It's amazing that everytime these kinds of arguements come up about the legitimacy of the drug-induced psychedelic experience, these hardcore, blunt materialists seem to overlook one very simple but very important point. I've explained this before, but it seems people don't seem to grasp the concept, or don't want to grasp it, so I'll outline it again here.
Your average meat-and-bone, nuts-and-bolts materialist will typically assert that the psychedelic experience is just a molecule messing with your brain's receptors, and thus all the sensorial changes and mental epiphanies or insights are somehow false, meaningless, and have no basis in reality. However, this perspective is erroneous, and arises from an ignorant understanding of reality. Let me go on to explain why.
This viewpoint is based in the assumption that there is a "true" state of reality perception called "sobriety", and that this perceived "state" is entirely separated from - and independent of (unaffected by) - any differing situation of biochemical composition. This state of "sobriety" is held upon a throne of majesty as if it is
the lens through which to perceive the world, and that one must either be in sobriety, or out of it, as if there were some universally absolute dividing line between that state and any other, and a door between them.
However, there is actually no reason whatsoever why one should believe in the fallacy of such a dual-concept model comprising what is perceived as:
1. an actual separate and independently verifiable state where a person is "sober",
2. what is perceived as everything outside that compartmentalised state, where a person is "under the influence of drugs".
The notion of the state of being "under the influence of drugs" is completely artificial, and is merely the result of a mental division caused by educationally-induced programming. Its only usefulness is in the convenience of comparative discussion. There is actually no difference between what people perceive as "sobriety", and what people perceive as "intoxicated". They are exactly the same, they just involve different molecules, and hence a different form of the very same macro state - which is homeostatic
imbalance. Human life is never in homeostatic equilibrium, rather we are in a constant state of dynamic flux. This is because the physical aspects of life which make up what we perceive as our bodies constantly come and go, whilst energy is restlessly transferred from place to place.
It matters not which chemicals are in our brains at a given time. There are no biological rules, and therefore there is no "correct" neurochemical state from which to perceive the world through the senses. Why should it be that what people call "sobriety" is the "correct" view of reality, whereas - for example - with DMT acting at brain receptors the senses suddenly report false information? The reason is because people make a false distinction between two non-separate states - that of the so called "sober" state, and that of the so-called "intoxicated". The fact is, we are contantly intoxicated, and therefore if one is to call in to question the validity of sensorial information whilst "intoxicated", one must also call in to question the validity of sensorial information whilst "sober".
Why are we contantly intoxicated? The reason we are contantly intoxicated is because we are made of molecules which never cease to be introduced to our bodies and subsequently eliminated. It is the very mechanism of that constant consumption of the material world (through air, water, and food) which grants us the perceptual experiences we have. When we stop consuming, our experience of our existential situation changes. Try fasting for a few days, and you will see that your perception of reality alters. Even changing your diet, or going without your favourite food for a day or two will alter your mood, and thus your perception of reality. It doesn't mean that your perception of reality is any more or less valid during those times.
Additional thought experiments:
Ask youself: when you eat chocolate and you get a buzz from it, does your perception of reality suddenly become false because you are "intoxicated" on chocolate? The answer is no, your perception is simply
different to what it was before you ate it, because you are experiencing reality with chocolate molecules in your body (sugars, proteins, theobromide, caffeine, anandamide etc).
Moreover, ask yourself when it is that you think that those chocolate molecules (proteins, fats, etc.) suddenly become an aspect of what you think is 'your' body.
Is it when you put the chocolate in your mouth?
When you swallow it?
When the molecules have passed through the intestinal wall?
One can see that there is actually never a definable point at which the molecules that we consume (including the air we breathe) become an aspect of our body, and when they leave. Our bodies are not independent of the world beyond our skin; we are entirely inter-dependent in every causal way. And the same is true with "drugs". They are never truly consumed, and they never truly leave. Rather, it is the universal concentration and distribution of such molecules at the experiential nexus (which you call your body) which defines the
type of experience you have at any given moment.
Therefore, the argument that a psychedelic trip is simply a false experience caused by an invalid biological state is a bad argument, and thus totally wrong.
