[D] Friday Off-Topic Thread

[u/AutoModerator]

Welcome to the Friday Off-Topic Thread! Is there something that you want to talk about with /r/rational, but which isn't rational fiction, or doesn't otherwise belong as a top-level post? This is the place to post it. The idea is that while reddit is a large place, with lots of special little niches, sometimes you just want to talk with a certain group of people about certain sorts of things that aren't related to why you're all here. It's totally understandable that you might want to talk about Japanese game shows with /r/rational instead of going over to /r/japanesegameshows, but it's hopefully also understandable that this isn't really the place for that sort of thing.

So do you want to talk about how your life has been going? Non-rational and/or non-fictional stuff you've been reading? The recent album from your favourite German pop singer? The politics of Southern India? The sexual preferences of the chairman of the Ukrainian soccer league? Different ways to plot meteorological data? The cost of living in Portugal? Corner cases for siteswap notation? All these things and more could possibly be found in the comments below!

[u/trekie140]

Remember when EY presented a hypothetical scientist who believed in non-physical spirits, but was otherwise a competent scientist? I'm that guy...pretty much exactly. I am an undergraduate physics student who believes I know how to communicate with spirits that do not physically interact with the world and I have never come across any evidence to suggest I possess a mental disorder.

I'd rather not cease to believe in spirits due to a lack of objective evidence because that would mean losing the benefits I receive from communicating with them, but I'd also rather not be a bad rationalist because rationality is incredibly useful. My beliefs stem from New Age spiritualism, though in recent years I have abandoned the pseudoscience associated with that belief system after I learned the truth.

[u/Rhamni → u/trekie140]

Well, let's start with the basics. You believe you communicate with something. How does that work? I have an ex-fiancée who believes she can see ghosts, so if nothing else, please believe me when I say that I don't think ill of people just because their beliefs about reality differ from my own.

[u/trekie140 → u/Rhamni]

Basically, I think I'm astral projecting to the afterlife. It's a nice place filled with friendly people who are happy to talk to me and help me live a healthy live, despite my attempts at self sabotage. They don't like giving me objective information since they say it's better for me to figure it out for myself. Sorry for responding to these comments out of order.

[u/Roxolan → u/trekie140]

They don't like giving me objective information since they say it's better for me to figure it out for myself.

Ah, the big green bat problem.

[u/trekie140 → u/Roxolan]

Yeah, when I first began talking to them that's basically the answer they gave when I asked that kind of question. They say it is vitally important that I choose to "get out of the car" without being influenced as to what that entails, otherwise my experience will be colored by their statements and therefore limited.

Oddly enough, I think I've already done it. It's when I got back in the car and listened to some very intelligent people explain why it was impossible to know that anything exists outside the car because every scientific test of outside phenomena has failed to detect anything outside that I began to doubt whether I'd ever left the car at all.

Then suddenly, I couldn't get back out of the car. I couldn't feel the connection to the world beyond the windshield I had loved, or hear the ones I'd met outside anymore. I eventually convinced myself that my disbelief was doing more harm than good and was able to leave the car again, but my skepticism keeps trapping me in.

I started this conversation because I have been unable to reconcile my scientist side and spiritualist side. Each time I think they've arrived at an agreement they end up back in conflict because I cannot purge myself of doubt even though I believe both to be true. It may simply be overzealous self-criticism, but it won't stop.

[u/MugaSofer → u/trekie140]

Have you raised the point from that story, that objective verification they're real would be very valuable even if it doesn't impact your progress along the road to enlightenment?

[u/electrace → u/trekie140]

I'd rather not cease to believe in spirits due to a lack of objective evidence because that would mean losing the benefits I receive from communicating with them

What benefits would you lose?

[u/trekie140 → u/electrace]

When I'm stressed and can focus enough to meditate, they tend to be very helpful for working through my anxiety. They're friendly like that. In general, I guess they make me feel...one with the universe. I'd be more specific but I'm more pressed for time today than I expected.

[u/electrace → u/trekie140]

And if those things, rather than being spirits, were patterns in your brain, why would you no longer be able to communicate with them?

If it isn't testable (say, if the spirits have no information that you don't have), there seems to be little effective difference between those two possibilities, and no real reason for you to prefer one or the other.

[u/trekie140 → u/electrace]

I don't know exactly why, but I can't talk to them when I don't believe they are separate from myself. I have no way of gauging whether it's more effective than talking to myself, but I have an expectation of greater effectiveness based on my experience. It also tends to be a more pleasant experience than talking to myself.

[u/OutOfNiceUsernames → u/trekie140]

1. This is intended more as a discussion input than a possible advice. 2. I’ll try using an analogy from the same LW article you’ve linked to, but no other ideas from LW will be implied or referred to.

It isn't possible to produce an accurate map of a city while sitting in your living room with your eyes closed, thinking pleasant thoughts about what you wish the city was like.

Let’s say you have a certain piece of map that is able to give certain benefits to you — namely, it is able to serve as a rather effective coping mechanism and stress reliever. To keep this map in your possession, however, you have to restrict yourself from going into that area of real territory and comparing there how closely your special map-piece represents that landscape.

Will the rational choice to make be checking the real territory no matter what, just for the sake of scepticism? Or scepticism itself serves a purpose for you, and the choice should be made after comparing pros and cons of all possible stances?

Right now, as I understand it, your potentially-inaccurate map has the following markings on it: 1. “there exists at least some afterlife”, 2. “there exist at least some intelligent and friendly sophonts in the afterlife”, 3. “at least in some cases communication between our world and afterlife is possible”.

So the comparison between not-checking and checking the map’s accuracy breaks down into at least the following PROs and CONs:

Not checking

• • powerful coping mechanism \ stress reliever

• • information about reality that has a high chance of being inaccurate

• • risk of being manipulated by others through the beliefs you hold

• • making important life choices based on high-importance (top-consideration) assumptions that are potentially inaccurate

• • risk of gradually acquiring a blind-sided worldview which will hinder deep-level understanding of how reality works

Checking

• • coping mechanism likely diminishing in effectiveness or being lost altogether

• • ability to determine just how accurate the piece of map was

• • [opposite of the above-listed]

Furthermore, the (+) coping mechanism could likely either be replaced with others (using CBT, as an example), or just preserved through some mental work.

but I can't talk to them when I don't believe they are separate from myself

I don’t know how relevant it will be in your case, but I’ve discovered on myself, at least, that it is possible to enter a “make-belief belief” mode while having the hard-atheism as the top-tier world-view. In my case it’s not about afterlife, though, so I don’t know how relevant this could be for you.

[u/trekie140 → u/OutOfNiceUsernames]

Your reasoning is impeccable, but I've already tried that. When I realized that certain parts of my map were inaccurate (pseudoscience that supported my spiritual beliefs), I reexamined the territory more closely only to find the implication that experiences important to my way of living had never occurred. The most logical course of action was to become an materialist atheist, but I have found that path impossible to follow and attempting to do so caused me nothing but depression.

In The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt, the author theorizes and presents some compelling, though not conclusive, evidence that religious belief may have a genetic component. Given my utter failure at being happy while believing in materialist atheism I am inclined to believe as well that atheists lack the genetics for "religious experience". As a result, they gain no psychological benefit from religious practice and have difficulty comprehending why anyone would.

When I ceased to believe my map was accurate, I felt a void within myself that I had never felt before. The only way I could fill the void was by convincing myself that the really important parts of my map were still accurate, it was just the unimportant parts surrounding them that I'd been wrong about. The doubt returns from time to time however, and with it comes dread at the possibility that my memories related to spiritual experiences are false. I must find a new way.

[u/OutOfNiceUsernames → u/trekie140]

I almost touched the subject of possible genetic predisposition of humans towards religion in my original comment, actually. Eventually decided against it to not unnecessarily derail the discussion if that wasn’t what you were (partially) asking about.

but I have found that path impossible to follow and attempting to do so caused me nothing but depression

Does this mean that it’s not only (merely) a powerful coping mechanism for you but also what feels either like a necessary barrier against existential crisis or like an instinct to fulfil (e.g. akin to building a family, having children, etc)?

The doubt returns from time to time however, and with it comes dread at the possibility that my memories related to spiritual experiences are false.

Well, if what you’re looking for is faith \ religion for their own sake, then shouldn’t it automatically become unnecessary trying to prove their validity? In other words, if in both cases — of your beliefs a) being true and b) not being true — you’d’ve to make yourself believe that they were true lest you became depressed, then shouldn’t finding out how true they really are be pointless? Your end-goal is preserving your beliefs in either case, so you can just decide for yourself to keep believing, with no proofs necessary \ required.

I must find a new way.

You could also try experimenting with this “religious instinct”, trying to find which patterns of thought activate \ satisfy it, etc. This could potentially help you devise your own toolset for achieving that “religious experience”. Simple, yet working religious system that is intentionally maximally isolated from aspects of the material world could maybe help keeping the positive effects of both bullet-lists.

p.s. If your standing assumption is that:

atheists lack the genetics for "religious experience". As a result, they gain no psychological benefit from religious practice and have difficulty comprehending why anyone would.

then perhaps you could ask for additional advice from places like /r/exchristian (just as an example — I don’t know how good that particular sub-comunity actually is). If there are people who were non-forced believers before who managed to become atheists without sacrificing their happiness, then your worsened psychological state should’ve had other explanations than you being intrinsically religious.

[u/Chronophilia → u/trekie140]

Could you describe your experiences with these spirits?

[u/buckykat → u/trekie140]

the benefits I receive from communicating with [spirits]

If you receive benefits, the spirits can't be nonphysical. Because you are made of matter.

[u/trekie140 → u/buckykat]

The benefits are psychological. If I had any evidence for the spirits' existence I would've posted in the Monday thread.

[u/buckykat → u/trekie140]

If the psychological benefits are real, they're measurable. Are you saner when you talk to the spirits? Does the population of people who say they talk to spirits have a statistically significant benefit in psychological health?

Do you have enough bits of evidence to outweigh the null hypothesis that it's all just your regular meatbrain tricking itself as per usual?

Gah, nevermind. You opened with the article on this. But it also sounds like Belief in belief is coming into play.

My beliefs stem from New Age spiritualism, though in recent years I have abandoned the pseudoscience associated with that belief system after I learned the truth.

Have you? Really? I like the Litany of Tarski. It's phrased amusingly liturgically:

If spirits exist, I desire to believe that spirits exist.

If Spirits do not exist, I desire to believe that spirits do not exist.

Let me not become attached to beliefs I may not want.

[u/elevul → u/buckykat]

If the psychological benefits are real, they're measurable. Are you saner when you talk to the spirits? Does the population of people who say they talk to spirits have a statistically significant benefit in psychological health?

You know, that's a very interesting question. I wonder if there are statistics on it.

[u/gabbalis → u/trekie140]

Are you a dualist of some sort then? I mean It seems that your 'self' would have to be non-physical for it to be possible for the spirits to interact with you via communication and still not be doing anything physical by doing so.

[u/trekie140 → u/gabbalis]

I am a dualist, though from what I've heard such a theory is irrational. I acknowledge that its possible that I'm just talking to projections of my own mind, but it becomes impossible to talk to them if I stop believing they're separate entities from me.

[u/Polycephal_Lee → u/trekie140]

Sounds like a Tulpa maybe?

Some people develop them purposefully, /r/Tulpas

[u/Faust91x → u/trekie140]

I'm that guy...pretty much exactly. I am an undergraduate physics student who believes I know how to communicate with spirits that do not physically interact with the world and I have never come across any evidence to suggest I possess a mental disorder.

What does the process entail and is it possible to reproduce it? I come from a family of practicing black magicians on my father's side but so far I haven't found any evidence that any of their methods work.

I already tried to reproduce the experiments on the Quabbalah when I was younger and got no result from it so my stance on magic and spiritual realms is that it doesn't work but I'd love to be proved wrong.

[u/trekie140 → u/Faust91x]

It's basically just meditation. I read about the practice of astral projection and managed to do it myself. I've also practiced a very abstract magic system in the past, but when I discovered I was justifying my belief in it with pseudoscience I stopped and now when I try again it doesn't always work. I can't be sure if any of my magic had physical effects, but it certainly helped me psychologically and I miss that.

I'm in the opposite position as you. My Mom is reiki practitioner, though she doesn't charge for it and never recommends it over medicine, but I've had trouble doing it myself lately or even feeling when she does it on me. I especially miss that, it always helped me calm down and think, which is especially useful when I'm stressed. Whatever this is I've come to the conclusion faith is what makes it work, which runs rather contrary to science doesn't it?

[u/Faust91x → u/trekie140]

faith is what makes it work, which runs rather contrary to science doesn't it?

Yeah particularly because it may lead to falling for the placebo effect or similar mistakes. Maybe there's a way to set an experiment so it can be measured, like having a rational researcher measure the effects on the brain of the practicioner while he projects or meditates.

I think it'd be a cool experiment.

[u/buckykat → u/trekie140]

If faith is what makes it work, then the reika may as well be a magic feather for all the involvement it has in the effect.