Why would your priors favor “the laws of physics allow for mystical experiences” over “I misinterpreted sensory input / that’s what my algorithm feels like from the inside, I guess”?
Why are you contrasting “mystical experiences” and “that’s what my algorithm feels like from the inside”? It’s like claiming consciousness has to be non-material.
I don’t follow. Mystical experience implies ontologically basic elements outside the laws of physics as currently agreed upon. I’m asserting that mystical experiences are best explained as features of our algorithms.
Mystical experience implies ontologically basic elements outside the laws of physics as currently agreed upon.
Why? I don’t need to have any particular interpretation of a mystical experience to have a mystical experience. Map-territory errors are common here but they certainly aren’t inevitable.
There’s a cluster of experiences humans have had throughout history, which they’ve talked about using words like “seeing God” or “becoming one with the universe” (but again, let’s carefully separate the words from a particular interpretation of the words), and that have been traditionally associated with religions, especially with people who start religions. They can be induced in many ways, including but not limited to meditation, drugs, and sex. Fuller description here.
Sure, I’d agree that those sensations can be very real. Thanks for the explanation—I had read the term as “mystical experiences and their implied physical interpretations are real”.
Mystical experience implies ontologically basic elements outside the laws of physics as currently agreed upon.
I don’t see why. “Oness with the universe” is a fact implied by physcialism—we are not outside observers. Conscious awareness of OWTU is not implied by physicalsim, but that’s because nothing about consciousness is implied by physicalism.
Why are you contrasting “mystical experiences” and “that’s what my algorithm feels like from the inside”? It’s like claiming consciousness has to be non-material.
I don’t follow. Mystical experience implies ontologically basic elements outside the laws of physics as currently agreed upon. I’m asserting that mystical experiences are best explained as features of our algorithms.
Why? I don’t need to have any particular interpretation of a mystical experience to have a mystical experience. Map-territory errors are common here but they certainly aren’t inevitable.
I suspect I have a different understanding of “mystical experience” than you do—how would you define it?
There’s a cluster of experiences humans have had throughout history, which they’ve talked about using words like “seeing God” or “becoming one with the universe” (but again, let’s carefully separate the words from a particular interpretation of the words), and that have been traditionally associated with religions, especially with people who start religions. They can be induced in many ways, including but not limited to meditation, drugs, and sex. Fuller description here.
Sure, I’d agree that those sensations can be very real. Thanks for the explanation—I had read the term as “mystical experiences and their implied physical interpretations are real”.
I don’t see why. “Oness with the universe” is a fact implied by physcialism—we are not outside observers. Conscious awareness of OWTU is not implied by physicalsim, but that’s because nothing about consciousness is implied by physicalism.