4 ms·

Your answer still focuses on something that happens to YOU. If that happens to another person, and they claim it occurred, you are implying that experience woul

Your answer still focuses on something that happens to YOU. If that happens to another person, and they claim it occurred, you are implying that experience wouldn't hold weight to you. From this, I must conclude you believe it is impossible to utilize the scientific method to demonstrate their existence. Is this correct? I recognize the following example is extreme, but it does fit the bill: in the past years, we've had many people come forward claiming they were sexually assaulted by various powerful people decades prior. Now, I have not been sexually assaulted, but I understand that a certain portion of the population has been. While you and I did not observe those assaults, we still accept as true what these people are claiming without dismissing or disbelieving them. My point is: society accepts testimony as evidence for things the judge and jury has not seen. Testimony from one witness is the minimum, and corroborating evidence from multiple sources will indicate something is occurring. I am generally inclined to dismiss claims of conspiracy in these cases, so I must accept their claims as true. Of both the original scenario and the one above, from a purely scientific perspective, it's difficult to lend credence to one and not the other.

uh_uh 5y ago
> Your answer still focuses on something that happens to YOU. If that happens to another person, and they claim it occurred, you are implying that experience wouldn't hold weight to you. From this, I must conclude you believe it is impossible to utilize the scientific method to demonstrate their existence. Is this correct? No. I'd believe another person if they _credibly_ demonstrate that useful information was conveyed to them from sprits. The more people demonstrate this, the more I'll believe it. In general, the more extreme the claim is, the better evidence I require to believe it. To put it in concrete terms: Given N reports of 2 different kinds of claims, I'd sooner believe that Harvey Weinstein is a sex pest than we made contact with interdimensional spirit entities.
neonological 5y ago
You accept testimony from one man whose judgement is compromised by psychedelics and whose testimony will be inconsistent with others who believe in gods and spirits and do drugs and get high? We cannot confirm which reality is real. The drug induced experiences or the reality you experience while sober. However when you talk to sober people they describe a reality that is consistent. A shared consistent reality with concreteness. All other descriptions are inconsistent. This man's experience is inexact and will no doubt be very different from what another man experiences when high on some drug. Bet on the shared consistent experience. Science and logic and common sense is the shared and consistent reality and these things point to man whose brain cells and judgement have been compromised by drugs. You don't even trust a man high in drugs to drive, you gonna trust his judgement about reality itself? Don't be stupid.
- waterheater 5y ago
  You make a good point, namely that it's not possible to trust an individual's testimony when under the influence of a substance. In this case, you or I may well be an outside observer, seeing that the person's ability to perceive the world is impaired. To the impaired person, however, their experienced reality must be true; without being told otherwise, they would have no reason to assume anything else. I'm now thinking of a society where the majority of people consume a variety of substances which impair their perception of reality. In that scenario, the majority of people believe their interpretation of reality is true. The unimpaired knows those people are incorrect, but the impaired don't know better. But this case creates a potentially uncomfortable situation for us. If some substances impair, what's not to say other substances enhance? If we know both performance-enhancing and performance-inhibiting substances exist, it stands to reason that both perception-enhancing and perception-inhibiting substances also exist. We know the latter exists, and our primary issue is that it's presently claimed the former does not. A performance-enhancing substance allows an athlete to perform beyond normal limits, and it stands to reason a perception-enhancing drug would do similarly. However, what if a group of people are under the influence of an identical substance and, at the same time, observe real things which the "unimpaired" do not? The tricky word in the previous sentence is "real": what is real depends on your vantage point. The shadow of a cylinder may be either a rectangle or circle; to only debate the difference between which shadow is "real" obscures the true nature of the illuminated object. So, a line of scientific inquiry may be the following: is it possible for a mind-altering substance modify an observer's vantage point of the universe? In a more illustrative framing, can a person in Plato's Cave eat something to see beyond their slice of reality? I don't know, but I believe the question is worth consideration.
  - neonological 5y ago
    Enhancement is a matter of opinion. One man's enhancement could be another man's dehancement. So this is an unreliable metric. We cannot truly know which reality is more actual. The reality experienced while sober and the reality experienced while high. Whether one reality is enhanced is again a matter of opinion. The key metric here to recognize is consistency. You give a thousand people psychedelics how consistent are there observations? Does every man describe the same thing? In addition how clear and exact are their observations? Science and logic described by normal sober people is more consistent and more exact then the reality described by people on psychedelics. People who are sober generally agree on the basic principles of logic and mathematics. Consistent consensus is the diffentiating factor. Additionally which drug better enhances the mind? Cocaine? Heroin? Bleach? Whose to say one experience under one drug is more enhanced than the other? This world described by drugs is cloudy and inconsistent not only among individuals but also across your drug of choice. So you not only have different descriptions of reality from different people, but different descriptions when they use a different drug. Which reality do I trust? Trust in the consistent description of reality. It's the best bet in my opinion. But of course this also a personal choice.

uh_uh 5y ago

> Your answer still focuses on something that happens to YOU. If that happens to another person, and they claim it occurred, you are implying that experience wouldn't hold weight to you. From this, I must conclude you believe it is impossible to utilize the scientific method to demonstrate their existence. Is this correct? No. I'd believe another person if they _credibly_ demonstrate that useful information was conveyed to them from sprits. The more people demonstrate this, the more I'll believe it. In general, the more extreme the claim is, the better evidence I require to believe it. To put it in concrete terms: Given N reports of 2 different kinds of claims, I'd sooner believe that Harvey Weinstein is a sex pest than we made contact with interdimensional spirit entities.

neonological 5y ago

You accept testimony from one man whose judgement is compromised by psychedelics and whose testimony will be inconsistent with others who believe in gods and spirits and do drugs and get high? We cannot confirm which reality is real. The drug induced experiences or the reality you experience while sober. However when you talk to sober people they describe a reality that is consistent. A shared consistent reality with concreteness. All other descriptions are inconsistent. This man's experience is inexact and will no doubt be very different from what another man experiences when high on some drug. Bet on the shared consistent experience. Science and logic and common sense is the shared and consistent reality and these things point to man whose brain cells and judgement have been compromised by drugs. You don't even trust a man high in drugs to drive, you gonna trust his judgement about reality itself? Don't be stupid.

waterheater 5y ago
You make a good point, namely that it's not possible to trust an individual's testimony when under the influence of a substance. In this case, you or I may well be an outside observer, seeing that the person's ability to perceive the world is impaired. To the impaired person, however, their experienced reality must be true; without being told otherwise, they would have no reason to assume anything else. I'm now thinking of a society where the majority of people consume a variety of substances which impair their perception of reality. In that scenario, the majority of people believe their interpretation of reality is true. The unimpaired knows those people are incorrect, but the impaired don't know better. But this case creates a potentially uncomfortable situation for us. If some substances impair, what's not to say other substances enhance? If we know both performance-enhancing and performance-inhibiting substances exist, it stands to reason that both perception-enhancing and perception-inhibiting substances also exist. We know the latter exists, and our primary issue is that it's presently claimed the former does not. A performance-enhancing substance allows an athlete to perform beyond normal limits, and it stands to reason a perception-enhancing drug would do similarly. However, what if a group of people are under the influence of an identical substance and, at the same time, observe real things which the "unimpaired" do not? The tricky word in the previous sentence is "real": what is real depends on your vantage point. The shadow of a cylinder may be either a rectangle or circle; to only debate the difference between which shadow is "real" obscures the true nature of the illuminated object. So, a line of scientific inquiry may be the following: is it possible for a mind-altering substance modify an observer's vantage point of the universe? In a more illustrative framing, can a person in Plato's Cave eat something to see beyond their slice of reality? I don't know, but I believe the question is worth consideration.
- neonological 5y ago
  Enhancement is a matter of opinion. One man's enhancement could be another man's dehancement. So this is an unreliable metric. We cannot truly know which reality is more actual. The reality experienced while sober and the reality experienced while high. Whether one reality is enhanced is again a matter of opinion. The key metric here to recognize is consistency. You give a thousand people psychedelics how consistent are there observations? Does every man describe the same thing? In addition how clear and exact are their observations? Science and logic described by normal sober people is more consistent and more exact then the reality described by people on psychedelics. People who are sober generally agree on the basic principles of logic and mathematics. Consistent consensus is the diffentiating factor. Additionally which drug better enhances the mind? Cocaine? Heroin? Bleach? Whose to say one experience under one drug is more enhanced than the other? This world described by drugs is cloudy and inconsistent not only among individuals but also across your drug of choice. So you not only have different descriptions of reality from different people, but different descriptions when they use a different drug. Which reality do I trust? Trust in the consistent description of reality. It's the best bet in my opinion. But of course this also a personal choice.