of reality. To an individual living 200 years ago, the vast majority of the technology we use today would appear "magical". Likewise, the picture of reality science will provide a couple centuries from now will probably seem extraordinary to the average scientist of today. Such violations do not invalidate their experiences of the world but merely highlight the limitations of their understanding.

Reality is vaster and stranger than any single conception of it can ever contain. There are bound to be occurrences and anomalies that completely violate any given individual's personal model of reality. It is not prudent to automatically re-interpret those anomalies to suit one's preconceptions, just as it is not a good idea to assume that they cannot be understood; in either case, one closes off their mind to potentially learning something new. Our current body of scientific understandings is not the be-all-end-all of reality; it will forever be tentative and incomplete. One would be wise to keep this in mind, especially when assessing accounts of apparently anomalous phenomena, or one's own extraordinary experiences. There are always things beyond one's epistemic horizons, no matter how knowledgeable or smart they may be.

 

[Sledge]

I suppose I should also assume that you have ulterior motives for not sharing intimate details of your personal life on a public web forum? Really dude, you can seriously KMA.

What claims have I made so far that require me to share intimate details of my personal life? Really dude, I consider you NFN.

 

[AkuManiMani]

What claims have I made so far that require me to share intimate details of my personal life? Really dude, I consider you NFN.

What claims have I made so far that require me to share intimate details of my personal life?

 

[PixyMisa]

What claims have I made so far that require me to share intimate details of my personal life?

Require? You have told us a story that seems completely unremarkable, and yet to which you attach great importance. The core of your reason is a single assertion, which you refuse to discuss further with the excuse that it's "personal".

You're not required to share anything. However, as things stand your story is not evidence of anything at all.

 

[tsig]

Your point being...?

They're imaginary.

 

[Sledge]

What claims have I made so far that require me to share intimate details of my personal life?

Excellent. Then you accept that nothing remarkable has happened to you, and everything you have related here can be adequately explained by the rational and mundane explanations offered?

 

[tsig]

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.

Key word hilited.

You seem to have convinced yourself of the validity or amazingness your accounts.

 

[tsig]

This is EXACTLY the essence of what I've been getting at. What one considers to be "supernatural" or "mundane" are all relative to what they consider to be explicable within their own conceptual model of reality. To an individual living 200 years ago, the vast majority of the technology we use today would appear "magical". Likewise, the picture of reality science will provide a couple centuries from now will probably seem extraordinary to the average scientist of today. Such violations do not invalidate their experiences of the world but merely highlight the limitations of their understanding.

]Reality is vaster and stranger than any single conception of it can ever contain.There are bound to be occurrences and anomalies that completely violate any given individual's personal model of reality. It is not prudent to automatically re-interpret those anomalies to suit one's preconceptions, just as it is not a good idea to assume that they cannot be understood; in either case, one closes off their mind to potentially learning something new. Our current body of scientific understandings is not the be-all-end-all of reality; it will forever be tentative and incomplete. One would be wise to keep this in mind, especially when assessing accounts of apparently anomalous phenomena, or one's own extraordinary experiences. There are always things beyond one's epistemic horizons, no matter how knowledgeable or smart they may be.

I haven't noticed these occurrences and anomalies that completely violate my personal model of reality.

So personal experience is the only arbiter of reality?

 

[PixyMisa]

This is EXACTLY the essence of what I've been getting at. What one considers to be "supernatural" or "mundane" are all relative to what they consider to be explicable within their own conceptual model of reality. To an individual living 200 years ago, the vast majority of the technology we use today would appear "magical".

An individual, or a scientist? Because plenty of people now treat the world as magical, even when there are simple and mundane explanations for what they have experienced.

By 180 years ago we had learned of electromagnetism. A scientist of 1830 would whip out his new-fangled electromagnetism detector and point it at some modern device and say, aha, that's how it works. And then take it apart to learn more.

For a lazy-minded individual, it doesn't matter whether they come from 1811 or 2011 or 3011 BC. If they can't explain it, it's magic. If someone else can explain it, it doesn't matter, it's still magic.

Likewise, the picture of reality science will provide a couple centuries from now will probably seem extraordinary to the average scientist of today.

That is very unlikely.

In 1830, there was clear evidence of things we didn't understand. How did the Sun work? Why did Mercury follow that particular orbit? What keeps the core of the Earth hot? Why does light act the way it does?

There are far fewer such questions today. Dark matter and dark energy are the big one. Science is working on a lot of specific details, but there is nothing we observe in the natural world that suggests it is about to undergo any grand transformation.

Such violations do not invalidate their experiences of the world but merely highlight the limitations of their understanding.

Except that we are aware of the boundaries of our knowledge, as were the scientists of 200 years ago. There are some things we know, there are some things we are unsure of, and there are some things we don't know at all.

What's the mass of the Higgs boson? Don't know, though we can put a lower limit on it.
Is there a previously uncatalogued large hominid species living in the Pacific Northwest? No.

 

[Robin]

All this talk seems to be besides the point anyway.

The OP seemed to be about being able to:

...evaluate mystical claims by becoming a mystic yourself​

In all these pages, has anybody described even one evaluatable mystical claim?

 

[!Kaggen]

All this talk seems to be besides the point anyway.

The OP seemed to be about being able to:

...evaluate mystical claims by becoming a mystic yourself​

In all these pages, has anybody described even one evaluatable mystical claim?

"Know thyself"

 

[dlorde]

...
Reality is vaster and stranger than any single conception of it can ever contain. There are bound to be occurrences and anomalies that completely violate any given individual's personal model of reality. It is not prudent to automatically re-interpret those anomalies to suit one's preconceptions, just as it is not a good idea to assume that they cannot be understood; in either case, one closes off their mind to potentially learning something new. Our current body of scientific understandings is not the be-all-end-all of reality; it will forever be tentative and incomplete. One would be wise to keep this in mind, especially when assessing accounts of apparently anomalous phenomena, or one's own extraordinary experiences. There are always things beyond one's epistemic horizons, no matter how knowledgeable or smart they may be.

None of that militates against assessing the evidence in a rational and scientific way - which, for all its incompleteness is demonstrably the best method available. Despite admitting that you have had "some pretty odd experiences over the passed several years of my life than don't lend themselves very well to conventional explanations", you have deliberately chosen not to consider a whole class of explanations that might involve you being an ordinary fallible human being. That, Aku, is denial.

 

[Resume]

"Know thyself"

Not mystical.

"Change yourself."

Maybe.

Nah.

 

[tsig]

"Know thyself"

Do you mean know in the Biblical sense?

 

[!Kaggen]

Do you mean know in the Biblical sense?

 

[jcampbell]

There are bound to be occurrences and anomalies that completely violate any given individual's personal model of reality. It is not prudent to automatically re-interpret those anomalies to suit one's preconceptions, just as it is not a good idea to assume that they cannot be understood; in either case, one closes off their mind to potentially learning something new. Our current body of scientific understandings is not the be-all-end-all of reality; it will forever be tentative and incomplete. One would be wise to keep this in mind, especially when assessing accounts of apparently anomalous phenomena, or one's own extraordinary experiences. There are always things beyond one's epistemic horizons, no matter how knowledgeable or smart they may be.

LSD definitely violated my personal model of reality, but then I reminded myself that I was taking LSD. I'm wondering though, would you accept that as an explanation for what occurred or would you chalk it up to my limited understanding or a reinterpretation of the anomalies I experienced to suit my preconceptions?

 

[AkuManiMani]

...
Reality is vaster and stranger than any single conception of it can ever contain. There are bound to be occurrences and anomalies that completely violate any given individual's personal model of reality. It is not prudent to automatically re-interpret those anomalies to suit one's preconceptions, just as it is not a good idea to assume that they cannot be understood; in either case, one closes off their mind to potentially learning something new. Our current body of scientific understandings is not the be-all-end-all of reality; it will forever be tentative and incomplete. One would be wise to keep this in mind, especially when assessing accounts of apparently anomalous phenomena, or one's own extraordinary experiences. There are always things beyond one's epistemic horizons, no matter how knowledgeable or smart they may be.

None of that militates against assessing the evidence in a rational and scientific way - which, for all its incompleteness is demonstrably the best method available. Despite admitting that you have had "some pretty odd experiences over the passed several years of my life than don't lend themselves very well to conventional explanations", you have deliberately chosen not to consider a whole class of explanations that might involve you being an ordinary fallible human being. That, Aku, is denial.

I've never denied being an ordinary fallible human being nor have I disputed the usefulness of the "rational and scientific way". There are reasons why I even bothered to mention my experiences here and none of them include trying to prove their validity

 

[AkuManiMani]

Excellent. Then you accept that nothing remarkable has happened to you, and everything you have related here can be adequately explained by the rational and mundane explanations offered?

You seem awfully invested in trying to prove this. Evidence...? >:}

 

[AkuManiMani]

Require? You have told us a story that seems completely unremarkable, and yet to which you attach great importance.

Iono, seems you "attach great importantce" to it yourself. You, and several others, have just spent quite a few pages trying to reinterpret it and get me to tell more. Me thinks ye doth protest too much...

The core of your reason is a single assertion, which you refuse to discuss further with the excuse that it's "personal".

What were the contents of your hallucinations, Pixy? Do you ever cry yourself to sleep at night? Oh, better yet, I'd settle for you just telling me what you're feeling right now...

You're not required to share anything. However, as things stand your story is not evidence of anything at all.

Well you've nothing to disprove then, do ya?