Psychedelic scepticism

[Volsam]

But I've noticed that everyone thinks that their way of treating/taking psychedelics is the best way. It's like religion, everyone has the best one.

- Maybe because psychedelics reveal some things about personal development. And every person is on it's own Way imo...

 

[Durzo1258]

Hundreds of trips have introduced me to certain "facts", for example that matter is materialized light. Now I can't prove this but I know that it is so. And I'm NOT imagining it, any more than I'm imagining that I love my wife. I know these things are so even though I can't "prove" them. Well, there are a lot of things I know that I can't prove. That doesn't mean they're not so.

What if the following were true - just saying - WHAT IF?

Human beings are light channels with an aperture like a camera. Psychedelics force the aperture open, in relation to the amount of substance consumed. Like water seeking it's own level, light will pour through any open channel and do so with full force according to aperture dilation. More than one is ready for can cause a bad trip. What if psychedelics were the only known tools for developing light throughput, and light conveyance the doorway to star birthing? What if star birthing were life's ultimate purpose, and psychedelics essential tools for enabling that?

So yes, a lot of what's been said by a lot of people is nonsensical. But dismissing revolutionary ideas out of hand can also be dangerous... (no reference to the OP)

How is that any different from machine elves ? Matter being made of light, humans being channels for light and purpose of life is making stars whereas there could be no life if stars didn't exist in the first place ? Sure human mind has a lot of limitations and we desperately need brains bigger than ours to understand some things.

But saying that matter is made of materialised light, I know that, just know is bad science at best. With the slow as they may be advances of quantum physics we found nothing that could even remotely support or suggest that.

Even if psychedelics could in fact show us things we can't normally perceive, they will need to be proved one way or another, you can't just say I know it is so. That's the thing about scepticism, it's all or nothing.

 

[pupnik]

the universal materiel is thought
mental forms are the essence of mental media.
this includes
* sensations of all kinds
* memories
* ideas
* dreams
* hallucinations

all of them are mental media, composite or simple - created of the same root essence in the mind
which is most commonly called thought

 

[cyberius]

I feel like psychedelics should become more mainstream, but your quote sums it up very well.

There's a scale I imagine with the poles being

Cult Conspiracy - - - Mind Control

as to what psychedelics can be used to accomplish if used in extremes. I'd even go as far as to say the idealogy of Jesus Christ and similar religious figures are in fact pretty psychedelic.

 

[Vastness]

I completely, respectfully, F****** disagree.

I like the fact that psychedelics are on the fringe. It means we are into something real.
It would be really sad to see LSD patented and marketed by Eli-Lilly "Delsyd" for treatment of XYZ bullshit diagnoses under care of psychiatrist only.
I am so glad we don't live in that world.
Psychedelics belong in the jungle, the desert, growing wild, harvested, and consumed in TUNE with human societies, innately connected with the spiritual, the un-provable, the non-empiric.
The guy who did the early western scientific DMT research, said he felt "weird" while doing the research, almost like he was a dispassionate observer and he wasn't actually helping anyone.

You have some valid points about psychedelic users coming up with pseudo-scientific theories and the like. But I think that's the minority.
And non-psychedelic users come up with the same crap too.

That's how I feel. I think it would be a loss if psychedelics were reduced to something that fit into consensus reality and marketed as a treatment for cluster headaches or depression. How boring. Not that I don't think we should explore using them as a treatment for those conditions, but I prefer to see them as gifts from nature. Different people will naturally appreciate different aspects of nature's gifts. Some people might be satisfied if they can find relief from cluster headaches or depression in the magic mushroom. Others might be more inspired by the mystical effects and come up with wild insights about the nature of reality. Still others might enjoy the sensory enhancements or artistic sentiment most of all. The world has room for all of these different kinds of people. I don't see what the problem with it is.

And I think a big reason they are illegal is because we as a culture are afraid of nature. We live in a false, sterilized version of reality that cannot last but we are terrified of what lies outside it. We are terrified by that experience of being alone in the wilderness with no guarantees.

I am not sure if I am misinterpreting the sentiment here, but I think it's possible this viewpoint is problematic and can only lead to the potential benefits of psychedelics remaining out of reach of the vast majority of humankind, and the stigma surrounding psychedelic use, and in fact the recreational drug using community in general, remaining firmly in place as a part of the culture upon which modern human civilisation is built. Both such outcomes I think are clearly not desirable.

I'm not sure what is meant by "consensus reality" here, but if we take it to mean the viewpoint that is most widely accepted by the dominant social structures in place in modern human civilisation, then the idea that psychedelics should not fit into this, or, indeed, they would be in any way "reduced" in significance if they were fit into it, is (to me) just obviously a self-defeating viewpoint, and a sad outcome for the progression of human society... Indeed, why should psychedelics be excluded from "consensus reality"? Would it not be a far MORE desirable outcome if consensus reality were to become something that accepted that psychedelics were not something to be feared, and if psychedelics themselves were far better understood, and if humanity had a far more complete understanding of how to more fully utilise their benefits?


Again, I don't know if I misunderstand you both but to me it seems that "the jungle" or "wilderness" you are both referring to is some kind of imagined, uncivilised utopia of past where the world was not well understood, and thus everything, psychedelics especially, had a far more mystical and magical nature to it. In reality of course, this utopian past never actually existed, and was a grim and dark pre-scientific age where people died young and brutally on a regular basis, and the weather and the seasons were the workings of the gods...

Equally, this "consensus reality" you both refer to seems to me like an as yet unrealised fear of one possible dystopian future for modern Western civilisation, where the march of 21st Century Western Capitalism continues unchecked and human emotion and beauty and the undiscovered magic of the past, and the magic of the psychedelic experience, is reduced to just another way to extract profit and turn human beings into emotionless drones working to increase the numbers representing some kind of abstract value that doesn't actually represent anything anymore.


Personally however I think the above viewpoints essentially throw the baby, which is increased scientific progress and understanding of ALL elements of the human experience, the psychedelic experience included, out with the bathwater, which is this imagined dystopian future which has actually not yet fully come to pass.

Scientific analysis of aspects of human life are not something to be feared. Honestly, I would LOVE for every aspect of the psychedelic experience, and the multitude of fantastic, hallucinatory worlds and beings to be "reduced" to a series of graphs and mathematical formulae, for the machine elves of DMT and the depths of the K-hole to be "reduced" to a series of complex mathematical models and pages and pages of rigorous statistical analysis... I don't actually see that this would be "reducing" anything! What it would actually be doing is INCREASING OUR UNDERSTANDING of an aspect of human consciousness that is currently not well understood at all! And increased understanding is not equivalent to "sterilising" anything, or removing the magic from it, any more than increased understanding of birth control and human reproduction is taking the "magic" out of the "Miracle of Life" that is sex and conception (although certain groups of a particular religious leaning would no doubt disagree!).

If we have a greater understanding of an aspect of human consciousness then we also have a greater ability to fix it when things go wrong. At the moment our understanding of human mental health, and indeed, the human condition as a whole, is in it's infancy - but if you believe that psychedelics are a tools which could increase our understanding of this, then it does not make sense to OPPOSE anything which would increase our ability to USE these tools to their greatest potential.

If the "psychedelic subculture" that is under discussion here is a movement to essentially "keep science out of psychedelics" (as it unfortunately sounds like you both may be saying, when it comes down to it), then this is a barrier to humanity reaching it's fullest potential as a species, and something that should not continue.

 

[swilow]

^Great post

 

[burn out]

I am not sure if I am misinterpreting the sentiment here, but I think it's possible this viewpoint is problematic and can only lead to the potential benefits of psychedelics remaining out of reach of the vast majority of humankind, and the stigma surrounding psychedelic use, and in fact the recreational drug using community in general, remaining firmly in place as a part of the culture upon which modern human civilisation is built. Both such outcomes I think are clearly not desirable.

I'm not sure what is meant by "consensus reality" here, but if we take it to mean the viewpoint that is most widely accepted by the dominant social structures in place in modern human civilisation, then the idea that psychedelics should not fit into this, or, indeed, they would be in any way "reduced" in significance if they were fit into it, is (to me) just obviously a self-defeating viewpoint, and a sad outcome for the progression of human society... Indeed, why should psychedelics be excluded from "consensus reality"? Would it not be a far MORE desirable outcome if consensus reality were to become something that accepted that psychedelics were not something to be feared, and if psychedelics themselves were far better understood, and if humanity had a far more complete understanding of how to more fully utilise their benefits?


Again, I don't know if I misunderstand you both but to me it seems that "the jungle" or "wilderness" you are both referring to is some kind of imagined, uncivilised utopia of past where the world was not well understood, and thus everything, psychedelics especially, had a far more mystical and magical nature to it. In reality of course, this utopian past never actually existed, and was a grim and dark pre-scientific age where people died young and brutally on a regular basis, and the weather and the seasons were the workings of the gods...

Equally, this "consensus reality" you both refer to seems to me like an as yet unrealised fear of one possible dystopian future for modern Western civilisation, where the march of 21st Century Western Capitalism continues unchecked and human emotion and beauty and the undiscovered magic of the past, and the magic of the psychedelic experience, is reduced to just another way to extract profit and turn human beings into emotionless drones working to increase the numbers representing some kind of abstract value that doesn't actually represent anything anymore.


Personally however I think the above viewpoints essentially throw the baby, which is increased scientific progress and understanding of ALL elements of the human experience, the psychedelic experience included, out with the bathwater, which is this imagined dystopian future which has actually not yet fully come to pass.

Scientific analysis of aspects of human life are not something to be feared. Honestly, I would LOVE for every aspect of the psychedelic experience, and the multitude of fantastic, hallucinatory worlds and beings to be "reduced" to a series of graphs and mathematical formulae, for the machine elves of DMT and the depths of the K-hole to be "reduced" to a series of complex mathematical models and pages and pages of rigorous statistical analysis... I don't actually see that this would be "reducing" anything! What it would actually be doing is INCREASING OUR UNDERSTANDING of an aspect of human consciousness that is currently not well understood at all! And increased understanding is not equivalent to "sterilising" anything, or removing the magic from it, any more than increased understanding of birth control and human reproduction is taking the "magic" out of the "Miracle of Life" that is sex and conception (although certain groups of a particular religious leaning would no doubt disagree!).

If we have a greater understanding of an aspect of human consciousness then we also have a greater ability to fix it when things go wrong. At the moment our understanding of human mental health, and indeed, the human condition as a whole, is in it's infancy - but if you believe that psychedelics are a tools which could increase our understanding of this, then it does not make sense to OPPOSE anything which would increase our ability to USE these tools to their greatest potential.

If the "psychedelic subculture" that is under discussion here is a movement to essentially "keep science out of psychedelics" (as it unfortunately sounds like you both may be saying, when it comes down to it), then this is a barrier to humanity reaching it's fullest potential as a species, and something that should not continue.

I definitely think you misinterpreted me. I didn't say anything about keeping science out of psychedelics. John Lily, Timothy Leary, Alexander Shulgin and Albert Hoffman were all scientists.

What I was saying was that the "far out" aspects of psychedelics, which speak to views and ideas about reality which sound ridiculous to your average person, is not something to shy away from in favor of finding some "conventional" use for psychedelics like as a treatment for depression or some other thing which fits into our old cultural framework of what is and is not valuable or worthy of our time and attention. As I said before that doesn't mean I am against researching psychedelics for treatments of conventional problems. I think in this age psychedelics have to be approached (and are being approached) from a multidisciplinary angle. Traditional shamanic techniques can exist alongside modern brain science, in my opinion. I don't see why it has to be one or the other.

But my main point was that the psychedelic experience can have different meanings to different people.

In reality of course, this utopian past never actually existed, and was a grim and dark pre-scientific age where people died young and brutally on a regular basis, and the weather and the seasons were the workings of the gods...

Ha, as if this age couldn't be categorized as grim and dark. I guess a world without nuclear bombs, destruction of nature, corporate government media controlled culture, toxic food, fluoride in the water, pollution, drug prohibition, mass imprisonment etc etc is not appealing to you. Things were different in past ages (and still are in certain indigenous cultures) and while you are entitled to your opinion you cannot prove me wrong on this because neither of us were there. But my point wasn't that we should go back to living as hunter gatherers and do away with science and technology. On the contrary, my position is that we can use the wisdom of the past to make wiser use of the technology and resources we have available today and reshape our culture going forward toward one that understands the necessity of living sustain-ably. When I said man feared nature, I meant just as much that man fears his own nature as much as the "wilderness". Psychedelics have a way of pealing back the layers of the mind, revealing man's primal self and the reality of death and impermanence. THis is taboo to our culture, which bases a large part of its behavior on the denial of death.

And btw, the weather and seasons are still the workings of the gods. Just because we understand scientifically how the gods work some of their magic, does not make it any less magical. Science has no ultimate answer, life is still a mystery shrouded in darkness.

 

[swilow]

^Good post.

I appreciate all thoughts here. The idea of the thread was to promote discussion. May have been better in P&S.

I'm against exclusivity in most areas and this applies to drugs too IMO.

 

[Incunabula]

May have been better in P&S.

Nope, I think the thread is doing just fine here.

 

[Vastness]

What I was saying was that the "far out" aspects of psychedelics, which speak to views and ideas about reality which sound ridiculous to your average person, is not something to shy away from in favor of finding some "conventional" use for psychedelics like as a treatment for depression or some other thing which fits into our old cultural framework of what is and is not valuable or worthy of our time and attention. As I said before that doesn't mean I am against researching psychedelics for treatments of conventional problems. I think in this age psychedelics have to be approached (and are being approached) from a multidisciplinary angle. Traditional shamanic techniques can exist alongside modern brain science, in my opinion. I don't see why it has to be one or the other.

I think we actually do not disagree too much, but I just can't help playing Devil's Advocate, and just for the purposes of discussion...

Would you mind clarifying what kind of "far out" or more traditional shamanic techniques would be lost, if psychedelics were to be critically assessed in the manner I outlined in my previous post? Because while I agree that no aspect of psychedelic usage should be dismissed out of hand, I do think that the "far out" aspects, like everything else, should be properly scrutinised under the harsh lense of rigorous scientific analysis to identify their overall usefulness to humanity (and also to assess whether some of these "far out" ideas might actually be causing harm).

I think I have an issue with the use of the word "multidisciplinary" here, because in my view, the "discipline" I am proposing psychedelics should be studied under is simply a logical application of human rationality and reason, as best that we can currently understand it... and because of this, all the more "far out" aspects should still be studied in the same way.

Traditional shamanic techniques, for example, no doubt do contain some nuggets of wisdom regarding, for example, herbal medicines and suchlike. But, they do not on their own contain any particularly rigorous approach to verifying their own usefulness and are often being largely based in faith, folklore, and the whims of the individual shaman... at least, we can surmise that this is likely the case from all the frankly wrong and even harmful pseudoscientific ideas that still persist even today (Traditional Chinese Medicine, Voodoo magic, oppressive beliefs about homosexuality, to name but a few). I am not saying psychedelic usage is the origin of these ideas of course, I just bring them up as an example of why "views and ideas about reality which sound ridiculous to the average person" may not necessarily be purely benign if somewhat strange viewpoints, but really need to be critically assessed.

Ha, as if this age couldn't be categorized as grim and dark. I guess a world without nuclear bombs, destruction of nature, corporate government media controlled culture, toxic food, fluoride in the water, pollution, drug prohibition, mass imprisonment etc etc is not appealing to you.

Of course, with higher highs come lower lows... not to derail the thread too much from the actual points under discussion, but I would suggest that the problems in the world today are largely the result of mismanagement of the resources available to us. Because we do now have the resources and the knowledge to create a far better world for everyone, whereas in the past, these resources and knowledge just did not exist.

And btw, the weather and seasons are still the workings of the gods. Just because we understand scientifically how the gods work some of their magic, does not make it any less magical. Science has no ultimate answer, life is still a mystery shrouded in darkness.

I agree... but I think that life need not always be shrouded in darkness, and science is currently the best way we know of to bring it into the light.

 

[perpetualdawn]

May have been better in P&S.

Agreed with Incunabula, it's good here. Everytime I check out P&S (it's been a while) it just seems like a battleground for flamewars. I appreciate the tone and respect people are using over here.

 

[Xorkoth]

P&S has been chill lately, not much flame at all. Also not a lot of traffic recently so maybe consider popping in again.

But anyway yeah I think this particular topic was posted in the right forum.

 

[pupnik]

Hi Vastness;

For years I have been rigorous in my observation, I am a scientist at root, by degree, and I work in technology for the most part; still I do not think that the lens required should be harsh:

properly scrutinised under the harsh lense of rigorous scientific analysis to identify their overall usefulness to humanity (and also to assess whether some of these "far out" ideas might actually be causing harm).

Even the concept of "usefulness to humanity", puts a marketing skew into this.

What I can see is that Psychology is maturing as is Neurology, and some patterns are beginning to emerge that tie together phenomena with mind. Our language will adapt to what becomes more commonly understood in time, but it is not coming very quickly. Only product and profit get railroaded quickly to market, and that is not the big deal here.

What might drive study is cognitive liberty, and collateral improvements due to marijuana de-criminalization (eg fewer traffic accidents overall in most regions where recreational marijuana is legal)

In the mean time I can only ask that we be a bit more patient with magical explanations for how things are from trippers and non-trippers alike. At the moment, I don't know anyone who can actually explain how they tie their own shoes. For the most part they do it when they want to through some magical process that at one time involved trial and error and learning, but now just seems to work seamlessly.

 

[swilow]

Agreed with Incunabula, it's good here. Everytime I check out P&S (it's been a while) it just seems like a battleground for flamewars. I appreciate the tone and respect people are using over here.

Yep, its great. I'm lacking in self-confidence right now, doubting everything. Don't mind me.

 

[tokezu]

That's very true, and I don't want to outright blame the crystal-wielders. I would actually prefer to dismantle those sort of unfounded, nonsensical ideas. Rather than accept that psychedelics cause people to see cause-and-effect where it isn't present, I would like to examine some of the core beliefs of many in the psychedelic scene and discard those that are not useful, that are conjecture and that alienate these susbtances from being used by a greater subset of people, or just being available. So, in some senses, I think the psychedelic scene bears some responsibility- but I am not talking about recreational use. That is all I do with these drugs. I do not believe they will save us from ourselves, I think they can probably effectively treat some inherent and often intractable conditions of human nature.

But yeah, I am partially wondering about the ideal test case for legalisation. Its not going to happen because tripping is fun or because it allows communication with the divine.

I am all for encouraging critical thinking. That is a much needed skill within the psychedelic scene as well as everywhere else. But I just don't really see that some crazy beliefs are all that important for why drug prohibition is still running. I don't know that much about its history but I saw Rick Doblin in some video describing that in the 60s it was very much the idea of "these drugs will give you some crazy and dangerous ideas" a.k.a wearing long hair and not wanting to go to war. But at least since the 80s there isn't really that much concern over such things. Rather it went to a hysterical health concern, "it will fry your brain", "put holes in your brain", "makes you crazy" (psychotic crazy, not crystal healing crazy) etc. So meeting it on that level, doing studies to show it's safety is the best approach.

Now of course he would say that because that is the route that MAPS is taking. But while the idealist in me very much wants to argue about cognitive liberty, I realistically see no other way than to first go for medical uses and than over time try to slowly broaden the access to it. I mean look at weed in the US, from the first legal medical use it wasn't even 20 years till the first legal recreational use. They are now doing studies with MDMA and psilocybin... And hopefully that process would speed up the more people become aware of how much lies the war on drugs is based on.

 

[cashmunny]

Sustitute the words "placebo effect" for woo. The placebo effect is real and well documented. But belief is the cornerstone of the placebo effect. So if you go on an anti-woo pogrom you will rob people of benefit and thereby create harm. You may believe that by doing so you add more value than you take away. And you may be right.

But to take the stance that the only beliefs that are of value are that which are falsifiable will not work with human beings. In the end is it the scientific truth that matters or what is effective.

I'd say if you are so committed to the culling of unfalsifiable beliefs that you ignore what works for people, that makes you a bit of a fanatic.

 

[swilow]

^I liked your post but by no means is this is fanatical crusade. Just a discussion.

 

[burn out]

Even the concept of "usefulness to humanity", puts a marketing skew into this.

I agree.

I cannot agree with statements like

I agree that no aspect of psychedelic usage should be dismissed out of hand, I do think that the "far out" aspects, like everything else, should be properly scrutinised under the harsh lense of rigorous scientific analysis to identify their overall usefulness to humanity (and also to assess whether some of these "far out" ideas might actually be causing harm).

Vastness, it seems like you have a lot of faith in science. I see that as naive. Tell me how exactly are you going to determine "scientifically" whether a "far out idea" is casing harm? I am not dismissing the value of science and scientific modes of thought, but I disagree with using science to the exclusion of literature, art, philosophy and spirituality. These disciplines all deal with the abstract and science cannot own the abstract for the very reason that it is abstract.

These days, science is the new religion. And it is just as corrupt and agenda driven as any of the world's older religions. In past ages those who controlled the religious and mythological narratives controlled the people, today it is those who control the scientific narrative that control the people. COnfirmation bias, the types of experiements that are designed and carried out simply reflect the what is in the consciousness of the scientists who get funding (and this is assuming they are honest). If indeed it were possible to completely step out of that paradigm (and with psychedelics I believe it is) the scientists would not be able to accurately "scrutinize" the new paradigm because they'd still be operating under the assumptions of the old (just look at how much opposition their has been historically to ideas that threaten the estasblishment in science, it's just like religion).

I can tell you also that there are several "occult"/"spirituall" sciences which have been around hundreds, perhaps thousands of years but which have been completely ignored by modern science. I wonder why this is? Could the type of science that reaches the public arena be connected with the materialistic, capitalistic goals of those in powder?

Of course, with higher highs come lower lows... not to derail the thread too much from the actual points under discussion, but I would suggest that the problems in the world today are largely the result of mismanagement of the resources available to us. Because we do now have the resources and the knowledge to create a far better world for everyone, whereas in the past, these resources and knowledge just did not exist.

What are you talking about? Of course they did. The majority of the world's populace has been exploited by a small ruling class for thousands of years. You think the royals and noblemen and wealthy elites didn't have the knowledge or resources to make conditions better for peasants and surfs? Of course they did. The mismanagement of resources you speak of is not an accident, it is intentional.

I agree... but I think that life need not always be shrouded in darkness, and science is currently the best way we know of to bring it into the light.

Science is merely a tool. Without concurrent moral and cultural development it will merely lead toward our destruction faster.

 

[swilow]

Vastness, it seems like you have a lot of faith in science. I see that as naive. Tell me how exactly are you going to determine "scientifically" whether a "far out idea" is casing harm? I am not dismissing the value of science and scientific modes of thought, but I disagree with using science to the exclusion of literature, art, philosophy and spirituality. These disciplines all deal with the abstract and science cannot own the abstract for the very reason that it is abstract.

I can't see that Vastness is arguing for science over anything else. But, do you really see a problem with subjecting psychedelics to a more scientific analysis? Or, do you think that psychedelics cannot be reduced under scientific analysis? If they were, what do you think would be the downside?

Its not to devalue them. Its actually to increase their value to humans.

These days, science is the new religion. And it is just as corrupt and agenda driven as any of the world's older religions. In past ages those who controlled the religious and mythological narratives controlled the people, today it is those who control the scientific narrative that control the people. COnfirmation bias, the types of experiements that are designed and carried out simply reflect the what is in the consciousness of the scientists who get funding (and this is assuming they are honest). If indeed it were possible to completely step out of that paradigm (and with psychedelics I believe it is) the scientists would not be able to accurately "scrutinize" the new paradigm because they'd still be operating under the assumptions of the old (just look at how much opposition their has been historically to ideas that threaten the estasblishment in science, it's just like religion).

Its a pretty common argument, that science is the new religion. I think its an odd argument. Science is a method for determing the validity of a proposition. I have no doubt that it becomes ideological, but that is human nature and nothing to do with the scientific method itself.

Religion is a proposition for which their is no evidence. Science differs from that in that it seeks to find evidence for such propositions.

Religions have a distinct socio-cultural bias; they often make sense on the context of a particular culture and heritage. The scientific method operates as freely in any context and can be translated into every language. Because it is a way of doing things, not an ideology.

Science cannot approach metaphysical questions; its cannot really answer why questions, and so can only ever really gain incomplete knowledge.

None of this is me saying that science is better than religion, just that they are different things.

I'm not all that familiar with historical examples of science refusing to budge on a disproven idea, though I can think of many where religions killed those who threatened their hegemony. I can think of many examples where science introduced a completely new and very different idea into society, and it was accepted. And I see no reason why this will change in the future. After all, when a scientific idea is accepted it is because there are reasons given as to why it should be accepted.

Science is merely a tool. Without concurrent moral and cultural development it will merely lead toward our destruction faster.

That's absolutely true. I personally feel worried. I am not sure we are going to be able to adapt and develop quickly enough. I hope like fuck we can. In a way, the transformative nature of psychedelics may be exactly what we currently need to enable this development.

 

[Vastness]

burn out, I think we may have reached an ideological wall in our difference of opinion which is going to be hard for us to surpass. I really do not think it is sensible to compare the scientific method to religion as I think swilow has explained quite well already, so I won't bother going over it again. I do have "faith" in science, if you can call it that, in the same way I have faith the sun will rise tomorrow... I would dispute that this fits the definition of faith in the usual sense of the word, however.

Tell me how exactly are you going to determine "scientifically" whether a "far out idea" is casing harm?

The same way I would test any idea scientifically... with careful collection and study of data. I can think of a couple of fun examples, if you would actually like me to give one.

I can tell you also that there are several "occult"/"spirituall" sciences which have been around hundreds, perhaps thousands of years but which have been completely ignored by modern science.

Really? I doubt this very much. Could you give an example of one such occult or spiritual science which has not been soundly discredited?

I wonder why this is? Could the type of science that reaches the public arena be connected with the materialistic, capitalistic goals of those in powder?

Perhaps, but more likely it is because these "occult sciences" turned out not to be science at all, and have no actual basis in reality, like the aforementioned Traditional Chinese Medicine...


I will admit that unlike many people I actually do believe that it is within the capacity of science, or will be at some point, to answer metaphysical "why" type questions that have previously been the realm of philosophy, as well as sociocultural questions about morality and ethics. I am not sure how arguable this is at this point in our development as a species but I think it is quite conceivable that the only reason we cannot ask "why" type questions at the moment is because our understanding of our reality, both internally in our experience of consciousness and externally in the our understanding of the universe as a whole, is not complete enough to understand what we are actually asking. But really, is the question "Why are we conscious and why do we experience qualia?" really that different to the question "Why will this rock fall downwards when I let go of it?" except that in the latter question we are dealing with a system so simple it could be represented with a 1-dimensional diagram, whereas the former question is dealing with a system of almost unfathomable complexity, which is the perpetual dance of countless billions of electric currents and neurotransmitters within the labryinthine synaptic network that makes up the human mind and gives rise to consciousness... but that doesn't mean it will always be unfathomable.

As a minor point of interest, on a whim I decided to dose 30mg of 4-AcO-DMT the other day, and I thought about this discussion quite a bit during that trip. At points when I was just sitting alone in my front room, listening to music, I really did feel like I was on another plane of reality, some plane existing paralell to that of everyday life, but also somewhat separate, and just more magical and better... I remember thinking really hard about the concept of qualia (as in, the experience of consciousness itself rather than just the names and properties we assign to things), and for ages just trying to fathom how the place that I was could actually exist, because although it did not seem to be like the waking reality I was familiar with, I still KNEW that it existed, because at this time I wasn't just remembering it, or reading about it, I was actually THERE... WITHIN the psychedelic experience... During the peak I ended up actually speaking out loud to an apparition in the lampshade on my ceiling, which I genuinely, genuinely believed to be "God", and I could feel their radiance and transcendental power and just celestial love for all things... even writing about it now I am almost moved to tears, it was such a beautiful, glowing experience, and something which I was not expecting at all.

Anyway while I was coming down I thought a lot about the paralells between where, on the one hand, I had a transcedental and mystical experience where I felt the presence of a deity... and on the other, I was just speaking to my lampshade in a synthetic-hallucinogen-induced delirium. Of course, now that I am pretty much sober again I can recognise that I was intoxicated - while if I was born in another time, I might have been inspired to start calling myself a messiah and spreading the word of god.

But, I do not feel that this duality actually takes anything away from the reality of the experience... I feel like some people perceive science orientated arguments to be made from a very cold, atheistic, clinical perspective, however that is really not the case at all. I respect the value of human reason, but like all of us, I also know that the Psychedelic Experience is a real and in many ways otherworldly phenomenon... we've all been there! No amount of clinical study in sterile laboratory settings is going to change that, or take the magic away from that.




(...my apologies, I may be veering a little off topic from the original question now!)