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

Define "Psychedelic"

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,
Maybe not a "hyperbole" per-se, but it IS an exaggeration to show you that I think your (and many psychedelics-users) "macro-typing" logic isn't exactly convenient.

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.
References? Oh, and Strassman doesn't count :).

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).
Your analogy is apples-to-oranges. You are talking about two drugs that work on the same transmitter system (regardless of direct-agonism or not). You also seem to be refering to the PNS, the effects of which are generally sensed only as increasing heart-rate, bronchodilation...etc., and not psychologically, which means that their effects can actually be measured completely via empirical means (ex. heart-rate).

And even then, you are still talking about two different compounds, one a direct agonist, one that isn't, on the same transmitter system. That does not compare to talking about psychoactive substances whose effects cannot be measured completely using empirical means since there is a subjective component.

[quote[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.[/quote]

No it doesn't, but you keep missing the fact that I synthesized TWO criteria, never one without the other.

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.
I'd love to see references for all this. It seems now you're not only generalizing terms, but actually generalizing theoretical pharmacology. Not only can everything be called psychedelic, but apparently everything can also trigger some esoteric endogenous psychedelics indirectly.

Sorry, but I just don't buy it :)
 
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?
The revealing "hidden but real aspects of the mind" part of the definition is just one part. To my understanding, for the definition to be useful in discussion it should describe common tendencies across users, statistical regularities. If we dig into it enough, we could contrive all sorts of ambiguous examples. Dreaming isn't a drug that we can administer, and dreams do not typically have the effects of widely agreed upon psychedelics across dreamers, therefore dreaming isn't psychedelic. Many have reported dreaming about being on psychedelic drugs and swear it feels the same, but that doesn't mean that a common characteristic of dreaming is to amplify and distort sensory and perceptual experiences the way a drug like LSD commonly does.

There should be an empirical component to the definition of "psychedelic" (as opposed to, for example, "dissociative psychedelic"). The history of psychology shows that debating exclusively about subjective experiences goes nowhere. 5-MeO-DMT may present a problem on this side though, as early indications are that its effects are not predominately mediated by the same receptors that most other psychedelics are (see refs. in earlier post), yet experientially it is widely regarded as qualitatively highly similar to other 5-HT psychedelics like LSD and DMT (far more so than dissociative psychedelics are, for example).

I'm not sure 5-MeO-DMT satisfies Jamshyd's empirical DOI similarity requirement. Perhaps a different empirical measure, such as corresponding patterns of brain blood flow in average participants in reaction to 5-MeO-DMT as well as predominately 5-HT2a-mediated psychedelics like DOM, as measured by fMRI, will supply the necessary empirical measure in future research. If 5-MeO-DMT is "psychedelic," for now all we can do is discuss what experiential regularities crop up in its use that are also commonly included in the experiences of drugs like DOI.
 
I get the feeling that I offended you by my rejection of your definition and criteria of the word psychedelic. This really isnt a personal issue for me and I hope it isnt for you either. Im engaging in this debate for nothing more than idle conversation and philosophical pontification. Its not like we are on opposite sides of some heated political issue, so I hope this doesnt get personal.

Your analogy is apples-to-oranges. You are talking about two drugs that work on the same transmitter system (regardless of direct-agonism or not).

Actually, it is apples to apples since that is exactly what I am saying may* happen in some instances. A hypothetical example of an alternative to direct agonism does not need solid proof either. The purpose is to present an alternative to direct agonism to show that there are other ways that psychedelic effects can be achieved.

http://www.world-of-lucid-dreaming.com/dmt.html

According to Dr Rick Strassman, author of DMT: The Spirit Molecule (soon to be a feature length movie), Dimethyltryptamine is a naturally occurring neurotransmitter similar in structure to serotonin. He theorizes that it is created in trace amounts by the pineal gland during normal metabolism, and may be released in massive amounts during birth, death, hallucinations and dreams.
 
The revealing "hidden but real aspects of the mind" part of the definition is just one part. To my understanding, for the definition to be useful in discussion it should describe common tendencies across users, statistical regularities. If we dig into it enough, we could contrive all sorts of ambiguous examples. Dreaming isn't a drug that we can administer, and dreams do not typically have the effects of widely agreed upon psychedelics across dreamers, therefore dreaming isn't psychedelic. Many have reported dreaming about being on psychedelic drugs and swear it feels the same, but that doesn't mean that a common characteristic of dreaming is to amplify and distort sensory and perceptual experiences the way a drug like LSD commonly does.

There should be an empirical component to the definition of "psychedelic" (as opposed to, for example, "dissociative psychedelic"). The history of psychology shows that debating exclusively about subjective experiences goes nowhere. 5-MeO-DMT may present a problem on this side though, as early indications are that its effects are not predominately mediated by the same receptors that most other psychedelics are (see refs. in earlier post), yet experientially it is widely regarded as qualitatively highly similar to other 5-HT psychedelics like LSD and DMT (far more so than dissociative psychedelics are, for example).

I'm not sure 5-MeO-DMT satisfies Jamshyd's empirical DOI similarity requirement. Perhaps a different empirical measure, such as corresponding patterns of brain blood flow in average participants in reaction to 5-MeO-DMT as well as predominately 5-HT2a-mediated psychedelics like DOM, as measured by fMRI, will supply the necessary empirical measure in future research. If 5-MeO-DMT is "psychedelic," for now all we can do is discuss what experiential regularities crop up in its use that are also commonly included in the experiences of drugs like DOI.


I am not calling dreaming psychedelic, at least not normal dreaming while asleep. However, dreaming while awake, as can occur in odd states of altered consciousness, does produce visionary experiences like in the example of Salvia. I feel that these experiences fit the general dictionary definition of psychedelic and also may possible work indirectly on the 5HT receptors by inducing dreaming while awake. This is theory but it shouldnt be ruled out.

Since we cannot understand the mechanism of all the drugs we take, I think its way more useful to look at it based on purely subjective criteria rather than based on chemical structure.

What is psychedelic for one person might not be for another. What is psychedelic to one type of organism might not be to another. On chimps it might not have even close to the same effect....or it might.
 
http://dreamstudies.org/2009/07/07/are-dreams-psychedelic/

Are Dreams the Original Psychedelic?

During this night time process, our brains also use the hormone melatonin in producing compounds into serotonin which is further processed into tryptamine and pinoline (a known MAOI). When combining these nightly produced compounds, which is produced in the largest quantities during REM sleep, you have the possibility of creating one of the most potent psychedelics available in the world today, DMT.

In layman’s terms, dreaming may naturally release the most powerful hallucinogen known to humankind.

Here is a quote from Callaway (1988) who explains the process in more technical terms:

The pineal gland is a chemical production factory, either producing melatonin or serotonin depending on the presence of absence of light. In this process, light source information is relayed from the eyes via the optic nerves and results in the activation of synthesizers that either produces melatonin in the absence of light or serotonin in the presence of light, becoming the brains largest producer of serotonin. Also in the absence of light, other process are continued as melatonin is then processed into tryptamine and pinoline. Pinoline is a beta-carbolin called 6-Methoxytetrahydro-beta-carboline and acts as a monoamine oxidase-A inhibitor (MAOI) which in turn allows for the increases concentrations of serotonin (Callaway, 1988).


http://ionatopia.50megs.com/whats_new_8.html

Until roughly age 8, we can’t really distinguish between fantasy and reality, due to our own natural hallucinogen, DMT, (dimethyltryptamine). DMT molecules are similar to serotonin and target the same receptors. Meditation has been suggested as a means of preserving youthful appearance and mental flexibility. It has also been suggested by Dr. Rick Strassman and others as a spiritual technology that encourages production and release of natural DMT in the mindbody throughout the lifespan.

DMT is implicated in the wild imaginings of our nightly dreams, near-death phenomena (NDEs), and alien abduction experiences. It is also asource of visionary phenomena in therapy, such as unusual psychophysical states attained in shamanic or psychotherapeutic journeys. Synthetic DMT crosses the blood-brain barrier and bonds to the same synaptic sites as serotonin. Psychedelic chemist, Sasha Shulgin claims, “DMT is everywhere.”

The principal difference between dreams and hallucinations is the way the stages of wakefulness are organized, with the suppression of REM sleep and the intrusion of PGO waves in the arousal (waking) stage and in NREM (or slow) sleep.

"The principal difference between dreams and hallucinations is the way the stages of wakefulness are organized, with the suppression of REM sleep and the intrusion of PGO waves in the arousal (waking) stage and in NREM (or slow) sleep."

This is what I was getting at. What makes wakeful dreaming a psychedelic compared to regular sleep is the stages of wakefulness during the experience.


And yet another source commenting on the dreaming DMT connection.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/21501655/Biochemistry-Project-DMT
 
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.

Sentience, I don't think any of the sources you gave in anyway prove that DMT is released during dreaming, death, and birth as a medical fact. They all say "MAY". On pretty flimsy terms as well.

It is just a theory. Strassman is in several ways biased and quite unscientific in his theorizing. Personally I don't really think dreams are in anyway DMT like other than the fact that the total range of sensory experiences are produced by both. In other words, they both create fully realized and complete sensory experiences/hallucinations. Other than this fact I find them to be nothing alike qualitatively.

We really don't know where, how, or why DMT is produced in our brain.
 
That is right. I could be mistaken about DMT definitely being released during dreaming. Its been repeated so many times that I just took it for granted. The other sources suggest that it is a very plausible theory but not a fact.

Whether the example is fact or theory/hypothesis, it is still apples to apples and a valid model of an alternative route of activation of the 5HT receptors.

When I smoke Salvia I see visions and fractals and witness other worlds before my eyes. I think most people who dont get too technical with labeling drugs by chemical structure would lump that kind of experience in with psychedelics, and it definitely seems to fit the most basic dictionary definition of a psychedelic. It is also possible that it could stimulate those receptors indirectly even if they are not agonists themselves.

We do seem to have DMT in our brain though, and we are pretty sure it is produced in the pineal gland. We dont know what role it plays but it is widely believed that it may play a role in the near death experience and many speculate that it is secreted during dreaming. If so, drugs which induce a waking dream state might work by using the bodies own psychedelics not necessarily limited to DMT.



It looks like there was already a discussion about endogenous DMT production in the brain here on bluelight.

http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/showthread.php?p=7811684
 
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.

Yes, I think it is of a completely separate order as well. That's why I thought the comparison was odd. But, now I see the parallel you were drawing.

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.

That's one way to skin a cat. But my point was that anything we can experience is an aspect of sensoria. The conscious mind (as opposed to the unconscious mind) is an aspect of sensoria, as it can be sensed, observed and responded to. So any thing catalyzed into mind manifested by a psychedelic (or anything else for that matter) has entered into sensoria.


OK, so... Just want to see if we're all on the same page here. The term Hallucinogen is reserved for the over-arching group of substances which produce subjective experiences of the type or order we speak of. Psychedelic is reserved for direct agonists of serotonin receptors which produce the associated subjective experiences we speak of. Any division as to which specific serotonin receptor sites compounds activate can be considered a future sub-division of psychedelic. There are several types of dissociatives, and I'm not really fluent with them. So, I'll let someone else define or classify them and their sub-types. But, we agree that dissociatives are a sub-group of hallucinogen that is separate and distinct from psychedelics? Deliriants are a third distinct sub-type of hallucinogen. I'm not certain of how we want to classify these. I can't say I know much about them other than that scopolamine and atropine act on acetylcholine receptors.

OK, so what have I missed (besides a lot)?
 
Last edited:
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.

That's about as much an "absolute medical fact" as saying the brain releases morphine when you eat a banana. In other words, not a medical fact at all. :D

Truth of the matter is that we have no idea what role, if any, DMT plays in our neurochemistry. All we know for a fact is that small quantities of DMT are present in our spinal fluid. IMO (and again-- just my opinion) I highly doubt that endogenous DMT has any role in regulating any biological processes; if I were to speculate, I would say the most likely explanation is that DMT is an inactive by-product of the complex enzymatic synthesis of monoamines.

Its understandable how one could misconstrue Strassman's conjecture as fact, as Strassman does a great job of subtly presenting his speculations as fact while simultaneously maintaining the official stance that it is indeed merely conjecture. I think its mainly the highly enthused psychonauts who repeat the claims of endogenous DMT's activity as fact in conversation, which proliferates the misunderstanding.

But honestly, I think that douche Joe Rogan has done more to proliferate this myth than anyone else. If I see another youtube video showcasing Joe Rogan's inane ramblings on the subject, I swear I'll permanently morph into one of these little guys: :!
 
Hey, I already admitted that I was wrong about it being a fact.

There certainly seem to be endogenous chemicals that fit into the 5HT2 receptors though. Inhibiting these receptors certainly seems to block actions in the brain, even in the absence of drug use. I think its safe to assume that endogenous stimulation of these receptors can in theory be stimulated by drugs which are not direct agonists of those receptors.


I think a lot of that makes sense. I am ok with using hallucinogen as the broader category for the sake of discussions here and using psychedelic as a more specific subdivision of hallucinogen. I dont think the definitions floating around here are universally accepted or codified, but I can work with them if that is the local dialect here.

I do think that the divisions are not always 100% cut and dry though. I tend to be very taoist in thinking that things contain their opposites and often share characteristics. I also think that an indirect stimulation of 5HT2 receptors can produce an experience is that no less psychedelic to the end user even though its using endogenous chemicals to achieve this. I think a powerful hypnosis could potentially produce a true psychedelic experience, though it wouldnt be a 'psychedelic drug'.
 
anyone mention Zolpidem? (ambien).....imo if you don't know what can happen if you stay awake on it, it can be quite terrifying, at least to some people.....but idk if that would be considered a psychedelic
 
Off-topic:
shakti said:
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.

Not quite. It is clear that:
1. Psychedelics induce experiences that are novel, and in some sense, normally inaccessible.
2. These experiences arise depending a great deal on the configuration of one's brain.

But whether the experiences of 1 not only reflect structures of the mind* but also these structures' meanings remains an open question.

*further depending on how 'brain' relates to 'mind' (even if as unitary identity).

ebola
 
On the contrary, we can clearly say that content produced by hallucinogens is a reflection of mind. The drug in and of itself has no content that can be experienced. It is only through its interaction with the brain that it gains any content. All that remains to be determined is how to interpret the experience as a reflection of mind/brain.

I believe, as do most cognitive psychologists that brain and mind are directly linked. The only debate that remains is about the directionality of it. I believe that they are reciprocal; that mind changes brain and brain changes mind. Others (mostly materialists) believe that mind is a product of brain exclusively and not the other way around. Either way, the content of experience is a reflection of mind and brain. They are two halves of the same coin.

Can you give me an example of anything that is not a reflection of mind? (other than absolute reality of course)

I agree with you as to the meaning of it being an open question. This is also were the fun comes in. :)
 
Sentience: Nothing personal taken - as we have not talked before, I can understand why I come off as defensive, but it is more of the way I discuss things normally :).

Thanks for admitting that there is no scientific backing to your claim.

The thing that i don't understand is that while myself and other posters here are aiming for more clarity by attempting to limit the definition of the word, you seem to be aiming for more confusion.

---

As for the general discussion: I personally think the term "hallucinogen" is not only useless as a label, but also carries negative political undertones, since hallucinations per-se are associated with schizophrenia, and those who like the word "hallucinogen" tend to be the same ones who like the word "psychotomimetic".
 
^do you have an alternate proposition? And, to be clear it's the term and it's misapplications of it that you object to, as opposed to the function and meaning we here use it for, correct?
 
Hey, I already admitted that I was wrong about it being a fact.

There certainly seem to be endogenous chemicals that fit into the 5HT2 receptors though.

Indeed- serotonin. :)
 
Whether or not some of these visionary plants like Salvia have the classic mechanism of action like LSD, they do in fact produce visions in the waking state. Calling them delerients or dissociatives doesnt really do these medicines justice. Those descriptions sound more like huffing glue or spray paint or ether or maybe ketamine, but a visionary plant like Salvia in some cultures is used in the same way that mushrooms or peyote is used, to produce visions. To the Shaman they would be put in the same category, not based on their mechanism of action, but because they are both on their list of plants that they could use to access visions for their spiritual practice. The key element here being the visions produced in a waking state.

My goal isnt to produce confusion and less clarity. I just think that calling some of these vision producing drugs by names like 'delerient and dissociative" doesnt do them justice and I am not satisfied with that categorization.

Effect wise, Salvia has more in common with psychedelics than it has with katamine or computer cleaner. I think these visionary plants need a better category if they are going to be kicked out of the category whose most basic dictionary definition they fit into quite nicely.
 
^ Comparing Ketamine to computer-cleaner?!?

NOW I'm angry!

Seriously though? It sounds to me like you think "psychedelics" is an honourary term that must be applied only for the creme de la creme of drugs. When you get into this kind of elitism (and all this stuff about plant-derived drugs superiority), I really lose interest in discussing the matter any further.

And btw, LSD is far from being a "typical" psychedelic because it affects a wider range of transmitters than other psychedelics, that said, it does retain the 5ht2 action of all other psychedelics, and has similar subjective "signatures", and thus is classified as one (by me, at least). That is why I (and a lot of scientists) choose DOI as a standard.
 
Top