An example of what I consider strong evidence: a person who had their brain imaged by an fMRI while performing some set of relatively simple mental tasks both before and after experiencing a PCE had radically different results.
It is indeed a strong neurological evidence. It is a pity that Richard have denied all requests to take a brain scan for reasons pertaining to personal preference (he was more interested in the experiential/practical inclinations to be happy/harmless). Recent actually free people may have different preferences (Trent—a member of DhO that is actually free—is on record saying that he would be willing to undergo such tests if he is fully told what it is about, and if he appraises it to be safe).
A neurological study still will not give a full picture of a PCE. The scientists have not been able to locate the identity/self anywhere in the brain, let alone detect its absence. Nor do I have any ideas as to the way measuring/detecting the subjective experience of sensuous delight (that is the quality of a PCE). As far as I can tell, the only sort of things to be gleaned from a brain scan is the (significant) presence/absence of feelings/emotions, the sort of things that Richard writes about when he reports his ongoing experience: no wide-eyed staring, no increase in heart-beat, no rapid breathing, no adrenaline-tensed muscle tone, no sweaty palms, no blood draining from the face, no dry mouth, no cortisol-induced heightened awareness.
And if you can’t provide such evidence, well, alas.
Ok. I have no doubt that empirical evidence can dispel the last intellectual excuse to take something new to human experience seriously (which is why I have come to favor the idea of taking a brain scan); however, so far at least, actualists’ primary motivation seems to be either the (memory of a) PCE or a curiosity to experiment with a method to have just more fun in life.
I have made an effort to read the material there in hopes of better comprehending your claims, but the process is too painful for me to get very far, and this is part of the reason why I’m not taking you seriously.
There have been several complains about not only the website, but also the way of its presentation (Richard’s prose-style have lead many to see himself as egoist/prick, for instance). I too have made a rather hasty/brief initial post here, which perhaps added to all sorts of incorrect impressions (religious, cultic). What you said about the website—along with the incorrect impressions from even the freethinkers—further confirms my view that the way the content is presented (along with the inaccessibility of layout) in the AF website is not the ideal. I first took note of this when reading Daniel Ingram’s notes on PCE, which is simple and straight to the point. (Of course, I have nothing to criticize against much of the content of what is said in the AF website).
To be clear, I am referring to the website’s poorly-designed navigation
Harmanjit once wrote a consolidation of essential content from the AF website here which is perhaps useful for an introduction.
I am not clear as to what point you were trying to make in relationship to all the quotes above except the last one which, without any context, seems absurd to me in some respects. With respect to the first bold text—“psychic” - what the word refers to is the identity that is tangled in the web of psychic currents, which further refers to the affective vibes (eg: sadness of one person creating a bad vibe among others; “loving atmosphere” and so on).
But as an actual freedom from human condition “is no longer worth your time”—then it makes no sense for both of us to continue this discussion.