On May 4, 2022, at 7:41 AM, Nicholas Lattanzio <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Whole heartedly agree, especially on the point with the medium. I think my point is more that any metaphysical system, no matter how accurate or useful, is a product of human conceptualization, which itself is of course a naturalistic process. That said, if there are experiences such as visions of angels or similar things like someone who experiences communicating to angels or spirits, and they don't have a scientific explanation for it, even JUST would posit that the individual will find a way to make sense of it (beyond the original sense-making that they were experiencing something other than a mere hallucination), and if we have legitimate human experiences that can't fit into a metaphysical framework, that can't be blamed on the experience, since the experience is a more fundamentally natural thing than the Justification process (the latter being emergent of the former).
So I don't think it's so cut and dry is or isn't scientific, I think that naturalistic science can capture these things much better if we take that train of thought about "if angels were real, what would need to be the case?" A way of forming the exploration I think I learned from you actually lol. So if we just say angels are a supernatural deity-esque misinterpretation of experience, we aren't explaining as much as we are relying on ocean's razor, it's the simplest understanding that could make sense, but in this case I don't believe it to fully explain the experience.
This woman, as eccentric as she may be, is not psychotic. She has a firm grasp of reality. Is she conning me? It's possible, but the experience I had just being spoken to by her was so unique to me that I feel there is another kind of sensemaking occurring for her that is producing results that correspond to reality, but by slightly different standards than MENS.
So we can argue back and forth about the standards for evaluating the veracity of the sensemaking process, but I agree with you on that. I'm saying that if this woman had an experience that matched her reality and other than being skeptical I can't say it's wrong just because I don't also see it. That could be a result of many differences along developmental lines (as in the AQAL model). The experience was real, no denying that, it had a degree of correspondence with reality through a sensemaking process (aligning it with JUST but not necessarily truth), and as far as I'm concerned no science that can't explain/prove that she didn't have that experience or that she misinterpreted that experience is not a complete scientific framework with regard to that type of experience.
In short, it could easily be the case that angels and other beings exist in a measurable way after death or perhaps in parallel dimensions that are indistinct and perceptually outside of the human box. If angels existed they would have mental behavior, they would have measurable characteristics, I don't feel that most Metaphysics are willing, rather than able, to incorporate a "not-fully known or unknown experience," meaning that the framework has not captured the breadth of human experience. Though clearly her sensemaking process is underdeveloped in other areas too.
I hope that makes sense. I'm not really trying to take a stance one way or the other, just trying to be open to and better understand other sensemaking processes. Perhaps I'll have to grill this lady a bit the next time I see her. Maybe people here can help me come up with a fair set of questions to assess at least whether or not she's bullshitting me.
Regards,
Nicholas G. Lattanzio, Psy.D.
########################################################I am not sure I follow you here. I mean, can you “explain these things”? No one can explain these things because the fail to fit into a naturalistic nomological network of explanation. From our current conventional metaphysical ontological scientific perspective, there is no other medium for mental behavioral processes than living (and material) behavioral processes. Certainly, a first person out-of-body experience does not justify much in terms of claiming that is not the case, ontologically.
I certainly agree that science should be interested in NDEs, and we should be open. At the same time, the logical “press” of claims must be fully grasped. If I told you that I came out side to find my car hovering a foot off the ground, the correct response is NOT, “It is rare but cars sometimes behave that way. They have spirits that cause them to transcend gravity.” That kind of explanation is non-scientific precisely because it accounts for phenomena outside the general nomological network.
Anyway, my basic point is that I certain do not think that the woman would informed you that the arch angel Michael was following you was operating anywhere near the ballpark of a scientific justification system. Indeed, to the extent that is the case, then who is not?
Best,
Gregg
From: theory of knowledge society discussion <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Nicholas Lattanzio
Sent: Tuesday, May 3, 2022 10:38 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Seeking Info on Angelic Teams
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Well there have been many studies conducted by the likes of Raymond Moody and Ian Stephenson on subjects related to Near Death experiences, with sample sizes in the thousands and cross culturally superior to typical Western samples that have generated reasonable qualitative and quantitative findings, such as the tendency to experience something like 3 or 4 of a list of 12 common NDE experiences, one of which is seeing a deity of one's religion, another is angels.
While that is hardly proof of their existence in the same realm as our earthly human perception, there is no reason to discount things related to a construct such as death, which science is utterly stupid about. At that point, I feel it is the fault of science, and even MENS, that it cannot explain these phenomenon.
It is too convenient for science to ignore these things because it is too limited to study and measure them like an apple falling from a tree. If we are left with this version of MENS and then merely rely on technological advances to improve research, then we're all going to have to wait until our moment of death to figure out these truths from what at that point will be 1st person empiricism.
Regards,
Nicholas G. Lattanzio, Psy.D.
On Tue, May 3, 2022, 1:30 PM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
This is an interesting conversation for me, as it brings up the parameters of what I labeled in this blog as Scientific Worldview D thinking.
I would posit that for someone to claim the mantel of scientific thinking the would AT LEAST have to anchor themselves either to the methods of science or a naturalistic scientific ontology. If someone eschewed both of those aspects of the scientific system of justification, it is hard for me to consider them operating within even the broadest construal of the word.
Best,
Gregg
From: theory of knowledge society discussion <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Peter Lloyd Jones
Sent: Tuesday, May 3, 2022 1:33 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Seeking Info on Angelic Teams
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Nicholas,
With humility and great respect for you, I conceded there is a high chance of me missing the point. We also, though, might have differing interpretations of evidence. That is some of what makes life so interesting.
Peter
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1