Hacker News Reader

Comment by LatencyKills | Hacker News Reader

> scientific studies grasping for explanations to spiritual things always give me a smile.

There are no "spiritual" things. Everything we experience is based upon biology and chemistry. Where do you think the "chills" come from if not synaptic firing?

View on HN

There are only "spiritual" "things". Where do you think "biology", "chemistry" and "synapses" come from?

They were created by magic Gaia energy spirit beings, obviously. Or God, if that is your desired flavor. Or the beings in control of the simulation we're living in.

They are the result of an infinite and ever expanding cosmos; absolutely no magic thinking or beliefs are required. I don't need to pretend that magic exists just because processes are complex.

What I'm getting at is the difference between subjective experience ("chills") and any theory describing it. ("Qualia", "no amount of simulating water will make anything wet", etc.)

Although personally I prefer scientific theories to describe reality (they are still the best/most useful), our experience is never "based" on theories.

Well then we agree. I'm just not a fan of using the term "spiritual" for a physical event. No need to ascribe "chills" in a hand-wavy manner.

Why does the term “spiritual” bother you so much? Perhaps interrogate that.

I don't really have to interrogate why the term "spiritual" has absolutely no meaning wrt the genetic underpinnings of the effects discussed in the study. The study was scientific. It isn't complicated.

IMO, if we had enough brain scans paired with descriptions of subjective experience, we could create a decent bridge between objective and subjective.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com