What is a spiritual experience?

[MG 2.0]

A.I. responses should be banned from the forum in my opinion. They lack references and sources and…

Using A.I. for answers has several weaknesses:

1. **Accuracy**: A.I. may provide incorrect or outdated information, as it relies on existing data and patterns.

2. **Context**: It can struggle with nuanced questions or complex contexts, leading to misunderstandings or oversimplifications.

3. **Bias**: A.I. can reflect biases present in its training data, potentially leading to skewed or unfair answers.

4. **Lack of Depth**: While A.I. can summarize information, it might lack the depth of analysis that human experts can provide.

5. **Dependence**: Over-reliance on A.I. can reduce critical thinking and problem-solving skills in individuals.

6. **Transparency**: A.I.'s decision-making processes can be opaque, making it hard to understand how certain conclusions are reached.

7. **Ethics**: Concerns about privacy and data security arise when using A.I., especially with sensitive information.

These factors should be considered when seeking information from A.I..

(Chat GPT)

We can see a demonstration of #5 in most of MG 2.0’s responses

Religious belief is certainly a widespread and significant aspect of the human experience. Throughout history and across cultures, humans have sought meaning, purpose, and comfort in religious beliefs and practices.

While not all individuals are religious, and the specific beliefs and practices of religious people vary widely, the impulse towards religious belief seems to be a fundamental part of the human condition. Some scholars argue that this impulse is rooted in the human brain, which is wired to seek patterns and explanations for the world around us.

Others see religious belief as a way for humans to cope with the fear of death, the search for meaning and purpose, and the desire for connection with something greater than ourselves. Whatever the reason, religious belief has played a central role in human culture and continues to be an important aspect of many people's lives today.

What did the A.I. reference get wrong? Can you provide sources?

Methinks that this foray into A.I. quotes and their merits is more or less a derailing technique…transparently so…to move away from what I thought was a rather interesting conversation with gadianton having to do with spirituality and spiritual experiences, etc.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

A.I. responses should be banned from the forum in my opinion. They lack references and sources and…

Using A.I. for answers has several weaknesses:

1. **Accuracy**: A.I. may provide incorrect or outdated information, as it relies on existing data and patterns.

2. **Context**: It can struggle with nuanced questions or complex contexts, leading to misunderstandings or oversimplifications.

3. **Bias**: A.I. can reflect biases present in its training data, potentially leading to skewed or unfair answers.

4. **Lack of Depth**: While A.I. can summarize information, it might lack the depth of analysis that human experts can provide.

5. **Dependence**: Over-reliance on A.I. can reduce critical thinking and problem-solving skills in individuals.

6. **Transparency**: A.I.'s decision-making processes can be opaque, making it hard to understand how certain conclusions are reached.

7. **Ethics**: Concerns about privacy and data security arise when using A.I., especially with sensitive information.

These factors should be considered when seeking information from A.I..

(Chat GPT)

We can see a demonstration of #5 in most of MG 2.0’s responses

I agree. A.I., especially in the hands of some, is just reaching useless meme territory.

[MG 2.0]

A.I. responses should be banned from the forum in my opinion. They lack references and sources and…
(Chat GPT)

We can see a demonstration of #5 in most of MG 2.0’s responses

I agree. A.I., especially in the hands of some, is just reaching useless meme territory.

Your recent comments, along with IHQ, demonstrate that you really have no interest getting into meatier matters.

Go back a page or two…or three…and read. Make worthwhile contributions. Add to the discussion rather than taking away focusing on things that don’t really matter.

You can’t seem to even show where my A.I. quotes were really off base. Get off of that. Go back, do some thinking, and add to the real content of this thread.

You can do it!

As it is, gadianton is the only one I’m finding interesting at this point.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

...You can’t seem to even show where my A.I. quotes were really off base...

I don't read your A.I. anymore because, in addition to ihq's reasons, you have a well established track record of using misleading prompts which you then misrepresent as bland queries, further skewing the A.I.. If you have a response of your own to my comment, I would read it.

Here's my point briefly, in case you want to try again, with some added thoughts: in my opinion, "religious belief" is not a part of the human condition unless virtually every human being has it, and it has an agreed upon definition. That is clearly not the case in your discussion here, as you are arguing everyone is along a spectrum of spirituality as it relates to (your very specific type of) religious belief.

Not all humans in today's world believe in your religious system, or possibly in any religious system, and therefore measuring their responses along a continuum such as yours misses vast swathes of human experience. Not all believe in ufos, imaginary forest creatures, and aliens who currently stalk this planet, either, which is why those very specific beliefs also aren't on the continuum as part of the human condition.

Ideally, a continuum of generalized "spirituality," or the total of feelings and emotions, should be much, much broader than that, to allow for all spirituality, not just that limited to religious belief. In that sense, neurodivergence begins to fail as a descriptor, because that term refers to very specific, factual observations and conditions under which a brain operates with "divergence" having a very specific meaning. The uniqueness of human thought, in my opinion, ranges much further and wider.

[I Have Questions]

Ideally, a continuum of generalized "spirituality," or the total of feelings and emotions, should be much, much broader than that, to allow for all spirituality, not just that limited to religious belief.

Freud has some interesting thoughts on how religiosity developed in humans and what it was a reaction to. Religiosity and Spirituality are not one and the same thing as far as I see things.

[Gadianton]

People may be born into a given system of belief and/or practice but that doesn’t mean they are “hardwired” to the spiritual inclinations and accepted reception/manifestations of the ‘spirit’ within those communities. Mormons, Catholics, JWs, Mayan Priests, or a Lakers fan community.

I didn't mean that people born Mormons are "hardwired" to be Mormons. "Hardwired" might not be the best descriptor either. I mean that in your model, it sounds like you're saying that the wiring of a person, the "spiritual inclinations" if you will, are very often such that they will resonate with Mormon beliefs, if nurtured within the community, but not always. Some people born into Mormonism are wired to better resonate with other communities. A Catholic spirit born into a Mormon body, if you will, or a Mormon spirit born into a Hindu body.

Sociopaths are neurodivergent but within a separate category.

I was incorrect in my use of the word; I should read a book on psychology. 'Neurodivergence' apparently only applies to autism spectrum, which is specifically your analogy. Apparently, that's because autism is substantially genetic, where other disorders may be a combination of genetics and external factors. In my mind, it doesn't really matter, strongly divergent character or personality traits will make it difficult to integrate into communities. My point is, your "spiritual modes" are in direct competition with psychological explanations of people.

If a person is strongly on the spectrum or has any other diagnosed psychological condition and doesn't integrate will into Mormonism, you're not going to pull out your "ways of feeling the spirit" as an explanation. You're only going to apply that to people who are within psychological norms. On the surface, it would seem that "normal" people might choose another religion that suits them better, and you chalk it up to another kind of spirituality. But that's only because "normal" people don't spend significant amounts of time under psychiatric study in order to determine why they do the things they do. If it were so, then we might find a good reason why a person left the Baptists to become Mormon or left Mormonism to become Baptist. If there is a psychological explanation, then either a) your "spiritual inclinations" are left with nothing to explain or b) you're asserting that psychology is wrong, and that your theory of "spiritual inclinations" takes precedence.

I say it's a god-of-the-gaps reasoning because you're only ever likely to assert "spiritual differences" when there is no obvious psychological explanation on the table. It's exactly the same point in Creationism. God is only asserted at those points where evolution doesn't have an answer at the moment.

[MG 2.0]

…in my opinion, "religious belief" is not a part of the human condition unless virtually every human being has it, and it has an agreed upon definition. That is clearly not the case in your discussion here, as you are arguing everyone is along a spectrum of spirituality as it relates to (your very specific type of) religious belief.

If we have to agree to terms I think we will be talking past each other. I don’t see a need to have an agreed upon definition of religious belief. And I don’t think that everyone then has to practice that agreed upon definition (that’s impossible) of religious belief.

As to your final sentence…no. That’s not what I’m saying. I don’t think you carefully read my posts. You often completely misunderstand what I’m saying. It’s almost as if you’re making up what you’re wanting me to say so that you can then respond to that fabrication.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Ideally, a continuum of generalized "spirituality," or the total of feelings and emotions, should be much, much broader than that, to allow for all spirituality, not just that limited to religious belief.

Again, I don’t think your read my posts where I fleshed this out at length. I really don’t.

Thanks for your civil response though.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Ideally, a continuum of generalized "spirituality," or the total of feelings and emotions, should be much, much broader than that, to allow for all spirituality, not just that limited to religious belief.

Freud has some interesting thoughts on how religiosity developed in humans and what it was a reaction to. Religiosity and Spirituality are not one and the same thing as far as I see things.

I agree!

Hey, that might be a first.

My concern is that I think that you think that is what I’ve been saying all along.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

…in my opinion, "religious belief" is not a part of the human condition unless virtually every human being has it, and it has an agreed upon definition. That is clearly not the case in your discussion here, as you are arguing everyone is along a spectrum of spirituality as it relates to (your very specific type of) religious belief.

If we have to agree to terms I think we will be talking past each other. I don’t see a need to have an agreed upon definition of religious belief. And I don’t think that everyone then has to practice that agreed upon definition (that’s impossible) of religious belief.

As to your final sentence…no. That’s not what I’m saying. I don’t think you carefully read my posts. You often completely misunderstand what I’m saying. It’s almost as if you’re making up what you’re wanting me to say so that you can then respond to that fabrication.

Regards,
MG

You inevitably move to personal attack when you can't figure out what to say.

That's okay, the conversation will still go on. Catch up when you can!