• Psychedelic Drugs Welcome Guest
    View threads about
    Posting RulesBluelight Rules
    PD's Best Threads Index
    Social ThreadSupport Bluelight
    Psychedelic Beginner's FAQ

Define "Psychedelic"

The dictionary definition of psychedelic is pretty broad and general. Most if not all of the common psychedelics of the 60s had an effect on the 5HT receptors, but does that mean it should be the very definition of what it means to be psychedelic or is that merely a coincidence?

For me, Salvia is a full blown visionary plant. It is not a classical 5HT psychedelic, but it is a visionary plant just the same.

I dont think we should take a word with broad and inclusive meaning and narrow it down to a specific class of drugs that fit the bill. I think it would be better to create new and more specific terms instead of redefining the old ones. For example....

Classical 5HT psychedelic
Non 5HT psychedelic (Salvia would be included)

How else can we break them down?

Empatheogen Pyschedelics
Delerient psychedelics

If a drug causes visual and auditory hallucinations then I think it fits the bill of what the root word of psyche-Delic's root definition inherently means. Manifestations from the mind. If it causes these visual and auditory projections of the mind to manifest themselves then its a psychedelic whether it is an agonist or partial agonist to any of the 5HT receptors or not....Mephedrone is probably psychedelic at high doses. It causes people to experience projections of the mind, such as centipedes in place of your scrotum, which is the very definition of psychedelic if you break down the root words into their original greek. If it causes a projection of the mind to subjectively manifest then its a psychedelic regardless of whether its a 5HT mechanism, Kappa opiod antagonism or some other complex mechanism we dont understand yet.

I would argue that 5HT affinity is not inherent in the definition of psychedelic but pure coincidence that the majority of psychedelics used in the 60s and 70s in western culture acted primarily on these receptors. The root definition is related to their effects alone, not their mechanism.


And dont mistake me for being angry. I am enjoying this debate.
 
Last edited:
^ See, you're "macrotyping" again.

Like I said, it seems easy for psychedelics-users to want to think that anything can be psychedelic.

I guess you can just as well say:

Opioid psychedelics
Antihistamine psychedelics
Laxative psychedelics

etc.

What it comes down to is that one needs a functional definition when sober. Believe it or not, the world goes on just as it always has when you're not on psychedelics ;)

You also seemed to miss a fundamental part of my argument:

Congruency with DOI's pharmacology AND similar subjective experience. Not one without the other. Yes, there are 5-HT agonists that are not psychedelic. Yes, there are drugs with psychedelic-like effects that aren't serotonergic.

That is why I think the word "psychedelic" can be restricted using those two criteria.
 
I generally agree with your definition Jam, but I have a question. Couldn't we narrow the definition to 5-ht2 agonists with appropriate subjective experiences? For that matter, are there any known full or strong 5-ht2a agonists that are not classicly psychedelic? Or, any classically psychedelic compounds that are not 5-ht2a agonists?

This dose leave salvia in no-man's land. How should it be classified?
 
Is there any problem wikipedia can't solve?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychedelics,_dissociatives_and_deliriants

Informative quotes:
"The word psychedelic (From Ancient Greek ψυχή (psychê) mind, soul + δηλος (dêlos) manifest, reveal + -ic) was coined to express the idea of a drug that makes manifest a hidden but real aspect of the mind." (By "real" I believe this suggests a self-revealing mind state that is plausibly accessible to the sober mind but is made more likely to manifest itself consciously via the action of the psychedelic. Interestingly, this seems to disqualify "breakthrough" type experiences from psychedelics like DMT, which at lower doses act more accordingly with the definition.)

"Essentially similar states of mind can be reached via contrasting paths—psychedelic or dissociative. That said, the entire experience, risks and benefits are markedly different."

"Deliriants are sometimes called true hallucinogens, because they do cause hallucinations in the proper sense: a user may have conversations with people who aren't there, or become angry at a 'person' mimicking their actions, not realizing it is their own reflection in a mirror."

This dose leave salvia in no-man's land. How should it be classified?
Salvia is classified as a dissociative because of the inhibitory effects of selective kappa opioid receptor agonism. I assume the behavioral effects in animal models most closely mimic those of NMDA antagonist dissociatives. Personally, I just call it salvia.
 
Salvia is classified as a dissociative because of the inhibitory effects of selective kappa opioid receptor agonism. I assume the behavioral effects in animal models most closely mimic those of NMDA antagonist dissociatives. Personally, I just call it salvia.

I'm fine with calling it a dissociative, because it does pretty much rip mind from body. Though, behavioral effects aren't really a satisfactory means of discerning classification to me, because what's happening on the interior subjective realm is what's really of interest here.

I do agree though that it's just salvia and that classifications such as these are inherently reductionistic. But, good classification can help illuminate the not so obvious relationships of function and causality; structure-activity relationship, etc.
 
I am ok with calling Salvia and Datura deleriant hallucinogens rather than psychedelics.

Still, I think it is in fact appropriate to macro-type. I think it is more appropriate than making up a new and more narrow/compplex definition for an already established general word.

The Wikipedia article makes a good point though. Datura and Salvia are true hallucinogens but maybe not psychedelic hallucinogens.


And yes, there are 5h2 agonists that are NOT psychedelic or hallucinogens.



Should we split this?
 
Splitting it is probably a good idea if any mods feel so inclined. We're pretty far off topic.

Anyway, I know there are agonists of 5-ht2 receptors that are not psychedelic, but are there any known full agonists of 5-ht2A receptors that are not psychedelic and conversely anything we would consider classically psychedelic that is not an agonist of this site? If there are I'd be interested in checking those out, if I could be pointed in the right direction.
 
I know there are antagonists and partial agonists of the 5HT2 receptors that are not psychedelic that include anti-anxiety drugs and migraine medicines.

Strong agonism of these receptors certainly seems to produce psychedelic effects in most instances, but I still think psychedelic should be defined by the subjective experience of "mind manifesting" rather than by its mechanism of action.
 
I know there are antagonists and partial agonists of the 5HT2 receptors that are not psychedelic that include anti-anxiety drugs and migraine medicines.

Strong agonism of these receptors certainly seems to produce psychedelic effects in most instances, but I still think psychedelic should be defined by the subjective experience of "mind manifesting" rather than by its mechanism of action.

Partial agonists and antagonists are a different sort of beast. I think the subjective experience is the critical part in defining it as well. However, if that happens to coincide with an objective measure, well that would wrap it up with a nice little red bow.
 
Anyway, I know there are agonists of 5-ht2 receptors that are not psychedelic, but are there any known full agonists of 5-ht2A receptors that are not psychedelic and conversely anything we would consider classically psychedelic that is not an agonist of this site? If there are I'd be interested in checking those out, if I could be pointed in the right direction.
See here regarding 5-MeO-DMT:
http://designer-drug.com/pte/12.162.180.114/dcd/pdf/5-meo-dmt.5ht1a.paradox.pdf

In rats at least, when 5-MeO-DMT was administered, 5-HT1a antagonists but not 5-HT2a antagonists put in to block 5-MeO's effects on those respective receptors were shown to mediate stimulus control (lever presses for food). The 5-HT2a antagonists did antagonize stimulus control for DOM, though. 5-MeO-DMT does have activity at 5-HT2a, but it looks like it's not predominately responsible for its discernible effects in the rat.

More evidence from a 2006 study: http://www.springerlink.com/content/571257851858223k/
While the prevailing view was that the activation of 5-HT2 receptors is solely responsible for hallucinogenic drug effects, these results support a role for 5-HT1A receptors in the effects of the indoleamine hallucinogen 5-MeO-DMT on locomotor activity and PPI in rats.
I'm not sure 5-MeO-DMT is what I'd call classically psychedelic, though. My one ego death experience with it was very similar to my two ego death experiences with DMT, a strong classical psychedelic, but because ego death is a type of "breakthough" experience and isn't something that can plausibly be argued to manifest in the sober mind (e.g. a forgotten childhood memory), it could be argued that it wasn't a psychedelic experience. It definitely had the "high perceptual gain" effect on return, though, where the environment seemed vivid and amplified. The character of these amplifying effects is far more characteristic of 5-HT psychedelics than other classes of drugs like dissociatives that seem to have psychedelic-like effects.
 
Last edited:
Personally, I find it useful to anchor the definition to a common 'cognitive signature': a style of thought characterized by an increase in movement through structures of abstraction, including contradictions, self-undermining movements, etc.**, often coupled with a decrease in 'linear'* thought, particular of sensible causal relations set in time.

Some may find this one too encompassing/exclusionary. Fine. Why do we require sign-signifier relations shared by all people for all contexts?

I also like the attention to 'prototype'-style meaning-frameworks implicit in Jamshyd's take, as it provides a corrective to arguments analogous to those over whether mammals that lay eggs are indeed mammals, whether archeopteryx was 'really' a bird, etc.

*god...I'm not quite sure what linear thought is. Perhaps something like navigating relations at either constant levels of abstraction or with some unrecognized changes in abstraction-level.
**with some acrobatics, I think that ego loss fits in as the 'complete' extension of moving in such a sub-direction.
 
Still, I think it is in fact appropriate to macro-type. I think it is more appropriate than making up a new and more narrow/compplex definition for an already established general word

I suppose, then, it is in fact appropriate to use the word "thing" to describe everything that exists? ;).
 
One of the difficulties with behavioral studies in animals is it lacks any analysis of the subjective component. You can't ask a rat if he was tripping. Therefore, you cant rule out the possibility that the 5-ht1a activity is responsible for outward expression of activity, but not the driving experiential activity. Though, the cross-comparison with DOM is strong evidence that 5-meo-dmt's mode of action is different. I haven't experienced 5-meo-dmt so I won't venture a guess as to if it is "classically psychedelic" or not.

But, I can confirm that ego death can and does happen without the intervention of any substance of any kind. Don't have any data on that, that can be verified by anyone else. I just have to lean on my direct experience. Certainly it's proof enough for me, but the scientist in me doesn't expect anyone to take that assertion without skepticism. I don't know how a forgotten childhood memory plays into it though. Memories to me inherently imply some ego structure being present.

Interesting info. Thanks for sharing.
 
Its fucked up to say but i actually really enjoyed 5-meo-amt.
to me it reminded me to Rolling on Lsd, only instead they were slightly more DMTesque visual
at doses between 7-10mg i found the visuals could be just as organic and strange as DPT or n'n'dmt.
There was also a persistant ecstasy//amphetamine buzz throughout the whole duration of the trip.

The first time i did it i had terrible gut rot, but the the 2nd and 3rd time the toxic effects inside of my body seemed to be more minimal...

It isn't a good psychedelic thats for sure.
 
Still off-topic:
Sentience said:
If a drug causes visual and auditory hallucinations then I think it fits the bill of what the root word of psyche-Delic's root definition inherently means. Manifestations from the mind. If it causes these visual and auditory projections of the mind to manifest themselves then its a psychedelic. . .
...
Still, I think it is in fact appropriate to macro-type. I think it is more appropriate than making up a new and more narrow/compplex definition for an already established general word.

I have qualms / 'got beef' ;):

1. Why would we focus solely on sensoria as anchoring where 'mind' 'manifests'? (Somehow, Jamshyd's qualm remains bound with its converse. ;)
2. Per your definition, all of sober experience (including sensoria) involves the mind 'manifesting': we experience solely for ourselves in context, mind shaping its entire map of the world as the world shapes the mind that maps it (really, this is a single processural entity 'gazing' at itself). Most of this is unconscious.
3. The pertinent concept of "mind manifesting" almost always bears Freudian or vaguely psychoanalytic assumptions of what in the mind by default contains as concealed, latent, a possible candidate to later manifest. The assumptions lack clear proof.

Finally, that we are having this discussion at all, that this is controversial, points to a lack of an already established, general, and macrotypical word...except for exceptionally thin cases of words having been 'established'.
 
Oh, ebola? in point number 2 you say most of 'manifesting' is unconscious. So why would you in point 3 question concealed or latent unmanifest mind content? Of course there is a lack of clear proof. The 'proof' is inherently obscured, ie unconscious.

To "manifest mind" is simply to bring content normally unconscious into consciousness. Everything that can be manifest into consciousness is 'sensible' and thus an aspect of sensoria. In that sense every single thing one could point to is manifesting mind, but some things do it dramatically and bring awareness to awareness itself. What used to be viewed as simply the 'seer' is shown to be but a mechanism of 'seeing'.

Somehow, Jamshyd's qualm remains bound with its converse.

Now that's a lucid deconstruction if I've ever seen one. ;)
 
But, I can confirm that ego death can and does happen without the intervention of any substance of any kind. Don't have any data on that, that can be verified by anyone else. I just have to lean on my direct experience. Certainly it's proof enough for me, but the scientist in me doesn't expect anyone to take that assertion without skepticism. I don't know how a forgotten childhood memory plays into it though. Memories to me inherently imply some ego structure being present.
The forgotten childhood memory is just something that is known to naturally manifest itself in the sober mind. Psychedelics bring out "hidden but real" aspects of the mind. Forgotten childhood memories are substantially more likely to be remembered due to the action of a psychedelic, as are previously unconscious feeling you may not have known you had, but nevertheless recognize as true. Ego death may be possible during sobriety, but it's hardly a common thing in the way recalling forgotten childhood memories is. It's not a hidden part of the sober mind made manifest, rather, it's of a qualitatively different order, as are all breakthrough experiences. That's why I distinguish the two.

Yeah, we are WAY off topic. Only Psychonautical has been on topic lately, the rest should be split. On topic: I wonder if 5-MeO-aMT's "toxic" side effects would be largely removed by use of a selective 5-HT3 antagonist.
 
Somebody needs to step in and split this thread.

To "manifest mind" is simply to bring content normally unconscious into consciousness. Everything that can be manifest into consciousness is 'sensible' and thus an aspect of sensoria. In that sense every single thing one could point to is manifesting mind, but some things do it dramatically and bring awareness to awareness itself. What used to be viewed as simply the 'seer' is shown to be but a mechanism of 'seeing'.

Ebola made a good point that all reality is subjective and a projection of the mind on some level, but it certainly seems that some of our experience is a reflection of our senses while other experiences are a projection of the mind. I dont think that our interpretation of our senses is inherently psychedelic, though significant sensory changes that alters our experience of the world into another physical paradigm of reality probably is psychedelic.

Ebola missed the part where I conceded that not all hallucinogens are necessarily psychedelic.

Is DMT considered a classical psychedelic? If so, dreaming is a psychedelic experience. In dreaming we do in fact have access to information and experience that is not available to us in waking consciousness without being a zen master or under hypnosis. Many of the delerients may induce our bodies own natural psychedelics without having affinity for those receptors directly. If you can 'dream while awake'' how would you classify that experience?
 
^ and that is exactly why we need to make concrete, defined categories - otherwise no one really knows what the other is talking about. And after a lot of thought, I found that the best is having some degree of the empirical and some degree of the subjective together.

I consider DMT to be a classic psychedelic, but I see very little in common between it and dreaming. Btw, what exactly are those endogenous psychedelics you speak of? Or are you under the assumption that DMT induces dreams?

And I still would appreciate a response to my question re: the word "thing". Since all that exists is a thing, why bother with more definitionr?
 
And I still would appreciate a response to my question re: the word "thing". Since all that exists is a thing, why bother with more definitionr?

That sounds like hyperbol to me. I am not against creating new and more specific names and categories, but you cant single handedly change the definition of a more general word on a whim. The established definition of psychedelic is pretty broad and inclusive with some very general criteria. If you want to be more specific I think you can do so by creating increasingly specific sub-categories. 'Classical 5HT2 Psychedelic', or dissociative psychedelic would be descriptions of increasing specificity,

I consider DMT to be a classic psychedelic, but I see very little in common between it and dreaming. Btw, what exactly are those endogenous psychedelics you speak of? Or are you under the assumption that DMT induces dreams?

I am going on the absolute medical fact that endogenous DMT is released naturally in the brain during birth/death and dreaming. When you fall asleep and enter REM sleep the brain has just released its own endogenous DMT.

Lets compare two types of stimulants for an analogy with psychedelics. One stimulant stimulates the release of adrenaline from the adrenals and produces a stimulant effect, but is not directly an agonist to adrenaline receptors in the body. A second stimulant is an adrenaline analog and works on those receptors directly. They are both stimulants regardless of the lack of affinity the first chemical has with adrenaline receptors (I dont know their proper name).

A chemical doesnt have to have to have direct affinity for a receptor to either be a pro-drug for a chemical that does or else indirectly release an endogenous chemical that does in fact fit into those receptors.

Some of the deleriant psychedelics may contribute to the endogenous release of DMT, which also happens during REM sleep. They dont have to directly stimulate 5HT2 receptors to stimulate DMT or another such chemical which does.
 
Top