The tension you describe—peak experiences yielding conviction “beyond a reasonable doubt,” while pattern recognition and collective effervescence admit evolutionary debunking explanations—is fundamentally epistemic. Natural selection can explain why certain intuitions, self-models, and group-binding beliefs are useful, but usefulness alone does not show that they track what is real. The same challenge applies even before disputed mystical interpretation: why should an evolved brain's judgment that subjective experience exists count as knowledge rather than another adaptive conviction?
This video explores the meta problem of consciousness proposed by David Chalmers and argues that naturalistic processes couldn’t have given us knowledge of consciousness
What non-dogmatic criterion would distinguish genuinely noetic knowledge—whether of consciousness or “something beyond the veil”—from a conviction generated because it was psychologically or socially useful?
So timely for me as I’m revising my class on sacred space and sacred landscape. Probably more than I want to give undergrads to read but definitely some new references to run down.
I’m focusing it this semester on the role of embodiment in the discourse and trying to stay focused on ‘the sacred’ rather than religion but there is just so much overlap.
Although it's interesting that he's kind of walked back his agnosticism and "come out" as a metaphysical weirdo. I really don't know which position resonates more for me.
Excellent piece! Glad you kept going 🙂
I believe Jewish Spirituality has a Name: Shekhinah : שכינה. I identify this Spirit as the Essence of the God of Israel.
The tension you describe—peak experiences yielding conviction “beyond a reasonable doubt,” while pattern recognition and collective effervescence admit evolutionary debunking explanations—is fundamentally epistemic. Natural selection can explain why certain intuitions, self-models, and group-binding beliefs are useful, but usefulness alone does not show that they track what is real. The same challenge applies even before disputed mystical interpretation: why should an evolved brain's judgment that subjective experience exists count as knowledge rather than another adaptive conviction?
This video explores the meta problem of consciousness proposed by David Chalmers and argues that naturalistic processes couldn’t have given us knowledge of consciousness
This is my video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJVvZNi0Fi8
What non-dogmatic criterion would distinguish genuinely noetic knowledge—whether of consciousness or “something beyond the veil”—from a conviction generated because it was psychologically or socially useful?
So timely for me as I’m revising my class on sacred space and sacred landscape. Probably more than I want to give undergrads to read but definitely some new references to run down.
I’m focusing it this semester on the role of embodiment in the discourse and trying to stay focused on ‘the sacred’ rather than religion but there is just so much overlap.
Ha! As I was reading, I was about to recommend Rowson's Spiritualise :) Glad to know you're all over it, as ever!
Although it's interesting that he's kind of walked back his agnosticism and "come out" as a metaphysical weirdo. I really don't know which position resonates more for me.