3 ms·

Could you explain? A genuine mystic revelation would mean, in my opinion, something that cannot be explained by the laws of physics. Acute schizophrenia would m

by pingou 2mo ago

Could you explain? A genuine mystic revelation would mean, in my opinion, something that cannot be explained by the laws of physics. Acute schizophrenia would mean the exact opposite. On the other hand if we broaden the meaning of mystic revelation, a "light" mystic revelation, like being in awe in front of nature for example, would have nothing to do with acute schizophrenia.

echelon_musk 2mo ago
> A genuine mystic revelation would mean, in my opinion, something that cannot be explained by the laws of physics Exactly this can happen, whilst also being labelled schizophrenia.
- pingou 2mo ago
  Yes but it would mean that the following two are both right, if there really is no difference between a genuine mystic revelation and schizophrenia: - There exists something that cannot be explained by the law of physics - a schizophrenia label is always caused by genuine mystic revelation I wasn't under the impression that the quote meant that a genuine mystic revelation would be labelled as schizophrenia, if that was what the quote meant, that doesn't seem like a great hindsight or particularly deep observation to me.
- nathan_compton 2mo ago
  Give me an example.
  - swat535 2mo ago
    It's not possible, everything can be explained by science sooner or later. We have plenty examples of this throughout history: lunar eclipse as "omens", plague as "divine wrath", rainbow as a "sign of flood", etc. “What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." - Christopher Hitchens
    - nathan_compton 2mo ago
      "It's not possible, everything can be explained by science sooner or later." I'm not sure there is a good philosophical reason to believe this. I think something like it is certainly true, but its not entirely clear what an explanation even means, for one thing. And then there is the possibility that certain physical outcomes do not actually supervene upon the physical systems which constitute them. I do not believe in mystical experiences as being informative about the true nature of the universe, and I generally think "science" is a useful set of tools for (at least) predicting the future and designing machines and perhaps even for constructing ontologies, but I don't think "everything" can be explained by science. I can see no powerful reason to think everything has an explanation.
JackFr 2mo ago
If what we think we know about the brain is true, then what we call reality is contingent on the majority of brains agreeing on it. That is, we'll call reality what my brain and your brain can come to believe independently. But that still means that what we know is just what our brains limit us to knowing, and it doesn't preclude something outside of that. You may argue, it's pointless to discuss something that by it's very definition is unknowable, but the fact that we can describe it by something in system (our language) should make us somewhat curious about it. sigh Forty years later I still miss the dorm room discussions.
anentropic 2mo ago
> something that cannot be explained by the laws of physics that's just ordinary consciousness

by pingou 2mo ago

echelon_musk 2mo ago

> A genuine mystic revelation would mean, in my opinion, something that cannot be explained by the laws of physics Exactly this can happen, whilst also being labelled schizophrenia.

pingou 2mo ago
Yes but it would mean that the following two are both right, if there really is no difference between a genuine mystic revelation and schizophrenia: - There exists something that cannot be explained by the law of physics - a schizophrenia label is always caused by genuine mystic revelation I wasn't under the impression that the quote meant that a genuine mystic revelation would be labelled as schizophrenia, if that was what the quote meant, that doesn't seem like a great hindsight or particularly deep observation to me.
nathan_compton 2mo ago
Give me an example.
- swat535 2mo ago
  It's not possible, everything can be explained by science sooner or later. We have plenty examples of this throughout history: lunar eclipse as "omens", plague as "divine wrath", rainbow as a "sign of flood", etc. “What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." - Christopher Hitchens
  - nathan_compton 2mo ago
    "It's not possible, everything can be explained by science sooner or later." I'm not sure there is a good philosophical reason to believe this. I think something like it is certainly true, but its not entirely clear what an explanation even means, for one thing. And then there is the possibility that certain physical outcomes do not actually supervene upon the physical systems which constitute them. I do not believe in mystical experiences as being informative about the true nature of the universe, and I generally think "science" is a useful set of tools for (at least) predicting the future and designing machines and perhaps even for constructing ontologies, but I don't think "everything" can be explained by science. I can see no powerful reason to think everything has an explanation.

JackFr 2mo ago

If what we think we know about the brain is true, then what we call reality is contingent on the majority of brains agreeing on it. That is, we'll call reality what my brain and your brain can come to believe independently. But that still means that what we know is just what our brains limit us to knowing, and it doesn't preclude something outside of that. You may argue, it's pointless to discuss something that by it's very definition is unknowable, but the fact that we can describe it by something in system (our language) should make us somewhat curious about it. sigh Forty years later I still miss the dorm room discussions.

anentropic 2mo ago

> something that cannot be explained by the laws of physics that's just ordinary consciousness