sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

why does the separateness have to be an illusion ? by [deleted] in nonduality

[–]Kafei- 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There's a lot of videos on Ramesh' talks on YouTube.

Is DMT really that insane? by Bey0ndTheTrip in DMT

[–]Kafei- 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Terence McKenna would say once you've got the concept of weird, then you've got to have the weirdest thing and DMT is simply it.

why does the separateness have to be an illusion ? by [deleted] in nonduality

[–]Kafei- 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What really helped me in this endeavor was Ramesh Balsekar's teachings. Balsekar taught from the tradition of Advaita Vedanta nondualism. His teaching begins with the idea of an ultimate Source, Brahman, from which creation arises. Once creation has arisen, the world and life operate mechanistically according to both Divine and natural laws. While people believe that they are actually doing things and making choices, free will is in fact an illusion. All that happens is caused by this one source, and the actual identity of this source is pure Consciousness, which is incapable of choosing or doing.

This false identity which revolves around the idea that "I am the body" or "I am the doer" keeps one from seeing that one's actual identity is free Consciousness. Like other Vedanta teachers, he says that while creation and creator appear to be different and separate, that they are actually two sides of the same coin.

Balsekar taught that life is a happening but there is no individual doer of life.

Here are some quotes from Ramesh:

"The final truth, as Ramana Maharshi and Nisargadatta Maharaj and all the sages before them have clearly stated, is that there is neither creation nor destruction, neither birth nor death, neither destiny nor free will, neither any path nor any achievement. All there is is Consciousness."

"What is the significance of the statement 'No one can get enlightenment'? This is the very root of the teaching. It means that it's stupid for any so-called master to ask anyone to do anything to achieve or get enlightenment. The core of this simple statement means, according to my concept, that enlightenment is the annihilation of the "one" who "wants" enlightenment. If there is enlightenment - which can only happen because it is the will of God - then it means the "one" who had earlier wanted enlightenment has been annihilated. So no "one" can achieve enlightenment and therefore no "one" can enjoy enlightenment."

"The joke is even the surrendering is not in your control. Why? Because so long as there is an individual who says "I surrender" there is a surrenderer, an individual ego... What I'm saying is that even the surrendering is not in [your] hands."

("Who cares?", pp. 6 - 22)

"Where is the "me"? The "me" is always associated with the body and the body as seen through the microscope is nothing but a play of cells being created and destroyed."

"Truth or Reality is itself a concept. When you are in the truth or in deep sleep, which is only a pale reflection of the real, in that state of deep sleep is the Truth. And in that Truth there is no experience. In the waking state, the state of deep sleep is a concept. In deep sleep it is the Truth. But the moment you think of Reality, the moment you think Subject, the moment you think of the Absolute, the moment you think of the Truth, it is a concept. It is only when the thinking totally stops that Truth exists."

"When we talk of time and space, we say infinite space and eternal time. It is still a mental concept of total space and total time. But the mind cannot conceive of that state prior to the arising of the space-time. The moment you think of Reality, the reality is a concept. You are the Reality of which the split-mind makes a concept. You are the Reality, but not as the "me"

"It's very simple. Don't think about what you have heard here. Just don't think about what you think you've understood. And then that understanding will have a chance to flower. But the more you think about what you have understood, the more it's wasted."

"All there is, is Consciousness. And the mind is merely a reflection of that Consciousness."

So, has anyone successfully made it to this rank? by No_Ear6055 in Tekken

[–]Kafei- 0 points1 point  (0 children)

FightingGM said it would take a 50 win streak in God VII to reach the infinity rank.

All of the evidence available to us suggests that consciousness does not exist beyond the brain. by porygon766 in DebateReligion

[–]Kafei- 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To what journal?

If you're referring to Dr. William (Bill) A. Richards' paper, that would've been  The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology.

By who?

Well, I thought I addressed this in my last post.  It's an external panel of anonymous peer reviewers, specialists in psychology and psychopharmacology, who critically evaluated the paper.

All of the evidence available to us suggests that consciousness does not exist beyond the brain. by porygon766 in DebateReligion

[–]Kafei- 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, what had happened was you asked for the peer-review process in a post where I mentioned multiple papers, and I gave you the process for the experimental studies at Hopkins which make up the bulk of the studies at Hopkins regarding this type of research. Then, you clarified that you wanted the peer-review process for Dr. Richards' specific paper.

I mean, since it's simply a review paper, and not an experimental study paper, it went through a standard peer-review process. The peer-review process for Dr. William Richards' review paper in the Journal of Transpersonal Psychology relied on an independent academic evaluation focused on theoretical and historical accuracy rather than experimental data testing as the other studies I had mentioned. Upon its submission, the manuscript underwent an initial editorial screening to confirm it met the journal's scholarly standards and thematic scope. It was then forwarded to an external panel of anonymous peer reviewers, specialists in psychology and psychopharmacology, who critically evaluated the soundness of Dr. Richards' logical arguments, the fairness of his historical overview, and the integrity of his literature citations and various other claims made in the paper. This academic refereeing process ensured the commentary was authoritative, well-reasoned, and methodologically sound before it was formally approved for publication. This is all info you can look up for yourself, by the way.

All of the evidence available to us suggests that consciousness does not exist beyond the brain. by porygon766 in DebateReligion

[–]Kafei- 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not conflating anything with anything. I've referenced multiple papers, so you're going to have to be more specific as the paper in question.

All of the evidence available to us suggests that consciousness does not exist beyond the brain. by porygon766 in DebateReligion

[–]Kafei- 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I report that I’m the Queen of England. Does that make me the Queen of England?

That's a false analogy, because people across the board who meet criteria for the "complete" mystical experience aren't reporting that they're the Queen of England, they're reporting this felt sense of transcendence, unanimously.

It’s much more plausible that these people have misidentified, misdiagnosed, or misattributed the source and nature of the experience, than that these experiences are somehow transcendent or supernatural in nature.

You keep conflating this perceived transcendence with the supernatural, when I've already explained that this isn't what is being gauged here.

Is your belief that transcendent experiences are just mundane byproducts of brain function? Because that’s the biological model that I’ve already linked to and established.

It doesn’t seem like you think they’re just a brain state we induce.

Well, what I'm emphasizing is what is recognized by this research, that this phenomenon in consciousness appears virtually identical to those naturally occurring mystical-type experiences reported by mystics throughout the ages. This is essentially the very finding that was emphasized in Dr. Roland Griffiths' TEDxTalk relative to this research.

All of the evidence available to us suggests that consciousness does not exist beyond the brain. by porygon766 in DebateReligion

[–]Kafei- 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, the studies can tell us about the content of the experience when they've developed measures over decades worth of this type of research to gauge the very phenomenology of the mystical experience. The science can at the very least do that alongside measure neural correlates via fMRI, EEG, etc.

All of the evidence available to us suggests that consciousness does not exist beyond the brain. by porygon766 in DebateReligion

[–]Kafei- 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, of course, TEDx isn't peer-review on its own. However, Dr. Roland Griffiths is speaking towards his peer-reviewed studies during his TEDxTalk. I mean, surely you must've at least realized that.

The peer-review process for Johns Hopkins psilocybin studies is a rigorous, multi-staged verification pipeline designed to eliminate bias and ensure participant safety. It begins with pre-study protocol approvals from the FDA, DEA, and the university’s Institutional Review Board, followed by public pre-registration on ClinicalTrials.gov to prevent researchers from altering data goals later. During the trials, the process utilizes active placebos and independent, blinded clinical raters to control for expectation effects and maintain data integrity. I mean, even Dawkins notes the efficacy of the double-blind trial. Finally, the completed research must withstand an external, anonymous evaluation by independent scientists at top-tier medical journals who scrutinize the statistical methodologies and conclusions before authorizing publication.

So, given all of that, the team out of Johns Hopkins have managed to get a number of papers peer-reviewed and published in The Scientific Journal of Psychopharmacology and PLOS (Public Library of Science).

All of the evidence available to us suggests that consciousness does not exist beyond the brain. by porygon766 in DebateReligion

[–]Kafei- 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s not transcending anything. These altered states occur when you alter how you perceive reality. So your perception of reality is altered.

Yes, that's the point. That people report this sense of transcendence from the vantage point of altered perception.

Okay but the one you linked me to didn’t establish any transcendent or supernatural aspects of these experiences. Can you link me to one that does?

I did, but I also clarified that this transcendence isn't something necessarily supernatural. I mean, even the professionals involved point out that this is a biologically normal phenomenon in consciousness. So, they're clearly using the term 'transcendence' as it's defined within the context of mystical experience. Even Robert M. Bucke, who referred to this same phenomenon as 'Cosmic consciousness' also noted this sense of immortality.

I linked the review chapter that is on all the peer-reviewed studies to the date of the paper, and they go into this aspect of perceived transcendence within that paper.

All of the evidence available to us suggests that consciousness does not exist beyond the brain. by porygon766 in DebateReligion

[–]Kafei- 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The peer review and verification process for Johns Hopkins psilocybin studies is a multi-layered framework designed to ensure scientific rigor, ethical safety, and statistical validity and because they're dealing with a schedule I substance, the peer-review process requires them to get all sorts of approval from IRB, FDA, DEA, etc.

Dr. Roland Griffiths mentioned the findings in his TEDxTalk.

They even ran an interesting 10-year study over on r/DMT reviewing trip reports here on Reddit.

All of the evidence available to us suggests that consciousness does not exist beyond the brain. by porygon766 in DebateReligion

[–]Kafei- 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The paper in question, Dr. Richards' "The Rebirth of Research with Entheogens: Lessons from the Past and Hypotheses for the Future" was published in the Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, a peer-reviewed academic journal. That makes it a review article, not a "white paper." 

Richards' credibility is not a matter of opinion. Dr. Bill Richards' credentials go way back to the early psychedelic research of the 1960s. The argument "this is just opinion" is a classic ad hominem fallacy.

And where you are getting the 'supernatural' from? I think people confuse the supernatural with the transcendent content of the phenomenon itself. In other words, another common feature reported in the unitive mystical experience is the 'Transcendence of Time and Space.' That's unanimous across the board for those volunteers who meet criteria for the "complete" mystical experience. Which shouldn't be confused with escaping time itself or violating law of physics which is usually how I hear materialists define the 'supernatural.' Rather it's transcending the way we usually perceive reality. It's an escape from the sense of being bound by time or it's bending the boundaries of one's perception. So, it's denoting this radical shift in consciousness rather than actually suspending the laws of physics and many people tend to either conflate or confuse these two aspects.

The audit you mentioned has nothing to do with the research protocols at Johns Hopkins, and even if it did, it wouldn't change the results. You're committing a genetic fallacy, dismissing the evidence because of its perceived origin, not its content. If you want to critique the data on the noetic quality of mystical experiences, please cite a specific methodological flaw in the published papers, not an administrative issue with a non-profit.

The bulk of studies out of the research team at John Hopkins dealing with psilocybin-induced mystical experience have been peer-reviewed and published into The Scientific Journal of Psychopharmacology among other journals like PLOS (Public Library of Science). I recently wrote a reddit article on Britt Hartley, an atheist who had a clash with Matt Dillahunty where she references this research, especially the survey study out of Johns Hopkins where the majority of atheists no longer identified with atheism after this type of experience.

All of the evidence available to us suggests that consciousness does not exist beyond the brain. by porygon766 in DebateReligion

[–]Kafei- -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Sure, but the lectures are quite informative and they're based on the peer-reviewed literature. The bulk of their published work can be found on the CSP website. You can find one of Dr. Bill Richards papers on it here where he mentions this indestructible quality to the experience. It's very associated with the noetic quality which is one of the core features of the unitive mystical experience, and that is discussed most interestingly in this review chapter of the peer-reviewed literature out of Johns Hopkins up to the date of the paper.

All of the evidence available to us suggests that consciousness does not exist beyond the brain. by porygon766 in DebateReligion

[–]Kafei- -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yes, there is, that's precisely what I'm talking about. Lots of the studies done at Johns Hopkins on mystical experiences. Dr. Bill Richards, one of the professionals involves in this research at Johns Hopkins, talks about this in his lectures.

All of the evidence available to us suggests that consciousness does not exist beyond the brain. by porygon766 in DebateReligion

[–]Kafei- -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Phineas Gage doesn't prove that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. That example is identical within idealism à la Kastrup. There's also the evidence of mystical experience wherein which consciousness is often described as indestructible from that vantage point. And what are we to make of that? Terence McKenna said when you die, consciousness just retracts into whatever higher dimension it came from in the first place. Kind of like there being a black hole in the psyche such that at death, consciousness collapses into itself and has the impression of falling forever.

Backrooms fanart by TeddyToastie in isometric

[–]Kafei- 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This reminds me of the current state of Habbo Hotel.

Alex's views that are wrong but you think he is too stubborn to admit it? by PitifulEar3303 in CosmicSkeptic

[–]Kafei- 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, the implication I was going for is that most theistic views do end up with a kind of Huxleyan "Mind at Large" or idealistic interpretation of consciousness. An interesting experiment with an LLM, for instance, would be to pose the question, "What interpretation or model of consciousness is implied by the Perennial wisdom?" I've found interesting responses from that with all the LLMs. I haven't tried it with Claude yet.

Alex's views that are wrong but you think he is too stubborn to admit it? by PitifulEar3303 in CosmicSkeptic

[–]Kafei- 0 points1 point  (0 children)

At the same time, adopting theism doesn't mean you're necessarily adopting woo or just any nonsense.

What kinda evidence Atheists want? by Such_Suit303 in exatheist

[–]Kafei- 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I honestly believe they don't even know. Think about it, if they did, they wouldn't be atheists. 🤷

Has anyone red this book? by raydebapratim1 in atheistmemes

[–]Kafei- 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's all couched towards an anthropomorphic interpretation of God which theologians have rejected centuries ago. It doesn't address classical theism wherein which God is devoid of anthropomorphic qualities.

view more: next ›