Materialism, hallucination, spirituality

[Hermit Philosopher]

They claim the brain causes the hallucinations. Under that banner, dreams are spiritual experiences, as are forms of imagination, daydreaming, remembering etc. Anything that cannot be verified by a third party via their experience is not claimed to exist and therefore, is a hallucination.

Dear Dimebag

Usually the kind of “hallucinations” you speak of here, are of “worldly”, physical things (albeit, sometimes creatively mixed into non-existing combinations). The “spiritual” experiences that bahman refers to in thread, are not of “worldliness”. That’s what makes them “mystical”; they do not relate to what we usually have access to through our senses.


Humbly
Hermit

[Dimebag]

They claim the brain causes the hallucinations. Under that banner, dreams are spiritual experiences, as are forms of imagination, daydreaming, remembering etc. Anything that cannot be verified by a third party via their experience is not claimed to exist and therefore, is a hallucination.

Dear Dimebag

Usually the kind of “hallucinations” you speak of here, are of “worldly”, physical things (albeit, sometimes creatively mixed into non-existing combinations). The “spiritual” experiences that bahman refers to in thread, are not of “worldliness”. That’s what makes them “mystical”; they do not relate to what we usually have access to through our senses.


Humbly
Hermit

Do you think spiritual experiences are purely non objective, that is, relate specifically to the subject?

[Hermit Philosopher]

Do you think spiritual experiences are purely non objective, that is, relate specifically to the subject?

I think it is important to emphasise, that as language only has words for “worldly” matters, the only way by which we can speak of spiritual/mystical experiences is through metaphor, parable and analogy - but yes, I’d say that they are “objective” in the same way that an emotion, like say, “stress”, is “objective”.

What causes stress is individual and subjective, but if you have experienced stress and are speaking to someone who at some point has experienced stress too, you can converse about stress, compare notes and despite small differences here and there, you will still pretty much know that you are both talking about the same thing.

Spiritual/mystical experiences are like that. Though, as mentioned: they are like that but they are not that.


Humbly
Hermit

[Dimebag]

Do you think spiritual experiences are purely non objective, that is, relate specifically to the subject?

I think it is important to emphasise, that as language only has words for “worldly” matters, the only way by which we can speak of spiritual/mystical experiences is through metaphor, parable and analogy - but yes, I’d say that they are “objective” in the same way that an emotion, like say, “stress”, is “objective”.

What causes stress is individual and subjective, but if you have experienced stress and are speaking to someone who at some point has experienced stress too, you can converse about stress, compare notes and despite small differences here and there, you will still pretty much know that you are both talking about the same thing.

Spiritual/mystical experiences are like that. Though, as mentioned: they are like that but they are not that.


Humbly
Hermit

Okay, just to clarify, my use of the word subjective and objective here is a little different to the way it’s usually used in philosophy of mind. What I mean by objective here is that, it can be observed through any one of the 6 senses, (5 + mind). All conscious phenomenon can be “observed”, and as such can be treated like objects as opposed to the “subject” who is observing them. Anytime you try to observe yourself as the subject, you fail to do so, because as the subject, you cannot treat the subject as an object, and if you can, it then becomes objective.

So getting back to your comment about mystical/spiritual experiences, if they can be reported, if something can be said about them, they must be objective.

If you think you are feeling “god”, god being the highest subject, god will have to be treated as a subject, as god typically has no physical appearances when people describe such encounters. If you can describe for example, god as a burning bush, you have objectified god, from subject, to object.

So to describe a spiritual experience as objective would mean, it appeared in the senses in some way. If it is subjective, it means, something about your own sense of being is happening, for example, some dropping away of identity, some feeling of transcendence, etc.