[normac2]

It sounds like you're referring to "spiritual plane" as something that is a distinct metaphysical entity that exists alongside what would be normally be seen as the natural world. (In this case I mean "metaphysical" in the philosophical sense.)

I realize that "natural world" is a fraught concept in itself, but please take me in a common sense reading; basically what would be seen as natural in everyday conversation or depicted in a movie/book/etc.

Maybe that concept should be expanded or contracted or eliminated to slice up the world in the most accurate ontology that we can, or maybe we should have no ontology at all. All of those are lines of argument that have been advanced by those who believe in religion, magic, etc. But as of right now the term "natural world" does have a current common sense interpretation that most people having good-faith discussions would recognize.

[zozbot234]

"Metaphysical" is a confused word. You don't have to include spiritual stuff in your model of the world (there's plenty of people who don't, and this doesn't seem to stop them from leading outwardly fulfilling lives!) but if you do, you're going to see it as no less "natural" than anything you'd include in your 'common sense natural world as depicted in everyday conversation or in a movie/book'. It's literally something that's part of the exact same web of cause-effect relations as what we all acknowledge as 'physical'. The metaphysical question is ultimately uninteresting and we don't need it to work with this stuff effectively.

[normac2]

Fair enough. Then would you say the spiritual plane that can be accessed or interacted with via these rituals, couldn't be fully described under the laws of physics as we currently know them?

(Obviously almost any phenomenon can't be fully described by the laws of physics in the sense that it's too complex to account for the location and state of every elementary particle involved. But I mean in the sense of introducing entirely new laws, or instances where the existing ones are overridden.)

[zozbot234]

Nope, I wouldn't necessarily say that. Just as there's many people who don't acknowledge the spiritual in their model of the world, there's many, many people who do very real magick using nothing more than the commonly acknowledged laws of physics! We generally call them scientists and engineers. And the kind of magick they customarily deal in (known, somewhat conventionally, as "natural magick") is probably the most powerful of all, at least wrt. its effects on the purely physical plane. Other, more spiritual kinds of magick then act in a strictly subsidiary role, to "fill in the gaps" and "augment" this work in ways that aren't generally overt or amenable to be described by some outward "law". I realize that this description will probably seem very frustrating to you if you're inclined to very literal thinking, but that's how this stuff works. It's silly and childish to expect that "spiritual" magick will ever substitute for effective science and engineering.

[normac2]

Yeah, to be honest, parts of this message I'm having trouble even parsing as information. If you've had/seen interactions like this where the other person just seemed too literal-minded, I'd ask you to think about whether your ability to explain it is also contributing. Maybe it's a bit of both. Certainly, I don't pretend this stuff is easy to explain to an outsider. But I think of people like the clearest defenders of Buddhism or Advaita Vedanta--Swami Sarvapriyananda has both Eastern and Western education and is an extraordinarily good popularizer of Advaita Vedanta, for example. I actually understand what they're saying and for the areas that simply can't be described in words, I understand the general bounding box of where the nonverbal insight needs to happen. (E.g., I don't know what it's like to be in a state of pure consciousness without thoughts, if that exists, so I can't understand that specific part of their argument.)

I don't think of myself as very literal-minded. I've spent hundreds of hours doing things like meditation and lucid dreaming and have experienced a range of states of consciousness. I'm even interested in very wild (but naturalist and law-bound) accounts of why subjective experience exists, like mind/body dualism and Russellian monism.

In this sense I appreciate people like psi researchers who at least overtly say "yes there are supernatural phenomena that go against the current laws of physics, we understand them very little if at all, but we're trying to get some initial data." I don't think they've ever succeeded, but at least I know how to have a conversation with them. But in other cases the answers just get bogged down in elliptical wording that I can't even understand, and I think that's what happened here.

[zozbot234]

The POV of psi researchers these days is more like "psi phenomena might or might not exist, but if they do exist they're mischievous enough that there's no way they're going to show up unambiguously in a rigorous controlled experiment!" In this sense the physical effects of higher or "spiritual" magick are indistinguishable from psi, and for the same reason they're most likely not going to impact our understanding of "the laws of physics".

[normac2]

Interesting take. It's analogous to religious arguments defending the idea of miracles. I don't say that in principle the world must be causally closed and bound by natural laws; only that it seems very likely, as it enough to explain an insanely huge ratio of what we already witness, and the quality of the evidence for other stuff is very low.

I just finished with a quick edit to my post to be more specific, but I suspect your answer would be similar either way.