I Have A Theory About How Psychs Work

[Cream Gravy?]

All psychdelics are 5-HT_2A receptor agonists, but not all 5-HT_2A receptor agonists are psychdelics.

ALIENS

This cracked me up hahahah, psychedelic humour.

 

[swilow]

To burn out: More accurately, I think plant-spirit is an obselete term for chemical. There is a difference, plant spirit implies autonomy, whereas chemical compound is sort of static, inert. I don't believe DMT is alive or has any value outside the brain. I think psychedelics are like a key which unlocks an extant capacity of the brain, rather than actively introducing new information.

Psychedelics feel like magic and so we often ascribe almost magical qualities to them. They also effect critical thinking. My own experience has lead me away from magical thinking and to the equally-bizarre but verifiable realm of science. I don't think superstition is useful in furthering the legality and acceptance of psychedelics. YMMV

 

[burn out]

Reality is anything but static and inert, hence why I think plant spirit is a much better term. Everything is alive and science is not particularly useful when it comes to making value judgements.

I don't even know what you mean by "outside the brain". If I look at a tree is it inside my brain or outside? Obviously if you crack open my skull you won't find a tree but is the image not registering in my brain? I simply see the brain as the microcosm of the macrocosm of the physical universe. You see it differently?

I agree that psychedelics are like keys that unlock capacities of the brain, but those capacities include interacting with what have been traditionally called "spirits".

 

[swilow]

The internet, particularly Bluelight, has become inhospitable to the magical thinker. Reductionist, "show-me-the-double-blind"-type thinking has become the accepted norm.

It's important to keep this in mind when offering up your opinions to the nerdy masses.

Yes, maybe the tendency towards rational thought is simply a trend. I see it as a positive. Do we really need more passionate opinions on our planet? :D

Let's clarify though and emphasise that dissenting views aren't meant to be taken personally and these sort of discussions can be beneficial to all involved parties.

I also think we should be careful, because we know that psychedelics play with perception and learning. We should be cautious in trusting what we perceive and experience under the influence and examine our thoughts cautiously to be sure we are not simply falling for a delusion.

Reality is anything but static and inert, hence why I think plant spirit is a much better term. Everything is alive and science is not particularly useful when it comes to making value judgements.

I'm not exactly following, but by static/inert, I meant the opposite of autonomous. Plant spirit is a meaningless term if I talk about synthetic DMT or mescaline or the countless lab-made psychedelics. What about the DMT within my nervous system, am I am plant spirit? This is a semantic discussion now, similar to the oft ignited 'synthetic vs. natural' debate of which an objective difference is hard to descrive.

I don't even know what you mean by "outside the brain".

DMT does not work when its sitting in your freezer, it needs to be inside your head to work. It doesn't mean anything or represent much value outside of that context, so its hard to consider it to be alive or conscious in some other manner.

If I look at a tree is it inside my brain or outside? Obviously if you crack open my skull you won't find a tree but is the image not registering in my brain? I simply see the brain as the microcosm of the macrocosm of the physical universe. You see it differently?

Hmm, I'm not sure how I see it- I'm not understanding your statement- please allow me to blame my stonedness for that There is evidence that the universe has objective existence but not much evidence that this isn't solipsism and I am taking to myself as fucking usual.

I agree that psychedelics are like keys that unlock capacities of the brain, but those capacities include interacting with what have been traditionally called "spirits".

I believe the spirits are already within you and psychedelics are but one highly effective way of allowing your brain to witness them. Think about the fact that electrical stimulation of parts of the brain can induce similar feelings and experiences. I don't know what that ultimately means, but it is certainly more evidence for the brain being the creator of supernatural or paranormal states than has ever been decisively demonstrated for the other possibility.

Bear in mind, I have experienced things that I cannot explain completely sober. This includes an experience about 18 months ago where I experienced a sequence of sourcless phenomena such as voices, sounds following me and physical contact. This was in a deserted street at midnight. Following from that, both me and Miss Willow both had other experiences of 'contact' for a few months. With no real reason to think this, this didn't feel spriritual or frightening, but felt more experimenta/tentativel, like something was 'testing' a 'skill' or piece of technology. Or like children playing, and only with a poor grasp of the tool/game they played. It felt like this was happening externally to me, so I have to concede that the unknown exists and (hopefully) always will.

 

[Incunabula]

Burnout

I know you weren’t relying on reason in your argument, and I didn’t mean to imply that you were using the argument as a last resort, but I’m sure you use logic and evidence based reasoning in all other sorts situations in your everyday life, just not when it comes to believing in magick, plantspirits and all sorts of things for which there is no evidence but your own subjective experience.

Your eternal argument:

“because reality might just be a dream, anything I experience or think is real”

Is absurd really, and it is a Going Nuclear argument, because it obliterates reason and logic, if you follow your “dream reality”-premise, anything could be true, the flying teapot, the flying spaghetti monster or even the Easter bunny.

Even Santa Claus could be real for that matter (you know, I did see him once, so he must exist......not)

It’s a Going Nuclear argument because you posit that reality is a dream, which nobody can disprove, and thus any belief is just as irrational/rational as any other belief, no matter the actual evidence.

I’m not saying that we know everything about reality, or that we ever will for that matter. But I’m saying that it is nonsense to conclude that anything that one experiences is real, because of that fact. Just because what we call reality in theory could be a dream, it doesn’t mean that we can consider that an argument for all kinds of unfounded and more or less weird theories that one fancies.

All kinds of theories could be made about reality, like it’s all a dream, or we live in a computer simulation matrix, or only I exist and all of you only exist in my mind, etc. etc. But without there being some conclusive repeatable non-subjective evidence for the theory, It’s just navel-gazing philosophical masturbation.

^^ And no, there are no indications that we are actually living in a dream. It’s just an idea - like so many other ideas - that there is no way of refuting, and just because they can't be refuted, that doesn't neccesarily make them true. That time is relative doesn’t mean that reality is relative, and there are much more plausible and simple explanations to the experiences that drugs induce, than life being a dream. And btw, what people call each other on the DMT-nexus is really of no unimportance to this discussion.

Also, it’s funny, because if everything was a dream and thus not real, then the plantspirits and the psychedelic experience could also just be a part of the dream, and thus not real. You could argue that some kind of real reality exists, but with your outlook, you have no way of knowing what is real and was is the dream.

It's a cliche really: but extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence - and I don't see any.

TLDR:
It’s a really weak reasoning, that plantspirits exist because we might all be living in a dream.

 

[Incunabula]

And I will just add one last thing, it's a huge missunderstanding that the theory of relativity should posit that everything is relative - it doesn't, period.

The relativity of time is not arbitrary - it's fixed! Otherwise engineers would not be able to calculate and adjust the time difference occuring between the GPS sattelites and earth.

 

[MetanoiaMan]

I read that no one knows exactly how psychs alter the brain. They say that it's caused by the 5HT-2A receptor and all, and I believe it on one hand obviously. However, I feel that the effects are so profound and incredible that maybe it's true what the native americans used to say that the plants actually have spirits within them, and the spirits take you on a journey which is the trip. To be honest, they could've been right. I feel this is especially true with DMT, which likely has the machine elves as guiding the experience. I know this may get me branded as a burnout and nut, but I seriously think the effects may be part chemical, but also part supernatural like the native americans said. The same may be said for all drugs, even non psychedelic ones I think.

Psychedelics alter the neuropathways that the brain uses. the parts of the brain that are usually in communication with other parts, return to stasis. Just like they do in deep meditation. there's tons of research coming out using cat scans. The mystery is solved. It's how brains work when they aren't thinking or responding to their environment. You're way off dude.

 

[swilow]

^Its a huge stretch to say the "mystery is solved". There's heaps we do not know about psychedelics and the brain.

 

[burn out]

I know you weren’t relying on reason in your argument, and I didn’t mean to imply that you were using the argument as a last resort, but I’m sure you use logic and evidence based reasoning in all other sorts situations in your everyday life, just not when it comes to believing in magick, plantspirits and all sorts of things for which there is no evidence but your own subjective experience.

I don't understand. Why do you think I don't use logic when believing in plant spirits? As far as I am concerned, it's very logical to believe in plant spirits and there is evidence other than my own personal experience. Many other people, have also reported communicating with plant spirits. So the fact that other people have had the same experience, lends even more credibility to it.

And there is no evidence for anything but your own subjective experience. Everything in your life is your own subjective experience. What else it could it be? I am not devaluing collected evidence, I am just saying the collection of evidence and the interpretation of the evidence take place inside your own subjective experience and the decisions you make are shaped by your conditioning which is your own subjective experience. Even the most rigorous empirical scientists still never has anything to go on but his own subjective experience. In his case, the collecting of data and the interpretation of data take place in his experience and his thoughts and ideas about what the data means are shaped by his conditioning, which is his own subjective experience.

What else is there other than experience? Have you ever experienced anything that wasn't an experience?

Burnout

It’s a Going Nuclear argument because you posit that reality is a dream, which nobody can disprove, and thus any belief is just as irrational/rational as any other belief, no matter the actual evidence.

Thats your interpretation. If every belief is just as irrational/rational as any other than its just as valid to say every belief isn't as rational/irrational as any other.

Anyway, the rationality of beliefs isn't a good road to go down in my opinion. I look at beliefs in terms of their usefulness, rationality is far too subjective. What is completely rational to one person, is completely irrational to another. I have yet to see any objective measure of rationality.

I’m not saying that we know everything about reality, or that we ever will for that matter. But I’m saying that it is nonsense to conclude that anything that one experiences is real, because of that fact. Just because what we call reality in theory could be a dream, it doesn’t mean that we can consider that an argument for all kinds of unfounded and more or less weird theories that one fancies.

All kinds of theories could be made about reality, like it’s all a dream, or we live in a computer simulation matrix, or only I exist and all of you only exist in my mind, etc. etc. But without there being some conclusive repeatable non-subjective evidence for the theory, It’s just navel-gazing philosophical masturbation.

What is non subjective evidence? Evidence collection implies a subject, which implies subjectivity. I dont buy into this non-subjective evidence proposition. Show me the proof.

^^ And no, there are no indications that we are actually living in a dream. It’s just an idea - like so many other ideas - that there is no way of refuting, and just because they can't be refuted, that doesn't neccesarily make them true. That time is relative doesn’t mean that reality is relative, and there are much more plausible and simple explanations to the experiences that drugs induce, than life being a dream. And btw, what people call each other on the DMT-nexus is really of no unimportance to this discussion.

You can't just say that. Show me proof. When you say there are much more plausible explanations, you are simply making an assumption. Prove it. And remember, we are talking about reality here. That means you can't just appeal to one certain type of mindset in your proof.

Also, it’s funny, because if everything was a dream and thus not real, then the plantspirits and the psychedelic experience could also just be a part of the dream, and thus not real. You could argue that some kind of real reality exists, but with your outlook, you have no way of knowing what is real and was is the dream.

Of course the plant spirits are just part of the dream. The universe is like a holographic representation of information. Every part of it, the plant spirits, trrees, chemicals, scientists, rocks, they are all made of energy, which could be said to be the substance dreams are made of.

What you're not understanding, is that these ideas are allegory/metaphor. When you start literally believing the metaphor, you have crossed over into confusion. You must be able to understand metaphor, without interpreting it as literal truth. Unfortunately our education system does not teach people how to do this. People are so brainwashed to believe in a "real" world, with black and white facts, that they can't even begin to understand there might be another way of looking at things.

And I will just add one last thing, it's a huge missunderstanding that the theory of relativity should posit that everything is relative - it doesn't, period.

The relativity of time is not arbitrary - it's fixed! Otherwise engineers would not be able to calculate and adjust the time difference occuring between the GPS sattelites and earth.

Did I claim they couldn't? This, like most of your other arguments is a straw man that completely misses the essence of what I was trying to say. Show me where in my post I said " we can't calculate anything about the physical universe"


“Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute, and it seems like an hour. Sit with a pretty girl for an hour, and it seems like a minute. That's relativity.”

― Albert Einstein

I'm speaking from the point of view of our experience, which is all we ever have. I am not saying that means there are no rules or laws that govern relationshi]s between aspects of our experience. If that were the case, there would be no point in talking about plant spirits. A game with no rules is not much of a game at all.

 

[burn out]

I believe the spirits are already within you and psychedelics are but one highly effective way of allowing your brain to witness them. Think about the fact that electrical stimulation of parts of the brain can induce similar feelings and experiences. I don't know what that ultimately means, but it is certainly more evidence for the brain being the creator of supernatural or paranormal states than has ever been decisively demonstrated for the other possibility.

Bear in mind, I have experienced things that I cannot explain completely sober. This includes an experience about 18 months ago where I experienced a sequence of sourcless phenomena such as voices, sounds following me and physical contact. This was in a deserted street at midnight. Following from that, both me and Miss Willow both had other experiences of 'contact' for a few months. With no real reason to think this, this didn't feel spriritual or frightening, but felt more experimenta/tentativel, like something was 'testing' a 'skill' or piece of technology. Or like children playing, and only with a poor grasp of the tool/game they played. It felt like this was happening externally to me, so I have to concede that the unknown exists and (hopefully) always will.

You seem stuck on the brain. The brain is obviously involved in the process of experiencing the world of forms. Why you are drawing inferences from that, I don't follow. What is the brain? is it not part of reality? How does something's relationship with the brain, imply the reality or unreality of that thing?

I wouldn't disagree that plant spirits are already within us, the psyche its own cosmos. Thats my point.

Other people, such as myself, also become known to you as appearances of sensory data in your psyche do they not? In other words, why are you assuming that another person you meet on the earth plane is "real" but a being you meet on the mental plane isn't? How are you defining real? Both the encounter with the being on the earth plane and the being on the mental plane occur in the same place, that is, in your subjective experience mediated by your brain. Do they not? Perhaps the brain can tune into different layers of reality. Why are we assuming the physical layer is the only real layer or even the most real layer?

Give me proof of this. You can't just assume it to be true, just because our culture has made that assumption and gives lots of respect and awards to people who base their careers on that assumption. Just because a bunch of people assume something, doesn't make it true.

I think that goes back to my "nuclear argument" in a s ense, what I want to get accross is not that we must throw out all logic and reasoning but only, lets throw all our assumptions about reality out - for a moment and then see what's left and then start from there, rather than starting from a whole bunch of unfounded assumptions.

This is an obstacle i often encounter with people over the internet. They question my views and demand proof (which is fine) but then when it comes to their views they have lots and lots of underlying assumptions for which there is no proof. We have been brainwashed to think a certain way by our culture. i maintain we can't begin to see life clearly for what it is until we begin to free ourselves from those assumptions and the easiest way to do that is not to try to figure out which assumptions are good and which are bad but to simply drop them all for an instant. Rest assured, they wont go anywhere. You can still return to them if need be. But see what happens when you start dropping them.

In the words of Ann shulgin "we're all that there is".

 

[swilow]

This discussion is getting circular, burnout. Your basic view seems to be that nothing can be proved. This is not a proof of anything. It is a basic philosphical conclusion regarding the limits of knowledge. You can't reasonably use that as an honest rebuttal to anything. If you make a claim, which you are, the burden is on you to prove it. If you can't, that is fine. I don't need you to footnote your statements, but provide something which backs up this plant spirit thing. I made the suggestion that electro-stimulation of the brain can cause a similar effect. Can you demonstrate why plant spirits are a better hypoethesis than the idea that the brain has the same capacity as an inherent function?

I'm not at all interested in replying to your post in detail because I didn't say most of what you are arguing against. You've said I am making assumptions, but that is the pot calling the kettle black.

 

[terarc]

Fact is, we have absolutely 0 scientific evidence that 'plant spirits' exist. And before you say scientific evidence isn't anything, well, it kinda is. Like an earlier poster said, there's no such thing as 'supernatural'. If plant spirits, God, or any other 'supernatural' phenomena do exist, they are very much part of the natural world, and there will be a way to scientifically prove their existence, even if we are not yet capable of it. But, we don't yet have any such evidence. What evidence we do have (since very recently) is that psychedelics act on the 5-HT2a receptors and this then causes a reduction in signalling of the brains default mode network. This network is responsible for our experience of self / ego, etc. So under the influence of psychedelics we experience a diminished sense of self/ego and an increased awareness of the other psychological processes occurring within us all the time that are normally filtered out because they are not directly associated with our experience of self. Are these experiences spiritual? Hell yes. But like I said before, any spiritual feelings we get under the influence of psychedelics are undeniably coming from within our own minds, not directly the drugs we are ingesting.

 

[Kittycat5]

Burn out, let me state how I feel about the subject and I will evoke neither science nor the supernatural. When we trip, everything we experience be it aliens, entities, or plant spirits are real, but that doesnt mean they exist.

 

[burn out]

This discussion is getting circular, burnout. Your basic view seems to be that nothing can be proved. This is not a proof of anything. It is a basic philosphical conclusion regarding the limits of knowledge. You can't reasonably use that as an honest rebuttal to anything. If you make a claim, which you are, the burden is on you to prove it. If you can't, that is fine. I don't need you to footnote your statements, but provide something which backs up this plant spirit thing. I made the suggestion that electro-stimulation of the brain can cause a similar effect. Can you demonstrate why plant spirits are a better hypoethesis than the idea that the brain has the same capacity as an inherent function?

My basic view is not that nothing can be proved. My view is that everything depends on your perspective. That is very different. I don't think you are understanding my position. I already explained why plant spirits were a better hypotheses, and as for something which backs them up, the fact that many different cultures unconnected with each other, have communicated with plant spirits and spirits of all sorts, is plenty of evidence that it is a phenomenon.

I am not saying that means its wrong to look at it as a function of the brain. That's what I call either-or thinking. It either it has to be plant spirits, or a function of the brain. Why it can't be both and? Two different ways of looking at it.

Have you ever read LSD psychotherapy by Stanislov Grof? he is a man who is able to understand the psychedelic experience from different perspectives. Much of the book is from a western, psychological approach, but he also recognizes the more ancient plant spirit approach. He doesn't see it as though one has to be right and the other wrong. That is mistaking the map for the terrain as far as I am concerned.

We can make up ideas about reality, even the concept of brain is a concept, but reality is forever beyond those concepts. When you start to believe in the concepts more than in reality, you're mistaking the map for the terrain.

I'm not at all interested in replying to your post in detail because I didn't say most of what you are arguing against. You've said I am making assumptions, but that is the pot calling the kettle black.

How is it the pot calling the kettle black? Are you saying I am making assumptions also? If so, that is obvious. We all make assumptions. If I call attention to you doing something, don't take that to mean I don't do it also. On the contrary, you should assume whatever gaps might exist in your thinking, also exist in mine. its the nature of having a point of view. I am simply saying, lets bring our assumptions out into the open and have a look at them.

 

[swilow]

Yes, but how is plant spirits a better hypothesis? The 'brain' theory has experimental evidence to support it, the plant spirits one has none. People's opinions and speculation is not evidence.

I think there is evidence against the 'plant spirit' hypothesis. Its been mentioned already in this thread but hasn't really been refuted. The fact that synthetic drugs and 'natural' drugs have the exact same effect. The only similarity they share is chemical structure. From this, you can conclude that the chemical structure of the substance is the most important factor in mediating its effects. The origin, plant or lab, is completely incidental. Only the plants which contain specific chemicals have psychedelic effects. The fact they are plant based is meaningless; the only thing that matters is their chemical makeup.

I am simply saying, lets bring our assumptions out into the open and have a look at them.

I think that's a great idea, and its what I have been doing in this thread. Some people assume that the experiences they have on psychedelics are preternatural. The fact is that science has been able to explain the effects of psychedelics in a much more meaningful way because it doesn't rely on subjective, self-reported opinions- it relies on experimental evidence. This doesn't discount the value of subjective experience, but it simply puts it in its place as being less meaningful than hard data. Simply because the effects of psychedelics appear magical does not mean we need to resort to magical explanations.

There is a fuckload we do not know about the brain and the way drugs effect it and I am of the view that resorting to untestable, magical qualities does not further our understanding remotely.

 

[burn out]

Yes, but how is plant spirits a better hypothesis? The 'brain' theory has experimental evidence to support it, the plant spirits one has none. People's opinions and speculation is not evidence.

Yes it is dude. Do you understand we are talking about subtle layers of reality here? Layers so subtle that language can't accurately describe them, let alone the kind of physical evidence you are demanding? How are we supposed to find physical evidence of non physical levels of reality? its like asking for frozen steam. If you freeze it, it wont be steam anymore.

the kind of science you are talking about deals with physical things that can be sensed with the physical senses. there are also the subtle layers of experience. have you ever read a novel? almost all good writing, finds ways to express some aspects of the subtle layers of experience, the quality and texture of emotions, the atmosphere of places, the spirit of events, etc using metaphor. these are aspects of experience which your clumsy empirical science cannot penetrate. Thats why when you turn on the tv it's not all science programs. Science programs are interesting, yes (I am not anti science) but they're just one kind of tv program. Its the same when it comes to the human psyche. Science and scientific logic is one tool we have to interpret reality, but it isn't the only tool and when you try to make it the only tool you end up missing a lot of beauty, a lot of meaning, a lot of intuition and insight, that just isn't available through boring, dry left brained logic.

Great scientists like Einstein have said things like "imagination is more important than knowledge" and "not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted, counts".

Come to mention it, that last quote sums up my position very well. I get that you can't "count" plant spirits. You can't pick them up with tweezers and surgical gloves, put them in your petri dish in your sterile lab and stare at them under a microscope. If that renders them meaningless to you, so be it. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with you if you dont believe in plant spirits. I am saying the people who do believe in plant spirits, have valid points of view also. Points of view which you cant simply dismiss because they dont fit your left brained logic. I have experienced wyas of thinking and perceiving, which are totally valid, but have little to nothing to do with the western mindset or the belief system you are espousing.

think that's a great idea, and its what I have been doing in this thread. Some people assume that the experiences they have on psychedelics are preternatural. The fact is that science has been able to explain the effects of psychedelics in a much more meaningful way because it doesn't rely on subjective, self-reported opinions- it relies on experimental evidence. This doesn't discount the value of subjective experience, but it simply puts it in its place as being less meaningful than hard data. Simply because the effects of psychedelics appear magical does not mean we need to resort to magical explanations.

There is a fuckload we do not know about the brain and the way drugs effect it and I am of the view that resorting to untestable, magical qualities does not further our understanding remotely.

You might be interested in explanations, I am interested in results. I take psychedelics mainly for healing purposes. I can assure you that the spiritual/shamanic understanding and the techniques they developed have been far more useful to me than any information about psychedelics binding to this receptor or affecting that neurotransmitter. Not that I am saying that knowledge is worthless. I recently read for instance that salvia effects one of the most primal parts of the brain. That makes a lot of sense to me, since experientially i find salvia takes me to the most primal place. So I think science can help inform my spiritual explorations. But science can'tkeep up with the lighting speed of psychedelic revelations. I am not going to wait for a bunch of snooty old men in white coats to agree with me before i experience a healing, or a meet with a spirit.


If you want to sit in your armchair and theorize and then support your theories with physical evidence, of course youre going to prefer the scientific appraoch. the whole point of the shamanic worldview is that it deals with those aspects of life which cannot easily be counted. the only way to verify the shaman's knowledge, to dive in, and see for yourself. Again, Ive found the shaman's advice, far more useful (no matter how wacky, or outlandish it might sound to western science) far more useful, than learning about psychedelics effects my neurotransmitters (but thats interesting also).

 

[swilow]

The points you put forth are good and all, but you are acting as I am advocating a completely materialistic and scientific ethos, as if I am preaching science. I'm not really going much further then the plant-spirit hypothesis and why I think it is an incorrect assumption. The rest of the post about non-physical reality and shamanic worldview doesn't really relate to the point of this topic and I have no interest in discussing it. For whatever reason, you seem to just skim over any criticism of the idea and instead go straight for making huge, broad digs at a lot of unrelated things. I understand that science does not have all the answers and I've not once said it does. I just think that it has come much closer to the answer for the action of psychedelic drugs than has the shamanic one. Science has not explained consciousness by any means and I believe that psychedelics are a good tool with which to seek such answers.

If you want to sit in your armchair and theorize and then support your theories with physical evidence, of course youre going to prefer the scientific appraoch

I've had many, many psychedelic experiences so I don't really think I am sitting in my armchair. But, to the next part of that statement- the reason why some theories have greater value is because they have supporting evidence. Any theory can be interesting and thought-provoking but without any reason to support it, it isn't all that useful. To me, plant spirits does not explain anything of the psychedelic experience except the relatively rare entity contact trip. I discarded the idea a while ago for the reasons I've tried to explain.

We may just have to agree to disagree...

 

[burn out]

Well, we all have to be true to our own experiences. I have had many encounters with plant spirits and learned a great deal from them. I also said that if plant spirits don't make sense to you, I don't think there is necessarily anything wrong with that. I'm not saying "plant spirits is the only right way to think about psychedelics".

I just think that it has come much closer to the answer for the action of psychedelic drugs than has the shamanic one

I don't understand this statement. Why does there even need to be an answer? Like I said, I use psychedelics mainly for healing purposes. Learning how they bind to this particular receptor has not been particulalrly helpful in that reguard. Shamanic techniques on the other hand, have been very helpful.

I didn't mean that you don't trip by the armchair comment, what I meant was you seem to be looking for intellectual answers whereas I am satisfied with healing results. To me learning what receptor psychedelic bind to is not necessarily any more of an answer than plant spirits, because they both still represent just a mere part in the puzzle of what ultimately amounts to a mystery.

 

[Crashing]

So Willow is stoned, Burn out is tripping, and Incunabula is geeked.

What have we learned?

 

[swilow]

Things about stuff.