Negative connotations of psychedelic pseudo-science

[qwe]

1) science and spirituality and psychedelics, imo, are reconcilable. psychedelics is pharmacology that influences whatever portion of our physical brain produces consciousness itself, or at least, transmits information to whatever portion produces consciousness itself. aka qualia aka redness bitterness etc.

it may not be a predictable science, but it produces an expanded awareness and increases one's knowledge of what is "under the surface" of one's mind, and lets the user think "outside the box". in this sense, i would say it's more of a technological tool for bettering oneself, than a scientific tool of discovery. though of course, psychedelics are often intimately involved with scientific discoveries

I agree that psychedelia and science are difficult to reconcile, but I don't think it's because they're inherently different. Both science and psychedelic experiences rely on observation of reality, and an underlying assumption that we as human beings witness things in roughly the same way. If you could find some common ground between people's psychedelic experiences and repeatedly produce the same phenomena, I imagine that you could build a science out of it.

The problem in my opinion is that psychedelia is rife with confounding factors. Everything about a person and their environment contributes to the experience, making the result extremely chaotic. You may be able to pull out common threads, but you simply can't approach the rigor of examining a single subject (e.g. reality) and controlling your variables in the way that you can with more traditional sciences. Psychology's a great example of a field with similar difficulties and also a similarly negative popular opinion.

Well, one of my biggest problems with psychology (and closely related fields) is all the chicken-or-egg mixups and similar issues. One could be quick to say that x is [necessarily] an effect of y, when it could actually be that x is the cause of y, or even both are true as a "vicious cycle" so to speak.

true science offers predictive capability-- i can predict with 99% confidence that 1kg of water requires 1kcal of energy to raise in temperature by 1C. this can be repeated at any time in any lab, regardless of the history of the water before you perform the experiment.

Well, it's more deterministic than predictable, so long as chaos theory holds. Oh, and that example is a little unfair as calories and celsius are relative to water.

2) what passes for scientific thought on this particular board amazes me. i haven't been here in a while and this is what i'm met with when i stumble back into PD. it's barely even challenged cept for a "lol"this is the forum that brought me to BL!

 

[Listening]

what passes for scientific thought on this particular board amazes me.

Well, that's really part of the answer to the question of the OP, right? The reason for the negative connotation is because it has a grain of truth in it: a certain fraction of psychedelic enthusiasts seem to have have lost the plot. Why that is, and how to help the situation (if it can be done) is what I wonder about.

 

[qwe]

Well, that's really part of the answer to the question of the OP, right? The reason for the negative connotation is because it has a grain of truth in it: a certain fraction of psychedelic enthusiasts seem to have have lost the plot. Why that is, and how to help the situation (if it can be done) is what I wonder about.

that's a good point

there seem to be many divides in society, one such divide being between the "hippie psychedelic-spirituality people" (of which i am definitely one) and the "hard scientist skeptical people" (to which i also belong). perhaps it is the spirituality itself, and that psychedelics make you feel as if you are going far beyond the physical universe (hence their use with magick in the past)

however, i personally believe that physical science is not only intimately related with- but also inseparable from- consciousness and what psychedelics do to us; and that science can be reconciled with spirituality just fine (as long as your science and your spirituality don't include falsehoods that render them incompatible i guess that's the problem, that many people believe such falsehoods, creating that divide)

my spirituality is simply my awe and amazing experiences of that which science has yet to reach... science has yet to reach concsiousness (i prefer to use the more philosophically precise term Qualia) so qualia is included in this awe. awe itself is qualia...lol. but i do believe that eventually science will shed light on how qualia is produced, even if this particular 4d-brane (universe) does not itself produce qualia*

*(we've never seen any evidence of any type of "particle" e.g. electron which can create consciousness; all the particles we know of interact in a simply mechanical way, like clockwork but with some added randomness/probability-cloud. however, this added randomness leading to consciousness/qualia itself is a total non sequitor)

 

[Xorkoth]

however, i personally believe that physical science is not only intimately related with- but also inseparable from- consciousness and what psychedelics do to us;

I think this has to be true... I mean, the fact is that we take chemicals and they lead to the type of experience that they do. Clearly there is some mechanism for this, but one that we do not yet fully understand. I think that there exists hard physical evidence, so to speak, of a lot that we have not yet found it for. To me, it appears that our scientific understanding of the universe is beginning to approach the spiritual view that many of us have come to understand (oneness, and so forth).

Nice to see you again qwe.

 

[qwe]

^ you too. to me, i feel we need for evidence. nothing in any physics we know of can give rise to qualia (actual observing, actual seeing "redness" and observing one's mental apparatus (which is mostly physical) "think)). but i'm not going to give up and say there's something "mystical" or "all is one" (which doesnt really mean much), i will only be satisfied once we have models and theories that came from good leads, and i'll be especially satisfied when they become falsifiable

so basically i don't think computers will gain consciousness itself unless we find out how to put a mechanism in them to allow them to "truly observe and manipulate" as our ... internal environment, soul, whatever.. does.. however, of course, computers will get to the point that they will pass the turing test with ease and pass us, and be capable of much change either negative or hopefully positive, whether they feel consciousness or not, it's going to seem as if they do and they'll get rights

 

[CRICKETBEE]

great thread

Wow. this is a great thread and it gets me thinking a lot, not necessarily about the implications of PD's in regards to science, or in regards to psychology or mysticism (though those are all things I would love to rant on) but more in regards to the public's perception of PD's.

One of the first things I wondered when I read some of those very negative quotes about pd users on this forum (at the start of the thread), was whether or not the people being quoted had any problem with religion or with spirituality that has nothing to do with psuedo-science theories of pd people. This could work both ways.

Someone could be raised hardcore christian, lash out against it, and then as a result, lash out against anything with a hint of "god" or spirituality to it. (though I think that many of the insights people arrive at with PD's can be viewed from different perspectives as connected to science or connected to mysticism....and in the end, they are personal insights which hopefully improve that persons life...and I really don't give a damn if someone has a problem with the insights I attain during trips or not....it's my life and my trip and I shouldn't have to edit my realizations just to avoid a crowbar through my face)

OR on the other tip, someone could be a very religious or rigid person and have problems with some of these insights that get thrown around on this forum because they seem to go against their pre-established belief system. And my question in such a case is, then why the hell are you doing PD's if you arent interested in having many of your beliefs re-examine, destroyed or altered?

I am veering all over the road here, but it's hard not too because I think this thread encompasses many issues that the future of PD's will have to face in regards to the public perception and hopefully someday, legal use (at least in therapy,etc) of some of these substances.

I am someone who has been tripping for 20 yrs very frequently. But that doesnt mean I just accept anything that comes my way. I too have issues with Pinchbeck. However, I feel that PD's really opened me up to the idea of TRYING ON different models, belief systems,reality tunnels, etc and as hokey as some of the pseudo-science stuff can be, it can also give one a different possible viewpoint, even if only to be discarded after ten minutes. And besides, There are plenty of respectable theories I come across which are regarded as legitimate by the mainstream , or social standards, which I find to be complete hogwash. If anything, I hope that PD's help to break down my conditioning, and make me more aware of the nonsense that gets accepted as FACT all the time.

There are plenty of PD people who can be looked upon as heroes of good solid, groundbreaking work. (shulgin for one, grof, john lilly, etc) There are others who have possibly set us back in the public's eye with crackpot theories. BUT there are plenty of crackpots in every field (not just ours), and if their theories are meaningful to them, then so be it, and I wish them the best. if there is anything that use of pd's has imparted onto my worldview it is the notion of subjectivity. what works for me, might not work for you. and there is no doubt that empathogens did really change the way i view humanity and the way that we should try to treat people. and there are plenty of notions I now play around with from time to time that would land me in with the pseudo-science people, even though people who know me who DONT know I do PD's would never consider me a hippy or a new ager. But it was without a doubt the insights I gained through early use of LSD that switched me from a die-hard atheist after years of having Christianity shoved down my throat, to a pantheist.


Aww shucks, this has turned into a rant and I apologize. I wish there were more threads like this. Because really, these are things we should be talking about. The PD people on BL are some of the most amazing people I have chanced upon in years, and I think the bright lights on this forum are some of the people who are, in one way or another, help to build the future of PD's, whether in policy, in public perception, in science, in psychology, etc. And sometimes examining these things in depth, the way we might examine our lives in depth while tripping, could be of real benefit to our community. There is no doubt that with recent Playboy article, NY TIMES article, Giant Maps conference (which got tons of press) and the National Geographic special, all of which were the opposite of scare-pieces, there is a shift in perception that could bring great promise. And I know that it has certainly made me start to consider how I can act or act differently to bring about a better future for PD's.

thanks and sorry for the endless words

 

[dayman]

The biggest problem I have with many psychedelic theories is that most users of psychedelics fail to realize that their brains are easily fooled biological systems. They then go on to have a mystical experience or encounter some weird phenomena, and subsequently insist that what they experienced under the influence of powerful mind-altering substances is proof that undermines the entirety of modern science. I always find it astoundingly arrogant how such people use a handful of personal experience as evidence for theories about the fundamental nature of existence. Reality existed before human consciousness, and will continue to exist well beyond the death of the last human. Our perceptions are not reality. They are a purely cognitive construct that our brain creates from sensory input in an attempt to create a model of the world around us usable in daily life. Science is an attempt to discover as much as we can about reality, not some evil mind-enslaving philosophical paradigm. Take a look at your hand: it looks solid, right? In reality, however, it is made up almost entirely of empty space. Our brains interpret physical objects as appearing solid because it is a useful way to view the world around us, despite the fact that this perception has absolutely no foundation whatsoever on physical reality.

 

[Mjäll]

^ CRICKETBEE no problem, it was a good read.

I for one have a hard time becoming that pantheist. It's hard for me to maintain a positive mindset that doesn't boil down to the unknown in some way or another, and yet I can't begin to routiney accept the notion of this unknown mystery as fundamentally important in itself, instead relishing in the more hedonistic facets of this mystery.

I'm not even sure there's a place to go. Maybe I'm just searching for something that's not there? Perhaps I should just go on instead of thinking about how I handle things. The only drawback to that (and it's a big one) is that such a behaviour could take me to mental places I am now thankfully avoiding.

Sorry for the OT.

 

[CRICKETBEE]

RANT #2

well i am no devout pantheist

ask me on the wrong or right day and I might tell you I am any number of different things.

and in response to this:

"The biggest problem I have with many psychedelic theories is that most users of psychedelics fail to realize that their brains are easily fooled biological systems. They then go on to have a mystical experience or encounter some weird phenomena, and subsequently insist that what they experienced under the influence of powerful mind-altering substances is proof that undermines the entirety of modern science. I always find it astoundingly arrogant how such people use a handful of personal experience as evidence for theories about the fundamental nature of existence"

I don't think its arrogant at all, or no more arrogant than the notion of objectivity. And in fact, we could postulate (without the Psychedelic drugs involved) that this is exactly what many philosophers did was use their experience of the world to inform their work) I think people have every right to feel anyway they want about the nature of the universe. I think science has much to offer, but at the end of the day, I don't think that science (for me) can offer nearly as much in the way of informing the DIRECTION or path for my life as experience, inter-personal connections,art, sex, love, etc. And even if it "solves" every question about the nature of the universe, that doesn't necessarily mean we will be any better off as people. For me Science is not the only answer. It is only one answer.



And I think that some pure science people (Dana Scully in season one of the X-Files for example) work so hard to come up with rational explanations for things that they often discount or miss what it is they are experiencing, and sometimes I wonder why they need to have things fit so perfectly together. It seems like a very "serious" worldview, to constantly have to make something fit. And I avoid being too serious as, well, life is short.

but look, the last thing I am is a science basher. I am an everything basher. I think everything should be questioned and pulled at, and I don't think there is anything that should be held with such reverence that it becomes true belief. (although that could be a paradox



A lot of this comes from reading so much Robert Anton Wilson in my formative years, and I am very thankful for it.


One of the things I LOVE about BL is how many amazing science people are on here, talking about things I can read for hours just to learn! And often I skip over peoples Trip Reports about conversing with aliens, etc, not because it isnt valid, but because I cant learn as much from those posts. (in the same way that for me listening to someone recollecting their dreams can often just seem like something I can't connect with) The experiences with Aliens or with white light or with loops of sound or insights into my future, or with my full being are the things I look forward to on Pd's....But there is so much to learn about PD's when we arent on them too and for this I am so grateful for all the truly intelligent people on here.

thanks

 

[Mjäll]

I could have written that myself had I been a single bit more focused and honest in my views.

Fascinating.

(this could be accounted for by some well laden hash I just had the pleasure to taste)

 

[Liquid Sunshine]

People would get taken more seriously if even our most iconic figureheads didn't go out in a blaze of drug fueled psuedoscientific bullshit (T. Mckenna, a man I had great respect for, but cannot help but laugh at now and then)

I guess people who hallucinate on purpose aren't really the type you'd expect to be very concrete, though. Who knows?

There are very valuable things to be learned from psychedelics, do not get me wrong, friends. But I do think that they come from within, not from the chemical. The chemical is just a key or a catalyst, it takes you to the right place, but you have to find the answer yourself once you're there.

Psychedelics don't offer magical glimpses into the very heart of the cosmos or the human condition save the way the sword doesn't offer or bring death; both are tools, and in the end, it is the user of the tool and not the tool that decides whether something or not is valuable. Considering how useless most of the population is, of course people don't take people who use psychedelics as tools seriously.

For every one of us who has learned to use the substance as a tools, there are ten tools being used by the substance.

 

[Raw Evil]

People would get taken more seriously if even our most iconic figureheads didn't go out in a blaze of drug fueled psuedoscientific bullshit (T. Mckenna, a man I had great respect for, but cannot help but laugh at now and then)

I guess people who hallucinate on purpose aren't really the type you'd expect to be very concrete, though. Who knows?

McKenna is (was) an amazing man to listen to, providing you treat everything he says as a metaphor. Of course nobody has all the answers, even (especially?) the pioneer psychonauts - but they will apply their intellect as best they can to analyse a situation, and often the model that makes the most sense to them will sound completely spun out to everyone else. However, such models are usually internally consistent, and follow a rule structure with parallels to physical reality. As metaphors for understanding the world around us, they work brilliantly. The point at which problems manifest is when people take them too literally (see also: any "holy book" / "sacred text").

Additionally: I hallucinate on purpose, and I have no trouble keeping a division between the concrete and the abstract. Perhaps, however, this is atypical, as working as a programmer I am used to working with abstractions.

 

[dayman]

I think science has much to offer, but at the end of the day, I don't think that science (for me) can offer nearly as much in the way of informing the DIRECTION or path for my life as experience, inter-personal connections,art, sex, love, etc. And even if it "solves" every question about the nature of the universe, that doesn't necessarily mean we will be any better off as people. For me Science is not the only answer. It is only one answer.

You're trying to make science into something it's not. It is a very specific tool with a very narrow purpose: to find out how the physical universe works. Morality, purpose, self-fulfilment and other purely philosophical concepts are not the purview of science. No biologist is going to try to tell you what the meaning of your life is, no astrophysicist is going to tell you how his work influences modern views on ethics, and no chemist is going to use his technical knowledge to give you advice on love. Science is not an "answer:" it is a tool for finding *certain kinds* of answers. It's perfectly reasonable for everyone to have their own personal philosophy with beliefs about how to live their life, what the fundamental nature of reality is, etc, and even to modify those beliefs based on the insight gained from psychedelic experiences. However, it is absolutely ludicrous to take those heavily subjective experiences and present them as evidence of some sort of physical phenomenon. If a person has a psychedelic experience with aliens or telepathy or some other paranormal encounter, and believes this somehow proves that these things physically exist, they are grossly mistaken.

So in summary, science is a tool used to refine our physical model of the universe, and psychedelics are tool that can be used to refine one's mental model of the universe, but attempting try to use one for the other's purpose is just plain stupid.

 

[Liquid Sunshine]

McKenna is (was) an amazing man to listen to, providing you treat everything he says as a metaphor. Of course nobody has all the answers, even (especially?) the pioneer psychonauts - but they will apply their intellect as best they can to analyse a situation, and often the model that makes the most sense to them will sound completely spun out to everyone else. However, such models are usually internally consistent, and follow a rule structure with parallels to physical reality. As metaphors for understanding the world around us, they work brilliantly. The point at which problems manifest is when people take them too literally (see also: any "holy book" / "sacred text").

Additionally: I hallucinate on purpose, and I have no trouble keeping a division between the concrete and the abstract. Perhaps, however, this is atypical, as working as a programmer I am used to working with abstractions.

So am I, and I'm the most skeptical, scientific person I know. At least, that is what I'm known for. I'm saying there is a correlation with people with non-scientific beliefs, not that psychedelics cause non-scientific beliefs. I love and regularly use psychs.

T. Mckenna did not intend for most of what he said to be taken as metaphor, and that is not how I respond to writings. He was a brilliant man, full of astonishing and beautiful ideas.

However, none of them were scientific, which is the only point I was trying to make: One of the most well known figureheads of the scientific movement was famous for his very non-scientific writings and beliefs, and those views are shared by many of his readers, who mostly use psychedelics, thus psychedelic users have a reputation for believing things that are not scientific.

I personally believe that while psyches offer new perspectives and can take you to places in your mind otherwise inaccessible, that none of these places are 'real' (in the objective, traditional sense, I have trouble denying that there is no reality to the world of thought and ideas) and are simply astonishing mental constructs.

 

[CRICKETBEE]

"Grossly mistaken"

Look, I would never claim to know the truth.
Such certainty in anything is very hard for me, partially due to PD's, partially due to many years of questioning everything and anything.

I love science, and I agree with what you said about it,(and I read it a lot, and as I said I spend tons of time on here trying to learn more) But I don't think science is sacred. Anything can seem silly at times, from science, psuedo-science on down to mysticism.

I'd much rather be open to any possibility than sure of one. I dont actually believe I have seen aliens,etc, except when i feel compelled to believe it for a few minutes.

Once again I think the issue here is whether or not PD insights and experiences need to be communicated in a purely scientific way. I dont think so. I think what they provide is a very personal experience, and granted, in the research community scientific standards are of upmost importance, but are we only talking about perception in the research community? In clinical trials, etc?

Or are we also talking about what our fellow man thinks of PD users?

I have a lot of issues with Mckenna at times. But I certainly respect what he was trying to do. And many, many, many, people were brought into the PD community by him. So I think it can work both ways.


and whoever made the point about him being considered one of our most scientific figures, is a great point. Because that can be very problematic.
(thank god for shulgin)

and we NEED more respectable PUBLIC science figures who do serious work. and more public parents and doctors and in general, we just need more people vouching for these substances who people can connect with.

the last thing I am trying to do is argue with anyone. I can see this issue from so many different perspectives because of this thread, and that is a good thing.
And I think this community fosters that diversity and that is one of its real strengths.

The book Hallucinogens, edited by Grobb, is a very good example of many different viewpoints on PD's that I think illustrates the benefit of including different voices. Some of them coming from science, some from more of a new-agey background, some from a Jungian background, etc. But they are all from this community. And I think that someone like my Dad, who is NOT into Pd's or any drugs at all, could find a chapter in that book that he could connect with or at least respect. As could my other relatives. Even though they might not all be of the same persuasion.

So, does trying to push things toward a more science minded image benefit us in all situations?

or we will lose the people who are looking for something else?

these are questions I am excited to be thinking about, and it is always nice to have other people challenge your assumptions or conditioning and make you re-think things and for that, I am grateful for this thread.

thanks

 

[dayman]

"Grossly mistaken"

Look, I would never claim to know the truth.
Such certainty in anything is very hard for me, partially due to PD's, partially due to many years of questioning everything and anything.

Sorry, that last sentence was not directed specifically at you; edited.

 

[CFC]

save