bipedalhumanoid wrote: I don't really understand what you're trying to get at there. I'm talking about experience that the subjects describe in the same way you have. As Religious, spiritual, metaphysical.
My main point is that such experiences are, largely, subjective in nature. Science is about focusing on the objective evidence or symptoms. It would be largely impossible for a scientist (or neurologist) to diagnose the evidence because it is largely subjective as opposed to being objective or physically tangible.
bipedalhumanoid wrote: Refreshed, energised, relaxed etc are all terms I would use to describe experiences I have had post meditation. Those experiences are also linked to the same phenomenon.
I have done meditation, myself, and no doubt experienced similar sensations to you or others. But the metaphysical experiences were quite different to my experiences of meditation.
bipedalhumanoid wrote: The neurologist stimulates the temporal lobe using electro-magnetism; monitors the effect this has on the brain using MRI and asks the subject what they experienced during the period of stimulus. The subjects claim to have been at one with god, at one with the universe, to have been with Jesus Christ; Muhammad etc.
But how much of this is based on theory? You can set up an experiment, attempt a diagnosis and so on. And come to a conclusion. But until some evidence can be produced that experiment worked, then the conclusion is mere theory. In other words how do you validate the conclusion of your (the neurologists) findings. How do you know that it 'worked?' That is as important as the actual scientific method which you describe. Unless there is some kind of evidence that the experiment or scientific method 'worked' then it is mere theory.
bipedalhumanoid wrote: I don't really understand the question. Are you of the belief that poetry requires a supernatural explanation?.
It opens up the possibility of, yes (not 'proof' of). What do believe the nature of poetry / the poetic is?
bipedalhumanoid wrote: I don't believe in any supernatural phenomenon
With respect that is not what I asked. My point was specifically about "the metaphysical" (many non-believers believe in the existence of the metaphyiscal, Bhuddists being a good case in point, as well as many non-believers outside the Bhuddist tradition).
bipedalhumanoid wrote: because I have been presented with no evidence to suggest it exists.
What do you mean by "evidence". I mean there is no "evidence" for many important theories in quantum physics. How could "evidence" be produced, for example, for multiple dimensions (an important contemporary subject of quantum physics.
Also, science (the human discpline of learning most associated with "evidence" obviously) doesn't require evidence in experimental science (Faraday, for example) but whatever works.
What value do you place in Philosophy where "evidence" is absent otherwise the subject would no longer be philosophy but science.
What value do you place in the Arts which is about the poetic, the human condition and so on as opposed to "evidence".
bipedalhumanoid wrote: There is no such thing as objective beauty. What you find beautiful is your opinion.
Aesthetics is one of the most important branches of philosophy. It has been a central subject for most of the prominent philosophers from the time of Plato / Aristotle to now. Yes, beauty can be in the eye of the beholder. I accept that argument. But the important thing is that most human beings accept the idea of beauty (I am talking about beauty that has no functional purpose i.e unlike the beauty in the tail of a peacock or whatever - which is designed to attract a mate etc ..). Where does this idea of beauty exist? This is related to Plato's idea of the forms. That there exist ideas outside the natural world. Ideas such as, for example, the perfect circle. The perfect circle doesn't exist, but we are all able to imagine it. This is related to the nomainl truths of Mathematics. Where do these truths come from? Where do the laws of physics come from?
Will stop there ..