6 ms·

This is one of the reasons caution is strongly urged when instructed to do things like “open your chakras.” The idea that scientific explanations are only legit

This is one of the reasons caution is strongly urged when instructed to do things like “open your chakras.” The idea that scientific explanations are only legitimate if they are purely materialist probably won’t last the next 20 years.

llamaimperative 2y ago
It'll probably still be materialist at rock bottom, but with a whole lot more attention getting paid to the "cognition" software that's running on that hardware. You're already seeing this with the explosion in CBT methods, but of course there are "folk science" traditions that have been dealing with this stuff for literally thousands of years.
- kranke155 2y ago
  It certainly made me go “oh, shit this is why shamans have always existed”. I was so so lucky I was right next to one when it happened to me.
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    Indeed! Sorry you had such an experience, I hope you've been able to pull some good things from it.
Dylan16807 2y ago
Science is interested in anything you can reproduce.
- kranke155 2y ago
  How could I reproduce this experience ? It’s absolutely beyond me.
  - Dylan16807 2y ago
    For something like this, probably multiple people that can see the entity and give independent matching descriptions.
    - kranke155 2y ago
      Even when the lady removed the Voice from me, I wasn’t sure it was real. It was only when she reproduced the voice tone, cadence and choice of words perfectly (after it had left my body) that I thought “oh shit, this is real”. It was like someone doing a spot on Jack Nicholson impression, but Jack Nicholson was an invisible man in my head. How can one explain that?
      - deciplex 2y ago
        >How can one explain that? She didn't actually do it, or at least she didn't do it to the degree that you think she did. Instead, you had an intense enough experience that your memories of the tone, cadence, and choice of words of your voice, were altered after the fact. (Human) memory is extremely unreliable.
        kranke155 2y ago
        It’s not memory, it happened at the time, within around 30 seconds, between me hearing the voice and her imitating it. Good way to disqualify the opinion or experience of anyone.
        truculent 2y ago
        Parent poster is being unnecessarily smug and dismissive, but the point is that however close in time the events were, they are now entrenched in fallible memory.
        deciplex 2y ago
        > Parent poster is being unnecessarily smug and dismissive Can you elaborate? I tried to keep a neutral tone.
- lend000 2y ago
  Yes, which can be a huge limitation if you religiously attach yourself to the null hypothesis for anything science doesn't have an explanation for yet.
  - deciplex 2y ago
    I don't know about "religiously" but did you have a better idea? Am I supposed to believe suppositions as though they are fact, for literally no reason?
    - lend000 2y ago
      You could instead say something like "I don't know." Unfortunately, a lot of people (especially engineers) default to attempting to discredit people's strange experiences and instead regurgitate some hand-wavy materialistic explanation that is incorrect or at least so incomplete and hand-wavy as to just derail the conversation instead of improving it. I was this guy when I was younger, but I prefer being open-minded nowadays. Specifically with regard to people's experiences, I tend to treat them with a strong curiosity. You can never really tell on the internet, but in person, I think people are generally quite honest and don't really lie about things that don't benefit them in some way. If you approach things with an open mind, people tend to be more open with their experiences, and it seems like at least 10% of people I know well and possibly many more have had some inexplicable experiences of the variety described by the parent poster (albeit usually over a much shorter period).
      - deciplex 2y ago
        To me "I don't know" is pretty close to "didn't happen" anyway. I mean we will even say "hmm, I don't know about that" to indicate skepticism. I suppose you are picturing someone who is obstinately refusing to believe or even investigate a claim, but when I hear "null hypothesis" it's really just "you haven't given me any reason to believe this." And that's not quite the same as "I don't know" but it's not that far off either, is it? Maybe it's just me.
        deleted 2y ago
- mandmandam 2y ago
  Ideally, yes. Practically though, there could be problems if the research interferes with a big industry, or disrupts 'well established practices'. Or if it damages the professional reputations of important people, or clashes with 'belief perseverance', or makes powerful people look bad, or makes the university likely to lose funding, or goes against the current cancellation third rail, etc, etc. There's no shortage of historical examples: tobacco health research, Semmelweis, plate tectonics (!), lockdown cost benefit analyses, etc. There was very little 'science' in outlawing cannabis research for decades. Same goes for MDMA, LSD, psilocybin, etc, all with massive therapeutic potential that has been held back for decades by politics & industry.
margalabargala 2y ago
Not sure about your use of "materialist" but there are plenty of examples of things like meditation having real physiological effects. Such as excessive meditation causing enlargement of certain areas of the brain that lead to (sometimes temporary, sometimes permanent) mental illness. There was an article about this on HN a few months ago, I can dig it up if needed. Point being that it's entirely possible for the perceived sequence of events as described in the anecdote above to be true as experienced by that person, without the need for anything supernatural going on. I would be curious to know why you think that scientific explanations will get more, not less, supernatural in the next 20 years. EDIT: dug up the article https://danlawton.substack.com/p/when-buddhism-goes-bad https://danlawton.substack.com/p/when-buddhism-goes-bad
- partomniscient 2y ago
  Thanks for that. Good read, and it also parallels discussions in mental health forums where people with dissociative mental health issues generally recommend against meditation, or at least some types of meditation (e.g. walking meditiation is ok, watching your observer/stillness/awareness types are not).
Log_out_ 2y ago
nazi mysticism and anti science are so back baby
- loa_in_ 2y ago
  You're allowed to personally believe things even if everyone says otherwise.

llamaimperative 2y ago

It'll probably still be materialist at rock bottom, but with a whole lot more attention getting paid to the "cognition" software that's running on that hardware. You're already seeing this with the explosion in CBT methods, but of course there are "folk science" traditions that have been dealing with this stuff for literally thousands of years.

kranke155 2y ago
It certainly made me go “oh, shit this is why shamans have always existed”. I was so so lucky I was right next to one when it happened to me.
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  Indeed! Sorry you had such an experience, I hope you've been able to pull some good things from it.

Dylan16807 2y ago

Science is interested in anything you can reproduce.

kranke155 2y ago
How could I reproduce this experience ? It’s absolutely beyond me.
- Dylan16807 2y ago
  For something like this, probably multiple people that can see the entity and give independent matching descriptions.
  - kranke155 2y ago
    Even when the lady removed the Voice from me, I wasn’t sure it was real. It was only when she reproduced the voice tone, cadence and choice of words perfectly (after it had left my body) that I thought “oh shit, this is real”. It was like someone doing a spot on Jack Nicholson impression, but Jack Nicholson was an invisible man in my head. How can one explain that?
    - deciplex 2y ago
      >How can one explain that? She didn't actually do it, or at least she didn't do it to the degree that you think she did. Instead, you had an intense enough experience that your memories of the tone, cadence, and choice of words of your voice, were altered after the fact. (Human) memory is extremely unreliable.
      - kranke155 2y ago
        It’s not memory, it happened at the time, within around 30 seconds, between me hearing the voice and her imitating it. Good way to disqualify the opinion or experience of anyone.
        truculent 2y ago
        Parent poster is being unnecessarily smug and dismissive, but the point is that however close in time the events were, they are now entrenched in fallible memory.
        deciplex 2y ago
        > Parent poster is being unnecessarily smug and dismissive Can you elaborate? I tried to keep a neutral tone.
lend000 2y ago
Yes, which can be a huge limitation if you religiously attach yourself to the null hypothesis for anything science doesn't have an explanation for yet.
- deciplex 2y ago
  I don't know about "religiously" but did you have a better idea? Am I supposed to believe suppositions as though they are fact, for literally no reason?
  - lend000 2y ago
    You could instead say something like "I don't know." Unfortunately, a lot of people (especially engineers) default to attempting to discredit people's strange experiences and instead regurgitate some hand-wavy materialistic explanation that is incorrect or at least so incomplete and hand-wavy as to just derail the conversation instead of improving it. I was this guy when I was younger, but I prefer being open-minded nowadays. Specifically with regard to people's experiences, I tend to treat them with a strong curiosity. You can never really tell on the internet, but in person, I think people are generally quite honest and don't really lie about things that don't benefit them in some way. If you approach things with an open mind, people tend to be more open with their experiences, and it seems like at least 10% of people I know well and possibly many more have had some inexplicable experiences of the variety described by the parent poster (albeit usually over a much shorter period).
    - deciplex 2y ago
      To me "I don't know" is pretty close to "didn't happen" anyway. I mean we will even say "hmm, I don't know about that" to indicate skepticism. I suppose you are picturing someone who is obstinately refusing to believe or even investigate a claim, but when I hear "null hypothesis" it's really just "you haven't given me any reason to believe this." And that's not quite the same as "I don't know" but it's not that far off either, is it? Maybe it's just me.
      - deleted 2y ago
mandmandam 2y ago
Ideally, yes. Practically though, there could be problems if the research interferes with a big industry, or disrupts 'well established practices'. Or if it damages the professional reputations of important people, or clashes with 'belief perseverance', or makes powerful people look bad, or makes the university likely to lose funding, or goes against the current cancellation third rail, etc, etc. There's no shortage of historical examples: tobacco health research, Semmelweis, plate tectonics (!), lockdown cost benefit analyses, etc. There was very little 'science' in outlawing cannabis research for decades. Same goes for MDMA, LSD, psilocybin, etc, all with massive therapeutic potential that has been held back for decades by politics & industry.

margalabargala 2y ago

Not sure about your use of "materialist" but there are plenty of examples of things like meditation having real physiological effects. Such as excessive meditation causing enlargement of certain areas of the brain that lead to (sometimes temporary, sometimes permanent) mental illness. There was an article about this on HN a few months ago, I can dig it up if needed. Point being that it's entirely possible for the perceived sequence of events as described in the anecdote above to be true as experienced by that person, without the need for anything supernatural going on. I would be curious to know why you think that scientific explanations will get more, not less, supernatural in the next 20 years. EDIT: dug up the article https://danlawton.substack.com/p/when-buddhism-goes-bad https://danlawton.substack.com/p/when-buddhism-goes-bad

partomniscient 2y ago
Thanks for that. Good read, and it also parallels discussions in mental health forums where people with dissociative mental health issues generally recommend against meditation, or at least some types of meditation (e.g. walking meditiation is ok, watching your observer/stillness/awareness types are not).

Log_out_ 2y ago

nazi mysticism and anti science are so back baby

loa_in_ 2y ago
You're allowed to personally believe things even if everyone says otherwise.