The Dire Search for Meaning and Purpose in a Finite Life.

[Victor Pross]

Michael, [et al]

While it shouldn’t be necessary, let me preface this post by saying that I will not denigrate Rich and that I want to carry this conversation on with him, and all others who wish to join in. I will stress that I am in profound philosophical disagreement with him--if I understand him correctly thus far, that is. For me, it is this small margin of a doubt that brings this dialogue. I do want clarification on just WHAT is being asserted.

Let’s jump into it:

There is no point whatsoever by clogging up the cognitive landscape by introducing another word for “mysticism” when Rich has employed the historical use of the word—quite accurately---with the exception of one or two examples. There are a few problems I have with Rich’s article and Michael’s post. Briefly, I would like to look into that.

Firstly, Michael states that Rand “pushed the meaning in a different direction” and I don’t think that is correct at all. It can be demonstrated that Rand was quite in accord with the traditional philosophical meaning of the term. I’ll get to that in a moment.

Secondly, Rich has not only mischaracterized the historical idea of mysticism [to a certain degree] he has mischaracterized the Objectivist epistemology to a greater degree.

Rich consults the American Heritage Dictionary definition of mysticism, citing three meanings: 1. immediate consciousness of the transcendent or ultimate reality of God. 2. A belief in the existence of realities beyond perpetual or intellectual apprehension that are central to being and directly accessible by subjective experience. 3. Vague, groundless speculations.

Rich then precedes to sum up Objectivism’s position on mysticism as “beliefs that are accepted as valid even though they are not supported by factual evidence”. This is not entirely accurate, but it’s quite acceptable without bickering too much over it. What is not acceptable, however, is that he then goes on to make the outlandish claim that Objectivism ignores The American Heritage definitions 1 and 2—while simply citing 3 as Objectivism’s target.

This is not true. Why not the whole load? Objectivism proudly dismisses door number 1,2 and 3—rightfully! If you read 1 and two again, and if you know anything about Objectivism, you’ll understand why the whole barrel is fated to go over the falls.

Now, all of that is bad enough, but then Rich really offers up a whooping package-deal by adding to the prize the following examples of Objectivism’s swiping take on mysticism. His claim that its defintion also includes: 1. tradition.2. upbringing. 2. Errors. This is factually inaccurate! Rand’s definition of mysticism was straightforward and faithful to the standard historical definition---and contained within the very definition her rejection of it should be obvious.

In Philosophy: Who Needs It, Ayn Rand wrote: “Mysticism is the acceptance of allegations without evidence or proof, either apart from or against the evidence of one’s senses and one’s reason.”

You will observe that “error” or “upbringing” is not one of the items in this definition. Rand was careful to describe within the definition that mysticism is “allegations without evidence” and that it is either “apart” or “against” the evidence of the senses—thereby covering all the bases while remaining faithful to the philosophical definition. I am saying that Rand's definition does not clash with the classic definitions of mysticism. She merely rejects it, and for good reason: its irrationality.

***

Before proceeding, let’s define our terms by consulting the “Dictionary of Philosophy” by Peter A. Angeles.

Mysticism: 1. “The belief that the ultimate truth about reality can be obtained neither by ordinary experience nor by intellect but only by mystical experience or by nonrational intuition."

In the post above, I was right to put on my philosophical detective cap when I asked if a “mystical experience” is communicable to others. “How can Objectivism dismiss something as entirely groundless,” Rich asks “if it is an internal, private process?” Michael describes this “private process” as an “overpowering sense of generalized benevolence” and—hesitantly—“intense.” The Philosophical Dictionary concedes this line of thought by using such words as “serenity,” “light,” and “bliss.” And it is here where human history is besotted by postulations of supernaturalism [and other brands of irrationalism] and all coming from a wrongful [or willful] understanding of powerful emotions. It's been said a million times before, but lets say it one more time: emotions aren't tools of cognition.

What's more, a question that would flow from Rich’s poignant plea would be: How, then, can anybody take seriously his allegations "without evidence or proof, either apart from or against the evidence of one’s senses and one’s reason” if the experience is “private” and “internal"? Generalized answer: Because I want it, that's why.

This whole line of philosophizing reeks of the classic mystic injunction: “To those who understand, no explanation is necessary—to those who don’t, none is possible.” The mystic demands that we accept his claims BECAUSE it is private and internal to him! Who are we to dismiss something as groundless when it is internal to the mystic? Well, for that very reason.

Actually, to be fair, nobody can rightfully assert that Rich [or any other “mystic”] did not experience some highly unusual sense of “euphoria” or “ecstasy”, that's not in question-- but what is subject to question or rejection is the interpretation given to that experience. I am curious to know if Rich is claiming some ‘wider implication’—some specific claim or interpretation--outside of his intense, unusual euphoric experience---which I, an atheist, have experienced! I experienced it when creating art or when I am in love. But I don't bring 'God' into it.

Typically, of course, mystics do take their emotions as ‘tools of cognition’ to assert or delineate his interior state, to assert a variant of a “primacy of consciousness” orientation.

Here is the million dollar question: Is Rich coming from this tradition? The less expensive question would be: just exactly what is being asserted? That's what I want to bottom line here.

Victor

Edited September 1, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Victor,

Either we do this the right way or we don't do it.

I am talking about a concept, not a word. I stated very clearly that I wanted to focus on what this mental event consists of and that the term "mysticism" is tainted with too much history. You asked at the end of your post what we are talking about, yet at the beginning, you stated: "There is no point whatsoever by clogging up the cognitive landscape by introducing another word for 'mysticism.' Then you proceeded to discuss precisely the tainted part so you can "trounce" it with colorful expressions. If there is "no point" to understanding precisely the part that needs to be understood, preferring to focus on some imagined "enemy" or other, well... I guess there is no point.

To answer your question, you do not understand because you stated clearly that you do not want to understand. That has to change before you will even have an inkling about the real issue. Are you interested in this idea (concept) at all? I'm serious. All I saw was a Don Quixote charge into the face of glory at a nonexistent mystical windmill on the Steed of Rand. Colorful, but it grossly misrepresented the subject and dealt with another subject entirely.

For the record, I am talking about a mental event only. One at the equivalent of the perceptual level. I am not talking about "ultimate truth about reality" or any other nonsense you set up, pretending that this was what I was discussing.

A good example of sloppy reading of what I wrote is your phrase: "Michael describes this 'private process' as an 'overpowering sense of generalized benevolence' and—hesitantly—'intense.'" I certainly did not describe it as that (except for the "intense" part). I described only the emotional component of it that way (and even then, only part of that emotional component). There was a cognitive component based on induction that you completely left out. I know why, too. So you could blast out that "emotions are not tools of cognition" and other Rand phrases. You can't "trounce" the induction part with a stock Rand phrase. You would have to understand it first.

So I repeat, are you interested in this idea at all? This mental event exists. You might claim that it doesn't, but it does. If you like, I will do a Google search and come up with the brain scans of subjects to show you that it is real.

But let's do a real Randish thing before I stop. Let me show you a perfect example of the use of a stolen concept. This error happens when you salivate too much with the "enemy" in sight instead of trying to understand. Look at what you wrote:

This whole line of philosophizing reeks of the classic mystic injunction: “To those who understand, no explanation is necessary—to those don’t, none is possible.” The mystic demands that we accept his claims BECAUSE it is private and internal to him!

Maybe some mystic you are imagining "philosophized" and made some "demands" and "claims" on "us" based on subjectivity. I didn't see Rich do that and I certainly didn't do it. You are "trouncing" the wrong enemy.

(Personally, I would give up the bombastic rhetorical style at the initial stage of a discussion of something new. It comes across as either offensive or silly. I find it silly. How about, "It reeks of pompous silliness since it demands we accept the swamp of overblown rhetoric masked as the clean purity of reasoned discourse"? )

But on to the stolen concept. Rand used and meant her expressions with precision. When she criticized the slogan, “To those who understand, no explanation is necessary—to those don’t, none is possible,” she was criticizing the phrase in a very specific sense: she was claiming that it was ridiculous to apply it to justify ideas, i.e, concepts, since it put them outside the understanding of reason.

If you had not been so anxious to "trounce" something, you would have noticed that we are discussing the equivalent of percepts. Induction. A pre-conceptual mental event.

You removed the entire set of referents from Rand's idea (basically the catch-phrases of religion and communism) and used the words (i.e., the slogan) for Rand's concept to apply to a referent of another nature entirely (a mental event at the perceptual level). You stole the concept and injected in another place where it doesn't apply, but sounds good. This is a perfect example of a stolen concept in action.

I dare you to explain red to the color-blind and then try to escape the truth - at that level - of “To those who understand, no explanation is necessary—to those don’t, none is possible.” That's how perception and induction work. You either got it or you don't. Unfortunately, if a person does not have an organ for experiencing something, or if that organ is not developed, this phrase is true at that level. But, as I mentioned, the phrase is highly out of context here and injects a stolen concept the way you used it. A bat will never know what light is. Ever. The deaf do not know what sound is except by vibrations that they feel in objects through touch. No amount of explaining will make them experience it or, later, integrate it into a concept. They do not have the equipment.

That is the start of what we are talking about.

That's enough for now. Do you really want to continue this? If so, lower your guns. There is a lot of completely rational stuff you are refusing to understand on purpose.

(Or, if not on purpose, I can go slower if you like. That would be a good idea anyway.)

Michael

[Victor Pross]

"Do you really want to continue this? If so, lower your guns. There is a lot of completely rational stuff you are refusing to understand on purpose."

Michael,

Yes, I do want to continue.

You may very well have ‘something’ else entirely in mind, and you can easily attribute my critique—not a bad word, by the way—to attacking a straw man, which would be true--if I could read your mind. I can’t.

So yes, if I’m off the rail in properly addressing where this is going, I’m very intrigued. So let’s get to it. As my grandfather use to say: “Shit—or get off the pot!”

If you speak of this ever elusive ‘unknown’ state—don’t berate me for not immediately “getting it”. Let me have it…then I’ll get it!

Meanwhile, my post did square with Rich’s article--as it was written. I also have a basic understanding of Rich’s position from other posts—and seriously, all I can take from it is an old-fashioned mysticism. I’m not alone in that conclusion. I’m not purposely trying to ignore the ‘real’ issue—the real issue being something you admit has not yet been uncovered. Let’s have it.

But I maintain—given Rich’s posts, his article…I don’t see what other conclusion to come to. What’s more, I don’t think it is out of place that I should contrast these funky thoughts to that of Objectivism, and for two basic reasons: Well, um, I’m an Objectivist and this is an Objectivist site. ;)

Talk to me. What’s with the drama? ;)

Victor

Edited September 1, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Victor,

We must be precise.

... the real issue being something you admit that has not yet been uncovered.

That is not what I said. I said you refused to see what we were talking about, not that it had not yet been uncovered. Let me be clearer. You refused to see it even with the words right in front of you. You have an attitude in the way.

Let's go slower.

Did you understand the part I said about those who experience this mental event as not being the best people to describe it because (now this is a direct quote from me) "it has not been standardized rationally yet"?

(I will get to how you completely missed the mark with Rich later. Now is too soon.)

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Victor,

Here's a little tidbit - a press release - from the Internet that is pertinent:

Public release date: 29-Aug-2006

Contact: Marc Tulin

marc.tulin@umontreal.ca

514-343-7593

University of Montreal

Brain scan of nuns finds no single 'God spot' in the brain, Université de Montréal study finds

A new study at the Université de Montréal has concluded that there is no single God spot in the brain. In other words, mystical experiences are mediated by several brain regions and systems normally implicated in a variety of functions (self-consciousness, emotion, body representation). The study published in the current issue of Neuroscience Letters was conducted by Dr. Mario Beauregard from the Department of Psychology at the Université de Montréal and his student Vincent Paquette.

"The main goal of the study was to identify the neural correlates of a mystical experience," explained Beauregard. "This does not diminish the meaning and value of such an experience, and neither does it confirm or disconfirm the existence of God."

Fifteen cloistered Carmelite nuns ranging from 23 to 64-years-old were subjected to an fMRI brain scan while asked to relive a mystical experience rather than actually try to achieve one. "I was obliged to do it this way seeing as the nuns are unable to call upon God at will," said Beauregard. This method was justified seeing as previous studies with actors asked to enter a particular emotional state activated the same brain regions as people actually living those emotions.

This study demonstrated that a dozen different regions of the brain are activated during a mystical experience. This type of research became very popular in the United States in the late 1990s. Some researchers went as far as suggesting the possibility of a specific brain region designed for communication with God. This latest research discredits such theories.

I added bold to the sentence in the last paragraph.

How on earth is it that "a dozen different regions of the brain are activated during a mystical experience" if such an experience is impossible? I say, let's see what the thing is before we speculate about what it means. These people are doing something that can be measured. Regardless of the actual existence of a supernatural entity, they use the idea of one to achieve this state of mind. It could be seen as a form of technique.

This study is very pertinent Objectivism-wise in that it tried to locate a specific supernatural spot and failed. Sooner or later this experience will become divorced from the "supernatural" and become grounded only in reality. As I said before, science marches on.

Want more? This is just a press release. I don't receive Neuroscience Letters, so I don't know the actual data. I am sure more specific stuff can be found. This one is recent, though, being dated August 29.

Edit: Here is an extremely interesting article on the measurable parts of the mystical experience (which I call a "mental event"): Neuroscientific Study of Religious and Spiritual Phenomena: A Field Analysis by Andrew Newberg. In particular, see the section called "Objective Measures of Spirituality."

Also, I would have been intrigued to see a brain scan of Ayn Rand during the "hours contemplating" her favorite painting at the Metropolitan Musuem of art. I am pretty convinced that this was her version of a mystical experience ("mental event") and that the painting was merely an outside inducement element like I mentioned earlier. This was not contemplating art in the normal Objectivist heroic sense. Torture was the theme, yet Rand spent hours in front of this painting. It certainly was not life "as it could and should be."

Michael

[Dragonfly]

I think you both are talking at cross purposes. I see nowhere that Victor is denying the existence of a mystic experience as a real experience, so all those mentions of brain scans - how interesting these in themselves may be - are not really relevant as an argument against what Victor said. At the risk that Michael will call me Brutus again (Ave Caesar!) I must say that so far I agree in general with Victor's last posts. Rand's definition of mysticism is not against the usual definitions - it certainly encompasses the three different meanings given in the American Heritage Dictionary. Where she may be deviating from the common definitions is that her definition is more general and not strictly limited to insights based on what are called "mystical experiences". Rand: Mysticism is the acceptance of allegations without evidence or proof, either apart from or against the evidence of one's senses and one's reason. (Ayn Rand, Philosophy, who needs it). (Oh, I see now that Victor already mentioned that definition, well, never mind, it can't harm to repeat it here.)

Now the crux of this discussion is the question whether what Michael and Rich call "mystical experiences", the existence of which is certainly not doubted (so you're barking up the wrong tree, Michael) can give information about the world apart from the evidence of one's senses and one's reason. I think that that is the point that Victor wants to challenge (and rightly so!), although that may not have been so clearly formulated in his posts (but it is there if you read carefully). On the other hand the position in this of Michael and Rich is rather vague, or I must have missed something somewhere. To avoid misunderstandings: the point is not whether a "mystical experience" may somehow generate more insight on the basis what the person who has that experience already has assimilated, but whether it can give information apart from the evidence of our senses. That would be an extraordinary claim and as such demands extraordinary evidence (and not vague mumblings of "might be", "you never know" etc.). If that is not the case, then the term "mystical experience" would be unfortunate, as it goes against all the standard definitions of mysticism (and against Rand's definition), and a more neutral term like "altered state" would be preferable.

I think that this discussion so far has been troubled by unnecessary irritation on both parts which has hampered the communication and I hope that my cool voice of reason will bring it back to a normal rational discussion, where sharply differing viewpoints are still allowed.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dragonfly,

Thank you for joining in. I covered the point you made in my question above:

Now does this mental event access a part of reality not accessed by our five senses, or is it merely a part of the brain's operations, like sleep is, which has no principal awareness function?

Hell, you are a scientist. You must know that you never start an experiment with a negative "this is impossible" approach. So making the brain scans while affirming that this must be only an altered state with no information processing at all because it cannot possibly be anything else is a very foolish way to start. The best way is "let's take a look see."

Obviously this "altered state" (which is as good a term as any) is much more than a simple emotion triggered by the amygdala.

Let me repeat. I am not affirming that information about the world is being processed, but I am not affirming that it isn't either. I am affirming that it looks like it is enough to be investigated along those lines.

The only real evidence, excluding brain scans, we have had so far that any new information about reality is being processed is the overwhelming number of reports of certainty over centuries, all bearing some very similar characteristics. To me, that is not enough to make a definite claim, but it certainly is enough to warrant scientific investigation and not scoffing. I suppose people scoffed back when there were those who claimed that the world was round and said, "Well look around you. Does the world look round? It's flat. Ha! You're a fool!"

That's Victor's approach and that is the tree I am barking up. He claims "the guy says the word mysticism. Rand said mysticism is bad. He's out to lunch. Ha! So there!"

Let's look at Rand's definition again: "Mysticism is the acceptance of allegations without evidence or proof, either apart from or against the evidence of one's senses and one's reason."

I think there are more human senses than just the traditional five (especially with gravity perception), but for the sake of argument, let's call perception of inner bodily changes, including the ones in the brain like with the "altered state," as being perceived by the sense of touch. If we would call a bellyache being perceived by the sense of touch, I don't see why other inner physical changes cannot be called that.

Something definite, repeatable and bearing common characteristics among many different people is being reported on that sensory level and this has been validated by brain scans. Doesn't that count as evidence that some information of some kind is possibly being processed? That's what the brain does after all: process information about the world.

As per Rand's definition, I see very clear evidence that some information is possibly being dealt with (usually asserted to be "God" or something, but at this level, "what it is" is not as important as "that it is," meaning we can rationally discover "what it is" over time with study and experiments, but we first have to admit the possibility "that it is"). I do not see this being "apart from or against the evidence of one's senses and one's reason." We have the sense of touch involved internally. We are measuring some of it with brain scans. I have no doubt more and more sophisticated inquiries will be carried out over time.

What that information is and what it concerns and all the other questions will be answered over time. You certainly cannot rely on the speculations of religious people. They will tell you that this is proof God exists and you have to have faith to accept that. You certainly cannot rely on the scoffing-type Objectivists either. They will tell you that it is a whim or something like that.

Rich uses the religious kind of language a bit, but over time, with a careful reading of his article and asking very specific questions, I tried to weed out (ignore) the catch phrases and see if there was something substantial to what he was saying. There was. I have come to the conclusion that his allegation is not "God exists" in the garden variety of religious person. His claim usually boils down to he is certain that he became aware of "something," but he does not have a clear grasp of what that something is. He only knows that he is certain "that it is." He also has some aspects that he can point to, especially the impact it had on his behavior, but he cannot describe the whole thing.

Dragonfly, this is a body of evidence that is accumulating. This mental event has existed since the dawn of mankind and has always been in the hands of religious-type mystics until very recently. It won't go away by us wishing it to. The body of evidence is pretty vast, but it is primitive so far because of too many arbitrary speculations from too much religion.

I don't think mankind will stop studying this phenomenon or even pigeonhole it as an aberration or mental byproduct because some Objectivists scoff at it. I think science will try to see if there is some real information being processed or not and I applaud the investigation. It is time to wrench this phenomenon from the hands of organized religion and quacks anyway. They have had a monopoly on this mental event by simple default. Rational people simply leave it to them.

I also think that with the tie-in I mentioned to sensory evidence, this mental event does not contradict anything in Objectivism - at least the part I am talking about - except for the loaded language and the speculations of religious people presented as "fact." (They never seem to be content to say "that it is," instead arbitrarily insisting on presenting a humongous "what it is," especially as given in religious books like the Bible, Koran and so forth).

I think it is a shame when Objectivists ignore clear evidence and simply scoff. I think it would be a shame for you of all people to do that, too, given the history of your interactions with Objectivists.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I want to make a correction. I stated the following:

...despite Rand pushing the meaning in a different direction and a lot of weird people pushing it that way, too...

That was sloppy writing. I did not mean that Rand's definition could not apply to the historical concept of mysticism. I did mean that her use of her definition and rhetoric all aimed at belittling the very existence of the mental event as anything serious, and even possibly question whether it existed at all, and that the behavior of the kooks supported that conclusion.

Also, I wanted to stress that my concept of this mental event has been present throughout history, but the more rational people scoffed at those who experienced it while religious people embraced them. So guess where those who experienced it went?

I contend that Rand was not even interested in this fact - that something actually was experienced by countless people throughout the ages and it was profound enough to cause a strong impact on them - to the point of trying to push it into her all-encompassing condemnation of mysticism as "evil."

Too many modern Objectivists repeat that oversimplification.

Michael

[Rich Engle]

OK, Victor,

I'll admit I'm feeling the hot sick wind of whup-ass coming up through me, but, you know what? I'll stay level, because what we are trying to do is dialogue and discover. I'm going for the long game because, for one reason, I find myself liking you even more, these days. You try and you are honest, and I respect that.

What made me hot, right off the tear, was your "mischarachterization" stuff. That implies willful action, or, mis-aphrehending on your part, or both. No fault, no trouble, though. Other to say that rest assured, I do not put up magic lantern shows, nor pull the string in front of the cat, or engage in any other distractions of that nature. I am not a good technical philosopher (no comment on the trade), but I am sure I can at least handle a little convo.

It's fucking funny to me, at this point, that the main, er, "objection" I get when attempting to dialogue with Objectivists is their immediate shift to offense, and, that their sole strategy normally involves invalidating something about me, if not me as an entire human (you aren't doing that, relax, dude). The big "irrational" card gets whipped out, and that is hysterical on occasion.

You, on the other hand, are different, and gracious, in that you are trying to understand. That sets you apart.

I suppose the best thing to do at this point, if you wish, is to reframe your questions. I prefer ones that aren't loaded...

bis hairloss,

rde

You think I'm a pain in the ass check out that dude.

[Dragonfly]

Dragonfly,

Thank you for joining in. I covered the point you made in my question above:

Now does this mental event access a part of reality not accessed by our five senses, or is it merely a part of the brain's operations, like sleep is, which has no principal awareness function?

Hell, you are a scientist. You must know that you never start an experiment with a negative "this is impossible" approach. So making the brain scans while affirming that this must be only an altered state with no information processing at all because it cannot possibly be anything else is a very foolish way to start. The best way is "let's take a look see."

Where did I say "this is impossible"? I said that the claim that people in such a state have access to knowledge apart from the evidence of the senses would be an extraordinary claim and that such a claim therefore should be backed up by extraordinary evidence. Further I didn't say that there is no information processing at all in such a state - no doubt there is information processing, just as there is information processing in the brain when you're dreaming. The essential point is: where does that information come from?

Obviously this "altered state" (which is as good a term as any) is much more than a simple emotion triggered by the amygdala.

Possible. Did I dispute that?

Let me repeat. I am not affirming that information about the world is being processed, but I am not affirming that it isn't either. I am affirming that it looks like it is enough to be investigated along those lines.

The only real evidence, excluding brain scans, we have had so far that any new information about reality is being processed is the overwhelming number of reports of certainty over centuries, all bearing some very similar characteristics. To me, that is not enough to make a definite claim, but it certainly is enough to warrant scientific investigation and not scoffing. I suppose people scoffed back when there were those who claimed that the world was round and said, "Well look around you. Does the world look round? It's flat. Ha! You're a fool!"

I'll quote here from an article I wrote earlier (IIRC for Nathan Hawking's forum). It was about the rejection by Rand of ESP (which was criticized by Nathaniel Branden):

I think in this case Rand was right for the wrong reasons. A thing like extrasensory perception is not a priori impossible, and it wouldn't contradict the essentials of Objectivism, as long as we don't invoke a "supernatural" explanation (i.e. an explanation outside the realm of science, in particular physics). There is no fundamental philosophical argument (Objectivist or otherwise) that forbids the possibility of gaining knowledge via other channels than the known senses. It could be that our knowledge of the physics and the physiology of the human body is just not advanced enough to detect the mechanism to make that possible. Think what would happen if we could travel back in time a few centuries with some radio apparatus. The greatest scientists at that time would be completely baffled at a demonstration of our talking at a distance, it would look like pure magic (as Arthur C. Clarke has pointed out). In the same way there is no a priori reason to exclude the possibility that in humans some mechanism is at work that we still don't know and don't understand, but the effects of which we can observe.

That said, Rand was right however to dismiss that possibility, but not for the reasons she gave. The scientific evidence is now overwhelming that there is no such hidden mechanism. Some 100 - 150 years ago there might have been some reason to consider the possibility of the reality of such phenomena and it wouldn't have been unscientific to do research on that subject. But the results of all that research during the past 150 years have been completely zero. The problem is that many people just have no idea how completely hopeless the situation for the paranormalists is. There are many articles, books and communications in the media that suggest otherwise, and that might lead the unwary to believe that there "is something in it". I know from experience, because when I was young I was also a "believer". The reason was that everything I read about the subject suggested that the reality of such phenomena was proved beyond any doubt, and some of the writers were highly esteemed scientists and professors. Now I must emphasize that I never believed in any "supernatural" explanations, to me it seemed there was something very interesting to discover, which would have a large impact on physical theories. It was only later that I discovered the "skeptical" literature about the subject, and that made the scales fall from my eyes. The so-called "rigorous" experiments that yielded positive results turned out to be incredibly sloppy and badly designed, and as soon as an experiment was tightly controlled all effects disappeared like snow in the sun. Worse, the results of some of the then famous experiments turned out te be the result of fraud (like the Soal-Shackleton experiment, once the "definite proof"). It is well known that James Randi will pay 1 million dollars to the person who can under controlled conditions demonstrate the reality of a paranormal phenomenon, and that while many have tried, no one has succeeded so far, and no one will succeed as long as Randi is as sharp as he is now (there is always the risk of diminishing mental abilities with increasing age, but perhaps Randi has foreseen that possibility and taken measures to counter it).

That countless people have experienced something is in itself no evidence. How many people have claimed to have seen God, Maria, Jesus, ghosts, fairies, aliens, miraculous spoon bending, etc. etc.? We've no reason to doubt that many of them were sincere and really had the experience as they describe them. But that is no reason to suppose that this is evidence that those things really exist, except in the mind of those persons. I suppose that you've little or no knowledge of the skeptical literature on this subject, otherwise you would know how damning the evidence is.

Something definite, repeatable and bearing common characteristics among many different people is being reported on that sensory level and this has been validated by brain scans. Doesn't that count as evidence that some information of some kind is possibly being processed? That's what the brain does after all: process information about the world.

As I said before: no doubt information is processed, that is what the brain does, but the point is: where does the information come from?

Dragonfly, this is a body of evidence that is accumulating.

Evidence for what? That people can have altered states of mind, which they may call "mystical experiences"? I don't think that that is really contested. But there is no evidence that these give access to knowledge apart from the sensory evidence, nothing, zero, zilch, nada.

I think it is a shame when Objectivists ignore clear evidence and simply scoff. I think it would be a shame for you of all people to do that, too, given the history of your interactions with Objectivists.

I never ignore clear evidence, but I'm a skeptic who says "show me the evidence". The plural of "anecdote" is not "evidence", however.

[Rich Engle]

I'm going to do no more than add a few technical points. Well, they're technical for me , anyway...

This amygdala thing you posit, Victor, is crude. It's a very rudimentary understanding of the human body, at least. Right: that's where mysticism (which I believe you need to woodshed on in general) comes from--some kind of random firing from the reptilian in me. Please, dude, I beg you.

Shall I make it more comfortable for you? Let's just take the whole religion thing off the burner for a moment (perhaps we can make a nice reduction sauce out of it later... Let's say, ummm, I had a paradigm shift . There, that's sporty, and religion-free! Yes!

See, the bottom line of this is that if you're looking for "proof" of what happened to me, I can't offer it to you. I suppose the best I could do is give you accounts of how others view me and my actions afterwards. But really, who gives a fuck about that level of detail? Oh, I know who .

Anyway...

I'll talk about it if people are inclined to ask me questions, hopefully without landmines attached. And, also- not addressing me through others in 3rd person mode any more than is necessary. Such are my preferences, but you can do as you wish, and I will be fine. It's kind of weird to hear "Rich is this, he's that.."

I don't do that to you Victor- do I? Hmmm????

If you want to have a good dance, it requires direct contact.

best,

r

Where can I find a sacrificial goat in this fucking ghetto? Ooooh! Just saw one!

[Victor Pross]

Whoa! Rich, you should be addressing Dragonfly in the above post--I'm still to get back to you. That was not me. A big chunk of my ass is gone!

I hope you still like me.

Edited September 1, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Rich Engle]

Oh, did I miss? Apologies!

In any event, the turn of converation is pretty much always the same, so excuse me for not being attentive to what reality brings me today....

I'm a little distracted because I have to play a pretty major gig tonite in a place I've never done. Plus, we have to play through the house system, including the drumset, and that's always weird.

I'm sure I'm not 100 percent on-game.

best,

rde

[Dragonfly]

Whoa! Rich, you should be addressing Dragonfly in the above post--I'm still to get back to you. That was not me.

Neither was it me. The amygdala thing was Michael's contribution. Doesn't anybody really read anymore?

[Rich Engle]

I was rereading and skimming wildly. I don't care where it came from! I have amygdala moments at least once a month, usually at work in front of difficult clients.

Michael understands my position more than any Objectivist I have ever known.

rde

Lizard brain, Lizard brain, Lizard brain!!!!

Off to go find juicy fat flies to eat.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dragonfly,

We are on the same page, with one major difference.

That countless people have experienced something is in itself no evidence. How many people have claimed to have seen God, Maria, Jesus, ghosts, fairies, aliens, miraculous spoon bending, etc. etc.? We've no reason to doubt that many of them were sincere and really had the experience as they describe them. But that is no reason to suppose that this is evidence that those things really exist, except in the mind of those persons.

I disagree when you say "That countless people have experienced something is in itself no evidence," but only on a fine point. No evidence of what? It certainly is evidence that they experienced something. Otherwise the sheer numbers involved of people reporting it would not exist. Of course, I agree that an anecdote is no evidence for a metaphysical fact such as "God, Maria, Jesus, ghosts, fairies, aliens, etc.") (What ever happened to that spoon bending business, anyway?) It certainly is evidence for an epistemological fact, though, especially when reports occur in the numbers that exist. The brain scans even prove it. Something happened.

Why did Mr. Randi put up a cool million? For something nobody cares about or reports? Of course not. He did it because of the overwhelming numbers of people reporting it. Is he putting up a cool million to study what happened to them? No. He is interested in debunking them.

We are now discovering physical evidence that this is not all poppycock and these people did not make up a story that they experienced something when they experienced nothing at all. Something actually did occur in the brains of people reporting mystical/paranormal events. The rub is that they almost always tell it all wrong.

Where you and I differ is that I am looking into what actually is going on. This "thing" happens/happened to a lot of people throughout mankind's history and even happened to me on occasion. I want to know what it is.

You simply dismiss it - the whole shebang. And you have no hint to provide people like me, Rich or others who do not abandon reason, but will not ignore something that happened. "Nothing, zero, zilch, nada" doesn't explain much and is a clear indication of what your interest in the subject is.

That is the only critical point I see where we differ. Our standards of evidence are pretty much the same. The question "What kind of information?" is one we both ask. I just ask it wanting an answer for real (and I don't care what the nature of the information is, so long as I can understand it), whereas you, like Mr. Randi, ask that question to prove that religious or paranormal speculations are false.

You see, I am forced to take the people with the religious/paranormal language seriously. I have to be willing to look past their traditional gobbledygook language for now to find any factual information that might be available. They are traditionally the only ones doing anything positive about this experience. The ones on the other side are hostile and/or belligerently indifferent. They are focused only on debunking claims, not looking at what really happened.

The brain scans, for as little as they may seem, are precisely the type of things I look for. They neither debunk nor try to provide a rationale for dogma. They try to see what something is, not merely disprove a claim about it.

This is the same outlook I have with philosophical arguments that try to prove something wrong about a situation or experience, rather than concentrate on what actually is true or universal about it. I really don't care what Victor or Wayne or anybody thinks about some loose ended concept they call "mysticism." Rand already did all that. I do care about finding out what happened to lots of people, myself included.

I also care a great deal that this argument is considered as the basis for claiming that someone like Rich is the same as the 9/11 terrorists ("in kind").

I could also say that Victor and Wayne and all of us are the same as Islamic terrorists, and we are. Those guys are human beings and we are human beings. That makes us the same "in kind." On that comparison alone, this is absolutely true. The terrorists are not kangaroos or trees or clouds or watermelons. Neither are we. We are the same as Islamic terrorists because we are all human beings. But saying it like that brings an emotional load that is quite offensive. That's the only reason one states it that way.

And that is the only reason someone calls Rich the same "kind" as an Islamic terrorist: to spit on him. Now why would someone want to spit on Rich?

I know why: fear.

Rich was a full-fledged Objectivist but changed a part of that thinking to include something that happened to him. That in itself is a grave threat to those who are not secure in their own thinking. They do not see his experience in Rand's writings - except as a category that is high treason to reason - and they do not use their own thinking about these things all that much. If they see something where Rand's writings is not enough, they know they will have to think for themselves. That takes a lot of effort and requires a commitment to holding truth higher than lessons learned from books - and God forbid, learned from Rand.

So they cover up their insecurity with bombast, insults and hostility. Frankly, Rich never went on the attack against any of these people and he is not threatened by them. He knows what he thinks and is not afraid to change it in light of his own experiences. He has a first-hand mind and I know that I can agree or disagree with him and he will always be true to his own experience and thinking. I can trust him. We can talk about what we have actually encountered in life, not just what Rand says should or should not exist. We especially are not looking over our shoulder to see if someone approves - and we can talk about anything at all without fear, even something with a name like "mystic experience." Rand's writing needs to be used to complement that attitude, not squelch it.

(Time to stop. Shall I extend this to a huge rational chain until I get to "life premise" and "death premise" on a sense-of-life level? )

Michael

[Rich Engle]

You are kind with your words as always, maestro...

The main problem I see is that the experiences in question occur internally. Objectivism is not wired to handle that, really, because its evidence is driven from real-world events. This is a limitation. It is direly important to pay attention to what is, what goes down in the real world. That's just common sense; a lot of Objectivism is common sense.

But really, the internal domain is another area, and it makes no sense to me to simply delegate it as a processing center for external events; this is rudimentary, it doesn't address hardly anything! If you look at things like Jung wrote about the collective psyche (eew! I just said "collective"...run!) or maybe look at Joseph Campbells work... Ellen knows what I'm talking about there.

There's this competition where there should be integration, in balancing the domains in which we live. I am highly reality-driven, that's my calling card. But, I also know that the inner life is more than that. You get Objectivists that just blankout when you start talking into that area.

Functionally, real-world, I'll mention something else that I think is fucked-up. Some Objectivists are too comfortable with the evidence game. Immediately, one is required to provide evidence. Quite frankly, that's not my job and I don't give a rat's ass about doing other people's homework. There is so often this gaming, Marquis of Queensbury aspect to debating rank/file Objectivists- it's not plastic, pliant, it's goddamn boring. The world is full of cats that they feel a need to pull a string in front of. It is condescending, it is pedantic. "So, Rich- where is God?" You know? Fuck you!! I have to go deep fry hotdogs, they're tasty.

rde

eff eff eff!

Edited September 1, 2006 by Rich Engle

[Victor Pross]

Michael, Rich, Dragonfly:

Let's cool the jets. This subject can be "controversial" simply because of the nature of the topic. You can't move an inch in this territory without treading on sensitivities. Granted, Wayne does not help a productive conversation.

Wayne likes to think of himself as a gladfly who can sting people out of what he sees as their complacency. I have gotten over that habit. I don’t wish to be categorized with him in this exchange. Wanye and I are two separate people. He's him. I'm me [bad grammer, I know]. Rich as granted that my approach is very different from that of Wayne’s—and so I can trust that the cheap shots will end. By the way, thanks, Rich. You are a cool cat, baby.

Wayne? Let’s drop the “guilty by association” jazz. Is it a deal? Good. Shake my cyber hand!

Whew, it’s so good to be done with that. I feel better. But I’m not done yet.

Furthermore, for what’s its worth, I was an atheist before I came across Rand. So I don’t reject ‘mysticism’ because, see, Ayn Rand said so! This type of smack in the face is even more offensive than any other insult that has been hurled at me. But that’s all behind us now, I’m happy to say.

***

Let’s get some direction and focus here. As this stage, I would like to explore the million dollar questions that Michael asked:

“Now does this mental event access a part of reality not accessed by our five senses, or is it merely a part of the brain's operations, like sleep is, which has no principal awareness function?”

This is a good question, and I want to address the focus back to that very question. Is it being suggested that there are alternative means to knowledge other than reason? Now, really, I’m still trying to get a grip on this “mental event” that Rich and Michael speak of—and the only words thus far that have been employed to describe this ‘event’ are “mystical experiences”---and the entire ancillary lingo, “euphoria,” and “ecstasy” and "bliss”...the very same lingo the mystics of history have always used.

The problem for me, admittedly, is the history of these claims DOES come with the tacked-on package of supernaturalism. I was a student of comparative religions, and I’ll tell you that I haven’t heard anything here that does not ring differently from what I have heard before. I’m sorry. And yet, I’m expected to snap in line and to shift my “intellectual paradigm” to grasp Michael’s “something.” [if we could be a little vaguer, I would really appreciate it].

Now that I got my own dig out of the way, let’s return to an earlier question I asked.

Again, nobody can rightfully assert that Rich [and Michael or whoever else who asserts some extraordinary experience] did not experience this highly atypical sense of “euphoria” or “ecstasy”—or whatever the “mental event”--- and that's not in question. [Hey, where can I get those drugs? ;] But what is subject to question is the INTERPRETATION given to that experience—and yes, granted, this has not been specified, but only because there has been a lot of foreplay and tap dancing around this talk.

Truthfully, I sense a lot of trepidation and hesitation to just come out and say—I know not WHAT—and the cards are being held to the chest, awaiting the right time to put them on the table. Let’s get to it, Kenny Rogers. ;)

Where is all this going?

I am curious to know if Rich is claiming some ‘wider implication’—some specific claim or interpretation--outside of his intense, unusual euphoric experience? What is gingerly being pushed forward—even if as a tentative hypothesis?—would that be some conception of ‘god’ or what? Tell me. Honestly. I won’t bite. I just bark.

Victor

Edited September 1, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Victor,

I am very happy to separate you and Wayne. It seemed like you were both playing the 9/11 card. I also did not mean that you learned atheism from Rand. I meant something else, but let's let that lie, because you are now probing in the right places without bombast.

I will let Rich carry the ball for a bit for now. Please understand that some of his vocabulary will not mean what you think it means, so if your trigger finger starts itching, ask first.

I also want to clear up two doubts you raised. You asked:

Is it being suggested that there are alternative means to knowledge other than reason?

No. We are talking about another possible means of perception, not cognition. What is being perceived is the issue. Traditional sensations like color and sound are not what we are talking about. Concept integration is still the same.

We could be talking about something the five senses do not perceive, but is just as much a part of reality as what they do, or we could be talking about some manner of perceiving the act of cognition itself or some kind of aspect of reality like that, or we could be talking about some internal biological process similar to sleep where the brain simply buzzes differently for a while for biological reasons. It could even be perception of something I haven't mentioned. (Please drop the bliss and rapture stuff. That's not a universal part of this experience.)

You complain about vagueness, yet we are on a level of deciding if something even exists or not, much less what. That's the first question: are we talking about reality or not? Sorry if that sounds vague, but you are the one pushing it towards the supernatural. You keep trying to push Rich into saying he is communing with God and harp on bliss and rapture. So we have to make sure our terms are defined on even a more basic level than usual - reality and existence. Supernatural is not part of this, except maybe as an arbitrary possibility for an experiment (meaning not a very good one - see the "God spot" press release above).

What you seem to find difficulty understanding is that a person can be at a stage of knowledge where "I don't know" is a perfectly reasonable and honest position for explaining most of an experience. It is possible to experience something and it is not necessary to say you know what it is when you don't.

What I can say with certainty about this experience is that on a fundamental (experiential) level, what Rich has described is something really similar that happened to me a few times. I know that others have had their brains scanned when this has happened, so there is physical evidence that this is not a mere figment of the imagination. Emotions have been brain scan-mapped and they are very different than the mapping for this experience.

Rich could probably add that he received benefit from fostering conditions to repeat this experience often, so he does that among people who do likewise. He could probably tell you some of the benefits.

Rationally, there are a few other things you can say, but that is about all at this stage. There is a lot of work to be done studying this.

Michael

[Victor Pross]

Michael,

To assist me (and others) to understanding this, would there be links where Rich has already covered this subject—be it articles or exchanges with others--even if the exchanges were acrimonious. All the junk can be skimmed, and Rich can save time typing out a lot of repeat material and explanations well covered. Is this a good idea?

Victor

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Victor,

Most of Rich's good posts are buried in the middle of threads dealing with the most diverse subjects. If you go to RoR, you can find a number of threads where he was baited and baited back. Lots of times you have to discount the words used in those exchanges because actual ideas were not discussed. Buttons were pushed instead. Somebody offended him without any good reason and he knew "prayer" "faith" and so forth would piss the guy off, so off he went. And it usually worked. The purpose of language turned into duel, not discussion.

The best manner I can possibly think of right now is to let him interact with you in the cool calm wisdom of reasoned discourse, where understanding is the aim, not one-upmanship, or Internet gladiating, or one poster setting the other up for a trouncing, or even someone's misguided attempt to altruistically "wake people up" by insulting them.

If you have the slightest doubt, ask. It's the easiest thing in the world among men of goodwill.

I give Rich intellectual harbor on OL - and back him - because of his honesty and knowledge of Objectivism - but most of all, so he will not have to run to some church for all his intellectual needs. He is not a social manipulator but a first-hand mind instead reporting life from his perspective to the best of his ability. He is very up front where he disagrees with Objectivism and nobody has to agree with him, so no one can accuse him of trying to sneak false ideas on people. It is a very selfish thing I do. I admire his integrity.

He's not the only one either. We have a wonderful cast here on OL.

Michael

[Victor Pross]

MSK: "...or one poster setting the other up for a trouncing, or even someone's misguided attempt to altruistically "wake people up" by insulting them."

Oh, gee. I wonder who you mean?

[Victor Pross]

Dragonfly and Damage.

Hmm, I was just thinking, it could be a good name for a liability law firm.

Edited September 1, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Dragonfly]

Dragonfly,

We are on the same page, with one major difference.

That countless people have experienced something is in itself no evidence. How many people have claimed to have seen God, Maria, Jesus, ghosts, fairies, aliens, miraculous spoon bending, etc. etc.? We've no reason to doubt that many of them were sincere and really had the experience as they describe them. But that is no reason to suppose that this is evidence that those things really exist, except in the mind of those persons.

I disagree when you say "That countless people have experienced something is in itself no evidence," but only on a fine point. No evidence of what?

Well, I really don't understand why you ask this, the answer is right in the text you quoted: evidence that those things really exist apart from in the minds of those persons.

It certainly is evidence that they experienced something. Otherwise the sheer numbers involved of people reporting it would not exist.

But where do I deny that? You just quoted my text "We've no reason to doubt that many of them were sincere and really had the experiences as they describe them." Is there any difference between "having an experience" and "experiencing something"?

Of course, I agree that an anecdote is no evidence for a metaphysical fact such as "God, Maria, Jesus, ghosts, fairies, aliens, etc.")

Well, that's just the point I'm trying to make all the time.

(What ever happened to that spoon bending business, anyway?)

There were not enough people left to be fooled by that trick.

It certainly is evidence for an epistemological fact, though, especially when reports occur in the numbers that exist. The brain scans even prove it. Something happened.

Again: where do I deny that? You're not just barking up the wrong tree, you're barking in the wrong forest.

Why did Mr. Randi put up a cool million? For something nobody cares about or reports? Of course not. He did it because of the overwhelming numbers of people reporting it. Is he putting up a cool million to study what happened to them? No. He is interested in debunking them.

And I have great admiration for him doing that. After all we're not only talking about some self-deluded people who really think they have some special powers (he treats those people in general very mildly, unless they become really obnoxious), but about countless crooks and swindlers who make money with their racket, not to mention those unscrupulous quacks like those "psychic surgeons" who give people who are seriously ill (and sometimes spend their last money on these swindlers) false hope with their cheap tricks, while they perhaps still might be saved by real doctors. Yes, he's interested in debunking them, and that is a damn good thing!

Again, that countless people report something doesn't in itself mean anything. Millions of people claim to have contact with God, no doubt millions of people quite sincerely believe that, but that is no evidence that they really have contact with some God, that would be the an example of the ad populum fallacy.

We are now discovering physical evidence that this is not all poppycock and these people did not make up a story that they experienced something when they experienced nothing at all. Something actually did occur in the brains of people reporting mystical/paranormal events. The rub is that they almost always tell it all wrong.

Where do I deny this? You'r not only barking in the wrong forest, you're barking in the wrong continent.

Where you and I differ is that I am looking into what actually is going on. This "thing" happens/happened to a lot of people throughout mankind's history and even happened to me on occasion. I want to know what it is.

You simply dismiss it - the whole shebang. And you have no hint to provide people like me, Rich or others who do not abandon reason, but will not ignore something that happened. "Nothing, zero, zilch, nada" doesn't explain much and is a clear indication of what your interest in the subject is.

Where do I dismiss it? Where do I deny that you and other people have had such experiences? Where?

The "nothing, zero, zilch, nada" referred to the evidence for paranormal phenomena, and not to the evidence that those altered states do exist.

That is the only critical point I see where we differ. Our standards of evidence are pretty much the same. The question "What kind of information?" is one we both ask. I just ask it wanting an answer for real (and I don't care what the nature of the information is, so long as I can understand it), whereas you, like Mr. Randi, ask that question to prove that religious or paranormal speculations are false.

Wrong. Skeptics like Randi and me don't want to prove that religious or paranormal phenomena are false, that would be impossible, we only ask the proponents of these theories to present real evidence for their claims, on them is the burden of proof that these phenomena do exist. Years ago when someone suggested to Randi to put his money where his skeptical mouth was he decided to do exactly that, as he had gathered enough evidence that this would be a very safe bet. What Randi does prove is that people who make such claims cannot make their claims good.

I also care a great deal that this argument is considered as the basis for claiming that someone like Rich is the same as the 9/11 terrorists ("in kind").

Well, no matter how much you misunderstand me, I'm sure you know that I never claimed such idiocy. So I suppose the rest of your post neither refers to me.

Edited September 1, 2006 by Dragonfly

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dragonfly,

I was not criticizing you. (And you are right about the 9/11 thing having nothing to do with you.)

(Do dragonflies candystripe when they get ruffled? )

I have no problem with the Randis of the world going about debunking whomever they wish (or you criticizing charlatans or whatever). My point is that this does me very little good since it does not address the issue I want to learn about. It tells me something doesn't exist. If that gets you your jollies, knock yourself out.

I want to know something about what does exist. Then maybe I will be able to understand why the majority of humanity is involved in it in some fashion.

The brain scans start allowing me to understand something about what I experienced and what others report. Debunking card tricks and Ouija boards does not.

Michael