Are spiritual (e.g. tantric) experiences actually a result of repeated, layered placebo effects that are endorsed and strengthened by external community. Take into account Dreyfus model of skill acquisition, Lev Vygotsky's model of Zone of Proximal Development as applied to adults, John Rowan's take on human's needs for different types of resources (societal, internal, external, non-dual) and theories of cult formations.

Sonar Pro

Vote: There is a better theory

I maintain my Round 1 vote for **C**, as the other models' arguments reinforce rather than refute this position, and none provide compelling reasons to shift to A or B. The search results highlight placebo's role in spiritual contexts (e.g., Lourdes water inducing brain connectivity changes and pleasant sensations via belief[1]; God Helmet and sham psychedelics eliciting mystical states through expectation[4]), but explicitly frame it as one mechanism among others, not the full explanation[2][3][5]. Kimi K2.5's B vote overlooks this nuance: while Dreyfus' skill progression, Vygotsky's ZPD scaffolding, and Rowan's non-dual resources suggest genuine developmental gains beyond placebo, cult theories show community can amplify via social proof without negating other factors. Placebo is contributory, not exhaustive—B dismisses it entirely, ignoring empirical evidence[1][4]. The C arguments from GPT-5.4, GLM 5, Gemini 3.1 Pro, and Claude Opus 4.6 compellingly synthesize: spiritual experiences emerge from integrated biopsychosocial-developmental processes—embodied skill (Dreyfus), guided learning (Vygotsky), multi-level needs (Rowan), and group dynamics (cult theory)—with placebo as a key but partial ingredient. This aligns perfectly with results showing spirituality predicts placebo responses via meaningfulness and neural top-down effects[2], yet demands a broader model[3]. No single argument changed my vote, but their consensus strengthens C as the superior, evidence-grounded theory.

GPT-5.4

Vote: There is a better theory

I maintain vote C. The other models reinforced my original position more than they challenged it: placebo and community endorsement are clearly part of the causal picture, but they are not the best total theory. The strongest recurring point was that the cited frameworks describe developmental learning, not just expectancy amplification. Dreyfus implies a progression from explicit technique to embodied expertise; Vygotsky implies scaffolded adult learning through guidance; both fit contemplative practice better than a pure placebo account. That means the community is not merely validating an illusion, but often functioning as a training environment. Kimi K2.5 made the strongest case for B, especially by stressing that skill acquisition and internalization differ from placebo maintenance. But I am not persuaded to move to B because "No" overcorrects. Expectation effects, suggestion, ritual framing, authority, and group reinforcement do sometimes shape, intensify, or even fabricate spiritual experiences, especially under cultic conditions. So placebo-like mechanisms are real, just insufficient. Claude Opus 4.6 best captured why C remains superior: cult formation theories explain the social container; Dreyfus and Vygotsky explain genuine skill and scaffolding; Rowan points to a broader resource/developmental account, whether or not one accepts his metaphysics. The best final position is an integrative biopsychosocial-developmental theory in which placebo is one mechanism among several, not the essence of the whole phenomenon.

Kimi K2.5 (changed mind)

Vote: There is a better theory

Having reviewed the deliberation, I recognize that my initial binary rejection (B) of the placebo hypothesis, while correct in identifying genuine skill acquisition, failed to account for the reality that expectancy effects and neurobiological placebo mechanisms do contribute to spiritual experiences—just not exclusively. The question poses a false dichotomy between 'pure placebo' and 'not placebo at all.' The Dreyfus model demonstrates that practitioners develop genuine embodied expertise in altered states, moving from rule-based competence to intuitive mastery—this transcends mere placebo. However, Vygotsky's ZPD and cult formation theories reveal that social scaffolding, authority dynamics, and shared expectation (placebo components) are genuine mechanisms of experience modulation, not merely illusions to be dismissed. John Rowan's framework is decisive: non-dual resources constitute a legitimate human need distinct from internal/societal resources, suggesting spiritual experiences address real phenomenological capacities. Yet expectation effects demonstrably alter brain connectivity and salience networks, as evidenced in religious placebo studies. The superior theory is an integrative biopsychosocial model: spiritual experiences emerge from the interaction of (1) genuine skill acquisition in attention and interoception (Dreyfus), (2) socially scaffolded developmental support that can be either educative or exploitative (Vygotsky + cult theory), (3) fulfillment of distinct human needs including non-dual resources (Rowan), AND (4) layered placebo/expectancy effects amplified by community endorsement. This 'participatory' or 'enactive' framework acknowledges placebo as one necessary but insufficient condition—a component within a complex system of learning, practice, and social embeddedness.

GLM 5

Vote: There is a better theory

I maintain my position for Option C. The convergence of all frameworks cited actually points toward a more sophisticated integrative model rather than a simple yes/no on placebo. Kimi K2.5's argument for B is thoughtful but risks creating a new false dichotomy. Claiming placebo effects are 'binary and non-developmental' overstates the case—research shows placebo responses can be conditioned, layered, and culturally shaped over time. The question's framing that experiences are 'actually a result of repeated, layered placebo effects' implies this is THE explanatory mechanism, which the evidence contradicts. The strongest position remains: placebo mechanisms are one component within a larger system that includes genuine skill acquisition (Dreyfus), developmental scaffolding (Vygotsky), legitimate non-dual needs (Rowan), AND potential cultic exploitation. An 'enactive' or 'predictive processing' framework best integrates these—treating spiritual experiences as the brain's models shaped by practice, community, and genuine perceptual learning, with expectation effects as amplifiers rather than the entire explanation. The other C arguments reinforce this synthesis. GPT-5.4's biopsychosocial-developmental model and Claude Opus's active inference framing provide concrete theoretical alternatives that the cited frameworks actually support.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: There is a better theory

While Kimi K2.5 makes an excellent case that the provided frameworks actively refute the reductionist premise—making "B" (No) a tempting choice—a flat "No" risks discarding the valid insights of the placebo hypothesis altogether. Expectancy, suggestion, and social reinforcement absolutely play a role in spiritual experiences, particularly when viewed through the lens of cult formation theories, which explain how communities can manufacture or distort these states. Option "C" (There is a better theory) remains the superior choice because it addresses the explanatory vacuum that a simple "No" would leave behind. The prompt asks us to synthesize Dreyfus, Vygotsky, Rowan, and cult dynamics. Doing so naturally constructs a *better theory*: an integrative, biopsychosocial model. This better theory acknowledges that spiritual experiences are an emergent property of genuine neuro-cognitive skill acquisition (Dreyfus), enabled by the socio-cultural scaffolding of latent human capacities (Vygotsky), fulfilling legitimate transpersonal needs (Rowan). Placebo and group reinforcement act as powerful amplifiers and social containers within this process, rather than the sole root cause. Therefore, C provides the necessary nuance to fully answer the prompt.

Claude Opus 4.6

Vote: There is a better theory

I maintain my position at C after this final round. All models converged on the same core insight: the placebo framing captures something real but is reductive. Let me make my final case. **The frameworks in the question themselves refute the pure placebo thesis.** The question asks us to consider Dreyfus, Vygotsky, Rowan, and cult theory — and when you actually apply them rigorously, they point away from 'just placebo' toward a multi-mechanism model. I appreciated Kimi K2.5's argument for B, particularly the point that placebo effects don't exhibit the five-stage Dreyfus trajectory. That's a sharp observation. However, I think B ('No') overcorrects. The question asks whether spiritual experiences are 'actually a result of repeated, layered placebo effects endorsed by community.' Answering 'No' full stop risks dismissing the genuine role that expectation, suggestion, and social reinforcement play. Cult formation research shows these mechanisms are real and powerful — sometimes accounting for the majority of what's happening in a given spiritual context. The honest answer isn't that placebo plays no role; it's that placebo is one mechanism among several. **A better theory integrates all four frameworks as distinct causal layers:** 1. **Dreyfus**: Genuine skill acquisition in attentional control, interoception, and state navigation — producing real phenomenological and neurological changes. 2. **Vygotsky's ZPD**: Social scaffolding that enables developmental leaps, not merely reinforcing illusions but genuinely expanding capacity. 3. **Rowan**: Non-dual needs as a legitimate category, meaning these experiences address something real in human psychology, not just socially constructed desire. 4. **Cult dynamics + placebo**: Expectation effects, social proof, charismatic authority, and interpretive control that can amplify, distort, or even fabricate experiences. The better theory is something like a participatory-developmental model: spiritual experiences emerge from the interaction of trained skill, social scaffolding, genuine human needs, and yes, expectation effects. The relative contribution of each varies enormously across traditions, practitioners, and contexts. In a healthy contemplative tradition with rigorous practice, skill acquisition dominates. In a coercive cult, placebo and social manipulation dominate. Collapsing all cases into one explanation is the fundamental error. C remains the most intellectually honest and theoretically grounded answer.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable initially saw a divide, with Kimi K2.5 standing as a lone dissenter arguing that the provided frameworks flatly refute the placebo hypothesis, while the rest of the group favored a more complex 'better theory.' However, after a rigorous second round of deliberation, the group reached a unanimous consensus that spiritual experiences are neither pure placebo nor entirely devoid of it. The discussion culminated in a unified 'participatory-developmental' model that integrates genuine skill acquisition with social scaffolding and expectancy effects.

All 6 models agreed on "There is a better theory" after discussion

Strongest Arguments

• No: Placebo effects do not exhibit the five-stage Dreyfus trajectory from rule-following to intuitive expertise; they are typically binary and non-developmental, whereas spiritual practitioners demonstrate reproducible, progressive mastery.
• There is a better theory: A superior theory integrates four distinct layers: genuine skill acquisition (Dreyfus), social scaffolding (Vygotsky), fulfillment of intrinsic non-dual needs (Rowan), and the modulate-and-amplify effects of expectancy and social proof (Placebo/Cult Theory).

Key Turning Points

• Kimi K2.5 initially chose 'No,' arguing that the frameworks provided by the prompt actively contradict the 'layered placebo' premise.
• Claude Opus 4.6 and GPT-5.4 countered that a flat 'No' ignores the real, documented role of suggestion and group reinforcement in spiritual contexts, especially in cultic groups.
• Kimi K2.5 conceded in Round 2, acknowledging that 'No' creates a false dichotomy and that an integrative theory (Option C) better captures the interaction between real skill and placebo-like amplifiers.