How do you interpret mystical experiences? Can it be a source of trans-empirical knowledge?
Schizophrenia.
>>868041
>How do you interpret mystical experiences?
Culturally. Someone with a Christian upbringing will probably have a vision of Mary/Jesus rather than rather than Bhaktic devotion of Vishnu's presence.
>Can it be a source of trans-empirical knowledge?
I personally don't believe so because the nature of these experiences are always highly subjective and almost always tied to that certain religious cultural background in which one has lived.
Many magical fraternities on the other hand and various Masonic societies do believe in "Secret Chiefs" and claim that they have formulated a link with these. Of course, these claims are highly dubious, but you might find this article interesting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_Chiefs
>>868041
Imaginative human brain, altered states, perceptions of senses.
> Can it be a source of trans-empirical knowledge?
It can be a creative inspiration but I don't think there is any truth to it, how could there be?
It's intellectual quicksand in a fog bank.
Nothing about introspection will make you gain knowledge about the universe in general.
However, it can make you realize things about yourself, and what it means to be thrown into existence as a human being.
>>868066
>>868085
I've heard some weird yet convincing shit from ostensibly reliable sources about Christian miracles. I'm not religious in any way, but I'd like to hear how you interpret the following;
>two language barriered people (supposedly languages that are non-mutually-intelligible) able to understand each other during prayer
>water in well sinking after bible let down into
>random readjustment of someone falling back on a staircase with a heavy TV
i mean there are like 4 modalities of explaining it, pls explain /his/
>>868111
But what if it's not?
What if something else?
What if...
>>868114
>two language barriered people (supposedly languages that are non-mutually-intelligible) able to understand each other during prayer
Scientific testing needed where both people are put into 3mm thick boxes coated with lead while scientists will ask them both questions to reassure telepathic communication has been achieved.
>water in well sinking after bible let down into
You only need a bible and well for this one.
>random readjustment of someone falling back on a staircase with a heavy TV
I think we just found proof of God.
>>868111
>What if the Idealists are right and everything is mind?
Doesn't matter. Sitting a cave meditating for a year will never make you suddenly learn classical physics.
>>868114
That's what the bible calls "speaking in tongues"; speaking in a different language that you previously did not know, in order to communicate the gospel to someone who doesn't speak your language. It's actually fairly common, and studied on a scientific level as an anomaly where your brain's language center is not being used to speak the foreign tongue.
I can't speak to the other two. The latter appears to be a push from a guardian angel from behind. Or phenomenal balance and a kick of adrenaline.
>>868137
>classical physics
>relevant in the grand scheme of thigs
>>868137
But it could help you to realize that you're autistic.
>>868041
I had one after drinking psylocibe cubensis tea and I definitely believe that what I saw was another dimensional plane and not something my mind elucubrated.
>>868148
Please enlighten us as to what is really "relevant in the grand scheme of things" m8, because that's a vacuous statement that could be used for literally anything humans do.
>>868114
>I'm not religious in any way
But it seems you are a moron, may as well convert.
The collective unconscious communicating symbolically.
>>868161
Nothing that's taught in Physics classes, for one.
>>868217
>>two language barriered people (supposedly languages that are non-mutually-intelligible) able to understand each other during prayer
This is quite literally the definition of speaking in tongues.
>>868114
>if miracles aren't real, why can't you explain [x]?
Because I wasn't there, because you might be lying, because whoever you heard it from might be lying, because the person who it happened to thought it happened but they misinterpreted the situation...
Need I go on?
>>868226
no they were each speaking in their respective languages and they could understand each other, that's not the same thing as speaking in tongues you autist
>>868223
Right, so since you don't have anything useful to say, why don't you shut the fuck up.
>>868236
It absolutely is.
Then they were all amazed and marveled, saying to one another, “Look, are not all these who speak Galileans? 8 And how is it that we hear, each in our own language in which we were born? Parthians and Medes and Elamites, those dwelling in Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya adjoining Cyrene, visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabs—we hear them speaking in our own tongues the wonderful works of God.”
Literally the definition of speaking in tongues.
>>868242
I'm on topic; you're an asspained aspie.
>>868229
Yeah, those are the four modalities I mentioned. The deliverer is lying, the source is lying (i.e. word of mouth), the source mislead the deliverer (in person), or both the source and deliverer are mislead.
>>868217
All "miracles" are categorically after-the-fact interpretations superimposed onto a coincidence. Typically contrived to support a bias. Specifically, it is a manifestation of confirmation bias. There are probably millions of "miracles" that you don't notice every day, therefore the few you do notice every year shouldn't really be too impressive.
>>868242
you dropped your fedora /b/ro
>>868244
speaking in tongues refers to the act performed in the upper room
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossolalia
>>868247
And you're an obvious illiterate with no arguments.
>>868248
Okay, I didn't know about that, learn something every day.
But then I don't get what you're asking. Are you asking us to explain something that is either a miracle or one of these four modalities? We can't tell in any way.
>>868250
that's common fucking knowledge dude, i'm asking if there are any external explanations for it that not everyone on the planet is aware of
>>868090
Also maths, and helping you put together things you already know about the world. But I think this is the wrong thread for that.
>>868255
i'm just asking which might be the most reasonable of those modalities for each of the miracles aforementioned and how exactly it would work, bcs i have someone who bothers me about this nonsense and i keep trying to tell him it's confirmation bias etc etc but he's really persistent on saying that things like that don't just _happen_
>>868250
So you start with the conclusion that nothing out of your positivist bubble can exist and you claim you fair an impartial? Cute.
>>868223
State the positives instead of the negatives senpai.
Easy to criticise others when you have nothing of substance to say lest you be criticised yourself.
>>868267
All you can say is: "Well, they do just happen."
If he has religious beliefs that stop him from accepting that, there's not much you can do.
>>868258
If you are going to act so disagreeable and insulting I don't see why I should give you a second explanation.
>>868268
this, positivists are annoying as hayull
>>868268
It's the most reasonable position, deal with it hippie.
>>868268
>>868276
I'm not inclined to make presumptuous statements about what can and can't happen, and I wouldn't call myself a positivist, but to what other standard would you hold these miracle claims if not to at least somewhat credible proof?
I'm very confused where you would go for proof/confirmation if not at least to some tangible evidence, because I haven't found any convincing theoretical arguments for miracles being real.
>>868268
Sorry, that's not the starting premise, but the conclusion based on millions of rational explanations to miraculous claims that turned out to be wrong. So a few more spurious claims are not going to overturn the verdict, to the contrary they further establish the conclusion.
Forgive me if I prefer a worldview that can produce productive insights instead of reaching terminal and useless mysteries. If you enjoy thinking about miracles don't let me stop you, just keep in mind that they don't offer convincing truth power.
Depends on what you mean by empiricism.
Radical empiricism has often lead to idealism of sorts, where even mass or the outer world itself is object of scepticism, and thus the only knowledge we can have is some form of introspective knowledge. Other sceptics akin to this tradition claim that language cannot represent the objective world and therefore language is heavily flawed.
These roots are seen in Quietism, Christian mystics, early Wittgenstein, Berkeley, William James etc.
A way of analysing propositions about the world is through the idea of empiricism such as verificationism or falsifiability.
These generally has the problem of reducing empirical knowledge to pure truth values attached to sentences.
An example is the New Riddle of Induction.
We have two opposing theories:
All X dug up from the ground is Green.
All X dug up from the ground is Green prior to T, where T is a specific time, then it's blue.
Even if we dig up a million green emeralds, the logic behind both of these sentences are equally validated (no, no emeralds will magically turn blue).
Another problem is The Raven Paradox.
Transcendental Idealism/Kant:
Kant makes a lot of distinctions.
He believes there is some form of "impure a priori" where when we first encounter a concept, therefore must have a faculty of experience, we realise they are necessarily true.
Kant says that we impose ideas onto the thing-in-itself, and therefore, we can through introspection, and with our faculties, realise things about the outer world from inner introspection.
Phenomenology does also have some kind of mystical elements since it seeks knowledge from within; but the very idea of phenomenology is to explain the experiences' intentionality's relation to an objective world.
Psycho-analysis often is done by simple introspection, which Freud admitted, but it can often lead to generalising ones own traumas etc. Both Freuds have coined a lot of concepts commonly accepted and in colloquial use.
>>868372
There has never been anything we actually learned about the outer world through pure introspection. Every thought we have has a bias based on outer experience.
>>868400
Congratulations on your profound theory, I am sure such a proposition has never been stated before!
No one has argued for pure introspection without a causal link back to having learnt something, or having had brain etc.
Maybe Socrates would argue that we remember ideas rather than invent them, but honestly, he still seems to argue that we remember them from outside sources, and thus, we still re-learn them somehow from outside influences.
Your statement is utterly pointless and an absolute platitude.
Unless, you of course, try to argue that pure a priori truths don't exist. Like the very most basic set theoretic advancements, that they are possible to skew into some sort of bias. Then you're not saying meaningless things, you're basically saying that logic itself is relative to our biases.
It might be true to some extent (we can choose between competing theories etc.) but claiming a pure contradiction is true (not in the sense of "true paradox", but literally a flaw) then you've destroyed any useful way of discussing ideas.
> Empirical
> Means guided by experience
> Could mystical experiences be a source of trans-empirical knowledge?
The answer here is kind of obvious one. Trans-empirical should be acquired without any kind of experience mystical or not. Kind of like intuitive insight.
Let's face it, most philosophical and religious systems came from one mystical experience or another.
Mysticism is useful and it's still relevant today.
Certainly a source of trans-empirical knowledge.
>>868041
Intuition.
